Monthly Archives: February 2011

Gov. Perry and Texas GOP are Short-changing Children’s Future

February 28, 2011

Few people would argue that our children’s education is one of the premier goals a society can foster to ensure a better life for their kids while creating a productive work force for the future. Yet in Texas it often seems to be an after thought by Republicans who seem more willing to cover for their corporate buddies by thwarting the EPA or Christian fundamentalist who would re-write American history to fit Old Testament prophecy. This point is driven home with the data that shows Texas ranks near the bottom of all other states in critical categories:

Texas is #49 in verbal SAT scores in the nation and #46 in average math SAT scores
Texas is #36 in the nation in high school graduation rates (68%).
Texas is #33 in the nation in teacher salaries.
Texas dropped to 40th in 2005 from 26th in 1999 for average per pupil expenditure
Texas is #6 in the nation in student growth. A number not commensurate with a teacher growth rate of only 13.3%. SOURCE

The state has the highest number of public operating schools in the country and is second only to California with the highest public school enrollment. And for this we are churning out the fewest high school graduates than any other state. Anyone paying rudimentary attention to basic economic factors would have noticed this along with the steady increase in the rate of inflation over the last decade, with energy costs having the greatest impact.

Yet the limited wisdom of the state budgeting committees apparently failed to weigh these common sense considerations when they estimated future budgets. Surely someone also had to consider that the ups and downs of national and global economies were always shaky at best and yet, instead of showing foresight and planning for these contingencies, the Republican-led legislature of 2007 lowered property tax rates that fund school districts while increasing gas and cigarette taxes to substitute for this loss of revenue.

Gas prices were slowly inching up in 2007 and by the summer of 2008 they hit record highs of $4.00 a gallon at the pump. In this oil-rich state did they not have anyone on their payroll that watches such price fluctuations and how it impacts payroll taxes? Research has shown that as you raise the cost of anything, like cigarettes (study shows fewer teens taking up smoking) and gasoline (automakers offering more models that run on alternative fuels and use less gasoline), you provide an incentive for people to quit using that product or to seek substitutes that offset those price increases.

So here we sit in 2011 with the biggest deficit in Texas history and the people who have essentially effected this budget shortfall want to lay the responsibility of dealing with it on the backs teachers. At least one governor in this country, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, feels that “politicians, who aren’t any good with money, [shouldn't] demagogue and blame the people that actually do the work. It’s just not good business management, it’s not a good way to run the state”

The one thing the legislature did have the foresight to do was set up a “rainy day” fund, also known as the Economic Stabilization Fund. It is essentially a back-up source of revenue derived from oil and natural gas tax excesses, which have fortunately been climbing over the last decade.

There is currently about $9 billion in this fund that would seriously aid in preventing a lot of teacher layoffs and dumping more kids into fewer classrooms. This and some sensible tax increases would abate the need to put more people in the unemployment lines that are already too long in this state.

But once again the cave men who head our government, Rick Perry and David Dewhurst, have displayed a lack of concern for the “small people” in the state by refusing to consider using these funds. Perry lamely explained why in his State of the State address on February 8th, informing Texans that he sees this approach as one that “would not only postpone tough necessary decisions, but also leave us ill-equipped to handle bigger emergencies in the future”.

This leaves you with the impression that they are at least thinking or have thought about future emergencies, yet for some reason, the budget crisis we’re facing today was not all that clear to him and others a few years ago. And are we really going to buy that bit about not confronting “tough necessary decisions” as if we have no other options other than draconian cuts that will keep Texas education at the bottom of the heap?

What about returning the property tax level back to where it was before they were cut in 2007? I know many of us would make that sacrifice for our children. And with all the record profits that our oil and natural gas industry has experienced in the last couple of years, couldn’t we ask them to make a sacrifice for the sake of our children’s future too? How about those tax cuts for 40, 000 businesses Perry’s campaign gloated about in the last election? I think the case could be made for some of them, especially the bigger, more profitable ones ante up to help ensure tomorrow’s labor force has 21st century skills.

And if push still comes to shove there are some cuts in Texas school districts budgets that could be taken without jeopardizing our kids’ education. Steve Murdock, a Rice University sociology professor and the former state demographer who served as U. S. Census Bureau director in the George W. Bush administration, thinks eliminating high school sports, especially football, could offset a large expense for most districts. I know this is blasphemy to those who see athletics, especially football, solely as a cash cow but they have to generate that money to pay for exorbitant coaches salaries.

In 2006, “Head coaches in Classes 5A and 4A – schools with 950 students or more – [were] making an average of $73,804 while teachers in those classifications average close to $42,400, according to records obtained by the Austin American-Statesman through the Texas Public Information Act. Adjusting for inflation, the gap between teachers’ and coaches’ salaries has widened by 7.3 percent over the past 10 years. (Texas High School Coaches Salaries by A. Trubow, Austin Statesman, 11/29/06)

Athletics have value in our educational system but not to the extent that supersedes the long-term gains one gets from a quality education that will pay off more in the global markets of tomorrow. If this is asking too much for some, then die-hard high school sports devotees should be willing to pony up for increased ticket prices and product sales at many athletic events. Most may grumble but few would be reluctant to miss games for an additional dollar or two. In tough times like we are facing now, these so-called cash cow sports can help carry their schools instead of being a factor in why some people stay as others are cut.

I am simply blown away how passive Texas parents seem to be when it comes to cutting state funding for education. Though a recent UT-Texas Tribune poll found that an overwhelming majority of Texans oppose cuts to education, health care and environmental protection, many think this can be done by making spending cuts only instead of a combination of sensible cuts and tax revenue increases. Too many have simply bought in to the big lie by Republicans that our predicament is solely the result of too much spending.

No one seems to mind or care when tax payer funds go out to businesses to subsidize ventures without any assurance that they will succeed. Yet the meager amount we are currently spending for good education is a sure return on our investment for our children’s future. We lag behind most other states in expenditure per pupil so it seems only logical that by cutting back even further will keep us as a third-rate provider of primary education.

On Saturday March 12th, 12 noon in Austin Texas, parents, teachers and other education advocates are rallying on the steps of the capital to tell our representatives that we need alternatives to these planned cuts. They need to hear loud and clear that not only should they use that $9 billion rainy day fund for this crisis but they need to come to grips with the reality that Texas’ schools still remain at the lowest rungs of education excellence in this country. Now is not the time we need to be making cuts in education.

For more on the March 12th rally in Austin go to the Save Texas Schools Website at http://savetxschools.org/rally-to-save-texas-schools/

The Ax Man Cometh (Again) to Texas (woodgatesview.wordpress.com)
Leaving Children Behind (by Paul Krugman)

Posted by lbwoodgate in Education, Texas/Local stories Tags: David Dewhurst, Old Testament, Rick Perry, state budget cuts, State of the State address, teachers lose jobs, Texas, Texas education

5 comments

My Picks for Best Native American Movies

February 27, 2011

Image via Wikipedia

I have always loved westerns and especially those that gave a more realistic image of the native American culture. But I like them authentic and historically balanced. As a non-Native American, rating best Native American movies is not without its obvious flaws.

Empathy as a member of any tribe will be apparently lacking and identifying with customs and rituals will also be out of my reach. But what I can assess is how I was moved by performances in a given movie and what transformed any preconceived notions I may have had about a people whose heritage in America preceded the white settlers who came to dominate the land. Here’s a short list of my all-time favorites. The order I present them is not intended to rate their importance over others.

DANCES WITH WOLVES – For sheer cinematography and storytelling affect, this one comes up on my radar first. A tale that encompasses the journey of a man abandoning his own culture near the end of the Civil War, Lt. John J. Dunbar finds himself where he thinks he can be happiest – a lonely military outpost as far removed from the destructive forces of war that partially robbed him of his humanity. Yet he finds that even when confronted with those who he feels are a common enemy, a tribe of Sioux natives, his loneliness compels him to seek out their camp site after having a close encounter with several members earlier, with his scalp still intact.

