Teabags: Don't Confuse Me With the Facts

 Image: friendlyathiest.com

Things are heating up. The ads are getting nastier and the lies thicker. I'm seriously considering following my sister's example and de-friending about half my family on my Facebook page as they are very conservative Christians, fans of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and this past week, my cousin (from Washington), joined the "I Like Meg Whitman" group. Facebook to me is social, not political, and I am usually able to ignore the comments and video clips (and most of that side of the family), keeping them around because there are times when, as family, we need to communicate. What I hear from them, and the right-wing pundits, and the right-wing blogs, and many of the "neutral" mainstream media, is that the teabags, who appear to have a real chance of taking over at least one house of Congress, claim to want to cut regulations, overturn health care reform, reduce taxes, and take us back to the Constitution the way it was supposed to be, the original.

The politicians and pundits know they're lying. It's possible that some of them believe their own press because it's the only way they can behave the way they do, but for most, it's a matter of expediency and money.

President Bush's administration produced two solutions to the economic downturn; TARP, and the stimulus bill. Additionally, when the auto industry was failing after the election, Bush asked that President-elect Obama pursue a solution as it would have to be carried out under his leadership. Although millions are still out of work and the foreclosure problem is still huge, the job numbers are better than a year ago, the auto industry is actually making a profit, has re-hired many of its workers (1500 about a couple of weeks ago), the DOW is almost back to where it was pre-downturn, everywhere I turn I see "this project paid for by stimulus funds" signs, and job growth numbers already exceed those of Bush's entire two terms. In fact, more jobs were created in the private sector in the first eight months of the Obama Administration than in the entire Bush presidency, and they want to go back to those policies?

There is really no way to compare a president who arrives with a $200 billion dollar surplus and leaves with us with a $407 billion deficit eight years later.

The next time someone says it's all about jobs, jobs, jobs, perhaps you could refer them to the famous "bikini" graph courtesy of Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly:

As you can see, job growth was negative the entire duration of the Bush presidency. The trend continued downward the first quarter after Obama came into office until it's first positive growth in Dec. 2009. Obviously, it takes time, but except for one dip, growth has been slow, but measured.

To continue on this comparison of Republican administrations and policies to those of Democratic presidents, below is a quick chart going back to Truman showing the rate of job growth.

Graph: KyraMoment

 

Obviously, I made the Democrats blue and Republicans red. I am not going to go into a discussion of private vs. public sector jobs, small businesses vs. large, the job loss to job growth numbers by sector and the net growth. This graph took about ten minutes to create using numbers easily available with a Google search so anyone can fact-check me if they want.

We also hear that it's taxes. President Obama gave us a tax cut by reducing withholding rather than sending out checks. The latter would have been a better political option, but the small, incremental increase in available cash was better for the economy overall, thus few people know about it. Very few understand that last year we paid the lowest taxes in 60 years. So, if it is in fact about taxes, then obviously they will want to vote Democratic.

We hear over and over again that we have to do something about the deficit, created by Obama (not). Had President Bush written the budgets properly and not ignored the costs of war, the country would have been aware of our debt much sooner. The fastest way to send us into a real depression, is to try to bring down the deficit. When people are working, goods and services are moving through the economy and the associated taxes arriving at the appropriate local, state, or federal tax agency, then the deficit will begin to come down on its own.

Additionally, government's function is to spend money. As an unemployed social services worker, I know that after 20 years of budget cuts, there is very little waste left in government (except perhaps military spending). In California, state employees are on mandatory furlough each month because our constitution requires a balanced budget. The best way for the deficit to be reduced, is for the government to collect taxes and spend them. Unlike the top 5% of our citizens who have millions and billions of dollars tucked away, the government does not keep its money. It spends it. Money spent moves into the economy. Government hires workers, and purchases supplies, and makes capital purchases. Government spends money on infrastructure, which puts money into the economy through employment of private contractors and materials.

People are upset because they don't have money to spend so don't want their taxes raised, but that is a completely disingenuous argument. If you don't earn, you don't pay taxes. If you elect teabags or other Republicans and they get their way, we'll have a national sales tax instead of an income tax. This benefits the wealthy (poorer people tend to spend all of their income, the wealthy generally do not). The poorer you are, the more likely that you will spend every dime that you earn. If income taxes were abolished in favor of a national sales tax, people who currently pay no income tax, and a sales tax of perhaps 8.5%, will have to pay about 23% in sales taxes every time they spend if the likes of Rand Paul and his ilk have their way.

People say they know best what to do with their money, but government provides the social safety net, the social contract we make with each other. We pay taxes to cover these costs, pay for the poor and needy knowing that should we ever be in need, those services will be there for us. A teabag on "The Last Word" suggested that if the government did not return social security withholding to him, it would be stealing. Perhaps they would prefer a bill for defense, border control. the electric grid, other infrastructure, air traffic control, etc. I noticed that they all wanted to move programs to state control, which means that state level socialism is fine, just not federal. hmmm.

When people talk about the government's overreach and want less regulation, I have to ask, which regulations? Food safety? Air traffic control? The FDA? EPA? CDC? Some talk about doing away with the Dept. of Education, believing home schooling is the thing, or at least local standards, but what a disservice we do to those children as they try to compete in a national marketplace. When they try to attend college, they'll be severely limited. If they attend, for example, Oral Roberts U, they will be limited in their job search. Personally, I'm glad that someone is out there making sure that my food is safe, my  medications are consistently made, and that when I fly, someone is keeping track.

I've spent hours over the past few days speaking with ultra right-wing family members and like many teabags, cannot get rational answers to simple questions. I give them data as I've listed above, and they argue, saying it's my opinion. I refer them to Dept. of Labor websites, they hem and haw. Tonight on "The Last Word," Lawrence O'Donnell had representatives of four teabag organizations. They all agreed that socialism was the biggest concern of their movements. (I always heard, at least at the beginning) that it was taxes. Oh well. It's obviously whatever is expedient at the moment. Anyway, it was immediately apparent and reinforced through O'Donnell's questioning that not one of them understood what socialism is. While talking to a cousin, she used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, repeated the myths about Canadian-style health care, and reinforced my opinion that a party and group of parties that can love a book called by the oxymoronic "Liberal Fascism," is too stupid for the courtesy of debate.

The problem? These ignorant people will likely win enough seats to push this country over the edge into disaster, destroy the small strides President Obama has made towards restoring our good name, and take the rest of us along for the ride. The next time someone proposes de-regulation, or to repeal health care reform, ask them to define their terms. Define which regulation, which aspect of health care. I would bet that not one of them can be specific. None of the candidates are, so it is unlikely that their followers could be either.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Palin, Angle, Paul, Miller, & O'Donnell - What Do They Say About Us?

 IMAGE: Hebiclens Clown Collage/Mashup BoingBoing

Today's teabags are righteously indignant that the Democrats and bloggers and any journalist not on Fox is being mean. It is outrageous that anyone should expect them to open up their private lives or backgrounds to inspection and question their right to cast slurs and aspersions on their campaign opponents. They are so steadfast in their beliefs (although I have my doubts about that), that they think it is perfectly acceptable to override the will of the majority of the people and impose their narrow-minded, rigid ideologies on everyone else. Refusing to participate in the electoral process other than to demand that we just trust them, I am having a hard time understanding why they have so much support, or wonder if they really do. They refuse to talk to any but a select few in the media, and then only answer previously vetted questions. What do they say about us?

So my question is, why is this acceptable? They all campaign on their history, yet refuse to discuss it. They all campaign on their values, but refuse to share them unless you are an upper- or middle-class white person with a job, in which case they don't need to. Sarcasm, slurs, and put downs raise chuckles and they all think they're pretty cute, but only succeed in making this country look foolish, and even more so if they are actually elected.

