It seems as if the American Catholic Bishops are oh-so-upset with President Obama's decision to mandate all employers to cover contraception in all health plans, even those provided by religious institutions to employees.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

No Cardinal-designate Dolan……Catholic Bishops burnt out their consciences when they decided to participate in covering up for child rapists under their employ. So, Obama isn't giving Catholic Bishops a year to "figure out how to violate" their own consciences. That steamboat done sailed. Obama is giving Catholic leaders a year to….comply with the laws of the nation……secular laws that those Bishops have been ordered by their Messiah to obey. Render unto Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar.

Through our nation's democratic process, Congress and the President passed into law a new national health care insurance program conservatives lovingly labeled ObamaCare. Health insurance exchanges are being structured right now….and so the details of what would and wouldn't be required to be covered by insurance companies to qualify for those exchanges are being ironed out.

Obama has ordered HHS Secretary Sebelius to include contraception coverage, without co-pay, as a requirement to qualify for the exchanges. All of the insurance plans made available on the exchanges in 2014 will include coverage for contraception. Contraception is legal to purchase in the U.S., and has been for decades.

The problem Catholic Bishops are having…..not Catholic parishioners, because 3 out of 4 Catholics simply ignore their Church's directives on the evil of contraception……is that Obama has ordered all employers, except for 100% sectarian employers, to make those contraception-including health care plans in the national exchanges available to all employees. The Catholic Church in America employs a lot of people. Many of whom are not Catholic. The Catholic Church in America also receives a lot of tax dollars from the federal government to assist them in their charitable operations.

All that said….here is where Catholic Bishops, most conservatives and even a few misguided quasi-progressives miss the mark on this alleged controversy….under the title "U.S. Bishops Vow to Fight HHS Edict", we find…

At issue, the U.S. bishops and other religious leaders insist, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics and all other Americans.

Compare that claim with this…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Did the Founders use the words "respect for conscience" in the first amendment? No. If the Founders would have included a provision in the 1st which stated that all citizens could disobey federal mandates which they deemed didn't "respect" their individual "consciences"…..Americans would be able to withhold their tax dollars from Washington on the basis that the use of those tax dollars violates their consciences. Do American citizens have the legal right to withhold their tax dollars from the federal government because, for example, their consciences are violated through the use of those tax dollars going for the wholesale killing of Muslims in Muslim lands? Of course not.

What U.S bishops claim as their right is not a right at all…..and that non-right is certainly not found in the 1st amendment. Congress is ordered by the 1st amendment to NOT make any laws which "establish" religion. The word "establish" means "institute, build, or bring into being". The U.S. Congress is prohibited from passing laws respecting the "building or bringing into being" of religion.

At the same time Congress is prohibited from respecting the establishment of religion through legislation…..religious citizens are guaranteed that government will honor the "free exercise" of religion without interference.

With Obama's new order to include contraception in all employer health plans….how are Catholics being denied their "free exercise" of religion? Catholics are not being forced by government to buy or use contraception. Catholics can still practice their religion as they wish. What Catholics cannot do….under Obama's order….is compel those who do not practice Catholicism….to practice Catholicism against their will.

The noise conservatives have been making on this Obama order has nothing to do with some Mother Goose version of a non-existent "protected freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics." Nothing could be further from the truth. The whining we're hearing is all about a misplaced sense of entitlement which many religionists are confusing with the 1st amendment.

When religious groups decide to enter the public arena, secular-government laws apply. Not religious laws, not conscience laws….secular-government laws. Religious groups are not forced into the public arena. Government does not compel religious groups to do charitable work for the public. They choose to do that work voluntarily.

But when Catholic groups enter the public arena…..offering health services to the general public while employing non-Catholics…..Catholic leaders insist that THEY still get to make the rules, or disobey any rules that government has imposed. That is a misguided sense of entitlement which the 1st amendment knows nothing about.

Question: Under Obama's recent health insurance plan order, are Catholics forced to buy, or use contraception?

Answer: No.

How, then, are Catholic "consciences" being "violated"?

Question from last night's CNN GOP debate in Jacksonville, Florida:

My name is Lynn Frazier and I live here in Jacksonville. And for the Republican presidential candidates, my question is, I'm currently unemployed and I found myself unemployed for the first time in 10 years and unable to afford health care benefits.

What type of hope can you promise me and others in my position?

No job, no health care. These are the two most critical concerns for average Americans….not the critical concerns of many conservative politicians….but of average Americans.

Ron Paul: Well, it's a tragedy because this is a consequence of the government being involved in medicine since 1965.

….

But your medical care should go with you. You should get total deduction on it. It would be so much less expensive. It doesn't solve every single problem, but you're — you're suffering from the consequence of way too much government and the cost going up because government has inflated the cost and we have a government-created recession, and that is a consequence of the business cycle.

