Mashed Potato Bulletin

To Mashed Potato Bulletin Readers

Mashed Potato Bulletin — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:50:15 +0000

Hello everyone!

As some of you may have noticed, I have not been posting all that regularly of late. I’ve taken on some other projects and was focused on fiction writing over the last month or so. As it turns out I’ve become fairly burned out on politics. It seems like we’re rehashing the same arguments over and over with no resolution…ever. Ugh!

So, I’m taking a break from the topic and moving on to some other things. Although I will probably post on the Bulletin from time to time, I’ll be working on other things. Case in point, I have started a new blog called Scribbling Gizmos. I’ll be posting on a full range of topics from movies and television shows to science and scifi to travel advice to health to discussions as to whether or not it’s socially acceptable for adults to play with Legos. All kinds of things, whatever enters my brain, except politics.

So if you’re interested please have a look at the new blog. It’s still under construction but the first post is up, a little something wondering why The Walking Dead has not been nominated for any big awards.

I’ll have Twitter, Facebook and Pinterest pages up for it by next week I’m sure. Feel free to follow me on there if that’s easier for you.

Thank you for reading and good luck to you all!

Tagged: Scribbling Gizmos

Did the Bush Administration Emigrate to Canada?

Mashed Potato Bulletin — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:01:03 +0000

Canada is witnessing a similar heavy-handed control over government scientists as the United States saw under the George W. Bush administration and its censorship of climate research and other environmental sciences. This conflict between government agenda and the free flow of knowledge science will have (and quite probably is having) a significant influence as to whether the Keystone XL pipeline is approved or not. It is quite probable the US State Department’s recent, appraisal report on the pipeline utilized the findings of potentially skewed science from Canada’s Harper administration.

How the Tar Sands Are Crushing Science in Canada

The Canadian government is currently under investigation for its efforts to obstruct the right of the media and public to speak to government scientists. These policies are widely believed to be a part of the government’s unspoken campaign to ensure that oil keeps flowing from the Athabasca tar sands — even if it’s at the cost of free scientific inquiry, the environment, and by consequence, democracy itself.

Federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault officially launched the investigation into the alleged ‘muzzling’ of Canadian scientists earlier this week. Calls for the inquiry came in the form of a recent 128-page report chronicling “systemic efforts” to obstruct public access to researchers — a request that originated from the non-profit group Democracy Watch. The agencies to be investigated include departments of the environment, fisheries and oceans, natural resources, and the National Research Council of Canada.

A three-pronged obstruction strategy;

1) steering scientific research in desired directions by primarily funding non-threatening areas of research (like genetics and stem cell research), 2) implementing obstruction tactics to prevent the dissemination of scientific research that could undermine the oil industry, and 3) shutting down (or under-funding) any institution or organization that could likewise pose a threat.

Muzzled

This all started back in 2008 when the Tories implemented a policy in which federal scientists were told to direct all media inquiries to national headquarters and not respond to requests to talk about their work. As a consequence, many Canadians, and especially the media, are not hearing about the latest findings, including those published in prestigious journals. Canadian scientists are starting to slip on the world stage.

Read more…

_______________________________________

Follow on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest

Tagged: Canada, censorship, climate change, environment, Harper, Keystone, nature, obstruction, science, tar sands

42 Things you probably didn’t know about Douglas Adams (video)

Mashed Potato Bulletin — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:44:47 +0000

Douglas Adams, the author of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series of books into which so many of us have found humorous escape, would have turned 61 this past Monday. In remembrance of his birthday and in honor of the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, here are 42 facts about the man who brought us – for better or worse – Vogon poetry and who taught us about the “immense psychological value” of one’s towel.

By Eoin O’Carroll

In honor of his fans’ favorite number, here are 42 facts about the great sci-fi satirist, technophile, conservationist, and all-around hoopy frood.

1. In 1974, Mr. Adams made his first of two appearances in “Monty Python’s Flying Circus,” playing a surgeon in Episode 42.

2. On May 9, 2001, two days before Adams died, the International Astronomical Union asteroid 18610 “Arthurdent,” after the protagonist of the Hitchhiker’s trilogy.

