Dennis, Dennis, Dennis—Not the “I-Word!”

I like Dennis Kucinich. After all, how can a liberal not like Dennis Kucinich? The Ohio Rep. one of the most consistently progressive voices in Congress, a true champion of the little guy. And no, the pun is not intended. We all know that every time Rep. Kucinich runs for president, he endures endless abuse, dismissed and mocked on late-night TV as a kind of gnome because of his diminutive stature and what casting agents, with rare diplomacy, call a “character” face.

So Denny K. gets a bad rap. Okay, there was the whole “I was abducted by aliens” thing a few years back, I’ll give the Righties, that. But overall, I am a card-carrying Dennis Kucinich fan, and believe he has served our country with valor and distinction.

Today, though, I feel like gagging the good Congressman and locking him in the basement until, say, Nov. 7. 2012.

Rep. Kucinich has been fiercely critical of President Obama’s intervention in Libya. So have a lot of others, on both sides of the aisle, either out of principle or political opportunism.

Indeed, the response to POTUS’ handling of Libya has been fascinating:

He dithered and allowed the crisis to worsen…

He rushed and didn’t consult Congress….

He’s a wimp…

He’s a warmonger.

(It reminds me of the climactic scene in Chinatown, wherein Jack Nicholson  slaps around Faye Dunaway, as she says of her incestuous offspring: “She’s my daughter!…She’s my sister! She’s my daughter! My sister, my daughter…She’s my sister and my daughter.”)

 Kucinich is in the “didn’t consult Congress” camp. So much so, that he suggested Obama’s action may be an “impeachable offense.”

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis—WTF!? All over America, you could hear Democratic foreheads thudding against tabletops.

 Does that mean Kucinich shouldn’t have criticized the President? Of course, not.  Obama’s actions in Libya are certainly open to spirited debate. Was he within his Constitutional authority, or not? Had he waited, and submitted the matter to a bitterly partisan, politically posturing Congress (he did, incidentally, discuss the issue with Congressional leadership), would that have meant a fatal delay, resulting in a massacre in Benghazi, among other humanitarian disasters? And more accusations of “dithering?”

 But the “I-word,” Dennis? Seriously?

 It’s one thing for right-wing gasbags like Gingrich and Limbaugh to talk about impeaching President Obama. I mean, if a Democrat has the gall to get elected POTUS by a near-landslide, you’ve got to do something, right? After all, the whole birther, Kenyan-Muslim-Commie-Nazi thing isn’t getting a hell of a lot of traction outside the Teabagging GOP base.

 But—call me an Obama Zombie—on the verge of a reelection campaign, it just doesn’t seem like the best idea for Dems like Dennis  to be tossing I-word around like that. Can you imagine Republicans doing that to one of their own—at least, unless it was Sarah Palin, looking for revenge, or a paycheck?

 Of course, we’ve seen how—despite all their talk of gun control—liberals can shoot themselves in the foot with alarming accuracy. In the “Obama’s caving” fervor running up to the 2010 elections, we heard a great deal about the “enthusiasm gap” between Democrats and Teabag-stoked Republicans. Even liberal lion Ed Schultz—and I’m an even bigger fan of his than I am of Denny K.’s—proclaimed that he was not going to vote in the midterms.

I don’t know if Ed actually voted or not—but now he’s all over the Midwest reminding us that “elections have consequences,” this as GOP governors are crushing the workers and middle class under the weight of tax breaks for the super-rich, and attempting to turn states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, into Kochistan.

 The world, at home and abroad, is one hot mess these days. President Obama has made missteps, and the Libyan adventure may turn out to be a disastrous one. Recall, though, that our two greatest crisis presidents—Lincoln and FDR—suffered many of the same critiques, accused of everything from weak indecision, to rash tyranny. And they didn’t have to endure the endless, second-to-second harping of the 24/7 cable and internet news cycle.

 For now, according to the latest CBS poll, the public seems to be behind President Obama’s crisis management. And I would wager he’s a heavy favorite to be reelected in 2012. Throughout all our various hot messes, his approval ratings have hovered steadily around 50 percent, and his likability numbers are even higher. His best friend, however, may be a weak GOP field ranging from blandly uninspiring  (despite T-Paw’s attempts to portray himself as an amalgam of Washington, Reagan and Jason Statham) to laughably unelectable.

 But Democrats, liberal and otherwise, can’t take a thing for granted. Political fortunes can change on a dime. Staying home—or protest-voting for somebody like Ralph Nader—on 11/6/12 is not an option.

 Neither is using the “I-word.”

 As Ed reminds us, elections have consequences. And, judging from Republican priorities and performance in the first few months of 2011, the stakes for 2012 could not be higher.

Read Full Post »

Why Not Raise the FICA Cap—For the Truly Wealthy?

If Social Security is, as Conservatives tell us, heading for Armageddon, then why hasn’t Washington raised the FICA cap, currently at $106,800? Why, for instance, did Glenn Beck and Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and the Kardashians pay the same as I did in 2010? I maxed out in December; some of those folks hit their ceiling within the first few minutes of January.

Whether the great safety net actually will fray beyond repair by 2037—or whatever the current End of Days de jour—is open to debate. Many astute reasonable observers like The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein assure us that that Social Security is one of the most efficient federal programs, and that with a tweak or two it should be fine. Hardliners call for privatization, or a reduction in benefits, or a raised retirement age.

Privatization aside, some of those ideas were incorporated into the Simpson Bowles report. Specifically, the FICA cap would gradually increase to about $190,000 in 2020.

That goes too far—and not far enough. It still places a disproportionate burden on middle and lower income families. Why not a hybrid—cap it at current rates for those with incomes below, say $350,000, or $500,000 or even $1 million—then resume the contributions for all those above that. It’s something on the order of New York Sen. Charles Schumer‘s proposal for the Bush tax cuts—letting them expire only for true millionaires.

Either that or set an income cap for collecting Social Security. Without that $20,000 a year, or whatever it is, my 80-something in-laws would be on the street.  But Glenn and Warren and Bill won’t need it; nor will Kim, Kourtney and Khloe—unless they blow all their hard-earned, famous-for-being-famous $$$.

Read Full Post »

Dear Republicans: The Hell with Your “Children and Grandchildren” Love, The Unemployed, The Uninsured, and Anxious Ordinary Americans Everywhere XOXOX

From John Boehner to Paul Ryan to Ben Nelson, it is the mantra of Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats and all others who style themselves fiscal conservatives: “We can’t charge the bill for (fill in the blank) to “our children and grandchildren.” Over and over again they repeat it, like a prayer, in media sound bites and ads, press conferences and on the floor of Congress. And if I hear it one more time, I’m going to shoot out my TV like that hapless Wisconsin man who just couldn’t take one more second of Bristol Palin‘s crappy dancing.

There are, of course, real concerns about the debt, the deficit—and Dancing With the Stars. But it is jaw-droppingly disingenuous, cruel and economically misguided that Republicans in the House—like Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany—were repeating the “children and grandchildren” refrain today while blocking the extension of unemployment benefits. Just before the holidays, no less.

Like so many of us, I have friends—some educated, middle-class and highly accomplished—who’ve remained jobless, though no fault of their own, for as long as 18 months. They’re trying to find work, trying to figure out options, trying to reinvent themselves. They’re not lazy, spoiled, or shiftless. They’re just really, really scared.

How can legislators deny vital, perhaps lifesaving benefits to people down on their luck and at the same time dig in their heels to extend tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires (many of whom have found endless tax loopholes anyway)?. Not to mention that in so doing they’re exploding the same debt (by an estimated $700 billion) they claim to fret over?

How can they look middle class and working class Americans in the eye—live, breathing Americans walking our towns and cities today, fighting and scrapping for survival today and say, “No, we won’t throw you a lifeline?” How can they do this even though the holidays are coming up, even though they’d be putting money in people’s pockets to shop during those holidays—or to just spend on essentials—and in so doing stimulate the economy?

Even if it would help feed somebody’s children and grandchildren. Today.

You want to cut? Slash some pork, close some tax loopholes, prune some bloated, redundant defense spending.

Maybe the point is that these legislators—many of them millionaires themselves and all of them with government health insurance and benefits—are in such a privileged, protected Beltway bubble, that they don’t HAVE to look ordinary Americans in the eye.

We must force them.

Read Full Post »