CNN's Western States Debate

CNN hosted a Republican Presidential nominee debate tonight. I'm trying to watch as many of these as I can, which is enough of a challenge (there's something like 10 of the damn things left- I didn't watch that many when they featured candidates I liked!), but taking detailed and unbiased notes is harder still. Regardless, I'll do what I can. For simplicity's sake, I'll try to break this down by candidate, but not all candidates spoke on every issue, and I missed some of it towards the end.

Undaunted, we continue! Remember that this is a summary, half for my own benefit, so I can write up an over-arching response later on.

Rick Santorum

• On Cain's 9-9-9 plan, raised the issue that this plan will cost as much for a single man as it will for a family; he said this is bad because he wants to encourage people to have families, but Cain's idea would be like taxing people for having children.

Newt Gingrich

• On Taxes: Said that people need to slow down with all this talk about repealing this tax or that tax immediately; tax reform needs to be cautious and measured to ensure its done right.
• On the Environment: Claimed that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, might be the best place to consolidate nuclear waste, but that he wasn't personally a scientist, so he couldn't say for sure. He went on to say that we should listen to the scientific community very carefully when they recommend where to put this waste... stopped short of saying that Nevada should be required to handle it, but said that having America's nuclear waste spread out in little piles around the country is immensely dangerous and that it should be consolidated somewhere.
• On Spending Cuts: Said that Defense shouldn't be arbitrarily cut by a committee that has no idea what's worthwhile and what's not.

Michelle Bachmann

• On Taxes: Claimed Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would actually cost far more than he let on, because of what she called an "Added Value Tax"; essentially, the 9% tax would hit a product every time it moved along a chain of production (example: 9% on raw iron ore, 9% again on its refined product, another 9% federal tax when someone bought the purified iron and worked it... etc).
• On Obama: Claimed that Barack Obama's aunt and uncle are illegal aliens in this country.
• On Foreign Aid: Said that Israel should be exempt from any cost-cutting spree that we hit foreign aid with, because they're our closest allies in the region.
• On Immigration: Wants to build a "double-wide" fence across the border.

Herman Cain

• On Taxes: Defended his 9-9-9 Plan. Again. And again.
• On Health Care: Mentioned HR3400.
• On Occupy Wall Street: Believes the protesters want a handout; doesn't understand why they're not protesting at the White House.

Ron Paul

• On OWS: Challenged Cain's assumption that the protesters want a handout; claimed their anger stems from a lack of prosecution of the people who gamed the system.
• On Foreign Aid: Supported cutting all foreign aid.
• On Spending: Supported cutting from everywhere, Defense included. Claimed that keeping the military so well-funded supports Imperialism, which actually makes us less safe due to the ill will it creates.
• On Taxes: ...Seriously? When has Ron Paul ever liked taxes?

Rick Perry

• On Immigration: Claimed that you could build a fence, if you wanted to, but that it'd take forever to do and cost billions. Supported instead a fence in some areas, Predator drones in the sky for reconnaissance, and military boots on the ground as the primary defense against incursions.
• On Health Care: Responded to Romney's claim that "there are more uninsured children in Texas" by saying it's because illegal aliens surge into the state, and that the Federal government hasn't done its job in keeping them out. Also slammed Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts, calling it the basis for "Obamacare" and that it only worked because of massive Federal backing during the Bush administration.
  
• On the Environment: Said the Yucca Mountain issue was a 10th Amendment (State's rights) issue.

Mitt Romney

• On Health Care: Defended his Mass. plan as a state taking care of that state's own issues, and said it should never have been forced on the rest of the country. Bashed Perry for having more uninsured kids in Texas than... any other state? I can't remember. Point is, "too many uninsured kids to be proud of your state's health care record".
• On Immigration: Supported a combination of fences, Predator drones, military personnel, an "e-Varify" system to ensure that employers know their workers aren't illegal, and "turning off the magnets" that draw illegal aliens to the country (removing tuition for illegal immigrants, punishing companies that employ them, etc). Blasted Perry for the percentile increase in illegal aliens in the recent past as compared to California and Florida; said those states' levels had plateaued, while Texas' had increased by 60(?) percent.
• On Religion: Claimed that the religiously-based moral character of a candidate is paramount, but that any religion could provide such character; bashed Perry and pastors that have spoken at his events for claiming outright or implying that Christianity would be the only acceptable religion for a President.

Again, this post is more for me to get my ideas in one place, and to summarize things for anyone who might read this. I'll dissect what went down in a later post.

Can I Get an OCC-U-PY

I went to an Occupy D.C. protest this past Friday. It was an interesting experience- I hadn't done any protesting since President Bush's inauguration, and I was only a teenager then. We posed for some pictures (that arial shot of people making a giant "99%" with their bodies? I'm in that. Left-hand side of the second 9. ^^), marched to the US Chamber of Commerce, marched a little more and then headed back to the square we were occupying. I left around the time someone got on stage and started singing about all the great communists he'd known... wasn't really my scene anymore, at that point, but I think it was good that I went.

Anyhow, a lot of talk has been going on about just what the Occupy movement is. So, to find out, I've started poking around their message board to see just what's up. It move pretty fast, so I'd be surprised if any of my original topics generate much in the way of a response yet, but just reading the boards provides a glimpse into the evolution of this group. Amid a lot of the "This movement is terrible!" and "Capitalism is evil!" posts, one of the topics I've seen a couple times is this:
"Occupy needs to work with the Tea Party".

I hope I start hearing that more and more often.

More Forthcoming

Found this; will be looking into it when I stop frothing.

Koch Industries Sold to Iran

Debt Man Walking: The Verdict

So, after reading this bill over and letting it peculate a little, I've come to a conclusion about it. In short, the entire affair is a sham.
Allow me to explain. After displaying unparalleled brinksmanship and a profound ignorance about the potential consequences of defaulting, Congress agreed on a plan that is almost entirely spending cuts. However, to satiate the Left, the debt deal included the creation of a "Supercongress", which is really nothing more than a committee whose task is to come up with a plan to reduce America's deficit. This group of 12 people is made up of six conservatives and six liberals; six from the House and six from the Senate. They've got until December to present the nation with their grand plan, at which point their resolution must get an up or down vote; if it doesn't, then huge spending cuts go into effect- half from domestic spending and half from military spending.

Here's the problem.

Section 402(e)(2) states that if the House accepts the Supercongress' resolution first and sends it to the Senate, then the thing must be voted on posthaste and cannot be sent to another committee to be altered. BUT, if the Senate accepts the resolution first and sends it to the House, the House can send it to a committee- if the resolution contains any revenue. In other words, the House can shuffle the entire Supercongress' work off to a committee if it has tax increases (or a removal of tax cuts to pre-Bush levels, for example).

Why is that bad?

The House, as you may know, is largely Republican. Many of these representatives have taken this pledge to never increase taxes on anybody. It's the brainchild of Grover Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform group that champions such causes as elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in the name of "free speech" (or, rather, speech only for those who can afford prime time costs without any government regulations stating channels must allot equal airtime for opposing viewpoints)... but I digress. Through Mr. Norquist's influence, it has become conservative dogma that increasing taxes on any business at all, even enormous multinational conglomerates, is unacceptable. The House, therefore, has the unique composition to push the entire Supercongress proposal into committee (should it contain any revenue language) where it will be detained at length, preventing meaningful debate on the House floor until the last minute. This is, of course, all before the overwhelmingly Republican House votes on it- which, if it contains revenue, will be a vote of (in all likelihood) "no". In this scenario, the bill fails, and cuts are enacted- but no revenue.

The inclusion of cuts to defense should the Supercongress' measure not pass is the only reason a Republican would vote on it; such an action could, in an election year, be painted as being "against the military" or "against jobs" (as a base closing in someone's district would be terrible press). But just as likely, in my eyes, is the opportunity that military cuts present the Republican party: the chance to say "Look how serious about reigning in government spending we are! We even slashed the parts of the budget we like!", without ever addressing the other half of the budget-balancing equation. Their corporate patrons, with their newly-minted Personhood thanks to Citizens United, will surely thank them for not pressing them to pay taxes.

The idea of the Supercongress as a compromise is, at its core, a falsehood; manufactured bipartisanship and nothing more. I expected more from the President's negotiations.

The "Debt Man Walking" Series: Translating WTF Just Passed Congress

Hoo mama, it has been a long time since I wrote anything. Its been a busy year, not only personally but for the country itself. The latest circus we were all just subjected to, as I'm sure you know, was the debt crisis debate.

Now, I have my opinions about this bill that was just passed, but before I mention any of them I want to provide you, my countless (read: two) readers with a copy of the bill in its unabridged, unedited format. This way, if you read my summary and decide "This guy is just full of it", then you can read exactly what Congress wrote and what I was referencing.
After that, I will post on each of the bill's five sections, providing summary on the points that caught my attention. I do condense many pages down into a handful of bullet points in some cases, but this was most often because the bill was setting pages of definitions, or listing nothing but budget limits for each of the next ten years, etc. If I missed something or misinterpreted it, as always, hit me up about it and we'll see if it needs changing.
Lastly, I'll provide my commentary about the bill as a whole.

But! Without further adieu, I give you:The Budget Control Act of 2011. Enjoy.

Debt Man Walking: Translating the Debt Bill's Fifth and Final Title

Title V (p. 71)- Pell Grant and Student Loan Program Changes
Section 501- Federal Pell Grants
Changes to the Higher Education Act of 1965 take place; in order to comment on them I would have to read that specific bill and see what the apparent funding changes actually refer to.

Sec. 502- Termination of Authority to Make Interest-Subsidized Loans to Graduate and Professional Students
Again, one would have to reference the aforementioned Section 501 act, but it seems as if...

• After July 1, 2012, no grad/professional student will be eligible for Federal Direct Stafford Loans (Sec. 502, (a)(1).)
• ...Unless you're studying the right major, which is listed in Paragraph 3 or 4B under 484b of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
• The most you could borrow from Unsubsidized Stafford Loans would be the maximum amount as set by (481(a)(2)) of the Higher Ed Act, plus an amount equal to the amount of Subsidized loans you could have gotten if (502(3)(ii)) hadn't been written into the 2011 Budget Bill. Um, what?

Sec. 503- Termination of Direct Loan Repayment Incentives

• Again, they go and amend the Higher Education Act by changing its language in certain parts, pursuant to their new July 1, 2012 deadline for loan changes. But that notwithstanding, after that date, new applicants for loans will not be eligible for repayment incentives of any kind (including reductions in interest, origination fees (?), etc).
• ...Unless the student agrees to have loan payments automatically withdrawn from a bank account (as opposed to mailing a check). If they agree to that, it seems like incentives like interest rate reduction are still on the table.

Section 504- Inapplicability of Title IV Negotiated Rulemaking and Master Calendar Exception
Certain sections of the Higher Ed Act (482(c) and 492) don't apply to this bill.

Debt Man Walking: Translating the Debt Bill's Fourth Title

Title IV (p.52)- Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction or The Supercongress.
Section 401
Their job is to cut at least 1.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021.

• It's going to be a 12-man team; 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans, 6 of whom are to come from the House and 6 of whom are to come from the Senate.
• The group is to have two Co-Chairs. The Speaker of the House is to select one of them, and the Majority Leader of the Senate is to select the other one, after the group's membership is chosen. They've got 14 days to do that from the time the Budget Bill is signed- so, by August 16th.
• The House and the Senate have until October 14th, 2011 to give their recommendations to the Supercongress for consideration.

Said Supercongress then has a little over one month, until November 23, 2011 to produce a report on its suggestions, complete with Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimations on how much money their plans will save (not only between 2012-2021, but beyond).

• The final version of the report only requires a simple majority of the committee members to sign off on it.
• If a committee member has any further thoughts or beef he/she wants tacked onto it, they've got three days to file it with the head of the committee (Sec 401, (b)(3)(B)(iii). )
• If the committee suggests rules that change the "Rules of the House/Senate", those parts of their report are only "suggestions".
• The final version of this report is due on Obama's desk by December 2, 2011. It's also due to the VP, the Speaker, and the Majority/Minority leaders in Congress. Furthermore, it's to be submitted to the public.

The committee needs 7 members present to hold a quorum, or, to call the session to order and get shit done. Proxy voting is not allowed. The Supercongress can hold hearings and compel witnesses to show up as needed. Public notice will be given at least a week in advance.

Section 402- Expedited Consideration of Joint Committee Recommendations
When the committee agrees on the finalized version of their report, it can be brought up for a vote the next business day. If the Supercongress gives their report to another committee for consideration, that committee has until December 9th to report their views to Congress, or else they can shut the hell up about it. Congress has to vote on the final report by December 23, 2011.

• The final version cannot be amended. Nor can it be postponed or delayed in any way, shape, or form (Sec 402, (c)(4).)
• If one house sends an approved version of the Supercongress' work over to the other, the receiving house can't send it through committee. It has to be voted on.
• ...Unless the case is that the Senate sends it to the house, and the measure sent to them is a Revenue measure. So essentially, if the Senate sends the House a measure about taxes, they can committee it. (Sec 402, (e)(2).)

Section 403- Funding
Both houses pay for the Supercongress' expenses.

Section 404- Rulemaking
The Houses make these rules as per their set and Constitutional powers.