They think of themselves as the elite. Neoconservatives by their tell tale comments. They think they are better than any one else because of their self claimed conservatism but they represent a conservatism that is much different than America practices. I am speaking about Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Management at the Fox News represent the same warped ideology.
Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, Dennis Miller and Newt Gingrich are regular guest, Hume having retired not too long ago. They can be described as the seven "ditto heads" who feel so inadequate they have nothing of positive value to contribute to the broadcast media. They like patting each other on the back, it builds up their confidence and lack of esteem. I laugh when they point to Fox News being a top rated cable network. It reminds me of one of President Truman's famous quotes. "A President needs political understanding to run the government, but he may be elected without it." (end of quote)
The seven "ditto heads" hide behind conservatism because they can't compete with our American heritage that every ones opinion counts and that diversity does matter. Their lack of understanding and wisdom is a direct result of their inadequate feeling. It is a sickness that really showed during the Presidency of George Bush when they could not articulate what the President and conservatism accomplished so they spent 8 years attacking democrats. That sickness is still being played out now against President Obama and his administration.
Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity represent three hours of cable "spin." (not counting their reruns) What really ticks them off about most of the so called "liberals" they berate, is that many of those "liberals" served their country in uniform. When you feel insecure and inadequate, attack, attack, the usual conservative ploy. Fox news claims to be "fair and balanced" but that is exactly what is lacking the most in their broadcast. Just the other night Bernie Goldberg who is a frequent guest on Fox and usually agrees with their pronouncements pointed out to O'Reilly that Fox's coverage of the town hall meetings on health care and the so called tax tea party were not fair and balanced. O'Reilly got his nose out of joint and his dander up. O'Reilly and Fox do not like when some one throws a challenge at their double standard.
The sickness at Fox news of trying to destroy those who have different views is a threat to our freedom. Their cry baby attitude toward President Obama because he would not appear on their network and take part in their charade is evidence of how sick the network has become.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Health Care And Medicare
The health care issue being debated by congress has spilled over to the issue of medicare. Those who are opposed to President Obama's proposed health care plan have put up every road block they can including alleging that health care reform will destroy medicare that has been taken care of senior citizens for many years.
Medicare has been a saving staple for seniors and others who qualify for the program and any reduction in benefits would seriously impact those that receive the benefit. Seniors also pay a monthly premium through social security deductions for medicare. Medicare plays a significant role in the life of seniors and allows seniors to have a better quality of life. Theywould naturally have concern if medicare no longer provided the services they have come to depend on.
The U.S. House on September 24 voted 406-18 to eliminate all premimum increases for medicare Part B for next year. Medicare is a democratic created program that was opposed by the republican party. Many in the republican party still oppose medicare. The bottom line is that no democratic administration will do anything to undo those benefits that have been taking care of senior's need for over 30 years.
Medicare has been a saving staple for seniors and others who qualify for the program and any reduction in benefits would seriously impact those that receive the benefit. Seniors also pay a monthly premium through social security deductions for medicare. Medicare plays a significant role in the life of seniors and allows seniors to have a better quality of life. Theywould naturally have concern if medicare no longer provided the services they have come to depend on.
The U.S. House on September 24 voted 406-18 to eliminate all premimum increases for medicare Part B for next year. Medicare is a democratic created program that was opposed by the republican party. Many in the republican party still oppose medicare. The bottom line is that no democratic administration will do anything to undo those benefits that have been taking care of senior's need for over 30 years.
Iran, Threat Or Nuisance
Is Iran a real threat to the national security of the United States. Are they a real threat to the national security of Israel, or for the region. I have yet to hear a real debate about the issue. But there are some things we do know that is never discussed, so lets try and explore the issue here.
I can not think of any country Iran has threatened to attack or invade lately but I can think of a country who has threatened to attack Iran. Iran's history is not one that has attacked or invaded another country in my life time.
Iran has said the Jewish state should be destroyed, but never said that they would be the ones to do so, and for good reasons. They know their country would be destroyed along with their leaders. On the other hand, Israel has used its military power to preempt attacks on Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Time will tell if Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If they do they are not going to launch an attack against Israel or the United States for the same reasons mentioned above and for the same reasons Russia never launched a nuclear attack against the U.S. in 40 years of a cold war. Iran would not pass nuclear weapons to terriorists for the same reasons.
The U.S. launched a war with Iraq over WMD that did not exist and our men and women in uniform paid dearly for that mistake. The nuclear inspection arm of the U.N. has been inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities since day one. Israel, India and Pakistan do not allow such inspections to its nuclear facilities. The case could be made that if any country starts a nuclear war in that part of the world it will be Pakistan, Israel or India since they are unchecked nuclear powers.
Iran gets under Israel's skin when they deny the holocaust but it is obvious the leaders and people of Iran know it happened. Iran taunts Israel just like Israel taunts Iran but that does not justify war. When a country uses its military power with impunity like Israel does the weak will do whatever they have to do to become strong.
The middle east is an unstable place and more so since the invasion of Iraq. Iraq attacked Iran and started a 10 year war during the 80's. The Reagan administration supported Saddam in that war and gave him intelligence on Iran's troop positions. Israel supported Iran in that war. In other words, two close allies, the U.S. and Israel supported opposite sides during that war. If that makes sense, I am not convinced.
Now on September 25th the nation has been told Iran has been operating a "secret" nuclear facility. The problem is it has not been "secret" to the intelligence community of the U.S., Briton or France. Their leaders have know about the facility for several years and say completion is anywhere from 18 months to 3 years away from being finished. The word "secret" is now being used to work up an appetite for a preemptive strike by those who love to send other peoples children off to war.
The Iran thing reminds me of what happened during the early year of President Kennedy's administration as reported in the book, "JFK and the Unspeakable." And I quote. JULY 20, 1961: At a national security meeting, the joint chiefs of staff and CIA director Allen Dulles presented a plan for a preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions." President Kennedy walked out of the meeting saying to Secretary of State Dean Rush, "And we call ourselves the human race."
President Kennedy had the wisdom to ignore that advise that would have killed millions on each side in an unnecessary nuclear war. Does the drum beat on Iran sound familiar.
I can not think of any country Iran has threatened to attack or invade lately but I can think of a country who has threatened to attack Iran. Iran's history is not one that has attacked or invaded another country in my life time.
Iran has said the Jewish state should be destroyed, but never said that they would be the ones to do so, and for good reasons. They know their country would be destroyed along with their leaders. On the other hand, Israel has used its military power to preempt attacks on Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Time will tell if Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If they do they are not going to launch an attack against Israel or the United States for the same reasons mentioned above and for the same reasons Russia never launched a nuclear attack against the U.S. in 40 years of a cold war. Iran would not pass nuclear weapons to terriorists for the same reasons.
The U.S. launched a war with Iraq over WMD that did not exist and our men and women in uniform paid dearly for that mistake. The nuclear inspection arm of the U.N. has been inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities since day one. Israel, India and Pakistan do not allow such inspections to its nuclear facilities. The case could be made that if any country starts a nuclear war in that part of the world it will be Pakistan, Israel or India since they are unchecked nuclear powers.
Iran gets under Israel's skin when they deny the holocaust but it is obvious the leaders and people of Iran know it happened. Iran taunts Israel just like Israel taunts Iran but that does not justify war. When a country uses its military power with impunity like Israel does the weak will do whatever they have to do to become strong.
The middle east is an unstable place and more so since the invasion of Iraq. Iraq attacked Iran and started a 10 year war during the 80's. The Reagan administration supported Saddam in that war and gave him intelligence on Iran's troop positions. Israel supported Iran in that war. In other words, two close allies, the U.S. and Israel supported opposite sides during that war. If that makes sense, I am not convinced.
Now on September 25th the nation has been told Iran has been operating a "secret" nuclear facility. The problem is it has not been "secret" to the intelligence community of the U.S., Briton or France. Their leaders have know about the facility for several years and say completion is anywhere from 18 months to 3 years away from being finished. The word "secret" is now being used to work up an appetite for a preemptive strike by those who love to send other peoples children off to war.
The Iran thing reminds me of what happened during the early year of President Kennedy's administration as reported in the book, "JFK and the Unspeakable." And I quote. JULY 20, 1961: At a national security meeting, the joint chiefs of staff and CIA director Allen Dulles presented a plan for a preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions." President Kennedy walked out of the meeting saying to Secretary of State Dean Rush, "And we call ourselves the human race."
President Kennedy had the wisdom to ignore that advise that would have killed millions on each side in an unnecessary nuclear war. Does the drum beat on Iran sound familiar.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Median Income In Louisiana Down
Business writer Jaquetta White of the Times Picayune reported that median household income in Louisiana dropped 7.8% in 2008 compared to the previous year according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau report released earlier this month. The report also showed that residents in all but 11 states and D.C., experienced a drop in income over the year, but that Louisiana had one of the sharpest income declines with just seven states performing worse.
Louisiana median income for 2008 was $39,563.00, down from $42,900.00 in 2007. The U.S. median income for 2008 was $50,303.00 down from $52,163.00 in 2007. In 1998 the Louisiana median income was $41,863.00 and in 2008 $39,563.00. That 10 year period saw a drop of 5.4% in Louisiana median income.
In the article local demographers were not surprised as they say it reflects a resetting of a part of the economy since hurricane Katrina. Demographer Elliot Stonecipher said the 10 year decline is not surprising since there has been a trend in Lojuisiana since at least the early 1990s of an outflow of high-paying jobs and an increase in low-wage ones. Our job base, the concentration of jobs in the service sector, means generally we do fit into that broad definition of a state without any evidence of industries that are higher income.
During that 10 year period mentioned above the Louisiana median income was almost $10,000.00 less per year than the U.S. median income. That would seem to confirm Mr. Stonecipher above comment. It would be nice if a report would be made during the same 10 year period concerning the median incomes of CEO's and executives of the business community. I think a report would show what I have written about on many occasions concerning the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.
Louisiana gives away millions of dollars to new and existing businesses in the form of tax breaks, financing for new plants, buying land for business, etc., etc., and the latest report above shows that the state has made no progress in bringing good paying jobs to Louisiana and the state in that 10 year period made no headway in closing the gap between the median income in Louisiana compared to the median income in the U.S.
Priority in Louisiana seems to be, take care of the business community and trickle down economics will lift the average worker up. Unfortunately, that is pure nonsense with a capital N.
Louisiana median income for 2008 was $39,563.00, down from $42,900.00 in 2007. The U.S. median income for 2008 was $50,303.00 down from $52,163.00 in 2007. In 1998 the Louisiana median income was $41,863.00 and in 2008 $39,563.00. That 10 year period saw a drop of 5.4% in Louisiana median income.
In the article local demographers were not surprised as they say it reflects a resetting of a part of the economy since hurricane Katrina. Demographer Elliot Stonecipher said the 10 year decline is not surprising since there has been a trend in Lojuisiana since at least the early 1990s of an outflow of high-paying jobs and an increase in low-wage ones. Our job base, the concentration of jobs in the service sector, means generally we do fit into that broad definition of a state without any evidence of industries that are higher income.
During that 10 year period mentioned above the Louisiana median income was almost $10,000.00 less per year than the U.S. median income. That would seem to confirm Mr. Stonecipher above comment. It would be nice if a report would be made during the same 10 year period concerning the median incomes of CEO's and executives of the business community. I think a report would show what I have written about on many occasions concerning the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.
Louisiana gives away millions of dollars to new and existing businesses in the form of tax breaks, financing for new plants, buying land for business, etc., etc., and the latest report above shows that the state has made no progress in bringing good paying jobs to Louisiana and the state in that 10 year period made no headway in closing the gap between the median income in Louisiana compared to the median income in the U.S.
Priority in Louisiana seems to be, take care of the business community and trickle down economics will lift the average worker up. Unfortunately, that is pure nonsense with a capital N.
Monday, September 21, 2009
What Is Next For The Economy
There have been a number of reports in the past few weeks dealing with the economy. Most reports have been up beat, although modest. Housing construction rose in August and the number of Americans who lost their jobs was down two months in a row. Applications for building permits rose 2.7% in August.
The Labor Department reports initial claims for unemployment benefits declined for the third time in the last four weeks. Ben Bernanke, the Fed Chairman said the worst recession since the 1930's is probably over. Household debt for the second quarter is slightly down from the first quarter.
Business is starting to hire again but not at a pace to reverse the job losses of the past 18 months. Job creation and putting America back to work is the key to a sustained economic recovery and a sustained economy. Personal spending is the engine to economic growth.
The key lesson for President Obama is to truly learn from the tragic mistakes of the previous administration, understand how corporate greed played a large part in the economic meltdow by the excesses of Wall Street and the Financial Industry and take real workable measures to safeguard against a repeat performance. The President must also understand how the massive deficit spending and debt of the last three republican administrations have weakened our position and ability to take a hit when the economy falls onto hard times. The question, can corporate America regulate litself, has already been answered with a resounding NO. Their past record is confirmation.
Most of the $787 billion stimulus money will be spent in the fiscal year that begins October 1, 2009 so the states will still be receiving money to help put people to work. It is important that states spend that money wisely on those things that really matter and make a difference for the economy and the people.
The President needs to insist on putting America's house back in operation with sound fiscal policies that eliminate deficit spending. Democratic administrations have done it in the past and can do it again. This has to be a priority and fall in line with bringing the economy back to life. I have reported many times in past articles that balancing the federal budget with sound fiscal policies will allow our country and its people to address what ever problems come along. The past is still the key to the future if we truly take the time to learn from it.
The Labor Department reports initial claims for unemployment benefits declined for the third time in the last four weeks. Ben Bernanke, the Fed Chairman said the worst recession since the 1930's is probably over. Household debt for the second quarter is slightly down from the first quarter.
Business is starting to hire again but not at a pace to reverse the job losses of the past 18 months. Job creation and putting America back to work is the key to a sustained economic recovery and a sustained economy. Personal spending is the engine to economic growth.
The key lesson for President Obama is to truly learn from the tragic mistakes of the previous administration, understand how corporate greed played a large part in the economic meltdow by the excesses of Wall Street and the Financial Industry and take real workable measures to safeguard against a repeat performance. The President must also understand how the massive deficit spending and debt of the last three republican administrations have weakened our position and ability to take a hit when the economy falls onto hard times. The question, can corporate America regulate litself, has already been answered with a resounding NO. Their past record is confirmation.
Most of the $787 billion stimulus money will be spent in the fiscal year that begins October 1, 2009 so the states will still be receiving money to help put people to work. It is important that states spend that money wisely on those things that really matter and make a difference for the economy and the people.
The President needs to insist on putting America's house back in operation with sound fiscal policies that eliminate deficit spending. Democratic administrations have done it in the past and can do it again. This has to be a priority and fall in line with bringing the economy back to life. I have reported many times in past articles that balancing the federal budget with sound fiscal policies will allow our country and its people to address what ever problems come along. The past is still the key to the future if we truly take the time to learn from it.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
A Change In College Aid
The Times Picayune reported the U.S. House of Representatives voted to remove private lenders from the student loan business and put the government in charge. The vote was 253-171 in favor of the proposal. Only six republicans voted in favor and four democrats voted against the bill. According to the report the bill fulfills nearly all of President Obama's campaign promise for higher education.
The measure ends subsidies for private lenders and allows the government to send the money direct to students. The report pointed out the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says that when administration cost and market conditions are considered the savings from switching to direct government lending would be $47 billion. Republicans said the bill could end up costing the government more money and republican John Kline said the numbers just don't add up. Mr. Kline offered no numbers or explaination to refute the CBO numbers, just the usual conservative rhetoric.
Republicans also argued against putting the government in control of student lending. The fact is private lenders can still make student loans if they want to, they just don't receive federal subsidies for doing so. This writer, a veteran, went to college on the G.I. bill and my check came direct from the government.
Members of Louisiana's republican delegation in congress who voted against the bill were; Bustany, Alexander, Cassidy, Fleming and Scalise. Republican Cao and democrat Melacon voted with the majority and for the bill. Representative Cao, who has been in congress only eight months once again showed his maturity over his republican college with his yes vote. The gang of five who voted against the measure were once again willing to walk the party line and oppose anything coming out of the Obama administration.
The people of Louisiana should take note.
The measure ends subsidies for private lenders and allows the government to send the money direct to students. The report pointed out the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says that when administration cost and market conditions are considered the savings from switching to direct government lending would be $47 billion. Republicans said the bill could end up costing the government more money and republican John Kline said the numbers just don't add up. Mr. Kline offered no numbers or explaination to refute the CBO numbers, just the usual conservative rhetoric.
Republicans also argued against putting the government in control of student lending. The fact is private lenders can still make student loans if they want to, they just don't receive federal subsidies for doing so. This writer, a veteran, went to college on the G.I. bill and my check came direct from the government.
Members of Louisiana's republican delegation in congress who voted against the bill were; Bustany, Alexander, Cassidy, Fleming and Scalise. Republican Cao and democrat Melacon voted with the majority and for the bill. Representative Cao, who has been in congress only eight months once again showed his maturity over his republican college with his yes vote. The gang of five who voted against the measure were once again willing to walk the party line and oppose anything coming out of the Obama administration.
The people of Louisiana should take note.
Friday, September 18, 2009
A Wise Foreign Policy Decision
As reported in the Times Picayune, President Obama announced Thursday September 18 he cancelled former President Bush's plans to install a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and in Poland. Instead the U.S. will deploy smaller interceptors by 2011. The President said the new system will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of U.S. forces and America's allies to meet a changing threat from Iran.
The President said the new assesment of the Iranian threat required a different system using existing technology and that the new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack.
Republican critics do what they always do. They said the President caved in to Russia. They are so out of touch they did not even try to rebut the reasons given by the President for the action he took. The republican response is only the beginning of their opposition to everything Obama does concerning foreign and domestic policy.
President Obama's decision was a wise one. He knew the proposed missile shield if installed in Russia's back yard would start a new arms race with that country. Who needs a new arms race when the U.S. and other peaceful nations are looking to stop the spread of weapons of war. There is no need for the U.S. because of misjudgement to make Russia stronger than they already are.
The U.S. does not need another costly missile system at this time in our history. The people of our country need a new approach concerning our foreign policy and the President deserves a chance at changing the status quo. This decision by the President does not endanger our national security because the change in policy will rely on proven military technology as the President said. Costly new systems play into the hands of the Military-Industrial complex and those who love to talk tough.
As for the threat from Iran, that will be covered in a future commentary coming soon.
The President said the new assesment of the Iranian threat required a different system using existing technology and that the new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack.
Republican critics do what they always do. They said the President caved in to Russia. They are so out of touch they did not even try to rebut the reasons given by the President for the action he took. The republican response is only the beginning of their opposition to everything Obama does concerning foreign and domestic policy.
President Obama's decision was a wise one. He knew the proposed missile shield if installed in Russia's back yard would start a new arms race with that country. Who needs a new arms race when the U.S. and other peaceful nations are looking to stop the spread of weapons of war. There is no need for the U.S. because of misjudgement to make Russia stronger than they already are.
The U.S. does not need another costly missile system at this time in our history. The people of our country need a new approach concerning our foreign policy and the President deserves a chance at changing the status quo. This decision by the President does not endanger our national security because the change in policy will rely on proven military technology as the President said. Costly new systems play into the hands of the Military-Industrial complex and those who love to talk tough.
As for the threat from Iran, that will be covered in a future commentary coming soon.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
A Letter From U.S. Senator, David Vitter
U.S. Senator David Vitter sent a letter addressed to "Dear Fellow American." The letter is about the health care issue before congress and has an attached questionaire ballot concerning the subject matter. The covering letter leaves no doubt that Vitter is opposed to the President's proposal on health care reform.
In his letter he calls the ballot a "Confidential Ballot and that he mailed only a few nationwide so it is very important that I receive your response to get accurate and ample results." How can accurate results be obtained by sending out a "few" ballots?
Mr. Vitter also states in his letter and I quote. "And don't worry, your confidential ballot is just that, it is 100% confidential. No union official or lobbyist will know anything about your response. Neither wil anyone at the White House." (end of quote). The following questions are on the ballot.
1. Do you oppose creating a new government-run health insurance provider?
2. Do you support this legislation forcing politicians to live by the health reforms they
pass?
3. Are you in favor of preventing tax dollars from funding abortions?
4. Are you against creating new health care entitlements for illegal aliens?
5. Would you want your representatives and senators to vote AGAINST Obama health
care take over plan?
One can easily see by the questions what Vitter's game is all about on health care. The usual slanted conservative word play gives him away, especially the abortion and illegal alien questions which will not be a part of the President's health care plan. People who are really concerned about health care should be outraged at these questions because they do nothing to explain the plan. It is just another reason why conservatism, as preached by many republicans in congress is an un American ideology. Vitter said the answer from the "few" will be combined with others giving me a clear picture of where the American people stand on the issue. Vitter did not take the time to mention who are the others he will combine his "few" with or if the same questions were asked.
I have often written that part of the conservative republicans problem is that they feel inadequate about themselves and that is why they have nothing to offer except personal attacks on the opposition. Rubber stamping George Bush's failed policies for 8 years and Mr. Vitters feeling of being inadequate is indeed very sad.
In his letter he calls the ballot a "Confidential Ballot and that he mailed only a few nationwide so it is very important that I receive your response to get accurate and ample results." How can accurate results be obtained by sending out a "few" ballots?
Mr. Vitter also states in his letter and I quote. "And don't worry, your confidential ballot is just that, it is 100% confidential. No union official or lobbyist will know anything about your response. Neither wil anyone at the White House." (end of quote). The following questions are on the ballot.
1. Do you oppose creating a new government-run health insurance provider?
2. Do you support this legislation forcing politicians to live by the health reforms they
pass?
3. Are you in favor of preventing tax dollars from funding abortions?
4. Are you against creating new health care entitlements for illegal aliens?
5. Would you want your representatives and senators to vote AGAINST Obama health
care take over plan?
One can easily see by the questions what Vitter's game is all about on health care. The usual slanted conservative word play gives him away, especially the abortion and illegal alien questions which will not be a part of the President's health care plan. People who are really concerned about health care should be outraged at these questions because they do nothing to explain the plan. It is just another reason why conservatism, as preached by many republicans in congress is an un American ideology. Vitter said the answer from the "few" will be combined with others giving me a clear picture of where the American people stand on the issue. Vitter did not take the time to mention who are the others he will combine his "few" with or if the same questions were asked.
I have often written that part of the conservative republicans problem is that they feel inadequate about themselves and that is why they have nothing to offer except personal attacks on the opposition. Rubber stamping George Bush's failed policies for 8 years and Mr. Vitters feeling of being inadequate is indeed very sad.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Health Care and Conservatism
As long as a democrat is in the White House, conservatives will oppose the administration's agenda. That is being played out once again with the health care issue. The conservative tactic is the same as they applied to the Clinton administration, lies and out right misrepresentation of the facts. Every time one of their lies are exposed, they find another area to lie about.
It represents the conservative ideology, divide and conquer, do not offer any thing of substance, just oppose the opposition. Once the health care issue is over the conservatives will move on to the economy and try to blame the present administration for the conservative's failure of the last eight years. I wrote a commentary for "politidose" on January 30, 2008 titled,"Conservatism - The Ugly and UnAmerican ideology" and the conservatives in congress are living up to their warped ideology and agenda.
Conservatives will also embark on a campaign to blame democrats for future deficit spending, an area where they have no creditability themselves. But when the governments fiscal year ends 9/30/09 which covers George Bush's last budget I will have plenty to say in a future commentary concerning deficit spending and debt created by so called past conservative republican Presidents.
President Obama will get no help from republicans in congress on any issue that means progress for the country and its people. Civility is not part of the conservative agenda. They feel inadequate so their method of operation is to destroy the opposition by any means. The American people need to be vigil and understand the true motive of conservatism being preached by members of congress and their partners, especially those in the news media.
It represents the conservative ideology, divide and conquer, do not offer any thing of substance, just oppose the opposition. Once the health care issue is over the conservatives will move on to the economy and try to blame the present administration for the conservative's failure of the last eight years. I wrote a commentary for "politidose" on January 30, 2008 titled,"Conservatism - The Ugly and UnAmerican ideology" and the conservatives in congress are living up to their warped ideology and agenda.
Conservatives will also embark on a campaign to blame democrats for future deficit spending, an area where they have no creditability themselves. But when the governments fiscal year ends 9/30/09 which covers George Bush's last budget I will have plenty to say in a future commentary concerning deficit spending and debt created by so called past conservative republican Presidents.
President Obama will get no help from republicans in congress on any issue that means progress for the country and its people. Civility is not part of the conservative agenda. They feel inadequate so their method of operation is to destroy the opposition by any means. The American people need to be vigil and understand the true motive of conservatism being preached by members of congress and their partners, especially those in the news media.
Afghanistan - Front And Center - Again
The Senate Appropriation Committee on Thursday September 10 approved President Obama's request of $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the budget year that begins 10/1/09. The committee also approved next years Pentagon military budget of $636 billion. The war funding will implement Obama's order earlier this year to add 21,000 troops to Afghanistan according to the associated press.
The budget year beginnining 10/1/09 represents President Obama's first budget. Financing both wars are part of the budget process under his administration. The two wars were handled outside the budget process during the Bush administration and added almost a trillion dollars to the record budget deficits and debt the Bush administration ran for 8 straight years.
President Obama and his advisers are looking over an on the ground assessment of the military situation in Afghanistan that was delivered to the white house last week according to the associated press. The President will use this information to come to a conclusion about how to procede in that country. It is believed the military will ask for more U.S. troops. Some democratic members of congress are already on record as opposing more U.S. troops at this time.
World wars I and II lasted 4 years each; The Korean war lasted 3 years; The Viet Nam war lasted 10 years; The Iraq war is 6 years and 6 months and still counting; The Afghan war will start its 8th year next month. The President's decision should not be a repeat of Mr. Bush's decisions concerning those wars. The President needs to have the wisdom and see the big picture of how to deal with the problem of Afghanistan and the real threat from that country.
We know Iraq posed no threat to the national security of our country and the cost in lives and money to our people and the country must not be repeated in Afghanistan. Like Iraq, there are those who would like to see the U.S. in Afghanistan forever. The military-industrial complex and those who like to talk tough are among them. A country who spends over $600 billion a year on national defense can surly come up with a way to keep America safe without fighting a never ending war.
After almost 8 years of war in Afghanistan we are being told the Taliban are stronger than ever. That is a devastating revelation. Hopefully the President will recall our past mistakes and not travel down that same path. The President needs to remember that military brass in the past have not always given the best advise concerning war and peace. A good example was the 1962 Cuban missile crisis when the joint chiefs of staff wanted the military to strike first and invade Cuba. That is the situation they wanted. President Kennedy had the wisdom to see and seek other options to keep America safe. The President needs to make sure his circle of advisers are large enough to see the big picture and various options that are in the best interest of our country and our men and women in uniform.
The President should also make sure we are out of Iraq on schedule and hopefully sooner. It is a must to end that unnecessary war and occupation.
The budget year beginnining 10/1/09 represents President Obama's first budget. Financing both wars are part of the budget process under his administration. The two wars were handled outside the budget process during the Bush administration and added almost a trillion dollars to the record budget deficits and debt the Bush administration ran for 8 straight years.
President Obama and his advisers are looking over an on the ground assessment of the military situation in Afghanistan that was delivered to the white house last week according to the associated press. The President will use this information to come to a conclusion about how to procede in that country. It is believed the military will ask for more U.S. troops. Some democratic members of congress are already on record as opposing more U.S. troops at this time.
World wars I and II lasted 4 years each; The Korean war lasted 3 years; The Viet Nam war lasted 10 years; The Iraq war is 6 years and 6 months and still counting; The Afghan war will start its 8th year next month. The President's decision should not be a repeat of Mr. Bush's decisions concerning those wars. The President needs to have the wisdom and see the big picture of how to deal with the problem of Afghanistan and the real threat from that country.
We know Iraq posed no threat to the national security of our country and the cost in lives and money to our people and the country must not be repeated in Afghanistan. Like Iraq, there are those who would like to see the U.S. in Afghanistan forever. The military-industrial complex and those who like to talk tough are among them. A country who spends over $600 billion a year on national defense can surly come up with a way to keep America safe without fighting a never ending war.
After almost 8 years of war in Afghanistan we are being told the Taliban are stronger than ever. That is a devastating revelation. Hopefully the President will recall our past mistakes and not travel down that same path. The President needs to remember that military brass in the past have not always given the best advise concerning war and peace. A good example was the 1962 Cuban missile crisis when the joint chiefs of staff wanted the military to strike first and invade Cuba. That is the situation they wanted. President Kennedy had the wisdom to see and seek other options to keep America safe. The President needs to make sure his circle of advisers are large enough to see the big picture and various options that are in the best interest of our country and our men and women in uniform.
The President should also make sure we are out of Iraq on schedule and hopefully sooner. It is a must to end that unnecessary war and occupation.
Monday, September 7, 2009
The Latest From U.S. Department of Labor
The U.S. Labor Department announced on Friday September 4 that the unemployment rate increased to 9.7% in the month of August. That was up from July's 9.4% and the highest since 1983 when it was over 10%. The economy lost 216,000 jobs in August, down from the 276,000 it lost in July. The August job losses were the fewest in a year.
Chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight said the nation was still on track to hit 10% unemployment before the turnaround. That 10% number was predicted last year by most economists when the economy loss over 4 million jobs. The average job losses for the first two quarters, January thru June was 559,000. So far this quarter, July thru August job losses average 243,000, so job losses are in a downward trend two straight months. The health care industry and educational services actually added 52,000 jobs last month according to the Labor Department. Thats a good sign.
The latest from most economist say the economy is still not up to par but that the recession is over. That is a positive statement. There is no history of a recession turning around over night but it appears the economy is on the mend slowly. Slowly does not describe accurately the plight of those who are unemployed and in need of a job and the noise machine coming from the republicans don't help the situation at all. One should remember the unemployment rate during the Reagan administration hit 10.8% in 1982 and stood at 10% or over for 10 straight months. One should also remember that Reagan did not inherit the economic and financial mess Obama did.
The American people will have adequate time to judge President Obama's performance on the economy when that time comes. The fact of the matter is the American people have enjoyed the best economic conditions under democratic administrations and also the best job creation for the people. It remains to be seen if the Obama administration continues that dominance on the economy. Time will tell. That says it all.
Chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight said the nation was still on track to hit 10% unemployment before the turnaround. That 10% number was predicted last year by most economists when the economy loss over 4 million jobs. The average job losses for the first two quarters, January thru June was 559,000. So far this quarter, July thru August job losses average 243,000, so job losses are in a downward trend two straight months. The health care industry and educational services actually added 52,000 jobs last month according to the Labor Department. Thats a good sign.
The latest from most economist say the economy is still not up to par but that the recession is over. That is a positive statement. There is no history of a recession turning around over night but it appears the economy is on the mend slowly. Slowly does not describe accurately the plight of those who are unemployed and in need of a job and the noise machine coming from the republicans don't help the situation at all. One should remember the unemployment rate during the Reagan administration hit 10.8% in 1982 and stood at 10% or over for 10 straight months. One should also remember that Reagan did not inherit the economic and financial mess Obama did.
The American people will have adequate time to judge President Obama's performance on the economy when that time comes. The fact of the matter is the American people have enjoyed the best economic conditions under democratic administrations and also the best job creation for the people. It remains to be seen if the Obama administration continues that dominance on the economy. Time will tell. That says it all.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Louisiana Noise Machines
The latest noise machines in Louisiana comes in the form of U.S. Representative Steve Scalise and U.S. Senator David Vitter. Both spoke at different forums Wednesday September 2nd on health care. Mr. Vitter spoke at a forum sponsored by the Jefferson Chamber and Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Louisiana and Mr. Scalise spoke at a forum in Mandeville, Louisiana as reported in the Times Picayune of September 3rd.
They covered the conservative line describing Obama's health care proposal as a government take over and offered their own health care reform. Tax credits for insurance and Tort reform, the same old conservative ploy that the republicans had 8 years to introduce to congress during Bush's 8 years as President and failed to do so. Their noise is deafening while real solutions are no where to be found. The republicans had a chance to do something about reforming health care and instead rubber stamped Mr. Bush's massive deficit spending and debt.
The junior U.S. Representative from Louisiana Representative Cao said he had not made up his mind yet if he will support Obama's proposal and that his mind would be open. He has shown more maturity on the subject than Vitter or Scalise. The latter are carbon copies of Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey and are following in their path of a ideology that has no creditability nor offers no real solutions.
That same day the Times Picayune also reported in a story from the New York Times that John Goodman, President of the Ntional Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative research group said. "Part of the problem on the republican side is an unwillingness to say, lets find a right way to do this and lets go ahead even if all the special interest don't like what we are doing."
The conservatives will use their noise machine through out the Obama presidency to oppose all of his initiatives because they themselves have no answers to debate the issues. That says it all.
They covered the conservative line describing Obama's health care proposal as a government take over and offered their own health care reform. Tax credits for insurance and Tort reform, the same old conservative ploy that the republicans had 8 years to introduce to congress during Bush's 8 years as President and failed to do so. Their noise is deafening while real solutions are no where to be found. The republicans had a chance to do something about reforming health care and instead rubber stamped Mr. Bush's massive deficit spending and debt.
The junior U.S. Representative from Louisiana Representative Cao said he had not made up his mind yet if he will support Obama's proposal and that his mind would be open. He has shown more maturity on the subject than Vitter or Scalise. The latter are carbon copies of Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey and are following in their path of a ideology that has no creditability nor offers no real solutions.
That same day the Times Picayune also reported in a story from the New York Times that John Goodman, President of the Ntional Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative research group said. "Part of the problem on the republican side is an unwillingness to say, lets find a right way to do this and lets go ahead even if all the special interest don't like what we are doing."
The conservatives will use their noise machine through out the Obama presidency to oppose all of his initiatives because they themselves have no answers to debate the issues. That says it all.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Conservative Problems: Lies and Creditability
The health care reform taken up by congress is once again bringing out the true nature of conservatives and their phony ideology. It follows the same pattern used to oppose President Clinton's deficit reduction and economic policy adopted by the democratic controlled congress in 1993. All republicans in congress voted against the bill.
The conservative republicans on the floor of Congress predicted Clinton's economic policy if passed, would result in economic disaster. However, just the opposite happened and the people witnessed the greatest economic boom in over 50 years with balanced budgets, something republican administrations have no record of accomplishing in that same time span. The conservative republicans also opposed Medicare over 30 years ago and predicted then doom and gloom. They also at that time misrepresented what Medicare would do for the American people.
Now the conservative republicans are lying about Obama's health care plan and the language in it and have come up with the same talking points to mislead the nation once again. The conservative commentators have been just as vocal with their lies and misrepresentations. If one pays attention to what goes on in government and the news media it is easy to understand the conservatives real problems.
Republicans controlled the country the last 8 years and failed to offer any legislation that would address the issue of the rising cost of health care on a long term basis. Now, they have failed to offer any alternatives for the American people. It fits their position on the economy. They have no record of creating a sound sustained economy and have no record on health care issues so they bash those who do have idea's. The health care issue before the people may not have all the answers and may have to be amended in some form but lies and misinformation about legislation have no benefit for the people nor do they produce a workable bill. Conservatives are a sad bunch when it comes to thinking positively. They need to develop a new ideology because their present ideology is sick and in need of health care.
President Obama will not get any help from republicans on health care so he and the democratic controlled congress should pass a health care bill that does indeed reduce the cost long term. Leadership and courage is what it will take to get the job done.
The Wealthy Must Pay Their Fair Share
The Associated Press reported the week of August 16 the United States and the Swiss government announced a court settlement the previous week in efforts by the IRS to force Zurich based bank UBS AG to turn in the names of about 52,000 Americans thought to be hiding nearly $15 billion in assets in secret accounts. The settlement has a lot of wealthy Americans with offshore accounts nervously running to their tax advisors and the IRS.
I have not found where this story has been given due coverage by the national media, the cable networks or the various blogs. Perhaps the wealthy who own most of the major networks would not like the American people to dwell on the facts that wealthy people have the means to hide assets and avoid taxation. This is just another piece of evidence that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes.
The AP also reported that Richard Boggs, chief executive of Nationwide Tax Relief, a tax firm that specializes in clients with tax debts exceeding $100,000 said you have the super rich who are not used to being pushed around, finding themselves in unfamiliar territory and are very frightened. Boggs said his firm has been taking in 100 new cases a month, a big increase over previous years.
If $15 billion in assets is indeed hiding in secret accounts that have not been taxed, coupled with the tax loopholes that favor the wealthy, the total billions of dollars that escape taxation for this group of peoples must be staggering. Does it come to $50, $150 or $200 billion? Congress needs to take away these avenues of escape, go through the tax code and eliminate all loopholes they themselves created for the special interest groups so that taxation will be fair with a capitol F for the well being of all taxpayers. The people and the economy would both benefit from that action.
IRS commissioner Doug Shulman said 400 people applied to voluntarily disclose undeclared assets in a single week in July, compared with fewer that 100 applications all last year. He also said if people have been hiding assets in the past, they should be nervous, and they should be a lot more suspect about doing it in the future.
Once again we are witnessing our government getting involved in the necessary checks and balances, something that never happened in the previous administration that resulted in the collapse of the economy and the financial industry. The government in this case should stay the course.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)