To all of my faithful readers,
I'm considering taking this show outside of the blogosphere. Due to my own propensity to end up at high profile Republican events without credentials, I'm considering purchasing a domain name. I like to think of this website as one part stunt and three parts journalism. Tentatively, the concept for the website is to acquire press-level access to large Republican caucus events and hang with the press crew (in hopes of procuring a job post-Americorps, right?). I'll probably provide coverage of each event, along with political analysis of the rest of the day's top political stories. If nothing else, the website will provide further writing practice for yours truly. I'd like to make the site a multimedia venture with clips from the Youtube, Twitter, and whatever else is in this series of tubes. The good news for my pocketbook is this domain name purchase is pretty cheap. The tentative URL for the website is CaucusOutsider.com. If anyone has other suggestions, drop a comment.
Pat
Friday, July 8, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
A collection of thoughts
I have a little to say about a lot of different things, each one undeserving of its own blog. Therefore, I decided to condense everything to one blog.
Americorps:
I'm probably just going through the stages of my year as a VISTA, but right now the program is pushing me in the absolute opposite direction of where I should be. Living on $720/month with no other income isn't exactly a cakewalk. I realize that it's supposed to simulate poverty level and I'm supposed to gain experience from it, but my only consistent thought is the need to have more money. I continually consider law school, but now I lean towards practicing an area of law that is lucrative rather than socially beneficial. I never want to be in this situation again.
Iowa's attitudes towards the poor
After reading a letter to the editor yesterday in the Des Moines Register and the comments that followed, I became sick to my stomach. The letter begged that question "Why are the GOP hopefuls neglecting the poor and hungry in their platforms?". The comments that followed were simply unbelievable. Of course the requisite partisan bickering was well represented, but the comments reached beyond the bounds of either political party. Comments ranged from "The poor are all fat, so there's no way they're hungry." to "The poor are the reason our country is bankrupt. All they do is take government handouts and contribute nothing." I wouldn't ever say with 100% certainty that the welfare system isn't abused once in a while, but by and large, the people receiving it NEED it. Furthermore, when it comes to bankrupting the country, another contributor made the insight "The poor cost the United States government a fraction of the subsidies we pay to Exxon Mobil." Finally, someone gets it.
I left the webpage utterly disgusted at how the poor are used as scapegoats to so many people. I can't ever resist a poke at the political right, but the lines seemed to be drawn in the sand. Somehow, those on the right missed the last 60 years in which the rich became richer and the poor became much poorer. If conservatives need to place blame on a social class, let it be the rich. The poor had nothing to do with tanking our economy.
P.S. Jesus loved the poor. Remember that one, social conservatives?
Mitt Romney's fundraising
Our good friend the "political contortionist" has been fundraising like there is no tomorrow. The former governor has been racking up cash at rates higher than his 2007 rates, at least in the second quarter. My thoughts on this are as follows: the GOP is auto-correcting. Establishment Republicans aren't necessarily in love with Romney, but for their money, there isn't another candidate who represents them as well. Let's remember for a second that all Republicans are not religious zealots. Candidates like Cain, Santorum, Pawlenty, and Bachmann aren't necessarily as attractive, and putting money towards Huntsman's campaign is perceived to be like voting for Ralph Nader (electoral comparison, not ideological).
When donors get to this juncture, Romney seems to be the most viable. Although many questions will always exist about Romney's record, he's still the least crazy of the entire bunch.
Debt Ceiling:
Hey Republicans, when David Brooks is endorsing the Democrats' plan, I think it's high time to accept the deal.
NFL Lockout
For the first time in months, we're close to having football on sundays this fall. I couldn't be more excited. My fanaticism for the Green Bay Packers can only be matched by that of Sarah Palin fans. Having an NFL season means so much for so many people, as irrational as that may be, and you can certainly toss me onto the irrational wagon.
Americorps:
I'm probably just going through the stages of my year as a VISTA, but right now the program is pushing me in the absolute opposite direction of where I should be. Living on $720/month with no other income isn't exactly a cakewalk. I realize that it's supposed to simulate poverty level and I'm supposed to gain experience from it, but my only consistent thought is the need to have more money. I continually consider law school, but now I lean towards practicing an area of law that is lucrative rather than socially beneficial. I never want to be in this situation again.
Iowa's attitudes towards the poor
After reading a letter to the editor yesterday in the Des Moines Register and the comments that followed, I became sick to my stomach. The letter begged that question "Why are the GOP hopefuls neglecting the poor and hungry in their platforms?". The comments that followed were simply unbelievable. Of course the requisite partisan bickering was well represented, but the comments reached beyond the bounds of either political party. Comments ranged from "The poor are all fat, so there's no way they're hungry." to "The poor are the reason our country is bankrupt. All they do is take government handouts and contribute nothing." I wouldn't ever say with 100% certainty that the welfare system isn't abused once in a while, but by and large, the people receiving it NEED it. Furthermore, when it comes to bankrupting the country, another contributor made the insight "The poor cost the United States government a fraction of the subsidies we pay to Exxon Mobil." Finally, someone gets it.
I left the webpage utterly disgusted at how the poor are used as scapegoats to so many people. I can't ever resist a poke at the political right, but the lines seemed to be drawn in the sand. Somehow, those on the right missed the last 60 years in which the rich became richer and the poor became much poorer. If conservatives need to place blame on a social class, let it be the rich. The poor had nothing to do with tanking our economy.
P.S. Jesus loved the poor. Remember that one, social conservatives?
Mitt Romney's fundraising
Our good friend the "political contortionist" has been fundraising like there is no tomorrow. The former governor has been racking up cash at rates higher than his 2007 rates, at least in the second quarter. My thoughts on this are as follows: the GOP is auto-correcting. Establishment Republicans aren't necessarily in love with Romney, but for their money, there isn't another candidate who represents them as well. Let's remember for a second that all Republicans are not religious zealots. Candidates like Cain, Santorum, Pawlenty, and Bachmann aren't necessarily as attractive, and putting money towards Huntsman's campaign is perceived to be like voting for Ralph Nader (electoral comparison, not ideological).
When donors get to this juncture, Romney seems to be the most viable. Although many questions will always exist about Romney's record, he's still the least crazy of the entire bunch.
Debt Ceiling:
Hey Republicans, when David Brooks is endorsing the Democrats' plan, I think it's high time to accept the deal.
NFL Lockout
For the first time in months, we're close to having football on sundays this fall. I couldn't be more excited. My fanaticism for the Green Bay Packers can only be matched by that of Sarah Palin fans. Having an NFL season means so much for so many people, as irrational as that may be, and you can certainly toss me onto the irrational wagon.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Let's get the facts straight.
Disclaimer: This blog was written while my blood sugar had plummeted to historic lows as a result of lacking any significant income as an Americorps VISTA. Bear in mind the following argument pisses me off like there's no tomorrow and I won't drop it until I've offended as many people as possible. That being said, here we go.
Tuesday night I attended the lackluster premiere of the documentary "Undefeated", an unnecessarily 2-hour-long documentary detailing Sarah Palin's political career. The film itself deserves criticism enough, but I'll touch on that a different day.
After the showing, I stopped at Smokey Row to see my fellow co-workers and started making some coffee drinks. I happened to run into a couple that formerly belonged to the congregation of the church I attended growing up. I had been made aware that this particular family had become rather conservative, but I wouldn't have envisioned them falling into the Rush-Beck-Fox News category. In my absolute most diplomatic tone, I told them that I disagree with the Bush Tax Cuts and I don't foresee lower taxes creating jobs. A shitstorm ensued and the following terms were thrown around: "Socialism", "Punishing success", "liberal elitists".
I attempted to reason with them over the payroll tax, which is inherently regressive. I even used the Huckabee/Forbes "flat tax" argument to see how far to the right they had become. By the end of the conversation, they were both arguing in favor of the top tier of society paying "way less than everyone else". I couldn't believe what I was hearing. So today, I suppose I'll outline the basis for my anger against such rhetoric and explain the reasoning behind my disdain for the Bush tax cuts.
The payroll tax
In the current federal tax code, the ceiling on federal payroll taxes is $106,800. To dumb it down, that means a person making $100,000 is paying taxes on every cent they earn. A person that makes $500,000 dollars is only being taxed on the first $106,800 dollars, meaning the other $393,200 is left untaxed in payroll deductions. How does this make sense? Wouldn't it make better sense to have a tax floor? For example, a system that only taxes payroll after the first $30,000 or $40,000?
Furthermore, removing the ceiling on the payroll tax would create an authentic flat tax. As it stands, the payroll tax is the most glaring example of a regressive tax that we have in this country. Of course, in the formerly mentioned discussion, I was thrown under the bus for raising taxes on the wealthy.
"Punishing success"
Nothing pushes my buttons quite like the "punishing success" argument. The irony of the argument is that it is constantly made by those who would be unaffected by the "punishing". Granted, I don't know too many millionaires, but the fact that a blue-collar, middle-class person is arguing for lower taxes for the rich is too much irony. The income inequality in the United States is at an incredible level, with the top 1% of the income earners possessing nearly 40% of the wealth in our country. From my perspective, I believe they deserve to be "punished".
All in all, I don't think I'll ever understand why blue-collar Americans are concerned with keeping low tax rates for the rich. I suppose all I can hope for is for such people to turn off the Fox News and pick up a book.
Tuesday night I attended the lackluster premiere of the documentary "Undefeated", an unnecessarily 2-hour-long documentary detailing Sarah Palin's political career. The film itself deserves criticism enough, but I'll touch on that a different day.
After the showing, I stopped at Smokey Row to see my fellow co-workers and started making some coffee drinks. I happened to run into a couple that formerly belonged to the congregation of the church I attended growing up. I had been made aware that this particular family had become rather conservative, but I wouldn't have envisioned them falling into the Rush-Beck-Fox News category. In my absolute most diplomatic tone, I told them that I disagree with the Bush Tax Cuts and I don't foresee lower taxes creating jobs. A shitstorm ensued and the following terms were thrown around: "Socialism", "Punishing success", "liberal elitists".
I attempted to reason with them over the payroll tax, which is inherently regressive. I even used the Huckabee/Forbes "flat tax" argument to see how far to the right they had become. By the end of the conversation, they were both arguing in favor of the top tier of society paying "way less than everyone else". I couldn't believe what I was hearing. So today, I suppose I'll outline the basis for my anger against such rhetoric and explain the reasoning behind my disdain for the Bush tax cuts.
The payroll tax
In the current federal tax code, the ceiling on federal payroll taxes is $106,800. To dumb it down, that means a person making $100,000 is paying taxes on every cent they earn. A person that makes $500,000 dollars is only being taxed on the first $106,800 dollars, meaning the other $393,200 is left untaxed in payroll deductions. How does this make sense? Wouldn't it make better sense to have a tax floor? For example, a system that only taxes payroll after the first $30,000 or $40,000?
Furthermore, removing the ceiling on the payroll tax would create an authentic flat tax. As it stands, the payroll tax is the most glaring example of a regressive tax that we have in this country. Of course, in the formerly mentioned discussion, I was thrown under the bus for raising taxes on the wealthy.
"Punishing success"
Nothing pushes my buttons quite like the "punishing success" argument. The irony of the argument is that it is constantly made by those who would be unaffected by the "punishing". Granted, I don't know too many millionaires, but the fact that a blue-collar, middle-class person is arguing for lower taxes for the rich is too much irony. The income inequality in the United States is at an incredible level, with the top 1% of the income earners possessing nearly 40% of the wealth in our country. From my perspective, I believe they deserve to be "punished".
All in all, I don't think I'll ever understand why blue-collar Americans are concerned with keeping low tax rates for the rich. I suppose all I can hope for is for such people to turn off the Fox News and pick up a book.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
I bet Herman Cain makes BVP's blood boil
About an hour ago, during an event held by the Bob Vanderplaats-led Family Leader, Herman Cain stated that he had no problem hiring an openly gay staffer. I would venture to guess that old Vanderplaats nearly pissed himself. Mr. Vanderplaats, who led the movement to oust the three supreme court justices, financed Cain's visit to three stops in Iowa today.
Honestly, nothing humors me more than Bob Vanderplaats experiencing some kind of consternation. I would like to thank Herman Cain for making those remarks, and would like to encourage him to make further ridiculous remarks about Muslims and their "creeping Shariah law". This guy is just full of gems.
Honestly, nothing humors me more than Bob Vanderplaats experiencing some kind of consternation. I would like to thank Herman Cain for making those remarks, and would like to encourage him to make further ridiculous remarks about Muslims and their "creeping Shariah law". This guy is just full of gems.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
America's Palin Problem
As Sarah Palin's infamous "One Nation" rolls through the Northeast this week, one can't help but wonder why the media is covering this. Other than the over-the-top Constitution-themed paint job, there is truly nothing noteworthy about this bus tour. All of this begs the question: Why is anyone covering this? To me, the answer comes in two successive parts.
First, the national media has no marketable material from the actual GOP candidates. The national news doesn't report on Herman Cain or Rick Santorum's daily events. Why? There's nothing of interest for the viewer in covering these candidates and it doesn't produce ratings. Sarah Palin cavorting across the country in an RV, pretending to despise the media, will always pull ratings.
The second piece of the puzzle also lies on the business end for the national media. By making Sarah Palin out to be less than a buffoon, it seems as if she's becoming more than a self-appointed kingmaker. If this bus tour becomes the stepping stone to her candidacy, the public can count on a far more contentious election cycle. Sarah Palin is an absolute media darling, contrary to what comes out of her yap. All equal time laws aside, the media will over-report her every move to preserve their ratings, potentially tightening the race.
Sad sad sad.
First, the national media has no marketable material from the actual GOP candidates. The national news doesn't report on Herman Cain or Rick Santorum's daily events. Why? There's nothing of interest for the viewer in covering these candidates and it doesn't produce ratings. Sarah Palin cavorting across the country in an RV, pretending to despise the media, will always pull ratings.
The second piece of the puzzle also lies on the business end for the national media. By making Sarah Palin out to be less than a buffoon, it seems as if she's becoming more than a self-appointed kingmaker. If this bus tour becomes the stepping stone to her candidacy, the public can count on a far more contentious election cycle. Sarah Palin is an absolute media darling, contrary to what comes out of her yap. All equal time laws aside, the media will over-report her every move to preserve their ratings, potentially tightening the race.
Sad sad sad.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
End of GOP 2012 Crazy: Round 1
As Governor Branstad called the 2012 GOP candidates to the starting line, it appeared that the first round of crazy was coming to a close. Mike Huckabee's candidacy-turned-The Bachelor edition of his Fox broadcast, as well as the Donald's decision not to run seemed to be the end of the line for the GOP's crazy train. Obviously, I cannot speak for Michelle Bachmann, but without the Donald and Mike "wishy-washy" Huckabee, the field seems to be a little less crazy.
Leave it to Sarah Palin to throw more coal in that engine. On Monday, Mama Grizzly mailed 400,000 personal donation solicitations, leading many to believe she will make a run at the presidency. As a liberal, I cringe at the thought of her candidacy, but bask at the notion of making endless scathing remarks about her and her campaign.
It also seems that the media-at-large needs Sarah Palin in order to maintain interest in the 2012 campaign. There are no real rockstars on the right, as many have noted, and Barack is busy being the President. Who is going to watch a debate between eight people polling at 5% each? No one. No one, unless Sarah Palin is involved. She seems to be the only real celebrity with rockstar status out of this bunch, and who wouldn't want to see Mitt Romney's Harvard education become frustrated with Palin's debating skills? I couldn't be more excited at the possibility. Go ahead, Sarah. Run. Because it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Leave it to Sarah Palin to throw more coal in that engine. On Monday, Mama Grizzly mailed 400,000 personal donation solicitations, leading many to believe she will make a run at the presidency. As a liberal, I cringe at the thought of her candidacy, but bask at the notion of making endless scathing remarks about her and her campaign.
It also seems that the media-at-large needs Sarah Palin in order to maintain interest in the 2012 campaign. There are no real rockstars on the right, as many have noted, and Barack is busy being the President. Who is going to watch a debate between eight people polling at 5% each? No one. No one, unless Sarah Palin is involved. She seems to be the only real celebrity with rockstar status out of this bunch, and who wouldn't want to see Mitt Romney's Harvard education become frustrated with Palin's debating skills? I couldn't be more excited at the possibility. Go ahead, Sarah. Run. Because it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)