An Example of How Senate Republicans Are Mucking Things Up

Once again we can count on Senate Republicans to turn a plum piece of legislation into a prune.

Almost every credible economist acknowledges that we're in dire need of an economic stimulus package that focuses on creating jobs, the more the merrier. With 600,000 jobs lost in January alone, following two previous months of 500,000 job losses, consumer demand is plummeting, mortgage foreclosures rising, defaults on consumer and corporate debt escalating, state and local governments scrambling to control deficits, and the downward spiral accelerating at a frightening pace.

It's very much like a plane that has lost power in all of its engines and is plunging toward a catastrophic collision with the ground. Unless at least one of its engines can be ignited, there's no hope.

The purpose of the stimulus plan is to ignite multiple sectors of the economy, utilizing a variety of techniques, all designed to spur economic activity which in turn will restore both the consumers' capacity and confidence to spend.

Republicans, however, see the stimulus package as an opportunity to extend their failed policies that have led us to this dangerous precipice. Their focus is on expanding tax cuts, bailing out businesses, and providing financial incentives targeted largely to the most affluent members of our society.

A good example of their remedy for the current predicament is their support of a $15,000 tax credit to be extended to anyone purchasing a home as a primary residence. Not only will this help to extend the housing bubble, it will cost the treasury an estimated $35 billion.

Calculated Risk, a premier economic blog, offers a lucid assessment of the proposal in an entry titled simply "The Homebuyer Tax Credit". I highly recommend reading it.

A Party Of Whiners

New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman does a great job of dissecting the GOP and offering a diagnosis for its recovery in a column that appears in today's Times.

As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners.

Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”? Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?

Krugman traces the ills of the Republican Party to its "Southern Strategy", which has left it with nothing more than a strong, but limited base in the "Old Confederacy." And he parses no words in identifying the strategy as being race based.

Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.

Serving such a narrow constituency, the Republican Party, Krugman asserts, lacks the power to effectively obstruct the Obama administration's initiatives. He concludes:

Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.

Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.

McCain's supporters reveal the dark underside of humanity

Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin are dangerous. They've moved beyond being mere liars and crooks to stoking violence and fascism.

In viewing this video I was immediately reminded of film clips I've seen of Hitler's Brown Shirts. McCain is intentionally appealing to peoples' most base fears and prejudices, inciting hatred and creating an incendiary atmosphere that borders on treasonous.

One can only hope that wiser heads in the Republican Party exert pressure on McCain to halt his destructive campaign before it erupts into tragedy. Otherwise, all Republicans will be held responsible for the acts and behavior of these frightened people fueled by the inflammatory rhetoric of the leaders of their party.




Send a link to this to your family, friends and neighbors, whether they be Democrats, Republicans or Independents. We must stop McCain's and Palin's assault on civility and the rule of law and encouragement of a mob mentality.

Making A Choice

I’ve heard from many people commenting on how nasty and negative the Shaheen-Sununu race has become, and I concur that it's really despicable. You'd think both of these candidates are evil incarnate. Allow me to offer my opinion.

John Sununu is a decent man who simply is on the wrong side of the issues. He favors big business, has a long record of opposing corporate and financial regulation, and has consistently voted against legislation that would benefit working families, from an increase in minimum wage to an expansion of health care coverage. He's been unwavering in his support of George Bush, including Bush's horrific foreign policy and his devastating fiscal irresponsibility that has buried us in an oppressive $10 trillion debt. John simply does not reflect New Hampshire's values.

Jeanne Shaheen performed admirably as governor for three terms, working with Democrats and Republicans alike. She's a moderate voice in a nation and a state where too often the extremists are most vocal. I disagree with Jeanne on capital punishment, and I believe she missed an opportunity to change New Hampshire's unfair system of taxation that places an extreme burden on working families. But I also know that she embraces New Hampshire's values, from protecting the environment to expanding access to affordable healthcare, and from improving our children's educational opportunities to strengthening the Granite State's economy. She brings an incredible amount of common sense to the table, and offers a breadth of experience that will prove invaluable to New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that all of our major candidates are decent people and do not deserve the abuse being heaped upon them. This even includes John McCain, for whom I’ve lost nearly all respect since he launched his campaign of lies and distortions, and abandoned all principles of integrity. While today he is but a hollow shell of the John McCain who earned the admiration of millions, one cannot discount his past contributions to his country, nor question his patriotism no matter how misguided he may be today.

I truly hope that voters will not be swayed by the extreme messages with which they’re incessantly being bombarded and will instead choose a candidate based upon his or her positions on the issues.

We are today confronted by serious challenges, from a crumbling financial system and a plunging economy, to global terrorism and two mismanaged wars. We’re being held hostage by our reliance upon foreign oil, and we’re despoiling our environment by neglecting the need for serious investment in alternative sources of energy.

Our infrastructure is crumbling, our health care system is in crisis, and our system of public education is in peril. Gratefully, New Hampshire and the nation are equipped to confront these challenges, possessing the resiliency and the creativity needed as we move forward.

What is clear is that we cannot afford to continue along the course we’ve been following for the past eight years. We cannot endure another decade of war and neglect or of allowing unbridled greed to sap the underlying strength of our economy and put at risk our savings, investments, pensions, and even the value of our homes.

Our state and our nation are at a precipice. How we vote this year will determine whether we plunge into an abyss of despair or leap to new heights of achievement. A vote for Republicans is a vote to “stay the course” - to continue on the path we’ve been following.

By contrast, a vote for Democrats will ensure a change of course. That doesn’t mean it will be an easy ride, nor that every trail embarked upon will lead to success. But what it does mean is that we’ll be free to explore new avenues, to navigate the future with confidence in our potential rather than retreating into the paralysis of fear.

When choosing a candidate this year the first question you should ask yourself is that posed by Ronald Reagan in 1980 - “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The second question you should ask is “Is the country better off than it was eight years ago?”

If you can answer yes to both of those questions, you should vote Republican. Otherwise, the decision is clear.

Arrogance will cost the GOP in November

It isn’t often that I find myself in agreement with Doug Lambert. Generally his political commentary reflects an adherence to the kind of right-wing demagoguery that I find so damaging to thoughtful political discourse.

Yet his tenacious battle with the Belknap County Convention over the appointment of Craig Wiggin as County Sheriff highlights a serious flaw in the Republican leadership that has guided our county for decades. Indeed, I can think of no clearer illustration of Lord Acton’s maxim that “power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

First, I want to state unequivocally that I have no beef with Craig Wiggin. From everyone I’ve spoken to I’ve heard nothing but positive comments regarding his resume of experience and his qualifications for the position of Sheriff. My impression is that he is, and has been a competent and forceful leader who has earned the respect of the men and women he commands.

A further compliment might be drawn from the fact that he’s currently running unopposed in both September’s primary and November’s general election. None of the initial candidates who contested him for appointment to the position has filed to challenge him in the primary – either as a Republican or as a Democratic candidate. In fact, no one except Craig Wiggin has filed for the office.

The point that seems to be lost by some in the debate over Mr. Wiggin’s appointment is the flawed process followed by the Belknap County Convention in selecting him as the replacement for retiring Sheriff Dan Collis. I suspect that many of Mr. Wiggin’s supporters have leapt to the defense of the Convention more out of a shared distaste for Mr. Lambert than for any real consideration of the issue.

The facts are fairly straight-forward. The Belknap County Convention chose to vet the candidates vying to replace Sheriff Collis behind closed doors, citing concern for the privacy interests of the candidates. Had this been a normal hiring of a county employee, that process would have been appropriate.

However, the position of Sheriff is an elected one, meaning that the public has the right to examine the resumes of the individuals seeking to hold the office. It really is no different than the normal election process which requires that candidates provide information to the public that will enable voters to make a responsible decision.

Mr. Lambert, and his ally former Laconia Mayor Tom Tardif, strong advocates of open government, challenged the Convention in Belknap County Superior Court, claiming that it had violated the public right-to-know by conducting interviews and discussing the appointment behind closed doors. Although they lost initially in Superior Court, on appeal the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision, siding with Lambert and Tardif and declaring the appointment of Craig Wiggin invalid.

Rep. Beth Arsenault (D-Laconia) opposed the initial process followed by the Republican majority, arguing that it should be conducted in public session. Her objections were ignored by the majority.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision the minority Democrats sought to rectify the error when the Convention met again to reconsider the appointment. They argued collectively that the process should begin anew in accordance with the right-to-know statutes – not out of any desire to alter the outcome of Wiggin’s selection, but because of their shared commitment to upholding the law and respecting the public right-to-know.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, their efforts were met with the same disdain and contempt that has come to characterize the Republican majority grown arrogant by its years of unchallenged rule. The Convention followed a similar process in filling a vacancy on the county commission arising from the death of Gordon Bartlett in 2006. Republican Richard Long was selected by the Convention behind closed doors to fill the remainder of Bartlett’s term, provoking harsh public criticism of the secret process.

And we’ve still not heard from the County Convention the reasons for the forced resignation of County Administrator Nancy Cook, nor have the Democratic members of the Convention been apprised of the details that led to the firing.

It’s unfortunate that Craig Wiggin has found himself caught in the vortex of a controversy caused by his party’s refusal to abide by the law. But as uncomfortable as that must be for Mr. Wiggin, even more troublesome is the unbridled arrogance exhibited by a Republican Party too long unchallenged.

That judicial relief has been sought by loyal Republican dissidents says reams about the GOP and its future prospects. Until Republican elected officials learn that they are the servants of the people they serve and behave accordingly, voters are unlikely to reward them at the ballot box.

Those Republicans furious that the controversy has further dimmed their party’s chances this November should be careful to direct their anger not at Lambert and Tardif. Although “shooting the messenger” does seem to be a common enough reaction, they should instead be insisting that their leaders cease behaving disgracefully. That’s the most effective way to silence the critics.