Standing up to an "Occupy" Disser

I have an acquaintance who has strong moral and polical beliefs, but is seldom moved to write about them or respond to countering opinions that appear in the mainstream media.

An opinion piece by a Nevada academic attempting to marginalize the Occupy Movement that was published a few weeks ago in a Milwaukee newspaper proved to be an exception.

The grabber in the Nevada professor's piece for my acquaintance was the assertion that, "What really motivates the Occupy movement is not resentment against the 1% but a sense of futility in grappling with a weak economy. With unemployment hovering around 9%, and with all the recurrent plant closings, foreclosures and cutbacks in public services, there is a lot of anger to vent. But class warfare isn't the solution."

The newspaper, for whatever reason, chose not to publish my acquaintance's rebutting letter.

So here it is, unedited. I share it because I think it knocks the proverbial ball clean out of the park so far as illuminating the faulty reasoning of the Nevada professor is concerned:

"Bradley Schiller’s ('The 1%', December 11) misrepresentation of the Occupy Movement as a disaffected group taking the anger of their circumstances out on rich folks demonstrates the kind of disconnect that makes people wary of Ivory Tower academics. Schiller, in an apparent attempt to solidify the myths of the self-made man and fluid social mobility, would have us believe that America’s millionaires and billionaires are just like the rest of us and the Occupy Movement is, at hear, merely railing against the American Dream.  Though I cannot speak for all who identify with the Occupy Movement, my understanding of it is that it has arisen from anger at a system in which people who have acquired wealth and power attempt to manipulate the political and economic structures to close the door to opportunity behind them, anger at those who use their wealth and power to create a dual justice system in which manufactured threats are used as a basis for curtailing the rights of many, while the real crimes perpetrated by some of the rich and powerful against wide swaths of the populace are ignored, if not condoned, anger at the scarcity mentality that makes some people willing to do apparently anything to jealously guard what this country has afforded them with complete disregard for their debt to it and the opportunities, infrastructure and resources it has provided them.  Schiller’s attempt to belittle the Occupy Movement as a naïve, “us or them” class warfare, in the end, says more about Schiller’s lack of intellectual depth and/or honesty, than it does about people’s serious grievances about systematic complexities that promote and perpetuate injustice."

Schiller's entire column is at: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/the-1-833b5br-135692753.html

I'm far too conservative to buy Bradley's kind of "envy" argument that is so liberally bandied about by shills of the rich and privileged, who, oddly, are shouldering their tax burden and whose taxes further enrich them via subsidies and other publicly funded largess.

Lawmakers Pass Laws that Enrich Lawmakers

New York Times headline two days after Christmas:

Economic Downturn Took a Detour at Capitol Hill

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

"Rarely has the financial divide appeared so wide, or the public contrast so stark, between lawmakers and those they represent."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/politics/economic-slide-took-a-detour-at-capitol-hill.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

No wonder Congress -- particularly some members -- consistently pass legislation that favors big biz and the rich to the detriment of the rest. Shouldn't an elected official work for his/her constituents and not those who will fill the Congress members' coffers? This sure looks like a cronyism/quid-pro-quo/conflict-of-interest form of government, not democracy.

I am very conservative about people who are elected to represent the people getting rich in their elected positions by passing laws that make themselves richer. Sounds like a corrupt banana republic to me.

Libertarian Freeloaders

New York Times article teaser: "The Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank, plays an outsize role in setting the agenda in Arizona and is helping set up similar litigation outfits elsewhere."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/goldwater-institute-an-aggressive-conservative-watchdog.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24

Would that the news media and politicians would deep six the "libertarian" label!

The only real "libertarians" in the U.S. live in a cave and never come out. Everyone else benefits every day from government benefits and services, including the roads they drive on, safe commercial flight, potable water, breathable air, and so much more that makes for healthy, convenient, sustainable living that taxes fund and is made possible by those "regulations" they hate so much. All these so-called libertarians really want is the freedom to do whatever heck they want without having to pay for it and without regard to the harm to any/everyone else.

I'm way too conservative to want my taxes to fund these wanna-be freeloaders follies.

Ayn Rand's Absurd Death Grip

Ayn Rand keeps rising from the muck to infect the thinking of what otherwise might be rational, intelligent people. National Public Radio most recently stirred the vat with a piece it labeled on its website as "On Capitol Hill, Rand's 'Atlas' Can't Be Shrugged Off" http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/142245517/on-capitol-hill-rands-atlas-cant-be-shrugged-off?ft=3&f=111787346&sc=nl&cc=es-20111120.

I've ranted in this and other spaces before about Rand, but the pieces of the chopped-up snake keep growing new heads. We've seen them affixed to politicians like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, for whom I think she was actually the namesake.

Here's the NPR promo blurb that bubbled up in my email inbox today touting its story that aired last week as one of its most emailed stories:

"In the 1950s, Rand felt that her ideal of unfettered capitalism was missing in politics. But today, her ideas are alive and well-represented in the U.S. Capitol. Her philosophy has sunk so deeply into our political thought, many people don't even recognize it as hers anymore."

First, anyone old enough to remember the 1950s, which I am, can recall that the 1950s was one of the most, if not the most, prosperous decades--at least for a vast swath of Amercans, not just a minute sliver of the richest--in the country's history. It is also nostalgically romanticized as the "good old days" and that time the TPers of today seem to want to take our country back to.

So if unfettered capitalism was missing, meaning that capitalism functioned, but with some semblance of responsibility that included controls, regulations, restrictions or whatever that enabled the nation to flourish economically, then that must have been a GOOD policy.

Beyond that, though, my view of Rand and her adherents/admirers is that they are nothing short of delusional. I won't go into all the flaws in Randism philosophy, politics and thinking, but here is my reaction to just one line in NPR's blurb:

"(Rand's) philosophy has sunk so deeply into our political thought..." That explains the greed, me-ism, hypocrisy and shallow, vapid thinking that has this nation in its destructive grip. Rand's path is a greased slide into the same fate that's bankrupted today's Greece, where Greeks refuse to pay taxes, and has led to the anarchy of Somalia, which has no central government. Randites are in complete denial of the very definition of "society" and the vital elements of a healthy, vibrant society. Take all the government services and benefits that Rand and her acolytes use and enjoy--including Social Security and Medicare, which Rand applied for under her married name to keep from being found out--and they wouldn't make it out of their front door. Heck, they probably wouldn't even have a front door or a house for a front door.

I posted a comment on this NPR story when it aired on Nov. 14, focusing on Rand's assertion that socialists and people on public assistance or who take money from the government are "moochers." Here's my comment:

"Ayn Rand and her ilk, whether called libertarians, anarchists or something else, are the real moochers. They want all the benefits of living in a society--public roads, breathable air, drinkable water, safe food and drug supplies, an energy grid, etc.--but don't think they should have to pay for it. The very regulations they eschew are as necessary for Americans' safety and well being as a strong military is for national security. The most frightening aspect of Randism these days is that so many are falling under its fatal spell. We can view the U.S. of the future by looking at Greece of today,where Greeks blow off paying taxes, and Somalia, which has no central government. Although Rand's hypocrisy is stunning (read her novella 'Anthem'), she was at least honest about being an atheist. Her politician acolytes of today, however, claim to be Christians, yet there is nothing in the philosophy Rand espoused that in any way resembles what Jesus taught."

It's gratifying to note that my comment got 65 "Recommendations", more than any of the other thousand-plus comments.

America, a Randian nation?

This blog post was prompted by a piece on today's National Public Radio's Morning Edition, which an NPR website headline writer dubbed "On Capitol Hill, Rand's 'Atlas' Can't Be Shrugged Off."

Ayn Rand, a mid-20th Century writer whose me-ism philosophy was informed by the political and social upheavel of her native Russia's Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent fallout, has become The Way for a plethora of today's Republican leadership. We should all have the right to keep all of our money and not to have to give any of it to that evil bottomless maw they call the government. (Nevermind, that the loudest of those Republican critics, such as John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, etc., ARE the government and, thanks to getting elected to Congress, will be very nicely taken care of for the rest of their lives by the very government they love so much to hate.)

Rand and her ilk, whether called libertarians, anarchists or something else, are the real moochers. (Moochers is what Rand called Americans who benefit from living in--and paying taxes to have--a vibrant society, even though Rand herself applied for and collected Social Security and used Medicare for her healthcare.)

Randians want all the benefits that come with living in a society--public roads, breathable air, drinkable water, safe food and drug supplies, an energy grid, etc.--but don't think they should have to pay for them.

