Two silver linings in the debt ceiling deal

So, apparently we have a debt ceiling deal. Maybe. The House voted for it last night (you can see how your Member of Congress voted here) and the Senate will vote today.

There are some serious negatives with this bill. It's garnered harsh words from both the right and the left.  (Best comment goes to Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO 5th), who called the deal a "sugar coated satan sandwich.") Personally, I think they raised the debt ceiling too far and for too long. Obama got one of his major objectives: to not have to deal with this again before the 2012 elections.

Another criticism I have is that it seems that far too many of the spending cuts are put off until later. It reminds me of what University of Florida Athletic Director Jeremy Foley said regarding the mid-season firing of football coach Ron Zook in 2004, "What must be done eventually, should be done immediately." We know our national debt is too high, we know we're spending too much money, why not tackle it now?

It's not a perfect deal. Not by any long stretch of the imagination. But there were two "silver linings" in this deal that should give everyone hope, for very different reasons:

A welcome sight.

First, last night's vote marked the return of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her first vote since she was shot in Tucson, AZ in January.

Her recovery continues to be nothing short of miraculous, and her return to Congress was one thing that everyone could agree was a positive and blessed event.

As Giffords posted on her Twitter account, "The #Capitol looks beautiful and I am honored to be at work tonight."


CNN Video | Giffords returns for House vote

Second, while I am disappointed that the Cut, Cap, Balance Act failed to pass the Senate and recognize that this was not a perfect bill, one significant achievement stands out in my mind: the fact that we had this debate at all.

In years past, the debt ceiling would be approached and Congress would vote to raise it as a "routine" matter, just standard operating procedure, with very little attention from the media or the American people. There might be a bit of partisan wailing and stamping of feet from the representatives who didn't belong to the majority party (as Marco Rubio recently pointed out), but the debt ceiling would be raised, with little debate and even less reform.

This time, however, under intense pressure from their constituents and a media that was actually, finally paying attention, Congress had to address the issue of our national debt. I doubt that in years past a bill like the Cut, Cap, Balance Act would have even made it inside the Capitol Building, much less been debated and passed in one of the chambers. If the "first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem," then Congress took an important step this summer by admitting there really is a spending problem.

So, yes, the bill is not perfect. We haven't solved the problem; we haven't balanced the budget or significantly reduced the national debt yet. But it is a start, and we have to start somewhere.

Let's take this for what it is, a single step in the right direction, and focus on figuring out the steps to follow...like the 2012 elections...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Shame on You

[Cross-posted at The Minority Report]

Since starting this blog, I've regularly engaged in research of online videos regarding Florida politicians and political topics. It's been an easy way to stay on top of the latest current events, very educational...and occasionally eye-opening.

It takes only a short amount of time watching videos before themes start to appear. 

We all know that Marco Rubio and Allen West are great, passionate speakers, but I've also learned a lot watching Cliff Stearns lead oversight committee hearings and give interviews regarding fiscal issues. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is heavily involved in South Florida community activities, as well as being a strong and courageous advocate on national security issues.

Then - sigh - there's Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 

Wasserman Schultz is well-known for her opinionated nature, and a personality that her supporters probably view as tough and feisty, but I honestly often find to be shrill and annoying. (See, for example, her whining in February that Republicans needed to stop using the term "ObamaCare.")

Well, during the last few months, I've noticed a theme in Wasserman Schultz's videos. When she's not tossing childish insults at Republicans, she loves to talk about her friends - correction, Wasserman Schultz loves to talk about one of her friends - Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who, as you know, is recovering from a gunshot wound to her head from the Tucson shooting.

Immediately after the horrifying events of January 8th, many members of Congress gave interviews where they shared stories about Giffords, how much they enjoyed working with her, how very well-liked she is, how they were praying for her recovery, etc.

