A BAD WEEK FOR DEMOCRATS

I probably could have used that heading for about a dozen different weeks since the Dems took power, but this week was exceptionally bad. It's hard to decide which of the two major events-the big loss in Massachusetts or the Supreme Court Decision- was the worse. Certainly the Massachusetts loss was the worst in the short run, but the S.C. decision may be the one that will do the most damage in the long run. So let's go over the two and I'll give you my spin on how I believe these two events have, and will, impact politics in the near and distant future.

The race in Massachusetts for the U.S. Senate seat was supposed to be an easy win for the Dems. With the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, the seat was open for the first time since 1962. Ted won the seat once held by his brother Bobby in a special election after RFK's assassination. Despite his lack of intelligence, ( he managed to achieve only the rank of Private First Class while in the military and had to cheat to pass Spanish.) Ted became a symbol of Liberalism in one of the most Liberal states in the U.S.. Given it's history and it's left-leaning politics, Democrat Martha Coakley looked like a shoe-in. However, a good-looking, charismatic Republican named Scott Brown managed to take an impressive 52 to 47 victory. Immediately, right-wing talk show hosts began pinning the loss on President Obama's lapel.

I don't see it like that.

I think it was more of an indictment of the Democrats in general than of President Obama. While I blame Barack for handing over the reigns to Pelosi and Reid, it's Congress that seems to be more interested in pleasing the left on every issue than listening to the moderates that helped put them in power. Health care is a disaster, Pelosi has the social appeal of a snake and Harry Reid looks like he shouldn't be left alone with children. The people of Massachusetts were simply reacting to a party that seem to be saying, "This country is ours now, and we'll do as we damn well please." From their arrogance in barely even campaigning to their sense of entitlement of the Senate seat, it's the Dems who cooked their own goose in Massachusetts. Obama merely showed up too late at a party where the mood was already set.

The result of their loss is Health Care Reform that must, (and should) be rewritten to draw more support and a tide that they must now work to turn back around.

The second strike of lightening that frazzled the Dems perfect hair-dos was a Supreme Court decision. In a case brought against the Federal Election Commission by the conservative nonprofit group Citizens United, the justices ruled 5 to 4 in favor of Citizens United. At issue was whether or not corporations, unions and other organizations had the same rights as individuals when it comes to the First Amendment. The court ruled that they do. Immediately the left went into full freak-out mode. "This will allow corporations to buy elections!" They shouted from the tallest media hills. Never mind that their candidate plowed over all money raising records this past election with the help of Google, Media Matters, Hollywood, and a host of other "corporations" as well as 527's. Since I listen to both sides (which I also recommend you do), I'll fill some of you Dems in on something that was left out of the Main Stream Media reporting. This case was triggered by the attempt by the Federal Election Commission, on behalf of the Clintons, to block the film Hillary; the Movie from being released prior to the election. I guess it's O.K. to trash G.W. with the sitcom That's my Bush, the cartoon Lil Bush, and the Oliver North film "W" (not to mention Fahrenheit 911 and a host of other documentaries) but for some reason it's not O.K. to do one on Hillary.

The end result of this decision is still to be felt, but I wouldn't worry so much about the national elections. I believe they have about as much money as they can possibly spend and I'm not so sure a lot of corporations want to be seen as openly siding with one party. What I would be concerned with is how this will effect smaller elections where a zoning decision could lead to an all out effort to remove a township board in favor of a more friendly board. Although, given the way cities like Detroit seem to be for sale, it's hard to imagine it being a whole lot worse. For the Dems, this really just means that their advantage with the Internet just got smaller. For Hillary, it means a taste of her own back-slashing medicine. As far as the corporations running this country now that they have this decision? Who do you really think has been running it? H.C.

CLAWING BACK

Criticizing is easy. Just ask anybody. They'll gladly tell you what's wrong with Obama, Bush, the Democrats, Congress, the Republicans, or frankly, the way you mow your grass. The best way to throw a true "kvetch" (complainer) off his or her game is to ask them a simple question, "So, what would you do?" Chances are, you'll get an answer that would make all the aforementioned groups seem brilliant by comparison. Criticizing is easy, finding solutions is hard.

Since I do more than my share of critiquing, I like to try my hand at finding solutions from time to time. It's my way of keeping myself from ever becoming a 'kvetch'.

With earning season in full swing this week, you'll soon be hearing about huge profits and huge bonuses. I don't really have as much of a problem with people making large bonuses as some of my more Liberal friends do. If you can make me a $100 billion and all I have to do is pay you $100 million-sign me up! In fact, contact me right here and leave your number! I'll call you right back! I have no problem with "over-paid" sports figures, radio show hosts, movie stars, or anyone else who's helping someone else get rich and breaking off a piece for themselves. It does drive me crazy that some freakishly tall mental midget gets $20 million for throwing a round ball through a hoop while an emergency room nurse makes $40k. But as long as the stadium is full and the money's flowing, why not?

