Category: Rants

The situation in Wisconsin has taken yet another fascinating turn, as (unionized) police officers have joined the ranks of the protesters in the Capitol. It doesn't quite have the same substantive impact as Libyan army units defecting to join the anti-government wave but it's an intriguing development nonetheless. Police are not exactly a profession that one associates with anti-government protests, obviously, and moreover some police organizations actually endorsed Walker just a few short months ago (N.B.: the media's allusion to "the police" endorsing him is incorrect – of over 300 police labor organizations in the state, four of them did). Well, I guess they're un-endorsing him now.

What changed? Even Republican elected officials aren't stupid enough to mess with law enforcement, what with all the War on Drugs, Tough on Crime rhetoric and the constant emotional appeals to our various Heroes in Uniform(s) in place of actual arguments. Indeed, Walker's various Gilded Age union-busting proposals have repeatedly and explicitly excluded police and firefighters (Heroes! 9/11! Bald Eagles shitting red-white-blue chemtrails!) Given the presumption of special treatment and the natural antagonism that exists between cops and dirty hippie protesters, why would they take the unusual step of becoming protesters themselves?

For once and once only I am going to assume that the correct answer is "Cops are not idiots."

I've written at length before on the progression of inter-class victim-blaming in this country since 1980. First they convinced the blue collars to scapegoat the Welfare Queens. Then the suburbanites scapegoated the blue collars and their cushy union factory jobs (hence NAFTA). Then the suburbanites started to cannibalize themselves: first the greedy retirees with their sweet benefits were redefined as Leeches, and now it's the teachers and public sector workforce. While Americans in general have failed to notice how this game of "Find a new scapegoat every 3 years until there's no one left with benefits or a salary over $10/hr " has progressed methodically for several decades, the cops appear to have no illusions about what is happening. They are waking up to reality: "They're going to come for us next."

Yes, they are. Though cops and firemen are left out of the Kochs' Walker's plans for the time being, imagine that he succeeds in crushing the teachers/public sector unions now. In two years they will need a new scapegoat. It is already well established that the right wing media machine and Teabag-o-sphere can demonize anyone, so why not America's Heroes? Can you imagine a lot of salutes to the bravery of our police and fire departments followed by caveats about deficits, austerity, and "tough choices"? By the time 2013 rolls around and the public has acquiesced to the public sector being crushed, there's absolutely no reason that another manufactured budget deficit couldn't serve as an effective burning Reichstag to rally the timid, scared, angry public behind the whitest "Fuck the Police" movement ever seen.

First they came for the minorities, and I did not speak up because…

I'm as shocked to say this as you are to hear it, but in a strange way I feel bad for Scott Walker.

He is facing a backlash – including among some of the people who voted for him – for doing exactly what any moderately informed observer would expect Scott Walker to do once elected Governor of Wisconsin. The situation is roughly similar to that of President Obama, who campaigned on health care reform and then was put through the wringer when he actually proposed it. Walker is in the same boat, the primary difference being substantive (health care reform was intended to help people, whereas Walker's goal seems to be to screw the greatest possible share of the non-investor class). Both Walker and Obama made one of the classic mistakes in American politics: assuming that most of the electorate had the slightest idea of what the candidates stood for when voting for them.

The idea of a "mandate" is probably the most overused and overstated concepts in media coverage of elections.

We have known for a long, long time that mandates are essentially a myth (see Robert Dahl's classic "Myth of the Presidential Mandate" from 1990). Elections are to modern politicians what oracles were to the ancient Greeks – all agreed that the oracle is the voice of a god, but everyone present admitted that when it spoke it was not as intelligible as desired. Elections say something about what the public wants. What exactly it says to the elected, however, is subjective and largely a projection of his or her own desires. The Teabagger interprets election as a mandate to Teabag; I imagine that the shock of being disabused of that notion must be great.

Sometimes all of the planets align perfectly, and it amused me to have Walker's mini-revolt happen during the same week as the "revelations" that the Iraqi defector / intelligence source known as "Curveball" (if you ever want to experience boiling blood, check out Bob Drogin's book of the same name) was unabashedly lying his ass off when his statements about Iraqi chemical/nuclear programs, often gleefully reported by Judith Miller, were used by the Bush administration to pave the road to war. In my view, there's no reason to be angry with Mr. Curveball. He was merely an individual acting out of self interest, of which there are about 6 billion on this planet. The anger should be directed at those who consciously chose to believe him even though he was completely, transparently, and perhaps even shockingly full of shit. People like Rumsfeld and Powell are coming forward in full Righteous Indignation mode, flabbergasted that an informant would or could lie. But it was patently obvious at the time that the source was fabricating his story…obvious to everyone except those who wanted to hear and believe exactly what he had to say.

So it is with Scott Walker. The most casual participant in the political process knows exactly what they will get when they vote for and elect Tea Party types and the more extreme right Republicans in general. No, he never came out and said "Hey, I'm gonna ream you public employees so hard you won't walk right for years!

" on the campaign trail. He might even have said a lot of sweet sounding things to the contrary. Only a voter lying to himself or completely ignorant of politics, however, would actually believe it.

It's time to stop being angry with Scott Walker, which makes no more sense than being angry at a dog for barking and chasing cars. Instead, our anger is more fairly directed at the swing voters who decide American elections – the kind of mushy, ill-informed "independent" who would vote for him and then be shocked to learn how extreme his brand of governance is.

People like Walker will continue to get elected so long as there are voters who are willfully ignorant of what candidates really stand for or so easily duped that a few sound bites can overwhelm all available evidence that the Governor-to-be supports an agenda of the kind of corporate cronyism and pathological hatred of government that defines people of his ideological stripes.

When you vote for people like Scott Walker and Ron Johnson, this is what you get. How unfortunate it is that the rest of us have to be chained to so many people who have not yet figured that out. As long as the electorate is composed substantially of people who won't understand that the glowing stove is hot until they put their hand on it, we will continue to suffer Scott Walkers at unpleasantly regular intervals.

The most random thing happened to me on Sunday evening; I fell asleep at 7:30 PM. Consequently, even though I am now more awake than any non-meth addict should be at 5 AM, the Great Big Wisconsin Post will have to wait one more day. Until then, enjoy this bit of validation of the continuing relevance of the basic exchange theory of politics.
online pharmacy cymbalta best drugstore for you

buy grifulvin online buy grifulvin no prescription

The lion's share of attention regarding Scott Walker's legislative proposal has been paid to the effort to revoke Wisconsin public employees' collective bargaining rights, but the 144-page bill (more reliable link here) is a far more exhaustive and inclusive list of the fundamentals of Republican politics in the 21st Century. Not many people have the time to plow through the whole bill but those who do will be rewarded with plenty of gems like this:

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

If this isn't the best summary of the goals of modern conservatism, I don't know what is.
online pharmacy furosemide best drugstore for you

It's like a highlight reel of all of the high-flying slam dunks of neo-Gilded Age corporatism: privatization, no-bid contracts, deregulation, and naked cronyism. Extra bonus points for the explicit effort to legally redefine the term "public interest" as "whatever the energy industry lobbyists we appoint to these unelected bureaucratic positions say it is."

In case it isn't clear where the naked cronyism comes in, remember which large, politically active private interest loves buying up power plants and already has considerable interests in Wisconsin. Then consider their demonstrated eagerness to help Mr. Walker get elected and bus in carpetbaggers to have a sad little pro-Mubarak style "rally" in his honor. There are dots to be connected here, but doing so might not be in the public interest.
buy zoloft online buy zoloft no prescription

I think the "Budget Repair Bill" is Wisconsin's very own Vanguard moment.

There are few things that irk me more than working on a post here and there for a few weeks and then having someone else beat me to it, as Matt Yglesias did here. Nonetheless this is worth saying again and somewhat more forcefully.

It is hard to pick just one thing to earn the title of Most Infuriating in the faux-debate about Social Security reform, but if forced to choose I would have to pick the idea of grandfathering seniors out of the impending cuts. Leaving aside momentarily the fact that the claims of a rickety, insolvent system on the verge of going tits-up at any moment are a wild exaggeration at best, the institutionalized kissing of the asses of seniors is the biggest obstacle to introducing sanity into the upcoming reforms.

Every proposal thus far, and we may safely assume any forthcoming ones as well, stipulate that no substantive changes will be made to the SS benefits of people currently 55 or older. You know, that voting bloc with extraordinarily high turnout composed of aging Boomers who want to burn every bridge once they have safely crossed it.

In keeping with the modern political tradition of refusing to demand any sacrifices from voters (at least not the ones who matter to the Beltway) we are about to be promised radical changes to Social Security that don't require the vast majority of current or near-future recipients to experience any changes. "But I paid into it my whole life!

" they say, as if people who have merely paid into it for 30 years are not stakeholders. This is a politically expedient bit of ass covering used by both parties – and frankly a little more tasteful than some other efforts at pandering to seniors – but the absolute worst possible way to approach reform, virtually guaranteeing that the same portion of our society that spends most of its life being shat upon will bear the brunt of the consequences and see few if any benefits.

If reform is truly necessary (as opposed to austerity hysteria used as a canard for hostility toward the welfare state in general) then everyone should be in this boat together. We should be sharing the sacrifices. None of this "Let's screw a lot of our constituents but protect the ones most crucial to our re-election" nonsense. If political leadership still existed in this country, a real president or Congressional leader would stand up and say "We'd prefer not to change Social Security but it looks like we have to. Everybody bend over. This is going to be unpleasant, but take some solace in the fact that everybody is going to get screwed.

" I calculate the odds of that happening at about a million to one.

Of course I feel bad for current SS recipients who are struggling to make ends meet even at current benefit levels. In reality I would prefer that the system be left as-is and any future revenue shortfalls remedied by lifting the cap on high income contributions. But the larger point is that this is indicative of a deeply disturbing habit that is ingrained in our political system: selectively screwing various groups based on their perceived electoral importance. Sure, let's just dump all of the consequences on the young. Maybe we'll switch it up next time and screw the poor, or maybe the blacks and Latinos.

Whatever we end up choosing, for the love of baby Jesus please make sure no consequences befall the elderly or the upper middle class.

It is interesting that our President chooses to rely so heavily on the "Sputnik moment" metaphor given that the average American is about as likely to be able to perform the miracle of loaves and fishes as to correctly identify and explain the significance of Sputnik. Hell, half of us can't find Ohio on a map of our own country. Why would we know about something that happened in 1957?

Accordingly very few people, even among the minority that know to what Sputnik refers, remember the American response. Project Vanguard in the Naval Research Lab (one of the many non-civilian precursors to NASA) was already working on building a rocket booster powerful and reliable enough to put a satellite into orbit. Sputnik took Americans by surprise; more importantly it rendered an entire nation butt-hurt to the point that all pretense of rational thought was abandoned. We let our emotions make decisions for us, attempting to launch a Vanguard booster well before it was ready in order to, I don't know, show the Commies that we were…second?

With a "plan" like that it is hard to see what could go wrong.

*sad trombone*

Amongst the lofty sounding Sputnik metaphors and soothing rhetoric the President mentioned repeatedly the need to better educate the American workforce. Earlier I talked at length about the dubiousness of this logic, but let us accept it at face value for just a moment. If what we really need is a highly educated, technologically skilled workforce, then the budget proposal we saw today does not make a lot of sense:

(One) component of his FY 2012 budget, which will be released tomorrow, will likely pile more debt upon students who decide to pursue graduate school, potentially making the dream of higher education even more unattainable for many Americans. The move, say administration officials, is needed to ensure that a popular financial aid award stays available at current levels…Host Candy Crowley questioned (OMB Director Jacob) Lew about whether this would make graduate school less accessible for many Americans:

CROWLEY: Here's the problem, I guess. If you are a graduate — let's take one of your examples.

buy cenforce online mhvclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/png/cenforce.html no prescription pharmacy

You're a graduate student; you are, right now, getting loans. You don't have to pay those loans or any interest on them until you graduate. But now you have to pay — or it accumulates, I'm assuming — you have to pay interest beginning on day one of grad school, and that makes it so that you can't go to grad school.

buy amoxicillin online mhvclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/png/amoxicillin.html no prescription pharmacy

LEW: Well, let's just be clear. Interest will build up, but students won't have to pay until they graduate. So it will increase the burden for paying back the loans, but it will not reduce access to education.
buy clomid online www.conci.com/wp-content/languages/new/online/clomid.html no prescription

That's, I think, part of how you can responsibly have a plan that deals with the challenge of solving our fiscal crisis, getting out of the situation where the deficit is growing and growing, but also investing in the future.