Giffords' continued improvement is nothing short of miraculous. For the most part, the media has backed off and left her and her family in peace to focus on her treatment. In the past few months, I've pretty much only seen stories about Giffords when the family has officially released a statement. 

However, for some reason, Debbie Wasserman Schultz cannot seem to help hurling herself in front of a camera to talk about Giffords. Google for yourself and see how many interviews she has given on the subject. In my opinion, the frequency with which Wasserman Schultz continues to talk about Giffords seems odd and inappropriate, if not downright creepy. I can't help but get the sinking feeling that Wasserman Schultz is showing something bordering on enthusiasm in discussing her injured friend.

This video, posted on March 18th, is the one that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me:

YouTube | Video Update on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

This video is labeled as a "video update" on Giffords but it's really a campaign fundraiser. Yes, a fundraiser: the link requests contributions to Giffords' reelection campaign account and also to a fund that supports other Democrat Congressional candidates. I can't be the only one who finds this in horribly poor taste.

To draw in sympathetic viewers who are concerned about Giffords' recovery, and then ask for campaign contributions...well, that just seems sick.

I don't know any of these people personally, and I'm not going to question the authenticity of the claimed friendship, but for crying out loud, I can't ever imagine using a friend's injury as a conversation starter to ask for a campaign donation!

Remember, they are not asking for contributions for medical care for Giffords, or anyone else injured on January 8th. They are not asking you to help other victims of violent crime, orphaned children in war-torn countries. They are not asking you to donate to save the rainforest or abandoned puppies. They are asking for money for political campaigns. WTF.

Ignoring for the moment the completely disgusting effort to use Giffords' injury to elicit donations for other candidates, if I analyze this situation as a political consultant, I just cannot see how there is any urgency to fundraise for Giffords' campaign at this point. There are many more risks in looking crass and attempting to profit from tragedy, as well as being unable to satisfy worries that Giffords may not be up to running for office again yet.

Whether or not Giffords runs for reelection is not a question that needs to be answered right now, and it shouldn't be. She has many months to go before that decision must be made, and I am sure that if she reaches the point in her recovery where she does want to run for reelection, the announcement will be national news and contributions will pour in from all over the country. Giffords' 2012 campaign, if it happens, will be easily and quickly funded.

Moreover, as much as I smile every time I get called a "Republican operative" or "partisan hack," I think that the Republican Party ought to just let Arizona's 8th Congressional District go...unless Giffords decides not to run for reelection. I'm not going to grant hand-me-down sympathy to an open seat, but if Giffords decides she wants to run for reelection, I don't see any benefit to running someone against her. Frankly, I also can't see any chance of a Republican victory for that seat. It would be a complete waste of money and - fair or not - make the Republican candidate running against Giffords look like a heartless jerk.

As for Wasserman Schultz, I'll be cheering for anyone and everyone running against her. I hope she gets a serious primary challenger, and I hope whoever becomes the Republican nominee just knocks the stuffing out of her at the ballot box. Excuse me and my violent rhetoric, but Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been an embarrassment to my state for a long time, and her shocking behavior attempting to turn the attack on Gabrielle Giffords into political profit ought to be the last straw for South Florida voters.

Arizona: The debate we SHOULD be having

Much has already been said and written about Saturday's tragic events in Tucson, Arizona. As a nation, we are united in our horror and sadness over the heartless murder of six innocent people, and the wounding of nineteen more, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Well...sigh...we should be united...

In an alarming and shocking turn, many on the Left instantaneously blamed the Right, before anyone had any information about the beliefs or affiliations of the shooter, much less his name.

Far-left blogger Markos Moulitsas, who runs the Daily Kos website, posted on his Twitter account almost immediately after the news broke, "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin."  Jane Fonda, apparently forgetting her own violent rhetoric during the Vietnam War (not to mention that nasty little episode where she posed for publicity photos on a Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun) also used her twitter account to blame Palin, Glenn Beck (whose name she repeatedly misspelled as "Glen Beck"), as well as "the violence-provoking rhetoric of the Tea Party."  Mainstream media outlets also joined the blame game, with pundits like MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and the New York Times' Paul Krugman pointing fingers at the "violent rhetoric" of conservatives.  

