Posts
Representative Fudge To Vote Yes On Health Reform
By: Dave Harding, ProgressOhio
Posted Mar 20, 12:19 PM
Comments (0)
Posts in the category Opinion
Published on Friday, March 19, 2010 by Creators Syndicate
What's the Matter with Demorcrats?
by David Sirota
Ever since Thomas Frank published his book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Democrats have sought a political strategy to match the GOP's. The health care bill proves they've found one.
Whereas Frank highlighted Republicans' sleight-of-hand success portraying millionaire tax cuts as gifts to the working class, Democrats are now preposterously selling giveaways to insurance and pharmaceutical executives as a middle-class agenda. Same formula, same fat cat beneficiaries, same bleating sheeple herded to the slaughterhouse. The only difference is the Rube Goldberg contraption that Democrats are using to tend the flock.
First, their leaders campaign on pledges to create a government insurer (a "public option") that will compete with private health corporations. Once elected, though, Democrats propose simply subsidizing those corporations, which are (not coincidentally) filling Democratic coffers. Justifying the reversal, Democrats claim the subsidies will at least help some citizens try to afford the private insurance they'll be forced to buy - all while insisting Congress suddenly lacks the votes for a public option.
Despite lawmakers' refusal to hold votes verifying that assertion, liberal groups obediently follow orders to back the bill, their obsequious leaders fearing scorn from Democratic insiders and moneymen. Specifically, MoveOn, unions and "progressive" non-profits threaten retribution against lawmakers who consider voting against the bill because it doesn't include a public option. The threats fly even though these congresspeople would be respecting their previous public-option ultimatums - ultimatums originally supported by many of the same groups now demanding retreat.
rest here:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/19-5
What's the Matter with Demorcrats?
by David Sirota
Ever since Thomas Frank published his book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Democrats have sought a political strategy to match the GOP's. The health care bill proves they've found one.
Whereas Frank highlighted Republicans' sleight-of-hand success portraying millionaire tax cuts as gifts to the working class, Democrats are now preposterously selling giveaways to insurance and pharmaceutical executives as a middle-class agenda. Same formula, same fat cat beneficiaries, same bleating sheeple herded to the slaughterhouse. The only difference is the Rube Goldberg contraption that Democrats are using to tend the flock.
First, their leaders campaign on pledges to create a government insurer (a "public option") that will compete with private health corporations. Once elected, though, Democrats propose simply subsidizing those corporations, which are (not coincidentally) filling Democratic coffers. Justifying the reversal, Democrats claim the subsidies will at least help some citizens try to afford the private insurance they'll be forced to buy - all while insisting Congress suddenly lacks the votes for a public option.
Despite lawmakers' refusal to hold votes verifying that assertion, liberal groups obediently follow orders to back the bill, their obsequious leaders fearing scorn from Democratic insiders and moneymen. Specifically, MoveOn, unions and "progressive" non-profits threaten retribution against lawmakers who consider voting against the bill because it doesn't include a public option. The threats fly even though these congresspeople would be respecting their previous public-option ultimatums - ultimatums originally supported by many of the same groups now demanding retreat.
rest here:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/19-5
Ted Strickland made his 4th campaign appearance in Youngstown yesterday in as many weeks.
Only problem is, Ted probably has only visited Youngstown 4 times in his first three years of office.
Why the sudden about face? Could it be Mr. Strickland knows he is trailing in the polls and needs 80% of the vote in Mahoning County to win in 2010? It's beginning to look that way.
Strickland rarely visited Youngstown before the campaign began, but now is like the prodical son who returns usually when somebody else brings jobs to the valley: He showed ud for the V&M steel deal and the GM announcement, although Ted's part in bringing those jobs to the valley can't be quite understood.
Youngstown residents should capture a picture of Ted whenever he is in town, because he won't show up after November 2nd, 2010....Ted's only a pre-election visitor, Youngstown.....not after!
Dennis Spisak-Green Party Candidate for Governor
Vote in the Green Party Primary on May 4th!
Http://www.votespisak.org/goveernor/
Http://www.dennisspisak.com
for more info, contact 330-503-1407.
Only problem is, Ted probably has only visited Youngstown 4 times in his first three years of office.
Why the sudden about face? Could it be Mr. Strickland knows he is trailing in the polls and needs 80% of the vote in Mahoning County to win in 2010? It's beginning to look that way.
Strickland rarely visited Youngstown before the campaign began, but now is like the prodical son who returns usually when somebody else brings jobs to the valley: He showed ud for the V&M steel deal and the GM announcement, although Ted's part in bringing those jobs to the valley can't be quite understood.
Youngstown residents should capture a picture of Ted whenever he is in town, because he won't show up after November 2nd, 2010....Ted's only a pre-election visitor, Youngstown.....not after!
Dennis Spisak-Green Party Candidate for Governor
Vote in the Green Party Primary on May 4th!
Http://www.votespisak.org/goveernor/
Http://www.dennisspisak.com
for more info, contact 330-503-1407.
Two pieces in the last couple of days have highlighted the campaign contributions from payday lenders' that appear to have helped the industry carve out an exemption for themselves in financial reform legislation being negotiated in the United States Senate. In an article in the New York Times on Tuesday, March 9th, it would appear that Senator Bob Corker (despite assertions to the contrary) is being heavily influenced in his thinking by payday lenders in his home state of Tennessee.
From the Times:
"The Senate Banking Committee’s chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, proposed legislation in November that would give a new consumer protection agency the power to write and enforce rules governing payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial companies that are not part of banks."
"Late last month, Mr. Corker pressed Mr. Dodd to scale back substantially the power that the consumer protection agency would have over such companies, according to three people involved in the talks."
So, why might Senator Corker be pressing to scale back the CFPA's power over non-bank financial institutions? In all likelihood it's because Cleveland, Tennessee is home to Check into Cash, one of the nation's largest predatory payday lenders and long-time contributor to Senator Corker's political campaigns.
"Mr. Jones, his relatives and his employees have given money to Mr. Dodd, Mr. Shelby and other members of the Banking Committee, but have been particularly active donors to Mr. Corker, records show. They have contributed at least $31,000 to his campaigns since 2001, when he was running for mayor of Chattanooga."
"In 1999, Mr. Jones and other payday lenders started the Community Financial Services Association to lobby against regulation. The group’s political action committee gave $1,000 to Mr. Corker last year."
