"Out voted for a spell" - Rick Perry

(Galileo's telescope)

The election for President of the United States is almost a year away but it seems like it is so close. Domesday talk from the right and left and the constant debates between the GOP hopefuls makes this elections cycle already tedious. In one of the many debates that have happened since Governor Rick Perry jumped into the race, Governor Perry has made some interesting comments, some caught by the media and others just by the blogosphere. The one quote that made me do a double take was in reference to climate change. Governor Perry was asked about his thoughts on climate change science.

"Well, I do agree that there is — the science is — is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at — at — at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just — is nonsense. I mean, it — I mean — and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got out voted for a spell." - Rick Perry

This last statement floored me. One Galileo's theories were not voted on, the Church did not believe it and placed him in house arrest until his death. It was not until 1992 that Pope John Paul II issued a writ of apology saying that the Church was wrong. And two, he was not wrong. He practiced science and the Church practices philosophy veiled as science in their minds. Perry's anti-science rhetoric is disingenuous, ignorant and based not on anything close to Science. The right is found of flouting Hitler when describing the left and to me, the rights's version of science is much closer to that of Hitler and his minions than real science: create a hypothesis, collect data to test said hypothesis and repeat many times.

So as the debates continue and the misinformation machine keeps rolling, remember the difference between science and religion.

Super-Pacman

I think Stephen Colbert is a comic genius.  For those who do not know him, he is the host of the Colbert Report on Comedy Central.  His character is Stephen Colbert a blow-hard conservative pundit who loves being in the middle of the story.  He is the perfect satirical character in our modern age.  Mr. Colbert deeply loves what I call performance art, whereby he takes his character into the real world and interacts with it.  He ran for president in 2008, testified before Congress, interviewed many members of Congress and frequently made himself part of numerous debates.

Now, in his own intelligently comic way, he is rallying against the Citizen’s United Supreme Court decision. That declared money a form a speech and the government cannot limit or force disclosures on giving money to candidates or political movements. This decision has allowed for “Super-PACs” that can raise unlimited funds. Allowing the “Super-PAC’s” to spend it they want, and have not have to disclose anything about the PAC, who gave the money or what it was spent on.  The decision is bad law and contrary to past decisions of the Court.

Earlier this summer, Colbert appeared before the Federal Elections Committee and petitioned for his own Super-PAC.  The Super-PAC, which Colbert called “Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” was granted permission to form last month.  He is now actively raising money to be used for whatever political purpose he wants. 

Yesterday, he ran two ads in Iowa urging people write in Rick Parry (vs. Rick Perry, the governor of Texas) in the Ames Iowa Straw poll.  Colbert is using these ads to rage against the machine that allowed him to create his Super-Pac.  His position is that Super PACs distort the truth and harms our political system.  I pray Rick Parry receives a significant number of votes on Saturday proving his point. 

The system is broken and is a complete bastardization of the idea of corruption free government.  The only bad part of all his is that it takes a comedian to point out the insanity in the system.  Gobble them up Stephen! 

Opprotunity Lost

The lack of leadership on both sides of the political aisle was on full display during the debt ceiling debate.  Personally, I believe the majority leader in the House, Eric Cantor, and the minority leader in the Senate Mitch McConnell bear more of the blame for the failure than most, but there is plenty of blame to be shared.

The problem with both Cantor and McConnell is they have both publically and repeatedly said the main goal of the Republican House and Senate is to limit the President to one-term.  Such comments demonstrate these party leaders have taken a position of party over country. This position is both a disgrace and a disservice to the American people and the Republican Party.  

The President put many of the Democratic party's most protected government programs on the table: Entitlement reform and tax reform. These are two key issues that have defined the Republican Party for decades. Yet, the two leaders refused to agree to these Republican ideas so as not to give the President a victory.  This was an opportunity lost for the county, because these two so-called leaders failed us by walking away of the discussion and refusing to participate in governing our country.

Despite this wildly reported fact, there has been no rebuke, no public outrage, no commendation, and no demand that these two resign their leadership position.  Rather, they have been praised by the political operative on the Right and the rest of us keep our head in the sand. 

We cannot continue down this path of politics over leadership and party over the nation’s well-being.  Maybe we do need another revolution, but more along the lines of an Arab Spring than a Tea Party rally.  We should not allow this opportunity to be lost.

