Michele Bachmann is Symbolic of Bigger Problems…Us.

In today’s Star Tribune, a writer from St. Anthony, MN, submitted a letter to the editor defending Michele Bachmann’s legacy.  And in this short, two-paragraph letter can be found a clue to problems bigger than Michele Bachman.  In a representative government, the problem in the first place might really be the voter.

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sure, there are dirty tricks and fancy campaigns that can manipulate a poorly-informed but otherwise conscientious voter.  But that’s a whole lot of baloney.  Stupidity is at the root of the problem and there’s no excuse for that.

The writer starts by praising Bachmann for defending the unborn and the institution of marriage.  Ok, I’ll give Bachmann that.  For the sake of argument, I don’t want to pick sides.  We can debate whether a pregnancy is the same as a person.  It’s a human rights issue, correct?  So delve into Bachmann’s politics a little and look for a record on human rights.  Do all babies, for example, share a right to life-saving medical care, for example?  Not according the Bachmann, they don’t.

Even this defense of marriage thing.  This is a litmus test for me.  People who are threatened by “non-traditional” marriage fail miserably.  I don’t think you can be a secure and sophisticated thinker, one who embraces an idea of fairness and equality, and see any sort of threat in same-sex marriage.  You are — by definition, I’m sorry — a bigot.  It isn’t name calling when it fits.  If this offends you:  Fail.

Let’s move on…

The writer suggests that Bachmann stood for tax payer interests by opposing the bailouts of “institutions that that failed largely due to government intervention in the marketplace.”  Bachmann does oppose these things, true, but otherwise this observation cannot be more wrong.  First of all, why oppose the bailouts?  They seem to have done what they were intended to do.  Of course one could be critical of the fact that it saved the asses of very wealthy people recklessly playing with other people’s money, but the writer obviously isn’t aware of these facts.

, member of the United States House of Representatives. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The bailouts saved the United States and the global economy from an even worse fate than the one in which we languish now.  It essentially socialized private market losses — that is a bummer — but it kept us from sinking further.  These losses, dear Bachmann supporter, were not do to government intervention, but because government chose to intervene less.  the so-called free marketplace got a wee bit irresponsible and the average Joe is on the hook.  So praise for Bachmann on this one is ironic and absurd and based no where on the facts.

Should I talk bout the writer’s complaint that trillion-dollar deficits will “confiscate the earnings of wage earners for years to come”?   Our government funding issues have been a problem for decades, but that probably isn’t the writer’s concern.  Talking economic and historical issues with a conservative is a futile exercise so this is a tough one.

Nevertheless, the idea that government is “confiscating” money to pay our bills is a cheap, shallow, and almost meaningless complaint.  It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of government budgets and finance.  We collect taxes because these things we need in government don’t come free.  The problem is not taxes, but it might instead be a problem of managing government responsibly.

Bachmann and her ilk support a “starve the beast” strategy that does not serve government well and ultimately builds deep deficits.  We don’t have a spending problem as much as we have a funding problem.

And funding government in order to create an “enslaving dependency” on government sounds like paranoid — almost anti-democratic — crazy talk.  Access to good schools, safe streets, affordable health care, and a clean environment, that is enslaving?  What about a strong national defense…how does that enslave free people?  If the writer wants to discuss the NSA and the domestic implications of the Patriot Act, let’s go!  But I doubt it.

I doubt it because I am — as the writer calls us — a member of the “enlightened left.”  (I think he meant to be sarcastic.)  I am willing, unlike the “unenlightened rubes” with whom I think he identifies (I think he meant to be ironic), to actually parse the facts and connect them with the truth.  Or at least try!  (I’m really not sure what the writer means here and I’m not sure he does either, but maybe that’s the point…)

Nonetheless, it is clear that the writer is confusing his opinions with facts and defending a world view that supports neither.  And therein lies the problem.  The convoluted mix of opinion-based reality creates votes for people like Michele Bachmann, not the other way around.

