Good job, America

Citizens United (for Undisclosed Donors) has helped to make sure that we have no idea who is behind the funding of  42% of outside dollars, and this was the most expensive midterm election in American history.

It's nice to know that in these trying times of 9.6% unemployment and general economic hardship, America can still scrape together 4 billion dollars to elect new officials.

Every big election season, it bugs me. I get those nice, ideal, frolicking-in-the-meadows visions of what other things that kind of money could do, and think things like, "We can spend 4 billion dollars buying an election, and that doesn't seem to bother us, while people are out of work, can't feed their families, and are losing their homes?" In fairness, of course, 4 billion dollars would not buy much on a national scale for large groups of people... but still... I see that number, and I think, "The money is out there... we have a big distribution problem..."

Real, substantive (there's that word again) campaign reform needs to happen to level the playing field for all, and give us a break from the noise, which is becoming unceasing, and is certainly not making the American voter any smarter or nuanced, but the likelihood that we will see that anytime soon has dwindled to pretty much nothing.

Congratulations, Minnesota 8th CD!

And a very warm thank you from the rest of the state.

By voting out Congressman Jim Oberstar, you have tossed out 36 years of leadership, pretty much marking an end to Minnesota's vast national influence in transportation issues, while making sure that funding for major infrastructure projects is greatly reduced.

This is one of those examples where one can say, "Well, you get the government you deserve up there," but this has implications for the entire state as well as the region. So, they get their government, and I get it, too.

It kind of goes for the whole state, with the new republican-led legislature. Everyone who voted for it will get what they deserve, but so will I. If you work for a public or quasi-public institution, as both the wage-earners in my family do, your job will be hanging in the balance. This is not alarmist, it's a real possibility. And if we lose our jobs, it's not like the private sector is poised to take us on with its booming job market. (And don't tell me that a new, republican legislature is going to create a booming job market.)

So maybe we take on jobs that don't quite pay the bills. In any case, our child would have to come out of day care, which could affect their enrollment to such an extent that they have to let people go, who are then also on the job market.

I won't be stocking up on water, tinned food, and ammunition in the next few months, but I will be cutting back on expenses and paying down our recent home improvements as quickly as I can, just in case.

Vote, America.

"...because he won't raise my taxes..."

It's time to Vote, America. And you may be hearing a lot of people making the above statement, as in, "I am voting for [fill in the blank] because he/she won't raise my taxes."

This has never occurred to me as I make my choices at the polling place. I don't get all worked up about my taxes or about my having to pay taxes (though I may get worked up about fairness). In my mind, they are the price we pay for living in a civilized society, with a stable government, a cared-for population, and a working, solid infrastructure. Now, we may not always be getting what we pay for, and we can't all have our way. We don't get to send in our tax forms with a check box, stating that we want our share of the federal pot to pay for schools, health care, public transit, and aid to families. Nope, us bleeding hearts get to pay for wars and pricey government contracts to Halliburton, plus tax breaks for wealthier citizens and corporations as well as our little pet projects.

So what do I vote for, and why do I vote as I do?

First and foremost, I am looking for a person who is reasonable and rational, and who seems to have the capacity for thoughtful consideration of not only solutions, but of the problems and their causes. This is not always easy to discern in our heated political climate of overblown rhetoric, grandstanding, and fear-mongering, but I can look for certain things, such as whether or not a candidate "believes in" anthropogenic global warming and/or evolution. If he or she does not, I am going to hold all their opinions suspect. If he or she is not behaving in a fact-based manner about these issues, then he or she is either ignorant of or anti- science or is pandering to a segment of the population that is fundamentalist and denialist. How can I trust that person's ideas on how to tackle public problems, if they lack the cognitive sophistication to understand scientific evidence at its most basic? Are they intelligent enough to tackle complicated economic issues?

In Minnesota, our departing governor (who is coming for the GOP nomination in 2012; indeed, we rarely see him here. If you find him, you can keep him.), refused to "raise taxes" even as the economy tanked. He denied a tool in the public policy box, unable or unwilling to recognize that we needed revenue, using accounting shifts and cuts to human services to "balance" the budget, and we are now facing a 5.8 billion dollar deficit. His refusal to raise taxes resulted in some higher fees as well as higher property taxes and various referenda and assessments levied by counties and cities to raise necessary revenue.

It is ridiculous to remove a tool from your policy toolbox. No family, sitting around the kitchen table, would say, "Well, we won't look for ways to increase our revenue. We can only look for ways to reduce our expenses."

If you are running for governor in this state, and you are saying that you will not only not raise taxes, but will lower them in some instances, and you will balance the budget, then you are, quite frankly, either lying or you are deluded. The idea here is that you keep the revenue the same (or you even cut it somewhat), and all the difference is made up in cuts to government. Then businesses and rich people will create jobs and buy more stuff. It makes some average voters scream and cheer, but the reality is that cutting government is cutting people. Cutting jobs, cutting income, cutting into purchasing power of not only individuals but government itself, which pays many private industries through contracts ranging from construction to professional development to consulting.

Everything is connected, and someone always has to pay. Cut over here, and you will lose over there.

And people who lose their jobs often wind up on public assistance of some sort, be it unemployment or Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Because what often happens is that the people who can least afford to lose their jobs are the people who are cut first, straight from the bottom. With fewer resources to begin with and less of a voice in the public sphere, they disappear into statistics, but they show up in the budget.

It is not reasonable or rational to look at any problem and put away some of your tools without even considering them and their relevance to the job at hand. What I am looking for is evidence of thoughtful consideration and the ability to apply that consideration to a variety of problems, using a variety of tools. I am looking for someone who can recognize facts, process them, and disseminate them to the general public without obfuscation.

Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, that person does not usually get elected in America.

Mr. President

This past weekend, I volunteered at a rally that featured President Obama. I was working in the Accessibility area, right next to the stage. When the President went down to the crowd to shake hands, the people who could walk (including other volunteers) rushed to the front. I stood about a third of the way back, near an older gentleman who sat in a wheelchair, wearing his veteran's hat and jacket.

I thought "If anyone should be shaking the President's hand today, it's this man." So I asked him if he would like to try, and he said yes, after only a little equivocating. I asked his wife if I should lend my arm, and she said, "Yes." He stood with some help from me and from his cane, and we moved a few inches forward and waited. I said I would get the President's attention when he came along. I asked him where he served, and he said "Korea, for 19 months." He said he would like to say "Hello" to his commander, and did I think his commander would like to say hello to him. I said that I thought he would. We talked about how exciting it all was. Senator Dayton shook his hand when he came along, and when President Obama came by, amid the screams and outstretched hands, I shouted "Mr. President!" and pointed to the gentleman next to me when I caught his eye. The President shook his hand and said thank you. The Veteran greeted his commander.

The President moved on, and I helped the Veteran regain his seat.

"You made his day," said his wife. "Thank you."

I am not sure whose day was made more, really.

It's hard to tell here, but there are two senators, a vice president, and a mayor in this picture.

(Sens. Franken and Klobuchar, Vice President Mondale, and Mayor Coleman of Saint Paul).

Eight Years Ago Today, We All Lost Something

So much for that better standing...

Thanks to moronic displays from people like Christine O'Donnell, we are becoming the laughing stock of the entire world.

"Fortunately senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution."-Christine O'Donnell

Is it better to be hated or pitied?

From someecards.com to you