The current crop of supposed GOP presidental hopefuls gathered and engaged in impressive one-upsmanship in New Hampshire last night. Each seemed to out do the other with crowd-appealing one-liners, such as one would-be candidate's demand to:
"Get government off my back!"
And another's to:
"Cut the capital gains tax down to zero!"
I don't know about our backs, but as someone who is truly conservative, I think government should absolutely get out of our bedrooms, our vaginas, our ovaries and our uteruses.
Also as someone who is truly conservative, I don't think I or other middle-Americans who aren't rich enough to have to ever worry about the capital gains tax should be picking up the tab for those who are.
Reducing the capital gains tax from the current 15% to zero means that all of the multimillionaires and multibillionaires who are currently able to pay 20% less in taxes on their income (if they pay anything at all) than they would otherwise because laws have been enacted to let them claim their income as capital gains, would legally and officially be able to pay ZERO taxes on their income.
I understand why so many of the nation's lawmakers would love that. The vast majority of them are millionaires and the bulk of their campaign contributions come from their fellow multimillionaires and multibillionaires. So, of course, they would love for you and me to shoulder the total tax burden and give them an even freer ride than they are already getting.
The only way that's conservative is that it conserves -- and adds to -- their very fat financial portfolios that they have accumulated on our backs -- those very backs they want government to get off of.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Listening That Truly Was
The second--and actual--listening session I attended yesterday was held by Wisconsin Assemblymembers Tony Staskunas and David Cullen in West Allis. Their purpose was to give an opportunity to be heard to the people who had been shut out from speaking at an official public hearing last month on Gov. Scott Walker's 2011 budget and budget repair bill. Although the venue at the West Allis Library was considerably smaller than the Whitnall High School auditorium in Greenfield when Ryan held his session, it too was SRO.
After a brief introduction, Assemblymen Staskunas and Cullen invited every one of the 50 to 75 people who were there to speak for up to five minutes. I didn't keep count, but many did--including me, although when I decided to attend the session and even after I arrived, I certainly had no intention to do so.
I thanked the assemblymen for providing people the opportunity they were affording their constituents, remarked about the difference between that session and Ryan's and raised the question I would have asked had Ryan called on me.
My question was based on Ryan's "path to prosperity" in America idea of flattening the tax rate for everybody, which he says would result in lower taxes for everybody.
Although Ryan's flatter-tax stucture and lower taxes for everyone, including multibillionaire hedgefunders who pay, at most, 15 percent on their income because they are allowed to claim it as capital gains instead of the top income rate of 35 percent sounds good, it is antithetical to reality, based on this country's history.
For example, the 1950s, which was our country's most prosperous decade in modern times, had a tax structure that was anything but flat--those in the highest income bracket were taxed at 90 percent. And guess what, they remained rich, very rich.
And if cutting taxes really would set us on a "path to prosperity," why then didn't that happen when George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003, cuts that were especially generous to the rich? Why, instead, did the country plunge into the deepest recession since the 1930s?
What really struck me at the West Allis session, though, was the willingness of these working-class, middle-America people to pay more taxes if it would mean saving programs that benefit their fellow citizens who are disadvantaged, lacking access to resources and suffering financially. One young man who was there with his wife and baby daughter personified what I thought was the stricking difference in tone and outlook between Ryan's session in which most of the people seemed to be more of the "I've got mine, so don't screw with it" crowd and the Staskunas-Cullen session.
"A community," the West Allis father said, "is judged on how it cares for its people."
The same thing, no doubt, is true about a nation.
After a brief introduction, Assemblymen Staskunas and Cullen invited every one of the 50 to 75 people who were there to speak for up to five minutes. I didn't keep count, but many did--including me, although when I decided to attend the session and even after I arrived, I certainly had no intention to do so.
I thanked the assemblymen for providing people the opportunity they were affording their constituents, remarked about the difference between that session and Ryan's and raised the question I would have asked had Ryan called on me.
My question was based on Ryan's "path to prosperity" in America idea of flattening the tax rate for everybody, which he says would result in lower taxes for everybody.
Although Ryan's flatter-tax stucture and lower taxes for everyone, including multibillionaire hedgefunders who pay, at most, 15 percent on their income because they are allowed to claim it as capital gains instead of the top income rate of 35 percent sounds good, it is antithetical to reality, based on this country's history.
For example, the 1950s, which was our country's most prosperous decade in modern times, had a tax structure that was anything but flat--those in the highest income bracket were taxed at 90 percent. And guess what, they remained rich, very rich.
And if cutting taxes really would set us on a "path to prosperity," why then didn't that happen when George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003, cuts that were especially generous to the rich? Why, instead, did the country plunge into the deepest recession since the 1930s?
What really struck me at the West Allis session, though, was the willingness of these working-class, middle-America people to pay more taxes if it would mean saving programs that benefit their fellow citizens who are disadvantaged, lacking access to resources and suffering financially. One young man who was there with his wife and baby daughter personified what I thought was the stricking difference in tone and outlook between Ryan's session in which most of the people seemed to be more of the "I've got mine, so don't screw with it" crowd and the Staskunas-Cullen session.
"A community," the West Allis father said, "is judged on how it cares for its people."
The same thing, no doubt, is true about a nation.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Listening, and Not
I attended two so-called "listening sessions" today.
One was held by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan on his 2012 budget proposal. The session was held in a high school auditorium that was packed. Packed two ways.
Packed in the conventional sense. Every one of the 550 seats was filled. But also packed in the sense that a court is packed. That is, when a court-appointment/nominating authority, whether the U.S. president or state governor, picks judges or judicial nominees with whom she or he is ideologically and/or politically aligned. And it showed at the Ryan session.
Way more than half--perhaps even three-fourths of those attending--gave the congressman a standing ovation when he walked out onto the stage and again several times during his presentation (remember, the event was billed as a LISTENING session) and during his response to some of the questions.
The questions were also a give away. Most seem to have been planted. They were either softballs or were asked in ways that gave Ryan a platform to reiterate his primary messages many times over.
Two things struck me. One was the way the questioners were selected. Ryan picked out people who had hands raised. And there were many. He made it look random and constantly remarked at not being able to see the audience very well because of lights shining in his eyes. Yet, he called on one woman this way, "The woman in blue jeans."
First, I dare say that at least half of the women there were wearing jeans, including me and my daughter who was with me.
Second, the woman he was pointing was about half way back in the auditorium, meaning not near the front, and certainly way beyond his being able to see clearly (because of the lights).
Since she was so far back and and sitting down, he couldn't possibly have seen whether or not she was wearing jeans, why would he have identified her that way?
Another thing that aroused my suspicion was that Ryan repeated often and loud in his presentation and managed to work into his answers -- even when no one asked specifically about it -- that anyone who is 55 or older would not be affected in any way by his proposed changes in Medicare. They would continue to be covered by Medicare exactly as they are now. That placated a huge majority of the audience -- which was mostly over 65. How do I know that? Because Ryan made sure he knew it was by asking early in the session for everyone who was over 55 to raise their hands.
Yet, despite making that point often and emphatically during the session, the last person he called on had one simple, direct question. Would the changes he proposed in his plan affect Medicare for people over 55 years old?
That gave Ryan the opportunity to not only re-enforce his promise that it would not, but that it also would be the very last thing session attendees would hear him say, so, therefore, would be the single thing they most likely would remember from the session. That is very important to Ryan, not so much for getting his plan passed as it is to his re-election. Ryan knows that people vote according to what they think will benefit them the most and that older white people (and all the faces I saw there were white) vote in larger percentages than any other demographic.
One more thing I'll say about Ryan's "listening session." It was anything but. He began with a very slick PowerPoint presentation with snazzy, eye-popping charts -- and viscerally scary graphics. And the majority of the questions he took seemed either designed or accidently framed in a way to give him an opportunity to expound at length on the wonderous and savior aspects of his plan. And he cut off and interrupted the few negative questioners, indicating that he wasn't going to give any opportunity for antagonism or argument. So much for him listening, I thought.
I'll write tomorrow about the second listen session I attended today. I will say now, though, that it was far different from the one Ryan held.
One was held by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan on his 2012 budget proposal. The session was held in a high school auditorium that was packed. Packed two ways.
Packed in the conventional sense. Every one of the 550 seats was filled. But also packed in the sense that a court is packed. That is, when a court-appointment/nominating authority, whether the U.S. president or state governor, picks judges or judicial nominees with whom she or he is ideologically and/or politically aligned. And it showed at the Ryan session.
Way more than half--perhaps even three-fourths of those attending--gave the congressman a standing ovation when he walked out onto the stage and again several times during his presentation (remember, the event was billed as a LISTENING session) and during his response to some of the questions.
The questions were also a give away. Most seem to have been planted. They were either softballs or were asked in ways that gave Ryan a platform to reiterate his primary messages many times over.
Two things struck me. One was the way the questioners were selected. Ryan picked out people who had hands raised. And there were many. He made it look random and constantly remarked at not being able to see the audience very well because of lights shining in his eyes. Yet, he called on one woman this way, "The woman in blue jeans."
First, I dare say that at least half of the women there were wearing jeans, including me and my daughter who was with me.
Second, the woman he was pointing was about half way back in the auditorium, meaning not near the front, and certainly way beyond his being able to see clearly (because of the lights).
Since she was so far back and and sitting down, he couldn't possibly have seen whether or not she was wearing jeans, why would he have identified her that way?
Another thing that aroused my suspicion was that Ryan repeated often and loud in his presentation and managed to work into his answers -- even when no one asked specifically about it -- that anyone who is 55 or older would not be affected in any way by his proposed changes in Medicare. They would continue to be covered by Medicare exactly as they are now. That placated a huge majority of the audience -- which was mostly over 65. How do I know that? Because Ryan made sure he knew it was by asking early in the session for everyone who was over 55 to raise their hands.
Yet, despite making that point often and emphatically during the session, the last person he called on had one simple, direct question. Would the changes he proposed in his plan affect Medicare for people over 55 years old?
That gave Ryan the opportunity to not only re-enforce his promise that it would not, but that it also would be the very last thing session attendees would hear him say, so, therefore, would be the single thing they most likely would remember from the session. That is very important to Ryan, not so much for getting his plan passed as it is to his re-election. Ryan knows that people vote according to what they think will benefit them the most and that older white people (and all the faces I saw there were white) vote in larger percentages than any other demographic.
One more thing I'll say about Ryan's "listening session." It was anything but. He began with a very slick PowerPoint presentation with snazzy, eye-popping charts -- and viscerally scary graphics. And the majority of the questions he took seemed either designed or accidently framed in a way to give him an opportunity to expound at length on the wonderous and savior aspects of his plan. And he cut off and interrupted the few negative questioners, indicating that he wasn't going to give any opportunity for antagonism or argument. So much for him listening, I thought.
I'll write tomorrow about the second listen session I attended today. I will say now, though, that it was far different from the one Ryan held.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Putting the Fringe in Perspective
Several pundits remarked today in blathering about President Barack Obama finally resorting to having the State of Hawaii produce his "long form" birth certificate, that what used to be considered the "fringe" of right-wing partisans has moved in to become the center of the Republican Party.
I absolutely disagree with that assessment.
Rather than the fringers moving in and becoming the mainstream of one of only two major political parties in this country, the mainstream of that party has moved out to the fringe.
What's the difference? you might ask.
There's a huge difference.
It's one thing for parasites that cluster around the edges of a host to invade and take over the body then consume it by devouring it from the inside out.
When that happens in nature, the host body becomes infested and if the parasite gets a firm enough of a foothold, the host is rendered helpless and dies. Pity the pure hapless host.
It's quite another thing for the host to migrate out to the fringe, embrace the parasites then suck them in and, of its on volition, transform itself into the fringe of parasites so that they feed off of each other and become indistinguishable from each other.
Here's someone who clearly and eloquently states the case behind, not only the 'birther' inanity, but the Republicans' merger with fringers. http://www.thegrio.com/politics/why-obama-shouldnt-have-had-to-show-his-papers.php
I absolutely disagree with that assessment.
Rather than the fringers moving in and becoming the mainstream of one of only two major political parties in this country, the mainstream of that party has moved out to the fringe.
What's the difference? you might ask.
There's a huge difference.
It's one thing for parasites that cluster around the edges of a host to invade and take over the body then consume it by devouring it from the inside out.
When that happens in nature, the host body becomes infested and if the parasite gets a firm enough of a foothold, the host is rendered helpless and dies. Pity the pure hapless host.
It's quite another thing for the host to migrate out to the fringe, embrace the parasites then suck them in and, of its on volition, transform itself into the fringe of parasites so that they feed off of each other and become indistinguishable from each other.
Here's someone who clearly and eloquently states the case behind, not only the 'birther' inanity, but the Republicans' merger with fringers. http://www.thegrio.com/politics/why-obama-shouldnt-have-had-to-show-his-papers.php
Friday, April 22, 2011
Poor, Pathetic Paul
Paul Ryan has been called 'courageous' and 'brave' for the budget/deficit/debt plan he unveiled recently.
He is neither.
He is a coward.
There is absolutely nothing brave or courageous and everything cowardly about bestowing government-funded largess (paid for with The People's money) on the rich and powerful who don't need it and depriving assistance from the poor, uninfluential and voiceless who do.
Ryan and his sanctimonious political partisans would have been courageous and brave had they bucked their campaign/election benefactors and just said "NO" to their outstretched gold-encased and jewel-encrusted hands.
"NO! I will no longer play your game of bribery and mutual back scratching.
"NO, I will no longer defy and deny the teachings of the Christ who is the center, the core, the total truth of what I profess to be my Christian faith and the foundation of what I say is my spiritual belief, the Jesus who commands his followers to care for the poor."
Instead, Ryan and his ilk are too cowardly to defy the rich and the powerful for fear they will turn against them, withdraw their financial support and influence and see that they get turned out of office.
As truly conservative, I pity poor, pathetic Paul and his fellow hypocrites and their very liberal pandering to and paying off the rich and powerful.
As a Facebook Friend observed: "The real glue of social cohesion is empathy. Its utter absence in today's corporate hegemony is spreading a corrosive selfishness akin to Midas."
He is neither.
He is a coward.
There is absolutely nothing brave or courageous and everything cowardly about bestowing government-funded largess (paid for with The People's money) on the rich and powerful who don't need it and depriving assistance from the poor, uninfluential and voiceless who do.
Ryan and his sanctimonious political partisans would have been courageous and brave had they bucked their campaign/election benefactors and just said "NO" to their outstretched gold-encased and jewel-encrusted hands.
"NO! I will no longer play your game of bribery and mutual back scratching.
"NO, I will no longer defy and deny the teachings of the Christ who is the center, the core, the total truth of what I profess to be my Christian faith and the foundation of what I say is my spiritual belief, the Jesus who commands his followers to care for the poor."
Instead, Ryan and his ilk are too cowardly to defy the rich and the powerful for fear they will turn against them, withdraw their financial support and influence and see that they get turned out of office.
As truly conservative, I pity poor, pathetic Paul and his fellow hypocrites and their very liberal pandering to and paying off the rich and powerful.
As a Facebook Friend observed: "The real glue of social cohesion is empathy. Its utter absence in today's corporate hegemony is spreading a corrosive selfishness akin to Midas."
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
America, Land of Little Red Riding Hoods
Wisconsin (R) Congressman Paul Ryan has revealed his utopian fix to American economic woes,which includes replacing Medicare with a subsidy scheme for older Americans that gives them a fixed amount to buy medical coverage from private providers.
This is nothing but a Wizard of Oz act. Ryan promotes this ploy as a way to reduce the cost of healthcare because it will force healthcare providers to compete for millions of Americans' healthcare dollars, thus will drive prices down.
There are three glaring fallacies (and probably many more) with this claim:
(1) If millions of Americans having to buy private insurance will force healthcare costs down, which is a premise of his plan, then why hasn't that happened already? Most Americans, either individually, via cooperatives or, most commonly, via their employers have been buying private medical insurance for decades and healthcare costs have skyrocketed.
(2) This sounds like the Wal-Mart approach to healthcare shopping. You know, buying healthcare on the cheap. Is that how we will all decide which doctor to see, which hospital to go to, which radiology unit to get xrays for a broken bone, an MRI or bone scan done? The cheapest doctor? Really? The cheapest hospital? The cheapest xray unit? And what kinds of corners will those facilities cut so they can be the cheapest? What kinds of qualifications and how much experience will the technicians have? What will the infection rates be? And who, in Ryan's universe of deregulation, will be watchdogging these doctors, technicians, profiteers and holding them accountable?
(3) The competition Ryan is fantasizing about will be among insurers who will be competing for healthcare insurance buyers' dollars, not among healthcare providers. ...and we've all seen just how that has worked so far, right? It won't do a thing to affect healthcare costs, except that it won't even begin to put the brakes on the astronomical skyrocketing of the past few decades (think: since Richard Nixon changed the rules that enabled healthcare providers to becom for-profit entities) that have sent them into outer space.
This is just another version of another Wisconsinite's idea of "open for business" except the reality is it will be "open season" on vulnerable, unsophisticated people who will once again be duped by the scam of so-called capitalism-American style, which is gouge people til it hurts or kills, 'cause the rich can never, ever be rich enough, and to buy enough politicans to make sure laws are enacted to keep it legal.
This begs the question that's been hanging out there ever since the (R)s started pandering to the tpers and winning elections by disguising themselves as fiscal 'conservatives' and sanctimonious stewards of "the people's" money, when they and baby Bush are the very ones who ran wild with the country's credit card and enabled/encouraged Wall Street and the banking industry to rob middle America of its jobs, homes, pensions and safety nets. And we, as a country, are such gullible little Red Riding Hoods, that we believe them all the way down their gullets.
The only real beneficiaries of Ryan's plan will be private insurers and their shareholders and medical providers who will be able to continue their high-cost ways.
I'm truly conservative about not privatizing government services that will result in continuing the gush of middle- and low-income Americans' money into the luxury boxes of the uber-rich.
Rather than eliminate the only single-payer healthcare system this country has, and which people love and want to keep in place, we need to be making a single-payer system available for all Americans. It is possible to make Medicare more cost-effective and affordable for the country and to extend that system to everyone who wants it. It starts with finding ways to collar and lower the spiraling out-of-control actual cost of providing healthcare. That's where Ryan and all of this country's leaders need to focus their attention.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Be First in Line, Paul Ryan
Here's my letter to my Congressional representative, Gwen Moore:
Dear Congresswoman Moore:
Re: Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, and privatize (i.e. make unaffordable and all but block access to medical care for poor and old people) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/health/policy/05health.html, as the top general who is leading the country into war against the poor and old, Paul Ryan needs to eliminate his own government-funded healthcare coverage and buy private--like he's proposing for disadvantaged people--you know, the kind Jesus Christ loves and instructs his followers to care for.
I sure as shooting don't want to pay for Paul Ryan's medical coverage if he thinks I shouldn't help people who are far less entitled than he is.
I'm extremely conservative when it comes to footing the bill for entitlement programs that benefit the rich and powerful like Paul Ryan and the rich and powerful he schleps for--the actual human kind and the SCOTUS-paper kind.
Dear Congresswoman Moore:
Re: Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, and privatize (i.e. make unaffordable and all but block access to medical care for poor and old people) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/health/policy/05health.html, as the top general who is leading the country into war against the poor and old, Paul Ryan needs to eliminate his own government-funded healthcare coverage and buy private--like he's proposing for disadvantaged people--you know, the kind Jesus Christ loves and instructs his followers to care for.
I sure as shooting don't want to pay for Paul Ryan's medical coverage if he thinks I shouldn't help people who are far less entitled than he is.
I'm extremely conservative when it comes to footing the bill for entitlement programs that benefit the rich and powerful like Paul Ryan and the rich and powerful he schleps for--the actual human kind and the SCOTUS-paper kind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)