Breakdown Of GOP Jobs Proposal

The House Republicans finally released their jobs proposal! [Trumpets playing in background; streamers, confetti, and balloons dropped from ceiling]  It only took them 141 days to finally address their self-proclaimed #1 issue but I guess it takes time to draft such a complex plan that will benefit so many.  What do you mean it's only 10 pages and most of it is pictures?  Well I'm certain substance makes up for its brevity.  Let us break-down their plan and see how it will drastically improve the prospects of those on the job market (you can read the full plan here).  Excerpts from their plan are in italicized.

Introduction

Free markets, free enterprise, innovation and entrepreneurship are the foundation for economic growth and job creation in America. For the past four years, Democrats in Washington have enacted policies that undermine these basic concepts which have historically placed America at the forefront of the global marketplace. As a result, most Americans know someone who has recently lost a job, and small businesses and entrepreneurs lack the confidence needed to invest in our economy. Not since the Great Depression has our nation’s unemployment rate been this high this long.

So they chose to begin with revisionist history, the tactic Republicans love most.  You see they are implying that our current predicament was a result of the policies of the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress, even though our economic collapse and the majority of job losses occurred even before President Obama was sworn into office by policies enacted by Republicans.  They also choose to ignore that de-regulation and lack of oversight was a primary factor leading to our current economic situation, Democrats are for regulation, I'm surprised they forgot that since they point it out so often.  Maybe the below graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics will make it more clear:

Enough is enough. More taxation, regulation, and litigation will not create more jobs.

The Clinton administration increased taxes, increased regulation and litigation and created over 22 million jobs.  Bush reduced taxation, regulation, and litigation which led to the loss of 7.9 million jobs, but please continue.

Government takeovers of the economy have failed while the size and the scope of the federal government has exploded.

Chrysler just paid back their government loans with interest this past Tuesday, 6 years early.  General Motors paid back its government loans with interest last April, 5 years ahead of schedule.  The government stepping in to prop up this struggling industry saved millions of jobs, created new jobs (new auto-parts plants have announced plans for opening where I live in Kansas City for example) and is the sole reason America is still making cars today.  Now that the auto loans have been paid back these actions ended up not costing the American taxpayers a dime.  TARP if you recall is that nasty little four-letter word also known as the "Wall Street bailout", the original line of credit extended was $700 billion but as of this past fall estimates that put that number closer to $25 billion and it's dropping each month, the expectation is that the government will actually make a profit on this venture just as it did with the auto industry bailout.  I guess the GOP's definition of failure is different from mine.

Empower Small Business Owners and Reduce Regulatory Burdens

Job creators are being bogged down by burdensome regulations from Washington that prevent job creation and hinder economic growth. These regulations are particularly damaging for the real job creators in the country: small business owners.

Ah yes that pesky regulation.  Thank goodness Republicans are for stripping regulations, that worked so well when they let Wall Street self-regulate didn't it?  Or how about when we allowed BP, Transocean, and Haliburton to do their own thing with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig?  Oh wait, that's right they cut corners which resulted in a rig explosion killing 11 workers, harming the environment, hurting the local economy, and costing them billions more than they would have spent in regulatory compliance.  De-regulating the meat industry would make beef cheaper right?  Maybe in the near-term but it wouldn't take long until thousands developed an illness from tainted beef resulting in lawsuits which would result in payments by the manufacturer who will have to increase prices to cover the risk of not following regulation.  But the GOP has an answer for this.  Remember earlier in their proposal when they mentioned litigation?  Their plan would not only remove regulations but prevent you from being able to sue those companies who injure you by cutting corners.  Keeping those businesses profitable.  But let us be clear, regulations do not harm small businesses and that's not who Republicans care about anyway, they want to remover regulations to help large businesses and corporations.  Small businesses are exempt from a lot of regulations due to their size, and the Obama administration has created targeted tax cuts to small businesses to help offset the cost of any new regulations, regulations that ultimately are put in place to protect and benefit their employees and customers.

Background: The House has already acted on several regulations that hurt job creators both large and small including: The EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases, the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality proposal, and duplicative and burdensome pesticide regulations.

The above actions were all taken to benefit large businesses and corporations and in many ways harm small businesses.  For example, opposing net neutrality would provide customers with faster routes to websites of large corporations while placing small business websites on a slower speed connection making it less likely for consumers to visit sites of smaller companies.

Fix the Tax Code to Help Job Creators

America’s tax code has grown too complicated and cumbersome, and it is fundamentally unfair. It is filled with loopholes and giveaways.

Here is one statement in their plan that I am in complete agreement with.  Let's see what they have to say next:

Congress should eliminate the special interest tax breaks that litter the code and reduce the overall

tax rate to no more than 25% for businesses and individuals including small business owners.

And now they've just lost me again.  We have a debt of over $14.2 trillion and according to the GOP solving that means decreasing revenue, I don't think the math works out on that one.  They also want to decrease the top tax rate to a level not seen since the 1930s when we were economically worse off than at any other point in our history.

At a combined state and federal rate of just over 39%, the U.S. currently has the second-highest corporate tax rate among the developed nations of the world (those in the OECD).

I am willing to concede that may be an accurate statistic so I'll take them at their word.  But the legal tax rate and the effective tax rate are two completely different things.  GE and Exxon are just a few companies that fall under the 39% combined tax rate but they don't pay anything in taxes, actually they get money from the government placing their effective tax rates in the negative.  That's got to be the lowest effective tax rate among the developed nations of the world.  How many more companies will avoid taxes if the rate is reduced to 25%? Here's a look at how it really works and why I agreed with their statement of the tax code being unfair:

Increase Competitiveness for American Manufacturers

For more than three years free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea have sat idle, blocked by House Democrats’ political posturing. As President Obama said on January 27, 2010, “If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the opportunity to create jobs on our shores.”

Another instance where I agree with the GOP, these trade agreements are vital to expansion of American manufacturing, will help create jobs, and increase exports.  But they're not telling the entire truth.  The reason these deals have been held up in Congress is because the GOP is refusing to extend the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program that has been supported by both sides of the aisle for over 50 years.  The TAA provides temporary unemployment and health insurance benefits to Americans whose jobs are shipped overseas as a result of these trade agreements.  Democrats feel that helping Americans who lose their jobs because of the agreements is the right thing to do.  Republicans on the other hand feel that money is more important than people and they don't feel that we can afford this program that has been a part of any trade agreement for 50 years even though there will be an increase in tax revenue from these deals will help offset the cost of TAA.

Maximize Domestic Energy Production to Ensure An Energy Policy for the Twenty-First Century

Since President Obama has taken office, American energy production has been halted and the average national price of gasoline has doubled. The rising cost of gasoline and dependence on foreign oil mean less money for families struggling to make ends meet and for business owner who are trying to get our economy moving again.

Did you catch that? It's all President Obama's fault that gas prices are high and I'm assuming we never had high fuel prices during the Bush administration.  The Republican solution is to expand domestic exploration and domestic production.  Never mind that we wouldn't see any benefit at the pump from these new sites for another 10 to 20 years at which time it would be really nice if we weren't so dependent on oil.  The real problem with gas prices is that crude oil prices are determined by speculation.  Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson surmised that speculation drove up the price of oil by as much as 40% during a recent Senate hearing.  Currently there is a lawsuit pending against Parnon Energy and Arcadia Energy alleging that they manipulated oil prices in 2008 resulting in $50 million for their efforts.  Until we address the real root of gas prices small businesses and individual Americans will continue to loose at the pump.

Pay Down America's Unsustainable Debt Burden and Start Living Within Our Means

President Obama and congressional Democrats have overseen the largest budget deficits in the history of the U.S. In the last two years, non-defense discretionary spending has increased by over 80%. They’ve maxed out our nation’s credit cards and are asking us to increase their credit limit so they can spend more. To create jobs and save our country from national bankruptcy, we must stop spending money we don’t have.

Notice they don't mention Defense spending in that statement, I guess we're going to continue the Bush policy of ignoring the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I think that everybody is in agreement that we must address deficit spending, but each side of the isle has a different idea of how this should be done.  Personally I am for reducing wastefull spending at this point, increasing taxes on the top 2% of Americans to the levels they were at during the Clinton administration, elimination of corporate tax loopholes, and elimination of tax subsidies to industries and businesses who do not require them.  After we are on better economic footing and the unemployment rate is down to an acceptable range I believe that then, and only then, we can address further cuts to spending beyond waste.  Republicans love to give the "kitchen table" analogy, you know the one where a struggling family is at the kitchen table to discuss their budget and reduce their household spending.  It's a fair analogy but their explanation doesn't go far enough and their proposals don't match reality.  Yes the family will reduce their household spending, but will do so smartly.  They will keep their mortgage, car payments (because that's how they get to work to make money), paying student loans, and other necessary spending.  They may cut things like cable, going to the movies, eating out, etc.  The expectation should be no different for the government, spending will need to be cut but not for programs that are essential to the success of the American people.  The Republicans wish to reduce revenue by slashing taxes to levels not seen sine the 1930s and here's where the analogy no longer works.  Once the family determines their budget and identifies where they can reduce spending you won't hear one of the parent's say "now I'll quit my job to help us pay these bills."  That's what the GOP is proposing, to address our debt and deficit we must reduce our revenue.  The math just doesn't work.

********

So there you have it, the House GOP's plan for putting Americans back to work.  It only took them 141 days to come up with a plan that contains less words than my review of their plan, I'm sure it will only take a few hundred more days to enact any of their proposed solutions.  In the meantime the Obama administration and legislation enacted by Democrats will continue to create 200,000+ private sector jobs each month.

Obama Position On Israel Is Status Quo

This past Thursday President Obama gave a speech laying out his policy on the Middle East.  The President covered a wide range of issues in this region to include the so-called "Arab Spring" uprisings, but some conservatives have focused all of their attention on one sentence; "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." 

GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was quoted as saying “President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus.”  Mr. Romney is joined by candidates Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum in disapproval of creating a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with land swaps.  “This is an outrage to peace, sovereignty of Israel, and a stable Middle East" according to Mike Huckabee.

But is their outrage justified or even rooted in historical facts?  Has Obama taken US policy towards Israel and Palestine in a radical new direction?  Have we abandoned Israel?  No.  President Obama's position is consistent with what US policy has been for the greater part of the past 44 years and more specifically he is continuing the policies started by President Clinton and George W. Bush.

William J. Clinton

The Clinton administration worked very hard to reach an agreement between Israel and Palestine through the Oslo Accords which laid out a phased plan to draw boundaries that would lead to a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines.  The Oslo Accords were followed-up by other efforts such as The Hebron Protocol, The Wye River Memorandum, and The Camp David 2000 Summit.

The "Clinton Parameters" laid out a land swap that would return Palestine to 97% of the land boarders as they were in 1967.  This is the same land swap that was mentioned in President Obama's speech.

George W. Bush

On June, 25th 2002 President Bush gave a speech laying out his roadmap for a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict; a roadmap that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state.  In this speech he notes the need to create borders in accordance to those outlined by the UN Security council in 1967.

In a 2004 letter written to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon President Bush requested that "as part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338."  UNSC Resolution 242 drafted in 1967 demanded that Israel withdraw from all territories it occupied as a result of the 6 Day War.  UNSC Resolution 338 drafted in 1973 condemned Israel for violating the sovereignty of Lebanon and called upon all parties involved to cease military action.

With the exception of the Reagan administration US policy towards this region has been for Israel to withdraw it's troops from territory it has gained from the 6 Day War of 1967.  There can be no solution to this conflict without creation of a Palestinian state, as long as the Palestinian’s feel they are being occupied there will be continued violence towards Israel.  But both sides must give ground to achieve peace, neither side will get everything it wants.  It all comes down to compromise.

I do not fault conservatives who feel that Israel is justified in its occupation of Palestinian territory and I do not fault anyone for rejecting the notion that Israel withdraw to its 1967 borders or that Palestine become a sovereign state.  I disagree with them, but I respect their position.  Where I do find fault is with those conservatives who make up their own facts, who are making it look as if President Obama is turning his back on Israel and bucking years of US policy.  On Friday Mr. Santorum wrote a piece for The National Review criticizing President Obama for his position, but he chose to ignore that Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton held the same views and also "prejudged" talks on the 1967 borders.  I confronted Mr. Santorum on this issue on Twitter presenting him with copies of speeches and documents from previous administrations who held the same position as the President but Mr. Santorum (or whomever runs his Twitter account) deleted my replies to his tweet.  You will only find supportive tweets on his account, I guess he didn't want his followers to know the truth.

Obama's position on Israel isn't radical, it's the status quo.  Some conservatives are just choosing their own set of facts.

Make A Donation To Support Iraq And Afghanistan Veterans

Dear Reader,

You will now notice a "Support My Blog" gadget on the left-hand side of this page.  All payments made to my blog via this gadget will be donated to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).  I have really enjoyed writing this blog and hope that you have enjoyed reading it, if each reader donated just $5 I think that we could easily raise thousands to support and organization that looks out for the interests of our newest generation of veterans.

Being an Iraq War veteran I am very passionate about veteran's issues and believe that giving a little to those who gave so much for us is the least we can do to show our appreciation and will let Iraq and Afghanistan vets know they're not forgotten.

Sincerely,

Chris Reese
(aka Fistshaking Liberal)

Rick Santorum Must Apologize

Last week Senator John McCain gave a passionate speech on the Senate floor dispelling rumors that information leading to the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was garnered from the "enhanced interrogation" method known as waterboarding, or more accurately, torture.  Senator McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for 5 1/2 years and was subjected to torture at the hands of his captors during this period, if anybody holding elected office today is an authority on torture and its effectiveness it is John McCain.  Not so according to former Senator Rick Santorum, a 2012 Republican Party presidential hopeful, who claims in during a radio interview conducted Tuesday that "everything I've read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten from information from people who were subjected to enhanced interrogation."  He went on to add "he (McCain) doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works."

Of course Mr. Santorum is no longer in government and would not be privy to any official information regarding the assassination of OBL or the discovery of information leading the US to Bin Laden, but like most other public figures who are no longer in government he claims to know for certain that torture played a vital role in our killing of Bin Laden.  The fact that John McCain is a sitting US Senator and that his floor speech was based on information given to him directly by CIA Director Leon Panetta seems to be of no consequence to Mr. Santorum.

I can fully understand former Bush administration officials who proclaim that torture led us to Bin Laden, they violated US and international law by waterboarding detainees and don't want their legacy to be that their policies not only didn't lead us to Bin Laden but hindered our efforts in obtaining vital information and put the lives of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at greater risk.  They are willing to continue to lie even when presented with factual evidence of events leading to the raid by SEAL Team Six in an effort to save face.  But I fail to understand why Rick Santorum would even address this issue, the politically safe thing would be to congratulate those involved in killing OBL and leave it at that.  Yet Mr. Santorum sees the need to align himself with a position held by an unpopular former administration and to slander a respected Senator and former POW in the process.  And Mr. Santorum does this with absolutely no evidence to support his position, even when presented with the facts provided by CIA Director Panetta that not only was the prisoner who fingered Bin Laden's messenger Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti not waterboarded, the US wasn't even in possession of nor interrogated said prisoner.

I have yet to see a current or former interrogator support waterboarding methods, most all of them agree that torture did not lead us to Bin Laden and that techniques such as waterboarding hinder our intelligence gathering efforts.  Yet some media outlets give credence to those former politicians who never participated in interrogations nor have any intelligence experience over those who actually interrogate or have interrogated prisoners.  Not only is Mr. Santorum wrong factually he is wrong to claim that a former POW who was subjected to torture "doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works."  It is because of this that we must demand that Rick Santorum apologize not only to Senator McCain but those members of our armed forces and intelligence services who know first-hand that waterboarding doesn't work.  He cannot be taken seriously as a candidate for president until he's willing to embrace the facts.

It's Not About The Budget

Tonight Senate Republicans filibustered a bill that would have ended the $21 billion Big Oil would have received in tax subsidies over the next 10 years.  The procedural motion that would have put the bill up to a vote failed with a tally of 52 - 48, and yes for those of us that passed grade school math 52 is more than 48 but due to the filibuster by the GOP the motion required 60 votes to break said filibuster.  The House GOP passed a bill extending these subsidies on Tuesday even though according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey I referenced in a previous blog post noted that 75% of Americans are against continuing these subsidies.

Republicans are holding the world economy hostage with the threat of not raising the US debt ceiling unless we make serious budget cuts.  Now as I've posted before and as the Tea Party has recently confirmed it's all a bluff, they will allow the debt ceiling to be raised prior to the Treasury running out of money in August.  But all of this brings me to my point, it's not about the budget.  The GOP really doesn't care about how much money the government spends, it's about where it's spent and who it's spent on.  Tonight's vote was a perfect example,  here you have a politically easy way to reduce spending by $21 billion for corporations who don't need the extra money.  I say it's politically easy because you have the support of 75% of the public, but instead you vote against it.  You vote against it because it's Big Oil who is making large contributions to your re-election effort.  Instead you vote to cut Medicaid, do away with Medicare, shrink unemployment benefits, and cut education because the majority of those who benefit from these services are unable to make large contributions to your campaign.  I know I sound like a broken record but the GOP only represents the few at the top, they do this at the expense of the rest of us.

This will probably get lost in the spin or the next political distraction but when 2012 comes around we need to remember who voted to keep tax subsidies for the most profitable industry in the country while making up for that loss on the backs of the elderly and our children.  The GOP could have done the right thing tonight, but instead they focused on the money not the budget.

How About Those Jobs?

On May 6th the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the April 2011 jobs report showing that 244,000 jobs were created in April (actually 268,000 private sector jobs were created while we lost 24,000 in government jobs) with unemployment rising from 8.8% to 9%.  The small increase in unemployment is usually considered a sign that confidence is up among job seekers with more people actively looking for jobs.  In just the past 3 months the private sector has grown by 760,000 jobs.  Surprisingly I have found it nearly impossible to find statistics for job growth outside of the past 3 months, from what I can put together I can estimate private sector job growth under the Obama administration to currently stand somewhere between 3.5 to 4 million (jobs have decreased in the public sector, that is a Republican initiative).  If this estimate holds true we have recovered roughly half of the 7.7 million jobs lost during the recession.

Of course only recovering half of jobs lost isn't good enough and I'm certain that many of the unemployed are not comforted by the statistics that I have provided and that is completely understandable.  That is primarily why we ended up with a GOP controlled House of Representatives after this most recent mid-term election.  Republicans knew that voters were upset and discouraged by the slowness of job growth and made job creation their #1 campaign priority (or maybe a close 2nd behind repealing the Affordable Care Act).  They chose to not mention the fact that it was the Republicans who filibustered, watered-down, and put up road blocks to many of the Dem's economic recovery policies, the policies that are creating jobs now at a much slower pace than what the Democrats wanted.  Job growth was something the country could get behind and I think most voters figured they would give the GOP a chance to do better than the Democrats did.  In January the House convened session and promised to focus on jobs.

So how have they done at this point?  Over 200,000 private sector jobs created in each of the last 3 months, that's something right?  Unfortunately for those who voted Republican this time around the job growth has nothing to do with GOP initiatives, in fact (remember this is a FACT) the GOP hasn't introduced a single bill that has anything to do with job creation.  That's right, they campaigned on jobs being their #1 priority and even though it's now May they still  haven't introduced any job-creating legislation.  I went online to see how many bills have been passed in the House so far and what they pertain to.  To date they have passed 40 bills (120+ if you count continuing resolutions, joint resolutions, and procedural rules) and almost none of them have made it passed the Senate and none of them have anything to do with jobs.  Here's a few of the highlights from this session so far with links to the full bill and votes in parenthesis (Yea-Nay):

HR2 Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (245-189)
  -I especially liked this title, it would repeal the Affordable Care Act and in doing so would add all of the savings outlined by the CBO back onto our deficit.  Doesn't create jobs.

HR3 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (251-175)
  -In its original format it redefined "rape" but that part got dropped once that was brought to light, essentially they passed a bill for something that's already illegal.  Doesn't create jobs.

HR292 Stop the OverPrinting (STOP) Act (399-0)
  -Requires bills to be communicated to members of congress in electronic format.  Doesn't create jobs.

HR359 To Reduce Federal Spending and the Deficit by Terminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns and Party Conventions (239-160)
  -Gets rid of that check box on your tax form asking if you wish to donate $3 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Doesn't create jobs.

HR570 Dental Emergency Responder Act of 2011(401-12)
  -Adds dental health facilities to NHSS for public health emergencies.  Doesn't create jobs.

HR836 Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act (242-177)
  -Cancels all remaining funding for and terminates a program designed to help keep people in their homes and to help keep banks from taking a loss on foreclosures.  Doesn't create jobs and puts people on the streets!

HR872 Reducing Regulatory Burdens ACT of 2011 (292-130)
  -Prevents the EPA from enforcing the Clean Water Act, who needs clean water anyway?  Doesn't create jobs.

HR1231 Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act (243-179)
  -This was passed during the BP oil spill, the President placed a moratorium on offshore drilling until we could find out what caused the Horizon rig explosion.  The GOP felt better about moving forward with drilling even though the same problems could have existed on other rigs.  Doesn't create jobs.

That's pretty much it, there were a few bills to build new post offices, some procedural things, the budget bill, and a few more bills that attempted to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act and other Obama initiatives and items that help Americans.  The fact is that the GOP doesn't care about jobs, I feel that I can safely say that because after 5 months in power they've not acted on job creation.  As I've said time and time again, the GOP represents the interests of the very few at the very top which is why they've put more effort in reducing taxes for the rich and continuing corporate welfare programs (such as oil industry tax subsidies) than putting Americans back to work.

To borrow a phrase from Kieth Olbermann, where are the jobs Speaker Boehner?

A Call To Serve Those Who Served

Veteran's issues have always been close to my heart, as an Iraq War veteran and Operation Enduring Freedom veteran I've seen first-hand the physical afflictions of war as well as the mental strain on those who have shared these experiences.  I was both gratified and heartbroken when I learned of yesterday's 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals' ruling on Veterans for Common Sense vs Eric Shinseki et al.  The Court ruled that the VA displayed incompetence in dealing with veteran's mental health issues and failed to fulfill their responsibilities to our nation's veterans.

According to an e-mail from VA Deputy Secretary Ira Katz, and noted in Judge Reinhardt's opinion, on an average day 18 of our country's veterans take their own lives.  No you did not just misread that statistic, each day we lose on average 18 of our nation's veterans from nothing other than afflictions that have gone untreated by those charged with their care.  An additional 1000 of our veterans attempt suicide each month and according to a 2008 study by the RAND Institute 18.5% of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  These are appalling statistics.

But the VA, Congress, and the Bush and Obama administrations addressed this right?  We must have anticipated that waging 2 wars would result in a huge influx of VA claims?  Apparently not.  According to Judge Reinhardt it takes on average more than 4 years to fully adjudicate a claim for benefits.  Currently there are 756,000 pending claims according to VA budget documents with over 84,000 waiting for mental health care.  In the meantime congress has kept itself busy by slashing the budget, extending tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, and attempting to redefine what "rape" is by passing a bill to make illegal what already is illegal via HR 3.

Why is this ruling and the problems identified by this lawsuit not front-page news?  I need to give credit to my hometown paper the Kansas City Star for running an AP story on their front-page regarding this issue but after scanning the Internet there has been next to zero coverage of this, and any that I can find is buried.  Where's the outrage?  Where's the public outcry?  We are a nation that is appreciative of our veterans, but we only seem to express this appreciation on Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, and Independence Day.  I flew in full desert uniform on my way home from Iraq in 2006, nobody seemed to notice nor care.  Sure we'll spend days covering a royal wedding, a birth certificate, and who will be voted off Dancing with the Stars but when an organization sheds light on the neglect of the needs of those who volunteered to sacrifice everything for us where is their support?  Where is their voice?  Who will speak on their behalf?

I am issuing a call to serve those who served.  The American people need to be the voice of our protectors, we need to demand justice for our veterans.  First we need to contact the Veteran's Administration and demand that they do not appeal this ruling, they need to address their shortcomings as identified by the 9th Circuit and draft a real plan to address these issues.  Next we need to contact our representatives in congress to pass legislation necessary to hold the VA accountable and to provide protections and venues to our veterans who are not receiving the care they need.  We then need to tell congress to stop worrying so much about the budget and authorize any funding necessary to help the VA facilitate care.  Finally we need the Obama administration's leadership in helping to coordinate these efforts just as they have done with other policies as of late.  And after we've made our voices heard by those who have turned a deaf ear each of us must look into ourselves to evaluate what we've done for our veterans lately.  There are organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) who are always looking for volunteers to assist veterans, they're just waiting for you to answer the call.

The call is out, will you answer?  Each day we delay action we lose another 18 veterans, we owe them more.  We owe them everything.

People Come First, Everything Else Is Second

I was watching TV the other day and saw a commercial for Allstate, in that commercial they talked about helping the people first.  They gave examples of providing coffee for parents of a tragedy and handing out over 12,000 teddy bears for children, the commercial ends with the line "people come first, everything else is second."  I'm certainly not plugging Allstate but I found that to be a very touching commercial and hope that Allstate truly feels and acts that way.  Then it got me to thinking, isn't that the very principal our government should be operating on?

We have a government of the people, by the people, for the people; or at least that's what President Lincoln believed when giving the Gettysburg Address.  But is that truly the desire of those who hold office in our government?

Healthcare

Unless you were sequestered last year you probably watched some coverage on the debate of the Affordable Care Act (or as the right endearingly refers to as "Obamacare").  The philosophy of one side is that healthcare is a privilege, for the other side it's a right.  The conservatives feel that anybody who cannot afford insurance is not worthy of having it and should be relegated to dying on the streets, or at least that is what I'm left to suppose as they don't offer an alternative.  The adage we often repeat that was penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" apparently doesn't apply.  I suppose some will ignore the definition of "unalienable" or the fact that the right to life would include the healthcare necessary to sustain that life.  Fortunately the Left was able to pass the Affordable Care Act that will provide healthcare to millions who otherwise wouldn't be eligible for insurance, putting people first.  It had to be done with the health insurance mandate instead of the public option which is a Republican initiative.  Don't believe me?  Just look back to 1994 when Clinton was dealing with healthcare and see which party proposed the mandate or what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts.

Unemployment Insurance

If you work you pay into unemployment insurance through taxes, this provides you up to a 99 week safety net (depending on what state you live in) to help keep you sheltered, clothed, and fed if you are dismissed from your job through no fault of your own.  This is not a "hand out" as you pay into this plan, just the same way your car insurance isn't a "hand out" if you need repairs to your vehicle after a car accident.  But Republican legislators in states such as Michigan, Missouri, Florida, among others are looking to reduce these benefits in the name of balancing the budget (without actually balancing their respective budgets).  The conservatives from these states choose to ignore the fact that it will cost more to house, clothe, and feed these individuals if they didn't have unemployment insurance to make their house payments and avoid foreclosure and instead become a burden on the state, but that's just splitting hairs I suppose.  I guess children being able to live in their house while a parent, or both parents, look for a job is a luxury the state can't afford.  Democrats are putting people first and fighting against these benefit reductions.

Medicare/Medicaid

The GOP members of the US House recently voted for a budget that would eliminate Medicare as we know it and reduce federal payments to Medicaid.  As I've written about before these changes will shift the burden of healthcare costs to seniors (27% of out-of-pocket costs now compared to 68% under the GOP plan according to the CBO) and funnel that money private insurance.  The primary recipients of Medicaid are the disabled, older citizens who require nursing home care, and children of poor families; people who cannot work to earn their own insurance nor have representation in Washington.  This was done because the deficit weighs more importantly than the needs of the vulnerable; and the millions spent lobbying  for privatization of Medicare by the insurance industry probably had something to do with it as well.  Democrats in the House and Senate are standing up against this plan, putting people first.

Education

We've all seen the attack on teachers in states like Wisconsin and the attack on federal spending for education.  Apparently the Right feels that ranking 21st in science and 25th in mathematics must be good enough because Republicans on the federal and state levels have been working to reduce funding for education with wild abandon.  Even though our children are falling behind those in other nations we find ourselves competing with economically, we must sacrifice our children's success in the effort to save the government money.  Obama and liberals in congress are standing up for our children and teachers to ensure America returns to number 1 in education, they are putting people first.

Regulation

Let us cut through the BS, regulations are put in place to protect people and not so incidentally they also help businesses.  Take the BP oil spill for example, had we had effective regulation and regulators in place perhaps 11 rig workers would still be alive today, fisherman would not have lost thousands by not being able to fish, and (my conservative friends may want to sit down for this) BP would actually have benefited by not having to have spent billions in clean-up costs and compensation to victims (yes regulation does benefit businesses, whether they wish to believe it or not).  But conservatives are always advocating against regulation because they falsely believe that it hurts business, ignoring that these regulations are put in place to help people.  Liberals think otherwise and put the safety of Americans over the interests of profit margins.

"People first" is a philosophy that us bleeding-heart liberals live by and lead by.  There is a distinct divide in our political prerogatives, conservatives govern for the almighty dollar, placing its importance above that of the people.  Liberals believe that when people do well the country does well.  People come first, everything else is second.  This is the creed we should govern by, liberals already are.

OBL Assassination: Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

As you probably already know Osama Bin Laden was assassinated last night by US forces in Pakistan.  The fact that he was hiding in Pakistan probably wasn't much of a surprise to anybody but what was surprising to many was that he was hiding in plain sight in Abbottabad, Pakistan which is a Pakistani 'military city" less than 2 hours north of the capital city of Islamabad.  But should we have been surprised that he wasn't hiding in a cave in "no-man's land" near the Pakistan-Afghan border?  I have suspected for quite some time that the Pakistani government has played a role in hiding Bin Laden and the details from last night's raid have helped to validate those suspicions.  Fortunately President Obama wasn't to keen on playing along with Pakistan's ruse and focused his hunt for Bin Laden in that country despite protests from his critics.

I wasn't sure if I wanted to write a blog entry about the assassination of OBL at all, especially one that politicizes the issue.  I have felt for quite some time that killing Bin Laden wasn't of much strategic value and would not make us safer. Al Qaeda has splintered into many factions since our invasion of Afghanistan and this along with the pressure from the international community searching for Bin Laden had essentially relegated him to just being a figurehead, not an involved leader.  Don't get me wrong I still felt it was necessary to pursue and capture or kill him, but mainly because this would have been good for the American psyche and after the Bush administration became distracted I just assumed we would have to wait until he died of natural causes or an accident.  But after watching and reading political assessments from commentators who are giving credit to President George W. Bush's policies and, even President Bush himself, I feel I must interject.

There are several flaws to the "continuation of Bush policies" argument and I'd like to start with the Bush administration's pre 9/11 mindset.  Bill Clinton was said by some of his staff to be "obsessed" with Bin Laden, he had even given an order to the CIA after the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Africa to capture Bin Laden and even authorized use deadly force if needed.  The US did launch multiple attacks on Bin Laden between 1998 to 2000 without success.  Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke held initial meetings with Bush's incoming staff to include Condoleezza Rice stressing how important it was to take on al Qaeda, from their accounts (and those of others) those pleas fell on deaf ears.  Richard Clarke made multiple requests to address the al Qaeda issue (you can read a released memo here) but to no avail (his position was eventually demoted to a non-cabinet level position).  After serving less than 7 months in office President Bush decided he deserved a month long vacation to be taken in August 2001.  At this point there was no substantial effort on the part of the Bush administration to deal with al Qaeda and it was during this vacation that the infamous August 6th Presidential Daily Brief that stated al Qaeda had and was planning to carryout attacks within the United States, likely with aircraft.  It even said that al Qaeda operatives were witnessed conducting surveillance operations in New York City.  Shortly after his month long vacation was over al Qaeda carried out their attacks on September 11th, we all are aware of what happened then.  I think you will agree that Bush's pre 9/11 policy on terrorism was a failed policy.

The next flaw of the "continuation of Bush policies" argument is perhaps the worst.  The Taliban in Afghanistan harbored and aided Bin Laden in the training of his terrorist operatives, including those that carried out the attacks on 9/11.  Going after the Taliban, Bin Laden, and al Qaeda in Afghanistan was good policy; pulling troops out of that fight to invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, terrorism, or national defense was reckless.  The worst thing that could have been done in regards to bringing Bin Laden to justice was moving resources to Iraq, we just didn't have enough boots on the ground to mount a serious effort to "get" Bin Laden.  Let us be clear, according to internal accounts from Bob Woodward and others Iraq was foreign policy issue #1 for the Bush administration, even before the 9/11 attacks.  They used the murders of thousands of Americans to help justify a war they wanted to wage before they took office anyway and ultimately helped Bin Laden escape and emboldened al Qaeda around the world.  Then there's the Battle of Tora Bora, this is where US troops along with other allies had Bin Laden cornered but we let him get away.  The Bush administration thought it would be beneficial to have Pakistani military forces go after Bin Laden, but as we now know those same forces helped escort him across the Afghanistan border into Pakistan to hide.  Bush's lack of knowledge of that region, a tribal region sympathetic to Bin Laden and his efforts, allowed him to slip through our grasp.  I think you will agree that Bush's war policy was a failed policy.

The final fault of the "continuation of Bush policies" argument was the administration's policy towards Pakistan.  As I had stated earlier I felt that Pakistan aided Bin Laden and I believe that those in Pakistan's government were sympathetic to him (I'm confident that I wasn't alone in that feeling).  Bush apparently did not share my assessment.  Bush saw Pakistan as an ally, so much so that he authorized over $1.5 billion to be given to Pakistan to aid them in the war effort (you can see the administration's policy towards Pakistan here) but as we have now found out Bin Laden was hiding amongst the US funded army all along.  Abbottabad is a military city, a military city that had a $1 million mansion/complex built 5 years ago that housed Bin Laden, and we're supposed to believe that nobody noticed.  I think the New Yorker stated it better than I can "bin Laden was effectively being house under Pakistani state control."  Anytime some military or intelligence officer suggested entering or flying over Pakistan then President Pervez Musharraf would protest, and Bush would appease him (and continue to give him US taxpayer dollars for "assisting" in our efforts).  The good money was on Bin Laden being in Pakistan, but Bush decided not to pursue him there.  I think you will agree that Bush's policy on Pakistan was a failed policy.

Enter Barack Obama.  Candidate Obama campaigned on taking the fight to Bin Laden in Pakistan if there was intelligence that would validate such action.  If you recall this was "controversial" and he was criticized by both the right and the left on this position.  This included Republican candidate Senator John McCain who, like Bush, considered Pakistan an ally and felt that it would be inappropriate to conduct military operations within that country or over it's airspace.  Unlike President Bush, President Obama has at least a basic knowledge of that region and realized that Pakistan wasn't an ally in the true sense of the word, they were our "ally" only because we were funneling over $1.5 billion to them.  Their actions (or lack of action if you will) clearly demonstrated otherwise.  He campaigned on making the monetary aid to Pakistan conditional and would take Pakistan to task on combating terrorism.  After taking office he shifted our focus back on Afghanistan and Pakistan by withdrawing troops from Iraq, increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, and began conducting drone strikes in Pakistan.  He enacted policies that were a complete 360 to Bush's policies and made getting Bin Laden foreign policy issue #1 (remember Bush basically gave up in March 2002).  He then authorized the operation that was conducted yesterday, a carefully and smartly planned operation at that.  We all know the results of that action.

Make no mistake, it was the renewed search enacted by President Obama's policies that led to our killing Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.  Certainly we can't give full credit to the President, it took the intelligence community, our troops, and others in our government to execute these policies.  But we have to give credit where credit is due, Bin Laden is dead today because of President Obama's policies and President Bush nor his policies had anything to do with it.

I thought about ending this blog with that last paragraph but felt that I couldn't leave out this quote from our "ally."  Former President Perves Musharraf was quoted as saying (in response to the US killing Bin Laden, you know the guy they were helping us get) "America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty.  Handling and execution of the operation [by US forces] is not correct" and he went on to say "US forces should not have crossed into Pakistan."  Some ally huh?  Pakistan is a terrorist state, we will see that come to light as this story develops further, who knows what could have happened if Bush had come to that same realization.