NO, He Won’t! Oh YES, He Will!

A major problem with the electorate is that there are just too many people out there who believe that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan won’t do what they say they will do once they’re in office.  It is one of the worst attributes that some voters possess: they actually discount what they see and hear.  They think that this man Romney can’t be what he seems to be; that he can’t mean what he actually says in his plans because he flip-flops on almost every issue; that in the end most people just aren’t unfair, detached, untruthful, mean-spirited or other than middle-of-the-road in their beliefs.  

But the truth is that there are politicians who actually do what they say they will because their sponsors demand it.  Romney said he will cut many taxes on the “job creators” (multi-millionaires like him).  He will cut the top income tax rates, the estate tax, the corporate tax, the tax on dividends and the tax on overseas businesses who try to repatriate their profits, but he will never say how to pay for all that lost income.  Ryan says we must change Medicare.  They will, but not for the better because their aim is to diminish that program until it either goes away or ends up with state governments.  They say that Social Security is not going to be solvent in a few years and that they must change it.  They will, and younger adults will be left with their money being filtered through the banks and Wall Street firms (with extra fees) as they try to live in retirement off their individual accounts; at a later age, by the way.  They want another war because war brings new productiveness, sacrifice, and sometimes austerity, as well as prosperity for some who can capitalize on its exigencies.  They will repeal the many good things that Obamacare instituted and women, children and seniors will suffer the most from their losses. 

If Mitt Romney had his way, he might move back to the center of the political spectrum (as he has already attempted to do).  But a Romney presidency will be reduced to doing the bidding of the Radical Right, the Tea Party types who now control the GOP.  They already have proposed the most egregious legislation on many issues that matter to them just waiting for him to win.   Let’s take a look.

1.  H.R.6518 - State Nutrition Assistance Flexibility Act of 2012 
To replace certain Federal nutrition programs with a block   grant to the States
2.    H.R.358 - Protect Life Act
    To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act.  Amends the new health care law so that no federal money could be applied to health insurance plans that cover elective abortions, even if the abortion coverage is paid for entirely with private funds. It also states that a federal agency can not force a health care provider that accepts Medicare or Medicaid to provide abortion services, even in cases when the mother's life is endangered.
3.    H.R.2 - Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act
    To repeal the so-called job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.  Passed the House on Feb 1, 2011
4.    H.R.212 - Sanctity of Human Life Act
    To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization
5.   H.R.6173 - PRO-LIFE Act
    To amend the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit Federal education funding for elementary schools and secondary schools that provide on-campus access to abortion providers
6.    H.R.822 - National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State
7.    H.R.25 - Fair Tax Act
    To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States
8.    S.3445 - Domestic Energy and Jobs Act
    A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, to provide for the development of a plan to increase oil and gas exploration, development, and production under oil and gas leases of Federal land, and for other purposes
9.   H.R.1135 - Welfare Reform Act of 2011
    To provide information on total spending on means-tested welfare programs, to provide additional work requirements, and to provide an overall spending limit on means-tested welfare programs
10.    H.R.5 - Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011
    To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system; provisions regulating lawsuits for health care liability claims

From tort reform, to health care repeal, to limiting welfare programs, to energy excesses, to preventing choice as to abortion or telling us when life begins, but touting gun-carrying everywhere; the Radical Republicans are geared up for a legislative tsunami if and when they take charge of the White House, the Congress and the already pretty much in-their-hands Judiciary.  

For those who think that most of this will not take place, be warned that some of this legislation has already passed the House, but not the Senate.  If both houses contain a majority of Republicans, and Romney is elected, everyone can be assured that much of this legislation will be passed by both houses and sent on to a President Romney who will inevitably sign the bills into law.  It’s a very good bet that the first to be passed will be Eric Cantor’s bill on repealing Obamacare.  Follow that with the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and you have two attacks on the middle class that will be felt from Maine to California.  It’s only a matter of time.
 
So, if you are one who believes that electing Romney is the way to go because his views will moderate, you will be taking the risk of a lifetime.  The change that will come to this society with the ascendancy of this man and this Party is nothing short of revolutionary because that is their aim, their target, their mission.  They believe in a society and government that is built on individual initiative and responsibility, but unlike most of us, they also believe that the “fittest” or the strongest should govern.  That leads to a concept of power that is antithetical to a society governed by representatives of the people who are to reflect the will of that people.  In spite of the name of their Party, and their emphasis on states being closer to the people, and their slogans about individual liberty, they are not immune from forcing their views and ideology on the people from the vantage point of the central government whenever they get that chance. 

One example is all that legislation about “protecting life”.  Their anti-abortion tenets take away choice, life-saving of the mother, and freedom from interference in our private lives by the national government.  They throw out some of their principles in order to protect that one belief.  They even allow the Constitution’s prohibition of non-establishment of a religion to be breached by churches that hold the strongest anti-abortion views when those churches receive federal funds for their institutions, but assert “religious liberty” when the government requires them to carry out certain health insurance requirements.  Another example is their pro-active stance on military intervention in other countries.  They force upon all of us a view that the military must be showered with our tax money to support the strongest military forces in the world.  This ends up giving our money to support ineffective weapons, unneeded weapon systems, contractor abuses, and support of bases spread throughout the world, some of which could be closed without affecting national security. 

The primary flaw in their argument for smaller government, and less intrusive central government, hinges on the fact that they are willing to spend enormous amounts of money to maintain a majority in the Congress and to win the Presidency.  Why is that?  How come they want so much to control the national government if it is such a source of economic and social problems?  Well, it just might be that they want to control every aspect of our lives that it is possible to control so that their concept of society, morality, religion, and capitalism can be manipulated through that government.  Is that why they hate Liberalism so much?  Because liberals are known to be more open, more choice- oriented, more apt to support people in need, and certainly more progressive in attitudes toward most aspects of life?  They vehemently oppose liberal attitudes toward community responsibility for the betterment of life and living.

Let us not get too philosophical.  Let’s stay in the pragmatic mode.  Romney and Ryan are not running simply to make the economy better.  That is a crock.  That would happen eventually anyway, building on the stimulus measures put in place by the Obama administration.  They are not running to broaden and lead the middle class and the working class to greater prosperity.  Their attitude toward health reform and “entitlements” alone denies that.  They can’t be running to improve America’s reputation in the world.  After all, they oppose the involvement of the UN in almost all of our concerns.  Their bellicosity bespeaks a different agenda:  to prove our exceptionalism. 

So why are they running?  To change the direction of America.  To enhance the business community in general.  To keep their donors intact.  To get rid of the concept of a “welfare State.”  To end “entitlements.”  To assert the primacy of the conservative approach to society and to government.  To foster states rights and primacy over that of the federal government.  To return control of the Presidency to the white race.  To keep women “in their place” by rolling back years of  progress toward equal pay, contraceptive health care, re-definitions of rape that favor the perpetrators, and by removing funds from agencies like Planned Parenthood.  To lead us all down the primrose path to believing that Republicans don’t overspend when every Republican administration for the last few decades has shown a deficit and has increased the size of government.  To convince us that Republicans should hold power from now until eternity.

Maybe that portion of the electorate mentioned at the beginning will believe what they see and hear when their children have no Head Start, their children’s education falls farther and farther behind that of other developed countries; when getting a Pell grant for college is impossible, when college is entirely unaffordable except at a very few schools of higher learning.  Maybe they will awaken when they realize that abortion has become illegal, and cannot be performed even to save a mother’s life.  Perhaps waking up will take the fact that grandma can get no support for a nursing home and she has to move in with the grandchildren, or that seniors are having to work until they drop because of the lack of health care and a social security system that is out of reach because of the increase in the age eligibility.  Maybe it will come home to some when their children have children with disabilities and they can’t find affordable help for those children because of program cuts and inadequate, understaffed state Programs that used to be funded by something  known as Medicaid. 

Beware of  ostrich syndrome.  Take your head out of the sand and realize before its too late that they mean what they say.  They are going to do all this, and more, to YOU!

Who Won the Debate? Pinocchio!

