GOP & Green: Hypocrisy Inaction Yet Again

As usual, the "TEA Party" rushes to demagoguery when it sees a salacious "SCANDAL!!!" on the horizon. Congressional Republicans then jump to hound on that issue... And then someone in the media does one's job and finds contradictions. We're seeing this at play yet again.

Case in point: Republicans praising the very "green jobs" programs they now claim is "fraud".

The GOP-led House Oversight Committee may be accusing the White House of a "job killing" green energy agenda in a hearing Thursday -- but at least ten Republicans on the panel have signed letters seeking to land green energy jobs in their districts.

In dozens of letters obtained by The Huffington Post, the lawmakers, led by Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), argue convincingly about Department of Energy funding going to their favored projects, often touting the job-creating potential of numerous endeavors.

The issue erupted earlier this month when reports broke that the bankrupt solar manufacturer Solyndra, which got $535 million in loan guarantees from the stimulus bill, was raided by the FBI.

Although the guaranteed loan project began under the Bush administration, many Republicans were quick to hammer the deal as evidence of "cronyism" -- and proof that Obama's key green jobs effort was a huge bust.

As it turns out, many of the committee members set to grill Obama administration officials Thursday were plenty eager to help constituents cash in on the efforts.

And who's been the biggest cheerleader for green energy in his own turf? Why, Republican Darrell Issa, of course!

Issa goes farther than just asking for support for a local company — he also generally endorses the concept of using Federal money to facilitate the shift away from fossil fuels and gas-powered vehicles, towards renewal energy sources. Issa even endorses the idea that this is a good way to create jobs — a position that puts him at odds with many Republicans.

And he has the nerve to hold a hearing on "How Obama’s Green Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs" today? Oh, yes. It's "killing jobs" so much that Issa keeps asking the feds for more money for it!

Steve Benen really hit the nail on the head this morning.

In their zeal to exploit the Solyndra “controversy,” House Republicans have planned a high-profile hearing today on the Obama administration’s clean-energy agenda. But the lingering hypocrisy issue is a hurdle the GOP doesn’t know how to clear.

In the wake of Solyndra’s bankruptcy, Republicans want to make a larger indictment against clean-energy programs in general. This, however, looks pretty foolish when the same Republicans complaining about the Department of Energy’s loan-guarantees program for clean tech have also fought for funding from the same program for companies in their own states and districts. [...]

A spokesperson for the committee’s Democrats told [Huffington Post reporter Michael] McAuliff, “The Republicans actually don’t seem to understand their hypocrisy. They trash the entire clean energy program after writing glowing letters to commend it. The truth is the program works, which is why they want the money for their districts.”

To me, the problem isn’t just that congressional Republicans kept seeking loans from a DOE program they believe shouldn’t exist. The more glaring issue is that these same GOP policymakers insisted, in writing, that clean-tech loan guarantees would help create jobs. And yet, today, the same Republicans are pointing to the same loan program as being part of a “job-killing” agenda.

Are these Congressional Republicans really that tone-deaf? Are we now supposed to believe them when they say "green jobs is a hoax" after these very members went to the Obama Administration with their hands wide open in asking for green energy funding?

We've talked about this extensively before. We have so much opportunity in renewable energy development right here in Nevada, and really the entire country will benefit from kicking our fossil fuel addiction and investing in the infrastructure of the future. And obviously, even many Republicans quietly recognize this as they keep asking for more money for it!

So why are they now telling the public it's so bad? Simple. They're trying to score cheap political points against President Obama. And they're desperately trying to please their masters in the fossil fuel industry who are desperately clinging to their heavily subsidized dirty energy.

Yet again, we're seeing dirty politics get in the way of good, clean policy.

Henderson & Project GREEN Reach Agreement on Pittman Wash

I know it's been a while since we last talked about this, but a big development has finally reached the forefront. A deal has been made on the immediate future of Pittman Wash in Henderson.

The city of Henderson and a group of residents and environmentalists have come to an agreement over how to control erosion caused by storm runoff flowing through the Pittman Wash.

The agreed-upon solution will be more environmentally friendly than the original plan but will add about $800,000 to the initial $4.5 million price tag. [...]

The new plan calls for construction of an arch culvert, which will function similarly as the concrete channel but will be built into the wash’s north bank and covered with dirt, rocks and natural vegetation.

The arch culvert will allow for the wash to be returned closer to its original state, while still reducing erosion, city engineer Scott Fiedler said.

The culvert, however, will cost about $800,000 more and must be engineered and then approved by the Clark County Regional Flood Control District, which would fund the project. That could delay the start of construction by up to nine months.

