NoPoli is often accused of “discriminating” against Obama and the Democrats.  Not so, folks.  NoPoli is an equal opportunity critic.  It dislikes all lawmakers who put their own agendas ahead of We The People.  Unfortunately, that means just about all of them.

 In this case, the GOP are even bigger jerks than Obama and the Dems.  And that really is not easy to accomplish.

 Perhaps because they’re becoming a little bit anxious about 2012, the left side of the aisle has actually offered a ton of concessions to resolve all of this debt ceiling business.  Enough so that Boener and most of the GOP were prepared to go along and claim a legitimate victory for We The People in achieving these changes.  (Of course, it’s always about the victory, isn’t it, instead of just focusing on We The People?)

 But not good enough for Cantor and the rest of the GOP, who have now forced Boener to recant the agreement he had signaled the other day, and fall back to the typical business as usual political behavior of abandoning the public trust.  No matter the outcome, Boener and Cantor have each made clear that, like Obama, Pelosi and Reid, they too just do not have what it takes to be real leaders.  Too bad because Boener had showed promise.  And, he has a better golf game than Obama, who is really more interested in telling everyone he could have made it in the NBA.

 Perhaps these so called “leaders” would make good poker players, gambling as they do with, and spending, the resources of We The People, but that doesn’t mean they are good leaders.  It is totally wrong to raise the blood pressure of social security recipients who are now worried–unfairly and unnecessarily–that their vital social security benefits may soon be delayed (modest as they are in contrast to the benefits to which Weiner the weasel is now entitled, for his wonderful short-lived service to We The People).  Or to see the credit rating of the federal government impaired, and the cost of our national debt raised even higher than it presently is.  To waste any of our precious public resources on this unnecessary nonsense is just entirely inappropriate.  In fact, it’s truly quite obscene.  And demonstrates–once again–just how morally bankrupt our political “leaders” are.

As 2012 approaches, we really need to focus on sending these leaders home, and finding replacements for them who actually will be willing to serve…We The People.

By the way, California Controller John Chiang had a solution when California lawmakers recently stalled on approving a new budget, as they do every year.  He recently told them he would not issue their next paychecks, then only two weeks off, if they didn’t quit screwing around and do their job.  The new budget, mired in typical politics at that point for some several months, was signed, sealed and delivered in only one week!  How refreshing was that?

When is all this political bunk going to stop?  However, if it did, what would we here at NoPoli have to do?  Somehow…we’re not all that worried. 

I don’t get the gall of our political “leaders.”  Take Obama (and I mean that–please, take him, ’cause I sure don’t want him ).  What has Obama ever done to show that he’s qualified to do anything (other than to wage a very effective presidential campaign, which, to be sure, he did incredibly well)?  Well, let’s see:

Has he ever run a business, either started one up and made a success of it or taken over one that was already a success and kept it going?  Check.  As in, “No, he hasn’t.”

Has he even ever had a job in the private sector where he was accountable on the basis of merit and done well?  Check.  As in, “No, he hasn’t.”

Has he even ever held a job in the private sector, period?  Check.  As in, “No, he hasn’t.”

Has he taken on the problems of these United States of America and worked them out?  Check.  As in, “No, he hasn’t.”

So, what is it he’s done in his time here on our planet?

Well, as near as I can tell, he’s done two things.  As a student, he was an achiever.  He knew how to qualify to get into good schools and to get scholarships to pay his way.  Thereafter, he’s managed to figure out how to get people to elect him to public office.

So, then, what is there on Obama’s resume that makes him think he’s qualified to tell the sovereign and democratic nation of Israel how it should conduct itself, how it should maintain–or fail to maintain–all that it has accomplished under overwhelming odds?  Israel is a democracy; its people can decide for themselves how their country should and will conduct itself.

If Obama is running out of things to do here in the U.S.–now that he’s fixed everything here that needsd fixing–perhaps he can direct his attention to those countries surrounding Israel that would push Israel  into the sea, and whose tyrranical obscene leaders make a habit out of stealing billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid (underwritten by we the people) from their suppressed people to line their own personal pockets.  Seems like Obama should be able to find something regarding those countries he can address, and fix.  Or, he could just mind his own business, and find a few more things here in the U.S. to work on.

