A Day in the Life of A Republican

[MidtownGuy]

It's awfully popular to bash liberals and the labor movement. I just read a post about labor that disgusted me. Here's something I came across a while back:


A day in the life of a Republican
By John Gray

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full
of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water
quality standards.

He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His
medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their
safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan
because some liberal union workers fought the ir employers for paid medical
insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and
eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for
laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is
properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents
because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his
body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep
breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal
fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the
subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him
considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal
fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the
opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union
members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays
these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call
the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a
worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think
he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills.
Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted
to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking
system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market
federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the
government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over
his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm
home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is
among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety
standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the
house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to
make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government
liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural
electrification. (Those rural Republican's would still be sitting in the
dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social
Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take
care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets
back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host's keeps saying that liberals are bad
and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved
Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys
throughout his day) Joe agrees, 'We don't need those big government liberals
ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone
should take care of themselves, just like I have'.

[MrSpice]

I think this narrative is ridiculous. I assume you understand that there are different kinds of republicans in this country where there are only 2 major parties. Do you really think that all or most registered republicans don't worry about safety and environment? Do you think there are no rebublican lawmakers that votes in support of legislation that was good for the people?

By the way, since we mention safety or medicine - do you know how many medical trials have been cancelled and how many medicines never came to market because of huge litigation costs because those "liberal" lawmakers that are in the pockets of legal lobby resited legal reform in this lawsuit-rich country?

I would think that most "normal" people become republicans because they believe in lower taxes, smaller government, charter schools and choice in education, using private sector wherever possible to minimize beauracracy, providing as many choices as possible to consumer to foster competition, etc. Labor unions had some positive impact on this country's life, but they did many negative things as well. Their successful push to keep peolpe on payroll when the market did not warrant it put many firms out of business, especiallty in the 80s. Their push for extensive life-time benefits is putting companies out of business now (GM, Ford, airlines). Their insistence to be paid above the market grinded cities to a halt and caused misery to many ordinary citizens and resulted in poor service (New York transit strikes). Etc....

[ryan]

choice in education

Just to clarify, do you mean school vouchers that would provide government funding to religious schools?

[MidtownGuy]

With a corrupt Regime like the one we have now, there are 2 kinds of Republicans, those who voted for these bums, and those who did not.
If they actually cared about safety and the environment, more Republicans would demand that their leaders respect such conerns. You can't just say you worry about something like the environment and then do nothing when the ones you elected have policies destructive to it. In fact, most Republicans went back out and voted for them a second time.
Now, if you are going to tell me that you are a Republican who does not support the current regime and did not vote for them, then I will acknowledge that we may share common concerns, such as workplace safety.
There are indeed some Republicans, true conservatves (whom I can respect), that view the current regime as an aberration. You do not strike me as one of them( Of course, I could be wrong.)
The archetypical Republican referred to as Joe in the narrative represents the current crowd of Limbaugh-listening sloganeers.

[MrSpice]

1) I did vote for Kerry this time, even though I thought that Kerry had many many negatives and if it was not for the Iraq war, I would never vote for Kerry

2) the workplace safety rules have hardly changed in the past 5 years and are often dictated by state and local laws. New York had a republican governor for the past 12 years. California has several republican governors in the past 20 years, yet both states lead the US in environmental legislation and rules when it comes to emission control, for example, or tax breaks for renewable energy and hybrid cars, etc.

3) Personally, I don't like the school voucher idea because it is questionable constitutionally. I think school vouchers would certainly benefit many poor people that are now forced to send their kids to public schools. I think that charter schools are a great compromise where the schools are non-religious, they are run by private and non-profit companies, yet they are funded by taxpayer dollars. The other great thing about charter scholls is that you can fire one company and hire another one if the shool's performance does not improve. Nothing is worse the the government's beauracracy. But giving vouchers would certainly be a better idea than the status quo.

4) I would say that I am a New York republican. Someone like Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki would not be even considered republicans somewhere in Alabama for their environmental and social views. But here, we can be liberal socially and conservative when it comes to crime control, privatization of govenrment functions and business friendliness.

[ryan]

New York had a republican governor for the past 12 years. California has several republican governors in the past 20 years, yet both states lead the US in environmental legislation and rules when it comes to emission control, for example, or tax breaks for renewable energy and hybrid cars, etc.

This is more likely a result of liberal legislatures that actually write laws, though I agree that it's good for a state (or any government) to have different parties share leadership. The current federal situation shows how one party is bad - or at least not as effecient as all the hype would have led us to believe.


But here, we can be liberal socially and conservative when it comes to crime control, privatization of govenrment functions and business friendliness.

Privitization is actually a radical, new idea, which is the opposite of conservative, which actually means "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions" That misnomer bugs me. Republicans are selling conservative social policies with radical, untested economic (always pro-business) policies. It's a formula that has been massively successful at motivating disparate groups of people to vote republican, but in the end only really benefits weathy bigots.

[MrSpice]

ryan: Actually, I don't see any bigots talking about privatization. They usually are obsessed with social policies, morals and other things government should not be in. Private control of any enterprise done in a competitve environment usually makes the enterprise more effecient than if that enterprise is controlled by the government. Look at Great Britain: in the Margaret Thatcher years, they privatised their postal service, their railroads, their large oil company (BP) and many other government-owned companies. They privatized Heathrow airport that is now ranked as one of the best-run airports in the world. The best terminal at JFK (Terminal 4) is now run by a private consortium. Even Port Authority realizde that they cannot manage such a large terminal as efficiently as a private company. You can also visit another private airport in Amsterdam, Holland. It's a model of efficiency for many US airports that are often controlled by state and local agencies. I am not saying that everything should be reduced to running airport but this is a model to understands what happens when private enterprise is charged with running any facility. They have something to lose - jobs, contract, money, prestige - and they do all they could to do the work well.

[ryan]

ryan: Actually, I don't see any bigots talking about privatization.

Ugh, yeah, that's my point. The weathy business interests motivate the bigots to the polls with all their hate rhetoric so they can pack the gov full of pro-business votes. Genius plan, really. From what I've read about privitization, the jury is still out. (and I've read specifically about some failures of the London Underground privitization).

One basic question I've never seen answered to my satisfaction - is government bureaucratic corruption and inefficiency really greater than private sector corruption, inefficiencey and the need to profit?

[MrSpice]

One basic question I've never seen answered to my satisfaction - is government bureaucratic corruption and inefficiency really greater than private sector corruption, inefficiencey and the need to profit?

I believe that government bureaucratic corruption and inefficiency is always worse that that of the priavte sector for several reasons:
1) Government is more likely to use public loans and taxpayer money to cover for their failures.
2) Goevrnment is inherently bad at managing its staff and expenses since there's no "owner" - no one to say: "hey, you're wasting my money, man" Most people who work for the govenment don't have any vested interest in reducing expenses and making the enterprise better
3) Unless a private company is a total monopoly (like, say, London subway system), there's competition. And if the abuse and inefficiencies are exposed, the government can, at least theoretically, hire another company.
4) Most private companies have several business interests and even if one of their project is to manage a govenrment facility where there's little competition, they would still want to maintain higher work quality simply because bad publicity will affect their other business and their stock price.
5) Why should the government manage anything when it can concentrate at provide services to the poor and other things that private service cannot provide?
6) Best public companies are actually run like private enterprises. If US Postal service was run the same way as the Internal Revenue Service, you would never get your mail on time...

[ryan]

Like I said, I remain unconvinced. There's a lot of logic in what you're saying, but like most theories, privitazation is much less simple in the real world. Everything would have to work perfectly in your model for a savings (or performance) benefit to be apparant.

[MidtownGuy]

As far as privatization of the schools is concerned- the jury is definitely still out on that. There is increasing evidence that charter schools have not been successful in raising test scores. Vouchers solve nothing, unless they cover the entire tuition. People in poverty stricken school districts will not be able to cover the tuition balance when so many live paycheck to paycheck. So, they're great for middle class people with savings in the bank, but useless to those who are stuck in the worst schools.
The public school system needs to be fixed, not abandoned. It works fine for those in wealthy suburban(mostly white) districts- all children deserve the same quality education.

[Jake]

A day in the life of a liberal:

The liberal is dead because he thought convicted murderers were very nice people and could just get along with us.

[MrSpice]

So, they're great for middle class people with savings in the bank, but useless to those who are stuck in the worst schools.
The public school system needs to be fixed, not abandoned. It works fine for those in wealthy suburban(mostly white) districts- all children deserve the same quality education.

If the vouchers are so great (by your own admission) for middle class, why not have them? Even if they don't help the poor, at least they help the middle class. Isn't middle class the backbone of our society? Logically, even if it helps some people it must be a good idea. There are plenty of programs that help only a portion of the population and are still considered to be good policy.

[MidtownGuy]

The point is, why do the middle class need vouchers? I was being tongue-in-cheek. It's the urban poor whose children are stuck in the worst schools.

I grew up lower middle class, upstate in the suburbs and my schools had computers, good teachers, and the latest materials. I had no need for private schools, thankfully, because my parents could not have afforded it, voucher or not. A mile away, across the city line, where people were less well-off, the schools sucked.

Just put the money and some intelligent reforms into improving the public schools that need it, so EVERYONE has access to quality education, not just those fortunate enough to be middle class with bank accounts to fund private tuitions. What is so hard to understand about that? Like I said, ALL children deserve the same quality education, not just middle class or wealthy ones, and vouchers do not achieve that. I don't know how to put it any more simply.

[MrSpice]

The point is, why do the middle class need vouchers? I was being tongue-in-cheek. It's the urban poor whose children are stuck in the worst schools.


Why do you know so much about what people need? Maybe you don't need a better education for your children or can afford to wait for those grat reforms of public education that are coming in the remote future. When we're talking about a typical middle class family making 50-80K a year with 2 kids living in a large city - they cannot afford private schools. They often have to send their kids to the bad public schools or leave the cities for rich suburbs where the schools are better. That's what's been happening in New York for so long.

And why can't all of this happen at the same time? Let people use vouchers if they want to. Let's allow many new charter schools to open and see if they perform better. Let's allow people to choose the school where their children will be educated. The choice is good. The competion is good. Lack of choice, lack of flexibility is what causes problems in any field, including education.

[MidtownGuy]

When we're talking about a typical middle class family making 50-80K a year with 2 kids living in a large city - they cannot afford private schools

Most 50-80K middle class in this country do not live in a "large city", they live in the suburbs of cities and don't need private schools. New York City is that rare American city that stiill has a sizeable middle class, but in most American urban cores, where the worst schools are, there is not a big middle class. And there is no choice, with vouchers or not. Fix the public schools for everyone's children.

[dboss66man]

Most Republicans I know end their days hanging out in strip clubs. Whether these strip clubs are government approved or not is another story!

[ablarc]

Most Republicans I know end their days hanging out in strip clubs.
You meet the most interesting people in strip clubs: for example, Arabs who have been to flight school.

[BrooklynRider]

Not a good day in the life of this Republican scoundrel...

Commission Reprimands Ohio Congresswoman
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Apr. 28, 2006


(AP) The Ohio Elections Commission on Thursday reprimanded U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt for claiming on her Web site last year that she had two college degrees when she had only one.

The commission in a unanimous ruling said Schmidt had violated campaign law.

The Republican went to Congress last year in a special election to replace Rob Portman, whom President Bush appointed U.S. trade representative and is set to take over the White House budget office.

Schmidt obtained a bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Cincinnati in 1974. The Web site said she also had received a bachelor's in education from Cincinnati in 1986.

After a media call to the university revealed she had not, she said she had completed the course work for an education degree but had not received one, said her lawyer, William Todd.

Todd said Schmidt wasn't involved in the creation of her Web site and did not know its contents.

Schmidt campaign spokesman Allen Freeman said the ruling would be appealed.

Schmidt was booed on the House floor in November for her comments criticizing Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated Marine Corps veteran who served in Vietnam and is an opponent of the Iraq war.

She said: "Cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Schmidt later sent Murtha a note of apology and said she never intended to attack Murtha personally.

MMVI The Associated Press.

[BrooklynRider]

Another U-G-L-Y Republican woman.

April 27, 2006
In Florida, Bush Urges Bense to Run for Senate

Florida Republicans continue to undercut U.S. Senate candidate Katherine Harris (R), reviving "the on-again, off-again speculation that another Republican will wrestle Harris for the GOP nomination," the Miami Herald reports. This time it was Gov. Jeb Bush (R) who said that Florida House Speaker Allan Bense (R) "would be a great United States senator."

Bense wraps up the legislative session on May 5; the last day to qualify as a U.S. Senate candidate is May 12.

Meanwhile, the Sarasota Herald Tribune says there is "growing concern among Republicans" that Harris "not only can't beat Sen. Bill Nelson this November, but she could drag other Republicans down with her."

[BrooklynRider]

Republicans agree on tax cuts extension
$70 billion measure includes investor tax breaks

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republican leaders are ready to move forward on tax breaks worth $70 billion over five years to investors and some middle-income families now that they've sorted out a disagreement among themselves.

The breakthrough Tuesday set up a vote in the House late Wednesday.

The Senate could clear the bill for President Bush's signature by week's end, achieving one of his top tax priorities and giving his GOP allies on Capitol Hill a victory in times of sagging poll numbers.

The bill offers a two-year extension of the reduced 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, currently set to expire at the end of 2008.

And it would keep 15 million families from being hit this year with the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make sure the wealthy paid taxes but is ensnaring more middle-income families because it was not indexed for inflation.

"This is a responsible bill that protects families and small business owners from tax increases, while also providing investors with a bigger window of certainty -- critical to continued economic growth," said Rep. Bill Thomas, R-California, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Critics, including many Democrats, have attacked the tax rate reductions on dividends and capital gains as being largely tilted to the wealthy. They say provisions should not be extended at a time of large budget deficits and massive spending for the war in Iraq.

The agreement capped weeks of talks among GOP lawmakers over how to go ahead on their party's tax agenda. They had to decide how best to deal with a rule that lets them advance up to $70 billion in cuts in a way that would prevent any filibuster from Senate Democrats.

Republicans devised a strategy to advance the investor tax breaks and alternative minimum tax relief in a first, filibuster-proof bill, then use a second bill for other tax breaks.

The second bill is to contain a number of widely backed tax breaks, among them a tuition tax deduction, a tax break for teachers who buy their own school supplies, and a research and development tax credit for businesses.

Republicans should have "chosen to renew important tax provisions like the R&D tax credit, the college tuition tax deduction, and the credit for teachers," said Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, top Democrat on the Finance panel.

"Instead, they chose to extend capital gains and dividends tax breaks that have not expired and won't expire for years to come."

Treasury Secretary John Snow asserted that the tax breaks that would be extended have ushered in a period of rising business investment and strong economic growth. "When you get investment occurring and strong GDP growth, you get jobs," he said.

Under the bill, wealthier people would be allowed to transfer retirement savings into Roth IRAs. This would provide a shorter-term revenue boost, and so helped lawmakers fit more measures into the bill. That's because money moved from traditional IRAs into Roth accounts is taxed immediately, instead of later, when taxpayers withdraw their invested money.

Opponents say the Roth plan would help the Treasury now but shortchange the government in the future years because money saved in a Roth IRA grows tax free.

The bill also would extend for two years provisions sought by small businesses to let them write off up to $100,000 in investments in equipment.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Ninjahedge]

Heh.

I hope they KEEP extending it since I am finally at the point where I can start putting $$ in to there!!!!

I think the whole system stinks, but what stinks more is when you work your way through all the crap to get to a certain point, and then they just raise the bar (or remove what benefits you can now afford) when you get there.

They need to stop this piecemeal restrucuring of the tax code and overhaul the entir thing. You do one piece at a time and you end up screwing 3/4 of the people out there and 1/4 finds a way to get around it...

[BrooklynRider]

Care to comment on the Bush Administration raising our debt limit for the FIFTH time for a total of $10,000,000,000,000.? Perhaps if we actually collected taxes, we wouldn't have such debt.

[Ninjahedge]

Who, me?

BR, you know I can comment on everything.

The one point that I think people are missing is what is the point of having a debt limit at all? It seems rather ephemeral when the government will not just shut down if the legal limit is exceeded.

Or, rather, only things such as social services would cease to have funding if the number is exceeded.

I am not endorsing increased spending, not by any means, nor am I supporting the debt, but the debt limit itself does not seem like a very viable target for discourse.

And I also should have known you were looking for a ....discussion. How many clips did you post this morning bud? ;)

[MrSpice]

Care to comment on the Bush Administration raising our debt limit for the FIFTH time for a total of $10,000,000,000,000.? Perhaps if we actually collected taxes, we wouldn't have such debt.

$70 billion is not a large sum considering that if they did not fix AMT in 2006, it would hit millinos of middle class taxpayers pretty hard, especially those living in New York City and other places with high local/state taxes. And low investment taxes play a huge role in stimulating the economic growth. It is an incentive to invest and save rather than spend.

You can decrease the debt by not continuing other income tax cuts and decreasing spending on medicare, medicaid and the military (and Iraq).

[Azazello]

...You can decrease the debt by not continuing other income tax cuts and decreasing spending on medicare, medicaid and the military (and Iraq).You are sooo gonna get it for that comment. You know you are. :)
I sometimes think you write this stuff just to, hmm, provoke a debate.

[lofter1]

who, Spice??? ;)

[BrooklynRider]

CIA Official's Home, Office Searched
By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Law enforcement officials executed search warrants Friday on the house and office of CIA's outgoing executive director as part of an investigation into corruption involving agency contracts, the FBI said.

The CIA's third ranking official, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, has been under investigation by the FBI, IRS, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the CIA's inspector general and the U.S. attorney's office in San Diego, said FBI spokeswoman April Langwell in San Diego.

Under a sealed warrant, officials searched Foggo's Virginia home and his office at the CIA's Langley, Va., campus, Langwell said. She could provide no other details.

The FBI and other agencies have been investigating whether Foggo improperly intervened in the award of contracts to a San Diego businessman and personal friend, Brent Wilkes, who has been implicated in a congressional bribery scandal.

In a statement, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck also confirmed the searches of his home and office on Friday morning.

"The agency is cooperating fully with the Department of Justice and the FBI," she said. "Agency leaders outside of the (inspector general's office) were informed just prior to the execution of the search warrants, in keeping with standard law enforcement procedures."

This week, Foggo announced his retirement from the agency after 25 years serving around the world. His decision came three days after CIA Director Porter Goss also announced he would be stepping down from the agency.

Dyck said the Foggo investigation has "absolutely nothing, zero" to do with Goss' resignation.

In a statement on Foggo's behalf last week, the CIA said he denied any improprieties. "Mr. Foggo maintains that government contracts for which he was responsible were properly awarded and administered," the agency said.

Wilkes has been described in court papers as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to bribe then-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a California Republican who is now serving time in a federal prison for taking $2.4 million from government contractors.

FBI agents also have been investigating whether Wilkes provided Cunningham with prostitutes, limousines and hotel suites.

Foggo has acknowledged participating in the poker parties at the hotel rooms, but he has said there was nothing untoward about that. "If he attended occasional card games with friends over the years, Mr. Foggo insists they were that and nothing more," the CIA statement said.

Foggo's associates have said he received the Intelligence Commendation Medal for supporting the war on terror in 2002. Before becoming the agency's No. 3 leader in 2004, he was the chief of base at a classified facility that supports the war on terror.

As executive director, Foggo had the powerful position of overseeing the day-to-day operations of the CIA.

One FBI agent told reporters from Copley News Service, who were at Foggo's residence, that Foggo was not at home in his quiet suburban neighborhood near CIA headquarters and had not been detained. The agents refused to answer other questions about the raid.

A neighbor told Copley that the agents arrived about 8 a.m. EDT. A white Chevrolet van was backed up to the carport of the split-level brick home and, at one point, a man wearing latex gloves emerged from the house and went around back.