The very regulations they eschew (see Illinois deadbeat dad and GOP Rep. Joe Walsh's rant) are as necessary for Americans' safety and well being as a strong military is for national security.

The most frightening aspect of Randism these days is that so many are falling under its fatal spell. We can view the U.S. of the future by looking at today's Greece, where Greeks won't pay taxes, and Somalia, which has no central government.

Although Rand's hypocrisy is stunning (read her novella "Anthem"), she was at least honest about being an atheist. Her politician acolytes of today claim to be Christians, yet there is nothing in the philosophy Rand espoused that in any way resembles what Jesus taught.

NPR's headline writer is, in fact, dead wrong. Rand and her "Atlas" CAN and should be shrugged off--or at least be seen for what they are: Architects of the demise of democracy.

I'm way too conservative to think that that is a good idea.

The Deminted One

South Carolina Senator Jim Demint cast the lone vote earlier this week against a tax credit bill for employers who hire U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, who are discharged from military duty, and other veterans. Demint’s excuse? The bill was “inherently unfair" and it would result in few people being hired.

Oh, yeah, and it was just a Democratic trick.

That raises a couple of questions in my mind.

One is, what's unfair about lending someone who has spent three or four or more years defending her or his country a hand in integrating back into civilian life?

Is that any more unfair than less than 1 percent of the U.S. population serving in the military and an even smaller percentage of that serving in Iraq and/or Afghanistan? Is it any more unfair than the unemployment rate of military veterans topping more than 12 percent compared to the overall national rate of 9 percent.

Does Demint also think the G.I. Bill is unfair?

Another question is about giving employers a tax credit for hiring vets. Gifting businesses tax credits is the very backbone of Republican lawmakers’, particularly state governors and legislatures such as in Wisconsin, job-creation plans. So, why is a tax credit to help employ those who risked life and limb, who endured years of family separation and who were out of the U.S. job market for one, two, three or more tours of duty in combat and hazardous situations any worse than providing tax credits to help employ anyone else?

Perhaps Demint’s idea of supporting the troops applies only while they are on active duty and once out, the only thanks those troops deserve is a swift kick to the curb.

Thank goodness Demint is the only senator who thought so, at least this time.  That's a conservative "value" this country neither needs nor appreciates.

Email test

To see if I get an email notification.

BofA to Roll in Debit-Card Dough

Poor Bank of America. Profits are down this year. Only $2 billion the first quarter of this year compared to $3.7 billion for the same period last year. That's $2 billion in three months. Thus, only $8 billion this year unless corporate heads find a way to make more.

A major reason for that nose dive is Countrywide Financial. BofA bought that corrupt mortgage lending millstone in 2008, no doubt hoping to use it as a cash cow, since Countrywide was financing some 20% of all mortages in the U.S. News that BofA was buying Countrywide sent eyebrows across the country into the stratosphere, given that the mortgage behemoth was already facing a legion of legal questions, was already shedding employees and flailing around for other ways to keep its head above water.

Instead of raking in dough, though, BofA watched Countrywide hemorrhage assets thanks to mushrooming legal woes, such as a parade of lawsuits charging deceptive lending practices, false advertising and unfair business shenanigans. One settlement with several states' attorneys general involved modifying  troubled 'predatory loans' of up to $8.4 billion dollars.

BofA has been on my radar as a money-grubber to avoid ever since its financial woes--primarily resulting from bad loans--in the late 1980s  (do the names Sam Armacost and Tom Clausen ring a bell?) when it was a San Francisco-based company, and again in 1997 ($1.4 billion to a hedge fund that went south). That resulted in the real BofA being bought like a shark swallowing a fish by NationsBank in Charlotte NC, which apparently thought the name, Bank of America, had more cachet, as that became the absorbing NationsBank's new handle.

One thing that didn't change with that acquision was bad financial decision-making. For some reason in the emerging corporate-dominant age, it wasn't enough to just be a good bank, providing good banking services to its customers. It had to keep gorging itself and bloating itself with ever-higher profits.

So how to recoup the losses from its bone-headed Countrywide and other bad decisions? The only way capitalism, American-style, knows. Find new ways to soak its customers. In the banking world, that way is to come up with even more fees it can charge its customers to use their own money. This time it's in the form of a debit-card fee.

(Don't expect any help from Congress, BTW, despite the deeply flawed 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In addition to making highly valued and effective campaign contributions, BofA plies most-favored, most likely to be swayed lawmakers with mortgage financing at noncompetitive rates, i.e. lower rates than regular customers could possibly hope to get, of which Sen. Chris Dodd was a major recipient.

I've long been way too conservative to do business with the liberally bad-deal maker BofA, which is now giving me yet another reason to keep its money-grubbing hands off my money.

Despite its history or bad-decisions, though, BofA remains a leader in the banking world and news today indicates that other banks will be following the BofA's debit-card-fee charge, and that this is just the beginning of a new round of the high cost to Americans for "banking privileges."

My understanding is that this charge is going to be an automatic monthly $5 fee (for starters, no doube), not a per-use fee like an ATM fee.

All of this is making my mattress -- and the Occupy Wall Street movement -- look more and more attractive.

GOP's Protected "Untouchables" Class

President Obama's opponents are trying to shoot down his debt-reduction plan, which includes fair treatment of rich people and for-profit corporations (=>), by charging him with waging class warfare.

Plus, they say, equalizing the tax structure to bring rates for the rich up as high as the rate middle Americans pay would reduce the debt by only 10 percent.

Ten percent? In my truly conservative opinion, I'd say that's quite a dent.

Or as my husband said, "That's a good start."

He then came up with what I think would make a great debt-reduction mantra:

"Start with fair,
Work from there."

As for declaring class warfare, that's exactly what Republican have done, proving once again that going on the offensive by accusing their enemies (yes, they do indeed consider Obama the enemy and, as they have repeatedly said that limiting him to one term is their number one priority. Not reducting the unemployment rate. Not getting Americans back to work. Not returning the middle class, which has been shipped overseas, back to the U.S. Not ending wars this country is waging in other countries. But vanquishing Obama.), of doing what they are, in fact, doing themselves.

Republicans are the ones who declared class warfare. They did that by turning millionares into a special class. By making them a class of 'untouchables'.  By putting them off limits in the "shared sacrifice" that other Americans are being told they must participate in.

BTW, notice how those who oppose leveling the rate-rate paying field are rich?

Poor Louisana GOP Rep. John Fleming is crying crocodile tears because Obama's proposal might take a bite out of the $200,000 he spends, according to his math, on feeding his family.

Fox darling Bill O'Reilly says being subjected to the same tax rate as middle Americans, which is what Obama is proposing, will prompt him to quit his $10 million-a-year TV-talk job.

Sob stories abound. 

Perry's Ponzi Scheme

So, U.S. president wanna-be Rick Perry has come out with guns a'blazing at Social Security. It's a "Ponzi scheme," he claims. It won't be there for young people when they need it. It's even unconsititutional!

First, don't you think that all of the rabid Social Security critics and fascists--particularly those with legal training--who have tried to dismantle the program in the seven decades since FDR signed it into law would have mounted legal battles and, if it really were unconstitutional, would have been able to get it struck down as such?

Second, who does Perry think he's fooling by saying Social Security won't be around for Americans who haven't yet reached 65? Even if nothing's done to change anything, it will be fully funded for the next 25 years. And by making one simple change--raising the $106,000 cap on which income is subject to Social Security tax, or better yet removing the cap altogether--it can be solvent for a great deal longer. (Yes, that's right, folks, all those mega millionaires who already skate on paying their "fair share" of taxes on the lucre that overflows their coffers, pay nothing into Social Security over the first $106,000 of their income. That cap is just one more way the rich guys have bought off lawmakers.)

Third--and most important--by saying Social Security has got to go and that people need to rely on private pensions, Perry is providing irrefutable proof that he's been living either under a rock or in deep space for the past decade. It was during his fellow Texan's turn at the presidential till that private pensions began to disappear--just ask United Airline employees whose wonderful pensions were simply confiscated--as company execs and boards of directors began to raid employee pension funds to cover their faltering operations budgets.

And that's for the folks who are 'fortunate' enough to have jobs that even provide any benefits at all. So, what are the "private pensions" is Perry talking about? 401Ks? IRAs? CDs? The stock market? Storing gold bricks in the closet?

Oh my god, no, Mr. Perry! Ain't no way anybody is ever going to have any kind of retirement fund if it's going to be up to you and the greedy, grasping, heartless, soulless corporate world.

