Ignore our elected officials. Focus instead on the private interests that finance their campaigns and to the lobbyists that write their script and give them their orders. These shadow powers-that-be are our real government. The politicos we read about and see strutting their stuff on TV are but puppets on a short string. They don't matter. And We the People who vote for them under the illusion that they do matter, matter even less.
1/1/11
So What If We're Not No.1 Anymore
Given the fact that the populations of China and India are respectively 4.5 and 4.2 larger than that of the U.S.; and that their workers are on average younger and just as well, or perhaps better, educated, then it should not come as a surprise that in the next decade their economies will, as reliable sources predict, surpass that of the U.S. Alarming news for us Americans? Not at all. Dropping from first to third (or fourth--the European Union has already surpassed us) will not necessarily translate into a diminish standard of living or unhappiness for our individual citizens. President Barack Obama’s cheerleading speech about the need to out-produce the rest of the world in every regard, at all costs, in order to stay on top, would only make sense if economics were an Olympic event. But the game to be played here is of a different sort. To win this game we need to improve our act from within, in effect, compete against ourselves, not the world. A healthy, well-employed, prosperous population will keep us on top even if our economy is no longer number one.
The Root Cause-Industry
That pundits of every hue and stripe have built secure careers delving into the “root causes” of crime, poverty, prejudice, injustice, mental disorders, drug addiction, war and such other evils is not surprising. If the roots causes of evil were discoverable they would have been discovered and effectively dealt with eons ago. But because not even the greatest thinkers in history have been able to come close to offering credible explanations, the root-causes of evil remain an open question, a subject that can be at infinitum rehashed by pundits without incurring the risk of chancing upon the truth and, thereby, rendering their profession irrelevant. A recession-proof gig if you can get it.
They're not Sick. They're Evil.
They who deem themselves morally correct argue that individuals prone to violence cannot be held accountable for their actions because they don’t know what they are doing. As with any sick person, they should be treated and cured, not punished.
Those good folks fail to consider that only a minute fraction of the mentally-disturbed, outright psychotics even, are violent. Some perfectly sane individuals, on the other hand--hired assassins, gung-ho mercenaries, and such--kill without compunction. It would appear, then, that the proclivity for violence is not a function of insanity or sanity. Nor does environment seem to be a factor. Some individuals, obviously, are born killers.
Psychologists and psychiatrists might be able to diagnose a mental illness (actually any lay person can tell in five minutes if someone is mentally unstable)and couch their findings in scientific jargon. After all, that's their livelihood. But do they command the science to treat and cure the mentally ill? Is there any hard evidence that they have ever cured anyone, much less a born killer?
I, for one, hold that for the good of society, the violence-prone, insane or otherwise, should be incarcerated for life, or executed, as the law allows. The trade-off should not be hard to accept: Better to make life safe for innocent people at large than to worry about the rights of a few individuals bereft of a normal conscience. If someone, sane or not, broke into my house to harm my family and I had a gun handy, I would shoot first and mull the moral issue and legal consequences later. I thank our Founding Fathers for our Second Amendment rights.
My Constitutional Right to Bear Arms
As Ulysses S. Grant noted, the way to tell a bad law from a good one is that the a bad law cannot be enforced. The overly-strict gun-control ordinances in cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C. offer clear examples of bad, unenforceable laws. Considering the high incidence of street crime in such urban centers, the politically-correct policy of coddling youthful offenders, and the shortage of police officers to deal with the problem, it is not unreasonable to assume that more than a few otherwise law-abiding citizens have acquired firearms illegally, and are not reluctant to use them to protected themselves, their families, or their property. For most, that basic survival instinct takes precedence over formal compliance with the law. Given the choice of staying alive and being legally wrong, or being legally right and dead, most sane folks would choose the former.
Proponents of repealing the Second Amendment and banning private ownership of guns altogether, trot out statistics showing that that there are far more cases of gun owners using their guns on family members, neighbors and coworkers, or to commit suicide, than to take out a criminal in self defense. But what that anti-gun argument fails to consider is that acts of self defense involving guns are not officially recorded by the police or reported by the sensation-peddling news media, unless the assailant is killed or wounded. If the gun owner merely scares off a would-be by showing him his weapon or firing into the air, no one hears about it, and no stats are kept.
Street thugs, as a general rule, do not score high on I.Q. tests. Many are marginally retarded. But most compensate by developing keen animal instincts. They can usually sense, better than a person of normal intelligence, when somebody wielding a gun means business, and prudently back off.
I recall from my youth in Cuba that one of the first things that Fidel Castro did when he came to power was to confiscate all private firearms. ¿Armas para qué?, (why guns?) droned the official slogan over the state-controlled radio, and the Cuban masses, still basking in the triumph of La Revolución willingly, trustingly, gullibly, stupidly turned in their firearms. The shrewd Lider Máximo thus prevented the people from ever taking up arms against him.
The Founding Fathers who conceived the Second Amendment were more than mere intellectuals. All were also schooled in the real world, in the image of Plato’s philosopher kings. I, for one, am not about to question their wisdom.
American Justice Again the Loser
That the jury in the Casey Anthony murder trial got sidetracked with legal trivialities and lost sight of justice was to be expected. There is a reason why defense lawyers select the most gullible, swayable, undiscerning, unintelligent jurors possible.
As stated in the Original Constitution—Bill of Rights, Amendment 6, defendants are guaranteed a free and speed trial by an impartial jury, not by a jury of one’s peers, as defense lawyers and liberal judges have since perverted that right. The kind of impartial jury the Founding Fathers had in mind was not one randomly made up of average folks like our neighbors down the street. Rather, it was to be judiciously selected from the better-informed, if not educated, and fair-minded members of the community, an English Common Law practice harking back to the 12th century. Unless our courts get back in line with the tradition of jury selection as understood by the Founding Fathers, travesties like the Casey Anthony, O’J. Simpson, Al Capone and other hyped-up murder trials—the list is long—will continue to make a mockery of American criminal law.
American For Profit Health Care
Given the boondoggle of K-12 public education and the unbridled government waste in America at all levels—Federal, state, and municipal—one is justified in doubting the effectiveness of a government-run health care system. On the other hand, the private insurance system in place for the past 70 years obviously is not working, and the reason it’s not working, and can never work, is that the competitive, free-market mindset of insurance companies consists of cutting costs and making money for its investors, not on how well they serve the sick. That kind of competitiveness no doubt works well with producers of material products like home appliances and automobiles, where success can be clearly measured in dollars and cents on a quarterly basis, but not with providers of services like health care where success is long-range and qualitative. Entrusting health care to private for-profit corporations is no less absurd than proposing the same for the Armed Forces, the FBI or our national parks.
Consider the spiraling costs. When a patient sues a doctor for malpractice, he doesn’t sue the doctor, for the patient’s lawyer knows that the doctor, however well remunerated, doesn’t earn enough to make the legal expenses and risk of losing the lawsuit worthwhile. Whom the lawyer sues, to the hilt, is the doctor’s insurance company, the party with the deep pockets. This, then, forces the insurance company to raise malpractice premiums, which doctors, in turn, passes on to his patients’ employers by raising fees, and employers, in turn, pass down the cost to their employees by paying them less. If employers do not provide health insurance, then the employees, being at the lowest rung of the pecking order, cannot pass down the cost down any further and have no choice but to cover the costs out of pocket, which can, and often does, push an average household to the brink of bankruptcy. And if someone in the household happens to have a pre-existing condition, or has the misfortune of becoming one of the 9.6% working-age Americans unemployed (some say the actual figure is twice that), health insurance of any sort is out of the question.
Then there are the added costs, in billions of dollars, in paper work and red tape. A sizable part of a business, hospital or doctor’s clerical staff is devoted exclusively to dealing with convoluted insurance forms, further complicated by the fact that every insurance company has its own set of forms and requirements. And if a doctor doesn’t accept a patient’s insurance
policy, which is becoming increasingly the case, then the patient has to spend hours filling the forms to get benefit he is entitle to, or get stuck with the bill.
Conservative leaders in the U.S. hold that the for-profit American health care system is the best in the world, and, as proof, cite cases of foreign citizens who opt to come to the United States for medical treatment rather than rely on their nations’ state-run “socialist” system. But they conveniently neglect to mention that those foreign citizens are well-to-do individuals for whom cost is not a factor. For ordinary foreign wage earners, however, the cost of medical treatment in the U.S. would be prohibitive. A Canadian clerk earning $25,000 year, for example, couldn’t possibly afford to pay for a $30.000+ heart-bypass operation in the U.S. Though he might have to wait longer in line for the procedure, his only viable option is to rely on his Canadian public system, or even pay out of pocket under a private plan, the average cost under such a plan being one-third of a comparable one in the U.S. In countries like India, Indonesia, China, South Korea and Thailand, it would be even less, and with no difference in quality or success rate, their surgeons, hospital care and state of the art equipment being every bit as good as that in America. Maybe the American for-profit health care system is, as jingoistic U.S. leaders claim, the best in the world, but if that’s the case, Why is it that no other country in the world would consider adopting it?
U.S. Health Care Not Best in World
In keeping with the conservative canon of his party, a Republican Senator from the State of Wyoming contended on national television that the for-profit American health care system is the best in the world, and, as proof, cited the case of Canadian Premier Danny Williams who opted to come to the United States for heart surgery rather than rely on his nation’s state-run “socialist” system. But the Senator conveniently neglect to mention that the Premier was a wealthy man for whom cost was not a factor. For an ordinary foreign wage earner the cost of medical treatment in the U.S. would be prohibitive. A Canadian clerk earning $25,000 year, for example, couldn’t possibly afford to pay for a routine $30,000 heart-bypass operation in the U.S. Though he might have to wait longer in line for the procedure, his only viable option is to rely on his Canadian public system, or even pay out of pocket under a private plan, the average cost under such a plan in Canada being one-third of a comparable one in the U.S. In most other countries, it would be even less, and with no difference in quality or success rate. Maybe the American for-profit health care system is indeed the best in the world, but if that’s the case, Why is it that no other country in the world would consider adopting it?
And why is it that rather than foreigners coming to the U.S. in droves for medical treatment the reverse is true? According to Medical Tourism statistics the number of American patients seeking healthcare abroad in 2007 was between 500,000 and 700,000, with the figure expected to double by 2011. And this not only because the cost of treatment abroad, travel and living expenses included, is considerably cheaper, but also because the technology in Medical Tourism centers is state-of-the art and the waiting period for treatment shorter than in the U.S. Leading Medical Tourism nations include Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Costa Rica, Panama, Costa Rica and Mexico.
Another U.S. Senator, this one from the State of Alabama, declared that the American health care system “is the best the world has ever known." He should corroborate his data with the millions of unemployed, uninsured citizens in America. Many might have a second opinion.
Ryan Health Care: Bad Social Engineering
Congressman’s Paul Ryan’s plan to bring down the spiraling Medicare costs in America is, in a nutshell, as follows: Starting in 2022 eligible beneficiaries would receive a subsidy to purchase health insurance in the open market. Though the subsidy would cover only about one fourth of the cost, the rest would be covered out of pocket by the beneficiaries themselves. However, by negotiating with competing insurance companies, the beneficiaries could significantly reduce their share of the cost. The Federal Government would thus start privatizing Medicare—obviously the long-range scheme—taxpayers then would be relieved of the burden, beneficiaries would become smarter consumers, and insurance companies more efficient providers. A free-market win-win all around.
But here questions arise. For the plan to work, future beneficiaries must be required, by law, to pay into a special fund, as is the case with Social Security. But wouldn’t this fund have to be entrusted to a government or government appointed agency? And as we speak, aren’t 27 states arguing in court that a similar compulsory requirement in Obamacare is un-Constitutional? And how about the beneficiaries? Are most physically and mentally hale enough to spend hours on end poring over the inscrutable legalese of insurance contracts? Wouldn’t this spawn a side industry of pricy advisers, con men and lawsuits? And what guarantee is there that insurance companies would compete to serve senior citizens, most of whom are retirees on a tight budget? How could private insurance companies turn enough profit from it to stay in business?
Say what you will about Newt “foot-in-the-mouth” Gingrich. He was right on the money when he blurted that both the Ryan scheme and Obama care were forms of social engineering, and, one may add, bad social engineering at that.
The Balanced Budget Dilemma
Conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike have limited the 2011 budget deficit debate to two variable, costs and taxes. The third variable, borrowing, they have conveniently ignored. In mathematical terms, the full equation is this: Government Spending = Existing Tax Revenues x Borrowing. So, if American politicos want to preserve their constituents entitlement and pet discretionary programs, while, at the same time, cutting taxes, they would have to make up for the lost tax revenue by borrowing money, thereby adding to the national debt and, in effect, kicking the problem down the road for future generations to deal with it.
This was exactly how the short-lived economic spurts during the Reagan and Bush Son administrations were engineered in the 1980’s and 2000’s. Myth has it that because taxes were cut across the board business were able to expand, earn more revenue, hire more workers, and, as a result, the tax cuts were amply offset by business and consumers paying more in total taxes though at a lower rate. A win-win all around. But what really spurred those economic spurts was borrowing. During the Reagan, the national debt tripled, and under Bush Son it doubled. “Voodoo Economics,” that’s what Bush Father aptly called “Reaganomics” when campaigning against Reagan in the 1980 Presidential primary. He knew that even if businesses took advantage of lower taxes to increase production, which business are not necessarily inclined to do, it would take years, even decades, for profits to kick in. The “Reaganomics” quick fix was really a massive borrowing spree.
But back to the 2011 deficit debate. Clearly, if Republican conservatives and liberal Democrats want to preserve their constituents pet programs without increasing the national debt, they will have to raise taxes. And if they choose to cut taxes without raising the debt, then the only solution is to decimate their pet programs, and run the risk of triggering a revolt and getting voted out of office. Given the fact that the American economy is not growing to a significant degree, if at all, that little or no new wealth is forthcoming from other sources any time soon, those are the only options. Not a good time these days to be an elected official in America.
Tea Party Constitutional Ignorance
The reading of the Constitution on the House of Representatives orchestrated by newly-elected Tea Party Republicans to advance their political and social views was an embarrassing display of ignorance. Had they studied the Constitution in its entirety and the reasoning of the Founding Fathers beforehand, they would have learned that the iconic document is not the blueprint for small government, lower taxes, cost cutting, state rights, and laissez faire economics that they though. Quite the contrary, from the 1789 original through the subsequent Amendments, the tenor of the Constitution is for a strong central government, increased spending, strict regulations and ever greater taxing powers, culminating with the Tax on Income foisted by the 16th Amendment (1913). It should be noted that the most repeated phrase in the "Congress shall have the power to . . ."
As Alexander Hamilton, New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, put it: “A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events.” And acquiring revenue at all events, as the need arises could only be assured by investing a central government with the power to levy new or increase existing axes, mainly against consumption. (Taxing personal income would have been abhorrent as abhorrent to him as it was to his political rival Thomas Jefferson.) The Federalist Papers #12 (1787).
A strong “republic,” not a weak “democracy” was, what James Madison of Virginia and the other Federalist who carried the day wanted for America. The Federalist Papers #10 (1787)
Ideologically, our modern day Tea Partiers are more in tune with the state- rights Anti-Federalist delegates who lost the debate, like the anonymous Brutus, who held that under the kind of strong Republic advocated by the Federalists, “No state can emit paper money—lay any duties or imposts, on imports, or exports, but by consent of Congress . . . the legislatures of the several states will find it impossible to raise monies to support their governments. Without money they cannot be supported , and they must dwindle away, and, as observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government.” The Anti-Federalist Papers #1 (1787)
Another Anti-Federalist with whom our Tea Partiers have much in common was Virginia delegate George Mason, who refused to sign the Constitution , rejecting the whole thing out of hand on the grounds that “This government will set out a moderated aristocracy: it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy, or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in one or the other.” (Quoted from The Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, Penguin Putnam, (2003)
Though he signed off on the document, Pennsylvania delegate Benjamin Franklin had strong reservation , as did Thomas Jefferson, who was at the time serving as ambassador to France.
Perhaps it would be a good idea if candidates for public office were required to pass a test on the Constitution. The thought that so many of our elected officials idolatrize yet bank on the document without knowing anything about it is disturbing. Let us hope our newly elected Tea Partiers to Congress are not as unintelligent as they are ignorant.
Our Born-Again Evangelical President Obama
You have to give him credit. Our 44th President is one clever, not to say, wily, politician. But of late he has become a bit too transparent. First, following the “shellacking,” his party took in the 2010 elections, he suddenly shifted from left to right off center by cozying up to the business sector, which he had virtually ignored and even denounced during his 2008 Presidential campaign. And now, to dispel suspicions that he might be a foreign-born Muslim and, thereby, burnish his true-blood American Christian image for the upcoming 2012 elections, he recently declared:
"A call rooted in faith is what led me, just a few years out of college, to sign up as a community organizer for a group of churches on the south side of Chicago. And it was through that experience, working with pastors and laypeople, trying to heal the wounds of hurting neighborhoods that I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace him as my Lord and Savior."
Whether the American people believe that these changes in Barack Obama are genuine or politically calculated remains to be seen. He already can count on the vote of most leftist and many independents for the 2012 Presidential election. Could well be that he may convince some Evangelical conservatives to vote for him as well.
The Revolt of the Fanatical Non-Thinkers
If you are one those critical thinkers who cruises the commentary sections on the Internet seeking to engage followers of Evangelical political leaders in a rational debate, you are wasting your time. Once such leaders claim, or truly believe, that God is on their side and, by virtue of their charisma, convince their followers that they are divinely inspired modern-day prophets, then they can do no wrong. Their most egregious flaws, their biggest lies, their worst legal and moral transgressions are idolatrously rationalized or overlooked.
Bring up, for instance, Sarah Palin’s lack of education or Michele Bachmann’s false interpretation of the Constitution, and their followers will deflect your comment with irrelevant counter-comments about Barak Obama’s ties with leftist radicals, or else assail you with epithets, like “Communist, “traitor,” “fool” “retard,” and worse. Never mind that you might be a Republican fiscal conservative, a devoted student of Adam Smith, a happy family man, a decorated war veteran, and a Math Ph.D. who voted for Ralph Nader. Questioning Godly leaders is nothing less than a sacrilege.
And if you persist in your sacrilege, you are branded a “hater.” Recall how during the Bush years, right-wing talk show hosts—Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity et. al. insisted, as if reading from the same script, that if you opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was because you hated George Bush. Never mind that you liked the guy as a person. If you thought those wars were a mistake, then you hated him. Period. Ergo, you were despicable “hater.” The same applies today to anyone who dares criticize Evangelicals ordained by The Lord to do His work.
Then usually chiming in is a group of equally devout, equally irrational left-wing types who, though they have no equivalent for the “hater” brand, they will similarly deflect criticism by dredging up the corruption of conservative politicians and call you names-- “fascist,” “bigot,” “red-neck bumpkin,” “Limbaugh ditto-head” –- if you don’t happen to agree wholeheartedly with them.
All of which would make for great entertainment were it not for the disturbing fact that such non-tinkers on both fringes of the political and social spectrum are called to serve on juries and have voting rights.
Bring up, for instance, Sarah Palin’s lack of education or Michele Bachmann’s false interpretation of the Constitution, and their followers will deflect your comment with irrelevant counter-comments about Barak Obama’s ties with leftist radicals, or else assail you with epithets, like “Communist, “traitor,” “fool” “retard,” and worse. Never mind that you might be a Republican fiscal conservative, a devoted student of Adam Smith, a happy family man, a decorated war veteran, and a Math Ph.D. who voted for Ralph Nader. Questioning Godly leaders is nothing less than a sacrilege.
And if you persist in your sacrilege, you are branded a “hater.” Recall how during the Bush years, right-wing talk show hosts—Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity et. al. insisted, as if reading from the same script, that if you opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was because you hated George Bush. Never mind that you liked the guy as a person. If you thought those wars were a mistake, then you hated him. Period. Ergo, you were despicable “hater.” The same applies today to anyone who dares criticize Evangelicals ordained by The Lord to do His work.
Then usually chiming in is a group of equally devout, equally irrational left-wing types who, though they have no equivalent for the “hater” brand, they will similarly deflect criticism by dredging up the corruption of conservative politicians and call you names-- “fascist,” “bigot,” “red-neck bumpkin,” “Limbaugh ditto-head” –- if you don’t happen to agree wholeheartedly with them.
All of which would make for great entertainment were it not for the disturbing fact that such non-tinkers on both fringes of the political and social spectrum are called to serve on juries and have voting rights.
The Obamacare Repeal Folly
The newly elected House Republicans that so zealously voted to repeal Obamacare might have ruined their chances for re-election in 2012. Their pitch that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, is a “job-killing” socialistic, un-American piece of legislation may have been bought at face value by 56% of the people when the Democrats were in control of the House and the people, worried about losing their jobs, or already unemployed, were in a mood for change. (44%, it should be noted, were not swayed.) Though no one really knew the details of the mammoth 2.500 page Act, the pitch at the time rang true But now that they are in control, the newly elected House Republican, along with the Party leaders, will be compelled to explain to their constituents exactly why Obamacare is the “job killer” they say. Hard facts, the nitty-gritty in dollars and cents, not more high-sounding rhetoric, is what they will be expected to produce.
And it could well turn out that once their constituents become better acquainted with Obamacare, that many will want to keep it, at least part of it; that it is not a job killer, but a job creator, as the Congressional Budget Office suggests. In which case the new Republicans will come off as demagogues who had played on the emotions of the people to get elected. And on the prejudices of some as well. Though they won’t admit it, the tone of their rhetoric throughout their campaigns betrayed that Obama’s race and foreign name was cause for alarm.
Furthermore, since their repeal will not pass the Democratic controlled Senate, and even if it did, President Obama would veto it out of hand, House Republicans will be hard pressed to explain why they wasted so much time playing a political game when there was so much urgent Congressional business pending. And, by the same token, Republican state attorneys general intent on challenging the Constitutionality of Obamacare will have to explain to taxpayers what there is to gain for their costly legalistic maneuvering—arguing cases before the Supreme Court is not cheap--which has no chance of succeeding, either.
Republicans at all levels should take note: Most Americans in these hard times couldn’t care less about political ideology, future budget deficits, the national debt, global commitments, or other such issues which they, nor do most politicos, fully understand. And ditto for gay marriage, abortion, school prayer and other Evangelical bugaboos. The daily struggle for survival in the here and now, that’s the overriding concern of the American people. Jobs, stable, well-paying jobs, however they are created, that’s all they care about. As President Clinton’s campaign adviser James Carville famously put it a generation ago, “it’s the economy, stupid.”
The De Facto American Theocracy
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which means that legally speaking America is a secular nation, that the separation of church and state is the indisputable law of the land. But by the unwritten law of the people, the law that really counts, America is not at all a secular nation. De facto, there is no separation of Church and State in America. Since the Pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock, 170 years before the ratified Constitution was implemented, America has been, spiritually, culturally, and politically, a Protestant Christian nation with a strong Evangelical bent, and probably more so today than ever.
Consider the missionary-like zeal of American leaders to foist their fiath on foreign cultures; the banning of stem-cell research and the widespread opposition to gay rights and abortion on religious grounds and, to further connect the dots, the visceral distrust of many American conservatives of Barak Hussein Obama, no so much because he comes across as a liberal, because he might be not be a bona fide Protestant Christian. Recall that John Kennedy, though to a lesser degree, was rejected out of hand by many voters for being a Catholic. The contrast between America and the secular democracies of Europe is striking.
Let us first hear from some notable true believers:
“I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."-- George Bush, 43rd. President
“God has spoken to me. I listen to God, and what I’ve heard is that I’m supposed to devote myself to rebuilding the conservative base of the Republican Party.” --Tom Delay, Former Speaker of the House
“War in Iraq is God's Plan." – Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska, former Vice-Presidential candidate, aspiring Presidential contender.
"God called me to run for Congress".--Michelle Bachmann, U.S. Congresswoman, Tea Party leader. aspiring Presidential contender.
“Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”—Alabama Governor Robert Bentley
“I’m proud to say I’m a born-again Christian.” Scott Walker, Wisconsin Governor.
“Ladies and Gentleman, evangelical Christians support Israel because we believe that the words of Moses and the ancient prophets of Israel were inspired by God. We believe that the emergence of a Jewish state in the land promised by God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was ordained by God.” – Pat Robertson, TV Evangelicalleader and former Presidential candidate.
"We should live our lives as though Christ was coming this afternoon." -- Jimmy Carter, 39th President.
“I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the Promised Land.” Martin Luther King, Jr. martyred civil rights leader.
Consider next how during election time TV ads of candidates for public office invariably include clips of themselves attending church with their families, (strong family values being an integral part of the Evangelical image); how they lard their talking points with allusions to the Bible and God; how in a key debate in the 2008 presidential primaries the would-be candidates on stage groped for Biblical stories and verses they recalled in answer to a question about their familiarity with the Holy Scriptures. They all knew that no matter how qualified they were to fulfill the role of President as defined by Article II of the Constitution, they would not have a ghost of chance of being nominated, much less elected, if they did not display they proper Christian credentials. Some, no doubt, were religiously indifferent, even agonistic or atheist, but they had to play along. Below are samples of religious affirmations made by high-power Americans politicians in speeches and interviews though not necessarily living up to them. Hypocrisy? Not necessarily, just smart politics:
“The Bible is the authoritative Word of God and contains all truth.” Bill Clinton, 42nd President.
“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. . . Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face.” -- Ronald Reagan, 40th President.
"A call rooted in faith is what led me, just a few years out of college, to sign up as a community organizer for a group of churches on the south side of Chicago. And it was through that experience, working with pastors and laypeople, trying to heal the wounds of hurting neighborhoods that I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace him as my Lord and Savior." Barack Obama, 44th President
“For most Americans, prayer is real, and we subordinate ourselves to a God on whom we call for wisdom, guidance, and salvation,” Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and aspiring Presidential contender.
"Faith is enormously important to me personally and to tens of millions of Americans”-- John Edwards, former U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate.
“Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.” Pat Buchanan, former Presidential candidate
"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.” Harry Truman, 33rd President
"It is my conviction that the fundamental trouble with the people of the United States is that they have gotten too far away from Almighty God." Warren Harding, 29th President.
"America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures.—Woodrow Wilson. 28th President
"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests." Andrew Jackson, 7th President
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity." John Quincy Adams, 6th President
"The liberty, prosperity, and the happiness of our country will always be the object of my most fervent prayers to the Supreme Author of All Good." James Monroe, 5th President.
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” – George Washington, 1st President.
But not all American notables, especially those of past generations, fully believed or played along:
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.” -- Thomas Paine, Revolutionary War Patriot.
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.—Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President.
(The “Creator” Jefferson referred to in the Declaration of Independence was the Deist creator of the 18th century Enlightenment, not the God of Christianity, as modern-day Evangelicals erroneously assume.)
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."-- Benjamin Franklin, world-renowned 18th century American statesman and scientist, helped edit the Declaration of Independence.
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."—John Adams, 2nd President
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." James Madison, 4th President.
“My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them. . . The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.” – Abraham Lincoln, 16th President.
“To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular Church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any Church, is an outrage against the liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.” – Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President.
Needless to say, the seven last quoted would not have been elected had they run for office in modern-day America. By the laws of probability, there must be such free-thinkers around today, but we’ll never hear about them, except maybe as objects of derision on talk shows. Religious differences and practices aside, the United States of American at heart is no more a secular nation than Indonesia or Saudi Arabia.
Consider the missionary-like zeal of American leaders to foist their fiath on foreign cultures; the banning of stem-cell research and the widespread opposition to gay rights and abortion on religious grounds and, to further connect the dots, the visceral distrust of many American conservatives of Barak Hussein Obama, no so much because he comes across as a liberal, because he might be not be a bona fide Protestant Christian. Recall that John Kennedy, though to a lesser degree, was rejected out of hand by many voters for being a Catholic. The contrast between America and the secular democracies of Europe is striking.
Let us first hear from some notable true believers:
“I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."-- George Bush, 43rd. President
“God has spoken to me. I listen to God, and what I’ve heard is that I’m supposed to devote myself to rebuilding the conservative base of the Republican Party.” --Tom Delay, Former Speaker of the House
“War in Iraq is God's Plan." – Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska, former Vice-Presidential candidate, aspiring Presidential contender.
"God called me to run for Congress".--Michelle Bachmann, U.S. Congresswoman, Tea Party leader. aspiring Presidential contender.
“Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”—Alabama Governor Robert Bentley
“I’m proud to say I’m a born-again Christian.” Scott Walker, Wisconsin Governor.
“Ladies and Gentleman, evangelical Christians support Israel because we believe that the words of Moses and the ancient prophets of Israel were inspired by God. We believe that the emergence of a Jewish state in the land promised by God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was ordained by God.” – Pat Robertson, TV Evangelicalleader and former Presidential candidate.
"We should live our lives as though Christ was coming this afternoon." -- Jimmy Carter, 39th President.
“I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the Promised Land.” Martin Luther King, Jr. martyred civil rights leader.
Consider next how during election time TV ads of candidates for public office invariably include clips of themselves attending church with their families, (strong family values being an integral part of the Evangelical image); how they lard their talking points with allusions to the Bible and God; how in a key debate in the 2008 presidential primaries the would-be candidates on stage groped for Biblical stories and verses they recalled in answer to a question about their familiarity with the Holy Scriptures. They all knew that no matter how qualified they were to fulfill the role of President as defined by Article II of the Constitution, they would not have a ghost of chance of being nominated, much less elected, if they did not display they proper Christian credentials. Some, no doubt, were religiously indifferent, even agonistic or atheist, but they had to play along. Below are samples of religious affirmations made by high-power Americans politicians in speeches and interviews though not necessarily living up to them. Hypocrisy? Not necessarily, just smart politics:
“The Bible is the authoritative Word of God and contains all truth.” Bill Clinton, 42nd President.
“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. . . Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face.” -- Ronald Reagan, 40th President.
"A call rooted in faith is what led me, just a few years out of college, to sign up as a community organizer for a group of churches on the south side of Chicago. And it was through that experience, working with pastors and laypeople, trying to heal the wounds of hurting neighborhoods that I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace him as my Lord and Savior." Barack Obama, 44th President
“For most Americans, prayer is real, and we subordinate ourselves to a God on whom we call for wisdom, guidance, and salvation,” Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and aspiring Presidential contender.
"Faith is enormously important to me personally and to tens of millions of Americans”-- John Edwards, former U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate.
“Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.” Pat Buchanan, former Presidential candidate
"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.” Harry Truman, 33rd President
"It is my conviction that the fundamental trouble with the people of the United States is that they have gotten too far away from Almighty God." Warren Harding, 29th President.
"America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures.—Woodrow Wilson. 28th President
"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests." Andrew Jackson, 7th President
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity." John Quincy Adams, 6th President
"The liberty, prosperity, and the happiness of our country will always be the object of my most fervent prayers to the Supreme Author of All Good." James Monroe, 5th President.
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” – George Washington, 1st President.
But not all American notables, especially those of past generations, fully believed or played along:
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.” -- Thomas Paine, Revolutionary War Patriot.
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.—Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President.
(The “Creator” Jefferson referred to in the Declaration of Independence was the Deist creator of the 18th century Enlightenment, not the God of Christianity, as modern-day Evangelicals erroneously assume.)
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."-- Benjamin Franklin, world-renowned 18th century American statesman and scientist, helped edit the Declaration of Independence.
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."—John Adams, 2nd President
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." James Madison, 4th President.
“My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them. . . The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.” – Abraham Lincoln, 16th President.
“To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular Church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any Church, is an outrage against the liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.” – Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President.
Needless to say, the seven last quoted would not have been elected had they run for office in modern-day America. By the laws of probability, there must be such free-thinkers around today, but we’ll never hear about them, except maybe as objects of derision on talk shows. Religious differences and practices aside, the United States of American at heart is no more a secular nation than Indonesia or Saudi Arabia.
The Dump Obama Tea Party Agenda
Tea Party extremists whose primary goal is to make the “socialist, non-American” Barack Obama a one-term President are actually doing the exact opposite. The more they rabble-rouse and trumpet their ignorance under the guise of patriotism, the more they will alienate middle-of-the road independents, the critical thinkers, who, in the final analysis, will be the voters who will determine the winner in the 2012 Presidential election. Indeed, the cleverest countermove that Obama supporters could make is to donate to the campaign funds of Tea Partier Michele Bachmann and others of her ilk. This would be a more effective and far less costly way to promote Obama than the usual prime-time TV ads. -- By the way, have any of those folks shown waving copies of the U.S. Constitution at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference actually read the document through? And if some have, did they understand it?
Legalize The Drugs
As William Buckley, Milton Friedman and other clear-thinking conservatives held 40 years ago, the only way to win the so-called war on drugs in the U.S. was to obviate it by legalizing the drugs. Given the insatiable multi-billion dollar demand for drugs, one can be sure that the stuff will be supplied somehow, at whatever the risks or costs.
Recall the fiasco of Prohibition. Ratified in 1917 and ratified by 46 of the then 48 states (Rhode Island and Connecticut refusing) the 18th. Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the manufacturing, transportation, sale, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquor in the United States. It did not make the consumption of liquor illegal, but by making the liquor itself illegal, the teetotalers and religious conservatives who foisted the Amendment figured that consumption would be significantly reduced or eliminated. They couldn’t have been more mistaken.
Alcoholism, admittedly, was a major health problem back then, probably more so than now. But Prohibition didn’t cure it. If anything, it made it worse. Illegal “moonshine” stills in rural areas and “bathtub gin” distilleries in urban neighborhoods throughout the country produced booze for working-class folk by the barrel. The better-heeled kept up their fine-liquor habit in floating bars disguised as fishing boats and cruise ships in international waters. Then there were frequent excursions to free ports like Havana, Nassau and Kingston, or across the border to Canada and Mexico.
So the booze flowed on illegally, and with it black market money, and following the money, corrupt government officials, crooked cops and organized crime. Gangster Al Capone earned his legendary reputation by trafficking in illegal liquor. Commanding a 7,000 strong organization and by buying off mayors, judges and Congressmen, Capone rose to become one of the most powerful men in America. “When I sell liquor,” he boasted, “it’s bootlegging. When my patrons serve it in silver trays on Lake Shore Drive, it’s hospitality.”
The upshot of it all was that by the time the proponents of Prohibition realized their colossal mistake, the trafficking in illegal liquor had spawned a major industry on both sides of the law. Not only were the bad guys profiting hugely from it, but the good guys as well. Had the ban on liquor suddenly been lifted, hundreds of FBI agents and clean public officials would have lost their jobs.
With the outset of the Great Depression the 18th Amendment was finally repealed by the 21st, the only time in American history that a Constitutional amendment has been repealed. Though reliable statistics are hard to come by, there is no indication that alcohol consumption spiked, that more people died of cirrhosis of the liver, that more were injured in alcohol-induced industrial and traffic accidents, or that more died in drunken brawls, as the teetotalers had warned. Some historians opine that the overall situation actually improved. In 1931 Al Capone was sentenced to 15 years in prison for income tax evasion, and J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI turned its attention to hunting down bank robbers and Communist subversives.
Fast forward 80 years to today’s War on Drugs and the situation is remarkably similar, except that it’s now global, Like the “bathtub gin” and “moonshine” stills of the 1920’s, cottage drug businesses have proliferated throughout America and the rest of the world. No small farmer in his right mind is going to raise potatoes and chickens legally when he can make a killing growing pot, or poppy, or producing crank or heroin in a makeshift shed. At the distribution level, drug lords in the image of Al Capone, and cops, public officials, and entire governments on their payroll rake in, by some estimates, as much a $500 Billion a year--about equal to the GDP of South Africa, twice that of Peru and five times the yearly profits of Bank of America before the current financial crisis.
Like any major multinational corporation, the illegal drug industry has grown too big to fail. If drugs were suddenly legalized, the price of drugs would plummet and the sizeable number of folks who have built their careers fighting drugs—the DEA, local police departments, counselors, lawyers, moralizing pundits, to name some—would suddenly be out of a gig, along with the criminal element on the other side of the equation. As with Prohibition, the good guys and the bad guys in today’s absurd war against drugs have symbiotically joined ranks. Would it be too cynical to assume that it’s the bad guys who are funding the effort to keep drugs illegal.
Illegal Mexican Scapegoats
Branding illegal Mexicans criminals simply because they lack the proper documentation, casting them wholesale in same category as rapists, murders and thieves, is scapegoat xenophobia. The reason they come into this country illegally is that they are too poor to come up with the cash to pay off the corrupt bureaucrats in Mexico who grant the legal documents. Passing a law requiring them to go back home and “get in line” at the Mexican emigration office is therefore tantamount to permanent banishment, a law they cannot possibly abide by willingly. True, some illegals turn out to be, or are driven to become. petty criminals, but not in greater proportion than among the native population, Filthy rich drug lords, on the other hand, can buy all the documents they need, come and go across the border as they please in private jets, and conduct their dirty business from executive suites in five-star Las Vegas hotels. They and their well-funded, well-lawyered henchmen, many of them American citizens, are the ones wreaking havoc in our Western states. Challenging them, however, them can have dangerous consequences. The unemployed and financially hurt by the real estate bubble in that part of the country need a convenient scapegoat for their ills, and illegal aliens, like all poor and defenseless folks throughout history, make the best scapegoats.
Consider, further, that if all illegal immigrants are to be regarded as criminals , then, by that broad definition, nearly everybody in this country—-people who drive 10 miles an hour over the speed limit, make illegal u-turns late at night when the cops aren't watching, hedge a bit on their income taxes, smoke Cuban cigars (Rush Limbaugh and Arnold Schwarzsenegger, among others) would also have to classed criminals. And how about our national heroes, icons like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King and, for that matter, all of our Founding Fathers? Didn't they break the law? Didn’t King George decree they be hanged as common criminals?
Tea Party Self-Defeat
Tea Party extremists whose primary goal is to make the “socialist, non-American” Barack Obama a one-term President are actually doing the exact opposite. The more they rabble-rouse and trumpet their ignorance under the guise of patriotism, the more they will alienate middle-of-the road independents, the critical thinkers, who, in the final analysis, will be the voters who will determine the winner in the 2012 Presidential election. Indeed, the cleverest countermove that Obama supporters could make is to donate to the campaign funds of Tea Partier Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Haley Barbour and others of like persuasion. This would be a farm more effective and less costly way to promote Obama than the usual prime-time TV ads.
Government Can and Does Create Real Jobs
It's an article of faith among Tea Party conservatives that it was excessive government spending what caused the current economic recession, arguably the worst in American history (a depression, really). Only the private sector, they claim, can grow the economy, create jobs, and put America back on the road to prosperity. So by their lights it’s a no-brainer that by cutting government spending across the board and lowering corporate taxes, the wealth now in the hands of idle, stifling government bureaucrats, would devolve to free-market entrepreneurs endowed with the drive and know-how to compound the wealth, leverage profitable businesses and provide stable, well-remunerated employment for millions of American workers.
But if the solution were that simple, Why wasn’t it implemented years ago when the recession loomed? Because lawmakers are ignorant, in denial, fearful of taking politically unpopular measures, corrupt, closet-Communists? No, the reason was simply that the wiser among them knew that as the nation’s biggest consumers, Federal, state and local governments can and do contribute much to economic growth, and, by contrast, that not everything touched by the private sector automatically turns to gold.
Consider, for instance, how in Northern Virginia the fact that a sizeable portion of its residents are well-remunerated Federal employees has enabled them to contribute hugely to local industries, by buying new homes (average price $500K), patronizing restaurants and stores, and, thereby, spawing thousands of jobs. Then there’s the billion-plus-dollar project to upgrade the 495 Beltway and surrounding roadways, another major source of business expansion and employment. All this prosperity, to be sure, is being financed mainly by taxpayer money from other states. Yet, however unfair this transfer of wealth may seem, there’s no denying that for every tax-payer dollar invested in Northern Virginia, the economic returns there are many-fold, and because the increase in total taxes generated by the investment flows back into the national treasury, Northern Virginia is paying back what they got from out-of-state taxpayers, and then some, much as a successful business pay back its creditors with interest. Do the math. If government spending is working in Virginia, there’s no reason it can’t work just as well in other parts of the country.
This is not to suggest, of course, that all government spending is productive. Tea Partiers are right in pointing that much of it is parasitical and wasteful. But the same can be said of the entrenched ruses of the private sector. There is no guarantee, for instance, that the national wealth diverted to Wall Street by cutting government spending and corporate taxes will be not be squandered in foreign ventures, predatory acquisitions, job-killing mergers, lobbying fees, and proliferation of toxic assets. Just as the landscape of government spending abounds with museums that no one visits and bridges to nowhere, the back alleys of Wall Street are littered with trash left behind by Enron, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and others of their ilk— toxic trash left for taxpayers to clean up.
In the 2010 Congressional elections, Tea Party newcomers handily defeated their incumbent opponents by convincing voters that big, out-of-control government was wholly responsible for today’s intractable recession and high unemployment. But now that they are in power Tea Partiers would do well to acknowledge that the housing bubble that triggered the disaster was largely the work of out-of-control gamblers masquerading as free-market financiers. If the newly elected Tea Party members of Congress continue, for ideological reasons, to gloss over or, as some tend to do, turn a blind eye to the private sector side of problem, come next election they might be the ones getting voted out of office.
But if the solution were that simple, Why wasn’t it implemented years ago when the recession loomed? Because lawmakers are ignorant, in denial, fearful of taking politically unpopular measures, corrupt, closet-Communists? No, the reason was simply that the wiser among them knew that as the nation’s biggest consumers, Federal, state and local governments can and do contribute much to economic growth, and, by contrast, that not everything touched by the private sector automatically turns to gold.
Consider, for instance, how in Northern Virginia the fact that a sizeable portion of its residents are well-remunerated Federal employees has enabled them to contribute hugely to local industries, by buying new homes (average price $500K), patronizing restaurants and stores, and, thereby, spawing thousands of jobs. Then there’s the billion-plus-dollar project to upgrade the 495 Beltway and surrounding roadways, another major source of business expansion and employment. All this prosperity, to be sure, is being financed mainly by taxpayer money from other states. Yet, however unfair this transfer of wealth may seem, there’s no denying that for every tax-payer dollar invested in Northern Virginia, the economic returns there are many-fold, and because the increase in total taxes generated by the investment flows back into the national treasury, Northern Virginia is paying back what they got from out-of-state taxpayers, and then some, much as a successful business pay back its creditors with interest. Do the math. If government spending is working in Virginia, there’s no reason it can’t work just as well in other parts of the country.
This is not to suggest, of course, that all government spending is productive. Tea Partiers are right in pointing that much of it is parasitical and wasteful. But the same can be said of the entrenched ruses of the private sector. There is no guarantee, for instance, that the national wealth diverted to Wall Street by cutting government spending and corporate taxes will be not be squandered in foreign ventures, predatory acquisitions, job-killing mergers, lobbying fees, and proliferation of toxic assets. Just as the landscape of government spending abounds with museums that no one visits and bridges to nowhere, the back alleys of Wall Street are littered with trash left behind by Enron, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and others of their ilk— toxic trash left for taxpayers to clean up.
In the 2010 Congressional elections, Tea Party newcomers handily defeated their incumbent opponents by convincing voters that big, out-of-control government was wholly responsible for today’s intractable recession and high unemployment. But now that they are in power Tea Partiers would do well to acknowledge that the housing bubble that triggered the disaster was largely the work of out-of-control gamblers masquerading as free-market financiers. If the newly elected Tea Party members of Congress continue, for ideological reasons, to gloss over or, as some tend to do, turn a blind eye to the private sector side of problem, come next election they might be the ones getting voted out of office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
