Crazy Thoughts About Our Crazy World

Oh the insanity!   You may ask why I am slightly addled these days.  Could it be because of the news blurbs that cross my computer screen daily?   Some are so unbelievably stupid that it started me ruminating on why people think the way they do.  Common sense seems to have  no part of reasoning.  Critical thinking is woefully lacking in decision making.  And pragmatism has been replaced by ideology.

Some of the current stories in the news that confirm my worst fears about the direction the country is headed are:

• The government is now contemplating spending more on nuclear weapons by constructing a new plutonium facility along a fault line and near an active volcano.

  
  The Republicans are introducing legislation that would take away each State's rights to regulate concealed weapons.  If Arizona says it's fine for any demented idiot to carry a hidden gun into a bar,  then all states have to abide by Arizona's imbecilic law.  Oh, the hypocrisy!!!!
  
  More prisons are being built to incarcerate minor felons for drug and alcohol abuse when it would be cheaper and more humane to sentence them to rehabilitation centers.  Prison is a breeding ground where minor felons become hardened criminals; later to be released on society.
  
  I am amazed at the craziness of a political party that will 'eat itself', and destroy the country in the process, to fire just one man named Obama.
  
  It disgusts me about the insanity of spending days, months, even years in studies on how to alter the name of a law, policy, or other government entity so that the meaning is obscure or changed.  Examples of current buzz words:  against abortion; becomes 'right to life' and for abortion becomes "right to choose'.  War becomes 'liberating a country.'   And then there's the most disgraceful one of all  'killing civilians' becomes 'collateral damage'.  You get the idea.  Mind altering phrases abound in our political system.    Of course it works because of the lack of critical thinking on the part of the public.   My point is that it leads to mass confusion and misguided governance.   A brainwashed electorate may be good for politicians, but it is definitely not good for the governed.

  
  

  Spending tax payer money on the military under the guise of creating jobs instead of creating jobs by spending that money on infrastructure, renewable energy, education, and the other many pressing needs in our country is just plain nuts.
  
  Allowing money in politics has corrupted our democratic system and our politicians.  (Well, that really wasn't very hard, was it?  Politicians are so gullible venal.)   Democracy  is collapsing.

  
  

  Religion belongs in the Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Ashram, Nature or your home and not in politics.   Separation of Church and State is no longer observed and by allowing it to creep into our political system we have perverted the framer's intent.  The idiocy of this is, that by  politicians introducing it into their speech and legislation they are in danger of opening the door for government to be able to interfere in their freedom of religion.  They never see beyond their noses, as the saying goes. Religion in politics is a two edged sword. 

  
  

   My favorite: Allowing the insurance companies to become obscenely wealthy at the expense of their policy holders when switching to a single payer system would give everyone affordable medical coverage and would save the government billions in tax payer dollars.   And all in the mislabeled  fake name of Socialism.  (See buzz words comment above).
   

  Then there's the deregulation of our financial system, unfair tax system, etc., etc, etc, ad nauseaum.
  
  Why do citizens subscribe to such lunacy?  Is it due to ideology, laziness, indifference, or sheer denial of facts? Maybe it's all of the above.  If someone can give me a valid reason for believing that any of the above actions are sensible I will listen.  Just don't tell me it's because you heard it on Fox, or from Rush, Sean, Bill O'R., Michelle or Rick.  That would mean you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

  
  

  By all measurable standards our country is rapidly falling behind the rest of the civilized world and we, the people, are aiding and abetting the decline.   Yes, I am very addled and getting more so as I see what used to be a great country sink into a third world nation.
  
  
  
  
  
  Sorry, I have to go now.  I just gave myself a massive headache.
  
  

An Abomination

 Obama's tax cut proposal has certainly stirred up a hornet's nest.  Two things that I think are important to read are Robert Reich's editorial titled An Abomination. The link is below.

Ronni Bennet who writes the blog Time Goes By  posted an excellent essay today on the hidden, and terrifying, aspect to the proposal that hasn't been covered by the media.  I urge you to read it and follow through with action.


http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/4190-why-the-tax-deal-is-an-abomination

Obama's Stealth Attack on Social Security

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Please read the post below and then come back to read this update.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) tells me that time is of the essence on this proposal as Congressional members try to get out of Washington for the holidays. In an email, the NCPSSM said, 

“Flooding members' offices is what is absolutely needed...House members have been far more vocal in their opposition to this deal than we’ve seen in the Senate but it’s vital that seniors and their families contact their representatives in both.

"Far too many in Washington don’t understand the fundamental threat of what’s being proposed and they need to hear from seniors.”

At their website, the NCPSSM has set up Payroll Tax Letter to legislators that is similar to what you can do at congress.org. Here are instructions:

2. Follow this link
3. Under “Elected Officials,” enter your Zip Code and press Go
4. At the top of the next page, select “Issues”
5. At the top of the page, select “Tax Holiday is no holiday at all”

Separate letters to the House and to the Senate will appear. Feel free to personalize them. Fill in the required information, press “send message” and you're done.

PLEASE DO THIS in addition to calling and emailing individual lawmakers. And please don't put it off for later. Time is short and the future of Social Security is at stake.

Also, feel free to copy any or all of this post and use it at your blogs. Attribution to TGB is not necessary.

---

Yesterday, Crabby Old Lady told you why President Obama's agreement with Congressional Republicans to extend unemployment benefits while retaining the Bush-era tax cuts is a bad idea. She intended to let me move on to some lighter material today, but further digging show that the deal is much worse than a giveaway to rich people.

Included in the proposal is a temporary “payroll tax holiday” - that is, a two percent cut in the FICA (Social Security) deduction for workers although not employers. The duration of this holiday is so far unspecified, but for one year, it would cost $120 billion which would be made up, says President Obama, from the general fund.

This is a DISASTER for Social Security – and no one in Washington is talking about it.

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Bruce Bartlett, an economics expert, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan and treasury official during the George H.W. Bush administration writing in November (please read this carefully; emphasis is mine):

”What are the odds that Republicans will ever allow this one-year tax holiday to expire?...My point is that if allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is the biggest tax increase in history, one that Republicans claim would decimate a still-fragile economy, then surely expiration of a payroll tax holiday would also constitute a massive tax increase on the working people of America.

“And what are the odds that the economy won't still be fragile a year from now? Zero, I would say.

“...a payroll tax holiday is Pandora's Box and best left unopened. Republicans would prefer to destroy Social Security's finances or permanently fund it with general revenues than allow a once-suspended payroll tax to be reimposed.

“Arch Social Security hater Peter Ferrara once told me that funding it with general revenues was part of his plan to destroy it by converting Social Security into a welfare program, rather than an earned benefit. He was right.”

At Hullabaloo yesterday digby, who titled her post, One More Nail in the Social Security Coffin, correctly identifies the ultimate outcome of a payroll tax holiday (again, my emphasis):

“The 2012 election is looking like its going to be about taxes and deficits (as a proxy for fixing the economy, since everything else is off the table.) And from what I can see, the president is going to be competing with the Republicans on who will lower both of them the most. Social Security is in maximum danger in that environment.”

