Ann Davidow

With all the media outlets and forums these days there is no shortage of opinions. The certitude of people who haven't the slightest idea what they're talking about is a constant source of amusement but terrifying as well because they probably vote.

The average person is too often overly dependent on ideologically-constrained pundits, to say nothing of the blowhards who somehow manage to get elected to Congress. House Republican Eric Cantor, for example, on Tuesday's "Washington Journal" repeated his party's tortured rhetoric about homeowners "who didn't play by the rules". And he said Obama's budget would shortchange small business owners, suggesting that Obama's tax cuts would actually increase taxes in the small-business sector.

As Pat Moynihan used to say, ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.' Anyone who isn't suffering from a factual shortfall knows there are many homeowners across the nation who absolutely played by the rules but had their properties foreclosed when they lost jobs or fell ill. As for increasing taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year, or households earning, not grossing, more than $250,000 - -  most small-business owners should be so lucky.

And they would be likely to profit from a suspension of their capital gains taxes and benefit from middle-class tax cuts. Cantor further maintains that increasing liquidity, an administration goal, isn't much of an issue for smaller firms because they rarely seek loans to finance their businesses. For a supposedly unimportant concern, there sure are a lot of lending establishments servicing precisely that segment of commerce.

Someone called "The Journal" to say Cantor was "a breath of fresh air" and that he and, oh my goodness, Michele Bachmann were the "voices of sanity struggling against fascism". And there was Bachmann on Thursday's "Journal" insisting banks were "forced" in the 70s and 90s (Democratic presidencies of course) to make the shaky loans that brought us to our financial knees, when in fact the bundling of sub-prime loans into putative Triple-A derivatives played a much larger role in tanking the economy. Be careful, though, Bachmann says, about over-regulating - - "America is all about risk-taking." That must be why insurance companies like AIG make out like bandits helping people protect themselves from imprudent investment strategies; the logic escapes me.

The strangest thing about the fascism remark is that it's the irrational flip-side of the other right-wing talking point callers often make that Obama is a socialist menace. Dictionary.com defines Socialism as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land etc. in the community as a whole" while Fascism is a "governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism". Ascribing to Obama such divergent political agendas, neither of which is a plausible description of his administration, is a stunning triumph that only the most intellectually challenged among us could achieve.

There seems to be an endless supply of absurd critiques offered up by conservatives, or commentators who must fill air time with something other than fires and plane crashes. How dare Obama deliver a commencement address at Notre Dame, he's anti-Catholic says former Speaker Gingrich, he of affairs and multiple marriages. Why does Obama have to use Teleprompters so much ask others who can put a negative spin on just about anything? Considering the issues he has addressed, the appointments he has made and the busy schedule he has observed, it shouldn't be surprising that he wants to get what he says just right. He is, in any case, demonstrably capable of speaking extemporaneously to the press and at town hall meetings without wasting time nicknaming people and wisecracking his way through the Q & A portion of press conferences.

The president faces problems that seem at times all but insoluble. Republicans keep trying to get him off his game, and Democrats don't support him in every undertaking. One of the most inspirational things he said at his press conference, however, was that he believed in persistence - - a great word for reaffirming his commitment to the goals he promised the American people to pursue.

Someone accused me recently of being against corporations. The truth is that, when President Bush talked about an "ownership society" we had already become a society more owned than owning - - owned by corporate interests that control our daily lives more than most people realize. A financial juggernaut has finally caught up with us; it isn't really so much about being against corporations as it is a sense that we the people, through our government, need to exert more control over forces that have come to dominate the financial culture.

It isn't only outrage over the bonuses for executives at companies who have received bailout funds that is gripping the American people. It is an uneasy feeling that something fundamental is wrong with the way things work in our society. When a majority shared in a robust economy, and salaries were substantial enough to support a family, provide health care and a decent education, a well-positioned middle class enjoyed the trappings of what felt like the American dream. But as the economy came to be managed by speculating money handlers and entrepreneurs who made fortunes while salaries for ordinary folks lagged, and jobs left for cheap labor venues in other lands, that dream lost much of its luster, and a stunned population wondered what had hit them.

What had hit them was a corporatized world that held sway over people and economies alike. The Waltons, owners of Walmart, are some of the wealthiest people in the country, but they crush attempts by employees to unionize, apparently fearful that profits will dip below gigantic to just huge. And John Perkins, in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, provided an insider's look at how to create clout around the world without having to fire a shot. By encouraging smaller economies to accept loans they could never repay the U.S. has been able to use that indebtedness to install not only corporate strongholds but to promote political agendas as well.

And that war we supposedly won in Iraq hasn't fostered a strong central government, capable of developing an economy to truly serve its people. In the North, Kurds ignore Baghdad's attempts to establish an oil ministry to oversee the country's resources. Instead they have been signing separate deals with foreign investors. Maybe the war wasn't really about oil, but it didn't take long for those special interests to appear and take hold, and somehow oil revenues didn't end up reimbursing us for our trouble. Far from it, as the ties that bind us to the corporate defense-industry mill illustrate so vividly.

Back in the sixties, at General Dynamics, when Frank Pace presided over the biggest corporate loss of its day, and the company was forced to suspend its dividend, Pace was replaced - - not fired exactly, ‘kicked upstairs' and provided with office space, no doubt because of some contractual obligation. Sound familiar? These days the AIG problem stems from pre-bailout contracts. And perhaps the oddest thing about the way the issue is playing out is the emphasis on the Dodd-Geithner interplay when the original bailout package was forged during the Bush administration, bonuses and all - - an indication that some contracts (executive) carry more weight than others (labor).

A more subtle form of corporate dominance occurs in the sports arena - - more subtle because it affects fewer people. For example, season hockey tickets in the old Madison Square Garden provided a great view of the action. Season tickets in the "new garden", however, were behind one of the goals, ensuring that I never saw a goal scored again - - too far from one end and obstructed by fans in lower rows at my end. The reason?  Corporations purchased tickets for every event - - the circus, horse shows, dog shows, basketball and hockey games, you name it, so they got all the best seats.

Similarly in the "new Yankee stadium" four family members, past season ticket holders, received tickets for the coming year that were not only not together but were for day games during the week when none of them are able to attend. Perhaps you can guess what entities are getting the choice locations.

One doesn't have to be against corporations to understand that some people get a lot of perks even when they perform badly; some receive favors for being a worker bee or a client. Others outside the entrenched power pyramid pursue an American dream, that needn't promise a rose garden or a golden parachute, just a decent job, a sense of security, some respect and a few creature comforts -- in other words, a fair shake.

The fault lines in government policies aren't simply about openness and secrecy, honesty and deception. They are being defined by the public's anger and impatience with political maneuvering at a time when there's a need for serious deliberations without the overlay of "gotcha" politics. It's also about good judgment- -what's smart and what's not.

The question that gets asked a lot with respect to our leaders is how stupid do they think we are? There has been a loss of confidence in our institutions and a sense that fair play no longer applies to the lives of ordinary Americans. It is often said that ‘life isn't fair', but deep down most people think fairness is part of our national heritage.

The outrage over executive compensation in companies that have received bailout monies has provided a forum for the public unrest that has simmered below the surface for some time. Because corporate management salaries are so out of proportion to the pay scales of the general population, national discontent has found expression in the turmoil over rescue packages and a feeling of helplessness in the face of forces most people do not understand and over which they have little control.

It may actually be a good thing that the country has reached a boiling point over salaries and bonuses because it highlights inequities that have become more pronounced in recent years. Anger over the rescue of companies who have engaged in questionable conduct makes it imperative for leaders to make clear that propping them up isn't just some scheme to enhance the fortunes of political allies but serves the general population.

It is all the more distressing then that discussions have deteriorated into partisan rants about who's to blame for this one egregious example of the underlying plague that has ravaged our economy. Arguments about regulating markets, tax rates and what constitutes economic fundamentals have served to cloud basic problems, forcing debate into an ideological morass. The outrage being expressed by Republicans in Congress now is another attempt to discredit the administration. Many of the most vocal critics- -Cantor, Shelby and McConnell, among others- -agreed with the Bush-Paulson decision not to force the issue of salary caps, fearing various banks might not participate in the bailout plan. In fact, some may return funds rather than agree to governmental oversight of their remuneration policies. Barney Frank says ‘thanks, we'd be glad to have the money back.'

Accusations keep surfacing that Chris Dodd created the exception guaranteeing the AIG bonuses, but in fact his original amendment that was passed stated that remuneration should "meet appropriate standards for executive compensation and corporate governance." That requirement was altered in conference, and the ultimate responsibility for making the change is a matter of some confusion but appears to have been Treasury-inspired. However that plays out, as Congress tries to "claw back" AIG bonuses, the president needs to be on the side of the angels, in this case, the American people.

Unfortunately, some stories take on a life of their own in an atmosphere where the right-wing misinformation mill keeps up a constant tirade that grips listeners with its ill-founded air of self-righteousness. Representative Frank commented on how odd it was for Rush Limbaugh to accuse Democrats of "McCarthyism" for trying to get the names of AIG executives who received bonus money - - odd because McCarthy has always been something of a hero on the right and, while his accusations were harmful diatribes about political beliefs, determining who received bonuses from a failed arm of AIG is another thing entirely, though Limbaugh never allows logic to interfere with his partisan game.

Other less extreme conservative voices like David Brooks approach the issue of how to frame the country's financial fundamentals a bit differently. In his NY Times column, 3/17/09, he says the president "...displays no passion when speaking about commercial drive and success." And he points out that the administration has few business people, "let alone self-made entrepreneurs". But, Brooks adds, "The cultural DNA of the past 400 years will not be erased...The gospel of success will recapture the imagination."

The thing is that, in order to realize our national potential, the president's emphasis on educational opportunities, new industries and job training, about which he is extremely passionate, are his way of ensuring that we don't just  proceed from "bubble to bubble" but create an enduring, prosperous and more just society.

It is no small wonder that much of the public is so confused. The rhetorical flights of fancy that find expression in most media outlets do little to help ordinary people understand a complex world. Often, in the interest of providing a forum for all opinions, no matter how absurd, the mainstream media ensures that the public is less well served and more confused than ever.

And so, in recent days former Bush advocates, members of the administration and true believers have been making regular appearances on talk shows and in print, notably former Vice President Cheney, press secretaries Dana Perino and Ari Fleischer and, of course the ubiquitous Fox News contributor, Karl Rove. One favorite talking point is that we should all be grateful Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. That is meant to justify invading Iraq and is said to be the special gift George Bush left for President Obama.

Cheney went much further suggesting that the country is less safe because the president has changed some Bush policies - - a particularly treacherous point of view. Still fulminating about criticism of his former agenda, he insists on reconstituting points long since debunked. Obama and the rest of us should be glad, he says, that Iraq is not ‘returning' to the production of WMDs and ‘supporting terrorism'.

The administration's goals were realized he would have us believe. That's if one were to ignore the terrible loss of life in Iraq, its ruined infrastructure, the millions of refugees who fled ethnically cleansed neighborhoods and now add to stressful conditions in Syria and Jordan. One must also overlook the fact that no WMDs were ever found, Al Qaeda was not present in Iraq before the invasion, our policy strengthened Iran's hand in the region and cost us dearly in human terms while creating enormous deficits as a result of tax cut in a time of war.

Apparently, though, we shouldn't blame the former administration for our economic turmoil. After all, Ms. Perino said Bush faced similar issues when the dot.com bubble burst at the beginning of his presidency, and didn't he take action for the current problems just prior to leaving office? Does anyone actually think the financial disruption in two thousand was of the same nature and degree as what we are facing now or that Bush and his team and the Republicans in Congress acted with the vision required to head off the disaster that was brewing?

Still, in the convoluted world of many familiar spokesmen on the right, there is no need to develop a new agenda. Basically, for them the path is clear; do more of what demonstrably didn't work in the past and do it more emphatically - - more tax cuts, less regulation, freer markets and smaller government. That's why Newt Gingrich still says government shouldn't be telling private companies what they can pay people even when some of them have been gifted with huge bailouts.

And it's why Edward M. Liddy, appointed by the government to take charge at A.I.G., responded to the public outrage over bonuses the company is prepared to pay, after receiving bailout money, that "We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent ... if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury", NY Times, 3/15/09. The wonder always is how the best and the brightest missed the signs of impending doom for so long.

Tax-cutting evangelist, Grover Norquist, keeps beating the drum for lower marginal tax rates, lower business taxes, maybe even no taxes at all for a year or so. He says the stock market is in distress because investors are in a quandary about what will happen in 2010 when the Bush tax cuts expire and  that current policies are simply politicians' way of ‘giving money to their friends'. Just give the money to "the people", he says, because they know how to spend it better than government does. And, he adds, every time Obama speaks the market goes down, except when it goes up that is; however in both cases, the market seems to be reacting to bank statements more than political ones.

Perhaps lower taxes, smaller governments and a completely unregulated investor class will have ordinary folks tarring small patches of road in front of their homes, delivering the mail in privately-owned vehicles and controlling traffic at our airports. That may be carrying the vision of the political right to an extreme, but then again someone would have to pick up the slack.

About the earmark flap, it seems fair to say that not all of them are pet projects devised by sinister, sleep-deprived politicians. No doubt some are just cheap ploys to attract hometown support, but others are worthy ventures that wouldn't get much attention as individual bills but, added to larger pieces of legislation, receive funding. Such insertions may bloat the budget, but while legislators swear to uphold the Constitution, they are elected by the people "back home" so it doesn't seem unreasonable that part of what they do in Congress reflects the needs and wishes of their constituents.

Nevertheless, the earmark controversy is an issue Senator McCain thinks he can control. But there are some pitfalls in making that assumption. McCain accuses Obama of breaking what was actually his own promise to free budgets of earmarks. In any case this particular budget was negotiated prior to Obama's election and earmarks are split 40% to 60% Republicans to Democrats with the dollar amount almost equal.

In addition, McCain's ‘alarm' over earmarks rings a bit hollow as does his claim that he doesn't participate in the congressional game of ‘pork'. His efforts on behalf of Arizona developers who contribute to his political campaigns are well-documented. It would seem one needn't engage in standard forms of earmarking to support special projects for the home crowd. A Washington Post article in September, 2008, described legislation McCain helped shepherd through Congress that provided the SunCor Corporation with a lucrative land deal - - a firm run by long-time McCain supporter, Steven A. Betts, who raised more than $100,000 for McCain's presidential run.

McCain's spokesman denied any undue influence saying "At no time during consideration of this legislation was there any involvement by officials of SunCor". Still, SunCor came up with respect to a $14 million ‘provision' Senator McCain inserted into a 2003 Defense bill, funds needed, he explained, "to preserve Arizona's Luke Air Force Base" which had been threatened with closure. The land deal did benefit the Air Force, and apparently there was bi-partisan support for it, as is often the case with earmarks in other states. Independent appraisals of the property, however, fell well below what SunCor received in payment for its land. AZCentral.com, May, 2008.

And then there's McCain's pal, Charles Keating, of the notoriously failed Lincoln S&L. No land deals, just as a Senate Ethics committee investigation decided, "poor judgment" on McCain's part in pressuring bank regulators to ease up their investigations of the thrift." LA Times, Oct. 2008. None of these transactions were deemed illegal, yet they serve to illustrate how things can ‘get done' without necessarily resorting to the dreaded "earmark" process.

The point is that, while these matters have largely been put to rest, McCain is hardly someone to be delivering lectures about political virtue. His posturing makes clear that he is, with most of his party, less interested in solving problems than in making political points and playing "gotcha" with President Obama. He obviously hoped to force him to veto the current budget in order to make good on what he claimed was the president's promise about earmarks or to seem otherwise hypocritical. The fact is, however, that Obama promised to review the process and reform it, not do away with it altogether; McCain has tried to make his own campaign promise Obama's.

Earmarks are important to both sides of the aisle; conversations about whether they belong in this or any budget should take place in The House and The Senate. Senator McCain's proposed amendment that would have mandated the removal of all earmarks failed; he was unable to persuade senators in sufficient numbers to agree to it. His quarrel is more appropriately addressed to congressional colleagues than the president.

Perhaps in the future, members of the House and Senate should be required to rise in support of their earmarks or withdraw them. It's probably time to get specific about just who's requesting what and for what purpose not just huff and puff about this one particular form of special interest. Far too much energy is being expended on peripheral issues, too much consideration being awarded to Republicans who threaten to obstruct everything from judicial appointments to budgets. A sixty-vote requirement shouldn't be the metric against which passage of legislation in the Senate is measured; let Republicans mount as many filibusters as they think the public will tolerate and see what happens.

What are we to believe about where the country is headed? People say Obama is going to bring the country to its knees, but aren’t we kind of there already? The question really is what steps should be taken to restore our pride, self confidence and economic muscle?

CNBC's Cramer says the president caused the steep market downturn by frightening the American people into believing we’re in a financial ditch. Of course Cramer was telling investors to buy when the Dow-Jones was around 12,000, and fellow CNBC’er, Kudlow, said the worst might be over back in the early stages of the market’s fall from grace. People in the investment sector and many others seem to have forgotten that the stock market was originally a reflection of how well-run industries and efficient companies contributed to the nation’s financial well being.

Somewhere along the line the stock market became a thing unto itself, a kind of high stakes game in which speculators and hedge-fund operators made huge cash deals in minutes, even seconds. And it didn’t seem to matter in the world of big money and enormous profits that we didn’t actually make things any more. Service industries, financial groups, big-box stores selling cheap goods from other countries masked the reality that jobs were being out-sourced and middle and lower-class wages barely budged while the rich controlled more and more of the nation’s capital wealth.

And despite capitalistic warriors’ insistence that theirs was the best, indeed the only, way to grow the economy and keep the country secure, free-wheeling money hawks and weak regulatory policies helped to destabilize an economy in which major players were left unaccountable for their profligate ways. Cramer and others strike fear into the hearts of investors by disparaging the administration’s plans even as they accuse the president of fear mongering. They focus on market ups and downs without paying much attention to other factors that impact the larger financial crisis - - health care, energy policy, and jobs. Unemployment numbers often seem almost an abstraction in financial circles.

It is said by some that Obama is promoting socialism, forgetting the entrepreneurial spirit and competition that made us an economic power. In order to compete in the world market, they say, we can’t pay our work-force so much more than laborers in other lands. Is it our economic destiny then to become more like third-world countries and turn to an unregulated plethora of entrepreneurs tasked with making us a market giant once again?

Republicans insist FDR’s policies didn’t work - - forget that New Deal nonsense and Keynesian drivel; government spending won’t end the recession. On the other hand, government outlays for huge defense projects, of proven worth or not, have always met with Republican approval as an acceptable way to grow the economy - - what Barney Frank calls “a weaponized version of Keynes”. Are we really supposed to believe, despite our terrible circumstances after their long hold on the reins of power, that we should trust their judgment once again going forward?

On Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher Newark’s Mayor Booker said discussions about our current problems shouldn’t be about “right and left” so much as whether we will look “forward or back”. His comment crystallized the national need to address our concerns in a rational, seriously bi-partisan manner - - working together to fashion a meaningful future, not standing aside regurgitating ideological dogma.

I recall a day at a nearby park filled with children of all colors, shapes, sizes, sexes and ages. It sticks in my mind because at some point, a few children decided to fashion a kind of fort on top of some large boulders. Little by little other kids climbed up and began helping collect branches, twigs and what-have-you to enhance the project. They did all this almost wordlessly; no harsh words were exchanged, nor was anyone denied entry into the endeavor. For the most part, the participants didn’t know each other; they just decided the task was worth doing and wanted their handiwork to be part of it.

Perhps the community effort those children in the park enjoyed won’t find expression in the political world any time soon. Still, their cooperative venture might serve to instruct those who would presume to lead us through the perilous times that confront us. It may be time to put aside childish things, but not the sense of accomplishment those kids experienced in finding common ground and building something together.

Just when you might have thought we could move on and start setting things right after eight years of Republican missteps, familiar figures, no matter how discredited, keep reappearing to hawk their outlandish rhetorical wares. It's enough to bring on an apoplectic episode. As Yogi Berra was known to say "it's déjà vu all over again".

How did we ever imagine we could avoid the vitriol that fuels the Republican political machine? Why are we surprised at the number of hate-filled disciples who cheer on the most outrageous, virulent and insubstantial of standard bearers? Nevertheless it is rather surprising that, at a time of great economic and strategic peril, a party furious about losing Congress and the White House and in an absolute frenzy to advance its political goals would pursue an unabashedly partisan agenda whatever the cost.

The mainstream media pretends to provide a balance in terms of news coverage. But Karl Rove, Tom DeLay? Didn't we see enough of these borderline villains in the past? Why are they included at roundtables and afforded the courtesy of interviews by veteran, if vacuous, newscasters? And MSNBC's intellectually-challenged Joe Scarborough of Morning Joe appeared on last Sunday's Meet the Press as if his opinion merited special attention. David Gregory, so recently an NBC reporter, and a regular on Morning Joe now moderates Meet the Press; Joe's role seemed more incestuous than news-worthy.

And what are we to make of Mika Brzezinski, Joe's sidekick who speaks kindly of Sarah Palin and says "I love Rush", a "great communicator" and "great thinker". I'll accede to the communicator part. After all he has a huge syndicated following, but thinker? not so fast. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mika's distinguished father, must be puzzling over her approval of such light-weight intellects having called Scarborough "stunningly superficial" during a recent guest appearance. Perhaps an item on Buzzflash from Windy City Watch explains Mika's turn to the right. She and Joe will host radio's WABC-AM 10 to noon time slot that serves as a "lead-in" to Rush Limbaugh - - check!

In the evening there is blessed relief when Keith Olbermann and Rachel Madow take over at MSNBC. Partisans to be sure, yet they are respectful enough of their viewers to comb through the detritus of right-wing punditry to get to the bottom of things, perchance the truth - - an approach more investigative than pejorative. By contrast, a mere click away, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity host the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Morris who shamelessly reinvent the recent past, accuse Obama of trying to turn the country into a socialist enclave and place the blame for a faltering economy on his shoulders.

As a general matter, there's one little difference in how partisans in the two parties operate. Actually it's rather a large difference. When George Bush was in office, Democrats weren't hoping he'd fail. Obviously he had already failed when he chose to invade Iraq; with his belated response to the plight of those roof-top survivors after Katrina (remember his trip to Arizona to deliver a birthday cake to John McCain during those early hours?) and by enacting tax cuts when the cost of military action in Iraq and Afghanistan was draining our resources. Most of us just wanted his presidency over. Unfortunately that didn't happen soon enough to prevent his failure from becoming ours.

And that of course is the point. Republicans, most especially the conservative wing, keep saying they want President Obama to fail. And try as they might to claim it is only his policies they do not support, the reality is that if his policies fail the country fails as well. No amount of flag lapel pins or flag-draped platforms can mask the underlying fallacy that theirs is a patriotic endeavor to protect the nation from massive debt and European-style socialism.

Thus was the CPAC convention over the weekend a reminder of the Stepford throng that gathered to celebrate itself. Imagine an hour and a half of Rush Limbaugh, waving his arms and jumping up and down as he warmed to the waves of audience affection he seems to crave so desperately. Outsiders could only marvel at the spectacle. The fact that there is an argument in Republican circles about who speaks for the party is an indication of how far afield the base has roamed and how bereft of actual ideas the party is.

Oh, and about that debate Rush wants with the president, it already took place - - during the campaign. And Obama won.

On a recent Washington Journal Jeb Hensarling, member of the House from Texas, epitomized the quintessential Republican, excluding of course the extreme conservative wing that feeds on the claptrap offered up by Rush Limbaugh, Michele Malkin, Ann Coulter and the rest of the hot-air crowd. With his more measured, albeit hollow rhetoric, Hensarling articulates his party's centrist and bewildering position that the old is actually new, and that what failed in the past can be the engine of success in the future.

Republicans claim they lost recent elections because they abandoned their principles of smaller government, reduced spending and lower taxes. It seems not to matter that people at the top became wealthier from the Bush tax cuts but failed to create jobs, undertake innovative ventures or do much other than buy luxury goods and second or third homes and maybe even squirrel away some of that governmental largess in secret Swiss bank accounts. Had it been otherwise the country wouldn't be in crisis mode and we would all be luxuriating in the deep pools of prosperity that would have trickled down around us.

It was the beleaguered "little guy" who saw jobs outsourced, lost health-care benefits and watched pensions disappear and private retirement funds hit the skids. At the same time health-insurance costs soared and home values deteriorated. But Republican politicians like Hensarling keep up the relentless drill about conservative values. And what one hears from them most often is that the housing market fell apart because ne'er-do-well buyers indulged in sub-prime mortgages for homes they couldn't afford. It isn't noted as often that lending institutions thought they'd hit the mother lode when they bundled iffy loans into security derivatives they labeled Triple-A investments feigning stunned disbelief when their pyramid schemes backfired.

Hensarling maintains the country's economy suffers from three things - - taxation, litigation and regulation. And he describes a "Democrat trifecta" of debt, spending and a lower standard of living for the next generation. Business taxes are too high he says without mentioning those dummy corporate addresses that shelter income in the Caymans and elsewhere. Basically, lower-echelon workers are the ones that absorb the impact of lower wages and the loss of health benefits while corporate executives earn huge salaries and depart with enormous retirement packages. But in the Republican playbook, criticism of executive salaries is an assault on Capitalism. Score another one for corporate greed.

And what is his solution to the country's economic plight? It's simple: "zero out" capital gains taxes for two years and lower tax brackets across the board. There you have it. Hensarling claims investors are "sitting on the sidelines" waiting for a more favorable financial climate, but with a few adjustments they'd be climbing all over each other to get back in the game. He points to John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan as examples of how lowering taxes begat larger revenues and revived the economy. Of course Reagan left a huge deficit behind so perhaps his economic policies weren't cause for celebration after all. Besides those were the good old days compared to what the country faces now.

As Alcee Hastings of Florida pointed out on the House floor, in supporting a mortgage relief bill; it isn't only irresponsible home-buyers who are on the brink of financial ruin. In the face of a "global set of circumstances" he said even working families who have played by the rules are increasingly at risk, and when neighbors lose their homes, entire neighborhoods and communities are jeopardized. As for the "gentle lady" from North Carolina, Rep. Fox, who kept referring to a "welfare mentality" and "rewarding bad behavior" Hastings responded that the bill wasn't about "welfare", but about extending a helping hand to struggling neighbors during a time of great economic upheaval.

Addressing the country's problems isn't simply about working through conflicting ideologies; it's about rethinking some long-held beliefs and coming to grips with the realities of a new and complex environment. Old-School syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, theorizes that the founders thought everyone should do for himself and says we have become a society of "food stamps and welfare" to help those who "don't succeed".

How extraordinary it is that so many people profess to know what "the founders" were thinking and how their thoughts affected the daily lives of our forbears. I can't be sure, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that back at that simpler time, in the early days of the republic, people in the community reached out to help their neighbors in times of need.

The persistence of the improbable ‘fact', the bromide and the absolutely false premise in our daily media diet makes a mockery of our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech. Too often what passes for news coverage and the air time given over to divergent opinions become platforms for radical flame throwers.

After Tuesday's speech, on Fox, Sean Hannity was firing questions at a Democratic member of Congress. "Answer my question" he kept saying as he tried to get the man to acknowledge "nine-thousand earmarks" in the projected budget, obviously not something the guest was prepared to address. For his part, Hannity was not inclined to admit that Republicans accounted for almost half of them. As Republican Senator Ensign has said, ‘there are some worthy projects in those earmarks'.

On PBS, conservative columnist, David Brooks, agreed the president delivered a timely, well-constructed, inspiring speech and was visibly shaken at the inept, vapid response delivered by Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal. As MSNBC's Keith Olberman had suggested prior to the evening's speeches, Jindal would probably be forced to spin toward the old-time conservative party line and that he did.

Resorting to the fiscal responsibility argument and criticizing the recovery package for being more about spending than stimulus, Jindal reworked the usual Republican themes. Inexplicably, he included a curious reference to individual rescue efforts that were hampered in the wake of Katrina by insurance requirements and regulations - - as if the federal government's failure to act paled in the face of what locals could have achieved if it were not for regulatory excesses. Though many inside and outside the party describe Jindal as a rising star there were no flashes of brilliance Tuesday night.

What is most amazing, as Republicans strive to regain their footing, is how ill-prepared the party is to address national concerns with a fresh set of ideas and how often they resort to gimmicks, deception and intolerance. Claims that no-one read the stimulus bill are absurd. Most of it had surely been read. In the end all that was required was to review changes made during the reconciliation process. Likewise the constant repetition by members of Congress and their mimics in the media that the recovery bill contains a provision granting ACORN billions of dollars has taken on a life of its own even though it is a complete fabrication, fraught with racial innuendo.

The fact is that the country, for the most part, has moved on. Informed young people, especially, don't embrace the politics of division and find it difficult to understand why racial differences are an issue. They are willing to listen to what politicians are saying and, if skin color is an obvious visual state, it isn't the defining reason for them to support or reject a candidate. In fact some in this relatively new group of voters are frankly astonished at attempts to make race a factor in elections.

Yet the obvious implications of the chimpanzee cartoon in The NY Post, for example, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, are dismissed by some who refuse to concede the effects of such a caricature - - its dangerously inflammatory message and its attempt to diminish the status of a segment of our population and the president himself. Apparently, some in our midst don't want hatred and prejudice to die, perhaps because they have been useful political weapons. Being white was that one thing that allowed some people to feel superior when they were otherwise inferior. In the absence of ideas and logic, racial animosity could be counted on as a reliable club with which to batter opponents.

It is the left-behind folks who continue to use the subtle and not-so-subtle stereotypes that served their purposes in earlier times. An email picturing watermelons spread across the White House lawn came with the message "no Easter egg hunt this year". No doubt, Republican Mayor Grose of Los Alamitos, CA, who sent the e-mail, thought it amusing. Don't politicians who find this sort of thing funny realize how out of touch they are, how insulting their world view is and how damaging their foolishness is to their party? Or does this stuff still resonate with that swath of bigots and knuckle draggers who can be counted on to fold such garbage into their personal set of Republican values?

It may be that a visionary leader and a better informed, more receptive citizenry will carry us beyond our small-minded past and lead us to a period of enlightenment. A more conscientious media wouldn't hurt either.

It probably isn't good for anyone to be angry all the time. It can be tough on one's vital organs - - the combination of anger and stupidity potentially lethal. Yet the proponents of perversity, despite a florid appearance and flaming rhetoric, appear unimpaired by their perpetual angst. It is those of us on the receiving end of their mindless rants who are most at risk and who must learn to endure the assault on our sensibilities as calmly as possible.

The opposition is eager to hang the recession on Obama's shoulders. They criticize his recovery plan and voted against it yet went back to their districts to extol the benefits constituents would realize from its projects. It is perhaps assumed by politicians,

critics and pundits alike that they will be forever blessed with an audience of total idiots, and forgetful idiots at that. Whether it is Republicans intent on scrubbing the Bush legacy or the chorus of right-wing media creatures, there is no letup in the rewriting of history and the constant babble of criticism for any new idea broached by the administration.

Predictions about the future and the reappearance of thoroughly discredited figures from the past contribute to the diminished state of today's political analysis. Right-wing pundits claim that the surge won the war for us in Iraq. Follow-up question please; if that is true, why are we still there in large numbers and at great expense? But even some respected news analysts have adopted a wait-and-see attitude about how the Iraq adventure will be judged in the future. Still, Iraq will never have been the right thing to do no matter how things turn out years from now, unless invading other countries because we don't like their leaders or want to soak up their oil is reason enough.

Adding to the national dissonance Alan Keyes has resurfaced. Transported to Illinois by Republicans to run against Obama for the Senate he was generally considered part of the lunatic fringe. But there he is, wild-eyed as ever, questioning Obama's birthright and calling him a communist. Okay, he manufactured another five minutes of fame for himself; henceforth he should be ignored.

Other things are not so easily ignored, nor should they be. If the New York Post thinks one of those "if-anyone-was-offended" apologies will do they are wrong. A Post cartoon depicting a chimp shot dead by two white cops with the caption: "we'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill" is not funny, not satiric and not "just a cartoon" as the Post suggests. It is a deplorable example of the lowest journalistic denominator - - an insult to people of color, the president and every decent person in the country. It shouldn't be only African Americans protesting in front of the Post's offices.

Have we lost all sense of connection to one another? Has "me first" just become "not you" and humor turned into an exercise in ugly? Now, as the country struggles to cope with its terrifying economic decline, many continue to avert their eyes from the suffering of others and withhold their support from a new president - - some to further their own political ambitions, some because they are blinded by ideological parameters that keep them from accepting change that contradicts long-held convictions.

People who have been financially responsible may resent the use of tax dollars to help those who haven't ‘kept-up'. But most foreclosed families didn't buy houses to flip; they bought homes to live in, and were often undone by circumstances beyond their control. Individual foreclosures are so great in number they have devalued entire neighborhoods. Hedge-fund operators, speculators and lending institutions that helped design fraudulent mortgage derivatives share much of the blame for the collapse of the housing market.

Unfortunately, commentary on the economic crisis is often as clear as what one hears when a radio is stuck between signals. Political motivation has a tendency to distort whatever attempts are otherwise being made to clarify the national condition. The minute a politician says things like "let's be clear" as Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal repeatedly did in a recent interview, what's clear is that you're going to get someone's political agenda.

It's hard to say what will finally get people to stop turning on each other the way survivors in an over-loaded lifeboat often do. For Republicans so far it's been all about obstruction, distraction and looking forward to 2010 and beyond in hopes of reviving their political fortunes. The rest of us can only hope that some sense of partnership takes shape because the country really needs that to happen if it is to prosper once again.