Tag Archives: politics

January 13, 2013 · 4:45 pm

The Quietest World War in History,Louise Annarino,1-13-2013

The Quietest World War in History,Louise Annarino,1-13-2013

 

Drones have enabled the west to fight a world war without its citizens being aware. These unmanned silent ships of surveillance cruise the world directed from afar. U.S. and RAF pilots control these flights from Nevada, except for the initial take-off and landing which are controlled by companion crews where the drones are physically maintained.1

The United States,unlike Britain also uses armed drones to attack targets the drone has isolated; the RAF uses conventional weapons once the drone has isolated a target. U.S. surveillance drones are also used by French forces to guide air attacks. The U.N. relies upon drone surveillance to understand threats to nations around the globe,and make appropriate decisions calling for intervention. Nowhere is this more evident than in the growing threat from Islamist rebels aligned with Al Quaeda in northern Africa known as A.Q.I.M. (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), where troops from 15 nation regional block the Economic Community of West African States known as ECOWAS are being trained by the European Union.2

This world war is as different from the Cold War as the Cold War was from WWII,which differed from WWI. But, it is as widespread and threatens the survival of nations, and kills both combatants and civilians. There are at least two notable differences: First,the lack of awareness by citizens of the west that they are engaged in a world war; a war which will not end with the withdrawl of conventional troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. and second, the lack of attention we citizens of the west pay to media accounts.

There is growing concern over the backlash of the use of drones. However, the alternative to the use of drones would be far worse. There would undoubtedly be more civilian deaths,more combat deaths and injuries for soldiers on both sides,more property destruction,higher numbers of refugees,more danger to our troops etc.1 We must question,however,whether this reduced impact of war by the use of drones merely extends its duration by lessening our attention and outrage.

President Obama and Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel share a world view that war is hell and we only go to war when asolutely necessary. Each seems to  understand far better than we that we are engaged in a different kind of war, a war where acts of terror are the weapon of choice by those bent upon the destruction of western economic,social, and religious dominance. Such a war cannot be fought with conventional methods. President Obama and Chuck Hagel are ready to restructure the Pentagon and the military industrial complex. The military and industrial complex is fighting back. Companies which manufacture conventional weapons fear lost revenues should they be forced to compete with high-tech robotics industries, or re-tool conventional arms to high-tech arms manufacturing plants. It is all about the bottom line for them. It cannot be so for the nation,nor for the security of its citizens.

Our national security depends upon a new methodology,one understood and currently deployed to maximum effect possible by President Obama. It behooves us to pay attention and to understand the need for change he suggests. A smaller overseas military footprint; development of new technology to reduce civilian deaths,increase certainty as to terrorist targets,use of surveillance for broader objectives etc. is our future.3 Beating swords into plowshares must still be our goal;but,how we get to that place is changing. However,we cannot condemn what we do not understand. The silence is deafening and Hagel’s Senate confirmation hearing will be more about protecting the financial interest of private contrators and arms manufacturers than our country. The dones may be silent. We need not be. We must not be.

1.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9552547/The-air-force-men-who-fly-drones-in-Afghanistan-by-remote-control.html

2.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/world/africa/french-airstrikes-push-back-islamist-rebels-in-mali.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130113

3.http://www.popsci.com/category/tags/drones

Leave a comment

Filed under COMMENTARY, POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 12, 2013 · 5:43 pm

MISBEHAVE A LITTLE,by Louise Annarino,1-11-2013

Misbehave a Little,Louise Ananrino 1-11-2013

The people who were trying to make the day worse

were not taking the day off. 

Why should I?

Bob Marley

It is tiring to be a change agent. Whether one is a writer, activist, educator,or politician the day-to-day grind takes its toll. But, failing to write,be involved,teach or legislate for positive change is not an option in a democratic republic. Those who raise questions, challenge the status quo,post on facebook pages,knock on doors,make phone calls,write letters to the editor,speak up in meetings,add unpalatable topics to agendas and otherwise interfere with business as usual are not trouble-makers but patriots.The Chuck Hagels of the world are too far and in between.

 

Backlash like backwash is never pretty. It carries the flotsam and jetsam of petty jealousy and fear. Leaders too often react as if activists’ suggestions for change are criticisms of their leadership rather than a course correction of the effort in which they are each engaged. Leaders fear being shamed, replaced or made obsolete, especially when grassroots activists engage in the process of evaluating their common effort. We have no time for such emotional attachment to correctness while opposing forces marshall against our gains and plot our losses.Those engaged in the effort to make the day better do not have the luxury of sitting on their laurels, as Sister Robertine,OP used to warn her students. Women get this more easily than men. Perhaps because they are seldom ceded power.They paste it on bumper stickers with the phrase “well-behaved women seldom make history.”

 

Ego too often gets in the way of real change. Thus, we must continue to urge change and not take the day off. We must set aside focus on individuals, and focus on the enterprise itself. Those with overdeveloped egos have trouble doing this. Like weightlifters who overwork muscle groups they sometimes get too big for their britches. This is something we are all prone to do.Thus,we all must fight against it. Bloggers,educators,party leaders and politicians must welcome comments no matter how uncomfortable, because comments stimulate new ideas and offer insights otherwise unavailable to them. And, this is why diversity is so helpful to reaching well-developed strategies and positions. This is why Chuck Hagel is needed at the Pentagon.

 

So,take time to comment whenever you can. Your input matters. You are what makes democracy work. Misbehave a little. As we would say in the 60’s, “Tell it like it is!”

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , ,

January 10, 2013 · 5:12 pm

NO TED STRICKLAND NOR AFRICAN AMERICANS,By Louise Annarino,1-10-2012

NO TED STRICKLAND NOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS,By Louise Annarino,January 10,2012

 

Sutton, Ryan, Fitgerald. What do they have in common? Each is considered a potential candidate for governor of Ohio. Each is white. The Democratic Party often chides the Republican Party for its lack of diversity. Maybe Democrats should look at the glass ceiling within their own party. Why are no African-American candidates mentioned as potential candidates, now that Governor Strickland has announced his disinterest in the position?

 

It cannot be said that Democrats have no potential African-American candidates capable of serving as governor. There are  several ready to take that position today:

-Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory who has served in both the Ohio House and Ohio Senate, where he served as the Assistant Minority Leader.

-4th term by a landslide, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman, the first African-American mayor of Ohio’s capitol.

-State of Ohio Senator Nina Turner (SD25), who has gained national attention for her strong defense of voting rights and women’s rights.

 

While it is true that racism impedes the election of African-Americans in Ohio, the problem is much more complex. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/11/electing_black_statewide_offic.html No African-American Democratic candidate has been elected to statewide office; but, three African-American Republicans have done so.

 

Democrats must ask, what are we doing wrong? Instead we seem to accept this dilemma as a reason to shy away from promoting African-American candidates for statewide office. U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty is an anomaly, running in a newly-created safe district, perhaps the safest in the state of Ohio. Could she have defeated Senator Portman, which would have required sate-wide support? The Democratic Party must address its own racism, and find a strategy which allows African-Americans to succeed in state-wide political races.

 

The first step is to NAME African-Americans as potential candidates for EVERY position;to APPOINT them to highly visible committee and leadership positions and lead ISSUE promulgation efforts, and elect them as PARTY LEADERS. What we need is affirmative action, not passive acceptance. Democrats cannot continue to take African-Americans for granted as voters, as party members, nor as candidates. Still, this is not enough.

 

The same shortcomings which affect white candidates affect African-American candidates, but with greater impact. Campaigns are won street by street, ward by ward. Most citizens have never met a Democratic ward leader, would not even think to contact that person for assistance. Most citizens make no regular contribution to their County Democratic  Party because they see no day-to-day return for their investment. Outreach is non-existent,marketing haphazard at best. Sharing information within closed party circles has its place but is only a small part of a communications effort. When was the last time the party organized  a community service project? Advertised it as a party effort? First serve, then ask for donations to party coffers.

First Lady Michele Obama recently asked for participation in a Day of Service to honor Martin Luther King,Jr. Could not the Franklin County Democratic Party do something similar? Every month? What are we doing to create an image of a party who cares for each and every citizen across the state? We cannot ask for support from a community which we make no effort to support.

 

How does the Democratic Party advertise what we do accomplish? Yes, it takes money. Are there not enough Democrats with wealth to support specific projects? Using social media is not a panacea. Simply having a web page or Facebook page is insufficient. Newsletters must reach beyond the party faithful. Radio,television,community paper promoting Democrats? Non-existent in central Ohio.

 

Advertising requires a subtle message which emphasizes what the party is doing for Ohioans. The big message should be helping, with a footnote identifying the party as the helper. An example would be signs posted on infrastructure projects explaining what the project is accomplishing for citizens, and thanks to the party candidate bringing the project to the state. Then, Republican Governor Kasich could not claim credit for projects he initially opposed.

 

The party can win over voters whose racism may lessen support for African-American candidates if the party itself has ingrained a sense that Democrats are the community’s strongest supporters. Such passion for the party would benefit all Democratic candidates. In the meantime, African-American candidates must be groomed, promoted, supported and positioned for the next campaign. Past failure is no excuse for doing nothing;it is a reason to learn from our mistakes.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

January 5, 2013 · 3:50 am

TRUTH-TELLING IS NON-PARTISAN,by Louise Annarino,1-4-2013

TRUTH-TELLING IS NON-PARTISAN,By Louise Annarino,1-4-2013

 

It was very difficult for the young recent OSU graduates to find jobs. One young man papered the walls of his dorm room with rejection slips. Others gave up the hunt for professional positions and became sales clerks, bar tenders and wait persons. Many returned to graduate school, piling up more debt, as aid to higher education failed to keep pace with increasing costs.

 

The recession was in full force. A war was ending, soldiers competed for jobs. Too many veterans suffered from PTSD, drug or alcohol addiction, joblessness and homeless. Delayed services by the V.A. and the declining economy complicated their return.

 

Companies were closing research and development departments, outsourcing jobs and off-shoring manufacturing plants. Some argued the loss of small businesses  and replacing local shops with shopping malls was good;t hat economies of scale would keep the price of goods down.Union busting was the new normal. The president himself  approved “scabs” to cross picket-lines,for the good of the airline industry.

 

Small family farms were unable to compete with mega farms;entire farm communities disappeared despite Farm-Aid concerts.Some argued that economies of scale would keep food prices down.

 

Lower income levels created tension between the age groups. School levies were no longer so easily passed. Small schools were combined to create economies of scale, losing the familial feel which had existed in neighborhood schools where every teacher knew every child in the school.Taxpayers resented the extra student perks such as school bands,art and theatre and music programs,and field trips. And, they resented the teacher perks such as summers off.

 

De-regulation was the cause celebre’ of business. Environmentalist climbed into the forest canopy and cut fish nets to protect the forests and oceans, and were snidely called “tree-huggers” and radicals. Ecology was not viewed as real science. Civil unrest by young persons protesting racism,sexism,homophobia and class warfare was contained by military-style response.

 

A few years later a charismatic and popular president was elected and gave people hope that things might change. But by then, many argued that the poor and working poor were really free-loaders looking for government handouts. The president agreed that “government was the problem not the solution” and should be made leaner and meaner,and thus fairer to wealthy job creators whose increased wealth trickled down to the masses.

 

Meanwhile,politicians reframed the focus of the nation from a community working together for the common good  to everyone can make it big. People were encouraged to invest in the stock market,open 401Ks and build a portfolio of wealth. Anyone who failed to make it rich in America just did not work hard enough or smart enough;and was underserving of support by those who did the right thing. We came to view people as big thinkers and doers or small thinkers and doers. Economies of scale were considered good for the social order.

 

The young graduates,with huge education loans and low-paying jobs were told the right thing was to use 1/3 of one’s income to pay living expenses,put 1/3 into savings/investments, and give 1/3 to charity. Doing this would assure a secure retirement and make social security unnecessary. Doing this would assure the poor would be cared for through private charity and make welfare,food stamps and medicaid unnecessary. Young people were told that social security and medicare were unsustainable and too costly, and would not be available when they retired. Elderly were described as free-loaders who felt entitled to government care, depriving young people of a chance for a strong economy in which they could thrive. They were told it was better to create a private retirement investment portfolio on Wall Street with a much higher return than any FICA tax could provide for them.

 

Doesn’t this sound like today’s headline stories? This was happening 35 years ago. This is my generation’s story.We were warned we would have no social security when we were ready to retire. We are now retiring, with social security. The fear-mongering was not true 35 years ago. And, it is not true now. And, thanks to President Obama, we do not see the massive savings and loans/bank failures experienced 35 years ago. Thanks to President Obama we see an increase in manufacturing;an entire auto industry saved and made more profitable, not lost like the steel and aluminum industries were lost 35 years ago. And, thanks to President Obama we do not have high inflation rates as we did 35 years ago.

 

I worry about putting social security on the table while discussing deficit reduction. Social Security has no relevance to the creation or elimination of the deficit. That will be easily explained. But, I expect the old attacks on Social Security will once again be trotted out to misinform and mislead younger voters. It will be framed as a job destroyer, siphoning off money which could be used to create jobs. It will be framed as a scourge on the growth of private retirement portfolios. It will make enemies of young underemployed recent graduates of this generation and those of my generation. My generation will recognize it as a pack of lies,because we have seen the lie exposed over time. But will the young believe us, or those who would lie to get their hands on a big chunk of change.  Investment managers will be tempted to take big risks to make big personal gains, which could leave future retirees holding an empty retirement bag. We now-old young people have watched this happen over and over again. We recognize the game.

 

We are being encouraged to raise this issue with our president,senators and representatives. And, we should do so.  We must also discuss this issue with younger people .This is an issue which should cross age barriers, not create new barriers. This is a chance to make our party stronger and more united. We cannot pass up this chance to strengthen our bonds. The republicans certainly will do all they can to weaken them. After all, they are even willing to default on our debts and throw the world’s economy into chaos, just to destroy social security,medicare and medicaid. This is serious business,and has been for decades.

 

This should not be a partisan issue, but it is. My republican friends will assure me they would never destroy these programs. They will argue that Democrats are no different than Republicans; that even the president says we agree on almost everything, including the need to fix entitlement programs. This is well and good.But we cannot ignore the differences set in stone in each party’s platform. Democrats promise to protect entitlement programs. Republicans promise to eliminate or reduce them. These positions are not the same;they are world’s apart. We must hold Democrats and Republicans equally accountable. Truth-telling is the only way to be non-partisan.

2 Comments

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 4, 2013 · 3:27 am

BOEHNER HOLDS THE GAVEL; PELOSI HOLDS THE POWER,By Louise Annarino,January 3,2013

BOEHNER HOLDS THE GAVEL;PELOSI HOLDS THE POWER,By Louise Annarino, January 3,2013

There are two kinds of power: positional power and personal power. Nancy Pelosi appeared to lose her positional power when she passed the gavel to Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner, who retained his position today.  Pelosi never relinquished her personal power however. And, I would argue she still retains positional power, even without the gavel. It was Pelosi who delivered the votes to pass the American Taxpayer Relief Act. Boehner could not pass it without her. He lacks the personal power to marshall the votes of his Republican members. Pelosi’s personal power among Democratic members is much stronger. Pelosi consistently delivers those votes as she sees fit.

Boehner needs Pelosi. He cannot lead  the entire House without her. He can only follow the minority of fanatics within his party. Pelosi need never follow Boehner; but, she can lead him! Don’t you love it, ladies?

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 4, 2013 · 3:05 am

SIZE DOES NOT MATTER,By Louise Annarino,January 3,2013

SIZE DOES NOT  MATTER,By Louise Annarino,January 3,2012

 

Well, it is January 3rd. and the bills have all been mailed out. As usual, I overdid Christmas. I tried to raise my debt ceiling, but Target and Visa said, “What nerve you have. You bought gifts on the credit we extended to you; and, we expect you to honor your debts. If you don’t pay what you owe, we will ruin your credit.”  Actually, I did not really act so irresponsibly; nor did I have that conversation with my creditors. I am simply illustrating what  it means to raise the debt ceiling. It confuses us because on first hearing the phrase, we think it means seeking a higher limit on our credit line so we can make new purchases. But that is not really the way government finance works.

 

Congress passes a law to create program which costs X amount of dollars,and then authorizes a spending bill to implement the program. It must be certain that sufficient funds exist to pay for the program, because this new programs create new debt. The congressional budget office or CBO scores the bill. President Obama has made it a practice to only seek legislative action scored to stay within the current budget. Previously, we have gotten into trouble because congress, among other bills, authorized a war without raising the funds to pay for it.It was the first time in our history we did not raise a war tax. Instead, congress cut taxes to record lows, when it needed more taxes  not less to pay the billions the war would cost.

 

To cover this up, the war expenses were not included within the federal budget, so the war costs would not appear to create,and later increase, a budget deficit. The cost was hidden in the Pentagon budget,which is why the Pentagon repeatedly returned to congress asking for military spending increases to cover the costs. Who could turn down such a request for “our brave soldiers in the field”? When President Obama took office, he corrected this accounting trick. Some in congress now use this seeming jump in budget deficit as a ruse to attack entitlement programs, calling Obama a socialist/welfare president,destroying our grandchildren’s futures. No, war does that.

 

When a newly passed bill’s debt comes due, if insufficient funds are in the treasury to pay the debt, Treasury issues bonds to raise funds to pay the debt, asking congress to  raise the debt ceiling. Since congress approved the debt, congress should pay the debt to maintain the “full faith and credit” of the United States. Congress should raise the debt ceiling. This sensible approach had not been seriously questioned until Obama became president.Throwing the country into default has always simply  been unacceptable.

 

President Obama sought to increase taxes, AND raise the debt ceiling, AND cut program costs.This is the so-called “Grand Bargain” which Rep. Boehner at first agreed to 18 months ago,  but backed away from when he could not find the enough votes in his party to assure its passage. Instead, congress passed a sequestration bill which brought us to what some called a fiscal cliff. For weeks, Obama sought Boehner’s support and leadership efforts in congress to make a new grand bargain. Again, Boehner could not, or would not do so. Instead Boehner agreed to a reduced increase in taxes, and is holding out on raising the debt ceiling as a bargaining tool to force Obama’s hand and reduce government spending; not by making smart and balanced cuts, but by eliminating or starving government programs previously authorized by congress,and relied upon by our citizens: social security, medicare,medicaid. Now, Boehner tells us he will no longer deal directly with Obama, abdicating his House leadership role as representative of, and intermediary for his party.

 

We know suggested cuts to these programs are meant to cripple them and make them unpopular by making them useless, making it easier to eliminate them altogether. Raising the income cap on earnings for social security would increase FICA revenue and strengthen the program. Raising the retirement age would make it useless to many of our hardest working citizens, many who will die before receiving any benefits, or receive fewer years of coverage. Changing the cost of living formula would hurt older citizens in ways unimaginable to those who need not choose between buying a chicken or filling a prescription.

 

We all know our country is in a tough spot. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would only make our situation worse, and it would leave a long-term, and totally unnecessary blot on the full faith and credit of the United States. Our economy is rebounding,slowly but surely. We cannot afford a congress which is willing to forsake recovery and economic growth under a mistaken belief that the size of the government matters more than the wisdom,purpose and good faith of the government.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 2, 2013 · 4:15 pm

HEALTHY APPETITES FUEL HEALTHY ECONOMIES,By Louise Annarino,January 2,2013

Healthy Appetites Fuel Healthy Economies, By Louise Annarino, January 2, 2013

 

Feeling bloated? Too many cookies over the holidays? Made a resolution to lose weight; eat less and exercise more? “Five a day!” “Color your plate!” “Work Those Abs!” “Keep Moving!”  This is nothing new. We have heard it all before.

 

Sensible weight loss, we are told, involves not severe calorie restriction, but sensible eating. Add more fresh vegetables and fruit. We are warned that if we cut calories too fast, or eat too little our body will believe it is starving and slow its metabolism even more. It will conserve and eventually shut-down its operation of essential functions leading to illness, even death. Anorexia and bulimia are now a routine part of the American lexicon. Our bodies need calories from food to function,survive, and thrive.Only when well-fueled can we keep our bodies moving, healthy and productive

 

The body politic has the same needs as the human body. Excessive military spending, waging war without raising taxes to pay the billions of dollars war costs, uncontrolled rising costs of medical  care and health insurance premiums increasing medicare costs, and  unregulated securities industry  nearly which nearly destroyed  banking worldwide, have bloated our deficit. The answer,however, is not to become bulimic and purge our government of the taxes needed to fuel government operations. Nor is  the answer anorexic refusal to continue funding programs which would sustain our country’s very survival, and the heath and well-being of our fellow citizens.

 

The answer is to cut out those foods which are high in calories but low in benefit to the body politic. For example, subsidize green energy and manufacturing to build a competitive economic base and increase exports which would improve the GDP and decrease the trade deficit. And, eliminate oil subsidies for companies which are so bloated by profits they no longer need the subsidy. Also, extend medicare for all; don’t cut it or increase its operational costs. Take the boated profit from health insurers and apply the savings to broader preventive care for the entire population which would reduce costs over time.It would free a company to redirect its profits into wages for employees,rather than funding their health care plans. Pass a transportation bill which would reduce our dependency on oil, rebuild and redesign our transportation infrastructure and connect communities large and small.This would create new jobs, expand the tax base and lower the deficit with greater productivity. Conservatives try to “starve the beast”. We should instead be feeding the body politic. They have it exactly backwards.

 

The role of a representative government is to secure the safety, productivity and civil rights of its citizens, encourage the productivity and health of the nation itself, and propel the country forward into an unknown future. Both individuals and political bodies must eat wisely but well, stay active and involved in the world, and strengthen their ability to rise to the challenges yet  to come. An anorexic or bulimic government response is no solution to what ails our economy. Government must continue to feed the economy, but do it “smarter” and better as President Obama often reminds us. We and our government should switch from trans-fats to olive oil, but it can’t and it should not eliminate fat altogether. Without some fat, some essential vitamins cannot be stored or used by muscle we need to keep moving.

 

Fiscal conservatives must not be allowed to label a healthy and well-balanced spending/taxing formula as destructive. To the contrary, it is that balance which will stimulate individuals and government to  greater health and productivity. Those who want to protect their grandchildren’s future would do well to recall what is required to rear healthy and productive children and economies. Want to save your grandchildren? Feed them well, and often. Neither we, nor our government, are beasts.

Leave a comment

Filed under COMMENTARY, POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 2, 2013 · 4:52 am

NEITHER HISTORIC NOR HEROIC,By Louise Annarino,Jan.1,2012

NEITHER HISTORIC NOR HEROIC,By Louise Annarino,Jan.1,2012

 

The self-congratulatory exclamations of “historic compromise” in the Senate’s 89-8/House’s 257-167 (only 85 House Republicans -“aye”) vote to pass “The American Taxpayer Relief Act” which saves unemployment benefits, secures health care payments for doctors, increases taxes on earned income and taxes on investment income from capital gains above $400-450,00.00, eliminates the unfair alternative minimum tax on middle class families, provide tax cuts for students etc. leaves one breathless. This is not historic nor heroic. These changes have been awaiting action despite bipartisan support for a long time. These changes,like other actions recommended by President Obama, by appointments he seeks as the nation’s chief executive, are opposed because he is opposed. The vow of many Republicans to never compromise with this upstart president stood in the way of an agreement.

 

Vice President Biden,as other vice president before him, was called in by Senator McConnell to broker an agreement.So far as I can tell, he did not broker an agreement which the president had not already suggested. Nor did he call in Biden because he could not work with Sen. Harry Reid (D-NEV). He did so for more nefarious reeasons. He did so because of a lack of respect for a president he alleged failed to lead, could not understand how the economy works,and refused to cut deficits. None of Senator McConnell’s representations are true. President Obama has repeatedly stated his principle has always been to do things in a balanced way, including doing more to reduce the deficit.

 

It appears he enabled Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Representative John Boehner (R-OH) to reach an agreement, without appearing to reach an agreement with the president, without appearing to agree with his balanced approach and his view that government has a role to play in protecting programs the 98% need to help build a middle class. McConnell’s asking for Mr. Biden was a dodge he could sell. It undermined the president’s leadership, and his positional  as well as personal power.

The disdain,even hate, which many in the 112th Congress have displayed toward our president would not have allowed a compromise with an African-American president;but, would allow one with a white vice-president.

 

This strategy was played out during the House discussion prior to the recorded vote in the House of Representatives. Time after time republicans stated that this agreement to concur in the Senate Amendments meant that everyone agreed that the focus ahead was on cuts to those entitlement programs which are the real cause of the nation’s deficit (i.e. social security,medicare,medicaid,Affordable Care Act);some even alluding to an agreed appreciation congress should not raise the debt ceiling. The message being developed is that this historic compromise  presages accession to austerity legislation yet to be introduced. Charges that Obama policies created and increased rising deficits is completely false;yet we will hear it repeated as if an incontrovertible truth, despite every independent study,report,record to the contrary.

