Reps. as Slow Learners | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    You would think we would have learned by now - but, alas, it doesn't seem so. Specifically, we have not learned to listen carefully to the Anointed One when he speaks and to carefully parse every word that he utters. The result often is that we end up getting "painted into a corner".

    We have been hearing for more than four years that everything that is wrong in America is the result of something that "W" did (or didn't do). In his "Victory Speech" following his latest rout of the Republicans he talked about a lot of things people have been wanting to hear; compromise, fairness of the amount of taxes being paid by the so called rich and the like. But then he told us there will be no further conversation concerning the debt ceiling. He stressed the importance of the Government paying its bills. That would be the bills, according to him, that were accumulated by the Executive as the result of Congressionally passed legislation. If you were listening carefully, it sounded as though the amount of spending we have been treated to was the result of Congressional direction (enabling legislation), with no further need for the appropriation process. The seeds have been planted to blame the Congress for the miserable financial state in which we find ourselves. It begins to sound as though W is off the hook only to be replaced by the Congress. Surely the administration cannot be held to task - they haven't submitted a serious budget in the last several years. All they did was comply with the Congressional directives and the money just disappeared..

    Listen even a bit more carefully to the "there will be no negotiation over the debt ceiling" pronouncement and you will also begin to hear rumblings that the 14th Amendment provides all the spending authority the Anointed One needs. The 14th amendment is"headlined" as addressing Civil Rights; but with the proper interpretation, Section 4 could be interpreted as authorizing the Executive to spend money (and pay the bills) even without further recourse to a budget or a Congressional appropriation of funds. Yes, it is a real stretch, but real stretches are nothing new to those who currently hold power in this Administration. In any case the seeds for that interpretation have been planted.

    As a reminder, Section 4 of the XIV Amendment says (in part):

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debt incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services supporting insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned...

    And there you have it. Stay tuned.

    The Reps are about to get snookered again; and this time it isn't his doings, it's theirs. Do you know why?? It's because just listening to what the Anointed One says is not nearly enough. You have to pay attention. And I mean PAY ATTENTION!! Every sentence must be carefully parsed.

    Careful listening will tell you that one of the ruses the Anointed One has mastered is to define the parameters of an argument by setting up a straw man describing his version of the opposition's position and then tearing it down. They are first with their talking points. Being first allows them to define (or obfuscate) the terms. For example, in the "tax the rich" argument, the strawman was the no good, rotten, rich who are ripping the rest of us off by only paying about 70% of the income taxes that are paid. The argument was buttressed by using "marginal" tax rate interchangeably with "effective" tax rate without even bothering to acknowledge any difference. Our attention span is so short that we don't seem to hear much past the "dirty, rotten, rich are not paying their fair share" (again, without ever bothering to define "fair share").

    They painted Mr. Romney as a big bad "rich guy" who cares not for the little guy. (Well, that's the way "rich folks" are, isn't it??) He has money scattered all over creation - which means he is surely doing something bad. They "prove their point by telling us that the Romney's paid a lower tax rate than did a lot of folks who are nowhere as well to do as he is. (It's interesting that when Mr. Romney does it, it is bad but when the Sage of Omaha - Warren Buffett - does it, it doesn't matter.) In case there is any doubt about it, the "effective tax rate" will always be lower than the marginal tax rate. And when you factor in capital gains and the lower rates associated with them, the difference becomes even greater. Our tax rate structure is graduated (i.e. progressive) which means that at lower income levels the tax rates are lower. As income increases the rate increases. The percentage paid on the last (highest) dollar earned is the marginal tax rate. The "effective tax rate" is the total one pays as a percentage of their Adjusted Gross Income. As a matter of interest, the 14% effective tax rate paid by the Romneys in 2011 amounted to a little over $1.9M. We can only wonder about the honesty and integrity of those who would use the terms interchangeably.

    They did the same trick with the Obamacare requirement that employers pay for women's contraceptives even though it violates the basic beliefs of the employer (as in Catholic Hospitals etc.). Somehow the Reps allowed themselves to be "painted" as not caring for women. The real point of disagreement was the requirement that the employers pay for the contraceptives. The Dems did such a good job in turning the argument into the Reps not caring about those of the female persuasion that they "ran away" with the female vote. (The fact that women seemed to buy into the misdirection so easily is almost enough to make one think about wanting to repealing the XIX amendment.)

    The Anointed One (or his speech writers guided by the two Davids - P. & A) has already begun his campaign over the debt ceiling. He has spoken about two things. The first is to define the parameters of Executive authority in terms of the wording of the 14th Amendment and the second is to threaten to "close the Washington Monument"..

    He is spinning the 14th Amendment into authority for the Prez to pay any bills that arise out of any authorizing legislation passed by the Congress - while remaining silent about the need for an appropriation. That is an interesting construction. The seeds have been planted. All the Dems need to do is keep the Anointed One's construction of Section 4 in the "talking points" memo and it is likely that a lot of folks who don't care enough to do their own thinking will begin to believe it. Somebody on the other side of the aisle would be well advised to "take on" that misdirection before it gets institutionalized in the public's collective perception.

    The second part of the misdirection is the Anointed One's use of the "Close the Washington Monument" argument against any cuts in funding. (Yes, I know - It's already closed as the result of last year's seismic event) He suggests that if he does not get the debt increase being demanded, that Social Security, Medicare, Military pay, and other high priority activities would be the first to suffer. Nothing about reducing tax credits, free cell phones, or other handouts. Nothing about reducing the numbers of Federal Regulation writers (or even entire departments) whose outputs are marginal at best and frequently counterproductive at worst. The first things to go will be those which the public holds dearest. Of course the public will kick up a lot of sand about that and the Reps will be "in the box" again. In the meantime, the Administration's handouts seem to be useful for helping to get out the (Dem) vote and will not likely be proposed for cutting.. Hmmm...

    The point is that letting all this rhetoric sail by with barely a comment is more than stupid. It is the way the Reps seem to go about losing all the arguments they have with the Anointed One. It is well past time that should change. As long as the "spin doctors" can keep the Reps reacting to their misleading pronouncements, they (the Dems) will continue to win. The allegations, no matter how strained, will continue to appear "on the front page" and the response correcting (i.e. clarifying) the misleading statements or allegations will appear on page 14 (which means that in Washington NC it won't even make the paper because it seldom runs to that many pages). The Reps need to get out of the "reactive" mode and into a proactive mode.

    D'ya think??