To the editor

It is about direction, not ideology.

Fully two-thirds of American’s believe our country is headed in the wrong direction according to a polling point survey conducted between September 7-10, 2006. So many of the people who believe that our country is going off in the wrong direction, will go to the polls this November and vote the way they always do: straight Republican ticket. I quote Albert Einstein “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It is so easy to fall into drinking the Republican Party Kool-aid: Small federal government, individual rights, strong military and so many other planks of the Republican platform. But an old Irish Proverb says, “The talk doesn’t wear the clothes” and before you pull that lever or fill in your completely accurate mark-sense sheet at the polls this November (Har-de-har-har) think about the clothes your candidate is wearing.

Militarily, the United States is weaker than at anytime since World War I. Our recruiting has fallen dramatically since we occupied Iraq and with 138,000 troops currently serving in Iraq, we do not have the capability to deal with a significant problem in the world without reinstating the draft. What happens if tomorrow North Korea invades South Korea or Iran and Hezbollah invade Israel or The Sudan commits genocide against it’s own people (why have we done nothing to stop this?), what will we do? A military draft is political suicide and according to John DiIulio, Bush’s first Director of Faith Based and Community Initiatives, “What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm.” Our military is stretched so thin; the Pentagon needs to employ stopgap measures to maintain troop strength for our occupation in Iraq. Wrong direction, strike one.

Small federal government is a joke. Again this year, congress had to increase the debt ceiling on the national debt (that is three times in the last six years) so that congress can continue to spend our children and grandchildren’s tax dollars. We sit now at 8.4 trillion dollars and counting. Tax and spend liberal? Indeed. How about don’t tax and spend more conservative? Under this President, our federal government has grown in size and scope more than during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration with all its alphabet soup agencies. In constant dollars, FDR’s spending increases totaled about 191 billion dollars in 1935, much to the chagrin of the conservatives in our country. In the five plus years of a Republican White House and a Republican Congress, our government has spent three Trillion ($3,000,000,000,000) more than it took in. Wrong direction, strike two.

Individual rights today mean whatever rights Bush decides you get. He seems to have determined that he is above the law and can rescind the fourth amendment protection for the right of the people to be secure in their person, possessions, papers and effects. He can also eliminate the sixth amendment protections for the right of the people to a speedy trial, representation of council and the right to face their accuser. People, these are not conveniences! These are the rights of the people guaranteed by our constitution. If we ignore these rights, we will become what we have beheld. If the people the U.S. government has imprisoned are truly terrorists, give them a trial. Indict them, convict them and sentence them. A decade ago, individual rights centered on the second amendment and its’ inherent right to privacy (forget the opposite argument from the exact same people when it comes to Roe V. Wade). But 9/11 changed our perception, and it has been used incessantly as a political tool by Karl Rove to garner more power for his puppet. Our country’s freedoms are supposedly what we are fighting for. How then can we justify eliminating our rights in an effort to bring those rights to others? Someone explain that to me. Wrong direction, strike three.

You’re out.

We must change direction in this country and the only way to do that is for the Democrats to take both the House and the Senate. Vote Democrat this November.

Prediction

Rumsfeld will announce his resignation between Oct 15 and Oct 31.

rebuke Devos

Supply side or “Trickle-down” economists argue that when taxes are cut, revenue increases. This is true in the short term. But in the long run, it no longer qualifies as a tax cut; it becomes a tax shift. The tax burden moves from businesses to individuals. Because increasing taxes is political suicide, when the economy turns down, which it always does eventually, government revenue mirrors the economic cycle. In the very long run, taking this philosophy to its ultimate conclusion, no taxes will bear the largest revenue. Does this make sense to anyone?

It is obvious Dick DeVos is cut from the supply side cloth. I’d be lying if I wrote that I read every word in the DeVos turnaround plan for Michigan. I did read most of it and what I didn’t complete I read the bullet points. I have one simple question:

Where is the money coming from?

DeVos’ plans read like the script from a really bad horror flick: not one new idea. The entire 34 pages includes such gems as immediately eliminating the single business tax (SBT), more funding for education, healthcare, roads, tourism and a host of other pet projects that have been on Governor Granholm’s desk for four years. So why haven’t these plans been implemented? Because Michigan is constitutionally bound to balance its budget and the money doesn’t exist to pay for these projects. DeVos devotes not one sentence in the entire diatribe to tell us where the money to pay for these projects comes from at the same time he’s taking 2 billion dollars away from the state coffers. Again, where does the money come from?

Should DeVos win (allow me to quote Shakespeare, “Angels and ministers of grace, defend us!”), he has two avenues:

1. Eliminate the SBT right now and cut 2 billion dollars out of the state’s budget.
OR
2. Raise taxes to pay for his campaign promises.

Which one do you think he will do? Yes, that was a rhetorical question.

So where does the money come from? If you said education, you are correct. Michigan spends over 50 cents of every revenue dollar on public education (50.8 to be precise). There are 542 school districts in Michigan along with 13 public universities. Doing a little simple math, each school district would see, on average, a decrease in their revenue on the order of 1.7 million dollars. Ouch!

Goodbye computers. Goodbye textbooks. Goodbye college grants and scholarships. Goodbye SPORTS. Goodbye arts and humanities. Goodbye excellent teachers, counselors and staff. Here is where the trickle-down tax shift occurs. Parents of these kids who want to play sports or want computers in the classroom or cannot foot the entire bill for college must pay for them themselves.

I have two daughters in Hastings Public Schools. For the most part, they have been blessed by their experience thus far, but if DeVos is elected, the Republican Party’s systematic destruction of our public school system accelerates to the point of no return. Our children, who cannot see and discern what is happening, given their sphere of understanding, implicitly trust their parents to make decisions on their behalf pertaining to what is best for them. Is cutting 1.7 million out of your school district’s budget best for them?

Public education is not a privilege!

But it will be if DeVos is our next Governor.

this very interesting week

It has been an extremely interesting two weeks in Washington. Only one piece of good news has come out: unemployment has fallen to its lowest level since Bush stole office. Unfortunately, the good news is the smallest paragraph in this letter. Bush gave credit to his tax-cuts, but I quote Warren Buffet, “Give me a trillion dollars and I’ll show you a good time too.” The only difference is, Bush has spent more than 3 trillion.

In my opinion, the most interesting and most damaging piece of info that came out was hardly covered in the “liberal” big city papers this week. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, under heavy fire from the Senate Judiciary Committee, vigorously defended eavesdropping on domestic phone calls and emails without a warrant as a President’s wartime power. I am absolutely beside myself. The Constitution of the United States guarantees that citizens of the Untied States are free from unreasonable searches and seizures and that in order to obtain a search, the officers of the law MUST obtain a warrant. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give no credence to whatever arguments, reasons or excuses this regime contends, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution trumps every explanation they have. Ask yourself this question, “If America could be free of terrorism by becoming a Muslim theocracy would I give up my First Amendment right to freedom of religion and renounce my current religion to become a Muslim?” If you answered “yes”, might I suggest moving to Iran? If you answered, “no”, then why would you give up your fourth amendment right for supposedly the same end?

I might be more interested in the immigration debate if we were in Los Angeles or El Paso. What did interest me much more about the Senate’s failure to pass the immigration bill was what I heard from the talking heads during the day on Friday. This gets a bit arcane, but the main reason nothing was passed out of the Senate on immigration stems from the systematic and constant exclusion of Democrats during the House/Senate reconciliation process. This is where leaders of the two houses get together to compromise on the differing versions of the same bill. Democrats didn’t trust the Republican leaders of the Senate to stand their ground on the compromises that were reached in the Senate bill. I don’t blame them. With earmarks, amendments and historically unrecognizable legislation coming back to the Senate after the reconciliation process, Democrats have every reason to believe that this piece of legislation would bear no resemblance to the compromises they made, was too expensive with billions in earmarks going to Republican districts and unenforceable because the congress wouldn’t appropriate the funds to enforce the law. They didn’t do it when we were running a surplus, they certainly won’t do it now that we run half trillion dollar deficits. Republican Senators blasted Democratic leaders as playing politics (that sounds familiar) and, for once, they are right. Republicans have much more to lose by not passing immigration reform than Democrats. Sometimes playing politics is good. Good for them.

Tom DeLay stepped down as a candidate for the House of Representatives for the Texas 22nd district. This helps Republicans in the short term because DeLay was going to be crucified in the mid term elections, not only by the Democratic challenger in his district, but every Democrat in the House race of 2006 would be running against “Tom DeLayism”. Democrats don’t have that anymore. In the long term, a DeLay-less Republican Party cannot unite behind “the Hammer”. This is good for America too. Over the past 25 years, Republicans put their party ahead of their country. It still may be this way without DeLay, but we, as American’s, have a chance to elect members of congress who vote their conscience, not “yes men” to a power-hungry hypocrite.

I couldn’t contain my laughter when I found out it was none other than President George W. Bush who authorized Lewis “Scooter” Lbby to leak the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to Judy Miller of the New York Times in 2003. It appears that the President was in his legal bounds to declassify this NIE (the timing of the declassification raises my eyebrows, however), and nothing has come to light as of this writing that would lead me to believe that Valerie Plame’s name was included on that NIE, but it was released to rebut Joe Wilson’s July op-ed piece in the New York Times calling the Bush reasons for war in Iraq untrue and ten days later, every person in the industrialized world knew Valerie Plame’s name and that she was the wife of Joe Wilson. Is there a second source? Karl Rove perhaps?

Now here’s the funny part: Bush promised that the “leaker” would be found and dealt with. For almost three years, he has been looking for himself. I wonder how long it’s going to take him to find Bin Laden?

Finally, John F. Kerry wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times earlier this week and to those of you who still believe that Democrats don’t have any good ideas, research this on the web. How many more brave Americans have to die, caught in the crossfire of Shia and Sunni civil war, before we finally realize that trying to transform Iraq was an enormous mistake?

Quote of the Month

A couple of them today.


"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly . . . it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
-Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda


"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

-George W. Bush


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

-Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief at the Nuremberg Trials


Sleep Well Tonight!

Letter to the Editor

I was privy to a couple of seemingly unrelated incidents this week that I want to share with you. It seems our priorities in America continue moving in the wrong direction and it is time We the People stand up and demand our leaders change direction.

I filled up my tank earlier this week with $2.50/gallon gasoline (which, given the oil company profits in 2005 is a travesty in itself, but not the topic of my discussion). As I paid for the gas at the counter I happened upon a promotional pen that read, “An Army of One.” This is the new Army slogan. This pen was heavy, sported a metal pocket clip that was not integrated with the pen and a rubber composite grip with micro slits that made the pen very comfortable to write with. This pen was far and away the nicest promotional pen I’d ever seen. I mentioned to the cashier that our country needed to cut 56 billion out of our federal budget so we slash Medicaid, student aid and AFDC. The Army gets their pens though.

I own a degree in marketing and I understand the benefits of promotional items in the grand scheme of conducting business. But instead of spending 5 cents a piece on a Bic, our tax dollars bought fancy, specialty items that cost at least $1.00 a piece. It wouldn’t surprise me if the army bought 5 million of these pens. Someone, who shall remain nameless, accused John Kerry in 2004 for voting against an 87 billion dollar supplemental spending package as being unpatriotic for not supporting the troops. It doesn’t seem to me those pens are helping our troops defend against the IEDs in Iraq. Maybe, just maybe, this person leveling the accusation was playing politics while suggesting it was John Kerry who was playing politics with our fine soldier’s lives.

This Friday, the more disturbing and important information hit me. My wife told me that she was speaking with my younger daughter’s teacher and relayed the fact that the Hastings School Board was, again, seriously flirting with eliminating the Developmental Kindergarten Program (DK). For those of you who don’t know about this program, it caters to children aged 4-5 and emotionally are not ready for full Kindergarten.

After witnessing my younger daughter’s experience in this program last year, and the effect that this instructor had on her attitude toward school, I am convinced not only is the instructor of this program one of the finest teachers in the state, but this program is vital to the development of our youngest people in preparing them for what lies ahead. Without this program, older 4 year olds and young 5 year olds will be left to sit out another year of school, or attend one of the private pre-schools in the Hastings area. The private schools are excellent in Hastings (my older daughter attended Noah’s Ark for two years), but the tuition is $500-600 per year. Some families don’t have that to spend.

Has this country lost its soul? Have our priorities really gone this awry? Will someone please justify to me that promotional pens for the war machine trump our children’s education? I realize this is a difference in federal and state responsibilities, but I call upon every citizen in the Hastings school district to write a letter to your congressman, senator, school board and every elected official telling them that the Hastings Developmental Kindergarten program must be saved! Find the money somewhere, even if we have to (*gasp*) raise taxes.

Midterm Elections

I read in the Washington Post yesterday that Karl Rove has outlined the Republican’s plan of attack for the 2006 mid term politicking. You will probably be surprised (I know I was) to learn his idea is to highlight the war on terrorism. Yes, that was sarcasm.

Let’s take the Rovian tact point by point.

1. To win the war on terror we must create war in the Middle East against a country that has never attacked us based upon false claims of WMD and links to Al Qaeda,

2. To win the war on terror, we must detain suspected terrorists in secret facilities, denying any constitutional protection for the right to know the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to a speedy and public trial and assistance of counsel for his defense.

3. To win the war on terror, we must act above the law to ensure that our covert operatives be allowed to torture suspected terrorists in an effort to obtain information. Even though the Congress of the United States wrote a law forbidding any torturous act, the Republican President can ignore it if he wants to. For a future Democratic President, it shall be an impeachable offense.

4. To win the war on terror, we must be able to spy on Americans with wiretapping and email searches without warrants. Though the sixth amendment to the constitution expressly outlaws this procedure and the Patriot Act, which quadrupled the size of the courts issuing warrants for this specific purpose, these laws contain too much red tape to effectively fight the war.

5. To win the war on terror, we must manipulate and negotiate with the freedom of the press, the most important freedom we possess. We must characterize a press with impeachment of their duty as patriotic; conversely, a press completely independent to a tyrannical regime impedes the regime’s efforts to win the war.

6. To win the war on terror, we must stay in control of all branches of government, by whatever means necessary, eliminating the checks and balances our constitutional framers implied so our single-minded message cannot be questioned by the ignorant masses.

A question:

How are we to prove to the rest of the world, especially Iraq, that our mission is to create freedom and democracy all over the world while we act as if these values no longer apply to us?

The reason I don’t consider myself a Democrat is because the Democratic leadership will not fight back on this issue. One of the reasons Rove has been so successful in electing a draft dodging, former cocaine user is his ability to attack his opponents perceived strength. Although it seems counter-intuitive, Rove successfully attacked Al Gore on the “tax and spend” wonderful liberal economy that he and Clinton presided over and his thirty-five times removed contacts at “Veterans for Truth” to attack a Vietnam war hero. I would consider myself a Democrat if we started hearing talking points sounding like this:

1. American policy in the Middle East, under the direction of Karl Rove, creates more terrorists than it kills. If we are to bring about a sea change in attitudes among the people in the Middle East, creating war on a Middle East country based on false accusations and hyped intelligence is a diatribe on how not to do it. American policy inflames Arab/Muslim hatred, and gives radical Jihadists appealing rhetoric that romanticizes suicide for the cause. If we are to win the war on terror, we must change our actions to dry up the pool of recruitment for radical Jihadist leaders.

2. IF Iraq becomes a beacon for democracy in the Middle East, transfers of power away from dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc. are decades away. How many more attacks on American soil will occur during this time? What is more likely is once American forces have left Iraq, within five years, civil war rages and another strong man, with the promise of keeping the peace will emerge and dissolve the constitution. This will be greeted with thunderous applause. We’ve seen this time and again throughout history. Are we going to stay there forever to avoid this? It is time to bring in the United Nations to help build this country. Our military men and women dispatched the regime in Iraq quickly and decisively. They have done their duty with courage and honor. It is time to bring them home. They no longer help, they hinder.

3. When our founding fathers ratified the U.S. constitution, their intent of the rule of law insisted that no one individual was above the law. Karl Rove feels he knows better about what is good for America than Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and the rest of our founding fathers. No man is above the law, and when a person breaks the law, he/she is punished. It is astounding to me that this regime acts as if the fourth amendment, the sixth amendment and the new law, passed by an overwhelming majority in our current congress banning torture, can be ignored, while Americans simply say that our President is trying to protect us. If we change what we believe, if we passively ignore our fundamental rights promised to us by our constitution in an effort to fight terrorism, the terrorists have already won. The President says, at the behest of Karl Rove, that he needs to spy on us to protect us. You think about that.

4. Why is this regime, under the direction of Karl Rove, so secretive? One might suggest that post 9/11 tempers their statements as to not give away our secrets. But I submit to you, they were secretive before 9/11. As an example, I give you Dick Cheney’s energy task force, which refused to disclose information about its participants and its findings. Why? What do they have to hide? This regime didn’t want 9/11 investigated, but they will actively pursue investigating who leaked the information on the wiretapping of Americans without warrants. Does this seem just a little hypocritical?

5. This is our country! We have the right to know what our leadership is doing. There are disadvantages to having some of this information, but I liken it to the World Wide Web. There are bad things on the net but on the whole, it has changed society for the better. Some bad things will come from information dissemination, but on the whole, it will change society for the better. We are adults. We are not stupid, even though Karl Rove thinks we are. We can handle the truth. American’s: Demand transparency in your government.

#4 Terrorism

#4 Terrorism

Before I get to any opinions, some facts:

1. Outgoing National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, set up several staff meetings with incoming National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. Berger and Rice both attended the meeting on terrorism (even though Condi originally said that she didn’t) where Berger warned her (paraphrasing) that the Bush Administration would spend most of their time dealing with terrorists, and especially Bin Laden’s brand of it over the next four years.

2. Every morning, the President is given a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) that is compiled by the CIA. On August 6, 2001, The PDB stated, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S.”

3. After, supposedly, reading his PDB on August 6 (and even though Bush said on March 15, 2000, “I don’t read what’s handed to me.”), Bush embarked on the longest Presidential vacation in 32 years. George W. Bush spent 42% of his time between his inauguration and September 11, 2001 on vacation.

4. After the attacks, the U.S. conquered Afghanistan with 20,300 troops and tremendous help from the world: France, Germany, Canada, Russia and, of course, the Afghan Northern Alliance. Operation Enduring Freedom quickly and decisively dispatched the Taliban from power; however, many from the Taliban leadership escaped to fight another day.

5. America, after neglecting to find Bin Laden early, apparently gave up. President Bush said on March 13, 2002, “So I don't know where he [Bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him.” President Bush said this twice. At this same press conference, Iraq already was a topic of discussion.

These are facts that history has documented. Now, will someone please explain to me how George W. Bush garners such strong approval for prosecuting the war on terror (or as Bush says, “Wur on Terr”)?

I’m sure I’ll be receiving several comments regarding the minutia of the Clinton Administration (“They should have gotten Bin Laden in the Sudan in ’96, Sandy Berger stole classified documents, we didn’t strike back after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, etc.) That is fine. Go ahead and criticize, but the Clinton Administration took terrorism seriously. They thwarted the millennium attacks, and after the Cole bombing, they were in the process of creating a plan to take out Bin Laden and his movement.

According to Richard Clarke (Against All Enemies is a fantastic read by the way), he was given the responsibility to develop and enact a strategy for taking out Bin Laden after the Cole bombing, which he did. Unfortunately, by the time the strategy was ready for implementation, Bush was on his way into the White House. Under Bush, Clarke’s strategy was ignored for 8 months, but on September 12, it was adopted almost to the letter. Please read the “Operation Ignore” chapter in Al Franken’s awesome book, Lies and the lying liars who tell them.

What happened to Osama Bin Laden? Despite promises that we were going to “smoke him out of his hole”, Bin Laden looms. Tick Tock.

Osama Bin Laden is a cancer that has metastasized. When doctors discover cancer in a patient early, they operate and remove the cancer before it spreads. They then will administer chemo or radiation treatment to clean up the remaining cancer, should there be any. In this analogy, America discovered a cancer in the world, but only cut out part of it (The Taliban) and prescribed massage therapy (invading Iraq). Massage therapy makes us feel good and has some benefits, but it doesn’t fix our cancer problem.

It is too late now. While Bin Laden doesn’t direct operations on a world scale, his jihad has spread into every area of the world. Many experts theorize no less than 200 individual terrorist cells and they exist on every continent (although I haven’t heard much from the Antarctic Jihadist Movement lately).

Everyone likes to point to Howard Dean and accuse him of being unpatriotic for saying that we cannot win the war on terror, but Bush said the same thing on August 30, 2004 on the Today Show with Matt Lauer.

What do we do?

1. The Israel/Palestinian relationship trumps any other conflict in the world in regard to terrorism. Two former Presidents negotiated peace accords between Israel and her neighbors: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats by the way. Unfortunately, Rabin was assassinated, iron-fisted Netanyahu deplored the accords and the region, again, fell into chaos. Enter Bush with his roadmap to peace. With Bush’s statement that Yassar Arafat had no desire for peace, the table was set to continue with the Republican agenda that Israel and the health of Israel is the only real criterion to achieving peace. The Palestinian side of the negotiations be damned.

So now, America no longer is viewed as an honest broker for peace. There will be no negotiations without a cease-fire and a cease-fire will not be reached without negotiations. It’s the chicken and the egg. Our single-minded vision of making sure Israel is strong and secure without regard to the Palestinian people fuels hatred toward American policy. Most Muslims don’t don bombs and run into a crowed market, but most don’t like us and our continued policy toward this region continues Bin Laden’s appeal to Muslims who may be on the fringe. We must actively pursue a peace between these two nations that is viewed by both sides as fair. Can it be done? Not with guns and rhetoric.

2. We must find Osama Bin Laden alive and bring him to justice. Give Pakistan absolutely anything it wants in exchange. Bin Laden’s call to arms has always been: "Join me in fighting the American and Western infidels because they want to invade our countries, steal our wealth and change our culture to be like them." Is it any wonder Bin Laden has become larger than life? To the average Arab, he sounds like a prophet because to the average Arab, that is exactly what America has done. As Americans, we can debate all day long with each other about the facts of the Iraq invasion, but the message hasn’t infiltrated the Arab community at large. See my comments in the War in Iraq post about the study commissioned by Paul Wolfowitz. We must dry up support for Bin Laden’s recruiting efforts. Invading Iraq was the worst thing we could have done. So now we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we pull out, Bin Laden and Zarquawi claim victory. If we stay in, their recruiting remains strong because we are invading and occupying a Muslim country. The proper course of action is to announce a graduated pull out, and with as much help as we can get from Iraqis, trumpeting our success in helping the Iraqi people achieve democracy. It is all we can do, and the rest is up to them.

3. We have to wean ourselves from Middle East oil. Militant Jihadists want us out of the Middle East. If we stop insinuating ourselves in the politics of the Middle East, the terrorism attacks will stop. The only reason we have invested so much time and effort into stabilizing that region is for a consistent supply of cheap energy. We need to invest heavily in renewable sources of energy. Wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen and water need to be infused into our country’s energy supply. Over the next ten years, China, the European Union, India and several other large and emerging economies will be competing with us for oil. If we do nothing to reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, the demand for it will be so strong, $60 a barrel will be a very happy memory. Drilling holes in Alaska is a myopic solution (that will take 10 years to come to fruition). Alaskan oil will dry up not long after the pipes are built.

Let’s immediately impose a phased in $3.00 per gallon gas tax over 10 years. This will drive customers to purchase smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, but not kill the economy. If people know it’s coming, they will make smarter decisions.

4. Until we average 40 miles per gallon, regular citizens can help too. We can help in many little ways: keep our tires at the proper inflation, get regular tune ups on our cars, walk, take public transportation, carpool, ride our bikes, keep our thermostats set at 65 instead of 68, and many other things to keep us out of our cars or make our cars as efficient as possible and reduce our demand for energy.

These things are difficult to do. Change is scary, but immediately implementing these acts will deflate hatred and anger that our current policy summons from the people of the Middle East. If we can dry up the pool of recruitment, our chances for success in fighting terrorism increases exponentially. While we cannot negotiate with Bin Laden and his ilk, proving our peaceful and tolerant intentions with the Arabs and Muslims around the world marginalizes terrorists and their appeal to the people on the margins.

An afterthought. A War on anything but a country in the past has been an unmitigated failure. The war on poverty, the war on drugs and now the war on terror sound good but really is a misnomer. To win against the terrorists requires a lot more minds and pens than swords and guns and tanks and airplanes.

#3 Jobs and the economy

The United States’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) last year was a whopping 11.75 trillion dollars. We are the largest economy in the world, as I’m sure most of you know. To sum up an economic policy on this huge market in just a few paragraphs is impossible, but there are several differing views on how to direct and manage the U.S. economy.

Traditional Republicans view the government as a very small player in the economic health of America. Their views stem from efficiency of the free market. They are correct in their views that government meddling in the free market creates inefficiencies, which are then passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Higher prices mean slower sales, slower sales means fewer jobs, fewer jobs means less money to spend, less money to spend means slower sales, ad infinitum. In the perfect world, competition is widespread to keep prices lower, increasing sales, growing faster, hiring employees, ad infinitum.

I agree with Traditional Republicans in many respects in terms of the economy. The Republicans in the stripe of Eisenhower and Nixon tempered their economic policy with the understanding that faulty products can kill people. They also understood that in a purely free market, monopoly is the only long-term economic outcome. Decreasing business taxes grows our economy and jobs and ultimately increases revenue for the federal government from higher sales. Fewer bureaucratic hoops to jump through to start up and grow increase competition and lowers prices for everyone. There are several ways to do this that I won’t bore you with, but keeping small business vibrant and innovative should be a top priority in this country. However, we must insure that oversight is not lost on new technology.

Neo-cons, on the other hand, believe all taxes are evil and every government regulation should be eliminated. Reagan and Bush 43 fit this mold. Grover Norquist, the Godfather of the neo-con movement wants “a government so small you can drown it in a bathtub.” You’ve probably heard the term “trickle down” or “supply side” economics. This theory says that the more taxes cut on the most productive people in the economy, the more they will be inspired to create more production and therefore, create jobs to supply this new production. Bush 41, interestingly, called this “voodoo economics”. With 17 years of history (13 is more appropriate since Bush 41 wasn’t along the neo-con vain), this isn’t working.

Democrats believe the government does have a role to play in the economy. Apart from simple safety issues in the workplace, they also believe our society should be protecting the environment, making sure stock is traded fairly, our drug supply is safe, our children aren’t exposed to porn on television, keeping dangerous weapons off the street, it goes on and on. These services cost money, which our government pays with taxes they collect. There is waste in government, no doubt about it, but private companies cannot offer the services our government does at the same price.

The real problem exists where people don’t want to pay for government services that they don’t use. Medicaid and food stamps are the favored whipping boy of the tax cutters. “Why should I pay for these people who won’t work?" No doubt, these folks are a drain on the economy. At the same time, is it not also a drain on the economy to give farmers subsidies to NOT grow food? Is it not a drain on the economy to employ some of the best and brightest minds in the country designing weapons and not creating more efficient ways to manufacture automobiles?

So the real solution lies in the understanding for different people’s situation. The millionaire investor wants the SEC (that is the securities and exchange commission, for those of you who might be a little behind the times) to make sure he/she isn’t royally screwed over by the Tyco’s and Enron’s of the world. The laborer on the assembly line wants to make sure that the work place is safe. Cops want to make sure they have more firepower than the suspects they are chasing. The middle class wants to make sure that public schools are safe and managed effectively.

My point is, the government didn’t get huge because somebody decided they wanted a huge government. These departments were created to address problems that many American’s saw and wanted addressed. These issues were important at some period of time and they still are to someone. Personally, I don’t give a damn about our strategic helium reserve, but someone in our government does.

The real point is in terms of the economy, over the last twenty-five years, we have 17 years of neo con economic policy. Does anybody want to guess how many of those 17 years our government has balanced the budget? I’ll answer it for you. One. 2001. Our country had a projected surplus of 4.8 trillion dollars over ten years. But by 2002, we were running a deficit again. Over the three years of a balanced budget, our economy grew faster than at any other three year peacetime period in our history. Taxes were higher, but everyone was making so much money, the extra $300 the average family paid per year in taxes wasn’t an economy killer, like so many Republicans claim.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton pushed for and signed into law the budget reconciliation act of 1994. President Clinton, despite a “no” vote from every Republican in the House of Representatives (this was before the 1994 Republican Revolution), created and invested in attacking the continuous record setting deficits those 12 years of Reagan/Bush economic policy wrought on this country. By 1998, this country had balanced its budget and was facing surplus for many years to come. President Clinton in the 1999 State of the Union address stated quite simply what should be done with this surplus, “save social security first”. Everyone applauded. By early 2005, we suddenly had a crisis and the answer was to spend 2 trillion more to establish private accounts.

But Al Gore was denied his 2000 election win and in two short years, our country was again breaking records on deficits. Traditional Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats were livid. During the first four years of Bush 43, despite huge tax cuts and the promised economy boosting properties there of, this country lost jobs and, in typical neo-con style, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. In contrast, President Clinton’s economy added 22,000,000 new jobs over his eight years and real income among the lower middle and middle class (that is income adjusted for inflation) went up for the first time since the early 1970s.

Back in the 1920s, John Keynes, the economist that drove Franklin Roosevelt’s economic policy, suggested the policy of government intervention during times of economic downturn. Every President forward adopted this economic policy until Reagan. The basic assumption of Keynes suggested the economy in aggregate would benefit by putting money into the hands of those who are more prone to spend it. The perfect example of this was the 2003 $400 per child tax credit that arrived in the mailboxes of tens of millions of Americans during the summer. This country saw an 8.3% growth over that quarter, the largest quarterly growth in almost 20 years. This tax credit sprung the economy out of its doldrums and we’ve seen average to strong growth ever since. So in spite of the Bush regime’s promise that cutting taxes on the capital gains, eliminating the estate tax and eliminating the dividend tax at the investor level, it was putting money into the hands of the people who would spend it that ultimately grew the economy. Millions of American’s took that $800 check that we got over the summer of 2003 and spent it! Eight hundred dollars to me is a lot of money. Eight hundred dollars to Rupert Murdock is a tip. So really, why would American’s believe that growth would come from cutting taxes on the Walton family and Bill Gates would help them? But so many did, and we get another three years of twisted, counter-intuitive economy policy.

The neo-cons suggest that it is intrinsically unfair to tax the wealthy at a higher level than anybody else. Remember the “flat tax”? This is neo-con policy to its ultimate conclusion. However, I submit to you, the rise of the middle class in America was a direct result of the progressive tax structure started after the first world war. I give you as defense of a progressive tax structure the same defense that the first neo-cons gave for Reagan’s massive military build up, and the huge budget deficits they incurred, in the 80’s. That defense was quite simply, “Our children will live in a safer world without communism and they should have to bear some of the burden of living in that safer world.” My defense of the progressive tax policy is,” the wealthy became wealthy because of the freedom of all Americans and our capitalistic economic policy. They should have to bear some of the burden to live in the country that offers them that opportunity.”

