Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, after less than one year in office, has managed to bring disgrace upon himself and his State by refusing to act in a bipartisan manner while serving on the so-called “Super Committee”.  The fact that the ultra-conservative Toomey got elected to the Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010, a state that voted for Barack Obama by a wide margin in 2008, was more of a backlash against high unemployment and difficult economic times, than it was the endorsement of his anti middle-class political agenda.  Unfortunately, the State of Pennsylvania will now have to muddle through another five years of Toomey’s attempts to further the interests of the “1%ers”, and to advance the destructive policies of the Tea Party. 

In order to advance his standing with the intransigent, Republican leadership of Mitch McConnell, Pat Toomey told the ABC program “This Week” that he wanted to change the formula for making $1.2 trillion in budget cuts mandated by a law passed in August.  The law, which allowed the U.S. government to continue paying its bills and to avoid default, was originally opposed by Toomey, who along with his Tea party cohorts, felt that a government default was preferable to raising the U.S. debt limit ceiling.  Now that the law is passed (over his objections), Toomey is determined to make sure that the forced spending cuts fall totally on Social Security, Medicaid and Food Stamps,  that the military budget is left untouched, and that higher taxes on the wealthy are not even considered.  Toomey is especially incensed that the formula passed by Congress in August calls for $600 billion in cuts to military spending.

It should come as no surprise that Toomey, along with many of  his fellow Republicans, are now breaking out in a major sweat over the distinct possibility that they will have to live with the repercussions of the deal made with Democrats last August.  Although legislators actually have until January 2013 to work out an agreement to avoid the automatic cuts, the chances are almost non-existent that the deeply divided Congress will agree on anything of substance prior to the November elections.  In other words, Toomey’s attempts to dump the entire “deficit problem” on the backs of the middle class is doomed to failure.

President Obama and the Congressional Democrats have scored a major victory for the American people by insisting that the military budget be cut by $600 billion, with another $600 billion in cuts to be made to domestic programs.  If Toomey and his Tea Party backers want to preserve the bloated military budget,  the Democrats would probably be willing to replace military cuts with tax increases on the wealthy.   If the Republicans continue to absolutely refuse to consider any “revenue enhancement” options to help balance the budget, President Obama can always let the Bush Tax Cuts expire at the end of 2012.

Senator Toomey has become the “poster child” for all that is wrong with American politics today.  He is willing to let the country go bankrupt rather than approve a debt limit ceiling increase, he is willing to destroy the middle class in order to enrich the wealthiest 1%, and he is unwilling to cut a single dollar from the bloated military budget.  As a long time resident of Pennsylvania, I sincerely regret what the Keystone State has inflicted on the Senate of the United States and on  the American people.

Rich

Over two hundred years ago, some of the best and the brightest minds in the newly independent United States of America were grappling with the complicated process of writing a national constitution. One of major tasks was to ensure each individual citizen was given equal representation, and that the majority would rule. The House of Representatives would be comprised of duly elected officials, all of which represented the interests of an equal number of people. At that time, many of the residents of the thirteen states were not only concerned with individual rights, but also with “states rights”. In effect, the fear among the Southern states was that a distant, and possibly oppressive, federal government could enact laws that were not in the best interests of their particular region of the country. In order to appease the (primarily) slave-holding states, the framers of the constitution agreed to form a second body within the Legislative Branch that would give equal representation to each state, regardless of the population. The formation of the Senate, as it was called, would ensure that the new Constitution would be ratified by the southern states. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were opposed to creating the Senate, stating that it contradicted the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the majority will rule. As it turned out, they were right.

On many occasions during the brief history of the United States, the Senate has stood in the way of progressive legislation, supported by the majority of Americans. In two particular cases, the abolishment of slavery and the right of women to vote, Senate filibusters delayed the will of the majority from happening for decades. Once again, the will of the majority is being denied by a minority of senators. In this case, the will of the majority is to have health care reform in America.

If, in fact, health care reform is denied the American people by a group of forty, white, rich males in the U.S. Senate, it may be time to think about the legitimacy of the Senate itself, and the function it plays in twenty-first century America. It may be time to re-think the relevancy of the concept of “states rights” in the modern American age. At the local level, the governor and state assemblies are granted powers under the federal constitution to manage their own affairs, so long as they don’t interfere with rights granted under that constitution. When, however, a minority of senators from various states are granted the power to thwart the will of the majority of American people, a line has been crossed that forms a border between good, representative government and gridlock. We must not continue to let that line be crossed.

—Rich

All right, so she does not have the so-called experience some may see in other candidates for the New York Senate seat, but that may be why she is exactly the right choice. Caroline Kennedy has intellect, youthful verve, is deeply philosophical and has a compassionate dedication to this country. Am I reminiscing about the Camelot years? Sure, that may be a small part of the equation. More to the point, I do not believe she would ever be a sell-out like, oh say a governor named Blagojevich. Character is a key issue and this woman has it.

An erudite woman, Caroline Kennedy authored several books about our Constitution. No small feat. The Senate has a wrenching need for intellect and character. Caroline has both. She should not be disregarded because her name is Kennedy. Just ask Evan Bayh and Bob Casey Jr. There is a history of dynasties in this country so to dismiss her for “playing on her name” would be disingenuous. 

Hillary Clinton has left big footprints to fill, but this little and mighty woman may just be able to do that.  We need her youth, freshness and ideals which have yet to be smudged by the tawdry. And there is a good chance she could win that seat through a vote when the time comes. She is not a person to be underestimated. My hope is that the Governor of New York will give Caroline Kennedy this opportunity to serve our country.