Obama is Not to Blame for High Gas Prices

February 29, 2012 - The continued republican attempts to blame the Obama administration for rising gas prices is a sham.  The federal government is does not have the ability to stem the rising costs of crude oil and ultimately the price of gasoline in the long term.

President Barack Obama

Yes, the Obama administration could order the the release of oil from the strategic petroleum reserves, but this would only lower gas prices in the short term.  Once the reserves were depleted the price of gasoline would once again rise.

Republican's would like the American public to believe that additional domestic oil production would reduce the price of gasoline.  Unfortunately it wouldn't!  Oil is traded on an international market, so oil produced in the United States would be placed on the open market and ultimately may or may not be refined into gasoline for the American consumer.   In addition to this, Republican's would like you to believe that the approval of the XL pipeline from Canada to Texas would solve our problems, but this also wouldn't produce the desired result.  Although the pipeline would create jobs during the construction, and a lesser number of ongoing jobs after completion, the refined oil would also be put on the open market and likely be shipped to countries as far away as China.

Speaker of the House John Boehner answers a reporter's
 question following a meeting of the Republican
conference on Tuesday in Washington. (Win McNamee / Getty Images)

The increased oil production may reduce the price of gasoline slightly, but overall worldwide demand would eventually eat up most of the the additional oil placed on the market.

Republican comments expressed recently are neither helpful nor factual. "The president says he's for an 'all of the above' energy strategy -- anyone seen it? I haven't," scoffed House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

"It's time for him to lay his cards on the table," Boehner said. "We've got a handful of environmental groups -- radical environmental groups -- who've stood in the way of having a national energy policy. It's just about damn time that we actually have a national energy policy."

If the Republican party had it's way their "drill baby drill" motto would be their solution to our energy problems at the expense of the environment. I am not against domestic oil production, but if we really want to have it as part of our national energy policy we need to keep it in the U.S. for the benefit of the American consumer. Not being an expert on commodities, I'm not sure if this is either possible or practical, but it certainly would be a way to reduce our gas prices.

The bottom line is that President Obama and his administration are not to blame for the increase in gas prices, the market, international uncertainty, developing markets demand for oil, and the oil companies greed are to blame for this.

If the Republican's would stop lying and place the blame where it truly lies it would be a refreshing change. American's need to educate themselves on the issues rather than taking what either political party says at face value. Let's face it, they will say anything to get elected.

Haaretz - Netanyahu will urge Obama to publicly back attack on Iran, sources say

Intensive preparations underway to ensure a successful meeting between the two leaders next week in Washington, despite lack of trust between two sides.

By Barak Ravid

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli official.

AP-Netanyahu, left, meeting with Obama at
the United Nations last September. 

Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that "all options are on the table," the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain "red lines," said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.

Officials in both Jerusalem and Washington acknowledge a serious lack of trust between Israel and the United States with regard to the issue of a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. A senior U.S. official who is involved in preparing Netanyahu's visit to the United States - and who asked to remain anonymous - said intensive preparations are underway to guarantee the success of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama and to bridge this lack of trust.

The White House proposed to the Prime Minister's Office on Tuesday that the two release a joint statement following the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu. The goal of the announcement would be to bridge apparent disagreements between the United States and Israel, and to present a single U.S.-Israeli front in order to leverage pressure on Iran. To date, the United States still has not proposed a text for such an announcement.

According to sources, the lack of trust between Israeli and U.S. officials appears to stem from, among other things, a mutual feeling that the other country is interfering in its own internal political affairs. Netanyahu suspects that the U.S. administration is attempting to turn Israeli public opinion against an attack on Iran, say sources.

Meanwhile, they say, the Obama administration suspects Netanyahu is using Congress and the Republican candidates in the presidential race to put pressure on Obama to support such a strike.

Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a close ally of Netanyahu's, has contributed tens of millions of dollars to Republican candidate Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign - and this certainly has not helped to increase the trust between Obama and Netanyahu. Gingrich is expected to speak at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference two days after Obama, and one day after Netanyahu. Like the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, Gingrich is expected to attack Obama and claim he is "weak on Iran."

