"The Other Side"

Recently I read yet another column, written by a con apologist, lamenting that President is attempting to divide "the other side". And, the writer also accused the President of not giving credit to the "other side" for having a valid "another side" to the argument.

In short, the writer was evening the blame for the political gridlock that affects the Congress today.

I read this constantly, even in progressive writings. Somehow, there is a tie, a balance to the blame for the "excessive partisanship" that is "paralyzing" our Congress.

Balderdash! Sheer Bull!

Look at the record. The leaders of the Republican Party have declared all out war on the President a long time ago. The Minority Senate leader famously said his sole goal was to make the President a one term President.

Countless Presidential appointments have been stopped by the Senate. The filibuster has been used more than ever in our history. Judicial appointments have been slowed to a trickle.

The leader of ATF has been held up for years, reducing that bureau to a facade of what it once was. Meanwhile, school children are slaughtered by assault weapons.

And, in a little known development, the Congress dramatically cut funds to the State Department for embassy security, directly leading to the tragedy in Libya. But, "the other side" needs validity? The "other side" declares they would fire the Secretary of State for her "mistakes" and "poor leadership" when THEY CUT FUNDING FOR SECURITY? The cons even are reacting in mock horror because the Secretary said what difference does it make who killed the American, what matters is finding out how to stop such things in the future...Cons conveniently leave the last part out, once again lifting words out of context in their rabid radicalism.

All of this, all of it, is a strategy to so discredit and hamstring the President that his leadership is questioned, and he will lose re-election.

And guess what? After all the obstructions, after all the money spent, Obama won. He won going away! It wasn't really close at all. And the GOP went no where in the Senate. And the GOP was outvoted by over a million in the House, only holding a majority because of state gerrymandering and flat out cheating. And the GOP Presidential candidate got buried. In California, the anti-Hispanic Republic Party has been reduced to an afterthought! The voters keep punishing them, and the cons keep demanding more radicalism. And loss after loss continues!

The "other side" was advertised with billions. The "other side" got a full and complete hearing with the American People and was told NO!

No to blaming illegal immigrants, no to supply side economics, no to social darwinism, no to conservatism, no to radicalism, no to male only, no to anti-gay, no to practically every tenant of the conservative agenda.

And now what do we hear, the President needs to give credibility to the "other side"?

Imagine if the cons had won? Would they be giving credibility to the "other side", especially if most of the principles of the "other side" were radical?

You can bet, that if Romney had won, the Affordable Care Act would be dismantled, Social Security and Medicare radically reduced, tax breaks for the rich, huge spending cuts. And all these would have happened with the barest of majorities; even with a minority in the popular vote.

Look at George W. Bush, even though he lost the popular vote in 2000, the GOP swept into power, started two wars, passed huge tax cuts, all without a popular mandate. The "other side", what other side? Progressives were banned to the wilderness. Executive orders were the name of the game, as cons gleefully dismantled the Clinton government with a relish.

The President made it very clear, crystal clear, in his Inaugural Address, that "We the People" were how he intends to get things done in his second term. And from the "other side"? "He is a socialist", a "radical", not a healer, a "divider". The GOP gleaned that from a speech that used "We the People" at least a dozen times!

But, in a late development, there appears to be some bi-partisanship for immigration reform...Finally!

Finally, some cons have put their hatred aside, and might, I repeat might, work for valid and humane immigration reform...

Now remember, a small minority can block virtually anything the Congress tries to do. And, there are dozens of Tea Party members in Congress, who will follow that wing nut Sheriff in Arizona, who would incarcerate Central America if he could.

So, the "other side" still has a nut base, that believes in birtherism, in cutting government and drown it in a bathtub, that poverty is a self-selected condition.

Conservatives see compromise as weakness, even have blamed Romney for losing because he "was not radical enough"

What viable, valid "other side" is there in this madness? What "other side" do we talk to, the libertarians, the birthers, the deficit hawks? How many defeats will it take to dismantle the con talking machine?

So don't get caught in "the other side" is equal or somehow as credible to what is left of moderate political America.

It isn't! The only thing that will shape the "other side" is defeat after defeat, until the jerks that form it core crawl back under the rocks they came from!

Put Your Money Into Gold

Every time I tune into Fox, or wander into a conservative website, it seems I am seeing two things economically: 1. The end is coming. 2. Buy Gold.

Libertarians even lecture that we should go BACK to the gold standard, that somehow that would cure our economic ills.

