I am sick to death of hearing about how "polarized" we all are.

I know you've heard that term quite a bit. It's always accompanied by overwrought statements about how the country's never been so incredibly divided, and we can't possibly get it together enough to get anything constructive done. The reason there are so many problems in Washington are because there are two sides, and they are too far apart! OMG! Whatever shall we do? 

First of all, stop believing everything you hear or read. 

We're not really all that divided. It just seems that way. One problem we have now is the Internet. With the Internet age comes the ability for everyone with an opinion to express it for all to hear. And with the relative anonymity the Internet provides, it's often possible to do so multiple times, which can make a group of ten people look like 100. It's just too possible to make something small look very big over the Internet. 

And that's the problem. A relatively small group of people on the far left and the far right scream loudly and scream often, and the effect is a cacophony that drowns out what most people actually think. As a liberal, I've spent a lot of time in red states and living in red areas of blue states, and I've found is that real liberals and real conservatives agree on about 95% of all issues, at least to some degree. The disagreement isn't usually about the issue as much as how to solve it. You can kind of tell this, because the far right wingers and the far left wingers truly stand out, even in red or blue areas.

Part of the problem seems to be that most "debate," such as it is, revolves around a few select issues that certain people want to emphasize over everything else, and both extreme sides of the debate tend to scream the loudest, which gives many people the impression that only two sides exist, and that they're too far apart to ever agree, Those issues are chosen and emphasized by those on both extremes of the political spectrum with the express purpose of making those issues seem far more important than others, when they aren't necessarily.

We're seeing that now, when it comes to jobs. It's the most important issue to most people, and yet, it seems as if no one is talking about it. The right wing goes on about Benghazi and this IRS silliness, while the left wing would rather discuss drones and the availability of Plan B. NO ONE is discussing the fact that the American Jobs Act has been sitting in the House for almost two years, and the Republicans won't even discuss it. Trust me when I tell you; whichever side starts talking about job creation seriously will be the political winners for a long time. 

Here's another issue; how far apart are most Americans on guns, really? We hear the two extreme sides; the extreme right wants nothing to happen and thinks the world would be more peaceful if everyone was packing. The extreme left thinks the solution to the problem is to ban any gun that looks scary, if not all guns, period. But the vast majority of Americans are between those two positions. They have no problem with registering guns. They have no problem with making sure everyone who buys a gun undergoes a background check. And most, including gun enthusiasts, love the concept of a concealed carry permit, which is simply no more than a gun license. Basically, while the extremes are what most people hear from, the actual view of a majority of the populace is usually a rational place somewhere between the two poles.  The reason we can't get gun control passed is because the right wing screams nonsense, and we spend all of our time pointing out that it's nonsense, rather than supporting rational alternatives. 

Here's another; while the far right and far left both want to repeal Obamacare for different reasons, most people want to see what happens, and they like the changes so far. The funny thing is, Republicans who voted to repeal it for the 37th time yesterday are catering to, at most, 20% of the populace. And the far left, who represent even fewer, continue to scream about "single payer" and a "public option." This, despite the fact that it is a lot easier to leap from Obamacare to a single payer system, and that adding a "public option" to Obamacare would be more effective than adding it to the old system of health insurance.  

One reason that we can't seem to overcome the right wing is because a portion of the progressive side of the aisle thinks they have to say the exact opposite of whatever they do. That's why we seem polarized. Both extreme sides yelling at the top of their lungs creates that impression. 

As I have said for years, if we want to create a truly progressive society, we have to speak to the majority, and not just those who agree with us. The reason we seem polarized at times is because we have this incessant need to scream the opposite of what they scream. We have to listen and find a middle ground that all voters can agree on, and work from there. We have to find out what people care about, and speak to that. If everyone but the right wing agrees on the importance of job creation, who cares if the right is off in the corner screaming "Benghazi"? We can all agree that gas costs too much, and that using half as much is a good thing. Who cares if the right wing is off in their corner, screaming "Drill, baby, Drill!"? 

