It’s Tuesday

There’s something lost in all the discussion of tax hikes, tax holidays, sequestration, entitlements, quantitative easing, and the fiscal cliff.

As a nation, we’re broke. 

That’s a simple fact.  Democrats ignore that.  A lot of Republicans seem to be ignoring it, too.  The general population doesn’t seem to grasp it either.  Nobody wants to pay higher taxes, but everybody wants more and richer benefits.  You can’t have both.  You can’t keep pretending that everything’s going to be peachy-keen if we simply ignore the obvious.   

So I’ll repeat the obvious once again:  We’re broke.  We have no money.  We can’t afford to pay our current bills.  We keep sinking deeper in debt every day; we’re borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend.  We can’t even cover the interest payments on what we are borrowing. 

There's no new revenue coming in.  We’ve already robbed Social Security and replaced those funds with IOUs.  We’re kiting checks by printing more money.  Yet we keep spending like nothing’s wrong.  In fact, we keep increasing our spending every year and can’t find anything we’re willing to give up to staunch the flow of red ink. 

Who is running this show?  Wimpy?   We keep telling our creditors we’d gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today, but guess what – it’s Tuesday. 

And we have no way of paying.  We don’t have the money now.  Unless we drastically change things, we won’t have the money to pay our debts anytime in the near future.

That’s why I think my head’s going to explode every time I hear someone in Congress, or the Administration, talk about the need to preserve and expand entitlements while extending tax cuts.  Or how we need to front another round of stimulus money.  Or how we need to provide over $60 billion in funding to help those affected by Super Storm Sandy – and also include money to help Alaska fisheries .  Plus extend unemployment comp even further at the same time. 

Where is the money for all this going to come from? 

Higher taxes on the rich?  Nice political talking point, but that’s a drop in the bucket and everyone knows it.  At best that brings in $89 billion a year; nothing to sneeze at but not even a rounding error when you’re talking about increasing our debt by a trillion dollars or more each year. 

Somebody needs to stand up and tell everyone that this is insane.  No one – not even the United States of America – can continue on this path and survive.

While politicians blather on about what Americans want, and what Americans voted for, someone has to have the balls to tell Americans that you can’t always get what you want.

Personally, I’d like to have $100,000 a month – tax-free – deposited into my checking account for the rest of my life.  While we’re at it, I’d also like to have all my hair back.

Is that going to happen simply because I want it?  If I elect the right Representative, Senator or President, is that going to make it all happen?

Nope. 

I know those are unrealistic dreams.  However, a lot of Americans don’t understand that pulling a voting lever doesn’t grant anyone magic powers to fulfill their every wish either.   

The simple truth is we have to stop this nonsense.  We have to make cuts in social programs.  We have to trim back on entitlements.  We can’t afford to be patrons of the arts or every seemingly worthy cause that comes down the pike.  We can’t afford to spend billions to maintain vacant government buildings, or to waste even more billions on specious defense projects the Pentagon doesn’t even want.  We can’t afford to pay for projects in some elected official’s backyard to help them get re-elected. 

And even after we’ve made all those cuts, we’re all going to have to pay higher taxes either because we reduce or eliminate deductions, tax credits, and subsidies – for people and businesses alike – or through higher tax rates for everyone.  And yes, those who pay no Federal taxes now will have to pay something. 

Everybody’s got to chip in.  Nobody can be spared.  It’s a harsh reality, for certain. 

Unfortunately, I don’t see anyone in public office today who has the willpower, the courage, or the balls to tell the American public the truth.  Someone has to.  This can’t continue. 

Doing essentially nothing, or kicking the can down the road, is unacceptable.  Talking about how everyone can still have whatever they want, and keep whatever they have now, is ridiculous and insulting.  It may be politics as usual; that doesn’t make it right. 

Congress and the President know we don’t have any money.  We’re living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time before it all comes crashing down.  Why they keep avoiding the issue is unfathomable. 

Maybe we need to go over the fiscal cliff.  Maybe we need to refuse to raise the debt ceiling and watch our credit rating sink even lower. 

Maybe it will take the first time the Chinese decide to sit out one of our bond auctions.

Maybe when we see that no one is willing to loan our government more money it will finally sink in.  Or when inflation starts zooming up because we're printing too much money and everything now costs more, while wages remain stagnant, the light will go on.    

Only then will Americans understand the gravity of the problem.  We’re broke.  And things have to change. 

Harry Reid …

In the pantheon of BS artists, Harry Reid is at or near the top.  Only Nancy Pelosi – another top- shelf BS artist – comes close. 

The difference is that Nancy’s crazy and doesn’t know it.  Harry’s disingenuous and hypocritical, and does know it. 

He’s also one of those rare people whose remarks look better in print than on video clips.  In print, he seems bold and aggressive; in video clips he looks like a wispy ghost and sounds like an agitated, whining old man. 

He’s clearly a dim-witted little weasel prone to saying stupid things – such as that he knew that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid any taxes in 10 years – and other crackpot nonsense, yet the media treats him like a respected, noble statesman.  Given his persona, and his propensity for spouting silliness, it’s hard to see how the media could take him seriously.   But they do.   

In case you didn’t know, Harry – this erstwhile noble statesman – happens to be the Senate Majority Leader who single-handedly has prevented almost every House bill from coming up for a vote in the Senate.  Under his leadership – if you can call it that – the Senate also hasn’t passed a budget in almost four years.  Nor are they likely to, as long as he’s in charge. 

Yet he routinely accuses House Republicans of being obstructionists – which might be the height of hypocrisy given his record.  And yesterday, he called Boehner’s management of the House a ”dictatorship” – another incredibly hypocritical statement.  He claimed Boehner refused to bring up the Senate’s bill on the Bush-era tax cuts because if House members had a chance, they’d approve the Senate bill.  Meanwhile, he won’t let the House bill passed in August come to the floor of the Senate, probably because he fears it might pass there. 

It’s simply amazing that whatever the Democrats in the White House and Senate want is apparently good, while anything the Republican House wants is beneath contempt.  As Harry said a while ago, anything from the House is DOA in the Senate.

That’s statesmanship at its finest.  Really?

The media spin is predictable.  Once again the Democrats and Obama are trying as hard as they can to get things done – and save us all from rising taxes – while the Republican-controlled House blocks everything the Senate and Obama propose on our behalf.   And when we lurch over the fiscal cliff, it will be entirely because of obstructionist Republicans who are pandering to the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. 

There are a couple of problems with that.   

The Democrats and Obama are the ones holding things up.   There are a lot of legislative tools they could use to buy time.  However, it's clear they don’t want to compromise at all, even though it would seem that the two sides aren’t that far apart.   

The bill passed by the Senate in July raises taxes on the wealthy (HHI over $250,000), lets the estate tax rise, and extends and expands some tax credits.  And, of course, has no spending cuts, which is what the House is clamoring for.   The bill the House passed in August is not that much different, except that the House bill would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for just about everyone, keep estate taxes where they are and close loopholes and limit deductions for the ultra-rich, instead of raising their tax rates.  Revenue goals are about the same; details differ.        

