Jefe-Honcho Rules. As a military veteran, should you wish to post a Commentary here at the web site for the Chicano Veterans Organization, click on over to our email address and send your submission forward for our consideration. And be sure to include your name and telephone number, should we need to contact you for any reason. And remember, Humor helps.
___________________________________
The Komen Foundation's decision...is one for Criminal Stupidity
Today, Planned Parenthood announced that they have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and due in part to the decision taken by the board of directors of the Komen Foundation that raises large amounts of monies from the general public and in which sizable amounts of these monies are used, in particular, to address breast cancer threats to economically disadvantaged women.
However, this decision flies in the face of Common Sense, given the stellar reputation of Komen, and now, they’ve ‘trashed’ their reputation, and should they recover a modicum of this ‘rep’, it will take many years for this recovery to take place. And the “story” is that the professional staff advised against this decision, and which led the public health advocate to resign in protest.
And Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for the Atlantic Magazine and posted on its web site, has this to say regarding the “story” and titled, “Top Susan G. Komen Official Resigned Over Planned Parent Cave-In” and dated today, explains what happened:
“Three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut-off Planned Parenthood…The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams resigned in protest immediately follow the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood.
“…John Hammarley, who until recently served as Komen’s senior communications adviser…explained that the Planned Parenthood issue had vexed Komen for some time. “About a year ago, a small group of people got together inside the organization to talk about what the options were, what would be the ramifications of staying the course, or of telling our affiliates they can’t fund Planned Parenthood, or something in between.” He went on, “As we looked at the ramifications of ceasing all funding, we felt it would be worse from a practical standpoint, from a public relations standpoint, and from a mission standpoint. The mission standpoint is, “How could we abandon our commitment to the screening work done by Planned Parenthood?” But the Komen board made the decision despite the recommendations of the organizational staff to keep funding Planned Parenthood.
“…Another source directly involved with Komen’s management activities told me that when the organization learned of the Stearns investigation, they saw an opportunity. “The cart came before the horse in this case,” said the source, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity. “The rule was created to give the board of directors the excuse to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood. It was completely arbitrary. If they hadn’t come up with this particular rule, they would have come up with something else in order to separate themselves from Planned Parenthood.”
And now to the “back story” of this Congressional investigation. It seems that a pro-life group complained to a Republican House member, and given the “juice” he has, caused a Congressional sub-committee to commence this investigation, and the political fallout has “captured” Komen wholesale, given that Komen was already looking for a “way out” of their commitment to continue funding Planned Parenthood. Therefore, Komen will now have to “create” an organization that is far more acceptable to the Komen Foundation in order to prevail amidst this political debacle and leading to their revitalizing their reputation. And the Komen Foundation may not be up to this task, given our political savvy as military vets and for our playing political hardball when we defend, for and on behalf for America’s poor
In the meantime, we will be looking to see what the National Council of La Raza, will say and do, remains doubtful, but in contacting them, their statement, either in private or public, will be a “tell” when it comes to a continuing behavior for helping America’s economically disadvantaged women. Moreso, when the Obama administration gets around to speaking publicly. And given my current contretemps, I will be expecting the White House to say virtually nothing, as the Obama’s re-election committee continues to pander to Latinos for our vote. And this puts Obama in the “middle” of this political battle and where we stand with the women and who no viable alternatives for breast screenings and the attendant “medical care delivered.”
Regardless, Latinas, first and foremost, seek out the “goods and services” provided by Planned Parenthood, and of course, Planned Parenthood has a stellar reputation in our Spanish-speaking communities, all across America, and thusly, the Great Matriarch’s anger and angst will be felt by the Komen Foundation. Consequently, all “hell will break loose” but done in a quiet manner that we consider appropriate with our dictum for Patience and Self-Restraint and which will be demonstrated over the coming years, and yes, years.
Jaango--posted on February 2, 2012
Words that continue to resonate...
On the Internet, Bill in Portland Maine, and located at the web site of DailyKos, continues to provide the political entertainment and which continues to resonate for all of us, the inveterate “tubers” of years gone by.
To wit, he quotes the late Molly Ivins, and whom died of cancer five years ago. As such, the following from the Great Scribbler, i.e., Molly Ivins:
1. November, 1994: Newt Gingrich has already achieved the improbable effect of making Bob Dole seem cuddly. …When Gingrich started muttering about putting millions of children in orphanages to be raised by a government that he believes can’t do anything right, some of my compatriots here on what passes for the left were chilled to the bone.
2. May, 1996: Nincompoopery has never been a bar to high office in our nation. Newt Gingrich’s sole claim to serious consideration is that he’s great copy. He has no ideas, no principles, no integrity, and by and large, he’s a damn fool.
3. September, 1999: Gingrich seems to be a spent cartridge as a politician. All that speculation about whether he would run for president is long gone…no more Time magazine Man of the Year, no more “defender of civilization” or lectures on how liberal policies cause moral decay in America. […] This is the man who promised that Republican leadership would “improve the moral climate of the country.” So this presents us with an epochal moment in the history of hypocrisy. As Gingrich led the Republicans in full hue and cry concerning the moral sleaze, the sordid tawdriness, the unbearable, brazen shameless conduct of Bill Clinton, he was having something more than a flingette himself. We could be looking at a new world record for being two-faced.
4. November, 2006, following the Democratic takeover of the House: Of all the viral members of the media who have been suggesting that the Dems cooperate with their political opponents, the one who rendered me almost unconscious with surprise was Newt Gingrich. […] Newt Gingrich, the man whose contribution to civility was to recommend that all Democrats be referred to with such words as cowards, traitors, commies, godless, liars and other such bipartisan-promoting terms.
With today’s Florida election for the GOP’s nomination, Gingrich has been taking a beating due to Romney’s heavy regimen of television advertising, and as such, the advertising snippets that comprise the “message” have been mild compared to Gingrich’s past statements. And in America and where “second chances” are viewed favorably, but when today’s political toxicity abounds, it’s not likely that a second chance will knock on Gingrich’s door.
Jaango--posted on January 31, 2012
America's Hall of Wise Counsel
In the past, I have written, with humor included, much about what will occur within the next forty years and when America’s “racial and ethnics” become the majority of the population. And it’s from this perspective on the future that the historians will be “having their fun” at our expense, given that yesterday’s political toxicity enables today’s gridlock, and furthermore, given that this ‘gridlock’ commenced among the “kissing cousins” or infamously known as the Marriage of the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs of the early 1970s, with their astute focus on their ever-present and “minimalist” intervention by the forces of “anti-government” and followed by and among other rhetoric, for “drowning government in the bathtub.”
And with this in mind, the Great Society will be “reconfigured” and thusly, perpetuated for time immemorial. Notwithstanding, and by way of contrast for our future, “racial and ethnics” will begin to craft a Hall Of Wise Counsel and which will become emblematic for what America was and what we expect America to become. Consequently, a modicum of Self-Restraint and a focus on what is impermissible, while being dedicated to future generations, is the single-mined purpose for this, “The Hall.” Or perhaps, with a tad of tongue-in-cheek humor, this Monument Massive should be called “The Hell—concretized.”
To wit, at this Monumental Massive residing on our National Mall and in our nation’s capitol, and located outside of the entrance to this iconic facility, will be established, a series of “rosters” that are dedicated to our Criminal Stupidity. As such, each roster will focus on the “names” in America and in which each purveyor or practitioner for this Criminal Stupidity, will have their respective names emblazoned on these rosters--rosters that are time sensitive to each decade in which they “led” America over the cliff and into the abyss below.
Therefore, I am providing the “first name” and which is: “Envelop Please.”
1. Grover Norquist. (1990)
Now, feel free to add any “name(s)” that you feel is “well qualified” for each decade-oriented “roster.” And btw, Thanks. And lest I forget, all this is being provided in “good fun” and thusly, adding vigor to the ever-present political juice.
Jaango--posted on January 31, 2012
Who moved "right" and who moved "left"?
The political cognoscenti in our nation’s capitol, has become enamored of the “polarization” of politics and thusly, “bipartisanship” is for the rubes located outside of our nation’s capitol. And no, I am not using a “straw man” argument to reflect this view. It's this reality that addresses "gridlock."
After “listening” to the many voices that are the prognosticators in the large media outlets, in both print and electronic, these views are amply reflected among the current roster of Presidential Aspirants. However, more attention needs to be given to what Ross Perot created and which is the Ideology that passes for today’s “anti-government” meme. Of course, after Perot acquired a sizable following in challenging President Clinton, the Republican establishment realized that there was a new “base” of insurgent voters, and moved to challenge and capture these voters by “moving” the Republican Party further to the Right.
With this in mind, the political historian would be far better off to look at the ascendance of the “kissing cousins” found in the early and mid 1970s and which has led to today’s political toxicity. To wit, the reformulated relationship between the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Libs took place and which led to the elimination of the military draft. And as for us, the Native Americans and Chicanos here in the Sonoran Desert, we are correct in this historical assessment, especially when the historians among the next two generations, will come to realize that the Right “moved” right and the Left “moved” to the center of the political spectrum. However, the camouflage has been ripped off the white “conservative” Democrat, and who is no longer the public face of the “liberal,” and this for us, led to the idea that conservatives would be apt to implement the nonsens envisioned for the ad nostrum of you can be a “co-conspirator” in your own human smuggling, and of course, the now iconic SB 1070, as well as prohibiting of “Mexican American Studies” in any high school in Arizona, since this intellectual exercise will lead to an obvious “the overthrow of the Constitution” given the current Rule of Law here in our august Desert. And this prevalent outcome that emanates from the politicians' Logic of Fear, epitomizes the “conservatives” in America, both Republican and Democratic alike.
Sadly, this cabal of the infamous “kissing cousins” introduced the Lexicon for the Logic of Fear, not in only the Authority to Use Military Force (AUMF) and the use of a vast array of “mercenaries” in the Middle East, but now the Battle of the Drones includes this equipment for patrolling the skies over the U.S-Mexico border and with the expectation that nothing of any importance will be accomplished. And yet, these historians of the future will write and quite perceptively, I might add, on the War on Terrorism, and conclude that America’s behavior should have been solely focused on a large scale implementation for a Schematic “On Law Enforcement.” Thus, the ultimate consequence for Criminal Stupidity was perpetuated. And to today’s Debate among the Republicans, not only in South Carolina and Florida, reinforces this obvious perspective, and here’s the “why.”
Today’s political toxicity from our nation’s capitol is easily found among the cognoscenti. Take, for example, both John Harris and Jonathan Allen of Politico and Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake of the Washington Post. Together, each speaks to the “great” Big Adults getting together for striking the euphemistic or “grand” bargain of months past and when it eventually comes, the Big Adults achieved the unexpected for this year and next. And subsequently, anything “accomplished” will be delivered to the rubes back home and therefore, another re-election effort will be achieved and the overall costs minimized. Or a victory for “our side” happened and thusly, a re-election is well-deserved, is what can be sold to the voters as a minimalist ‘anti-government’ intervention.
And yet, the “unassailable” fact is that this hyper-polarization, took place in the fourth, fifth and sixth years of the Bush/Cheney administration and commenced with their effort to “privatize” the Social Security Trust Fund. And yet, a Georgia political scientist has given considerable credence to the idea that this polarization commenced when the Republican Party “moved” further to right and far beyond the traditional norm, and with which I agree, and of course, with one caveat. That being the forgotten mention of the “kissing cousins” Construct and which led to the “appearance” of the conservative Democrat or Neo-Lib with their public alignment with the Neo-Cons. And to answer, my earlier posed question of “why” is that the “kissing cousins” now see themselves as “anti-government” despite their continuing desire to Wage War and as currently exemplified in the current campaign of “bomb Iran now" or “sooner rather than later.”
As Native Americans and Chicanos, we recognize that our “unmet needs” requires far more government intervention, not less. Thus, America’s “conservatives” parse their “anti-government” rhetoric quite well, but does not address our “needs.” So when a conservative, either Republican or Democrat espouse that each will be voting for the Construct that is the “lesser of Two Evils” Obama will be easily re-elected since a sizable portion of these “conservatives” will be voting for Obama and premised on their behavior that they are actually happy with the current conservative, albeit a Democratic conservative that voices his anti-government meme somewhat differently and to the point where this “anti-government” meme is far less offensive to us, writ large.
In closing, we, here in the Sonoran Desert, know well of our “unmet needs” found in Jobs, the Economy, Judicial Appointments and Immigration Reform. And for us, there is no Construct for the “lesser of two evils” but for the more appropriate and iconic, the Great Society, of historical fame and which epitomizes what America is and can be, comes to us from the 1960s which includes our Civil Rights struggle and equally important, led by the military vets of World War Two. And lost in today’s political hyperbole for the instrumental toxicity, is that neither Romney, Gingrich and Obama, are military vets and expecting “more” from these three, is not in our deck of cards. But we will take what we can, and especially on behalf of our children and for the subsequent generations that will surely follow.
Jaango--posted on January 30, 2012
Odds and Ends
An obvious slow and tedious week, or until Congress completes its stellar accomplishment in latter February.
1. In a new public opinion poll by Latino Decisions and done for Univision News and ABC News, found that Latinos support President Obama at 67% against Romney and against Gingrich, Obama’s lead is even larger.
2. On Tuesday, Gingrich told Fox News that he would not participate in anymore debates unless the audience was allowed to participate via the responses offered by the Roster of Presidential Aspirants. And yesterday’s debate in Florida and sponsored by CNN and the Democratic Leadership Network, CNN permitted audience participation. Now, is CNN still a “liberal” media outlet according to the Right?
3. ABC News’ Sunday morning program or “This Week” will feature both Romney and Gingrich.
4. According to his former secretary and current supporter, Congressman Ron Paul ‘singed off’ on the racist newsletters.
5. The Republican Mayor of Mesa, Arizona, was present and on the tarmac, and refutes Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer on President Obama “being tense.” However, the Governor is now selling more books on Amazon. Obviously, style and finesse has been over-taken by finger pointing.
6. Speaking of the Florida debate, Josh Marshall of the news aggregator web site, Talking Points Memo Dot Com: “A lot of these debates have been pretty bad. But this strikes me as the most disjointed debate I think I’ve ever seen. The moderation is poor. The candidates seem to be the campaign equivalent of punch drunk. What do you think?”
7. The Republican extension, Politico, has its headline, “Voters polarized by Barack Obama, poll finds.”
8. And finally, the Florida Debate. With the first two questions going to Romney, on Immigration and Housing, Gingrich “lost” the debate. Can Gingrich recover? Having to go this route again, Gingrich, may be facing his political demise should he fail to recover.
Jaango--posted on January 28, 2012
Education: No "upper limits" to cost?
When it comes to education, the standard fare among the cognoscenti is that a college education is worth a million dollars over a 40-year period. And yet, the “real” value is measured at an approximate three hundred thousand dollars. Consequently, the tuition is measured at seventy-five thousand dollars a year during the normative four or five year period needed to acquire the college degree.
If so, the “upper limit” for the market pricing of tuition has yet to “top-out” given that this cost will not deter the wealthy youngster, but will deter the youngsters and who have a parent or parents of modest means. Thus, income inequality is going to be with us for many years to come, unless, Latinos can craft a differing schematic, and yet, we have. But who is listening?
Today, if one looks to the lack of education, the “cost” is indeed disconcerting. And in regard to the various academic studies that are readily available, taking a gander at the Latino Community, these studies, unfortunately, don’t tell a more significant or substantive story, and which is disheartening to me. As such, our daily reality is found in the likelihood that the approximate “high school drop out” rate far exceeds the normative 50% given the migratory flux found in our community while in search of employment. Conversely, if our young people had a college degree, our Spanish-speaking community would be a “boon” to America’s wide swath of “technical recruiters” in search of talent.
And Ed Kilgore, the historically consummate writer and policy process wonk and is now the “new” writer for the Atlantic Monthly Magazine, speaks to the “value” of education, as well, and goes on to quote another study done by the College Guide and which indicates the following found in these two paragraphs:
“Two recent analyses from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce describe what is happening. The first is that roughly 60 percent of American jobs will require some level of education beyond high school by 2018. Unfortunately, only about 40 percent of American adults have a two- or four year college degree, and around 5 percent more have a certificate or other credential of high value in the workplace. That’s a big gap.
“But what about all those unemployed college graduates? The other analysis by the Georgetown Center found that 22 to 26 year olds with a bachelor’s degree have an unemployment rate of 8.9 percent. That’s high by any measure, but the unemployment rate for young adults with only a high school diploma is 22.9 percent, and it’s a staggering 31.5 percent for high school dropouts. And it is almost certain that those college graduates will be the first one hired as the economy recovers.”
And here at the Chicano Veterans Organization (CVO), we have been advocating for our “Academic-Military Draft” and in today’s political environment, this Idea has yet to gain any sizable traction or gravitas among the Elected and Appointed Officials across America. And that’s understandable, given that it’s going to take at least 40 years, or until that ‘moment in time” when America’s “racial and ethnics” community gains the requisite “influence” and where Education becomes attenuated to our perspective. Thusly, we continue to counsel both Patience and Self-Restraint.
And with President Obama’s unlikeliest of an aggressive statement in his State of the Union speech in which high school dropouts are to be prohibited or until the student reaches the age of 18 years, is, obviously, a fortuitous “good start” and yet, as a political ploy to garner or acquire more voters for his re-election is understandable, and among our Spanish-speaking, he will gain a sizable support and vote, and as it should be since the GOP’s Roster of Presidential Aspirants have yet to “offer” Latinos anything in the way of education that’s both reasonable and acceptable to us.
In closing, the “value” of education in our community is far more important to us, than it is amongst the general population. And for those of us—as military veterans and our access to educational dollars, has been “boon” to us, and especially when we have to combat the political attack from the Right for reducing our civic engagement to a “second class citizenship.” Needless to say but I will, our educational attainment was the driving force for our having created the Chicano Veterans Organization.
Jaango--posted on January 26, 2012
More on the "Idiot's Corner" Albeit, the "Dunce's Corner"
Update: Given the raft of emails encouraging me to change it to the Dunce's Corner, I have done so. As such, "my bad."'
In Oklahoma, a state legislator, in keeping with the Conservative Agenda, introduces legislation to “ban” the use of a human fetus for being incorporated into the food chain. Amazingly, the state legislator has not embarrassed himself, or so he believes.
However, when questioned on his behavior, the “best” that he could conclude was that such behavior had yet to occur according to his research. Obviously, he must have received an internet chained email, and subsequently, took his “authority” oppose the “potential” for the use of a human fetus being included into the food chain, at some indefinite time in the future. Thus, the “logic” and the “fear” of his victimization by forces unknown, comes to fruition! Perhaps, there’s a “conspiracy” somewhere lurking in the weeds?
AND…
When the Mayor of a town of East Haven in Connecticut and of a working class community, Joseph Maturo was asked by a reporter the question of “What are you doing for the Latino community today?” Of course, the reporter was referring to “the four [police] officers accused of waging a campaign of harassment against Latino residents and businesses, including assaulting people while they were handcuffed and intimidating people who tried to investigate or report misconduct allegations.”
Unfortunately, Mayor Maturo responded with his proverbial deflection for, “I might have tacos when I go home; I’m not quite sure yet.” Obviously, the Mayor’s stellar remarks seem appropriate for him, given the GOP’s penchant for being the practitioners of the “Bashing the Latinos” Progam.
Equally important, is that the Mayor has apologized, given his lack of any substantive hearing problems, and thusly, the Mayor can take his “apology” and stuff it where the sun don’t shine. In short, attributing a second-class citizenship to any person in America is not acceptable!
AND…
Recently, the former disgraced Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, called President Obama the “Food Stamp President.” As such, Gingrich now qualifies for this prestigious “corner.” The reality is that when Gingrich was the Speaker of the House, he demolished the existing "welfare program" and simultaneously ramped up the Food Stamp Program. Of course, Gingrich's Idol was Reagan and Reagan was consistent in his espousal of "welfare queens" and thusly, Gingrich defined himself as the "food stamp king."
Jaango--posted on January 25, 2012
The "finger in the dike" continues
When it comes to Comprehensive Immigration Reform, both the conservative Republicans and the conservative Democrats prefer the notional for “self-deportation” and which is not much different from what we hear, constantly and consistently, here in the Sonoran Desert for “attrition through enforcement.” So, when asked, former Governor and presidential aspirant, Mitt Romley, and others, simply revert to the conservative meme, writ large, here in the United States.
However, Adam Serwer, is not happy that our former and current Elected Officials want to make life so miserable for undocumented immigrants that they will leave on their own. Thus, Serwer is speaking out and does so in a column for the Mother Jones Magazine, and titled, “Self Deportation: It’s a Real Thing, and It Isn’t Pretty” and dated, January 23, 2012. To wit, he says the following:
“This is the right-wing’s answer to the question of how you deport eleven million unauthorized immigrants: You don’t. You force them to “deport themselves.” Although immigration reform advocates would prefer a solution that involves a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants already here, Romney and his top immigration advisers believe they can remove millions of people through heavy-handed enforcement that makes life for unauthorized immigrants intolerable. This approach is notable for its complete lack of discretion and flexibility. Unauthorized immigrant parents with citizen children who need to go to school? Americans who are married to an undocumented immigrant who needs medical treatment? “Self-deportation” hits them all with the same mailed fist. […]
“[M]ake no mistake, when Romney is discussing “self-deportation,” he’s talking about creating a United States where parents are afraid to register their kids for school or get them immunized because they might be asked for proof of citizenship. He’s talking about the type of country where local police can demand your immigration status based on mere suspicion that you don’t belong around here. “Self-deportation” is just a cleaner, less cruel-sounding way of endorsing harsh, coercive government policies in order to make life for unauthorized immigrants so unbearable that they have no choice but to find some way to leave.”
And yet, here at the Chicano Veterans Organization, we have crafted a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Schematic that starts with our “littlest citizens” born here in the United States and which requires that their parents, although undocumented immigrants, would rise to the level for being given a “first priority” Preference for accessing and eventually becoming citizens within the requisite time frame. Therefore, our Patience and Self-Restraint will have to be maintained for the next forty years or until we, the “racial and ethnics” become the majority of the population, or for “influencing” the progressive Democrats to craft a viable immigration process that adds the “respect” that is required and due to our “littlest citizens” and their lifelong merit for being citizens.
However, when it comes to “understanding” this notional for “self-deportation” requires us to revisit the history espoused in 2005 by the right wing think tank called the, Center for Immigration Studies. To wit, this from Mark Krikorian:
“Among other measures that would facilitate enforcement: hiring more U.S Attorneys and judges in border areas, to all for more prosecutions: passage of the CLEAR Act, which would enhance cooperation between federal immigration authorities and state and local police; and seizing the assets, however modest, of apprehended illegal aliens.
“These and other enforcement measures would enable the government to detain more illegal aliens; additional measures would be needed to promote self-deportation. Unlike the visa office or the border crossing, once aliens are inside the United States, there’s no physical site to exercise control, no choke point at which to examine whether someone should be admitted. The solution is to create ‘virtual choke points’—events that are necessary for life in a modern society but are infrequent enough not to bog down everyone’s daily business. Another analogy for this concept to firewalls in computer systems, that people could pass through only if their legal status is verified. The objective is not mainly to identify aliens for arrest (though that will always be a possibility) but rather to make it as difficult as possible for illegal aliens to live a normal life here.”
Of course, here at the Chicano Veterans Organization, we have been too far advanced in our thinking as well as in our advocacy, beginning in early 2000, when we began the serious effort in “influencing” Congress for the establishment of TransNational Technology Centers and in which these Centers would be established in each state’s capitol, thereby permitting the “contact and funds” required by state authorities here in the United States in a political and economic engagement with the state authorities in Mexico, as one small example. Consequently, the migration flow would continue, both back and forth, and done intelligently. Furthermore, the economic “boon” between the investment communities in the United State and Mexico, would be increased significantly, if one is willing to take a gander at the Tucson Sector in which Mexican investors are heavily engaged in the housing market, from owning homes as well as for the purchasing of a vast swath of mortgage paper from the residents in Tucson and the surrounding geographical areas. And it’s equally important to consider, these Mexican investors did not suffer during the housing bubble and subsequent meltdown. And one has to ask the intelligent “Why?”
Today, when “immigration” is discussed, we, the Native Americans and Chicanos here in the Sonoran Desert are indeed tired of “listening” to the “old and tired white dudes” given that the discourse in America has changed and will continue to change for the better. Thus, the obvious and historical “rants by rote” from these everlasting O&TWD’s will come to pass, and as destined for the assorted and ossified deposits found in America’s proverbial Idiot’s Corner.
In closing, the Republican roster for the presidential nominees for this election cycle can continue to talk the talk that is the “idiot’s corner” while carefully avoiding the phraseology for “attrition through enforcement.” And in “looking to the Future,” the conservatives in the Legacy Parties, fail to acknowledge America’s Future being brought forth by the “racial and ethnics.” As such, the “finger in the dike” continues to weaken.
Jaango--posted on January 24, 2012\
Odds and Ends
The GOP’s primary caucus in South Carolina will be held tomorrow. In the meantime, enjoy the following items of “some” merit.
1. The Israeli intelligence community believes that Iran has yet to make their decision on whether creating a nuclear weapon has value.
2. With the House Financial Services Committee is holding a hearing on the Volcker Rule, and the “Occupy the SEC” delivers their letter suggesting that the major banks need to reduce their involvement in ‘trading’ and emphasize the basic fundamentals that pertain to banks and not financial services. Perhaps, in their next letter they will emphasize the “separation” between investment banking versus banking fundamentals?
3. Jack Lew, the White House’s new Chief of Staff, used to bust unions in his spare time. Nothing to see here?
4. Yeah! A Republican member of Congress was already donating a part of his salary to the Treasury for deficit reduction, and Warren Buffet has agreed to do a “dollar-for-dollar” match.
5. After following the AIDS “quilt,” the “foreclosure” quilt has arrived.
6. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton emphasize that their decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline will be “blocked.”
7. Another political insider now has a book out and which points the finger at the White House for having “dealt away” the “public option” on universal health care and with this dastardly result leading to the Progressives among Democrats tossing President Obama into the trash bin of history for being a neo-liberal/conservative.
8. Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and after being a co-sponsor of PIPA has flipped over to support the Internet Coalition in their opposition to both SOPA and PIPA. As of Wednesday noon, over 30 members of the Senate are now siding with the opposition, and former Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and now the hefe-honcho of the MPAA or the motion picture industry, is not a “happy” camper, to say it best. As such, ten more “flippers” are needed.
9. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta finally “gets off his ass” and begins to focus on the “rape of women in the military” and say’s it’s now his top priority. Perhaps, the forthcoming documentary “changed” his mind and when seen, will “injure” the public image of the Pentagon?
10. When it comes to being “promoted upwards” the Great Larry Summers and who oversaw the decision-making process during the Clinton Era, and which led to the financial meltdown that started in 2007, and followed by his Tour At Harvard and for being drummed out, and further, followed where the Democrats flipped over to the Republicans for any lack standing for challenging George Bush, is now being considered to head the World Bank when the term of the current President expires later this year. President Obama should be ashamed.
11. As of Wednesday evening the GOP’s nominee, the former disgraced House Speaker, Newt Gingrich has a wind storm at his back in South Carolina and the Romney folks are quickly rolling out another campaign ad that is “wind blasting” Gingrich similar to what was leveled at Gingrich in New Hampshire. Perhaps, Gingrich will circumvent Mitt Romney and much to Romney’s surprise, anger and angst, and thereby making the campaign a “blast” from the further Right extremists.
12. The polarizing news outlets. According to another Pew Poll, the majority of Republicans prefer FoxNews as their preferred news outlet, among all others. In contrast, Independents and Democrats prefer all the other news outlets and seriously dislike FoxNews.
13. During the Holiday Season, the news media picked up the stories of two women being disrobed by the TSA at our nation’s airports. The final story is now out, and the TSA refuses to admit that the two women were disrobed in a private screening area. Now, where is Secretary of Homeland Security and former Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano going to defend the two women of their “security/privacy rights”?
14. Earlier this week, Mitt Romney accepted the endorsement of Kris Kobach, and now the Kansas Secretary of State, and author of Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s even more stringent legislation. Thus, his—Romney’s ‘pandering’ to Hispanics, with an emphasis on his family’s religious “roots” in Mexico will now come to a consequential and fortuitous end for Hispanics.
15. Texas Governor Rick Perry has “suspended” his campaign and is expected to endorse Newt Gingrich and done before Saturday’s primary vote. Alas, Perry’s campaign collapsed due to his stance on Immigration, and fell further, given the number of “oops” and gaffes combined.
Jaango--posted on January 20, 2012
A "new" Sleeping Giant has been awakened
For those among us and who’ve paid attention to the political dynamic that is now present in the State of Wisconsin, the recall of Governor Scott Walker(R), is now coming to the forefront. And lest we forget, Governor Walker never campaigned on eliminating collective bargaining rights. Thus, the Sleeping Giant is now awake and stirring about.
The Democratic Party and Wisconsin United submitted their recall petitions to the presumptive board that determines the viability of the recall of public officials. In this instance, it’s called the Government Accountability Board and not the normative Office of the Secretary of State.
And this comes to us from the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel located in Milwaukee.
“It would mark the first gubernatorial recall election in Wisconsin history and only the third one in U.S. history. Organizers Tuesday also handed in 845,000 recall signatures against Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, as well as recall petitions against four GOP state senators, including Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau.
“The sheer number of signatures being filed against Walker — nearly as many as the total votes cast for the governor in November 2010 and about twice as many as those needed to trigger a recall election — ensure the election will be held, said officials with the state Democratic Party and United Wisconsin, the group that launched the Walker recall.”
As such, the Sleeping Giant that has now become Wisconsin’s public sentiment and demonstrates that the Governor Walker’s subterfuge for eliminating the collective bargaining rights enjoyed by the public in Wisconsin, is now “officially” active and about.
And this collective action is what makes our Democracy stronger when the decision is premised on the ballot box, notwithstanding the lack of access to the ballot box. To wit, the ballot box will be the final determinant on the use of collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin. Unfortunately, the Republican-controlled State Legislature did eliminate the collective bargaining rights via legislation and in defiance of the public sentiment. Now the public sentiment is now speaking out, and quite forcefully.
Jaango--posted on January 19, 2012
Talking Oil Prices, Israel, and Iran...
When we, as both Chicanos and Military Vets, demonstrate our respect for the “unassailable” Facts, our advocacy for such, remains undeterred, and thusly, “Shaming the Devil and his Evil Twin…when strolling down the Avenue known as Truth-Telling” also strengthens our behavior for our self-imposed Self-Restraint and Patience. Therefore, our historical perspective that “no Native American and Chicano, wearing our nation’s uniform will be fighting and dying on Israel’s soil, given that the Israelis’ are utilizing a self-inflicted second-rate Democracy,” does not wear well with us. And our normal behavior is to refrain from stepping onto the national stage that consists of our international relations with the nation states that comprise the Middle East. However, our one exception to our Self-Restraint and Patience was in our opposition to the White House’s and Congress’ Authority to Use Military Force. And history, of course, has proven us correct, and in virtually all aspects. As such, our premise for Self-Governance comes to us in the form that the nexus of both Business and Politics, is Money, and in vast amounts.. And with this background now out of the way, our “talking Oil Prices, Israel and Iran” commences from here in the Sonoran Desert.
With the rapidly rising prices for gasoline at the pump, our understanding is that the oil producing nations no longer control the price of a barrel of oil since these oil producing nations no longer have any spare capacity is indeed correct. And our understanding is obviously reinforced when Kevin Drum, the consummate writer for the Mother Jones Magazine, says the following and which reinforces our perspective, as well.
“Neither the Saudis, nor anyone else, control the price of oil anymore. Saudi Arabia has very little spare capacity to speak of, and couldn’t open the taps to bring the price of oil down even if it wanted to. So no matter what the price of oil is, that’s approximately the price the Saudis say is fair. That way they don’t have to admit that they no longer have the ability to seriously affect the oil price movements.
“This, by the way, is the same dynamic at work in OPEC meetings. They meet, they talk, and they release a statement that they aren’t going to increase production because the current price is fair and ‘customers aren’t asking for more oil.’ Well, of course they aren’t. By definition, customers aren’t asking for more oil as long as oil is selling at the market-clearing price. Which it is. Because if it’s not, then the price goes up, and guess what? Markets clear and customers aren’t asking for more oil. Nonetheless, this charade regularly gets played out anyway, because OPEC doesn’t want to admit that their production quotas are mostly meaningless these days. With occasional exceptions (when the 2008-2009 recession temporarily cratered oil demand, for example) OPEC countries are all pumping flat out and couldn’t deliver much more oil if they tried.”
And given our Respect for the Avenue that is Truth-Telling, anyone telling us that the market clearing price of oil should be at a reduced pricing level, such opinions have to be seriously discounted or more aptly, discarded since such opinions don’t matter to us here in the Sonoran Desert. Otherwise, the usual suspects are continuing to sell and market the Logic of Fear.
In today’s issue for Israeli politics and writing for the Haretz Dot Com web site, Amos Harel, in his article titled, “Israel: Iran is still mulling whether to build nuclear bomb” stipulates that the Israeli intelligence community is not convinced that Iran is seeking to craft a nuclear weapon, when he says the following:
“Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb, according to the intelligence assessment Israeli officials will present later this week to General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“Israel also believes the Iranian regime now faces an unprecedented threat to its stability, which for the first time combines both external and internal pressure: from abroad, increasingly, harsh sanction and threats of military action, and at home, economic distress and worries about the results of the parliamentary election scheduled for March.
“Israeli intelligence sees signs that the regime in Tehran is genuinely worried about the possibility of an opposition victory in March. Should that happen, the regime will have to choose between conceding the loss or falsifying results—as it apparently did in the 2009 presidential election—which could incite anti-regime protests thanks to the tailwind provided by the Arab Spring, which toppled the regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.”
And yet, looking to a “bottom line,” the sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe on Iran’s oil industry and its central bank, is far from sufficient, according the formal view being espoused by the Israeli government. Obviously, Israel wants a more penalizing sanctions schematic that once installed, will eventually lead to the toppling of the Iranian government. And should this occur, Israel’s survivability as a nation state will become jeopardized. Obviously, Israel does not feel constrained for living next to the abyss.
However, we need to be mindful that Turkey, has for some years now, been advocating that Iran become “democratic.” And which does not sit well with the Cleric-led Supreme Body that today, determines Iran’s future. And equally important, is that among the roster of the GOP’s nominees, the Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry, in a debate, labeled Turkey as being led by ‘terrorists.’ Of course, history proves otherwise and in that Turkey has been a secular nation since the 1920s and today is a Democracy and a staunch member and defender of the Euro Zone.
Consequently, should our respect for international relations become “informed” via the view that pertains to Turkey or by the view espoused by Israel?
From our perspective, by accepting the view of Turkey and rejecting the view provided by Israel, will exacerbate the Democratic Coalition to no viable end, given that the ongoing Construct that is the Logic of Fear, will cause the Jewish vote in the next presidential election to become challenged or personified via the Republicans as a “schism” between the Jewish community versus the Latino community, and as exemplified by Republicans for the non-existent “friction” between African Americans and Latinos. And if so, means that “unassailable” facts continue to have no relevant basis in American politics, when viewed through the prism that is today’s Republican politics.
In closing, paying far greater attention to the view being provided by Turkey, will do much to “inform and teach” the Latino community, with regard to November’s election since Turkey is not attempting to destabilize the existing government in Iran, but is attempting to “move” the Iranian government to become a viable Democracy in terms and definition that is America’s Democracy. To wit, Turkey “has been there and done that” and speaks from experience, otherwise, the “amateurs” continue to reign from within our self-governance model. And therein, is dilemma that is facing America and the Democratic bastion. Perhaps, consideration to any thoughts for downgrading the diplomatic status Israel enjoys with our America, needs to be considered and discussed, and in great detail?
Jaango--posted on January 19, 2012
MLK's Legacy, as seen from a notable American and Military Vet
Of course, I am speaking of Eugene Robinson, a military vet and former reporter and longtime columnist, writing in the Washington Post, he has this to say of the Legacy:
“For the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., dreaming was not optional. It was a requirement of citizenship to envision a fairer, more prosperous nation no longer shackled by racism and poverty. It was a duty to imagine a world no longer ravaged by senseless wars. His most famous speech was less an invitation to share his epic dream than a commandment. In these sour, pessimistic times, it is important to remember the great lesson of King’s remarkable life: Impossible dreams can come true.”
And like many things, the always smart Eugene Robinson’s easy facility to make a salient observation into an “unassailable” fact, continues apace. Therefore my Ode to the Legacy, is best left unsaid on my part, and therefore, my focus of illumination from both the superior writing skills of Eugene Robinson and Jonathan Turley, is not overly important.
And in today’s reality, having to contend with how our Human Rights are being shackled by Congress, the White House and the SCOTUS, while having the ability to understand what has beset our nation, by both the Democrats and the Republicans, and writ large, is of paramount important to each of us.
To wit, Jonathan Hurley, writing, last week for the Washington Post, as well, had this to say in his article, and titled, “10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free." As such, the following is being made available, and in considerable detail.
“Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
“Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
“While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.”
And with considerable verve, Turley goes on to state the following, and which aligns with my thinking quite well. Thus, his Ten Wanted List:
Assassination of U.S. citizens
“President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Indefinite detention
“Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
Arbitrary justice
“The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
Warrantless searches
“The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
Secret evidence
“The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.
War crimes
“The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)
Secret court
“The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)
Immunity from judicial review
“Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)
Continual monitoring of citizens
“The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)
Extraordinary renditions
“The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.”
In closing, when a military vet such as Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says, “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war” demonstrates his unique brand of crappola. I would and could expect more from Graham, but he isn’t disposed to “shaming the Devil and his Evil Twin, so Truth-telling…” is a not a moral impediment but is moral dilemma for the espousers of this convivial crappola.
Note: Jonathan Turley is a public interest attorney and resides in our nation’s capital.
Jaango--posted on January 17, 2012
Odds and Ends
This will have to do or until South Carolina hold’s its election primary.
1. GOP Candidates for public office are now “reaching out” to the snarkily-identified “Mile High Messiah” or Tim Tebow of the Denver Broncos for his endorsement and support. He has refused and continues to refuse to identify these presumptive candidates.
2. The Public Editor of the New York Times is asking their readers to see if reporters should continue reporting the ‘facts’ and continue ignoring the non-facts. Or perhaps, it’s the reverse.
3. It’s now become interesting that the conflation of the Laws of War and “terrorism” has been resolved for the neo-cons and that too makes the non-neo-con War Hawks happy.
4. Billionaire Warren Buffett has a challenge for all millionaires in Congress. He is willing to all match all Members on a one-to-one basis for making a voluntary contribution to Congress and done in order to reduce the deficit. And in particular, Buffett is willing to exempt Mitch McConnell but should McConnell want to participate, he will go “one-on-three” for every dollar McConnell contributes. And that’s a “political burn” for McConnell.
5. Congressman Jerry Lewis of California is the latest among several Republicans that are retiring this year from Congress.
6. Today, Saturday, in South Carolina, Gingrich is gaining and Santorum is losing ground. Paul has yet to break through above his political ceiling.
7. More on Warren Buffet’s “struggle” and which has been to convince the millionaire members of Congress to ‘contribute’ or match Buffet’s effort, but Buffet is finding “no takers.” Thus, the outstanding taxes owed to the Treasury amounts to $358 billion and which if collected could reduce our national deficit. And yet, last year Congress refused to allocate additional dollars for the IRS to seek out and challenge these unsolicited taxpayers.
Jaango--posted on January 14, 2012
SOPA and PIPA
When it comes to the Internet, both the House Judiciary Committee, under Republican Chairman Lamar Alexander and in the Senate, Democratic Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, together, are attempting to pass their respective legislation that “waters down” the Internet, and this is being done at the behest of the “big players” or in this instance the copyright-holding corporations—the music and film business.
With Alexander handling the SOPA and which stands for Stop Online Piracy Act, and while Leahy is handling the PIPA and which stands for Protect IP Act, does virtually the same thing. As such, political opposition is now coming to the forefront, and both legislators are scrambling to stop the “others” or in terms of the internet companies in substantive opposition, from “picking off” members in Congress that will be in political opposition to these two legislative bills. And the opposition is starting to gain strength but only when they found that the well-heeled the lobbyists are in full “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” in their advocating for Hollywood. Moreover, this overall effort to convince Congress of the damages accruing the music and film industries of this foreign piracy, has been years in the making.
And in particular, Leahy is recommending that the “DNS blocking provision” become subject for further study. In contrast, Alexander is not going the route that Leahy is taking. Perhaps, at the end of the political day, the ‘DNS blocking” provision will become the ultimate in “targeting” for either inclusion or ultimately, for its removal.
However, Alexander is now moving to remove the “DNS blocking” provision as well, given his recent statement and issued as a press release. To wit, he’s “feeling the heat” from the opposition.
And from PCMagazine, Chios Albenisius writes in his article and titled, “Lawmaker strips DNS Blocking From SOPA,” and dated January 12, 2012:
“After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision,” Smith, the bill’s author, said in a statement. “We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign Web sites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers.
“SOPA targets “rogue” overseas Web sites that traffic in illegal goods, from fake purses to prescription drugs. It would allow the Department of Justice to obtain court orders to go after these Web sites and, before today, would have required ISPs to block sites with infringing content. Detractors, however, were concerned that the bill was too broad and would’ve targeted legitimate sites.
“Though DNS blocking will be removed, SOPA will still allow officials to “follow the money” and cut off payment options to foreign illegal sites, like credit-card processing or PayPal accounts. Search engines like Google and Bing would also still be required to remove infringing Web sites from their search results. Copyright holders could also still bring claims against foreign Web sites that steal their technology, products, or IP.”
And regardless of both legislative vehicles, the bills’ proponents are determined to find plenty of ways to extend censorship, from the smallest web site to the largest, and yet, the oppositional coalition will still not be satisfied, since the “piracy” that exists and continues, is being done outside the United States. And yet, American citizens will still be subjected to the apparent piracy efforts in the legislation, despite the disclaimers being offered by both the lobbyists and the lawmakers. Soon, the political rhetoric will mobilize itself to the extent that both SOPA and PIPA are equivalent for being either a “brother” or “sister” to the Patriot Act.
And on its CNET web site, the writers, Greg Sandoval and Declan McCullagh, have this to say in their article titled, “DNS provision pulled from SOPA, victory for opponents” and dated January 13, 2012:
“Both bills are heavily supported by a wide group of copyright owners, including the big record companies and Hollywood film studios. The tech sector has claimed that if the bills became law, they would rob the Web of free speech and damage the health of the Internet. Copyright owners charge that online piracy has damaged their businesses and costs workers their jobs.
“Without the DNS provision, SOPA now looks a great deal more like the OPEN Act, a bill introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), which was designed to be an alternative to SOPA. A watered-down SOPA means Smith improves his chances of getting the bill through Congress but at this point, nothing is assured.
“Late today came word that six Republican senators have asked Majority Leader Harry Reid to postpone a vote on Pro IP, also known as PIPA. The senators wrote: "Prior to committee action, some members expressed substantive concerns about the bill, and there was a commitment to resolve them prior to floor consideration.”
Of course, Senator Reid of Nevada and the Majority Leader, is now “on record” that this legislation should be considered by the Senate, no later than January 24th.
And the opposition continues apace, when the statement from the Electronic Frontier Foundation is taken into consideration and which is: “[Congress] is realizing that they are not going to slip these bills in the cover of night," and “They didn’t let the Internet participate in the legislative process and the Internet is speaking now.” This statement is from Corynne McSherry, their director for intellectual property, and which speaks volumes to both us and our Elected Officials. Only now, will they listen?
In closing, we must stay tuned to this legislative debate, since the Internet is being “placed at risk” in order to protect another of America’s well-financed special interest groups.
Jaango--posted on January 24, 2012
A Far Better Method for a Critical Assessment
On Tuesday’s evening program on the PBS Newshour, two journalists assessed the results of Bain Capital’s financial behavior, and in particular, Mitt Romney’s leadership of this financial services firm from the late Eighties and through the late Nineties. As such, the focus was on “jobs” and not necessarily on a much broader swath that is very seldom addressed, and that’s the “cost” of such venture capital services that is a predominant feature in this search for profits by the investors.
Therefore, the noted economist, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has this “assessment” as a starting point for Romney’s latest mantra for his irrational utterance for the “politics of envy.”
“It is standard practice for private equity to load firms with debt. This means that taxable profits are turned into tax-deductible interest payment. The difference can be a gain for Bain and other private equity firms, but it is coming at the expense of taxpayers.
“In the same vein, private equity companies often engage in complex asset shifting. This can leave a heavily indebted firm with few valuable assets. If it eventually goes bankrupt, the creditors collect little money because the private equity company has transferred the assets with value into an independent company. This can also mean big profits for Bain and other private equity companies, but this is not a gain to the economy.
“Another frequent game of private equity companies is to dump pension fund obligations on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. The reduction in liabilities can mean big profits for Bain and other private equity companies, but not provide any benefit to the economy.”
With this in mind, Dean Baker’s expanded assessment does put “common sense” on the table, given that, after watching the PBS segment of “Bain” and it’s annualized profit-taking—from the late 1980s and through the late 1990s, their “88%” annual profit-taking is now properly understood and which, when Baker’s assessment is applied, the overall costs to taxpayers, was indeed sizable. And in addition, the journalists brought in by PBS, with their presumptive ‘assessment’ came up far short for being the “experts” as in the iconic practitioners for studying financial histories. And with Baker’s ‘three-step’ application versus Romney’s emphasis on “jobs” means that Romney is being disingenuous with his intentional and consummate distraction.
Jaango--posted on January 12, 2012
More Or Less: Another Intramural Skirmish Between Liberals?
In politics, ideology as Ccnventional Wisdom tends to overcome Common Sense.
And yet, our having to pay attention to Conventional Wisdom, leads to interesting places, and thusly, this intramural skirmish among and between liberals or more aptly understood and recognized among progressives, can be informative, and at times, even enlightening. As such, when the Argumentation utilizes a straw man, as in Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, and the variety of issues being raised as part of his national quest for the GOP’s nomination to head this ticket, generates a response to a provocative question raised by Reason Magazine: To wit, Ron Paul’s candidacy raises subject areas that are difficult for Democrats to defend?
And first to take up this “challenge” or Democratic defense has been Matt Stoller among others, and the ever-interesting writer David Atkins challenges Matt Stoller. Since both of these internet writers are interesting to read, come at this Reason “challenge” from far different directions, and which is a healthy political behavior, and as their readers, we are the ultimate beneficiaries and when one contemplates the “sharp elbows of competition.”
As such, Matt Stoller, writing for the web site of “nakedcapitalism dot com” and dated December 29, 2011, says the following:
“Modern liberalism is a mixture of two elements. One is a support of Federal power – what came out of the late 1930s, World War II, and the civil rights era where a social safety net and warfare were financed by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the RFC, and human rights were enforced by a Federal government, unions, and a cadre of corporate, journalistic and technocratic experts (and cheap oil made the whole system run.) America mobilized militarily for national priorities, be they war-like or social in nature. And two, it originates from the anti-war sentiment of the Vietnam era, with its distrust of centralized authority mobilizing national resources for what were perceived to be immoral priorities.
"When you throw in the recent financial crisis, the corruption of big finance, the increasing militarization of society, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the collapse of the moral authority of the technocrats, you have a big problem. Liberalism doesn’t really exist much within the Democratic Party so much anymore, but it also has a profound challenge insofar as the rudiments of liberalism going back to the 1930s don’t work.
“This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Paul’s stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. It’s quite obvious that there isn’t one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldn’t be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And there’s no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.”
In contrast, David Atkins, writing for the political web site of “digby dot com” and dated January 3, 2012, says the following:
“Liberalism is and has always been about intervention. It is the opposite of libertarianism, and always has been. Liberals understand that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Left to their own devices, people with weapons and money will always try to exploit and dominate people without weapons and money unless they are stopped from doing so. It is not because we are taught to do so. It's just innate human nature. If this were not the case, libertarianism would work as an ideology. It does not, and never has at any point in history.
“When the government steps in to stop a corporation from dumping noxious chemicals into a stream, that is intervention at the point of a gun, by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless. When the government steps in to enforce desegretation in schools, that is intervention at the point of a gun, by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless.
“When Abraham Lincoln and the North decided not to allow the nation of the Confederacy--and make no mistake, it was a separate nation with separate laws and an entirely separate culture--to secede from the Union, in large part because the North had an interest in ending slavery in the South and in striking down a competing agrarian economic system, that too was intervention by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless. To this day, many Southerners feel that their land is being occupied by an illegitimate and invading power, and theirs a Lost Cause that will rise again.
“This is what liberalism is. It is unavoidably, inescapably paternalistic in nature. It is so because it understands the inevitable tendency of human beings to be truly awful to one another unless social and legal rules are put in place--yes, by force--to prevent them from doing otherwise.
“Conservatives use force of government as well, of course, but not in defense of the weak and oppressed, but rather to maintain the power of money, of patriarchy and of the established social pecking order. Where the oppressive hand of government helps them achieve that, they utilize it. Where libertarian ideology helps them keep power in the hands of the local good old boys, they use that instead.
“But a liberal--a progressive, if you will--is always an interventionist, because a liberal understands that society is constantly on a path of self-perfection, in an effort to use reason and good moral judgment to prevent insofar as possible the exploitation of one person by another.
“The division between liberals lies in how far to intervene, especially in foreign wars. Almost all would agree that intervention in World War II against the Nazis and Imperial Japanese was the right thing to do. Most would agree that intervention in Kosovo was the right thing to do to stop the ongoing genocide there. Certainly, conservatives at the time opposed involvement in either conflict. Some liberals believe that America should use its power of intervention to help the oppressed around the world by use of force if necessary. Most others understand that such moves, even if well-intentioned, cause more problems and harm than they solve. But there will always be disagreements between liberals about whether, how much and where to intervene in the world in order to stop bad people from doing bad things that either threaten America, or simply threaten to oppress the poor and the weak. Not, of course, that America's war machine is always or even usually used with such good intentions; quite the contrary. It is usually used for the conservative purpose of exploiting and destroying people and resources for the benefit of the wealthy. But here we speak only of liberal ideology and its relationship to the use of military force.
“Similarly, liberals have a conflict when it comes to economic intervention. A few on the left choose to pursue a very hard line of intervention toward economic egalitarianism, leading to a vision in line with Communism. More of us tend to see the need for substantial economic intervention on a capitalist substrate, and lean more toward Democratic Socialism. Others see the need for some intervention, but are wary to stepping too far into the middle of the "free market," which makes them more Neoliberal. But in all these cases, the question is only a matter of degree.”
And why is this brilliant argumentation important to Chicanos?
Today, the Great Society continues to consist of an approximate 200 public laws, and our political engagement is premised on the bulk of this Great Society. From this standpoint, our voting behavior is “liberal” or “progressive” since there is virtually no “light” to be seen between these two labels. More so, when one contemplates the responses to the recent Pew Poll in which two out of three respondents viewed the progressive label as favorable. In contrast, the respondents view the conservative label as one out of three as favorable.
In the past, I have been “critiqued" as being “naïve or foolish” or both, for suggesting that Native Americans, African Americans and Latinos are of the progressive label. And yet, the demographic trends support my contention. Furthermore, the majority of these presumptive progressives are Native American, African American and Latinos and not necessarily white Democrats. To wit, the conservative whites are bailing out of the Democratic Party and are becoming Independents. And by way of an additional contrast, the liberal whites on the political right are bailing out and are becoming Independents, as well. Therefore, whites in the Democratic Party are starting be recognized as progressive Democrats since “racial and ethnics” in the Democratic Party have been seen as the progressive backbone of the Democratic Party for quite sometime. Add in the women that are part and parcel to the Democratic Party, and they too are progressive in their political view. As such, the numbers of progressives are quite large when compared to the former status among whites in the Democratic Party. Therefore, any Republican nominee for the presidency has to achieve above 40% of Latinos in order to become the President. Bush was successful in 2004, and thusly, the question remains: “Can Romney achieve this ‘magical’ 40% in November’s election?”
In summary, will “intervention” as described by Atkins, lead to a “win” for President Obama, and if not, expecting the Republican nominee or Romney, in this instance, going to practice any “intervention” acceptable to Latinos, writ large? The political reality is that Romney “pandering” to the Right during this political season, will remain in force for his primary four-year administration, and thinking otherwise for his “moving to the middle” is not going to occur, no way, no how. And what we see of Romney on the campaign trail is what America will receive, both in practice and in action, writ large. Therefore, using Congressman Ron Paul of Texas as a straw man for any Argumentation, does not lead to any stellar moments for a career in writing, either on-the-Internet or off-the-internet.
Jaango--posted on January 11, 2012
On Public Lands
In my earlier post of this past week and on our month of November postings and relative to Latino “projections” has proven to be somewhat prescient, given that the Obama administration is announcing a 20-year ban on uranium mining. Further, earlier this year, I posted the implacable efforts by Congressmen from Arizona, Grijalva and Pastor, respectively, as well as the concerns expressed by the Native American societies, in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah and for what damage could result in the water supply of these states and to include the Colorado River.
Today, ABC News is reporting the following:
“Fending off pressure from the mining industry and congressional Republicans, the Obama administration is moving forward with a plan to ban new uranium mining claims on 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is expected to finalize a 20-year ban on new mining claims on public land surrounding the Grand Canyon at an event Monday in Washington.”
In summary, Grijalva, Pastor, and the Native American societies have achieved the almost impossible, and consequently, our Thanks to Secretary Salazar for joining us in our overall efforts to keep the Grand Canyon pristine and for the usage by future generations.
Jaango--posted on January 9, 2012
The "Cultural Value" found for being a 'morenito'
After watching another Republican debate this past weekend, none of the GOP candidates “scored” any points, with regard to the issues of import to the Latino community, an inherently progressive community. And this GOP nonsense speaks volumes to Latinos, writ large, and specifically to those of us who speak Spanish in our daily lives, since our family members, friends, neighbors, and extended family members speak Spanish in great or vast quantity and volume. Thus, cultural aspects insert themselves into our reasoning given that money is the nexus for business and politics. And in understanding this iconic cultural value for "friend" is President Obama and whom will garner garner 95% of Native American, African American and the Latino votes in November’s election. Of course, the iconic issue is not Immigration, but our primary issue is the Judiciary, and in particular SCOTUS. And which exemplifies both our Patience and our Self-Restraint that is to be perpetuated during the next forty years for our civic engagement.
As such, the “morenito” is our affectionate descriptor that is President Obama. To us, he is not a Black person or an African American, but he is our well-intentioned “friend,” first and foremost.
Now, we all know that President Obama is a “conservative” or a Blue Dog Democrat, and does not pass the litmus test that defines the Progressive and the Progressive Agenda, and President Obama is not our iconic preference for being another leader among Team Progressive. Moreover and as Chicanos or Indigenous People, we recognize that the “confused conservatives” now have control of the Republican Party and far into the future because the presumptive ‘liberals’ in the GOP have permitted themselves to become marginalized, and more so since the SuperPacs have entered the political fray due to the SCOTUS decision that has been Citizens United, and which expands the definition of “personhood.” From across this political aisle is also today’s somewhat false equivalence that conservatives have control of the Democratic Party. However, the defining distinction if found in the conservatives of the Democratic variety and who are not the “confused” or iconic extremists on the Right. Because the Democratic leadership in both Chambers of Congress have set the bar “low” and done in order not to embarrass President Obama, this too, we understand well. But outside of Congress, we are hearing other “voices” as well.
And in the past two weeks, the Argumentation posited by Messrs Stoller, Grenwald and Scheer, among others, is viewed, primarily, as a contretemps or an intramural squabble among white Progressives. In contrast, the Latino perspective falls on the side of David Dante, writing at ever-important political blog that is Digby Dot Com [dated January 3, 2012]. Atkins ‘defines’ the “liberal” as the following, and in doing so, I will quote three paragraphs and which speaks volumes relative to LBJ’s Great Society and which is comprised of almost 200 public laws.
“When the government steps in to stop a corporation from dumping noxious chemicals into a stream, that is intervention at the point of a gun, by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless. When the government steps in to enforce desegregation in schools, that is intervention at the point of a gun, by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless.
“When Abraham Lincoln and the North decided not to allow the nation of the Confederacy--and make no mistake, it was a separate nation with separate laws and an entirely separate culture--to secede from the Union, in large part because the North had an interest in ending slavery in the South and in striking down a competing agrarian economic system, that too was intervention by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless. To this day, many Southerners feel that their land is being occupied by an illegitimate and invading power, and theirs a Lost Cause that will rise again.
“This is what liberalism is. It is unavoidably, inescapably paternalistic in nature. It is so because it understands the inevitable tendency of human beings to be truly awful to one another unless social and legal rules are put in place--yes, by force--to prevent them from doing otherwise.”
Consequently, when we look at the money that is the nexus of business and politics, does today’s “morenito” take into his consideration our future of the next forty years or two generations or for perpetuation of this historical behavior of the past thirty years in which a “Progressive need not apply”?
In closing, our community--that is the Sonoran Desert and as is expected, there will be many voices that will speak to a progressive agenda, but are invariably viewed as “silent” since none of these presumptive leaders are neither seeking the political limelight nor are they determined to be the front line echelon of leadership, and since they have adopted the behavior for ‘pushing’ or intellectualizing the younger generation to become our iconic leaders and where these ideas of this younger generation are the ideas that need to be adopted into public law and which will satisfy our ever-present “unmet needs.”
And because we have both the ability and the access, we will bringing forth some of the many voices that have been speaking, quietly and thoughtfully, to what the future portends for the many of us, including the white conservative Democrats and who delight in sucking up to the “confused” conservatives. And this will be done and done with considerable zest and with great fun! Stay tuned.
Jaango--posted on January 9, 2012
SCOTUS: The Texas Re-districting or gerrymander
Today, the SCOTUS heard oral arguments on the Texas re-districting case in which the allocation of four additional Congressional districts is beneficial to Texas. Therefore, with the sizable increase in Hispanic demographics, MALDEF has argued that these four districts should be awarded to Hispanic voters, and the Republicans have argued that these four votes should go to protect the incumbents.
Under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, the re-districting or gerrymander requires that the Department of Justice sign off on this overall effort, and yet, a federal court in San Antonio has ruled in favor of Hispanics to the extent that the legal decision can be seen in this light. And which brings the SCOTUS hearing into reality. As such, seven states are required by Section Five adhere to existing law given their well known proclivity to discriminate for these well past fifty years or what commenced in the 1960s. Thusly, the state governments are attempting to circumvent existing federal law without ever making the case to the Justice Department for no longer discriminating. If this “clearance process” was deemed successful, the DOJ would have been willing to sign-off and to include many additional years of fruitful exemption.
In closing, the “view” among the many is that the SCOTUS took up this legal fiction in order to render the Section Five of the Voting Rights Act no longer relevant to gerrymandering. And the cynics among us would state that the Republicans can no longer advocate for the “sharp elbows of competition” and must utilize their mantra for “unfair” competition” as their premise for “winning at any cost.”
Jaango--posted on January 9, 2012
Latino "projections" Beyond 2012 & With A Republican President
A recent Pew Research Poll found that the label of a “progressive” is viewed favorably by two out of three persons and in contrast, the label of a “conservative” is viewed favorably by one out of three persons. And with this in mind, what happens, between now and February 2013, determines the volume and level of political activism among Hispanics, not only in California, but throughout America, and in particular, the Hispanic “center” and by “center” I am referring to the Sonoran Desert and which consists of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorada, Utah, and Texas.
Now, should President Obama lose his re-election bid and thusly, one of the two top members of the GOP’s Second Team [Romney/Santorum], becomes the President in November, and after giving his first Congressional speech in mid-February and where he lays out his agenda for his administration. And by way of background, the GOP candidate will “move to the center” as this is the “tradition” but in this instance, there will be no ‘move to the center’ when it comes to the general election campaign. Therefore, what is considered as the Republican Platform for today, all serious attempts in February of next year, will either attempted or accomplished.
Now, what can Hispanics expect from a Republican-led administration?
1. Taxes. Since the “rich” are currently paying taxes of an approximate amount of 15% on their investments and in the form of “income”, and expecting a small and furthering tax cut for this wealthy segment, is expected, given that Santorum’s and Romney’s economic plans raise taxes on the middle class and reduces the taxes on the rich.
2. The Affordable Care Act. All the GOP presidential candidates have vowed to “repeal and replace” Obama’s signature medical care law. And which will be the first major issue that a Republican White House will address. And the congressional “tool’ that will be utilized is the budget “reconciliation” process that does not permit the use of any filibuster.
3. The Judiciary. By any historical “yardstick,” Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, liked to say that his “legal dream” was to have nine Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court that espoused the “jurisprudence of original intention.” Add to this, is the well-recognized and current assessment that four of the five most conservative judges, since FDR, now serve on the SCOTUS and with Justice Clarence Thomas being the “most conservative” relative to any historical perspective. And with Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, at the age of 79, will soon retire. Should she retire within the next five years, a Republican president will definitively appoint a legal professional that is dedicated to ‘original intent.’ Of this, there is no doubt in any political quarters. And not lost on us and whom are Hispanic, know full well that President G. W. Bush was most proud of his single defining accomplishment in domestic politics and which was in appointing federal judges to the Appellate Courts and where these judges were far younger than the norm and have been more dedicated to upholding the rights of corporations than they are at upholding the rights of persons in virtually all legal matters. Therefore, we can expect to see this political behavior to continue and at a much faster pace and premised on reform and which is GOP code talk for eliminating laws that on are focused on the “unmet needs” of our society, writ large. And where Roe v. Wade is eliminated and in the context and content for being one of these many anticipated “reforms.”
4. Public Lands and National Parks. The GOP’s idea of “selling off public lands” will move forward and with no one in Congress willing to conduct a liberal “intervention” by deterring the GOP’s effort at eliminating the “opportunities for the follow-on generations,” given that the nexus between business and politics is money and in vast quantities. Therefore, SuperPacs will be created with the sole focus for implementing this “sell off” of our public lands since these public lands, once designated for private hands, become far more valuable, and especially for the real estate industry, since municipal boundaries are now butting up to public lands, and in particular, the numerous Native American societies and where the federal government is no longer the ‘trustee’ but the real estate agent’s best friend.
In closing, I ponder the future with this “gentle reminder to self.”
As such, the following:
1. Obama never came into the Oval Office as a self-described Progressive.
2. Mssrs. Reid, Durbin, and Schumer never made an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, from any usage, either Democrat or Republican.
3. Mssrs. Reid, Durbin, and Schumer, never established a Progressive Caucus in the Senate, and therefore, any presumptive progressive Senator would not be able to simultaneously compete with the Republicans when it came to “hostage-taking” of Democratic-oriented legislation and which would become the invariable counter-balance to the House’s Progressive Caucus, and is today's continuation of the Rise of Neo-liberalism.
4. Thus, Mssrs. Reid, Durbin, and Schumer set the bar “on low” and done in order not to embarrass the Democratic President.
5. Progressives Need Not Apply.
6. The Democratic ticket in 2016 will consist of “Senator” Elizabeth Warren and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Now, have fun. I have.
Jaango--posted on January 6, 2012
Odds & Ends
Now that the Iowa Caucus is over, the fun should begin.
1. Knowing that the ‘nexus’ between business and politics is money, the SuperPacs spent well above $13 million in Iowa on virtually all “negative” ads, effectively demonstrates that money, is driving our national politics and not Ideas.
2. When Congress signed off for their Holiday Season, I commenced to write a bit on recess appointments and done from the perspective that President Obama did not have the cojones to challenge the Republicans, and yet, I was proven wrong with President Obama’s with his appointments of yesterday, and in particular, for the two appointments to the National Relations Labor Board, one a Republican, and another, a Democrat.
3. With Arizona’s infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio demanding that the Department of Justice release the interviews of Hispanics and who are charging racial profiling and discrimination, is contrary to a federal court judge’s decision to expand the racial profiling and discrimination—starting with unwarranted traffic stops, into a class action lawsuit. Thus, 1000’s of Hispanics will be joining this class action lawsuit and at a severe cost to Arpaio’s current lack of dignity for his not having resigned yet.
4. Dumb. An Afghanistan war vet went on stage to endorse Congressman Ron Paul while wearing his uniform. To wit, he’s in hot water and should’ve known better than for wearing our nation’s uniform to a political rally. Obviously, he didn’t care enough to think otherwise, and where breaking the rules brings fame and possibly self-aggrandizement.
5. According to Steven Benen at the Washington Monthly Magazine: "It’s a good thing Obama didn’t listen to Republicans on auto-industry policy: “Automakers finished 2011 on the upswing, with strong December sales in the United States and expectations for further growth this year. For Chrysler, December was the best month in nearly three years, as passenger-car deliveries more than doubled and total sales rose 37 percent. Chrysler’s sales for all of 2011 were up 26 percent. General Motors reported a 5 percent increase in December and a 13 percent gain for the year.”
6. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is freaking out on the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Board. As such, the Chamber expects to initiate litigation challenging this recess appointment. And President Obama will be telling everyone who listens that the Republicans have no interest in “protecting” the consumers and the middle class, given that the Right is now into the “nullification” process for the laws not to their liking.
7. In 2010, ICE inadvertently deported Lorene Turner to Columbia. Although she was a run-away, how she ended up in Columbia, despite being an African American and speaking no Spanish, cannot be easily explained away by ICE.
8. Mike Huckabee appears reasonable when he says, ““It appears to me, and it still does to a large degree, that many of the Republicans are more interested in just defeating Barack Obama than they are in rebuilding America.”
9. Why? When Senator John McCain endorsed Romney, and whom he dislikes, he did so because he dislikes Santorum. And yet, McCain dislikes Obama even more.
10. Mormonism. The religious Right is now expecting to host a Texas-style meeting of Theo-rcrats scheduled for this weekend, and who are opposed to Romney for his Mormonism, and thusly, a “consensus” candidate such as Santorum, should be the beneficiary. And that leaves Newt Gingrich "outside looking in" at this regilious cabal.
Jaango--posted on January 5, 2012
Newt Gingrich 'feels' the "Romney-boat"
In these past few days and after Gingrich was asked of the devastating toll that Mitt Romney and his friends, the Super Pac that follows the Romney campaign, Gingrich responded accordingly, and to wit, he felt “Romney-boated” for all the over $4 million spent in attack ads. And this was in reference to the Bush/Cheney allies, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, in their attack on Senator John Kerry and during his presidential quest of 2004. Of course, Bush and Cheney never challenged the “truthiness” of the allegations delivered to the Kerry campaign.
And Eric Boehlert, writing for Media Matters Dot Com, says it in the following manner:
“It was a fascinating choice of words. Why? Newt Gingrich, a leader of the modern-day conservative movement, presidential candidate, and proud Republican partisan adopting language that acknowledged the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are synonymous with unsubstantiated campaign attack ads. With his ‘Romney-boated’ comment, the former Republican Speaker of the House reinforced what progressives have been saying for years.”
But here is the background that is now found in American politics and best described by Rick Hasen and who is writing for the ElectionLawBlog Dot Com:
“I have no inside information on any communications between Mr. Romney and supportive super PACs. But Mr. Romney seems like a very intelligent and cautious person. If he had any communications with the Super PACs, he could be in very serious legal trouble—not to mention that the political fallout from a potential criminal violation of campaign finance laws would be enormous.
“And there is absolutely no upside to illegal coordinating. As Mr. Gingrich himself explains, the people running the pro-Romney Super PAC know Mitt Romney well, understand his campaign strategy, and have deep pockets. They can simply follow Romney’s lead—and be much more negative than Romney, leaving the candidate unsullied and his opponents beaten up—without risking any legal liability.
“It is irresponsible for Mr. Gingrich to accuse Mr. Romney of lying without a shred of evidence. The crime here is not that Romney is coordinating. It is the system of superPACs which threatens the integrity of our legislative and electoral process.”
And David Dayen, writing for the FireDogLake Dot Com, adds more to this assumption that Romney is a “liar” as per Newt Gingrich.
“Absolutely correct. When you have a system where a candidate’s former aides can create a dummy entity, collect tens of millions in unlimited, undisclosed corporate donations, and use them to savage the candidate’s opponents, without having to put their preferred candidate’s name on the ads, whether there’s “illegal coordination” or not is completely immaterial. It’s like responding to a Mafia crime wave by trying to bust the capo for jaywalking. The problem is what’s legal.
“Strangely enough, the “I approve this message” tag candidates were forced to put on their ads did constrain them somewhat on the negative side. It was uncomfortable to launch a fusillade of negative attacks against an opponent, and then have to own the swill with the “I approve this message” bug. The SuperPAC takes that completely out of the equation. Candidates can simply run soft and fuzzy ads, while the SuperPAC anonymously takes out the guns against the opponent. This is the Swift Boat game, but the money is so much bigger, the disclosure so much more opaque, the dynamic so much more pronounced. You may never see a negative ad in the name of the candidate again. You don’t have to.”
And as for me, this is America’s “future” as practiced by those whose primary behavior is “giggle, giggle”, and “yadda, yadda, yadda” and followed by more giggles, and at some point in time, the ‘realists’ in political arena, will come to realize the “joke” and who’s on the receiving end these sizable and costly jokes. Of course, it’s the voters being “dumbed down.” And that’s our reality, writ large.
Jaango--posted on January 3, 2012
Tomorrow's Iowa Caucus
Here are some Fun Facts to consider when viewing tomorrow's results from the Iowa Caucus.
1. The number of GOP participants are not expected to exceed over 100,000 votes in totality.
2. The GOP nominees are spending well over a combined $200.00 per vote.
3. Same day voter registration is permitted and thusly, are not operating under any GOP advocacy for implementing any VOTER ID laws that are applicable in the former Confederate states.
4. The results of this Iowa Caucus will NOT be applicable to any of the eventually selected delegates that will attending the National GOP Convention but they will be expected to vote for the "candidate" carefully selected by the GOP's leadership team. As such, the Delegates are not apportioned to the number of votes each nominee achieves.
Consequently, either New Hampshire or South Carolina is expected to provide the "Big Picture" and which is the decision point for the GOP, writ large. In political terms, the Iowa Caucus is America's version of the Japanese Kabuki Theater.
Jaango--posted on January 2, 2012
More Strolling...
In his latest bravura report, Bruce Ackerman writes of the Pentagon’s Inspector General’s Report and which was quashed, on the behavior of retired Generals and Admirals and who went on to sit on the boards of directors of corporations and who's financial livelihood depended on the “military-industrial-congressional” Complex, while uttering the “propaganda” that was beneficial to America’s war machine as well as the “access” these Generals and Admirals used for the news media outlets. Thus, this “analyst” title was promptly given and history now demonstrates that many of the Generals and Admirals preferred their specific behaviors for the ultimate in perverification.
To wit, from Ackerman:
“No worries there. Since it's perfectly all right for the Pentagon to train and send scores of retired top officers out to spread propaganda that supports whatever project it has in mind—say another war of choice—we can expect to see it happen again in some new form.”
…
“For these "analysts" to tell the truth meant that they would have to say poof! to their "access" and their lucrative retainers, seats on the boards of major players in the military-industrial-congressional complex, their ability to get the Pentagon to assign a favorable contract to the guys who were filling their bank accounts. Yikes and a half, what would retirement be like with a lowered cash flow? So, instead of calling government policy into question, instead of acting like officers and gentlemen, they sold the country out and kept the moolah incoming. Spit on the men and women sent to fight. Spit on the Constitution. Spit on the truth.
“And spit on the strict but simple code of honor that these men, most of them graduates of military academies, swore an oath to. Instead, for the sake of access, for the sake of a buck, for the sake of fame, they behaved dishonorably and with cowardice. Once upon a time, they painted a yellow stripe down the backs of cowardly soldiers. That's what ought to be done now to them, to those who trained them for their shillery, and to the inspector general who says the whole affair was just fine and dandy.”
Should more be said?
Jaango--posted on December 29, 2011
Strolling Through the Internet...
And here is an "end-of-year" Observation
In my stroll through the political blogs on the Internet earlier this week, I encountered this from Digby’s blog and which reminded me of my frustration with the Obama administration, and therefore, I continue to remain a staunch Democrat, knowing that Chicano vets, for the most part, feel the same way I do at this intersection between business and politics. As such, here is an excerpt from David Atkins:
“Politics is often about taking the best choices one has available. The Obama Administration hasn't been anything close to perfect by a long shot. But as election season nears and the consequences of the choice that lies before the country draw into clearer focus, the voices who argue that voting is irrelevant because there's no difference between the parties are going to become self-marginalized.
“But how, one might argue, does one leverage power from the Left if the votes of the Left are guaranteed, regardless? Well, that's what primary season is for, and that's why the Left must concentrate on building a stronger bench of progressive candidates, as well as mobilizing for progressive legislation at a statewide level. And keep in mind that when Democrats lose general elections, they invariably move to the Right, not to the Left. Not voting at all will accomplish precisely nothing in the effort to move the Dems to the Left, nor will a slightly-larger-than-usual group of people refusing to participate in the process somehow cause the two-party system to melt away. All that will happen is that we'll get the same system we had before, completely under the control of Boehner and Cantor's goons, even as a chastened Democratic Party moves even farther to the Right and issues mea culpas for having picked too liberal a President in Barack Obama.”
Does more need to be said?
Jaango--posted on December 29, 2011
Reinforcing Our Common Sense
For starters, understanding that Republicans have to “blame” government, ideology dictates such behavior. Otherwise, Responsibility and Accountability, can be easily jettisoned and has been and which has now morphed itself into the “new” of a “zany” Construct. Now, do Conservatives conserve, anything, and excuse me for asking?
In his latest column for the Washington Post and titled, “Conservative in 2012,” E.J. Dionne has this to say:
“For the first time since Barry Goldwater made the effort in 1964, the Republican Party is taking a run at overturning the consensus that has governed U.S. political life since the Progressive era.
“Obama is defending a tradition that sees government as an essential actor in the nation’s economy, a guarantor of fair rules of competition, a countervailing force against excessive private power, a check on the inequalities that capitalism can produce, and an instrument that can open opportunity for those born without great advantages.
“Today’s Republicans cast the federal government as an oppressive force, a drag on the economy and an enemy of private initiative…. The GOP is engaged in a wholesale effort to redefine the government help that Americans take for granted as an effort to create a radically new, statist society. […]
“Republicans are increasingly inclined to argue that any redistribution (and Social Security, Medicare, student loans, veterans benefits and food stamps are all redistributive) is but a step down the road to some radically egalitarian dystopia.”
And it only gets worse.
Writing for the New York Times, Joe Nocera gets incensed and titles his column for “The Big Lie” with respect to the housing bubble, sub-prime loans, and the debacle foisted on the American public via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To wit, another salient tangent as per the Republican “attack” on Democrats and the general public, Subsequently, Nocera explains how thoroughly it been adopted and adapted by the Republican policy makers, conservative think tanks and the GOP friendly media outlets. As such:
“Central to [the argument espoused by Peter Wallison, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a former member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission] is that the government’s effort to encourage homeownership among low- and moderate-income Americans is what led to the crisis. Fannie and Freddie, which were required by law to meet certain “affordable housing mandates,” were the primary instruments of that government policy; their need to meet those mandates, says Wallison, is what caused them to dive so heavily into those “risky” mortgages. And because they were powerful forces in the housing market, their entry into subprime dragged along the rest of the mortgage industry.
“But the S.E.C. complaint makes almost no mention of affordable housing mandates. Instead, it charges that the executives were motivated to begin buying subprime mortgages — belatedly, contrary to the Big Lie — because they were trying to reclaim lost market share, and thus maximize their bonuses.
“As Karen Petrou, a well-regarded bank analyst, puts it: “The S.E.C.’s facts paint a picture in which it wasn’t high-minded government mandates that did [Fannie and Freddie] wrong, but rather the monomaniacal focus of top management on market share.” As I wrote on Tuesday, Fannie and Freddie, rather than leading the housing industry astray, got into riskier mortgages only after the horse was out of the barn. They were becoming irrelevant in the most profitable segment of the market — subprime. And that they couldn’t abide.”
And what does all this mean for those of us and who are Spanish-speaking and following the assorted “arguments” that always have a deleterious impact upon our respective communities, from the West Coast and to the East Coast, and from the Canadian border and to the America’s Mexican border?
For the astute observer, all this is nothing “new” but the obsessive “spin” becomes quite overwhelming, and consequently, it can become embedded in our thinking as being the “conventional wisdom” given that this fount of information is delivered on a 24/7 basis. And yet, if we continue to adhere to our Common Sense, the propagandists, on which ever side of the aisle they currently and will reside, we can continue to remain “well-balanced” with regard to our staunch adherence to the “unassailable facts.”
And it is with our voting behavior that we can inculcate both Responsibility and Accountability for our Elected and Appointed Officials. Thus, our ever-increasing demographic trend, brings forth the opportunity to “inculcate” even more.
Jaango--posted on December 25, 2011
The "silk purse" among military vets
This is the wonderful response from another of our extended family members, albeit, serving our nation,far from home. And thusly, in response from Dave and to Mark Lippi.
"God bless you for this, Herr Lippi.
"I have just participated in the consumption of a 5-litre box of Italian red wine--quite decent if I may say--provided by one of our German FO's.
"This is the benefit of Silk: Pulling together for group inebriation.
"Aqua-velva is not unknown to me: When I was aboard the aircraft carrier JFK--I noticed that there was a "shit load" of aqua velva in the ship's store. Turns out--the sailors drink it--filtered through bread...I will explain that at some future date.
"Best to you this holiday season. May you not have to stoop to drinking this shit."
And my thoughts on this is that these two emails demonstrate that America's "spit and polish" continues a pace.
Jaango--posted on December 25, 2011
The Load Master's Christmas Day Libation?
Earlier this morning, I had the pleasure to talking to my old friend, Mark Lippi and who just returned from the Midlle East. To wit, he is a pilot, and has traveled the world, many times, and told me of his conversation with his buddy, Dave, the Load Master on his plane and whom is stuck in Baku on this Christmas Day. Thus, Mark was wonderfully kind for having shared his "recipe" with Dave and as well with us, here at our Chicano Veterans Organization. And as an added thought on my part, this email reminds of my days when the "fixin's" weren't easily available, snd so, I had to "make do" with what's always readily available. So here goes, in the form of an email!
Dear Dave,
After chatting this morning, you stuck in Baku and all, and myself feeling particularly charitable due the season. I thought I'd share my coveted recipe for Christmas punch.
Please understand this has been passed down from generation to generation, and is in it's original un-adulterated form.
1. Aqua-Velva. 1 flask
2. Egg 1 large
3. Milk ( optional ) 2 cups
4. Nutmeg ( optional ) Pinch
5. Sugar ( optional ) 1 tbs
6. Vanilla ( optional ) Splash
The most difficult part of this recipe, seems to be finding a reliable source of Aqua-Velva. Over the years I have found the best place to begin your search is with the loadmaster, any loadmaster worth his salt, has an abundant supply, and can usually be enticed with little effort, having said that, a thorough search of ones own bag, can sometimes be rewarding.
Eggs can usually be located with minimal effort, but in a pinch an Egg-McMuffa can be substituted. This should be done with care, and only as a last resort!
All other ingredients are optional, and can be included or not as desired.
At first you may not saver the beauty of these little concoctions, but after five or six, you will no doubt develop an appreciation for them.
A word to the wise, Electra-Shave may be substituted for the Aqua-Velva but never mix the two.
Enjoy and Bon Appetite!
Merry Christmas
Mark
Jaango--posted on December 25, 2011
Human Smuggling versus Racial Profiling
Human smuggling is not an unusual phenomena here in the United States, however, Arizona’s law, adopted in 2005, has caused the local law enforcement entity, known as the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and the Office of the County Attorney to join forces to combat human smuggling. Unfortunately, this double edged sword of law enforcement has been taken to the extreme in which a person being smuggled is now considered a “co-conspirator” in their own smuggling. Furthermore, the notional for being a “co-conspirator” in his or her own smuggling has yet to be tested in a court of law as a legal premise. And to date, the anticipated ‘racial profiling’ cases are now forthcoming and are being tested in federal court, and from therein, the viability of Arizona’s human smuggling law. And Hispanics, of course, see this an overt dance of a “double-jig.”
Earlier this week, the first case filed in federal court, was challenged and the private attorneys for the MCSO argued in court and before Federal Judge Murray Snow that local law enforcement under Arizona law is permitted to stop all automobiles on public thoroughfares and subject to being stopped for even minor traffic violations. Subsequently, Hispanics being stopped is not to be considered as “racial profiling” since the traffic stop takes precedence and the driver being Hispanic is just incidental to this law enforcement behavior.
Despite this current view, if you’re Hispanic and stopped for a minor traffic violation, you are being segmented into this perceived human smuggling construct. And yet, the obverse is true as well in that if your Anglo and a Canadian citizen, you are not being segmented into this human smuggling construct, and therefore, we now enter the current legal case that is being heard before the bench that is the Federal Court and Judge Murray Snow.
In 2007, the case filed by Manuel Jesus Ortega Melendres, a legal resident and his case has now been joined three additional plaintiffs, all Hispanic citizens, and who are adamant in their belief that they’ve been racially profiled, and together, are facing a daunting challenge in that “the sheriff’s inherent authority to enforce federal law has taken a backseat to the methods used to enforce Arizona’s human-smuggling law, particularly their practice of relying on a single element of the multifaceted crime to develop the requisite "reasonable suspicion.” Of course, "probable cause" has been shifted onto the traffic curb.
At present, the plaintiffs were stopped for a minor traffic violation and are now charging that “racial profiling” was utilized by law enforcement authorities as the “single element” of a multifaceted crime, and of which they were not part and parcel to human smuggling or for being a “co-conspirator” in their own smuggling.
On this past Thursday, the attorneys for the MCSO representing Sheriff Joe Arpaio, told the federal judge that the Sheriff now believes that he does not have the inherent authority to enforce civil immigration but does have the inherent authority to enforce Arizona’s human smuggling law. And this changes the legal dynamic for Arizonans in that the Sheriff has now shifted his legal rationale for enforcing, not civil immigration but for human smuggling, and by this “logic”, MCSO’s law enforcement behavior is as a perceptive work-around to the existing federal law. Perhaps, the Sheriff is waiting on the affirmative SCOTUS decision scheduled for next summer on SB 1070 and which if delivered appropriately poltical, will reinvigorate “state’s rights”?
Consequently, the attorneys for the combined plaintiffs, are asking that they be permitted to bring forth the thousands of Hispanics and who have been “traffic-stopped” by the MCSO over these six years or since the inception of Arizona’s human smuggling law, given that the law has several facets that have to be met and which a minor traffic stop, in and of itself, is not sufficient to establish a “reasonable suspicion” to implement Arizona’s human smuggling law.
And as an added note, the state police or the Department of Public Safety is currently operating under a voluntary court order not to conduct “racial profiling” via traffic stops. As such, the Department of Public Safety entered into a voluntary court order and where this state agency does not admit to having conducted racial profiling in these past few years. Therefore, the overall effort of this ongoing almost four-year court order is to collect the appropriate data from both the front line troops and the management team and where a civilian review body is required to assess this data, leading to a much more enlightened management effort, as part and parcel to public policy relative to the Governor’s Office and the decision-makers from within this Office.
To wit, Judge Murray Snow’s decision is due to be issued next week. And the political fireworks are only beginning should the MCSO continue to defend its self-interest in this denial of “racial profiling” in federal court.
Jaango--posted on December 24, 2011
An End-of-Year Assessment Without the Usual Blandishments
Of late, David Dayen from the political blog that is the Firedoglake.com, has it correctly when the brute politics is taken out of the struggle and which then, leads to a correct assessment. And this assessment concludes that the middle class lost considerable ground while the unemployed got more of that “trickle down” stuff.
And in full flower, Dayen refutes Ezra Klein and who is the institutional writer for the Washington Post from the standpoint of today’s misguided and incorrect “liberal” viewpoint. As such, Klein gets skewered via the following:
Domestic Policy in 2011: Republicans Made Strides on Long-Term Goals
Dated Friday, December 23, 2011
|
With the passage of the payroll tax/UI stopgap, that basically closes the books on 2011 from a legislative standpoint. And in many of the year-end reviews, I gather you’re going to see some retroactive praise for President Obama, and how his Administration was able to hold off legislative gains from the other side. An exemplar of this genre comes from Ezra Klein in a post entitled “Obama’s surprisingly good 2011.”
Thursday’s payroll-tax deal concludes the final of the four major negotiations of 2011. The first was in February, when Congress needed to fund the government or risk a shutdown. The next was in August, when Congress needed to raise the debt ceiling. Then there was the supercommittee. And, then, finally, the expiration of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance.
These negotiations were ugly. Their endgames were alarming displays of Washington’s polarization and dysfunction. They drove the approval ratings of both President Obama and the Congress to new lows. But, in terms of the substantive concessions the two parties have won for themselves, the fact of the matter is that the White House begins 2012 in a very, very strong position. Much stronger than most would have expected at the beginning of this year. And not always through any fault of their own.
The difficulty in figuring this one out comes with the “compared to what” counter-factual. Klein is arguing in relative terms, saying that Obama and his team did better than we should have expected on January 1, 2011, given the makeup of Congress and the multiple negotiations ahead. And that may be right. But all too often, this gets transformed into a more unilateralist view, like “Obama played chess and the Republicans got nothing.” That is just factually untrue.
So, let’s go over these four big negotiations one by one. First up is government funding for FY2011, which ended with an April deal on appropriations. Klein says that this deal wound up a big nothingburger, with the $38.5 billion in cuts negotiated winding up “more like $20-$25 billion, with less than $400 million falling in 2011.” The claim of a limited impact is just factually untrue. The Center for American Progress, typically seen as a defender of the President, did a much-overlooked study in October looking at the April budget deal. They found that the deal cost the economy 370,000 jobs. It’s impossible to call that impact limited. We’re talking about a deal that was only for six months of the fiscal year, so that translates to an impact of a statistically significant 60,000 jobs a month. Playing with numbers on outlays is a nice parlor game, but it’s harder to explain away this loss of jobs.
But it’s worse than that. Talking about the specific 2011 outlays neglects that the FY2011 deal set the baseline on discretionary spending for the next ten years. Those lowered baselines became the starting point for the discretionary cuts in the debt limit deal. That deal initiated a spending cap on discretionary spending to last the next ten years, for a total of $900 billion in cuts. That will roll back fiscal policy in a very real way; though not as high-profile as, say, cuts to Social Security or Medicare, it constrains discretionary spending at an extremely low level, a lower percentage of GDP than the Eisenhower era. That’s a major policy loss for liberals who favor a more activist government. Now, many will say that the spending cap can simply be ignored by future Congresses. So far, we know that the FY2012 budget adhered to the spending cap. And the President certainly supports it. If he’s re-elected, you can expect this spending cap to dominate through Fiscal Year 2017. If he isn’t, the spending cap is probably the best-case scenario.
What’s more, Klein acknowledges that “the debt-ceiling debate was a mess, and it probably did real damage to the economy.” That has a real-world impact, of course. And it all could have been avoided by increasing the debt limit back at the end of 2010 when Democrats held Congress. It could have been put into the deal for the Bush tax cuts. Harry Reid himself said that he’d rather force Republicans to take responsibility for the debt limit. We know how that turned out.
And it goes without saying that the President would have favored a grand bargain, which didn’t happen because John Boehner’s caucus couldn’t abide by tax increases.
So now there’s the Super Committee. This failed, predictably, and in exchange we get the trigger, which will cut $1.2 trillion more from the budget, half from defense and half from discretionary spending, with programs for the poor spared. There will also be a 2% across-the-board cut for Medicare reimbursement. I’m fine with the defense cuts, but you’re talking about cuts below that spending cap instituted, through a hatchet of automatic sequestration. It will not be possible to spare key programs like education and science and housing and regulatory agencies with all of those cuts. It just won’t.
Klein praises the “dual-trigger” in the form of the Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of 2012. This of course had nothing to do with policymaking in 2011, so I don’t really see how the President gets credit for it. Plus, he’s made it clear that he doesn’t want to let all the Bush tax cuts expire, saving $3.6 trillion to the budget’s bottom line. He just wants the tax cuts “for the rich” to expire, on income above $250,000 a year. We’ll see how this goes next year, but it’s completely undecided.
Finally, there’s the payroll tax and UI. And while I supported the deal in general terms, it’s unquestionable that it represented a tax-side stimulus reinforcing the conservative theory of government, that tax cuts can cure what ails the economy always and forever. The needle was not moved at all on direct government spending to create jobs.
Klein concludes by saying that “in 2011, there was no government shutdown, no default on the debt, and no contractionary spending cuts passed for this year or next year.” This is mostly true, but it leaves out a lot. You have to add the changed baseline, the spending cap for 2012-2021, and some other policy measures achieved by Republicans. They’ve also clawed back exchange subsidies from the health care law twice, prevented DC abortion funding and needle exchange funding, as well several other riders and influences on some of the more head-scratching Administration actions like punting essential benefits packages to the states and canceling ozone regulations. Just recently they passed a bill that allows government contractors to more easily cheat on their taxes in exchange for fixing a “glitch” that would have allowed early retirees to access cheap Medicaid insurance. Philosophically, they prevented any additional spending to boost the economy, except mostly for tax-based solutions. So maybe Republicans haven’t advanced their policy too much but their actions have had a definite effect.
Again, this is a “compared to what” scenario. If you thought the nation was doomed at the beginning of 2011, maybe you think that the Administration made out all right. If you think that they still held the Senate and the White House and should have been able to hold the line, your opinion is either mixed or disappointed. And as Klein acknowledges, this is not actually the way the White House wanted things to turn out. They wanted a big deficit deal, including safety net cuts.
So your perspective can color your opinion. What I cannot abide is saying that Obama “outplayed” Republicans or that the Tea Party Congress “did nothing” on policy in 2011. That’s at odds with the facts. The constraints on domestic policy put in place by this Congress will resonate for a long time.
Jaango--posted on December 23, 2011
Odds and Ends
It’s been a very slow week in both politics and business, other than for addressing consumer spending for this holiday season.
1. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is gaining more caucus support in Iowa. And in New Hampshire, former Ambassador and former Governor of Utah,Jon Huntsman is quietly gaining a far more than expected support among Republican voters after being polled by the major outfits.
2. Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio is undergoing greater scrutiny in the management of his jail cells after the incarceration of Chicano and Iraq War vet “Marty” Atencio. To wit, this Marine solder was incarcerated and prior to being placed in a “safe” cell, was not only beat up but “tasered” four times, according to the family attorney, Michael Manning. This attorney has sued the Sheriff’s Office a total of three times and won all the decisions, costing the taxpayers a considerable amount of monies. Regardless, the Sheriff is complaining that he is being “discriminated against” and for being “victimized.” And he’s serious too.
3. And virtually everyone now knows that the House Republicans “caved” in to their reality for passing the Senate’s legislation that will extend the payroll tax for another two months, or until a conference between House and Senate negotiators can completed, in either January or late February.
4. Mitt Romney’s latest endorsement from the former President, George H.W. Bush, when Bush said and somewhat understated for his “unofficial nod of support,”—“I like Perry, but he doesn't seem to be going anywhere; he's not surging forward."
5. Indiana’s Republican Secretary of State, Charlie White was deemed ineligible to continue in his position due to a judicial decision in which White voted using the “wrong” address. Now, the Democratic candidate will become the new Secretary of State due to the polemics for “voter fraud” that came home to Indiana.
6. In the military prosecution or the Article 32 legal hearing of Private First Class Bradley Manning, the prosecutor used a closing argument that Manning “aided the enemy” for having passed on military secrets via Wikileaks. And this hearing is just the first step in a long legal effort that will last at least two years before a verdict can be rendered.
7. The United States finally admitted to an error in which killed 24 Pakistanis from a drone airstrike. It seems the drone was some seven to eleven miles off-target. However, the Pakistan government is asking for a “apology” and the government-to-government relations are staring to “fray” and leading to some serious implications.
8. With the SCOTUS to review Arizona’s immigration law and Alabama’s immigration law is going to be “revamped”, and now on the list that is today's immigration, South Carolina is getting its scrutiny from the Deparment of Justice. The federal judge overseeing this legislation has “put on hold” several provisions and similar to Arizona’s legislation. And when a Tea Party takes over state legislatures, the SCOTUS is being asked to eventually be utilized to manipulate this legal systemic to implement “state’s rights.”
9. And if a parrot gives you an affectionate “bite” while being an airplane passenger, you know that Santa will not be paying a late-night visit to your home.
10. Merry Christmas to all of us!
Jaango--posted on December 23, 2011
Walking Into History...?
Of course, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas was the first presidential candidate for the GOP’s nomination that filed his paperwork with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office. And therefore, it’s time to begin taking a closer look at his history and his political position. Consequently, the major media outlets are again, looking at his history as well, as we are doing here too.
Now that Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, and current GOP candidate for the presidential nomination, is now undergoing greater scrutiny, for having walked out of an interview with Gloria Borger, a reporter for one of America’s television networks. And after being asked repeatedly of a variety of published documents, he walked out after stating that the questions has been asked and answered in years past. And given that he has denied having written the multiplicity of fundraising columns, he has yet to answer the question of “Who did he authorize to write these columns in his name?”
And this from 2008 and in particular, Reason Magazine and authored by Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez in 2008.
“[Paul) told CNN last week that he still has “no idea” who might have written inflammatory comments such as “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare checks”—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with Reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul’s chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell Jr.
“From financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company dissolved in 2001. During that period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist “paleoconservatives,” producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial newsletters recently by the New Republic. To this day, Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearance; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman’s recent writing and audio recordings.”
And why has all this “info” been resurrected during the course of this campaign season among Republicans? As such, Paul’s competition has gotten down and dirty, and down and dirty because they are ‘fearful’ that Paul’s sky-high ratings in both Iowa and New Hampshire may just increase significantly.
Now, I am not in the business of offering any advice to the Republican contestants, but of course, here in the Sonoran Desert, our proverbial Question is this: “Did Congressman peruse what was being written under his name and or did he edit or even encourage such nonsense being written under his name?” If not, this raises the “assessment” to a much higher level in which Paul, being on the record for not endorsing such political and racial beliefs, failed to fire his ghostwriters and publicly condemn all this written material that goes back for a large number of years. To date, he has not and continues to argue that he has provided all the “answers” necessary.
Now, if Paul has had a change of heart and no longer holds any of these reprehensible ideas and beliefs, he should say so and within our range of public hearing. And if he refuses to do so, obviously, our Common Sense will determine that he has “closeted” himself from public scrutiny and his public career will soon conclude and commence again with a “non-elected official” career, for all our sakes, given the “hostility” that is found among all these written materials that carry his name.
Jaango--posted on December 23, 2011
The National Defense Appropriation Bill is "on hold"
With the Senate’s formal approval of the annual re-authorization and funding for the Pentagon is now on hold or until the House passes the Senate version of the extension of unemployment payments and the “tax holiday” for the payroll tax deduction being continued, President Obama will not sign the NDA bill.
However, there remains one glitch in the NDA that is seemingly acceptable to the White House. To wit, the NDA authorizes the military to indict, apprehend, and hold indefinitely, any citizen deemed a terrorist or anyone that may be tangential to any presumptive and perceived terrorist act. And who decides all this, excepting the Oval Office? Of course, this violates the Constitution, but that doesn’t and didn’t persuade any member of the Senate, Republican or Democrat.
Moreover, the closest anyone is willing to fix this “glitch” is the Senate Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy. Therefore, this after-the-fact “fix” is now been put into legislation and to be addressed in the next calendar year.
And here’s Senator Leahy’s public statement, accordingly and dated December 15, 2011:
__________
The Senate today passed the National Defense Authorization Act for the coming fiscal year. This vote is historic as Congress has enacted a National Defense Authorization Act every year for the past half century. I commend the Senate for maintaining this steadfast support for our Armed Services, but this legislation will be remembered for reasons both bad and good. I regret the decision of the House and Senate conferees to include unnecessary and potentially harmful provisions related to the detention of terrorist suspects. However, I strongly support measures in the conference report that will empower the National Guard within the Department of Defense, enhance protections for military victims of sexual violence, increase transparency by limiting unnecessary exclusions from the Freedom of Information Act, improve mental health outreach to members of the National Guard and Reserves, and make many other changes to strengthen our national defense and take care of our men and women in uniform.
I continue to strongly oppose the detention related provisions in this conference report, which I believe are unwise and unnecessary. These provisions undermine our Nation’s fundamental principles of due process and civil liberties, and inject operational uncertainty into our counterterrorism efforts in a way that I believe harms our national security.
I strongly oppose Section 1021 of this conference report, which statutorily authorizes indefinite detention. I am fundamentally opposed to indefinite detention, and certainly when the detainee is a U.S. citizen held without charge. Indefinite detention contradicts the most basic principles of law that I subscribed to when I was a prosecutor, and it severely weakens our credibility when we criticize other governments for engaging in similar conduct.
Supporters of this measure will argue that this language simply codifies the status quo. That is not good enough. I am not satisfied with the status quo. Under no circumstances should the United States of America have a policy of indefinite detention. I fought against Bush administration policies that left us in the situation we face now, with indefinite detention being the de facto administration policy. And I strongly opposed President Obama’s executive order on detention when it was announced last March, because it contemplated, if not outright endorsed, indefinite detention.
This is not a partisan issue for me. I have opposed indefinite detention no matter which party holds the keys to the jailhouse. I fought to preserve habeas corpus review for those detained at Guantanamo Bay because I believe that the United States must uphold the principles of due process, and should only deprive a person of their liberty subject to judicial review.
Today, I joined Senator Feinstein, Senator Lee, and others to introduce a bill titled the Due Process Guarantee Act. This bill will make clear that neither an authorization to use military force nor a declaration of war confer unfettered authority to the executive branch to hold Americans in indefinite detention. In the 2004 Supreme Court opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated unequivocally: “We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.” It is stunning to me that sponsors of the underlying Senate bill argued for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens at Guantanamo Bay. We must make clear that our laws do not stand for such a proposition. We are a Nation of laws, and we must adhere vigilantly to the principles of our Constitution. I urge all Senators to support this bipartisan effort to protect American values and cosponsor the Due Process Guarantee Act.
I am also deeply troubled by the mandatory military detention requirements included in Section 1022 of this conference report. In the fight against al-Qaida and other terrorist threats, we should give our intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals all the tools they need – not limit those tools. But limiting them is exactly what this conference report does. Secretary Panetta has stated unequivocally that “[t]his provision restrains the Executive Branch’s options to utilize, in a swift and flexible fashion, all the counterterrorism tools that are now legally available.” Requiring terrorism suspects to be held only in military custody, and limiting the available options in the field, is unwise and unnecessary.
Supporters of the conference report claim that concerns about the mandatory military detention section are “red herrings.” They claim that they have modified the legislation in ways that give the President the flexibility he needs to apply the provisions without impeding investigations or undermining operations in the field. The changes are totally inadequate. The Statement of Administration Position (SAP) calls the mandatory military detention section “unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial.” The SAP goes on to state that “applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States … would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”
Some supporters of the conference report also claim that the national security waiver provision is “a mile wide” and provides the administration with sufficient flexibility. The intelligence professionals who work every day to keep our Nation safe disagree. The Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, wrote to Senator Feinstein that the “detention provisions, even with the proposed waivers, would introduce unnecessary rigidity at a time when our intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals are working more closely than ever to defend our nation effectively and quickly from terrorist attacks.”
As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am particularly concerned that this provision fails to acknowledge or appreciate the vital role that law enforcement and the courts play in our counterterrorism efforts. In light of the hundreds of successful prosecutions of terrorism defendants in Federal courts, why would we want to remove this option from the table? As Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s top lawyer, said recently, the Federal courts are “well equipped to handle the prosecution of dangerous domestic and international terrorists,” and “the military is not the only answer.” I could not agree more.
The implementation procedures required in the legislation are simply not enough to alleviate the potential for problems in the field. As Secretary Panetta stated in his recent letter to Senator Levin, this provision may “needlessly complicate efforts by frontline law enforcement professionals to collect critical intelligence concerning operations and activities within the United States.” No one in the military, intelligence community, or law enforcement has asked for this provision, and rather than strengthening our national security, it makes us less safe.
During floor debate over the Senate bill, FBI Director Mueller wrote that the mandatory military provision would adversely affect the Bureau’s ability to conduct counterterrorism investigations and inject “a substantial element of uncertainty” into its operations. He argued that the provision fails to take into account “the reality of a counterterrorism investigation.” The conference report modified the mandatory military detention section to preserve the existing law enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI, but the effect of that new language remains unclear. At our Judiciary Committee hearing on December 14, the FBI Director stated that the modified text “does not give me a clear path to certainty as to what is going to happen when arrests are made in a particular case.” The FBI Director is particularly concerned with how the legislation will affect the Bureau’s ability to gain the cooperation of suspects. The FBI has a long and successful track record in the cultivation and use of cooperating witnesses. But as Director Muller stated, “The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons in the past that we’ve been fairly successful in gaining.” I cannot understand why the authors of this conference continue to insist upon language that will undermine the FBI in its use of this critical counterterrorism authority.
The language in the detention subtitle of this conference report is the product of a process that has lacked transparency from the start. These measures directly affect law enforcement, detention, and terrorism matters that have traditionally been subject to the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, but neither committee was consulted about these provisions in July when the legislation was first considered by the Armed Services Committee, nor was either committee consulted earlier this month when it was modified. I also can see no reason why these provisions were rushed through the Committee without the input of the Defense Department and Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies that will be directly affected if this language is enacted. On issues of such national significance, the American people deserve an open and transparent process.
Supporters of the detention provisions in the conference report continue to argue that such measures are needed because, they claim, “we are a nation at war.” That does not mean that we should be a Nation without laws, or a Nation that does not adhere to the principles of our Constitution. We should prosecute those who commit crimes and terrorist acts, and sentence them to long terms in prison. The Department of Justice has prosecuted more than 440 terrorists since September 11, 2001. We have a very strong record, and nothing to fear from choosing a course that upholds American values and the rule of law. That is why I also oppose some of onerous funding and certification restrictions that make it virtually impossible to transfer individuals out of Guantanamo, or to prosecute individuals detained there in Federal courts.
I also strongly oppose Section 1029 of the conference report, which requires the Attorney General to consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense before seeking an indictment of certain terrorism suspects. This provision was not considered or debated by the Senate, and certainly not by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair. I oppose this provision because it needlessly undermines the authority of the Attorney General, and is an unprecedented infringement on the prosecutorial independence of the Department of Justice.
Regrettably, the detention language in this conference report remains fundamentally flawed. The detainee provisions will codify a practice of indefinite detention that has no place in the justice system of any democracy. They will cause further damage to our reputation as a Nation that respects the fundamental right of due process, harm the efforts of intelligence and law enforcement officials in the field, and may limit their ability to track down terrorists and bring them to justice. My support for the defense bill should not be construed as support for its detention provisions, which I oppose in the strongest possible terms.
Instead, my support for the bill reflects the inclusion of the National Guard Empowerment Act, a bill I drafted with Senator Lindsey Graham, as an amendment to its underlying text. The Guard empowerment provisions have been understandably overshadowed by the debate on other, more contentious provisions in the bill, but I nevertheless believe that these provisions will set the stage for dramatic changes to our military force structure in the years to come.
Beginning in May, a new national security consensus quietly formed in Congress around an issue at the core of our national security. 71 senators from both parties steadily added their support to S. 1025, the bill that Senator Graham and I called “Guard Empowerment II.” The provisions of our bill built upon the first Guard Empowerment bill that I introduced with Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. That measure became law in 2008 and elevated the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the rank of four-star general. This year’s bill had as its headlining provision an effort to make the Chief a statutory member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Despite the vociferous opposition of active component generals in the Pentagon—including all six sitting Joint Chiefs of Staff—a bipartisan Congressional consensus formed around S. 1025 and Guard empowerment. I was pleased that the Senate included its provisions in our version of the National Defense Authorization Act late last month and that the conferees retained a majority of those provisions in the conference report.
The new consensus on the National Guard comes as the budget debates of this Congress have fractured the Cold War national security consensus of the last half century. While those fractures were an inevitable outcome of the end of the Soviet empire, what will replace the Cold War consensus remains unclear. Some members of congress argue for diplomatic and military retrenchment from every corner of the globe back to Fortress America. Others believe that we must expand, not shrink, our international footprint. Yet nearly everyone agrees that budgetary factors must mean a change in the way the Pentagon does business—and that change cannot wait.
The seeds of that change were sown a decade ago. In the days and weeks following 9/11, the former “strategic reserve” became, of necessity, fully operational. The National Guard and Reserve components, once a Cold War failsafe, were called into regular rotation in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our country simply could not field the forces we needed without calling on the Guard and Reserve. Simultaneously, America experienced domestic disasters on an unprecedented scale. In each situation, the President called on the National Guard as the military first responders to help citizens in need. Today, the metamorphosis from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve is complete.
Yet entrenched bureaucratic interests still resist what most Americans now accept as an accomplished fact. The Joint Chiefs fought our efforts to bring the Chief of the Guard Bureau into the “Tank” not because they misunderstand the value the Guard and Reserve, but precisely because they fear that value proposition may threaten the size and budget of their active components in the years to come.
Nevertheless the active component must shrink, both as a consequence of our current budgetary reality and to reflect the Constitutional vision the Framers had of a small standing army augmented by a larger cadre of citizen soldiers. Simultaneously, the Guard and Reserve must grow so that those cuts to the active force can be quickly and easily reversed if the circumstances demand it. Just a year ago, no one predicted our operations to oust Muammar Qaddafi. In a world where military needs change day by day, we must not hollow out the force. To avoid that outcome in a period of austere budgets, we must depend more and more on the National Guard and Reserve.
To that end, the conferees included Section 512 in this defense bill which adds the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It also reinforces the duties and responsibilities of the Chief as listed in 10 U.S.C. § 10502 in accordance with the listing of responsibilities of the Chief already in that section. This provision is historic and will dramatically improve the advice that the President and Secretary of Defense receive on matters of national security and the defense budget.
Section 511, “Leadership of the National Guard Bureau,” reestablishes the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau as a Lieutenant General and excludes the positions of the Chief and the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau from limitations on the number of general and flag officers in the Department of Defense. Reinstating the Deputy position at the National Guard Bureau will give the Chief flexibility at a time when he sorely needs it and providing a third star for the position will give it more institutional clout.
Section 515 implements the outcomes of a negotiation between the Council of Governors and the Department of Defense by authorizing the President to order the Federal Reserve component to active duty to provide assistance in response to a major disaster or emergency. In addition to authorizing a reserve forces call-up for domestic disasters and emergencies, it codifies the dual-status Title 10 and Title 32 commander as the usual and customary command relationship for military operations inside the United States, a key victory for federal-state integration of military command and control.
Section 518, “Consideration of Reserve Component Officers for Appointment to Certain Command Positions,” is a modified version of a provision of S. 1025 which would have reserved the positions of Commander, Army North, and Commander, Air Force North, for National Guard officers with an emphasis on the consideration of current and former Adjutants General. Instead, the section requires that Guard and Reserve officers be considered for these positions whenever they are vacant.
Section 1085, “Use of State Partnership Program Funds for Certain Purposes,” includes a limited authorization of the State Partnership Program which is the major vehicle for the National Guard of the States to participate in international security assistance and capacity building missions at the request of the State Department Chief of Mission and Geographic Combatant Commander.
Last but certainly not least, Section 1080A, “Report on Costs of Units of the Reserve Components and the Active Components of the Armed Forces,” institutes the “similar unit” cost report proposed by S. 1025 with some added detail and while retaining the Comptroller General evaluation of the Department’s report. That last requirement is important to keep the Department of Defense honest in its assumptions and analysis leading to conclusions about the relative cost of active and reserve units.
The reserve component cost report will undergird efforts by the Senate National Guard Caucus in the years to come. While it has long been common knowledge that the National Guard and Reserves are cheaper to maintain in dwell than active duty forces, the report will prove that colloquial wisdom and bolster the arguments of the Congress in a future push to reduce the size of the active component as we draw down from Iraq and Afghanistan while growing the size of the reserve components.
I am also pleased that the conferees included my language to narrow the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) exemption in the bill for Department of Defense critical infrastructure security information. This improvement adds a public interest balancing test requiring that the Secretary of Defense consider whether the public interest in the disclosure of this information outweighs the Government’s need to withhold the information, when evaluating FOIA requests. The addition of this measure to the National Defense Authorization Act will help ensure that FOIA remains a viable tool for access to Department of Defense information that impacts the health and safety of the American public.
As I said at the outset, this National Defense Authorization Act will be remembered both for changing our process of detaining and prosecuting suspected terrorists and for empowering the National Guard. I continue to oppose the changes the Act will make to our counterterrorism legal regime. But I nevertheless support how the Act will improve the sourcing and fielding of military forces in the years to come. I will look to fix the former and further improve the latter in future legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
End of Statement.
Jaango--posted on December 19, 2011
Who Won the Iraq War?
The short answer is the Iraq Government did.
And of course, Humility is not America’s well-built “feature.” As such, understanding the ‘reality’ that exists today, doesn’t change America’s foreign policy one whit, given that the Pentagon and the business community that has captured the Pentagon when it comes to spending vast quantities of monies, and by tossing into the mix, our upper-echelon schema for national security, takes it a step further. However, mixing America’s “reality” with the “reality” facing the Iraqi “reality” demonstrates that we, as a nation, have “limits” to our capability as well as our capacity to wage war. And for the many among us and who were vociferous in our opposition to the Iraq War, we can hold our head high.
And here’s why?
The notable and intrepid blogger David Dayen, explains the “why?”
“…as for this claim that America can do anything they want in foreign policy, bullying around smaller states, not only is this mindset America the root of many of our foreign policy problems, but it has been proven wrong by the likes of Nouri al-Maliki. The lesson of Iraq is that, for all our military might, we cannot bend the world to our will. We cannot impose democracy on a country that doesn’t want it delivered from the barrel of a gun. We cannot stop the forces that we often set into motion. We have limits to our power. We might as well acknowledge that and act accordingly.”
With the “interview” conducted by one of television’s abject personalities and aired on Sunday, when asked of President Obama, for “who won the war?” President Obama was somewhat less than forthcoming for crediting the Iraq Government for their lack of cooperation in extending the Status of Forces Agreement entered into in 2008 by the Bush administration.
Therefore, the anti-war activists, however politically hobbled, did their hard work over the past 8 years attempting to convince the general public. And now, we can see this work to its completion, by shifting our efforts toward and onto Afghanistan. Otherwise, the business community that will continue to surround the Pentagon will claim credit for ending the Iraq War and will take credit in the future for any wars undertaken by the Pentagon in the years ahead.
And lest we forget, America’s “racial and ethnics” were adamantly opposed to the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and have proven ourselves to be prescient in our understanding that our “problems” here at home in the United States could’ve of been more carefully solved, given the trillions in dollars spent in attempting to construct a “nation building” regimen in the Middle East.
In closing, our opposition to war, despite the overwhelming support of white America for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, has proven over these many years, that we were fully correct in our initial assessment and decision-making, and future historians will look back to today’s political artifacts and will “wonder” how America did not learn the seminal lesson that in our national determination for waging war, our national values were conveniently dismissed.
Now, let the “pro-war” propagandists prosper!
Jaango--posted on December 19, 2011
Revisiting "democratic" history
When it comes to having a voracious view of humor and the attendant politics, revisiting a political history that includes Social Security, the Great Society, Medicare and Carter’s Human Rights Coda, what will “racial and ethnics” bring forward when we become the adventurous majority, remains to be seen?
Next year, we will be voting on the politics of the 1960s and 1970s despite the protestations of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Why? As a society, we conveniently refuse to part ways with the 1960s despite our quest to achieve a post-racial and non-ideological society. And because we are a two-party nation, accepting a third party into this political marriage, would be quite contentious and not likely to happen, to say the least.
And President Obama’s dislike for the politics of the 1960 did not hamper his success for achieving the Oval Office. Thus, historians adequately note that it was the politics of the 1960s that led to Obama’s eventual legacy and which will be the Era of Squandered Opportunities, especially when compared to the iconic achievements of the Great Society. And for “racial and ethnics” this Great Society is our Consummate Yardstick, and which, if re-elected, President Obama cannot encapsulate all his real and perceived accomplishments when measured against this notable Yardstick.
Therefore, what “ideas” do the racial and ethnics, writ large, espouse that will lead to a surefire victory for President Obama should he deem to listen to America’s racial and ethnics, given the wealth of ideas percolating within these distinctive communities that are Native Americans, African Americans, and Latinos.
First and foremost, our Ideas and starting with the “conservative ideas that refuse to die” and move forward from this standpoint!
Jaango--posted on December 18, 2011
"Good News" for countering "voter suppression"
In last year’s election cycle, the results were far from sure, when the Republican operatives from the former Governor’s team in Maryland, authored and instituted a robo-call mechanism in order to suppress the African American vote. And a jury agreed that this political behavior constituted an illegal behavior. Consequently, the ringleader was convicted and with more judicial activity is now pending for the remaining cohorts for this voting illegality.
As reported in Wednesday's local edition of the Washington Post:
“Paul E. Schurick, the 2010 campaign manager for former Maryland governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., was convicted Tuesday by a Baltimore jury of four counts stemming from a robocall that prosecutors said was intended to suppress the black vote.
“The call, which Schurick acknowledged authorizing, was placed on Election Day to 112,000 voters in Baltimore and Prince George’s County, the state’s two largest majority-African American jurisdictions. Recipients were told by an unidentified woman that they could “relax” because Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) had been successful.”
It's nice to know that egregious attempts at "voter suppression' will be addressed appropriately.
Jaango--posted on December 18, 2011
"Overweening" Ambition for the "full cup"?
Since there has yet to be a “Test” that measures Ambition invented for use here in our Indigenous Hemisphere, the closest I have ever come to “measuring” Ambition, comes at me from personal experience, as in Hard Work and Self-Discipline. Thus, crafting such a “test” takes a tad of irreverent humor, and of which I am now running on “empty” at this year-end, demonstrates I am not up to this task, so I leave it to others, and with the admonition, not to get yourself included on any “End of Year” lists. Otherwise, internet nick names will have to be changed “to protect the innocent.”
And with this in mind, “real” names are important as well. So, here goes.
From the New Republic:
• Newt Gingrich
• Parag Khanna
• Flynt Leverett
• Hillary Mann Leverett
• Rachel Maddow
• Ayn Rand
• Frank Rich
• Paul Ryan
• Stephen Walt
• Drew Westen
• Fareed Zakaria
• Serano Chiles (oops!)
And from Salon.Com, although I am only focusing on the top ten and not their top 30:
• Richard Cohen
• Mark Halperin
• Thomas Friedman
• David Broder
• Marty Paretz
• Erin Burnett
• Katie Rolphe
• Erik Erickson
• Robert Samuelson
• Jalapeno Chiles (oops!)
Now, if I were to get “deep into the weeds” regarding traditional media outlets, and yet, I won’t go there since “finding fun” is difficult to do from understanding that “paychecks are contingent” on an effort deemed being “good” but not for “telling the truth while shaming the devil, or the devil’s evil twin.”
Conversely, and as for any discussion relative to an eventual consideration for being selected for inclusion into my America’s Great Scribblers Hall of Fame, and given that I am also part and parcel to any assorted “veal pen” offerings on the Internet, I would have to include the following and solely premised on Excellence and done on a daily basis, wherever found, but only for this current year of 2011. So, here goes!
• David Dayen
• Pam Spaulding
• Kevin Gosztola
• Jane Hamsher
• Jon Walker
• “Mister” CTuttle
• Gregg Levine
• Kelly Canfield
• Teddy Partridge
• Wendy Davis
• “Lash” LaRue
• Habanero Chiles (oops!)
And with this “good” news now comes the time to enjoy the Holiday Season with family, friends and neighbors. And from the Great Matriarch, “Bless us all!”
Note: Here in the Sonoran Desert, the Sangre de Moctezuma will be flowing freely, the flavors being in either Watermelon or Strawberry or some such that is readily available given from our regularly scheduled importations.
Jaango--posed on December 18, 2011
Odd Ends
It's been a terrific past several days for political and policy wonks.
1. In Iowa, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas is public opinion polling, directly behind Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman. This week, Paul pulled out a video that chastises Gingrich for his two military draft deferrals.
2. Newt Gingrich is pleading that he has to hold on until the primary held in South Carolina in order to overcome any unpleasantness from Mitt Romney.
3. In Wisconsin, the recall of their Governor continues. To date, and within the first 30 days of the required 60-day time frame, the Democrats have gathered the minimum of 507,000 petition signatures required by law to establish the formal recall. And with 30 days remaining, the recall drive is aiming for over a total of 740,000 signatures.
4. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden joins the Republicans by co-sponsoring legislation the will eventually privatize Medicare. Of course, he is now being verbally assaulted to attempting to trash the Medicare program relative to its anticipated longevity.
5. The House Judiciary Chair, Lamar Smith (R-Texas) called a halt to the second hearing on the “Online Piracy Act.” It seems that no one is interested “in buying” the idea that the Internet needs to be protected from itself.
6. Both Rudy Giuliani and Dick Cheney endorse Newt Gingrich. The Neo-Cons are transferring their allegiance to Gingrich while Mitt Romney is being endorsed a few folks of Tea Party fame.
7. The NRA’s latest and outlandish conspiracy theory regarding “fast and furious” gun-walking, is that this is part and parcel to Obama’s taking away the Second Amendment. And a few in Congress members are now accepting this conspiracy as an "unassailable" fact.
Jaango--posted on December 18, 2011
America's decision for the "values voters" made easy?
Given the latest GOP debate, the former disgraced House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, managed to survive this debate without having undergone any substantive criticism, despite the much ballyhooed verbal jabs delivered during the debate as well as the after-debate utterances by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
Therefore, America’s conservatives have adopted a subliminal strategy in which Newt Gingrich has the ‘gravitas’ to deliver a devastating political knock-out schema to President Obama in any future debates, should he achieve the GOP’s coveted nomination. Consequently, Gingrich’s intellect and rhetorical style is more than enough to overwhelm Obama’s lack of intellect and prior debate experience, or so the GOP’s recent thinking, as in a political metamorphosis has conveniently occurred and which will accrue to the down ticket candidates.
Furthermore, with conservatives slowly evolving into their thinking that Gingrich is far better than Romney, Paul, Bachmann or Perry and is their now “go to candidate” that will ‘take no prisoners’ on the campaign trail, the GOP’s now presumptive “fighter” will animate and energize the rank and file Republicans. Unfortunately, Gingrich’s loss will prove to be the ultimate political fiasco for the GOP and become another setback or albatross for many years to come. And here’s why?
Does “disgraced” as in a disgraced former House Speaker from twenty years ago, demonstrate that the Republicans, by and large, accept that fact that “disgraced” still mean “disgraced” and from this point forward—be acceptable to the vast majority of Americans on Election Day?
Just as Republican America and by analogy, Republican Arizona’s love affair with the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio—given his historical proclivity for having intentionally ignored the over 400 sexual abuse cases in the respective Latino and Yaqui communities in El Mirage and Guadalupe, as well as within the larger geographical boundaries of Maricopa County in Central Arizona, become “acceptable” to the vast majority of Republicans in Arizona, remains to be seen.
On Election Day of next year, America and Arizona, respectively, will find for themselves if they can continue to support the iconic labels of “disgraced” for Gingrich and “disgusted” for Arpaio, and which are now attributed to our Elected Officials. And therein is the “value” that voters will have to determine for themselves, aside from all the issues that are germane to crafting public policies at both the national and state levels for self-governance. And yet, the “cost” of this decision-making will be felt in whether America and Arizona will be moving forward or regressing and to a point where the clock is correct only twice-a-day.
And for our community of military vets, should Gingrich achieve the Oval Office, our “cost” will come in the form of a “new” national reality which will commence and which will be analogous to los desparecidos and equivalent to the remaining 1,438 minutes still on the 24-hour clock and for having been cavalierly rejected.
Jaango--posted on December 18, 2011
'Tis the Season!
With the holiday season soon to be upon us, it’s time to change the focus away from business and politics, and start enjoying what other people tell us to appreciate and enjoy. And with good cheer in mind, let’s get to the important stuff.
1. The local Kroger outfit, Advantage Logistics Southwest, here in Phoenix, Arizona, held a Salsa Contest in which 12 salsa ‘experiments’ were provided for the discriminating tastes and the subtle taste buds of their employees. Thus, Rosa “caliente” Chavez won First Prize Prize and which is understandable since she is a Lady with Considerable Pizzazz. The Second Place Ribbon went to Debbie Shephard, and the Third Place Award went to Elizabeth Navarro. And as to “discriminating tastes” and with sensible taste buds, I am the first and foremost expert. Why? Many years ago, I was the judge of a salsa contest and where salsa had to be made in a solar oven. This new and innovative approach to the “good eats” thrilled not only the cooks as well as the participants, and I got to enjoy this immeasurable and wonderful repast.
2. When it comes to the ecletic tastes that makes Christmas Music quite discriminating, the following songs will start you down this traditional road. To wit, 1) John Lennon’s hit of “Happy Xmas (War is Over)” of 1971, 2) Nat King Cole’s “The Christmas Song” of 1961, 3) Judy Garland’s “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” of 1944, 4) Celine Dion’s “O Holy Night” of 1998, and 5) Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi’s “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town” from 2003.
3. And for the many among us and who appreciate and spend a great deal of effort keeping in “good shape” dismissing “Olive Oil: Not just for cooking” is made for you, as well. Consequently, the following has many facets of “wellness” and to wit, face/body skin, hair, weight control, stomach upsets, staying regular, ear aches, finger nails, pets, and it's even appropriate when it comes to removing paint and car grease.
In closing, my thanks go out to Mssrs. Brent Bilquist, and my Brothers of Shared Experiences, Gary Voss and David Almiraz, as well as the ever-present and delightful Bernadette Lewis, Editor and Publisher of the Cactus Star. And finally, a hat tip to Mary Aurelia Gonzales de la Cruz for bringing to my attention the Salsa Contest. As such, I am food wonk.
Jaango--posted on December 6, 2011
Only my side knows how to count!
Note: Extending the payroll tax cuts for one year will cost $180 billion. Extending the Bush Era tax cuts for ten years will cost over $4 trillion.
Now, the Republican Deputy/Assistant Minority Leader in the Senate, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, has went public with his utterance that there will be no extension of the payroll tax cut unless the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy are extended, has concretized the Republican position, But will it hold in the Republican caucus?
Consequently, 160 million persons will get a payroll tax cut and a few hundred thousand wealthy persons will continue to get their tax cuts too. Of course, this has been the “final” effort of the Republicans, despite all their various distractions relative to their daily talking points. Moreover, Kyl’s political history demonstrates that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is now speaking to and for all Republican members in both congressional chambers, and no dissenters will be provided with anything else by way of additional substance.
Thus, the Republicans are reinforcing their national meme that they truly represent the wealthy and the Democrats are representing the middle class. And which will now become the “storyline” for next year’s general election.
Unfortunately for Senator Kyl, there is now a split among the Republicans, and the Tea Party will be driving the bus over their leadership, should Kyl’s “pre-arrangement” of positioning fail to achieve any success in the respective House and Senate caucuses. As for the Democrats, the leadership has achieved their primary goal for marketing and selling the notional that the Republicans care only about the financial condition of the wealthy, and the middle class will have to fend for itself in these tough economic times.
Of course, what Senator Kyl is saying today contravenes what he was saying last year at this time. To wit, Kyl’s statement was, “What you’re suggesting here is that you can do some things to stimulate job creation and certainly doing something like reducing the payroll tax, which has been written about recently, would accomplish that.” However, his more recent statements indicate that a payroll deduction would not stimulate the economy or create jobs. The reality is that a payroll deduction would stimulate an aggregate consumer demand and which would be a boon to our limping economy, and which makes Senator Kyl’s overall political position another “intentional” falsehood and of which reinforces his public recognition for such behavior.
Jaango--posted on December 6, 2011
Statement from President Obama
In today’s press conference, President Obama had this to say:
“Now, I know many Republicans have sworn an oath never to raise taxes as long as they live. How can it be that the only time there’s a catch is when it comes to raising taxes on middle class families? How can you fight tooth and nail to protect high-end tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and yet barely lift a finger to prevent taxes going up for 160 million Americans who really need the help? It doesn’t make sense.
“Now, the good news is I think the American people’s voices are starting to get through in this time. I know that last week Speaker Boehner said this tax cut helps the economy because it allows every working American to keep more of their money. I know that over the weekend Senate Republican leaders said we shouldn’t raise taxing on working people going into next year. I couldn’t agree more, and I hope that the rest of their Republican colleagues come around and join Democrats to pass these tax cuts and put money back into the pockets of working Americans.
“Now, some Republicans who have pushed back against the idea of extending this payroll tax cut have said, ‘We’ve got to pay for these tax cuts.’ I’d just point out that they haven’t always felt that way. Over the last decade they didn’t feel the need to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which is one of the reasons we face such large deficits.
“Indeed, when the Republicans took over the House at the beginning of this year, they explicitly changed the rules to say that tax cuts don’t have to be paid for. So forgive me a little bit of confusion when I hear folks insisting on tax cuts being paid for.”
End of Statement.
Jaango--posted on December 5, 2011
Gingrich goes "repugnant"
For the past two weeks, the former disgraced House Speaker, has been annunciating his distaste for child labor laws. And if he wants this “discussion” to place, he needs only to come out here to the Sonoran Desert. Thusly, his “position” is in doing away with Child Labor Laws. He, of course, is free to make his case and in response, I will defend these Child Labor Laws from the standpoint of both history and the inherent logic of why children should not be in the labor force.
As of today, many scribes, columnists, pundits and as per the usual, internet bloggers are talking toughly to and about Newt Gingrich and this seminal nonsense from a politician who should no better. And yet, he is “attacking” liberals and who are willing to stand up and defend these children, and that speaks well for our America.
And more on point, Rick Ungar, writing for the Washington Monthly Magazine, has this to say, and does so quite well.
To wit,
“Could it possibly be that the self-professed, master of the big idea managed to miss the fact that there are more than 10 million low-income (earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level) working families in this country — representing 45 million Americans, 22 million of which are children?
“These are the very people who live in the poor neighborhoods that Gingrich is talking about -the communities where Newt seems to believe that people don’t understand working for a dollar unless it involves doing something illegal.
“I’ve been closely following politics for much of my life — and, in my case, that’s a pretty long time — and I am comfortable in saying that Newt’s speech may well be the most offensive political speech I have ever heard spoken by an American politician.”
Need more be said?
Jaango--posted on December 2, 2011
Odds & Ends
1. Obviously, the Obama administration, and after the Catholic Bishop’s Conference visited the White House, may start to back-off and thusly, permit the Catholic Church to become exempted from “insurance coverage” that requires coverage for abortions.
2. The “dreamers” in Arizona. The political right has become enamored with creating a “large swath” of territory, from Prescott in the north and to Tucson in the South which can be “developed” into one of ten American “Mega-Swaths” that will lead to a resurgence of economic activity. But, and not inadvertently, refuse to consider that “lack of water” is critical to any economic development imperatives. Consequently, agricultural-oriented Native American Societies will be expected to “surrender” their property rights or in a final recourse, “sell” their water to the large scale development efforts, notwithstanding, these historical behaviors. Thus, the confrontation over “historical” versus the “hysterical” behaviors for the future, has now arrived. And this will “get nasty.”
3. The “secret” apps are not longer secret since Carrier IQ has admitted to these no longer secret apps that have been installed in Smart Phones, Consequently, the data, keystrokes, and web sites visited are available to the carriers.. Does this violate US Law? But now, the multiplicity of questions have risen to the level of a cacophony, especially among civil libertarians. As such, the proverbial Question, “Who is receiving the data being collected?” Perhaps, the federal government and if so, will this information be shared via Homeland Security, with local law enforcement.
4. California’s Senator, Dianne Feinstein, had her amendment approved to the Defense Appropriations bill, and which if approved by both the House and Senate and the White House does not veto this amendment on “indefinite detention” of American citizens, will be challenged before the SCOTUS by the civil libertarians. Consequently, the White House “anguish” is that Feinstein’s amendment “codifies” into the Rule of Law this “indefinite detention.” At present, the Executive Branch has sole authority and if the courts intervene, this “indefinite detention” becomes the subject of Congressional Oversight, and thusly, the general public becomes privy to what’s being done in our name, the voters.
5. It seems that the Protect the IP Act was on its way to an assured passage in the Senate, and sponsored by the entertainment industry including Hollywood. However, now the politics has changed course, given that the Internet media web sites have taken their “push back” to a much larger level and with increasing internet involvement. This legislation would have required web sites to create “original content” otherwise, utilizing “materials” from such outfits as You Tube would be prohibited and the ultimate consequence from all this, is that the “larger creators” of content, would rule the internet. Now, the “original creators” will have to continue to compete with the “little guys.” And internet ‘censorship’ will no longer be acceptable, since this behavior is being formalized with legislation by Senator Wyden.
6. The highly reputable Field Poll in California, is measuring Independent voters in their comprehensive dislike for both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. However, 1 in 10 Democrats are expressing their support for either Romney and Gingrich.
7. Donald Trump and Newsmax will be co-hosting a Republican debate in the latter part of this month. I can’t wait to enjoy the fun. Oops, will it be televised?
Jaango--posted on December 2, 2011
“Militarizing" Local Law Enforcement?
With the Senate voting on the various and assorted amendments and riders to the reauthorization bill for the Department of Defense and commonly known as SB 1867, or “to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table, as follows:”
Consequently, Senator Udall of Colorado offered up his amendment and contrary to the following relative to this “status quo”:
“At the end of Section 1031, add the following (via Levin and McCain):
“The extension to the United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.—The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States to the extent prohibited by Constitution of the United States.”
As such, the Udall Amendment would have prohibited the United States Armed Forces for ‘rounding up’ political dissenters/protesters, and to wit, when the logic is extended, means that dissenters, in newspapers, standard television programs, and even on the Internet, can be apprehended by the military and delivered by the military to military facilities for eventual legal action under military tribunals and not in any of our state and federal court systems. And this amendment went down to defeat by a vote of 37 to 61. Therefore, 35 Democrats and 2 Republicans supported the Udall Amendment, and which, in the final vote, has the potential to cause having a vote that leads to overturning a veto. With 37 votes, overturning a veto will be neigh to impossible. And that “means” a bargaining session, which could lead to “something” even worse. And in this, I am seriously sanguine.
Prior to last evening’s vote in the Senate, President Obama has offered a mild veto threat should the Executive Branch be given the “authority” that permits the Oval Office to utilize the military to implement this unusual behavior, given that the War on Terror no longer exists, and to the extent that 20 men with box cutters manage to inflict the damage of 9-11 and all that has followed given the implementation of an AUMF and which did not rise to the level of the Constitutionally required “Declaration of War.”
Today and in subsequent days, the Senate will continue voting on various and sundry riders and amendments. But by the end of next week, the final vote will be taken in the Senate and sent to the House for it’s decision-making. And to be followed by a “conference committee” that will work out all lasting disagreements between the Democrats and the Republicans. Therefore, President Obama will sign this legislation in totality or veto said legislation. Of course, he can incur any political wrath by issuing a “signing statement” which presupposes his view of any requisite changes detrimental to his administration. As such, signing statements are not likely, but still in the realm of possibility for this Obama administration.
And here is the crux of this legislation, aside from the Oval Office having gained the authority for designating “enemy combatants” and subject to incarceration at any federal facilities including GITMO. And therefore, Senator Levin states the Truth, from the perspective of the SCOTUS in Hamdi:
“Now in terms of constitutional provisions, the ultimate authority on the constitution of the United States is the Supreme Court of the United States, and here is what they have said. In the Hamdi case about the issue which both our friends have raised about American citizens being subject to the law of war. ‘A citizen,’ the Supreme Court said in 2004, “no less than an alien, can be part of supporting forces hostile to the United States engage in armed conflict against the United States. Such a citizen,’ referring to an American citizens, ‘if released would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.’
“And here is the bottom line for the Supreme Court. If we just take this one line out of this whole debate, it would be breath of fresh air to cut through some of the words that have been used here this morning, one line. ‘There is no bar to this nation’s hold one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.’ Okay? That’s not me, that not’s Senator Graham, that’s not Senator McCain. That’s the Supreme Court of the United States recently. ‘There is no bar to this nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.”
Consequently, the “principled” Dissenter/Protester argues the issue that is contained in “returning to the front.” As such, both Democrats and Republicans have bought into the silly notion that the “front” is now located, not only here in the United States, but anywhere anyone determines that the ‘front’ is located on any of the five continents, and who can disagree, especially from the person who has no political viability, other than being, at best, a political pest or a minor “shit disturber.”
And which brings me to our respective Spanish-speaking communities. Moreover, with federal largesse, local communities with pre-supposed “authority” or authority fully-spelled out, means that local law enforcement players and decision-makers will have the identical authority, and which makes child’s play of Arizona’s SB 1070 and HB 2281. Further, local law enforcement, can dispense with all military depredations and utilize Tasers or a more-aggressive version of pepper spray, and justified as a more “egalitarian” and “beneficial” use of a less offensive fire power.
In closing, “challenging” the federal or local governments will have a much greater cost, and in both the personal context and community context, when it comes to being a political dissenter or protester, given that in Los Angeles, yesterday, local law enforcement utilized over 1.400 uniforms to evict the OccupyWallStreet demonstrators from out of a public park located in front of city hall. Now, our understanding is that our Elected Officials will not readily admit of their fear of dissenters and protesters, militarizing law enforcement is their only viable alternative, aside from resigning their offices, and which won’t occur. “Power for power’s sake” is an aphrodisiac, and not willingly tossed aside and made available to the next person standing quietly in line or for another avenue for upward mobility.
Jaango--posted on November 30, 2011
“Old and tired white dudes": Part 1001
In politics, it’s fun to mock the “want-a-bes” for their intellectualized sophistication, especially when these politicians have been around for far too long, and should have exited the national stage years ago. As such, Newt Gingrich is a case in point.
Take, for example, Newt Gingrich, the disgraced former House Speaker and when he reigned supreme in the 1990s, was no slacker in this endeavor. Back then he wanted to eliminate Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment. And he has yet to stop his self-effacing endeavor and done in order to posture himself as an intellectualized “smartie” among the many. Of course, he continues to “shoot himself in the foot” for all this fondness in support of this self-imposed meme. And yet, the traditional media outlets continue to believe in the fiction, and today, it gets even more laughable.
Gingrich’s latest fiasco is found in his desire to eliminate the Congressional Budget Office. To wit, the CBO is one of the few legitimate outlets and where any of the budget numbers cannot be propagandized to serve a willing political audience that adheres to Gingrich’s particular views.
Consequently, our governmental institutions are undergoing a sophisticated attack since these institutions do not adhere to the views of either major political party. And should Gingrich and his political allies succeed in destroying the credibility of these affected institutions, the Right can craft their bedrock numbers for debate without having to acknowledge that the institutional credibility no longer exists and which makes Gingrich’s views to be seemingly on the rise.
Therefore, having to “fact check” Newt Gingrich on a daily basis will have to become the “norm” otherwise, we, here in the Sonoran Desert, will have to scramble on a daily basis just to keep attuned to this Gingrich nonsense that is premised on an intellectual laziness that is being targeted at the low-information voter. As such, Gingrich’s disdain for obvious expertise when crafting public policy, is impressive, to say the least.
Jaango--posted on November 29, 2011
The "non-results" from the Super Committee
[Just cleaning out the upstairs closet.]
On Wednesday of next week, the Super Committee is scheduled to not only provide their majority recommendations, but have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Obviously, this date will come and go, and thusly, a minor “fix” of some sort will be brought forth in order to avoid accepting responsibility for this failure to accomplish anything on substance. And when Congress needs a “bi-partisan” shield to hide behind and in doing so, deters and distracts the voters for voting for the “wants and desires” of their respective constituencies, and these members are willing to vote diligently for the ‘wants and desires’ of the campaign donors.
However, not to be deterred or distracted, are the “experts” on the internet and who have taken and given their considerable to effort, and made available to the general public. Therefore, if the Super Committee does nothing and Congress does nothing, here is what can be anticipated or expected to occur.
· $3.3 trillion from letting temporary income and estate tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003, 2009, and 2010 expire on schedule at the end of 2012 (presuming Congress also lets relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax expire, as noted below);
· $0.8 trillion from allowing other temporary tax cuts (the “extenders” that Congress has regularly extended on a “temporary” basis) expire on schedule;
· $0.3 trillion from letting cuts in Medicare physician reimbursements scheduled under current law (required under the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted in 1997, but which have been postponed since 2003) take effect;
· 0.7 trillion from letting the temporary increase in the exemption amount under the Alternative Minimum Tax expire, thereby returning the exemption to the level in effect in 2001;
· $1.2 trillion from letting the sequestration of spending required if the Joint Committee does not produce $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction take effect; and
$0.9 trillion in lower interest payments on the debt as a result of the deficit reduction achieved from not extending these current policies.
Regardless of what Congress will contemplate in the coming months, if Congress does nothing, $7.1 trillion will accrue to the Treasury over the next ten years. And which means that there is no perceived “need” to privatize Social Security and “eliminate” Medicare as the Republicans are determined to accomplish. Thus, no logic can be found and justified within the Republican attack machine, other to create the wealth necessary to establish another regimen of “tax cuts” for America’s overly-wealthy.
In closing, a one “issue” ideology for tax cuts animates the political right. As such, everything else is secondary and tertiary. Furthermore, ‘doing nothing’ will result in $7.1 trillion in deficit reduction in the next ten years, and contrasted by the Super Committee—the goal of the committee was to achieve $4.0 trillion toward deficit reduction. And not lost in all this jibber jabber among the Democrats and the Republicans, addressing a “reduction” of an approximate half, would demonstrate that “strategic” decision-making exists and sold on that basis to the general public, just as in this instance, there was no ‘strategic’ decision-making anywhere to be seen or realized.
Jaango--posted on November 22, 20011
Some Thoughts That Won't Go Anywhere!
1. After “listening” to the various voices from within the Super Committee, both in terms of members as well as their staff, I am not impressed with the perceived “results.” And of course, I would prefer “no results” if and where possible. The Democrats have put “entitlements” on the table in the form of Social Security and Medicare, while the Republicans have put the Bush Tax Cuts on the decision-making table and to be made “permanent” given that the Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire in December of 2013. And if nothing is done, the Treasury will begin to recoup over $7 trillion during the next ten years, and which will lead to a considerable reduction in our “deficit” as well as our “national debt.”
2. When “listening” to Senator John McCain complain that our “deficit” and “national debt” is due to Obama’s domestic spending, I have to chuckle at this Republican propaganda that readily dismissed the “war monies” and Cheney’s despicable statement for “Deficits don’t matter.”
3. In setting the record straight on America’s behavior, I found that back in August, the Washington Monthly Magazine expressed their angst and anger on this Republican propaganda, and therefore my thanks for the following:
• 1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
• 1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
• 1993: Bill Clinton passes an economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.
• 1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. The debt clock, which hadn’t been programmed to run backwards, is unplugged.
• 1999: The country begins paying down the national debt for the first time in more than three decades.
• 2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
• 2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
• 2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.
• 2001 - 2009: Congressional Republicans throw caution to the wind, approving tax cuts, two wars, Medicare expansion, and a massive Wall Street bailout. They add every penny of the costs to the national debt.
• 2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.”
• January 2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
• December 2009: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) describes the previous eight years as an era in which Republicans believed “it was standard practice not to pay for things.”
• 2009 - 2010: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them.
• September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
• October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
• November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
• December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, refuse to consider paying for them, demand that the costs be added to the national debt.
• March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
• July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses.
• August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.
• October 2011: Working through the so-called super-committee, congressional Democrats offer Republicans several plans to reduce the debt by trillions of dollars. GOP officials not only refuse, but counter with alternatives that make the debt worse.
• November 2011: The national debt tops $15 trillion. Republicans, hoping Americans ignore the previous 30 years, blame Democrats.
4. The likelihood that the Democrats and Independents will return to re-elect President Obama, can be ranked from “considerable” to “great” when the voter takes into consideration the “value” that is soon to be found in having one or two more Democrats on the SCOTUS. With the SCOTUS having announced that they will accept and decide on the constitutionality of the Affordable Car Act, and their decision to be rendered in the summer of next year, and during the midst of the campaign season, will play havoc with the voters. Consequently, the ‘traditional’ decision of a 5 to 4 decision, as is and has been a result of “political decisions” demonstrates that this decision will become a “traditional” decision and obviously, not couched as a political decision.
5. With the expected “pick-ups” in the Senate of one seat each in Nevada and Massachusetts, the Democrats are not expecting to surrender the Senate to the Republicans in next year’s election cycle.
Jaango--November 22, 2011
Democracy Wins...!
With the announced “failure” of the Super Committee, this failure can be “scored” as a win for Democracy, and yet, the stock market has dropped over 200 points, and which effectively demonstrates that the rise of Democracy does not “invoke” any positive psychology on the money markets here in the United States. And in Europe, the “elite” has confused the general populace in order to not recognize America’s good fortune for this ‘rise’ in Democracy and therefore, the bank bailouts continue apace.
Thus, the role of “replacing” some form of budget cuts with other budget cuts, does not instill or reinvigorate Democracy when it comes to solving our nation’s financial mess. But then, this “replacement” regimen was established to satisfy the “unmet needs” of both the Democrats and the Republicans since both major parties wanted budget cuts, but the priorities were different for each political party, given the rationale necessary for next year’s re-election efforts.
As I was preparing this commentary for my posting of this past Friday, I started searching into the "sequestration" impact or the presumptive "trigger" that will come to the forefront since the Super Committee failed in its "Grand Bargain." Alas, I found that an approximate "cut" in defense spending will occur during the next ten years and with the ultimate objective and measured level that existed in 2007. And unfortunately and for those of us and who hold to my view that our National Security and Defense Schematic should go back further in time and to the funding levels in place and prior to 2001, seems reasonably correct, given that there are now over 20,000 lobbyists in our nation's capitol advocating for even more spending on defense well beyond the $1.3 trillion that is today's level.
Jaango--posted on November 22, 2011
Odds and Ends
When it comes to chug-a-lugging the “crazy booze” during these past few days, the GOP’s roster of candidates for the Oval Office, have been working overtime, especially with the public pronouncements. And of course, we’re not privy to any private comments.
1. Mitt Romney wants to privatize veterans’ benefits.
2. Michelle Bachmann thinks that America should be less socialist and more communist like China since China doesn’t have a food stamps program.
3. Herman Cain thinks “water-boarding” isn’t “torture” but is an “enhanced interrogation technique” and thusly would make it available to all-both to the military and the civilian contractors. He—Cain cannot bring himself to understand that as a government policy, “torture techniques” were opposed and done in order to protect our men and women in uniform. And sadly, Republican audiences applauded his “positioning” while Cain is searching for more votes.
4. And to be outdone and “outgunned” politically speaking, Michelle Bachmann has this to say: “If I were president, I would be willing to use water-boarding. I think it was very effective. It gained information for our country. And I also would like to say that today, under Barack Obama, he is allowing the A.C.L.U. to run the C.I.A.”
5. Both Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul are in opposition, given their principled and non-traditional stand, but they are no longer germane to this entire endeavor.
6. Darrell Issa (R-California) has attached a “rider” to the annual Congressional Appropriations Bill that would grant the municipality of Washington DC, to have a greater autonomy in its budgeting behavior, but there is a “catch” in this rider and which would impose an “abortion ban” in the District.
7. In the GOP’s foreign policy debate, with the exception of Huntsman and Ryan, all are embracing “torture.”
8. In Arizona, several former politicians are supporting a change to elections and in which the top two contenders would vie for public office. Thus, Party support and affiliation will be deemed irrelevant. Sadly, these former politicians were allied with both the major parties, but since having left office, are now identified as “independents.” Of course, these “formers” no longer have the cojones to support their former affiliations, and won’t support the formal establishment of “third parties.” So, I have to chuckle, given that these “formers” realize that “racial and ethnics” will eventually own and manage the two major parties in the coming years.
9. Newt Gingrich’s financial largesse from Freddie Mac has now increased from $300,000 to upwards of $1.6 million, for being a “historian.” And Gingrich is now backing away from this “historical” effort. But he’s not a “lobbyist” or so he says. Obviously, being a member of Congress is now being viewed as a “minor league” and the next step up on this economic ladder is for becoming a “lobbyist” and this notional is coming forward into the public’s consciousness. Obviously, Gingrich’s “non-ideas” have considerable value.
10. TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline will traverse Nebraska and to the Texas-based oil refineries. And what’s lacking in this “focus”? The oil will be sold into the international markets and with no salience of a benefit for the United States.
11. The Blue Dogs in the House have endorsed that balanced budget. Their numbers were reduced considerably last year and in next year’s election, the same is expected.
12. David Frum, former President Bush’s speechwriter has come forward and admitted that the war in Iraq was a mistake. That makes two from the Fourth Estate to admit to their errors in refusing to accept the then “unassailable” Facts.
13. In the weekend foreign policy debate, Mitt Romney was indeed reckless for saying, “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon…If you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon.” And no one on stage “called out” Romney for his criminal stupidity.
14. In attempting to make a silly argument, Fox News points to Article 28 of the Constitution. Of course, there is no Article 28 in the Constitution.
15. And thankfully, the week is almost over.
Jaango--posted on November 18, 2011
The new "conventional wisdom" in Arizona
As the statisticians continue to wade or pore through the detritus that is now the future of former Arizona Senate President, Russell Pearce, and who lost his recall election of eight days ago, the role of Chicanos will come to the forefront in new and interesting ways.
In a week after the election in Arizona and after talking to just about everyone in the political arena, virtually all Chicano political operatives are quietly chuckling at Pearce’s well-deserved downfall. To wit, several operatives "proferred" that the Chicano political groups based outside of Pearce’s District 18, went into the District and their members went door-to-door distributing their literature as well as encouraging the Spanish-speaking voters they encountered to cast their votes in favor of the challenger, Jerry Lewis of charter school fame and member of the LDS Church.
And all the big name Chicano political operatives were sufficiently impressed with the hard work and ultimately, the end result accomplished, and which virtually all harkened back to the 1970s and the Chicano Movement. As such, this has now been recognized for being indicative of what can be accomplished, despite all the anti-immigration hostility projected onto Brown People.
And today, a week after the election, a revitalization of effort is being encouraged, and with the obvious intent that Sheriff Joe of the Infamous Pink Underwear, is now the object of affection among these Chicano-oriented political groups, given that Sheriff Joe is facing re-election next year, with a few million of dollars in the bank and with a 13% favorability surge, in his back pocket.
Jaango--posted on November 16, 2011
Vets Against VA Vouchers
Earlier this week and when former Governor Mitt Romney showed up in South Carolina to give one of his standardized speeches, several military vets showed up wearing T-shirts emblazoned with “Vets against VA vouchers” and which caused considerable consternation among Romney’s respective advance press and security teams. To wit, the military vets were escorted out of the meeting.
And if you’re not aware, Romney announced this support for “vouchering” the VA and which is an analogous to “vouchering” national medical care that will commence in 2014. Consequently, military vets are now speaking out in “dissent” to what Romney is proposing for the Veterans Administration. And if this politically logic is followed to its final conclusion, the VA will no longer exist, if Romney’s “concern” is adopted into public policy and law.
In closing, Romney, with his opposition to military vets wearing “vets against VA vouchers" is uncharacteristically exposing himself in his latest gaffe for having become the “bubble boy” and when measured against the Bush/Cheney behavior that isolated the audiences to political speeches.
Jaango--posted on November 16, 2011
Republican Power Brokers to the Front Line
When one takes into consideration that the Republican Party is now considered a “regional” Party and to wit, the continued application of the Southern Strategy implemented by Richard Nixon, the Power Brokers will have to find a presidential candidate that is from the South, otherwise, the patina of legitimacy devolves to Candidate Newt Gingrich. Thus, Gingrich’s increasing support as determined by the latest public opinion poll, may prove to be quite accurate.
However, is this single poll is a political aberration and not supported by other public opinion polls? Time will tell, but the Power Brokers and the Tea Party acolytes, will trend to Gingrich since today, the GOP is looking for that someone “other than Romney” and which may be sufficient to challenge Obama in next year's election.
Therefore, Gingrich will continue to trend upward until the first Caucus takes place in Iowa and where Gingrich is being favorably seen. The New Hampshire Caucus will be a tad more difficult, but ten days following, South Carolina will quickly line up for Gingrich. Consequently, Gingrich may prove to be unbeatable for Romney and Perry. As such, I envision a Gingrich, Perry of a Southern Stategy model, and Romney from the Northeast, in this candidate roster for the GOP's presumptive success.
Jaango--posted on November 15, 2011
“Oopsie" for my piling on
For years, Victor Hansen from the Hoover Institution has been losing his “street cred” as a conservative pundit and at times, a policy wonk. And only on certain occasions have I piled on with my critique for what Hansen’s presenting to the public.
Consequently, here’s what Hansen had to say regarding Herman Cain.
“Cain also wins greater scrutiny, not exemption, because he is black—or at least a certain sort of black. In addition to his conservatism, his voice, bearing, grammar, and diction, even his showy black cowboy hat, bother liberals in much the same way that Joe Frazier was not Muhammad Ali and Clarence Thomas was not Anita Hill. Black authenticity, as defined by Southern mannerisms and darker complexion, amplified by conservatism or traditionalism, earns liberal unease…. The comparison with Obama is volatile: Cain is authentically African-American and of an age to remember the Jim Crow South; Obama, the son of an elite Kenyan and white graduate student, came of age as a Hawaiian prep-schooler, whose civil rights credentials are academic?
“Cain also wins greater scrutiny, not exemption, because he is black — or at least a certain sort of black. In addition to his conservatism, his voice, bearing, grammar, and diction, even his showy black cowboy hat, bother liberals in much the same way that Joe Frazier was not Muhammad Ali and Clarence Thomas was not Anita Hill. Black authenticity, as defined by Southern mannerisms and darker complexion, amplified by conservatism or traditionalism, earns liberal unease....The comparison with Obama is volatile: Cain is authentically African-American and of an age to remember the Jim Crow South; Obama, the son of an elite Kenyan and a white graduate student, came of age as a Hawaiian prep-schooler, whose civil-rights credentials are academic.”
Unfortunately for Hanson, he has conveniently forgotten that with Herman Cain as the GOP’s nominee, President Obama would be most welcoming of Cain, given that Obama would beat Cain quite handily, and thereby, setting the GOP back a good ten years, or until Team A shows up in the 2016 election cycle and thusly, advocating the notional for re-orienting the GOP’s current “mal-governance” into “good” governance.
Therefore, Hansen is reaching deep into the barrel of nonsense and done in order to “pile-on” in defense of Herman Cain. As such, this intermural squabble among Republicans is just that and Hansen, obviously knows better, and yet, he’s attempting to drag Democrats into this squabble and leading to another political platform for “victimization.”
And for these past few years, I have attempted to ignore Victor Hansen, but as you can see, my self-restraint slips on occasion.
Jaango--posted on November 11, 2011
Odds and Ends
1. Over 650,000 people have moved their banking arrangement from the Big Banks to Credit Unions and small commercial banks since the beginning of October.
2. Over 3,350 protesters from OccupyWallStreet have been arrested during this past weekend.
3. A new public opinion poll out of Boston shows that OccupyWallStreet protestors are seen more favorably than Tea Party participants.
4. A “financial transaction tax” applied to Wall Street over the next ten years would raise well over $350 billion in new revenue. Additionally, Europe is considering imposing such a tax as well, and all across Europe.
5. Six years ago and under a Bush administration, the Republicans passed an Infrastructure package, and if remembered accurately, the “Road to Nowhere” was included, on a 412 to 8 vote in the House and a 91 to 4 vote in the Senate. Today’s ongoing effort, the Republicans are filibustering and thusly, no discussion can take place on infrastructure spending. Consequently, the Republicans are truly intent on degrading the economy however and whenever.
6. Senate Dick Durbin is encouraging financial institutions to utilize a one-page summary and made available to consumers that pointedly state what fees are charged to consumers. Now, will the “markets” work?
7. Last week, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma signed a letter sent to the Super Committee demanding they not raise taxes, and now, is of the opinion that the letter he signed was “meaningless.”
8. Alas, the falsity that is Republican propaganda would have the middle class believe that federal employees make more in wages than do employees in the private sector.
9. Twenty-six years ago, students could discharge their student debt in bankruptcy.
Jaango--posted on November 10, 2011
Another Important Public Opinion Poll
In a Latinos Decision poll done for Univision News, the results are as follows regarding Latino voters in 22 states:
President Obama leads Cain by 65% to 22%; President Obama leads Mitt Romney by 67% to 24%; and President Obama leads Rick Perry by 68% to 21%.
And yet, I find equally interesting is the fact that Hispanic Republicans are not jettisoning any of the Republican candidates, even when these candidates are the complement known as Team B. As such, the Team A Republican candidates are not interested in Obama’s re-election challenge and thusly, are not going to diminish any chances available come the election cycle of 2016. Moreover, Team A will have a clean shot for not having to manhandle any of the carryover baggage engendered by Team B during this election cycle. As such, today's insanity, is not a carryover burden.
Jaango--Posted on November 10, 2011
Another and More Illuminating Public Opinion Poll on Class Warfare
In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, two questions never seemingly asked, did ask and here were the respondents expressing themselves.
“I’d like to ask you about the distribution of wealth in this country — that is, the gap between how much money wealthy people have compared with how much money the rest of the population has. Do you think this gap is larger than it’s been historically, smaller, or about the same?”
Larger: 61%
Smaller: 5%
Same: 31%
“Do you think the federal government should or should not pursue policies that try to reduce the gap between wealthy and less well-off Americans?”
Should pursue: 60%
Should not pursue: 35%
Further, many polls in the past are now demonstrating that taxes should be raised on the millionaires and billionaires and consequently, this “raising taxes on the wealthy” is an abrupt extension of this generally perceived class warfare.
And yet, not to be overlooked, the large majority of these respondents are in the affirmative for having our federal government engaged in reducing this income gap between the rich and the poor and where the government will be the “spear point” for doing so.
Jaango--posted on November 9, 2011
Cain's Dynamic on "sexual harassment"
With three contentious allegations of sexual harassment being leveled on Herman Cain, has brought a new “perspective” into today’s politically toxic environment. Take, for example, John Derbyshire of the National Review in which he posits the question of, “Is there anyone who thinks sexual harassment is a real thing?” As such, this dismissive diatribe, now consumes our politics and in which women are deemed to have no “value” and irrelevant to our societal aspirations.
However, Dahlia Lithwick, writing for Slate Dot Com, and titled, “Never Happened” she takes apart Cain and his defenders. To wit, the Conservatives ‘reach’ for using the “Democratic Machine” and charges of racism and consequently, Cain’s defense has only gotten louder and more strident, despite Cain’s press conference of yesterday in Scottsdale, Arizona.
And yet, Lithwick brings greater attention to the ‘bigger’ picture.
“I have no idea what Herman Cain did with the two, or maybe three, or possibly now four women who have raised allegations of improper sexual behavior about him. I don’t know whether any of them will come forward and run the risk of being labeled a slut for their efforts to do their jobs without being treated like pole-dancers. I do know that Amanda Marcotte so eloquently explained this week—the very same people who insist that we don’t know what actually happened all those years ago seem to know exactly happened: nothing.
“Sexual harassment is now nothing. Welcome to the era of gender harassment denialism. The harassment skeptics claim that harassment, like racism, used to exist but is now over. Twenty years ago, when charges were leveled at Clarence Thomas, supporters of the accused refused to take the accuser seriously. Now supporters of the accused refuse to take the accusation itself seriously. We have gone from not knowing what sexual harassment is to not believing it still happens. All in less than 20 years.
“Remember, we don’t know what happened, beyond the fact that several employees came forward with complaints and received cash settlements. That’s not a lot of information. Cain defenders could have stopped there. Instead, great swaths of them have opted to assert that there could never be a valid sex discrimination claim because the whole thing is just a racket. And they went even further. These same folks criticizing the National Restaurant Association employees who came forward with claims that they were uncomfortable in their workplace are willing to deploy the most archaic and gender-freighted stereotypes to get there. Sexual harassment can’t be “real” because the women who claim it are money-grubbing, hysterical, attention-seeking tramps.”
And yet, given that the Republicans are constant and consistent in their behavior for maintaining Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment and which has been to “speak no evil of a Republican” seems to be holding intact, until today, that is. Alaska’s Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski told CNN that “if, in fact, there is substance to the claims” Cain’s chances “are gone” and thusly, he should drop out of the race. And she’s the first Republican Senator to say this publicly.
In closing, it’s only a matter of time in which the “unassailable” facts are unearthed and if Cain is found to be culpable, he will have made fools of all those who have “defended” him, and yet, among Republicans, the “cause” will be seen to be as far greater than Cain’s “dynamic.”
Jaango--posted on November 9, 2011
Election UPDATE:
In Ohio, the voters repealed SB 5 and which had curtailed the rights of public sector unions.
In Mississippi, the majority voted down the amendment to define personhood as beginning at fertilization.
In Arizona, Senator Russell Pearce was successfully recalled.
In Maine, same day voter registration was approved.
Jaango--posted on November 8, 2011
Today's Trifecta?
In today’s elections, the following are the anticipated results.
In Mississippi, does the Personhood Amendment goes down to defeat? This is an Amendment on the ballot that defines life as beginning from the moment of fertilization.
In Arizona, the architect of SB 1070, Russell Pearce, President of the Senate, and will he be recalled successfully?
In Ohio the repeal of SB 5, is expected and which the Republicans granted themselves the ability to cripple public sector unions.
And of course, in Maine, the voters are deciding on whether to repeal the Republican-led effort to end same day voter registration. In Mississippi, the voters will make a decision on whether voters are required to show “proof of photo ID” for the purpose of voting.
Jaango--posted on November 8, 2011
Shorter Commentaries?
his past weekend, it was brought to my attention that I need to post shorter Commentaries. Fair is Fair, so I thought I would add the following to this critique.
Liberals speak of "citizens” and Conservatives speak of "taxpayers."
Now, this is both concise and short.
And of course, "analogies" suffer allergies too. As such, I found this through happenstance and on the Internet:
“From FDR to Reagan—We hire you, you work hard, we prosper and YOU prosper.”
AND
“From Reagan to present—We hire you, you work hard, and we prosper.”
And "that" is today's history!
Jaango--posted on November 7, 2011
More From Dean Baker...
In today’s response to Robert Samuelson column in the Washington Post, Dr. Baker pens his response, and accordingly, is being posted here at the CVO in its entirety and titled, “Why Does Robert Samuelson Have Such a Difficult Time Dealing With Reality?”
"Robert Samuelson gave us a true Washington Post (a.k.a. Fox on 15th Street) classic in his column today. He tells us that the right is unrealistic because it thinks that it can solve the deficit problem by cutting government waste. The left is unrealistic because they think they can solve the deficit problem by cutting the military and taxing the rich. This means ….. drumroll please …..
"THE TRUTH LIES IN THE MIDDLE.
"Okay, as we know, the Post always looks for what they identify as the center of the political spectrum, which it substitutes for the truth. While Samuelson concludes that all right-thinking people support cuts to Social Security and Medicare and increased taxes on the middle class, let’s try looking at the evidence instead of hunting for the political center.
"First, the evidence suggests that there is no deficit crisis, there is a jobs crisis. We have more than 25 million people unemployed, underemployed, or out of the workforce altogether. This is causing us to lose nearly $1 trillion a year in potential output in addition to the enormous strain it imposes on the unemployed and their families. And the effect of prolonged unemployment is likely to leave many of these people permanently unemployed.
"Meanwhile the bond markets keep yelling at us to borrow more money. The interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds is just a bit over 2.0 percent. In other words, the evidence is that we need not do anything about the deficit any time soon. What we need to do is spend money on jobs programs, assisting state and local governments, infrastructure, retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient and on other important needs.
"Okay, but one day we will have a deficit problem if the Congressional Budget Office’s projections are correct. If the folks who looked for truth in the center instead looked for truth in the data, they would see the whole shortfall is due to our broken health care system. If we paid the same amount per person for our health care as people in other wealthy countries then we would be looking at huge budget surpluses, not deficits.
Sure, it’s not easy to fix health care, but is that an excuse for not talking about it? And some things may not be all that difficult. What’s wrong with a little free trade in health care? Does the center have to be so protectionist?
"In terms of other deficit issues, if we got our military budget to the same share of GDP as it was in pre-September 11th days we would save more than $2 trillion over the next decade. If we imposed a tax on financial speculation, like the one that the UK currently has on stock trades and the European Union is considering for a wide range of assets, then we can get as much as $1.5 trillion in revenue over the next decade.
"And we can have the Federal Reserve Board simply hold all those bonds that it has been buying the last few years as part of its quantitative easing program. The interest paid on these bonds is refunded from the Fed to the Treasury, meaning that it has no net cost to the government. That could save us around $800 billion in interest over the decade.
"In short, if we look at the evidence rather than hunt for the political center, we see a very different world. We see first that there is no current deficit crisis. Then we see that there are many possible solutions to whatever deficit problem may exist in the long-term that do not require whacking middle class and lower income workers who have been the victims of national economic policy over the last three decades."
NOTE: Economist Dean Baker is co-founder of the Center for Economic Policy Research, where he writes on economic policy issues. This post appears at Dean’s Beat the Press blog.
Jaango--posted on November 7, 2011
Odds & Ends
Other than the ‘carefully crafted leaks’ from the Super Committee, politics has been focused on Herman Cain’s “did he or didn’t he” with regard to sexual harassment and now up to three “situations.” Consequently, it’s continuing to be a slow week.
1. The Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee want a hearing on voter disenfranchisement, but the Republicans have control of the Committee, and thusly, no hearings are possible.
2. And of course, the Super Committee are voting themselves more time for their deliberations, despite their scheduled report for November 23rd.
3. Homeowners who have lost their homes will have their day in court at the “hearing” held by the People’s Court or OccupyWallStreet protest at the Zuccotti Park in New York City.
4. Strange behavior? Richard Cohen and Thomas Friedman are doing their respetive rants for anti-banking. A small wonder indeed.
5. The Democrats, have again, put Social Security on the table at the Super Committee, and yet, Dean Baker, does a tremendous take down of these rascals for yet another political “disaster.’
6. Bank of America “walks back” its idea on a five dollar monthly fee for using their debit/credit cards. The market “has spoken.”
7. Former President Bill Clinton cancels a speech fearful that the OccupyWallStreet protesters will show up and deliver their demonstration to him. Now, did Clinton have an “advance” notice of this pending demonstration, inquiring minds want to know.
8. Greek Default? Does Germany and France bailout Greece, or let Greece default and have the Germans and the French bailout their German and French Banks? As such, a tough choice to make.
9. According to another Republican-oriented Gallop poll, three-quarters of Americans are in support of Obama’s decision to wind down the war in Iraq and to be completed by this coming January. And with 77 percent of self-described Independents in support of Obama’s decision, only 52 percent of Republicans in opposition, this means that with 35 percent of Republicans comprising the total body politic, only this 14 percent of the America on the political right, writ large, supports Obama’s decision too. Therefore, for those who do hold tightly to an opinion, 85 percent of America support’s President Obama’s decision to end the war in Iraq.
10. Will the Republicans in Congress take the decision to “jettison” Grover Norquist’s “No Tax Pledge”? Four Republican members of the Super Committee may make the decision for the Republicans, and thusly, “confusing” the already Confused Conservatives, not only in Congress but in the State Legislatures as well.
11. The folks at Anonymous and in particular, Anonymous in Mexico, are emphatic in their determination to “shine the light” on the Zetas Cartel in Mexico. If so, government officials in support of the Zetas are not going to appreciate their national attention for being corrupt and possibly on the payroll of the various Criminal Cartels.
12. The OWS Movement is resonating with the general public and Pew Research has a public opinion poll in which the respondents—at 64%, view the OWS as favorable and the government is not doing enough for seniors, the middle class, the poor and children.
13. The Republicans in the Senate again obstruct the third effort to pass the American Jobs Act went down to defeat on a 51 to 49 vote, since 60 votes are required for passage.
14. A consensus has been achieved among the policy pundits/wonks in which the seniors are opposed to any cuts to Social Security, but on all other issues, strongly support the Republicans. In contrast, younger voters support the Democrats. Simultaneously, race is not a viable issue for the young voters but race is for the seniors.
15. There are 15 million more eligible voters for the election in 2012 than in 2008, but only half are registered to vote.
16. Jeebus! The Department of Justice, under considerable political pressure, has now stated that they are “pulling” their proposed regulations that would’ve permitted governmental agencies to outright lie to the general public when these agencies are responding to information requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
Jaango--posted on November 4, 2011
Chicanos: Impudent Fun With A Singular Importance--"American Nations"
The idea that “demographics are destiny” and having “fun” in politics, will be with us for many years to come when we are addressing the Conservative Movement’s universal behavior relative to their “Three D’s” Syndrome. And if you’ve been around politics here in the Sonoran Desert for any length of time, the epiphany found on the Right, entails that this burden be afflicted on everyone. Consequently, their “denial, deflection and distraction” and which tends to be of paramount importance for practicing their “confused” conservatism, is premised on an expansive and adjacent “state’s rights” agenda. And yet, this convoluted logic has proven itself to be successful in times past.
And with this in mind, I thought I would have a tad of fun, especially when the political firestorm that is today’s politics and equally important, when the conservative “tools” are then focused on the derivative or seminal moment that encapsulates our future or for “shaping our future together” and that being the ever-present marriage between business and politics. Thusly, addressing the notional on how to extract every last green buck from the middle class, or for what portends to be tomorrow’s elderly, the students and of course, our children or today’s youngsters, is supremely important to us here in our respective Spanish-speaking communities, locally and nationally.
And especially when today’s majority continues to discount our expected demographic trends and further, while the Conservative Movement lays on the anticipated propaganda that has considerable attraction to and for the traction among the a) low information voter and b) the incorrect information voter. Therefore, understanding our willingness to challenge this status quo with our reverence for being the iconic or “unassailable” facts-type voter will stand us in good stead for these coming years.
Today, there is a curious and singular thesis that is percolating upwards and into our discourse and it's incumbent upon us to familiarize ourselves with this thesis, and therefore, I recommend a book titled, “American Nations” and authored by Colin Woodard, a journalist, writer and historian and who has reported from over 50 nations. As such, he deserves to be taken seriously relative to our public discourse. In addition to his current book, American Nations, he has published books with titles such as The Lobster Coast, The Republic of Pirates, and Ocean’s End. Consequently, he knows his craft well, but does he know his politics well and equally important, will he become the unwitting tool or “machete” for the Conservative Movement?
Colin Woodard, in his American Nations posits that should America’s Democracy implode in the years ahead, his thesis, admirable but still wrongheaded, will encapsulate a regional approach for attempting to perpetuate a series of “Democracies” via a series of “regional states” and with this in mind, here is what he defines as ‘states’ albeit, a collectivist of adjacent states for perpetuating expansive state’s rights or of a collectivist federation perpetuating an expansive state’s right agenda.
To wit, a thesis of the following 11 states, and as articulated on the editorial pages of the highly-oriented conservative newspaper, the Arizona Republic, can be found in Section B, The Viewpoints, pages B11 and 12, and dated October 30, 2011. This article can also be accessed via the internet at “azcentral.com”.
First Nation encompasses a vast region with a hostile climate, boreal forests, tundra and glaciers of the far north. As inhabitants of a new and very old—nation. First Nations’ people have a chance to put Native North America back on the map culturally, politically, and environmentally.
New France is the most overtly nationalistic of the nations, possessing a nation-state-in-waiting in the form of the province of Quebec. It is the nation most likely to secure an independent state, although it would first have to negotiate a partition with Quebec, with the inhabitants of the First Nation.
The Far West is the only nation where environmental factors truly trumped ethnic ones. With minor exceptions, this vast region couldn’t effectively be colonized without the deployment of vast industrial resources. Its political class tends to revile the federal government, a stance that often aligns it with the Deep South, while demanding it continue to receive federal largesse.
The Left Coast combines the Yankee faith in good government and social reform with a commitment to individual self-exploration and discovery. It was the birthplace of the modern environmental movement and the global information revolution, and the co-founder of the gay-rights movement, peace movement and the cultural revolution of the 1960s.
El Norte is the oldest of the Euro-America nations. Overwhelmingly Hispanic, it has been a hybrid between Anglo and Spanish America, with an economy oriented to the United States. Split by an increasingly militarized border, El Norte in some ways resembles Germany during the Cold War: two peoples with a common culture separate from one another by a large wall.
Yankeedom is a culture that puts greater emphasis on education, local political control and pursuit of the “greater good,” even if it requires individual self-denial. It has been locked in perpetual combat with the Deep South for control of the federal government.
The 17th-century Dutch colony of New Netherland had a lasting impact on the continent’s development by laying down the cultural DNA for what is now Greater New York City. New Amsterdam was a global commercial trading society: multi-ethnic, multi-religious, speculative, materialistic, mercantile and free-trading.
Pluralistic and organized around the middle class, the Midlands spawned the culture of Middle America and the Heartland, where ethnic and ideological purity have never been a priority, government has been seen as an unwelcome intrusion, and political opinion has been moderate, even apathetic.
Tidewater, the most powerful nation during the colonial period and the early republic, has always been a fundamentally conservative region, with a high value placed on respect for authority and tradition and very little on equality or public participation in politics.
Greater Appalachia was founded in the early 18th century by wave upon wave of rough, bellicose settlers. The borderlanders’ combative culture has provided a large proportion of the nation’s military. They also gave the continent bluegrass and country music, stock-car racing and evangelical fundamentalism.
Having forged an uneasy “Dixie” coalition with Appalachia and Tidewater in the 1870s, the Deep South is locked in an epic battle with Yankeedom and its Left Coast and New Netherland allies for the future of the federation. It remains the least democratic of the nations, a one-party entity where race remains the primary determinant of one’s political affiliations.
Further, Woodard posits this question from the standpoint of the year 2100 or thereabouts, and which is:
“Will it still be divided into three enormous political federations, or will it have morphed into something else: a Balkanized collection of nation-states along the lines of 20th-century Europe; a loose European-Union-style confederation of sovereign nation-states stretching from Monterrey, Mexico, to the Canadian Arctic; a unitary state run according to biblical law as interpreted by the spiritual heirs of Jerry Falwell; a Postmodernist utopian network of semi-sovereign, self-sustaining agricultural villages freed by technological innovations from the need to maintain larger governments at all?”
However, I will not apply my Template of “features” and “bugs” to his Thesis, but I would only add that in the past, I have jokingly suggested that with “racial and ethnics” becoming the majority of citizens within the next forty years, and where we will have the “ownership” and “management” responsibilities of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, the likelihood of Dixie remaining Dixie, is not in our stacked deck of cards as it pertains to our self-governance model, and which is part and parcel to Democracy in this Indigenous Hemisphere.
And if I were to add a substantive Template on top of Woodard’s Thesis and that being a “new” National Security and Defense Schematic, imagining a soldier/pilot from Honduras or Guatemala serving on our aircraft carriers would be in keeping with our military personnel serving on these nations’ fishing vessels is also imaginable, given that the food resources from both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans will need to be maintained and preserved for the beneficial use of our oncoming generations and possibly attuned to the notional for the “seventh generation.” Therefore, being tri-lingual in the form of English, Spanish, and Portuguese will be a boon to the individual and a supplement to Mark Twain’s adage for being smarter from having traveled extensively.
Jaango--posted on November 4, 2011
The Economic and Cultural Impacts of a "holiday"
With Thanksgiving Day scheduled to arrive later this month, European economists put on their cultural hats and found that Protestants and Catholics achieve different results when it comes to their “unmet” needs.
Take, for example, Protestants are harder working people and Catholics want more time-off from their labor and thusly, want more holidays. And when it comes to governmental intervention, Protestants measure far lower in support of any governmental intervention than do Catholics for their want of more governmental intervention.
And if one takes to this “logic” for “culturalism” far forward, Protestants would be far more likely to be political conservatives than they would be liberals or on the center-left of the political spectrum. And yet, Catholics tend to be more conservative than liberal and if one takes into consideration, the evangelicals, the evangelicals will “skew” the final results in favor of the conservatives by overwhelming both the Protestants and the Catholics.
And by this presumptive “logic” we should all be, with minor exceptions, conservatives in our political perspective. Moreover, how does “culturalism” make America for being a “liberal” and not a “conservative” nation? Perhaps, our national motto for “E Pluribus Unum” comes up far short and still doesn’t fit well with our Constitution’s “separation of church and state” and which will remain sacrosanct for many years to come. Therefore, a ‘dividing line’ for religion and when applied to politics, is the single difference in defining a failed Philosophy for Thought and Action, and conservatives lose in this political battle.
And not to be out-done, yesterday, President Obama chastised the Republicans in the House for spending a considerable amount of time on reaffirming our national motto for “In God We Ttrust” but not on any time spent to craft a “new jobs” infrastructure. As such, “God expects us to take care of ourselves” or to paraphrase.
Jaango--posted on November 3, 2011
Raising the Medicare Eligibility Age...a Government Spending Fiasco?
On Tuesday, the Super Committee heard more information from the likes of Alice Rivlin and from the former Senators Peter Domenici and Alan Simpson, for advocating the ‘conclusions’ of the Simpson-–Bowles Commission. And yet, no “conclusions” were ever created given that a majority of members could not agree on any “conclusions.” Of course, this didn’t stop the advocates for ‘reframing” Medicare, given this overwhelming advice of a center-right perspective was just "too hot" not to deliver.
However, writing in the Washington Monthly Magazine, Phil Longman put this center-right “framing” in its proper context and content.
“Raising the Medicare retirement age to 67, a move favored by deficit hawks in both parties, might at first seem to be a reasonable adjustment. Since we are all living much longer, the idea goes, we can afford to wait longer to become entitled to Medicare. But the premise is false. For fully half of the U.S. population (specifically the poor and working-class Americans with earnings at or below the median), life expectancy at 65 is virtually unchanged since the 1970s. In many parts of the country, including much the South, life expectancy at birth for black males is not yet even 65, and in some places it is as low as 59.
“As with plans to voucherize Medicare, the primary effect of increasing the age of Medicare eligibility would be to shift costs onto needy individuals, while also leading to worse health outcomes. Nor, in the grander scheme of things, would the proposal save the government much money, since most Medicare spending is concentrated on people well over the age of 67, and many of the people who would be cut from the Medicare rolls would wind up on Medicaid or qualifying for other means-tested government subsidies. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that if the proposal were fully in effect in 2014 it would generate only about $5.7 billion in net federal savings but would impose twice as much cost ($11.4 billion) on individuals, employers, and states.”
For America’s policy wonks, raising the age of eligibility is seen as a “terrible idea” given that if applied to the more wealthy among us and who have greater resources for purchasing “medical care delivered” and leading to the life expectancies that are far much higher, seems to be appropriate but incorrect as public policy. And of course, here's the "why", two dollars would be spent on private coverage versus one dollar in budget savings.
Now, if Congress would provide to everyone, regardless of wealth, an “open access” to Medicare, the VA’s medical and hospital systemic, and the Indian Health Services, our national health would be vastly improved and at a far less cost, given that governmental medical programs compete quite effectively when measured against the private delivery of health care.
However, expecting something “new” to happen relative to healthcare or for even raising the taxes on millionaires and billionaires is not going to happen, given that self-interest, despite the voluminous public pronouncements and the pandering to voters, there are 245 millionaires in Congress and inclusive of 66 millionaires in the Senate. As such, the “rich” own Congress, and thinking otherwise, leads to a failure for passing the provincial test known as Common Sense.
In closing, if the Democrats are expecting to be rewarded for being the “adults” in the room, they are in for a surprise, especially when the “racial and ethnics” start voting in large measure for someone other than a Democrat, or for voting for themselves or perhaps, a non-existent third party as in La Raza Unida, given that any increase in age eligibility will fall harder on them in terms of age, while rewarding these Democrats for “protecting” the more affluent and who live far longer in terms of age. Perhaps, it’s time to vote for more Gridlock given that the overwhelming majority wants more governmental spending for Jobs and the Economy and not on a reduction of the deficit?
Jaango--posted on November 3, 2011
More on the GOP's "Bashing the Latinos" Program
A decade ago, Arizona’s voters created the Independent Redistricting Commission comprised of two Democrats, two Republicans, and one registered Independent, and consequently, this Commission was intended to take the partisan agendas out of the redistricting process.
To date, the Commission created four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats, and created three competitive districts, while improving the voting influence of my state’s growing Latino population. And in this redistricting process, the major Indian Tribes submitted their proposal for consideration and which was quickly ignored.
And because the Republicans didn’t like having three “competitive” districts, Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer encouraged and led the effort for the abrupt dismissal or impeachment of the Chairwoman, the registered Independent. To wit, the Senate on a 21 to 6 vote, will three Democrats absent, impeached the Chair, and done on a two-thirds vote requirement.
And despite this “brazen power grab” by Brewer and the Republicans, Republican Governors across America will see this as an “opportunity” to do the same should their anger and political “timing” show itself.
In closing, the Republicans have demonstrated their lack conscience when it comes to “Restoring Honor to Citizenship.”
Jaango--posted on November 2, 2011
A National "settlement" for the Housing Bubble?
With the White House adding undue pressure to ‘settle’ the multiplicity of law suits and with the Coalition of State Attorneys General attempting to craft a settlement, and while New York and California “opts out” of any perceived settlement, much continues to occur. Thus, the following:
From Matt Stoller, in writing for the Naked Capitalism Dot Com, has this to say:
“What makes these discussions so utterly absurd, so ridiculous, and farcical, is that robo-signing, an abuse the banks have admitted to and clam they’ve ceased, is still going on. The AP reported this in July; mortgage servicers in Nevada have stopped foreclosing because of a law explicitly criminalizing robo-signing. Yes, the banks are asking for a release of claims on acts, or perhaps crimes, that are ongoing. And these abuses are extensive: lying to investors about the quality of the mortgages; violating their own contracts by failing to convey mortgages properly to securitization trusts; charging fees that are impermissible under Federal law and the contracts; making a mess of property records and engaging in deceptive consumer practices through the use of MERS; and engaging in document forgeries and fabrications in foreclosures. All these people trying to give the banks “a settlement” are in fact immunizing banks against acts they are committing and will commit going forward. Only in the future, when a voter complains to his or her state AG, that official will have to explain to that voter that his/her rights have been given away.
“We’re talking about an ongoing case of criminal theft of private property by mortgage servicers charging illegal fees and then using fraudulent documents to foreclose. Now, a settlement implies that this practice is over, and that the banks are remediating past wrongs. It isn’t over, but the AGs and Federal regulators are treating it as if it is. Think about this incentive – why should a bank change its mortgage servicing once it has immunity for robo-signing, origination, pyramiding of fees, etc? The last consent decrees weren’t enforced, why would this one be enforced?”
And Mike Lux, in writing for the Huffington Post Dot Com, is explaining in much greater detail what the Oval Office wants accomplished:
“A dozen banks would contribute a grand total of $3.5 to 5 billion toward the settlement, pocket change for massive companies that apparently approved their foreclosure mill law firms likely committing over 1,000,000 counts of perjury in the robo-signing process. The rest of the money, about $20 billion, would come in the form of “credits” banks essentially give themselves if they agree to reduce a certain amount of the principal owed on mortgages. We don’t know the details yet, but given that all banks in the home lending industry write down some mortgages, unless the details are tough on the banks (a phrase not generally heard of among regulators in this era), this will be giving banks credit for mortgages they would be writing down anyway. And if they don’t end up writing down as much as they project, they probably won’t end up being penalized for it given the history of programs like HAMP [...]
“If the administration rams through this ultimate in Wall Street sweetheart deals — a laughably pocket change fine combined with “credit” for what they would have done anyway, at the expense for a get out of jail free card for 1 million counts of perjury and a wide range of other potential fraud — they will have zero credibility to run as the tough on Wall Street candidate. ZERO.
“This makes no sense. For example, for the Obama administration to be leaning so hard on California Attorney General Kamala Harris to sign off on this is truly politically suicidal, both for them and for her after she so strongly announced she was pulling out a couple of weeks ago. Yet they continue to push her. Why are they pushing so hard for this? It all boils down to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. It is apparent that Geithner believes the only thing that matters in terms of fixing the economy is to keep the big banks in good financial shape, which is ironic given that in public he claims that everything is fine with the banking sector now.”
Today, with this status of an “update” we can now fully understand and appreciate where President Obama AND Vice President Biden want accomplished, so it will be up to the Democrats in both the House and Senate to speak forcefully in their opposition to any settlement, otherwise, the general public will quickly conclude that Congress was in collusion with the Financial Services and the Banking Industries. And incumbent members of Congress do understand that the general public will get around to voting their self-interest and which will certainly spread "fear" throughout Congress.
Jaango--posted on November 2, 2011
Has the Big Apple's Mayor become another shill?
As most of us know, Mayor Bloomberg gave a serious speech to financial executives and when asked a question from his audience on the housing bubble, Hizzoner blamed the Community Reinvestment Act and thusly, Congress was the fault of the housing bubble. Obviously, the Mayor does pay attention to most things outside of his purview, but speaking nonsense about the housing bubble, has to take the cake for incongruence of the “unassailable” facts.
This from Mayor Bloomberg as of this morning:
“I hear your complaints. Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was plain and simple Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now I’m not so sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them, and they wouldn’t have had them without that. But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddy to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to make loans to everybody.”
And from Political Correction Dot Org:
“These comments indicate Bloomberg is either ignorant of the facts of the mortgage meltdown or so eager to rid his city of Occupiers that he’ll discard the truth. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 did not cause the meltdown of 2007, in no small part because that law didn’t apply to the private lenders who dominated the subprime market. The fraudulent practices of those lenders and the financial derivatives the private investment houses used to turn the subprime market into an elaborate game of hot potato were left unregulated by the federal government — but that’s not even the basis for Bloomberg’s criticism of Washington. He claims Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ‘made a bunch of loans’ even though they (1) do not make loans, and (2) were backing out of insuring subprime loans as private, unregulated firms rushed into the derivatives casino.
“If Bloomberg doesn’t know any of this, he hasn’t been paying attention to years of reporting on the subject. If he does, he is carrying water for the big banks and fraudsters who are doing everything they can to help Republicans repeal last year’s financial reforms and restore the casino culture that let many of them profit from the crisis they created.”
Need more be said?
Jaango--posted on November 1, 2011
Note: All prior posts have been archived off-site.
1. Over 650,000 people have moved their banking arrangements from the Big Banks to Credit Unions and small commercial banks since the beginning of October according to the Credit Union National Association.
2. Over 3,350 protesters from OccupyWallStreet have been arrested during this past weekend.
3. A new public opinion poll out of Boston shows that OccupyWallStreet protestors are seen more favorably than Tea Party participants.
4. A “financial transaction tax” applied to Wall Street over the next ten years would raise well over $350 billion in new revenue. Additionally, Europe is considering imposing such a tax as well, and all across Europe.
5. Six years ago and under a Bush administration, the Republicans passed an Infrastructure package, and if remembered accurately, the “Road to Nowhere” was included, on a 412 to 8 vote in the House and a 91 to 4 vote in the Senate. Today’s ongoing effort, the Republicans are filibustering and thusly, no discussion can take place on infrastructure spending. Consequently, the Republicans are truly intent on degrading the economy however and whenever.
6. Senate Dick Durbin is encouraging financial institutions to utilize a one-page summary and made available to consumers that pointedly state what fees are charged to consumers. Now, will the “markets” work?
7. Last week, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma signed a letter sent to the Super Committee demanding they not raise taxes, and now, is of the opinion that the letter he signed was “meaningless.”
8. Alas, the falsity that is Republican propaganda would have the middle class believe that federal employees make more in wages than do employees in the private sector.
9. Twenty-six years ago, students could discharge their student debt in bankruptcy.
Jaango--posted on November 10, 2011