The political middle always wins in the end, because they're a majority. Whether the country moves to the left or the right depends entirely on which side of the political spectrum does a better job of moving the middle in its direction. Right now, the right wing's approach is to depress turnout among those in the middle. By making progressives scream at them, thus creating the illusion of polarization, they are enlisting us in their ultimate goal. And it's worked well. Back before the neocon era, voter turnout was around 60% in presidential election years and around 50% in off year elections. Over the last 36 years or so, turnout's usually been about 50% in presidential years and less than 40% in off years. 

By speaking to most Americans, and not screaming at the right wing, we can encourage people to show up at the polls, and effectively remove the right wing from power in government. 

We're not polarized. But the illusion helps the right. Stop helping. 

In the space of less than two and a half years, Republicans in Congress have voted to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act a whopping 36 times. Here's a list of these attempts. Each of them includes a link to the votes on each bill, so you can see who voted for this nonsense.

This past week, they voted for a 37th time to repeal Obamacare. And you should care about this issue, because it says two things about the Republican Party. The fact that they insist on wasting time passing 37 bills they know will never become law (can you even imagine Democrats in the Senate passing or Obama signing such a thing?) is something that should concern voters. And the fact that they seem to want to return the health care system to where it was should really make you mad. 

Our health care system was broken. And it was broken precisely because it treated health care as a privilege, when it's actually a right. If you become sick enough, you are entitled to see a doctor, regardless of your wealth or lack of same. 

There are a few things that should not be subject to the volatility of the "free market," and health insurance  is one. It is because we operate under the delusion that health insurance is a "free market" that we spend more than anyone else in the world on health care, and yet sit mired in 37th place in world health statistics.  Our health statistics are more in line with Cuba and Albania than Germany, France and Canada, and the reason is the way we treat health insurance. 

Those statistics are bad, despite the fact that we probably have the best underlying medical system in the world. Our system trains doctors all over the world, because we have the best. Unfortunately, it was private insurance companies running roughshod over the system that caused the problem, because they were denying huge numbers of people access to doctors. Financing our heath care system with the private health insurance companies making the rules was like buying a new Rolls Royce with a credit card. 

When your life or the life of your child is in danger, or you are in so much pain that you can't function, a doctor has an absolute obligation to treat you. If you show up at the ER with one arm falling off, they have to at least patch you up. This is true, even if you live in a box under the freeway. If you show up in the ER during the final stages of cancer, they have an ethical, moral and legal obligation to relieve your pain and treat you. If you have a heart attack, the ambulance will pick you up and take you to the hospital, and the doctor will treat you, at least enough so that you can function. 

The problem that caused our system to overload was people without insurance, who simply can't pay their bill. But it wasn't their fault.  

First, the hospital would often get their team of lawyers and bill collectors after the uninsured patients, until they forced them into bankruptcy. The patient would lose everything, and the hospital would get a fraction of what they were owed. The hospitals would then raise prices to cover their losses, and that, in turn, caused insurance companies to raise premiums. In other words, those who were insured used to heavily subsidize those without. 

Essentially, this created a closed circle. The more things cost, the harder insurance companies would assess risk, and the more people they'd kick out of their insurance pool. After all, they are not in business to pay your medical bills; they're in business to skim as much as possible from premiums, and call it profit. They don't make money by paying more for procedures. They make money by not paying bills they don't have to. Therefore, health insurance companies went out of their way to only cover healthy people, and they did everything possible to keep from paying a medical bill. 

This is why health insurance should never be subject to "market forces." Health care is not a voluntary consumer activity. Unlike picking up a pack of gum at the checkout at Safeway, you usually don't get to choose when you need medical care. You don’t always get to shop around for the best price, and you often can't possibly save enough money to get it when you need it. 

