OBAMA TAX CUT COMPROMISE & THE PROGRESSIVE COMMENTATORS

To be sure, and as one can gather from my previous blog on the “Bush Tax Cuts,” I was not pleased with the final tax cut compromise that continued income tax cuts for the wealthy, raised the estate tax threshold and lowered the estate tax rate below that of 2009, and did nothing to the capital gains tax inequity for hedge fund managers.

Concurrently, I was not pleased that President Obama and the “White House” didn’t make a stronger public case against the Republican position supporting the tax cuts for the wealthy which held the middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance extension “hostage” until their position was accepted.  Additionally, like other leftists and progressives, I was not particularly enthralled with President Obama’s uncomplimentary language for those who worked hard to get a singular middle class tax cut bill which was passed by the House and forwarded to the Senate.  Of course, as we all know, the House legislation supported by progressives was filibustered in the Senate by the Republicans with the assistance of a few Democrats, and never received an up or down vote.

However, despite the President’s less than ideal approach to the issue and his treatment of progressives, I have concluded that the tax cut compromise was the only option available to the President to resolve the issue, at least for the time being.  In general, this conclusion was based on my assessment that the agreed upon compromise, both from a policy as well as a political perspective, will benefit a majority of the American working class, will contribute to an improved job market, and will assist progressives during the next two years to improve their elect ability and amend the shortcomings in the compromise.

Having come to the foregoing conclusion, and acknowledging my disappointment with the President’s approach, I must state that I was also disappointed with the approach to the tax cut issue taken by certain recognized progressive commentators, namely the MSNBC hosts Ed Schultz, and especially Keith Olbermann.

 As I normally agree with the majority of positions espoused by Schultz and Olbermann, and think they substantiate their positions with reliable evidence and argument, I was surprised that during their presentations and guest interviews pertinent to the tax compromise issue, they and their guests seemed to neglect certain obvious facts and seemed to focus on narrow term objectives, and in doing so, hypothesized scenarios that were devoid of supporting evidence.  Not included in the guilty here are Eugene Robinson and Ezra Klein, both of whom appeared to rely on factual analysis and political reality rather than emotional hyperbole.

To begin the analysis of where Schultz and Olbermann went off the reservation, let’s first explore some commonly accepted facts and premises pertaining to the tax cut issue.

1.     The House bill to lower the tax rates for the middle class, and extend unemployment was filibustered in the Senate by the Republicans and fell well short of the 60 votes needed.

2.     The Republicans, who have set a record for filibusters during the Obama administration, are on record as stating that they would filibuster all bills that did not have provisions for extending tax cuts for the wealthy.

3.     In January, the Republicans will have a majority in the House and additional members in the Senate.

4.     For the upcoming year, the approximately $900 billion in the compromise tax package reduces taxes for the wealthy by approximately $140 billion (individual and estate), and approximately $470 billion for the middle class (including the payroll tax reduction), with approximately $50-60 billion for extended unemployment insurance.

5.     Progressives basically agreed that there should be tax cuts for the middle class and extension of unemployment benefits, with additional funds for 99ers.  This was also the general philosophical and/or campaign position of President Obama, although I am not sure that he had a specific stand regarding the 99ers.

With the foregoing common set of facts, what did Schultz, Olbermann and guests do that raised my ire and appeared counterproductive?

First, they criticized the President for not negotiating enough and for leaving House leadership and progressives out of the negotiations.  Fair enough, I agree.  Also, they criticized the President for his attitude towards progressives.  Again, I agree.  However, in criticizing the President, the most progressive president we will probably have the chance to elect, Schultz, Olbermann and some of their likeminded guests committed the same error Obama did when he criticized the progressives who did not support his position.  Did these individuals really think that negative remarks towards the President would advance the progressive cause in the long-term battle against the obstructionist Republicans?  After all, the President did not abandon their position or veto the elements of the progressive position. But given the political reality of the situation he was forced to compromise. The results, progressives got what they wanted, but unfortunately, had to give the Republicans what they wanted.

Second, these individuals started citing the potential harm of adding $900 billion to the deficit, and had deficit experts comment on the issue.  Citing the $900 billion figure was, of course, disingenuous because all the parties favored the middle class tax cuts, the extension of unemployment, additional funds for the 99ers, and even greater infrastructure stimulus spending, at least to the tune of $500 billion plus.  So, in reality the deficit increase was never an issue in principle, but it was cited using the total $900 billion fear figure to make a point when, in fact, these folks only opposed the $140 or so billion going to the wealthy and the impact of that on the deficit.

Tied into the foregoing argument was the prediction, and probably a correct one, that the Republicans would attempt to make future cuts to Social Security and other safety net social programs based on the agreement to reduce the payroll tax, a reduction that helps the middle class and working lower middle class.  Although I agree that the Republicans based in the House will probably attempt to initiate such cuts, I would propose that they would attempt to make those cuts even if there was no payroll tax cut.

In addition, such proposed cuts would have little chance of success in the next year or two due to the fact that the Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate and also hold the presidency.  In fact,, if the Republicans wanted to run in 2012 on cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, I think that would be a great issue for the Democrats.

Third, the progressive commentators had discussions with guests who stated that a bill without tax breaks for the rich could have been passed because John Boehner stated that he would support a middle class tax cut without a cut for the wealthy if faced with that option.  There was no challenge to this hypothesis although any progressive in their right mind would know that John Boehner, one of the leading obstructionists to anything progressive, would be a good bet to back off such a position.  It only took a couple of days before Boehner was on television stating that compromise was not something in which he believed.  And even if one gave Boehner the benefit of the doubt, our fellow progressives did not state how a stand alone middle class tax cut and unemployment extension would get by Hitchcock serial killer look alike Mitch McConnell and his band of filibustering despisers of Obama in the Senate. It should not be forgotten that the Republicans blicans were the ones that consistently voiced support on various issues only to drop their support and filibuster the minute that Obama stated that he agreed with their position.  Relying on these individuals to change their positions because Obama fought harder is a pipe dream.  The compromise was Obama’s only choice, and the progressive commentators should have known this.

Fourth, and the most egregious example of poor and inaccurate positioning came from Keith Olbermann.  Olbermann had the nerve , after showing an old campaign clip, to interview former Clinton supporter, union representative Tom Buffenbarger, who stated that he knew all along that Obama would not be tough enough to stand up to the Republicans in support of working folks.  Despite this guy being full of it, Olbermann did not challenge him.  Although I agree with Olbermann on most issues, this tactic was pure BS and Olbermann might as well pulled out a Fox tape of Reverend Wright.

Initially, this jerk (Buffenbarger) claimed that Hillary would have been tougher.  I don’t remember Hillary being tougher in opposing the Iraq War.  She didn’t even read the Intelligence Assessment.  I also don’t remember Hillary being tougher and telling Bill to veto the Graham bill that repealed Glass-Steagall or the Telecommunications Act, both signed by Bill.  These failures to be tough have cost the country a lot more in blood and treasure than the two year tax cut for the wealthy to which President Obama had to agree to in order to get middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance extended.

Further, in challenging Obama’s toughness, without a peep from Olbermann, this idiot conveniently omitted Obama’s toughness in getting passage of “Equal Pay for Women,” Childrens Health expansion, Credit Card reform, Health Care reform, Hate Crimes legislation, the auto bailout, College Loan reform, the “Stimulus,” Wall Street reform, and more.  And this president who lacks toughness was able to accomplish all this while being the only president where the 24-hour cable news cycle labeled him a foreigner, a socialist, a Nazi, Hitler like, and a racist who favored “death panels” among other things.  Oh no, but he lacks toughness.  By the way, I don’t recall seeing any footage of Buffenbarger’s union supporters challenging the Tea Party wackos at any of those healthcare town meetings.  No words from Olbermann about any of this.

Last but not least, is the charge by the commentators and guests that Obama was backing down on his campaign promise not to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. Yes he did, but did he have a choice?  I think not.  But what was not mentioned was that the failure to reach a compromise would have resulted in Obama breaking his pledge to extend the middle class tax cuts and extend unemployment and do what he could to stimulate job growth.  None of the commentator’s seemed concerned with this pledge.

As stated, I tend to think that the President thought that getting what he did was better than nothing and certainly better than what he might get from a Republican House and a more conservative Republican Senate.  I’ll trust his judgment on this one, and continue the fight over the next two years, and during the 2012 election joining him instead of fighting him in opposing detrimental Republican proposals that will undoubtedly arise during that period.

Finally, on this day, December 22, 2010, with kudos to Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid and others, we see the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” adoption of START, passage of the Food Safety Act, and passage of the 9/11 First Responders health bill.  Yes, the Republicans helped the wealthy get their four percent for the next two years, and the heirs of the super wealthy can hope grandpa or dad dies before 2012, but President Obama appears to have achieved a lot more for progressives and the nation.  Ed and Keith, you are both great, but sometimes you have to reserve judgment and look at the broader picture.  Happy Holidays!

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

STRAIGHT POLITICS - THE BUSH TAX CUTS

 

 

 

November 15, 2010

 

President Barack Obama

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

The Honorable Barbara Boxer

The Honorable Harry Reid

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

The Honorable Brad Sherman

RE: Bush Tax Cuts

See Chart!
 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html

Dear President Obama and Senate and House Members:

I am writing this letter to give all of you my opinion on the whole “Bush Tax Cuts” issue.  As a supporter and volunteer for the Democratic Party in California, and given my background as a Hearing Officer/Mediator and auditor for the State of California, Department of Health Services, I hope you will consider the following common sense, strategic approach to this crucial issue.

