Republican

by

Understanding Socialism


The Republican Party likes to demonize certain Democrat ideas of being socialist, the idea being a direct correlation between socialism and communism.  While socialism is certainly a hallmark of communism, it existed in certain forms long before communism.

In 17th Century Massachusetts the town of Dedham was founded as a utopian community.  In those days Dedham extend from what is now South Boston all the way to Plymouth.  Today’s Dedham is a smallish town not far from Boston.  The next utopian idea happen at what was called Brook Farm near Boston.  It too was a utopian/socialist attempt that failed.  But these were not isolated attempts.  Other attempts in states like New York happened throughout the 18th and 19th Century.  All, of course, failed, but none was ever condemned as they were mostly economic endeavours.

Socialism got its greatest traction in 19th century Europe.  It came as a result of the old feudal systems still in place in much of Eastern Europe, and to a lesser extent because of Western European monarchies and their tendencies towards excesses of self-enrichment.  It is no coincidence that Word War I put an end not just to the Russian monarchy but also the Italian, German, Prussian, Polish, Austrian, and numerous others.  The cost of waging war is so great that the armed populace that monarchies sent to the battlefields turned on their own governments.  The Czar was replaced by the Soviet, the Kaiser by a Chancellor, and so forth.  The people, impoverished by these monarchies, demanded a redistribution of wealth and the leaders of the various revolutions were only too willing to oblige, and in doing so, gain wide-spread support for their particular cause.

In the first half of the 20th century, socialist groups were not necessarily liberal or left-wing.  The formal name of the ultra-right wing Nazi party of Germany was the National Socialists.

The United States in the first 20 years of the 20th century had a number of socialist mayors, congressmen, and other elected officials.  And if you lived in the United States in 1936, 1937, and 1938, and understood the evil that Hitler was visiting on his people, you supported the German Communist party as it was the only opposition to Hitler at the time within Germany.  They were throughout World War 2 the underground in Germany.  Similarly, it was French Communists who were a large part of that underground.  All that, of course, changed when the war was over.

Socialism has existed in some form in most countries since World War 2.  By definition, socialism is any government-owned or administered production and distribution of goods.  By that definition socialism does not exist in the United States in any form, and is constitutionally prohibited from existing.   But as soon as you expand that definition to include services the waters become muddy.  Health care is by definition a service.  But so too is airport administration.  That means most U.S. airports are run, in a socialist manner, at some level of government.  Does that mean we should turn of administration of O’Hare Airport in Chicago to private enterprise?  I would hope not, and I doubt any Republican will ever support such a measure even if it does mean they must compromise on their definition of socialism.

If Republicans are truly anti-socialist, as many claim, they are going to have to turn over to private corporations all seaports, AMTRAK, the Tennessee Valley Authority, all state-run liquor stores, all state lotteries, all draw-bridge operations, all transportation authorities, all port authorities, all air traffic control, all public hospitals, and many other operations.  If you think about it, any and all of these functions could be run by privately owned corporations.  The only question is, in the desire to eliminate any possible socialist type government operations, are you willing to give up these?

If, for example, our airports were turned over to corporate America, I for one would stop flying.  I simply do not trust private enterprise to act in my best interests.  And therein lies the central concept of why we entrust certain parts of our existence to the government.  We quite simply have more trust in the government looking after our best interests than we do corporate America.  And to this end, health care, which corporate America has so totally failed to include all Americans, needs to have government participation at a greater level than previously experienced.  Here, in Massachusetts, the Mitt Romney inspired required health care coverage has been a huge success in spite of its critics.  If anything, corporate America has benefitted from the Massachusetts experience in health care.

The bottom line is this; when corporate America has not given a service through lack of desire, has abdicated responsibility for whatever reason, or has refused to offer essential services to all Americans, we expect our government to step in and either provide the service, such as most forms of surface transportation, or make a provision whereby corporate America is compelled to make their service available at a reasonable rate to all Americans, and this is the case of health care.

Most Republicans want to bring an end to AMTRAK and turn its operations over to corporate America.  I am guessing they have not bothered to read much history, because it was corporate America that begged out of the passenger rail industry in 1971, with but four exceptions, the Southern Railroad, the Boston & Maine Railroad, the Rock Island Railroad, and the Rio Grande Railroad.  All except the B&M gave in to government take over within a few years.  It is difficult to imagine that so much has changed, even in the densely populated northeast, that any private corporation on its own can turn a profit in the passenger rail business.  But do you want to imagine a US that does not have it?

