"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Tag Archives: Dick Cheney

lack of empathy

Many liberals and gay rights advocates are celebrating Senator Rob Portman’s reversal on same-sex marriages.  Many are also pointing out how this reversal was motivated by an empathy that appears to only extend no further than immediate family members.  It was the revelation that his son was gay that encouraged the Republican congressman from Ohio to reevaluate his view of gay rights and decide not to support any federal law that prohibits gay couples from receiving the same federal benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy.  Here are but two of those reactions:

While I would like to say that it makes me happy to have the first Republican senator come out in support of marriage equality, I am having a difficult time getting past the whole “I need this EXACT situation to affect me PERSONALLY before I can do anything” mentality that seems to persist in the halls of Congress.”   Kenneth Walsh from the HuffPo blog

I’m glad that Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio has reconsidered his view on gay marriage upon realization that his son is gay, but I also find this particular window into moderation—memorably dubbed Miss America conservatism by Mark Schmitt—to be the most annoying form.”   Matthew Yglesias at Slate.com 

Though Portman’s turn around on this issue is quite dramatic since he was one of the original backers of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the 1990s, it is still noteworthy that this change in attitude would likely have never been forthcoming had his son remained in the closet.  Kudos to the son who understood that his coming out could be a national embarrassment to his father and yes, some applause should be extended to the dad for not trying to conceal it to benefit his political career.

But I’m on the side with the critics here.   Empathy is something that conservative Republicans appear to have very little of until it impacts some of their own.  There are those of course who appear to lack any at all.  There was Newt Gingrich’s hypocrisy towards Clinton sexual misconduct while the former speaker himself was boning another woman before serving divorce papers to his second  wife – while she was hospitalized.   Most recently there was Mitt Romney’s 47% soul-less comment about those who had fallen on hard economic times as a result of financial malfeasance in the investment banking sector, declaring them as moochers and takers because they supported someone who provided relief for them when they lost their jobs and homes.

Many top officials in the Bush administration, including the president himself, VP Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld – none of who saw active combat duty – supported the shock and awe campaign that killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the government’s assault on Iraq back in 2003 and ultimately the death of 4488 American military personnel.   Rumsfeld’s cavalier attitude toward most of the civilian deaths was typical of the neo-conservative mentality that wrote off such tragic loss of human life as mere “collateral damage”.

Pentagon Holds Departure Ceremony For Rumsfeld Compassionate Conservatives?

CONFESSION AND MEA CULPA

All of this has taken me back to a time when I myself was anti-gay, even as I professed liberal ideas.  I also considered myself to be a somewhat devout Christian at the time but I didn’t want scripture alone to be the basis of my opposition to same-sex unions.  I was intent on pressing the compassion of Christ however if I was going to pass judgment on others who appeared to violate “the word of God’.

I came to reason then that homosexuality was indeed a distortion of that natural state men and women developed from.  Rather than cite scripture I attempted to appeal to the intellect by insisting that homosexuality violated the laws of nature.  How could we be designed for anything else other than being drawn to opposite sex partners out of the life-serving need to procreate and sustain the species?  Did not the male and females anatomies alone validate this?

It was important to me too that homosexuals were not to be demonized but merely were the unfortunate recipients of a gene mutation that led to same-sex propensities.  But as I expounded on this notion it drew into question the perfection of God’s creation that we have been led to believe is there.  If homosexuality was more than mere choice; a choice that eschews God, then why would people who were raised with this belief suffer the torment they developed overtime that drove them toward gender like partners rather than opposites?

I could have easily rejected such a rational response and declared, as many fundamentalist do, that Satan was trying to deceive me.  But my journey to understanding my faith had already convinced me that a God of love and mercy could not also create his or her evil opposite.

