The GOP Has Gone from the Party of No to the Party of F You

[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]

When Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels announced he would not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012 (a week after Mike Huckabee also chose not to run), he said it was because of the "interests and wishes" of his family.

And while I have no reason to doubt Daniels's claim, I can't help think that there may also be another factor in play. Daniels has carefully built his reputation as a reasonable governor, one who puts practical solutions in front of ideological battles. (Whether he actually is the above-the-fray leader he portrays himself to be is a different story, of course.) But, as Jacob Weisberg astutely pointed out in Slate on Friday, to be a national Republican figure today, you have to embrace a litany of lies, distortions and flat-out factually incorrect positions. The GOP lives now, he says, in "a mental Shangri-La, where unwanted problems ... can be wished away, prejudice trumps fact ... expertise is evidence of error, and reality itself comes to be regarded as some kind of elitist plot."

And living in a self-produced and Fox News/Rush Limbaugh-protected bubble of false reality has practical consequences. For the first two years of President Obama's administration, the Republicans were the Party of No, obstructing every one of the president's initiatives to address the pile of problems left behind by George W. Bush, all for political gain. But after winning control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections (as well as state governor's mansions and legislatures across the country), the Party of No morphed into something else, fully embracing a far-right, Tea Party-driven, wealth-and-business-obsessed, social and fiscal conservatism that sits to the right of even Ronald Reagan.

The GOP is now the Party of F You. (Fitting, given last year's infectious hit of the same name by Cee-Lo Green.) And that might be too much for Daniels to embrace.

After all, the Republicans campaigned in 2010 on jobs, deficits and health care, but it was all an act, a strategy to get elected. Once in office, the GOP has embraced a very different agenda, one that could easily be called the F You Agenda. Simply put, if you are wealthy or a large corporation, the Republicans have nothing but hugs and kisses for you. But for the rest of us? The GOP only offers a stern "F you."

- Are you out of a job because of the financial collapse-induced recession that spiked the country's unemployment rate in 2008? The Republicans say "F you." Unless you believe the fairy tale that tax cuts for the rich create jobs (a lunatic fringe position not accepted by virtually any respected economists), the GOP has done nothing to help address unemployment. They've fought federal programs to boost job growth (including stimulus proposals, even lying about the effects of the 2009 stimulus legislation). And if not addressing the problem wasn't bad enough, Republicans have blocked efforts to extend unemployment insurance to those out of work, at both the state and federal level.

- Are you worried about another financial collapse due to a lack of regulation of the industry? The Republicans say "F you." The 2008 recession, the effects of which are still with us today, was precipitated by a near collapse of the financial system, which was brought about by major financial institutions unscrupulously taking huge risks on junk securities, all while making billions in the process. This conduct was made possible because of 30 years (dating back to Ronald Reagan) of repealing regulations that had prevented just such abuses for nearly 50 years, from after the crash of 1929 until the Regan administration. So you would think it would be common sense that regulation would be needed to ensure that the financial industry can't do it all over again. But you would be wrong. The Republicans fought the modest financial regulation bill, Dodd-Frank, that was finally enacted in 2010, and have continued to fight to weaken it or delay its implementation ever since.

- Are you worried about cutting the federal budget deficit? The Republicans say "F you." The GOP doesn't care about deficits, despite its rhetoric, because if it did, it wouldn't adopt the position that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy cannot be rolled back, adding billions to the deficit in the years ahead. (And it's not like we're being over-taxed as citizens right now. The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently found that Americans now enjoy their lowest tax burden since 1958.) No, the Republican agenda is to cut taxes at all costs for corporations and the wealthy, and then to use the deficits that are created to justify draconian cuts in government spending. The end game is undoing the safety net created by the New Deal and the Great Society, including government programs like Medicare and Social Security that Americans have come to rely on. Paul Ryan's proposed budget (based on ludicrously optimistic projections provided by the right-wing Heritage Foundation), which effectively destroys Medicare by replacing government-paid-for health care for seniors with vouchers that won't begin to cover their insurance costs (assuming they can get insurance at all), is the realization of 80 years of conservative dreams of returning the country back to the 1920s. Which leads to ...

- Are you someone who hopes to have medical care when you're elderly? The GOP says "F you." Acceptance of Ryan's proposed budget, with its destruction of Medicare, has become unassailable dogma in the Republican party ( just ask Newt Gingrich). As I described above, Ryan's plan would leave many seniors without health care (including in his home state of Wisconsin). But hey, that's a small price to pay for an ideological victory, right?