So what do we do?

1. The most difficult hurdle to overcome is changing the average American’s voting practice away from wedge issues (woman’s right to choose, gun control, gay marriage, etc.) toward voting their pocketbook. The average tax cut Middle America saw in 2001 as a result of Bush’s income tax cut was around $1,000 per household. The average CEO’s tax cut in 2001 was $29,256. This is just on the SALARY, not the stock options, company cars, etc. That wasn’t good enough, so in 2003, we eliminated all the taxes on the dividends these folks received from their stock, we drastically reduced the capital gains taxes so these guys could sell their assets without paying nearly as much in taxes and the passé dé Resistance, the elimination of the estate tax, dubbed the “death tax” by the millionaires who wanted it gone, to insure that these poor rich folks could pass on wealth and power to their children, thereby creating a permanent aristocracy in this country. But why does Middle America care? They don’t have this wealth and power so why do we worry about it?
2. Because the wealthy can pass along their riches and wealth to their children, their kids will benefit from these enormous giveaways, and their kids will and their kids will. But the middle class in 50 or 100 years will face staggering debt and the brunt of the tax burden will be on them and taxes must go up to pay for just the interest on the debt. It is not a moral value to leave this earth and our country better than when we found it? The neo-cons want to bankrupt this country and return to the heady days of fiefdom. The aristocracy and the church (don’t forget the church!) will control everything, and everyone else shall be a peasant forced to follow their rules, which continue to strengthen their grip on power. In 1789, our fathers in one simple document shattered the worldview on government. Let’s not return to 18th century Europe.

3. Tie taxes into services. Public servants raise families too. They attend church. They are active members in the PTA. Their kids go to public schools. They, like everyone else in the private sector, want a raise in pay every now and again. However, their pay is based on voting by the public, not on performance. If a teacher wants a raise in pay, the milage has to pass. If it doesn’t, there are no raises and the kids have to finance their own sports. The reason our country has taxes is because we all want clean water to drink, we all want the cops to show up when we are in trouble, we all want our children to achieve the best education available, we all want to make sure our drugs are safe. These services cost money.

4. The truth is, our country offers the lowest taxes on its citizens of any industrialized country in the world. We have it very good. We can be better, but our taxes are very, very low. We get a lot of bang for the buck in this country in terms of taxes for services. There is waste, but by and large, cutting funding for particular departments leads to cutting services, not for trimming fat.

5. In the last twenty-five years, our country has balanced its budget three times, 1999, 2000, and 2001. One of those years was a Republican President coming off of the biggest surplus in the history of the U.S., but after one year, we were in deficit. The first six years of the only Democrat President were spent offsetting 12 years of Republican deficits. The term “Tax and Spend Liberals” is still out there and is used persuasively and pervasively by Republicans. Let’s offset this attack with “Not tax and spend more Republicans”, which is exactly what Republican Presidents have done in the last 25 years.

quote of the month

My brother suggested a quote of the month. I thought it a good one, so I will respect his idea and do this one:

A senior bush adviser summarized the bush team's way of thinking to
journalist Ron Suskind in the summer of 2002.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based
community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions
emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and
murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. he cut
me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he
continued. " We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own
reality,. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you
will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study
too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors..and
you, all of you. will be left to just study what we do."

Abramoff and Delay

How do you think Tom Delay is feeling right about now?

As I write, Jack Abramoff (whom I’m sure the high school bullies dubbed Abraham Jackoff) has pleaded guilty to three felonies: conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion.

I keep meaning to get to the economy, the number three issue in the polling point poll, but these darn scandals keep hitting us and I can’t keep up! Not to mention, spending a bunch of time answering ridiculous comments that my many admirers and detractors keep leaving. I work, you guys!

As you read this Washington Post story (the url is below), keep in mind, it is supposed to be confusing. If the relationship is confusing enough, people stop investigating. The relationship was between lobbying firms and non-profit organizations with donations from secret donors and money doled out to other non-profits and congressional slush funds.

At the end of the day, Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay were buddies and, for lack of a better word, business partners. They were in the business of lying to special interests, mostly, Indian gaming corporations, to secure large campaign donations, of which Abramoff and his partner, Michael Scanlon, siphoned off enormous fees with the promise to lobby influential congressmen to vote for legislation favorable to the special interest paying the money. These fees were used to take Delay, his staff and other congressmen on lavish vacations and trips. This is just a little bit illegal. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at the ski lodge with all of these people sitting next to a roaring fire, sipping cognac and having a great laugh at the expense of the Indian tribes they had no intention of keeping their promise to.

A justice department official vowed to pursue the investigation as long as necessary and regardless of whom it implicates. We’ll see. They are, after all, Republicans and it sure wouldn’t surprise me if this thing was wrapped up in a month so that 2006 could be spent securing large campaign contributions for the congressional mid-term elections. It of course will be sold as, “getting back to the business of running (bankrupting) the country.”

I don’t think “culture of corruption” is too strong to describe this regime and their congressional rubber stamp men. As part of the plea deal, Abramoff will testify against the congressmen and women who he had direct contact with over the years, and who received the Indian gaming funds. I hope it drags on and on, and makes Abu Ghraib look like a Sunday Ice Cream Social. We can give Tom Delay a “long slow goodbye”.

For the money trail between Delay and Abramoff, see this Washington Post Story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001480.html

btw, the “moral fitness” agenda gave me a great big belly laugh!

So what do we do?

Easy. This is called hypocrisy. Use the bible to attack self-proclaimed religious men (Delay wears his religion on his sleeve). My favorite is Matthew 7: 22-23:

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Spygate

I have to divert my original post order plan. The polling point survey of most important issues came out before the domestic spying scandal hit. I don’t know where this issue lands in terms of most important, but I’ll put it here. Please allow me this little domestic spying diversion.

“Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security." - Benjamin Franklin.

This domestic spying issue strikes at the very core of our freedom. Mr. Bush is all about freedom for Iraq, yet his consistent attacks on our freedom at home boggle the imagination. I cannot believe the hypocrisy of this regime continues to go unchecked by the American people. Now, they are investigating the leak!

Ladies and Gentlemen, I don’t care what justification the Bush Regime gives for spying on Americans without warrants, this is a violation of the fourth amendment to our constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

End of discussion. Being “commander in chief” has no relevance to this matter. Bush broke the law. Mr. Bush broke a REAL law, as Kay Bailey Hutchinson says, “not some perjury technicality.” Getting a blowjob was a “high crime and misdemeanor”. Apparently, violating the fourth amendment to our constitution isn’t.

Ourkarlrove.com has an outstanding post on this. Find it in my links area. However, one issue that was not addressed in that blog was the fact that this story was originally broken BEFORE the 2004 Presidential election. Mr. Bush and his henchmen lobbied extensively to the New York Times to bury this story. The liberal media decided that maybe it shouldn’t be so liberal all the time and acquiesced to Bush’s political machine. Burying this story had NOTHING to do with security. The timing of the story, so close to the 2004 election, was the driving factor of the Bush Team’s intense effort to bury this story.

So what do we do?

1. Say it loud, say it often, “Spying on Americans without warrants is a violation of the constitution. Mr. Bush broke the law”

2. Our freedoms are under attack. As Americans, are we going to give up our rights and our freedoms to garner supposed stronger security? Doesn’t it bother you just a little? How about we pick and choose which amendment to relinquish for supposed stronger security? Let’s see, which one to give up… Hmmm, I don’t know…How about the SECOND?

3. Where is the final straw? How much more is the country going to put up with this man and his dictatorial power grabs? Where are our representatives in the congress? Why are they allowing this regime so much latitude in this “war on terror”? If we give up our rights to defeat the terrorists, our government shall become the terrorists and the terrorists will have already won. A never-ending war to keep the populace ignorant and afraid sounds eerily familiar.

4. The Bush regime continues to play politics with national security. Call them on this. I want to know why they lobbied so hard to the New York Times to bury this story for a year. You tell me national security. OK, give me specifics how much more damaging it would be to our national security if this information came out in October 2004 instead of December 2005?

5. How does it protect me to spy on me? I, for one, will take my chances and will forgo his protection for my privacy.

#2 Healthcare

I was scanning the television dials the other night and happened upon a WGVU interview with one of the Republican challengers for Debbie Stabenow’s seat in the Senate. He spoke about a plethora of topics, all of which revealed that he makes Richard Nixon look like a liberal. When the topic of healthcare came up, he took the uber-conservative mantra of “costs will go up if we federalize healthcare.” This person said that 37% of healthcare costs are administrative costs. This is a little high, but close enough. He also said that he could find no instance where a program was taken out of the private sector and put into the public sector and costs went down. I believe that. If there is an institution more prone to overhead than the federal government, I don’t know what it is.

His suggestion to fix the healthcare system was to penalize smokers and fat people. How to penalize them, he didn’t say, but the intelligent observer knows that how you do it is tax cigarettes and fast food. He’s a Republican, so the word “tax” didn’t escape his lips, but how else does he plan to do it?

Please bear with me while I have two comments about this person’s position. One, he was approaching his position from the aggregate cost model, i.e. Total healthcare costs in this country would go up. This is flat out wrong. Total healthcare cost models I’ve seen suggest a decrease in costs in aggregate most of which are attributable to administrative and overhead costs. There are over 1500 private HMO’s in this country. All of which have their own marketing, paperwork, overpaid CEO’s, etc. This is where 37% devoted to non-medical overhead of healthcare comes from (I’ve seen some estimates of 40%). By comparison, Medicare administrative costs are 3%.

The second, more important, point I want to make about this position is that costs, while important, are not the most important aspect of healthcare. We aren’t manufacturing widgets, folks. We are talking about people’s lives. We’ve heard the horror stories about fighting with HMO’s and insurance companies over “pre-existing conditions” where if you are HIV positive or have a child with a lifetime illness like diabetes, or asthma, you cannot get coverage. This is because the lives of these people don’t matter to these companies. Profit is all that matters and if these insurance companies can sign up only those people who are low risk, their profit goes up. When profit is involved, the motivation for fraud exists (as high as 10% of costs by some estimates). But, by far, the most disgusting practice these companies employ is playing the stock market. Because these companies have a relatively small number of lives covered, their payouts almost equal their premium income. In order to create profit these companies play the market. If the market is weak and they lose money in the short term, they increase premiums to make up the difference. If, however, the market is strong and they have invested well, they get rich. I don’t remember getting a refund check, do you? How do the people who make these decisions sleep at night?

Republican’s, like the person I saw on public television the other night, want to paint universal healthcare as a SOCIALIST program. If anything is more frightening to the American population than taxes, it’s the word socialist. They are also masters at pointing their fingers at the opposition and saying things like, “they want to play politics with this issue” and “my opponent is in the back pocket of ‘x’ lobbyist” When in reality, the person saying this is the one that is beholden to the large campaign donations that these rich insurance companies provide.

So what do we do?

1. We must change the perception of universal health coverage.

Currently, it is perceived as a big brother socialist program fraught with waste and lining the pockets of the elite in Washington and controlling every detail of people’s lives. Socialized medicine differs from a single payer system in the fact that a socialize system owns all the healthcare facilities. A single payer system, on the other hand, simply creates one insurance company without marketing, without huge administrative costs (as a percentage) and without prerequisites for coverage. Many people’s distrust of the government is well founded, especially since the Republican revolution of 1994. Frame the debate in terms of benefits:

a. You will pay much less for healthcare than you do now
b. Your healthy lifestyle will be rewarded
c. No matter what happens in terms of you or your families health, you are covered
d. All doctors, dentists and optometrists and all specialists will participate. Go see anybody you want to.
e. All drugs are covered, regardless of the amount and expense


2. We must compare our system to other systems around the world.

The best example is Canada. In 1971, when Canada adopted their single payer health system, their healthcare costs, as a percentage of GDP was 7.5%. The United States was 7.6%. The U.S. is a much larger economy and has grown faster than Canada’s, however in 2003. The U.S. percentage of GDP spent on healthcare was 14.9%, while Canada’s was 9.5%. Talk about significant. It is estimated that by 2013, the U.S. will spend about 18% of its GDP on healthcare. These costs are growing out of control. The Canadian system isn’t perfect, but it is so much better than ours and is much, much less expensive.

3. We must attack politicians who don’t support universal health care as being in the back pocket of the insurance company and HMO lobby.

These people don’t want universal health care because that would be a large source of funding for their re-election campaigns that disappears. They know it’s cheaper. They know it’s better. They know they loose a million for their campaign war chest if they vote for universal health care. Who’s your daddy?

4. We must put healthcare costs in terms of what YOU spend.

Even people with good medical coverage spend a lot of money on premiums every week and co-pays do even more damage. With caps on what insurance companies pay out, these insurance companies are safeguarded against catastrophic claims. So, even if you have a good plan and you are in a major car accident with a long term stay in the hospital and a debilitating, life changing injury, the insurance company will cover up to the lifetime maximum, but after that, you are on your own. Don’t even think about getting more insurance: pre-existing condition and all. With the single payer system, you will spend less and receive much more.


Unfortunately, healthcare is a political debate. We must hold Democrats feet to the fire on this. We must throw out the Republicans whose only interest is pleasing the special interests of HMO’s and insurance companies. Call them out on this. Their only solution is Health Savings Accounts, and tort reform. Health Savings Accounts are great if you make a decent living, but leaves out countless millions of Americans and tort reform is a big giveaway to large corporations.

“These are people’s lives”. “These are people’s lives”. “These are people’s lives.” Say it three times and say it often. Even the densest people will get it eventually.

#1 The War in Iraq

You'll notice that "stay the course" has disappeared from Bush's dialog as of late.

At last count, almost 2100 of America's finest are dead. Over 11,000 wounded. For what?

We were told all through 2002 that Iraq had links to Al Qaeda. LIE. We were told in the run up to the war that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons. LIE. We were told Iraq was actively pursuing a nuclear (or nuculer if you're the President) weapon. LIE. As proof, we were offered the infamous 16 words from the SOTU in 2003, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Joe Wilson's Op-Ed Piece in the New York Times on July 6, 2003 called those words a LIE.

So, we all know our war was built upon lies, hyped intelligence, and a vindictive, vengeful President looking to reward his oil thirsty campaign contributors. Congress couldn't abdicate their constitutional responsibilities fast enough. Instead of letting the UN inspectors complete their mission, we rushed to war. But, we are there now with 138,000 fighting men and women of the military. Along with them, undisclosed thousands of civilian contractors (110 of whom are dead now). Since the Bush Regime, in their eternal incompetence, couldn't (or wouldn't) recruit any significant international civilian help for after the combat operations were complete, the rebuilding task fell to our troops. We couldn't pull out immediately with so much damage to the Iraq infrastructure that we caused. It's now 30 months later. Iraq has a constitution and they have elected a long-term government. What more can our military do besides offering fodder for Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's)?
What do we do?

1. Plan an immediate draw down of troops culminating in complete withdrawal by the end of 2006. Soldiers are trained to fight and win wars. While they are certainly capable, they are not trained to build roads. This is what they have been doing for the past 28 months. So in spite of President Bush's "Humble" foreign policy and his distain for "nation building", our American military has spent more than two years in nation building and ramming our ideals down the world's throat. The deaths, casualties and 400 billion spent are a direct result of the Bush regime's attitude. President Bush wants to portray the Iraq insurgency as "al Qaeda". This is yet another LIE. Zarquawi commands less than 10% of the attacks on American soldiers. Our presence fuels the Sunni and Shia insurgency. Once we are gone, their attacks will subside.

2. President Bush should immediately appoint former President Bill Clinton as a special envoy to the United Nations outlining this draw down plan and recruiting help in rebuilding the state of Iraq. President Bush and his entire regime's credibility at the UN ranks somewhere lower than the American Communist Party in Georgia. Bill Clinton could get this done WHILE getting a blowjob. We would find enormous support in the form of UN security forces, private and public international experts in everything from education, power, defense, intelligence, food and water, etc. These countries would be happy to help. We would invite the world to share in this important task of creating a democratic state in the middle of the Arab world and share in its rewards.

3. Open the rebuilding efforts of Iraq to all countries, but only those tasks that cannot be competed efficiently by Iraqis should be open to bidding by foreign companies. Halliburton and Bechtel might find they have to be more competitive in their bids, and may be shut out completely. "No bid" contracts, and the fleecing of the American Tax Payer they insure, would be a thing of the communist past.

4. Let the Iraqi's run their own country. We don't hear much from the media about this, but Saddam Hussein ran a secular country and most of the Iraqi people, including women, are well educated. There are some really smart people in this country. Let them run it. Should they decide that they want an Islamic state, that is their choice. I heard Tim Russert ask the question several times to several different political leaders in our country if they would embrace a theocratic Iraqi government if that is what the Iraqi's vote for. Not surprisingly, nobody answered that question. Democracy isn't easy. It took some of the smartest men in the history of the world a couple of times to get it right in our country. Let them make mistakes and try to fix them. America and the rest of the world will be available in an instant to help them if they ask. Don't direct, support.

No doubt about it, Bush is trapped by policy of his own making. He will not open Iraq to other country's help because the countries that supported the initial invasion would lose out on the rebuilding contracts. However, the countries that are there are pulling out and America cannot do the work that needs to be done by itself. The lives of our soldiers, not to mention 30 million Iraqis are more important than your pride, George. Shitcan all of your original ideas and send Clinton to the UN to get the help this country needs in establishing a country out of Iraq. Our finest American men and women are dying every day because you refuse to admit error. As long as there are American troops in Iraq, they will be seen as occupiers by the Iraqi insurgency. Getting out will set you free.

The Maiden Voyage

My First blog. Not my first commentary however. As my friends and some of my political adversaries know, I've been writing about the mis-leadership of the Bush Regime for a couple of years. Most of them simply reside on my hard drive, but I've been published a few times in the local rag.

Most of them, however, are not appropriate for this blog. They are either out of date or do nothing to shed a new light on the problems facing our country. This blog will contain all new original material moving forward. I'm not concerned about new issues. If we can count on one thing, it's that our Regime will figure out many new ways to keep the "sheeple" in this country ignorant and afraid so the majority of the populace will go along with whatever our mis-leader says.

In my first posts, I will outline a specific political platform based on the most pressing issues as reported by Pollingpoint.com on Dec. 9-12, 2005. The percentage of people who ranked the issue as the #1 priority:

The war in Iraq 22
Health care 16
Job creation and economic growth 16
Terrorism 12
Rebuilding the areas hit by Hurricane Katrina 11
The cost and the supply of energy 9
Illegal immigration 7
The budget deficit 6
All equally (vol.) 1

I hope you enjoy this. I also hope that it will get me a position as a campaign manager somewhere. I'm sick of selling eyeglasses and what to start selling ideas.