The voters have spoken. We now have a republican House and an even less democratic Senate than we had last year. The philosophy of the lawmakers will govern the land.
So I think we should be more philosophical about this. And less rigid. And, as Speaker Boehner has put it, we should start acting like grown-ups.
So I propose that we all adopt the republican economic plan within our own families. After all, they really believe it will work, so in the spirit of cooperation, we should give it a try.
Children need to stop assuming that they are "entitled" to all those extras, like education and health care. When you make those things readily available, they will start to expect that you will provide bikes, movies and clothing.
Teenagers are just going to have to grow up and contribute their fair share. Maybe an extra after school job. Cut back on the number of years of teenage social security, moving it from 18 to, say, 12. They will need to pay a more reasonable share of their income toward household expenses, for example, the mortgage and groceries. Increased productivity will certainly improve the overall wealth of the family.
Which leaves the most important family members, the CEO's if you will. If the above all goes according to plan, the parents, the people with the most worth, will be free to expand the family interests. They will have the economic freedom to buy that new car, take that vacation, invest in that summer home.
And that wealth will of course trickle down to the rest of the family.
But, you argue, the middle and lower classes will end up with less education and possibly poorer health. They will be less likely to reap the financial rewards of their parents.
Not true. Because, since we have republicans running Congress, we can be assured that when Mom and Dad die, the kids will get every penny that's left.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
The Price Is Right
Uncompromising. The party of "no". Unyielding. These are the ways the republicans in the Senate have been described since the Democratic takeover in 2006.
But is this true?
What we have learned in the past two years is that even the republic party has its price.
They want their Christmas vacation.
For the past two years, the threat of having to work through the holidays has caused the unthinkable to happen: the Senate republicans have agreed to legislate. They have worked with the Democrats, albeit kicking and screaming and, yes, whining, toward completing a legislative agenda.
Of course, the Democrats, always willing to compromise, have ended up agreeing to allow the people who own the country to continue to hoard resources which should be used to fuel needed governmental services like bridges and education while decreasing the national debt, but this is another story.
The big event is that republicans will not only pass legislation that they have agreed on but blocked, but will actually even compromise in order to pass legislation.
Because they want their Christmas vacation.
Imagine if the party of no were willing to continue to say no through the holiday season. They truly would have reached their goal of crippling the federal government. Fortunately, everyone does indeed have a price. And the republicans come a lot cheaper than we thought.
All it takes is making them work through the holidays.
Imagine how little they must be willing to accept from their corporate sponsors to say no to bills that they have actually supported and even sponsored.
It boggles the mind.
But is this true?
What we have learned in the past two years is that even the republic party has its price.
They want their Christmas vacation.
For the past two years, the threat of having to work through the holidays has caused the unthinkable to happen: the Senate republicans have agreed to legislate. They have worked with the Democrats, albeit kicking and screaming and, yes, whining, toward completing a legislative agenda.
Of course, the Democrats, always willing to compromise, have ended up agreeing to allow the people who own the country to continue to hoard resources which should be used to fuel needed governmental services like bridges and education while decreasing the national debt, but this is another story.
The big event is that republicans will not only pass legislation that they have agreed on but blocked, but will actually even compromise in order to pass legislation.
Because they want their Christmas vacation.
Imagine if the party of no were willing to continue to say no through the holiday season. They truly would have reached their goal of crippling the federal government. Fortunately, everyone does indeed have a price. And the republicans come a lot cheaper than we thought.
All it takes is making them work through the holidays.
Imagine how little they must be willing to accept from their corporate sponsors to say no to bills that they have actually supported and even sponsored.
It boggles the mind.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
...And It Still Is...
The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is a tradition in my home. It is the only time of the year that I will sit through three hours of marketing. When the kids were small, there was no (very loud) heckling. Now that they are grown, we do our own little version of MST3K.
