3 Women Have Much More to Fear from Romney

Three women who looked to be 35-40 were overheard recently ragging on President Obama and carrying on about how he's from Kenya and a Muslim and that the country is going to h.e.double hockey sticks (my euphemism, not theirs) if he's re-elected.

Not only do these women obviously rely exclusively on Fox and other right-wing media for information and "news", they are worried about the wrong thing.

I am sure that there's not a chance in the world that President Obama is likely to break into their homes and assault (euphemism for another word) them.

I can't same for Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and their Republican friends, such as Missouri Congressman and Senate candidate Todd Akin who claimed that women who are victims of what he described as "legitimate rape" have some kind of magical ability to prevent themselves from becoming pregnant as a result of that rape.

Another Republican Romney buddy, Indiana Senate candidate and Romney endorsee Richard Mourdock claimed that pregnancies that result from rape "is something that God intended to happen."

Then there's Wisconsin state assemblyman Roger Rivard, who's running for re-election and had been endorsed by Paul Ryan when he said in an interview that his father once told him, " 'Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.'"

So, while Messers Romney, Ryan, Akin, Mourdock, Rivard or any of their ideological brethren won't be personally breaking into the homes of the three overheard anti-Obama ladies or personally assaulting them, they are in far greater danger should those men attain/retain positions of leadership in this country of being revictimized many times over should they or anyone they know be unfortunate enough to be raped by anybody. 

Evaluating a Job Applicant

Much ado is being made over presidential candidates' tax returns these days. The biggest to do is over 2012 presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's -- or the fact that he won't make the past several years public. His attitude is pretty much, None Of Our Business.

Yet we learn that Romney gave 2008 presidential candidate John McCain 23 years of his returns when McCain was considering Romney as a vice-presidential running mate. That was part of McCain's "vetting" process, we are told.

Romney's recently announced running mate Paul Ryan told George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" that he provided several years of his tax returns to Romney as part of Romney's "vetting" of Ryan.

What strikes me in all of this kerfuffle is that even though Romney would have served in John McCain's administration, had McCain chosen Romney to be on his ticket and won the election, and that the same would be true of Ryan and Romney, neither Romney nor Ryan would have been working for the presidential candidate who tapped them. Both would have been working for us, The People.

The same is true of the presidential candidates themselves. Romney would be, just as President Obama is, working for us. Thus, we should be vetting them. Tax returns provide vital information about not just where and how they accumulate assets, but what they do with those assets. We should demand that their returns be made available for public scrutiny. Should they refuse to do so, as Romney has done to date, that should be considered a deduction from their qualifications.

Just as we as employers in evaluating the qualifications of job applicants -- be they direct employees for a business, a contractor to reroof our house, a plumber to plug a leak, a babysitter to care for our children -- if they refuse to provide information we think pertinent to their character or ability, would we hire them anyway?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.