I am reminded of the Great Depression, when hoarding gold, silver, and money, was the "smart thing to do". The more people hoarded, the worst it got!

Today our financial advisor suggested we invest in "foreign investments" and gold, because "the economy will be unstable for the next few years".

In short, hoard, send our money overseas, watch out for number one.

"Its a Wonderful LIfe" is STILL the top Christmas video rented or watched. Still, after many years.

We root for the poor savings and loan guy, who wishes he was not born, and then gets a preview from his guardian angel. Along the way, we learn that Mr. Potter, the villain, is doing everything he can to destroy the savings and loan so he own the entire town.

Mr. Potter is a mean, greedy, ambitious old man. He is in it for himself, and is hoarding wealth at every opportunity. If he gets the savings and loan, he will control all the money in town, and it appears this will not be good for anybody.

Indeed, Potterville, the name of the town if George (the savings and loan hero) is not born, is a bad place, of cheap bars and agony.

I postulate that Potterville is what conservatives are unwittingly working us toward today. Hoarding, buying gold, is exactly what Mr. Potter was doing. Looking out for number one, praising the crooked, fast buck artist, is Potterville all over again.

A critical scene in the movie, is when George encounters a mob who want their money back. George confronts a "run on the bank" with the common sense, that everybody is supporting everybody else through the savings and loan. One person's savings is another person's loan. All combine to drive investment up in the small town, for the betterment of all.

When I was little, we all got a bank book, and actually started an account in local bank. Every week we were encouraged to put money in a small deposit envelope. During the year we actually took a class trip to the bank, it was within walking distance, lined up at the teller window, and were told our saving's balance. We also learned that our money was not necessarily in the bank, but was out in the town, helping others through loans to build businesses, buy homes; etc.

That used to the be guiding principle of savings and loans and banks.

But now, that has changed. Banks and savings and loans are places to make big money (for the bankers). Investment is a sidelight, derivatives and other fancy finance terms are used, especially by Big Banks (too rich to fail), to produce huge profits, and make the bankers very rich.

And so, my finance guy blandly suggested that we consider investing in foreign stock or buy gold and hoard it.

Which is exactly what Mr. Potter was saying to George. Look out for number one. Give up on the town (America), hoard, invest somewhere else, there is no American Dream.


At the core of our economic trouble is this basic greed, fear, hoarding phenomenon.

It is the same thing FDR was talking about, when he said, "The only thing to fear is fear itself". It is the same thing President Obama was talking about, when he stated "We the People" over an over again in his second inaugural address.

We are all like George, trying to survive, trying to provide for our children. But, if we listen to Mr. Potter, and only look out for ourselves, we all are doomed to live in Potterville, not in America.

So, stop being afraid. Invest in America, even if you don't get as good a return. Do not buy gold or silver, but pay your taxes, all your taxes, then insist the money be spend here, not on foreign wars. Insist that your tax money be invested in America, in our schools, in clean energy, in what benefits us all.

Follow leaders like the President, who must have said WE, NOT ME, a dozen times in his recent speech, and the Potters of Fox News called him a socialist for it.

There is not fear in the village that George finally saves in the movie, there is only hope,and teamwork, and reliance on each other for the common good.

And, finally, George's story, in "Its a Wonderful Life" is eternal, in that the sum of all is never greater than in what we all provide for the "least of me"...according to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Poverty Gap

I have just begun reading the following book:
Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2012-06-04). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future.

I have, of course, seen the statistics, and read about the research that verifies, quantifies, and of course "lies" about the unsustainable poverty gap currently existing in the United States.

I threw "lies" in there, because that is the standard reaction the right wing (Republican Party) uses to depict what quite frankly is the greatest single threat to our democracy in the United States today.

I am less than amused by the volume of denials that emanate from the Republican Party right now. They deny everything from Global Climate Change, to the accurate and startling economic analysis of the book and other studies I cite above.

Study after study substantiates the demise of the middle class in the United States. The "poverty gap" now includes college graduates, who simply cannot find their promised careers, and enter adulthood saddled with impossible college debt.

This poverty gap is the most distressing. The Arab Spring, has been led by disgruntled college educated elites, who have been disenfranchised politically and economically by economies that are performing better than the United States! The United States continues to DROP relative to economic opportunity when compared internationally!

In short, there are not enough good paying jobs and careers to absorb career entrance middle class college graduates.