Nancy Altman at FireDogLake makes a point that has been bothering me for a long time – that so many in Congress, and the president too, do not grasp the crucially important nature of Social Security's self-funding by American workers (my emphasis agaiin):

“Today’s Democrats fail to understand the program, and so are not only blind to subtle assaults against it, but seem to conspire in those assaults. All I can say is that with the Republicans and the Democratic President, perhaps unwittingly, conspiring to destroy Social Security, the American people don’t stand a chance.”

masslib, who also writes at FireDogLake, is as suspicious as I am:

”...something doesn’t smell right here. We have a presidential deficit commission that just proposed cutting social security benefits and essentially means testing it into a welfare program, and now we have Republicans and the President agreeing to an employee Social Security payroll tax to be paid from the general fund. Well, what could possibly go wrong...”

Go wrong. Go wrong...

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) issued a press release yesterday saying, "There is no such thing as a 'temporary' tax cut." Further,

"This 2% payroll tax cut is the beginning of the end of Social Security as we know it...Proposals like this threaten the program’s independence, forcing Social Security to compete for limited federal dollars."

Not to put too fine a point on all the above: if the payroll tax holiday were to become permanent - and it will if it passes Congress with this current proposal - it will force massive cuts to Social Security.

It is a stealth attack on the program.

It will destroy the system.

Which is what the Republicans have been trying to do for decades.

Not one journalist at President Obama's press conference yesterday raised this issue. They are blind to it while they rattle on about whether the president is flip-flopping on campaign promises rather than dealing with the substance.

In fact, at this moment as I write, CNN is insulting my intelligence (for the zillionth time) by reporting that the payroll tax holiday would be a big help for Americans because it would put more money in their pockets. The reporter, apparently, is ignorant of the consequences to Social Security and old people. Bah!

Many sources have reported that the number of calls objecting to the entire proposal crashed the White House phone system yesterday. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said his office received more than 900 calls from his tiny state. Let's keep it up.

Certainly you should call if you prefer, but congress.org says lawmakers prefer to email and it is a better choice than the telephone to be sure to get through and to be able to clearly explain your position.

At congress.org, you can simultaneously send the same email to all three of your representatives and the president, but you must be registered. You can do that here. It is a quick, easy registration and you can immediately write your message.

Yesterday, President Obama defended his agreement with Congressional Republicans as “a good deal for Americans.” I vehemently disagree and it is particularly not so for old people.

If you agree, please email the president and all your representatives now to tell them this is a disaster and unacceptable. Be sure to mention the Social Security issue as well as the tax cuts for the rich that are getting all the attention.

---

Unbelievable

The following are excerpts from  the op-ed piece, The Axis of Depression by Paul Krugman in today's NYT.                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What do the government of China, the government of Germany and the Republican Party have in common? They’re all trying to bully the Federal Reserve into calling off its efforts to create jobs. And the motives of all three are highly suspect. 

The Fed is trying to reduce interest rates, as it always does when unemployment is high and inflation is low. 

The case for Fed action is overwhelming. the main concern  is that they are likely to prove too weak, too ineffective.

But why are Republicans joining in this attack? 

Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues seem stunned to find themselves in the cross hairs. They thought they were acting in the spirit of none other than Milton Friedman, who blamed the Fed for not acting more forcefully during the Great Depression — and who, in 1998, called on the Bank of Japan to “buy government bonds on the open market,” exactly what the Fed is now doing. 

 

Republicans, however, will have none of it, raising objections that range from the odd to the incoherent. 

The odd: on Monday, a somewhat strange group of Republican figures — who knew that William Kristol was an expert on monetary policy? — released an open letter to the Fed warning that its policies “risk currency debasement and inflation.” These concerns were echoed in a letter the top four Republicans in Congress sent Mr. Bernanke on Wednesday. Neither letter explained why we should fear inflation when the reality is that inflation keeps hitting record lows. 

And about dollar debasement: leaving aside the fact that a weaker dollar actually helps U.S. manufacturing, where were these people during the previous administration? The dollar slid steadily through most of the Bush years, a decline that dwarfs the recent down tick. Why weren’t there similar letters demanding that Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman at the time, tighten policy? 

Meanwhile, the incoherent: Two Republicans, Mike Pence in the House and Bob Corker in the Senate, have called on the Fed to abandon all efforts to achieve full employment and focus solely on price stability. Why? Because unemployment remains so high. No, I don’t understand the logic either. 

So what’s really motivating the G.O.P. attack on the Fed?   Stan Collender predicted it all. Back in August, he warned Mr. Bernanke that “with Republican policy makers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory,” they would be “opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better.” In short, their real fear is not that Fed actions will be harmful, it is that they might succeed.

                     

 Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House.

                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you have manged to remain calm after reading the excerpts from Krugman's op-ed piece, I have a few more items to add to this ugly picture.

The Republicans have made no secret that their only goal for the next two years is exactly the same game plan they have been following for the last two years.  They will do everything in their power to destroy the Obama presidency, even though they are destroying the country to do so.  It is despicable, unpatriotic, and cowardly.

I cannot fathom why anyone would vote for these greedy power hungry jerks again.  The party of 'no' has sunk to new depths of disgusting meanness.   They took an oath of office when sworn in to do the best for our country.  Not the best for the Republican party.  

Some of the other recent 'cute' things they have accomplished since the foolish voters gave Obama a drubbing.  

1. My  dishonorable Senator, John Kyle, has sabotaged the Nuclear Arms Proliferation Treaty to keep Obama from having a victory.  This comes at the expense of world safety. 
2. My other hypocritical Senator, John McCain, has  disgraced himself by throwing a monkey wrench in the repeal of the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell ' policy.
3. They have halted the funding of employment compensation for desperate people whose lives are being destroyed.   It isn't bad enough that the Republican party under George Bush brought the economic disaster on us.  Now they want to punish the victims of their incompetence. 

Shunning the President's invitation to the White House to   discuss ways to solve the nation's problems was an odious insult to our president.  They have managed to put off the date of meeting with him so that the President will not have time to  accomplish anything before they take over the House; thus robbing him of any good legislation.

That politics is a dirty game is a given, but the current Republican party crossed the line when they put their own greedy selfish desire ahead of the nation's needs.  There are so many real problems facing our country that will not wait for the 2012 election.   It appears that they are eager willing to take this country over the brink into the abyss rather than let Obama have a tiny victory.   When their goal of destroying Obama became more important than helping solve the critical problems facing us,  the party of 'NO' became the most unscrupulous political party in this nation's history.  

They have the unmitigated gall to blatantly say their most important goal is to stop Obama.  How outrageous !! To do so they will try to destroy the Health Care Reform act by not funding it until they have a Republican president so they can repeal it.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.


Let the poor eat cake, let the uninsured die, let the country be reviled again as it was under George Bush, let the country sink into a Great Depression so the Repubs can ride in on their white horse and rescue the country from all those Socialistic programs.  The only problem with that scenario is that they don't have a clue how to solve a single problem.   The hints as to how they plan to do so are all so ineffective that it's almost laughable.   I think we will need a good laugh before this is over.


