Heller, GOP sustain filibuster of Cyber Security Bill

OK, thus much for the spirit of bipartisanship and negotiation — according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) the Senate of the United States of America has been working on a cyber-security bill, the rationale for which ought to be reasonably clear to anyone who’s ever Googled anything.   Or, put in nicer, fancier terms:

“National security experts say there is no issue facing this nation more pressing than the threat of a cyber attack on our critical infrastructure.  Terrorists bent on harming the United States could all too easily devastate our power grid, our banking system or our nuclear plants.  A bipartisan group of Senators has worked for three years to craft this legislation. Yet Republicans filibustered this worthy measure in July.”  (Reid 11/14/12)

Surely this should have been something about which at least a modicum of agreement might have been secured?  The Senate Majority thought so:

“It’s imperative that Democrats and Republicans work together to address what national security experts have called “the most serious challenge to our national security since the onset of the nuclear age sixty years ago.”I found it encouraging when a number of my Republican colleagues – Senators McCain of Arizona, Chambliss of Georgia, Hutchison of Texas, Kyl of Arizona, Coats of Indiana and Blunt of Missouri – recently wrote President Obama advocating legislative action on cyber security.   They wrote: “An issue as far-reaching and complicated as cyber security requires… formal consideration and approval by Congress… Only the legislative process can create the durable and collaborative public-private partnership we need to enhance cyber security.”  (Reid 11/14/12)

What did the Senate Republicans do with the Cyber-security bill? They filibustered it.   And, what did they do when the Majority Leader submitted a cloture motion to stop the filibuster?  They rejected the cloture motion on a 51-47 vote.   “They” would include newly elected Nevada Senator Dean Heller (R-NV). Who, evidently, doesn’t see the need for a “durable and collaborative public-private partnership” to “enhance cyber security.”

The running total for filibusters is now 110 filibusters, 68 cloture motions filed, and 37 successful votes to invoke cloture and stop a filibuster.

Three years of work on a piece of legislation, and work on a matter which should engage the attention of Senators (some of whom surely do  online banking), and the effort comes to a screeching halt before the GOP obstructionism in the Senate.  Memo to Senator McConnell (R-KY): The President isn’t going to be a one term office holder.

2012 Election Results: Who’s Singing What Tune?

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) will get another turn in the barrel as Senate Majority Leader (LV Sun) and we’ll be treated to another two years of the Waltz of the Hours and Hours and Hours in Washington, D.C.    Who’s collating the sheet music?  What tunes are in the air?

The Republicans are singing “I Will Survive,” and performing anywhere there’s an open microphone.  Their modified lyrics tell us that they didn’t really get shellacked in the 2012 election — it was “the demographics,” i.e. those black and brown people came out in numbers we didn’t expect given our vote suppression efforts.  It was “the urban vote” — ah, those black and brown people and the white  urbanites who vote with them, who voted in numbers far beyond the capacity of our Grumpy Old People to offset.

The tune doesn’t play well considering the map of the 2012 election:

Notice that, indeed, President Obama did well in urban areas, BUT those also include the suburbs.  For example, while Romney won Missouri, he lost in St. Louis City 82.7% (Obama) to 16% (Romney).  He lost St. Louis County 56.2% (Obama) to 42.5% (Romney). [MOSoS]  For those inclined to believe that “urban voters” are necessarily black or brown, it’s instructive to know that the St. Louis Metropolitan area is 76.9% white, 18.5% African American, Hispanic 2.6%, and Asian 2.5%.  [StLDemo]

The second part of “I Will Survive” includes lyrics telling anyone still  listening that the GOP won because they retained control of the House of Representatives.   Really?  And, why would we believe that the election was a positive moment in Republican history when, yes, they did retain control of the House — BUT they’re doing it with six seats less than they had after the 2010 elections? [BusWk]

So, Senator Harry Reid will continue as Senate Majority Leader, with assistance from newly elected Senators from Massachusetts and Indiana, and two independents who will join his caucus; and, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will keep her leadership position in the House — with six new allies.

Little wonder the Democrats might be singing “Who’s Sorry Now?”

Vanishing Points

Time was when the phrase The Great Skedaddle referred to the July 21, 1861 disorganized Union Army retreat after the first Battle of Bull Run.  However, it might be plausibly updated to include the rapid distancing of down ticket candidates like Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) from the comments by Presidential candidate  Mitt Romney:   “Keep in mind, I have five brothers and sisters. My father was an auto mechanic. My mother was a school cook. I have a very different view of the world,” Heller said. “And as United States Senator, I think I represent everyone, and every vote’s important. Every vote’s important in this race. I don’t write off anybody.” [HuffPo]

And then there are those “vanished” tax returns — former Governor Romney has released part of one year, promises some of another, and is generally behaving as though the entire matter will vanish from human consciousness.  Not if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has a breath left:

“For all we know, Mitt Romney could be one of those who have paid no federal income taxes. Thousands of families making more than $1 million pay nothing in federal income taxes each year. Is Mitt Romney among them?

We’ll never know, since he refuses to release tax returns from the years before he was running for president. But from the one return we have seen, we know Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than middle class families thanks to Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island tax shelters.

And we can only imagine what new secrets would be revealed if he showed the American people a dozen years of tax returns, like his father did.”

(Senator Reid’s comments available in full at Real Clear Politics.)

Former Governor Romney has a track record of making things vanish, like the records from his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts:

“When Romney left the governorship of Massachusetts, 11 of his aides bought the hard drives of their state-issued computers to keep for themselves. Also before he left office, the governor’s staff had emails and other electronic communications by Romney’s administration wiped from state servers, state officials say.

Those actions erased much of the internal documentation of Romney’s four-year tenure as governor, which ended in January 2007. Precisely what information was erased is unclear.

Republican and Democratic opponents of Romney say the scrubbing of emails – and a claim by Romney that paper records of his governorship are not subject to public disclosure – hinder efforts to assess his performance as a politician and elected official.”  [Reuters] (Dec. 2011)

There was nothing strictly illegal about scrubbing all the e-mail and items from the hard drives and servers, precisely as there is nothing illegal about stashing income in the Cayman Islands, or as there is nothing illegal about paying only those taxes required by law — and availing oneself of every loophole and “blocker” scheme conceivable by man.

Governor Romney is proud of his accomplishments in regard to the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics — just not so proud as to allow the release of the ALL the records of it.

“More than a decade has passed since Mitt Romney presided over the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, but the archival records from those games that were donated to the University of Utah to provide an unprecedented level of transparency about the historic event, remain off limits to the public. And some of the documents that may have shed the most light on Romney’s stewardship of the Games were likely destroyed by Salt Lake Olympic officials, ABC News has learned.

The archivists involved in preparing the documents for public review told ABC News that financial documents, contracts, appointment calendars, emails and correspondence are likely not included in the 1,100 boxes of Olympic records, and will not be part of the collection that will ultimately be made public.”  [ABC]

The Romney campaign assures us that they have no problem with the archival material being released — a cynic might say “Of Course Not” it’s already sanitized, as the Massachusetts records were tidied up immediately after the Governor.

What appears to be vanishing at this point is any enthusiasm for the Romney/Ryan Campaign?

Numbers, Theories, and Qualities: The Latest Unemployment Numbers

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued this statement regarding the unemployment numbers for the past month:

“The unemployment rate is falling as we saw the thirtieth straight month of private sector job growth, with the economy adding nearly one hundred thousand new jobs. While our recovery is still moving too slowly for many Americans, job growth would likely have been even stronger if Republicans had not blocked Democratic efforts to hire more teachers, firefighters and police officers.”  (emphasis added)

Yes, the unemployment rate has fallen and, yes we do need to note that Americans leaving the workforce makes variations in statistical interpretation rational.  Bloomberg News sums up the immediate situation:

“The economy added 96,000 workers last month following a revised 141,000 increase in July that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate of 92 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a gain of 130,000. Unemployment fell to 8.1 percent, and hourly earnings were unchanged.” [Bloomberg]

Before the spin-meisters in the Village get all over the numbers and fall into and over one another interpreting what this Means — in terms of style points for political campaigning –  let’s have a reality check.

#1.  We have a mixed economy.  I know, believe me I know, that it is fashionable to rant about our Free Market Capitalist Free Enterprise system, but we’ve never had a pure free market capitalist system and we wouldn’t want one if it were handed to us.

There are some transactions in which public cooperation is more economically rational than private competition.   In a perfectly free theoretical Free Market System government would have no role at all, so we would have no police departments — only private security firms.  There would be no public fire departments — only private fire brigades.  New York City tried a privatized fire fighting system in the 19th century and it was not a happy experience.  Since some insurance companies were paying the firefighting brigades, the competition rapidly devolved into chaos as firefighters expended too much effort fighting off competing fire companies and too little fighting the fires. [FireInfo]  Contemporary attempts to replicate 19th century privatized firefighting units have been singularly unsuccessful.  [NYT, Westchester]

If we agree that every child in America should have at least 12 yrs of basic education, then we have to have a delivery system.  Public schools train future members of the labor force.  Current palaver about “vouchers” and “scholarships” to private schools is merely a euphemistic way of saying “public money to schools,”  only the schools in this instance are privately held.  It’s still public money.

There are practical reasons for public-private sector cooperation especially in the realm of research and development, and the cooperation mitigates some of the initial risk for the private sector.   If the expenses incurred in basic research and subsequent product development can be shared, then R&D which might be too expensive or beyond the capacity of single firm (especially a smaller one) can still be practical.

In a perfectly free theoretical Free Market System there would be no public-private sector partnerships for research and development, no cooperative activities between and among research universities and business interests.   In reality, neither research universities nor private sector corporations live in a vacuum.  Collaborative research is responsible for much of the technological advancement in the 20th century.

A mixed economy also provides the infrastructure and subsidies necessary to foster commercial development and economic growth.  New York City takes prominence over Boston in the 19th century as a shipping center because the Erie Canal provides the transportation infrastructure necessary to get interior products to their port.  Chicago takes prominence over St. Louis in the mid 19th century as its rail hub surpasses the older river cities as part of the nation’s commercial and industrial infrastructure.  And, as noted herein before, government investment in canal, rail, and highway systems allow for commercial and industrial growth.

We’ve fought about the necessity for, and role of, central banking since Andrew Jackson’s era, but in the reality of the 21st century it ought to be reasonably clear to all but the most radical that central banking operations are a more stable way to implement monetary policy than trying to rationalize a system of competing bank notes, including the Dixies.

#2. Both our public and our private sector are components of our total economy.   Reality Check Time: We are a mixed economy; we have both a public and private sector; therefore, transactions in BOTH the public and private sector are counted toward our gross domestic product.  Here we come to the point Senator Reid is trying to make — depletion in the transactions (contracts, paychecks, etc.) in the public sector depresses the transactions possible in the private sector.   Senator Reid is correct in reporting that the Republicans in the House and Senate have blocked consideration of his American Jobs Act which would restore some public sector jobs and creating funding channels for infrastructure maintenance and construction sector jobs.

If we reduce the number of teachers, police and law enforcement officers, firefighters, school nurses, public health inspectors, agency accountants, IT specialists, Department of Motor Vehicle clerks, Insurance Commission auditors, highway maintenance personnel, social workers, welfare eligibility specialists, Emergency Medical Technicians, …. (a) not only do we not get the level of services we should expect in a 21st century developed nation, but (2) our tax dollars aren’t recycled into our state and local economies.  We can assuredly reduce the size of government until we can drown it in a bath tub — BUT in doing so we realistically risk sending our own state and local economies down the drain with it.

Senator Reid continues:

“At the end of the day, too many people in Nevada and across America are still struggling to get by. The best way to speed up our recovery is for Republicans to stop their knee-jerk obstruction of every effort Democrats put forward, and start working across the aisle to find common ground. Next week, the Senate will vote to give employers incentives to hire veterans, so our heroes are not left out in the cold when they return home. This is a common-sense jobs bill, and I hope Republicans will join Democrats in supporting it.”

While I am always a bit leary of yet another tax cut — businesses have gotten 18 of them in the last three years — the 2011 Veterans Tax Credit bill did have some positive effects,  [NYT] and there’s nothing wrong with trying to enhance it.  The perpetual problem with tax breaks for hiring is the obvious — no one hires anyone except when the demand for a product or services exceeds the staffing levels necessary to create the product or provide the service.   But, I repeat myself for the four hundredth time.   There’s a bit more from Senator Reid:

“The Republican leader said his single most important goal was defeating President Obama. To speed up our recovery, it’s time for Republicans to put politics aside, and join Democrats to make the middle class their top priority.”

The emphasis on middle class employment is appropriate, because in their fervor to reduce government costs they’ve reduced public employment — especially at the local level — they’ve laid off middle income job holders, those teachers, firefighters, police and law enforcement personnel…

The liturgy of the Pure Market Fundamentalists insists that public employees must be “feeding at the public trough,” they must put “their paychecks above their calling…”  The liturgy makes for lovely theoretical sound bites; however,  it’s really difficult to sell to a teacher who’s still grading papers or modifying tomorrow’s lesson plans at 10:00 pm.  It’s hard to explain to a firefighter who’s been on his feet in unimaginable and almost unendurable  conditions for hours on end.  It’s a hard point to make to a police officer who’s spent her entire day trying to protect the most of us from the worst of us.

Priorities

Theorizing is fine. It’s a great form of intellectual stimulation.  However, theorizing and idealizing never inspected a restaurant or a walk in clinic.  Theorizing never kept a gaggle of 27  Second graders on task. Theorizing never put out a fire, never treated a heart attack victim before transportation to a hospital, and never showed up to treat automobile accident victims on the scene.  Theorizing never caught a burglar, never cleared a drug dealer out of a neighborhood, never brought a rapist to justice, and never even directed traffic after a major athletic event.

Theorizing and idealizing never built a bridge, never constructed a new highway, never finished a new airport control tower.  Theorizing never does maintenance on a bus people ride to get to work. Theorizing never repaired a dam, never filtered waste water, and never laid a new pipeline for drinking water.

Elegant economic theories are elegant economic theories, just don’t ever expect one to DO anything.  Given my druthers, I’d prefer a theory which supports getting things DONE.  When I pay my state, local, and federal taxes I want to get something in return in the economic transaction.  I like police and fire protection; I want kids who can read and do arithmetic. I want my clinics and restaurants clean and healthy. I want my roads smooth, my drinking water pure, my sewer system to function, and my local library open and stocked with books.

In short, when I pay my federal, state, and local taxes, I want it to be an economic transaction, one in which I get what I pay for.  If I want police and fire protection I’ll pay for it — even when my car isn’t being burgled or my house isn’t on fire — because I am paying for a potential service which is to be available when I do need it.   When I pay my federal, state, and local taxes I am not contributing to some ethereal element — I want those smooth roads, those functioning water and sewer systems, those manageable classrooms, and those books on the shelves in the library.   In other words, I fully expect a rational economic transaction.

I am paying, in fine, for the Quality of My Life.   And, Quality should be a Priority, as I sit in a real world with real issues, and real needs, and real economic transactions.  Human beings have the remarkable capacity to create a theory about nearly every aspect of our condition, but when an economic theory is propounded merely in the service of individual avarice then it diminishes us and the quality of our lives, politically, socially, and economically.

I’d prefer we remain in the reality-based universe in which classic economics teaches the demand side is just as important as the supply side, and one in which we acknowledge the reality of our mixed economy as the driver of the greatest economic engine on the planet.  Then, we might get some more people back to work.

Harry’s Right Jab

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was one of the lead off hitters in the Democratic Party line up last evening at the national convention in Charlotte, NC.   He sized up the gridlock in Washington, D.C. succinctly:

“In the depth of the Great Recession, as millions of Americans were struggling to find work, the Republican leader of the senate, Mitch McConnell, said Republicans’ number one goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. They wouldn’t cooperate to create jobs. They wouldn’t try to turn around the economy. They wouldn’t do anything but stand in President Obama’s way.

I’ve had a front-row seat to watch the Tea Party take over the Republican Party. For three and a half years, they wouldn’t govern. They couldn’t lead. And we shouldn’t let them take over the Senate and the White House.”  [HuffPo]

Wouldn’t, couldn’t, and shouldn’t sum things up nicely.   Unfortunately, fact checking isn’t necessary.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) famously told the National Journal back in October 2010, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” [Examiner]  October 2010 also happened to be the first month in the previous five months in which the employment numbers move upward.

“Payrolls climbed 151,000, exceeding all estimates in a Bloomberg News survey of economists and following a revised 41,000 drop the prior month that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. Private payrolls expanded the most since April, while the jobless rate held at 9.6 percent.” [Bloomberg]

So, in October 2010 was the Republican leadership focused on moving the unemployment number off the 9.6% mark?  No, merely on making President Obama a one-term president.  Taking “Just Say No” into new realms, the Senate Republicans under McConnell’s leadership exercised the filibuster like small children who’ve just discovered the joys of mud puddles:

To date in the 112th Congress, 104 cloture motions have been filed (motions to stop filibusters), there have been 64 cloture votes, and filibusters have been broken only 33 times.  During the 111th Congress (2009-2010) there were 137 filibusters, 91 cloture votes, and the filibusters were broken 63 times.  [Senate]  The filibusters indicate how unwilling the Republicans were to govern, and how even less willing they were to offer leadership.

Inevitably, when the numbers are on the table for all to see, the Republicans whine that “the President wouldn’t work with us…,” “HE wouldn’t lead,” or “HE didn’t compromise.  First, it was perfectly evident during the time prior to the passage of the ARRA, altogether too much of which was comprised of tax cuts of minimal utility and not enough of which was comprised of infrastructure investments, and automatic stabilizer enhancements of maximum utility.   Having draped all manner of tax cuts on the stimulus bill the GOP had the temerity to announce that it was a “failure” before it even got started.

“…it’s easy to take a lie like “the stimulus failed” and turn it into a right-wing “fact.” Start by calling it “the failed stimulus” even before the bill goes into effect. Then keep repeating that same phrase, even as we go from losing 800,000 jobs a month to creating private sector jobs for 29 months.”  [NatMemo]

The same process was used during the development of the health reform bill (ACA) … the Republicans couldn’t take “yes” for an answer, then they created their very own “Debt Crisis” and again wouldn’t accept any long term deficit reduction suggestions from the White House.   This isn’t governance, it’s 100% pure obstructionism.

The elections in 2010 made a bad situation worse.   The deterioration began with a dinner in Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2009:

“According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) — who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.

For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama’s legislative platform.”  [HuffPo] (emphasis added)

If the date sounds vaguely familiar — January 20, 2009 was the date on which President Barack Obama was inaugurated.  The President was attending Inaugural festivities and the congressional Republicans were having a four hour dinner planning how to obstruct the new Administration.  The gear jamming  game began as soon as the whistle blew.

The gridlock only grew worse as the Tea Party Republicans took over the Republican Party in Congress and rendered any attempts at compromise, even intra-party compromise,  futile.  For purist ideologues the very basis for governance, compromise between sincerely invested views, was unconscionable.  Thus the spectacle of a House of Representatives voting over and over and over again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or to legislate anti-abortion bills going nowhere, refusing to pass the American Jobs Act, and yielding little more than a 13.8% approval rating for the 112th Congress as of August 23,  2012. [RCP]

When Congress, stymied by GOP intransigence, can’t lead and won’t govern it can expect to be less popular than banks, Pakistani President Zardari, and the Long Island Power Company. [ABC]

IF the Republicans hadn’t been engaged in obstructionism from Inauguration Day onward, and IF they had entered into sincere discussions of issues surrounding the content of the Affordable Care Act, or IF they had given the American Jobs Act even some cursory attention inside the Capitol, THEN their charges of “failed” leadership might not ring so hollow.

As things stand, Senator Reid is right: “For three and a half years, they wouldn’t govern. They couldn’t lead. And we shouldn’t let them take over the Senate and the White House.”

Not Even A Step In The Right Direction: Senate GOP Blocks Buffett Rule

Yesterday the Senate had the opportunity to break the Republican filibuster of S. 2230, enacting the “Buffett Rule,” and appointed Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) voted with 44 other Republicans in the upper house to sustain that filibuster.   Proponents gathered 51 of the required 60 votes to break the logjam. [roll call 65]

The Congressional Research Service summarized what S. 2230 would have done, or might do, if the GOP filibuster could ever be broken:

“Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012 – Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require an individual taxpayer whose adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million to pay a minimum tax rate of 30% of the excess of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income over the taxpayer’s modified charitable contribution deduction for the taxable year (tentative fair share tax). Establishes the amount of such tax as the excess (if any) of the tentative fair share tax over the excess of: (1) the sum of the taxpayer’s regular tax liability, the alternative minimum tax (AMT) amount, and the payroll tax for the taxable year; over (2) certain tax credits. Provides for a phase-in of such tax. Requires an inflation adjustment to the $1 million income threshold for taxable years beginning after 2013.

Expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact tax reform that repeals unfair and unnecessary tax loopholes and expenditures, simplifies the tax system, and makes sure that the wealthiest taxpayers pay a fair share of taxes.”

OK, it wasn’t going to be a major revenue raiser for the federal treasury.  However, it is yet another example of the fundamental divide between Democratic and Republican definitions of “fairness.”

By Republican lights “fairness” comes when everyone is paying the same rate.  This is only “fair” for those who are already blessed with wealth and health.  Exacting 25% from the coffers of a person earning $1,000,000 per year would yield $250,000.  Leaving the individual with earnings of $750,000.   Not bad for an annual salary.  Exacting the same 25% from a person earning $50,000 annually yields $12,500; leaving the family with an annual income of $37,500 after federal taxes, a number well below the median income in Nevada.

The Republican schemes for a Flat Tax are also highly questionable because they conveniently avoid the discussion of other taxes the 99% do pay, especially payroll taxes.   Payments to the Social Security Trust Funds are capped at $106,800 meaning that any income earned above that level is not subject to that taxation.  Thus our millionaires and billionaires get a double dip.  They are taxed at a lesser rate for capital gains than the rate for the wages of a regular working stiff, AND they don’t have to pay SSTF taxes on any income above the cap.  Nice.

Senator Heller would evidently like to keep the current system in place, and denigrated S. 2230 as an election year “gimmick.”

“While Nevada struggles with high unemployment, the President and Senate Democrats have chosen to focus on a measure that will not create a single job.  They have ignored rising gas prices, have not passed a budget in more than three years, and shoved job-killing government health care on small businesses across the country.  Now, the best they can do is push a tax hike designed for nothing more than a campaign press release.  It’s no wonder the American people are so frustrated with Washington.  There is no question the tax code is unfair and needs an overhaul, but the so-called ‘Buffett Rule’ is nothing more than an election year campaign gimmick,” said Senator Dean Heller.”  [Heller]

What we have here really isn’t a commentary, nor any analysis of the provisions of S. 2230, it’s a campaign year focus-group talking point word salad with a light dressing of distraction politics.

The first message from Senator Heller seems to be that “we Republicans only want to vote on Jobs Bills.”    Which raises the immediate question: If you wanted to vote on a Jobs Bill why did you block the American Jobs Act in October 2011?  “The jobs package includes $250 billion in tax cuts, including reduced payroll taxes on both workers and employers; $60 billion in extended unemployment benefits; and $140 billion in spending on education, transportation projects and public workers, including police officers.”  [CBS] Oh, now we ought to recall that to help pay for the bill there was a 5.6% surtax on millionaires.  Senator Heller voted to sustain the GOP filibuster on that bill too. [roll call 160]

“They have ignored rising gas prices,  have not passed a budget in more than three years, and shoved job-killing government health care on small businesses across the country.”   Lovely sound bites these, but hardly a rationale for voting against a step in the right direction on tax policy.   First, no one’s “ignoring pump pain,” in fact our oil production has increased in the past three years:

“After declining to levels not seen since the 1940s, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. Drilling rigs have rushed into the nation’s oil fields, suggesting a surge in domestic crude is on the horizon.

The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quad­rupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world.

“It’s staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. “If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.” [Houston Chronicle]

Secondly, to  quote that radical liberal Ronald Reagan, “There they go again,” this time on the rather tired ‘Gee There’s No Budget talking point.’  The Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee debunked this one in a hurry:

“But Conrad said the Budget Control Act, which the Congress passed last summer after weeks of horse-trading over raising the debt ceiling, included the budget for this year and next year and that in many ways it is “stronger” and “more extensive” than a traditional budget.

He also went on suggest that any of his GOP his colleagues who continue to repeat the 1,000-day line would be guilty of either gross ignorance or deliberate deception.

“Either they don’t know what they did or they are misrepresenting what we all did,” Conrad said.

“If I hear another assertion … I will know that somebody is not telling the truth,” he said. “[I] hope now we have laid this issue to rest.” [The Hill]

So, which was it?  Did Senator Heller mean he was grossly ignorant of the Budget Control Act or is he being deliberately deceptive?

And third, Oh that job-killing health care reform act…“  Precisely how is an act which created opportunities for training 500 new primary care physicians by 2015 a job killer? Or, support for 600 new physicians assistants, or another 600 nurse practitioners, or a program for opening 10 new nurse administered clinics, or encouraging states to augment programs for increasing their professional health care work force by 10% to 25% become a “job killer?”  Does increasing access to health care facilities in underserved areas constitute a job killing exercise?  Does a Department of Labor initiative to increase job training in health care professions classify as Job Killing?