There still is "opportunity" for the Mitt Romney's of the world, there always will be in any banana republic, "opportunity" for the rich; they just get richer, and take care of their children.

Mitt and I present a contrast that supports my premise that this "poverty gap" is real, growing and dangerous to our Republic's survival.

Mitt Romney and I were friends during my freshman year at Stanford University. Mark Marquess, who is at present the University's baseball coach, was Mitt's roommate. That was the connection that got me introduced to Mitt.

In those days, 1965 to 1969, Stanford was very different from today. In those days a large majority of underclassmen were men, of privilege. Athletic teams were about the only place you could find middle class students.

The few of us that were in Stanford, were constantly reminded of our lower class. In conversations, "Preppies" (like Mitt) made sure to establish that they were products of private education that was superior to the public schools I attended. Many preppies had been to Europe, had been to places I could only dream about, had maids and butlers; in short, were RICH!

And they were right. They were rich and better educated.

I struggled my freshman year, although I had almost a straight A average in high school. I did not know the "code" for example, to write an essay in a Blue Book, nor did I have the Prep School Study Skills, that allowed my freshman peers to breeze through introductory Freshman English and Western Civilization Survey History.

I was drowning, until my best friend, a preppie himself, sat me down and showed me how to construct a Blue Book, "bull shit" (as he put it) essay.

I was regurgitating memorized facts, after studying for hours, but was not showing I had a general overview of the information. My preppie friend called the "secret code" "bullshit", essay writers call it finding and explaining the main ideas of the information.

Mitt Romney knew the code very well. He told me, to my amazement, that his prep school history classes were harder than Stanford's dreaded "Western Civ".

I was on football scholarship, and needed tutoring only once in all four years at Stanford: and that was to pass Western Civ.

Western Civ. was a liberal arts survey class, including Political Science, History, classical education, English all together. This class uncovered inadequate public school preparation big time. And I had to work three times as hard to basically catch up with my preppie peers.

But I did catch up, and ultimately passed some of them by. My freshman roommate was a preppie, born to wealth and privilege, who dropped out of Stanford, because he really didn't need Stanford, because his personal wealth was so much he didn't have to EVER work.

I was a mechanic's kid, the first of my family, and extended family on his Cherokee side, to EVER graduate from college. I had to WORK, use my college degree, and later advanced degree, to make a living.

Mitt did not. He really didn't need to even go to college, because his wealth was already there.

I know, I have read that he did make it on his own, but with an enormous head start, that I saw every time I entered his dorm room to visit. Mitt, I remember, had an beautiful stereo system, that turned on when you clapped your hands. I had a transistor radio, that was taped to the window sill, so I could hear the news. I did not get an equivalent stereo system until I was 35 years old, and had been working for years.

But there was a huge difference back then. At the end of the 60s, those who had dealt with the draft (I joined, Mitt dodged using his Mormon faith to get a religious deferment), still emerged into a job market that was opportunity plentiful.

The United States was rife with opportunity in those days. There was a recession, but hardly noticed. Corporate recruiters came to Stanford, and literally begged seniors and graduate students to join their firms. There were dozens of them at the yearly job fairs.

Today, the recruiters are not there. Middle class, American dreamers, like myself, often find that their degrees count for nothing. They need advanced degrees, and then need to "know someone" to have any chance of getting a job.

The Mitt Romney's of the world, preppies who had a huge head start in life just because of who they were born to; have no problems. The rest of us, no chance.

This is not healthy for the body politic. The Arab Spring violence, the terrorism bubbling over from the Middle East that killed thousands of Americans in New York, partly developed from frustrated college educated men who saw their hopes for advancement based on their educations thwarted.

An educate elite, that cannot get a job, is a revolution waiting to happen. Every banana republic has endured countless violent upheavals, when highly educated people cannot realize their dreams.

And that is not to minimize the under-educated's role in revolutionary movements; the French Revolution comes to mind.

No nation can long endure, that allows its best and brightest, to be constantly frustrated, and held back from their opportunities to succeed by an economy that is fixed to aide only the rich.

The Poverty Gap, that has saddled young bright people with eternal debt, and low wage, dead end jobs, is a ticking time bomb that threatens our nation.

But, we still hear conservatives insist there is no problem, just cut taxes, raise the rich even further, and the poverty gap is a figment of liberal's imaginations.

"Let them eat cake" seems to be their position. "Off with their heads" will be the response!