The deeper I dug into my faith origins the more I discovered that much of the dogma we’re taught as children and the fear of hell we’re raised with should we “stray”, had little basis outside the conventional wisdom of a time when people still thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe.  Once I concluded that many fundamentals of my religious teachings were wrong or metaphorical at best, it was not such a great leap to conclude my adversity towards homosexuals had no raison d’etre except for the fear-based attitudes of many of my elders and peers.

gaymarriage-cartoon

Inherent in my decision to change, as mentioned above, was the need to express compassion or empathy for those who suffer from want or hatred of others.  Raised in the Catholic church I had fully incorporated the core principles behind our faith being love and mercy.   How could we be so cruel to blacks back then and still call ourselves Christians?  How could we treat women as second class citizens and still not share the mindset of Jesus who saved the whore from stoning and rebuked the Pharisees who admonished the woman who washed his feet in Luke 7:38?

If God was, is and always will be, how could it be that such things were seen as they were but no longer are now?   Were we wrong then or are we wrong now?  In view of the evidence we now possess about our universe and human equality, the logical conclusion one would have to draw is that we had it wrong then.

To admit that our previous and preconceived ideas about many things we held so tightly to are now wrong and should thus be revised to fit the reality, to me, takes real courage.  The fact that Senator Portman has made this change about gay marriages in light of the evidence he has been willing to accept with his own son is exemplary … but courageous?

I have not always been courageous when I should have been.  I have been guilty of trying to reconcile my lack of courage with some feeble rationale that excuses such weakness.  I have been able to forgive myself to some degree however because of those times when I have shown some courage in the face of adversity.  One of those times came when I finally admitted openly to many gay people I had looked down on that my views about them were wrong.

SHARED HUMANITY; NOT RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS

It didn’t take the revelation about 4 years later that my own daughter was gay for me to develop empathy for homosexuals.  It simply required that seed of compassion planted, oddly enough, by the same church people who taught me to condemn those different from me.

Why the one stuck with me more than the other can only be attributed, in my opinion, to the legitimacy of what is morally right.  Love and mercy that hones our empathy for others carries the moral high ground and for people who wait until something personal happens to them or theirs means needless suffering continues for millions of others who share similar deprivations.

Many conservatives will raise the objection about their lack of compassion by pointing out their charitable giving through their churches or private giving.   That’s a whole other issue we could debate but let this response suffice to answer that objection.  So what?

Liberals give equally in these areas and yet still all of this charity combined is insufficient to meet the human deprivations that exist not only in our country but around the world.  Where some might ask as Cain did “Am I my brother’s keeper”?,  a liberal is more likely than a conservative to answer yes to that question.  That’s part of what distinguishes the two. Besides, treating people as equals costs nothing in monetary terms.

It’s time that the moral high ground showed itself more naturally within the ranks of conservatives instead of those arguments they diligently make to avoid it.  A good place to start is to change the right-wing narrative within the GOP that persecutes anyone who raises the issue of income disparity.  It’s real and it’s not a choice people make.  It’s unnatural and needs to be confronted courageously.

compassionate_conservatism_sjpg1323

RELATED VIDEO:

Re-blogged from HumorOutcasts.com 

Those of us who blog owe it to ourselves as well as our readers to post compelling material as best we can.  We may not always succeed but that should not diminish our efforts to do so.  In that vein we should also be willing to avail our blog to others whose material meets the standards of good writing that informs as well as entertains and thus alters somewhat our perspective of how we see things.  It need not always be serious in nature.  In fact, I think writers infect a greater audience about certain realities in our world when they employ humor.

So I submit the following piece from Kara, the nom de plume of an individual who characterizes himself as a “family Guy/American Dad/TCS Producer/Citizen of the World. He also explains that his opinions are his own, “and do not NECESSARILY reflect Fox’s positions or opinions.”  He posts regularly on the HumorOutcasts.com blog I subscribe to and on occasion contribute to.

In this piece entitledMore Terrible than Fiction Update – Polonius from Hamlet and John McCain”, Kara shows us a remarkable comparison between the Shakespearean character of Polonius and his contemporary, John McCain.  It is both clever and insightful about a man who has fallen from a status that he perhaps never should have been elevated too.  But first, this short feature presentation of Kara’s on Sarah Palin  Enjoy.

