President Obama: Leadership Please!
By Reginald Johnson
Remember back in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina was leveling whole sections of New Orleans, and hundreds of people were being killed?
Remember the picture of former President George Bush, peering out the window of a plane, looking down at the devastation? We all criticized Bush for that, saying it was symbolic of Bush’s woeful and uncaring response to the tragedy that befell New Orleans.
The president should have headed straight down to where the flooding was and talked with the people of New Orleans face to face, showing his compassion. Don’t just sit in a plane and peer out the window, we said.
That lack of empathy and concern for what’s going on during a disaster is being repeated right now by President Barack Obama. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is a catastrophic event, which in the long run may turn out more devastating and more costly than Katrina. Hundreds if not thousands of jobs are being wiped out, as Gulf-based industries such as fishing, boating and tourism are being ruined by the massive BP oil spill. Entire eco-systems along the Gulf coast, including shore birds, shellfish and plant life are being destroyed as the unending gusher of oil now seeps into tidal wetlands.
This environmental devastation will spread over to the Florida coast and then possibly up the Atlantic coast, as the oil is pushed by ocean currents.
It’s estimated more than 36 million gallons of oil have now spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.
We’re talking hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars of shoreline and environmental damage that will eventually be caused by this disaster, by the time it is over (if the oil leak is ever stopped!). Countless numbers of people will have their lives ruined by the loss of jobs and property.
Yet while all this is going on, Barack Obama doesn’t seem particularly excited. He sits unruffled, as always, analyzing the situation ----- back at the White House. While he did fly to Louisiana earlier in the month to survey the situation, he didn’t stay long, and spent no time talking with residents along the coast. He should have spent a couple of days there, listening to people and showing understanding for their concerns.
Obama, an eloquent and at times passionate speaker, has shown little passion in condemning BP for this spill and demanding corrective action. Where’s the fire? Where’s the outrage?
Obama also hasn’t done a good job in getting his administration to develop a comprehensive response to the spill. He’s retained Ken Salazar has his Interior Secretary, despite Salazar’s chummy relationship with oil companies, and the secretary’s decision to give companies like BP a waiver on performing environmental reviews on drilling plans, as a precondition for obtaining drilling permits from the government. One of those waivers was for the Deep Horizon rig, which exploded April 20, triggering the massive spill.
Obama should have fired Salazar immediately and replaced him with a real environmentalist.
Also at this stage, the government should step in and take over the efforts to plug the leak and do the clean-up --- with BP performing much of the work and of course paying for it. BP has been in charge of the operation so far, and still the leak is going on. More experts need to be brought in, more countries need to be brought in, and only the government can facilitate this. Obama needs to show leadership and do this.
Apparently both Russia and China have expertise in deep water drilling operations and can help. Their assistance should be requested. Also, two Dutch companies have the know-how to “skim” the oil off the top of the sea and recover it. They need to be brought in. The EPA reportedly rejected the skimming idea, because of some possible pollution side effects. At this stage, given the enormity of the spill, EPA concerns have to be put aside. We’re talking about hundreds of miles of coastline that may be ruined if the oil slick isn’t contained.
Any legal constraints on preventing the government from stepping in and taking over after a corporate-generated oil spill also have to be lifted, pronto. Congress can do this. If the Patriot Act can be passed overnight, then this needed legislation can be passed quickly, too.
I hope, I certainly hope, that BP’s considerable financial help for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign isn’t a factor in Obama’s lack of outrage over this spill and his poor response.
For the sake of the people on the Gulf and for the sake of our precious national environment, we need more, a lot more, from this president.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Commentary
ACORN: A Strong Legacy
By Reginald Johnson
May 7, 2010
The fall of the nation’s best community organization deserves some comment.
The Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) folded its tent recently, ending some 40 years of valiant work on behalf of the poor and less fortunate. At the time of its closure, it had 400,000 members nationwide.
Put simply, ACORN’s passing is blow for those who are trying to make this country a fairer, more equitable place, where everyone has a shot at a decent life.
ACORN and its band of young, idealistic organizers waged a myriad of successful campaigns in cities throughout the nation to gain better housing, improve wages, create stronger schools and gain voting rights for low and moderate income people.
The list of successes that ACORN wracked up over the years is an impressive one, and shows what can be done when people join together and fight in a determined way for change. Here’s a capsule of some of ACORN’s accomplishments:
· Led or played a key role in successful campaigns in 11 states to raise the minimum wage. Instrumental in drive for “living wages” throughout the country. Some 150 living wage ordinances are now in effect.
· Organized effective campaigns to curb predatory lending, long before the evils of predatory lending became widely known during the subprime mortgage meltdown. Won agreements from lenders to cap fees and points. Led a lawsuit against Household Finance to stop abuses. That case, joined by 50 state attorneys general, eventually landed a $484 million settlement, at the time the largest consumer rights award in U.S. history.
· Won controls on foreclosures in several states, including Connecticut, where ACORN got a bill passed giving homeowners the right to mediation with a bank.
· Won a number of battles in several states helping to preserve or create new affordable housing. In New York, the group won an agreement from promoters to include thousands of units of affordable housing in a major development project in Brooklyn. Also in New York City, ACORN led a successful fight to keep Starrett City --- with 6,000 units the largest rent-stabilized complex in the country --- from being sold to a developer who would have eliminated rent protections.
· Waged campaigns to collect millions of new voter registration applications, resulting in an estimated 2 million new people on the voter rolls.
· Helped clean up thousands of homes in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and helped spur new federal funding for storm-hit areas.
Wow. All those victories were achieved through the efforts of staff that was low-paid and usually swamped with work. But they were very dedicated staff, and together with legions of highly-motivated volunteers from their communities, they achieved so much.
ACORN was very active in Bridgeport, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s. Together with their organizers, ACORN members in the Park City helped win battles with landlords over housing issues, pressured local banks to expand home ownership opportunities for people of lesser means, made neighborhoods safer and cleaner and in general forced City Hall to be more responsive to people’s needs.
I’m glad to say I was a part of ACORN’s efforts for many years, working with staff to build a strong tenants organization at my apartment complex on Fairfield Avenue. We won several victories, including a successful rent strike to force needed clean-ups and repairs, and rescuing the jobs of some long-time maintenance workers abruptly fired by a new management firm. Those successes couldn’t have been achieved without ACORN’s help.
John Soltis is another Bridgeport resident who got heavily involved in ACORN after the group arrived in 1980. Soltis thinks that ACORN did a lot to improve the lives of people in Bridgeport, a struggling city hurt by years of factory closures.
Soltis said relentless pressure by ACORN members forced the city to create a Fair Rent Commission to put a brake on rent gouging; got the city council to allow more public input through a public speaking session prior to every meeting; and blocked the development of an environmentally-questionable waste recovery plant in a residential neighborhood.
ACORN in Bridgeport also was very adept politically, registering a slew of new voters and becoming a major player in the Democratic Party. Many of its members won office, including Soltis, who landed a seat on the Board of Education.
ACORN also forced the white political power structure in the city to finally open up and accept more black and Latino candidates. ACORN’s voter registration drives were a key reason behind the Democratic Party primary victories of Charles Tisdale, the first African-American to run for mayor in Bridgeport.
“I think ACORN made people feel, for the first time in their lives, they could bring about positive change,” Soltis said. “It empowered people.”
HOW IT FELL
As important as it is to recognize the significant accomplishments of ACORN, it’s also important --- particularly for progressives --- to know how it fell.
The fact is that the right-wing --- together with an incompetent and often biased mainstream media --- killed off ACORN.
Republicans never liked ACORN with its consumer and labor-oriented agenda and confrontational tactics. But when ACORN’s voter registration drives swung into high gear during the Bush years, that was the last straw. Voters registered by ACORN generally meant Democratic voters, and GOP leaders like Karl Rove saw that as a mortal threat. Rove and others launched a campaign to discredit ACORN, raising questions about the validity of the voter registrations.
All across the country, complaints were filed against ACORN, with Republicans charging that illegal methods were used to gain new registrants, and that some registrations were bogus. The complaints sparked a flurry of investigations and frequently put ACORN in a bad light in the press. Many in the media placed a heavy focus on the splashy vote-related charges, while paying little attention to ACORN’s organizing successes.
As time went along, hardly any of the official investigations confirmed the numerous claims about phony registrations or illegal methods.
By early 2009, it looked like ACORN would weather the storm of Republican attacks. But then the right-wing pulled a stunt that finished off the organization. They had two imposters go to several ACORN offices and act as if they were a pimp and prostitute, looking for housing help. During the meetings, which the tricksters were secretly videotaping , they indicated they wanted to start some sort of prostitution scheme, possibly involving young girls. The ACORN people never went along with it. But the tape was later doctored, and made to look like ACORN staffers were somehow complicit.
The tape was then fed to the press, and outlets like FOX News began running it 24-7, with commentators expressing outrage over ACORN’s behavior. The New York Times also ran many unskeptical pieces about the case. Demands were made that ACORN be probed and their federal funding be dropped.
Political pressure mounted, and Congress moved to pull ACORN’s federal grants, which accounted for about 10 percent of the group’s budget. ACORN could have survived that hit, but they could not survive when foundations --- alarmed by the latest accusations --- began stopping further funding. That source of money was a much larger portion of ACORN’s financing.
In March, a prosecutor cleared ACORN of any wrongdoing in the prostitution-hoax case. A New York federal judge ruled that Congress had violated the Constitution by pulling ACORN’s funding. And The New York Times admitted they hadn’t done a very good job in checking out the veracity of the prostitution story, and issued a mild apology
But the good news came too late. ACORN was out of money. The leaders had a meeting, and decided the organization had to close down.
It will be difficult to fill the void left by the end of ACORN. Some new organizations similar to ACORN have been formed in New York and Chicago and those groups, most likely using former ACORN staffers, will try to fill some of the gap.
Soltis believes that while ACORN is gone as an organization, the struggle to carry on its mission of helping the poor will not die.
Referring to the legendary union group the Wobblies, which was destroyed by government attacks a century ago, Soltis said, “They killed the Wobblies, but the organizing went on. Wherever there's injustice, there's a need to organize."
By Reginald Johnson
May 7, 2010
The fall of the nation’s best community organization deserves some comment.
The Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) folded its tent recently, ending some 40 years of valiant work on behalf of the poor and less fortunate. At the time of its closure, it had 400,000 members nationwide.
Put simply, ACORN’s passing is blow for those who are trying to make this country a fairer, more equitable place, where everyone has a shot at a decent life.
ACORN and its band of young, idealistic organizers waged a myriad of successful campaigns in cities throughout the nation to gain better housing, improve wages, create stronger schools and gain voting rights for low and moderate income people.
The list of successes that ACORN wracked up over the years is an impressive one, and shows what can be done when people join together and fight in a determined way for change. Here’s a capsule of some of ACORN’s accomplishments:
· Led or played a key role in successful campaigns in 11 states to raise the minimum wage. Instrumental in drive for “living wages” throughout the country. Some 150 living wage ordinances are now in effect.
· Organized effective campaigns to curb predatory lending, long before the evils of predatory lending became widely known during the subprime mortgage meltdown. Won agreements from lenders to cap fees and points. Led a lawsuit against Household Finance to stop abuses. That case, joined by 50 state attorneys general, eventually landed a $484 million settlement, at the time the largest consumer rights award in U.S. history.
· Won controls on foreclosures in several states, including Connecticut, where ACORN got a bill passed giving homeowners the right to mediation with a bank.
· Won a number of battles in several states helping to preserve or create new affordable housing. In New York, the group won an agreement from promoters to include thousands of units of affordable housing in a major development project in Brooklyn. Also in New York City, ACORN led a successful fight to keep Starrett City --- with 6,000 units the largest rent-stabilized complex in the country --- from being sold to a developer who would have eliminated rent protections.
· Waged campaigns to collect millions of new voter registration applications, resulting in an estimated 2 million new people on the voter rolls.
· Helped clean up thousands of homes in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and helped spur new federal funding for storm-hit areas.
Wow. All those victories were achieved through the efforts of staff that was low-paid and usually swamped with work. But they were very dedicated staff, and together with legions of highly-motivated volunteers from their communities, they achieved so much.
ACORN was very active in Bridgeport, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s. Together with their organizers, ACORN members in the Park City helped win battles with landlords over housing issues, pressured local banks to expand home ownership opportunities for people of lesser means, made neighborhoods safer and cleaner and in general forced City Hall to be more responsive to people’s needs.
I’m glad to say I was a part of ACORN’s efforts for many years, working with staff to build a strong tenants organization at my apartment complex on Fairfield Avenue. We won several victories, including a successful rent strike to force needed clean-ups and repairs, and rescuing the jobs of some long-time maintenance workers abruptly fired by a new management firm. Those successes couldn’t have been achieved without ACORN’s help.
John Soltis is another Bridgeport resident who got heavily involved in ACORN after the group arrived in 1980. Soltis thinks that ACORN did a lot to improve the lives of people in Bridgeport, a struggling city hurt by years of factory closures.
Soltis said relentless pressure by ACORN members forced the city to create a Fair Rent Commission to put a brake on rent gouging; got the city council to allow more public input through a public speaking session prior to every meeting; and blocked the development of an environmentally-questionable waste recovery plant in a residential neighborhood.
ACORN in Bridgeport also was very adept politically, registering a slew of new voters and becoming a major player in the Democratic Party. Many of its members won office, including Soltis, who landed a seat on the Board of Education.
ACORN also forced the white political power structure in the city to finally open up and accept more black and Latino candidates. ACORN’s voter registration drives were a key reason behind the Democratic Party primary victories of Charles Tisdale, the first African-American to run for mayor in Bridgeport.
“I think ACORN made people feel, for the first time in their lives, they could bring about positive change,” Soltis said. “It empowered people.”
HOW IT FELL
As important as it is to recognize the significant accomplishments of ACORN, it’s also important --- particularly for progressives --- to know how it fell.
The fact is that the right-wing --- together with an incompetent and often biased mainstream media --- killed off ACORN.
Republicans never liked ACORN with its consumer and labor-oriented agenda and confrontational tactics. But when ACORN’s voter registration drives swung into high gear during the Bush years, that was the last straw. Voters registered by ACORN generally meant Democratic voters, and GOP leaders like Karl Rove saw that as a mortal threat. Rove and others launched a campaign to discredit ACORN, raising questions about the validity of the voter registrations.
All across the country, complaints were filed against ACORN, with Republicans charging that illegal methods were used to gain new registrants, and that some registrations were bogus. The complaints sparked a flurry of investigations and frequently put ACORN in a bad light in the press. Many in the media placed a heavy focus on the splashy vote-related charges, while paying little attention to ACORN’s organizing successes.
As time went along, hardly any of the official investigations confirmed the numerous claims about phony registrations or illegal methods.
By early 2009, it looked like ACORN would weather the storm of Republican attacks. But then the right-wing pulled a stunt that finished off the organization. They had two imposters go to several ACORN offices and act as if they were a pimp and prostitute, looking for housing help. During the meetings, which the tricksters were secretly videotaping , they indicated they wanted to start some sort of prostitution scheme, possibly involving young girls. The ACORN people never went along with it. But the tape was later doctored, and made to look like ACORN staffers were somehow complicit.
The tape was then fed to the press, and outlets like FOX News began running it 24-7, with commentators expressing outrage over ACORN’s behavior. The New York Times also ran many unskeptical pieces about the case. Demands were made that ACORN be probed and their federal funding be dropped.
Political pressure mounted, and Congress moved to pull ACORN’s federal grants, which accounted for about 10 percent of the group’s budget. ACORN could have survived that hit, but they could not survive when foundations --- alarmed by the latest accusations --- began stopping further funding. That source of money was a much larger portion of ACORN’s financing.
In March, a prosecutor cleared ACORN of any wrongdoing in the prostitution-hoax case. A New York federal judge ruled that Congress had violated the Constitution by pulling ACORN’s funding. And The New York Times admitted they hadn’t done a very good job in checking out the veracity of the prostitution story, and issued a mild apology
But the good news came too late. ACORN was out of money. The leaders had a meeting, and decided the organization had to close down.
It will be difficult to fill the void left by the end of ACORN. Some new organizations similar to ACORN have been formed in New York and Chicago and those groups, most likely using former ACORN staffers, will try to fill some of the gap.
Soltis believes that while ACORN is gone as an organization, the struggle to carry on its mission of helping the poor will not die.
Referring to the legendary union group the Wobblies, which was destroyed by government attacks a century ago, Soltis said, “They killed the Wobblies, but the organizing went on. Wherever there's injustice, there's a need to organize."
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Commentary
Save the Internet
By Reginald Johnson
April 8, 2010
We all know what corporations have done to the media business. They’ve given us trash programming on TV and radio and gutted their news divisions. In their relentless search for profits, corporations cut staffs at once-proud newspapers, reducing the quality of the product, and drove readers away.
Now corporations want to tear down the last bastion of media freedom and creativity, the Internet.
The big telecom companies like Comcast and ATT, which are Internet Service Providers, want to have the unbridled right to control the Internet, charging for use in some cases, blocking access to Web sites and monitoring content. We can only imagine what that would mean.
Up to now, the Internet has been largely free from interference. The Federal Communications Commission, which has regulated communications forms such as radio, TV and phone service, has recently been supportive of an open Internet and of the concept of “net neutrality” --- the idea that all Web content should be treated equally. A new national plan for broadband put forward by the FCC would enshrine the concept of an open and unfettered Internet.
But at the eleventh hour, along comes a major court ruling from the D.C. District Court of Appeals saying that, hold on FCC, you don’t have the authority to do that. The court says that the commission can’t enforce rules on the Internet because unlike phone firms and TV stations, the commission doesn’t have jurisdiction over the Web.
In making their ruling, the appeals court --- the same crowd that previously made some horrid rulings in civil liberties cases --- upheld a challenge by Comcast to an FCC ruling that the firm could not block a website from putting up certain content.
This ruling puts the FCC in a hole, and kills Internet freedom, if allowed to stand. Congress could reverse the thrust of the ruling by passing new law, broadening the power of the commission so it has full power over the Internet. But given the influence of the telecoms in Congress, this option might not work. The best move for the FCC, experts on the issue say, is to “reclassify” the Internet in their regulations and make the Web like a utility such as phone companies, subject to similar oversight.
But there’s politics on the FCC as well, and a move to reclassify will not be automatically approved. This is where the public comes in. If enough people let the FCC know the importance of keeping the Internet free and open, the commission is more likely to make the needed changes.
The vehicle for doing this is to send comments to the FCC on their new broadband plan, urging them to make sure net neutrality will be protected. Go to https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=437
and send comments. But hurry! The comment period for the plan ends at 5 p.m. TODAY, APRIL 8.
Also tell your Congress Member the importance of keeping the Internet open. Write a letter or call and demand that Congress passes a law guaranteeing net neutrality --- we don’t know for sure whether the FCC will do what’s needed, so Congress has key role here, too.
The folks at freepress.net and savetheinternet.com are spearheading this campaign and doing a great job; check out their websites for more background.
No corporate control of the Internet! Keep the Internet free!
By Reginald Johnson
April 8, 2010
We all know what corporations have done to the media business. They’ve given us trash programming on TV and radio and gutted their news divisions. In their relentless search for profits, corporations cut staffs at once-proud newspapers, reducing the quality of the product, and drove readers away.
Now corporations want to tear down the last bastion of media freedom and creativity, the Internet.
The big telecom companies like Comcast and ATT, which are Internet Service Providers, want to have the unbridled right to control the Internet, charging for use in some cases, blocking access to Web sites and monitoring content. We can only imagine what that would mean.
Up to now, the Internet has been largely free from interference. The Federal Communications Commission, which has regulated communications forms such as radio, TV and phone service, has recently been supportive of an open Internet and of the concept of “net neutrality” --- the idea that all Web content should be treated equally. A new national plan for broadband put forward by the FCC would enshrine the concept of an open and unfettered Internet.
But at the eleventh hour, along comes a major court ruling from the D.C. District Court of Appeals saying that, hold on FCC, you don’t have the authority to do that. The court says that the commission can’t enforce rules on the Internet because unlike phone firms and TV stations, the commission doesn’t have jurisdiction over the Web.
In making their ruling, the appeals court --- the same crowd that previously made some horrid rulings in civil liberties cases --- upheld a challenge by Comcast to an FCC ruling that the firm could not block a website from putting up certain content.
This ruling puts the FCC in a hole, and kills Internet freedom, if allowed to stand. Congress could reverse the thrust of the ruling by passing new law, broadening the power of the commission so it has full power over the Internet. But given the influence of the telecoms in Congress, this option might not work. The best move for the FCC, experts on the issue say, is to “reclassify” the Internet in their regulations and make the Web like a utility such as phone companies, subject to similar oversight.
But there’s politics on the FCC as well, and a move to reclassify will not be automatically approved. This is where the public comes in. If enough people let the FCC know the importance of keeping the Internet free and open, the commission is more likely to make the needed changes.
The vehicle for doing this is to send comments to the FCC on their new broadband plan, urging them to make sure net neutrality will be protected. Go to https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=437
and send comments. But hurry! The comment period for the plan ends at 5 p.m. TODAY, APRIL 8.
Also tell your Congress Member the importance of keeping the Internet open. Write a letter or call and demand that Congress passes a law guaranteeing net neutrality --- we don’t know for sure whether the FCC will do what’s needed, so Congress has key role here, too.
The folks at freepress.net and savetheinternet.com are spearheading this campaign and doing a great job; check out their websites for more background.
No corporate control of the Internet! Keep the Internet free!
Monday, March 22, 2010
Commentary
Historic Vote?
By Reginald Johnson
March 22, 2010
After what was said to be a momentous weekend in American history, all I can say is this: it wasn’t so momentous.
The backers of the health insurance reform bill passed by the House Sunday said the legislation was “historic” and a great step forward. Supporters like Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the vote to approve the bill to the moment in 1965 when Medicare was passed or to the time in the 1930s when Social Security was approved.
Please, please. The measure OKed by the House is in no way nearly as strong or as sweeping as Medicare or Social Security. Those programs have stood the test of time for decades, and hundreds of millions of people have benefited.
I doubt seriously hundreds of millions of people will really benefit from this plan, if the bill is finally approved by the Senate and signed by President Obama. Some people on the lower end of the income scale, not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid and not wealthy enough to buy health insurance on their own, will benefit by getting government assistance to buy a plan. But there’s no option to buy a government plan, like Medicare. They’ll have to buy coverage from private health insurance companies, which offer, as we all know, weak policies.
Then for the bulk of the population --- loosely defined as the middle class --- the bill does nothing. No government aid, because you make too much to be eligible. No control on health insurance rates. It is a fact that a majority of the people who have filed for bankruptcy due to health care costs are people who had health insurance.
The new law will actually do harm, in the view of Dr. Margaret Flowers, a leader of the group Physicians for a National Health Care Plan, which has pushed for a single-payer program. Vast sums of government money will be turned over to private corporations to help them provide plans for those qualifying for assistance. This guarantees that high profits will continue to roll in for insurance carriers. There’s little, if any sacrifice demanded here from the Aetnas and Blue Crosses of the world.
“This bill further cements the privatization of health care, further enriches the industries that are the problem,” Flowers said in a statement Sunday.
Flowers said the action to approve the Obama plan actually pulls us further away from getting what we really need, a Medicare-for- all, single- payer plan. I think that’s right, and it’s very regrettable, because in the long-run, single payer is the only way to go.
One other thing about the weekend: the behavior by Tea Partiers was a disgrace. Tea Party members were at the Capitol to protest the health care bill, because they think it creates too much big government. Boy, have they got that wrong.
As inaccurate as that view is, they’re entitled to their opinion. But it is unacceptable for people to hurl racial and anti-gay insults at congressmembers as they walked into the Capitol to work on the bill. That’s what some Tea Party members did, directing their venom at the likes of civil rights hero John Lewis of Georgia and Barney Frank of Massachusetts.
If the Tea Party people want to vent about big government and the unfairness of the economic system, I don’t have a problem. I understand their frustration.
But if they want to act racist, homophobic, or hint at the need for violence, they’ve really lost me. This kind of thing has to be roundly condemned.
By Reginald Johnson
March 22, 2010
After what was said to be a momentous weekend in American history, all I can say is this: it wasn’t so momentous.
The backers of the health insurance reform bill passed by the House Sunday said the legislation was “historic” and a great step forward. Supporters like Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the vote to approve the bill to the moment in 1965 when Medicare was passed or to the time in the 1930s when Social Security was approved.