 

Senators Levin, Rangel and others addressed the Republican representatives’ misrepresentations of the the bill’s provisions, and pointed out that nothing within the bill would suggest an agreement to cut middle class support programs. The need of republicans congresspersons to save face is obvious, and the need to justify a break from the Republican Party 2013 Platform had to be satisfied; but with outright lies which create false expectations for future negotiations and compromise. This not only pathetic but harmful.

 

Well-heeled funders of primary and general political races are the writers of the Republican script. It is they who block sensible economic policies recommended by the Obama administration. It is not only racism which fuels such seemingly inane congressional behavior, but money and the power it carries. However, it is racism which greases the skids for the money to flow to congresspersons willing to block any government action which reduces their profit margins, increases their taxes, regulates their corporate behavior, and enables a strong middle class to challenge their control over the nation’s assets and wealth.

 

Be prepared for talking points which berate Obama for moving from $250,000 to $400,000, for not including sequestration or other cuts, for seeking to raise the debt ceiling, for refusing to agree with changing the CPI formula for social security and other entitlement program increases, and for a host of other “failures” of this bill. Every one of these arguments is insincere and totally irrelevant,certainly neither historic nor heroic. Their sole purpose is to deny Obama’s right to a victory lap as he signs this bill into law. And worse, to undermine his efforts to protect  98% of Americans from the privileges sought and expected by the other 2%. The game has not changed. Neither has president Obama. Nor should we.

 

President Obama graciously thanked both Republicans and Democrats.leaders of the House and Senate, and especially V.P. Joe Biden.He went  on to discuss how unfortunate and costly it was that a lame duck congress could not agree to a broader plan. He agrees that medicare’s  costs due to irising medical care needs and costs for an increasing elderly population must be addressed. Unstated is how this can be done without harming those who rely on medicare. He stated that he also refuses to have another argument  with congress about raising the debt ceiling, and paying debts we have already incurred. “The deficit needs to be reduced in a way that is balanced…. (with) less drama, less brinkmanship”. He acknowledged the need to reduce the deficit;but not at the expense of failing to invest in research and development of our people and of our economic productivity, and protecting our country’s future.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

December 28, 2012 · 2:14 am

NOT ENVIOUS JUST HUNGRY,By Louise Annarino,December 27, 2012

NOT ENVIOUS JUST HUNGRY,by Louise Annarino, december 27.2012

On January 20, 2012 I wrote the following commentary.Sadly, near a year later, failure to address the issues I discussed are driving the country over a fiscal cliff, created by Republican intransigence and refusal to raise taxes. We may also be about to go over a social justice cliff with far worse consequences for this nation.

“Let them eat cake !” Marie Antoinette purportedly responded when told of bread riots in the streets of Paris; failing to heed the warning that her 1% lifestyle would not sit well with the 99% who were hungry, jobless and hopeless. Americans are hungry, jobless and homeless; but, thanks to the safety net of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and food stamps they are not quite so hopeless nor desperate as those who overthrew the French monarchy. Everyone should be grateful we have a “food stamp president” !

Politicians used to understand that the social contract between the rich and poor was an essential cog in the economic engine of the country; and, the very thing which would allow citizens to amass wealth, without the threat of harm to the nation or themselves. Republicans and Democrats alike passed into law programs to create and protect a strong middle class. It was understood and agreed upon that the American dream was not built on envy, but on the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

The latest crop of Republican congresspersons seem to have forgotten this. The top 1% of investment earners (one cannot honestly call them wage earners) would have 99% of us wage earners believe that reminding them of this social contract is un-American, anti-capitalist, and irreligious.

Now, Republican congressional leaders undermine the Golden Rule, claiming, as men who are right with God, that anyone who oppose their economic and social order policies, must be wrong;and,not only are they wrong but they are evil, which carries the weight of immorality. Asking that the Golden Rule be applied to economic policy does not make the 99ers immoral, unpatriotic socialists, un-American, nor envious.

