As I write, the recall election in Wisconsin has just been called for Scott Walker. His running mate, Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, as well as the Senate Majority Leader, Scott Fitzgerald (that's really his name!) have also survived the recall. Three other Senate seats are momentarily still in play.
I guess it was to be expected; the campaign of Tom Barrett, Walker's Democratic opponent, was outspent by a ratio of 7:1! Still, after a weekend of volunteer canvassing for Barrett in largely Democratic Kenosha (as well as previous stints in Milwaukee), I had higher hopes.
The canvass itself progressed quite smoothly. A number of voters who had recently changed addresses needed information regarding registration, location of polling place, IDs, etc. (Wisconsin still has same-day registration --- at least for now). The only notable clinker moment was a street encounter. I was sitting in the car doing some paperwork. A 70-something guy with a pot-belly that preceded the rest of him by roughly eleven inches, shambled up to my vehicle, eyeballed my work for a moment, and asked me who I was working for. I told him. He then shouted, "To hell with Barrett! And you can go to hell, too!" I just shrugged. "You take care now, guy, okay?" He then lumbered off toward his SUV and laboriously climbed in. (Unnh-h-h!)
We tried, but our best efforts apparently still fell short. In the wake of the canvass, it was easy to feel complacent. (Kinda reminds me of an old anecdote from the 1948 Presidential campaign: a four-way race among Truman, Dewey, Strom Thurmond of the segregationist States' Rights Party, and Henry Wallace, the Progressive Party's candidate. A starry-eyed young Progressive was asked who was going to win the election: "Why Henry Wallace, of course! All my friends are voting for him!" ).
No doubt the outcome of this election will be analyzed, and micro-analyzed over the coming days, weeks, and months. But it seems clear that with no limits on campaign funding (courtesy of the Supreme Court's Citizens United v Federal Election Commission ruling) the organization with the deeper pockets will continue to have the upper hand. With unlimited largesse from a few billionaires, the wealthier party can fund massive media buys and spread information which may not necessarily be truthful. (The Walker campaign seriously misrepresented the state's employment stats, the condition of its budget, and his own history of illegal campaign activity as Milwaukee County's chief executive).
Like I stated in the subject line, money doesn't merely talk anymore, it shrieks! We'll need to re-energize ourselves in a major way as the year progresses. Onward to November!
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
Mitt Romney: The "Education" President(???)
Hmm! During a visit to a West Philadelphia charter school yesterday, Mr. Romney informed a group of veteran teachers that class sizes had no effect on students' achievement. He specifically cited a school in Massachusetts with an 18:1 student-teacher ratio, insisting that it ranked near the bottom in performance test results.
It just so happens that The Young Master Romney was an alumnus of the veddy exclusive Cranbrook School in the toney Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. The student-teacher ratio there is 8:1! Citing the impeccable logic of the above Massachusetts example, what should we conclude regarding Mr. Romney's abilities and aptitudes?
Perhaps he should have apprenticed as a barber. After all, he did get some practice! * Just sayin'!
* According to several of Mr. Romney's former classmates, The Young Master led a brigade of his chums on a hunting expedition while armed with a pair of scissors. Their intended prey was a gay student with unacceptably long hair. While his young accomplices held the student down, the Mittster reportedly snipped away at his lengthy locks.
Oh well, boys will be boys. (hah-hah-hah!)
It just so happens that The Young Master Romney was an alumnus of the veddy exclusive Cranbrook School in the toney Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. The student-teacher ratio there is 8:1! Citing the impeccable logic of the above Massachusetts example, what should we conclude regarding Mr. Romney's abilities and aptitudes?
Perhaps he should have apprenticed as a barber. After all, he did get some practice! * Just sayin'!
* According to several of Mr. Romney's former classmates, The Young Master led a brigade of his chums on a hunting expedition while armed with a pair of scissors. Their intended prey was a gay student with unacceptably long hair. While his young accomplices held the student down, the Mittster reportedly snipped away at his lengthy locks.
Oh well, boys will be boys. (hah-hah-hah!)
Monday, May 14, 2012
Legislative Violence
Last week, the House approved a draconian bill, HR 5652: The Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012.
Toward the end of last year, Congress mandated the creation of a special bipartisan committee to produce a blueprint for balancing the budget. Spending cuts were mandated across the board except for Medicare and Social Security. However, the three Republicans and three Democrats assigned to this "super-committee", the Simpson-Bowles Commission, were unable to devise a plan that Congress was willing to sign off on regarding distribution of these cuts, even after a lengthy period of sequestration.
Owing to the lack of such consensus, automatic cuts have been scheduled in equal portions from the social and the military sides of the ledger. HR 5652 would largely spare the military from the fiscal chopping block, instead imposing those scheduled cuts on the social side in addition to the already-mandated ones. This would further eviscerate such lifeline-sustaining programs as food stamps, Medicaid, and children's health care, as well as nutrition programs. Grants to states would also get butchered, affecting among other things, education. And of course, raising taxes for the very wealthy would be unthinkable!
Neither HR 5652 nor the Republican budget, The Path to Prosperity, would currently survive a vote in the Senate or a Presidential veto. But if either of these items was to ever be enacted, the consequences could be potentially lethal for many Americans --- akin to legislative violence: Not violence by the sword nor violence by the gun, but instead, violence by the stroke of a legislative pen!
Millions of families and individuals could well be condemned to living out their days under a toxic shroud of hopelessness and despair --- and, in some cases, dying long before their time. Their deaths might arrive not as swiftly as a bullet between the eyes, but often just as surely.
Is this the future that too many Republicans envision for us?
Have they no shame?
Toward the end of last year, Congress mandated the creation of a special bipartisan committee to produce a blueprint for balancing the budget. Spending cuts were mandated across the board except for Medicare and Social Security. However, the three Republicans and three Democrats assigned to this "super-committee", the Simpson-Bowles Commission, were unable to devise a plan that Congress was willing to sign off on regarding distribution of these cuts, even after a lengthy period of sequestration.
Owing to the lack of such consensus, automatic cuts have been scheduled in equal portions from the social and the military sides of the ledger. HR 5652 would largely spare the military from the fiscal chopping block, instead imposing those scheduled cuts on the social side in addition to the already-mandated ones. This would further eviscerate such lifeline-sustaining programs as food stamps, Medicaid, and children's health care, as well as nutrition programs. Grants to states would also get butchered, affecting among other things, education. And of course, raising taxes for the very wealthy would be unthinkable!
Neither HR 5652 nor the Republican budget, The Path to Prosperity, would currently survive a vote in the Senate or a Presidential veto. But if either of these items was to ever be enacted, the consequences could be potentially lethal for many Americans --- akin to legislative violence: Not violence by the sword nor violence by the gun, but instead, violence by the stroke of a legislative pen!
Millions of families and individuals could well be condemned to living out their days under a toxic shroud of hopelessness and despair --- and, in some cases, dying long before their time. Their deaths might arrive not as swiftly as a bullet between the eyes, but often just as surely.
Is this the future that too many Republicans envision for us?
Have they no shame?
Thursday, May 3, 2012
A Budget that Deficit Hawks Should Love
Is it the Republican budget, The Path to Prosperity? Not really. How about The President's Budget? Closer, but still no cigar. There's actually a third option <drum roll please>: The Congressional Progressive Caucus's Budget for All.
Despite their expressed concern about the deficit, the Republicans' The Path to Prosperity doesn't seriously address this issue. In fact, according to their own projections, the GOP's budget wouldn't be balanced until 2040: 28 years forward! This, despite a devastating attack on the social safety net. Congressional Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R - Wisconsin), the principal spokesman for this plan, also insists that more money is needed for the military, despite prevailing sentiment from within the Pentagon, that expenditures can be substantially reduced without compromising the nation's defense. (Sidebar: The Government Accountability Office [GAO], for at least the past 20 years, has periodically tried to make financial sense of the Pentagon's budget, but has found it "inauditable". Even Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged the problem during a recent appearance before the Senate Budget Committee).
The President's Budget by contrast, is more merciful regarding social programs. It also provides a revenue increase by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest households to expire. However, it too ramps up the military budget between 2015 and 2022 for more advanced weaponry (including drones) while phasing out arms programs deemed obsolete. Projections beyond 2022 don't seem to be available. While the deficit appears to decrease more quickly than the GOP's budget, neither option eliminates it.
Enter <stage left> the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). Their Budget for All documents how the deficit can be eliminated by 2022 --- without hurting anyone.
For starters, it advocates an end to nation-building outside the United States. The focus would be on reducing our military domination of the planet, while still maintaining a necessary level of security. (Over the past decade, the military budget has doubled).
Other highlights of the CPC budget include expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts as specified in The President's Budget. However, the Budget for All also mandates progressively higher tax rates for households with multi-million and billion-dollar-plus incomes. (The highest marginal rate would be 49% for incomes of over a billion, still far lower than pre-1980s tax rates). Additionally, there are proposals for taxes on high-end stock transactions and elimination of many corporate subsidies, especially ones that encourage the out-sourcing of domestic jobs. (For greater detail, a link is available by googling budget for all 2013 ).
In any event, the CPC's Budget for All seems to offer a --- uh --- path to prosperity: a genuine one that's not designed just for an anointed few. And, just as an afterthought, it might also succeed in balancing the budget sooner rather than later.
Despite their expressed concern about the deficit, the Republicans' The Path to Prosperity doesn't seriously address this issue. In fact, according to their own projections, the GOP's budget wouldn't be balanced until 2040: 28 years forward! This, despite a devastating attack on the social safety net. Congressional Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R - Wisconsin), the principal spokesman for this plan, also insists that more money is needed for the military, despite prevailing sentiment from within the Pentagon, that expenditures can be substantially reduced without compromising the nation's defense. (Sidebar: The Government Accountability Office [GAO], for at least the past 20 years, has periodically tried to make financial sense of the Pentagon's budget, but has found it "inauditable". Even Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged the problem during a recent appearance before the Senate Budget Committee).
The President's Budget by contrast, is more merciful regarding social programs. It also provides a revenue increase by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest households to expire. However, it too ramps up the military budget between 2015 and 2022 for more advanced weaponry (including drones) while phasing out arms programs deemed obsolete. Projections beyond 2022 don't seem to be available. While the deficit appears to decrease more quickly than the GOP's budget, neither option eliminates it.
Enter <stage left> the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). Their Budget for All documents how the deficit can be eliminated by 2022 --- without hurting anyone.
For starters, it advocates an end to nation-building outside the United States. The focus would be on reducing our military domination of the planet, while still maintaining a necessary level of security. (Over the past decade, the military budget has doubled).
Other highlights of the CPC budget include expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts as specified in The President's Budget. However, the Budget for All also mandates progressively higher tax rates for households with multi-million and billion-dollar-plus incomes. (The highest marginal rate would be 49% for incomes of over a billion, still far lower than pre-1980s tax rates). Additionally, there are proposals for taxes on high-end stock transactions and elimination of many corporate subsidies, especially ones that encourage the out-sourcing of domestic jobs. (For greater detail, a link is available by googling budget for all 2013 ).
In any event, the CPC's Budget for All seems to offer a --- uh --- path to prosperity: a genuine one that's not designed just for an anointed few. And, just as an afterthought, it might also succeed in balancing the budget sooner rather than later.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Congressman West's Strange Declaration
Earlier today, Congressman Allen West (R. - Florida), stated that "78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party are members of the Communist Party." Asked to be more specific, he pinpointed the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
As a vigorous progressive myself and a strong supporter of the caucus, I guess that makes me a fellow traveler. Not wishing to contradict The Good Congressman, I decided to sing a few bars of The Internationale. Still have the pipes for it!
Arise, you prisoners of starvation!
Arise, you wretched of the earth!
For justice thunders condemnation:
A better world's in birth!
Best to you, comrades!
As a vigorous progressive myself and a strong supporter of the caucus, I guess that makes me a fellow traveler. Not wishing to contradict The Good Congressman, I decided to sing a few bars of The Internationale. Still have the pipes for it!
Arise, you prisoners of starvation!
Arise, you wretched of the earth!
For justice thunders condemnation:
A better world's in birth!
Best to you, comrades!
Dubya Redux: Raising Taxes on the Job-Creators.
Hmm! Former President George Bush the Younger has emerged from a gentlemens' retirement long enough to declare that, "If you raise taxes on the so-called rich, you're really raising taxes on the job creators." Nothing new there. Governor Romney and numerous fellow Republicans have been repeating that very same mantra verbatim, ad infinitum.
Let's see, what sort of jobs are the so-called rich actually creating? Well, for starters, anyone who aspires to be a nanny (au pair if you really wanna get fancy), in the wake of some dedicated networking around such toney localities as Lake Forest, The Hamptons, or Beverly Hills, may well succeed.
Of course, if one's passion is driving, one may find employment as a personal chauffeur. Further opportunities abound for butlers, housekeepers, landscapers, and cooks. And one mustn't overlook the buff dudes who clean and maintain the family swimming pools --- that is, whenever they're not otherwise occupied with The Lady of the House.
So there you have it, by God, the so-called rich really do create jobs. And, for Pete's sake, one mustn't ever raise taxes on the job creators!
Chin chin!
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Want to See a Kinder, Gentler Iran? Then Ease Up on that Trigger Finger.
Three years ago, supporters of Iran's Green Revolution made a valiant attempt to defeat the Mullahs at the ballot box. They also demonstrated their numerical strength with spirited street rallies throughout the nation.
Sadly, they were routed by the regime's sometimes lethal firepower. Many will remember the iconic video image of Nida Sultan, a vibrant young woman lying mortally wounded in a Tehran street.
Despite their defeat in 2009, there are many who believe that a more humane leadership could ultimately prevail. Iranians have proven that they're capable of chasing an unpopular regime from power as they did in 1979. At that time, the theocracy prevailed owing to the tenor of the times; the majority of Iranians were intensely religious. Since then, there's been a demographic sea-change; Iran has become a younger, more secular, and above all a wired nation. People can communicate with each other in ways that were unknowable 33 years ago, and can organize accordingly. 2009 was a start. Given time, the days of the Mullahs and Sharia law could be numbered.
Is Iran really on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon? According to most intelligence assessments, pursuit of a weapon has been tabled, with the focus instead on nuclear power. If that was to change, perfection of a warhead would be years away.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran abandoned pursuit of a nuclear weapon in 2003 and has made no effort to restart it. The CIA and Mossad (Israel's CIA counterpart) have made similar assessments.
Intelligence estimates aside, suppose Iran did achieve nuclear weapon capability. Wouldn't the principal of mutually assured destruction apply? Israel has the potential to retaliate many times over if Iran was to initiate hostile action; their nuclear arsenal may be the planet's best-kept secret that everybody knows.
I fully understand many Israelis' discomfort with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric: especially the statements vowing Israel's destruction. Particularly for Holocaust survivors and their families, his declarations of Holocaust denial must be emotionally jarring to hear and searingly painful to read. Does he actually believe what he's saying? Who knows!
There's no historical hatred of Jews in Iran of which I'm aware. What more likely motivates Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs is Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, not hard-wired feelings of anti-Judaism. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a flashpoint that resonates throughout the Middle East and beyond. As far as I know, none of the intelligence pros, whether with the CIA, Mossad, or the IAEA, believe that Iran's leaders are looney.
If my memory serves me, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev aimed some pretty wild threats at the US in his day, the most memorable one being, "We will bury you!". Many folks considered him a madman. We and the Soviets were both armed to our eye-teeth with nuclear fireworks, but each of us was aware of our mutual potential to return the entire planet to the Kingdom of the Cockroaches. Literally!
Meanwhile, the drumbeat for military action against Iran seems to be intensifying. Despite Mossad's own intelligence estimates, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems determined to attack. But many of his loudest cheerleaders appear to be concentrated within our own borders: among them, the Republican presidential candidates (except Ron Paul), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and the community of neocons who promoted the invasion of Iraq. Even President Obama, despite his preference for diplomacy, has promised Israel that "he'd have their back", and that containment will not be an option --- despite containment's historical success as a policy.
An attack on Iran could have grave consequences, measured not only by loss of life in populated areas near nuclear facilities, but economic chaos throughout much of the world. And efforts to build a nuclear weapon would not be squelched; instead Iranians' resolve would likely be strengthened.
Above all, the citizens of Iran have demonstrated that, in the event that their nation is attacked, they'll unite unconditionally behind their leaders --- as they did during the Iran-Iraq War not all that long ago. Many Middle Eastern scholars as well as Iranian expats often emphasize Iranians' intense sense of nationalism.
So, do you hawks out there really want to kill the Green Revolution as well as further destabilize the region --- and maybe the planet? Then go get 'em! Or, in the words of a certain ex-president, "Bring it on!". Otherwise, try to find some other way to scratch that itchy trigger finger. Consider meditation.
Sadly, they were routed by the regime's sometimes lethal firepower. Many will remember the iconic video image of Nida Sultan, a vibrant young woman lying mortally wounded in a Tehran street.
Despite their defeat in 2009, there are many who believe that a more humane leadership could ultimately prevail. Iranians have proven that they're capable of chasing an unpopular regime from power as they did in 1979. At that time, the theocracy prevailed owing to the tenor of the times; the majority of Iranians were intensely religious. Since then, there's been a demographic sea-change; Iran has become a younger, more secular, and above all a wired nation. People can communicate with each other in ways that were unknowable 33 years ago, and can organize accordingly. 2009 was a start. Given time, the days of the Mullahs and Sharia law could be numbered.
Is Iran really on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon? According to most intelligence assessments, pursuit of a weapon has been tabled, with the focus instead on nuclear power. If that was to change, perfection of a warhead would be years away.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran abandoned pursuit of a nuclear weapon in 2003 and has made no effort to restart it. The CIA and Mossad (Israel's CIA counterpart) have made similar assessments.
Intelligence estimates aside, suppose Iran did achieve nuclear weapon capability. Wouldn't the principal of mutually assured destruction apply? Israel has the potential to retaliate many times over if Iran was to initiate hostile action; their nuclear arsenal may be the planet's best-kept secret that everybody knows.
I fully understand many Israelis' discomfort with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric: especially the statements vowing Israel's destruction. Particularly for Holocaust survivors and their families, his declarations of Holocaust denial must be emotionally jarring to hear and searingly painful to read. Does he actually believe what he's saying? Who knows!
There's no historical hatred of Jews in Iran of which I'm aware. What more likely motivates Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs is Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, not hard-wired feelings of anti-Judaism. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a flashpoint that resonates throughout the Middle East and beyond. As far as I know, none of the intelligence pros, whether with the CIA, Mossad, or the IAEA, believe that Iran's leaders are looney.
If my memory serves me, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev aimed some pretty wild threats at the US in his day, the most memorable one being, "We will bury you!". Many folks considered him a madman. We and the Soviets were both armed to our eye-teeth with nuclear fireworks, but each of us was aware of our mutual potential to return the entire planet to the Kingdom of the Cockroaches. Literally!
Meanwhile, the drumbeat for military action against Iran seems to be intensifying. Despite Mossad's own intelligence estimates, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems determined to attack. But many of his loudest cheerleaders appear to be concentrated within our own borders: among them, the Republican presidential candidates (except Ron Paul), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and the community of neocons who promoted the invasion of Iraq. Even President Obama, despite his preference for diplomacy, has promised Israel that "he'd have their back", and that containment will not be an option --- despite containment's historical success as a policy.
An attack on Iran could have grave consequences, measured not only by loss of life in populated areas near nuclear facilities, but economic chaos throughout much of the world. And efforts to build a nuclear weapon would not be squelched; instead Iranians' resolve would likely be strengthened.
Above all, the citizens of Iran have demonstrated that, in the event that their nation is attacked, they'll unite unconditionally behind their leaders --- as they did during the Iran-Iraq War not all that long ago. Many Middle Eastern scholars as well as Iranian expats often emphasize Iranians' intense sense of nationalism.
So, do you hawks out there really want to kill the Green Revolution as well as further destabilize the region --- and maybe the planet? Then go get 'em! Or, in the words of a certain ex-president, "Bring it on!". Otherwise, try to find some other way to scratch that itchy trigger finger. Consider meditation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)