September 14, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GOP
Hate is what drives the GOP. Republicans essentially believe that they are better than other people. People of other ethnic groups, other income groups, other religions, other races, or who are intellectuals are either inferior or a threat to all that Republicans to believe to be good and decent.
Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy used hate and a ramped up fear of Communism to advance their agendas.
Ronald Reagan spoke in Philadelphia, Mississippi, famous as the site where three civil rights workers were murdered, as a signal to the states' rights crowd, the people one breath away from burning crosses and wearing white hoods.
George H. W. Bush benefited from the use of ads featuring Willie Horton, a black man who was a criminal, to underline the concept that "some people" have to be kept under control and in their place. George W. Bush has made all Muslims the enemy. He has benefited from the "fear card" perhaps more than his predecessors.
John McCain is using racism even more overtly because he's actually running against an African-American candidate. This commentary is at www.bobboblog.org:
The GOP hardcore base embrace bigots and liars like McCain/Palin because in the darkness of their own souls they hold those same values. As individuals they are too dishonest to get up and admit that in public. McCain/Palin gives them permission to feel good about their own bigotry and small-mindedness. Armed with a permission slip from two major political candidates, they can give full throat to their own worst instincts. They are cowards and if they had any sense of decency they would feel a deep sense of shame and would come begging for our forgiveness.
Fortunately, the GOP hardcore base is still a minority in this country. If the serial lying of McCain/Palin proves to be ineffective at turning them into a majority, McCain/Palin will end up being tossed into the political dumpster like a tied-off plastic bag of used diapers.
THE MYTH OF SELF-CORRECTING MARKETS
Right-wingers throw out crumbs to evangelicals, making them believe that God and country are important. But the true religion of right-wingers is the "free market." We're supposed to have an unbounded faith in the free market, that it's more efficient than government, that it's "self-correcting" when things go awry. Even though right-wingers won't admit it, the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and Bear Stearns before that is a tacit admission that the market isn't self-correcting after all. Government has a definite role to play in the economy. If government has a role to play for the big players, then why not for us little people? This commentary by Deborah Stone is at www.commondreams.org:
Self-interest, profits and free markets, we have been promised, are the great social engines. Now, as the American housing market collapses and the world trembles before our mistakes, those profit-driven, supposedly self-correcting and perfectly efficient engines are turning against us like Frankenstein. Why did anybody ever believe that CEOs and shareholders whose every incentive leads them to seek greater profits would care about anything else, such as their purported government mission to foster homeownership and stable communities?
Maybe this is the ultimate lesson in why the Republican strategy of privatization and deregulation doesn't work. Markets depend on confidence--confidence that somebody stands behind the currency of exchange, confidence that somebody will hold buyers and sellers to their promises, and above all, confidence that if banks and big businesses crash, somebody will step in to help all the little people who might be wiped out with them.
It's telling that the very officials who have been dead-set against regulation and bailouts justify the new government plan as necessary to restore confidence. The markets are perfectly healthy, they kept saying, but the public's confidence is faltering. On July 17, just after the big bailout was proposed, Fannie Mae's CEO, Daniel Mudd, told Newshour's Judy Woodruff, "Fannie Mae is very financially sound. We have . . . more capital than we've had at any point in our history." If your capitalization is as strong as you say, asked Woodruff, why do you need this Treasury plan to help you out? "All the capital markets, the lending markets, are really built on confidence," Mudd replied. "Confidence has gotten jittery over the past quarter or so." It's important, he continued, "that there be a strong backstop (Mudd never uttered the words "bailout" or "rescue") in case that kind of lack of confidence and that kind of jitteriness continued for too long."
Saturday, September 13, 2008
September 13, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SOME REAL QUESTIONS FOR PALIN
I know, I know. Barack Obama is running against John McCain for President. But when you factor in McCain's age and health you have to consider Palin a contender for the presidency. She would be the "heartbeat away" from the Oval Office. Vice Presidential candidates should be vetted the same way as presidential candidates. And Palin, like McCain, is sorely lacking in the qualities we need to lead this country. We're in one of the most dangerous times in human history and the neocons who support McCain and Palin have been responsible for throwing a lighted match on the powderkeg. This column by Katha Pollitt is at www.thenation.com:
Count me as a feminist who never believed that being PTA president meant you could be, well, President. The more time we spend on dippy ruminations--how does she do it? Queen Bee on steroids or the hockey mom next door? how hot is Todd, anyway?--the less focus there will be on the kind of queries that should come first with any vice presidential candidate, and certainly would if Palin were a man. Questions like:
§ Suppose your 14-year-old daughter Willow is brutally raped in her bedroom by an intruder. She becomes pregnant and wants an abortion. Could you tell the parents of America why you think your child and their children should be forced by law to have their rapists' babies?
§ You say you don't believe global warming is man-made. Could you tell us what scientists you've spoken with or read who have led you to that conclusion? What do you think the 2,500 scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are getting wrong?
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SOME REAL QUESTIONS FOR PALIN
I know, I know. Barack Obama is running against John McCain for President. But when you factor in McCain's age and health you have to consider Palin a contender for the presidency. She would be the "heartbeat away" from the Oval Office. Vice Presidential candidates should be vetted the same way as presidential candidates. And Palin, like McCain, is sorely lacking in the qualities we need to lead this country. We're in one of the most dangerous times in human history and the neocons who support McCain and Palin have been responsible for throwing a lighted match on the powderkeg. This column by Katha Pollitt is at www.thenation.com:
Count me as a feminist who never believed that being PTA president meant you could be, well, President. The more time we spend on dippy ruminations--how does she do it? Queen Bee on steroids or the hockey mom next door? how hot is Todd, anyway?--the less focus there will be on the kind of queries that should come first with any vice presidential candidate, and certainly would if Palin were a man. Questions like:
§ Suppose your 14-year-old daughter Willow is brutally raped in her bedroom by an intruder. She becomes pregnant and wants an abortion. Could you tell the parents of America why you think your child and their children should be forced by law to have their rapists' babies?
§ You say you don't believe global warming is man-made. Could you tell us what scientists you've spoken with or read who have led you to that conclusion? What do you think the 2,500 scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are getting wrong?
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
September 09, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PALIN THE RELIGIOUS WACKO
The First Amendment of the Constitution is the First Amendment for a very good reason. It provides for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The "establishment" clause has been under constant assault by the religious right. They see no problem with government enforcement of their religious beliefs, especially in matters like abortion and school prayer. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, is about as far to the right as you can get and her ideas on religion are dangerous to our democracy. This column by Juan Cole is at www.commondreams.org:
Palin has a right to her religious beliefs, as do fundamentalist Muslims who agree with her on so many issues of social policy. None of them has a right, however, to impose their beliefs on others by capturing and deploying the executive power of the state. The most noxious belief that Palin shares with Muslim fundamentalists is her conviction that faith is not a private affair of individuals but rather a moral imperative that believers should import into statecraft wherever they have the opportunity to do so. That is the point of her pledge to shape the judiciary. Such a theocratic impulse is incompatible with the Founding Fathers' commitment to tolerance and democracy, which is why they forbade the government to "establish" or officially support any particular religion or denomination.
McCain once excoriated the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his ilk as "agents of intolerance." That he took such a position gave his opposition to similar intolerance in Islam credibility. In light of his more recent disgraceful kowtowing to the Christian right, McCain's animus against fundamentalist Muslims no longer looks consistent. It looks bigoted and invidious. You can't say you are waging a war on religious extremism if you are trying to put a religious extremist a heartbeat away from the presidency.
TRICKLE DOWN DOESN'T WORK
Even though he calls himself a "maverick," John McCain is offering the same old stale and failed policies of trickle down economics that started during the Reagan years. We're told over and over again that more tax cuts for the rich will produce wonders. What we get is more poverty, disappearing jobs, and massive deficits. The Bush administration should be offered as Trickle Down 101, the absolute and abject failure of the right-wing's free market ideology. This column by Dean Baker is at www.commondreams.org:
Senator McCain and his friends no doubt still believe that the economy's fundamentals are strong, but Friday's jobs numbers clearly show how bad things have gotten. The 6.1 percent unemployment rate reported for August is almost as high as the worst levels from the last recession. A broader measure of labor market weakness, that includes people who can only find part-time work or who have given up looking for jobs, is higher than at any point in the last recession.
When the labor market weakens, workers have less bargaining power with their employers. As a result, wages are trailing more than 2 percentage points behind inflation over the last year.
