Obama Announces End to Iraq Combat Mission in Oval Office Address, CNN, August 31, 2010, by CNN Daily Intel, excerpt quoted verbatim:

“The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people,” the president said in his Oval Office speech Tuesday night, only the second time he has addressed the nation from the (newly redecorated) Oval Office. Obama formally announced the end of the U.S. combat role in the country, declaring that Operation Iraqi Freedom is “over” and it is time to ”turn the page.” About 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, but the president said in the address that all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year.Considering many of Obama’s previous speeches have been praised as passionate and stirring, this one was noticeably subdued, the president providing a status report in an almost professorial manner. Chatter before the speech focused on how Obama would refer to his predecessor’s role in beginning the war. While he did not specifically mention former president George W. Bush’s 2007 “surge” in troops, Obama avoided any criticism of how Bush launched the war … and he actually lauded him.

“It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.”

The president briefly mentioned the conflict in Afghanistan, noting that Al Qaeda “continues to plot against us.” He said the removal of troops in Iraq will mean additional resources for the effort in Afghanistan, though he pledged that those troops, too, will be removed from Afghanistan by the end of next year. The final act of the speech somewhat awkwardly transitioned into a discussion of the economy, as Obama claimed the country’s “most urgent task is to restore our economy” and add jobs.

Read the rest of the story, here.

An End to Combat Missions In Iraq

See Obama Declares an End to Combat Mission in Iraq, The New York Times, August 31, 2010, by Helene Cooper and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, excerpt quoted verbatim:

In a prime-time address from the Oval Office, Mr. Obama balanced praise for the troops who fought and died in Iraq with his conviction that getting into the conflict had been a mistake in the first place. But he also used the moment to emphasize that he sees his primary job as addressing the weak economy and other domestic issues — and to make clear that he intends to begin disengaging from the war in Afghanistan next summer.

“We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home,” Mr. Obama said. “Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page.”

Seeking to temper partisan feelings over the war on a day when Republicans pointed out that Mr. Obama had opposed the troop surge generally credited with helping to bring Iraq a measure of stability, the president offered some praise for his predecessor, George W. Bush. Mr. Obama acknowledged their disagreement over Iraq but said that no one could doubt Mr. Bush’s “support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.”

Mr. Obama spoke for about 18 minutes, saying that violence would continue in Iraq and that the United States would continue to play a key role in nurturing a stable democracy there. ….

Turn the page on Mister Bush? Never

See Turn the page on Mister Bush? Never, Daily Kos, August 31, 2010, by Meteor Blades, excerpt quoted verbatim:

I’m a big believer in mercy and forgiveness. And second chances. Had people in my life failed to forgive, chosen to be merciless, rejected the idea that those who’ve gone astray can improve themselves and make amends, there’s every likelihood I’d have spent several decades in the slam or died there. Luckily, some people reached out to me, gave me a second chance, helped me rescue myself. I’ve tried to follow their lead for a lot of years.

So I understand why President Obama underscored his call to “turn the page” regarding Iraq tonight by revealing that he had phoned President Bush. “It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset,” Obama said. “Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.”

I’d like to be able to agree. Really, I would.

However, unlike President Obama, I could and did and do doubt Bush’s support for the troops, love of country and commitment to our security. And I can wrest no mercy from the bitterness and rage that I feel every time I remember what he and the pack of thugs around him accomplished for the troops, the country and our security.

I cannot and will not turn the page until George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the others in that cabal of scorpions are brought to justice and make amends for Iraq. Which means never. No apology, much less time in the slam. I’ll go to my grave knowing Bush and the rest got away with it. In a couple of months, Bush hopes hundreds of thousands of Americans will be turning the pages of his memoir (called Decision Points– Amazon purchase page, to be released November 9, 2010, available for preorder, hardcover, $18.), a book certain to add to the plethora of lies and pathetic, murderous rationalizations with which we became so familiar during the last seven years of his presidency.

See War Is Over — for Some, The New York Times, August 31, 2010, by Maurice Decaul.

UPDATE & Flashback: See Reid: Iraq War lost, U.S. can’t win, MSNBC Politics, April 20, 2007, by Associated Press.

Obama Address: War in Iraq is Over

"Obama: The End of the Combat Mission in Iraq:" President Obama, speaking from a newly redecorated Oval Office, announces an end to combat operations in Iraq and speaks of the need to honor our servicemen and also improve the economy. Watch the video of the speech, here — 17:56

Evans Liberal Politics, September 1, 2010, by my friend Elizabeth:

A Message to Young People

You know something isn’t right. You’re not dumb

Today, Fall 2010— Many people are having a hard time. More than 10% of Americans are on food stamps. Around 17% of people are unemployed or are only working part-time.  And ever since February 2009, 10,000 people have lost their homes each day. I know. It’s so sad.

Q: Why is our economy so bad?

A: There are 4 major reasons we are in such bad shape. I want you to understand these reasons. I am 50. You are younger. This is your country too. Sadly, this will be your mess to clean up.  You’ll be around a lot longer than me…. Unless… hey!? Where is that fountain of youth?!

Mass Assassinations Lie at the Heart of America’s Military Strategy in the Muslim World, AlterNet, August 24, 2010, by Fred Branfman, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Greatly expanded U.S. military Special Ops teams, U.S. drone strikes and private espionage networks run by former CIA assassins create a threat to our security.

[General McChrystal says that] “for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies.” — “The Runaway General,” Rolling Stone, 6/22/10.

The truth that many Americans find hard to take is that that mass U.S. assassination on a scale unequaled in world history lies at the heart of America’s military strategy in the Muslim world, a policy both illegal and never seriously debated by Congress or the American people. Conducting assassination operations throughout the 1.3 billon-strong Muslim world will inevitably increase the murder of civilians and thus create exponentially more “enemies,” as Gen. McChrystal suggests — posing a major long-term threat to U.S. national security. This mass assassination program, sold as defending Americans, is actually endangering us all. Those responsible for it, primarily General Petraeus, are recklessly seeking short-term tactical advantage while making an enormous long-term strategic error that could lead to countless American deaths in the years and decades to come. General Petraeus must be replaced, and the U.S. military’s policy of direct and mass assassination of Muslims ended.