But who cares?  We should be grateful for Michele Bachmann’s defense of the Constitution and the way she follows “the rule of law as established by our Constitution.”  It is as simple as that, good people…Unless, of course, that rule of law gets in the way of building a poorly-conceived bridge in her Congressional District, perhaps the only tangible bit of legislation she can put her name on that serves people.  And the benefit of that is up for debate.

The credit or blame for who gets into elected office rests with the people who vote.  Often when people like Michele Bachmann get elected, they get there through emotional issues, not factual ones.  In this way Bachmann is a sign of bigger underlying problems and not quite so significant by herself.  This letter shows this fact.  After all, his opinions are not likely to change with Bachmann’s departure.

Related articles

• Why Michele Bachmann Is Really Retiring (huffingtonpost.com)
• Lil’ Ol’ Me On Michele Bachmann At … NPR (riehlworldview.com)
• 40 of Michele Bachmann’s greatest hits (dailykos.com)
• How Michele Bachmann Could Still Matter – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)

St. Croix Bridge Toll

An article in today’s Star Tribune about funding options for the St. Croix Bridge boondoggle suggests the possibility of a toll.  Interesting.  The actual toll of this bridge won’t be realized until it is built.

From start to finish, this bridge is a bad idea, but we wouldn’t expect less today.

Let’s think like a politician…or more importantly, let’s think like a politician representing Minnesotans.

Pretty, isn’t it?

Lining up behind the untarnished wisdom and deep intellect of Michele Bachmann, no less, the Minnesota delegation pushed for an over-sized, high-priced bridge to Wisconsin.  The Twin Cities — the region’s economic hub — is in Minnesota.  The bridge offers little more than a conduit for Wisconsinites to evade taxes that support the economic engine that benefits them.  Good call, Minnesota!

It also sets up one of those classic (and misleading) scenarios where the “makers” threaten to abandon the “takers” by fleeing across the border to a lower-tax state.

The bridge essentially tethers Minnesota to Wisconsin in a tax-parity sort of way.  The problem is, western Wisconsin isn’t Minnesota.  Those people across the river enjoy the benefits and advantages that strong a strong economic and social center bring and Minnesota’s delegation is happy to buy them a way to benefit from it.  Dispersing our tax base seems like the right for a Minnesota politician to do.

Honestly, Amy Klobuchar‘s enthusiasm for the project cost her my vote this year.  It was the last straw.  I have only voted for her in the past because she’s a Democrat.  I am not a big fan.  She gives Milquetoast and cheerleaders a bad name.  When you’re a leader, lead.  Don’t follow the likes of Michele Bachman, for Christs’s sake, and come up with meaningful projects.  Boo hiss Amy.

I hate to say it, but the same should be said to Mark Dayton, Al Franken, et al.

And of course this bridge will bring about a toll of another sort.  Environment degradation.  When towns like New Richmond and St. Joseph become cities like Woodbury you can kiss your starry nights good-bye, but that’s not the worst of it.

Federal legislation to protect wild and scenic rivers was enacted precisely because environmental interests needed protection from economic interests.  Left to the short-sighted propensities of the free market, tomorrow’s resources will be squandered today.  And guess what…we disregarded that reasoning and the laws set to protect it in favor of purely economic interests.

Klobucharetown or Bachmannville?

Good job, Minnesota politicians.  I would expect this from Bachmann and (regrettably) Klobuchar, but where is the backbone from the rest of our progressive delegation?  Fail.

I have said it repeatedly here and elsewhere, rivers are more than that body of water flowing through a valley.  Rivers are the watershed that surround them.  Strip malls and suburban lawns up and down the Wisconsin side of the river do not bode well for the St. Croix River.

I need to cut this short (!) because I am heading out to Afton Alps to ski this morning.

When I was a boy the land from Newport to Afton was mostly farmland.  I know, I know…populations grow and things change…but what was once a mix of small growth residential and semi-rural landscape is now giving way to large tracts of suburban homes and hideous malls and office parks.  A few giant schools and churches, too.  (How can you know your classmates and neighbors in those things?)

If you don’t think that will happen in Wisconsin, then I have to ask…why build such a proportionately larger bridge to replace the smaller existing Stillwater Bridge?

