No Labels: ‘Make Congress Work!’

Source:No Labels– you might be better off asking raccoons to politely stay out of your garbage and yards, than to make Congress work. I mean where else can you make 150 thousand dollars a year and only work half the year and not even actually be working (at least for the taxpayers) while you are at work?

“Washington has a big secret it doesn’t want you to know… Congress can work, and No Labels has a 12-point plan to fix what’s broken.”

From No Labels 

Asking Congress to work is like asking a basketball player to pass up on the wide-open layup and shoot a half court shot instead.

Or asking a Major League hitter to layoff the hanging curve ball.

Or an obese person to not go back for seconds at the meat lovers all you can eat buffet.

Asking a politician not to take political contributions.

Asking a vegan to eat nothing but red meat and give up green salads.

I mean the most successful people in life tend to have at least one foot on the ground and some sense of reality and what’s realistic, otherwise they wouldn’t be successful. But since this is about making Congress work, which is just like asking fish to give up water and asking them to sunbathe on the sand instead, just for the helluva it I’ll put down a few suggestions of my own.

The two main problems with Congress as I see it are too many lazy, uneducated voters who don’t do their homework before voting and instead vote for the person who sounds cool, uses clever soundbites, has the same favorite coffee drink as they do, has the same I-phone, not as corrupt and stupid as their opponent. And then they send people to Washington who are only there to be there and get elected to the higher office, who really only answer to the people who gave them the most money. So I don’t know how you fix Congress, especially the House of Representatives with all the gerrymandered districts, without a better, more educated voting electorate.

If you really want to fix Congress, you have to:

Eliminate gerrymandering in the House.

Pass full-disclosure on all contributions to all Federal candidates: Congress (House and Senate) and for President, as well as all Federal incumbents.

Reform reconciliation in the House and not just require all Congressional reconciliation bills to start and first be passed in the House, but for them to be fully paid for and not add a penny to the deficit and debt. And then allow the House minority to offer relevant amendments and substitutes to all reconciliation bills, instead of the partisan Rules Committee to throw out all amendments that are offered by minority members.

Reform the Senate filibuster and with reforming reconciliation the filibuster would be less prevalent anyway, but instead of having cloture votes, if the Minority Leader wants to kill legislation simply through the cloture rule, he or she would have to first officially sign off on the filibuster and would have to have 41 members of the floor at all times actually filibustering any piece of legislation that the minority wants to block. The Senate minority party would also get to offer and have simple majority votes on all amendments that substitutes that they offer on reconciliation bills as well.

The main problem that we have with Congress (once you get pass the lazy, uneducated voters) if that it’s too partisan. Especially the House where the majority party literally rules over the minority party. So the way to fix the House I believe is through reconciliation so more real bills that actually become law can be passed, but also giving the minority party, especially the Minority Leader actual governing responsibility in being able to offer relevant alternatives to every bill that the Speaker and Majority Leader brings up.

As well as making the Senate filibuster a real filibuster, instead of just allowing for people to show up for cloture votes and then going back home to their offices or running to their favorite cable news shows to give a so-called interview about what’s going on in Congress.

Read Full Post »

Only Waxing: Real Time With Bill Maher- The Paul Ryan Budget

Source:Only Waxing– Elliot Spitzer on Real Time With Bill Maher.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Andrew Sullivan Schools Maher and Spitzer on Paul Ryan and Budget. Very surprising.”

From Only Waxing

What Representative Paul Ryan (Chairman of the Budget Committee) tried to do in the last Congress and so far in this Congress, was an attempt at least on paper to balance the Federal budget. But by only concentrating on around 15-20% of the Federal budget.

And most of those cuts coming from non-Social Security and Medicare social-insurance programs. And if you saw Bill Maher in this video someone who I normally disagree with layout, Chairman Ryan attempts to balance the budget by going after the small appetizers or side dishes. Imagine a meal consisting of steak, mashed potatoes and lets say a caesar salad (good meal, right) instead of targeting the meat of the meal or even the potatoes the stuff that fills people up in the meal normally. What Chairman Ryan goes after a couple of leafs in the meal. “Big meal with too much food, we are going to take away a couple of leafs and call it fat reduction instead of deficit reduction.”

The meat and potatoes in the United States Government’s budget is defense, Social Security, Medicare and to a certain extent Medicaid. And then there are a bunch of public assistance programs of around 30 trillion-dollars or so that aids workers who do not make enough money, or are unemployed. Which is why I believe Paul Ryan and his followers are as interested in deficit reduction, as the typical career politician (lets say House or Senate) is interested in raising taxes or cutting Social Security during an election year when they are up for reelection, or getting a real job and earning their money. In others words: not at all.

If House Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, then they would write and pass a plan that solves the problem by going at the meat of the Federal budget. And not just picking away at salad leaves in it. Chairman Ryan is right I believe about the seriousness of the debt and deficit, but is not ready to solve the problems.

If I’m starving and its late at night and I haven’t had anything to eat all day, I don’t snack on a couple of crackers thinking my hunger will go away. I make myself a meal or buy one. The same thing with deficit reduction, that if you are serious about the budget you go where the meat is. Or in this case the money and you cut back in areas where you can afford to save money. That will help you solve the problem.

Read Full Post »

Senate Republicans: ‘U.S. Senator Jeff Session- ‘If Republicans Get Senate Majority, We Will Pass A Budget’

Source:Senate Republicans– U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (Republican, Alabama) Ranking Member on the Budget Committee.

“WASHINGTON, March 20–Sen. Sessions, Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, jointed with Chairman Paul Ryan and members of the House Budget Comittee as they unveiled their FY13 budget plan to address America’s growing financial crisis. By contrast, the Democrat-run Senate has failed to deliver a budget plan for 1,056 days. This is the third year running that they will forego this fundamental obligation, even as America’s debt continues its dangerous ascent. In his remarks, Sessions addressed how things would be different were Republicans to have the privelege of a senate majority:

“We have never needed a budget more now than we need it today: we are facing a systemic threat to America’s financial health… Senate Democrats have abandoned their obligations, and have refused to offer a budget for now three straight years now…If the voters give the Republicans in the Senate the honor of having the majority [next year], we will work with the House to pass a congressional budget. It will be an honest budget. It will change the debt course of America.”

From the Senate Republicans

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday afternoon showed again that they are not ready to make a big decision on another key issue, the Federal budget. In a way this is good because the House GOP budget should never become law.

The House GOP plan transforms Medicare into a voucher system. It puts most if not all the budget deficit on our safety net. And doesn’t do a damn thing to reduce overall spending on defense. Or repeal the tax cuts for high- earners, or end corporate welfare. This House budget went down overwhelmingly 57-40.

Senate Minority Leader McConnell brought up what he called President Obama’s Federal budget plan. Which was more of a set of goals than anything and not a serious proposal. And that went down by a whopping 97-0.

But with Senate Democrats apparently incapable of offering a serious budget proposal that gets our deficit and debt under control in a responsible way, the Senate was left with a choice of two budget plans that will never become law.

Even though the Senate minority can’t block budget related items and the Senate Democrats have a three seat majority, they have been incapable so far of coming up with their own budget plan that they can pass and send to the House.

It would be both great politics and policy for Senate Democrats led by Senator Kent Conrad Chairman of the Budget Committee, to develop their own budget plan that’s responsible and pays down the deficit. Because they would have something to counter the House with and be able to take it on the campaign trail: “This is what we want to do and this is what House and Senate Republicans voted for.” And have a major campaign issue, meaning Medicare to use to retake the House in 2012 and keep control of the Senate.

Between the House and Senate roughly 280 Republicans members of Congress voted for the House GOP budget. That cost the GOP a House seat Tuesday night. This is something they could take nationally. (Just a thought)

Leadership is about choosing and governing. Not you can sit on your hands when you’re in the opposition and minority. This is a lesson that the White House and the Senate Democratic Leadership should learn. The House Democratic Leadership drafted its budget plan and they are in the minority as well.

Read Full Post »

Socialist Party USA: ‘Response to President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address’

Source:The White House– President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing a joint session of Congress for the State of the Union.

“The phrase that came to mind immediately upon hearing President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech is “too little, too late.” After spending the last few years coddling the banks and the richest 1%, Obama has the nerve to now call for “economic fairness.” To him, this means tweaking payroll taxes and making a rhetorical call to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich. For working people in America real fairness means the right to a job, a guarantee of healthcare for all and an end to the Military Industrial Complex. Obama won’t deliver this. That’s why I am running for President against him.”

From The Independent Political Report

“President Obama delivers the 2012 State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation.”

From The White House

Democratic Socialists and even Socialists who today call themselves Progressives in America (at least since the turn of the 21st Century and back since the Progressive Era in American politics) have been talking about the need for not only democratic socialism in America to make America more like Canada and Europe, for the need for not only big government socialism in America, but for a more centralized Federal Government in America.

Socialists want to move America to Canada and Europe economically and politically: “So we can have a Federal Government big enough to meet the needs of the American people”. To do the things that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) doesn’t trust the private sector to do.

Socialists want the national government running things like health care, health insurance, education, infrastructure investment, banking system, pensions, etc. And the need to have the tax revenue and taxes high enough to fund this big government.

One of the problems that Socialists have had in America is that they haven’t been united, they’ve basically all had the same message. But have been spread across the country in different socialist parties, as well as being in the Democratic Party.

If Social Democrats were to unite in American politics and be unified, they would have one united vision, coming from one Socialist Party. And be able to have the members to at some point depending on how well they build their party, to at some point break the backs of the two-party system in American politics. And take on Democrats and Republicans and even beat them at some point the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (or Democratic Socialist Caucus) in the Democratic Party. Which is basically a political party within a political party.

Social Democrats aren’t Liberal Democrats, believers in liberal democracy. But Social Democrats believers in social democracy as we see in Europe. You start with them, bring fifty or so U.S. Representatives that make up the Progressive Caucus in the House. The 3-5 U.S. Senators in the Senate, bring in the so-called Progressive Party (not Theodore Roosevelt’s party) bring in the Democratic Socialists USA, the Green Party, leftist Independents, you would start off the bat with about sixty members of Congress. Perhaps 10-20% of the voting public right off the bat. And a Socialist Party to build on.

What you have now with the social democratic movement in American politics, is that they are spread out over several different political party’s. And what happens is that they compete with each other for votes. Instead of competing with Democrats and Republicans for votes and elections. And they end up dividing their own movement. But together into one SocialistParty, they would have the members and votes. To take on Democrats and Republicans in the future.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Read Full Post »

Thom Hartmann: ‘Paul Ryan: Social Security Means Test’

Source:Thom Hartmann– Pumping Up Social Security, with Paul Ryan.

“Thom Hartmann looks at the potential effects of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on U.S. Social Security. If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends… and hit that “like” button!”

From Thom Hartmann

It’s not everyday, week, month, year, perhaps I could go farther (but I’ll spare you for now) that you see a politician or in this case politicians and (let’s use the House GOP as an example) especially in Washington where you see politicians put their neck on the line (in this case political careers) for a vote because they thought it was the right thing to do.

But thats exactly what the House GOP did back in April, by voting to reform Medicare by turning it into a voucher system where seniors would be forced to get their health insurance somewhere else. Because they would eliminate the health insurance part of Medicare. Leaving Senior Citizens with less choice in where they get their health insurance.

It’s really that simple and Congressional Democrats both in the House and Senate have been making the House GOP pay for it ever since especially at House GOP town halls, where these GOP Reps have been getting hit hard because of their vote for the Paul Ryan Medicare plan. They’ve gotten hit so hard by it, that now Speaker Boehner has taken the Ryan plan off the table as far as reforming Medicare and paying down the Federal deficit and debt.

It’s a damn shame for the House GOP because they had all the momentum going into 112th Congress and for about three months were controlling the agenda. Despite the fact that democrats still control the Senate and White House.

On fiscal policy the House GOP has gotten a lot of their budget cuts through and will probably get more. Senate Democrats were unsure on how to deal with the House GOP. The Senate GOP Leadership were just playing off the House GOP and letting them control the ball and backing what they do.

