Forgive me if I’m missing something here, but a few days ago, I watched and listened as Congressional and Senate Democrats (led by Reid, Schumer and the President’s close friend, Dick Durbin) stood in front of microphones and cameras and admitted they offered the Republicans everything they demanded in return for raising the debt ceiling (and still got a “NO!!”).
Is that what it's all about now to our Democratic representatives?
Just keep us out of default and you can have anything you want?
So they totally cave in to Right wing crazies; agree to raise zero revenue while destroying critical social safety nets, and then beg the Repubicans to extend the debt ceiling so not to deliberately send the country into an instant Depression.
Wow. Patriots everywhere these days.
If you check out the news conference in the link above, there are a few almost laughable components, especially on CNBC's broadcast of the event.
First, you have to roll ahead about 12:00 minutes into the story just to get to the Democrats' news conference. Everything before is idle chatter from the CNBC talking heads.
Second, the story title declares:
"Sens Reid, Schumer Hold News Conference on Debt Limit."
Not a news conference on the budget, mind you. Now, it's become a negotiation to raise the debt limit in return for giving up to 100% of Republican demands on permanent budget cuts. Clever how the Republicans managed that bit of wizardry... again!
Third, Why is it Republicans leaders always greet the media cameras with a backdrop of 20 nodding wingnut compatriots while the Democrats can only muster a security guard and structural column? In the case of CNBC's broadcast of the Democratic whimp-out, the weak Democratic contingent was often reduced to a single head in 1/16th of the screen as stock market numbers and charts took center stage and financial changes were accompanied by audio whooshes, sometimes obscuring Reid's and Schumer's statements.
All just as well. What our neo-Democratic champions had to say would make a now-extinct Centrist Republican vomit from fear for this country's poor and middle class.
In fact, the Democrats have allowed the debate to change completely no less than four times.
Originally,it was a debate over injection of stimulus versus tax cuts (a debate that should have ended with Herbert Hoover).
Next it was a debate over whether cuts and eliminations to social programs were even necessary since there was four trillion in unpaid corporate and millionaire taxes just sitting out there, yet small enough a donation not to have caused a single default on a private yacht. In short, if the rich would just pay their taxes at the rate paid under Clinton (when the stock market boomed) the nation's financial woes would be behind us. Anything saved by elimination waste would be gravy. So President politely went "asking" the wealthy to maybe contemplate helping out by just paying their fair share. Not the 90% rate under Eisenhower, mind you - just the 38 percent under Clinton. I wish the IRS would just ask me to pay my taxes and not be so darn demanding.
Soon, everyone was on the same. We had to cut social programs, but maybe we could have some shared suffering. Perhaps the corporations and wealthy individuals would simply volunteer to pay just a few of the taxes that they don't pay anyway thanks to huge loop-holes and write-offs not available to the "small people."
No, that wouldn't do, either. Let the "debate" be stated thusly: Allow the über-rich to steal our Social Security investment, deny healthcare to the elderly and and destroy another trillion in education nd other critical servicesmaybe and maybe the Republicans won't force us into default and probably the worst Depression in American history.
Give and take on the issues? Notta. Any negotiations over raising even one cent of revenue or curb the Pentagon’s perpetual gluttony versus destroying our social safety nets? Notta. Just don’t put us in default and you can have whatever you want, say the Democrats. I could hardly believe our Democratic representatives had unconditionally surrendered and the debate was down to “take it all - dismantle Social Security and Medicare, defund trillions in other social services but please don’t throw the country into default and Depression.”
Now, the White House seems to have conceded the same ground – which is in fact, all of the ground.
As Russ Wellen at Truthout wrote today:
“Republican assaults on social service programs have finally yielded some significant advances, with the Obama administration offering to push the eligibility age for Medicare up from age 65 to 67. Also, as part of a bargain to raise the debt ceiling, the administration has offered to dial down cost-of-living increases in Social Security benefits.
But it's Medicaid, which, as the health provider of last resort for the most vulnerable segment of society, has long been a tempting target for Republicans.”
Can we now safely assume that a Congressman’s or Senator’s (or President's) party affiliation is less an indicator of loyalty to the middle class and poor in this country than the size of each member’s personal wealth?
Remember last week when the President had Mitch McConnell hopelessly cornered?
Maybe it's time to fire Reid, Schumer, Durbin, Obama and the rest of our "representatives" and let Faust cut future deals with Republicans.
Hell (pun intended)! Might as well cut out the middleman.
So how should we feel about this mess we're mired in?
I'll tell you how I feel.
I'm ready to give Earth's coordinates away to the Cylons in the hope that a well-focused plasma bolt attack on Washington might help.
Hey, as the old punchline goes, "Can't hurt!"
While the Cylons decide whether the planet is still worth destroying now that the Republicans have left them with sloppy seconds, I’m planning to grab my bamboo fishing pole, buy a fresh, cold six-pack and head to the closest pond.
It's going to be a long and hot Summer, but that's all about another battle lost, isn't it?