Years ago, before labor laws, civil rights laws, and a system of public education for all children created a middle class, the working class had to be satisfied with crumbs from the table. Labor unions, civil rights activists, and public education created a place at the table for workers. But now, Governors like John Kasich (R-OH) tell us we are envious when we ask for a menu, question why no food is being served to us, or ask how they arranged to have nearly all the food piled on their plates as it disappeared from our own.  They say we are envious. No, we are simply hungry, hungry for justice.

Today, I suggest it is not a budget deficit which will destroy this country; but, a social justice deficit. President Obama and Democratic leaders are right to insist on continued stimulus spending and safety net protection, and increased taxes on the top 1-2% ; any further efforts to compromise us into starvation will do more harm than good. Productivity, not hoarding seeds, is what puts food on the table.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , ,

December 26, 2012 · 5:00 pm

THE BALANCE OF POWER AND COMPETITIVE COMPROMISE,By Louise Annarino,12-27-2012

THE BALANCE OF POWER AND COMPETITIVE COMPROMISE,By Louise Annarino,December 26,2012

Politics has often been called the art of compromise. Too seldom do we admit politics is the art of exercising power. Congress cannot exercise the art of compromise when the balance of power is so uneven. Our focus at the moment is solely on the failure of congresspersons to compromise on several levels;between the president and Speaker of the House, within the House, within the Senate, within the Republican Party between Teapublicans and Republicans. We should instead focus on the lack of balance within our congressional districts. Until we right that balance, no compromise will be possible. Continuing the dialogue solely on the personal assessment of individual  character illustrated by a willingness or unwillingness to compromise hides the real problem.

In 2010 the Republican/Teapublican victories brought control of the legislature of many key states, in some cases a veto-proof majority. And, 2010 placed more states under the leadership of Republican governors and secretaries of state as well. The 2010 census allowed these states ,including Ohio, to redistrict an imbalance so severe that Ohio’s districts were gerrymandered to form safe seats for both parties. The inability to compromise is the affirmed in these gerrymandered districts. Secretaries of state redefined vote counts within districts,further assuring veto-proof legislatures.

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has no motivation to seek the middle when doing so will have no impact on his re-election in a general election. His seat is safe thanks to the recent redistricting legislation, and Ohio’s failure to overturn that legislation in the 2012 campaign. His threat comes from within his own party;and, not just for his chairmanship, but for his re-election. The threat would come as a primary challenge;one well-funded by the moneyed interests and super PACS supporting the Teapublicans. Tacking to center, seeking compromise, would encourage such an attack.How can he seek compromise?

We must organize around redistricting,and other legislative changes which upset the balance of power for both parties. For example, there is a well-financed effort by Teapublicans to demonize the electoral college,to eliminate it, or change how Ohio calculates electoral votes. Republicans are mounting a quiet effort to change our current system to one which favors the minority of Ohio voters. Now Republicans have more safe districts than Democrats do and they want to allow each district to cast electoral votes based on district wins, rather than casting all of Ohio’s electoral votes for the candidate who wins the majority of all Ohio votes, as is current law.

Republicans realize this could give them short-term gain.However, their control is not absolute and eternal. Should Democrats gain control, the Democratic Party could benefit just as unfairly. But, both parties should be more concerned about the good of the people; not the good of any party. It behooves both Democratic and Republican voters to insist that our legislators create more balance;not less. Those of us who believe in the platform and values of the Democratic Party should not fear such a balanced approach. Democratic candidates can compete with Republican candidates, and can win even in unsafe districts. How much better could we do in competitive districts? And, if John Boehner’s district were competitive, he might gain more political power through compromise than obstruction. That would be a win-win for both parties, and for the American people.

We have overlooked the importance of what happens at our local and district levels for too long. we have been trained to keep our eyes on the federal government,thus national elections, as the source of our failed compromise; when,in fact, competitive compromise begins within our own districts. We cannot sit back until the next presidential election, hoping to elect persons who promise to compromise. Everyone wants to compromise when it maintains their balance of power;but without such a balance, no one can afford to compromise. Not Mr. Boehner, despite his fine character and personal wishes…unless he is willing, and we are willing to watch his failed re-election as the price to be paid. Would that be a win for Ohio or the Teapublicans?

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,