 

sarah-palin

What fiction writer – if any – could have conceived of Sarah Palin without completely blowing the boundaries of reality? Dickens? Shakespeare? Ruth Rendell? In children’s fiction, maybe, where a parodic lunatic still has its place. It’s not really in grown-up literatures nature to have stone cold villains, coal-black embodiments of evil. Serious literature has no shortage of killers, molesters, kidnappers, cannibals, misanthropes, black widows, bloodsuckers, pederasts and politicians…and there are plenty of literary counterparts to modern assholes (change Italy to Iraq in Catch-22, and Milo is Dick Cheney and Colonel Cathcart is George W), but of the snidleliest whiplashes ever to have bound sweet damsel to train track, has any serious writer of novels ever conjured up a sub-literate rube from a weird, frozen tundra, a vicious “hockey mom” to 5 terrible children who shoots wolves from helicopters? Or a character as farcical as “Anne Coulter”, or as grotesque as Roger Ailes?

Polonius from Hamlet by William Shakespeare and John McCain

mctongue-pic  Polonius

King Claudius’s chief counsellor and father of Ophelia, Polonius is an old fool and self-absorbed windbag whom Shakespeare referred to as a ”sincere” father, but also “a busy-body, [who] is accordingly officious, garrulous, and impertinent.” For all of his obsequious manner, Polonius must have some abilities to have attained his present high office, but will never ascend to exalted rank.

Polonius’s oratory style is overextended confidence in his knowledge, pride in his eloquence, his dotage encroaching upon his dwindling wisdom. His pomposity comes from knowing that his mind was once strong, and unawareness that it has become weak. He drones on, pedantically and impertinently, with artful turns of thought, amidst actual serious business. He is a victim of the dereliction of his faculties; he forgets what he’s taking about; loses the order of his ideas, and entangles himself in his own thoughts. His phrases are ambiguous and confusing, and he sometimes loses the thread.

Polonius poses as a wise statesman, but cannot resist childish strata­gems, seeing things in black and white, discovering coverups and intrigue at every bend and acting on unsubstantiated suspicion to disastrous consequences. Nearly every event in the place results from from his ill-judged influence and the blunders he perpetrated.

Polonius likes to give “when I was your age” speeches, dishing out lame advice, overeagerly dispensing characteristic specimens of cootish pearls of wisdom in boorish fashion. His attempts at humor are bumbling and pathetic. He is inadvertently hilarious. In a dark play, Polonius is comic relief . When one of the players delivers a heart-wrenching rendering of Priam’s death and the hullabaloo to follow, Polonius interrupts to say , “This is too long.” Polonius coined the paraphrased aphorism, “Clothes make the man”.

John McCain has been called many things during his endless Washington career — “craven,” “shameless, senile”, “amoral,”stupid,” “drug addled,””pompous”, “world’s worst pilot” and “completely full of shit”. He is equally loathed by liberals, conservatives and the people of his alleged “home state,” Arizona. He seems brain addled, often confused, like when the avowed foreign policy expert mixed up Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or repeatedly referred to the Czech Republic as “Czechoslovakia”. Senator McCain routinely, manifestly loses his grip on the present, appearing not unlike a certain person who “could speak no sense in several languages.”

Superannuated politicians like John McCain seldom have any strength to fall back upon, so default to the resources of memory. He loves talking about his soldiering days. You know, his storied career where he routinely got in trouble with authority for crashing planes and ended up a POW because he wasn’t a very good pilot. It’s truly an inspiring tale of mediocrity and downright stupidity. He is an old man, a windbag, and out of the ashes of his extinct faculties come meaningless but sincere homespun aphorisms. as a blind man may seem to distinguish colors, so long as he refrains from speaking of the colors that are before him.”

In addition to his apparent cognitive problems, Senator McCain exhibits a distressing deterioration in his sense of decorum and propriety. He volunteered his wife for a topless beauty contest, and jigged around singing “Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran. This loss of self-regulation is called “disinhibition” and can result in inadvertent hilarity. Who can forget “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” Or how he was unable to answer how many houses he owns. Or when he said to his trophy wife: ”At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt”. Or him sticking out his tongue at the end of the third presidential debate after getting confused and walking off the stage the wrong way. Or calling on an absent Joe The Plumber at a rally, accidentally endorsing Obama, calling his constituents “my fellow prisoners”, his general confusion, and being less than informed. Oh, and the gorilla rape joke.

McCain’s usual gracelessness is amped up by a staggering lack of self-awareness, such as his churlish whining about liberals supposedly getting favorable press coverage. McCain’s career has been unremarkable, from abandoning a seriously-injured wife in favor of a rich replacement, to the Keating Five scandal to his bone-headed selecting of Sarah Palin as his running mate, with little of real distinction to fill the gaps, except for the THREE DECADES that he has been shouting “Cover Up!” at every turn. The DC press corp’s calculated burnishing of the “Maverick” myth, puffing up his credentials, burying his scandals, and crafting a heroic public persona, made him the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, and suckered us into believing he was a “hero”, rather than an opportunistic and deeply vindictive pol who once crashed a plane. His best moment –by his own account–consisted of refusing to accept the early release offered by his Viet Cong captors. Like Polonius, McCain is a man strong in general principles, who fails repeatedly in application.

No amount of pity for the physical ordeal he endured in his youth could have compensated for the reality that John McCain is an erratic, pompous, petty and self-serving man and a notorious SOB even by Washington standards. The same man who was hanging around with the rebels, encouraging them to overthrow Ghadaffi, while calling for increase support for them is now running around blaming others for the actions of his buddies in Benghazi. The arrogant, pig-headed “war hero” has managed to turn into a lonely, sad, pathetic old man whimpering in a bitter, cold rain of his own making.

Polonius is hiding behind a tapestry in Gertrude’s room, when he gets scared and yelps for help. Hamlet draws his sword and thrusts it through the curtain. Polonius is stabbed in the gut. “Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell! I took thee for thy better”. – Hamlet


The presentations by the candidates in last night’s presidential debate should have removed any doubt who has the foreign policy strengths.  Obama made distinctions that Romney could only agree with.

In 2008 Barack Obama’s critics said that he was an “empty suit” compared to John McCain on foreign policy.  Though it was an ugly assessment it had great merit at the time.  Obama ‘s national political experience was fairly nascent in 2008 and his foreign policy savvy was almost non-existent.  Had the country not been so determined to shuck the failures and abuses of the Bush administration, which by default fell on any GOP candidate for President, this foreign policy weakness could have lost it for Obama.

Fast forward to last night’s foreign policy debate with Mitt Romney and you see a Barack Obama who has mastered not only the language of a foreign policy expert but who has a broad and in-depth understanding of the matrix that is critical in setting policy here and abroad to sustain a position of leadership in global affairs.  Gone was the “empty suit” that many accused him of being in 2008.  Yet when Mitt Romney clearly displayed a similar weakness last night, as he has this entire campaign, supporters raved how well he displayed a “leadership” image.

Style, not substance, all of a sudden became a ringing endorsement for the crowd that always liked to point out how the GOP had the foreign policy creds.  And it was this approach that apparently seemed to be the card that the Romney campaign wanted to play based on the political spin put out by his operatives following the debate.  During the debate many conservative commentators were lamenting Romney’s performance.

David Limbaugh asked on Twitter, “Why do these advisers tell Mitt not to go for the jugular? Why?  Laura Ingraham was essentially doing the same – Romney using kid gloves ag[ain] — WHY?!”   The ever vivacious S.E. Cupp thought that “Obama is making laughable, easily argued points. But Romney’s not effectively arguing them.”    I find it presumptuous for anyone to say there is any “jugular” there.  Even Romney’s attacks on Libya are falling apart.

Afterwards conservative pundits were trying to portray Romney as “restrained” while painting Obama as agitated and overly aggressive.  Some of us thought we saw the reverse of a Presidential debate #1 and yet conservatives now view the candidates differently.  Looking presidential was more important than attacking your opponents weaknesses.

Try as he did to come off as a poised leader, Mitt Romney was often flustered in how to respond to foreign policy details posed by President Obama

Comments were similar by Romney supporters who went to the blogs to present their views on who they thought won.  It was an obvious defense for a man who had now become the empty suit of the campaign.  His ideas were neither fresh nor pertinent.  His cold-war state-of-mind seemed to think an Iran with nuclear weapons was our greatest national security threat (something they are years away from by the way) yet who had told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer back in March this year that Russia was “without question our number one geopolitical foe”  On this, Obama had perhaps one of the best one-liners of the night.  “The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.”

What was clear about the Romney strategy last night was that since he was a light-weight compared to the President on foreign policy, his goal became, which many say he achieved, not to get entangled in details he has no knowledge about.  His one strength was to try to connect a weak economy with a weak foreign policy effort.  But the President was ready for him on this issue to.  Obama pointed out how Romney leans towards sending troops back into Iraq and appears too eager in suggesting that boots on the ground may be required in Syria and Iran.  “After a decade of war, I think we all agree, we need to do some nation-building here at home,” the President told the audience in his closing statement.

Tying Romney to a cold war, militaristic approach nullified, I thought, any attempt on Romney’s part to assure many voters, especially women, that he would not be quick to send our sons and daughters back into harms way.  This point could have been driven home more vividly had Obama pointed out that the members of Romney’s foreign policy team are essentially the same who helped define the “preemptive strike” doctrine of the Bush/Cheney era.

[On] July 12, Governor Mitt Romney [was] attending a GOP fundraiser hosted by former Vice President Dick Cheney at his home in Wyoming. It’s fitting, really, since Romney has called Cheney a “person of wisdom and judgment.”

[When Romney was considering] possible running mates, it’s worth remembering that he pointed to Dick Cheney as the “kind of person I’d like to have” working with him.

Out of Romney’s 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it’s likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity — a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous.    SOURCE   

Perhaps Romney’s performance last night did present itself to many as a calm leader who would not cave under the stress of global conflicts.  This is indeed a quality that exudes leadership.  But knowledge and decisive action speak louder than appearances.  Obama has demonstrated this capability, along with a cool-headed demeanor, and was convincing as commander-in-chief in last nights debate.  Once Romney opened his mouth it became apparent that he was more concerned about having his feelings hurt by Obama while coming across as agreeing more with the President than as someone who has any bold new approach for addressing crises around the world.

If it were appearances we were going for instead of knowledge and certainty then this image of Romney would be appropriate

Horses and bayonets’ is the hot new meme


When Republicans, right-wing radio talk show pundits and FOX news commentators tell you that our deficit is a “spending” problem, they’re not being totally honest and they’re doing it on purpose.  

The current deficit exists because we’ve eliminated huge amounts of revenue through tax cuts and corporate subsidies while continuing to spend on programs that are both necessary and needed.  Other financial obligations in the form of two foreign wars have also run us short of cash to the point that we now have to borrow nearly one-third of everything we owe.

The Republicans want to ignore the fact that our current deficit mess is the result of the Bush tax cuts they approved back in 2001 and the two wars they implemented as they were reducing federal funds to pay for them.  To further enhance our deficit issues, the failure of Congress to properly regulate  greedy financial markets has led to defaults that have costs millions of jobs; jobs that served as sources of revenue to pay for wars, tax cuts and needed entitlement programs.  Thus the deficit is only a problem in the sense that Republicans need a smoke screen to conceal their negligence over the last few decades, starting with Ronald Reagan’s pro-corporate policies and extending to Dick Cheney’s assertions that “deficits don’t matter” as they went on a spending spree that has created the largest income gap in history between the haves and have-nots.

It would be true to declare that federal spending is higher now than it has been since the end of WWII.  Left at that, this would infer that our deficit problem IS a spending issue.   But the other half of the equation is that revenue to pay for what we spend is also lower than it’s been since 1950.  Spending  by the government may be a part of our debt problems but when conservatives pass legislation that reduces revenue, especially from the wealthiest amongst us, it is also a failure to maintain the necessary capital to pay for what we need to do.

Historical data has shown that when you cut federal spending too much you create conditions for recession.  Combined with tax cuts, recessions become deeper and longer.

FactCkeck.org has recently posted data on the broader fiscal picture showing that when only half of the valid information is discussed by partisan hacks, many voters are poorly informed and thus seem confused about what action they want their representatives to take.  The information from FactCheck, displayed here, clearly shows that spending alone is not the cause of high deficits and any action to address it without increasing taxes or stimulating job growth will continue to make the problem worse.

Some bullet points on their research are as follows:

  • Federal spending (“outlays” in budget jargon) is expected to equal 24.1 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The figure was 25 percent in fiscal year 2009, highest since 1945.
  • On the other hand, federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8 percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the figure was 14.4 percent.
  • These historically high rates of spending and low rates of taxation have combined to produce a chain of deficits that are also the highest since WWII. The deficit was 10.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009. It declined to 8.9 percent last year as the economy started to recover, but is projected to go up to over 9 percent this year. Each of these deficits is larger than in any year since 1945, measured as a percentage of GDP.
  • The U.S. is borrowing about 36 cents of every dollar spent so far this year. It borrowed 37 cents on the dollar last year, and 40 cents in fiscal 2009.
  • The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent). Interest payments on the federal debt alone accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending, and that percentage is rising.
  • The federal income tax accounted for 41.5 percent of federal receipts in 2010 (down from 49.6 percent prior to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 – 2003). Corporate taxes brought in only 8.9 percent, also down sharply since the recent recession. Payroll taxes and other “social insurance” payments accounted for 40 percent of total receipts in 2010.

Currently the Republican-controlled House is threatening further economic disaster by refusing to raise the debt ceiling if they do not get more spending cuts than they have already received from a generous White House and Democratic Senate.  They refuse to budge on the issue of raising taxes as a means of curbing the deficit and focus entirely on spending, and not just any spending cuts.  They are determined, with the aid of wealthy interests and narrow fiscal ideologues to cut that spending that impacts the most vulnerable of our citizens; the elderly, children and low-income wage earners

Besides deluding you about how we are already over-taxed (see graph above), Republicans would have voters believe that the rich are unduly burdened with taxes.  This negative image is skewered by the fact that “the rich” are also seeing income levels higher than they have ever before and at a growth rate that far exceeds more than 95% of other wage earners.

 The most recent complete data cover 2007. CBO figured in that year more than half of all federal taxes was paid by the top 10 percent of income earners. They paid 55 percent of all federal taxes in 2007, CBO said.  

That’s a comprehensive figure, counting the income tax, payroll taxes, excise taxes and even the corporate income tax (borne by stockholders in the form of reduced dividends and appreciation). And perhaps surprisingly, the top 10 percent of earners pay a greater share of federal taxes now than they did before the Bush tax cuts, which Democrats constantly criticize as a giveaway to “the rich.” The top 10 percent paid 50 percent of all federal taxes in 2001.

However, that comes in spite of lower tax rates at the top, not because of it. The reason the most affluent 10 percent pay a greater share of taxes is that they are getting a greater share of all income. Their share of all pre-tax income went from 37.5 percent in 2001 to 42 percent in 2007.

The GOP and their conservative counterparts in the media would argue lamely that by overtaxing the rich you dry up the financial resources that would go into job creation.  This sounds good in theory but is simply not the case as the first part of the 21st century has indicated.  Under Bush and the GOP, job growth was the weakest it had been from previous administrations with only a 4.8 percent increase in jobs during the entire period the Bush tax cuts were in play.

That’s not nothing, but it’s pretty anemic compared to job growth under President Bill Clinton. President Clinton, after raising taxes in 1993, oversaw an economy that went from 111 million jobs in August of that year (the month Clinton’s budget plan passed, including the increase in taxes) to 129 million jobs six years later—an increase of 16.2 percent, and more than three times better than under the Bush tax cuts.

And the Bush tax cuts didn’t just fail to stack up on jobs. Overall economic growth was much slower under the Bush administration’s tax policies than under the Clinton administration’s tax policies. Real gross domestic product grew by 26 percent in the six years after Clinton’s tax increases. But real GDP grew by just 16 percent in the six years after the Bush tax cuts began. In fact, that six-year growth rate was low even by general historical standards. The average real GDP growth in any given six year period (from any quarter to the same quarter six years later) since World War II was 22 percent. SOURCE

The Center on Budget and Policy priorities agrees that our deficit issues are more a result from discretionary spending and tax cuts than mandatory spending which entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid come under.  According to the CBPP “the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.”  (See diagram below)

Though nearly a third of all federal spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs – paid for in large part by deductions from income earners – one-fifth goes to National Defense, which includes Homeland Security.  The GOP has focused on the two major entitlement programs and have given nothing but lip service to cuts in national defense.

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are facing fiscal problems because of retiring baby boomers and lost revenue from high unemployment rates but there are ways to reduce entitlement costs without reducing needed benefits for most of the recipients.

One such measure that would address Social Security’ financial ills, that the GOP and their wealthy, corporate friends object to, would “eliminate over 100 percent of the currently projected 75-year long-range actuarial deficit … and would provide enough funding to pay scheduled benefits every year through 2080.”   This could be done by simply raising the current income level of $106,800 that are taxed for Social Security purposes.  SOURCE

The largest cost over runs in Medicare and Medicaid are fraud committed by care givers and medical supply vendors.  Making stronger efforts to reduce this criminal activity could save the system billions in lost revenue.  Eliminating many unnecessary medical procedures and drug prescriptions would also help lower Medicare/Medicaid costs considerably.  Both of these steps are part of the new health care reform bill that was passed last year when Democrats were still in control of the House and that the new GOP-controlled House has attempted to negate by passing HR 1217 – the Repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund bill.

One showcase item that illustrates how poorly Republicans address the needs of one segment of low-income citizens while contributing to a bloated deficit is the Prescription Drug Bill that passed in 2003 by the GOP-held Congress and signed off on by George Bush.  Rather than allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription prices or allowing Americans to purchase cheaper medications in Canada and Europe, the $400 billion program ensures that Big Pharma continues its practice of over charging Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries as well as their benefactor, the U.S. tax payer.

With all of this information at our disposal why do Republicans insist on making this an issue that can only be resolved by spending cuts, especially those cuts that impact the most vulnerable amongst us?  It’s been contended that they are more interested in exploiting a bad economy (that they helped foster) with the hope that voters will oust the current president and the Democrat majority in the Senate so they can regain control of these two seats of power.

Would they really be so insensitive to inflict the damage their efforts could have on millions already struggling to make ends meet just to hold political sway in seats of government?  A bigger question is why would voters re-seat a Party that essentially has made no attempt to correct the problems that have brought our working families to their knees and who did everything they could when they last held that power to meet the special interests needs of less than 2% of their constituency?

With just a few days left before this nation defaults on its financial obligations from GOP obstructionism, the American public needs to become better informed about those who represent them in Washington.  FactCheck.org resources have helped lay this out but will those who have thus far been partially misled continue to rely on their own subjective sources and allow ideology to prevail over sanity?  I encourage all who read this to go to this page on FactCheck.org and decide for themselves if the GOP has their best interests at heart.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How the Deficit Got This Big

Debt Ceiling Poll:  Voters With Obama

Dumbing Deficits Down

The Emergency in Front of Us is Jobs




It appears that if your approach to appealing to area and state voters is to bad mouth the federal government while declaring how much better state government takes care of its own while masking your allegiance with right-wing fanatics about seceding, then you are opening yourself up for condemnation when you try to turn on this perception.

Following an anti-tax Tea Party rally two years ago, Texas Governor Rick Perry egged on the secessionist notion in the state by telling reporters later that if people get fed up with the federal government they may want to secede.

“There’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”  SOURCE

Perry has been falsely claiming thatthe federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.”  Actually personal income taxes are lower now than before Obama took office in 2009 and the deficit didn’t matter back when Dick Cheney told then Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill in 2002, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.  We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.’ A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired”  and the federal budget went from a $1 trillion surplus to a $500 billion deficit.  Perry further bolstered his anti-government gravitas by rejecting $550 million in federal economic stimulus money in 2009 that was slated to help Texas’ unemployment trust fund.

In all fairness to the controversial governor, Perry’s premise has been that the federal government has “abandoned the country’s founding principles of limited government”.  This of course is a highly charged comment that overlooks  what the limits of the government really are over time under the Constitution.  Slavery was still in existence when the Constitution was ratified and women were not allowed to vote.  Did Perry want to go back to those “good old days”?

Perry however has made no case to express the role of government in favorable terms leaving his excited crowds to continuing swallowing the wrongful notion that all government is bad and never the solution to some of the problems we face as a nation.

Perry’s adamant vitriol against the federal government was further pronounced at those Tea Party meetings two years ago when he saidWe think it’s time to draw the line in the sand and tell Washington that no longer are we going to accept their oppressive hand in the state of Texas.”  Yet since then, Think Progress’ Yglesias has pointed out that Perry has gone to the federal well more than once because the state was not “independent” enough to handle massive issues following Hurricane Ike back in Bush’s presidency and the drug-related violence occurring along the border in early 2009.

All of this has come back to bite Perry in the butt as the recent wild fires in Texas has led Perry to once more ask Washington for help, even as he cries foul that his popular punching bag is not there to console him quick enough.

Gov. Rick Perry criticized FEMA for its slow response to his request for federal disaster recovery assistance in connection with the state’s wildfires during an emergency management conference in San Antonio Friday.

”We can’t always count on Washington to come running. It’s been two weeks now since I wrote President Obama requesting assistance to deal with these wildfires,” Gov. Perry said. “We’re still waiting on a response.”  SOURCE 

Last week Perry invoked the aid of God for help as he called on all Texans to pray for the “end of [this] ongoing drought and these devastating wildfires”.  This didn’t pan out since most of what rains Texas received during this time was in an area that wasn’t suffering the worst of drought and wildfires.  Some of the these storms were strong enough though to create even further property damage from high winds, flooding and tornadoes.  Be careful what you pray for Governor Perry.

This failed attempt left Perry to call down the federal government for not doing it’s share even though FEMA has reported that “the federal government has been supporting the State of Texas with 22 Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) declarations, including 16 FMAGs since the beginning of April”.

How much is Perry and the GOP responsible for the travesty that wild fires inflict in this state?  They lower taxes that cut in to the state’s ability to properly fund resources  that are needed to prevent and fight fires.  They promote the use of fossil fuels over renewable energy sources disproportionately as more and more evidence mounts showing a relationship to global warming and man’s increased used of emitting CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuel use.

Let’s not forget that Perry and the GOP state legislature have not offered to use the “rainy day” fund for this crisis.  They seem to be holding onto to this “emergency” money until their corporate buddies need the help.  The state of Texas is also battling the EPA these days to prevent them from regulating CO2 emissions at coal-fired power plants and other industrial sites yet their own agency (the TCEQ) lacks the man power from defunding to help contain this growing problem.


Anti-government and anti-tax rhetoric is appealing to most hard-working people but when it is used to their detriment it is often difficult for a misinformed public to see the forest for the trees.  The notion that all federal assistance is bad and the government is more the problem than the solution plays into the hands of polluting industries trying to avoid taking necessary action to curb these toxins or paying their fair share of taxes to fund emergency situations.

Perry has revealed in his recent tap dance around the facts that you can only blow smoke up the asses of naive citizens so long before you are forced to choke on it when the wind direction changes.  But the frozen mindset most voters have in Texas regarding anything tainted as “liberal” is the real factor in why this state continues to sink to the bottom of all categories that show where we stand when it comes to needs of our children, the elderly and the unemployed.



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers