Sure, hypocrisy is the coin of the realm in politics, and both sides play that game. But Republicans have taken the false indignation of double standards to a level rarely before seen in our political discourse.
While workers across the nation fight for a $15 minimum wage and citizens suffer from institutional neglect in Flint, Michigan, we should remember Martin Luther King Jr. had a much more revolutionary dream for the United States of America.
If you put your faith in the candidate who creates the most "heroic" personality for popular consumption, it little matters if what he or she says is true or logical or even remotely connected to the many substantial problems that this country, and the globe, faces.
There has been virtually no discussion, from Republicans or Democrats, about how to improve the conditions of individuals and families in poverty who are striving to reach the middle class, but are not yet there. What about these people?
The Earned Income Tax Credit has long enjoyed bipartisan support because it encourages and rewards the work of low- and moderate-income people.
Paul Ryan took the speakership vowing to decentralize power and re-energize House committees. It's a noble cause, but it's fair to ask that in return, the committees serve as open forums that do serious policy analysis, not just legislative sausage-making. On criminal justice, Ryan has a chance to establish that principle.
What Barack Obama did last week on guns, and what Democrats seek to do in general, are well within the bounds of reason and appeal broadly to the American people. That's why Republicans have to lie. They need to bleat about dictatorship and gun confiscations because the truth isn't scary enough to get people to vote their way.
Republicans have been trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act for five years. But they've made absolutely no effort to patch the massive gaping hole that would leave behind. They don't want to.
Now that the primaries are getting a lot closer, some are doing mental pretzel-bends to rationalize their gut feeling about Trump's inevitable loss (since their gut feeling can't possibly be wrong, of course.)
While Ryan made headlines this past fall for extolling the importance of balancing work and family while weighing the notion of picking up the Speaker's gavel, he has consistently opposed legislation that would help families access paid family and medical leave.
A bipartisan consensus in America is now putting President Barack Obama's signature Paris Climate Accord into action. We have House Speaker Paul Ryan and the President working in lockstep to direct the country into a clean energy future.
When various Republican presidential candidates present their views on addressing poverty at a January 9 forum in South Carolina, some may seek to align themselves with House Speaker Paul Ryan's proposal to combine funding for numerous safety net programs into what would essentially be a mega-block grant to states. However, Paul Ryan's "Opportunity Grant" proposal carries substantial risk of increasing poverty, rather than reducing it.
Like a resolution that has little hope of being achieved, these political gambits will look wrong for the country and foolish in hindsight. I only hope my colleagues choose to spend the rest of 2016 more productively. The American people need their business done, and a year would be a terrible thing to waste.
Grover Norquist, unknown to most Americans, is the conservative boogeyman of the progressive big-government spending liberal left who vilify his defense of the American taxpayer.
Let's get on with the remaining 2016 best and worst awards. One warning: it's a very long column, so we encourage readers to pace themselves.
Little noticed in the deal that Congress approved Friday is the fact that the anti-abortion lobby got wiped out. The deal included no provisions cutting funding for Planned Parenthood -- an issue on which Republicans have been prepared to shut down the government in past budget fights. Nor did the anti-choice zealots have any success on their other proposed riders intended to reduce reproductive rights. There were proposed cuts in federal spending for sex education, family planning and Planned Parenthood. Same with efforts to further restrict abortion rights in the name of religious freedom, or international family planning, or attempts to block the government from requiring multi-state plans to include the full range of family planning services. What happened? First, the Democrats stood fast with reproductive rights groups.