True Sportsmanship

Wow...Jesus just tapped me on the shoulder when I watched this....it reminds me of Steve Anderson. When I taught RSP (Special Education) Steve was in my class. Steve had been hit by a car when he was little.

Steve probably belonged in a "more restricted environment". But his parents insisted he be in RSP. He had a personal aide, he was in a wheel chair, and was pretty messed up. But his parents were adamant that he be treated like a regular kid.

So we tried, we really tried. I remember one day, when Steve's aide was sick. I had a couple students push Steve to adaptive PE. Shasta High is a hilly campus. Evidently Steve's wheelchair brake let go, and Steve went down a hill, into the street and he tumbled out of the wheelchair.

I remember when I found out, I figured my teaching days were over.

Steve's parents came to school, took him to the doctor for stitches, and thanked me for treating Steve like a regular kid!

Steve couldn't talk. He grunted, and laughed, and we taught him how to read, do math, and some history I think. You just didn't know, because he was severely damaged.

I had Steve in class for two years. As a senior he went into regular classes. Again, I don't know how much he learned, but he did laugh, and the kids loved him.

And finally graduation came. His parents insisted Steve go through the ceremony. So we practiced. And practiced.

He was supposed to go across the stage via wheelchair but we planned something. You see Steve could walk with great assistance.

So, when his name was called, I had the honor of hoisting him up, thrust my arm under his armpit, and we struggled together across the stage.

And the last few steps, as the crowd realized what was happening and rose as one, I felt Jesus hand on our shoulders.

That was probably the best opportunity I ever had.

States' Rights

The latest in a long line of unbelievable permutations that strain credulity.

A gun advocate was being interviewed and proclaimed that the gun lobby was only adhering to the principles of Martin Luther King; standing up for the Bill of Rights.

At first blush, I was shocked, because Dr. King was murdered by a sniper! I could not believe this "advocate" actually could tie Dr. King to the NRA.

But he continued to explain that the 2nd Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights, and like Dr. King, the states were trying to resist the Federal Government's breaking of the Bill. Big government is the greatest threat to freedom, the gun nut lectured, and like Dr. King, an individual's civil rights are supreme, and must be protected at all cost. This includes civil disobedience, legal challenges; etc., just like Martin Luther King.

The interviewer, Reverend Sharpton, then reminded the gun nut, that Dr. King was advocating for MORE federal intervention, under the 14th Amendment, trumping States' rights to protect Civil Rights of the Bill of Rights. States' rights were a code in the 60s for segregation.

Segregationists used states' rights to protect their unequal and unfair system of Jim Crowe discrimination, trampling individual freedom for over 100 years. George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, resisting federal law, to protect a system that was the very definition of anti-Civil Rights.

So, I decided to follow the logic of Dr. King, and not of the gun nut. Proponents of gun rights, at the extreme, share libertarian views toward the size and scope of government. They hold that the least government, no regulation, is best; especially when it comes to guns.

The civil rights of victims of gun violence are the victims here, just like African Americans, Native Americans, Chinese, Hispanics; etc., were victimized for years, having their civil rights trampled. Whole generations lost basic rights and freedoms.

In a sense, the victim of a gun crime and civil right's victims are the same.

And, a higher percentage of people of color, are victims of gun violence.

In a real sense, the arguments of Dr. King still hold true. States have allowed citizen's civil rights to be trampled, in the most direct sense (death). States are resisting federal intrusion, that is trying to apply the 14th Amendment (equal protection under the law), to maintain a huge deregulation of gun law that negatively affects the Civil Rights of all.

Everyone knew that the states' rights argument was specious when it was made to support segregation. And most should realize today, that the states' rights argument that is being used to support deregulating guns, is the same thing: the lessening of civil rights for us all.

With the proliferation of guns, we all are in more danger. If we take a quiet walk in our neighborhood, the domestic dispute that results in gunfire, can hit us! Certain cities we dare not go into, for fear of the free fire zones that exist there.

It reminds me of staying out of Mexico, because of the shooting war between drug cartels. The United States is become Juarez!

Dr. King was a victim of gun violence at the hand of a racist, who decided his civil rights were higher than Dr. King's . A gun aided this fanatic in ending a life of a great man, who stood for justice, mercy, and faithfulness to the tenants of Jesus Christ.

So, the next time, one of these nuts uses states' rights to argue for gun rights, set them straight by asking about the civil rights of gun violence victims: who stands for them? Are we safer with everyone armed to the teeth? Whose civil rights are being abrogated?