Social Security is exactly what its name says it is. It provides at least a modicum of security for aging people in our society and for their children and grandchildren so they won't be burdened with having to support granny and great-grandma in addition to their own children and hope for any kind of a decent lifestyle. Social Security keeps everyone--except the mega rich like Mr. Perry and his well-heeled cronies who don't need it--from becoming impoverished and being put in the poorhouse.

Oh wait! Poorhouses don't exist anymore, do they. And when they did, they were government institutions, weren't they? So I'm sure Perry will make sure they don't resurface. 'Cause no gubment is good gubment, is it Mr. Rick "I want to be prezdent of what I think is evil" Perry?

Nope, I'm way too conservative to want to trust my future and that of my children, children and great-grandchildren, or the well-being of The People of this country to a Perry parisite of what he wants to destroy (keeping in mind that he will keep intact any way he and his ilk can benefit from a government program as he has done so well as governor of Texas).

Regulate this!

Everyday, somewhere someone (generally with an "R" party designation) blames 'over regulation' for our country's economic woes, its trade deficit, the horrendously high national debt, obscenely profitable corporations' refusal to create jobs, the nation's devastatingly high unemployment rate, and probably even toenail fungus.

Everyday, I find reason to celebrate and give thanks for government regulations.

This morning, it was when I learned my son was sick with what he suspected was food poisoning.

This afternoon it was an NPR "Fresh Air" interview with the author of a book about how A&P changed the way Americans shop.

It wasn't that I was celebrating or thankful that my son had food poisoning. Learning about his plight made me think for at least the millionth time how amazing it is that food poisoning isn't more rampant that it is, and remind myself that a major reason that it isn't is  -- ta-da! -- government regulation.

As for the "Fresh Air" program, the descriptions of how food was sold in the "good old days" really amped up my appreciation for government regulations. Back in those days, grain, meal and even vinegar was transported, sans inspection for contaminants or noshing and nesting varmints, in wooden barrels. Once in the general store, those barrels were often left open or at least unsealed where they could be -- and often were -- invaded by whatever opportunistic life form happened to be around.

So, strip away regulations that "keep companies from creating jobs" and you get to buy dry goods and all kinds of food supplies -- and these days, all kinds of processed foods, which is just about all a lot of people put in their mouths -- that might be riddled with weevils and/or maggots, cut with sawdust and watered down with, well, with water which might be contaminated.

Also, because scales in grocery stores of old could vary widely from one store to another, if we go back to those good old unregulated days when merchants, manufacturers and corporations "had the freedom" to conduct their businesses however they wanted to, unless you carry your own scales with you when you shop, the "pound" of hamburger you think you're buying might very well weigh only 14.5 or 15 ounces. And should you be fore-thinking enough to carry your own scales, any discrepancy you find will simply devolve into a "he-said, she-said" argument.

What Rs demonize as  business-crushing regulations, I see as efforts of our government to keep us safe, to try to keep mega agri-farms from fouling ground water and feces-laden run off from getting into neighboring streams and rivers, to keep asthma- and other respiratory-damaging pollutants from filling the only air we have to breathe, and to keep food-producing/processing/packaging/transporting/selling people from sickening and killing us with bacteria-laden food.

Deregulation advocates maintain that if people aren't happy with a company, they'll take their business elsewhere. I say, when, after they're dead or maimed? Heck, these same corpor-ites and their elected lackeys are making sure we can't even sue for such malfeasances in court. So what incentive  would they have to put people's health and well being or the public good above making as big a profit as they possible can unless the government regulates them?

I keep hoping (in vain, so far) that someone, some news organization with a mass-media megaphone would pin these regulation demonizers down on just what they would deregulate. Chances are they will be very liberal about wanting to slash all manner of regulations that either don't affect them or that don't put money in their pockets (like those who demand spending cuts in every program that doesn't benefit them or that they aren't slopping at the trough at.

As for me, I'm truly conservative about not letting people who run companies for a pure profit motive to operate completely unchecked or with no oversight. We see over and over what the henhouse looks like with nothing but foxes standing at the ready.

What Qualifies Wisconsin's Junior Senator?

Wisconsin’s junior senator has been on my mind lately—not because I think he’s doing a great job as one of this state’s two U.S. senators or that I’ve initiated any thoughts about him at all. It’s that his name has appeared a couple of times in the news and he was the subject of an email exchange someone I know had with Ron Johnson’s office staff.

First, the email exchange. My acquaintance contacted Johnson’s office about the debt ceiling/national debt and the need for a balanced solution of spending cuts and increasing revenue.

After seven paragraphs of explaining that the country was in dire fiscal straits, denigrating the President and Democrats for being irresponsible and not being serious, his staff email responder finally wrote, “I agree that we need a balanced approach which includes spending controls and increased revenue. But we need to increase revenue the old fashioned way, by growing our economy.”

That really set my friend off.

“After reading that,” she said, “I had to contact his office again. I asked how the heck were we to raise much needed revenue "the old fashioned way" when all of the policies he is pursuing put a stranglehold on economic growth. The policies he is pursuing cut public sector jobs, so those folks don't have money to spend to grow the economy. He pursues limits to social security, unemployment benefits and other social safety nets, so those people don't have money to spend to grow the economy. He pursues policies that undermine private sector wages, so those people have less money to spend to grow the economy. He is all for putting money in the pockets of people who already have more money than they need, and for ensuring those who would increase their spending of possible don't have enough to even cover the basics. 70% of our economy comes from consumer spending, yet he consistently pursues policies that guarantee consumers have less to spend. Then he turns around and makes a comment in his email to explain why he's against raising revenue by closing loopholes and letting the Bush tax cuts expire. From where, in God's name, does he expect the revenue our country needs to come??? Companies have plenty of capital with which to expand...they are sitting on mounds of revenue...but there is no demand for their goods and services 'cause none of us have any money to spend. It's all fine and good that Ron Johnson wants to raise revenue "the old fashioned way," but it's disingenuous (at best) to make such a statement in light of his concerted effort to take money out of the hands of those who actually can grow the economy and redistributed upward to those who are already hoarding significant ill-gotten gains.”

The first news mention. Johnson's name appeared on an opinion piece in Sunday’s Journal Sentinel Crossroads section. His was the anti position opposing President Obama’s judicial appointments, with U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin saying that long-vacant federal judgeships in Wisconsin need to be filled. The headline on the Johnson column was, “These nominees aren’t qualified.”

Whether they are or aren’t, all I could think was, here’s a plastics man who achieved his position as company CEO after marrying into the family that owned it before becoming a U.S. senator only six months ago. So what the heck would he know from who would be qualified to be a federal judge? Does he even know what a federal judge does?

The second news mention was the subject of a Wisconsin PolitiFact Check in which Johnson was rated him almost off the meter “True” to his statement that, “The federal government is spending 25% of our entire economy vs. 100 years ago we spent only 2%.”

I could only think, who would want to turn the clock back to those days?

A guy who posts at Toritto's blog gives a hint of what that might have been like, although he goes back only 70 or 80 years. His post about that was picked up by Salon.com, which can be seen here: http://open.salon.com/blog/toritto/2011/07/25/life_before_social_security

The truth of Johnson's statement is like saying the sky is always blue. That's true. It always is -- even on the cloudiest days. Above the thickest cloud layer, the sky is perpetually blue. That, like the virtures of an unfunded federal government, all depends on a person's point of view -- and access to government resources any way.

Decline of Great Civilizations

People wonder why great civilations like Greece decline. Greece, where even those who ARE assessed taxes don't pay them.

Which modern-day countries have robust economies and relatively properous populations? Those that assess and collect tax revenue to fund services for their people.

Think Germany, which is almost single-handledly, propping up the Euro, and Scandanavian countries, where education through college and health care is government funded and their people have the highest rated standard of living and are rated to be the most satisfied. Those countries have surged ahead of the U.S. -- or rather -- the U.S. has fallen behind them in almost every standard-of-living measure, such as longevity, infant mortality, education, health, and medical care.

And in this country, which touts a democracy in which the majority rules, a vicious, short-sighted, ego-centric minority has hijacked the government and held it hostage in the name of defunding so much of what contributes to a decent standard of living for so many.

One of Wisconsin's U.S. senators, Ron Johnson, apparently doesn't agree. He carps that "The federal government is spending 25% of our entire economy vs. 100 years ago when we spent only 2%." (More about Mr. Johnson in a future blog post.)

A hundred years ago when, according to a political fact-checking service, the government did little more than deliver the mail?

So we should turn back the clock to the day when the government did nothing to protect its people from disease, contaminated water/air/food, free-flowing sewage, ignorance and so much else that contributes to being a superpower? Isn't that unbelievably callous and hypocritical from a self-professed Christian multimillionaire (isn't that an oxymoron, according to what Jesus said?) who can easily pay for anything he wants/needs, thanks to government pay, benefits, subsidies and tax laws that favor the rich and corporations? (Mr. Johnson is CEO of a plastics company owned by a family he married into.)

Wouldn't someone who claims to be conservative want to conserve not only his country's high standard of living, but the health, safety and well-being of the majority of its people and, thus, the strength, power and first-rate standing of his/her country?

Middle-Americans' Sisyphus Dilemma

On what model is this tea-bagged, Grover Norquist small-government, world based? What country now or historically has had a "small government" and had a robust economy and properous population -- not just for the richest few, but for the population in general?

These are questions that came to mind this morning as I read about the debt-ceiling deal announced between President Obama and the Republican minority in Congress.

The more I read, the more my conservative sensibilities were shaken. Political pundits in attempting to understand and explain the president's dealings with the so-called "opposition" speculate that he's truly a conservative. If so, why then has he so liberally OK'd Republican demands that will put the vast majority of The People in this country at risk?

Why is he so liberal in agreeing to unproven and untested policies that not only shrink the government but guarantee that the gaping divide between the moneyed and the rest of the country will continue to grow unabated?

Why doesn't he and whoever is advising him to follow this path to middle-America disaster look at the prospering nations around the world -- Germany, for instance, which has anything but small government policies, has a strong union-based workforce and has weathered the global financial crisis that has felled other countries' economies?

Why isn't the president being equally liberal in demanding a greater investment in the U.S. from the richest and corporate elite?

Why does he think the people who are shouldering the tax burden of those who are skating -- the multi-millionaires who can claim their income as capital gains and, thus, benefit from a 15-20% lower tax rate than the rest of us -- will continue to agree that those policies are a good idea?  

Get in the Front of the Line!

A long-ago school classmate with whom I remain in touch is almost religiously sanctimonious about self reliance, individual responsibility, the virtues of capitalism, and the evils of big government, government spending and social programs.

This person personifies the current polarization in which I see tea partiers serving as rocket launchers that have just about blasted the Republican Party off the cliff to the right. And they epitomize hyprocisy. Here's why:

This man and his siblings were raised by a single mother who supported her family by working as a public school teacher, which, of course, means she was paid by the government.

After his graduation from high school, he received a taxpayer-funded U.S. military academy, then had 20-plus year military career, which included not only his tax-funded pay, but benefits, including healthcare that was essentially free to him.

After retiring from the military and receiving a military pension and, again, almost free to him, healthcare, he went to work for a major defense contractor which receives a vast amount of its revenue from government (tax-funded) contracts.

In other words, during the nearly 70 years of his life, he has benefitted almost entirely from government funding.

My eternal question about him and so many of his like-minded ideologues, is why government spending and enjoying a comfortable lifestyle, which this man does, is fine for them, but not for their fellow Americans?

Even Alan Simpson, a 22-year U.S. senator, thus recipient of a federal pension and healthcare benefits, and who recently served as co-chair President Obama's commission on reducing the federal deficits, is one the "310 million" Americans sucking on his "milk cow" analogy of Social Security. Only he's been suckling for a lifetime.

Being truly conservative, I say people like my childhood acquaintance and Mr. Simpson, who are so liberal with their rhetoric that government should cut spending, shred the social safety net and eliminate benefits for others, need to step--or be shoved--to the front of the line of those they say should not be on the government payroll or dole.

Democrat is Ignorant for Democratic

Keith Olbermann, Lawrence O'Donnell and other nonRepublican mouthpieces rankle when they hear Repubs use the word Democrat when the correct word is Democratic, e.g. Barack Obama is a Democrat president instead of the correct Barack Obama is a Democratic president.

I say, let 'em go, Keith, Lawrence and all you other nonRepub broadcast show hosts and pundits. It simply makes them sound ignorant.

If you can't let it go, then when you correct or say "Democratic", at least follow that by pointing out that when people use the wrong word/term, especially repeatedly, they sound ignorant.

Economy-Tanking Tax Cuts

Minnesota Congressional Rep. Michele Bachmann officially declared her presidential candidacy yesterday and vowed to get the U.S. economy going again by cutting corporate taxes.

That raises the question I ask -- and wish more media voice pieces would also ask -- every time I hear Bachmann, Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and so many others who call themselves fiscal conservatives say that cutting taxes is the way to economicy prosperity in this country.

My question is, if cutting taxes brings economic prosperity, why did the country's economy tank after Bush II cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003?

A follow-up question is when, in U.S. history, did the economy boom as a result of tax cuts?

I find lots of assertions and postulations in Internet searches theorizing that cutting taxes puts more money in consumers' hands to spend on goods and services, thus increasing tax revenues, but nothing indicating when that has actually occurred to the point that it boosted the economy.

Conversely, we have a very real and painful recent example of when and how cutting taxes -- especially while at the same time waging two horrendously expensive, yet unfunded, wars and a horrendously expensive, unfunded Medicare drug benefit -- plunged the nation into the worst recession since it dug its way out of the Great Depression by, not cutting taxes, but with government spending that put Americans back to work.

Evidence abounds in other countries' tax policies. Which country in the developed war suffered the least in the recent and ongoing global financial crisis? Germany, which is a high-tax country. Which countries are suffering the most? How about Greece, whose population is renowned for not paying taxes.

Contrarians assert that World War II should be credited as the real reason America recovered from the Depression. That no doubt contributed. But why? Government spending and imposing taxes to cover, at least in part, the cost of that war.

So why didn't the Bush-era tax cuts infuse the economy with lots of revenue thanks to consumers having more money to spend? One reason is that people didn't spend the money they no longer sent to Uncle Sam. They paid off credit debt and put it into savings. The other is that the vast majority of the cuts went to those in the highest income bracket, who also didn't spend it on consumer goods -- unless you count yachts (a yacht manufacturer in Wisconsin after years of benefiting from Bush tax cuts closed down for a while in 2009 because business dried up and got millions in government assistance a couple of months ago) -- but invested it in Wall Street.

Americans in lower income brackets are not only still waiting for that to trickle down, but are shouldering the tax burden that has been -- and increasingly continues to be -- shifted from the wealthy and big business to the rest of us.

The Real "Me" and Gov't Handouts

Wisconsin resident Daniel Vitek complained in a letter to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the country "is being turned into a socialist state with the people and weak-kneed political hacks giving into the big labor unions demanding more and more handouts."

The country Mr. Vitek grew up, he wrote, "put self reliance and hard work first. ... Today it's all 'me' and handouts from big government."

There was more, but I'll stick with these excerpts.

(1) The handouts I'm aware of that union have demanded were for the most part benefits tradeoffs companies, pleading poverty, offered in lieu of payraises. Mr. Vitek, as a Wisconsin resident and presumptive newspaper reader, should know that those benefits are being rolled back, wholesale. Not only are union members' benefits shrinking, the politicians currently running this state have essentially stripped public-worker unions of collective bargaining rights and, thus, greatly diminished the union-initiated worker protections, higher pay and better workplace conditions that benefited all working Americans, whether union members or not. The decimation of private-sector unions began more than 30 years ago. Thus, those "big labor unions" Mr. Vitek so dispises and villifies are about as yesteryear as the cold war's communist scourge.

(2) The 'handouts' Mr. Vitek so resents laid the foundation for better pay, working conditions, and safer working conditions that resulted in better pay and safer working conditions for all Americans, including Mr. Vitek.

(3) The roads and highways Mr. Vitek drives on, the clean air, safe water and food supply he benefits from and so much more that contribute to Mr. Vitek's healthier life and good standard of living -- and the Social Security and Medicare I would bet anything Mr. Vitek receives -- are all parts of a social-sharing system that help stitch our country together. So too are the law enforcement, legal system, fire protection and myriad other "socialistic" benefits Mr. Vitek receives, thanks to his membershp in this democracy. That memberhip does have dues. They're called taxes.

(4) I'm flummoxed that Mr. Vitek is so resentful of self-reliant, hard-working Americans who band together to pressure employers to provide living wages for their labor, yet has no problem with the government's socialistic policies of this giving handouts the size of Jupiter to corporations that are pulling in record profits.

(5) The stunner though, was Mr. Vitek equating union actions with today's "all about me" narcissism. What could be more narcissistic and "all me" than American-style capitalism?

No Level Playing Field Allowed

The U.S. Supreme Court on  5-4 ruling today squashed a significant provision of Arizona's public campaign-finance law, saying the state's attempt to try to level the playing field for candidates for public office was unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS Supreme 5 seems to have confused "free speech" with "money talks." Or worse, maybe they haven't.

What Would Ghandi Say?

New York Times columnist Charles Blow posts the link to his columns on Facebook the day before publication and invites his FB Friends to let him know what they think. So yesterday I read today's column, "Them That's Not Shall Lose" @ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/opinion/25blow.html.

Among the comments he got was this one:

"Mahatma Ghandi: 'A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.'"

That brought to mind the biblical passage in Matthew in which Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me."

Another commentor was thinking along the same lines. She wrote:

"For the religious politicians see Matthew 25:41-46: 'Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, ...I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'"
 
And that brought to mind the Congressional debt-ceiling impass in which, from what I understand, Republicans are resolute about not ending government subsidies to highly profitable oil companies which benefit their obscenely rich executives, yet are demanding cuts in government assistance to "the least" among us.

Charles Blow included this quote in his column:

“Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.”

One of his FB Friends observed. "...which is true, again, in like 10 different ways - literally, every thing costs more - interest is higher, offers for loans are worse and more costly and you money isn't at work on the stock market while you are at work making more - a hundred dollars for a poor person equals 10,000 in real life - and it REALLY does - it is EXTREMELY expensive to be poor - extremely. say it again and again - tell it over and over ..."

That's true not only for the individual who is poor, it is true for a nation that grows poverty, that increasingly widens the gap between its rich and poor citizens, that reduces the buying power of its middle- and low-income groups, which the U.S. is doing a lot of these days. 

It costs our country far more in financial and human capital and in national potential to not take care of its poor than it would if we did.

That just makes good truly conservative sense. 

"For the religious politicians see Matthew 25:41-46: 'Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, ...I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'"

The Real Downward Spiral

GOP presidential hopeful T.PAWlenty (what he reportedly prefers to be known as) railed at the RightOnline convention in Minneapolis yesterday that it's imperative to elect more regressives (my word, not his) to high office and "end the downward spiral this country's in."

But, wait! I shot back (granted it was only at my NPR-tuned radio). Wasn't it the regressive policies of the previous president and fellow corporate/megawealthy-friendly elected officials that plunged this country off the cliff in the first place?

This is but one factor that is viewed through what seems like opposite sides of the looking glass and result in such diametrically different ideas about conditions and policies that form our society and increasingly polarizes the country.

Take the impact labor unions have had on the national economy, for example.

One view is that unions, not corporations, have been the tide that has lifted all boats in this country. Working and workplace conditions, which unions have fought to improve, including job-safety regulations, child-labor restrictions and work-day and work-week limitations eventually became the law of the land, thus benefitting the nation's entire workforce, non-unionized as well as unionized. All workers in the U.S. benefitted from the higher wages, pension contributions and healthcare benefits unions won for their workers.

Then along came globalization and corporate operations and jobs, particularly manufacturing operations and jobs that had formed the backbone of what is viewed as America's middle class, evaporated from American cities and emerged in other countries, countries where the manufacturers didn't have to be bothered with such nettlesome and expensive gnats as healthcare and retirement benefits and livable, by U.S. standards, wages.

This view sees unions as villains. By demanding ever-higher wages and ever-more costly benefits for their workers, unions priced America out of the employment market and drove employers overseas to labor markets where workers are happy to work for a fraction of what companies have to pay Americans and who don't demand or even expect retirement and healthcare benefits.

In the other view, corporations are the villians. It is corporate greed that sends corporations to labor markets when they can pay wages at a fraction of what they would have to pay U.S. workers. That enables corporations to pile up ever-greater company profits, enrich their investors with ever-larger dividends and, in the appallingly incestuous corporate board-of-directors system, reward their top executives more and more obscenely bloated compensation packages and bonuses.

Which view is correct? Perception will probably always depend on which side of the looking glass the viewer is looking at. But here is a reality that, so far as I'm concerned, blows a hole in T.PAWlenty's rant.

For corporations to pay pennies-on-the-dollar wages for goods -- and now even services -- they produce, they are not only driving down their own costs and, thus, increase their profits, which are at record highs -- they are driving down the standard of living in the United States.

The downward spiral this country is in is a correction to the global workforce employers have accessed. As more Americans have less access to what used to be good-paying manufacturing jobs, they have less income to spend on the goods and services employers are providing via foreign workers.

Spending less on goods and services in this country results in less revenue for public services. Just think about the myriad ways people are finding to cut corners: Don't eat out as much, put off major and even minor purchases, take 'staycations' because they can't afford the travel, accommodation and entertainment expenses traditional vacations involve. Not only are the travel, restaurant, hotel and amusement park industries making less, so too are taxes associated with such expenditures drying up.

So now in addition to Americans being paid less and finding fewer jobs in the private sector, they're being laid off in the public-service sector, which results in their having less income to spend on goods and services.

As a result, instead of "keeping up with the Jones", Americans are being forced into "moving down with the Chans."

That, T.PAWlenty, is a downward spiral.

Norquist Appropriates (R)s' Fealty

I keep hearing and reading about a pledge a private citizen named Grover Norquist who has no official position in government at any level forcing  Republicans elected to Congress to sign a pledge to not raise any taxes of any kind or anything that smells like a tax without an equal amount being cut in some other area.

My question is what are these elected officials doing commiting fealty to an individual who has no constitutional or legal authority over them when they have taken an oath to their constituents to represent them and act in their best interest?

Wisconsin High Court Enables Legislative Tyranny

What's the point of passing a law that requires public entities to give a defined period of advance notice of a public meeting -- but exempts the entity that makes the law? That's what four members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court said yesterday is legal and constitutional.

Wisconsin's open meeting law requires 24-hour notice. The Republican-dominated state Assembly gave less than two hours notice earlier this year when it scheduled a vote on a highly controversial and divisive bill to ban public-employee collective bargaining rights for everything including pay increases that exceed the rate of inflation.

The four-member Supreme Court majority posited that a "lower court judge who voided the law on grounds that lawmakers violated Wisconsin’s open meetings law while passing it 'invaded the legislature’s constitutional powers.'"
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57010.html#ixzz1PLerN0lf)

So does that mean the Legislature can create any law it wants, but doesn't have to abide by it?

If the third branch of government has no say in how the second branch of government conducts the People's business, haven't the four-member majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in their ruling, effectively negated the balance of power that forms the foundation of democracy in this country?

In the four-member majority's version of the rule of law, what's to prevent legislative tyranny in Wisconsin? Certainly not the Legislature's tyrannical partner, Scott Walker

Tin Ears and Bad Policy

(The headline on this post I really wanted to use is "After 10 Years of Temporary Tax Cuts Where Are the Jobs?" But I'll save that for another post.)

A friend recently tried to communicate with one of his U.S. senators about the country's debt situation and ended up as frustrated as I am about the tin ear of the current crop of tp pols and the total absurdity of their ideology.

Part of that absurdity is tpers' thinking that reducing revenue increases economic prosperity. That has never been the case historically and certainly isn't true for families or individuals. Ditto the business world and just about every other aspect of society.

People and companies traditionally seek ways to increase their income as a means of achieving economic viability, stability and security. Of course, they have to be fiscally responsible, but after cutting expenses down to necessities, the consequences become pretty dire.

So how does reducing government revenue work any differently? The major cause of the fix the U.S. is in is the Bush administration eight-year spending binge that, because they took a cut in pay, they charged on the nation's credit card. So now, tpers rationalize that the secret to getting out of this hole is to shrink the size of government, which means slashing benefits and services.

But what they mean is to cut government benefits and services for other people and for programs that don't affect them.

Remember tper signs during the summer of tp rage? "No socialized healthcare" but "Keep your hands off my Medicare."

Even as newly elected tp pols took office in January, some were outraged that their  GOVERNMENT-FUNDED healthcare didn't kick in immediately, but involved a short waiting period before they became effective.

Even tp governors who are slashing state government and government-funded services jump immediately to request federally funded emergency help when their states or areas in their states are devastated by natural disasters. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker applied for federal funds in the wake of a winter blizzard, Alabama and Missouri governors sought federal aid after tornados tore up regions of those states.

Then there is pathetic Texas Gov. Rick Perry who talked possible session last year then whined pitifully that Pres. Barack Obama had ignored his state when wildfires plagued it yet visited Alabama when tornados flattened parts of that state.

All the while, thanks to these same tpers, multinational corporations that are pulling in record profits (while much of America is losing wealth) are not only not paying their way -- i.e. they're getting a free ride -- we, the people who've lost jobs, homes, pensions and wages, are paying these fat cats subsidies and funding their tax credits.

Below is a letter my friend sent to novice Ohio Sen. Rob Portman followed by Portman's "reply," which really is stretching the meaning of that word.

But first, an observation: It is obvious from my friend's letter that he is (1) a senior citizen,  (2) a retired decorated military officer, (3) never indicated that he goes by anything other than his given name, which is Richard. Yet, this elected official cavalierly addresses him as "Dick."

As another aside, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof points to the long-term consequences of a tp ideology in his column in today's Times, which is at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?

Here is my friend's letter:

Dear Senator Portman

As a preface, let me tell you who I am. I am a Centerville, Oh resident. I am a veteran of 28 years service in the USAF. I served as a combat aircrew member during what is now being called the Southeast Asia war and have been decorated for valor during that war only to be spat upon on my arrival back in the country. I am retired on a fixed income and my wife and I depend on Medicare, Wright-Patterson Medical Center, and Tricare for Life for our medical needs. Our income comes from Social Security and my Air Force pension. We live comfortably but not ostentatiously. I am an Independent voter.

The time has come to balance our National Budget and begin to reduce our debt. I get the sense that the Congress and leadership of the country believes that we can do this by reducing spending alone. To me, this is an absurd conclusion. I am sick and tired of listening to the mantra, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Sir, we have a revenue problem and should admit to it.

Throughout history nations have funded wars through tax increases. With the advent of 9/11 we seemed to have decided to do the opposite. We have entered into two Wars of Convenience that have, and continue to, severely strain our funds, yet we instituted a "temporary" tax reduction in 2002 which continues to this day. This reduction in taxes has further strained our budget but seems to have had no positive impact other than to satisfy the obscenely rich. I hear reports on the news of families with incomes of over $250K who say they cannot make ends meet without the temporary tax cut. They clearly do not have a revenue problem but rather a spending problem. The tax levels during the late 1990s were not oppressive and allowed us to balance the budget. I keep hearing Washington pundits say that this temporary tax cut will enable small businesses to create new jobs. After 10 years of temporary reductions where are the jobs? Compare unemployment rates in 2001 to what we have today. It is time to admit we have a revenue problem.

A return to the tax levels of the 1990s will be a great step forward toward balancing the budget. That, coupled with intelligent reductions across the entire spectrum, will put us on the proper path. I and many of my colleagues, believe that a return to the 1990s level will not overly strain our financial position. Those making less will see a minuscule increase. Those making more will see a proportional increase and should be able to meet their tax demands. Now, remember, I am not calling for a tax increase but rather the end of a temporary tax reduction. I am convinced that this should delay, or eliminate the need for, a much greater tax increase in the future.

I hope that you, and your colleagues, will open your minds to the need for abolishing the temporary tax cuts of 2002.

I also subscribe to the need to reform Social Security and Medicare. This can be done by an increase in age eligibility, a substantial increase in the wage ceiling, and a reasonable increase in medicare monthly premiums. We also need to look toward cost reductions and delivery of care options. A move toward "privatization" is not the answer.

Please consider proposing reasonable modifications to our social programs. Let's improve Medicare and not proliferate "mediscare".

Sincerely,

Richard L. Brice
LT. Col USAF (ret)

Portman Responded:

Dear Dick,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about TRICARE. I understand your displeasure with the changes in TRICARE proposed in President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012. It is good to hear from you.

I have a great appreciation for our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much for our nation. I am committed to supporting our troops in their retirement years. In order to do this effectively, we must get our fiscal house in order. As Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted, the national debt is the single biggest threat to national security.

As you may be aware, the TRICARE fee increases proposed in the President's budget only impact retirees under 65 enrolled in TRICARE Prime, the managed care network. Retirees who use TRICARE Standard or TRICARE for Life would not see higher fees. Retirees' annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Prime would climb by $60, to $520, for families and by $30, to $260, for singles. This fee would be indexed to Medicare cost increases. These changes would result in a five-year savings of $430 million for the Department of Defense.

The President's budget also makes changes to copays for drugs for TRICARE beneficiaries in order to encourage greater use of generic and mail order prescription drugs. These changes could save TRICARE $2.6 billion over five years.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the vice chairman; and the four services' chiefs of staff sent a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee supporting the TRICARE proposals. They stated, "We understand that any changes to health care benefits create concern among the people we serve and the communities from which we receive care. . . . Our approach is careful, gradual, and responsible."

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will keep your views on TRICARE in mind. For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Rob Portman

I responded:

I don't believe you read my letter completely. I merely stated that I receive my medical care through Tricare. I said nothing regarding the proposed increase in premiums. Currently Tricare for Life costs me nothing. I would not be averse to a small premium. What I did say in my letter was that I believe that the 2002 TEMPORARY tax cuts should be terminated. I also said that Medicare must be revamped but not in the way the Republican Part is advocating.
It is most discouraging to see one of my Senators replying to a letter with "Stock Reply XXX" just because I used the term "TriCare". I hope you attention to matters in the Senate is more focused. We need to let tax cuts expire in order to build our revenue stream. Simply cutting programs will not solve our national problems

Sincerely Disappointed,

Richard L Brice, Lt. Col. USAF, Ret.

Demonizing Girl Scouts

This story, http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-21/girl-scouts-and-abortion-pro-life-groups-target-gsusa/#, is further proof that I am truly conservative and that the "conservative" label is erroreously applied to others who are anything but.

This story headline beggers the question, "Why Are Pro-Lifers Targeting The Girl Scouts?" There are so many things wrong about this including using the label "Pro-Lifers" for people who are, again, anything but.

Then there is the subhead that says, "They sell cookies, they earn merit badges, they---promote abortion? ...two teens from Texas are accusing the Girl Scouts of creating boot-stomping, sexualized radicals."

After I put my eyes back in my head and stopped saying, "What?!?!!?!," I updated my Facebook status with this:

"These girls' ideology & mores may be fine for them, but that doesn't mean others--including the GS--need to conform to them or that anyone who doesn't is bad, immoral, evil, subversive or radical. If these girls object to how the GS operate, they should find another organization."

But that isn't the m.o. of people who have a radical, regressive and double-standard agenda.

I use the same label, radical, on these folks as they do on those who are not on their ideological track because that is a favorite, and often effective, tactic they use to put others on the defensive. If they call you what they are first, you waste your time and energy defending yourself and arguing that you aren't, instead of proving that they are.

Equally suspect about that subhead are the words "boot-stomping" and "sexualized." What, I can't help but wonder, is wrong with boot-stomping girls, particulary when the mission of the GS is to promote girls' independence and self-sufficiency. I would far rather girls know how to stomp their boots when they spy a spider or a mouse or other pest than to squeal and leap onto chairs.

And sexualized? Well, what the heck! Girls are sexual beings. That's what makes them girls, shes and hers, and not things and its.

I salute and congratulate this organization for girls that is contributing to their awareness and understanding of their sexuality and to help them understand the the responsibilities associated with that. Perhaps it is the weak, misguided thinking of these true radicals that talking about sex, reproduction, birth control and related topics is going to turn them into wildly promiscuous sluts.

If these Texas teens and others of their ilk have a problem with that they need to look elsewhere for their social wants and needs, and not be so liberally impose their constipating ignorance and psychological chasity belts on others.

They might believe that their objection to the mission, policies or programs of scouting organizations gives them the right to impose their ideology on mainstream organizations or to change them. Well, I have very strong objections to the agendas, philosophies and politics of organizations these Texas teens and those behind them, but my tax dollars support them anyway.

So what else is wrong about this story and the offended teens? How about calling themselves "pro-life" when they, or at least their adult enablers, are generally pro-death penalty, pro-war, and pretty much life-neglecters once the unborn become born---at least so far as the generic "unborn" is concerned. How much more accurate the label "pro-unborn" is.

Then there is the double-standard aspect.

Again, generalizing, the same folks who ascribe to the uber-Christian, sexuality-denying, ignorance-promoting agenda are hauling a whole lot of water for the small, and even anti-, government "get your nose out of my business" crowd.

Translation for that kind of rhetoric is "get your nose out of my business, but it's OK for me to get government to let me poke my nose into your business." And that applies mostly to the most personal and intimate aspects of other people's lives that does not impact economically or in any other way on the lives of the sanctimously self-righteous, publicly pious who are advocating their impositions.

So why are these radical, regressive and double-standard people so successful at injecting their ideology into mainstream society? Because we let them. We are so reticent to offend---particularly when anything smacks of so-called Christian/Christianity---or to lay claim to the legitimacy of our own beliefs, life choices and humanity.

When I asked on Facebook why the insanity of these morality police and their surrogate children trumps everyone else's beliefs/daily life, a Friend opined that it is, "The confidence of bigotry." 

The Reinvention of the Internet

I have made my share of mistakes and misstatements, including in print as a journalist and as a blogger. I do try to be as conservative as I can, though, in refraining from doing so and think those charged with informing others -- particularly those in official and/or professional positions -- should do the same.

On NPR this morning, Weekend Edition Saturday host Scott Simon, in observing that the world didn't come to an end as some religious proselytizer had predicted, listed what he apparently thought were other infamous false claims, including that former Vice President Al Gore had claimed to have invented the Internet.

It might not make any difference, but I sent Scott Simon the following email:

Dear Scott Simon:

I'm shocked that you, of all people, would perpetuate the myth that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. He didn't. He was, however, instrumental in sponsoring legislation that created what Gore called "The Information Superhighway." Here are excerpts from Wikipedia (verified by other sources):

(1) "Of Gore's involvement in the then-developing Internet while in Congress, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have also noted that, 'As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high-speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.[3]'

24 Jun 1986: Albert Gore introduces S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986 [4]

Kleinrock would later credit both Gore and the Gore Bill as a critical moment in Internet history:

(2) "A second development occurred around this time, namely, then-Senator Al Gore, a strong and knowledgeable proponent of the Internet, promoted legislation that resulted in President George H.W Bush signing the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. This Act allocated $600 million for high performance computing and for the creation of the National Research and Education Network [13–14]. The NREN brought together industry, academia and government in a joint effort to accelerate the development and deployment of gigabit/sec networking.[8]

The bill was passed on Dec. 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII)[9] which Gore referred to as the 'information superhighway'."

(3) Here is Gore's claim: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."[52]

(4) "Former UCLA professor of information studies, Philip E. Agre and journalist Eric Boehlert argued that three articles in Wired News led to the creation of the widely spread urban legend that Gore claimed to have 'invented the Internet,' which followed this interview."[53][54][55]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology

I think you are a journalist, Mr. Simon. As such, your code of ethics includes these words, "...speak the truth." Even if you're not, as a radio -- particularly a National Public Radio (which holds itself to pretty high standards) -- you have a responsibility to inform your listeners, not misinform or perpetuate myths just so you can be snarky. For the sake of NPR's and your own credibility, I think you have an obligation to your listeners to correct the record. Thank you.

Call Big Oil Execs What They Are. Narcissistic Socialists

An email landed in my inbox today from President Barack Obama's re-election campaign manager Jim Messina that caused a visceral reaction. Here's the reply I sent him. (I've pasted in Messina's email in below this reply.)

Dear Jim, et al,

I am amazed that smart people like you, your boss and all (D) pols, whether in the Senate or otherwise, don't call those sanctimonious hypocritical oil executives and their (R) -- and let's face it, some (D) -- enablers what they are:  Socialists.
At least so far as how they want the U.S. government to treat them.

They want government handouts. They want, nay demand! that taxpayers--Middle Americans like me--to give them public assistance.

You need to tell them to get off the dole. Tell them they don't need to be on the government welfare rolls. Tell them that taking government handouts is not the American Capitalistic Way.

Those sanctimonious hypocritical oil execs and their (R) -- and let's face it, some (D) -- enablers who stick "free enterprise" and "free market" labels all over themselves like race car drivers' sponsor logos need to be told to practice what they preach. A true "free market" doesn't rely on government subsidies, tax incentives or anything but the sweat of their own brow, their own boot straps, their own ingenuity.

For them to want, to ask for, to demand, to take government assistance makes them the same kind of parasites they accuse others who receive government assistance of being.

Let Middle Americans like me hear you and your (D) leaders call out these parasitic freeloaders for what they are.

Call them on their blackmailing rhetoric. No way are they going to stop or reduce drilling in this country just because the government stops coughing up ransom that is a pittance to them, but is big bucks to us and to the federal budget. They say that if you take away their government subsidies and "raise" their taxes (how about just make them pay taxes at all!), they'll have to pass those costs along to consumers. Three thoughts:

(1) Isn't "private enterprisers" passing operating/production costs along to customers what American Capitalism is all about?

(2) Rather than using the elimination of government subsidies and acting like patriotic Americans (even though these companies are multinational) as just one more excuse to further gouge Middle Americans, how about those companies take those costs out of their ever-burgeoning, ever record-setting profits?
(3) How come those esteemed senators firing questions at thes oil queens at the Senate Finance Committee hearing weren't gagging on laughter and falling out of their chairs in hysterics when those simpering queenies threatened to withhold their drilling if the government cut off the payola. Surely, the good senators know there's way, way too much money to be made from drilling for and pumping oil from this fair land for these oligarchs to let a fraction of a percentage of their revenues, which is what the subsidies and tax breaks amount to, get in their way.

So, you want our support, Jim? You want our contributions? You want our votes? Then, let us see and hear you and all (D) pols and operatives take a stand, use that fantastic bully pulpit at the President's disposal, strip these leeches --and that includes the freeloading mega rich who dodge paying a true proportionate share of their income/assets in taxes -- of the tax-funded largess that's being lavished on them. And not being used on so many other really substantive uses that truly benefit Middle Americans.

Champion it! Make it a major plank in President Obama's re-election platform. Prove to us Middle Americans that he is truly on OUR side. If you do...

I guarantee Pres. Obama will win re-election.

Sincerely,
Jerrianne Hayslett

(Messina's email)

Dear Jerrianne,

I spent this week moving boxes and getting set up in our new campaign headquarters in Chicago, but something happened in Washington that I want to make sure you know about.
The CEOs from the five major oil companies -- which together booked $36 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2011 alone -- went to the Senate on Thursday to try to justify the $4 billion in tax giveaways they're receiving this year.
It's a head-smackingly obvious example of how broken Washington is that there's even a question about this. These companies don't need and don't deserve taxpayer money -- especially with a budget deficit to close and gas prices at or near record highs.
Even worse is the fact that when the Senate tries to strip these oil company giveaways, it's likely that a minority of senators will block a vote from happening. And even if the Senate manages to pass a bill eliminating the giveaways, there's little chance it will be brought up for a vote in the House.
Here's why: These five companies are expert manipulators of the money-for-influence game in Washington that the President is working to change. It's simple math -- they spent more than $145 million last year on nearly 800 lobbyists whose job is to defeat bills like this one. The $4 billion they'll likely get to keep as a result represents a 2,700% return on their investment.
I'd like to be able to say with certainty that you can do something to help pass this bill, but the fact is that at this stage we may not be able to affect the outcome of next week's vote.
What we can do is build a campaign that will keep a spotlight on issues like this and the fundamental reasons why Washington doesn't work.
Our campaign doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. This organization will be a living example of doing politics a different way -- from the bottom up; of, by, and for ordinary people.
That example and the results we achieve on Election Day are the biggest blows we can strike against a dysfunctional system and the distorted outcomes it creates.
But we have to start building right now. Add your name to our call for a new kind of politics today:
http://my.barackobama.com/Making-Washington-Work
While the oil industry has been earning billions in profits, gas prices have surpassed $4 a gallon in some parts of the country.
As the President has said, "Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow's."
But on Thursday, one of the CEOs went so far as to say that cutting oil giveaways would be "un-American."
Right now, we're building a grassroots campaign that's led and funded by people like you. We're opening up offices not just in Chicago but all over the place, and putting organizers on the ground in communities across the country.
So if you're frustrated by the way business gets done in Washington, I'm asking you now to channel that feeling into building a massive grassroots organization to change it. Add your name to join our campaign to change Washington:
http://my.barackobama.com/Making-Washington-Work
Thanks,
Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Call Big Oil Exes What They Are. Narcisstic Socialists

How to Reduce the National Debt

A friend read my posts about the sessions Paul Ryan held on his proposed budget. Here is his comment about them:

 

I honestly haven't heard any real suggestions to reduce the debt. I am in favor of lots of the proposed social programs, especially some sort of health care for all, but how are they to be funded?

I am disappointed that we hear no real suggestion for reducing our National Debt from the other side of the aisle.

The National Debt of the Nation is terrible and its a burden we are leaving our children and grandchildren to solve. I fear that life for them will not be as good as life for us has been.

I believe this problem has no single solution but requires MORE taxes for the rich and the not so rich. I also believe we will all have to made some sacrifices.

Most important we need those in office opposed to Ryan's plan to make suggestions of there own and I believe the President needs to bring the sides together to address the problem of our unsustainable Debt. Without some sort of a solution on the debt we are headed in the same direction as Greece, Spain and Great Britain. If we continue as we are it wouldn't be long until we are a second rate nation.

 

If we reject what Paul Ryan is suggesting as a means to reducing our National Debt and I am sure it is full of wrongs and faults, what than do we do to reduce a 14 trillion National Debt?

 

Here is my reply to my friend:

 

That's the fallacy of Ryan's plan. It doesn't reduce the debt. Many non-Republican accounts I've read say that his plan actually increases it. Here's what one Republican -- Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, who's hardly a flaming liberal -- says about it:

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/575543/reagan_budget_director_slams_paul_ryan_plan,_says_'absolutely'_raise_taxes_instead/

 

The other side of the aisle does have a proposal. You can read about it here:

 

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

 

And here is what the New York Times' Paul Krugman has to say about that plan:

 

 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/the-progressive-budget-alternative/

 

You want to erase the debt? Here's how. Raise taxes--and close the loopholes that enable the richest and mega corporations to skate free. (A report in the news just yesterday said that 50 percent of the biggest corporations in this country paid no taxes last year.)

 

Start with the capital gains tax by making it apply to actual capital gains so it can't serve as a tax haven for millionaires' and billionaires' income. Hedgefunders who made billions in just one year--one took in $13 billion last year alone -- get away with claiming that income as capital gains, which is taxed at 15%, so they can keep from having it taxed at the highest income rate of 35%. (No wonder the multimillionaires in Congress want to reduce capital gains tax to zero!)

 

Second, end corporate charity, particularly to multinational companies that pay no -- zero -- taxes on the profits they make in the U.S. AND actually receive tax credits in the billions of dollars. Some, like oil companies, receive tax-funded subsidies DESPITE making record profits -- up from 21% to 46 % this past quarter from the previous quarter, which itself was a record-breaking quarter as has been every quarter in recent memory. Ryan voted to continue those credits and subsidies, but when asked why at the local town hall-type sessions he's held (some of which I attended) he obfuscates and turns the discussion to small businesses. Those are an entirely different animal and dear to the hearts of most average Americans -- and Ryan knows that, which is why he wants to talk about them and avoid having to explain why he pumps more and more welfare, funded by you and me, into the coffers of the rich. The rich have benefited greatly from this welfare that has become rampant since Reagan. Here are some interesting charts.

 

http://sa.payment.aol.com/sa/v2.0/ie/AOL/US/qcff/formFillOffer.html?target=http%3A//payment.aol.com/GotWalletQCFFProxy%3Faolqc_protocol_version%3D2%252e6%26aolqc_return_url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fsa.payment.aol.com%252FWallet%253FfromAQC%26aolqc_problem_url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fqcff.sa.payment.aol.com%252Fqcff%252FSiteUnsupported%253Fqcpp_aqc_error%253Dsomething%26aolqc_merchant_id%3Dqcff%26aolqc_merchant_url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Funmapped.com%26userActivated%3Dfalse

 

No wonder Congress doesn't want to change things.

 

Third, reform the healthcare industry, including some aspects of Medicare -- and that doesn't mean privatize it. I can't think of a single instance in which something was privatized or deregulated that benefited average, everyday people. Why the big push to privatize? It benefits corporate CEOs and other top execs, big-time investors, Wall Street and politicians who pander to them to get reelected and become multimillionaires themselves, thanks to fat campaign chests, money they get to keep if they don't spend it all on their campaigns.

 

Private companies have to make a profit -- and that's on top of their administrative costs, which are generally 10%-30% of their revenues. The only way they can do that is to pass those costs along to you and me. That's where healthcare costs have fallen off the rails. Hospitals, clinics, HMO's, etc. were not-for-profit until the industry caught Pres. Richard Nixon's attention and convinced him how wonderful it would be to allow the healthcare industry to be for-profit, thus Nixon's 1971 "New Health Strategy" and the birth of for-profit HMOs.

 

Granted, advanced techniques like MRIs and by-pass surgeries that weren't available in "the good old days" goose costs too, but a lot of that -- particularly in the pharma industry -- is simply b/c they can get away with it. Drugs that cost in the hundreds and even thousands of dollars a month for Americans are available in other countries for a fraction of that cost. Phamas claim those countries' governments subsidize those costs and that they (Phama companies) need to charge high prices so they can recoup their research and development costs, yet they fail to mention that much of those costs are already covered by government grants and other public funding. So the U.S. subsidizes drug costs too. The difference is the U.S. government a la laws and rules passed by Congress just gives the subsidies to the pharma companies instead of to patients.

 

Get industries with a vested interest, such as pharmas, out of the law-writing business. The Medicare Part D law was literally written by pharma company reps. And what did it get us? Big profits for pharma. The government (Medicare) law that was passed can't get competitive bids, can't buy less expensive from other countries, such as Canada. The bill had a huge gaping hole in the middle that futher enriched private industry but impoverished those on Medicare. They have to buy supplemental insurance to cover that hole--which it does only partially. So who benefited from that? Insurance companies.

 

Americans have been brainwashed into believing that privatizing is the American capitalistic way. Capitalism can be good if it doesn't run wild and turn into national cannibalism, which is the direction the country is currently headed. A healthy economy needs a population that can afford to buy the goods and services produced by the private sector. Thanks to unemployment, depressed pay, etc., that "buying public" is shrinking, and along with it tax revenue and other community benefits, such as public education. 

 

Medicare's administrative cost is 3%. Social Security's is 1%. There is nothing and no way privatizing can approach that kind of operational costs. The way Medicare needs to be reformed is to establish a reporting mechinism that pays a percentage of the money wasted via fraud, duplication, etc., to whoever reports it. Medicare premiums, benefits and eligibility needs to be means tested. Why should taxes (you and me) pay for millionaires to be on Medicare? Ditch Part D completely and include perscriptions in regular Medicare like it is in other healthcare coverage plans with means-tested deductibles and co-pays.

 

That Medicare add-on is but one huge unfunded program Bush foisted onto this country. Others include the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. During WWII, not only did everyone share the sacrifice (well almost everyone, the ultra rich remained the ultra rich. I'm convinced those elites -- the true elites in this country, not acadmics or public employees or others the actual elites turn into punching bags as a way to keep us from retaliating against them -- will never have to ever feel any pain). But the country sold war bonds during WWII as a way to help finance the war. What did Bush do when he invaded Iraq? He told us to go shopping!

 

That's another way to help erase the enoumous debt Bush left us with. Sell war bonds now and dedicate the revenue to pay off the nation's debt. I attended a listening session last week held by two WI Democratic Assemblymen. At least half of those who spoke -- and they were all working, middle-class people, a couple of whom had young families -- said they were willing to pay more taxes if it would help the economy/debt situation. So, even though the affluent would consider those people schmucks and would scoff at the idea of buying something like a war bond that wouldn't pay off big dividends, if that listening session was any indication, a lot of civic-minded, patriotic middle Americans would.

  

This country has also been brainwashed into believing that taxes are evil and raising them is shear heresy. At the same time, the nostalia du jour is those wonderful, prosperous, Americana years of the 1950s. Ryan preaches cutting taxes and a flatter tax structure. Yet, ignored or denied is that the tax structure in the 1950s was anything but flat. Top income bracket was 90 percent. Here's an interesting chart:

 

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/20/5145120-chart-national-debt-by-president

 

If cutting taxes creates jobs and improves the economy, why did the economy go into a nose dive and unemployment start to soar after Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts?

 

Here's what happened to jobs in this country after Bush cut taxes (in red) and after Obama took office (in blue).

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/privatejobs_mar11.jpg

 

Instead of any (R) plan that I've heard of erasing the debt or leaving those who come after us to pay it off, the policies they support simply continue to kick the can down the road.  And, thanks to their ideology re: the environment, global warming, and conservation, all those children and grandchildren they're so worried about inflicting a national debt on will have higher rates of cancer, respiratory disorders and myriad other toxin- and pollution-induced illnesses.

 

But, don't get me started...