You may be relieved to know this will be may last rant for a while.  I will not be spending much time on the computer for the next month or so.   I have a project that will take most of my time.  I will check in daily, but will not comment often because it does take me most of the day to do so.  


I will be going to California to spend Christmas at my daughter's house and other family members hope to join us there.  I am looking forward to getting away from politics for awhile.  My son, Mark, celebrated his 60th birthday last Sunday.  Now if you don't think that makes me feel old, guess again.  So I will make this trip while I am still able to navigate.


An update on my Visa fraud woes.  I got a letter yesterday from my credit card company telling me that the case has been closed.  Hooray!  Of course, they added the caveat that the merchant has 45 days to refile.  I don't think the merchant will do so under the circumstances.


In the event that I don't have time to post next week, I am taking this opportunity to wish everyone a very Happy Thanksgiving.

Halloween Scare plus a good video

In case you  missed it.  Jon Stewart and the President.  What a combination.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Barack Obama Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Here's your Halloween fright!  It's scarier than any ghoul, goblin, or witch.  It's even scarier than Sarah Palin.  Here is another good NYT op-ed piece from Paul Krugman.  Read it and weep.

Divided We Fail

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Barring a huge upset, Republicans will take control of at least one house of Congress next week. How worried should we be by that prospect?
Not very, say some pundits. After all, the last time Republicans controlled Congress while a Democrat lived in the White House was the period from the beginning of 1995 to the end of 2000. And people remember that era as a good time, a time of rapid job creation and responsible budgets. Can we hope for a similar experience now?
No, we can’t. This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness.
Start with the politics.
In the late-1990s, Republicans and Democrats were able to work together on some issues. President Obama seems to believe that the same thing can happen again today. In a recent interview with National Journal, he sounded a conciliatory note, saying that Democrats need to have an “appropriate sense of humility,” and that he would “spend more time building consensus.” Good luck with that.
After all, that era of partial cooperation in the 1990s came only after Republicans had tried all-out confrontation, actually shutting down the federal government in an effort to force President Bill Clinton to give in to their demands for big cuts in Medicare.
Now, the government shutdown ended up hurting Republicans politically, and some observers seem to assume that memories of that experience will deter the G.O.P. from being too confrontational this time around. But the lesson current Republicans seem to have drawn from 1995 isn’t that they were too confrontational, it’s that they weren’t confrontational enough.
Another recent interview by National Journal, this one with Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has received a lot of attention thanks to a headline-grabbing quote: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
If you read the full interview, what Mr. McConnell was saying was that, in 1995, Republicans erred by focusing too much on their policy agenda and not enough on destroying the president: “We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being re-elected, and we were hanging on for our lives.” So this time around, he implied, they’ll stay focused on bringing down Mr. Obama.
True, Mr. McConnell did say that he might be willing to work with Mr. Obama in certain circumstances — namely, if he’s willing to do a “Clintonian back flip,” taking positions that would find more support among Republicans than in his own party. Of course, this would actually hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of re-election — but that’s the point.
We might add that should any Republicans in Congress find themselves considering the possibility of acting in a statesmanlike, bipartisan manner, they’ll surely reconsider after looking over their shoulder at the Tea Party-types, who will jump on them if they show any signs of being reasonable. The role of the Tea Party is one reason smart observers expect another government shutdown, probably as early as next spring.
Beyond the politics, the crucial difference between the 1990s and now is the state of the economy.
When Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, the U.S. economy had strong fundamentals. Household debt was much lower than it is today. Business investment was surging, in large part thanks to the new opportunities created by information technology — opportunities that were much broader than the follies of the dot-com bubble.
In this favorable environment, economic management was mainly a matter of putting the brakes on the boom, so as to keep the economy from overheating and head off potential inflation. And this was a job the Federal Reserve could do on its own by raising interest rates, without any help from Congress.
Today’s situation is completely different. The economy, weighed down by the debt that households ran up during the Bush-era bubble, is in dire straits; deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger. And it’s not at all clear that the Fed has the tools to head off this danger. Right now we very much need active policies on the part of the federal government to get us out of our economic trap.
But we won’t get those policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts — cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.
So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Big Trouble

If you don't think we are in trouble, read this. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html

I am so frightened for my country.  At no time since the Great Depression has good leadership been more important than right now.   And who are the leaders that the tea party are fronting?  Blithering idiots without a clue as to how to govern.  They are the puppets of big business.  Pretty women whose elevators don't go all the way to the top and who are so ideologically twisted that they would take us over the cliff if they get the chance.  Add men candidates who think the unconstitutional Arizona law is great and that privatizing everything is the way to go and these numbskulls  candidates are the ones that big business want you to vote for. 

Our country is in big trouble on all fronts.   We were once the undisputed leader in the world and now China is about to clean our clock.  The things that will save us all run counter to the interests of big business.  Now that the Supreme Court has, in it's infinite stupidity, opened the floodgates to the money that big business can pour into our elections (and that will influence the outcome in their favor), we are fighting an uphill battle against the oil and coal companies, the insurance industry, and Wall Street.  

The people could have stopped Hitler if they had acted soon enough and Rome might have survived if the populace had not become complacent.  We must not let our country go the way of other civilizations.  

(I am aware that there were other factors involved in the 'take over' of Germany and the decline and fall of the Roman empire, but the people were complicit in both instances and could have made a difference.) 

I hope you're mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.  Educate everyone you know and drag them to the polls, if necessary.  Only the people can stop this take over of our country by a few extremely wealthy individuals.  

Astounding Republican Hypocrisy

For those who still think the voting public are astute, think again. The Republican party know better. They know that the voters have a shorter attention span than a flea. They know that the public have already forgotten that it was the Bush Administration that got us in this mess and that it was the Bush Administration that gave Wall Street a bailout with no strings attached.

Now, with a straight face, Mitch McConnell and his tin soldiers are turning the banking legislation proposed by Chris Dodd upside down and claiming that the Democrats are promising a giveaway to Wall Street. Huh? Can life get crazier than this? They are pandering to the Tea Party movement on the one hand, while trying to weaken the legislation to appease Wall Street on the other. Robert Reich has a wonderful editorial explaining how this works.

http://robertreich.org/post/519339473/the-republican-strategy-on-financial-reform-make

It is a well known fact that I hate two things; lies and hypocrisy. I have seen enough of it in my lifetime to become sickened about how well it often succeeds.

It makes me want to throw a temper tantrum. I won't do that because I have also learned that it is a waste of energy and serves no purpose. Beside, I have mentioned before that I no longer have enough steam to stamp or shout.

Now polls are claiming that the average Tea Party attendee is a college graduate, a middle age white male, and well to do. Go figure. You sure couldn't tell that they learned much in college from the comments I have heard them make. Critical thinking was not in their course of study. I guess they are just selfish grumps that simply don't want to pay their fair share.


A further update on my pesky tooth. I discovered that when dentists say they are going to put in a permanent filling they are referring to a crown. I now have a temporary crown and hope the permanent one is ready for my next appointment on May 5. This was a very big shock to me and to my pocketbook. The saga isn't over yet.

How The Republicans Win

There are many days when I just want to give up and never hear, or read, another political rant. And when Obama disappoints me and gives new life to that discredited 'drill, baby drill' I say a pox on both of their houses. I was stunned when I heard the news that Obama was going to open up offshore drilling for oil and natural gas.

While impractical, it is tempting to join the crowd who say, "Throw all the bums out." When disappointed I want to renounce all political parties.

Then I read a stunner like the article below and I become a Democrat again. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that there are very few Representatives in Washington, or in any State for that matter, that give a hoot for the public. It's all just like some gigantic game of holding onto, or gaining power.

The link will connect you to a Truthout article titled "How the Republicans Win."
If you have the time please follow the link and read the article. If not, you can read my abbreviated version. It will show you how Washington really works.

http://www.truthout.org/how-republicans-win58229

I will not bore you with any more of my observations. I think the article will be enough to digest for one day. I am posting an excerpt.

How Republicans Win

Wednesday 31 March 2010

by: Robert Parry | Consortium News

The Republicans are following a playbook that has evolved over more than four decades, to regain power by sabotaging Democratic presidents.The "destroy Obama" game plan tracks most closely with Newt Gingrich's strategy for undermining Bill Clinton 16 years ago. But today's strategy also traces back to Richard Nixon's sabotage of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam peace talks in 1968 and Ronald Reagan's October Surprise gambit against President Jimmy Carter's Iran hostage negotiations in 1980.

The Republicans did not behave as a loyal opposition but rather as a single-minded political enemy that viewed the White House as its birthright and Democratic control of the Executive Branch as illegitimate.

For the first time, every Republican voted against the federal budget, which included tax increases to rein in the deficit that had surged to unprecedented levels under eagan and George H.W. Bush (41).By 1994, the Whitewater "scandal" about an obscure Clinton real-estate investment had become front-page news and a Republican-controlled judicial panel had picked former Reagan-Bush-41 appointee Kenneth Starr to head up an aggressive investigation into the Clintons' personal finances – and later into their private life.Having covered CIA destabilization campaigns in Third World countries, particularly Nicaragua, I was struck by the similarities. In the 1980s, the Reagan-Bush-41 administrations destroyed Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista revolution by systematically making the country ungovernable via a combination of economic dislocations, political/media propaganda, and paramilitary activities.

Finally, in 1990, Nicaraguan voters – opted to accede to Washington's desires and voted for Chamorro.

Documentary evidence from Reagan's presidential library now shows that the overseas and domestic propaganda machines were built simultaneously as Reagan's CIA Director William Casey recruited conservative foundation executives like Richard Mellon Scaife to help finance it.

Another major accomplishment of the Reagan administration was the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, (Or NED for short - My insertion.)

many of the NED-funded organizations were based in Washington – and since the NED bureaucracy was dominated by neoconservatives – NED, in effect, became a permanent funding mechanism for the neocon community in the U.S. capital.

NED funding explains why Washington's neocons have remained so influential despite their involvement in so many policy disasters, such as the Iraq War.

Even when the neocons find themselves adrift during brief periods out of power, many of them remain afloat with the help of NED grant money. They can hang onto a financial life-preserver tossed from some institute that benefits from the federal funding.

When Clinton managed to wrest the White House from the Republicans after 12 years of Reagan and Bush-41, the GOP realized that it could well shorten its time out of power by savaging the new President and creating chaos to undermine his political power and his popularity. (Hillary's vast Right Wing Comspiracy)

The Republicans definitely "got" what was happening and why. In celebration, the Gingrich "revolutionaries" made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of the new Republican congressional majority, hailing him as their "national precinct captain."Gingrich had a positive message in his "Contract for America," that analysis misses the point that it was the tearing down of the Clintons – represented by Limbaugh's daily tirades – and the impression of national disarray under Clinton that were key to the GOP victory in 1994. On April 19, 1995, right-wing militia fanatic Timothy McVeigh detonated a bomb at the Oklahoma City federal building killing 168 people. Limbaugh and others who had stoked the fires of paranoia would angrily deny any suggestion that they had contributed to the catastrophe.

Despite Clinton's reelection in 1996, the Republicans did not give up their determination to destroy him. In 1998-99, they instituted impeachment proceedings that sought to oust him from office for lying about his extramarital sex life. Republicans were energized to restore the Reagan-Bush dynasty by putting George W. Bush into the White House, even if he did lose the popular vote to Al Gore.

Tearing down a Democratic president and creating a sense of political havoc – are again at the center of Republican strategy, except that today the GOP is even better placed to carry out a repeat than the party was in 1994. Then, there was no Fox News dominating the cable TV ratings and the right-wing media was far less developed than it is today.

Though the Republicans can't say that Obama wasn't legitimately elected (he won with 53 percent of the vote and a record 66.8 million ballots), the Right has questioned his legitimacy in other ways, such as the spurious claims that he was born in Kenya despite his Hawaiian birth certificate.

The Tea Party crowd also has decried him as some Islamic-terrorist-loving, America-hating communist, socialist or Nazi – if not the anti-Christ. A popular Tea Party poster shows Obama as a white-faced Joker, the sociopathic character from the latest Batman movie.

The organized chaos even entered the Congress itself, as Republican lawmakers cheered protesters on – and at times acted like them.

Republican leaders also engaged in apocalyptic rhetoric, with House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio declaring that passage of health-care reform would lead to "Armageddon," a religious reference to the end-times battle between a warrior Jesus and the anti-Christ.

Though Boehner and a few other Republican leaders finally criticized acts of violence, others continued to wink at the unruly behavior or shift the blame onto the Democrats for talking about it.

"It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain," said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, criticizing Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine for "dangerously fanning the flames by suggesting that these incidents be used as a political weapon."

For her part, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin defended her advice that her backers should "reload" and her decision to put crosshairs on the districts of endangered Democrats, saying the references had nothing to do with violence. She blamed the controversy on "this BS coming from the lame-stream media, lately, about us inciting violence."

Despite the growing specter of political violence, the Republicans appear set in their determination to foment as much disruption as possible between now and the November elections, and thus reap expected gains, with hopes that they can win back the House and Senate and then further neutralize Obama.

To refer back to the Nicaragua comparison, the GOP's inside-outside game is like Nicaragua's pro-U.S. "internal opposition" operating as a non-violent political arm while the U.S.-funded paramilitary contras wreaked havoc in the countryside, both with the goal of removing the Sandinistas from power.

And as long as this "make-the-political-system-scream" strategy continues to work, it is probably unrealistic to expect the Republicans to disavow it. Washington power and the money that comes with it are so intoxicating that the political risks appear well worth it, especially if Democrats and the American Left don't have the means or the courage to stand against abuses by Republicans and the Right.

That pattern of acquiescence by the Democrats and the Left dates back to the emergence of this Republican anything-goes strategy more than four decades ago. As audiotapes at LBJ's presidential library make clear, Johnson was aware of Nixon's pre-election sabotaging of the Paris peace talks in 1968, but remained silent to avoid risking damage to Nixon's presidential legitimacy.

Similarly, Jimmy Carter and other leading Democrats, such as former Rep. Lee Hamilton, were aware of substantial evidence that Ronald Reagan's campaign secretly undercut Carter's efforts to win the release of 52 American hostages held in Iran in 1980, but the Democrats have chosen to look the other way.

Hamilton, who prides himself on his "bipartisanship," led a congressional investigation into the Iran-hostage "October Surprise" mystery in 1992, but refused to pursue late-developing evidence pointing to Republican guilt even after his chief counsel, Lawrence Barcella, asked for an extension because so much new information was pouring in by the end of 1992.

Barcella told me later that Hamilton simply ordered the inquiry brought to a close with its finding of Republican innocence. Much of the new evidence implicating the Republicans was then stored away, including a Russian intelligence report confirming secret meetings between Republicans and Iranians. [For details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege]

For his part, ex-President Carter appeared more concerned about the danger of being accused of sour grapes than learning anything new about how the Republicans sank his presidency.

In 1996, while meeting with Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasir Arafat, Carter reportedly raised his hands into a physical stop position when Arafat tried to confess to his role in the Republican maneuvering to block Carter's Iran-hostage negotiations.

"There is something I want to tell you," Arafat said, addressing Carter at a meeting in Arafat's bunker in Gaza City. "You should know that in 1980 the Republicans approached me with an arms deal [for the PLO] if I could arrange to keep the hostages in Iran until after the [U.S. presidential] election."

So, the Republicans have never been made to pay a political price for their scheming to undercut sitting Democratic presidents -- and to grease the GOP's route back to power. Whenever a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans believe they are free do whatever they want to block him from solving national problems, making him look weak and ineffectual.

That was true of Johnson, Carter, Clinton and now Obama.

This GOP strategy is pursued even if it tarnishes the international image of the United States or if it undermines national security, even if it means more than 20,000 additional U.S. soldierIt'ss dying in Vietnam, or 52 American hostages facing longer captivity in Iran, or the likes of Timothy McVeigh feeling empowered to blow up a federal building.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Addendum;

Today's NYT has the following article by Charles Blow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/opinion/03blow.html?th&emc=th

It's worth checking out.

Danger Ahead

Before I rant on the danger our country faces I will give you an update on my dental woes. I can't imagine why this would be of interest to anyone except my family, but I will furnish a quick report to all of those kind friends who sent good wishes. I did have a root canal and, after nearly two hours of working on me, my dentist told me it was not successful due to the shrunken canal. This, he informed me, was due to my advanced years. ( I'm old, is what I am.) Because he was unable to remove the infected tissue I will be seeing a specialist Monday who may do the whole procedure over. The good news is that my dentist did not charge me for his services. He is an angel.

Now on to my rant.

The crazies have been unleashed by the overblown rhetoric of the 'right'. Tucson was among the cities that had a brick thrown through the door of the headquarters of our Senator, Gabrielle Giffords, because she voted 'aye' for the health care reform bill.

The gun nuts are planning a gathering in D. C. next month and have been told to carry loaded pistols and unarmed rifles. Get that? LOADED pistols. The NRA must be so proud. The Militia are a scary bunch of neanderthals and, because they are cowards, they need to have weapons to feel important. All those loaded guns in the hands of the loonies in one place is a disaster waiting to happen.

If this dangerous situation is not defused we are in for a very horrifying and violent time in our country. Who needs foreign enemies when we have our own homegrown ones? The main target of these nut cases is, of course, the President. I hope the Secret Service does a better job of protecting him than they did with JFK and Bobby. I think he should stop going to public rallies until this insane time blows over. Maybe he should have a Pope Mobile to encase him when he is in public.

I just watched the movie Bobby and it was painful to relive that period in our history. I remember the grief when Bobby Kennedy was shot and when the Kent State students were killed. All the other horrors that occurred when the dogs of hate were released are fresh in my memory.

The lies and vicious name calling released the dogs of hate again when we elected a black president, The racism has bubbled up and has been building ever since. Words have consequences.

Sarah Palin was bad enough with her dishonest claim of death panels, but now she has shamefully exceeded herself by putting out a map with the cross hairs of a gun posted in states where the Democrats are up for re-election. If this isn't an invitation to some nut to shoot a Democrat I don't know what is.

The dishonorable taunt "You lie" yelled at the president during the State of the Union speech by South Carolina's, Joe Wilson, followed by the disreputable name 'Baby Killer' hurled at Bart Stupak by Texas Congressman, Randy Neugebaur in the Halls of Congress are all invitations to the insane that it's open season on Democrats and that civility is an anachronism.

After Wilson and Neugebaur disgraced themselves with an extreme lack of decorum, they compounded their crime by posting it on their web sites as a money raising ploy. To the shame of their followers, it is working.

Freedom of Speech allows me to write this rant, but it does not allow me to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Nor should it allow politicians to make cheap political points that are incendiary.

Of course, we mustn't forget Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (Is he still here? I thought he was moving to Costa Rica if the health care reform bill passed.) They are directly responsible for the hate filled words that have incited their listeners to hate and anger.

I just heard on TV that Democrat Congressmen and women are getting death threats. Are you proud of yourselves, you stupid people who swallowed whole all the garbage spewed by Michelle Bachmann, Srah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? And in a lesser way by the Representatives in Congress.

It is very disturbing to me that the Republican party isn't denouncing the dangerous activities of the Tea Party thugs. For awhile it was funny looking at their misspelled signs. Now the yells and signs are no longer funny; they are dangerous. To date the Repubs. have put politics ahead of averting a tragedy.

It's getting very ugly and very very frightening.

Aftershock

The aftershock I am referring to is not the terrible ones in Haiti, but the mood I am in the day after the bluest state filled Ted Kennedy's seat with a man who vowed to defeat health care reform.


My emotional rant yesterday may have been over the top.   (After all, I do have an award for being so.)   Today I will try to take a more measured look at what happened. 



Blame has to fall on the Democrats for this loss and the success goes to the Tea Party for seeing an opportunity and seizing it for all it's worth.  Massive amounts of money from the 'right' poured into Massachusetts at the last minute.  Money still talks very loud.

I think the New York Times said it best in an article in this morning's paper.  Following is an excerpt from that article:


 It is indisputable that the Republicans have settled on a tactic of obstruction, disinformation and fear-mongering, but it is equally indisputable that the Democrats have not countered it well.

And:

“To be honest, we kind of looked at it and said, this is a long shot,” said Brendan Steinhauser, the director of state campaigns for FreedomWorks, which has become an umbrella for Tea Party groups. But the group was impressed by the determination of organizers in this decidedly Democratic state and was intrigued by the notion that this could be a way to effectively derail federal health care legislation.  (Emphasis mine.)


And so FreedomWorks sent out a query to dozens of its best organizers across the country. Within days, the clamoring response made clear that what seemed improbable suddenly seemed very attainable; within weeks, the Tea Party movement had established a beachhead in Mr. Kennedy’s home state.
While conservatives quietly mobilized behind a state senator, Scott Brown, to fill the seat occupied by Mr. Kennedy for nearly 47 years, Democrats paid but slight attention to a contest that by every indication and by history should have been nothing to worry about.


And on Huffington Post I found this editorial that rings true to me.   It is a fair critique of what has gone so terribly wrong.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obama-finally-gets-his-vi_b_429232.htmll.

I have to hand it to the Republicans.  They ran out the clock and have now effectively killed any hope of real health reform.  I hope people remember this as their premiums. co-pays, and meds go up year after year.  I just got an increase of $20 co-pay for specialists and refilled a prescription at triple last year's cost.

I posted the above yesterday before I knew about the disastrous ruling of the Supreme Court.  The consequences of this unprecedented ruling will destroy what shred of democracy that we have left.  (And the Republicans have the gall to talk about liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench.)  This is outrageous.  Dred Scott was a blot on the history of this country and if we have a country left this will go down in history as another dreadful, shameful ruling.  Unless Congress pass laws to minimize the damage done by the Supreme Court we can kiss our country goodbye.  It is now a country OF the Corporations, BY the Corporations and FOR the Republican Party.

The new Senator

Senator Scott Brown

Massachusetts, meet the Senator you just saddled the country with.  Mr. Sarah Palin, I do believe.

God help us!  As one blogger said, "The inmates are running the asylum."  Beauty before brains.

I truly fear for this country when the majority seem to have lost their minds.  There are as many answers as to why this happened as there are pundits.  Personally I believe that the voters have a shorter attention span than I do.  How quickly they forgot the eight years of the previous administration that ruined the economy, got us into two illegal wars, tortured, ruined our reputation in the world, etc,  etc. ad infinitum.  I am so disgusted that I can't even enumerate the many failures and illegal machinations of the Bush years. 

How quickly the voters fall for the lies and distortions.  I am so upset that I can't write anymore.

A Republican friend just left and he told me that the Democrats had shut the Republicans out and were making deals behind closed doors.  I would weep crocodile tears for them if they hadn't done exactly the same thing for eight years when they were in power. 

A pox on all their houses.

Washington, D. C. Neanderthals

This morning I have way too many things that need my attention.  Make it, this week.  I really don't have time to write a post.  Having said that, here I go. 

 I just read an op-ed piece that makes my blood boil.   I have posted the link at the end and hope you will read what our Republican friends are up to now, aided and abetted by our turncoat Democrats.  

As Ronni Bennett of Time Goes By says, why do we keep electing these clowns?  It seems they are on a mission to completely destroy our wonderful country.  I have never seen such complete idiocy as the rants I watch on C-Span when our esteemed neanderthal legislators open their mouths.   They are disingenuous;  they are the biggest liars walking on two feet.  The way they distort facts is completely unprincipled.    All the Republicans care about is bringing down Obama.  Never mind that he inherited the biggest mess in history ever handed to an incoming president.  A mess that was created by their party.   It doesn't matter if they bring down the rest of the country with him.  As for those Blue Dog Democrats; their mission is to placate the tea bagger idiots at home so they can be re-elected by the uninformed.   And, of course, there's the money.  Follow it and watch how your representatives voted. Finally, there's Joe Lieberman; don't get me started.

Health care reform is virtually down the tubes now.  Reid and Pelosi have caved on the Public Option.  All that is left is a few minor restrictions on the insurance industry and a giant sop to them.  Now they will have millions of new clients that are young, healthy and forced to buy insurance.  What a boondoggle.  I am for throwing all the b------s out next election.

Next on their list is banking reform.  Don't hold your breath.  It will probably go the way of health care reform.  No wonder the Europeans are amazed at our stupidity. 

I hope you will follow this link and read what Paul Krugman has to say about the Republicans, 27 Democrats and the economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/opinion/14krugman.html?th&emc=th

 Note:  After posting this I went to Tom Degan's blog, The Rant, and found that he had written on the same subject.   There is much more information on his post and I think you will find he is as angry about the D. C. screw-ups as I am.  He calls it like it is and has done more research on his post.  It's  good !!   Here's the link:

http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/

Thoughts On the News

Am I suffering from selective thinking when I believe that the news used to be about real issues that affected our lives? Years ago did the news industry dwell endlessly about a governor of one state who sinned? Perhaps it did and I was not paying attention.

I admit that Mark Sanford's dereliction of duty should be covered thoroughly in South Carolina where their governor was found wanting. However, in any other area of the U. S. that news is only of interest because it exposes they hypocrisy of the conservative right who lay claim to having a lock on morality.

Mark Sanford was one of those Congressmen who piously ranted against the terrible crime by President Clinton and voted for his impeachment. Both men, in their way, lied about sex. I always felt that it was entrapment when Clinton was subpoenaed and asked about Monica Lewinsky. The 'moral posse' knew about the incriminating dress and assumed, correctly, that Clinton would protect himself by lying about his affair. Aha! They had the goods on him: they believed that lying under oath was an impeachable offense. They knew that having sex in the Oval Office would be shocking, but not enough to get him out of office, which was their goal. Without the semen smeared dress, it would simply have been a "he said, she said" story.

Now it is full circle and they have had three Republicans in a row outed for scandals. This is what happens when you throw mud; some of it sticks to you.

Sanford may be relieved that the news about his affair in Argentina has been overshadowed by three prominent deaths. Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson.

In the case of Michael Jackson the news media are excessively covering his untimely death. While I know he was an icon and an extremely talented man I was not a fan. I am one generation ahead of him and "Thriller" was not my kind of music.

It is sad that Michael's talent and popularity contributed to his downfall. I believe that his obsessive weirdness was the result of a tortured soul. I am sorry, but when I think of him at all I see him holding his baby over that balcony and I am appalled by the adulation showered on him.

Hours have been spent covering the Sanford and Jackson stories while real news is not heard of. You really have to dig to find out what is important to our lives. The situations in Iran and North Korea are dire and could plunge our country into another war if not handled carefully. Below are two links to a couple of stories you may have missed about the North Korean and Russian ships. The first link is found on the BBC news site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7260534.stm

The second story is about that North Korean ship on the high seas. Do we have the legal authority to board her?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31473986/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

I may be an old curmudgeon, but I think that these stories are more important than a sex scandal in another state. I don't intend to demean the importance of covering the scandal or the prominent deaths; I just don't think they should dominate the news for days on end.

Just Wondering

Everyone is familiar with the old saw, "Money is the root of all evil." I firmly believe that this holds true for politicians. If they didn't have to raise enormous sums of money 12 months a year they might actually have time to read those bills they squabble about. With any luck, they might even vote for what's good for the country instead of what's good for their re-election campaign funds.

And that makes me wonder:

• Why did Senator Robert Bennett, Utah Republican, put a hold on the nomination of the eminently qualified David Hayes, who has been approved by the Senate Committee? And why is Democrat Mary Landrieu aiding and abetting him?
  

I know the answer to this one; it is to blackmail Obama into canceling Interior Secretary Ken Salazar' s reversal of the Bush Administration's ruling allowing oil and gas leases next to the National Parks in Utah. Bennett wants those leases to be reinstated. (Generous contributions from the oil and gas industries might have something to do with it, hmmm? That 'root' rearing it's ugly head.)

• Why has the Republican party become one of "No"? Not a single Republican voted for Obama's stimulus package. Why do they complain about not having bipartisanship when they threaten to stop every piece of legislation that the Democrats propose?
  

• If the Republicans feel left out of the planning, why haven't they come up with a single workable plan that is better?

• Why were there no rules imposed on the banks that got the stimulus bailout money?
  
• 
  
• Why did the politicians reverse the rules placed on the financial industries after the Great Depression?

• Why do they never learn?
  

• Why is Wall Street still calling the shots? (There's that 'root' again.)
  

• Why are the politicians so afraid of the NRA that they will not pass sensible gun legislation? There were four times as many gun deaths by murder last year than were killed in the World Trade Center. Sadly, 3,000 of them were children.

• Why can't we have legislation banning semi-automatic handguns?

• Why are unlicensed gun dealers allowed to sell guns without a background check?

For a good analysis on this subject follow the link to Bob Herbert's editorial.

<"http://www.blogger.com/www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/opinion/25herbert.html?theemc=th">

• Why do I care?
  

And now a bit of news that the media don't talk about: A link to the article:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
US and Russia Hold Nuclear Talks

truthout.org/042409E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Now why haven't we heard of this? I think this just might be a bit more important than news about Bo, cute though he is.

• Why is common sense missing from the hallowed halls of Foggy Bottom?
  

Just wondering.

Political Questions

Last night as I was trying to fall asleep the news of the day kept rumbling around in my noggin. I couldn't get my head around the fact that some people were opposed to the third leg of the Obama rescue plan. I am referring to the housing bail out plan designed to stop the hemorrhaging of foreclosures. I will call those oppositionists the 'complainers'.

The people against it are complaining because they don't want to be forced to pay for their neighbors mortgage because 'said neighbor' lied to buy a house they couldn't afford. (I will refer to those people as 'losers'.) The mantra goes like this: Why should I pay for the houses of people with their extra bathrooms who bought a house they couldn't afford when I have been responsible and played by the rules and made my payments on time?

The first point I would make is that this is a gross exaggeration of the people who are losing their houses. Yes, some did buy houses when they clearly couldn't afford them, but others were just as responsible as the complainers. They made their mortgage payments on time, could afford the house when they bought it, but, through no fault of their own, are now unable to make the payments. Usually, this unfortunate circumstance is due to the loss of the job of one, or both, of the breadwinners. To the complainers I would say, "Be careful because you could be next."

The second point I want to stress is that those losers won't be bailed out. It's the people who have equity in their houses that this program will help. The irresponsible losers have no equity (remember the banks were happy to sell them houses with no down payment). Not only did the losers obtain the house with little or nothing down, but all the payments they have made have gone to interest. Ergo - no equity.

The third point I would make is, if the government doesn't stop the downslide of the housing market the complainers own houses will continue to lose value as the foreclosure signs go up around them. An abandoned house deteriorates very rapidly and is a magnet for squatters. Would the complainers rather have a drug dealer next door or the neighbor who was evicted? I grant you that this might seem like an extreme argument until you look at some neighborhoods where the foreclosures were many.

The fourth point I want to stress is, if nothing is done the economy is done for. The housing bubble started this big hole we are all in and it must be addressed along with bailing out the banks and auto industry. If it isn't stabilized, new homes will not be built and how many jobs will be lost because of that? Just as the auto industry has other businesses dependent on it's survival, so does the housing industry. Just think about all of the things that go into a house. From the Realtor's first selling the lot to the last piece of furniture, hundreds of jobs are at stake. Isn't this what the stimulus package is supposed to do? I thought the whole object was to 1) create jobs and 2) save jobs.

The complainers are classic examples of failing to see the big picture while they focus on their own narrow view. It is crisis time. We all have to sacrifice because we are all in this mess together.

Hypocrites and Irony

I spent this Sunday morning punishing myself again. Yep, I watched the Republicans on the talk shows. I have a few choice words for them; unless you can contribute something meaningful, shut up, already.

First that Neanderthal, Mitch McConnell, made the absolutely absurd statement that the Democrats had not learned from history. Huh? He was referring to the economic stimulus package and, by inference, stating that the Republicans had created a good economy with their tax cuts for the upper 1%. Please, Mitch, give me a break. Your tax cuts were financed on our National Debt credit card and that is one of the contributing factors in the fine mess we find ourselves in now. Sorry to enlighten you, Mitch, but you had control of both houses and the presidency while laying the groundwork for the economic quagmire we find ourselves in. So who hasn't learned from history? Mr. McConnell, I suggest you go take a good look in the mirror.

It is the height of chutzpah for the Republicans to accuse the Democrats of wasteful spending. I do believe they are the party that went on a spending binge that lasted for eight years while, at the same time, cutting taxes. Please tell me how this was fiscally wise? Call me dense, but it seems to me that if you cut your income while you are buying luxury items (like an inconvenient war) you are going to have to pay the Piper at some point down the road. Well, that bend in the road is here and it's a very dangerous curve.

To add an insult to one's intelligence, John Ensign, Senator from Nevada, pontificated on all of that terrible spending in the stimulus package. Horrible, wasteful things like aid to the states. When Barney Frank pointed out to him that if the States didn't get the money they would have to fire teachers, policemen and firemen. That kind of translates into lost jobs, doesn't it? Oh but wait! Mr. White Hair (not white hat) had an answer to that. The States could find cuts in wasteful spending without firing anybody. Excuse me? After George Bush put the States on a starvation diet for eight years they have already cut their budgets to the bone. Ask any governor where he plans to cut next. Ask California's Republican governor, Schwarzenegger, what part of that bloated budget he will slash.

Oh, but Ensign had an answer for that, too. Aiding the States wouldn't stimulate the economy for several years down the road. Well, it's just such short sighted inability to see ahead that got us in this fine kettle of fish we now find ourselves in.

Oh well - never mind. Unless aid to the States is restored, that item has been slashed from the package by the ideologue Republicans. Obama had to give them that sop to get votes.

Then of course, Mr. Loser, John McCain, loves to rant about all that pork in the package. What pork? Oh yeah, little items like education and health care. One man's pork is another man's beef (pun intended).

Oh my head is swimming with the illogical logic being used by the opposition to the package. And when their logic comes up faulty they harp on things like condoms. I guess they would rather have the States pick up the tab for abortions or unwanted babies. Of course the condom issue is ludicrous unless you are a very conservative Christian of the far right. The term 'red herring' comes to mind.

Aha, but I finally learned what they are really up to. While accusing Obama of partisan politics (the irony of it all) the Reublicans know that no matter what we do now things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better. It will take several years to turn things around and then just in time for the mid-term elections the G.O.P. can say, "Obama's stimulus package didn't work". Now does anybody who is paying attention think that they have your best interests at heart?

I thought I was through being angry at the political games being played once Obama was elected. I was wrong.

Cyclists and Structuralists

Robert Reich, who oversaw Clinton's economic upturn as Secretary of Labor, has written an article that every Senator and Congressman who are opposing the Stimulus package should read. The often repeated quote of Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" certainly applies to the Republican Congressmen who voted against the Stimulus package.

Math was always my worst subject so I don't pretend to be qualified to make judgments on the economy, but, as you know, I am pragmatic and if something makes sense to me I accept it as being close to factual.

It would be nice to forget politics now that the election is over, but the hard part is just beginning and it has been proven that a loud and vocal constituency gets the attention of our representatives if done en mass. It is easy to voice our concerns now with Internet access . Find the web site of your representative, write them an e-mail, and tell them your views. If you have a story on how the subject impacts your life be sure to include that. Pay special attention to votes coming up and write asking them to vote yea or nay on the issue. Right now the Stimulus Package is due for a vote in the Senate. Let your rep know how you want them to vote.

Please ask your friends and relatives who agree with your position to write or call their representative also. With the Internet we can multiply our numbers easily and the greater number of letters or calls a representative gets, the greater the impact. After all, we are the ones who pay attention and vote.

Following are excerpts from an editorial written by Robert Reich, Clinton's Secretary of Labor. I have omitted the first part of the Reich editorial for brevity, and have made, what I consider to be, the salient points in blue. If you don't have time to read the whole article I urge you to read those points.

And now to the editorial:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The moment the economy appears to be on the mend, conservatives such as Feldstein will want the government to cut spending. In their view, this is the only way to get the economy fully back on track. But others believe that it is precisely the track we were on that got us into this mess in the first place.

Those who support the stimulus as a desperate measure to arrest the downward plunge in the business cycle might be called cyclists. rs,Others, including me, see the stimulus as the first step toward addressing deep structural flaws in the economy. We are the structuralists. These two camps are united behind the current stimulus, but may not be for long. Cyclists blame the current crisis on a speculative bubble that threw the economy's self-regulating mechanisms out of whack. They say that we can avoid future downturns if the Fed pops bubbles earlier by raising interest rates when speculation heats up.

But structuralists see it very differently. The bursting of the housing bubble caused the current crisis, but the underlying problem began much earlier - in the late 1970s, when median U.S. incomes began to stall. Because wages got hit then by the double-whammy of global competition and new technologies, the typical American family was able to maintain its living standard only if women went into the workforce in larger numbers, and later, only if everyone worked longer hours.

When even these coping mechanisms were exhausted, families went into debt - a strategy that was viable as long as home values continued to rise. But when the housing bubble burst, families were no longer able to easily refinance and take'out home-equity loans. The result: Americans no longer have the money to keep consuming. When you consider that consumers make up 70 percent of the economy, the magnitude of the problem becomes apparent.

What happened to the money? According to researchers Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, since the late 1970s, a greater and greater share of national income has gone to people at the top of the earnings ladder. As late as 1976, the richest 1 percent of the country took home about 9 percent of the total national income. By 2006, they were pocketing more than 20 percent. But the rich don't spend as much of their income as the middle class and the poor do - after all, being rich means that you already have most of what you need. That's why the concentration of income at the top can lead to a big shortfall in overall demand and send the economy into a tailspin. (It's not coincidental that 1928 was the last time that the top 1 percent took home more than 20 percent of the nation's income.)

Other structural problems are growing as well. One is climate change and our dependence on oil. Another is the United States' growing reliance on foreign capital, mostly from China, Japan and the Middle East. Neither is sustainable.

Meanwhile, our broken health-care system drains more of our dollars yet delivers less care. When President Clinton tried to tackle health care in 1994, it represented 14 percent of our GDP, and 38 million Americans were uninsured. Now, the nation spends 16 percent of its GDP on health, and about 44 million of us are uninsured. Most cyclists acknowledge these problems, but they tend to think of them as separate from the current crisis - issues to be tackled after the economy has recovered, and then only to the extent that we can afford to do so.

But structuralists like myself don't believe that the economy can fully recover unless these underlying problems are addressed. Without policies that put the nation on the path to higher median incomes, higher productivity, renewable energy and a more accessible and efficient health-care system, we'll face deeper and more prolonged recessions, followed by ever more anemic upturns. Bill Clinton's inability to do enough about these problems in the 1990s, followed by George W. Bush's negligent disregard of them, allowed them to grow to the point where any major triggering event can cause a vicious downward spiral.

As early as next year, the business cycle may hit bottom and begin climbing. At that point, cyclists and structuralists will want two different things - and which side the president chooses will be, as Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute puts it, the "central drama" of the Obama administration. The president recently sought to placate the cyclists by promising to focus on controlling the future costs of Social Security and Medicare. Perhaps Obama has in mind a "grand bargain" that would allow him to continue his structural agenda after the business cycle turns upward in return for limiting spending for those two giant entitlement programs.

Let's hope he has something more in mind, something more fundamental: a debate about public investment and sustainable growth. For structuralists, the size of the federal debt itself is irrelevant. Debt has to be considered in proportion to the economy as a whole. According to government projections, the national debt will exceed half the nation's gross domestic product by the end of this year - not including the stimulus package. That's certainly high, but not close to a record. The debt was far more than 100 percent of GDP at the end of World War II. That mammoth debt, not incidentally, put Americans back to work, financed industrial production, underwrote a new generation of science and technology and created a wave of demand for consumer goods when the war ended. In short, it got the economy on a new and faster track, thereby allowing the United States to pay down the debt and ushering the country into a new era of widely shared prosperity.

Even a high ratio of debt to GDP isn't especially worrisome if much of that debt comes from investments that put the economy on a path toward solid growth. One recent study from Columbia Teachers College, for example, shows that cutting high school dropout rates in half would generate $45 billion in new tax revenues and savings on expenses such as welfare and incarceration.

We cannot assume, however, that gains from these sorts of public investments will grow the economy enough to reduce the relative size of future debt. We must consider the tax code's structure as well. Should marginal taxes be raised on the most affluent? That could help finance what must be done to put the economy on a sustainable growth path.

But I don't think that our new president should wade into this debate right away. He has his hands full. He needs to implement the stimulus package and reverse the downturn. Bill Clinton had to choose sides almost right away - and had little choice but to cave in to the cyclists and forfeit most of his long-term economic agenda. The severity of the current crisis gives Obama more time.

But he will need to open the larger debate sooner rather than later. This downturn is revealing the U.S. economy's underlying flaws. Once the business cycle turns up, the public and its representatives may be less inclined to tackle the things that truly drag us down. Clinton was, after all, reelected in 1996 on the wave of a cyclical upturn in the economy. But the structural problems that he failed to address - widening inequality, sagging median incomes, a broken health-care system, crumbling infrastructure and global warming - are that much larger now, making the current crisis all the worse.

»