Sarah Palin, when asked a perfectly reasonable (and common) question about where she gets her information immediately takes offense and sees it as an attempt to make her look like an uneducated hick (please refer to my earlier writings on projection). She attacks Michelle Obama for something said over two years ago, and misrepresents it at that.

Sarah Palin also complained a few days before the 2008 election that the media were attacking her and that they were violating her 1st Amendment rights, which were there to protect her from the media.

Sharon Angle says she will talk only to media who will ask her the questions that allow her to give out only the information she wants to give out and who will allow her to ask for contributions.

She also said, while speaking to a high school Latino club, that they didn't all look Hispanic, that some looked Asian.

IMAGE: Crooks & Liars

Rand Paul said he wasn't sure he would debate against someone who attacked his religion, and attacked his opponent for bringing up something that happened 30 years ago (although you will note, he did not deny the event). Interesting though that when Clinton came to campaign in Kentucky, Paul was comfortable bringing up Monica Lewinsky, something with great relevance to this election, especially as it happened so recently.

Joe Miller says he will no longer answer questions about his past or his personal life. [Although he did just admit to committing ethics violations.]

Each day brings up new information reaffirming the idea that Miller is about as ethical as other nationally prominent Alaska politicians. Today, a close examination of his (many, many months late) campaign disclosure forms show that he paid himself rent on office space that he owned (legal) that was up to four times what it was actually worth and paid himself a salary that was less than $10,000 (something that the IRS frowns on). Why is that a problem? He pays income tax on all income, but payroll tax only on salary. Pretty tricky accounting.

In a debate with Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnell appears shocked that the separation of church and state is a part of the 1st Amendment. Trying to walk back her gaffe, she and other GOPher apologists claim that she was correct because the exact wording "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution and that it was Coons who appeared ignorant because he could not name the five freedoms listed in the 1st Amendment as if that were the point of the exchange.

Sigh.

Sarah Palin recycles slurs and attacks from the 2008 campaign and complains about what she perceives as insults to her from that campaign in every speech and interview that she gives. If anyone has done anything recently to offend her, apparently her rage at President Obama's nerve at winning the election overrides that fact. It's too bad that it wasn't Todd Palin interested in politics as I believe that Sarah Palin would far prefer being First Lady than President. She has demonstrated an inability to actually perform work, a lack of intellectual curiosity (favored reading material OK Magazine? Favorite television show Bridezilla?), and rather than try to learn and understand complex issues facing our nation today, she becomes defensive when asked questions for which she has no answer. Her continued reference to having a "title" rather than holding an office suggest a fascination with her beauty pageant days that holds more interest than it probably should.

Sarah Palin gets (to her) ideas from one-note entertainers on Fox News, believing they hold great insight into governance, and disparages education, believing that ignorance is suggestive of "real" people regardless of the complexities involved in being a leader. To suggest that being on the city council and the mayor of a town of approximately 5,000 (and doing so badly), and then serving for one year on Alaska's Oil & Gas Commission (does anyone have any record of what she actually accomplished in that capacity? Meeting minutes maybe?), and two failed political campaigns as commensurate with serving three terms in the State Senate and then the United States Senate is on par with something a high school student might say prior to taking their required US Civ class.

Sharon Angle is a comical figure and I am amazed that she is in such a close race. Nevada reporter John Ralston said yesterday that her position in the race has nothing to do with her, but the state's displeasure with Harry Reid. Hopefully they'll wake up soon to what an Angle win will really mean. She claims God as her guide, yet displays herself as a mean, bitter woman willing to lie to get her own way. She is somehow of the opinion that hers is the only opinion that matters - a common failing of teabags and Republicans everywhere. A majority of the country decided that they didn't like the policies of the Republicans so voted them out. The willingness of the GOPhers to lie, manipulate, and ignore the needs of their constituents has created an environment that allowed a small minority to shout so loudly that the national media, also responding to their corporate masters, manipulate the news to suggest that most of the country is dissatisfied with the direction of the new administration.

