With the exception of occasional pecks at the keyboard, I'm just sitting here in a local coffeehouse, cradling my head in my hands. I'm still trying to make sense of this whole chain of events that brought us to this point, this fiscal game of chicken.
Back in 2010, instead of focusing on the still-foundering economy, many in Congress were agonizing over the deficit. (Progressive economists such as Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, suggested that Congress's priorities defied common sense. They instead believed that fixing the economy should come first. The emphasis should be on human needs: getting folks back to work and remediating housing woes. Then address the deficit and the national debt).
So, in the wake of some convoluted wrangling, the Simpson-Bowles Commission was established. But its proposals were so draconian that they'd have never gained traction on either side of the aisle, let alone with voters.
Ultimately, after some tweaking by the commission, an alternative bill was presented to the House where it was soundly defeated. (It was actually a budget resolution based in part on the Simpson-Bowles proposal, which in its entirety was never voted upon).
In the meantime, well into 2011, the nation once again approached its debt limit. Historically, the debt limit had been raised routinely, often many times a year without a fuss. This time around, congressional Republicans decided to use this normally routine act as a means to extort concessions from the Democrats. (Not raising the debt ceiling would have had grave consequences across the planet as well as nationally and locally; essentially sovereign default).
So, in response, despite the fact that the economy was still sputtering, Congress passed The Budget Control Act of 2011. A joint committee of 12 members, was created: six congressmen and six senators, each body appointing three members from each party. They were expected to find ways to cut over $100 billion a year over a period of ten years with a combination of revenue increases and spending cuts. This task was to be accomplished by the end of 2012; otherwise, the terms of the Budget Control Act would kick in automatically. (While not as draconian as Simpson-Bowles, there's still plenty of nasty stuff to make everyone unhappy). Well, assuming no progress before the calendar year flips, that's about to happen.
So, what we're facing is this: automatic tax increases across the board, expiration of extended unemployment benefits, and deep cuts in vital domestic programs, as well as the military budget. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve Chairman, coined the term "fiscal cliff" (as in "going over the fiscal cliff") to describe this situation. But since many of the provisions would be phased in gradually, other observers prefer to use the terms "fiscal slope" or "fiscal curb".
Here's what might appear to be the most optimistic scenario: the draconian provisions of the Budget Control Act will all kick in; then Congress will go into action. Many, if not all of the most dire measures will be blunted. That way our members of Congress can portray themselves as knights in shining armor coming to our rescue.
But what they'll really be doing is cleaning up the mess that they themselves have made. So congressfolks, how about making some New Year's resolutions? Consider us human beings who do most of the living and dying out beyond the Beltway.
Get to work!
Happy 2013.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
We Need That Social Contract: Now More Than Ever
Still another heart-rending tragedy! And who would have ever thought that a 20-year-old loner with a troubled, but non-violent history could have ever committed such a horrendous act: the slaughter of 27 innocents; 20 6-and-7-year-old children and seven adults!
And once again, the firearm of choice was a rapid-fire weapon, tailor-made for the commission of mass murder. Only now, in the wake of this tragedy, does there appear to be some recognition that we can't continue on this deadly trajectory.
Back in 2004, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, chose not to renew a ban on assault weapons. It seems as if the pace of such massive carnage has been ratcheting up ever since. Owing to the horrendous scope of this tragedy, and the fact that so many of the victims were just kids, many believe that legislators at all levels of government may finally be chastened. Meaningful firearm legislation with some real impact will actually come to pass! Me? I'll believe it when I see it.
It seems as if the lack of government activism over the past few decades has really taken its toll in many realms: economic fairness, national health, women's rights, a humane foreign policy, and yep, the right not to get whacked with a hyper-powered firearm!
With each passing decade, it seems as if the Social Contract is becoming less and less meaningful, at least on this side of the pond. The idea of a legitimate political authority that imposes some limitations and restrictions in order to benefit the common good seems to have lost its appeal. It's all about individual freedom, by golly! Everybody has a right to worship at the Altar of Things That Go Bang, regardless of consequences. (Incidentally, it's not my intention to slam hunters, many of whom recognize the need for safety and sanity and practice such).
Thomas Hobbes, one of the earliest proponents of the Social Contract seemed to have it right. Without it, we'd all be living in "a state of nature" where, in his words, "Life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes, unlike a later advocate of the Social Contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau, harbored a dim view of democracy, but still, he was right on point about the quality of life without the Social Contract. Rousseau, on the other hand, was one of the theorists who provided the grounding for The Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution.
Maybe it's time for us to revive our own Age of Enlightenment. We can start by buffing up the Social Contract once again.
And once again, the firearm of choice was a rapid-fire weapon, tailor-made for the commission of mass murder. Only now, in the wake of this tragedy, does there appear to be some recognition that we can't continue on this deadly trajectory.
Back in 2004, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, chose not to renew a ban on assault weapons. It seems as if the pace of such massive carnage has been ratcheting up ever since. Owing to the horrendous scope of this tragedy, and the fact that so many of the victims were just kids, many believe that legislators at all levels of government may finally be chastened. Meaningful firearm legislation with some real impact will actually come to pass! Me? I'll believe it when I see it.
It seems as if the lack of government activism over the past few decades has really taken its toll in many realms: economic fairness, national health, women's rights, a humane foreign policy, and yep, the right not to get whacked with a hyper-powered firearm!
With each passing decade, it seems as if the Social Contract is becoming less and less meaningful, at least on this side of the pond. The idea of a legitimate political authority that imposes some limitations and restrictions in order to benefit the common good seems to have lost its appeal. It's all about individual freedom, by golly! Everybody has a right to worship at the Altar of Things That Go Bang, regardless of consequences. (Incidentally, it's not my intention to slam hunters, many of whom recognize the need for safety and sanity and practice such).
Thomas Hobbes, one of the earliest proponents of the Social Contract seemed to have it right. Without it, we'd all be living in "a state of nature" where, in his words, "Life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes, unlike a later advocate of the Social Contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau, harbored a dim view of democracy, but still, he was right on point about the quality of life without the Social Contract. Rousseau, on the other hand, was one of the theorists who provided the grounding for The Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution.
Maybe it's time for us to revive our own Age of Enlightenment. We can start by buffing up the Social Contract once again.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Mitch McConnell, The Filibuster King: Preparation for His Abdication
It looks as if the Senate may have recently established a new precedent in the annals of legislative acrobatics. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Harrumphing Old White Dudes) has filibustered his own bill.
Initially, he set out to prove a point: that his Democratic colleagues didn't have enough votes to give the President sole authority to raise the national debt limit. However, they were able to call his bluff and produce the required number of votes.
The Democrats' bill was actually based on one proposed by Mr. McConnell himself last year. So once he recognized that the support was there to bring the measure forward, he actually filibustered his own bill.
According to those keeping count, this latest action represents the Good Senator's Filibuster Number 386 in recent years. Tellingly, it's only since President Obama's first term began, that the filibuster has been used so liberally. Employing this tactic seemed to be very much in synch with McConnell's stated intention "to make President Obama a one-term president." We all know how that worked out.
According to an 1892 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Ballin, Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, that simple majority vote could itself be filibustered under present rules.
However, the Democrats still have a chance to reform the filibuster. According to Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), a unique opportunity exists during the earliest days of a new congress to alter the filibuster rule with just a simple majority vote versus the normal two-thirds. The intent isn't to scuttle it, but to make it less subject to abuse by tightening the standards under which it can be implemented.
Hopefully, it'll work. It's sorta like unclogging a commode in order to restore the flow, in reference to either legislation or --- uh --- the other stuff. Just a matter of finding the right plunger.
Initially, he set out to prove a point: that his Democratic colleagues didn't have enough votes to give the President sole authority to raise the national debt limit. However, they were able to call his bluff and produce the required number of votes.
The Democrats' bill was actually based on one proposed by Mr. McConnell himself last year. So once he recognized that the support was there to bring the measure forward, he actually filibustered his own bill.
According to those keeping count, this latest action represents the Good Senator's Filibuster Number 386 in recent years. Tellingly, it's only since President Obama's first term began, that the filibuster has been used so liberally. Employing this tactic seemed to be very much in synch with McConnell's stated intention "to make President Obama a one-term president." We all know how that worked out.
According to an 1892 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Ballin, Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, that simple majority vote could itself be filibustered under present rules.
However, the Democrats still have a chance to reform the filibuster. According to Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), a unique opportunity exists during the earliest days of a new congress to alter the filibuster rule with just a simple majority vote versus the normal two-thirds. The intent isn't to scuttle it, but to make it less subject to abuse by tightening the standards under which it can be implemented.
Hopefully, it'll work. It's sorta like unclogging a commode in order to restore the flow, in reference to either legislation or --- uh --- the other stuff. Just a matter of finding the right plunger.
Monday, December 3, 2012
That "Other 47%"
Last May, Mitt Romney was videotaped making derogatory remarks about the 47% of households that don't pay federal income tax, portraying them as "takers, not makers". (This, despite the fact that most of these folks pay state, local, and payroll taxes). Recorded at a fund-raiser, this infamous video was made public a few months later and quickly went viral.
