If I hadn’t been watching Jon Stewart to catch up on some outlier news, I would not have known that Republican John McCain and Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be BFFs. Stewart was “reporting” on the recent funeral of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. In a “break in the action,” McCain and Pelosi were walking together and having a jolly good time. They were laughing and looking warmly at one another. They probably did not know that at least one camera was tracking their stroll down Memory Lane.

It got me thinking that international funerals could be a great way to break gridlock King Abdullah’s was a special one because he was so popular with American Republicans and Democrats. It may have been his winning personality; it may have been that he was “just ordinary folks” when everyone went casual, or it possibly could have been that American politicians of both major parties just seemed partial to the leader of a country with 20 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

America’s “who’s who of oil” scurried to Riyadh.They came from Capitol Hill, from ‘K’ Street, from downtown Houston, and just about any place where Oil is King. Their roles in the funeral were passive; it was not for them to pontificate or even officiate. About the only thing left to do was to stand around and look uncomfortable. It would have made a great setting for the cast of the political satire, Alpha House.

Awkward moments are the times when guards are let down as individuals look for allies who can assure them than they’re not doing anything wrong. When possible, it’s good to be in conversation so that you don’t stand out as misfit for the occasion. So if you happen to be next to someone of a different political party, it doesn’t matter. You just want someone with whom to talk and to pretend as if there is no one else with whom you would rather be.

President Obama was at King Abdullah’s funeral, but the identity of Republicans with whom he chatted apparently is not for public consumption. Another mystery is what Republicans, if any, flew on Air Force One with him. Remember the funeral of Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995? Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was delighted to be a passenger on President Bill Clinton’s plane, but then he was miffed because the President did not invite him to join the First Family in the front cabin. Maybe Clinton should have done some “bargain shopping” with the Speaker on the plane ride.

Most members of Congress are comfortable when they are inside their bubbles. That bubble usually includes their favorite places on Capitol Hill, the fanciest restaurants on or around ‘K’ Street, the nook where they incessantly make the annoying phone calls asking for money, and wherever friendly crowds assemble in their district. But if you put them in a place where they have to interact with people outside of their bubble, they are disarmed. This is particularly so if the occasion is characterized by the “fish out of water” feeling they inevitably get at a foreign dignitary’s funeral.

So, in an effort to promote bi-partisanship and possibly even actual governance, I propose that foreign leaders die on an intermittent schedule, no less than four weeks apart and no more than six weeks apart. No matter who the leader is or what country he or she ruled, the United States should spare no dignitaries to attend the funeral. If possible, they should all fly on Air Force One. The seating should be “Southwest-style,” take a number, please. No media allowed; cordial socializing required, and for those who cannot handle the rigors of bi-partisan conversation, one of the Air Force One restrooms will serve as a “time-out” room.

Upon returning to Washington, the Congress should form a Joint Committee on Future Funerals. That would be somewhat of a ruse; the main purpose would be to outline items due for bi-partisan consideration at the next funeral.

You might think that this proposed solution to gridlock is an act of desperation. Well you’re right; it is. But short of any better idea, I’ll look forward to the untimely demise of foreign leaders as our best call to bi-partisanship. Sorry, Joe Biden, you’ll have company at future funerals.

The post Funerals can break gridlock appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Like many progressives, I’ve been very frustrated by both the gridlock that Republicans have been causing in Congress and the ongoing mischaracterization of it by much of the mainstream press. No sooner had President Obama been sworn into office than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said that his main goal the upcoming Congressional session was to keep President Obama from being reelected. Fortunately he failed at that, but he and soon-to-be House Speaker John Boehner have successfully kept Congress from doing much of anything. If you’re a progressive, that’s not the direction (or non-direction) in which you’d like to go.

Now it seems that at least some Republicans do want to see movement. They call it going forward; others may see it more as going in reverse. According to the New York Times, Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, is proposing major changes in the federal tax code. His plan calls for “a cut in the top corporate income rate to 25 percent from 35 percent, and a reduction of the seven individual tax brackets to two — at 10 percent and 25 percent — according to aides familiar with the proposal.”

Why should we worry about something that sounds like needed breaks for the American people? First, taxes may actually go up when deductions such as home mortgage interest payments end. Second, rates this low may only be capable of funding the federal government if there are major cuts in both entitlement programs and other important discretionary spending. Years ago, a major reform bill from a Republican would have been cause for serious study; remember that Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican before he was a progressive. But now, it’s highly implausible that a bill, in this case one that runs 1,000 pages long, is likely to benefit either the middle class or those living in poverty.