Without restating all the facts and figures pertaining to the financial status of the wealthy versus the middle class and poor over the last one to two decades, the deficit, or the reported minimal effect that a tax cut for the wealthy would have on job creation, you must stand firm on your goal of a middle class/working poor tax cut.  Despite Republican rhetoric and false statements in support of a tax cut for the wealthy, this must be done without negotiating too far away from the position that the wealthy do not require a tax cut and that such a tax cut would be detrimental for the economy and the deficit.

Strategically, if any compromise is discussed, it can only be regarding the floor amount for tax cuts but not the duration of any tax cuts above $250,000.  For example, one could agree that increasing the floor to $375,000 or even $500,000 could be viewed as a compromise that gives a benefit to almost every small business, a standard Republican yelping point.

Such a compromise would be viewed as being reasonable, show that you are willing to negotiate, but also show that you are steadfast, based on firm economic ground, in not giving tax breaks to the super wealthy who neither need or deserve a tax cut. Such a compromise would not save the projected $70 billion per year, but certainly a good portion of it.  Part of your negotiation could be that half the savings goes to paying down the deficit and half goes to job stimulation in the form of state aid or infrastructure spending.

However, you cannot agree to any across the board tax cut for all income earners for any period of time, even a year or two.  Not only would such a compromise cast doubt on your original position, it would result in the rich getting richer, increase or prevent a decrease in the deficit, not provide any additional funds for job stimulation, and given past history not result in any job creation in itself.  Further, it will allow the Republicans both sides of the argument.  If the economy grows and the job market improves, as it might from the other actions you have taken including the proposed middle class tax cut, the Republicans will argue that the key factor was the tax cut for the rich and they will propose extending it again.  If the economy doesn’t grow and the job market doesn’t improve, the Republicans will argue that the one or two year cut for the rich was not long enough or that the defined period of the cuts created “uncertainty” which prevented investment in the economy or job creation.  There is no point in unnecessarily giving the Republicans this opportunity when there is no perceived value to the country as a whole.  They are going to lobby for tax cuts for the rich regardless because that is their constituency.

The bottom line is no tax cut for those with incomes possibly over $375,000 or even $500,000. But if you have to compromise to those limits – okay, but no tax cut above those limits for any time period.  As you have done, hammer home the points that middle class tax cuts are what the public elected you to do, and that those tax cuts, along with the other programs you have enacted and/or have proposed are the best plan for stimulating jobs, reducing the deficit, and growing the economy.  No one has substantiated that continuing tax breaks for the wealthy will accomplish anything other than making the wealthy wealthier.

Similarly, you cannot agree to a discontinuation of the inheritance (estate) tax.  Again, compromise can possibly be made on the tax-free floor although it cannot be raised so high as to defeat the philosophical and practical basis of the tax; that is, the free passage of wealth from one generation to another resulting in a permanent wealthy ruling class a la historical Europe.  Under no circumstances should the tax rate, regardless of the floor, be less than the corresponding personal income tax rate for the amount in question.

It is also possible that compromise can be made pertaining to the tax on non-liquid assets such as inherited businesses or farms.  Although I have heard that there are certain special provisions for dealing with these types of assets, it would not be difficult to establish some tax waiver process for those who could demonstrate a financial hardship if required to pay the inheritance tax

upon receipt of the non-liquid asset.  This is currently done as a state administrative function for Medicaid Estate Recovery matters.

Of course, the Republicans, backed by the wealthy, want to repeal the inheritance tax in full.  And again, their arguments are bogus.  Speaking bluntly but simply, the person who died and left the assets is not being penalized or taxed, he or she is dead.  The heirs who might be getting a “free” million and somewhat more even after imposition of the inheritance tax certainly have nothing to complain about.  Also, there is no basis for the argument that the assets should not be taxed because that constitutes double taxation.  In general, when funds are paid from one individual or entity to another, the funds are taxed at each level.  When I am paid at my job, I pay taxes.  When I pay my dentist with my after tax funds, the dentist pays taxes on money received from me, which was already taxed.  And so on.  So again, someone inheriting a couple of million dollars or more has essentially been paid for doing nothing other than having a wealthy relative.  These funds should be taxed.

Last, I have read that the prior “Bush Tax Cut” package included provisions that allowed certain hedge fund executives or managers, with enormous incomes, to have their incomes taxed at a capital gains rate that is lower than the normal personal income rate for their income.  This is preposterous, and I am sure that the American people, in addition to myself, would support any attempt to reverse this policy.  The “Main Street” worker in a factory, a warehouse or a retail outlet doesn’t get this advantage, so why should a Wall Street manager or executive.  Talk about unfair.