That's the disconnect. Everyone needs health care at some point, and they will rarely be able to prepare for it. Yet, the Republican Party acts as if there is a "free market" component to it, when there isn't.

The old health insurance system made no sense. Twenty percent of the population were denied health insurance because they were likely to use it. That meant the people most likely to need health care were not allowed to pay into the system. They were actually forbidden from contributing money to the insurance pool, even though their health care would eventually be paid for from that pool. Worse, it created a death spiral. The higher prices and premiums went, the more people lost coverage, and the more people lost coverage, the higher prices and premiums went.  

The insurance companies loved the old system, because it maximized their annual profits at the same time it minimized their responsibility for health care.  About 18% of the population was uninsured at any given time, whereas 98% of all hospital revenues came from private insurance Medicare and Medicaid. And you wonder why health care inflation was so high, and why your insurance premiums skyrocketed under the old system?

Obamacare isn't perfect. It still leaves about 8-10 million people uninsured. But that's a lot less than the 50 million and climbing who were left uninsured under the old system. And all bills incurred under this system will be paid, meaning hospitals won't have to raise prices as much. But the old system of health care financing was purely immoral. There's no excuse for a rich country to tens of thousand of people to die and half a million to lose everything annually, simply because they have no insurance. No one should pay into the system for decades, and then be denied access to health care because they lost a job, or their company stops offering it, or because an insurance company arbitrarily decides it's "too expensive." 

Our government is charged by the Constitution to protect the "general welfare" of the country. And it's hard to argue that a healthy populace isn't good for the general welfare. It is also not good for the general welfare for people to work hard all of their lives and be denied insurance coverage because they once got a bloody nose in eighth grade. 

Our system failed us, and it's been reformed to a significant degree. Yet, Republicans demand a return to the old ways. Either that, or they're simply trying to waste time, when the country needs more jobs and revenues. 

Either way, they need to go. 

Let me start out by saying that no one should be singled out arbitrarily for scrutiny by any government agency, and as a liberal, I have been complaining about IRS excesses for years.  

But what's arbitrary about 300 groups applying for tax exempt status, and undergoing a check by the IRS to make sure they legitimately qualify for such status? What is wrong with making sure all such groups follow all of the rules? If you want a culprit here, you should blame the asinine Citizens United decision. That caused hundreds of right wing political groups to be created in a hurry, in an attempt to swing the 2012 elections. Liberal groups weren't creating tax exempt organizations in droves, but right wingers did, so when the IRS was taking a look at such groups, they were more likely to encounter right wing groups. 

And is there anyone who isn't at least a tiny bit suspicious of many groups with the word "patriot" in their names, given recent history? Don't take my word for it. Just a few months ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center issued a report showing 1,360 anti-government groups with the word "Patriot" in their name. Should all of them simply be given tax-exempt status, because, well, they choose to use the same word in their name as many Tea Party groups? And how do IRS agents determine the difference between legitimate groups and anti-government hate groups without checking them out?

Honestly, the Republicans' upset over this "issue" could be the funniest thing I've seen all year. 

It's especially hilarious to hear them whine about their civil rights and complain about a government agency overstepping, when you consider their history. 

Aren't these the same folks who for decades have been advocating to force women to stay pregnant against their will, by giving the government decision-making power over the use of her womb?

Aren't these the same folks who passed DOMA, which effectively gives the government the power to declare certain marriages of which Republicans don't approve null and void?

Aren't these the same folks who lied about ACORN's activities, and then used those lies as a basis for defunding ACORN? Perhaps ironically, they introduced another bill THIS YEAR to once again defund ACORN, which no longer even exists. Do they even know that bills of attainder are just as unconstitutional as targeting groups for extra scrutiny based on their politics? 

Didn't Republican Senator Orrin Hatch just amend the proposed immigration bill now moving through the Senate, to force all immigrants who apply for legal status to submit to a DNA test, and to put their information into a government database? 