Related articles

• Weekly Basket: Bridge on the River (St.) Croix (gloucestercitynews.net)
• Questions About a Proposed New Stillwater Bridge (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• Wrong Idea on Proposed Stillwater Bridge (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• St. Croix Bridge Plan a Mistake (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)

Put the Blame Where it Belongs…On the Shoulders of the GOP

Reports increasingly suggest that no “fiscal cliff” compromise will be reached before the end of the year and with this all signs point to a rather dismal start to 2013.  Where should the blame rest?  The diplomatic answer is “Washington”, blaming the nation’s broken political process.  But if the political process is broken — which it obviously appears to be — then the Republican Party broke it.

Republicans are unwilling to compromise.  Period.  It is their way or no way.  Last week House Speaker John Boehner could not rally support for a compromise proposal – one that essentially endorses failing conservative values — and that demonstrates how radically Republicans are not even willing to present plans to negotiate in the first place.

At the most simple and basic level, the GOP takes positions that don’t stand up to reason.  There is no sound economic argument, for example, that defends the extreme government-gutting positions taken by the GOP.  Their fears over current deficits and future taxes are absurd and frankly abusive, taking down our economy while dismantling government programs.  We are not getting more for less, we are simply getting less and less.

After thirty years of supply side economics you would think smart Americans would understand that the “trickle down” argument is hollow one and has not delivered promised results.  In fact it has delivered just the opposite.  (cf. Starve the Beast to understand the true conservative agenda.)  And now, in the midst of a self-inflicted economic crisis, we intend to inflict more economic pain on the people and economy of this country.

Unfortunately we seem to have a lack of smart, informed voters — especially at the caucus level!  – steering the right people to political roles.  In the end today’s elected conservatives are exceedingly radical and in  possession of no shortage of bad ideas.

But again it worst than bad ideas.  It is bad politics.  One might even say without inaccuracy it is about bad people.  Better Americans — the educated and informed — understand solutions to our problems exist, but the backward regressives have been given too much control and as a result we are out of control.

What can you think of people who govern in fear of reprisals from caucuses led by people like Michele Bachmann for Christ’s sake?!  Good lord!  Are we really this tragically stupid?

This is not a bi-partisan problem.  If you really care about your future and this country stop voting for today’s GOP.  Fear and ignorance are not the qualities of strong leadership, and we are suffering through our decline because we are forced to concede to this elected imposition of backwardness.

Related articles

• Tea Party activists double down against Boehner and ‘fiscal cliff’ deal (newsday.com)
• Republican Revolt Praised As Fiscal Cliff Battle Continues (huffingtonpost.com)
• Poll: GOP Must Cede More than Dems (hispanicbusiness.com)
• Conservatives urge GOP leaders to be bold, prepare to go over cliff (thehill.com)
• Twas The Night Before Cliffmas – A Stubborn Mule Christmas Special (unapologeticallyliberal.wordpress.com)
• Tea Party Activists Unwilling To Bend On Taxes (huffingtonpost.com)
• GOP Approval Ratings Plummet After ‘Plan B’ Fiasco (businessinsider.com)
• In ‘fiscal cliff’ fight, Obama gets better marks than Boehner – Christian Science Monitor (csmonitor.com)

Politicians and the Fiscal Cliff

A story in today’s Star Tribune about looming “fiscal cliff” says it all about where the blame lies.  If Republicans — not Congress, but Republicans — fail to reach a budget deal we are in big trouble.

It is time to stop being bi-partisan when explaining our nation’s woes.  Unless Republicans show some sincere effort to recognize that they do not represent 100% of the ideas and people in this county and begin to work on an overall solution that involves compromise, they are to blame.  Period.

Look at the positions.  Obama is cited saying “I refuse to accept any approach which isn’t balanced.”  Senator Amy Klobuchar says “This is a time for grownups to get things done.”

Meanwhile the paper cites Michele Bachman who claims “I pledge to continue to work everyday to create jobs.”  Speaker John Boehner warns that “raising the top [tax] rates would destroy nearly 700,000 jobs in our country.”

