A politician who has been there for 15 years cannot "not" be part of the problem with government.

A politician who has voted for all of this bad policy, without the actual regulations having been written, without having even done the diligence of reading the regulation she has voted for can point to all the pork she wants. It doesn't change the facts - she has had a major hand in creating the massive challenges that our nation now faces, and doesn't deserve to either represent us, nor be paid a pension or the healthcare benefits we are being denied by the very legislation she voted for, which we'll be doing for the rest of her life.

Readers, FYI. There were a couple late copy changes which did not get picked up before publication Saturday a.m. The only one worth noting is this: I added at the end of the piece, in discussing the 1994 Democratic loss of a U.S. House majority, that President Clinton had been reelected in 1996. (Of course, after that, Dmeocrats regained a congressional majority and the White House as well in 2008).

They all must be defeated and I mean both Democrats and Repubs.

We must vote them all out NOW. These career pols are destroying
our country. These career pols are not for the people. These
career pols are doing the bidding for special interests and big
biz.

We as voters must vote them all out and keep doing it til something
changes. We can not keep going down the same roads and expect miracles.

It is past time we send a strong message to these career pols that we
have had enough.

Patty, it is time for you to retire and go find another job like us.
Go find a real job, lady.

When have the Republican's reached across the aisle to work with the Democrats? Their M.O. has been obstruct, obstruct and obstruct.

The Tea Party doesn't matter in 2010 elections. The election will fall to individual candidates and their opponents.

Senator Murray will succeed because she is a solid Senator and has delivered on the Howard Hanson dam, the South Park bridge, tranportation projects across the state and Sound Transit. Dino Rossi has been out of politics for years and hasn't cracked 50% even with his dramatic entry into the race.

2cents, try actually reading the garbage your "solid" senator has sold you out to with her votes. Also, you might try to not simply spout talking points. In the hyper-partisan world that is DC today, the Repubs were kept out of the room when these disastrous bills were written. You can't "reach across the aisle" when you are shut out.

Oh, and I did vote for Senator Murray in 2004. I actually learn from my mistakes.

@cleanhousein2010

When and where were the Republicans "kept out of the room"? Repeatedly President Obama has reached out to the Republicans. Senator Baucus consistantly held meetings with the Republicans on healthcare. The Republicans have offered nothing. They are still demanding unfunded tax cuts as their only answer. The Healthcare Reform Act used many of the ideas from previous Republican plans. You can't insist on sitting at the head of the table when you are not the ruling party.

Maybe you should look at facts before you complain about Senator Murray and the Democratic Party.

Ted -

Your comments seem stunningly out of touch. There are a number of things I disagree on.

Such as this:
"The Obama of 2008 promised to govern as a pragmatic problem solver, reaching across partisan and ideological lines to end the polarizations of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years. The Obama of 2009-10 has governed on an aggressively partisan basis....."

I mean who really believes any President that says they're going to reach across partisan divides? There are certain lies that the American press demands a Presidential candidate to say. That is one. Another is that they are Christian. Another is that they support war. Another is that they are for discrimination against gay people. Another is that they're going to seal the borders as tight as a drum.

When the Republican policy is to say NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, how do work with that? Obviously you don't. I applaud any Democrat who calls out the Republicans for the destructive, obstructionist party they are.

Have you forgotten this from Jim DeMint about 'breaking' Barack Obama? How do you work on a bipartisan basis with people like this?

Jim DeMint's comments on Barack Obama's Waterloo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHV4nDS501Y

I think what the author of this opinion piece and many other pundits tend to forget is that it was only eighteen months ago that we had a Republican administration and Congress that spent the previous eight plus years creating the environment that put us in the position we currently find ourselves. The question you should be asking and investigating is the one that asks if people are ready to go back to living with those GOP policies and their circumstances. Aside from some of the unsupported and broad generalizations made in the article, do you honestly think folks want to support and vote for the party under whose watch they saw their retirement and home values crater? Frankly, I can't think of any more important issue facing the voter in November.

2cents and others - the Repubs have offered nothing? Please refer to their healthcare proposal published during the healthcare debacle:

http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf

The Dems (for which I have historically voted for), have chosen, with their majorities in both houses of Congress, to ram bad legislation through, with limited debate and in fact, without public support. Working with the other parties means a willingness to sit down and work with them, something the Dems have repeatedly not done. If reaching across the aisle means voting for bad legislation, I'm glad the repubs have said NO. To simply blame the republicans for any of the problems we are facing is ludicrous. Both parties, and the federal legislature in particular, share blame in this. For instance, the real problems in the housing market stems from the Community Reinvestment Act, which sought to enable home ownership and loosened lending rules allowing people to buy homes when they were at real risk of not being able to afford. This resulted in the implosion we've seen in the housing market, as well as the dicey things that occurred on Wall Street and with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are still massive liabilities that the recent Financial Regulatory bill doesn't address AT ALL. As for other facts, the Dems have had control of Congress and the Senate since 2006, two years BEFORE George Bush's presidency ended. The Dems did nothing to slow government spending then, with Bush's complicity, and with a Dem President now, have increased spending and our debt at a historic rate in a way that even the administration admits is unsustainable. Other facts:

The Congress rushed through (with Senator Murray's support and likely having not read) a "Stimulus" Bill (ARRA) that was going to limit unemployment to 8% (Obama's words, not mine or the repubs). We are currently around 9.5%, with the rate increasing slightly month by month or holding steady. Even the President is now suggesting unemployment will remain at over 9% through 2011 or 2012. The net result being 1.5% higher unemployment than 'advertised", while saddling us with an additional $1 trillion of debt and deficit.

I have spent an enormous amount of time looking at the facts, thus my desire to see Senator Murray no longer representing this state in the Senate. My view is we need a government that is CUTTING SPENDING and pushing more money into OUR pockets at the local and individual level. We, The People, are the engine that drives the economy. The Senator, in my view, has proven to be nothing more than a Partisan who doesn't read the legislation she votes for, and certainly doesn't represent, through her actions, my views or the kind of government I expect.

Bella-

Wake up. Democrats were and still are in control of the House since 2006. Stop putting all the blame on GOP. What has Nancy Pelosi done since 2006? What has Patty done ? The answer is NOTHING. A BIG NOTHING.

DC has become a cespool of corrupt career pols who could not care less for the people. They all must go NOW. W

We can not keep sending the same career pols to DC and hope for miracles.
We can not keep sending Patty and het types to DC and hope for miracles.

It is past time to clean house NOW. Remember these caree pols are millioniars so they don't care. These career pols only care for their masters, the big biz, the big banks, and of course their DC lifestyles.

Clean house. Vote them out and keep doing it til Patty and her types get the message that we have had enough.

My final post: I am so sick of both parties. They both are serving the same Masters.

The K street project is still very much alive and well.
Clean house and keep cleaning house.

Enough is enough. Patty is not the solution.

@vader and @cleanhousein2010

Replacing a Senior Senator from the majority party with a freshman Senator from the minority party is pure idiocy. You are not sending a message to anyone.

Patty Murray and the Democrats balanced the budget in 2000. I am certainly not going to give the ball back to the Republican idiots who launched us into two unending wars and unfunded tax cuts.

We need to put people to work in this country. People need jobs to have pride in themselves and to develop skills to help themselves.

2cents-

really? Can you tell me why Patty did not read the legislatiosn she signed off on ? she does not care so I don't care if we need to send a freshman senator to DC.

No, Patty did not balance the budget in 2000. It was Bill Clinton who had to drag and beg Patty and her types to sign off on the balanced bill. It was Bill Clinton who today is still being blamced for losing Congress because of his actions. Bill wanted to balance because he felt that was the only way we could become a healthy nation again.

Patty did not do jack. Al Gore was the deciding vote in case people forgot.
Many democrats refused to sign off on the budget bill.

I and many of my family will vote against Patty and do it again the next time. People need to stop attaching themselves to the D and R labels. They are both the same.

Instead of a democratic agenda or repub's agenda, how about the people's agenda? Clean house.

2cents - while you are at it, why don't you explain why there is NO budget that Congress has put forth for this fiscal year - the majority party you are so excited about is in charge and could have put one forward. My guess why they haven't - because they don't want us to know what they will be spending. Being a Senior Senator is not a reason to send someone to Washington DC, and I'm not looking to send any message to anyone. I'm looking for sending someone to Washington to REPRESENT me, and my interests. What's the value of having any Senator who doesn't read the legislation they vote for - we could send a robot to DC to do that, and it would save us millions of dollars. Would you hire a lawyer to represent you if they never read the contract or the law that you need them to support you on? The legislation that has been passed by this Congress is a FRAMEWORK, it is relying on non-elected, appointed government bureaucrats and to-be-created agencies to actually write the laws that we'll have to follow. I expect my legislators to vote on the laws of this land, not to allow people out of oversight, accountability or control to create those laws. For me, that means that our elected officials are not necessary. Perhaps you might try actually reading the legislation your Senior Senator has voted for (I have and I do not agree with them), since from your comments I'd suspect you haven't. In my view, Ms. Murray is voting in a way that represents her parties agenda, not OUR agenda.

