Roger Simon Asks, “Must America Remove All Homicidal Dictators?”

10 January 2013

On POLITICO Today, Roger Simon speaks to the suitability of Chuck Hagel as America’s Secretary of Defense. Writes Simon: 

“I am no fan of homicidal dictators like Saddam Hussein, but the world has other homicidal dictators and before we decide to wage nearly nine-year, trillion-dollar wars to remove them all, maybe we ought to have a better reason than unresolved father-son relationships.”

Regards,

(($; -)}

Gozo!

@GozoTweets

__________ 

Read the rest of Mr. Simon’s analysis here:
Hagel Puts Country Ahead-of Conquest 

Where Is “Honest Abe” Lincoln When America Needs Him Again?

21 MARCH 2012

President Obama Thought he could change the political climate in Washington by finding ways to incorporate Conservative and Republican ideas into his policies. Sadly, right now in America, both parties find little choice but to oppose anything the other party puts forward. Thus, for example, did Nancy Pelosi blame President George W. Bush for high oil prices, and now the Republicans blame President Obama. (Both were equally wrong.)

If Individual Americans, in large numbers, put pressure on their legislators to compromise, I wonder whether their legislators might compromise, and America might move forward.

Judging by the Divide of Opinions we see in “comments” forums for every bit of news or opinion posted on the Internet, We, the People, seem about evenly divided. So there’s probably not much hope that much help will come from there...
____________________

“A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.”

Or So Some Republican President Once Said.

Will the Progressives lead us forward, out of this stalemate? Will the Conservatives leave us mired in it?

Will China and the European Union and the rest of the world stand idly by, waiting to see if and when and how we work it out?

Regards,
(($; -)}
Gozo!

@GozoTweets

__________
The original version of this post appears at:

WHERE IS HONEST ABE (AGAIN) WHEN AMERICA NEEDS HIM?

CONGRESS TO GIVE PRESIDENT POWER OVER SOLAR ECLIPSES:

“MOON WILL DISAPPEAR OVER NEXT TWO WEEKS” WARN CRITICS:

12 MARCH 2012

Right Now, with gasoline prices rising once again, the high gas prices are President Barack Obama’s fault. Back in the summer of 2008, the high gas prices were President George W. Bush’s fault.

So Long as the Majority of the American people continue to blame the wrong people for the wrong things, we will continue to have the “wrong” quality of government, which we, the people, choose.

In Ye Olden Days, our presidents would have been blamed for the solar eclipse. Has anyone else noticed that the moon, which was full just four days ago, seems to be shrinking? What will we do if the moon shrinks away entirely? Can this, too, be President Obama’s fault?

The Good Thing about Democracy is that we get the government we deserve.

The Bad Thing about Democracy is that we get the government we deserve.

Regards,
(($;- )}
Gozo!

The Republican Mythology of “Spending Like a Democrat”

“[North Carolina Representative Patrick] McHenry may pretend to be a Republican, but he sure as hell spends like a Democrat—or even worse.”

  —Republicans Against Patrick McHenry

26 FEBRUARY 2011

This idea—that Democrats “spend” more than Republicans do—is clearly a flawed mythology. It is wrong in two different ways.
____________________

First, if you listen to Republican language (especially over these Obama years), you hear almost-exclusively the word, “spending,” and rarely hear the word, “investing.” Given that the Republican Party prides itself so vocally on things such as “fiscal responsibility,” you would expect it to make the distinction between items limited to “Expenses” on the income statement and items to be listed as “Assets” on the balance sheet.

Republicans Avoid this Distinction.

It’s as if you were to call someone out on the carpet about where the heck all their money goes, saying something like, “All you do is spend, spend, spend. Look at this! You’ve spent $4.00 for a café latte and $400,000 for a house. That’s more than $400,000 spent in one year—for coffee and other stuff!”

Without the transcontinental railroad and the Interstate Highway system and the NASA space program,  where would American be?

Spending like a Democrat.
____________________

Second, if you look at the lessons of history, you may be surprised at recent examples of “Spending like a Republican.”

An example notable for its relationship to one of America’s greatest examples of Republican leadership, is the spending that President Reagan motivated, in his effort either to build a Strategic Defense Initiative (AKA “Star Wars”) or to bankrupt the Soviet Union (a legitimate “Mission Accomplished”). You may be too young to remember the fears that Democrats expressed when the Reagan years produced the greatest level of non-wartime debt that America had known. Democrats then were convinced (as Republicans are now convinced) that such deficit spending could not possibly be corrected. And it was not corrected until two presidents later, when the engine of American entrepreneurship turned that “spending” debt around.

Then, of course, we have the unfortunate example of President George W. Bush taking us into an arguably unjustifiable war in Iraq and into the Medicare-D program. Both of these items demonstrate irresponsible Republican spending—which may represent legitimate, if intangible investments—in that no provision of paying for them was part of the process.

Listening to Democrats speak—notably the members of the Congressional Black Caucus—one hears them speak over and over about how they plan to pay for their “spending” programs. From Republicans, one hears only the continued promise of “trickle down,” which clearly has not occurred in our economy over the past thirty years since we first elected Ronald Reagan to accomplish this economic miracle. The vague hope, expressed with strong conviction, that lower taxes for the wealthy somehow result in good-paying jobs for those lower down in the economic “food chain” just never becomes reality.

Conservatives like to disown the latter President Bush as not one of their own. But no one who knows anything about this man could consider him to be either a Democrat or a Liberal, hiding in Conservative, Republican clothing.

At some point, any true “fiscal conservatives” remaining in the Republican Party will need to face the truth:

American Democrats “invest” in America’s infrastructure for the future, more than they just “spend.” And “pay as you go” is a Democratic expression of fiscal conservatism.

The false Republican delusions that this party opposes under the combined labels of “Democrat” and “spending” are just an easy target, painted on the backs of those Americans actually committed to making our great nation a better place. And not just a better place for eviscerating the middle class.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

What the European Union Teaches America About “States’ Rights”

In the Development of the European Union, we can see the issue of “states’ rights” versus “large, central government” play out in real time, in the modern world, before our eyes. One great example of how these two approaches interact occurs between Sweden and Spain.

Swedish Citizens May Spend Their Entire Working Years contributing to the Swedish healthcare system, and then retire to Spain to draw down their late-life healthcare. What they will have paid for in Sweden will be more than they would have paid into the Spanish system, but they are free to move around the continent and retire in Spain, where things cost less. There, they can draw on health-care benefits for which they have not paid, while the Swedish system stays flush with their unclaimed payments.

And the Spanish Health-care System is going bust, at least partly as a result.

If We Had States-Run Medicare or Social Security Systems, we would experience the same issues here. Such as all those New Yorkers who retire in Florida, if they had only paid into a New York state system during all those cold winters, before heading south.

The States’ Rights Argument of the Republican Party and the Tea Party protesters can be powerful and compelling. But that does not make it viable nor realistic in our twenty-first century world.

In Today’s Edition of The Washington Post, Utah Republican candidate for the United States Senate Tim Bridgewater argues for just such a system, however. Mr. Bridgewater writes:

“In 1787, the Founding Fathers crafted a free system of government built on the principle that individuals have God-given rights. The Founders protected those rights....by a vertical separation of powers between the federal government and the states. The national government would manage external affairs and keep the states on a level playing field; state governments were to do the rest.

“Over time, that vertical separation of powers has almost disappeared. Today, the federal government feels it can manage even the details of personal health care and education. States have been relegated to administrative units of a central leviathan, in a system of plunder in which each state tries to live at the expense of the others.”

Candidate Bridgewater Offers Telecommunications as an example argument for states’ rights. But how could the individual states possibly regulate such a national, and even international, structure? How could we possibly have the Internet, with every aspect of regulation negotiated among “the several states,” if not for the coordinating power of our Federal government?

What the EU Demonstrates, even more than our 200-plus-year history shows, are the challenges of the state/Federal hybrid.

Candidate Bridgewater Also Writes:

“Not to put too fine a point on it, but Washington’s track record stinks. Congress has given us more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers encouraged a housing bubble and then took hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers when it burst. There is no reason to think Congress can do a better job this time than when it tried to manage energy in the 1970s and ’80s.”

One Might Insert the Word “Republican” in front of each Bridgewater assertion about Washington, Congress and lawmakers, and get a better understanding of the failure of this thirty-year adventure with ideology. Despite that Mr. Bridgewater and the ground-swell of Conservative protesters seem oblivious to this fact, too, regardless of the inconvenience of actual reality.

What the Last 30 Years——and particularly the years 2001-2008——show is the limitations on the “states’ rights” policies, combined with an underfunded Federal government. The answer is not to excise the Federal government. The answer is to use that of it which works well, and to improve that of which works poorly.

Or Does Candidate Bridgewater Truly Believe that the state of Utah can individually put a floor under the price and costs of carbon, and let Utah take on the Chinese, the Germans, the Scandinavians, and the Spanish in developing the world’s new growth industries, the new technologies?

Naivety Such as We Saw Under President George W. Bush is a powerful force. But what America and all its 50 states need now, is to put away the “childish things” of failed ideology, and roll up our sleeves, and get to work.

Find Mr. Bridgewater’s essay at:

In Utah's Vote, a Wake-up Call for Washington

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

The Facts of History Paint Such a Different Picture

The Facts of History Paint a Different Picture of the Conservative-vs-Liberal struggle than the one that comes out of the mouths and pens of most Republicans and other self-styled “fiscal conservatives.”

Looking Back as Far as President Jimmy Carter, the presidencies that have given us the biggest deficits by far have been Republicans. Ronald Reagan gave America the biggest up to that time, until the past years of George W. Bush dwarfed even that.

Liberals Believe in Government Doing for us what we can’t do for ourselves—national defense, pensions (Social Security) destroyed by Republican excesses of the Coolidge/Hoover years, health care (Medicare) destroyed by the Great Recession of recent times.

But Liberals, Unlike Conservatives, 
Expect to Pay Their Own Way.
Americans overall pay the least in taxes of any industrialized nation. Yet historically, it is the “spend and spend” Republicans who balloon the debt—from President Reagan’s “Star Wars” to George W. Bush’s two unfunded wars and an unfunded Medicare program with a big “donut hole.” And then Republicans blame the Democrats—such as Barack Obama—for the lengths we must go to, to clean up the disastrous mess.

What a Republican Set-up of the Democrats! What a shame that it’s the American people—unemployed and now without health insurance—who have to carry that weight.

Republicans Want to Bring the Federal Government to its Knees, so that the Democrats will be forced to cut popular programs—loved by Conservatives and Liberals alike—that the Republicans lack the courage to cut themselves

Why Else Was That Side of the Political Divide so silent over the George W. Bush years?

.....And No Wonder “Conservatives” such as those of the Tea Party Movement are angry!

They want their Medicare..........and they want their Social Security.....
     .....They want their national defense..........and they want their roads.....
         .....and the post office..........and the criminal justice system.....

                  .....and Homeland Security..........and thousands of other things 

that the Federal government—made up of “We, the people”—does.

“Conservatives” like to Talk about “Individual Responsibility”:

They Just Don’t Want to Have to Pay for It.....

Regards,

(($;-)}
Gozo!

Congress Confesses Its Partisan Divide

No One Should Be Surprised to Learn that the partisan divide holding up Congress for the past couple of decades has a deliberate component to it.

Members of Congress on Both Sides of the Aisle—Democrats as well as Republicans—have decided to choose party loyalty over the work required of their oaths of office.

As Reported in Yesterday’s Edition of The New York Times, Democratic Representative Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, conceded “that he had irresponsibly opposed increases in federal borrowing authority during the Bush years in order to impugn Republicans while Democrats were fighting to regain the majority.”

“Once  You Get in These Battles Where You Break into Camps, every vote is about the next election,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who occasionally works with Democrats on difficult issues. “As soon as the last election is over, those who lost are thinking, ‘What can I do to get back in power?’ and those who won are thinking, ‘What can I do to stay in power?’”

Do Our Senators and Representatives Owe Allegiance to their individual political parties?  Or do they owe allegiance to the greater public service?

Everyone in a Schoolyard Feud knows the risks. Once sides are drawn and retaliation begins, the end recedes farther and farther over the horizon. Even as Republicans demanded  up-or-down confirmation votes of Democrats under President George W. Bush, now the Democrats are frustrated by their failure to get such votes out of Senate Republicans today. The Nation currently struggles in two wars and the greatest economic morass since the Great Depression. And what the Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress worry most about is....getting re-elected.

Whoever Steps Forward to Heal the Congressional Divide will display a quality of leadership which we Americans have not seen in a very long time. It is not easy to see how it may come about. It will not be an easy healing.

One Thing the American Voters Can Agree on, regardless of party affiliation or political orientation, is that the oaths taken to support and defend the Constitution are not honored, so long as party allegiance takes precedence over public service within the halls of Congress.

The Current State of the Union makes abundantly clear the need for both sides of the aisle to get busy mending fences. And to begin doing the work that they swore to do.

====================

Here Is the Oath of Office for
Members of the House of Representatives:

“I, [Representative’s name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

(This oath and a listing of acting Representatives who have taken it may be found at:

U.S. House of Representatives Oath of Office )

====================

Here Is the Oath of Office for
United States Senators:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

(This oath, as well as some historical information concerning the oath, may be found at:

 U.S. Senators’ Oath of Office )

====================

Read the article from The New York Times:

“As Aisle Gets Wider, Arms Get Shorter”

by Carl Hulse

published: December 27, 2009 

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Citizens to Own Shares of Rescued Wall Street Companies

“WASHINGTON — President Obama’s top economic advisers have determined that they can shore up the nation’s banking system without having to ask Congress for more money any time soon, according to administration officials.

“In a significant shift, White House and Treasury Department officials now say they can stretch what is left of the $700 billion financial bailout fund further than they had expected a few months ago, simply by converting the government’s existing loans to the nation’s 19 biggest banks into common stock.

“Converting those loans to common shares would turn the federal aid into available capital for a bank — and give the government a large ownership stake in return.

“While the option appears to be a quick and easy way to avoid a confrontation with Congressional leaders wary of putting more money into the banks, some critics would consider it a back door to nationalization, since the government could become the largest shareholder in several banks.”

—Edmund L. Andrews,
“U.S. May Convert Banks’ Bailouts to Equity Share,”
The New York Times, April 19, 2009

Channeling Barack Obama writes:

Republicans Are Predictably Outraged at this potential to “nationalize” American banks and turn America into “a socialist state.” But think about this:

If Republicans Would Pull Their Heads out of Their Ideology, and turn their thoughts toward constructive solutions—instead of always shouting out, “Just Say No!—just think what we could achieve.

Take This Proposal For Example:

The American Shareholder Plan

Now That President Obama’s Top Economic Advisors have begun turning taxpayer TARP loans into shares of common stock, it’s time to take another look at the ASP—the American Shareholder Plan.

(For Our Description of this taxpayer/shareholder proposal, see October 11, 2008:
“ASP: The American Shareholder Plan.”)

Conservative Americans Oppose Nationalization of publicly owned companies: Under the ASP corporate ownership gets taken out of the hands of government, and into the hands of private, American citizens.

Conservatives Oppose the “Moral Hazard” of rescuing profligate private companies such as A.I.G. and Citigroup. By giving ownership to individual taxpayers, the ASP makes sure that those on Wall Street who got us into the current mess pay the price—through loss of ownership. Thus, moral hazard comes at a real cost.

Liberal Americans Are Angry at the Investment Banks and Insurance Companies that have put the economy at risk, and countless Americans out of their homes and out of work. The ASP puts shareholder rewards in the pockets of the American taxpayer. Under the ASP, all citizens stand to benefit.

Americans Right and Left Share Concerns about Social Security. Republicans under the administration of President George W. Bush lobbied for private retirement accounts under the Social Security umbrella. The ASP can provide the basis for such private accounts—at no additional cost to the Federal Government and the American taxpayer.

For Once, Wall Street Need Not Benefit Alone from these historic excesses. Those who bear the real cost—the American taxpayers—receive the real benefit, in the form of stock-ownership that accrues toward each American’s retirement and education and health care.

If the American Shareholder Plan Raises Questions for You, please post a comment below or send an email to: channelingbarackobama@yahoo.com.

Otherwise, Please Write Your Senators and Representatives. If you’d really like to own a share of America, let your government officials know.

And If Your Congresspersons Happen to Be Republicans, please let them know about pulling their heads out of their ideology. It's time for the Republican Party to get back to work supporting America.