I believe most people think like me on this one. The real problem comes when someone loses $100 billion and still gets paid his $100 million. That what drives people to start shopping for sniper rifles and high towers. The Obama Administration is now paying lip-service to the idea of limiting executive's pay. That feels a tad un-American to me. Like I said before, if you can make me rich, I don't want the Government telling me when it's a good deal. I'll take my own chances. Thankyaverymuch. What I think someone is worth is my business. However, taxing profits is as American as apple pie.

So, here's my idea.

Let's base a bonus tax on the amount of money given to the top management of any major company on the profit they produce. It would work like this; You can pay your CEO, CFO, etc., anything that you want. However, only .01% of the amount of your profit payed in bonuses will be "bonus tax" free. For instance, if my CEO makes my company $100 billion, I can pay him up to $100 million bonus tax free! If I pay him 200 million, the extra 100 million causes the profit to get taxed on a sliding scale. $100 billion profit times .01% = $100 million with no tax, $200 million is .02% so the $100 billion profit gets taxed an additional .01%. If the bonus was $300 million, then the tax on the profits would jump to .02% and so on. The highest tax you can put on the profits is 100% and the lowest tax liability for those that don't make a profit would be the equivalent of the bonuses they pay.. The beauty of this plan is that the higher the ratio of bonus to profit-the worse they get taxed. If they choose to give out bonuses of $10 million when the company loses money, that's fine, the tax will be $10 million. I doubt the stockholders will go for that.

One of the little games our corporate-bought-and-paid-for politicians like to play is the "It's just too difficult" game. That's the game where they try something they know will fail and then say, "Well, we tried, I guess it's just too hard." That's the game they're going to try to run past you on these corporate bonuses. If it's possible to stop me, your average worker, from making any money on the side (just look at how they tax my kid's paper route, your waitresses' tip, or someone preparing your taxes) then, I think we could do this with very little effort. Don't buy for one minute that it "just can't be done." It can, and should, be done. H.C.

THE OPPOSITE OF 'STIMULOUS'

I've been waiting with baited breath for this week's U.S. unemployment figures to come in. A lot is at stake for the Obama Administration. One of the first acts of office that Barack performed was pushing the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It cost the taxpayers of this country an unbelievable sum of $787 billion. At the time President Obama told us it was an important piece of legislation to stem the unemployment problem. In fact, he claimed it would create 4.1 million jobs. Without it, we were warned, unemployment would soon be over 8%. With it, it is now 10% and we have lost an estimated 3.3 million jobs.

Every since I was a little kid, I have been taught, by Liberals, that the government can create jobs in the public sector and improve the standard of living for all Americans. They have always based their theory on the success (?) of Franklin D. Roosevelt after the Great Depression. The Work Programs that FDR produced, they claim, brought us out of the Depression and lead to the largest expansion of wealth and growth in the history of the U.S.. I have always been a sceptic of this idea, however, I left the possibility open in my mind that they may be right. I now believe that they are dead wrong.

Maybe it's the way that they have applied it that is the real problem.

FDR created his Work Progress Administration at a time when unemployment in the U.S. was at an all time high. Therefore, there was very little displacement of work from the private sector. Furthermore, FDR had as the centerpiece of his programs....WORK. The only exception was his establishment of Unemployment Insurance in 1935, which at least went to people willing to work. The Obama Administration seems to be more obsessed with giving money away than making people work for it. In Detroit, for example, money was literally handed out to people required only to prove need and stand in line. (Watch the video!) Other money was handed out to people for buying cars, or houses. More money was funnelled into State coffers to fill in budget gaps. The one thing no one was required to do to get the money, was work for it.

The end result?

We have now registered the second biggest job loss in the history of Labor statistics going all the way back to 1948. The #1 biggest? 2008, by only 1/10 of a percent. We have now lost an additional 2.3% of our workforce in just 2009 alone. Add to that a shrinking dollar, looming inflation and stagnant wages and it's very hard to see what we got for our $787 billion.

However, I should note that Wall Street had one of it's best years ever! Yea for the rich getting richer while the working class increase their debt.

Now, I have said that I would give the Obama Administration 2 years to turn this recession around (it did, after all, take Reagan that long.). And I stand by that statement. But when you say, as Obama did, that $787 billion would stem unemployment, create jobs and save the working man. You had better come through. So far all I have seen is the situation get worse and worse for the average guy-on-the-streets while Wall Street is running off with the money. It cost us a hell of a lot, but at least one Liberal lie is being put to rest in my mind-that you can turn the economy around by throwing money at it. Obviously, that didn't work. We already know that tax cuts for the wealthy can help, but how about this untried approach, Mr. President? Tax cuts for the Middle Class. The people you've so far only tried to burden even more. H.C.