Obama's Last Stand?

Image via WikipediaPresident Barack Obama, aware that his own job is at stake, recently announced a program that would bring employment back to Americans to the tune of $450 billion.  Thus far, though, Congress and most of the public have been skeptical of the plan, given the President's pleas to "pass it right away".  If the recent past is any indication, "right away" means several minutes before the deadline.

Now we come to how the American Jobs Act will be paid for.  According to the White House, $1.5 trillion would come from the wealthiest individuals and corporations, $1.1 trillion from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over $580 billion from entitlement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.  That adds up to over $3 trillion.  It won't make a dent in the federal budget, but it won't add to it either.

The part about taxing the rich has been dubbed "The Buffett Rule" in honor of Omaha's own Warren Buffett, who claimed that he paid less in taxes than his secretary.  Well, other billionaires can say the same thing, but that doesn't mean they have a real problem with it.

As you might expect, the Republicans who control the House aren't crazy about this plan, and have substituted more tax cuts for the rich in its proposal.  Some Democrats don't care for it, either, preferring instead to break the plan up into easily-digestible pieces.

While there has been overwhelming support among ordinary folks who may never see a million dollars in their lifetimes, there are two possible ways that the so-called "Buffett Rule" can be circumvented by the wealthy and the corporations, even without help from their GOP servants:  (1)  Tax increases will simply be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, so we'll all be paying for this one way or another, and (2) the increases will become an excuse for the wealthy and the corporations to skip the country and move to tax-free havens with their money.

There's no mystery as to why Obama is throwing this Hail Mary pass.  His presidency is floundering, with poll numbers sinking to its lowest since he took office.  Republicans have so far succeeded in making the President resemble some of those emasculated men on TV sitcoms, putting the odds of getting re-elected as a tossup.  Liberals and independents are deserting him.  And whatever happened to the Democratic party?

Congress has been faring worse in the public's eyes, generating a favorable rating of only 12 percent.  Not that it matters, particularly to Republicans, because they don't really care what the public thinks.  The way elections are currently set up, many of the same people now serving in Congress will probably return in 2013.  And beyond.

Unemployment is at around nine percent, and no new jobs were added last month.  If President Obama's jobs bill is defeated or altered in any way, he could be looking for work himself come next November.

Is It Time To Junk The Mail?

Image via WikipediaThat old poem about how the mail doesn't stop for weather or anything else was written at a time when people really depended on what is now the United States Postal Service to deliver letters and needed packages.  For some, seeing the mail carrier was the highlight of their day.

We have less need now for the USPS, thanks to modern technology.  We read and send e-mail, ship through Fed Ex and UPS, use Facebook and Twitter, and even pay bills online.  As a result, we're sending and receiving less mail than we used to.  Most of what we do get tend to be bills and credit card offers, but that's another story.

But now the USPS--a quasi-governmental agency-- is at least $8 billion in the hole, and is seeking Congress' help in making major changes.  They want to . . .

• Close over 250 mail processing centers, eliminating 35,000 jobs.  It would also mean slowing the normal delivery time from one to two days.
• Eliminate over 3,000 post offices.
• Cut back mail service to five days a week, which means dropping Saturdays.

You can't just blame changing times on the decline of the Postal Service.  They brought some of this on themselves through ever-increasing postal rates, which is what made the "Forever" stamp necessary.

How about inconsistent delivery times?  In our neighborhood, depending on the carrier, the mail can get delivered any time during the day.  It might be morning one day, 12:30 the next, 3 p.m. the next, and  . . . well, you get the point.  If the mail doesn't arrive by at least 6 p.m., you might as well assume you didn't get anything.  It doesn't take Cliff Clavin to figure out why they call it "snail mail".

Granted, the United States Postal Service still performs a valuable service.  They are really the only ones who can handle your personal correspondence, such as a greeting card, in your own personal handwriting.  Post offices are often a small town's link to the outside world.  Their rates are reasonable, compared to the other guys.  And it has history on its side, with a legacy that goes back to Ben Franklin and the Pony Express.