The issue of strengthening U.S. rhetoric against Iran was raised last week by Israeli officials who met with Tom Donilon, the U.S. national security adviser who visited Israel last week. It was also raised by Defense Minister Ehud Barak during his Washington visit, which included a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden yesterday. Other senior Israeli officials - such as Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon (Likud ) and Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor (Likud) - have made similar comments to senior U.S. officials recently.

The problem is not with the number of meetings between Israelis and Americans on the issue, but with the results of those meetings, according to a senior Israeli official who is heavily involved in the dialogue with Americans, but who asked to remain unnamed. "The talks with the Americans are like porcupines having sex: slowly and carefully," he said. "A lot of general statements that they think we want to hear, but we are constantly asking them what's the bottom line? How can the Iranians understand that if they do not stop they will attack in the end?"

The Obama administration's suspicions concerning Netanyahu were further fueled after Netanyahu and his advisers briefed a group of senators and senior congressmen during the past two weeks on the Iranian issue, and asked them to pressure Obama on the matter. Last week, Netanyahu met a group of five senior senators over lunch, headed by Sen. John McCain, who ran four years ago against Obama for president. Netanyahu reportedly told the senators he was not interfering in U.S. politics and expected U.S. officials not to interfere in Israeli politics either.

The topic quickly turned to Iran, according to reports. Netanyahu apparently complained bitterly about certain officials in the Obama administration who spoke out against an Israeli strike on Iran. But between the lines, some suggest that Netanyahu was speaking about Obama himself, as well as the other very senior officials in the administration. He reportedly told the senators that this kind of public discourse serves the Iranians.

Donilon, who was in Israel at the same time as the senators, received the same criticism from Netanyahu and Barak. Donilon reportedly told Netanyahu and Barak that the comments made by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not represent Obama's opinions, and that Obama was unhappy with Dempsey's statements, according to a senior U.S. official involved in the talks. Dempsey reportedly said, "I don't think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran," and added that a strike "would be destabilizing" and "not prudent." But Dempsey changed his tone in statements yesterday during a Senate hearing. He said he had not told Israel not to attack Iran, and that the United States has not taken any options off the table.

Netanyahu does not appear to be convinced by Dempsey's backtracking, and considers such reports to be part of a coordinated campaign against an Israeli strike, according to sources. In Netanyahu's view, this is all part of a goal to enlist both Israeli and U.S. public support against such a strike, sources say, and is part of what he considers to be U.S. interference in internal Israeli affairs.

The White House was furious after McCain spoke out after the meeting with Netanyahu, said one source. McCain said, "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some." The Obama administration viewed this as Israeli intervention in U.S. internal political affairs, with Netanyahu briefing McCain and McCain repeating his statements like a parrot, according to a senior U.S. official.

Netanyahu also believes that Obama's scheduled meeting with President Shimon Peres during the upcoming AIPAC conference constitutes an attempt by the United States to interfere in Israel's internal affairs, say sources. Netanyahu's suspicions were apparently heightened by last week's report in Haaretz that Peres will tell Obama that he objects to an Israeli attack on Iran. Since then, the relations between Netanyahu and Peres have been tense. Peres denied the reports, but Netanyahu and his staff do not seem to completely believe his denials. Peres and Netanyahu met on Friday and again yesterday, just as Peres was set to leave for the United States. The two worked hard to show an atmosphere of "business as usual," according to a source.

Peres reportedly updated Netanyahu about what he should say at the AIPAC conference, and it seems that the speech will be much more general and moderate than the original version Peres had planned. Netanyahu is also believed to have asked Peres to emphasize a number of matters in his meeting with Obama in an attempt to maintain a unified front. Whether Peres will do so remains to be seen.

Rick Santorum - Dangerous for America

February 28, 2012 - Today's primaries in Arizona and Michigan will go a long way in determining who will be the Republican candidate for president in November.

Rick Santorum speaks during a campaign
rally at the Sabbar Shrine Center,

As an American I can only hope that Mitt Romney reigns victorious over Rick Santorum.  Mr. Santorum is truly scary for America on so many levels.  His extreme religious views threaten to undermine decades of civil rights victories for women and gays.  Our children will suffer due to the elimination of any federal funding for public education.  He will attempt to eliminate a women's right to choose as it relates to reproductive issues. In almost every talking point on his websites issues page,  https://www.ricksantorum.com/issues, he can be seen forcing his religious beliefs on the American public.