“The Hill” reports more about the bill:

The House’s top tax writer rolled out a broad tax reform plan on Wednesday (Feb. 26) that would pare back tax breaks once thought untouchable and affect practically every part of American life.

The nearly 1,000-page plan unveiled by Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) would pull back on the cherished deduction for home mortgage interest and embraces some ideas touted by Democrats, like scrapping the “carried interest” tax break used by hedge fund managers.

Camp said a discussion on making the tax code fairer and a more positive force for the economy was long overdue in Washington, given that the last successful tax reform effort was in 1986.

But the discussion draft, which included a summary that along ran almost 200 pages, quickly found detractors both on and off Capitol Hill, as trade groups and lobbyists found out who were the losers in the chairman’s outline.

Even before it was released, the top Republicans in both chambers had distanced themselves from the effort, with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) scoffing at the possibility of a vote this year and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) saying it would be better to do tax reform next year.

In fact, one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement is that tax reform has little chance for success this year, and some have suggested that the best-case scenario for Camp’s draft is to be a template for future efforts. But Camp was defiant, arguing Wednesday that the average person was ready for a tax code no longer littered with “special interest handouts.”

“You’re going to hear a lot about one provision or another,” Camp told reporters at a news conference introducing his long-awaited draft. “The truth is people want a simpler, fairer and flatter tax code.”

The Michigan Republican said he meets that goal by getting rid of 228 sections of the tax code, or roughly a quarter of its current 70,000 pages.

With changes to tax breaks for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and state and local taxes, Camp also says that around 95 percent of households would be able to use the standard deduction and avoid itemizing – down from around seven in 10 right now. The deduction for state and local taxes – which Camp outright eliminates – is especially prized in Democratic states like New York and California.

But the release from Camp also acknowledges that he fell short on the House GOP goal of reducing the top individual rate to 25 percent. Roughly 99 percent of taxpayers, Camp says, will pay 25 percent or less, while the rest will face a top bracket of 35 percent.

Camp did succeed in lowering the corporate rate to 25 percent, by chopping off 2 percent a year over five years. In the process, Camp makes the prized credit for research and development permanent, while also stretching out depreciation schedules and getting rid of an accelerated cost recovery system.

Still, Camp also acknowledged that he was at times hamstrung by the fiscal cliff deal hashed at the end of the last Congress, which raised the top individual tax rate to close to 40 percent.

It appears that this bill will go nowhere fast, but in the long run, it could be a blueprint for what the GOP would like to enact if it had the legislative majorities to do so as well as the presidency. At first glance, the bill has a certain attractiveness, as any bill purporting to lower taxes would. But when I see plans like this, I hope for the kind of gridlock that has made today’s brand of Republicans famous.

The post This bill makes me want to stick with gridlock appeared first on Occasional Planet.

From time to time, Congress has involved itself in the world of baseball.  Now it’s time for Congress to look at baseball for a possible solution to its current gridlock.

CNN contributor Bob Greene recently wrote about how baseball has experienced considerable gridlock over the past half-century.  Who would think that our national pastime would be put on hold because the owners and the players could not get along?  Actually, the question is not whimsical; the dynamics of greedy owners and players seeking justice led to a number of strikes, lock outs, and general work stoppages in the game.  At first it was owners versus players who had to maintain extra jobs; now it is billionaires versus millionaires.

Greene writes:

The sport, which is currently moving through its postseason and toward the World Series, is hardly without its own troubles; it has endured its share of shutdowns, strikes and lockouts. It was during one of those work stoppages — the seven-week strike of 1981– that an anguished fan pleaded publicly with the leaders of the sport, both the owners and the players, to come to their senses.

The fan was Bart Giamatti, who at the time was the president of Yale University and who would go on to become the commissioner of Major League Baseball. Giamatti, frustrated by the posturing and excuses on both sides, wrote that the failure to open up the gates of the ballparks was “utter foolishness. … The people of America care about baseball, not about your squalid little squabbles. Reassume your dignity and remember that you are the temporary custodians of an enduring public trust.”

For many Americans, the current gridlock in Washington is a “squalid little squabble.”  Yes, Tea Party members see it as a matter of principle as do progressives on their side.  But most people do not understand the issues at play and this is why they take an “a pox on both of your houses” attitude.  This is why they cannot see that President Obama and most Democrats want government to play a vital and necessary role in the functioning of our society whereas the Republicans seem to have little or no cares about the well-being of the American people, particularly those who are of limited financial means.

It is not President Obama or the Democrats who want a “work stoppage” now.  They know that a functioning government is what almost all Americans want, just as baseball fans want the game to continue rather than having petty squabbles among parties that generally eschew principle for pure financial gain.

