I've always been viewed as kind of a tough guy. I've got an athletic build, a few prominent muscles, and a blocky chin. After concluding a rather timid childhood, I did the contact sports and later became an army officer in a paratroop division. After I got my education, years of leadership roles in stressful jobs cultivated a rather stern countenance and a strong voice. After retiring early from the working world I soon became operations director for a large volunteer ambulance corps where I worked as a medic when I wasn't taking my annual solo hike on the Appalachian Trail. I'm happy that I've learned to smile, laugh, and hug during my later adulthood, but underneath it all the killer paratrooper still lurks - and quite a few deer would agree with that! So why would a guy like me be afraid?
I'm afraid because I have watched the Republican Party's campaign commercials on TV, and they lead me to fear that the America whose uniform I proudly wore is in jeopardy from within. The commercials shamelessly distort truth in order to elicit a fearful response from the watcher. These commercials go for the gut level fear - fear of the person not of your race, fear of losing your family's money when you die, fear of your Social Security being taken away, fear of a terrorist shooting up your town, fear of a homosexual stalking your kids (this only worked before Foley - now it's a congressman stalking your kids).
These new Republicans (no relation to the honorable Republicans of pre-Clinton times) know that real gut level fear paralyses many people's brains to the extent that they will choose "protection" over their real societal and economic interests. Consequently, they resort to fear-mongering whenever they feel they can't win by any other means. In their culture, winning is the only thing that matters...winning is the means to achieve their goals, whatever they really are. (I question what their goals are because I never hear them stated coherently.)
Why do these commercials indicate that America is in jeopardy? Because people who would use distortions and fear to win an election would use distortions and fear to lead the country. Could this be true? One need not look farther than the current administration to know it is true. Their enemies are "evil"; they must "fight them there or we'll have to fight them here"; they call the estate tax the death tax, changing the entire tone of the discussion around it. They try to legalize torture while they purport to worship the Christ who said "love your enemies". Could they go from torturing accused terrorists to torturing their political enemies - maybe that's not so far-fetched an idea. Have Americans seen through this win-by-fear strategy of Cheney, Rove, and the rest of these despicable guys? If they haven't, I'm afraid there are some scary times ahead.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
PC-Based Democracy
At a time when media ownership has become so consolidated that the average citizen is exposed to only a few points of view (and which drone on and on, repeating the same mantras ad nauseam), the PC has taken over the role of primary information provider for many of us.
Yes, I still listen to NPR and even Michael Savage, and I read several newspapers every day, including the Christian Science Monitor (excellent!). And I watch CNN and even, occasionally, Fox. But today, the established news outlets are only part of the story.
OK. I admit I must be one of the last people on the planet to realize that blogs are taking over, even though I've had my own for some time now. The "big" blogs stay close to the news, reporting and correcting and editorializing about everything under the sun. But the little blogs take the temperature of the country in a way never before possible.
I go to Blogger, hit "random blogs", and begin to march through America and the rest of the world (most of which is unintelligible due to language). There I find the most honest and comprehensive expressions of fellow citizens' hopes, fears and opinions - expressions that I would never hear if I met these people face to face. There is something about the keyboard that frees people to be themselves...it must be that cyberspace is not yet considered to be real space. But I find it to be very real, and very revealing.
The blogs show how really different each individual is from every other. The designs differ, the topics differ, and the lifestyles differ (and how!), but the passion for expression seems universal. In just a few minutes I go from a mom's lament about her Caesarian-scarred belly, to a pastor's beautiful and helpful site, to a young man's aspirations to do something special with his life. If more people surfed the blogs they would encounter slices of life that open new vistas to their understanding, and more people are doing just that every day.
It used to be that people's horizons were broadened by traveling to new and different places, but only the fortunate or extra-adventurous could afford the time or make the effort. Now it's possible to be broadened in the privacy of your own PC-space, quickly and simply. Most everyone agrees that the world needs to change if we are to survive as a species, but disseminating the call to arms, getting some kind of general agreement, and pushing the power bases has been difficult if not impossible. Not anymore. As long as the Web stays in an uncontrolled state the potential exists for the people to finally get the upper hand. PC-based democracy! We'll see where it leads us, and how fast.
Yes, I still listen to NPR and even Michael Savage, and I read several newspapers every day, including the Christian Science Monitor (excellent!). And I watch CNN and even, occasionally, Fox. But today, the established news outlets are only part of the story.
OK. I admit I must be one of the last people on the planet to realize that blogs are taking over, even though I've had my own for some time now. The "big" blogs stay close to the news, reporting and correcting and editorializing about everything under the sun. But the little blogs take the temperature of the country in a way never before possible.
I go to Blogger, hit "random blogs", and begin to march through America and the rest of the world (most of which is unintelligible due to language). There I find the most honest and comprehensive expressions of fellow citizens' hopes, fears and opinions - expressions that I would never hear if I met these people face to face. There is something about the keyboard that frees people to be themselves...it must be that cyberspace is not yet considered to be real space. But I find it to be very real, and very revealing.
The blogs show how really different each individual is from every other. The designs differ, the topics differ, and the lifestyles differ (and how!), but the passion for expression seems universal. In just a few minutes I go from a mom's lament about her Caesarian-scarred belly, to a pastor's beautiful and helpful site, to a young man's aspirations to do something special with his life. If more people surfed the blogs they would encounter slices of life that open new vistas to their understanding, and more people are doing just that every day.
It used to be that people's horizons were broadened by traveling to new and different places, but only the fortunate or extra-adventurous could afford the time or make the effort. Now it's possible to be broadened in the privacy of your own PC-space, quickly and simply. Most everyone agrees that the world needs to change if we are to survive as a species, but disseminating the call to arms, getting some kind of general agreement, and pushing the power bases has been difficult if not impossible. Not anymore. As long as the Web stays in an uncontrolled state the potential exists for the people to finally get the upper hand. PC-based democracy! We'll see where it leads us, and how fast.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The End of the Line for Bush
Al Queda in Iraq is parading in the streets of Ramadi. Al Sadr's militia is blowing up police stations. The Iraqi government is impotent, and clerics have discussions about issuing "fatwa's" condemning the incessant violence. A state department functionary goes on Al Jazzera and talks about our government's "stupidity and arrogance." Iran is overjoyed that its neighbor is in chaos and ripe for the picking. All this signals the end of the line for President Bush...there is nothing that can save him now.
On November 7, 2006, the American people will remove the Republican party from at least the lower house of congress, and possibly the Senate. The primary reason for the devastating defeat will be the failure of Bush's grand plan for Iraq after years of his denying the obvious - that the plan was doomed from the day Iraqis rioted in Bahgdad while unprepared American soldiers watched in amazement. Bush had a plan for the war, but he had no plan for the peace. The post-war chaos gave America's enemies plenty of room and time to develop and implement their strategy for thwarting Bush's ambitions. It is now clear that they have succeeded, and a phased withdrawal from Iraq is now the only option other than staying to face an unsatisfactory war of attrition with an enemy that has all the advantages.
What does this mean for Bush? Basically, he's finished. His credibility is gone, thanks to his and his staff's unwarranted optimism on Iraq over several years...the great majority of Americans finally realized they were being hoodwinked. Now comes the humiliation of the withdrawal amidst the crowing of enemies Bush vowed to destroy. Even Americans who opposed Bush will be embarassed by the catcalls of the Muslim extremists, who now feel more empowered than ever. Will Bush be able to lead America on any front, domestic or foreign? Not likely...
What can Bush do in order to leave office in 2009 with any legacy at all? His only option is to put a hand out to the Democrats on one or more of the big domestic issues - Social Security, Medicare, immigration, or trade. If he can be seen as a pragmatic "pusher" toward solutions the Amercan people will accept, perhaps one or more breakthroughs can be accomplished. These successes ultimately will be balanced against the Iraq failure in calculations that judge his legacy.
Does Bush really have the ability to be a uniter instead of a divider? It's doubtful, but miracles can happen. November 7th is not far away, and by April of 2007 the pattern of politics for the next two years will be settled. Bush, as a power president, is history. We'll find out if he has any other persona.
On November 7, 2006, the American people will remove the Republican party from at least the lower house of congress, and possibly the Senate. The primary reason for the devastating defeat will be the failure of Bush's grand plan for Iraq after years of his denying the obvious - that the plan was doomed from the day Iraqis rioted in Bahgdad while unprepared American soldiers watched in amazement. Bush had a plan for the war, but he had no plan for the peace. The post-war chaos gave America's enemies plenty of room and time to develop and implement their strategy for thwarting Bush's ambitions. It is now clear that they have succeeded, and a phased withdrawal from Iraq is now the only option other than staying to face an unsatisfactory war of attrition with an enemy that has all the advantages.
What does this mean for Bush? Basically, he's finished. His credibility is gone, thanks to his and his staff's unwarranted optimism on Iraq over several years...the great majority of Americans finally realized they were being hoodwinked. Now comes the humiliation of the withdrawal amidst the crowing of enemies Bush vowed to destroy. Even Americans who opposed Bush will be embarassed by the catcalls of the Muslim extremists, who now feel more empowered than ever. Will Bush be able to lead America on any front, domestic or foreign? Not likely...
What can Bush do in order to leave office in 2009 with any legacy at all? His only option is to put a hand out to the Democrats on one or more of the big domestic issues - Social Security, Medicare, immigration, or trade. If he can be seen as a pragmatic "pusher" toward solutions the Amercan people will accept, perhaps one or more breakthroughs can be accomplished. These successes ultimately will be balanced against the Iraq failure in calculations that judge his legacy.
Does Bush really have the ability to be a uniter instead of a divider? It's doubtful, but miracles can happen. November 7th is not far away, and by April of 2007 the pattern of politics for the next two years will be settled. Bush, as a power president, is history. We'll find out if he has any other persona.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
US Should File for Bankruptcy?
I've been a little more curious about the state of our nation during this political season, and the more I learn the more I become concerned. And my concern is largely about the financial health of our country.
Since September, 2001, our national debt has increased $2.6 trillion, which converts to more than $6,600 for every person in the United States. The total debt is $8.5 trillion, or over $26,000 for every person. Interest on this debt, at a low rate of only 4%, is $340 billion every year.
To put the debt in perspective, the 2006 budget for the United States is $2.3 trillion, which makes the debt about four times the annual spending. This is would be like a family that made $100,000 per year having a net long term debt of $400,000 - that is, liabilities exceed assets by $400,000. This family would never be able to get a loan. It's a miracle that President Bush and the congress can borrow more money while our country's debt continues to grow.
The major U.S. social programs, Social Security and Medicare, are also under water. President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, reports that Social Security will begin spending more than it earns in 2017, and will be completely unfunded by 2040. Medicare, however, is in much deeper trouble - virually hopeless, in fact. With the national debt being so large, the U.S. government cannot bail out either Social Security or Medicare. Tragedy lurks ahead!
It's amazing that our elected officials seldom mention these problems, and in many cases they pooh-pooh them. There is no magical solution for them, however, and every year our country becomes more at risk for bankruptcy. If the U.S. defaults, the entire world economy will fail and we will have the greatest depression in history. It would probably be better, therefore, if we got on top of our annual budget deficits and our entitlements. Nobody loves a deadbeat, especially if it's our old friend Uncle Sam.
Since September, 2001, our national debt has increased $2.6 trillion, which converts to more than $6,600 for every person in the United States. The total debt is $8.5 trillion, or over $26,000 for every person. Interest on this debt, at a low rate of only 4%, is $340 billion every year.
To put the debt in perspective, the 2006 budget for the United States is $2.3 trillion, which makes the debt about four times the annual spending. This is would be like a family that made $100,000 per year having a net long term debt of $400,000 - that is, liabilities exceed assets by $400,000. This family would never be able to get a loan. It's a miracle that President Bush and the congress can borrow more money while our country's debt continues to grow.
The major U.S. social programs, Social Security and Medicare, are also under water. President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, reports that Social Security will begin spending more than it earns in 2017, and will be completely unfunded by 2040. Medicare, however, is in much deeper trouble - virually hopeless, in fact. With the national debt being so large, the U.S. government cannot bail out either Social Security or Medicare. Tragedy lurks ahead!
It's amazing that our elected officials seldom mention these problems, and in many cases they pooh-pooh them. There is no magical solution for them, however, and every year our country becomes more at risk for bankruptcy. If the U.S. defaults, the entire world economy will fail and we will have the greatest depression in history. It would probably be better, therefore, if we got on top of our annual budget deficits and our entitlements. Nobody loves a deadbeat, especially if it's our old friend Uncle Sam.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Hiking for Massa
I've been busy lately pounding the pavement for Eric Massa, who is a Democrat running for congress in the 29th district of New York. Even on weekends, many homes are not populated - the residents are out and about - so I leave my little flyer and a letter for them to look at. This is grass roots democracy at its lowest level. One thing about campaigning in a wealthy suburb is that it's a long walk between houses!
Massa's opponent, Republican Randy Kuhl, has no grass roots organization walking the streets, but he has twice the money of my man. Kuhl is already flooding the mailboxes and airwaves with the Karl Rove formula - attack, attack, attack. Rove's winning tactic has been to accuse opponents of being "for" things that the average voter fears at the gut level, such as terrorists in every home, taxes that put his/her family in the poorhouse, and either an abortion clinic or a gay married couple on every street. The sad thing is, this kind of campaign often works. I'm out walking against it.
Tonight we had a little neighborhood campaign meeting. Everyone except the host was retired from somewhere. We had an ex-FBI man, a retired lady schoolteacher, an ex-Xerox systems person, and a bearded professor-like gentleman who was also a Republican like me. Only one of the attendees was a card-carrying left winger. So, times have changed. As we went around the room, it was clear that people of all stripes felt that the current Republican administration and congress were taking our country down the wrong road at warp speed. It was especially interesting to hear the FBI guy talk about how the Bush administration is gutting our freedom with invasive wiretapping and other assaults on personal privacy. Seeing the diversity of people who are supporting my candidate made me feel really good...if they represent the mainstream, perhaps we will win!
I felt even better after arriving home and checking the internet. The head of the British Army now says that they (and us) should leave Iraq and that our presence is exacerbating the bad situation there. How many experts need to tell this virtually self-evident truth before Bush & Co. are forced to change course? Hopefully, not too many more.
It's cold here - about 40 degrees. That means the hike down my assigned streets in Pittsford tomorrow will be not just long but also nippy. I'm hoping my passion for good government will keep me warm. But just in case, maybe I'll take along a thermos of hot chocolate!
Massa's opponent, Republican Randy Kuhl, has no grass roots organization walking the streets, but he has twice the money of my man. Kuhl is already flooding the mailboxes and airwaves with the Karl Rove formula - attack, attack, attack. Rove's winning tactic has been to accuse opponents of being "for" things that the average voter fears at the gut level, such as terrorists in every home, taxes that put his/her family in the poorhouse, and either an abortion clinic or a gay married couple on every street. The sad thing is, this kind of campaign often works. I'm out walking against it.
Tonight we had a little neighborhood campaign meeting. Everyone except the host was retired from somewhere. We had an ex-FBI man, a retired lady schoolteacher, an ex-Xerox systems person, and a bearded professor-like gentleman who was also a Republican like me. Only one of the attendees was a card-carrying left winger. So, times have changed. As we went around the room, it was clear that people of all stripes felt that the current Republican administration and congress were taking our country down the wrong road at warp speed. It was especially interesting to hear the FBI guy talk about how the Bush administration is gutting our freedom with invasive wiretapping and other assaults on personal privacy. Seeing the diversity of people who are supporting my candidate made me feel really good...if they represent the mainstream, perhaps we will win!
I felt even better after arriving home and checking the internet. The head of the British Army now says that they (and us) should leave Iraq and that our presence is exacerbating the bad situation there. How many experts need to tell this virtually self-evident truth before Bush & Co. are forced to change course? Hopefully, not too many more.
It's cold here - about 40 degrees. That means the hike down my assigned streets in Pittsford tomorrow will be not just long but also nippy. I'm hoping my passion for good government will keep me warm. But just in case, maybe I'll take along a thermos of hot chocolate!
Friday, October 06, 2006
We Don't Have to Fight Them There
I'm tired of hearing the President and his sycophants repeat the mantra "We have to fight them there or we'll have to fight them here!" "Them" refers to the terrorists who want to harm the United States, and "there" refers to Iraq. Like so many of the statements coming from the Republicans, it's just plain silly.
I'd just like to remind my loyal readers (probably none) that the terrorists have no air force, no navy, and no organized fighting force with the ability to "come here" to fight us "here". Nor will they ever have such a capability. The only places terrorists are successful are where they have the ability to get where they want to go, and once they arrive, get cover and support from locals. There is little chance that more than a very small group of terrorists could get into the United States and be hidden and supported here. So, the probability of having to fight them "here" is about zero. If any fighting "here" is probable, the fighting will be done with intelligence and police work, not with military forces.
Given that we won't have to fight them "here" under any circumstances, why should we have to fight them "there"? Iraq is the perfect place for terrorists to be able to go where they want to go, and get cover and support from the locals. The bad guys demonstrate every day that they can plant bombs, set up ambushes, and send fanatics to blow themselves up just about any place in Iraq. On the other hand, our troops have no cover. Advantage, terrorists! We need to get out or move our troops to a secure area of Iraq, and let the Iraqis sort things out for awhile.
If we take a much lower profile in Iraq, where will the bad guys go? They will go to places where they have cover and support, and especially to other Arab countries that they would like to destabilize and move toward an Islamic government. The problem will become "Muslim on Muslim", and all the world will understand the risk that these people present. The suppliers of oil to the world will be under attack, and the world - not the U.S. alone - will respond with alacrity and vigor to combat the terrorists. That will be a big improvement over the current situation where the U.S. is isolated and appears to be anti-Muslim.
So, cut the nonsense, Republicans! We don't have to fight them there and we are wasting our men and our money trying to do so. Whoever wins the battle for Iraq will have to produce and sell the oil that is that country's lifeblood, and we will get our share. We don't need to care whether it comes from a democratic country (Bush's fantasy) or not. And that's that.
I'd just like to remind my loyal readers (probably none) that the terrorists have no air force, no navy, and no organized fighting force with the ability to "come here" to fight us "here". Nor will they ever have such a capability. The only places terrorists are successful are where they have the ability to get where they want to go, and once they arrive, get cover and support from locals. There is little chance that more than a very small group of terrorists could get into the United States and be hidden and supported here. So, the probability of having to fight them "here" is about zero. If any fighting "here" is probable, the fighting will be done with intelligence and police work, not with military forces.
Given that we won't have to fight them "here" under any circumstances, why should we have to fight them "there"? Iraq is the perfect place for terrorists to be able to go where they want to go, and get cover and support from the locals. The bad guys demonstrate every day that they can plant bombs, set up ambushes, and send fanatics to blow themselves up just about any place in Iraq. On the other hand, our troops have no cover. Advantage, terrorists! We need to get out or move our troops to a secure area of Iraq, and let the Iraqis sort things out for awhile.
If we take a much lower profile in Iraq, where will the bad guys go? They will go to places where they have cover and support, and especially to other Arab countries that they would like to destabilize and move toward an Islamic government. The problem will become "Muslim on Muslim", and all the world will understand the risk that these people present. The suppliers of oil to the world will be under attack, and the world - not the U.S. alone - will respond with alacrity and vigor to combat the terrorists. That will be a big improvement over the current situation where the U.S. is isolated and appears to be anti-Muslim.
So, cut the nonsense, Republicans! We don't have to fight them there and we are wasting our men and our money trying to do so. Whoever wins the battle for Iraq will have to produce and sell the oil that is that country's lifeblood, and we will get our share. We don't need to care whether it comes from a democratic country (Bush's fantasy) or not. And that's that.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Divided Government is a Plus!
For the past six years we U.S. citizens have experienced the paralysis that occurs when one party controls the White House and both houses of congress. It's not for nothing that this Republican congress is being labeled "the do-nothing congress." They have earned the label, and then some!
Why is it that having all the power leads to impotence? My educated guess is that dealing with the big issues that confront our nation requires a) some painful medicine, such as that needed to fix Social Security and Medicare, or b) some compromise that important factions in the ruling party can't live with, such as amnesty for long-term illegal aliens in the U.S. Both the painful medicine and the compromise have more potential to lose votes than gain them, so the ruling party is much more comfortable doing nothing. Well, not exactly nothing.
What does the ruling party do with its time, since dealing with the important issues would cost votes ? Well, handing out "pork" is seldom dangerous, even if the "pork" is purchased with borrowed money - so this congress has doled out record levels of it. Also, it can raise emotional issues that have little chance of being settled, like a "Marriage Amendment" or a "Flag-burning Amendment". And, doing nothing leaves plenty of time for vacations with people like Jack Abramoff.
When the ruling party has everything going for it, "rocking the boat" becomes a cardinal sin. It's "all for one, and one for all" time. Oversight, which involves putting probing questions to members of the ruling party, must be avoided at all costs. One need not look farther than oversight of the Iraq war to see that it does not happen. And, of course, discipline for ethics violations (think DeLay and Foley) involves breaking ranks, and that clearly violates the principles of team play. So the door opens for all sorts of chicanery that inevitably result.
Divided government naturally cures many of these ills. Painful medicine is best administered by doctors of both parties who share the responsibility for unpopular but necessary actions. "Pork" is not eliminated, but it is reduced and the more egregious and slimy pieces never make it past the watchdogs from the other party. Oversight is increased because one branch of the divided goverment has the power to raise issues in an unfettered manner, but that branch is controlled because the other branches can successfully ridicule patently political meddling. Ditto for ethics policing -the bad guys get punished because their sins can't get buried by their pals.
So, here's a shout of approval for divided government. Overly concentrated power is dangerous and naturally ineffective. In the upcoming election cycle the Presidency and the Senate appear "safe" for the Republicans. So, let's get the House transitioned to become a part of the right kind of solution for America!
Why is it that having all the power leads to impotence? My educated guess is that dealing with the big issues that confront our nation requires a) some painful medicine, such as that needed to fix Social Security and Medicare, or b) some compromise that important factions in the ruling party can't live with, such as amnesty for long-term illegal aliens in the U.S. Both the painful medicine and the compromise have more potential to lose votes than gain them, so the ruling party is much more comfortable doing nothing. Well, not exactly nothing.
What does the ruling party do with its time, since dealing with the important issues would cost votes ? Well, handing out "pork" is seldom dangerous, even if the "pork" is purchased with borrowed money - so this congress has doled out record levels of it. Also, it can raise emotional issues that have little chance of being settled, like a "Marriage Amendment" or a "Flag-burning Amendment". And, doing nothing leaves plenty of time for vacations with people like Jack Abramoff.
When the ruling party has everything going for it, "rocking the boat" becomes a cardinal sin. It's "all for one, and one for all" time. Oversight, which involves putting probing questions to members of the ruling party, must be avoided at all costs. One need not look farther than oversight of the Iraq war to see that it does not happen. And, of course, discipline for ethics violations (think DeLay and Foley) involves breaking ranks, and that clearly violates the principles of team play. So the door opens for all sorts of chicanery that inevitably result.
Divided government naturally cures many of these ills. Painful medicine is best administered by doctors of both parties who share the responsibility for unpopular but necessary actions. "Pork" is not eliminated, but it is reduced and the more egregious and slimy pieces never make it past the watchdogs from the other party. Oversight is increased because one branch of the divided goverment has the power to raise issues in an unfettered manner, but that branch is controlled because the other branches can successfully ridicule patently political meddling. Ditto for ethics policing -the bad guys get punished because their sins can't get buried by their pals.
So, here's a shout of approval for divided government. Overly concentrated power is dangerous and naturally ineffective. In the upcoming election cycle the Presidency and the Senate appear "safe" for the Republicans. So, let's get the House transitioned to become a part of the right kind of solution for America!
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Mark Foley - Another Two-Faced Republican
The national Republican Party just can't seem to get out of it's own way. Scandal after scandal, and we thought it could't get any worse, but it has. Mark Foley, a six-term congressman, has been caught sending sexually explicit emails to young congressional pages. His resignation, while welcomed, will likely only signal the beginning of the blood-letting about "who knew what, when".
Given the warnings that occurred in 2005, the House leadership has nowhere to run. The lame excuses of those in the loop to confirm or disprove unethical conduct already clearly indicate that the issue was quickly and efficiently put to rest. "Stupid" is the only word that fits!
The old adage "the only way to keep a secret is not to tell anyone" is proved once again. When this cat got out of the bag there was only one option - deal with it. But those House leaders who we assume have some political sense decided not to deal with it, and they will pay double for their sin of omission.
So this latest scandal is just one more that exposes a two-faced Republican...the man who outwardly is the point person against child molestation turns out to be a would-be molester or worse. Perhaps there is more to come...and it couldn't come at a worse time for the Fox News "fair and balanced" crew. How do they deal with the fall of one of their top poster boys? As I watch them for a painful moment, I see that they opine "this is not a partisan issue". We'll see.
Given the warnings that occurred in 2005, the House leadership has nowhere to run. The lame excuses of those in the loop to confirm or disprove unethical conduct already clearly indicate that the issue was quickly and efficiently put to rest. "Stupid" is the only word that fits!
The old adage "the only way to keep a secret is not to tell anyone" is proved once again. When this cat got out of the bag there was only one option - deal with it. But those House leaders who we assume have some political sense decided not to deal with it, and they will pay double for their sin of omission.
So this latest scandal is just one more that exposes a two-faced Republican...the man who outwardly is the point person against child molestation turns out to be a would-be molester or worse. Perhaps there is more to come...and it couldn't come at a worse time for the Fox News "fair and balanced" crew. How do they deal with the fall of one of their top poster boys? As I watch them for a painful moment, I see that they opine "this is not a partisan issue". We'll see.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
The President is Incompetent
I almost titled this blog "The President is a Fool", but then I remembered that pejoratives get in the way of understanding. It's much more productive to deal with facts...and the facts clearly indicate that our current president, George W. Bush, is simply incompetent. Many of us suspected very early that GWB was a dim bulb and easily manipulated, but in the year 2000 we had little idea of how seriously his incompetence could harm the United States. We now are beginning to get a broad understanding of how these many sins of comission and omission will affect this country in the years to come.
The war in Iraq will go down as Bush's most important failure. Successful warriors know that the choice of a battleground has much to do with success or failure. Bush's choice of Iraq, which was surrounded by our enemies and had no consistent culture to rally around, has led to a stalemated conflict where our enemies have all the advantages...time, virtually unlimited manpower, concealment within the indigenous population, and outside technical and financial support. We can't "win" in the traditional sense, but our enemies win because we spend $8 billion per month to continue the fight - $8 billion that we borrow from our children and grandchildren, thus weakening our country's home base for the long term. We should have initiated conflicts only where we could assure victory, thus demoralizing our enemies. Instead, we have fought in a place where our enemies feel successful and they gain support as a result. As Colin Powell said, "You conquer it, you own it." Iraq is a tar baby, and unfortunately, George Bush stepped into it voluntarily.
The Bush administration's fiscal policies are the next most important failure. Our nation's future obligations to its citizens and foreign creditors cannot be met without dramatic changes in our entitlement programs and our management of current accounts like the federal deficit and the foreign trade deficit. The United States is in far worse economic condition than it was six years ago, even though the stock markets have risen. The risk to our nation increases substantially every year that action is not taken. Even though GWB has acknowledged much of what is said above on this topic, he has done nothing. He will be blamed by future generations for their pain.
If the presidency is a "bully pulpit", then the message from GWB has consistently been "come and be stupid with me." There was no call to arms to reduce consumption of, or substitute for, the oil that we depend on our enemies to provide us. Instead, he told us to drill in Anwar, a place where there is a pitifully small amount of oil - as if it could save us from our long term problem with oil supplies. Similarly, on the other side of the energy coin - global warming - he has failed to recognize the threat and mobilize our population and other governments to deal with it seriously. When it comes to the big issues, GWB is nowhere to be found!
I could go on and on about stem cell research, education, corruption (never mentioned by our illustrious president), church and state issues, and the silliness of many of our internal security initiatives. Leadership has been absent, as it was in Katrina.
You have to wonder how a country with so many brilliant and charismatic citizens could elect one of its dullest minds to its highest office. That's democracy, I guess. The good news is that we can recognize our mistake and do much better starting in November!
The war in Iraq will go down as Bush's most important failure. Successful warriors know that the choice of a battleground has much to do with success or failure. Bush's choice of Iraq, which was surrounded by our enemies and had no consistent culture to rally around, has led to a stalemated conflict where our enemies have all the advantages...time, virtually unlimited manpower, concealment within the indigenous population, and outside technical and financial support. We can't "win" in the traditional sense, but our enemies win because we spend $8 billion per month to continue the fight - $8 billion that we borrow from our children and grandchildren, thus weakening our country's home base for the long term. We should have initiated conflicts only where we could assure victory, thus demoralizing our enemies. Instead, we have fought in a place where our enemies feel successful and they gain support as a result. As Colin Powell said, "You conquer it, you own it." Iraq is a tar baby, and unfortunately, George Bush stepped into it voluntarily.
The Bush administration's fiscal policies are the next most important failure. Our nation's future obligations to its citizens and foreign creditors cannot be met without dramatic changes in our entitlement programs and our management of current accounts like the federal deficit and the foreign trade deficit. The United States is in far worse economic condition than it was six years ago, even though the stock markets have risen. The risk to our nation increases substantially every year that action is not taken. Even though GWB has acknowledged much of what is said above on this topic, he has done nothing. He will be blamed by future generations for their pain.
If the presidency is a "bully pulpit", then the message from GWB has consistently been "come and be stupid with me." There was no call to arms to reduce consumption of, or substitute for, the oil that we depend on our enemies to provide us. Instead, he told us to drill in Anwar, a place where there is a pitifully small amount of oil - as if it could save us from our long term problem with oil supplies. Similarly, on the other side of the energy coin - global warming - he has failed to recognize the threat and mobilize our population and other governments to deal with it seriously. When it comes to the big issues, GWB is nowhere to be found!
I could go on and on about stem cell research, education, corruption (never mentioned by our illustrious president), church and state issues, and the silliness of many of our internal security initiatives. Leadership has been absent, as it was in Katrina.
You have to wonder how a country with so many brilliant and charismatic citizens could elect one of its dullest minds to its highest office. That's democracy, I guess. The good news is that we can recognize our mistake and do much better starting in November!
Monday, September 25, 2006
Musings of a Protester
Last Friday I did something new - I participated in an organized political protest. The general objective of the protest was to counterbalance the media impact of Dick "VP of Torture and Misinformation" Cheney's visit to Rochester. It turned out that Cheney raised $180,000 for Randy Kuhl's congressional race, and the protest turned out 200 or so people who taunted the fund raiser attendees and chanted a variety of slogans while being carefully watched by a phalanx of burly police officers and who knows who else.
I carried a "Massa for Congress" sign through the streets of Rochester, and I chanted the chants while smiling at the well-heeled prospective beneficiaries of Republican largesse, who will certainly pad their wallets if Kuhl gets re-elected. But somehow I did not fit into the group that surrounded me - me in my khaki's and turtleneck and rain parka. The others looked like protesters from the 60's - wild young people with mohawks, older guys with beards wearing jeans and t-shirts, "Raging Grannies" in old fashioned clothes and make-up, gay and lesbian activists, advocates for the disabled, people protesting the Medicare drug "donut hole". It seems that regular people do not protest, regardless of how vehement they might feel about someone as outrageous as Dick Cheney. I was disappointed.
I met a lady who had retired before I did from the same company. She was very sweet, but she wasn't too clear on why she was there. When I asked her, she said something like "I go to protests." Apparently there are generic protesters who enjoy the energy emitted from groups of marching, chanting people.
There is a creepy feeling associated with being closely observed by police while you exercise your constitutional rights, and I felt it keenly. Also, people with cameras were filming us, and my picture will probably get entered into some kind of "enemies" database. I guess being known as an enemy of Dick Cheney is an honor of some kind...makes me feel like a distant cousin of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I suppose. Somebody's got to say "no" when the government starts torturing people and limiting their civil rights. Last week it was me.
So, I doubt that the motley 199 plus me protesters had much impact - Cheney raised almost $1,000 for each one of us. But it was kind of fun to engage in the kind of protest that once started the American revolution - people in the streets, demanding justice. Hopefully, come November, America will be at least a little teensy bit more peaceful as a result.
I carried a "Massa for Congress" sign through the streets of Rochester, and I chanted the chants while smiling at the well-heeled prospective beneficiaries of Republican largesse, who will certainly pad their wallets if Kuhl gets re-elected. But somehow I did not fit into the group that surrounded me - me in my khaki's and turtleneck and rain parka. The others looked like protesters from the 60's - wild young people with mohawks, older guys with beards wearing jeans and t-shirts, "Raging Grannies" in old fashioned clothes and make-up, gay and lesbian activists, advocates for the disabled, people protesting the Medicare drug "donut hole". It seems that regular people do not protest, regardless of how vehement they might feel about someone as outrageous as Dick Cheney. I was disappointed.
I met a lady who had retired before I did from the same company. She was very sweet, but she wasn't too clear on why she was there. When I asked her, she said something like "I go to protests." Apparently there are generic protesters who enjoy the energy emitted from groups of marching, chanting people.
There is a creepy feeling associated with being closely observed by police while you exercise your constitutional rights, and I felt it keenly. Also, people with cameras were filming us, and my picture will probably get entered into some kind of "enemies" database. I guess being known as an enemy of Dick Cheney is an honor of some kind...makes me feel like a distant cousin of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I suppose. Somebody's got to say "no" when the government starts torturing people and limiting their civil rights. Last week it was me.
So, I doubt that the motley 199 plus me protesters had much impact - Cheney raised almost $1,000 for each one of us. But it was kind of fun to engage in the kind of protest that once started the American revolution - people in the streets, demanding justice. Hopefully, come November, America will be at least a little teensy bit more peaceful as a result.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Optimism About the Election
As I walked the Appalachian Trail this spring in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, I often worried that the excesses of the Bush presidency would continue until he left office in early 2009.
Despite the fallout of the multiple congressional scandals, the Terri Schaivo travesty, Bush's obvious sell-outs to his greedy rich constituents, the stem cell rejections, and the free-fall of his Iraq strategy, there seemed like nothing could stand in the way of Bush and his do-nothing pals in congress. But a new breeze is blowing, and perhaps the November elections will begin a new chapter in our country's governance.
Today marked the revolt of Senate republicans over Bush's proposed trashing of the Geneva Conventions. By a large margin, the Committee sent the full Senate a much-modified version of Bush's bill. It will be very hard for the president to overcome the objections of John Warner, John McCain, Colin Powell, and General Vessey to the bill he put forward. This outright rejection of torture marks a return to the American ideals we thought our government was pursuing all along - until we found out different!
In my own congressional district a Democrat upstart, Eric Massa, is waging a strong campaign against the incumbent Republican, Randy Kuhl. Massa's impeccable military credentials, international experience, and personal integrity make him a formidable opponent for the Kuhl, a small-town political hack who grew up in the corrupt NY state senate. Massa seems to be the kind of guy whose leadership skills will immediately stand out in the House, and he'll be pushing for solutions to the country's big problems. I'm doing all I can to support him, even though I remain an Eisenhower republican.
Our not-straight-shooting vice president, Dick Cheney, soon will be visiting Rochester, NY, to raise some money for Kuhl. I plan to picket the hotel where he'll be selling photo op's for $1,000. This man has done more to harm the United States than anyone in recent history, and he needs to be repudiated at every opportunity.
So maybe the democrats will win the House in November, and we'll be back to divided government. For some reason, the checks and balances of divided government often seem to result in productive compromises. If Bush wants to save his presidential legacy, perhaps the loss of the House will turn out to be his greatest opportunity. Optimism is an American trait, yes?
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Rumsfeld Is Over the Top on Iraq
On August 29th, Donald Rumsfeld told the VFW convention that many Americans are confused about how the war on terror should be fought, and this confusion is leading to a lack of unity in confronting the terror threat. He compared the current adversaries to Hitler, and indicated that some American's “confusion” and lack of unity has similarities to the pre-WWII appeasement of Hitler. He also claimed that the Iraq war is part of the war on terror. This speech only gives added credibility to those who are asking President Bush to replace Rumsfeld, and it enrages veterans like me who question the appropriateness of the Iraq war and laugh bitterly at the mess that Rumsfeld and his cadre of draft-dodgers have made of it.
The idea that our adversaries in the war on radical Islamic terrorists resemble Hitler’s Germany is patently ridiculous, and Rumsfeld should be in the best possible position to know this. Perhaps the superficial comparison of Hitler’s dream for a world-ruling Thousand Year Reich to the terrorists’ assumed goal of creating a large Islamic-ruled land mass is enough for Rumsfeld, but it is not enough for any thinking person. The comparison fails in respect to the terrorists' war-making capacity, which are puny in comparison to Hitler’s. It also fails in respect to the degree of organization and the unity of purpose held by the compared organizations. Hitler had a well-defined system of command and control and top-down goal setting, while the terrorists have various factions attached to specific leaders and others attached to governments – with no common understanding of an end-point goal. Consequently, the war on these terrorists is going to be much different than the war on Hitler.
We already know that the war on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not a war on terror. Saddam’s only goal was remaining in power, and he knew that becoming directly or even indirectly involved with terrorists was not a good strategy for achieving this goal. Saddam was only a token Muslim and had much to fear from the militant Muslims who are now giving the West so much trouble. By taking him out, Rumsfeld simply created a vacuum where the militants can assemble, recruit, and ally with their fellow Shiites in Iran. Bad judgment! If the Iraq war is, in fact, a part of the war on terror it is because he created and/or facilitated our new adversaries there.
Our continued high-profile presence in Iraq incites Muslims around the world to accept a radical outlook and unacceptably drains our military and financial resources - so much that the terrorists have already won that war to a significant degree. Our secondary goal in Iraq (after the WMD justification failed) was to help establish a democratic government there. Such a government has since been elected, and it’s time to let it go to work. If it fails, as is likely, the Islamic world will see how poorly the Shiite religious majority will actually govern. If it succeeds and does not support terrorism, we will have succeeded. If it succeeds and supports terrorism, we will have a defined adversary rather than a terrorist force inside a phony country. All these scenarios are preferable to our continued high-profile presence there, and we need to phase out in an orderly manner.
Yes, we need to take the threat from radical Islam seriously and combat it vigorously. The fact that radicals like Osama bin Laden hate us, and are a real danger to us, is understood even by Democrats! But this war needs to be as much a war of ideas as a war on the ground, and we need a much more pragmatic group of leaders to fight it. There are strong diplomatic approaches that need to be taken with both Western governments and existing governments in Muslim countries, there are major investments that must be made in intelligence and internal security, and there needs to be a strong worldwide police action against terrorism. Military action does not work against decentralized terrorists, and Rumsfeld again is smoking something other than tobacco if he is silly enough to believe that after his Iraq debacle.
The idea that our adversaries in the war on radical Islamic terrorists resemble Hitler’s Germany is patently ridiculous, and Rumsfeld should be in the best possible position to know this. Perhaps the superficial comparison of Hitler’s dream for a world-ruling Thousand Year Reich to the terrorists’ assumed goal of creating a large Islamic-ruled land mass is enough for Rumsfeld, but it is not enough for any thinking person. The comparison fails in respect to the terrorists' war-making capacity, which are puny in comparison to Hitler’s. It also fails in respect to the degree of organization and the unity of purpose held by the compared organizations. Hitler had a well-defined system of command and control and top-down goal setting, while the terrorists have various factions attached to specific leaders and others attached to governments – with no common understanding of an end-point goal. Consequently, the war on these terrorists is going to be much different than the war on Hitler.
We already know that the war on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not a war on terror. Saddam’s only goal was remaining in power, and he knew that becoming directly or even indirectly involved with terrorists was not a good strategy for achieving this goal. Saddam was only a token Muslim and had much to fear from the militant Muslims who are now giving the West so much trouble. By taking him out, Rumsfeld simply created a vacuum where the militants can assemble, recruit, and ally with their fellow Shiites in Iran. Bad judgment! If the Iraq war is, in fact, a part of the war on terror it is because he created and/or facilitated our new adversaries there.
Our continued high-profile presence in Iraq incites Muslims around the world to accept a radical outlook and unacceptably drains our military and financial resources - so much that the terrorists have already won that war to a significant degree. Our secondary goal in Iraq (after the WMD justification failed) was to help establish a democratic government there. Such a government has since been elected, and it’s time to let it go to work. If it fails, as is likely, the Islamic world will see how poorly the Shiite religious majority will actually govern. If it succeeds and does not support terrorism, we will have succeeded. If it succeeds and supports terrorism, we will have a defined adversary rather than a terrorist force inside a phony country. All these scenarios are preferable to our continued high-profile presence there, and we need to phase out in an orderly manner.
Yes, we need to take the threat from radical Islam seriously and combat it vigorously. The fact that radicals like Osama bin Laden hate us, and are a real danger to us, is understood even by Democrats! But this war needs to be as much a war of ideas as a war on the ground, and we need a much more pragmatic group of leaders to fight it. There are strong diplomatic approaches that need to be taken with both Western governments and existing governments in Muslim countries, there are major investments that must be made in intelligence and internal security, and there needs to be a strong worldwide police action against terrorism. Military action does not work against decentralized terrorists, and Rumsfeld again is smoking something other than tobacco if he is silly enough to believe that after his Iraq debacle.
Monday, August 21, 2006
It's a "FIASCO" Thing
Our dear president is conspicuously missing from campaign ads for congressional seats held by people of his own party. With George Bush's popularity in the sewer, those congresspeople and senators want nothing to do with him except to see him in fund-raising events populated only with Republican diehards. Hard to blame them...
I'll be one of those Republicans not at a fund raiser; instead, I'll be going to a coffee for an opposing Democrat. I expect to be campaigning hard for anyone who is not a Republican, and I'll do that until my party gets back to its roots of fiscal conservatism, non-intervention, and social and religious moderation. The best way to do that, I suppose, is to clean house of all the folks who went along with Bush and his crew of passionate but stupid sad sacks.
And that is the issue that most Americans have now figured out - that George Bush and his crew have made far too many major mistakes when they have taken action, and they also have failed to get consensus on actions that really needed to be addressed on their watch...when they had every bit of government power under their control. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that they will not continue to make these mistakes if they stay in power, especially since you can't find a diehard Republican who even admits that mistakes have been made.
In our national government, as well as in every other component of our society - business, academia, religion, and local government - it's the people in charge who set the tone, hire the people, achieve or fail to achieve consensus, and take or hide from responsibility for failures as well as successes. In this Bush presidency the tone has been combative in both domestic and foreign affairs, poorly qualified people have all too often made serious errors, there has been little interest in forming a national consensus, and accountability has been glaringly absent. In too many areas of this administration's performance, FIASCO is a word that fits. Given this record there is no choice but to force change as soon as possible.
Some say that a congress controlled at least partially by Democrats will place too much focus on examining the conduct of the current administration. I say that is just what is needed, even if our national government is embarassed in public. The world needs to see that our democracy can honestly evaluate its leaders and "hold them to account" for the decisions they made. When it comes right down to it, George Bush is just an elected employee of the people, a man who is paid to maximize our interests. He is not a king, and he fails to listen to the people at his peril. The curtains have been drawn for far too long. Let the light of day shine!
I'll be one of those Republicans not at a fund raiser; instead, I'll be going to a coffee for an opposing Democrat. I expect to be campaigning hard for anyone who is not a Republican, and I'll do that until my party gets back to its roots of fiscal conservatism, non-intervention, and social and religious moderation. The best way to do that, I suppose, is to clean house of all the folks who went along with Bush and his crew of passionate but stupid sad sacks.
And that is the issue that most Americans have now figured out - that George Bush and his crew have made far too many major mistakes when they have taken action, and they also have failed to get consensus on actions that really needed to be addressed on their watch...when they had every bit of government power under their control. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that they will not continue to make these mistakes if they stay in power, especially since you can't find a diehard Republican who even admits that mistakes have been made.
In our national government, as well as in every other component of our society - business, academia, religion, and local government - it's the people in charge who set the tone, hire the people, achieve or fail to achieve consensus, and take or hide from responsibility for failures as well as successes. In this Bush presidency the tone has been combative in both domestic and foreign affairs, poorly qualified people have all too often made serious errors, there has been little interest in forming a national consensus, and accountability has been glaringly absent. In too many areas of this administration's performance, FIASCO is a word that fits. Given this record there is no choice but to force change as soon as possible.
Some say that a congress controlled at least partially by Democrats will place too much focus on examining the conduct of the current administration. I say that is just what is needed, even if our national government is embarassed in public. The world needs to see that our democracy can honestly evaluate its leaders and "hold them to account" for the decisions they made. When it comes right down to it, George Bush is just an elected employee of the people, a man who is paid to maximize our interests. He is not a king, and he fails to listen to the people at his peril. The curtains have been drawn for far too long. Let the light of day shine!
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Minimum Wage Travesty
Why is it that the Republican party has developed a death wish? As a lifelong Republican, I’m dismayed at the blatant hypocrisy and cynicism of the Republican congress, most recently displayed in their consideration of raising the minimum wage.
The current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, with overtime calculated on the average hours worked during a two-week period. That works out to $10,300 per year for anyone unlucky enough to work fifty forty-hour weeks at this rate. The minimum wage has not increased during a period where the congress has raised its own salaries by over $41,000 per year. So, maybe it's time to consider an increase for the least employable people who want to work!
Unfortunately, that was not on the Republican congressional leadership's agenda. Nothing was to be done. Yet the unfavorable comparison outlined above threatened the campaigns of those Republicans who will be running for re-election in the fall. So, in a stroke of genius, the Republican house leaders concocted a bill to combine a phased increase in the minimum wage with a significant reduction in the estate tax. The bill was passed, with Republicans voting in favor. But this bill will not go into law, since this combination will not pass the Senate. The outcome was known in advance, so the whole exercise was "political cover" for those who need to face their constituents.
The logic for reducing the estate tax is simply this - it's payback for the well-heeled Republicans who have been financing Republicans for house and senate seats. Some have called it "welfare for Paris Hilton". The fact is that great Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt felt the estate tax was necessary in order to prevent the formation of an "American Royalty", a class of people who live in royal fashion simply due to the success of a forebear. And great Americans like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet believe the estate tax must be maintained. But the greedy rich of today's culture, those Christian self-made men and women who funded George Bush want to pass on every penny they couldn't spend to their progeny. Well, that is just too much! The kids will still get plenty, but somewhere down the line they or their kids may actually have to work. That's the American way according to Teddy Roosevelt, and a majority of the senate agrees with him. So, this house bill is DOA.
The minimum wage must be increased simply because few people are willing to work for that amount. It's well below the poverty line, for heaven's sake! If someone's take-home pay still leaves them with a grim existence and dependence on the government and charities for hand-outs, then what satisfaction is there in work and what motivation to take it on? In my view, Americans want everyone to earn a decent day's pay for a decent day's work. Unfortunately, the Republican congress doesn't agree with me. That's one of the reasons we've been separated for some time and heading for divorce.
It would be one thing for the Republicans, who control both houses of congress, simply to state their reasons for not increasing the minimum wage and get on with other business. But this cynical, non-starter package deal is basically another shady lie that will take its place alongside all the other disgraceful deeds of this congress. History will take notice of how these Republicans hijacked a great party, sold it to the highest bidder, and got tossed out like so much garbage when their stink got too strong for even many of their staunchest initial supporters. The fall elections can't come too quickly!
The current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, with overtime calculated on the average hours worked during a two-week period. That works out to $10,300 per year for anyone unlucky enough to work fifty forty-hour weeks at this rate. The minimum wage has not increased during a period where the congress has raised its own salaries by over $41,000 per year. So, maybe it's time to consider an increase for the least employable people who want to work!
Unfortunately, that was not on the Republican congressional leadership's agenda. Nothing was to be done. Yet the unfavorable comparison outlined above threatened the campaigns of those Republicans who will be running for re-election in the fall. So, in a stroke of genius, the Republican house leaders concocted a bill to combine a phased increase in the minimum wage with a significant reduction in the estate tax. The bill was passed, with Republicans voting in favor. But this bill will not go into law, since this combination will not pass the Senate. The outcome was known in advance, so the whole exercise was "political cover" for those who need to face their constituents.
The logic for reducing the estate tax is simply this - it's payback for the well-heeled Republicans who have been financing Republicans for house and senate seats. Some have called it "welfare for Paris Hilton". The fact is that great Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt felt the estate tax was necessary in order to prevent the formation of an "American Royalty", a class of people who live in royal fashion simply due to the success of a forebear. And great Americans like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet believe the estate tax must be maintained. But the greedy rich of today's culture, those Christian self-made men and women who funded George Bush want to pass on every penny they couldn't spend to their progeny. Well, that is just too much! The kids will still get plenty, but somewhere down the line they or their kids may actually have to work. That's the American way according to Teddy Roosevelt, and a majority of the senate agrees with him. So, this house bill is DOA.
The minimum wage must be increased simply because few people are willing to work for that amount. It's well below the poverty line, for heaven's sake! If someone's take-home pay still leaves them with a grim existence and dependence on the government and charities for hand-outs, then what satisfaction is there in work and what motivation to take it on? In my view, Americans want everyone to earn a decent day's pay for a decent day's work. Unfortunately, the Republican congress doesn't agree with me. That's one of the reasons we've been separated for some time and heading for divorce.
It would be one thing for the Republicans, who control both houses of congress, simply to state their reasons for not increasing the minimum wage and get on with other business. But this cynical, non-starter package deal is basically another shady lie that will take its place alongside all the other disgraceful deeds of this congress. History will take notice of how these Republicans hijacked a great party, sold it to the highest bidder, and got tossed out like so much garbage when their stink got too strong for even many of their staunchest initial supporters. The fall elections can't come too quickly!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