Mr. Santorum, you are infringing on my religious freedom.  Religious freedom begins with my right not to be religious at all if I choose to be.  I don't need you telling me how my family should live their lives, this is not your place.   You sir are a prime example of why we as American's believe in the separation of church and state.  It gives us the right to not have anyone's religious beliefs forced upon us making it a principle that we must protect at any cost.

In addition, Rick Santorum's view on foreign policy is something to be concerned with.  His religious views make him an enemy of the Muslim world.  Any non-Christian country would be in his cross-hairs should they disagree with U.S. policy.  Santorum's view is that Islam is evil and must be contained or destroyed.  This does not bode well for world diplomacy.  Whether he likes it or not, Islam is here to stay so the U.S. must be willing to deal with them diplomatically when at all possible.  In the past Santorum has publicly shown his negative views of Muslim countries such as our ally Turkey when he claimed that it was lead by terrorists.  These types of comments are neither productive nor helpful.  By making these incendiary statements he is placing our military men and women in even greater harm than they already are.

If America has any hopes of avoiding a national and international disaster, we must, as a country show Rick Santorum and those that are like him, that we won't stand for their narrow-minded, exclusionary, policies.  The United States is not perfect, but it will certainly take a step backwards should Santorum become the Republican nominee.

GOP Attack on Women's RIghts 2012

By D. DiFrancesco

Rick Santorum

For the last several weeks the President has been attacked by the GOP for requiring all employers to provide free birth control coverage in their insurance offerings.  This of course upset the Catholic Church and in turn gave Romney, Santorum, and the other stooges something to attack Obama on since the economy seems to be improving monthly based on the numbers.  It appears that it offends their "when convenient" sensitivities.  In an attempt to appease the religious right, President Obama modified the mandate to require insurance companies, not employers to offer free birth control in their plans.  This certainly didn't stop the Republicans from claiming the President's desire to trample on religious freedom.  I am of the firm opinion that church needs to be more worried about itself than of the administration.  When reports show that 98% of Catholic women use or have used birth control, this requirement clearly won't have any affect on their congregations one way or another.

This issue should not be an issue at all.  Those devout individuals can remain true to their beliefs by not taking advantage of the added birth control benefit.  While those who are less devout or non-Catholic can enjoy the added coverage.  If the church actually trusted in the faith of their followers, birth control would not be an issue at all.  Their lack of faith is what is truly the problem.  No law that any Congress could put forth can solve this problem, instead it must be solved from within the church itself.

Mitt Romney

As has been mentioned repeatedly over the course of the weeks since this issue was brought into the limelight...women have not been included in the discussion.  Reproductive rights is inherently a women's issue and yet it is men that are at the forefront of the debate.  Taking the right to choose away from women is a tremendous blow to women's rights.  It will set the rights they have gained, and rightfully so, back by decades.  Neither the GOP nor the church has the right to tell a women what she can and can not do with her body.  Their preaching is both outdated and impractical.  We no longer live in an agrarian society.  The need for large families with many children is not a requirement.  In today's economic climate, it is also unaffordable.  The GOP candidates can't have it both ways.  They scream out for cuts to our social programs and yet at the same time they fight programs such as this birth control mandate that will help limit the number of children on the welfare roles.  It makes no sense.

Barack Obama

It seems to me that President Obama has been thinking in practical terms rather than basing his actions on either emotion or religious conviction.  This in no way reflects badly on Obama or his faith contrary to the inflammatory rhetoric that the Republican presidential candidates are spewing in an attempt to energize their bases.

We are witnessing a GOP struggling to find an identity to propel them back into the White House in 2012.  Instead I think we are really watching President Obama skillfully retain the White House and enjoy a second term.  Ultimately I predict that the GOP will self-destruct.  They have no real front runner, and no single candidate that their base can rally behind as a whole.  In the end...Obama 2012.

Opinion: Is Iran on a Path to Destruction?

February 15, 2012   By: D. DiFrancesco


As Iran continues to taunt the west, the question that has to be asked is are they traveling down a path of destruction?  

Based upon their ongoing defiance of United Nations mandates, the accusation of Iranian involvement in the attempted assassinations of Israeli diplomats in India and Georgia, and their boast today of using more highly enriched, home grown nuclear fuel in a research reactor seems to be putting them on an inevitable course toward a military conflict with the West.  Of course, the hopes that a diplomatic solution can be reached before it comes to that is preferable, but based on Iran's past actions a peaceful solution at this time seems unlikely.

Reuters: An F/A-18 fighter plane (bottom) prepares to launch on the flight
deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)
 during flight operations in the Gulf, ahead of a transit
 through the Strait of Hormuz, February 13, 2012

Although Russia and China have proven to be roadblocks to stricter sanctions, the United States and Israel refused to take military action off of the table.  As a sign of U.S. resolve, the Navy's Fifth fleet which always contains at least one super carrier along with scores of jets, and a fleet of destroyers and frigates has returned to the gulf in a show of overwhelming force.  As an additional show of strength, President Obama sent one of the Navy's aircraft carriers through the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday as a sign that if Iran attempts to close the Strait the U.S. will be ready to reopen it.

Reuters: A helicopter from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) hovers over
 an Iranian patrol ship during a transit
through the Strait of Hormuz, February 14, 2012.

Although most of the firepower in the gulf is American, other western countries and Gulf Arab states also have assets in the gulf under the command of the United States.

Although Iran has continued their defiant rhetoric, they have recently shown a desire to return to the bargaining table with the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, and Germany.  Time will tell if their stance toward curbing their nuclear ambitions has softened.  In addition, the sanctions put in place by the west are beginning to take their toll on the Iranian economy.  Whether this will be enough to persuade the leadership in Iran to deal in good faith with the West has yet to be seen, but there is cautious optimism that progress can be made before military action becomes the only option left in this crisis.

What is the 2012 Election Really About

Article First Published as  What is the 2012 Election Really About? on Blog Critics

President Barack Obama

What is the 2012 election really about?

From what I can see, it isn’t about the issues, unemployment, healthcare, the federal budget, or taxes.  What it is about, and the Republican candidates say it during every debate and after every primary, it’s about beating Barack Obama at any cost.

They don’t like to give too many alternatives to what the president has done in the three years since taking office, but what they do provide are sophomoric names, most of which they probably don’t know the meaning of, such as socialist, communist and Newt Gingrich’s favorite...food stamp president.

What should the next Presidential election be about?  Well how about the issues mentioned above to name a few.  I for one, would like to know what the candidates stand for.  So far I don’t find much substance in what they have to say.  The infighting and name calling detracts from the real issues and to top it off the Republican party is so fractured that they can’t get behind any one candidate collectively.  They continue to throw Ronald Reagan’s name around as though their passion for the past will pave the road to the White House.  In addition, they act as though Reagan’s policies of the 1980’s are still relevant today.  I’ve got news for you folks, they aren’t!

According to Bruce Bartlett a domestic policy advisor to Ronald Regan and the person who drafted the 1981 Reagan tax cut, and I quote “I think Republicans misunderstand the premises upon which Reagan’s economic policies were based and why those policies can’t — and shouldn’t — be replicated today...Economic conditions are entirely different today than they were in Reagan’s era, and different conditions demand different policies. Those who say otherwise are simply engaging in cookie-cutter economics — proposing whatever was popular and seemed to work once, without regard to changing circumstances”.  This quote comes from the Washington Post, PostOpinions article by Bruce Bartlett published February 3, 2012 titled Why the GOP should stop invoking Reaganomics. According to Mr. Bartlett, our current top tax rate is half what it was when Reagan took office and the Federal Reserve rate is far lower than what Reagan inherited.  The Fed today, can’t lower rates below zero percent.  The bottom line is that 2012 is not 1980.  They must stop trying to resurrect old, tired, irrelevant policies by shoving them down the American peoples throats.  It’s time for conservatives to move on with new ideas if they have any.

Mitt Romney

In addition, I would like to hear some common sense policies regarding taxes.  I’m sorry, but continuously reducing taxes to the detriment of our military, senior citizens, our national debt and the poor is unconscionable.  Regardless of what the Republican and Tea Party conservatives think, there will always be the need for government services and we as Americans and human beings should and must provide them.  Conservatives will likely call this socialism.  I disagree, but if that is what they want to call it, so be it.  I can hear the right-wing now spewing their Darwinian “survival of the fittest” rants to anyone that will listen.  I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it.  Yes, these are taxpayer funded programs, but I would rather see my money go to these programs than to the wasteful earmarks that Congress loves to stick into every piece of legislation.  I am a middle class taxpayer and I would gladly pay more in taxes to pay off our debts, provide services to those in need, strengthen social security and medicare, and fund our military.

The next issue that needs addressed is the state of healthcare in this country.  There was a time that we had the best healthcare in the world.  However, In the last World Health Organization ranking of health systems, the United States came in at #37.  That is a disgrace.  Although I don’t like the way President Obama and the democrats pushed through the healthcare reform bill, at least something was finally done to reform healthcare.  The Republicans, during their years as the majority, had the opportunity to propose their own comprehensive healthcare reform, but instead chose to bow to the insurance industry lobbyists and not the desires of the American people.   If you don’t like the current law, at the appropriate time make changes to it, but make sure that they are to the advantage of the American people and not corporate interests.

Social Security and Medicare are two institutions in America that have become the political footballs of conservatives.  Social Security is routinely used as the treasury departments bank.  According to Andrew Taylor, Associated Press writer, Washington, “The Treasury Department "borrows" surpluses in the Social Security trust funds for use across the federal government. As a practical matter, the amount of money borrowed equals the balances in the trust funds after benefits are paid out...This practice began in 1937 with the creation of the Social Security system during Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration. That first year the government paid $2 million in interest on money it borrowed from the retirement trust fund”.  This practice, of borrowing money from the social security fund and paying interest does not mean that the principal had been paid back to the fund.  The surplus at the end of 2007 for example was $2.2 trillion with interest paid back to the fund of $110 billion.  It is dishonest for our politicians to place the entire blame on our aging population, when the monies paid into the fund should have been left in the fund to grow with interest for future payments.  In the case of Medicare, it does need to be reformed to eliminate fraud and provide more streamlined service to those the program is supposed to help, but it should not be used as political fodder for conservatives.  Medicare has been a tremendous benefit to your grandparents and mine who might have otherwise been unable to afford quality healthcare.

Lastly, I would like to know how the education of our children became expendable.  One of the first things put on the chopping block during this economic crisis was education funding.  This is one thing that has hit home recently.  Our schools, which I’m sure are not atypical, don’t have enough books, or teachers for the student population.  My child has no books for use in doing homework assignments.  They are told that if they need to reference the book, they will need to do it after school.  Teachers are required to teach subjects outside of their specialty because the school can’t afford to hire enough teachers to cover all of the required subjects.  The United States was once ranked at the top in education world wide, but is now ranked at a mediocre “average” and falling.  Our 21st century global economy requires a much better than average educational system.  Our public schools and our children should never be used as scapegoats for political gain.

This election should be based on the real issues, not simply beating President Obama at any cost.  If the Republicans have something of value to offer, then please do so.  This campaign  isn’t fair to the American people they deserve better than this.

Maddow Focus of Personal Attacks by Conservatives at CPAC 2012

Conservative columnist Cal Thomas has crossed the line with his personal attack MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.

Genevieve Wood,
Heritage Foundation

During a CPAC panel discussion regarding the Obama Administrations new and admittedly controversial contraception rule, the Heritage Foundation's Genevieve Wood played a clip of Rachel Maddow saying that "the Republican Party was waging war on contraception".

Following the playing of the clip Wood says to Cal Thomas, “Cal, let’s talk about this religious–this is serious, we laugh about it, but this is serious in terms of, if they get away with this, what would happen in a second term?  If that outrage doesn't turn to action in November, what are we looking at here?”

Cal Thomas, Conservative Columnist

This prompted this response from Thomas, “I’m really glad, Genevieve, that you played the Rachel Maddow clip. I think that she is the best argument in favor of her parent’s using contraception,.  I would be all for that! And all of the rest of the crowd at MSNBC, too, for that matter.”


What is wrong with these people?  Anyone who criticizes or in any way disagrees with their politics is met with personal attacks such as were levied against Maddow.  Cal Thomas should be denounced by every one of the Republican candidates, especially those such as Rick Santorum who are making an appearance at this event.  To Ron Pauls credit, he wants nothing to do with CPAC.


This type of event should be viewed for what it is...a mean spirited, democrat bashing, gathering of narrow-minded individuals that will continue to promote their campaign of fear all the while dragging this country down a path economic and social decay.


If comments such as these don't invoke anger or at the least questioning of what the Republican Party stands for then I don't know what will.


Every American should be outraged by this performance at CPAC.

THE ATTACK ON EMPLOYEE RIGHTS

By Dominic DiFrancesco

Article first published as The Attack on Employee Rights

 

 on Blogcritics.

Arizona is following on the heals of Wisconsin in it’s attacks on the middle class and working people in general by proposing legislation to bust public employee unions, including those protecting public safety workers which represent fire and police employees.

The proposed legislation would:

• Make it illegal for government bodies to negotiate with employee groups.  Public safety unions would be included in the ban.
• End the practice of automatic payroll deductions for union dues.
• Ban compensation of public employees for union work.

Aside from trampling on the right of employees to organize, this is the beginning of a republican attempt to ban all employee unions in the state of Arizona.  Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, has apparently been pursuing this legislation since mid-2011, at the urging of the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think-tank, and with the support of Wisconsin’s Republican governor Scott Walker.  Walker was the guest of honor at Goldwater’s annual dinner last November.  The Goldwater Institute also worked with the governor and other Arizona lawmakers to draft the package of bills now being considered by the legislature.  This package of bills is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Government Reform Committee on Wednesday, February 8, 2012.

According to a report released on October 13, 2011, by the University of California Berkley’s Center for Labor Research and Education and Center for Wage and Employment Dynamics, shows that the Great Recession and the bursting of the housing bubble were the cause of state budget deficits, and not public sector workers or their unions.  Summing it up there is no link between the budget deficits and the public employee unions that they are essentially trying to dissolve.

America without unions would be a much darker place for the worker.  We would see many more minimum wage jobs, greater worker inequality, unsafe working conditions, little to no health insurance, and far less vacation time.  Because of the fights that unions have waged on behalf of their workers we all reap some of the benefits in higher wages, safer working conditions, and better benefits.  Eliminating or further hindering employee unions would serve to further the erosion of the middle class which both political parties claim to want to save.

When it comes to lower wage workers, according to The Center for Economic and Policy Research, unionization raises wages, provides health care and pension coverage for all workers, and provides the most benefits by far.  For workers who make less than 90% of the rest of the workforce, unionization raises wages by almost 21%.  Workers in the 15 lowest wage jobs are 25% more likely to have health insurance than the same worker in a non-union job.  The types of jobs included in this wage class are janitors, bus drivers, and teachers aids to name a few.  These same workers are 25% more likely to have pension plans than their counterparts who are not unionized.  These are the workers who are most likely to be disenfranchised.  At these wage levels, unions will not make these workers rich, but will provide a better standard of living and security over their non-union counterparts.

Without the collective bargaining rights that workers now have, public employees like our teachers, who to this day remain drastically underpaid would be far worse off than they are now.   The very people that we expect to protect us from fire and crime, and the teachers that we rely on to educate our children for this 21st century global economy are the ones that the Republican’s are striving to marginalize.

Unions are an easy target for politicians who want to blame state budget shortfalls on something other than unsustainable tax rates, the housing crisis, unemployment eroding the tax base, and public mismanagement.  The states problems are not public labor unions, but state governments themselves.  This is merely another attack on the working men and women of this country, and an attempt, under the guise of fiscal prudence, for their Republican party to destroy first, public employee unions and then private employee unions.

As Thom Hartmann, the intellectual, progressive radio show host, and best selling author says, right-to-work states are really right-to-work-for-less states.  Americans should be outraged by these attacks by state governments on the “working man”.  Indiana just joined the ranks of the right-to-work states and if Jan Brewer and the Republican party aren’t stopped Arizona could follow in their tracks.  If you are a working person, union or not, you should be concerned.  You could be next.