Republicans are not being the least bit truthful about any government enterprise that they call “socialist.”  It is not socialism they fear, it is their loss of leverage at the corporate level they fear.  What will happen to corporate America if the government requires fairness, openness, and equal access?  The Reagan deregulation made certain that corporate America not be responsible to anyone but its board of directors as witness the blatant abuse of power and privilege during the Wall Street meltdown.  They will never admit to this being true but rest assured, it is!  But rest assured, socialism, even as it exists in democracies such as Canada and England, is not being suggested by anyone in the Democrat Party, or anyone else for that matter.  It is simply a Republican ploy to make undesireable something that will actually serve the good of all.

by

Who Is the Real Mitt Romney?


Romney’s election committee was quick to distance their candidate from remarks made by Indiana US Senate candidate Richard Mourdock vis-a-vis rape and abortion.  Mourdock said such thing reflect “God’s will” and he opposes abortion even in such circumstances.  The Romney campaign quickly said that Mourdock’s views do not necessarily reflect his own.  There is just one problem with that statement, in this case they do.

You rightfully ask how I can possibly know that.   It is really quite simple.  Mitt Romney is a devout and practicing Mormon.  Mormons are a very conservative sect as religions go, and are known for that.  Mormons are known, and take pride in, their extremely conservative views, particularly those regarding abortion.  There is nothing wrong with such beliefs, and I am not trying to suggest there is, but for Romney to say he does not share Mourdock’s views is very disingenuous.

Mitt Romney is probably the most conservative candidate since Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, and even more so than either of them.  There is nothing wrong with being so conservative, of course, but I am more than a little surprised that the Obama campaign has failed to even suggest it.  Maybe they are afraid as coming across wrong in pointing out how conservative the average Mormon is.  But it is true, and what is wrong with telling the truth?

by

Let’s Kill a Few Democrat Sacred Cows


If you were to check my status at the city hall where I live you will find that I am a registered Democrat.  I bring that up simply to point out that this is not some conservative’s rant against liberals.

The Minimum Wage — This is like the holy grail of Democrat policies.  The minimum wage was first enacted in 1938 under the Roosevelt administration.  At that time it was intended to help raise people out of the abject poverty so many were in.  According to an Oregon State University study, that 1938 minimum wage raised the purchasing power of the employee to well above the poverty level.  Since 2006, however, that same study shows the minimum wage and the poverty level are almost identical.  This begs the utility of the minimum wage at all.

The federal government for decades now has had in place a wage scale for its employees that is adjusted for the area in which they live.  That is, a GS-5 level employee in Mobile Alabama gets a lower base pay than does his counterpart in New York City.  It is well-established that the cost of living can vary greatly from one locale to another.  That suggests that, at the very least, the minimum wage needs to be adjusted according to the locale.  Some states, Washington, Oregon, Connecticut and others, have already adjusted that rate upwards but the question is, is that really necessary?

I suggest that the minimum wage is entirely unnecessary any more for a variety of factors.  First, and foremost, the economics of 2012 have so drastically changed from those that existed in 1938 that the logic of any minimum wage is not defensible.  For example, the minimum wage here is Massachusetts is $8 an hour as opposed to the federally mandated $7.25.  Still, I can assure you, that a person working the front at any local McDonald’s is getting well above that $8 an hour which bring into focus who is getting the bare minimum?  Another clarifying point, exempt from minimum wage laws nation-wide are farm employees and certain other tip-based employees.  That is the federal government recognizing that certain exceptions need to be made.  But it also leaves you with the question, if market demands for labor keep minimum wages above mandated levels, why do we need a minimum wage?  I suggest we do not.

Federally Supported Welfare  —  I am not against welfare at all.  But I do believe in needs to be reigned in and the best way to do that is to switch that responsibility to each of the individual states.  The theory behind such programs is everyone feeds into the top as it serves the greater good.  That is, the good people of Grasse River Nebraska reap the benefits of helping Detroit poor.  It is absolute redistribution of wealth.  But it unfairly takes from wealthier better run states and given to poorer less well-run states.  The source of all welfare funds is the individual tax payer.  The closer you put the distribution of those dollars to their source, the control of those dollars improves.

Federal Funding of Public Schools  — To be clear, I think the funding of public schools needs to increase.  However, I do not want my Massachusetts-based income tax going north to support New Hampshire schools.  I think the Federal government needs to continue to mandate educational minimums and standards, but it needs to get out of the business of funding those schools.  Again, this is another place where redistribution of wealth is just not fair.

The bottom line is, by removing these, and other Democrat and Republican sacred cows, we will necessarily remove from the federal budget many items which are viewed as “pork.”  A thing like Sarah Palin’s “bridge to nowhere” would not have received a dime of federal funding and probably would not have been built by the good people of Alaska.  It is a simple recognition of personal responsibility within any given state.  When a state is fully responsible for funding its projects, its citizens are much likely to sit up and take notice of how much it costs and why they might even need it.

by

Is Massachusetts Turning Republican?


Twenty years ago such a question would be laughable.  Even today some might scoff at it considering the makeup of the Massachusetts legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat.  I am, and always have been, a registered Democrat.  But I suspect that like me, many of my fellow Democrats in this state are rather fed up with the arrogance shown by the state’s Democrats.

Massachusetts has elected the occasional Republican to state-wide and national office, Edward Brooke and William Weld in the more distant past.  But they were more the exception.  State politics has been large dominated by Democrats since the FDR administration, and to some degree prior to that with James Michael Curley.  But recent events where Democrats have been accused and convicted of felonious acts has given the state’s voters reason to question their elected leaders.  The worst thing they have done, which is not a crime but a betrayal of faith, has been the arrogance of the party leadership in the state.

Two national offices are being heavily contested in the state right now, that for a U.S. Senate seat, Brown vs. Warren, and US Representative seat, Tierney vs. Tisei.  And in some sense, Mitt Romney too, although I view him as truly a Michigan native rather than a Massachusetts resident.

In the case of Brown vs. Warren, we have a very affable Republican in Brown who is the state’s Republican US Senator being opposed by a very cerebral and professorial sounding Warren.  And that is her biggest problem.  She claims to come from blue-collar America but sounds anything but.  If anything, she comes across as preachy and professorial.  She is difficult to identify with at much of any level.  Brown, quite simply, comes across as entirely middle-class.  He is a middle-class veteran that I can more easily identify with than Warren’s academic persona.  If history teaches us anything, it is that people vote for who they best identify with which does not necessarily mean who is best qualified.  In this case, however, I cannot say that Brown is not best qualified to both serve and properly represent me.  That, it is my guess, is the question Warren needs to respond to more than any other and which, I doubt, the Democratic leadership of this state will come to terms with.  In the end, I expect Brown will be re-elected.  And even though I cannot say for certain right now, he may well get my vote.

Tierney is a case of absolute arrogance.  I do not, for a second, want Tisei to win this race however I feel he has an excellent chance of doing exactly that.  Not so many years Thomas Finneran had the same arrogance being displayed by Tierney.  As it turned out, Finneran was guilty of, at the very least, comprising the public trust for his own personal ends.  I think Tierney is guilty of the same thing.  It is difficult to believe that a man, as intelligent as he is, had no idea of his family’s involvement in illegal gambling activities long before it became public.  I have to admit that my distrust of Tierney pre-dates that.  It goes back to the mid-1990s when he was opposed by a man named Peter Torkilson, a Republican.  I voted for Torkilson back then on a gut feeling that he was simply the better man.  Unfortunately I am no longer in that district so I cannot have any say in that election.  I do not believe, however, that the state’s Democratic leadership has properly and fully addressed the charges leveled against Tierney by the Republican party.  It simply and arrogantly believes he will get re-elected because you have to go far before anyone’s memory to find a Republican being elected from that district.  The thing is, I know that district to be more conservative than party leaders tend to believe.  It would not take much for more conservative Democrats, like myself, to turn the present election in favor of Tisei.  And that is exactly what I believe is going to happen.

Right now probably few people in Massachusetts believe that Mitt Romney will carry his declared home-state in the presidential election.  The last time that happened was when Al Gore failed to carry his home state of Tennessee.  And as likely as it is that Obama will carry Massachusetts, it should not be taken for granted.  And yet that is exactly what Democratic leadership is doing.

In the latest round of political debates, Warren, Biden, and Obama each lost their respective debates.  Tierney and Tisei will not have any public debate forum although they should.  The point is, Democrats seem to be riding on their laurels thinking they have the upper hand.  They do not, by any stretch of the imagination.  Since those debates, each of the Democrats has lost their lead in the respective race to their Republican opponent.  That is extremely significant because it shows a reversal of fortunes.

I think most Americans find it difficult to believe much of anything politicians say, even those they vote for.  You frequently hear them state they are “voting for the lesser of two evils.”  How can that ever be a good thing?  I noted in the debates that when asked direct and simple questions, those question largely went unanswered.  The politician being asked did a tap dance around the truth, but seldom gave what was a clear and simple answer.  Would it not be refreshing to hear a candidate just once say, “I don’t know, but I intend to find out.”

I do not think Massachusetts is suddenly going to become a state in which Republicans rule the roost.  But I do believe, at least in the two contests mentioned, that Republican will prevail.  I think it good that Republican should have more of a say in this state’s politics.  It makes the Democrats more honest, or possibly honest in the first place.  But maybe, just maybe, it will knock some of the arrogance from the state’s Democrat Party.

by

Who Hijacked the Republican Party?


The Republican Party can trace its roots all the way back to Washington.  While it is true that Washington and Adams both were Federalists, they were also the conservatives of their generation.  Jefferson, who became president in 1801, was the first “liberal” and his was the Republican Party.  The party of Jefferson, however, disappeared with the Whigs only to return as the party of Lincoln.

None of our first four presidents were religious men.  There is continuing discussion among historians as to what, if any, religion Jefferson truly ascribed to.  But it was a very conservative Adams, and equally conservative Madison, who made a point of distancing the federal government from any form of religion.  Their reasoning was simple and clear.  They remembered the heavy-handed dictates of the King of England insisting that his subjects be members of the Church of England.  It was this absolute separation of church and state, as much as anything, that brought the original settlers from England to America.  The second part of the first amendment is an affirmation of that fact.

Mitt Romney is a very conservative evangelical Christian.  His running-mate, Ryan, is a very conservative Roman Catholic.  The irony of those two being on the same ticket is that each of their chosen religions was a huge detractor of the other during the 19th and a good part of the 20th centuries.  Each religion based itself of certain absolute ideas and ideals over which they were unwilling or unable to find any middle-ground with dissenters of that particular belief.  In the late-20th century, at least one Mormon tel-evangelist referred to Catholics as evil in no uncertain terms.  To be fair, and having been brought up Catholic, we were led to believe that the only true Christians were Catholics.  I believe Romney is crafty enough that he realized such a division could be brought up during his campaign for president, hence his drafting Ryan.  To many, the charismatic Marco Rubio was a better choice of running-mate, but that would have put two evangelical Mormons on the same ticket.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, evangelical Christians, lead by Jerry Falwell, formed what they called “the moral majority” and started a systematic takeover of the Republican party.  To be sure, they were conservatives all and well-financed.  But the “moral majority” fell apart when Jim Baker, and other prominent far right-wingers, were found guilty of marital infidelity and other such things.  But the Falwells were simply the figureheads for well-monied ultra-conservative Republicans.  They quite simply set an agenda and required all Republicans to buy-in or see their campaign funding dry up.

Not all Republicans have toed that line.  I do not believe that Scott Brown, a Republican US Senator from my own state, is of the ilk although I do think he has found himself in the position of voting for positions that are unpopular with his constituency rather than risk becoming a pariah.  Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has also shown courage of conviction to buck his party’s line.  Unfortunately, he is far from being a centrist.

The “Tea Party” has a hand in all this.  It is the answer to the Libertarian ideas of Ron Paul.  But unlike Ron Paul, it has a close alliance with evangelical America.  While Ron Paul takes a very pragmatic approach to reducing government, the Tea Party seeks quick draconian measures that would basically kill the middle class as it increases the gap between the rich and the poor.

I think everyone should be allowed to practice whatever religion they desire.  But I do not want their religion, or mine for that matter, being used as a basis for public policy and law.  Religion is one of the most personal things that exists.  Even among the most conservative group of people of a same religion, you will find differences in their beliefs.  And while these difference may seem minor, they are important to each individual.  How do you dictate what, religious in content, a country should hear, should have as a part of its public policy, and worse, a part of its law?

Good government and good government policy can only be built upon the absence of religious belief.  It is not unpatriotic, for example, to be an atheist, although ultra-conservative Republicans will have you think that so.  I demand freedom from your religion, as you should demand of me.  My First Amendment right says that will be so.  I do not, however, believe that is the plan of evangelical Republicans who have found a leader in Mitt Romney, and who have kidnapped the once proud and pragmatic Republican Party.  Please give back the Republican Party of Lincoln, of Teddy Roosevelt, and of Dwight Eisenhower.

by

Republican Nominating Process Shows Demise of American Political System?


It was reported in the Boston Globe (June 24, 2012, P. B1) recently that the state Republican Party revoked the delegate status of 17 Republican delegates.  Why?  They had refused to sign an oath of support to Mitt Romney.  Massachusetts, of course, voted overwhelmingly for Romney as the Republican candidate but state Republican party rules do not bind delegates, nor does it require any oath of allegiance.  The state party decided that had to be changed.  Why?  The 17 delegates in question were supporters of Ron Paul.

What state party leaders fear is that the Paul delegates, once at the Republican Convention, would draw attention to Paul’s agenda.  That, of course, has the possibility of gaining support from delegates of other states at the convention and bring on unwanted turmoil.  This is nothing new, of course, but it is showing the power of the super-pacs who now seem to control our election process.

To be fair, I think the same sort of process exists within the Democrat Party but since it is not looking for a candidate this year, it is not nearly so important that party doctrine be held in lock-step at their Republican counterparts seem to need.

This really started about 1994 when Republican party leaders demanded that all congressional members sign their “Contract With America.”  On the outside it seemed not only harmless, but a truly good thing.  Much of what the contract contained were statements that seemed entirely common sense.  But it served as a vehicle to reign in party members in the future.   By the time of Pres. Bush’s first election party leadership brought in their “our way or the highway” by threatening the withholding of election funding.  It has been, to say the least, effective.

The point is, Americans have allowed the election process to be co-opted by extremely well-financed political action committees.  These committees, both conservative and liberal, set agendas.  And now we have the “super-PACs” to deal with.  These PACs have made public financing of campaigns irrelevant.  That means, a single person or business can give as much money as it wants to a PAC that is not directly supporting any single political candidate.  How have the gotten around that?   Simple.  They launch attack ads against opponents’ ideas without ever mentioning the candidate they support.

Campaign Finance Reform of many years ago was designed to keep this exact thing from happening, but there are truly gifted and talented people who can find a hole in a seeminly solid slab.  They have an army of lawyers on the ready, as well, to back up their position should they be challenged.

I fear we are becoming a country where puppets of well-placed people do their bidding in the halls of Congress.  Our elected officials only get there after they have been vetted by rich and powerful groups.   Simply put, the best candidate for office will never get past the nominating process if he/she does not sign on the line with the PACs that support their party.  If Abraham Lincoln had to run his campaign then, as things are now, he would never have been supported.  He was an unknown from Illinois who was not presently in public office and who had only once served a two-year term as an Illinois representative.  Family problems that become known once he was president would have served as fodder for his opponent.

We cannot allow our political system to be taken over by the rich and powerful.  This is at the heart of what the founders of this country feared.  Such had been the case in 1775 England when the Lords of English Parliament held a deaf ear to their American cousins.  And that, as much as anything, is what is at the heart of our Constitution.  No other country had regularly scheduled elections as we do here in America, a purposeful design of the constitution.  No other country in the world has the absolute separation of powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, as we do in America.  And nowhere else is the power of the people so heavily invested in the words of a constitution as is in ours.

The PACs and super-PACs serve only to undermine those powers for their own selfish purposes.  PACs do serve a good purpose but their power and sway have got to be brought into check.  They wield far too much power in our elections and now, seemingly, hold the power of who, at the very least, will be that party’s nominee to any elective office.  This is a serious affront to the ideals that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and so many others fought for.  It is time Americans became not just angry, but furious with the way the PACs are conducting themselves, and in turn, affecting our sacred political process.

by

Are Our Political Parties Killing Our Country?


The short answer to that question is “yes” and “no.”  Party politics in our country is historically rife with both questionable conduct and criminal conduct.  In the case of the latter, I am referring to Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts Republican being viciously attacked by Representative Preston Brooks, a South Carolina Democrat.  Brooks entered the chamber and beat Sumner mercilessly with his cane in December 1855 because of Sumner’s stance on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, “Free-Soilers” vs. Pro-slavery.  After his election, Andrew Jackson’s wife was openly referred to as a whore by opposition press because she was a divorced woman.  Political parties are not nearly so blatant today as these two examples but what they lack in being blatant they make up for, and then some, in subtle and not so subtle statements.