“We think this option is beneficial to all concerned,” Fiedler said. “(But) this option would be more expensive to construct.”

So this is where we've landed. And while questions remain over how much immediate damage this construction will cause to Pittman Wash, this arch culvert so far looks to be far less damaging over the long term than either Henderson Public Works' original concretization plans or Project GREEN's articulated concrete block (ACB) alternative. And over time, the new plants will mature and the scenery will improve. And even more importantly, one of the last natural springs in the entire valley now has at least a fighting chance of survival.



Even with this compromise, there's no guarantee that a view like this will remain. Again, we'll have to see how extensive the construction is and how much of a footprint this culvert will ultimately have. And remember, Clark County Flood Control still has to give its final approval before the funds are allocated and the city begins construction.

But at least with this solution, the conversation is being moved toward conservation. As much of Pittman Wash has been preserved in its natural state over the years, Henderson residents have come to appreciate the natural beauty of the wash and the rare bit of respite it provides in what's otherwise the great concrete jungle that most of Clark County has become. And as the initial plans for concretizing the wash were slowly becoming public, residents spoke out as they realized what would happen if the wash were to be eaten up by that concrete jungle. Thanks to residents standing up and speaking out, Henderson has drawn a line in the sand on concretizing the wash (no pun intended?) and local environmental activists now have a stronger chance of getting Flood Control to remove any more concretization of Pittman Wash from the countywide master plan (which will soon need to be revised).

This has been a long and tough journey, but this is what progress looks like.

Tough Questions Asked as Reno Air Race Tragedy Unfolds

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The death toll is now at 10, and more questions are being asked about the safety of air races like this one.

The very thing that makes the National Championship Air Races so popular — the thrill of vintage airplanes roaring wingtip-to-wingtip at 500 mph within yards of a cheering crowd — is the thing that may doom the 48-year-old event.

Friday’s crash so far has claimed 10 lives, left two people missing and scores of spectators injured, seven critically. Reno’s oval pylon-to-pylon air race, a sport pre-dating World War I, is the last such competition in the nation.

Local and federal officials said the race should be made safer. But an air race historian, who called Friday’s crash the worst accident in the history of American air racing, said that probably isn’t possible.

“You can move the crowd further away, you can move the course to a remote location, but that defeats the purpose of the races,” said Don Berliner, president of the Society of Air Racing Historians and a former Reno Air Races official. “But you can’t have an air race without spectators. Who is going to want to see it from a distance?”

Safety could be the main issue in determining the race’s future. Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority officials said Monday that, as owner of the Stead Airport, they will be examining the federal investigation of Friday’s crash to determine whether further safety requirements can allow the event to continue.

It's something that will have to be considered as the NTSB continues to investigate what happened and why. There are already threats of law suits being made, which is understandable considering the latest update on casualties from Friday's tragic crash.

Honestly, I'm still trying to sort all of this out for myself. This has been a Northern Nevada tradition for half a century. But this time around, that tradition turned fatal. This won't be an easy decision for any of the folks who will have to determine the future of the Reno Air Races. And this certainly won't be easy for the families who loved aviation so much, then lost their loved ones last Friday at this event.

Dean Heller Loves Big Oil, But Not Working Class Nevadans

This was the scene outside Dean Heller's Las Vegas office today. While Dean Heller continues to oppose anything he considers "not good enough", meaning not painful enough for working class Nevadans, our country faces deep problems. This isn't the first time Heller has felt the heat from his constituents, and I doubt this will be the last. Even though Nevada will better survive and thrive with a stronger push for clean and green energy, Dean Heller continues to oppose efforts to create more good green jobs. And even though many Nevadans rely on Social Security and Medicare for their very survival, Dean Heller has voted in lockstep with "TEA Party" radicals to kill Medicare and Social Security. And even though Nevadans understand that it helps no one to allow sick kids to die with no care, Heller twice voted against the very SCHIP program that millions of kids rely upon for their health care.

Oh, and did I mention Dean Heller has the dubious distinction of being the only member of Congress to vote TWICE for Paul Ryan's "TEA Party" plan to kill Medicare?



That's why we again saw protests outside Dean Heller's office today.







Nevada simply can't afford any more taxpayer giveaways to the fossil fuel industry while middle class and working poor families continue to struggle. While Heller demands economy destroying "austerity" for us, he continues to back taxpayer giveaways for his big Wall Street sweethearts. And while Nevadans are demanding more and better jobs, Heller continues to oppose any and all efforts for better jobs for Nevadans.



