Cranky Old Liberal

Romney: Fighter for the middle class

2012-02-01T19:01:00.000-08:00

Like the union man in "The Pajama Game," with a pencil and a pad, I figured it out.

Mitt Romney has stated that he will fight for the middle class, not the wealthy or the poor.

Before you call him a hypocrite or a liar let me explain. At no time did I hear him set the boundaries economically as to who is in the middle class.

When a guy makes $21 million a year, anyone who makes $1 million a year is, to him, middle class. So he will fight President Obama all the way on his proposal to tax those earning a million dollars a year.

As for those making less, they will have to resort to the safety nets that he proposes to wipe out. Now you figure it out.

Should the GOP win

2012-01-27T20:41:00.000-08:00

So far the Republican debates have been a joke - a reality TV show void of reality. So let's carry the joke a little further. This is what I imagine would happen if any of them would be elected president.

Under Mitt Romney, America would have an immediate economic boom because he would sell the blue States to China.

Under Newt Gingrich we would have the "Contract for China" and he would be the Commissar of Human relations and bi-partisanship. He - and not Mitt the Mormon - would probably legalize polygamy, because every politician should have more than one wife. And definitely more than one mistress.

Under Ron Paul, all laws would be judged by a Constitution Committee (unpaid) because the Supreme Court cannot be trusted anymore.

Under Rick Santorum, you could go to public school when you got your voucher from your church. Freedom of choice would be about which church. Scratch Santorum, he's taken his sweater vests and gone home to do his taxes. He should probably call Romney's accountant.

A very unelectable "most electable"

2012-01-23T19:54:00.000-08:00

I hate to break the news to South Carolina Republicans, but the winner of their primary was President Obama.

Newt Gingrich has much too much baggage. He probably is best suited to win the Conservative and Tea
Party crowd, but they will not elect anyone and many of them are disturbed by his high-paid consulting work for Freddie Mac. Even Democrats who are unhappy with President Obama would come out to vote against Newt.

Newt will bring out more Democrats who hate him for his hypocritical attack on President Clinton's affair when he was having one of his own. He will bring out more Independents who hate him because they feel he is mostly responsible for the deep divisions in our country. They point to his "Contract On America" which was erroneously called "The Contract for America," as
the turning point. There will probably be a vast number of Republican women who will probably sit on their hands rather than vote for this serial philanderer.

None of the GOP candidates have as many negatives or have built up as much animosity as Newt.

Even Glenn Beck has said he's the one Republican candidate he couldn't vote for.

Who are the "moderate" Republicans?

2012-01-23T19:49:00.000-08:00

While watching the New Hampshire primary results a few weeks back, I saw a commentator with a district map show the purported breakdown of votes from conservative, moderate, and liberal Republicans.

Moderate Republicans? Liberal Republican?

I thought the moderates were an endangered species and the liberals were extinct.

So, if anyone who reads this blog can come up with the names of some moderate or liberal Republicans, please send them my way.

The Keystone Pipeline

2012-01-17T20:50:00.000-08:00

I think I have a solution to the Keystone Pipeline problem.

President Obama should tell Congress he will approve of any bill that they pass with these provisos.

1. Five billion dollars must be left in escrow with FEMA to cover the costs of any illnesses to workers or people in the pipeline territory who get sick from the pipeline.

2. The oil cannot be sold outside of Canada and the United States.

3. All the members of the Board of Directors of Keystone must live in homes within 10 miles of the pipeline.

GOP Qualifications for Office

2012-01-08T19:43:00.000-08:00

One of the most important thing that has come out of the Republican presidential debates is what the candidates see as their primary qualification for office.

What is it?

Vote for me because I'm the most conservative.

I have no program. I will learn on the job - and I I will learn to be even more conservative.

I will cut entitlement programs, because the rich do not want to pay for deadbeats.

I am also the most religious so I can be trusted.

If someone running for office told me I should vote for them because they are the most liberal and that was their main qualification they would not get my vote. I want to know what they stand for. What will they do to make my life better.

Besides cutting everything.

As they like to say in the business world, "You can't shrink your way to prosperity."

Candidates so keen on borrowing from the private sector may want to remember that.

End of Year Wish

2011-12-21T19:32:00.000-08:00

In this season of PEACE+GOOD WILL {BIPARTISANSHIP} maybe the legislature could put eight days of good legislation together so that Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all people can celebrate the coming year.

Personally, I would settle for one good day. Even that would be a blessing.

Immigration - A Solvable Problem

2011-11-20T19:41:00.000-08:00

At the present time there are two opposing factions.

The first believes that all illegal immigrants should be deported.

The second believes in giving illegals amnesty.

Neither idea is the solution but neither side really wants to assume the responsibility of solving it.

I offer a start.

We go by time in our country. We take those who have been here the longest - those who have a job here, worked here and contributed taxes to the city, state and country, and put them in line with legal immigrants. Obviously if they have contributed to the good and welfare of their community for a length of time they have proved that they can and want to be citizens. This way we prove to the illegal immigrants that we do want to solve the problem and get their cooperation.

We owe nothing to those who have never contributed to the country they want citizenship in - they have proved that they only want to return to their own country. If they can prove that they have contributed in other ways such as volunteer work it should be entered into the equation.

This is just a start. There are probably many ways to solve the problem, but you have to start somewhere.

The GOP and the 'free' market

2011-11-11T09:48:00.000-08:00

Last night's GOP presidential debate had two mantras.

1. The problem with Obama is he refuses to let the market work. It
seems to me that President Bush allowed the market to work and all that did was make for the malaise we are in now. Deregulation has been a GOP idea since Ronald Reagan sang its praises. Unfortunately, letting the market work - without any checks - took away the things that might have protected the middle class. (Disaster).

2. The Federal Government does not allow the market to work. It seems
to me they leave out the part that the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch are also part of the problem. Some of the people running for the office of the President created many of the problems.

The market only works when the people responsible for overseeing the markets give everyone a fair chance in the market. When legislators make special deals on behalf of certain corporations or industries at the expense of others, or the
middle class, the market is great for some (those with lobbyists) but not for others. We have to go back to the days when monopolies were against the law. Monopolies destroy by their power.

"Move Your Money" is a bad solution

2011-10-19T19:29:00.000-07:00

The group urging folks to "move your money" from big banks to small ones says that such moves will show the banks you mean business. Nonsense.

That may have been true many years ago when the government realized that allowing monopolies to exist was bad for the economy. It was also before people like Mayor Bloomberg fought to do away with regulation of the banks , Wall Street, the real estate industry,credit card issuers and the utility companies.

It was also before the Supreme Court decided that corporations were people.

Let us assume you take your money out and put it in a small bank. There is nothing to stop a big bank from buying out the small
bank, and you're back where you started - but worse. Now there are fewer small banks and more people unemployed.

This business of "A" bank becoming "B" bank getting bought out by "C" bank is ridiculous. Each bank changes its rules and you have to play the game of "Do you know where your money is?" Someone like Elizabeth Warren might have brought some common sense to banking regulation but she was never given a chance - forced out by bank lobbyists.

The tale of the campaign button

2011-10-03T06:10:00.000-07:00

While looking for something the other day, I came upon a button. It said 2008, had a profile of Obama with the following words. "HOPE. ACTION. Change We can Believe In."

After eight years of being Bushwacked it was refreshing to get a change. Obama promised to change health care. Make it simpler, fairer, and more encompassing. He promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He promised more transparency. He promised the usual campaign battle cry to fight against "Special Interests."

So far the only change I see, is the change in Obama. From a Sir Galahad we got a Don Quixote. From a fighter we got a dreamer.

Now the apologists have gone to bat for him. Even James Carville, who was slightly critical of the President has now started to say "Think of the Alternative."

While it is true that the alternative would be devastating, why do we have to have such choices. It is like asking someone would they rather be shot or poisoned. Why can't we insist on the Obama we voted for?

While I am disappointed I have not given up hope for him. Even Rip van Winkle came out of a deep sleep after 20
years. But we have to stop excusing his failures and demand he shape up. Do not use the "Think of the Alternative" argument as an excuse.

Maybe if we insist on a better Democrat we might even get some better Republicans.

The skinny on the GOP field

2011-09-29T21:38:00.000-07:00

My thumbnail sketches of theGOP presidential field:

Bachmann: How can we get inoculated against whatever she's carrying?

Huntsman: Another Mormon? Too nice a guy for the Republicans to show him big love.

Santorum: Preaches a form of Christianity with which Jesus would be unfamiliar.

Gingrich: Too smart to actually believe the nonsense he spews.

Paul: If they can't pay for insurance let them die.

Cain: Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza has an offer I can refuse.

Perry: Makes the previous governor of Texas look like a Mensa member.

Romney: His claim to fame as a governor is the successful Obamacare style program he instituted in Massachusetts which he has now decided would be bad for America.

The GOP and Jobs

2011-09-17T19:54:00.000-07:00

Forty-two years ago a group of record dealers were sitting around and listening to President Nixon give the usual speech as to how the small business community created more jobs than the large corporations - that the small business community deserved the government's help in order to expand.

A few of the dealers got angry and said they could not get help from the Small Business Administration to expand. I was president of the Association of Record Dealers at the time and the group told me to find out why. I wrote President Nixon about the issue and the reply I received said that if I really wanted to help small business I should join the newly formed SCORE and ACTION.

I did just that. At the beginning I had the feeling I was helping small business, in conjunction with the SBA, which gave out loans. Then Congress decided it was too expensive and lessened the money given to the SBA and forced it out of the loan business. They turned the matter over to the banks and guaranteed a large portion of the loans. Unfortunately, the banks were more interested in making bad loans, bad mortgages and foreclosures than than they were in loaning money to small businesses.

I heard the same nonsense in the last GOP debate. How can you be concerned about small business and not want to fund the Small Business Administration?

If the Democrats also give lip service to small business, where do these job creators have to turn for help?

Entitlers, entitlees and the entitled

2011-08-13T10:35:00.000-07:00

Congress is both an entitler and an entitlee. It makes the laws about entitlements and at the same time votes itself a raise in salary and perks whenever it feels like it. While many Americans are losing their pensions, members of Congress are pensioned at the taxpayers' expense.

Other entitlees are the wealthy who make their money by the work of the entitled. They are rewarded by big breaks on taxes, because they are the large contributors to campaign money for Congress. They have also been given help with the "Estate Tax" decline. They make their heirs entitlees by use of the trickle down theory.