Depression Lessons

I, like my fellow baby boomers (especially those in the first tier) have heard incessantly from my grandparents and parents about the Depression. Some of the stories were ironically funny.

For example, my father tells how his mother hustled him into the car one night, and told him the house was on fire. When he got into the model T, he noticed it was full of possessions, and his father got into the car just as the flames were evident.

Like thousands of others during the Great Depression, they burned their house down to get the insurance, so they could eat a little longer.

We can only imagine the depths of the Great Depression. To appreciate it, I believe you have to study it, watch documentaries, read novels, read textbooks and immerse yourself in it.

Only social scientists like myself, actually enjoy doing that. Most Americans would rather forget.

We forget at our peril.

In fact, my father tells me the high points, the funny parts, but does not dwell on the hunger, on the pain. He would rather forget, until a situation comes up, and his 90 year old brain, reacts from the prior poverty, hoarding food, saving paper bags, constantly saving, scrimping, obsession about savings.

My former mother in law was caught by my daughter going through the garbage, looking for left-overs that should have been saved. My daughter was appalled; but it was "post-Depression behavior", that has characterized the generation. Those dwindling members of the depression generation KNOW how painful a Depression can be. They have no illusions about the New Deal.

They know.

We don't.

In 2007 we veered close to the brink of entering a Great Depression. Only the lessons of the last one, saved us from going over the edge.

Herbert Hoover was one of the most intelligent Presidents in history. But, when confronted with the financial meltdown, he did what government was supposed to do in those days, nothing. Economic downturns were seen as outside the government's responsibility. Austerity was somehow good for the economy. So he fiddled, and the country burned!

As the Depression deepened, and people starved; no relief for Washington came. It was a long four years.

Finally, FDR was elected, and the government, through the New Deal, began to act, and things got better.

In 2007 we came real close to tipping over again.

But, because first President Bush acted, followed by President Obama, following the template that had helped survive the last Great Depression, financial collapse was avoided.

We did get a Great Recession, with stubborn unemployment, but no Depression.

And we got the Recession manipulators.

These are mostly Governors of Red States, who use the austerity effect on state revenues to cut state services. They argue that the cause of the Great Recession was excessive state and federal spending, and take advantage of the recession suffering to cut the social and educational program conservatives hate. Unions are target number one.

This has been attempted on the federal level as well, it is going on right now with the debt level debate, but has to date failed. The states have not been so lucky.

Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Texas; etc., have all seen conservative Governors and legislative majorities cut government, cut education, attack unions; all under the guise of "curing the recession"..

And none of it has worked. None of it. Typical of 1936, when the nation was almost out of the Depression, and FDR mistakenly adopted an austerity approach, these con Governors have bought into the belief that less government spending is more. In 1936, the austerity approach plunged the nation back into recession; FDR famously said it was the worst mistake he ever made as President.

So the recession users, cut spending, cut taxes, starve government, with the mistaken idea that the "saved" revenue will flow into the private sector. And they offer no explanations when it doesn't.

The problem is any benefit flows into the hands of the super-rich, and as before, does nothing for the overall economy. It doesn't work. It only serves to concentrate wealth,not spread it out. It only makes the recession deeper!

Today, in the Washington Post, a writer extolled the virtues of Governor Daniels of Indiana, who has followed this same menu. And he makes the incredible statement that the cuts have "been of great benefit" to the state.

The writer offers absolutely NO proof of this "benefit"; none. As usual, the conservative promises benefits, can prove none, but repeats the promise endlessly. The real result is damage to the state, damage to the economy. For example, we are STILL waiting for the magic of the Laffer Curve, which was truly "voodoo economics".

Texas is a good example. Texas swung to the right, culminating in the Governorship of George W. Bush. Texas is touted as a job creator, of proof that government austerity works. And, there is a lower unemployment rate in Texas. And their is a sky high poverty rate in Texas. And those jobs, are mostly minimum wage jobs. And, the economic misery index is huge in Texas. In short, the "benefits" are more wealth in fewer hands, and a miserable existence for millions.

Daniels is now retiring to be President of Purdue University, good place to hide, and will not have to deal with the inevitable pain his cuts will certainly bring.

Paul Krugman, award winning economist, has been screaming at us for years, that austerity approaches by government only makes recessions become depressions. Macro-economics is not micro-economics, state budgets are not comparable to household budgets; tightening your belt might help survive a personal budget problem, but does not help on the local, state or federal level.

