You know that "redistribution" of wealth the Repubicans are constantly accusing liberals of perpetrating? The truth is, that something they're doing, but by accusing progressives of it, they put themselves on the offense and their opponents, who aren't doing it, on the defense.
Redistribution of this nation's wealth is something Ronald Reagan started and that the GOP and DINOs have been accelerating ever since.
In 1979 the top 1% got only 9% of all personal income in the U.S. Now the top 1% gets 25% of all personal income. And the interestingly, that's OK w/folks who don't realize how much it's hurting them. They, in fact, love it. It makes them feel good.
Why? Because, just like with sports teams, star atheltes, and entertainment celebrities, Americans love and want to back winners. We live vicariously through them. We think that being a fan associates us with whoever or whatever we're being a fan of and, in a perverted kind of way, that raises (if you want to use that perspective) us to their stratosphere. Backing them identifies us with them, and, might even work to make others think more highly of us. We become part of their community, so we need to look out for them. Defend them. Don't sit still when others disparage them.
So it's OK with people who think and behave like that to think that it's OK to give the rich a break. People with that mentality don't mind bearing the rich's load for them. That makes the poor schmucks who do really good guys -- and maybe the rich and famous, in turn, will really like them and perhaps even throw them a crumb.
Here's a story in the New Yorker magazine that explains it. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/04/23/120423crat_atlarge_lemann
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Monday, April 23, 2012
Sunday, April 8, 2012
The Past Just Isn't
"The past is never where you left it," is from the book, Remembering the Good Times by one of my favorite authors, Richard Peck.
That is so apropro to what Tea Partiers are constantly refraining about wanting to take their county back. Back to what? is my retort to the reverberating radio and TV airwaves that carry the TP mantra. The good old days, is a frequent rejoinder. Back to when times were simpler, the national debt was not so mammoth, the government wasn't so invasive.
Back to a time that no longer exists and most likely never really did, is what I believe.
Those good old days are generally associated with the wishers' and TPers' childhoods. That's what they want to get back to, their childhood. A time of few worries, being able to play in the woods, ride bikes to the corner store, not have parents regimening every minute of every day. Unknown or note remembered is the manual labor and privations involved in daily life of those good old days, parents agonizing over how they were going to make ends meet or what bill or bills they were going to let slide hoping they could somehow catch up the next month, boys being drafted out of high school, sexually active girls sweating bullets when their periods were late or being shipped off to grandma's or an aunt in a distant city or state before they began to "show."
That romanticized fantasy past came to mind last week when one of my husband's friend from the early years of his military career send him an email of a rant he had received from a fellow Air Force buddy of those early days.
So here's the rant:
The really sad part of this is that most of the decisions are being made by politicians who believe the military exists as a vehicle to advance their own career. One more display of the determination to emasculate America by destroying things that have made us the best example in history of the right way to do things. Not a perfect example for sure, but far and away the best the world has ever seen so far.
What happened to our Air Force/Marines/Army/Navy............. (or Military)?
We used to go to the Officers Club or NCO Club Stag Bar on Friday afternoons to drink, smoke a cigar, and swap lies with our comrades. Drinking became frowned on. Smoking caused cancer and could "harm you." Stag bars became seen as 'sexist'. Gradually, our men quit patronizing their clubs because what happened in the club became fodder for a performance report. It was the same thing at the Airman's Club and the NCO and/or Top 3 clubs. Now we don't have separate clubs for the ranks.
Instead we have something called All Ranks Clubs or community clubs. They're open to men and women of all ranks....from airman basic to general officer. No one is there. Gee, I wonder why!?!?
The latest brilliant thought out of Washington is that the operators ("pilots?") flying remote aircraft in combat areas from their plush desk at duty stations in Nevada or Arizona should draw the same combat pay as those real world pilots actually on board a plane in a hostile environment. More politically correct logic?
They say that remote vehicle operators are subject to the same stress levels as the combat pilot actually flying in combat. ----- REALLY...you're bull-shitting me, right !!!???
Now that I've primed you a little, read on.
There are many who will agree with these sentiments, but they apply to more than just fighter pilots. Unfortunately, the ones with the guts to speak up or push for what they believe in are beaten down by the "system."
Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in the following text --- supposedly, Secretary Gates had a force beating the bushes to learn who wrote the following:
Where have all the fighter pilots gone?
It is rumored that our current Secretary of Defense recently asked the question, "Where are all the dynamic leaders of the past?" I can only assume, if that is true, that he was referring to Robin Olds, Jimmy Doolittle, Halsey, Patton, Ike, Boyington, Nimitz, etc.?
Well, I've got the answer:
They were fired before they made Major!
Our nation doesn't want those kinds of leaders anymore. Squadron commanders don't run squadrons and wing commanders don't run wings. They are managed by higher ranking dildos with other esoteric goals in mind.
Can you imagine someone today looking for a LEADER to execute that Doolittle Raid and suggesting that it be given to a dare-devil boozer - with these attributes:
*he had the respect of his men,
*an awesome ability to fly,
*and the organizational skills to put it all together?
If someone told me there was a chance in hell of selecting this man today, one who has risen through the ranks to Lt. Col., I would tell them they were either a liar or dumber than shit.
I find it ironic that the Air Force put Brigadier General Robin Olds on the cover of the company rag last month.
While it made me extremely proud to see his face, he wouldn't make it across any base in America (or overseas) without ten folks telling him to zip up his flight suit, get rid of the cigar, and shave his mustache off.
I have a feeling that his response would be predictable and for that crime he would probably get a trip home and an Article 15. We have lost the war on rugged individualism and that, unfortunately, is what fighter pilots want to follow; not because they have to but because they respect leaders of that ilk. We've all run across that leader that made us proud to follow him because you wanted to be like him and make a difference. The individual who you would drag your testicles through glass for rather than disappoint him.
We better wake the hell up! We're asking our young men and women to go to really shitty places; some with unbearable climates, never have a drink, have little or no contact with the opposite sex, and adhere to ridiculous regs that require you to tuck your shirt into your PT uniform on the way to the porta-shitter at night, in a blinding dust storm, because it's a uniform.
These people we're sending to combat are some of the brightest I've met but they are looking for a little sanity, which they will only find on the outside if we don't get a friggin' clue. You can't continue asking people to live for months or years at a time acting like nuns and priests, Hell, even they get to have a beer. To make matters worse, the 'brief case' people have integrated women with men on ships....even submarines. Go figure. And this is supposed to be a war machine.
Who are we afraid of offending? The guys that already hate us enough to strap C-4 to their own bodies and walk into a crowd of us? Think about it. The ACLU? The Gay-Lesbian folks? Our leadership has failed us.
I'm extremely proud of our young men and women who continue to serve. I'm also very in tune with what they are considering for the future and I've got news for whoever sits in the White House, Congress, and our so-called military leaders. Much talent has and will continue to hemorrhage from our services, because wanna-be warriors are tired of fighting on two fronts - - one with our enemies, another against our lack of common sense.
Take it or leave it....that's just the way it is, no if's and's or but's. Somebody has to change the direction. The most damage has been done recently by those in charge who have never donned a military uniform and have no clue what the UCMJ is, what prerequisites are needed to lead others in harm's way, and don't realize that the military is neither a social club or democracy, and was never intended to be.
We've allowed it to happen. God forgive us.
Here's my husband's reply to his friend:
That is so apropro to what Tea Partiers are constantly refraining about wanting to take their county back. Back to what? is my retort to the reverberating radio and TV airwaves that carry the TP mantra. The good old days, is a frequent rejoinder. Back to when times were simpler, the national debt was not so mammoth, the government wasn't so invasive.
Back to a time that no longer exists and most likely never really did, is what I believe.
Those good old days are generally associated with the wishers' and TPers' childhoods. That's what they want to get back to, their childhood. A time of few worries, being able to play in the woods, ride bikes to the corner store, not have parents regimening every minute of every day. Unknown or note remembered is the manual labor and privations involved in daily life of those good old days, parents agonizing over how they were going to make ends meet or what bill or bills they were going to let slide hoping they could somehow catch up the next month, boys being drafted out of high school, sexually active girls sweating bullets when their periods were late or being shipped off to grandma's or an aunt in a distant city or state before they began to "show."