We have to tell Heller to stop ignoring Nevadans' needs while giving the fossil fuel industry everything it wants.

What I Learned in Tonopah

It wasn't an easy ride to Tonopah on Saturday, especially not since NDOT had construction delays near Goldfield. So many of us from Vegas were already in a crabby mood when the NSDP Central Committee meeting got started. And many of the folks from Reno and the rurals were still in a crabby mood because of the NV-02 aftermath. Early on, I had a feeling that Central Committee meeting wouldn't be an easy ride.

Fortunately, I wasn't the only one who was trying to take last week's special elections into proper perspective. Fortunately, folks were on hand to rehash last year's NV-Sen results to point out that Nevada is still very much a Blue State, and that Nevada will certainly be one of "The Western Firewall" states that will be essential to President Obama's reelection next year.

Don't believe me? Believe Public Policy Polling's (or PPP's) August results here in Nevada and in Colorado, and remember that these polls were done at about Obama's most recent nadir in national approval. Obama was beating all the Republican candidates here and in Colorado, and for the most part by healthy blowout margins, even while his national numbers were slumping. And consider that PPP's latest national poll showed Obama bouncing back to stronger leads against Perry and Romney, and that other recent polls have shown the same trend. With even Jon Ralston throwing cold water on the Nevada GOP's flaming hot and crazy claims of building some sort of "Great Red Tide" next year (like the one from last year that never materialized?), why should we feel obligated to make things easier for them by setting our hair on fire and acting defeatist?







This is what I was thinking about on Saturday while I was hearing some Central Committee members falling into this very trap of panicking, setting their hair on fire, and acting defeatist. And coming from places like Tonopah, Fallon, and Ely, I can understand why those members feel the way they do. However, they're not getting the whole picture. Rural turnout has strongly benefitted Republicans for the last several cycles, so what happens in Tonopah is far from accurately indicative of what happens statewide.

Does this mean Democrats should just give up on the rurals? Most certainly, not! In fact, NSDP Chair Roberta Lange spoke plenty on Saturday about the party's commitment to organizing statewide. And lead Caucus 2012 organizer Leora Olivas explained what's happening throughout the state to prepare for caucus time. A vote from Fallon counts as much as a vote from North Las Vegas, so it's critical to extract as many votes as possible from both locales. But by the same token, we'd be foolish to mourn the "reddening" of Nevada just because of one low turnout special election dominated by conservative interests and mostly excluding Nevada's Democratic base.

Later in the meeting, Young Democrats of Nevada President Michael Cabrera was honored for YDNV's work in strengthening young progressives' voices throughout the state, from the robust growth of UNR Young Dems to the recent progress made in Clark County. This is what we need to see more of... This, and all the canvassing, voter registration, and other voter outreach efforts OFA is doing, and all the other work that local activists and Dem clubs are doing all over Nevada. If we commit to doing more of this and less of the usual whining, Democrats will win up and down the ballot next year.





Some of the folks in the room seemed to get this, but then one more food fight emerged over whether or not to regularly do Central Committee in Tonopah. Some liked the idea of "shared sacrifice" for all, but others felt it would unfairly punish the vast majority of Democratic Central Committee members in Clark County. Again, I understand that we shouldn't ignore any part of the state. All of Nevada matters. However, I think there are better ways to reach out to Nevada voters and include folks from across the state than always holding meetings in a sparsely populated corner of the state.

So often, we on the left end of the spectrum get too busy infighting to realize we have much fiercer opponents our little "Lefty World" construct. We can't keep making that same mistake. We have far too much work to do and not enough time to waste on infighting. I just hope I wasn't the only one who got that message before leaving the Tonopah Ramada Inn.

Well, at least I had a lovely scenic drive home to calm me down after that last difficult week.

Family Pride, Family Drama

So today, I see this. I'm beaming with pride. (Pun not intended?) I've been involved with Stonewall for nearly the entire time I've lived here so far, so this is really near and dear to my heart. Congrats to everything Stonewall has accomplished.

However, I have another sort of family issue I'm sorting out right now. I just found out my grandmother may be dying soon. I'm now barreling through my schedule to see how soon I can fly to California to see her before it's too late. I've never really imagined life without her, and I wouldn't really call what I'm experiencing now an existential crisis, but I am definitely taking some time today to think about "that other branch of my family" in California and how this is a turning point for them as well as my relationship with them.

So I have quite a bit on my mind right now, and I think I'll need a little time this weekend to sort things out. I'll provide an update from the road tomorrow, as I'll be in Tonopah for Central Committee, but I'll definitely have more to think about than just bylaws, party leadership, and post-election fallout.

