Sometimes it’s Good to be the Underdog

When you’re the underdog the pressure is off: the expectations are low, and in the off-chance you do win a handful of people stand to win big in their NCAA Basketball Tournament office pools.

The same principle works for the minority party in Congress. The expectations of you actually passing your legislation is low, so you may as well shoot for the stars. Both parties do this when they find themselves in the minority and the House Republicans are no exception. They unveiled a revised budget proposal, that, unlike their last alternative to the Obama budget, is heavy on details. And, in the off-chance these underdogs win, a handful of people do stand to win big, but at a greater cost to the losers than $10 and the shame of watching Louisville lose in the Elite Eight.

From the Washington Post:

House Republicans Unveil Revised Budget Proposal

By Lori Montgomery

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 2, 2009; Page A06

After getting blasted last week for presenting a budget plan light on details, House Republicans yesterday unveiled a more complete proposal that would cut taxes for businesses and the wealthy, freeze most government spending for five years, halt spending approved in the economic stimulus package and slash federal health programs for the poor and elderly.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, said the plan would stabilize the rising national debt by requiring the nation to borrow about $6 trillion over the next 10 years, $3.3 trillion less than would be required under the budget request submitted by President Obama.

Annual deficits also would be slightly lower than under the revised budget plans that emerged last week from the House and Senate budget committees. The revised Democratic proposals would require the nation to borrow about $4 trillion over the next five years, compared with $3.1 trillion in new borrowing under the GOP alternative.

Still, the national debt would continue to climb under the GOP plan, topping out at around 75 percent of the economy, Ryan said — an improvement over Obama’s proposal but a good deal higher than the 40 percent debt the nation was running before the recession began.

The proposal comes as the House and Senate debate Obama’s $3.5 trillion spending plan for the fiscal year that begins in October. Leaders in both chambers expect the Obama plan to pass easily when final votes are held by the end of the week.

While the minority party in Congress typically offers an alternative budget plan that is widely ignored, this year’s proposal has drawn fresh attention thanks to the scathing GOP criticism of Obama’s budget plans and the president’s challenge to the GOP to offer a constructive alternative.

Republicans cast their budget plan as just that, with Ryan saying it offers “lower spending, lower deficits, lower debt and more jobs.” Democrats argued that the GOP proposal relies on massive cuts to social programs, measures that even many Republicans would resist.

“It’s hard to believe you can get to where they say they’re going to get to without doing some things the American people would reject,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

Okay, John McCrazy

I love old people. They have wonderful stories and everything they’ve seen or done is interesting to me because they involve experiences I will never have. I will never live through the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s. I will never remember what it was like when JFK was assassinated. I will never milk my own cow and sell the cream to buy food for my family. I will never know what it was like to graduate from high school in the 1970’s. Old people are wonderful.

That said – there are some old people who are also crazy. How can you tell if you are just old or old and crazy?

Well, meet Chief Crazy Old Person, aka Nearly Commander-in-Chief Crazy Old Person:

Senator John McCain, as in almost our President John McCain, thinks that the challenge in Afghanistan is “not as tough as Iraq” and success in Afghanistan is not dependent on success in Pakistan.

Old people tell great stories. I work with a few – they start every conversation with how things were twenty years ago. Crazy old people tell especially good stories. Usually though, these don’t end with fundamentalist terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons owned by a very fragile Pakistan.

Recessions are harmless too. Really.

As the recession deepens, I can’t help but think Republicans hate poor people. No, wait. Everyone. They must hate everyone.

I know a lot of people who have been personally affected by the bad economic climate. I have friends who’ve been laid off, and my own job isn’t secure for the long-term. My boyfriend and I luckily live in a tiny apartment and don’t have a mortgage or children, but I do have a lot of debt thanks to my education and past spending habits. I don’t feel like we’re poor, but I do feel some loathing from the Republican Party.

There’s a segment of the Republican Party that feels like if you’ve fallen on hard times it’s your fault. They’re right. It’s your fault if you bought into the “American Dream”. If you mortgaged your future on your $30,000-a-year job to buy a house in the suburbs, an SUV, i-pods for the kids, then you deserve to literally have the rug pulled out from under you and the front door locked. The car repossessed and the i-pods sold on e-bay (for pennies). You knew you couldn’t afford that stuff, but you somehow allowed yourself to believe the spending was validated by the fact the banker gave you the loan for the house and the credit card repeatedly increased your limit.

The banks bundled your risky loan with other risky loans and sold them. The credit card company hedged its bets on making loads of money of your mostly interest-only minimum monthly payments. Stores and companies made money off the stuff you bought…everyone makes money as you spend, spend, spend. New companies made new products with new flashy commercials and you want, want, want. You thought you were living the American Dream. You had stuff and a house and a job. Then you lost the job, and the house quickly followed.

Now those same people who made you want, want, want and profited off your spending are blaming you for own irresponsible spending. It is your fault. It’s my fault too – but it’s hard to not be irresponsible when there are so many things out there to want and buy. I don’t think we spenders should be “bailed out” or let off the hook entirely. I just want those Republicans out there who harbor loathing towards those who need help to see that the private enterprise they love so much holds a share of the blame.

Volcanoes are harmless.

I live around 50 miles from Mt. St. Helens. Mt. St. Helens is an active volcano. You may remember it erupting May 18, 1980.

The pictures above are of Mt. St. Helens before and after the 1980 eruption.

That’s the funny thing about volcanoes – they erupt. We can figure when they’ll erupt by using science. Science costs money. Sometimes private industry invests in science, because science can make money. Sometimes government has to invest in science, because the science doesn’t make money. Studying volcanoes doesn’t make a lot of money, so government has to invest in it, because no one else will. Which is funny because natural disasters like volcanoes cost private industry a lot of money – like logging companies, for example. Insurance companies could invest in such things I guess, but that’s just so they know how much to charge people for insurance. I assume they’d rather not because studying volcanoes just to determine the risk of eruption for insurance purposes seems rather expensive. So it seems like this sort of responsibility lies with government. Investing in valuable science that private industry won’t because it’s not profitable seems like just the thing we’d want our government to invest in. To protect us. To protect our towns, our livelihoods, our health.

Instead of monitoring volcanoes, maybe we should be monitoring is the eruption of stupidity in the Republican Party.

Look at Me! I’m sick of politics!

I’m watching the final presidential debate and despite the ten minutes spent devoted to the negative campaigning over the past few weeks (see: Bill Ayers, The Sarah Palin Mob Rallies, ACORN), I’m bored. I’m ready for this campaign to be over. I know how I’m voting and frankly, undecided voters need to decide already: you have two, clear choices. Pick one.

We have three weeks left. Three weeks of increasingly negative ads, three weeks of internet rumors (no, Obama is not a Muslim. But what if he was? Who cares?), three weeks of pandering, three weeks of blah blah blah.

Oregon votes by mail, which I should receive next week. So between now and then I’m going to focus on who I’m going to vote for locally. Particularly, whether or not to vote for Congressman Wu, my district’s democratic incumbent. He voted against the bailout which really frustrated me.

—-Debate Update—-

Now we’re talking about energy in the debate:

Off-shore drilling.

First, read Thomas Friedman’s new book. Off-shore drilling? Drill baby drill? As Friedman points out, no one agrees more with those chants and that energy policy than the Saudis and the middle eastern oil barons we are so desperate to break ties with. Yes, please, let’s drill so that
we can get our oil fix. We’re like heroin addicts who don’t like their supplier so they try to get some from their friend, but their friend doesn’t have very much so they end up having to go back to the supplier.

Second, there is no such thing as clean coal. Again citing Friedman, it’s interesting to note that the swing states in the past few states are mostly coal states – Ohio, Pennsylvania – and coal states aren’t going to vote against coal.

—

Anyway, Oregon is a fairly solid blue state, so I’m hoping my friends in Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, and Florida vote…and vote for Obama.

Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate!

The Neighbor Vote

I’m stealing this from someone else’s blog, that was posted to a message board. I just think it’s clever:

Stop voting for people you want to have a beer with. Stop voting for folksy. Stop voting for people who remind you of your neighbor. Stop voting for the ideologically intransigent, the staggeringly ignorant, and the blazingly incompetent.

Vote for someone smarter than you. Vote for someone who inspires you. Vote for someone who has not only traveled the world but who has also shown a deep understanding and compassion for it. The stakes are real and they’re terrifyingly high. This election matters. It matters. It really matters. Let me say that one more time. This. Really. Matters.

Sarah Palin Scares Me.

In today’s CNN “Poll of Polls” McCain has pulled in front of Obama, 47% to 45%. While it’s no question that McCain got a bounce coming out of the RNC, how much can he attribute his current poll figures to his vice presidential pick?

This week Sarah Palin is literally on every cover: from US Weekly to Time, she’s everywhere. She will undoubtedly provide water cooler fodder for the months to come. She hunts moose, she has a pregnant teenage daughter, she doesn’t have a masters degree, she has blue collar roots, she goes to church, she has five children. She, for the first time in a long time, is a major candidate that embodies the American people. She didn’t go to Harvard, she doesn’t come from a political family or money. I think that resonates with middle America more than anything else…she’s just like the rest of us. While I think it’s encouraging that someone without an Ivy league education or a trust fund can possibly be Vice President, I don’t think Sarah Palin is the right person for the job. In fact, she terrifies me.

She terrifies me first for purely political reasons. Her down home country bumpkin persona has ignited the Republican base. Even more so, her conservative religious beliefs have ignited a base that was otherwise apathetic to McCain. Consequently, she scares me. As an Obama supporter, right-wing conservative voters coming out in droves to vote for what they see as “one of their own” in November is more than a little frightening.

She also terrifies me for more ideological reasons. She is, at least from what I know about her, my ideological opposite. This is a person who opposed adding polar bears to the list of Endangered Species to protect Alaskan oil exploration. She believes creationism should be taught in public schools; supports off-shore, on-land, whenever, wherever drilling (was “Drill now” really chanted at the RNC?); and would take away a woman’s right to choose in a heartbeat. I like the environment and think we should work to protect it and I think drilling will not only fail to solve any of our problems, it will create more. I think the Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest pieces of environmental protection legislation we have (well, it’s surviving anyway…barely) and bypassing it for economic gain is so, so…George W. Bush. I also think teaching a particular religion’s view of how the world began is completely contradictory with the separation of church and state, a pillar this country was founded on. The same country Palin fervently maintains she “puts first”.

Finally, she terrifies me for purely practical reasons. Yes, Alaska is closer to Russia than any other part of the United States, but geographical proximity does not translate to experience! Furthermore, it’s not like Russian immigrants are braving the Bering Sea on rafts to reach the promised land in Alaska. On that note, governors of Texas, Arizona, California, Florida, and New Mexico have more foreign relations experience than a governor from Alaska. Quebec is essentially French AND Canadian, so think of the foreign relations experience the Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine governors have! Yes, being a mayor and a governor provides administrative experience. However, 2 years as governor of Alaska is a far cry from governing one of the most powerful countries on the planet.

As McCain enjoys the bounce provided by the RNC and his VP choice, I only hope this new support in McCain support is short-lived…or limited to the red states.

The Working Mom Issue

After letting the Palin pick set in for a few days and after talking to a few Republicans and Democrats I realize, that when it comes to working mothers, many still hold as much resentment as they did when then First Lady Hillary Clinton made that comment about not baking cookies. Coincidentally, I am baking cookies right now. Cookies for lunch and dinner = perfect Sunday. Anyway, I’m sure you remember that comment and how up in arms certain groups were. Well, certain groups of mothers in my hometown in western Kansas anyway. Working instead of staying home to raise children was a slap in the face to some stay-at-home moms. Instead of careers they spent their days shuttling kids to and from school and band practice, and yes, baking cookies.

Now, sixteen years later, and potentially a working mother in the White House as a Republican, this discrimination towards mothers with careers seems to still exist. I discussed this my grandmother who found it difficult to believe a mother with a new baby would even think of running for such a high office. And what about the other children? Will they even see their mother for the next four years? Will they have to move to DC? I agreed, that it will undoubtedly be hard for the family to adjust. However, I did not point out that many men have ran for the high post with small children. In fact, no one has mentioned the fact that Obama himself has two young children. How men handle the work/family balance is simply not part of the national discussion. The irony is that those voters who may have a problem with a working mother in the White House may be the same voters who traditionally vote Republican.

I’d be a terrible stay-at-home mom. I just burnt my second batch of cookies…

A PALEN in the White House?!

Sarah Palin. My last name is Palen. It’s pronounced the same, spelled almost the same, probably originated in the same village in Luxembourg. We’re probably related. Well, I guess her husband and I are.

Despite her cool last name (and its obviously incorrect spelling), I’d rather not see Gov. Palin as our next Vice President. The reality is Sen. McCain is old. Ageism? Maybe. But the reality is he is old. Really old. And he’s had health problems. We know how much the presidency ages a person – even W has gray hair now – will McCain really be able to lead for the next four years, or god help us, eight? So, its very prudent to consider the possibility of his Vice President actually taking over the post at some point. So, President Palin (it does have a nice ring to it…)? Even Vice President Palin. VP Palin, who until 2006 was mayor of a town of around 8,000 people, then the governor of Alaska, a state of around 670,000 people. Is the McCain camp still using the lack of experience argument against Obama?

Given her lack of experience I, and everyone else in America, can’t help but wonder: WTF? Well, she does add some things to the ticket. Her values appeal to the evangelical Christian right (yawn). She can also help the “Hey – We’re for Change Too!” campaign ploy. And, in case you haven’t heard, she is a woman. We women are still up in arms over Hillary’s defeat, so we’ll happily vote for the next pair of X chromosomes we see. Wrong. Thanks for the shameless pandering, but no thanks, Sen. McCain. First, Palin is no Hillary. Hillary has years of experience in domestic and foreign policy – as first lady in both Arkansas and D.C., and as a U.S. Senator. Palin has years of experience in Wasilla, Alaska politics. Second, Palin does not represent women’s interests. Yes, I know there are plenty of socially conservative women voters who hate their bodies and the choices they can make with them as much as their male counterparts. But these women won’t vote for Obama in November anyway. For the rest of us, those of us who supported Hillary, the fact Palin is a woman won’t make an ounce of difference. The fact that she’s a social conservative will.

Maybe someday we’ll see a PalEn in the White House, but I hope not in January 2009.