Category Archives: Politics

Shirley Sherrod Story Reveals Much About Both Republicans And Democrats.

Posted on by

When a right wing blogger edited a speech by a USDA worker describing an event that took place more than 20 years ago, he made it appear that she had committed a racist act against a troubled white farm family.

Of course, Fox Noise Channel and other right wing media megaphones jumped on the opportunity to make yet another charge that the Obama Administration favors blacks over the long-oppressed white majority (sarcasm intended).

When confronted with the Fox Noise story, Secretary Vilsack immediately asked for her resignation. Even the NAACP censured her. However, one day later, the unedited video was released showing that Ms. Sherrod had simply (and graciously) been using the story of her long ago, racist reaction to make an object lesson that racism against any group has no place in our society.

So why not use Ms. Sherrod’s story as an object lesson for 21st century politics?
It is, after all, very revealing about our weaknesses. It reveals the mean-spirited and deceptive practices of the right wing. It reveals the lack of journalistic standards being practiced by Fox (and the much higher standards of CNN and MSNBC). It reveals the weak knees of Democrats whenever they are confronted by right wing charges. And it reveals the human tendency to believe the worst about someone even before we know the facts.

We should all vow to do better in the future.

$3.4 Trillion Reasons To Not Vote Republican In November.

Posted on by

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), that’s the amount tax cuts being proposed by Republicans will add to the national deficit over 10 years.

The proposed tax cuts include permanently extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts which represent $2.3 trillion. Of course that’s just an estimate. But the CBO found that the unfunded Bush tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthy, added $539 billion to the deficit in 2005 alone.

On top of that deficit-ballooning idea, Republicans want to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax along with Estate Taxes and Gift Taxes which, according to projections, will add another $1.1 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Again, these tax cuts are aimed at benefitting the wealthiest part of our society.

Just to be clear, the $3.4 trillion would be added to the annual deficit over the next ten years and the effect on the total national debt would be cumulative. In other words, they would likely add another $3.4 trillion to the national debt each and every decade after their passage!

In case you’ve been living in a vacuum, the people promoting these tax cuts are the very people who claim to be so concerned about adding to the deficit that they’re willing to filibuster the extension of unemployment benefits for people who are out of work.

What’s particularly fascinating about this debate is that the Republican leaders don’t think cutting revenue will have an impact on the deficit.

Senate Minority Dimwit, Mitch McConnell is on record for saying, “There’s no evidence that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue.”

Hmmm…if you believe that, maybe you should try this experiment at home: If your household expenses exceed your income, then look for a job with a lower salary. According to McConnell, fellow Senate Dimwit, Jon Kyl, and other Republicans, that will reduce your debt!

That’s the kind of thinking that took us from an economy that generated 22 million jobs and a budget surplus in the Clinton administration to an economy that almost entirely collapsed under the Bush administration and gave us a huge deficit.

Yeah, who wouldn’t want to put those people in charge again?

Another Fox Feargasm.

Posted on by

Heard about the new “Black Panthers?” Have you heard that three members of the Black Panther Party allegedly tried to intimidate voters in one Philadelphia precinct in 2008; one with a police-style baton? Have you heard that the Department of Justice refused to press charges against the individuals involved and, instead, banned the individual with the baton from Philadelphia polling places until 2012?

Of course, the “fair and balanced” nitwits have gone ballistic. They claim that it demonstrates racism by President Obama and his administration. And they have the “news” story on a loop, repeating it hourly.

Nevermind that there are no accusations that these members committed acts of violence or kept anyone from voting. And nevermind that, for decades, white supremacists have intimidated African-Americans to keep them from voting. Indeed, in 2000, there were many reported instances of voter intimidation in Florida to keep African-Americans from voting for Al Gore. And as many as 10,000 registered voters were denied their right to vote in several Florida counties. Where was the outrage by Fox Noise then? Where were the indictments by the Bush administration? Where was the outrage by Fox when their viewers appeared at Congressional forums with threatening signs and assault rifles? And what if the Obama administration had indicted teabaggers for trying to intimidate Congressional representatives?

It appears that the Faux News treatment of the Black Panthers story is merely intended to create more fear toward President Obama amongst the uninformed, the misinformed and the unintelligent.

While the actions of a few people in Philadelphia are deplorable, they are nothing new. And they certainly don’t warrant 24/7 media coverage. But then, neither did the Fox Feargasm that led to the closing of ACORN.

Fox led its viewers to believe that ACORN had helped “steal” the 2008 elections and that employees of ACORN provided advice to a “pimp” and a “prostitute.” After several investigations, it’s now clear that the only prostitution was by the producers of the videos and the idiots on Fox who sold their integrity in order to attack an organization they viewed as a political opponent.

Based on Fox’s version of the news, one can only wonder when, or if, its audience will ever realize that the network that claims to be “fair and balanced” is neither.

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

What’s The Real Reason There Are More Women In The Workplace?

Posted on by

For the past several years, there has been much publicity over the increase of women in the workplace. The hiring of women has greatly outpaced the hiring of men in certain jobs. Advertising, marketing, healthcare, and many other industries are becoming dominated by women. The statistics would lead you to believe that the U.S. has finally become gender equal.

But before you begin applauding American corporations for their enlightment, you may want to consider another, not quite so flattering, reason for the change. In their never-ending quest to increase profits and pump up stock prices, corporations may simply be hiring more women because they can pay them less.

That’s right. American corporations have cut employee-related costs by increasing productivity, automating production lines, and shipping high-paying jobs overseas where workers are paid less and receive virtually no benefits. Many have hired illegal immigrants to replace workers at the lowest end of the pay scale. They’ve utilized independent contractors to replace full-time office workers in order to avoid paying Social Security, health care benefits, disability insurance and unemployment insurance. They’ve even come up with ways to use the Internet to pare the cost of marketing, advertising and design. So what’s left?

Women have always been able to do most jobs as well as men (and many better). But their salaries have long been suppressed. (A recent study found that female attorneys in elite law firms were paid an average of $66,000/year less than their male counterparts.) So why not take advantage of them once again?

Hiring more women is a sign of progress toward gender equality. But the reason for it is not necessarily one that corporations should be proud of.

America, Right or Wrong?

Posted on by

When I was in college at the height of the Vietnam “War”, I was considered an unpatriotic “Commie” for simply questioning U.S. military involvement in a land on the other side of the globe that had not attacked or threatened our nation. I was told, even by my parents, that it shouldn’t matter to me; that I should be proud to fight for our flag no matter how I personally felt about our nation’s actions. Ironically, the only family members who seemed to understand my point of view were those who had served heroically in WWII.

Remembering that ugly period in our nation’s history (and in my life) recently caused me to look at today’s political debate in a new way. I realized that there are many issues that separate liberals from conservatives – education, taxes, greed, religion and the circumstances of our childhoods, to name a few. But the notion of so-called American “Exceptionalism” may be the most divisive of all of the issues that separate us.

Most often, those on the political right believe that patriotism can only be demonstrated by supporting our nation’s every action (of course, the exception is whenever a Democratic President is in office). They could care less about how our nation is viewed globally. They despise the United Nations. They take offense at criticism from other nations. And they’re even more angered by criticism from within. They believe America’s Founding Fathers were Christian saints, and that the Constitution was obviously created through divine providence.

On the other hand, those on the political left are more likely to think globally. We find it difficult to accept bullying, dishonesty and greed – from our nation or any other. We despise poverty. We cherish education. We care about human rights. We’re willing to admit when our nation and its corporations are wrong. Instead of being angered by criticism, we try to understand the opposing viewpoint and change our own if necessary. We believe that it’s the duty of a patriot to call attention to our nation’s errors; to speak truth to power. We understand that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that was flawed (given its denial of voting rights to women and African-Americans) and can be improved. And we believe the Founding Fathers were generous, caring, insightful and prophetic men. But we accept the fact that they were mortals nonetheless.

These contradictions, I believe, are at the very heart of most of our political disagreements. Unfortunately, these beliefs are so firmly entrenched, there’s little we can do to change them. All we can do is to try to understand them and, as progressives, try to frame our arguments keeping these differences in mind.

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

Why Do We Allow Republicans To Ignore Election Results?

Posted on by

In 2008, voters repudiated conservative politics by electing Barack Obama as President and voting for overwhelming Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. But, based on the actions of Republicans, it would appear that they have simply chosen to ignore the results. The House has passed bill after bill in order to live up to the campaign promises. The President has repeatedly reached out to Republicans. Yet the Senate Republicans have stonewalled virtually every initiative with parliamentarian tricks. They have placed secret holds on more than 100 Presidential appointees. They have threatened to block many more. And they have used filibusters a record number of times.

This level of obstructionism is unprecedented in U.S. history and voters should make Republican candiates pay for it this November. But according to early polls, it appears that the Republican strategy may work. Voters are angry at incumbents – all incumbents – not just those who have stalled reforms. And voters are angry at President Obama for not doing more about the unrelenting gusher of crude in the Gulf of BP. Never mind that the cozy relationship between Bush/Cheney appointees in the Minerals Management Service allowed BP to apparently cut corners with safety. And never mind that the best minds in science and in the oil industry seem stumped as to how to proceed.

It would seem that many in the public won’t be satisfied until the President dons a diving suit, descends a mile under the surface of the ocean and personally shuts off the wellhead himself.

Seriously, people, there are only four submersibles in the world capable of operating at that depth and none of them are owned by the U.S. Moreover, they are incapable of doing any more than the underwater robots. So the problem has spilled into the ocean and onto Obama’s lap.

Like the financial crisis, the unemployment crisis, the immigration crisis, the national debt and the two on-going wars, the oil gusher is a mess created by the Bush administration. And the Obama administration has been left with the job of cleaning it up. To make matters worse, the Republicans in Congress have done nothing to help.

If there’s any justice in American politics, the Republicans will pay at the polls. But I suspect an uninformed public will reward them for their antics. Republicans will then be able to obstruct even more reforms. And voters will continue to wonder why nothing ever seems to change in Washington.

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

A Crude Awakening!

Posted on by

Since the days when Jimmy Carter was president, environmentalists were calling for energy conservation and alternative fuels. Unfortunately, the only time these ideas gained any traction was when gasoline and heating oil prices spiked. But once families adjusted to the higher prices, they went right back to their old ways.

Things may be different this time. The only real blessing of the BP oil disaster is that it has focused attention on the consequences of oil. The average American citizen could live with spills in the Arctic or Canada or Kuwait or other faraway places. They could live with climbing gas prices. They could ignore the photos of dying birds, dolphins and fish. And they could live (they think) with climate change.

But now that crude oil and tar balls are washing up on their favorite beaches… Now that’s a real problem!

There may never be a better time to change our energy policy. BP, Halliburton, Exxon and the rest of the oil spillers have less influence on the Democratic-controlled Congress. And they hold no sway with the Obama White House. So it’s time to act! It’s time to end the subsidies for oil exploration. It’s time to subsidize solar, wind and other renewables. And it’s time to redouble our efforts to conserve energy.

Congress should act now to push through a strong energy bill with caps on carbon emissions before the mid-term elections. It should raise the cap on damages to be paid by oil companies. And if Republicans try to block it, Democrats should use every parliamentary tactic at their disposal. What do they have to lose? Republicans have used filibusters and other tricks to stall Democratic initiatives. There is no longer any hope for bipartisanship. Even if it costs Democrats control of the House and Senate in the next election, at least the losing candidates could go home knowing they’ve done one of the best things possible for their constituents and their country. And, along with a new energy policy, that’s something that’s long past due.

The Real Elitists.

Posted on by

One of the many things Republican teabaggers like to call liberals and progressives is “elitist.” In fact, the term is so common, if you watch Fox News Channel (I’m not sure why you’d want to) it seems the two terms are permanently wed – Liberal Elitist.

Now, I may be slow, but I can’t for the life of me think why the two terms should ever be used in the same sentence, let alone as a description of progressives. It would seem that the nitwits on Fox and Republican teabaggers have never consulted a dictionary. To wit:

Elitism is defined as: 1 – Belief in the concept of superiority. The belief that some people or things are inherently superior to others and deserve preeminence, preferential treatment, or higher rewards because of their superiority.

2 – Belief in control by a small group. The belief that government or control should be in the hands of a small group of privileged, wealthy, or intelligent people, or the active promotion of such a system.

Now let’s examine the policies of the two parties. Democrats believe in fighting for the middle and lower economic classes. They support small business, organized labor, civil rights and fair wages for working people. That doesn’t quite meet the definition of elitism, does it?

Republicans, on the other hand, believe in fighting for the wealthy and large corporations. For more than 40 years, they’ve been trying to break labor unions. They have also succeeded in transferring much of the nation’s wealth upward to the uber rich. In other words, Republicans believe in the inherent superiority of the privileged and the wealthy.

So how do Republicans get away with perpetuating this falsehood? They restate their goals in populist terms to make people think they will benefit, too. They bundle their ideas in ways that create fear and anger. And they simply repeat their lies until enough people think they’re true.

The Other Offshore Disaster.

Posted on by

For more than two months, the nation’s attention has been focused on the gusher in the Gulf. But there’s another offshore disaster that has been going on for at least 50 years. I refer to the large U.S. corporations that have created subsidiaries and “headquarters” off-shore to avoid U.S. taxes.

But I found it difficult to obtain a list of the companies that have taken advantage of the loophole. Now, thanks to Ariana Huffington’s recent article on the Huffington Post, I have a better idea. In her article, she cited a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report from 2008 that showed 83 of the 100 largest publicly–traded companies in the country had operations in tax havens.

The report cited AIG, AT&T, American Express, Boeing, Chevron, and Dow to name a few. Many set up P.O. boxes in the Caymans and Bermuda. And Halliburton chose to move its “headquarters” to Dubai. That’s disturbing enough. Yet, according to the GAO, 74 of those 83 corporations received government contracts. And, of course, taxpayers were asked to rescue two of those companies (AIG and American Express) through billions in government loans.

So these companies are not only avoiding paying their fair share of American taxes. They are filling their coffers with money from taxpayers like you and me!

At a time when our national economy is struggling and when we’re engaged in two protracted wars, closing this gaping loophole would seem one of the top priorities for Congress. But that would mean that our Representatives and Senators would have to vote against some of their largest campaign contributors. Indeed, according to Ariana Huffington’s article, Washington has been trying to address the issue for nearly 50 years. But each time the issue comes before Congress, the corporate lobbyists prevail.

So while Congress debates the impact on the national debt by extending unemployment benefits for working people, they continue to permit corporations to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes through loopholes. In fact, the latest figures available show that these corporations pay roughly $16 billion in taxes on $700 billion in foreign active earnings – a tax rate of approximately 2.3 percent!

Of course, politicians (especially Republicans) excuse such welfare by saying that corporations create jobs, and that jobs have never been more needed than now. That may be true. But where are those jobs being created? For nearly 40 years, many of these corporations have been creating more jobs offshore than in the U.S.

That being the case, what do we have to lose by forcing them to pay up?

What’s wrong with politics?

Posted on by

Depending on your political affiliation (or should I say affliction?) you might quickly answer with Fox News Channel or MoveOn.org. But if we ignore partisanship for a moment, I think we can all agree that the real answer is Congressional representatives who spend more time trying to be re-elected than actually representing.

We have now reached a point in American politics where the election cycle lasts all year, every year. As a result, those who are elected are generally afraid to take a position or a stance for fear of alienating part of the electorate. They also must find and kowtow to donors – usually large corporations, corporate officers, political action groups and the wealthy. As a result, the powerful and wealthy are over-represented.

And the rest of us are under-represented.

Unfortunately, running for state or national office has become so expensive that few can raise enough money to run an effective campaign. And, perhaps due to that fact, politicians who are successful in getting elected don’t want to risk losing their offices in the next election. So they don’t always vote their conscience. Instead, they vote according to the polls. Or according to the party bosses. There can be no better examples (and warnings) than Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida and Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. They are viewed as too moderate by activists in their respective parties, so they faced difficult primaries. So difficult, in fact, that Crist was forced to bow out of the Republican primary and run unaffiliated.

This backlash from the parties has a chilling effect on our political debate. For example, many Democrats wanted universal (single-payer) health care, but they voted for a watered-down, protect-the-insurance-companies health care reform bill, instead. Why? Because their political opponents and the media would have labeled them Socialists, Communists or worse.

During the George W. Bush administration, the White House introduced a plan for immigration reform. The bill attempted to address the complexity of the problem. But Congress refused to pass it because many Republicans and the conservative media were angered by what they considered “amnesty” for undocumented workers. And representatives of both parties were afraid to alienate potential Latino voters. So, instead of trying to fix the problem, they collectively kicked it down the road.

Of course, there are exceptions. If you visit www.PolitiFact.com you’ll discover that President Obama has lived up to the vast majority of his campaign promises. Indeed, he has repeatedly stated that he’d rather be “a good one-term President, than a bad two-term President.” I hope he’s rewarded for that stance. And I think he will be. You see, I sincerely believe the majority of voters on both sides of the political spectrum are sick and tired of politics as usual. Unfortunately, the political parties are more concerned with winning elections than principle.

It’s up to all of us to make the two parties care more about the well-being of the nation than their scorecards of political wins and losses. We can do that by pushing for campaign finance reform – especially now that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spill their coffers into any candidate’s pocket or purse.