Go read the job numbers from today.

Back? Ok good. Now re-read this part:

The Labor Department data showed private sector employment increased by 104,000, while government jobs continued a downward trend, reporting a loss of 24,000 jobs.

Private sector? Check. They’re hiring. Not at huge paces, but they are hiring. Public sector? Nope. Our government is actually reducing the amount of jobs they provide. And for the most part, I blame that guy up there, Mitch McConnell.

For a Congress that’s supposed to be all about jobs (even though it’s really all about denying President Obama a second term), they’re being awfully hypocritical. Take some of the GOP’s favorite talking points, for example—they’re completely at odds with each other. Even “Create more jobs!” directly contradicts “Reduce the size of government!”

Republicans in Congress are essentially saying that some jobs simply don’t count—specifically, government jobs. It’s fine, as long as it’s not public service, says the GOP.

Is that what we really want to promote? I’ve always thought public service was a good thing. That is was good and honorable to want to serve your country, whether in the military, through volunteerism, or through public service. Why do public sector jobs, apparently, not count anymore?

Of course the GOP would probably respond to this post saying that federal workers are lazy, and the the government is inefficient and can’t get anything done. But aren’t there better solutions to fixing that than cutting jobs? Republicans and their senseless, over-the-top “we need a surplus” agenda are causing the problem. We should be finding ways of training existing government workers to make the government work better. We should be trimming programs and unnecessary projects, yes, but we should do so in a way that salvages as many jobs as possible.

Anyway, my point is: I’m sick of hearing Republicans complain about slow job growth. Progressives and moderate conservatives are pushing to take three steps forward, while the far right is forcing us to take one step back.

America, please look at this carefully. Read, learn, watch, and observe closely. The problem here isn’t President Obama or his policies. It’s progress being held back by ancient ideals and outrageous politics and personal vendettas. That’s not the way a democracy should run.

That said, sometimes they write things that are just absurd. Like this article, for example, citing a survey that shows that Congress uses social media more than millennials. It’s the same story we hear all the time, throwing out a “shocking” social media statistic that isn’t really shocking because it’s naively considered newsworthy and tends to drive pageviews. Here’s a quote from the article:

About 80 percent of House and Senate members have social media accounts, reports The Associated Press, more than that of 18- 29-year-olds, the age cohort with the highest usage of social media. Only 75 percent of so-called millenials have social media accounts.

At first glance, of course this sounds like a great story.

But let’s keep in mind three things:

• Politicians are trying to get elected. Millennials—for the most part—are just having fun.
• There are 535 people in Congress. There are countless millennials, all from very different demographics. Of course there is going to be a higher percentage on the former than the latter.
• If you are just now figuring out that social media is important for politicians running for office, you’re about five years behind.

I mean really, guys, how is this news? Of course, politicians are on social media. Of course, there is a significant portion of millennials who are not on social media (contrary to popular belief). I don’t know about you, but I don’t need a survey to tell me that.

I’m beginning to grow weary of the “____ survey says ____ demographic uses ____ social media ____ amount” article template. I mean “shocking social media stats” are just cookie cutter media at this point. How about we talk about how social media is affecting the issues? Or what innovative things one of these audiences is doing with social media to make an impact on politics? Now that, I think, would be worth reading.

shortformblog: soupsoup: Visualization of Twitter Town Hall topics Press focuses on conflict/politic

Hence, the title of this post: is 56 is the new 60? If the Democrats can keep 56 of their own seats in the new Senate — which will be a bit tough, but is far from out of the question — then they may frequently be able to cobble together a coalition between the 56 Democrats and the four moderate Republicans — Brown, Collins, Snowe and Castle. There are other Republican whose votes might be in play on particular issues — Linsday Graham on climate change, Dick Lugar on foreign policy stuff — but those the Snowe/Brown/Collins/Castle block should be up for grabs on almost every issue.

I have a couple points I want to make here.

First, it’s absolutely appalling that there are only four serious contenders to qualify as “moderates” for the 112th Congress. Two paragraphs down in his post, Silver even says, “That’s about it, though — most of the Republicans running for office are conservatives.” The radicals conservatives and the tea party are in control. We’re witnessing a literal coup d’état of the Republican party.

Despite the potential benefits this may have for Democrats–particularly in the long run–this just isn’t a good thing. Sure, if Obama’s initiatives succeed in the next two years, Democrats will come out looking like moderates as the country shifts to the left, while Republicans wither away as the radical group in American politics. That’s good for me and my views, but is it good for democracy? I don’t think so. The idea of a purity test for a political party, particularly one of the two parties in our strictly two-party system, is just sad.