But I’m not sure Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believes thats a great idea anymore. And they’ve started to offer their own legislation to counter Senate Democrats. But with the vote on the Ryan Medicare plan passing with almost all GOP votes in the House.

And with how unpopular with a consensus of Americans disapproving of the plan, the House Democratic Leadership will try to use it almost exclusively to win back control of the House in 2012. They think they can take this issue to the bank.

And the Senate Democratic Leadership will force the Senate GOP to take a stand on the Ryan plan one way or the other by forcing votes on it because they are still in control in the Senate.

The Ryan Medicare plan is an example of what can happen when you wish for something too much, because you can get it and get more than you bargained for.

Read Full Post »

FOX News: ‘Is Michele Bachmann a Constitutional Conservative?’

Source:The Daily Times– U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) debating the Patriot Act on the House Floor.

“A closer look at some of representative Bachmann’s recent actions.
Article Used:The Los Angeles Times.”

From FOX News

As a Liberal who actually does love the U.S. Constitution, because American liberalism is based on liberty and the Constitution that we use as our guiding Force, the American Civil Liberties Union is all about the U.S. Constitution and defending it and when I hear so-called Constitutional Conservatives (Michele Bachmann comes to mind) claim to be Constitutional Conservatives, I get this sudden urge to look at their records and then point them out.

The Christian-Right has their version of the Holy Bible as their guiding force. Liberals have something that was actually written in law that governs America.

And when I hear the Far-Right saying how much they love the Constitution but then seem to be against the First Amendment except or political speech, or the Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, the 17th Amendment that gives the people the right to decide who their Senators in Congress are, and unfortunately I could go, but people only have so much time to live, but when I hear them make those claims, I get the urge to laugh my face off (to be clean) into next week.

Christian-Nationalists being in favor of allowing the executive branch to suspend constitutional rights when they feel they endanger the country or against the Equal Protection Clause especially to prevent homosexuals from marrying each other, the Christian-Right trying to bring religion closer to government, so-called Tea Party conservatives trying to prevent workers from organizing and collective bargaining: I mean seriously what Constitution do they believe in conserving?

I think to myself really, because these are fundamental constitutional Rights that these so-called Conservatives seem to be against. Perhaps it’s not the U.S. Constitution they love but only parts of it.

Political conservatism is supposed to be centered around the U.S. Constitution and protecting and defending those basic rights that makes our country great especially in a liberal democracy. Conservatism is not supposed to about authoritarian big government where rights can be suspended if the government feels its in the best interest and doesn’t even have to justify it.

Conservatism at least conservative-libertarianism with Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan and others is supposed to be about limited government and preventing government from getting big. Because they believed when government got big, the people gave up some of their freedom. Mainstream conservatism is about protecting constitutional rights, not denying that they exist.

Read Full Post »

U.S. Representative Tom McClintock: ‘Dennis Kucinich Resolution on Libya’

Source:U.S. Representative Tom McClintock– debating Representative Dennis Kucinich, over Libya.

“House Floor remarks by Congressman Tom McClintock, June 3, 2011.”

From Tom McClintock

I supported American military operations in Libya, the no fly zone there. That we are part of along with our NATO allies to end the slaughter there of innocent Libyan citizens by their own government. But that was over two months ago.

With the War Powers Act, the President has the authority to send American troops into combat. But after two months must get Congressional approval for our actions there. We’ve been involved there for over two months now, so now it’s time that the President get approval from Congress, both the House and Senate.

And if the President doesn’t officially request it from Congress, then the House should pass one of their own. Either granting President Obama the authority to continue our role in the no fly zone there, or not. And then send that resolution over to the Senate.

This is what’s known as checks and balances: the President can’t unilaterally commit American troops into a foreign war and keep them there indefinitely on their own. Congress has a role in this and they should step up to the plate on this, if the President doesn’t do so himself.

The President is of course the Commander in Chief and makes the final decisions once we are involved in military operations. But Congress has a role in deciding whether we get involved in the first place or not. And can either fund the operations or cut off funding at any point.

Read Full Post »

American Enterprise Institute: U.S. Representative Paul Ryan- ‘How the GOP budget differs from President Obama’s’

Source:AEI– U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) speaking to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, about the Federal budget.

“The House Budget Committee chairman argues that Obama’s budget proposal will send America spiraling into debt at an even faster rate. The GOP budget, Paul Ryan describes, is “very different.”

From AEI

Democratic Representatives Anthony Weiner and Tim Ryan (from Ohio)  were on the House floor Wednesday night after the House conducted its last vote in the Defense Authorization bill, talking about the House GOP plan to reform Medicare, that Speaker Boehner has now decided is off the table on Medicare reform.

Congressional Democrats as well as the White House will keep the so-called Ryan plan on the table on the campaign trail. And we’ve already seen success with with New York House election Tuesday night. Bad week to be a Republican, but that might be a different story.

Representatives Anthony Weiner and Tim Ryan were saying that the GOP vision of Medicare reform would be to essentially eliminate it. I would amend that and say they would eliminate Medicare and replace it with something else. They have their own plan to provide assistance for senior citizens to get health insurance.

The House GOP  would eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher system that would still be financed by the payroll tax. And then seniors would get vouchers to go get their own health insurance in the private sector.

I hate, let me rephrase, I’m against any health care reform plan that cuts back on choice in where people can get their Health Care and how they pay for it. Whether it’s through health insurance or a health savings account. Just as long as they pay for it. Which is why I’m against single-payer health insurance and Medicare for all in America. I believe in competition and freedom of choice: in other words, capitalism.

I’m also against he House GOP Medicare plan that eliminates Medicare. I love the idea of non-profit health insurance, coming from both the private and public sectors. Which is why I supported the public option in the Health care reform debate of 2009-10. Just as long as its parts of and overall package that people can decide for themselves where they get their health insurance .

My idea of Medicare reform would be to give it autonomy from the Federal Government, while it would still be a non-profit health insurance service, so both parties in Congress can no longer mess with it. As well as the Administration and charge high-earners more as far as the payroll tax and their premiums.

Then we would no longer have to deal with ridiculous legislation from both the Far-Right and Far-Left, by letting Medicare run itself. Fix the financing of Medicare and let it continue to do what it does so well. Without Congress and the Administration messing with it.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Read Full Post »

RT America: Dean Baker- ‘Debt Ceiling Drama’

Source:RT America– “RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.” From Wikipedia.

“Drama has been developing over raising the debt ceiling, but Dean Baker from the Center for Economic and Policy Research says that what has become “pretty much protocol” isn’t that big of a deal. In a worse case scenario, says Baker, the most damaging result would be the destruction of Wall Street, and that, he says, is not going to happen.”

From RT America

America is in an interesting and awful situation that we can and probably will recover from. But it has to be dealt with, we have package of sluggish economic growth, high unemployment, and a massive Federal deficit and debt. All things that have to be dealt with and I believe all at the same time. Which makes it more complicated and even harder to do.

But if we are smart in how we approach them (which is never a safe bet with this government) we can get them done and be stronger as a result. The good news is that we’ve had strong job growth so far in 2011, but with low economic growth. If we can get them going at the same time, that would take care of economic and financial issues.

Economic growth and deficit reduction is not an either or: this was done back in 1993 with the Clinton economic plan. Yes, President Clinton inherited a much better, but still a bad economy than President Obama, but this still can be done. We have a debt ceiling that will have to be raised, but we are currently at 14T$ and any time your debt equals your national income, you start paying a heavy price for that.

We really need to be able to show that you can at least pay it down and are willing to pay it back. The question is how, do cut the budget just to cut the budget or do you do it in an intelligent way. That not only pays down your debt but strengthens your economy as well. Which is what we should be doing.

The best way to pay down a deficit and debt is with a strong economy. Thats the main reason why the Federal Government was able to balanced its budget by 1998 in the 90s. And was actually talking about completely paying off its national debt within ten years after that.

So what we need is an economic policy that encourages economic growth, which will create more jobs. A combination of an energy policy that moves us towards energy independence and finally off of foreign oil, by promoting our vast natural resources.

An infrastructure policy like an Infrastructure Bank so we can start repairing our 100s of billions of dollars of infrastructure repairs. That would create a lot of well paid infrastructure jobs. And keeping taxes down on the middle class, if not cutting them further.

And then we need to start paying down our deficit and debt in an intelligent way and do it right away. Like bringing troops home from developed countries that can afford to defend themselves. Using the revenue from the troop withdraws from Afghanistan and Iraq. And using that revenue to pay down our deficit and debt.

Reforming our social insurance programs and design them in a way that moves people to self-sufficiency and off of government dependency.

Reforming our entitlements to make them better but more cost-effective. Tax reform that taxes more at lower rates.

Eliminating corporate welfare and reforming our Agriculture Insurance. Raising taxes on high-earners to pay down the deficit and debt.

What we shouldn’t be doing is passing tax hikes on the struggling middle class, which is what the so-called House Progressive Caucus has proposed to do. Or ignore our deficit and debt and get to them when we feel like it. As if it’s not a real problem.

The deficit and debt has to be paid back whether we do it by choice. Or that money is taken away from us in high interest rates. What we need is a balanced fiscal policy that gets our economy back to strong economic growth and lowers our unemployment rate with strong job growth. And gets our deficit and debt under control.

Read Full Post »

CNN: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell- ‘Debt Ceiling Plan Is Smoke & Mirrors’

Source:CNN– Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, talking about the Senate Democrats deficit reduction plan.

“Sen. Mitch McConnell calls the Democrats’ plans for the debt ceiling “smoke and mirrors.”

From CNN

Anyone who’s serious about deficit reduction and getting our Federal deficit and debt under control and not using it as a political issue to make the other side look bad and pick up seats in Congress, or to run for President, I believe understands what a final deficit reduction package will look like at the end.

It will have a combination of serious budget cuts or reforms or both.As well as entitlement reform . As well as raising revenue on people who can afford to pay more in taxes. As well as broader tax reform including corporate tax reform.

And this deal will be bipartisan because neither side has the guts or leadership to take it on themselves. This is the only way we can get our deficit and debt under control. It’s also how it’s been done on the past and worked very successfully.

1983 when Social Security was reformed, 1986 when the tax code was reformed, the 1990 Deficit Reduction Act, that had budget cuts and tax hikes, the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, again more budget cuts and tax hikes.

The only difference being this bill was partisan, but successful and Congressional Republicans took a my way or no way approach. Even though they were in the minority in both the House and Senate. And the Democratic Leadership and the White House went another way. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which had entitlement reform in it as well.

The reasons why this is how we brought down our deficits and debts in the past and the way we have to do it now. Is because thats where the money is, as the expression from the movie All the Presidents Men: “Follow the money.” The way to bring down our deficit and debt is in four areas.

Social Security, Medicare, Defense and the Bush tax cuts for high-earners, who don’t need even need them. Social Security, Medicare and the Pentagon together represent over 2T$, 60% of the Federal budget. The Bush tax cuts for high-earners is another 1T$. We have a Federal deficit of 1.6T$ and a Federal debt of over 14T$ and we are about to most likely to raise our debt ceiling, because we’ve reached the limit on how much we can currently borrow.

As much as the House GOP believes, assuming they are serious about this and I’m sure it’s a safe bet, that we can cut our deficit and debt in a significant way or balanced our budget on just 13% of the Federal budget: even if we eliminate all of that spending, 480B$ which might sound like a lot, but in a Federal Budget of 3.7T$ and a deficit of 1.6T$, is not a lot of money.

If the House GOP were serious they would take on Social Security, Medicare, Defense and the tax cuts for high-earners. And they would follow the money because thats where the money is at.

So when Senate Minority Leader said on Sunday that tax hikes are off the table on deficit reduction, that tells me he’s not ready to be serious on deficit reduction yet. And that his caucus as a whole is not serious yet either.

What we need is a serious national discussion and debate on deficit reduction. And be honest about what comes with it. Which is the definition of shared sacrifice. And stop playing games with this important issue. Because Washington already has enough games to play and teams to watch. What we need from them instead is adults and leaders making adult decisions instead.

Read Full Post »