The Daily Kos has the article Majority of House Democrats back the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ People’s Budget.

The article has the link to the roll call vote.  My representative Richard Neal voted no. So here is the question for him.

96 House Democrats—a majority—voted “yes” on the People’s Budget, why were you one of the 86 House Democrats to vote against it? As your constituent, I would like an explanation.

I was upset that the People’s budget paid homage to the Republican myth that the deficit must be reduced.  The only two methods that the myth recognizes is either cutting spending in other areas to offset increased spending in the areas of the people’s budget, or raise tax revenues.

If promulgation of this myth was your reason for voting against the people’s budget, I could understand that.

Who would like to attend the Sturbridge Democratic Town Committee brunch honoring Rep. Neal to ask this question?  The date of the brunch is April 12th at 11AM.  It will be at the Publick House in Sturbridge.

NPR has the story Payday Loans — And Endless Cycles Of Debt — Targeted By Federal Watchdog.

For millions of cash-strapped consumers, short-term loans offer the means to cover purchases or pressing needs. But these deals, typically called payday loans, also pack triple-digit interest rates — and critics say that borrowers often end up trapped in a cycle of high-cost debt as a result.

On Facebook, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon posted the link to the above article. Merkley said the following:

Now we’re getting somewhere! This week the CFPB announced new rules to crack down on the abusive cycle of payday debt.

There is one thing missing from the discussion. What would these people do if they did not have access to payday loans? To complete the story and make it even more credible to the most cynical, we need at least one story that compares the situation of the victim after the payday loan to where they would have been had they not received the loan.

The payday lenders are claiming that they are performing a service. We need a direct refutation that proves that the victims are not better off than they would have been had they not received the “service”.

I want to put a nail in the coffin of this business that cannot be unnailed.

The Washington Post has the article What if you could replace performance evaluations with four simple questions?

Everyone loves to hate performance evaluations, and with good reason: Research has shown them to be ineffective, unreliable and unsatisfactory for seemingly everyone involved. They consume way too much time, leave most workers deflated and feel increasingly out of step with reality.

I have been railing against performance reviews for many years.  I had many deficiencies and problems with being a manager, but what really drove me out of the ranks of management was the need to do performance reviews.  I even got myself into a position where my manager wrote performance reviews that I had to deliver to employees.  I once asked this manager whether or not he thought performance reviews were intended to demotivate employees?  The review he had just prepared would certainly do that to its intended target.  Even the toned down review that I had to deliver motivated this valued employee right out the door of the company.  I certainly couldn’t soften the blow to the employee by telling him, “You should have seen this review before I had it toned down.”

Politico Magazine has the article The GOP’s Playing Dangerous Politics with Israel by  Rep. Steve Israel.

I have seen dirty politics, but never before have I seen the ugly politics that I am witnessing now over the relationship between the United States and Israel. A game dangerously manipulated as partisan by the cynical, and easily fallen into by the clueless.

This seems to be my theme of the day.  Elite Republican politicians, in this case, who show disdain for “ordinary” morals.  The ordinary moral in this case is the one that says you shouldn’t play politics when millions of lives are at stake.

Elizabeth Warren has the Facebook post The GOP budget would gut Wall Street regulation.

The Republican budget resolution we’ll vote on tonight would weaken the rules on Wall Street and raises the risk of another financial crisis – all so the big banks can rake in more money. My message to the Republicans and their Wall Street friends is this: We know what you’re up to. We’re watching. And we’re ready to fight.

The video in that post is also available from YouTube as shown below.

Senator Elizabeth Warren joined Senators Jeff Merkley and Al Franken to discuss the GOP’s budget resolution, which would weaken the Dodd-Frank financial regulations and gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In the YouTube comments on the video, there is one person who is so sure of her misconceptions about money in the US, that it is just laughable. (Several more comments have appeared since I wrote the previous sentence. Many are equally laughable.)

One of the most important things I like about Elizabeth Warren is her demonstration of her belief in the idea that “ordinary” morals apply in the political sphere. In fact, recognizing when a policy is wrong, comes from recognizing its deviation from “ordinary” morals. Too many of this country’s worst policies come from “elite” people and “elite” politicians not recognizing this simple truth, Hillary.

The Slate blog has the brief post Hillary Clinton Calls Henry Kissinger a Friend, Praises His Commitment to Democracy. Here is a quote in the post from Hillary Clinton

Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state.

I knew there was something horribly wrong with some of the bellicose stands that Clinton took when she was Secretary of State.  I should have headlined this story, Hillary Provides Incontrovertible Proof That She Should Not Be President.

I am almost feeling prophetic.  Only four days ago I posted U.S. should rethink U.N. funding if Palestinian resolution approved: senator. In that post, I had  the following image from the book Ethics, Liberalism and Realism in International Relations:

I consider this idea that Kissinger had disdain for ordinary moral constraints as the most damaging aspect of Kissinger’s public life.  This disdain was exhibited by many of the people described in the book The Best And The Brightest.

The Best and the Brightest (1972) is an account by journalist David Halberstam of the origins of the Vietnam War published by Random House. The focus of the book is on the erroneous foreign policy crafted by the academics and intellectuals who were in John F. Kennedy’s administration, and the disastrous consequences of those policies in Vietnam. The title referred to Kennedy’s “whiz kids”—leaders of industry and academia brought into the Kennedy administration—whom Halberstam characterized as arrogantly insisting on “brilliant policies that defied common sense” in Vietnam, often against the advice of career U.S. Department of State employees.

In my opinion, their policies defied common sense because of their disdain for ordinary moral constraints.  Could we stand to have another one of those leading our government?