The 2004 Presidential election baffled not only me but the rest of the world as well, the only people who weren't were Americans. How can you explain 68 million people re-electing a man who by every standard should have been denied a second term because of his invasion of Iraq after manipulating the American people into believing this was a just war. Remember, Congress did not declare war, the President used the War Powers Act to invade Iraq.
Watching the Rachel Maddow show last week from Alaska vindicated my opinion that we really are a nation of fools and idiots, at least those Americans who are pushing the Tea Bag agenda. There were several people holding up Joe Miller signs, asking people to get out to vote in Anchorage. Joe Miller is the Republican nominee for Senate from Alaska. Mr. Miller is also a Tea Bagger. Mr. Miller has admitted that throughout his career as an attorney, specifically the Borough of Fairbanks, he used borough computers for personal use and tried to cover his tracks. These are minor issues, but it should go to the character of this man. Apparently not in Alaska. Two of the people holding signs were asked a simple question, "Why are you supporting Joe Miller?". The one response totally floored me. The respondent said he was against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the US. He said that Mr. Holder and the Obama Administration wanted to take away their guns. When pressed, he went on to add that through out his political career Mr. Holder has voted for gun controls. When the respondent was told that Mr. Holder has never held political office, the respondent finally admitted he knew nothing about Mr. Holder and the issue of taking away gun rights. Now, not only did the man not have ANY facts correct, he also failed to appreciate the fact that a vote for or against Mr. Miller would have no impact on his second amendment rights. What could any politician do with regards to an issue such as this? The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the most LIBERAL interpretation of the right to bear arms, the point is moot. Let me put it another way, the right to carry a loaded weapon into your local bar is NOT a Federal issue, it is a state or local issue, states decide if it is appropriate, not the Federal government. So, lets go back to the question for this placard bearer, the relevance of the question alone is non-existent. The problem is, this man actually believes this nonsense and by his own admission did no research on the subject, he just accepted a lie as fact.
Joe Miller was asked by Rachel what his stand on abortion was. Miller was clearly uneasy with the question. His answer essentially was if there was a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, he would support it. Of course 75% of the states would also have to agree. Again, abortion is NOT a national issue, it's a state's right to regulate and allow or disallow abortions. The Federal issue is if available to a woman, she can, depending on the state she lives in, be allowed to make that choice. If abortion is illegal in your state, Roe v. Wade does not apply. Asking a national candidate that kind of question is also irrelevant. If I were running for national office, my answer would be similar to the President's. Personally I am against abortion, but the right to choose is the law of the land. No man can make that decision for a woman. Only women have that special right, so my opinion carries no weight. Oh yes, the lie that Mr. Obama is for abortion is just that, a lie. Mr. Obama, through his Attorney General MUST comply with the law of the land, regardless of their personal opinion. Mr. Obama does not support abortion. Keep in mind, the right to choose is not the same as abortion being legal or illegal. Tea Baggers and their Republican cohorts holler about smaller government and keeping Federal government out of our personal lives, yet in this case they want MORE intrusion into our lives.
Intrusion into our personal lives is one of the battle cries of the Tea Bag/Republican party by the Federal government. Funny, you don't hear about the individual states infringing on our daily lies, yet that intrusion is more invasive. What kind of Federal intrusions into our daily lives, the rules and laws which are in place today that we really take issue with? Can you name one negative intrusion? I cannot. I can cite a few new rules/laws just in the past 2 years which will make our lives better. How about regulating the banking industry, to stop them from jacking up your credit card rates without proper notifications? What about compelling the banks to maintain a higher cash level in reserve to cover potential losses? What about a Consumer Protection Agency? What about preventing insurance companies from denying medical coverage because of a pre-existing condition or lifetime caps on benefits? Now, these are but tiny snippets of what has been accomplished in 2 years. You must ask the question, why do we need these things? We need them because when left to their own devices, business and industry will do whatever they can to cut corners and make a profit at all costs, in any way their legally can. Why do we have EPA? Because companies were dumping toxic wastes in rivers and streams and lakes, polluting the air we breathe with thousands of belching smokestacks because there were either no rules or no enforcement possible. Over time, US companies decided to build plants offshore to get around EPA and US laws. The results at times have been devastating, Bhopal, India comes to mind, Union Carbide owned the plant and in 1984 a gas leak developed killing 2300-15,000 people.
My Point, "It emerged in 1998, during civil action suits in India, that, unlike Union Carbide plants in the US, its Indian subsidiary plants were not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal."
Today, the new country we run to is China. Again, few regulations and an opportunity to maximize profits at the expense of the environment and people. Do I really have to remind you of the lead based paints or cadmium in jewelry coming from China? What would happen if we did not have the Consumer Product Safety folks?
The Tea Baggers want to do away with all of this. They believe we are all responsible people and don't need to be regulated or controlled. I mean, no one runs stops signs or speeds or cheats on their taxes, right? We can be trusted to ALWAYS do the right thing.
Lets go to another Tea Bag/Republican rant. Deficit spending and fiscal responsibility. Privatizing Social Security is one subject. In Colorado, the Tea Bagger is ranting on the Democrat nominee in an ad claiming that when faced with budget shortfalls, he invested money in 'risky wall street ventures'. Generally speaking, states must balance their budgets one way or another. Usually this includes issuing bonds, which lately have been flat. I don't know what the result of these risky wall street ventures are. What I do know is it seems hypocritical for a Tea Bagger/Republican to lash out at a Democrat for doing EXACTLY what the Tea Bag/Republicans want to do. They want to take the Social Security money and invest it in Wall Street thinking Social Security will reap a greater benefit. Well, that is fine if the market is stable. Just ask those who lost 90% of the value of their 401K's when the market slid how well it works. Your monthly benefit could go up OR go down depending on market fluctuations. My guess is that it won't go up as much as the market because there are predators out there to skim off the top, but if the market drops, you lose your ass. Oh, that's right Wall Street types can always be trusted because they will have fewer regulations because the are honorable people.Do you really think Hedge Fund Managers who make billions in one year would not be licking their chops? Not if the Tea Baggers are to be believed. No one runs a stop sign, do they.
Balancing the budget, now this one is very interesting. Tea Bag/Republicans want to balance the budget. Ummm....10 years ago when they swept in after the Clinton presidency, the budget was not only balanced, but had a surplus. So what happened? Three things. The Republicans went on a spending spree and to make matters worse came up with temporary tax cuts for the wealthy AND created the unfunded Part D Medicare program, Drugs. The tax cuts cost $2 trillion, the Part D?, Though not made public until 2004, the CMS's 2003 estimate was $534 billion for the period 2004 to 2013. In CMS's February 2005 estimate, the 10-year price tag of the drug provision is $724 billion for the period 2006 to 2015.
Untax and spend. The 8 Bush budgets totaled -$3.418 Trillion in deficit spending. The previous 8 years totaled -$321 Billion. The final Clinton budget surplus in 2000 was $230 billion. Ok..lets do some real quick math. Had Bush's crowd maintained the status quo and we extrapolate the final $230B surplus 8 years out and then deduct the cost of Part D (which was unfunded), when Mr. Obama took office our Federal debt would have been REDUCED by $1.306 TRILLION !!! This is a swing of $4.724 Trillion !!! The other silver lining, all things being equal...8 million of the 23 million jobs gained during the Clinton years would have been saved. Based upon these FACTS and my theorizing, all things being equal, would we be in the mess we are in today? The Tea Baggers want to add another $2 Trillion to the debt by keeping the Bush tax cuts which were so devastating to our economy without ANY offsets. Where do you find $2 trillion in offsets and also balance the budget at the same time? It would take 20 years of surpluses just to recover the $4.724 we lost due to the Bush/Republican policies, again..all things being equal. Tea Baggers would have us believe that extending the tax cuts is a job killer. Well, since the tax cuts we have LOST 8 million jobs. The 8 years prior to the tax cuts, 23 million jobs were created. These are the facts, check them out.
In the heading, I have suggested a silver lining in all of this. Yes, we are lemmings. We are a stupid, little people with a very short attention span. The next 2 years, under Tea Bag/Republican control, the House will demonstrate how incompetent they are to govern. Any repeal of any Obama administration will be met with a veto. Tea Baggers will fight more with the Republican establishment and eventually be absorbed and rendered ineffective by the time their terms are up in 2012 thus guaranteeing Mr. Obama's second term. Mr. Obama is a smart man and he knows that the policies he already has in place will turn this mess around without the help of the Tea Baggers or Republicans. The Republicans have gone on record that their number one priority is to destroy the Obama presidency. How un-American is that? We elect these people to work for US, not to focus on destroying a presidency. This in NOT governing, it's petty and treasonous. Our system of government was designed to compel all to work together with checks and balances. There is nothing written that it is the right of one branch to destroy the other, in fact just the opposite.
Second Amendment solution? We are not a Third World country are we? We are a civilized society and to suggest, quite clearly that if the government does not do the bidding of the Tea Baggers, they reserve the option of a Second Amendment solution. We are not Pakistan or India where they shoot their leaders, are we? On the other hand, maybe we are. Look what happened in Kentucky and Alaska. Private security detaining a journalist because he wanted to ask a question of a Tea Bag candidate. Rand Paul's goons attacked a woman, stomped her on the head, sending her to hospital with a concussion. Glen Beck said that we have to fear Democrats and their violence.
All we have to do is look to history on this planet to find examples of the potential danger of the Tea Baggers. Let us revisit the Wiemar Republic after The Great War. Germany was under crushing debt, war reparations, the French. Unemployment was out of control, the country was disintegrating. Through this time a former Corporal and paper hanger emerged as the hope for a new Germany. He struggled in the beginning, spending time in Landsburg Prison where he wrote My Struggle, a book which after it was published actually outsold the Holy Bible. His goal was to restore Germany to her rightful place as the economic and military power house of Europe. From the beginning at beer halls and ending at mass rallies at Nuremberg. His was a grassroots effort to change Germany forever. He started small, but intelligently. National Socialists did not take over the government in a 2nd Amendment fashion, they did it legally, through elections. This is not to say that violence and intimidation were not used to facilitate certain gains, but in the end, they were elected by the masses. The ultimate goal of becoming Chancellor of Germany came by way of negotiating with the business powerhouses of Germany. Not unlike the Republicorp branding Moveon.org has come up with. With business leaders behind him, Hitler could now become the leader Germany wanted. Von Hindenburg gave in and appointed him Chancellor. The pieces were now in place. 2nd Amendment remedies were now used to maintain control and quell any opposition, starting with the brown shirts who helped putting him in power. His first order of business was to keep his promises, within two years unemployment dropped to nearly zero. The Ruhr was retaken and industry awakened. Massive government programs to build a new Germany started. The economy stabilized. Hitler's philosophy was always, the German people would gladly give up some rights to gain safety, security, employment and a stable government. We must be wary of such politicians. Thankfully in our system, it is highly unlikely that this sort of drastic political change can take place, but it could happen if the Tea Baggers are able to make greater inroads. Change like this will not happen overnight, it would be long and insidious. Like any avalanche, once it starts, it's nearly impossible to stop.
Tenthers. Tenthers would have you believe that states rights are being infringed upon by the Federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled in EVERY single case against the states. Why? It's very simple and the Tea Baggers just don't get it. It is true that under the Constitution the Federal government cannot compel the states to do certain things, except for one minor detail, which seems to have gotten lost along with the truth. If you as a state accept Federal money for anything, the Federal government can withhold those funds if you do not do what you are told to do. This is LEGAL according to the Supreme Court. The answer is VERY SIMPLE. All the state has to do is ask their Congressional delegates and Senators to add an amendment to any funding bill which excludes their state. This way the Feds have nothing to hold over you. If you have a natural disaster, don't ask for Federal money. If you want to rebuild your infrastructure, don't ask for Federal help. After all, as I recall as a condition of receiving Federal highway or infrastructure monies, the states must pay to maintain those things. The reality is, the states don't in all cases. If you don't want money for education or school lunch programs, don't accept it. The whining is tantamount to biting the hand that feeds you.
Education. Funny. Not only does education make us more competitive, it also makes us a smart people and smart people don't vote Tea Bag or Republican. Enough said.
Jobs. Who in the hell decided that the government is responsible for job creation? The only jobs the government creates is in support of government. The vast majority of business does not have government contracts. The one's that do don't want any funding cuts from the Federal government. The government can influence by job creating in the private sector by giving tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas. My feeling is that if you as a business want a tax break by shipping jobs overseas, then do it on a level playing field. I would have no problem with a condition to that tax break such as these. To collect the tax break, you must pay foreign based employees a fair market US wage. You would have to collect Social Security taxes and Federal withholding. These taxes would be collected by American employees to benefit Americans. By compelling offshore employers to pay the same as here does two things, it will provide foreign derived Federal income to help offset the unemployment costs and re-education costs because of the transfer of employment overseas.
In closing, the electorate is going to find out quickly that by electing these nut jobs, the power they will yield will be nothing compared to those they replaced. The Senate and House operate on a seniority basis and if you think these new folk are going to be able to bring home the bacon their predecessors did, they have another thing coming. Harry Reid is a perfect example. By losing him and his power, the state of Nevada will fall into oblivion on a national basis. Anything special he could have provided by virtue of his standing will be gone. Harry Reid could have saved Nevada, Engle will lead it to it's mediocrity and if that is what Nevadans want, then so be it.
No comments:
Post a Comment