But the House also passed a bill to limit some of the harshest budget cuts that would happen through the sequestration process.  That’s something the Senate didn’t do. 

The net/net is that the House bills would increase revenue to roughly the same level as Obama’s plan to raise tax rates on the rich, and gently cut spending.  Together, both House bills would appear to be sure-fire winners even to Democrats in the Senate, accustomed as they are to making sure almost nobody feels any pain from anything anymore. 

But Harry won’t bring the House bills to the Senate floor.  Nor is he willing to engage in any dialogue on coming up with a compromise version.  Republicans in the House have said they’d be willing to compromise more on the tax cuts for the wealthy and other items, but would like some commitments on spending cuts in return. 

So there would seem to be room for reasonable compromise.  Not with Harry – the spokespuppet for Obama – who has ruled out any rational give and take.    

With Harry in charge, and Obama pulling the strings, a compromise is not going to happen, and neither of them apparently wants one.  Harry and Obama know that a great way of ensuring a stalemate, and diminishing any hope of compromise, is to demonize the people with whom you need to reach agreement.  That’s his strategy.  Obama’s as well.   They are both doing their best to make sure no agreement is reached.     

Honestly, I believe Harry and Obama want us to go over the cliff.  Harry, because he’s in a snit; Obama because he wants to pound the Republicans at any cost.  Seriously, they are eager to have everybody’s taxes go up, and widespread budget cuts to happen, while they keep their hands clean of it all.  That’s the reason for all the posturing about the Republicans being intransigent and as such being solely responsible for taking the country over the cliff.   

That’s not to say the Republicans are totally blameless.  Letting the House shut down while this is going on appears petty and churlish.  Going tit for tat on accusations with Harry is childish.  And Boehner has stepped in it a few times by trying to whip his caucus in line and failing, which makes him look weak to the Democrats. 

With all the Republican dithering, they’ve also allowed Harry and Obama to reframe the argument.  It’s no longer how best to balance the budget though cuts in spending while increasing revenues.  Harry and Obama have successfully recast it as something resembling class warfare – a battleground more familiar and favorable to Democrats – where the rich need to pay more so the poor and middle class don’t have to.    

Harry is not the only reason we’re headed over the cliff.  He is part of the reason, but he’s just a self-righteous little toady, without the backbone to do the right thing. 

The right thing is to either pass the House bill in the Senate now and amend it later, or pass something to extend the deadline while the House and Senate bills go to conference committee to hammer out compromise legislation.  Harry knows that how it’s supposed to work. All tax legislation has to originate in the House, under the Constitution; the Senate cannot initiate tax legislation.  The Senate can make wholesale changes to a House tax bill, or reject it outright, but it can't simply create its own bill and expect the House to pass it.  That’s the way legislation gets finalized and passed, and has been for generations.  

Maybe he knows it’s all a waste of time.  Obama’s already said that he will veto the House bills.

Meanwhile Harry is doing his best to keep up the attacks on Boehner and House Republicans to ensure that there’s no compromise.  And when all Hell breaks loose on January 1, Republicans get all the blame.

Nice job, Harry.  Real statesmanship at work.      

A special place in Hell … Ho, Ho, Ho

I know it’s the holidays.  I know we should all be thinking happy thoughts.

But there are some people and things that just tick me off.  So here’s my wish list for the coming year:

Westboro Baptist – These smacked asses protest at soldiers’ funerals, and now plan to protest at the Connecticut massacre victims’ funerals.  They claim these deaths are God’s wrath because of homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular.   

I don’t even know where to begin in condemning these bigoted, insensitive, ignorant clods who add misery and pain to grieving parents and loved ones at a time when they are already devastated.  They are no better than Muslim extremists who wrap themselves in bombs and twisted interpretations of Islam to justify wreaking havoc on the innocent.  

I don’t know who they think their God is, but I hope the God I worship takes a page out of the Old Testament and delivers some well-deserved Biblical-style wrath on them this year. 

Or maybe they could take up poisonous-snake-handling as part of their worship.  Let’s see how strong their relationship with God is then. 

Handicap parking abusers – Those decals and spaces are reserved for people with real handicaps, not for lazy, thoughtless bastards gaming the system just so they can park closer to the front door or escape paying for parking. 

This is more than just a pet peeve – it’s an insult to decent people everywhere who try to do the right thing, while some jackass thinks it’s all a game.  These morons believe there’s nothing wrong with it unless they get caught.  In fact, they’ll tell you everybody does it, like that’s a justification.

Maybe they think being stupid, selfish and insensitive is a true handicap.  It’s not.  So what I wish for this year is that people have to prove – in person -- they are truly physically handicapped to get that decal or license plate renewed.  If you have a real disability that’s documented, you should be fine.  But just being old or lazy doesn’t count – you need to have a real doctor’s note, or be walking with a cane, in a wheelchair, or on a walker to get approved. 

I’d also like to see a crackdown by police on the abusers and fines actually being enforced.  All police have to do is stake out any handicap spot and see who sprints from their car with nary a care, and who appears to be legitimate.  If there’s any question, police should ask for proof.  Barring proof, the offender should have their car towed and be fined on the spot. 

Big-ass SUVs – It’s not the vehicles themselves that offend me, it’s their drivers and their lame excuses.  Unless you're planning an expedition to the North Pole or the Amazon wilds, why anyone needs one of these cruise ships with wheels escapes me.  

Please note that I'm not including so-called crossovers and the smaller SUVs -- just the road monsters, like the Expedition and Excursion.   

Okay, I get that you have a dog.  Okay, you’ve got a couple of kids.  But really, do you need a vehicle with the cargo capacity of a U-Haul truck and the seating capacity of an airport shuttle?  I mean, seriously, how big are your freaking dogs and kids – do they take up that much space?   And do you know how to maneuver and park something approaching the size of a small RV?

Based on what I’ve seen, no to all of the above. 

But hey, it’s your right to own whatever you want.  I’ll defend that right at all times. 

Just don’t whine and bellyache about high gas prices.  Or tell me how you feel so much “safer” in your SUV, while you are bullying and terrorizing all the other drivers on the road. 

And for Christ’s sake, learn how to park your behemoth.  When you practiced the three-point-turn in Driver’s Ed, it didn’t mean that you should also take 3-5 attempts to dock your land yacht in a space at Walmart.   For the record, you’re only supposed to park in one space at a time, BTW; the lines are there to give you an angle reference, too.    

I personally think any vehicle that seats more than six adults should be painted yellow, have to stop at all railroad crossings, and require a special bus license.  But that’s just me.      

Texting while driving – We all know when someone is texting while driving because the car is swerving all over the road.  People who do this might as well be drunk or blindfolded – the effect on driving is the same.  They are a menace to themselves – and frankly that’s of little concern to others – but they are a menace to all the rest of us, which is of concern.