However, there's another group of "47 percenters" to consider. Romney appears to have received 48% of the popular vote. So, discounting the 1% or so who would likely have benefitted from his administration's policies and priorities, there you have it: that "other 47%".
I dunno; from where I sit, it's mind-boggling that 47% of all those who cast ballots last month, were so hot-to-trot to vote against their own best interests. (Ironically, there's probably a fair amount of overlap between those 47% who supported Romney and the 47% who didn't pay federal income tax).
What's the deal? Did they hate Obama that much? Or was it a dislike of government? Beats me. <hand taps forehead>
However, there's another group of "47 percenters" to consider. Romney appears to have received 48% of the popular vote. So, discounting the 1% or so who would likely have benefitted from his administration's policies and priorities, there you have it: that "other 47%".
I dunno; from where I sit, it's mind-boggling that 47% of all those who cast ballots last month, were so hot-to-trot to vote against their own best interests. (Ironically, there's probably a fair amount of overlap between those 47% who supported Romney and the 47% who didn't pay federal income tax).
What's the deal? Did they hate Obama that much? Or was it a dislike of government? Beats me. <hand taps forehead>
Friday, November 23, 2012
Coming Up: A Point of Decision for House Republicans
If House Speaker John Boehner is to be taken at his word, it looks as if the Republicans under his wing are not looking to change their ways. Mr. Boehner recently declared that, while he'd be open to finding additional sources of revenue, tax increases would still be off the table, even for the uber-wealthy:
Here are two items that he and his cohorts should be considering:
1. While the Republicans did maintain control of the House,
they did not receive a popular mandate. Just shy of 115
million votes were cast for members of the House nation-
wide, with Democratic candidates prevailing by a margin
of well over a million.
Because the majority of state capitols are dominated by
Republicans, they were able to rejigger congressional
district boundaries to favor their candidates in the wake
of the 2010 census. Otherwise, there's a chance that
the Democrats might have recaptured the House.
2. Numerous surveys, including the NBC/Washington Post
poll, indicate that an overwhelming majority of those
sampled believe that the wealthiest households should
pay their fair share of taxes.
Even some of the most conservative media voices, William Kristol for one, are suggesting that it's time to consider raising taxes for those who can most afford to pay them. Now that Grover Norquist's luster seems to be wearing thin, will Mr. Boehner and his congressional colleagues wake up and smell the coffee?
Stay tuned.
Here are two items that he and his cohorts should be considering:
1. While the Republicans did maintain control of the House,
they did not receive a popular mandate. Just shy of 115
million votes were cast for members of the House nation-
wide, with Democratic candidates prevailing by a margin
of well over a million.
Because the majority of state capitols are dominated by
Republicans, they were able to rejigger congressional
district boundaries to favor their candidates in the wake
of the 2010 census. Otherwise, there's a chance that
the Democrats might have recaptured the House.
2. Numerous surveys, including the NBC/Washington Post
poll, indicate that an overwhelming majority of those
sampled believe that the wealthiest households should
pay their fair share of taxes.
Even some of the most conservative media voices, William Kristol for one, are suggesting that it's time to consider raising taxes for those who can most afford to pay them. Now that Grover Norquist's luster seems to be wearing thin, will Mr. Boehner and his congressional colleagues wake up and smell the coffee?
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Grover Norquist's Post-Mortem: The Kindergartners Won
During a recent interview on CBS This Morning, Grover Norquist, the Poobah-in-Chief at The Club for Growth, claimed that President Obama won the election because he called Mitt Romney a poopy-head. This is the guy who strongarmed the majority of Congressional Republicans into signing a pledge never to raise taxes on anyone for any reason. Consequently, many pundits once considered him to be the most powerful man in the nation.
It seems as if American voters had other priorities this time 'round. In the wake of his political meltdown, The Guy Formerly Known as the Most Powerful Man in the Nation has been reduced to kindergarten-level rhetoric. Mr. Norquist's poopy-head remark has been captured on a 57-second video: I had to replay it several times to make sure that my comprehension skills were still intact. Anyway, here's the evidence:Grover Norquist at his Finest I'm not joking; just listen up at 0:24.
So there you have it. Issues no longer matter. All any aspiring office-holder needs to do is to hone his (or her) schoolyard vocabulary. Mr. Norquist implies that there's no longer any need to be well-informed about the compelling issues of our times, such as the state of the economy, health care, education, or international concerns.
Just call your opponent a stinky-pants!
It seems as if American voters had other priorities this time 'round. In the wake of his political meltdown, The Guy Formerly Known as the Most Powerful Man in the Nation has been reduced to kindergarten-level rhetoric. Mr. Norquist's poopy-head remark has been captured on a 57-second video: I had to replay it several times to make sure that my comprehension skills were still intact. Anyway, here's the evidence:Grover Norquist at his Finest I'm not joking; just listen up at 0:24.
So there you have it. Issues no longer matter. All any aspiring office-holder needs to do is to hone his (or her) schoolyard vocabulary. Mr. Norquist implies that there's no longer any need to be well-informed about the compelling issues of our times, such as the state of the economy, health care, education, or international concerns.
Just call your opponent a stinky-pants!
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Post-Election Stray Thoughts
Is it morning in America once again? Well, the sun did rise and it does seem to be providing a modicum of warmth. Thankfully, we can now be assured of a presidency with relatively humane values and priorities for at least the next four years.
The Senate emerges with a slightly bluer tinge; a net gain of two seats for the Democrats. Among the new senatorial faces in Washington will be Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, every Wall Street poobah's living nightmare. Also D.C.-bound is Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin, our nation's first openly gay senator. For the first time ever, 20% of that august body will be of the female gender. Nothing wrong with that!
The House? Well, that's another story. But few observers expected the Democrats to recapture the House. As I write, nine seats are still in play. When all is said and done, the Dems will have posted a gain of maybe six or seven seats: still well short of the 25 that were needed.
In many states, especially Florida and Ohio, the voters mightily resisted blatant attempts at voter suppression as well as the toxic add campaigns made possible by the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Maybe this sounds a li'l sappy, but my faith in humankind is somewhat reaffirmed.
Still, every effort should be made to repeal Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission) as well as the draconian measures put in place to make voting difficult for minorities, lower-income households, and college students.
As an early voter in Chicago, I was in and out of the polling place in 15 minutes; there's no reason why every voter shouldn't expect the same level of convenience.
Anyway, it was comforting to know that the $1.5 billion dollars invested in campaign media buys mostly by Republican political action committees, didn't resonate. I guess most voters must be savvier than the ad-buyers assumed.
In any event, with a divided Congress for at least the next two years, we could still be facing some contentious times, especially with the so-called "fiscal cliff" looming ahead up the road a piece. Despite some new faces, many of the same cast of characters will remain in place, especially in leadership roles. Speaker of the House John Boehner ("His Orangeness") will probably still wield the gavel unless his Republican colleagues decide otherwise.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who once declared that the Republican priority was "to see to it that President Obama will be a one-term president", will now need to redefine that goal. How about this one: Keeping the Republicans relevant.
Tough challenge!
The Senate emerges with a slightly bluer tinge; a net gain of two seats for the Democrats. Among the new senatorial faces in Washington will be Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, every Wall Street poobah's living nightmare. Also D.C.-bound is Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin, our nation's first openly gay senator. For the first time ever, 20% of that august body will be of the female gender. Nothing wrong with that!
The House? Well, that's another story. But few observers expected the Democrats to recapture the House. As I write, nine seats are still in play. When all is said and done, the Dems will have posted a gain of maybe six or seven seats: still well short of the 25 that were needed.
In many states, especially Florida and Ohio, the voters mightily resisted blatant attempts at voter suppression as well as the toxic add campaigns made possible by the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Maybe this sounds a li'l sappy, but my faith in humankind is somewhat reaffirmed.
Still, every effort should be made to repeal Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission) as well as the draconian measures put in place to make voting difficult for minorities, lower-income households, and college students.
As an early voter in Chicago, I was in and out of the polling place in 15 minutes; there's no reason why every voter shouldn't expect the same level of convenience.
Anyway, it was comforting to know that the $1.5 billion dollars invested in campaign media buys mostly by Republican political action committees, didn't resonate. I guess most voters must be savvier than the ad-buyers assumed.
In any event, with a divided Congress for at least the next two years, we could still be facing some contentious times, especially with the so-called "fiscal cliff" looming ahead up the road a piece. Despite some new faces, many of the same cast of characters will remain in place, especially in leadership roles. Speaker of the House John Boehner ("His Orangeness") will probably still wield the gavel unless his Republican colleagues decide otherwise.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who once declared that the Republican priority was "to see to it that President Obama will be a one-term president", will now need to redefine that goal. How about this one: Keeping the Republicans relevant.
Tough challenge!
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
A Salute to the Voters in Florida & Ohio
As I write, these two states are still too close to call for either Obama or Romney.
But in the meantime, I'd just like to express my admiration for the dedicated voters of Ohio and Florida, who defied the obstacles placed in their way. In many cases, they've endured infinite hours of waiting and waiting, doggedly determined to exercise their franchise.
Hey, guess what! As of 10:13 PM, Ohio has just been declared for the President, giving him 274 electoral votes, four over the top! Here's to another four years!
But in the meantime, I'd just like to express my admiration for the dedicated voters of Ohio and Florida, who defied the obstacles placed in their way. In many cases, they've endured infinite hours of waiting and waiting, doggedly determined to exercise their franchise.
Hey, guess what! As of 10:13 PM, Ohio has just been declared for the President, giving him 274 electoral votes, four over the top! Here's to another four years!
Friday, October 26, 2012
The Final Presidential Debate: Mitt Romney, the Peacenik(??!!!)
The single sound-bite that seems to be resonating throughout the nation, if not the whole planet, is the President's "horses and bayonets" zinger aimed directly at Mitt Romney. The context:
"You [Romney] mentioned that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets --- because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. It's not a game of battleships where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities."
Other than Romney's declaration that the U.S. military is not properly fortified, the Governor appeared to be in synch with most of the President's foreign policy priorites. Overall, his intent seemed to be the presentation of a "kinder, gentler Romney". (A lame attempt to woo the women's vote, maybe)? In regard to Iran, both men seemed to be focusing on sanctions, as opposed to military action. However, Obama did state that Romney had a history of recommending premature military action. The Governor managed to avoid a response.
But somehow, Romney's seeming affirmation of most of Obama's foreign policy statements appears just a shade suspicious. Here's why: Lurking in the wings offstage, anxiously awaiting the opportunity to start chewing up the scenery, are some of the baddest of the bad neocon nutcakes whom the Mittster has chosen as his foreign policy gurus. Principal among them is John Bolton, George W. Bush's United Nations-hating United Nations ambassador. This is the same John Bolton who has never met a bomb he didn't like; especially if said bomb happens to have the name Iran etched into its casing.
Overall, 17 of Romney's 24 advisors are alumni of Bush the Younger's foreign policy team: the very ones who helped bring us the tragedy that was Iraq. Two among those notables come readily to mind:
- Dan Senor: One of the major architects of Operation
Iraqi Freedom which, among other things,
attempted to force the Iraqis to do business The
Unbridled Free Enterprise Way via the ill-fated
Coalition Provisional Authority.
- Cofer Black: A CIA counter-terrorism operative who
later became vice chairman of Blackwater USA,
one of the largest private security contractors to
benefit from US action in Iraq. Some of their
activities were found to be beyond the pale of
what was considered moral or legal.
So, is it realistic to assume that a Romney foreign policy
would be similar to Obama's? Well, during the debate, the Governor seemed to affirm almost everything the President said.
I guess there's no logical reason to be cynical regarding Romney's intentions, is there? And elephants lay eggs. Yes, they do!
"You [Romney] mentioned that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets --- because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. It's not a game of battleships where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities."
Other than Romney's declaration that the U.S. military is not properly fortified, the Governor appeared to be in synch with most of the President's foreign policy priorites. Overall, his intent seemed to be the presentation of a "kinder, gentler Romney". (A lame attempt to woo the women's vote, maybe)? In regard to Iran, both men seemed to be focusing on sanctions, as opposed to military action. However, Obama did state that Romney had a history of recommending premature military action. The Governor managed to avoid a response.
But somehow, Romney's seeming affirmation of most of Obama's foreign policy statements appears just a shade suspicious. Here's why: Lurking in the wings offstage, anxiously awaiting the opportunity to start chewing up the scenery, are some of the baddest of the bad neocon nutcakes whom the Mittster has chosen as his foreign policy gurus. Principal among them is John Bolton, George W. Bush's United Nations-hating United Nations ambassador. This is the same John Bolton who has never met a bomb he didn't like; especially if said bomb happens to have the name Iran etched into its casing.
Overall, 17 of Romney's 24 advisors are alumni of Bush the Younger's foreign policy team: the very ones who helped bring us the tragedy that was Iraq. Two among those notables come readily to mind:
- Dan Senor: One of the major architects of Operation
Iraqi Freedom which, among other things,
attempted to force the Iraqis to do business The
Unbridled Free Enterprise Way via the ill-fated
Coalition Provisional Authority.
- Cofer Black: A CIA counter-terrorism operative who
later became vice chairman of Blackwater USA,
one of the largest private security contractors to
benefit from US action in Iraq. Some of their
activities were found to be beyond the pale of
what was considered moral or legal.
So, is it realistic to assume that a Romney foreign policy
would be similar to Obama's? Well, during the debate, the Governor seemed to affirm almost everything the President said.
I guess there's no logical reason to be cynical regarding Romney's intentions, is there? And elephants lay eggs. Yes, they do!
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The Second Presidential Debate: Obama by a Knockout
From where I sit, the President redeemed himself in the wake of his lackluster performance during the first debate. (Al Gore theorized that Obama's recent arrival in the host city of Denver may have been a factor: trouble adjusting to that area's high altitude). For whatever reason, he appeared tired and careworn during that event while Mr. Romney was all abubble.
But last night, President Obama seemed clearly in command. Commencing with a discussion of the auto industry bailout, his rhetorical engines were revved up right from the start. However, when Romney stated that prices at the pump had increased dramatically, Obama did overlook the most practical rebuttal; no single nation has any control over the price of oil. ( Regardless of its country of origin, all oil is sold in the global marketplace). But he did emphasize that we've made progress toward increasing reliance on domestic energy sources, including green technology.
Anyway, here are the two highlights of this debate that really grabbed my attention (aside from the moderator, Candy Crowley's on-the-spot fact-checking expedition: Romney claimed that Obama took two weeks to recognize the tragedy in Libya as a terrorist act; a video transcript proved otherwise).
First, Romney insisted that his tax reform plan wouldn't expand the deficit despite reduced tax rates for everyone, eliminating loopholes (but not disturbing the low rate on capital gains and investment income), and ratcheting up the military budget. Despite numerous authoritative citations that the numbers would not add up, Romney thundered, "Of course they add up! I ran a business and balanced the budget!" He followed that up with a statement approximating, "Look at me! This is who I am!"
Second, the coup de grace: Obama's closing statement. Last May, Romney informed some well-heeled supporters that 47% of this nation's households do not pay federal income tax. (True, but most pay state and local taxes as well as payroll taxes, many of which are generally more regressive). The Governor then accused these 47-percenters of being slackers and feeling a sense of entitlement: takers, not givers.
Well, Obama went to work. "Who was he talking about? Hard-working people who don't make much money, soldiers, retired folks. .... The GI Bill was not a handout."
Throughout the debate, the President spoke in his normal even-toned, professorial manner. It might have been nice to witness some genuine indignation. But still, a hard act to follow.
But last night, President Obama seemed clearly in command. Commencing with a discussion of the auto industry bailout, his rhetorical engines were revved up right from the start. However, when Romney stated that prices at the pump had increased dramatically, Obama did overlook the most practical rebuttal; no single nation has any control over the price of oil. ( Regardless of its country of origin, all oil is sold in the global marketplace). But he did emphasize that we've made progress toward increasing reliance on domestic energy sources, including green technology.
Anyway, here are the two highlights of this debate that really grabbed my attention (aside from the moderator, Candy Crowley's on-the-spot fact-checking expedition: Romney claimed that Obama took two weeks to recognize the tragedy in Libya as a terrorist act; a video transcript proved otherwise).
First, Romney insisted that his tax reform plan wouldn't expand the deficit despite reduced tax rates for everyone, eliminating loopholes (but not disturbing the low rate on capital gains and investment income), and ratcheting up the military budget. Despite numerous authoritative citations that the numbers would not add up, Romney thundered, "Of course they add up! I ran a business and balanced the budget!" He followed that up with a statement approximating, "Look at me! This is who I am!"
Second, the coup de grace: Obama's closing statement. Last May, Romney informed some well-heeled supporters that 47% of this nation's households do not pay federal income tax. (True, but most pay state and local taxes as well as payroll taxes, many of which are generally more regressive). The Governor then accused these 47-percenters of being slackers and feeling a sense of entitlement: takers, not givers.
Well, Obama went to work. "Who was he talking about? Hard-working people who don't make much money, soldiers, retired folks. .... The GI Bill was not a handout."
Throughout the debate, the President spoke in his normal even-toned, professorial manner. It might have been nice to witness some genuine indignation. But still, a hard act to follow.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Is China Really our Economic Bogeyman?
During last week's first presidential debate, Mitt Romney alerted us to the risk of borrowing from China to finance public television. The China reference, though, seemed to have gotten lost in the haze created by the dustup over the Romney threat to fire Big Bird.
This isn't the first time that Romney and his allies have made apocolyptic-sounding references to China; they seem to be fond of implying that our economy and the American way of life will be laser-beamed to smithereens if China ever calls in its notes, which is highly unlikely. (Do they really even care about the deficit and the national debt? If so, why do they insist on lowering taxes for the uber-wealthy and buffing up the military?).
According to the United States Treasury, about two-thirds of our national debt is held domestically. However, it is a fact that China is our largest foreign debtor. But their portion of our debt is steadily shrinking in real numbers as well as percentage-wise. Yep, The Peoples' Republic of China is actually selling off some of its US notes; as far as I can tell, it's rated nary a whimper stateside, in the markets or anywhere else.
Here are the stats: China now holds $1.15 trillion of the United States' debt as of July 2012 --- in contrast to $1.31 trillion a year earlier, a 12.5% drop. This represents about 8% of our overall $16 trillion debt, still a very significant amount, but no justification for panic. Again, this is US Treasury data.
I'm not suggesting that there's anything trivial about the national debt or the deficit. Both issues need to be addressed, but in a humane manner. In previous posts, I've cited the proposals in the Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget, as a relatively unhurtful way to eventually lead us toward fiscal solvency. The CPC budget can be referenced at budget for all 2013 .
At any rate, for whatever it's worth, I just don't envision any near-future economic action by China as fulfillment of a bad dream. Fulfillment of said dream is more likely to occur if the President isn't re-elected.
This isn't the first time that Romney and his allies have made apocolyptic-sounding references to China; they seem to be fond of implying that our economy and the American way of life will be laser-beamed to smithereens if China ever calls in its notes, which is highly unlikely. (Do they really even care about the deficit and the national debt? If so, why do they insist on lowering taxes for the uber-wealthy and buffing up the military?).
According to the United States Treasury, about two-thirds of our national debt is held domestically. However, it is a fact that China is our largest foreign debtor. But their portion of our debt is steadily shrinking in real numbers as well as percentage-wise. Yep, The Peoples' Republic of China is actually selling off some of its US notes; as far as I can tell, it's rated nary a whimper stateside, in the markets or anywhere else.
Here are the stats: China now holds $1.15 trillion of the United States' debt as of July 2012 --- in contrast to $1.31 trillion a year earlier, a 12.5% drop. This represents about 8% of our overall $16 trillion debt, still a very significant amount, but no justification for panic. Again, this is US Treasury data.
I'm not suggesting that there's anything trivial about the national debt or the deficit. Both issues need to be addressed, but in a humane manner. In previous posts, I've cited the proposals in the Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget, as a relatively unhurtful way to eventually lead us toward fiscal solvency. The CPC budget can be referenced at budget for all 2013 .
At any rate, for whatever it's worth, I just don't envision any near-future economic action by China as fulfillment of a bad dream. Fulfillment of said dream is more likely to occur if the President isn't re-elected.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Obama Sputtered, But He Can Recover
Well, it looks as if this election cycle's first presidential debate wasn't exactly a banner night for the incumbent. President Obama spoke like his normal professorial, articulate self, but he appeared tired and careworn. Governor Romney, on the other hand, spoke glibly and seemed to be in fine fettle.
But did Romney actually win the debate? Many pundits seemed to think so. Me? For whatever it's worth, I'm not so sure that there was a winner. Considering actual content, Obama seemed pretty much on target, capsulizing his administration's accomplishments and focusing on priorities for a second term.
Romney, on the other hand, spoke in vague generalities. For example, he vowed that he'd replace Obamacare, without elaborating what he'd replace it with. He also repeatedly denied that he'd support tax cuts for the wealthiest households, totally contradicting everything he had been saying right up until the debate.
Obama did actually call him on the carpet for that remark, stating that "Romney denies what he's been saying for the past 18 months". But then he let it slide.
There's the rub! Judgments regarding the outcome of the debate seem to be based more on style than substance. Obama simply wasn't aggressive enough. He overlooked opportunities to portray Romney's policies for what they truly are: cruel, inhuman, and potentially toxic for a lot of people!
Despite the outcome of this first debate, Obama has plenty of time to recover. According to a number of political historians, it's not at all unusual for incumbent presidents to perform poorly during that initial meetup. In 1984, I remember watching incumbent President Ronald Reagan sputter and hem and haw his way through his first debate with his Democratic opponent, Senator Walter Mondale. In its aftermath, many pundits were left wondering whether the then-73-year-old president was still capable of governing. However, Mr. Reagan recovered his poise in time for the second debate; he was re-elected handily.
I'm confident that Obama will do likewise. The second debate will feature a townhall format with questions from the audience. The last one will be focused on foreign policy, which I should think, given Romney's lack of depth in that realm, would be a cake-walk for Obama.
The President should do okay. He just needs to sharpen his fangs a bit.
But did Romney actually win the debate? Many pundits seemed to think so. Me? For whatever it's worth, I'm not so sure that there was a winner. Considering actual content, Obama seemed pretty much on target, capsulizing his administration's accomplishments and focusing on priorities for a second term.
Romney, on the other hand, spoke in vague generalities. For example, he vowed that he'd replace Obamacare, without elaborating what he'd replace it with. He also repeatedly denied that he'd support tax cuts for the wealthiest households, totally contradicting everything he had been saying right up until the debate.
Obama did actually call him on the carpet for that remark, stating that "Romney denies what he's been saying for the past 18 months". But then he let it slide.
There's the rub! Judgments regarding the outcome of the debate seem to be based more on style than substance. Obama simply wasn't aggressive enough. He overlooked opportunities to portray Romney's policies for what they truly are: cruel, inhuman, and potentially toxic for a lot of people!
Despite the outcome of this first debate, Obama has plenty of time to recover. According to a number of political historians, it's not at all unusual for incumbent presidents to perform poorly during that initial meetup. In 1984, I remember watching incumbent President Ronald Reagan sputter and hem and haw his way through his first debate with his Democratic opponent, Senator Walter Mondale. In its aftermath, many pundits were left wondering whether the then-73-year-old president was still capable of governing. However, Mr. Reagan recovered his poise in time for the second debate; he was re-elected handily.
I'm confident that Obama will do likewise. The second debate will feature a townhall format with questions from the audience. The last one will be focused on foreign policy, which I should think, given Romney's lack of depth in that realm, would be a cake-walk for Obama.
The President should do okay. He just needs to sharpen his fangs a bit.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
A Reprieve in Pennsylvania: Voter IDs not Required
Good news! Pennsylvania voters lacking state-mandated IDs will not lose their right to vote --- at least for now.
Yesterday, state Commonwealth Court Judge James Simpson, at the urging of the state Supreme Court, ruled that voters without IDs would still be allowed to cast their ballots. Earlier this summer, the same judge upheld requirement of the voter ID, which became law last March.
But it would have been impossible for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT), the agency tasked with providing the IDs, to issue them to everyone in need before Election Day. It was determined that not enough had been done to ensure "liberal access" to picture ID cards.
However, the photo ID mandate was not thrown out. Voters now have two years to acquire them, between now and the next election.
So, it looks as if the Republicans' grand plan to deliver Pennsylvania to Romney may have been thwarted --- much to the dismay of folks like House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who was caught on video declaring that the voter ID law would enable Romney to win Pennsylvania.
Something else to consider: According to a recent New York Times poll, four of Pennsylvania's Congressional races are considered too close to call. Three of those seats are currently held by Republicans. Democrats need a net gain of 25 seats to recapture a majority of the House nation-wide.
Now that no one in the Keystone State is being denied their right to the ballot, could it happen? Hmmm!
Yesterday, state Commonwealth Court Judge James Simpson, at the urging of the state Supreme Court, ruled that voters without IDs would still be allowed to cast their ballots. Earlier this summer, the same judge upheld requirement of the voter ID, which became law last March.
But it would have been impossible for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT), the agency tasked with providing the IDs, to issue them to everyone in need before Election Day. It was determined that not enough had been done to ensure "liberal access" to picture ID cards.
However, the photo ID mandate was not thrown out. Voters now have two years to acquire them, between now and the next election.
So, it looks as if the Republicans' grand plan to deliver Pennsylvania to Romney may have been thwarted --- much to the dismay of folks like House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who was caught on video declaring that the voter ID law would enable Romney to win Pennsylvania.
Something else to consider: According to a recent New York Times poll, four of Pennsylvania's Congressional races are considered too close to call. Three of those seats are currently held by Republicans. Democrats need a net gain of 25 seats to recapture a majority of the House nation-wide.
Now that no one in the Keystone State is being denied their right to the ballot, could it happen? Hmmm!
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Cosmo Kramer is Alive & Well, Campaigning for Scott Brown in Massachusetts
A few days ago, a group of Massachusetts' Republican Senator Scott Brown's prominent campaign aides were caught on camera simulating Indian war whoops as well as doing the Atlanta Braves' tomahawk chop. Mr. Brown is engaged in a super-heated contest with Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren for what had once been Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat until his death in 2010. Senator Brown prevailed in a special election to serve out the remainder of Kennedy's term.
The significance of his aides' offensive and totally unfunny attempt to "play Indian" resulted from the first debate between the two candidates. Mr. Brown initiated the proceedings by questioning Professor Warren's Native American ancestry. After all, he opined, "she doesn't look it". He further accused her of claiming this heritage in order to enhance her chances of being admitted to Harvard --- something she vehemently denied. (There's no official record of her ever having made such a claim).
Scott Brown has made some feeble attempts to disassociate himself from his aides' behavior, but the sense I get is that it may be too late for damage control. Anyway, the embarrassing antics described above remind me of Cosmo Kramer, a regularly featured character in the popular '90s sitcom, Seinfeld.
In one episode, Jerry Seinfeld (who played himself) introduced his friends to his new girlfriend, a Native American. Kramer, a character totally lacking in social graces, reacted by dancing around and yelling war whoops, just like Scott Brown's guys. (Incidentally, I have the distinct impression that Michael Richards, the actor who portrayed Kramer, may have been playing himself as well. A few years back, during a standup comedy gig, he experienced an onstage meltdown, complete with racial slurs targeting some African-Americans in his audience).
Speaking of the unfair portrayal of Native Americans, it seems kinda hard to believe that we still have pro sports teams known as the Redskins, the Braves, and the Indians; the latter features a grinning caricature of a Native American on their uniforms. (And yep, Major League Baseball fans are gonna have to endure the Braves' tomahawk chop at least partway into the post-season).
In any event, at least a couple of other Republican senatorial campaigns appear to be experiencing meltdowns as well. For instance, there's Missouri Republican Congressman Todd Akin's mind-blowing observation regarding anti-pregnancy hormones that kick in whenever a woman is "legitimately raped", whatever that's intended to mean. According to the polls, prospects for incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill's reelection seem to be looking rosier.
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D. - Wisconsin), who hopes to fill the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Senator Herb Kohl, seems to have experienced an uptick in the polls as well. Her Republican opponent, former Governor Tommy Thompson, stated that if it was appropriate for anyone to trash Medicare and Medicaid, he's the right guy to do it.
Then of course, not to be forgotten, is Master Romney and his trash talk regarding the 47% of households who pay no federal income tax (though the majority do pay other, generally more regressive taxes). Yeah, moochers all! He also made it abundantly clear that he doesn't believe that access to health care is a human right.
Yet despite the missteps catalogued above, there's no room for complacency. Many Republicans seem hell-bent on highjacking this election, however humanly possible. Efforts to combat state-mandated voter suppression statutes seem to be having some success, but when all is said and done, it's still likely that a lot of loyal voters will remain disenfranchised --- especially in Pennsylvania where many of the facilities providing voter IDs are short-staffed.
As for me, I plan to do everything I can to make a dent; even if it's merely a "dentlet". Included will be weekend day trips from my home base in Chicago to Southern Wisconsin for some good old-fashioned, salt-of-the-earth precinct work: door-to-door canvassing.
Onward to November!
The significance of his aides' offensive and totally unfunny attempt to "play Indian" resulted from the first debate between the two candidates. Mr. Brown initiated the proceedings by questioning Professor Warren's Native American ancestry. After all, he opined, "she doesn't look it". He further accused her of claiming this heritage in order to enhance her chances of being admitted to Harvard --- something she vehemently denied. (There's no official record of her ever having made such a claim).
Scott Brown has made some feeble attempts to disassociate himself from his aides' behavior, but the sense I get is that it may be too late for damage control. Anyway, the embarrassing antics described above remind me of Cosmo Kramer, a regularly featured character in the popular '90s sitcom, Seinfeld.
In one episode, Jerry Seinfeld (who played himself) introduced his friends to his new girlfriend, a Native American. Kramer, a character totally lacking in social graces, reacted by dancing around and yelling war whoops, just like Scott Brown's guys. (Incidentally, I have the distinct impression that Michael Richards, the actor who portrayed Kramer, may have been playing himself as well. A few years back, during a standup comedy gig, he experienced an onstage meltdown, complete with racial slurs targeting some African-Americans in his audience).
Speaking of the unfair portrayal of Native Americans, it seems kinda hard to believe that we still have pro sports teams known as the Redskins, the Braves, and the Indians; the latter features a grinning caricature of a Native American on their uniforms. (And yep, Major League Baseball fans are gonna have to endure the Braves' tomahawk chop at least partway into the post-season).
In any event, at least a couple of other Republican senatorial campaigns appear to be experiencing meltdowns as well. For instance, there's Missouri Republican Congressman Todd Akin's mind-blowing observation regarding anti-pregnancy hormones that kick in whenever a woman is "legitimately raped", whatever that's intended to mean. According to the polls, prospects for incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill's reelection seem to be looking rosier.
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D. - Wisconsin), who hopes to fill the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Senator Herb Kohl, seems to have experienced an uptick in the polls as well. Her Republican opponent, former Governor Tommy Thompson, stated that if it was appropriate for anyone to trash Medicare and Medicaid, he's the right guy to do it.
Then of course, not to be forgotten, is Master Romney and his trash talk regarding the 47% of households who pay no federal income tax (though the majority do pay other, generally more regressive taxes). Yeah, moochers all! He also made it abundantly clear that he doesn't believe that access to health care is a human right.
Yet despite the missteps catalogued above, there's no room for complacency. Many Republicans seem hell-bent on highjacking this election, however humanly possible. Efforts to combat state-mandated voter suppression statutes seem to be having some success, but when all is said and done, it's still likely that a lot of loyal voters will remain disenfranchised --- especially in Pennsylvania where many of the facilities providing voter IDs are short-staffed.
As for me, I plan to do everything I can to make a dent; even if it's merely a "dentlet". Included will be weekend day trips from my home base in Chicago to Southern Wisconsin for some good old-fashioned, salt-of-the-earth precinct work: door-to-door canvassing.
Onward to November!
Thursday, September 20, 2012
In the Wake of the Teachers' Strike: As the Dust Settles in Chicago
Earlier this week, a majority of the member-delegates with the Chicago Teachers' Union (CTU) agreed to end a seven-school-day strike. The actual contract still awaits approval, but it's widely expected.
Despite Mayor Rahm Emanuel's hardline approach, which included a threat of legal action against the CTU, the teachers appear to have won at least a few concessions from the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Among them were an agreement to give laid-off teachers hire-back priorities, hiring more teachers, especially for creative arts, and somewhat relaxing criteria for rating teachers based on standardized student testing. (But that last item is still very much in play, much to the dismay of most teachers as well as policy experts).
It was heartening to witness widespread support for the striking public school teachers from parents and students. But let's face it, they're still widely under-appreciated. And they're being buffeted by forces which are to a great extent beyond their control.
Like public employees across the country, school teachers have been singled out as national pinatas: many folks, especially those from the right flank of society have been taking merciless whacks at them. It's as if they're somehow considered undeserving of a decent living wage, enabling them to raise families.
Here in Chicago, the jobs and financial security of many public school teachers are being jeopardized by the headlong rush to establish charter schools (which incidentally divert funding from the public schools). Don't get me wrong: I understand that the staff at some charter schools are doing yeoman work, and have earned the respect of students and parents alike. In certain cases, public school curriculum planners would do well to pay attention to, and learn from their teaching methods.
But teachers and other charter school staff generally earn far less than their public school counterparts. Wherever they're employed, it's safe to assume that they're pursuing their passion; it's a labor of love.
But passion doesn't necessarily pay all the bills. Throughout much of the industrialized world, teachers are held in much higher esteem than they are within our own shores and are compensated accordingly.
Think Finland.
Despite Mayor Rahm Emanuel's hardline approach, which included a threat of legal action against the CTU, the teachers appear to have won at least a few concessions from the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Among them were an agreement to give laid-off teachers hire-back priorities, hiring more teachers, especially for creative arts, and somewhat relaxing criteria for rating teachers based on standardized student testing. (But that last item is still very much in play, much to the dismay of most teachers as well as policy experts).
It was heartening to witness widespread support for the striking public school teachers from parents and students. But let's face it, they're still widely under-appreciated. And they're being buffeted by forces which are to a great extent beyond their control.
Like public employees across the country, school teachers have been singled out as national pinatas: many folks, especially those from the right flank of society have been taking merciless whacks at them. It's as if they're somehow considered undeserving of a decent living wage, enabling them to raise families.
Here in Chicago, the jobs and financial security of many public school teachers are being jeopardized by the headlong rush to establish charter schools (which incidentally divert funding from the public schools). Don't get me wrong: I understand that the staff at some charter schools are doing yeoman work, and have earned the respect of students and parents alike. In certain cases, public school curriculum planners would do well to pay attention to, and learn from their teaching methods.
But teachers and other charter school staff generally earn far less than their public school counterparts. Wherever they're employed, it's safe to assume that they're pursuing their passion; it's a labor of love.
But passion doesn't necessarily pay all the bills. Throughout much of the industrialized world, teachers are held in much higher esteem than they are within our own shores and are compensated accordingly.
Think Finland.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Republican Voters: Accomplices to Murder(?)
Admittedly, the declaration in the subject line could be a tad over the top --- well, maybe more than just a tad.
But consider this: In the wake of the conventions, it seems apparent that the parties and their candidates have two starkly contrasting visions of our future. While the Republicans focus mainly on individual success as the driver of the economy, the Democrats recognize the vitality of community as well as the role of government --- while still respecting entrepreneurship and innovation.
However, as their budget indicates, the Republicans seem hell-bent on shredding our social safety net. If they have their way, funding for Medicare and Medicaid would be sharply reduced, thereby denying millions of families and individuals access to basic health care.
If this comes to pass, we as a nation could well be signing premature death warrants for untold numbers of people who have the tough luck of becoming seriously ill. For others, we may end up killing their spirits by denying them access to a decent education, and with it, the opportunity to foster their creativity --- whether through science or the arts. And if you happen to be a woman who gets violated, you're just gonna have to let that li'l kiddo spring forth out of your womb.
So, as harsh as this may look in print, I believe that a case can be made that anyone who votes Republican could, however unwittingly, become an accessory to legalized murder: not by the gun nor the sword, but by the stroke of a legislative pen!
It's supremely, if not tragically ironic because I don't believe that these folks are evil people. They may, in fact, be among your friends and neighbors; the first ones to help you up when you've fallen, to console you in time of grief and sorrow.
So, what accounts for the inconsistency, the seeming disconnect? An overdose of Fox News? Just plain old hide-bound tradition? Beats me!
Any thoughts?
But consider this: In the wake of the conventions, it seems apparent that the parties and their candidates have two starkly contrasting visions of our future. While the Republicans focus mainly on individual success as the driver of the economy, the Democrats recognize the vitality of community as well as the role of government --- while still respecting entrepreneurship and innovation.
However, as their budget indicates, the Republicans seem hell-bent on shredding our social safety net. If they have their way, funding for Medicare and Medicaid would be sharply reduced, thereby denying millions of families and individuals access to basic health care.
If this comes to pass, we as a nation could well be signing premature death warrants for untold numbers of people who have the tough luck of becoming seriously ill. For others, we may end up killing their spirits by denying them access to a decent education, and with it, the opportunity to foster their creativity --- whether through science or the arts. And if you happen to be a woman who gets violated, you're just gonna have to let that li'l kiddo spring forth out of your womb.
So, as harsh as this may look in print, I believe that a case can be made that anyone who votes Republican could, however unwittingly, become an accessory to legalized murder: not by the gun nor the sword, but by the stroke of a legislative pen!
It's supremely, if not tragically ironic because I don't believe that these folks are evil people. They may, in fact, be among your friends and neighbors; the first ones to help you up when you've fallen, to console you in time of grief and sorrow.
So, what accounts for the inconsistency, the seeming disconnect? An overdose of Fox News? Just plain old hide-bound tradition? Beats me!
Any thoughts?
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Paul Ryan's Speech: Electrifying or Just Plain Shocking?
It seems as if many pundits have been heralding vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan as a smart, dynamic, and electrifying young speaker.
Oh yeah, he cuts a great image all right; trim and dashing --- one of the so-called "young guns". Yet despite his radiant image, he seems to have no compunction about fibbing: blatantly so!
For instance, he stated that the General Motors plant in his home town of Janesville, Wisconsin was abandoned under President Obama's watch. It actually ceased operation (except for a skeleton crew) in December, 2008 --- a month before his inauguration. Notice of the shutdown had been given four months earlier.
Surely, as a resident of Janesville, he had to know the truth, as did his fellow burghers. What an insult to everyone's collective intelligence!
Then of course, there's the whopper about Medicare: How Obama raided Medicare recipients' benefits of $716 billion and diverted it to Obamacare. The reality: That amount represented a savings realized by reducing payments to hospitals and insurance plans (which don't seem to have affected the quality or level of Medicare services to its beneficiaries). In the meantime, Mr. Ryan continues to tout his proposal to, in essence, trash Medicare by transforming it into a voucher program, placing a heavy financial burden on those who can least afford it.
(Sidebar: This seems like an appropriate time to quote former Congressman Alan Grayson [D - Florida] who eloquently summed up the Republicans' watchword on health care: "Don't get sick, but if you DO get sick, die quickly!" He's campaigning to recapture his old seat in the Orlando area).
The examples above represent two of the five misstatements cited by Fact Check and attributed to Mr. Ryan. (Fact Check is a non-partisan, nonprofit organization, based at the University of Pennsylvania, that researches the veracity of political claims).
While I realize that it may be a humongous stretch to compare Congressman Ryan to Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, I do feel that it's not entirely inappropriate. Mr. Goebbels was notoriously known for having stated that, "If you repeat the big lie often enough, people will believe it."
Well, it appears as if the spirit of Herr Goebbels is alive and well and living in the heart and soul of Congressman Paul Ryan.
Oh yeah, he cuts a great image all right; trim and dashing --- one of the so-called "young guns". Yet despite his radiant image, he seems to have no compunction about fibbing: blatantly so!
For instance, he stated that the General Motors plant in his home town of Janesville, Wisconsin was abandoned under President Obama's watch. It actually ceased operation (except for a skeleton crew) in December, 2008 --- a month before his inauguration. Notice of the shutdown had been given four months earlier.
Surely, as a resident of Janesville, he had to know the truth, as did his fellow burghers. What an insult to everyone's collective intelligence!
Then of course, there's the whopper about Medicare: How Obama raided Medicare recipients' benefits of $716 billion and diverted it to Obamacare. The reality: That amount represented a savings realized by reducing payments to hospitals and insurance plans (which don't seem to have affected the quality or level of Medicare services to its beneficiaries). In the meantime, Mr. Ryan continues to tout his proposal to, in essence, trash Medicare by transforming it into a voucher program, placing a heavy financial burden on those who can least afford it.
(Sidebar: This seems like an appropriate time to quote former Congressman Alan Grayson [D - Florida] who eloquently summed up the Republicans' watchword on health care: "Don't get sick, but if you DO get sick, die quickly!" He's campaigning to recapture his old seat in the Orlando area).
The examples above represent two of the five misstatements cited by Fact Check and attributed to Mr. Ryan. (Fact Check is a non-partisan, nonprofit organization, based at the University of Pennsylvania, that researches the veracity of political claims).
While I realize that it may be a humongous stretch to compare Congressman Ryan to Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, I do feel that it's not entirely inappropriate. Mr. Goebbels was notoriously known for having stated that, "If you repeat the big lie often enough, people will believe it."
Well, it appears as if the spirit of Herr Goebbels is alive and well and living in the heart and soul of Congressman Paul Ryan.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
They STILL Hate Women
From all across the nation, fellow Republicans had been pressuring Congressman Todd Akin (R-Missouri) to drop out of his state's senatorial race. However, the state-mandated deadline has come and gone; he appears to have resisted their pleas.
Had Mr. Akin been more co-operative, Republican state officials would have been able to appoint a replacement candidate in time to assure a spot on the ballot. Now that his promised financial support is being withdrawn, one of the Democrats' most vulnerable incumbent senators, Claire McCaskill, appears to stand a much greater chance of surviving a challenge.
Congressman Akin seems to have created widespread unease among his party's compatriots with his forehead-slapping, eyeballs-cast-heavenward commentary about rape and pregnancy. During a Sunday television interview, he stated that the trauma caused by a "legitimate" rape (huh???) would release hormones that would make it difficult for the woman to conceive. (Hmm! So evidently, the 32,000-plus women per year in the US, who become pregnant after being raped are all outliers).
It looks as if the blowback from this outrageous observation is so severe that the Republican poobahs all the way up the pyramid to Mitt Romney are collectively wetting their pants.
Yet despite all the official fear and indignation, the Republicans have incorporated into their party's convention platform a plank that would forbid abortions with no explicit exceptions for rape or incest.
Theoretically, is there any reason to believe that any Republican stand-in for Akin would vote any differently on this issue, or any other for that matter, than would Akin himself? I doubt it.
Congressional Republicans have recently advanced other draconian anti-choice legislation, although they knew that it wouldn't pass. So I guess that these mostly older white guys were just availing themselves of an opportunity to vent. I dunno, maybe they're being henpecked at home. But one thing seems abundantly clear. They sure do hate women!
So what was so special about Congressman Akin? Nothing really. Just a bi-i-i-ig mouth!
Had Mr. Akin been more co-operative, Republican state officials would have been able to appoint a replacement candidate in time to assure a spot on the ballot. Now that his promised financial support is being withdrawn, one of the Democrats' most vulnerable incumbent senators, Claire McCaskill, appears to stand a much greater chance of surviving a challenge.
Congressman Akin seems to have created widespread unease among his party's compatriots with his forehead-slapping, eyeballs-cast-heavenward commentary about rape and pregnancy. During a Sunday television interview, he stated that the trauma caused by a "legitimate" rape (huh???) would release hormones that would make it difficult for the woman to conceive. (Hmm! So evidently, the 32,000-plus women per year in the US, who become pregnant after being raped are all outliers).
It looks as if the blowback from this outrageous observation is so severe that the Republican poobahs all the way up the pyramid to Mitt Romney are collectively wetting their pants.
Yet despite all the official fear and indignation, the Republicans have incorporated into their party's convention platform a plank that would forbid abortions with no explicit exceptions for rape or incest.
Theoretically, is there any reason to believe that any Republican stand-in for Akin would vote any differently on this issue, or any other for that matter, than would Akin himself? I doubt it.
Congressional Republicans have recently advanced other draconian anti-choice legislation, although they knew that it wouldn't pass. So I guess that these mostly older white guys were just availing themselves of an opportunity to vent. I dunno, maybe they're being henpecked at home. But one thing seems abundantly clear. They sure do hate women!
So what was so special about Congressman Akin? Nothing really. Just a bi-i-i-ig mouth!
Monday, August 20, 2012
HELL: It's Just a Word!
Today's Huffington Post features an article about a high school valedictorian being denied her diploma. Why? Because she used the word "hell" in her graduation speech. The straight-A student from Oklahoma alluded to instances when she was asked what she planned to do with her life. She'd respond, "How the hell do I know? I've changed my mind so many times." School officials insist that they won't release her diploma until she writes them an apology for --- uh --- using the word hell.
Located just above the HuffPost headline for this piece is a link to another article: Class Sizes Rise as 300,000 Educators Won't Be Going Back to School.
So, where's the real obscenity here? Just askin'!
Located just above the HuffPost headline for this piece is a link to another article: Class Sizes Rise as 300,000 Educators Won't Be Going Back to School.
So, where's the real obscenity here? Just askin'!
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Paul Ryan: A Sweet Choice
Earlier today, Governor Romney declared his selection of a running mate. It's <trumpet fanfare, please> none other than Congressman Paul Ryan, one of the principal architects of and chief spokesman for the Republicans' budget, the (so-called) Path to Prosperity.
Frankly I was gobsmacked! I was sure that he'd choose former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, owing to his blue-collar background, just-a-regular-guy affability, and seeming lack of any significant political baggage.
Supposedly, many on the political right didn't consider Romney sufficiently conservative; therefore he needed to butress his credentials as such. I dunno; like many others, I figured that Romney had the folks on the right in his hip pocket by default, owing to their dislike for Obama.
In any event, Romney's done the deed. The Democratic campaigns at all levels now have some ripe issues. Trashing Medicare and privatizing Social Security are not exactly sure-fire ways to romance the workaday folks out there, just trying to survive and stay healthy.
Let's face it; one mainline poll after another leaves no doubt that the vast majority of Americans treasure those programs enough so that they don't want anyone to mess with them.
Now maybe if Romney, Ryan, and their Tea Party buddies start screaming "SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM!!!" as blood-curdlingly loud as they can ....
C'mon, all together now!
Frankly I was gobsmacked! I was sure that he'd choose former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, owing to his blue-collar background, just-a-regular-guy affability, and seeming lack of any significant political baggage.
Supposedly, many on the political right didn't consider Romney sufficiently conservative; therefore he needed to butress his credentials as such. I dunno; like many others, I figured that Romney had the folks on the right in his hip pocket by default, owing to their dislike for Obama.
In any event, Romney's done the deed. The Democratic campaigns at all levels now have some ripe issues. Trashing Medicare and privatizing Social Security are not exactly sure-fire ways to romance the workaday folks out there, just trying to survive and stay healthy.
Let's face it; one mainline poll after another leaves no doubt that the vast majority of Americans treasure those programs enough so that they don't want anyone to mess with them.
Now maybe if Romney, Ryan, and their Tea Party buddies start screaming "SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM!!!" as blood-curdlingly loud as they can ....
C'mon, all together now!
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Romancing the Good Ol' Days the Republican Way
Yesterday an additional phase of the Affordable Health Care Act kicked in --- with provisions oriented toward women. The emphasis is on preventive services, largely free of copayments.
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's response? Yet still another attempt to "repeal Obamacare"! What is this now, the thirty-fourth one?
In the meantime, Republicans on the House side drew up a measure known as The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act (HR 3803). This bill would mandate the banning of all abortions in the nation's capital (whose constituents are the only ones in the United States lacking an elective voice in Congress) --- even in the event of rape or incest!
So, knowing full well that this proposal would die in the Senate, why did they even bother? I dunno, maybe they just hate women!!??
In the wake of these actions, I propose the following theme song for the upcoming Republican National Convention in Tampa: "Turn Back the Hands of Time". Not Tyrone Davis's R&B rendition from the seventies. I mean the original: the one crooned by Eddie Fisher back in 1951. Here's the refrain:
Turn back the hands of time
Roll back the sands of time
Bring back my dreams divine
Let's live it over again.
Better still --- one vintage video on the platter! Here's Eddie! Enjoy.
Let us all now return to those romantic days of yesteryear --- 1951: when a woman's place was in the kitchen!
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's response? Yet still another attempt to "repeal Obamacare"! What is this now, the thirty-fourth one?
In the meantime, Republicans on the House side drew up a measure known as The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act (HR 3803). This bill would mandate the banning of all abortions in the nation's capital (whose constituents are the only ones in the United States lacking an elective voice in Congress) --- even in the event of rape or incest!
So, knowing full well that this proposal would die in the Senate, why did they even bother? I dunno, maybe they just hate women!!??
In the wake of these actions, I propose the following theme song for the upcoming Republican National Convention in Tampa: "Turn Back the Hands of Time". Not Tyrone Davis's R&B rendition from the seventies. I mean the original: the one crooned by Eddie Fisher back in 1951. Here's the refrain:
Turn back the hands of time
Roll back the sands of time
Bring back my dreams divine
Let's live it over again.
Better still --- one vintage video on the platter! Here's Eddie! Enjoy.
Let us all now return to those romantic days of yesteryear --- 1951: when a woman's place was in the kitchen!
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law: Not Just an Inconvenience
Last March, Pennsylvania's Republican-dominated House and Senate enacted a measure requiring all voters to furnish a photo ID in order to exercise their right to the ballot. Without missing a beat, Governor Tom Corbett signed off on it. ( It should be noted that not a single Democratic lawmaker voted "yes").
Supposedly, the rationale for this new law is prevention of voter fraud. Yet lawyers for the State of Pennsylvania have admitted that such fraud is virually non-existent.
So then, why even bother with this new mandate? (Hey, I thought the GOP favored lean government). Well, it seems as if House Majority Leader Mike Turzai let the kitty out of the trickbag in a moment of candor. He frankly stated that the new law "was going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania".
Appalling! These folks seem utterly incapable of feeling shame!
In the meantime many Pennsylvanians who've traditionally cherished their right to the ballot --- unfailingly exercising that right --- have never until now needed to obtain a photo ID. They're actually being confronted with the loss of that hallowed right through no fault of their own.
Consider the plight of voters with limited incomes who can't easily travel to a Department of Transportation (PENNDOT) facility to obtain a photo ID. For instance, the City of Philadelphia has only five outlets, none of which is easily accessible from resource-starved parts of either North or West Philly without a car. (18% of all Philadelphia voters are believed to be lacking photo IDs).
In the Pittsburgh area, massive cuts in transit service are imminent. It's already a crushing challenge for someone living in one of the poverty-plagued industrial suburbs along the Monongahela River to get to one of the nearest PENNDOT facilities, either in Bridgeville or Penn Hills.
The obstacles facing Pennsylvania voters are being replicated in a dozen other states, all dominated by Republicans. If the Department of Justice or state or regional federal courts don't succeed in reversing these blatant injustices, we could well end up witnessing a perversion of the electoral process --- in Pennsylvania or elsewhere --- akin to the hijacking of the Florida election in 2000.
Let's hope that history doesn't repeat itself.
Supposedly, the rationale for this new law is prevention of voter fraud. Yet lawyers for the State of Pennsylvania have admitted that such fraud is virually non-existent.
So then, why even bother with this new mandate? (Hey, I thought the GOP favored lean government). Well, it seems as if House Majority Leader Mike Turzai let the kitty out of the trickbag in a moment of candor. He frankly stated that the new law "was going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania".
Appalling! These folks seem utterly incapable of feeling shame!
In the meantime many Pennsylvanians who've traditionally cherished their right to the ballot --- unfailingly exercising that right --- have never until now needed to obtain a photo ID. They're actually being confronted with the loss of that hallowed right through no fault of their own.
Consider the plight of voters with limited incomes who can't easily travel to a Department of Transportation (PENNDOT) facility to obtain a photo ID. For instance, the City of Philadelphia has only five outlets, none of which is easily accessible from resource-starved parts of either North or West Philly without a car. (18% of all Philadelphia voters are believed to be lacking photo IDs).
In the Pittsburgh area, massive cuts in transit service are imminent. It's already a crushing challenge for someone living in one of the poverty-plagued industrial suburbs along the Monongahela River to get to one of the nearest PENNDOT facilities, either in Bridgeville or Penn Hills.
The obstacles facing Pennsylvania voters are being replicated in a dozen other states, all dominated by Republicans. If the Department of Justice or state or regional federal courts don't succeed in reversing these blatant injustices, we could well end up witnessing a perversion of the electoral process --- in Pennsylvania or elsewhere --- akin to the hijacking of the Florida election in 2000.
Let's hope that history doesn't repeat itself.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
With a Heavy Heart: Thoughts About the Latest Mass Homicide
An AR-15 semi-automatic weapon? Is that what's really required to bag a 10-point buck?
My profuse apologies for the feeble attempt of levity in the wake of yesterday's tragic event in Colorado. But I'm still trying to understand the logic of enabling civilians unrestricted access to any firearm capable of rapidly releasing enough ammo to cause massive fatalities.
James Holmes, the apparent shooter who killed 12 and wounded 58 at a suburban Denver theatre showing the latest Batman film, used just such a rapid-fire weapon. He purchased it legally along with a couple of more conventional pieces.
Unlike some other mass killers such as Jared Loughner, convicted of murdering six and critically wounding Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords in Tucson early last year, Mr. Holmes had had no previous contact with authorities, nor did he seem to demonstrate any sort of prior behavior which would have alerted them. So it would appear as if any processes intended to weed out potentially dangerous gun users are far from fool-proof.
Some folks believe that conceal-carry is the answer; someone who happened to be armed could have intervened and possibly spared some lives (by doing what, firing at a moving target in a darkened movie-house and whacking someone else?). I don't know, within this gun-crazy society, it just doesn't seem as if there are any easy answers, except maybe to eventually find a way to wean us off this wild fascination for things that go bang.
But couldn't we at least begin by crafting a nation-wide ban on rapid-fire assault weapons, including their manufacture and importation? Yeah I know, it's a tall order. The National Rifle Association and rigid Second Amendment acolytes would never allow it.
But it's a nice dream.
(Postscript: A vigilant old friend reminded me that a nation-wide assault-weapons ban existed until it was repealed in 2004. I had forgotten all about it. Could the tragic events in Colorado, Arizona, Virginia and elsewhere been prevented had the ban not been repealed? A fair question).
My profuse apologies for the feeble attempt of levity in the wake of yesterday's tragic event in Colorado. But I'm still trying to understand the logic of enabling civilians unrestricted access to any firearm capable of rapidly releasing enough ammo to cause massive fatalities.
James Holmes, the apparent shooter who killed 12 and wounded 58 at a suburban Denver theatre showing the latest Batman film, used just such a rapid-fire weapon. He purchased it legally along with a couple of more conventional pieces.
Unlike some other mass killers such as Jared Loughner, convicted of murdering six and critically wounding Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords in Tucson early last year, Mr. Holmes had had no previous contact with authorities, nor did he seem to demonstrate any sort of prior behavior which would have alerted them. So it would appear as if any processes intended to weed out potentially dangerous gun users are far from fool-proof.
Some folks believe that conceal-carry is the answer; someone who happened to be armed could have intervened and possibly spared some lives (by doing what, firing at a moving target in a darkened movie-house and whacking someone else?). I don't know, within this gun-crazy society, it just doesn't seem as if there are any easy answers, except maybe to eventually find a way to wean us off this wild fascination for things that go bang.
But couldn't we at least begin by crafting a nation-wide ban on rapid-fire assault weapons, including their manufacture and importation? Yeah I know, it's a tall order. The National Rifle Association and rigid Second Amendment acolytes would never allow it.
But it's a nice dream.
(Postscript: A vigilant old friend reminded me that a nation-wide assault-weapons ban existed until it was repealed in 2004. I had forgotten all about it. Could the tragic events in Colorado, Arizona, Virginia and elsewhere been prevented had the ban not been repealed? A fair question).
Friday, July 20, 2012
Repressed Feelings in Romneyland: Just Gotta Have It!
His undying love for unbridled free enterprise aside, Mitt Romney has recently proposed a new mandate: Every new computer sold in the United States must be equipped with a filter to block access to porn sites. (I recognize that the intent is to enable parents to shield their kiddos from the opportunity to ogle a lot of unconventional stuff out there in cyberspace, which is understandable; y'know, items such as man-on-dog unions that crusaders like Rick Santorum are so fond of discussing).
But Master Romney really oughta know better. A 2009 survey commissioned by the Harvard Business School has revealed that, in general, the greatest demand for pornographic ogling is in red states --- particularly ones with heavy concentrations of evangelicals.
The state at the very pinnacle of the list? Utah! Among the top ten states --- eight of which bear a deep scarlet pigment --- are such playpens of lust as Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana (Hey there, Senator Vitter), and West Virginia.
Does the Good Governor really want to alienate so many of his likely supporters by creating obstacles that make it more difficult for them to relieve their repressed feelings? 'Cuz that's really what it's all about: repression! The more the message that they can't have their visual whoopie is reinforced, the more they gotta have it!
These poor folks just need a chance to drain their anatomical boilers once in a while, to relieve all that pent-up pressure.
A word to the wise: Denial could be dicey!
But Master Romney really oughta know better. A 2009 survey commissioned by the Harvard Business School has revealed that, in general, the greatest demand for pornographic ogling is in red states --- particularly ones with heavy concentrations of evangelicals.
The state at the very pinnacle of the list? Utah! Among the top ten states --- eight of which bear a deep scarlet pigment --- are such playpens of lust as Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana (Hey there, Senator Vitter), and West Virginia.
Does the Good Governor really want to alienate so many of his likely supporters by creating obstacles that make it more difficult for them to relieve their repressed feelings? 'Cuz that's really what it's all about: repression! The more the message that they can't have their visual whoopie is reinforced, the more they gotta have it!
These poor folks just need a chance to drain their anatomical boilers once in a while, to relieve all that pent-up pressure.
A word to the wise: Denial could be dicey!
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Reality Trumps Creativity at Romney Fundraisers
Here's a message for aspiring young comedy-writers: Be afraid! Be very afraid!
In the wake of a series of ultra-lavish fundraising events held in behalf of the No-Longer-So-Young Master Romney, opportunities to create new material may well become a bit scarce. I realize that such a statement may seem perverse, because one might reasonably assume that moments ripe for rapier-sharp satire would be abundant.
However, there's one minor obstacle to consider: the One-Hundredths-of-One-Percenters in attendance at these events appear to be writing their own material --- however unwittingly. Consider the following quotes:
Is there a VIP entrance? WE ARE VIP!!! ---and---
WE'VE got the message .... But my college kid, the babysitter, the nail ladies (!!!) .... everybody who's got the right to vote .... THEY don't underSTAND what's going on. I just think if you're lower income .... one, you're not EDucated; two, THEY don't underSTAND how the systems work, they don't underSTAND the impact.
So guys, you have a lot to contend with. These Self-Anointed Masters --- and Mistresses --- of Our Universe are not only hogging a major share of our nation's wealth, they're bogarting all the best lines as well.
Good luck!
In the wake of a series of ultra-lavish fundraising events held in behalf of the No-Longer-So-Young Master Romney, opportunities to create new material may well become a bit scarce. I realize that such a statement may seem perverse, because one might reasonably assume that moments ripe for rapier-sharp satire would be abundant.
However, there's one minor obstacle to consider: the One-Hundredths-of-One-Percenters in attendance at these events appear to be writing their own material --- however unwittingly. Consider the following quotes:
Is there a VIP entrance? WE ARE VIP!!! ---and---
WE'VE got the message .... But my college kid, the babysitter, the nail ladies (!!!) .... everybody who's got the right to vote .... THEY don't underSTAND what's going on. I just think if you're lower income .... one, you're not EDucated; two, THEY don't underSTAND how the systems work, they don't underSTAND the impact.
So guys, you have a lot to contend with. These Self-Anointed Masters --- and Mistresses --- of Our Universe are not only hogging a major share of our nation's wealth, they're bogarting all the best lines as well.
Good luck!
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Two Profiles: One in Courage; the Other in Cowardice
First the portrait of courage: Like many of my friends and a significant number of political observers, I expected at least a partial Supreme Court smackdown of the Affordable Care Act --- especially the mandate to purchase health insurance. So I was majorly gobsmacked when the news broke that the entire law would remain intact. (A provision giving states the right to refuse an expansion of Medicaid coverage was passed, which could pose problems).
Much to the surprise of many, Chief Justice John Roberts not only voted with his liberal colleagues, but also penned the majority opinion. I never expected to find myself toasting The Good Justice, especially in light of his past support for Citizens United. But I have to admit, what he did required a lot of courage. He's since been taking plenty of flak from the Tea Party and other sundry creatures from the uber-right. Was it an act of conscience? I guess only Justice Roberts knows for sure. Nonetheless, here's to you, Judge.
Meanwhile, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), on the very same day of the Supreme Court's monumental decision, committed --- at least from where I sit --- an abject act of cowardice. As chairman of the House Government Oversight & Reform Committee, he orchestrated a true smackdown: A contempt-of-court citation for Attorney General Eric Holder. Was the scheduling a mere coincidence? Or was it a calculated effort to keep this action from being headlined, knowing that the media would be focused on the Court?
If Mr. Issa (pronounced ICE-uh) was so certain that his case against the Attorney General was airtight, then why not schedule the hearings when they would gain full attention of the media? (The Congressman readily admitted that he had no evidence that Mr. Holder had any involvement with Operation Fast & Furious, a tragically flawed attempt to trace guns to Mexican drug cartels).
A number of Republican governors, along with their statehouse colleagues have been going to great lengths to prevent likely Democratic voters from exercising their right to the ballot. Mr. Holder is currently co-ordinating efforts to challenge the actions of these state officials, and hopefully stifle them. So then, why is Mr. Issa giving the Attorney General so much grief at this time --- especially with the knowledge that this action is being overshadowed by another event?
Hmm! Not exactly a profile in courage!
(For additional info regarding the activities of Congressman Issa, check out the earliest post on this blog, Postal Service Deficit: A Fabricated Crisis [2/28/12]. Again, in his capacity as a committee chairman, he was largely responsible for killing a measure to restore the USPS's historically successful pension plan, despite the fact that there were enough likely votes for passage of this bill, according to the Congressional Record. I'm amazed that --- at least as far as I know --- no one in the media has ever mentioned this!).
(Additional note: Scheduled service cuts have since been postponed, but they're not by any means off the table).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)