AN AMERICAN EMBARRASSMENT

Article first published as An American Embarrassment on Blogcritics.

By D.DiFrancesco

With election season in full swing, I find myself much more hypnotized by the political rhetoric than I normally would be. Mitt Romney’s comment, "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I will fix it", during Soledad O’brien’s interview was a jaw-dropping moment for me. Initially, I could not believe that he said it, but then it occurred to me that it was probably one of the more genuine, although despicable, comments of his campaign.

Think about it. Mitt has lived a life of privilege; he has never known a day when he has gone hungry, he has never suffered the morale shattering effects of downsizing or outsourcing, and certainly has never lived paycheck to paycheck, just one catastrophic event away from losing his home. Mitt is not alone in this, many individuals delegated to represent us in government enjoy this same privileged lifestyle. Lets face it, until you have walked in someone else's shoes you can’t know what they are going through.

Whether Mitt knows it or not, there are more and more formerly middle class Americans who have fallen into poverty, lost their jobs, lost their homes, and are living on the streets. Those who are not living on the streets may have some form of employment income, which is hardly enough to live on, but is too much to qualify for the safety net programs Romney talks about. These people on the fringe are one step away from being counted in the ranks of the "very poor," and it appears that he doesn’t care about them.

Soup line during the Great Depression

To illustrate: yesterday, I was listening to a radio program discussing this very topic, the plight of the very poor, when a caller arrogantly exclaimed, "Those that need a safety net should go to their local church and it should be an individual's choice whether he/she wants to assist the poor or not." This was then followed by the obligatory, "This is America, everyone can better their situation if they want to. They should pick themselves up by the bootstraps and change things." This, of course, is paraphrased but it is an accurate account of what was said. The caller's comment was met with a resounding, "Oh my God! Oh my God!" by the host and his guest; clearly expressing their disbelief in what the caller had just said. My contention is that this is the same ideology that most Republicans and especially Tea Party conservatives continuously regurgitate as the gospel.

Friends, and when I say friends I am including Republicans and Democrats alike, this is no longer your father’s or grandfather’s America. The world has changed if you haven’t noticed. Jobs which once provided comfortable livings for our citizens, have gone to China, India, or one of a hundred other developing countries all in the name of globalization. Foreclosures are at historic highs. Whether due to deregulation of the banking industry, deceptive loan practices, or flat-out greed, one can’t deny the fact that the American dream of home ownership is at the least dying, if not already dead. Satisfaction with congress and the president is at an all time low. The ideological division between the two political parties is the worst that I have ever seen. They seem to be in an eternal deadlock. Nothing is getting done, and the American people are the ones who are suffering.

At the top of the list, in my view, is the enormous divide between the rich and the poor, which is currently the widest this country has ever experienced. While our middle class, which both parties claim to want to help, continues to deteriorate at an ever increasing pace, the rich continue to get richer. Whether people who call themselves conservatives realize it or not, they are supporting the continuation and acceleration of this cycle, and are likely to become victims of their own ideology themselves, unless they happen to be counted among the top one percent of Americans economically.

A statement that President Obama made yesterday morning at the annual prayer breakfast sums up how we as Americans and human beings should view our fellow citizens, especially those who are the most in need, “Treating others as you want to be treated. Requiring much from those who have been given so much. Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need. These values are old. They can be found in many denominations and many faiths, among many believers and among many nonbelievers. And they are values that have always made this country great; when we live up to them, when we don’t just give lip service to them, when we don’t just talk about them one day a year. And they’re the ones that have defined my own faith journey.”

While I do not advocate socialism, I do believe that to have a vibrant society, a government which represents all the people must provide social programs for those citizens who most need them. These programs should not just offer the bare minimum of physical sustenance, but provide a means to better both the individual and the family and thereby take them off the welfare rolls. A president must, and I underscore must, represent all the people: rich, middle class, and poor alike. Saying you don’t care about one group or another in any context is unconscionable.

Maybe it is time to rethink our version of capitalism. The 1980 version of it that conservatives are championing no longer applies in this 21st century global economy. This time let's include everyone, not just the one percent.