Before we send the USPS to the Dead Letter Office (or whatever they call it these days), consider this:  Online communications are vulnerable to severe weather, computer crashes and hacking.  The mail is not.

Politics 2012: Christians vs. Lions

With two debates in one week, the Republican presidential field has essentially boiled down to a matchup between former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and current Texas governor Rick Perry.  Oh, there's six others who are vying for the nomination, but they've been reduced to bit players.

In Tampa, Florida Monday night, the Elite Eight candidates gathered for a debate sponsored by the Tea Party and was televised by CNN.  Besides host Wolf Blitzer, the questions were being asked by Tea Party members either in the audience or at a remote location.  In practice, this sounds like the TV beer commercial in which a football coach's post-game news conference is dominated by dudes asking all the questions.

Governor Perry took most of the heat this night, trying to live down his comment at a previous debate in California that Social Security was a "Ponzi scheme".  This time, after a lively discussion with Romney, he flip-flopped by saying he now wants to reform it.  Romney, on the other hand, once again tried to distance himself from the health care program he helped create in Massachusetts by promising to repeal President Barack Obama's health care law once he gets into office.

(An aside:  Romney gained a supporter in former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who is now working on his campaign.  Remember how Pawlenty knocked Romney's health care plan as "Obamneycare", then wouldn't say that to his face during a debate?  Now we know why.  He didn't want to offend his future boss.)

Most of the debate was centered on candidates' rehashes of their positions, which we've all heard before along with plenty of Obama-bashing.  But there was one pivotal moment.  It came when Perry admitted  regretting his decision to mandate 12-year old girls in Texas getting shots to prevent cervical cancer without first clearing it with his Legislature.

That's when Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann, whose standing in the Tea Party has been eclipsed by Perry, lit into the Governor for forcing government-funded vaccine on the girls and their families without an "opt-out" clause.  She also accused Perry of taking campaign contributions from drug manufacturer Merck in exchange for his executive order on the vaccine, which was later determined to be close to $30,000.  The following morning, Bachmann went on NBC's "Today" claiming the vaccine caused mental retardation, which medical authorities refuted.

What was Bachmann thinking?  Does she really want to give girls the choice between cervical cancer and mental retardation?  It makes the congresswoman sound cruel and heartless, as if she's against the prevention of cancer for political gain.  Whatever the case, her grandstanding did little to keep her floundering campaign afloat.

There was a similarity between the debates in Florida and California, and that is the tendency by the live audience to be a little bloodthirsty.  At the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library appearance, they cheered when it was mentioned that Governor Perry has executed more than 200 prisoners during his term in office.  In Tampa, CNN's Blitzer asked Texas congressman Dr. Ron Paul a hypothetical question about a 30-year old man refusing health insurance, then getting deathly ill.  Paul responded by saying that life is about risks, and that government shouldn't be paying for that man's care.  The audience applauded. 

There you have it, the Republican Party in a nutshell.  As the Great Recession rears its ugly head again and the GOP is hellbent on making the situation worse, the people who want to replace President Obama have taken the concept of saying anything to get elected to a new and disturbing level.  It's time to bring on the Christians vs. the Lions (and we don't mean Detroit), live from the Roman Colosseum.

9/11/11

Image via WikipediaChances are you're already done with every media outlet putting their spin on the day when four hijacked planes took aim at New York and Washington, killing 3000 people in the process.  A day for which there is still no name, just a date.  September 11, 2001.

Well, here's one more.

Since that day ten years ago. this country has become the Not-So-United States of America.  Politically, economically and socially everything has been split down radically different paths with no one daring to venture down the middle.

In New York, where the World Trade Center once stood, the place they call "Ground Zero" is a construction site soon to be filled by a memorial and a new tower that its backers believe will be terrorist-proof.

Orwellian terms became part of the language.  Police, firefighters and paramedics are referred to as "first responders".  National security is now "protecting the homeland".  Soldiers became "troops", and so on.

Because the hijackers were believed to be of Arabic descent and worshipped Allah rather than God, Muslims living in this country have been victims of a witch hunt reminiscent of the early Cold War years.  The only thing missing is a publicity-seeking politician with a list in his hands.

