Cathy McMorris Rodgers posted a survey asking us what Congress should do about the debt ceiling. I enjoyed how the answers are worded, so much so that I thought I'd offer up some of my own.
* No - Congress has been consistently irresponsible in fiscal matters and America should finally pay the price for it even though it would make the economy even worse than it is * Yes - Congress has been consistently irresponsible in fiscal matters and wants to lower taxes more and add to the debt * Yes - Congress has been consistently irresponsible in fiscal matters and this would allow more gridlock so each party can blame the other * Yes - Congress has been consistently irresponsible in fiscal matters and raised the ceiling 74 times in under 50 years. And ten of those increases have occurred over the past decade when there has been a record run-up in debt. For some reason she didn't discuss the ramifications of not raising it again. Of course, there may be other reasons.
The first question that popped into my mind was, "What would I do with a second checking account?" The second, and more important question, was "Why would Chase pay me $100 to open a second account?" Could Chase be thinking they would make more money out of the deal?
Newton Leroy Gingrich is trying really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY hard to be a candidate for president. According to Politico, Gingrich had this to say before thousands of evangelical Christians yesterday.
"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
Can he make recognizing nonsense any easier? Gingrich says we'll be in a "secular atheist country". Secular means not pertaining to or connected to religion. And an atheist doesn't believe in supreme beings. Yet somehow it could be dominated by radical Islamists. Islam is--wait for it--a religion. Apparently Gingrich thinks that to be on right side of a group evangelical Christians, he needs to tell them he's against secularism, atheists, and Islam.
As to Mr Gingrich's reference to what it once meant to be an American, I would recommend he read Commentaries on the Constitution, written by former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story back in 1833.
Here's a paragraph concerning Article VI of the U.S. Constitution--I bet Gingrich has one in his pocket--which includes "But no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Bolding is mine.)
§ 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a "qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States." This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility.
Written so well almost 180 years ago. You can't say you weren't warned.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers was recently featured on Comcast Newsmakers. (I'd never heard of it either and I realize that by embedding the video I may contribute to the number of views going from 45 to maybe 49 but that's a chance I'm willing to take.)
Listen closely to what is said about unemployment--that we've lost three million jobs since January 2009 with the inference that President Obama is at fault since that's when he took office. And our Congresswoman states that jobs is the number one issue. Given her claim that this is such a priority, here is a summary of the legislation she has supported to create jobs.
(crickets chirping)
But what about this claim that three million jobs have been lost in the last two years? I checked out the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and found the latest unemployment report.
You'll notice a couple of things from these charts. One, the unemployment rate peaked, leveled out, and there's been a slight decline. Secondly, the depiction of job losses shows that taking place and decreasing during the first nine months of 2009. This looks pretty convincing--if you start from January of 2009. It's a convenient starting point, too. Here's an excerpt from our congresswoman's op-ed that was published in several small town newspapers in her district.
The spend, borrow, and bailout policies of the past two years have clearly failed. The national unemployment rate has been above 8.5 percent for 24 straight months – the longest streak since the Great Depression - even though President Obama rammed through a $800 billion stimulus bill in a misguided attempt to revive the economy.
Looking back at the job losses pictured above, you'll find the losses decreased as the stimulus bill projects put people to work. There was the up and down tick for the census conducted last year. Lastly, we have a modest increase of jobs since. Does she expect the economy to kick into high gear overnight?
"Oh, jeeze," as they'd say on Fargo. It appears that some sort of economic disaster struck and brought all this on before Obama was even elected. Wonder what that was. Also notice that the increase in unemployment did not happen overnight. Neither will the decrease. And since we're talking about millions being out of work, here's a chart from the BLS showing those numbers.
To only consider data from January 2009 and on is disingenuous as best. If you look at what brought it on in the first place, you have a better understanding of the situation. But who needs facts and reality?
The best part of this "interview" is when our fair congresswoman is asked specifically what she would cut in the federal budget. She can't answer. She's been harping on this subject for ages now and she can't give one specific. All she can say is that everything is on the table. That's not entirely truthful in itself. Raising taxes is not on the table. Cutting government subsidies for very profitable oil companies is not on the table. I'm sure there is plenty on the table, but she won't say what because...well...that's open to conjecture and I'm finding it difficult to come up with a good reason. It's tough when she just repeats the same ambiguities and catch phrases. So this is the best I can come up with.
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers feels so strongly about economic responsibility and getting the most bang for the buck, she's looking at the long past expiration date of her talking points and saying, "It's still good."
Today's Spokesman has an article about a study that concludes mercury does not contribute to heart disease. Since the Review didn't include any links to the study--hint, hint--I had to look for it myself. I found a free abstract on the New England Journal of Medicine site. They studied the participants of two studies and concluded:
We found no evidence of any clinically relevant adverse effects of mercury exposure on coronary heart disease, stroke, or total cardiovascular disease in U.S. adults at the exposure levels seen in this study.
Great news, right? But when you look up mercury on the EPA site...
For fetuses, infants, and children, the primary health effect of methylmercury is impaired neurological development. Methylmercury exposure in the womb, which can result from a mother's consumption of fish and shellfish that contain methylmercury, can adversely affect a baby's growing brain and nervous system. Impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb.
The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury. Methylmercury and metallic mercury vapors are more harmful than other forms, because more mercury in these forms reaches the brain. Exposure to high levels of metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetus. Effects on brain functioning may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, and memory problems.
Short-term exposure to high levels of metallic mercury vapors may cause effects including lung damage, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increases in blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes, and eye irritation.
...there's no mention of of heart disease. Isn't it wonderful to now know that it has now been ruled out? It almost makes the mercury coming from coal-fired power plants seem like not a bad thing any more.
The next study we'll hear about will conclude that people who suffer a stab wound to the hand are less likely to die than those who suffer a stab wound to an internal organ.
I enjoyed how the answers are worded, so much so that I thought I'd offer up some of my own.
For some reason she didn't discuss the ramifications of not raising it again. Of course, there may be other reasons.