But Daniels and his kin, have used the recession to implement government busting, union busting policies, cutting, enforcing austerity on millions, in a mistaken belief that it helps.

It hurts. It puts more into poverty. It increases the chasm between rich and poor. It kills ambition in the young. It stirs violence. It puts us all closer to a real Depression, that put my dad into that car, as his house was burned down by his father, so they could eat.

I sometimes wonder if it would have been better to actually go into another Great Depression, which the last time proved that Daniels and his ilk were wrong, and banished the Republican ideology to the dust heap for over a generation.

Republicans did not elect a President for 20 years, they did not control the Congress for longer. In state houses around the nation, they were in a semi-permanent minority. Ever wonder why Republicans hate the New Deal? It is because they nearly were destroyed as a political party by their allegiance to economic austerity plans that do not work. The New Deal worked, still works, to grow and heal our economy.

The recession of the 1970s, caused by the Vietnam War and the Oil Embargo, not by excessive government spending, spawned the con champion of them all; Ronald Reagan. He tried manfully to end the New Deal, found his approach didn't work, and then worked to bolster the most famous of all New Deal programs, Social Security. He also did not touch any New Deal programs, but actually enhanced them.

But, Reagan used the same austerity con, blaming big government for the recession when he knew otherwise. In fact, when deficits exploded after his tax cuts, Reagan in a panic raised taxes many times, because the economy was just sitting there, not growing; the Laffer Curve, that Reagan ran on, was a miserable failure

Reagan survived because the oil embargo ended, and because he stopped the austerity approach before it destroyed his Presidency. Poor George P. Bush inherited his mess, and paid for it with a one term Presidency.

Remember the "Read my Lips, no New Taxes", that eventually sunk Bush. "It's the economy stupid" of Bill Clinton, called the nation's attention that austerity did not work, and getting a depression as a result was not worth it.

California, however, after Reagan, endured a series of failed Republican Governors, culminating in a tax starved state, a ruined education system, a prison system underfunded and overcrowded so bad that the Supreme Court ordered reforms. The government austerity approach, that Reagan had started, failed miserably. It will take California a decade to climb out of the mess that the madness of things like Prop 13 caused.

Every time, I mean every damn time, we fall into the austerity trap, we cut taxes, rip programs, we fail to follow fundamental macro-economic principles, and we fail and harm millions. I mean every time.

Federally, we are now on the verge of doing it again; of having to burn the nation down to save it, by not increasing the debt limit and massively cutting government.

Keep the car running, and load the mantle clock!

We Had to Destroy the Village to Save It

In the Vietnam Conflict there were many moments of absurdity. Probably one of the worst, was the interview of an American commander, who called in an airstrike to obliterate a South Vietnamese village, totally destroying it, to save it from the Viet Cong. As I recall, it was later discovered that no Viet Cong were in the village.

In the late 1800s, millions of buffalo were killed, to deny Plains Indians food, so that white settlers could move into their land. An entire eco-system was destroyed in California, in the pursuit of gold at the same approximate time.

The urge of human beings, to destroy, in order to build, is an historical fact and an irony. It does not work!

We are seeing the same thing in Europe and in the United States today, in the approach to economic problems.

The urge is to cleanse, to destroy, to cut, to annihilate, in some kind of belief that less is more, that to fire thousands will fix things. These approaches, like the one in Vietnam, result in destruction alone, and more misery.

Herbert Hoover found this out in 1929-1932. The conventional wisdom of the time, was to balance a budget if the economy went into a downturn. Every time that had been done, the economy flat lined even more, but conventional wisdom dictated that the government had no place in economic regulation. So, Hoover fiddled while the country burned.

It took Franklin Roosevelt, who applied some of the principles of a little known British economist, Keynes, to regulate free enterprise, stimulate the economy through government spending, (WWII really did that), to turn the American economy around. And, from 1945 to 1980, the New Deal, continued to produce the largest economic expansion in American history. Keynesian economic ruled the conventional wisdom, the government grew, income was re-distributed into a huge middle class, and America prospered like never before.

Then came 1980 and the Laffer Curve. Once again, the naysayers got the American Public's attention. Once again, the bitter medicine approach was adopted, cutting taxes and allegedly cutting spending; with the result that from 1980 to present, we now have the largest gap between rich and poor since the post Civil War era. The middle class has shrunk, and misery through austerity seems to be the conventional wisdom, especially with the far right; especially the RICH far right.