Secondly, and more to the point of my title, why are we talking about 56 as the new 60? We should be talking 50 as the new 60.

The filibuster rule is in shambles. It’s been used and abused by both parties for two decades now–although much worse in the past year by Republicans than ever before–and it’s tearing away the very fabric of our democracy. Let’s remember how Congress used to work. To pass a bill, it was required to pass the House and earn a majority of votes from the Senate. Simple definition from google:

majority /mədʒ’ɒrɪti/ /-dʒ’ɔːr-/ US

1. The majority of people or things in a group is more than half of them.

So let me ask you this: how the hell is passing a bill with 51+ votes “undemocratic?” That’s the very definition of a majority-based system, and conservatives have flipped the messaging to make 51 votes seem like not enough people agree with it to be the “will of the people.”

Ezra Klein made an excellent point about the filibuster and it’s ridiculousness in a post from February 19th:

When 41 senators representing less than 20 percent of the population can block legislation, that’s not a democratic state of affairs, no matter the issues involved.

How can conservatives actually argue against eliminating the filibuster? Now let me be clear, I recognize that Democrats have done this in the past too, and, should they become the minority at any point in the future while the filibuster still exists, they’ll likely do it again. But I don’t agree with it. And, were I a Senator, I absolutely, positively would not take part in it.

Anyway, enjoy the links, let me know what you think. Is the filibuster guaranteeing the “rights of the minority?” Or is it holding back our democracy and tearing away the very system that used to keep our government running (at least semi-) smoothly?

I think it’s time for a change. I think we need more moderates. I think we need a system where 51 votes passes a bill, because that’s a majority of what the people elected. But hey, what do I know.

The full column is below the cut. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Congress is in trouble. And it’s not just Democrats, either.

In fact, the 2010 midterms are the least of Congress’ problems. They’re in trouble as an institution of democracy. As the largest and arguably most important elected body of the U.S. government, they’re suffering a communications crisis of epic proportions.

Really, it’s even more than a crisis. They’re on the brink of a communications catastrophe.

The cause is simply public perception. Believe it or not, the 111th Congress has already accomplished larger, more significant legislative victories than almost any other Congress in history. But the public perceives them as a failure, because they haven’t communicated it well.

Let’s see, they kicked off the year by granting equal pay for equal work. Pretty reasonable. Then they expanded health insurance for millions of needy children. They’ve also protected about two million acres of American wilderness, expanded national service programs like AmeriCorps, broadened power to enforce financial fraud, protected credit card consumers, regulated tobacco, created the successful Cash for Clunkers program and granted emergency aid to Haiti.

Oh, and they rescued the U.S. economy by passing one of the most comprehensive and successful spending bills in history.

So, why does everyone still hate them?

Their polling numbers are literally at rock bottom. Only a meager 18 percent of the country approves of their work, while 78 percent disapprove. Here’s some advice:

Dear Congress,

This isn’t going to be some minor fix. You’re not just “in a rut.” You won’t be able to weasel your way out of this one, and regardless of the outcome of this November’s election, these problems won’t just go away.

I think you need to do three things.

First, make President Barack Obama’s “question time” with Republicans a regular event. Make it law. Or make a resolution. Either way, make it happen. Often.

See, question time didn’t just allow Obama to score points (although he certainly schooled House Republicans). It allowed for an open, unobstructed, rational and civil debate between our president and our legislators. This communication needs to happen more often, and the public needs to be able to see it.

Transparency builds trust. Question time is transparent. Thus, question time builds trust. See the connection here?

Second, campaign on your own accomplishments, not someone else’s.

Look at the stimulus bill. Numerous Republican members of Congress are out bragging about the new infrastructure and jobs that “they” have created, then coming back to D.C. and railing against the very stimulus bill that created those opportunities—and that they voted against. Hypocritical much?

For that matter, campaign on your own accomplishments and not on other’s supposed “failures.” Bad-mouthing your opponents doesn’t make you look good; it makes you look petty. And that’s part of what’s keeping Congress painted in such a negative light.

Finally—and this is a real revelation, folks — learn to communicate. Whether it’s staffers, your press team, or all you Congressmen yourselves, you’re doing an absurdly bad job at talking to us, the people you represent.

Send us letters. Get online. Explain, objectively, what bills are about (and if you don’t know, get someone who works for you to do it). Take 30 minutes a day and answer your office’s phones yourself, instead of giving it to an intern. Never, ever use ghost tweeters or ghost bloggers.

Does all that sound hard? It’s not. You’ve got it easy, while millions of Americans are struggling to pay their bills.

Work harder. Do better. Communicate.