The entitled are the working stiffs, who paid taxes into the Social Security and Medicare funds. This gave members of Congress more money for earmarks and pork so they could keep getting elected. Then Congress decides it does not have enough money for even COLAs and some members of Congress want to emasculate both successful programs. These programs are advertised as only benefiting seniors but they are actually good for young people also because they give them some security for when they can no longer work (and the pension they were hoping for is gone and their 401K money has tanked in the stock market). Medicare also gives them health care in spite of outrageous health costs.

Since the wealthy have largely made their fortunes off the investments and purchases of those who will be dependent on SociaI security when they retire, it is only fair that the wealthy pay higher taxes so that the money taken from the Social Security fund can be returned to it.

The myth of bipartisanship

2011-08-03T20:36:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I watched C-SPAN again and was treated to a fictional account of what bipartisanship is all about.

Here is the scenario: The President starts from a weak position as he did in the health care issue. He makes speeches that say that he will not sign any law that does not include taxing billionaires.

The Tea Partiers believe that in the interest of compromise and bipartisanship, he will cave in.

I listened to the House Republicans and some Democrats thanking the president and the other Democrats for their bipartisanship approach to a deal.

The president was like the parent of a kidnapped child forced to pay ransom. "Give us what we want or we're going to let the government default," the Tea Partiers wrote in their ransom note, and the president and moderate Democrats gave them the satchel full of unmarked bills and the getaway car.

It may be that in acquiescing the president in acquiescing is playing politics. He may believe that the Republicans have again over-reached and have hurt their chances in the next election with their tactics.

While I do not believe the deal was a good deal. I do not think there was much choice. 2012 will tell us if the poor, middle class and seniors are going to be willing to take another stand for their interests or of they've given up the fight and will allow the Tea Party to take greater control and begin the dismantling of Medicare and Social Security and continue the widening of the gap between the rich and everyone else.

TV Shows

2011-07-21T19:58:00.000-07:00

I was watching one of my favorite, but most annoying, TV shows the other day. It was on C-SPAN. For the first time I realized I was watching a new concept to go with our sports shows, sitcoms, shopping shows and reality shows.

This was a non-reality show.

The segment was called, "Cut, Cap and Balance." It had a large cast and under normal circumstances might be called a spectacular, but this one was more of a spectacle.

Or a debacle.

It was seemingly scripted by people called whips and majority leaders and all the performers had pretty much the same lines.

Although listening is a key to a believable performance, these performers read their words without listening. Here were well-spoken adults speaking as if what they were saying meant something. I have seen High school debates that made more sense.

It was all a tease though, because the outcome was a vote with everyone knowing what the outcome would be. It was not even well acted. In other words, a total waste of time and money.

Words spoken and unspoken

2011-07-17T19:03:00.000-07:00

The Republican strategy is that they are for tax cuts and only tax cuts create jobs. But if tax cuts created jobs why were so few jobs created during the Bush administration?

These are the words I want to hear from President Obama: "I will not sign any law that continues the Bush Tax cuts."

Previous administrations have used the Social Security fund as a piggy bank for spurious earmarks and unnecessary spending. Before they put Social Security on the table for cuts, I want those funds restored. Then and only then can we discuss Social Security.

Republicans talk about cuts in spending, but some of the programs they want to cut will end up costing middle- and lower-income tax payers more out-of-pocket cash. To me that is the same as raising taxes on those groups. It is one of the fallacies of the Republicans' argument that the government wants to redistribute wealth. The government HAS been redistributing wealth - from the poor and middle class to the rich. What Republicans don't want is for that redistribution to go the other way - to the people who need the money and spend money when they get it.

The problem with big $ politics

2011-06-11T18:57:00.000-07:00

It has become obvious that the present campaign reform proposals will reform very little. They are filled with loopholes and will be opposed by the media, who depend on political advertising for a huge source of revenue.

The obscene cost of campaigning has given growth to an entire industry built around fundraising. If you are a computer user I am sure that every day your In Box has numerous requests for donations. While they ask for as little as $3, these requests are repeated almost every day and you are asked to sign petitions which which put you on more lists soliciting more donations.

Lobbyists are a large part of this obscenity. They raise money to disperse to candidates and elected politicians so that they can get favorable laws for their clients. The Supreme Court has compounded this problem by giving corporations the same rights as individuals when it comes to donating money. This has raised the stakes further by forcing politicians to spend ridiculous amounts of time fundraising and promising favors to everyone with a big checkbook.

Unfortunately, when it comes to buying influence, the middle class cannot compete with the corporations. That is why our government is being bought and sold by Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, etc.

The reason why campaign reform won't work is simple. No one benefits except the little guy - and no one cares about the little guy.

Politicians need the big money to run for office. Lobbyists need access to the big money to buy influence and keep their jobs. The media needs big money in the game to pay for all the advertising.

Many of our elected officials are so cosy with the huge dollars of the lobbying industry, they use their elected positions as a stepping stone to employment as lobbyists when their time in office is up.

We need to stop the madness. Between partisan politics and a Congress on the payroll of corporate America, there is almost no chance for meaningful legislation to help the poor and middle class.

Taxes and reality

2011-05-07T20:06:00.000-07:00

It sounds so logical to hear the average citizen call for increasing corporate taxes to make for a fairer taxation policy. Unfortunately that system does not work as long as the corporations can raise the prices so that you end up paying the increase.

Who do you think paid the taxes levied on phone companies? Who do you think paid the higher prices at the pump on the taxes to the oil companies? Who do you think pays the real estate taxes? The home owner, the co-op buyer and the renter. Whenever a company's real estate taxes go up, the consumer pays. The mortgage companies, the banks, your cable companies all raise their fees, and the list goes on and on.

Trickle down economics work if you're a corporation. Whatever costs are levied on companies at the top, are trickled down to the consumer at the bottom. But increased profits? They usually go to increased CEO salaries, cash reserves or stock buybacks. The cash rarely trickles down.

The fairest way is to close the loopholes on income tax benefits to incentivize companies spreading their wealth around instead of concentrating it at the top and to eliminate special tax benefits for companies who take their money and jobs out of the country,accounts out of the country.

It is obvious the present tax policy only benefits the wealthy. No matter how much they complain about their tax burden, the disparity between rich and poor keeps growing.

The 2012 presidential election

2011-04-08T20:07:00.000-07:00

It is early, but I will make a prediction as to what I believe will happen in the 2012 presidential election.

Obama will win.

Does he deserve to win based on his accomplishments up to now? I am not sure. Do I approve of what he has done? I give him a a 6.5 out of 10.

He was given a chance to fulfill his promises of change. but what has he changed? Very little. He had a chance to be a statesman and settled for politician.

He has allowed the Republicans to dictate the agenda, by not going to the public with candor as to why he has not achieved the changes he said he would fight for.

He did not fight for single payer health reform, although all the polls showed the public favored it. He was lukewarm on the health care issue all along. The openness of the government has not come to be. He has not brought to the table the gun and ammunition issue and the NRA is still dictating gun policies. He promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has not really explained why he cannot achieve this goal. It is possible he may have a valid reason, then have a fireside chat and explain the reason.

He has decided he has the progressives in his pocket, so he has to go to the middle of the road.

So why does he win if he has not done the great job everyone expected?

He wins because when the voter realizes what the opposition has offered and done, enough of them will come to their senses.

He wins because I do not believe the Tea Party has gotten the attention of disaffected Democrats or Independents. What the Tea Party has done is taken disaffected Republicans into their corner. These are votes they had in the last election.
They did not win then.

The disaffected Democrats have no choice but to vote for what might have been and may still be.The Independents also are too smart to go along with the Republicans who were more interested in defeating President Obama than making some of the things they disagreed on more palatable.

And one other reason Obama will win: After 2012 he can't run again, which will free him up to do more of what he believes in without having to deal with political fallout.

The most powerful politician is the one with nothing to lose.

Bribery

2011-03-02T20:50:00.000-08:00

Our elected officials are in a position of trust.

Bribery is money, favor or promises to a person or persons in a position of trust to influence their judgment or conduct. Bribery is a form of corruption. I always understood bribery of an elected official to be a crime.

If that is true why haven't the Koch Brothers been indicted?

Banks, oil companies and other major corporations are all guilty of this practice as are the lobbyists who work for them. But it is up to the attorney generals and district attorneys to bring these cases to justice.

Some unions have given unions a bad name by being as corrupt as politicians, but good unions have raised the standard of living for the middle class, and along the way helped make many people rich. Isn't it absurd that billionaires who've gotten rich off the system are now blaming the system and finding fault with the middle class union workers who've been asked for wage givebacks and risk losing a piece of their pension - a pension that they negotiated for with their employers in good faith. Isn't it absurd that politicians who get the best healthcare plan our money can buy, who make sure they get their own pensions and who use their expertise and influence as politicians to later work for the industries they helped legislate are blaming the middle class union worker for the nation's budget ills.

Who's the problem here? The billionaires who've bought the system or the working class trying to live within it? Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has said his state faces a $3.6 billion shortfall for the next two years. Now think about the fact that the Koch brothers, who helped fund his campaign, helped fund the Tea Party, are behind his move to break the unions and may soon end up running a Wisconsin public utility (as a present of privatization), are worth, according to Forbes, over $40 billion by themselves.

Really, it's the school teacher who's the problem?

Not every elected official is on the take - there are some good ones - but until we can get bribery out of public life we will never have honest government and we will never have government that works for the working class majority instead of the wealthy minority.

Rating "The State of the Union"

2011-01-28T19:36:00.000-08:00

If I were giving points on delivery it certainly deserves a nine-and-a-half. The oratory was great and even had spots of humor.

On substance i would give it no more than a 7.

It sort of reminded me of the fantastic speeches Mario Cuomo used to give for a progressive agenda, but when push came to shove his agenda was watered down. He spoke Democrat , but pushed a moderate Republican agenda. That is if there is such a thing as a moderate Republican.

Obama's speech also reminded me of Mayor Bloomberg's speeches. Mayor Bloomberg talks middle class values then pushes an agenda that favors his Wall Street friends, his real rstate pals, and his insurance buddies, to name a few.

Based on performance up until now, I don't want to hear good speeches, I want to see good results. You should not go to the middle of the road at the expense of the progressives. The middle of the road is where the independents should go. You can win Independents' votes by having a sensible well thought out plan, and follow up. It may be possible to win the so called moderate Republican, if there are some.

I will still support Obama if there is no progressive who can win puts his hat in the ring. A "Conservative" like our previous president almost brought us to bankruptcy .

"States rights" or wrongs

2011-01-17T20:53:00.000-08:00

For many years now the National Rifle Association has pleaded the case of "States Rights." They have argued that the way they read the Constitution the state has the right to have a militia. They've further argued that this allows an everyday citizen to arm himself or herself.

As Seth Meyers joked on "Saturday Night Live," however, when the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution, the arms in question were not Uzis or Glocks, but muskets. It's not that easy to kill a man with a musket and even if you do it, you can't kill too many at once. You couldn't conceal a musket, couldn't sneak up on anyone with your musket.

There's no evidence that the founding fathers, who couldn't possibly envision the firepower of today, would have wanted everyone to carry any type of weapon they could get their hands on - and also be able to hide them in their pockets.

It's ridiculous, therefore when the NRA argues that sane people should have the right to have a gun that can shoot thirty shots or thirty rounds. Such a gun is not a means of protection it's an offensive weapon. It's not to defend, it's to kill. I find it inconceivable that if Representative Giffords, the Federal Judge and all the people shot that day in Arizona would have been protected if they had more weapons in their hands. Who would have fired first? How many more people would have been shot in the crossfire.

Scaredycrats

2010-12-20T19:11:00.000-08:00

I watched C-Span because I was interested in how the tax cut vote would go.

When the Democrats were in power in both houses they got very little of their agenda passed because the Republicans mostly unanimously with the help of the Blue Dogs somehow blocked most of it. They even did everything they could to stall necessary judicial appointments.

I did not believe the tax cut bill that was presented to the president, that he compromised on, would create those jobs he was led to believe. To me it was a more expensive version of the failed trickle down theory.

The vote was illuminating. On the Pomeroy amendment which dealt with the estate tax, not one Republican voted for it - again treating the president and House Democrats like dogs who are asked to beg at the table and not given any food. Then when it came to the final vote almost as many Democrats voted for passage as Republicans.

Democrats previously voted to give senior citizens $250 to help defray their medical costs, but lost that battle. The Republicans explained that the government could not afford to put that burden on future generations.

HOGWASH!

I can only hope that I am wrong and that the president and the House Democrats who were humiliated turn out to be right, especially when I was led to believe that the House Democrats were really going to fight for a better bill.

Taxes and reality

2010-12-15T19:25:00.001-08:00

A government must protect its citizenry with an Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard but going to war is not a must.

A government must protect its borders. It must have judicial, executive, and legislative bodies. It must pay for bridges, highways, tunnels and roads. It must pay for police, firemen, sanitation people and teachers. It must pay for museums, libraries and parks. And let's not forget unemployment checks, social security, medicare, medicaid and welfare.

Governments have a lot of bills to pay and they pay these bills with revenue from our taxes.

Once in a while they even overpay for goods and services, to take care of their supporters, so that they can get elected again.

In our down economy - much of which was caused by poor legislative, judicial and executive decisions - the government still must function.

If governments can't get this money from the middle class because of the outsourcing of jobs, and loss of manufacturing jobs and refuse to get the money from the wealthy, many of whom benefited financially from the outsourcing of jobs and relocating of manufacturing, they have two alternatives:

1. They can place new fees on goods and services, or raise the fees on current services. You will pay less in "taxes" but more for mass transit, tolls, tickets, parking meters, telephone and TV bills, and anything else you use.

2. They can decrease services. They can close unemployment offices, make medical coverage more difficult, close fire houses, lessen the police force, stop fixing roads, clean the streets less, let snow pile up, and do away with bus and train routes. In short, the government can make life more miserable for you.

So when you hear a politician proclaim my opponent and his party will raise your taxes, but I won't, consider it nonsense. The politician who won't raise your taxes will either raise the fees you pay or give you less service - or both.

One way or another, regardless of your political persuasion, you pay.

What is needed of the people who represent us is to have good judgment, integrity and statesmanship. Is that too much to hope for?

Monopolies

2010-12-12T20:42:00.000-08:00

We seem to be worrying about the wrong things in our voting and politics. What we should be worrying about is monopolistic control of our Internet, our newspapers. our radio, our television, our telephone, our insurance companies, our hospitals, our banks and our credit card companies.

When a select few extremely large corporations control our services and our elected representatives, it does not matter whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent or have no party affiliation. Everyone is powerless when a select few have the power to raise your prices and give you less service.

When they are too big to fail, they are also too big to work for the common good.

Random political thoughts

2010-11-23T21:42:00.000-08:00

I am not a political pundit. I do not profess to have the only answer, but I find I am right more often than most political pundits, because I don't get paid to push a political agenda.

In order of interest as a guest on a political talk show here is my take.

1. Reporters who work at a newspaper.
2. Columnists who work at a newspaper.
3. Other talk show hosts, and bloggers.
4. So-called pundits.
5. People who profess to be Republican and Democratic strategists. Fortunately for them the public makes them right some of the time, especially in mid-term elections. Most of the time when they are asked a question I can guess what they are going to say. They have a ready-made agenda and mental script they adhere to.

Today I heard the latest poll for the 2012 Presidential election. I couldn't care less. In today's technological age it is possible that in two years we may be talking about someone who we do not even know. Congress is on vacation now. I don't want to hear or read about polls until they start to work on the business of laws. Hopefully they might actually try to make things better for the middle class, and for the small business community that they promise to help, but rarely do.

Punditry: Right or Wrong?

2010-11-11T05:41:00.000-08:00

Paul Begala and many of the pundits keep saying that the Democrats lost because they were too radical in seeking too many changes. I think the opposite is true. President Obama won because he promised to make changes. His party lost in the midterms because he did not make the changes his supporters sought. To go to the middle as Begala says he should have, means keeping the status quo. That is exactly what he tried to do and failed. People wanted changes to weed out the corruption that the large corporations and lobbyists have forced on our congressional representatives. Democrats were as guilty of accepting corporate money as the Republicans.

Our President did not change the Afghanistan and Iraq policy that he said he would. He did not fight hard to end Don't Ask, Don"t Tell, as you were led to believe he would. He did not go to bat for seniors on the COLA issue. He did not go to bat for real regulation of Wall Street. He did not even fight hard enough on his big issue, Health Reform. He caved in on single pay immediately. He tried too hard to go to the middle with Republican and Blue Dog support and failed. He even supported Blue Dogs in the primaries. His policy on Israel was ambiguous. He also kept on his economic team the Wall Streeters who were partly responsible for the Bush economic policy. In short he was elected to make sweeping changes and used a poor broom.

If you look for the middle ground as a bargaining position, the only place you can compromise is a losing position especially if your opponent's position is not to give in.

Unions have learned one lesson. If you are seeking a 10 cent wage , you do not ask for a 10 cent wage you ask for a 20 cent wage and settle on a 10 cent wage. He can change things in his favor if he really uses the power of the presidency to fight for meaningful changes. You cannot put a bandaid on a problem if it needs a tourniquet.

The pundits have it wrong

2010-10-15T20:06:00.000-07:00

For quite some time now pundits have been predicting a Republican landslide in which they take over the Congress. While I, like many other Democrats have been disappointed in President Obama's performance up until now, when we think of the alternative we are appalled. Yes, Obama oversold what he could do because he believed that he could persuade Republicans. He couldn't even get them to say maybe. Obama's continuation of the Afghanistan war and his hiring of Wall Streeters for his economic group turned off many voters on the Left, but I think they should realize that the other party would and will do the same. And do all the things those on the Left still oppose.

I do think that the Democrats have a better grass roots organization, and Election Day will come down to who does a better job of getting out the vote. I also think that the American citizenry can see behind the Tea Party candidates.

While President Bush and his Republican party was running our country into the ground where were these Tea Party patriots. In most midterm elections people who are disappointed with their elected officials sit on their hands and do not come out to vote. This election is different. The hatred that seems to be coming out demands that people come out to vote.

So go out and vote for Jim Hall in Westchester, Barbara Boxer In California, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Harry Reid in Nevada, and anyone who can help get through the Obama agenda we supported with such enthusiasm only two years ago.

Mickey's Book Club

2010-09-18T21:18:00.000-07:00

Over the past few years I have read a number of political books and have come to the following conclusions about what to expect from the authors.

Politicians are generally apologetic and write mostly about their accomplishments. They are rarely informative as to what goes on in Washington.

Pundits usually write with the slant that appeals to their existing readers. They spin. This is what they do for a living.

Talk show hosts write to their fan base and any one else they can convert. Their books tend not to be well written or informative.

Reporters fill in the fact gaps left out by all the other books.

Last year I told you to read a book by David Cay Johnston called "Free Lunch." It is still a good read. Johnston was a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.

I just got through reading Will Bunch's book, "The Backlash," which I also highly recommend. Bunch was also a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.

"Backlash" is the story of the Tea Party and how it developed, along with all the fringe parties, how these groups took the idea from the peaceniks of the seventies and turned their idea into a cause. The big difference is that the peaceniks believed in love and the new radicals believe in hate. Of course not all Tea Partiers and all fringe groups are hateful but they're certainly not spreading a message of love.

Mayor Bloomberg's Report Card

2010-09-07T19:21:00.000-07:00

Just in case he decides to run for higher office. . .

CONGESTION PRICING: F. This plan was predicated on an affordable, well run transit system that could handle more passengers. It is neither. Less trains, less clerks, higher fares.

FOOTBALL STADIUM: F. This plan would have brought congestion where it was not needed. See above for problems.

EDUCATION: D+. I think he meant well but does not have enough knowledge about the problem to fix it. The Charter school idea was and is too costly.

TOURISM: B+. He has made N.Y.C. a tourist mecca - but at the expense of its inhabitants.

TENANTS: D-. His relationship with the real estate industry led him to form a Rent Guideline Board that catered to the industry's wishes.

WALL STREET: D+. His knowledge of the business of Bloomberg News should have told him that fighting for deregulation would be hazardous, but he still fought for it. This helped fuel the collapse of Wall Street and the housing market.

The jury is still out on the Yankee Stadium deal and the Nets Basketball Stadium deal. The cost to taxpayers, however, was tremendous.

Bloomberg ran on a platform of fixing the MTA and failed. His police, fire department and sanitation decisions deserve C+.

All in all I give him a C- and wish him luck.

Pedro Espada and what's wrong with politics

2010-08-30T18:53:00.000-07:00

New York State has an unusual situation. Some of its citizens voted for a Democrat who thinks like a bad Republican and wanted to be a Republican. For stupid and selfish political reasons the Democrats thought they needed this scoundrel as a voting Democrat.

