Every Christmas Eve, I watch Frank Capra's iconic film, It's a Wonderful Life. Anyone who has never seen it should do so. It never gets old. In fact, despite its age, 67 years, I believe that this classic is as timely as ever.
The central character, George Bailey, masterfully portrayed by Jimmy Stewart, is a small-town loan officer who casts aside his personal aspirations, to save his family's building and loan operation from certain ruin at the hands of Henry Potter (Lionel Barrymore), a ruthless manipulator who seizes the town bank in the wake of the Crash of '29 that sparked the depression.
George Bailey's genuine concern for the welfare of his fellow townspeople fuels his iron-bound determination to keep the family's business alive: a bulwark which is all that stands between working families' opportunity to live with dignity in decent homes as opposed to abject misery in Henry Potter's slums.
By dint of events beyond his control, George Bailey finds himself on the brink of bankruptcy and seriously considers doing himself in. But a guardian angel (Henry Travers) intervenes and presents George with a precious gift: an opportunity to see what everyone's lives would have been like had he never been born. Had George Bailey never existed, the friendly, thriving town of Bedford Falls would have degenerated into a toxic fog of sullenness, despair, and petty meanness --- and been re-dubbed "Pottersville" in dubious honor of its most powerful resident.
Well folks, Pottersville is real and getting realer. The lion's share of the US Congress as well as (too) many statehouses is under the merciless thrall of Henry Potter and those like him.
In the meantime, millions of hard-luck families will be losing extended unemployment benefits next week because the majority of Republicans --- including many so-called "moderates" --- voted against their renewal. These jobless folks are not slackers, regardless of what Congressmen like Paul Ryan (R - Ayn Rand) and Steven Fincher (R - Those Who Don't Work Don't Eat) seem to believe. These are the same legislators who spiked every effort to extend job-creating stimulus programs and butchered food stamp benefits.
Sorry folks, but the private sector is not creating enough decent jobs: ones that enable families and individuals to live securely and with dignity without marrying themselves to Wal-Mart or McDonald's.
Henry Potter lives.
Friday, December 27, 2013
Saturday, December 14, 2013
The Issue of Economic Inequality is Front & Center. But What About Congress?
President Obama recently spoke at a venue in an economically ravaged neighborhood in the Nation's Capitol. The focus of his speech: economic inequality. It was refreshing to actually hear the nation's chief executive address this issue. It's been a dog's age and it's long overdue.
Obama suggested that following through with the health care agenda would be helpful. Consider how easy it is to become medically indigent. One major medical event can do it! The full implementation of Obamacare, including the expansion of Medicaid would certainly make a dent. (Not as effective as the single-payer alternative or Medicare For All, but still a vast improvement).
He also offered a number of legislative remedies:
- better education, including making college more
affordable
- an increase in the minimum wage
- strengthening of unions.
Finally, the president summarized some of the principal causes of economic injustice:
- outsourcing of formerly stable jobs
- legitimization of "trickle-down ideology" including
tax cuts for the wealthy
- neglect of schools and infrastructure and their
ultimate deterioration.
But Congress is doing squat in regard to offering any sort of legislative remedies. Senator Patty Murray (D.-Wash) and Congressman Paul Ryan (R.-Ayn Rand), the chairfolks of their respective budget committees, managed to broker a compromise, enabling passage of a new budget with a minimum of fuss. I guess that in itself is considered a major achievement.
Parts of the sequester-fueled budget cuts are apparently being restored; that's progress. But none of the elements of Obama's speech are really being addressed. Additionally, food stamp allotments and the extension of unemployment compensation are being scaled back. Is it really fair or moral to sacrifice the welfare of folks desperately in need in order to broker a political compromise?
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, among others, seem to believe that some of these provisions can be reintroduced later. I hope they're right.
Obama suggested that following through with the health care agenda would be helpful. Consider how easy it is to become medically indigent. One major medical event can do it! The full implementation of Obamacare, including the expansion of Medicaid would certainly make a dent. (Not as effective as the single-payer alternative or Medicare For All, but still a vast improvement).
He also offered a number of legislative remedies:
- better education, including making college more
affordable
- an increase in the minimum wage
- strengthening of unions.
Finally, the president summarized some of the principal causes of economic injustice:
- outsourcing of formerly stable jobs
- legitimization of "trickle-down ideology" including
tax cuts for the wealthy
- neglect of schools and infrastructure and their
ultimate deterioration.
But Congress is doing squat in regard to offering any sort of legislative remedies. Senator Patty Murray (D.-Wash) and Congressman Paul Ryan (R.-Ayn Rand), the chairfolks of their respective budget committees, managed to broker a compromise, enabling passage of a new budget with a minimum of fuss. I guess that in itself is considered a major achievement.
Parts of the sequester-fueled budget cuts are apparently being restored; that's progress. But none of the elements of Obama's speech are really being addressed. Additionally, food stamp allotments and the extension of unemployment compensation are being scaled back. Is it really fair or moral to sacrifice the welfare of folks desperately in need in order to broker a political compromise?
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, among others, seem to believe that some of these provisions can be reintroduced later. I hope they're right.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
There's Nothing Extreme About the "Lefties" in Public Office
Unlike their colleagues at the opposite end of the political spectrum, I'm not aware of a single liberal --- or, if you prefer, progressive --- intent on trashing our government, despoiling the world economy, and thereby creating widespread misery. Instead, they're doing their level best to preserve and, whenever possible, strengthen the social safety net. This much is true at all levels of government: federal, state, and local.
Fortunately, President Obama and the Democrats didn't give in to the Tea Partiers and their compatriots as they did in 2011. Yet still, during the sixteen days that much of government operation was frozen in place, plenty of damage was done.
Consider this: Issued-oriented polls --- mainstream ones --- consistently indicate that there's majority support for the following items: Job creation, more funding for education, maintenance and strengthening of Social Security and Medicare, tax fairness, and shrinking the military budget (without hurting active-duty personnel and veterans).
The most consistent sponsors and supporters of such legislation are the House and senatorial progressives. Seriously! Yep, good burghers such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and Congressfolks Keith Ellison, John Lewis, Raul Grijalva, and, until this year, Dennis Kucinich, whose seat was gerrymandered into nothingness by the Ohio state legislature.
A lot of Americans don't like being politically labelled, and that's understandable. The Gallup organization periodically fields an attitudinal survey, asking respondents to define themselves --- as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The majority consider themselves moderates. Because the term "liberal" has a long history of being stigmatized, I believe that a lot of older respondents prefer to label themselves as "moderates", even if they share values and priorities with self-described liberals.
At least one survey combines this data under one cover: The General Social Survey, funded by the National Science Foundation and fielded once a year by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. (For instance, how self-described moderates, libs, etc. feel about specific issues). It's not available on-line, but should be accessible at most public and university libraries.
Admittedly, I haven't given myself a chance to eyeball it, but I'm convinced that the data would affirm my perspective --- that as a nation, we really care about each other and believe in social justice.
Unfortunately, many --- far too many --- of our elected officials don't reflect those values. Let's try to fix that in 2014!
(Also scope out a related post on this blog dated 1/23/13:
"Liberalism: As American as Apple Pie").
Fortunately, President Obama and the Democrats didn't give in to the Tea Partiers and their compatriots as they did in 2011. Yet still, during the sixteen days that much of government operation was frozen in place, plenty of damage was done.
Consider this: Issued-oriented polls --- mainstream ones --- consistently indicate that there's majority support for the following items: Job creation, more funding for education, maintenance and strengthening of Social Security and Medicare, tax fairness, and shrinking the military budget (without hurting active-duty personnel and veterans).
The most consistent sponsors and supporters of such legislation are the House and senatorial progressives. Seriously! Yep, good burghers such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and Congressfolks Keith Ellison, John Lewis, Raul Grijalva, and, until this year, Dennis Kucinich, whose seat was gerrymandered into nothingness by the Ohio state legislature.
A lot of Americans don't like being politically labelled, and that's understandable. The Gallup organization periodically fields an attitudinal survey, asking respondents to define themselves --- as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The majority consider themselves moderates. Because the term "liberal" has a long history of being stigmatized, I believe that a lot of older respondents prefer to label themselves as "moderates", even if they share values and priorities with self-described liberals.
At least one survey combines this data under one cover: The General Social Survey, funded by the National Science Foundation and fielded once a year by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. (For instance, how self-described moderates, libs, etc. feel about specific issues). It's not available on-line, but should be accessible at most public and university libraries.
Admittedly, I haven't given myself a chance to eyeball it, but I'm convinced that the data would affirm my perspective --- that as a nation, we really care about each other and believe in social justice.
Unfortunately, many --- far too many --- of our elected officials don't reflect those values. Let's try to fix that in 2014!
(Also scope out a related post on this blog dated 1/23/13:
"Liberalism: As American as Apple Pie").
Friday, November 8, 2013
Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership: Another Deal Under the Radar
Earlier today, I watched a recent video from the archives of Moyers & Company, an excellent public affairs program hosted by the seasoned journalist Bill Moyers. (He never misses). His guests were two well-regarded bloggers with backgrounds in business and economics: Susan Webber (who uses the penname Yves Smith) and Dean Baker.
Apparently, both guests have, through reliable Obama administration contacts, been privy to some of the contents of a trade bill that's being ramrodded through Congress: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (In more genteel circles, this process is known as "fast tracking"). 130 members of Congress have appealed for some transparency regarding this measure. But apparently, they're being sloughed off. Interestingly, the folks involved in this appeal span the political spectrum from progressive Alan Grayson to Tea Partier Michele Bachmann.
Regardless of motive, their mutual concern is justified. Supporters of the TPP live on both sides of the aisle as well.
