It’s hard to like either Congress or the Obama Administration for this sequestration nonsense. The manufactured budget cuts were intended to be so onerous, both sides would be forced to come to their senses and “do the right” thing.

Instead, the small government advocates in Congress love the the poltiical version of “50 shades…” It’s both sadistic and masochistic to do nothing, though more sadistic because the poor are getting hurt more than the wealthy. The only action Congress’ can muster is to finger-point at President Obama.

Meanwhile, the blame game also seems to suit the president just fine for now, though he should be pointing out that there’s a better way toward an improved economy than the forced austerity of sequester (look how that worked in Europe).  Obama should be making the case that more government spending actually propels the middle class and the country toward prosperity. And that government as an employer can be more effective than the private sector in getting us back on track.

But that’s way too logical for the GOP, which holds on to discredited trickle down ideas that justify tax breaks for the rich while making all the rest of us pay.

So far, I don’t’ sense much indignation anywhere. More of a resignation that this is how it works.

That’s too bad. Because that is bad government. Government that is worth hating. But it’s a slow burn. The pain is coming over time as the federal money flow stops. Will we appreciate so-called “big government” then? Or will the “small government” folks win out and force all of us to accept a diminished democracy?

VOTING RIGHTS A “RACIAL ENTITLEMENT?”

So now that we’re so disgusted with Congress, should we trust it to preserve our basic right in America—the right to vote?

Some members of the Supreme Court apparently don’t think so, and based on the SCOTUS hearing last week in Shelby vs. Holder, it looks like the court may strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

Justice Antonin Scalia made the case that Congress, which has upheld the Voting Rights Act since 1965, has only done so because politicians are too afraid to vote against it. Afraid to be racist?  Not Scalia, who referred to the Voting Rights Act as a “racial entitlement.”

Entitlement? Since when does voting become like Medicaid and Social Security?

See my piece at www.aaldef.org/blog