The U.S. has conducted assassination programs in the Third World for decades, but the actual killing — though directed and financed by the C.I.A. — has been largely left to local paramilitary and police forces. This has now has changed dramatically.

What is unprecedented today is the vast number of Americans directly assassinating Muslims — through greatly expanded U.S. military Special Operations teams, U.S. drone strikes and private espionage networks run by former CIA assassins and torturers. Most significant is the expanding geographic scope of their killing. While CENTCOM Commander from October 2008 until July 2010, General Petraeus received secret and unprecedented permission to unilaterally engage in operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, former Russian Republics, Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, the Horn of Africa, and wherever else he deems necessary.

Never before has a nation unleashed so many assassins in so many foreign nations around the world (9,000 Special Operations soldiers are based in Iraq and Afghanistan alone) as well as implemented a policy that can be best described as unprecedented, remote-control, large-scale “mechanized assassination.” As the N.Y. Times noted in December 2009: “For the first time in history, a civilian intelligence agency is using robots to carry out a military mission, selecting people for killing in a country where the United States is not officially at war.”

This combination of human and technological murder amounts to a worldwide “Assassination Inc.” that is unique in human affairs.

The increasing shift to direct U.S. assassination began on Petraeus’s watch in Iraq,where targeted assassination was considered by many within the military to be more important than the “surge.” The killing of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was considered a major triumph that significantly reduced the level of violence. As Bob Woodward reported in The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008:

“Beginning in about May 2006, the U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence agencies launched a series of top secret operations that enabled them to locate, target and kill key individuals in extremist groups.

A number of authoritative sources say these covert activities had a far-reaching effect on the violence and were very possibly the biggest factor in reducing it.

Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) responsible for hunting al Qaeda in Iraq, (conducted) lightning-quick and sometimes concurrent operations When I later asked the president (Bush) about this, he offered a simple answer: ‘JSOC is awesome.’” [Emphasis added.]

Woodward’s finding that many “authoritative sources” believed assassination more important than the surge is buttressed by Petraeus’ appointment of McChrystal to lead U.S. forces in Afghanistan. McChrystal’s major qualification for the post was clearly his perceived expertise in assassination while heading JSOC from 2003-’08 (where he also conducted extensive torture at “Camp Nama” at Baghdad International Airport, successfully excluding even the Red Cross).

Another key reason for the increased reliance on assassination is that Petraeus’ announced counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan obviously cannot work. It is absurd to believe that the corrupt warlords and cronies who make up the “Afghan government” can be transformed into the viable entity upon which his strategy publicly claims to depend — particularly within the next year which President Obama has set as a deadline before beginning to withdraw U.S. troops. Petraeus is instead largely relying on mass assassination to try and eliminate the Taliban, both within Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The centrality of assassination to U.S. war plans is revealed by the fact that it was at the heart of the Obama review of Afghan policy last fall. The dovish Biden position called for relying primarily on assassination, while the hawkish McChrystal stance embraced both assassination and more troops. No other options were seriously considered.

A third factor behind the shift to mass assassination is that Petraeus and the U.S. military are also determined to attack jihadi forces in nations where the U.S. is not at war, and which are not prepared to openly invite in U.S. forces. As the N.Y. Times reported on May 24, “General Petraeus (has argued) that troops need to operate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to better fight militant groups.”

Check Out the Best Guide to Politics on the Web!
The Guide to Liberal News and Politics on the Web

Find Out Where to find the Truth in Politics!

The most significant aspect of this new and expanded assassination policy is President Obama’s authorizing clandestine U.S. military personnel to conduct it. The N.Y. Times has also reported:

In roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics crippled by ethnic and religious strife — the United States has significantly increased military and intelligence operations, pursuing the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying contractors to spy and training local operatives to chase terrorists (Military) Special Operations troops under secret “Execute Orders” have conducted spying missions that were once the preserve of civilian intelligence agencies.

Particularly extraordinary is the fact that these vastly expanded military assassination teams are not subject to serious civilian control. As the N.Y. Times has also reported, Petraeus in September 2009 secretly expanded a worldwide force of assassins answerable only to the military, without oversight by not only Congress but the president himself:

The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents. The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa. Unlike covert actions undertaken by the C.I.A., such clandestine activity does not require the president’s approval or regular reports to Congress. [Emphasis added]

Although sold to the American public and Congress as targeted, selective assassination aimed only at a handful of “high value” insurgent leaders, the program has in fact already expanded far beyond that. As personnel and aircraft devoted to assassination exponentially increase, so too do the numbers of people they murder, both “insurgents” and civilians.

While it is reasonable to assume that expanding the number of Special Operations commandos to its present worldwide level of 13,000 will result in increasing assassinations, the secrecy of their operations makes it impossible to know how many they have murdered, how many of those are civilians, and the effectiveness of their operations. It is not known, for example, how many people U.S. military assassins murder directly, and how many they kill indirectly by identifying them for drone strikes. Much of their activity is conducted, for example, in North Waziristan in northwest Pakistan which, as the N.Y. Times reported on April 4 “is virtually sealed from the outside world.”

More information, however, has emerged about the parallel and unprecedented mass mechanized assassinations being carried out by the C.I.A. drone programs. It is clear that they have already expanded far beyond the official cover story of targeting only “high-level insurgent leaders,” and are killing increasing numbers of people.

The CIA, of course, is no novice at assassination. Future CIA Director William Colby’s Operation Phoenix program in South Vietnam gave South Vietnamese police quotas of the number of civilians to be murdered on a weekly and monthly basis, eventually killing 20-50,000 people. CIA operatives such as Latin American Station Chef Duane “Dewey” Clarridge also established, trained and operated local paramilitary and death squads throughout Central and Latin America that brutally tortured and murdered tens of thousands of civilians, most notably in El Salvador where CIA-trained and -directed killers murdered Archbishop Romero and countless other Salvadorans.

