Or As Steve Colbert Says, "I Don't See Race"

Governor Bobby Jindal suffers from: a) hypocrisy; b) naivete; or c) both.

The surprise answer is (b), naivete.

In a piece in Politico, the Louisiana Republican, a second generation Indian-American (I hope that description doesn't offend him) argues

Yet we still place far too much emphasis on our “separateness,” our heritage, ethnic background, skin color, etc. We live in the age of hyphenated Americans: Asian-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Indian-Americans, and Native Americans, to name just a few.

As Republicans and Democrats; gay and straight; Protestants, Catholics, Jews and, increasingly, Muslims and individuals of other religious faiths, we are a diverse and sometimes wonderfully motley mixture of people. Formed into a mosaic, we are at our best.

While the above italicized comment summarizes Jindal's article, he adds a particularly noxious remark, claiming

America’s younger generation pays less attention to skin color than the generations that preceded them. (By the way, I noticed recently that the president of the United States, a man with whom I disagree with on almost everything, seems to have darker skin than most Americans. He hasn’t had a problem getting elected.)

Well, uh, yes, he did have a problem getting elected, wherein in early October, 2008, his ticket was a decided underdog to a duo including a political unknown who couldn't come up with the name of a daily newspaper when pressed.  In Obama's bid to be re-elected, his opponent, Mitt Romney, had a spectacular demonstration planned to celebrate the victory his team expected, as described in The Boston Globe:

Mitt Romney had planned to celebrate his election as the nation’s 45th president with an eight-minute fireworks display over Boston Harbor.

The same company that does some of the illuminations for Boston’s Fourth of July celebration was poised to ignite fireworks within view of Romney’s party at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center to celebrate a win over President Obama.

A permit filed with the City of Boston said the detonation could occur any time between 7 p.m. Tuesday, just after the first polls closed, and 12:30 a.m. Wednesday, which ended up being just before Romney conceded the race.

And that victory by the man who "seems to have darker skin than most Americans" came from the support of less than 40% of white people.  It's reasonable that 59% of voters selected Mitt Romney for what was undoubtedly a variety of reasons.   But Jindal's implication that we all came together, regardless of ethnic background, to vote to re-elect the black man is extraordinarily naive.   And if the election/re-election demonstrated our glorious imperviousness to the nefarious pull of ethnicity, a reasonable question or two arises: did Jindal vote for Obama? If not, did his vote against Obama prove that he is racist?  (probably not and no).

Enough Americans did vote for Barack Obama for him to be re-elected.   And now, less than a year afterward, how have members of Jindal's own party (though not he himself) reacted?

On August 19, according to Buzzfeed, Michigan Republican Representative Kerry Bentivolo stated

...it would be a “dream come true” to submit a bill to impeach President Obama. Bentivolio also said he had meetings with lawyers asking them to “tell me how I can impeach” the president of the United States. Bentivolio was speaking at the August 2013 Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting.

“If I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true,” Bentivolio said. “I stood 12 feet away from the guy and listened to him. I couldn’t stand being there, but because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job, as a congressman, I respect the office.”

“I went back to my office and I’ve had lawyers come in,” the congressman continued. “These are lawyers, PhDs in history, and I said, ‘Tell me how I can impeach the president of the United States.’”

Three days later, answering a constituent's question about impeachment, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn maintained "I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”   Back in January- little more than two months after the vote which allegedly proved that the nation bears no ill will toward blacks- Texas Representative Steve Stockman threatened to pursue impeachment of the President if he introduced gun control measures by executive order.

None of the GOP members of Congress with dreams of impeaching the President of the United States has laid out, to satisfy requirements of the U.S. Constitution, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" Obama has committed.  (And Jindal himself opposes impeachment.) Still, impeachment has to be considered... for some reason.

At least, Bill Clinton had to lie to a grand jury, albeit about nothing pertaining to the job he was elected to perform (performance not having been among Clinton's problems).   In President Obama's case, he- oh, come to your own conclusions.


Share |

Prelude To Cuts


In the spirit of bipartisanship and comity, let us be generous:  the utterances of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) are incompatible with objective reality.