Within hours of the shooting, facts started coming out about Jared Lee Loughner, facts that did not fit with the Left's "Crazy Violent Tea Partier" narrative.  Loughner was a registered independent, and his high school and community college classmates described him as "quite liberal" and "left wing."  He listed the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf among his favorite books, and stated in a YouTube video (video removed by YouTube; mirror site here) that the U.S. Constitution was "treasonous laws."

Even today, several days later, there is still zero evidence tying Loughner to the tea party or any conservative organization or school of thought, and his personal beliefs, both as expressed in his own words and as relayed by those who have known him the past few years, are directly antithetical to the beliefs of the tea party (e.g., the Constitution is revered by the tea party; never decried as "treasonous"). 

Loughner also exhibited an obsession with language and grammar.  There is more justification to blame Strunk and White for inspiring Loughner's actions than Sarah Palin,  who recently garnered attention for making up the word "refudiate," but of course we can all take a step back and say that it makes no sense to blame a grammar book for the actions of a madman. 

The Left is also ignoring their own violent sounding rhetoric, but political rhetoric had absolutely nothing to do with Loughner's violence.  There is ample evidence that he has been a unhappy, troubled, mentally disturbed young man for a very long time.  He was kicked out of his community college and was told he was not allowed to re-enroll until he had a mental evaluation proving that he was not a danger to himself or others, and he reportedly had a history of making public death threats to people in the community. Loughner had apparently been fixated on Giffords since at least 2007, according to interviews with his friends, who describe in detail his bizarre statements about her and disturbing behavior.

Not to be deterred by facts, today I am still hearing politicians and journalists on television crying out for a end to "violent rhetoric."  However, the real problem, in my opinion, is not just that the Left is completely wrong in blaming political rhetoric, but that they are totally missing the point.  

The debate shouldn't be about our political rhetoric, but rather about how we deal with mental illness in this country.   

I am not a doctor or psychologist, but I have seen multiple discussions that Loughner's obsession over certain details, fixation on Giffords, antisocial behavior, and odd "if-then" cadence of his speech and writings indicate a high likelihood of certain paranoid/schizophrenic disorders.  Regardless of the accuracy of diagnosing mental illness via YouTube, the facts surrounding his expulsion at  Pima Community College should have been the impetus to get Loughner a mental health evaluation, at minimum, if not active treatment.  He wasn't expelled for cheating on a test or not paying tuition; the campus police were involved, repeatedly, in a series of "classroom and library disruptions" caused by Loughner.  One of his professors, Ben McGahee, feared for the safety of his students and pushed the administration to remove Loughner.  One classmate, Lynda Sorenson, emailed her friends last summer about Loughner, writing, "We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living crap out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon...I sit by the door with my purse handy. If you see it on the news one night, know that I got out fast..." 

Decades ago, we used to incarcerate the mentally ill in asylums, involuntarily sterilize them, and subject them to horrific medical procedures like lobotomies (in many cases, without informed consent).  This abusive treatment didn't just happen in Nazi Germany, but here in the United States.  Let me be very clear, I am absolutely not suggesting that we return to the eugenics-inspired methods of the past.  But I do think that we should have a open and brutally honest discussion about whether the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.  We are more worried about damaging a student's self esteem or inviting lawsuits than making sure that someone in mental trouble gets help.

Let's also recognize that not all mental illness leads to violence.  Many people, probably even some of your own friends or family, struggle daily with a wide variety of challenges ranging from depression to obsessive-compulsive disorders to schizophrenia without ever causing harm to anyone.  But it is still vitally important that these people obtain effective treatment, both to help them live the best life that they can, and also to catch and hopefully prevent the small percentage who may have violent tendencies. 

For a poignant and intensely personal discussion on this issue, please check out Chris Barnhart's blog, Chris is Right, in which he writes about his own mental illness in the context of the Arizona shootings:

The problem with mental illness is that one can’t easily test for it. Sure, there are psychiatric evaluations, but most of those require oral testimony from the patient him or herself. You can’t find mental illness in a blood screen, or by swabbing the cheek with a Q-Tip.

Oftentimes, psychiatrists judge symptoms based solely on interviews with a patient, and rely on that patient to be honest. Then, based on those symptoms, and what impact they have on a patient’s life, diagnoses and treatment plans are established.

The unavoidable complication here is that many people with paranoid psychoses often see psychiatrists and the mental health “establishment” as part of “the conspiracy,” whatever their particular conspiracy is. So, when interviewed by a psychiatrist, they lie.

...The point I’m trying to make here is that, even if the AZ shooter had undergone a psychiatric evaluation, they might not have caught the seriousness of his condition. And, even if they had assessed him as psychotic, medical and therapeutic treatment may not have prevented him from acting on his psychoses.

Barnhart also addresses the fact that mental illness should not negate Loughner's culpability for his crimes:

I am not suggesting in any way that the shooter’s alleged mental illness, or the lack of treatment, absolves him of the consequences of his crimes! String the bastard up.

...People with mental illnesses still have powers of reasoning and, in most cases, a strong sense of right and wrong. I hope I’m living proof of that. I may not be currently fit to be a full member of society, but I can still apply logic and ethics to my thoughts and my choices. Just because I talk to myself out loud when I walk down the street doesn’t mean I’m free from culpability if I choose to destroy someone’s well-being, property or life.

No matter how mentally ill Loughner might be, it was his choice to take the actions he took, rather than getting help or simply stewing in his own juices. He alone is responsible for his crimes, and he should be punished for them, just like anyone else would be.

Last night on Hannity, Dr. Keith Ablow had the following comment:

Our system of mental health care is shattered.  We don't know what to do.  We don't have a strategy for the Jared Loughners of this world.  And we'd better get one.  Because this is a health issue.  There's nothing political about his act.

It is time that we put politics and political correctness aside and look at how we handle mental illness.  We can't just lock up everyone who acts a little nutty, but standing aside and waiting until someone gets hurt before we intervene is not the answer either.

And regarding the continued focus on political rhetoric...I am absolutely against any attempts to control, suppress or restrain our free speech.  In my opinion, our loud, passionate, and even obnoxious political speech is a net positive.  I am glad that we have the freedom to have debates, hold up posters protesting our government, write stupid and ugly things on the internet, and just plain yell at each other.

We have gone through a series of close, highly contentious elections in the past few years (the 2000 "hanging chads", Bush's re-election in 2004, the Democrat's takeover of Congress in 2006, Obama's election in 2008, and now the Republican victories in 2010), and each time we have handled the transfer of power from one leader to another, from one party to another and back again, without bloodshed.

We have a record of peaceful political transitions that are the envy of the world.  In too many other countries, political power is held only by the barrel of a gun, and dissenting speech is brutally oppressed.  Human beings are passionate and emotional creatures, and I believe that having the freedom to engage in "violent" rhetoric provides a vital outlet to examine and challenge ideas without actually engaging in violent acts.  

So go ahead and be loud, be passionate, be opinionated.  Criticize other people if you think what they are saying is offensive.  Debate back and forth.  Challenge our elected officials.  Demand answers from candidates.  Examine ideas.  Question why things are being done the way they are.

Free speech is a great American tradition that must be preserved, especially in times of tragedy.  We should not let the ugly actions of a disturbed young man distract us from that important principle.  Saturday's events had nothing to do with Left or Right, Republican or Democrat, and everything to do with the devastating effects of untreated mental illness and the savage and heartless decisions of Jared Lee Loughner.