Rand Paul has the thinnest skin I have seen on a politician and I thought no one could top Sarah Palin. After his debate with Conway, he sounded like the little boy crying that he was going to take his ball and go home because someone was mean to him. That's what politics is. It's dirty and it's nasty. The people decide how much they're willing to put up with and politicians ignore them at their peril, although with a newly activist Supreme Court determined to legislate from the bench, we now have a government that will be determined by whomever has the most money and therefore the loudest voice. To say that politicians such as Paul feel comfortable saying some of the outrageous things that he does is truly remarkable yet bizarre that he can't take any of the heat.

Probably the most ludicrous figure of this election season is Christine O'Donnell. Each time I think I can't hear anything worse, I hear something worse. It's not just the bizarre statements, but her lack of self-awareness to understand how she is being perceived. During the debate with Coons in which she demonstrated her lack of understanding of the Constitution, she thought the audience was laughing with her, at Coons (they weren't). Every time I hear her, she seems a step off and I wonder that her followers don't see it (of course, why they can't see the other teabags either I can't fathom). Today in Michelle Malkin's blog (no, I won't link), she claims that it is Coons who does not understand the Constitution.

While debating at a law school, O'Donnell went on and on about her superior knowledge of the Constitution, yet when asked by the moderator about the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, she had to ask what each of them was about because she didn't have her copy of the Constitution with her. First of all, one principal planks of the teabag movement is the Constitution and she is appearing at a law school. O'Donnell has, repeatedly, claimed her superior knowledge of application of the Constitution. Wouldn't you think that she would bone up on the three amendments that are at the core of the teabag movement or at least bring her copy of the Constitution with her? Or write it on her hand? 14th (immigration), 16th (income tax), 17th (senate). Easy, should fit on anyone's hand.

Forgetting, as they all do, that there is video all over the web, O'Donnell and her cohorts have tried to re-write the event. What they've done, is taken everything out of context, something they claim as a tactic of the left. Replying to a discussion of schools teaching creationism and intelligent design, Coons stated that it was a violation of the separation of church and state. O'Donnell replied that he just demonstrated his ignorance of the Constitution if he thought that it said that local school boards could not decide to teach anything they wanted to teach, and he then brought up the 1st Amendment. Within the context of the discussion, the exact phrasing and whether or not it appears in the document is a moot point. The whole debate was in a similar vein, with O'Donnell displaying her ignorance as she also displayed her rudeness talking over Coons attempts to answer not only the moderator's questions, but hers.

I haven't had much time to blog every day, but between now and the election I am going to try to write about each of the major components of the campaign. I know many teabags, and this election, am no longer able to remain silent when I hear people repeating outrageous claims that are easily disproved. People who are unwilling to listen to facts and insist on holding on to their beliefs because they like the person who says them or because the individual belongs to the correct religion or party is dangerous to this country and I for one, am not keeping quiet regardless of the personal consequences.

The fact that these, and other teabag races, are so close says as much about us as it does about them. A few years ago, these people would have gotten no traction. The media would have been all over the inconsistencies and when caught in the lies, these people would have been forced to drop out of their respective races. Many, if not all of them, probably do not believe half of what they say, but simply want either the attention, the adulation, or the money that they know they will receive once they reach national political office, and then retire. Doesn't say much about us does it?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Why Are Teabaggers Willfully Ignorant? A Social Psychological Perspective

PHOTO: Trish Wend

My last post discussed the tendency of so many Americans to complain about government while at the same time relying on the services it provides, all the while, likely not understanding how dependent they are on those services. One of the comments, posted by Lexcade said:

"i think the problem is that too many people are ignorant about what the government actually does but they have no interest in gaining the knowledge they need to understand. they're perfectly willing to let the pretty women on fox tell them what to believe, and they buy it without a second thought. i'm sure there's some sort of psychology term for this, but i don't remember what it is. i just call it laziness."