Dunbar finds the comparatively rough life of the Plains Indians and their social structure endearing and one where what savagery he does experience with the tribe is not comparable to the brutal insanity of the modern warfare of his kind he recently escaped. The notion that all “Indians” were savages is dispelled in this movie and in fact portrays a way of life that depicts a familiar and simpler time when mankind lived in clans and co-existed relatively peacefully with other clans. The love that developed between Dunbar and Stands-with-Fist added to the humanity of the Sioux (and by proxy, Native Americans) that went missing in early western film making.

Cover via Amazon

BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE – This movie wrenchingly depicts the inequity that Native Americans, once again represented by the Sioux, received from the American government and the people who represented it at the time. The westward expansion is wrapping up in America and most of what was initially given over to the Sioux at an earlier time becomes territory that many Americans feel is land that could now be better used for purposes they deem financially lucrative, with little to no regard of how it is viewed by the Sioux. It’s the age-old battle of materialistic expansion at the expense of cultural norms that put more emphasis on family and home.

The film is an adaptation of the book by Dee Brown with the same name but uses “literary license” to render a different reality. However, the message is accurately delivered as it reveals how the less sophisticated Sioux Chief, Sitting Bull, stands up to the military might of the U.S. Army. It’s a genuine David vs. Goliath saga that marks a dark point in American history. The moral failure of our government to reflect founding principles over capitalist exploitation and imperialist expansionism is a lesson that still has lapses within our body politic. You feel a great sense of loss at the defeat of a proud man and humiliated that he was deceived for less virtuous reasons not depicted in grade school history books.

Image via Wikipedia

I WILL FIGHT NO MORE FOREVER – Though a made-for-TV movie in the mid 1970’s it gave some great performances from some of my old-time favorites; James Whitmore and a much younger Sam Elliot. Both men played military officers who, though showing some compassion for Chief Joseph and his Nez Perce tribe, none-the-less demonstrate their discipline as soldiers and carry out their assignment. Another heart-rendering story where a harmless group of Native Americans are forced to move out of their lush green homeland (in Oregon) to allow the territory to be inhabited by white settlers recently authorized by then President Grant.

In their move they encounter hateful settlers whose view that “the only good Indian is a dead one” starts a fight with the Nez Perce. After that deadly encounter Chief Joseph is then forced to evade the cavalry and their intended relocation in Idaho. For the next 108 days and 1700 miles the Nez Perce skillfully elude General Howard (Whitmore) and Captain Wood (Elliot) in scenes that exposed the beauty of the northern Rocky Mountains.

War and its ugly nature were not common for these Nez Perce who were better suited as “peaceful hunters and fishermen”, Charles A Eastman noted about them in a separate account on Chief Joseph. Ned Romero plays the aging Joseph and most of the cast of the Nez Perce were played by real Native Americans; something a bit out of the ordinary at that time.

In the end a proud people are ultimately humiliated in defeat, forcing the famous quote from Chief Joseph, “From where the sun now stands, I shall fight no more forever.” They are relocated to an even worse fate in the Oklahoma territory which is so removed from their previous habitat, visibly crushing the spirit of a people who once selectively bred the Appaloosa, one of the best breeds of horse on the continent.

LITTLE BIG MAN – An intricate, cleverly woven satire by director Arthur Penn who explores the life of his colorful character, Jack Crabb (portrayed by Dustin Hoffman) over a century when the west was being developed in the 1800s. At age 121, Jack Crabb narrates his life to a historian played by William Hickey that covers his life from the time he was taken in by the Cheyenne after his parents were killed and the wagon train they were in was destroyed by marauding Pawnees. The Chief of the Cheyenne, Old Lodge Skins, won the actor who played him, Chief Dan George, and Oscar nomination. Old Lodge Skins serves as Crabb’s connection as he bounces back and forth between white and Cheyenne cultures over the course of the picture.

Jack Crabb is a real life character but was fictionally portrayed in this role by Arthur Penn. It was and is considered an anti-establishment and even an anti-war film where the scenes of slaughtered defenseless Indian women, children and old people represented the historically recent massacre at My Lai in Vietnam. Other similarities were raised with the use of some Indian characters clearly being played by Southeast Asians.

The mental battles that Jack Crabb fights, along with the physical ones in his roles that go back and forth as white man and redskin, present the contrasts between the cultures and convey the bittersweet associations living during that time as a member of both.

The movie is sweeping in its scope and thoroughly entertaining. It was artful in its attempt to show the adversities Native Americans endured under the authority of the U.S. Government and support of white settlers taking over native lands by portraying many of the characters in absurdly humorous contexts. This made it palatable for many at the time to acknowledge that our treatment of Native Americans was not always in line with the way we were raised to think.

LAST OF THE MOHICANS – Last but not least is the remake of the 1920 silent movie version of James Fenimore Cooper’s romantic classic. The idealized version of Cooper’s “noble savage” is less displayed here at a time when authenticity was the accepted norm. The screenplay kept true to the book but the inherent evil of the Huron leader, Magua, (played by Wes Studi) was I think appropriately down-played. This didn’t however increase any feelings of sympathy with the audience towards this character.

This is one of the films that reveals a time in history that precedes western culture’s cruel elimination of Native Americans and shows a unity between the two that existed with many during early colonial periods. The 1992 film provided eye-pleasing panoramic views of what came across as pristine wilderness, reminding us of an America, now greatly urbanized, that can only be viewed today in National parks.

Madeline Stowe was at her striking beauty best and Daniel Day-Lewis as Hawkeye played his role superbly. Cleverly, the film’s Director, Michael Mann, used Russell Means to play Hawkeye’s father. Mr. Means, a real life Sioux, is a Native American activist that participated in many of the American Indian Movement (AIM) events of the 1970’s, gaining national notoriety of their siege at the Wounded Knee Memorial in 1973.

Overall The Last Mohican was a feel good movie that employed authentic settings and costumes. You are genuinely swept away to another time where Americana is romantically rugged and a sense of nostalgia accompanies you days after you have seen the film, captured in the excellent musical score by Trevor Jones and Randy Edelman.

I make no apologies that much of my critique on these movies centers on the lost heritage of Native American culture; a fact that resulted from the vastly superior numbers of western Europeans and their technologies that ultimately overwhelmed a smaller group of people with less sophisticated weaponry. I think we as a nation are less endowed through our near complete elimination of a people and their way of life. These movies help that culture endure and prevent a total loss of what is inherently American as anything we have recorded about our comparatively short national history.

Posted by lbwoodgate in History, Movies Tags: Dan George, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, James Fenimore Cooper, Little Big Man, movies about native americans, Native American, native american tribes, Native Americans in the United States, Nez Perce

16 comments

How We Wound Up With People Like Scott Walker

February 27, 2011

Will conditions that kept Progressives home when many Independents shifted back to the GOP in 2010 still exist in 2012?

I was struck recently by a poll of Wisconsin voters that showed 53% supported the unions on the issue of collective bargaining. This is clearly at odds with Governor Scott Walker’s contentions that what he was doing in addressing the state’s budget crisis, including the removal of collective bargaining for union workers, was what the people of Wisconsin expected of him when they elected him. Other than proposing cutting state employee wages and benefits, there was never anything in his campaign platform about busting the balls of unions there by depriving them of their collective bargaining rights.

This fact then led me to my next thought which asks the question, “How did Tea Party-type candidates really get elected over their Republican primary foes and go on to beat the Democrat in some races?” For the Libertarian strain in American politics it is believed they have touched a nerve with the American people and I think that’s true but only to a point. The part that isn’t true and that the GOP is trying to hype is their narrative that promotes corporate wealthy interest in this country are “what the American public wants”.

But if the polls around the country on the issues raised by the GOP are any indication of “what the people want” then one has to ask, what are Republican’s smoking and where can I get it without driving to California.