Or as Bob Greene puts it:

That the majority of the public — the employers of these officials — want the government to open back up seems to have mattered little to those entrusted with the authority to open it. The politicians’ belated nervous scrambling of the last few days, prompted by the citizens’ disdain, has only highlighted how badly they overestimated the limits of the country’s patience.

The sooner that the leaders of government — the “temporary custodians of an enduring public trust” — fully comprehend that there is, and will be, no general sympathy heading their way, either, the sooner they may realize that it’s time to step away from the television cameras and cease their futile search for that sympathy.  And instead do the jobs they are being paid to do.

In most labor disputes in baseball, it was the owners who caved in because the public had very little sympathy for them.  It was the players with whom the fans identified.

In Washington, the public seems to be disgusted with both sides.  But the President has considerably more support than the Republicans in Congress.  As everyone’s popularity goes down, it is the Republicans who will first zero out.  The site of John Boehner carping is not a pleasant sight at any time.  Mr. Boehner, please give us all a break and serve your own political interests at the same time.  Let the country get back to work.  Play ball!

The post It’s Washington’s turn to learn from baseball appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We are properly focused on the short-term concerns about Republican obstinance in Congress. One way or another, we will get beyond this. The result may be as small as the United States being slightly damaged or as large as our planet sustaining a major economic blow. At this point, the right wing Republicans either don’t understand what is happening or they simply don’t care.

But what comes next after this particular episode of obstinance is over? Chances are that until the 2014 mid-term elections, President Obama will remain staunch in support of reason and logic. We need him to do that. And chances also are that the Republicans will declare victory and continue to make a mockery of democracy.

There are few times in American history where the people will have as clear a choice for their representatives in Congress as 2014. The Tea Party will be there on the ballots, both in primaries and general election. Members of the Tea Party give every indication that they are unwilling to compromise. In all likelihood, only a few of them will run as lions cloaked in sheep’s clothing. It doesn’t seem to be in their nature to “trim their sails” and pretend that they are moderates while campaigning and then as radical rights when they govern. Most of them will run as the right-wing zealots that they are. Some incumbent Tea Party members will lose to more moderate Republicans in the primaries. And those who make it to the general election are more likely to be threatened by their Democratic opponents.

The dynamics are more complicated than that. We tend to see our present political party alignment as Tea Party Republicans to the right; moderate Republicans to the center; and all Democrats as a united front against those in the Tea Party. Differences that exist in the Democratic Party are largely obscured by the unity that the Tea Party created among Democrats. But truth be told, there are at least two strong factions in the Democratic Party: (1) moderates who support the general agendas of labor, minorities, environmental reformers, etc. and (2) progressives who want to tackle the really difficult issues such as campaign finance reform, real gun control, economic redistribution, Medicare for all, etc.

Conventional wisdom would be that the best way for the Democrats to defeat the Republicans in 2014 would be to find engaging, reasonable candidates whose politics are really “Republican Lite.” At times this political animal has been referred to as “Blue Dog Democrats.” Some, perhaps most of the Democrats currently in Congress are of this ilk. They support major entitlement programs but are rather leery of new federal spending to jump start the economy. They support environmental regulation, unless it has a negative impact on their own district or their contributors. They want to reduce the budget and they hesitate to raise taxes. Fortunately, they do realize that generally the more money that the government spends the healthier (in many ways) the American people will be. Because they are about as close to the Republican philosophy as any Democrat can be, they are considered the least threatening kind of Democrat to Republicans who may be able to step away from their party, at least for the time being.

However, a somewhat different and possibly more lucrative approach for Democrats to take would be to run real progressives against the Republicans. Why progressives? First, they have an enthusiasm for their agenda that might be the equal of  Tea Party fervor. Second, there is a bit of a libertarian strain that runs through both groups. Tea Partiers want to be left alone from those who would control their guns or impose safety regulations on their business. Progressives oppose the government imposing their reproductive choices or limiting basic human rights to a few of the “more privileged.” Progressive candidates will give the Democrats needed energy and they will excite much of their base.

A strategy of running progressives in the 2014 elections and seeing how well they do against Republican candidates compared to “Republican lite” Democrats would tell us a lot about what the future of the Democratic Party should be.

Wherever that might be, following the 2014 elections, Democrats will have a much better idea as to the political philosophy they most want to follow. Also, at that time, progressives need to work more at the grass roots to show the wisdom of their philosophy.

The post How to run against the Tea Party: Go left appeared first on Occasional Planet.