AIG & Bipartisanship: Perfect Together!

When all else fails to unite Democrats and Republicans, bring on the Sharks.

You’ve got to hand it to those executives over at AIG. How did they know that what the country needed most – namely a united political front – was just a handful of bonuses away. With such superior insightfulness, no wonder the economy is booming! Witness the following morsels of bipartisanship. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, you’re up first. "It is an outrageous situation. If you are going to take the government as a partner, the message to any business out there...is 'lets enter into a bunch of contracts real quick and we'll have the taxpayers pay bonuses to our employees.' This is an outrage." Next up, Republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa was somewhat more adept in his use of colorful metaphors. “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them, if they had followed the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, "I'm sorry," and then either do one of two things, resign or go commit suicide.” Grassley eventually backtracked from the comments.

From the other side of the aisle, "There are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last 18 months, but what's happened at AIG is the most outrageous," said Larry Summers, chairman of the White House National Economic Council, appearing on ABC's This Week. But Summers also said there didn’t appear to be anything the government could legally do to prevent the bonuses from being paid out. "It is wrong," said Rep. Barney Frank, the chair of the House Financial Services Committee on Fox News. "This is an example of people at the commanding heights of the economy misbehaving, abusing the system." The last time Democrats and Republicans were this much in agreement, Moses was parting the Red Sea, or was that Noah building an arc. It’s hard to tell; it was so long ago.

But to get serious here, the AIG fiasco is but a microcosm of the economic nightmare that is living itself out in front of our very eyes. And before this nightmare is over millions of people will be devastated financially, and millions more will be adversely affected in a profound way. My fear is we may not have even hit bottom yet. We are tempted to think that this recession began in 2008, but in reality it had its genesis nearly ten years ago during the Clinton Administration. It was in November of 1999 that Bill Clinton, bowing to pressure by Congressional Republicans and deeply wounded politically by the Monica Lewinsky affair, signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act, which basically did away with the restrictions imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the core tenants of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each-others’ industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated. The significance of this Act cannot be overstated enough. Banks, heavily regulated, were now free to acquire financial services institutions, which weren’t under the careful scrutiny of regulatory agencies. Citigroup was basically born out of the new Act.

For over 65 years the old law acted like a damn to stem the currents of unbridled market forces, and the result was decades of relative economic stability, with the occasional recession here and there to remind the country of the inherent shortcomings of a capitalistic society. The fact that we have not had anything as devastating as the Great Depression since the 1930s, was proof that the Glass-Steagall Act, like so many similar regulatory laws, was working. Repealing it was bad enough, but when Congress failed to enact any meaningful regulations to monitor the new financial institutions that were being formed, they invited the ensuing disaster.

Now the Obama Administration, owing to the public outrage, is acting to bring these “hybrid” corporations under regulatory control realizing that they can’t put the toothpaste as it were back in the tube. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner proposed Thursday a drastic expansion of federal regulation covering the market's major players. Geithner's proposal, outlined in testimony to Congress, would provide for government oversight of secretive hedge funds. It also would mandate strict regulation of exotic derivative contracts such as credit default swaps that were blamed for much of the financial meltdown.

Speaking to the House Financial Services Committee, Geithner said the markets have become "too unstable and fragile." He added, "To address this will require comprehensive reform; not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game. We need much stronger standards for openness, transparency and plain commonsense language throughout the financial system."

The plan, which requires congressional action, would set most standards for financial reporting on firms deemed "too big to fail," or those that could threaten the economy in a collapse. The biggest institutions, under rules to be drafted, would answer to a single agency. Geithner's plan also would require hedge funds and other private pools of capital to register with the SEC if their assets exceed a threshold to be set.

While Democrats were largely supportive of Geithner’s plan, many Republicans were skeptical of giving the federal government that much power, with some of the usual suspects (thought I forgot about you, Fox?) even going so far as to call it socialism. Well so much for bipartisanship.

In truth, Geithner’s plan is the least that can be done to not only regulate this new part of the economy, but to prevent a repeat of this calamity. In all likelihood it is too late to break up these institutions, at least not in the manner that some have suggested, but it is vital to the nation’s economic health that systemic risk be minimized. The specter of a Citigroup or J.P. Morgan Chase or A.I.G. going under and possibly taking several other institutions with them, is a risk no responsible president can permit. Give this much credit to Obama, whether you agree with his policies or not, he is a far better steward of this economy than his predecessor. And that is something we can all be grateful for, in a time when gratitude is hard to come by.