See an answer in any of that? Paul tells the woman that government has caused the woman not to have health insurance, or something….reminding her of something she already knows….health care is expensive.

No kidding Doc. I have no idea what "your medical care should go with you" even means. The problem being that health insurance and health care costs more than tens of millions of Americans can afford. Offering an unemployed person the idea that she can take her health insurance along with her if she can figure out a way to pay for it…or that she should be able to deduct all of her health insurance costs on April 15th….is one of the least compassionate and most out of touch answers I've heard the Old Doc give.

Gingrich: The largest challenge of this country is to get the economy growing so she can have a job so it's easy for her to have insurance.

So far, so good. Get that economy growing. How would Newt go about doing that?

We need to have a program which would start with, frankly, repealing Obamacare, repealing Dodd-Frank, repealing Sarbanes-Oxley.

Gingrich would get the economy going again for people who lost their jobs and health care by adding millions more people to the uninsured rolls through repealing ObamaCare (something a president cannot actually do). Strange answer, I thought….but Newt is a strange character….much, much more advanced in thought than your average American.

Repealing regulations that, at the very least, make a stab at trying to rein in the richest white collar crooks this nation has ever seen in finance and accounting….is Newt's solution to getting that "economy growing again", so the unemployed woman can find a job. Again….a very odd answer. Encouraging white collar crooks to continue cheating to further enrich themselves by stripping the meager regulations now in place to keep them in check….equals….new jobs and a growing economy.

The solution to a woman in Jacksonville losing her job and health care, according to Newt, is to set free big time accountants and money shufflers in Manhattan to do what they want without oversight while nixing the only national program we have to expand medical insurance to more Americans.

Romney agrees with Newt…

..we know what it takes to put people back to work….. — lowering corporate taxes, lowering regulations, opening up all of the above in energy,….

Lowering taxes on the powerful even further……..stripping back layers of regulations from behemoth corporations, some of whom actually created our current downturn…and drill, baby, drill….are Romney's solutions to putting people back to work. Romney wants to go back to, yes, the "failed policies of the past" to find solutions for the future. Like rummaging around at the landfill to find materials to build a new home.

But here's one that has been bugging me.

Romney:

…if an individual wants to own their own insurance, they're not part of a big group, and so as a result they get a very high rate. What we should do is allow individuals to own their own insurance and have the same tax treatment as companies get. You do that and people like this young woman would be able to own her insurance. The rates would be substantial lower for her buying it individually than if she had to buy it individually today.

First….doesn't it seem odd to you talking about "owning your own insurance"? I have no idea what that even means. How can you own something which, in itelf, is intangible? But Romney's larger answer is where the cat gets out of the bag.

One person going to purchase health insurance pays a higher rate because, according to Mitt, she is only one person, and doesn't get that all-important bulk discount pricing that group plans offer. So Mitt would give individuals the right to purchase health insurance, individually, yet pay bulk pricing…..because a larger insurance pool of customers dilutes risk lowering costs.

If Mitt believes what he is saying…then it follows that the larger the health insurance pool….the lower the individual costs. That, my friends, is one of the arguments for single payer, government run health insurance. If a larger pool equals lower overall costs, then the LARGEST pool, all Americans, would be the most efficient way to insure for medical care, the most direct way to lower insurance costs.

Santorum went on to add "health savings accounts" as a solution. Giving an incentive to people who can't afford health insurance right now to save money to pay for their own health care. Not an answer for those who can't afford any of it, but a great new tax shelter for the already-rich who can.

So, what do you think? Did these 4 GOP candidates offer up genuinely reasonable, credible or practical solutions to our jobless recovery or unaffordable health care problems?

Let's do a thought experiment, shall we?

Let's say that McDonald's comes out with a 'new and improved' Big Mac. The Big Mac sandwich has been around for quite awhile now and despite it's continued popularity, McDonald's decides to "save" the iconic sandwich by reforming, remodeling the classic, 39 grams-of-fat, double hamburger.

In my hypothetical, McDonald's plan for revamping the Big Mac includes eliminating the center bun, the sesame seeds on the bun, the pickles, the lettuce, the cheese, the special sauce, and one of the hamburger patties. The new Big Mac has a single hamburger pattie, ketchup, and a slice of onion all on a wheat bun. When McDonald's rolls out it's 'new and improved' Big Mac, the price has also changed. Now the Big Mac costs 40% more than before.

In spite of what appears to be an entirely different sandwich from the Big Mac, McDonald's continues to market the sandwich as the Big Mac. When consumers of grease-infused, fast food hamburgers repeatedly point out that the new sandwich from McDonald's is NOT really a Big Mac at all….Politifact, an alleged online exposer of lies, is called in to settle the issue. Politifact is to look at the evidence and conclude whether McDonald's calling the 'new and improved' sandwich a Big Mac is a lie, or you know, not.

