Caffeinated Thoughts

---

• Carry Me Back to Old Mayberry
• I Hope I’m Wrong, But I Think Obamacare Is Here to Stay
• GOP Responds to June Unemployment Numbers–Where’s the Recovery?
• Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz Demonstrates Integrity After Violating Nepotism Law

Carry Me Back to Old Mayberry Posted: 06 Jul 2012 09:10 PM PDT Andy Griffith passed away at the age of 86. Griffith was the star of one of the most beloved programs in television history, The Andy Griffith Show.  Griffith’s legacy was not limited to that, however. Prior to Andy Griffith, he was a solid movie actor with He had a second great series two decades after in Elia Kazan’s masterpiece, A Face in the Crowd (1957) and the comedic classic No Time for Sergeants (1958). Then nearly two decades after Andy Griffith ended, Griffith spent nine years as high priced yet thrifty great suited lawyer Ben Matlock, and then after Matlock ended he enjoyed a state of semi-retirement as a character actor who could still create magic in movies like The Waitress.  That said,  none of Griffith’s other work has had near the impact on his fellow citizens than  those eight years in Mayberry.  In 1998, 5 million people daily tuned into reruns of the Andy Griffith show. I doubt that number has declined much. Along with I Love Lucy, Andy Griffith remains one of those few shows that have not been forgotten by the sands of time. What makes Mayberry stay strong? 1) Barney Fife: Any analysis of the show has to begin with Barney Fife. His five seasons on the show were the best of the series. He brought home four Emmy Awards for the role.  And won another as a guest star. Barney was the lovable buffoon and braggart who provided the show’s greatest comedic moments in shows, “Barney Joins the Choir” and “Citizen’s Arrest.” However, he could occasionally pull off the great dramatic moment as he did, “Andy on Trial.” Gentle Human Comedy: If I could use one word to describe the Andy Griffith Show’s comedy, it’d be “gentle.”  Comedy today is often about put downs, denigrating women, denigrating men, denigrating different religions or political viewpoints, but Andy Griffith was about the foibles of frail human beings just like us who made mistakes and had their flaws. It’s a show that makes you laugh without leaving you to question whether what you laughed was really funny or just cruel.  On Andy Griffith, the comedy often came from efforts to spare people’s reputation and feelings.  The Andy Griffith Show made more people laugh with its efforts to be kind than most shows that have tried to obtain laughter through cruelty. Love and Music: The show in the midst of its hilarity would often create a beautiful dramatic moment that would touch the hearts of viewers as parents, as children, or just as plain humans who could relate to what the characters were going through. Music was an important part of Southern life and played a significant role in the program with Sheriff Taylor, the Darling Family, Rafe Hollister, or others.  It gave the show a feeling of authenticity. The Truest Show on Television:  Our trips to Mayberry would invariably come with a moral. The insertion of morals into the show was quite intentional. One man even used it as Curriculum for a Bible Study and a Baltimore pastor used it to create a sermon series when he observed that every one of the gifts of the Spirit could be illustrated by an Andy Griffith show. The program taught good morals while rarely being “preachy.” You’d laugh at the events, but then turn off the TV and then you’d come away with a nugget of truth. Of course, the show is often considered unrealistic with its often idyllic portrayal of small town life. Yet The Andy Griffith Show was more about truths that endure rather than the passing reality of the moment. The strongest criticism of Andy Griffith was  the lack of black characters. There was only one Black character with a speaking role in the eight year run of Andy Griffith. We should note that the problem was not limited to Mayberry. In the far more urbane Dick Van Dyke Show,  I recall only two Black Characters with speaking roles in the five seasons. I’ve also seen the first three seasons of Green Acres and again no black actors. This problem has more to do with a Hollywood culture that had failed to cultivate black stars and character actors than it does any racism on the part of the producers of Andy Griffith.  More to the point, it doesn’t matter in the long run to the show’s staying power of the program as Rochelle Riley wrote for the Detroit Free Press:  "For me, and for many generations before me, 'The Andy Griffith Show' was about our lives, regardless of color or background… "My family didn't watch 'The Andy Griffith Show' to count black people. We watched to see our way of life, one that included spending hours picking plums in the plum orchard, then sitting under a chinaberry tree eating them, or walking along ponds to collect cattails.” And many generations after will continue to enjoy the simple lessons of life in Mayberry. Link to this post!

