What's Sex Got To Do With It?

Today everybody's talking about Rep. Anthony Weiner's chances of having a political career next week, much less after that. The careers of John Edwards and John Ensign are over. David Vitter, despite having apparently broken multiple laws by soliciting prostitutes, was reelected to the Senate. Mark Sandford's political career is toast, as is Larry Craig's and probably Eliot Spitzer's.

So, one survivor out of that batch. All victims of sex scandals.

But politicians of every stripe lie to us about far, far more important issues all the time. Today is the 10th anniversary of the Bush tax cuts, the vast majority of which went to the very wealthy. Those tax cuts, we were told, would sput economic growth, create jobs, and increase government revenues.

Umm...yeah. Not so much.

Yes, there were other factors involved in bringing us to where we are now. Most of those other factors were also Republican-sponsored initiatives (though not without Democratic collusion). Unpaid-for wars, a giant unpaid Medicare benefit, deregulation of financial industries.

Now, further tax cuts for the rich are the official Republican Party stance, and are promoted by most of the Republican candidates for president. We know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they do none of the things promised a decade ago. People who've been kicked out of their homes or are pounding the pavement looking for work also know that these things are far, far more serious than who some politician had what kind of relationship with. So much more important, they shouldn't even be in the same ballpark.

But instead of talking about how damaging the Bush tax cuts were, all cable news can discuss is Anthony Weiner. I guess that makes it up to us--we the people--to be the grown-ups here.

Politician's sex lives don't matter, except when, like Ensign and Vitter and possibly Edwards, they break the law.

The policies politicans push, often dishonestly, knowing full well that they won't do what's promised?

That's important.

Comments

[Cnsieler]

770 days and counting since the Senate passed a budget

[Randy Johnson]

well said. However despicable these things are on a personal level, they pale in comparison to more important problems this country suffers. The notion passes through me every know and then that these "revelations" come whenever the powers that be need a distraction from their own inadequacies . Something from the lesser lights already known, just waiting for the right moment to drop into public consciousness. Am I being too cynical?

[Jeff Mariotte]

It sure got killing Medicare and Newt Gingrich's problems off the front pages (until today when Newt fell back onto them). There is always that question of who benefits when some non-issue is blown up into a huge scandal.

As for the budget, Chris... I'm starting to think that unless one party has a 61-seat majority in the Senate, we'll never have another budget.

[Ginger Goff]

Even with a 61 seat majority, we won't have a budget that begins to cope with our country's problems. I don't think the politicians at that level are able to get past their self interest and there certainly aren't 61 of them that can. I have gotten pretty cynical and think our country will have to have some major breakdown that actually messes things up so bad the wealthy and powerful feel it. Care to think what that will do to the rest of us?

[Jeff Mariotte]

You might have a point, Ginger. It's especially tricky since the wealthy and powerful definitely include all those millionaires in the Senate.

[Cnsieler]

2 Points We have to have a set Federal Budget. Then States, Counties and Cities will know what is coming from the Federal Government. Right now the Federal Government is funding at 2010 Rates. That is what a continuing resolution does,
Second point, Why were the Bush tax cuts not taken away when the Democrats were in the Majority in the House Senate and White House? Harry Reid could have set aside the 61 vote rule.

[Cnsieler]

And this was spoken 4 months after President Obama extended those same tax cuts you lament.

“After Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program — but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts — tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country.”

— President Obama, April 13, 2011

[Cnsieler]

December 25th, 2010

Last week the House voted 277 to 148 to temporarily extend the tax cuts put in place by the Bush administration as well as approve a series of smaller tax credits, cuts and extensions. The identical measure was recently passed by the Senate paving way for the legislation to make it to President Obama’s desk.

Which Party had a majority in the House in Dec 2010?
Which Party had a majority in the Senate in Dec 2010?

So why are they still called the Bush tax cuts?

[Cnsieler]

Last one, I have come around to the belief that if you cut revenue you have to cut services, bring folks from from the longest war in our history, and not worry about the next election.

In a display of compromise rarely seen during his time in office, President Obama has signed into law a $858 billion tax cut bill despite the misgivings of members of both parties.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html#ixzz1Ow78HbPJ
The bill, which was largely worked out earlier this month between the White House and Congressional Republicans, extends the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans for two years, extends unemployment benefits for 13 months and includes a one-year Social Security tax cut, among other measures.

The measure is not paid for, and costs more than Mr. Obama's controversial stimulus package that was harshly criticized by Republicans for exacerbating America's deficit and debt problem.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html#ixzz1Ow7JtnIT

I am so tired of both sides.

[Jeff Mariotte]

Harry Reid could not arbitrarily set aside the 60-vote filibuster threshold. To do that would require a major rules change that can only be done at the beginning of a new legislative session, and neither party wants to make that change because it could cost them in the long run, next time they're in the minority. With the filibuster threat from the Republicans and the ending of unemployment benefits, a deal had to be struck, and the deal unfortunately extended the Bush tax cuts. Democrats argued for keeping the tax cuts for middle class taxpayers and below, but the Republicans insisted it had to be all of them, including the most expensive cuts for the very rich, or no deal. In the end, the necessity of reaching some deal won the day, extending those cuts and worsening the deficit for 2 more years.

[Cnsieler]

Okay If Jeff Marriotte was the leader of the Senate and Chris Niels Sieler was the leader of the minority party, for the good of the nation, you would have pulled the trigger, and I would have stood beside you.
But that is only the stuff of fiction now.