photo credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America

There may be a price to pay for intransigence.  Because of a deliberate attempt at self-sabotage by congressional republicans, an inability of Speaker Boehner to reign in tea party freshmen, and the likelihood of a substantial tax increase on more than 160 million Americans–something conservatives would normally consider anathema–they find themselves on the wrong end of poll numbers.

Given the need to bolster the economy, something only the President has seemed willing to do so far, Obama has made significant strides with the public on the country’s most pressing issues:

Obama’s gains have come at the expense of the Republicans in Congress and the GOP in general. By a 50% to 31% margin, people questioned say they have more confidence in the president than in congressional Republicans to handle the major issues facing the country. Obama held a much narrower 44% to 39% margin in March.

And the GOP’s overall favorable rating has dropped to six points, to 43%, since June, while the Democrats’ positive rating remained steady at 55%. “The Democrats do particularly well among middle income Americans, while the Republicans win support only from the top end of the income scale,” adds Holland.

Perhaps the strategy of congressional republicans is to continue its abject stonewalling, lest they risk making the economy better right before 2012 elections.  Politics before country doesn’t sound like a sound, winning strategy to me.  In a divided government, absolutism is the wrong play.   If their intended result was to achieve historically low congressional poll numbers, mission accomplished.

Related posts:

1. Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan Continues To Raise Questions Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 economic plan continues to get panned (pizza...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Should D.C. have representation in government?

While it may not seem important to some, there is a crisis brewing in the nation’s capital:

What might be required to enact change, Raskin said, is a “mass movement of protest to test the conscience of the nation. It’s clear that President Obama does not intend to be the personal leader of a liberation struggle. He’s dealing with multiple crises. This is not a crisis until the people of Washington make it one.”

D.C. residents are pissed, and rightly so.  They’ve always been the step-children in state rights discussions.  They’ve always been tapped for cash and concessions, but never allowed the kind of representation that goes along with that.

As a former resident of the city, it’s easy for me to feel the connection.  It’s equally hard to fathom the antipathy congressional leaders feel for the city.  City identification is strong for residents, and they recognize that American theology resides heavily with the idea of independent governance, self reliance and democratic representation.  None of that is prevalent in the district.

I can also understand the loss of faith in President Obama by D.C. denizens.  Trampling what little rights they possess in order to pursue an agreement with conservatives who gain nothing if the district is afforded state rights, seems like a slap in the face.

Herein lies the issue: how do political elites with nothing to gain, reconcile that difference with city residents and some politicians who believe in the right to home rule and state rights?

Shouldn’t this be a fight tea party people would want to get involved in?  The thought of taxation without representation is anathema to American ideals is it not?  Where is their outrage here?  More questions than answers.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I may be a tad bit late on this, but I wanted to add a little to this discussion.

I don’t know how many times I’ve discussed this, but I suppose it’s worth mentioning once more:  All black people do not live in a special box in black town.  We don’t all have the same opinions on everything, and we don’t all share one giant ebony brain.  We don’t send signals to one another when one of us has an original thought of our own.

That’s why this discussion between Cornel West and Al Sharpton is nothing but a tiny blip on the radar.  Sure it may make good television.  It’s may be entertaining for some to see two prominent men of color raging at one another.  In the end, it’s nothing but a disagreement.  We do have them from time to time.

As far as the content and context of the disagreement, well I tend to side with Reverend Al more than the good Dr. West.  Again that’s my opinion, and I am no more uncomfortable expressing it than the next black man who disagrees with me should be.  Black folks are not a monolith, despite how some try to paint us as such.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (AP/Scott) Applewhite)

Paul Ryan portrays his budget as an earnest attempt to reduce the deficit– a Herculean task to be sure.  But earnest practice isn’t equivalent to honest practice, and Ryan’s allegiance to the GOP core shines through quite clearly. I’m not certain how you manage to reduce the deficit simply by slashing spending programs, while significantly cutting taxes.

How does this prevent the deficit from ballooning again in the future?  The funds collected from your spending cut rampage are piled back into the kitty in order to pay for tax cuts–leaving you bare on the revenue side.  So in a few years you would have repeated the cycle of ballooning deficits you tried to tame in the first place.

I don’t have an issue with the idea behind the plan.  We are in dire financial straits, and most Americans are unaware of just how serious our deficit problems are.  Will there be pain and sacrifice in alleviating this debt?  Undoubtedly.  All of us will feel some measure of pain.  And this is where the reality does not meet the rhetoric for Ryan and the GOP.

In Ryan’s plan,  the devil is most certainly in the details. Where is the real sacrifice on the part of Ryan and conservatives?  This plan is littered with tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations.  Why are they exempt?  What are they willing to give?  Why doesn’t Ryan match the draconian spending cuts he advocates with tax increases?  If we all must pay a price, I see no reason why the wealthy should be spared.  Ryan’s plan gets more than two trillion dollars from poor and middle class folks.  Where is the balance?  How is this shared sacrifice? Give us a fair, non-partisan attempt at a deficit solution congressman. Then I will call you brave.   But for now, this plan falls short, and it’s just another in a long line of partisan attempts to remake policy that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

And now Mr. President, the ball is in your court.  Articulating a message to the American people about the pain we all must share in order to reduce our deficit, will short circuit Ryan’s short sighted, heavily slanted approach.  It is not enough to cut discretionary spending.  Not only is it implausible, it’s reckless policy–and it’s one of the reasons we’re faced with our current situation.  We’ve lived on the precipice of fiscal irresponsibility for so long, we must pay the price sooner or later.  I see no reason why that price should be borne solely on the backs of Americans with little or no means.  That is morally not an option in this case.  Not this time.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I think we all know the answer to that question.  In the event you do not, listen to Congressman Jim McGovern attempt to draw a parallel–and expose the hypocrisy of conservatives–looking to cut funding for National Public Radio:

The amendment fell short, and Fox News continues to provide highly biased news unscathed. 

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Do unions drive state budgets into Debt?  Check out the dueling graphs presented by John Sides and try to draw your own conclusions.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I haven’t written anything on what’s taking place in Wisconsin yet.  Rather than go off half-cocked, I’d much prefer giving a more enlightened opinion, without resorting to my own pre-determined feelings on the issue.  This issue is rather timely for me also, as it coincides with my take on  teachers unions, and their effects on our public educational system.

For now, check out this short clip put together by heritage.org.  It gives you a bit of perspective on the impasse from different angles–although it’s slanted toward Governor Scott Walker and his conservative legislation.

For those of you unsure as to what is going on in the upper Midwest, here is a great primer for you.  Immerse yourself in the process from  different political angles, and draw your own conclusions.

Ezra Klein speaks about what niether side wants to admit:

State and local budgets are in bad shape. They’ll need deep reforms across a variety of categories, from tax increases to service cuts to changes to employee compensation. But the focus on public employees — and the accompanying narrative that they’re greedy and overcompensated — obscures a lot of that: It makes it seem as if the decisions that have to be made are easy and costless and can be shunted onto an interest group that some of us, at least, don’t like. It’s the Republican version of when liberals suggest we can balance the budget simply by increasing taxes on the rich. But it’s not true.

Pain will be a necessary result of fixing this mess, but neither side is willing to capitulate.  At all.  The end result is the protest-fueled melodrama playing itself out.  If Scott Walker is as serious as he claims about reducing the state deficit, is he willing to acquiesce to demands of tax increases on corporations?  Are unions willing to pay more than the 1% they’re currently paying toward their pensions?

We will see.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

America is at an impasse.  The drain and worry that leaves Americans fraught with anxiety is not just perception–it is very real.  The America I grew up in stood for promise and strength– no matter the hour– no matter the challenge.  But what if the challenge we face does not come from outside enemy?  What if malaise and stagnation are the impediments to progress?  What if we are lacking the courage to fortify the very principles necessary to broaden our vision and renew our global purpose?

To combat the trending angst, The Progressive Policy Institute has crafted a marvelous piece full of policy initiatives– that just might kick the tires of  rejuvenation– and get them back on track toward our economic resurgence.

The challenge, as PPI sees it, is for the president to recognize our immense promise as a nation–and channel that spirit to significantly boost America’s future prospects.

The president–who I’ve said countless times is pragmatic in approach and countenance–should now take this moment to issue a bold, pragmatic approach to renewing the American spirit.  Let me share the ten ideas suggested by PPI for President Obama:

1. A regulatory improvement commission
2. A national infrastructure bank
3. A way to pay for high-speed rail
4. Restoring fiscal discipline in Washington
5. A balanced energy portfolio
6. An energy security innovation fund
7. Bringing public education into the 21st century
8. Lifting housing markets by issuing one million homeowner vouchers
9. Align innovation and immigration
10. Finding a fair way to finance elections

It’s the definitive go big approach to presidential leadership– one which I endorse enthusiastically.  This approach hearkens back to the days of JFK’s notion of freedom, service, and idyllic prosperity.  JFK’s aims called for us to “imagine the torch being passed, and the trumpet sounding us to action.”  America is innovative, and she has always been able to forge a path impossible to chart by the rest of the world.  The president in his speech tonight, should emphasize this.  Idealism and optimism speak of real power.  It’s time for our nation to recapture and use that power.

PPI’s focus primarily buttresses the need for bold leadership.  After two major political upheavals in two years, the American people are clearly searching for new ways to regain their confidence in their nation, and in their leaders.  Now is the time to fill the vacuum, and transform the political and ideological landscape by transforming the way we see ourselves.

Leadership means having the courage to face down institutional resistance, and the boldness to reclaim the world stage with fresh ideas.  Now is the time to cultivate and nurture an expansive view on American economic resurgence.  Investing in our infrastructure, reforming the tax code, and ushering in a new immigration policy would be defined as big, bold ideas.  This piece by PPI encapsulates that perfectly.

I highly encourage all of you to check out PPI’s list of big, bold initiatives in full.  It is worth the read, and it will remind you all just how great we can be if we choose.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Image via Wikipedia

What is the health care end game? Matthew Continetti thinks he knows the answer to that question:

Now, one chamber of Congress has voted for repeal, more than half the states are challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual health insurance mandate, and the law remains unpopular. Health care spending and premiums continue to rise, and the president’s claim that the law allows you to keep your health plan has been proven false. Can somebody remind us why the law’s supporters continue to think they have the winning hand?

The truth is that if Republicans in the 112th Congress spent the next two years doing nothing but debating the health care law, beginning to dismantle it, and offering alternatives, they would have real momentum heading into the 2012 election.

This is the golden goose tea party conservatives would like stowed in their sack of goodies.  In fact, if this scenario did play out, I cannot imagine them being any happier.

Here’s the problem:  two years of fastidious debate focused solely on health care and its immediate repeal would do nothing to: A) offer any attempts at remedying our economic conditions, and: B) dispel the idea conservatives are not concerned with the ballooning deficit.  Taking into account repealing PPACA would immediately increase the deficit, the latter point is even more cogent.

If Continetti has his way, his party would remain out of touch with the majority of Americans, who did not sweep the GOP into office because of health care–but the conditions of unemployment and slow employment.  This would not be a path conducive to keeping power.

I am a proponent of the health care bill.  Any attempt to insure more Americans by expanding access, is an important and necessary action.  Is it perfect?  By no means, and that is why it would be more prudent to work proactively to fix pieces of the law that are weakest–and re-examine employer-based insurance and the obscene incentives insurance companies reap.

Health care should always be a discussion worth having–especially considering the huge segment of our economy affected by it.  Having the wrong conversation is a waste of time.  Do we really need two more years like we experienced leading up to the midterms?

H/T: Daily Dish

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The GOP-controlled house has managed to successfully repeal the health care bill.  The repeal, rooted in symbolic political pandering, does nothing to advance any real attempt at crafting an alternative–or remedying specific aspects of the bill.  But it’s not shocking that the GOP’s leadership is rooted in partisan preening.

To further complicate things, republicans are now pushing the democrats are obstructionists meme, by claiming the democratically controlled senate’s push to kill debate on the newly repealed bill is tantamount to obstruction–unworthy of our debate.  The irony here is rich of course, and it presupposes the American electorate is brain dead.  Wasn’t this the modus operandi of the  republican party the last two years?

Here’s the crux of the problem:  Partisans on both sides of the debate (but mainly on the right)  have minimized the importance of actual issues, causing our political debate to wither.  Sanctimony, pettiness, and overreach have all crept into the discourse–made all the more potent by the toxic blend of fear-mongering and faux nationalism.

This is where the president must show a deft touch.  He realizes the limitations that occur trying to implement a legislative agenda during times of political change– and he must comport himself with the dignity and patience the office requires of him.  It is not his role to denigrate and abuse the opposing party–even when that party has done nothing but vilify his intentions, refute his citizenship status,and distort his record.  He cannot be a rubber stamp for a progressive agenda, which ignores the realities of today’s electorate.

President’s Obama‘s style is not fire and brimstone, and it’s not about confrontation.  It’s a dynamic pragmatism, cultivated from years of his own experience.

It’s only two weeks into this divided government experiment, but so far the cool of presidential leadership seems to be the steadying hand most of us thought it would be.

The next two years should be fun.

Photo courtesy of Jessica Rinaldi, Reuters

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.