You have a winning position on the issue of the “Bush Tax Cuts” as it relates to cuts for the middle class/working poor.  Even with measured compromises that I have outlined, I think you still have a winning position.  However, if you give in to the Republicans and accept major tax cuts for the wealthy in any of the aforementioned areas, your position will be diminished among your supporters as well as among the population as a whole.  Further, you wouldn’t be doing the right thing for the country.

Good luck.

         

CARNIVAL PARTY

Finishing the Kool-Aid

As the Carnival Party grounds are emptying out, there is still a group of old white guys at the RAND PAUL FOOD COURT sipping the last of the Kool-Aid from the drink concession.

In general though, across the grounds, although unhappy with the losses in the election by favorites Christine O’Donnell, Carl Paladino, Sharron Angle, Meg Whitman and other carnies, the crowd was thrilled with the other electoral wins, especially that of Rand Paul.  The buzz going around is that Paul is the Carnival Party’s best hope to shrink government, shrink the tax burden on the rich, shrink the middle class and shrink the Civil Rights Act. Only a few stragglers were heard questioning what Paul would do to create jobs and stop outsourcing but these same stragglers were also heard rationalizing that job creation was less important than getting rid of that black president.

Over at the FOX NEWS EMPLOYMENT CENTER, which was one of the last standing booths, it was reported that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck were speaking to Christine O’Donnell about employment at Fox. It was further reported that O’Donnell was informing Hannity and Beck that GOD had told her that she should be working at Fox instead of being an elected official and that is why she ran as the idiot candidate.  The reported response of Hannity and Beck was that they would assist O’Donnell if they received the Carnival Party promised millionaires tax cut and the minimum wage was repealed, thereby insuring that there was money available to pay O’Donnell.

Behind closed doors, the Carnival Party organizers were already planning their next event and had approved, given the results of the election, reusing the DAVID VITTER WILD MADAMHORN RIDE, the PALIN-BACHMANN PHOTO BOOTH, and the SHARRON ANGLE SHOOTING GALLERY with the provision that the SHOOTING GALLERY be renamed after a different nutcase who was pro-gun and anti-immigrant and who could actually tell the difference between an Asian and a Hispanic.

The organizers also agreed that they would provide the same Kool-Aid drink to the working carnies and attendants with the hope that the consumption of such would have the same effect, in essence , leading the drinkers to believe that the country would be better off if Obama was defeated and all healthcare, credit card, consumer protection, Wall Street, student loan and education, hate crimes, equal pay for women, VA, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and minimum wage reforms would be repealed. And of course, while masquerading as support for job creation, convincing the carnies and attendants that tax breaks for the super wealthy and the dead are the required course of action. The only question in the organizers minds was whether the current concoction would work in two years.  It was concluded that, given the intellectual and educational background of their supporters in conjunction with the amount of anonymous corporate money that could be used for advertising, there was confidence that the supporters would drink-up.

With the final closure of the grounds, one of the carnies noted that many of those leaving seemed disappointed that they had not been able to attend or experience all of the exhibits, rides, and attractions and obtain a souvenir that would remind them of their wonderful experience.  Demonstrating amazing creativity, the carnie put together a small stand where these individuals were able to purchase an exact replica of the CARL PALADINO BASEBALL BAT, claimed to represent the people of New York.  The purchasers were ecstatic, and were heard saying that they can’t wait to use them during the next election, during the next Rand Paul debate or during Carl’s next meeting with a reporter. SEE BELOW!

The end of CARNIVAL PARTY for 2010.

CARNIVAL PARTY

The Final Attraction

Looking down on the Carnival Party event grounds, the enthusiastic carnies and attendees seem to all be descending upon the last attraction that the organizers erected for the entertainment and enjoyment of their recruits.

This last attraction, designed in honor of senatorial candidate Linda McMahon of Connecticut, late of World Wrestling Entertainment fame, is the MCMAHON WOMENS CENTER. It was explained that this CENTER was built to attract female support to the Carnival Party so as to enhance the female vote for the Tuesday election.

Currently featured at the CENTER are videos and photos of various male Carnival Party supporters from around the country stomping or hitting women.  It was thought that this presentation might pose a problem, but focus groups led by Carnival barkers Beck and Limbaugh and run by Fox News demonstrated that there would be no problem.  It was observed that the focus group participants were so entertained and laughed so hard at the visuals that the crosses worn around their necks and the racist signs they were carrying went flying due to the gyrations of the participants.

Check This Out!

 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x454061

AND

For all entering the CENTER, there will also be a form to order a free one-month supply of steroid supplements.  Organizers viewed this gift as a sure winner with attendees, especially for those who may want to beat a woman in the future, or for those who need additional muscle strength to lift their guns or their bellies.