Politifact concludes, in my hypothetical, that not only is McDonald's sandwich still a Big Mac, but that anyone who says it isn't is lying.

Seems kind of crazy….but that's exactly what the compromised online lie detector outfit, Politifact, has done over claims that Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare will end Medicare. In fact, Politifact has made the line "Republicans voted to end Medicare" it's lie of the year.

In April the new GOP-controlled House thought that they would go ahead and swing for the fences. So, Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced his new budget….and within that budget was a plan to revamp Medicare. All but 5 GOP House members voted to pass the Ryan budget…and zero Democrats. In Ryan's new and improved plan for Medicare, the federal government would no longer be the single service provider for processing health care claims by America's seniors. In fact, the government would only send out vouchers to seniors, that's it. Seniors would then be expected to take those vouchers and purchase their own private insurance each year from for-profit insurance companies. The conclusion by the Congressional Budget office was that Ryan's 'new and improved' plan for reforming Medicare would cost each senior, on average, an additional $6000 per year out of pocket.

Republicans said that the Ryan plan "saved" Medicare. Democrats and progressives claimed Ryan's plan would "end Medicare". Politifact is claiming that any statement which says that Ryan's plan "ends Medicare" is a lie. The lie of the year, in fact.

Here are the three justifications by Politifact that Democrats and progressives were lying when they said that Ryan's plan ends Medicare….

• They ignored the fact that the Ryan plan would not affect people currently in Medicare — or even the people 55 to 65 who would join the program in the next 10 years.

• They used harsh terms such as "end" and "kill" when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system.

• They used pictures and video of elderly people who clearly were too old to be affected by the Ryan plan. The DCCC video that aired four days after the vote featured an elderly man who had to take a job as a stripper to pay his medical bills.

See? The Big Mac is still the Big Mac…even though it isn't. It is because McDonald's says it is….and on no other basis could my hypothetical, new and improved Big Mac be considered a Big Mac.

It's the same with Ryan's Medicare remodel. Simply claiming that privatized and more expensive Medicare is still Medicare is comparable to calling the entirely different Big Mac in my thought experiment…a Big Mac. Republicans, and their faux-lie-detecting allies, say that Ryan's privatizing of Medicare leaves Medicare as Medicare, despite its having no resemblance to traditional Medicare. And Knee Pad equipped Politifact arrives right on time to fellate Republicans argue that what Ryan is selling is…swear-to-god…still Medicare….and that overreaching Democrats are the liars of the year for claiming Ryan's plan "ends Medicare."

Makes as much sense as this….

"According to (PolitiFact's) logic, if the FBI were replaced with a voucher program wherein citizens would receive subsidies for hiring private investigators to look into criminal activity, but the agency running the voucher program were still called the FBI, it would be unfair to say that the FBI had been ended," wrote Jed Lewison for Daily Kos. "I guess it's their right to make that argument, but it's transparently absurd."

Not just "absurd"….but "transparently" so.

Steve Benen notes that not only are claims that Ryan's plan "ends Medicare" true….but also how audacious Politifact acts when it claims the opposite and then makes the Democratic claim the "lie of the year."

Finally….the question of why Politifact decided to humiliate themselves. My favorite economist lays it all out. It's the false equivalency justification….

The answer is, of course, obvious: the people at Politifact are terrified of being considered partisan if they acknowledge the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other. So they’ve bent over backwards to appear “balanced” — and in the process made themselves useless and irrelevant.

The Liar of the Year award goes to Politifact.

Last night's GOP-CNN primary debate in Vegas was a tad more exciting than the previous debates I've watched.

Debate transcript here.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, in my opinion, ended his chances last night with his petulant behavior towards Mitt Romney. If looks could do damage, Perry's looks in Romney's direction after several Romney backhands, would have knocked out Cassius Clay. (Extra credit if you know who that is)

Several times Perry's comments directed towards Romney were booed by the audience. Keep in mind, however, that the biggest, and longest, applause was for Herman Cain's insistence that if Americans are not wealthy or don't have a job…it's their own fault.

Compassionate conservatives…..they were not.

After spending the entire first round of questions and answers on bashing Herman Cain's plan to send $9.99 pizzas to all Americans…or something….I listened intently for the non-9-9-9'er candidates to explain how they would, you know, create new jobs for Americans…..15 million of whom are currently out of work.

I listened….I listened….and all I heard was this:

Repeal ObamaCare. Strip government regulations from big businesses. Lower taxes on the so-called "job creators"..translation: rich people.

First rebuttal. The Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to Speaker Boehner about the cost of repealing ObamaCare. The CBO concluded that repealing Obamacare would add $145 billion to the national deficit over ten years. In addition, "32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance by 2019", if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.