Two wars have been (and still are) fought in the name of 9/11, sending thousands of soldiers home in body bags for reasons that are no longer valid.  Yet government, the news media and Corporate America insists that we call them "heroes", even though they don't really deserve the honor.  They weren't defending our freedom so much as they were invading another country on the basis of lies.  Just like they did in nearly every war since 1945.

The men who sent the soldiers into harm's way, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have been largely unrepentant in the tactics allegedly used in fighting the War on Terror (some of it illegal, but never really proved) since leaving office.  Bush's successor Barack Obama has continued some of those policies, even though he had said he would not.

It's true that there hasn't been another spectacular attack on the United States since September 11, 2001.  Al Qaeda isn't what it used to be since the murder of Osama bin Laden last spring, though they are rumored to be planning new attacks.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, even if it doesn't seem like they really are.  And intelligence and law enforcement have gotten a lot better at capturing terrorism suspects, though there are some that slipped through the cracks.

However, Homeland Security officials tell us that the biggest threat comes from the "lone wolves", the Lee Harvey Oswald-Timothy McVeigh types who have a major beef with government and want to take as many lives as possible to prove their point.

Meanwhile, the government constantly reminds us to "be vigilant" of suspicious activity.  "If you see something, say something", the signs say.  Well, we'd like to help, but what is there to be vigilant about?  And just what do you mean by "suspicious activity"?  Sorry, but that information is classified.  Go back to whatever it is you were doing.

All the signs of paranoia are there.  Concrete barriers in front of government buildings, shopping malls and other public places because somebody tried to enter the front door using a vehicle containing bombs.  Airline passengers, young and old, searched from head to toe because somebody tried to hide explosives inside his shoes and underwear.

So who really is winning the war on terror?  If the terrorists' goal was to destabilize America after 9/11, then they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  They didn't have to create fear, divisiveness, a stagnant economy, and rendering the Constitution as worthless as the paper it's printed on.  The Americans did that all by themselves.  And that's why, ten years after planes crashed into skyscrapers and the Pentagon, the terrorists are winning.

Presidential Addresses--By Appointment Only

Image via WikipediaThe latest blow to President Barack Obama's credibility came Wednesday when his planned address to a joint session of Congress, which would focus on jobs and the economy, was moved from Wednesday, September 7 to Thursday, September 8.

Speaker of the House John Boehner turned down the original date, which is believed to be the first time that's ever happened, claiming that Congress wants to get back to work after a monthlong recess.  Whether or not it was a coincidence, the original date also would have conflicted with a Republican presidential debate at the same hour.  It would air on cable network MSNBC.

But people don't care about that so much as they do about the start of the National Football League season, which is what the President's address would now become--a warmup act prior to the New Orleans Saints-Green Bay Packers game on NBC.  The speech will now begin just after 7 p.m. in the East, and the White House promises it will end before kickoff.

You're probably wondering why President Obama insisted on getting his economic message out in the same week that the TV networks are commemorating the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and why he couldn't have waited until the following week.  It wasn't just because he wanted to change the subject on such a somber occasion.  It might be that Obama believes since he's the President, he can command the attention of the country any time he likes.  Didn't work this time, did it?

There's no question that the President blinked on this issue.  It's great that he wants to take the high road, and become the Great Compromiser in an era of partisan gridlock.  But it makes him look like an appeaser who caves in to whatever the Republicans want, which is not surprising since that seems to be the default setting for the Democrats.  (See:  health care, raising the debt ceiling, etc.)  And the polls, which now give Obama a 42 percent approval rating, seem to reflect this.

Not that the Republicans have it any better in the eyes of the voters, who now see the GOP as conservative bullies more interested in keeping Obama to one term while bankrupting the country for their own political gain.  And the debate the party apparently wants us to see features candidates who would have big problems winning votes beyond their narrow political bases, along with an incredible knack for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.  This less-than-inspiring bunch is the only saving grace if President Barack Obama wants to win a second term.