It's all about playing down expectations

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs warned on Sunday that there is a concrete possability the Republicans could take back the House of Representatives in November. This is one of the first public admissions of political trouble from the Democratic establishment. Conservative pundits were quick to jump on the prospect of the Obama Administration sounding the alarm so early in the election cycle, citing the weakness of their position. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has repeatedly asserted the Democrats' House majority is not in danger, citing individual house races, but her statements have only become more positive following the completion of the health care debate.

Pelosi has a point here. Though the national trends have the GOP at a slight advantage, there are numerous reasons to suggest they will fall short of a majority. The individual House races that feature vulnerable Democratic incumbents are polling better for the majority party than would be expected. The Democrats also have a massive fund-raising advantage. Above all else, the Republicans are not viewed as a good alternative to the Democrats by the electorate. The nomination of people like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul does nothing to improve their standing in this area.

Furthermore, the White House statements about the Democratic Party's chances in November are likely to play down expectations. The Republican Party has been trumpeting their inevitable win so loudly that anything short of a sweep in November will make them look bad. It is likely Democratic strategists have realized there will be political capital to be had if the Republicans do not win the election by a mile. The comments could also have been trying to arouse the Democratic base, who are frightened by the idea of John Boehner (R-OH) as Speaker of the House.

House Republicans oppose 9/11 first responder benefits

This is appalling. Republicans are caught playing politics with the funding of 9/11 responder health insurance coverage. They have opposed an effort to make it a mandatory spending program, which does not have a spending limit. They go further to claim creating another entitlement program is far beyond the government's spending reach. Goes beyond our spending reach? If the United States of America does not take care of the men and women who risked their lives to save victims of our worst attack since the Civil War, then who can we take care of? How is this in any way patriotic? How can we ask for our men and women to put their lives on the line, be it in the army or fire department, if our country will not assure their well being? We have a fundamental duty to protect anyone who is part of our country who cannot protect themselves.

The same holds true for the impoverished. These are people who supply the labor for our leaders to become wealthy and enjoy good standards of living. Being in Oakland, I have seen many damaged people on the street. There is absolutely nothing being done for them. The only opportunity they have to succeed is to go from soup kitchen to soup kitchen for meals, while sleeping in city parks. There is no way the free market system can take care of people who are holding two full time jobs. There is no way individual responsibility can help a disabled veteran put food on his table. I am a firm believer that the strength of a system is revealed by its weakest point. In the United States, our weakest points are pretty weak. And there are millions of them.

How can the GOP say they care about job creation after this?

This week, house Democrats began to move a bill they named the COMPETES Act, which would increase funding for science, research and training programs. This would lead to job creation in these areas. It would also lead to indirect benefits such as technological innovation, individual opportunity and a more specialized workforce. The GOP, acting in good faith of course, introduced a motion to amend the legislation with a provision which would prohibit federal funds from providing salaries to employees charged with pornographic offenses while at work. This began a snowball effect among moderate Democrats, and the amendment passed. This creates serious policy issues and therefore the bill has been withdrawn from the house floor by the Democratic leadership.

These kind of wedge issues have not been uncommon during the 111th United States Congress. During the healthcare debate, Republican Senators such as David Vitter, began introducing random amendments meant to divide the Democratic Party. One of these would have prohibited federal funds from providing Viagra for registered sex offenders. Though many of these steps should be taken, they are not introduced in good faith. Vitter publicly declared he introduced many of these with the goal of slowing the bill.

These kind of amendments do not belong in our national politics. When the Republican Party says they are serious about job creation, they should not be trying to sink Dem efforts to help put Americans to work.

Yay, spending cuts!

House Republican minority whip Eric Cantor has now released a fun online interactive tool. It allows participants to choose their favorite spending cut, and the winners will be voted on in the house sometime in the future. How fun! Lets take a loot at some of these cuts:

1.) Presidential Election Fund

2.) Taxpayer subsidized union activities

3.) HUD program for doctoral dissertations

4.) Welfare

5.) Community Development Block Grants

This all seems really fun. Lets take a pick; do you want to cut funding for presidential elections so corporations control our elections? How about reduce wages and benefits? Maybe eliminate your safety net if you are unemployed and cannot find a job? Or maybe tell your community to fend for itself if its economically disadvantaged?

This interactive tool masks the true cost of spending cuts. Spending cuts should be the last option on the table when our taxes are at our lowest levels since the Truman administration. Why are we even considering the most painful option first, without even considering raising our unrealistically low taxes? When we have to make painful decisions, we should not even be considering spending cuts during a recession. And if you're going cut welfare for poor Americans, lets have the decency not to make a game out of it.