Please, please. The measure OKed by the House is in no way nearly as strong or as sweeping as Medicare or Social Security. Those programs have stood the test of time for decades, and hundreds of millions of people have benefited.
I doubt seriously hundreds of millions of people will really benefit from this plan, if the bill is finally approved by the Senate and signed by President Obama. Some people on the lower end of the income scale, not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid and not wealthy enough to buy health insurance on their own, will benefit by getting government assistance to buy a plan. But there’s no option to buy a government plan, like Medicare. They’ll have to buy coverage from private health insurance companies, which offer, as we all know, weak policies.
Then for the bulk of the population --- loosely defined as the middle class --- the bill does nothing. No government aid, because you make too much to be eligible. No control on health insurance rates. It is a fact that a majority of the people who have filed for bankruptcy due to health care costs are people who had health insurance.
The new law will actually do harm, in the view of Dr. Margaret Flowers, a leader of the group Physicians for a National Health Care Plan, which has pushed for a single-payer program. Vast sums of government money will be turned over to private corporations to help them provide plans for those qualifying for assistance. This guarantees that high profits will continue to roll in for insurance carriers. There’s little, if any sacrifice demanded here from the Aetnas and Blue Crosses of the world.
“This bill further cements the privatization of health care, further enriches the industries that are the problem,” Flowers said in a statement Sunday.
Flowers said the action to approve the Obama plan actually pulls us further away from getting what we really need, a Medicare-for- all, single- payer plan. I think that’s right, and it’s very regrettable, because in the long-run, single payer is the only way to go.
One other thing about the weekend: the behavior by Tea Partiers was a disgrace. Tea Party members were at the Capitol to protest the health care bill, because they think it creates too much big government. Boy, have they got that wrong.
As inaccurate as that view is, they’re entitled to their opinion. But it is unacceptable for people to hurl racial and anti-gay insults at congressmembers as they walked into the Capitol to work on the bill. That’s what some Tea Party members did, directing their venom at the likes of civil rights hero John Lewis of Georgia and Barney Frank of Massachusetts.
If the Tea Party people want to vent about big government and the unfairness of the economic system, I don’t have a problem. I understand their frustration.
But if they want to act racist, homophobic, or hint at the need for violence, they’ve really lost me. This kind of thing has to be roundly condemned.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Commentary
Where Will the Anger Lead?
By Reginald Johnson
March 6, 2006
You get the feeling these days something is going to pop.
Everywhere you look, whether it’s here or overseas, there seems to be so much stress on the part of regular people, so much anger building, that you just wonder when people have had enough. When they’ve hit that breaking point, things are going to blow.
I started thinking this way when I opened my computer one day this week, went on the Internet and began glancing at the day’s lead stories.
The first one I saw had the following headline: “Greece announces new $6.5 billion austerity plan.” The story said the Greek government was set to impose sweeping spending cuts, under pressure from the European Union. Greece has run up a huge deficit, due to the recession and some dubious financial advice from the American investment firm, Goldman Sachs.
The EU has told Greece, impose deep spending cuts to slash the deficit, or we won’t help you out with financial aid.
So the government has decided workers and regular people are going to take the hit. Pay and benefits will be cut. Pensions will be frozen and taxes raised.
Last month, when the government first indicated these measures were being considered, some 2 million people took to the streets to protest. That’s about 20 percent of the total population of Greece!
An official from the EU came to Greece recently and said there would be a lot of pain for Greeks for 20 years before things got better. That’s nice.
The government, pushed by the business-friendly European Union, is basically forcing these cuts on the people. Take it, or else. You wonder if the people will. Could the government fall if millions take to the streets again and say, no, they won’t take it?
Greece is not alone in this crisis. Italy, Portugal and Spain, among others, are also in dire financial straits. What does this portend for the governments of those countries and the European Union? For the globalized economy of the world?
When I finished the story on Greece, I spotted another article --- seemingly smaller in scope, but actually tied to a much larger and similar issue in the U.S. The headline read: “South Carolina to cut benefits for 30,000 disabled residents.”
The story said that “Children with autism, people with spine and brain injuries and the long-term disabled in job programs are among 30,000 people who would lose help under a $5.1 billion state spending plan” approved by a legislative committee.
So this is what it has come down to in South Carolina --- cutting aid for the disabled in order to make up a budget deficit. How cruel and insensitive can these legislators be?
The action in South Carolina is shocking, but sad to say, the state is not alone in its drive to reduce costs. From New York to California, services are being slashed so states can find the savings to make up for revenue shortfalls due to the recession/depression. Most states have balanced budget rules, so it’s either raise taxes or cut spending, or both, to square the budgets.
Health benefits, pensions, education funding and an array of social services are being slashed in many states. Aid to municipalities is also being cut, so many towns and cities are reducing services or laying off.
Medicaid, the health care program for the low-income, is being chopped in a number of states. New York alone is considering a $400 million cut in Medicaid reimbursements to providers, including doctors, nursing homes, hospitals and clinics. Those type of cuts will mean poor and disabled people will have a more difficult time finding health care services.
As all these cuts kick in, there is mounting resistance. The funding reductions in education are causing an uproar. Just as this piece was being written, hundreds of thousands of people around the country protested education cuts in a “National Day of Action.”
It’s clear that people are getting fed up with the picture they see in our society, just as folks are in Europe. The big banks, which in good part have been responsible for the global economic crisis with their reckless investment schemes, have gotten trillions of dollars in bailouts from the federal government. Reports now come in that huge bonuses are being handed out again on Wall Street. Yet ordinary people are being told their kids’ education is being cut back, their doctor won’t take Medicaid anymore, or their job with the city or state government is being eliminated.
This is a recipe for a political explosion.
Yet in the halls of the state legislatures and in Washington, D.C., there seems to be a disconnect. Except for a minority of progressive elected officials, not that many people in the political realm are speaking out about the contradiction that’s going on.
The disconnect goes right to the top with Barack Obama. Last month, the president, stressing the need to tackle the federal deficit, proposed a budget which would freeze spending on all social programs, including health care, education and job training. By executive order, he set up a commission which will study and then mandate spending reductions, particularly on entitlements like Social Security, in order to balance the budget. ( A hard-line conservative and Social Security opponent was appointed to head the panel.)
But at the very same time Obama proposed raising the military budget up to the record level of $750 billion dollars.
Obama has shown little leadership to try to get through serious financial reforms to curb the excesses of the banks. He made no effort to stop the Federal Reserve from shoveling over trillions to the banks last year to save them from their own self-created mess with “toxic assets.” These huge bailout packages, together with the massive sums lavished on the military – for weaponry that in many cases we don’t need and two disastrous wars --- has led to the sky-high government debt that Obama now says ordinary people are going to have to pay for.
The left needs to wake up and tap into the frustration among people about what the government is doing --- and not doing. Some of the “Tea Party” protests have been instigated by outsiders and manipulators, but some of this anger is borne from a genuine sense of disenfranchisement and alienation. I don’t agree with the tactics or things being said at these gatherings, but the left needs to seize on this situation, present positive solutions and try to channel the alienation into a real and productive movement to change national priorities.
People on the left also need to recognize at this stage Obama is not the answer. He’s little more than a Democratic conservative who’s not committed to progressive values. He lied about what he was and fooled a lot of people. Far from being the solution, he’s part of the problem.
As it always has been, it will take a real, broad-based social movement in this country to change things. It better get underway soon, or else the anger and frustration in our society could spin out of control and take a very negative turn.
By Reginald Johnson
March 6, 2006
You get the feeling these days something is going to pop.
Everywhere you look, whether it’s here or overseas, there seems to be so much stress on the part of regular people, so much anger building, that you just wonder when people have had enough. When they’ve hit that breaking point, things are going to blow.
I started thinking this way when I opened my computer one day this week, went on the Internet and began glancing at the day’s lead stories.
The first one I saw had the following headline: “Greece announces new $6.5 billion austerity plan.” The story said the Greek government was set to impose sweeping spending cuts, under pressure from the European Union. Greece has run up a huge deficit, due to the recession and some dubious financial advice from the American investment firm, Goldman Sachs.
The EU has told Greece, impose deep spending cuts to slash the deficit, or we won’t help you out with financial aid.
So the government has decided workers and regular people are going to take the hit. Pay and benefits will be cut. Pensions will be frozen and taxes raised.
Last month, when the government first indicated these measures were being considered, some 2 million people took to the streets to protest. That’s about 20 percent of the total population of Greece!
An official from the EU came to Greece recently and said there would be a lot of pain for Greeks for 20 years before things got better. That’s nice.
The government, pushed by the business-friendly European Union, is basically forcing these cuts on the people. Take it, or else. You wonder if the people will. Could the government fall if millions take to the streets again and say, no, they won’t take it?
Greece is not alone in this crisis. Italy, Portugal and Spain, among others, are also in dire financial straits. What does this portend for the governments of those countries and the European Union? For the globalized economy of the world?
When I finished the story on Greece, I spotted another article --- seemingly smaller in scope, but actually tied to a much larger and similar issue in the U.S. The headline read: “South Carolina to cut benefits for 30,000 disabled residents.”
The story said that “Children with autism, people with spine and brain injuries and the long-term disabled in job programs are among 30,000 people who would lose help under a $5.1 billion state spending plan” approved by a legislative committee.
So this is what it has come down to in South Carolina --- cutting aid for the disabled in order to make up a budget deficit. How cruel and insensitive can these legislators be?
The action in South Carolina is shocking, but sad to say, the state is not alone in its drive to reduce costs. From New York to California, services are being slashed so states can find the savings to make up for revenue shortfalls due to the recession/depression. Most states have balanced budget rules, so it’s either raise taxes or cut spending, or both, to square the budgets.
Health benefits, pensions, education funding and an array of social services are being slashed in many states. Aid to municipalities is also being cut, so many towns and cities are reducing services or laying off.
Medicaid, the health care program for the low-income, is being chopped in a number of states. New York alone is considering a $400 million cut in Medicaid reimbursements to providers, including doctors, nursing homes, hospitals and clinics. Those type of cuts will mean poor and disabled people will have a more difficult time finding health care services.
As all these cuts kick in, there is mounting resistance. The funding reductions in education are causing an uproar. Just as this piece was being written, hundreds of thousands of people around the country protested education cuts in a “National Day of Action.”
It’s clear that people are getting fed up with the picture they see in our society, just as folks are in Europe. The big banks, which in good part have been responsible for the global economic crisis with their reckless investment schemes, have gotten trillions of dollars in bailouts from the federal government. Reports now come in that huge bonuses are being handed out again on Wall Street. Yet ordinary people are being told their kids’ education is being cut back, their doctor won’t take Medicaid anymore, or their job with the city or state government is being eliminated.
This is a recipe for a political explosion.
Yet in the halls of the state legislatures and in Washington, D.C., there seems to be a disconnect. Except for a minority of progressive elected officials, not that many people in the political realm are speaking out about the contradiction that’s going on.
The disconnect goes right to the top with Barack Obama. Last month, the president, stressing the need to tackle the federal deficit, proposed a budget which would freeze spending on all social programs, including health care, education and job training. By executive order, he set up a commission which will study and then mandate spending reductions, particularly on entitlements like Social Security, in order to balance the budget. ( A hard-line conservative and Social Security opponent was appointed to head the panel.)
But at the very same time Obama proposed raising the military budget up to the record level of $750 billion dollars.
Obama has shown little leadership to try to get through serious financial reforms to curb the excesses of the banks. He made no effort to stop the Federal Reserve from shoveling over trillions to the banks last year to save them from their own self-created mess with “toxic assets.” These huge bailout packages, together with the massive sums lavished on the military – for weaponry that in many cases we don’t need and two disastrous wars --- has led to the sky-high government debt that Obama now says ordinary people are going to have to pay for.
The left needs to wake up and tap into the frustration among people about what the government is doing --- and not doing. Some of the “Tea Party” protests have been instigated by outsiders and manipulators, but some of this anger is borne from a genuine sense of disenfranchisement and alienation. I don’t agree with the tactics or things being said at these gatherings, but the left needs to seize on this situation, present positive solutions and try to channel the alienation into a real and productive movement to change national priorities.
People on the left also need to recognize at this stage Obama is not the answer. He’s little more than a Democratic conservative who’s not committed to progressive values. He lied about what he was and fooled a lot of people. Far from being the solution, he’s part of the problem.
As it always has been, it will take a real, broad-based social movement in this country to change things. It better get underway soon, or else the anger and frustration in our society could spin out of control and take a very negative turn.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Case Closed on 911? Not So Fast
By Reginald Johnson
March 2, 2010
More than 1,000 architects and engineers are demanding a new investigation of 911, in the wake of evidence that explosives may have been used to bring down the World Trade Center towers.
The group Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth say the evidence they’ve uncovered calls into question the official version of how the towers came down --- namely that fires sparked by the crashes of two hijacked planes damaged higher floors in the buildings to the point where they collapsed, setting off a chain reaction of floors falling on each other, in a “pancake effect.”
Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the group, said that dust samples taken from the World Trade Center site after the destruction of the New York City buildings on Sept. 11, 2001, showed the presence of “advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material.” The powerful explosive could explain why the buildings fell in a manner similar to controlled demolition, Gage believes.
Gage and many other critics of the official version of 911 maintain that fires set off by exploding jet fuel could not have burned hot enough to weaken the steel beams in the buildings to the point where they would have collapsed.
Other forensic evidence the group has brought forth also casts doubt on the official version:
· Complete destruction of both Twin Towers in just 10-14 seconds, in near free-fall acceleration;
· Over 100 first responder reports of explosions and flashes;
· A 1200-foot-diameter debris field: but “pancaked” floors not seen in the debris;
· Several tons of molten metal found in debris.
Gage and others in the group recently held press conferences around the country to announce their findings and state that they are sending petitions to Congress demanding a new inquiry to “uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and Building 7.”
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are also calling for a grand jury investigation of officials of the National Institute of Standards and Technology which studied the collapse of the WTC twin towers, and Building 7, which was not hit by a plane.
“The official FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration) and NIST reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the towers’ destruction,” the group said in a press release.
None of the official investigations of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 --- including those by the 911 Commission, a U.S. Senate committee, FEMA and NIST --- examined the possibility that explosives were used to bring down the trade center buildings or that there might have been collusion between the hijackers and other parties to facilitate the attacks.
The government’s storyline holds that 19 al-Qaeda terrorists, acting alone, hijacked four U.S. commercial airliners, crashing two into the World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon, and a fourth into a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks.
Michael Donly, a member of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, said in an interview with “Russia Today” that some of the evidence that the group looked at was originally found by government investigators, but never adequately pursued.
Donly said FEMA scientists and engineers took dust samples at the World Trade Center site and found evidence of molten steel. That pointed to the possibility that other factors besides airplane crashes and fires could have been responsible for the building collapses, and the FEMA team recommended further investigation. But that was never done, and the information on the samples was put in an appendix in the FEMA report, Donly said.
Since authorities arrived at their final conclusions on what happened on 911, critics have charged that the government’s version of events had numerous flaws. Some have even charged that 911 was an “inside job,” with government involvement.
But people raising doubts about the official story have routinely been dismissed as “conspiracy nuts” or “kooks.” Critics have generally gotten little play in the mainstream press.
However, groups like Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and others press on, demanding a new and more thorough investigation of 911.
By Reginald Johnson
March 2, 2010
More than 1,000 architects and engineers are demanding a new investigation of 911, in the wake of evidence that explosives may have been used to bring down the World Trade Center towers.
The group Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth say the evidence they’ve uncovered calls into question the official version of how the towers came down --- namely that fires sparked by the crashes of two hijacked planes damaged higher floors in the buildings to the point where they collapsed, setting off a chain reaction of floors falling on each other, in a “pancake effect.”
Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the group, said that dust samples taken from the World Trade Center site after the destruction of the New York City buildings on Sept. 11, 2001, showed the presence of “advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material.” The powerful explosive could explain why the buildings fell in a manner similar to controlled demolition, Gage believes.
Gage and many other critics of the official version of 911 maintain that fires set off by exploding jet fuel could not have burned hot enough to weaken the steel beams in the buildings to the point where they would have collapsed.
Other forensic evidence the group has brought forth also casts doubt on the official version:
· Complete destruction of both Twin Towers in just 10-14 seconds, in near free-fall acceleration;
· Over 100 first responder reports of explosions and flashes;
· A 1200-foot-diameter debris field: but “pancaked” floors not seen in the debris;
· Several tons of molten metal found in debris.
Gage and others in the group recently held press conferences around the country to announce their findings and state that they are sending petitions to Congress demanding a new inquiry to “uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and Building 7.”
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are also calling for a grand jury investigation of officials of the National Institute of Standards and Technology which studied the collapse of the WTC twin towers, and Building 7, which was not hit by a plane.
“The official FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration) and NIST reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the towers’ destruction,” the group said in a press release.
None of the official investigations of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 --- including those by the 911 Commission, a U.S. Senate committee, FEMA and NIST --- examined the possibility that explosives were used to bring down the trade center buildings or that there might have been collusion between the hijackers and other parties to facilitate the attacks.
The government’s storyline holds that 19 al-Qaeda terrorists, acting alone, hijacked four U.S. commercial airliners, crashing two into the World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon, and a fourth into a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks.
Michael Donly, a member of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, said in an interview with “Russia Today” that some of the evidence that the group looked at was originally found by government investigators, but never adequately pursued.
Donly said FEMA scientists and engineers took dust samples at the World Trade Center site and found evidence of molten steel. That pointed to the possibility that other factors besides airplane crashes and fires could have been responsible for the building collapses, and the FEMA team recommended further investigation. But that was never done, and the information on the samples was put in an appendix in the FEMA report, Donly said.
Since authorities arrived at their final conclusions on what happened on 911, critics have charged that the government’s version of events had numerous flaws. Some have even charged that 911 was an “inside job,” with government involvement.
But people raising doubts about the official story have routinely been dismissed as “conspiracy nuts” or “kooks.” Critics have generally gotten little play in the mainstream press.
However, groups like Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and others press on, demanding a new and more thorough investigation of 911.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
FUNDING FOR PEOPLE, NOT THE MILITARY
By Reginald Johnson
Feb. 10, 2010
It’s high time the American people put an end to the charade known as “defense spending.”
President Obama has just released his proposed budget, which calls for
$744 billion for the defense budget. That’s nearly THREE-QUARTERS OF A TRILLION dollars! It’s the highest Pentagon budget in history, and is the largest military budget since World War II.
The total translates into $2 billion a day for the military.
The U.S. will be spending nearly as much on weaponry as the rest of the world combined.
And why? Because of a menacing Soviet Union, with hundreds of nuclear missiles at the ready and divisions of troops massed in eastern Europe? No, the Soviet Union died nearly 20 years ago. Its successor state, the Russian Federation, has a sizeable military but it is smaller than what the Soviets had. And, despite some tension between Russia and the U.S., the Russians are not considered an enemy.
China? Even analysts at the Pentagon believe China will need several more years before they become strong enough to fight a mid-level military power, no less the United States.
What about terrorism? There is a threat from terrorists and extremists, but it’s not a threat that’s countered by nuclear submarines, ICBMs or even large numbers of soldiers. For the most part, this is an intelligence and law enforcement issue. Our massive military arsenal did nothing to stop the Christmas Day bomber; better intelligence work would have.
So why does the military budget remain so large? In part it’s because Pentagon planners --- who see a threat behind every bush, keep pushing weapon systems that aren’t needed. Those people, together with right-wingers in and out of government, also see a big military (complete with hundreds of bases around the globe) as a way for the U.S. to protect American commercial interests abroad and push aside other countries in the competition over vital resources. Despite the cover story about the battle against terrorism, both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about controlling access to that precious and finite resource, oil.
The other reason behind the huge weapons budget is that defense spending has become a giant welfare program for military contractors and the politicians who support them. Members of Congress routinely lobby for more defense spending in their districts and states, whether the planes, tanks, missiles or submarines in question are needed or not. Ineffective, outdated or superfluous weapons programs are frequently perpetuated and billions are wasted.
But the companies that receive the largesse are happy, as are their workers.
And politicians are happy because they get rewarded with votes and campaign contributions.
This kind of cycle, of ‘you wash my back, I’ll wash yours’ --- which has nothing to do with making this country stronger --- has to stop. Also, the mentality of using billions of taxpayer dollars to undertake wars of intervention (which result in widespread death and suffering) to protect some corporate interests or lay claim to another country’s resources, is wholly unacceptable and must be ended.
It’s time for a more scrutinizing and skeptical approach to military spending.
Easily, without losing a beat, 30 percent of the Pentagon budget could be cut without having the slightest impact on national security. Billions more can be saved by cracking down on military contractor cost overruns. The General Accounting Office found there’s been $300 billion in cost overruns in recent years. Why are these firms being given a free ride?
In announcing his budget plan, President Obama said the U.S. deficit has to be reduced, so he wants to slap a freeze on social spending, despite the desperate need for more funding in areas like education and health care. The deficit was run up by the government improperly handing trillions of dollars to mismanaged Wall Street banks, paying for two misguided wars and giving a blank check to the military. Obama is now trying to cure the deficit off the backs of the American people. What a disgrace.
People have to vigorously oppose this budget and the mentality that goes with it.
By Reginald Johnson
Feb. 10, 2010
It’s high time the American people put an end to the charade known as “defense spending.”
President Obama has just released his proposed budget, which calls for
$744 billion for the defense budget. That’s nearly THREE-QUARTERS OF A TRILLION dollars! It’s the highest Pentagon budget in history, and is the largest military budget since World War II.
The total translates into $2 billion a day for the military.
The U.S. will be spending nearly as much on weaponry as the rest of the world combined.
And why? Because of a menacing Soviet Union, with hundreds of nuclear missiles at the ready and divisions of troops massed in eastern Europe? No, the Soviet Union died nearly 20 years ago. Its successor state, the Russian Federation, has a sizeable military but it is smaller than what the Soviets had. And, despite some tension between Russia and the U.S., the Russians are not considered an enemy.
China? Even analysts at the Pentagon believe China will need several more years before they become strong enough to fight a mid-level military power, no less the United States.
What about terrorism? There is a threat from terrorists and extremists, but it’s not a threat that’s countered by nuclear submarines, ICBMs or even large numbers of soldiers. For the most part, this is an intelligence and law enforcement issue. Our massive military arsenal did nothing to stop the Christmas Day bomber; better intelligence work would have.
So why does the military budget remain so large? In part it’s because Pentagon planners --- who see a threat behind every bush, keep pushing weapon systems that aren’t needed. Those people, together with right-wingers in and out of government, also see a big military (complete with hundreds of bases around the globe) as a way for the U.S. to protect American commercial interests abroad and push aside other countries in the competition over vital resources. Despite the cover story about the battle against terrorism, both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about controlling access to that precious and finite resource, oil.
The other reason behind the huge weapons budget is that defense spending has become a giant welfare program for military contractors and the politicians who support them. Members of Congress routinely lobby for more defense spending in their districts and states, whether the planes, tanks, missiles or submarines in question are needed or not. Ineffective, outdated or superfluous weapons programs are frequently perpetuated and billions are wasted.
But the companies that receive the largesse are happy, as are their workers.
And politicians are happy because they get rewarded with votes and campaign contributions.
This kind of cycle, of ‘you wash my back, I’ll wash yours’ --- which has nothing to do with making this country stronger --- has to stop. Also, the mentality of using billions of taxpayer dollars to undertake wars of intervention (which result in widespread death and suffering) to protect some corporate interests or lay claim to another country’s resources, is wholly unacceptable and must be ended.
It’s time for a more scrutinizing and skeptical approach to military spending.
Easily, without losing a beat, 30 percent of the Pentagon budget could be cut without having the slightest impact on national security. Billions more can be saved by cracking down on military contractor cost overruns. The General Accounting Office found there’s been $300 billion in cost overruns in recent years. Why are these firms being given a free ride?
In announcing his budget plan, President Obama said the U.S. deficit has to be reduced, so he wants to slap a freeze on social spending, despite the desperate need for more funding in areas like education and health care. The deficit was run up by the government improperly handing trillions of dollars to mismanaged Wall Street banks, paying for two misguided wars and giving a blank check to the military. Obama is now trying to cure the deficit off the backs of the American people. What a disgrace.
People have to vigorously oppose this budget and the mentality that goes with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)