Additionally….if ObamaCare, as the CBO determined, would add 32 million currently uninsured Americans to health insurance rolls….how could it be that that much new medical-care demand would not require millions of new jobs in the medical industry? Repealing Obamacare, then….would eliminate all those new jobs.

Second rebuttal. Cutting regulations on big business will not create jobs. It may make those big businesses a little bit more profitable so that they can send out bigger dividend checks to a handful of very wealthy shareholders…..but as we've witnessed over the last three decades….any savings to big business would wind up going upline rather than downline to hire new workers or give current employees raises.

“The effects on jobs are negligible. They’re (government regulations) not job-creating or job-destroying on average,” said Richard Morgenstern, who served in the EPA from the Reagan to Clinton years and is now at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan think tank.

I would add to this section the fact that the deregulation of the financial industry in 1999-2000 was the catalyst for our deep recession beginning in 2007. Government deregulation of the financial industry, basically giving banks and money shufflers the power to "self-regulate"……resulted in that industry virtually destroying the national economy.

For GOP presidential candidates to be calling for further deregulation after what we've been through the last 4 years, particularly their calls to repeal Dodd-Frank, can only be understood by realizing that the modern Republican Party is simply an extension of Wall Street, the government enforcer for the wildly rich and powerful.

Third rebuttal. If it were true that lowering taxes on corporations and very rich people resulted in big new job creation…..then we would have witnessed a huge glut of new jobs during the Bush administration. Instead, what actually happened during our lowest federal tax rate period since Truman's presidency….was 8 years of the lowest job creation numbers in America's modern history.

If lowering tax rates on our nation's richest actually resulted in a windfall of new jobs being created….then it would be understandable right now for Republican presidential hopefuls to be calling for lowering taxes on our nation's richest. But, alas….we have 8 years of objective historical numbers to evaluate, and lowering taxes on the rich in the 00's resulted in the most anemic jobs creation in my lifetime….and I'm old.

What was absent from all this supply side, faith based, bullsh*t during last night's Vegas debate was ANY talk of stimulating the economy right now through government spending. To today's Republicans, new government spending, even in a terrible recession complete with 9% unemployment, is our nation's biggest enemy. Next to raising taxes a few percentage points on millionaires and billionaires, that is.

The Hill…

The CBO said that the original (2011) Obama stimulus bill would involve $447 billion in tax cuts and new spending—the same estimate given by the administration. It said the bill would raise $450 billion over ten years. The result is a $3 billion decrease in deficits over ten years.

CBO also said that the bill “could have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years.”

Finally….I would just add that, unfortunately, ALL of the GOP presidential candidates in Vegas last night are simply operating under false, faith-based assumptions….which any student with The Google can disprove in less than 10 minutes. Supply side economics…..or put more simply….top-down economics, where the wealthy and powerful are given unimaginable giveaways and breaks under the assumption that all of those giveaways and breaks will "trickle down" to the unwashed masses…..has proven to be a pitiful, miserable and total failure.

Realizing that truth….that supply-side economics has been tried for three decades and proven to be a bitter and unjust failure….why would any GOP presidential candidate in 2011 be calling for more of the same?

Deregulated mortgage brokers, real estate appraisers, and Wall Street sellers of derivatives and credit default swaps loosely conspired to bring the largest economy in the world to it's knees.

The only people punished were average Americans who lost homes and home equity, jobs, health care, retirement savings…and hope.

Bogged down over 3 years in a terrible recession which was entirely preventable, elected officials from both political parties have turned their backs on any further initiatives to relieve the suffering of millions of Americans and have, instead, turned towards numerous austerity measures which will only make the misery worse.

Despite the fact that during the Bush administration Congress voted to raise the national debt ceiling seven times, today's Congress has already missed the debt limit deadline (May 16th) without a vote. Furthermore, today's Republicans are suggesting that the United States can actually default on it's debt without enduring serious consequences, arguing that Treasury Secretary Geithner's August 2nd absolute default date is not to be taken all that seriously.

House Republicans, who promised nothing but jobs, jobs, jobs before Tea Party voters put them in the majority last fall,….since being elected, have responded by not introducing one House bill to address the nation's lack of jobs. Instead, these House Republicans have focused on bills limiting a woman's right to choose and weeks of arguments over defunding PBS and Planned Parenthood.

The one important bill passed by House Republicans included a proposal to abolish Medicare within a larger budget bill which would simultaneously cut tax rates on millionaires and billionaires. Despite the indisputable fact that health care costs for everyone have been rising much more than inflation rates in recent history….the Medicare program, itself, is being singled out for blame and bludgeoned unto death by Republican representatives of Big Insurance. Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has promised to torpedo any debt ceiling vote if Medicare is not somehow eviscerated. Villagers called the proposal "courageous."

House Republicans have responded to the American peoples' rejection of their "abolish Medicare" plan…..if you can believe it….by pushing a new bill to fully privatize Social Security. Even though George W. Bush could not move his Wall Street friendly plan to privatize America's most popular government program through a Republican House and Senate….couldn't even get a bill introduced……today's impetuous Republican House, in yet another example of irresponsible Republican political theater…..are swinging for the wingnut fences.

For the first six months of this year the national "news" discussion,.. when not sidetracked by extremely important "breaking news" like Twitter pictures, birth certificates, or who's the GOP Grifter of the day,…..has been repetitiously expounding upon the "need" to cut government spending. Austerity measures have been the rage. Anyone who objects to total austerity dominance is not considered to be Serious.

And yet, all evidence, whether in European countries, or here in Tea Party governed states…..where deep spending cuts are being made is that doing so only is making economic and job matters worse. Market demand has not returned with any gusto…..and so cutting government spending at such a time guarantees that lack of demand, lack of jobs, will only increase.

A corollary to that apparent insanity of doing the very opposite of what we should do…..is that the reason given for all the spending cuts has been to get a handle on our "out-of-control-national-debt". But just seven months ago, both political parties agreed to add $2 trillion more to our debt by extending tax cuts. And all of this is happening while Americans continue to enjoy the lowest federal income tax rates in 60 years.

After 9-11, Americans were placed on watch lists, were made to take off shoes and belts and be subjected to invasive searches at airports. The FBI was given new invasive and illegal powers to issue "national security letters" instead of obtaining warrants. Library and financial records were searched without probable cause or due process. 4th amendment rights shredded. All because our leaders said they just had to keep us safe after failing to protect us from the worse attack ever on U.S. soil.

Yet, after all of that….those who our protectors have placed on terrorist watch lists and no fly lists are still permitted to purchase guns,….semi-automatic if so desired. Republican elected officials, long ago, sold their souls to the anti-American NRA. As a result, you have to take your shoes off at airports and have all of your electronic communications captured and examined by government computers…..but those suspected enough to be placed on a watch list for potential terrorism can purchase and own all the guns they could ever want or need.

I need some answers. How does any of what I've explained inspire confidence in the American experiment? How can any of this apparent insanity be justified? Yes, democracy is messy with so many interest groups pulling and tugging in different directions….but I don't think that explains what looks to me like a total breakdown of a once-functioning government.

If our government is failing, perhaps fatally…..can anything be done? Should anything be done?

Droopy Dawg McConnell grinning over the prospect of gutting Medicare.

Yesterday, I reviewed Tuesday's Democratic win in New York's 26th district. A special election held in a very Republican district became an upset win for Democrat Kathy Hochul.

The main reason that New York voters turned against the Republican candidate, Jane Corwin, was because she said that she would have voted with House Republicans to abolish Medicare and replace it with a voucher program costing seniors thousands more each year in out of pocket health care expenses. The House Republican vote to abolish Medicare was part of a larger Ryan-GOP budget plan which also included more severe tax reductions for America's wealthy.

With that in mind….fathom this…..

The GOP continued its bloody walk into the Medicare buzzsaw Wednesday, when 40 out of 47 Senate Republicans voted in support of the House GOP budget, and its plan to phase out and privatize the popular entitlement program.

40 out of 47 Republican senators…..looked at what happened in New York's 26th district, looked at the numerous polls showing Americans by a 70-80% margin are against the GOP's plan to abolish Medicare and replace it with a privatized program….and went ahead and voted yesterday to gut Medicare anyway and pass the "savings" on to America's wealthiest in the form of even more tax cuts.

Only Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted against the senate bill……Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against the bill because it didn't go far enough. I guess the Soylent Green part wasn't in the bill.

As far as I can recall, this is the first time that the Republicans have stripped away all pretenses that they represent the American voters. Apparently, radical ideology….ideology that promotes only the wealthy few, even at the expense of the sick, the elderly, the disabled and the poor…..is no longer embarassing or considered shameful by today's Republicans.

When asked to vote yea or nay on a plan that would charge seniors some 68% more for their health care by 2030…..Republicans voted hell yes. When challenged by an upset Democratic win in New York's red 26th district where voters don't want to gut and privatize Medicare….senate Republicans didn't even flinch. They stuck their chin's out unafraid of what voters will do to them come next November.

The Republican Party members have become America's version of the suicide bombers. Willing to sacrifice their own political lives for the sake of their misguided, cruel and voodooized economic doctrines. These Republicans are willing to blow the whole place up rather than listen to the will of the people.

And don't let anyone fool you into believing that these GOP'ers stood on principle. Gag me with a spoon. Sideline GOP cheerleaders will insist that Republicans are being responsible and courageous actors….doing their damnest to confront an enemy far worse than even the threat of al-Qaeda….the national deficit. But don't believe that Mother Goose fairy tale for one second.

These Republican senators are the same senators who held the nation hostage last December until President Obama agreed to add $2 trillion more to the national debt in continued tax cuts for America's millionaires and billionaires. Republicans….no matter what they say….do not care one bit about debt or deficits. Any political party which takes tax increases off the table when they are throwing a tantrum about deficits and debt….is not a serious political party.

So when your Republican friends tell you that GOP'ers are acting like adults by wanting to abolish Medicare and replacing it with a system controlled by for-profit insurers. When your conservative relatives tell you that Medicare is simply unaffordable, will go bankrupt soon, and everyone is going to have to share in the sacrifice….ask them why those same Republicans are redistributing the "savings" from charging seniors more for health care to the richest folks in the country.

Republicans are counting on voters having short term memory problems next November. They are counting on voters forgetting all about their failed attempts to gut Medicare and push the savings upline to the already obscenely wealthy.

About the only demographic the GOP hasn't already alienated is the senior vote. With yesterday's Senate Republican vote to gut Medicare and replace it with a far more expensive plan for seniors…..it's clear that the Party of Lincoln now only has the rich few to support them.

Good luck with that.

Our job as citizens is to never forget….and to vote accordingly.

Oh my.

A number of Catholic academics have signed a letter to House Speaker John Boehner encouraging him to reconsider his political party's policies of stripping services from the most vulnerable while simultaneously giving the wealthy more tax breaks.

Quick review.

All but four House Republicans voted for the now-infamous Ryan budget. As detailed here several times, Paul Ryan's budget is better acknowledged as a Roadmap to Ruin than the laughable "Roadmap to Recovery" label the Wisconsin representative attached to it.

The GOP budget would cut deeply into government programs for the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable in our society. The plan would abolish and replace Medicare, with seniors paying thousands more for lesser coverage than they have now. Seniors would be subjected to the snake oil sales tactics of for-profit insurance companies to negotiate their medical coverage under Ryan's plan.

Medicaid would be block granted to states. The disabled, who account for a vast amount of Medicaid dollars, would receive less and less assistance under the GOP plan.

Ryan's GOP plan to take from the elderly, the poor, the children and the disabled…and then give what they've taken to our nation's largest corporations and our richest citizens in the form of tax cuts and tax breaks has, rightly, been deemed Reverse Robin Hoodism.

Apparently, Catholic academics have seen enough. Here's a portion of what they told the Crybaby from Ohio….

Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings. From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress.

The 2012 budget you shepherded to passage in the House of Representatives guts long-established protections for the most vulnerable members of society. It is particularly cruel to pregnant women and children, gutting Maternal and Child Health grants and slashing $500 million from the highly successful Women Infants and Children nutrition program. When they graduate from WIC at age 5, these children will face a 20% cut in food stamps. The House budget radically cuts Medicaid and effectively ends Medicare. It invokes the deficit to justify visiting such hardship upon the vulnerable, while it carves out $3 trillion in new tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

The letter to Boehner goes on to call current GOP policies…..wait for it…."anti-life."

In a letter speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Stephen Blaire and Bishop Howard Hubbard detailed the anti-life implications of this budget in regard to its impact on poor and vulnerable American citizens.

Who knew that Catholic academics could be so shrill?

The academics admonition to Republicans….

A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.

The irony of the "party of life" being labeled anti-life by the Catholic Church is really quite amazing when you think about it.

From the inception of the despicably hateful Moral Majority down to the "compassionate conservative" Reign of Terror of George Junior…the Republican Party has insisted that they represent life, that they are the pro-life political party.

The truth has always been just the opposite.

Now, the Catholic Church is finally recognizing that truth.

Last June, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, called for conservatives to declare a "truce" over divisive conservative social issues if Republicans planned on regaining the presidency in 2012.

That naturally led to many on the sanctimonious right to blast ole' Mitch. Example, the Huckster, and bass guitar playing Mike Huckabee….

Apparently, a 2012 Republican presidential prospect in an interview with a reporter has made the suggestion that the next President should call for a “truce” on social issues like abortion and traditional marriage to focus on fiscal problems.

In other words, stop fighting to end abortion and don’t make protecting traditional marriage a priority.

Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues. They are moral issues. I didn’t get involved in politics just to lower taxes and cut spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization.

Translation….if you can't divide America, what's the point?

The family Research Council president rushes in to place the Jesus stamp of approval on what the Huckster said….telling ole' Mitch what he must do now that he has made the Lord cry….

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, argued Daniels needed to do more to mitigate his earlier remark: he needed to renounce it.

“I think that’s how he gets himself out of this: he acknowledges that he was wrong in calling for a truce on social issues,” Perkins said.

Mitch "Truce" Daniels….yesterday…

Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels plans to sign a bill that will restrict abortions and make Indiana the first state to cut off all government funding for Planned Parenthood.

Daniels…..touted as a Serious GOP presidential hopeful….has agreed to be the first governor to entirely defund Planned Parenthood, cutting $4 million per year from the women's reproductive healthcare organization in Indiana.

As a result of this bill, Indiana women will have less access to birth control, breast exams, PAP smears, tests for cervical cancer and other female-related health services. This will lead to Indiana having more cases of female cancer, unwanted pregnancies, and venereal disease. All of which, in turn, will cost Indiana much more than $4 million per year.

But hey, that's the price a GOP presidential hopeful must make his state's female citizens pay for him to remain a viable future candidate. Life is all about, you know, trade offs.

If Indiana is our nation's future, then our future is bleak.

Contraception and abortion are legal in these United States….but to listen to the current Tea Party fueled Republicans…you would never know it.

The egregious nature of Daniels' signing such a divisive and heartless bill is seen in the fact that 60% of women served by Planned Parenthood are poor women. So, not only has Indiana declared war on women in their state, they have specifically declared war on poor women.

I hear many conservative types bloviate on about their main considerations being all about "fiscal responsibility." But today's Republican Party, as witnessed now in Indiana, is the same old party of the Moral Majority….huckstering their way to success on the backs of Jesus….and poor women.

What "moderate" Mitchy Daniels has proven with his declaration of war against Indiana women is that the cultural, hysterical, "Jesus is weeping over abortion and gays" conservative movement in America still controls the Republican Party.

So when some Tea Partier claims that their Republican Party initiatives are really, really, really all about less taxes and spending…..tell them to ask a poor woman from Indiana what she thinks about that.

First it was the audacious GOP governors of the Tea Party persuasion.

Governors, Kasich of Ohio, Walker of Wisconsin, Snyder of Michigan and Scott of Florida….all came out of their inaugural gates like a house on fire. The GOP governors had apparently mainlined some artificially sweetened, make-believe mandate from voters. Pretending to be balancing their state budgets, each governor strategically went about attacking the right of state employees to collectively bargain.

Unions provide considerable support for the Democratic Party. It didn't take voters long to understand what these GOP wolves in budget-balancing-sheep's clothing were really doing….that is, attacking with vengeance their political opponents. According to the most recent polls, if last November's election were held today, each and every one of these radical GOP governors would be defeated. A textbook case of buyer's remorse. Recalls and nullification initiatives are now all the rage with voters who don't take too kindly to being duped.

That's what your state Tea Party crash scene looks like.

On the national front, the radicalized Republican House of Representives, heavy Tea imbibers, recently voted to abolish Medicare and Medicaid and replace these government run programs with what they call "market based" programs. Medicare would be turned into a voucher program, Medicaid into a block-grant-to-states program.

Once again, these radicalized TeaPublicans are claiming that abolishing Medicare and Medicaid as we've known them is really, truly, honestly, they're not kidding…..all about fiscal responsibility. Having supervised the doubling of the national debt during Junior's spendfest a few short years ago…..these born again House Republicans are by-god serious this time about holding the federal line on spending.

Enter Paul Ryan's "bold", "courageous" Roadmap to Recovery. 235 House Republicans passed Paul Ryan's Roadmap budget plan over a week ago. Ryan's plan would INCREASE deficits for the next ten years and only begin to theoretically reduce deficits after the GOP's proposed Medicare replacement plan went into effect in 2022. The "savings" generated in Ryan's shell game plan would come from elderly Americans who would be forced to pay thousands more each year for health insurance under Ryan's Medicare replacement plan.

While Ryan's plan burdens American seniors with more health care costs by forcing them to purchase health insurance from for-profit insurers instead of automatically being covered by the government run Medicare program, at the same time it cuts taxes, again, for our nations filthiest of rich.

As any rational person can imagine…..this plan isn't going over very well with American voters. And just as Teapublican governors are being hit with a huge pie-in-the-face of voter's remorse…..so too now national Teapublicans are being slapped with polling results of mass GOP destruction.

What's a poor, tea drinking, shell game playing, serve the rich GOP to do?

Lie.

What we're now seeing, in the light of overwhelming polling against Ryan's plan, is a new stinking, steaming pile of mendacity. House Republicans, petrified by the real possibility that their vote to abolish Medicare is on a recoil course to bite their asses, big time, next November…..are scrambling to come up with a response to why they voted to hand out bigger tax refund checks to billionaires while making the elderly sick pay for it.

Claims by critics who rightly insist Ryan's plan abolishes Medicare are being countered now by muddy-the-water Republican and corporate media lies that the GOP is really only "reforming" Medicare, "saving" Medicare. A bigger lie could not be told.

At 65 every American is entered into a government insurance program called Medicare. American workers have taxes deducted from every paycheck which is entered into the Medicare fund for all seniors. Social Security recipients have approximately $100 deducted from their monthly checks which also goes into the Medicare fund. Medicare participants, with applicable deductibles and co-pays, have all of their medical costs taken care of by this government run, Medicare program.

Administrative costs to run Medicare are 6%, much lower than for-profit insurers at 17%. The very reason Medicare exists today is because for-profit, corporate insurers do not want to insure the elderly who make up the most costly demographic for health care. Older people….freaking duh….get sick more often than the non-elderly, and often with extremely costly-to-treat illnesses.

Ryan's plan would put all seniors at the mercy of for-profit insurance salesmen. Instead of automatically being covered by a national plan at 65….each year, seniors would receive a coupon in the mail worth X amount of dollars to "shop" for their best "choice" in health insurance providers.

That is not a "reform" of Medicare…that is not a "saving" of Medicare….that is abolishing Medicare and replacing it with a for-profit, corporate insurer program. And the insult added on to the lying injury that Ryan's plan is, somehow, a "reform" of Medicare, is found in the additional thousands of dollars seniors would need to pay each year over traditional Medicare. And that's the first year Ryan's plan goes in to effect. By 2030-something, some analysts have calculated that Ryan's plan would require an additional $14,000 to $20,000 out of pocket costs each year just to pay for the shortfall in voucher amounts.

So, don't get lost in the Foxian fog that's just now begun in an effort to save the electoral asses of House Teapublicans. House Republicans did not vote to "reform" or "save" Medicare over a week ago. They voted to abolish Medicare and to replace it with a for-profit, turn granny-over-to-the-slicksters, further-impoverish-the-old-and-the-infirm….Teapublican plan to help the rich.

Remember that next November.

Making mistakes is human. Deception is another issue altogether.

This morning's Akron Beacon Journal front page headline blares….
"Partisan ideas could clash on ballot." The article is authored by Julie Carr Smyth of the Associated Press….and it starts out this way….

Voters in Ohio could get a chance this fall to weigh in on two divisive new laws: the federal health insurance overhaul Democrats backed in Washington and collective-bargaining restrictions Republicans backed in Columbus.

The author then proceeds to tell her readers how these two state initiatives are equivalent. See…Republicans have a ballot initiative and Democrats have an initiative. Just another he-said-he-said equivalency controversy.

The AP writer….and of course the Beacon editorial staff…..whether biased, lazy, uninformed, or all three…..are doing their readers a disservice.

The Ohio state initiative to place the new controversial and unpopular SB5 legislation on the ballot this fall is not, in any way, equivalent to any attempt by Republicans to place an initiative on the fall ballot seeking to "block provisions of the federal law that require individuals and companies to choose certain health insurance carriers."

The one is not like the other…..at all.

Voters in Ohio have the legal right to gather signatures in an attempt to overturn a state law with which they disagree.

Opponents of collective-bargaining reform passed by Republican lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. John Kasich have been given the green light to collect signatures to repeal the law.

Secretary of State Jon Husted certified the initial signatures submitted by the group We Are Ohio, and Attorney General Mike DeWine approved the language contained in the shorter of two petitions submitted to his office to review.

The approvals from the two Republican officeholders were needed before We Are Ohio could circulate its petitions. The group will need to collect more than 231,000 signatures from registered voters throughout the state before the end of June to qualify for the November ballot.

When the SB5 rejection referendum is placed on the ballot this fall and voters vote to reject the unpopular union busting legislation…….the new law will not be implemented and Ohio will be back to square one.

The same is NOT true of the Republican theatrical production masquerading as a referendum of rejection in Ohio directed against what has become known as ObamaCare. If Ohio voteres would happen to vote their majority disapproval of ObamaCare this November….nothing regarding the implementation of the federal health reform bill will stop or be changed.

The reason is because states cannot overturn federal laws….by referendum or by any other method. A piece of information that the AP writer failed to include in her quest for equivalency article. States can challenge federal laws in court…..and sadly, Ohio is one of over 25 states which have signed on to just such a challenge to ObamaCare. But a state's voters, a state's governor, or a state's legislature CANNOT overrule or nullify a federal law passed by Congress and signed by the president.

Federal laws are not subject to a popular vote. Americans vote for federal representation in Congress and in the executive branch. Representatives in our federal Congress write and pass laws and the executive branch signs them into law. If citizens in the various states do not agree with those laws, they can press their case in a legal court presided over by federal judges. If courts reject these cases brought against a federal law….the only recourse citizens have is to remove/change their federal representatives in the next election.

These obvious facts make clear that any initiative this fall in Ohio to demonstrate disapproval or rejection of ObamaCare are purely political theatrics. Something which is not true at all when it comes to the referendum to toss out SB5.

Part of the problem with today's "professional" media is their constant striving to give their audiences what they want instead of what they need to know. Any referendum this fall attempting to negate ObamaCare in Ohio will have not one shred of authority or legality. The same is not true of the referendum in Ohio this fall to overturn SB5.

That's what columnists should be telling their readers.