Other “Tea Party” issues that are unpopular with the American public are those that want to cut or remove all social welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Not one poll I have seen supports such notions. In fact, a recent Gallup poll shows most Americans support what true Libertarians and their adopted GOP Party oppose. Other than supporting cuts in foreign aid, those polled showed they supported Education, Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare by large margins. They even support by a 6% difference the funding for the arts and sciences; that liberal cause that funds among other things, NPR and PBS.

Other polls also conflict with the GOP view of American preferences.

A Bloomberg national poll shows that only a third of Americans supported keeping the lower tax rates for the highest earners.
60% in a Gallup poll believe their representatives should agree to a compromise budget plan rather than shutting down the government
67% of those polled are dissatisfied about the size and influence of major corporations

So how did the values of ultra conservatives win in states where traditionally social conscience Democrats have had strong backing? My theory is that the time was ripe for a change in politics-as-usual following the Great Recession of 2008. The straw that broke the camels back for many was the bailing out of failed financial institutions while middle class workers were laid off in droves. The feeling of abandonment by their government while being viewed as propping up wealthy enterprises that normally disdain government interference was taken as a step too far for people on both sides of the political spectrum to tolerate.

This anger was quickly conveyed by Ron Paul supporters who represent the Libertarian view in this country but was quickly echoed by others. Seeing an opportunity to regroup from their miserable failures at the polls, Republican strategists made overtures to these supporters and were pressed to align with them by wealthy corporate interest that had heretofore supported many in the GOP. The Tea Party was an off-shoot of this initial reaction which fulminated after Obama became President and was seen giving more money to Big Business by propping up the auto industry and then spending billions to jump-start the economy with his stimulus package.

The forming of the Tea Party identity can be traced to early protest following Obama’s inauguration by Libertarians and conservative Republicans who coalesced as a unit to oppose government-funded programs of any kind. It was sustained by concerted efforts of billionaires David and Charles Koch who helped form the astroturf group, Americans for Prosperity. The ability to sustain this anger was fueled by high unemployment rates and watching Wall Street rebound while giving healthy bonuses to the very executives that created the economic fiasco which created high levels of unemployment.

Obama and the Democrats efforts to stimy the escalating unemployment went unnoticed by many voters as did the reimbursement of bailed out banks and auto manufacturers. Their successful efforts to fix health care reform in this country was falsely and deliberately painted as socialized medicine that would create “death panels” and take people’s health insurance away from them. An angry population that was literally misinformed and naive about the political realities reacted as corporate interests had hoped and kicked out many Democrats and perceived “moderate” Republicans who supported those social programs that the GOP now claims most Americans find adverse.

So one can only hope that as the lies and distortions are revealed, generated by many on the Right, those voters whose “misery level” affected their critical thinking skills in the 2010 election will come around in 2012 and correct the changes that installed agents for corporate interests Not that all Democrats are guiltless of this themselves but the public would be hard pressed to find any who support abolishing the institutions of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid or opposing health care reform and properly funding the nation’s educational system.

What the American people really wanted then and want now is a change in the status quo. In 2010 this need created choices that wrongly removed people who were more likely to promote the voters’ own interests. The short attention span of most Americans and the vulnerability to being swept up by emotional issues that demonize good and decent people is the factor that has enabled a small wealthy elite to control elections; elections that put people in positions of power who answer not to their constituents, but to the real owners of this country – large corporations and financial institutions.

The only worry I have at this point is how effective will this corporate influence be on putting enough lipstick on their anti-government pig; to continue to influence enough voters that voting against their own interests are still somehow the right thing to do? Trick me once, shame on you; trick me twice, I must be a dumb-ass.

Public Dislikes Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s Union Busting (usnews.com)
Scott Walker, John Boehner, and the Politics of ‘Broke’ (usnews.com)

Posted by lbwoodgate in Jobs, People, Society and Politics Tags: 2010 elections, 2012 elections, corporate influence, Democratic Party (United States), gallup polls, GOP, medicare/medicaid, naive voters, Republican, Ron Paul, Scott Walker, Social Security, Tea Party, unions, Wisconsin

2 comments

Money Well Spent

February 26, 2011

Who really has your best interest at heart in the battle to balance state and federal budgets?

In the battle of the state budgets the bottom line on all sides comes down to money. Gee, what a shocker in our consumer oriented culture. For conservatives it’s all about cutting costs in the public sector where the people they represent who have the least power will be denied that assistance that keeps them in the game of life. For Progressives it’s about preventing the private sector from hijacking social programs that enable those who have the least power and would otherwise not benefit on a level playing field without them.

But this divide really isn’t along ideological splits as much as it is along societal and self-interest concerns. Both sides have those who will be negatively impacted by cuts that either see their salary lowered, the workload increased or a combination of both. For many others it will be the worst scene scenario of job losses. But for well-healed conservatives this tact really doesn’t improve the quality of life for those future generations they claim they are fighting this fight for.

In the situation playing out in Wisconsin and soon to be carrying over into other states is the attempt by the conservatives who are backed by private monied interests to bust up unions; one of the largest groups in the country that tend to support social-conscience Democrats. With unions weakened the campaign contributions that many Democrats rely on could dry up. This counter-measure to the wealthy conservative PACs that support Republicans has helped maintain a balance in political battles but once it’s gone the GOP and other conservative groups will have an upper hand in funding their candidates and causes. The Robert’s Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case guaranteed that. Long-term rule by one Party will be the outcome.

But this is only an aspect of what corporate private interests are really after. By killing unions and the right of public workers to unite for the purpose of protecting their positions, the CEO’s and their lucrative paid board members gain more control over a factor that affects their profits – workers’ wages. If there is any doubt that GOP interests are not aligned with wealthy corporate interests one merely needs to look back at the battle they waged last December where they threatened that the Bush tax cuts would not be sustained for anyone unless the wealthiest 2% were included. Unwilling to battle for the wealthy at a later date when the economy had revived some was not even a consideration by the GOP.

No one bemoans the fact that companies exist to make profits in order to survive and grow. Our economy relies on it. But profits that don’t promote growth for all who have invested themselves in a company’s goal is money that only makes a handful of people wealthier and the larger, working class population poorer. And the bogus notion that tax cuts for the wealthy improve the economy can now be easily dismissed in face of the it’s abysmal failure during the Bush/Cheney years.

When conservative legislators cut wages to balance the state budgets on the backs of educators, public health workers, fire fighters, police and community infrastructure workers like waste disposal and water supply maintenance, they are sending a signal to corporate investors that says we won’t tax you to assist in providing essentials to our citizens. That’s money they can put back in their overstuffed pockets.

By eliminating public jobs to correct mismanaged budgeting practices of the state, corporations are given a larger base of people to pick and choose from who are often forced to take jobs where the pay scale is lower than in times past and with fewer, more costly benefits like health insurance coverage for workers. Once unions around the country have been brought to their knees there no longer exists a force to keep employers honest concerning wages and work safety. All that private sector employees enjoy today in terms of job income, health care benefits, two-day weekends, work safety conditions and minimum wages are the results of unions fighting for them through collective bargaining.

The ultimate goal of many corporations is to fulfill the scheme of people like Grover Norquist who literally wants to eliminate the public sector to allow private interests to cash in on the vast wealth citizens lay out in taxes for services and programs. This of course has a certain appeal to it from the business model that supposedly works efficiently to serve their customer base lest they lose that loyalty to a competitor. But unlike the public sector the private interests of a few people are dedicated to their self-interests and those of big investors and stock holders, not primarily to the people they are supposed to serve.

The belief that if a business isn’t serving their clientage satisfactorily at reasonable prices will force the customer to go elsewhere and serve as a corrective force for providing quality products (the so-called “invisible hand” of the market) is true , but mainly when you are talking about small businesses; businesses who do not have slush funds or a Political Action Committee (PAC) to influence legislators to favor them with no-bid contracts and to look the other way when laws are broken. Large corporate, multi-national businesses have vast amounts of wealth they spend solely for fighting law suits from citizens who have been harmed by their goods or services while spreading that wealth into diverse branches of the business to reduce their risk of losses that might be impacted by such lawsuits. Small businesses do not have this luxury.

Illustration by Victor Juhasz

Thus the citizen actually loses real control, theoretically anyway by allowing private interests, not state agencies overseen by elected officials to provide our children basic education, health care facilities for the elderly and the means to ensure air and water safety for public consumption. Private sectors will look at their bottom line first before they make a needed adjustment that insures a safe and cost-effective outcome for the goods and services they provide. Public funded entities rely on established standards set by concerned citizens as their guide, not profits that could determine a high bonus for one of their executives.

And for anyone who would suggest that we can have the best of both worlds where the private sector performs the service or supplies the goods with some governmental watch dog agencies making sure they don’t cut corners that undermine the general welfare, need I remind you of the slush funds and the corporate PACs already in place that attack such watch dogs today as interferences and obstacles to “free markets mechanisms” – that hallowed claim that invokes the fear of “socialism” by the very people who have already robbed the nation of billions with their toxic mortgage assets, high credit interest rates, predatory lending practices and polluting waste disposal into our drinking water systems.

The imagery that corporate billionaires have established with their phony funded Astroturf organizations of an over-reaching government, like the Koch Funded Americans for Prosperity group, were never intended to protect the public from government excesses. They were established to allow those excesses to continue WITHOUT regulatory oversight so the federal largesse would continue to flow into their personal and corporate accounts and out of the paltry savings, purses and pockets of working families.

The conversation that Governor Walker of Wisconsin thought he was having with corporate billionaire David Koch is not unlike all the other conversations that go on between political figures in local, state and national offices and private corporate lobbyists. Their’s is a partnership to divest the public of funds that were intended to improve the general welfare of their citizens through elected officials. As they succeed in this they slowly eliminate competitive markets of the public sector that block the self-serving, profit-motivated private interest.

The assurance by free-market capitalists that some “invisible hand” will keep well-funded, diverse, multi-national corporations honest in today’s global market is a whitewash of a principle that no-longer has the merit it did when it was formulated 250 years ago. Why do people keep taking the bait about how deregulation is good and the business model serves all of our social needs? If the failure of capitalism and cronyism between government and corporate lobbyists in 2008 didn’t expose this fraudulent notion to voters, then we are doomed as a democracy and headed for a plutocracy

Large, unregulated or so-called self-policed businesses are an invitation for greedy people to do what they have done since man first walked the earth – take from others everything they can for their own well-being.

Posted by lbwoodgate in Social Discourse Tags: Bush tax cuts, corporate friendly Republicans, corporate lobbyists, income gap, invisible hand of free markets, public vs. private interests, social programs, unions, working families

3 comments

Could Muammar Gadaffi and Charlie Sheen Compete Without Bloodshed on DWTS?

February 25, 2011

After so many serious posts here lately I thought we could stand some comic relief. Enter Donna Cavanagh. Donna has allowed me to repost two other selections from the AC Yahoo site we both contribute to. I like to refer to her as a contemporary of the great female humorist, Erma Bombeck. For her treat today, Donna speculates on who else might be a possible candidates for the hit reality TV show “DANCING WITH THE STARS” after it was discovered that the ever quixotic Christine O’Odonnell was considered a likely candidate.

***********************************************************************************

I read rather recently – translation — five minutes ago, that Dancing With the Stars has asked witch-turned-tea party political hopeful and diva, Christine O’Donnell, to be a contestant. I am starting to wonder about this show. I thought it might have jumped the shark when it invited Bristol Palin, but now I am sure of it.

First of all, it wouldn’t be a fair contest. How do we know that Christine won’t use her sorcery to get top scores from the judges and television audience. Oh, you scoff do you? Well, let me just say two words to you: Kate Gosselin. If there is any evidence of witchcraft among us, it is that woman. How else do you explain her meteoric rise to fame and her appearance on DWTS? What did she do to earn her place in the show? She gave birth. I gave birth, and no one has invited me to the show. Okay, I had a six-pound baby and she had six babies at one time, but so what? Six of one; half a dozen of the other. It’s true; I have no math skills.

Anyway, to help Dancing With The Stars in their search for new talent, I have come up with a short list of possible contestants for future seasons. Now, these suggestions are not written in stone, but I have done research – I asked my neighbor, Nona, who is an avid DWTS fan about my list, and she assured me that these additions would set the show’s ratings on fire:

Muammar Gadaffi – I think he will soon have some free time on his hands. The trouble-ensconced leader might follow the path of some of the other leaders of the Arab world and leave the office that he had won through nothing but fair and honest elections. If he needs a partner for the show, he can call Hosni Mubarek who also has decided the presidency was not for him. I am not sure if DWTS allows same-sex partnering, but I bet they would make an exception for this duo.

2. Pope Benedict XVI – If there is any institution in need of a good Public Relations campaign, it is the Catholic Church and what better way to promote your faith than on DWTS. I think it would do the Pope good to show off those Prada shoes and look like he can let it all hang out and relax a bit. He already has the wardrobe and jewelry, and the DWTS audience would appreciate the effort, and he would do a good job counteracting Christine O’Donnell’s witch powers.

3. Barbra Streisand – I think she would be fabulous to watch on this show. No one enchants an audience like Barbra and if her dancing isn’t up to par, she could sing and that would just wow the whole place. A double advantage: She is Jewish and that would balance out the Muslim presence a bit. Everything in the world needs to be balanced be it international politics or a TV show dedicated to ballroom dancing.

4.Julian Assange or WikiLeaks – Come on, tell me you wouldn’t tune in for this guy? The problem is no one would want to be his partner because he can’t keep a secret and there is also the possibility that he might not show up for his performances.

5. Charlie Sheen – Another one headed for the unemployment line, and I think he would get on rather well with the Arab contingent although he and the Pope might have some issues.

6. Madonna- Need I go into this one? Dancing, singing, thrusting and possibly swearing — she has it all.

7. The Democrats in the Wisconsin State Assembly – They are obviously not needed and unwelcome in their state political arena for a while, so like Sheen and the Arab leaders, they have a lot of hours left in the day that need to be filled.

I am sure there are more famous folk who would like a stab at a new career, and even if you don’t make it on DWTS, there is always that ice skating show that takes celebrities with damaged or dead careers. If that doesn’t work, Celebrity Boxing is hoping for a comeback.

**********************************************************************************

I had suggested Susan Boyle over Barbara Streisand but then everyone might become upset if Susan forgot to shave.

Thanks Donna

Donna is a published humorists who has written two books - “Reality: Fantasy’s Evil Twin” now available on Amazon and “Life on the Off Ramp” She is also the author of “Poems for a Positive Day II” which like her “Life on the Off Ramp” was named as award-winning finalists of the Best Books 2010 Awards, sponsored by USA Book News. She is also a featured guest humor writer for More.com and Divine Caroline as well.

Posted by lbwoodgate in Our crazy and wonderful world, People Tags: Barbra Streisand, Catholic Church, Charlie Sheen, Christine O'Donnell, Dancing with the Stars, DWTS, Erma Bombeck, Muammar Gadaffi, WikiLeaks

5 comments

The Real Owners of This Country

February 25, 2011

Waiting for that opportunity to become a part of the “American dream”? I’ve got some unsettling news for you.

I’ve recently listened to and read the transcript of the phone conversation of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and who he thought is one of his biggest campaign donors, billionaire David Koch. For those who are not familiar with Mr. Koch and his equally filthy rich brother Charles, they inherited a company owned by their stupendously rich father Fred C. Koch which has now grown into a multi-national corporation that by it’s own accounting “is a diverse group of companies and is one of the largest private companies in America according to Forbes magazine.” Did I mention they were all very, very rich?

I have nothing against rich people though some may think so who read this. I would like to be comfortably wealthy too so I could simply have just one nice home, cars with titles free and clear and a savings account that reflects I have enough to send my kids to some of the better colleges this country has to offer, along with every other amenity wealth affords. What I am against is when people who have vast fortunes and more money than they really need is to have the influence they do with people in positions of power to insure that their wealth is not tampered with; in fact are assured that it will grow with very little risk to them. Theoretically at least these people in elected office are supposed to represent us all equally. (Get that sarcastic grin off of your face)

The Koch brothers are members of that elite club. A complete list of their properties can be found on their website and a list of their political associations can be found on this executive summary report from the environmental watchdog group, Greenpeace. For anyone to think that they don’t use their vast wealth to sustain their self-interests would be naive. So what has this to do with Governor Walker and the events occurring in Madison where union workers are picketing the capital? It is but one clear example of who really owns this country.

It doesn’t matter if you are in line with David Koch’s social or political values or not. And anyone who tries to make the argument that the wealthy create jobs for the rest us, you might want to check out this study that reveals that “most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes” while our paychecks are tagged for taxes at about 20-25% on average. Those jobs they create are really the means to keep a government afloat that provides large subsidies to wealthy corporations by their workers. For any poor sap who believes that “the people” have political power in this country, that phone call to the most powerful man in Wisconsin from his biggest campaign contributor ought to put and end to that silly notion. Why?

First, the fact that anyone could get to the governor that easy and that quick is never going to happen, if it happens at all, with who BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg referred to as “the small people”. And no, he wasn’t referring to dwarfs. Even Democratic State Senator Tim Carpenter said Walker was “hard-lined—will not talk, will not communicate, will not return phone calls.”

Second, the excited tone of the Governor’s voice that reflected a certain amount of glee as he talked “shop” with the billionaire. The pretend-Koch made several disparaging remarks about some of the Governor’s constituency while Walker displayed empathy to such arrogant comments. Within this conversation were comments by Walker that alluded to notions of criminal violations against the protesters (“planting some trouble makers” amongst the peaceful demonstrators) and ethical violations where he appeared to be willing to accept an invitation for a luxury junket with Koch who offered to fly him to “Cali” after all this was done and “really show [him] a good time.”

The fact that neither of these occurred or are now not likely to occur doesn’t diminish the fact that the Governor of Wisconsin was of the mind to be a willing participant of them both.

And third, the statements that reflected an intent to diminish “small people’s” power, what little they had in comparison to the Kochs of this world. The fact that an elected official was talking in terms outside his own state about bringing down unions displays a willingness to go along with the desires of wealthy corporate magnates to eliminate their foes – the people they hire and fire as they see fit as it determines their bottom line.

It’s no secret that men of wealth have always had close ties with our elected officials who between them promote policy and legislation that creates greater wealth for the private businessman. But here of late it seems to be done more boldly and in the shadow of the greatest economic disaster brought on by some of the wealthiest people in the world; where millions have lost their jobs and health care benefits, their homes and most of their savings as a consequence.

Rolling Stone reporter Mike Taibbi wrote a blistering account of how cavalierly the CEOs of the world’s largest financial institutions and some of their executives engaged in criminal activity for profit’s sake and not a single one served jail time for it. While people were thrown out of their homes because of predatory lending habits by many of these financial giants, the bonuses that many at the top of this wealth ladder were receiving were all-time records. And yet a 2009 survey by global audit, tax and advisory consultants, Grant Thornton, showed that only 26% of financial services companies planned to increase hiring during this period.

Along with Taibbi’s report is one from Mother Jones reporter Kevin Drum that reveals through a study by Princeton political science professor Larry Bartel, that neither Republican OR Democrats “respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. At all.” It appears instead that their attention is devoted to the top wealthiest 1% who today possess 24 percent of the nation’s income while most worker’s paychecks have remained stagnant or even decreased, including higher premiums for their health care coverage or total loss of such benefits.

Image via Wikipedia

The only logical conclusion one can draw from all of this is reflected in a skit the late George Carlin did where he blasted “the real owners of this country”. In the skit Carlin points out that not only do the big wealthy business owners own it all – land, the Congress, state legislatures, judges and the media outlets – they want more. “What they don’t want, Carlin says “is a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking”.

What comes home to roost here in Carlin’s comments in regards to the phone conversation Walker had was how corporate business owners and their CEOs want “obedient workers”. Those people Carlin says who are willing to “passively accept all these increasing shittier jobs, with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And now they’re coming for your Social Security money.”

Do you really think this is just all about a few thousand “over-paid” public union workers in Wisconsin? If so, I have a deal on some luxurious property in natural botanical garden settings in Death Valley. Not only have unions enabled ALL American workers to garner livable wages in times past but they can be credited with the 40-hour week, workplace safety, paid days off, a two-day weekend, the minimum wage and all those vital health care benefits that every American worker now enjoys, union and non-union alike.

As the power of the wealthiest 1% grows, the more insignificant everyone else becomes in how things affect us and our futures. When people like David Koch can access and influence the means to impact our wages, the environment, public health and whether our kids go to college or sent off to some foreign land to protect their financial interests there, we are no longer living the American dream. We are a merely a part of someone else’s.

Right-Wing Group Funded By the Kochs Ratchets Up Interference in Wisconsin Uprising (alternet.org)
Dave Johnson: What Is The Real Agenda Of The Budget-Cutters? (huffingtonpost.com)
Scott Walker is nothing but another Sock Monkey Jerk for the Rich (iflizwerequeen.com)

Posted by lbwoodgate in Social Discourse, Society and Politics Tags: corporate lobbyist, corporate taxes, David Koch, financial greed, government corruption, Governor of Wisconsin, Koch family, Mike Taibbi, Scott Walker, unions, wage gap, wealthiest 1%

4 comments

Why the Right Needs People to FEAR Democracy in the Middle East

February 24, 2011

“Our tragedy is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it… the basest of all things is to be afraid.” – William Faulkner

The radical Right appears to be in concert about how they see the events in the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East unfolding. Cal Thomas’ recent column appears to be the latest attempt by ultra-conservatives to dispel any happy outcomes, short of 100% American-style democracies, as repressed Muslims under autocratic rulers push to oust those dictators that have tortured dissenters and tucked huge amounts of their national treasury into personnel Swiss bank accounts for decades.

Mr. Thomas would have us believe that there are no similarities between the Egyptian uprising and the American colonial revolts. I’ve heard this from several on the right myself in blog exchanges. It dawned on me eventually that if most Americans take this view to heart then how can the Right establish their talking point about what we are really seeing is a Muslim movement to overthrow freedom loving people everywhere?

Let’s see – oppressed people, outraged over control of their rights to assemble peaceably to protest actions of an autocratic ruler and to have some control over their economic well-being. How are these two facts not a part of both Egypt today and the British colonials in early America?

Then again, the super-patriots that listen to the likes of Cal Thomas, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have an anti-intellectual bias toward people whose knowledge of real American history is not appreciated. Their understanding of the American Revolution and the era that followed it eliminates all those sensitive issues like how only white male property owners could vote, that some founding fathers were not Christians and the war fought by many to sustain the institution of slavery.

The differences that Cal alludes to between Egypt and America are of course cultural ones that he tries to portray as the more significant factor that we should be very concerned about. For Cal and the Right, white Anglo men fighting for their freedom and “endowed by their creator” are somehow greater than the olive-skinned, 3rd world types that crowded Tahrir Square in Cairo and other major cities in Egypt. Egyptian freedom fighters are instead viewed by the Right to have similarities between them and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and those jihadist cave dwellers in the Tora Bora Mountain Range.

This Big Lie that continues to grow every time there is some little shake-up in the middle east furthers what Islamophobists like Glenn Beck portrays as a Muslim restoration of an old caliphate that once controlled a large portion of the Middle East, Africa and even a part of Western Europe back in the 13th century.

Keeping this image before the American public’s consciousness allows the Right to obsess over Islamic sleeper cells waiting in the ready for the call from the Master Imam to overthrow our democracy. And so it naturally follows that they would make foreboding claims about the outcome as Arab dictatorships fall, leaving these countries open to terrorists control. Warning us about the Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts to inject itself in to any newly formed Egyptian government has to be perpetuated in this dark form.

“We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Naturally the traditional animosity that exists between Jews and most Muslims is a legitimate concern for everyone but the fact that Egypt has co-existed with the state of Israel for thirty something years will weigh-in as a stabilizing factor, provided the West gets fully involved to the extent it legally can and enable this democratic uprising to find form in stable institutions that help implement representative government. The totalitarian states that are crumbling under these people-protests have been self-serving and it will take a concerted efforts by established democratic institutions to enable a successful transition from oligarch rule to one that represents broad views of the people.

Despite Cal Thomas’ suggestions to the contrary, most young Egyptians today have no real connection for organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood that first came into existence long before they were born. The factors that effected the political unrest a few short weeks ago were not jihadist extremism or even religious in nature. The 40% of young males unemployed in Egypt were the force behind a revolution that not only sought to get rid of the corrupt Mubarak regime but wanted jobs and affordable food for their families. They were not part of a conspiracy to re-instate some ancient caliphate that Glenn Beck is hysterically promulgating on his FOX broadcast.

It is not remarkable that a 2009 Pew World poll Cal Thomas uses to support his jihadist phobia shows that “64 percent of Egyptians view the Muslim Brotherhood positively, while only 16 percent have negative views. Sixty-nine percent think the Brotherhood favors democracy. Just 22 percent say the members are too extreme and not really democratic.” What does he expect in a land where their autocratic ruler, Mubarak, has aligned himself with Western interests who traditionally side with a common adversary – Israel, and who have a military presence in close proximity to them?

It would be like asking Americans to disregard their fear of Castro’s intentions when he was providing land bases for Soviet missals back in 1962. Or if China established ties with Canada and built military bases along our shared border. To act shocked that Egyptians would find some affinity for a group who shares their fears and suspicions is amateurish of one trying to convince us he has better insights into the complexities of the recent developments in the Middle East.

“I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master.” Thomas Jefferson

Does Mr. Thomas really expect so-called American patriots to seriously side with an autocratic ruler who tortures his people to keep them in check just because it serves our self-interests? Could any “freedom-loving” American really associate himself with the thought of spreading freedom if we only reserve it for people who really, really like us? Do many people still feel it’s America’s job to use it’s military might to insure that democracy occurs in cultures so different from our own? The answer might be yes to all three of these by those who have locked into their overwhelming fear of the Islamic religion.

The real kicker here is Cal’s attempt to show a connection between the religion of the Egyptian people and a negative influence on any potential government that may form. To Mr. Thomas, the fear that people would allow their religious beliefs to influence their leaders seems threatening. He cites the Pew poll again where “48 percent of Egyptians say that Islam plays a large role in politics in Egypt and 85 percent say Islam’s influence in politics is positive.” But using numbers like this doesn’t necessarily mean what Cal would have you think it means. Americans too have an attachment to their religion and how it is aligns with their votes.

A recent Gallup poll showed some 58% of Americans were satisfied with the influence of religion here and as many wanted more to influence this nation as those who wanted less, 29%, while 39% wanting to keep it where we are now; with nearly 80% of Americans classifying themselves as Christians. It should be noted the 29% for “more influence” is a 5% increase from the previous year and the 29% for “less influence” is a decrease from a year ago. Clearly religion is woven into the political fabric of these countries as it is with most. To feign shock and dismay about this fact is to simply be naive and out of touch with reality.

“Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power.” - John Steinbeck

What is it really that seems to bother the right if Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and other Arab countries overthrow their dictatorial regimes and form a government similar to western style democracies; democracies that may not be pro-American but become dedicated anyway to stabilizing relations with the West and our ally Israel? Could it be that their fear and dread is that they will lose that element of control that comes from creating bogey men they use in a timely manner at elections to impact the outcomes in their favor?

When the Berlin wall fell and “godless communism” was no longer viewed as the menace it had been, the ultra conservative, religious right in this country lost it’s ability to manipulate many voters to elect people of their ilk who they assured would protect everyone from this menace. That “power” was regained after 9/11 and has been exploited with as much, if not more vigor than the anti-communist scare ever was. The Red scare has been replaced with the Dread scare of Islamophobia and the notion that all Muslims are out to take our freedoms by force.

“Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self-interest.” – Napoleon Bonaparte

It’s not that democratic revolts in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and other places scare the Right as much as it is the concept of democracies period. The Right’s dread of democracies is spelled out in Walter Williams’ column today who sees them as products of rabble-rousers and need to be eschewed. Rule by the majority is feared over the rule of smaller groups elected to represent the larger population – the Republican form of government. It should be understood democracies are the fore-bearers of Republics and democratic principles are the mainstay of representative government.

But they are both of the same cloth and to denigrate one over the other is to drag both down into the ideological abyss of extremists on both sides. Decrying democracies because they are perceived as a threat to stability is a petty argument that works more to demean the word Democrat over the word Republican. It plays into the political divisiveness of politics today as does the fear-mongering by right-wing extremists to keep Islam represented as the evil du jour so ultra-conservatives pundits and politicians can work the crowds to their advantage

In the eyes of many on the Right, unless these Muslim efforts to democratize their politics promote only American capitalist self-interests, then all else is “socialism” and jihadist terrorists spreading ancient caliphates to control the world. The tool of pre-emption that the Bush/Cheney gang used in Iraq remains a tool of first resort for these people because if any Arab democracies form that don’t allow the U.S. corporate/military complex to expand at will, then wealthy christian interests will be stifled. And THAT would be the biggest fear for Cal Thomas and his band of righteous marauders.

‘The world is flat’ in Egypt (politico.com)
If Not Now, When?

Posted by lbwoodgate in Global politics, Religion/Science, Social Discourse, Society and Politics Tags: American Revolution, Cal Thomas, Egypt, Egyptians, fear, Hosni Mubarak, Islamophobia, Middle East, Muslim, Muslim Brotherhood, right-wing extremists, terrorism

2 comments

Are Liberals Deceiving Themselves?

February 23, 2011

Should the kumbaya efforts of many liberals toward people who constantly vote against their own self-interest die a rapid death?

A piece I recently discovered from The Runaway Lawyers blog by Mark Ames called We, The Spiteful, got my juices flowing. It addressed the question I have commented on more than once in my articles that asked the question – why do many Americans, especially white males, vote against their best interests? Mr. Ames hits on something that Liberals like myself tend to be unwilling to concede - how assholes like Bush, Boehner and the extremist just installed as Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, get elected by seemingly smart but spiteful people; people who appear to be well-adjusted but may for the most part be discontented with themselves and their lives.

What Ames is suggesting is that people who perceive themselves subconsciously, maybe even consciously, as losers, vote against their own self-interests because they are “a bunch of mean, miserable hicks … hostile to enlightened thinking”. You might want to write off Ames too quickly as cynical with comments like “malice and spite are as American as baseball and apple pie”. But he makes a good defense for himself.

The point can definitely be made that anti-intellectual comments are common amongst many on the right like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, two of the biggest losers in terms of moral turpitude and callousness. And the Tea Party demonstrators at town hall meetings were definitely exemplary of spiteful people who wanted nothing to do with government “socialist” programs but wanted you to leave their Medicare and Social Security alone.

To further illustrate this class of people we need to focus our attention on the patriarch in white families. Many white males envision themselves as dapper Don Draper on “Mad Men”. Not the fearful weakling that has hidden his identity for years but the image he struts in front of the public that makes him envious of other men. Sarah Palin’s popularity was elevated by white males who were attracted to her good looks and even conceived that her winks to the crowds were little cupid arrows shot straight at them, or so thought the National Review’s Rich Lowry who commented on Palin’s performance during the 2008 Vice-Presidential debates.

Palin “projects through the screen like crazy,” Lowry cooed. “I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.” Perhaps for many white males it was more like a pulsating sensation around their frontal area below the waist line.

Is there anything more pathetic than some pot-bellied, middle-aged man whose thinning hair is combed in a way to give the illusion that there’s more there than there is so he can impress some attractive woman who wouldn’t normally give him the time of day? The movie success of stars like Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Vin Diesel hinges on male audiences who watch their movies and live vicariously through the persona they portray because they are pretty much the total opposite.

I think Ames may be more right than not when he asserts that too many Liberals have been naive in their views about the people who keep putting the men and women in office that rob them of their dignity when they’re referred to as hobos and slackers for taking unemployment benefits during this recession or convincing them that health care reform is a tool of the devil. Just take a look at the “death panel” clause in the bill that Democrats want to force on old people, many on the right are heard to exclaim.

What is there not to understand about people who attack health care reform that reduces premiums and prevents insurance companies from refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions or canceling what coverage they have when their hospital bills get too high for the insurer’s tastes? Nobody is that stupid. They have to be spiteful to want to vote for someone who laughs all the way to the bank because they got enough people with low self-esteem to vote against their self-interest by suggesting a political opponent was a “socialist”, gay, a Muslim or an abortion rights advocate; those emotional wedge issues that conservatives always fall back on to push their candidates across the line in a tough races that are too close to call.

For those who doubt that smart people would cut their nose off to spite themselves let me share some information about voters here in my neck of the woods, North Texas (I know, that seems like a no brainer to the rest of the country). While working for the Democratic candidate running against 5-term incumbent Michael Burgess I walked the streets a couple of days to get signatures so we could put my candidate on the ballot. As I knocked on doors and talked to people I ran across several who were more interested in my candidate’s views on abortion than they were about job creation or controlling health care costs.

They all pretty much conveyed to me in some form what one lady flat-out told me. “I won’t vote for anyone who is for abortions.” I told her I wasn’t sure where my candidate stood on the issue (I truly had not discussed this with him) but asked if that single item would lose her vote even if he represented every other value that she believed in. She assured me it would.

Now whether this lady and the others were oblivious that there was no bill pending on abortion floating around in the U.S. Congress wasn’t clear to me, but whether they knew or not didn’t matter. Being pro-choice was worse than being pro-life, even if you supported real life sustaining measures like cheaper, more available health care coverage or tougher regulations to insure clean air and clean water or prevented contaminated food from reaching store shelves. Babies may die from these circumstances after they’re born but these people were not going to vote for someone they thought might support the right for some naive teen to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. If that isn’t spiteful then Sammy Davis Jr. wasn’t black.

Now I am not of the mind that all conservatives, even all white male conservatives are spiteful. Many of them do vote along lines with Liberals for issues that serve their best interest. The right-wing fringe might call them RINO’s (republican in name only) but they are the traditional conservatives that still linger in the GOP despite their shrinking numbers. It is highly conceivable however that Ames’ perception of the rest of the crowd is the only plausible reason that makes sense, as off-the-wall as it seems.

The bottom line though is that Liberals need to get over their kumbaya notion about educating “misinformed” people who vote Republican when common sense dictates the opposite. It’s a waste of time that takes away from the necessary efforts to win elections for candidates and issues that will benefit even the most egregious white male, despite the fact that they routinely attempt to prevent this from happening. The fact that a “huge bloc of American voters are worse than merely ‘irrational’ ” is something that Liberals need to take to heart and ask themselves as Ames does, “why the hell do we need to like them; why is ‘likable’ even a factor?”

Posted by lbwoodgate in Health Care Reform, Our crazy and wonderful world, People, Society and Politics Tags: Democratic, GOP, health care coverage, Mark Ames, Rich Lowry, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, spiteful voters, Sylvester Stallone, Tea Partiers, Vin Diesel, voting against self-interests

8 comments

The GOP’s Mubarak Mistake – Ignoring the Need for Jobs

February 20, 2011

Without skipping a beat, as soon as the GOP regained control of at least one house in the U.S. Congress and numerous state governorships and legislatures, private corporate interests have taken precedence over public issues again.

Illinois wants Wisconsin's rejected stimulus funds - Chicago Tribune

THE PEOPLE STRIKE BACK

At the core of any social unrest is the failure of government to meet the needs of most people. Economic interests lie at the top of any list that can spur protests and even riots from a country’s population. So when jobs become scarce and the cost of goods and services start getting out of hand, the government that’s seen as ignoring these or just poorly managing the efforts to correct them are likely to experience what is going on in the Mideast now and what we’re beginning to see here, in Madison, Wisconsin.

In Egypt for example, political repression was definitely a factor there and the one we are most likely to think that Egyptians railed against primarily. But for people who have studied this closer and who are more familiar with the Egyptian culture and economy, that popular uprising was a reaction to the corruption in their government over the last three decades that had focused most of its energy on those well-healed few to the detriment of the majority. Too many were unemployed and hungry from serious food shortages while the friends of Mubarak lived relatively comfortable lives.

Two to three years ago here in the states, as the economy reached its fever pitch with high unemployment rates while government leaders bailed out large financial institutions, the majority of us were losing our jobs, homes and any future plans we had been saving up for. The efforts of the Obama administration with the Democrats to deal with the crisis that was left from the previous administration only partially succeeded to ameliorate the job losses with its stimulus package. Their efforts were viewed by many as going too far while others, like me, felt it did too little. Again, too many in the lower socio-economic strata were suffering while those in the upper-income sectors were not, and who in fact soon bounced back better than before.

Today’s reality is that the economic gains on Wall Street are not being matched on Main Street. Corporate profits are at record levels while more people now are unemployed than they have been since the 1980’s under Reagan. But the factors that allowed the economy to grow quickly before Reagan left office are not in place here to spur on a similar recovery. And to make matters worse we have a political Party in some positions now that has been pushed further to the right by a Libertarian element. Yet this reconfigured Republican Party seems as oblivious as it did under Bush/Cheney to the plight of most people as they fix their sites on the deficit by cutting jobs in the public sector. This is being done with cavalier disregard too as expressed by one of their leaders who flippantly declared, “so be it”.

“Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs,” [House speaker John]Boehner said. “And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We’re broke.” As usual the Speaker of the House was being deceptive and disingenuous. According to FactCheck.org, the “actual number of federal jobs that have been created from January 2009 to January 2011 is nowhere near 200,000.” And declaring that we’re broke is true enough but how we got there is worth noting since the weight of our debt lies largely on those who have dismissed the needs of the general public over the last 10 years.

SOWING THE SEEDS OF DISCONTENT

While pushing us into two wars and spending billions on tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, an economy that struggled for eight years under George Bush finally collapsed in his final year from his and the GOP’s failure to restrain greedy financial institutions. These factors along with a spend-and-borrow funding policy and a housing bubble that burst from lax regulatory standards on lenders wiped out a trillion-dollar surplus in those eight years and left the incoming administration with a huge record deficit at the time; putting a huge hole in our economy that would not be repairable anytime soon.

Angry voters, apparently with very short memories, bought in to the straw man arguments two years later that the GOP and their Tea Party allies put out there, blaming all this on Democrats and making many of them scapegoats in the 2010 elections. For that achievement of theirs we are now left with the FOX in the henhouse to wreck even further havoc to the general working population.

Their plan is to perpetuate the myth that spending cuts in the public sector will be our main salvation from economic devastation and that more tax cuts (especially from the top 2%) that rob the treasury of needed revenue to pay down the deficit will miraculously turn our sinking ship around. It is once again the neo-conservative Grover Norquist’s wet dream of reducing the federal government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Believing as they do that when the wealthiest of us prosper, we all do, through the naive theory of supply side economics or as it’s better known, “trickle down economics”. Trickle down economics relies on low marginal tax rates so entrepreneurs can put more of their profits back into their businesses; in so doing this should create more jobs. Most small businesses do this. However, what we are seeing instead is reinvestment of profits by many large corporations into high yield financial products, like derivatives and the profits on these are going more back into stock holder dividends and executive bonuses rather than new job creation.

By killing off public sector jobs then you have a means of reducing the taxes that help pay for these jobs; taxes that when eliminated can now lower those marginal rates for businesses. So now we’ve come full circle where government leaders are more bent on meeting the needs of a well-healed contingent – corporate special interests.

Projected as a means for reducing the deficit, the sum effect here is actually intended to increase the wealth of a few. If the GOP were seriously focused on reducing the deficit you would see reasonable tax increases, realistic policies to reduce health care costs, federal subsidies to large corporations being axed and bloated Defense Department budgets shrunk. But that is NOT what we are seeing.

The social unrest occurring with teachers in Wisconsin is just the beginning of a public outcry on what were the results of mismanaged budgeting by conservative governors and legislators. The next battle ground for similar disruptions could be in Texas where teachers, parents and students plan to rally in front of the state capital March 12th in Austin to decry the legislature’s attempt to correct a budget shortfall of anywhere from $15 to $27 billion. This shortfall resulted from lowering property taxes back in 2007, hoping newly increased cigarette & gas taxes along with a small business tax would compensate for this take away in revenue. It failed miserably.

THE VALUE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

Public sector workers are those people who keep our communities safe, orderly, educated and clean like police officers, fire fighters, teachers, sanitation workers, street and utilities maintenance workers, county court and records employees and many others. These are all important services needed to promote the general welfare of this country and its economy.

Despite the claims made by corporate-friendly wags, a recent study by University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee economist John S. Heywood shows that “U.S. averages were 11 percent less pay for state employees than for their private-sector counterparts and 12 percent less for local government workers”.” Heywood doubts that lower levels of union membership explain much if any of the public-private sector pay differences here. “Now is not the time for a large-scale rollback in the compensation of state and local workers”, Heywood noted as “states face huge budget gaps [and] federal stimulus money recedes [while] the economy recovers slowly from a deep slump.” (Texas public sector pay 17% lower than private, report says by Robert T. Garrett, Dallas Morning News, 4/29/10)

The Tea Party-friendly Republican governors in both Wisconsin and Texas have vowed to consider only cutting spending on public sector jobs as a means to reduce their budget shortfalls. Creating revenue through taxes is out of the question. Other states who have recently elected politicians sympathetic with Tea Party values like Minnesota, Ohio and Indiana will be watching these two states closely to see if the outcomes are in favor of deep public sector cuts. If that does indeed turn out to be the result we may well be able to hear the $$$ cha-ching $$$ sounds going off in corporate boardrooms around the country.

Democrats Turn The Tables On GOP Messaging (huffingtonpost.com)
‘Where Are the Jobs?’ Talk Aimed at GOP (time.com)

Posted by lbwoodgate in Health Care Reform, Jobs, Society and Politics, Texas/Local stories Tags: corporate greed, corporate interests, cost of living increases, GOP, Grover Norquist, jobs, John Boehner, political unrest, Public sector, Republican, unemployment, Wall Street

2 comments

Here’s the Ugly Truth for the Wealthy on Social Security Corrections

February 19, 2011

What motivates Republicans to continue promoting the myth that Social Security is a major source of the deficit problem? The general public’s ignorance?

Image via Wikipedia

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was recently praised by conservatives at the CPAC convention for his comments regarding Social Security and deficit reduction. Washington Post writer Dana Milbank touted Chrsitie’s efforts to do “what must be done to solve the debt crisis” by raising the Social Security age to 70. Milbank went on to inform his readers that following the obese governor’s self effacing remarks about his weight how “his physique also works to his advantage by reinforcing Christie’s appeal as something other than the blow-dried politician who says whatever the voters want to hear. Christie isn’t pretty, and he tells ugly truths.” Milbank’s comments seem out of place considering that Christie was in fact telling his CPAC crowd what they wanted to hear.

Naturally conservatives would go ga-ga over such a suggestion that misleads people about social security benefits. Even Ann Coulter was demanding that Christie reconsider his position that he won’t run for President. “Your country needs you” she declared on Sean Hannity’s FOX news program the other day.

Right,we need someone who is unafraid to say things to people who expect to hear such things. Let’s get Christie into an open debate and ask him why he thinks a big part of the solution for solving our deficit problem is raising the age of seniors to 70 before collecting full Social Security benefits.

The idea is bad if for no other reason than the statistics that show most low and middle-income people don’t live as long as wealthier people do who have better health care coverage, so the likelihood that most people would be unable to collect their benefits is increased by raising the age limit. The other reason this is a bad idea is that it plays into the false belief that Social Security benefits are part of the general federal budget. Among other reputable economist, Paul Krugman debunked this notion last summer in an Op-Ed piece here, where in part he said:

“Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.

But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that day will never come.”

Robert Reich of the Roosevelt National Advisor...

Image via Wikipedia

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and current Professor at Berkley University states it in even stronger terms, “Social Security isn’t responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It lent the surpluses to the rest of the government. Now that Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in, Social Security can simply collect what the rest of the government owes it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years.” (Budget Baloney: Why Social Security Isn’t a Problem for 26 Years, and the Best Way to Fix It Permanently, by Robert Reich, Huffington Post, 2/16/11)

So Christie and conservatives are merely playing that worn out red-herring card about Social Security failing and being a drag on the national debt. Clearly something needs to be done to offset the increase of beneficiaries that the baby boom generation will affect in the coming years but raising the age limit is the least of our solutions for this. As Matthew Yglesias points out, Christie’s solution appeals to his wealthier New Jersey constituents.

“Closing the projected actuarial gap in Social Security requires some combination of more immigration, higher taxes, and lower benefits”, Yglesias notes. “Relative to higher taxes, lower benefits tend to be preferred by richer people. And of all the different ways to reduce benefits, raising the retirement age is the one that does the most to punish the poor and demands the least sacrifice from the rich. Christie, it’s true, isn’t saying “whatever the voters want to hear” but he’s not telling the truth either. What he’s doing is saying what rich people want middle class people to believe.”

Tapping the resources of the rich is indeed a realistic proposal to end our “social security crisis” as Robert Reich, who himself was a former Social Security trustee, pointed out by simply raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax. The government, under a plan initiated by then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan back in 1983 established a fix to keep social security solvent for all time.

“Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income. It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000. Presto. Social Security’s long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.”

So unlike the “ugly truth” that Dana Milbank and all others who are fawning over their new Messiah to wrest the Presidency back for them in 2012, Christie’s suggestion is just an overt proclamation that many conservatives politicians haven’t the courage to express as openly to their constituents. Why would they? Unless they have a death wish the idea to tamper with most people’s only source of revenue in their retirement years is not a position they want to take if they seek to get re-elected.

Recent polls show that most people feel that the cap on the amount people have to pay in Social Security taxes each year should be increased while a strong majority oppose raising the age at which people can retire and receive their full benefits from Social Security; even if such a plan were phased in over a 65 year period. Clearly the tone-deaf GOP are only able to hear that small minority at events like the CPAC convention where even there they fight amongst themselves to find footing in order to demonstrate they have any leadership capabilities to take back over the reins of power in 2012.

Why We Really Don’t Have a Social Security Crisis [Mike the Mad Biologist] (scienceblogs.com)

Posted by lbwoodgate in seniors/aging, Society and Politics Tags: Chris Christie, CPAC, Dana Milbank, Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax, Greenspan Commission, income gap, raise limits to tax social security, Robert Reich, Social Security

3 comments

Monthly Archives: February 2011

Gov. Perry and Texas GOP are Short-changing Children’s Future

My Picks for Best Native American Movies

Could Muammar Gadaffi and Charlie Sheen Compete Without Bloodshed on DWTS?

Are Liberals Deceiving Themselves?

The GOP’s Mubarak Mistake – Ignoring the Need for Jobs

Search Blog Content

America Honors Leaders, Not Politicians

Bet on solar power

What I have written recently

Blogroll

Archives

Follow “Woodgate's View”

Monthly Archives: February 2011

Related Articles

Related Articles

Related Articles

Related Articles

Related Articles

Related Articles

Search Blog Content

America Honors Leaders, Not Politicians

Bet on solar power

What I have written recently

Blogroll

Archives

Follow “Woodgate's View”