Category Archives: Politics

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.

Right Wing Conspiracy is no theory.

Posted on by

When President Clinton won the White House in 1992, he was hounded by right wing zealots who accused him of everything from corruption to murder.  The cries became so loud that a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate.  Armed with an unlimited budget, he and the right wing accusers were eventually able to impeach the President for oral sex in the White House.  (Oh my!)

This very coordinated effort by so-called conservatives was labeled “the vast right wing conspiracy.”  While at the time that label might have seemed over the top, it was, in fact, correct.  There was a conspiracy.  And this coalition of Republicans, Christian fundamentalists and conservative talk show hosts is at it again with their sights set on President Obama. 

But the conspiracy goes well beyond trying to discredit Democratic Presidents.

In fact, Republicans and Christian fundamentalists have been conspiring against all non-believing U.S. citizens for years.  In the Republican “revolution” led by Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell, the intent was to eliminate all so-called entitlements, such as welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  In the new United States, such programs would be replaced by “personal responsibility.”  If you get in trouble, you’re on your own. 

Of course, labor unions would be banned as an impediment to corporate growth.  As a result of a new, paternalistic relationship between corporate leaders and employees, they would be unnecessary.  (Never mind that we once had a similar system in which industrialists became known as “robber barons” and employees were little more than slaves.)

But the ambition of many conservatives doesn’t end with corporations in complete economic control.  Many Republicans would take things a step farther.   In the words of Senator Sam Brownback as reported by Jeff Sharlet in the book The Family, the goal is to create a nation and economy under God.  The philosophy of these fundamentalists is expressed in Romans 13:  “The powers that be are ordained by God.”  In other words, might makes right.

Based on the legislative initiatives of Brownback and his fellowship, there would be death penalties for abortion providers.  Gay marriage would, of course, be banned.  Public schools would be undermined by school vouchers.  Of course, prayer in school would be mandatory and creationism would replace evolution on the curriculums.  The only sex education would be abstinence.  Hate crimes would be only those against Christians.  We wouldn’t bother with diplomacy, especially with nations like North Korea.  And we would immediately declare war on Iran and, likely, every other Muslim nation.

There’s just one sticky little problem.  It’s called the Constitution.

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.   

Bush League Economy

Posted on by

In baseball, bush league refers to the lowest level – a metaphor that perfectly fits the economic performance of the George W. Bush administration.  It’s even more appropriate given that Bush made millions by gaming the City of Arlington and its citizens as “Managing Partner” of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

In short, the people of Arlington got screwed.  Not entirely unlike what Bush did to the people of the United States as our 43rd President.

This is no longer just opinion.  It’s fact.

According to a recent report by the Census Bureau, the median household income in the U.S. declined 4.2 percent during Bush’s two terms.  At the same time, the number of Americans living in poverty increased 1.9 percent to 39.8 million (the most since 1960).  More disturbing is the number of children now living in poverty:  When Bush entered office 11.6 million children were living in poverty.  When Bush left office, that number had swollen to nearly 14.1 million.  That’s an astonishing increase of more than 21 percent!  Under Bush, job growth was a dismal .28 percent – the worst performance since World War II.  The number of Americans employed in manufacturing dropped beneath 10 percent for the first time in history.  And the number of Americans without health insurance increased to 15.4 percent.

On every major measurement, the economic condition of American people declined during the Bush administration!  The housing industry crashed, the financial industry collapsed under the weight of its own risky gambles, stock markets crashed and two out of the Big Three U.S. auto makers faced bankruptcy.   About the only people who didn’t suffer under Bush’s watch were oil executives, military contractors, hedge fund managers and the extremely wealthy.

Predictably, the Republicans are now trying to reassign the economic blame to President Obama.  They accuse him of increasing the size of government, increasing the size of the federal debt, and taking over private businesses.  Let’s look at the facts:

The government, the deficit and the national debt all grew under President Bush.  The Department of Homeland Security represented a huge growth in government.  But the growth of government under Bush wasn’t confined to just the one department.  (In the first 3 months of 2008 alone, the federal government added 13,800 jobs under Bush.)  The deficit and debt under Bush increased in large part as the result of Bush’s misadventures in Iraq.  The real cost of that war is estimated at anywhere from $2-3 trillion, and some estimate that the cost of the Afghan war will overtake the Iraq war in 2010. 

The bailout of financial institutions is estimated at $3 trillion.  Approximately one-half of that was approved by the Bush administration.  And none of the money would have been necessary if not for the Republican’s aversion to regulation of financial institutions.