And what about the Republican Party's relatively recent and far more overt political use of the IRS as a tool to attempt to gain political advantage? They have quite a rich history of allowing the IRS to target liberals when one of theirs is in charge, with no more than an isolated complaint from their side. 

In 2003, a right wing group called Public Interest Watch, a nonprofit almost entirely funded by Exxon Mobil, filed a complaint with the IRS against Greenpeace, in which the environmental group was accused of abusing its tax-exempt status. PIW was the brainchild of two far right Republican PR firms, who targeted Greenpeace specifically, because they felt as if Greenpeace was anti-property rights. It took three years for that investigation to run its course, and at no time did a Republican step up to defend the group, or to call out President for abuse of power. 

In 2004, after NAACP President Julian Bond lambasted President Bush (remember him?) for being the first president since Hoover to refuse to speak to the group, the IRS conducted an investigation into their tax exempt status. And guess the reason the IRS used as a rationale for the added scrutiny? According to their letter to the NAACP, they cited that Bond's speech "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq." That investigation lasted two full years. All because Bond criticized Bush. 

Also in 2004, All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California was threatened with a revocation of its tax exempt status for merely criticizing Bush's stance on the Iraq war two days before that year's election. A rector said,  “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine.’” That investigation lasted three years, after which the IRS ruled that the church had violated rules regarding political intervention, but not to a great enough degree to revoke its status.  A lawyer for the church said, “My client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination.” Yet, it's funny; only one Republican spoke up out about this sort of thing; Walter Jones. The rest of them, including many who are suddenly upset at this episode, seemed delighted by that. 

And if those aren't enough, I wonder how many of you remember the time the IRS under Bush deigned to investigate an entire religious denomination, because of a speech that then-Senator Obama made at the UCC convention in 2007.  According to a UCC statement at the time; 

The Internal Revenue Service has notified the United Church of Christ's national offices in Cleveland, Ohio, that the IRS has opened an investigation into U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's address at the UCC's 2007 General Synod as the church engaging in "political activities."

In the IRS letter dated Feb. 20 (2008), the IRS said it was initiating a church tax inquiry "because reasonable belief exists that the United Church of Christ has engaged in political activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status."

(...)

Obama, an active member of the United Church of Christ for more than 20 years, addressed the UCC's 50th anniversary General Synod in Hartford, Conn., on June 23, 2007, as one of 60 diverse speakers representing the arts, media, academia, science, technology, business and government. Each was asked to reflect on the intersection of their faith and their respective vocations or fields of expertise. The invitation to Obama was extended a year before he became a Democratic presidential candidate.

"The United Church of Christ took great care to ensure that Senator Obama's appearance before the 50th anniversary General Synod met appropriate legal and moral standards," Thomas told United Church News. "We are confident that the IRS investigation will confirm that no laws were violated."

Imagine if the IRS had gone after, say, the Southern Baptists, in much the same way? There's no way Republicans would have kept quiet about such a thing. Yet, no Republicans objected to the probe; not even anyone from the menagerie that was running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. 

Once again, the Republican Party demonstrates pure hypocrisy on an issue that is very important. There are too many groups claiming tax exempt status right now. There is no way hundreds of groups should be rubber stamped as tax exempt, but there are too few hard and fast rules for those who are claiming such a status. Not that Republicans would want to do something constructive, rather than whining, but they could easily write hard and fast rules for checking out these groups. 

But that would require actual work. They don't do that.  

I guess I'll never understand this quest for political perfection that so many liberals seem to think is so appealing.  The most imperfect Republican politicians in our history have been holding down the fort for the better part of 40 years; at what point do we figure out we're doing something wrong? If we're so pure of heart, righteous and virtuous, and that is what makes us worthy of winning elections, why do we keep losing? 

The answer is clear, if you're willing to listen to it. Right wing Republicans are willing to accept less than perfect from their point of view, while we most certainly are not.  