The Macy's Day Parade really does highlight the worst of the worst of Americana. This year, for example they even isolated their diversity segment -- no Native Americans or Hispanics scattered throughout the parade; they were all collected about 3/4 of the way through.
But every year, they have one awesome event.
This year there was Arlo Guthrie singing This Land Is Your Land. Arlo is a Thanksgiving tradition, and if your family doesn't listen to Alice's Restaurant on Thanksgiving, then you might as well not have turkey. And his father Woody Guthrie wrote the freedom songs of the 20th century.
And this year, when the Supreme Court has declared corporations to be individuals, and Congress refused to increase the national debt by funding medical care for 9/11 first responders, there was Arlo reminding us that this land, indeed, was our land.
He even sang a verse that I believe was a new one, and spoke to us in 2010. But I could not provide it here; Macy's blocked out the you-tube videos, due to copyright infringement.
Irony abounds, and while this land still does belong to you and me, we need to continue to fight for it, and I am thankful that Arlo was there to sing it to us.
The Macy's Day Parade really does highlight the worst of the worst of Americana. This year, for example they even isolated their diversity segment -- no Native Americans or Hispanics scattered throughout the parade; they were all collected about 3/4 of the way through.
But every year, they have one awesome event.
This year there was Arlo Guthrie singing This Land Is Your Land. Arlo is a Thanksgiving tradition, and if your family doesn't listen to Alice's Restaurant on Thanksgiving, then you might as well not have turkey. And his father Woody Guthrie wrote the freedom songs of the 20th century.
And this year, when the Supreme Court has declared corporations to be individuals, and Congress refused to increase the national debt by funding medical care for 9/11 first responders, there was Arlo reminding us that this land, indeed, was our land.
He even sang a verse that I believe was a new one, and spoke to us in 2010. But I could not provide it here; Macy's blocked out the you-tube videos, due to copyright infringement.
Irony abounds, and while this land still does belong to you and me, we need to continue to fight for it, and I am thankful that Arlo was there to sing it to us.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Democrats Reframe!
I don't get why the voters don't get that the rich need to pay more taxes. And that the wealthy shouldn't get to pass on their wealth to kids that haven't earned it.
I believe it really must speak to our indoctrination of what we believe America should be. The land of the free means we get to keep what we got, which is why the charge of "socialism" is so heinous.
We can't seem to fight back by pointing out that people are dying from lack of or inadequate health care, or that people have lost their homes because they lost their jobs because corporations are buying cheap labor in third world countries.
Morality doesn't seem to have anything to do with this fight.
Whenever the republic party senses that they are losing a battle, they immediately sic their promotional/advertising powerhouses on the problem. They have lots of them, and they are highly motivated to solve this problem, because the problem has everything to do with power and money, and this is what they do, and, as Mike Steele would say, how they roll.
We are always, always caught running behind in these fights. Take the abortion battle. We had to come up with pro-choice after the anti-abortionists framed the battle as being "pro-life" (which made us "anti-life"). Pro-choice just doesn't compare dynamically with pro-life.
And then there was the estate tax, which brought to mind, well, estates. So it became the "death tax", which brings to mind images of the grim reaper taking your life savings along with your last breath. And we haven't come up with a better way to advertise the estate tax. If you talk to plain old ordinary people, i.e. voters, about this tax, they will probably refer to it as the "death tax", because it's just simpler than the phrase "estate tax". We are all familiar with death, less so with estates.
So we have voters who are terrified of the national debt, and more terrified of taxation. At this point, I don't think the republic party has come up with a catchy phrase for their side. They are just repeating ad nauseum the threat that if taxed, the wealthy won't be able to give us jobs. It is lame, and it doesn't have a catchy ring to it.
Now is the time to get our best and our brightest to work on this problem. Ex republicans like David Brock and Arianna Huffington would be able to grasp the problem in an instant. We need some private meetings in some smoke-free rooms. And then we need to spread the word, the word being the bright new liberal catch-phrase for taxing the wealthy. We need to make sure that everyone from Harry Reid to Keith Olbermann to Stephen Colbert to Ben Bernanke to Oprah has that phrase on their lips. We need to make it a household word.
Because what we should have learned by now, is that it is not about the issue, it is about the packaging.
I believe it really must speak to our indoctrination of what we believe America should be. The land of the free means we get to keep what we got, which is why the charge of "socialism" is so heinous.
We can't seem to fight back by pointing out that people are dying from lack of or inadequate health care, or that people have lost their homes because they lost their jobs because corporations are buying cheap labor in third world countries.
Morality doesn't seem to have anything to do with this fight.
Whenever the republic party senses that they are losing a battle, they immediately sic their promotional/advertising powerhouses on the problem. They have lots of them, and they are highly motivated to solve this problem, because the problem has everything to do with power and money, and this is what they do, and, as Mike Steele would say, how they roll.
We are always, always caught running behind in these fights. Take the abortion battle. We had to come up with pro-choice after the anti-abortionists framed the battle as being "pro-life" (which made us "anti-life"). Pro-choice just doesn't compare dynamically with pro-life.
And then there was the estate tax, which brought to mind, well, estates. So it became the "death tax", which brings to mind images of the grim reaper taking your life savings along with your last breath. And we haven't come up with a better way to advertise the estate tax. If you talk to plain old ordinary people, i.e. voters, about this tax, they will probably refer to it as the "death tax", because it's just simpler than the phrase "estate tax". We are all familiar with death, less so with estates.
So we have voters who are terrified of the national debt, and more terrified of taxation. At this point, I don't think the republic party has come up with a catchy phrase for their side. They are just repeating ad nauseum the threat that if taxed, the wealthy won't be able to give us jobs. It is lame, and it doesn't have a catchy ring to it.
Now is the time to get our best and our brightest to work on this problem. Ex republicans like David Brock and Arianna Huffington would be able to grasp the problem in an instant. We need some private meetings in some smoke-free rooms. And then we need to spread the word, the word being the bright new liberal catch-phrase for taxing the wealthy. We need to make sure that everyone from Harry Reid to Keith Olbermann to Stephen Colbert to Ben Bernanke to Oprah has that phrase on their lips. We need to make it a household word.
Because what we should have learned by now, is that it is not about the issue, it is about the packaging.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
So You Say You Want a Revolution...
I have been getting emails from the South Carolina Democratic Party asking for my input via questionnaire, sending me the message that they want to change. We can do it!
Well, I know they are sincere, and yes the words sound right, but I am skeptical. Looking back on this last embarrassment of an election season, I would like to put forth a few ideas of my own.
First of all, we need to do something about the rotten primary system in this state. The rot gets worse every election season. The worms are in the voting system, and we can argue from here to tomorrow whether or not Alvin Greene really was nominated legitimately or not. Fact is, we repeatedly allow people to get nominated who do not at all represent the ideals of the democratic party.
I believe that the easiest way to avoid the process called raiding is to have closed primaries. Yes, democrats choose democratic nominees and republicans choose republican nominees. Is that really a bad thing? It is, after all a primary election, which purpose is to choose the best party affiliated nominees. No, it does not give a person the freedom to go into a voting booth and choose the candidate most likely to be a laughingstock of the opposing party, which I have actually heard people admit to doing. If you want the most honest primary possible, this is the way to do it.
Next most important move is going to be for the South Carolina Democratic Party to post, publish, advertise, disseminate, information regarding all democratic primary candidates. It would not have taken volumes of information on candidates Vic Rawl and Alvin Greene to change the results of that primary, that is, if the primary itself was not corrupted. If, as some say, the voters just gave it their best shot, which apparently was ABC order, we need to make their best shot a lot more informed.
Finally, after the primary is all said and done, the South Carolina Democratic Party needs to espouse democratic ideals. We need to stop putting forth candidates that are afraid to say that businesses and the wealthy need to pay a reasonable share of taxes, and to have the data that proves that massive tax cuts for businesses neither considerably increase the number of jobs nor the quality of employment opportunities. We need to be willing to prove that taxes do good stuff, that government jobs improve the standard of living of South Carolinians. That good schools and libraries are a better idea than more jails. That privatizing has cost the taxpayer more for less service. That businesses need to act with responsibility, and their primary responsibility is to be a member of the community, and not merely to their bottom line.
And our good candidates need to unite; they need to pool resources and get in front of the people of South Carolina, with a united message, and they need to support each other.
In this last shameful election, we had good people who ran because the primary system didn't work, and they were good democrats who were abandoned by the South Carolina Democratic Party. This is why we lost. Because we were unable to think our way around this problem. We could not come forward and support someone like, say, Tom Clements because he was running as a Green Party candidate. And we couldn't have, say, Vincent Sheheen, another good candidate, form an alliance with this other good candidate.
So here we are, with Nikki Haley and Jim Demint. Who are not afraid to do whatever it takes to convince voters that they are where the power lies.
Well, I know they are sincere, and yes the words sound right, but I am skeptical. Looking back on this last embarrassment of an election season, I would like to put forth a few ideas of my own.
First of all, we need to do something about the rotten primary system in this state. The rot gets worse every election season. The worms are in the voting system, and we can argue from here to tomorrow whether or not Alvin Greene really was nominated legitimately or not. Fact is, we repeatedly allow people to get nominated who do not at all represent the ideals of the democratic party.
I believe that the easiest way to avoid the process called raiding is to have closed primaries. Yes, democrats choose democratic nominees and republicans choose republican nominees. Is that really a bad thing? It is, after all a primary election, which purpose is to choose the best party affiliated nominees. No, it does not give a person the freedom to go into a voting booth and choose the candidate most likely to be a laughingstock of the opposing party, which I have actually heard people admit to doing. If you want the most honest primary possible, this is the way to do it.
Next most important move is going to be for the South Carolina Democratic Party to post, publish, advertise, disseminate, information regarding all democratic primary candidates. It would not have taken volumes of information on candidates Vic Rawl and Alvin Greene to change the results of that primary, that is, if the primary itself was not corrupted. If, as some say, the voters just gave it their best shot, which apparently was ABC order, we need to make their best shot a lot more informed.
Finally, after the primary is all said and done, the South Carolina Democratic Party needs to espouse democratic ideals. We need to stop putting forth candidates that are afraid to say that businesses and the wealthy need to pay a reasonable share of taxes, and to have the data that proves that massive tax cuts for businesses neither considerably increase the number of jobs nor the quality of employment opportunities. We need to be willing to prove that taxes do good stuff, that government jobs improve the standard of living of South Carolinians. That good schools and libraries are a better idea than more jails. That privatizing has cost the taxpayer more for less service. That businesses need to act with responsibility, and their primary responsibility is to be a member of the community, and not merely to their bottom line.
And our good candidates need to unite; they need to pool resources and get in front of the people of South Carolina, with a united message, and they need to support each other.
In this last shameful election, we had good people who ran because the primary system didn't work, and they were good democrats who were abandoned by the South Carolina Democratic Party. This is why we lost. Because we were unable to think our way around this problem. We could not come forward and support someone like, say, Tom Clements because he was running as a Green Party candidate. And we couldn't have, say, Vincent Sheheen, another good candidate, form an alliance with this other good candidate.
So here we are, with Nikki Haley and Jim Demint. Who are not afraid to do whatever it takes to convince voters that they are where the power lies.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Real Tears
Steven Loeb's headline is "Weeper of the House". I wish I had thought of that. Rachel Maddow's article on John Boehner's propensity to burst into tears was interesting and welcome. Yes, there is nothing wrong with crying. Yes, we do have to listen to the words as well. In some cases, though, we need to also pay attention to the tears.
Boehner continues to speak emotionally of his rough childhood, his hard work climbing up the ladder to success. The getting choked up business, though, means that he has lots of issues surrounding this fact of his life.
Many of us have to fight our way up. Many of us fight hard and don't make it. Many of us make it and lose it, often through no fault of our own.
John Boehner has never gotten past the narcissistic narrative of his having fought and won. In fact, he treats each battle as another that he has to win in order to succeed. The battles are not about the middle class, or those who have suffered through a bad economy through no fault of their own. The battles are about fighting for those who have fought and won. In other words, the battles are for John Boehner.
This is why Boehner is passionate about the government not taxing the wealthy. It is HIS money, and he worked hard for it.
John Boehner is incapable of empathy, although he does tend to use the word without shedding a single tear, as he did in July when he stated that three of his eleven brothers were unemployed, although he did not know for sure whether they had found jobs yet.
Okay, folks, read that last part again. Millionaire John Boehner throws out the word "empathy" as in, "See, I empathize with you unemployed because I have three brothers who are unemployed." Period. End of concept of what John Boehner thinks is empathy. Because he follows that bit about three unemployed brothers with the totally unironic statement that he has no idea if they are currently employed.
What is at the bottom of all those tears, then? Could it be rage, that there are others out there who have not worked as hard, or succeeded as well, yet want the government to help them out? I'm totally imagining a family in which you either made it, or you had hell to pay. No handouts in the Boehner household.
And now the House is the Boehner household. So don't expect any handouts. Or sympathy. Or especially empathy.
And for pete's sake, stop crying.
Boehner continues to speak emotionally of his rough childhood, his hard work climbing up the ladder to success. The getting choked up business, though, means that he has lots of issues surrounding this fact of his life.
Many of us have to fight our way up. Many of us fight hard and don't make it. Many of us make it and lose it, often through no fault of our own.
John Boehner has never gotten past the narcissistic narrative of his having fought and won. In fact, he treats each battle as another that he has to win in order to succeed. The battles are not about the middle class, or those who have suffered through a bad economy through no fault of their own. The battles are about fighting for those who have fought and won. In other words, the battles are for John Boehner.
This is why Boehner is passionate about the government not taxing the wealthy. It is HIS money, and he worked hard for it.
John Boehner is incapable of empathy, although he does tend to use the word without shedding a single tear, as he did in July when he stated that three of his eleven brothers were unemployed, although he did not know for sure whether they had found jobs yet.
Okay, folks, read that last part again. Millionaire John Boehner throws out the word "empathy" as in, "See, I empathize with you unemployed because I have three brothers who are unemployed." Period. End of concept of what John Boehner thinks is empathy. Because he follows that bit about three unemployed brothers with the totally unironic statement that he has no idea if they are currently employed.
What is at the bottom of all those tears, then? Could it be rage, that there are others out there who have not worked as hard, or succeeded as well, yet want the government to help them out? I'm totally imagining a family in which you either made it, or you had hell to pay. No handouts in the Boehner household.
And now the House is the Boehner household. So don't expect any handouts. Or sympathy. Or especially empathy.
And for pete's sake, stop crying.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Who Wants to Be a Superpower?
A few days ago, after passionately writing herein about President Obama's caving to the republic party regarding tax breaks for the wealthy, I attempted to email Keith Olbermann. Time after time, the email came back as unreceivable, and when I investigated further, I found that the address I was sending, countdown@msnbc.com, was being read as something different. I tried to alert MSNBC, but apparently being too big to care, I never heard back from them, but at least that email wasn't returned. And then I stopped trying to send the original email because, to be honest, I was a little spooked.
And then the threats from WikiLeaks, that they would attack any institution that attempted to mess with them. And then word that they had, apparently attacked. DOS, denial of service, attacks were reported to have occurred at PayPal, VISA and MasterCard, seemingly in retaliation for those companies refusal to accept donations to WikiLeaks.
Let me urge you to read Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It by Richard A. Clarke.
The threats that Clarke describes are not around the corner; they are here. While we argue about whether the wealthy and the country's largest corporations should be allowed to die with their wealth intact, China, Russia, North Korea, and independent hackers are studying vulnerabilities in US cyber networks. And we have a lot of vulnerabilities.
Caught in the debate around privacy issues versus the right of the government to access our access, we do nothing. Yet we surely know that hackers are in and out of our systems constantly.
Big banks and other private industry resist developing cyber security measures because, in the style of Scrooge McDuck, they prefer to deny the threat in order to have more pennies to pinch.
The utilities that represent the half-dozen or so major internet service providers also provide the gateway to internet access, and internet hacking, yet refuse to come together to find a system to protect the country from cyber attack.
And of course, all of the above want the government to stay out of their business, a policy which our presidents, democrat and republican, honor.
So, what it comes down to is that this huge superpower is very vulnerable, and unwilling to face that vulnerability. The psycho-state of North Korea, by virtue of not having any internet, also lacks vulnerability. Ironically, that gives North Korean government-sponsored hackers control that a nuclear weapon could never wield.
So what are our options? I could get really crazy paranoid, I guess, and that would do no good. I could continue to live in the state of denial, where I would have lots of company. The middle ground is to continue to try to be heard, writing and calling legislators, sending letters to the editor, blogging.
With a Congress that is more concerned with tax breaks for the wealthy and keeping gay men and women out of the military, I don't hold out a great deal of hope for intelligent legislation on cyber security.
Perhaps our president will stand up and demand regulated, monitored and safe cyber security.
And if that doesn't happen, Italy and England seem to have done okay since their demotion from being superpowers. How bad can it be?
And then the threats from WikiLeaks, that they would attack any institution that attempted to mess with them. And then word that they had, apparently attacked. DOS, denial of service, attacks were reported to have occurred at PayPal, VISA and MasterCard, seemingly in retaliation for those companies refusal to accept donations to WikiLeaks.
Let me urge you to read Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It by Richard A. Clarke.
The threats that Clarke describes are not around the corner; they are here. While we argue about whether the wealthy and the country's largest corporations should be allowed to die with their wealth intact, China, Russia, North Korea, and independent hackers are studying vulnerabilities in US cyber networks. And we have a lot of vulnerabilities.
Caught in the debate around privacy issues versus the right of the government to access our access, we do nothing. Yet we surely know that hackers are in and out of our systems constantly.
Big banks and other private industry resist developing cyber security measures because, in the style of Scrooge McDuck, they prefer to deny the threat in order to have more pennies to pinch.
The utilities that represent the half-dozen or so major internet service providers also provide the gateway to internet access, and internet hacking, yet refuse to come together to find a system to protect the country from cyber attack.
And of course, all of the above want the government to stay out of their business, a policy which our presidents, democrat and republican, honor.
So, what it comes down to is that this huge superpower is very vulnerable, and unwilling to face that vulnerability. The psycho-state of North Korea, by virtue of not having any internet, also lacks vulnerability. Ironically, that gives North Korean government-sponsored hackers control that a nuclear weapon could never wield.
So what are our options? I could get really crazy paranoid, I guess, and that would do no good. I could continue to live in the state of denial, where I would have lots of company. The middle ground is to continue to try to be heard, writing and calling legislators, sending letters to the editor, blogging.
With a Congress that is more concerned with tax breaks for the wealthy and keeping gay men and women out of the military, I don't hold out a great deal of hope for intelligent legislation on cyber security.
Perhaps our president will stand up and demand regulated, monitored and safe cyber security.
And if that doesn't happen, Italy and England seem to have done okay since their demotion from being superpowers. How bad can it be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)