3. Adams was friends with Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour and came up with the title of the band’s 1994 album, “The Division Bell.”

4. A passionate technophile, Adams often said that he was the first person in the United Kingdom to buy a Macintosh computer.

5. In 1994, Adams joined a trek organized by the conservation group Save the Rhino from the coast of Mombassa, Kenya, to the Summit of Kilomonjaro. The trekkers took turns wearing a huge rhinoceros costume.

_______________________________________

Follow on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest

Tagged: 42, Don't Panic, Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, humor

What’s truly wrong with the Ryan Budget

Mashed Potato Bulletin — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:11:35 +0000

By Lori Montgomery, The Washington Post

The tax plan embedded in the House Republican budget would cut taxes by $5.7 trillion over the next decade, with the benefits flowing disproportionately to very wealthy households, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year would benefit the most from the GOP tax plan, the analysis shows, reaping an average $400,000 tax break that would send their after-tax income soaring by nearly 20 percent.

Meanwhile, taxpayers earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year — closer to the national average — would see their taxes cut by about $666 on average, increasing their after-tax income by less than 2 percent.

The analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, focuses solely on one part of the tax plan spelled out in the GOP budget: a proposal to collapse the rate structure, which tops out at 39.6 percent, into two brackets, 25 percent and 10 percent.

The budget, drafted by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), proposes to make up the revenue lost to those changes through an overhaul of the tax code that would eliminate existing tax breaks and deductions.

But the budget leaves those details to the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Tax Policy Center did not attempt to predict the effect of those changes.

Read more…

Additional Reading:

Analysis: GOP fiscal vision prioritizes enormous tax cuts for rich over deficit

_______________________________________

Follow on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest

Tagged: Americans, budget, Economy, Fact Check, House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, Politics, Republicans, Spending cuts, Taxes

How misunderstood is the US Constitution?

Mashed Potato Bulletin — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:30:50 +0000

“Shots fired at the President.”

It was about 2:30 in the afternoon on March 30, 1981 and Reagan was in the back of the presidential limousine rushing from a chaotic scene outside the Washington Hilton hotel. Within half an hour of the shooting doctors discovered President Reagan had indeed been shot and was on his way to surgery. When asked who was running the government a short time later at a White House press conference, Alexander Haig, a four star general and then Secretary of State, made the famously scoffed statement, “I am in control here.”

Was the longtime military man initiating a coup? No, but during a recent episode of The Americans, a new cable show about Soviet spies living in the US, that was precisely the concern. “He’s their top general,” was the basis for one of the main character’s worries., Leaving the question as to whether Russian spies lived among us in the 1980′s or not for another time, I did begin to wonder if this was truly a point of concern for Russian government. Was the United States on the verge of a military coup? Perhaps the post-Soviet Union collapse declassifications revealed those anxieties. If not, the idea isn’t too much of a stretch given their own history of autocratic reigns, Stalin’s rise to power and his dictatorial rule. Conceivably, America’s “top general” stating on television for all to see that he was in control was – from a foreign government’s perspective- just that, a coup to take over the US government. For me, this illustrated a tenuous comprehension of the succession of power laid out in the Constitution.

Thinking on this I was reminded of a moment in Erik Larson’s In the Garden of Beasts, a story about the first American ambassador to Nazi Germany in 1933, where the German government took particular offense to a mock trial of Adolf Hitler scheduled to take place in New York City. They wanted the US State Department to put a stop to this trial due to “…its lamentable effect on German public opinion if it should take place.” The State Department official responded that it was a public gathering and given the “guarantees of freedom of expression” provided by the US Constitution there was nothing to be done. Germany’s officials “seemed utterly unable to grasp” this concept, the broad freedoms accorded to the public nor the restrictions placed on government.

These examples are emblematic of the inherent misunderstandings of the US Constitution’s core inflexibility. That inflexibility, through a stringently abided by, detailed succession of power, is a proven deterrent against one person or group consolidating power and essentially effecting a government takeover, as Stalin did in Russia. Embedded also within that core is an unwavering freedom of expression which cannot be infringed.

The US Constitution has shared its two and a quarter centuries with roughly 900 other, short-lived constitutions. On average its contemporaries were in existence no more than 20 years. According to the Comparative Constitutions Project, a joint endeavor between the universities of Chicago and Texas, constitutions are, “very fragile things”. The two nations of Haiti and Dominican Republic who share the island of Hispanola, have shuffled through 63 written constitutions all by themselves. The project’s findings suggest specifics matter. The more detailed a constitution is, the longer it will last. The authors concluded it’s the investment in ironing out the controversial issues, the hard work to reach consensus that injects a lasting value into the document.

While the freedom to institute its own government was hard fought and idealized overtime, the defining document by which the United States is led most certainly has its share of ambiguities. These persist still to this day, embodied in gun control debates, voting rights challenges and various issues of equality. We, as a country, continue to find new ways to debate the Founders’ true intent. Would there be less frequent battles over the same issues if the authors would have just been a little more specific? Perhaps, yes. While the framing document left a number of areas open for debate they were clear about many of the essential processes of government and the rights inherently bestowed upon the people.

Those rights both restrict and effect change and keep the government honest, for the most part. Those embedded rights make change to favor one person or group extremely difficult. As with the right of free expression, it is guarded from change due to circumstance alone as was implied by the German official demanding a halt to the mock Hitler trial who reasoned,

“…that if the circumstances were reversed the German Government would certainly find a way of ‘stopping such a proceeding”

The unalterable lines of succession and separation of powers prevent government usurpers from managing a coup d’état. When Alexander Haig appeared in front of news cameras stating he was in control, there were reports of laughter in the Situation Room. The amusement inferred a particular level of security placed in the transfer of power detailed in the Constitution. And had Haig entertained any designs on such a grab for power he would not have progressed very far because of the limited ability to consolidate power. Unlike other countries, the military is not beholden its generals. Members of the armed forces do not claim fealty to one general. They swear allegiance to the Constitution and to its defense.

While the individual rights restrict change, in effect preserving them, the rights in of themselves can drive change to the Constitution, to address significant social issues like abolishing slavery, to clarify the rights of others by ensuring the right to vote for all citizens and to even correct mistakes or adapt to an evolving society illustrated by the repeal of prohibition and the shift to the direct election of senators.

But what may well be the linchpin or key to the US Constitution’s success is not just that it serves as the cornerstone of our country but it’s also the built upon reverence attached to it. Unlike countries whose governing documents change with the proverbial wind, this veneration of the America’s constitution and its authors has created, in effect, an embodied loyalty akin to a religiousness by which all laws are judged. Perhaps therein lies the roots of the misunderstanding. This document is the last word on the public’s rights and the limits of government which is beyond reproach. While we are frequently caught up in semantics and heated debates over its interpretations it’s that reverence which in the end binds everything together.

An OpenSalon Editor’s Pick

_______________________________________

Follow on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest

Tagged: Alexander Haig, assassination, Bill of Rights, Cold War, constitutional rights, freedom of speech, Opinion, Politics, Reagan, Russia, US Constitution

Want to win any climate change argument?

Mashed Potato Bulletin — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:56:53 +0000

A flow chart for debating with denialists.

By Chris Kirk and James West

_______________________________________

Follow on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest

Tagged: anti-science, climate change, debate, deniers, environment, Fact Check, global warming, science

Scalia, Woodward & the Senility Outbreak

Mashed Potato Bulletin — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:00:37 +0000

This past week bore witness to some significantly outrageous claims by two very public and private figures. From a burgeoning battle between a legendary journalist and the White House to an outright dismissal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by an Italian-American Supreme Court Justice coupled with what’s been recently heard from the new John McCain, are we simply observing a reflection of a divide America or is it a dire outbreak of senility?

Twitter was sent ablaze late Thursday with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s claim that the Voting Right’s Act renewal was nothing short of a “perpetuation of racial entitlement”. The claim came out of oral arguments surrounding the law’s requirement that certain states submit changes to voting laws to the federal government for approval. The measure is meant to ensure there are no infringement of voter’s rights.

Justice Scalia asserted, since the law was last renewed in 2006 with no opposition in the Senate, it was clear lawmakers were more concerned with being labeled a racist rather than subject the renewal to substantive debate. In so doing, this created a “racial entitlement”. Now, suspending disbelief for a moment and assume Scalia’s logic has merit, he interestingly omits the 33 representatives in the House who voted in opposition the last time around. This on its own should dispel Scalia’s conclusions.

Of course there is an alternate plane of logic one could take to explain why this law is continually renewed. Brace yourselves, dear readers… Could it be the law was deemed still necessary and those 98 senators and 390 House members were in rare agreement? For many there is still question surrounding the law’s potential obsolesces. Setting aside the 200 voting violations in Alabama alone between reauthorizations, the influx of new state-level, restrictive voting laws and subsequent court rulings against many of them, it is clear Section 5 is still relevant.

For Justice Scalia, and the other conservative judges, to assert oversight is obsolete is a simple denial of the real world situation. A particular curiosity crops up as well. Throughout the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries Italian immigrates in the United States were viewed as second class citizens. Scalia was, in fact, born to 1^st and 2^nd generation Italian immigrant parents. Is it not interesting a descendent of that demographic group, who sits upon the Supreme Court of the United States, now takes a stance which may directly limit minority opportunities?

Scalia’s increasingly controversial and shocking comments both from the bench and off may speak less to a decline into senility than it does to a perceived public acceptance of such extreme views within the current politically divisive environment. Scalia apears more comfortable expressing himself as he has of late, with such instances as the “Cornhusker Kickback” remark during the health care reform case, his assertion that on the most controversial issues he doesn’t “even have to read the briefs, for Pete’s sake” (indicating a lack of impartiality), and equating gay marriage to murder. The fact that he is the longest serving justice on the bench he may feel he can say whatever he pleases since there are few, if any, consequences for his actions. That is unless a decline in the Court’s credibility counts as a consequence of importance. There are no real laws against judicial activism and biased opinion on the Supreme Count, despite the impact this may have on the country as a whole.

Bob Woodward is a different story. Beginning with a hard hitting, and technically accurate, February 22^nd column placing the idea of the sequester on the Obama administration’s front step and ending the week with an appearance on Sean Hannity’s show, Mr Woodward injected himself squarely into the sequester blame game. It was, however, what occurred between these two events which sent the iconic journalist on a credibility roller coaster. After numerous interviews pressing his “Obama owns the sequester” and “goal post moving” points, Mr. Woodward spoke with CNN’s Wolfe Blitzer and revealed a shocking accusation. According to him, 4 days prior through email correspondence a “very senior” White House official threatened him by stating he would, “regret doing this”. A day later the full email texts were released by Politico and revealed a wholly benign conversation between, what could be construed as, two close colleagues.

Woodward was caught in what could easily be interpreted as a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts, or what’s more commonly known as a “lie”, something he had been accusing the Obama administration of for the past week. What would make a well respected journalist do such a thing, so openly? Looking back at the events, it seemed as though Woodward was not so much on a pursuit of journalistic truth than he was on a personal vendetta against the President. Add to this his Thursday evening appearance on Fox’s Hannity show where he expressed agreement with the very conservative host that journalists should begin investigating the, widely dismissed, Bill Ayers-Obama connection once again.

As witnessed from the once self-described “maverick of the Senate”, famous for level-headed bipartisanship, John McCain began a slow ride down the off-ramp to crazy town with his vice-presidential choice in 2008. He then peaked during a 2010 Tea Party indulged reelection and has since culminated thus far with an intense fixation on his Benghazi coverup conspiracy.

Unfortunately, Bob Woodward’s behavior this past week makes one wonder if he is following McCain’s lead. In the span of one week, the once heralded newsman has gone from making a fact-based counter to the President’s sequester message to accusing the administration of threatening him to being called out for lying about said accusations to denying he even said he was threatened, to agreeing with a severely conservative, Fox News commentary show host about the future direction of investigative journalism. Woodward’s appearances on the network have changed as well. From the roughly 11 over the 8 years of the Bush presidency to 10 this past year and 4 appearances already this new year. Is this a conscious shift to the conservative cable news channel? Is there any real significance in the number of appearances? Unsure. Some speculate Mr. Woodward is simply out expanding the potential audience for his latest book.

Whatever the reasons are, be it heightened comfort with one’s expression of extreme views brought on by the hyperpartisan times we live in or actually a downward slide into senility there is a decidedly obvious change in the manner our leading individuals conduct themselves. It’s shocking for some, cheer invoking for others but in the end it comes at the cost of professionalism that in the past brought compromise and progress. It brought solutions. Hard fought solutions, yes, but solutions nonetheless.

_______________________________________

Follow on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest

Tagged: Bob Woodward, Fox News, Hannity, McCain, Politics, racial entitlements, Republicans, Scalia, SCOTUS, sequester, voting rights

Test Your Knowledge: Energy Term Quiz

Mashed Potato Bulletin — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 01:25:22 +0000

Do you know the difference between oil reserve and oil resource? How about what fracking stands for? Confused? Or are you master of the energy buzzwords? Take the quiz and see how much you know!

_______________________________________

Follow on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest

Tagged: climate change, Economy, fracking, oil, Politics, renewable energy, science

The next time Speaker Boehner chastises Senate…

Mashed Potato Bulletin — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:29:48 +0000

House Speaker John Boehner has made many a headline laying blame for the sequester upon everybody elses’ shoulders but his own. He insisted the President was responsible for the massive spending cut set to go into effect March 1st. He’s touted his own accomplishments pushing through 2 sequester replacement bills in the House, forgetting to mention the obvious one-sided nature of both those pieces of legislation. And throughout most of this week he has thrown the entire weight of the sequestration onto the Senate who has not even considered the House bills and have come up with none of its own, despite a $110 billion Democratic replacement plan already released. If “the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something,” we’ll fix this sequester problem was the message sent by the Speaker to his Senate colleagues this week. However, in the span of two days’ time the Speaker, aware of it or not, was humbled as the reason for the Senate’s inability to produce legislation is revealed…

Mitch McConnell Openly Filibusters Sequestration Replacement Bill

A somewhat technical but very important exchange took place on the Senate floor late Thursday morning, which you can file away for the next time you hear Republicans tut-tut Senate Democrats for not passing a sequestration replacement bill.

Later today, the Senate will vote on whether to consider two sequestration replacement bills. Both will be set at a 60-vote threshold. One — the Democrats’ bill — would replace about a year’s worth of sequestration cuts with some better-targeted cuts to defense and agriculture and also with new revenue, largely by imposing the Buffett Rule, which imposes a minimum effective tax rate on millionaires.

The GOP bill would preserve sequestration’s overall spending cap but hand authority for allocating the cuts to the Obama administration — a clever idea that also shields Republicans from blame when the cuts hit.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) asked for a vote on her sequestration alternative — which would pay down sequestration by trimming the federal work force — on the floor this morning.

Even though the agreement he reached with Republicans stipulated that the two parties would each be allowed to introduce one sequestration replacement bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) actually said he would agree to allow them to pile on an additional bill — if they would agree to set the thresholds at 50 votes.

“I would happily have three votes if the Republican leader would simply allow the votes to be held at majority thresholds,” he said.

It was a clear indication that he has the votes to pass his bill, and the votes to kill GOP alternatives. Which is why Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected.

It was a straightforward use of the minority’s filibuster powers to prevent the Senate from passing a sequestration alternative. Remember that next time House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) asserts that it’s time for the Senate to act.

Read more…

_______________________________________

Follow on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest

Tagged: Boehner, Congress, Democrats, Economy, filibuster, House of Representatives, McConnell, Politics, Republicans, sequester, sequestration, Spending cuts

The Sequester Blame Game Comes to A Head

Mashed Potato Bulletin — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:20:54 +0000

A not entirely new development in the sequester blame game reemerged this weekend in the form of Bob Woodward putting a damper on the Democrats’ Speaker Boehner sequestration powerpoint, trump card. This not wholly unexpected wrinkle shifts the sequester’s inception back on the White House.

Woodward, his book The Price of Politics in hand and armed with his extensive access to the administration’s inner workings, trounced the President’s assertions that it was Congress, not the White House, who initiated the sequester. According to the award winning journalist, during the debt ceiling battle of 2011 it was Jack Lew,White House Budget Director, and White House national economic council director Gene Sperling, who first broached the idea for an automatic trigger or sequester. The idea was meant as a countermeasure to the unyielding, no tax, Tea Party freshmen who were blocking the rise of the debt ceiling if their demands for cuts were not met. The strategy basis was set upon a anticipated premise that huge cuts in defense spending would never see the light of day. White House negotiators predicted the threat of such significant cuts alone would prove too much for Republicans to bear and force them to negotiate for a balanced solution. Obama signed off on this tactic.

There. Cut and dry. John Boehner and congressional Republicans were right after all, Obama owns the sequestration. If that was the full scope of the events then, yes, that would be that. But as with many things in government nothing is as simple as all that and when the breadth of entire situation enters into the assessment responsibility begins to shift back again.

After the 2010 midterm “shellacking”, which left a host of new Tea Party freshmen chomping at the bit for a fiscal battle with Democrats, raising the debt ceiling built into a massive political battle, the first of numerous manufactured crises. It came to a head the summer of 2011. House Republicans drew a line in the sand. There would be no increase in the debt ceiling unless huge spending cuts were made, even if that left the nation in default. For months negotiators met. They even reached a grand bargain which eventually failed in the House due to tax increases.

Amidst the frustrations a need for something to compel Congress to act upon some manner of viable budget plan. A deal so unpalatable to both sides was then created. It was based on the belief neither side would allow this trigger pulled due to the catastrophic nature of the consequences. In order to garner approval to raise the debt ceiling, normally a routine act, and keep the country out of default, the sequester was presented and passed both houses but was never intended to actually go into effect.

It was passed In the House with the support of 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats. The Senate passed the bill with 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voting for it. Unfortunately the effort was too little, too late. The deal still hurt the country, resulting in Standard & Poor’s stripping the United States of its coveted AAA credit rating. The rating agency’s decision was due in large part to the congressional gridlock witnessed by so many. The battle’s repercussions were felt across the economy culminating in very real fears the US was headed for a double-dip recession.

Despite the blame the GOP now place on the President’s shoulders, they supported the sequester in 2011 as is evident in Speaker Boehner’s own powerpoint presentation entitled, Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable. It was seen as an effective tool to win the massive spending cuts they demanded. This was the spending they viewed as out of control even though they, themselves, allowed pay-as-you-go legislation, or PayGo, to expire in 2002 under George W. Bush’s presidency clearing the way for large tax cuts which became significant contributors to subsequent budget deficits and national debt increases.

Fast forward to 2013, the sequestration is set to go into effect March 1^st if Congress does not act. As it sits now, both the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate have each produced plans to replace the sequester. Unfortunately, neither branch will consider the others’. And so the Washington love-hate relationship with the blame game continues. It’s the tactic both sides use to gain political points. Does it matter now who initiated the sequester idea or is it more important to find a solution? The President is pooling his recent reelection win, the bully pulpit and the public together to pressure the GOP to work towards a viable budgetary compromise. Is it still a tug of war over who’s to blame? Absolutely, but with a different goal. It’s about bringing the force of the country’s majority upon congressional Republicans and drive them back toward the center. It’s most certainly still a tug of war but it’s one the GOP is losing.

The situation is soon approaching when Republican leadership will have to decided if it is worth fighting for a majority of the majority or to abandon the Hastert rule, take the responsible path to bipartisanship and pass what is required to maintain the economic progress already made. If they stubbornly continue to demand the former then perhaps the voting public will determine for themselves who wins the blame game come next year’s midterm elections.

Additional Readings:

Sequester and public opinion? Advantage Obama

Looming sequester exposes GOP rift

Impact of March 1 Cuts on Middle Class Families, Jobs and Economic Security: Virginia

An OpenSalon Editor’s Pick

_______________________________________

Follow on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest

Tagged: Americans, blame game, Congress, Economy, Fact Check, House of Representatives, Politics, Republicans, Senate, sequestration, Spending cuts