But the present CIA assassination program in Pakistan and elsewhere is different not only because it is Americans who are themselves the assassins, but because of the unprecedented act of conducting mechanized mass assassination from the air. The CIA, as as Nick Turse has reported for TomDispatch.com, is exponentially increasing its drone assassination program:

“(Drone) Reapers flew 25,391 hours (in 2009). This year, the air force projects that the combined flight hours of all its drones will exceed 250,000 hours. More flight time will, undoubtedly, mean more killing.”

Read the rest of the article, here.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 183 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

Evans Liberal Politics, August 29, 2010, by Paul Evans, as seen on OpEdNews:

Every liberal has had it up to the gills with all the coverage Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin get in the national media. Evans Liberal Politics just gave them more press in covering the “Restore America” rally, but we could hardly avoid it, it’s the big news from yesterday, continuing into today. (See Beck Rally Confirms Maher’s Claims About Dumb Americans, Left of Center, August 29, 2010, by G.A. Afolabi. Also see Billionaire Who Denies Connection to Tea Parties Addressed Crowd at Glenn Beck Rally, AlterNet, August 29, 2010, by Adele M. Stan.) Palin is still chummy with John McCain, and campaigned for him in the Arizona primary, eschewing the avowed Tea Party candidate. Liberals are horrified at Sarah Palin’s popularity, and yet many liberals are almost hoping she gets the Republican nomination in 2012, since that would pretty much guarantee Barack Obama reelection. Not me, I don’t want her anywhere close to the nomination.

The Prospects for a Democratic
Win in 2012

The Tea Party enjoys a 25 or 26 percent popularity in America and 80 percent of them identify as belonging to the Republican Party. “Out of 50 states, just 3 candidates won while claiming to be Tea Party members – Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada (both running for Congress) and Nikki Haley of South Carolina (running for governor).” Of course, the Republican Party is now pretty much a regionalized, Southern and Western concern, with only 25 percent of the population having a “very positive” or “somewhat positive” view of the GOP. This is actually lower than for Dick Cheney, who comes in at 26 percent popularity. Still, 2008 was closer than that, the GOP is now backed by Wall Street and big corporation dollars, and there are plenty of on-the-line, Reagan Democrat and Independent voters who swing Republican at times. Only 32 percent of Independents want the Democrats to keep control of Congress in the Fall elections, whereas Obama took 52 percent of the Independent vote in 2008. This is a very worrisome trend for Democrats.

Much has been made of a looming “enthusiasm gap, with conservative Republicans much more enthusiastic about voting this fall (51 percent of conservative Republicans are enthusiastic) versus just 29 percent of liberal Democrats describing themselves as enthusiastic to vote. 9 out of 10 Independents cite the economy as the main reason they now are against Democrats as prospective voters, and the economy is not cooperating, probably headed for the second dip of a double dip Great Recession (or Depression, according to some), just in time for this fall’s elections.

It’s hard to say the kind of shape the economy will be in by November, 2012. But with the prospect of a gridlocked Congress after this fall’s elections, it’s unlikely that anything really positive will get done afterwords that Obama can point to in an election campaign. Obama has had his two year opportunity and has shaped some important reforms (health care, Wall Street reform, the stimulus), yet the conservative media has done an excellent job painting the picture of a somewhat unsuccessful legislative accomplishment, despite this. The nomination of a very conservative candidate like Sarah Palin is Obama’s best hope for an easy reelection, with a lot of anger about how bad things are permeating the nation.

The Republican Presidential Field for 2012

A Frank Look at the Republican Field of Potential Candidates

According to MSNBC, Palin currently enjoys a leading popularity among potential Republican nominees, with a 76 percent approval rating among GOP Party members. The next nearest personality, Arkansas’ Mike Huckabee, is at a 65 percent popularity. Mitt Romney, who came close to getting the nomination in 2008, and is an establishment insider who is somewhat handicapped by the fact that he is a Mormon. Romney is still popular and might even be considered the front-runner at this point, and there has been a lot of talk and machinations from Newt Gingrich, who has a certain following. But what about that “other” Republican, Libertarian Party leader Dr. Ron Paul?

Dr. Ron Paul, His Son Rand Paul
and an Evaluation of the Republican Presidential ‘Candidates’

Many liberals frankly just don’t have enough information to properly assess Dr. Paul. We know that he is anti-corporatist, which we like a lot, and that he pretty much advocates a return to a gold standard, and that he is very much against corruption in the Federal Reserve, and works with committed liberals like Alan Grayson in such matters. Describing Obama himself as something of a corporatist, which progressives find sadly all too true, Paul debunked the right wing myth of the President as a socialist back at the end of April. Dr. Paul is an retired obstetrician/gynecologist, and thus an educated man who has some subtlety to his vision of the world, unlike Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee.

He also has a certain reputation, and there is a certain amount of evidence for this, to the effect that he has made a number of statements evidencing a certain prejudice towards African-Americans. Dr. Paul answered those charges in a CNN News video. Apparently the charges originated mainly from some 10 to 15 year old semiofficial Libertarian newsletters with some prejudiced comments that had Paul’s name on them, but apparently he did not write the comments, and we ourselves do not feel that Dr. Paul is at all racist. I think it was a bit of a witch hunt, as Paul says. Dr. Paul certainly advocates non-violent protest in the same vein as, and very much supporting, the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

A very positive video, put out by America Restored, with footage of C-SPAN video of Dr. Paul’s speeches and material from MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, from April 6, 2009, contains a concise statement of some of Ron Paul’s Constitutional and governmental views. It has a title to the effect that Ron Paul does not plan to run for President in 2012. The video ends with a statement that the reason people like Dr. Paul so much in the countryside is that his love for America is foremost in his mind, more than his personal ambition — a rare quality among politicians. The problem we liberals have with Dr. Paul, besides his appalling wish to return us to a gold standard, is that he is so anti-government in his strict constructionist Constitutional interpretation, and that this leads to his strong emphasis on small government, which liberals find to be not too practical in today’s society. An April 14, 2010, Rasmussen Poll (a thoroughly right wing group that usually exaggerates Republican numbers), has a potential 2012 election between Obama and Ron Paul going barely to Obama, 42 percent to 41 percent, with 11 percent preferring some other candidate and 6 percent undecided.

Dr. Paul is certainly against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, challenging the whole GOP foreign policy agenda. Paul has made some strong statements against the bloated intelligence community which appeal to liberals like me. He also would pardon all nonviolent drug offenders, because he feels current drug laws are strongly racist towards blacks, since 14 percent of of blacks in the cities end up in prison for drug crimes.

So Ron Paul is not the devil to some of us liberals, as are Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is self-evidently a charlatan, without any experience at working in the news field, yet very popular among a certain segment of the Republican base. Sarah Palin’s homey, aw shucks folks, gee I’ll have to get back with you on that interviews still apparently fly with this base — evidence the 76 percent popularity rating among Republicans mentioned above — and she has to be considered the leading politician in the field of potential Republican candidates for 2012. Sadly.

Rand Paul, Dr. Paul’s 47 year old son, is the GOP candidate from Kentucky for United States Senator for 2010, and Kentucky has to be considered a Republican state. He was actively opposed by Mitch McConnell in the primaries. Rand Paul got into a little trouble for a stand he took about the 1964 Civil Rights act, which Politico correctly described as a stand (against the Civil Rights act) narrowly based on his own Libertarian Constitutional principles rather than any real prejudice. Other thoughtful liberal sources concur that Rand Paul is really far more adamantly free market and against limitations placed on business by one small portion of the 1964 Civil Rights act than he is in any way unusually prejudiced or any more racist than most successful whites (let’s face it).

He has in fact been mentioned as a potential Republican nominee for 2012, getting some attention at Salon.com as a potential nominee. A Rand Paul candidacy is not altogether improbable either. As Salon says:

…on the surface this is a silly idea. The 47-year-old Paul has no previous experience in government or politics and will, in ’12, have been a senator for just two years. Plus, given the realities of modern presidential politicking, he’d essentially need to begin campaigning a few months into his freshman term.

But when you look closer, it starts to make sense, for two basic reasons: 1) The political atmosphere has never been more favorable for Ron Paul’s brand of libertarianism; and 2) Ron Paul himself will be 77 years old in 2012. In other words, the old man may not feel like spending another two years of his life running around the country, but with a son in the Senate, he’d have someone to pass the torch to.

In 2008, Ron Paul managed to mount a surprisingly credible campaign, raising astounding sums of money and nabbing around 10 percent in Iowa and New Hampshire. He never seriously threatened to win the nomination, though, and finished with only a handful of delegates, despite staying in the race until the bitter end.

This was all in the, pre-Wall Street collapse, pre-TARP, pre-President Obama Republican Party. In the last two years, Ron Paul’s message has found wider resonance in the GOP, fueled by deep grass-roots anger at Washington and Wall Street — enough that he was able to win February’s CPAC straw poll.

There is a very interesting article in August 23rd’s Washington Post about a rift between the senior Ron Paul and son Rand Paul regarding the building of the so-called ground zero mosque. Apparently Ron Paul supports building the mosque, and in a statement released August 20th, ripped into opponents of the mosque, charging political demagoguery. However Rand Paul, probably hoping to capitalize on the prevailing public opinion (and following the Republican Party line) is very much against the mosque. To which Ron Paul’s reaction was (via a spokesman), as reported by Talking Points Memo, “Rand Paul is his own man.” If this is any indication, Rand Paul has a way to go before he becomes half the man his father is, philosophically and politically.

Along with Sarah Palin’s resurgence in popularity among the GOP base, it is well to remember that Ron Paul is still very popular, and is the leading figure in Libertarian circles, and in fact, most people in Libertarian circles usually end up voting Republican anyway. Let’s fact it folks, the political system in the United States is currently locked up in a two party system. Whether Dr. Paul’s son Rand Paul can emerge as a legitimate Presidential candidate by 2012, only time will tell. But there is in fact little doubt that he will be the next Republican Senator from Kentucky, and there is a lot of time between now and 2012.

And let’s admit it, Mike Huckabee ain’t going to get the nomination. He’s too much the outsider, and while he is a fine Christian man, he’s said some pretty terrible or ignorant things that don’t fly with the average educated American. (Of course, we thought Sarah Palin wouldn’t fly with even the average educated Republican voter. Apparently we were wrong there.) For instance, by and large Americans still support Medicare and Medicaid, the essential social safety nets poorer and older Americans rely on. Huckabee is against Medicaid, saying, “One thing governors feel, Democrats and Republicans alike, is that we have a health care system that, if you’re on Medicaid, you have unlimited access to health care, at unlimited levels, at no cost. No wonder it’s running away.” Yes, Mr. Huckabee? Medicaid gives “unlimited access”….??? Try finding a decent doctor who accepts it outside of the inner cities. And don’t you realize, sir, that, while it certainly IS a drain on state budgets, it provides absolutely essential health care services to many millions of Americans who would otherwise suffer and even die without it. And you want to cut THAT out of the equation?

Let’s face it, a guy with the humble roots and “outsider” status Huckabee has just isn’t likely to make it on the national political stage, even if he does enjoy a rather strong popularity among evangelical conservatives. He’s said some revealing things that show us that he is really kind of “out of it,” like: “When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper — because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms — and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper.” (Sorry if that might make me seem elitist, believe me I’m not and I actually appreciate the humor of it, but, really, that’s not a “Presidential” quotation.) And people generally get that a guy like Huckabee isn’t our man to run foreign policy for the United States. Take a quote like: “And the ultimate thing is, I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.” No, take Mike Huckabee out of the equation. The libertarian block inside of the GOP largely doesn’t support Huckabee, and he is too much the uneducated outsider.

The real fight for the 2012 Republican nomination might come down to a fight between Sarah Palin (with Glenn Beck on the ticket for VP?), Mitt Romney as the business community and establishment insider, and the Libertarian Party patriarch Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul. Certainly Dr. Paul himself has a LOT of popularity on the internet. We’ll give you more coverage on Rand Paul at a later date, especially if he emerges as the Libertarian Party’s — or that component of the GOP’s – standard bearer.

Take Newt Gingrich out of the equation. There’s been some speculation to the effect that Newt’s self-promoting crusades against homosexuality and against the Ground Zero mosque, which have given him a resurgence in popularity and some mention as a potential candidate for 2012, have really been all about selling his books. The comparison he made between Moslem moderates wanting to build a mosque near ground zero and the Nazi’s who slaughtered 6 million Jews at the time of WWII is outside of the mainstream of American politics. While currently 66 percent of Americans are against building the mosque, and because of that Gingrich was able to insert himself into the limelight, it’s not the kind of statement that endears itself to the Israeli lobby, or most educated Americans, and Gingrich already had his chance.

My own comment about Gingrich’s grandstanding on August 23rd was:

"Newt, I never thought very highly of you, but how low you’ve sunk! According to my friend Linda, the consensus on MSNBC’s Morning Joe is that Newt is mainly out to turn a buck selling his books and this is publicity. There was discussion that (of course) he has been prominently mentioned as a Republican Presidential candidate, but if (he) were doing that, he’s alienating too many Reagan Democrats, Independents and fiscal Republicans with this grandstand act on the ground zero mosque. And he just finished a similar grandstand act on “family values” and homosexuality back at the beginning of August. No, Mr. Gingrich apparently is just shamelessly trying to make a buck. And think of the forces he has loosed in America, he and his cohort in bigotry Sarah Palin! Freakin’ idiots!" ~ Paul Evans

America deserves better than the likes of the sickening pairing off of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. (Since the two of them are so chummy these days, the frightening prospect of Glenn Beck as a Vice Presidential candidate on a ticket with Sarah Palin rears it’s ugly head.) As to Newt Gingrich, he has the albatross of his two divorces and unfaithfulness to his wives around his neck, and as to his recent comments (and his renewed popularity), while comments like those appeal to certain segments of the population, they are outside of the mainstream of politics and will not fly for 2012. At least one can hope comments like those are still too unclassy, and basically Newt has been considered as washed up for some time, despite his recent popularity.

This leaves whomever takes up Ron Paul’s Libertarian banner, the Sarah Palin juggernaut, and Mitt Romney, who edged out Dr. Paul in a Republican straw poll of GOP insiders, 439 to 438, in early April. (Sarah Palin came in third with 321 votes). Romney is popular in the business community, but I’m really not sure if America is ready for a Mormon President.

The Washington Post’s coverage on the Republican field for 2012 gives some prominent coverage for Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who is already to some extent campaigning actively for the slot. We feel that he is too much of an unknown, although he has certainly been trying to get into the picture, and certainly Barack Obama was not a household name at the beginning of 2007, either. But Pawlenty is not as popular as other Republican personalities and is even more unlikely at this point to get close to the nomination than would be the Libertarian standard bearer, whoever that turns out to be. The Post feels that at this point Romney has to be considered the front runner. I think he’d be a shoe in if not for the fact that he is Mormon. Mormons are fine people, but knowing the nature of religious prejudice as I do (that whole Book of Mormon thing doesn’t fly with a lot of conservative Christians), I really still think America isn’t ready for a Mormon President, however much influence that church admittedly has in Washington power circles, (and that actually is not inconsiderable). Still, Obama overcame his blackness, an Islamic middle name, and being a relative unknown, didn’t he? Yet, in 2012, more than in 2008, Romney may suffer from a reputation as a Washington insider and as a business and Wall Street sort of insider among a Republican base really pretty fed up with “business as usual.”

The other figure mentioned as early as April 26th as a legitimate candidate is Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi. Certainly the case could be made for a Barbour candidacy, although he is little known outside of the South. The Governor’s statement on this when asked when asked: “If there is anything to think about after the election is over, then I’ll start to think about it then,” Barbour said in a classic bit of leaving-the-door-ajar-ism. “If you see me lose 40 pounds, you will see I am either running or have cancer.” Barbour has to be considered, considering what a regionalized, Southern-based party the GOP has become.

Would the Republican Party really nominate a woman they knew was likely to lose against Obama in 2012? Or would a business insider like Romney be more likely? Certainly, if a black man can now get elected President, perhaps the time has come when a Mormon could. But don’t count out whomever emerges as the Libertarian standard bearer, whether it is Rand Paul or someone else. America is tired of “insiders” and the Washington political elite, and from what I’ve seen, the mood is pretty ugly here in the countryside. To a liberal like me, I wouldn’t want to see a know-nothing like Sarah Palin get anywhere near the nomination of one of the two major parties in a Presidential election. I’m too much of a patriot to want to see somebody who can’t answer questions from news commentators get that close to the position of President.

As a Democrat, I know that a Palin nomination would make a second term for Barack Obama very likely, but I don’t want to see a false, ignorant, self-serving charlatan like Palin that near to the Presidency. Far better that someone like Dr. Ron Paul, who would at least get us out of Afghanistan and is against the Wall Street establishment, attain the to GOP nomination than Sarah Palin, who really scares me. Romney is a slick business community right wing insider I would hate to see get the nomination as well, especially since a Romney nomination would play better with Reagan Democrats and Independents than would a Palin candidacy. I have to admit to a certain personal liking for Ron Paul, although I can’t support many of his ideas about a return to a Gold Standard and reducing government. He’s a likable, and educated man, and I have to think that he, at least, would work towards cleaning some of the corruption out of the political process.

They say that at 75 (77 in 2012), Ron Paul is too old to run for President, but his mind is certainly sharp, and time will tell. We could do worse. A lot.

See Election 2010 Potential Consequences include Impeachment of Obama, OpEdNews, August 30, 2010, by Steven Leser.

Watch Why (good) libertarians and socialists/progressives aren’t really at odds with each other, YouTube video — 6:38.

Read Robin Hood vs. The Tea Baggers: Russell Crowe Gets It, Daily Kos on Evans Liberal Politics, May 13, 2010, by KingOneEye.

Glenn Beck Apologizes (Sort Of)
For "Obama is Racist" Comment

Obama’s Not A Racist — It’s His Religion That’s The Problem

"Obama Not a Racist, His Liberation Theology is a Problem:" Glenn Beck interview with Fox News, amending his comment to the effect that Obama is not a racist, yet adding that Obama’s liberation theology is a real problem. Beck – “It was not accurate” that Obama is a racist. — 1:29

© Evans Liberal Politics: All Rights Reserved excerpt for brief quotations.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 183 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

Palin at Beck rally: ‘I hope Dr. King would be so proud’, The Raw Story, August 28, 2010, by Raw Story, photo © NY Times/Nicholas Roberts, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

Tens of thousands of people gathered Saturday at the site of Martin Luther King Jr’s 1963, “I Have a Dream Speech” to hear right-wing icons call on them to “restore America.”

In wide-ranging and often religious terms, Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck told Americans that their country was “at a crossroads” and urged them to return to “faith, hope and charity,” while former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the crowd that “we must not fundamentally transform America as some would want.”

“Today we must decide, who are we? What is it we believe? We must advance or perish. I choose advance,” he said to a cheering crowd that stretched from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument.

Beck, who hosted the event to “restore America’s honor,” estimated that between 300,000 and 500,000 people attended the event. But a crowd estimate commissioned by CBS put the audience at around 87,000.

The rally drew criticism because it was staged at the very same location where King made his call for racial equality nearly half a century ago.

Critics said Beck and fellow conservative icon Sarah Palin’s political stances were sharply at odds with King’s civil rights legacy.

Asked by ABC’s Tahman Bradley how she thought the legendary civil rights leader would feel about the rally, Palin responded: “I hope that Dr. King would be so proud of us, as his niece Dr. Alveda King is very proud as a participant in this rally. This is sacred ground where we feel his spirit and can appreciate all of his efforts.”

Critics said Beck and fellow conservative icon Sarah Palin’s political stances were sharply at odds with King’s civil rights legacy.

Black leaders, including the Reverend Al Sharpton, held a competing march and accused Beck of misrepresenting the slain civil rights leader’s message of equality among all races.

“The folks who criticize our marches are now trying to march themselves,” Sharpton said. “They may have the Mall, but we have the message. They may have the platform, but we have the dream. The dream was not states’ rights.”

Beck said the timing was coincidental, and argued he had every right to commemorate King’s struggle.

“Whites don’t own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don’t own Martin Luther King,” he said earlier this month.

– With a report from AFP

See Sharpton: Beck’s followers want ‘structural breakdown of strong national government’, Associated Press on The Raw Story, August 28, 2010, by AP, excerpt quoted verbatim:

The Rev. Al Sharpton, leading the civil rights march, said Beck’s demonstration was an anti-government rally that advocated states’ rights — counter to the message in King’s speech, in which the civil right leader appealed to the federal government to ensure equality.

“The structural breakdown of a strong national government, which is what they’re calling for, is something that does not serve the interests of the nation and it’s something that Dr. King and others fought against,” Sharpton told C-SPAN on Saturday.

See At Lincoln Memorial, a Call for Religious Rebirth, © The New York Times, August 28, 2010, by Kate Zernike and Carl Hulse, excerpt quoted verbatim:

WASHINGTON — An enormous and impassioned crowd rallied at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, summoned by Glenn Beck, a conservative broadcaster who called for a religious rebirth in America at the site where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech 47 years ago to the day.

“Something that is beyond man is happening,” Mr. Beck said in opening the event as the crowd thronged near the memorial grounds. “America today begins to turn back to God.”

It was part religious revival, part history lecture, as Mr. Beck invoked the founding fathers and the “black-robed regiment” of pastors of the Revolutionary War and spoke of American exceptionalism.

The crowd was a mix of groups that have come together under the Tea Party umbrella. Some wore T-shirts from the Campaign for Liberty, the libertarian group that came out of the presidential campaign of Representative Ron Paul, while others wore the gear of their local Tea Party group, or of 9/12 groups, which were founded after a special broadcast Mr. Beck did in March 2009.

But the program was distinctly different from most Tea Party rallies. While Tea Party groups have said they want to focus on fiscal conservatism and not risk alienating people by talking about religion or social issues, the rally on Saturday was overtly religious, filled with gospel music and speeches that were more like sermons.

See Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin’s unholy alliance, Salon, August 28, 2010, by Joan Walsh: Abramoff ally Rabbi Daniel Lapin and bigot John Hagee help “restore honor” at the Lincoln Memorial

QUOTE from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s final speech: “Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. 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. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!”

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 183 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

Two-Faced Corporate Personhood: Elected and Convicted, Common Dreams.org, August 27, 2010, by Donna Smith, quoted verbatim:

Forgive me for being a tad confused.  I am finding it difficult to understand why one person goes to jail for privately selling an appointment for elected office while others have a legal right to buy their elected positions.  The U.S. Supreme Court says corporations are persons in terms of exercising free speech through political contributions.  Other persons who behave more like corporations than persons are spending personal fortunes buying positions of power in the public sector.

Meg Whitman is working hard to buy the governorship of California.  Rick Scott is doing the same in Florida.  Millions and millions of dollars of their own personal fortunes have already been spent in their primary battles and both plan to spend “whatever it takes” to win.  In both states, the good that could be accomplished with what these two corporate born and bred candidates are spending to win their elections points to how insane our election process has become.

In contrast, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich faces another trial and millions in public funds will be spent trying to convict him of selling his favor in the appointment of a new U.S. Senator to Barack Obama’s seat after the 2008 Presidential election.

We call selling a political office a crime; we don’t seem to mind buying those same seats.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like what Blagojevich purportedly did. In fact, I am annoyed beyond what is probably reasonable that the former governor of my home state of Illinois makes the appointment process seem so ugly and tawdry.  Illinois just doesn’t need any more corruption scandals.  There are millions of wonderful, honest people in Illinois who deserve the best of governance.

Is it acceptable if a corporation contributes huge amounts of money with the intent of gaining political and policy favor?  It certainly is legal.  In fact, the Supreme Court said we violate the “corporate person’s” First Amendment rights to free speech if we limit their spending on campaigns and issues.

But wait.  Suggest that the same political or policy favor will be granted during a private phone conversation and you may go to prison?

Is it just that we object to being left out of the secret transactions?  Do we think the public purchase of our democracy by corporate persons like Whitman and Scott is somehow more ethical?

Meg Whitman didn’t care enough about the political process to vote much at all over the past three decades.  Many California women are offended by that after women fought and suffered to secure the right to vote in this nation just 90 years ago.  See one report about the action in Sacramento during which thousands of women expressed their views on the non-voting Whitman: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/aug/26/nurses-spotlight-womens-right-to-vote-and-voting/

Whitman has admitted her registration and voting history is terrible but says talking about it now is a distraction.  And furthermore, she’s showing up now, so what’s the problem?  Her disconnect with the people of California and the way they have to work and live is appalling and her disregard for the seriousness of being an active participant in one’s own governance through exercising the right to vote shows a level of arrogance and cynicism that is nauseating.

Rick Scott is a self-funded, rich candidate of quite another sort.  He wants to govern Florida.  He was at the helm of a huge healthcare corporation at a time when that corporation perpetrated the most serious Medicare fraud in this nation’s history.  Do I need to repeat?  He was in charge of a company that profited illegally by defrauding the federal Medicare program.  Some of the personal wealth he is using now to buy the Florida governorship was acquired while his corporation was bilking the taxpayers of Florida and of the nation.

Scott takes no personal responsibility for the Medicare fraud discovered under his corporate watch.  Does that give the people of Florida a clue as to what kind of responsibility he’ll take for ethical governance of their state or for any policy failings?  He expresses disdain for anything government — especially government healthcare.  That’s interesting in that he sure loved the Medicare dollars that helped him amass his own fortune.  Medicare dollars are taxpayer dollars — government dollars.  Scott’s arrogance, his belief that voters are too stupid to connect the dots between his “I-hate-big-government” propaganda and his “I-love-big-government money” financial success story, and his cynicism are nauseating.

What are we doing?  Could we explain how money works in this political process to any other sane society?  Buy an office?  Legal.  Sell an office?  Go to prison.  Tell us you will buy our votes?  Legal.  Actually pay us for our votes?  Illegal.  Corporate personhood?  The right to unlimited free speech protected by the Constitution.  Private personhood?  Taken for a fool.

Donna Smith is a community organizer for National Nurses United (the new national arm of the California Nurses Association) and National Co-Chair for the Progressive Democrats of America Healthcare Not Warfare campaign

NMLib comments to this article: I’ve had similar questions on this subject. And while we’re at it, can we question why Xe (formerly Blackwater) can get away with all they have? And why does Wells Fargo get a measly fine for laundering drug money- but no one serves any prison time like you or I would if we were caught merely possessing illegal drugs. Plus, I bet their CEOs didn’t have to take a drug test to get their jobs.

Phasor comments: “Could we explain how money works in this political process to any other sane society?”

No. It’s blatantly duplicitous. So how can Americans rationalize this state of affairs to themselves? Simple. It’s an American value (dream) that individualism, hard work and creativity leads to riches, entitlement and privileges.

Thus, the rich believe they are the elite and this entitles them to control and manage our social fabric to define acceptable conduct and that society bestows upon them privileges of speech, of moral righteousness (thereby rationalizing wars and “targeted killings” [murder]) and of their chosen charitable acts.

Of course, the rich, whose wealth tends to continue from one generation to another and tends to concentrate over time, are oblivious to the fact that their wealth has come from other people in one way or another and that they owe these people. (To be fair, some wealthy people understand this, like Andrew Carnegie. But today that seems to be out of fashion. Moral decay maybe.)

See Robert Reich – Tax Jujitsu: Why Democrats Should Propose a “People’s Tax Cut”, Robert Reich on Evans Liberal Politics, August 26, 2010, by Robert Reich. I think Robert Reich gets it. I think Robert Reich would give me a twenty so I could buy some gas for my car if I needed it.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 183 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

The Two Stories of This Terrible Economy, Yet Obama and the Dems Won’t Tell Theirs, Robert Reich.org, August 27, 2010, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

The public doesn’t understand specific policies but it does understand stories that link them together. The stories give the policies context and meaning, and thereby show where policymakers are taking a nation (and, by implication, where the opposition would take it).

Republicans lack specific policies but they have a story. Obama and the Democrats have lots of specific policies but don’t have a story. That spells even more trouble for Democrats.

The Commerce Department reported today (Friday) that the economy grew only 1.6 percent in the second quarter, which is a fancy way of saying what everyone on Main Street already knows. The economy has stalled. Unemployment is still in the stratosphere and shows no sign of improving. The housing market is worsening.

Why? What to do? The Republican story is simple. It’s the fault of government. They say Obama’s policies have bankrupted the nation and made businesses too uncertain to create jobs. The answer is less government. Cut taxes and spending, privatize, and deregulate.

It’s not a new story but it’s capturing the public’s mind because the Democrats offer no story to counter it with.

Obama and the Democrats respond by defending their specific policies. The stimulus worked, they say, as did the bailout of Wall Street, because the economy is better today than it would be without them. If anything, we need more stimulus. And healthcare reform will protect tens of millions.

A large and growing segment of the public believes none of this. The public doesn’t think in terms of specific policies. All it knows is the economy has stalled and there’s only one story that explains why and points the way forward – and that’s the Republican’s.

What should the Democratic story be? How can they connect the dots?

Here’s a clue. In times of economic stress, Americans lose faith in the nation’s large institutions. They blame either government or its counterpart in the private sector – big business and Wall Street.

Twenty years ago, 42 percent of Americans said they trusted government to do what was right just about always or most of the time. Now, only 25 percent do. Twenty years ago 26 percent they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in big business; now, only 16 percent do. And almost no one trusts Wall Street. The drop in trust toward all major institutions has been most precipitous since the start of 2008.

The underlying political debate in America is which of these is most responsible for the mess we’re in, and which can be most trusted to get us out of it – big business and Wall Street, or government.

It wouldn’t be hard for Democrats to make the case that big business and Wall Street blew it. The Street’s wild speculation took the economy off the cliff, caused the stock market to crash (and millions of 401(k)s along with it), and created a housing bubble whose burst has hurt millions more.

Big business has used the Great Recession as an opportunity to slash payrolls and cut wages and is now sitting on a $1.8 trillion mountain of cash it refuses to use to create new jobs. Instead, it’s using the cash to build more factories abroad, buy back its own shares of stock, invest in more labor-replacing technologies at home, and do mergers that will lead to even fewer jobs.

Meanwhile, a parade of “public-be-damned” actions have threatened small investors (Goldman Sachs’s double dealing), individuals trying to buy health insurance (WellPoint’s double-digit premium increases), worker safety (the Massey mine disaster), the environment (BP), and even our food (Jack DeCoster’s commercial egg operations).

And a gusher of corporate and Wall Street money has flooded Washington, exemplified by Big Pharma and the health-insurance lobby fighting heatlhcare reform, and Wall Street’s minions fighting off stricter financial reform.

If Obama and the Democrats would connect these dots they’d have a story that would make Americans’ hair stand on end. We’re in this mess because of big business and Wall Street. Government is needed to get us out of it.

It’s not that big business and Wall Street are evil. It’s that they’re out to make as much money as possible – which is what they’re set up to do. That’s why we need an activist government to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and protect the public from their excesses.

So why haven’t Obama and the Dems succeeded yet? Big business and Wall Street have used their money and political clout to stop government from doing as much as needs to be done.

The story is clear, and it has the virtue of being the truth. Why won’t Obama and the Democrats tell it? Is it because big business and Wall Street have the money and political clout even to prevent the story from being told?

Robert Reich was the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations. In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the Ten Most Successful Cabinet Members of the century. He has written eleven books, including “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages. His latest book is “Supercapitalism.” For Professor Reich’s book page for Supercaptialism at Amazon, go here. The above article is from Reich’s new blog, and can be viewed here.

Thanks to Professor Reich for permission to publish his articles on an ongoing basis.

See Robert Reich: Why Boehner’s Blaming Bureaucrats, Robert Reich on Evans Liberal Politics, August 27, 2010, by Robert Reich.

See Robert Reich – Tax Jujitsu: Why Democrats Should Propose a “People’s Tax Cut”, Robert Reich on Evans Liberal Politics, August 26, 2010, by Robert Reich, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Republicans are calling the Democrat’s proposal to end the Bush tax cuts on the richest 3 percent a “tax increase,” and demagoging that it will hurt the economy and small business. This is baloney, to put it politely.

…SNIP….

Democrats should propose eliminating payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of income, and making up the revenue loss by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000.

This would give the economy an immediate boost by adding to the paychecks of just about every working American. 80 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And because lower-income people would get most of the benefit, it’s likely to be spent.

UPDATE: See What It’s Like to Be Down and Out in America, Evans Liberal Politics, August 28, 2010, by Paul Evans.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 183 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

Why Boehner’s Blaming Bureaucrats, Robert Reich.org, August 26, 2010, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

We’re moving ever closer to a double-dip. Of course, as I’ve said before, most Americans never got out of the first one.

In previous postings I’ve suggested ways to reverse course, including a “people’s tax cut” exempting the first $20K of income from payroll taxes and making up the revenue loss with a payroll tax on incomes over $250,000.

Yet Democrats seem frozen in the headlights of conservative supply-siders, blue-dog deficit hawks, and pollsters who say the public doesn’t trust anything government does.

As to Republicans, now comes John Boehner, capitalizing on this distrust by blaming the bad economy on government bureaucrats.

In an address billed as a major speech on economic policy, the House GOP leader (on) Tuesday attributed our economic woes to the fact that “taxpayers are subsidizing the fattened salaries and pensions of federal bureaucrats who are out there right now making it harder to create private sector jobs.”

What?

It’s true workers at all levels of government now earn more than their private-sector counterparts. But that’s mainly because private-sector benefits have dropped precipitously over the last few years. Companies have replaced defined-benefit pensions with do-it-yourself 401(k)s, and have ratcheted up premiums, co-payments, and deductibles on employee health-care. Government workers’ benefits haven’t yet been sliced the diced these ways, but the cuts are coming.

The pay gap is also due to the fact that the typical public-sector job requires more education. According to the Center for State and Local Government Excellence, 48 percent of state and local employees have a college degree while only 23 percent of private-sector employees do.

Blaming government workers for this bad economy is absurd, regardless. The Great Recession continues because consumers can’t and won’t spend. They’re overwhelmed with credit-card debt, their mortgages are under water, their nest eggs have become chick peas, and they can’t afford health insurance.

Rather than help alleviate all this, Boehner and his Republican colleagues have been busily voting against extending unemployment insurance, against reorganizing mortgages under bankruptcy, against forcing credit card companies to stop charging exorbitant interest, and against giving Americans affordable health insurance.

As far as I can tell, all Republican want to do is to privatize Social Security, extend the Bush tax cuts to the richest 3 percent of Americans, and deregulate. But none of this seems particularly relevant to the task at hand.

Privatizing Social Security would put retirees entirely at the mercy of the Wall Street casino.

Extending the Bush tax cuts to the richest 3 percent wouldn’t stimulate demand because the very rich save rather than spend most of their extra cash.

And if anything we need more rather than less regulation. Just consider BP’s oil spill, Massey’s mine cave-in, DeCoster’s rotten eggs, Goldman Sach’s predations, and Wellpoint’s double-digit insurance premium increases.

Boehner delivered his speech at the City Club of Cleveland, a safe distance from those government employees he says are on the make. But of course Boehner is a federal employee. He gets $193,400 a year along with generous retirement benefits. In fact, he has among the fattest salaries and pensions in Washington.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 180 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google