The New York Times is reporting that “Boehner and Obama Nearing Deal on Cuts and Taxes.”  We can only hope this is accurate.

It is difficult to understand the debate in Washington over the debt ceiling.  After all the debts that are being debated are those that have already been created.  Congress made the commitments and now wants to renege on their promise to pay back the money owed.  At the same time the country is continuing to borrow more money even though there is little chance that the nation can repay the money already borrowed.  It’s mystery why anyone would continue to buy bonds and treasury notes when the country cannot live within its means.  Still they do buy those bonds and at interest rates that are remarkably low.

So President Obama says he is agreeable to cutting government spending by $4 trillion over the next decade but the Republicans are saying no to that deal because they do not want to raise the debt ceiling.  The president looks like the reasonable guy in the room and the Republicans look foolish.  Perhaps it’s the gadfly, Grover Norquest, who has them in knots.  After all he has not been elected to any office.  Perhaps it was the promises of new GOP members of congress that has them tied in knots.  At the end of the day those new members along with other conservative congressmen seem to prefer putting the nation’s AAA financial rating in jeopardy than living up to the government’s commitments.

In a way this foolish debate is like the scariest roller coaster I have ever ridden.  Every once in a while someone does fall off.  Is that what is going to happen to the United States?  I am gripping the bar they bring down as I seat myself on the coaster.  I am asking, why did I choose this ride?  Wasn’t there another more fun thing to do in the carnival?

Michigan Representative Thaddeus McCotter is running for president.  His website lists five core principles of his candidacy, including the notions that:

—Our liberty is from God not the government

—Our sovereignty is in our souls not the soul

—Our security is from strength not surrender

—Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector

—Our truths are self-evident not relative

I might agree with some of these thoughts but I want to hear his explanation. 

What does ‘Seize Freedom!’ mean?  Thaddeus McCotter has some ‘splainin’ to do.

Weekly Initial Job Claims have been above the 400,000 level for the past 11 weeks.  That number includes this past week.  “President Obama’s big Afghanistan speech caused nary a tremble in the polls.  Before he spoke, most Americans didn’t support him.  And after?  His popularity continues to sink” are the words of Wayne Simmons on HumanEvents.com.  What’s a politician to do?  Why not release some oil from the national reserve?  That’s it!  And so 30 million barrels will be released even though there is no shortage, gasoline prices are falling, and Saudi Arabia has quietly increased its production.

The Los Angeles Times front page story on June 24 calls the decision a “Hail Mary Pass” to help boost the economy. Really?  Lower gasoline prices will induce business to start investing or consumers to start spending when they save 50 cents a gallon.  That is a dream.

Is this “change we can believe in?”

You had to be a political junky to watch the entire event. I am, so I did! I did not watch any of CNN’s after the debate appraisal because I know they have their jobs to protect. Frankly it was an uninformative event that focused on Barack Obama rather than focusing on the differences between the participants. Their unwillingness to define their differences makes a selection in a primary rather difficult.  Tim Pawlenty’s refusal to confront Romney after previously calling the Obama health care program “Obomney Care” certainly told us something about Mr. Pawlenty.

The most important impressions were associated with Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann offered short precise answers that will garner praise from her followers. Bearing five children and fostering 23 children certainly is an accomplishment that deserves significant praise. Her attacks on Obama were in line with Tea Party views.

Romney, with all his experience in the last campaign, fumbled many of his statements. He said, “It’s time for us to bring our troops home.” Then he said I meant to say “As soon as we possibly can, consistent with the, uh … the word that comes from our generals that we can hand the country over to the Taliban military in a way that they are able to defend themselves … excuse me, it should be the Afghan military to defend themselves from the Taliban.”

I won’t be watching anymore of these events if this is their idea of a debate.

Tim Pawlenty is proposing “A Better Deal.”  This is not to be confused with FDR’s “New Deal” nor Teddy Roosevelt’s “Square Deal.”  The “Fair Deal” was the name given to Harry Truman’s domestic program.

My question is what makes Pawlenty’s ideas a better deal?  Pawlenty wants to “grow the economy by 5%.”  Who can argue with that objective?  The problem is he wants to do this by helping the rich grow even richer.

He says he wants to create just two tax rates, 10% and 25%.   A married couple earning above $100,000 would pay the higher rate.  He implies, but does not say, he would eliminate all deductions.  Would he eliminate business deductions as well as mortgage interest and property taxes?  He does not say.  Would he eliminate subsidies for agriculture, ethanol, oil drilling, and clean energy projects?  He does not say.

He does say “we should eliminate all together the capital gains tax, interest income tax, dividends tax and the death tax.”  I have a problem with this idea.  The wealthy of our nation earn most of their income as the result of capital gains, and interest and dividend income.  In other words, the rich who do not have a job would pay no taxes at all.  The current inheritance tax impacts estates with a value at more than $5 million.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau the median household net worth is $79,800 (most recent data is 2004).  Once again this is a benefit to the very wealthy.

He believes that if any service can be provided by private enterprise the government should not be involved.  That means no police, fire or child protective services.  Actually he said if you can “Google” the service then the government shouldn’t be providing it.  That means no more public schools.

He says we don’t need any bank regulations. The Glass-Steagall  Act was passed in the 1930s and protected us until 1999 when Democrats and Republicans revoked the law.  The consequence was the Great Recession.

He says no EPA.  Smog in Los Angeles burned our eyes and obliterated our view of the mountains.  Polluted rivers are still a problem but getting better.     

You can read all of Pawlenty’s ideas at his web-site.  You can read many of his thoughts at OnTheIssues.  You will agree with some of his ideas.  My opinion: Tim Pawlenty’s “A Better Deal” is a great deal for the rich.    

I watched the California Citizens Redistricting Commission on-line presentation of the proposed new districts.  They said it is version one of what could result in modifications before the August 15 finalized maps are established.  It will come as know surprise if they are challenged in court. I looked at the maps posted on the internet and did grimace at some of their decisions.  However, The Los Angeles Times editorial seems on target.

Lines drawn by a citizens commission should put more power in the hands of voters.

SOME DEMOCRATS are bound to hate it, because it may jeopardize their party’s lock on a seat in Congress or slow their drive to capture two­thirds of each house in the Legisla­ture. Some Republicans may dismiss it, be-. cause it doesn’t reinventCaliforniaas a GOP stronghold. Politicos of all stripes will probably scoff at it, because it’s the result of a citizen-driven process and not a politi­cian-controlled backroom deal. And some reformers may even rail at it, because it doesn’t differ enough from the map of dis­trict linesCaliforniahas had for decades.

And that’s just fine. The preliminary re­port to be issued Friday by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which features new district maps for the state’s congressional and legislative districts, is both a work in progress and a triumph for citiZens no longer content to allow political parties to carve up the state for their own purpqses. The commission was created af­ter a painstaking and admittedly complex process mandated by two ballot measures thatCaliforniavoters adopted over the fierce objections of the political establish­ment. The goal was to strengthen the power of voters in the decennial redrawing of dis­tricts that follows each national census.

Recent redistricting efforts, handled by Democratic and. Republican party officials, too often resulted in districts in which politi­cians picked and chose their voters rather than the other way around. A Democrat in the Assembly, for example, might be re­warded for prodigious political fundraising by having a Senate district drawn to favor him and disfavor a more independent ­minded colleague. A Republican lawmaker might be similarly be rewarded with a con­gressional district drawn just for her: The parties may have struggled against one an­other to win a seat here or there, but for the most part they were only too happy to work together and cut deals to protect their own incumbents while drawing district lines.

The maps released Friday will not be per­fect, because perfection in drawing district lines is impossible. The initiatives require the commission to, as much as possible, keep “communities of interest” together, but there are many ways of defining such com­munities. Households might be· grouped by income, geography, lot size, propensity to vote, ethnicity or anyone of dozens of other criteria. Add to that the desire to make dis­tricts more competitive. Ballot measure lan­guage provides some guidance, but if there were no need for judgment calls, the lines could be drawn by computer. They can’t.

As part of the unprecedented public role, voters are invited to attend commission· meetings or suggest alternative lines at we­drawthelines.ca.gov. Participants may find the process less tidy than the old way: leav­ing the decisions to political parties. But the goal is not tidiness. The goal is a fair and functioning democracy.