Let me re-state that. MOST liberals get it, and are willing to accept imperfection. A small but significant number of liberals refuse to accept anything less than perfection, despite the fact that perfect liberals have never had a majority in any national political body in our history. For all of the lionization of FDR, JFK and even LBJ by such progressives, none of those men could win an election these days, because these people would never encourage anyone to vote for them.  

If you've ever seen the classic film, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” then you'll remember the scene in which the owner of Swamp Castle describes how he built it. The first two castles sank into the swamp, of course, as castles built on swamps are wont to do. But the third one, by God, stayed up (so far), quite possibly because it was sitting on the first two sunken castles. 

Go ahead and laugh, because it's funny. But there's also a lesson there. If you want to build something that lasts (and if you call yourself a progressive, that is exactly what you're supposed to do), you can’t ignore the foundation upon which it’s built. And for about 40 years now, the right wing has built one hell of a swamp.

I understand idealism, and share the ideals of 99% of progressives. There is actually a place for ideals in the body politic, albeit in the background.  But if you share my desire to build a great progressive movement in this country, you must realize a couple of things. We can’t do it quickly; it takes years. We also can’t do it without paying attention to the foundation that is in place. I understand wanting something great. But since when has anyone in a democracy gotten anything just because they wanted it? If you are really progressive, and want to build a society on truly progressive values, you will do whatever you have to do, in order to get it.  Or, as my grandmother used to say, wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first. 

If you want something, but are not willing to do whatever is necessary to get it, it's difficult to justify labeling yourself "progressive." The root word is "progress." Think about it. 

Our side has been politically negligent for at least 40 years, and for 32 years, a neocon minority has had control of a large portion of the government, while progressives have marched and filled the Internet with as many opinions as they dared, while largely ignoring the process. They have chosen to stand outside the process and make demands, while they support and vote for people with no chance of winning, calling it “principled.” This same small but loud group of progressives also chooses to scream far louder at Democratic candidates than they do at Republicans, who should be natural nemeses. 

Let's be clear; we will never make progressive inroads, as long as there are enough Republicans in Congress to block any actual progress. Period.  That has to be our main goal first. After Democrats have a supermajority for a while, then we can work on perfecting the Democratic Party. Until then, even attempting to attain perfection can't even be on the table, because the current Republican Party won't allow it.

Of course, the most progressive "perfection" we can hope for is perhaps 10-20%. We'll never actually be looking at 80-100%, because that's how democracy works. Both sides make their case, and the result will always be just a little bit left or right of center.  And even that much will take a lot of hard work. The right wing took over a major political party, and they've held onto a disproportionate share of government for an entire generation, mostly because of a lack of a positive message that should have been coming from our side all along. 

That’s the foundation we have to work with, folks. A few decades ago, a relatively small but significant number of progressives decided to abandon the system we have, and opted to shout at it from outside, rather than move it from the inside. In the process, they allowed the right wing to create a really big swamp. Our only choice at this time is for progressives to band together and build a foundation on that swamp.  

There is no magic potion that will make the country progressive by sheer force of will. If you want to build a progressive nation, in which an Alan Grayson can win the First District of South Carolina over a Mark Sanford, it can be done. But it will take a lot of time, and a lot of work from inside the system. There are no shortcuts, and our ideals cannot be met by sheer force of will.  Nothing will change simply because you want it. You have to play politics the way the game is played. 

Consider this; the most progressive time in US history was the 1960s. That's because Democrats had a supermajority for the entire decade, and progressives were largely working from inside the party. We started to lose it in 1968, when the far left decided to go after Democrats at their convention, letting Richard Nixon win. Since then, with far left progressives on the outside shouting at the system, the left has been losing. People aren't voting for Republicans because they like them; they're staying home because they hate the right wing message, but there is no other message being propagated. Look at turnout. In the 1950s and 1960s, overall turnout in presidential years was 60%, while off-years were around 50%. Since the mid-1970s, turnout has been mostly around 50% in presidential years, and less than 40% in off-years. That we lose is not coincidence. 