We agree complete that we need to put people to work in this country. However, as a business person, I can tell you I believe that the reason we have the employment problem in this country is because of the policies and environment that has been created BY OUR GOVERNMENT. I think the only way we are going to change that is to change the people who are creating and voting for those policies, whether they are Democrat or Republican. I''d rather have a junior Senator who is going to vote for actual legislation (not legislative frameworks), is going to reverse the growth of government which will allow growth, not limit it as is currently in force.

For your reading pleasure, perhaps you'd like to review this paper from the Harvard Business School, titled 'Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?' http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6420.html?wknews=052410, published on March 16, 2010. The gist of the study was, over a 40-year period, the study looked at increases in local earmarks and other federal spending that flowed to states after the senator or representative rose to the chairmanship of a powerful congressional committee. I'm sure the results will surprise you, but to give you a brief quote from one of the authors, Professor Joshua Coval "It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman's state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending."

Senior Senator? Sounds like a bad thing to me, especially based on her record.

@cleanhousein2010 and vader

Youse guys are all over the map, but you still haven't answered a simple question.

Why put the idiots who got us into this mess back in office? Republicans never offered financial reform or healthcare or anything but their tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts plan.

2cents-

Democrats and Repubs are the same.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/starbucksgate-crew-calls-investigation-white-house

Remember how we wanted to see all the emails that the Bush WH did not keep? So now Democrats are doing the same by not using official email system. They are all liars and corrupt pols including Democrats and Obama.

No difference. DC is a very corrupt place. Corrupt media and corrupt pols.
As long as lobbyists stuff campaign cash in a pol's pocket, it is biz as usual.

Notice the corrupt media never report it. Seen it on evening news? NOPE.

2cents,

While I believe we have given you very good reasons why Sen. Murray should not be sent back to DC as our Senator, I'll be very happy to answer your simple question.

Because the idiots who got us into this mess are in office. Earlier, you accused me of not looking at the facts, when I've given you many.

Some facts to back up this suggestion:

1) Since 2006, when the Dems took over the House and Senate, our national unemployment has risen from approx 5%, from 4.6% in 2006 to somewhere around 9.5% (that is the government statistic for unemployment, not the real number of under- or un-employed individuals, which is closer to 20%). This isn't George Bush's fault, it is OUR GOVERNMENT'S fault.

2) Since the Dems took over the House, Senate and Presidency in 2009, our national deficit has risen from approx $406B at the end of 2008 to more than $1.4T, an increase of more than 3x. We can argue whether this money spent is good or bad, based on the results versus the promises, I'd argue it's bad.

3) This Congress has done nothing to CUT government spending in a time where we are all having to tighten our belts, but spending like drunken sailors with mom and dad's credit cards.

4) Since the beginning of 2009, the number of civilian federal employees has increased to over 2.15 Million (not counting post office, military or federal police and who knows what other agencies I'm leaving out). In addition, with the government bleeding our money already in horrific economic times, the current Congress has voted to give the federal work force a 2% pay increase. We have to fund them, which means less money in our pocketbooks, and as I mentioned earlier, is an inhibitor of economic growth. Fewer people are working, and there are far fewer "rich" that our legislators can milk to pay for all of this madness, which means that our deficits are going to be even higher, and again, will slow our recovery, or they'll be raising taxes on all of us (which will be the net result of the allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire), and will likely be the recommendation of the so-called debt commission's recommendations will be).

4) Passing NO legislation can be better than passing BAD legislation. Having Healthcare legislation that will decrease the quality of care, while increasing cost and burden on an already overextended government budget isn't helping things, it's hurting things. I know and have spoken with many Doctors whom I respect, and none that I have spoken with believes this legislation does anything to LOWER COSTS, just allows government to mandate them. I earlier included a link to a republican healthcare reform proposal that was ignored by the government. Passing financial regulations that sets government-mandated quotas for hiring in institutions affected by that legislation doesn't necessarily mean that those institutions will be healthier. Nor does this same legislation stop taxpayer bailouts of said institutions, and it provide government with powers that in my view will limit growth in the private sector.

In my view, everything that has transpired since the idiots in Congress got the majority in 2006 has been to the detriment of this country, only to have accelerated since the checks and balances of our government were lost in 2009. So you and I agree, we shouldn't put the idiots who got us into this mess back in office. What we don't agree on is who those idiots are. I've given you a whole lot of factual evidence a to why I believe those idiots are in office. Can you give us any factual evidence that shows I'm wrong?

Bella -

I agree with your point completely, which is glossed over in this article:

From your comment:
"Do you honestly think folks want to support and vote for the party under whose watch they saw their retirement and home values crater? "

We have to remember the Republican party doesn't really exist anymore, at least in DC. It's merely a front group for the corporate welfare kings and wall street looters that have robbed the American people blind.

I guess commentators in the press really have no memory of how horrible things were under Cheney/Bush. Have we forgotten the fear tactics of "You're either with us or your with the terrorists" talk? Have we forgotten the fear tactics about a mushroom cloud from a nuke attack if we didn't invade Iraq? Have we forgotten about the cherry-picked intelligence and the fraud that led to the wars?

Putting Republicans like John Boehner in charge of anything more than a keg of beer and a tanning bed would be a huge mistake.

As a navy vet (and a drunken sailor on occasion) I appreciate and support Murray for her nay vote authorizing what turned out to be the invasion of Iraq. To date, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost this country approximately $1 Trillion U.S. dollars, thousands of US killed and tens of thousands casualties. That $1 trillion was unfunded and off the books during the Bush years. It is at least now being accounted for in our national budget and the true financial costs are only now beginning to be realized. Murray didn't drink the koolaid; she kept her head and weighed the facts.

A few other things for you 2cents,

In your note, you suggest that the reason to keep the party in power there is because they gave us healthcare reform, as well as financial reform. I didn't want Healthcare reform, especially when they focussed on that instead of the economy that they trashed. I want lower health insurance costs (something I suspect you want as well), but don't believe we'll get that from this (nor does the Congresssional Budget Office). We will get higher taxes for it starting next year, along with a bigger and more powerful Internal Revenue Service, but will realize none of it's supposed 'benefits' until 2014. That's a deal.

The financial reform bill also insists that "records be maintained and reported “for each branch, automated teller machine at which deposits are accepted, and other deposit taking service facility with respect to any financial institution, the financial institution shall maintain a record of the number and dollar amounts of deposit accounts of customers.” Why does our government need to have this information - especially since the Dems have traditionally decried any form of privacy violation, of which this is amongst the worst.

You also maintain the repubs say Tax Cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.... and what exactly is wrong with that? I don't think I'm getting adequate value for the taxes I pay today, so why do I need to pay more. And I like the sound of tax cuts, for more than "tax and spend", tax and spend, tax and spend" that seems to be the mantra of the party in power.

Reality is, I am far worse off today than I have been in over 30 years. I don't blame the Dems, I blame all of the corrupt politicians, on both sides of the aisle who have forgotten who they work for. I want to see them all replaced, because I think it's the only way we'll get back to them realizing they WORK FOR US. I can't influence or impact any of them, with the exception of my Senators, Congressman, and State Representatives. It's time to get citizens who are willing to change what is more broken now than it was 2 years ago, and unfortunately, Senator Murray, based on her record, is not someone who I have any confidence can or will do that.

Let's say you have a kid who is thinking of becoming a Marine or boots on the ground Army grunt. Do you really want Dino Rossi or Clint Didler to be in a position to decide your child's fate? I don't. I want someone who has already demonstrated the resolve and courage to say "No". That person is Murray.

Bella and Richard Borkowski, the economy, stock market and home values cratered with a Republican President, and a Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2008. What planet are you two living on?

The housing market crashed as a result of the Community Reinvestment Act, which was passed in 1977, under Jimmy Carter. when the Dems also had majorities in the House and the Senate. This act forced banks to make loans to under-qualified, high-risk applicants. The intent of the legislation was noble, but, in yet another glaring example of unintended consequences, created the environment that caused many unqualified borrowers to end up underwater when their housing values crashed. The liabilities for these bad loans caused the Wall Street crash, and amplified the massive liabilities that an unregulated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae still have, that we, the Taxpayers, are ultimately on the hook for. Attempts to regulate these to quasi-government entities were shot down by Democrats in Congress a number of times, including 2003 and 2005,. The current Financial Reform bill still has left these entities unregulated and unchecked. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

I want a senator who has the resolve and courage to say "No" to spending my money, taking away my money through more taxes, and saying "No" to her party. Senator Murray is not that person.

btw - ways the facts? She doesn't even read the legislation she votes on.

sorry - weighed the facts? She doesn't even read the legislation she votes on.

cleanhouse2010 -

You seem like one of those people who want it both ways. First you complain that you're not getting enough value from your taxes, which is why you want tax cuts. Then a couple posts later you say "The current Financial Reform bill still has left these entities unregulated and unchecked."

Well, it takes tax money to create entities to regulate business.

This is yet another reason why it's become dangerous to allow Republicans anywhere near government again. They want to deregulate business and make government 'smaller'. But then when the unregulated businesses, like the big banks take advantage of the lack of regulations and simply become greedy, the Republicans complain about the lack of regulation after disaster strikes, like our economy crashing.

Another example is BP. After their sloppy work in the Gulf caused the biggest oil disaster in world history, you have dopes like Republican Rand Paul saying that President Obama was 'UnAmerican" for criticizing British Petroleum. There were other Republicans that did something similar, most notably, Joe Barton, who apologized to the head of BP.

Like I said before, the Republican party doesn't exist anymore. The people in the party are merely proxies for the Corporations and they work very hard to defend everything the corporations do against America. With Patty Murray, we have someone who at least tries to serve her constituents.

She'll always have my support for voting against the Iraq War resolution. No task is more solemn than declaring war. The Republicans cheered gleefully for the illegal invasion of Iraq. They don't take their duties seriously and they're dangerous to have in Congress.

Richard,

You are missing my point. I want smaller, more effective, efficient government, something that we have not had for a long time, and that has grown worse in the last 18 months. We cannot afford big government, because it cannot be funded in the long term unless we ALL sign over 50 or 60% or more of our income to that government, something I don't want to do. Passing 2500 page bills that leave the actual laws unwritten isn't how to make laws nor create prosperity, which is what our CURRENT legislature has done. Creating 218 government agencies to write those regulations is neither effective or helpful. You claim the repubs are the shills for big business, yet ignore the fact that 11 of the top 15 recipients of campaign donations from Wall Street were Democrats. Chris Dodd, a Democratic Senator and Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee(and a thoroughly corrupt one at that) puts in at 3AM the night before the Senate voted on the ARRA bill, which Ms. Murray clearly did not read, an amendment that the Democratic Senate majority approved to protect $900M in bonuses for the very same banks you are damning. So don't tell me the repubs are proxies for corporations, both parties feed at that trough. I don't want it both ways. I want it one way. I want a Congress that represents We The People, that tells the truth, not lies out both sides of their mouths thinking we're stupid. I want small, readable, enforceable laws and regulations that don't require a raft of lawyers to interpret, that make it overly expensive to actually do business. I want to bring back more of OUR money into OUR pocketbooks, not to give to politicians who use it as largess to dole out to buy votes and campaign contributions. I want representation that doesn't take it's order from their party apparatchik, but from their constituents. Last I looked, Charlie Rangel isn't a Republican. Our Tax Cheat in Chief, Tim Geitner isn't either. The truth is, both parties in DC are corrupt and shills for big corporations and special interests. Some are corporate, some are unions, some are advocacy groups, for all I know some are martians. But the one thing I do know is they ALL are ignoring the most important special interest group, which is We The People.

The good news for all of us is that if you want to give Senator Murray your unwavering support for the one vote that she took against the Iraq War resolution, our system allows you to. I for one won't stand in your way. By the way, 81 Democrats in the House, and 29 Democrats in the Senate voted for the Iraq War resolution. So it wasn't ONLY the repubs.

For me, I expect more from my representatives. I don't believe in big government. I don't believe that the way to generate jobs and fix an ailing economy is to tax and spend, tax and spend. As a business person, I wouldn't consider hiring anyone in this business climate. My income is already too volatile, I expect that I'll be taxed even more come January, I see a real risk of my costs going up from more taxation, regulation, and even a risk of Cap & Trade becoming a reality.

We can have smaller government, EFFECTIVE regulation, and not have to break OUR banks to get that.

There are so many dubious and ill-informed statements in TVD's piece that it's hard to know where to start.
1) Economists across the board credit President Obama's stimulus package with averting a much worse economic meltdown.
2) The "unprecedented" interventions in the economy arose from unprecedented financial system colllapses, in case the author did not notice.
3) The health system changes Obama and the Democrats enacted are consistent with what candidates Obama and Hillary Clinton promised during the 2008 campaign. Health system reform, coverage expansion, and cost control were central planks in their platform. If TVD and voters didn't know that, they were paying no attention. As the health care reforms take effect, economically strapped voters will realize how valuable these programs are for their economic and health security. Unfortunately, a lot of those valuable provisions don't take effect until after the 2010 elections.
4) The Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) greatly increased border enforcement and the number of agents on the border. It's easy to pander on this issue, but true experts know there's no way to fully shut down the illegal entry of people along such a long border. And data show there's no major crime wave in Arizona or other border states due to the influx of illegal immigrants.
5) The irresponsible anti-government positions of the Tea Partiers make them very different from Reagan Democrats and Ross Perot supporters. Tea Partiers today would tag Reagan as a big-government liberal, just as they've turned on other Republican conservative like Sens. Bennett and McCain for being too willing to compromise to get needed legislation passed.
6) TVD's description of Obama's remaining base as solely African Americans and union members is ill-informed.
7) While TVD may be unhappy about Obama's Iran policies, I truly doubt that large numbers of voters out there are troubled by, or even paying attention to, the president's push for sanctions.
8) I surely agree that polarization and gridlock will be deepened if the Republicans make big gains in Congress. But TVD all along has opposed Obama's and the Democrats' use of their large majorities to enact legislation advancing Democratic priorities. So gridlock should be better from his point of view, though not from mine.

cleanhouse2010 -

Your statement:
"I want smaller, more effective, efficient government, something that we have not had for a long time, and that has grown worse in the last 18 months."

Your statement indicates that at one time we had smaller, efficient government. What time are you thinking of?

I largely agree with your last post and you're clearly an informed person who follows the details of politics very closely. I'll respond more fully in another post but I'm curious as to your opinion when government was at its best. And why.

The comment stream reflects the polarizations noted in the piece.

A couple observations:

First, it would be a mistake to underestimate the degree to which
Obama's switch from 2008 consensus-builder to 2009-10 partisan has
weakened his support---especially since independent voters, who made the difference in his election, have peeled away because of his 2009-10 actions. This is not just an Obama phenomenon. "Spinning" and "say-one-thing-do-another" tactics have played an increasing role in national politics over the past 40 years. In the current economic distress, voter patience may be running out on such tactics.

Second, the release online Monday of classified Afghan War documents
will create new baggage for the administration and for congressional candidates pressed by voters on that issue. Secy of State Clinton last week recommitted the U.S. there beyond the mid-2011 drawdown date earlier set by Obama. Most of our NATO allies will have left Afghanistan by then. Our policies in Afghanistan, as I said, are at this point similar to those we employed in Vietnam after an initial course correction. The online document disclosures could turnout to have the same effect, but much earlier, as the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers did.

Again, TVD, did you and other voters not notice how Republicans reacted when Obama and congressional Democratic leaders like Sen. Baucus tried to work with Republicans on health care, climate change, financial re-regulation, immigration, stimulus, etc.? If you refuse to acknowledge the fierce Republican obstructionism, that severely undermines the credibility of your entire analysis. You still are not facing up to the nature of the current Republican Party. It's very very different from the Republican Party you remember from the 1960s, 70s, and 80s.

Harris,

Not so fast.

1) Economists generally credit the TARP legislation, passed in October 2008, of helping to stabilize a fragile economic system. We can very much argue what was done with that $700B (for instance, as we see today, Goldman Sachs used $4B+ of the $12B it received for payments to a number of overseas banks, hedge funds, etc.). There is far less agreement on the Stimulus bill (ARRA), of which not all of the funds have yet been distributed. Economists who subscribe to Keynesian economic theory (redestributionist policy), overwhelmingly credit ARRA with saving the economy. There is a large number of economists who actually believe recovery would be stronger and faster without the Stimulus bill. What are facts, State and local governments benefited from ARRA, which bought them time to find alternative sources of revenue to maintain services and resources. That said, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)—the official government agency responsible for tallying employment stats—there have been 3.42 million gross jobs lost since the stimulus was passed and 2.53 million net jobs lost. That's not a success, and changing the tune to "it would have been worse" doesn't make it so. Government-reported unemployment (different than the real unemployment numbers), which we were told by Obama would be kept to 8%, peaked at over 10%, and has stabilized at around 9.5%. Obama himself announced over the weekend that we should expect unemployment to remain at or above 9% through 2012. That's effective.

2) The financial system collapse was primarily a result of the housing market crash, which was a direct result of conditions created by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

3) No one really knows whether anyone will really see any value in Obamacare, as many of the regulations have NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN. Things we do know: we do know we'll start being taxed against Obamacare next year. We know that the person Obama has put in charge of creating these regulations, Donald Berwick, is a strong proponent of Britain's National Health Service model, which as we saw over the weekend, is about to be radically changed to remove multiple layers of government bureaucracy, and giving more power over care decisions to Doctors and Patients (not something Mr. Berwick subscribes to). We also know that Dr. Berwick was appointed to that role via a recess appointment, before the Democratic Senator Max Baucus had scheduled ANY hearings on his nomination. Another non-vetted, unaccountable bureaucrat being made responsible for our future well-being. We also know that, for the most part, these not-yet-defined 'Benefits" that we'll be seeing actually won't go into effect before 2014, long after 2010 as you state. We also know that the Congressional Budget Office keeps changing the impact this bill will have on our deficit to the negative. And we know that we'll have 16,500 more IRS agents to "help" us.

4) This may be, but the fact is, we still have over 12 Million people who have broken our laws and are here in our country illegally. We also know that these criminals (and they are criminals, since they are breaking our laws), cost our states $10's of Billions, and in fact over $100B per year on a national basis.

5) The Tea Partiers are not anti-government, they are anti-BIG-government. They want our government to cut spending. They want it to stop raising taxes. They want our government to return to the roots of our constitution, and start to represent We The People, not the corporate, union and special interest groups that flood their election coffers with dollars. They aren't anarchists, they are people like you and me, grandparents, baby boomers, democrats, republicans and independents who don't believe they are getting the representation they are paying for, and are sick and tired of a government that ignores their wishes and is acting out of control.

6) The Obama allure is clearly tarnished, and he is clearly losing some of the base who voted him in. His approvals aren't going up.

7) By and large, I suspect most voters (certainly those paying attention) believe that sanctions will not have any impact on Iran, since the sanctions that we are able to get Russia or China to agree to are inconsequential at best, and they haven't yet worked.

8) I'd suggest that this nation is already the most polarized it has ever been, certainly in my 50 years, and I don't think it will get any worse if the repubs get big gains in Congress. Gridlock would be a far preferable alternative than the bad, destructive legislation that this Congress has pushed through, which they vote for before it is defined, and that they don't even read.

I'm not going to get into all the issues you raise here. But your comment about Dr. Berwick reveals your limited and ideologically skewed information base about at least that subject. Dr. Berwick is a widely esteemed authority on health care quality improvement and efficiency, and has the respect of both Republican and Democratic health care experts. He's been a leader in health care quality for most of the 27 years I've been reporting on health care. To focus solely on one statement he made about the UK National Health Service, and to do that without quoting him in context, damages American political discourse. In addition, your statement about the 16,500 IRS agents has been thoroughly debunked.

Harris,

My point on Dr. Berwick is specific to the fact that he has been appointed bypassing the checks and balances we have in place. Personally, I find many of his comments and background such that I'd like to see him vetted publically by BOTH sides of the aisle.

I fall on my sword about the number of IRS agents. That said, having legislation that has not well defined the specifics creates exactly this problem where no one REALLY KNOWS what is going on. The fact is, the IRS, a government agency few of us like or trust, will play a larger role as defined in this Healthcare legislation. I expect my legislators to vote on actual legislation, not frameworks that leave unknown, unvetted, and unaccountable bureaucrats to address.

Then, cleanhousein2010, legislation would have to be much much much longer than the already long bills conservatives complain about. Every significant law requires extensive rulemaking to cover the various circumstances that Congress can't possibly cover. You also may not realize that bureaucrats are not unaccountable. Federal rulemaking is subject to an extensive and formal comment process, which frequently leads to significant changes in proposed regulations. And Congress certainly can and does weigh in if it disagrees with how federal agencies have interpreted and implemented a law.

cleanhouse2010 -

You try to sound so definitive with your conclusions and you make statements without backing them up.

For instance:
"The financial system collapse was primarily a result of the housing market crash, which was a direct result of conditions created by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977."

You can't possibly be serious. So 1 law that was passed 30 years was the sole cause of the financial collapse of 2008? I'd say our financial system has ALOT more variables in it that that. You can't be serious. That's like saying Hurricane Katrina was caused by a glacier that fell into the ocean in 1977. Or it's like people who are saying this year's hot Summer obviously proves that Global Warming exists.

You are right that there are a number of variables, though the core of this collapse was the CRA. The fact is, CRA required banking institutions to create lending vehicles that enabled all income borrowers to get loans. While the legislation itself did not force bad loans, efforts by advocacy groups to force loans, along with all kinds of insane lending instruments to satisfy those loans, meant many individuals who could not really afford the homes they were purchasing were able to. As long as home prices went up, there wasn't a problem, because if the borrower defaulted, the lender could repossess the home, and sell it for what was owed or even at a profit. When home prices started falling, it created a waterfall effect that impact the major banks, along with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which started the market crash in October 2008. A good, brief description of this can be found here: http://www.money-zine.com/Investing/Stocks/Stock-Market-Crash-of-2008/.

I still owe you a response to your earlier post, I'm thinking about that one.

Murray's platform item of Veteran support is smart, but has as much depth and sincerity as Rossi's reach to 'Dinocrats' in 2004 - in the end nothing more than another partisan ploy. Murray may well have as much success following up on this tact as the Republicans had in building the 'Tea Party' from Rossi's independent outreach.

I agree with Van Dyk's overall assessment of the 2010 elections, but the important ones to watch are the outlier races of successful independents as well as Rand Paul, a non-republican tea party leader.

Harris,

Or as an alternative, legislation could be significantly simpler, by focusing solely on the purpose of the legislation. Perhaps legislation would no longer have exemption after exemption, which generally makes it longer and more confusing. Or could eliminate the tangentials or elements (read these as pork, or other incentives provided to entice legislators to vote for said legislation). We could actually create far more simplistic legislation, our legislature chooses not to.

As for the formal comment process, we see how well that's worked. Since we see time after time that legislation being created in this fashion breaks the laws of unintended consequences, maybe, just maybe, we need a change that forces the issue of simplicity. I'd argue laws don't necessarily need to be made so complex to begin with. I'm not trying to look at this simplistically, but why do we need 2500 pages of legislation that no one knows what it says, isn't completely written to begin with, refers to hundreds of other documents and requires a raft of attorneys to interpret? Sorry, I don't agree with you. I think the nature of our legislators, and the inclusion of special interests in the process, is what makes it so complex, not a real need.

Cleanhouse, I read article in the link you provided and once again went over the discussion you had regarding the CRA. You ignored or are apparently unaware of a number of issues fundamental to problems building within the world credit markets such as Fed interest rate policies, rating agencies, CDO and MBS markets, however to suggest that CRA was ground zero is a real stretch in my opinion. You admitted it in your reply where you stated the legislation did not force bad loans. Credit markets don't solely exist to finance residential housing and if the CRA legislation didn't force bad loans, then it can hardly be the culprit for the demise of the housing market. Sorry, I can't buy your claim.

Bella -

CRA, while it didn't force bad loans, forced looser lending standards. Let me offer another, deeper discussion document for you to review. This actually does a much better job of explaining it than I ever could, though is much longer:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/29015

Richard,

A few posts back you asked me what I thought should be the size of government and why. Obviously, that's a pretty complex question, and size of government is a relative term. However, I'd suggest to you is I'd like to see size of government similar to that of both Reagan and Clinton's governments, based on government spending against GDP. In both cases, govt. spending was in the 20% range relative to GDP (I think Clinton's was a bit lower than Reagan's). I'm sure there were numerous of other factors that helped drive economic growth during their presidencies (peacetime being one of those) as well as simply leadership qualities that helped energize the economy, in Reagan's case, firing the Air Traffic Controllers when they went on strike and introducing significant tax cuts, and in Clinton's case, shutting down the government to force a balanced budget.

cleanhouse2010 -

Thx for remembering my question. I agree, the question of the size of government is both complex and relative. I think it's one of those things that sounds good but in practice tends to work exactly the opposite from what you're thinking.

For instance, let's say you want to shrink the size of government in Seattle. So you take the SDOT and fire the employees and from now on, all of the transportation work is done by contractors. Let's say the cost of filling a pothole was $X per employee + Y$ for materials for the city to do it. For a contractor, the price being billed the city is $X+profit per contractor and Y$+profit for materials.

In this example above, strictly speaking, it meets your goal of making government smaller. But from a taxpayer standpoint, you're getting screwed because you're getting less and paying more since the government is a nonprofit entity.

This is why I don't support the message point of 'smaller government'. It really just costs the taxpayer more money. This is a somewhat simple example but it makes my point.

Regarding your criteria that you like government in the range of 20% of GDP, I'm not sure why that really means much. If a service is needed having that employee on the government payroll or the private sector payroll doesn't seem to make any difference.

Richard,

I've picked these two timeframes because they were times of strong economic growth within the nation. At those times, government spending was approximately 20% of Gross Domestic Product, basically economic output. In your example, as you have identified, there is a cost to the government to fill the pothole, whether it is $10 or $100. I actually think you are agreeing with me. I'm not trying to suggest that size of government needs to be represented in numbers of people, but suggesting to look at size of government in terms of How Much Money it Spends. For the sake of simplicity, if economic output of the nation (GDP) is $1,000,000, I'd like to see government spending to be around 20% of that, or $200,000. That's it's budget, it needs to make ends meet on that. I don't care how government gets there, provided that it is delivering on the things it is supposed to be (which in my view, it isn't). The problem we have today is we are operating at about 25% spending (or more) vs GDP, and with what appears to be very limited spending constraint, oversight or accountability, and that is destined to go up. If you combine this with legislation that adds a burden on business (from a cost perspective, such as tax increases, cost of regulatory mandates), historically, we've seen slow economic growth. The other caveat I'd add, is that private sector is necessary to fund government spending. The government's spending needs to be paid for somehow, the government doesn't produce product or revenue, it consumes revenue (it produces some services to support the nation, but I'd argue does not necessarily deliver either the best quality or efficiency of most of those services). Government by and large is good at starting things, but not running things. Love it or hate it, a need for profit drives efficiency and value, eg if you don't like the quality or cost of goods that you purchase from the private sector, you'll go purchase them somewhere else. The government has no incentive to deliver quality or efficiency, because they aren't driven by profit, they are driven by mandate, that THEY are creating. This, from my perspective, is the rub. I'm happy to see the government pay $X for services from a private contractor if they are delivered efficiently and effectively, versus $Y (a bit less) if there is worse quality or effectiveness. The best DMV (Department of Motor Vehicle) experiences I've ever had, as an example, is where a private entitiy delivers those services for the State, versus some really poor ones with other State-run services. It's why in several of my posts, I have complained about efficiency and accountability. A corporate entity can fire an executive who isn't delivering what is required. We can only 'fire' a representative every so often, when their election comes up. They can screw up an awful lot before then. And they can 'stack' the deck, because elections (especially in today's climate) are based on raising money and advertising, which they court from special interests, not based on accountability to the people we they represent (there is plenty of room to argue this, but I'm simplifying my view on it). I believe there are ways we can fix this, but again, don't believe our current crop of legislators would ever approve it, because it is against their interests. We could insist on the federal government balancing their budget and in fact, publishing one (our states do, not the federal). We could stop sending the federal government lots of money, so we can beg them for some back, and instead keep more of it here at home, where we could, at the local level, decide what we wanted to spend it on and how we would fund it, thus eliminating earmarks, and pork that we, the taxpayers ultimately are on the hook for anyway, just cut out the federal middleman. We need to insist on accountability.. we have massive liabilities from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, yet no real oversight over those entities, and a Congress that has resisted such oversight. We could limit what they can spend to a strict % of GDP. We could change their compensation models, for they have no incentive to do a good or bad job for us, only to get reelected if they so choose. We pay them alot of money (a Senator makes around $175K/yr, and votes for legislation without reading it?). Why shouldn't we pay them much less, and allow them to make more if we, as a nation are successful? Many of them are already millionaires, why are we paying them a pension after they leave the Congress?

Frankly, this is the type of Change I Can Believe In, but, back to the original intent of this article, have Zero confidence in Sen. Murray to effect this or to represent my/our interests. I'd rather risk putting someone else in place, getting them to commit to this kind of change before we elect them.

Harris,

I don't know if you are still reading this thread, but if you are, I have a couple of questions for you. From one of your posts, you have indicated you have been a reporter in the healthcare space for some time.

You and I appear to have differing views on what is required from a legislation development perspective (you appear to believe large, complex legislation is required for extensive legislation, I don't). As a reporter, you obviously look at things such as FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) as an important tool in your quiver.

Today, Fox Business Network is reporting that the SEC is saying that the new Financial Reform act signed into law last week exempts them from public disclosure, and as such, are going to deny FOIA requests. Specifically, from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities" which would cover most of the agencies activities. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/28/sec-says-new-finreg-law-exempts-public-disclosure/

Assuming this report is true, my questions to you:

1) Are you cool with this? Do you think this it is a good idea for our government to be able to not publicly disclose information that doesn't impact defense?
2) Do you think it's OK that important provisions like this should be buried in large, semi-defined legislative frameworks as we've discussed?
3) If you don't think this a good idea (and you may feel it isn't an issue) do you think that our Senators (Sens. Murray and Cantwell), have read this legislation and agreed with this, or do you think they may have missed it because it was buried in a large, unmanageable bill?

I'm really not trying to set you up in asking these questions - but are truly just interested in your opinion as a reporter.

thanks

TVD, here's the latest on GOP obstructionism. They won't even go along with the Democrats on small business tax cuts, which in any other time would be a knee-jerk yes vote for Senate Republicans. Try to take this into account when attacking Obama for partisanship.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us/politics/30cong.html?hp

Harris -

I totally agree. I'd have to ask TVD if putting John Boehner back in charge is the solution when he has publicly questioned whether the President was born in the U.S. At Republican rallies, they compare Obama to Hitler! And these are the people that are supposedly a threat to the Democratic party? I don't see it.

I think anyone with a pulse has long since forgiven President Obama for not being the post partisan President that will bring the D's and R's together. We all know that campaign promise was unwise and obviously not possible with the current Republicans in DC.

We have to realize that the Republican party doesn't really exist as a political party anymore. It's merely a front for the Corporate lobbyists that have taken control of our political process.

With all due respect, why is this necessarily obstructionism? They are asking to include amendments on a number of things - including estate taxes, extending the Bush Tax cuts and on border security. They are looking to lower our tax burden, which seems to me would be a huge boost to the economy, and secure our borders, something the feds have been unwilling to do. The Dems are saying they won't allow it. Are they being difficult? Yes. Even Olympia Snowe is standing with repubs on this, and she sells them out more often than not.

I'm also still interested in your perspectives on the questions I posted earlier, by the way.

Richard,

According to the Huffington Poist - as of Nov. 2009, 11 of the top 15 recipients of campaign donations from Wall Street were Democrats. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/the-15-biggest-congressio_n_360514.html

Chris Dodd (D) added an amendment to the Stimulus Bill (ARRA) that protected $900 million in Wall Street executive bonuses in the Stimulus bill. He claimed the White House pushed him to do so. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/

Who has control of our political process? As I've asked before, how does this make the republicans a front for Corporate lobbyists. Both parties are equally corrupt.

By the way, Chris Dodd (D-CT) was #4, Michael Bennet (D-Co) was #5, Harry Reid (D-NV) #3, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) #2, and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) #1 in the Huffington Post article.

Richard,

Perhaps you also might want to review this article in the Seattle Times from July 5, 2010, titled "Lobbyists are Sen. Murray's biggest donors". http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012287293_murray06m.html

Cleanhouse Wrote:
"and secure our borders, something the feds have been unwilling to do."

Have you been attacked lately, Cleanhouse?

I haven't, however, my best friend, who lives in Tucson, Arizona was. He was robbed at knifepoint by a man who was in the country illegally when my friend was out shopping around 9:30 one evening in May. My friend fortunately was unhurt, and the police captured the individual who robbed him later that evening.

Interesting. I have a friend whose life was saved when pulled from a burning wreck by a person who was in this country illegally.

That's great and a fortunate circumstance for your friend. That said, it doesn't excuse that person here illegally from breaking our laws. We are (or at least were founded as) a nation of laws. Either we are going to follow them, or not. We can't have a society where we, and the people here, selectively follow those laws. If you or I didn't pay our taxes, we'd be in court, or be in jail. Not running the Treasury Department, or the Health and Human Services Department in our government. There are many, many individuals who apply for, and receive legal immigration status by following our laws. If some have to and some don't, why should any? I think our borders should be secured. We have tens of thousands or more of people crossing those borders illegally every year. Do you think it is OK for them to do so, as long as they aren't attacking someone? Do you think that you should be paying to provide services to someone who is here illegally, and breaking the law? I don't, because they are breaking our laws. It's really that simple. Just like I don't think it is right or fair that a thief who steals 20 bucks gets a year in jail, while an executive who steals millions get's his or her hand slapped and goes off to live in their mansion at the beach and cruise around on their yacht - that individual I think deserves big jail time, and have every bit of their assets taken away.

cleanhouse2010 -

It's obstructionism because the GOP has made that their legislative strategy. NO, NO, NO, NO. They've said quite explicitly they intend to try to stop everything that Barack Obama is attempting to do so they can say during midterm elections that the Democrats can't get anything done. It seems they're not going to stop until every last good paying job in America is gone and moved to another country.

Yesterday they fillibustered a bill that would have helped small businesses. A bill that even the US Chamber of Commerce favored.

A return to Republican control would mean a new war with Iran, more oil pollution and privatized Social Security. The Bush years seemed to just be a warmup to what they really want to do to our country's economy, which appears to be to gut it even further.

I also owe you an answer to some of your previous posts.

Well Richard,

First of all, what happened to the jobs the stimulus bill was to create, and how it was to help small businesses. http://www.sba.gov/recovery/

You mean it didn't work?

The filibuster on this bill was because they wanted to include the provisions I mentioned in my post on tax breaks, which I've repeatedly in this thread have indicated I believe is the right thing to do. The way to fix the economy and drive hiring is to increase consumer spending. We, the consumers, have no money, and the more our government takes from us, the less we have to spend. The less we spend, the fewer jobs there are. I don't know about where you live, but I've never seen so many empty store fronts in retail areas in my life. The repubs didn't say no to this bill, they said they wanted it to include amendments that would put more money in consumers pockets, including addressing estate taxes (get taxed all your life, then get taxed again on your estate after you die), and to extend the Bush Tax cuts, which will keep more money in our pockets. This seems to me that it isn't saying no, it's trying to stimulate the economy by providing more revenue that consumers can spend with the same small businesses in order to stimulate them to be able to take advantage of the lending and tax break opportunities that somehow didn't get delivered in the stimulus bill that was supposed to provide them.

As for sending good paying jobs to other countries, Obama is doing that without the repubs help. He has put a moratorium on offshore drilling for 6 months. That's killing jobs. It's not stopping offshore drilling, btw, as the rigs are simply moving to other countries, where they'll drill instead of here. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-09/diamond-offshore-is-moving-rig-to-egypt-on-restrictions-in-gulf-of-mexico.html. We can't drill here, but we can use our stimulus dollars to fund, to the tune of $2B, Petrobras, a Brazilian company to drill offshore instead. http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntl94153.htm.

That's not killing jobs? Please review this: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news-story.aspx?storyid=201007131729dowjonesdjonline000461&title;=diamond-offshore-ceo250-jobs-to-be-lost-as-rigs-move-abroad.

I do, btw, agree with you at one level, there have been some repubs who have made those statements. But I don't think No is a bad answer to bad legislation, and we, unfortunately, have two parties who are politicizing these efforts at our expense.

Richard,

btw - here is another interesting article that shows why I suggest the dems are as in bed with big biz as the repubs: "Obama Nominee got $900,000 after
Citigroup bailout".

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/28/omb-nominee-got-900000-after-citigroup-bailout/

cleanhouse -

As in bed as the repubs? Hardly. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Your post talks about a Democrat that accepted money from Citgroup. That's HUGELY different than acting as an elected lobbyist for Citigroup or some other offshore corporation. What I'm talking about is actions since actions speak louder than just the money.

You didn't see any Democrats apologizing to BP for a 'shakedown' like Joe Barton did. You didn't see any Democrats calling the President 'unAmerican' the way you did Rand Paul. I thought Obama was right on target with his criticisms of BP.

As you've documented, Dems have accepted corporate money just like the repubs. The fact that they're willing to accept the money AND strike down corporate malfeasance makes them all the MORE credible in my mind. It shows that the money is a contribution and not a bribe as it is for the Rs.

cleanhouse2010 -

Regarding jobs, we clearly have different views on that. My view is that if you have 3% unemployment and everyone has minimum wage jobs, that does nothing to boost the economy. Why? Because jobs like that provide no disposable income.

My view also is that once people have disposable income, they can pay their taxes. Your view is that taxes are too high. So if the current federal income tax rate is 18%, which I think is about right, pick a number that you would like it reduced to. 10%, 5%, 2%?

cleanhouse2010 -

Here's my answer on your GDP ratio.....

I must say I find your explanation lacking any sort of numbers to support your feelings. Just because GDP happened to be 20% at your selected periods in time doesn't mean it's related in any way. The biggest indicator of economic health is energy prices. It's a HUGE indicator for obvious reasons. Like one of your previous posts you seem to neglect a whole host of other variables that are probably far more relevant to economic health than the GDP ratio.... like energy costs.

Further, your ratio of Size of Govt/GDP is rigged from the beginning. Using your example, let's say your ratio is right at 20%. Now if the economy goes into a down cycle and the GDP drops 20% to 800,000, then that automatically causes the ratio to grow to 25%. But government didn't grow at all did it??! The ratio itself is rigged to make government look bigger.

So due to a business downturn, your position would then be that government was too big at 25% of GDP, even though government didn't grow one bit did it? The ratio is rigged. So I'd basically reject that ratio as nearly meaningless.

I find your belief that political leaders can't be replaced the way corporate executives can be to be less than convincing. Look at Seattle for instance. Mayor Nickels, the CEO of Seattle, was replaced with Mike McGinn largely because he failed to do a good job at clearing snow in one snowstorm. How is that not accountability?

As far as requiring that the Federal budget be balanced, I can't even begin to express how ridiculous that seems to me. Let's say that was a requirement right now, in 2010. Our economy would be deep in a depression right now. Deep.

If Nancy Pelosi retires, I'd vote Democrat.

Wait. I meant if Patty Murray retires, I'd vote Democrat. Maria Cantwell also.

Face it, Democrats. You are all out of favor because the middle class has been wiped out. We've lost our jobs, our home equity, our retirement accounts, our stock accounts, and you did nothing to save us.

None of you have the normal common sense a 12 year old has, and that is why this economy continues to melt.

Fix the housing crisis, and you will also fix unemployement.

Don't take August off for your summer vacations. Work as if your job depended on it. Ours do.

I'd vote for cleanhouse but not Richard. Are you two going to just discuss, or actually run for office?

I think we both realize that we'd never be able to raise the millions needed to run for office. That's why I support amending the U.S. Constitution to eliminate corporate personhood.

See: www.MoveToAmend.org

commonsense1 - my family actually voted for me to not run for office (something I was considering) because they didn't want to have to be a politician's family.

Richard,

I have repeatedly throughout this discussion said that BOTH parties are corrupt, and I don't believe I have anywhere suggested there are acceptable gradations of corruption.

1) Chris Dodd put a $900M dollar protection for Wall Street bonuses into the stimulus bill. He was identified as the 4th largest recipient of Wall Street campaign donations in the Huffington post article I linked to.

2) "Why would the Navy waste taxpayer dollars on a boat that nobody wanted?

Blame it on Sen. Patty Murray and Congressmen Norm Dicks and Brian Baird. All three exercised their political muscle to slip language into a 2002 spending bill to force the Navy to buy the boat from Edmonds shipbuilder Guardian Marine International.

Year after year, the Washington lawmakers did favors for the tiny company, inserting four "earmarks" into different bills to force the Navy and Coast Guard to buy boats they didn't ask for — $17.65 million in all. None of the boats was used as Congress intended.

The congressional trio say they were helping Guardian Marine because it had a great product. But each has also received generous campaign donations from the company's three executives, its sole employees: $14,277 to Baird, $15,000 to Murray, and $16,750 to Dicks."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003948586_favorfactory14m.html

I think these are both shining examples of Special Interests being rewarded for supporting a politician and being 'in bed' with them. If you don't consider either of these examples of being in bed with big business (if you'd like, I'm happy to track down a whole lot of other examples from other Dem politicians if you'd like) I'd love to hear why.

3) We agree that with 3% unemployment and minimum wage jobs, no one will have disposable income to spend. What I'd appreciate you explaining to me is how we grow the number of higher paying jobs if we add a higher tax burden on businesses, add additional cost burdens by raising energy costs, pension costs, healthcare costs, government mandates and legal costs. Companies aren't going to hire more people, at higher wage jobs if their costs are increased, they'll have less disposable income for hiring. You haven't explained how that can work in your posts, but I'd be interested in that explanation.

4) The current federal income tax rate is not 18%, it is a progressive scale that starts at around 10% for those with around $8500 in taxable income, and increases in increments to 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%, depending on the income bracket the taxpayer is in. Somewhere around 47 - 50% of the population pays no federal income tax. The rest of us make up for that, with the top 20% of taxpayers paying approximately 70% or 80% of the government's tax income. I don't believe we should raise taxes because that means each person will have less disposable income... if we use your 18% example, and I make $10,000, I pay $1800 (18%) in taxes. If we raise that rate to $20%, I pay $2000, and have $200 less in disposable income. I apologize, but I'm not sure I understand your point beyond that.

I don't know what the right number is, but would actually probably be quite content if EVERYONE paid 18%, because then we'd have a rational and predicable approach to taxation and government spending, maybe even have MORE tax revenue that could pay down our debt and deficit. I think we should pay less in taxes because we will each have less disposable income, and because I also believe, the more tax revenue the government takes from us, the less authority we have over it. Have you ever heard the saying "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't know how you can not see this as true throughout our government today, and in my view, one of the best ways to limit that is to limit the amount of our money the government has to use against us.

5) As I said in my earlier post, I selected the two times where spending was at around 20% because those were periods of generally agreed on prosperity and growth in this nation. Under Reagan, more than 12M jobs were created after he lowered taxes (he inherited a dismal economy from Carter, similar to the dismal economy Obama inherited from Bush), under Clinton, I think around 20M jobs were created. I absolutely agree (and indicated, there are many variables) that impact the economy, but felt spending as a percentage of GDP was fair since it was similar during those periods.

As for my view of spending versus GDP being rigged, I think you may have missed my point or I wasn't clear in making it. I think that if the economy goes into a downcycle, government spending should also go into a down cycle, not be driving up our deficit and debt.

If the government doesn't stop spending, where is the money they are going to spend going to come from? It will have to be borrowed, which means our national debt burden will increase, and we' paying more of our money to interest, not for programs or real values that the citizenry will realize. Or, they'll have to raise taxes, which means we will all have less disposable income. They also might need to print money, which will deflate our economy and make each dollar have even less purchasing power. When you have less money, you don't spend as much. Why should the government?

6) I don't understand how energy costs are an indicator of the health of the economy, but I do agree that they can have a significant impact on the economy. Obviously, when energy costs are higher, then cost of doing business increases, as well as the amount of disposable income we have goes down. This, btw, is a big risk of Cap & Trade, which by design, increases energy costs, which I believe would negatively impact the economy. Can you better help me understand how to use energy costs to measure the health of the economy as you suggest?

7) I didn't say that political leaders couldn't be replaced, I said that they could only be replaced when it was time for their reelection. I specifically said they could screw up a whole lot of things during that time, before we could replace them (unless they do something blatantly illegal). If a private sector CEO screws up, they can be replaced tomorrow.

8) States are legally bound to provide a balanced budget, which forces lawmakers to make difficult choices. I disagree with you that the federal government couldn't provide a balanced budget. It would mean that they'd have to cut spending, and absolutely might have to make some extremely difficult choices, or do some things that would be politically detrimental to them.

When times are tough, such as right now, it would mean they might not be able to extend a 2% pay raise to federal employees which the current Congress did. Have you gotten a pay raise this year? I sure wish I could. They might have to eliminate a program that pays homeowner's around Houston, TX not to grow rice. Why are we doing that anyway? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

The Congress currently in place decided to not even PUBLISH a budget for this fiscal year. You think that is OK?

9) What makes you think we aren't already in a depression, albeit a mild one? Even if we aren't as an economy, most of us are as individuals.

Sorry - ran out of space:

6) I don't understand how energy costs are an indicator of the health of the economy, but I do agree that they can have a significant impact on the economy. Obviously, when energy costs are higher, then cost of doing business increases, as well as the amount of disposable income we have goes down. This is the risk of Cap & Trade, by the way, which by design increases costs associated with energy. I'd be interested in you explaining how the measure economic health using energy more fully please.

7) I didn't say our political leadership could not be replaced in my prior post, I said we could only replace them when they were up for reelection. An elected official can do an enormous amount of damage in the time between their election and being voted out of office if they screw up or drive bad policy decisions. A private sector CEO can be fired tomorrow if they screw up.

8) Our state government by law has to balance it's budget. Why can't the federal government. Granted, it would force them to make hard decisions, some of which might be politically detrimental to them. They might have to choose to cut spending. They wouldn't be able to give Federal employees a 2% pay raise, which the current congress did for this year. Did you get a pay raise this year? I sure wish I could. They might have to cut programs such as one that pays homeowners in Houston, TX to not grow rice. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html. why do we do that anyway?

9) What makes you think we aren't already in a depression, albeit a mild one? And if the economy isn't, many of as individuals sure are.

Cleanhouse wrote:
"Our state government by law has to balance it's budget..."

I don't think this is entirely correct. There is no law
I am aware of that can prevent the state government from
creating bonds (borrow money) to fund everyday government
operating expenditures. It is the same as borrowing money
to pay your monthly living expenses. It just hasn't been
done yet in Washington state government.

Actually, Bella, I apologize, you are correct. Other states I have lived in actually do make this a requirement, and Washington law is close to that... and after further reviewing, there is no requirement for that. The state Budget and Accounting Act says the governor must PROPOSE a balanced budget. It doesn't say the Legislature or governor must APPROVE one.

Another provision in state law says the state cannot be in the RED at the end of the two-year budget cycle. You are correct that they can put out bonds, or find funding vehicles that allow the Legislature to pay off any shortfall over time. There's nothing that requires the state to pay it off immediately.

Nationally, there are three general kinds of state balanced budget requirements:

* The governor's proposed budget must be balanced (43 states and Puerto Rico).
* The budget the legislature passes must be balanced (39 states and Puerto Rico).
* The budget must be balanced at the end of a fiscal year or biennium, so that no deficit can be carried forward (37 states and Puerto Rico)

As you can see, 39 states (and Puerto Rico) have a balanced budget requirement, Wsahington does not. Fortunately, to date, our legislators are effectively acting as if there is one.

btw Richard,

I agree with you that corporate donations should not be allowed for election campaigns. However, I also believe NO SPECIAL INTEREST donations should be allowed, including Unions, Not-for-Profit Organizations, church groups, book clubs, no one, none, zero, zip. I think that candidates running should get their campaign funds from a central fund that creates a level playing field, as well as limited personal funds they wish to use if they don't want public funds.

cleanhouse -

re: your last post, I 100% agree with you on campaign funds. Get the funds from a central fund that creates a level playing field!

I think we both agree you shouldn't have to be a millionaire or billionaire to run for office, which is how it is now.

I think we shouldn't have millionaires or billionaires in office at all. They aren't the majority of the people. That said, our system allows any citizen to run.

Richard,

The following is a link to a youtube video, where Rep. Pete Stark (D-Ca) in an exchange during a townhall meeting says:

"I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life. The basis for that would be how would it affect other people.”

After the questioner asks what possible constitutional limits there are, then, if Obamacare can pass constitutional muster, Stark replies: “The federal government yes, can do most anything in this country.”

Is this sentiment, that the federal government can do most anything, something you subscribe to? Do you think that the constitution gives the federl government almost limitless powers? So you can see the full discussion, the link to youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&feature;=player_embedded

I'll look forward to your response.

cleanhouse2010 -

re: the video, I'm just stunned that this woman is SOOOOOO upset by providing health care for everyone in this country. She refers to the people providing the health care (like doctors) as 'slaves'. Kind of a perverted interpretation if you ask me. I wonder where this woman was when George Bush was busy making a fraudulent case for 2 wars. I have doubt she was cheering to go after the terrorists.

I wonder where this woman was when the Patriot Act passed. I doubt she was protesting it. Were you?

I think the fact is that the federal government CAN do just about anything it feels like. George Bush gave the Executive branch more expansive powers. Where was this woman then? The Republican Congress vastly increased the power of the Federal Government after 2001 with the passage of the Patriot Act. Where was this woman then?

What I hear Pete Stark saying is the the federal government can do most anything, not that he agrees with that. He's simply stating his opinion, which I agree with. I don't subscribe to that, no and I protested that expansion under the Cheney/Bush Presidency. Did you?

Once again, this is one reason I support the Democratic party today. They at least try to protect my privacy and were mostly against the Patriot Act whereas the Republicans cheered heartily as the took away nearly all privacy in our lives. The R's even thought letting the government secretly snoop on what library books I read was fine. That's why I believe the Republican party is a fundamental threat to our country.

Richard,

The DEMOCRATIC PARTY-controlled congress extended the Patriot Act for another year in a vote in February of this year. Do you want to blame the repubs for this too? Are your blinders on so tight that you haven't seen this? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/politics/25brfs-PATRIOTACTEL_BRF.html

Have you actually ever read The Constitution? It is very explicit in limiting the powers of the Federal Government, not granting them unlimited powers.

Also, have you actually read the Healthcare bill that Congress passed and analyzed how it is going to impact us? With the powers it grants the Federal government?

I'm also still hoping you'll respond to the questions I left for you in my 2 part post a few back. And since Harris has chosen not to respond to my questions on the FOIA, how about you responding? Do you think that the DEM granting a government agency the ability to not respond to a public Freedom of Information Act request is any different than the same kinds of power the Patriot Act grants? I have to suggest, that you seem to be being rather hypocritical, as it seems to me that you are fine with the government overstepping its bounds as long as it is being done by the Dems, but not by the repubs. What am I missing here?

btw - I've never, throughout this thread, suggested I agreed with George Bush, nor have I defended him. I've made comments to point out the the Dems controlled Congress during the last 2 years of his presidency, and I've made comments because I'm sick and tired of him being blamed for everything around where we are today, since he hasn't been in office for two years. Was he in office for a bunch of this crap began? Absolutely. Did his policies help send us down this path? Absolutely. But this admin, and this Congress' policies aren't getting us out of them, they are making it worse. I didn't vote for Bush in either of his terms as President, and quite honestly think he was a moron.

Every bill that has been passed since Jan of 2010 has been signed by Obama, not Bush. Obama's administration approved BP's moving forward on drilling with an unsafe drilling rig, not Bush, in fact, proactively moved to exempt BP from doing the necessary EPA study: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html. they didn't have to, they could have stopped it.

btw - Obama himself was the largest recipient of BP contributions, talk about being in bed with big business: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A20100505

How or why you think you are being "protected" by the Dems confounds me. How you can look around you and not see the threat(s) that the directions the current Congress is taking us makes me wonder when you are going to take your head out of the sand. How about you present some facts already that support your claims... I've given you plenty to support my opinions to you, and many instances make your claims suspect.

btw - the Healthcare bill will not provide healthcare for EVERYONE in this country. It will provide a requirement for individuals to purchase healthcare insurance, with exemptions for illegal immigrants, people who are below the individual mandate level and don't qualify for government subsidies, and those who choose to not purchase healthcare insurance and will end up paying a $750 tax penalty. All of these will still have healthcare the same way ALL uncovered people have coverage today, through emergency rooms. Doctors are not required to accept any of these insurance policies... in fact, we're already seeing many doctors and even hospitals dropping coverage for medicare and medicaid customers today.

Cleanhouse Wrote:
"...and will end up paying a $750 tax penalty. All of these will still have healthcare the same way ALL uncovered people have coverage today, through emergency rooms..."

I seriously doubt much will change. The $750 will be deducted from the individual as is any payroll tax is deducted. We'll still see our insurance premiums increase as the system copes with the added expenses incurred as a result of underinsured and uninsured beneficiaries. The plan does little to address ever increasing costs. As a business owner, I likely will still pay higher employee premiums than the insurance carriers charge employees at Microsoft and Boeing or competition who has more employees than our company.

Lastly, illegal immigrants are not exempted from purchasing health care insurance. They are banned from participating in the health care insurance exchanges. There is a difference, and it wasn't a particularly pragmatic way to fix the problem. It became political. Does everyone recall "YOU LIE" being shouted for the House floor during the State of the Union address? However as you pointed out, they now will have access to emergency room care as will the 18-30 year olds who thought they could live forever and didn't need health insurance until that motorcycle accident or illness.

Healthcare could have and should have been done better. It wasn't and
we will continue to waste money fighting over it instead of doing the necessary and prudent fixes.

cleanhousein2010 -

I'm not trying to dodge your questions. It's just that these threads are getting longer and more complex. But it's all good. You seem to be a well-informed and fair minded debater and I enjoy learning from people I don't necessarily agree with. I think we both, however, agree that corporate money is severely distorting our government and the elections process.

Regarding the extension of the Patriot Act, I fought that by the Dems 100%. I think the extension was ridiculous. However, politically, the Republicans would never have allowed the repeal. They would have played the 'weak on terror' card and they would have won. The media would have jumped on this too. So unfortunately, since the R's strongly favor spying on Americans, this bill was passed.

I have read the Constitution but I'm hardly a scholar on it. I agree the Fed Government doesn't have unlimited power but obviously they have alot. I always find it curious that few on the Right complained about excess federal power when the R's chose to spy on what books you read at the library. But now that the D's are trying to reduce health care costs and expand coverage, the R's are in an uproar about excess government power. I don't get that at all.

Regarding any exemption for FOIA requests, I'm not sure that's even true. I haven't heard it reported elsewhere. I will say, if it IS true, it's unacceptable. All agencies have to respond to FOIA requests. No exemptions in my book! I'm all about transparency. All documents prepared by government agencies belong to US. WE paid to have them prepared with our tax money.

Bella,

If you think not much will change, then what would be the point of having such a bill? I think you are underestimating the government control this puts over on the healtchare industry in general, and the cost impact of such a piece of legislation, as legislation generally impacts business costs (as you are aware), and generally for the worse. If it isn't going to lower costs, it's a waste of the trees that were murdered to print it.

The bill exempts illegals from a requirement to purchase healthcare insurance, as well as prohibits them from participating in the exchanges. They will still, however, have access to emergency room care.

cleanhouse2010 -

From your quote:
I think that if the economy goes into a downcycle, government spending should also go into a down cycle, not be driving up our deficit and debt.

I'm sure you believe this and I doubt there's anything I can say that would every dissuade you from believing otherwise.

Personally, I don't care what you personally think about the economy unless you have some training in economics. I care about what economists say. And I can't think of a single economist that I've read lately that says the answer to a business downturn is to slash government budgets.

That was tried in the 30s with Herbert Hoover and it was a complete disaster. Not surprisingly, the Republicans are trying to do the same thing again. All I have to say is, please step away from the economy.

cleanhouse2010 -

You say both parties are corrupt and throw them into the same category. I couldn't disagree with you more. Here's why.

Granted, Chris Dodd may have put a provision that protected Wall Street bonuses but he still voted FOR Wall Street reform. The Republicans voted against it. That's my whole point. The Republicans represent the corporations and the billion dollar special interests of Wall Street. They never would have re-regulated Wall Street at ALL.

I also find it interesting that you fault Chris Dodd for not regulating Wall Street bonuses. But you also want smaller government. Well, this is what smaller government looks like. It means Wall Street can award billion dollar bonuses to people when the companies they work for have lost billions of dollars at their command. This is what an unregulated 'free market' economy looks like, cleanhouse.

The Republican Congress is essentially a Congress of NO-bots. They vote no on EVERYTHING, even health care benefits for 9/11 First Responders who are DYING from toxic debris they inhaled. The GD Republicans call this an 'entitlement', as if these first responders are welfare queens milking the system. I find their behavior completely repulsive.

Anthony Weiner from New York State summed it up best in this rant on the Senate Floor. As he says, "It's a shame".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4zwCMf8dsc

This is just gross and disgusting in the first order that Senate Republicans would allow first responders in New York (and who came from all over the country) to die from lung diseases caused by the 9/11 disaster that took place under Republican rule. It's heartless and cruel and it shows clearly the true flavor of today's Republican party.

Richard,

If Chris Dodd were a repub, you'd be shouting from the rooftops about how deep he was in bed with big business. The reform bill is anything but. It doesn't stop taxpayer bailouts of wall street. It gives the government the ability to effectively seize businesses. It forces banks to give information about your and my accounts to the government. It granted the SEC the ability to deny FOIA requests from the public. It creates a massive number of new bureaucratic agencies to actually write the regulations behind all of this, which means the very Special Interests you rail against will be writing and helping these agencies create the regulations. Oh, and it does NOTHING to address the massive taxpayer liabilities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which we, the taxpayers are on the hook for,

In my world of small government, we wouldn't have spent $900m on wall street bonuses. We'd know UP FRONT what was going to be in the bill. And we'd be doing oversight, which doesn't mean getting in the way, just making sure they are playing by the rules which makes for a successful, thriving 'free market', not a rape and pillage the taxpayer market.

As for Rep. Weiner's rant, you, and it, only tell part of the story. Do I support making sure the 1st responders have healthcare, of course, as do the repubs. Do I think it should be funded, rather than adding more debt, yes also. The Dems have a majority in the House, so why didn't they just pass it with their 218 votes? Because they chose to not allow addendums on it and forced a 2/3 majority vote instead. They were ignoring the Pay-go rule they passed? How about having this paid for by cutting spending elsewhere? This was politicization by both sides, once again. Not just the repubs.

Btw, in one of your prior posts you accused the repubs of pushing hi-paying jobs overseas. How's this little gem strike you - US To Train 3000 Offshore IT Workers. Yep, your and my tax dollars are going overseas to help them generate high paying It jobs to then outsource to us. Thanks to Obama's hand-picked appointee, Rajiv Shah. http://www.information week.com/news/software/integration/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226500202

Richard,

If Chris Dodd were a repub, you'd be shouting from the rooftops about how deep he was in bed with big business. The reform bill is anything but. It doesn't stop taxpayer bailouts of wall street. It gives the government the ability to effectively seize businesses. It forces banks to give information about your and my accounts to the government. It granted the SEC the ability to deny FOIA requests from the public. It creates a massive number of new bureaucratic agencies to actually write the regulations behind all of this, which means the very Special Interests you rail against will be writing and helping these agencies create the regulations. Oh, and it does NOTHING to address the massive taxpayer liabilities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which we, the taxpayers are on the hook for,

In my world of small government, we wouldn't have spent $900m on wall street bonuses. We'd know UP FRONT what was going to be in the bill. And we'd be doing oversight, which doesn't mean getting in the way, just making sure they are playing by the rules which makes for a successful, thriving 'free market', not a rape and pillage the taxpayer market.

As for Rep. Weiner's rant, you, and it, only tell part of the story. Do I support making sure the 1st responders have healthcare, of course, as do the repubs. Do I think it should be funded, rather than adding more debt, yes also. The Dems have a majority in the House, so why didn't they just pass it with their 218 votes? Because they chose to not allow addendums on it and forced a 2/3 majority vote instead. They were ignoring the Pay-go rule they passed? How about having this paid for by cutting spending elsewhere? This was politicization by both sides, once again. Not just the repubs.

Btw, in one of your prior posts you accused the repubs of pushing hi-paying jobs overseas. How's this little gem strike you - US To Train 3000 Offshore IT Workers. Yep, your and my tax dollars are going overseas to help them generate high paying It jobs to then outsource to us. Thanks to Obama's hand-picked appointee, Rajiv Shah. http://www.information week.com/news/software/integration/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226500202