Finally, you can’t blame President Obama for the takeover of the U.S. auto industry.  Indeed, we all should thank him for it.  Had the Bush administration not allowed wild speculation of commodities, oil would not have spiked as they did in 2008.  Had that artificial spike not been followed by the collapse of our financial institutions, the auto industry would never have experience such severe problems.  And had the Obama administration not stepped in to help, the economy may well have fallen into another depression.

“Teabaggers”, “Birthers” and other racists.

Posted on by

Demonstrators at this past weekend’s rally at the U.S. Capitol carried a powerful message. They toted signs with photos of President Obama wearing a Hitleresque moustache. There were signs that called Obama a socialist, a Marxist and even a Nazi. There were signs calling him a “Muslim Kenyan” and an “African Lyin’.” There were signs stating “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy” and “We came unarmed (this time).” The only things they were lacking were torches and pitchforks.

These messages were not just tasteless and threatening. They were revealing. They exposed those who carried them as a rabble of misinformed racists who are angry and aren’t going to take it anymore. But they can’t even say what “it” is. All they seem to know is that President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are the problem.

Could it be that these people simply can’t accept an African-American and a woman as our nation’s leaders?

Of course, Republicans dismiss any such claims. They’re fond of pointing to the demonstrations against President Bush. However, there’s a significant difference. During the Bush administration, political opponents attacked his policies. During the Obama administration, the opponents seem to want to attack Obama. And not just with words. Why else would the demonstrators feel it necessary to threaten violence? Why else would they feel the need to bring guns to demonstrations?

If it were economic policy that concerned these people, they would be protesting against Bush for overseeing the first real decline in median household income in recent history. If the issue was spending, these people would have brought out the torches and pitchforks during the Reagan years or as the result of the $2 trillion war in Iraq. If it were the housing crisis and resulting financial meltdown that concerned them, they would be looking to lynch Bush, Greenspan and Henry Paulson. And if rationed health care was the problem, they would be surrounding the headquarters of United Health Group, Cigna and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

No, these people are not angry about policy. They believe their country is being taken away by a black man and a powerful woman. They’ve been fuming for many years as they’ve seen African, Asian and Latino immigrants arrive in large numbers. They’ve been told that their “values” and religions are under attack. They’ve been told that President Obama hates white people. They’re easily manipulated by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and organizations such as Fox News Network and Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. They’re encouraged by elected officials like Dick Cheney, Sen. DeMint, Rep. Boehner and Rep. Cantor. Worse yet, they’re given publicity and credibility by a media too lazy or afraid to expose them for what they really are.

Rewarding unreasonable behavior.

Posted on by

On the anniversary of 9/11, Republican spokesperson and renowned liar, Rush Limbaugh, chastised President Obama for trying to turn 9/11 into a day of public service.  Wow!  How dare the President want to commemorate the attacks on U.S. soil with something positive!  How dare the President try to encourage Americans to serve their nation! 

Certainly, the past President never encouraged public service and sacrifice.  In the wake of 9/11, Bush asked us to go shopping.  And while our young people were serving and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, he pushed for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  (I guess he believed that only the middle class and poor should sacrifice for their country.)  Bush refused to allow press coverage and photographs of the true cost of war.  Indeed, Republicans treated war much as the Wizard of Oz would.  “Pay no attention to what’s behind that curtain.”

But, in reality, Republican criticism has nothing to do with President Obama’s statements and actions.  He’ll be criticized by Republican pundits no matter what he says or does.   That’s not surprising.  After all, we’re talking about the same people who accused then-First Lady Hillary Clinton with murder relating to the so-called Travel-gate.  They’re the people who spent $60 million of taxpayers’ money to investigate Clinton’s investment loss in Whitewater.  They’re the same people who called Democrats “whack jobs” and “conspiracy nuts” for crying foul over the 2000 Florida election.   (Never mind the findings of an independent group of journalists who stated, “It’s clear that a significant majority of Floridians intended to vote for Al Gore.”)  And these are the same people who attacked the patriotism of a Vietnam War hero while supporting a candidate who got his powerful daddy to help him avoid the draft by getting him into the Air National Guard. 

Republicans are good at attacking.  In fact, they’re great at it.  Many of today’s Republican strategists learned at the knee of the masters; Tricky Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew.  Republican attacks and tricks should not come as a surprise to anyone – least of all Democrats.

What is surprising is that Democrats continue to try to reason with them.  And, by doing so, they continue to encourage their bad behavior.  It’s astounding that Representative Joe Wilson can bellow “You lie” to President Obama in an address to a joint session of Congress.  It’s even more astounding that Democratic Senators reword the health care reform bill because of Wilson’s outburst.  (Despite the fact that the bill already clearly stated that health care coverage will be denied to illegal aliens, the wording was strengthened in response to Wilson.) 

The message to Republican extremists is that their extreme accusations and tactics work. 

So Republicans and their media supporters will continue to scare citizens with fabricated issues like “Death Panels”.  They’ll continue to raise fears that a Presidential speech to school children is an attempt to indoctrinate them.  And they’ll continue to compare a centrist African-American President who continues to search for bipartisanship to Adolph Hitler.  (How can anyone actually believe this stuff?) 

Someone once said, “You can’t reason with unreasonable people.”  Yet Democrats continue to try to reason with Republicans.  Why? 

The revealing nature of Republican attacks.

Posted on by

Following Representative Wilson’s outburst during the President’s address before a joint session of Congress, I believe we have to ask ourselves some questions:  Is it a coincidence that the first such outburst was aimed at our first African-American President?  Is it a coincidence that the outburst came from a Congressman from South Carolina?  Is it coincidence that this is the first President accused of being born in another country despite indisputable evidence to the contrary?  Is it coincidence that this President is accused of creating death panels for senior citizens despite the facts?  Is it coincidence that this President is accused of trying to “indoctrinate our children” by merely encouraging them to work hard?  And is it coincidence that the number of death threats against our President has increased dramatically?

The conclusion is inescapable.  The attacks against President Obama represent more than a mere difference of opinion or ideology. 

From the moment he was sworn in, President Obama has been faced with an unprecedented combination of crises – a floundering economy, a failed financial system, a collapsed auto industry, millions of foreclosed homes, out of control health care costs, skyrocketing deficits and two wars.  These weren’t crises of his own making.  These were crises created under the previous administration.  Yet rather than rallying behind the President in the face of these crises as Democrats rallied behind Bush after 9/11, the Republicans have done everything possible to undermine Obama’s attempts to right our ship of state.   

Granted the attacks against President Obama are coming from a small, angry minority in Southern states.  (Okay, okay, I know I just described the Republican Party.)  But, in my lifetime, no President has faced such venomous and personal attacks.  Not Richard Nixon following the cover-up of the Watergate burglary.  Not Ronald Reagan following the cover-up of the sale of weapons to Iran.  Not George W. Bush following the lies that led to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. 

Perhaps the real lesson of a Republican shouting “You lie!” at President Obama in the House chamber is this:  Pathological liars often assume everyone else is like them. 

What would Jesus do? If Jesus were a fascist.

Posted on by

Lately, I’ve been reading The Family – The secret fundamentalism at the heart of American power by Jeff Sharlet.  If you haven’t read the book, I highly recommend it.  It’s a fascinating read.  Yet Mr. Sharlet’s excellent account of the growth of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. is utterly frightening. 

It’s not that I fear Christians.  But I do fear this particular brand of Christianity.

You see, Sharlet’s account of the fundamentalism that took shape in the 30s and 40s and has been growing ever since is of a “Christianity” embraced by the rich and powerful.  It seems that these people worship Jesus, not for his teachings of love and compassion.  Instead, they appear to be attracted to Jesus because of the power and influence he wielded.  Followers of this perverse form of fundamentalism also are said to admire Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Pol Pot for the same reasons.  Never mind that they were dictatorial and murderous.  They knew how to influence others and get things done.

I’ve often found that many religious zealots are of the “ends justify the means” variety.  Too often, they believe that they can do anything they want as long as it’s in the name of God.  (Indeed, throughout the course of my career I’ve found that they are the most likely default on their bills.)  But the Family appears to take the concept a bit further.  It would seem that, for this “religion,” the ends are a world dominated by large corporations and the wealthy. 

It’s not surprising to learn that some well-known conservatives and religious leaders are affiliated with the group.  It is, however, more startling to learn that many current Senators, Congressmen, former administration officials and corporate CEOs are linked to the movement.  Two of the most notable members are Sen. John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford who have gained publicity for recent sex scandals.  Both have been residents of a Family owned home known as “C Street” that is tax-exempt since it is listed as a “church.”

If you have an interest in politics, or even in the future of our nation, I encourage you to read Jeff Sharlet’s account of this organization.  When you see the list of advocates for the Family, I think you’re likely to have the same reaction as I have.

Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

Suffering through the Bush administration was torture enough.

Posted on by

There’s a long-standing tradition in the U.S. surrounding a change in administration.  Typically, the former president simply fades away.  If he’s public service minded, he occupies his time with large scale charities (ala Jimmy Carter), relief efforts (ala George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton) and occasional foreign relations issues (ala Bill Clinton’s recent trip to N. Korea).  And with rare exceptions (Al Gore), the former vice-president simply fades into obscurity.  When’s the last time you heard anything about Dan Quayle?

How I wish that were the case with Richard (the Dick) Cheney!

Instead, the former vice-president and his daughter regularly deem it necessary to come out of their badger dens to eviscerate any who have dared to examine the former administration’s failings, of which there were many.

It’s bad enough to read accounts of Cheney’s torture programs from the past 8 years.  But it’s darn near unbearable to listen to Cheney’s tortured logic in his attempts to justify it.  Even if the program did yield information that couldn’t have been gathered any other way (and, despite Cheney’s insistence, it’s uncertain that it did), it was patently illegal and immoral for torture to have been authorized. 

However, the fact that Cheney would encourage and authorize such a program should have come as no surprise to anyone.  His hunting accident was indication enough of the Dick’s moral and ethical standards.  I’m not referring to the fact that he mistook a friend’s face for a bird, or that he waited hours to inform authorities (probably until he sobered up).  What was most revealing about the incident was the reality that he was “hunting” for captive birds that had been raised to become fodder for fat cats too lazy and too impatient to hunt in the wild.  Indeed, the game farm had provided Cheney and his friend with a “menu” of available birds, along with a hunting dog to flush them out of the areas where game farm employees “hid” them moments earlier.

How on Earth can it be considered “sport” to kill creatures in such circumstances?  That’s no more hunting than ordering chicken from the menu in a restaurant.  And it’s an indication of someone almost totally devoid of character.

I believe that Attorney General Holder was correct to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Dick’s torture program.  But I think the investigation is much too limited in scope.  In my opinion, President Obama should live up to his campaign pledge that he will ask his Attorney General to examine the legality of every Bush administration directive.  And, if I were president, I would subject Cheney to the same interrogation methods he so gleefully defends.

But since I’m not president, all I can hope for is that the Dick and Liz will decide to go hunting together.   May the best shot win.

Our government is not the enemy.

Posted on by

President Ronald Reagan is famous for saying, “Government isn’t the solution to our problem.  Government is the problem.”  The quote eloquently expressed his contempt for government.   An opinion I don’t share.

I have difficulty believing that my high school classmate who served as a Postman is an enemy.  I’m not frightened of another classmate who served as an engineer for the Navy.  And I certainly don’t view my Marine nephew who served in Iraq as an enemy. 

The government is comprised of many hard-working, well-intentioned people who provide valuable services to the rest of us.  Without the government, we would have no military, Coast Guard, police, fire fighters, park rangers, air controllers, customs officials, border patrol, immigration officials, highway engineers, sanitation workers and postal workers.  There would be no FDA, EPA, FEMA, FDIC or CDC.  No NASA.  No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and VA services.  Without government subsidies, many family farmers could not make a living.  And most academic and research institutions would be unable to explore the limits of science and medicine.   

All of this is not to say that government agencies wouldn’t benefit from some reform and restructuring.  But vilifying them is disingenuous at best.  In general, government fulfills all of the tasks that are too important, too difficult or too unprofitable for private enterprise.  

Health insurance is a good case in point.

According to most estimates there are nearly 47 million uninsured in the U.S. and many millions more who are under-insured.  Why?  They either can’t afford health insurance, or they are not viewed as profitable enough for insurance companies.  Sounds like a perfect situation for a government-run health insurance option, doesn’t it? 

Not according to Republicans and their media mouthpieces.  To them, that would be Socialism, indeed Nazism.  It has also been said that a public option would represent unfair competition for privately run insurance companies.  Seriously?  To me, it sounds more like helping those who are falling through the cracks of our current system. 

But don’t count on logic permeating the thick skulls of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.  And don’t count on Republicans stooping to something as unsavory as bipartisanship.  Look no further than recent statements made by two Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee who are alleged to be negotiating on health care reform.  Despite polls that show a significant majority of Americans want health care reform, including a public option, Senator Grassley stated that he won’t vote for any bill he negotiates unless he’s certain that a significant number of Republican Senators vote for it.  And Senator Enzi stated that he’s only continuing to negotiate with Democrats on the committee in order to delay and kill the legislation.

In other words, if there is to be any reasonable health care reform, Democrats are going to have to pass it by themselves.

It makes one wonder, if Republicans believe our government is so bad, why didn’t they simply abolish the abhorrent programs and departments when they had control of the Presidency and Congress?  And why did George W. Bush preside over history’s largest increase in the size of government during his administration? 

The next time you hear conservatives bash our government, remember this:  Our government was created of the people, by the people and for the people.  It is what we’ve created through our votes.  All the disciples of that slick-talking former actor can’t change that.