On Sunday's Meet The Press, Dr. Coburn claimed (as caught by Crooks and Liars)

It doesn't really matter what happens at the end of this year because ultimately the numbers and the bond holders throughout the world will determine what we'll spend and what we won't. So, we can play the political game that is being played out in Washington right now or we can be absolutely honest with the American people and say, 'Medicare is going bankrupt, Social Security disability will be bankrupt in two years, Social Security trust fund will be bankrupt in five years, Social Security total will be bankrupt in 16,17 years.

Medicare is divided into four parts, one of which (Part C) is administered through the private sector through any number of Medicare Advantage Plans.  Of the other three, the Medicare Trustees Report, according to a summary prepared by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

projects that the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is financially balanced because beneficiary premiums and general revenue financing are set to cover expected program costs... SMI Part D, the Medicare prescription drug program, had an average growth rate of 7.2 percent over the last 5 years.  Cost projections for Part D are lower than in the 2011 Trustees report, due to lower spending in 2011 and greater expected use of generic drugs.

HI expenditures have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so under current law in all future years.  Trust Fund interest earnings and asset redemptions are required to cover the difference.  HI assets are projected to cover annual deficits through 2023, with asset depletion in 2024.  After asset depletion, if Congress were to take no further action, projected HI Trust Fund revenue would be adequate to cover 87 percent of estimated expenditures in 2024 and 67 percent of projected costs in 2050.  In practice, Congress has never allowed a Medicare trust fund to exhaust its assets.  

There is no concern that Medicare Part D, the notorious prescription drug program created by President George W. Bush as a sop to the pharmaceutical industry, will go bankrupt.Neither can Part B, the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, go bankrupt.   Coburn is doubtless speaking of Part A, which is expected to cover 67% of costs in 2050.   Or, as the good Doctor would put it, "going bankrupt."  In a fact check, CNN explained, more thoroughly and clearly than have I,

When officials talk of Medicare insolvency, they're talking specifically about the trust fund for Medicare's hospital insurance, or Medicare Part A, which covers inpatient hospital stays, care at a nursing facility, hospice care and some home health care. The other parts of Medicare, though costs are rising, are "adequately financed" for now, the program's trustees say.

The Part A fund's overseers -- the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds -- said back in 2009, before the Affordable Care Act passed, that the banked money used to make up the difference between income (such as taxes) and expenses for Part A would be depleted in 2017.

But then the Affordable Care Act passed. The trustees reported that the act's lower expenditures (cutting rates to providers) and increased revenues (a payroll tax hike for wealthier people in 2013) "improves the financial outlook for Medicare substantially."

The trustees reported in 2010 that health care reform would delay the Part A trust fund's insolvency until 2029. By 2011, the trustees moved that insolvency estimate back to 2024.
By that date, the trust fund would be depleted. But that doesn't mean the Medicare Part A program would collapse. Revenues would be able to pay for most of the costs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the program, said this year: "Projected (trust fund) revenue would be adequate to cover 87% of estimated expenditures in 2024 and 67% of projected costs in 2050."

Coburn makes three claims about Social Security: 1) disability will be "bankrupt" in 2014; the trust fund will be "bankrupt" in 2017; 3) in "total," it will be "bankrupt" in in 2038 in 2039.

Social Security is not going bankrupt in the manner the Senator would have people believe it.  With no infusion of additional revenue, it will be able to pay most of its obligations for decades.  Coburn, in faux panic mode, is anxious that people believe that without "reform," Social Security will be obsolete in a few years.

Disability is the most tenuous, with the fund needing replenishment by 2016.    The trust fund will be depleted- as "bankrupt" would seem to mean- in 2033, not in 2017.  After that point, 75-78% of Social Security benefits (given no change in policy) would be paid (through payroll taxes and taxation of Social Security benefits) until 2087.

But the public won't support the evisceration of two-thirds (Medicare and Social Security) of the social insurance the poor, the elderly, and much of the middle class depend upon unless alarmists such as Tom Coburn are allowed to shred the truth and create an alternate reality.  As pointed out by Bob Somerby, in April criticizing Kevin Drum for condoning use of term "bankrupt" to describe Social Security

It would indeed be a very bad thing if the Social Security trust fund ran dry and promised benefits had to be cut. (The trustees now project that this will happen in 2033.) But people have been led to believe, for the past three decades, that Social Security won’t be there at all by the time they reach retirement age. Almost surely, the terms “bankrupt” and "bankruptcy" have played a key role in this disinformation campaign.

Because we’re away from our sprawling campus, we won’t provide any links. But voters have been deeply misinformed about the future of Social Security dating to the 1980s.

This isn’t a hyper-legalistic matter; we're not talking about a minor "rhetorical stretch." This is one of the greatest disinformation campaigns of the past fifty years. This campaign should be studied in detail, although orgs like the AP never will, and you know all about our professors!

Of course, when people are led to believe that Social Security won’t survive at all on its present course, they can easily be persuaded to favor extreme “reforms.”

Medicare, whose financial problems lie not in the program itself but in health care costs generally, is now being similarly denigrated- and not only by Republicans.     At the Democratic National Convention, former President Clinton, recognizing that the insolvency date of Medicare would be moved up if Mitt Romney were elected and repealed the Affordable Care Act, maintained "So, if (Romney is) elected and if he does what he promised to do, Medicare will now go broke in 2016."   The following day, Vice President Biden declared "The plan (Romney is) proposing would cause Medicare to go bankrupt by 2016."

While Social Security probably will not be harmed until after resolution of the fiscal slope negotiations, Medicare is on the chopping block currently.  And with both, disinformation is enhanced by manipulation of the language by the major players.


and to the millions of Jewish readers of this blog....   HAPPY CHANUKAH




Share |

Blaming The Little Guy

The Daily Times of Farmington, New Mexico reported the protest that greeted Democratic Representative Ben Ray Lugjan on a tour of Goodwill Industries in Farmington. One member of the San Juan County 9/12 Project, a group aligned with the tea party movement

.... said he came for "a chance to see the elusive representative."

"He needs to get out of politics and make room for an American," Clark said.

Luján is a lifelong New Mexican. Clark later explained that he meant an "American patriot."

Pretty ugly that is, and reminiscent of Senator George Allen's infamous crack about S.R. Sidarth: "This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere." Sidarth was born in Fairfax County, Virginia, U.S.A. A foreigner to George Allen. Lujan was born in Santa Fe, New Mexico, U.S.A. A foreigner to his critic, Darrel Clark.

Posting on the blog of the ardently pro-Obama Center for American Progress, Travis Waldron found Clark's comment "representative of the strains of racism and ethnocentrism that exist in the Tea Party movement."

However, Darrel Clark is, well, Darrel Clark, a private citizen about as famous as you, me, or your next-door neighbor. But Tom Coburn is a long-serving United States Senator, who recently responded to a negative comment from a constituent about President Obama by contending

His intent isn’t to destroy. It’s to create dependency because it worked so well for him. I don’t say that critically. Look at people for what they are. Don’t assume ulterior motives. I don’t think he doesn’t love our country. I think he does.

As an African American male, coming through the progress of everything he experienced, he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs. So he believes in them. I just don’t believe they work overall and in the long run they don’t help our country. But he doesn’t know that because his life experience is something different. So it’s very important not to get mad at the man.

This was, CAP's Ian Millhiser observed, an "outlandish theory."

So let's review. Darrel Clark, of whom we never had heard and never will again (unless he is roundly condemned for his ridiculous and offensive remark), is emblematic of the "strains of racism and ethnocentrism" coursing through the veins of tea party supporters. A respected United States Senator (without presenting evidence) says the first black President "is out to create dependency because it worked so well for him," apparently because "as an African American male...... he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs." And that president believes in "these programs" not because they work- Coburn argued they don't- but because of the "life experience of the African'American male."

But Coburn, apparently, has not succumbed to racism or ethnocentrism but- wait for it- to an "outlandish theory."

Mere slap on the wrist though that is, it is more than we've heard out of the first black President, his spokespeople or advisers. And it's more than we've heard from the otherwise ever-vigilant civil rights organizations, apparently unconcerned that an influential opinion maker and role model-a United States Senator- believes the first black president couldn't have gotten anywhere near the White House if he weren't black. And that "these programs" exist solely for the African-American male, for whom life is evidently is just swell.

Hopefully, the acceptance of Coburn's remarks is attributable only to the personal relationship between the popular Oklahoma Senator and the former Illinois Senator. Sadly, though, it may be related to privilege- the ease with which some guy in the southwestern U.S. can get slammed while a remark by a member of the world's greatest deliberative body can get affirmed by the silence of others.

Change We Can Believe In, indeed.

Share|

Small Government In Action, Again

Over the past few months of wrangling over the debt ceiling, "shared sacrifice" became one of the most appealing mantras, repeated across the political spectrum. On the left, there is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in early July stating "I’m trying to rally public opinion and put pressure on the White House to say that the American people want shared sacrifice." Ten days later, it's the center-right President, advocating cuts in domestic discretionary programs, defense, Medicare, and elimination of a few tax loopholes, declaring "Simply put, it will take a balanced approach, shared sacrifice, and a willingness to make unpopular choices on all our parts."

The cliche has reached the statehouses, including in Pennsylvania, where the low-key hard right governor, Tom Corbett, having slashed state jobs and education and given a free pass to natural gas drillers, intones "everyone needs to share in the sacrifice."'

Then there is trend-setter Oklahoma Senator and Gang of Six member Tom Coburn, who back in December stated "The only way we get out of the hole we are in is if we make shared sacrifices." On Meet The Press (transcript of segment here) yesterday, he conceded "waste in tax credits" but still recommended we" lower the rates because our biggest problem isn't that taxes are too low, it's that the government interference and the oppressive nature of our government on our economy is lessening the economy's response. " "The problem," Coburn claimed, " is that we're spending way too much money, and, and it's not hard to cut it without hurting entitlement benefits."

The Oklahoma Republican recommended also cutting entitlements and added "it's that the government interference and the oppressive nature of our government on our economy is lessening the economy's response." The "oppressive nature of our government," conspicuously (and still) absent while Wall Street was running wild and wrecking the economy, is playing little role in harming the economy's response, unless Senator Coburn is referring to the two million or so jobs created by the stimulus.

Coburn, who voted to extend the USA Patriot Act but otherwise finds government "oppressive," understandably did not mention

Many states hit hardest by this week's searing heat wave have drastically cut or entirely eliminated programs that help poor people pay their electric bills, forcing thousands to go without air conditioning when they need it most.

Oklahoma ran out of money in just three days. Illinois cut its program to focus on offering heating money for the winter ahead. And Indiana isn't taking any new applicants. When weighed against education and other budget needs, cooling assistance has been among the first items cut, and advocates for the poor say that could make this heat wave even more dangerous.

"I've never seen it this bad," said Timothy Bruer, executive of Energy Services Inc., which administers the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program in 14 Wisconsin counties. The group has turned away about 80 percent of applicants seeking cooling assistance.

The sizzling summer heat comes after a bitterly cold, snowy winter in many places and at a time when unemployment remains stubbornly high.

The cuts began after Congress eliminated millions of dollars in potential aid, forcing state lawmakers to scale back energy assistance programs. The agencies that distribute the money are worried that the situation could get even worse next year because the White House is considering cutting the program in half.

The Oklahoman might have been concerned that Oklahomans are suffering through record-breaking heat and the state's worst drought in decades coupled with limited government. Perhaps that is the "shared suffering" its senator advocated last December, exacerbated by conservative politicians exorcised by "shared suffering" and titillated by budget cuts.

Extreme weather occurrences such as heat and drought, however, need not be noticed. But when the northern hemisphere- remarkably- experiences a snowstorm this winter, some politicians, pundits, and talk-show hosts will triumphantly declare the foolishness of the concept of global warming.

Share|

The Bergen And McCarthy Show


Barack Obama's Barack Obama is at it again.

Dick Durbin, a "liberal" Democrat, one of the three Democrats on the "Gang of Six" seeking agreement on a debt reduction package, commented in an interview for ABC's Subway Series

You have the House Republican budget from Congressman Paul Ryan, who I know and like, which is going to be placed somewhere on the right side of the spectrum. You have the president's suggestion, which will be on the other side of the spectrum. And if and when we reach an agreement, it will be in the middle, a bipartisan effort, which I think has a chance to succeed.

Somewhere on the right side of the spectrum? Would anyone three years ago- before Barack Obama was inaugurated- have suggested that eliminating Medicare and turning health care for the elderly over to private insurers is "somewhere on the right side of the spectrum?" And that a President bragging about "the biggest spending cut in history" (as all taxes as a proportion of personal income fall to the lowest level in over 60 years) would be considered alll the way on "the other side of the spectrum?"

No. And No. But Durbin wasn't finished, arguing "In 2037, as we know it, Social Security falls off a cliff. There's a 22 percent reduction rate in payments, which is really not something we can tolerate."

ABC News did not ask how a 22 per cent reduction in benefits is "falling off a cliff." Generally, when someone falls off a cliff, it ends horribly, in death. A 22% (actually, 23%) reduction is not falling off a cliff but apparently, in order to accept harm to one of America's two most cherished government programs, people first must be panicked.

Durbin might have suggested the cap on the income subject to payroll taxes be eliminated (or at least raised), but that wouldn't do, especially when the President who pulls his strings cut the payroll tax as part of the tax deal in December. Instead, the Illinois Senator advocates reducing Social Security taxes to the wealthy (whereupon they ultimately might be eliminated) because (sarcasm alert) there is nothing Americans like more than a welfare program.

Durbin believes the Gang of Six is "very, very close. And there's a sense of urgency. Our relevance is going to be hooked to our timeliness. If we wait too long, we may not be players. And a lot of people are counting on us to be players."

No doubt the Senator is particularly pleased with the reasonableness of Gang of Six member Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. Recently, "The Last Word" host Lawrence O'Donnell presented an ode to Coburn who had, it is believed, stood up to Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform. The latter has had virtually every Republican in Congress sign his Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which opposes not only tax increases but also elimination of loopholes. On March 29, Coburn sent to Norquist a letter criticizing the powerful activist for opposing elimination of a tax earmark for movie producers and currently opposing an amendment sponsored by Coburn to eliminate an ethanol subsidy.

Both O'Donnell and the normally sober and insightful Jonathan Chait are both pleased that Coburn has challenged "Norquist's vision of conservatism." Maybe not so much of a challenge, however. The Hill's Michael O'Brien reports

Coburn, one of six senators involved in behind-the-scenes talks considered crucial if there is to be a deal, said that while it was possible that some voters could see their tax burdens rise, the “Gang of Six” talks would not result in a significant tax hike.

"There's no plan to have a significant tax hike on anyone," Coburn said on conservative talker Laura Ingraham's radio show. "I don't think there's any of the three of us who will embrace tax hikes."



Coburn’s comments suggest the senators are unlikely to agree to end the Bush tax rates for families with annual income above $250,0000, a priority for the White House.

Is Dick Durbin disappointed? embarrassed? chastened? Not in the least. The role of Obama's proxy has been to put Social Security onto the table, and to keep it there, meanwhile portraying the President's center-right plan as the only legitimate proposal on the left. (Durbin on Senator Sanders: "I think Bernie is going too far with his language.") President Obama hopes to swoop in at the last minute and negotiate a "compromise" on mostly Republican terms. But as Digby maintains

We must demand that Democrats just say no to any “grand bargain” that includes changes to the benefit structure of Social Security. Healthcare costs, a moribund economy and defense spending are driving the deficit projections, not Social Security. The trust fund is well-funded for some time, invested in the safest investment in the world: the U.S. Treasury bond. No good will come of touching the program right now. Literally.

Share|

Warped Arguments

Yellow Dog at theygaveusarepublic.com on 12/24 pretty clear summed up the conflict some of us face in viewing health care reform as it has become (_ _ _ not in original):

This is why I'm glad the Democrats have won - so far - on health care DEform, even though I still think the bill is a piece of s_ _ _ that will cost Democrats dearly in extra work, extra money, extra time and lots of lost votes.

This bill is making repugs rip out their own eyeballs in rage and despair, and for the moment that's a good enough outcome for me.

It's hard to argue with logic like that, especially when one of those Republicans, Oklahoma's Senator Tom Coburn, argued on December 24

If this bill becomes law, future generations will rue this day and I will do everything in my power to work toward its repeal. This bill will ration care, cut Medicare, increase premiums, fund abortion and bury our children in debt.

This process was not compromise. This process was corruption. This bill passed because votes were bought and sold using the issue of abortion as a bargaining chip. The abortion provision alone makes this bill the most arrogant piece of legislation I have seen in Congress. Only the most condescending politician can believe it is appropriate to force Americans to pay for other people's abortions and to coerce medical professional to take the lives of unborn children.

