New Sheriffs In Town

Happy New Year everyone.  Here’s to hoping 2011 is a slimmer, trimmer, sexier version of 2010.

This past Wednesday was the first day of “work” for the 112th Congress.  A shiny new GOP majority was sworn in to the House of Representatives, introduced a new set of rules by which the House would operate and promptly announced they would break those very same rules next week when they vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  That’s right.  Not 24 hours into the session, the new majority revealed its fraudulence.  

Dissatisfied with the “pay-go” rules instituted by the previous Democratic majority, Republicans announced plans for “cut-go,” a rule by which all spending will need to be offset by spending cuts somewhere else.  In and of itself, not a bad idea.  But included in the cut-go provision, is an exemption which will allow House Republicans to vote for any and all tax-cuts, trade agreements, and of course, repeal of the Affordable Care Act.  Why?  Because according to the Congressional Budget Office, enacting the provisions of the ACA will result in a $140 billion reduction in the deficit.  A preliminary report by the same Congressional Budget Office notes that repeal of the Affordable Care Act would add between $145 - $230 billion dollars to the budget deficit.  When is a vote to increase the deficit not a vote to increase the deficit?  Apparently whenever House Republicans say it isn’t.

Several weeks ago I made the statement that Barack Obama and Paul Ryan were perhaps the only two men in Washington interested in actually reducing the structural deficit of the United States.  I was wrong about that.  Paul Ryan is not serious about reducing the deficit.  During the election campaign, Republicans, led in part by Representative Ryan, promised to cut $100 billion in spending in the first year.  Less than 24 hours into his new term, Ryan admits that $100 billion in cuts will be impossible to achieve.  When asked what he will cut from the budget to bring the deficit under control, Ryan responded that everything is on the table - except for defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits and Homeland Security.  But I guess if Ryan has to sacrifice Free Taco Tuesday in the Capitol cafeteria to achieve those deficit-busting cuts, that’s one sacrifice he’s willing to make.

In March of this year, the amount of money the federal government needs to borrow to pay its debts will exceed its legal authority to do so.  Congress will have to vote to authorize a raise of that limit, or “debt ceiling.”  Many House Republicans - as well as several in the Senate - have announced that they are unwilling to cast this vote, as it violates several tenets of their newly (re)discovered austerity religion.  In theory, the principle of restricting the government’s ability to borrow money might seem like a good idea.  However, in practice - like so many of the “ideas” put forth by the leadership of the 112th Congress - there is a problem.  To raise money for the federal treasury, the government sells Treasury Bills.  Treasury Bills are essentially a promise to repay the value of the bond plus interest over a fixed period of time.  The value of the bills is based not on gold, or silver or grandma’s fresh-baked apple pie, but on something referred to as the “full faith and credit of the United States.”  Treasury Bills have value because the people who purchase them believe the government has the ability and the will to pay them back.  Unless the 112th Congress can reduce the budget deficit from $1.3 trillion to zero between now and the close of business on February 28th, while failing to raise the debt limit, the United States will default on it’s debts.    New Treasury Bills will be worthless.  Money - for everyone - will become a whole lot more expensive.  Foreign investors and governments will demand much higher rates of return (than the current 3%) to purchase U.S. debt.  Our credit rating and our currency will take a dive and our financial markets will give up much of the significant gains they have made over the past two years.  The recovery will be over, and it will be left to the 112th Congress to explain to the American public why they were willing to sacrifice American jobs and American capital in a foolish attempt to embarrass the President.  It’s an explanation I would be interested to hear, but hope I never have to.

This past Tuesday the Navy permanently relieved the Captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise of duty.  No, not Christopher Pike or James T. Kirk or Jean-Luc Picard or Data.  Wrong Enterprise.  Citing “extremely poor judgement,” commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Admiral John C. Harvey Jr. relieved Captain Owen Honors of his command and re-assigned him to an administrative position, effectively ending his career.  The move is a result of a series of explicit videos produced by then Executive Officer Owen Honors depicting gay slurs, mimicked masturbation, rectal exams and “chicks in the shower.”  Many people - both in and out of the military - immediately jumped to the defense of Captain Honors, insisting that he is a fine soldier, a role model and a really nice guy.  They claimed the videos were “light-hearted attempt to entertain the crew” and were “taken out of context” to be used against him.  However, there certainly were some on board the ship who were offended, as complaints were registered at the time videos were aired.  The Navy then downplayed the significance of both the videos and the complaints, but when they were leaked to the Virginian-Pilot newspaper over the weekend the Navy took a second look and decided they were significant after all.

I’m going to have to side with the Navy in this case.  Captain Honors displayed extremely poor judgement in producing and distributing these videos.  He wasn’t a cook, or a weapons mechanic, or a signaler or an engineer.  He was second in command of the flagship of the United States Navy.  His position on the ship required he rise above crude, juvenile humor.  Your duty as Executive Officer is not to provide levity for the crew.  If you want to make ‘em laugh, hire a comedian.  Your duty is maintain order uphold the dignity of your profession.  Unless your name is Adam Sandler or Dane Cook, fart jokes are not your profession.

Finally, a little celebrity gossip to brighten your new year.  Just one day after leaving rehab and moving into a beach-front mansion next door to her ex-girlfriend, Lindsay Lohan received news that she faces 180 days in jail for violating her probation.  According to Riverside police, Lohan may have breached the terms of her probation when she allegedly assaulted a former Betty Ford Clinic staff member during her stint in rehab.  Yep.  Nothing says rehabilitated like beating up nurses and stalking your ex.  Also, actress Mila Kunis has decided to split up with her boyfriend of eight years, Macaulay Culkin, leaving him... home alone.  (I know, I’m sorry.  I couldn’t resist.)  Which leaves me with just one question.  Mila Kunis was dating Macaulay Culkin?  Seriously?  For eight years?  Are the pickin’s really that slim out there is Hollywood?