It's unfortunate that just one Senator on the Senate Banking Committee is able to wield such power in favor of moneyed interests in his backyard. Predatory payday lenders are capitalizing on the financial crisis in which we find ourselves, bilking hard working low-income Ohioans out of millions upon millions of dollars. It would be a shame for our lawmakers to pass up an opportunity to regulate those industries that have played a role in bringing our nation's economy to it's knees. Especially for $31,000 in campaign cash...
You can read the entire New York Times piece here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/business/10regulate.html?dbk
From the Times:
"The Senate Banking Committee’s chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, proposed legislation in November that would give a new consumer protection agency the power to write and enforce rules governing payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial companies that are not part of banks."
"Late last month, Mr. Corker pressed Mr. Dodd to scale back substantially the power that the consumer protection agency would have over such companies, according to three people involved in the talks."
So, why might Senator Corker be pressing to scale back the CFPA's power over non-bank financial institutions? In all likelihood it's because Cleveland, Tennessee is home to Check into Cash, one of the nation's largest predatory payday lenders and long-time contributor to Senator Corker's political campaigns.
"Mr. Jones, his relatives and his employees have given money to Mr. Dodd, Mr. Shelby and other members of the Banking Committee, but have been particularly active donors to Mr. Corker, records show. They have contributed at least $31,000 to his campaigns since 2001, when he was running for mayor of Chattanooga."
"In 1999, Mr. Jones and other payday lenders started the Community Financial Services Association to lobby against regulation. The group’s political action committee gave $1,000 to Mr. Corker last year."
It's unfortunate that just one Senator on the Senate Banking Committee is able to wield such power in favor of moneyed interests in his backyard. Predatory payday lenders are capitalizing on the financial crisis in which we find ourselves, bilking hard working low-income Ohioans out of millions upon millions of dollars. It would be a shame for our lawmakers to pass up an opportunity to regulate those industries that have played a role in bringing our nation's economy to it's knees. Especially for $31,000 in campaign cash...
You can read the entire New York Times piece here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/business/10regulate.html?dbk
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair this week suggested that our nation's tax deduction for mortgage interest was one of the many causes of the financial crisis.
Chairman Bair is quoted in an online Fox Business piece this week saying that the deduction may have contributed to the housing bubble by encouraging consumption, fueling speculation and enhancing the drive for short-term profits.
“This crisis is the culmination of a decades-long process where national policies have skewed economic activity, away from savings and toward consumption, away from investment in our industrial base and public infrastructure and toward housing, and away from the real sectors of our economy and toward the financial sector,” Bair told the National Association for Business Economics on the opening day of its two-day policy conference. “Examples of these policies include federal tax and credit subsidies for housing, a tax code that can unduly favor short-term profit, and implied government backstops for financial firms that have now, in many cases, been made explicit.”
This, I think, is a good first step towards having a serious discussion about our federal housing policy. In addition to promoting home ownership over rental housing, the mortgage interest tax deduction unfortunately disproportionately rewards the wealthy and encourages the purchase of larger and larger and more expensive homes. This undoubtedly contributed to the housing bubble we experienced over the last decade.
Bair goes on to say that financial reform must deal with systemic risk, lax regulation and enhance the government's role in protecting consumers from risky and predatory products:
"She said the government should “re-establish the central role of consumer protection in financial services,” adding, “there is ample evidence that consumers did not understand the consequences of the subprime and nontraditional mortgages that were sold to them.""
"Those protections, she said “help markets function better by reducing information gaps between lenders and borrowers.”
One cause of the mortgage and housing meltdown, she suggested, was “lightly regulated companies at the periphery of our regulated financial system…pushing complex and risky mortgage products that consumers really do not understand ... exploiting this information gap at the expense of companies who wish to do legitimate business in more suitable financial products.""
Bair, a Republican and Bush appointee to the FDIC, makes a strong case that we must incorporate consumer protection and regulation of banks and non-bank financial institutions into whatever passes for financial reform in Congress.
To read the entire Fox Business piece, visit: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/fdic-chairman-questions-mortgage-tax-deduction/
Chairman Bair is quoted in an online Fox Business piece this week saying that the deduction may have contributed to the housing bubble by encouraging consumption, fueling speculation and enhancing the drive for short-term profits.
“This crisis is the culmination of a decades-long process where national policies have skewed economic activity, away from savings and toward consumption, away from investment in our industrial base and public infrastructure and toward housing, and away from the real sectors of our economy and toward the financial sector,” Bair told the National Association for Business Economics on the opening day of its two-day policy conference. “Examples of these policies include federal tax and credit subsidies for housing, a tax code that can unduly favor short-term profit, and implied government backstops for financial firms that have now, in many cases, been made explicit.”
This, I think, is a good first step towards having a serious discussion about our federal housing policy. In addition to promoting home ownership over rental housing, the mortgage interest tax deduction unfortunately disproportionately rewards the wealthy and encourages the purchase of larger and larger and more expensive homes. This undoubtedly contributed to the housing bubble we experienced over the last decade.
Bair goes on to say that financial reform must deal with systemic risk, lax regulation and enhance the government's role in protecting consumers from risky and predatory products:
"She said the government should “re-establish the central role of consumer protection in financial services,” adding, “there is ample evidence that consumers did not understand the consequences of the subprime and nontraditional mortgages that were sold to them.""
"Those protections, she said “help markets function better by reducing information gaps between lenders and borrowers.”
One cause of the mortgage and housing meltdown, she suggested, was “lightly regulated companies at the periphery of our regulated financial system…pushing complex and risky mortgage products that consumers really do not understand ... exploiting this information gap at the expense of companies who wish to do legitimate business in more suitable financial products.""
Bair, a Republican and Bush appointee to the FDIC, makes a strong case that we must incorporate consumer protection and regulation of banks and non-bank financial institutions into whatever passes for financial reform in Congress.
To read the entire Fox Business piece, visit: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/fdic-chairman-questions-mortgage-tax-deduction/
President Barack Obama made it very clear at the health care summit last Thursday that while he was open to ideas from every quarter, he was not willing to compromise away comprehensive health care reform where extending coverage and serious health insurance market reform are pursued at the same time. Baby steps, as he pointed out, just won’t do. He also pointed out that most of the components of comprehensive health care reform are popular with the public, suggesting that the bills in Congress would fare better if the public actually knew what was in them. Predictably, this claim was greeted with derision by conservatives.
But it turns out the president’s claim is well founded. The latest evidence is in a recent Newsweek poll that first asked respondents whether they supported or opposed Obama’s health care reform plan, then gave them a list of key provisions in the plan, and then asked them again whether they supported Obama’s plan.
WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders and candidates said that many Tea Party activists might be in the wrong party and urged them to consider going Green.
"Not all Tea Party members are befuddled rightwingers screeching that President Obama is a socialist, fascist, pro-terrorist, or all of the above. Many Tea Partiers have legitimate concerns about how the Democratic Party's health care reform plans will reduce Medicare and about trillion-dollar taxpayer-funded giveaways to Wall Street firms. They are as outraged as Greens are about how both Democrats and Republicans are coddling CEOs, major stockholders, and other wealthy elites while preaching sacrifice for the rest of us," said Carl Romanelli, former Green candidate for the US Senate and a member of Health Care for All Pennsylvania (http://healthcare4allpa.org).
Greens said corporate royalists like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin who pose as populist leaders have hijacked the Tea Party movement.
"Republicans and rightwing ideologues in the media are thrilled with a Tea Party movement that will channel votes and money towards extremist GOP politicians. Their idea of the Tea Party has nothing to do with the 1773 Boston Tea Party. They prefer a movement full of people who would have denounced the original Boston Tea Party as leftist terrorism against the British East India Company. They would have criticized Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine for wanting to rein in what Jefferson called 'the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations.' * To these Tea Partiers, and to most Republican and Democratic politicians, restraints on corporate power are a symptom of 'big government.' Many of the Tea Partiers who vented their rage against health care reform at town hall meetings in 2009 were in effect defending the power of health insurance companies -- the modern equivalents of British tea companies -- to drive people who need medical care into financial ruin," said Rodger Jennings, Green candidate for Congress in Illinois, District 12 (http://www.rodgerjennings.org).
Green Party leaders noted that media coverage of health care reform gave a megaphone to the anti-reform Tea Partiers at town hall meetings, while mostly ignoring advocates of Medicare For All (Single-Payer national health care), including many Green Party members, who protested vociferously against the plans offered by President Obama and Democrats in Congress. Examples of such protests include Medicare For All activists disrupting Congressional hearings and burning insurance forms outside meetings of insurance company lobbyists.
Greens, like true fiscal conservatives, oppose subsidies for health insurance companies in the Democratic plans, including proposed 'mandates' that would require enrollment. The Green Party has warned that, whether Obamacare is enacted or Republicans succeed in blocking reform, the real winners will be the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and other industry lobbies.
Greens also compared the invasive homeland security measures favored by Republicans and Democrats to the bullying tactics of the British Army and requirement that colonists house British troops on demand.
"We need a Tea Party movement that opposes warrantless surveillance of American citizens, torture, invasion of other countries, and other violations of the US Constitution. We need a Tea Party that calls the 'general welfare of the people,' including the right to medical care, more important than the right of insurance and pharmaceutical companies to shake down patients and deny treatment. We need a Tea Party against predatory private prisons, the war on drugs, and mass incarceration of Americans. We need a Tea Party that defends future generations of Americans rather than corporate polluters," said Lynne Williams, Green-Independent candidate for Governor of Maine (http://www.lynnewilliams2010.org).
"We need a Tea Party that recognizes corporations as artificial entities created by government fiat, and that corporations must not enjoy the same free speech and other constitutional rights as humans. A real Tea Party movement would look like the Green Party," said Ms. Williams.
* "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816
MORE INFORMATION
Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
"Not all Tea Party members are befuddled rightwingers screeching that President Obama is a socialist, fascist, pro-terrorist, or all of the above. Many Tea Partiers have legitimate concerns about how the Democratic Party's health care reform plans will reduce Medicare and about trillion-dollar taxpayer-funded giveaways to Wall Street firms. They are as outraged as Greens are about how both Democrats and Republicans are coddling CEOs, major stockholders, and other wealthy elites while preaching sacrifice for the rest of us," said Carl Romanelli, former Green candidate for the US Senate and a member of Health Care for All Pennsylvania (http://healthcare4allpa.org).
Greens said corporate royalists like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin who pose as populist leaders have hijacked the Tea Party movement.
"Republicans and rightwing ideologues in the media are thrilled with a Tea Party movement that will channel votes and money towards extremist GOP politicians. Their idea of the Tea Party has nothing to do with the 1773 Boston Tea Party. They prefer a movement full of people who would have denounced the original Boston Tea Party as leftist terrorism against the British East India Company. They would have criticized Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine for wanting to rein in what Jefferson called 'the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations.' * To these Tea Partiers, and to most Republican and Democratic politicians, restraints on corporate power are a symptom of 'big government.' Many of the Tea Partiers who vented their rage against health care reform at town hall meetings in 2009 were in effect defending the power of health insurance companies -- the modern equivalents of British tea companies -- to drive people who need medical care into financial ruin," said Rodger Jennings, Green candidate for Congress in Illinois, District 12 (http://www.rodgerjennings.org).
Green Party leaders noted that media coverage of health care reform gave a megaphone to the anti-reform Tea Partiers at town hall meetings, while mostly ignoring advocates of Medicare For All (Single-Payer national health care), including many Green Party members, who protested vociferously against the plans offered by President Obama and Democrats in Congress. Examples of such protests include Medicare For All activists disrupting Congressional hearings and burning insurance forms outside meetings of insurance company lobbyists.
Greens, like true fiscal conservatives, oppose subsidies for health insurance companies in the Democratic plans, including proposed 'mandates' that would require enrollment. The Green Party has warned that, whether Obamacare is enacted or Republicans succeed in blocking reform, the real winners will be the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and other industry lobbies.
Greens also compared the invasive homeland security measures favored by Republicans and Democrats to the bullying tactics of the British Army and requirement that colonists house British troops on demand.
"We need a Tea Party movement that opposes warrantless surveillance of American citizens, torture, invasion of other countries, and other violations of the US Constitution. We need a Tea Party that calls the 'general welfare of the people,' including the right to medical care, more important than the right of insurance and pharmaceutical companies to shake down patients and deny treatment. We need a Tea Party against predatory private prisons, the war on drugs, and mass incarceration of Americans. We need a Tea Party that defends future generations of Americans rather than corporate polluters," said Lynne Williams, Green-Independent candidate for Governor of Maine (http://www.lynnewilliams2010.org).
"We need a Tea Party that recognizes corporations as artificial entities created by government fiat, and that corporations must not enjoy the same free speech and other constitutional rights as humans. A real Tea Party movement would look like the Green Party," said Ms. Williams.
* "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816
MORE INFORMATION
Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Don't Mourn, Go Green
By DON SANTINA
For quite awhile now, the political streams have been flooded with the ever increasing wail of the progressive Democrats. The weeping and gnashing of teeth by peace and justice groups, unions, focus groups, Democratic Party blogs and liberal/left journals has become deafening: What happened, why didn't we get what we voted for on November 4, 2008?
These progressive Democrats organized, campaigned and voted for a progressive agenda and go--drum roll--nothing. That's right, nothing. For the past year, their party has controlled both houses of Congess and the presidency. For three years, their party has enjoyed majority power in the House. What the progressive Democrats got out of all that: absolutely nothing.
They voted for peace, and they got war--expanded into Pakistan and Yemen with escalation in Afghanistan and continuing occupation in Iraq. They voted for health care reform, and they got Big Pharma's Frankenstein. They voted for reining in Wall Street, and the got multiple bailouts and fat bonuses on Wall Street and ever increasing foreclosures and evictions on Main Street and Back Street. They voted for jobs, and they got spiraling unemployment. Bring back Habeas Corpus? Nah. Close Guantanamo? Nix. Stop torture? Nein. Fair union organizing in the work place? Tax breaks for he rest of us? Mortgage relief? You gotta be kidding.
In all their caterwauling about this deteriorating situation, do the progressive Democrats have any suggestions for turning these policies 180 degrees around? Yes, they do! Send an email. Sign an online petition. Write a letter to your representative in Congress. Tell your neighbors how unhappy you are. Wow, with this kind of muscle, the new dawn will soon be breaking!
One progressive pundit even offered up "don't mourn, organize," the immortal words of the IWW martyr, Joe Hill. The problem with that suggeston is that
most of us have neither the time nor the skills to organize anything much past our own personal lives.
The real problem is--and always will be--that the Democrats In Charge (DIC) of the Democratic Party (the Clinton wing and its corporate backers) don't give a damn about the opinions or values of the progressive Democrats because the rightwing DIC knows that the progressive Democrats will always vote for them, regardless of the actual DIC policies. Come election time, the DIC publicity apparatus will trot out all that scary stuff about the Republicans again, and the progressives will line up like bobbleheads on a dashboard and cast delusionary votes for the same people who gave us NAFTA and the WTO, took away welfare for the poor, dismantled Glass Stegall and equal time in broadcasting, expanded the prison system, and conducted the horific sanctions on Iraq.
Why don't the progressive Democrats take a page from Joe Lieberman's play book? Lieberman went Independent, and the Democrats In Charge attached their collective proboscis to his corporate posterior. What do you think would happen if Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Marcy Kaptur, Lynn Woolsey and the rest of the so-called progressive caucus announced themselves as independents? Would they get the same slavish attention from the DIC that the far right Blue Dogs get? What if Senator Durbin, who grumbled "the banks own this place," had the guts to declare himself independent of his bank-owned party? Do you think that the Clinton/Pelosi/Reid axis and its cronies would be compelled to put Single Payer and multiple other issues "on the table" if they had to negotiate with a sizeable bloc of independent progressives?
On the rank and file level, what if all the progressive Democat voters registered Green Pary tomorrow? Think they'd get the DIC's attention?
First of all, the Green party authentically represents the values the progrssive Democrats ostensibly espouse--peace, justice, small d democracy--so it's not as if these stranded Democrats would have some kind of political heart attack over changing registration. After all, their party is the historic party of segregation, and Franklin D Roosevelt couldn't even get an anti-lynching law passed by his Democratic Congress. Seventy years later, this same party continues to approve the over-bloated imperial war budget at the expense of critical assistance to economically destroyed non-white cities like New Orleans and Detroit. Also, for all the recent Democratic Party moaning about the Supreme Court decision to legally install the corporate state, let's not forget that 22 of their senators voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts.
And for those Democrats who resentfully cling to the fiction that Green Party presidential candidate Ralp Nader somehow cost Al Gore the 2000 election in Florida, they should ask the man who invented the Internet why he conceded so quickly in the face of an orchestrated voter fraud of massive proportion which involved the systematic disenfranchisement of the black vote in that state. They should also revisit that historic post-election moment in the Senate when not one Democratic senator--including the revered Paul Wellstone--was willing to provide the single necessary cosponsoring vote in support of the House members' objection to Florida's tainted electoral votes. Not one.
The moment of truth has arrived for those registered Democrats who consider themselves progressives to be part of the problem or part of the solution. It's called "fish or cut bait." Surely these Democrats realize by now that--whatever they thought they were voting for on November 4, 2008--what they got was Bill Clinton's third term.
Don Santina is a cultural historian who received a Superior Scribing award for his Counterpunch article "Reparations for the Blues." He can be reached at lindey89@aol.com.
By DON SANTINA
For quite awhile now, the political streams have been flooded with the ever increasing wail of the progressive Democrats. The weeping and gnashing of teeth by peace and justice groups, unions, focus groups, Democratic Party blogs and liberal/left journals has become deafening: What happened, why didn't we get what we voted for on November 4, 2008?
These progressive Democrats organized, campaigned and voted for a progressive agenda and go--drum roll--nothing. That's right, nothing. For the past year, their party has controlled both houses of Congess and the presidency. For three years, their party has enjoyed majority power in the House. What the progressive Democrats got out of all that: absolutely nothing.
They voted for peace, and they got war--expanded into Pakistan and Yemen with escalation in Afghanistan and continuing occupation in Iraq. They voted for health care reform, and they got Big Pharma's Frankenstein. They voted for reining in Wall Street, and the got multiple bailouts and fat bonuses on Wall Street and ever increasing foreclosures and evictions on Main Street and Back Street. They voted for jobs, and they got spiraling unemployment. Bring back Habeas Corpus? Nah. Close Guantanamo? Nix. Stop torture? Nein. Fair union organizing in the work place? Tax breaks for he rest of us? Mortgage relief? You gotta be kidding.
In all their caterwauling about this deteriorating situation, do the progressive Democrats have any suggestions for turning these policies 180 degrees around? Yes, they do! Send an email. Sign an online petition. Write a letter to your representative in Congress. Tell your neighbors how unhappy you are. Wow, with this kind of muscle, the new dawn will soon be breaking!
One progressive pundit even offered up "don't mourn, organize," the immortal words of the IWW martyr, Joe Hill. The problem with that suggeston is that
most of us have neither the time nor the skills to organize anything much past our own personal lives.
The real problem is--and always will be--that the Democrats In Charge (DIC) of the Democratic Party (the Clinton wing and its corporate backers) don't give a damn about the opinions or values of the progressive Democrats because the rightwing DIC knows that the progressive Democrats will always vote for them, regardless of the actual DIC policies. Come election time, the DIC publicity apparatus will trot out all that scary stuff about the Republicans again, and the progressives will line up like bobbleheads on a dashboard and cast delusionary votes for the same people who gave us NAFTA and the WTO, took away welfare for the poor, dismantled Glass Stegall and equal time in broadcasting, expanded the prison system, and conducted the horific sanctions on Iraq.
Why don't the progressive Democrats take a page from Joe Lieberman's play book? Lieberman went Independent, and the Democrats In Charge attached their collective proboscis to his corporate posterior. What do you think would happen if Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Marcy Kaptur, Lynn Woolsey and the rest of the so-called progressive caucus announced themselves as independents? Would they get the same slavish attention from the DIC that the far right Blue Dogs get? What if Senator Durbin, who grumbled "the banks own this place," had the guts to declare himself independent of his bank-owned party? Do you think that the Clinton/Pelosi/Reid axis and its cronies would be compelled to put Single Payer and multiple other issues "on the table" if they had to negotiate with a sizeable bloc of independent progressives?
On the rank and file level, what if all the progressive Democat voters registered Green Pary tomorrow? Think they'd get the DIC's attention?
First of all, the Green party authentically represents the values the progrssive Democrats ostensibly espouse--peace, justice, small d democracy--so it's not as if these stranded Democrats would have some kind of political heart attack over changing registration. After all, their party is the historic party of segregation, and Franklin D Roosevelt couldn't even get an anti-lynching law passed by his Democratic Congress. Seventy years later, this same party continues to approve the over-bloated imperial war budget at the expense of critical assistance to economically destroyed non-white cities like New Orleans and Detroit. Also, for all the recent Democratic Party moaning about the Supreme Court decision to legally install the corporate state, let's not forget that 22 of their senators voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts.
And for those Democrats who resentfully cling to the fiction that Green Party presidential candidate Ralp Nader somehow cost Al Gore the 2000 election in Florida, they should ask the man who invented the Internet why he conceded so quickly in the face of an orchestrated voter fraud of massive proportion which involved the systematic disenfranchisement of the black vote in that state. They should also revisit that historic post-election moment in the Senate when not one Democratic senator--including the revered Paul Wellstone--was willing to provide the single necessary cosponsoring vote in support of the House members' objection to Florida's tainted electoral votes. Not one.
The moment of truth has arrived for those registered Democrats who consider themselves progressives to be part of the problem or part of the solution. It's called "fish or cut bait." Surely these Democrats realize by now that--whatever they thought they were voting for on November 4, 2008--what they got was Bill Clinton's third term.
Don Santina is a cultural historian who received a Superior Scribing award for his Counterpunch article "Reparations for the Blues." He can be reached at lindey89@aol.com.
Washington (CNN) - Two-thirds of Americans think that the Republicans in Congress are not doing enough to cooperate with President Barack Obama, according to a new national poll. But a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Wednesday morning, also indicates the public says that the Democrats should be the ones to take the first step toward bipartisan cooperation and they want the Democrats to give up more than the GOP to reach consensus.
Sixty-seven percent of people questioned in the poll say that the GOP is not doing enough to cooperate with the White House, up 6 points from last April. Americans appear split on whether the president is doing enough to reach out to the Republicans, with 52 percent saying Obama's not doing enough to cooperate with the GOP and 47 percent saying he is doing enough to reach across the political aisle. The 52 percent who say the president's not doing enough to encourage bipartisanship is up 16 points from last April.
"That's a big change from last spring, when Obama was still in the honeymoon phase of his first term," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Congressional Republicans were familiar to Americans, but Obama was new to them, so his early attempts to reach out to the GOP continued to resonate even after it became clear that bipartisanship was not within easy reach."
According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the government in this country is broken, but the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland leads Republican challenger John Kasich in the race to be Ohio's next governor, 44 - 39 percent, up from a 40 - 40 deadlock November 11, and has improved his standing slightly, but consistently, on a broad array of measures, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Strickland leads Kasich 48 - 33 percent among women while Kasich leads 45 - 38 percent among men. Kasich leads 73 - 11 percent among Republicans, while the Governor leads 82 - 9 percent among Democrats. Independent voters split 38 - 38 percent.
"There has been an improvement in voters' views of Gov. Ted Strickland," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "The movement is a few points, but it is consistent across a number of measures. Voters, however, remain negative on his handling of the state budget and the state economy.
"John Kasich remains unknown to most voters. The campaign will be a race by the candidates to define Kasich for the 62 percent of voters who don't know enough about him to have an opinion," Brown said. "Given that, the race's closeness may say much about Strickland. While the Governor's horserace numbers are good, he has a long way to go and what is keeping him ahead is his support among women."
Ohio voters approve 48 - 40 percent of the job Strickland is doing, up from a 45 - 43 percent split November 11. The Governor gets a 45 - 36 percent favorability rating, up from a 38 - 37 percent split in November.
For Kasich, 62 percent of voters do not know enough about him to form an opinion.
Voters disapprove 53 - 35 percent of the way Strickland is handling the economy, little changed from November, and say 45 - 34 percent that he has not kept his campaign promises.
Strickland also gets a negative 32 - 51 percent approval for handling the state budget, down from 36 - 47 percent in September.
Kasich would do a better job rebuilding the state's economy, voters say 41 - 35 percent, and do a better job handling the state budget, voters say 42 - 36 percent.
Voters split on which candidate is more likely to do in office what they promise during the campaign, with 35 percent naming Strickland and 36 percent choosing Kasich. Strickland most shares their values, voters say 40 - 36 percent.
Since it was shown on Sunday, an episode of the Fox animated comedy “Family Guy” has drawn the repeated condemnation of Sarah Palin, the former Republican governor of Alaska and 2008 vice-presidential nominee.
In the episode, the teenage character Chris dates a girl named Ellen, who has Down syndrome, and who tells him over dinner that her mother is “the former governor of Alaska.” Ms. Palin, whose son Trig also has Down syndrome, has said that the “Family Guy” show “really isn’t funny” and was the work of “cruel, cold-hearted people” and "a kick in the gut."
Ms. Palin’s daughter Bristol has written that the “Family Guy” writers were “mocking my brother and my family,” and called them “heartless jerks.”
Ms. Friedman Responds:
My name is Andrea Fay Friedman. I was born with Down syndrome. I played the role of Ellen on the "Extra Large Medium" episode of Family Guy that was broadcast on Valentine's day. Although they gave me red hair on the show, I am really a blonde. I also wore a red wig for my role in " Smudge" but I was a blonde in "Life Goes On". I guess former Governor Palin does not have a sense of humor. I thought the line "I am the daughter of the former governor of Alaska" was very funny. I think the word is "sarcasm".
In my family we think laughing is good. My parents raised me to have a sense of humor and to live a normal life. My mother did not carry me around under her arm like a loaf of French bread the way former Governor Palin carries her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes.
No one with a genuine understanding of Ohio taxation would make the kind of outlandish statements that the Tax Foundation recently circulated in a guest column to Ohio newspapers.
Take the group's claim that Ohio's economy could be improved by repealing taxes on "capital stock" and "intangible property."
That's preposterous. Here's the problem with that strategy: Ohio doesn't tax capital stock or intangible property, at least not in any meaningful way.
For example, those supposed taxes on intangible property? They were repealed almost 25 years ago.
I should know. I was there when it happened, serving as deputy tax commissioner for policy at the Ohio Department of Taxation.
In other words, the Tax Foundation's recipe for improving Ohio's economy appears to include repealing business taxes that exist primarily in the Tax Foundation's imagination.
What next? Will they demand a repeal of taxes on pixie dust and unicorns, too?
Part of the problem facing professional naysayers such as the Tax Foundation might be that they are running out of real, actual business taxes in Ohio to criticize.
Under the leadership of Gov.Ted Strickland, Ohio almost has completed a groundbreaking five-year package of tax reforms launched by the Ohio General Assembly and former governor Bob Taft in 2005. Collectively, these changes have eliminated Ohio's two largest business taxes. Overall, they represent the largest reduction in state taxes in at least 70 years.
The changes include:
- A 17 percent reduction in individual income tax rates. A family of four that earns $60,000 will save about $350 this year alone. Another income tax cut is scheduled for 2011.
- Elimination of Ohio's century-old corporation franchise tax on net profits or net worth. This is the "capital stock" tax the Tax Foundation professes to oppose. For nearly all corporations, it's a thing of the past. The last payments were due last year.
- Elimination of personal property taxes on business machinery and equipment -- taxes that dated back to well before the Civil War.
- A new commercial activity tax (CAT) that imposes less than half the burden of the two major business taxes it replaced.
Ohio's individual income tax rates are now lower than they have been since 1981, and Ohio is now just one of two states that taxes neither business personal property nor corporation profits. These are significant competitive advantages for Ohio. And the savings for taxpayers is very real: about $2.1 billion this year alone.
Even before this program of tax reforms and reductions began, Ohio's state government taxes were lower than average. Since then, these reforms have reduced Ohio's taxes from 96 percent of the average of all states to just 89 percent.
The truth is, Ohio is not the high tax state some people want to make it out to be.
Richard A. Levin is the Ohio tax commissioner.
As Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), has done little in the way of actual leadership. He has, however, given in to Republican demands without so much as a whimper...all for the sake of the snipe hunt that has become the search for "bi-partisanship" in Washington.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McLipless...er...McConnell (R-KY) made it abundantly clear from the outset of the Obama administration that the GOP was going to become the party of "NO!", which they have done. Majority Leader Reid shares no small part of the blame for this as his apparent timidity has failed to keep both the Blue-Dogs in line and make it clear to the GOP minority that they are, indeed, THE MINORITY PARTY.
It is time for Senator Reid to step down and allow another to take the reins of leadership in the Senate. Russ Feingold springs to mind as does Al Franken or our own Sherrod Brown.
Senator Reid, through his actions or, more appropriately, his inaction, threatens the very future of the Obama administration and the possibility of passing ANY progressive legislation to roll back the damage done during the eight years of the Bush administration.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McLipless...er...McConnell (R-KY) made it abundantly clear from the outset of the Obama administration that the GOP was going to become the party of "NO!", which they have done. Majority Leader Reid shares no small part of the blame for this as his apparent timidity has failed to keep both the Blue-Dogs in line and make it clear to the GOP minority that they are, indeed, THE MINORITY PARTY.
It is time for Senator Reid to step down and allow another to take the reins of leadership in the Senate. Russ Feingold springs to mind as does Al Franken or our own Sherrod Brown.
Senator Reid, through his actions or, more appropriately, his inaction, threatens the very future of the Obama administration and the possibility of passing ANY progressive legislation to roll back the damage done during the eight years of the Bush administration.
Sarah Palin has upped her national profile in recent weeks, but a new poll shows that the extra attention hasn't done her any favors. In the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, the amount of people with a favorable view of Palin has dropped to its lowest point ever recorded by the pollster.
More than 70% of respondents said she's not qualified to be president.
Palin's numbers don't improve much when just Republicans are asked to give their opinion of her, the poll found.
Even former Vice President Dick Cheney took issue yesterday on ABC with her recent suggestion that President Obama could win re-election by starting a war with Iran.
Watch It:
During the same Sunday show appearance Cheny also declined to endorse the former Alaska governor's potential 2012 presidential bid, saying that he has not yet decided on a candidate to support.
Cheney did not say whether he thinks Palin is capable or qualified of being president so she still might get his vote in 2012.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Perceptions of U.S. leadership worldwide improved significantly from 2008 to 2009. The U.S.-Global Leadership Project, a partnership between the Meridian International Center and Gallup, finds that a median of 51% of the world approves of the job performance of the current leadership of the U.S., up from a median of 34% in 2008.
Stephen Colbert takes Palin to task for her pusillanimous defense of Rush Limbaugh.
Watch IT:
In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
Brennan writes that, "Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill."
In the oped, titled "'We need no lectures': Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad," Brennan writes that politics "should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe."
Brennan provides a detailed defense of the administration's handling of failed Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab whom, he says, was "thoroughly interrogated and provided important information."
He suggests that many critics are hypocritical and clueless.
John Brennan is Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism:
Opposing view: 'We need no lectures'
Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad.Politics should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe.
Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information. Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.
The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general. The critics who want the FBI to ignore this long-established practice also ignore the lessons we have learned in waging this war: Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation.
It's naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical.
Would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then.
See Also: John Brennan: All Former Detainees Who Returned to Terrorism Were Released By Bush
Contact the Franklin County Commissioners if you share some of my concerns:
Commissioner John O'Grady
614.462.5589
skkeels(ATSIGN)franklincountyohio.gov
Commissioner Paula Brooks
614.462.5729
wesecres(ATSIGN)franklincountyohio.gov
Commissioner Marilyn Brown
614-462-3461
ljstehle(ATSIGN)franklincountyohio.gov
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/05/Blue_Jackets.ART_ART_02-05-10_A1_9TGGN10.html
I have many questions and concerns regarding the Dispatch's coverage of proposals to bailout Nationwide Arena and the Columbus Blue Jackets:
1. What percentage of Franklin County residents attend Blue Jacket games? Why should the rest of us subsidize the leisure activities of an affluent few?
2. Nationwide chose to build a 20,000 seat arena 3 miles away from another 20,000 seat arena. Shouldn't the free market be allowed to work? Why should the business plans of Nationwide and the Blue Jackets be rescued at a time that so many other businesses are struggling?
3. Several Recreation Centers in Columbus have been closed. Federal, state and local governments are cutting programs and enacting spending freezes. Unemployment is high and wages are declining. What a time for a hockey bailout.
4. Many economic studies show that professional sports do little for a local economy and that money spent for pro sports would instead be spent to go bowling or going to the movies. Why should the government pick winners and losers in the economy?
5. Forward Together seems like an astro-turf organization rather than grass-roots. The red sign in the photo does not look home made. Anyone can start a group and say we'll meet at a bar and claim that everyone there is part of my organization. I've been part of many grassroots organizations that never get coverage in the Dispatch. CEOs should be made front and center in the bailout campaign not hockey fans hanging out in a bar. psst...if the Blue Jackets had so many fans they wouldn't need a bailout.
6. There are more than a dozen NHL teams in deep financial trouble. The NHL over- expanded. Shouldn't NHL owners offer players $250,000/year contracts rather than multi-million dollar salaries?
7. What's the difference between the tactics of a hostage taker and the tactics of CBJ/Nationwide? Our community seems to being told, "Give us taxpayer money or else we'll ruin the Arena District." It's just like the Wall Street Bank bailout all over again.
8. Proposals to reform healthcare/health insurance get reported in the Dispatch with opponents claiming that it's "socialism" or "communism." (Isn't all insurance socialist?) Beyond the naked self-interest of business holdings of the Wolfe family, why should a hockey bailout get framed so positively? (The Wolfe Family owns the Dispatch and partly owns Nationwide Arena and the Columbus Blue Jackets).
Commissioner John O'Grady
614.462.5589
skkeels(ATSIGN)franklincountyohio.gov
Commissioner Paula Brooks
614.462.5729
wesecres(ATSIGN)franklincountyohio.gov
Commissioner Marilyn Brown
614-462-3461
ljstehle(ATSIGN)franklincountyohio.gov
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/05/Blue_Jackets.ART_ART_02-05-10_A1_9TGGN10.html
I have many questions and concerns regarding the Dispatch's coverage of proposals to bailout Nationwide Arena and the Columbus Blue Jackets:
1. What percentage of Franklin County residents attend Blue Jacket games? Why should the rest of us subsidize the leisure activities of an affluent few?
2. Nationwide chose to build a 20,000 seat arena 3 miles away from another 20,000 seat arena. Shouldn't the free market be allowed to work? Why should the business plans of Nationwide and the Blue Jackets be rescued at a time that so many other businesses are struggling?
3. Several Recreation Centers in Columbus have been closed. Federal, state and local governments are cutting programs and enacting spending freezes. Unemployment is high and wages are declining. What a time for a hockey bailout.
4. Many economic studies show that professional sports do little for a local economy and that money spent for pro sports would instead be spent to go bowling or going to the movies. Why should the government pick winners and losers in the economy?
5. Forward Together seems like an astro-turf organization rather than grass-roots. The red sign in the photo does not look home made. Anyone can start a group and say we'll meet at a bar and claim that everyone there is part of my organization. I've been part of many grassroots organizations that never get coverage in the Dispatch. CEOs should be made front and center in the bailout campaign not hockey fans hanging out in a bar. psst...if the Blue Jackets had so many fans they wouldn't need a bailout.
6. There are more than a dozen NHL teams in deep financial trouble. The NHL over- expanded. Shouldn't NHL owners offer players $250,000/year contracts rather than multi-million dollar salaries?
7. What's the difference between the tactics of a hostage taker and the tactics of CBJ/Nationwide? Our community seems to being told, "Give us taxpayer money or else we'll ruin the Arena District." It's just like the Wall Street Bank bailout all over again.
8. Proposals to reform healthcare/health insurance get reported in the Dispatch with opponents claiming that it's "socialism" or "communism." (Isn't all insurance socialist?) Beyond the naked self-interest of business holdings of the Wolfe family, why should a hockey bailout get framed so positively? (The Wolfe Family owns the Dispatch and partly owns Nationwide Arena and the Columbus Blue Jackets).
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted corporations full rights of citizenship under the 1st Amendment, why not grant our corporate brethren full emancipation?
Citizenship involves not just the sweets, such as free speech and now the unfettered right to write corporate checks to influence elections. But corporate American must accept the sour as well, including personal rather than corporate tax rates, jury duty, registration for the military draft and -- last but not least - full exposure to criminal penalties under the law.
Regarding the latter, amidst all of the angst over the high court's controversial 5-4 decision, Citizens United vs. FEC, I've not heard anyone explain why corporations in this brave new world of artificial person-hood should continue to enjoy immunity for their criminal wrongdoings.
As Wikipedia explains it, "In the criminal law, corporate liability determines the extent to which a corporation as a fictitious person can be liable for the acts and omissions of the natural persons it employs." (emphasis added)
"A company has no physical existence, so it can only act vicariously through the agency of the human beings it employs. While it is relatively uncontroversial that human beings may commit crimes for which punishment is a just desert, the extent to which the corporation should incur liability is less clear. Obviously, a company cannot be sent to jail...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_liability
Obviously,this is true in the normal sense, no matter how tempting it might be to move the corporate offices of Goldman Sachs to Alcatraz. Still, the idea is tempting since I'm sure President Obama would be glad to waive his pledge to close down Guantanamo Bay if that terrorist compound could be re-incorporated as "The Walls" for Wall Street felons..
But seriously, now that felonious corporations are no longer "fictitious persons" in terms of electoral politics, why shouldn't they also be subject to the same law and order justice the rest of us would have to face if we swindled our fellows, robbed our retirees, attempted murder on our economy?
Maybe you can't lock up Halliburton but you certainly could lock it down: turn off the lights and utilities, padlock the doors, furlough the employees and remove it from the world of commerce for 15 to 25 subject to parole.
And for those Wall Street banks and investment funds which attempted murder on our financial system, why shouldn't there be a Corporate Death Row where butcher businesses are sent to die? Businesses die all the time, from natural causes. We'd just be making sure that the "worst of the worst" of these corporate terrorists never get to strike again.
Now I'm not a lawyer and Wikipedia isn't exactly a recognized source for legal research, so if there are attorneys out there who can discuss this idea more intelligently, please chime in by leaving a comment. Are criminal corporations under terms of the new Supreme Court ruling still too big to jail, too fictitious to impale on the sword of justice?
For an insightful discussion on this ruling, check out this transcript of Friday's edition of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01292010/transcript4.html
“New York Bankers donate 2009 Employee Bonuses to Haiti”
Wouldn’t it astonish to have this headline appear in the world media? All those billions (or even a portion – half – a quarter) used to restructure the society and the infrastructure of Haiti – bringing a Third World country up to Developed Country status instead of more what? Island homes, aircraft, cars, etc.? How many $12,000 shower curtains (true case) do they need? Wouldn’t investing in Haiti yield more healthy profit on so many more levels (material and immaterial) than in the pecuniary beauty of status objects? If you know how to begin a legal dialogue about instituting this donation process, please let me know – I’ve already e-mailed the White House and called my local paper – no response from either.
Tamara Kunko LSW
Wouldn’t it astonish to have this headline appear in the world media? All those billions (or even a portion – half – a quarter) used to restructure the society and the infrastructure of Haiti – bringing a Third World country up to Developed Country status instead of more what? Island homes, aircraft, cars, etc.? How many $12,000 shower curtains (true case) do they need? Wouldn’t investing in Haiti yield more healthy profit on so many more levels (material and immaterial) than in the pecuniary beauty of status objects? If you know how to begin a legal dialogue about instituting this donation process, please let me know – I’ve already e-mailed the White House and called my local paper – no response from either.
Tamara Kunko LSW
President Obama must agree with my recent post that it is possible to herd cats. In any case, he gave it a good try Wednesday night in his first State of the Union address to Congress.
- For the Left, he offered up bank bashing, gays in the military, immigration reform, green jobs, college subsidies, curbs on corporate fat cats, taxes on the rich and - let's not forget - another shot at health care reform.
- For the Right, he extended tax cuts for the middle class, small business loans, nuclear power and "drill-baby-drill," cuts in capital gains taxes, a 3-year partial freeze on federal spending, a budget control commission and a push to increase U.S. exports.
- For the Independents, fiscal restraint, curbs on Wall Street excesses and renewed efforts at bipartisanship to actually get things done in Washington.
- For the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, the back of his hand for last week's disastrous 5-4 decision opening what he called "the floodgates" for corporate cash in political campaigns.
- For unemployed Americans: jobs, jobs, jobs.
- For the rest of the world, well not so much this time around. It was 55 minutes into the President's 70-minute address before he even got around to foreign affairs. And then about the only noteworthy items in this 7-minute segment was a promise to pull all combat troops out of Iraq by August and his cheer leading for American aid to Haiti.
As you might suspect, he didn't exactly get all the cats into the corral - maybe not even most of them. Only time will tell.
The Republicans in the chamber held back from the "liar-liar" chant which marked last January's congressional address, but tittered and guffawed frequently over Obama's claims of transparency and even-handedness on health care reform. (The Republican response by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonald was short and clueless but Fox News managed within an hour of the speech to let both ends of the 2008 McCain-Palin ticket take their revenge).
Supreme Court justices endured their rebuke in stony silence. Even those justices whose dissents agreed with the President's position were as mute as misbehaving kids parked on a bench in the principal's office.
Obama's generals were just as stiff and silent when he vowed to end the occupation of Iraq, although they joined seconds later in the chamber's enthusiastic applause for the veterans chewed up in that war.
Progressives - and that would include me - always enjoy Obama's speeches, and this one was no exception. Sure, we're lap cats but we still hiss and scratch every time Obama starts up again with that nicey-nice "bipartisan" pandering to Republicans obstructionists in the Congress. But after Wednesday night, he's still got most of us in the corral.
Posts By Month
Video: Will Zack Space Become A Health Care Hero?
By: Dave Harding, ProgressOhio
Posted Mar 20, 09:57 AM
Comments (0)
By: Dave Harding, ProgressOhio
Posted Mar 20, 09:57 AM
Comments (0)
Chair of Hamilton County Democratic Party Responds to John Boehner's Vicious Comments About Rep. Driehaus
By: Dave Harding, ProgressOhio
Posted Mar 20, 08:59 AM
Comments (0)
By: Dave Harding, ProgressOhio
Posted Mar 20, 08:59 AM
Comments (0)
ZACK, WHAT WOULD NIXON DO?
By: David Lore, Licking County Pro-Active Citizens
Posted Mar 19, 10:30 AM
Comments (0)
By: David Lore, Licking County Pro-Active Citizens
Posted Mar 19, 10:30 AM
Comments (0)
Representative Steve Driehaus: Keep standing up for us, not the insurance companies
By: User from Washington, DC
Posted Mar 17, 11:30 AM
Comments (0)
By: User from Washington, DC
Posted Mar 17, 11:30 AM
Comments (0)
Re: Dennis, do you have learning disability?
No, Brian, I do not have a learning disability, but my two s...
No, Brian, I do not have a learning disability, but my two s...
Dennis, Ted Strickland isn't going to vote for you
The people on this site MIGHT. But not if you refuse to answ...
The people on this site MIGHT. But not if you refuse to answ...