They bribed him by offering him a job he was not capable of doing. Now they realize their mistake and are doing all they can to get rid of him. He is being investigated for alleged wrongdoing.

Unfortunately these same Democrats - and Republicans - usually ignore their colleagues' malfeasance. The result: Poor representation.

Thanks to the laws they've passed, these poor representatives from both parties have given us monopolistic, unregulated cable television, a greedy Wall Street, a corrupt credit card industry, uncaring banks who stole from their customers, and, with the help of the real estate industry, stole homes from people who believed in the American Dream.

And some of these representatives are the people who voted themselves a raise while denying increases to people dependent on social security.

Bush's tax cuts

2010-08-07T20:00:00.000-07:00

The Republicans, led by the Tea Partiers, and supported by the Blue Dog Democrats have been arguing for quite some time that continuing unemployment insurance will put a damper on those people looking for jobs.

But these same people are the ones saying that continuing the Bush Tax Cuts will stimulate the economy.

Where do they get that idea from? How do they justify that giving additional money to people who already have plenty of money to spend is better for the economy than giving money to people who will need to spend the money?

Besides, under President Bush and his tax cut, the economy - in which more people fell below the poverty line while the rich got richer - collapsed.

How much more proof do they need than what has already been shown to be wrong?

Only fools make the same mistake more than once.

As for the Tea Partiers, they have to watch what's going into their tea. The stuff they are putting in their tea seems to kill the thinking process.

Unethical or Illegal behavior by elected officials

2010-08-02T07:45:00.000-07:00

When a thug points a gun at you, abuses you or burglarizes your home you do not ask if he or she is a Democrat, Republican or Independent. You feel violated.

Why then does it matter if the illegal or unethical behavior of an elected official is caused by a Democrat, Republican or Independent?

Too many times our officials are judged by their fellow officials and the media before all the facts are in. But too often they are also judged merely on the basis of their party affiliation. It shouldn't matter.

If the party is guilty of bad behavior a reprimand is not sufficient. In some cases even a censure is not sufficient. Sometimes jail is the only remedy. He or she should be relieved of their post and put on their pension, and only their share of the pension that they put money into.

If you voted for a candidate who behaved improperly in office you should be angry for his/her betraying your trust. To vote for the culprit again is utter foolishness. We should not be so forgiving. We will not get better representation until we demand it. Both parties have been shameful.

We need better Republicans AND better Democrats.

Immigration and Tea Partiers

2010-07-05T11:45:00.000-07:00

I know this is not a solution, but I think it is a starting point:

Any illegal immigrant who commits a felony or a worse crime, or is convicted of an ethnic, racial, or gender hate crime shall be deported regardless of what country they came from. I see no reason to support them in our jails.

Tea Partiers are todays' radicals. To be a radical does not necessarily mean you are a liberal. It means you have departed from the usual or traditional. The main difference between today's radicals and the radicals of the older generation are that many of today's radicals are NRA supporters and carry guns while the radicals of the past protested for peace and were shot at.

A sensible gun policy

2010-06-30T19:37:00.000-07:00

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court's extending of gun rights across the nation has shown that it will never seek a middle ground. Some of the Justices could care little about fairness or public safety. They are puppets of the National Rifle Association and lock-step proponents of a Constitutional amendment written before there were urban areas, before there were police departments, long before there were automatic weapons and at a time when the British enemy lived among us.

Times have changed, but the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge it.

Being practical and pragmatic, I have come to the conclusion that to fight for gun control is a losing proposition. I suggest we take a different approach.

I think we have to get the point across to the NRA that we do not want to take their guns away. They can have them. All we want to do is make it safer.

One way to do that is to make sure that all guns are insured. We make people insure their cars. That way in an accident the injured have redress. The insurance industry welcomed that initiative.

Why are they not fighting for guns to be insured? They are afraid of their friends in the NRA. But if we make gun owners carry gun insurance they will be more careful with their guns.

I do not understand why Mayor Bloomberg has not attempted to pass a law requiring guns to be insured. I think he could get it through the state legislature.

Obama Report Card

2010-06-13T21:49:00.000-07:00

Am I happy with President Obama's Health Care reform stand? I give him a C+.

Am I happy with his stand on the BP oil spill? I give him a C.

Am I happy with his reform work on the banking industry? C+.

Am I happy with his work on Wall Street Reform? Another C.

What seems to be the problem?

Obama miscalculated the damage that Reagan's trickle down economics and Bush and Cheney's tax cut had done to our economic system, and promised more than he could achieve. He also underestimated the Blue Dog Democrats - they're really Dixiecrats - and the Republican ideology of "Yes we Can" destroy Obama's plans.

Overall, I give his work up until now a B-. I give him points for achieving whatever he has done. The political climate is ridiculous.

In case you haven't read, some of the Gulf residents who are looking for his help on the BP oil spill and blame the administration for not doing more, are also saying he should not have a moratorium on deep drilling oil rigs, as they need the jobs. What about the Gulf fisherman? Don't they also need jobs?

If Obama he had more Democrats helping or more Republicans cooperating and achieved the same things I would give him an F. But he needs some help and his own party needs to get a backbone. If he gets help I'd like to see what he can accomplish. I believe he can work up to a B+.

The trouble with polls

2010-04-23T20:07:00.000-07:00

If you watch talk shows or listen to talk radio you hear some strange and confusing things.

The Democrats have a poll that shows that 67% of the people want a public option in the Health Care plan. The Republicans and the Tea Partiers have a poll that shows that 52 % of the people don't want any Health Care plan at all. How is it possible that both of them are right?

Simple. It depends on who is polled and how they are polled.

Take Jack Cafferty's poll. He editorializes before he asks the question which automatically skews the answers he gets. Take Ed Schultz's poll. His audience will come up with answers that he expects. The same goes for most of CNN's polls and the O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaughs polls. The same goes for Miringoff, Quinipiac, Roper, Gallop or anyone else.

They all have a list of whom to poll. After a few polls they have a pretty good idea of how a person will answer. They know who is Conservative, who is Liberal, and who is independent. So if they are being paid by someone who wants to show a Conservative or Liberal leaning, all they have to do is call those people who will give them the answers they are seeking.

They will argue that having that list shows trends, which is somewhat true. If 10% of the people they call show that they are changing their position it is what some organizations want to know.

Unfortunately it also allows them to skew the polls.

You pay me enough to poll and I will get a poll that shows some people believe that Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are the same guy. I will also get you a poll that says that most people do not believe any polls, because they have never been polled.

If you want to judge a poll, find out who paid for it. Think of what they are looking for, and how they benefit from the poll.

The problem with some polls is that we elect our officials sometimes because of poll numbers and they vote on legislation based on polling. Polls can be beneficial, but remember to question why they're done.

No poll can show what the American electorate really thinks. They are just samples and should be treated as samples.

That is why they are sometimes dead wrong.

Hypocrisy and the Hippocratic Oath

2010-03-29T17:12:00.000-07:00

One last try to change at least one person's opinion an abortion and health care.

Abortion comes under health care in incidents of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. It does not come under health care when it is elective - if the mother just decides she does not want the baby. If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs had only fought to have elective abortions uncovered, they would not have been hypocrites, that's their standard view. But to include rape, incest and health issues made their objections not about health, but about religion.

Religion should not be a basis for government decisions on health care.

Health issues are a basis for a sound economy. We cannot allow people who are sick to go without care because they cannot afford it, because ultimately the people who can afford it pay for it anyway.

Republicans and Tea Partiers denounce the so-called "Obamacare" as Socialism, but with the elimination of the public option, it's strikingly similar to the Massachusetts plan for which Mitt Romney takes credit. Why do they so vehemently stick to this cry of Socialism, when, ironically, the demographics of the aging Tea Partiers show a large percentage of them to be recipients of Social Security and Medicare, government programs much more closely related to the Socialism they claim to despise.

And what about the Republican congressmen and senators who receive government health care at the same time they lambaste the concept of government health care. If the government can administer their care why not the citizens who pay for it.

Two mad dogs are loose

2010-01-13T19:38:00.000-08:00

Dick Cheney should be the last one to criticize anyone on how to handle terrorists.

The same goes for former Mayor Giuliani.

When you have a catastrophe most of the intelligence is to move people out of harm's way as quickly as possible.

That was done with the Tsunami. Done, though poorly, with Hurricane Katrina. Done when we have a tornado and almost any other catastrophe.

But in the 9/11 debacle Giuliani took the opposite approach. If you were stuck in the area during 9/11, Giuliani made sure you were stuck there. Buses and subways avoided the area. Traumatized New Yorkers had to go to Canal Street, which was quite a walk, to get a subway. if you were in a wheelchair or walked with a cane that became virtually impossible. You just had to stay and breathe the stale and suffocating air.

I am sure they thought there was a good reason for that approach, but it did not work out. Giuliani's plan may have been done with good intentions, but it wasn't good and he should not pretend now that it was. He should not take pride in saying he did a great job under those circumstances.

Afghanistan

2009-12-05T22:02:00.001-08:00

Unfortunately those who want to continue the war in Afghanistan and those who want immediate withdrawal have no crystal ball and do not know how either approach will turn out.

We are there because our previous president thought wrongly that we should be there. The hawks who got us there are still hawking about how it is necessary to be there. I would like to get out of there as quickly as possible but the president has made his decision and he thinks it is the right one.

Unlike our previous administration I do not believe he minimizes the horror of the war or the expense or war's burden on the American people. I am confident he would like to get this mess over with as quickly as possible.

The one phrase I was looking for was a challenge to the Afghani people: "Get your government to take over the fight against your enemies and our enemies and those who believe terrorizing the rest of the world is the answer. When you can prove you are capable of protecting yourselves and other countries from terrorists we will withdraw."

If I were President Obama I would say. . .

2009-10-17T22:50:00.000-07:00

Fellow Americans;

When I ran for the presidency I promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, regulate Wall Street and banking, clean up the real estate industry, the credit card companies and the Insurance companies. I also promised health care reform and fair Immigration policies. Those were my priorities.

The framers of the Constitution, in order to protect our citizens, divided the powers into Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches. They envisioned all these groups working together. They did not foresee the enormous power that big business would attain, and the money its lobbyists would spread around to buy your representatives votes.

There are representatives who keep blocking our road of success because they would like to see me fail. There are representatives who pledge their allegiance to the campaign contributions of big business. There are others who vote for their constituency to the detriment of the country. They refuse to realize we are one nation and as president I am sworn to serve you all.

Fortunately, in our democracy you can make the changes I am fighting for happen. If you believe in these changes you have the final vote. You can tell your representatives to support the policies you elected me to enact or you can vote them out of office.

Thank you.

(I am sure he would say it better - if he took off the kid gloves and spoke up for himself.)

True campaign reform

2009-09-30T20:28:00.000-07:00

1) No elected or appointed official who receives a pension for his/her government work can then go on to work with or for a lobbying group without forfeiting his/her pension.

Reason: It makes no sense to have an elected official use his/her job to further a career at voters' expense, and then work against the voters' interest.

2) All candidates shall have a cap put on the amount of money spent on their campaigns, beginning with the smallest political jurisdiction. The candidate running against an incumbent shall be allowed to have an additional 50% to spend.

Reason: An incumbent has the advantage of name recognition and office and record. This levels the playing field a bit.

3) The campaign shall not be allowed to spend the money alloted to it until a specified date which should not be six months before the election.

Reason: This will help do away with the incumbents' needs to start fundraising while they are supposed to be working on legislation. This will also help because it eliminates the need for the outrageous sums of money spent on elections by parties and candidates.

Realistically I do not expect these points to be taken seriously by incumbents, political parties, TV networks, newspapers, radio stations or anyone else who makes money on elections.

But one can hope.

Beware of Bi-Partisan Compromises

2009-09-06T07:35:00.000-07:00

While bi-partisanship occasionally works to improve legislation, it often leaves both sides unhappy. Compromise is only possible when both sides have a common goal and a common desire to succeed. When one side only wants to make the other side look bad, compromise is nearly impossible.

There's no satisfactory compromise on Gay Marriage or Universal Health Care, there are only compromises on ways to achieve those goals. Either you want everyone to have the right to marry or you don't. Either you believe everyone should have access to affordable medical care or you don't. Now, compromises are possible in determining how you achieve affordable medical care but not as to whether or not you should have it.

Here are two examples of the problem with compromise:

A group: All people should have the right to marry.
B group: No.
A group: Let's compromise- Only those over 35 years of age.
B group: OK, but only if they were previously married to a person of the opposite sex - and had the marriage annulled.
A group: In the interest of bi-partisanship and compromise we can go along with that.

A group: We should increase taxes on all those who make over $1,000,000 dollars a year.
B group: No.
A group: How about if we make it $1,000,000 dollars and they must have
$10,000,000 in the bank.
B group: How about $10,000,000 and $5,000,000,000 in the bank.
A group: In the interest of bi-partisanship and compromise we can go along with that.

Someone always ends up with the short end of the stick. Add in campaign finances, lobbyists and the need to get re-elected and the all of the public ends up with the short end of the stick.

Obama not fighting the good fight on health care

2009-08-18T19:42:00.000-07:00

Our president seems to be slipping in the polls and he deserves to be.

The candidate I voted for was a man of principles and intelligence. The one who has taken on the fight for health care reform is neither.

It does not make any sense to keep fighting for what he cannot get. The Republicans are out to have him fail on the health care initiative. He is also losing the moderates, and liberals who he promised to protect.

In his knuckling down to the Republicans and the Mad Dog Democrats he has done a disservice to the people who voted for him. The cooperative idea has absolutely no chance of working and may be an even bigger disaster than our present system.

Here is why. The cooperative idea will cost a lot of money with no strings attached or plans to ensure it will work. Some cooperatives will have different rules than others and someone moving will have to join with different rules. In order to achieve maximum benefit, it is likely that some cooperatives will not take in people with pre-existing conditions. Some cooperatives will be taken over by the very people who are against making the health care system better. I can see the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and those that will gain from weak rules and entry conditions doing so.

The only system that will work to reform health care is one that takes the good of Medicare and and expands on it.

So in order for our president to do what he promised, he has to fight for a public option and explain why to the American people and those who are fighting him on it. They will back him and vote out the naysayers. But to do so the president will have to regain his principles and intelligence.

Term limits: Good or bad?

2009-07-01T07:43:00.000-07:00

Let's look at the political system.

The average elected official starts out at the local level. After being elected more than once he/she gets to be on committees and perhaps chair them. This brings more money to their campaigns (and perhaps pockets) and more pork to their districts. They use the fact that they have brought this pork home to their districts as a reason to re-elect them.

When the next position up the ladder opens up, they run for that position. If they are elected to a state position and get on committees and chair them then they make more money and have more power. This encourages them to run for Congress. Possibly even for the Presidency. That is the normal progression.

If you have lots of money or name recognition, you can skip some of the steps. You can run for Mayor, Governor, or President without doing the grunt work at the lower-level positions.

The problem with continuous incumbency, however, is that after a while the politicians forget who elected them and why. They believe they were elected simply to make more money, get bigger pensions and gain more power.

But who benefits from this power? They do. The lobbyists who've supported them do. Like barnacles, lobbyists seek out the most ambitious or most needy politicians and attach themselves for the ride. It is much easier to have influence over people who see you as a means of helping them keep their jobs, or have greater ambitions. You can offer to help finance their run or offer them people who would work for them.

The politicians with power have power to vote a lobbyist's position or keep an opponent from voting against it.

Others who gain from that power are the non-profit organizations that need their funding to exist. On rare occasions these non-profit organizations are even threatened with lack of funding if they do not help in the candidate's campaign.

Who loses from this increasing power?

The average voter who just wants a fair shake in the legislative process. The consumer who wants to see the banks, the credit card companies, the utilities and the cable companies treat them fairly and honestly, and the agencies that exist to protect the consumer, do just that.

If you take a look at the politicians who have committed malfeasance in office you will invariably find that they were career politicians.

So the process that makes incumbency desirable - the ability to gain more power for your constituents - is the very process that makes term limits the smart thing - because the amassed power rarely comes back to help the constituents.

Many politicians go into politics with altruistic purposes, but the system - with their own compliance - beats and corrupts them.

Spoiling the party

2009-06-23T05:38:00.000-07:00

Our politicians think we are all fools and if we let them get away with their shenanigans we are.

Our election boards spend lots of time and tons of taxpayer money to have primaries so Democrats and Republicans can vote for who they want from that party to represent them in general elections. It is almost like a contract. For elected officials to then change their mind about their party affiliations during their term in office is tantamount to breaking a contract. If the elected official is not happy to represent that party, and the voters, the official should resign. While still in office the official should vote his or her conscience - if he or she has one.

The time to change parties is if and when they run again

We have just had Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate make a mockery of the voting process in N.Y. State. They have played games with their party affiliations and the voters, for financial and personal gain.

They have made the whole election process a joke, and stalled the legislation process. If Albany cannot do anything about this fiasco, then the voters should. They should call for a referendum limiting the State elected officials to two terms. One that cannot be overruled.

When Pro-Life Means Death

2009-06-05T20:23:00.000-07:00

An open letter to those who celebrated the death of Dr. Tiller.

To preach violence is the sheer height of hypocrisy for anyone who claims they are "Pro Life." Scott Roeder killed another person, but I will not call it murder. Only a jury in a court of law can do so, under the American justice system.

If you are a woman and believe that abortion is wrong you have the right not to have one. You, other women, and men also have the right to tell others that you believe abortion is wrong. You all have the right to advocate to make abortion illegal. What you do not have the right to do is call for violence because of your belief.

Abortion is not murder unless a court says it is. If you think the doctor who performs it is committing a crime you have the right in our justice system to make that claim. You also have the right to vote for anyone who believes the way you do.

Today you go after the doctor, soon you will go over the individuals who were responsible for the fetus in the first place.

What has always seemed strange is that some "Pro Life" advocates also approve of war, gun owners rights, and the death penalty. As for gun ownership, no Pro-Life advocate has ever needed a gun to protect himself from a Pro-Choice doctor. But unfortunately, too many Pro-Choice doctors seem to need guns to protect themselves from those who call themselves Pro-Life.

Pro-Life advocates should try to create a climate in which the children of natural disasters, like floods, fires, earthquakes, poverty. etc. can look forward to a brighter future. They should also provide comfort and support for women forced to make decisions that may forever scar them and acknowledge that some fetuses allowed to come to term would live extremely short, terribly painful lives. Sometimes abortion is the most humane course of action.

Humanity. Sympathy. Empathy. That's what I consider Pro-Life.

Transparency and campaign reform

2009-04-05T20:59:00.000-07:00

Most voters are familiar with the pork and earmark money that comes into their districts. They are made aware of these funds by their representatives through newsletters and campaign literature.

But those funds come at a price and representatives, while they tout their successes, don't publicize that price.

Here is a simple method of campaign reform.

It should be made mandatory that representative's newsletters, which, after all, are paid for (whether they want them or not) by the constituents, must contain the voting record of the representative on all issues. It should also be mandatory that all campaign donors and their donated amounts be listed. Candidates running against an incumbent must also list all their donors and campaign contributions. In the event that the opposing candidate has a previous voting record it should also be listed.

These transparencies will give voters the information needed to make an informed voting decision.

If the representative doesn't want to list his/her voting record or their campaign contributions in his/her newsletter he/she must at the very least list them in a local newspaper.

If nothing else, we may find that our mailboxes will be stuffed with less useless political material.

Best way to help small business? Not banks

2009-03-19T06:40:00.000-07:00

Why is the administration begging banks to loan money to small businesses, when it has under its wing the Small Business Administration?

Instead of giving direct loans as it once did it is depending on the banks to make loans to small businesses. As it stands now a small business corporation must be turned down by two banks for a loan before the Small Business Administration will get involved.

Obviously the banks, without regulation, are not a dependable source for deciding who should get loans and who should not.

The Small Business Administration should be in the business of helping Small Business grow. I cannot see how the extra cost of administration with the banks helps in this area.

The Indispensable Mayor

2009-03-02T20:36:00.000-08:00

The mayor who makes his money with Bloomberg News, which covers the world of business, did not see the economic disaster before us, but now tells us he and only he has the knowledge to correct the situation.

(He also was in favor of deregulation of banks, which was one of the causes of this disaster.)

Here are some of his great ideas. He wanted to have a stadium built in downtown New York City. Then he decided to help his friends the Yankees and Bruce Ratner with tax breaks the City could not afford, so that he and his friends could have special seats at the new Yankee stadium.

Then he decided on the Congestion Pricing plan that was dependent on the MTA providing good service in order for it to work.

The other day at 1:30 in the afternoon I went downtown and there was standing room only on he subway because the MTA cut back on some of the trains.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the mayor's Congestion Pricing plan had gone into effect.

Now he has decided tolls on bridges going into Manhattan is a great idea and making a mall for tourists will work. The plan is to stop Broadway traffic and make motorists use Seventh Avenue. But the traffic on both these streets is mainly bus and Taxi traffic. If everyone on Broadway is routed to Seventh Avenue all we've done is created a massive traffic jam on Seventh Avenue.

And to get even with the people who voted for term limits he decided to thumb his nose at them and run again.

Beware an INDISPENSABLE, UNAPPROACHABLE, UNIMPEACHABLE MAYOR.

Bi-partisanship is like Trickle-Down-Economics: Neither works

2009-02-18T05:42:00.000-08:00

Bipartisanship can't work because loyalty to party and winning at all cost is a priority. The very fact that there are minority and majority leaders and whips proves it.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, Republicans started to attack immediately. Newt Gingrich declared a "Contract for America." The Republicans went after Clinton in numerous ways that had nothing to do with governance.

When he lied to them on a sexual matter it only made it easier for them. They would not help him with the Health Care issue. Then they bugged him with the nice sounding idea of giving the public the right to opt out of government Social Security and invest in the stock market. We know how that would have ended. In spite of an uncooperative and unfriendly Congress he managed to leave our economy in excellent shape.

Then came "the Decider". He decided he would lie to Congress, the American people, and the rest of the world. He would get us into an unnecessary war that was costly in lives and finances. Then he and his Republican majority resurrected the failed "trickle down theory," which may work, but only if everyone plays by the rules. Self aggrandizement cannot enter into the equation.

For example, a grandfather leaves money in his will for his grandchildren's college education. He makes the father the executor. The father buys a new luxury car, a yacht, and a private plane to take him to meetings, and uses up the trickle down money. Then the "Decider" with help from Phil Gramm of Texas and other friends induce Alan Greenspan, the Economic advisor, to push for Deregulation of the Banking industry. The justification is to shore up the stock market with low interest loans. It will also allow Americans to buy into the American Dream, (home ownership). That they could not afford this dream was not considered, so the dream turned into a nightmare. (Incidentally they did it with the help of some Democrats.)

Disaster followed so the public looking for change voted for a Democrat named Obama.

The Republicans who came close to destroying the country suddenly thought they had all the answers. They demanded changes in Obama's stimulus package, but even when they got some of their tax cuts in the bill, refused to help pass it.

Here is why.

1. If it succeeds they take credit for making it successful.

2. If it fails they then blame Obama for not including enough of their proposals in the bill.

Conclusion: When winning is the only thing, bipartisanship gets in the way. If our Congress spent 1/4 of the time governing that they do campaigning, we would have far more sensible laws and much better government.

My priorities for the Stimulus Plan

2009-02-11T06:00:00.000-08:00

1. Create Jobs.
2. Take care of Infrastructure, Amtrak
3. Help States and Cities with Unemployment insurance, Schools, libraries, and local transportation
4. Help individual home owners, prioritize those who lost there jobs.
5. No tax rebates.
6. Help solvent banks give loans and credit. Banks were too busy with Big Business, and balooning Real Estate prices they could not sustain at the expense of Small Business.
7. No money for subprime lenders and failed banks.
8. No money for Hedge funds.
9. No money for Sports Arenas.
10. No money for Wall Street and Failed Financial Institutions.

I would go back to regulating banks and Wall Street. Wall Street should never have been artificially shored up with low interest for Real Estate loans. Clients took money out of the banks because of low interest and invested their savings in stocks and we all know what happened. A good business climate is enough to pay dividends on stocks. Credit card companies and banks with low opening charges induced peopple who should have known better to buy on credit they could not afford to pay, because they did not have money in the bank when things got tough.

The problem with politics

2009-01-16T06:03:00.000-08:00

Here are three examples of conversations between paid lobbyists and elected officials. They're not verbatim, but you get the idea:

Lobbyist to Representative: Your leader said I should speak to you. If you want the money for your library we need your help on HR deregulation. He needs your yes vote.

Lobbyist to Representative: The M.T. A. will give you the expansion of the bus route you wish. It will look good on your campaign literature. All they need in return is help on eminent domain and re-zoning. It is a good trade off for you.

Lobbyist to Representative: The government needs your help on the filter plant that we wish to put in your district. In return we will give you money for parks and other things you need for your resume. But we really don't care if you use the money for the parks, etc.

MTA - No Sense or sensibility

2008-12-10T18:20:00.000-08:00

Congress is grilling the Big Three Automakers on what they will do with bailout billions if they get it.

That makes sense.

I believe that New York City's Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) should also be grilled on price increases and tolls on the East River Bridges.

Not too long ago politicians were extolling the virtues of the MTA as being reasonable and an alternative to driving that would make congestion pricing in Manhattan feasible.

Obviously they were wrong.

I have not used the East River Bridges in over ten years, but believe the new plan is a stupid approach to what we are led to believe is a temporary condition. If we spend money now to convert the bridges to toll roads they will remain toll roads forever and be subject to continual increases. They will further make New York a divided city.

To turn the bridges over to the MTA is asinine.

They must put their own house in order first.

They should give up their pool of limousines and chauffeurs. Give up their free EZ passes and learn their own public transit system. Stop spending money on fancy offices. Stop adding high paid executives. Stop paying for cost overruns on construction projects. In short stop wasting money before they are entitled to a raise in fares.

Local political clubs are about control, not reform

2008-11-13T07:09:00.000-08:00

The political club, in theory, is where democracy begins. It is the grass roots of politics. In practice it is also the graveyard of democracy at times.

It started out as a forum where like-minded individuals went to discuss issues so that their elected officials could represent them on these very issues. It evolved into an organization whose sole function is to elect incumbent officials. It does not matter whether the club is Democratic, Republican, Independent, Conservative, Liberal, or somewhere in-between.

It is run by the President and the Board of Directors who make up the agenda.The Board of Directors usually is made up of
the elected official's employees and dedicated people who are generally good petitioners. Generally they are there to protect the officials and put forward their agenda.

That is why you rarely see people who challenge the incumbents in a club have much success. The only time you see any new people running for office from a club is when the present official does not run. Most of the time the club assumes the name of the elected official and loses its own identity. It becomes Jose's club, or Marie's club, etc. Incumbency is the name of the game. The endorsement feature usually locks out challengers. The incumbent generally has an advantage over any challenger, because he/she can point to his ability to bring home money to his constituency.

The word "Reform" is a misnomer once the elected officials are elected more than once. It becomes just like a "Regular" club.

Issues become less important than campaigning and keeping power.

'Indispensable Mayor' or Grim Fairy Tale

2008-10-15T21:25:00.000-07:00

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided that he is indispensable and must run for a third term to save the City from economic disaster.

That is a fairy tale.

Let me give you some reasons why.

In the first place his term does not come up until next year, by which time he may not be needed to save us. In the second place, the buddies he pals around with and usually hand picks for appointments come from Real estate, Banking, and Wall Street. These are the very people who got us into this mess with the help of our Congress.

They decided at the behest of President Bush and the Republican party and some Democrats that there was no need for a watchdog in the economy, that the Real Estate , Banking and Wall Street people were of such a high caliber that they could and would police the industry.

What they did with this trust is have a party at our expense. Enormous bonuses were paid to undeserving Executives. Then they gave tremendous golden parachutes to departing Executives. If a golden parachute was not enough they bribed the executive with a platinum one.

All this was done on Mayor Bloomberg's watch. His office is not too far from Wall Street, and his company's ticker tape showed the market trends, yet he could not see what was coming. So how can he help us.

Think about it. Would you keep a shortstop on your team who kept making errors, simply because he had experience.

If Mayor Bloomberg really wants to prove his value, he should convene an expert group of economists - people like Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, Robert Rubin and even Alan Greenspan to work on the problem with him. If they are successful, then he could retire as the Statesman he deserves to be.

A Bronx Cheer for a Cheerleader

2008-10-06T20:52:00.000-07:00

I watched the vice president's debate the other night and came away with this thought: I do not know which debate the Conservatives who gave Sarah Palin rave reviews were watching. After all she was debating to prove that she and John McCain could do the job of making our economy stronger and changing the Washington work ethic. She did nothing to allay my fears about either, because she never explained what her plans to do so were. I could definitely agree with her about changing the tone in Washington. We need to get rid of some Democrats along with some Republicans. I would also have liked to hear an explanation about how we get rid of the Lobbyist power structure. At least Joe Biden gave some figures about the votes of John McCain that can be fact-checked. Palin said little "wrong" because she said so little.

What I finally decided is that Sarah wins hand down on perkiness? Which reminds me of the famous line in "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," when Lou Grant says to Mary, "You are perky. But I don't like perky."

The economy is more important than perkiness.

Sarah's smiling and winking led me to the conclusion that if we need a cheerleader for our country, I would
definitely hire her. She should apply for the job of National Cheerleader.

Hypocrisy: The Republican Credo

2008-09-02T21:00:00.000-07:00

If I had to pick the biggest difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, I think it would be that the Republicans believe they can live by different rules.

When Pres. Clinton had troops in Kosovo the Republicans not only criticized him (although it's now unpatriotic to criticize Pres. Bush's war and the conduct of it), but tried to impeach Clinton on a private matter. They also used the private matters of Elliot Spitzer, Jim McGreevey and John Edwards to bring them down.

But when Neil Bush, got mixed up in the Silverado Bank scandal they swept it under the rug. When Pres. Bush used the power of eminent domain to take property away from small businesses to build the Texas Rangers Stadium, that too was swept under the rug. When Newt Gingrich had marital problems,the broom came out again. You also do not hear too much of the Giuliani marital problems nor John McCain's.

When Geraldine Ferraro was running for Vice-President her husband was fair game even though it was a private matter.
So how come the Republicans are screaming that Vice President candidate Sarah Palin's unmarried pregnant daughter's problem should be off the table because it is a private matter.

Now Obama can be magnanimous and say it should not be used as campaign fodder, but I don't have to.

The Republicans keep screaming that the Democrats are appeasers. I agree. Under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi they have done a tremendous job of appeasing the Republicans.

The 'Surge' a Pyrrhic victory

2008-07-29T12:11:00.000-07:00

I won't bore you with the fact that I predicted going to war with Iraq would achieve nothing in making us safer - I'm still trying to figure out what it hoped to accomplish.