There is a form of mental laziness that allows us to ignore that which is uncomfortable and would require effort to correct. Cognitive dissonance is the state in which ones behavior is in conflict with one's beliefs; in this situation, the individual complains about the government intruding into their lives while at the same time knowing - perhaps unconsciously - that without government, their lives would be extremely different and very likely, uncomfortable.

In order to resolve that dissonance, you have to change either your beliefs (okay, government isn't all that bad) or your behavior (stop complaining about it or do something pro-active to change it). Somehow, waving signs and chanting pre-packaged slogans that have required no real thought doesn't quite do it.

It is very difficult to change behavior and research has found that cognitive dissonance is usually resolved by changing beliefs or attitudes. In the case of the teabaggers, the change required on either end of the spectrum is so radical that it is far more comfortable to ignore it.

In order to recognize dissonance, one must have a certain level of self-awareness and be willing to recognize the dichotomy that exists within us all. Introspection and self-improvement are not fun and one of the reasons that I know I have had a successful counseling session is if my client cries. Real work is not easy or comforting and to accomplish anything lasting requires what one of my professors called "kicking it down into the basement and keeping it there."

In social psychology, we learn that one of the strongest social desires is to be liked. In a group, we tend to accommodate our beliefs and desires to those of the group and over time, resolve any conflict within ourselves by telling ourselves that those are our real beliefs. We tend to associate with and like those who are most like us, and studies have shown that when presented with negative information, we tend to think better of people that we like and rationalize away the negative information. We also tend to believe that people we like believe in the same way that we do and people we don't like, don't (all cats are animals, therefore, all animals are cats). If someone is different, we are quick to believe the worst and given the choice, will ignore exculpatory evidence weighted in favor of a stranger over proof of wrong-doing against someone we like.

Whether it is some sort of genetic/tribal memory or environmental conditioning, most people fear that which is different and the teabaggers, most of whom are not highly educated, fear the changes brought by an African-American President and a Democratic Congress. Rather than listening, they respond on an emotional level which limits the ability to reason. By leading with emotions, people are then extremely vulnerable to politicians and pundits who cater to that vulnerability (read Fox).

By projecting their feelings of inadequacy onto others, people such as the teabaggers are able to blame others (the government, immigrants, the Democrats, liberals, etc.) for everything that is wrong in their lives. One social theory is based on social structuralism and agency theory. How does the individual fit into society? How much agency does the individual really have? Agency means how autonomous is the individual? How much free will can they exercise? It is thought that within the social structure, we all have a certain place and manner of behavior based on the existing structure (people act towards us as we expect them to, we react as they expect us to and so on). With greater agency, we are able to affect that structure and our place in it. The greater our knowledge of social structure and the greater our own self-awareness, the greater our own agency.

In psychology, we look at the locus of control - is it internal or external? A healthy individual has an internal locus of control, meaning that they look to themselves for agency. They take responsibility for their own actions whereas someone with an external locus of control blames everything on outside influences beyond their control. Can't get a job? Immigrants fault. No money? Government taking too much in taxes (never mind that this past year we paid the lowest taxes in decades). Everything is always someone else's fault. Life is ruled by fate, God, or others. By ceding responsibility to someone or something else, they no longer have to do anything about it. Life can continue to be lived by sitting on the poofy recliner, watching Bridezilla while eating TacoTime and letting others make all the decisions, accept all the responsibility, and write the scripts for life.

Sorry. Probably more information than anyone wanted or needed, but I can cope with ignorance - after all, we just got through eight years of No Child Left Behind - but willful ignorance on the part of the teabags and the blind obedience to party and church is just crazy-making to me. And it is willful. It's just too upsetting, depressing, confusing, boring, hard, complex, irritating, or just plain time-consuming to stay informed and be a good citizen, so they'd all rather wave their Dick Armey printed slogans, fantasize about Sarah, or daydream about whatever it is their teeny, tiny little minds dream about while they stuff their faces with cheese puffs and watch the tv machine.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

So Now NY-23 Doesn't Matter? Sarah Palin's Balancing Act Ahead

We certainly live in interesting times. Off-year elections typically generate as much interest as a limp teabag, and that is apparently what we've got in upstate New York. However, the day after excitement is almost as high as that leading up to the election. At least for us political junkie types.

Interesting side note (h/t Media Matters) that updates a comment in my last post. It seems that Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reported on Monday that a loss in NY-23 would be disastrous for the Republican Party (despite the fact that Doug Hoffman, the challenger ran on the Conservative Party ticket) and will highlight the deep divisions in the party. Today, NY-23 is not even on the radar as he exclaims that the Republican wins will energize the party and set the stage for fund-raising, attracting candidates, and whipping up the base.The significance of a loss in 23, now? Not so much.

The greater implications, in my opinion, are to Sarah Palin. Her behavior is clearly that of someone who is planning to make a run for president in 2012, although someone who either has very poor advisors, or more likely, someone who knows it all and refuses to listen to those advisors (you just cannot ask people to pay to hear you speak in Iowa, a state you must win if you want to win the primaries).

Palin's decision to support Hoffman in NY-23 and her victory in running Scozzafava out of the race energized the Tea Bagger fringe of an already weakened party. Not quite 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans at this time, and Sarah Palin has clearly decided to chart her own course. By refusing to attend Republican events over the past year, and now supporting Hoffman, it is clear that Palin believes that she can either re-form the Republican Party or form her own.

Interestingly, in demanding purity - as defined by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - Republican leaders who had been supporting Scozzafava immediately threw their support behind Hoffman as soon as Palin and Fox News did rather than suffer the media backlash that would most certainly have occurred. Republicans planning to run in 2012, particularly Pawlenty, who was the most surprising because of his previous moderation, almost shoved each other out of the way to jump on that bandwagon.

Rather than widen the umbrella and try to appeal to a wider base, the Republican Party is following the wacky GOPhers on Fox News and the blogger from Alaska. This may win them local elections, but no one can win the presidency without independents, and regardless of how Obama does or does not do on the major issues, it is unlikely that independents are going to vote for the Tea Bag candidate.

It will be interesting to watch Sarah Palin balance on that fine line as she tries to hang on to her Republican supporters as she moves further and further into the wacko extremist right.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Police Called in NY-23 Race for Teabaggers

Evidently Teabaggers object to government intrusion, but they are allowed to intrude to their hearts content. Police were called to at least two polling sites in NY-23 district today for reports of voter intimidation. According to former State Democratic Chairwoman June O'Neill,

"We've gotten reports that people are standing there, covered with Hoffman stickers and yelling anti-choice stuff at voters," said O'Neill, a St. Lawrence native who has been running the party's GOTV effort for Bill Owens in NY-23.


"Apparently, there's some woman claiming to be a commissioner," O'Neill continued. "Commissioner of what, I don't know. She's from Texas, I think, and she won't leave."


"This is not the way we roll in the North Country."

Elizabeth Benjamin of the New York Daily News reports talking to the GOP Election Commissioner who tried to minimize the incident saying

"We had electioneering within the 100-foot polling marker," Phaler said. "It's my understanding that they were asked to leave and wouldn't leave."


"If people are electioneering within the marker and don't stop when we ask them to, our inspectors are instructed to call law enforcement to assist them. I don't think anybody was arrested."

I'm sure by the end of the day we will have more clarity on the issue, however, after the Tea Parties of last summer and the exhortations of Glenn Beck and his ilk, shouting appears to be the favored method of debate by the extreme fringe of the right wing. Hoffman, running on the Conservative ticket and "mentored" by Glenn Beck, is supported by this fringe so I am inclined to believe that their tactics are likely to follow the rules of engagement laid out by the Tea Bag organizers: that being, shout, get in someone's face, shout some more, refuse to allow anyone else their opinion or right to free speech, shout some more, and deny everyone else the rights you demand for yourself.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k