Do you see a difference?  The difference is stubborn delusion from the right.  Obama simply states a condition, not a firm, single position, such as a rigid no new taxes pledge.  He taking a position that sounds open to negotiation and option, but wants it to be balanced, i.e., fair.

Bachmann, on the other hand, claims she is working every day to create jobs.  For much of the last two years the only job she seemed focused on was her own.  And if she were indeed working  for creating jobs for all Americans, then based on her own assessment of today’s American job market, she hasn’t much to show for her efforts.

Boehner, on the other hand, is crying about losing 700,000 jobs if taxes on the very wealthiest are raised to help recover from decades of underfunding government.  If these magical tax cuts and unbalanced tax rates really were going to create jobs, where are they now?

Meanwhile, real experts at the Congressional Budget Office, not partisan hacks, warn that failing to avoid the “fiscal cliff” will cost 2 million jobs and result in as much as a four percent drop in GDP which equals another recession.

So let’s say Boehner knows what he is talking about.  Just pretend for a minute.  Isn’t it better to lose 700,000 jobs and avoid a recession while cleaning up our fiscal mess or is it best to lose 2 million jobs and make our situation worse?  Seems like an easy question to answer, even if half of the question isn’t based in fact. If we can trust people like Boehner to have their facts right, which is the better option?

Sadly, as we saw last Tuesday, tens of millions of Americans buy the irrational arguments of the conservative right.  Paying attention to simple arguments should sort out the choices we face, but people seem unable — or unwilling — to figure it out.  It is an absurdity.  As we see here, even if Republicans have the facts, they still don’t have the winning argument.

So why do they keep pushing?

Conservatives don’t like government.  They want to dismantle as much of it that they can.  They all believe, rich and poor alike, that they are wealthy landowners living in colonial Virginia centuries removed from reality.  I have no idea.  But the stupidity on the right, not on the left (sorry), owns the overwhelming burden of our current failures.

Prove otherwise.  Explain how we got to where we are today.  We have the job-creating tax cuts, we’ve privatized more and more of our government, we are fighting wars for freedom, we have cut government investments…where is the prosperity?

Related articles

• How the Fiscal Cliff Would Hit the Economy (vpr.net)
• Fiscal cliff: Compromise or hope for the best (upi.com)
• Are We About to Fall Off the Fiscal Cliff? – Patch.com (santacruz.patch.com)
• Boehner Tells House G.O.P. to Fall in Line (nytimes.com)
• ‘Fiscal cliff’ showdown begins as Obama and Boehner claim mandates on tax issue (guardian.co.uk)
• RPT-US Congress created this cliff and may now plunge off it – Reuters (reuters.com)
• John Boehner Goes After Bachmann’s Clinton Aide/Muslom Brotherhood Remarks:  ”Pretty Dangerous”  (mediate.com)

Where Will Bachmann Build Her Next Bridge?

Michelle Bachmann squeaked by Jim Graves Tuesday night to win her fourth term in the United States House of Representatives.  So now what?

I believe a strategy that turns Bachmann into an asset for progressives is the smartest approach.  She’s won, she’ll be in the public spotlight, and she’s a disgraceful joke.  Any remnants of the regressive Tea Party that remain after yesterday’s election should be made to go down with her.  And in that way, it can be useful, even if it is painful, to have Bachmann as a standing reminder of how inept poorly chosen leaders can be.

A couple things work in favor of ensuring this victory is Bachmann’s last.

First, she won this election based on the broad support of fellow travelers pumping millions of dollars from across the country.  The radical American right elected Bachmann as much as our misguided neighbors in Minnesota Congressional District Six did.

Bachmann won’t have a presidential election to use as a stage in two years.  Her short-lived success as a GOP presidential candidate gave her an appearance of credibility on the national stage.  That is gone.

Michele Bachmann

Instead, unless Bachmann changes her stripes (maybe someone can pray away her crazy), she has two years to reinforce her true character and that character is not good.  Even her own party prefers to stay at a distance from her making her an amazingly ineffective multiple-term representative.

In the last election Bachmann had the bridge over the St. Croix River south of Stillwater to sell as an accomplishment.  She doesn’t have another boondoggle to promote, nothing that will be accomplishment before the next election cycle.  Moreover, Bachmann would not have that bridge without the work and cooperation of others, especially Amy Klobuchar (more about this in a future post).

It would be nice to think that perhaps Bachmann’s experience has mellowed her some; maybe should would be willing to build a bridge of a different kind, one that would bridge the political aisle.  But don’t count on it.

First of all — and I saw this with sincerity — I don’t think Bachmann has the moral character or the intelligence to either want to do this or be able to do this.  Bachmann is among the worst of the worst when it comes to ranking the bottom of our political leaders…and today that takes some doing.

Secondly, only hours after Tuesday’s historic election, the GOP sounds like it is positioning itself for more of the same.  I have been listening to interviews and reading commentary all morning.  Conservatives, with few exceptions, have not changed their rhetoric.

(Mitch McConnell, it is important to note, has softened his anti-American rhetoric.  He hasn’t said his priority is making Barack Obama a one term president this year, although I think it would be funny if he did and it would be maybe the most realistic comment he has made in years.)

Thank you, Jim Graves.

With more credible colleagues circling the wagons and a base — albeit shrinking — of narrow minded misguided voters of the Tea Party ilk, Bachmann has cover and she has an audience.  That’s all she wants and needs.  Minnesota?  Just a means to an end.

For that reason it isn’t too early to start pushing Bachmann now.  We know who she is, we know what she is about.  I see little sense in trying to work with her.  She has to go and the effort to unseat her started in this election.  It didn’t end last night.

An approach that focuses more on positive differences from Bachmann is an overdue approach.  The people who are voting for Bachmann are voting for her at least in part — if not for the most part — because they agree with her outrageous positions and ideas.  Running negative campaigns, therefore, become in a twisted way a positive reinforcement of Bachmann’s base.

Clearly we cannot give Michele a pass on the overly-abundant negative side of her career.  I simply think we need to focus on what makes her opponent different and better.  Don’t overlook promoting the positive.  Differentiate and divide.

And, finally, for that, better Minnesotans and Americans need to thank Jim Graves, his team, and all the people who worked on his behalf and gave him the support he needed to put Michele Bachmann on her heels.

Keep pushing!

Related articles

• Michelle Bachmann squeaks by in Minnesota (washingtonpost.com)
• Bachmann wins re-election in tight race (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
• Michele Bachmann Almost Lost Her House Seat (nymag.com)
• Audience Roars In Laughter During Michelle Bachmann’s Debate (kaystreet.wordpress.com)

The Source of these Crazy Amendments

If you have missed “The Deep Roots of the Marriage Debate” on MPR this week, please take a look at the link.  The debate has gone on for decades and hasn’t grown any more rational of the years.  If anything, the debate has regressed.   These ideas come from a source of insecurity that is hard to understand.  Even more troubling, I believe, is the tie to religious belief and how that gets intertwined with our secular government.

Look no further than the Queen of Madness, Michele Bachmann, a myopic supporter and promoter of anti-marriage legislation.  Earlier this year at a Faith and Freedom event in Eagan, Minnesota, Bachmann explains why she introduced legislation that prohibits equality before the law for all Minnesotans.  She learned that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples could not be denied equal marriage rights under the Massachusetts constitution.  Of course this would trouble a bigot like Bachmann.  So, as she explains it…

“And I was deeply troubled in my spirit about this decision and I prayed and I asked the Lord at that time, ‘Lord, what would you have me do?’ Because I knew this was wrong. And I felt the Lord speaking into my heart at that time, ‘Bring forth a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman’, so I went out and held a press conference.”

If we are to take her literally, she is making her political decisions based on her relationship with her god.  That isn’t right.  Our secular democracy is in danger when religious zealots impose their personal religious beliefs in the business of government.  Equality means we should be free to choose to live freely with our private religious beliefs.  Apparently Bachmann doesn’t understand this.

When we elect people like this we get bad public policy.  If an amendment defining marriage based on personal, private, and religious grounds is passed, we have betrayed the tenor of our country’s founding documents and reversed decades of civil rights progress.