We need to do a few things. All progressives need to rejoin the Democratic Party, to amplify our voice. We have to focus more on our message and less on the right wing. And we have to encourage everyone to vote, by giving them something to vote for. We will also need a lot of patience; it'll be a while. We  have to understand that the right wing has built a hell of a swamp in four decades. That much propaganda will take years to overcome. 

We cannot skip steps. Nothing else can happen until we push the right wing back to the fringes, where they belong. For the next 4-5 election cycles, and maybe more,  we have to vote for and support every Democrat we can, unless they're extremely repulsive, like a David Duke or a Lyndon LaRouche. When the right wingers start losing big, the GOP will clean house. That will cause a lot of Blue Dogs to re-join the Republican Party, which is bad for the short-term, but great for the long term. Meanwhile, the whole time, we're offering a positive message and attracting voters.

All progressives will also have to join the Democratic Party and work to change the politics from within. Political parties reflect their membership. If it seems as if the Democratic Party has moved to the right, well, that’s what happens when liberals leave the party. “If they want me back, they’ll have to earn my vote” is the single dumbest concept in democratic politics. That simply doesn't happen.

Politics isn't about issues, it's about doing whatever is necessary to effect policy and make laws that better people’s lives. If you’re not appealing to the most voters in a bid to win every election, you're not making progress. And like it or not, the right wing has built a hell of a large swamp in more than 40 years, and that is what we have to build on. 

I know the Republican Party hates the word "austerity," because they tried to blame President Obama for it all through the last election cycle, and spoke of it as a bad thing. And they have good reason to hate it; it's no way to run a government. Trying to cut deficits by slashing government spending is much like taking the money out of your 401(k) and putting it into your mattress. 

The concept that the deficit is caused solely by rampant government spending is ridiculous. Deficits aren't usually caused by overspending; they're often (usually?) caused by a reduction in revenue. Consider; our deficit for Fiscal Year 2008 was $458 billion, while the deficit for FY 2009 was $1.4 trillion. In order to believe that deficits are caused purely by spending, one would have to believe the government spent $1 trillion more in 2009 than in 2008, which is ridiculous. Most of that year's deficit and the deficits for subsequent years, are due to a lack of revenues, caused by a severe reduction in the number of taxpayers. Fewer taxpayers mean less tax revenue. 

Keep in mind, I'm not saying spending isn't a part of the problem. he government does waste money. But the problem of government waste is not solved by slashing spending in areas that people depend on for a living. In the last few years, the Republican austerity campaign has resulted in nearly 750,000 government employees losing their jobs. While they think such a thing is good, the fact of the matter is, all of those people paid taxes, and now they'll be collecting unemployment and other benefits. More importantly, they also spend money in the economy, which provides jobs for others, and all of those folks pay taxes and spend money in the economy. 

The problem with cutting government spending is, that money largely goes into people's bank accounts and creates economic growth. The most responsible way to cut government spending is with a scalpel, not a machete.  Besides cutting waste, they could also shift money from one program and move it to something else that creates more wealth. For example, we could take some of the money we spend on defense, and retrofit some of the weapons making facilities to make solar panels or wind turbines, which are the future.  

The fact is, when you adjust for inflation, the government isn't really spending much more now than in 2001, when Democrat Bill Clinton handed George W Bush and the Republican Party a $400 billion surplus with projected annual surpluses for the following decade. At the time Bush took over, government spending was 18% of GDP. By borrowing for two wars, government spending went to just over 20% of GDP. At the time Bush crashed the economy, government spending soared to more than 25% of GDP. But that has less to do with an increase in spending than with a crash in GDP. 

Put simply, the way to cut the deficit is to create more taxpayers, and massive cuts actually doesn't create that. The more taxpayers we have, the more money we have to pay our bills.  Not only that, but the less we have to pay out to support people who are suddenly out of work through no fault of their own. And there's a third benefit, too; the more taxpayers there are, the less incentive there is to raise tax rates. 