How does expanded financial assistance to health care trainees constitute Job Kill? How does granting tax breaks to health care professionals who serve in remote or difficult locations fall into the Job Kill category?  [DHHS]

There have been several analyses of the total job impact of the Affordable Care Act and Patients Bill of Rights which show employment related statistics along a predictable range on the ideological spectrum.  Politifact may come as close as any estimate to the job creation actually in the offing under the ACA:

“In reality, the number of jobs produced per year would vary, according to the report. For instance, in 2013, the number of jobs created under the second scenario would be about 210,000. That number would climb to nearly 800,000 in 2019.”

Not only is labeling every initiative which might impinge on corporate profitability or executive compensation as “job killing” inaccurate, it’s also intellectually lazy.

OMG It’s A Tax Hike!  This generalization also ignores that the provisions of S. 2203 aren’t a tax hike on everyone, and certainly not on the 99% of the country earning less than a cool million annually.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement yesterday emphasizing this point:

Yesterday Senate Republicans once again rejected the idea that millionaires and billionaires should contribute their fair share to help this country prosper. Republicans sent a message to millions of honest, hard-working Americans who will file their taxes today: it’s fair for Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Republicans said it’s fair for Mitt Romney to pay a lower tax rate than his cleaning lady or his chauffer. They believe it’s fair for hedge fund managers and executives to pay a lower tax rate than school teachers and waitresses and bus drivers.

That’s just crazy. But that’s not my word for it. That’s what President Ronald Reagan called a system of “unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.”  In 1985, Ronald Reagan knocked the web of loopholes that allowed people making hundreds of millions of dollars each year to pay lower tax rates than construction workers or janitors. President Reagan called it “crazy.”  This broken system “made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary,” Reagan said. But the same system is in place today. And, as that radical liberal Ronald Reagan said, “That’s just crazy.”

Apparently, Senator Heller has moved somewhere far to the right of that aforementioned radical liberal Ronald Reagan.  The Class Warriors seem to have all lined up somewhere well to the right of the old Morning in America Man, and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) noted the weaponry assembled by Senator Heller and his brigade:

“Yesterday my Republican colleagues used some strong words to oppose Democrats’ plan to right that inequality. Republicans called our common-sense proposal to ensure no one making more than a $1 million a year pays a lower tax rate than a truck driver, a secretary or a police officer “class warfare.” Republicans are pushing a budget that would end Medicare as we know it, slash nursing home coverage for the elderly, decimate Pell Grant funding and kick 200,000 kids out of the Head Start Program.

And they’re calling our proposal class warfare? I wish that were the most ridiculous thing Republicans have said about our proposal to bring a measure of fairness to America’s tax system. Far from it. One member of Senate Republican Leadership equated this measure to “shooting ourselves in the head.”

Shooting themselves in the foot during an election year may be more like it.  Senator Reid continued:

“The Paying a Fair Share Act – also called the Buffettt Rule – would have ensured millionaires and billionaires paid at least as much as their secretaries, assistants and nannies. Yet Republicans think asking those lucky millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share is just like shooting the country in the head. Our legislation would have protected 99 percent of small business owners, and maintained deductions for charitable giving. And it would have been a small but meaningful step to reduce our deficit at a time when every penny – or in this case, every billion – counts.

It doesn’t seem radical to me to ask Warren Buffett – who made almost $63 million in 2010 – to pay a higher tax rate than his secretary. It didn’t seem radical to Ronald Reagan, either. And it doesn’t seem radical to the three-quarters of Americans who support our legislation.

The wealthiest Americans take home a greater percentage of the nation’s income than at any time in nearly a century. Yet they enjoy the lowest tax rate in more than 50 years. So it’s no surprise Americans believe millionaires should shoulder their fair share. Even two-thirds of millionaires – and a majority of Republicans around the country – agree it’s time to fix a system rigged to favor of the richest of the rich.

Republicans in Congress are the only ones who aren’t on board. If you need evidence that millionaires and billionaires can afford to contribute a little more, consider this fact: last year there were 7,000 people who made more than $1 million but didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes. Not one thin dime.  Thanks to Republicans, those lucky millionaires and billionaires can keep gaming the system, while middle-class workers keep picking up the tab.”

It will take more than highly generalized talking point word salad with a dressing of political distraction to dig GOP candidates out of this particular hole in 2012.