Apparently Michele Bachmann just can't help herself. Her mouth is completely disconnected from her brain or she doesn't have a brain. Probably the latter. Whenever she's in the spotlight, she says something outrageous. Her latest is this:
"The president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day."
I suppose that I'm going to get an email from someone repeating Bachmann's lie and I'm going to have to research it and return it to sender in hopes that they will send the truth back to the people who sent it to them. Fat chance of that! So, here's the scoop on this lie before I get the email.
It isn't true. Could there be any doubt of that? In this FactCheck article, references are cited that identifies the source of the lie, a guy in India, who can't possibly know the Top Secret details of a Presidential trip. In spite of the dubious source, Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, Drudge and Beck all hyped the story, and that fact, in my mind, is just more proof of what I've been saying all along. They are propagandists, nothing more. They have no facts, they have no logic and they have no basis for anything they say. But, millions will believe their clap trap.
What I did find interesting about the truth about Presidential trips is that they are never-the-less expensive. For example, this GAO report (PDF) in 1998 gave an account of three President Clinton's trips to Africa, Chili and China that cost $42.8 million, $10.5 million and $18.8 million respectively. That is total cost including all of the preparation to the de-briefing after the trip is over, beginning to end. But, that IS NOT $200 million a day!
I suppose we could ask President Obama to fly coach and leave all of the Secret Service guards behind; sort of let him grab a cab to the hotel once he gets there; get his own breakfast, lunch and dinner; and take care of his own laundry. Personally, I hope he makes relations between India and the U.S. better. That might involve him being a little too busy to see to those personal needs that Joe the Plumber might do. I don't mind him taking along with him a few extra staff, all of the equipment he'll need, like a mini-White House, on the trip, either. I hope he has access to a secure phone. He may need to talk to an Army General, Defense Secretary, or Speaker of the House - maybe even John Boehner - on a secure line satellite linkup. Go Pres!
Once again Michele Bachmann is a liar. Is there any other way to look at it?
So, if I get the email that I'm expecting to get, I'm going to send them a link to this page. 'Nough said.
Oh, and by the way, Bachmann is planning on being a committee chairman in the new Republican controlled House of Representatives. That should scare you.
Dave
Friday, November 5, 2010
That's It! I'm taking the train.
Yesterday we got the news that a Quantas A380 double-decker Airbus returned to Singapore because one of its engines blew up. Today a Quantas 747 returned to Singapore because an engine blew up just after take off. To top it off, some of the passengers on the 747 were the same passengers that were on the A380. How scary it that? If I were them, I think I would consider taking a ship to Australia. You can bet that my next trip will be by train. 'Nough said!
Dave
Dave
Thursday, November 4, 2010
America - Backed Into a Corner and Reeling From a Punch in the Gut
Until November 2nd, 2010, I kept thinking that we had a slim chance to pull out of an elongated recovery period and perhaps avoid more economic craziness. I was wrong. I kept thinking that there was a slim chance to avoid a corporate takeover of America. I was wrong about that, too. I kept thinking that in President Obama, we had a second FDR and Teddy Roosevelt who did the right things in the face of corporate greed and domination and popular opinion. It won't turn out that way. Instead, on November 2nd, we got President Herbert Hoover and Dubya all over again, and it should be clear that they were disastrous. And, there isn't a chance in hell that we'll pull out of the mess we're in, even when we have President Obama/FDR. He's just as trapped by corporate control as the rest of us are and nothing solidified that corporate control more than the Republican/Corporate coup d'etat that occurred on November 2nd. An angry, and mislead, America pulled the plug on any chance we had to get our economy back on track. If President Obama has any idea to at least try to save some of America, he will be forced to come to center and somehow finagle small changes that help the economy while trying to overcome Hoover/Dubya/Boehner/McConnell/Corporate opposition. I doubt that he can do it. The political wind has changed and it will blow him away.
Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve Board seem to realize that too, because yesterday the Fed started printing more money to buy back government bonds in hopes of stimulating the economy to a quicker recovery by making stocks more attractive investments. It's clear to me that the Fed did this "ahead" of the Republican winners taking office in January, because after they do, there will NOT be anything come out of Congress that's going to stimulate the economy AND Congress may put the clamp on the Fed. But, the Fed's action shot down the value of government long-term bonds, 20-30 year bonds; they went down immediately. It's a big gamble since it will boost the stock market for the short-term. But, there's a big question out there. Will it push the market up too high? Will it create another bubble that will burst and the market plunges again? And, destroy your retirement plan - again? If so, then the best thing to do is to take short-term profits and hold cash, like all of those corporations are doing with their cash. My crystal ball is too foggy to see.
The thing that finally convinced me that Obama will not be strong enough is this Frontline documentary on how healthcare reform became law. It's a sad commentary on how much control corporate lobbyist have over Congress and the Presidency, and America for that matter, and there isn't a damn thing that the Tea Party or Republicans will do about it no matter how angry they get. In fact, our only chance to fight back would have been a full uprising of the left, but that won't happen when corporations are controlling the discussion and America is so ignorant about the problem and can be so easily mislead. In fact, and in spite of the good things in the law, Howard Dean is right; the law is a health insurance industry boondoggle. As I watched the film, I was struck by the fact that Obama knew he was trapped and he was profoundly saddened because nobody on the Republican side, especially Republican Senator Charles Grassley, was going to do what was right. Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans lined up the opposition to the bill to give Billy Tauzin, lobbyist for Pharmaceuticals, and Karen Ignani, lobbyist for health care industry, the key to the American vault. Perhaps Obama should have stood his ground, but instead he took what he could get and then Tauzin and Ignani, and their Republican/corporate buddies, stabbed him and Democrats in the back by instigating the summer of the "Town Hall Smash Down" over "Killing My Grandma." It was all lies, but that didn't matter. Corporations were controlling the mob.
It is clear that the new Republican House and 48 or 49 Republican Senators will control the government, which is to say that corporations have confirmed their control. It's ironic that the Land of the Free is actually south of the REAL Land of the Free, and the sensible. Canada is doing everything right and it may find that it has another Mexico along its southern border. Canada is controlling its banks and its resources, unlike America's Republicans who are more than willing to give away the store. Here is an article where the Canadian Government blocked the purchase of the Canadian Potash Corporation. It's clear that Canada is fed up with foreign corporate takeovers. Good for them. It will serve Canadians much better in the long run. Perhaps Canada should begin thinking of how to protect its southern border from invading, illegal American aliens. If I lived there, I wouldn't want a bunch of nuts in my country either, except that I do have a bunch of nuts in my country and they are controlled by the corporate message.
The Republicans claim that they are going to do "what the people want." How they know what the people want is beyond me. Just "what people" are they talking to? Who, specifically, is delivering the "People's" message to them? It's all a joke, and it is on us. The message they're listening to is the corporate message. Who's fooling who, here? The times in history where the mob took control was not very pretty. In Rome, they (corporate money?) had games in the Coliseum "for the mob's gratification," much to the delight of the mob and to the distress of those eaten by the lions.
I'm not hearing any news media talk about how disastrous the Republican takeover could be in terms of the historical lessons of both Roosevelts, Teddy and Franklin. The Republican intent is clear; "Obama, move to the GOP or else" be blocked on every move. In fact, FDR faced similar obstruction, ironically from his own Party, by Huey Long and Roman Catholic Priest Charles Caughlin. Caughlin was the Rush Limbaugh back then, and he turned against Roosevelt, calling for monetary reforms for corporate interests, much like the Republicans are going to do to repeal the healthcare, consumer protections and bank regulations today. Huey Long saw a political advantage and joined Caughlin. The ignorant "mob" arose. FDR called Long and Caughlin "the most dangerous people in America," in his day. He tried to save the mob in spite of itself. It's strange to call World War II lucky for America, but that is what it was. If it hadn't been for World War II, FDR would not have been as successful bringing America out of the Great Depression. World War II was a huge stimulus spending plan, as it turned out, that put millions of Americans back to work. How soon we forget. We won't have a World War to pull us out this time, unless we get President Sarah Palin. That's a scary thought. We could get her. She could be our next President. From what I've observed, she is very capable of pulling the nuclear trigger. She has an apocalyptic vision. But, you can't put people back to work in the middle of atomic radiation.
Well, I'm burned out. I have stopped publishing this blog to Facebook. And, I'm going to stop writing on Facebook. Enough already. I've worn out my welcome. I'll keep writing the blog for the cathartic benefit. It helps my soul. My brother mentioned that Fiji looks like a nice place to live. Then too, a friend posted pictures of Peurto Vallarta that looks like a nice place to live, in spite of being in a dangerous Mexico. I'll look into it. Maybe I'll win the lotto and go to a corner of the world where I don't have to watch America crumble. Canada is a choice, but it's too cold and I can still see America from my backyard. Or, got your cardboard box and your spot picked out under the freeway overpass?
Dave
Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve Board seem to realize that too, because yesterday the Fed started printing more money to buy back government bonds in hopes of stimulating the economy to a quicker recovery by making stocks more attractive investments. It's clear to me that the Fed did this "ahead" of the Republican winners taking office in January, because after they do, there will NOT be anything come out of Congress that's going to stimulate the economy AND Congress may put the clamp on the Fed. But, the Fed's action shot down the value of government long-term bonds, 20-30 year bonds; they went down immediately. It's a big gamble since it will boost the stock market for the short-term. But, there's a big question out there. Will it push the market up too high? Will it create another bubble that will burst and the market plunges again? And, destroy your retirement plan - again? If so, then the best thing to do is to take short-term profits and hold cash, like all of those corporations are doing with their cash. My crystal ball is too foggy to see.
The thing that finally convinced me that Obama will not be strong enough is this Frontline documentary on how healthcare reform became law. It's a sad commentary on how much control corporate lobbyist have over Congress and the Presidency, and America for that matter, and there isn't a damn thing that the Tea Party or Republicans will do about it no matter how angry they get. In fact, our only chance to fight back would have been a full uprising of the left, but that won't happen when corporations are controlling the discussion and America is so ignorant about the problem and can be so easily mislead. In fact, and in spite of the good things in the law, Howard Dean is right; the law is a health insurance industry boondoggle. As I watched the film, I was struck by the fact that Obama knew he was trapped and he was profoundly saddened because nobody on the Republican side, especially Republican Senator Charles Grassley, was going to do what was right. Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans lined up the opposition to the bill to give Billy Tauzin, lobbyist for Pharmaceuticals, and Karen Ignani, lobbyist for health care industry, the key to the American vault. Perhaps Obama should have stood his ground, but instead he took what he could get and then Tauzin and Ignani, and their Republican/corporate buddies, stabbed him and Democrats in the back by instigating the summer of the "Town Hall Smash Down" over "Killing My Grandma." It was all lies, but that didn't matter. Corporations were controlling the mob.
It is clear that the new Republican House and 48 or 49 Republican Senators will control the government, which is to say that corporations have confirmed their control. It's ironic that the Land of the Free is actually south of the REAL Land of the Free, and the sensible. Canada is doing everything right and it may find that it has another Mexico along its southern border. Canada is controlling its banks and its resources, unlike America's Republicans who are more than willing to give away the store. Here is an article where the Canadian Government blocked the purchase of the Canadian Potash Corporation. It's clear that Canada is fed up with foreign corporate takeovers. Good for them. It will serve Canadians much better in the long run. Perhaps Canada should begin thinking of how to protect its southern border from invading, illegal American aliens. If I lived there, I wouldn't want a bunch of nuts in my country either, except that I do have a bunch of nuts in my country and they are controlled by the corporate message.
The Republicans claim that they are going to do "what the people want." How they know what the people want is beyond me. Just "what people" are they talking to? Who, specifically, is delivering the "People's" message to them? It's all a joke, and it is on us. The message they're listening to is the corporate message. Who's fooling who, here? The times in history where the mob took control was not very pretty. In Rome, they (corporate money?) had games in the Coliseum "for the mob's gratification," much to the delight of the mob and to the distress of those eaten by the lions.
I'm not hearing any news media talk about how disastrous the Republican takeover could be in terms of the historical lessons of both Roosevelts, Teddy and Franklin. The Republican intent is clear; "Obama, move to the GOP or else" be blocked on every move. In fact, FDR faced similar obstruction, ironically from his own Party, by Huey Long and Roman Catholic Priest Charles Caughlin. Caughlin was the Rush Limbaugh back then, and he turned against Roosevelt, calling for monetary reforms for corporate interests, much like the Republicans are going to do to repeal the healthcare, consumer protections and bank regulations today. Huey Long saw a political advantage and joined Caughlin. The ignorant "mob" arose. FDR called Long and Caughlin "the most dangerous people in America," in his day. He tried to save the mob in spite of itself. It's strange to call World War II lucky for America, but that is what it was. If it hadn't been for World War II, FDR would not have been as successful bringing America out of the Great Depression. World War II was a huge stimulus spending plan, as it turned out, that put millions of Americans back to work. How soon we forget. We won't have a World War to pull us out this time, unless we get President Sarah Palin. That's a scary thought. We could get her. She could be our next President. From what I've observed, she is very capable of pulling the nuclear trigger. She has an apocalyptic vision. But, you can't put people back to work in the middle of atomic radiation.
Well, I'm burned out. I have stopped publishing this blog to Facebook. And, I'm going to stop writing on Facebook. Enough already. I've worn out my welcome. I'll keep writing the blog for the cathartic benefit. It helps my soul. My brother mentioned that Fiji looks like a nice place to live. Then too, a friend posted pictures of Peurto Vallarta that looks like a nice place to live, in spite of being in a dangerous Mexico. I'll look into it. Maybe I'll win the lotto and go to a corner of the world where I don't have to watch America crumble. Canada is a choice, but it's too cold and I can still see America from my backyard. Or, got your cardboard box and your spot picked out under the freeway overpass?
Dave
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
What happened?
Once again an election is behind us and... What happened? I suppose we'll never know whether voters really voted for ideas or fear and distortion or just out of malice and rancor. From my perspective, big money bought most of the elections in the nation, but not everywhere.
California:
How did those other states fair where people I know live? Not so well, it appears. The House went to Republicans. The Senate, so far, is still Democratic. Dan Coats won in Indiana, and he's about as Big Money as one can get, solidly in the pockets of Wall Street, the Big Banks, the Insurance Companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He was bought. Oh well.