The Republican party is labeled by Democrats as the party of “meanness” and racism.  Republicans paint Democrats as the party of big government and entitlement.  But are these charges true, even a little bit?  Yes but for both parties.  Both are racist, both are for big government, both over-spend, both promote entitlements, and both are entirely motivate towards their own political expedience and very little towards the public good.

Let me start with the national debt.  Both sides say it needs to be reduced now although they of course differ in how that should happen.  A leading economist, who I believe has a somewhat conservative leaning, though not a lot, said the national debt is virtually meaningless.  He pointed out there are two huge debts that must be dealt with and that you cannot, in fact, deal with both at the same time.  The second debt, that no one is talking about, is private debt.  That debt that you and I hold.  He said that debt is far more important than public debt because it has a far greater effect on spending and our economy than the public debt.  He stated that the public debt can be carried forward for quite some time while the private debt is reduced.  He suggested a slow reduction of the public debt while the private debt is dealt with.

Now, as to big government, since 1933, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt first took office, the size of our government has been increased by each and every administration from then on.  And during that time both major political parties have been complicit in its growth.  The only question is, has it needed to grow?  Of course it has.  As public programs are added to government there is the necessity of administration over those programs.  Prior to World War 2 there was no Veterans Administration, now there is.  With the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the Nuclear Regulatory Administration was formed.   In the mid-1950s NASA was formed when Russia entered space.  And that is how it has gone.  Without exception, the formation of these agencies has required the blessing of Congress.  Those Congresses have been led by one or the other party.  But since 1933 only one agency that I have been able to identify has ever been disbanded.  That was the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and that was only because it was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court after a Republican challenge to its existence.

What I am saying is that both parties are equally guilty, if there truly is guilt, in our government being as big as it is.  That brings to question what the role of government is.  By definition, “the administration  and control of public policy in a political unit . . . [the] exercise of authority in a political unit . . . the agency . . . [that] exercises authority and performs the required duties.” (Webster’s Dictionary, Riverside Publishing, 1988, p. 541).  Simply put, we need agencies to assist us in living in our defined society.  What both parties are trying to sell us is that we need to reduce the Federal Budget without reducing that actual size of its agencies except under the threat of diminished budgets.  That is unreasonable.  The first to take the hit, which I find particularly offensive, is the Dept. of Defense.  Right now the government is giving the appearance of being responsible with its latest incantation of the Base Closure and Realignment Committee.  That is 100% unnecessary, or at the very least, of a much lower priority in that domain. A military no longer engaged in a war will naturally need fewer dollars to continue.  Its demand for armaments will naturally reduce.  If anything, our military is already too small.  The Department of Defense has too long been an easy target.  That has got to end!

The next place politician looks to reduce the budget is entitlements, social security,  medicare, welfare, and other programs.  It would be far more expedient, and reasonable, if, with the exception of social security, these programs and their administration were turned over to the individual states to include their complete funding.  I think the entire Department of Housing and Urban Developement could be greatly reduced, along with Health and Human Services, were they turned over to the various states for funding.  The exceptions from those departments would be the regulatory portion that must be administered by the Federal Government, and, those portions that necessarily cross state lines as provided by the 14th Amendment.

We Americans, all of us, are allowing of minds to be manipulated by political think tanks and behind the scenes operatives.  Two such operatives are James Carville, Democrats, and Carl Rove, Republicans, have been allowed to wield too much power over us by spinning their messages without regard for the truth.  In recent years I was offended by Republican operatives putting into question John Kerry’s awards in Vietnam.  People who get silver stars are vetted extremely well prior to the award and to ever claim anyone received such an award without good reason puts all awards into questions.  But I found equally offensive the Democrats contending that George W. Bush somehow dodged military service by joining the Texas Air National Guard.  I know for fact that there were national guard members who served in Vietnam.  Bush did not dodge a thing, and in fact was honoring a commitment many others of his monetary level avoided.  In both cases politics tried to portray these individuals as being something less than honorable, and their actions as being highly questionable.  Also in each case, it was the desire of those behind the attacks to manipulate our feelings even though their statements were entirely without merit.  But we all have been complicit in these horrible allegations by not calling down those of our own political bent.  As a Democrat I defended Bush’s service when it was called into question.  As a veteran I look at all other veterans as brothers in arms and I never allow their political preference to make a difference in that feeling.

What I am saying in all that is, we as Americans have got to take back our political parties.  We as individuals no longer have any control what-so-ever over them.  Both political parties now only pay homage to the Super-PACs that fund them.  What each major party needs to do is to make a statement that all political statements not made by a candidate or their authorized committee is without merit, that we should ignore any statements made by such groups.  I do not want large environmental PACs telling me that drilling in Northern Alaska will kill indigenous life when in fact government can work out contracts that will allow for proper care nor do I want big finance PACs telling me that federal oversight of Wall Street at a greater level is unnecessary when all evidence says otherwise.  I believe before anyone should yell how they want government out of their lives, they should be yelling they want the power of PACs over our government reduced to something next to zero.

In the past election cycle I voted against all incumbents, and where there was no opposition, I wrote in “none of the above.”  I am so tired of the party I have generally supported, Democrats, coming off with all its self-righteousness.  I am equally tired of Republicans claiming they know what “Americans want” and being the patriotic party.  I have seen no proof recently that either political party has any clue what most Americans want.  I believe they are so out of touch with the average American that even a detailed account being given them as required reading would not allow them to see the light.  They would each likely dismiss out-of-hand what they were being shown as somehow being wrong.  To me, it looks like all 535 senators and representatives are some of the most clueless bastards to have ever walked the halls of Congress.  Congress has forgotten that it represents people, all the people who elected them.  It is not to consider the desire of corporations, PACs, foreign delegations, foreign corporations, or any other entity that cannot cast a vote.  Each and every one of them takes an oath of office to which they swear to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of the United States, and by extension, to the people who it is supposed to protect.

I ask any who read this to take the time to challenge any and all statements made by individuals who are running for office and any group that makes statements that purport to support a particular political agenda.  We must start thinking for ourselves or we will find ourselves victim to our own negligence.

by

Health Care


I like to keep my blog as non-political as I can but this is something that really bothers me.  I also want to say that I am apolitical.  That is, I really do not like U.S. politics as proffered by either major political party today.  I think they are grossly out of touch with the average American and that both parties play on the fears of the average American.  I am prefacing this that way because this posting will have a more liberal bent to it but I want it to be clear, I do not trust the Democrats any  more than I do the Republicans.

The South Carolina Republican primary is today.  I have seen on news reports a lot of Republicans are pushing for the repeal of the latest health care reform, or as they euphemistically call it, Obamacare.  So here is what I do not get.  Why?  This bill has cost the average American absolutely nothing.  Taxes did not go up because of it.  No one who already has health care was required to change a thing.  The only thing it has done so far is open up health insurance to many who did not have it.  I realize that in another year it is going to require it of all Americans but why is that a bad thing?

We have had mandatory health care here in Massachusetts for a number of years now.  I have always had health insurance so it did not affect me in any way.  Massachusetts set up what is called Mass Health.  It is a system where those who were uncovered can go and buy health insurance at an affordable rate.  The effect, of course, is that people who were formally wont to visit a doctor or get proper medication, can do so now without fear of financial distress.  Doctors and hospitals like it better because now they do not have to write off nearly so many unpaid bills, many of those formerly for people living in poverty.

Why then, would any sane person want to block any American access to health insurance?  This is not a socialist move, as many have stated.  It is a move to help upwards to a third of our uninsured public get better health care.  Even worse, the Republican party has offered absolutely no alternative.  Had they said, for example, they favored a free clinic program, whereby the government invested in setting up and funding such clinics around the U.S., that would be an alternate.  But they have simply said no, we do not want all Americans to have equal access to what is billed as the world’s best health care system already.  And just to put a little perspective on that, the United States is currently ranked 36th by the World Health Organization in its health care.  We are behind a bunch of 3rd world countries.  What does that say about us?  The richest nation in the world, number 1, is only 36th in a very important statistic?  That is both unconscionable and unacceptable.

During the FDR administration it was recognized that too many Americans lacked certain basic needs, electricity and a retirement plan.  Both were resolved and are in place today.  Why then is a basic right to good health care a problem?  It should not be.  It is time for the Republican party to get off the dime, and if they do not care for Health Care Reform as it is, which they say they do not, then it is their responsibility to offer an alternative that creates the same result.