The Left Shue

Obama's War

2012-04-02T09:06:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 04/02/2012

Total Americans Killed: 1,923

Post Obama Inauguration: 1,323

http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Spc. Daquane D. Rivers, 21, of Marianna, FL died March 14 in Paktika province, Afghanistan.

*2nd Lt. Clovis T. Ray, 34, of San Antonio, TX died Mar. 15 at Kunar province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Jamie D. Jarboe, 27, of Frankfort, IN died March 21 in Topeka, KS from wounds suffered on April 10, 2011 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Dennis P. Weichel Jr., 29, of Providence, RI died March 22 in Laghman province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Daniel J. Brown, 27, of Jerome, ID died March 24 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Capt. Aaron D. Istre, 37, of Vinton, LA died March 24 in Kabul, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. William R. Wilson III, of Getzville, N.Y., died March 26 in Paktika province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Joseph D’Augustine, 29, of Waldwick, NJ died March 27 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Capt. Francis D. Imlay, 31, of Vacaville, CA died March 28 near a base in Southwest Asia.

*Pfc. Johnathon F. Davis, 20, of Griffin, GA died Mar. 29, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Roberto Cazarez, 24, of Harbor City, CA died Mar. 30, in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. David W. Taylor, 20, of Dixon, KY died Mar. 29, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. James E. Dutton, 25, of Checotah, OK died March 31, in Logar province,

Afghanistan.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

2012-03-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 03/14/2012
Total Americans Killed: 1,909
Post Obama Inauguration: 1,309
http://icasualties.org/
“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama
----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Sgt. Allen R. McKenna Jr., 28, of Noble, OK died Feb. 21 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Joshua A. Born, 25, of Niceville, FL died Feb. 23, in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Timothy J. Conrad Jr., 22, of Roanoke, VA died Feb. 23, in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan.

*Lt. Col. John D. Loftis, 44, of Paducah, KY died Feb. 25 in Kabul, Afghanistan.

*Maj. Robert J. Marchanti II, 48, of Baltimore, MD died Feb. 25 in Kabul, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Conner T. Lowry, 24, of Chicago, IL died March 1 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Staff Sgt. Jordan L. Bear, 25, of Denver, CO died Mar. 1, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Pfc. Payton A. Jones, 19, of Marble Falls, TX died Mar. 1, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Edward J. Acosta, 21, of Hesperia, CA died March 5, in La Jolla, CA of injuries sustained Dec. 3, 2011 in Wardak province, Afghanistan.

*Staff Sgt. Jesse J. Grindey, 30, of Hazel Green, WI died March 12, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

When the president does it....

2012-03-06T07:48:00.000-08:00

On Monday, March 5, 2012, US Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech at Northwestern University that formally placed the United States (and the Obama Administration, specifically) in the ranks of despotic regimes around the world. Unbelievably going even further than George W Bush in disregard for the US Constitution and the rule of law; Holder laid out the case that the President of the United States has a constitutional right to order the execution of American citizens without obligation or effort to bring them to trial or to present to them or the American people any evidence of wrong doing.

In his speech before the audience at the prestigious law college, Holder addressed the issue of national security and the administration’s actions and responsibilities in the post 9-11 era. Stating as fact the same mantra we have been hearing since the days immediately following the terrorist strike on our country on September 11, he began, “We are a nation at war. And, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated.” What followed can best be described as the most Orwellian oratory since Richard Nixon’s famous, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” utterance as a defense for his part in the Watergate scandal. The biggest difference, of course, is that Nixon never ordered the assassination of any American citizen. The Attorney General said,

“…But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws and values. Even when under attack, our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the Constitution – and must always be consistent with statutes, court precedent, the rule of law and our founding ideals. Not only is this the right thing to do – history has shown that it is also the most effective approach we can take in combating those who seek to do us harm…”

He then goes on to outline the various ways in which the administration has used the multiple law enforcement and investigatory agencies to thwart the intent of those laws through the convenience of “inter-agency cooperation.” And then, under the heading of, “In response to the attacks perpetrated – and the continuing threat posed – by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, Congress has authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups” he goes on to explain how the rules and laws of the country are no longer a hindrance to this or future administrations.

Now surely we have heard most of this from George W Bush and his primary henchman, Dick Cheney. However, when Holder starts into his rationale for legal assassinations of American citizens, it becomes something altogether new. He says,

“Furthermore, it is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces. This is not a novel concept. In fact, during World War II, the United States tracked the plane flying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the commander of Japanese forces in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway – and shot it down specifically because he was on board. As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the same rules apply today.

Some have called such operations “assassinations.” They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.

Now, it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats we face come from a small number of United States citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. But it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United States citizens – even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent Americans. Of these, the most relevant is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says that the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law.”

And then the cherry on the cake; I give you, Obama’s Supplemental to the Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War:

“The evaluation of whether an individual presents an “imminent threat” incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States. As we learned on 9/11, al Qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no notice – and to cause devastating casualties. Its leaders are continually planning attacks against the United States, and they do not behave like a traditional military – wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, or massing forces in preparation for an attack. Given these facts, the Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning – when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear. Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed.”

What’s that sound? Oh, it’s the deafening silence of the left.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

2012-02-21T06:00:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 02/22/2012
Total Americans Killed: 1,901
Post Obama Inauguration: 1,301
http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Cpl. Christopher G. Singer, 23, of Temecula, CA died Jan. 21 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*1st Lt. David A. Johnson, 24, of Horicon, WI died Jan. 25, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. William C. Stacey, 23, of Redding, CA died Jan. 31 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Edward J. Dycus, 22, of Greenville, MS died Feb. 1 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

* Brig. Gen. Terence J. Hildner, 49, of Fairfax, Va., died Feb. 3, in Kabul province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. 1st Class Billy A. Sutton, 42, of Tupelo, MS died Feb. 7 in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Osbrany Montes De Oca, 20, of North Arlington, NJ died Feb. 10 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

* Petty Officer 3rd Class Kyler L. Estrada, 21, of Maricopa, AZ died Feb. 14 in Djibouti.

*Sgt. Jerry D. Reed II, 30, of Russellville, AK died Feb. 16, in Paktika province, Afghanistan.

*Petty Officer First Class Paris S. Pough, 40, of Columbus, GA died Feb. 17, in Dubai, United Arab Emirate.

*Capt. Ryan P. Hall, 30, of Colorado Springs, CO died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

*Capt. Nicholas S. Whitlock, 29, of Newnan, GA died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

*1st Lt. Justin J. Wilkens, 26, of Bend, OR died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

*Senior Airman Julian S. Scholten, 26, of Upper Marlboro, MD died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

The beginning of the End?

2012-02-17T19:21:00.000-08:00

Today, in a rare show of bipartisan action, the US Congress passed President Obama’s so called Payroll Tax Holiday for 2012. The “holiday” will keep Social Security withholding at just over 4% as opposed to the just over 6% for American workers; saving the average worker between $20 and $40 per paycheck. In December, the Republicans in Congress allowed for a two month extension of this particular tax gimmick and I wrote here and at the Examiner at that time:

“So here are my issues with this scheme. First, the very fact that we are even discussing anything to do with Social Security at a time when the Republicans (and some Democrats) seem more than willing to “review” or “modify” the program as part of the discussion of deficit reduction, should make everyone nervous. Second, as we discovered last night, there is no way this Republican Party is going to ask their millionaires to reimburse a raid into the Social Security Trust Fund. Third; but perhaps most importantly, for the past few years, we Progressives have been able to rebut Tea Party and Republican rhetoric about Social Security contributing to the national debt by insisting that the program is run from an independent fund (hence the separate deduction on your paycheck and the whole basis for the Payroll Tax Holiday) and does not impact the General Fund. With this scheme (dressed up as a blessing on working people), Obama and congressional Democrats are handing the right-wing the argument they want to validate their desire to eliminate the program (or severely cripple it) as being a drain on the General Fund.
I ask again; why would any Progressive American support this scheme?”

Of course, at that time, the only voice to be heard from the left was Vermont’s Independent Senator, Bernie Sanders who voted against the December bill. Sanders said at the time, “My concern is diverting hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund into that immediate tax relief, so I would love to see tax relief, but done in a different way."

And then, in January, I received a response from Congressman Rick Larsen (D-WA02) which I published at the Examiner:

“You and I are on the same progressive page. A payroll tax cut that undermines Social Security in untenable. It is easier to support the most recent payroll tax cut because it does not harm the Social Security Trust Fund. President Obama and Democrats ensured that the lost revenues are made up for in general tax revenue so the Social Security Trust Fund is not hurt.”

