Choices

We got this email from one of Oregon's Congressmen and I think it speaks well to what we are facing in our country, what every state has for issues. We, as Americans have to decide who we trust, what we believe. If we want something simple like 9-9-9 when we don't have a clue what it'd do to our economy or government, well it's out there. It can be voted on and then let the chips fall where they may especially if we are pretty sure it won't hurt us personally (not that anybody can know that). If we are willing to look at complex issues and really think what will work for us as a more and more complicated society, then I think what this Congressman said is worth reading and asking our own leaders how they stand on it.

******************************************

With tens of millions of Americans unemployed, underemployed, or worried they will soon be out of work, job creation is the most important issue facing the nation.

One of the most tried and true ways to get people back to work is building and improving infrastructure.  Federal investment in infrastructure generates private sector jobs in construction, engineering and design, and manufacturing and supply. Every $1 billion we invest in infrastructure we create or sustain over 34,000 private sector jobs and produces $6.2 billion in economic activity.

There are 150,000 bridges across the nation in need substantial repair or replacement. We have a $70-80 billion backlog in transit maintenance projects. On the Willamette River, the aging flood control systems are operating at 85% capacity because the Army Corps of Engineers needs $100 million for repairs.

We can put millions of people to work if Congress invested adequately in a 21st century transportation system.  Insisting on strong "Made in America" requirements would ensure the benefits of these federal projects reached a broad spectrum of the American economy. Our economic competitors are investing billions in state of the art infrastructure. We must do the same.

But the House Republicans are neglecting this opportunity and instead passed a budget that would cut infrastructure funding by 35 percent. This cut in funds will eliminate nearly 500,000 jobs.

Their sole approach to create jobs is to continue on with the mantra that we need more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, the so-called “job creators.”  But tax cuts don't create jobs. We have had the worst job creation numbers since World War II in the ten years the Bush tax cuts have been in place, and these cuts have added $4.9 trillion to the federal budget deficit.

The Social Security payroll tax holiday didn't create jobs either. Extending the payroll tax holiday will surely undermine the long-term solvency of Social Security forcing the federal government to borrow $110 billion to replenish the Social Security Trust Fund.

The Administration is proposing three new free-trade agreements that were negotiated by George Bush.  They will do nothing to create jobs for Americans. Past free trade agreements have eroded our manufacturing base, and cost us 5 million manufacturing jobs, including 53,000 in Oregon.

Americans everywhere want to work and contribute to our country by paying taxes, not collecting unemployment or depending on food stamps and social services. They don't want to leave their children and grandchildren a massive debt, or privatize Social Security because Congress depleted the Trust Fund, or cut veterans' benefits to balance the budget. They are worried about outsourcing thousands of additional American jobs and putting higher education out of reach for working families. They are afraid Congress will slash Social Security and Medicare benefits, and they have no patience for more partisan gridlock or the "my way or the highway" attitude of some of the obstinate members of Congress.

I will continue to keep fighting for robust infrastructure investments. If you are interested in getting the unemployment rate down to five percent which would eliminate a quarter of the federal budget deficit, I need your help.

I intend to work tirelessly to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Business leaders, like Warren Buffet, also agree it is time to "stop coddling the billionaires,” and save $5 trillion over 10 years cutting the deficit in half.

I opposed NAFTA and other poorly designed trade deals that have outsourced millions of family wage jobs, and am leading an effort to put a moratorium on "free trade" agreements until Congress adopts new trade policies to bring and keep jobs home.

But to do all of this, I need your support.

Art Robinson will be back in 2012. He is speaking and organizing now throughout the district. I need to be ready to defend myself from the tsunami of negative advertising his campaign and his supporters will unleash.

The billionaire hedge fund manager from New York who spent $760,000 to defeat me last election is back too. He has already contributed the maximum amount an individual can give in the primary cycle to Robinson's campaign.  He is bitterly opposed to my Wall Street speculator tax and my support for legislation to make him pay taxes at the rate of working Americans.

The last election demonstrated that my outspoken support for the best interests of working families rather than special interests has earned me some powerful and well-funded enemies during my tenure in the Congress. Your support was vitally important then and will be again. Your contribution of $35, $50, $100, $250, $500, or $2,500 will help me remain an independent voice in Washington, D.C.

You can make a contribution using the enclosed envelop, by using a credit card through my secure website at  www.defazioforcongress.org, or by calling my office at  (541)485-1622.

 

Thank you for your continued support.

 

Sincerely,

 

Peter A. DeFazio

The Anger Grows-- you bet

Sometimes I get so angry that it's hard to write anything logically here. This is one such time so expect a little chaos ahead. The thing is I see the people in our country on two different paths and not only do I not know how that happened but what will be the end result. There is a lot, for someone on my path, to be angry about but the one that triggered me to write here is said very well by

Andrew Sullivan-- The Anger

The reaction of the crowds going to hear the Republican candidates is totally bizarre to me. Are there a bunch more of them sitting at home and likewise cheering lack of any health care for a thirty-year old man, who has an accident but didn't have insurance? When the guy yelled let him die, were they cheering that too? Who are these people-- in the audiences and at home?

The audience for this last debate was supposed to be tea partiers. They even had on uniforms of the Revolutionary War to proudly assert who they were. So I guess that's what the tea party types think of gay servicemen, those who have the courage to serve their country in harm's way, but happen to have unfortunately (according to the right) have been born gay. Are these the ones we are supposed to believe are nice people when they cheer executions? Have they been honed to this level by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk-- and there are a lot of Limbaugh types out there on right wing radio.

You know I actually know a few tea party type folks in real time. They seem real nice right until you hear what they think of anybody who isn't one of them and then they turn nasty fast. For several years I have heard people tearing at me for my opinion of them. I've been told to ignore their stupid outfits or the tea bags hanging from their hats, and instead see them as the real deal where it comes to Americans. These are the patriots, the ones who talk so easily of revolution again if they don't get their way in the polling booths. Patriots. That's a laugh except it's not funny!

Then comes the next question-- Who are the candidates on that stage who didn't defend that soldier or how about Santorum lying about what DADT was about. It's not about open sexual expression. That's an ugly lie. No soldier, straight or gay has a right to openly have sex in front of others. That is part of their code to behave (at least when around others) properly and if they don't, they are supposed to be booted out. Now how that explains the many cases of rape in the military, rape of female soldiers by males, well that's something else again; but it's not how it is supposed to be and the rules won't change with gays able to admit publicly who they are without fear of losing their careers.

What ending DADT will mean is that a gay partner can be recognized as a life mate. That is a big deal for being notified if something bad happens or allowing them to be with the sick partner. It also enables them to attend social functions together as it should be.

That Santorum would argue about that shows who he is-- a right wing bigot and a panderer. That the other candidates on the stage didn't react with disgust to that audience, that once again acted like a bigoted mob, shows who they are-- cowards.

Okay, taking deep breaths... Then the other thing that got me yesterday was listening to Progressive talk radio when the host got one call after another from people claiming to be rich, those who would be impacted by increasing the tax rate from currently 35% to 39% on the part of their income above a certain level, they claimed this was demonizing them and would destroy their incentive to make money.

Who believes this garbage? I'd really like to know. According to a chart that Rachel Maddow showed on her program last night, the Koch brothers have grown their wealth tremendously during the last 10 years and have less employees now than they had back then. So they got wealthier and they cut jobs. I would not be surprised if many like them want this country to have massive unemployment so people are willing to work for pennies. It's all about them and there is NEVER enough money for somebody like that.

So if the wealthy, who have profited so much by so many services paid for by other people like transportation, police, fire protection, education, if they feel put upon and consider themselves demonized, I say I don't care. They have been demonizing the poor and blaming them for not having more money. They have demonized unions to convince the middle class people to work against their own best interests. Maybe people like that deserve to be demonized.

What I'd like to know is how many people in our country are like this? How many would cheer at executions? How about boo a soldier actually serving in the military for daring to want to be honest about who he is? Who is really supporting the yahoos up on that platform who won't say a word when they know the truth but are afraid of the reaction of that same mob? Who the heck are American people? I hope those in the Republican party who don't think this way will stand up and be counted and that means for the candidates too.

Oh and how come we are being bombarded week after week by these candidates on TV and getting all the coverage for their debates? Is that going to go on for the whole next year until we have the conventions? Good thing I don't watch regular TV but I can't avoid the coverage of it if I watch news. I'll have to think about that one!

Death penalty cases

 Troy Davis denied clemency

Bob Barr writes Davis Ruling Wrong

This is a tough one, not because of what I believe should be done in this case, which is he should not be executed, but because I support the idea of a death penalty, which is not popular with the left wing but I don't support it when there is any doubt at all as to guilt which there clearly is with this case.

When a trial has witnesses who can profit from their testimony (for instance in this case possibly one of the ones testifying against  Davis might have actually been the shooter, or with witnesses who get a soft sentence themselves for what they say), I don't think it should ever be a death penalty case. The courts often use witnesses that should not be trusted. Juries are stuck making their judgment based on what evidence they are given, not all they might want.

In this case, where Davis was there, but the question is whether he did the shooting of a police officer in a crime clearly of the moment, I would think life in prison would be the most he should have been given since that would leave a chance someday of finding out the person was innocent. Davis wasn't totally innocent as he was there; but it might be he didn't do the shooting. Should we ever, as a society, take that chance?

Sexuality in today's world

Since I am kind of exploring issues, which I am reading elsewhere,  and because I really don't want to write about Perry or the other right wing candidates for the Republican nomination, because it's just too depressing, here's another what I'd call human interest that impacts our culture for how we see it.

Cheerleader rape saga still unfolds

This is a tough one for me as I am offended that a girl that age would go to a party, get drunk, go off with some boys to a room by herself, go for petting and then yell rape when penetration happens. I am also offended that a boy would get drunk, play with a girl but then not accept no meant no and stop right when the girl said it even if she had been a tease. My viewpoint on this is probably colored by my old age. I can relate to this story more from my experiences in the past than what it might be like in today's culture.

I taught my son, when we were discussing sexuality in his teen years (over 20 years ago now) that if he was to be making out with a girl, going too far, and at any point she said no, that meant stop right there. Never see that girl again if she was playing a game with turning him on and then off; but stop.

I taught my daughter (she's older than him) you do not go into a party and get drunk with a lot of other drunk people as that's just plain not smart. You don't play around with sexuality with any boy unless you mean it and know where it's going. It's mean to go so far and then stop if that hasn't been made clear in the beginning.

My father taught me you don't tease men because it's not only a vicious thing to do, a power game for women, but might lead to consequences you don't want. He always said dressing too provocatively was the same way but remember that was then and today it's hard to find clothing for young women that isn't provocative. His take on that was you might turn a man on by what you wore and it won't be you he goes after; so you use modesty for the sake of all women not just yourself.


Are these antiquated attitudes for today?

It is quite possible this boy would have never had any repercussions if he had not been black, as some are accusing, and she had not been white; but to me this one does not sound like an issue of race. It seems more likely to be one where sports heroes are given more latitude to do things than anybody else. In little towns, those sports teams are everything and the good players are heroes no matter what they do. That viewpoint has created some real monsters in the sports world because they are let get away with anything. That's not okay.

It also seems wrong for the school and community to have tormented the girl after the fact. She used poor judgment but the boys did too. Teaching young people about sexuality is important and unfortunately a lot of righties want it all done in the home but some homes won't teach it-- what then?

Grizzly law vs. common sense

Here is what turns Americans into tea partiers.

Man charged in killing grizzly near home

Sorry but that is simply nuts. Any grizzly that close to a home is a risk to any family especially one with six children. So this guy should have waited until the grizzly actually killed one of his kids? Maybe was starting to eat him? Sometimes I myself wonder if the federal government is nuts!

Uncuriouser and uncuriouser

Since I wrote my thoughts about 9/11 in my non-political blog, Rainy Day Thoughts, which I will post tomorrow, I won't repeat them here. My mind is on other things anyway. Like Rick Perry as a serious Republican candidate for the presidency, and the things he said at the recent debate and before.

Perry is like Bush regarding being incurious about anything. Well, maybe they are about something but it's not something like the legal system. His lack of curiosity is why he does not feel guilt regarding sending so many people to their death in Texas. Yes, I know it was the jury system that did it but Perry didn't bother to look at any of it to say he slept great at night even knowing some innocent people might die.

Having just served on a jury, I'd like to let Perry know a little about how that system works; but he probably doesn't read anything that doesn't reinforce what he believes already. Juries give a verdict based on the evidence they are given-- nothing less and nothing more. That evidence is as good as the police and investigators give them and the District Attorney wants to use. When the police don't bother or have time to pursue all possible evidence, it doesn't get entered even by the DA. If the DA wants to withhold some, theoretically they are not supposed to do that, who finds out? Sometimes years later it comes out which can be too late when it's a death penalty.

In the jury on which I served, we wished we had some pieces of information that were never given to us and maybe never gathered. We had to make the verdict without it. Can you imagine doing that when someone's life is at stake? What Perry said is he won't bother to look at it either because he doesn't need to. He is a last resort for justice and showed himself to be clueless and curious-less. This is Bush and more. Does Texas encourage that attitude or just reward it? And what was with that Republican audience cheering that people were executed? Don't they get it that the death penalty is a failure of a culture, not a success!

The other thing Perry went clueless about was Social Security. He called it a Ponzi scheme which pretty well means he doesn't understand how it works either.  Social Security is an insurance system for old age. It is supported by premiums and we know when we are paying it that we are paying for current elders with the expectation someday somebody else will be paying for us. The surplus went into a fund until very recently. The checks that are mailed out won't be covering cruises.

Nobody is forced to draw money from SS. The money we have paid in will not determine how much we get out. If we live to be very old, we might get back more than we paid in but we could also die prematurely and get out much less.

All insurance is like this. We pay in premiums to get coverage in case we need it. We aren't looking to get rich. We are looking to have our costs covered in case we get sick. If Social Security is a Ponzi scheme than so is life, health, auto, and home insurance. If too many claims go against any of these, more than covers the premiums that went in, they can go bankrupt. The federal government would have to go bankrupt before SS would be endangered and then it would mean our whole system of government and the military would likewise collapse.

Repeating, although it's not complicated for people who are interested in exploring what it is, the cost for current retirees is paid for out of current premiums or was until the dollar amount began to be less coming in than going out. That has not been helped this year and probably next where the SS premium was reduced for workers. This was done to help the economy but it hurries the day when the reserve fund will run out. That reserve fund, of course, exists as much as US Treasury bonds do. We put money in there and count on that it will be there when we cash them in. It would take the failure of this country to cause our bond to not be worth a certain number of dollars at maturity. For now it's the responsible will of the people to make it be there.

Social Security premiums could cover the future retirees if they upped the dollar amount that workers have to continue to pay it on. Not complicated at all. Up the income on which people pay and the reserve fund grows as well as it covers current retirees.

One other thing with Perry's claim that it won't be there for today's kids. That's an out and out lie or he's just ignorant-- take your pick. Right now it would give them less percentage-wise than they should get but it would still be a monthly check. The only way it would not is if the country collapses totally. It won't amount to much though if it doesn't keep pace with the deflation of our dollars. They can leave it right where it is and if they don't allow for the dollar being worth less and less, it'll be a pittance, but it will be there unless someone like Perry gets it declared unconstitutional. I wonder how tea partiers will like it if that happens. Have they really through through what that would mean? I doubt it.

There was one actual conservative on that debate stage Wednesday night-- Jon Huntsman. He evidently doesn't stand a chance in the primaries for assorted reasons, like maybe that he is curious and does think; but as for the rest of them, sorry but righties are conservatives NOT. They are just, those who support them and those who run for office, incurious and willing to stay ignorant to suit their agenda.

The Democratic Dilemma

While the right used to be furious at Obama for being too liberal, a borderline socialist who was acting like an emperor and attempting to turn the country into a Muslim nation, they have now hit on another argument which seems to be resonating better with Independents. He's ineffective, helpless and hopeless, in over his head. Instant jump from too much to too little and since it worked with Carter and Gore, they figure it will again. They might be right on it working. Basically until recently, it looked like this race would be decided by the middle. Now I am not so sure.

Obama's bigger problem is he has pretty well lost his base in his attempt to stick to the middle and cater to business as much as he can. He did it through continuing the wars, through not ending rendition. He has worked to please the right, or so it seems when he talks about Social Security being up for weakening and his reluctance to do what he could to get single payer for health insurance. The right thought he was a socialist? The left thinks he didn't go far enough.

What he gained for this, I don't know, but he seems, for having everybody think he was a great communicator, to have lost the ability to communicate any reasons. Which has led to the left turning on him for being an extension of Bush. They are so unhappy that they are ready to consider sitting out 2012 or even vote for an alternative candidate thereby ceding the election to James Richard Perry. They'd rather have someone who wasn't a progressive than someone who claimed to be but worked against every cause in which they believe. It's not a totally illogical stance.

The latest heresy by Obama was stopping the EPA from enforcing stricter ozone rules for LA. This was basically the last straw for environmentalists who really have nowhere to go but feel it hasn't made much difference who gets the presidency if they all do the same thing to the environment.

The EPA decision wasn't as simple as it sounds on the surface. First of all it was going to be evaluated in 2013 regardless of what was done right now. Second if they did change the rules, it is claimed, because the rules were ahead of the technology and the financing, it would have led to rolling blackouts for the city.  You think he's unpopular now, imagine that happening in the heat of a summer or cold of a winter. Obama decided to put off the decision on changing the regulations until that 2013 evaluation. Definitely nuanced governing, which it turns out has been what he does a lot, but it pleases nobody.

Now there is no doubt what Perry would do about this decision. The problem for Obama is that doesn't make it okay with his base what he did. They feel betrayed and it wasn't just this but a whole string of things which are being talked about in every left wing political blog.

I don't know if he's weak or just thinks too much. He comes across looking like he's lost his moorings and is operating in a zone where he doesn't have a set of personal values that help him take a stand even when it's unpopular. It is early yet, but is it already too late for him to change the view Americans are coming to have of him.

The problem for Democrats is where does that leave them in 2012? I remember when some voted for Nader in 2000 because they were purists and the end result was Gore lost, and Bush showed us how bad a right wing president can be. We are still suffering for that and have zero reason to believe Perry won't be more of the same or worse. Yes, you can get worse and from everything I have read about Perry's record, about his character, he will be worse.

I don't even know what an alternative left wing candidate would be if the left truly wanted somebody to challenge Obama in the primaries. Certainly Bernie Sanders, likeable as he is, as an avowed socialist and without personal charisma, can't win a national election. Is there anybody else out there on the left who could? Does anybody really believe Hillary would have been farther left than Obama if she had been chosen to run against McCain? She has the Clinton record for us to look at the deals with China, the ruination of financial regulations, and the duplicity behind the scenes. That would be better? She's more hawkish than Obama. Practically speaking I don't think she'd choose to shut down electricity for a major city if it meant people living in it would suffer. Why wasn't the technology developed? Because of the cost of wars she has supported.

There is only a very slim possibility that the right will nominate Huntsman as a candidate for the left to get behind. The articles I have seen and polling seem to show Republicans wanting revenge for Obama and an extremist as their choice.  They are in no mood to compromise as is shown by how they are governing in the House and with the governorships they won in 2010. Huntsman is falling far behind. The argument also is he thinks too much and is too soft. Basically he'd be another Obama.

If Americans want bluster and it's all they really respect, if they don't actually like nuances despite saying they do, well it looks to me like it's going to be President Perry and another lesson in what that means to the country when you let a far right winger have that kind of power.

Interestingly they say Republicans aren't asking Perry social questions. There is a reason for that. They don't want him exposed for what he'll do on the social issues and if you look at his rhetoric, there is little doubt what he'll do.  Liberals who want to punish Obama for being a disappointment might find it backfires.

I don't hold Obama unaccountable for this mess. Maybe though he just wasn't up to the job. It might be not many people are unless they think black and white and take into account nothing but their partisan agenda. It might be what it takes to at least keep your base happy.

One final thought for Democrats who are discouraged-- Supreme Court.

Bush gave us Alito and Roberts.

Obama gave us Sotomayor and Kagan.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has announced her plans to retire during the next presidential term.

What do  you suppose a Rick Perry will give us?

Be Specific

The right wing constantly says government cannot do anything right. I was listening to one of the progressive talk radio shows yesterday, while waiting in the truck as Farm Boss picked up cattle corral panels at a farm supply store. I heard a caller, who was conservative, again making that point. He said he was a Texan who ran a business. He said government took two weeks to do what business does in a day.

Since tea partiers are constantly taking this stance as part of why they want to shave government's ability to do anything back to the military, they obviously believe the argument that government should not do what they can do better for themselves. They believe, and were taught to think this from way way back, starve the beast. What they are talking about is the federal government though with this starve the beast (well they don't maybe vote for local school levies either) talk.

Okay, so here is the question: if you either deal with the federal government or have read an article (not one of those floating email lie filled stories) but a real newspaper story about federal government ineffectiveness, I'd like to hear it here.

Now we all know that FEMA blew it after Katrina with using contractors, like Halliburton, who misused funds, lost them and basically totally failed in rapidly reacting to the disaster (including the dikes around the city) as well as the trailers they bought to use which never got used, etc. etc.

But FEMA was being run by heck-of-a-job Brownie, who was the Bush pick to run the agency when he had had zero experience at anything like it. He couldn't have picked say a Red Cross coordinator to nominate for the position? I mean they seem to get their people in and deal with disasters very rapidly. No, he picked someone who was a crony, who had supported him and who he liked. Yes, it failed with Katrina but is FEMA still a failure or is this just one of those stories that never ends for saying all of government is a failure?

Oh right, and I remember ATF too. Not only their most recent debacle with the guns but a lot of their earlier ones. You want to end ATF, you got my support on that one as it seems a scary bunch who in the past have killed people including children with their reckless and feckless raids. Their selling of guns to Mexican cartels supposedly as a sting that ended up just giving them guns, well they would be on my removal list before the National Endowment to the Arts which can do less damage and costs less money.

And oh yeah, there is the disastrously named Homeland Security that chose a Nazi name for their program but that was also under Bush. Whether they are helping us by their naked cameras (which I understand are being discontinued) or their freedom to grope anybody sexually and call it legal, I don't know. I do know that it has been a very invasive program brought in with the excuse of 9/11 but to do a job that should have been done by FBI and local law enforcement.

So, I have just convinced myself that there are some ineffective government programs or have been although I hear FEMA is now ahead of the game in reacting even as they are being denied funding which will make them incapable of responding to future disasters. People who find fault with them might think about that for their own region as nobody is immune to disasters. Yeah, I get it that some people don't need government help after such a thing strikes. And if it doesn't help you, it's not good. I get it. 

But what that guy was talking about was specifically dealing with bureaucrats or seeing government workers doing a job that they weren't doing effectively and business could do better. So let's make this specific to running into government types who made everything cost more for no good reason.

AND this must be the ineffective federal government worker. If your experience is local or state, well that's where people like Perry want to send all these jobs. (Coincidentally he is the governor of the state where this caller said he'd had these experiences. Wonder if he was talking state or federal...