Political leaders and their lemmings

1) Increase in taxes.

2) Cut in federal spending.

3) Combination of both.

Pick one. Pick them all.

Something has to give by March 1 by the battling political parties or No. 2 will happen. With either No. 1 or No. 2 happening alone will result in economic disaster for the U.S.

Regardless of who came up with the so-called sequester – the Obama Administration or the Republican leadership – is a bad idea that will putrefy any chance of retaining a continuation of the slowly recovering economy.

The bugaboo of the “sequester” has taken on a surreal perspective. What it is and what it does is often misunderstood.  

First, “sequester” is a verb, not a noun. The word is variously described as meaning:

1) to remove or withdraw into solitude or retirement; seclude.

2) to remove or separate.

3) in law, to remove (property) temporarily from the possession of the owner; seize and hold, as the property and income of a debtor, until legal claims are satisfied.

March 1 is not the drop-dead date for the spending cuts. The original deadline was January 1, 2013, and that date was slipped. It could possibly slip again by the hard-headed party leaders in Washington-on-the-Deficit.

The $1-plus trillion in automatic spending cuts to federal spending would take effect over the next 21 months. In addition to about 50 percent coming from the Defense Department (about 15 percent of the department’s total budget) and the other 50 percent from domestic program, the sequester is estimated to result in the loss of more than a million jobs by the end of 2014.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that the Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that even with the present slow growth in job numbers, the nation would net slightly less than three million jobs over that period.

That’s the end of the good news. Areas that would definitely be adversely affected if the sequester becomes a reality include funding for special education, education for the disadvantaged, disaster relief, disease control, mental health services, food and drug safety, scientific research and air transportation security and traffic control, among others.

Former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas said in in 1985 when the Balanced Budget and Emergency Control Act, of which he was co-author, was passed: “It was never the objective of the act to trigger the sequester; the objective ,,, was to have the threat of sequester force compromise and action.”

Well, Gramm never faced the problem of a sharply divided House and Senate and elected officials who literally hate each other and believe that “compromise” is a four-letter word.

It is becoming apparent that the Republican and Democratic Party leaders would rather see America’s economy crash and burn than suffer what they consider as “humiliation” in reaching a compromise that includes tax increases AND spending cuts to meet the objectives of the “sequester.”

Who will cry “UNCLE!” first?

The majority of Americans have already uttered the word. All we’re asking is that our leaders swallow partisan pride and do what is right in order to keep any economic suffering to an absolute minimum and work toward reducing the deficit and mandating a balanced budget.

The present leaders and the mental lemmings that follow their lead simply don't seem to have the degree of love of country necessary for meaningful compromise,

Whatever the problem is, it's our fault

The present political situation in Washington-on-the-Deficit is flummoxing.

Politicians don’t have to like one another in order to work together for the benefit of the country. They don’t have to pretend to be friendly when, in fact, the chemistry between two people is often lacking a congeniality gene. And, they don’t have to fold on key personal and party principles in order to pursue compromise.

But the very least we should expect from our elected leaders is that they act respectful of each other, that they review issues with an open mind and closed mouth, that they push monied interests to the background of the fray in order to truly represent the “people.”

The pecking order of influence in the national capitol is money, party and people.

It is a fact of politics in America in 2013 that most politicians are bought and paid for by special interest money. Companies pushing oil, pharmaceuticals, insurance and medical interests, along with associations supposedly representing lawyers, educators and civil servants, and associated Politician Action Committees, constantly put pressure on elected officials to vote “right.”

The voices of ordinary Americans – you, me, us, them – are lost in the sound of the rustling of big money to buy influence. It’s not a new premise that “money talks.” In politics, it always has; it always will.

But that simply pinpoints the problem: We elect politicians due to their so-called philosophical bent, when, in truth, we elect politicians who “buy” our vote with slick advertising paid for by special interests showing them as saviors instead of the money-grubbers they truly are.

That is not heated rhetoric; it is fact based on more than 40 years of observations of political animals who start off as starry-eyed neophytes and then quickly bow to political pressures and money. They become corrupted by the sheer power they possess simply by holding a title, by accolades

from ego-building lobbyists and the need to do whatever it takes to get re-elected.

Political Truism 101 teaches us that the “ins” will do whatever it takes to stay “in”; the “outs” will do whatever it takes to get “in” and then do whatever it takes to stay “in.”

Nothing … nothing will change until the system changes and that can only be done by an amendment to the constitution to enact term limits on members of Congress AND limit pork barrel legislation entirely except in cases of true emergencies. Congress won’t ever push for this amendment and this fundamental change to limit the ability to disperse our tax money back home.

Without term limits, there is no reason for elected officials to change their behavior. With the ability to enact pork barrel projects at will, elected officials have an advantage over possible opponents because they literally “buy” votes by using tax dollars to assist in getting re-elected.

Nothing will change until voters get mad … mad enough to vote out Good Ol’ Joe and start a state-by-state push for term limits.

Vegas is not taking bets on that happening. That old bugaboo “apathy” overshadows righteous indignation and there is no indication of a concerted national exhibition of controlled anger that is necessary to spark true legislative reform.

At this point in time, the three quasi-political parties are a joke. And the American public is the “punch” line.

Time to face reality

If this will o’ the wisp specter called “sequester” is allowed to happen next week, the citizens of this country should demand the en masse resignation of every member of Congress and the executive branch.

What is happening in Washington-on-the-Deficit is blatantly stupid and partisan … and every single elected official is to blame by some degree. Obama’s hand’s-off policy in dealing with Congress does not win friends and influence some members of his own party, much less the GOP; the GOPers are playing games with this country’s future and their refusal to compromise on even the most trivial of matters is stupid, churlish and wrong-headed.

Of course, we need a plan to balance the budget. Yes, we need to cut waste in every aspect of government. We all agree that building a path to a solid future for Social Security and Medicare is absolutely necessary?

So, what’s the problem? You can blame this mess on petty partisan politics, wounded egos and an inability for structured compromise necessary for, not just for the good of the individual political parties, but for the nation.

Don’t our elected officials understand what will happen if the sequester is allowed to happen, if more than $1 trillion in cuts in the federal government is allowed to happen in a short period of time? We’re not talking about fewer government services or a handful of federal employees being furloughed. We not talking about cutting the waste from federal departments.

We’re talking about this country losing hundreds of thousands of jobs as the domino effect of these arbitrary cuts are allowed to take place. Federal employees will be laid off (and many deserve to be because government is simply too big), supply firms will be adversely affected; support businesses will lay off folks; businesses like convenience stores, cleaners, grocery stores will see fewer sales.

This issue is bigger than the Republican and Democratic  parties. This is America we are talking about, and we – you and I – deserve better from our elected officials than having them play wicked games of “chicken” and I-told-you-so with this country’s future.

It is a fact that Social Security and Medicare are a big drain on the coffers of the federal government. This country made promises to today’s seniors concerning these two vital programs and those promises must be kept.

But just as the age limit on Social Security was raised at one time in order to keep that program viable, the same must be considered for Medicare. That’s a hard pill to swallow for any national politician, but it’s time to face reality for members of both parties and make tough decisions.

Whether or not they can make those tough decisions necessary to balance the budget over time is uncertain, but most folks are betting that pride and ego and trying to get re-elected will prevent any reasonable compromise in time to avert disaster.

God help us all because our leaders seem too weak and stubborn and simply not up to the task.

PC be damned

I distain political correctness. It’s not because I’m getting old, it’s because it inhibits give-and-take social intercourse among human beings. You know, talking.

I try and be politically correct because I really don’t want to offend anyone. Now, that is a condition of growing older. It’s not that I run from a hassle, I just have developed different “druthers”; I’d druther watch “My Name is Earl” reruns that verbally banter with someone trying to pick a spit-fight.

Being PC became fashionable about 25 years ago. I was doing my newspaper thing in Marshall, TX when I received a letter from the company CEO who said we were to scan our “work environs” for any types of material (cartoon, photo, saying, labels, etc.) that were politically incorrect.

I did just that and noticed the Association Press photos hanging back in the newspaper’s composition area of scantily clad models – both male and female -- cavorting in the surf somewhere. Male? Female? We were apparently equal opportunity political incorrecters. Down they came.

It was in the accounting department that I stopped and started laughing at a poster I had never noticed. “Sexual harassment will be tolerated. However, be warned, it will also be graded.”

It has always been my opinion that poster would do far more to deter sexual harassment in any workplace than some corporate edicts or government pamphlet.

Nowadays people can’t speak freely for fear of inadvertently hurting some person’s feelings about something.

I ask myself: Do Hispanics mind being called Mexican, if, in fact, they are of Mexican descent? Are my Italian friends Italian-Americans? Then, are acquaintances from Rwanda, Rwandan-Americans? Are my pigment-enhanced friends black, Black, African-American? I admit to being confused at times. Can one truly be African-American if the last time any of their relatives set foot on the continent was prior to 1800?

The name of the organization The National Association of the Advancement of Colored People just confuses me further.

I don’t understand the need for a Miss Black America Pageant since blacks (forgive me if that term is offensive) have entered and won the Miss America Pageant. After performing an internet search for “black associations,” I was fluxmottled! Who knew there’s a Black MBA Association with 8,000 members, Black Nurses Association, Association of Black Psychologists, American Association of Blacks in Higher Education, and even a Black Scuba Divers Association?

‘Black” seems to the term of acceptance, but on TV, “African American” is used more often. What term should I use? I don’t want to say the wrong thing but the problem is I don’t know what the wrong thing is.

I have a black friend (I checked with him, and in his case “black” is A-OK) who delights in calling me “pink toes” and “white bread.” I don’t find that offensive in any way; I have pink toes and I am as “white bread” as they come.

I have decided that it’s not necessarily the word or name that one is called that is politically incorrect. It’s the tone and intent that makes it non-PC.

What really matters is what is in one’s heart and mind and making your feelings clear to everyone who truly matters in your life.

Be proud, Texas. You have Ted Cruz.

That nation’s second largest state has Sen. Ted Cruz watching its back, and the back of every true, red-blooded American who values life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (under certain terms explicitly outlined in the birth certificates of Tea Party members and others who have less than the appropriate brain cells).

To squelch a rumor, the newbie senator is not a right-wing nut-job or slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun. He is smart, articulate and has a charismatic personality. (He is similar to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, if you leave out the “smart” part.)

He reminds oldsters of another witch-hunter of the past century -- Joseph McCarthy of the Red Scare episode back in the ‘50s.

Cruz, like McCarthy, is playing on the worst emotions of American citizens – suspicion and fear – in order to get what he wants. In McCarthy’s case, he wanted to be in the eternal public spotlight with his Communist-behind-every-corner campaign in which literally the lives of hundreds of innocent Americans were ruined by the senator’s nefarious tactics.

McCarthy was a bully with a mission: Expand his reputation through any means necessary, even to the point of vilifying innocent people and creating their image as being important cogs in the Communist movement.

McCarthy took on the mantle of Supreme Protector of the United States against the onslaught of Communism. And, for a time, McCarthy was revered for his courage.

While there were Communists in this country, in McCarthy’s mind, his single-minded Red Scare campaign was justified for  painting entire industries as being Communist fronts, on two fronts: The threat of a Communist takeover was real in his mind; he coveted the thought of him being seen as a true patriot and savior,

Cruz, in his short tenure in Congress, fits the McCarthy mold. McCarthy was famous for scathing, through-the-eyebrows stare and pointed questions  – “What would you say if I had a letter in my pocket attesting to the fact that you were, in fact, a Communist?” In fact, there was no letter.

Cruz recently “accused” former Sen. Chuck Hagle, Secretary of Defense-designee, of being supported by the “Friends of Hamas,” a proclaimed terrorist group. Not a good thing for a man of Hagel’s reputation or with his aspirations.

Of course, the story is not true. It was posed on a blog site on the Internet and then appeared in comments by Cruz. When confronted, the Texan made no apology, just mentioned it was his job to question nominees about possible financial improprieties.

While it’s a fact that the Democrats have their share of what-the-hell? politicians on their side of the congressional aisle, the Republicans seemingly are recruiting, or at least attracting, a disproportionate number of candidates who could easily serve as extras in the remake of the movie, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

To be taken seriously, an elected official must appear serious in pursuing the duties of a specific office in a thoughtful manner. And, when elected, they should leave any behavior that could be as medically induced, in the Congressional cloakroom.

Ted Cruz may be amusing a specific group of admirers, but will not, short term or long term, be known as anything other than a loose cannon and another right-wing voice of unreason crying in the wilderness.

It took the courage of television pioneer Edward R. Murrow and U.S. Sen. John McClellan, to take on McCarthy. Both rebuked him publicly and challenged his campaign of hatred and bigotry to help end his rein of rhetorical terror.

Who will be the McClellan and/or Murrow for Ted Cruz?

LaPierre just a sympton of country's ills

I know with his last name, Wayne LaPierre got his daily butt-whippings at recess when he was growing up from boys named Junior, Skeeter and Whipper (and probably from girls named Bubba June). Bullying is a sad and deplorable act indeed; bullying while being abjectly racist is even worse.

LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association, is desperately shoring up his brown-nosing techniques with gun manufacturers and survivalists and weekend militia types, and comes across  looking like a panicky racist in the attempt.

"Apocalypse is coming," is the undertone of his harping message about why citizens of this country needs assault weapons and mega-clips. "Protect yourself" is not a bad mantra for anyone, but when LaPierre brings in images of African-American busting into stores and looting or hordes of immigrants swarming up from the South to take "our" jobs, he steps over a broad and defined line.

It's hard for common sense thinkers to take him seriously, but millions of Americans do because of cultural biases, personal prejudices, belief in internet blather and the pulpit palaver of fear mongers on TV and radio and fear of what the future holds.

LaPierre and other brain-dead followers of his platitudes are against any change in gun legislation, including universal background checks. Really? Several polls show that more than 90 percent of Americans are FOR universal background checks.

Who could be against background checks? Those that are, including LaPierre and the likes of House Speaker John (What Century Is It?) Boehner. Why? Simply because President Obama is for it. That's the politics of today and it's a stain on the governmental process. It's not that kicked-around "slippery slope" argument; the Constitution takes care of that.

What's the answer? Until the principals from both parties are ousted and bipartisanship and calculated compromise for the good of the country is once again the norm, there is no answer.

Our elected politicians are acting like children and until this country has term limits for House and Senate members and until the voters decide to change the faces of those that are an embarrassment to us all, it will remain status quo.

And groups with deep pockets -- the NRA, insurance companies, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions -- will run the legislative agenda of this nation.

Just look in the mirror to see who is responsible for this mess ... and who can change it.

Can't we do better than this?

Four names: Harry Reid; Mitch McConnell; Nancy Pelosi; John Boehner.

I cannot imagine a scenario involving those four people being involved in any venture in which I had a say-so. Starting a business? Nope. Planning a deck party? I don't think so. A sit-down dinner of southern roast and veggies? Not in this lifetime. Facebook friends? Bahahahahahaha!

If this quartet of bunglers is the best the two major political parties running this country can do, we're in a world of hurt.

In the past six years or so, the quiet demeanor of Harry Reid has been as effective as a two-legged, toothless junkyard watchdog. Mitch McConnell's prickliness and abject pomposity reminds one of a third-tier evangelical preacher who is relegated to pitching a holey tent at the edge of backwater towns and subsisting on handouts from a dozen or so curious ruralites. Nancy Pelosi couldn't inspire an alcoholic to follow her into a free-drinks-today-only bar. And, john Boehner is, let's face, just a mean-spirited attack dog for the rich and richer, insurance companies, the NRA, and the oil lobbyists

It's no wonder Congress is regarded as 1) useless, and 2) dangerous.

People who truly don't like each other pour forth pulpit venom that is infectious (aka, Sen. John McCain used to be a calm, nice guy and now he's a bitter bad-mouther who lashes out at any person of the opposing party ... and even old friends of the same party with whom he disagrees).

The key word here is frustration, which starts with the same letter as fear and filibuster.

Both parties are fearful of losing whatever sliver of power they think they have, but are fairly well content to keep playing the same cards time after time hoping for different results. Take that penchant for creating a legislative disaster and throw in the new twist for an old legislative gimmick -- the filibuster -- and you have a government that is encased in ice; it cannot function, cannot move constructively.

In the past four years, the GOP members of Congress have evoked the threat of filibuster more times than Congress in total did in the past several decade. But there's a difference in the filibuster today and the filibuster of old. The filibuster used to be a very effective way to hold up "unsavory" legislation but the opposers had a price to pay: They had to hold the floor by, well, filibustering ... continuously holding the floor through rhetorical recitation.

Back when high collars and swallow-tail coats were in style, legislators read for hours from the Bible, catalogs, newspapers or made up poetry or stories on-the-sport ... anything to hold the floor of the House or Senate and hold up a vote on legislation they found onerous.

Now, they simply threaten a filibuster and the legislative process grinds to a sudden halt.

There's talk of changing the accepted rules back to the original intent of the filibuster and requiring opponents of bills to literally "hold" the floor and try and talk a bill to death.

Don't hold your breath till that happens. The GOP will threaten a filibuster in order not to change the filibuster rule ... and the status quo will remain unchanged.

What a mess. And before you start pointing fingers ... we voted these yahoos in and allow the bozo-ing to continue unabated.