For the record, Michele, my God tells me we should treat each other with respect and fairness.  What does your god say about that?

Related articles

• A Call for Reasonable GOPers (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• Mitt Romney Retracts Disavowing Support For Federal Gay Marriage Ban (ontopmag.com)
• Michele Bachmann’s Gay Step-Sister Discusses Rep’s ‘Sad Legacy’ (towleroad.com)
• Reality Check: Amendment Ad Makes Questionable Claims (minnesota.cbslocal.com)
• Michele Bachmann Probably Won’t Be Invited To Lesbian Step-Sister’s Wedding (queerty.com)
• Reality Check: The Impact Of The Marriage Amendment (minnesota.cbslocal.com)
• POLL: Minnesota Inequality Amendment Could Lose With Full Majority (thinkprogress.org)

If American is Really Going to Become Another Greece it’s Thanks to the GOP

Michele Bachmann might still be hiding under a rock somewhere, but her people are running an ad attacking candidate Jim Graves which they base on — surprise, surprise — bad economics and misunderstood numbers.

I think this one is fun! And funny…only because it is true, perhaps?

In her attack, Bachmann claims that each American owes $51,000 on our Federal debt.  Well, no, not really.  Or maybe I should say, not necessarily.  If we elect Republicans this, that number could very well go much higher, for example, but even then it isn’t the case that each American will get a bill for $51,000 — or higher if the GOP prevails in November.

First of all, the number Bachmann uses divides public debt by the number of people in the United States.  Say there 300,000,000 million people live in the United States, there are not 300,000,000 shares of debt equally divvied up.  I’m surprised, in fact, that the GOP doesn’t whine that the rich will pay more and the very poor will pay less.  But never mind…It won’t be paid back this way.

If Democrats wrest control from the regressive right we could  look forward to a growing economy which would make paying the debt easier.  Economic growth — and inflation — would change the debt in real terms.  Twenty years ago we grew out of debt.   Economic growth changes the value of assets and liabilities in real terms.  Think of it Bachmann’s number this way, somewhat in reverse:  If you had $51,000, would it be worth more today or in 1900?

Bachmann also perpetuates the false claim that this debt is the fault of Democrats.  Sorry.  We had a surplus before unfunded wars, tax cuts, subsidies, and Medicare prescription gifts erased the surplus. We don’t have a spending problem in this country as much as we have a funding problem.

Take the classic Republican way of running up our debt, cutting taxes while raising expenses.  George W. Bush’s mistake in Iraq, for example, wasn’t paid for, in fact it came with tax cuts!   Sounds absurd, doesn’t it?

But look at Mitt Romney — another Republican — he is running on a platform of increased defense spending while promising tax cuts. Do you see a pattern? So how do facts — economic growth and surplus under a Democratic leadership — square with GOP rhetoric?  They don’t.

Here in Minnesota, Erik Paulsen, another poorly-informed GOP “numbers guy”, is misleading poorly informed voters with the same disinformation…

And so is aging John Kline, another GOPer…

There’s a pattern here that is repeating across the United States, and often you hear these conservative politicians warn that the United States is on its way to becoming “another Greece” unless they are elected. Obviously facts don’t bother Republicans…Look at Greece, austerity has weekend the Greek economy.  It hasn’t helped it.  You cannot argue with this.

Fortunately, we’re not Greece.  We manage the US Dollar, still the world’s default currency.  This gives the United States a unique advantage and opportunity, one that we are squandering under misguided austerity arguments.  Data and expert analysis, both here and abroad, argue for the opposite of austerity policies.

So why keep pushing the austerity argument?  People like Bachmann, Paulsen, and Kline cannot be that stupid, can they? Well, maybe they can.  At the very least it is called cognitive dissonance.  Even most of the GOP political elite are not among those most favored by GOP policies…unless they’re afraid of gays and foreigners.

All of this stupidity is really simple.  Conservatives have a chance to roll back government, their real goal.  Financial security for the middle and working classes doesn’t interest them.  Why should it?  The interests of the future serve those who need not worry about backward fiscal policy.  That is simply the price that must be paid to destroy a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

How American is that?  Is sounds kind of Greek to me.

Related articles

• The Austerity Trap (ypervasi.wordpress.com)
• Romney’s Economic Model (nytimes.com)
• Mitt & the Austerity Lies (theyouthcaucus.com)

The Best Thing About the 2012 Election So Far…

The best thing about the 2012 Election so far — at least here in Minnesota — is how easily I have forgotten about Michele Bachmann.  She’s almost non-existent, invisible, and uncharacteristically faux pas-free this election.

But then maybe that isn’t something to feel good about.

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is an election that Bachmann could lose so it probably makes sense for her to shut up and keep her head low, especially if you’re prone to controversy, as Bachmann certainly is.  She might even hope her able opponent, Jim Graves, trips up, not unlike I fear Rick Nolan has stumbled recently with an ill-advised ad attacking hapless Chip Cravaack.   (Come on, Rick…You have a building lead!  Stay on message.)

Whatever the case, whether by design or dumb luck, it seems that Bachmann’s absence from the political stage this election season could serve her well.  Her constituency isn’t used to seeing much of her anyway — unless she’s on Hannity — so this might play into sixth district’s comfort zone.

If only Michele would shut and keep her head down all year, every year.  Perhaps we’re seeing a new Michele Bachmann?  Don’t count on it.  Best to vote her out now when the opportunity is at hand.

Related articles

• Democrat Jim Graves Has A Chance To Unseat Michele Bachmann (huffingtonpost.com)
• Former GOP Governor Arne Carlson Endorses DFLer Graves in the 6th (twincities.com)
• The Man Who Could Beat Bachmann (thedailybeast.com)
• Anti-Islam, pro-Bachmann ad kind of backfires (salon.com)
• Bye Bye Crazy Eyes: Poll Finds Democrat in Position to Defeat Michele Bachmann (politicususa.com)
• Michele Bachmann Could Be Replaced [Greg Laden's Blog] (scienceblogs.com)

I Saw Something Odd Yesterday

I was sitting in the old Explorer beneath a giant maple which was just starting to turn when a chicken chasing a squirrel caught my eye.  Being mostly a city boy, I’m not sure if that is really all that odd or not, but the chicken chased that squirrel right up the tree and started bouncing around the tree trunk like…well, like it had just lost its head.

That might be odd.  Maybe.  What truly was odd about all of this will amaze you as much as it did me.  That wasn’t a chicken, not even close, it was a dog!  Yes, a dog with fur (I think), not a bird with feathers.  The oddest looking dog I have ever seen.

I wanted to get my camera phone but the chicken dog’s owner followed the dog and he looked as strange as his pet.  Scrawny guy with loads of tattoos and I swear he was smoking two cigarettes at once.  I’ll do a lot for A Little Tour in Yellow, but being chased by chicken dogs and their owners isn’t one of them.

As a footnote here, I’ll tell you that I was deep in Minnesota Congressional District 6.  Guess what oddity I am not seeing much of this election year.  Michele Bachmann yard signs.  Could that be an omen and a good one?  I am seeing a disturbing amount of Vote Yes  on Voter ID signs, however, and I suppose that indirectly shows support for dangerous nut cases like Bachmann, but only indirectly.  (We have to defeat that pointless and unconstitutional amendment.)

I’ll bet that chicken dog I saw was named Michele.   Michele the chicken dog.  It fits somehow.

Related articles

• Duncraft’s Tips On Squirrel Diversion Feeding and Fun Facts About Squirrels (prweb.com)
• “Michele Bachmann In Danger”: The Voters May Just Pray Her Away (mykeystrokes.com)
• Fare Thee Well? Michele Bachmann Suddenly in Danger of Losing Her Reelection Bid [Michele Bachmann] (jezebel.com)
• Michele Bachmann Thankful No Americans Died In Sikh Shooting (theonion.com)
• Bachmann’s Lead Nearly Gone: Poll (newser.com)
• In which Pyrrha catches a squirrel (thedoggerel.wordpress.com)

Preparing to Live In Post-Democratic America

I have offered a few tips here on A Little Tour in Yellow — mostly dealing with food and this one is more of the same – about how to live in a post-democratic America.  And I don’t mean to sound nihilistic,  but should Romney win and also get a Congress dominated by conservatives…well, think things are bad now?  We’re toast.