I saw one voter vote for more Trauma Units, but was silent on their Senator and Representative vote. If it was Republican, then it was against Healthcare Reform and for Insurance Companies and against that Trauma Unit, and likely against grandsons, granddaughters, nieces, nephews, cousins and friends. It's funny how those things turn out.
The "apparent Speaker to be" Boehner's so-called "Pledge to America" says he's going to "listen" to "The People." Ha! I'm worried about that. I don't think he or "The People" know what they want nor how to get there. I don't think their promised tax cut and anti-Obama movement will help America. I'd rather they listen to knowledgeable people who know how to get out of this mess,, whether it agrees with me or not, or whether it agrees with you or not, and do that. But, it appears they've made up their minds about that, and it's the popular thing to do. I think we should let the Republicans hang themselves.
Ha! And, can you imagine Rick Perry winning an election in Texas after all of the crap he's said and done? Go figure. Of all of the separate elections across the nation yesterday, he's the poster boy for the biggest tales, the most hype, the fear and outrageous stand on any issue. He snowed you, Texas. He's worse than the Witch in my opinion. Oh well, I guess Texans will live with it, come hell or high water or Texas death row injustice.
What will it all come to? I think this election leads to disaster. If it does, I hope that, this time, voters actually SEE THE CONNECTION between their vote and what America becomes, unlike their Bush vote where they DON'T REMEMBER the connection to disaster. What would America be today if Al Gore had been President? Not at war in two countries, I'm sure. Not in debt as much. I'm positive about that. More jobs? I think so. So, we've got what we've got. I hope we can live with it and come together to fix this country, but I'm skeptical. How can I not be?
Dave
California:
- Jerry Brown (D) beat Meg Whitman (R) even when Meg spent $190 million (or was it $140 million? - whatever) of her own money, apparently without regret. I heard one Meg voter say they voted against Brown because they didn't like his wife. That's a hell of an excuse for a vote. His wife isn't going to run the state. Oh well... I think it shows just how influential the ads were, especially those that misled, lied, deceived or otherwise hyped outrageous issues. I'm glad that my vote cancelled out their vote.
- Barbara Boxer (D) beat Carly Fiorina (R). I'm glad Boxer won. She's done a lot for my family, even when many in my family say "they didn't like her." Since I know that they don't know anything about her or what she's actually done, the only reason I see that they didn't like her is that they believed all of the hype that the Big Money ads told them to believe. I suppose they would have voted for Fiorina even though she sent thousands of jobs overseas and couldn't see that by doing that she did just as much damage to the economy as anything else she could have done.
- Gavin Newsom (D) beat Abel Maldonado (R). I actually voted for Maldonado because he was the only Republican who went against the Republican Party's obstruction during last year's state budget fight so California could actually HAVE a 2009 budget. Otherwise, we would still be waiting for one and paying I.O.U.s at 9% interest. And, too, Abel did a good job handling the PG&E gas-line explosion while Arnie was gone. He actually CARES about California; that's my impression. But, that person who voted against Brown's wife, above, voted for Gavin, which was okay with me too, because they liked Gavin, even though Maldonado has more state level experience. They said, "I don't know anything about Maldonado." Oh well...
- As for the remaining state offices, it looks like Democrats are winning. Kamala Harris (D) for Attorney General is the only one hanging, probably for a recount. She's actually pretty good, so I hope she wins. She's not a death penalty supporter, but she follows the law. I'm not sure what else we can expect.
- Proposition 19 - legalizing Marijuana. Fear seems to be defeating this. I thought decriminalizing and controlling it was a good idea, much like we do alcohol and tobacco, but there is a lot of Big Money in running prisons and making sure that we have as many prisoners as possible. Too bad. The only good thing about prisons is that we're broke and can't afford them at the moment and so we are not jailing a lot of those for minor crimes.
- Propositions 20 and 27 - Redistricting by a "Commission" instead of by the state legislature (Prop 20), and Return Redistricting to the Legislature (Prop 27). Prop 20 is winning and 27 is losing, so the voters are united. A "Commission" is supposed to make redistricting "non-partisan." Are we kidding ourselves again? I think so. How can we be sure that a Commission of 12 or 14 good old boy judges or lawyers are not just as partisan as the legislature is? Actually, isn't it time that we asked the legislature DO ITS JOB? I think we just shot ourselves in the foot again.
- Proposition 21 - $18 Surcharge to fund/keep up state parks. Nope, it's defeated. Personally, I'm ready for the state parks just to go back to nature. If you want to go camping in them, then pay for it yourself at the entrance AND be prepared to see a few bears and mountain lions. There is no reason we have to pay to keep them up when nature does a hell of a job all by itself... free of charge. We pay for "forest fire" management, as in keeping the forests reasonably clear of too much combustible brush, so go do that.
- Proposition 22 - Restrict State Access to County/City Funds. Yeah! It's winning! Keep your hands of county/city money. If you have a problem at the state level, then deal with it there. 'Nough said.
- Proposition 23 - Suspend California's Greenhouse Law until we have 5.5% unemployment. It's losing. The Koch Brothers and two Texas oil companies tried to buy this one. I'm glad they're not winning. We haven't had 5.5% unemployment for 60 years, and we're not likely to get there in another 60 years. We can't wait that long. Green energy creates jobs.
- Proposition 24 - Repeal Corporate Tax Breaks. This one is losing, mostly because all of the Big Money was against it and they flooded the airwaves with "OMG! JOB LOSES GALORE" lying ads that scared the Bejesus out of everyone. So, I guess the corporations will bitch about poor schools, but not pay to fix them. Go figure.
- Propositions 25 and 26 - have to take these together. Prop 25 reduces the legislature vote requirement to pass a budget back to a simple majority, 51%, (from a two-thirds 66% vote) while Prop 26 increases the legislature vote requirement back up to two-thirds for adding "fees" (say taxes) to the citizens to pay for state services. It's one against the other, here. Prop 25 is winning, AND SO IS PROP 26, for God's sake! Big Money was against 25 and for 26. This shows that the voter is clearly confused. Heaven knows how the Governor and Legislature will figure this one out or whether a budget can be passed next year. The world is turned on its head.
How did those other states fair where people I know live? Not so well, it appears. The House went to Republicans. The Senate, so far, is still Democratic. Dan Coats won in Indiana, and he's about as Big Money as one can get, solidly in the pockets of Wall Street, the Big Banks, the Insurance Companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He was bought. Oh well.
I saw one voter vote for more Trauma Units, but was silent on their Senator and Representative vote. If it was Republican, then it was against Healthcare Reform and for Insurance Companies and against that Trauma Unit, and likely against grandsons, granddaughters, nieces, nephews, cousins and friends. It's funny how those things turn out.
The "apparent Speaker to be" Boehner's so-called "Pledge to America" says he's going to "listen" to "The People." Ha! I'm worried about that. I don't think he or "The People" know what they want nor how to get there. I don't think their promised tax cut and anti-Obama movement will help America. I'd rather they listen to knowledgeable people who know how to get out of this mess,, whether it agrees with me or not, or whether it agrees with you or not, and do that. But, it appears they've made up their minds about that, and it's the popular thing to do. I think we should let the Republicans hang themselves.
Ha! And, can you imagine Rick Perry winning an election in Texas after all of the crap he's said and done? Go figure. Of all of the separate elections across the nation yesterday, he's the poster boy for the biggest tales, the most hype, the fear and outrageous stand on any issue. He snowed you, Texas. He's worse than the Witch in my opinion. Oh well, I guess Texans will live with it, come hell or high water or Texas death row injustice.
What will it all come to? I think this election leads to disaster. If it does, I hope that, this time, voters actually SEE THE CONNECTION between their vote and what America becomes, unlike their Bush vote where they DON'T REMEMBER the connection to disaster. What would America be today if Al Gore had been President? Not at war in two countries, I'm sure. Not in debt as much. I'm positive about that. More jobs? I think so. So, we've got what we've got. I hope we can live with it and come together to fix this country, but I'm skeptical. How can I not be?
Dave
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Let's Play a Game of Life or Death
It strikes me that we don't give much thought as to what band wagon we jump on, or where that band wagon might lead. Take for example the abortion issue. I listened to a radio talk show early this morning about abortion and there were callers from both sides, for the freedom of choice and that a woman should have a choice on what she does with her body, and those for the life of the unborn child. It was evident by the pro-life callers that they were not willing to compromise one iota on the issue. It seemed to be their position to save the child over ALL other considerations. I happen to believe that I know people like that and I know some that lean in that direction, although hesitantly. The show ended, both sides adamantly opposed to the other.
I wonder what reality would bring when faced with a choice that will break your heart. Let's play a game with your wife, your daughter or your granddaughter, all of child bearing age, to see what you really think. A game of "pretend" life or death. I make the rules.
First, let's give that woman a set of circumstances that life may hand her, unfortunate circumstances that none of your family would wish on her, but never the less has happened. Let's say that she was involved in an accident in her teenage years with which she must live with for the rest of her life. Let's say that the accident caused a physical impairment that could get worse if she were to ever get pregnant. Perhaps there are metal screws in her pelvic or spine that literally hold her together. She must be careful when not pregnant; keep her weight under control, be cautious of undue physical strain, etc. But, pregnancy is even more dangerous. In fact, if she were ever to get pregnant she could; 1) be paralyzed for the remainder of her life, or 2) die from carrying the child to full term. Those are the only choices - my rules.
Second, let's say a congressman or senator managed to get a law passed that made it illegal to have abortions. Finally, we have a law that makes criminals of women who have abortions! Yeah! Absolutely no abortion is allowed. You voted for a congressman with similar views. Perhaps you would have worded the law a little less severe, "tweaking" the words to suit your views. Perhaps you would have worded the law so that "some" abortions were allowed; such as for incest, rape, danger to the mother, etc. But, since you were anti-abortion, pro-life, any argument you may have with the exact wording of the law is way too late. Whether you like it or not, you got your wish. My rules.
Question 1: You must give this woman a name and an identity. So, which woman in your family is she? Your wife? Your daughter? Your granddaughter? Your niece or your cousin? (Pick someone who will likely break your heart if something happened to her)
Question 2: Do you believe in the freedom to conduct your life the way you want to, even for life itself? Yes/No
Do not continue beyond this point without answering the above two questions--- be honest.
Game 1:
The person you picked is married to a good man, they are on their way to a good life, they have healthcare (even Obama-care!), and then boom! She learned during a doctor visit before becoming pregnant that she should not get pregnant. But, in spite of all they did to prevent it, she became pregnant. Something didn't work. A mistake happened, another unfortunate accident of life. The doctor gives her the gruesome diagnosis; carrying the baby to term will either kill her or paralyze her for life. The doctor said, however, that the baby would likely be fine through birth. She choses to abort the pregnancy and travels to a country where the procedure can be done. She is emotionally torn and severely depressed and wishes life hadn't dealt her the hand she has.
What's your choice?
What would your choice be if she ask for your help BEFORE traveling to get the abortion?
Which do you chose? The baby? Or the mother you've come to love?
Game 2:
The same conditions as in Game 1, except this husband and wife had no healthcare (not even Obama-care) and she did not know, because they had no doctor, that she should not get pregnant and, therefore, they didn't try to prevent a pregnancy. In fact, when she learned from the self-administered pregnancy test that she was pregnant, she was elated. If only they had healthcare and could have found out earlier. And, when you learned that you would be a grandmother, uncle, aunt, whatever, you congratulated them heartedly. You were glad for them. They delayed the doctor visits until the last resort - they cost way too much. As she neared the end of the Second Trimester, when the fetus is nearly fully formed, she begins to have pelvic and spinal pains that she can barely tolerate, so they finally went to a doctor. After a number of expensive tests, which they paid for until their savings was totally depleted and they requested state aid, they learned that if she carried the child to term, she would be paralyzed or die. In fact, the doctor said, one more day may be dangerous to the mother. They were in complete shock and denial. They didn't know what to do. There was no time to make a decision! The mother was in total despair. But, again, the doctor said the baby would likely be fine through birth.
What would you decide for your loved one? Which do you chose, the mother or the child?
Question 3: Do you believe in the freedom to conduct your life the way you want to, even for life itself? Yes/No (Does it agree with your first answer to the question?)
Were you willing to play the game of life or death?
Dave
I wonder what reality would bring when faced with a choice that will break your heart. Let's play a game with your wife, your daughter or your granddaughter, all of child bearing age, to see what you really think. A game of "pretend" life or death. I make the rules.
First, let's give that woman a set of circumstances that life may hand her, unfortunate circumstances that none of your family would wish on her, but never the less has happened. Let's say that she was involved in an accident in her teenage years with which she must live with for the rest of her life. Let's say that the accident caused a physical impairment that could get worse if she were to ever get pregnant. Perhaps there are metal screws in her pelvic or spine that literally hold her together. She must be careful when not pregnant; keep her weight under control, be cautious of undue physical strain, etc. But, pregnancy is even more dangerous. In fact, if she were ever to get pregnant she could; 1) be paralyzed for the remainder of her life, or 2) die from carrying the child to full term. Those are the only choices - my rules.
Second, let's say a congressman or senator managed to get a law passed that made it illegal to have abortions. Finally, we have a law that makes criminals of women who have abortions! Yeah! Absolutely no abortion is allowed. You voted for a congressman with similar views. Perhaps you would have worded the law a little less severe, "tweaking" the words to suit your views. Perhaps you would have worded the law so that "some" abortions were allowed; such as for incest, rape, danger to the mother, etc. But, since you were anti-abortion, pro-life, any argument you may have with the exact wording of the law is way too late. Whether you like it or not, you got your wish. My rules.
Question 1: You must give this woman a name and an identity. So, which woman in your family is she? Your wife? Your daughter? Your granddaughter? Your niece or your cousin? (Pick someone who will likely break your heart if something happened to her)
Question 2: Do you believe in the freedom to conduct your life the way you want to, even for life itself? Yes/No
Do not continue beyond this point without answering the above two questions--- be honest.
Game 1:
The person you picked is married to a good man, they are on their way to a good life, they have healthcare (even Obama-care!), and then boom! She learned during a doctor visit before becoming pregnant that she should not get pregnant. But, in spite of all they did to prevent it, she became pregnant. Something didn't work. A mistake happened, another unfortunate accident of life. The doctor gives her the gruesome diagnosis; carrying the baby to term will either kill her or paralyze her for life. The doctor said, however, that the baby would likely be fine through birth. She choses to abort the pregnancy and travels to a country where the procedure can be done. She is emotionally torn and severely depressed and wishes life hadn't dealt her the hand she has.
What's your choice?
What would your choice be if she ask for your help BEFORE traveling to get the abortion?
Which do you chose? The baby? Or the mother you've come to love?
Game 2:
The same conditions as in Game 1, except this husband and wife had no healthcare (not even Obama-care) and she did not know, because they had no doctor, that she should not get pregnant and, therefore, they didn't try to prevent a pregnancy. In fact, when she learned from the self-administered pregnancy test that she was pregnant, she was elated. If only they had healthcare and could have found out earlier. And, when you learned that you would be a grandmother, uncle, aunt, whatever, you congratulated them heartedly. You were glad for them. They delayed the doctor visits until the last resort - they cost way too much. As she neared the end of the Second Trimester, when the fetus is nearly fully formed, she begins to have pelvic and spinal pains that she can barely tolerate, so they finally went to a doctor. After a number of expensive tests, which they paid for until their savings was totally depleted and they requested state aid, they learned that if she carried the child to term, she would be paralyzed or die. In fact, the doctor said, one more day may be dangerous to the mother. They were in complete shock and denial. They didn't know what to do. There was no time to make a decision! The mother was in total despair. But, again, the doctor said the baby would likely be fine through birth.
What would you decide for your loved one? Which do you chose, the mother or the child?
Question 3: Do you believe in the freedom to conduct your life the way you want to, even for life itself? Yes/No (Does it agree with your first answer to the question?)
Were you willing to play the game of life or death?
Dave
Friday, October 29, 2010
Letter to Senator Boxer
Office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
October 29, 2010
Honorable Senator Boxer:
I am writing to vent my frustrations, of course. Why else does anyone write to a member of Congress? I am also including a few suggestions to clean up the political election process. What a mess this mid-term election has been. The lies, distortion, deception, half-truths and scams we've had to listen to and that a mind-boggling $4.2 Billion dollars spent during this election is deplorable. How did we get here? I would like to hear Chief Justice Robert's opinion now about the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision. Do you think he would have a clue about how bad that decision was? Frankly, I doubt it. Even those touted to be the most intelligent legal minds we have in America appear to be idiots. Do something about that disastrous Supreme Court decision.
I have already voted – by mail. I voted for you. I presume it will be counted, but with all of the corruption in this election, I, for the first time in my life, have my doubts about that. I don't know who is honest and who isn't any more. I also have to tell you that my vote was only to keep the Democrats in power in the Senate and not because of anything the Democrats have accomplished in the past two years. In this election I can truly say that handing over the Senate to Republican obstructionist would be a disaster. A disaster, I'll add, that would be even worse than the financial disaster those very same Republicans caused. We would literally be handing over our government to corporate special interests. Of course, nobody knows which Senator or Representative, Democrat or Republican or Independent, is taking more from the super PACs, Chamber of Commerce or Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, so I may have voted for you and you may have the greatest debt to special interest for a quid pro quo vote that I find offensive. Who knows except you and your campaign manager, Senator Feinstein? I hope she reads this letter too, because she is just as susceptible to lobbyist and big money as you are. In fact, I hope you pass this letter around – including Republicans – because I don't see a single Senator who has a clue about what “the people” really want or need – even when Mitch McConnell spouts off about “the people” with every other word. If anyone is more clueless than spineless Democrats, it's Mitch McConnell. It should be glaringly clear that corruption in politics and truth and honesty in elections trumps all other important issues in this country, even unemployment and climate change. I never thought that I would live to see the day where so many nuts (Tea Party, if you like) are candidates for offices in our U. S. Congress and that our very democracy and Constitution is threatened by corruption. How do we fix a broken country when every member of Congress is corrupt? It can't be done.
That brings me to my first point, the most important issue in this country as far as I'm concerned, and that is to once and for all make political elections and the actions of members of Congress transparent. I'm talking about the whole spectrum of politics, from your votes on bills and why you voted the way you did, who you get money from, the lobbyist you talk to, the super PACs and PACs you receive money from, a cross reference from those who give you money to the bills you vote on and to your beliefs and ideology. With all of the capability of the Internet, I find it odd that Congressional behavior is still secret or so hard to pin down that it spins one's head. As far as I'm concerned, transparency in politics should be law of the land all the way down to the lowest electable office in a local community, the county clerk. If you think that's impossible, then think again. If Google can create a world-wide search engine that finds literally anything and everything anywhere, including a picture of your house, tracking the money to and actions of elected officials is a piece of cake. The other odd thing about this country's attempts to create a transparent political process is that all non-partisan organizations are non-profit organizations that depend solely on donations. Why is it that “we,” “the people” must donate hard earned dollars for a transparent process? How long does an organization that depends on charity last? Only as long as there is public interest. That's bizarre! OpenCongress.org is a perfect example. It is desperately needed, yet we must voluntarily pay for it. Why isn't it, or something like it, paid for by Congress? Why isn't a project like that, searchable, cross referenced, an easy user friendly system, already up and running in the Library of Congress? It's certainly not because there is a lack of skills and capability in this country, so, do it.
I need to explain why I voted for you, but to do that, I need to explain why I didn't vote for your opponent. The reason I didn't vote for Carly Fiorina is the ideological rut that she's stuck in, the same ideology that has been sold as a bill of goods to us for the past 30 or 40 years and that ultimately caused our economic meltdown. She is a typical free, unleashed market capitalist who could care less about the serfs and peasants she hires and fires. Do I need any other proof than the thousands of jobs she sent overseas? Your campaign ad is correct about that. Ironically, all of us were sold the idea that capitalism was the great equalizer, the answer to economic equality the world over, that those overseas employers would eventually raise their standard of living to ours and all would be hunky-dory. It didn't happen and it never will. There is no utopia after all. But, do you get it? Do you understand what unleashed capitalism (Republican capitalism) has done to this country? Twice in the past one hundred years! You would think we would remember the history of only 80 years ago, but we didn't. Will we ever learn?
Here's what happened. Starting about 30 years ago in the 1970s the average wage of the middle class began to level out and decrease year after year. Only a few days ago a report was released that said, once again, that the average wage in America decreased again, to $505 per week. In all that time productivity has gone up; women started working, technology improved, automation improved, all to make the average worker super-productive – and super-profitable for companies. Hewlette Packard, for example, Carly's old company, earns $406,000 per employee according to the latest data on TD Ameritrade. As of last year, it had 304,000 employees world-wide and, even though its US employees average around $84,000, the huge number of its overseas employees more than likely bring the overall average HP wage down to $500 or less per week, $26,000 per year. So, HP made $380,000 profit per employee last year, some of which went directly into HP CEO's pocket just like it did in Fiorina's day. The real problem is that for the long term Hewlette Packard is doomed, along with all other companies doing the same thing, because nobody earning $500 a week can afford their laptops. The only way those wage earners, the consumer, can buy a laptop is to buy it on credit. And, we already know how far credit goes. Not very far. There is a limit, and then the economy crashes – we saw it happen. Meanwhile, all of that profit transferred to the rich and the banks who suddenly found themselves with so much cash that they devised even more complex schemes to make even more money, such as Credit Default Swaps that insure the risk. With wages down and deeply in debt, the consumer has nothing left to keep the economy running. By sending those jobs overseas, Carly Fiorina put a nail in America's coffin as sure as an invading army could have done. That's why I didn't vote for her.
What to do? The only thing left to do if you really want to get the economy going again, and the government out of debt, and America going again is to realign the tax burden to redistribute the wealth back to the middle class. Less taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich and corporations. You will need also to, somehow, start bringing up the average wage to a level relative to productivity. You really have no choice in this. There are a whole host of social problems that have and will continue to occur if you don't, including declining education standards, increase in welfare, increase in healthcare costs, diseases, ignorance and all that goes with that. Do I need to explain everything? It is a national security problem that threatens the foundation of America. Anger, frustration, insurrection, violence are only the beginning. You're going to catch a lot of flack for this idea. It is a socialist idea. But, it turns out, that capitalism is just as dangerous as socialism or Marxism when taken to extremes . It should be obvious to even the man on the street that a little moderation in the use of both economic systems will work a lot better than the extremes of either. In fact, no government exists for long using one or the other system alone. When our consumers can afford the products companies produce without relying heavily on credit, this country will be restored and the American Dream will be restored. You have to do it. CEOs of corporations should support this idea, too. That's what they do; they sell stuff to consumers.
I should mention that Carly Fiorina also has a different idea about what the American Dream is. She believes that “the Dream” is all about becoming someone like her; getting to the top, filthy rich and all powerful. But, that never was the American Dream. That Dream was only that an average person could be employed, make a livable wage, have a family and enough money to educate its children and own a home and the amenities that go with that. That's it. Fiorina spoiled that for thousands of her employees as most other corporations did when they refused to find other ways to become more efficient. They took the easy way out and hurt America by doing it.
In any event, I appreciate the opportunity to vent my frustrations with Democratic leadership and the Party of “No.” I hope you take the opportunity of your reelection to actually get something done this time and stop trying to compromise with Republicans. You failed miserably by not passing a public healthcare option because of so-called compromise. They have repeatedly obstructed your efforts and they've already said they're not going to compromise, so take them at their word – don't even try. And, stop the nonsense of the two-thirds vote and filibuster and for God's sake get a Senate President with some balls. Maybe that's Senator Schumer if you retain the majority in the Senate. If not, then stonewall the Republicans. They have no good ideas.
Sincerely,
David Clark
cc: Carly Fiorina
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Revolution of The Stupid
As the election of 2010 nears, it seems that we are not going to come to our senses. The thing that will save us, or at least help, a dose of socialism and reality, will not happen, and we will blunder along in a Right-Wing fog for a while. Rather than read or "go find" the truth, the Right-Wing would rather pontificate their demagoguery. There are a few points in the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) Economic Outlook, that they really need to read, but it doesn't look likely that they will. But, here are the points anyway, just in case a Right-Winger, or someone that likes them, happens to read this blog:
1. "The economic recovery will take time because it will take time for the consumer to rebuild their wealth, for financial institutions to restore their capital basis, and for non-financial firms to regain confidence to invest in new plant and equipment." This trifecta creates a catch-22; any single one won't happen until the other does.
2. The CBO's projection, based on current law and the political popularity (i.e., the Tea Party) and unlikely chance of a "stimulus and the scheduled increases in taxes (resulting from the expiration of previous [Bush] tax cuts) will temporarily subtract from [economic] growth, especially in 2011." The "increase in taxes" the CBO is talking about is the tax increase to the middle class, not the rich. Why does "that" tax increase "subtract from economic growth?" Because the middle class, who is the "consumer," will not be able to "rebuild wealth" to become a consumer again until the middle class can spend more of what it earns. Read this again, please. And, in the real world, all economic growth stems from the consumer. Companies will not grow until someone buys their products, and companies will not invest in new plants and equipment until they can grow. Banks will not rebuild their capital basis until the consumer puts money in the banks, and consumers can't do that until they have money. Pretty simple, isn't it? You don't need a degree to figure that out. Even CEOs should be able to see that a healthy, wealthy middle class is good for them, better in fact than those outrageous bonuses or tax cuts.
In the meantime, while the popular Right-Wing movement is up in arms and shouting "NO" to any stimulus, the latest report on the average wages in America says that wages are going down, (AGAIN! - THIRTY STRAIGHT YEARS!), to about $505 per week for the average American worker! AND, that same report says that the wealthy increased their income BY FIVE TIMES in 2008 and 3.2 times, yet again, in 2009. So, to any Right-Winger who's reading this, I ask you: How the hell does the consumer buy something when they make only $505 a week? The answer is they don't - unless they get that credit card out again, which would be insane AT 19% INTEREST. By the way Mr. Banker, you borrow money at 0.25% interest and loan it at 19% interest. That's called USURY. And, if the rich are going to buy up all of the products companies need to sell to get the economy running again, they'd better start buying. The trouble is, though, that they don't have enough warehouse space to put it all.
But, what does the CBO say to do? What can we do to get the "the biggest bang for the taxpayer buck?" Here it is:
1. "A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost." We all should remember what happened to the Senate Bill that would have extended payments to the unemployed. A Republican Senator from Kentucky stonewalled that and every last Republican Senator obstructed the bill. The Party of "No" struck again. And then they blamed Obama! Go figure! (An aside: The Party of "No" has no bounds. It even stonewalled aid to Haiti which now has an outbreak of Cholera and needs the aid, and the Cholera could, by the way, spread outside of Haiti. Ah well, it must be compassionate conservatism. Or just stupidity. I prefer the latter.)
2. Temporarily reduce employer payroll taxes, so they can hire more people. But, instead of doing that, Republicans are determined to reduce the "income tax" of the rich. There's a difference between "payroll taxes" and "income taxes." The rich don't use an income tax cut to hire more people. They would hire more people if their company's "payroll tax" was temporarily reduced.
The list went on, but each subsequent item had less effect on the economy and more effect on the deficit. Finally, the report said that "extending the [Bush] tax cut permanently" would cause an unsustainable budget deficit unless other "very, very deep" budget cuts were not done. So, whose ideas would be best for America? Democratic ideas? Or, Republican ideas? Read on...
First, however, we have to answer a question: Where did the deficit REALLY come from? The Tea Party and Republicans claim the deficit is Obama's spending on TARP and stimulus; they claim it was the $800 billion TARP (the amount varies depending on who is talking) and the $800 billion stimulus (I have no idea where they get that figure). Their claims are laughable. The TARP is actually making money at a whopping 8.5% return. As for the $800 stimulus, there never was a stimulus of that amount. I wish there was one at that amount. Perhaps unemployment wouldn't be so high if there was a stimulus of that size. But, no. The actual stimulus was probably less than $100 billion, a piddly amount. In fact, the money made from the TARP more than paid for the stimulus. So, where DID the deficit come from?
Our deficit came from primarily two Bush policies: 1) the tax cut he implemented in 2001 which cost the U.S. Government $700 billion over five years, and 2) the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which have cost the government $3 Trillion dollars to date and growing. But, alas, this falls on deaf (and dumb) ears.
So, whose ideas are best? Democrat candidates seem to be focused on these ideas, albeit that some "blue-dogs" try to distance themselves from ideas that they think are too far left:
1. Extend unemployment payments.
2. Stimulate the economy for the short term and reduce the deficit later after the economy rebounds, including stimulus to states that are in deep budget trouble.
3. Extend, at least temporarily, the tax cut to the middle class, which would "redistribute" the wealth back to the middle class and give the consumer more money to spend, which would in turn stimulate the economy. This, however, is a socialist idea. Even Republics, like the United States, have socialist programs that support the society whether you like the word or not.
4. Let the tax cut to the rich expire, which would decrease the budget deficit by $40 billion a year (the top two percent of the population got one-third of the Bush tax cut).
5. Support public education by increasing funding to public schools.
6. Provide a "public option" healthcare solution, which would drastically reduce the cost of healthcare insurance that consumers (you and I) and the government (taxpayer) pays for healthcare. This, too, falls on deaf ears.
In light of the CBO report, these all seem to make sense to me. In light of EVERYTHING I read, and it's a lot, all of these things make a tremendous amount of sense to me. If I had my way, however, I would not do step 3, above. I would NOT extend ANY tax cut. After all, we (Americans) didn't raise much of a fuss when Bush started us down this road, so we should now pay the piper. In fact, we let Bush off scott free, and ironically he thinks his "only" mistake was not privatizing Social Security. He's on a different planet.
So are the Tea Party and the Republicans candidates. Here is a list of ideas Tea Party and Republican candidates are focusing on:
1. Eliminate the U. S. Government Department of Education. Since Republicans can't seem to get off of the "Charter School" kick, which is privatizing our school system and making each school a business (there's lots of money in charter schools, especially when the taxpayer pays for it), I guess all of our public schools would simply die away to be replaced by charter schools that we would pay for through local taxes. Watch your taxes go up then! But, instead of paying them to the U.S. Government, you would pay them to your city or county.
2. Eliminate or modify the First Amendment to the Constitution so that Congress can make laws regarding religion, presumably to outlaw Muslims, and perhaps Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Judaism and whatever other religion it deems unsuitable, and so public schools, if any are left, can teach creationism in science classes. With step 1, above, they can teach anything they want in a private, charter school. I would rather my child go to a public school, if any are left.
3. Remove the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution so that we can deprive life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to those born in the United States to parents of non-citizens, even when those non-citizens are here legally whether on a path of citizenship or not.
4. Remove the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution so that the people of a state cannot elect the senators that represent them. This could mean that a state can have more than two senators appointed by someone. Maybe the state Governor would appoint them, or perhaps the President would appoint them, or maybe the political party in power in the Senate at the time would select a state's senator, say a friend. It could also mean that a senator could be bought by corporations or Wall Street.
5. Eliminate or privatize Social Security. According to Sharon Angle and Rand Paul, the Social Security program is a socialist program and is unconstitutional. What's your grandma going to do then? Eat dog food or die, or both, I guess. Well, they're right on one thing. It is a socialist idea. Try living without it.
6. Eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and all income taxes. This too, according to the candidates, is unconstitutional, even though the Constitution says Congress can assess taxes (Article I).
7. Stop funding the Supreme Court and eliminate the Justice Department. Make all laws in Congress and have no court system for anyone to redress injustices. Whew! Article III of the Constitution creates the Judiciary. I have no idea how we are going to process criminals into jail once that happens. Maybe we won't need to. Maybe that the sheriff thinks your guilty is all we need. Maybe he can just invade your home, arrest you and send you off to prison and you disappear from the Earth is all we need to do.
Have I said enough? There's more along the lines of the above, but my God, isn't that enough for us to figure out that we don't want these people running this country? But, there is every indication that the House of Representatives will be governed by the people who have the above Republican ideas. And, if the Senate goes too, we are in trouble. Every idea that we call an American value is up for grabs. Our Constitution is threatened like no other time in history.
My real problem is that I personally know people who support the candidates with those ideas, in spite of any argument given that they are wrong, brainwashed and misguided. The other day, I noticed that someone "liked" RightChange.com, one of the most extreme Right-Wing political "super-PACs" out there. One would think that the association would be repulsive to everyone. RightChange.com supports the most extreme skin-heads, neo-Nazis, conspiratorial, group of websites and groups in the nation. Its list of links "for further reading" is offensive to any person who loves America. It is also supported by corporate money, the Chamber of Commerce, the Koch Brothers, and others who are trying to buy the November election. I would like to think and hope that they didn't understand or know when they clicked that "like" button who they were really associating with. I hope that they don't know that RightChange.com is one of the most un-American websites in this election, against every American value they claim to support. I hope, because any other conclusion is unthinkable.
The other problem I have is an upcoming reunion next July. What will I do when I hear a comment that I am going to have to respond to? A comment that supports the list of un-American ideas above? What if I hear a bigoted comment? A comment against the Muslim mosque, which should be built because it is a Constitutional right whether they like it or not? Will I hear the term "rag head?" The "n" word? A "those Wet Backs" slur? Something that is offensive to me as well as my mixed-raced family? A slip of the tongue, said without thinking,, but never-the-less expressing the true mind? What would I be expected to do? Keep silent? I expect to hear one, or more slurs, rumor and innuendo, lies and half-truths. Should I put my family through that? Will being there and listening to it affect them? Likely. How will I explain such comments to my grandkids? Some would tell me to keep silent, to let it pass, but the fact is that I'm tired of the demagoguery, slurs, rumors, innuendo, ignorance and bigotry. The fact is that we need to speak up against this ignorance, or else we get more Sarah Palins and Sharon Angles and Michele Backmans. If I do respond, will I be able to keep calm about it or will I lose my temper? Will it split friendships forever? More than likely... Should I go at all?
Dave
In the meantime, while the popular Right-Wing movement is up in arms and shouting "NO" to any stimulus, the latest report on the average wages in America says that wages are going down, (AGAIN! - THIRTY STRAIGHT YEARS!), to about $505 per week for the average American worker! AND, that same report says that the wealthy increased their income BY FIVE TIMES in 2008 and 3.2 times, yet again, in 2009. So, to any Right-Winger who's reading this, I ask you: How the hell does the consumer buy something when they make only $505 a week? The answer is they don't - unless they get that credit card out again, which would be insane AT 19% INTEREST. By the way Mr. Banker, you borrow money at 0.25% interest and loan it at 19% interest. That's called USURY. And, if the rich are going to buy up all of the products companies need to sell to get the economy running again, they'd better start buying. The trouble is, though, that they don't have enough warehouse space to put it all.
But, what does the CBO say to do? What can we do to get the "the biggest bang for the taxpayer buck?" Here it is:
1. "A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost." We all should remember what happened to the Senate Bill that would have extended payments to the unemployed. A Republican Senator from Kentucky stonewalled that and every last Republican Senator obstructed the bill. The Party of "No" struck again. And then they blamed Obama! Go figure! (An aside: The Party of "No" has no bounds. It even stonewalled aid to Haiti which now has an outbreak of Cholera and needs the aid, and the Cholera could, by the way, spread outside of Haiti. Ah well, it must be compassionate conservatism. Or just stupidity. I prefer the latter.)
2. Temporarily reduce employer payroll taxes, so they can hire more people. But, instead of doing that, Republicans are determined to reduce the "income tax" of the rich. There's a difference between "payroll taxes" and "income taxes." The rich don't use an income tax cut to hire more people. They would hire more people if their company's "payroll tax" was temporarily reduced.
The list went on, but each subsequent item had less effect on the economy and more effect on the deficit. Finally, the report said that "extending the [Bush] tax cut permanently" would cause an unsustainable budget deficit unless other "very, very deep" budget cuts were not done. So, whose ideas would be best for America? Democratic ideas? Or, Republican ideas? Read on...
First, however, we have to answer a question: Where did the deficit REALLY come from? The Tea Party and Republicans claim the deficit is Obama's spending on TARP and stimulus; they claim it was the $800 billion TARP (the amount varies depending on who is talking) and the $800 billion stimulus (I have no idea where they get that figure). Their claims are laughable. The TARP is actually making money at a whopping 8.5% return. As for the $800 stimulus, there never was a stimulus of that amount. I wish there was one at that amount. Perhaps unemployment wouldn't be so high if there was a stimulus of that size. But, no. The actual stimulus was probably less than $100 billion, a piddly amount. In fact, the money made from the TARP more than paid for the stimulus. So, where DID the deficit come from?
Our deficit came from primarily two Bush policies: 1) the tax cut he implemented in 2001 which cost the U.S. Government $700 billion over five years, and 2) the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which have cost the government $3 Trillion dollars to date and growing. But, alas, this falls on deaf (and dumb) ears.
So, whose ideas are best? Democrat candidates seem to be focused on these ideas, albeit that some "blue-dogs" try to distance themselves from ideas that they think are too far left:
1. Extend unemployment payments.
2. Stimulate the economy for the short term and reduce the deficit later after the economy rebounds, including stimulus to states that are in deep budget trouble.
3. Extend, at least temporarily, the tax cut to the middle class, which would "redistribute" the wealth back to the middle class and give the consumer more money to spend, which would in turn stimulate the economy. This, however, is a socialist idea. Even Republics, like the United States, have socialist programs that support the society whether you like the word or not.
4. Let the tax cut to the rich expire, which would decrease the budget deficit by $40 billion a year (the top two percent of the population got one-third of the Bush tax cut).
5. Support public education by increasing funding to public schools.
6. Provide a "public option" healthcare solution, which would drastically reduce the cost of healthcare insurance that consumers (you and I) and the government (taxpayer) pays for healthcare. This, too, falls on deaf ears.
In light of the CBO report, these all seem to make sense to me. In light of EVERYTHING I read, and it's a lot, all of these things make a tremendous amount of sense to me. If I had my way, however, I would not do step 3, above. I would NOT extend ANY tax cut. After all, we (Americans) didn't raise much of a fuss when Bush started us down this road, so we should now pay the piper. In fact, we let Bush off scott free, and ironically he thinks his "only" mistake was not privatizing Social Security. He's on a different planet.
So are the Tea Party and the Republicans candidates. Here is a list of ideas Tea Party and Republican candidates are focusing on:
1. Eliminate the U. S. Government Department of Education. Since Republicans can't seem to get off of the "Charter School" kick, which is privatizing our school system and making each school a business (there's lots of money in charter schools, especially when the taxpayer pays for it), I guess all of our public schools would simply die away to be replaced by charter schools that we would pay for through local taxes. Watch your taxes go up then! But, instead of paying them to the U.S. Government, you would pay them to your city or county.
2. Eliminate or modify the First Amendment to the Constitution so that Congress can make laws regarding religion, presumably to outlaw Muslims, and perhaps Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Judaism and whatever other religion it deems unsuitable, and so public schools, if any are left, can teach creationism in science classes. With step 1, above, they can teach anything they want in a private, charter school. I would rather my child go to a public school, if any are left.
3. Remove the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution so that we can deprive life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to those born in the United States to parents of non-citizens, even when those non-citizens are here legally whether on a path of citizenship or not.
4. Remove the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution so that the people of a state cannot elect the senators that represent them. This could mean that a state can have more than two senators appointed by someone. Maybe the state Governor would appoint them, or perhaps the President would appoint them, or maybe the political party in power in the Senate at the time would select a state's senator, say a friend. It could also mean that a senator could be bought by corporations or Wall Street.
5. Eliminate or privatize Social Security. According to Sharon Angle and Rand Paul, the Social Security program is a socialist program and is unconstitutional. What's your grandma going to do then? Eat dog food or die, or both, I guess. Well, they're right on one thing. It is a socialist idea. Try living without it.
6. Eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and all income taxes. This too, according to the candidates, is unconstitutional, even though the Constitution says Congress can assess taxes (Article I).
7. Stop funding the Supreme Court and eliminate the Justice Department. Make all laws in Congress and have no court system for anyone to redress injustices. Whew! Article III of the Constitution creates the Judiciary. I have no idea how we are going to process criminals into jail once that happens. Maybe we won't need to. Maybe that the sheriff thinks your guilty is all we need. Maybe he can just invade your home, arrest you and send you off to prison and you disappear from the Earth is all we need to do.
Have I said enough? There's more along the lines of the above, but my God, isn't that enough for us to figure out that we don't want these people running this country? But, there is every indication that the House of Representatives will be governed by the people who have the above Republican ideas. And, if the Senate goes too, we are in trouble. Every idea that we call an American value is up for grabs. Our Constitution is threatened like no other time in history.
My real problem is that I personally know people who support the candidates with those ideas, in spite of any argument given that they are wrong, brainwashed and misguided. The other day, I noticed that someone "liked" RightChange.com, one of the most extreme Right-Wing political "super-PACs" out there. One would think that the association would be repulsive to everyone. RightChange.com supports the most extreme skin-heads, neo-Nazis, conspiratorial, group of websites and groups in the nation. Its list of links "for further reading" is offensive to any person who loves America. It is also supported by corporate money, the Chamber of Commerce, the Koch Brothers, and others who are trying to buy the November election. I would like to think and hope that they didn't understand or know when they clicked that "like" button who they were really associating with. I hope that they don't know that RightChange.com is one of the most un-American websites in this election, against every American value they claim to support. I hope, because any other conclusion is unthinkable.
The other problem I have is an upcoming reunion next July. What will I do when I hear a comment that I am going to have to respond to? A comment that supports the list of un-American ideas above? What if I hear a bigoted comment? A comment against the Muslim mosque, which should be built because it is a Constitutional right whether they like it or not? Will I hear the term "rag head?" The "n" word? A "those Wet Backs" slur? Something that is offensive to me as well as my mixed-raced family? A slip of the tongue, said without thinking,, but never-the-less expressing the true mind? What would I be expected to do? Keep silent? I expect to hear one, or more slurs, rumor and innuendo, lies and half-truths. Should I put my family through that? Will being there and listening to it affect them? Likely. How will I explain such comments to my grandkids? Some would tell me to keep silent, to let it pass, but the fact is that I'm tired of the demagoguery, slurs, rumors, innuendo, ignorance and bigotry. The fact is that we need to speak up against this ignorance, or else we get more Sarah Palins and Sharon Angles and Michele Backmans. If I do respond, will I be able to keep calm about it or will I lose my temper? Will it split friendships forever? More than likely... Should I go at all?
Dave
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)