Republicans would like you to think government spending is simply placed into bags and dumped into the ocean, But even when it goes to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, most of it goes into the economy, employs people and creates taxpayers. Even the money that goes to the inner city poor eventually finds its way to local bodegas and Wal-Mart. Food stamps go to grocery stores, who put more goods on their shelves to replace those sold. Food stamps also support the farmers who grow the food purchased with those food stamps. If Republicans are concerned about spending that is lost, they would do well to check out the companies that place their money offshore. 

Of course, Republican politicians know all of this. They also know Social Security and Medicare have nothing to do with deficits. Both programs have been paid for, and don’t add one cent to the deficit. Social Security alone has a paper surplus that keeps it completely solvent for another 35 years, absent any changes to the law. The main goal of today's Republicans is to dismantle those programs, so that private interests can make money from such things, and so that they can continue to reduce taxes for corporations and the very rich. 

The current Republican Party is dominated by neocons and extreme right wingers, who believe the way to run the country is to starve the beast. Their intent is to bankrupt the government, which they think will result in more power for them. They don't care about you, they don't care about themselves. They only care about the perception of power. 

They like to imagine the government is like your family, so let me ask you this; if your family is hit with an unexpected expense, and doesn’t have enough money to pay the bills, of course you'll cut out unnecessary expenses, but you'll also go out and get a second job, wouldn't you? If you have to pay an extra $1000 a month, cutting out cable and turning off the lights just won't cut it. Apparently, Republicans are apparently too lazy to go out and work that second job, because it never occurs to them.

We need to invest in creating more jobs. Cutting taxes on the rich and corporations and driving down wages and benefits for workers do nothing to create more jobs. What we know does work is to raise taxes on the rich and corporations, and then offer them reductions for every job they create. We created tons of jobs and became the richest country in the world when the top tax rate was 91%, then 70%, and everyone had to create jobs to reduce that rate. Now, there's no incentive to create jobs and wealth, except for those who are already rich.

Why do Republicans have such a problem with doing what we know works to keep deficits and debt from accumulating? Oh, right; I just answered that. They're out to prove government doesn't work. 

We have to stop letting them get away with it. Increase spending on infrastructure projects and in further investment in education, and you secure the future and wipe out the debt. Keep slashing, and you actually make the problem worse. 

This morning, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is having to go before the Republicans in Congress and help them in their grandstanding efforts with regard to the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. It's the second set of hearings on this issue; the first round happened just before the election, when several Republicans thought they could help Willard Romney win the election by making Obama look bad. These hearings, on the other hand, are an attempt to make themselves look important, because we all know they'll probably be no more productive than they were during the last session of Congress. 

This morning's pageant has featured Rand Paul suggesting that Mrs. Clinton would have been fired if he was president, an occurrence that, thankfully, will never happen. He also cited the Benghazi attack as the "greatest tragedy since 9/11." Apparently, losing a few thousand troops in an unnecessary war in Iraq wasn't a tragedy to him, but ask the families of the soldiers about that. 

But the best exchange of the morning - the one that shows just how shallow and pointless these hearings are, came when Secretary Clinton schooled Senator Ron Johnson on what really matters here. He was all over the Republican talking points, all of which have been shown to be false. He starts with Susan Rice supposedly lying on "all the talk shows," which has been proven wrong. After Secretary Clinton explains the State Department's priorities in the wake of the attacks, Johnson then proffers the "simple phone call" talking point. AFTER she had explained why she did what she did. She thought getting medical help for the injured and letting the FBI investigate first was more important. and she's right. Four people are dead, and even now, no one knows everything that may have happened. It often takes years to sort these things out. To imply that the State Department should have known every detail within days is ludicrous. It's the Republican Party attempting to score political points and nothing more. 

Here is the exchange between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Johnson. It's so obvious he's thinking of his party first: