I Went Done Gone and Lost My (Blue) Dog Again...

It's three days after midterms! I could (and might still) spend a post (or two, or three) talking about all of the things everyone else is talking about since the elections. Mainly that's the Republican take over of the house, John Boehner crying, how Nancy Pelosi's suddenly a loser, how Obama doesn't get "it", etc. But not for now. I'm going to attempt to talk about something a little more niche, and a whole lot less talked about. The Democrats lost a lot of seats. It's true. But where did they lose them exactly, and how does that affect party unity and message in Washington? I suspect you'll find that most of the losses came from the Blue Dog Caucus and that it might have the effect of a more unified (if less powerful) Democratic Caucus.

The Blue Dog Caucus in the 111th Congress has 53 members. They're geographically diverse, ranging from West Coast to East and urban districts to rural ones. Just as examples you have members like Loretta Sanchez of the California 47th, Southern Los Angeles. It's a very urban district with a high population density and a very small area. In contrast there's Chris Carney of the Pennsylvania 10th who's largest city is Carbondale. It's Pennsylvania's third largest house district by area. So I think we can rule out that Blue Dogs suffered in this election because they all represent the same type of voter and that voter type was especially swayed by Republicans.

In looking at the data from Tuesday, of the 53 members of the Blue Dog Caucus, only 24 of them won re-election. This number includes one race the New York Times hasn't called yet but is leaning toward the incumbent and two that haven't been called but look to be losses. It also includes six members who retired resulting in the seat switching parties, and one member who himself switched parties only to lose in the primary. That seat is also in Republican hands for the 112th Congress. With only 24 members winning re-election, the Blue Dogs had a success rate of 45.28% for the 2010 Midterms. Meanwhile, of all Democrats in the 111th Congress (255 of them) 191 seats (including three still out leaning Dem.) stayed in the Party. That's a 74.90% success rate.

Obviously averages aren't everything. Blue Dogs are more likely than your average Democrat to come from districts that could be described as "purple" or indeed, given the landslide of the 2008 election, districts that are generally described as Republican. So you wouldn't expect the success rate of the Blue Dogs to match that of the Democratic Party as a whole. Still, I think the number speak for themselves. Democrats held on to 3/4 of all their house seats this cycle (really bad, in the grand scheme) but the Blue Dogs held less than half.

Blue Dog Seats Held	Blue Dog Seats Lost
Jason Altmire (PA-4) Joe Baca (CA-43) John Barrow (GA-12) Sanford Bishop (GA-2) Dan Boren (OK-2) Leonard Boswell (IA-3) Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) Ben Chandler (KY-6) NYT hasn’t called. Probable hold. Jim Cooper (TN-5) Henry Cuellar (TX-28) Joe Donnelly (IN-2) Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8) VERY narrow margin. Jane Harman (CA-36) Tim Holden (PA-17) Jim Matheson (UT-2) Mike McIntyre (NC-7) Mike Michaud (ME-2) Collin Peterson (MN-7) Mike Ross (AR-4) Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) Adam Schiff (CA-29) David Scott (GA-13) Heath Shuler (NC-11) Mike Thompson (CA-1)	Mike Arcuri (NY-24) Melissa Bean (IL-8) NYT hasn’t called. Probable loss. Marion Berry (AR-1) Retired, Dems lost seat. Allen Boyd (FL-2) Bobby Bright (AL-2) Christopher Carney (PA-10) Travis Childers (MS-1) Jim Costa (CA-20) NYT Hasn’t called. Probable loss. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) Lincoln Davis (TN-4) Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) Ran for Sen. Bayh’s seat. Lost to Dan Coats. Bill Foster (IL-14) Bart Gordon (TN-6) Retired. Dems lost seat. Parker Griffith (AL-5) Switched Parties 2009. Lost primary. Republicans hold seat. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Blue Dog Co-Chair, Administration Baron Hill (IN-9), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy Frank Kratovil (MD-1) Jim Marshall (GA-8) Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications; Ran for Sen. Vitter’s Seat. Lost. Seat goes to Republicans. Walt Minnick (ID-1) Dennis Moore (KS-3) Retired. Wife lost race to Republican. Patrick Murphy (PA-8) Glenn Nye (VA-2) Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL) John Salazar (CO-3) Zack Space (OH-18) John Tanner (TN-8) Retired. Dems lost seat. Large margin. Gene Taylor (MS-4) Charlie Wilson (OH-6)
Total: 24	Total: 29

At a glance, a few things about who won and who didn't in the Blue Dog Caucus do stand out to me. The first is that, like every other Democrat in California, they did just fine. Plenty has been made of the virtual sweep the Democrats pulled off in California while everyone else was trending to the right. Every Blue Dog hailing from a California House District won, with the exception of Jim Costa in the California 20th. And that race was so close it hasn't actually been called yet. With a sufficiently motivated Democratic base, Blue Dogs win, even in this red election cycle. The other major thing I noticed was all three of the Blue Dogs' leaders lost. Stephanie Sandlin of the South Dakota At-Large District lost by 3%. She was the Blue Dogs' Co-Chair for Administration. The Co-Chair for Policy, Baron Hill of the Indiana 9th lost by 10%. And Charlie Melancon, the Co-Chair for Communications vacated his seat to run against Louisiana Senator David Vitter. He lost, and the party lost his Louisiana 3rd by more than 25%. Ouch. So not only is the Blue Dog Caucus of the 112th Congress much smaller, they'll need new people to step into leadership positions.

Let's look at some policy stuff then. It's fairly clear that for a Democrat (even a Blue Dog) to hold their own in a district that's purple or red they need waves of support from enthused Democratic voters. That enthusiasm was in short supply all around the country this year to be sure. But I suspect that it had an effect on the outcome in races like Rep. Bobby Bright's in the Alabama 2nd where he lost by 2% and 5,000 votes in a way that it didn't in a race like Rep. Earl Blumenauer's in the Oregon 3rd where he won by 45% and 120,000 votes. What I'm arguing is, if the Blue Dog's had spent more time sticking to the Democratic plan, working with the Obama Administration, and passing progressive legislation then Bobby Bright might have found the 5,001 votes he needed to win in the Alabama 2nd. Or Charlie Wilson might have found the 10,000 votes he needed to win in the Ohio 6th.

The people are dissatisfied with the Health Care Reform. That's just one piece of legislation, but let's run with it. The final legislation is deeply unpopular. Republicans ran against it during the election and even some Democrats did. Just ask Joe Manchin. On the other hand, polls have consistently shown the Public Option to be very popular. The Public Option didn't pass in the Senate, and only a very weak version passed in the house. In short, if the Democrats had had more votes then a bill containing a strong Public Option (which the general public supports) could have been possible. Where were these votes missing from? Not the Republican Party. You guessed it. The conservative Blue Dog Caucus is full of House members (and their friends on the Senate side) who opposed a strong Public Option. This is about division within the Democratic party as much as it is about the two parties not getting along and agreeing.

The same rings true for Financial Reform. The Blue Dogs specifically label themselves as the "fiscally conservative" wing of the Democratic party. These guys are, in many ways, socially liberal Republicans. They couldn't bring themselves to vote on things like ending Too Big to Failm reigning in Wall Street, or demanding that derivatives be traded on the open market like everything else. They're the Democratic friends of the Big Banks that means the Party has no muscle and no guts for doing the dirty work that needs to be done. Consequently, as they tracked ever to the right in an attempt to appear palatable to the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in their districts, they ensured that the Democrats they did have, would be so uninterested in backing them up that they were virtually guaranteed to lose close elections in a Republican leaning midterm year.

Pre-Mortem

I've fallen down on my responsibilities recently. The elections are (coming) up and so I thought I'd take a few moments and add in my own thoughts. I'm going out on a limb and broadly going to suggest that things won't be as ugly for Democrats as all the writing around the blogosphere suggests it will. Check out this piece from Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight. That's a hypothetical, and yes, he did write it as a devil's advocate. Yes, there is another piece from a few days earlier, written in the same style, about how Republicans could pick up 70 or 80 seats in the House rather than the widely predicted 50 or 55. As Nate has talked about a lot recently, the actual margin (statistically speaking) is really wide this year. Polls suggest anything from a Republican gain in the mid 20s up to the low 80s as possible. But I'm a liberal blogger and so what am I going to do but come down on the side of Democrats? I'm inclined to believe that it won't be any worse than 55, and could very well be much better than that. But that's not statistical, that's my gut feeling. Let's examine the issues.

The Enthusiasm Gap
Much political hay has been made out of the so-called "Enthusiasm Gap" this cycle. Republicans and Tea Partiers are fired up and Democrats have just stopped caring. My evidence against this is anecdotal, yes. But I've spent some time actually making phone calls and knocking on doors this cycle for state and national Democrats and have seen plenty of Dems who are ready and eager to go to the polls and make clear that, even if we aren't 100% happy with the work the Obama White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has done, we don't think a Congress lead by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner will be doing us any favors. Democrats view this contest as the lesser of two evils, yes. But the current Congress is clearly the lesser. The devil you know, as they say.

Voter Turnout
Voter Turnout is really closely linked to the Enthusiasm Gap. If you're not enthused, you don't turn out, right? But there are other issues to bring to bear here. Democrats still have a registration advantage over Republicans, thanks in large part to the Obama Campaign and it's post inauguration sibling Organizing for America. Democrats nationally have a better turnout machine than Republicans. I'm counting on that machine to counter and Enthusiasm Gap that might present its ugly head tomorrow.

The Democratic Record
It's become obvious over the last six months that most national and even state level Dems are attempting to run campaigns that, to put it kindly, don't talk about their accomplishments in Washington since the beginning of the 111th Congress. Nowhere has this been taken to such a visible extreme as Joe Manchin's ad in which he shoots the Cap and Trade Bill. That's an extreme example, and Manchin is clearly anti-Cap and Trade because West Virginia relies so heavily on it's coal industry. But there are Democrats all over the place talking about killing "ObamaCare", keeping the Bush Tax Cuts, and generally trying to run away from what Congress has done. Call me crazy, but I think the Democrats would be having a better year if they ran actively and forcefully on their record.

Let's get more specific. As we've covered, the Dems are losing the House. This is essentially a foregone conclusion and all the quibbling has been over how many seats we can expect the Republicans to pick up. My bet, 35. This is quite low and I could be totally off.

The Senate is a bit easier. I'd bet money that the Dems keep the Senate even if only by a slim margin. Here, I'm in complete agreement with Five Thirty Eight. The Republicans look to pick up 4 to 9 seats depending on what kind of night they have. Their chances at picking up the Senate went down the drain when Christine O'Donnell won the nomination in Delaware. If that didn't seal the deal then the increasing leads that Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray have over their opponents in California and Washington definitely will.

I'm going to take a moment to look at some individual races now. Some I'm pretty bullish on, others not so much. Starting in no particular order we have...Nevada.

Nevada
Before the primaries were done in Nevada, Harry Reid was sunk. He was down 20 points versus the generic Republican candidate. He's not charismatic, and not many people in Nevada like him all that much. Then the GOP nominated Sharron Angle. She thinks Flouride is a communist plot, Social Security should be personalprivatized, and refuses to answer questions from reporters. In fact, Mrs. Angle's craziness is the ONLY thing keeping Mr. Reid in the race. That said, Mr. Reid has about as finely tuned a turnout machine as has ever existed. Numbers from early voting suggest that registered Dems are turning out at a little under 3% more than registered Republicans. Couple that with Mrs. Angle's clearly racist, anti-Latino ads and I call this one for Mr. Reid by a hair.

California
Barbara Boxer has made some serious inroads into the numbers that Carly Fiorina has been putting up. She's showing a solid lead of 2 to 3 points now. Couple that with the momentum that Jerry Brown has made against Meg Whitman and I suggest that California will stay blue this year.

Washington
This could be the race to watch as far as the Senate this year. Republican Dino Rossi has been giving Democrat Patty Murray a run for her money all year and it could come down to some seriously late night (early morning) counting before this one is called. Murray has been pulling away just a little bit as of late so this one could really be indicative of how the Republicans do over all. If they have a wave night, count on seeing Senator Rossi in Washington. If the Democrats outperform their number, Murray will hold on.

Alaska
The three way race in Alaska has only gotten more interesting in the last week. Republican (and Tea Party fav) Joe Miller has appeared to be losing ground to incumbent and Write-In candidate Lisa Murkowski. What makes this that much more interesting is that the way Write-In votes are counted could end up handing the election to Democrat Scott McAdams if he can top Mr. Miller. Expect this one to run long (as in days and weeks after tomorrow). Alaska is one of the last states to close the polls and counting all those Write-Ins is technically challenging. I'm less bullish on this one. I'll give it to Mrs. Murkowski, though I'd love to see McAdams pull an upset.

Florida
Finally, we have the other three way this year between Marko Rubio, Charlie Crist, and Kendrick Meek. This is one where I have no faith in the Democratic nominee. Mr. Meek has denied that Democrats as high up as President Clinton have asked him to drop out and endorse Mr. Crist. Essentially, Mr. Rubio (who the Tea Party loves) is running away with this one. Having everyone who's against him splitting their vote between Governor Crist and Mr. Meek will give this seat away. Say hello to Senator Rubio.

I could write about a lot of other races, but these are by far the closest and most interesting. I have skipped West Virginia because I don't feel as qualified to talk about it, but in fact, it may be the first bellwether you get along with some of the races in Ohio.

Republicans have a Tea Problem

This isn't new news. But it is important news. It's been ramping up for quite a while now as we move through the Primary season. It started with Sharron Angle. It continued with Joe Miller's defeat of Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. And now, we're looking at Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell. Those are the highlights, but you can bet that there are others out there who are a little less wackadoodle but no less unelectable. The Tea Party may yet play Ralph Nader to the Republican Party's Al Gore. Weird analogy, I know. To be sure, as a liberal commentator one of the things I'm going to do is try to be optimistic about Democratic chances in ANY upcoming election. Check out Nate Silver's Five Thirty Eight for the statistics. He still gives the Republicans a 2 to 1 shot at winning the House. Get ready for Speaker Boehner, but cross your fingers you won't ever see it. 

The Senate looked much better last week. But, in a rare bright spot, in the last week, Democratic chances of holding at least 51 seats there have gone up. Again, Nate hits the nail on the head when checking out the statistics in this article about the primaries in Deleware the other evening. But in short, we can thank Christine O'Donnell. For those of you who haven't gotten the memo about her yet, here's the short version. She just defeated nine time Congressman Mike Castle for the Republican nomination in Deleware. She now faces Chris Coons. Coons is a strong pick. There are only three counties in Delaware (I know, right?) and as a leader in one of them he has made tough choices to balance their budget and pay back their debt. The have a AAA financial rating. He's honest and upstanding and really about as squeeky clean as you can ask a candidate to be. That said, he had been written off as having little chance while everyone assumed he'd be challenging Mike Castle. But he's not. His challenger is Christine O'Donnell. She has run for several times before, with the most recent instance in 2008 when she tried to upset VP Joe Biden. Even while spending almost all of his energy helping the President with that race, Biden defeated Mrs. O'Donnell soundly. Her 2008 Campaign manager ran robocalls against her candidacy before the primary on tuesday, and though they did not work, to me that says something about how badly the Republican Party doesn't want to have to deal with her. Among other things, this Campaign manager has accused Mrs. O'Donnell of using campaign money to pay personal expenses including rent. She has touted herself as a college graduate for a long time, but only recently received her degree after having finally paid her school what she owed them. And this is one of the people the Tea Party wants to send to the Senate to fix our financial troubles? 

Mrs. O'Donnell has spent most of her pre-campaign days as the founder and organizer of SALT, or Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth. A creepy name for an organization if there ever was one, it gives you no idea what the organization's main goal is. Video exists of Mrs. O'Donnell explaining this so it's not just me making things up.

YouTube doesn't want to embed, but you can check out the video here.

Yes, that was the theme song from Joan of Arcadia, and yes, aside from the 90s hair we all had, that is Christine O'Donnell really telling you you can't masturbate because of the bible. Really. And now she wants to be the senator from Delaware.

In short, many of these candidates including Mrs. O'Donnell and Mrs. Angle may prove to be short lived victories. Yes, the Tea Party got them nominated. But can they actually put them into Congress, or will they do poorly in the general election because of the far right wing values they espouse? I imagine the latter is the answer and Chris Coons and Harry Reid are all to glad for that to be the case.

2010 Overview

On September 4th I think it's about time to take a minute to talk about the election coming up in November. Overall the narrative coming out of the 24/7 news machine is that it's an anti-incumbent, anti-democratic year. That's only partly true. It is an anti-Democratic year insofar as every midterm after a new president is elected is an anti-enter President's party here year. It isn't as much an anti-incumbent year as has been harped on by that same news machine. Only a couple handfuls of incumbents have lost so far; Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett, and Lisa Murkowski coming to mind. If this were truly as anti-incumbent a year as the media wants to claim it is you'd have seen upsets of other candidates like Blanche Lincoln and John McCain from the determined challengers they faced. But lets look more broadly at what we can expect.

For breakdowns of individual races, and all the statistics you could ever want check out Five Thirty Eight, which recently moved to a shiny new NY Times page. You'll find Nate Silver and his team's regressions predicting what will happen come November based on polling data. I'm going to go with something close to an educated guess using what I know (which includes Nate's regressions). All of what I said is true above. It's still a nasty year for Democrats. We can talk about why that is for hours. Some of it is the Bush Economy that we're still reeling from, some of it from simple electoral functions, and some of it from how badly the Democrats have dropped the ball on their messaging. Despite the Party of No, the DNC has plenty to run on including Health Care Reform, Credit Card Regulation, changes in the Student Loan department, and much more. And they're doing a terrible job messaging. This whole summer has been about nothing but how crazy the right is now. And even if they're scary, if that's all we're talking about, somebody at the DNC isn't doing their job. Scratch that. Everybody at the DNC isn't doing their job.

I expect the Democrats to hang onto control of both the House and the Senate this year. There. I've said it flat out. I don't expect it to be pretty and I don't expect their majorities to be described in terms besides words like small, pitiful, and ineffective, once the voting is done though. On the ugly side, that means we're likely to end up at 112th Congress that's even less effective and even more gridlocked than the 111th. On the good side, if the Democrats can maintain control of Congress, then they get to do the redrawing of the House District lines. That is something that we simply can't afford to have Republicans doing. Redistricting occurs only every ten years to match up with newly updated data from the Census. It has a much more far reaching effect on the country than having the Democrats receiving the blame for a highly divided and ineffective 112th Congress. As not fun as that will be. I'll be this up front about it. It is imperative that men like Jim DeMint and Chuck Grassley do not get to redraw the House Districts. Not that I expect the Dems to be wholly non-partisan if they get the opportunity, but because when Republicans do it, the do it for keeps. They use (dare I say abuse) the power to disenfranchise large groups of people of color and other maligned minorities. They manage, in essence, to mathematically for stall the day when conservative, white, fundamentalist Christians don't rule the roost. That day is coming, and having house lines drawn to represent the new makeup of America rather than fight it can make it arrive sooner.

And if I'm wrong? I expect the House to fall before the Senate. And while the idea of "Speaker Boehner" scares me to death (for the record, I'm not a massive fan of Speaker Pelosi either), it's better in the long run than having the Senate full of Republicans again. Not to be forgotten is the tiny (teeny tiny teeny teeny tiny) advantage of having the President of the Senate on our side. Who's the President of the Senate? Why, the Vice President of course, Joe Biden. In cases where the Senate ends in a tied vote, the Vice President casts the tie breaker. One of the many rewards for winning the Executive two years ago.

So in short, get on message, get out the vote, cross your fingers.

Dirty Politicians

Its long been no secret to progressives that one of the most important things a politician can do is put their money where their mouth is. No. Let me rephrase. Where a politician gets there money becomes their mouth. Or what comes out of it. Something like that. You know what I mean. I personally feel like Republicans (especially those on the far-right) don't care so much about where you funding comes from if you vote the right way. But that's another post.

One of a number of key planks of the progressive agenda is tackling climate change. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, getting anyone in Washington to move on this subject seems to require Herculean efforts. And for every dollar in a politician's war chest that comes from a group who is into climate change denial or just doesn't want to do anything about climate change, the less likely that politician is to want to be part of the solution. Without further adeu I present the top 10 Democratic and Republican incumbent Senators in terms of campaign contributions from the oil and coal industries. Let's take a look at this list and break it down a bit. The first couple of things I notice are these:

• Fully 1/5 of all Senators owe the Oil and Coal industries at least $10,000 in campaign funds
• 17 of the 20 that make up that 1/5 owe at least $30,000
• Republicans usually owe considerably more than Democrats
• The number one benefactor is Democrat from Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln (ahead of Lisa Murkowski from Alaska!)
• The list of "honorees" don't call any one region of the country home
• Russ Feingold is now the senator from the great new state of Wisconscion (probably a new, weird scion of Wisconsin) 

It's important to know where your elected representatives get their contributions from. It's important to know because these contributions don't come free. They come with the expectation that these senators will do favors for the industries who did the giving usually worth many times the amount donated. Recent examples include Ben Nelson and the teat of the healthcare industry as he fought valiantly for his insurance buddies to eliminate the popular Public Option from the Health Reform Bill and Blanche Lincoln and the epic job she's doing for the Oil industry in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon Spill. That first link for Lincoln also has a drop down for different years. 2008 tells us that John McCain received more than double the donations that the President did from the Oil and Gas industry during the 2008 campaign.

The fact is, our political system rewards politicians for diving into the very bottoms of lobbyists pockets and coming up with as much cash as they can. Winning a race for House or Senate is expensive. That's why decisions like the recent Citizens United v. FEC case so directly effect who represents us and what kind of government we can have. Before the Citizens United case there were caps on how much money a corporation could give to a candidate. Now, there are none, so you can expect to see those numbers go up in the next few election cycles. This sort of buying and selling of elected representatives has been going on a long time, but it has gotten much worse in the last few decades. We need to put a stop to this in the only ways we know how. We have to give our time and our money to candidates who really deserve it. Who aren't in some industry's pocket before the ever step foot in the Capital Building. And even more important that our time and our money is our votes. Research the people who are on your ballots. Especially for high federal positions like House, Senate, and the Presidency. Statistics show that once you get to Washington, you usually leave by choice. The incumbency effect is a powerful thing. Let's use it to our advantage and get people who answer to us and not to industry elected to the 112th Congress.

Debt Hawkishness

Lets take an overview for a moment. Republicans far and wide are making the argument that we need to pay attention to and take care of the debt and deficit and as such, many of the Obama spending programs are completely unaffordable. Leaving aside for a moment how this worry over the debt was nowhere to be seen during the duration of the most recent Bush Administration while the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Act and other laws like it as well as two off the record wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were put into effect, this is a very convenient argument.

Republicans say they are worried about the deficit to the point that any action on the part of the President to continue and expand the current, shaky recovery is unacceptable. They stop short however, at any action that affects Republican pet projects that might make an actual impact on America's debt.

Simply by allowing the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts to expire along with his hold on the Estate Tax and allowing the Capital Gains and Dividends taxes to revert to the levels they were during President Clinton's administration as proposed in S. 722 in the 111th Congress  as well as H.R. 470 and other similar bills we could save $3.5 Trillion through fiscal year  2017. That's simply by letting all of these tax advantage for the rich put in place by the Bush Administration to lapse. For those of you who are unaware, $3.5 Trillion is actually a dent in the federal debt of about $13.5 Trillion currently. Allowing any of these provision to be extended, as Republicans at large are running on, ADDS $3.5 Trillion to the federal debt over the next 7 years. Check out Florida Senate Candidate Marco Rubio's own website. He details his 12 ideas for helping the economy. Extending the Bush Tax Cuts permanently is his first plank! Remember that's $3.5 Trillion dollars through 2017. But the deficit and debt are just too much! Or watch this clip from Rachel Maddow. She covers all the salient facts. Carly Fiorina's discussion about how the tax cuts "pay for themselves" as well as each president's total debt increase running back to the Carter Administration. Spoiler, every Republican runs up the debt more than any Democrat.

Now that I've beaten that dead horse for a while, lets take a look at actual changes to the budget. I've written before about American defense spending and its relationship to our budget as a whole. But let me go over it again. We spend roughly $600 billion annually through the Department of Defense. That's more than the rest of the world combined. I'll advocate cutting the defense budget by half to $300 billion. If we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan that should be doable. All of this is with the understanding that such a cut would be implemented after going over the defense budget line by line with people who understand it better than I do, that is any such cuts would need military input.

The Federal Highway Administration got a budget of $40.1 billion in FY 2009. I understand that much of this goes to maintain existing roadways and that is a good thing. But we are still building new highways. The era of the car is over. Gas prices will only continue to climb as we move past peak oil. We need to look at ways to save in the FHWA and if not save, at least to redirect much of the funds dedicated to new road construction to other projects including intra-city light rail and HSR lines between cities. The administration has started doing this with the bailout funds but the percentages were far from adequate.

This post could go on and on. But it's intended to point out the pure hypocrisy of the GOP talking points as of late. If you are going to harp on the debt and deficit you can't keep advocating tax cuts for the rich and a 100% opposition to raising rates ever. The simple fact is that if the American people desire the continuation of services they have come to expect from their government including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare programs, and federal funding of Schools and Transportation along with a capable military and a growing middle class, the cash will have to come from somewhere. Because it sure isn't coming from anywhere now.