NV-03: Joe Heck's "Office Hours"

Oh, so now he'll finally meet face to face with his actual constituents?

Congressman Joe Heck is offering the chance for voters to meet face-to-face with him and get their questions answered.

"My job is to represent you in Washington, D.C. and I take that responsibility very seriously," Heck said on his website.

Heck says he's scheduling office hours for more personal and in-depth conversations with constituents.

For a chance to speak with Heck, call 702-387-4941 to set up an appointment.

Not so fast! He's doing it on a Monday morning, right at the time when most Southern Nevadans have to go to work. And already, there are reports of appointments being denied (as staffers claim those being denied will be put on the "waiting list" for whenever this happens again), limitations on "group meetings", and ten minute time slots.

Why am I not surprised? Oh, well. At least Heck is finally willing to meet some of his constituents. I guess that's a start in the right direction.

By the Way, Did You Notice Brian Sandoval Jumping the Shark?

Hmmm... Our kinda-sorta-still-new Gube hadn't been in the headlines lately. Was this his chance to jump into the national spotlight so he can bask in the Beltway media pundit glow? Perhaps, but Brian Sandoval also has some very important questions to answer.

I know he likes what Rick Perry did to cut down Jim Gibbons early last year. Does he also like Rick Perry's plan to end Medicare and Social Security? For all of Brian Sandoval's efforts to paint himself as "moderate", is he now ready to toss that aside to embrace someone who actually wants to undercut the legacy of "The Holiest of Holy Ones, Saint Ronnie the Gipper"?



This is Rick Perry:



And this is how ridiculous Rick Perry's campaign is:



And this is who Brian Sandoval wants to be our next President? Really? Rick Perry?

Regardless of the internal politics of why Sandoval endorsed Perry, he can no longer deny he wants nothing to do with "the TEA party agenda" when he endorsed the very embodiment of "TEA party" principles... Even when he contradicts himself on his own (GOVERNMENT!!!) role in creating jobs.

And contrast this with this crowd in North Carolina today.



We'll have to see how this will actually benefit Sandoval (if at all).

Can 2011 Special Elections Predict 2012? Not Really.

While the corporate media obsess over a special election in a district that has more in common with Appalachia than "Middle America", and over another special election where no Democrat was running in Republican leaning turf, another story is developing that the media are not paying as much attention to. Here, take a look.

Within the [new CNN and Bloomberg] polls there were bad numbers for the President on the economy more generally, which has been the case for months. Obama's approval on this handling of the economy is 36 percent in the CNN poll and 33 percent in the Bloomberg, which matches Gallup, NBC/WSJ, ABC/WaPo and others in the last week or so.

But CNN also asked about the choice between President Obama and Congressional Republicans, who have sustained a huge hit themselves after the debt ceiling fight. 46 percent still say they prefer the President, to 37 percent who prefer Congressional Republicans. 15 percent say they prefer neither. The Bloomberg poll showed a tighter split, but still chose Obama 43 percent of the time to the GOP's 41.

Within the CNN question there are some interesting results. Those under 50, a group more likely to be unemployed, went for Obama by a 51 - 33 split. Even a quarter of self-described conservatives choose Obama over the Congressional GOPers, along with 50 percent of moderates and 78 percent of liberals.

Economic pessimism continues to infiltrate the thinking of American voters, and you don't have to look hard for an answer as to why. When CNN asked whether respondents feel they are better off today than they were three years ago, 58 percent no. It's not surprising given a previous CNN poll that showed 8 in 10 people think we are still in a recession, which means that many voters think we have been in a downturn since the President was elected. Gallup showed that there's been little help from the actual economic indicators, so there are many legitimate reasons for Americans to remain upset. But has the data shows, the GOP hasn't provided a silver bullet on the economy either, and voters are yet to embrace them as economic stewards. The jobs plan, which is enjoying initial support, is unlikely to change that view.

And if you want to dig deeper to see this story for yourself, look at the CNN internals and the Bloomberg internals. Even in the worst case scenario (Bloomberg's), Republicans can't beat President Obama on the issue the Beltway media pundits have all concluded should be Obama's political anvil sinking him next year. And according to CNN, American voters yet again proclaim that they want more focus on job creation than deficit reduction, and that they much prefer Democratic job creation ideas (such as aid to state and local governments, and infrastructure programs) than the Republicans' pandering to crazed teabaggers (in wanting to slash Social Security and Medicare to death).