It’s another one of those “it’s not wrong unless I get caught” kind of things that makes a lot of us nuts.  It’s on par with “what’s the big deal?”  It’s maddening. 

 I’d like to see some enforcement on this.  And if someone is caught texting while driving, they should be treated like anyone else driving under the influence or charged with reckless driving.  Because that’s what they’re doing.  Maybe they lose their license for a spell; maybe have to attend a driver safety course, or better still have to do some jail time. 

It’s that serious.  We’ve all been behind some airhead texting and trying to drive at the same time. 

Maybe it’s vitally important to them to tell their friends on Twitter or Facebook that Sally’s a slut, Timmy’s a bastard, Cindy’s posted naked pictures, or that Mom’s a jerk.  The rest of us don’t give a rat’s ass what they’re tweeting, texting or sending; we’re just worried about them careening all over the road and possibly hitting us.   

It’s only a matter of time before they crash into something.  Or someone. 

If we can’t get them off the road permanently, then let’s take repeat offenders’ cars and remove the seatbelts and airbags.  Maybe a little practical Darwinism will do the job for us.   

Well, that’s my holiday wish list. 

Assuming the world doesn’t end on 12/21/12, have a wonderful 2013. 

The elephant in the room

The tragedy in Connecticut horrifies us all. 

Even the toughest among us struggles to hold back tears when we see the pictures of those innocent children, teachers and staff gunned down for no reason at all. 

The stories of their young lives, cut down by a madman, break our hearts.  These were just kids – most 6 or 7 years old, and teachers and staff that lost their lives trying to protect them. 

They did nothing wrong.  They didn’t deserve this.  No one does, especially not children.

Now the soul searching begins.

Some will blame too-easy access to guns and ammo.  Some will blame the failure of schools to have better security.  Others will say we need to do a better job on mental health issues.

A few brave souls will address our culture that increasingly glorifies violence through movies, video games, music, and television.  As older adults, we may be somewhat out of touch with what today’s children, teens and 20-somethings are bombarded with.  Or the desensitizing effect all this might be having on them.      

And that’s certainly an important discussion to have. 

But the elephant in the room – the one that everyone apparently tries to ignore – is the role of the parents of monsters in all this. 

That’s right, parents.  Especially parents who seem to be asleep at the switch when it comes to seeing their offspring careening toward disturbing behavior, and do nothing.  Or worse, ignore all the warning signs and pretend that they don’t know something is desperately wrong. 

Now not everybody is equipped to be a good role model.  Or has the skills to raise children properly so they don’t become murderers, rapists or other violent offenders.  Or has the willpower to admit that their offspring is mentally damaged and needs help, and gets that help.     

That’s crystal clear. 

In fact, in this latest massacre the shooter’s mother bought all the weapons he used, and trained him how to use them.  She also knew he was mentally ill.  He’d been declared mentally incompetent by some court already.  Yet she enabled him – what was she thinking?

We’ll never know.  He murdered her as well. 

The Columbine mass murderers’ parents claimed they had no idea what their kids were up to.  That’s disingenuous at best, given what we now know.  They had to know something was wrong – why on Earth did they ignore the clear signs?  Why didn’t they tell authorities? 

I’m so tired of hearing parents of killers claim that their son or daughter “was a good kid.”  And that they were ignorant of their kids’ tendency toward violence.   

I’m equally tired of hearing that schools and counselors told these parents their children had serious emotional and mental problems, and the parents did nothing. 

Look, as a parent your job is to raise your kid right.  Do your job.  Use diligence.  Know what your kids are doing at all times.  Go ahead and impose on their “freedom”; it’s your right – nay, your obligation as a parent – to be aware of what they are doing, what they are buying, what they are watching, and who they are associating with. 

If you see a problem, address it.  Don’t think because they are looking for recipes online to build pipe bombs that “it’s just a phase.”  Or that the padlock they put on their bedroom door is just to insure their “right to privacy.”

And for Christ’s sake, if they are buying body armor, call the police now. 

Better that you put your foot down before they put the hammer down and kill someone. 

Before we pass another gun law, or increase the numbers of counselors in schools, we should pass a law that holds parents responsible for raising their kids properly. 

It’s time to stop ignoring the elephant in the living room.  We need to make “Reckless Parenting” a serious crime with significant jail time for repeat offenses. 

My heart goes out to all the parents and families of those slaughtered in Connecticut.  I simply cannot imagine the pain and anguish you are going through.  America mourns with you. 

I only hope this event’s a wakeup call for other parents everywhere to start taking their job more seriously. 

Cold, calculating and dishonest

You expect a certain amount of lying from politicians, and Machiavellian maneuvering.  But you don’t expect the media to aid and abet such misrepresentations and naked attempts to seize power; you expect the media to do their job and expose such things. 

For some reason, Obama is immune from being exposed for bald-faced lies.  He’s also touted as the second coming by the media, when the truth is he’s more like Hugo Chavez than any of his predecessors, save perhaps Richard Nixon. 

Yet even Nixon – and his imperial presidency – would have blanched at some of the things Obama’s trying to pull off.   And in the end, the media did do its job on Nixon and exposed him for his reckless disregard for the law, for using the power of the government to attack his enemies, and for lying to the American people.

That’s apparently not going to happen to Obama.  He gets a pass.  And a pat on the back.

Probably like many, I can hardly listen to the news or read the daily paper anymore without being astonished that he gets away with so much. 

He makes statements that are absolutely false, and nobody challenges them.  He engages in petty, ad hominem attacks on his opponents and he’s praised for his leadership.  He ignores and stops enforcement of duly-passed laws and regulations he doesn’t agree with, for purely political purposes, and nobody sees anything wrong with that.  He bypasses Congress and the courts time and again with Presidential Orders and the media lauds him for “doing the right thing.”  He refuses to accept any responsibility for errors and he’s held up as a victim of past Administrations.  He can’t do anything wrong. 

The Democrat-controlled Senate is equally Teflon coated.  They haven’t passed a budget in years.  They’ve killed practically every Republican House bill – on jobs, the economy, whatever – on arrival.  Still, the media buys their claim that the real problem is obstructionists in the Republican-controlled House. 

It’s incredible.  Seriously, in the true meaning of the word – it’s not credible.  Nobody in the media seems to care.

For example, the other day Obama was railing against a measure in Michigan to make it a right-to-work state.  Which means only that you couldn’t be forced to pay union dues or join a union if you didn’t want to, as a condition of employment. That sounds like a pretty fair arrangement to most and over 20 other states are already right-to-work states. 

But what did Obama say?  He told the audience of union workers that he was opposed to laws like this that eliminated collective-bargaining rights, and that laws like this were designed to give workers the “right to work – for less.”    

Of course the union folks erupted in cheers.  He’s their man, right or wrong. 

In this case, he was wrong.  Dead wrong.   There’s nothing in the Michigan law that has anything to do with collective-bargaining rights.  Nor is there anything in it that has anything to do with wages.  Obama knew that.  So obviously he lied, blatantly and effortlessly. 