I Hope I’m Wrong, But I Think Obamacare Is Here to Stay Posted: 06 Jul 2012 10:56 AM PDT Just yesterday, President Obama said this: ”I’ll work with anybody who wants to work with me to continue to improve our health care system and our health care laws, but the law I passed is here to stay.” Count this as one of those times when I desperately hope I’m wrong. Perhaps more so than any other prediction I’ve ever made. But I think Obama is right. It is here to stay. I view the likelihood of Obamacare being repealed as virtually nil. More about that in a moment. It also seems to me that there is nothing positive, no silver lining, in the recent SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare. I’ve heard much about how Justice Roberts’ actions saved the court’s reputation as an institution. I’ve also seen much made of the ruling’s curtailing of the Commerce Clause. I wrote this to a friend last Saturday: “I’m afraid conservatives are are making a bit too much of this. Wickard v Filburn is still on the books. So is US v Darby. It may be true that some limitation was accomplished by this ruling, but do you think that a liberal SCOTUS in the not so distant future will be so concerned with stare decisis relative to this ruling that they won’t rule in favor of expanded congressional power in another case? I’m pretty skeptical. Even if a hard line was drawn on the limits of congressional power, the line was drawn too late and too far out. And that’s to say nothing about the implications of what Roberts was willing to affirm as indeed constitutional, which is ominous enough on its own.” It seems Fred Thompson agrees with my assessment. On Tuesday, he wrote this: The desire to find a Reagan-like pony in all of this has caused some of my conservative friends to see one where none exists. In fact, many pessimistic liberals and optimistic conservatives have one thing in common: the view that somehow the opinion places new limitations on the use of the Commerce Clause, because it was deemed not applicable in Sebelius. They also think that the decision substantially restricts the conditions that the federal government can place on states regarding programs partially funded by the federal government. Unfortunately, in my view, both of these beliefs are wrong. The majority opinion rejected the Commerce Clause as a valid basis for the individual mandate because, while the federal government can regulate commerce and commercial activity, it cannot compel economic activity, as the mandate attempted to do. The chief justice's opinion contained a lot of music about the limitations of the Commerce Clause that is easy on conservative ears, but it was essentially the same set of points that conservative justices, usually in the minority, have been making for years. In 1942 the Supreme Court decided in Wickard v. Filburn that a farmer could be penalized for growing wheat on his own farm for his own consumption. Many view this as the high-water mark of the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Court in Sebelius in no way overruled or rejected Wickard. On the contrary, the opinion pointed out that in Wickard the case involved the "activity" of growing wheat. In Sebelius there is no commercial activity on the part of one who chooses not to purchase health insurance. Wickard is just as egregious and just as valid as it has always been. Dealing with the issue of the mandate penalty as a tax, he goes on to say this: So we are left with no silver linings and one major concern for the future that goes beyond Obamacare. It seems that, after this Court decision, while the government cannot make you buy broccoli under the Commerce Clause, it can tax you if you don't. Again, some optimists say that, since the Court relied upon the government's taxing power, we are protected as a practical matter, since Congress would always be reluctant to pass a huge new tax. However, in the future Congress can insist it's not a tax, just as it did this time. One would think that it would be politically more difficult to pull this off again, but there is no legal constraint to keep the congressional leaders from trying — deny it's a tax during debate and have the government argue in court later that it is a tax. He concludes by suggesting that the “real silver lining is that in a democratic republic we get another chance in November to fix it.” He’s right, of course, that we have a chance to fix it. The law can be repealed. But consider what that will take. The Republicans will have to not only take back the White House, they will also have to take back the Senate. And, presumably, they will have to get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Senator Mitch McConnell recently suggested he’s prepared to pass such a repeal through the budget reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority. It was used by the Democrats to pass the health care bill in the Senate back in 2009. It would certainly be an easier task to get 51 votes as opposed to 60. But McConnell and his fellow Republicans in the Senate would have to find the intestinal fortitude (guts) to actually use the reconciliation process, and guts among Republican Senators is a commodity in short supply. They know that they will get blasted by the Democrats and pilloried in the media for using reconciliation to accomplish repeal, and they also know that the fact that reconciliation was used by the Democrats to pass the bill in the first place will be conveniently forgotten by the media. Then there’ll be the inevitable charge of racism, that they are only doing this to take away the signature legislation of the first black president. In short, I just don’t see repeal happening. Maybe Romney actually beats Barack Obama. Maybe the Republicans do win the Senate. But I don’t see them getting 60 seats. And I don’t see them being willing to take the kind of heat they’ll be subjected to if they move forward with repeal through budget reconciliation. The only way I see it being a realistic possibility is if Obamacare not only remains unpopular, but plummets to polling levels that even the Democrats would conclude to be too low for them to remain supportive of the law. Perhaps at that point some of them would defect and vote to put the thing out of its misery, and if it got to that point, reconciliation becomes moot. Speaking of moot, I’m not at all sure the Republicans will beat Barack Obama, or gain four seats in the Senate (let alone thirteen), so why worry about the wimps in the Senate disappointing me? I still hope I am wrong. I’d like someone -anyone- to show me that I am. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?       Link to this post!