Wages are virtually the entire income for most workers. If the purchasing power of their wages falls by 2 percent, this is the equivalent of a 2 percentage point increase in their tax rate.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PALIN THE RELIGIOUS WACKO
The First Amendment of the Constitution is the First Amendment for a very good reason. It provides for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The "establishment" clause has been under constant assault by the religious right. They see no problem with government enforcement of their religious beliefs, especially in matters like abortion and school prayer. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, is about as far to the right as you can get and her ideas on religion are dangerous to our democracy. This column by Juan Cole is at www.commondreams.org:
Palin has a right to her religious beliefs, as do fundamentalist Muslims who agree with her on so many issues of social policy. None of them has a right, however, to impose their beliefs on others by capturing and deploying the executive power of the state. The most noxious belief that Palin shares with Muslim fundamentalists is her conviction that faith is not a private affair of individuals but rather a moral imperative that believers should import into statecraft wherever they have the opportunity to do so. That is the point of her pledge to shape the judiciary. Such a theocratic impulse is incompatible with the Founding Fathers' commitment to tolerance and democracy, which is why they forbade the government to "establish" or officially support any particular religion or denomination.
McCain once excoriated the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his ilk as "agents of intolerance." That he took such a position gave his opposition to similar intolerance in Islam credibility. In light of his more recent disgraceful kowtowing to the Christian right, McCain's animus against fundamentalist Muslims no longer looks consistent. It looks bigoted and invidious. You can't say you are waging a war on religious extremism if you are trying to put a religious extremist a heartbeat away from the presidency.
TRICKLE DOWN DOESN'T WORK
Even though he calls himself a "maverick," John McCain is offering the same old stale and failed policies of trickle down economics that started during the Reagan years. We're told over and over again that more tax cuts for the rich will produce wonders. What we get is more poverty, disappearing jobs, and massive deficits. The Bush administration should be offered as Trickle Down 101, the absolute and abject failure of the right-wing's free market ideology. This column by Dean Baker is at www.commondreams.org:
Senator McCain and his friends no doubt still believe that the economy's fundamentals are strong, but Friday's jobs numbers clearly show how bad things have gotten. The 6.1 percent unemployment rate reported for August is almost as high as the worst levels from the last recession. A broader measure of labor market weakness, that includes people who can only find part-time work or who have given up looking for jobs, is higher than at any point in the last recession.
When the labor market weakens, workers have less bargaining power with their employers. As a result, wages are trailing more than 2 percentage points behind inflation over the last year.
Wages are virtually the entire income for most workers. If the purchasing power of their wages falls by 2 percent, this is the equivalent of a 2 percentage point increase in their tax rate.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
September 07, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN-PALIN WOULD BE A DISASTER
We learn today that the big mortgage companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been seized by the federal government. It's a part of the continuing subprime mortgage crisis that is a direct result of the deregulation policies of the Bush administration and the free market disciples who drive Republican economic policies. Even though John McCain calls himself a maverick, he has voted with Bush 90% of the time. If anything, Sarah Palin is even more a doctrinaire right-winger than McCain. Her Medieval beliefs on abortion and social policy should give us major pause because McCain's age and health may prevent his serving out his presidency. This column by Frank Rich is at www.nytimes.com:
Sarah Palin makes John McCain look even older than he is. And he seemed more than willing to play that part on Thursday night. By the time he slogged through his nearly 50-minute acceptance speech longer even than Barack Obama's - you half-expected some brazen younger Republican (Mitt Romney, perhaps?) to dash onstage to give him a gold watch and the bum's rush.
Still, attention must be paid. McCain's address, though largely a repetitive slew of stump-speech lines and worn G.O.P. orthodoxy, reminded us of what we once liked about the guy: his aspirations to bipartisanship, his heroic service in Vietnam, his twinkle. He took his often inaccurate swipes at Obama, but, in winning contrast to Palin and Rudy Giuliani, he wasn't smug or nasty.
The only problem, of course, is that the entire thing was a sham.
As is nakedly evident, the speech's central argument, that the 72-year-old McCain will magically morph into a powerful change agent as president, is a non sequitur. In his 26 years in Washington, most of it with a Republican in the White House and roughly half of it with Republicans in charge of Congress, he was better at lecturing his party about reform than leading a reform movement. G.O.P. corruption and governmental dysfunction only grew. So did his cynical flip-flops on the most destructive policies of the president who remained nameless Thursday night. (In the G.O.P., Bush love is now the second most popular love that dare not speak its name.)
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN-PALIN WOULD BE A DISASTER
We learn today that the big mortgage companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been seized by the federal government. It's a part of the continuing subprime mortgage crisis that is a direct result of the deregulation policies of the Bush administration and the free market disciples who drive Republican economic policies. Even though John McCain calls himself a maverick, he has voted with Bush 90% of the time. If anything, Sarah Palin is even more a doctrinaire right-winger than McCain. Her Medieval beliefs on abortion and social policy should give us major pause because McCain's age and health may prevent his serving out his presidency. This column by Frank Rich is at www.nytimes.com:
Sarah Palin makes John McCain look even older than he is. And he seemed more than willing to play that part on Thursday night. By the time he slogged through his nearly 50-minute acceptance speech longer even than Barack Obama's - you half-expected some brazen younger Republican (Mitt Romney, perhaps?) to dash onstage to give him a gold watch and the bum's rush.
Still, attention must be paid. McCain's address, though largely a repetitive slew of stump-speech lines and worn G.O.P. orthodoxy, reminded us of what we once liked about the guy: his aspirations to bipartisanship, his heroic service in Vietnam, his twinkle. He took his often inaccurate swipes at Obama, but, in winning contrast to Palin and Rudy Giuliani, he wasn't smug or nasty.
The only problem, of course, is that the entire thing was a sham.
As is nakedly evident, the speech's central argument, that the 72-year-old McCain will magically morph into a powerful change agent as president, is a non sequitur. In his 26 years in Washington, most of it with a Republican in the White House and roughly half of it with Republicans in charge of Congress, he was better at lecturing his party about reform than leading a reform movement. G.O.P. corruption and governmental dysfunction only grew. So did his cynical flip-flops on the most destructive policies of the president who remained nameless Thursday night. (In the G.O.P., Bush love is now the second most popular love that dare not speak its name.)
Friday, September 05, 2008
September 05, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE GOP EMPTY SUITS
Republicans offer war and more war, tax cuts for the rich, carte blanche for polluters, immigrant bashing, assaults on civil liberties and the Constitution, bigotry against anyone who's not white, male, and rich, and continued war on the working class. John McCain and Sarah Palin don't offer any positive change, just more of the same and maybe worse. Palin has been connected to the Dominionist movement, which would like to scrap the Constitution and make us live under Old Testament law. If the Taliban is your style, that might be appealing. This editorial is from The New York Times at www.nytimes.com:
Thursday night, Americans mainly saw the old John McCain. He spoke in a moving way about the horrors he endured in Vietnam. He talked with quiet civility about fighting corruption. He said the Republicans “had lost the trust” of the American people and promised to regain it. He decried “the constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving” problems.
But there were also chilling glimpses of the new John McCain, who questioned the patriotism of his opponents as the “me first, country second” crowd and threw out a list of false claims about Barack Obama’s record, saying, for example, that Mr. Obama opposed nuclear power. There was no mention of immigration reform or global warming, Mr. McCain’s signature issues before he decided to veer right to win the nomination.
ENOUGH HYPOCRISY TO GAG A MAGGOT
Kris Kristofferson wrote the lyric that said, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." That's about what freedom means to the Republican party. While their lily white speakers talked up freedom inside the convention hall, protesters outside the hall got arrested on the slightest pretext. It's a little like the "free speech zones" that have followed George W. Bush throughout his presidency. This column by Dave Lindorff is at www.commondreams.org:
McCain's party, and his fundamentalist Christian backers, are always attacking efforts by gay Americans to win the right to marry by saying that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, but clearly, with over half of all those marriages between a man and a woman ending in divorce, it's not all that sacred, and McCain is living testament to that hypocrisy.
But this was just the most blatant of a string of hypocrisies that ran on for four days in the Twin Cities.
There was the long list of speakers touting America's "freedoms" as, outside the convention hall, police thugs dressed in military gear, and armed with huge batons and assault weaponry were bashing in doors and terrorizing journalists, arresting others and dragging them face down along the street, using teargas against peaceful demonstrators and arresting them by the hundreds.
There was McCain talking about how everyone, including the "child of Latino immigrants," is an American, to an audience of Republicans that was so embarrassingly white that you had to shield your eyes from the glare of the screen.
There was Sarah Palin, complaining about a media focus on her pregnant 17-year-old daughter Bristol, all the while shamelessly parading that same daughter and her 18-year-old impregnator, who was dragged down to the convention to be shown off after the two had been somehow convinced to get married and make the baby "legal."
There were the repeated characterizations of McCain as a battler against corruption and the influence of "special interests," without a word of mention of his having been the recipient of over $100,000 in cash from Charles Keating, a corrupt banker whose interests McCain shamelessly pimped for in Congress, only narrowly escaping indictment himself.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE GOP EMPTY SUITS
Republicans offer war and more war, tax cuts for the rich, carte blanche for polluters, immigrant bashing, assaults on civil liberties and the Constitution, bigotry against anyone who's not white, male, and rich, and continued war on the working class. John McCain and Sarah Palin don't offer any positive change, just more of the same and maybe worse. Palin has been connected to the Dominionist movement, which would like to scrap the Constitution and make us live under Old Testament law. If the Taliban is your style, that might be appealing. This editorial is from The New York Times at www.nytimes.com:
Thursday night, Americans mainly saw the old John McCain. He spoke in a moving way about the horrors he endured in Vietnam. He talked with quiet civility about fighting corruption. He said the Republicans “had lost the trust” of the American people and promised to regain it. He decried “the constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving” problems.
But there were also chilling glimpses of the new John McCain, who questioned the patriotism of his opponents as the “me first, country second” crowd and threw out a list of false claims about Barack Obama’s record, saying, for example, that Mr. Obama opposed nuclear power. There was no mention of immigration reform or global warming, Mr. McCain’s signature issues before he decided to veer right to win the nomination.
ENOUGH HYPOCRISY TO GAG A MAGGOT
Kris Kristofferson wrote the lyric that said, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." That's about what freedom means to the Republican party. While their lily white speakers talked up freedom inside the convention hall, protesters outside the hall got arrested on the slightest pretext. It's a little like the "free speech zones" that have followed George W. Bush throughout his presidency. This column by Dave Lindorff is at www.commondreams.org:
McCain's party, and his fundamentalist Christian backers, are always attacking efforts by gay Americans to win the right to marry by saying that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, but clearly, with over half of all those marriages between a man and a woman ending in divorce, it's not all that sacred, and McCain is living testament to that hypocrisy.
But this was just the most blatant of a string of hypocrisies that ran on for four days in the Twin Cities.
There was the long list of speakers touting America's "freedoms" as, outside the convention hall, police thugs dressed in military gear, and armed with huge batons and assault weaponry were bashing in doors and terrorizing journalists, arresting others and dragging them face down along the street, using teargas against peaceful demonstrators and arresting them by the hundreds.
There was McCain talking about how everyone, including the "child of Latino immigrants," is an American, to an audience of Republicans that was so embarrassingly white that you had to shield your eyes from the glare of the screen.
There was Sarah Palin, complaining about a media focus on her pregnant 17-year-old daughter Bristol, all the while shamelessly parading that same daughter and her 18-year-old impregnator, who was dragged down to the convention to be shown off after the two had been somehow convinced to get married and make the baby "legal."
There were the repeated characterizations of McCain as a battler against corruption and the influence of "special interests," without a word of mention of his having been the recipient of over $100,000 in cash from Charles Keating, a corrupt banker whose interests McCain shamelessly pimped for in Congress, only narrowly escaping indictment himself.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
September 04, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
LYING: WHAT REPUBLICANS DO BEST
Republicans can't govern. Every time we get a Republican administration it's like swarms of locusts descending on a wheat field. You get massive tax breaks for the rich, a deterioration of public services, government tilted very much to the interest of big business, tax money diverted to the Republicans' fat cat friends, and more and more government intrusion into our personal lives.
Sarah Palin, as the scripture says, is new wine in an old wine bottle. She's just a version of Spiro Agnew or Dick Cheney in drag. She's very good at sarcasm and hate speech, but not much for any constructive vision for the country. I find it astonishing that McCain and his camp talk about "putting the country first." When have Republicans ever done that in the past few decades?
Richard Nixon's operatives probably derailed the peace talks to end the Vietnam war because ending the war would have won the election for Hubert Humphrey. Reagan's operatives sabotaged efforts to free the Iranian hostages. Jimmy Carter would probably have won reelection if the hostage situation had been resolved. In a "time of war" George W. Bush pushed through huge tax breaks for his rich friends. Such unmitigated gall is nauseating. This article by Robert Parry is at www.consortiumnews.com:
Now, however, Palin has been transformed into a maverick reformer. McCain’s campaign even cites her experience as an abuser of the earmark process as part of the reason she supposedly understands why it must be scrapped.
McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin said Palin’s successes in getting earmarked funds “was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed."
Nevertheless, Palin wrote in a newspaper column just this year that "the federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship." [For more details, see Los Angeles Times, Sept. 3, 2008]
Beyond the GOP's reality-challenged speeches, there was the startling image of a nearly all-white convention – where only 36 of the 2,380 delegates were black, the smallest number in at least 40 years – rollicking in ridicule and bristling with animosity toward Obama, an African-American.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
LYING: WHAT REPUBLICANS DO BEST
Republicans can't govern. Every time we get a Republican administration it's like swarms of locusts descending on a wheat field. You get massive tax breaks for the rich, a deterioration of public services, government tilted very much to the interest of big business, tax money diverted to the Republicans' fat cat friends, and more and more government intrusion into our personal lives.
Sarah Palin, as the scripture says, is new wine in an old wine bottle. She's just a version of Spiro Agnew or Dick Cheney in drag. She's very good at sarcasm and hate speech, but not much for any constructive vision for the country. I find it astonishing that McCain and his camp talk about "putting the country first." When have Republicans ever done that in the past few decades?
Richard Nixon's operatives probably derailed the peace talks to end the Vietnam war because ending the war would have won the election for Hubert Humphrey. Reagan's operatives sabotaged efforts to free the Iranian hostages. Jimmy Carter would probably have won reelection if the hostage situation had been resolved. In a "time of war" George W. Bush pushed through huge tax breaks for his rich friends. Such unmitigated gall is nauseating. This article by Robert Parry is at www.consortiumnews.com:
Now, however, Palin has been transformed into a maverick reformer. McCain’s campaign even cites her experience as an abuser of the earmark process as part of the reason she supposedly understands why it must be scrapped.
McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin said Palin’s successes in getting earmarked funds “was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed."
Nevertheless, Palin wrote in a newspaper column just this year that "the federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship." [For more details, see Los Angeles Times, Sept. 3, 2008]
Beyond the GOP's reality-challenged speeches, there was the startling image of a nearly all-white convention – where only 36 of the 2,380 delegates were black, the smallest number in at least 40 years – rollicking in ridicule and bristling with animosity toward Obama, an African-American.
Monday, September 01, 2008
September 01, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IT'S ABOUT CRUELTY, NOT ABOUT LIFE
I've read about incidents in Islamic culture where rape victims get treated as criminals. The idea is that somehow the woman causes the man to commit rape. Now we learn that GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has stated that if her daughter were impregnated by a rapist she would not approve of an abortion. That is almost mind-boggling in its cruelty, and it's very indicative of how Palin would stand on other social issues. It's also indicative of where McCain would stand. This item comes from www.ownthesidewalk.com:
Why did John McCain pick Sarah Palin as his running mate?
Because in a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Sarah Palin stated unequivocally that if her teenage daughter were impregnated by a rapist, Palin would not allow her to consider terminating the pregnancy.
Now, that’s either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you feel about the relentlessly complex issue of abortion. But to many people who might potentially vote for John McCain over Barack Obama, it’s a good thing. And more importantly, it’s something John McCain can’t say himself.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IT'S ABOUT CRUELTY, NOT ABOUT LIFE
I've read about incidents in Islamic culture where rape victims get treated as criminals. The idea is that somehow the woman causes the man to commit rape. Now we learn that GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has stated that if her daughter were impregnated by a rapist she would not approve of an abortion. That is almost mind-boggling in its cruelty, and it's very indicative of how Palin would stand on other social issues. It's also indicative of where McCain would stand. This item comes from www.ownthesidewalk.com:
Why did John McCain pick Sarah Palin as his running mate?
Because in a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Sarah Palin stated unequivocally that if her teenage daughter were impregnated by a rapist, Palin would not allow her to consider terminating the pregnancy.
Now, that’s either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you feel about the relentlessly complex issue of abortion. But to many people who might potentially vote for John McCain over Barack Obama, it’s a good thing. And more importantly, it’s something John McCain can’t say himself.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
August 31, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DO YOU SEE THE IRONY?
Reports are that Hurricane Gustav may turn into another Category 5 hurricane. New Orleans has been evacuated in anticipation that Gustav is going to slam the Gulf Coast. It brings back memories of Hurricane Katrina from three years ago. The right wing has consistently denied the reality of global climate change. One of the consequences of climate change is monster storms like Katrina and Gustav.
John McCain has picked as his running mate a woman who denies the man-made causes of global climate change. McCain and Palin are supposedly headed to the Gulf Coast region. Gustav is even being used as an excuse for Bush and Cheney to ditch the convention. If McCain and Palin want to invoke God, I wonder why God is disrupting their convention? I wonder in human history when we've had such frequent occurrences of Category 5 hurricanes.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DO YOU SEE THE IRONY?
Reports are that Hurricane Gustav may turn into another Category 5 hurricane. New Orleans has been evacuated in anticipation that Gustav is going to slam the Gulf Coast. It brings back memories of Hurricane Katrina from three years ago. The right wing has consistently denied the reality of global climate change. One of the consequences of climate change is monster storms like Katrina and Gustav.
John McCain has picked as his running mate a woman who denies the man-made causes of global climate change. McCain and Palin are supposedly headed to the Gulf Coast region. Gustav is even being used as an excuse for Bush and Cheney to ditch the convention. If McCain and Palin want to invoke God, I wonder why God is disrupting their convention? I wonder in human history when we've had such frequent occurrences of Category 5 hurricanes.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
August 30, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN PICKS FRONTIER WOMAN
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN PICKS FRONTIER WOMAN
Here we are in the 21st century, but John Sidney McCain clearly has a hankering for the past. McCain talks almost incessantly about being a POW in Vietnam. His policies hue to the laissez-faire rugged individualism me first tradition of Republican reactionary politics. It's a politics that comes down to a might is right philosophy. If you've got a military, solve differences with military responses. You steer government policy to benefit corporations and the rich. You oppose freedom of choice for women.
So we have a somewhat ironic selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. If a woman were selected for the right reasons, I would at least give a favorable nod to McCain for that. But this is a selection that has "pandering" written all over it. Palin is virulently anti-choice, which appears to be her major appeal. She will enthuse the evangelicals who haven't been thrilled with McCain. She believes in what Mike Malloy has called "the talking snake theory of creation." She's anti-environment and doesn't believe human activity is causing global warming. She's a NRA member and hunter. Her history doesn't suggest someone who is in tune with the challenges of the 21st century. But neither does McCain's history, for that matter.
I can almost see Palin wearing bandoliers of bullets for a rifle and clutching a big hunting knife, still dripping from a fresh kill. I wonder if she churns her own butter and takes on grizzly bears bare-fisted.
This shows McCain's ultimate contempt for the American people and especially for women.
This column by Gail Collins is at www.nytimes.com:
John McCain has a low opinion of the vice presidency, which he’s frequently described as a job that involves attending funerals and checking on the health of the president. (Happy 72nd birthday, John!) There’s a lot we don’t know yet about Palin, and I am personally looking forward to deconstructing her role in the Matanuska Maid Dairy closing crisis. But at first glance, she doesn’t seem much less qualified than Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota who most people thought was the most likely pick. Unlike Joe Lieberman, Palin is a member of the same party as the presidential candidate. And unlike Mitt Romney, she has never gone on vacation with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car.
However, I do feel kind of ticked off at the assumptions that the Republicans seem to be making about female voters. It’s a tad reminiscent of the Dan Quayle selection, when the first George Bush’s advisers decided they could close the gender gap with a cute running mate.
The idea that women are going to race off to vote for any candidate with the same internal plumbing is both offensive and historically wrong. When the sexes have parted company in modern elections, it’s generally been because women are more likely to be Democrats, and more concerned about protecting the social safety net. "The gender gap traditionally has been determined by party preference, not by the gender of the candidate," said Ruth Mandel of the Eagleton Institute of Politics.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
August 26, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN=COLD WAR AGAIN
About all that John Sidney McCain has going for him is his record as a POW in Vietnam. Prior to getting shot down and captured, McCain dropped bombs from several thousand feet. He wasn't there on the ground to see the blood and carnage he created. That distance from blood and carnage is a part of his foreign policy. He can joke blithely, "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" without considering all the innocent civilians who would be slaughtered. McCain is part of the whole neocon cabal that wants endless war against any perceived enemies, whether they be terrorists, Russians, or Chinese. This article by Robert Parry is at www.consortiumnews.com:
Another casualty of McCain’s endless Middle East wars, which soon could include Iran, would almost surely be America’s volunteer army. Though McCain officially opposes a restoration of the draft, it is nearly impossible to envision how his multiple wars could be waged without one.
And McCain also had made clear that he favors a neo-Cold War confrontation with Moscow over another part of the neocon agenda – the encircling of Russia with pro-U.S. regimes and the placement of strategic missile systems near Russia’s borders.
The fencing in of Russia fits with the goals of the neocon Project for the New American Century that envisions an endless era of U.S. military dominance that tolerates no potential rivals, whether an emerging China or a resurgent Russia. The recent Russian-Georgian conflict underscores the risks from this neocon concept.
Containing Russia in this way ultimately would require dangerous brinkmanship. And the McCain/neocon belligerence – like McCain’s melodramatic declaration “we are all Georgians” – would guarantee that one of these swaggering showdowns eventually would push the world to the brink of a nuclear confrontation.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN=COLD WAR AGAIN
About all that John Sidney McCain has going for him is his record as a POW in Vietnam. Prior to getting shot down and captured, McCain dropped bombs from several thousand feet. He wasn't there on the ground to see the blood and carnage he created. That distance from blood and carnage is a part of his foreign policy. He can joke blithely, "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" without considering all the innocent civilians who would be slaughtered. McCain is part of the whole neocon cabal that wants endless war against any perceived enemies, whether they be terrorists, Russians, or Chinese. This article by Robert Parry is at www.consortiumnews.com:
Another casualty of McCain’s endless Middle East wars, which soon could include Iran, would almost surely be America’s volunteer army. Though McCain officially opposes a restoration of the draft, it is nearly impossible to envision how his multiple wars could be waged without one.
And McCain also had made clear that he favors a neo-Cold War confrontation with Moscow over another part of the neocon agenda – the encircling of Russia with pro-U.S. regimes and the placement of strategic missile systems near Russia’s borders.
The fencing in of Russia fits with the goals of the neocon Project for the New American Century that envisions an endless era of U.S. military dominance that tolerates no potential rivals, whether an emerging China or a resurgent Russia. The recent Russian-Georgian conflict underscores the risks from this neocon concept.
Containing Russia in this way ultimately would require dangerous brinkmanship. And the McCain/neocon belligerence – like McCain’s melodramatic declaration “we are all Georgians” – would guarantee that one of these swaggering showdowns eventually would push the world to the brink of a nuclear confrontation.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
August 24, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN THE REACTIONARY
Nostalgia is a powerful thing. You can easily get caught up in the idea that things just aren't the way they used to be, that somehow that past was better. I will grant there are things about the past I like better.
But there are many things about the past we would not want again. We don't want the Cold War back. We don't want racial segregation back. We don't want women forced into back alley abortions. We don't want the Gilded Age, although we've been living through a version of the Gilded Age in the past eight years. John McCain represents all the bad things about the past.
We need a country without a chasm existing between the rich and poor. We need a country that uses diplomacy to solve problems and not military responses. We need a country that cares about the environment and about providing for the needs of all its citizens. This column by Frank Rich is at www.nytimes.com:
How we dig out of this quagmire is the American story that Obama must tell. It is not a story of endless conflicts abroad but a potentially inspiring tale of serious economic, educational, energy and health-care mobilization at home. We don’t have the time or resources to go off on more quixotic military missions or to indulge in culture wars. (In China, they’re too busy exploiting scientific advances for competitive advantage to reopen settled debates about Darwin.) Americans must band together for change before the new century leaves us completely behind. The Obama campaign actually has plans, however imperfect or provisional, to set us on that path; the McCain campaign offers only disposable Band-Aids typified by the “drill now” mantra that even McCain says will only have a “psychological” effect on gas prices.
Even as it points to America’s future, the Obama campaign also has the duty to fill in its opponent’s past. McCain’s attacks on Obama have worked: in last week’s Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, Obama’s favorable rating declined from 59 to 48 percent and his negative rating rose from 27 to 35. Yet McCain still has a lower positive rating (46 percent) and higher negative rating (38) than Obama. McCain is not nearly as popular among Americans, it turns out, as he is among his journalistic camp followers. Should voters actually get to know him, he has nowhere to go but down.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN THE REACTIONARY
Nostalgia is a powerful thing. You can easily get caught up in the idea that things just aren't the way they used to be, that somehow that past was better. I will grant there are things about the past I like better.
But there are many things about the past we would not want again. We don't want the Cold War back. We don't want racial segregation back. We don't want women forced into back alley abortions. We don't want the Gilded Age, although we've been living through a version of the Gilded Age in the past eight years. John McCain represents all the bad things about the past.
We need a country without a chasm existing between the rich and poor. We need a country that uses diplomacy to solve problems and not military responses. We need a country that cares about the environment and about providing for the needs of all its citizens. This column by Frank Rich is at www.nytimes.com:
How we dig out of this quagmire is the American story that Obama must tell. It is not a story of endless conflicts abroad but a potentially inspiring tale of serious economic, educational, energy and health-care mobilization at home. We don’t have the time or resources to go off on more quixotic military missions or to indulge in culture wars. (In China, they’re too busy exploiting scientific advances for competitive advantage to reopen settled debates about Darwin.) Americans must band together for change before the new century leaves us completely behind. The Obama campaign actually has plans, however imperfect or provisional, to set us on that path; the McCain campaign offers only disposable Band-Aids typified by the “drill now” mantra that even McCain says will only have a “psychological” effect on gas prices.
Even as it points to America’s future, the Obama campaign also has the duty to fill in its opponent’s past. McCain’s attacks on Obama have worked: in last week’s Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, Obama’s favorable rating declined from 59 to 48 percent and his negative rating rose from 27 to 35. Yet McCain still has a lower positive rating (46 percent) and higher negative rating (38) than Obama. McCain is not nearly as popular among Americans, it turns out, as he is among his journalistic camp followers. Should voters actually get to know him, he has nowhere to go but down.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
August 19, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IF YOU WANT A LOUSY ECONOMY, VOTE MCCAIN
A few days ago a typical right-wing letter to The Fresno Bee claimed that Democrats haven't learned that increasing taxes on the rich is just bad, bad, bad. The writer claimed it's not tax cuts for the rich that drive deficits, but spending. The problem is that constructive spending, things like education, health care, infrastructure, and protecting the environment isn't going on. We have too little spending on the crucial segments of our economy. We spend plenty on weapons and on military bases. History shows that Republican economics are a disaster. They've been a disaster since the days of Herbert Hoover. It's time the richest people in this society and corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. It's also time that money be spent legitimately. This article by Dean Baker is at www.commondreams.org:
Senator McCain now faces a similar situation in this election. He is stuck running on the record of a president who is presiding over an economy that is sinking into recession and is facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. By contrast, Senator Obama can claim the legacy of the strong economy of the Clinton years.
Tarred with the most dismal record of job creation and income growth of any president since the Great Depression, it would be reasonable to expect that Senator McCain would be defensive on the economy; but not in Swift Boat America.
Instead Senator McCain is filling the airwaves with commercials telling the public that Obama’s tax increases will slow growth and cost the economy jobs. It’s pretty scary stuff to anyone who takes it seriously.
Of course, there’s no truth to Senator McCain’s Swift Boat economics. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, when rich people paid the same tax rates proposed by Senator Obama, the private sector added 15.8 million jobs. By contrast, in the seven years and six months of the Bush administration, when rich people paid the Bush-McCain tax rates, the private sector has added just 3.5 million jobs. And, it is losing jobs at the rate of almost 100,000 a month as President Bush prepares for retirement.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IF YOU WANT A LOUSY ECONOMY, VOTE MCCAIN
A few days ago a typical right-wing letter to The Fresno Bee claimed that Democrats haven't learned that increasing taxes on the rich is just bad, bad, bad. The writer claimed it's not tax cuts for the rich that drive deficits, but spending. The problem is that constructive spending, things like education, health care, infrastructure, and protecting the environment isn't going on. We have too little spending on the crucial segments of our economy. We spend plenty on weapons and on military bases. History shows that Republican economics are a disaster. They've been a disaster since the days of Herbert Hoover. It's time the richest people in this society and corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. It's also time that money be spent legitimately. This article by Dean Baker is at www.commondreams.org:
Senator McCain now faces a similar situation in this election. He is stuck running on the record of a president who is presiding over an economy that is sinking into recession and is facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. By contrast, Senator Obama can claim the legacy of the strong economy of the Clinton years.
Tarred with the most dismal record of job creation and income growth of any president since the Great Depression, it would be reasonable to expect that Senator McCain would be defensive on the economy; but not in Swift Boat America.
Instead Senator McCain is filling the airwaves with commercials telling the public that Obama’s tax increases will slow growth and cost the economy jobs. It’s pretty scary stuff to anyone who takes it seriously.
Of course, there’s no truth to Senator McCain’s Swift Boat economics. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, when rich people paid the same tax rates proposed by Senator Obama, the private sector added 15.8 million jobs. By contrast, in the seven years and six months of the Bush administration, when rich people paid the Bush-McCain tax rates, the private sector has added just 3.5 million jobs. And, it is losing jobs at the rate of almost 100,000 a month as President Bush prepares for retirement.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
August 16, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF STUPIDITY
The United States has a long history of anti-intellectualism. It baffles me that people don't like smart people. Maybe it's some kind of inferiority complex. But stupidity is costing us dearly. It allowed the most stupid man ever to occupy the Oval Office to assume power and proceed to wreck everything: the economy, foreign policy, environmental stewardship, and civil liberties. The war in Iraq has cost thousands upon thousands of innocent lives and disrupted the region. Lack of principle and ethics often go together with stupidity. This interview with Susan Jacoby is at www.alternet.org:
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." Barack Obama finally said it.
Though a successful political and electoral strategy, the Right's stand against intelligence has steered them far off course, leaving them -- and us -- unable to deal successfully with the complex and dynamic circumstances we face as a nation and a society.
American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 29 countries in math literacy, and their parents are as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution; roughly 30 to 40 percent believe in each. Their president believes "the jury is still out" on evolution.
Steve Colbert interviewed Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland on "The Colbert Report." Westmoreland co-sponsored a bill that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but, when asked, couldn't actually list the commandments.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF STUPIDITY
The United States has a long history of anti-intellectualism. It baffles me that people don't like smart people. Maybe it's some kind of inferiority complex. But stupidity is costing us dearly. It allowed the most stupid man ever to occupy the Oval Office to assume power and proceed to wreck everything: the economy, foreign policy, environmental stewardship, and civil liberties. The war in Iraq has cost thousands upon thousands of innocent lives and disrupted the region. Lack of principle and ethics often go together with stupidity. This interview with Susan Jacoby is at www.alternet.org:
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." Barack Obama finally said it.
Though a successful political and electoral strategy, the Right's stand against intelligence has steered them far off course, leaving them -- and us -- unable to deal successfully with the complex and dynamic circumstances we face as a nation and a society.
American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 29 countries in math literacy, and their parents are as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution; roughly 30 to 40 percent believe in each. Their president believes "the jury is still out" on evolution.
Steve Colbert interviewed Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland on "The Colbert Report." Westmoreland co-sponsored a bill that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but, when asked, couldn't actually list the commandments.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
August 12, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
REPUBLICANS AND POVERTY
Do you remember the song that said, "Love and marriage go together like a horse a carriage"? It's not quite so romantic with Republicans and poverty, but there is a definite relationship. Under the "trickle down" economics we saw during the Reagan-Bush years and now under George W. Bush poverty has dramatically increased in the United States. This article notes that Fresno has the highest working poverty rate in the country. Fresno, the home of freerepublic.com and an infestation of right-wingers. What a surprise. This article by Tim Jones is at www.chicagotribune.com:
The percentage of working poor in large metropolitan areas soared by 40 percent during the first half of the decade, reversing gains from the 1990s in the fight against poverty, according to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution.
THE OVERVIEW
The study covered 1999 through 2005 and examined 58 metro areas, finding that 34 reported increased rates of "concentrated working poverty," a measurement of low-income workers and families living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Twenty-four areas registered declining rates. Old industrial areas like Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Cleveland recorded some of the highest poverty rates. The Midwest and Northeast recorded higher average rates than the South and significantly higher rates than the West.
The note about Fresno:
Detroit and its suburbs in 2005 had the highest concentrated working poverty rate in the Midwest: 27.5 percent, followed by St. Louis (21.6 percent), Cleveland (21.5 percent) and Chicago—plus its Illinois and Northwest Indiana suburbs—at 17.9 percent. The highest rate in the Northeast was the Philadelphia metropolitan area, at 25.5 percent.
The highest rates were recorded in Fresno, Calif., (30 percent) and Augusta-Richmond County, on the Georgia/South Carolina border (29.3 percent). Among the regions, the Northeast had the highest concentrated poverty rate at 17.6 percent, followed by the Midwest at 14.8 percent, the South at 13.1 percent and the West at 6.7 percent.
PRACTICE YOUR OWN ABORTION BELIEFS
I have not weighed in much on the subject of abortion. For one thing, I think abortion is a decision best left to pregnant women and those closest to them. I also think that people with religious objections to abortion who try to make their religious beliefs a part of secular law are violating the First Amendment provisions that prohibit establishment of a religion. Even people who believe in God and religion are divided on the subject of abortion. Some people object to all abortion; others believe abortion is justified when the woman's life is in danger or the pregnancy results from rape or incest. The Bible, if one wants to cite the Bible, doesn't even have much to say about abortion. The government should stay out of our personal lives, including the right to choice. This article by Caroline Arnold is at www.commondreams.org:
I can’t accept, either as a matter of personal conscience, or of my commitment to my neighbors and the planet we live on, that we should invest scarce resources, argue endlessly and fruitlessly, and punish women, neglect children and forestall medical research in order to keep every fertilized ovum alive.
I believe we have more important things to do — making sure children already born have enough to eat, medical care and education, and learning to live together without killing each other and consuming the planet we live on.
I don’t think the abortion question is about religion, except insofar as most religious people think that God doesn’t like it because it destroys a human life. What kind of a god worries about the destruction of some unviable human tissue but designs human reproductive systems with a 50 percent attrition rate? What kind of god gives males the choice to conceive a baby but doesn’t give females the choice to reject it? What kind of god allows older children to starve so that younger ones may be born, or permits babies to be born to a life of want, violence and fear? Not one I want to have anything to do with. And I won’t accept the “It was ever thus” argument about human frailty. Just because we humans have always done badly doesn’t excuse us from trying to do better, for ourselves, because we are all one family.
That said, however, I have to retreat a step. I do have a kind of religious faith, pretty much defined by what it is not. The Skeptic in me demands that the utilitarian condition must be satisfied — God cannot be less than as source of Goodness — love, grace, fulfillment — that is available to all creatures and living systems. But my Resident Mystic keeps insisting that a God worthy of human experience must be more than a bearded old man obsessed with sex and virgins, strewing goodness about while withholding it from sinners and showering wealth on entrepreneurial men, handing down Ten Immutable Rules for human behavior, torturing the wicked, and advising George W. Bush on how to conduct his war on terror. I believe we are called to imagine a God of Truth and Uncertainty, Beauty and Disorder, Joy and Loss, while we are challenged to love our neighbors and seek to live with them in peace.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
REPUBLICANS AND POVERTY
Do you remember the song that said, "Love and marriage go together like a horse a carriage"? It's not quite so romantic with Republicans and poverty, but there is a definite relationship. Under the "trickle down" economics we saw during the Reagan-Bush years and now under George W. Bush poverty has dramatically increased in the United States. This article notes that Fresno has the highest working poverty rate in the country. Fresno, the home of freerepublic.com and an infestation of right-wingers. What a surprise. This article by Tim Jones is at www.chicagotribune.com:
The percentage of working poor in large metropolitan areas soared by 40 percent during the first half of the decade, reversing gains from the 1990s in the fight against poverty, according to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution.
THE OVERVIEW
The study covered 1999 through 2005 and examined 58 metro areas, finding that 34 reported increased rates of "concentrated working poverty," a measurement of low-income workers and families living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Twenty-four areas registered declining rates. Old industrial areas like Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Cleveland recorded some of the highest poverty rates. The Midwest and Northeast recorded higher average rates than the South and significantly higher rates than the West.
The note about Fresno:
Detroit and its suburbs in 2005 had the highest concentrated working poverty rate in the Midwest: 27.5 percent, followed by St. Louis (21.6 percent), Cleveland (21.5 percent) and Chicago—plus its Illinois and Northwest Indiana suburbs—at 17.9 percent. The highest rate in the Northeast was the Philadelphia metropolitan area, at 25.5 percent.
The highest rates were recorded in Fresno, Calif., (30 percent) and Augusta-Richmond County, on the Georgia/South Carolina border (29.3 percent). Among the regions, the Northeast had the highest concentrated poverty rate at 17.6 percent, followed by the Midwest at 14.8 percent, the South at 13.1 percent and the West at 6.7 percent.
PRACTICE YOUR OWN ABORTION BELIEFS
I have not weighed in much on the subject of abortion. For one thing, I think abortion is a decision best left to pregnant women and those closest to them. I also think that people with religious objections to abortion who try to make their religious beliefs a part of secular law are violating the First Amendment provisions that prohibit establishment of a religion. Even people who believe in God and religion are divided on the subject of abortion. Some people object to all abortion; others believe abortion is justified when the woman's life is in danger or the pregnancy results from rape or incest. The Bible, if one wants to cite the Bible, doesn't even have much to say about abortion. The government should stay out of our personal lives, including the right to choice. This article by Caroline Arnold is at www.commondreams.org:
I can’t accept, either as a matter of personal conscience, or of my commitment to my neighbors and the planet we live on, that we should invest scarce resources, argue endlessly and fruitlessly, and punish women, neglect children and forestall medical research in order to keep every fertilized ovum alive.
I believe we have more important things to do — making sure children already born have enough to eat, medical care and education, and learning to live together without killing each other and consuming the planet we live on.
I don’t think the abortion question is about religion, except insofar as most religious people think that God doesn’t like it because it destroys a human life. What kind of a god worries about the destruction of some unviable human tissue but designs human reproductive systems with a 50 percent attrition rate? What kind of god gives males the choice to conceive a baby but doesn’t give females the choice to reject it? What kind of god allows older children to starve so that younger ones may be born, or permits babies to be born to a life of want, violence and fear? Not one I want to have anything to do with. And I won’t accept the “It was ever thus” argument about human frailty. Just because we humans have always done badly doesn’t excuse us from trying to do better, for ourselves, because we are all one family.
That said, however, I have to retreat a step. I do have a kind of religious faith, pretty much defined by what it is not. The Skeptic in me demands that the utilitarian condition must be satisfied — God cannot be less than as source of Goodness — love, grace, fulfillment — that is available to all creatures and living systems. But my Resident Mystic keeps insisting that a God worthy of human experience must be more than a bearded old man obsessed with sex and virgins, strewing goodness about while withholding it from sinners and showering wealth on entrepreneurial men, handing down Ten Immutable Rules for human behavior, torturing the wicked, and advising George W. Bush on how to conduct his war on terror. I believe we are called to imagine a God of Truth and Uncertainty, Beauty and Disorder, Joy and Loss, while we are challenged to love our neighbors and seek to live with them in peace.
Monday, August 11, 2008
August 11, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IT DOES TAKE A VILLAGE
Right-wingers argue that the society that works best is with government that works least. You can't have those nasty regulations. You can't have any social safety net because, you know, it makes people "dependent." Everything works best if it's privatized and it's every man for himself (women aren't much of a consideration in right-wing land). But the truth is that government has a vital role in providing and maintaining infrastructure, in providing a regulatory framework, and insuring that predators don't get free rein. This article by Joseph Stiglitz is at www.alternet.org:
Failures to promote social solidarity can have other costs, not the least of which are the social and private expenditures required to protect property and incarcerate criminals. It is estimated that within a few years, America will have more people working in the security business than in education. A year in prison can cost more than a year at Harvard. The cost of incarcerating two million Americans -- one of the highest per capita rates (pdf) in the world -- should be viewed as a subtraction from GDP, yet it is added on.
A second major difference between left and right concerns the role of the state in promoting development. The left understands that the government's role in providing infrastructure and education, developing technology, and even acting as an entrepreneur is vital. Government laid the foundations of the internet and the modern biotechnology revolutions. In the 19th century, research at America's government-supported universities provided the basis for the agricultural revolution. Government then brought these advances to millions of American farmers. Small business loans have been pivotal in creating not only new businesses, but whole new industries.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IT DOES TAKE A VILLAGE
Right-wingers argue that the society that works best is with government that works least. You can't have those nasty regulations. You can't have any social safety net because, you know, it makes people "dependent." Everything works best if it's privatized and it's every man for himself (women aren't much of a consideration in right-wing land). But the truth is that government has a vital role in providing and maintaining infrastructure, in providing a regulatory framework, and insuring that predators don't get free rein. This article by Joseph Stiglitz is at www.alternet.org:
Failures to promote social solidarity can have other costs, not the least of which are the social and private expenditures required to protect property and incarcerate criminals. It is estimated that within a few years, America will have more people working in the security business than in education. A year in prison can cost more than a year at Harvard. The cost of incarcerating two million Americans -- one of the highest per capita rates (pdf) in the world -- should be viewed as a subtraction from GDP, yet it is added on.
A second major difference between left and right concerns the role of the state in promoting development. The left understands that the government's role in providing infrastructure and education, developing technology, and even acting as an entrepreneur is vital. Government laid the foundations of the internet and the modern biotechnology revolutions. In the 19th century, research at America's government-supported universities provided the basis for the agricultural revolution. Government then brought these advances to millions of American farmers. Small business loans have been pivotal in creating not only new businesses, but whole new industries.
Monday, August 04, 2008
August 04, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CONSERVATISM IS A DISASTER
If you like jobs going offshore, if you like tainted food and medicine, if you like gargantuan government deficits, if you like the housing crisis, if you like roasting due to global climate change, if you like the government spying on you, if you like getting involved in bloody and unnecessary wars, and if you think that torture represents us at our best, you must be a conservative. This article by Greg Anrig is at www.washingtonpost.com:
The single theme that most animated the modern conservative movement was the conviction that government was the problem and market forces the solution. It was a simple, elegant, politically attractive idea, and the right applied it to virtually every major domestic challenge -- retirement security, health care, education, jobs, the environment and so on. Whatever the issue, conservatives proposed substituting market forces for government -- pushing the bureaucrats aside and letting private-sector competition work to everyone's benefit.
So they advocated creating health savings accounts, handing out school vouchers, privatizing Social Security, shifting government functions to private contractors, and curtailing regulations on public health, safety, the environment and more. And, of course, they pushed to cut taxes to further weaken the public sector by "starving the beast." President Bush has followed this playbook more closely than any previous president, including Reagan, notwithstanding today's desperate efforts by the right to distance itself from the deeply unpopular chief executive.
But in practice, those ideas have all failed to deliver on the promises the conservatives made, and in many instances, the dogma has actually created new problems. Particularly after Hurricane Katrina, when Americans saw how hapless the Federal Emergency Management Agency was, the public has begun to realize that the right's hostility toward government has produced only ineffective government.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CONSERVATISM IS A DISASTER
If you like jobs going offshore, if you like tainted food and medicine, if you like gargantuan government deficits, if you like the housing crisis, if you like roasting due to global climate change, if you like the government spying on you, if you like getting involved in bloody and unnecessary wars, and if you think that torture represents us at our best, you must be a conservative. This article by Greg Anrig is at www.washingtonpost.com:
The single theme that most animated the modern conservative movement was the conviction that government was the problem and market forces the solution. It was a simple, elegant, politically attractive idea, and the right applied it to virtually every major domestic challenge -- retirement security, health care, education, jobs, the environment and so on. Whatever the issue, conservatives proposed substituting market forces for government -- pushing the bureaucrats aside and letting private-sector competition work to everyone's benefit.
So they advocated creating health savings accounts, handing out school vouchers, privatizing Social Security, shifting government functions to private contractors, and curtailing regulations on public health, safety, the environment and more. And, of course, they pushed to cut taxes to further weaken the public sector by "starving the beast." President Bush has followed this playbook more closely than any previous president, including Reagan, notwithstanding today's desperate efforts by the right to distance itself from the deeply unpopular chief executive.
But in practice, those ideas have all failed to deliver on the promises the conservatives made, and in many instances, the dogma has actually created new problems. Particularly after Hurricane Katrina, when Americans saw how hapless the Federal Emergency Management Agency was, the public has begun to realize that the right's hostility toward government has produced only ineffective government.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
August 03, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IF YOU CAN'T WIN, SMEAR
John McCain isn't such a maverick after all. He's following in the "grand" Republican tradition of smearing his opponent rather than running honestly on issues. Of course, McCain hasn't got many issues to run on. Everything the Bush administration has touched has been a disaster, and McCain only promises more of the same. So McCain has turned to the Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove playbook of running on non-issues. Attack your opponent and distract attention and maybe you can fool enough people to get elected. This article by By John Heilemann is at nymag.com:
For those not keeping score, a quick review of the McCain campaign’s lunge for Obama’s jugular. First, its new slogan: "Country first," with its inverse insinuation that Obama puts something else (i.e., his own ambition) ahead of the nation. Second, McCain’s accusation that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." Third, the McCain ad "Troops," which claims that Obama, while in Germany, "made time to go the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops—seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras." And, finally, the ad "Celeb," with its intercut images of Obama in Berlin, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears.
The strategy behind all this isn’t hard to discern: Drive up Obama’s negatives and render him unacceptable to pivotal voting blocs. Thus the depiction of him as too young, too feckless, and too pampered to be president. (In almost every shot in the McCain ads, Obama is smiling flashily, whereas McCain is pictured as weathered, sober, staring hard into the distance—a clever bit of jujitsu, using Obama’s pretty mug against him.) Thus the portrayal of him as precious, self-infatuated, and effete: "Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand ‘MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew—Black Forest Berry Honest Tea’ and worry about the price of arugula," wrote campaign manager Rick Davis in an e-mail announcing "Celeb." And thus the emphasis on Obama’s rock-star persona, designed to engender envy and contempt among the swath of Middle America for which hipness is no virtue but a sign of pretension.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IF YOU CAN'T WIN, SMEAR
John McCain isn't such a maverick after all. He's following in the "grand" Republican tradition of smearing his opponent rather than running honestly on issues. Of course, McCain hasn't got many issues to run on. Everything the Bush administration has touched has been a disaster, and McCain only promises more of the same. So McCain has turned to the Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove playbook of running on non-issues. Attack your opponent and distract attention and maybe you can fool enough people to get elected. This article by By John Heilemann is at nymag.com:
For those not keeping score, a quick review of the McCain campaign’s lunge for Obama’s jugular. First, its new slogan: "Country first," with its inverse insinuation that Obama puts something else (i.e., his own ambition) ahead of the nation. Second, McCain’s accusation that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." Third, the McCain ad "Troops," which claims that Obama, while in Germany, "made time to go the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops—seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras." And, finally, the ad "Celeb," with its intercut images of Obama in Berlin, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears.
The strategy behind all this isn’t hard to discern: Drive up Obama’s negatives and render him unacceptable to pivotal voting blocs. Thus the depiction of him as too young, too feckless, and too pampered to be president. (In almost every shot in the McCain ads, Obama is smiling flashily, whereas McCain is pictured as weathered, sober, staring hard into the distance—a clever bit of jujitsu, using Obama’s pretty mug against him.) Thus the portrayal of him as precious, self-infatuated, and effete: "Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand ‘MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew—Black Forest Berry Honest Tea’ and worry about the price of arugula," wrote campaign manager Rick Davis in an e-mail announcing "Celeb." And thus the emphasis on Obama’s rock-star persona, designed to engender envy and contempt among the swath of Middle America for which hipness is no virtue but a sign of pretension.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
July 29, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE MARCH OF STUPIDITY
I remember a quote from an Isaac Asimov novel: "Against stupidity even the gods themselves must contend." The gods would be very disappointed in the contemporary United States. It seems sometimes that stupidity is an epidemic. It's not just the abuse of the English language. It's the absolute inability to relate the past to the present, to separate the absolute nonsense we get from so many pundits and politicians from reality, or the taste in television shows that almost make stupidity a virtue. This article by Leonard Pitts Jr. is at www.commondreams.org:
I am not talking about ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of information; we’re all ignorant in one way or another. Nor am I talking about people prone to punctuation or spelling errors; we all make mistakes.
No, I’m talking about stupidity, which I define as an inability to analyze, draw conclusions from, or otherwise use information even when one has it. And stupidity is often characterized by smug indifference. When a CNN anchor drew Rinehart’s attention to his spelling errors, his reply was, ”I don’t necessarily care.” This is, I feel constrained to remind you, the elected representative of 220,000 people.
For as much as we obsess over black vs. white and red vs. blue, I suspect the defining division of this technology-driven era will be between those who have and can exploit information and those who do not and cannot. Between intelligence and its opposite. One wonders how long we can continue to equate stupidity with ”keeping it real,” being a regular Joe or Jane, and hope to continue leading the world.
TOBY KEITH AND LYNCHING
In right-wing mythology you can get rich in this country if you have talent and work hard. I have a two word answer to rebut that: Toby Keith. I love country music, but I loathe Toby Keith and other fakes who pose as country music artists. Keith's talent is sparse, at best, but what is worse is that the hate message he consistently puts out in what he calls "music." Now Keith is putting lynching to a beat. This article by Max Blumenthal is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Those who doubt the presence of racist undertones in Keith's "Beer For My Horses" should see the song's video. (The embed link to the video's Youtube version was disabled by Keith's record label so you have to click here to watch it). Cue ahead to 3:00 and watch as Keith intones, "We got too many gangsters doin' dirty deeds." The singer's words are not-so-subtly accompanied by the image of a swaggering black man sporting short dreads and baggy clothes. Thus the profile of Keith's ideal lynching candidate is revealed.
Keith's whirlwind publicity tour continues on July 30 with his appearance on CBS's Early Show, then sit-down interviews with Esquire Magazine and Us Weekly. The following week, Jay Leno will play host to another raucous rendition of "Beer For My Horses." Thanks to Keith and his unsuspecting hosts, lynching is becoming cool again.
_______
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE MARCH OF STUPIDITY
I remember a quote from an Isaac Asimov novel: "Against stupidity even the gods themselves must contend." The gods would be very disappointed in the contemporary United States. It seems sometimes that stupidity is an epidemic. It's not just the abuse of the English language. It's the absolute inability to relate the past to the present, to separate the absolute nonsense we get from so many pundits and politicians from reality, or the taste in television shows that almost make stupidity a virtue. This article by Leonard Pitts Jr. is at www.commondreams.org:
I am not talking about ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of information; we’re all ignorant in one way or another. Nor am I talking about people prone to punctuation or spelling errors; we all make mistakes.
No, I’m talking about stupidity, which I define as an inability to analyze, draw conclusions from, or otherwise use information even when one has it. And stupidity is often characterized by smug indifference. When a CNN anchor drew Rinehart’s attention to his spelling errors, his reply was, ”I don’t necessarily care.” This is, I feel constrained to remind you, the elected representative of 220,000 people.
For as much as we obsess over black vs. white and red vs. blue, I suspect the defining division of this technology-driven era will be between those who have and can exploit information and those who do not and cannot. Between intelligence and its opposite. One wonders how long we can continue to equate stupidity with ”keeping it real,” being a regular Joe or Jane, and hope to continue leading the world.
TOBY KEITH AND LYNCHING
In right-wing mythology you can get rich in this country if you have talent and work hard. I have a two word answer to rebut that: Toby Keith. I love country music, but I loathe Toby Keith and other fakes who pose as country music artists. Keith's talent is sparse, at best, but what is worse is that the hate message he consistently puts out in what he calls "music." Now Keith is putting lynching to a beat. This article by Max Blumenthal is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Those who doubt the presence of racist undertones in Keith's "Beer For My Horses" should see the song's video. (The embed link to the video's Youtube version was disabled by Keith's record label so you have to click here to watch it). Cue ahead to 3:00 and watch as Keith intones, "We got too many gangsters doin' dirty deeds." The singer's words are not-so-subtly accompanied by the image of a swaggering black man sporting short dreads and baggy clothes. Thus the profile of Keith's ideal lynching candidate is revealed.
Keith's whirlwind publicity tour continues on July 30 with his appearance on CBS's Early Show, then sit-down interviews with Esquire Magazine and Us Weekly. The following week, Jay Leno will play host to another raucous rendition of "Beer For My Horses." Thanks to Keith and his unsuspecting hosts, lynching is becoming cool again.
_______
Monday, July 28, 2008
July 28, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE RELIGION RACKET
I don't understand why people turn off their reasoning ability when they are involved with religion. It must be a strong desire to believe in magic. "Intelligent design" theorists try to put an intellectual gloss on religion, but it doesn't stand up. A belief that has been around a long time, but is even more prominent now, is "prosperity" theology. The snake oil salesmen will tell you that God wants you to be rich. Just pray enough, believe enough, and tithe enough and you too will be rich. Conversely, if you're poor, it must mean that God doesn't favor you. This article by Meg White is at http://www.buzzflash.com/:
There are two things that just shouldn't mix with religion: politics and money. But with President George W. Bush's reliance upon the evangelical Christian vote to get elected and some pastors' promises to believers that worshiping and giving to the church will bring them personal wealth, there's no shortage of examples of people who benefit greatly by combining twisted views of God and economics.
The Bible doesn't seem to square with either the evangelical notion of "prosperity theology" or Republican economic theory. Jesus tells his followers to give everything to the needy. He also says that we should pay our taxes, rendering unto Caesar (i.e., the government) what is his.
What would Jesus do? Well, none of us can say for sure, but I have a feeling he wouldn't advocate slashing social services for the poor and cutting taxes for the wealthy. And as much as he advocated helping the downtrodden, he wasn't passing around the collection plate himself.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE RELIGION RACKET
I don't understand why people turn off their reasoning ability when they are involved with religion. It must be a strong desire to believe in magic. "Intelligent design" theorists try to put an intellectual gloss on religion, but it doesn't stand up. A belief that has been around a long time, but is even more prominent now, is "prosperity" theology. The snake oil salesmen will tell you that God wants you to be rich. Just pray enough, believe enough, and tithe enough and you too will be rich. Conversely, if you're poor, it must mean that God doesn't favor you. This article by Meg White is at http://www.buzzflash.com/:
There are two things that just shouldn't mix with religion: politics and money. But with President George W. Bush's reliance upon the evangelical Christian vote to get elected and some pastors' promises to believers that worshiping and giving to the church will bring them personal wealth, there's no shortage of examples of people who benefit greatly by combining twisted views of God and economics.
The Bible doesn't seem to square with either the evangelical notion of "prosperity theology" or Republican economic theory. Jesus tells his followers to give everything to the needy. He also says that we should pay our taxes, rendering unto Caesar (i.e., the government) what is his.
What would Jesus do? Well, none of us can say for sure, but I have a feeling he wouldn't advocate slashing social services for the poor and cutting taxes for the wealthy. And as much as he advocated helping the downtrodden, he wasn't passing around the collection plate himself.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
July 22, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE PROBLEM, NOT SOCIAL SECURITY
A few months ago I had an "interview" with a guy representing the World Financial Group. They sell investment plans that are supposed to give you a good retirement fund. Somewhere along the way, of course, there was an attack on Social Security. According to the propaganda, we of the Baby Boom generation will bankrupt Social Security, or put an insufferable burden on younger workers who pay into the system. When you examine all the data you see that the claims are nonsense. Social Security is one of the best programs ever devised by the federal government and the only source of survival for many people. This article by economist Dean Baker looks at a right-wing ideologue named Peter Peterson who would like to destroy Social Security. The article is at www.commondreams.org:
Peterson has not been shy about using slippery logic to advance his agenda. For example, back in the 90’s he argued for cutting the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, which is tied to the consumer price index (CPI), based on the claim that the CPI substantially overstates the true rate of inflation. If Peterson’s claim about a CPI overstatement were true, then it would imply that incomes are rising far more rapidly than our projections show. Peterson’s CPI adjustment would mean that our children and grandchildren will be far richer than we could possibly imagine, because incomes are rising so rapidly. Similarly, the retirees for whom he wanted to cut benefits actually spent much of their lives in poverty. If incomes have been rising more rapidly than the official data show, then we must have been far poorer in the past than the data show.
In the same vein, Peterson supported the partial privatization of Social Security, based on assumptions on stock returns that were inconsistent with the profit growth projections of the Social Security trustees, and the price-to-earnings ratios that existed in the stock market at the time. In the push to cut Social Security and Medicare, Peterson does not feel the need to be bound by the truths of logic and arithmetic.
There is a fundamental point on which Peterson is correct. The long-term budget projections do show a horror story of enormous deficits. But these projections are not driven by aging and overly generous retirement programs. They are driven by projections that our private health care system, which already costs twice as much per person as the average for other rich countries, will get ever more inefficient through time. If we never fix our health care system, then we will face an economic disaster, which will include serious budget problems, since half of our health care is paid for through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
This reality would suggest the importance of reforming the health care system. Health care reform would mean confronting the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the doctors’ lobbies. These groups have serious power. That’s why Mr. Peterson prefers to stick with granny bashing.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE PROBLEM, NOT SOCIAL SECURITY
A few months ago I had an "interview" with a guy representing the World Financial Group. They sell investment plans that are supposed to give you a good retirement fund. Somewhere along the way, of course, there was an attack on Social Security. According to the propaganda, we of the Baby Boom generation will bankrupt Social Security, or put an insufferable burden on younger workers who pay into the system. When you examine all the data you see that the claims are nonsense. Social Security is one of the best programs ever devised by the federal government and the only source of survival for many people. This article by economist Dean Baker looks at a right-wing ideologue named Peter Peterson who would like to destroy Social Security. The article is at www.commondreams.org:
Peterson has not been shy about using slippery logic to advance his agenda. For example, back in the 90’s he argued for cutting the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, which is tied to the consumer price index (CPI), based on the claim that the CPI substantially overstates the true rate of inflation. If Peterson’s claim about a CPI overstatement were true, then it would imply that incomes are rising far more rapidly than our projections show. Peterson’s CPI adjustment would mean that our children and grandchildren will be far richer than we could possibly imagine, because incomes are rising so rapidly. Similarly, the retirees for whom he wanted to cut benefits actually spent much of their lives in poverty. If incomes have been rising more rapidly than the official data show, then we must have been far poorer in the past than the data show.
In the same vein, Peterson supported the partial privatization of Social Security, based on assumptions on stock returns that were inconsistent with the profit growth projections of the Social Security trustees, and the price-to-earnings ratios that existed in the stock market at the time. In the push to cut Social Security and Medicare, Peterson does not feel the need to be bound by the truths of logic and arithmetic.
There is a fundamental point on which Peterson is correct. The long-term budget projections do show a horror story of enormous deficits. But these projections are not driven by aging and overly generous retirement programs. They are driven by projections that our private health care system, which already costs twice as much per person as the average for other rich countries, will get ever more inefficient through time. If we never fix our health care system, then we will face an economic disaster, which will include serious budget problems, since half of our health care is paid for through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
This reality would suggest the importance of reforming the health care system. Health care reform would mean confronting the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the doctors’ lobbies. These groups have serious power. That’s why Mr. Peterson prefers to stick with granny bashing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)