The news reporters covering the event knew he was wrong.  So did the network anchors that ran a clip of the event.  They all knew he lied.  Nobody said a peep.    

This isn’t an isolated event.  It’s a pattern.    

When he promised that families making less than $200,000 a year wouldn’t see their taxes go up, he lied.  Now he’s upped that to $250,000, and that’s still a lie.  Taxes are certainly going up for everyone and he knows that. 

When he promised that nobody’s premiums would go up under ObamaCare, and in fact would go down, that was a lie; premiums have soared since the bill passed. 

He said that if he were allowed to spend close to a trillion dollars in stimulus money, most of that would go to improving our infrastructure.  That too was lie.  Most of the stimulus money went to keep public workers employed and had almost no discernible effect on the economy.

When he claimed to have “saved” the auto industry and kept the car companies out of bankruptcy, that’s a laughable lie.  GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy anyway, still owe taxpayers billions, and the only people “saved” in the auto industry were the unions – they got a big chunk of ownership for nothing while stock and bond holders were shafted.  (By the way, Ford didn’t need saving, didn’t take any government money, and is still doing just fine without government support.)

When he pledged that he wouldn’t have lobbyists in his Administration, he lied. 

When he pledged to have the most open and transparent Administration in history, he lied.

And it's not as if he was simply mistaken at the time and didn't know things wouldn't turn out the way he planned.  Or that he was taken out of context.  He knew upfront he was lying in every case.  Plain and simple.  So that makes it a conscious decision -- a premeditated lie.

It just goes on and on.  It’s so obvious.  Yet nobody – save Fox News and the WSJ – ever takes him to task on stuff like this. 

Now we are faced with the fiscal cliff.  The media generally keeps positioning this as a battle between Republicans who want to preserve tax cuts for "the rich," and Obama who wants the rich to pay higher taxes while extending the middle-class tax cuts from the Bush era.  However, it's not that simple.

But it serves Obama's interests to appear as if it's that black and white -- good guys versus greedy bad guys.   And if it serves Obama's interests, then the media is all on board.

The reality is that Republicans want to balance tax cuts with cuts in spending.  They want to extend the middle-class tax cuts but also start to tackle runaway spending on entitlements.  And instead of raising rates on the rich, they want to start limiting deductions.  Net/net, they will come up with about the same new revenues from the well-off as Obama is seeking, but in a more nuanced way.  Yes the truly rich will pay more under Republican plans -- a point the media ignores because it doesn't serve Obama's narrative.  But spending should also be on the table.

Seems like there would be room to compromise.

Yet is Obama really trying to come to some compromise?  Of course not, and publicly he's holding to the media's line that the stalemate is all about taxing the rich: he simply wants to increase taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year and Republicans are blocking him.  But as you now know, Republicans are caving on that already; only the mechanism for doing that is up for debate.

Meanwhile, he’s added to the negotiations that he wants the ability to raise the debt ceiling at will, without Congress’ approval – which he knows is a non-starter.  He refuses to deal with entitlement reform in particular, and spending in general.  And he wants to preserve the payroll tax deduction for employees, which takes money from Social Security -- the reason why many Republicans think that's a bad idea.    

In short, he’s not willing to give in on anything.  In fact, he’s made it even more unlikely to get a deal in time. 

He knows that taxing the rich more is pretty much a done deal.  The only quibbling is how it's done.  So that's not a sticking point -- he's going to get the money from them and appease his supporters.

If that's not the hold up in getting to a deal, what is?  Why add a bunch of extra baggage when you've already gotten the big issue you claimed was critical to reaching a deal?  

I think it's intentional – he wants us to go over the cliff.  And he wants to do that for purely political reasons. 

If the economy craters under higher taxes on everyone and unemployment zooms because of cuts to defense spending, he’ll claim it’s not his fault – it’s the Republicans who refused to “compromise” by not accepting all of his demands.   

By creating a new economic disaster and dropping it at the feet of Republicans, he won’t have to worry about being accountable for his past 4 years of economic mismanagement and out of control spending.   It’s a win/win for him.   He gets the sympathy; Republicans get the blame. 

Then he can come back in a role he feels fully suited for – savior.  He’ll push to keep some of the defense cuts – because the Democrats want to cut defense spending anyway.  He’ll push to restore the Bush tax cuts for everybody but the wealthy – only now he’ll take credit since they will be “Obama Tax Cuts.”  And he’ll end up getting almost everything he wanted anyway, while the public will blame the Republicans for any fallout. 

The bizarre part of it is that he will get away with it.  Again.    

And almost no one in the media will expose how callous, cold, and dishonest Obama’s been throughout the entire process.  They haven't done it in the past 4 years.  There's no reason to believe that will change.   

Extending unemployment benefits again?  Really?

Honestly, Obama and the Democrats must be joking. 

There’s no other explanation.  Faced with the coming fiscal cliff – caused in large part by profligate spending without counterbalancing tax revenues, the Democrats want to extend unemployment benefits again.  Plus they are talking about some kind of additional payroll tax deduction.  And yes, expanded public works programs. 

In short, they want to drive us even deeper into the fiscal hole.  And reward people for not working for up to two years. 

In some kind of demented logic, they think that spending more on people not working, reducing tax revenues more, and squandering money on projects that won’t happen will help the economy bounce back.   

Umm, folks … we tried all that already.  Didn’t work then.  Won’t work now. 

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  Well folks, then Obama and the Democrats are clearly insane. 

Not that I ever thought otherwise.  This is simply more proof. 

The holiday special of course is extending unemployment benefits – after all, only Scrooge could be opposed.  As one Democrat said, the unemployed need that money to buy gifts for their families and friends and celebrate the holidays. 

Nice thought, but really?  What’s next?  Special holiday bonus checks to the unemployed for being such good non-workers for the past two years?    

This is getting crazy.  Extending unemployment benefits AGAIN makes no economic sense, whether it’s Christmas or not.  People knew they were facing the cut-off months in advance; what did they think – that Santa was going to bring an extension? 

I’m not trying to be a heartless bastard here, but there are way too many studies that show that a lot of people don’t really start to look for a job until their UC runs out.  The longer you extend their benefits, the longer they’ll wait. 

Then there are the anecdotal stories we all know – not “friend-of-a-friend” stuff, or some Internet chain e-mail, but real experience with people you know first-hand who used two years of UC as a way of taking a paid time out.  Or how they are making more now than ever before by working off the books AND collecting UC as well.  What’s surprising is how open they are about it.   

Maybe they used that time to take care of a sick relative, spend more quality time with their loved ones, or start a new business, which is all fine and good on your own dime. 

But that’s NOT what UC is for.  UC is to tide you over between jobs.   Not  instead of a job, or to finance a two-year sabbatical, or your startup.      

We all have unemployed friends aggressively looking for a job.  They are decent, honest, talented people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.  And my heart goes out to them.  I try to do whatever I can to help, because they want to work again.  My guess is they won’t be out of work that long, not because they worry about when their UC runs out, but because they’d much rather have a job than collect UC. 

They want another job not just for the money, but for their own self-respect. 

Clearly, that’s not the case for all the long-term unemployed.      

I’m sorry, but if you’re able-bodied and been collecting UC for two years already, there’s something else wrong.  You need to get off your ass and do something different.  Maybe it won’t be your dream job – or like the one you had before – but you need to get some kind of real job. 

And get off the public teat.  I mean, after two freaking years don’t you have even the teensiest bit of self-respect left? 

Do you not see anything wrong with sitting on your butt waiting for something better than UC and food stamps to magically appear?  Do you really think –after two years – that people feel sorry for you anymore, when they are going to their jobs and you’re going to your couch?  Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, you need to re-examine your career goals?    

How long are you going to blame Bush, the bad economy, evil bankers and big corporations for the simple fact that you really haven’t tried to get a regular job of any kind?  Or that your degree in 16^th Century French Poetry doesn’t mean much to employers?  Or that you’re still out of work because you’re not willing to “compromise” and accept something less than ideal?   

Yes, it’s not a great economy.  Yes, some employers will take advantage of that to keep wages down as much as they can.  Yes, a lot of businesses are on shaky ground.  So it may not be the best time to change jobs. 

But if your current “job” is watching daytime TV and collecting UC until things get a lot better you’re fooling yourself.  It is time for you to change jobs.  Things may not get much better anytime soon.  Meanwhile, there are jobs out there.  Maybe not the perfect job, maybe not with as many benefits as you had before, or at a salary level you’re accustomed to, but jobs do exist.

And here’s another tip for you:

The longer you stay unemployed the less attractive you are to an employer.   

That’s politically incorrect to say, but it’s true. 

If you’ve done essentially nothing in two years – like trying to upgrade your skills, getting more education, taking courses, or working part time – they have a right to question your work ethic. 

It may be unfair, but it’s reality.

Extending unemployment benefits only postpones the inevitable.  It acts as a disincentive to looking for a job for a significant number of recipients.  And frankly we can’t afford it financially or as a society. 

Be careful what you ask for

The election hangover is coming.  For all those who voted to put Obama back in office for another four years, you asked for it. 

So let’s not hear any whining from Obama supporters.

Obama and the Democrats ran big on everyone paying their “fair share” of taxes, especially “the rich.”  They wanted to let the Bush Tax cuts expire for families making over $250,000 a year – the reviled 1% we’ve heard all about.  In fact, just the other day Obama claimed that his victory was a mandate on raising taxes on the wealthy.

If that’s what they want, I say let them do it.  Obama won the election and it’s time to give his supporters what they voted for, whether they like it or not. 

Go ahead, let the cuts expire for families making over $250,000 a year in return for extending the tax cuts for everyone else. 

But nothing more. 

When Chuck Schumer makes his pitch again to preserve those same “unfair” tax cuts for families making up to a million bucks a year, turn him down. 

Apparently, Chuckie’s constituents in New York make a lot more money than a paltry $250,000 a year.  Which, I guess, makes them the rarest of rare – “good” 1 percenters.  Too bad. 

If memory serves me, his constituents voted overwhelmingly for Obama.  We’re only giving them what they voted for. 

You want to raise taxes on the rich?  Well, you got it.  No exceptions.

Take the same approach to ObamaCare.  Don’t try to repeal it. 

Instead, remove all the exemptions and exceptions.  Like the carve out for unions.  The waivers for businesses in Nancy Pelosi’s district.  The Louisiana deal.  The Cornhusker Compromise.  All the side deals and special interest payoffs.   Strip them all out.  And bring the individual mandate back in full force.  No exceptions. 

But leave all the taxes in. 

Like the tax on medical devices companies on their gross sales, not their profits.  That will be applied to everything from Pacemakers to MRI machines; you’ll be paying for that, too.  There’s also an increase in the rate employers pay for their contribution to their employees’ Medicare. There are new caps on Flexible Spending Accounts.  And more.   Goes on and on.   

By removing all the exemptions and exceptions, we can make ObamaCare  “pure” again and see how much people like it.   Let everyone feel the full weight of it. 

Let everyone see how under ObamaCare employee benefits are now treated as taxable income.  Yes, that’s right, employees will soon start paying tax, personally, on the value of the healthcare benefits they get from their employer.  That’s probably going to cost them more than the “free” birth control pills they’ll get.  Bet those who voted for Obama didn’t know that.  Or that a whole bunch of other ObamaCare-related taxes are about to hit. 

They thought they were voting for “free” stuff.  They are in for a surprise.   

Next up, the payroll tax holiday.  Let that expire.  After all, we’re worried about funding Social Security – and not cutting that entitlement – so let’s let the working Joe and Jill kick into it, instead of just their employers.  Plus, people voted to raise taxes, according to the Democrats. 

Again, give them what they wanted.    

People tried valiantly to tell the public that nothing is free.  Someone has to pay for everything.  Yet they voted for the party that promised them more free stuff, and a bunch of new regulations and taxes – but they always assumed those would be on someone else. 

Surprise.  Bad assumption.  You will get precisely what you voted for. 

The Republicans and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Republicans are long on theory; short on marketing their ideas.  It would be good for them to revisit Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from time to time – it might be a valuable wakeup call.  

You remember the pyramid?  With the most fundamental physiological needs at the bottom, then safety and security?  Higher levels of that pyramid – more “psychological” needs like  love/belonging, self-esteem and confidence, and self-actualization are important, but less so. 

Basic needs are most important.  This seems to be lost on Republican policy-makers and those tasked with winning elections for Republicans. 

Right now, Republicans too often focus on a 50,000-foot perspective and on the very top of Maslow’s hierarchy – morality and self-actualization – when they need to be closer to the ground and address fundamental needs.

If someone is out of work and looking for a job, they want a job, not a discourse on the role of “job creators”; they don’t connect their need for a job with giving tax breaks to businesses.  Regulations may be hurting small businesses, but the general public doesn’t see how that affects them directly – nor do they see how reducing regulations will help them.  

If people are having trouble paying for food, they want food prices to come down, not a tax cut.  And if gas prices are killing them, they want something to bring gas prices down, not a long-term plan for improving domestic energy security. 

The same goes for ObamaCare – it is going to restrict freedom and access to the best care, plus it’s already raising insurance rates.  But the public  wants to believe that  somehow they’re going to get healthcare they can afford, and insurance companies won’t be able to kick them out if they get really sick, which seems like a pretty good thing to most.   

Stable jobs, financial security and health fall into the two most important – and fundamental – needs of Maslow’s hierarchy. 

Yet Republicans addressed these … how?

Personal responsibility?  Restricting abortion?  Reducing burdensome regulations?  Fighting ObamaCare mandates on birth control coverage as an attack on religious freedom?  Promoting tax cuts?  Reducing the Federal debt?  Smaller government? 

Who cares about these things if you don’t have a job, worry about losing your job, or live in fear of being wiped out financially if you get sick?  

It’s been said that one reason America hasn’t been more successful in third-world nations is that we consistently promote things that have little immediate relevance.  We offer things like hydroelectric plants and democracy down the road, when what those people need is food, clean water and safety right now.  Yes, electricity and democracy can lead – over time – to more food, cleaner water and greater safety, but in the present you can’t eat electricity or democracy.  

In much the same way, the Republican Party is pitching the wrong stuff for today’s voters.  Sure, the Republicans have the right ideas about a lot of things, if you take a long view, especially when it comes to limiting the reach of government, cutting spending, and the need for people to be more focused on providing for themselves than relying on government. 

That said, Republicans will never win the culture wars.  That ship has sailed.    The best they can hope for is to moderate its course to a more responsible path.  Gently. 

The 1950s are gone; we’re never going to go back to Ward and June Cleaver, Ozzie and Harriet, and the Waltons as family models.  The nuclear family of Mom, Dad, Butch and Wendy still exists but is becoming rarer.  There are more households headed by single parents than ever before, and more children born to single mothers than ever before, too.  People don’t go to church as often.  Nor do they stay married as long.  Promiscuity doesn’t bear the baggage it once did.  What used to be considered porn and in bad taste is on cable TV.  Hardly anyone cares if someone is gay or not.  Hispanics are on their way to being an ethnic majority.  And white Christian males aren’t driving the agenda anymore. 

These are fundamental changes in America.  You may not like all of them, but they are reality.  You can either accept them and move on, or fight them and lose.

Still, Republicans can win other more important wars.  However, only if they win elections.  With enough House and Senate seats it makes little difference who the President is.  If Republicans want to cut the size of government, reduce profligate spending, wean the public off entitlements, and get the economy under control, they must play small-ball politics for a while. 

By that I mean focusing on the base of Maslow’s hierarchy.  Address basic needs in a meaningful way.  It’s about real jobs, with real paychecks, for doing real work.  It’s about making sure people have access to healthcare they can afford.  It’s about making people feel safe and secure about their present, and their future. 

Don’t fall on your sword for more tax cuts for everyone, including the wealthy – not now – but try to hold the line where it’s politically expedient on tax increases; there’s a difference. 

And get real about immigration – recognize that’s there’s no way in Hell we’re ever going to deport 12 million people, and if Republicans don’t find a realistic path to citizenship for these folks, the Democrats will.

Do that and you can get the support you need for the big things.  But not until then.  

More advice to the Republican Party – kick the loons to the curb.

On this, you need to learn from the Democrats.  About 20% of the voting public is far left and about 20% is far right.  The far left are used to being a minority in American politics.  Since about 40% of the public claims to be conservative, the far left don’t expect to get everything they want every time.  However, for some reason, the far right think they should always get everything they want.   

When elections roll around, the far left of the Democrat party tends to be relatively quiet – they don’t want to screw up their chances for getting some of what they want.

Not so with the far right.  They crank it up.  It’s all or nothing. 

So most of the time the far right gets nothing.  Or sometimes a Pyrrhic victory that ultimately bites them in the butt when general elections come around.

In the primaries the far right pushes warriors for their causes.  In the general elections those warriors become martyrs.  They get crushed.  And who can blame the public for that?  When you have Republicans like Richard Mourdock claiming pregnancy from an act of rape is what “God intended,” or Todd Akin stating there’s such a thing as “legitimate rape” that prevents pregnancy, what do you expect? 

How stupid and insensitive can anyone be?  They may have thrilled the right-to-lifers, but their bone-headed comments exposed a dirty not-so-secret of the Republican Party – there are way too many nut jobs in their fold.  Nobody rational in the mainstream -- which includes a lot of Independents and otherwise conservative-leaning Democrats -- is going to take the Republican Party seriously until they clamp down on their loons. 

The Republican Party is always afraid to do this.  They seem incapable of parsing the differences among varying degrees of being a conservative.  In reality, a lot of people are conservative about some issues, and not so much on others. 

I’ll use myself as an example.  I am a registered Republican; have been for years.  I am generally conservative about a lot of things; somewhat liberal about other things, especially when it comes to social issues.  I vote in every election. 

And I’ll be completely honest with you – there are some folks in the Republican Party that scare the Hell out of me.  Some of them couldn’t lead me out of a burning building, much less get my vote. They embarrass me.   At the same time, they are embraced by some extremists in the Republican Party as “true conservatives,” and keepers of the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan must be rolling in his grave.  He was a fiscal conservative, but in truth also governed as a social moderate.  These latter-day Reagan wannabes have as much in common with Ronald Reagan as Mary Poppins did with Lizzie Borden.          

Still, too many Republican Party officials keep thinking their strength – their “base” – is the far right, the evangelicals, and the extreme social conservatives who want the red meat politicians to preach what they  already agree with.   No matter how off kilter that may be to what reality is, or, in the case of Akin, what actual science is.

Some prominent Democrat called that base the “flat earthers”; he’s pretty close to correct. 

Here’s the math Republicans need to understand:  yes, 40% of the public consider themselves to be conservative – but to different degrees, and that’s far short of a majority.  And majorities win elections.  Of that 40% conservative audience, no more than a quarter or a half of those are far right extremists; in fact, the number might be much lower than that. 

Given the numbers, why does the Republican Party pander to them?  Or even let them out of their cages? 

Every time an Akin or Mourdock speaks, they stab common sense in the heart.  Every time a Christine O’Donnell wins a primary you set yourselves up for failure. 

The real base of the Republican Party is made up of some of these folks, just some, but a lot more people who simply don’t believe that big government and wasteful spending are the answers to every problem.  They think their government should focus on what’s really important to them and their families – like keeping them safe, keeping them healthy, access to a good education, and getting and keeping a good job to provide for their family. 

They don’t need government to tell them what to do, what to think, who to hire, who to help, or who they should have a relationship with and what that relationship should be called. 

Are there enough of them in the Republican Party to win elections?  Not alone – you have to find more people like them outside the party to win.  The good news is they are there to be had. 

But as long as the party allows the loons to take center stage, and doesn’t muzzle the most extreme elements, Republicans don’t have a prayer. 

If you feed the squirrels, there will be more of them …

And they’ll expect more and more from you. 

That’s one lesson from the re-election of Obama to another four-year term. 

Those who want more free stuff voted for someone they thought would give it to them.  They didn’t want the other guy who might stop giving stuff away so freely. 

Screw who pays for it.  Like squirrels, they don’t care.  It’s free stuff and that’s all that matters. 

Giving away stuff – or merely appearing to be doing so – was a masterful stroke by the Democrats.  They made it seem that people could have anything they wanted, and never have to pay for it.  They treated the voting public like a bunch of spoiled brats and the public sucked it up.  Democrats were benevolent grandparents who doted on every whim their constituents desired – I’m surprised they didn’t promise everyone a pony and a bag of candy. 

But they were aided in this election by the Republicans, who once again showed an uncanny knack of refusing to recognize the blindingly obvious. So before the shooting inside the tent gets really started, here’s some less than subtle tips for the Republicans … 

Get off the abortion issue.  Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.  Get over it.  Now.  The Republican far right never seems to realize – or apparently care – that this is an immensely personal issue.  Government has no role to play, either for or against.  If you’re a Catholic or right-to-lifer opposed to abortion, that’s your right; but that does not allow you to decide what is right or wrong for other people.  You don’t know their circumstances, you don’t know their situation, and you are not in a position to act as God, nor remotely qualified to take on that role, despite what your priests or ministers may encourage you to believe. 

Most Americans already think abortion should be “legal, safe … and rare.”  You are never going to change their mind.  Ghastly photos, debates over the precise moment life begins, and screaming protests aren’t persuading anyone to your cause.   It’s done.   

If you persist in your efforts to ban all abortions, you will lose elections again and again.  Trying to backdoor the issue by incrementally banning abortions a procedure at a time, or making it so unbearably difficult and personally degrading to request one will have the same effect.  You may think you are morally right and doing God’s work, but God doesn’t vote in elections … everyday normal folk do.   You’ll lose. 

And if by chance you do make abortion illegal, it won’t stop abortions – it will just make them horrifyingly dangerous again, performed out of sight of medical supervision and standards, resulting in increased deaths of women. 

That’s not what the public wants.  And it’s probably not what your God wants.

About social issues in general … Most Americans simply want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit and not do harm to others. 

So take that cue – leave them alone.  You’re not the morality police.  Whenever you try to be it makes you look like a tool of small-minded, bigoted religious extremists. 

This is a democracy, not a theocracy; something the far right needs to remember. 

When you wander – or should I say blunder – around on issues that people feel are personal you come across as overbearing and insensitive.  And that costs you dearly at election time. 

You need to learn not to over-react.  You can’t let the most extreme social conservatives and religious fanatics in the party be in control and dictate what is or isn’t acceptable.  You need to view everything on social issues with a longer-term perspective, rather than rise to the bait on the cause du jour.  Taking the bait feeds the impression that Republicans are dangerous reactionaries, which, sadly, many times you seem to be. 

Not everything is a harbinger of the end of days. 

For example, Sandra Fluke is clearly an idiot.  Yet you made her a heroine by attacking her.   Forcing companies to pay for birth control may be over the top, and violate the beliefs of some Catholic institutions, but you should have let Catholics battle that out and not get involved.  Instead, you rose to take the bait too rapidly and aggressively and were soundly bludgeoned for seeming to oppose birth control in general. 

Planned Parenthood is a powerful organization, and yes, it does provide abortions, and yes, it does distribute birth control, and yes, Federal money does go to it.  However, Federal money – by law – cannot be used to fund abortions, and Planned Parenthood made a case that it was in compliance with that.  Anyway, without a lot of proof, you had to single out Planned Parenthood for cuts specifically to appease the far right.  And what did you gain? 

Then there’s your position on gay marriage.  Gay marriage has been going on for years abroad and here, and it’s not a big deal.  But you made it a big deal of it with stupid legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act – which will be ruled unconstitutional, as you well knew.  And even though everyone expects that to be overturned for any number of constitutional reasons, vocal members of the Republican Party keep waving the bloody shirt – like anyone really cares anymore

Your most radical elements may think promiscuity and homosexuality are sins.  Well here’s a wakeup call – neither of those “sins” are illegal between consenting adults, and you’re not going to make them illegal.  People are people and you can’t legislate morality any more than you can enforce the Ten Commandments.

And speaking of religion, people have the right to believe what they want, or believe in nothing at all.  What anyone believes is entirely their own business. 

Mind your own business before you start minding others’.   And pick your battles better

More to come in future postings …,

We need to stop over-protecting the stupid -- it’s threatening our species

The herd needs thinning and we’re getting in the way.  Every day there are new rules and regulations to protect the amazingly stupid among us. 

And you know what?  It’s a waste of time. 

It just prolongs the inevitable.  Plus it gives these astonishingly idiotic people time to reproduce, bringing more knuckleheads into this world, thus further degrading the gene pool.

It also enriches trial lawyers who find juries of equally stupid people eager to grant jackpot verdicts to some of the dumbest among us.   

Face it: some people are just too stupid to live.  We see examples every day. 

That doesn’t mean we start rounding them up and turning them into fertilizer.  However, we certainly shouldn’t be protecting them; we should stand aside and let nature take its course. 

Look, some people are brighter than others.  But some people are clearly much dumber than the norm, not because they are mentally challenged, but because they don’t have the good sense God gave a sweet potato. 

You can put all the warnings you like in front of them – in flashing 72pt. type and with graphics – and they still go off on their merry, stupid way and do things that put their lives and health in serious jeopardy.  And then seem honestly surprised when bad things happen. 

Somewhere along the way, our government decided we needed to protect these people from their own boneheaded actions.  It mandated all kinds of rules and labels that have absolutely no effect on those too stupid, or thoughtless, to pay attention.  You can't fix stupid.  

So I say “Give Up.”  Let nature take its course. 

Stop wasting time and money on postponing the nasty ends the awesomely stupid are destined for by their own hands.  Oh, and while we’re at it, find some way of preventing trial lawyers from making millions off the stupidity of others. 

Do you understand electricity?  Apparently a lot of Americans don’t.  That’s why there’s a cartoon on your blow dryer that shows you not to use it in the tub or while taking a shower. 

Do you need to be warned not to iron your clothes while you’re wearing them?  Apparently some people need to be … because your iron carries that warning.

Do you need to be told that the plastic bags your laundry comes in should not be placed over your face? Or that coffee is hot?  Or that you shouldn’t hold lit fireworks in your hand?  Or that you shouldn’t eat the desiccant pack included in some products?  That knives are sharp, you shouldn’t swallow mouthwash or drink rubbing alcohol, and that some microwaved foods can be very hot – especially the steam part?   

It’s not just product labels.  In their continuing effort to protect the stupid from becoming extinct by their own hands, there’s a constant barrage of nanny-state rules being promulgated. 

One of the first I can remember was about wearing seatbelts.  Now you can be fined for not wearing a seatbelt while driving; some states fine passengers not wearing seatbelts, too.  Yet most of us wear seatbelts anyway, not because of the fine, but because we think they’ll help keep us alive in a crash.

Today most cars also come equipped with air bags.  While those certainly cut down traffic fatalities, I’ll just bet that air bags also encourage the stupid to drive more recklessly.  

That's because I think the more you lessen the risk for the dumbasses, the more they’ll push the envelope.  Give them Lipitor and they'll eat more crap foods.  Come up with the HPV vaccine and they'll engage in even more risky behavior.  Morning after pill -- why worry about condoms anymore?       