It is somewhat exhilarating and affirming that what one says in one week’s blog is confirmed the next week by a presidential candidate.  Mitt Romney, in the first of the presidential debates, made it perfectly clear that what I said on this Blog last week is patently true:  the real platform of the Republican Party is that of lies and distortions.  Romney presented us with no fewer than 15 lies or distortions and probably more (some counted 28).  Let’s start by listing his Ten Most Shameless Lies as contained in an article by Alex Kane on AlterNet.org:

1. An ‘Unelected Board’ Controlling Your Health Care
    In reality, as the Associated Press points out , the board that is tasked with bringing down Medicare costs is prohibited from “rationing care, shifting costs to retirees, restricting benefits or raising the Medicare eligibility age. So the board doesn't have the power to dictate to doctors what treatments they can prescribe.”
2. A Bipartisan Record
    ABC News calls the claim “not quite factual.” Indeed: Romney’s health care plan was enacted with the help of a Democratic legislature. But in general, the body was “frustrated” with Romney “because he wanted to govern like a ‘CEO’ and ‘didn’t pay heed to the legislature and they resented that,’” according to the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation’s Michael Widmer.
3. Dodd-Frank Labels Banks as ‘Too Big to Fail’
    As ThinkProgress notes, this is far from the truth: “the law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations . If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.”
4. Obamacare Leads to Loss of Healthcare
    Governor Romney claimed that the passage of the Affordable Care Act will lead to 20 million people losing health insurance.  PolitiFact’s final verdict on the claim is: “That number is cherry-picked, and he’s wrong to describe it as only including people who ‘like’ their coverage, since many of those 20 million will be leaving employer coverage voluntarily for better options. ”
5. The Failure of the Obama Economy
    Romney hammered Obama on the economy’s performance over the past four years. One claim Romney made was this: “[We have] 23 million people out of work...The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can't find work.”
    The AP breakdown of the facts on this claim: “The number of unemployed is 12.5 million, not 23 million. ”  And on the college graduate claim, Romney was also wrong. Back to the AP: “A Northeastern University analysis for The Associated Press found that a quarter of graduates were probably unemployed and another quarter were underemployed, which means working in jobs that didn't make full use of their skills or experience.”
6. Obamacare Cuts Billions From Medicare
    This was one of Romney’s favorite attack lines debate night: the notion that the Affordable Care Act is siphoning off funds from Medicare, giving the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients, which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.   The specific claim is that $716 billion was cut from Medicare because of the Affordable Care Act.  "That amount — $716 billion — refers to Obamacare's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily paid to insurers and hospitals," says PolitiFact. What the number refers to is money that is saved “primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts , but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction,” ThinkProgress notes.  But perhaps more to the point, because the savings are over a decade, and, since this money is in savings, there will never be a lump sum that Romney can “give back.”
7. Gas Prices Increase
    Romney said that “gasoline prices have doubled under the president. Electric rates are up.” This is true--but to blame it on the president is highly misleading. Instead, as the Associated Press states, “Gasoline prices are set on financial exchanges around the world and are based on a host of factors, most importantly the price of crude oil used to make gasoline, the amount of finished gasoline ready to be shipped and the capacity of refiners to make enough to meet market demand.”
    The AP also skewers Romney’s claim on electric rates going up: “Retail electricity prices have.…grown by an average of less than 1 percent per year, less than the rate of inflation and slower than the historical growth in electricity prices.”
8. Health Care Costs Rising Under Obama
    FactCheck.org was on this false claim back when Romney used it on the campaign trail in September: “Romney says health insurance premiums have gone up $2,500 (per family) under Obama. The actual increase has been $1,700, most of which was absorbed by employers and only a small part of which is attributable to the health care law, which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.
9. Oil and Gas Production Increases Only on Private Land
    The former Massachusetts governor said debate night that “all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land...Your Administration has cut the numbers of permit and licenses in half.”  ABC News says Romney is playing loose with the facts. Data from the Bureau of Land Management shows that “the number of drilling permits on federal lands approved during the fiscal years President Obama has been in office has decreased somewhere between 20 and 37 percent compared to the years before he became president - not the 50 percent Romney claimed.”
10. No Tax Cuts for the Rich
    To fend off the perception that he’s only concerned about the wealthy, Romney made sure to emphasize that his economic plan would not lower tax rates on rich people.  Think Progress has the details on that claim: “If Romney were to actually implement his plan to reduce tax rates by 20 percent while eliminating tax deductions in order to pay for it, taxpayers with more than $200,000 would certainly see a tax cut. But everyone else — 95 percent of Americans —will see their taxes increase.” The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."
   
So, the question becomes:  is an inveterate liar and flip-flopper someone we want to put in the White House as President of these United States? 

Maybe that’s exactly what a significant number wants, so that they do not have to face the reality of today’s economy, or the reality of a global economy, or the reality of having to fight through the worst recession since the Great Depression.  Or, more to the point, maybe they are simply tired of hearing how difficult it is to climb out of the mini-depression we have been forced in to by Bush policies that augured trouble from the beginning.

Interestingly, George W. Bush prepared us for this barrage of untruthfulness.  The original reason for the Iraq War perpetrated by his administration was that Iraq had weapons of “mass destruction” and would use them at a moment’s notice.  Secondarily, it was because Al Qaeda was active there (which it was not, of course).   Then, we were led down a primrose path regarding our individual rights, and all kinds of scare tactics were put into use to keep the American people in support of the War.  The Patriot Act made us more vulnerable to government intervention in our lives: all public travel but mainly air travel, surveillance, including the government’s ability to search our private documents and belongings without cause, or to take our pictures without permission, confiscate our computers or library records or what have you, just to see if we had any terrorist tendencies.

We did, after all, buy into this craziness.  And here we are again, allowing a Presidential candidate to lie to us over and over in order to win a debate and to put himself back in the running for the highest office in the land.  But here are a few of his commitments out of which he cannot squeeze:

First of all, whatever he says to the contrary, Mitt Romney is committed to the people of his economic class.  He is going to see that they are well taken care of.  You can’t say that he won’t favor the rich when he has already promised them:
A reduction in the corporate tax rate to 25%
To reverse Executive orders that favor labor especially the one encouraging use of union labor on government construction projects
To lower and then eliminate the estate tax
To lower tax rates for investment income to 15%
Continue the Bush tax cuts that favor the aggrandizement of the 1% over $250k per year
Lower the marginal tax rates (meaning the top rates) substantially from35% to something around 28%
In the long run, lower and flatten the tax rates (which automatically favors the rich)

Second, Mitt Romney is committed to making ours an austere economy for millions of our people, by:

-Immediately moving to cut and cap spending at 20% of GDP, meaning that many programs aiding vulnerable or poorer citizens will have to be cut.  Even Big Bird will take a hit!
-Immediately cutting non-discretionary spending by 5%, reducing the annual federal budget by about $20 billion, by his own estimate.
-By instituting “entitlement  reform,” which comes down to an assault on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Food Stamps.  Block granting some of these entitlements - like Medicaid and food stamps -- to the states will have the effect of increasing administrative costs for those states who will then have to cut other  programs in order to maintain even a semblance of the benefits now offered.
-By cutting federal government personnel across the board by 10% or more which will have the effect of gutting some programs and curtailing the services of others.
-By eliminating the Affordable Health Care Act, he will devastate millions of people who had already benefited: young adults up to age 26 no longer on parents’ policies; women - no longer able to receive certain services with no charge; seniors - no more help with their medicines: the donut hole returns; and no more restrictions on private insurance conglomerates who will raise your rates, restrict your benefits and cap your payments for certain procedures and services; to say nothing about the fact that a pre-existing condition can again prevent you from even getting insurance!   

Third, no matter what he says, we can count on Mitt Romney to mess-up our foreign relations.  He’s already shown how well he can do that!  But the devastating conclusion is that a bellicose attitude toward other nations, brought on by a jingoist concept of “exceptionalism,” is bound to get us into more wars.  We may be unique among democracies, we may be a leader in certain areas of manufacturing, we may be a wonderful people, and have a beautiful country with great schools and colleges and health care facilities; we may be many things, but “exceptional” crosses a line between special and outright arrogant.  Calling ourselves exceptional but acting as though we are simply better than everyone else, does not make it so.  We must demonstrate our best intentions in our relations with other countries.  Actions speak louder than words and we can be exceptional only when others come to regard us as such by how we act.

So, let us ask again:  do we really want a President who has shown over and over that he will lie, distort, and change his policies and ideas just to get ahead?  I think we have had enough of that in the previous administration.  Romney will listen to his rich friends.  Romney will act as he is told to act by the radical right controllers of his Party. Romney will not move to the center as many predict because his Party is not there.  But mostly Romney will lie to you whenever he is in trouble on any front.  That is his pattern, in business and in government, and it is not going to change.  In order to be the kind of CEO he was, Romney had to “fit” the circumstances or the constituency with which he was presented.  Distorting the truth for him is a way of life; it leads to his kind of success.  Manipulating people, firing them, stripping them of meaningful jobs was his way of life with Bain.  The aggressiveness, the distortions, the outright lies used at Wednesday’s debate was not just for that moment; it is his modus operandi - his manner of operation. 

An untruthful and vacillating President is a disaster in a free and democratic society.  So be aware, be cautious, be wary.  Here are some questions to ask yourself:

*Can I trust Romney as President to protect Medicare from being diminished or developed into an inadequate voucher program, when he actually has praised his running mate’s budget that intends to do just that?
*Can I trust Romney to keep the plusses in Obamacare, such as no pre-existing conditions, children under age 26 being on parents plan, making drug costs less expensive for seniors, or even the improvement of the quality of health care? 
*Can I trust Romney to advocate for the middle class and the poor when he seeks to cut entitlements, cut government spending, and cut programs like food stamps?
*Can I trust Romney when he says that he won’t raise the taxes of the middle income group to pay for tax cuts for the rich and corporations?
*Can I trust Romney to put in place any protections for consumers, since he favors massive changes in regulations that control businesses, wall street, banks and the environment? 
*Can I trust Romney to invest the funds necessary to improve our environment, to put us on a track toward oil independence, when he talks only about cutting regulations, getting rid of the EPA, and depending on our own limited oil resources?  When he believes “green jobs” actually hurt employment more than help it?
*Can I trust Romney to enhance our public school system when he advocates for state and local control as opposed to federal involvement?  Can I trust him to advocate for teachers as professionals when he opposes unions and supports a budget that does not envision supporting more teachers?  Can I trust Romney to care about school building refurbishing when he stands against government help for such matters?
*Can I trust Romney to do anything about our crumbling infrastructure when he believes that such “intervention” is not appropriate?
*Do we really want a President who lies to us, deceives us, and changes policies every time he confronts a particular constituency?  Do we really want such a man to have the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, to hold the detonator of hydrogen bombs in his hands, to command the strongest military in the world?

