Showing posts with label national. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Questions for Mitt
I just had Martin Bashire on, who mentioned that 61% of the 47% figure Mitt mentioned pay payroll taxes and were the working poor, many working 2 or even 3 jobs to keep a roof over their heads. How would Mitt explain that they're not "taking personal responsibility of themselves?"
Or what about the 10%+ of the country who are seniors, on Medicare and SS, but don't earn enough to pay income taxes? What does he say to them, who have paid into the system their entire lives, some in nursing homes or otherwise sick or not as mobile as they used to be. Are they not "taking personal responsibility?"
How about people with disabilities? Or who've sent out a hundred resumes in a hundred days? Are they not taking personal responsibility?
Lynne talks about many of these same issues here, and asks what Scott Brown thinks about it. Every Republican should be asked the same question. Do they stand with Mitt? Are the working poor, disabled and seniors of the country 'moochers,' or people who deserve our respect?
Friday, July 13, 2012
Romney's Lies Have Finally Caught Up to Him
No matter how skilled the habitual liar, if they do it long enough, they're eventually going to get to the point where they can't come up with a new lie to cover the old ones.
As BMG makes clear, Romney's now there. Welcome, Mittens.
Let's look at this tangled web.
He claimed to be retired from Bain from 1999-2002 to the SEC/IRS, but Bain claimed he wasn't to the SEC, critically paying him a salary as chief executive. So, was Romney lying to the IRS, or was Bain lying to its investors and the SEC?
Now, Romney claims that his status as CEO of Bain from 1999-2002 was just technical jargon and wasn't his real position. In fact, he says he was totally removed from Bain and had no intention of coming back, despite the fact that he was still attending board meetings for companies Bain owned.
That's his answer to voters and his defense against what he listed on his SEC/IRS claims, but that's not what he was saying to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where he insisted his time in Utah was just a leave of absence and that he always intended to return to Bain -- as his basis for why he should remain eligible to be Governor of Massachusetts.
This latest claim of his undermines his previous claim, that he was never going to go back. It's all the more serious a lie because, without it, it's likely he wouldn't have ever been Governor of Massachusetts.
So, what are we supposed to believe? What Mitt told the SEC and IRS? What Bain told the SEC? What he said to explain away the divergence of what he said to the IRS and what Bain said to the SEC? Or what he told Massachusetts, in order to be eligible to run for Governor?
Each claim is slightly different than the next, and undermines the others more and more. All that's left is the facts: whatever he says, he was on salary to be the chief executive officer of Bain and, contrary to his insistence that he had nothing to do with the company, was regularly flying in to Massachusetts on Bain business, even while living in Utah.
The bottom line? Other people go to prison for the kind of lies Mitt Romney habitually makes.
As BMG makes clear, Romney's now there. Welcome, Mittens.
Let's look at this tangled web.
He claimed to be retired from Bain from 1999-2002 to the SEC/IRS, but Bain claimed he wasn't to the SEC, critically paying him a salary as chief executive. So, was Romney lying to the IRS, or was Bain lying to its investors and the SEC?
Now, Romney claims that his status as CEO of Bain from 1999-2002 was just technical jargon and wasn't his real position. In fact, he says he was totally removed from Bain and had no intention of coming back, despite the fact that he was still attending board meetings for companies Bain owned.
That's his answer to voters and his defense against what he listed on his SEC/IRS claims, but that's not what he was saying to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where he insisted his time in Utah was just a leave of absence and that he always intended to return to Bain -- as his basis for why he should remain eligible to be Governor of Massachusetts.
This latest claim of his undermines his previous claim, that he was never going to go back. It's all the more serious a lie because, without it, it's likely he wouldn't have ever been Governor of Massachusetts.
So, what are we supposed to believe? What Mitt told the SEC and IRS? What Bain told the SEC? What he said to explain away the divergence of what he said to the IRS and what Bain said to the SEC? Or what he told Massachusetts, in order to be eligible to run for Governor?
Each claim is slightly different than the next, and undermines the others more and more. All that's left is the facts: whatever he says, he was on salary to be the chief executive officer of Bain and, contrary to his insistence that he had nothing to do with the company, was regularly flying in to Massachusetts on Bain business, even while living in Utah.
The bottom line? Other people go to prison for the kind of lies Mitt Romney habitually makes.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Podcast Central: Marriage Equality, John Walsh, the State Senate and More!
I've been seriously negligent on my LeftAhead promos here on RyansTake, so here's a batch of our last few.
- Interview with Boston City Councilor Steve Murphy. We chatted lots of Boston topics, but also focused in on the proposed Suffolk Downs casino. Here's your chance to see what the President of the Boston City Council thinks about that, including whether or not the entirety of Boston should be able to vote on it, or just East Boston. I'll spare folks my thoughts on that matter, because if you're here, you probably know it already.
- State Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh. We love having John Walsh on and it always makes for a great show. He went over the strategy for this year's elections and I loved his thoughts, toward the end of the show, on the brewing Tierney-Tisei congressional race, which promises to be a doozy. Let's just say Tisei, the 'moderate' got behind the Blunt amendment...
- Mike and I on the Republican Reality TV Primary, especially Santorum and Romney. Mike's always amazed that our pundit-like shows often do as well as shows with good guests, but I'm not as surprised. We had a lot of fun with this one, and people like fun. Plus, we're totally better pundits than most of the bobble-heads from CNN and Fox News.
- Freedom to Marry Board Member, Rev John Buehrens. Buehrens brings a national perspective as a 9-year member of Freedom to Marry, one of the chief national organizations fighting for marriage equality across the country. He's also a local UU minister, who just so happened to chair the national organization for a while.
He brought even more insight into the state-by-state battles going on in Maine, Washington, Maryland and elsewhere than I expected -- so if these are on your radar, definitely check it out. He also brought in a fascinating understanding of where marriage equality, partisan politics and religion intersect, and how that influences the battle. This show shouldn't be missed. - State Senate Candidate Mara Dolan. Our show with Dolan today was great. She is clearly a very credible candidate, with a wide policy background, as well. I was very pleased to hear that she understands the fact that the "MBTA issue" is a Beacon Hill issue as much as anything else.
If you're from the 3rd Middlesex District, this is a can't-miss show, and even if not, you should still check it out, because these races have impacts that are far more wide-sweeping than their own borders.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Why the GOP's going nuts of attacks on Bain
The reason why the GOP is so terrified of Gingrich's attacks on Bain isn't because they're afraid it will stop Romney from winning the nomination (that's a certainty at this point), but rather that they're afraid of seeing Newt put Bain's way of doing business on the table for GOP base voters, in a way Democrats never could.
Bain crushes unions, strips away benefits and ships jobs overseas, buying companies out with hundreds of millions or billions in loans. They then ditches that debt on those stripped-down companies, who can't afford it, leaving many of them out of business or shells of their former selves.
It's bad for America and the elites of the GOP don't want people to hear it, especially their base. Why? Because the elites of the GOP know it, too, but they just don't care.
Walking over the little people to make money is an easy decision for those elites, but not for most Americans. Democrats are already open to the idea that there should be some restrictions on the way companies can do business, but most base GOP voters aren't. If people, especially the GOP's base, understand exactly what companies like Bain does, they'd no more support it than they'd support drug cartels.
Bain crushes unions, strips away benefits and ships jobs overseas, buying companies out with hundreds of millions or billions in loans. They then ditches that debt on those stripped-down companies, who can't afford it, leaving many of them out of business or shells of their former selves.
It's bad for America and the elites of the GOP don't want people to hear it, especially their base. Why? Because the elites of the GOP know it, too, but they just don't care.
Walking over the little people to make money is an easy decision for those elites, but not for most Americans. Democrats are already open to the idea that there should be some restrictions on the way companies can do business, but most base GOP voters aren't. If people, especially the GOP's base, understand exactly what companies like Bain does, they'd no more support it than they'd support drug cartels.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Dear Fellow Firebaggers,
Not that it's a surprise to anyone with half a brain still left on their head, but if you're a fellow movement progressive and netroots activist, the President and his peeps probably don't like you very much. In fact, that's putting it mildly. After all, Rahm Emmanual, the President's BFF, thinks you're "fucking retarded." The President's former Press Secretary called you the professional left. We are flies in their way to be swatted, not supported, and they are not done disparaging, demeaning and bemoaning us.
Look no further than one Mr. Ray Sandoval, Obama's top guy in New Mexico. He sent out an officialObama Organize for America campaign email to supporters in that state calling the activist base "firebaggers" and the "ideologue Left." The message tried to tear down pretty much anyone who is worried about the direction Obama has sent our party and country toward, because Obama's right and they're wrong. Opposing Obama policies would be an "economic 9/11."
The President's people didn't appear all that upset about it. They called the official email unofficial, but couldn't be bothered enough to apologize for it. Sandoval hasn't received any sort of penalty or rebuke for his comments and doesn't seem overly apologetic. There is nothing to indicate here that the President's people don't very, very much agree with everything Sandoval said -- perhaps they even see this as another opportunity to burnish the President's "Independent" cred. That's all they seem to care about, these days.
Sadly, this is just more of the same from what we've come to expect. The President's close team has long made political sport of progressives, turning us into the opposition, instead of... you know... the Republican Party. The people running OFA do not buy into the progressive movement -- now considered an opposition movement to Obama zealotry -- and see any kind of dissent as disloyalty, instead of disagreement. As I said earlier today, the purpose of the OFA is "to create an alternate DNC that can mobilize the grassroots from the top down, while minimizing erratic bottom-up feedback."
What we end up with is an OFA with a mixed bag of talent, not a ton of organic or competent volunteer support, and a remaining culture of "If the President says it, it's right, and if anyone else says it, it's wrong." To borrow from George Orwell, the OFA is becoming a "nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting," except instead of being 300 million strong, as they are in Oceania, the OFA is going to be increasingly reliant on an ever-shrinking pool of the hangers-on left from over the 2008 campaign who haven't felt betrayed yet, without the same kind of buzz or excitement that existed then to appeal to the newest young crowd.
What we 'Firebaggers' and 'ideologue Leftists' need to remember is that the OFA is out for the President first and foremost, local party politics and candidates are almost an afterthought. They don't care about the long-term brand or building up the Democratic Party from the bottom up -- that's all stuff that has to happen with a focus beyond just Barack Obama, 2012, and they don't like us bottom-feeders, anyway. If we don't get in line, we're treated like the enemy.
That's a far cry from Dean's Democratic Party, which was out for the Democratic Party and the people of this country, not for any one individual or thing. It's a sad state of affairs, but worse than that, it's hurting the Democratic Party and it's hurting America. Still worse, it may be too late for the President to do anything about this, should he ever decide that he actually wants support from his base again. I have the sneaking suspicion he'll realize that yes, he does want it, as the election in 2012 closes and he can't find anyone to knock on doors and make phone calls for him. By then, it will all be too late -- and it will be Martha Coakley redux, this time on a national scale, unless corporate largess in the campaign war chest (and a incompetent Republican opponent) is enough to save the day. Anything's possible, I suppose.
The bottom line, though, is the President is not on our side. If he doesn't want our money and our support, it's not as if there aren't other people who need it. With the President's turn to the right -- and his continuation of the Bush agenda, some of it on steroids -- it's becoming more important than ever to stand up for what's right. We still have good people in the House and the Senate, or who should be there, who are going to need our help and support. My advice is to skip the OFA and go straight to the source, lest you give anyone in the OFA your Firebagger cooties. It's become beyond clear that they don't want our help, anyway.
Look no further than one Mr. Ray Sandoval, Obama's top guy in New Mexico. He sent out an official
The President's people didn't appear all that upset about it. They called the official email unofficial, but couldn't be bothered enough to apologize for it. Sandoval hasn't received any sort of penalty or rebuke for his comments and doesn't seem overly apologetic. There is nothing to indicate here that the President's people don't very, very much agree with everything Sandoval said -- perhaps they even see this as another opportunity to burnish the President's "Independent" cred. That's all they seem to care about, these days.
Sadly, this is just more of the same from what we've come to expect. The President's close team has long made political sport of progressives, turning us into the opposition, instead of... you know... the Republican Party. The people running OFA do not buy into the progressive movement -- now considered an opposition movement to Obama zealotry -- and see any kind of dissent as disloyalty, instead of disagreement. As I said earlier today, the purpose of the OFA is "to create an alternate DNC that can mobilize the grassroots from the top down, while minimizing erratic bottom-up feedback."
What we end up with is an OFA with a mixed bag of talent, not a ton of organic or competent volunteer support, and a remaining culture of "If the President says it, it's right, and if anyone else says it, it's wrong." To borrow from George Orwell, the OFA is becoming a "nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting," except instead of being 300 million strong, as they are in Oceania, the OFA is going to be increasingly reliant on an ever-shrinking pool of the hangers-on left from over the 2008 campaign who haven't felt betrayed yet, without the same kind of buzz or excitement that existed then to appeal to the newest young crowd.
What we 'Firebaggers' and 'ideologue Leftists' need to remember is that the OFA is out for the President first and foremost, local party politics and candidates are almost an afterthought. They don't care about the long-term brand or building up the Democratic Party from the bottom up -- that's all stuff that has to happen with a focus beyond just Barack Obama, 2012, and they don't like us bottom-feeders, anyway. If we don't get in line, we're treated like the enemy.
That's a far cry from Dean's Democratic Party, which was out for the Democratic Party and the people of this country, not for any one individual or thing. It's a sad state of affairs, but worse than that, it's hurting the Democratic Party and it's hurting America. Still worse, it may be too late for the President to do anything about this, should he ever decide that he actually wants support from his base again. I have the sneaking suspicion he'll realize that yes, he does want it, as the election in 2012 closes and he can't find anyone to knock on doors and make phone calls for him. By then, it will all be too late -- and it will be Martha Coakley redux, this time on a national scale, unless corporate largess in the campaign war chest (and a incompetent Republican opponent) is enough to save the day. Anything's possible, I suppose.
The bottom line, though, is the President is not on our side. If he doesn't want our money and our support, it's not as if there aren't other people who need it. With the President's turn to the right -- and his continuation of the Bush agenda, some of it on steroids -- it's becoming more important than ever to stand up for what's right. We still have good people in the House and the Senate, or who should be there, who are going to need our help and support. My advice is to skip the OFA and go straight to the source, lest you give anyone in the OFA your Firebagger cooties. It's become beyond clear that they don't want our help, anyway.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
FWD: News Flash: Republicans Don't Care About Weiner's Morals
Daily Kos: News Flash: Republicans Don't Care About Weiner's Morals
Truer words were never spoken. Posted a reply to David on BMG for my thoughts on the matter, specifically about how our party reacted to it. Suffice it to say, in this high-stakes game (our lives), Republicans play for keeps... while Democrats continue to play in circular firing squads.
This episode of leadership forcing Weiner out has been brought to you by Charlie Sheen's idea of WINNING! Apparently, like Sheen, Obama, Pelosi, et al, think winning is a state of mind -- electoral politics, and the policy it drives, need not apply.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
A Penny for Your Thoughts: Redistricting
I got home a few hours ago from my Town Democratic Caucus tonight and one of the biggest subjects that came up was congressional redistricting. Swampscott is part of the 6th Congressional District, which is more or less the entire North Shore. The district's one of the most cohesive across the entire state, both in terms of geography and demographics, so of course it's one of the most likely to face outright contraction. At least, that's the speculation going on amongst the pundits -- and the chatter I keep hearing from people much closer to the process than I am. That got me to thinking about redistricting itself -- and what would make sense for the Commonwealth.
The problems of our current system of redistricting are really two-fold: First and foremost, we're held hostage by a reapportionment system dramatically redesigned in 1929 that no longer makes sense today. Back then, 435 Congresscritters decided to 'reform' the process, protecting their own jobs, but barring emerging immigrant communities in urban areas from gaining adequate representation. The result has been widespread corruption in the redistricting process, as well as drowning out voices among ever-larger congressional seats, which has led to vast increases in the power of corporations over regular people in our political process.
More pressing both in time and location is our state's flawed process of redistricting. Some states allow the judiciary to create the district lines, or a nonpartisan committee, but in most states -- including the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- it's done by the most powerful of politicians behind closed doors and has been the source of much corruption in this state and elsewhere.
In Massachusetts, where the Democratic Party is prominent, but wishy-washy, redistricting has generally been a tool to protect incumbents (even Republicans). In states like Florida and Texas, where party registration is traditionally a pretty equal mix, but one party has been much more successful in gaining electoral power, redistricting has been successfully used to hack at the minority in nearly every sense of the word. (So blatant was the corruption in Florida that its citizens actually just passed two constitutional amendments to rectify their problem, though their new Republican governor is trying to ignore it.)
This leaves us all with two fundamental problems: How do we deal with the immediate and local issues surrounding redistricting, and how do we address the long-term problem of the Reapportionment Act of 1929? Districts shouldn't be drawn as an incumbent protection racket here, or as a blunt-force weapon to attack minorities elsewhere. They should be drawn to make sense both in terms of geography and demographics, ensuring districts are representative of the people who live in them. And we shouldn't be beholden to the number 435 in a day and age when that number no longer makes any sense.
So, a penny for your thoughts: How do you think districts should be redrawn in Massachusetts, where we're going to lose a seat, and how do you think we should change our system of reappointment, both locally and nationally?
The problems of our current system of redistricting are really two-fold: First and foremost, we're held hostage by a reapportionment system dramatically redesigned in 1929 that no longer makes sense today. Back then, 435 Congresscritters decided to 'reform' the process, protecting their own jobs, but barring emerging immigrant communities in urban areas from gaining adequate representation. The result has been widespread corruption in the redistricting process, as well as drowning out voices among ever-larger congressional seats, which has led to vast increases in the power of corporations over regular people in our political process.
More pressing both in time and location is our state's flawed process of redistricting. Some states allow the judiciary to create the district lines, or a nonpartisan committee, but in most states -- including the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- it's done by the most powerful of politicians behind closed doors and has been the source of much corruption in this state and elsewhere.
In Massachusetts, where the Democratic Party is prominent, but wishy-washy, redistricting has generally been a tool to protect incumbents (even Republicans). In states like Florida and Texas, where party registration is traditionally a pretty equal mix, but one party has been much more successful in gaining electoral power, redistricting has been successfully used to hack at the minority in nearly every sense of the word. (So blatant was the corruption in Florida that its citizens actually just passed two constitutional amendments to rectify their problem, though their new Republican governor is trying to ignore it.)
This leaves us all with two fundamental problems: How do we deal with the immediate and local issues surrounding redistricting, and how do we address the long-term problem of the Reapportionment Act of 1929? Districts shouldn't be drawn as an incumbent protection racket here, or as a blunt-force weapon to attack minorities elsewhere. They should be drawn to make sense both in terms of geography and demographics, ensuring districts are representative of the people who live in them. And we shouldn't be beholden to the number 435 in a day and age when that number no longer makes any sense.
So, a penny for your thoughts: How do you think districts should be redrawn in Massachusetts, where we're going to lose a seat, and how do you think we should change our system of reappointment, both locally and nationally?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
President Obama, Where's the Beef?
I'll never quite get why so many people jump to 'rate' the State of the Union. It's a given that such speeches will take at least half an hour, and usually more like 45 minutes. There's a lot of stuff going on there -- and how do you rate it, anyway? Generally, I think people rate it by how warm and fuzzy it makes them feel, instead of asking themselves, "where's the beef?" Well, that's what I want to know, right now.
For starters, I'm happy President Obama spoke at great length about the importance of education, but I was distressed at how little he offered in terms of how he expects us to afford it. There's little chance of states getting aid to avoid horrendous cuts in this coming year's budget, and there was distressingly little spoken during the speech about how students are to afford a college education in today's broken system. How does he honestly expect to improve education in this country, given those two facts?
Another disappointment was his specifics-free call for a neo-Sputnik; while the best and easiest answer to our jobs crisis is a serious investment in this country's infrastructure and research programs that's the size of the Apollo space program (or, better yet, the Manhattan project), how are we supposed to fund it, given his call for a five-year spending freeze? We're losing out to almost every developed country in the world -- because they're the ones funding their infrastructures and they're the ones funding new technologies like solar panels, while America continues to fall behind.
This goes doubly for his call for strengthening our country's education. If the vast majority of funding for public education is undertaken at the state level, and states are cutting absolutely massive portions of their budgets, how are we supposed to improve education for our kids? Unlike the federal government, states can't print money or go without a balanced budget. If President Obama wasn't pushing for a spending freeze, it would be entirely possible to pass addition state aid packages to keep his big promises, like education and infrastructure. And what is he supposed to realistically do to help people get a college education? Right now, all too many people can't afford it -- even amongst those who are attending. The jobs market is so bad, and there's such a high glut of college-educated people compared to the number of available jobs, that a college education alone is no guarantee to a good job. Furthermore, without a good, high-paying job, most college educations are almost impossible to afford, reasonably or otherwise. The President has not came up with any solutions to these problems yet, so right now his push for a better educational system is just words.
My two biggest disappointments from the speech, by far, had to do with where President Obama thinks this country is going -- and something he said that almost amounts to a lie at this point. The latter is on his call to make the richest in this country pay more of their fair share. He had an opportunity to accomplish this just this past December, yet gave up on it at the merest hint of a fight. Meanwhile, this is an idea that may just be more popular than Ice Cream in this country. Has this just become an annual campaign pledge to the base meant to stir up votes that will, even though it'll probably never happen? I think so -- and it could be to our country's demise.
The biggest disappointment, though, was Obama's parroting of the idea that we're never going to have a strong industrial base in this country again. In a day and age when a country the size of Germany has outpaced us in exports -- and I'm not talking exports, but in the sheer dollars and cents of the exports -- this is just an unacceptable idea. We cannot have a strong country based on building weapons, paying too much for health care and relying on companies like Goldman Sachs that play with numbers, producing nothing. Equally, we cannot have a country where our major corporations are not only not discouraged from shipping jobs overseas, but encouraged to do so. Between "free," but not fair, trade agreements and actual tax credits to ship jobs overseas, our economy has shed literally millions of good, working-class jobs to foreign companies. Furthermore, it isn't a decision that's been made by many of these companies out of profit -- it's been made out of greed, the quest for even higher profits. There are companies that will shift their jobs overseas if it means they'll make 4 more cents, and we can't have that.
This is really about the future of our country. By all means, we may not be able to compete in each and every type of the labor market -- there are certain products that would probably be too expensive to make practically here, like textiles, but certainly we've proved in the past year or two that there are plenty of others that can do well if we invest in them. We can absolutely grow jobs in many manufacturing sectors, building products that are competitively priced and do a lot to help the working class. Just look at how well Detroit's doing these days; they're making great cars that are competitively priced and that people want to buy. We could have lost millions of jobs in the auto industry, but instead we've gained tens of thousands. We can add all sorts of tech and heavy industries to this list -- from components to computers to solar power, which is a particularly touchy subject for us Massachusetts voters right now, after we lost Evergreen Solar.
The point is, we need to believe in this stuff. The point is we can't just keep talking about how we need to do these sorts of things, we actually have to do them. That means we need money, which means we either have to pay for it now by raising taxes on the rich and by drastically cutting the size and scope of the military, or we need to subsist for a few more years on heavy deficit spending -- something we can do, but only if we have a real road-map to get to the point where we'll have a good jobs market within a few years. Unfortunately, I don't think President Obama has that plan right now, and no warm-and-fuzzy speech that boasts of American Exceptionalism, when we have little reason to feel exceptional these days, is going to change that.
For starters, I'm happy President Obama spoke at great length about the importance of education, but I was distressed at how little he offered in terms of how he expects us to afford it. There's little chance of states getting aid to avoid horrendous cuts in this coming year's budget, and there was distressingly little spoken during the speech about how students are to afford a college education in today's broken system. How does he honestly expect to improve education in this country, given those two facts?
Another disappointment was his specifics-free call for a neo-Sputnik; while the best and easiest answer to our jobs crisis is a serious investment in this country's infrastructure and research programs that's the size of the Apollo space program (or, better yet, the Manhattan project), how are we supposed to fund it, given his call for a five-year spending freeze? We're losing out to almost every developed country in the world -- because they're the ones funding their infrastructures and they're the ones funding new technologies like solar panels, while America continues to fall behind.
This goes doubly for his call for strengthening our country's education. If the vast majority of funding for public education is undertaken at the state level, and states are cutting absolutely massive portions of their budgets, how are we supposed to improve education for our kids? Unlike the federal government, states can't print money or go without a balanced budget. If President Obama wasn't pushing for a spending freeze, it would be entirely possible to pass addition state aid packages to keep his big promises, like education and infrastructure. And what is he supposed to realistically do to help people get a college education? Right now, all too many people can't afford it -- even amongst those who are attending. The jobs market is so bad, and there's such a high glut of college-educated people compared to the number of available jobs, that a college education alone is no guarantee to a good job. Furthermore, without a good, high-paying job, most college educations are almost impossible to afford, reasonably or otherwise. The President has not came up with any solutions to these problems yet, so right now his push for a better educational system is just words.
My two biggest disappointments from the speech, by far, had to do with where President Obama thinks this country is going -- and something he said that almost amounts to a lie at this point. The latter is on his call to make the richest in this country pay more of their fair share. He had an opportunity to accomplish this just this past December, yet gave up on it at the merest hint of a fight. Meanwhile, this is an idea that may just be more popular than Ice Cream in this country. Has this just become an annual campaign pledge to the base meant to stir up votes that will, even though it'll probably never happen? I think so -- and it could be to our country's demise.
The biggest disappointment, though, was Obama's parroting of the idea that we're never going to have a strong industrial base in this country again. In a day and age when a country the size of Germany has outpaced us in exports -- and I'm not talking exports, but in the sheer dollars and cents of the exports -- this is just an unacceptable idea. We cannot have a strong country based on building weapons, paying too much for health care and relying on companies like Goldman Sachs that play with numbers, producing nothing. Equally, we cannot have a country where our major corporations are not only not discouraged from shipping jobs overseas, but encouraged to do so. Between "free," but not fair, trade agreements and actual tax credits to ship jobs overseas, our economy has shed literally millions of good, working-class jobs to foreign companies. Furthermore, it isn't a decision that's been made by many of these companies out of profit -- it's been made out of greed, the quest for even higher profits. There are companies that will shift their jobs overseas if it means they'll make 4 more cents, and we can't have that.
This is really about the future of our country. By all means, we may not be able to compete in each and every type of the labor market -- there are certain products that would probably be too expensive to make practically here, like textiles, but certainly we've proved in the past year or two that there are plenty of others that can do well if we invest in them. We can absolutely grow jobs in many manufacturing sectors, building products that are competitively priced and do a lot to help the working class. Just look at how well Detroit's doing these days; they're making great cars that are competitively priced and that people want to buy. We could have lost millions of jobs in the auto industry, but instead we've gained tens of thousands. We can add all sorts of tech and heavy industries to this list -- from components to computers to solar power, which is a particularly touchy subject for us Massachusetts voters right now, after we lost Evergreen Solar.
The point is, we need to believe in this stuff. The point is we can't just keep talking about how we need to do these sorts of things, we actually have to do them. That means we need money, which means we either have to pay for it now by raising taxes on the rich and by drastically cutting the size and scope of the military, or we need to subsist for a few more years on heavy deficit spending -- something we can do, but only if we have a real road-map to get to the point where we'll have a good jobs market within a few years. Unfortunately, I don't think President Obama has that plan right now, and no warm-and-fuzzy speech that boasts of American Exceptionalism, when we have little reason to feel exceptional these days, is going to change that.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Today's Podcast: The Filibuster and National Snooze Button
Good, informative stuff on today's filibuster. We talk about the rules and how it works, and why some of the things have gone the way they've gone. It serves equal parts filibuster 101 and advocacy for its reform of repeal. Both Mike and I would love to see the thing go, but even making people stand up and defend their stance for hours -- instead of the current means of allowing things to take place behind closed doors -- would be a big improvement.
Click here to listen, or use the blog talk radio widget to the right.
Click here to listen, or use the blog talk radio widget to the right.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Obama's Tax Cut Deal Explained
I can't help but feel like Obama's not just from Chicago, but the Queen of sorts, and by that, I mean Big Mama -- holding ward over America's nationwide Wall Street debtors prison. You want unemployment benefits in the nation's worst depression since the "Great" one? $700 billion for millionaires and billionaires.
Big Mama is certainly willing to "spice things up" for the people who live in her cell blocks, but at a cost that is so steep as to not be worth it -- at least if you weren't trapped in her ward.A deal that doesn't include any help the '99ers,' states that are in fiscal crisis or one that raises of the nation's debt sealing (so Republicans can't hold America hostage again in another few months, or force us to make grotesque cuts) is no deal at all. That Big Mama territory -- or maybe we should say Big Obama territory.
Big Mama is certainly willing to "spice things up" for the people who live in her cell blocks, but at a cost that is so steep as to not be worth it -- at least if you weren't trapped in her ward.A deal that doesn't include any help the '99ers,' states that are in fiscal crisis or one that raises of the nation's debt sealing (so Republicans can't hold America hostage again in another few months, or force us to make grotesque cuts) is no deal at all. That Big Mama territory -- or maybe we should say Big Obama territory.
Monday, December 06, 2010
State Department Refused to Protect Their People
This paragraph from a recent Time Magazine article on WikiLeaks and the State Department really stands out to me.
Assange said that all the documents were redacted "carefully." "They are all reviewed, and they're all redacted either by us or by the newspapers concerned," he said. He added that WikiLeaks "formally asked the State Department for assistance with that. That request was formally rejected."Look, the biggest criticism we've seen against WikiLeaks is that they're 'putting people in danger.' That the State Department would refuse an offer to help redact information they view as critically important to national security, or the safety of their own intelligence sources, either means they don't care about that safety, or they care more about getting WikiLeaks taken down than they do the safety of their own people. Either way, the criticism that WikiLeaks is 'putting people in danger' is no longer credible given this information -- particularly given the fact that WikiLeaks still went out of their way to carefully redact this information despite the lack of participation of the State Department.
President Obama eloquently spoke about the need for his government to keep open communications with enemy nations while campaigning. The government would be much better off if Obama's administration opened communications up with WikiLeaks and tried to work with them to redact what they truly think needs to be redacted, rather than attack this nation's very first amendment -- the freedom of speech.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Must Read for the Progressive Activist
Great blog posted today on Americablog.
The gist: Arkansas's Blanche victory shows us, more than anything else (and there's been a lot of evidence) that Obama and the national democrats represent no change from corporate domination and the continued unraveling of the New Deal.
The advice?
The gist: Arkansas's Blanche victory shows us, more than anything else (and there's been a lot of evidence) that Obama and the national democrats represent no change from corporate domination and the continued unraveling of the New Deal.
The advice?
You don't replace the party in power; you take over the party in power.Lots and lots of primaries, baby. Massachusetts has to do its part locally by electing Mac D'Alessandro. Victory for Mac in his election is critical. There is not that much time to stop the unraveling that continues to go on post-Bush.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Brown's Firm "Embarrassed" Over DADT Poll
Apparently, they didn't want to let it get out that Brown's against 77% of Massachusetts on Civil Rights. Interesting stuff here, but let's all be glad that the poll Brown "never intended to see the light of day," was released.
One final point: Why on Earth is HRC associated with DCI? This news does nothing to dissuade critics who have long feared HRC's leadership is far too influenced/controlled by the Log Cabin wing of the GLBT population. Eww...
Even if HRC did right here, this does little to change my mind that the group just needs to go away. It does the GLBT community few favors, and mostly represents a giant sucking sound ($$).
One final point: Why on Earth is HRC associated with DCI? This news does nothing to dissuade critics who have long feared HRC's leadership is far too influenced/controlled by the Log Cabin wing of the GLBT population. Eww...
Even if HRC did right here, this does little to change my mind that the group just needs to go away. It does the GLBT community few favors, and mostly represents a giant sucking sound ($$).
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Niki Tsongas's Podcast -- Good Stuff
Mike and I had Niki Tsongas on LeftAhead yesterday and I thought it went very well. Tsongas was wonkier than I had expected, in a good way. For people who like a good, meaty podcast, filled with a broad spectrum of issues and some specifics to go along with it, I think you'll like it a lot.
You can listen or download it at the link above, on this site's right-hand sidebar, blogtalkradio.com/lefties or on Itunes, searching for LeftAhead amongst the podcasts.
You can listen or download it at the link above, on this site's right-hand sidebar, blogtalkradio.com/lefties or on Itunes, searching for LeftAhead amongst the podcasts.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
A Health Care Parting Thought
For practically decades, one of the biggest knocks on the Democratic Party has been that it doesn't live up to its principles, that it doesn't really care, and isn't willing to sacrifice seats to pass something the party believes in manifestly, but may not poll so well. Well, say that no more.
No matter how much mud the Republicans slung at us, no matter how ugly health care reform became -- and no matter how ineptly the Democratic leadership handled the debate from the summer until when Obama finally took the reigns of it in February, the Democratic Party stayed true to its form, stood up and passed a bill on the central issue Democrats manifestly believe in: the need for major health care reform.
It wasn't perfect, but no matter how often some elected national party members just wanted to kill the whole thing and move on, no matter how many stumbling blocks were in the way, the Democrats have got the job done. This sets a whole new trend for the Democratic Party and I only hope it can maintain this gumption going forward -- being willing to do what's necessary to pass our bills, to pass what we believe in.
This is what government should be all about -- parties living and dying by passing bills which they believe in, not gridlocked government, not government by the polls and not snappy soundbites and petty fighting. Let's make government a battle of ideas again, let's make parties strive for major goals and let's push to have a system where those parties live or die based on those ideas and ideals. That's what I want from my American government, how about you?
No matter how much mud the Republicans slung at us, no matter how ugly health care reform became -- and no matter how ineptly the Democratic leadership handled the debate from the summer until when Obama finally took the reigns of it in February, the Democratic Party stayed true to its form, stood up and passed a bill on the central issue Democrats manifestly believe in: the need for major health care reform.
It wasn't perfect, but no matter how often some elected national party members just wanted to kill the whole thing and move on, no matter how many stumbling blocks were in the way, the Democrats have got the job done. This sets a whole new trend for the Democratic Party and I only hope it can maintain this gumption going forward -- being willing to do what's necessary to pass our bills, to pass what we believe in.
This is what government should be all about -- parties living and dying by passing bills which they believe in, not gridlocked government, not government by the polls and not snappy soundbites and petty fighting. Let's make government a battle of ideas again, let's make parties strive for major goals and let's push to have a system where those parties live or die based on those ideas and ideals. That's what I want from my American government, how about you?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Hypocrisy, Terrorism and Phone Tapping
If four young democrats dressed up as phone repairmen and tried to install wiretaps to Senator Mitch McConnell's office (R), they'd be off to Guantanamo, with cries of terrorism, and water-boarded by now. Or close to it. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the national GOP would be all over it, foaming at the mouth. The rest of cable and network news would follow suit.
Instead, they were college republicans and one of their daddies is a US attorney, so it's just some goofy stunt. Still won't keep at least some of them out of federal prison (no doubt they'll all try to backstab each other as they try to make plea bargains, realizing they may actually be held accountable for their actions). At least there's that.
Who wants to take a guess that these four were not alone? Someone funded them. Did that person also put them up to something like this? Who knew what and when?
Instead, they were college republicans and one of their daddies is a US attorney, so it's just some goofy stunt. Still won't keep at least some of them out of federal prison (no doubt they'll all try to backstab each other as they try to make plea bargains, realizing they may actually be held accountable for their actions). At least there's that.
Who wants to take a guess that these four were not alone? Someone funded them. Did that person also put them up to something like this? Who knew what and when?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Get Rid of Bernanke
No one person is completely irreplaceable: Bernanke should booted from the Fed Chairmanship. The rabid calls for his renomination by the Wall-Street right and Obama -- the economy will not go kaput, no matter how much Obama and his lackeys are trying to drive up the fear level -- are absurd. The guy watched as America almost went into a depression -- he deserves to be fired. The calls by tough democrats to filibuster Bernanke's renomination should be heeded -- the voters are watching. It's time for politicians in America to realize that failure is not to be rewarded. It's time for someone to be nominated to the Fed Chairmanship who cares about people and jobs, not Morgan Stanley and Goldman Saches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments