Ann Davidow

Mythology isn't a thing of the past where gods and goddesses were used to explain the mysterious workings of the universe. The difference between then and now is that, while mythologists of old sought to explain the natural order of things, today’s myth makers invent stories to support shaky premises and tortured agendas. And they repeat their tales so frequently they are often mistaken for truth.

Republicans,for instance, just love the Acorn myth - - that the recovery package contains millions of dollars for the organization. And you know, they add, Acorn is being investigated in dozens of states for improperly registering thousands of new voters. But in fact, Acorn is not named in the recovery package. Moreover it seems Acorn was badly served by workers who created phony registrations just to collect a paycheck. In any case, did people actually run into registrants Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck at the polls?

It is further claimed that, because Acorn threatened to sue banks for refusing sub-prime loans to unqualified and presumably lower-income buyers - - people of color perchance - - the bad loans that resulted were the root cause of our current financial nightmare. Contrary to popular myth-making, however, mortgage defaults didn’t occur primarily at the lowest levels but across a broad spectrum of the market where rates ballooned beyond what many owners could afford to pay, especially if they faced job losses or illness.

Adding to the disarray, voracious middle-men phonied up loan documents, took their commissions and were gone. And banks, in unholy alliances with brokerages, sold under-valued mortgage derivatives as Triple-A instruments to investors who probably should have known better. The notion that Acorn was the prime mover in the sub-prime debacle is one of the more absurd myths making the rounds.

In general terms, to explain their disapproval of the administration’s stimulus and recovery plan, Republican leaders in Congress and their buddies in talk radio’s echo chamber work feverishly to embellish the myth of their fiscal responsibility by questioning what they describe as dubious projects. Is expanding broadband service really as stimulative as “shovel ready” projects they ask? In fact substantial funding for highway and bridge repairs is provided in the bill, but shovels and machines and workers will also be required to develop broadband facilities and to expand the electric grid.

With respect to proposals for a computerized internet file system of a patient’s medical history, claims from the fringe are that this is an intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens.What is meant to be a guide for possible treatment is described in semi-hysterical terms as a government intervention that will lead to “national rationing” and take medical decisions out of the hands of doctors. Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is one proponent of this myth. She also suggests that Republicans may not be tough enough in making their case because they are such “nice guys”. How either contention gains traction is almost as astonishing as the fact that people like Bachmann get elected.

Another myth-making favorite is that Obama has failed to participate in a good-faith bi-partisan effort; the assumption being that dialogue is the first step in making a deal no matter what the terms. Basically for Republicans, bi-partisanship seems to mean ‘let’s pretend we won.' Party leaders talk mostly about lower taxes, fiscal restraint and smaller government. They don’t seem to subscribe to the Obama principle that what’s important isn’t big government or small government but good government.

After eight years of Republican indifference to the nation’s crumbling infrastructure and economy, claims of the party’s financial integrity and moral authority ring a bit hollow. In their relentless pursuit of tax cuts rather than job creation and support for innovative manufacturing opportunities, the party is in a holding pattern of tired, shop-worn policies that fail to stir a worried nation in search of inspired leadership. In the opinion of most economists, spending is a greater stimulus than tax cuts. Besides tax cuts for the jobless are counterintuitive and add exponentially to the national debt.

The truth seems to be that the motivating force behind the Republican insurgency isn't so much ideological as it is a lust to regain power at whatever cost. Recently Newt Gingrich passed the mantle of leadership to Senator Eric Cantor saying he represented the core of “GOP resistance”. That pretty much tells the story; none of that bi-partisan, loyal opposition nonsense for these folks - - just unbridled hostility and defiance.

Republicans insisted that no-one in their party proposed "doing nothing" to repair the nation's fragile economy. Admittedly, the recovery bill was primarily a Democratic creation, but amendments and provisions were added or subtracted to attract GOP votes. Yet not one Republican in the House and only three in the Senate voted for the package. The truth is that by voting "no", most Republicans did in fact vote to "do nothing". Thus was the serious business of creating legislation overwhelmed by partisan inflexibility and celebrated with virtual standing ovations by party leaders and right-wing pundits alike.

During debate Republican speechifying honed in on tax cuts and real-estate sales. The suggestion, for example, that tax breaks for new home buyers would nudge the real-estate market towards its former glory days seemed to represent a magic bullet that would halt plummeting home values. It was postulated that, if the collapse of the housing market was at the core of the financial breakdown, new purchases would launch a recovery.