Of course, last night's special election results weren't good for Obama or Congressional Democrats, but on the other hand many in DC are forgetting the local dynamics of both races. Here in Nevada, Kate Marshall positioned herself to essentially run against Obama, which demoralized the Democratic base and caused the entire election to be played on the Nevada GOP's turf. And in New York, Orthodox Jews and older white "Reagan Democrats" turned hard Republicans made that election into a referendum on Israel, social issues, and internal Brooklyn & Queens political drama. And while special elections tend to produce dramatic results as of late, they rarely provide a clear forecast of the political climate of the following election cycle.

What will be far more telling in the coming weeks and months, however, is what happens to the economy next, how politicians and political parties react to the state of the economy, and how voters respond to the politicians' reactions. Greg Sargent and Kevin Drum correctly point out that most Americans' view of Obama pretty much hinges on the state of the economy.

People who aren't pure partisans really do vote mostly based on the state of the economy, and they don't seem to care much why the economy is bad. When times are tough, they throw the bums out. It doesn't much matter if the bums have been trying hard.

But is it possible to overcome this dynamic if you barnstorm the country making it clear that your opposition has been working day and night to keep the economy in a ditch? The historical evidence doesn't provide much hope on that score, but then again, I'm not sure an incumbent in recent memory has really tried very hard to make something like this stick. Certainly Obama hasn't given it much of a go yet. But there's still time before next November.

Actually on that last part, Drum misses something... Something that we Nevadans saw for ourselves last year when the same Beltway media pundits were writing Harry Reid's political obituary long before Election Day.





While I agree that the state of the economy very much drives voters' decisions, the ultimate destination doesn't have to be "throw the bums out", especially when the replacement of "the bum" is someone whose agenda goes directly against what the voters want. Again, Reid proved this strategy works when he clearly demonstrated the consequences Nevada would have faced had we replaced him with Sharron Angle. Don't underestimate President Obama's ability to pivot like this and place the blame for economic turmoil exactly where it belongs.



And considering what Republican primary voters seem increasingly likely to do, this is exactly what Obama needs to be doing. How Obama and Republicans address American concerns about the economy will have much more of an effect on next year's election than a couple special election results from last night.

Why "The J Word" Matters

Yesterday, US Labor Secretary Hilda Solis came here to Las Vegas to explain how the American Jobs Act will make an impact on Nevada's beleaguered economy once passed.

President Obama’s jobs plan would have a significant positive effect on Southern Nevada’s economy by putting construction laborers back to work, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said today in Las Vegas.

Solis met with the Las Vegas Sun editorial board following an appearance before the Laborers’ International Union of North America at Paris Las Vegas.

Solis said she expects Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan, unveiled to a joint session of Congress on Thursday and detailed in a bill sent to legislators today, to garner bipartisan support because it uses ideas from both sides of the political aisle.

“Economists say anywhere from 1 million to 1.9 million workers in the construction industry (would be put to work),” Solis said. “That would have an immediate impact on places like Nevada, particularly here (in Las Vegas) where the housing boom was the hardest hit.”

Obama’s proposal includes tax breaks for small businesses, economic stimulus programs and a national infrastructure “bank” to fund roads, bridges, airports, seaports, railways, refineries and to upgrade schools. The president has proposed reducing tax deductions, modifying entitlement programs and increasing taxes on the most wealthy to pay for those programs.

It's a broad ranging piece of legislation that tackles job creation from multiple angles...



Yet House Republicans are already set to reject it and start another possible government shutdown melodrama, even as some progressive Democrats in the House are complaining that it isn't enough. However, one prominent voice in DC rose to say something that Congressional Republicans really did not want to hear.

"If policymakers want to achieve both a short-term economic boost and long-term fiscal sustainability the combination of policies that would be most effective according to our analysis would be changes in taxes and spending that would widen the deficit today, but narrow it in the coming decade," [Congressional Budget Office chief Doug] Elmendorf told the panel's 12 Democrats and Republicans. "The combination of fiscal policies that would be most effective would be policies that cut taxes or increase spending in the near-term, but over the medium and longer-term move in the opposite direction."

This is a generalized version of precisely what President Obama is proposing -- a $447 billion jobs bill that will increase spending on hiring programs, and reduce payroll taxes; accompanied by deficit reduction measures that take effect in 2013, to more than cover the cost of the jobs bill.

As we've talked about before, "austerity" does nothing but harm fragile economies in need of investment to recover and grow again. Yet even as top IMF economists point this out to the world, this is what we hear from the Republicans seeking to defeat President Obama next year.





Cheering on the deaths of the uninsured? Arguing over the value of Social Security? And while the Republicans keep playing in "Tea Party Fantasyland", a record 46.2 million Americans were hit by poverty last year. If there is ever a time to shift into overdrive to focus on job creation and put money in people's pockets again, it's now. But instead of offering any credible ideas on that, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and their enablers on Capitol Hill would rather obsess over "Tea Party" fantasies that would further destroy America's middle class, like ending Social Security and scrapping health care reform. (No wonder why Perry's and Romney's poll numbers are dropping like rocks!)

This is the great disconnect. For far too long, it seemed like far too many policy makers in The Beltway were obsessing over issues that "Middle America" couldn't care less about while they were out of work and asking where the jobs are. But while President Obama is reaching out to "Middle America" to explain what the American Jobs Act will do to help them get the work they need to rejoin the middle class, Republicans yet again seem to care more about pleasing teabaggers than actually doing their job.

Election Results & Analysis... Before Election Is Over

Come on, we already know what the pundits will be saying.

If Bob Turner wins today...

... it means [...]

Russian/former Soviet immigrants with no historic ties to the Democratic Party but who strongly support a conservative Israeli government supported a Republican for Congress in part because they believe, erroneously, that Barack Obama is anti-Israel. (Many of them probably also believe he is a Muslim.) The most conservative non-Staten Island district in New York City supported a rich "outsider" candidate over a sloppy and unexciting Democratic politician. Barack Obama is in trouble among very, very conservative pro-Israel voters, as he already was before. The political makeup of the House of Representatives has barely changed and this district is likely to cease to exist soon. Addressing the myth that he's anti-Israel is probably one of the least important things President Obama needs to do between now and the next election, because he still has the support of most of the American Jewish community. Regardless, media attention paid to this race will give him even more trouble passing his "Jobs Bill."

Oh, and...

If David Weprin wins today...

... it means [...]

A Democrat won a traditionally Democratic district in New York City, despite a surprisingly strong showing from a wealthy challenger. The district will likely cease to exist soon. The press will not announce this victory as a vote of national support for Obama's "mandate" and will in fact soon forget all about this race because "favorite beats underdog" is not a very entertaining story.

Oh, and there's that other special election closer to home.

The winner of the Amodei-Marshall race will serve the remainder of Heller's current House term, which runs through 2012. He or she will have to run for the office again next year to keep the job.

By then, it may well be in a very different district, since the task of drawing new congressional district maps has been placed in the hands of Carson District Judge Todd Russell, who has named a commission to assist with that job.

For today's election, however, the district is the same one Heller ran in a year ago. It includes all of 16 Nevada counties and a small piece of Clark.

Amodei, a former state senator, has said repeatedly he doesn't believe in raising taxes to fix the nation's debt because it would further delay any economic recovery. He has signed a no-tax pledge to emphasize that point, saying the answer is to make government smaller, not raise the debt ceiling.

Marshall, currently in her second term as state treasurer, has said she would keep the Bush tax cuts for most Americans but eliminate those breaks on the rich. She also said she would eliminate tax loopholes for wealthy corporations, granting them breaks only for creating jobs.

Oh yes, that contest between the Republican who refuses to state what he'd actually do in Congress... Versus the Democrat who refuses to campaign as a Democrat. What did Harry Truman say about the choice between the real Republican and the one pretending to be a Republican? What if both candidates dance around the GOP platform?

Of course, the TV pundits won't be addressing any of the real issues that have Americans worried. They'll talk about "the economy" as if it's just another political ping-pong, but it means something totally different for those still suffering under it.

In Case Anyone Was Wondering...

Why it's so hard for Congress to agree to do anything to help economic recovery, here's why.

Public policy is not a zero-sum competition between “Republican ideas” and “Democratic ideas,” but electoral competition is a zero-sum battle for office. In a paradigm where the passage of major legislation counts as a “win” for President Obama then anyone who wants to see President Obama go down to defeat, then no major legislation can pass on a bipartisan basis. This is exactly the problem the White House had in trying to overcome GOP filibusters during the 111th Congress and the main problem they face in trying to reach bipartisan accords with the Republican-led House of Representatives in the 112th Congress. This is the fundamental reality of American politics today, but far too few people put it at the center of their accounts of what’s happening.

Today, Obama presented Congress with his jobs legislation. In his remarks, Obama noted, “There are some in Washington who’d rather settle our differences through politics and the elections than try to resolve them now. In fact, Joe [Biden] and I, as we were walking out here, we were looking at one of the Washington newspapers and it was quoting a Republican aide saying, ‘I don’t know why we’d want to cooperate with Obama right now. It’s not good for our politics.’ That was very explicit.”

Congressional Republicans are just too petty to "hand him a win", even if it means helping their unemployed constituents get jobs and survive. GOP leadership want to appear "conciliatory" by just passing pieces they like instead of nuking the entire package, but even that may be too much for teabagger rank-and-file, as they're dead set against anything and everything Obama proposes. And of course, the 2012 "clown car candidates" are likely to go along with whatever the teabaggers wants.

They just can't stand that President Obama sent them a bill that they can't have an easy time saying no to, especially since he's making the case directly to the American people. Good. I hope Obama keeps the heat on them, since I doubt they can actually handle it.

Monday Clips

Here are some stories catching my eye this morning.

- Patrick Coolican asks the question no one else dare utter in public: Should Las Vegas embrace "Jersey Shore"? (Sun)

- Nevada casino winnings jumped 3.7% in July... Oh please, oh please, let the good news keep on rolling... (Sun)

- On a more somber note, Renoites remembered 9/11 yesterday at the Great Balloon Race. (RGJ)

- A remembrance ceremony was also held in Carson City for the soldiers lost in last week's brutal IHOP shooting in South Carson. (NV Appeal)

- And finally, who knew my hometown would become triathlete central? No really, Henderson is quickly becoming The Southwest's triathlon hub. (Sun, and results posted at Ironman site)

10 Years Later: My Own 9/11

September 11, 2001, is a day I can't forget... Even though it was a day that seemed to start like so many others had. While I was getting ready for school, America's beating economic heart and central political nervous system were under attack. And as I was starting what I just thought would be my second day of high school, my entire outlook on life would forever change.

That morning, I woke up as just another Orange County kid attending just another conservative Christian fundamentalist private school. In the following weeks, I would be relegated as "extreme" as that crazy "anti-American" extremist, Barbara Lee. Why? Well, I agree(d) with her.



It was my first experience of expressing dissent, and of paying the price for holding an unpopular point of view. In the immediate days following 9/11, there was a sense of national unity. And while it was helpful in many ways, on the other hand it allowed for the Bush Administration to embark on policy prescriptions that we would later learn to be quite harmful to our country. It was easy to go with the masses and cheer on "retaliation" against the "evildoers". It most definitely wasn't easy to point out what would happen once Congress gave George Bush a blank check to engage in endless war.

I was just trying to make sense of everything that was happening all around me... And it just wasn't making sense. Even as everyone else around me kept beating the drums for war more loudly, I kept wondering why we were doing this. My teachers and my own mother were asking why I sympathized with "terrorists". Other students just saw me as "the liberal weirdo". Nothing seemed to make sense then...

But it all comes together now.

Fast forward ten years, and now Rep. Barbara Lee's words ring more prescient and true than ever before. We're mired in multiple wars abroad, yet we supposedly can't afford to create jobs for the unemployed here at home. Nearly ten years after the USA (Un)PATRIOT(ic) Act passed, Americans are now asking where their freedom went. And now that memories of a nation so proudly patriotic seem so distant, Congress has reached a new low in unpopularity as seemingly anything and everything is being questioned.

In many ways, it feels like the tables have turned. Back then, I felt so alone in opposing what seemed so American as apple pie. But now, I'm trying to explain how things work to the very same people who are now losing faith in the entire American experiment. It can be sad to watch, but I can't lose hope that our people will recognize what needs to be done to restore our democracy.

10 Years Later: Have We Already Forgotten?

Remember that feeling of national unity, and of global unity, immediately after 9/11? What happened?

Once again, Obama has declared Sept. 11 to be a national day of service and remembrance, as he and the nation honor the dead, those who responded 10 years ago, those who have fought terrorism and those who served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"A decade after 9/11, it’s clear for all the world to see—the terrorists who attacked us that September morning are no match for the character of our people, the resilience of our nation, or the endurance of our values," Obama said in his weekly address Saturday.

But the president also urged the country to look ahead, calling for a return to the kind of unity that marked those dark days a decade ago. The nation focused on the tragedy and put politics aside, a sharp difference from recent days during which sharp turmoil and party bickering have become the hallmarks of Washington politics.

“On a day when others tried to divide us, we can regain the sense of common purpose that stirred in our hearts 10 years ago,” Obama wrote in an op-ed published last week in USA Today. “As a nation, we face difficult challenges, and as citizens in a democratic society we engage in vigorous debates about the future. But as we do, let's never forget the lesson we learned anew 10 years ago — that our differences pale beside what unites us and that when we choose to move forward together, as one American family, the United States doesn't just endure, we can emerge from our tests and trials stronger than before.”

Have we emerged stronger? And have we moved forward? Has the ten year long "Global War on Terror" really been what we needed?

Today is September 11th, the tenth anniversary of the horrific and inhumane Al Qaeda-led terrorist attacks that killed approximately 3,000 innocents. As Americans pause and reflect on how these attacks changed our country and the world, we should reflect upon one of deceased terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden’s primary goals: bankrupting America. In an audio tape from 2004, Bin Laden explained that Al Qaeda had adopted a “policy” of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy” through provoking it into engaging in perpetual warfare in the Middle East and South Asia.

Nearly ten years after the United States sent our military forces into Afghanistan, our country has spent $1.2 trillion engaging in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the National Priorities Project (NPP). The wars are expected to cost much more than that by their conclusion, with some estimates ranging up to $3 trillion for the Iraq war alone.

By spending this much money on wars that ended up being America’s longest in history, the United States in some ways fell into Bin Laden’s trap. This money could’ve been used in ways that would’ve invested in America — securing access to health care, a decent education, and infrastructure for alternative energy.

And what about those some claim to be our "enemies"? What is the real threat here?



Is our real "enemy" someone, or something, different? Have we become our own worst enemy?

Today, following all the Bush-era tax cuts, the US is a deeply divided country in social terms. The gap between rich and poor is almost as great as it was in the days of oil barons and steel magnates in the last century. Five percent of Americans buy almost 40 percent of all consumer goods sold in the country.

The country is at war with itself. It has a Congress where there is perpetual conflict between the right and the left -- and where they don't even want to talk to each other when the threat of a national bankruptcy looms.

Like no other country, the US became great because of its openness. Now, it has become distrustful, fearful and defensive -- against Muslims, against foreigners, against anyone who is different. Citizen militias hunt down illegal immigrants, and many people can still not accept having a black president in the White House.

Who would have thought ten years ago that in the following decade America's greatest threat would arrive not in the form of another airplane crashing into The Pentagon, but rather in the form of toxic "mortgage backed securities" and similar "funny money" financial schemes crashing our economy and leading to the worst unemployment crisis this nation has seen in over seventy years? We may be safer from foreign and domestic terrorists than we were ten years, but America doesn't feel safer because of fear of expanding unemployment lines.

Of course, this doesn't mean 9/11 no longer matters. It still does. It can't be erased from our memory, even though it may help to remember the truth of what this has all really been about.

We should continue to remember what happen, but we can't keep drumming it up, using it as an excuse for exercising bad judgment, and refusing to acknowledge the need to close this chapter of our history as we learn from our past mistakes.

In those dazed days after the attacks, a new foreign policy doctrine was hastily assembled. It said that the world faced a single, overarching and paramount threat in the form of violent jihadism. Every other battle had to be subordinated to, or subsumed into, that one. And the call went beyond foreign policy. Culture, too, was to be enlisted in a clash of civilisations between Islamism and the west that would rank alongside the great 20th century struggles against communism and fascism. Christopher Hitchens confessed he felt "exhilaration" as he saw the towers fall. At last there would be war against "dull and vicious theocratic fascism. I am prepared for this war to go on for a very long time. I will never become tired of waging it, because it is a fight over essentials. And because it is so interesting."

Such talk has been a constant of the 9/11 decade but its time has passed. For one thing, it's predicated on a mistake. The right way to regard the 2001 attacks was as a heinous and wicked crime – not a declaration of war. As Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, argued in her first Reith lecture calling it a war "legitimises the terrorists as warriors". It's exactly what al-Qaida wanted – feeding their fantasies of grandeur – and we gave it to them. [...]

Again, this is not to say the dangers have receded. Would-be terrorists have seen the earth-shaking impact a spectacular attack can have – especially if it prompts a massive reaction that fuels the terrorists' cause, as the Iraq invasion did for al-Qaida. If one of the Arab revolutions fails, an al-Qaida offshoot could find purchase in that country. But vigilance is not the same as a careless, undiscriminating monomania.

Even those who were not there say the memory is so vivid, it feels like yesterday. But it was not yesterday. It was 10 years ago. We should mark the 9/11 anniversary with respect and care for those who died. But then we ought to close this sorry and bloody chapter – and bury the mentality it created.

Perhaps Jonathan Freedland is correct. And perhaps the rest of the world has lessons to teach us.

This is most definitely a poignant day for our nation, and it is important to remember... But we can't afford to dwell in the past. We have plenty of problems to solve today, and we'll eventually need to get back to work in doing that.