There is no doubt that the booths, rides, sideshows, etc. offered to attract people to the grounds and the Carnival Party, has energized this group for election day.  Although it has been clearly pointed out that the vast majority of Carnival Party supporters will not benefit but, in fact, will be harmed by the Carnival Party agenda, the mostly super wealthy, white males running the show have convinced these folks otherwise.  This will be explored further in a final segment after the Tuesday election.

LEFTY'S LUNCHBOX #3

“Let them eat cake,” F__k it, let them starve!

It appears that historians have now concluded that Marie Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI, was incorrectly attributed with uttering the famous phrase, “let them it cake.”  In historical context, the importance of such an utterance in 18^th century France derived from the fact that bread was the food staple of the French peasantry and working class.

Having a king or queen or other noble order the replacement of bread with cake during a famine or food shortage would be viewed as disdainful as well as illustrative of the decadence and selfishness of the aristocracy and upper classes. Whether uttered by Marie Antoinette or not, the phrase was a rallying cry up through the French Revolution, and continues today as a phrase symbolizing disdain for the less fortunate.

Come now 21^st century America where, despite a certain rejection of most things French, we now have a profuse number of very wealthy, ultraconservative Republican-Tea Party office-holders and candidates espousing philosophies and policies that go beyond “Let them eat cake,” and are in fact, tantamount to “let them starve.” A few examples follow.

First, we have multimillionaire, Republican-Tea Party senatorial candidate John Raese of West Virginia.  Mr. Raese has explained that he made his money the old fashioned way, he inherited it.  Apparently, to insure that his aristocratic standing and realm will not be in jeopardy and his heirs will be able to continue the dynasty, Mr. Raese is diligently advocating for continued tax breaks for the wealthy, elimination of the inheritance tax, and of course, abolition of the federal minimum wage - $7.25 per hour. After paying for rent, auto insurance or bus fares, clothes, health care, I am not sure that $7.25 per hour would buy bread or cake or anything to eat for an individual, nevertheless, a family.  I wonder if Mr. Raese believes in the divine right of the rich.

Next, we have a whole group of Republican-Tea Party office-holders and candidates who are against extending or in some cases giving benefits at all to unemployed people who have been laid off because of outsourcing or other reasons.  Ostensibly, if the unemployed are prevented from receiving any benefits and are unable to find employment, it is not far fetched to conclude that in a short period of time they or their family could be lacking money to put any food on their table.  But no worry, the same Republican-Tea Party folks voting against the unemployment benefits will be campaigning hard for those tax breaks for the companies that are outsourcing the jobs.

Last, and more close to home, because I reside in California, are the royal proclamations of Meg Whitman, Queen of Ebay, and candidate for governor. Most telling about this billionairess’ approach to serving the people of California, aside from the fact that she has spent over 100 million dollars of her own money to finance her campaign, is her initial proposal to create jobs by eliminating up to 40,000 state employees, employees referred to by Ms. Whitman as “selfish and arrogant.” Is that the pot calling the kettle black or what?

Although one could conclude that the elimination of 40,000 employees would slightly reduce the state budget, there is no logical way that anyone could conclude that employment will improve by eliminating the jobs. And what about the foreseeable consequences of the elimination of those lost jobs?

Such simple questions, but no one has asked Ms. Whitman.  How much will have to be paid for unemployment for these individuals, assuming the Republican-Tea Party office-holders don’t scrap those benefits?  What do these individuals do for healthcare after losing the coverage they have through employment?  Do the people end up on Medi-Cal, or do they end up in an expensive emergency room?  Both alternatives resulting in additional burdens to the state and taxpayers.  How about the ripple effect on the business establishments in the neighborhoods where these people live when they stop spending because their job has been eliminated? How will these newly unemployed individuals pay their house payment, their family bills, kids costs, food on the table, or do you “let them starve?”

Oh yes, some will say that Ms. Whitman also wants to eliminate the capital gains tax in California.  Without going into an in-depth economic analysis, suffice to say that elimination of this tax primarily benefits the very wealthy and privileged class of which Ms. Whitman is a member in good standing, and does little for the peasants, the working class or employees whose jobs would be eliminated by Ms. Whitman.

In addition to the foregoing, the “let them starve” upper crust attitudes and positions of the Republican-Tea Party members are further demonstrated by the following.

1.    The demonization and attempts to cut funding for the Food Stamp Program.

2.    Current proposals to reduce or eliminate college student loan funds that assist those “starving” students.

3.    Republican Senator Coburn’s (Oklahoma) singular act of holding up one billion dollars in legislatively passed funds for Haiti earthquake relief because he doesn’t like one of the administrative provisions.

4.     Republican-Tea Party media celebrity support for the County Council of Obion County, Tennessee, for the Council’s decision not to allow their fire fighting force to put out a fire at a local resident’s house because he failed to pay his $75.00 “Fire fee” (although he paid his taxes).  In this case, “let him eat ashes.”

Of course, the Republican-Tea Party moneyed elitists, with the assistance of wealthy pseudoeconomists and corporate shills, mask their hidden agenda as fiscal conservatism and deficit hawking while they mistakenly claim that tax cuts for the wealthy class and elimination of capital gains and inheritance taxes will somehow benefit the working class and create jobs.  In reality, facts and evidence indicate that since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and continued more so in the recent Bush decade, reduction of taxes for the rich have done just that, benefited the rich, while the rest of the nation, the poor and middle class working people have not benefited.  In their own circles, it is a towering tribute to these wealthy Republican-Tea Party loyalists that the richest one percent in America now holds 43% of the country’s wealth.  King Louis and Marie would be impressed.

Some will assert that I am attempting to instigate class warfare.  This conclusion would be incorrect.  My primary objective is to caution those who are not part of the moneyed elite not to be fooled by the agenda of the aspiring kings and queens that hope to enrich and expand their own palaces while leaving those less fortunate starving, without even a piece of cake.

CARNIVAL PARTY

Extra Extra: Another News Update

After being informed that Carl Paladino apologized for some of his anti-gay remarks, and after discovering that Mr. Paladino rented space in Buffalo to two gay clubs, one or both of which were run by his son, the previously noted New York orthodox rabbis withdrew their endorsement of Mr. Paladino.

Consequently, the Carnival Party brass, which in New York is resembling the Circus Party, stopped construction of the PALADINO BRAINWASHING CENTER.  Whether the rabbis will request that CENTER construction be continued and be renamed the TOLERANCE BRAINWASHING CENTER is unclear.

AND KEEP POSTED!! COMING THIS WEEKEND, ANOTHER EDITION OF
LEFTY'S LUNCHBOX.

CARNIVAL PARTY

WOW: More Breaking News

Apparently, the Carnival Party is not a firm believer in the old adage, “no news is good news.”  So again, notwithstanding my prior commitment to not continue the CARNIVAL PARTY segments until after the November elections, I now have additional breaking news to report.

only need the first 3 minutes!!

 

An interesting, yet controversial, new amusement, in the planning phase for a while and now opened with an entrance on the grounds, is the IOTT NAZI WAR GAMES ADVENTURE.  For this ADVENTURE, you can enter on the grounds and then be bussed by special carnies to a secret location where you join candidate Rich Iott of Ohio, a Carnival Party aspirant, to participate in re-enacting the adventures of a Nazi SS Panzer Division.  Each paid admission gets an authentic uniform, weapon and Nazi alter-ego name.  Children can attend with parents, to bond, but only after writing an essay of why they would prefer to dress up as a Nazi and play war games rather than challenging their parents to a game of checkers, golf, or bowling.

Although the Carnival Party organizers have become aware that a few of the carnies and patrons on the grounds are not thrilled with this ADVENTURE, especially those of the Jewish faith, they are hoping that the small number of supporters they have among the Jewish faith will not abandon them.  They are counting on the fact that this group will be more motivated by their unacceptance of a black president and the possibility of a bigger tax refund than they are disgusted by any Carnival Party members gallivanting around as Nazis.

The second “breaking news” item relates to an addition to the previously described PALADINO INTERNET EXHIBIT. 

Currently under construction is the PALADINO BRAINWASHING CENTER where viewers can see pictures, like mug shots, of homosexuals you wouldn’t want to expose to your children, and who have not demonstrated that, …”homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option.” To accommodate the New York group of orthodox rabbis who endorsed Paladino and provided him with his speech lines that will be played at the CENTER, it was decided that the rabbis could select the initial photos to be put on display.  Apparently, to best prove their point, the photos of the following individuals were selected first.  The people are all Jewish.(Wikipedia LGBT Jews)

-         Jerome Robbins of  “King & I,” “Westside Story,” and “Fiddler on the Roof” fame;

-         Leonard Bernstein, “Westside Story”;

-         Leslie Gore, “It’s My Party”;

-         Annie Leibovitz, photographer;

-         Maurice Sendak, writer/illustrator;

-         Brian Epstein, Beatles manager/agent; and

-         David Geffen, entertainment mogul/philanthropist.

The orthodox rabbis, of course, without stating such, are not expected to visit the PALADINO INTERNET EXHIBIT featuring Paladino’s racist and bestiality Email exhibits, even though he spoke their words about rejecting perversion and pornography.

In a final announcement, and in response to already having multiple amusements/exhibits featuring Mr. Paladino, the Carnival Party organizers stated that they would not be building prison dorms on the grounds to house any poor people who may have mistakenly been admitted to the event.

Stay tuned, approaching election day, more to come.

CARNIVAL PARTY

 

Breaking News

Although I stated that the next CARNIVAL PARTY segment would not come until after the November election, there is breaking news that must be reported now.

The first piece of breaking news pertains to an announcement from Senator Jim DeMint, South Carolina, one of the staunchest backers of the Carnival Party.  That announcement is that all current or planned booths, exhibits, etc., on the grounds employing carnies who are openly gay or lesbian, or employing sexually active single females would now be barred from the grounds.  The announcement did not reference the SENATOR ENSIGN KISSING BOOTH, the SENATOR VITTER MADAMHORN RIDE, or the MARK SANDFORD APPALACHIAN RIDE, which are still open. 

The implications of DeMint’s pronouncement has been reviewed by the Carnival Party carnies and participants, and it has been concluded that participation on the grounds should be limited to straight white men, single or married, who can only have sexual relations with straight white married women regardless of whether the married women are married to them.

The second piece of breaking news is that Meg Whitman is being removed from her position as an employment counselor at the FOX NEWS EMPLOYMENT CENTER.

Her employment of an undocumented housekeeper for nine years in conjunction with her denial that she was unaware of the woman’s illegal status during those years, and her political stance that she wants to prosecute employers of undocumented workers did not pass mustard or sit well with the Carnival Party hierarchy. It is rumored that candidate JOE MILLER of Alaska, who has opined that the federal minimum wage and unemployment insurance are unconstitutional will replace Whitman.

With these developments, news is circulating that the booths, exhibits, tents etc., on the grounds are growing smaller as Carnival Party support is growing narrower and smaller.

Will get back to you after November 2 unless other Breaking News stories arise.

LEFTY'S LUNCHBOX 2

Stale Food for Thought – Palin for President & Related Complicity

Last November, I sent E-mails to various political show hosts and commentators, among other issues, letting them know that their coverage of a possible Sarah Palin run for president was misguided.  The applicable text of those E-mails with updated information follows. 

“Finally, while I have your undivided attention, I would like to comment on your coverage of Sarah Palin.  Although I recognize that she is somewhat of a news item and you have to provide some coverage of her exploits, it is my opinion that you are being scammed by Ms. Palin and that the suppositions of you and most of your guests that she will be a presidential candidate in 2012 are in error. 

The facts appear to support the notion that Ms. Palin wants to have the appearance of being a prospective presidential candidate because that keeps her in the news and ultimately improves her opportunities for generating income. Until she announces, which I don’t think she will, I would leave most of her coverage to the late night comedians and not give her the credibility and free publicity of a presidential candidate that she is using for the sole purpose of enriching herself.

While Ms. Palin’s personality apparently contributes, in part, to her popularity, the media created prospective candidacy for her is much more of a factor in focusing interest on her. Absent that prospective candidacy, Ms. Palin’s track record as a loser and a quitter would certainly dampen her public exposure and the interest in her, even among conservatives; undoubtedly, resulting in the generation of less income.  As it stands, the media generated speculation combined with Ms. Palin’s lack of a commitment on her presidential plans has resulted in a healthy flow of income for Ms. Palin, be it PAC money, book money, or speech money.  I saw that Todd quit his job the other day and of course Sarah, if you don’t count her book tour as employment, is also unemployed.  However, despite the media speculation to the contrary, at some time in the future Ms. Palin will announce that she can do more for the conservative movement as a noncandidate, and she will end up with her own FOX or radio show.  My conclusions are based on the following obvious facts.

1. During the 2008 election, Ms. Palin, despite her ability to wink, came to the self-realization that she lacks the intellect and qualifications to be president.

2. Absent a rebirth of the Confederacy, Ms. Palin knows that she could not win a      national election.

3. Ms. Palin has learned that her appeal as a conservative spokesperson far exceeds that of the multimillionaires, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh; and therefore, pursuing that pot of gold is easier, less stressful, and much more lucrative than being an elected official.  Unlike the aforementioned, she is attractive, she graduated college, she has public service experience, she has a son in the military, and she has no family history of divorce or substance abuse.  These factors, combined with her ability to misstate the truth, promote fear, and have no respect for facts and scientific evidence on par with her competition, make her a very desirable and valuable conservative commodity.

4. The Palins wouldn’t want to depart Alaska on a full-time basis and have to live in Washington, D.C.

5. Not being a candidate would free Ms. Palin from the misery of nagging government investigations, regular network interviews, and invasive family probes that are normally applicable to a candidate as opposed to a tweeter or a talk show host.

6. She would be free to advocate her extreme positions on various issues to the conservative base without be intensely questioned or challenged.

I will send my apologies to you if I am wrong on this issue, but in the meantime and until she announces her candidacy, please don’t treat Sarah Palin as anything other than she is, a losing vice presidential candidate, a resigned governor, and one of many conservative talking heads pursuing a larger pot of gold.  The only result of your speculation is filling her bank account and misleading the public, neither of which appears to be a benefit for your audience or the American people.”

