I've been pretty quiet, blog-wise, since last summer. I've not been quiet in terms of donating funds to candidates I believe in, or causes I believe in, however. Yay for Elizabeth Warren, who's now leading in MA. Yay for Rob Zerban, in WI. Progressive, honest people who share my concern over the way this country is going. And yay for my own 2 senators, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. They've voted the right way pretty consistently, Boxer more so, this past year and longer.
The Supreme Court decison giving corporations civil rights has led pretty much as expected, to huge sums of money being spent to elect more right-wing fanatics. Not to mention that circus of Republican presidential candidates. Herman Cain? Perry? Santorum? Bachman? Honestly, all they've done is make Mitt Romney look better. And this is a man who thinks the right thing to do is to gut companies to make a profit. Fire workers to turn a dime. Who can't distance himself fast enough or far enough from a medical insurance plan he put into place in MA, before he was a presidential candidate courting the right wing. And as Gail Collins (NYTimes) loves to say, the man who drove to Canada with his family dog strapped to the roof of his car. I never thought I'd live to see the Republican Party sink so low.
I've never been a Republican, true, but I've never felt so much contempt for the Party, either. Even my father, a Goldwater fan, would be ashamed of the Republicans today. Their party platform used to make sense. I didn't like it, but it resonated with the common good then. Now, it seeks to destroy what little common good is left, to turn this once great nation into a banana republic, with gated, policed enclaves for the rich (themselves included) amidst veritable seas of poor, hopeless former citizens living in polluted slums. No Medicare, no Social Security, no unemployment insurance, no aid to children in poor families ~ who cares if those kids kill their brain cells with junk food and exposure to pollutants. They're poor, and it's their fault.
2012 is an election year. That means, of course, an onslaught of campaign ads, tons of money spewing half-truths and outright lies, more and more dramatic, lunatic moves by the Tea Partiers, those unAmerican anti-democracy thugs in Congress. They almost shut down the government trying to save tax cuts for the super-rich, and then they almost shut down the government trying to stop tax cuts for the middle class. Was there ever a clearer sign of what they really want to do in America? Let's throw those bums out, this election year. Let 2012 be the Year of the American people.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Crisis
Crisis! I am sick to death of hearing everything being called a crisis. The Debt Crisis. The Deficit Crisis. The Health Care Crisis. About the only real crisis in America today is a Democracy Crisis. Yes, our two centuries old experiment in self government is in crisis. Because a small group of democracy-haters stormed into Congress and proceeded to do their best to take down the Government. They've taken the concept of "majority rule" and turned it into "minority destroy". They've excised the word "compromise" from their personal dictionaries. They've bastardized the US Constitution to suit their anti-democratic purposes. They've made a virtue out of being irrational, unethical, praising pseudoscience while denying real science. Calling for an end to the EPA, Social Security, Medicare, FEMA, the Education Dept., and countless other federal agencies. They claim to want to downsize the federal government and turn those responsibilities over to the states. And we all know how well the states did at defending civil rights, or women's rights. Or in managing environmental resources. I mean, what's a little smog, a little poisoned water among friends? Oh, wait ~ those idiots advocating the destruction of the EPA won't be subject to smog or polluted water. They're too rich to have to put up that. And who cares if the poor, the elderly, the children, the middle class have to suffer? Someone has to, to make their America great again, right?
Only don't ask them, don't ask the Republicans or the Tea Partiers (a subset of the Republican Party, to be sure), just don't ask them to share in that sacrifice. What? Raise taxes on millionaires or billionaires? Never! Raise taxes on businesses, or simply eliminate the tax breaks they've already gotten? Never! Those businesses would be severely hurt if we asked them to pay their fair share of taxes. GE would have to give up the 4+ billion refund they get for paying no taxes on their tens of billions of dollars in profits. The Oil Companies would lose their free ride, which would really hurt their multi-billion dollar business. Let's tax the poor, instead. They should pay for the privilege of being poor, you know.
When did it happen, this descent into insanity? When did people start believing that they shouldn't have to pay for their consumption of America? When did they start believing other people should pay for their consumption, because,gosh, being rich is the result of tremendously hard work and sacrifice already.
And let's get God into Government. That's always worked so well, you know. Theocracies are thriving democracies, aren't they? Oh, wait. They're not. But who cares? As long as it's "my" religion doing the ruling, I'm fine with that. And those who aren't? Well, they should just shut up, and leave or die. Their choice. Who said theocracy was undemocratic?
Only don't ask them, don't ask the Republicans or the Tea Partiers (a subset of the Republican Party, to be sure), just don't ask them to share in that sacrifice. What? Raise taxes on millionaires or billionaires? Never! Raise taxes on businesses, or simply eliminate the tax breaks they've already gotten? Never! Those businesses would be severely hurt if we asked them to pay their fair share of taxes. GE would have to give up the 4+ billion refund they get for paying no taxes on their tens of billions of dollars in profits. The Oil Companies would lose their free ride, which would really hurt their multi-billion dollar business. Let's tax the poor, instead. They should pay for the privilege of being poor, you know.
When did it happen, this descent into insanity? When did people start believing that they shouldn't have to pay for their consumption of America? When did they start believing other people should pay for their consumption, because,gosh, being rich is the result of tremendously hard work and sacrifice already.
And let's get God into Government. That's always worked so well, you know. Theocracies are thriving democracies, aren't they? Oh, wait. They're not. But who cares? As long as it's "my" religion doing the ruling, I'm fine with that. And those who aren't? Well, they should just shut up, and leave or die. Their choice. Who said theocracy was undemocratic?
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Budgets
Budgets are tricky things. God knows, I can't follow one. I've used Quicken several times to set one up, but find myself losing interest before the first month is over. Keeping track of every dime I spend is time consuming, and I really don't have all that much free time. And I don't really want to spend any of it recording my purchases and payments.
The Federal budget is in a totally different class, I know. They can't spend a dime unless it's in the budget. Sort of like my school. If it isn't in the school plan, it doesn't get spent. So that kind of a budget really is a road map to what we, as a nation, feel is important, what we want to spend our money supporting and encouraging.
Looking at the Ryan proposal vs. the Obama budget, it couldn't be clearer that Ryan and his supporters don't want to live in the same country I live in. Obama does, barely. Ryan apparently wants to live in a country with an upper class, indulged and supported with government handouts, and a peasant class, organized in workhouses and poorhouses. Let's keep those tax cuts intact, make them permanent, for those "poor" millionaires, while we take money away from feeding hungry babies and children, take away womens' health care by shutting down Planned Parenthood. And of course, let's be sure to keep giving $4 billion to the oil companies, because, after all, making $17 billion in profits in 3 months just isn't enough. And let's also be sure to cut back on funding for Medicaid, because that just helps poor people. And let's cut back on Medicare, too, because millionaires don't need it. So what f senior citizens are forced to choose medicine instead of food? They're old and will soon die, anyway. (but of course, this won't take effect until later, when I'm not up for re-election.) While we're at it, let's cut funding for public television and public radio, the arts, the unemployed, any and all regulation of anything of interest to the wealthy, oh, and also gut the health care reform that was recently passed.
Obama's plan doesn't make cuts in Medicaid, or most of the other services this country provides. It does cut funding for Defense (about time! 3 wars??), but it proposes new funding for alternative energy, education, and fully funds the parts of the health care plan that still are pending, awaiting those funds.
What it doesn't do is refuse any cuts until the Bush tax cuts are repealed. I don't believe we should be talking about any cuts at all until, and unless, tax cuts for millionaires and billion dollar giveaways to the oil companies have been completely stopped. The Constitution clearly states that one of the purposes of the government is to "provide for the general welfare" of its citizens. I don't think that the 2 or 3 per cent of the population who own nearly 80 percent of the production of it can seriously lay claim to being the focus of that "general" welfare. It's clearly the other 98% who are, and right now, in both federal and state governments, that other 98% isn't doing too well at all.
The Federal budget is in a totally different class, I know. They can't spend a dime unless it's in the budget. Sort of like my school. If it isn't in the school plan, it doesn't get spent. So that kind of a budget really is a road map to what we, as a nation, feel is important, what we want to spend our money supporting and encouraging.
Looking at the Ryan proposal vs. the Obama budget, it couldn't be clearer that Ryan and his supporters don't want to live in the same country I live in. Obama does, barely. Ryan apparently wants to live in a country with an upper class, indulged and supported with government handouts, and a peasant class, organized in workhouses and poorhouses. Let's keep those tax cuts intact, make them permanent, for those "poor" millionaires, while we take money away from feeding hungry babies and children, take away womens' health care by shutting down Planned Parenthood. And of course, let's be sure to keep giving $4 billion to the oil companies, because, after all, making $17 billion in profits in 3 months just isn't enough. And let's also be sure to cut back on funding for Medicaid, because that just helps poor people. And let's cut back on Medicare, too, because millionaires don't need it. So what f senior citizens are forced to choose medicine instead of food? They're old and will soon die, anyway. (but of course, this won't take effect until later, when I'm not up for re-election.) While we're at it, let's cut funding for public television and public radio, the arts, the unemployed, any and all regulation of anything of interest to the wealthy, oh, and also gut the health care reform that was recently passed.
Obama's plan doesn't make cuts in Medicaid, or most of the other services this country provides. It does cut funding for Defense (about time! 3 wars??), but it proposes new funding for alternative energy, education, and fully funds the parts of the health care plan that still are pending, awaiting those funds.
What it doesn't do is refuse any cuts until the Bush tax cuts are repealed. I don't believe we should be talking about any cuts at all until, and unless, tax cuts for millionaires and billion dollar giveaways to the oil companies have been completely stopped. The Constitution clearly states that one of the purposes of the government is to "provide for the general welfare" of its citizens. I don't think that the 2 or 3 per cent of the population who own nearly 80 percent of the production of it can seriously lay claim to being the focus of that "general" welfare. It's clearly the other 98% who are, and right now, in both federal and state governments, that other 98% isn't doing too well at all.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
An Interesting Spring Break
Well, I just had an interesting experience during my Spring break. I mean, I've been stuck at home because of jury duty (I have to call in every day after 5 to find out if I have to report, but so far, I haven't had to. I just have to stay close to home to call.) But today I went online to check out my bank account, and found out some 21 year old kid in Azusa used my account to join an "adult" website and advertise for a threesome. I called the company that made the charges on my account, and they gave me his name and then sent me two emails that gave me the websites, user name, password, and email address. I was surprised to find the sex site (the company told me it was Match.com, but it sure wasn't!) Since the kid lives near the school where I teach, I'm wondering if in fact he's a former student, but I'll have to wait until I get back to work next week to check that out.
I googled his name, and was able to come up with his name, address, phone number, and the names of several relatives. (I assume that's his wife and three kids, which he lists on the sex site.) I am a little perturbed by how easy it was to find all that information online. And the fact that the company that provided it didn't even ask any questions about why I wanted it.Shouldn't that sort of information ~ especially the names of his relatives, be much harder to get?
I notified my bank, but they wanted me to change my account number, and frankly, that's a major headache. And they have no clue how the kid was able to obtain my account number. I mean, I almost never use checks. The only one I write regularly is to my landlord. I don't think I've used up a block of checks in the last year. And none other than the rent for all of 2011. So where did the kid get mine?
Identity theft is big business in America. This is the second time it's happened to me. Luckily, I caught this one early, with less than $60 in charges. The first time, I was hit by thousands of dollars in charges, and had to go to court to clear up the mess. ( "I" bought a boat, a car, and hundreds of high-end items that time.) And when those thieves were done raiding my accounts, they turned my checking account number over to a group of idiots that printed up checks with major mistakes in them, with non-existent addresses, using a variety of different names. I was a little pissed at the bank for honoring checks written by three different men, with addresses that didn't exist and weren't even spelled correctly, when I am the only person on all my accounts. But then, the bank said they never even look at the checks they get. They just scan the routing/account numbers by machine and pay out on them. So what's the point of specifying that I am the only signatory on an account? Nothing, I guess.
I know this is a political blog, and most of the above is not, but it touches on politics in several ways. Issues in privacy, in security, and in general about society.
The ACLU sent me an email today about the TSA's outrageous actions in re getting on a plane. They really felt it necessary to practically strip search a 6 year old? I mean, really? We fly approximately 35 10 year olds from SoCal to the east coast once a year. This year it's Boston and New York, but in the past it has been Washington, DC and Virginia. I can hardly wait to see what they do with our group. Or me. I am so not going to allow them to use that highly invasive body scan on me, which means I'll be subjected to the alternate highly invasive body search. A former teacher who used to travel with us was always subjected to a search, because she had had knee replacement surgery. Even though she carried with her at all times the paperwork from her doctor that verified the surgery. Elderly, fragile, with proper documentation for the beep at the scanner, still they felt she was sufficiently dangerous enough to search? When did we decide that travel was no longer a right we had? When did we cede to some quasi-governmental agency the right to detain us, to restrict our travel, to search everyone? Soon, I fear, crossing a state border, in a car, will be subject to the same invasion of privacy getting on plane now elicits.
I am dismayed by the intense focus on security in America today, as well as the remarkable lapses in reasonable security. It was Franklin who said that those who would give up freedom for security would soon have, and deserve, neither. I think that is a profound truth. Why is it okay for a bank to hold you responsible for charges on your account, but provide no way to ensure that only you make those charges? I mean, if it is mandated that I am the only signatory on an account, how is it okay for them to pay out when someone else signs the checks on that account? Or, as a friend discovered recently, use a debit card, even with her picture on it? You'd think that someone would notice that the man using that debit card didn't match the picture of a 50-something woman, right? Nope.
Privacy also suffers in the name of security, and in the onslaught of information available online. No one should be able to type in a name and get their address, phone number, and the names of relatives. (Yes, I just did that, even though I feel it's wrong.) As a society, we have abdicated our rights to privacy. Companies can look you up on Facebook, and fire you if they don't like what you post. People buy and sell email lists, using programs to grab them off the Internet. A friend just had one of his email accounts hijacked to send out thousands of emails offering a scam. Nothing he can do except send more emails apologising and making clear it wasn't him. Companies now feel free to tell you what you can do in your free time, forbidding some actions, allowing others. When did they begin to feel they owned their workers? Why didn't we notice?
The onslaught on unions is just another attempt to secure their ownership of their workers. A union interferes with the "Droit de main", or the God-given right, as they see it, for employers to use their employees in any way they see fit. I thought we'd, as a nation, permanently thrown out the conceit that employers were nobles, and their employees their serfs. Apparently not.
If you can pay, you can have privacy and freedom. Congresspeople aren't subjected to the scan/search non-choice when flying. They get paid even when they don't work. They get to hide their meetings iwth lobbyists, they can post any messages they want on any platform, and never be held accountable for any of it. If you're wealthy, you can fly without restrictions anywhere in the world. You can hire lawyers and security guards to ensure your privacy. You can buy space to remain private. You can hire armies of accountants to ensure that you don't pay any taxes to support the country that gives you the freedom to become rich. And you can use all that money to elect people that will properly defer to you in matters of state, budget, goals.
We are no longer America, the land of the free. Unless that freedom consists of being free to earn less, owe more, travel less, work more. This isn't an America I want to live in.
I googled his name, and was able to come up with his name, address, phone number, and the names of several relatives. (I assume that's his wife and three kids, which he lists on the sex site.) I am a little perturbed by how easy it was to find all that information online. And the fact that the company that provided it didn't even ask any questions about why I wanted it.Shouldn't that sort of information ~ especially the names of his relatives, be much harder to get?
I notified my bank, but they wanted me to change my account number, and frankly, that's a major headache. And they have no clue how the kid was able to obtain my account number. I mean, I almost never use checks. The only one I write regularly is to my landlord. I don't think I've used up a block of checks in the last year. And none other than the rent for all of 2011. So where did the kid get mine?
Identity theft is big business in America. This is the second time it's happened to me. Luckily, I caught this one early, with less than $60 in charges. The first time, I was hit by thousands of dollars in charges, and had to go to court to clear up the mess. ( "I" bought a boat, a car, and hundreds of high-end items that time.) And when those thieves were done raiding my accounts, they turned my checking account number over to a group of idiots that printed up checks with major mistakes in them, with non-existent addresses, using a variety of different names. I was a little pissed at the bank for honoring checks written by three different men, with addresses that didn't exist and weren't even spelled correctly, when I am the only person on all my accounts. But then, the bank said they never even look at the checks they get. They just scan the routing/account numbers by machine and pay out on them. So what's the point of specifying that I am the only signatory on an account? Nothing, I guess.
I know this is a political blog, and most of the above is not, but it touches on politics in several ways. Issues in privacy, in security, and in general about society.
The ACLU sent me an email today about the TSA's outrageous actions in re getting on a plane. They really felt it necessary to practically strip search a 6 year old? I mean, really? We fly approximately 35 10 year olds from SoCal to the east coast once a year. This year it's Boston and New York, but in the past it has been Washington, DC and Virginia. I can hardly wait to see what they do with our group. Or me. I am so not going to allow them to use that highly invasive body scan on me, which means I'll be subjected to the alternate highly invasive body search. A former teacher who used to travel with us was always subjected to a search, because she had had knee replacement surgery. Even though she carried with her at all times the paperwork from her doctor that verified the surgery. Elderly, fragile, with proper documentation for the beep at the scanner, still they felt she was sufficiently dangerous enough to search? When did we decide that travel was no longer a right we had? When did we cede to some quasi-governmental agency the right to detain us, to restrict our travel, to search everyone? Soon, I fear, crossing a state border, in a car, will be subject to the same invasion of privacy getting on plane now elicits.
I am dismayed by the intense focus on security in America today, as well as the remarkable lapses in reasonable security. It was Franklin who said that those who would give up freedom for security would soon have, and deserve, neither. I think that is a profound truth. Why is it okay for a bank to hold you responsible for charges on your account, but provide no way to ensure that only you make those charges? I mean, if it is mandated that I am the only signatory on an account, how is it okay for them to pay out when someone else signs the checks on that account? Or, as a friend discovered recently, use a debit card, even with her picture on it? You'd think that someone would notice that the man using that debit card didn't match the picture of a 50-something woman, right? Nope.
Privacy also suffers in the name of security, and in the onslaught of information available online. No one should be able to type in a name and get their address, phone number, and the names of relatives. (Yes, I just did that, even though I feel it's wrong.) As a society, we have abdicated our rights to privacy. Companies can look you up on Facebook, and fire you if they don't like what you post. People buy and sell email lists, using programs to grab them off the Internet. A friend just had one of his email accounts hijacked to send out thousands of emails offering a scam. Nothing he can do except send more emails apologising and making clear it wasn't him. Companies now feel free to tell you what you can do in your free time, forbidding some actions, allowing others. When did they begin to feel they owned their workers? Why didn't we notice?
The onslaught on unions is just another attempt to secure their ownership of their workers. A union interferes with the "Droit de main", or the God-given right, as they see it, for employers to use their employees in any way they see fit. I thought we'd, as a nation, permanently thrown out the conceit that employers were nobles, and their employees their serfs. Apparently not.
If you can pay, you can have privacy and freedom. Congresspeople aren't subjected to the scan/search non-choice when flying. They get paid even when they don't work. They get to hide their meetings iwth lobbyists, they can post any messages they want on any platform, and never be held accountable for any of it. If you're wealthy, you can fly without restrictions anywhere in the world. You can hire lawyers and security guards to ensure your privacy. You can buy space to remain private. You can hire armies of accountants to ensure that you don't pay any taxes to support the country that gives you the freedom to become rich. And you can use all that money to elect people that will properly defer to you in matters of state, budget, goals.
We are no longer America, the land of the free. Unless that freedom consists of being free to earn less, owe more, travel less, work more. This isn't an America I want to live in.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Wisconsin Victory
I was delighted to read about the Supreme Court election victory in Wisconsin. I know there'll be a recount, but a progressive victory, ousting a very conservative Justice with ties to Scott Walker is something to savor. I believe it's just the beginning of a long road to victory in many, many states and the Federal government.
In some ways, I'm glad the Fed shut down was averted, but I still wonder if it might not have been better to let the Republicans shut us down over their anti-woman, anti-middle class, anti-poor politcal manuevering. And I'm disappointed in Obama, who should have been much more active, and should never have agreed to the huge cuts the Republicans insisted on. What kind of country is this, that insists on tax cuts for the wealthy and severe funding cuts for the poor, women with babies, the unemployed? I strongly believe that not one cent should have been cut from any of the social programs until every last tax cut pushed through by Bush has been eliminated. If those damn tax cuts are so necessary to create jobs, why haven't they done so in the almost 10 years they've been in place? Instead, they simply drained the federal budget, and increased the income disparity, already enormously too large.
Meanwhile, here in California, the Republicans seem to be bent on the same sort of right wing fanaticism we're seeing all over the country. The governor wanted to place the tax issue on the ballot, and allow the public to vote on the extension of some tax increases. He needed two Republicans, just two, to agree to allow a public vote. He couldn't get one. Not one Republican was willing to allow the public to vote on this issue. Apparently the Republicans don't believe that regular citizens should have any say in how our government is funded, or run. We should leave it all in the hands of the Republicans. Outrageous. And, how utterly un-American. Perhaps the only way to remind the Republicans that they work for us is to vote them out of office for their arrogance. You can bet I'll be campaigning agains every single Republican, state and federal, in 2012.
In some ways, I'm glad the Fed shut down was averted, but I still wonder if it might not have been better to let the Republicans shut us down over their anti-woman, anti-middle class, anti-poor politcal manuevering. And I'm disappointed in Obama, who should have been much more active, and should never have agreed to the huge cuts the Republicans insisted on. What kind of country is this, that insists on tax cuts for the wealthy and severe funding cuts for the poor, women with babies, the unemployed? I strongly believe that not one cent should have been cut from any of the social programs until every last tax cut pushed through by Bush has been eliminated. If those damn tax cuts are so necessary to create jobs, why haven't they done so in the almost 10 years they've been in place? Instead, they simply drained the federal budget, and increased the income disparity, already enormously too large.
Meanwhile, here in California, the Republicans seem to be bent on the same sort of right wing fanaticism we're seeing all over the country. The governor wanted to place the tax issue on the ballot, and allow the public to vote on the extension of some tax increases. He needed two Republicans, just two, to agree to allow a public vote. He couldn't get one. Not one Republican was willing to allow the public to vote on this issue. Apparently the Republicans don't believe that regular citizens should have any say in how our government is funded, or run. We should leave it all in the hands of the Republicans. Outrageous. And, how utterly un-American. Perhaps the only way to remind the Republicans that they work for us is to vote them out of office for their arrogance. You can bet I'll be campaigning agains every single Republican, state and federal, in 2012.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
What part of "Injunction" does Walker not get?
So, A judge issues an injunction banning the publishing of the anti-union law that Scott Walker and his cronies the Fitzgeralds sneaked through the Wisconsin Senate under cover of night and no notice. You'd think that injunction was pretty clear, right?
Not to Walker, et. al. The Fitzgerald boys went ahead and had it published, which they now claim means it is the law, and they intend to enforce it. Id like to ask, now, are they insane? but obviously they are not legally insane. They're just power-mad, and willing to subvert any law to obtain absolute power. Those recalls can't happen soon enough!
Here at home in California, we're experiencing the cognitive dissonance of having our state assemblymen/women tell us we shouldn't be allowed to vote on taxes or any other important issues. They should be the ones to do that. Right, like those idiots who've managed to tie California's budget into a straightjacket should obviously be the ones to vote, not the citizens who end up paying for it all. Our state government is totally dysfunctional, not completely due to their own fault. California has this truly terrible law that lets anyone at all propose constitutional amendments and get them on the ballot. Or any other sort of law. We get all the crazies coming into CA just to try out their newest oddball, fiscally irresponsible, or discriminatory law.
That may sound contadictory, but it truly isn't. I don't believe that political or social groups should have the right to alter a state constitution on a whim and and huge, partisan funding. Especially now that the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are people just like you and me. (That so needs to be revisited when the Justices are in their right minds!)
Our system means that, for example, an anti-tax group could write a law that says our assembly can't pass any taxes without 2/3 of them voting for it. That effectively means no taxes will ever get passed, since in the highly partisan atmosphere of state and federal politics, it's virually impossible to get a simple majority unless your government is a single party one. And we're seeing how well that works out, around the country right now.
California needs to dump the hamstringed state constitution and write a new one. The one we have has been altered beyond recognition. And our state senators and assemblymembers need to realize that, right now, with the huge financial problems besetting this state, it's time to let the people decide on how to get out from under. Forget asking us to trust you all to make the right decision. If you all could do that, we wouldn't be in this mess, now.
Not to Walker, et. al. The Fitzgerald boys went ahead and had it published, which they now claim means it is the law, and they intend to enforce it. Id like to ask, now, are they insane? but obviously they are not legally insane. They're just power-mad, and willing to subvert any law to obtain absolute power. Those recalls can't happen soon enough!
Here at home in California, we're experiencing the cognitive dissonance of having our state assemblymen/women tell us we shouldn't be allowed to vote on taxes or any other important issues. They should be the ones to do that. Right, like those idiots who've managed to tie California's budget into a straightjacket should obviously be the ones to vote, not the citizens who end up paying for it all. Our state government is totally dysfunctional, not completely due to their own fault. California has this truly terrible law that lets anyone at all propose constitutional amendments and get them on the ballot. Or any other sort of law. We get all the crazies coming into CA just to try out their newest oddball, fiscally irresponsible, or discriminatory law.
That may sound contadictory, but it truly isn't. I don't believe that political or social groups should have the right to alter a state constitution on a whim and and huge, partisan funding. Especially now that the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are people just like you and me. (That so needs to be revisited when the Justices are in their right minds!)
Our system means that, for example, an anti-tax group could write a law that says our assembly can't pass any taxes without 2/3 of them voting for it. That effectively means no taxes will ever get passed, since in the highly partisan atmosphere of state and federal politics, it's virually impossible to get a simple majority unless your government is a single party one. And we're seeing how well that works out, around the country right now.
California needs to dump the hamstringed state constitution and write a new one. The one we have has been altered beyond recognition. And our state senators and assemblymembers need to realize that, right now, with the huge financial problems besetting this state, it's time to let the people decide on how to get out from under. Forget asking us to trust you all to make the right decision. If you all could do that, we wouldn't be in this mess, now.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
American Life Under Siege
This blog will be about what I see happening in America these days ~ 2011 and beyond. Frankly, I'm appalled by what the Republican Party, in hand with the far-right Tea Party activists, are doing to our country. The way things are going, Emma Lazarus's poem on the Statue of Liberty should be altered to "Don't give us your poor, your tired, your hungry. We're busy creating our own."
Republican governors around the country seem to be working from the same script, going after unions, teachers, even sharing power. Scott Walker wants to be king, apparently. Michigan's governor just gave himself the right to take over any village, town, or city, appoint an "emergency fiscal director", who can fire the elected representatives, close the schools, the government, the town, and sell off all the assets ~ without any oversight from anyone.
The Tea Party and the Republican Party campaign on getting rid of "big government", getting the fed out of our lives. I guess they really mean 'out of the lives of corporations and millionaires', though. I mean, how much more intrusive can you get than telling Americans who they can love and marry, or women what to do with their own bodies. Talk about big government!
This is the group that insists on giving tax breaks to the rich while asking poor pregnant woment to give up prenatal medical care and food for their babies. This is the group that is killing all regulations on any business in America ~ well, any business that contributes to their campaign coffers.
They're killing off NPR because, after all, they've already got Fox News, and who needs a show that airs a different opinion?
Based on their budget proposals, apparently the Republicans in Congress are for unrestrained political power, unrestrained corporate abuses, poverty, disenfrachisement, and war. And they are against democracy, the middle class, working poor, and the unemployed (they're busy creating thousand more of those). They're against the rule of law, they seem to laugh at the Constitution ~ read it in Congress, but violate it at every opportunity.
And what are the Democrats doing? Lead by Obama, sadly, they're still trying to "get along" with these flaming reactionaries. Wake up, Obama! The deficit isn't our biggest worry. Losing America to right wing demogogues is. Losing the middle class, losing the right to have a say in our government is. Having the right to make a decent living wage is.
If the Republican agenda was really about reducing the deficit, they wouldn't be giving out tax breaks to the rich, subsidies to the oil industry (billionaires need money??), funding war machines that even the Pentagon says they don't want. Instead, they do their best to increase the deficit, just so they can go after the middle class. Share the pain? Hah. Not on their watch.
Scott Walker put in place a huge tax break for the rich in Wisconsin, right before he went after the teachers, nurses, and librarians to make them pay for the deficit. And even after the teachers had agreed to his demands for cutting their salaries, he didn't flinch. He and his Republican henchmen still passed a law gutting their unions, their rights. It is never about the money. It is always about the power.
We have to stop the right wing take over of America. We have to stand up, now, and say "Enough! That's not the American Way!"
Republican governors around the country seem to be working from the same script, going after unions, teachers, even sharing power. Scott Walker wants to be king, apparently. Michigan's governor just gave himself the right to take over any village, town, or city, appoint an "emergency fiscal director", who can fire the elected representatives, close the schools, the government, the town, and sell off all the assets ~ without any oversight from anyone.
The Tea Party and the Republican Party campaign on getting rid of "big government", getting the fed out of our lives. I guess they really mean 'out of the lives of corporations and millionaires', though. I mean, how much more intrusive can you get than telling Americans who they can love and marry, or women what to do with their own bodies. Talk about big government!
This is the group that insists on giving tax breaks to the rich while asking poor pregnant woment to give up prenatal medical care and food for their babies. This is the group that is killing all regulations on any business in America ~ well, any business that contributes to their campaign coffers.
They're killing off NPR because, after all, they've already got Fox News, and who needs a show that airs a different opinion?
Based on their budget proposals, apparently the Republicans in Congress are for unrestrained political power, unrestrained corporate abuses, poverty, disenfrachisement, and war. And they are against democracy, the middle class, working poor, and the unemployed (they're busy creating thousand more of those). They're against the rule of law, they seem to laugh at the Constitution ~ read it in Congress, but violate it at every opportunity.
And what are the Democrats doing? Lead by Obama, sadly, they're still trying to "get along" with these flaming reactionaries. Wake up, Obama! The deficit isn't our biggest worry. Losing America to right wing demogogues is. Losing the middle class, losing the right to have a say in our government is. Having the right to make a decent living wage is.
If the Republican agenda was really about reducing the deficit, they wouldn't be giving out tax breaks to the rich, subsidies to the oil industry (billionaires need money??), funding war machines that even the Pentagon says they don't want. Instead, they do their best to increase the deficit, just so they can go after the middle class. Share the pain? Hah. Not on their watch.
Scott Walker put in place a huge tax break for the rich in Wisconsin, right before he went after the teachers, nurses, and librarians to make them pay for the deficit. And even after the teachers had agreed to his demands for cutting their salaries, he didn't flinch. He and his Republican henchmen still passed a law gutting their unions, their rights. It is never about the money. It is always about the power.
We have to stop the right wing take over of America. We have to stand up, now, and say "Enough! That's not the American Way!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)