Part of me wants to make a detailed, reasoned response to this nonsensical argument. A bigger part of me wants to walk up to Jacob Lew, press my palms to the corners of my mouth, and exhale forcefully to make really loud farting noises.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have found our Vanguard moment. If anything can motivate Americans to seek and acquire the skills we so badly need to compete with the Chinamen it is an extra -10k in debt saddled to each professional degree.
buy cymbalta online www.conci.com/wp-content/languages/new/online/cymbalta.html no prescription

The message, of course, is that you should go to graduate school anyway. Think of the extra debt as additional motivation to take whatever the lousy job market offers you when you finish – and a reminder not to get too uppity with Management in that job you won't be able to afford to lose.

POSTSCRIPT: On its third attempt Vanguard succeeded in putting a grapefruit-sized metal ball into orbit. But. But! It's still in orbit, unlike Sputnik. It is in fact the oldest man-made object in orbit at present. So, uh, suck on that, Ivan. What, didn't they translate The Tortoise and the Hare into Cyrillic?

As they do with every president, this past weekend the media devoted 72 hours of non-stop coverage to the centennial of the birth of a deceased ex-president. Given that Wednesday is the anniversary of William Henry Harrison's birth we can expect an equivalent outpouring of attention and adulation.

The coverage I saw over the past few days was very strange – it kept describing this person named "Ronald Reagan." But that must be a common name or something, because the person they described didn't sound anything at all like the Ronald Reagan who was once president. Ronnie has long since mutated from merely Overrated to Canonized, but now we appear to have reached a stage beyond that. It is no longer sufficient to idealize the man and his accomplishments – we simply recast him and his entire political life based on whatever ideological cause needs to use him as a mascot. This is despite the fact that if Ronald Reagan was alive today, it's pretty clear that he would think that most of the people who say his name with great reverence are idiots. Which is saying something.

Two interesting quotes courtesy C&L, one from historian Richard N. Smith and the second from the director of the Reagan Library.

Before he became an icon, Ronald Reagan was a paradox: a complex man who appeared simple, at once a genial fundamentalist and a conservative innovator. As America's oldest President, he found his most fervent supporters among the young. The only divorced man to occupy the Oval Office, Reagan as President rarely attended church. He enjoyed a relationship with his own children best described as intermittent. Yet his name was synonymous with traditional values, and he inspired millions of the faithful to become politically active for the first time. During eight years in the White House, Reagan never submitted a balanced budget or ceased to blame Congress for excessive spending. He presided over the highest unemployment rate since World War II and one of the longest peacetime booms ever.

And…

If the Age of Reagan is anywhere consigned to the history books, it is among those who claim his mantle while practicing little of their hero's sunny optimism and even less of his inclusiveness. Reagan, after all, excelled at the politics of multiplication. Too many of his professed admirers on talk radio and cable gabfests appear to prefer division.

If there's one thing modern conservatives are constitutionally incapable of understanding, it's the idea that anything, least of all a person, can be complex. Everything is black and white. Good and evil. Right and wrong. For it or against it. So they created a Reagan who just so happened to stand for whatever it is they need him to stand for. Their Reagan is some kind of Conservative Superhero who gave no quarter, not the real Reagan of whom Joe Biden speaks fondly regarding his willingness to cut deals at the drop of a hat. This distorted image of their hero makes about as much sense as Teabaggers invoking the spirit of Washington or Hamilton.

For conservatives, and possibly for all of us, "Reagan" has become like Gandhi or Martin Luther King – a Santa Claus figure, a mascot. We know almost nothing about him (and what we do know is wrong) but we know he was Good and worthy of our adulation for some reason, a reason that varies based on whatever it is we need Reagan to represent in our preferred narrative.

But seriously, who was that guy they were talking about all weekend? The name sounded familiar, but that's about it.

I am about 3/4 of the way through Overhaul by Obama appointee and "car czar" Steven Rattner. It's worth reading on a number of levels, talking extensively about the many factors behind the decline of the auto industry, the nightmare of working in Congress, the bigger nightmare of watching everything die in the Senate, and the politics of a hostile anti-regulatory climate. Most interesting, however, is the fact that he pulls no punches regarding how much of the auto industry's trouble was/is of its own making. Free trade and increased competition certainly did a number on the Big Three, but that shouldn't obscure the fact that these companies were run terribly. Like, epic bad. A group of people randomly selected from the phone book could have done as well. Maybe better.

Anyone who follows the domestic auto industry even casually already knows this. To know the name "Rick Wagoner" is to know exactly what kind of ass clowns were making the decisions that drove the world's largest manufacturers into the abyss. Although Rattner does not say it (being a finance / Wall Street guy himself) I think this is a very important point to bear in mind in an economy with such staggering levels of income inequality. Simply put, why do so many of the Upper Management caste make so much money when they are so egregiously terrible at their jobs?

The whole argument behind bloated executive compensation is that companies must pay big in order to attract the very best people. In reality we find that many of them – and Wagoner will be the poster child for years to come – are world class idiots. There is no other way to put it. There is no candy coating on an objective assessment of his performance and that of the other GM/Chrysler top brass. If the one trick they seem to have learned in their expensive educations (cut costs + something something = PROFIT!!!) doesn't work they are dumbstruck. They stand around like deer in headlights until someone fires them. GM paid Wagoner $23 million as a severance package, and yet the guy seemed incapable of grasping concepts that an undergraduate would probably get. He knew less about the auto industry than the average car blogger.

If executives get paid so goddamn much to ensure that only the finest talent fills those important positions, why do the companies large enough to take down our entire economy keep failing so spectacularly? With the exorbitant compensation packages offered to executives at AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman, GM, every major airline, and dozens of other failed Fortune 500 companies in the past 20 years, why could none of them attract "talent" talented enough to recognize the imminent failure of those billion dollar enterprises?

So much of it boils down to the dominant ethos of the post-New Deal economy in this country – IBG, YBG (I'll be gone, you'll be gone). Individuals in these positions have no long term view of the health of the business, the economy, or anything but their own personal bottom line. Just do whatever enriches us today and don't worry about the consequences. By the time the company is either insolvent or begging for a bailout, I'll be gone and you'll be gone. Honestly, I doubt Rick Wagoner and his nine-figure net worth care much that the economy has gone to shit and his former company is now on life support. He and the many others like him on Wall Street and throughout corporate America are doing just fine right now having been lavishly compensated for "talents" that appear in hindsight to have been limited to lining their own bank accounts and making stupid decisions.

An obscure state legislator, Rep. Bobby Franklin of Georgia's 43rd House district, received a disproportionate amount of attention earlier this week for proposing that the state eliminate the practice of licensing drivers. Illustrative of his mastery of the Constitution, Franklin eloquently notes, "Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right." He had the following exchange with a local reporter regarding this legislative masterpiece:

Franklin told CBS Atlanta News that driver's licenses are a throw back to oppressive times. “Agents of the state demanding your papers," he said. "We’re getting that way here.”

CBS Atlanta's Rebekka Schramm asked Franklin, “How are we going to keep up with who’s who and who’s on the roads and who’s not supposed to be on the roads?”

“That’s a great question," Franklin said. "And I would have to answer that with a question, ‘Why do you need to know who’s who?’”

“What about 12-14-year-olds who want to drive? What would stop them?" Schramm asked.

“Well, what’s stopping them now anyway?” Franklin answered.

We Georgians are well acquainted with Rep. Franklin, not merely for his brilliance but also for his productivity. In the current state legislative session he has proposed 50 bills in the first two weeks, including the first 21 bills to enter the hopper. Let's take a quick look at what Rep. Franklin has been doing for the people of Georgia.
buy priligy online buy priligy no prescription

HB1 – "to provide that prenatal murder shall be unlawful in all events…"

OK, so he's throwing pro-lifers a bone. No harm in that.

HB2 Georgia Right to Grow Act – "to protect the right to grow food crops and raise small animals on private property so long as such crops and animals are used for human consumption by the occupants"

So your neighbor can keep a donkey or a chicken coop in his yard. At this point I need to emphasize that Franklin's district is in suburban Atlanta.

HB3 Constitutional Tender Act – "to require the exclusive use of gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debts by or to the state"

Because according to the Constitushin, FRN ain't real money!

HB4 Life, Liberty, and Property Restoration Act – "to create the Joint Committee on Repeals"

No idea what this means, but I am going to have to assume that it's something crazy.

HB5 Freedom of Choice and Security Act – "to amend Chapter 11 of Title 16 …
buy zovirax online buy zovirax no prescription

(to) repeal Article 4"

Ch.11, Title 16, Art. 4 outlaws the following things, among others:

16-11-102: Pointing a gun at another person
16-11-106: Using a firearm in the commission of another crime
16-11-113: Transferring a firearm to someone cannot legally own one
16-11-122: Possession of a sawed-off shotgun or machine gun
16-11-127: Carrying a firearm onto school property or at school functions
16-11-131: Possession of firearm by convicted felon
16-11-132: Possession of firearm by individual under 18
16-11-134: Discharge of firearm under the influence of drugs
16-11-170: To provide background checks under the Brady Act

Yeah.

HB6 Emergency Defense of the Home Act – "to repeal the power of the Governor to suspend or limit the sale or transportation of firearms during times of emergency"
HB7 Right to Travel Act – the drivers' license thing
HB8 Due Process Restoration Act – "to prohibit certain forms of surveillance without search warrants"

Hey, we finally found one that isn't completely fucking bonkers!

HB9 Kathryn Johnston's Law – "to provide that the use of forced entry in the execution of a search warrant is prohibited"

There. Now we're back on track.

HB10 Child Protection Act – "to provide that no local governing authority shall prohibit the construction of a fence between properties of a sufficient height to prevent a person at the highest point of observation in one residence to observe activity within an adjacent property"

Read that explanation carefully and note just how high the proposed fence in question would have to be to prohibit, for example, viewing one's neighbor's yard from a 2nd story window. But your bizarro 25 foot fence will enhance Child Protection!

HB11 Freedom from Compulsory Pandemic Act – "to repeal the authority of the Governor to issue mandatory vaccination orders"

A logical extension of the pioneering work of Dr. Jennifer McCarthy at the University of Google.
https://landmarkfamilydental.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/jpg/nolvadex.html

HB12 Georgia Food Freedom Act – "to exempt from local regulations certain retail sales of Georgia grown agricultural or farm products directly from the producer to the consumer"

If history has proven anything it's that unregulated food is safe.

HB13 – "to prohibit the levy or collection of income taxes"

Well that 'll fix our massive budget deficit.

HB14 – "to change the term "victim" to the term "accuser" …where there has not yet been a criminal conviction"

OK, that seems reasonable. But I'm sure his motives are somehow insane.

HB15 – "to provide that no person employed by or under contract with…this state…shall be permitted to address any committee or subcommittee of the General Assembly"

Common sense lobbying reform? Bobby, I'm disappointed. What has gotten into you?

HB16 Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act – "to eliminate provisions for a utility to recover from its customers the costs of financing associated with the construction of a nuclear generating plant"

We'll recoup the costs from the general tax revenues instead.

Oh wait.

HB17 – "to abolish the Department of Human Services"

I hear they mostly spend their days playing Duck Hunt anyway. Good riddance.

HB18 – "to abolish the State Road and Tollway Authority"

Bobby, we're starting to run out of sources of income. I'm not sure you realize this.

HB19 – "to provide that federal reserve banks and branches located in Georgia shall not be exempt from state income tax"

Can a state tax a Federally chartered bank? Man, I wish the Supreme Court offered some guidance on this complicated question of federalism.

Oh wait I just tripped over McCULLOCH v. FRIGGIN' MARYLAND. FROM 1819.

HB20 – "to provide for the comprehensive regulation of federal tax funds"

This is so poorly written as to obscure its intended meaning, but from the complete bill I gather that this is some kind of scheme to create a state panel to rule on what Georgia's tax dollars can and cannot be used for by the Federal government…which sounds really constitutional.

HB21 – "to provide findings of the General Assembly regarding the constitutionality of certain federal laws and other mandates; to provide that any judicial officer, law enforcement officer, agent, or employee of the federal government, any multinational government, any international government, or any global government commits the offense of racketeering by color of law when he or she attempts to enforce any law not recognized as valid."

If you're going to propose the first 21 bills you might as well go out in a blaze of glory – Nullification! "Global government" paranoia! The common sense assertion that states get to pick which Federal laws are "recognized as valid"! Boy, I wonder if Rep. Franklin had any crazy left for the remainder of the session after this 21 bill burst of furious activity…

HB37 – "to provide that political parties shall provide documentation that their candidates in the presidential preference primary meet the qualifications of the United States Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States"

Oh hell yeah.

You're money well spent, Bobby.
https://landmarkfamilydental.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/jpg/zovirax.html

Reading your list of legislative proposals I can't imagine what our state government could do to streamline its operations, reduce waste, and get more accomplished.