And what now, Republicans are once again chanting that they must shut the government down to save it; that not paying social security payments, defaulting on the debt, will somehow lead to a cleansing of our troubled economy.

We even get them saying that our grandchildren's lives depend on it.

Bullshit! That is right, bullshit! It is the same idiotic reasoning that called in an airstrike to destroy that Vietnamese village. Even if the Vietcong were there, what was accomplished by leveling the place? All the animals, people, babies, grandmothers, children were killed. Whose village was it when it was gone? How can you save something by destroying it?

Likewise, the killing of the buffalo herds may have starved the Indians, but it also led to the immense grasslands being thrown out of ecological balance, leading directly to the dustbowl, the worst environmental disaster in history. The white settlers, who got their land, got a living hell in the bargain.

And California's destruction of its watershed to save the gold, resulted in a disaster that billions of dollars are still trying to resolve via the Central Valley Project.

In short, beware of "cleansing solutions" or destroying or cutting to "save" things.

Finally, we have evidence right now, if we only look at Europe, of the irony of a destructive austerity approach.

They decided, wrongly, to adopt a strict austerity plan to counter the recession, and are back in another one. Greece, that American Conservatives like to point to as proof for an austere approach, continues to not pay taxes, cut spending, and is approaching the economic status of a banana republic.

Cons were wrong in 1870, 1890, 1929, 1968, 1980, 2003, 2007, and 2013. If they shut down the government to "save" the economy for "our grandchildren", they will destroy their grandparents, shoot us yet again in the foot, and plunge our nation back into economic disaster.

As Forrest Gump famously said, "Stupid is as Stupid Does"!!!!!!!

A Small Fact

So, we avoided the fiscal cliff; for a few weeks. Already, the Cons are revving up to demand huge entitlement cuts, spending cuts to offset the revenue shortfalls predicted for future years.

And, they threaten now to not raise the debt ceiling, vowing as the President accurately states to not pay for the spending that they did in the past.

The pesky wars not paid for, the Medicare Prescription entitlement not paid for, Homeland Security not paid for, all added to the deficit over the past 10 years.

So, they lie, straight up, about the spending. And next they lie about another cause of overspending, taking dead aim at Social Security and Medicare.

Now remember, rich people do not really use Social Security and Medicare.   After $400,000 a year, you can afford health insurance after 65, and sure don't need a Social Security paycheck.

So, the bankrollers of the Republican Party have absolutely no interest in preserving these entitlements, in fact they would like to cut them entirely. That's right, the rich do not give a damn about you, middle class retired or soon to retire "baby boomers". And, many of you are Republicans, fooled into voting against your vital self interest.

The middle class retires on Social Security to some extent; many have other pension plans as well. But social security helps to pay, say the rent, or for a new car.  Medicare is another story. Medicare is the sole medical insurance, with inexpensive supplements, that well off middle class retirees rely on. There is no other health insurance after 65 that any middle class, and upper middle class retirees can afford.

Now, the chant from the right is that the reason for the deficits, is the large baby boom retiree group. Demographics are blamed.

At first blush, this makes some sense.  But, revenue also counts here.  A huge increase in Social Security revenue and Medicare revenue has taken place over the past forty years due to the baby boom.

Millions more have paid into the system than was paid out to the greatest generation; whose numbers were down because of the Great Depression (reduced birth rate) and WWII, war deaths.

So, for years,  Congress has raided the Social Security and Medicare fund of its surplus.

And, for years, Cons have cut taxes, cut revenue, because of this surplus.

Now, because of their extravagant ways, and cutting taxes at the same time; it is "entitlements fault".

Nonsense. The Baby Boom contributed trillions into entitlements, and deserve their benefits. The generations coming behind have fewer people, and will slowly put less stress on the systems as they retire and boomers pass on.

Reform is necessary for sure. But draconian cuts are not. This can be done without betraying the trust of millions.

And, the anti-tax craziness, that still affects rational political thought for liberal and conservative alike, must give way as it finally did a little a day or so ago. This is especially true in not extending the payroll tax cut, which added stress on the Social Security fund.

Finally, somebody has to tell the American people that you do not get something for nothing. To maintain that ruse, while running a Defense Department that spends more than all the nations in the world combined, is a fatal falsehood that quite frankly is bankrupting us.