Well, since the date of my E-mails, the following has been reported.

1.      Ms. Palin’s income has increased from her approximately $150,000  annual salary as Governor of Alaska to $12,000,000, twelve million dollars for the last couple of years.

2.      Ms. Palin has been hired as a Fox News consultant.

3.      Ms. Palin has polled near the bottom in most of the straw polls conducted at conservative conferences.

4.      Ms. Palin does not routinely, if at all, talk to the press, other than speaking on Fox News or "tweeting."

5.      Ms. Palin spends a lot of time endorsing very conservative Republicans or Tea Party candidates, combined = Carnival Party).

6.      Ms. Palin has a Discovery Channel show and wants to be on Dancing With The Stars.

Okay, so the point is made that the media politicos and experts failed to see the gold- filled forest through the trees that Ms. Palin saw.  But now, the same forest seems to reappearing for other members of the Palin gang, and once again, the media politicos and experts are either silent or again complicit.

First, we have the case of Bristol Palin.  I have two kids myself and honestly, I wish only the best for Bristol and her child.  The problem arises because Ms. Palin (Sarah) made a point of condemning the media (except Fox), and condemning “Hollywood,” and requesting that the media keep its distance from her children.  Low and behold, $300,000 from a magazine for pictures of Bristol’s baby and the potential of six figures of income for Bristol from Dancing With The Stars in “Hollywood,” and oops, there is a change in attitude.

Again, no problem, and certainly Bristol should have the right to make as much money as she can, just like her mom, the hypocrisy notwithstanding.  However, the media politicos and experts seemed to be silent on this issue, and I don’t mean the issue of Bristol, I mean the issue of Sarah Palin’s hypocrisy when it comes to sticking by her statements or abandoning them for cash.

Of course, Bristol being considered a “star” on Dancing With The Stars is a question unto itself.  It appears that Disney (Disney owns ABC), and I never put anything past Disney since they denied me entry into Disneyland in the late sixties because my hair was too long, waived its magic wand and deemed Bristol a “star.”  This is analogous to the media politicos and experts crowning Sarah as presidential material and candidate with neither conclusion being grounded in fact or logic.  In any event, I refuse to watch Dancing With The Stars this season.  When the indicted Tom DeLay was on the show a couple of seasons ago, I only watched after he was off.  In retrospect, I am happier that Bristol is on the show than Ann Coulter who Disney also offered a spot. You would think that Disney is owned by Fox.

Last, but not least, and perhaps most disturbing, is the case of Levi Johnston, formerly of the Palin gang.

Last week, Levi was one of the featured interviews on the new Lawrence O’Donnell show on MSNBC.  This complicity with promoting the future of Levi is mind boggling and unacceptable. Lawrence O’Donnell is a smart, experienced, articulate liberal politico with a first class resume that far exceeds even mine. Why in the world he had Levi Johnston on his program is beyond me unless he is trying to compete with the “E” Channel.

It is true that Levi, aside from his “Hollywood” adventures and magazine layouts, confirmed on O’Donnell’s show that he is a candidate for the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and prospective recipient of a GED (like Bristol, he dropped out of high school).  I don’t know if this information made Mr. O’Donnell smarter or the audience smarter given O’Donnell’s show promo of, “Tell me something that makes me smarter or my audience smarter and you get the last word.”  What the featured interview did do is give Levi more exposure, so like Ms. Palin and Bristol, he can enrich himself by using the naïve and complicit media. 

I am sure that Mr. O’Donnell is aware that there are a lot of hardworking young politicos doing volunteer work while struggling to pay for college, or others trying to receive recognition or support for a student newspaper, or others attempting to organize a fundraiser for a good cause or raise money for a piano for their music department.  Consequently, I would suggest to Mr. O’Donnell that his viewers might learn something more from these individuals or about the good hearts of these individuals if they were featured on his show instead of Levi Johnston.  So next time, decline the interview with the Palin gang member or ex-member, and feature someone who has something more to contribute than “I don’t know, but I will return next year.”

In conclusion, as a request to the media politicos and experts, especially the alleged liberal and progressive individuals, feed the audience the facts and truths and avoid being scammed or becoming part of the scam.  We don’t need your opinion if you think someone is attractive looking or has “moxie” as Chris Matthew’s is fond of stating.  He hasn’t even taken Sarah Palin’s picture off his program logo yet. Do the tough interviews and ask the relevant questions that will result in the viewing public knowing more than they knew before.  I have seen you do it in the past, and I hope you can stick to such a script in the future.  However, if I hear your speculation that Christine O’Donnell has the look and potential to run for president if she studies hard, gets married and confiscates all of Bill Maher’s videotapes, I will lose my lunch.