What is John McCain doing?

"I never considered myself a maverick," says John McCain, a man who declared himself a maverick during the 2008 elections. This was well before he acquired a conservative primary challenger, J.D. Hayworth, who has convinced McCain to claim he would vote against an immigration reform bill he coauthored in 2005 with Ted Kennedy among other flip flops. This has forced him to move from one of the moderate voices in the senate GOP to one of the most extreme critics of the Obama administration. His desire to change his persona from one of a maverick to one of a right wing voter is so great that he even enlisted Sarah Palin to campaign for his reelection in Arizona last month. This kind of flip flopping is more insidious than the John Kerry flip flopping on the Iraq war or Olympia Snowe on health-care, this is a flip flop of your entire political philosophy. Stop insulting the voters, John, and tell them who you truly are.

Why we shouldn't have to restrict the role of lobbyists in Washington

It is common knowledge that lobbyists have disproportionate influence on our legislative and executive branches of government. During the Bush years, the level of interest spending and influence on policy reached a breaking point. The oil industry managed to receive billions of dollars in subsidies and remove renewable energy from the 2007 energy security bill. The Democrats managed to succeed electorally in 2006 and 2008 based on anti-lobbyist rhetoric though they are by no means free from the influence of interest groups. These interests often have a detrimental effect on government policy and impede the most responsive branch of government from accurately reflecting the people's will.

Obama has been the most outspoken in his opposition to the influence of lobbyists on policy. This led him to ban lobbyists from influencing the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act shortly after its passage. This inhibits the amount of experts that can contribute to this process, however, making this announcement bittersweet. The question is: what role should lobbyists be allowed in our political system?

I don't think they should be restricted nearly as much as they have been of late. Yes, forcing them to register with the government and banning expensive gifts to lawmakers is important, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem. The real problem is lobbying allows business interests to disproportionately influence decisions. And this is only because public participation in the lobbying process and the political process in general has decreased in the last two decades. With exception to 2008, voter turnout has been dropping steadily. Public knowledge of issues that affect their daily lives is very low. The only people with the money and time to make an actual difference in the political process is big business. Therefore the problem does not lie in lobbying itself, but in the lack of a knowledgeable and involved public to compete with it.

Rudy, are you with me? ITS OVER!

So Rudy Giuliani is going after more Republicans for being part of the "blame America first" crowd. Now, three days after the attacks this would seem to be a good accusation given the immense pain and suffering that the country had recently been put through, but that period is over. When Republicans Ron and Rand Paul say our neoconservative policies are partially responsible for the international animosity that resulted in the September 11 attacks, they are doing so out of a firm desire to prevent such attacks from ever happening again. Giuliani's retributive attitude towards foreign policy is exactly what got us into both Middle Eastern wars. When you pursue interventionist policies overseas for more than 30 years that disrupt the lives of already disadvantaged people, they will get angry. So instead of trying to stifle genuine thoughtfulness within your own party, maybe you should try to focus on moving on.

Warning! Somehow this will lead to sexual perversion and pedophilia!

In another victory for proponents of gay/lesbian rights in the United States, Obama has ordered the HHS to mandate hospitals that receive federal funds to allow same-sex couples the same hospital visitation rights allowed to heterosexual couples. The only thing I can ask is, why is this only happening now? I can understand why some people may feel gay marriage, adoption and civil unions are immoral; but why should a move like this even be controversial? This is a decision that affects only the patient and his/her partner in the strictest sense. If your partner is sick in the hospital, what moral concern is it of some right winger that you go and visit them. The GOP talk on and on about patients' rights in healthcare reform, why not start by embracing this.

High taxes? Yeah right.

As tax day approaches, around 35% of Americans actually believe that Obama has raised taxes on them. The media has been focused for so long on the Tea Party movement that seeks among other things to lower taxes which they view as having gone up under the Democrats. So this will be news to some of the country, that Obama in fact passed the largest tax cut in recent history as a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Tax refunds in the form of a Making Work Pay tax credit are at their highest levels for at least twenty years. So what makes people think that the Democrats have raised taxes?

First of all, Democrats have mostly been supportive of tax increases more recently. They opposed the Bush tax cuts, supported Bill Clinton's tax increases, and have proposed numerous other ideas such as the carbon tax and tax on high end insurance policies. The truth of the matter is: Democrats would raise our taxes if presented with the opportunity to do so.

Now I agree with Paul Krugman in that I believe that the Republicans don't oppose taxes because they believe in "fiscal responsibility". The Republicans realized in the 1970s that they could not cut spending on Social Security, Medicare and other popular programs without facing a massive public backlash. At this point they began a strategy that deprived these programs of funding so the government would be forced to eliminate them. And how could they go about cutting spending? By cutting taxes.

Clearly the Republicans are winning the messaging war over the tax issue. When you have Democrats bragging about cutting taxes, clearly there has been a paradigm shift in America. But there is a difference between the parties on this issue. The Democrats have cut taxes on the middle and lower class whereas the Republicans have cut taxes for the wealthy. Liberals, including myself, have always argued that the wealthy should pay the most taxes because they have the ability to pay them. Also, depriving the upper classes of inherited wealth leads to increased social mobility, hence the American dream.

So the next time the Republicans say they want to cut taxes, lets ask them whose taxes they want to cut and for what purpose. As far as the Democrats go, the middle class should not see their taxes go up disproportionately under Obama though everyone will have to help bring down our deficit.

Is this really the best use of our money right now?

We must really be in trouble as a country to hear me advocating for spending cuts in NASA (National Air and Space Association). Obama announced a large cut in NASA spending along with other programs and at the same time cancelled the Constellation project, a rejuvenation of the program that sent astronauts to the moon. Neil Armstrong and others have criticized this for their own personal reasons and the steep price we would have to pay another nation to send humans to space. It is also a good way to develop technology for civilian uses.

Let me assert that I think spending cuts alone are a terrible idea. We already have a very small government compared to GDP, and much of it is defense anyway. Spending 17 billion dollars a year on funding the exploration of space sounds great when your country is the sole superpower, at peace abroad, and going through an economic boom; but is a complete waste of scare funds when the economy is facing a massive structural shortfall, China is threatening our international power, and we are bogged down in two Middle Eastern wars.

Tying this back into my general theme, I don't think we should cut the budget out entirely. Nor do I think we should simply cut the budget and stop there. What should happen is a transfer of spending away from NASA and to areas that will more accurately reflect the challenges we face as a nation.

NASA spending is 0.52% of our budget. Don't even get me started on defense spending.

You can't even call this financial "reform"

The Republicans have once again left the table on financial reform negotiations. They have cited democrats wanting to drive a wedge between the GOP and Democratic Party on the issue. The Democrats have framed the Republicans as supporting businesses and banks over the average American. Lets put this in perspective: Democrats have been the ones pushing for financial regulation all along, even before the crash of 2009. The current legislation (in the senate, at least), is completely watered down to the point it won't even work. If the Republicans really wanted financial regulation, they would be calling for stricter regulations, not more lax ones. Btw guess when Mitch McConnell said his party couldn't support the legislation; right after getting out of a meeting with hedge fund managers. Kind of says it all.