Bloomberg to the Rescue

 (New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) 

In the New York Times today there is an article on a new program that Mayor Bloomberg is spearheading to help young minorities with job training, mental health and physical health. New York City has long been a city of progressive ideas but what makes this plan extremely unique is that the Mayor himself is using his own money to help fund the program. I find this extremely admirable and a bit scary. We now live in a time where we have billionaires run our cities, states, and nation and they must use their own money to fund government programs. Instead of appelaing to the people for the long term benefits of providing a level playing field to ALL people, our Mayor is just ponying up for not just the youth but all of us. Currently 84% of inmates are either Latino or Black and the long term implications of this is higher spending on jails and less added to the overall economy. 

What we are lacking is the long term vision to see that investment in people by the people creates longer term economic solvency, healthier families, and greater opprotunity for all. But instead our leaders in Washington are dismantling our government in a haphazard way that will have the exact opposite desired effect of solving our country's financial problems. 

It is amazing that Mayor Bloomberg is willing to give $30 million dollars to help support those who need it the most but this is just a beginning and we must realize that the more people we put in jail, give a half-assed education to, limited access to health care, and poor job training WE will be paying far into the future.

Is it the Age of Austerity?

So what do we cut? In the age of austerity, actions and things we have grown accustom to from government are on the chopping block. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The government needs to stop spending money on programs that can be handled by the private sector.  The U.S. government spends tens of millions of dollars promoting American businesses overseas, private business should handle their own advertising. We should stop subsidizing oil drilling, agriculture, finance, get out of the home loan business and  scale back on high-end weapons programs designed for the next “great” land war (which seems very unlikely).

But this is not the discussion we are having.  We are lacking a legitimate discussion on what we want government to do for us.  According to a recent ABC/Washington Post Poll, Americans want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, strong defense, highways, good schools, National parks, a space program, cancer research and much, much more.  So what do we do? We cannot afford it all…not anymore.  I have been hearing some talking heads on the 24 hour news networks say it is not an income problem, but a spending problem. 

That is true only if we start cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and defense. According to the Congressional Budget Office, those areas of the budget equal 75% of the total budget. We could stop funding for everything else government does and we would still be in the RED, as that is only 19% of the budget.  The remaining 6% is monies we pay on the interest to our debt. 

We are not going to suddenly stop all other functions of our government.  Obviously that would be insane and destroy all we know.  The question is how and when do we have a rational discussion in a hyper-partisan political world?  I believe it is up to us, the American people to openly discuss with each other and then our representatives what our expectations are.   I understand there will be disagreement. However, I feel there will be more we agree on than disagree.  If our political leaders on the left and right fail to hear us, we must become more vocal if we want anything to change.

My fear is that many of us have given up.  We feel that money from special interest have plugged the ears of our so-called “leaders.”  I share that fear.  But the time is now to cajole them into hearing us.  The time is now…start talking...then start shouting! 

The T Word

Our $10 bill with our first Secretary of the Treasury: Alexander Hamilton

Yes, I said the “T” word. Taxes are not a bad thing: they are a necessary thing.  The Congress and the President are finally talking seriously about debt reduction.  Currently, our national debt is 14.357 Trillion dollars, or more than $47,000 per American.  The President is suggesting reducing that amount by 4 trillion dollars over the next ten years.  He suggests doing so with a mix of spending cuts, tax increases, allowing certain tax breaks to expire and closing tax loopholes.  The Republicans are saying “NO” and are only suggesting 2 trillion in spending cuts over ten years.  Sorry folks the math does not add up.  The only way our massive debt will come down is a combination of painful spending cuts and tax increases. This is the reality we live in and must accept.

People want to blame the President for this mess. It’s not his fault.  Others want to blame Bush for this mess, not his fault either.  It is Presidents Regan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, the Congress from 1980 to present and mostly it is our fault.  We the people elect Congress and under Article I of the Constitution they control all taxing and spending. Be it under Republicans or Democrats our desire to have them tell us what we want to hear and then not act in the best interest of the country is explicitly OUR fault.

We can have Social Security, Medicare, and all the programs that government does, fight one, two and even three wars at once and still cut taxes!  Then we can look for Santa Clause and hunt down Big Foot too.  It is time we grow up and understand what the government does isn’t free?  If we want roads, we have to pay for it.  A man on the moon. Need to pay for it.  Clean air, water, safe mines, cancer research, health care for the poor, disabled and old – got to pay for it. 

It is time now to stop using our collective credit card and start paying the bills.  The only way to do that is cut spending and increase taxes.  Both Republicans and Democrats need to stop shouting at each other on the 24-hour “news” programs, stop listening to the wack-jobs of the Left and the Right and get to business. 

We need to have a real national discussion on what we want from our government and what can be cut. Polls show that American want spending cuts, but when they start asking about specific programs, they say I want that.  Guess what?  You can’t have it all and certainly not for free. 

John Adams famously said “Facts are stubborn things.”  Here are the facts:

The Public Debt Since 1980

1980: 930 Billion – Regan elected

1984: 1.662 Trillion – Regan –reelected (+732 Billion)

1988: 2.602 Trillion – Bush I elected (+940 Billion)

1992: 4.064 Trillion – Clinton elected (+1.462 Trillion)

1996: 5.224 Trillion – Clinton reelected (+1.16 Trillion)

2000: 5.674 Trillion – Bush II elected (+450 Billion)

2004: 7.379 Trillion – Bush II reelected (+1.705 Trillion)

2008: 10.024 Trillion – Obama elected (+2.645 Trillion)

20011: 14.357 Trillion (+4.333 Trillion)

Source: The Tax Policy Center

Top Marginal Tax Rate:

1980: 70%

1984: 50%

1988: 28%

1992: 31%

1996: 39.6%

2000: 39.6%

2004: 35%

2008: 35%

20011: 35%

Source: The Tax Policy Center

 A 1% increase top marginal income tax rate would generate 83.9 Billion dollars over 10 years.  A 1% increase on all income brackets would generate $480.4 Billion dollars over 10 years.

Source: Congressional Budget Office

Top Capital Gains Tax:

1980: 28%

1984: 20%

1988: 33%

1992: 28.9%

1996: 29.2%

2000: 21.2%

2004: 16.1%

2008: 15.4%

20011: 15%

Source: Citizens for Tax Justice

A 3% increase of capital gains tax would generate $48.5 Billion.

Source: Congressional Budget Office

Now is the time to get our debt under control and the only way that can be done is both with tax increases and spending cuts.  Tell your elected official. 

Compromise's Death

The grandest irony I have endured as an adult is the adage, "Do as I say, not as I do." This could be no more fitting than in our current political "debate" with regards to the debt ceiling. We teach our children that throughout our history our leaders have had to make tough choices and compromises to eventually meet the end goal. Yet, today our current crop of politicians, who say they value and honor the ideals of the Founding Fathers, scoff at the idea or mere thought of compromise. Our system of government was designed for compromise, to have differing opinions come together and each give something in order to move forward. For those that think scoring political points is better than compromise then you are not a student of United States history. Here is a brief list of some compromises that helped shape our country:

Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth drafting the "Great Compromise"

The Great Compromise or Connecticut Compromise:  Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both delegates from Connecticut, devised the idea of a bicameral legislative branch, creating the House of Representatives and the Senate. This compromise helped move the Constitutional convention forward and keep the country together.


The Three-Fifths Compromise: Though seen as abhorrent today, this was an important step in the abolitionist movement. Seeing that the Southern states would not free their slaves but wanted to count them as part of the population to gain more power in the House of Representatives, the Northern delegates did what they had to do to mitigate the power of the slaving holding states with the long term goal of abolishing slavery.

The Compromise of 1790: Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had been intense political foes for many years and had very different ideas for the future of the United States. The Compromise of 1790 was the first of three that would try to keep the Union together until 1860. After the War of Independence the states had incurred large amounts of debt incurred. Hamilton saw that it would be best for the Federal government to assume the entire debt of the new nation but Jefferson saw that as handing the central government too much power. In exchange for a group of Southern votes a comprise was reached in which the Federal government assumed all debts and a new capitol was created along the Potomac River: The District of Colombia.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964: President Johnson first mission after assuming office after President Kennedy's assassination was the passage of the Civil Rights Acts. Having passed the House quickly the original version of the bill was stalled in the Senate by a 54 day filibuster led by Strom Thurmond. Seeing that the bill would not pass, a coalition of Senators made a compromise bill that would garner enough votes to stop the filibuster and pass the House. Though not 100% what was wanted the compromise bill was a gigantic leap forward for civil rights in the United States. Had those Senators not felt that the greater good would be served by compromise, who knows how much longer the United States would have remained a back water of civil rights.

There are many more examples of past politicians with the will and forethought to make compromises to move our country forward. I ask that our current members of the House and Senate look to our past to see what great futures are brought by compromise.

Jeffrey E. Porter
July 11th, 2011