Among the biggest concerns that no one talks about is the courts.  We have it bad now with the Devil’s lazy henchmen currently serving in the Federal courts  – yes, I am talking about you Scalia, Thomas, et al – but a rookie like Romney might nominate a loon like Michele Bachmann to a federal court!  Or maybe Mary Pawlenty, wife of poor little Tim.  In fact you can count on Mary Pawlenty being appointed.  Bet the farm.

Yes, things look bad now, but they would be much, much worse.

Of course we would lose more than our rights and our government, we would lose the economic battle as well.  Conservatives, like liberals, might — and I mean might — know a little something about business — maybe we can give them that — but they don’t understand economics, especially macroeconomics, and business and economics are two different things.

The economic winners in places like China will demand more and more of the world’s resources and with us getting less and less it will become necessary to learn to live with less.  So I am preparing now.

Today I stopped at a grocery store and shopped as if I were in the post-democratic future.  First I limited my shopping to $10 and tried to get enough for a couple days.  My basked was half-filled with off-brand products of things like potato flakes, canned vegetables, and some macaroni and cheese.  There were some tempting “meat products”, but I was a long way from home and didn’t want the soy and wheat to sprout before I got to a freezer.

Tonight I enjoyed a mix of potato flakes and corn.  You know…it wasn’t bad.  I splurged with some butter, however, which might be cheating and not fully living the post-democratic American dream.  In any case, it is a good idea to start eating this way, because … well, you never know.  And don’t think it can’t happen.  Ask millions who already know.

And of course I sound like an ass.  I hope I do.  This isn’t supposed to be funny.  Many millions of people in the United States are grateful for even my paltry make-believe pantry.  For them it is not make believe.  Keep in mind that the poverty rate in the United States is going up, not down.  The yuppies of the past are being replaced by older Americans – and not so old for those who won’t even get a chance — who are learning to do more with less.

Is it government’s job to fix this?  You know, to some extent, the answer is yes.

We don’t have to keep punching holes in a sinking ship.  Government has policy tools it can use to stimulate economic growth.  The United States has the Federal Reserve, assigned to manage these things from a monetary angle.  Today they did what they need to do — they did the right thing — and pushed some money into the system.

Overall government can and should support programs and infrastructure that put a foundation beneath its citizens (i.e., workers) and business (i.e., job creators).  Government can also hire talented people to administer these programs, build the infrastructure, and maintain the business of government.  Public jobs should not be a disgrace.  In these key ways, government has a positive role serving the economic interests of the country.

In my (perhaps cynical) post-Democratic America (I should be more fair), do we expect further investment in the common good?  Come on!  Fat chance.  Even in this country’s relatively strong years (cf. the Clinton years) we cut and didn’t reinvest our good fortune.  In good times and in bad we have been dismantling our shared, public investments in our common assets.

The race to the bottom will end somewhere and I’m not sure why we should look forward to where that ends up to be.  If we continue to disinvest in our common assets, don’t expect the same standard of living that raised today’s conservatives.  No, the good schools, functioning infrastructure, sound regulation, and so forth required a public investment that people today seem unable and unwilling to understand.  And the private sector won’t pick up the slack.  These investments are called public goods for a reason.

So as our rights dwindle, our economy tanks, and our treasure flows increasingly overseas, I simply think it is a good idea to look at a bleak future with eyes wide open.  Practice, prepare, and practice some more.  Maybe less will feel like more and we can celebrate with a swig of victory gin.

Potato flakes and corn.  Or…how about this?…we could stop voting against our best interests!

Related articles

• EXCLUSIVE: John Oliver Promises To ‘Mock America’s Democratic Process At Its Source’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• A memo to Republicans: Demography is destiny (kansascity.com)
• Obama Approval Rating Jumps 10 Points After Democratic Convention (politicususa.com)