If the goal was to get rid of Saddam we won the war a long time ago. If the idea was to get rid of the nuclear threat of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, then the war was unwinnable from its wrongly-conceived start. If the idea was to get oil from Iraq at a cheap price we may never know the outcome, but so far it's not working out to well. I do know a lot of lives were lost and an enormous amount of money that could have made life easier for many Americans was wasted.

Now let us look at the "Surge." If we give those in favor of this surge credit for for what the surge has accomplished, Iraq is now safer for American soldiers who did not have to be there. As recent suicide bomb blasts show it's still not too safe to be an Iraqi and it's difficult to see Iraq becoming a tourist destination any time soon. At the same time have we not made it more difficult for our troops in Afghanistan by having so many surge troops occupied in Iraq? Assuming the surge has made Iraq safer, did it not do so at the cost of worsened problems in Afghanistan? That;s of course assuming we really accomplished anything in Iraq and not merely put off the problem until we leave.

How the rich get richer

2008-06-30T21:21:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I finished a book called "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnston. It should be a must read for Republicans, Democrats, Independents, voters and non-voters. It details how government decides that the middle class is not entitled to a free lunch, but forces the middle class to pay for banquets for the very wealthy.

I have always maintained that voters who care more about the money brought home to their district than the overall votes cast by their representatives are allowing the wealthy to get wealthier at their expense.

The lobbyists and the people they work for:The utilities, the banks, the cable companies, the trucking industry, the construction industry, the oil industry, the credit card companies, Wall Street, the real estate industry, the defense industry, and even some Unions, all gorge themselves with the help of your votes.

Representatives bring money home to their districts by voting against your interest on bills that eventually cost you money.

"Free Lunch" shows you how this is happening. It shows how our representatives - even before they leave office - are setting up jobs for themselves in the industries they help with their votes.

It is not an easy read but it is well worth it. Take "Free Lunch" a chapter at a time and devour it.

Whose special interest? Not mine

2008-01-25T21:06:00.000-08:00

If you have been watching the debates and listening to the language something should be clear. Except for John Edwards and Ron Paul the candidates never explain who the Special Interests are that they will fight for you.

I will give you a small list of some of them. They are in no special order.

The Cable industry. They give you one year leases and with almost every renewal they raise the prices.

The internet providers. Almost the same tactic.

The phone providers. Hey they learned also.

The credit card companies. They have the right to change terms at their discretion.

The banks. They also can change terms at their discretion and make arbitrary charges.

The HMOS. After the first year they also can change terms.

The Utilities. They can tear up your streets for their convenience, take forever to make the necessary improvements and inconvenience the public with no oversight.

The Transportation industry. Whenever they have to give one of their retiring executives a "Golden Parachute" they can get the money from the public by raising the fares.

The Bridge and turnpike authorities. They too can raise the tolls whenever they feel they need to.

Disagree with their policies and they answer that they can do what they want because the law says so .The Public Commissions
that are supposed to oversee the industries are rubber stamps.

These are only a few. Sometimes I feel that the only Special Interests they will fight against are mine.

"Congestion Pricing": What Mayor Bloomberg must do

2007-09-03T20:59:00.000-07:00

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "Congestion Pricing" plan is an ego trip, or a plan to pay back Wall Street, corporate America and the real estate industry for all they've done to make Bloomberg a billionaire.

To say it works in London therefore it will work in New York is nonsense. London is laid out differently. It makes absolutely no sense to invest tax dollars on "Congestion Pricing" until you have worked out the method for providing for the additional riders to New York's mass transit system.

Our present system already does a poor job. In order for you to persuade car users to give up their cars you have to convince them that mass transportation can get them where they need to go in a timely, safe, comfortable manner, at a price that won't break them. You also must convince them that the system will stay that way.

Here is what the mayor must do.

He must upgrade the train stations and provide them all with working bathrooms. He must upgrade the trains and buses. He must figure out a way to get more mass transportation to more places and run more routes more often. If he can solve the problem of moving more people he should then bill Congress for the expenses and go on with "Congestion Pricing".

Personally, unless he has a plan for placing trains and buses on the West Side Highway and the East River Drive I'd say it can't be done with the limited North and South thoroughfares through Manhattan. But if he proceeds, he'll have to figure out how people are supposed to get to Manhattan's hospitals, hotels and Broadway shows, where everyone driving to the 86th Street border is supposed to park, whether the people who live in the 80s are going to have to pay $8 every time they move their cars and how many millions the city is going to have to spend to educate all its citizens and tourists of this crazy new plan.

Or is his real idea that people below a certain income just can't come into Manhattan anymore because they can't afford it.

Bloomberg for President?

2007-07-04T07:59:00.000-07:00

Can Michael Bloomberg win as an Independent Candidate?

In my humble opinion, the answer is no.

Independent candidates can win local elections, mayoral elections and state elections, but building a staff of the necessary workers to pull off a national election is too much to handle. People think that TV has narrowed the chances, but I believe it still is not enough. The only way an Independent candidate can win a national election is if there are local Independent parties and a slate for people to work for. Generally, a national candidate have very few favors he/she can call in.

Whatever their problems, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have party loyalists who will carry petitions and campaign for candidates they do not believe in because they are chosen by the party. An Independent hasn't got that clout, nor can be buy it.

Can Bloomberg beat Giuliani? I believe he can, but only because of the Bernard Kerik baggage that Giuliani has to carry and will be made an issue in the campaign. If it is possible to conceive, Rudy Giuliani may be the only person who can pick a worse Attorney General than President Bush.

I also believe in a national campaign neither Bloomberg nor Giuliani would carry New York State.

The rest of the state has not benefited one iota from Bloomberg's plans to make New York City the Corporate Capital of the World.

Leave them laughing

2007-05-23T19:47:00.000-07:00

"Leave Them Laughing" is an entertainment phrase that says, know when to leave the stage.

The McConnell, Gingrich and McCain group should learn that lesson.

Instead of claiming that leaving Iraq now will embolden our enemies and demoralize our troops they should give a little more thought to the alternative - the lives we'll save.

When President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier and announced that we have accomplished our mission, that was the time to declare victory and leave the stage.

Whether you believed or disbelieved in the war is not the point. Since his famous announcement, this mismanaged war has been all downhill. Nothing is more demoralizing to a soldier than to learn that the promises made to him were pure bull. When you get National Guardsmen and women who are not really trained for this kind of combat and keep adding time to their tour of duty, nothing the Anti-war people will say is more demoralizing.

Here is another analogy: A fighter getting mercilessly beaten in the ring, thanks his cornerman for saving his life. He says, " I was being beaten so bad that I could not think, my cornerman realizing this threw in the towel." I later became a champion.

Sometimes you have to face reality.

Understanding political terms

2007-05-06T10:47:00.000-07:00

Here are some political terms you ought to really understand.

Bipartisan: "We are hoping to receive bipartisan support." What it really means is if you vote my way you are right, if you do not you are an ideologue and an idiot, and I do not want to hear from you.

Get involved: "It is important for you to get involved in the political process." What it really means is send me your campaign contribution.

Campaign Reform: "We are hoping to push campaign reform before the next election." This really means do not send a campaign contribution to my opponent.

Political Pundit: "CNN and Fox will get their talking points from a political pundit." This is a person who gets paid for spouting party rhetoric. See also apologist, propagandist. See Ed Rollins, Robert Novak, James Carville, Paul Begala, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter etc.

Loudmouths and money

2007-04-14T09:32:00.000-07:00

If you listen long enough you will hear every loudmouth speak when their brain is not working.

Imus was utterly stupid about his remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team, insultingly speaking about people he did not even know - and who were academically on target. He was not talking about Little Kim, or Foxy Brown. He must have thought he was a rap artist, who mouth those expressions to make money.

Then he goes and apologizes to the likes of Rev. "Hymietown" Jackson, and Rev. "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton. If either of these men spoke out about the raunchy and denigrating lyrics of the rappers as vociferously as they condemned Imus, maybe they could clean up the rappers' acts.

After Imus's firing, Rev. Sharpton recently said rappers are next, but in going after obscene rap he will meet resistance in the black community, where many, including music mogul Russell Simmons, view the lyrics as ghetto poetry.

We make a mockery of the situation when we allow Talk Radio people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Howard Stern.
James Carville, Bob Grant, Michael Savage, and Imus to make scads of money and then be offended by what they say. Some of them spew outright hatred, while others traffick in a raunchy, insulting comedy that's funny to some and hurtful to others. Unfortunately if we outlawed this kind of speech, we would end Talk Radio . . . and political campaigns.

But the radio talkers and TV pundits are only the tip of the iceberg. The high-paid corporate suits who hire these people and their demeaning talk, know exactly who their audience is - and where their wallets are.

Wrong rhetoric, wrong time

2007-03-26T19:30:00.000-07:00

Today I listened to Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, one of the President's apologists for a terrible war plan.

This administration went to war with the unprepared troops they had. They went to war with the wrong intelligence. They also went to war with the wrong equipment. Then they fired the Generals and the Architect of this war.

General Petraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates say we should give them another six months and more troops and they can win this thing. What they can't do is explain what "winning" means. If winning means further decimating the Iraqi
population and our own armed forces - and making Iran bolder - then I don't want to win.

The Democrats are giving Petraeus and Gates a year, twice what they say they need.

But Sen. Kyl criticizes them for giving the enemy the timetable for our withdrawal.

It's Petraeus and Gates, however, who have provided the timetable. Six months. But someone needs to ask them what they intend to do if we have not succeeded in six months.

The public has had enough of this war and the Democrats know it. They keep saying the public voted them in to stop the war. So stop it. Meaningless and gutless non-binding resolutions are a waste of time. They should make use of their public support and stop playing chicken.

Attorney General: The People's Lawyer

2007-03-23T10:54:00.000-07:00

When John Mitchell was President Nixon's Attorney General and Robert Kennedy was his brother's Attorney General, I wrote my Congressman with a question: "Where in the Constitution or any amendments is the provision that makes the Attorney General the Presidents lawyer?"

I never got an answer.

I have asked this question repeatedly of our distinguished elected officials and either they do not know or care.

But it seems to me the Attorney General should be the people's lawyer and above partisan politics. He should even protect the people from an abusive President, Democrat or Republican.

I therefore think he should be proposed and nominated by a senate panel of four Democrats and four Republicans (with an Independent, should there be one) and confirmed by 75% of the Senate.