That romanticized fantasy past came to mind last week when one of my husband's friend from the early years of his military career send him an email of a rant he had received from a fellow Air Force buddy of those early days.
So here's the rant:
The really sad part of this is that most of the decisions are being made by politicians who believe the military exists as a vehicle to advance their own career. One more display of the determination to emasculate America by destroying things that have made us the best example in history of the right way to do things. Not a perfect example for sure, but far and away the best the world has ever seen so far.
What happened to our Air Force/Marines/Army/Navy............. (or Military)?
We used to go to the Officers Club or NCO Club Stag Bar on Friday afternoons to drink, smoke a cigar, and swap lies with our comrades. Drinking became frowned on. Smoking caused cancer and could "harm you." Stag bars became seen as 'sexist'. Gradually, our men quit patronizing their clubs because what happened in the club became fodder for a performance report. It was the same thing at the Airman's Club and the NCO and/or Top 3 clubs. Now we don't have separate clubs for the ranks.
Instead we have something called All Ranks Clubs or community clubs. They're open to men and women of all ranks....from airman basic to general officer. No one is there. Gee, I wonder why!?!?
The latest brilliant thought out of Washington is that the operators ("pilots?") flying remote aircraft in combat areas from their plush desk at duty stations in Nevada or Arizona should draw the same combat pay as those real world pilots actually on board a plane in a hostile environment. More politically correct logic?
They say that remote vehicle operators are subject to the same stress levels as the combat pilot actually flying in combat. ----- REALLY...you're bull-shitting me, right !!!???
Now that I've primed you a little, read on.
There are many who will agree with these sentiments, but they apply to more than just fighter pilots. Unfortunately, the ones with the guts to speak up or push for what they believe in are beaten down by the "system."
Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in the following text --- supposedly, Secretary Gates had a force beating the bushes to learn who wrote the following:
Where have all the fighter pilots gone?
It is rumored that our current Secretary of Defense recently asked the question, "Where are all the dynamic leaders of the past?" I can only assume, if that is true, that he was referring to Robin Olds, Jimmy Doolittle, Halsey, Patton, Ike, Boyington, Nimitz, etc.?
Well, I've got the answer:
They were fired before they made Major!
Our nation doesn't want those kinds of leaders anymore. Squadron commanders don't run squadrons and wing commanders don't run wings. They are managed by higher ranking dildos with other esoteric goals in mind.
Can you imagine someone today looking for a LEADER to execute that Doolittle Raid and suggesting that it be given to a dare-devil boozer - with these attributes:
*he had the respect of his men,
*an awesome ability to fly,
*and the organizational skills to put it all together?
If someone told me there was a chance in hell of selecting this man today, one who has risen through the ranks to Lt. Col., I would tell them they were either a liar or dumber than shit.
I find it ironic that the Air Force put Brigadier General Robin Olds on the cover of the company rag last month.
While it made me extremely proud to see his face, he wouldn't make it across any base in America (or overseas) without ten folks telling him to zip up his flight suit, get rid of the cigar, and shave his mustache off.
I have a feeling that his response would be predictable and for that crime he would probably get a trip home and an Article 15. We have lost the war on rugged individualism and that, unfortunately, is what fighter pilots want to follow; not because they have to but because they respect leaders of that ilk. We've all run across that leader that made us proud to follow him because you wanted to be like him and make a difference. The individual who you would drag your testicles through glass for rather than disappoint him.
We better wake the hell up! We're asking our young men and women to go to really shitty places; some with unbearable climates, never have a drink, have little or no contact with the opposite sex, and adhere to ridiculous regs that require you to tuck your shirt into your PT uniform on the way to the porta-shitter at night, in a blinding dust storm, because it's a uniform.
These people we're sending to combat are some of the brightest I've met but they are looking for a little sanity, which they will only find on the outside if we don't get a friggin' clue. You can't continue asking people to live for months or years at a time acting like nuns and priests, Hell, even they get to have a beer. To make matters worse, the 'brief case' people have integrated women with men on ships....even submarines. Go figure. And this is supposed to be a war machine.
Who are we afraid of offending? The guys that already hate us enough to strap C-4 to their own bodies and walk into a crowd of us? Think about it. The ACLU? The Gay-Lesbian folks? Our leadership has failed us.
I'm extremely proud of our young men and women who continue to serve. I'm also very in tune with what they are considering for the future and I've got news for whoever sits in the White House, Congress, and our so-called military leaders. Much talent has and will continue to hemorrhage from our services, because wanna-be warriors are tired of fighting on two fronts - - one with our enemies, another against our lack of common sense.
Take it or leave it....that's just the way it is, no if's and's or but's. Somebody has to change the direction. The most damage has been done recently by those in charge who have never donned a military uniform and have no clue what the UCMJ is, what prerequisites are needed to lead others in harm's way, and don't realize that the military is neither a social club or democracy, and was never intended to be.
We've allowed it to happen. God forgive us.
Here's my husband's reply to his friend:
The disconnect between the civilian bosses and those in uniform or retired has always existed. But we and our comrades today soldier on through good and bad decisions, civilian or military. However I think this guy is reliving the fantasies of days gone by. In my mind there is no way to compare one's personal military experience with another's experience, particularly from the comfort of an arm chair or a bar stool.
Human nature says that our lives/experiences are always better/tougher than someone else's especially if they are younger than we. Personally I think the big military change is in the draft era vs. the all-volunteer force. My guess is that if we had been drafting to send our military to Iraq and Afghanistan we wouldn't have had the wars drag on or we would have seen Viet Nam-type anti-war protests.
The political leaders have seriously abused the military in recent years in my opinion. As long as men and women have the courage to put on the uniform and potentially put their lives on the line, they are as brave and honorable as any one who has ever served. Criticism and comparison by another generation no matter how prominent their heroes is BS in my view.
Times change, our country changes, the world changes and how our military is used changes. Our Air Force hasn't done real combat since Viet Nam. The ground soldiers are really taking the hits. A wrong step and you're blown to bits. I'm for a strong military to but we need to get a better grasp on what enough power is.
Whether Presidents need military experience is nonsense to me. We both have seen dummies in and out of uniform. The quality of the person is what counts for me. Reagan did a good job in neutralizing the Soviet Bloc, Obama has effectively taken on Al Queda leadership. Neither had a lick of military time.
My hope is that whoever leads will be as careful about sending someone else's son/daughter to harm's way as they would sending their own. A good idea would be that any politician who wanted to vote for or start a war should be required to ante up a family member for combat before they get a say in the process.
The old-timer who wrote the rant above, it seems to me, needs to get out of the past, because it's not where he left it or it never was the way he thinks it was.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Want Smaller Gov't? Elect Democrats
The GOP mantra, particularly among candidates for elected office, is that the Democratic Party is the party of big government and that the electorate should trust the GOP to reduce the size of government.
Historical facts, however, belie that.
I've often heard/read that the federal government has actually grown in Republican presidential administrations. An article that provides statistics says:
"Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both increased the size of the bureaucracy, whether or not you count military personnel. Reagan increased the non-military workforce by 238,000 employees, and the federal workforce including military personnel by 324,000. George W. Bush increased the non-military workforce by 53,000 employees, and the federal workforce overall by 77,000. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, reduced non-military employees by 8,000 and the federal workforce overall by 6 37,000. Carter came in third behind George H.W. Bush as a small-government practitioner."
This article, as http://www.brendagrantland.com/Blog/BlogRepublican.html, includes a little quiz the results of which are quite interesting and that Democrats should pounce on like a frog on a fly.
President Obama isn't included in this quiz because he wasn't in office long enough when the article was published. But he has been now and while he Obama is constantly accused of bloating the federal government, according to the article "Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan" at
http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan, it seems that Obama has not increased the size of government.
Plus, he has either cut or proposed cuts in wasteful spending. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57321244/obama-to-cut-federal-swag-wasteful-spending/ And his federal deficit reduction plan -- which the Republicans rejected after previously backing many of the same policies -- cut more spending the the Republicans alternatives.
Historical facts show that Republicans' claims of being the small government party are false. While they're absolute hawks about cutting spending on public programs that benefit middle and poor Americans, they passionately protect government spending on the much more costly tax breaks, subsidies and other welfare for the rich.
Republicans who promise to cut the size of government remind me of men who beat their wives and girlfriends. They're so sorry and promise to never hit them again. We all know how that goes.
The difference is, Republicans never say they're sorry.
Historical facts, however, belie that.
I've often heard/read that the federal government has actually grown in Republican presidential administrations. An article that provides statistics says:
"Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both increased the size of the bureaucracy, whether or not you count military personnel. Reagan increased the non-military workforce by 238,000 employees, and the federal workforce including military personnel by 324,000. George W. Bush increased the non-military workforce by 53,000 employees, and the federal workforce overall by 77,000. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, reduced non-military employees by 8,000 and the federal workforce overall by 6 37,000. Carter came in third behind George H.W. Bush as a small-government practitioner."
This article, as http://www.brendagrantland.com/Blog/BlogRepublican.html, includes a little quiz the results of which are quite interesting and that Democrats should pounce on like a frog on a fly.
President Obama isn't included in this quiz because he wasn't in office long enough when the article was published. But he has been now and while he Obama is constantly accused of bloating the federal government, according to the article "Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan" at
http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan, it seems that Obama has not increased the size of government.
Plus, he has either cut or proposed cuts in wasteful spending. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57321244/obama-to-cut-federal-swag-wasteful-spending/ And his federal deficit reduction plan -- which the Republicans rejected after previously backing many of the same policies -- cut more spending the the Republicans alternatives.
Historical facts show that Republicans' claims of being the small government party are false. While they're absolute hawks about cutting spending on public programs that benefit middle and poor Americans, they passionately protect government spending on the much more costly tax breaks, subsidies and other welfare for the rich.
Republicans who promise to cut the size of government remind me of men who beat their wives and girlfriends. They're so sorry and promise to never hit them again. We all know how that goes.
The difference is, Republicans never say they're sorry.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
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.
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:
The other side of the aisle does have a proposal. You can read about it here:
And here is what the New York Times' Paul Krugman has to say about that plan:
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.
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:
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).
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... 
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
A REAL Fiscally Conservative Budget Proposal
Perhaps its supporters haven't noticed, but since the 112th Congress took office last month, it has engaged in a bait-(promise to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs)and-switch tactic that has included misreading the U.S. Constitution, two members being AWOL at the House's swearing in ceremony, all things abortion, reality-evading redifinition of rape and, especially, spending). Maybe that's to hide the fact that it has done zip on the jobs, jobs, jobs front.
So Congress's lazer been the focus has shifted almost entirely to spending. Cut this, eliminate that, screw everyone except themselves.
Needless to say, this body has less credibility than Lucy holding a football. So, here's a very brief primer on how they can gain at least a little credibilty:
Start with yourself. Yes, members of Congress. You set an example.
Now that you have been elected/re-elected, you are now part of the government that Ronald Reagan said is the problem.
So you can take a truly conservative approach to start setting things right.
1. Introduce and vote for a bill to cut your and all members of Congress pay back to 1990 levels.
2. Introduce and vote for a bill to cut the size of your staff at least by half.
3. Introduce and vote for a bill to end all government-funded Congressional travel except for one weekly round trip between a member of Congress's district and Washington, D.C.
4. Introduce and vote for a bill to eliminate your government-funded healthcare. (Yes, you will have to buy your own private coverage, but that will have two positive benefits: One, put you in the same fix as the people you work for and, two, greatly please one of your biggest campaign funders -- the insurance industry.)
5. Introduce and vote for emergency legislation to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich, including you, that will become effective immediately.
Granted all but ending number 5 don't even qualify as small potatoes when it comes to reducing the deficit. So here are a few other measures that will really make a huge difference and, in fact, might actually move the budget from the red territory it's been in since GWBush got a hold of it back to being in the black, like WJClinton left it.
1. Introduce and vote for legislation to end U.S. funding of other countries' defense by closing U.S. bases in other countries, except South Korea, which we are obligated by treaty to defend from North Korean aggression.
It is time to be truly conservative and take care of ourselves and end the very liberal government spending on defending countries, like Germany, Japan, Italy, and others, that are capable of taking care of themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)