The title says it all

They tell you not to judge a book by its cover, but sometimes you can use your high school education to deduce all you need from the title itself. So it is with Speaker Boehner's current approach to the debt ceiling.

Not his career approach, his current approach. Boehner did, after all, raise the debt ceiling seven times during his last term as Speaker of the House, when Congress approved tax cuts that have cost us almost $2 trillion in revenue while writing blank checks to the DoD and defense contractors.

Boehner's answer to this crisis is such a book: "Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable."

This "plan" makes very similar cuts to the plan Harry Reid put forth, the difference is that one force us would relive this entire hissy fit again in six months (how conveniently timed) and one at least waits until 2013. Using that high school education, one can only deduce that Boehner's sole goal is to discredit President Obama. Like he has for much of his career, he will do this ignoring all other costs.

One reason the GOP has such a loyal following

I’m not particularly loyal to the Democratic Party. For one thing, I live in the state whose Senior Senator is constantly named “The Most Conservative Democrat in Congress.”

I am loyal to Ben. He is well known amongst staffers for buying Happy Hour rounds at Tortilla Coast; when I was a young intern everyone wanted to be my friend so they could meet Ben. Yes, my adoration is cheaply bought with several rounds of dollar beers.

Happy hour friendships and creative social propaganda aside, Democrats should be taking a few cues from Republicans when it comes to getting business done.

One of their biggest problems, is a fundamental characteristic of their base: pragmatism. It seems that today’s Economist/YouGov survey has identified one fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats want to get something accomplished, even if they have to compromise. While Republicans would rather stick to their principles, even if it means nothing gets done.

For students of the old-school definitions of “liberal” and “conservative,” this makes perfect sense. “Liberals” believe that society can manifest itself as a democratic government to provide for the greater good. “Conservatives” believe that individuals can only reach their potential in the absence of interference.

For voters, it means that Democrats don’t have the balls to do what they think is best and Republicans are so stubborn that stalling has become their go-to tactic.

If only we could institute a proportional representative election system. We could be free from the choice-limiting two-party system once and for all. And yes, that is the most conservation wording I could use. I hope the irony isn’t lost.

Washington Post asks: What would you cut?

Hypocrisy is expensive.

Today Leon Panetta outlined $178 billion in DOD budget cuts. No details were released, but soon after, via Twitter, WaPo asked its followers what they would cut.

I thought about the conversation I had with D last night, about how he's been working 16-hour shifts, how he'll need me to send him more toilet paper and baby wipes and Gatorade powder, about the clause in his contract limiting the amount of aid he'll get if he is disabled in the line of duty.

I thought about the hypocrisy I’ve heard from politicians who gift-wrap million dollar contracts but ignore homeless and unemployed veterans. That, of course, isn’t a national security issue; it is an issue of our national honor.

America derives its honor from our democracy and all the beautiful language that goes with it. Freedom. Liberty. Justice. Hope. Yet in our international exploits, our strategy often clashes with our ideals.

Not only is this hypocritical, it is dangerous.

America’s support for abusive regimes and intervention on their behalf is al Qaeda’s number one recruitment tool.

This fact is regularly stated by our politicians, the National Security and Intelligence communities, but we knowingly continue on a risky self-destructive path. We give these regimes jets, bombs, ammunition and cash.

Back in 2006, we slapped Israel’s wrist for using cluster bombs they promised they wouldn’t use in populated areas. The question here is: what did we think they were going to use them for?

The Center for Public Integrity has a nice little (albeit outdated) list of the world’s human rights offenders and the amount of military aid they’ve received in the first few years after September 11. There is no amount given for Saudi Arabia.

The Top Ten Offenders
(by Dollar Amount between 2002-2004, not by worst abuses)

Israel: $9 billion
Egypt: $6 billion
Pakistan: $4 billion
Afghanistan: $2 billion
Jordan: $2 billion
Columbia: $2 billion
Turkey: $1 billion
Peru: $445 million
Bolivia: $320 million
Poland: $313 million

Iraq comes in 11th with almost $284 million.

Let's keep in mind that between 2002 and 2004 it was the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" that approved these expenditures. This party is currently refusing to raise taxes, despite fifty years of economic history (see Reagan’s 1982 increases and Clinton’s 1993 increases) and proposing cuts to “entitlement programs.”

I need to talk about that for a minute. The word “entitlement” suggests that the beneficiaries did nothing to deserve what they are getting. But over 95% of Medicare recipients paid federal income taxes for 50 years or more. Moreover, many of these recipients - like my Grandfather - lived through the Great Depression, spent his youth in the Navy, paid his taxes and honored the law. We DO owe them. We owe them as much as we owe those who are serving today.

But Democrats, afraid of the majority-Republican House, seem to forget that only a few years ago a Republican president and his minority party did whatever the **** they wanted.

I guess cowardice is costly too.

-Mr. A