In its first 11 days, the 112th Congress has brought 28 separate bills to the floor to repeal "Obamacare":

H.R. 105 Dan Burton (R-IN) To repeal the Patient Protection Act & enact incentives tto buy health insurance.
H.R. 118 John Fleming (R-LA) To permit a state to elect not to have an American Health Care Exchange.
H.R. 119 John Fleming (R-LA) To prohibit hiring of irs agent to implement or enforce health insurance reform.
H.R. 127 John Graves (R-GA) To de-authorize funding of Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 141 Steve King (R-IA) To repeal the Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 145 Connie Mack (R-FL) To repeal the Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 154 Ted Poe (R-TX) To prohibit any federal funds to be used to enforce Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 171 Cliff Stearns (R-FL)
H.R. 2 Eric Cantor (R-VA) Repeal of Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 38 John Fleming (R-LA) Rescind funds authorized for Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 9 David Drier (R-CA) Requires Committees to look into Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 26 David Drier (R-CA) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 215 Don Young (R-AK) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 19 John Carter (R-TX) Disapprove rules on MLR in Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 299 John Carter (R-TX) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 358 Joe Pitts (R-PA) Remove abortion funding from Patient Protection Act (there is none)
H.R. 360 Michael Burgess (R-TX) Amend Patient Protection Act to include President in Health Care Exchanges.
H.R. 364 Tom Latham (R-IA) To Repeal Patient Protection Act
H.R. 371 Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) Repeal Title I of Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 5 Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 397 Wally Herger (R-CA) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 429 Darrell Issa (R-CA) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 452 Phil Roe (R-TN) A bill to repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 450 Dave Reichert (R-WA) A bill to repeal Patient Protection Act.
S. 19 Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Repeal Health Mandate & therefore repeal patient protections.
S. 17 Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Repeal Tax on Medical Devices
S. 16 David Vitter (R-LA) Repeal Patient Protection Act
S. 196 Chuck Grassley (R-IA) A bill to to provide congressional staff gets to participate in Exchange.
S. 192 Jim DeMint (R-SC) A bill to repeal health care.

I understand why this is the case – every spotlight hungry Teabagger (or in Hatch's case, someone trying to ward off a Teabagger challenge) feels obligated to not only support the repeal but to propose his very own bill. Sure, anyone can cosponsor Eric Cantor's bill, but a real conservative hero would propose his own.

Beyond that I understand the cat-and-mouse game that goes on during divided government, as the Congress passes bills it knows the president will veto in the hopes that the veto can be used against him during the next election. This usually requires devising an Orwellian and misleading title, e.g. the Stop Terrorists with AIDS From Raping Your Daughter Act, so that future "Can you believe Obama vetoed this? My god! What an animal!" rage can be more easily provoked. I get it.

That said, I am not sure what the GOP thinks it is going to gain from this strategy of barraging the House floor with bills that haven't the slightest chance of becoming law. Let's be honest: the odds of any of these laws A) making it out of the Senate and B) getting the President's signature to euthanize his sole major legislative accomplishment (at least in his view) are effectively nil. I'm sure they realize that. So what are they getting out of this?

Everybody who flies into a rage at the mere mention of the health care law is already voting against Obama in 2012. Can they somehow vote more against him if Mitch McConnell reminds them that he or Harry Reid torpedoed an effort to repeal it? Will anyone on the planet remember a single one of these bills in an election 22 months from now? For the average Teabagger it is unlikely that they can even keep organized the dozens of reasons that Obama is the antichrist. Vetoing this garbage – pretend for a minute that the Senate passes it – doesn't even appear to give the GOP a useful talking point. Anyone who would care about this is already highly motivated to turn out in 2012 to oppose Obama.

"We fulfilled our campaign promise to veto it, but he wouldn't let us" does not seem like a phrase that will drive undecided voters toward the GOP or motivate would-be abstainers to get out and vote. As far as anti-Obama talking points go it's about as exciting as tap water and will hardly stand out. In every sense of the phrase this is an enormous waste of time. As the gap between the 2008 and 2010 elections proved, a lot can change in two years. If the Republicans mistakenly believe that all they need to do is keep repeating the 2010 talking points to waltz into office in 2012 they are setting themselves up for quite the disappointment. An objective adviser might recommend that the House GOP, you know, propose something on which they can hang their hats as a Big Legislative Accomplishment before the end of the year. If their big accomplishment is to cut 0.25% from the budget and to pass a bunch of shit that died in the Senate, the odds of repeating their 2010 performance would seem to be poor.