GOP Responds to June Unemployment Numbers–Where’s the Recovery? Posted: 06 Jul 2012 10:00 AM PDT The unemployment rate held at 8.2% in June as employers added only 80,000 jobs.  The consensus from Republicans is that Americans still haven't seen the recovery we were promised. Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) who is the chair of the House Republican Policy Committee issued the following statement: Job creation and economic growth are not keeping pace with the type of recovery the Obama Administration and Democrats controlling Washington promised the American people.  President Obama's tax and spending policies are simply not working," said Chairman Price.  "The Obama Administration's focus on excessive regulation and ever increasing taxes to chase ever-higher deficit spending has made doing business in America even more difficult for those who create jobs and drive our economy.  The primary example is the president's health care law which is a threat not only to quality, affordable health care, but also to economic growth.  That is why House Republicans will continue our work to dismantle, defund and fully repeal this disastrous law to protect patient-centered health care and help preserve American jobs. The American people are rightfully fed-up with partisan gridlock and they know more must be done to help grow our economy.  House Republicans have responded to this need for leadership by sending more than 30 bills over to the Senate to encourage job creation, and we will continue to offer other opportunities to work together on productive solutions.  President Obama could demonstrate real leadership if he were to simply call on his Democratic colleagues, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to take action on these numerous pieces of legislation so there is a more positive economic environment where Americans can find jobs and provide for their families. Congressman Tom Latham (R-IA) responded: Today's jobs report shows that hardworking taxpayers are still waiting for the long-promised recovery.  Anxiety continues to grow among millions of unemployed Americans and those who have jobs but are fearful that their situation could change quickly. I'm working for a better path to a real long-term recovery that restores economic security and opportunity for all Iowans.  I've supported policies that will increase the demand for employment by opening new markets for Iowa commodities and products, and I've introduced regulatory reform legislation to free job creators from federal overreach, creating a healthier environment for job growth.  In addition, we must enact an all-of-the-above energy strategy that will lower energy costs for American families and help businesses to expand and create jobs. I stand ready to work with any of my colleagues in Congress, regardless of political affiliation, who want to enact common-sense, bipartisan solutions that will allow real job creation and economic recovery to take root. Former Presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the following: Today’s jobs report is yet another reminder of the disaster that is Obamanomics. These numbers are abysmal and sadly reaffirm that our economy continues to suffer and American families are struggling. Under President Obama’s economic and regulatory policies, the unemployment remains over 8 percent, poverty rates are at historic and tragic highs with 1 in 6 Americans living in poverty, and 1 in 4 children receiving food stamps. Our manufacturing sector also continues to decline under this president. For the second quarter in a row, manufacturers continue to be less optimistic about growth due to increased uncertainty. If we are serious about addressing poverty in this country then we must support policies that create an environment for work, marriage and family, quality education, access to capital, and civil society to prosper. This is how we help the unemployed in America; not through Big Government but through expanded opportunity and bold leadership. Republican Party of Iowa Chair A.J. Spiker had this to say: The latest unemployment figures demonstrate President Obama's complete failure on the economy. The second quarter was the worst quarter of job creation in two years. The unemployment rate has now been over 8% for 41 straight months. The unemployment rate among 18-29 year-olds, who showed overwhelming support for the President in 2008, is a dismal 12.8%. This, at a time when our nation's young people are graduating with record amounts of college debt and are being forced by the Obama economy to move back home with mom and dad. President Obama's policies of higher taxes, more debt and greater regulation are simply not working which is why Iowa, a state that had 110,000 more Democrats than Republicans when President Obama was inaugurated, is now a state with 21,000 more Republicans than Democrats. The Republican Party of Iowa will be working tirelessly in the coming months to reach out to as many disaffected Democrats as possible in order to grow our party and turn Iowa completely red this fall. Link to this post!

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz Demonstrates Integrity After Violating Nepotism Law Posted: 06 Jul 2012 07:00 AM PDT Surprise!  Matt Schultz is human after all, he makes mistakes.  He admitted yesterday that he violated Iowa's nepotism law when he gave a temporary job to his younger brother Andrew. Schultz told The Associated Press on Thursday he was unfamiliar with a law that says state officials generally cannot hire their relatives when he offered the internship to his brother, Andrew. After the AP questioned the job last month, Schultz said he discovered that it was not allowed. He said he contacted the attorney general’s office immediately and paid back $4,908, the amount of wages and payroll taxes the state spent on his brother. Matt Schultz said Andrew Schultz earned $10-per-hour answering phones, making copies and performing other clerical work in his Capitol office during the Legislative session. Considering I've seen family members work as clerks for different state legislators I can absolutely believe Schultz was not aware of the law.  I'm not saying those legislators are in violation of the law (I'm not familiar with the law), but one could assume the same standard applies to the executive branch when dealing with internships.  Compared to other infractions some elected officials have been accused of it seems pretty minor.  Regardless, when he found out about his violation of the law he contacted the attorney general's office immediately and paid it back.  No excuses.  No cover ups.  He made it right.  How you respond after making a mistake speaks volumes about your character. I'm sure there are a number of detractors who would like to make hay out of this, but he did the right thing by paying the money back.  That's integrity, and that's the kind of integrity we should expect out of elected officials. Link to this post!

You are subscribed to email updates from Caffeinated Thoughts To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610