PolitiDose

The Republican Party's Lack Of Character

2009-11-10T22:27:00.002-05:00

The health-care debate has exposed just how phony the Republican party is concerning this issue. The Democratic health-care plans have been out in the public's view for the past six or seven months. It has been debated on radio, television, town hall meetings, newspapers, public forums and you name it, so the American people have been exposed to the plans in a transparent way. That is the way it should be because the public has a right to know.

Now at the last minute the Republican party introduced their health-care plan just last week when the U.S. House took up the measure for a vote. The Democratic plan passed and the Republican plan failed. The Republican party did not expose their health plan to the public like the Democrats did theirs. Republicans like to keep the public in the dark about what they are really up to. That is a slap in the face to the American people. Their plan was phony like their actions so they did not want the news media or town hall meetings to dig into the substance of their plan.

I have written in past commentaries how I believe the Democratic party is more in touch with reality and that it is good for America when they some times disagree within their own party concerning issues the country faces. The Republicans in congress have become "ditto heads" and dare not stray from the phony conservatism they preach. Over 30 Democrats voted against their own party's health-care plan in the U.S. House vote. Only one Republican, Joseph Cao voted for the Democratic plan. The rest voted no with their "ditto heads."

The American people should understand that the country is paying a heavy price for a phony Republican ideology that opposes anything that is likely to move the country forward. Hopefully, the President and the Democratic party will use their leadership wisely and do those things that really matter and make a difference for the country and its people.

Happy Birthday U.S. Marine Corps

2009-11-10T17:13:00.002-05:00

Today the U.S. Marine Corps is celebrating its 234th birthday. Established in 1775 by the Continental Congress, the Marines made their first amphibious landing at New Providence Island in the Bahamas on March 3, 1776. After almost two and a half centuries the Marine Corps continues to uphold its proud tradition.

The Marine Corps motto, "Semper Fidelis" means more than "Always Faithful." It represents commitment, love of country, honor, duty and ability to go the extra mile for your Marine brother and humankind. Marines in all walks of life who wore the Eagle, Globe and
Anchor all share the same common bond, "Once a Marine, Always a Marine."

So today in this birthday message I would like to pass along the following tribute.

THE TITLE

It cannot be inherited
Nor can it ever be purchased,
You and no one alive
Can buy it for any price.
It is impossible to rent,
And it cannot be lent
You alone and our own
Have earned it with your
Sweat, Blood and lives
You own it forever.

THE TITLE

UNITED STATES MARINE

So to all my Marine brothers, Happy Birthday Marines, may all of you enjoy good health and a safe return home.

President Obama and Fiscal Stability

2009-11-08T19:24:00.002-05:00

Unlike President George W. Bush who took over a government that was in top fiscal shape and then left in poor fiscal shape, the job now falls to President Obama to reverse the record deficit spending and debt of the past eight years. It will not be easy but it is a situation that has to be addressed and acted upon.

The most significant sign in the fight to get our fiscal house in order is that Obama said he will make fiscal responsibility a priority after he deals with the economy and gets back on track. The last three Republican Presidents never made a commitment to get our fiscal house in order and in fact never gave the problem any serious thought or effort.

It is more important now that President Obama keep his promise because the situation is now critical. The President said he would veto any health-care plan that adds to the deficit. That is a statement the President needs to back up with his veto pen if necessary. There can be no turning back from this problem and no excuses are allowed. Balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility will allow our nation to solve many of our problems without creating more debt and raising the cost of living for our people unnecessarlly.

The growth of federal expenditures can be controlled, the Clinton administration proved that and it did not damage our country or our people. There has to be a plan and the President needs to make sure the plan is sound, workable and enforced. The most important element now is to put our people back to work on a sustained basis so the consumer will once again get the economy moving. Jobs are the key and should continue to be the focus.

There will be a lot of distractions for the President, especially from those in Congress and the news media who will try to oppose every move he makes. It has already started. The American people will be in a position to judge the President's action when his term comes to a close. It won't be hard to document what progress was made on his watch. He deserves the chance to have enough time to turn things around for the better.

The unprecedented increase in the National Debt of over $6 trillion just in the eight years of the previous administration has put our country in jeopardy fiscally. President Obama needs to be decisive and firm in reversing this horrow story thrust on our country and its people.

Louisiana Representative Steve Scalise: Another No Vote

2009-11-07T22:42:00.003-05:00

Congress on 11/5/09 decisively approved an extension of unemployment benefits for almost two million people out of work nearly a year or more reported the Associated Press by the Times Picayune dated 11/6/09. The U.S. House cleared the measure 403-12 after unanimous support in the U.S. Senate.

La. Representative Scalise was the only Louisiana House member who voted against the measure along with 11 other Republicans who voted no. The legislation also covered the expansion of the tax credit for homebuyers. A no vote is nothing new for Scalise who opposes most every thing that comes out of the Obama administration. He was a subject of one of my commentaries on April 27.

The Louisiana Workforce Commission said that 6,829 Louisiana residents as of Nov. 2 would be eligible for the extra 14 weeks of benefits provided under the bill. Scalise said the cost of the bill will only cause more Americans to lose their jobs. Scalise and Republicans are familiar with job loses because their party has a dismal record when it comes to creating jobs. Just ask former President George Bush.

Representative Scalise will also oppose any health-care reform that comes out of Congress that Democrats are in favor of. He is proving to be the next Newt Gingrich of the Republican party. That is not very encouraging for the people of Louisiana. The Republican party would like to see Obama fail like they wanted to see Clinton fail. They hate to see a Democrat be successful in moving the country forward and they will become more negative as the economy improves. Keep an eye on Scalise, he is one of those "ditto heads" who has mastered the "no" word.

Louisiana Medicaid and Lobbyist

2009-11-05T16:52:00.002-05:00

The Times Picayune in its "Briefing Book" of November 1 published the following: The high powered Washington D.C., lobbying firm of Patton Boggs has been brought in to help Governor Jindal's administration to convince Congress to give Louisiana a break from a costly change in the Medicaid match rate. "We need representation up there that goes beyond our own delegation, Health and Hospitals Secretary Alan Levine said." This is related to the issue that Louisiana may be forced to make deep cuts to its health care budget because the federal Medicaid match rate is scheduled to drop from 80% to 63% in January 2011.

State officials have argued for months that the formula that determines the match rate is unfair to Louisiana because the state's average personal income was artificially inflated after Katrina by the influx of federal relief dollars. The state can not legally hire a lobbying firm so Levine enlisted the help from private health-care providers who thru LRA Support Foundation hired the lobbying firm and is paying for it. It was noted in the article that the private health-care providers would be the biggest financial losers if the state is forced to make deep cuts to its health-care budget.

The state of Louisiana is represented in Congress to serve the people on issues such as this yet the state is getting involved with a lobbying group financed by the private health-care industry who will be looking out for their own well being and not the state and its people. In other words hire a lobbying firm instead of relying on the people's representation to handle the problem. How can lobbyist know more about the problem than our elected officials? The answer is they don't but money talks which is why our elected officials should be outraged if they have any character. Government for the people, by the people has become government for the lobbyist, by the lobbyist.

Maybe Governor Jindal does not have the time to go to Washington himself and speak on behalf of the people of Louisiana and the state because he spends so much of his time outside the state seeking campaign contributions. Leaders have to lead, that is why they are elected. Once again the people of our state come last. The status quo is alive and well. That says it all.

Federal Spending, Facts vs. Myth

2009-10-31T18:27:00.002-04:00

Conservative Republicans are still telling the people we need to go back to the Reagan era and control federal spending like he did. It was especially pronounced during the last Presidential campaign during the Republican debates. Romney and McCain talked about the Reagan legacy often even though they knew it was a fairy tale. Lets examine the spending record of the Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 administrations and see who actually did the best job of controlling federal spending.

The below information covers the four year term of each President ending in that fiscal year. Source is taken from the Congressional Budget Office.

Jimmie Carter 1981 Total Federal Spending $2.232 Trillion

Ronald Reagan 1985 Total Federal Spending $3.352 Trillion Up $1.120 trillion or 50%

Ronald Reagan 1989 Total Federal Spending 4.203 Trillion Up $851 billion or 25%

George H.W. Bush 1993 Total Federal Spending $5.369 Trillion Up $1.166 trillion or 28%

Bill Clinton 1997 Total Federal Spending $6.140 Trillion Up $771 billion or 14%

Bill Clinton 2001 Total Federal Spending $ 7.007 Trillion Up $867 billion or 14%

George W. Bush 2005 Total Federal Spending $8.936 Trillion Up $1.929 trillion or 28%

George W. Bush 2009 Total Federal Spending $11.883 Trillion Up $2.947 trillion or 33%

The numbers show not only did federal spending increase much less under President Clinton for eight years, but the increase was at a steady 14% for each of his two terms. Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 do not even come close. The numbers indicate those three Presidents never had federal spending under control while Clinton did. Also Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 did not face the magnitude of deficit spending that Clinton had to face and take on and that makes Clinton's record even more impressive.

Bob Woodward pointed out in one of his books on Clinton that Clinton new more about the federal budget than members of Congress who had been dealing with budget matters for decades. That explains in part why Clinton was so successful in balancing the budget and bringing federal spending under control, and why he knew his deficit reduction and economic policies would work for America and its people.

Conservative Republican Presidents are champions when it comes to increasing federal spending. That is why you never heard a peep out of them during the 20 years of spending spree of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 and none of those three Presidents faced the fiscal disaster Clinton took over or the fiscal and economic disaster Bush 43 left President Obama.

President Reagan presided over the first trillion dollar budget. George Bush 43 presided over the first two and three trillion dollar budgets. It took the country 15 years to go from a one trillion dollar budget to a two trillion dollar budget. But it only took Bush 43 seven years to go from a two trillion dollar budget to a three trillion dollar budget.

Federal spending is made up of discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending. If anyone is interested go to the CBO site and you will find that Clinton was also the best at holding down spending in those two categories as well by a wide margin.

Conservative Republican Presidents are best at controlling federal spending????????? That is pure myth, the numbers speak loud and clear.

The Fiscal Legacy Of President George W. Bush

2009-10-30T19:32:00.004-04:00

The final numbers are in on President Bush's last budget for fiscal year ending 9/30/09. It showed another record federal deficit, this time to the tune of $1.42 trillion. Like Reagan and Bush 41 before him the President failed to balance the budget during his term in office. No Republican President has balanced the federal budget since Dwight Eisenhower in 1960. One would never believe that if you listen to the rhetoric coming from the conservatives in the news media or the Republican party. Below is the fiscal record of President Bush and the previous administration of President Clinton.

Fiscal Years Ending 9/30/

President Clinton

1994 $203.2 billion Deficit
1995 164.0 billion Deficit
1996 107.4 billion Deficit
1997 21.9 billion Deficit
1998 69.3 billion Surplus
1999 125.6 billion Surplus
2000 236.0 billion Surplus
2001 128.0 billion Surplus

Total Budget Surplus $62.8 billion

President George W. Bush

2002 $157.8 billion Deficit
2003 377.6 billion Deficit
2004 412.7 billion Deficit
2005 318.3 billion Deficit
2006 248.2 billion Deficit
2007 160.7 billion Deficit
2008 454.8 billion Deficit
2009 1.42 Trillion Deficit

Total Budget Deficits $3.53 Trillion

President Bush's final budget that ended 9/30/09 was sent to Congress on July 28, 2008 and contained a projected deficit of $482 billion. That was before the economic meltdown and the financial collapse. His budget message at the time contained the following information. "The nations economy has continued to expand and remains fundamentally resilient." One should remember at the same time the economy had lost jobs every month since December 2007. The administration was completly out of touch with the economic facts.

Part of the deficit problem that made it swell to $1.42 trillion was the $700 billion Bush asked Congress to pass to bail out the financial industry, plus federal revenue was down 16.6% from fiscal 2008. Also there was approximately $200 billion from Obama's $787 billion spent of the stimulus money. However, without the expenditures for the bail out and stimulus the budget deficit would still have been another record number around $600 billion plus.

When the above budget numbers are compared for Bush and Clinton one can see the tragic results of Bush's 8 years in office and the tremendous burden the American people are left with fiscally and economically and the challenge that falls to President Obama. President Clinton had a deficit reduction and economic plan and policy when he took office and the Democratic controlled Congress passed that plan in 1993 without one vote from the Republicans in Congress. They predicted doom and gloom but the opposite happened. Bush had no economic or fiscal policy to keep the budget in balance when he took office. Instead he continued the policy of trickle down economics which proved once again not to be a policy at all to deal with the economy and the nations fiscal health.

Clinton's policy reduced the budget deficit every year his first term in office and was in surplus every year his second term in office. The Clinton administration also paid down $453 billion on the public debt. The Bush administration paid down zero and added over $6 trillion to the national debt. Bush never got a hand on deficit spending because he lacked the fundamental knowledge of how to create a sound economy and how to use government policy wisely. The ideology of trickle down economics being the engine for growing the economy and jobs in the private sector is a fairy tale. There were over 22.7 million new jobs created during the Clinton administration and 91% came from the private sector. The highest in over 50 years. Clinton did it with an economic policy that created an even 11 million plus jobs in each of his terms. Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 talked, but it was Clinton who performed. In fact try this on for size. More new jobs were created under Clinton in 8 years than were created under Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 in the 20 years they served. Their trickle down economics never got past the wealthy to the private sector.

When President Bush took office the governments fiscal health had never been better. In 8 years he managed to take the country and its people to the cleaners and it started in his very first year. If this is the conservatism that Republicans like to brag about, lets hope we never see another Republican President.

Coming next: Federal Spending: Facts vs. Myth. Stay tuned.

Note l: The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were handled outside the budget by the Bush administration. The cost of those wars are now handled within the budget by the Obama administration.

Note 2: National Debt number taken from Treasury Department.

Note 3: To read more why a policy of trickle down economics is not a policy at all read my three part series with conclusion titled: The U.S. Economy: Which Part Performs Best, dated 1/27/08/

Note 4: Budget Surplus and Deficits shown above taken from Congressional Budget Office Records.

Treasury Department Slashes Executive Pay

2009-10-24T22:50:00.003-04:00

The Associated Press reported that Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury official leading the pay review told reporters that average salaries for the top 25 executives are being cut 90% starting next month. The action applies to the top executives at Bank of America Corp, AIG Group, Citigroup Inc., General Motors, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

The Federal Reserve unveiled a proposal that would police banks pay policies to ensure they don't encourage employees to take reckless gambles like those that contributed to the financial crisis. The Feds plan would cover thousands of banks. President Obama praised the action and urged Congress to pass legislation to give shareholders a voice in executive pay packages.

In this writers judgement, the above action was not only over due but necessary because the CEO's of Corporate America have proven by their past actions they are incapable of regulating their own greed. When executives make 400 times what the average worker makes and at the same time their companies are losing money, laying off workers, cutting back on health insurance only one word can describe that action. GREED.

The President and Congress need to make sure everything is in place that those companies who received bail outs pay back all the money they were loaned. Some years ago Chrysler and Mexico were the recepients of bail outs and they paid all money back plus interest. So Uncle Sam does have a record of doing something right. The President and Congress needs to keep that record intact.

2009-10-24T22:50:00.000-04:00

The Absence Of Competition

2009-10-20T22:34:00.002-04:00

Competition is the engine that enables the public to have a say in obtaining products and services at a reasonable price. It has been known for some time that is not the case with government contracts, especially when it comes to Defense spending. It is also not the case outside the government in many instances. Cost over runs are a daily happening with defense contractors and the nations defense cost is over a half trillion dollars a year.

Rear Admiral William Landay, one of the Navy's top acaquisition officials promises that the Pentagon will do everything it can to foster competition and reduce prices for key shipbuilding projects. He was alluding to the fact that the six major shipyards are controlled by only two companies, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics and that is a major barrier. Landay said companies with shipbuilding contracts won't be guaranteed future contracts for newer models of the same boats. Landay added that cost overruns for Navy ships have been a big problem.

Monopolies have never worked for America and its people or the Pentagon. They work for their own greed by controlling prices. It plays into the hand of being another element in the failure of our economic well being. I wrote a commentary titled, "Innovation, Lost in America concerning how Corporate America has been transferring wealth from those who should share in it to those who already have it and having a monopoly is a sure way to do it. The few who control the financial industry in this country proved it just last year and now we are being told they are ready to announce billions of dollars of bonuses to their CEO's and executives once again. Greed has become a sickness with them and Congress has to address that problem.

The major oil companies in the past 20 or so years have bought most of the large independent oil companies and said the purchase would make them more efficient, drill more wells, produce more oil and increase production. Yet today the country is more dependent on foreign oil then ever before. What the buy outs did was increase the bonuses and other goodies of the CEO's and executives of the surviving major oil companies and they still own or lease millions of acres of land they have yet to drill on. That says it all.

The Rush Limbaugh Boomerang

2009-10-16T23:15:00.002-04:00

The king of the "ditto heads" Rush Limbaugh who excels at personal attacks against those he dislikes just met his waterloo and blames others for being dropped from the group trying to buy the St. Louis Rams professional football franchise.

Rush who has mastered the game of blame is now blaming DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFLPA, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for the Blues decision to exclude him from the groups bid. Rush said he's been made an example by a players union seeking leverage in talk over a new collective bargaining agreement according to wire reports. The king of blame also blamed President Obama's political clout for his sacking. (Nothing new there)

As usual, Rush is all over the lot. Here is a person who uses his position to destroy other people and their reputation and who is now crying wolf. I think it is safe to say that the NFL owners themselves played a key role in what took place. Why would any owner want a person like Rush to be part of an ownership of a NFL franchise.

This is a case where the wheel of justice was spun and came back around and pointed the finger at the king of blame and gave him a dose of his own medicine. The issue will give Rush and his ditto heads another subject to talk about for the duration of the season. His huffing and puffing will be louder than ever. One should remember those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. It will come back to bite you.

The Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-13T20:56:00.002-04:00

President Barack Obama is the third sitting U.S. President to win the Nobel Peace Prize. The other two were Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919. The award brought immediate criticism from conservative republicans in Congress, conservative blogs and radio talk shows, along with Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele who actually mocked the President.

The conservative reaction is the extension of the personal attacks started by the Republic Party against President Clinton after he was elected. Now, as I have written earlier, the conservative Republicans will oppose every thing that has to do with the President and that opposition will be personal attacks. They still can not articulate what they them selves stand for and are incapable of talking about the issues in a debate so they engage in personal attacks.

The Nobel Prize was awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey said the Nobel Peace Prize was honoring the country and that it is an award Americans should feel good about. Our country and its people over the years have with-stood many attacks from abroad and shall do the same from those attacks coming from within by those who feel so inadequate.

The conservative Republicans who ran the country the past eight years have shown their hand. They are not about moving the country forward during these hard economic times that their failed policies created. Their every calculated move is to regain power and finish the job of bankrupting America and the ideals America has stood for, for over 200 years. That says it all. Congratulation Mr. President.

Another Slap In The Public's Face

2009-10-11T18:44:00.002-04:00

Journalists continue to feed the American public information from sources that have already been discredited. The sources are retired military officers and a U.S. Senator. On "Meet the Press" today, moderator David Gregory's topic was Afghanistan and what should be done about that war and what President Obama's decision might be. His guest were U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, retired Generals Barry McCaffrey and Richard Myers who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Bush administration and U.S. Senator Carl Levin.

Senator Graham and retired General McCaffrey and Myers who supported the war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist and have no credibility when it comes to that war or the war in Afghanistan would support 40,000 additional U.S. troops and pretty much said both wars are comparable, are once again given the American people a rerun of the Iraq war. Graham went so far as to say give the generals any increase in troops they request.

Senator Levin said a request for more U.S. troops is not the answer to winning the war in Afghanistan and said training Afghans to secure their own country would be more productive. David Gregory asked the following stupid question and it showed how the news media is so tuned out to the real issue on the war. He asked, "Since President Obama is taking a long time to make his decision, should that be taken as the President being weak." Of course Gregory could not articulate why Obama's willingness to get broad advice from his advisers makes him a weak President. Bush never sought such advise and input from a broad section of people with experience before he ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and those wars are still going on while Bush has gone fishing. Obama now has to pick up the pieces and our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price.

Gregory also had a panel of journalists on after to discuss the war. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post pointed out how Obama was consulting a wide range of advisers and asking tough questions to justify their recommendations and that is why Obama has not made his decision yet. Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal and a conservative himself showed by his facial expressions and his comments he is not a supporter of Obama concerning the war. Lindsey, Gigot, McCaffrey and Myers have learned nothing from the wars in those two countries, yet Gregory was willing to expose the American people to their ignorance once again and when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan some journalists could care less what propaganda is fed the American people. That is a sad note for our country and especially our men and women in uniform.

The Latest Economic Numbers

2009-10-04T19:27:00.002-04:00

The U.S. Labor Department announced that September unemployment rate rose to 9.8%, up from 9.7% in August. The economy lost 263,000 jobs that same month compared to the revised down figure for August which was 201,000 job losses. The Department also reported 15.1 million Americans are out of work and 7.2 million jobs have been lost since December 2007 when the recession began. Hourly earnings rose by a penny last month while weekly wages fell $1.54 to $616.11.

The latest numbers indicate the severe effects of the recession and that more time will pass before the country and its people will see job growth of any significant numbers. The American people are nervous and restless and are searching for over night solutions but none exist. There is too much wealth in too few hands for that to happen. The job losses in 2008 were averaging over 500,000 a month. That number has been reduced so far this year which means part of the stimulus is working.

Consumers are not spending freely yet because they are still unsure of the future. Consumer spending represents the largest part of the economy and once the job picture improves to where businesses are starting to hire again, the consumer will respond. The American people should also realize that there are those voices out there who prey on bad times and offer false information and preach despair. Many Americans affected by the recession have never experienced an economic collapse of our financial structure as severe as this one. President Roosevelt had to put the country in debt to put our people to work during WWII for the war effort. The WPA and other government programs were created to put our people to work and it worked well for America.

Those voices who are opposed to the stimulus spending and are now talking about deficit spending at the time the country is in an economic crisis were silent during the record deficit spending of President's Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 which totaled 20 years. None of those Presidents faced the severe economic problems the country faces today. In fact President Bush 43 inherited the greatest economy, job creation and balanced budgets and surpluses and turned all of that around. Those same voices were also silent the whole time wealth was being transferred from the average worker to the wealthy.

Patience is not easy to practice when you lose your job, your home and have to provide for your family or your own well being. However, the negative voices who have nothing to offer but blame and who stood on the side lines all the while the country was going into recession while supporting the status quo deserve to be tuned out.

America and its people will come out of these hard times and there will be a reason to feel good again. I would advise the people to stop and think for themselves, we the people are smart enough to figure out what is really going on and and act accordingly. We all need to be leaders instead of followers. Those who preach in the negative have a character problem that will not allow them to compete where common sense and intelligence rules.

The United States and Cuba

2009-10-02T22:17:00.002-04:00

I have written a few commentaries concerning the U.S. and Cuba and that it was time for the U.S. to make a move to bring Cuba back to a diplomatic relationship with the U.S. and once again become an ally. My first commentary was dated 11/23/07, almost 2 years ago.

President Obama made the first move toward Cuba a few months ago and liberalized visits between the two countries and just this week it was reported that a senior U.S. Diplomat traveled to Havana and held high-level talks with Cuban officials, that according to our State Department. The visit lasted 6 days and our Diplomat even visited with Cuban opposition activists to discuss their political views.

Cuba, being only 90 miles from our shore should be given the opportunity with its people to establish a working relationship with the U.S. Cuba is a natural for commerce between both countries. A friendly Cuba with no military axe to grind would also enhance the security of our hemisphere.

Fifty plus years of embargo did nothing to oust Fidel Castro or change their communist rule. We live in a different time under very different conditions and the status quo has not made the U.S. any safer. Cuba, an island, is no military or political threat to the U.S. It is time for the President to see this thing through.

A Sickness At The Fox News Network

2009-09-30T22:23:00.003-04:00

They think of themselves as the elite. Neoconservatives by their tell tale comments. They think they are better than any one else because of their self claimed conservatism but they represent a conservatism that is much different than America practices. I am speaking about Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Management at the Fox News represent the same warped ideology.

Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, Dennis Miller and Newt Gingrich are regular guest, Hume having retired not too long ago. They can be described as the seven "ditto heads" who feel so inadequate they have nothing of positive value to contribute to the broadcast media. They like patting each other on the back, it builds up their confidence and lack of esteem. I laugh when they point to Fox News being a top rated cable network. It reminds me of one of President Truman's famous quotes. "A President needs political understanding to run the government, but he may be elected without it." (end of quote)

The seven "ditto heads" hide behind conservatism because they can't compete with our American heritage that every ones opinion counts and that diversity does matter. Their lack of understanding and wisdom is a direct result of their inadequate feeling. It is a sickness that really showed during the Presidency of George Bush when they could not articulate what the President and conservatism accomplished so they spent 8 years attacking democrats. That sickness is still being played out now against President Obama and his administration.

Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity represent three hours of cable "spin." (not counting their reruns) What really ticks them off about most of the so called "liberals" they berate, is that many of those "liberals" served their country in uniform. When you feel insecure and inadequate, attack, attack, the usual conservative ploy. Fox news claims to be "fair and balanced" but that is exactly what is lacking the most in their broadcast. Just the other night Bernie Goldberg who is a frequent guest on Fox and usually agrees with their pronouncements pointed out to O'Reilly that Fox's coverage of the town hall meetings on health care and the so called tax tea party were not fair and balanced. O'Reilly got his nose out of joint and his dander up. O'Reilly and Fox do not like when some one throws a challenge at their double standard.

The sickness at Fox news of trying to destroy those who have different views is a threat to our freedom. Their cry baby attitude toward President Obama because he would not appear on their network and take part in their charade is evidence of how sick the network has become.

Health Care And Medicare

2009-09-27T20:38:00.002-04:00

The health care issue being debated by congress has spilled over to the issue of medicare. Those who are opposed to President Obama's proposed health care plan have put up every road block they can including alleging that health care reform will destroy medicare that has been taken care of senior citizens for many years.

Medicare has been a saving staple for seniors and others who qualify for the program and any reduction in benefits would seriously impact those that receive the benefit. Seniors also pay a monthly premium through social security deductions for medicare. Medicare plays a significant role in the life of seniors and allows seniors to have a better quality of life. Theywould naturally have concern if medicare no longer provided the services they have come to depend on.

The U.S. House on September 24 voted 406-18 to eliminate all premimum increases for medicare Part B for next year. Medicare is a democratic created program that was opposed by the republican party. Many in the republican party still oppose medicare. The bottom line is that no democratic administration will do anything to undo those benefits that have been taking care of senior's need for over 30 years.

Iran, Threat Or Nuisance

2009-09-27T19:53:00.002-04:00

Is Iran a real threat to the national security of the United States. Are they a real threat to the national security of Israel, or for the region. I have yet to hear a real debate about the issue. But there are some things we do know that is never discussed, so lets try and explore the issue here.

I can not think of any country Iran has threatened to attack or invade lately but I can think of a country who has threatened to attack Iran. Iran's history is not one that has attacked or invaded another country in my life time.

Iran has said the Jewish state should be destroyed, but never said that they would be the ones to do so, and for good reasons. They know their country would be destroyed along with their leaders. On the other hand, Israel has used its military power to preempt attacks on Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Time will tell if Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If they do they are not going to launch an attack against Israel or the United States for the same reasons mentioned above and for the same reasons Russia never launched a nuclear attack against the U.S. in 40 years of a cold war. Iran would not pass nuclear weapons to terriorists for the same reasons.

The U.S. launched a war with Iraq over WMD that did not exist and our men and women in uniform paid dearly for that mistake. The nuclear inspection arm of the U.N. has been inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities since day one. Israel, India and Pakistan do not allow such inspections to its nuclear facilities. The case could be made that if any country starts a nuclear war in that part of the world it will be Pakistan, Israel or India since they are unchecked nuclear powers.

Iran gets under Israel's skin when they deny the holocaust but it is obvious the leaders and people of Iran know it happened. Iran taunts Israel just like Israel taunts Iran but that does not justify war. When a country uses its military power with impunity like Israel does the weak will do whatever they have to do to become strong.

The middle east is an unstable place and more so since the invasion of Iraq. Iraq attacked Iran and started a 10 year war during the 80's. The Reagan administration supported Saddam in that war and gave him intelligence on Iran's troop positions. Israel supported Iran in that war. In other words, two close allies, the U.S. and Israel supported opposite sides during that war. If that makes sense, I am not convinced.

Now on September 25th the nation has been told Iran has been operating a "secret" nuclear facility. The problem is it has not been "secret" to the intelligence community of the U.S., Briton or France. Their leaders have know about the facility for several years and say completion is anywhere from 18 months to 3 years away from being finished. The word "secret" is now being used to work up an appetite for a preemptive strike by those who love to send other peoples children off to war.

The Iran thing reminds me of what happened during the early year of President Kennedy's administration as reported in the book, "JFK and the Unspeakable." And I quote. JULY 20, 1961: At a national security meeting, the joint chiefs of staff and CIA director Allen Dulles presented a plan for a preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions." President Kennedy walked out of the meeting saying to Secretary of State Dean Rush, "And we call ourselves the human race."

President Kennedy had the wisdom to ignore that advise that would have killed millions on each side in an unnecessary nuclear war. Does the drum beat on Iran sound familiar.

Median Income In Louisiana Down

2009-09-23T23:13:00.002-04:00

Business writer Jaquetta White of the Times Picayune reported that median household income in Louisiana dropped 7.8% in 2008 compared to the previous year according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau report released earlier this month. The report also showed that residents in all but 11 states and D.C., experienced a drop in income over the year, but that Louisiana had one of the sharpest income declines with just seven states performing worse.

Louisiana median income for 2008 was $39,563.00, down from $42,900.00 in 2007. The U.S. median income for 2008 was $50,303.00 down from $52,163.00 in 2007. In 1998 the Louisiana median income was $41,863.00 and in 2008 $39,563.00. That 10 year period saw a drop of 5.4% in Louisiana median income.

In the article local demographers were not surprised as they say it reflects a resetting of a part of the economy since hurricane Katrina. Demographer Elliot Stonecipher said the 10 year decline is not surprising since there has been a trend in Lojuisiana since at least the early 1990s of an outflow of high-paying jobs and an increase in low-wage ones. Our job base, the concentration of jobs in the service sector, means generally we do fit into that broad definition of a state without any evidence of industries that are higher income.

During that 10 year period mentioned above the Louisiana median income was almost $10,000.00 less per year than the U.S. median income. That would seem to confirm Mr. Stonecipher above comment. It would be nice if a report would be made during the same 10 year period concerning the median incomes of CEO's and executives of the business community. I think a report would show what I have written about on many occasions concerning the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.

Louisiana gives away millions of dollars to new and existing businesses in the form of tax breaks, financing for new plants, buying land for business, etc., etc., and the latest report above shows that the state has made no progress in bringing good paying jobs to Louisiana and the state in that 10 year period made no headway in closing the gap between the median income in Louisiana compared to the median income in the U.S.

Priority in Louisiana seems to be, take care of the business community and trickle down economics will lift the average worker up. Unfortunately, that is pure nonsense with a capital N.

What Is Next For The Economy

2009-09-21T23:15:00.002-04:00

There have been a number of reports in the past few weeks dealing with the economy. Most reports have been up beat, although modest. Housing construction rose in August and the number of Americans who lost their jobs was down two months in a row. Applications for building permits rose 2.7% in August.

The Labor Department reports initial claims for unemployment benefits declined for the third time in the last four weeks. Ben Bernanke, the Fed Chairman said the worst recession since the 1930's is probably over. Household debt for the second quarter is slightly down from the first quarter.

Business is starting to hire again but not at a pace to reverse the job losses of the past 18 months. Job creation and putting America back to work is the key to a sustained economic recovery and a sustained economy. Personal spending is the engine to economic growth.

The key lesson for President Obama is to truly learn from the tragic mistakes of the previous administration, understand how corporate greed played a large part in the economic meltdow by the excesses of Wall Street and the Financial Industry and take real workable measures to safeguard against a repeat performance. The President must also understand how the massive deficit spending and debt of the last three republican administrations have weakened our position and ability to take a hit when the economy falls onto hard times. The question, can corporate America regulate litself, has already been answered with a resounding NO. Their past record is confirmation.

Most of the $787 billion stimulus money will be spent in the fiscal year that begins October 1, 2009 so the states will still be receiving money to help put people to work. It is important that states spend that money wisely on those things that really matter and make a difference for the economy and the people.

The President needs to insist on putting America's house back in operation with sound fiscal policies that eliminate deficit spending. Democratic administrations have done it in the past and can do it again. This has to be a priority and fall in line with bringing the economy back to life. I have reported many times in past articles that balancing the federal budget with sound fiscal policies will allow our country and its people to address what ever problems come along. The past is still the key to the future if we truly take the time to learn from it.

A Change In College Aid

2009-09-20T22:38:00.002-04:00

The Times Picayune reported the U.S. House of Representatives voted to remove private lenders from the student loan business and put the government in charge. The vote was 253-171 in favor of the proposal. Only six republicans voted in favor and four democrats voted against the bill. According to the report the bill fulfills nearly all of President Obama's campaign promise for higher education.

The measure ends subsidies for private lenders and allows the government to send the money direct to students. The report pointed out the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says that when administration cost and market conditions are considered the savings from switching to direct government lending would be $47 billion. Republicans said the bill could end up costing the government more money and republican John Kline said the numbers just don't add up. Mr. Kline offered no numbers or explaination to refute the CBO numbers, just the usual conservative rhetoric.

Republicans also argued against putting the government in control of student lending. The fact is private lenders can still make student loans if they want to, they just don't receive federal subsidies for doing so. This writer, a veteran, went to college on the G.I. bill and my check came direct from the government.

Members of Louisiana's republican delegation in congress who voted against the bill were; Bustany, Alexander, Cassidy, Fleming and Scalise. Republican Cao and democrat Melacon voted with the majority and for the bill. Representative Cao, who has been in congress only eight months once again showed his maturity over his republican college with his yes vote. The gang of five who voted against the measure were once again willing to walk the party line and oppose anything coming out of the Obama administration.

The people of Louisiana should take note.

A Wise Foreign Policy Decision

2009-09-18T22:18:00.003-04:00

As reported in the Times Picayune, President Obama announced Thursday September 18 he cancelled former President Bush's plans to install a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and in Poland. Instead the U.S. will deploy smaller interceptors by 2011. The President said the new system will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of U.S. forces and America's allies to meet a changing threat from Iran.

The President said the new assesment of the Iranian threat required a different system using existing technology and that the new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack.

Republican critics do what they always do. They said the President caved in to Russia. They are so out of touch they did not even try to rebut the reasons given by the President for the action he took. The republican response is only the beginning of their opposition to everything Obama does concerning foreign and domestic policy.

President Obama's decision was a wise one. He knew the proposed missile shield if installed in Russia's back yard would start a new arms race with that country. Who needs a new arms race when the U.S. and other peaceful nations are looking to stop the spread of weapons of war. There is no need for the U.S. because of misjudgement to make Russia stronger than they already are.

The U.S. does not need another costly missile system at this time in our history. The people of our country need a new approach concerning our foreign policy and the President deserves a chance at changing the status quo. This decision by the President does not endanger our national security because the change in policy will rely on proven military technology as the President said. Costly new systems play into the hands of the Military-Industrial complex and those who love to talk tough.

As for the threat from Iran, that will be covered in a future commentary coming soon.

A Letter From U.S. Senator, David Vitter

2009-09-17T15:01:00.002-04:00

U.S. Senator David Vitter sent a letter addressed to "Dear Fellow American." The letter is about the health care issue before congress and has an attached questionaire ballot concerning the subject matter. The covering letter leaves no doubt that Vitter is opposed to the President's proposal on health care reform.

In his letter he calls the ballot a "Confidential Ballot and that he mailed only a few nationwide so it is very important that I receive your response to get accurate and ample results." How can accurate results be obtained by sending out a "few" ballots?

Mr. Vitter also states in his letter and I quote. "And don't worry, your confidential ballot is just that, it is 100% confidential. No union official or lobbyist will know anything about your response. Neither wil anyone at the White House." (end of quote). The following questions are on the ballot.

1. Do you oppose creating a new government-run health insurance provider?
2. Do you support this legislation forcing politicians to live by the health reforms they
pass?
3. Are you in favor of preventing tax dollars from funding abortions?
4. Are you against creating new health care entitlements for illegal aliens?
5. Would you want your representatives and senators to vote AGAINST Obama health
care take over plan?

One can easily see by the questions what Vitter's game is all about on health care. The usual slanted conservative word play gives him away, especially the abortion and illegal alien questions which will not be a part of the President's health care plan. People who are really concerned about health care should be outraged at these questions because they do nothing to explain the plan. It is just another reason why conservatism, as preached by many republicans in congress is an un American ideology. Vitter said the answer from the "few" will be combined with others giving me a clear picture of where the American people stand on the issue. Vitter did not take the time to mention who are the others he will combine his "few" with or if the same questions were asked.

I have often written that part of the conservative republicans problem is that they feel inadequate about themselves and that is why they have nothing to offer except personal attacks on the opposition. Rubber stamping George Bush's failed policies for 8 years and Mr. Vitters feeling of being inadequate is indeed very sad.

Health Care and Conservatism

2009-09-12T18:55:00.002-04:00

As long as a democrat is in the White House, conservatives will oppose the administration's agenda. That is being played out once again with the health care issue. The conservative tactic is the same as they applied to the Clinton administration, lies and out right misrepresentation of the facts. Every time one of their lies are exposed, they find another area to lie about.

It represents the conservative ideology, divide and conquer, do not offer any thing of substance, just oppose the opposition. Once the health care issue is over the conservatives will move on to the economy and try to blame the present administration for the conservative's failure of the last eight years. I wrote a commentary for "politidose" on January 30, 2008 titled,"Conservatism - The Ugly and UnAmerican ideology" and the conservatives in congress are living up to their warped ideology and agenda.

Conservatives will also embark on a campaign to blame democrats for future deficit spending, an area where they have no creditability themselves. But when the governments fiscal year ends 9/30/09 which covers George Bush's last budget I will have plenty to say in a future commentary concerning deficit spending and debt created by so called past conservative republican Presidents.

President Obama will get no help from republicans in congress on any issue that means progress for the country and its people. Civility is not part of the conservative agenda. They feel inadequate so their method of operation is to destroy the opposition by any means. The American people need to be vigil and understand the true motive of conservatism being preached by members of congress and their partners, especially those in the news media.

Afghanistan - Front And Center - Again

2009-09-12T14:09:00.004-04:00

The Senate Appropriation Committee on Thursday September 10 approved President Obama's request of $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the budget year that begins 10/1/09. The committee also approved next years Pentagon military budget of $636 billion. The war funding will implement Obama's order earlier this year to add 21,000 troops to Afghanistan according to the associated press.

The budget year beginnining 10/1/09 represents President Obama's first budget. Financing both wars are part of the budget process under his administration. The two wars were handled outside the budget process during the Bush administration and added almost a trillion dollars to the record budget deficits and debt the Bush administration ran for 8 straight years.

President Obama and his advisers are looking over an on the ground assessment of the military situation in Afghanistan that was delivered to the white house last week according to the associated press. The President will use this information to come to a conclusion about how to procede in that country. It is believed the military will ask for more U.S. troops. Some democratic members of congress are already on record as opposing more U.S. troops at this time.

World wars I and II lasted 4 years each; The Korean war lasted 3 years; The Viet Nam war lasted 10 years; The Iraq war is 6 years and 6 months and still counting; The Afghan war will start its 8th year next month. The President's decision should not be a repeat of Mr. Bush's decisions concerning those wars. The President needs to have the wisdom and see the big picture of how to deal with the problem of Afghanistan and the real threat from that country.

We know Iraq posed no threat to the national security of our country and the cost in lives and money to our people and the country must not be repeated in Afghanistan. Like Iraq, there are those who would like to see the U.S. in Afghanistan forever. The military-industrial complex and those who like to talk tough are among them. A country who spends over $600 billion a year on national defense can surly come up with a way to keep America safe without fighting a never ending war.

After almost 8 years of war in Afghanistan we are being told the Taliban are stronger than ever. That is a devastating revelation. Hopefully the President will recall our past mistakes and not travel down that same path. The President needs to remember that military brass in the past have not always given the best advise concerning war and peace. A good example was the 1962 Cuban missile crisis when the joint chiefs of staff wanted the military to strike first and invade Cuba. That is the situation they wanted. President Kennedy had the wisdom to see and seek other options to keep America safe. The President needs to make sure his circle of advisers are large enough to see the big picture and various options that are in the best interest of our country and our men and women in uniform.

The President should also make sure we are out of Iraq on schedule and hopefully sooner. It is a must to end that unnecessary war and occupation.