Category Archives: Current Events

Going Rogue with the truth.

Posted on by

I haven’t purchased Sarah Palin’s best-selling rant and I won’t.  I don’t need to.  Before it was dissected by the Associated Press and others, I already knew it would be filled with hate and lies.   

How did I know?

During last year’s presidential campaign, no one was more sarcastic, mean-spirited and uninformed than Sarah Palin.  And no one told more lies.  In fact, I vowed to send an email to Senator John McNasty every time I found his campaign to be less than truthful.  Unfortunately for me, my vow resulted in writing an email virtually every day of the campaign.  Some days, I sent 3, 4 or more.  Many of those emails were in response to Ellie Mae Clampett’s, er, Sarah Palin’s speeches.  From her constant refrain that Obama was “palin’ around with terrorists” to her attacks on his having been a community organizer to her rants about the media (the disaster that was her CBS interview wasn’t her fault, it was Katie Couric’s) Palin revealed virtually every character flaw known to man.  Or woman.

It seems that Palin is such a rogue that she refuses to rely on traditional sources for her information.  Instead, she draws her political wisdom from Joe the Plumber (who’s neither a plumber nor named Joe), Rush Limbaugh and Glenn “crocodile tears” Beck. 

In Sarah’s mavericky mind, not even her running mate or his campaign staff grasped the real issues.  After all, her running mate was merely a U.S. Senator while she was the former mayor of Wasilla and a hockey mom.  If only they wouldn’t have held her back, the country would be much better off today with her at the helm after she had disposed of that wrinkly old bald guy who dared to put his name in front of hers on the ballot.

For me, the real question regarding Palin is why anyone would buy her book or bother to fact check it – unless they enjoy fantasy and fiction. 

“An electronic Pearl Harbor”

Posted on by

Last Sunday, a report by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes discussed the threat of cyber terrorism.

At the center of his report, Kroft interviewed Jim Lewis who directs the Center for Strategic and International Studies. According to Lewis, the United States has already experienced “an electronic Pearl Harbor.” Lewis continued, “Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don’t know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA. They broke into all of the high-tech agencies, all of the military agencies, and downloaded terabytes of information. Someone was able to get past the firewall and encryption devices of one of the most sensitive U.S. military computer systems and stay inside for several days,” he stated. The system he referred to is the CENTCOM network, which is our military’s control center for fighting wars. Lewis said that the hackers sat inside the network, tracking information and documents “like they were part of military command.” According to Lewis, this is the “most significant” breach of security ever “acknowledged by the Pentagon.”

Proof that the Obama administration is weak militarily and soft on terrorism? No, wait!

A politician who is unafraid to tell the truth.

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Congressman Alan Grayson (D Fla.) took the floor in Congress to read the death toll of those who lacked health insurance in the districts of Republican Representatives.  “Is it really asking too much of us that we keep people alive?” he asked.  Of course, the Republicans tried to cut him off and asked the clerk to take down his words.  But Congressman Grayson did not waiver.  When the session reconvened, he continued to read the list. 

Grayson is somewhat unique in Washington political circles.  For one thing, he is a Democrat with a spine.  For another, he seems to tell the truth no matter how embarrassing or discomforting the truth is.  For example, he famously (and correctly) summarized the Republican health care plan by saying “The Republican health care plan is this: ‘Don’t get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.’”   

Grayson is one of the few Representatives who have embraced and discussed the real tragedy of our broken health care system – that approximately 45,000 people die each year because they do not have or cannot afford access to health care.  That’s like having 15 9/11s each year!  Yet rather than try to fix the system, Republicans are doing everything in their power to kill health reform.   Senator Jim DeMint publicly stated “If we can stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo.”  More recently, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann called for protestors to “scare” lawmakers into killing health care reform.  She may as well be calling for them to kill the uninsured. 

If Republicans are successful, they will be responsible for another 45,000 deaths next year and each year until we have universal health care coverage for American citizens.   

Liberal media bias?

Posted on by

Since the days of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, conservatives have been fond of blaming MSM (mainstream media) for interfering with their agenda.   They contend that most news outlets are run by liberals and therefore biased against conservatives. 

Really? 

The vast majority of media outlets are owned by just five conglomerates (CBS, Disney, General Electric, News Corp, and TimeWarner).  Who do we have to thank for the ever-shrinking number of media owners?  Well, conservatives of course. 

For example, during the Reagan administration, Congress passed the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 which deregulated cable TV rates.  As a result, cable rates skyrocketed 25-30 percent through 1986-1988.  Then, following the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Revolution, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Conservatives sold the bill as a way to increase competition and lower consumer costs (Does that sound familiar?).  But like most Republican legislation, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did the exact opposite.   Following its passage, cable TV rates have jumped more than 40 percent and the number of cable system owners dropped dramatically. 

Prior to deregulation, there were thousands of cable systems.  Today, five corporations (Comcast, TimeWarner, Cox, Charter and Cablevision control the lion’s share of the market – more than 50 million households.   In addition, two companies (DirecTV and Dish) control satellite TV serving than 31 million households, three media giants own all of the cable news networks, five corporations dominate Internet news, and one corporation (Clear Channel) owns 900 radio stations. 

Such large media conglomerates can hardly be accused of liberal bias.  Indeed, the exact opposite is more likely to be true.  Certainly many of the News Corp–owned media promote conservative points of view.   And combined with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, it has become increasingly easy for these behemoths to control public opinion (and therefore legislation). 

Could that be the real reason behind deregulation?

Dealing with Revolting Joe.

Posted on by

Recently, Joe Lieberman said he would not be one of the 60 votes necessary to bring the Senate health care reform bill to the floor. What a shock! After all, this is a man who ran against his party’s nominated candidate as a so-called independent. He campaigned and voted for his pal, John McCain, for President. He spoke at the Republican National Convention.
Then, following the election, he came back to the Democratic caucus so he could retain the chair of a powerful Senate committee.

Now, he claims that he’ll refuse to vote for cloture on the health care reform bill out of “principle.” His concern is that the bill contains a public option. So he’s willing to help Republicans filibuster in order to kill the bill. This from a man who worked to eliminate filibusters as a freshman Senator in 1994.

So what changed?

Likely he’s more concerned about the insurance companies that are headquartered in Connecticut than he is about the citizens of his state. And perhaps he feels he owes big insurance for campaign donations toward his re-election. That would make his stance more about principal than principle.

So what are Democrats to do about Revolting Joe? If he kills health care reform by siding with Republicans, they could take away his chairmanship. But that would likely drive him to the Republican caucus which would mean that the Democrats would no longer be able to block any Republican filibuster.

On the other hand, if Democrats do nothing to punish him, Revolting Joe would continue to caucus with Democrats, but his vote would be unreliable and he would be free to use his position to kill Democratic legislation or to extract concessions.

I propose that Democrats call his bluff. Let him help Republicans filibuster health care reform. Let Joe and his conservative buddies prattle away on the Senate floor for days on end. Turn the whole affair into an exhibition of stupidity. Let Americans see the “Party of No” at work. I believe that would make it virtually impossible for Republicans to gain many seats in the House or Senate in 2010. It would make Revolting Joe a pariah among his constituents, save for the insurance companies. And although big insurance can fund his campaign, they can’t re-elect him.

The cost of war.

Posted on by

Our war in Afghanistan has now dragged on longer than the failed Soviet Union occupation.  And President Obama is faced with a decision to expand the war by adding up to 40 thousand new troops, engineering a withdrawal, or committing to something between those extremes. 

By all accounts, this was a war that could have ended several years ago if we hadn’t become preoccupied with Iraq.  But as the Iraq “liberation” dragged on, our real enemies in Afghanistan regrouped and gained in strength.  Now it seems that no option in Afghanistan is a “good” option – especially given our economic woes at home.

It was recently reported that the Afghan war has already cost nearly $230 billion.  It was also estimated that the war costs $500,000 (Pentagon estimate) to $1 million (Congressional estimate) to maintain one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year.  That cost includes transportation, equipment, support facilities and all incidentals.  If those figures are correct, adding 40 thousand more troops to the conflict will cost the U.S. an additional $20-40 billion over the next year.   And given that we still have combat troops stationed in Germany and Japan more than 60 years after the end of WW II, the cost will likely continue for many years to come. 

Not included in that estimate is the cost of VA to treat lasting injuries and psychological damage.  There are also the sums paid to veterans for disabilities.   And, of course, it’s impossible to place a price on the lives lost in action.   

Add to these costs the price of the war in Iraq which some estimate to total more than $2 trillion.

All of this is background to the debate over health care reform and economic stimulus.  The economic stimulus package that was signed by President Obama included $787 billion to create or save jobs by rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.  And the cost of health care reform bills being considered are estimated to  cost more than $800 billion over 10 years.  Of course, the conservatives are horrified by these numbers.

So they must be apoplectic over the cost of Bush’s wars?  Not exactly.   The conservatives can’t wait to send more troops to Afghanistan and spend more money (and more lives) on open-ended, no-bid contracts for the likes of Halliburton and Xe.  They even trotted out the dark one (former V.P., and former Halliburton CEO, Dick Cheney) to attack Obama for “dithering” over the decision to commit more troops. 

Conservative logic goes something like this:  It’s un-American and un-patriotic to spend our own money on our own citizens for jobs and health care.  But it’s absolutely necessary to spend trillions to kill a few knuckleheads on the other side of the globe. 

Does this make any sense?  I think you know the answer.

For our economy, let’s give credit where credit is due.

Posted on by

The so-called teabaggers and wing nuts claim their attacks on President Obama aren’t the result of racism or ideology.  They say their demonstrations are about the national debt which they believe has increased to staggering new levels under the Obama administration. 

There are three flaws with their argument.  One is that the debt only really matters if we plan on selling our nation sometime soon.  Otherwise, it’s merely a number.  Second, while it’s true that the debt has reached an all time high in actual dollar amount, as a percent of GDP (gross domestic product) it has been higher before.  And third, very little of the current debt can be attributed to actions by President Obama.

Following the Great Depression and WWII, the national debt as a percent of GDP stood at 120 percent.  It steadily decreased each year until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  Under Reagan the administration so overspent on military weapons that the national debt nearly tripled.  The debt continued to increase during the George H.W. Bush administration.  When Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, he prioritized the economy and succeeded in significantly reducing the debt.  Then, under George W. Bush, the debt nearly doubled again until, by the time he left office, it had risen back to 80 percent of GDP.  (One has to wonder where the tea parties and town halls were then.)

In reality, the recent increase in our national debt is the result of two wars begun by the Bush administration (one based on false information) that have cost more than $2 trillion – a figure that doesn’t even include the cost of health care, disability compensation and death benefits for those who have served in these wars.  Contributing to the increase was the creation of the massive Homeland Security department by the Bush administration.   And, of course, the primary cause was Republican-led deregulation of banks and commodities resulting in runaway greed and wild speculation.  When the banks’ risky investments failed, the Federal Government was faced with a decision of bailing out those responsible for this mess.  Or letting the nation slide into a 2nd Great Depression. 

By the time of his inauguration, President Obama was facing the worst economy since Herbert Hoover.  And, like FDR, he has little choice but to try to create jobs through stimulus funds and loans.  Yet, despite having created this mess, Republicans have fought Obama at every opportunity.  Not a single Republican in the House voted for the stimulus package and all but three Republicans in the Senate voted against it. 

It appears they would rather make some sort of political statement than uphold their commitment to serve our nation. 

Republicans have also tried to block health care reform and the proposed cap on carbon dioxide emissions intended to head off more severe climate change.  (They wouldn’t want to interfere with the profits of our large corporations, would they?)

Perhaps the most absurd attack on President Obama is his trip to promote Chicago as host of the Olympics.  They claim that he should be spending more time in the Oval Office.  Hmmm, I wonder what they thought of Bush’s vacations while in office.  The final statistics show that “W” spent 977 days (33 percent) of his two terms on vacation, including the days immediately following Hurricane Katrina.

In my opinion, everyone needs to be more patient with this president.  Republican presidents had nearly 30 years to get us into this mess.  Let’s give President Obama more than 9 months to get us out of it.

Where will our jobs come from?

Posted on by

As economists talk about the prospects for an economic recovery, they often mention that it may well be a “jobless recovery.”  Is anyone really surprised by that?  After all, in the interest of “globalization” we’ve exported most of our jobs to other nations.

When large corporations began selling the notion of globalization in the 1980s, they promised American workers access to new markets for American-made products in places like China and India.  The reality is much different.  Once so-called Fair Trade rules were established, American corporations began relocating manufacturing to nations with cheaper labor.  One American manufacturing industry after another was closed…steel, textiles, shoes, electronics, furniture, tools…the list is extensive.

Soon after, much of our agricultural production was exported to Mexico, Central and South America. 

We were told that none of this would harm the U.S.  In fact, the corporations and politicians said that this would benefit Americans with more diverse and lower-priced products.  Moreover, we could easily replace “dirty” low-paying manufacturing jobs with “cleaner” technology, service and information jobs. 

The next step was to move corporate call centers to Mexico, India and the Philippines.  (After all, that kind of work is much too mundane and boring for American workers.)   

Next, the corporations began hiring illegal immigrants for restaurant, landscaping, meat processing and construction jobs.  We were told that these were jobs Americans citizens were unwilling to do.  (The corporations neglected to mention that the real reason American citizens didn’t want these jobs were reduced salaries and benefits.)

More recently, corporations have exported the creation of software to India.  At the same time, they’ve requested special green cards for Indian engineers.  The corporations claim that too few Americans are as well-educated and trained. 

Even our military has gotten into the act by hiring mercenaries from other nations to provide security for American diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is it any wonder that our health care system now represents 1/6th of our economy?  And we’re already hiring nurses and doctors from other nations to meet “shortages”.

So what will unemployed American citizens do?  The most promising opportunity is for the invention and manufacture of so-called green products such as wind turbines, photovoltaic solar panels and higher mileage vehicles…if politicians and corporations don’t export these jobs first.

Show us the money.

Posted on by

When the housing market crashed bringing down the financial industry along with it (or was it the other way around?), trillions of dollars vanished.   The question is where did the money go?

The Federal Reserve along with the Bush administration started propping up the financial industry and the economy beginning in 2007.  Mostly this was done quietly with little to no media attention.  By the time President Obama was sworn in, taxpayers had already shelled out more than $3.46 trillion and the world economy was on the verge of collapse. 

Since Obama’s inauguration, the federal government has committed another $3.77 trillion in loans, bailout funds and stimulus spending to stave off what most economists concluded would be a 2nd Great Depression.   

And people are outraged!  Not at the ones who created this mess and originally hid it from the public.  But at the administration who inherited it.  That kind of logic could only be demonstrated by the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Armey.   Where are their “Teabagger” demonstrations against CitiGroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo?  Where’s the right-wing fury for AIG?  Where are the posters calling Bush and Cheney Socialists and Communists for having allowed (or encouraged) this to happen?   

More important, where’s the money?

Of the $7.244 trillion total, $168 billion was mailed to taxpayers in the form of stimulus checks.  $787 billion is dedicated to stimulus spending on infrastructure and new jobs.  $275 billion is targeted at foreclosure relief.  And $15 billion is aimed at supporting small businesses. 

The rest of the money ($6.167 trillion) went to prop up the very institutions that created the mess.  For example, $234 billion went to CitiGroup, $137.5 billion to AIG, $118 billion to Bank of America and $29 billion went to Bear Stearns.   Another $700 billion was dedicated to the Troubled Asset Relief Program.  $1 trillion was set aside for the Term-Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to make it less risky for banks to lend money to businesses and consumers.  $720 billion was set aside to help banks remove toxic assets from their balance sheets.   Indeed, almost all the rest of the money has been allocated to help our banks recover from their own risky behavior.

And it has worked really well…for the banks.  Thanks to government aid, the CEOs, fund managers, and other financial executives are still able to afford new vacation homes, yachts and other “necessities” with their bonuses.  They’ve been able to raise fees on checking accounts and interest rates on credit cards.  And they’ve been able to return to the risky behavior that led to this mess in the first place.

Best of all, thanks to their lobbying efforts, paid for in large part by taxpayers’ money, they’ve so far been able to fend off serious regulation.