The problem was, of course, that providing the wherewithal for new purchases was hardly a prescription for a housing-market recovery. Too many people had lost jobs or equity, and banks were wary of issuing credit that could turn suddenly toxic. Besides, even among home-owners who were keeping up with their payments, mortgages had often outpaced the value of people's homes, so the thrill of ownership wasn't quite what it used to be. Call it what you will, and bailout serves, the banking system had to be rescued no matter how ineffective and indeed profligate some of its proprietors had been.

And so, hateful as it may be in the eyes of many ordinary Americans, it has become government's task to shore up credit markets. Republicans expressed great pride that they had held the line against the second round of bank bailouts and the recovery bill, in an apparent failure to comprehend the depth of the country's financial predicament. Without a healthy banking system the economy cannot rebound and without a forward-looking recovery program the American people will continue to face financial adversity.

In Congress, resistance was led by House Minority Leader Boehner who gets high marks for dramatic presentation. His wild-eyed assertion that the final bill arrived too late to be read before a vote was the phoniest of the indictments leveled at the legislation. As one Democratic lawmaker remarked, people who say they don't know what's in the bill and then criticize its particulars are being a bit inconsistent. But it was becoming clear that, while ideological differences exist between the parties, the real purpose of Republican defiance was to destroy Obama's credibility and make political points.

It could be argued, as conservatives do, that a quick fix fueled only by shovel-ready projects and across-the-board tax cuts are what's needed. They fear new government-inspired programs will endure and become a socialistic nightmare. The contention that the economy would recover on its own in time, however, is challenged by today's global interactions and the fact that our country no longer has the manufacturing base that once propelled it to the top of the world's economic order - - one reason for developing new alternative fuel technologies. The resulting jobs, facilities and environmental benefits would be home-grown and an ongoing source of economic vitality. Such projects, however, tend to be angst inducers for Republicans who object to ‘futuristic' ventures.

Many Republicans say "We know it won't work" about the recovery legislation, although no-one really knows for sure what will or will not work. Meanwhile, their rhetorical confederates concoct ridiculous ad hominem attacks. Sean Hannity's Friday guest was the always sour Bernie Goldberg, former CBS reporter and self-styled whistle-blower about purported media bias. His new book is The Slobbering Love Affair, starring Barack Obama, a "torrid romance between Obama and the mainstream media." The two engaged in an absurd, insulting discussion about how "liberal women" are sexually attracted to Obama and how journalism is "dead", apparently because it fails to pass Hannity-Goldberg standards, highlighting once again their mastery of hyperbole.

In closing, Hannity said his poll showed 81% of respondents would rather have a beer with him than with the president - - something of a relief since we know how things turned out when a lot of voters decided to elect a president with whom they'd like to have a beer. Voters are guilty at times of making frivolous matters part of the political debate. Last week, Republicans' "do nothing" vote showed their lack of seriousness about crafting solutions to alleviate the country's economic distress.

If you've been troubled by dizzy spells and blinding headaches you've probably been watching congressional debates on the Stimulus bill and enduring the partisan spin about why Republicans opposed it. You may also suffer from trance-like wonder at politically-inspired rewrites of history and media antics that pass for humor in some quarters.

Self-righteous claims by Republicans that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible are downright laughable. On Washington Journal, 2/10/09, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said Democrats were asking American taxpayers to "spend money we don't have on things we don't need". But haven't we been spending money we didn't have to carry on a war we didn't need to fight and re-building infrastructure in Iraq while our own crumbles? Never mind, Coburn said he prays for the president every day.

And in that wonderful way their party has of inventing fanciful distractions, Minority Leader McConnell suggested we were seeing the "Europeanization of America". Horrors, must be that Socialism thing. Citing a bunch of arcane figures regarding the percentage of government spending to GDP he also claimed government outlays have caused an upswing in that ratio, while his colleague Senator Ensign reflected on the dangers of inflation even as the country founders in a deflationary spiral. Their objective apparently is to include every possible angle that might support their opposition to the legislation.

One feature of their rationale is that The New Deal failed to end the Depression although it significantly reduced unemployment and created landmark programs. Conservatives maintain that government is poorly equipped to run what the private sector can handle more efficiently - - market forces and all that. But private enterprise couldn't stave off this recession. And today's corporate leaders have no sense of loyalty to their employees, which is why, when subscribers have questions about their credit cards, they find themselves talking to someone in India. On the other hand, questions about government-run programs like Medicare and Social Security are handled by people in this country who provide prompt, expert information and guidance. Remarkable isn't it?

The Republican Party rejects those who dare depart from strict observance of its most conservative agenda. The "Newsmax" organization, for example, accuses Senators Collins, Snowe and Specter, who voted for the Recovery plan, of betraying "the basic principles of the Republican Party, including a fiscally sound government" But Republicans, having held power for the past eight years and having done the bidding of a Republican president can hardly claim meritorious service. Their reliance on "the market", de-regulation and a spate of ill-advised spending, have left the country near ruin.

But the economy isn't the only pressing matter before the president. The detainee issue, two wars, Middle-East peace and nuclear proliferation are just a few of the challenges he must address. Given the serious nature of our times it is troubling that many politicians continue to devise self-serving, partisan schemes no matter how destructive to the political process. And humor has taken a turn for the twisted.

For the sake of a cheap joke Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Miller laughed themselves silly recently over their mock proposal to create a theme park called "Waterboard World" with Miller suggesting that pouring water into someone's nose would reduce the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and could be ‘sold' as "greenboarding", laughing off both a form of torture and environmental concerns. The best thing about realizing such a concept would be the opportunity to say to O'Reilly and Miller: "You go first."

Were Fox News devotees laughing along with these unfortunate relics or did even loyal fans turn away in disgust? Something seems to have gone missing in terms of the way we as a people respond to one another. Those who have spent their money wisely, paid their mortgages and worked hard, for example, often feel they are being punished for the bad behavior of others and don't relate to their suffering. Neither do they understand that many people have been overtaken by circumstances not of their own making and that we are all inter-connected, part of the human condition.

It's time to enter into a bargain with our country-men and women and help each other and our leaders find a way past our national distress. As poet John Donne put it so many years ago, "...send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee".

The answer to a recent question "who elects these idiots" is, unfortunately, a lot of misinformed, under-informed and willingly misled voters who opt for shtick over substance and who often get their marching orders from people like Rush Limbaugh. The question was prompted by Arizona Senator Kyl's claim that Obama used "dangerous words" when he said our economic crisis could become a "national catastrophe."

Kyl probably didn't accuse Condoleezza Rice of using "dangerous words" when she talked about "the smoking gun that could become a mushroom cloud" in the run-up to the Iraq war. The use of language and standards is ever-changing in the world of politics - - whatever makes an immediate partisan point being the only requirement. However, Obama's "words" as the economy continues to falter, are far more defensible than the mushroom cloud reference that struck fear into the hearts of so many Americans.

The floor debates in the Senate provided an opportunity for politicians to demonstrate how dense they can be. When Senator Jim Bunning, whose time as a Major League pitcher was surely more illustrious than his political career, read prepared remarks the other day he appeared to have no idea what the words meant. It wasn't just that he stumbled over concepts and pronunciations; he had the stunned look of someone who hadn't absorbed the essence of his remarks. Perhaps that's just his way, but it was painful to watch him. More unsettling it is reported that he received thousands of calls from constituents supporting Republican opposition to the stimulus package.

And on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough, a Republican member of the House before his TV gig, acts as if his time in Congress makes his views especially insightful.  Sidekick, Mika Brezezinski, occasionally disagrees. But, recently, as she was making a perfectly valid observation, he stopped her and said "I'm not going to let you say that" as if only he had the correct take on the matter at hand. Television and the internet often provide these little windows into the mindset of the people who pass our laws and decide our fate - - disturbing examples of how information-light many of them are and how they exemplify the line: "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

In recent days, several Obama nominees have been withdrawn over the issue of unpaid back taxes. And Republicans are now tying up the Hilda Solis nomination for Labor Secretary on the grounds that her husband had a tax lien on his business - - since paid. In reality it seems more the case that conservatives don't like her views on unions and are using her husband's situation as an excuse to postpone her hearing. Always quick with the one-liners, a Republican politician cracked that the reason Democrats don't mind raising taxes is that they never pay them - - ho, ho, but they aren't the only ones.

During the campaign, John McCain couldn't recall how many houses he and Cindy own one of which - - a condo in La Jolla - - owes four years back real-estate taxes. And in the past, McCain took trips on a private jet from his pal, Charles Keating. When that came to light during congressional investigations surrounding the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal, McCain paid what was deemed an appropriate amount for the flights and was only slightly tainted by his association with a crook.

Perhaps politicians who ascribe bad behavior to opponents are just ‘transferring' their own failings. The inability of congressional Republicans to stick to facts instead of playing partisan games is both tiresome and indeed destructive of the political process. For weeks now Republicans have been insisting that comments out of the Congressional Budget Office support their point of view although the report they cite dealt with just a portion of what was being called a stimulus bill. But in his Chicago Tribune column, 2/8/09, Clarence Page notes that economists like CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf say that all government spending in the recovery package "provides some stimulative effect."

It is often harder to deflect a lie than to assert the truth. Republicans have been playing to the anger on Main Street, but that anger is misplaced if it erodes trust in government programs designed to seek economic equilibrium and achieve financial security for individuals. Republicans continue to pretend they have an answer to something that began during an administration they supported. But one thing is certain; taking no action is not an answer to the country's financial woes. President Obama and Democrats need to do a better job of informing the public and making the case for the specifics of their recovery plan.

There is no excusing the rants of Dick Cheney who doesn't have the good judgment, common sense and decency to just go away - - read a book, have a glass of warm milk or rock quietly on a sunlit porch somewhere. And Republican holdovers in Congress seem incapable of grasping the gravity of the country's financial distress. John McCain proposed a stimulus package geared, typically enough, to tax cuts and defense spending and his colleagues take pride in their ignorance and economic naiveté.

In light of the scorched earth we now inhabit after eight years of fiasco government you'd think Republicans would show some restraint regarding the new president and forgo ideological ramblings and outrageous hypotheticals. Not these folks though; they continue to flaunt a sense of entitlement totally at odds with their disastrous performance when they were in power. In fact they want to continue their failed policies.

Dick Cheney is still holding forth about disproven data, questionable interrogation techniques and paranoiac visions of terrorists around every corner. But his assertion that another devastating attack on American soil might occur because President Obama is reexamining the Bush surveillance and detainee policies was despicable hyperbole even for him. He insisted, before the Iraq invasion and after as well, that just about everyone knew Saddam Hussein had WMDs and a nuclear program, despite the lack of evidence supporting that ‘knowledge'. How did such a malefactor come to play such a large part in our national life? Is he motivated by some contorted notion of patriotism, a lust for power or simply trapped in an irrational little ideological box?

It isn't unreasonable to imagine that Al Qaeda would like to attack us again. What is so detestable about Cheney's remarks, however, is his attempt to blame President Obama preemptively for any terrorist act that might occur during his presidency. What, one might ask, was Cheney doing in the nine months preceding September 11^th? Was he too busy planning partisan warfare to take Clinton's warnings seriously? After all, Bush gave him the responsibility of reviewing the previous administration's report on terrorism. He was supposed to be the ‘go-to' guy - - no hurry of course, just when he had time. But apparently he never had time until after the attack, if then. Oh well...

Now, as the country faces a gloomy financial future and a fractured political climate beyond our shores, the incoherent ramblings of the former vice president are an unwelcome distraction. Likewise a flurry of contrived stunts by the Senate minority undermines serious efforts to design a rational construct that would help reinvigorate industry and develop new technologies. The national condition calls for more than a quick fix; stale agendas disinterred from the dusty past are the surest path to disaster.

The American people shouldn't be fooled by proposals that would provide but a brief respite from deeper, more vexing problems. The Republican notion of a payroll-tax holiday would, for example, suspend funding for an already troubled Social Security system, and the suggestion to include defense spending in the package seems particularly ill-conceived. On the other hand, Democratic favorites like Head Start, as worthy an educational tool as it is, don't belong in the package either.

Stimulus proposals shouldn't be used as a dumping ground for partisan projects by either side. It is especially dispiriting that, in an effort to gain Republican support, the latest compromise contains significantly more tax cuts than originally intended. The package would have a greater stimulative effect if it increased funding for food stamps and helped states maintain programs and services for their citizens. But instead of a new direction and fresh ideas, partisan ideologues in Congress are exerting what in physics is called "aerodynamic drag" - - that "force on an object that resists its motion through a gas like air", in this case the force holding up Congressional action on an economic recovery.

Bi-partisan is a term that implies cooperation from the ‘loyal' opposition, not just an outstretched hand from the White House. If, after questionable proposals are expunged from the recovery package, the minority still withholds it support, it may be time for Democrats to say, "bring it on". Republicans will then need to decide if they really want to initiate a filibuster. It could be more unpleasant than they might imagine to be seen as obstructing legislation designed to create jobs, especially if Democrats succeed in selling the plan to the public. After all, tax cuts are irrelevant if you're unemployed.

It isn't easy for ordinary people to process the maze of stimulus proposals in legislation making its way through Congress. And Republicans have done an effective job of challenging the current package with a media blitz that has left Democrats playing defense. But let's face it; Democrats could be doing a better job of framing the debate as well as making sure the measures they suggest are recognizably stimulative and fiscally responsible.

The fact is there are lots of ways to energize markets. But the package would be more palatable if questionable items were pulled. Indeed some have already been removed. Still Republicans aren't on board and claim they were left out of the legislative process, although the House bill includes certain tax provisions precisely because President Obama was trolling for their support. Unfortunately, their acquiescence seems to require accepting the failed policies of the last eight years, and the threat of a filibuster hangs over proceedings in the Senate unless they get their way.

Democrats are accused of loading the recovery package with pet projects described as stimulus. But some bi-partisan agreement does exist - - for instance an amendment by Democrat Barbara Boxer and Republican John Ensign that would allow companies with sheltered off-shore income to bring profits back home at greatly reduced tax rates, providing some much needed tax revenue. Tax havens are, however, one of the more mystifying aspects of what is considered acceptable business practice in this country.

A favorite thesis of Republicans is that Roosevelt's New Deal didn't turn the tide of the Great Depression, World War II did. Actually, New Deal spending did significantly reduce unemployment and create viable, ongoing projects. According to economist Paul Krugman the economy stalled when, as the country recovered, Roosevelt was encouraged to balance the budget and restrain government spending. Today, Senator Ensign and his colleagues, want tax incentives, infrastructure projects and "encouraging people to work harder" to be at the center of any recovery program. For people working their tails off at stressful jobs or others who would be grateful to have, but can't find, even a stressful job, working harder is not the answer to their financial plight. That old pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps message is a hard sell in this economy.

On Wednesday, Senator Lieberman spoke in support of a Senate proposal that would provide a $15,000 gift for potential homeowners to help them purchase a home. He reasoned that such a windfall would encourage real-estate investment and revive the American dream of home ownership. But once again the nagging issue of jobs returns to perplex the notion that tax incentives and short-term projects, as opposed to job security, can reinvigorate an economy in need of stability and far-reaching, imaginative programs.

As businesses continue to outsource jobs and hire "independent contractors" instead of full-time employees with benefits, planning for the future, rather than just bandaging the wounds of currently malfunctioning banking and business models, should be a crucial element of any stimulus plan. But Republicans tend to resist what they consider to be financial restructuring, even though green and other technologies hold the promise of both near- and long-term employment as well as investment and business opportunities.

At one major corporation the Chief Technical Officer recently sent out a questionnaire asking employees to "justify" their jobs. The company intends to export much of its technical work to India so the questionnaire was a not-so-subtle indication that being unable to justify your presence probably meant you'd be clearing out your desk soon. The nation's tenuous employment picture should alert leaders to the reality that, while shovel-ready projects are a must, investment in technology and new industry are vital to the country's future economic health and should be part of decisions about how best to create jobs and stimulate the economy for the long haul.

Oddly, in Senate and House stimulus deliberations, the Republicans act as if they are still in charge. Saxby Chambliss on Wednesday even suggested that the current recovery package should be scrapped and a new one developed from scratch. Someone should send these guys a memo; constructive proposals are welcome, but calling the shots isn't part of their job description anymore. A new leadership team is in town.

Republicans, haven't yet found a way to deal with the disconnect between rhetoric and reality. One of the more puzzling elements of their current political pitch is a tendency to conflate ideological wishful thinking with meaningful policy-making.

What is one to make, for example, of Senate Minority Leader McConnell's claim that the biggest problem for Republicans in the last election was their poor "sales job"? What, one wonders, would have been an effective way to market failure and incompetence? And how do an economic collapse and huge job losses compute with the tax-cutting, trickle-down theories the party is still trying to sell?

Tony Blankley, conservative columnist, speechwriter and panel bloviator, says Obama would do well to keep the Bush tax cuts. It's as if the Blankleys of the 24/7 media world - - call them the niche people - - just can't let go of their favorite theories, even those that produce no favorable outcome in the lives of ordinary people for whom the Bush tax cuts provided neither wealth nor an improved standard of living, better services or job security. They cling in desperation to their precious corners of the political spectrum despite repudiation by voters and real-time events

And if you're Rush Limbaugh you start calling the country's financial implosion "Obama's recession", his "war on prosperity." Never mind that such statements make no sense, there are plenty of listeners who live by the superficial, un-sourced rantings of the radical right. True believers call media outlets and comment on blogs with what seem to be prepared statements straight from the right-wing gods. The remarkable thing is that supposedly reasonable politicians defend OxyContin-enthusiast Limbaugh. It's hard to say if they are motivated by fear of a backlash from Limbaugh loyalists or if they really think he's a constructive standard-bearer for the party.

Republican politicians were falling all over themselves last week either refusing to condemn Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" comment about Obama or apologizing for daring to take exception to various of his remarks. Senator McCain, who proves every day how grateful we should be didn't win the election, says Limbaugh is a "significant conservative voice" who deserves to be heard. Sadly the Limbaugh audience seems incapable of making a distinction between extremist opinion and fact. "I'm a thinker" he told Sean Hannity in a recent interview, as if his critics didn't do the thinking thing. To his mind, Democrats simply cannot create an environment that supports his vision of America - - free markets, low taxes, smaller government, the standard drill.

In any case GOP House and Senate members insist there should be more and deeper tax cuts in the stimulus/recovery/reinvestment package, call it what you will. Workers should be able to keep more of what they earn, they say. What seems to escape them is that when you don't have a job you don't have much disposable income. They trot out the popular theme that businesses are the best job providers - - true enough except when they're laying off or firing workers and closing factories and stores to protect their bottom line. The legions of unemployed won't benefit from lower taxes any time soon, and businesses will need more of a boost than the promise of tax relief to get up and running again.

In the midst of the wrangling over recession relief, Republicans have moved to create a more compelling party image by electing Michael Steele National Party Chairman. The fact that he's black and billed as a moderate will help, they feel, to put an inclusive face on a party more often seen as an old white man's enclave. But though Steele is said to be more centrist than many in the party, he still uses partisan discord and absurdist positions when he feels a need to attract conservative support.

Speaking before a Jewish group his suggestion that stem-cell research reminded him of experiments the Nazis undertook during the holocaust was outrageous nonsense. And saying that Obama is a "media creation", not necessarily possessed of leadership qualities, is proof of the party's threadbare agenda. Ad hominem attacks are stage front in the absence of ideas - - an indication that, while Republicans may have changed the skin color of their national leader, they haven't changed the content of their character.

Okay Boys and Girls of the Capitol, recess is over. You need to focus on what a well-fashioned stimulus package could mean to the financial future of Wall Street and Main Street. It must be a job-creating engine, but if it fails to support innovation and new industry it will have missed an opportunity to achieve meaningful progress.

Democrats pulled controversial items such as refurbishing the Washington Mall and funding family planning centers from the Stimulus Plan. Nancy Pelosi and the House leadership have to be more selective in picking their fights. Family-planning services may be a good cause, for instance, but it isn't worth the loss of political capital. On the other hand, the administration's effort to entice Republican support for the plan by adding more tax cuts than it would have preferred didn't have the desired result. Not one Republican in the House voted for the Recovery Package, their membership making much of the fact that infrastructure projects were under-funded. Maybe some of the tax cuts could be scratched to make room for more shovel-ready spending, a course of action favored by most economists in any case.

But Republicans keep promoting their pet ideological formulas. Senator McCain has suggested that Congress should "make the tax cuts permanent". Does he mean the Bush tax cuts? What did they do for the economy besides enrich the wealthy and drive an enormous deficit by reducing revenues in a time of war? "No new taxes", he says, adding that business taxes and payroll-taxes should be cut - - rolling out a tired-old Republican wish list that fails to acknowledge the impact of depleting revenue sources at a time when extraordinary financial pressures threaten an already faltering economy.

Pennsylvania representative Kanjorski, a democrat who voted against the stimulus package, thinks recovery funds should go directly to states and municipalities where officials understand local needs and have projects "ready to go". But nation-wide, labor-intensive projects that seem reasonable to some represent "pork" to others, a term politicians use to bad-mouth things they don't like. Former House Republican, Tom Delay, showed up recently articulating the right's ‘old-time religion', slipping the dreaded word "welfare" into discussions about the stimulus package.

Actually our current distress could provide an opportunity for us to take the lead in cultivating industries that are developing 21^st century technologies. Profitable green businesses exist right now, for example, and could help to create an indigenous workforce with jobs that can't be outsourced. Obviously, immediate economic relief has to be the core of any stimulus package, but there should be another component, some larger vision that propels us towards long-term financial security, not just stagger steps from one short-term solution to the next. It is unlikely that free markets and lower taxes will suddenly produce entrepreneurs to knock our socks off with brilliant new ventures. This is a moment for far-sighted government planning.

Unfortunately, investing in outlier projects like renewable energy seems to offend Republican sensibilities. Greening America and expanding the electric grid don't resonate with the base like drilling for oil, nuclear energy and ‘clean' coal. "Market forces", "smaller government" "lower taxes" and "less regulation" are the party's bedrock principles.

The reality is, though, that we can't borrow our way to economic recovery, and we can't reasonably reduce spending or suddenly decrease the size of government either. What hasn't been part of the debate is the obvious fact that new revenue streams must be found, and that will involve making tough choices - - some combination of taxes and/or fees, perhaps a war tax? to reduce the nation's rising debt service while continuing to prime the economy with an infusion of government spending.

Government must protect the country not just from external threats but from internal ones as well. It cannot stand aside and allow its citizens to be buffeted by the vagaries of institutions left to their own devices in the name of letting markets work - - until disaster strikes. And that will require establishing sensible regulations to shield the public from fiscal intransigence. Our political system is meant to be people friendly not just business friendly; somehow we've gotten off track and forgotten that founding principle.

The old dogmas and tired partisan rhetoric just won't do anymore. The time has come to put away childish things and confront the challenges we face like adults.

An army of mythmakers is hard at work in Washington and across the nation claiming to be inspired by principle, but motivated in reality by partisanship and self-promotion. Congressional Republicans, who borrowed and spent us into oblivion, now use what little political capital they have left promoting thrift, balanced budgets and tax cuts. Editorial writers and pundits tackle everything from Guantanamo to Obama's stimulus proposals.

It isn't surprising that former Bush speechwriter, Marc Thiessen, would use familiar prose regarding torture and the decision to close Guantanamo. In his Washington Post op ed, (1/22/09) Thiessen relies on the fear-mongering so deeply embedded in the Bush administration rhetoric. His main thrust seemed to be, that if our government relies on Army Field Manual guidelines for interrogations, we "will effectively kill a program that stopped Al Qaeda from launching another September 11-style attack." Any future attacks, he suggests, would be the result of not using "enhanced interrogation techniques" and thus Obama's fault.

What is surprising, however, is that Thiessen and others claim so insistently that Guantanamo has been and continues to be a lynchpin in our national defense. For one thing it is hard to imagine that anyone who has been held for five or more years remains a valuable source of intelligence. And questions persist about just who we've been holding all this time - - where they were picked up and on whose authority. Why, in any case, weren't combatants captured on foreign soil incarcerated in prisons in those regions instead of being whisked off to the never-never-land of Guantanamo?

Strangest of all, perhaps, is that Thiessen and other Bush supporters are so anxious to place the burden of failed policies firmly on Obama's shoulders. If, they say, dangerous terrorists are freed they will continue trying to destroy "our way of life." Moreover, they add, these detainees were not in uniform nor were they part of an identifiable national military force. Accordingly, they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions and are not entitled to the judicial procedures established for ‘legitimate' prisoners of war. The problem is that a general concept such as ‘a war on terror' precludes an end to specific military operations. Imprisonment in such circumstances has no term limits.

How to dig our way out of the morass left by the Bush administration is the question of the day and years to come. Our economy, conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ire of a defeated and demoralized Republican Party all play into the national dilemma. Obama rejects "the false choice between our safety and our ideals" and is attacked for being soft on defense in another round of pseudo patriotic scare tactics.

And, as our financial condition worsens, conservatives make a strident case for more tax cuts and less spending as a means of stimulating the economy - - perhaps a payroll-tax holiday and a reduction in the capital gains tax though how either would create jobs is a mystery and jobs must form the basis for any recovery. Besides payroll taxes fund Social-Security benefits; imagine if George Bush had succeeded in ‘reforming' social security and private accounts had been thrust into a stock market now in serious distress.

There are compelling reasons to debunk some of the popular myths making the rounds, one of which is that President Bush kept the country safe, which is true only if one leaves 9/11 out of the mix. No satisfactory explanations have ever been given for why warnings were ignored and our ports of entry and departure left so vulnerable. President Clinton had cautioned that terrorism would be a major concern, and urgent intelligence "chatter" said  Al Qaeda was "determined to strike" in the United States. Bush had been in office for almost nine months, eight years after the first Trade Center attack, but had paid little attention to the matter of Al Qaeda's intentions. And then of course there was Katrina. Surely it's a stretch to credit him with having been a responsible steward of our security.

It is often said that repeating an unproductive course of action and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Tax cuts, especially in a time of war, haven't made us prosperous; torture, intrusive domestic surveillance and pre-emptive military action have given us a false sense of security and diminished our stature abroad. Obstructionist tactics supporting the failed strategies of our recent past cannot be defined as the actions of a "loyal opposition" and do not conform to the wishes of an electorate that voted for change in November.

Just as a vigorous, new president and his team begin to seek redress for the sins of both omission and commission in our recent past, relentless standard-bearers on the right stand ready to recommit the country to the  mindless agenda so many voted to end. As philosopher William James put it: "The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths" in the sense that people form stubborn attachments to long-held views whether or not they have borne intellectual fruit or good results.

On the financial front Republicans reaffirmed their rote positions at a recent economic conference - - that, for example, the only viable means of promoting a sound economy is to cut taxes and let "market forces" work. Mitt Romney read from prepared remarks apparently retrieved from his primary speeches - - not inspiring save for the party faithful and those who would ignore the downside of his record as a corporate phenom.

As a presidential candidate he said "jobs come and go" but that he would fight for every single job, a promise not evidenced in his pursuit of personal wealth. He amassed a huge fortune venturing capital, but his business model, whatever the ultimate success or failure of his decisions, always included massive layoffs and firings. And his answer to the country's current economic dilemma is to implement "cost-cutting and restructuring." To that end he submitted that state employment rolls, pensions and health-insurance-premium sharing "should be high on the hit list." Same old, same old. It is astonishing that making the case for more of the bad result we are currently experiencing makes sense to Romney and other conservatives.

Curiously, although we are in a deep recession and a stalemate on two fronts in the Middle East, claimants on the right insist, as Fred Barnes did recently on Fox News, that Iraq is a success and how could anyone say otherwise, adding that Bush inherited an earlier recession from Clinton. It isn't enough for Bush supporters to rewrite history a few years hence; they have begun rewriting it right now before our very eyes.

Let's be honest, invading Iraq can never be made right because we began a war of choice that left untold numbers of Iraqis dead, millions homeless, and over four thousand of our own forces killed, countless others maimed in body and mind. Unless we think it is our mission to run around the world spending treasure and human life establishing corrupt forms of what some like to call democracies, the past eight years simply do not represent foreign-policy triumphs.

In Congress Republican pols, proclaiming themselves proponents of the party's values, are holding up Attorney General Designee Holder's confirmation in an attempt to make him agree not to pursue possible illegalities in the Bush administration. Holder already ran up against Senator Kyl's hypothetical about whether torture would be acceptable if a terrorist had planted a nuclear device somewhere in New York City. Skirting established constitutional and international regulations has been the Republican way, and apparently Senators Cornyn, Kyl and others want to keep ‘that way' alive.

The media is likewise belaboring some of the issues being addressed by the Obama administration. On "Morning Joe" the numbingly obtuse Joe Scarborough and ‘analyst' Pat Buchanan discussed torture and the closing of Guantanamo. Buchanan has dug up figures indicating that freed detainees often appear on the battlefield again, although I wonder if most of our forces could easily identify repeaters. For his part, Joe, having watched, one imagines, far too many episodes of TV's "24", kept referring to a "rabid left" that doesn't understand the threat terrorists pose, most of whom, he apparently believes, have ready access to nuclear devices they carry with them at all times.

Radio's Rush Limbaugh proves once again how downright despicable he is saying about Obama, "I hope he fails." At a time when the country needs the best we all have to offer, it is sad that one so depraved has a syndicated outlet for his vitriol. On Thursday's "Washington Journal" a caller, who might well be one of his regulars, said she was ashamed of her country and that she believed President Obama to be the anti-Christ.

One can only wonder at the lunacy that animates many on the right and hope that a clear-eyed approach to our problems will crowd out the dithering and dangerous excesses that have beset our country for too long.