While President Obama has a specific and concrete plan to stimulate our economy, and has already demonstrated the effectiveness of that plan in moving us forward, Romney wants to go back to the failed policies that got us into this mess.  Romney not only won’t discuss specifics on almost any topic, he purports to keep some things secret until he can discuss them with Congress.  Can I trust Mitt Romney in any matter? since it is unclear what he believes; since he changes positions on issues at the drop of a hat; since he lies or distorts facts and data to suit his own purposes?  Not on YOUR life!

Is the Republican Party Built on a Foundation of the BIG LIE?

Despite what we have said in the last few weeks about the Republican platform being the foundation of what the GOP believes, it is now time to comment on their real foundation.  It is NOT the DNC platform; it is the network of lies and half-truths perpetrated upon the public; it is the twisting and ignoring of facts that is the clear basis for this Party.

Where do we start?  Well, why not start where they started:  President Obama is somehow foreign to the American experience and to the American Way.
 
The GOP has made an industry out of manufacturing images of the President that conjure up a foreign-born, non-Christian (Islamist), Kenyan-oriented, elitist who doesn’t even meet the requirement of being a native-born citizen because he doesn’t have a valid birth certificate. 

Maybe you have already forgotten the outrageous “birther” campaign centering on this one thing: an invalid or non-existent birth certificate in this country.  The movement included a Philip J. Berg, Pennsylvania attorney and 9/11 conspiracy theorist, who backed Hillary Clinton for president.  Another notable advocate was Alan Keyes, who was defeated by Obama in the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate election, and self-described as a ‘conservative political activist’.

But, of course, the right-wing media joined in through the persons of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and even Lou Dobbs.  However, it was a wannabe presidential candidate who put it into high gear.  Donald Trump resurrected the movement of lies and brought it to a head, since President Obama did release the long form birth certificate from Hawaii.  Although Trump took the opportunity to imply that he made it happen, it was more likely the long-term need to get this falsity squashed that brought forth this reaction from the President.

The Obama-haters didn’t stop there.  In spite of the much earlier Rev. Wright controversy which brought attention to Obama’s Christian denomination membership, and despite his repeated references to his Christian faith, and his appearances at the  Congressional Prayer breakfast, or his use of biblical phrases in his speeches, the general public bought into the fabrication that Obama was, and is, a Muslim.  According to the Huffington Post, about 17% of people still believe this lie, but the numbers are even higher among Republicans and in certain southern states.  It is a tribute to Republican truth-stretching strategy that they have been able to sell this chestnut to about 1/5th of the population.  But that’s not all…

According to a recent article on Addicting Info.org, a right-wing political action committee named “Government Is Not God” recently ran a smear-campaign against President Obama in 19 newspapers, using a dozen bizarre lies about religion and values to rally conservative voters to the polls.  “In the ad, the wingnut GING-PAC lays out its vision of ‘the true agenda of Barack Hussein Obama.’ Upon scrutiny from Politifact, all of the claims rate as false, with a whopping 6 “pants on fire” rebuttals.

Force Christian organizations to pay for abortions: MOSTLY FALSE (qualified by “mostly” only if you equate contraceptive access with “abortions”).
Force Christian schools to hire non-Christian teachers: FALSE
Force all states to permit same-sex marriages: FALSE
Force military chaplains to perform same-sex marriages: PANTS ON FIRE
Force doctors to assist homosexuals in buying surrogate babies: PANTS ON FIRE
Force employers to give illegal immigrants the jobs of U.S. citizens: PANTS ON FIRE
Force States to pay the college tuition of illegal immigrants’ children: FALSE
Force courts to accept Islamic Sharia Law in domestic disputes: PANTS ON FIRE
Force police agencies to allow Muslim brotherhood to select staff: PANTS ON FIRE
Force local authorities to allow Occupy protestors to live in parks: PANTS ON FIRE
Force creation of a permanent government funded “underclass”: Deemed too vague to investigate
The same ad also claims Obama is ‘the only President in history who has deliberately removed the words ‘endowed by their Creator’ when referring to our Declaration of Independence, not once, but several times,’ which Politifact also rated as ‘false’.”

It is clear that all of these lies and half-truths are being used to make Obama seem not only different from the rest of us, but intent on destroying certain beliefs and standards that more than a few Americans espouse.  Again, all this to implicate his ways as other than our ways!

There is another huge lie that lies at the heart of Right-wing attempts to make President Obama seem not only different, but foreign, and that is: Obama is a socialist intent on making our government into a socialist state, much like certain European governments.

Trouble is, America is not a socialist country nor is it headed in that direction.  To be a socialist government, the central government would have to be operating all sources of production and distribution.  This means that all manufacturers, all services, all industries, all modes of distribution - like trucking companies and railways - would have to be government-operated.  They aren’t, and they won’t be under this President (or any other most probably). 

Most of the purveyors of this untruth attempt to display Obama as a European-type socialist, meaning he supports a type of cradle-to-grave “welfare state.”  But the real motive for this appellation is displayed for all to see in an article on Forbes.com.  That real reason is the opposition of the rich toward a government that takes taxes from them and distributes what the rich consider their profits and resources to others with special challenges or needs.  It is displayed in a basic misunderstanding of the commonweal, i.e. the health of a society as a whole.  They simply don‘t want their hard-earned rewards going to people who are, in their estimate:  irresponsible, uneducated, and unworthy. 

Thus, the revealing statement of the real motive for this lie:  these measures are “excuses for the state to take from one group to give to another or to coerce people or businesses to do something they do not want to do otherwise. The more powerful the state, the greater the risk of state coercion under the guise of noble aims. ” (Paul Roderick Gregory on Forbes.com)

A so-called “welfare state” and a socialist country are not the same, no matter how badly the antagonist liar wants them to be.  A socialist state, founded either by the Right or the Left, is all about control of citizens, about power over their thinking and their lives, and all about using them as cogs in the mechanisms of the State.  Nazi Germany and Communist China are not that far apart in their national socialism (or communism).  They controlled all aspects of the lives of their subjects, proclaiming citizen “welfare” while simultaneously taking away all individuality and individual rights.  The only right one possessed was the right to serve the State.

In the Forbes article mentioned above, the author wants to term Obama a European-type socialist because the European welfare state takes one half of national output to provide state health care, pensions, extended unemployment benefits, income grants, and free higher education.  However, he also indicates that these countries leave enterprise in private hands but coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems “social welfare.”  But a state with private enterprises is not a socialist state.  Social welfare is just that; it is not socialism.  Because 60% of Americans are perturbed by the word “socialist” or “socialism”, these purveyors of lies apply that term (wrongly) to any country that provides for “social welfare.”

Security for the elderly and disabled in the form of Social Security, or Medicare for the aged and sick, or the Veteran’s Administration health care system, or the saving of the American auto industry -- these are not signs of socialism.  The point is that government help for those in less fortunate circumstances than those who prosper is not socialism; it is a social contract that people enter into as citizens to enable society to enhance the lives of all its people.  Government aid is not socialism.  America is not on the road to anything like socialism, because we happen to know the difference between control of people by the state and empowerment of people through supports and opportunities. 

The fact that some small percentage of people, receiving some form of welfare, cheat or take advantage of an opportunity to be lazy or “shiftless” is not an argument for taking away all forms of government help.  If that were so, all the “welfare subsidies” to businesses and corporations should also be taken away because a percentage of those businesses (like macro-farm conglomerates and big oil companies) are cheating us all when they take from the general coffers what they don’t deserve or need. 

Likewise, Socialism is not defined  by government regulation of businesses, banks, and other financial services, nor of drugs and food and other products.  This is the legitimate regulation of  production and distribution so that consumers are protected from unlimited practices that tend to exploit them and their families.  Unfettered profit-taking is a threat to the well-being of citizens because it unleashes not just the benefits of entrepreneurship, but the forces of greed, crime and corruption, as well as threats to health and safety.  Radical Republicans tend to overlook these very real matters whenever they discuss the reduction of regulations, which is almost every day.

Finally, another lie that persists is that President Obama is an enemy of small business and that he is looking to undermine the entrepreneurship that such businesses represent. 
If that were so, would he then reduce the tax burden on small businesses some seventeen times?  From an article by Lori Schulman on Whitehouse.gov, we learn the following:

“Since coming into office in January of 2009, President Obama has signed legislation that created or extended 17 small business tax cuts and credits. Several of those cuts were in three key pieces of legislation: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Affordable Care Act, and the HIRE Act. All told, these three laws contain eight different small business tax cuts, including the exclusion of up to 75% capital gains on key small business investments, a tax credit for the cost of health insurance for small business employees, and new tax credits for hiring Americans who had been out of work for at least two months.
The Small Business Jobs Act, signed by President Obama in September of 2010, had another eight tax cuts and credits in it. These included raising the small business expensing limit to $500,000, the highest ever; simplifying the rules for claiming a deduction for business cell phone use; creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed; allowing greater deductions for start-up expenses for entrepreneurs, and eliminating taxes on all capital gains from key small business investments.
In December of 2010, President Obama also signed a tax bill that went one step further and allowed all businesses -- large and small -- to expense 100 percent of their new investments until the end of 2011. It also extended the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business investments through the end of 2012 -- and the President's budget has proposed to make that tax cut permanent.”

Although we have examined only three of the lies continually perpetrated by the Radical Republican base, there are many more, and they persist even now.  Just to name a few (based on information in another blog - prbrownreport.blogspot.com):

Lie #1.
President Obama took $716  billion out of Medicare in order to fund Universal Healthcare. This has been repeated over and over again by both Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan, and by many running for Congress.  But the fact is, as we have reported before,   President Obama intends to cut $716 billion in wasteful spending over a period of ten years and close a gap in the Medicare budget to give senior citizens more benefits.
Lie #2.
President Obama gutted the welfare system and made it no longer necessary for recipients to work for their benefits. Wrong again! The Obama administration initiated a $1.3 billion program that helps states give work to more welfare recipients but this initiative was killed by Congressional Republicans.
Lie #3.
President Obama is soft on terrorism because he is a Muslim sympathizer. More drone attacks have been authorized under The Obama administration than under George W. Bush and a great many top Al Qaeda operatives have thereby been eliminated. And, lest we forget, President Obama authorized the daring operation that killed Osama Bin Laden.  Oh yes, and Mubarak and Qaddafi are also gone thanks to the support rendered by this President for the democratic desires of rebellious Egyptians and Libyans.

During Adolf Hitler's reign of terror in Nazi Germany he employed a cynical media tactic in order to desensitize the country and lull it's citizens into apathy. Rather than tell small lies, he told huge lies over and over again. So much so that some Germans believed that fiction was the truth (not unlike some Americans today). “This represented a tipping point, and lead (sic) to one of the worst atrocities that the world has ever seen.”

Today, decades later, the Republican Party is using the very same tactic.  What are their intentions?  Some believe they simply want to win an election.  Others believe that their intentions are much more sinister and conspiratorial.  I tend to agree with the latter, as I indicated in several recent postings.  This is not just lying to gain an advantage.  This is lying intended to lull the citizenry into compliance with views that are contrary to the fundamentals of our constitutional republic and democracy.  This lying is meant to put the few in charge of, and in control of, the hearts and minds of the many.  Do not succumb to the Radical Republicans’ BIG LIEs.

The PLATFORM On Which They Stand: Part 2

As we said two weeks ago on this Blog, even though it has been implied that the Republican platform means very little, it is clear that this is a document that defines where a party stands; it defines the “brand.”  As it says in the first sentence of the Preamble, “The 2012 Republican Platform is a statement of who we are and what we believe as a Party….”

In this case, it defines where the extreme right-wing of the Party stands.  Unfortunately, it is that wing that is now taking over, if it has not already, the heart and soul of the Republican Party.  Indeed, if Romney/Ryan want the complete support of their base, they will pay attention to what this platform says.  And, in that vein, it makes sense that all of us should pay attention.  That’s why, today, I want to pull out for your consideration, two more examples of the adverse policies and concepts that will be the basis of actions in a Republican administration and in a Republican Congress.

1)    “We will restore the rule of law to labor law by blocking ‘card check’, enacting the Secret Ballot protection Act, enforcing the Hobbs Act against labor violence, and passing the Raise Act to allow all workers to receive well-earned raises without the approval of their union representative.  We demand an end to the Project Labor Agreements; and we call for repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act….We support the right of States to enact Right-to-Work  laws and encourage them to do so…. Ultimately we support the enactment of a National Right-to-Work law….We will aggressively enforce the recent decision by the Supreme Court barring the use of union dues for political purposes without the consent of the worker… proposing legislation to bar mandatory dues for political purposes.”

    What is left to be said?  Only that the Republican party is against anything that gives a break to unions.  Is it not clear from all this that the GOP sees Labor unions as the enemy, rather than an essential part of the work force, and a factor in business growth?  In stark contrast to their support of Business, and corporations -- with all kinds of breaks, subsidies, and tax loopholes, as well as favorable attention -- they are taking every opportunity, not only to diminish the effect of unions on businesses, but to blunt their effectiveness in the political arena.  They do not want unions to have the power any longer to deliver any election - national or local - to Democrats. 

    All of the above planks support one concept:  the right to work without being a union member.  Right-to-Work laws abolish agency fees and allow workers themselves to decide if a union deserves their financial support.  Their effect is to allow non-union workers to work for less than union scale, and thus benefit employers in cutting costs. One 2001 study indicated that “the mean effect of working in a right-to-work state results in a 6% to 8% reduction in wages for workers in these states, with an average wage penalty of 6.5%. Controlling for regional costs of living reduces this amount to approximately 4%. We find that previous research reporting real wage gains associated with right-to-work states is almost purely the result of border cities that benefit from their proximity to a non-RTW state.”

    This attack on labor unions by the Republican party is not new.  According to one article by Joseph A. McCartin, published August 2, 2011, in the NY Times:

    “THIRTY years ago today, when he threatened to fire nearly 13,000 air traffic controllers unless they called off an illegal strike, Ronald Reagan not only transformed his presidency, but also shaped the world of the modern workplace.  More than any other labor dispute of the past three decades, Reagan’s confrontation with the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or Patco, undermined the bargaining power of American workers and their labor unions.”

    Today, the attack is so severe, especially in states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida, that long-standing support from certain unions (such as firefighters)  for the GOP is at risk.  It is perhaps not so much RTW laws that have turned the tide, but the threat to the very process by which unions gained their strength and their contract benefits - collective bargaining rights. 

    Just three decades later, it has become clear that the fallout from the Patco strike has hurt workers and distorted politics in ways Reagan himself did not advocate or envision.  For although he was a conservative, Reagan basically supported the concept that private sector workers’ rights to organize were fundamental in a democracy.  Not so with today’s Radical Republicans, and their platform is the proof of how far Republicans have moved away from Reagan’s position.
   
2)    “we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides as the best or sole methods through which fairness can be achieved, whether in government, education, or corporate boardrooms.  Merit, ability, aptitude, and results should be the factors that determine advancement in our society.”

    A hand-up to those in our society needing the support of others is not part of the rugged individualism, individual initiative and “I built it all myself” mind-set of the Republican Party.  There is no room left for affirmative action, or Pell grants, or broad GI bills, or even for help with failed mortgages. 

    The second sentence above says it all:  the only way for people to advance in this society is on their own “merit, ability, aptitude and results.”  Never mind that the GOP is also responsible for cutting back on many programs and policies that would enable some people actually to succeed on their merits if they were just given the chance.  You can’t expect everyone to succeed in the same way.  Moreover, you can’t put obstacles in the way of success if you truly believe that this is a society dedicated to individual initiative and entrepreneurship. 

    How will certain people succeed if they are held back and blocked by poverty, homelessness, racial or sex discrimination, lack of quality education, or societal invisibility?  What if the talent of that young woman who was living in a homeless shelter with her parents had never been recognized by a teacher or mentor?  Would she have gotten to that science fair to display her understanding and aptitude?  Of course not.  Such things don’t just happen.

    The current GOP must be excoriated for its outright tendency to put obstacles to success in the way, to ignore barriers to success, or to actually support those barriers.  Take a young man or woman of the upper economic class - say someone in a family with annual income well into six figures.  What do they have to start their life’s journey with?  A nice home with all sorts of amenities.  Probably a set of parents ready to spend enormous sums to provide the best for them and to dote on them just enough to give them the idea that they are special.  Access to toys and games that are entertaining as well as educational.  Expectations placed on them by parents, relatives, neighbors, teachers - a whole community of like-minded and endowed people who have a stake in the success of “their kind”.  Opportunities abound:  from toys to sports to cars to prestigious colleges to foreign travel to fantastic vacations. 

    Let’s be clear:  these children have everything necessary to succeed.  Taking advantage of what they are given is their assigned task in life.  They probably have a computer, an I-pad, a mobile I-phone and technology galore - even at an early age.  Yet, some would begrudge access to that kind of thing for “welfare” kids because it’s too expensive and “wastes the taxpayers’ money.” 

    And, isn’t that the point:  that there is ingrained in the attitude of individual initiative and aptitude a basic, sometimes unconscious, prejudice against others who have less to start with?  There is nothing wrong with success, as long as it is built on an ethical base that my success must not injure, harm or degrade another’s life, but must contribute to the welfare of other people and to society in general.  Where is that ethical value in this Platform?

    A level playing field is a fantasy.  It does not, and will not, exist in a Republican universe.  They don’t want it because it would take away from their success, from their accomplishments, from their way of life.  This is at the base of my disagreement with their platform, their party, their members, their world-view. 

    True success on many levels is not built merely on a platform of individual initiative and talent.  One measure of the true success of a society is built upon a platform that cares deeply for the welfare of the most vulnerable among us, because a society that doesn’t care for all its vulnerable people cannot sustain a democratic process or a mobile society. 

    Another measure of success is the effort that a society or government puts into removing barriers to success.  This starts with universal health care as a right and not a privilege.  It continues with an education that aspires to be the best in the world, and which provides to every child the tools and opportunities by which they can indeed become anything they desire.  It continues with a job that not only pays adequate wages, but which provides some measure of dignity to the occupier.  It culminates in a retirement that is well-planned, well-funded, and well-managed.  And one cannot do that without Social Security, an adequate pension, and personal savings or investments that are guarded, secured and overseen by just and fair regulators and regulations.  Along the way, everyone needs mentors and advocates who will help remove or overcome the obstacles that we all face.

    This is NOT the definition of a “dependent” society; this is a commonwealth society, built upon a Judeo-Christian platform that does not consign people to a trash-heap but treats all with dignity, respect and with a moral force that says we are all in this together and another’s welfare is as important as mine.  Your success is my success.  Your difficulties are my difficulties. Your problems belong to me as well as to you.  This is what the Republican platform is missing:  the living concept that we are all mutually responsible and forever interdependent.  Yes, it takes a caring community to raise a child and to see that that child prospers on behalf of us all, not simply for his or her own aggrandizement.

    Individual initiative is an excellent concept.  But missing the key ingredients of interdependence,  responsibility to all and community welfare, it is hollow and ineffective for it limits society by creating a privileged class that separates itself from the rest in order to hoard its success and deny the same opportunity to others--all for fear of losing some of its own wealth and standing.  Many other societies have been injured by this creed, for their creation of privilege for the few has resulted in denigration of the many and led to corruption, degradation, injustice, and disorder. 

    Hopefully, by paying greater attention to what is at stake in these platform concepts, we can avoid this fate.  But make no mistake:  buying in to this right-wing, plutocratic, individualistic clap-trap is a sure path to a society that will not, and cannot, maintain “liberty and justice for all.”   

A Speech Given In A Small Town

(Publius gave a shortened form of this speech at a recent gathering of Democrats in a small town in New York State)

What is this election about?  the economy?  the national debt,  jobs?  environmental issues, social issues or spending issues?  taxes or entitlements?  Is it about individual initiative or community support?   Probably all of these and more.

Before I tell you what I think it’s about, let me tell you what I fear it could be about:

1)    What I fear the most perhaps is that this election could be less about those who will be elected than about those who will remain un-elected, but in positions of power. 

This is what is at stake: the takeover of our government by un-elected power-brokers who have the resources to employ lawyers, lobbyists, and bundlers to an extent not seen before. 
    
They have the ability to dictate the terms of legislation, policy and rules that protect them from law enforcement, enhance their incomes, subsidize their businesses, and provide favorable tax breaks that keep them from having to pay their fair share in taxes. 

Make no mistake: it is part of a plan that has been developing over several decades, culminating in the current Republican Congress intentionally blocking all legislation designed to stimulate the economy, and the Radical Right-wing Tea Party that has taken over the core of the GOP.  
    
Those who still believe that Republicans will use elective office for the benefit of the middle class, or small businesses, or those who work for a living,  have not comprehended this monumental on-going plan to change how, and for whom, government operates.

Translated, this is about no more government aid programs  for the poor and the middle class.  It’s about limiting central government and giving states more power than we have seen in our lifetimes.  It’s about right-to-work laws and the destruction of unions.  It is about a false trickle-down view of  wealth epitomized by the $2 trillion dollars in corporate profits that is not being  invested in job-creation.  Don’t you wonder how much that one self-serving act has contributed to the over 8% unemployment rate that has plagued our economic recovery? 

So, my greatest fear is the takeover of our democracy through manipulation of government and politicians by a plutocracy headed by the epitome of plutocrats: Mitt Romney.

2)    My second greatest fear is related to the first:  that this election is about BIG money.  
    
More specifically, it’s about lies and distortions and negative TV images backed-up with huge amounts of money from third-party super-PACs that don‘t even have to reveal their sources, like: 
    Chamber of Commerce - $100 million
    Sheldon Adelson - $100 million
    Karl Rove’s Crossroads Group -- $300 million
    Charles & David Koch -- $400 million.

It’s not the old way of overt corruption. It’s a new way of hidden, secretive money being used to undermine democratic processes.

It’s a new way of making congressmen or senators so beholden to a donor that they feel under obligation to deliver for that donor.  It’s a new way of fostering dependence on huge amounts of money to fund election campaigns, and to bend the machinery of government to the benefit of a privileged few.  It comes down to our representatives being seduced to put their primary focus elsewhere than on service of ordinary people.

It’s about the Supreme Court equating corporations with individuals, thus protecting their political giving by a constitutional guarantee of free speech.  But protected free speech for corporations is clearly undermining the free speech rights of those with fewer resources and less money.  We have arrived at a point where unfettered money is destroying the franchise, and the one-person one-vote concept.  Money has weighted the vote in favor of the very rich, who can turn an election into a fraud quicker than you can say Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan.

3)    My third fear is that this election is about tearing down not building up.  It is about the destructiveness of war, and the fact that the GOP thinks bellicose talk is the key to foreign policy.  Not only do they want to continue war in Afghanistan, there is no guarantee that they will not intervene in Iran, or some other Middle Eastern country.

It is about treating women as weak-willed, dependent second-class citizens for whom they want limited rights to make choices -especially about their health care - or to earn equal pay for equal work.  These are exactly the denigrations that tin-horn dictators or tyrannical rulers have used to enhance male power and dominance in authoritarian societies. 

It is about laws made under the guise of combating voter fraud in order to suppress the votes of certain groups in the electorate, many of whom do not have the wherewithal to comply with the requirements of those laws. Voter suppression is a heinous act not worthy of a nation that has grown in stature each time it has extended the franchise and made it easier to vote.

Mostly, Republicans want to diminish or destroy programs that grew up under FDR and LBJ -- the New Deal and the Great Society programs.  They call these programs a re-distribution of wealth or class warfare - but it comes down to this:  they resent the fact that through our graduated tax system, they have to pay their fair share of taxes and share their success and rewards with others who need a hand-up to reach another  level.  They resent and reject that altruistic concept quoted from the Bible at the RNC: “of him to whom much is given, much will be required”.

It is about characterizing government as the enemy of the people.  Except, if it involves protection of the rich, military readiness, abortion or religious symbols and practices.  In those cases and more, they make use of strong central government as absolutely fundamental to enforcing their policies and their beliefs. 

As one author said:  “Today’s GOP has nothing to do with the party of Lincoln, or the Grand Old Party. It is an authoritarian party that wants to impose its brand of conservatism that would not only roll back the 20th Century, but would replace our democracy…with an oligarchy in firm and complete control.  This kind of government is ideal for control of a populace by the moneyed elite.”

Finally, then, what I think this election is really about is people.  It’s about YOU and ME. It’s about where we will stand in the midst of this attempt at a power-grab.  It’s about what each of us will do in the face of big money and governmental control by the 1%.  It’s about how much we will give of ourselves to oppose these out-of-control forces that threaten our way of life and our way of governing.  It’s about commitment and dedication to fundamental principles that we can not afford to have trampled. 

That’s why I support Barack Obama for President.  I support him because I believe his principles coincide with mine: like reforming government; investing in people; expanding choice, protecting the vulnerable, providing universal health care.  I believe he sees government not as the Great Destroyer, nor as the wielder of overwhelming power; but as Enabler, as servant of the people, as a force for good that empowers our citizenry in cooperation with other sectors of our society. 

So I say to Mitt Romney: I represent a large group that still feels the impact and importance of what this President says and does, not just on the day we voted for him.  That’s why huge numbers of us are still willing to give a major portion of our time, our talents, our money and our loyalty to this man.

We believe Barack Obama is the man for our times because he cares about middle-class prosperity, values and well-paying jobs.  We believe he is the one who can lead us out of the Bush recession into a new prosperity because he has already averted an economic disaster.  We believe he is the one who will continue to provide real accomplishments just as he did in his first term.  We believe he is a man of balance and integrity who will continue to work for the good of the many not the few.  We believe he is the man committed to peace and understanding in the world,  but who stands up to terrorist acts wherever they occur. We believe he is a man of bold ideas who can lead us to a future independent of the dominance of foreign oil, to an appreciation and understanding of environmental changes that we must make, to an educational system that brings out the best in all of our children and young adults. 

Elizabeth Warren brought the house down at the Democratic convention when she said:
“Mitt Romney’s the guy who said corporations are people. No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people. And that matters, because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.”

Un-elected power-brokers and Big Money could capture this election and our government unless broad numbers of ordinary citizens join this march to re-elect our President.  And, to elect a Congress dedicated to the primacy of government of the people, by the people and for the people which must not be allowed to disappear from this earth. 

The PLATFORM On Which They Stand

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan spent little time this week defending, referring to, or touting the platform produced by the Republican National Convention.  Let’s be fair, the same could be said of many candidates after they are nominated and the conventions are over.  However, even though it has been implied that the platform means very little, it is clear that this is a document that defines where a party stands; it defines the “brand.”  As it says in the first sentence of the Preamble, “The 2012 Republican Platform is a statement of who we are and what we believe as a Party….”

In this case, it defines where the extreme right-wing of the Party stands.  Unfortunately, it is that wing that is now taking over, if it has not already, the heart and soul of the Republican Party.  Indeed, if Romney/Ryan want the complete support of their base, they will pay attention to what this platform says.  And, in that vein, it makes sense that all of us should pay attention.  The puppets at the top of the ticket are going to pay close attention simply because these provisions are the “strings” that will be pulled to make them dance during the campaign, and during a potential Romney administration.

That’s why, today, I want to pull out for your consideration, some of the adverse policies and concepts that will be the basis of actions in a Republican administration and in a Republican Congress.  You, as a citizen, will carry the burden of these unless you understand that a Republican in the White House, or in the majority of either the House or the Senate, will be disastrous for the middle class and for the ability of a national government to govern, to act globally and to solve national problems.  In brief, here are my nominations for some of the worst.

1)    “The best jobs program is economic growth.  Rely on energetic and entrepreneurial Americans to rebuild the economy.  Prosperity is the product of self-discipline, work, savings, and investment by individual Americans.  Our vision is of a free people using their God-given talents, combined with self-reliance, ethical conduct, and the pursuit of opportunity: an opportunity society.  Excessive taxation and regulation impede economic development.  Small businesses are the backbone of  the U.S. economy.”

    Strange, isn’t it, that the reality of free enterprise is not quite as rosy.  Think of those financial firms that used risky investments to destroy the savings of investors, or of those bankers who approved mortgages that could not be handled by consumers, or the regulators who let corporations get away with illegal practices (remember BP and the Gulf Oil Spill).  So, here we are at a fundamental point of disagreement.

    “Free enterprise” is also about profit-making, competition, finding an edge, displaying strength and over-powering weakness in order to destroy the competition.  It is about paying fewer taxes, keeping labor underpaid, getting rid of unions.  It is about tax breaks and reducing all regulations and oversight by government to the detriment of consumers.  It is about taking every advantage one can (is that what entrepreneurs do?) to loosen controls, restrictions, laws that protect consumers so that entrepreneurs can squeeze every bit of profit possible out of customers, trade partners, other nations, other businesses.  Free enterprise is not bland; it is not for the weak of heart. 

Free Enterprise is built not just on individual initiative but on individual and group manipulation of resources, of government, of buyers and sellers, of the public.  Why else do businesses spend billions on ads or lobbyists or lawyers or bundlers?  They aren’t running your neighborhood’s corner lemonade stand!  Free enterprise is a serious and gritty business, built upon manipulation of the public. So, perhaps when you see or hear the euphemistic phrase “free enterprise” you should think: “unfettered profit-taking” 

    Republicans believe that economic growth is tied to cuts in taxes and the reining in of regulations.  Experience has proven that tax breaks for “Job Creators” (the rich) is not the key to prosperity.  Too many of the “job creators” use their wealth for investments that simply make them richer!  Economic growth must be tied to a broad middle class with good jobs, adequate wages, and money to spend.  Labor and middle management are keys to making corporations and businesses work.  Opportunity is not just for the well-educated, the well-connected or the affluent.  It is a drag on the economy to have large chunks of our population living in poverty, unemployment, homelessness, or just struggling to make ends meet.  A vision that does not include a hand-up to the challenged results in a society pulled down by those who have little or no opportunity. 

    The Republican view of free enterprise is, in a word, incomplete.  They exist in a world in which only other CEOs exist.  They leave out a huge cohort of society, and thus weaken our entire society.  They are not to be trusted with “free enterprise” for they have failed to define it by a clear demonstration of broad opportunities for all.  We are all entrepreneurs, job creators and keys to prosperity.

2)    “We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income”

    Does that mean that special tax breaks for rich corporations should be shelved immediately?  Apparently not.  It means they oppose the re-distribution of tax revenue from the successful  and thus the deserving (the rich) to fund government programs for the undeserving, the uneducated, the unwashed and the irresponsible. 

    It doesn’t speak at all to the redistribution of taxes taken from the middle class to: extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for the  wealthiest among us, or to eliminate taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains; or the end of the inheritance tax or the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax on corporations.   It does not speak to the use of the tax code to give breaks to rich multi-national corporations; or to special breaks for corporations like the big oil companies who receive billions in subsidies through the tax code; or the break given hedge fund financiers to count their income as capital gains at a lesser tax rate.  It does not speak to the way too many loopholes in the tax code allow some to prosper at the expense of the many.

3)    “Our goal is a tax system that is simple, transparent, flatter and fair.”

    Guess who benefits most from a flatter tax (let’s say around 23%) for everyone?   Well, since it raises the tax rate for many earning around $40-50,000 and reduces the millionaires rate by about 12%, I guess there can be no question who makes out best.  It’s a front for once again taking from the middle class to give to the rich.

4)    “Three Programs - Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - account for…levels of spending and debt…already harming job creation and growth (and creating) projections of future spending growth…nothing short of catastrophic….”

    It can’t be said often enough:  Social Security is not a drag on the economy or the federal budget.  It has it’s own Trust Fund that is adequate for years and could be more so if the government paid back what it borrowed from that Fund, and if the cap on wages from which FICA is paid were raised to about $250,000!

    Personal bank or “investment” accounts as alternatives to our present system hold little promise for the under 55 year-old generations.  This is a sham (similar to Part D of Medicare) to give private investment companies access to funds that are not presently under their purview.  What a boon such personal accounts would be to these financial companies. 

    Medicare and Medicaid are flawed, yes.  They do need reform, yes.  But not in the way that Congressman Ryan proposes, for his aim is not reform, but fundamental change in the way Medicare operates.  Inadequate Government subsidies or vouchers or rebates will simply not cover the cost of adequate health care plans for the elderly, the disabled and the poor.  Once again, the proposal of the Republicans is a sham aimed at nothing more than getting rid of Medicare eventually (even though they now say that traditional Medicare will be available as an option - but in a form that covers little and is poorly administered since it will not be a primary concern of the federal government). 

    The Democrats and President Obama have already passed legislation - the Affordable Health Care Act -- which proposes changes in these programs, and which establishes a new Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation designed to begin testing new ways of service delivery, improved quality of care and reduced rate of cost growth. 

    I have written elsewhere on this Blog several times of the true alternative to Medicare and Medicaid and that is a single-payer health care system overseen by government but utilizing private vendors where practical. 

5)    “Cutting spending is not enough; it must be accompanied by major structural reforms…and long-term government downsizing…”

    Here we have the essence of the Republican approach to government - down-sizing.  Unfortunately, Republican administrations are not know for down-sizing, but for increasing government when they are in control. 

    Secondly, there is no guarantee that a smaller government will be any more efficient or effective, and thirdly, cutting government is a euphemism for getting rid of programs and regulators that are in the way of the other aims of this Party:  cutting entitlements, regulatory reform, and public unions.  Their criteria for making cuts are phony; they will not follow them; they never have.  Their real criterion, of course, is their major desire to move as much government as possible to the States, where, in spite of their lofty rhetoric, what will happen is reduced administration, less staff, fewer benefits, and the erasure of mandates from the federal government.  A decision by a family to move from one state to another in this atmosphere will be greatly affected by what services are available (left) to individuals and families. 

    What Republicans fail to tell us, of course, is that the Obama administration has already instituted reasoned down-sizing and evaluation of departments and agencies throughout the national government.  Unfortunately, the Republican Congress has rejected the President’s plea for legislation to give him greater ability to re-organize.  And, by their negative attitude toward cuts in DoD, Republicans have demonstrated their inability to cut out unnecessary programs and contracts when the rubber actually hits the road!

The Republican platform is an exercise in rhetorical speech and euphemisms.  It is impossible to know what they are actually thinking or contemplating unless one interprets or translates their terms into the reality of their actions and their past records.  They are utterly incapable of speaking clearly or straightforwardly about anything.  And why is that?  Because their aims are not the aims of the majority of the electorate.  Their policies are not desirable when actually translated into legislation that restricts, that bites, that cuts, that diminishes or destroys.  The outcomes they seek are rarely in line with the rhetoric they use.  So hangs a tale of why many voters are bamboozled into voting for this party of destruction and regression.

It is clearly time for translation of their misleading verbiage.  We shall try to do more next time.

Why is this 2012 election so important?

1)    You’ve probably heard over and over that this election will decide in what direction the country will go.  Yes, that’s true, as far as it goes.  But what we must understand is that this election will basically decide in whose direction the country will go.  

    This is not simply a question of direction --right or left-- it is instead a question of who is behind the directing.   It is the people driving the direction that matters most, for it is people who make decisions, run for and hold office, provide monetary support and put together the legislation, the policies, the programs, the rules and regulations that ultimately move the government and the country in a particular direction.

    So as a voter YOU must decide who you want directing the country, driving the government, spending your money, or deciding the issues by which your life will be affected.  Unfortunately, most of those people are NOT running for office, and therefore are not elected.  There’s the rub:  the people we think are going to be our elected representatives or Senators are often not the people who make the decisions that affect our everyday lives.  So this election is about the unelected people who are in positions of power.

    Permit me a small tangent here.  There is a sense in which the office-holders - the politicians themselves - really have very little to do with our everyday lives.  They are too often not in charge of the political machinery.  Behind the operations of government are so many lawyers, lobbyists, bundlers, handlers, aides and staffers, plus the moneyed men and women who like to tell those politicians just what they should do or not do, that the politicians turn out to be little more than marionettes dancing to the tunes that the puppet masters play.

    On the other hand, it is precisely because the politicians are turning over their offices and consciences to the string-pullers that makes it all the more imperative for every citizen to want everything to do with those who are giving away the store to the behind-the-scenes actors.  It is a time for scrutiny not inactivity.

    What I am saying is that this election is so much about who is really in charge, and who is calling the shots, and who is donating enormous amounts of money. There is every possibility that we the people will not decide the direction in which the country will go.  We will instead have decided for us who is really going to lead us and on what path we will go because decisions vital to our democratic process are already being made by forces that have gathered in secret and who are unseen by the average human eye.

    So, let us say that President Obama is re-elected:  Anathema to some and Shangri-la to others.  Unless by some miracle a Democratic Congress (both House and Senate) also follows suit, the outcome will be about what it is now: gridlock.  Nothing much will change, and the puppeteers will still be in charge, albeit in a way that will somewhat test their abilities but not overly much.  Let’s say that Romney wins and the Republicans win a majority in both houses of Congress.  That will be the end of democratic representative government as we have known it.  For then the behind-the-scenes actors will have no one in their way.  In fact, they will own the Congress, the Presidency and the Court.  They will own the federal government and will use it as they desire to gain their own ends. 

2)    This election is about takeover, not makeover.  Too many average voters believe that there is little difference between Republican and Democrat politicians: they are all essentially the same, they complain.  That has been somewhat true in the early modern era, but no more.  It has all changed.  There are few moderate Republicans left, at least who hold office.  There are more extant conservative Democrats who vote for things like right-to-life legislation, or for breaks for corporations, and who belittle the labor movement.  No, we are not living in the era of cooperation or compromise or accommodation between the parties.  We live in a situation where ideological rigidity holds sway, and where creative legislation or expansion of civil rights or of the voter franchise or of inventiveness in seeking greater support for those with special needs or unusual circumstances are all seen as wasted spending, extravagant spending, or as affecting the ability of small business owners to hire more employees.

    To be more precise, we have the tendency to think that this election, as with others past in which our economic future was at stake, is simply a matter of changing horses in mid-stream; a chance for the other party to see what they can do, with little regard for what they say they will do, for what they have already demonstrated in the past they will do, or for what they will not do, given their philosophy.  But this election is not about a simple change of philosophy; it is about control.

    The radical Republican Right-wing has decided that it is not enough simply to makeover the government and its policies into a slightly different way of doing things. This is an all-out battle to win CONTROL of government so that the Democratic Party will be on the outside for generations to come.  If you don’t understand that fact, you understand nothing about what is at stake in this election.

    Let us review in brief why I say that this is a potential coup d'état and not your usual election.

    A)  The Koch brothers, and other millionaires and billionaires like Sheldon Adelson working with them or on their own, want everything in government to mesh with their right-wing, top-down, corporate-protecting, laissez-faire, tax-loophole, privileged class values.  They are committed to revolutionizing this government so it never again passes legislation favorable to labor, minorities, the poor or the vulnerable; they want to tear down or repeal universal health care, abortion rights, environmental or consumer protection legislation.   They are predatory in their quest.  If you don’t believe it, watch in the movie “Koch Brothers Exposed” what they did to a small town school district in North Carolina.  This is war, and if more voters don’t catch on soon, the battles will all be over and the Koch Brother types will be the victors, and they will be the robber barons running this country.

    B)  If you haven’t caught on yet, consider the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.  If you think that was just a fluke, you must consider what the hoards of money from Super-PACs are doing to change the election dynamics throughout this country.  The negative ads --with outright lies as their foundation -- are twisting the life out of our election process., and distorting the outcomes.  Voters with bumper-sticker mentality are actually persuaded everyday by these negative ads. 

    But that’s not all.  The law does not require anyone to disclose who the donors are or where they are from, or how much they are giving to influence the elections.  Thus it is, that YOU, the voter, are being kept in the dark as to the very people who are attempting to buy your election.  That’s right!  You have no way of even knowing if the election for your local Congressman (or State Senator for that matter) is being bought by a millionaire businessman who will expect favors in return that may hurt local ability to grow the local economy in the future.  You have no idea who it is that is buying your Congressman and how that will affect your schools, your health care, your children’s education.  You just don’t know…

    C)  A third leg of the revolutionary stool is the attempt by radical Republicans in over 30 states to cut back on access to voting.  The so-called anti-voter fraud laws are clearly a part of the conspiracy to take over the government, not to enhance it or to make it more democratic.  The voter ID laws and the suppression of early voting, plus unreasonable requirements for registration all work together, not to correct a problem of voter fraud, but to perpetrate a fraud on minorities, the elderly, young people, and those living in poverty who would have the most difficulty complying with these laws.  Compliance with these laws is made extra difficult in order that those who do seek qualifying picture IDs will have an even harder time getting them.  Tactics such as closing state offices early where such IDs can be found, or opening them at odd hours, such as 9 am to 12 pm on every fifth Wednesday in a month (3 per year?); or closing branch offices in those areas where citizens will be forced to take a public bus to far-flung sites -- all are designed to prevent, not enhance a person’s opportunity to comply. 

    This voter suppression is not random; it is not dissimilar legislation.  These laws have been put together by forces that know what they are doing.  They are part of the right-wing conspiracy to steal this election and to disenfranchise the voters who supported President Obama in 2008.  This is a planned and organized assault on our democratic election process.  It is a blatant attempt to overcome the concept of one person, one vote.  In Pennsylvania alone, the voter ID law may well disenfranchise around 750,000 voters, enough to swing that state to Romney, as touted by the speaker of Pennsylvania’s assembly when he said that the voter ID legislation they passed will deliver the state’s electoral votes to Romney.

3)    And finally, this election is about tearing down the machinery of federal governance that has kept in place a concept of government that believes in equal rights, fair play, controlling predatory practices, and giving everyone a fair shake by distributing tax revenues so that no one is left behind.  It begins, in essence with FDR and the New Deal.  The conservative Republican movement, especially the neo-cons, have targeted the policies and programs of the Roosevelt era for years now. 

    Social Security is the bane of their existence.  They want desperately to change that program so that the federal government can no longer have control.  They want to get that money into the hands of the bankers and the financiers by establishing the concept of private accounts that will grow as Wall Street grows.  Unfortunately, when banks close or Wall Street goes bearish or really falters, there will be no one to pick up the pieces for the persons who lost their retirement savings. 

    That’s just the beginning.  The other programs of big government that rankle these anti-federalists the most are both related to health care:  Medicare and Medicaid.  For the sake of brevity, let us simply recognize that the Paul Ryan plan for Medicare, no matter how you slice it, is meant to fundamentally alter Medicare. No matter what is said about options, the outcome will eventually be the destruction of Medicare as we know it.  That is the goal.

    It is Medicaid that is clearly in the sights of the big government hunters.  This is the program that causes state governments apoplexy.  It is often the largest mandated but not fully funded part of their state budgets.  Since devolving programs to the states has been one favorite method of conservatives for un-doing or cutting back on federal programs that help the vulnerable and those with special needs, this is the tactic they have chosen to eventually render this program ineffective.  If the states get hold of Medicaid, you will see administrative costs go up, benefits go down, and eligibility change drastically.  This tactic has nothing to do with states’ rights or states’ abilities to innovate, and everything to do with denuding a needed program. 

    Let us consider here the fact that while destruction of Medicaid has little to do with the theory of state sovereignty, there is nevertheless a conspiracy afoot to return that concept to a cornerstone of revolution.  The right-wingers are not just concentrating on diminishing the role of the federal bureaucracy, they are at work diligently trying to enhance the role of the states in this offensive.  Look at Wisconsin and Ohio and their anti-labor movement.  Look at Arizona and their egregious legislation and practices aimed at immigration.  Look at Texas and the governor’s threat to succeed.  Look at many of the states where the legislatures and the state houses have been captured by the right-wing Republicans who have gone forward with radical changes to education, social spending, and welfare programs.  They will, of course, tout these changes as desirable, but don’t forget to look at their rankings in terms of achievements, especially in education and health care.  Not very good, I’m afraid.  But their goals are not the construction of better programs; their goals have to do with the diminishing of programs run by government.  They are not in the business of innovation, but they are mightily concerned with private business and the welfare of businessmen and women, not to mention their own aggrandizement. 

So do not look to slogans or talking points or high-sounding rhetoric for your keys to what this election is about.  It is about none of those.  There is only one issue: who is going to run your economy; who is going to decide your fate; who is going to dictate the terms of your education and thus of your career; who is going to make decisions for you in terms of your health and well-being; who is going to decide for you certain matters of conscience and tolerance?  This election’s outcome is not just about you, my friend.  It is about the directors, not the direction.  Make a wrong choice, and it will be about the power of an elite controlling the government and all of its functions.  It will be about the powerful weakening governance so that the avarice of certain holders of wealth can be more than satisfied.  It will be about a right-wing takeover, not a makeover.

Will the Oligarchs Prevail?

This week, I want to return to several themes that I have written about, this time using a Newsletter from Senator Bernie Sanders, the Progressive Independent of Vermont, to elucidate those themes.  His is a viewpoint that I not only respect, but admire as well.  A point well taken, which we will mention later, is that a Progressive agenda is paramount at this stage of our development as a country.

1)  There is more at stake in this election than the viability of the candidates themselves.  There is at stake the fundamental purpose of this country: are we a democracy operated on the basis of government “of the people, by the people and for the people”, or is government for sale to the highest bidders, to be run by a small oligarchy who happen to hold the economic power necessary to control and manipulate society according to their best interests?  It is a question for the ages, for the threat to democracy from a small cadre of oligarchs is ever-present in this society, and in others as well. 

Look carefully at England where an aristocracy has flourished even into the present day: an elite that has had little compunction, in certain eras of that country’s history, about its role in making sure that the aristocracy and richest industrialists had the power to determine the course of that great nation.  Not unknown in other nations, the center of their focus has been a monarchy which, in its essence and at its core, has an elitist principle: that the King or Queen is sovereign, and that all else flows from that fact.  Of course, today there are vast numbers of British republicans who would prefer to do without a monarchy, but their view has not prevailed.  Fortunately, the modern monarchy is restricted by Parliament in its actions, but not entirely. 

Without going into that particular controversy, let it suffice that our own country has fought from its beginnings to separate itself from either a monarchial or oligarchic form of government.  In fact, in the earliest stage of this representative democracy, it is clear that George Washington could have assumed the powers of a monarch had he been so inclined, but he chose to act as a President restricted and guided by a Constitution, even giving up the reins of governing after a suitable time (two terms).  There were others around him who would gladly have bestowed upon him the trappings of a monarchy, but they did not prevail.  That cadre of elitists has not disappeared.  In fact, today they are more prominent than they have been since about the 1920s. 

We are at another juncture in our history where the elitist oligarchs want to seize control of our economy, our government, our wallets, as well as our destiny.  Led by “he who would be King”, Mitt Romney (a mere puppet, to be sure), these industrial and financial elitists seek a coup d'état that has been planned out for years.  It is that very planning that the rest of us have basically ignored, to our own imminent peril.  Ignorance, apathy, and denial are the bedrock upon which these ultra-rich have staked their futures.  They believe with all their fiber and being that they can take over this country without so much as a shot being fired, or a whimper heard, because they have the money, the position and the accumulated power to allow them to accomplish their ends.  You want proof, you say?  Take a long look at the brief movie titled “Koch Brothers Exposed”.  There it is in black and white!

But back to Bernie Sanders.  He makes this point in his newsletter:

“I want to take this opportunity to share with you my views about what I consider to be the most serious crisis we face: the need to defeat the effort of the wealthiest people in our country to convert our American democracy into an oligarchic form of government where virtually all economic and political power rests in the hands of a small number of enormously rich families.

The history of this country has been the drive towards a more and more inclusive democracy -- a democracy that would fulfill Abraham Lincoln’s beautiful phraseology at Gettysburg in which he described America as a nation “of the people by the people for the people.”

We all know American democracy has not always lived up to this ideal. When this country was founded, only white male property owners over age 21 could vote. But people fought to change that and we became a more inclusive democracy. After the Civil War we amended the Constitution to allow non-white men to vote. We became a more inclusive democracy. In 1920, after years of struggle and against enormous opposition, we finally ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote. We became a more inclusive democracy.

In 1965, under the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, the great civil rights movement finally succeeded in outlawing racism at the ballot box and L.B.J. signed the Voting Rights Act. African Americans could not be denied the right to vote. We became a more inclusive democracy. One year after that, the Supreme Court ruled that the poll tax was unconstitutional, that people could not be denied the right to vote because they were low-income. We became a more inclusive democracy. In 1971, young people throughout the country said; “we are being drafted to go to Vietnam and get killed, but we don’t even have the right to vote.” The voting age was lowered to 18. We became a more inclusive democracy.

Today, after centuries of seeing this country move toward a more democratic and inclusive society, we are now witnessing the most severe attack on our democratic foundations, both economically and politically, that has been seen in the modern history of our country. In terms of the distribution of wealth and income, in terms of concentration of economic ownership and in terms of political power, fewer and fewer Americans are determining the future of our country. This is a trend we must reverse.”

2)  A point with which we must reckon is that power is already in the hands of the very rich in this country.  The gap between the richest cohort and all the others of us is out of kilter to the extent that 98% of us are fast losing any power to control our own destinies.  If Radical Republicans (the front for the elitist rich) have their way,for example,  public schooling will be relegated to the trash heap of history, and the rich will be all that can afford to send their children to private academies and universities.  The rest of the public will be relegated to schools that teach only the curriculum approved by the powerful, taught by teachers hired for their political views rather than their ability to teach, and administered by private corporations that are controlled by the same rich folks.

Bernie speaks in his newsletter to the economic gap that currently exists in our country.

“Economically, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth and that inequality is worse today in America than at any time since the late 1920s. Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America -- 150 million people. Today, one family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame, with $89 billion, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. Today, the top one percent own 40 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns less than two percent. Incredibly, the bottom 40 percent of all Americans own just three-tenths of one percent of the wealth of the country.

In terms of income distribution, the top one percent earns more income than the bottom 50 percent. Between 1980 and 2005, 80 percent of all new income created in this country went to the top one percent. In 2010 alone, 93 percent of all new income went to the top one percent.

In terms of economic power and concentration of ownership, the six largest financial institutions in the country (JP MorganChase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Metlife) own assets equivalent to two-thirds of the GDP of this country -- more than nine trillion dollars. These giant Wall Street institutions produce half the mortgages in this country and two-thirds of the credit cards. Three of the top four are larger today than they were when we bailed them out four years ago because they were “too big to fail.”

That is what is going on economically in this country. A handful of billionaires own a significant part of the wealth of America and have enormous control over our economy.”

3)  The “kicker” in all this is that one-and-a-half branches of our government are already under the control of this elite faction (plus numerous statehouses and legislatures).  The House of Representatives demonstrates every day by its intransigence, its attacks upon the poor and middle classes, and its legislation, favorable to the wealthy and the powerful, that it is already supporting a different form of governing than that to which we are accustomed.  The Senate, although with a slim majority of Democrats, is still held hostage by an arcane rule of procedure -- the filibuster and cloture rule -- which is used by minority Republicans to block any meaningful legislation.

But, as Senator Sanders points out, it is the Supreme Court that has thrown its weight behind the coup that is developing by its decision in Citizens United, thereby proving  where its allegiance stands.  The oligarchs have been given a tool for democracy’s destruction which cannot be matched for effectiveness.  Bernie again:

“In my view the Citizens United Supreme Court decision was one of the worst and most anti-democratic decisions in the history of our country. What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United was to give enormous new political power to the wealthiest people in our country, in addition to all of the economic power they have. That decision allowed corporations and the super-rich, without disclosure, to spend as much money as they want to buy candidates and elections. In essence, the Supreme Court said to America’s billionaires: “You own and control the economy, you own Wall Street, you own the coal companies, you own the oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we’re going to give you the opportunity to own the United States government.” That is what Citizens United is all about.

Why should we be surprised that one family, worth $50 billion, is prepared to spend $400 million in this election to protect their interests? That’s a small investment for them and a good investment. But it is not only the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson. There are at least twenty-three billionaire families who have contributed $250,000 or more into the political process up to now. My guess is that number is really much greater because many of these contributions are made in secret.

From one end of this country to the other, hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent by the very wealthy to defeat candidates who represent the needs of working people. Not content with controlling the economy, they also want to dominate our political system as well.”

4)  There is only one direction left to those of us who make up that other 98% of the population.  We must resist the takeover of our society by elitists and again expand the scope of our franchise, our democratic institutions, and our constitutional democracy.  We have no choice.  The fight must begin by recognizing that we are at war with forces that want to change our way of life. We must exert consumer pressure on the “too big to fail” corporations to force them to respond to consumer demands and needs.  We must proceed by winning local offices in local, county and state governments.  Our efforts must culminate in the education, fostering and election of new people to represent us at all levels, and in the education of a woefully ignorant electorate.  And finally, this struggle must be characterized by progressive principles: by the expansion of voting rights and laws that enable, not restrict, early voting, weekend voting, ballot-by-mail voting, and by policies that lead to fair and equitable responsibility for the just operation of government; by the principle that private and public sector cooperation is our goal, and by the principle that grass-roots citizen involvement in determining the direction of government and institutions is our mission.  Bernie Sanders admonishes us:

“There is only one antidote to the plans of Big Money. We must fight back. We must educate and organize the working families of our country around a progressive agenda. We must build a strong grass-roots movement which demands that government work for all the people, and not just the wealthy and corporate interests. We must demand that the President and Democrats end their timidity, forcefully stand with struggling families and take on the greed of Wall Street and the top one percent.

As part of our progressive agenda not only must we resist cuts in Social Security, we must lift the cap on high income earners so that Social Security will be strong for the next 75 years.

Not only must we oppose cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, we must see health care as a right of all and continue the struggle for a Medicare for All Single Payer health care system.

Not only must we oppose placing the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of working families, we must demand a progressive tax system in which the wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes.

Not only must we oppose those who deny the reality of global warming, we must demand the transformation of our energy system away from fossil fuels into energy efficiency and such sustainable energies as wind, solar, geo-thermal and bio-mass.

Not only must we oppose cuts in unemployment compensation, we must fight for a jobs program that creates the many millions of jobs our country desperately needs.

These are pivotal times in the history of our country.”

It all comes down to those important words uttered by President Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, PA on November 19, 1863:

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”