- Do you believe a woman should have the right to control her own body if she gets pregnant? The Republicans say "F you." Since taking office, both in the House and in the states, eliminating a woman's right to have an abortion has been at the top of the GOP agenda. In fact, the very first bill introduced in the GOP-controlled House this session, HR 1, was laden with anti-abortion provisions.

- If you are a woman who has been raped in a way House Republicans don't think is rape, they say "F you" to you. GOP legislation introduced in the House sought to redefine rape, limiting the types of acts that constitute rape.

- In fact, if you are a woman, period, Republicans say "F you" to you. Even beyond abortion, GOP proposals have been so detrimental to women, especially women's health services, that myriad organizations and writers have used the term "the Republican war on women."

- Do you want the government to responsibly manage the country's finances and prioritize the financial health of the nation over strict ideological games and tests? The Republicans say "F you." Despite the fact that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling "threatens the health of our entire global economy and the jobs of millions of Americans," and an independent report outlined the potential disastrous consequences to the economy, the Republicans are playing games. They're using the need to raise the limit as a bargaining chip, trying to extract draconian budget cuts in return, all while disingenuously downplaying the impact of failing to raise the ceiling (also this), even as John Boehner traveled to New York to assure financial executives that the limit would be raised.

Keep in mind, it is truly the ideologically driven radical right behind the debt ceiling obstruction. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an Obama-despising conservative institution, as well as financial executives like the managing director of J.P. Morgan, want the debt ceiling raised.

- Are high gas and oil prices having a real impact on your family's budget? The Republicans say "F you." Republicans in the Senate voted to protect subsidies for big oil companies, who have made billions in windfall profits thanks to high prices, choosing their corporate benefactors over the American people (not to mention blowing an opportunity to cut into the deficit and perpetuating a dependence on oil that has grave national security, economic and environmental implications for the United States).

I could go on (global warming denying, birther-coddling, union-busting, etc.), but the Republicans repeatedly say "F you" to everyone in this country except for the elite wealthy and big corporations. The party has moved so far to the right, its core policies are far out of the American mainstream. No wonder so many Republicans are dropping out of the presidential race, including Daniels, who would have to surrender his carefully developed persona as a reasonable, pragmatic leader if he wanted to have even a prayer of getting through the far-right-dominated GOP primary process.

I know Daniels is worried about the scrutiny on his past marital problems, but I can't help wonder if, at least in part, he just didn't want to be the standard bearer for the Party of F You.

It's Been a Bad Week for GOP Lies About Obama

[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]

A study came out this week demonstrating, not surprisingly, that pundits and politicians tend to be consistently wrong with their predictions. (As an aside, I was not surprised but quite happy to see that Paul Krugman was rated as the most accurate prognosticator, with former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, Sen. Charles Schumer, and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi close behind; George Will was among the least accurate.)

It made me think of how, from the time Barack Obama stood on the steps of the Capitol and took the oath of office, Republicans made destroying him politically their number one priority. In doing so, facts were optional (death panels and socialism, anyone?). After all, like the study shows, they could make all kinds of outlandish threats and predictions, and they didn't have to be (and weren't) correct.

But as the last week or two unfolded, I was struck by how several news events absolutely obliterated three of the top lies told by Republicans to try and bring down the president (no matter the cost to the country).

1. President Obama is soft on terrorism/won't protect the country/is a Muslim sympathizer. From the time Obama took office, he has had to contend with a Republican campaign to portray him as week on national security. The attacks really took off after the unsuccessful attempt by the "underwear bomber" on Christmas Day 2009, as the Republicans engaged in what Steve Benen brilliantly described as a "collective display of pants-wetting."

But the record shows that Obama has been more aggressive than his predecessor was in targeting and killing terrorist group leaders, including authorizing more drone attacks. But the last couple of weeks really made the Republican scare tactics look downright silly. First, NATO bombed Muammar el-Qaddafi's home, killing his son. Then, putting nearly 10 long years of frustration to bed, Obama authorized a daring and well-planned operation to kill Osama bin Laden at his retreat in the suburbs of Islamabad. (Remember, George W. Bush didn't prioritize catching or killing bin Laden.)

And while terrorists may be able to strike in the United States no matter what precautions are taken by the president, it is telling that the greatest domestic terrorist attack of the last 100 years took place on Bush's watch (despite being given a memo in August 2001 entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"), but, to date, under Obama, no foreign attacks have been successful on U.S. soil.

Based on the week's events, Republicans will look idiotic if they again try to engage in scare tactics based on an idea that Obama isn't capable of keeping the American people safe.

2. President Obama wants to raise your taxes. These attacks were works of pure fiction, given that Obama campaigned that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making more than $250,000 per year, and would cut taxes on most families below that range. And what did he do? Exactly what he promised. In fact, he went beyond his campaign promise, agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone, including the wealthy. The result? The Bureau of Economic Analysis just found that Americans now enjoy their lowest tax burden since 1958.

You can argue the wisdom of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (I think it was a horrible decision that will further increase the deficit while helping nobody who needs assistance). But despite the fear mongering tactics of Republicans who promised the American people Obama wanted raise their taxes, he has been a tax-cutting president.

3. President Obama wasn't born in the United States. The thing is, it's not like anyone with a quarter of a brain actually doubted Obama's place of birth. After all, he released a scan of his birth certificate in 2008, and Honolulu newspapers reported his birth at the time. But on April 27, as unnecessary as it was, Obama released his long-form birth certificate, putting the issue to rest once and for all.

Many Republicans claim they never questioned Obama's place of birth, and that the birthers represented a small percentage of the party. But even days before Obama released his long-form birth certificate, a CBS News/New York Times poll showed that 45 percent of Republicans believed the president was born outside of the United States. And more importantly, most Republican politicians and pundits who claimed not to be birthers offered only lukewarm dismissals of such claims, refusing to condemn those that questioned the location of the president's birth.

The release of Obama's birth certificate has given Americans a lot of questions to ask themselves: Why did Republicans spend so much time on a patently ludicrous accusation, even while the country was grappling with important problems, including a struggling economy, two wars, and national security, just to name a few? What does it say about a party that would conduct its business that way? And why was this president hit with this kind of an accusation? Nobody asked John McCain for his birth certificate or doubted his eligibility for the presidency, even though he was actually born outside of the continental United States (in the Panama Canal Zone). To be clear, I am not challenging McCain's eligibility. It would be ludicrous to do so because he was legally qualified to run. I am only pointing out that McCain didn't have to endure this kind of scrutiny about his place of birth. Why do you think that is?

Bonus Lie: President Obama is a socialist trying to nationalize industries, as evidenced by the automobile bailout. When, shortly after taking office, Obama decided to bail out Chrysler and General Motors to avoid two million lost jobs at a time when the country was already reeling from high unemployment, he was met with criticism from Republicans. Sen. Richard Shelby, a month before Obama took office, said that attempts to help the auto companies were "only delaying their funeral." But a funny thing happened on the way to the funeral home. By 2010, with the auto makers prospering and getting ready to go public again, Obama declared the bailout a success.

And drowned out by the bigger stories of this week, GM quietly announced Thursday it has tripled its profits.

GOP claims about Obama's actions in the auto industry have been proven to be wrong.

Republicans have been portraying Obama as a socialist, someone out of the political mainstream, since he took office. But the facts show that this just another GOP lie. One third of Obama's stimulus bill was made up of tax cuts, he extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and his health care overhaul, rather than cut out the private insurers, instead handed them millions of new customers. And, of course, his 2012 budget proposal includes a five-year freeze on domestic spending and cuts to a bevy of programs that help low-income Americans and the environment.

Again, you can argue the merits of his proposals, but the Republican lies about Obama's ideological position have been exposed. And the news of GM prospering is just the latest example of Republicans mischaracterizing the president. He never intended to nationalize the industry.

In any event, at a time when the country faces important decisions to make and short- and long-term problems to address, no real effort is being made to come up with solutions, and no real debate is taking place, mainly because Republicans are too busy doing whatever they can to politically destroy the president, often by making false claims about him. But the events of the last two weeks have highlighted the strategy, revealing so many GOP assertions as being straight-out wrong.

I have no hope that the Republicans will change how they operate. But I do hope the American people have taken notice and will react accordingly.

Democrats Have to Stand Up to the GOP's Budget Proposals, Even If It Means a Government Shutdown

[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]

As I write this, we are hours away from a government shutdown, as, for the time being, the Democrats and the president have failed to cave in to the far-right, potentially catastrophic budget demands of the Tea Party-owned Republicans on Capitol Hill. (And if you think I'm being unfair in categorizing the GOP, I'm not. John Boehner said there is "no daylight" between him and the Tea Party on the budget.)

A government shutdown could be damaging to the country. And yet, my message to the Democrats is simple and straight-forward: Hold the line, and do not fold. The Republican budget, not just the massive cuts (which would disproportionally impact the poor, working class and middle class), but the ideologically-driven, far-right agenda embedded in it, is completely unacceptable. As bad as a shutdown would be, allowing the Republicans to win would be far worse for the country.

There are two main reasons why I think this is a worthy battle for the Democrats to fight, one political and one substantive.

Politically, it is unreasonable for the Republicans, who control only one of the three institutions that have to agree to any deal (barring a veto override), to dictate the terms of the budget. In 2009 the Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate (eventually with 60 votes) and the House, and yet the Republicans fought tooth and nail, deploying every delay tactic at their disposal, to prevent the Democrats from enacting any legislation, even though the Democrats' legislative plan closely followed the proposals President Obama laid out as a candidate.

The Democrats need to equal the Republicans' resolve. If the Democrats didn't have a mandate in 2009 (according to the Republicans, anyway), then the Republicans certainly don't have one now. There is no political reason to cave in to the GOP/Tea Party, especially as two new polls find that Americans would blame the Tea Party for a shutdown, and another reveals that Americans would blame the Republicans in Congress more than the Democrats or the president.

As important as the political aspect of the budget battle is, it is even more vital that the Democrats prevent the substance of the Republicans' budget proposals from making it into the final legislation. Certainly, the Democrats may have no choice but to accept some spending reductions in the final budget. But there are two key points on which the Democrats have to hold the line: First, they have to ensure that important programs that serve the poor, working class and middle class are spared. With unemployment still high (caused by a near financial system collapse), and with the Bush tax cuts for the rich in place, it is patently immoral to address the federal budget deficit solely on the backs of the middle and lower classes, while allowing the wealthy, the only group to prosper financially in the 2000s, to take on none of the burden.

Second, the Democrats have to prevent the Republicans from using the false hysteria over debt and deficits to push through the laundry list of traditional far-right items the GOP budget contains (e.g. attacks on abortion, Planned Parenthood, NPR, etc.). (And make no mistake, the hysteria is false. If Republicans were truly concerned with the deficit, the party wouldn't have insisted on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which will cost the country more revenue than the amount of the spending cuts in the Republican budget proposal.)

The Republican budget, the brainchild of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), seeks, essentially, to do two things: Benefit the top one percent of earners in the country at the expense of everyone else, and turn the country back to 1929, with little or no protection for working Americans and a free hand to the wealthy and corporations to do what they please. (I've written before about Ryan's propensity to use wholly false numbers when pushing his draconian budget proposals.)

If Ryan's plan had a sound basis, at least there could be a rational discussion as to whether it would be worth the catastrophic cuts for long-term security. But as Ryan based his economic growth projections on numbers from the far-right Heritage Foundation, the benefits he touts are pure fantasy. Paul Krugman simply and clearly explains how Ryan's numbers on unemployment, Medicaid and government spending are complete works of fiction (or as Krugman puts it, depend "an awful lot on unicorn sightings").

So what do we get for buying into Ryan's work of fiction? Essentially, the conservative wish list dating back to 1929: Defunding the new health care law, cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that costs would significantly increase for senior citizens and the poor), cuts in education (including Pell grants), deep spending cuts on programs that benefit the poor, working class and middle class (like Head Start), cuts to consumer and environmental protection, cuts to veteran benefits (unthinkably immoral given the way the military has been stretched and abused in two wars over the last decade) and lower taxes for the wealthy and corporations, along with a culture war wish list of defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood, looking to limit environmental and consumer protection, and attacking abortion (like by redefining rape and authorizing IRS audits of abortions).

This budget is just the first step. Republicans want to repeal last year's financial regulation law, Dodd-Frank (which, to me, is unbelievable in light of the 2008 near financial collapse, but, again, we're talking about right-wing wish lists here, not anything with a basis in what is best for most Americans). And it's not just financial regulation. Rand Paul said that mining regulation is too expensive for companies (again, unthinkable in light of all the miner-related incidents in the last year).

The Republicans are pushing a far-right, Tea Party agenda. And we've seen in the last month how unpopular such an extreme approach was in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida.

In short, the policies pushed by the current crop of Tea Party-owned Republicans seek to benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else. They want to push traditional conservative policies on taxation and regulation that led to a near financial collapse and a deep recession just two and a half years ago (not to mention income and wealth disparities that haven't been this bad since the 1920s), they want to attach culture war social policies that a majority of Americans oppose to the budget, and they are willing to shut down the government to get what they want.

So with those stakes at hand, the Democrats have only one choice: Hold the line and don't let the Republican budget proposals, which would be so damaging to so many Americans, become law. A government shutdown would be awful. Letting the Republicans harm the country would be worse.