Senator Coburn, understandably did not- could not- say how the measure would "ration care" or "bury our children in debt." Given that the bill would not ration care and was fashioned to be at worst deficit-neutral, Coburn was wisely discreet. And of course he has been an advocate of extending the GWB tax cuts for the wealthy, which did its part in exploding the deficit.

Certainly Coburn is aware that abortion was used "as a bargaining chip" by the anti-choice Nebraska senator Ben Nelson, not by pro-choice proponents; and that the Senate bill (as does the House bill) further restricts, rather than expands, a woman's right to choose. Sure, gloating would be rude; but whining after a victory is so childish.

It's (sarcasm alert) heartwarming that Senator Coburn worries that the legislation will "cut Medicare." It would be a little more convincing, however, if he hadn't one sentence earlier claimed

Congress ignored the coming economic storm and impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs....

Now what could one of the Senate's most conservative members have meant when he referred to the "impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs?" Probably the same thing Rush Limbaugh, Concord Coalition founder Pete Peterson, and what Digby refers to as "the Village" (roughly, the Washington media-corporate-political establishment) mean.

The Social Security system, notwithstanding being robbed by successive congresses and presidents to fund the general debt, is sound. Medicare is endangered- but by increasing health care costs, which must be addressed by effective health care reform. The interests wringing their hands over "the impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs," as Digby noted in late May, is trying

to break the generational bond between the young and old and are always looking for a good moment of impending crisis (or "opportunity" like a rising stock market) to put an end to the program. Whatever works.

As for Medicare --- there's no fixing it without health care. But they know that too --- which is one of the reasons they will block reform.

But the more intriguing portion of Coburn's speech contained the seemingly innocuous reference to Christmas, when he contended of Senate Democrats

Their hide the ball strategy led them to rush this process and ram the bill through on the eve of the most important Christian holiday when they hoped the American people wouldn't be watching.

In the long run, the GOP's original intent, to delay the vote until 7:00 p.m. Christmas Eve, is irrelevant. But what about "the most important Christian holiday?"

Perhaps the calendars are all wrong, it is March or April, and we've just celebrated Easter. Christmas may be "the most wonderful time of the year"- to many Christians and non-Christians- and the most important holiday to individual Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Church members. But it simply is not the "most important" holiday in Christendom. The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible explains the importance in Christendom of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, the former the basis of Good Friday and the latter of Easter, both days obviously inextricably linked:

First, it (the resurrection) has been treated as the validation of Christian claims about the effectiveness of his atoning death. Jesus' resurrection demonstrated his victory over death (Ac 2:24, 1Co 15:54-57), vindicated him as righteous (Jn 16:10) and confirmed his divinity (Ro 1:4). This event therefore led to his ascension, enthronement (Ac 1:9-11; 2:33-34, Php 2:9-11; cf. Isa 53:10-12) and present heavenly reign. The reality of the resurrection guarantees believers; present forgiveness and justification (Ro 4:25; 1 Co 15:17; Heb 7:24-25), as well as their future hope of resurrection life when Christ returns (Jn 11:25-26; Ro 6; Eph 1:16-2:10; Col 2:9-15; 3:1-4).

Moreover, the apostle John (in 6:58) reportedly quoted Jesus as declaring to skeptics "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" (after which stones rained down on him). The birth of the human Jesus (notwithstanding to a virgin) approximately 30 years prior is very important to Christian belief but not as much so. The resurrection of Jesus Christ three days after his death by crucifixion is simply the central event of Christianity.

Feel free not to believe any of this. Most people around the world- including an awful lot of nominal Christians- do not. But they are the fundamental beliefs around which Christianity resolves, contrary to Senator Coburn's implication.

One could argue that Coburn is not even a Christian, but rather a member of a Christian cult- the Family, which combines an elitist allegiance to capitalist domination with its own brand of Christian theology. But that would be a violation of the Law of Parsimony. It is, after all, Christmas season; a time of good cheer, Santa Claus, and egg nog. And if Tom Coburn can combine the positive emotions of the season with the enduring Repub tactic of portraying Democrats as the godless, anti-Christian party, exploitation of the Christian faith is mere "gravy," an added bonus.