The answer to why Obama presumes to tell Israel how to take care of its own business is that a large number of people here in the United States appointed Obama to do precisely that, and will probably be foolish enough to do so again in 2012.  The first time “we the people” did this, it was out of ignorance, our ignorance.  One might say, shame on Obama for fooling we the people.  If they do it again in 2012, it certainly won’t be out of ignorance.  This time, if it happens again, as it likely will, it will be shame on we the people.

In his first election, Obama was supported by a substantial majority of the “liberal” ”Jewish vote.”  Remarkably, a strong majority of the Jewish community continues to support Obama today, and may even vote for him again in 2012!  The Jews in this country who support Israel–but who somehow still support Obama–ought to be careful what they wish for–because…they just might get it.

Ahnold is clearly having a particularly bad run.

On exiting from office, U.S. presidents and state governors often give their political “buds” a get out of jail free card–literally.  Why does this happen just as these political leaders are leaving office?  Is it because this “customary” ugly exit practice is even uglier than the typical ugly behavior of our political representatives that goes on all the time, and is saved up for when our lame duckers are least accountable?

Just before leaving office, Ahnold reduced the prison sentence of Esteban Nunez from 16 years to seven.  Nunez was a participant in a fatal knife incident in which a young college student was killed.  There was no question of Nunez’ complicity; his sentencing followed a plea of guilty.  Why did the Governator reduce Nunez’ sentence?  Was it because Nunez was old or ill and Ahnold didn’t think he should die in prison?  No.  Was it because Nunez was a stellar citizen who had contributed mightily to society and was deserving of some special dispensation for a solitary weak moment?  No.  So, what was it?

Oh yeah, Nunez is the son of former California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, a politcal ”colleague” of Schwarzenegger.  As Ahnold put it himself, ”Of course you help a friend.”  And “of course” no worries about the integrity of our criminal justice system.  In a complete break from customary practice, the Governor did not bother to consult with the family of the victim or the prosecutors who had brought the case against Nunez–and who are now suing to set aside the sentence reduction.  Our political leaders seem to think that our country is just their special playground, theirs with which to do whatever they please.

And let’s talk about another one of Ahnold’s personal “playgrounds,” the child he and his and (now separated) wife Maria Schriver’s housekeeper managed to produce together–while each was married, but not to one another.  One can only imagine how many times the two of them had to practice their union in order to produce that result.  If that were not enough, imagine that for some ten years thereafer that child was a regular guest in Maria’s home, where ”husband” Ahnold and the housekeeper maintained their lie and allowed Maria to fawn over the supposed child of the loyal housekeeper and the housekeeper’s then husband!

Can you imagine how Maria felt when she finally learned the truth?  No small wonder that Maria moved out, with their own three children, and has retained divorce counsel.

What is it about all of these demented social and fiscal abuses on the part of our political “leaders?”  Is it that only bad people seek political office or is there something about political office that turns our political representatives into bad people?

At least for purposes of this blog, “politicalization” will mean the act of making ”political” something that really ought not to be political (ignoring the observation that most everything is “political” to some extent).

Take the “taking out” of Osama Bin Ladin.  How do I feel about that?  I understand, and respect, all the arguments against an act like that.  Against capital punishment.  And perhaps we can debate that another time. But not today.

For now, I feel GREAT about the taking out of Osama Bin Ladin.  Like a breath of fresh air.  A new day.  With no apologies to those who would contend there’s never any justification for capital punishment, sorry (hmmm, guess I did apologize, must be something nagging at me about this), but the execution of Osama Bin Ladin was just a ”great” happenining as far as I’m concerned.

First and foremost, it’s a great moral booster for our troops who are giving their all to protect us.  Talk about ”winning one for the Gipper,” this is a great victory for them, our troops out there in harm’s way, to protect us.  Not a victory for our political representatives, but a victory for our troops.

And great for our country too.  The lives we have given up, and are giving up.  The billions of extra dollars we are spending on national security.  (Just think about the cost in time and money of getting on an airplane today.)  In some small way, this was payback for what Osama Bin Ladin owed us.  Osama Bin Ladin.  I hate even saying the man’s name.  (Was he a “man”?)  From now on, I’ll just say OBL.

As far as I’m concerned, OBL got off lucky.  The only regret I have is that we didn’t take him live.  He got off  WAY too easy.  He ought to have received, first hand, an exposure to justice in our courts of law.  We ought to have given him his day in court, a platform to extoll his “virtues.”  And then locked him away, forever, in a tiny cell where he could extoll his virtues all he might want, forever–to himself.

The ultimate in cave dwelling for this man who supposedly lived in caves–but was finally found living his life in a million dollar compound (mansion?) near the center of…Pakistan!  Pakistan, our supposed ally, but that, too, is another story for another day.

And bringing OBL back alive would have stopped all of the “conspirator” fans who, with the help of the media, are already up in arms, asking, as they no doubt will for years to come, why President Obama didn’t bring back the body so we could verify that the body buried at sea really was OBL.

Oh yeah, and by the way, just a little aside, THIS is how to fight a war against terrorists.  Get in and get out!

But is this a great day for our politicians?  No way!  Not on “my” watch.  We should NOT politicize (now that is a word) this event.  This happening.

What this is NOT–and should not be–is a great day for any of our political representatives.  This should not be about politics.  A well executed execution?  Absolutely.  Kudos to our military and intelligence community that (finally) managed to pull this off, and to pull it off so well (ignoring that they we haven’t heard yet why they couldn’t have brought OBL back alive).

To my delightful surprise, “we the people” seem to have this right.  Preliminary poll results show no significant change in Obama’s approval ratings!  And that’s EXACTLY as it should be.  Nothing here should have any impact whatsoever on the 2012 elections.  Hopefully, we the people will make sure it doesn’t.

As you know, we here at NoPoli Network News, have been coming down on all of the bad stuff surrounding public employee pensions for at least the past year–not just the horrific impact they are having on the economy, but how they show our politicians at their worst.  First, for allowing it to happen.  Second, for not doing anything to fix it.  Remember, the single most frequent visitor to the White House during the Obama administration, with no close second, has been the Executive Director of the Service Employees International Union (otherwise known as the SEIU).

So, we’ve been shouting about this evil, over and over (among others doing the same as well).  Finally, “we the people” are beginning to get it.  Just this week, the Los Angeles Times has reported a survey here in California in which 70% of the several thousand polled want to bring this incredible boondoggle to an end.  Not just looking forward, but retroactively reversing past excess benefits before they are paid out.  This is extremely important because it is not enough to just reel this in looking forward, which only the State of Colorado has really been trying to do–so far.

With this remarkable 70% vote, maybe our political “leaders” will start listening, and also start to get it.  They really don’t seem to care about what is right, but they do alway care about–might–the votes they need to keep their jobs!  If 70% of Californians want this ridiculous largess brought to an end, our California legislature may finally get it, and do something about it, even in the face of our historically union loving Governor, Jerry Brown, who, for the moment, seems like he wants to get the California economy fixed, even if he has to take on the Unions.  We’ll see.  We’re watching Mr. Governor.

If California pushes ahead on this, one can only assume that other states, many other states, won’t be far behind.  Who knows, as the 2012 election comes closer and closer, the Executive Director of the SEIU might actually find himself no longer so welcome at the White House.  Can’t you just see it, candidate for relection Obama saying to the 2012 voters “Who are those evil democrats who helped the unions create this mess that we are now having to clean up to get the deficit under congrol?  Never mind.  Just give me another four years and you can count on me to fix it.” Right!  (Or was that Left?  Left behind sounds right to me. )

Kessler:  So tell me, Ron, do you have any idea what it’s like–to wake up one morning and find out, with no warning whatsoever, that you don’t really exist, that you’re just a figment of someone else’s imagination?  How positively deflating is that?

Barak:     Sorry, Steve, I thought you knew!  How could you not know?  I’m really pretty sure I explained all of this to you, going in, back at the beginning.

Kessler:  C’mon, Barak.  Do you think I would have missed something like that?  Being told I’m…a big fat nothing, that I don’t count for anything, that I don’t even exist.  Don’t think I would have forgot that.

Barak:    Are you sure, Steve?  Did you check with Paige and Leah?  I’m pretty sure they knew.

Kessler:  Check with Paige and Leah?  And how am I supposed to do that?  They don’t even exist for cripes sake!

Barak:     Easy, Steve, calm down.  Why are you so upset?  Is it finding out that you really haven’t had anything to say, that I’ve been the one saying it for you?

Kessler:  Damn straight.  How do you think that makes me feel?  How would it make you feel, if it was the other way around?

Barak:     Frankly, I think you should be very flattered, finding out that I’ve been carrying your briefcase for you.  Doing all of the heavy lifting for you.

Kessler:  Yeah, right.  I suppose the next thing you’re going to tell me now is that Nopi doesn’t exist either?

Barak:     Uh, no, Steve, not…quite.  Nopi exists.  It’s just you, Steve, that doesn’t exist.

Kessler:  Oh, swell.  I’m even down there below our cartoon mascot.

Barak:     That’s not the way to look at it, Steve.  We’re all in this together.

Kessler:  What do you mean “together,” Barak?  What do you mean “we”?

Barak:     Well, I mean, you, our NoPoli Board of Directors, Paige, Leah, Nopi and…me.

Kessler:  Ron, what are you talking about?  Does anyone here besides you actually do anything?

Barak:     Well, no, I guess not, not exactly.   I guess.

Kessler:  Well, then, where do we go from here, Barak?

Barak:     We don’t go anywhere, Steve.  It’s business as usual.  Cut out the “Barak” stuff and get back to calling me “Ron.”  We all have a job to do and we all need to keep doing it.  You’re very important to all of this, Steve.

Kessler:  Well…ok…I guess.  Since you put it that way.  If you’re sure.  Say, by the way, did I tell you about the blog I’ve been planning on President O’Bama’s latest?

Barak:     No, Steve, you didn’t.  What’s up with that?  Are you telling me the President’s at it again?

Kessler:  Well, yeah, he is.  Obama came in this morning after a long night.  A little tired, still a little groggy.  And…a bit trigger happy, too.

Barak:     Uh oh.  Trigger happy?  Our President trigger happy?  No, Steve.  What did he do this time?

Kessler:  Well, he got it a little confused, and he ordered a no fly zone over…our unions and their public pension funds.  Said he was finally going to get our economy straightened out, once and for all.

Barak:     See, Steve, I told you this imagination stuff was no big deal.  You’re gonna be just fine.  Just like our President.  No worries at all.  So, we’re good, Steve?  See you in the morning?  Business as usual?

Kessler:  Hmm, yeah, right, I guess.  See you in the morning, Ron.

          Sarah Palin takes on her opponents with images of cross-hairs exhortations of “we don’t retreat, we RELOAD!”  President Obama put it ”if they bring knives, we’ll bring guns.”  The blood from last Saturday’s tragedy hasn’t even dried and the sound bites have started, our political “leaders” making it all about…them.  Democrats are seizing upon this sad “opportunity” to blame aggressive Republican rhetoric, apparently suffering from selective recall in ignoring President Obama’s earlier remarks.  Republicans are quick to remind us of those very “Presidential” words.

          This reminds me of the two kids standing off in the proverbial playground squabble:  “My dad’s bigger than your dad!”  “No, my dad’s bigger than your dad!”

           Well, guess what?  This really isn’t about the questionable remarks of our politicians.  Do guns kill people, as the left side of the aisle argues?  Is it people who kill people, as the right side of the aisle maintains?  Seems to me two things are clear:

          First, words do not kill people.  I doubt that Jared Loughner affirmatively fired on innocent bystanders as he did because of anything uttered by politicians, at least not any utterances of an “uncivil” nature.  News flash number one:  Jared Loughner is…sick.  He fired his semi-automatic weapon on other human beings with whom he had no grudge–at least no rational grudge–not because of Palin’s “RELOAD!” and ”cross-hairs” or Obama’s “guns,” but because he is…sick.  He is smiling out from that grotesque mugshot of his plastered all over the media, and enjoying his moment of infamy and ”glory” that he obviously so badly craved–the attention he had no competent way to muster–because he is…sick.

          Second, news flash number two:  It takes those guns AND the people who fire them to shoot down other human beings.  If people like Jared Loughner couldn’t get their hands on a gun–especially a semi-automatic weapon that can be used for rapid, repeated fire–then we wouldn’t now be burying the innocent people we are burying–and who depended on our political leaders to…lead.

     So, this is not about the uncivil words of our political “leaders.”  But what it is about is the failure of our political “leaders” to resist the frivolous constitutional arguments of those who say we must protect our cherished right to bear arms.  Make no mistake about it, our guns are not protected by the constitution; what they are protected by are lobbyists bearing gifts–votes and dollars–that too many of our politicians just cannot resist.

          That our forefathers meant our constitution to be “elastic” is too documented and recognized to debate.  When our constitution was enacted, people used guns to hunt for food.  News flash number three:  We don’t need guns any longer to hunt for food.  When our constitution was enacted, we didn’t have semi-automatic guns that could mow down tens of people in a matter of seconds, as we do today.  When our constitution was enacted, we did not have a strong military to protect us from other nations who would do us harm.  We do today.

          Nor are our constitutional precepts absolute.  Our country was founded on the right to free speech.  Our constitution protects that right, but not absolutely.  The United States Supreme Court ruled long ago that the right to free speech did not allow one to stand up in a crowded dark movie theather and yell “fire!”  Ironically, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords is a strong supporter of the “right” to bear arms.  However, as I understand it, Ms. Giffords’ concern is not to make the right to bear arms absolute, but to assure that this right is consistently and evenly applied state by state across the country.

          The right to bear arms–especially semi-automatic arms–is not absolute and should not be unregulated.  We had the ability to know–and document–that Jared Loughner was/is mentally unstable.  He should not have been allowed to simply walk into a store and purchase a gun, especially a semi-automatic gun–which he did just this past November, long after his unstability was a known and documented fact!

          What would be so terrible if one wishing to buy a gun–especially a semi-automatic weapon–first had to register with some regulatory or medical body and fill out an appropriate questionnaire, and then wait a reasonable period, say 30 to 6o days, for a review to determine whether that person was “qualified” to own such a weapon, and had good reason to own such a weapon?  The answer to this question is:  NOTHING.

     Oh sure, I understand all the arguments.  Some are based on manipulated constitutional words.  Some are based on fear tactics that if we permit some amount of review, the next thing we know, our government will be spying on what we have for breakfast and what we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms.  Pshaw!  Somehow, we manage to require licenses to drive a car, and written tests, demonstrated proficiency to drive a car and the ability to pass an eye test.  Somehow, we have survived these encroachments on our “rights.”  We the people can also survive some degree of scrutiny on just who gets to own a gun, and why, and what kind of emotional tests they should have to pass.  We the people won’t crumble; we can survive this.  It’s our political leaders who are afraid they can’t survive (speaking out for) this.  John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, James Brady, Gabrielle Giffords.  How many more killed and wounded do we need to figure this out–and that, once again, our problem is–sadly–our political “leaders.”

P.S.  Not that I need any bolstering to express my opinions, but just as we were about to post this blog, HotAir.com announced the results of a CBS poll in which a majority of some 700 polled Americans also do not believe that the fighting words of our politicians in any way had anything to do with what happened in Tucson last Saturday.

Personally, I can think of other impediments that pose greater holdups to our economic futures than pension funds. For example, securities fraud, mortgage securitization, perennial bubbles, and pyramid schemes otherwise known as exotic derivatives such as “credit default swaps” and “collateralized debt obligations,” not to mention the merging of commercial and investment banks with insurance and mortgage companies, as well as the deregulation of these highly risky activities, which culminated most recently in the Wall Street-mortgage related crash, great recession, and bailouts of 2008-09.

The losses/costs of the Wall Street derivatively driven securitized mortgage collapse of 2007-08 dwarfs the expenditures associated with reasonable pensions and the impending bankruptcies of municipalities, counties, and state governments attributed to them: For example, by mid-2008 the total home equity in the United States had dropped 32 percent to $8.8 trillion from $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, and it is still dropping as we ring in 2011. During the same period, Americans’ second-largest household asset, their total retirement assets, had dropped by 22 percent to $8 trillion from $10.3 trillion in 2006. Meanwhile, savings and investment assets, apart from retirement accounts, lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion as a result of the Wall Street implosion. When combined these losses to the American people come to a staggering $9 trillion in two years. Similarly, since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion in the US.

Of course, there is nothing unique about Washington’s inability to resolve sticky economic issues like the issue of public pensions. Aside from the fact that pensions are generally states’ rights issues that involve agreements reached not by federal but by local contracts, the U.S. Congress has typically not been in the habit of resolving most economically contested issues. This is especially so when it comes to spending, taxing, and acting fiscally responsible, primarily because the federal government does not have to balance its budgets like city, county, and state governments do by law.

For at least the past 40 years our governmental leaders have been playing the proverbial “kick the can” with the future of the United States’ economic stability/viability by failing to strike some kind of balance between “cutting here” and “investing there.” In other words, if the USA is to save its collective ass from becoming the first developed nation, a super power no less, to become a third world country, then it is essential that folks in general and Tea Partiers in particular recognize the nuanced complexity of the world in which we live and abandon  simplistic, one-dimensional, reductionist views of government and the economy.

For example, the commonly articulated and misrepresentative view of economic reality by the Tea Partiers that equates the bailouts by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (orchestrated by the United States of Goldman Sachs and Company) to save the “too big to fail” banking and insurance and mortgage institutions of Wall Street as being one and the same with saving or bailing out state or federal governments, to put it mildly, is nothing short of poppycock. This absurdity is just as crazy as when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) held the “middle class” tax extension hostage for some 150 million persons making less than $250,000 per year, equating at the same time, the $52 billion to extend benefits for tens of millions of unemployed workers to the $215 billion extended tax savings distributed among some 5 million persons. Nevertheless, the politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington, DC acquiesced to this type of insanity.

By contrast, an alternative and finessed view of our political economy in the context of investing in both infrastructural and social development recognizes the necessity, the inevitability that if the USA is going to change its present course from becoming the world’s first, first world-third world economy, then taxes must sooner than later go up proportionally on those who can afford to pay more of them and spending must come down proportionally in relation to maximizing the collective interests of all Americans.

In other words, continuing the tax cuts of the past 50 years for all with a far more beneficial rate and/or increasing return for the rich then in the past (1900-1960), or the precipitation and/or exacerbation of economic inequality in the USA and the looting of the American masses by Wall Street bankers along with their Oval Office appointed economic advisers and their K Street lobbyists, and, at the same time, the continuation of public and private entities investing fewer and fewer dollars in domestic development, education, infrastructure, human capital, and the environment, will only further deteriorate the prospects for either a stable or viable US economy capable of successfully competing with the rest of the developed world in the 21st century.

In the case of the extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires passed by the lame duck Congress and signed into law by President Obama on December 17^th in capitulation to the Senate Republicans, it will add $858 billion to the federal deficit over the next two years. More than 25 percent of those dollars will go into the pockets of the richest one percent of the population or to some three million persons while the other 75 percent will go to 99 percent of the population or to some three hundred million Americans. Within this inequitable obscenity, it could be argued, lies one of the greatest impediments to the future of America ever regaining its national as contrasted with its global competiveness.

Thus, in the larger scheme of things, the “solution” or the approach to the current and projected deficits as well as to the looming bankruptcy crises in the states and the nation as a whole, do not reside in the elimination and/or reduction of a few highly distorted representations of pension funds that the vast majority of workers, private or public, have never received. In fact, most Americans do not have any pension funds and rely almost totally, if not, exclusively on social security when they reach retirement age. Therefore, it is highly misleading to portray as Norman does, such anecdotal evidence of an annual pension of $228,000 to a former Orange County, California General Manager who was forced to resign for authorizing no bid contracts involving the sewer agency under his jurisdiction, or of an annual pension of $148,000 to the former Orange County Treasurer who plead guilty to six felonies, as representative of the pension problem in America. After all, the real pension problem in America is the fact that we all don’t have one!

In bringing an end to this interloping clarification from a non-Tea Partier, allow me to reference the type of exemplary leadership provided by Mayor Kasim Reed of Atlanta, Georgia who has artfully approached the multi-sided problem of “cutting here” and “investing there.” His approach underscores what New York Times’ Pulitzer prize winning economist Thomas Friedman has referred to in one of his many books as those “pay-as-you go progressives” or politicos who combine fiscal prudence with growth initiatives in order to facilitate the possibility of making their cities, their states or even the nation as a whole great once again.

When Reed took office in January of 2010, Atlanta had $7.4 million in reserves, an out-of-control budget and was lying off so many fire fighters that the number of persons on a truck was below national standards. Today, the city has $58 million in reserves, and with the budget under control, has been able to rehire or add new fire fighters as well as to reopen 16 recreational centers in the city’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods that had been previously closed for lack of money. One of the first things Reed did to accomplish these changes was to sit down with city employees to renegotiate the pension plans for current and future workers in the context of what was viewed by all parties as reasonable given the economic realities.

Editor’s Note:  Gregg Barak is a Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Eastern Michigan University and the author/editor of numerous books and essays which may be sampled at http://www.greggbarak.com.  Dr. Barak’s thoughtful blog and perspective is very much appreciated.

          The Republicans want to repeal Obamacare.  They say that repealing Obamacare will reduce the deficit.  The Democrats say that repealing Obamacare will increase the deficit.  Well, which is it?

          Math doesn’t lie, folks.  No matter who is holding the calculator, 1 + 1 = 2.  Period.  It’s our political representatives who lie–time and time again.  Here, the Democrats say 1 + 1 will be more than 2 while the Republicans say that 1 + 1 will be less than 2.

          Guess none of them ever read about Peter and the Wolf.  You know the story. Peter kept crying “wolf.”  Peter’s friends kept dropping what they were doing to come to Peter’s rescue.  But the wolf was no where to be found.  Then one day the wolf actually showed up.  Peter was in big trouble.  He yelled “wolf” at the top of his lungs, over and over.  But no one came.  They were all tired of dropping what they were doing to come to Peter’s rescue any longer.

          The Republicans cry wolf, “repeal Obamacare and the deficit will drop.”  And the Democrats cry wolf, “repeal Obamacare and the deficit will rise.”  So, which is it?  1 + 1 = 2!  How can the two parties add up the same numbers and get two different answers?  Billions of dollars apart from one another.

          Well, one reason is that they really haven’t done the math.  Not any of them.  So, they really don’t know what the answer is.  Not any of them.  Another reason is that they don’t really care what the right answer is.  They’re just saying what they want to say for whatever reason they want to say it.  They don’t feel accountable, not in the slightest.  They think holding office is a license to steal…and carte blanche permission to lie.  We all know–that’s what politicians do.  They lie.  They’ve been doing it so long, they think it’s okay.

          On November 9, I posted a blog pointing out that insurance companies were raising premium rates as much as 29%–in spite of the fact that they were enjoying record profits.  On November 17, I posted a blog pointing out that it was misleading to say that Obamacare was providing more people with insurance than ever before–because the insurance was becoming unaffordable.

          Well guess what?  Records are made to be broken, right?  This week, Blue Shield filed for regulatory approval of annual rate increases in California of…59%!  No.  You heard me right.  59%!

          Aren’t we lucky that more and more of we the people are now insured under Obamacare.  Too bad we can’t afford it.  And don’t really have it.  “Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.”

          If Obamacare is repealed, you’ll have to feel sorry for all those millions of Americans who’ll lose the insurance they don’t really have because they can’t possibly afford the premiums (especially those Americans who remain unemployed) and the coverage they don’t really have because the doctors can’t afford to provide the service for the reduced fees they are now paid.  Yet the insurance companies say they need to raise premiums 59% because medical costs spiraling out of control require it.

          The only thing that is for sure is that our politicians can’t really tell us what 1 + 1 actually equals.

          Senator Harry Reid personifies all that is wrong with our political “leaders.”  He is the…”best.”  Our Board of Editors gave him a standing proclamation.  Five nominees were considered for the award.  Harry lapped the field.  There was no close second, a pretty remarkable statement given the “caliber” of the other candidates.  I would tell you who the other candidates were, but I don’t want them found guilty by…association with Harry.  I will tell you that the initials of the first names of the next two finishers are “B” and “N.”  (Can you believe I am a registered…Democrat?  Always have been.  True story. Doesn’t mean that’s how I always vote.)

          Harry wins it hands down.  No close second.  Harry Reid is NoPoli.org’s 2010 Hypocrite of the Year.  Before explaining why, I need to share just one small story first.  As you know, NoPoli.org was launched in August, 2010.  So this is the first of an annual award we hope will be a tradition for many years to come.  I really wanted to call it NoPoli.org’s Scumbag of the Year award.  I was overruled by our Board of Editors.  They absolutely forbade me from calling Harry Reid a scumbag.  They said it wasn’t dignified.  They weren’t seeking to protect Harry.  They were seeking to protect NoPoli.  I play by the rules.  I can’t call Harry a scumbag.  I won’t call Harry a scumbag.

          Okay, I feel better now, got that outta my system.  Don’t need to call Harry a Scumbag–with a capital S–any more.  Now, let me tell you why Harry Reid is a hypocrite, and easily the 2010 NoPoli Hypocrite of the Year–among the many hypocrites who fancy themselves our…political represenatives.  Because I can smell that egg nog waiting for me, I’m gonna give you just two quick recent examples and get outta here for the rest of the year:

          1.  Some group (I refuse to promote their cause by using their name) has been protesting at military funerals.  Harry, champion of our finest, supposedly takes exception with anyone who would invade the privacy of our private citizens.  Having gone on record against this protest group, Harry was asked how he feels about unions who this year have been taking their picket lines to the homes of private citizens who don’t support their wish lists.  Harry disingenuously professed not to know that this has been happening–in spite of the fact that it has repeatedly been in headlines all across the country since June of this year.  These unions are  trying to have their way by extorting and threatening private citizens who don’t agree with them–and by frightening and confusing their young children as well.  Nothing less than terrorism!  (In case, you may not be aware of this recent insidious union behavior, don’t take my word for it.  Just check out Kerry Picket’s editorial blog in yesterday’s December 23 Washington Times.  Kudos to Terry for reminding us of this latest hypocrisy of Sir Harry.)

          2.  Just last week, Harry brough to the floor of the Senate a vote on the so called Dream Act, to give amnesty and citizenship to young illegal immigrants, knowing full well that this legislation–in its present form–had no chance of passing.  Why did Harry do this?  Because he passionately feels these young illegal immigrants are deserving?  No way!  Harry simply wants to drive a wedge between the Latino vote and the Republicans who would not support this bill–in its present form.  All Harry had to do was revise the proposed bill to close the loopholes that would have allowed undeserving illegal immigrants to ride the coattails of those who are deserving–and the bill would have passed in a New York minute.  (As for NoPoli.org’s already published position on doing the right thing by our hard working “illegal” youth who definitely deserve our support, please click here.)  Harry threw these deserving young immigrants to the wolves just so he could try to embarrass the Republican party.  Shows you what Harry really thinks of the Latinos in our country, that he can so easily manipulate them.  That’s why Harry is a…is a…is a S…a Sc…a Scu…a Scum…a…hypocrite.  

          Alright, Harry is now preserved in our hearts for all posterity–and I’m outta here.  See ya all next year.  On behalf of Nopi, Leah Klein, Paige Norman and yours truly, and our entire Board of Editors at NoPoli Network News and NoPoli.org, I want to wish all of you, our growing family of NoPoli followers, happy yearend holidays and a very happy and healthy and prosperous New Year!  Better times for we the people.  Keep the faith.  And keep coming back to visit us:)  Thanks, Steve