I said at that time that apparently Rep. Larsen and I don’t quite agree on what might harm Social Security. And then, today, the Huffington Post reported this:

Sen. Tom Harkin slammed his own president and party for hatching the payroll tax cut deal that is expected to pass Congress Friday, saying he's "embarrassed" the Democrats are pushing a measure that begins the "unravelling of Social Security."

From the floor of the US Senate on Thursday evening, Harkin (D-Iowa) said this:

"This Congress will be making a grave mistake -- a grave mistake -- and reinforcing a dangerous precedent," Harkin said in a dramatic Senate floor speech late Thursday. "And I’m dismayed that Democrats, including a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president, have proposed this, and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin the unraveling of Social Security.”

Arguing that Social Security; funded via a separate withholding tax, had never contributed one dime to the federal deficit, he added, “With this bill, we can no longer say that. We can no longer say that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit." And, going beyond simple criticism of the tax scheme, Harkin added this warning to the Democrats who promoted and voted for this potential assault in Social Security:

“This, I believe has been the hallmark and the underpinning of the party that I've been proud to belong to. Cutting the payroll tax is a bad idea, terrible idea. I'm embarrassed that it's being proposed by a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president."

Thank you Senator Harkin. I was beginning to believe that there were no rational thinkers left in the Democratic Party.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Howard Dean on Obama's Re-election Chances

2012-02-14T09:59:00.000-08:00

h/t: Howie Martin

The man most responsible for drawing my attention back on to the political playing field, Gov. Howard Dean, spoke recently with Ari Berman at The Nation.com; assessing President Obama’s chances for re-election. Far from the fiery presidential candidate from 2003-2004, Dean still retains my respect as someone who walks his talk and, in my opinion, should be seen as the architect of the Democratic surge in 2008 that gave us the White House as well as major increases in both the House and the Senate with his “50 State Strategy” as Chair of the DNC. (Although he will never receive his proper credit from the Obama Administration) The fact that Obama turned him out at the DNC and we got handed our hats in 2010 only reinforces my position.

About President Obama’s re-election, Dean says: “Obama’s chances have definitely improved. If Mitt Romney’s the Republican nominee, I would say it’s a one or two point win for Obama.” And he goes even further when he adds, “I’m predicting flat out that if Obama wins, Democrats take back the House.”

Now, obviously I am not one of President Obama’s biggest fans and would still prefer to see a Howard Dean in the White House but I think even the most critical Progressive; after reviewing the (current) Republican field, would have to agree with Dean’s assessment of the presidential race. As far as the House races are concerned, Berman adds this caveat: “Other analysts have recently raised that possibility, even though GOP domination of the redistricting process gives Republicans a major edge in 2012.” Still, according to Berman:

“Looking at the Electoral College map, Dean predicts that Obama will win 296 electoral votes to Romney’s 242. He believes that the president will hold the crucial swing states of Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, and “could have a shot in Arizona because of the Latino vote.” Dean cautions that Obama “could lose Pennsylvania and Michigan and will probably lose North Carolina,” where Democrats are holding their convention this fall, along with Indiana. Still, all the president needs is 270, and currently has a number of different pathways to victory.

Dean believes the Hispanic vote will give Obama and Democrats a major advantage in crucial swing states out West. “The Latino vote will break for Obama big time,” he predicts. Obama beat John McCain among Hispanic voters by 36 points in 2008, 67-31 percent. A Pew Hispanic Center poll at the end of the year showed Obama beating Romney by 45 points among Hispanic voters, 68-23 percent.”

Dean also has this to say about the Occupy Movement’s role in this year’s election:

“If Obama is re-elected, he will owe an enormous debt to Occupy Wall Street, which he will never acknowledge. Their core message is ‘the emperor has no clothes. It is the 99 percent versus the 1 percent.’ Americans have felt like that for awhile, but they couldn’t say it or talk to each other about it before OWS.”

Of course, one of Obama’s biggest hurdles this year will be to turn out the Progressive base; a great many of whom have all but given up on seeing a Progressive agenda out of DC in the foreseeable future. To Progressives, Dean has this to say,

“I believe we need a progressive party in this country. But for progressives to not vote for Obama is crazy. Citizens United would have never been put into law and America would never have been sold to the highest bidder had Al Gore won in 2000. Obama, if he wins, is going to appoint maybe one or two more Supreme Court justices. That could make all the difference. For that reason alone, you can’t say there’s no difference between the parties. Politicians in Washington may not be able to help you much, but they sure can hurt you.”

On that note, Gov. Dean and I still are in 100% agreement.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Brother can you spare a dime

2012-02-12T09:23:00.000-08:00

I believe that the general definition of Profit is: The difference between what you make and what you spend. In other words, if your lemonade stand spends $5 for a pitcher, some paper cups, and the lemons or lemonade mix and you make $10 from sales of your lemonade, you make $5 profit. If, you add an employee to mix the lemonade and pay them $1.50 for the day, you now make $3.50 profit. If you have to pay your neighbor $2 to set your stand up on their corner lot, you now make $1.50 profit. However, your new prime location brings you more business and you increase your sales to $15; you now are making $6.50 profit. Bear in mind that this profit is money that you did not have in the first place and you can do whatever you like with it. Obviously this is a very basic approach to business but, if you think about it objectively, you realize that these are the basics for any business.

Today, in this country, we keep hearing that “government is interfering with the profit motive of business and putting a damper on job growth and economic development in the private sector.” We hear that, “Regulation is breaking the back of business; stifling investment and punishing the consumer.” Many of these people seem to forget the time when Boston Harbor and Lake Erie were able to be set ablaze because of the unchecked disposal of chemical waste by the factories that were built along their shores. They seem to forget (maybe some are simply not old enough to know) when every photo of Los-Angeles was taken though a chemically induced fog and daily life there included a check of the “Smog Index.” During the time when Republican, Richard Nixon was in the White House, the people made their concerns about their overall health and well being. Cancer rates were rising and birth defects or still births were all too common in the areas where large factories operated. The EPA was created to set and enforce strict guidelines on what could be spewed into the air we breathe and the water we drink. The cry from business was that they would be put out of operation if they had to comply with these regulations. Years before when people were becoming ill and dying from tainted meat and poultry, the government; again responding to the pleas of the people set up regulation to protect the health and well being of the citizens. Most of these regulations have met their purpose and, as a result, many people today simply assume that large corporations operate out of some sense of civic obligation and that the government “over-regulates” to the detriment of those businesses and that is what accounts for high costs for the things we use every day.

Well, let’s look at a few industries that average Americans rely on every day and see just how badly government regulation (and taxation) is hurting them:

According to Fortune magazine, in 2010 the top 5 pharmaceutical companies made a combined profit of $50 Billion. The top 5 health insurance companies made a combined profit of $12 Billion. And there is this report from ABC News in April, 2011:

Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell today reported first-quarter profit increases of 69 percent and 30 percent, respectively, from the same period last year. With rising gas and oil prices, analysts expected the five biggest oil companies -- with Exxon as the largest -- to report that they are swimming in revenue.

Exxon earned $10.7 billion in the first quarter, up from $6.3 billion. Shell announced profit of $6.3 billion in the first quarter this year, up from $4.8 billion.
BP and ConocoPhillips announced their first quarter earnings Wednesday, in a week when the biggest oil companies have begun to release their 2011 profits. The "Big Five" oil companies include BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil and Shell.

ConocoPhillips said its first quarter earnings increased 43 percent to $3 billion from $2.1 billion in the same period last year. BP's first quarter earnings dipped this year -- $5.48 billion compared with $5.60 billion during the first quarter a year ago -- including a charge of $384 million related to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Note these are Quarterly Profits!

Profit is AFTER expenses.

Now I know that America is supposed to be driven by Capitalism but honestly, can you really look at those numbers and tell me we are not driven by greed? And yet millions of Americans believe that the reason they are paying too much for things is because the government is interfering with corporate profits. It hasn’t always been this way in the U.S. There was a time before the so-call Reagan Revolution when a growing number of Americans made a decent enough wage that it only took one wage earner to support a family. The family typically had one nice car, a decent house, and even a television to watch “Father Knows Best.” I get emails all the time calling these the “Golden Years” or the “Good old Days.” Of course, back then (with Republican, Dwight Eisenhower in the White House), there were few “Corporate Barons” and most business owners made maybe twice or three times as much as their highest paid wage earner. The government took on the task of building the interstate highway system and higher education was attainable for all GIs and most of their dependents. Of course there were higher taxes, yet prices were lower. Oh sure, many will say that the unions forced wages and benefits up and that’s what caused the rise in prices.

Profit is AFTER expenses.

Now most people realize that I have my Socialist leanings. But for sanity’s sake, do you really call the kind of profit taking we are seeing today (at the expense of working people) simple Capitalism? Well it is. Which leads to the next question; are we any longer a Republic? Here is your word for the day:

Oligarchy: A form of government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.

OK; back to your government bashing.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Our Obama, Right or Wrong...

2012-02-10T09:42:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I shared a link to an article by Glenn Greenwald (Salon.com) on my Facebook page. The article was about the level of hypocrisy on the left when it comes to President Obama and his continuation (and, in some cases, strengthening) of certain George W Bush policies – especially in the realm of foreign policy and civil liberties. Greenwald cites a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that finds some 70% of respondents approve of Obama keeping open the detention center at Guantanamo – with some 53% of self-identified liberals indicating their approval of this obvious failed promise from the 2008 campaign.

Perhaps worse than the Democratic Party’s acceptance of GITMO is the poll’s finding that Obama’s increasing use of unmanned drones to rain death and destruction onto innocent people has even wider approval. According the Post:

“The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns.

The president only recently acknowledged the existence of the drone program, which some human rights advocates say operates without a clear legal framework and in violation of the U.S. prohibition against assassination.

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.”

The drop in support for targeting Americans is detailed by the Post’s Greg Sargent who got a break down of the polling numbers:

“The number of those who approve of the drone strikes drops nearly 20 percent when respondents are told that the targets are American citizens. But that 65 percent is still a very big number, given that these policies really should be controversial.

And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35.”

Now I would like to say that I am dubious of “self-identified liberals” for any number of reasons but with percentages as high as are being reflected in these poll numbers; combined with face to face discussions I have had with certain “self-identified liberals” of my acquaintance, it is a major reason why I am so dissatisfied with what is passing as the modern Democratic Party. It is one thing to say, ‘I will vote for Obama because the other guys are so much worse in many ways’, but what seems to be happening is an embrace of the policies in order to reinforce the support for the man. Nowhere in these numbers does it reflect a party base that is still hoping for change.

There is no doubt that there has been a steady drift to the right in this country over the past 30 years. Sadly, with numbers like the ones reflected in the Post poll, it would appear that the drift has turned into a rush.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Marriage Equality and the Battle Ahead

2012-02-09T11:31:00.000-08:00

Yesterday the Washington State House of Representatives followed the historic lead of their colleagues in the senate and passed the Marriage Equality bill by a vote of 55-43. With Governor Gregoire’s signature, Washington State will become the 7th state in the country to recognize marriage equality for all of our citizens.

But wait! Don’t be too quick with the champagne. Before the ink is dry on the law that will strike down sanctioned discrimination in our state, the American Taliban is lining up to strike down the law. Opponents of marriage equality have already announced that they have $1 Million to put into a referendum effort. A great deal of the money is coming from out of state. This group of would be “Christian” soldiers will soon be recruiting signature gatherers for their petition to continue imposing their fundamentalist (read: out of step) views on the citizens of our state. Much of the recruiting will be done from the pulpit and many of the recruits will file directly from their pews to the streets. Don’t misunderstand me. I will defend with my life anyone’s right to worship and express their religious beliefs. What I will not abide is someone attempting to force their personal religion on any other citizen. More than fight, I will join in any effort to remove tax exemptions from any and all religious persons or organizations that use their houses of worship and their positions of influence to engage in the political process.

As for the effort to overturn the soon to be new law, the obvious best outcome here would be for a successful “Decline to Sign” campaign to deny the homophobic zealots enough signatures to place a referendum on the November ballot. However, if the effort to deny equality to all of our citizens should find itself on that ballot, we are left to hope that, just as with Referendum 71, the more rational among us will force these losers back into the dark ages where they belong.

By the way, if you have not signed the “Thank You” petition at Daily Kos, check out the link on my previous post here.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

A word of thanks for Marriage Equality

2012-02-09T09:00:00.000-08:00

Today I’m participating in a Washington United for Marriage and Daily Kos blog swarm to help support the marriage equality campaign in Washington State. I’m joined by bloggers from Bilerico Project, Pam’s House Blend, Good As You, AMERICABlog Gay, the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, the Seattle Lesbian, The Bent Angle, on the-Ave, MadProfessah, HRC, Hella Bus, Horsesass.org, Step Forward, LGBT POV, FrontiersLA, the Left Shue and more.

This has been an incredible week! On Tuesday a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, the court wrote, ”Prop 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

On Wednesday, the Washington State House passed a same-sex marriage bill, and now it the bill is headed to Governor Gregoire’s desk for her signature. She promised to sign the bill before Valentine's Day!

Please click here to thank Governor Gregoire.

Governor Gregoire’s leadership was instrumental to the success of passing a marriage bill in Washington State. She not only supported the bill, but she introduced the bill. This is as much her legislation as it is our community’s legislation.

Please join us during this blog swarm to thank Governor Gregoire for her leadership and her friendship. There is little doubt our opponents will make their voices heard, but we know that together our voice for equality is so much stronger.

Please click here to the Washington United for Marriage’s and Daily Kos' joint petition to thank Governor Gregoire for making history.

When our friends speak up for us, we need to speak up for our friends, so join us in thanking Governor Gregoire today!

Did you sign the thank you petition? Share it with your friends: http://wufm.it/4

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

New Democrat or Old Democrat - Which one defines you?

2012-01-26T17:21:00.000-08:00

The 2012 election, perhaps even more that the 2010 elections, will be a defining movement in our country’s social and political evolution. Watching the circus on the right unfold, the definite theme of defining the government’s role in our lives is becoming more and more evident. However, for Democrats this is an increasingly difficult battle to wage as, year after year, the FDR/LBJ wing of the party seems to be fading further and further into the background while the Clintonian wing takes deeper root. The once proud heritage of New Deals and Great Societies is being supplanted by centrist “3rd Wayism” or “New Democrat” language that espouses social liberalism but produces Republican-lite results. All the while, the Middle Class dwindles and the poor fall deeper and deeper into the abyss.

What is at the heart of the debate between the two factions is the notion that Democrats are inherently anti-business and weak on defense. This meme has been thrown around by the Republicans since Richard Nixon; and Ronald Reagan rang it like a bell for 8 years. Progressive Democrats have always maintained that there is a difference between “mom and pop” small business and detached; unfeeling Big Business. They have insisted that putting people before profit made the whole country stronger and promoted small business as the true engine of growth in America. Progressives have argued that diplomacy; not militarism should be our most used weapon in times of conflict while our military should always be prepared to defend our citizens and our vital resources. However, after Democrats stumbled in a couple of elections – arguably due to bad candidates/campaigns - the “New Democrat” emerged; ready to cave to the anti-business/soft on defense meme, and running as a more “business friendly” Democrat. Since the Clinton Administration, we have seen people calling themselves Democrats voting for rules such as the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Law of 2005, that punished consumers for falling prey to the unethical business practices of the mortgage industry and the insurance industry; and standing ready to derail organized labor by signing on to a series of “Free” Trade bills that tilted the playing field against American workers and leading to a mass exodus of American manufacturing jobs to countries with lower labor costs but abysmal human rights records. These same New Democrats were happy to vote with their Republican counterparts to reduce or even eliminate necessary regulations that had held Wall Street and the banking industry in check for over 40 years. The current economic disaster we are facing today can be traced directly back in a large way to the end of the Clinton Administration and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Just recently, one of the Democratic candidates running in the new 1st Congressional District, when asked if she would join the Congressional Progressive Caucus if elected answered:

“I would most likely not be in the Progressive Caucus. I would expect to be in the New Democrats Caucus. I think that’s a place that is fit for what I think needs to happen in terms of getting our economy moving and for breaking this idea that Democrats aren’t also supportive of business in our economy and I think that’s where the New Democrats have made a lot of progress.”

Suzan DelBene addressing the King County Democrats 01/24/2012

Look at where our country is today. We are as close to Oligarchy as we have ever been; certainly since before the Great Depression. The gap between rich and poor makes the Grand Canyon appear as a crack in the sidewalk. Unemployment and underemployment are at critical levels. Homelessness and hunger are at totally unacceptable levels. Our vital infrastructure is crumbling at alarming rates, and our investments in education, healthcare, and the arts are in danger of totally vanishing. While it would be great if we could simply blame all of this on the Republicans (who currently only control only one half of one branch of the government); we must accept the fact the both parties played a role in placing us where we are. But we can change that. Progressives must work to change this. It is time to stop buying in to the notion that someone can’t be elected because he or she is “too liberal for this district.” We must fight to ensure a Progressive agenda gets a full hearing in every district where a Progressive candidate is willing to stand up and deliver.

Rather than continue down the road of phony compromise; with the end result being the shifting of the center further and further to the right, we must start electing Progressives wherever they run and reclaim the agenda that saw us lifted out of a Great Depression and guarantee a safety net for our elderly and the most vulnerable in our society. We need to stop running away from a platform that promotes work over “Vulture Capitalism”; that declares that our investment in education, healthcare, the arts, and other human studies should be equal to our investment in death and destruction. We need to remind our fellow Democrats that being “business friendly” does not mean that we are no longer “people friendly.” I keep hearing it said that, if we want President Obama to pursue a more Progressive agenda, we need to push him and show him we have his back. It will take a Progressive Congress to push a Progressive Obama. I will promise you that “New Democrats” will not do this.

In 2012, let’s be proud to be Old Democrats.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

The Haditha Massacre "Trial" Ends in Plea Bargain

2012-01-24T17:12:00.000-08:00

In November, 2005 a squad of US Marines entered the Iraqi town of Haditha after a roadside bomb exploded near their convoy; killing one of their comrades and injuring two more. When they left, 24 men, women, and children (including a man in a wheel chair) had been killed in one of the most notorious massacres of civilians by American forces since Mai Lai during the Viet Nam conflict. Yesterday, the last defendant in the military’s “trial” entered into a plea bargain that could see him serve only three months in prison for his role in the event.

Marine SSGT Frank Wuterich may only serve 3 months for his role in Haditha Massacre

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, 26, who led the Marine squad into Haditha, pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty; a penalty that could see a maximum sentence of three months in prison, two-thirds forfeiture of pay and a rank demotion to private. As part of the deal the court will drop the nine counts of manslaughter and assault which had been originally filed against Wuterich. Of the other seven Marines initially charged in the massacre, six have had charges dropped or dismissed (including some in exchange for testifying at the trial) and one was acquitted. The trial was delayed for years by pre-trial wrangling between the defense and prosecution.

Coming not long after the release of the photos of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, the killings in Haditha fueled widespread anger in Iraq and were a deciding factor behind demands by Iraqis that U.S. troops not be given immunity from their court system. The immunity issue was at the heart of the failure of the Obama Administration to extend America’s military presence in Iraq beyond the December 2011 date negotiated by George W. Bush.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

2012-01-23T04:43:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 01/23/2012

Total Americans Killed: 1,886

Post Obama Inauguration: 1,286

http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Sgt. 1st Class Benjamin B. Wise, 34, of Little Rock, AR died Jan. 15 in Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, of injuries sustained on Jan. 9 in Balkh province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Jon-Luke Bateman, 22, of Tulsa, OK died Jan 15 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Kenneth E. Cochran, 20, of Wilder, ID died Jan 15 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Keith D. Benson, 27, of Brockton, MA died Jan. 18, in Paktika province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Phillip D. McGeath, 25, Glendale, AZ died Jan. 18 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Joseph D. Logan, 22, of Willis, TX died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Kevin J. Reinhard, 25, of Colonia, NJ died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Jesse W. Stites, 23, of North Beach, MD died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*MSgt. Travis W. Riddick, 40, of Centerville, IA died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Capt. Nathan R. McHone, 29, of Crystal Lake, IL died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Capt. Daniel B. Bartle, 27, of Ferndale, WA (48^th Washingtonian) died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

DFA Endorses Darcy Burner in the "New 1st" - Will you?

2012-01-22T11:53:00.000-08:00

Darcy Burner, DFA Endorsed

A little over a week ago I wrote here about the opportunity for Progressives to help define the newly drawn 1^st Congressional District.

“I guess the thing that has sparked my interest the most is that, with an open seat, comes an opportunity for a real debate between an unabashed, unapologetic Progressive Democrat and the party’s new “moderate wing” [aka conservadems] for a spot on the general election ballot.” I define the choice this way, ” This year’s contest offers the voters a choice between a champion of Progressive values and activism in Darcy Burner (formerly of the 8th CD and currently Executive Director of ProgressiveCongress.org) and a truly unabashed moderate (founding member and leader of the centrist Roadkill Caucus in Olympia) in State Senator Steve Hobbs (D-44th LD).”

Well it would appear that one of the country’s largest progressive action organizations agrees with me. As I reported at the Examiner on Thursday, Democracy for America (DFA) has released its initial round of endorsements for the 2012 primary elections and Darcy Burner is included in that group of 5. Obviously for Darcy this means access to a large database of Progressive activists and donors from around the country but, more than what this means for the candidate is what it should be saying to Progressives in the district and in surrounding districts – there is an expectation that we will stand up for our values and do what we can to help the candidate who best personifies those values to advance in to the general election and on to Congress.

The 1^st CD is as diverse in geography and population as our state has to offer and yet there is a common thread that runs through all of the country these days; a desire for political candidates and elected representatives who are not afraid to define themselves and who are proud to stand behind their principles. Darcy Burner is such a candidate. There are those who will say that she is “too liberal” for the district. To these folks we must respond that this district has yet to cast a single vote in an election and, therefore cannot be defined as liberal or conservative. The only question we should be concerned with is: Who would best represent the interests of the people? Who will work hard to bring jobs that won’t devastate the environment or force working people to still apply for food stamps because their wages simply won’t stretch far enough to support their family? Who will continue to fight to move us closer to universal healthcare through a Medicare for All approach, rather than move us further down the dead end road of for profit healthcare? Who will fight for budgetary equality between feeding and educating our children and sending them off to war? Who will work for greater energy independence though clean energy initiatives rather than continue us down the destructive path of fossil fuel dependency? Who will fight for a 1^st rate free public education for all our children rather than gamble our hard earned tax dollars on “reform” schemes that will take those dollars away from our children’s futures? Who will lead the fight to ensure that businesses who might otherwise exploit the workers or risk the health and well being of the consumer are regulated and those regulations are enforced rather than leave the foxes in charge of the hen house?

For many Progressives, the first term of President Obama has been less than hoped for. Much of the blame may be left at the Oval Office door; and yet a large portion of the blame lies with a Democratic Party and Congress that has failed to stand up for the principles outlined above. Darcy Burner has been an advocate for these principles and more; both as a candidate for office and more importantly through her works in Washington DC with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Now is the time for Progressives in the 1^st CD and across the state to advocate for those values which we all hold dear by advocating for Darcy Burner in Washington’s new 1^st CD.

Howard Dean speaks on Darcy's behalf during her 2008 campaign in the 8th CD - Photo Credit: NPI

Find out how you can help by visiting her website and her Facebook page. (or if you would prefer to donate right now, simply click the link on the left: “The Left Shue Supports”) The Democrats have a real chance to re-claim the US House this year. Let’s make it a Progressive House.

Peace,

Chad (the Left) Shue

Keystone XL - The Temporary Cease Fire

2012-01-20T16:27:00.000-08:00

Environmentalists and Clean Energy advocates from across the country are expressing appreciation along with a proper dose of apprehension at President Obama’s statement this week that, at least temporarily, puts the brakes on the XL Pipeline. Here is the official statement from the White House:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 18, 2012
Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline
Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security –including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas. And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.

While the president’s statement offers welcome relief for those who have been fighting tirelessly to protect our environment from the devastating effects of an almost certain “accident” and those who are standing firm in the cause of moving our country’s economy away from fossil fuel dependency; the statement stops well short of ending this “disaster in waiting.” Indeed, rather than defend the country’s environment and lead us into a clean energy future, President Obama says, “This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.” and the goes on to say, “In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security –including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico…”

And so, at least through the ongoing election cycle, we can feel somewhat comforted in the “cease fire” created by an overreaching Republican Party; we must not forget that this is only that – a short respite in which the forces should be reinforcing and mobilizing for the battle ahead.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

The continuing assault on education in Washington State

2012-01-15T14:01:00.000-08:00

As I wrote at the Examiner the other day, a “bipartisan” group of state legislators has introduced legislation in Olympia that would, once again, attempt to abdicate the state’s responsibility for ensuring a quality basic education to our children by experimenting with the “charter schools” scheme in our state. Charter schools have been three times rejected by the voters in this state. Apparently these legislators believe that they will have a better chance of pushing this agenda on us under the guise of “budget reform.”

On Thursday HB 2428 and SB 6202 were introduced in the House and Senate, respectively.

House sponsors:

Democrats: Eric Pettigrew (37th LD), Fred Finn (35^th LD), Deb Eddy (48th LD), Larry Springer (45^th LD), Larry Seaquist (25^th LD)

Republicans: Glenn Anderson (5^th LD), Cathy Dahlquist (31^st), Paul Harris (17^th LD), Bill Hinkle (13^th LD), Maureen Walsh (16^th LD), Hans Zeiger (25^th LD), Larry Haler (8^th LD), J.T. Wilcox (2^ndLD), Mark Hargrove (47^th LD), Susan Fagan (8^th LD), Cary Condotta (12^th LD)

Senate sponsors:

Democrats: Rodney Tom (48^th LD), Jim Kastama (25^th LD), Paull Shin (21^st LD), Steve Hobbs (44^th LD), Brian Hatfield (19^th LD), Tim Sheldon (35^th LD)

Republicans: Steve Litzow (41^st LD), Michael Baumgartner (6^th LD), Joe Fain (47^th LD), Doug Ericksen (42^nd LD), Andy Hill (45^th LD), Randi Becker (2^nd LD), Jerome Delvin (8^th LD), Curtis King (14^th LD), Mike Hewitt (16^th LD), Dan Swecker (20^th LD), Cheryl Pflug (5^th LD)

Coming on the heels of the recent State Supreme Court finding that the state is failing in its paramount duty to fully fund basic education in our state, this group of lawmakers (which includes noted conservadems Steve Hobbs and Brian Hatfield from the infamous Roadkill Caucus, and the state’s most prominent DINO, Tim Sheldon) believes that the answer is to gamble what funds we do have on an unproven scheme that has as much potential for harm as it may have for good.

As I noted in my piece at the Examiner, there are as many horror stories as success tales for charter schools in the various states that are already experimenting with them. From The Bronx, New York comes the headline: Bronx Charter School'sFailure Highlights Failure of Charter Schools which begins, “Despite support from Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama, and the corporate establishment, charter schools in New York City and everywhere else have yet to prove that they can solve the problem that is America’s education system. In the South Bronx, the Academic Leadership Charter School has been put on probation this week for not randomizing admissions—as charter schools are supposed to do—and possibly testing or interviewing applicants, which they are not…”

There is this from Trenton, New Jersey: Once-promisingcharter schools go off course - They're favored by reformers, but have a highrate of failure : "Three years ago, Capital Preparatory Charter High School opened to much fanfare and was hailed as a formidable challenge to standard high schools -- a taxpayer-funded college preparatory program that might teach the regular public schools something about how to educate children… Yet somehow things went terribly wrong at Capital Prep. The Grand Street school accumulated a large deficit, lacked a certified business administrator and was spending taxpayer dollars in ways that had little educational value, the DOE later found.

The school spent $10,000 on hotel fees for a staff junket to Atlantic City, $5,600 on a year-end staff party at KatManDu restaurant, and $38,000 on flower boxes and campus landscaping. Visiting DOE staff also found "a weak educational program, lacking in rigor and not meeting the goals set forth in the school's charter," a spokesman said. After a period of probation, the school was finally pressured to give up its charter in May, and the New Jersey State Police opened an investigation into school spending practices.”

And this from Miami, Florida: FCAT Results: Charter Schools Have High Failure Rate – “In his first visit to South Florida as governor, Rick Scott visited Florida International Academy, a charter school operated with public money by a private, for-profit company. Scott – a big charter school booster – said the school in Opa Locka could serve as a model for the rest of the state. But in FCAT [Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test] grades released last week, Florida International Academy’s elementary school scored an “F.” In Miami-Dade, a greater percentage of charter schools failed than public schools. Every school that got an “F” in Broward County was a charter school.”

These articles are only a minute sampling of the failures in charter schools, and there certainly are many success stories, however the argument for our state lawmakers should not be ‘how can we experiment with the system’ but rather, ‘how can we make the existing system better?’ At a time when our students are being turned into door to door salesmen to raise funds for basic needs in the classroom and our teachers are taking money from their own pockets to buy pencils, paper, and in some cases, textbooks for the students they have been charged with educating; at time when the governor is suggesting that school become a part-time endeavor to save money; at a time when even our Supreme Court has told them that the real problem in our schools is lack of funding, these lawmakers would rather gamble with what funds we have than sit down with the very people who serve on the front lines of this issue, our public school teachers and administrators, to seek real solutions.

In a statement from the Washington Education Association (WEA), the largest public school teachers’ organization in the state, association President, Mary Lindquist said,

“On three occasions, the people of Washington have rejected charter schools at the ballot box. That's three strikes. Charter schools are little more than an unfilled promise to our students. They simply skim off those children whose parents have the time and capability to fill out endless applications.

As educators, WEA members are deeply committed to making sure all our students receive a quality education -- an education that both inspires them and equips them for the challenges of the 21^st Century workplace. Across the state, there are countless examples of innovative schools doing exactly that. What we're seeing in these innovative schools is a return on investment we can all get behind.

Sen. Tom and Rep. Pettigrew should be working on the full funding challenge presented to them last week by the state Supreme Court. The people of Washington are demanding full public education funding for their children and neighborhood schools. Charter schools are a distraction from the real debate and not a full funding solution."

To be sure, the lines are being drawn in the legislature over this issue. 38^th LD State Representative Mike Sells said this,

“Charter schools have been a mixed bag of success and failure--although we can never trust the results, because quite often they don't meet the same mandates to serve everyone that a public school does. You can do a Google search and see a lot of the articles. What you have read is pretty accurate.

Right now you have groups that call themselves Stand With [For] Children and the League of Education Voters; (astro-turf groups funded by corporations) buttressed by Boeing pushing Charter Schools as some sort of panacea. I guess they haven't noticed the decision this week regarding $8 billion of underfunding to schools that the Supreme Court iterated in their latest ruling. We don't have the money to let them experiment with our kids' futures, let alone the moral issue of doing that. Our kids should not be for sale.”

If you agree with Rep. Sells and support your local educators, please contact your legislators (and the list above) and let them know that now is not the time to gamble with the limited funding available to our public schools and stand up for our children and grandchildren by opposing this new assault on our public schools.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

2012-01-14T08:32:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 01/14/2012

Total Americans Killed: 1,875

Post Obama Inauguration: 1,275

http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Petty Officer 1st Class Chad R. Regelin, 24, of Cottonwood, CA died Jan. 2 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Senior Airman Bryan R. Bell, 23, of Erie, PA died Jan. 5 in Shir ghazi, Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Tech. Sgt. Matthew S. Schwartz, 34, of Traverse City, MI died Jan. 5 in Shir ghazi, Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Airman 1st Class Matthew R. Seidler, 24, of Westminster, MD died Jan. 5 in Shir ghazi, Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Staff Sgt. Jonathan M. Metzger, 32, of Indianapolis, IN died Jan. 6 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Robert J. Tauteris Jr., 44, of Hamlet, IN died Jan. 6 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Christopher A. Patterson, 20, of Aurora, IL died Jan. 6 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Brian J. Leonhardt, 21, of Merrillville, IN died Jan. 6 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Pfc. Dustin P. Napier, 20, of London, KY died Jan. 8 in Zabul province, Afghanistan.

*Pfc. Michael W. Pyron, 30, of Hopewell, VA died Jan. 10 in Parwan province, Afghanistan.

*Pfc. Neil I. Turner, 21, of Tacoma, WA (47^th Washingtonian) died Jan. 11, in Logar province, Afghanistan.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Progressives and "The New 1st"

2012-01-11T12:08:00.000-08:00

Many of you may have noticed that I have been writing quite a bit lately about the Democratic primary contest in the 1st CD over at the Examiner.com. I guess the thing that has sparked my interest the most is that, with an open seat, comes an opportunity for a real debate between an unabashed, unapologetic Progressive Democrat and the party’s new “moderate wing” [aka conservadems] for a spot on the general election ballot. When I first started looking at the race the new lines had not been drawn so I had no idea how important this debate could be. Today the 1st CD includes twice defeated, Tea Party/Republican congressional candidate John (Freedom County) Koster who, though he will have to fend off two other Tea Party types, will most likely survive the primary process to become the Republican challenger in the General Election.

(John Koster addresses Tea Party/Republican supporters at 2010 kick-off

Photo Credit: Curt Eidem)

Before the lines were drawn this was essentially a race to see who would replace Jay Inslee in a relatively “safe” Democratic district. However, with the new lines and the addition of John Koster into the mix, this district somehow became a “swing” district at best and “leans Republican” by many other accounts. The certainty that the “New 1st” was drawn up for Koster’s benefit is so strong for some that even one of the state’s leading Liberal voices issued a knee-jerk endorsement of perhaps the leading “moderate” Democrat in the race. Well I’m not so sure; especially about Koster’s impact on the district.

It’s certainly true that the ‘conservative to the extreme’ pal of the state’s chief homophobe, Larry Stickney, has had great success in the Snohomish County Council district that he represents, and that he even managed to win more votes in Snohomish County than 2nd CD congressman, Rick Larsen in the 2010 race. However, I think the part that many are missing is the fact that, while the district has picked up the rural haven that is Koster’s playground, it has also inherited the northern portion of the old 2nd CD (Parts of Skagit and Whatcom Counties) that has voted mostly Democratic and (in what I believe will be the Koster/Stickney campaign’s undoing) added the parts of northern King County that have also voted mostly Democratic. Even in the areas that were carved out of the Republican controlled 8th CD, the folks who voted Republican there were only offered moderate choices in the late Jennifer Dunn and the current congressman, Dave Reichert. This is not to say that I don’t think Koster won’t make the top two come primary election day; I simply do not believe his hard core Tea Party conservatism will win in the more densely populated urban centers of the new 1st CD.

Which brings me back to my belief that this should be a great year and a great district for the long overdue and yet necessary debate from within the Democratic Party. For years, I and many other Progressives have argued that the reason Democrats have not been as successful as they could be in winning back the hearts and minds of the so-called Reagan Democrats and folks in the rural regions of the country is that we do not run candidates who will profess their liberal values. We continue to run more “moderate” or as some call them “Republican-lite” candidates. Yes, it has been true that these candidates do sometimes come away with a victory or two; however the old adage attributed to Harry Truman really is more true than false: “If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time…” A case in point would be Snohomish County Councilman, Dave Somers from Monroe who is serving his 2nd (non-consecutive) term representing the 5th Council District - much of the same rural area that is now part of the 1st CD. Never backing away from his strong values of “people and the environment first” over the developer and concrete and pavement crowd, Dave has twice beaten “Pro Growth” Republicans and, in one instance even pushed back a challenge from the so-called centrist wing of the Democratic Party in the days when there was a party primary. And there are other examples in the district where a strong Progressive challenge has won the day.

(Darcy Burner - Progressive Champion)

(Sen. Steve Hobbs - Unrepentent Centrist)

This year’s contest offers the voters a choice between a champion of Progressive values and activism in Darcy Burner (formerly of the 8th CD and currently Executive Director of ProgressiveCongress.org) and a truly unabashed moderate (founding member and leader of the centrist Roadkill Caucus in Olympia) in State Senator Steve Hobbs (D-44th LD). The remaining Democrats fall somewhere between these two and any one of them may become the beneficiary of an electorate that might shy away from the intraparty debate. Obviously I am not one who would be so shy and I look forward to a spirited debate. Unfortunately, I will have to wait for at least a couple of months while Sen. Hobbs is involved in the current legislative session and is not able to lend his full voice to the campaign. In the meantime, look for Darcy Burner to be showing up in a venue near you to get her name recognition up and to hear what folks in the “New 1st” are most concerned about. I will bet she has already been fighting for a lot of those concerns in DC.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

2012-01-02T07:54:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 01/02/2012

Total Americans Killed: 1,864

Post Obama Inauguration: 1,264

http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Lance Cpl. Christopher P. J. Levy, 21, of Ramseur, N.C., died Dec. 10 of wounds sustained Dec. 7 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Christopher L. Muniz, 24, of New Cuyama, CA died Dec. 11, in Kunar province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Ronald H. Wildrick Jr., 30, of Blairstown, NJ died Dec. 11, in Kunar province, Afghanistan.

*Pvt. Jalfred D. Vaquerano, 20, of Apopka, FL died Dec. 13, in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries suffered in Logar province, Afghanistan.

*Maj. Samuel M. Griffith, 36, of Virginia Beach, VA died Dec. 14 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Mikayla A. Bragg, 21, of Longview, WA (46^th Washingtonian) died Dec. 21 in Khowst province, Afghanistan.

*Staff Sgt. Joseph J. Altmann, 27, of Marshfield, WI died Dec. 25, in Kunar province Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Noah M. Korte, 29, of Lake Elsinore, CA died Dec. 27, in Paktia, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Kurt W. Kern, 24, of McAllen, TX died Dec. 27, in Paktia, Afghanistan.

*Pfc. Justin M. Whitmire, 20, of Easley, SC died Dec. 27, in Paktia, Afghanistan.

*Petty Officer Stacy O. Johnson, 35, of Rolling Fork, MS died July 18, in Bahrain.

*Spc. Pernell J. Herrera, 33, of Espanola, NM died Dec. 31, in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

He said What?!

2011-12-31T12:15:00.000-08:00

In yet another chapter of “It’s enough to make a Progressive’s head explode” liberal stalwart, Brendan Williams has endorsed Steve “Roadkill” Hobbs in the 2012 Democratic primary for the 1^st CD. As published in Publicola, Williams says,

“In designing a 1st Congressional District weighted toward Republicans, the Redistricting Commission made centrism essential. My friend Steve Hobbs is an unrepentant centrist. Even where we disagree, I know where he stands. In a Congress dominated by the super-wealthy, Steve can be an authentic voice for the middle class because he is middle class. With his fiscal conservatism and social progressivism — along with his military service — Steve is best-suited to win a district made very challenging. Furthermore, as a Snohomish County officeholder he can best take on a presumptive Republican nominee from Snohomish County – John Koster”

(Liberal firebrand Brendan Williams)

WOW!

Now I’m not sure how much impact his endorsement will have considering that, outside of those of us who follow Progressive politics pretty closely, Williams is a relative unknown in the northern elements of the district but I am sure that Hobbs will do his best to exploit it to his best advantage. What really concerns me however is the, ‘It takes a Republican-lite to beat a Republican’ talking point that punctuates the endorsement. I fully expect this from the party machinery but am bitterly disappointed in hearing it from someone who so passionately rails against this very language in his own criticisms of the new Democratic Party.

For years, those of us on the Progressive end of the spectrum have been arguing that the reason Democrats have a hard time making inroads into the more rural areas or in certain “swing districts” is that they don’t run candidates who stand for real Democratic values. Instead, they run candidates who run away from Progressive values and simply say that they can be as conservative as the other guy but in a more compassionate way. Take, for instance, Rick Larsen, who just won a narrow victory over John Koster in the 2^nd CD. Williams suggests that Hobbs’ status as a Snohomish County officeholder will help him in a race against Koster. Perhaps Brendan isn’t aware that Larsen LOST Snohomish County in part because his lack of conviction to Progressive values; causing some in the Democratic community to stay home. While it may be true that Hobbs will have some advantage as a “hometown boy” it is just as true that he comes to the race with almost as much negative baggage in the county. His championing of the Roadkill Caucus has left him in very bad standing with the unions and his perceived assault on the teachers unions will certainly leave them looking for alternatives. I am hearing almost as much support for former 45^th LD Rep. Laura Ruderman (another “moderate”) as the alternative to Hobbs as someone who “crosses the aisle.”

The fact that there are a couple of good Progressive candidates in this race that could have benefitted from a Williams endorsement is another bitter pill to swallow. Nepali immigrant and successful entrepreneur, Darshan Rauniyar certainly has the populist message and the funding to run a good campaign and Darcy Burner will almost certainly jump to the lead with most Progressive groups in the district. She is already very well known in Progressive circles and knows her way around a congressional campaign. She will have the baggage of two unsuccessful runs to deal with but she has a solid command of the issues and, I’m sure, a pretty solid list of surrogates who will be happy to help her establish name recognition in the district. Most importantly, she can and will run as an unabashed Progressive who will define and defend those values. In a year when “occupy” replaces “tea party” in the daily dialogue, this could be a Progressive’s year.

Also, in a year when Brendan William could be a strong contender to be the “Democrat for Life” in the newly created 10^th CD, it is especially sad to see him throw his weight behind someone who assuredly would be a counter to many of the votes he would cast in Congress.

Of course, this may just be Brendan’s way of saying he would rather see Hobbs in DC rather than Olympia.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News - Last Entry

2011-12-18T08:32:00.000-08:00

On December 15, 2011 President Barack Obama declared the official end to America's war in Iraq; 8 Years and 9 months after George W Bush announced our invasion of that country. Since February, 2006 this blog has been running the regular feature, "IWR [Iraq War Resolution]News." Using official numbers and names released by the Department of Defense, I have tried to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. I have tried to make every effort to refrain from editorial comment even though elsewhere on the pages of this blog, my particular point of view was never veiled.

While the final numbers are subject to change as the very last of our troops leave the country and some of the wounded may still succumb to their injuries, it is time to end this feature on these pages. Below are the last names and numbers as released by the Department of Defense as the American occupation of Iraq formally comes to an end.

Iraq Body Count: 12/18/2011

Total Americans Killed: 4484

Post Obama Inauguration: 264

Post “End of Combat”: 68

http://icasualties.org/

“…a small price…” Rep. John Boehner

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Spc. Adrian G. Mills, 23, of Newnan, GA died Sept. 29 in Kirkuk, Iraq.

*Chief Warrant Officer James B. Wilke, 38, of Ione, CA died Oct.10, in Doha, Qatar.

*Staff Sgt. James R. Leep Jr., 44, of Richmond, VA died Oct. 17 in Babil province, Iraq.

*Pfc. Steven F. Shapiro, 29, of Hidden Valley Lake, CA died Oct. 21 in Tallil, Iraq.

*Capt. Shawn P. T. Charles, 40, of Hickory, NC died Oct. 23 in San Antonio, Texas.

*Sgt. 1st Class David G. Robinson, 28, of Winthrop Harbor, IL died Oct. 25 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

*1st Lt. Dustin D. Vincent, 25, of Mesquite, TX died Nov. 3, in Kirkuk province, Iraq.

*Spc. David E. Hickman, 23, of Greensboro, NC died Nov. 14, in Baghdad, Iraq.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

December 15, 2011 - The End of an Error

2011-12-17T11:16:00.000-08:00

And so, 8 years and 9 months after George W Bush ordered American troops to invade a country that had neither attacked us nor possessed the means to attack us, the Iraq “war” is over. 4484 American troops lost their lives; 264 under President Obama’s watch with 68 of those coming after he declared the “end of combat” in August, 2010. Over 33,000 were wounded with many of them suffering loss of limbs. All of these figures are subject to change, of course, as some of the wounded may still succumb to their injuries. The rates of PTSD and GI suicide are unmatched in our military history. Upwards of 100,000 Iraqi civilians (including women and children) have died as a direct result of the invasion and untold thousands are still living in exile; driven from their homes during the height of the civil war which the invasion permitted to take place. Then there is the matter of the money spent/borrowed to pursue this invasion and occupation. The final numbers aren’t in but it’s safe to safe we are looking at hundreds of billions; money that was diverted from domestic needs.

President Obama and other elected officials have been quick with their praise of the troops; as well they should be. It is estimated that over one million troops passed through Iraq over the course of the almost 9 year occupation. Many of them served up to 9 separate tours in that country. They all sacrificed for our country and in our name. Of course that does not mean that every American who served did so honorably. The photos from Abu Grahib and the stories about rogue troops in places like Haditha bore witness to the worst in human nature. But aside from the purely military performance aspect, there seems to be some doubt over the question of “Was it worth it?”

In order to be able to assess the “worth”, we must first establish the “it.” In this case the “it” must be measured in blood and treasure. Therefore, we must start with the value of a human life; 4484 human lives; hundreds of thousands of human lives. In September of 2007, current Speaker of the House (then, Minority Leader), John Boehner told us the money spent and the loss of life would be “a small price” (at that point 3700 American troops had already died)

After we determine for ourselves the value of a life, we then ask what it is that was actually accomplished with our un-provoked invasion and subsequent occupation of a country that had no air force, no navy, and whose infrastructure was still reeling from the damages we leveled in the 1991 Gulf War. After it became painfully apparent that would be no Weapons of Mass Destruction as charged by the Bush administration, the first thing we are told by those who led the charge is that the evil dictator, Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge. Captured and tried, he met his fate at the end of a hangman’s rope. This was in 2006. By this point 3,000 American troops had been killed. It is true that Saddam was brutal dictator. Human rights groups had reported that in the years prior to the 1991 Gulf War he had ordered thousands of Iraqis to their deaths and his regime was certainly guilty of brutal torture of thousands of others [As a point of reference, this was during the time when the United States (under the Reagan administration) considered Iraq to be an ally and was the recipient of our support in the form of both conventional weapons as well as chemical and biological stocks; which he subsequently used to kill Iranians as well as many of his own people], most groups have reported that, with the end of the Gulf War and a more watchful eye of the world upon him, Saddam’s ability to operate and commit such atrocities was severely curtailed. Indeed, most of the mass graves unearthed by our troops and by human rights groups since our 2003 invasion have been dated back to pre 1993.

So the next “benefit” we are told about is the improved quality of life for the Iraqi people. So many of the returning veterans have told us about the schools and medical clinics they built and how they felt so proud of the way they had helped improve the lives of the Iraqi people. Indeed they should hold their heads up and take great pride in those efforts. However, it is worth taking a look at where things were before our invasion and where they stand today. By every report, before the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq boasted one of the best infrastructures in the entire Middle East. Their roads and bridges were comparable to any in the western world and their educational and health institutions were the envy of many countries in the region. A secular oasis in the heart of the Islamic world, women were a major force in both medicine and scientific arenas. With the Gulf War, however, Iraq has now experienced some 20 years of almost constant bombardment, sabotage, and terrorist activity which has taken a real toll on every aspect of Iraqi life.

Today, according to last quarterly report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) in October of this year, things are a long way from pre-war norms.

Electricity

Supply and Demand

Iraq’s electricity supply on the grid and estimated demand both reached record levels in July. Total supply averaged 175,580 megawatt-hours (MWh) per day, or 7,316 megawatts (MW). Each of the two components of current supply, power-plant production within Iraq and electricity imports from Iran, also achieved all-time highs. Demand, however, was almost twice the available supply— 336,900MWh per day, or 14,038MW— resulting in a 6,722MW supply-demand gap, the largest monthly shortfall to date. Figure 4.14 shows the monthly and 12-month rolling national averages for electricity supply and demand from January 2009 through July 2011. As discussed in SIGIR’s July 2011 Quarterly Report, as well as in the feature on the Kurdistan Region in this Quarterly Report, the aggregated supply and demand figures for the entire country mask the differences between the situations in the Kurdistan Region and the rest of Iraq. While the Ministry of Electricity (MOE) is currently struggling to provide at least 8 hours of electricity per day to consumers in the 15 provinces served by its transmission and distribution network, KRG [Kurdistan Regional Government] officials reported that consumers in the Kurdistan Region started experiencing full days of uninterrupted power this fall, though they expect this to drop back to 18 hours per day when demand peaks in the winter.

Water and Sanitation

The GOI, UNICEF, and the European Union this quarter released the findings of a survey assessing the conditions of water and sanitation services in Iraq’s 18 provinces. The survey found that 79% of the population has access to the drinking water distribution network, leaving one in five Iraqis without access to safe drinking water. Access is worse in rural areas, where two in five Iraqis do not have access to drinking water networks. The survey also found that 17% of the population does not have access to adequate sanitation services. Fluctuations in the supply of electricity, shortages in equipment and machinery, and lack of conservation were cited as main causes for the lack of water and sanitation services. The survey was part of a $10 million project to improve the GOI’s delivery of water and sanitation services.

Health Care

According to USAID, Iraq’s health care has declined significantly in the last two decades as measured by life expectancy, child mortality, and other indicators. The country suffers from systemic challenges, including a lack of doctors and trained staff (particularly nurses), a drug distribution system plagued by weak controls, and poorly maintained infrastructure that leads to unsanitary conditions. The poor security environment has created additional obstacles to the delivery of adequate care. According to a recent issue of The Lancet medical journal, an estimated 18,000 physicians— about half of the total that worked in Iraq prior to 2003—have fled the country. Iraq now has about one-fifth as many doctors and one-third as many nurses per person as Jordan. The GOI estimates that more than 600 physicians have been murdered since 2003, but the Iraqi Medical Association puts the number closer to 2,000. As a result of a deteriorating health care system, Iraq’s health statistics have worsened:

• Life expectancy at birth in 2010 was 58 years, down from 65 years in 1980.

• The chance of an adult dying before the age of 60 has increased almost 40% since 2000.

• The maternal mortality rate—84 per 100,000 live births—is twice as high as Jordan’s.

• The infant mortality rate is 41 deaths per 1,000 live births.

• Mortality for children younger than 5 is at 45 per 1,000 live births—twice as high as Jordan’s and almost three times as high as Syria’s.

• Child immunization rates are down nearly 20% since 2000 and now average about 36%.

And so, the question is, with thousands of lives lost, thousands more affected by injury and illness; with an infrastructure left in near third-world condition and with political uncertainty in the near future, has our invasion been “worth it” to the Iraqis?

As for the U.S.; there are also other considerations. Are we more secure as a country because of this invasion? The obvious answer must be that, as Iraq never posed a threat to this country, our security position had nothing to gain from that invasion. However, many people who are observers of history (especially Middle East history) will tell us that, the very act of invading a sovereign nation in that part of the world will leave us vulnerable to future threat from generations who will never forget that it was the United States that left them in the condition they are in today. As even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mused at one point; we should be careful not to create more terrorists than we are killing. Surely, watching your family flee their home and country or, worse, becoming orphaned, possibly with wounds of your own cannot be something that will fill you with love and respect for your invader/occupier.

And what of our own citizens? There is no doubt that our country was bitterly divided as a result of the election of 2000. But there can be no argument that the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq caused a total political civil war within this country that still has not mended. Will the end of the Iraq war help in the healing process? Already there are those on the right who are criticizing President Obama for simply complying with the terms of the Bush negotiated withdrawal of forces and ending the war. Worse still, they are saber rattling to start the next one in Iran.

In the past two election cycles, our economy has been at the center of the discussion (even as troops are still dying on Afghani and Iraqi battlefields). Our projected budget deficit is in the trillions of dollars. There can be no doubt that the billions spent in Iraq (almost every penny of which was authorized “off-budget”) – coupled with a massive reduction in revenues pushed by the Bush administration – contributed in the largest way to our current economic condition. Digging out only means more pain for those who are already at the bottom end of the economic spectrum. A recent report from the US Census Bureau concludes that 1 in 2 Americans are now classified as at or below the poverty line.

Am I happy the war is over? Ecstatic. Was it worth it? Not for a second.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Hey you! Get a Job!

2011-12-14T20:52:00.000-08:00

Today, in reaction to hearing that US House Republicans had passed an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed that included a requirement for drug testing for those who would seek an unemployment check (this bill was quickly shut down by Senate Republicans), I posted the following as my Facebook status:

“So for the Republicans in the US House of Representatives who believe the unemployed should have to pee in a cup before they can claim the unemployment benefit that they paid in to: - Before my wife pees in a cup for you, you will first need to pee in to a cup for the tax dollars you are taking from me in the way of salary and benefits. Never forget: YOU ARE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and as such YOU WORK FOR ME!”

This started a bit of give and take between me and a couple of my friends on the subject. I won’t share their names in this post and will only use their own words to get their points across. The gist of their argument is that people should be taking whatever jobs are available and not be relying on government handouts. They also seem to be very concerned that losing one’s job must lead to instant drug and alcohol abuse. The conversation went something like this:

1^st Friend: Do you exclude the Dems in that statement? I had to pee in a cup for years to collect my salary! What's the difference?

Me: I don't exclude anyone who would pee on the unemployed and demean them as people rather than provide them with an opportunity for a job or provide them basic subsistence. And for whom were you peeing in a cup and what was your position. Did you know the requirement to provide bodily fluids before you accepted the job? Details Details....

2^nd Friend: yeah I kind of agree. I think unemployment is too long, three months maybe four is all one needs to find a job; maybe not the one you want but something but you shouldn’t have to pee in a cup. You did pay in so that’s bs. Welfare on the other hand should be tested for everything; even alcohol and tobacco products. If you’re on welfare you shouldn’t have money for luxuries.

1^st Friend: Details are it was mandatory for the safety of all those people you object to having to pee in a cup. I think it should apply to welfare payments as well! As a substance abuse counselor I am aware of how many children out there go hungry because their parents waste our tax dollars to buy drugs. If this pee in a cup can identify family drug problems, maybe the money would be better spent in that direction.

“I think unemployment is too long, three months maybe four is all one needs to find a job…” Wow!

Me: …As for 3 months to find a job...Jesus Christ! What planet are you living on?

2^nd Friend: actually more like 10 days. It’s never been hard to find work. It’s out there. question is for most people do I want the job and pay but there are jobs and pay out there.....on earth the same place I live… exceptions could be people with a record.

1^st Friend: Or drug problems!

2^nd Friend: Of course but people with drug problems end up on the doll or in illegal activity. It’s difficult to be a functioning addict but I have met some. Problem isn’t only finding a job for an addict it’s also keeping it.

There is more to the conversation but I really was struck by the notion that there are people out here who honestly believe that the issue of long-term unemployment is really only a matter of too many lazy Americans. So to be sure I wasn’t the one imagining things, I went to the website for the US Department of Labor; to their latest numbers on how long people are going without jobs in this country. Below are the numbers from November, 2010 and November 2011.

Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment

Weeks Nov 2010 Nov 2011

Less than 5 weeks 2,824,000 2,519,000

5 to 14 weeks 3,336,000 2,911,000

15 to 26 weeks 2,515,000 2,111,000

27 weeks and over 6,328,000 5,691,000

Yep, there have been folks getting those jobs after just 10 days of looking. But I can’t help but wonder how anyone can believe that between 5 and 6 million of their fellow citizens are content to simply sit at home for months on end (up to a year or more); drawing a check that will not even comes close to the wage they were forced to give up when the company they worked for decided it was more profitable to move off-shore or bring in a younger worker at a lower wage. But I guess that’s just what should be expected in today’s America.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

2011-12-09T05:40:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 12/08/2011
Total Americans Killed: 1,852
Post Obama Inauguration: 1,252
http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Spc. Sean M. Walsh, 21, of San Jose, CA died Nov. 16, in Khowst province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Joshua D. Corral, 19, of Danville, CA died Nov. 18 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Pvt. Jackie L. Diener II, 20, of Boyne City, MI died Nov. 21 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Zachary C. Reiff, 22, of Preston, IA died Nov. 21 of wounds suffered Nov. 18 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Adam J. Buyes, 21, of Salem, OR died Nov. 26 in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. 1st Class Dennis R. Murray, 38, of Red Broiling Springs, TN died Nov. 21 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Staff Sgt. Vincent J. Bell, 28, of Detroit, MI died Nov. 30 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Ryan D. Sharp, 28, of Idaho Falls, ID died Dec. 3, at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of wounds suffered Nov. 21 at Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. 1st Class Clark A. Corley Jr., 35, of Oxnard, CA died Dec. 3, in Wardak province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Ryan M. Lumley, 21, of Lakeland, FL died Dec. 3, in Wardak province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Thomas J. Mayberry, 21, of Springville, CA died Dec. 3, in Wardak province, Afghanistan.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's Tax Holiday - A Poison Pill?

2011-12-02T11:58:00.000-08:00

A couple of days ago, I posed the following question on my Facebook page:

“If the Bush tax cuts were wrong (and I believe they were) why is it I am supposed to embrace the Obama "Payroll Tax Holiday" when it is taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund? I mean, that is what the Payroll Tax is, isn't it? Why would I want to under-fund my Social Security?”

There were a few comments; none of which actually advocating for the Payroll Tax Holiday. Most everyone agreed that the Bush Tax Cuts should go away and a couple went into a discussion of healthcare costs and why we are in such financial trouble to begin with. A couple of folks provided me with the “official Obama explanation” (which pretty much sums up what I already knew):

“The payroll tax goes to the Social Security Trust Fund, but this proposal would not jeopardize the Social Security Trust Fund or the solvency of Social Security because the Trust Fund is made whole by general revenues. (In other words, the federal government would simply transfer funds from other areas into the Social Security Trust Fund to make up for any losses). Because of this, the Social Security Chief Actuary has certified that this proposal would not affect the solvency of Social Security. To pay for the payroll tax cut, the Senate plan would impose 3.25% surtax on people making over $1 million per year. To encourage more hiring, companies would not have to pay any payroll taxes on newly hired workers — on the first $12.5 million of an employer’s increased taxable payroll for the 4th quarter of 2011 and the first $50 million in increased payroll for 2012.”

So here are my issues with this scheme. First, the very fact that we are even discussing anything to do with Social Security at a time when the Republicans (and some Democrats) seem more than willing to “review” or “modify” the program as part of the discussion of deficit reduction, should make everyone nervous. Second, as we discovered last night, there is no way this Republican Party is going to ask their millionaires to reimburse a raid into the Social Security Trust Fund. Third; but perhaps most importantly, for the past few years, we Progressives have been able to rebut Tea Party and Republican rhetoric about Social Security contributing to the national debt by insisting that the program is run from an independent fund (hence the separate deduction on your paycheck and the whole basis for the Payroll Tax Holiday) and does not impact the General Fund. With this scheme (dressed up as a blessing on working people), Obama and congressional Democrats are handing the right-wing the argument they want to validate their desire to eliminate the program (or severely cripple it) as being a drain on the General Fund.

I ask again; why would any Progressive American support this scheme? I know that I certainly do not and am glad to read this morning that, at least for now, the notion is stalled. Of course that doesn’t mean Obama can’t revive it again by capitulating away some other Progressive token like a reduction in the Defense cuts set to take place next year.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue