Debt Ceiling Talk and the Assault on Common Sense

In the political stalemate surrounding the budget talks and the decision as to whether or not the debt ceiling will be raised, it seems as though common sense has been dragged to a back alley and been beaten senseless.
Before demanding cuts in Social Security, Headstart, and Pell Grants, why not take a step back from the cliff and logically review the financial status quo?
There's an inherent lack of fairness in our tax system that urgently needs to be addressed. How is it possible, for example, that Exxon-Mobil turned a $19 billion profit in 2009, and received a $156 million tax rebate from the IRS? Citigroup, in addition to receiving $45 billion in bailout funds (not to mention the federal government agreeing to absorb potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in losses on "toxic assests") turned a $4 billion profit, and paid no tax. These are but two examples from a very long list of corporations that are not only avoiding paying any federal income taxes, they're actually receiving huge refund checks from the IRS!
No one is arguing that our budget woes could, or should, be solved on the backs of these large corporations, but conversely we're all in this together, and fairness ought to have a place at the table. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group estimates $210 billion in revenue would become available by closing off-shore tax havens. Another $23 billion would be generated by making sure hidden profits made by hedge fund and private equity managers are accounted for. There's not an ounce of common sense in the fact that millionaire hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than teachers or police officers.
There's not an ounce of common sense in allowing corporations that shift hundreds of billions of dollars overseas every year to shift their tax burdens (responsibilities) to the rest of us.
Accorting to The Big Picture, corporate taxes as a percentage of federal revenue were 27.3% in 1955, as opposed to 8.9% now. With government increasingly "off their backs", one wonders what's happened to all that additional revenue? It doesn't appear to have been funneled into job creation!
Just as we can't afford not to raise the debt ceiling (defaulting on our obligations = soaring interest rates), it makes no sense not to include sensible revenue enhancements (raising taxes) as a key component in tackling our financial crisis. Close loopholes, raise the tax on corporations (albeit slightly), and ask those who are currently earning millions of dollars to pay their fair share. And, just in case common sense is still a viable option, how about bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan? As of 12:58 p.m. EST, the cost of these wars was $1,223,006,125.00 and growing http://costofwar.com/en/

Tom DeLay: He's back...

For anyone concerned about the relative silence of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay since his ill-advised appearance on season nine of "Dancing With the Stars", it would appear he's back, and once again engaging in his particular brand of rhetoric:

From a post by Sam Stein, stein@huffingtonpost.com:

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay called Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) "brave" on Sunday for launching a one-man filibuster of unemployment benefits, arguing that they dissuaded people from going out and finding work.

DeLay made these remarks on Fox News, and though it might appear surprising to some, Monica Crowley pushed him to explain his premise regarding the unemployed:

Crowley: People are unemployed because they want to be?
Delay: well, it is the truth. and people in the real world know it. And they have friends and they know it. Sure, we ought to be helping people that are unemployed find a job, but we also have budget considerations that are incredibly important, especially now that Obama is spending monies that we don't have.

DeLay went on to describe allocating federal funds for the unemployed as "unsound policy".

There will always be those who make every effort to take advantage of "the system", whether it's Bernie Madoff operating the largest Ponzi scheme in history, AIG paying out obscene bonuses after accepting $85 billion in federal (taxpayer) money, or the relatively few individuals who choose to "milk" unemployment benefits. To hear Tom DeLay focus exclusively on the unemployed (and the rather limited "safety net" currently in place) is simply sad, not to mention wrong. However, his social views are generally quite well known: promoter of the "birther" conspiracy, opponent of government checks on corporate power, anti-labor rights, pro-life, anti-immigration (legal or illegal), pro-guns, and anti any teaching of evolution in schools. Quite frankly, if I were looking for a rational exchange of political views, I'm not sure I'd start here.
What is truly lamentable, however, is DeLay's reference to President Obama "spending monies we don't have".
It's important to look at how we got into the financial mess we find ourselves in. There's no doubt that both of our major political parties deserve blame for reckless spending. At times, it appears the only difference is in spending priorities. Former Congressman DeLay has opposed both funding the Environmental Protection Agency ("Gestapo of government"), and increasing federal funds for expanding health coverage. He voted in favor of prayer in school, and against grants for black and hispanic colleges. He voted in favor of limiting prescription drug benefits for Medicare recepients, and in favor of privatizing social security. On the other hand, DeLay never met a defense appropriations bill or weapons system he didn't support, and was an enthusiastic supporter of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's far too easy to scapegoat powerless segments of our population, and to toss about "red meat" slogans for political gain. Conversely, it's too easy to villify individuals like Tom DeLay, instead of giving serious consideration to the issues. Perhaps the key lies in fully undertanding the consequences of his actions, as well as our own. We may be able to brush aside political rhetoric, but it's the aforementioned consequences that are so sobering. To put the federal deficit in perspective, I invite you to click on this link:
http://costofwar.com (National Priorities Project).
It may be somewhat important to view Tom DeLay "in context", but, in the long run, he's the least of our worries.