I have always believed that the Attorney General function should be to protect the Constitution and the laws of the land for everyone and the prosecutors should not be appointed at the President's behest and subject to his or her political philosophy.

The winds of change give us different political parties in power, but laws should not be subject to these changes.

The Attorney General should only be fired for malfeasance and subjected to an impeachment procedure conducted by the House of Representatives.

Tax cuts or troop support

2007-03-07T08:04:00.000-08:00

The Conservatives who keep telling us how they support the troops have some explaining to do.

They were offered the choice of giving our troops the proper armor and arms to fight in Iraq and properly care for them should they be wounded ... or a tax cut.

They could not figure how they could give a tax cut and still take care of the troops they say they support but when push came to shove they chose the tax cut.

So much for caring for the troops.

SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

Resolve

2007-02-19T18:01:00.000-08:00

When you ask average Conservatives what they like best about President Bush they say it is his resolve. He believes strongly and religiously what his mission is. It is a show of his strong character.

The Dixie Chicks also showed strong resolve. At a loss of some of their fans and income, they took a stand. They showed resolve. They were rewarded with a return of some of their fans, got new fans and maybe got back some of their lost revenue.
The people who admired President Bush's resolve were intensely annoyed with the Dixie Chicks resolve. Only time will tell whether they win back their deserters.

I wish the Democrats in Congress would show some of the Dixie Chicks' resolve although it is not whether you have resolve that counts, it is whether you are right or wrong. I have resolve, but if I am wrong I am not doing anyone any good by being resolute.

Being right and resolute is the best of both worlds.

Guest? Who invited them?

2007-02-08T06:12:00.000-08:00

Mrs. Brown was a lovely neighbor. She had an open door policy. She would share coffee with her lady neighbors, and every once in a while prepare a luncheon to sit and exchange pleasantries.

Mrs. Williams was one of her neighbors. One day she saw Mrs. Brown coming out of her car with packages. She offered to help her, and asked her why she had so many packages. Mrs. Brown explained she was having a party for her mother-in-law that afternoon.

That afternoon, Mrs. Williams came with her husband and two children to Mrs. Brown's party.

Mrs. Brown had prepared just enough, but decided to let Mrs. Williams join them. That was a mistake. She can no longer get rid of Mrs. Williams who barges in every time she sees cars pull up to Mrs. Browns house. Even locking the door no longer helps. Mrs. Williams just rings the bell.

I do not feel sorry for Mrs. Brown.

I also do not feel sorry for the illegal immigrants who barge in unannounced. I do feel sorry for the legal immigrants who wish to make a home here and contribute to the American dream. They have to share housing, education, hospitalization, etc. with those who may or may not care to be part of the scene.

Like Mrs. Williams who went home to her own family after partaking of Mrs. Brown's kindness, the Guest Worker program will not benefit anyone but the Guest Worker and the Corporations that need cheap and exploited labor.

What if we win?

2007-01-31T20:29:00.000-08:00

Because of poor and skewered intelligence over 9/11 and WMDs we have gone to war in Iraq - and we went into this one unprepared militarily and without a defined mission.

Winning, of course, is the objective, it always is in war. But how will we define victory?

If Iraq gets a stable, elected, democratic government? If we put down the insurgency?

Will either of those accomplishments bring back the brave warriors we have lost? Will it bring back the innocent Iraqis who have also died for this cause? Will it weaken al Quaeda or stop them from sneaking across our open borders? Will it ease the animosity that we have created?

In other words ... suppose we win.

Whenever we leave, as we have promised to do, can we assure anyone that the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites won't start killing each other again? If they do, are we committed to go back again - and again? Will Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt allow an Islamic democratic government to flourish? I think not.

So even if we win we lose and at a tremendous cost of lives - and billions of dollars.

We have been told that leaving Iraq will embolden the enemy. It may. Being there has already done that and continuing to stay there will do that also. If we are going to embolden the enemy I would rather do it with less loss of lives.

What a waste of money

2007-01-29T05:08:00.000-08:00

To those of you who believe that you are not touched by the war, here is a brief recap.

To start a war you've got to propose a reason. The reason in the case of Iraq was that Iraq had WMDs and poison gas that they were going to use and that America was in immediate danger. This was the same Iraq that tried to inflict damage on the Israelis during the Gulf War with little success.

The Bush administration sold this to gullible Democrats and the public. So we "Shock and Awe" them into submission. Declare "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".

War over. NO way. Sadaam goes into hiding. After the mission was accomplished the carnage started. We got careless. We took away their arms and ammunition, but left them unguarded. So the Iraqis plot their revenge. We were told we would be welcomed with bouquets, instead we are welcomed with bombs. Because we were in a rush to start this war we sent our troops ill-prepared and with poor armor for their humvees.

We arranged for seemingly democratic elections. They elect a government and everything looks good. War over. NO way.

We make a huge tactical mistake. One of the rules of war is to know your enemy. There is absolutely no reason to get caught in an insurgency, which may turn into a civil war. Our military leaders didn't foresee that. They also should have foreseen that Iraq would become a haven for Syrian and Iranian terrorists, and that both of them would fund the Shiites. On top of that they should have foreseen the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds hatred for each other and the U.S.

The Iraqis have learned American politics. Their government asks for money and when they use it up they ask for more. We are caught in what should have been foreseeable. We are asking the very people we fought against to help us maintain order so that we can rebuild what we destroyed. All of this at a tremendous cost in lives, and broken bodies. Even with a scorecard one can't tell our enemies from our friends, because even our friends are enemies in Iraq. Would anyone in their right minds send more troops to this cause?

How does it affect you? Think of what we could do for our schools, for health insurance, for Medicare, for affordable housing, for New Orleans, and for countless ways to make us really safer with the billions squandered on this fools errand.

Bush, Lieberman and Iraq

2007-01-24T05:47:00.000-08:00

The "Great Decider" decided that the Saudis who were backed by the Taliban and did the 9/11 damage were really Iraqis.Then he decided that the people who told him there was no danger from Iraq from WMDs were lying to him. Now he has decided that we need more troops in Iraq so that we can win this war, and we cannot allow the enemy to declare a victory. He sold this nonsense to Joseph Lieberman, who has bought into the concept of winning the war.

Neither one has been able to convince me what winning the war means. Does it mean having an Iraqi government that we like and the Iraqi people hate, or having an Iraqi government that hates us and the Iraqi people like? The other question is who is our enemy? Is it Al Qaeda or the Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?

They also claim that retreat is not an option. Every military book I read considers it a viable option. In any case we will have to leave Iraq sometime. To some, even after ten years, it will look like a retreat. We have left soldiers there who will never come home.

To be a "Great Decider" one does not necessarily have to make great decisions. I would settle for good decisions.

The record speaks for itself.

The president's 'new' 'plan'

2007-01-14T20:16:00.000-08:00

To those of you who bought into the President's new plan, I think you ought to understand that it is premised on a very risky assumption.

We have been told that our success in this war depends on making Iraq safe, and the only way to do this is to send in more troops to take care of the Sunni militia and the Mahdi army. But the insurgency must be quelled by the Iraq army. What, however, happens if Maliki decides he would rather not try that? It becomes a failure.

What happens if he decides to try it, and the Mahdi army refuses to give up their arms, and fights back. We then have a family squabble that has become the civil war we are trying to avoid. That too is a failure.

Sometimes when you intervene in a family squabble, the participants make up and hate the interventionist.

Here is what I believe the Democrats in charge should do. If they honestly believe their own rhetoric then they cannot in all sincerity vote the funds for this "surge." They should spend the next week or two taking their case to the public. If they have a good case, and I believe they do, they can persuade the public that this is the sensible path.

If, as we are now told, that regime change was our objective - not the WMDs - then we have already achieved our goal. The Democrats may believe that opposing escalation is too risky politically, but being honest about one's objectives is very important. It shows the world true resolve. Taking a small loss is always a better choice than taking a disaster.

We owe it to our soldiers, sailors, air force, marines and even civilians who gave of themselves, the satisfaction that they did not do it in vain. The best way to do that is to keep their friends from also making the same sacrifice.

Strategy? What strategy?

2007-01-07T11:51:00.000-08:00

To those of you who watched Sen. Lindsay Graham espouse the president's new strategy in Iraq, on Meet the Press, please remember that this was the same person who thought impeaching President Clinton was more important than the problem in Kosovo.

The "new" Iraq strategy? We have to send more troops to win the war, because we cannot afford to lose.

This, however, is atypical of the Republican strategy in other areas: We cannot pour more dollars into school aid unless we make the schools more accountable. We cannot afford to pour more dollars in a losing war on drugs. We cannot afford to spend more dollars on the losing war on poverty. We cannot afford to spend more money on Medicaid, Medicare, and Health care for our citizens.

We must, though, spend more money and invest more troops in the losing war in Iraq, because we cannot admit we are losing.

Bush Plays Texas Hold 'Em

2007-01-01T20:46:00.000-08:00

The president sits down at the card table with Joe Democrat, Ahmad Kurd, Ali Sunni and Sam Maliki. He is dealt a ten of diamonds and a king of diamonds. Joe is dealt a nine of spades and jack of spades. Ahmad is dealt a king of hearts and king of clubs. Ali is dealt a queen of hearts and a queen of clubs. Sam is dealt an ace of clubs and an ace of hearts.

The president bets $20,000 and Joe sees him. Ahmad raises him $40,000 and Ali Raises Ahmad $40,000. Sam knows he has the best hand but he wants to set a trap so he just sees the raise. The president, not wishing to cut and run, sees Ali and so does Ahmad.

The dealer then opens a nine of diamonds, a seven of hearts and an ace of diamonds. This gives the president four diamonds and a heart, Joe a pair of nines, Ahmad a pair of Kings, Ali a pair of queens and Sam three aces. The president bets $50,000, Joe sees him, Ahmad and Ali also sees him, but Sam Raises him $100,000. They all see the bet but Joe.

The dealer then turns over a queen of diamonds. This gives the President a flush, Ahmad a pair of kings, Ali three queens and Sam three aces.

The president bets $100,000. Ahmad folds. Ali sees and so does Sam thinking the President may have a flush.

The last card is an ace of spades. The president still has his flush, Ali has a full house and Sam has four aces.

The President bets $100,000. Ali raises him $100,000 and Sam goes all in. The president already has so much invested he wants to stay the course so he sees Sam as does Ali.

Sam takes the big pot.

As Kenny Rogers once sang,"You've got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them." When you are playing cards or fighting a war the same strategy prevails.