Brace Yourself.

Things are Looking Up in the Knee Department.

It’s been six weeks since my inexplicable right knee injury that has caused me to miss work and go on disability, and for the first time since I got the news, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s not a train.

First off, I went to see the doctor last Monday, March 2nd. He was sufficiently impressed with the progress the knee had made – I was able to lift it completely up without the immobilizer on – hence I was able to go to physical therapy to start the process of strengthening the knee so I could return to work.

The first visit to the PT was hardly encouraging. While I could lift the leg up, I was not able to bend the knee more than 20 degrees, not without tremendous pain. Depressing, but he gave me some exercises to do at home designed to increase range on the knee. Over the next three sessions, I have not only gotten the range to 100 degrees, but I now have sufficient strength to walk around the house without a brace on. The pain is all but gone, and I am continuing to work on both range and strength. In four PT sessions I am amazed at the progress I am making.

As a result of this progress, I will be returning to work part time as of Saturday. I have no illusions as to the time this will take. It has only been a little over a week since I started PT; clearly there is a long road ahead. I still can’t legally drive yet; that is still over a week away. But what a difference 10 days makes.

Thank you to all of you who kept me in your prayers these last six weeks. I am half way home. By the end of the month I hope to be fully recovered, or pretty close to it.


Blessings,

Peter

Send In the Clown:

How Rush Limbaugh Took Over the Republican Party.


Watching this year’s CPAC, I couldn’t help but conclude how much the mighty have fallen. What was once a political juggernaut set to lay waste to the entire landscape of the nation has now been reduced to a mere shell of its once impregnable stature. It’s hard to believe it but the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan has now become the party of Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter. Collectively they make Sarah Palin look like a Girl Scout selling cookies. Few examples in political folklore have documented such a historic decline in fortunes and in such a short span of time. As Jon Stewart of The Daily Show succinctly put it, “Three years ago the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress; now they control one fifth of The View.” And Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report jokingly remarked, “Rush Limbaugh doesn’t care what the Constitution says, which is proof that he is the true leader of the Republican Party.”

All comedic references aside, the demise of the Republican Party to the status of a minor league baseball team only goes to prove the classic axiom that nature abhors a vacuum. The Reagan revolution of the 1980s galvanized the conservative wing of the Republican Party like nothing it had ever known before. Not even Goldwater in 1964 could come close. Reagan brought together all the elements of the party from evangelicals to fiscal conservatives to the neo-cons. More importantly, he managed to do something no politician had ever done before or since; he controlled them. His brilliance often went unnoticed by the media who seemed more impressed with his great communicator persona over the American public. Few knew about or appreciated the talents he displayed behind the scenes among party leaders. It was no small feat keeping the likes of Jerry Falwell, William F. Buckley and Oliver North happy and in line. But as adept as Reagan was in playing Romper Room with the troops, he was not perfect. One of the mistakes he made occurred in 1985, when FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, under his direction, began the systematic repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Despite Congressional efforts to preempt the repeal, and over the concerns expressed by some in his staff, the Doctrine was abolished altogether in August 1987.

Initially the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was seen by Reagan as a triumph of First Amendment rights. However, it had the unforeseen effect of acting as a springboard for ultra rightwing talk radio, and later TV, formats. Almost immediately a plethora of conservative ideologues began showing up all over the airwaves, spreading their poisonous viewpoints. The first of these gurus to appear on the scene was Rush Limbaugh, whose show debuted in August 1988. Limbaugh was tacky, obnoxious, racist, myopic and sexist, but he was also very successful. His ratings continued to soar despite the negative reviews he was receiving in the mainstream press. In fact a familiar theme with Limbaugh was how biased the mainstream press was towards what he called “conservatism.” His continual incitement of his supporters against anything that smacked of the mainstream became a core element of his show. In deed it became his whole raison d'être. Between 1990 and 2002, more conservative talk show hosts such as the likes of Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity and our personal favorite Ann Coulter began their journeys through fantasyland. With no Fairness Doctrine to serve as arbiter of checks and balances they were free to say anything they wished no matter how outlandish. They became in essence the standard bearers of the conservative movement in the United States. A political party that once championed intellectuals such as William F. Buckley, now kowtowed to the lowest common denominator of the likes of Fox News. With no Reagan to real them in and with an incompetent and scandal-ridden Bush Administration the only thing standing in their way, the inmates took over the asylum.

And that is where things currently stand in the GOP. A party so bereft of leadership that its knees quake at the mere thought of saying or doing anything that might offend the true boss of the conservative movement. And who is the true boss, you ask? Not Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley – both men are dead and buried. Not even George Will, though some have suggested he might as well be dead and buried, metaphorically speaking of course. No, the reigning king of the faithful flock is none other than Rush Limbaugh. That’s right, you heard me correctly, Rush Limbaugh. A man who doesn’t know the difference between the Preamble of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, a man who once said that feminism was established so as to allow ugly women access to the mainstream of society, now sits atop the throne - self anointed - ruling with iron fist and closed mind a kingdom of clueless subjects completely devoid of any backbone or integrity, and equally unaware of how perilous a fate their capitulation has made for them.

Really, it’s been quite a sight watching the Republican Party bend over backwards and genuflect at the mere mention of Rush’s name. S.S. men were more informal around Hitler than Republicans were around Rush. Of course there were those rare occasions when one of their own slipped and actually spoke his mind. For instance when Georgia representative Phil Gingrey publicly criticized Limbaugh in January for going after Republican leadership for their seeming appeasement of President Obama, his office was flooded with complaints from Rush’s minions. The result? Gingrey did an immediate about face and issued a mea culpa, even going so far as to appear on Limbaugh’s show to personally repent. Prior to the Gingrey/Limbaugh incident House Republicans had vowed to cooperate with Democrats on drafting the economic stimulus package. One day after Gingrey was forced to apologize to Limbaugh a vote was taken on the stimulus package, with all 177 House Republicans voting against it. Hmmm.

On March 1st, RNC Chairman Michael Steele got into hot water when he claimed on a CNN interview that HE and not Rush was “the de facto leader of the Republican Party,” and that “Limbaugh’s whole thing is entertainment. Yes it’s incendiary; yes it’s ugly.” It took little more than 24 hours for Steele to come to his senses and apologize for his faux pas, even going so far as to lie about what he actually said and meant in the interview. Over the last week it seems the entire Republican Party has gone out of its way to not only praise Limbaugh, but to call out anyone who hasn’t drank the Kool Aid as it were.

Pundits on both sides of the political aisle have been shaking their heads in amazement at the lunacy that is the Republican Party. U.S. News & World Report, hardly a paragon of liberal ideas, called Limbaugh “the bull in the GOP’s china shop,” and said that “Republicans must lose the titans of glib and greed: Limbaugh, Drudge and Coulter.” Media Matters, a non-profit, progressive and liberal publication, chimed in by saying that “Barack Obama didn't elevate Rush Limbaugh to a position of leadership of the GOP and the conservative movement. Limbaugh has held that position for nearly two decades - and he has done so because his fellow conservative leaders share his far-right views and his rabid distaste for fact and reason. Their embrace of Limbaugh and his failed ideology has had disastrous consequences first for the nation and then for the conservative movement.” What Media Matters and other publications have failed to see is that with the exception of its early days when Lincoln was its leader the GOP has never been able to embrace any other ideology. It is the consummate case of the chain smoker who has lung cancer, and even though his life depends on it, cannot bring himself to stop. A "moderate" Republican is a misnomer within its ranks and is often considered a traitor to many in the Party.

Despite the calamity that awaits them politically, the Republican Party seems unable or unwilling to break free of its adoration of what it earnestly believes is the only legitimate icon within its ranks. Like Oliver, they grovel in front of the head clown pleading, “Please, sir, I want some more.” And when they do occasionally cross him, they eagerly line up to take their punishment, like the frat house kid in Animal House who bends over, assumes the position and, while he’s getting his bottom paddled, repeats over and over, “Thank you, sir, may I have another.” If it weren’t so pitiful, it would be comical.

And while a nation watches in astonishment at the spectacle, the prospect of one party rule for the foreseeable future is a very real possibility, for the ones who are hurting the most are not the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys or the Ann Coulters; they’re doing just fine. In fact, Limbaugh is among the highest paid talkshow gurus in the country. No, it’s the Republican Party as a whole that’s taking the hit. As a brand, the party isn’t just hurting, it’s hemorrhaging, and if it doesn’t snap out of this soon, it may go the way of the Whig Party, a Party that was formed in 1833 primarily to oppose the policies of Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party. Sound familiar? David Brooks, a respected conservative in The New York Times and The Weekly Standard, has been adamant that the Republicans are missing a golden opportunity to help shape fiscal policy by being so intransigent in their “just say no” opposition to the Obama Administration, calling it a form of nihilism. “It's just not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is. It’s insane.”

Insanity, nihilism, intransigence are all words that are synonymous with the Republican Party. At the rate it’s going, they could well end up being its epitaph. Rarely has a political party arrived at such a station in its existence where the cubbard is bare. The last such time a similar situation arose was the demise of that very same Whig Party in 1856. The irony is that the Republican Party was born mainly out of that demise. 150 years later, it seems hell bent on returning the favor.

Millard Fillmore anyone?

How Free is Free?
Understanding the Truth Behind the Christian Walk.

“You are not your own; you were bought at a price.” - 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.

Being a recovering alcoholic I have often heard many, so called, oldtimers, say this repeatedly at meetings: “Don’t drink and go to meetings,” as though that was all that was required to get sober. Actually the only stated requirement for membership in Alcoholics Anonymous is a desire to stop drinking. A closer look at the lives of the men and women who make up the ranks of A.A. will reveal a more startling reality. True sobriety consists of far more than merely refraining from drinking and attending meetings. It is a never-ending process of self exploration and change, a spiritual journey that transforms us from the person we were to the person God meant us to be. The difference between a person who is merely abstinent from alcohol and someone who is practicing the spiritual tools – the 12 steps – of the program is about as dramatic as night is from day. The former is still in bondage to a disease, which though it is kept a bay for the time being, is alive and well and lurking inside the soul ready at any moment to take control and perhaps kill; the latter lives a life which is happy, joyous and free from the misery and suffering that the disease attempts to instill. Both are still alcoholics with an incurable disease, but one has no way out and chooses to white knuckle as it were the rest of their life; the other has found peace and contentment. One is stuck in the past and fears the future; the other lives in the moment.

But freedom, joy and peace are not states of mind that come easy to just anybody. This “never-ending process” is difficult and demands the ultimate sacrifice from us: namely that we die to our old way of living and embrace a rigorous and fearless commitment to live out a spiritual walk. While there are officially 12 steps in this spiritual walk, they can be reduced to 3 basic tenants: 1. A total reliance upon a loving God; 2. A thorough review of our conduct and atonement for past wrongs; and 3. Carrying the message of recovery to others. This walk is not for the faint of heart, and no body has ever done it perfectly. To the extent though that we put the effort in we have that much peace and serenity. It is not easy, but it is simple.

Often I have thought of the Christian walk in much the same way. We are in darkness and then we make a decision to accept Christ into our lives. For many that is it. They consider the matter closed. “I’m a Christian now; I’m going to heaven. Hallelujah!” Like the drunk who finds the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous, but doesn’t work the program, such a person never finds true peace and serenity. They belong to a special club, but have decided not to utilize all the amenities at their disposal. Worse yet, they are incapable of carrying the good news of their newfound state of being to another, chiefly because they really don’t have anything to carry. If anything they, themselves, are in need of a messenger of hope. Like the “dry drunk” in A.A. who pats him- or herself on the back for getting sober, they are oblivious as to how much they are missing in their lives.

Like sobriety, salvation is free; at least that’s what we’re told. Not that I am one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I’m a little skeptical of anything that comes free of charge. Or maybe I’ve seen too many people in the rooms of A.A. who talk a good talk but who are about as “free” as a fish in an ice cube. Membership maybe free, but my experience tells me that true freedom comes with a price. One of the most essential, but sadly overlooked, books in the Bible is the book of James. I call it the “Big Book” of Christianity. It contains a treasure trove of invaluable wisdom that should be required reading for any follower of Jesus. My favorite part of the book is where James is talking about faith and deeds, chapter 2 verses 14 – 18.

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

In all the Bible there is nothing that comes as close as this passage to defining how we are to act toward others. It is, to put it bluntly, our marching orders as Christians. It is the very essence of walking the walk that sadly many Christians avoid at all costs, including, I’m sorry to say, myself many times. We pray for those who are sick or jobless; we give them a Bible when they have the courage to raise their hands in church. But how often do we really lend a hand to someone in need? Imagine if we could help get someone unemployed a job, or someone homeless a place to live, or someone hungry a bite to eat. Some in the Church do this, but for most of us it remains the elusive goal.

Keep in mind James isn’t telling us to stop praying; he’s telling us to put our money where our mouths are. And that has always been the 64 thousand dollar question. How ready are we as a Church to live out the above words on a daily basis? I keep hearing from supposedly wise people in the Church about how many people we can tell about the good news of Jesus. But I suspect that an awful lot of people already know about Jesus; what they don’t know enough about is who his followers are. Any body can read the Gospels and find out what Jesus stood for, but their opinions are not formed based on what a man did over 2,000 years ago; they are based on what we as disciples do in His name. We are accountable for living out our faith, not just professing it. When the Church gets caught up in wasteful ideological wars over political issues that don’t feed the hungry, house the homeless, or cure the sick the message that gets sent out to unbelievers is one of indifference and selfishness; the very things Jesus spent his whole ministry fighting against. The faith is stained by the actions of those who should know better.

A friend of mine is fond of saying that people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. Our mission should always be to convey to everyone possible just how much we care, not by our words, but with our actions. Words are important, but they cannot reveal our hearts; and it is our hearts that Jesus was after more than anything else. The third step of recovery says that we “made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God.” Our will is our thoughts; our lives are those actions that stem from those thoughts. There is a reason that the words “will” and “lives” are both included in the step: it is impossible to be truly sober and not turn both over to God. As James might ask, “How possible is it to walk a Christian walk and not have both faith and deeds in our lives?” It is a rhetorical question of course, but for many in the Church it is our moment of truth, where the nature of our hearts is finally exposed.

We can’t live out the Christian life on our own unaided will, that much is true. But too often we use every excuse known to avoid even trying. I for one have had my share of excuses in the past, so I am no less guilty than most. I guess that means I’m calling myself out here. Like sobriety, being a Christian is not easy; if it were, everyone would be one. Doing what’s hard, though, is what we are called to do. True freedom isn’t as free as we think; but it is worthwhile, and the blessings earned are beyond our wildest dreams.

Some Sanity At CPAC: Mike Huckabee Stirs Up the Troops!

It was hard to find any semblance of coherent, intelligible or thought-provoking speeches at this year's CPAC, but out of the lunacy and chaos that seems to define the Republican party these days, one voice seemed to stand out among the crowd: Mike Huckabee.

I have attached his speech in its entirety. While I do not agree with all of his comments, including his take on Reaganomics, and even moderate conservatives like David Brooks have blasted the GOP tactics on the stimulus bill as "insane," it was refreshing to hear him take some responsibility on behalf of his party for its failures.

http://www.huckpac.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=2179

I have been very tough on the Republicans, and have no intention of stopping any time soon. I disagree with their economics, and I have a rational fear of the social conservatives who have kidnapped the party, but Huckabee's speech impressed me, not because of its content, but because of its tone. Rebuilding a party takes time. Perhaps we will have a real debate on the issues in the next election, instead of talking about terrorists, traitors, socialists and other issues that most people could care less about.

Pay As You Go: The Great American Myth Exposed.

If you live long enough you’ll start believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. No doubt, at which point you’ll be getting spoon fed at the nearest nursing home from a strapping young attendant doing their best to assure you that you weren’t really losing your mind. Everyone believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny! But, among the more predominant myths still in vogue and taking its place alongside the one about Baseball, Apple Pie and Chevrolet all being inexorably tied to our American heritage, none have been more damaging or just flat out erroneous as this inane belief among conservatives, and greatly enhanced by a gullible and ignorant media, that the Pay As You Go approach is desirable, much less workable, when it comes to the federal government. Anyone with access to a computer or an encyclopedia would immediately know better.

And yet, in the midst of an imploding economy, with the spigots all but shut off, supposedly intelligent people, and the bulk of the Republican party, are still talking about “fiscal discipline” as though the solution to all our problems would be to cut spending and balance the budget. Never mind that Herbert Hoover tried it during his term, with disastrous results. Never mind that in the entire history of the United States, once, and only once, did the nation have zero debt: January 8, 1835 under Andrew Jackson. A check of my blog about a month ago will tell you everything you need to know about what I think of him; suffice to say, with respect to his talents on the economy, he had a rather undistinguished presidency. He seemed far more concerned with growing his own little empire (see the Indian Removal Act of 1830) than with being a good steward of the country.

Even at America’s inception as a nation it owed more than it had on hand. As of January 8, 1791, the debt, owed principally to the Revolutionary War, was reported at just over $75 million, a significant number given the value of currency in those days. Thanks to the Civil War, the debt grew from $65 million to over $1 billion between 1860 and 1863. After the War, it reached $2.7 billion. The next two huge growth spurts in the debt occurred between 1940 and 1945 (World War II), from $51 billion to $260 billion and between 1980 and 1990 (the Reagan / Bush years), from $930 billion to $3.2 trillion. And while the Clinton Administration could claim some measure of solace in balancing the budget – in deed producing a surplus in its last year – the debt continued to mount, thanks to the interest owed on it. By 2000, it was $5.6 trillion. While fiscal conservatives touted prudence, one of their own – George Bush – doubled that debt to just under $11 trillion. Debt spending, regardless of party or circumstance, has a long history in U.S. domestic and foreign policy. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), the debt from 1940 to 2008 ranged from a low of 33% in 1980 to 123% in 1945. Currently it is around 75%. Even with the proposed budget by Barack Obama, it is not expected to exceed the 1945 ratio.

Given the above statistics, one wonders how any rational person could make a case for pay as you go, spending policies. In deed, one could conclude that without deficit spending, much of our history would be considerably different. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War and the Second World War would’ve had significantly different outcomes for America had it been required to balance its annual budgets. Claims by fiscal conservatives, like the one that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on February 27th that the Obama budget “signaled a historic shift in the ideological direction of U.S. economic policy…to expand government activism," and that “Obama is attempting not merely to expand the role of the federal government but to put it in such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back,” are not new; similar claims were made during Roosevelt’s Administration when he rolled out the New Deal. Not only were they incorrect, but the opposite was true. Deficit spending brought the country out of depression and allowed for the single greatest post-war boom in American history. Without the “irresponsible” spending that deficit hawks decry, baby boomers today would have a much different life story to tell their children.

This past week, the nation got a chance to hear from the Right at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or as I like to call it, the Can’t Produce Anything substantive Consortium. Speakers from Mitt Romney to Rush Limbaugh titillated the minions with tales of the by-gone days of laissez-faire capitalism, and personal heroes like Ronald Reagan. Never mind that Reagan tripled the debt; accuracy was not high on the priority list of the faithful. All week long they reveled in their exaltations of a time that sadly for them never existed; a time when people and government alike lived within their means, and debt was something to be shunned. Laudable if delusional, as though the federal budget and a personal checking account at Citibank were synonymous. But delusion is all the Right had at CPAC; it is all they have ever had. Year after year they trumpet supply-side, trickle-down economics and good old-fashioned family values, and roll out the Gipper for old time’s sake. They are the ultimate cheerleaders for a team that never existed, except of course in their fantasies.

Bush betrayed them, yes that was it. They need to be resolute in their resistance to the socialist agenda of emperor Obama and the liberal horde in Congress. Though they continue to shrink in size and significance as a major political party in the country, they are defiant, if nothing else. The louder they shout, the more asinine and irrelevant their stances become. Common sense and truth are not what is at work here. Be they evangelicals looking to imprint their religious doctrine on society, or the neo-cons who would have us invade every country on the globe, or 2nd Amendment fanatics who oppose any restriction on gun owners no matter how reasonable, or the supply-siders who see nothing wrong with the continuing purge of the middle class and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the power elite, this is a sad and pitiful bunch of miscreants, devoid of sanity and conscious. They rest their morbid hopes not in the health of the nation, but in some twisted Gothic calamity, which will no doubt permit them an opening to come to our rescue, like some tired and worn out John Wayne movie. Predictable and contemptuous. The Pharisees of Christ's time had nothing on these clowns.

Obama may or may not lead us out of this economic malaise. If he does, he will go down in history alongside FDR and Lincoln who met their respective crises not by burying their heads in the sand, but by rising up to the challenges of their times and having the courage to act decisively. Not only is he not steering the country in a direction toward unprecedented “government activism,” he is following in the grandest of presidential traditions by calling forth the full powers of the only entity in the nation capable of succeeding at the task: the federal government. If anything, the danger is that he might not go far enough. While the Republicans wail about the size of government, many economists are warning about the dangers of not being bold enough. They point to Japan in the 1990s as an example of a government that didn’t act swiftly or sufficiently enough when their economy started heading south; the result was a lost decade. The analogy with the United States is striking. When you add into the mix that we now live in a global market place where our actions, or lack thereof, could have a profound impact on the rest of the world, the prospect of a world-wide depression is a real possibility.

So there you have it. Like Custer at Little Big Horn, the Republicans continue to march onward, holding onto a edict that is as old and mythical as Old Saint Nick himself. So if you happen to look up in the sky one evening and you chance upon a merry old man bellowing “ho-ho-ho” on a minature sleigh led by eight tiny reindeer, don’t be concerned; he’s just headed toward next year’s CPAC. No doubt the bearded one will be the key-note speaker. Look out Rush!