You can't legislate common sense.  New York banned big sugary soft drinks.  Before long they – and others – will try to ban greasy foods.  Salty foods.  Fatty foods.  High calorie foods.  All to save the stupid from eating themselves to death.  They’ve now required restaurants to post nutritional statements so people will know how bad certain foods are for them.

Like that’s going to make a difference.  The stupid won’t pay any attention. 

When they have a massive coronary they’ll find some lawyer to help them sue McDonalds for making their food so irresistible.  They’ll sue Dunkin Donuts and Krispy Kreme, because they’ll claim they never knew donuts weren’t health foods. 

And the bizarre thing is, they’ll find some equally numbskull jury that agrees with them. 

Listen, if you eat a dozen donuts for breakfast, two Big Macs with large fries for lunch, drink a six pack with a dinner of Kentucky Fried Chicken – and you do this every day, you’re going to get fat.  Unless you won the luck of the draw in the gene pool, you’re also going to have high cholesterol and a whole host of other health issues.  Cause and effect. 

The problem is, the stupid don’t believe in a causal universe.  They don’t associate bad behavior and bad habits with potentially bad outcomes, the way the rest of us do, no matter how much you try to educate them. 

You might as well try to teach physics to parakeets, or your dog to play the bagpipes.  They simply aren’t interested. 

Want more proof?  Let’s take a very recent example. 

When you are told to evacuate an area because of fire, flood, or a hurricane, most normal people would.   But not the stupid among us. 

Well in advance of hurricane Sandy, there were dire warnings of catastrophic storm surges and repeated calls by officials to evacuate the Delaware, New Jersey and New York coastlines. 

Yet at the height of the storm I saw news clips of people wave boarding in those areas.  I saw people nearly blown off piers as they took pictures of themselves in front of the waves.  I saw people happily driving their cars on clearly flooded streets in more than foot-deep water. 

At Battery Park in New York, again with orders to evacuate, I saw people taking pictures of the news reporters and then two guys stripped off their shirts and jumped in the water laughing.    

Great fun.  Reminds me of my favorite short joke:

            What’s the last thing a redneck ever says? 

            “Watch this …” 

It also applies to the hopelessly stupid. 

So what are we to do? 

For once, there is a simple solution. 

We don’t have to do anything.  We just need to stop doing some things.  Like rescuing the clueless when they've put their own lives in danger through their own stupidity.  Or rewarding – through ridiculous lawsuits – incredibly stupid behavior. 

Let’s let nature take its course for a change.  The species might be better off. 

Democrats are out of control – and getting worse

Perhaps you’ve noticed that Democrats are getting increasingly shrill. 

This is what happens to the left when they think they’re about to lose.  They start name calling and fear mongering.  

Romney’s a liar.  Ryan’s a liar.  They and their Republican supporters want to:

·         Outlaw abortion and restrict access to contraceptives

·         Let the poor and elderly die from lack of healthcare

·         Take away all government benefits for seniors, vets and the poor

·         Stop feeding poor children

·         Cut funding for police, firefighters and teachers

·         Raise taxes on the poor and middle class

·         Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction

·         Stop student loans

·         Cut back on education

·         “Put y’all back in chains” (Thanks, Joe Biden)

And of course, kill Big Bird. 

Why do Romney, Ryan and Republicans want to do all this?  The left has a simple answer – it’s all about giving more money to the rich, and appeasing fanatics on the far right. 

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not seeing the connection.  I can’t seem to connect the dots between all of the above and the rich and/or right-wing fanatics the way the left apparently can. 

But it must be true – or they wish it were – because the left just keeps repeating all this.   Oh, and that Romney and Ryan are pathological liars.   Talk about the pot calling the kettle black …

To them, Romney, Ryan and Republicans are the personification of true evil. 

They’d call them satanic, but that would imply a belief in God – which is politically incorrect on the left, I suppose.  So they’ll just settle for evil. 

The only thing the left hasn’t – so far – accused Romney, Ryan and the Republicans of is drowning baskets of cute little puppies.  (They probably have an attack ad on that already, but just haven’t found the right time to air it.)

Right now they are trying to find anything – and I do mean anything – to make Romney and Ryan unacceptable.   No matter how silly or petty. 

Maybe Axelrod is having a meltdown. 

How else can you explain the dust up over “binders of women.”  Did anyone else find Romney’s remark offensive?  Did anyone else who is rational think he was being literal about having women in binders? 

Only the left was offended.  Outraged, in fact. 

And when John Sununu called Obama “lazy,” well that was a racist remark; up there with the “N” word apparently.  That’s something I never knew before the left pointed it out.  

I was astonished.   I’ve been using the “lazy” word for years to describe my cats, some former colleagues, people who park in handicap spots but aren’t disabled at all, and others.  I had no idea what a racist I was.  How thoughtless and prejudiced I must be.   

Thanks lefties for educating me.   

It’s all more than just a little bizarre.    

Democrats have belabored the “dog on the car roof” story time and again to paint Romney as heartless.  Which is kind of ironic since their candidate actually ate a dog. 

Honestly, I’m not sure which is worse – but I’m leaning toward making an entrée out of a pet as perhaps more disturbing. 

Look, there’s a reason for all this nonsense.  Democrats are truly worried that they could lose.  They are pulling out all the stops.  Shoveling BS is all directions.  They only hope they can scare enough people to make Romney and Ryan an unacceptable alternative. 

It’s not working.  Bereft of any concrete plans – except for four more years of the same – they have nothing to run on except a dismal record.   They can attack all they want, but as Romney said last night in the third and final debate: “attacking me is not an agenda.” 

The polls reflect this.  The polls are showing that a lot of people aren’t buying the Democrats’ demonization of Romney – they have seen Romney up close and personal now in three debates and he’s not some wild-eyed radical, nor does he have horns and a tail. 

Which is what the Obama campaign spent more than $150 million in ads prior to the debates to position Romney as.  So all those negative ads were wasted; when confronted with reality they failed to hold up. 

Expect the Democrats to become even more crazed as the election draws near, and the momentum continues to shift toward Romney.  There’s no telling what they’ll try next.  

But the damage to their cause has already been done.  They tried to portray Romney as a monster.  They went all in to make him appear to be a thoughtless, heartless and cruel person who cared far more for the rich than for ordinary people.

Turns out he’s a decent guy.  A smart guy.  A humble guy.  Actually, a very likeable guy. 

And someone who has given of himself and his fortune to help others many times, without ever expecting anything in return.   

Plus, he’s got a successful record of working across the aisle and getting things done, both as a governor and a businessman. 

A lot of voters – especially independents – are now deciding that the country could do much worse than electing Romney to be President, and might in fact be much better off with him in the White House.  

After all the negative ads, they frankly expected Romney to be the boogeyman.   When the lights went on and he turned out to be a good guy who seemed fully capable of being President, they swung 180 degrees away from Obama.   

You can thank the Democrats for this.  And that makes them even crazier.