What's unsettling about this pact, as well as its predecessors, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), is that they were crafted by and for corporate interests. No one else was ever allowed a seat at the table --- labor advocates, environmentalists, or community activists. (H. Ross Perot, who ran a spirited independent presidential campaign in 1992, warned us of the consequences of an enacted NAFTA: a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US for friendlier environs [read low-wage]. He turned out to be prophetic).
Twelve nations have signed onto the TPP: The US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile, as well as Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Rounding out the dozen are Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and Singapore. With the exceptions of Mexico and Vietnam, none of the listed nations (as far as I know) appear to have an extensive history of factory labor abuse. The maquiladoras that once caressed the Mexican border with the US are largely history, as corporate poobahs discovered that overseas labor was even cheaper.
But here's something to consider: the TPP is still a work in progress. Policy honchos in Indonesia (the world's fourth most populous nation) and Thailand are receptive to clambering on-board the TPP bandwagon. Both nations also maintain policies that are tolerant of oppressive working conditions. (The presence of Indonesian sweatshops have been well-documented by Oxfam).
I campaigned vigorously for the president and have no regrets. Furthermore, I recognize that Obama and the majority of Democrats have expressed a far greater concern for social and economic fairness than most of their Republican counterparts. Occasionally, they succeed in acting upon those concerns: consider the Affordable Care Act. As flawed as it appears to be, it's a vast improvement over the alternative, which for a lot of folks was nothing.
Based on what's known about the TPP, it should merit more public attention. It seems to be a work in progress with open-ended provisions, such as enabling admission of additional nations with dicey labor history. If the corporate universe continues to call the shots without any meaningful counter-balance, the world-wide race to the bottom will continue to gather momentum.
Touch bases with your reps in the House and Senate; urge them to defeat the TPP. There's a great, bearded adage: "A stopped clock is right twice a day". Even a stopped clock that happens to be named Michele Bachmann.
Apparently, both guests have, through reliable Obama administration contacts, been privy to some of the contents of a trade bill that's being ramrodded through Congress: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (In more genteel circles, this process is known as "fast tracking"). 130 members of Congress have appealed for some transparency regarding this measure. But apparently, they're being sloughed off. Interestingly, the folks involved in this appeal span the political spectrum from progressive Alan Grayson to Tea Partier Michele Bachmann.
Regardless of motive, their mutual concern is justified. Supporters of the TPP live on both sides of the aisle as well.
What's unsettling about this pact, as well as its predecessors, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), is that they were crafted by and for corporate interests. No one else was ever allowed a seat at the table --- labor advocates, environmentalists, or community activists. (H. Ross Perot, who ran a spirited independent presidential campaign in 1992, warned us of the consequences of an enacted NAFTA: a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US for friendlier environs [read low-wage]. He turned out to be prophetic).
Twelve nations have signed onto the TPP: The US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile, as well as Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Rounding out the dozen are Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and Singapore. With the exceptions of Mexico and Vietnam, none of the listed nations (as far as I know) appear to have an extensive history of factory labor abuse. The maquiladoras that once caressed the Mexican border with the US are largely history, as corporate poobahs discovered that overseas labor was even cheaper.
But here's something to consider: the TPP is still a work in progress. Policy honchos in Indonesia (the world's fourth most populous nation) and Thailand are receptive to clambering on-board the TPP bandwagon. Both nations also maintain policies that are tolerant of oppressive working conditions. (The presence of Indonesian sweatshops have been well-documented by Oxfam).
I campaigned vigorously for the president and have no regrets. Furthermore, I recognize that Obama and the majority of Democrats have expressed a far greater concern for social and economic fairness than most of their Republican counterparts. Occasionally, they succeed in acting upon those concerns: consider the Affordable Care Act. As flawed as it appears to be, it's a vast improvement over the alternative, which for a lot of folks was nothing.
Based on what's known about the TPP, it should merit more public attention. It seems to be a work in progress with open-ended provisions, such as enabling admission of additional nations with dicey labor history. If the corporate universe continues to call the shots without any meaningful counter-balance, the world-wide race to the bottom will continue to gather momentum.
Touch bases with your reps in the House and Senate; urge them to defeat the TPP. There's a great, bearded adage: "A stopped clock is right twice a day". Even a stopped clock that happens to be named Michele Bachmann.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Potatoes Aside, the Redskins Need a Name Change
I recently read a well-reasoned column by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer. While I rarely agree with his political perspectives, he has always commanded my respect as a journalist.
In last week's syndicated column, he made a compelling case for changing the name of the Washington Redskins. The team's owner, Dan Snyder cites "the long and proud history surrounding the Washington Redskins that goes back generations." He maintains that no malice or prejudice was ever intended by using the name "Redskins"
and cites the team's 80-year history.
But Mr. Krauthammer states that "words don't stand still. They evolve." He cites as an example the manner in which the term "Negro" is no longer considered acceptable "unless you've been asleep for the past fifty years." So he suggests that we honor "changes in linguistic nuance" and agree to a name change. He offers as a substitute the name "Skins" as in "shirts and skins pickup basketball teams". I dunno. What would the logo look like? Some super-buff, bare-chested dude with bulging pecs and biceps? --- and maybe a set of fangs, with dripping saliva?
I had actually considered another alternative: keeping the name, but changing the logo in honor of The Redskin Potato. Hey, it's heart-healthy and full of protein! Just one li'l fly in the ointment: the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) beat me to the punch. An article on PETA's webpage promotes this suggestion along with a tidy graphic of a masterfully-cooked, meticulously-presented redskin potato ready to be dined on.
On second thought, most football fans probably aren't vegetarians. They crave mmmeeeeaaattt!!! And blood 'n gore 'n raw guts! So scratch the redskin potatoes gambit.
Hey, I got it! The perfect name, especially in the wake of recent political upheavals in The Nation's Capital. ***The Washington Shutdowns!***
There ya go!
In last week's syndicated column, he made a compelling case for changing the name of the Washington Redskins. The team's owner, Dan Snyder cites "the long and proud history surrounding the Washington Redskins that goes back generations." He maintains that no malice or prejudice was ever intended by using the name "Redskins"
and cites the team's 80-year history.
But Mr. Krauthammer states that "words don't stand still. They evolve." He cites as an example the manner in which the term "Negro" is no longer considered acceptable "unless you've been asleep for the past fifty years." So he suggests that we honor "changes in linguistic nuance" and agree to a name change. He offers as a substitute the name "Skins" as in "shirts and skins pickup basketball teams". I dunno. What would the logo look like? Some super-buff, bare-chested dude with bulging pecs and biceps? --- and maybe a set of fangs, with dripping saliva?
I had actually considered another alternative: keeping the name, but changing the logo in honor of The Redskin Potato. Hey, it's heart-healthy and full of protein! Just one li'l fly in the ointment: the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) beat me to the punch. An article on PETA's webpage promotes this suggestion along with a tidy graphic of a masterfully-cooked, meticulously-presented redskin potato ready to be dined on.
On second thought, most football fans probably aren't vegetarians. They crave mmmeeeeaaattt!!! And blood 'n gore 'n raw guts! So scratch the redskin potatoes gambit.
Hey, I got it! The perfect name, especially in the wake of recent political upheavals in The Nation's Capital. ***The Washington Shutdowns!***
There ya go!
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Don't Feed the Loafers!
Petty meanness rules!
Here we are; it's Day 2 of the federal shutdown. Not only that, but just up the road a piece, we'll be bumping our collective heads on the debt ceiling. Apparently we've succeeded in electing a bunch of heartless, mean-spirited human beings who've made their sentiments abundantly clear: They don't give a damn about folks who are struggling to survive.
Maybe enough voters will come to their senses in 2014 and send some of these monsters home. Here's one sample of pure meanness: Tennessee Congressman Steven Fincher (R - 8th). He was among the majority of House Republicans to vote for deep cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food stamps to needy households. Over 40% of SNAP households include at least one wage-earner. Seniors and folks on disability account for most of the balance.
Yet Mr. Fincher insists on citing the following biblical passage: "Those unwilling to work shall not eat". He went on to say that caring for the poor is "something Christians might do, but not with government money". (Charities do great work, but have never been able to help more than a fraction of those in need, especially in stressful times).
This congressman, who along with his family operates a prosperous 2,500-acre farm (about 4 square miles), has no qualms about suckling the government titty himself. His business has benefitted from well over $3 million in federal farm subsidies over the past decade, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Tennessee's Eighth District, which covers the westernmost tier of counties above Memphis, has a long, bearded tradition of electing socially conservative Democrats. I would like to believe that local Democrats could field a worthy opponent for Mr. Fincher in 2014: someone with a much more humane interpretation of the Bible; a candidate who'd appeal to everyone's better nature. Most voters in that district do not share the Fincher Family's good fortune, and probably know folks who are struggling --- and may even be on food stamps.
Not to be forgotten is Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan (R - 1st), the Ayn Rand acolyte and self-anointed budget maven whom Mitt Romney chose as his running mate. According to Mr. Ryan, SNAP is "a hammock that lolls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency".
Many seemingly moderate Republicans are decrying the shutdown and fear for their own political futures. Understood. Yet they continue to support measures that shred the social safety net, such as the food stamp cuts.
The Dems need to retrieve 17 seats next year in order to re-establish a House majority. If the Tea Party nutcakes continue to hog the limelight, maybe just maybe it could happen!
Here we are; it's Day 2 of the federal shutdown. Not only that, but just up the road a piece, we'll be bumping our collective heads on the debt ceiling. Apparently we've succeeded in electing a bunch of heartless, mean-spirited human beings who've made their sentiments abundantly clear: They don't give a damn about folks who are struggling to survive.
Maybe enough voters will come to their senses in 2014 and send some of these monsters home. Here's one sample of pure meanness: Tennessee Congressman Steven Fincher (R - 8th). He was among the majority of House Republicans to vote for deep cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food stamps to needy households. Over 40% of SNAP households include at least one wage-earner. Seniors and folks on disability account for most of the balance.
Yet Mr. Fincher insists on citing the following biblical passage: "Those unwilling to work shall not eat". He went on to say that caring for the poor is "something Christians might do, but not with government money". (Charities do great work, but have never been able to help more than a fraction of those in need, especially in stressful times).
This congressman, who along with his family operates a prosperous 2,500-acre farm (about 4 square miles), has no qualms about suckling the government titty himself. His business has benefitted from well over $3 million in federal farm subsidies over the past decade, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Tennessee's Eighth District, which covers the westernmost tier of counties above Memphis, has a long, bearded tradition of electing socially conservative Democrats. I would like to believe that local Democrats could field a worthy opponent for Mr. Fincher in 2014: someone with a much more humane interpretation of the Bible; a candidate who'd appeal to everyone's better nature. Most voters in that district do not share the Fincher Family's good fortune, and probably know folks who are struggling --- and may even be on food stamps.
Not to be forgotten is Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan (R - 1st), the Ayn Rand acolyte and self-anointed budget maven whom Mitt Romney chose as his running mate. According to Mr. Ryan, SNAP is "a hammock that lolls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency".
Many seemingly moderate Republicans are decrying the shutdown and fear for their own political futures. Understood. Yet they continue to support measures that shred the social safety net, such as the food stamp cuts.
The Dems need to retrieve 17 seats next year in order to re-establish a House majority. If the Tea Party nutcakes continue to hog the limelight, maybe just maybe it could happen!
Monday, September 16, 2013
Obamacare & the Expansion of Medicaid: a Sure Lot Better than What We Had (or Didn't Have)
It's not my intent to trash Obamacare (a.k.a., The Affordable Care Act or ACA). Provisions already in effect really have made health care more affordable and accessible for many Americans. But other families and individuals are still out of the loop. While insurance carriers can no longer impose lifetime caps on their policy-holders, or reject them for pre-existing conditions, there's precious little control over the premiums that carriers can impose, at least for now.
The state-coordinated insurance exchanges scheduled to kick in next year, with mandated coverage and available subsidies may help a lot. But judging from what I've understood, the various plans will probably be more expensive and cumbersome to administer than the single-payer option. With its near-total reliance on private-sector health insurance providers, the system is still very much profit-driven. Conversely, universal health care would be tidier and less costly to maintain. It works reasonably well across the pond. (In Germany, the carriers are non-governmental, but also non-profit).
Another potential obstacle: the coverage mandate for businesses with more than 50 employees. Having just been postponed for a year, it's now scheduled to take effect in 2015. I've read mixed reviews about this measure and honestly don't know what the impact might be. (The vast majority of domestic businesses don't come close to approaching that 50-employee threshold, yet a few growing enterprises could conceivably roll over that hump).
In the meantime, many congressional Republicans are still obsessed with their compulsion to repeal the ACA in its entirety. It's what now, their 41st attempt? The Republicans have been aided in their effort to hobble Obamacare by an organization called the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB). (Despite the name, the NFIB is funded largely by four very generous donors, who account for well over three million dollars of their war chest of several million).
Last year, the NFIB was the lead plaintiff involved with a Supreme Court appeal to trash the ACA: National Federation of Independent Businesses vs. Sebelius. This effort didn't succeed; a 5-4 majority, including Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the individual mandate. However, Justice Roberts switched his position in regard to Medicaid expansion.
The individual mandate remains intact, but individual states now have the right to opt out of expanded Medicaid coverage for their poorest residents. (These are folks whose income is too low to qualify for the exchanges. Without Medicaid expansion, they'd remain unprotected). It appears as if over 20 states have rejected it outright, while another few are still deliberating. This, despite the fact that the new Medicaid recipients would be fully funded by the federal government for the first two years. Beyond that time, the states are expected to kick in small, but increasing increments until they're capped at the rate of 10% in 2022.
Because many state budgets are in the red, fiscal hardship could be cited as an excuse for some states to deny their residents desperately needed Medicaid coverage. Changing the terms of such coverage to full federal funding for the foreseeable future might be worth considering.
Thereafter, any state legislatures still refusing to accept Medicaid expansion would be doing so for buck-naked ideological reasons. The only rights really being compromised would be those of the folks denied decent health care.
Just a thought.
The state-coordinated insurance exchanges scheduled to kick in next year, with mandated coverage and available subsidies may help a lot. But judging from what I've understood, the various plans will probably be more expensive and cumbersome to administer than the single-payer option. With its near-total reliance on private-sector health insurance providers, the system is still very much profit-driven. Conversely, universal health care would be tidier and less costly to maintain. It works reasonably well across the pond. (In Germany, the carriers are non-governmental, but also non-profit).
Another potential obstacle: the coverage mandate for businesses with more than 50 employees. Having just been postponed for a year, it's now scheduled to take effect in 2015. I've read mixed reviews about this measure and honestly don't know what the impact might be. (The vast majority of domestic businesses don't come close to approaching that 50-employee threshold, yet a few growing enterprises could conceivably roll over that hump).
In the meantime, many congressional Republicans are still obsessed with their compulsion to repeal the ACA in its entirety. It's what now, their 41st attempt? The Republicans have been aided in their effort to hobble Obamacare by an organization called the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB). (Despite the name, the NFIB is funded largely by four very generous donors, who account for well over three million dollars of their war chest of several million).
Last year, the NFIB was the lead plaintiff involved with a Supreme Court appeal to trash the ACA: National Federation of Independent Businesses vs. Sebelius. This effort didn't succeed; a 5-4 majority, including Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the individual mandate. However, Justice Roberts switched his position in regard to Medicaid expansion.
The individual mandate remains intact, but individual states now have the right to opt out of expanded Medicaid coverage for their poorest residents. (These are folks whose income is too low to qualify for the exchanges. Without Medicaid expansion, they'd remain unprotected). It appears as if over 20 states have rejected it outright, while another few are still deliberating. This, despite the fact that the new Medicaid recipients would be fully funded by the federal government for the first two years. Beyond that time, the states are expected to kick in small, but increasing increments until they're capped at the rate of 10% in 2022.
Because many state budgets are in the red, fiscal hardship could be cited as an excuse for some states to deny their residents desperately needed Medicaid coverage. Changing the terms of such coverage to full federal funding for the foreseeable future might be worth considering.
Thereafter, any state legislatures still refusing to accept Medicaid expansion would be doing so for buck-naked ideological reasons. The only rights really being compromised would be those of the folks denied decent health care.
Just a thought.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
U.S. Military Action in Syria = More Grief
The decision whether or not to use military force in Syria is a tormenting one. Persuasive arguments can be made pro or con. Ideally, the disempowerment of Bashar al-Assad would be a cause for celebration if the political climate was stable. Atrocities against fellow Syrians committed by his regime appear to be well-documented by organizations such as Doctors Without Borders. (The United Nations report is still pending).
Supporters of military action seem to believe that Assad will think twice about committing monstrous acts against his own citizens. But many skeptics are concerned that U.S. attacks could stiffen his resolve instead, possibly accelerating the level of his brutality. Providing military aid to Syrian rebels might have been a viable alternative if they were relatively unified. But ideologically, they're all over the map, ranging from democrats to proponents of organizations like Al Qaeda.
We'd be going it alone. Nations initially perceived as compromising a "coalition of the willing" are no longer so willing. The British Parliament has opted out of the coalition by a margin of 13 votes. Prime Minister David Cameron, an avid supporter of the effort, graciously conceded, declaring that Great Britain would not contribute to a military campaign in Syria. (Some of his critics believe that he shouldn't have given up so quickly). The Arab League seems to be backing away from any commitment as well. With Security Council opposition from Russia, the United Nations is also a no-go.
Last year, Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons constituted a "red line" which should never be crossed. In retrospect, that was probably not a wise statement. Now, proponents of intervention state that if nothing is done, we'll be perceived as weaklings and all hell will break loose. Well, all hell seems to be breaking loose as it is. It's a civil war! Foreign (U.S.) intervention could very easily add a new dimension to that civil war, causing it to spill over the borders (e.g.: Attacks on Israel and Turkey with the certainty of reprisals). Is that really a desireable outcome?
Loss of life is tragic and leaves a terrible void for those who survive. Should it really matter if the cause of death is from toxic chemicals, missiles, or bullets? Or possibly some other method of torture? (Check out an earlier post on this blog dated 4/26/13: "The Heartbreak of Drone Warfare").
The last documented attack on civilians with chemical weapons occurred in 1988, in the Kurdish town of Halabja, courtesy of Saddam Hussein --- who at the time was still considered our good buddy. No one objected. However, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), a non-governmental body, wasn't established until 1993. 191 nations (including Russia and Iran) have signed the organization's Chemical Weapons Convention (CPC). Only five have not; one of those five is Syria.
Incidentally, a napalm attack on a school near Aleppo, in rebel territory, has recently been reported. What napalm does to human beings is horrifying. But our own hands are not unsoiled; the United States used it on the Vietnamese. Many of those who were severely burned by napalm were civilians, including women and children.
One more item to consider: No one proposed an intervention in Argentina during the late 1970s. Yet the atrocities committed by the military dictatorship there were well-known. Their most adamant critics were kidnapped, bound and gagged, trundled aboard airplanes, and dropped into the Atlantic while still alive. Prior to their abductions, the victims' children were snatched away from them, and forcibly placed for adoption by families that supported the junta. Again, no one raised their voices.
The military option worries me for two reasons:
1) Needless fatalities caused by U.S. attacks could very likely alienate former supporters. A few might even be driven to seek bloody revenge; think Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving brother charged with the massacre at the Boston Marathon. He was very clear about his motive, stating that Americans killed his fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2) Although Secretary of State John Kerry, among others, has insisted that our action would be limited, what happens if things don't go according to plan? Is there even an exit plan? Kerry did state that there'd be no use of ground troops, but when the subject of unanticipated hypothetical situations was mentioned, he waffled.
Alternatives? There really are no easy answers. Assad can be tried and convicted in-absentia by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. An international effort can (and should) be focused on further isolating him. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians are in need of humanitarian aid.
In concert with the international community, that's something we could to be doing.
Supporters of military action seem to believe that Assad will think twice about committing monstrous acts against his own citizens. But many skeptics are concerned that U.S. attacks could stiffen his resolve instead, possibly accelerating the level of his brutality. Providing military aid to Syrian rebels might have been a viable alternative if they were relatively unified. But ideologically, they're all over the map, ranging from democrats to proponents of organizations like Al Qaeda.
We'd be going it alone. Nations initially perceived as compromising a "coalition of the willing" are no longer so willing. The British Parliament has opted out of the coalition by a margin of 13 votes. Prime Minister David Cameron, an avid supporter of the effort, graciously conceded, declaring that Great Britain would not contribute to a military campaign in Syria. (Some of his critics believe that he shouldn't have given up so quickly). The Arab League seems to be backing away from any commitment as well. With Security Council opposition from Russia, the United Nations is also a no-go.
Last year, Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons constituted a "red line" which should never be crossed. In retrospect, that was probably not a wise statement. Now, proponents of intervention state that if nothing is done, we'll be perceived as weaklings and all hell will break loose. Well, all hell seems to be breaking loose as it is. It's a civil war! Foreign (U.S.) intervention could very easily add a new dimension to that civil war, causing it to spill over the borders (e.g.: Attacks on Israel and Turkey with the certainty of reprisals). Is that really a desireable outcome?
Loss of life is tragic and leaves a terrible void for those who survive. Should it really matter if the cause of death is from toxic chemicals, missiles, or bullets? Or possibly some other method of torture? (Check out an earlier post on this blog dated 4/26/13: "The Heartbreak of Drone Warfare").
The last documented attack on civilians with chemical weapons occurred in 1988, in the Kurdish town of Halabja, courtesy of Saddam Hussein --- who at the time was still considered our good buddy. No one objected. However, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), a non-governmental body, wasn't established until 1993. 191 nations (including Russia and Iran) have signed the organization's Chemical Weapons Convention (CPC). Only five have not; one of those five is Syria.
Incidentally, a napalm attack on a school near Aleppo, in rebel territory, has recently been reported. What napalm does to human beings is horrifying. But our own hands are not unsoiled; the United States used it on the Vietnamese. Many of those who were severely burned by napalm were civilians, including women and children.
One more item to consider: No one proposed an intervention in Argentina during the late 1970s. Yet the atrocities committed by the military dictatorship there were well-known. Their most adamant critics were kidnapped, bound and gagged, trundled aboard airplanes, and dropped into the Atlantic while still alive. Prior to their abductions, the victims' children were snatched away from them, and forcibly placed for adoption by families that supported the junta. Again, no one raised their voices.
The military option worries me for two reasons:
1) Needless fatalities caused by U.S. attacks could very likely alienate former supporters. A few might even be driven to seek bloody revenge; think Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving brother charged with the massacre at the Boston Marathon. He was very clear about his motive, stating that Americans killed his fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2) Although Secretary of State John Kerry, among others, has insisted that our action would be limited, what happens if things don't go according to plan? Is there even an exit plan? Kerry did state that there'd be no use of ground troops, but when the subject of unanticipated hypothetical situations was mentioned, he waffled.
Alternatives? There really are no easy answers. Assad can be tried and convicted in-absentia by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. An international effort can (and should) be focused on further isolating him. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians are in need of humanitarian aid.
In concert with the international community, that's something we could to be doing.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Rahm Emanuel: "The Education Mayor" & His Love Affair With Charter Schools
I have never been a great admirer of Rahm Emanuel, my hometown mayor. In fact, I supported one of his opponents, an independent-minded administrator named Miguel Del Valle during the 2011 mayoral campaign.
It seems as if public schools throughout the nation are becoming public policy makers' favorite piñata. In Philadelphia, state funding cutbacks have forced the closing of 23 public schools. Yet state officials managed to uncover some miraculous monetary honeypot to fund a brand-spankin' new prison just north of Philly to the tune of $400 million!
Here in Chicago, 50 elementary schools, primarily in struggling neighborhoods, are being shut down. Programs, especially creative arts, are being butchered at many surviving schools as well. It has to be done because we're in dire financial straits, so they say. Yet the Emanuel administration is able to pony up financing for a new sports arena near the McCormick Place convention complex. This, despite the fact that two other publicly-financed athletic stadiums haven't even come close to paying for themselves:
1) Soldier Field, extensively and expensively renovated, primarily to benefit the Chicago Bears, who play eight
games a year there --- and ---
2) Cellullar Field
(nee: Comiskey Park) publicly funded to
the tune of $200 million for the owners of the
Chicago White Sox, who for the past few years have
had their rent payments waived owing to low
attendance. (The team owners were mandated to pay
rent to the Illinois Sports Finance Authority, technically
the owner of the stadium, assuming that paid attendance
figures exceeded a minimum threshold. Well,
that threshold hasn't been met for a while now).
At the same time, bids are being solicited for the establishment of more charter schools, despite their largely dubious records of success. The case is often made that the charter schools save the taxpayers money in contrast to public schools. Maybe so, but is that really a cause for pride? First of all, teachers' average salaries are lower because they tend not to hang around long enough to accumulate much seniority. Also, the charters are able to "cherry-pick" their students --- generally the least "expensive" ones, not those with special needs. Unrestricted enrollment may be mandated, but they can ultimately drop pupils who don't conform to their standards. Rejected students are, of course, shunted back to the public schools.
Here in my home town, the mayor hand-picks the school board which largely controls policy with precious little public input. There are seven board members: a retired university dean, a retired Chicago Public Schools (CPS) principal, and five corporate poobahs. So, guess whose interests predominate!
Mayor Emanuel's latest appointment is an investment advisor named Deborah Quazzo who, just incidentally, sends her three children to the exclusive Chicago Latin School. Her firm, in which she's a managing partner, focuses on private equity investments in education. She also sits on the board of a nation-wide chain of charter schools known as KIPP: an acronym standing for "Knowledge Is Power Program". (There are five KIPP schools in Chicago. Nationally, on average, KIPP schools do not perform especially well in contrast to average public schools, and generally well below college-prep public schools).
Anyway, here's the kicker: I scoped out KIPP's website listing of employment opportunities. It features a group photo of racially and ethnically diverse young teachers, all fresh-faced and hot-to-trot --- y'know, like a "big family". Don't get me wrong, I'm sure these teachers are very earnest and well-intentioned, and really do want to make a dent!
But here's what's expected of them. In return for "competitive salaries and benefits", they're scheduled to work 50 hours a week: (M-F 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM). In addition Saturday "volunteering" is an option, but "almost everyone does it". (Hmm! What kind of performance review might a "non-volunteer" expect?). (Personal note: I've done plenty of volunteer work in my life; it's satisfying and life-affirming. But volunteerism has never been "implied" as "part of my job").
Decades ago, labor activists fought --- and some even died --- for the 40-hour, 5-day work week. Yet, dedicated young teachers at charter schools like KIPP, are being imposed upon to work 50+ hours a week; it's as if they're not entitled to meaningful lives of their own. How are they expected to find the time to enrich themselves, let alone start families?
Some folks might insist that KIPP-type jobs aren't being forced on anyone. But throughout the country, public school teachers are being laid off. So if these dedicated young teachers really want to make their passion a reality, their employment opportunities are likely to be very limited.
More often than not, after three years at a charter school, they're done with teaching!
It seems as if public schools throughout the nation are becoming public policy makers' favorite piñata. In Philadelphia, state funding cutbacks have forced the closing of 23 public schools. Yet state officials managed to uncover some miraculous monetary honeypot to fund a brand-spankin' new prison just north of Philly to the tune of $400 million!
Here in Chicago, 50 elementary schools, primarily in struggling neighborhoods, are being shut down. Programs, especially creative arts, are being butchered at many surviving schools as well. It has to be done because we're in dire financial straits, so they say. Yet the Emanuel administration is able to pony up financing for a new sports arena near the McCormick Place convention complex. This, despite the fact that two other publicly-financed athletic stadiums haven't even come close to paying for themselves:
1) Soldier Field, extensively and expensively renovated, primarily to benefit the Chicago Bears, who play eight
games a year there --- and ---
2) Cellullar Field
(nee: Comiskey Park) publicly funded to
the tune of $200 million for the owners of the
Chicago White Sox, who for the past few years have
had their rent payments waived owing to low
attendance. (The team owners were mandated to pay
rent to the Illinois Sports Finance Authority, technically
the owner of the stadium, assuming that paid attendance
figures exceeded a minimum threshold. Well,
that threshold hasn't been met for a while now).
At the same time, bids are being solicited for the establishment of more charter schools, despite their largely dubious records of success. The case is often made that the charter schools save the taxpayers money in contrast to public schools. Maybe so, but is that really a cause for pride? First of all, teachers' average salaries are lower because they tend not to hang around long enough to accumulate much seniority. Also, the charters are able to "cherry-pick" their students --- generally the least "expensive" ones, not those with special needs. Unrestricted enrollment may be mandated, but they can ultimately drop pupils who don't conform to their standards. Rejected students are, of course, shunted back to the public schools.
Here in my home town, the mayor hand-picks the school board which largely controls policy with precious little public input. There are seven board members: a retired university dean, a retired Chicago Public Schools (CPS) principal, and five corporate poobahs. So, guess whose interests predominate!
Mayor Emanuel's latest appointment is an investment advisor named Deborah Quazzo who, just incidentally, sends her three children to the exclusive Chicago Latin School. Her firm, in which she's a managing partner, focuses on private equity investments in education. She also sits on the board of a nation-wide chain of charter schools known as KIPP: an acronym standing for "Knowledge Is Power Program". (There are five KIPP schools in Chicago. Nationally, on average, KIPP schools do not perform especially well in contrast to average public schools, and generally well below college-prep public schools).
Anyway, here's the kicker: I scoped out KIPP's website listing of employment opportunities. It features a group photo of racially and ethnically diverse young teachers, all fresh-faced and hot-to-trot --- y'know, like a "big family". Don't get me wrong, I'm sure these teachers are very earnest and well-intentioned, and really do want to make a dent!
But here's what's expected of them. In return for "competitive salaries and benefits", they're scheduled to work 50 hours a week: (M-F 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM). In addition Saturday "volunteering" is an option, but "almost everyone does it". (Hmm! What kind of performance review might a "non-volunteer" expect?). (Personal note: I've done plenty of volunteer work in my life; it's satisfying and life-affirming. But volunteerism has never been "implied" as "part of my job").
Decades ago, labor activists fought --- and some even died --- for the 40-hour, 5-day work week. Yet, dedicated young teachers at charter schools like KIPP, are being imposed upon to work 50+ hours a week; it's as if they're not entitled to meaningful lives of their own. How are they expected to find the time to enrich themselves, let alone start families?
Some folks might insist that KIPP-type jobs aren't being forced on anyone. But throughout the country, public school teachers are being laid off. So if these dedicated young teachers really want to make their passion a reality, their employment opportunities are likely to be very limited.
More often than not, after three years at a charter school, they're done with teaching!
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Here's Your Pity: Now Stand Down and Have a Cookie!
Last week, Governor Pat McCrory (R-North Carolina) signed a draconian anti-abortion bill effectively closing most of the state's women's health clinics. Although abortions were targeted in the bill, because of the manner in which the measure was crafted, many North Carolina women will be denied basic health-sustaining services well beyond the realm of abortion. (Incidentally, during his campaign, he specifically promised that he would not sign off on any such legislation).
In the wake of his action, a concerned group of women conducted a 12-hour vigil outside the Governor's Mansion in Raleigh. The Good Governor responded with what he evidently perceived as a good-will offering: a plate of chocolate-chip cookies which he personally presented to one of the demonstrators. Without missing a beat, the group returned the untouched cookies with a note on the plate reading, "We want women's health care, not cookies."
Was there some sort of subliminal message intended, such as an implication that women should be home baking cookies? And having babies? Or was it simply an attempt by the guv to make himself feel good? Several years ago, I recall watching a profile of Ronald Reagan; if my memory serves me, it was a public television documentary.
Throughout his presidency, Mr. Reagan was condemned for promoting mean-spirited economic policies; in effect punishing the poor for having the temerity to be poor. His reaction? He gave an economically-troubled woman $5,000 out of his own pocket, evidently because he was moved by her story. The documentary demonstrated just how affected Mr. Reagan was by this woman's plight --- on a personal level, one on one.
Yet many folks like Governor McCrory and President Reagan can't seem to make the logical leap. Whether in the realm of sexual relations or economic matters, they preach "personal responsibility". Yet when faced with personal appeals, they'll interact on a personal level. But the unseen millions affected by the same challenging issues seem to be out of sight and out of mind.
Many of McCrory's and Reagan's kindred spirits seem to believe that charities and private largesse can address the nation's ills; and that folks should stop having sex until they're ready to tie the knot and start making babies. Don't get me wrong, charities do yeoman work. But they've never had the resources to address more than a fraction of the nation's needs, especially in times of economic distress. And sexual abstention? In 2013? Get real!
In virtually every industrialized society, government social programs play a significant role. On this side of the pond, Social Security and Medicare have proven to be a godsend. Every mainstream poll validates the popularity of these programs, despite the rants of the government-hating sour-grapes. And furthermore, the vast majority of Americans do not endorse governmental probes of women's vaginas --- or the denial of basic health services.
A personal note to Governor McCrory: Sharing is virtuous, but please keep your cookies to yourself!
In the wake of his action, a concerned group of women conducted a 12-hour vigil outside the Governor's Mansion in Raleigh. The Good Governor responded with what he evidently perceived as a good-will offering: a plate of chocolate-chip cookies which he personally presented to one of the demonstrators. Without missing a beat, the group returned the untouched cookies with a note on the plate reading, "We want women's health care, not cookies."
Was there some sort of subliminal message intended, such as an implication that women should be home baking cookies? And having babies? Or was it simply an attempt by the guv to make himself feel good? Several years ago, I recall watching a profile of Ronald Reagan; if my memory serves me, it was a public television documentary.
Throughout his presidency, Mr. Reagan was condemned for promoting mean-spirited economic policies; in effect punishing the poor for having the temerity to be poor. His reaction? He gave an economically-troubled woman $5,000 out of his own pocket, evidently because he was moved by her story. The documentary demonstrated just how affected Mr. Reagan was by this woman's plight --- on a personal level, one on one.
Yet many folks like Governor McCrory and President Reagan can't seem to make the logical leap. Whether in the realm of sexual relations or economic matters, they preach "personal responsibility". Yet when faced with personal appeals, they'll interact on a personal level. But the unseen millions affected by the same challenging issues seem to be out of sight and out of mind.
Many of McCrory's and Reagan's kindred spirits seem to believe that charities and private largesse can address the nation's ills; and that folks should stop having sex until they're ready to tie the knot and start making babies. Don't get me wrong, charities do yeoman work. But they've never had the resources to address more than a fraction of the nation's needs, especially in times of economic distress. And sexual abstention? In 2013? Get real!
In virtually every industrialized society, government social programs play a significant role. On this side of the pond, Social Security and Medicare have proven to be a godsend. Every mainstream poll validates the popularity of these programs, despite the rants of the government-hating sour-grapes. And furthermore, the vast majority of Americans do not endorse governmental probes of women's vaginas --- or the denial of basic health services.
A personal note to Governor McCrory: Sharing is virtuous, but please keep your cookies to yourself!
Thursday, July 18, 2013
A Must-Read: Especially for Anyone Who Votes Republican
I just finished reading an article I had stumbled across in my Twitter feed; it's from a recent issue of Vanity Fair.
Its author, a seasoned journalist named Kurt Eichenwald has illustrated the abject cruelty of many right-wing legislators from a very personal perspective --- in a manner which I never could. (Just google [or "bing", if you prefer], My Family, Our Cancer to read the article. It's well worth it!).
I often wonder whether many of the folks who cast their votes for these uncompromising, uninformed legislators --- not only in Texas --- ever fully realize the consequences of their ballot choices.
Recalling my experiences as a volunteer canvasser, primarily in metro Chicago, southern Wisconsin, and northwest Indiana, I can readily recall hundreds of folks I've met in my travels, who seemed to be very nice, decent people --- the kind of folks who'd immediately rush to help someone in distress. Yet without missing a beat, they declare their allegiance to candidates with agendas that betray a spirit of meanness.
I often think to myself, "How can we get through to these people? They're not evil beings." Yet, who has the time to read Vanity Fair? So many wage-earners are working multiple part-time jobs these days, just trying to cobble together a survival-level income. And they're working damned hard, too! With whatever free time they have, they just wanna kick back and relax. Who can blame them?
Really, about all we can do is keep after the folks who flocked to the polls in 2008 and 2012, but sat out 2010: the young voters especially. Next year's midterm elections will be vital. The Rick Perrys and Scott Walkers do not reflect our true values either as a society or as individuals. Nor does Congress. (Issue-oriented polls prove it).
We can and must do better in 2014.
Its author, a seasoned journalist named Kurt Eichenwald has illustrated the abject cruelty of many right-wing legislators from a very personal perspective --- in a manner which I never could. (Just google [or "bing", if you prefer], My Family, Our Cancer to read the article. It's well worth it!).
I often wonder whether many of the folks who cast their votes for these uncompromising, uninformed legislators --- not only in Texas --- ever fully realize the consequences of their ballot choices.
Recalling my experiences as a volunteer canvasser, primarily in metro Chicago, southern Wisconsin, and northwest Indiana, I can readily recall hundreds of folks I've met in my travels, who seemed to be very nice, decent people --- the kind of folks who'd immediately rush to help someone in distress. Yet without missing a beat, they declare their allegiance to candidates with agendas that betray a spirit of meanness.
I often think to myself, "How can we get through to these people? They're not evil beings." Yet, who has the time to read Vanity Fair? So many wage-earners are working multiple part-time jobs these days, just trying to cobble together a survival-level income. And they're working damned hard, too! With whatever free time they have, they just wanna kick back and relax. Who can blame them?
Really, about all we can do is keep after the folks who flocked to the polls in 2008 and 2012, but sat out 2010: the young voters especially. Next year's midterm elections will be vital. The Rick Perrys and Scott Walkers do not reflect our true values either as a society or as individuals. Nor does Congress. (Issue-oriented polls prove it).
We can and must do better in 2014.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Republican Texas Legislators are NOT "Pro-Life".
I'd like to believe that the genie is out of the bottle, at least in the state of Texas. Last week, State Senator Wendy Davis successfully filibustered a draconian anti-women's-choice bill that would have shut down many of the state's women's health clinics.
Unfortunately, it was a pyrrhic victory. The legislature reconvened this week and passed the measure, known as Senate Bill 1 (SB1). But many folks are fighting back. The testimony of an eloquent young woman named Sarah Slamen was captured on video which has since gone viral. (Just google "youtube" and key "Sarah Slamen" in the Youtube search engine).
As the video shows, Ms. Slamen was forcibly removed from the room before her allotted time was up --- as directed by Jane Nelson (R-12th), the chairman of the Senate Committee on --- uh --- Health & Human Services(!!!) Not a pretty picture.
SB1 forbids abortions beyond 20 weeks of fertilization. However, the devil is in the details. Because of the way the bill was crafted, forcing abortion clinics to adopt the same standards as hospital-style clinics, all but five of the 42 women's health clinics performing abortions --- even on embryos --- would likely be forced to close. And Texas isn't the only state affected.
Similar statutes have been legislated in other states dominated by Tea Party Republicans, including North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Ohio, and Wisconsin, also resulting in clinic closures.
According to the Center for Disease Control, over 90% of abortions nationwide are performed during the first trimester (12 weeks); in other words, on embryos. In contrast, SB1, with its 20-week threshold, would apply to only 1.3% of all abortions. Yet the bill would effectively make it exceedingly difficult for most women to obtain any abortion.
I believe that there are many folks who truly believe in the sanctity of life: people of good will. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago composed a document he called The Consistency of Life Ethic. Also known as the Principle of the Seamless Garment (feel free to correct me if I have this wrong), the ethic questions the death penalty and unjust wars, as well as economic and social injustices.
Yet Texas Governor Rick Perry and his legislative allies have presided over more executions than their counterparts in any other state. They've also butchered funding for education, health, and nutrition programs, all of which help make the lives of struggling Texans more bearable. Pro-life?
Still, the Good Governor heralded the passage of SB1 with the following statement: " (Today) the Texas legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life." No shame, no shame at all!
Some political prognosticators believe that, considering the rapid demographic change occurring in the Lone Star State, that its political complexion could turn purple by 2016. That might seem a bit bold, but it would be nice.
In the meantime, it's reassuring to hear some voices emerging from the wilderness, such as those of Wendy Davis and Sarah Slamen. It's a start!
Unfortunately, it was a pyrrhic victory. The legislature reconvened this week and passed the measure, known as Senate Bill 1 (SB1). But many folks are fighting back. The testimony of an eloquent young woman named Sarah Slamen was captured on video which has since gone viral. (Just google "youtube" and key "Sarah Slamen" in the Youtube search engine).
As the video shows, Ms. Slamen was forcibly removed from the room before her allotted time was up --- as directed by Jane Nelson (R-12th), the chairman of the Senate Committee on --- uh --- Health & Human Services(!!!) Not a pretty picture.
SB1 forbids abortions beyond 20 weeks of fertilization. However, the devil is in the details. Because of the way the bill was crafted, forcing abortion clinics to adopt the same standards as hospital-style clinics, all but five of the 42 women's health clinics performing abortions --- even on embryos --- would likely be forced to close. And Texas isn't the only state affected.
Similar statutes have been legislated in other states dominated by Tea Party Republicans, including North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Ohio, and Wisconsin, also resulting in clinic closures.
According to the Center for Disease Control, over 90% of abortions nationwide are performed during the first trimester (12 weeks); in other words, on embryos. In contrast, SB1, with its 20-week threshold, would apply to only 1.3% of all abortions. Yet the bill would effectively make it exceedingly difficult for most women to obtain any abortion.
I believe that there are many folks who truly believe in the sanctity of life: people of good will. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago composed a document he called The Consistency of Life Ethic. Also known as the Principle of the Seamless Garment (feel free to correct me if I have this wrong), the ethic questions the death penalty and unjust wars, as well as economic and social injustices.
Yet Texas Governor Rick Perry and his legislative allies have presided over more executions than their counterparts in any other state. They've also butchered funding for education, health, and nutrition programs, all of which help make the lives of struggling Texans more bearable. Pro-life?
Still, the Good Governor heralded the passage of SB1 with the following statement: " (Today) the Texas legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life." No shame, no shame at all!
Some political prognosticators believe that, considering the rapid demographic change occurring in the Lone Star State, that its political complexion could turn purple by 2016. That might seem a bit bold, but it would be nice.
In the meantime, it's reassuring to hear some voices emerging from the wilderness, such as those of Wendy Davis and Sarah Slamen. It's a start!
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Women's Choice Redux
What is it with these guys that makes them so obsessive over women's vaginas? It's not just a problem in Congress, but within many state legislatures as well.
Here's what happened in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago. A measure was ramrodded through that state's senate, mandating vaginal probes for any woman needing an abortion (SB 206). And my use of the term "ramrodded" was purely intentional.
A number of senate Democrats attempted to debate the bill, a perfectly rational action. But Senate President Mike Ellis, a Republican, stifled all attempts at discussion, going batshit crazy in the process. (I was unable to establish a link with the video, but accessing the Youtube search engine and keying in "Senator Mike Ellis" will bring it up. It runs 2:47). Maybe the good burghers of Wisconsin's 19th Senatorial District will commit this video to their cerebral memory banks when they cast their ballots next year. We can only hope.
In the meantime, Congressional Republicans continue to obsess over women's reproductive issues while cutting food stamps (the majority of whose beneficiaries are employed). Still, they think nothing of approving subsidies to wealthy farmers and corporate agriculture.
George Carlin was right on target with this declaration:
If you're pre-born, you're fine.
If you're pre-SCHOOL, you're f**ked!
Too bad he didn't take better care of himself.
Here's what happened in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago. A measure was ramrodded through that state's senate, mandating vaginal probes for any woman needing an abortion (SB 206). And my use of the term "ramrodded" was purely intentional.
A number of senate Democrats attempted to debate the bill, a perfectly rational action. But Senate President Mike Ellis, a Republican, stifled all attempts at discussion, going batshit crazy in the process. (I was unable to establish a link with the video, but accessing the Youtube search engine and keying in "Senator Mike Ellis" will bring it up. It runs 2:47). Maybe the good burghers of Wisconsin's 19th Senatorial District will commit this video to their cerebral memory banks when they cast their ballots next year. We can only hope.
In the meantime, Congressional Republicans continue to obsess over women's reproductive issues while cutting food stamps (the majority of whose beneficiaries are employed). Still, they think nothing of approving subsidies to wealthy farmers and corporate agriculture.
George Carlin was right on target with this declaration:
If you're pre-born, you're fine.
If you're pre-SCHOOL, you're f**ked!
Too bad he didn't take better care of himself.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Women's Choice: The Heros and the Not-So-Heroic
Here we are: Legions of folks are hungering for decent jobs that pay a livable wage, we're plagued with a crumbling infrastructure, and public schools are being defunded in favor of privatized education and building prisons. Yet we have a Congress that's so dysfunctional that they can't even pass a simple one-page bill that would reverse the sequester (HR 900). This so-called "sequester" consisted of a series of measures so draconian that no one would dare let it happen.
But lo and behold: here we are. Nutrition and Head-Start programs are getting butchered along with numerous other vital social programs that enrich us as a society.
According to the gospel of many public officials, especially those elected with Tea Party support, government serves a single function: to regulate the traffic in and out of women's vaginas. That's it!
That's why it was so refreshing to witness Texas State Senator Wendy Davis successfully sustain her one-woman filibuster against daunting odds during a legislative session. She managed to temporarily defeat a draconian measure which, although intended to limit abortions, would have defunded many of the state's women's health clinics. It was likely just a symbolic victory; the same legislation will be reintroduced next week. But Senator Davis seems to have achieved iconic status, not only in Texas, but well beyond.
Some meaningful pushback toward the misogynists in public office has been a long time coming. Let's hope there's more.
But lo and behold: here we are. Nutrition and Head-Start programs are getting butchered along with numerous other vital social programs that enrich us as a society.
According to the gospel of many public officials, especially those elected with Tea Party support, government serves a single function: to regulate the traffic in and out of women's vaginas. That's it!
That's why it was so refreshing to witness Texas State Senator Wendy Davis successfully sustain her one-woman filibuster against daunting odds during a legislative session. She managed to temporarily defeat a draconian measure which, although intended to limit abortions, would have defunded many of the state's women's health clinics. It was likely just a symbolic victory; the same legislation will be reintroduced next week. But Senator Davis seems to have achieved iconic status, not only in Texas, but well beyond.
Some meaningful pushback toward the misogynists in public office has been a long time coming. Let's hope there's more.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Chairman Issa's Digestive Tract is Working Overtime
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) enjoys the spotlight, no doubt about it. As chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he avails himself of the opportunities.
Among his dubious achievements: Stifling legislation intended to restore the financial health of the US Postal Service. As a chairman of the relevant committee, he succeeded in killing the measure, despite its likelihood of passage. (Details are available in the first post on this blog, dated 2/28/12).
Chairman Issa (pronounced ICE-uh) is currently focused on recent problems with the Internal Revenue Service. He seems determined to link the IRS's recently cited irregularities --- including the alleged pinpointing of Tea Party groups for questionable exemption claims, and wildly excessive expenses for training sessions --- to the Obama administration.
(A brief sidebar: The 96 Tea-Party organizations that were red-flagged were among a group of 298 committees spanning the political spectrum. Only one actually lost its tax-exempt status: a Democratic-leaning, New-England-based group).
The Good Chairman seems to have an ironbound determination to demonize the White House, despite lack of evidence. During a recent interview with journalist Candy Crowley, he stated that "he knew in his gut that somebody in the White House knew something." Here's a clip from Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC program, The Last Word. (The entire 14-minute video is worth watching, but the relevant snippet runs from 6:03 to 6:24): It's In His Gut.
I'll grant you this: The Chairman's gut has served him well. Considering the fact that he's just a shade shy of 60, Mr. Issa cuts a dashing figure, snappy suits and all. His digestive and metabolic processes appear to function smashingly well, unlike those of his soul-mate Rush Limbaugh. So I guess it's understandable why he should maintain such unswerving faith in his intestinal tract.
However, Mr. Issa's gut faith seems to be wearing thin as a political tactic. Even some of his Republican chums are advising him to cool his jets!
Among his dubious achievements: Stifling legislation intended to restore the financial health of the US Postal Service. As a chairman of the relevant committee, he succeeded in killing the measure, despite its likelihood of passage. (Details are available in the first post on this blog, dated 2/28/12).
Chairman Issa (pronounced ICE-uh) is currently focused on recent problems with the Internal Revenue Service. He seems determined to link the IRS's recently cited irregularities --- including the alleged pinpointing of Tea Party groups for questionable exemption claims, and wildly excessive expenses for training sessions --- to the Obama administration.
(A brief sidebar: The 96 Tea-Party organizations that were red-flagged were among a group of 298 committees spanning the political spectrum. Only one actually lost its tax-exempt status: a Democratic-leaning, New-England-based group).
The Good Chairman seems to have an ironbound determination to demonize the White House, despite lack of evidence. During a recent interview with journalist Candy Crowley, he stated that "he knew in his gut that somebody in the White House knew something." Here's a clip from Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC program, The Last Word. (The entire 14-minute video is worth watching, but the relevant snippet runs from 6:03 to 6:24): It's In His Gut.
I'll grant you this: The Chairman's gut has served him well. Considering the fact that he's just a shade shy of 60, Mr. Issa cuts a dashing figure, snappy suits and all. His digestive and metabolic processes appear to function smashingly well, unlike those of his soul-mate Rush Limbaugh. So I guess it's understandable why he should maintain such unswerving faith in his intestinal tract.
However, Mr. Issa's gut faith seems to be wearing thin as a political tactic. Even some of his Republican chums are advising him to cool his jets!
Friday, May 24, 2013
Just Who is Bullying Whom?
Five months into his second term, the President has been under increasing assault from Republicans; they're accusing his administration of political bullying and a lack of transparency.
The Internal Revenue Service has allegedly singled out conservative political action groups for audits. However, none has been denied tax-exempt status. (From what I understand, the real issue isn't even being discussed: that is, should organizations doing political work be tax-exempt to begin with)? But there's no evidence that the Obama administration was in any way involved in this action, if true. (Frankly, I'm skeptical). Whether justified or not, the president has actually expressed his dismay toward the IRS in concert with the Republicans.
Yet many in the GOP have been trigger-quick to accuse the Democrats of political bullying. I'm detecting just a whiff of a double standard at work here. Exactly what have the Congressional Republicans been doing since Obama became the nation's chief executive? Showering him with rose petals? Or more to the point, what haven't they been doing except obstructing? I understand that the 37th attempt to repeal Obamacare is in the works.
So who are the real bullies?
The Internal Revenue Service has allegedly singled out conservative political action groups for audits. However, none has been denied tax-exempt status. (From what I understand, the real issue isn't even being discussed: that is, should organizations doing political work be tax-exempt to begin with)? But there's no evidence that the Obama administration was in any way involved in this action, if true. (Frankly, I'm skeptical). Whether justified or not, the president has actually expressed his dismay toward the IRS in concert with the Republicans.
Yet many in the GOP have been trigger-quick to accuse the Democrats of political bullying. I'm detecting just a whiff of a double standard at work here. Exactly what have the Congressional Republicans been doing since Obama became the nation's chief executive? Showering him with rose petals? Or more to the point, what haven't they been doing except obstructing? I understand that the 37th attempt to repeal Obamacare is in the works.
So who are the real bullies?
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
A Felony for an Innocent Misjudgment
Get this! A well-regarded Florida high school student was expelled from her school last week. Why? Because she conducted a scientific experiment outside the school that bore an unexpected result.
Kiera Wilmot, a junior at Bartow High School in the Florida town of the same name, committed the unforgiveable error of mixing some household chemicals in a plastic bottle outside the school, well away from the building. The chemical cocktail created a minor explosion, but caused no injury or damage. A reprimand would probably have been appropriate; she most likely would have understood the gravity of the situation and learned from it.
Yet despite her exemplary record of conduct and high academic standing, school officials have deemed Ms. Wilmot a criminal! Not only has she been expelled from her school, but she's being charged with a felony.
The principal actually declared that she knew that the cited student intended no harm, but that she had violated the school's code of conduct. After all, "rules are rules."
I guess the All-Hallowed Principal's Manual doesn't contain a clause anywhere pertaining to common sense.
Update: As of May 24th, criminal charges against Ms. Wilmot have been dropped, most likely due at least in part to an on-line campaign in her behalf. At least 200,000 signatures were generated. The school still hasn't allowed her to return, but according to local reports, her parents are appealing to school officials.
So at least in this one instance, an inquisitive student's curiosity won't be criminalized. Nevertheless, this should be considered an appropriate time for school officials to be reconsidering zero-tolerance policies at their institutions. Not only do they cast a pall over the whole educational environment, but they discourage students from exercising initiative and curiosity. Besides, the slammers in many localities are already overloaded with petty, non-violent offenders.
Kiera Wilmot, a junior at Bartow High School in the Florida town of the same name, committed the unforgiveable error of mixing some household chemicals in a plastic bottle outside the school, well away from the building. The chemical cocktail created a minor explosion, but caused no injury or damage. A reprimand would probably have been appropriate; she most likely would have understood the gravity of the situation and learned from it.
Yet despite her exemplary record of conduct and high academic standing, school officials have deemed Ms. Wilmot a criminal! Not only has she been expelled from her school, but she's being charged with a felony.
The principal actually declared that she knew that the cited student intended no harm, but that she had violated the school's code of conduct. After all, "rules are rules."
I guess the All-Hallowed Principal's Manual doesn't contain a clause anywhere pertaining to common sense.
Update: As of May 24th, criminal charges against Ms. Wilmot have been dropped, most likely due at least in part to an on-line campaign in her behalf. At least 200,000 signatures were generated. The school still hasn't allowed her to return, but according to local reports, her parents are appealing to school officials.
So at least in this one instance, an inquisitive student's curiosity won't be criminalized. Nevertheless, this should be considered an appropriate time for school officials to be reconsidering zero-tolerance policies at their institutions. Not only do they cast a pall over the whole educational environment, but they discourage students from exercising initiative and curiosity. Besides, the slammers in many localities are already overloaded with petty, non-violent offenders.
Friday, April 26, 2013
The Heartbreak of Drone Warfare
Deaths of innocents are devastating, whether those who die are in Boston, New York, Pakistan, or Yemen.
What happened at the Boston Marathon last week was horrifying. Were it not for the heroism of first responders and medical professionals, as well as bystanders, the death toll would have likely been much higher. Legions of workaday folks, without missing a beat, reflexively transformed into angels of mercy, while potentially placing themselves in harm's way.
In the wake of tragedy, the community came together. So did the nation in a great display of empathy. It's a solid testament to our national character.
But can we extend that empathy across the globe? Consider this: Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni writer, recently testified before a Senate subcommittee hearing focused on the use of attack drones overseas. Mr. al-Muslimi was once an exchange student, living with a family in the U.S. Since then, he's assumed a role as a de-facto good-will ambassador between Yemen and the U.S. with much success.
Sadly, recent ongoing U.S. drone attacks on Yemen seem to have undone his good work. Mr. al-Muslimi described his shock at such attacks on his native land --- in particular one on his native village --- and emphasized that the good will he so carefully cultivated is now history. In fact, he's quite concerned that he may not even be welcomed if he was to return. Here's what he said at the hearing:
The drone strikes tore through my heart, much as
the tragic bombings in Boston tore your hearts
and also mine.
He went on to say that the target of the strike was known to many in the village; Yemeni officials could easily have arrested him. Mr. al-Muslimi further stated:
The drone strikes are the face of America to many
Yemenis. .... (This allows the Yemen-based Al
Qaeda affiliate) to convince more individuals that
America is at war with them.
And Yemen is not the only nation being subjected to U.S. drone warfare. Parts of Pakistan and Somalia are among others. Because U.S. troops are not at risk, it's easy for us to "file and forget" reports of such missions. We're often reminded that drones are capable of making "surgical strikes" on their intended targets; yet in reality, many innocents --- including children --- are often killed or gravely injured. Defenders of the use of drones often gracelessly refer to such tragic consequences as "collateral damage".
It should also be noted that the surviving brother accused of the Boston massacre, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, stated that he and his brother were driven to act by their anger toward the United States for having waged war against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. While this rationale in no way justifies their monstrous deed, it's probably not unreasonable to assume that another "Dzhokhar" or "Tamerlan" from Yemen or Pakistan might be inspired to exact a bloody revenge on the U.S. with a similar act.
The Obama administration has been accelerating the drone program. For example, in 2012 there were 46 drone attacks in Yemen alone. Under Bush's watch, there was only one. The President journeyed to Boston soon after the tragedy to offer comfort and solace to the grieving families of those who died, as well as to the injured. I'm sure that everything he said and did came from the heart.
But he needs to realize that those who've suffered as a result of drone warfare have experienced that same heartache and sense of loss as the people of Boston. He must make that connection!
What happened at the Boston Marathon last week was horrifying. Were it not for the heroism of first responders and medical professionals, as well as bystanders, the death toll would have likely been much higher. Legions of workaday folks, without missing a beat, reflexively transformed into angels of mercy, while potentially placing themselves in harm's way.
In the wake of tragedy, the community came together. So did the nation in a great display of empathy. It's a solid testament to our national character.
But can we extend that empathy across the globe? Consider this: Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni writer, recently testified before a Senate subcommittee hearing focused on the use of attack drones overseas. Mr. al-Muslimi was once an exchange student, living with a family in the U.S. Since then, he's assumed a role as a de-facto good-will ambassador between Yemen and the U.S. with much success.
Sadly, recent ongoing U.S. drone attacks on Yemen seem to have undone his good work. Mr. al-Muslimi described his shock at such attacks on his native land --- in particular one on his native village --- and emphasized that the good will he so carefully cultivated is now history. In fact, he's quite concerned that he may not even be welcomed if he was to return. Here's what he said at the hearing:
The drone strikes tore through my heart, much as
the tragic bombings in Boston tore your hearts
and also mine.
He went on to say that the target of the strike was known to many in the village; Yemeni officials could easily have arrested him. Mr. al-Muslimi further stated:
The drone strikes are the face of America to many
Yemenis. .... (This allows the Yemen-based Al
Qaeda affiliate) to convince more individuals that
America is at war with them.
And Yemen is not the only nation being subjected to U.S. drone warfare. Parts of Pakistan and Somalia are among others. Because U.S. troops are not at risk, it's easy for us to "file and forget" reports of such missions. We're often reminded that drones are capable of making "surgical strikes" on their intended targets; yet in reality, many innocents --- including children --- are often killed or gravely injured. Defenders of the use of drones often gracelessly refer to such tragic consequences as "collateral damage".
It should also be noted that the surviving brother accused of the Boston massacre, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, stated that he and his brother were driven to act by their anger toward the United States for having waged war against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. While this rationale in no way justifies their monstrous deed, it's probably not unreasonable to assume that another "Dzhokhar" or "Tamerlan" from Yemen or Pakistan might be inspired to exact a bloody revenge on the U.S. with a similar act.
The Obama administration has been accelerating the drone program. For example, in 2012 there were 46 drone attacks in Yemen alone. Under Bush's watch, there was only one. The President journeyed to Boston soon after the tragedy to offer comfort and solace to the grieving families of those who died, as well as to the injured. I'm sure that everything he said and did came from the heart.
But he needs to realize that those who've suffered as a result of drone warfare have experienced that same heartache and sense of loss as the people of Boston. He must make that connection!
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Universal Health Care Across the Pond: Conservative Leaders Never Mess With It.
I find it very telling that throughout the industrialized world, universal health care is considered to be part of the national fabric; except here in the U.S.A. Even the most conservative of leaders generally honor and respect the principle of health care for all. No one would ever consider tampering with it.
For instance, replacing universal health care was proposed in the British Tory Party's 1979 manifesto. Nevertheless, when Margaret Thatcher stood for election that same year, she declared her unswerving support for maintaining the National Health Service as it was. Whatever the Iron Lady's personal sentiments may have been, she was keenly aware of the potential blowback resulting from any attempt to dismantle it.
Likewise, Germany's conservative prime minister, Angela Merkel realizes that any attempt to dismantle her nation's stellar system of health care would be tantamount to political hari-kari. Even former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy knows what would have happened had he tried to interfere. His fellow citizens would have kicked his bootie clear across the Adriatic Sea --- causing him to land splat in the center of the Croatian city of Zagreb --- and finding himself in sudden need of a crash course in Serbo-Croatian!
A few years back, a U.S. health care expert and scholar named Donald Light offered an enlightening assessment of Britain's National Health Service, declaring it totally in synch with the most hallowed of free market principles. Its advocates believed that it maximized everyone's ability to exercise individual freedom and responsibility by enabling people to take care of themselves and be productive.*
Hmm! Individual responsibility! One of the Republicans' favorite talking points!
Any thoughts?
* Source: Donald Light; Universal Health Care: Lessons from the British Experience; American Journal of Public Health: January, 2003, p. 25-30. ----> Well worth the read! Available free online.
For instance, replacing universal health care was proposed in the British Tory Party's 1979 manifesto. Nevertheless, when Margaret Thatcher stood for election that same year, she declared her unswerving support for maintaining the National Health Service as it was. Whatever the Iron Lady's personal sentiments may have been, she was keenly aware of the potential blowback resulting from any attempt to dismantle it.
Likewise, Germany's conservative prime minister, Angela Merkel realizes that any attempt to dismantle her nation's stellar system of health care would be tantamount to political hari-kari. Even former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy knows what would have happened had he tried to interfere. His fellow citizens would have kicked his bootie clear across the Adriatic Sea --- causing him to land splat in the center of the Croatian city of Zagreb --- and finding himself in sudden need of a crash course in Serbo-Croatian!
A few years back, a U.S. health care expert and scholar named Donald Light offered an enlightening assessment of Britain's National Health Service, declaring it totally in synch with the most hallowed of free market principles. Its advocates believed that it maximized everyone's ability to exercise individual freedom and responsibility by enabling people to take care of themselves and be productive.*
Hmm! Individual responsibility! One of the Republicans' favorite talking points!
Any thoughts?
* Source: Donald Light; Universal Health Care: Lessons from the British Experience; American Journal of Public Health: January, 2003, p. 25-30. ----> Well worth the read! Available free online.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Grover Norquist is Still Alive and Well and Living in the Halls of Congress
Earlier today, President Obama introduced his latest budget proposal to Congress. It contains provisions for program cuts and revenue increases. In some quarters, I suppose that the Obama budget would be considered an attempt to compromise, but to most Republicans in Congress, compromise seems to be an alien concept.
House Speaker John Boehner, in behalf of his Republican cohorts, still insists that tax increases are off the table. Among GOP senators, there may at least be some talking points, but no sincere attempt at compromise. For instance, Lindsey Graham (R. - SC) has suggested a willingness to discuss elimination of tax loopholes, but only in return for flattening the overall tax rates.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States already has among the lowest tax revenue as a percentage of the gross domestic product among its 34 member nations. (The OECD was founded in 1961 in the interest of promoting economic progress and world trade). Here's a link with the lowdown:
OECD: Tax Revenue as a % of GDP.
Consider this as well: None of the other 33 member nations possess a massive military-industrial complex, which consumes a quarter of the United States' budget. Yet too many Republicans in both houses seem unwilling to give an inch in the realm of raising desperately needed tax revenue, even if vital social programs have to be gutted.
I guess they really do hate government.
House Speaker John Boehner, in behalf of his Republican cohorts, still insists that tax increases are off the table. Among GOP senators, there may at least be some talking points, but no sincere attempt at compromise. For instance, Lindsey Graham (R. - SC) has suggested a willingness to discuss elimination of tax loopholes, but only in return for flattening the overall tax rates.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States already has among the lowest tax revenue as a percentage of the gross domestic product among its 34 member nations. (The OECD was founded in 1961 in the interest of promoting economic progress and world trade). Here's a link with the lowdown:
OECD: Tax Revenue as a % of GDP.
Consider this as well: None of the other 33 member nations possess a massive military-industrial complex, which consumes a quarter of the United States' budget. Yet too many Republicans in both houses seem unwilling to give an inch in the realm of raising desperately needed tax revenue, even if vital social programs have to be gutted.
I guess they really do hate government.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The "City on a Hill" is a Gated Fortress
Over time, that "City on a Hill" seems to have endured a whole slew of incarnations --- with one constant: its portrayal as an ideal, a pinnacle of triumph. Its earliest known reference appears to have been a biblical citation (Matthew 5:14).
Centuries later, a Puritan, John Winthrop, cited the embryonic city of Boston as "a city on the hill being watched by the world": perhaps the earliest reference to American exceptionalism. Nor did its use as a metaphor escape "The Great Communicator", Ronald Reagan back in the '80s.
Since then, that "City on a Hill", has become a place most of us can only dream about. As the late, lamented comic genius George Carlin used to say, "Why do they call it the American dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe it!"
Speaking of the '80s, here's how income gains have been distributed nationwide since then. Specifically, between 1979 and 2007, gross income for the lowest 20% of households has increased by 16%: not nearly enough to keep pace with mounting everyday expenses. On the other hand, the top 1% has reveled in a 281% income jump.
Just as a basis for comparison, here's the way it pans out:
-Lowest 20% (of households): 16%
-Middle 20% : 25%
-Top 20% : 95%
-Top 1%(within that top 20%): 281%!
(Source: Congressional Budget Office)
Yet the Republicans in Congress stubbornly refuse to consider raising taxes on that priveleged 1%, with no concern for the consequences: the likelihood that millions of people, right here in the United States of America could well be condemned to lives of despair, hopelessness, and even premature death as vital programs get scuttled.
It's looking as if that "City on a Hill" is now the exclusive property of our nation's paymasters. Believe me, I'd like to be proven wrong. In any event, we need to keep trying to facilitate change, even if like Don Quixote, we're just tilting at windmills.
In the meantime, that "City on the Hill" has been locked and latched!
Centuries later, a Puritan, John Winthrop, cited the embryonic city of Boston as "a city on the hill being watched by the world": perhaps the earliest reference to American exceptionalism. Nor did its use as a metaphor escape "The Great Communicator", Ronald Reagan back in the '80s.
Since then, that "City on a Hill", has become a place most of us can only dream about. As the late, lamented comic genius George Carlin used to say, "Why do they call it the American dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe it!"
Speaking of the '80s, here's how income gains have been distributed nationwide since then. Specifically, between 1979 and 2007, gross income for the lowest 20% of households has increased by 16%: not nearly enough to keep pace with mounting everyday expenses. On the other hand, the top 1% has reveled in a 281% income jump.
Just as a basis for comparison, here's the way it pans out:
-Lowest 20% (of households): 16%
-Middle 20% : 25%
-Top 20% : 95%
-Top 1%(within that top 20%): 281%!
(Source: Congressional Budget Office)
Yet the Republicans in Congress stubbornly refuse to consider raising taxes on that priveleged 1%, with no concern for the consequences: the likelihood that millions of people, right here in the United States of America could well be condemned to lives of despair, hopelessness, and even premature death as vital programs get scuttled.
It's looking as if that "City on a Hill" is now the exclusive property of our nation's paymasters. Believe me, I'd like to be proven wrong. In any event, we need to keep trying to facilitate change, even if like Don Quixote, we're just tilting at windmills.
In the meantime, that "City on the Hill" has been locked and latched!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)