<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>PoliWatch - Political Meanings</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://poliwatch.org/atom.xml" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2008-07-12://16</id>
    <updated>2011-12-21T15:12:18Z</updated>
    <subtitle>Headlines only scratch the surface! </subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Commercial 4.25</generator>

<entry>
    <title>First Steps: Courage and Hope</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/12/14/first_steps_courage_and_hope.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14839</id>

    <published>2011-12-14T08:07:38Z</published>
    <updated>2011-12-21T15:12:18Z</updated>

    <summary>No journey is ever begun until hope fills the first steps for reaching the destination.The American people want a capable government, able to bring back a robust economy, and healthy future for all American&apos;s benefit. Poll after poll reflects an...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="2012 Elections" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Anti-incumbent Movement" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Assumptions of Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Congress" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Voting &amp; Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="america" label="America" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="antiincumbent" label="anti-incumbent" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="competence" label="competence" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="congress" label="Congress" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="corruption" label="corruption" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="courage" label="courage" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="economy" label="economy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="hope" label="hope" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="politicalparties" label="Political Parties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<p><span data-jsid="text" class="commentBody">No journey is ever begun until hope fills the first steps for reaching the destination.</span></p>The

 American people want a capable government, able to bring back a robust 
economy, and healthy future for all American's benefit. Poll after poll 
reflects
 an approval rating of Congress in the teens or low 20 percent range. It
 is a gross distraction under any president's administration to accuse 
the president of being responsible for the incompetence and ineptitude 
of Congress. Our Constitution stipulates that Congress legislates and 
our President executes what Congress 
legislates. ]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>Failure to execute current law is not the source of 
America's loss of faith in government. An inability and unwillingness of
 too many in Congress to act in the best interests of all Americans and 
the nation's pressing needs, is the source of the problem.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Unless voters 
can encourage themselves and each other to vote out incumbents 
routinely, until such time as Congress is filled with new 
representatives dedicated to the welfare of our nation and all her 
people, America literally has no plan for curing what ails her. Our 
Congress is riddled with the cancer of greed and power, money influence 
and special corporate interests. And that cancer is growing inside our 
Congressional body. The American voters must administer the radioactive 
treatment on Election Day after Election Day, that will force this 
cancer into remission. <br /></p>
<p>It is a daunting task to ask Americans
 to find hope and courage to act when the fate of our country is looking
 so bleak. The challenge remains, however, to go out and actively help 
fellow Americans to accept the reality of this cancer, and to accept the
 cure. It is a challenge because it calls for voters to abandon political party and ideology. The goal however is worth the challenge. We will restore to our nation a Congress of, by, and for the American people. A 
daunting task - a worthwhile end. <br /></p>
<p><span data-jsid="text" class="commentBody">We each, individually and collectively, will continually suffer the 
consequences of a failed America. Go 
forth and vote for individual candidates who are committed to the 
reforms which will eradicate this cancer growing in our Congress, our 
political parties, and within the body of our nation's future. <br /></span></p>
<p>Fear of, and cowering from, the future is not an option. We are not North Koreans. Action requires <span data-jsid="text" class="commentBody">the
 courage to step forward. Action requires hope filling the first steps 
toward achieving the objective. Our forefathers and mothers mustered within 
themselves the courage and hope to act appropriately when our nation's 
future was threatened. Are we lesser Americans than they? It is a false 
pride that says, "I am an American", while failing to act appropriately 
on America's behalf. <br /></span></p>
<span data-jsid="text" class="commentBody">Those
 of us who understand the truth of what is said here, have a duty and 
obligation to ourselves and our country, to help our fellow Americans 
come to the same understanding, regardless of difficulty or hardship.</span><br /><br /><font style="font-size: 0.8em;">(This article previously published at <a href="http://voidnow.org/">Vote Out Incumbents Democracy</a>.)</font>]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Extremist Party</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/11/27/extremist_party.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14838</id>

    <published>2011-11-27T19:28:06Z</published>
    <updated>2011-11-30T19:42:50Z</updated>

    <summary>Conservatives like Sen. John Warner and Ronald Reagan influenced many to become more conservative. That kind of conservative, however, no longer exists at the core of the Grand Old Party, which has become dangerously extremist. The Warner - Reagan conservative...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Election Issues 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Republican Party" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Status of American Politics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Voting &amp; Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="electonlaws" label="electon laws" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="extremists" label="extremists" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="gop" label="GOP" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="johnwarner" label="John Warner" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="polls" label="polls" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="publicopinion" label="public opinion" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="reagan" label="Reagan" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="republicanparty" label="Republican Party" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="revisionisthistory" label="revisionist history" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Conservatives like Sen. John Warner and Ronald Reagan influenced many to become more conservative. That kind of conservative, however, no longer exists at the core of the Grand Old Party, which has become dangerously extremist. The Warner - Reagan conservative was about governing for the future of America, first and foremost. The current GOP is not about governing, but winning elections at any cost to the nation and people. Let's take a look at these differences and what, if any hope lies with the Democratic Party.<br /></p>]]>
        <![CDATA[Pres. Reagan was a union organizer and leader for the Screen Actor's Guild, before becoming governor and president. Unions were OK up to the point where their power crippled employers and cost workers their jobs, or the public its services. Ronald Reagan was for limited federal government and willing to cut taxes where government could be shrunk in size. However, Reagan was also not opposed to raising taxes to balance budgets and fight the rise of national debt. Ronald Reagan didn't like national debt, but, understood that given the choice between Russia and national debt, national debt would have to come second to winning the Cold War with Russia.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warner">Sen. John Warner</a> was pro-choice on the abortion issue generally, but, was supported by the pro-life interest groups for his votes to put limits on abortions. Sen. Warner served in the military and on the Armed Services Committee and Select Committee on Intelligence where he was highly regarded by all. Sen. Warner was about governing, not afraid to stand up to his own Party when conscience dictated, and not afraid to side with the American people in the present and future, despite political pressures in other directions. <br /><br />Both Warner and Reagan were men dedicated to governing and as such, both able and willing to work and compromise with Democrats for the benefit of the nation and her people, present and future. These were men who defined conservative in their time. <br /><br />What's changed? The difference is like night and day. Today's Republican Party is controlled by those who absolutely refuse to compromise, and because of that, they continue to refuse to govern, unable to get every demand fulfilled by Democrats in the Senate. The GOP's 'no compromise' positions have led directly to America's most challenging threats and issues going unanswered by government. <br /><br />On health care reform, Republicans took a 'no compromise' position against <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_health_care" title="Publicly funded health care" rel="wikipedia">publicly funded health care</a>, forcing Democrats to pass the Affordable Care Act, absent provisions to drive down the cost of health care, which is the single greatest threat to America's national debt growth going forward. What we ended up with is many of the benefits of a public health care system without any means of paying for it, for future generations. <br /><br />Republicans have taken a 'no compromise' stand on federal revenues, to include refusing to cut tax loopholes for the wealthiest corporations and individuals, while at the same time, illogically, touting a balanced budget and reducing national debt. There simply is no scenario in which the budget can be balanced without increasing federal revenues, and avoid forcing tens of millions of Americans into bankruptcy. No compromise has resulted in a complete absence of governance toward addressing the national debt and deficits issue. <br /><br />Aware of the public's declining approval of the GOP's obstructionist positions, Republicans in many States are attempting to pass legislation to deny voting access to predominantly Democratic voters. Knowing they can't win on their record, they are attempting to change the rules for winning, in their favor, undermining the very essence of democratic elections in America. <br /><br />Changing the rules for elections is not the only rewrite Republicans are engaged in. The Party continues to falsely attach the decline in our economy to President Obama and Democrats, despite the historical reality that Republicans were in control of government when the economy's roof began to collapse. It was a Republican sponsored bill, the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act" title="Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" rel="wikipedia">Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act</a>, that paved the way for Too Big To Fail banks to come into existence and threaten the next Great Depression if the government did not bail them out. Rewriting history to serve their election ends has been taken to new heights. <br /><br />Republicans lambast the Affordable Care Act as unaffordable and not paid for, both true, while Republicans under G.W. Bush passed the Medicare Prescription Drug legislation without paying for it, or offsetting it, adding enormous annual costs to the national debt. Republicans refused from 2003 through 2008 to include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, which would have highlighted the enormous deficits and growth of the national debt during President G.W. Bush's terms in office, while cutting federal revenues which deepened deficits and debt. The rich got richer, the middle class declined, and the national debt to be dealt with by our children, grew to monstrous proportions. <br /><br />The GOP has become the trickster Party. It has become expert at lying and hiding realities from the less educated and more ignorant sectors of our voting population. The are rewriting history and election laws to cheat their way into election victories instead of earning their way on a solid record of performance they can be proud of. <br /><br />The GOP's all time Houdini though, has to be convincing the public they are for fiscal responsibility when their entire record of the last decade has been one of devastating growth to the national debt, to include today's obstructions to addressing deficits and debt by refusing to compromise and pass legislation with Democrats to get the job done. <br /><br />On issue after issue, the Republican Party stands in opposition to the public opinion, making them the extremist Party on those issues. Here are just a dozen of many more examples. <br /><br /><ol><li>Public Opinion <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/03/us-healthcare-usa-poll-idUSTRE5B20OL20091203">favored the Public Option</a> health care reform. Republicans opposed it. </li><li>Public Opinion <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/11/21/Poll-Partisan-divide-on-taxes-spending/UPI-74281321927685/">favors increasing taxes on the wealthiest</a> to reduce deficits. Republicans opposed it. </li><li>Public Opinion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#cite_note-Angus-59">favors some choice in abortion</a>. Republicans oppose it. </li><li>Public Opinion <a href="http://www.pollwatchdaily.com/category/entitlement-programs/">favors saving Social Security and Medicare</a> as publicly funded programs. Republicans oppose it. </li><li>Public Opinion favors leaving <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323525-503544/poll-three-in-four-back-iraq-troop-pullout/">Iraq</a> and <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/09/cnn-poll-support-jumps-for-withdrawing-troops-from-afghanistan/">Afghanistan</a>. Republicans oppose it. </li><li>Public Opinion now <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/Record-High-Americans-Favor-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx">barely favors legalization of marijuana</a>. Republicans oppose it overwhelmingly. </li><li>Public Opinion <a href="http://www.au.org/church-state/september-2011-church-state/au-bulletin/constitution-mandates-church-state-separation">says Constitution requires separation of church and state</a>. Republicans don't agree, generally. <br /></li><li>Public Opinion believes <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nationwide-poll-finds-that-78-of-voters-want-government-regulation-to-be-less-intrusive-in-their-daily-lives-133441268.html">government is broken and needs to be overhauled</a>, 93% of Republicans, 78% of independents and 72% of Democrats all agree. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have failed to produce any significant government process reforms, campaign finance reforms, or lobbying reforms that could be considered an overhaul.&nbsp; <br /></li><li>Public Opinion <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/145130/support-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell.aspx">supported ending the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell</a> policy. <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46578.html">All but 8 Republicans opposed</a> it. </li><li>Public Opinion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Polls_in_2011">supports recognition of civil unions for gays</a>. Republicans largely oppose it.</li><li>Public Opinion favors <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/10/partisan-divide-over-alternative-energy-widens/1/">increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and
 hydrogen energy technology.</a> Republicans oppose it. <br /></li><li>Public Opinion says<a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm"> jobs and economy are top priorities</a>. Republicans in Congress, however, are sticking to their "No Taxes" pledge, making compromise and actions to further stimulate the economy and jobs, impossible.</li></ol><p>Ironically, as Republicans continue to insist that deficits are their main concern, despite their no tax pledge, <a href="http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=85899364478&amp;category=294">public opinion toward Republican leaders in Congress, on the deficit issue, has plummeted</a>. From the same research linked above, public confidence in Congressional Democratic leaders has also fallen, but, not as far. Public opinion remains unchanged toward Pres. Obama's sincerity in addressing deficits, higher than Congressional leaders of either party. <br /></p><p>The political landscape actually favors liberals over conservatives in this fascinating Pew Research done in May, 2011. More registered voters lean left than right according to their research. Is it any wonder, then, that Republicans feel compelled to stoop to revisionist history and <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/what-states-are-doing-to-restrict-voting-rights/">changing local election laws</a> to stop as many left leaning demographic groups as possible from voting? [Linked source is biased, but, its reference to state election law changes are accurate.]</p><p>The Republican Party used to stand for the status quo, opposing change generally, unless it would advance defense strength or economic growth. This new incarnation of the GOP however, is made up of a number of extremist groups working to create changes that only a minority of Americans would approve of. From no gun regulations to no abortions under any circumstances, from declaring America a Protestant Christian nation to virtually eliminating the federal government entirely except for defense and domestic crime, from Koch Brother's designs toward aristocracy and Plutocracy (government by the wealthy) to anti-immigration hate groups, The GOP has splintered into extremist factions all finding their home in the Republican Party.</p><p>In effect, the GOP has become the anti-majority Party, intent on depriving the majority of Americans any gains or effective representation, at all. If the majority of Americans are for it, the GOP will likely oppose it, eventually. This is what happens when a political Party embraces any willing supporters with votes or money, and as <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/21/news/la-pn-fox-news-poll-20111121">one study</a> (arguably flawed with too small a sample size and geography) insinuates, targets the under-educated and lower end of the learning curve with their campaign advertising dollars.&nbsp;</p><p>One thing is certain about recent history. Republican victory in the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections has failed to produce the kind of results that instills confidence in our nation's future, given the all time record low approval rating of Congress that exists today. <br /></p><p>It remains to be seen if corrupting money in politics, gerrymandering, and disenfranchising voters will be a winning strategy for Republicans in 2012. If it is, I will long for the years past, when the GOP elected statesmen and women like Reagan and Warner, who put the nation and people first on their priority list, as their means to achieving public support and election victory. The GOP used to function as a check and balance against the excesses and extremists of the Democratic Party. Now they have become an extremist Party, all of their own.</p><p>Do not mistake this article as a pro-Democratic Party piece. The Democrats have their own factions and extremists, as well. The difference is that the Democratic Party continues to champion the objectives of the majority of Americans with only a small number of exceptions (gun control and government regulation, as examples), And the Democratic Party is in bed with Republicans in defense of corrupting money in politics, lobbying, and abject refusal to put forth real political reforms that would maximize voting, and minimize corruption, legal blackmail and bribery in government. <br /></p><p>The political system is broken, and the political parties are destroying the American people's ability to democratically elect effective representatives, not only for the present, but for many decades into the future, as well. The people are ready for real change and reform, but, the Democratic, and most especially, the Republican Party, are the wrong places for Americans to look for the changes and reforms they seek. <br /></p><p>The time is ripe for the creation of a third party, but, Democrats and Republicans have the system rigged to prevent the effective emergence of any such contender. (See FEC, ballot access requirements, and history of independent and third party candidate financing.) America is in trouble, and if the American people are fed up enough, they will shit kick incumbents to Timbuktu in 2012, out of pure exasperation and retribution for the mess our country is in at the hands of these two parties, the Extremist Party and the Less Extremist Party.&nbsp; <br /></p>

<div style="margin-top:10px;height:15px" class="zemanta-pixie"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img style="border:none;float:right" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=c406a633-514f-425c-a62c-ff63ef0d9cae" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" /></a></div>]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The Deeper Meaning of Penn State Rapes</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/11/14/the_deeper_meaning_of_penn_sta.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14837</id>

    <published>2011-11-14T22:17:29Z</published>
    <updated>2011-11-14T22:20:52Z</updated>

    <summary>The alleged sexual crimes committed against children at Penn State have been called sexual abuse and scandal. They are in fact, alleged crimes and torture of children. They are heinous, if the allegations are true. Outside an institution with a...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Bad Policy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Congress" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Election Issues 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Voting &amp; Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="america" label="America" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="crime" label="crime" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="getthemoneyout" label="Get the Money Out" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="glasssteagal" label="Glass-Steagal" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="grammleachbliley" label="Gramm-Leach-Bliley" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="pennstate" label="Penn State" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="rape" label="rape" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="void" label="VOID" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="voteoutincumbents" label="Vote Out Incumbents" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="voters" label="voters" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[The alleged sexual crimes committed against children at Penn State have 
been called sexual abuse and scandal. They are in fact, alleged crimes 
and torture of children. They are heinous, if the allegations are true. 
Outside an institution with a reputation and integrity to protect, 
almost any witness to such crime would call the police. Inside 
institutions of repute, however, too many such crimes against women, 
men, and children, go unreported, and covered up. Are our institutions 
more important than the innocent people harassed, abused, or even 
tortured, within them? So far, the answer seems to be, yes. <p> </p>]]>
        <![CDATA[Institutions are, by definition, organized to exert power. Institutions 
can exert power for the betterment of people within reach of the 
institution, or, for the satisfaction of the cravings of persons in 
positions of power within those institutions, at the expense of others. 
Power over others is supposed to come with the ability to respond 
appropriately to the rights and needs of others. <br /><br />Nearly everyone
 would agree that parents have both power over, and responsibility for, 
the welfare of their children. We have laws designed to insure that 
parents who violate that responsibility are denied such power. Why 
should this concept be different within our society's institutions? Is 
it different? <br /><br />This writer argues that within institutions, many 
hold the view that it is a different standard for the powerful in our 
institutions, and that their power, however used for right or wrong, is 
justified by the benefits received by those within that institution. 
There is no better example of this than the Penn State Athletic 
Department in which it is alleged, that an institutional cover-up of the
 crimes were employed. The rationale was simple. <br /><br />The Athletic 
Dept. did more for the reputation and funding of the University over the
 years, than any other department within the institution. Ergo, a 
standard was adopted that said, above all else, do no harm to the 
Athletic Dept. regardless of the actions of that department. The 
reputation of the Department became more important than any individuals 
setting foot on the Penn State campus, including the children. Not even 
the laws of our nation and society were to take precedence over the 
reputation of the Penn State Athletic Department. <br /><br />This is not an
 isolated instance in American institutions and society. The allegations
 of two of the four women claiming sexual harassment, are given credence by 
Presidential candidate Herman Cain's organization having settled 
financially with the two women. The "too big to fail banks" were created
 allowing them to become more central to the economy and nation than 
jobs, credit, investors, and all other businesses threatened with a lack
 of available cash to continue operations. Dow Chemical's reputation was
 more important than the Agent Orange which killed so many American 
soldiers via cancers, long after the Viet Nam War was over. The oil 
companies reputation and profits have been deemed more important than 
Asthma sufferers in our cities, and the fishery industry in our coastal 
regions (Exxon Valdez and Gulf of Mexico oil platform disaster). 
Political rivalry between Democrats and Republicans continues to deny 
our nation and all its working people an economic recovery that will 
allow us to effectively manage our debt in future years. <br /><br />There 
is an old saying that had great credence during the founding of our 
nation. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why has America
 abandoned such wisdom? America is being overrun by consequences of 
actions with entirely foreseeable futures. When President Clinton signed
 the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act" title="Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" rel="wikipedia">Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act</a>, overturning FDR's <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act" title="Glass-Steagall Act" rel="wikipedia">Glass-Steagal Act</a>,
 it was apparent that the threat of too-big-to-fail banks had been 
raised to Depression era levels. It is big news today in the media the 
threat to us all of failing to invest in, and upgrade, our nation's 
infrastructure. It is foreseeable what will happen. America will lose 
the ability to compete economically with other nations. And yet, America
 is 
incapable of ponying up that ounce of prevention due to the GOP and 
Democratic Party institutions of political warfare.<br /><br />What is 
lacking is a national consensus that demands responsible action, and 
is willing to deliver consequences to those in leadership who 
fail to live up to that responsibility. The 99%'ers, or Occupy Wall St. 
crowds, have offered this nation an opportunity to build that consensus 
with consequences on Election Day. But, support for their discontent 
remains tepid, and the American people remain largely divided by the 
sophisticated political distractions and divisions of our two party, 
bought and paid for, political system. <br /><br />I personally believe the "<a href="http://www.getmoneyout.com/">Get The Money Out Of Politics</a>"
 movement, calling for a constitutional amendment requiring public 
campaign financing of elections and banning corporate and organized 
campaign financing, is the answer for what ails America's failed 
leadership, political, and governing systems. If politicians no longer 
have to pander to special wealthy minority interests to get reelected, 
they will be forced to turn to the needs of the nation and the people at
 large for direction in law making and leadership, if reelection and 
seats of power are what they seek. <br /><br />Of course, the current lot of
 incumbents in government will not willingly dump the current campaign 
financing system. It is what shores up their high probability of 
reelection (77% in 2010). Therefore, an all out campaign against 
incumbents in government, which seeks to elect challengers in support of
 getting the money out of politics, as recommended by <a href="http://voidnow.org/">Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy</a>, is absolutely necessary. <br /><br />If
 you don't vote, don't gripe; you are part of the problem, not the 
solution. If you vote for incumbents, or one of the two major parties, 
you are voting to keep the current failed government system in place. 
Only if you are voting out incumbents and for challengers, are you 
voting for the possibility of change for the better. As long as the Dem's
 and Republicans are allowed to continue to divide us voters, our 
national challenges will continue to march toward systemic failure and 
collapse, in the footsteps of Europe's Greece and Italy, where the 
institutions were allowed to protect themselves from public backlash 
resulting from the institution's own misdeeds and counter-productive acts. <br /><br />Penn
 State is a warning of far deeper and more pervasive destructive forces at
 play in shaping our nation's future. Failure to act with outrage toward
 the perpetrators requires that ever more dire consequences will have to
 be paid in the future. <br /><br />



<font style="font-size: 0.8em;"><br />(This article was previously published at <a href="http://voidnow.org/">Vote Out Incumbents Democracy</a>)</font><br />]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Is Peace In America&apos;s Future?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/10/27/is_peace_in_americas_future.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14836</id>

    <published>2011-10-27T16:37:42Z</published>
    <updated>2011-10-27T16:54:34Z</updated>

    <summary>Is America in a position to enter a period of military peace? With the announcement last week of complete withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, a winding down of the War in Afghanistan, an end to America&apos;s multilateral participation against...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Foreign Policy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Iraq" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="afghanistan" label="Afghanistan" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="america" label="America" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="internationalrelations" label="international relations" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="iraq" label="Iraq" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="military" label="military" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="peace" label="Peace" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="superpower" label="superpower" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="war" label="war" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://poliwatch.org/images/PeaceSign-RWB.jpg"><img alt="PeaceSign-RWB.jpg" src="http://poliwatch.org/assets_c/2011/10/PeaceSign-RWB-thumb-135x135-102.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" height="135" width="135" /></a></span>Is America in a position to enter a period of military peace? With the 
announcement last week of complete withdrawal of combat troops from 
Iraq, a winding down of the War in Afghanistan, an end to America's 
multilateral participation against Qadaffi in Libya, and nearly 
complete disruption of the al-Queda organization that attacked us on 
9/11, it would appear America is headed for a period of relative peace 
in the world. With such appearances, however, those dependent upon 
military activism for financial, political, and other gains, have to 
begin to oppose peace. We are hearing such voices rise up, already.<div><br /></div>]]>
        <![CDATA[What if there was a military super-power in the world, that was 
constrained by law, and the primary objective of defending itself, and world peace. 
Would such a super-power be welcomed amongst the world's people or, at 
least, by the people living under that super-power? Reason would seem to
 indicate so. <br />
<br />
However, there is the inescapable reality that comes along with becoming
 a
 military super-power that tends to undermine any such hopes for 
Peaceful objectives. That reality is the powerful people who became 
rich, and or, powerful beyond most person's dreams, in building up such a
 military and providing for the the wars that justified that military 
growth. Those same persons 
are not about to stand idly by during a period of Peace and diminishing 
financial rewards that will attend a military redesigned and focused on 
Peace as 
its objective.The powerful vested monied interests will defend their 
power that rests on the war machine. <br /><br />As <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/190171-senators-ask-for-full-hearing-on-iraq-troop-withdrawal">The Hill</a> reports: <br /><blockquote>As you know, the complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is 
likely to be viewed as a strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle 
East, especially the Iranian regime," the letter, signed by Sens. John 
McCain (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Saxby
 Chambliss (R-Ga.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Rob 
Portman (R-Ohio), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John 
Cornyn (R-Texas) and David Vitter (R-La.) reads.<br /><br />"While we 
share the desire for all of our troops to come home as quickly as 
possible, every senior military commander we have heard from on repeated
 visits to Iraq has stated that U.S. national security interests and the
 enduring needs of Iraq's military require a continued presence of U.S. 
troops in Iraq beyond 2011 to safeguard the gains that we and our Iraqi 
partners have made," the letter continues.<br /></blockquote><br />Their 
entire argument rests on these men's prediction of what our enemy's 
&lt;b&gt;perception&lt;/b&gt; of the withdrawal will be. Is that 
sufficient justification for occupation of a foreign nation against the 
will of that nation's government? Iraq has demanded the withdrawal of 
American forces. WWII and the Cold War are long over, and the 
circumstances that warranted maintaining massive military presence in 
countries like Japan and Germany no longer exist. This is one of the 
problems with incumbency in political office - failure to acknowledge 
that world has changed, and new opportunities require new strategies and
 tactics. <br /><br />Back to the point, however, is that these politicians 
depend heavily for reelection on political contributions from those 
private interests that profit from war and an enormous military 
industrial complex. While the Wars in Iraq in Afghanistan were 
enormously profitable for corporate interests like Haliburton, General 
Dynamics, and many others, these wars were enormously costly for the 
American people, to include thousands of military families. <br /><br />The 
Iraq War has cost $800 Billion dollars, to date. None of the 
justifications for that war, save corporate profits, have proved to be 
valid. There was no al-Queda in Iraq prior to the invasion, there were 
no weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq posed no threat, nuclear or 
otherwise, to the United States homeland. The Iraqi people are free to 
govern themselves in the manner they choose. The military job there is 
done. There are no rational reasons for America to promote imperialist 
occupation of Iraq against the will of the Iraqi government. <br /><br />Afghanistan
 has cost Americans more than $468 Billion dollars. While Afghanistan 
continues to be an unstable country, in which, hostile factions against 
the America remain, there arguably exists nothing to be gained by 
continued military occupation of Afghanistan for Americans. Nothing, 
that is, except for the profits of war for those private sector 
corporations dedicated to war. There is nothing homogenous about the 
Afghan people, as was the case with Japan and Germany. There isn't even a
 centralized government in control of the regions and peoples of 
Afghanistan. <br /><br />America has passed the point of diminishing returns
 in Afghanistan. Every dollar and American soldier's wounding or death 
spent in Afghanistan, going forward, brings progressively less return on
 the impossible objective of achieving a stable and peaceful democracy 
there with warm regards for America and the Western nations. Our 
objective in invading Afghanistan has been achieved. Al-Queda has been 
torn apart, and those responsible for the 9/11 attacks have been taken 
out. The are only two consequences to result from a continued occupation
 and war in Afghanistan and they are profits for America's war based 
corporations and stock holders, and growing resentment against America 
for perpetual occupation of that country. <br /><br />Which brings us back 
to the question: Is Peace in America's future? If the answer is left to 
those who profit from the war machine, the answer will be an emphatic, 
NO! If the answer is left to the majority of peace-loving Americans, the
 answer is clearly Yes, as evidenced by <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm">PollingReport's data</a>.
 This would appear to be a classic case which the Occupy Wall Street 
movement is railing against. The 1% who are profiting from these wars 
would continue them. The majority of the rest would not. And the war 
continues. <br /><br />A sign of the times appeared in the news this last 
week as the story broke that the last of the Cold War Bunker Busting 
Nuclear Weapons of the 1960's was dismantled. While it is true, those 
bombs, the most powerful nuclear weapons ever created, have been 
replaced with more surgical and less collaterally destructive nuclear 
bombs, the evidence is clear that the world of the Cold War of Russia 
and the U.S. bent on mutual self-destruction, no longer exists. As our 
times and circumstances change, our policies and objectives must also 
change. Failure to adapt to changing times has brought down the greatest
 civilizations in history. America must not be allowed to follow that 
history. <br /><br />America has an unprecedented opportunity at this time 
to truly become the world's Peacekeeper, using its economic and 
diplomatic power to negotiate resolution of conflict hotspots, while 
holding in reserve, the world's most powerful military under civilian 
rule, to be used only in direct defense of the integrity of the United 
States homeland and territories, economic trading partners, and allies. 
This is an opportunity for America to enter a time of relative peace, 
and use that opportunity to restore its spent resources, economic 
balance, and stature in the eyes of the world's people and nations. This
 is an opportunity the American people and military, cannot allow its 
leaders to squander. <br /><br />The objective of war, is to restore the 
Peace. The profiteers of war reject that argument and objective. It is 
time for the American people to secure that objective for themselves, 
and our future.&nbsp; <br /><br /><font style="font-size: 0.8em;">(This article was previously published at <a href="http://discussamerica.org/">DiscussAmerica.org</a>).</font><br /><br />]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Corruption in America</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/10/25/corruption_in_america.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14835</id>

    <published>2011-10-25T18:09:30Z</published>
    <updated>2011-10-25T18:12:25Z</updated>

    <summary><![CDATA["To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." --Theodore Roosevelt.&nbsp;There is a general perception among the majority of Americans today that our...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Anti-incumbent Movement" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Assumptions of Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Election Issues 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Status of American Politics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Voting &amp; Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="america" label="America" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="antiincumbentvote" label="anti-incumbent vote" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="democracy" label="democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="occupywallstreet" label="Occupy Wall Street" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="politicalfuture" label="political future" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="politics" label="politics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="publicdemonstrations" label="public demonstrations" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="wallstreet" label="Wall Street" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<blockquote><p>"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy 
alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task
 of the statesmanship of the day." --Theodore Roosevelt.&nbsp;</p></blockquote>There is
 a general perception among the majority of Americans today that our 
political system is corrupt and our government is failing as a result. 
Most recently, the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators speak to the very 
same kind of corruption which Theodore Roosevelt spoke of back in the 
1920's. When government legalizes bribery and blackmail, these do not 
cease to be acts of corruption. This is precisely what has taken place 
in American government and politics, corrupting our system to the point 
of growing demonstrations in our American streets.  ]]>
        <![CDATA[In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizen's United v. FEC that 
corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate 
elections 
cannot be limited because of the right of these entities to free speech.
 This is the single most egregious source of corruption of government by
 business. It is a Frankenstein resurrection of the 'Unholy Alliance' 
between politicians and the wealthy in the business world which Theodore
 Roosevelt spoke of. The political parties have become the bag men 
carrying the 'legal bribes and blackmail' from Wall Street to Capital 
Hill. <br /><br />If the <a href="http://occupywallst.org/">Occupy Wall Street</a>
 and Tea Party founders, who denounced this corruption of our 
government, are to succeed in reducing the corruption, they must commit 
to the daunting task of accomplishing a Constitutional Amendment. 
Specifically, they must force passage of an amendment which prohibits 
corporate person-hood and the funding of election campaigns by the 
business and incorporated entities (which includes unions). So far, the 
Occupy Wall Street crowd has not set forth an agenda for action other 
than to arrive in the streets in groups and express dissatisfaction with
 the status quo.<br /><br />It is not hard to understand why, either. The 
instant the Occupy Wall Street "organizers" establish a political policy
 initiative for change, the business world and political parties will 
immediately seize upon the their agenda to promote it as a danger to 
society and America's future, with 100's of millions of dollars of 
support for waging this war against the Occupy Wall Street crowd. This 
is a real dilemma for the Occupy Wall Street movement. <br /><br />In a 
nutshell, if they don't promote concrete policy initiatives using their 
anti-incumbent vote to enforce it, politicians will pay lip service to 
their concerns without actually changing anything. If however, they do 
advocate concrete policy initiatives, the full weight of corporate 
wealth will descend upon their movement to discredit their policy 
initiatives. There is a profound lesson to be noted by all in a little 
covered election recently in New York as <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-15/republicans-get-most-blame-for-ineffective-governing-in-national-u-s-poll.html">Bloomberg reports</a>: <br /><br /><blockquote>Evidence that voters are angry enough to kick out their own
party was apparent Tuesday night when Republican Bob Turner won
a special election in a U.S. House district in <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york-city/">New York City</a>
with voter registration weighted toward the Democrats. "We are
unhappy. I'm telling you. I am the messenger. Heed us," Turner
said in a victory speech aimed at Washington. <br /></blockquote><br />If 
the Occupy Wall Street movement continues to grow into 2012, it may 
achieve sufficient public support to, in effect, pre-neutralize the 
millions of dollars that will be spent to discredit the movement's 
political initiatives. They will, of course, have to make a very big and
 public deal about predicting the actions of the wealthy special 
interests against them, before they announce concrete steps to effect 
the removal of private sector money from American politics and 
government legislative processes. <br /><br />By publicly predicting the 
backlash of the wealthy special interests against them, attempts by 
those wealthy special interests to subvert their agenda will become 
self-indicting, in the public eye, thus neutralizing the effect of that 
money in the media arrayed against the Occupy Wall Street movement. <br /><br />Of
 course, all of this analysis assumes the Occupy Wall Street movement 
gets around to establishing a leadership capable of tactical and 
strategic action toward accomplishing their objective. To date, the 
Occupy Wall Street movement is leaderless, which is one of its strengths
 for the time being, as being leaderless provides wealthy special 
interests little target to spend money on discrediting. <br /><br />A <a href="http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/08/19/our-constitutional-amendment-get-money-out-of-politics/">constitutional amendment</a>
 to remove money from politics and legislation will likely take years 
and several election cycles to accomplish. The Wall Streeters are 
already attempting to demonize demonstrators as 'mobs' and people 
engaged in 'class warfare'. If the Occupy Wall Street movement is to 
become endurable, it seems clear they must align themselves with an 
anti-incumbent voting agenda which can publicly measure their growth and
 effect upon the political system. If they do this, and the incumbent 
reelection rate drops with each passing election, the strength and 
durability of their organization and growth will be self-evident, 
attracting ever more Americans to their ranks. <br /><br />If the Occupy 
Wall Street movement fails to devise a way to publicly demonstrate their
 growing appeal and effectiveness in changing political reality, the 
public will lose interest, in very much the same way that the Tea Party 
has lost its allure to the public at large, for failing to produce 
positive, measurable results.<br /><br />Underpinning the rise of public 
demonstrations by the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements are the
 fundamental issues of democracy and self-determination, and whether, or
 not, the will of the majority of the people can trump the wealthy 
special interest minority in shaping our nation's future. Many, mostly 
on the political right, argue that our nation was not founded as a 
democracy because of fears of mob rule. And they are quite accurate in 
that statement. <br /><br />However, this is not the 18th century, and with 
amendments to the Constitution which elect the president and senators by
 popular vote (despite the enduring Electoral College), America has 
grown toward democracy over the 19th and 20th centuries. Wall Street 
champions the Republic and abhors the idea of democracy. Wall Street's 
influence upon government would be seriously diminished if the American 
people, as a majority, had the power to veto Wall Street's agenda. <br /><br />This
 is the underlying domestic war taking place in America today, between 
the wealthy few percent and the rest of the American people who have 
lost faith and confidence in Wall Street, the government, and the 
political system to promote the general welfare for all Americans. On 
one side there are the Wall Streeters who believe democracy is an evil 
thing - mob rule. On the other side are those who believe democracy has a
 place in our Republic as an enduring American strength to force change 
when change is most needed. Ours is, after all, a democratic republic; 
which is to say that it is a republic in which its leaders are 
democratically elected. <br /><br />This tension between these factions is 
as old as our founding fathers, but, it is a rarer occurrence in 
American history that this tension flows into the streets of America in 
the form of protests and demonstrations. In our system, to effect 
legislative or constitutional change, these protesters must translate 
their actions into voting behavior on Election Day. In other words, they
 must elect persons who will represent their desire for a Constitutional
 Amendment to remove the influence of private money from our governing 
processes. That will amount to an enormous anti-incumbent process, since
 few current politicians have supported the idea of such an amendment. <br /><br />Ultimately,
 who wins will depend upon the enduring nature of the American people to
 sustain their activism. If they can sustain it, they will prevail, as 
the people did in India in removing British rule and as the South 
African people did in ending Apartheid and Afrikaner Rule. Ironically, 
the worst thing that could happen to the Occupy Wall Street movement is 
for the economy to recover. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of 
growth for the Occupy Wall Street movement, as long as the GOP continues
 its campaign against economic recovery solutions in their attempt to 
foil their arch enemy, the Democrats. <br /><br />As long as the media 
focuses on the war between the political parties, the American people 
will lose at the hands of the inaction and gridlock by those political 
parties. If however, the media can be forced to address the war between 
wealthy corporate influence and the future of the average American 
family, the American people will continue to gain strength and power in 
this war for their future.&nbsp; <br /><br />(This article was previously published at <a href="http://voidnow.org/">Vote Out Incumbents Democracy</a>)]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Occupy Wall Street Potential</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/10/08/occupy_wall_street_potential_1.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14834</id>

    <published>2011-10-08T17:54:03Z</published>
    <updated>2011-10-25T18:13:36Z</updated>

    <summary>The Occupy Wall Street movement has gone viral. The core of the movement is centered on the singular perception that it is not healthy for the nation, or majority of Americans, if 1% of the population controls the economy for...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Anti-incumbent Movement" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Election Issues 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Status of American Politics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="2012election" label="2012 election" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="americasfuture" label="America&apos;s future" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="economy" label="economy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="occupywallstreet" label="Occupy Wall Street" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="politicalreform" label="political reform" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="protests" label="protests" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img alt="Occupy_Wall_Street_Crowd_2011.JPG" src="http://voidnow.org/community/mt-static/images/MyImages/Occupy_Wall_Street_Crowd_2011.JPG" std_side_image_high_rightimage_wrapper"="" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" width="30%" />The <a href="http://occupywallst.org/">Occupy Wall Street</a> movement has gone viral. The core of the movement is centered on the singular perception that it is not healthy for the nation, or majority of Americans, if 1% of the population controls the economy for their own benefit, while the other 99% experience declines in their financial and employment status. It is a perception that is nearly impossible to argue against with a straight face. Where is this movement going, however?  </p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>OWS could potentially fizzle with the onset of Winter, making hours 
outdoors in protest insufferable, if not downright unhealthy. The 
movement could re-surge next Spring with 
warmer weather. Lastly, the movement could continue with legs as a 
unifying theme that binds the American public together, despite all 
efforts by the political leaders to divide and diminish them for their own purposes. </p>

<p>To express one's disappointment with the condition of America, 
however, does nothing to correct that condition. Only if two conditions 
are met, can the Occupy Wall Street movement effect positive change for 
America's tentative economic condition. First, the movement must adopt 
an action that effects the outcome of elections. And second, that effect
 must leave politicians in government no political choice but to pass 
into law, solutions that will address activist OWS voter's concerns. </p>

<p>In other words, the Occupy Wall Street movement must translate their discontent into 
sufficient anti-incumbent voting in November, 2012, as to leave 
politicians thinking they have no future in politics unless they address
 the concern of the OWS voters. Put another way, the OWS movement must 
embrace the <a href="http://voidnow.org/community/pages/void_mission.php">Vote Out Incumbents Democracy</a> (VOID) strategy, if they are to have 
any lasting positive effect on the future of our country. </p>

<p></p>

<p>Obviously, however, the first and foremost prerequisite to effecting <br />
positive change for America has to be getting the money influence out of<br />
 politics. As long as our elected leaders and political parties can be <br />
bought and sold by the highest commercial bidders on Wall Street, there <br />
can be no positive future for the American people at large. But, that is<br />
 only the first of many reforms that must be adopted as a demand by <br />
voters. Can the Occupy Wall Street movement fulfill this potential? Tell me what you think?<br /><font style="font-size: 0.8em;"><br />(This article was modified from its publication at <a href="http://voidnow.org/">VOID</a>).</font><br /></p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Fix America&apos;s Political System</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/10/01/fix_americas_political_system.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14832</id>

    <published>2011-10-01T17:23:20Z</published>
    <updated>2011-10-25T17:32:10Z</updated>

    <summary>American voters and their democracy are under attack, as politicians seek to change election rules to benefit incumbents, regardless of the will of the majority of voters. America&apos;s workers are under attack as American corporations and companies, who contribute to...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Assumptions of Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Economy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Election Issues 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Status of American Politics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="2012election" label="2012 election" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="democracy" label="democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="poll" label="poll" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="polls" label="polls" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="republic" label="republic" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="votermajority" label="voter majority" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="voters" label="voters" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="voting" label="voting" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<p>American voters and their democracy are under attack, as politicians 
seek to change election rules to benefit incumbents, regardless of the 
will of the majority of voters. America's workers are under attack as 
American 
corporations and companies, who contribute to election campaigns in 
record amounts, seek cheaper labor overseas. America's political system 
is broken. And it is ruining the the government which made this nation 
great. If voters do not remove these politicians responsible for 
America's decline, our democracy will be lost, and our vote rendered 
ever more meaningless. </p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>American education continues to fail the students of American 
citizens. The American economy continues to limp along at an anemic 1 to
 2% growth rate, at a time when a 3.5 to 5% growth rate is required to 
get the unemployed back to work. The anarchists in Congress continue to 
block legislation that would grow the economy and put Americans back to 
work, while defending the tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest 
and corporations that would help pay down deficits and debt. <br /><br />Our
 democracy is failing and the evidence could not be clearer. Take a look
 at the following polling issues of the majority of voters, which our 
politicians refuse to act upon. <br /><br />1) the wealthiest and corporations should pay higher taxes to help bring down deficit spending <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64017.html">(66% and 70%, respectively)</a>.<br /><br />2) government should expand efforts, in the short term, to stimulate economic growth and grow jobs <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/117523/americans-short-term-government-growth.aspx">(53%)</a>.<br /><br />3) to reduce deficits, defense spending should be reduced <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/09/us-usa-budget-poll-idUSTRE7286DW20110309">(51%)</a>.<br /><br />4) cut medicare and medicaid spending, and cut social security <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/09/us-usa-budget-poll-idUSTRE7286DW20110309">(28% and 18%, respectively)</a>. <br /><br />5) elected officials in the nation's capital are mostly influenced by the pressure they receive from campaign contributors <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/09/cnn-poll-two-thirds-say-elections-are-usually-for-sale/">(86%)</a>.<br /><br />6) it is unacceptable for groups to spend heavily on political advertising in districts where they are not located <a href="http://sites.allegheny.edu/cpp/2010/11/02/poll-americans-opposed-to-%E2%80%9Coutside-money%E2%80%9D-in-elections/">(66%)</a>.<br /><br />7) oppose cutting spending on education <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/americans-oppose-cuts-education-social-security-defense.aspx">(67%)</a>.<br /><br />8) cut spending on foreign aid <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/americans-oppose-cuts-education-social-security-defense.aspx">(59%)</a>.<br /><br />9) voter's own representative in Congress should <u>NOT</u> be reelected <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/PollApprovalRatingforCongressMatchesRecordLow/2011/09/17/id/411342">(57%)</a>.<br /><br />Some
 would argue that America is not a democracy, but, a republic, in which 
the elected officials should decide policy without regard for the 
majority will of the public in this or that public opinion poll since, 
the public is both fickle and uninformed. While there are instances in 
history that can be offered up as evidence that this is a valid argument
 (American public opposed to entering war with Hitler until Pearl 
Harbor, for instance), it is illogical to argue that a government which 
denies the will of the public, routinely and persistently, is healthy or
 good for a society. The Arab Spring movement, or collapse of the Soviet
 Union,&nbsp; is clear evidence of that. <br /><br />One might conclude from the 
above poll of 57% saying their own representative should not be 
reelected in 2012, that the reelection rate for Congresspersons in 2012 
should reflect only 43% of incumbents being reelected in 2012. That, 
however, will NOT be the case. The reelection rate in 2012 will most 
likely be in the 65 to 77% range. A majority of Congress will be 
reelected, and that means the horrible policies and failures of the 
current Congress will continue in the 2013 and 14 Congress, after the 
elections. That is not what Americans signed up for, as voters. The 
political system is rigged to deny the voters their majority will. <br /><br />There are many ways in which incumbent Congress persons have rigged the system. Here are just a few of the worst forms: <br /><br />Gerrymandering
 'safe' districts for incumbent parties and representatives. This 
involves splitting up populations and redrawing district maps to dilute 
the voter opposition to a particular party or Congress person in office.
 <br /><br />Use of tax dollars by Representatives to mail out thinly veiled
 campaign materials touting the "outstanding performance" of the 
incumbent politician, which gives a financial advantage to the incumbent
 over any challenger. <br /><br />A Two Party System which gives voters only
 a choice of the lesser of two evils, and which creates enormous 
barriers to the rise of any third or independent party from gaining 
sufficient ballot and media access to pose a challenge to the two party 
system. (See the bipartisan Federal Election Commission for evidence of 
this.)<br /><br />Collecting massive sums of campaign contributions from a 
minority of the wealthiest (in exchange for legislation protecting those
 wealthiest person's interests), which negates the influence of the 
individual voter's and non-wealthy citizen's contributions and vote. 
Those massive sums of wealthy person contributions are put to work 
creating a campaign which will weaken voter's resolve to show up and 
vote, or, even persuade the individual voter that the problems in 
Congress are everyone else's fault, not the incumbent seeking reelection
 (who is protecting the interests of his/her wealthy campaign 
contributors). <br /><br />Changing laws at State and Local levels to create
 burdens and barriers to citizens wanting to show up to vote. Many 
States are, at this very moment, moving legislation to shorten the time 
available, and increase the requirements for, early voting, which 
disadvantages seniors and the handicapped and those pressed for time to 
vote on a work day. <br /><br />Conducting elections on a weekday work-day, 
instead of on the weekend or on an Election Day holiday, prevents 
millions of Americans concerned with keeping their jobs or with taking 
time off from work to vote, from showing up to vote. This clearly is 
biased against American workers, just the way businesses and 
corporations expect for their large contributions to incumbent 
politicians. <br /><br />Still, despite all this rigging of the system by 
incumbent politicians seeking to protect their cushy political jobs with
 great pay and benefits, Americans succeeded in recent elections in 
dropping the reelection rate from an average of over 90% down to 77%. 
But, when only 33% of voters believe their own U.S. Congress 
representative should be reelected (2010), and 3 out of 4 are reelected,
 it is obvious that the system is rigged against the American public 
voter. And like all oppressed majorities in the world, to change the 
system to their advantage will require an enormous effort on the part of
 that majority. <br /></p><font style="font-size: 1.25em;">All that 
is required for bad government to continue to grow, is to reelect incumbents responsible for bad government. <br /> </font><font face="Verdana"><br />
We have an obligation to ourselves and our children, to do whatever is 
necessary to vote in 2012, and convince as many others as we can, to do 
the same. The polls show us that the more we citizens vote, the more 
incumbents will be thrown out of office, and the more challengers will 
be reelected. <br /><br />
  </font><font style="font-size: 1.25em;">The politicians don't want us to vote - they will reelect themselves in our absence.</font> <br /><br />To remove them from office, we have only to show up and vote for 
challengers; who in their turn will want to be reelected, and will be 
forced to recognize that serving the people's interests is their ticket.<br /><br /><font style="font-size: 0.8em;">(This article was previously published at Vote Out Incumbents Democracy.)</font><br />]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>America: Knowledge v. Belief</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/08/21/america_knowledge_v_belief.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14831</id>

    <published>2011-08-21T15:02:32Z</published>
    <updated>2011-08-21T15:08:09Z</updated>

    <summary>Many civilizations in history, which failed in the absence of being conquered, faced the same &apos;Zenith Threat&apos; America faces today. Confronted with the threat of leaving their prosperity zenith behind, their civilization divides. Divided, civilizations fail from within. What divides...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Consumer Issues" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Economy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Election Issues 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="National Debt" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Status of American Politics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Voting &amp; Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="america" label="America" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="belief" label="belief" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="centrists" label="centrists" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="democrats" label="Democrats" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="economics" label="economics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="economy" label="economy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="education" label="education" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="empirical" label="empirical" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="knowledge" label="knowledge" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="moderates" label="moderates" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="republicans" label="Republicans" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Many civilizations in history, which failed in the absence of being conquered, faced the same 'Zenith Threat' America faces today. Confronted with the threat of leaving their prosperity <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zenith">zenith</a> behind, their civilization divides. Divided, civilizations fail from within. What divides nation's in the face of a Zenith Threat, is two different ways of knowing and consequent prescriptions. I define these two ways of knowing as empiricists and 'wishful believers'. If 'wishful believers' capture control of the nation's decision making apparatus, that civilization fails. America is currently an example of a nation in the throes of a Zenith Threat, with its divisive and hence, potentially negative consequences.<br />&nbsp;<br /></p>
]]>
        <![CDATA[<p></p><p>Let's define these terms. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism">Empiricists</a> are those who utilize observable
 and verifiable real world relationships and information to fashion 
cause and effect solutions that will remedy challenges and problems 
facing them. "Wishful Believers" adopt beliefs that are centered on 
wishful results that would benefit them, in the absence, or even rejection 
of, real world verifiable relationships and data. Note the fundamental 
difference. Empiricists begin with observable real world relationships, 
and fashion possible solutions based on those. Wishful believers begin 
with the end result they seek, and devise wishful strategies to achieve those 
results, in the absence of education in real world relationships and 
information, extant. </p><p>From its founding, America's population has consisted of both 'wishful believers' and empiricists. America's past is governed, from its founding, almost exclusively by its empiricists, as opposed to its 'wishful believers'. America's history under the empiricists is one of monumental growth, progress, and evolution to ever higher standards of humanity and civilization. All that progress is now threatened to end as the wishful believers achieve ever greater access to power, as evidenced by the 2010 elections of the Republican Party and its Tea Party caucus as the majority in the House of Representatives. <br /><font style="font-size: 1.25em;"><br /></font>A prime example of Zenith Threat failure was the USSR. It was governed 
by 'wishful believers', who took as their starting point, military 
superiority over the U.S. and NATO as their best insurance for future 
posterity. They rejected real world economic and political realities, and those real 
world economic and political realities brought down the USSR from within. Their irrational fears of being militarily inferior, became a <a href="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/self-fulfilling-prophecy.html">self-fulfilling prophecy</a>.<br /><font style="font-size: 1.25em;"><br /><b>Trickle down versus consumer up, economics.</b></font> <br /><br /><b>Trickle Down Wishful Believers</b>:<br /><br />Trickle down wishful believers insist that if the wealthy privileged minority of capital owners and investors is growing either in number or wealth accumulation, that wealth will trickle down through capital and production expansion to employ ever greater numbers of potential consumers, and hence, the economy will expand. What is wishful is that these people wish to be among that privileged minority of capital owners and investors. What their belief is, is that their expanding wealth will result in ever greater consumption by consumers. Their belief justifies their wish. Their end, justifies their means, even as real world analysis contradicts their belief. <br /><br />As America is experiencing today, wealth accumulation can reach a point at which that wealth withholds too many of the dollars available in that society to fund consumer activity, and hence, consumer activity begins to drop off, and economic expansion slows, or ends. Money is very much like water in the physical world. If water held in the skies does not fall to the ground, the foundation for life, plants and animals including humans, will suffer and even perish for lack of sufficient water to grow food and materials for construction and innovation. Money has to circulate in an economy, constantly back through consumer's hands if that economy is to remain healthy. <br /><br />Wishful believers are absolutely correct to argue that if their isn't enough money in the hands of capitalists to employ people and expand production, the economy will falter. The problem with that argument today in America, however, is that this condition does not exist. <br /><br />American businesses and wealthy investors are sitting on 2.5 Trillion dollars of cash reserves, unwilling to put it to work employing people and expanding production, because consumers aren't buying their products in sufficient quantity to justify expanding production of goods and services. In this economic circumstance, allowing ever greater accumulation of wealth in the hands of the capitalist owners of production and service providers only starves ever greater numbers of consumers of the necessary resources to grow consumption and expand demand for business products and services. <br /><br />Wishful believers, however, refuse to acknowledge these real world facts and evidence, and vehemently refuse all measures by the government to increase taxes on the wealthiest, in order to recirculate that tax money back down through consumer's hands in order to increase demand for business products and services. And the reason they reject this evidence, is because it would lead to actions that in the short term, would affect their wishful aspiration to be ever more wealthy. They refuse to accept even the most modest attempts of government to relieve them of any part of their accumulated wealth, even though, such efforts would insure the wealthiest remain wealthy, or even wealthier, into the future.&nbsp; <br /><br />Wishful believers reject reality out of the irrational fear that the empiricists, if they get their way, will relieve them of ALL their wealth. They see an unfounded slippery slope in their irrational fear, that if the government takes some of their wealth by increasing taxes, there is nothing to stop government from taking all their wealth, eventually. However, nothing could be further from the truth in America, since, empiricists understand the necessity of a wealthy investor and capitalist population as absolutely necessary to a healthy economy. Empiricist economists understand that recirculating wealth constantly from consumers to wealthy capitalists and investors, and back again, through jobs and taxation when necessary, to consumers, maintains a balance that promotes a modest but continuous expansion of growth and progress for all, from the poorest to the wealthiest. In other words, empiricist economists understand and accept the need for wealthy capitalists and investors as part of this balance.<br /><br />Many Republicans make these irrational fears obvious <a href="http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/05/republicans_to.php">by referring to Democrats as Socialists</a>, or <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/jonah-goldberg-obama-and-socialism">Obama's policies as socialist</a>, reflecting the fear that if the empiricists get a little, they will eventually take all the wealth, and hand it out to the poor, making poor and wealthy equal in income and assets. That is a completely irrational and indefensible fear. But, it is what motivates Republicans to destroy America's economy in defense of their wish to remain, or become, one of the wealthiest. It motivates them to destroy the very economy upon which their wealth, present and future, depends. It quite literally, is deranged behavior born of irrational fears. <br /><br />Wishful believers suffer from a self-fulfilling prophecy. They fear government seeking their wealth through taxation to shore up the consumer capacity of the labor force will have no limits, and their actions to prevent this from happening, is in fact, creating a consumer starved economy which will undermine the the profits and wealth of capitalists and investors, going forward. They are bringing about the very loss of wealth, through economic Recession or Depression, that they fear will occur if government taxes them more. <br /><br />What Republicans lack, is an objective critical education in America's history, which 
teaches critical and rational minds that America has grown powerful and wealthy as a 
centrist and moderate nation politically, in which the excesses of the 
capitalists and socialists, have ever been reversed by each other as 
those excesses posed a threat to the centrists and moderates who know that a 
healthy balance created by a capitalist system with social economic policies in essential for growth and prosperity. Centrists and moderates understand this balance is required for continued economic growth and humane progress for all, 
generation after generation. <br /><br />This lack of education of Republicans, especially pronounced in Tea Party activists, has for over a decade, been ever increasingly choking the political economic apparatus to funnel currency resources to consumers through taxation, (not to mention offset deficits and prevent debt growth), and our economy has become progressively more unstable. Republicans argue they have cut taxes in the last 10 years, but, fail to acknowledge huge increases in fee for services and other hidden taxes that offset the tax cuts, not to mention their doubling of the national debt in 8 years under Pres. G.W. Bush. This choking effect has been compounded by businesses dramatically increasing their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation">automation to replace labor</a>, and the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html">private sector's incessant search for cheaper labor overseas</a>, as well as consumers clawing their own way <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-02.html">out from under overextended credit and mortgages</a>, promulgated and facilitated by irresponsible lenders. <br /><br />The end result is a consumer class without sufficient consumer resources to support America's economy, let alone address deficits and debt. Fears of a second Recession have driven stock markets and investor's hopes of profitable corporations down dramatically in recent weeks. Refusing to accept reality and facts, Republicans, have quite literally engaged in doing the same thing over and over again in fighting taxes and labor wages, while expecting a different result in the economy, other than decline. Einstein called this behavior, insane. Of course, Einstein was an empiricist, which supported his belief in a Creator! <br /><b><br />Consumer Up Empiricists</b><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_economy">About 70% of America's current economy is driven by consumers</a>, despite statistical revisionists on the Right. When 
consumers fail to consume, the economy falters, and wealth amongst all in
 the society, from the richest to the poorest, is lost. These are real 
world observable facts demonstrated many, many times in America's 
history. The most prominent example in America's history is found in the period from 1929, beginning with the stock market crash, through the economic expansion of the 1950's and '60's. <br /><br />The Great Depression was a series of devastating recessions that began in the 1930's and terminated with WWII. What began as a stock market crash as a result of over-leveraging of investments and by banks (sound familiar?) was followed by ever increasing unemployment and devastating drops in consumer activity, as homes and farms were foreclosed upon. When all was said and done, 25% of America's work force was left unemployed and bankrupt. Attempts were made during the Roosevelt Administration to deficit spend on the creation of jobs and reemploying as much of the work force as possible. These efforts failed, however, to halt the Great Depression and restore economic growth on a sustainable level throughout the 1930's. <br /><br />Why did such stimulative efforts fail to restore a vigorous economy? They weren't big enough. That is a factual and empirical answer. How do we know that is the answer? Simple. The stimulative efforts of the 1930's paled against the borrowing and spending on employment that was set in place with the onset of WWII. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-13-economic-recovery-depression_N.htm">The federal government's national debt soared to its highest level as a percent of GDP during WWII</a>, putting more of the population to work during the first 5 years of 1940 than at any other time previously. Not only were virtually all of America's male work force employed by government war stimulus spending, but, American women were brought into the work force as well to take up jobs which soldiers shipping out for Europe and the Asian-Pacific couldn't. In five short years of massive deficit spending and spiraling national debt, full employment was achieved to heights never dreamed of before WWII. <br /><br />What followed the end of WWII was a dynamic and growing economy. <a href="http://economics.about.com/od/useconomichistory/a/post_war.htm">It became an economy</a> flush with cash, consumers, and educational opportunity, and a business sector primed for innovation, research and development, and a talented and entrepreneurial labor force eager to work and spend. What sustained America's growth after WWII was an economy that grew faster than debt. In 30 years America went from Depression and World War deficits and debt, to the greatest expansion of the middle class consumer ever in history, as well as putting people on the Moon, dramatic advances in medicine, electronics, automation, civil rights and liberties. These are facts in our history that are discounted or rejected by wishful believers who aspire to wealth without the understanding that wealth in America is underwritten and sustained by a vast and relatively wealthy middle class of consumers. For wishful believers who aspire to wealth without sharing a modest portion of it with the rest in society, taxation is an evil to be fought tooth and nail, because greed underwrites their world view, not education and real world fact. <br /><br />The real world of American economics demands an approach to our current challenges that begins with restoring the health and resource capacity of consumers to consume. This is the 
way American economic empiricists understand economics because it is demonstrated time and again in our history. Or, as the empiricists of the American working class put it, it begins with jobs. But, here's the rub. <br /><br />The private sector, as discussed above, cannot justify creating jobs for people who will stand idly around all day doing nothing productive in the absence of enough customers walking through the door to make them busy. In other words, as in the 1930's, the private sector is in no position to profit from hiring more people. That creates the situation in which the only organization capable of stimulating job growth is the federal government. States are barred from creating jobs through deficit spending by their Constitutions requiring a balanced budget. The Federal government however, is under no such constraint, and therefore is, the employer of last resort, to rescue the economy from a spiral downward that hurts both business and workers in ever increasing numbers. <br /><br />And that is why, despite its popularity in public polling, a balanced budget amendment to the Federal Constitution is like denying a gravely ill patient access to health care. In circumstances such as these which America faces today, the only practical and effective solution to economic decline is job creation, and the government is the only organization capable of stimulating the growth of those jobs. It can do so by contracting with the private sector to employ workers. Such measures will be proposed by Pres. Obama in September on public works, like roads, bridges, and possibly mass transit, aviation control upgrades, and energy infrastructure built around new, more environmentally friendly and renewable, energy resources. <br /><br />If implemented, in the short run, federal deficits and debt will grow as they did in WWII, even as offsets via revenue increases from the wealthiest and investors increase (if the GOP can be checked). In the longer term, however, a superhighway is built for economic growth, increasing federal revenues, dropping demand for government assistance by the unemployed, growing business profits, and the eventual reduction of federal debt. It all begins with the consuming middle class re-employed and re-primed to buy goods and services from American business. Growing the economy faster than the growth of federal debt, has to be the long term objective. <br /><br />As European nations are discovering, austerity measures which fight deficits and debt in a sluggish or, recessionary economy, don't get you there. In fact, they take you in the opposite direction, ever increasing debt and civil unrest. America is not in the same place as Greece or Italy, where these nations passed the point of no return to stimulate their economic growth with deficits while their credit rating to borrow was still intact. These European countries waited until their credit rating was trashed and interest rates rose dramatically before addressing their economic and fiscal challenges to grow jobs and revenues. <br /><br />America has not yet passed the point of no return to grow the economy and government revenues faster than debt over the next couple decades. To be sure, however, accomplishing this will require modification of sacred special interests to both the extreme Left and Right wings of the Democratic and Republican Parties. The very difficult political task immediately at hand is to put forth a plan to grow jobs to 7% or less of unemployment in the near term, while simultaneously laying down a realistic plan to zero out deficits in the intermediate term of 10 years or so, and buy down the debt in the out years, after 10 or 15 years. <br /><br />Such a measure would increase government revenues, offset deficit spending, assuage lender fears about investing in U.S. treasury bonds and, thereby, keep debt interest rates low, while appeasing credit rating agencies about the viability of federal debt being brought down in the future. It is entirely doable. All that stands between America and accomplishing this task, is our partisan representatives in Congress. American voters have the power to force Congress' hand in 2012, toward accomplishing this task. More on that in a moment. <br /><br /><b>Anecdote</b><br /><br />This writer is obviously a consumer up empiricist. This position is predicated upon an education by those who hold true to the empirical model of knowing and knowledge. Wishful believers must discount or reject the evidence of history and economic fact, to maintain their opposition to government stimulus to create jobs. <br /><br />That said: while I believe in God, I don't believe as Texas Governor and Presidential candidate, Rick Perry does, that mass prayer will change our economic deficiencies through divine intervention. I believe Christians are correct when they say, "God helps those who help themselves", to resolve worldly challenges and difficulties. Having an education in real world cause and effect relationships that are verifiable, repeatable, and consensual amongst empiricists, I know that people both create their own difficulties, as I know there exists the ability of the human empirical mind to understand and solve those difficulties. <br /><br />Earlier this evening my wife was watching the second of the series of movies entitled, Jurassic Park. At the point in the movie when the man picks up the baby T-Rex with a broken leg with the intent of helping it, and the science woman played by Julianne Moore is reluctantly pulled in to partner with the man to rescue the baby T-Rex, I offered my wife a bit of critique on the movie, which ticked her off. <br /><br />I told her that it was a real weakness in the script that it has Julianne Moore's character abandon her scientific admonitions to all the men arrived on the Island that humans should only be their to observe and not to interact, for motherly instincts to help the poor baby T-Rex mend its broken leg. The scripts' author has her choose her motherly instincts over scientific education and wisdom. When I explained this was a weakness in the script, my wife told me to please shut up. I asked her why she was reacting to my critique in this manner. She answered, "Because you are ruining the movie for me". <br /><br />I laughed and left the room to write this article. What I found amusing was the fact that most movies require the audience to suspend their disbelief; in other words to believe in the improbable or impossible in order to enjoy the entertainment value of the movie experience. Movies ask viewers to become wishful believers in the efficacy of the story, regardless of how ridiculous the events in the movie, are. My wife could not enjoy the movie without suspending her disbelief, and I couldn't appreciate the script for its choice of having a woman educated in science and real world realities and threats, abandon that education in the study of animal behavior as well as her fears of T-Rex parental reprisal, all in the name of her own maternal extincts to help a baby T-Rex. It was for me, unbelievably improbable. <br /><br />The wife and I lacked common ground on this particular point of the movie, (because I stepped into the room in the middle of the movie, rather than being drawn into the entertainment value of it from the beginning). In the same way, Republicans and Democrats, wishful believers and empiricists, lack common ground upon with to achieve consensus to deal with America's economic challenges today.<br /><br /><b>2012 Elections</b><br /><br />If power falls to the wishful believers, solutions to our nation's challenges will not be found and exercised. If power falls to the wishful believers, all that will be accomplished is the realization of the personal wishes of those wishful believers, for however a short period, before failure comes crushing in on them, and us all. I remain optimistic that the American majority of voters, despite gerrymandered "safe" districts, and new laws designed to prevent voters from voting, and massive spending by the wealthiest to protect themselves from taxation, small or large, will choose in November, 2012 to remove enough 'wishful believers' from office as to create a majority of consumer up empiricists in our federal government to save our economic future. Otherwise, collapsing employment and economy, and then deficits and debt, each in its turn as our future unfolds, will surely make the Zenith Threat, a reality. <br /></p><p>(This article was previously published at <a href="http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/2011/08/zenith-threat.php" target="blank">Discuss America</a>). </p>
]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Hochul, Medicare Win NY 26 Race</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/05/24/hochul_medicare_wins_in_ny_26.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14830</id>

    <published>2011-05-25T03:01:43Z</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T16:18:17Z</updated>

    <summary>We knew it from polls dating back to the Bush Administration which indicated the majority of Americans supported the Public Option for health care reform, Medicare cannot be politically, eliminated. Why Rep. Paul Ryan and the GOP chose to ignore...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Bad Policy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Consumer Issues" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Election Issues 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Health Care" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Republican Party" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="2012bellweatherelection" label="2012 bell weather election" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="janecorwin" label="Jane Corwin" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="kathyhochul" label="Kathy Hochul" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="medicare" label="Medicare" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="ny26race" label="NY 26 race" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="paulryan" label="Paul Ryan" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="republicanparty" label="Republican Party" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="ryansbudget" label="Ryan&apos;s budget" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<p>We knew it from polls dating back to the Bush Administration which indicated the majority of Americans supported the Public Option for health care reform, Medicare cannot be politically, eliminated. Why Rep. Paul Ryan and the GOP chose to ignore that public reality, and put forth and pass a Republican bill in the House to get rid of Medicare in favor of a voucher private sector system, can only be answered with one word, Ideology.<br />&nbsp; </p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Republican ideology includes the premise that because their wealthy supporters can take care of themselves and don't need government assistance to take care of them, legislation for all Americans should be patterned after the desires of the wealthy. It is the stupidest, most ignorant ideology that could possibly be proposed in a democratically elected nation. Rotted fruit which this ideology begets, was plucked from the branches of Jane Corwin and Republicans tonight by democratic candidate, Kathy Hochul, now declared the projected winner in the most Republican district in the country. <br /><br />What the GOP failed to appreciate was the fact that the majority of their constituents are regular, hard working, middle class Americans who believe Medicare is the right idea, even if it is in need of reforms to make it more sustainable and cost effective. The GOP however, made the fatal mistake of ignoring these constituents, while acting as if their only constituents were the far more wealthy, and corporate campaign supporters and donors like private sector health insurance companies and their executives. <br /><br />The NY 26 special election race is a bell-weather election, portending Republican losses across the board in 2012. Republicans up for re-election in 2012 now have a choice to make. They either give up their reelection bid or they give up Rep. Paul Ryan's budget which kills the Medicare and Medicaid program. No doubt, many will back away from the Ryan budget and tell constituents they favor an alternative instead, which preserves Medicare while reforming it. But, to make any alternative meet the smell test, they will have to provide a completely new and viable budget proposal, something most politicians are incapable, or unwilling to do because of the monumental size of the task. <br /><br />Republicans have boxed themselves into a corner with no practical way out. And the NY 26 race reduced the number of 25 Republican seats to 24, for Democrats to regain control of the House of Representatives. Entirely plausible in light of the election results tonight in New York. The majority of Americans, like a majority of Republicans, believe the government can do some things better than the private sector can, to include running the military and waging war, providing education to all young Americans, and yes, now, providing public health care to those who can't afford or qualify for private health care access. <br /><br />Which highlights a fundamental philosophical shift in America in the form of two definitions of socialism. There is the Communist definition of socialism in which the government owns and controls all the means of production and services for the society. And then there is the modern Western definition which exists in all Western democracies where socialism is defined as the government operating industries where either, it can do a better job or, where the private sector is unwilling or incapable of providing the public need for that service. <br /><br />By the latter definition, most Republicans are actually socialists though they would never admit to it. They are, nonetheless, because they believe the government is the only entity capable of creating and operating most effectively, the nation's defense. They are, nonetheless, because they believe the only way to insure all Americans have access to education is through a public government regulated education system, (albeit local government). A great many Republicans, and majority of&nbsp; independents also believe that the only way to insure that all Americans have health care access when needed, is with a socialized health care system like Medicare and Medicaid, with the individual mandate to participate in such programs. <br /><br />The public, as evidenced by tonight's NY 26 race, will not support the GOP ideology that the best government is the least government. Government, especially America's government, has as a mandate in its founding documents, the obligation and responsibility to promote the general welfare for all its citizens. It is the public interests, not the private individual interests alone, that government is obligated to serve, if it is to remain a viable government supported by the public. There is simply no way to get around this reality. Republicans ignored this mandate of public common sense, in adopting the Paul Ryan budget to give tax dollars to already profitable corporations (oil companies) and kill Medicare for the working classes and elderly into the future. <br /><br />There is a reason the Republican Party has an historical and traditional role as the minority Party. The Paul Ryan budget to kill Medicare and government services to fulfilling public need, reiterates and reminds the American public why the Republican Party has been, and should continue to be, the minority Party in our political system. They exist to safeguard the rights and interests of the wealthiest and corporate minority. Every two decades, in other words, each new generation has to relearn this historical fact about the Republican Party, after the GOP has won control of government for a long enough period to enact their ideology. <br /><br />Medicare wins, because the idea of government insuring that no American be forced into an alley to die of illness or injury due to the inability to pay a private, for-profit, health care company, is an idea which the majority of Americans believe is both fair and just, whether they acknowledge it, or not in polls. <br /><br />All the ballots are not yet counted, but, Jane Corwin has already <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article432430.ece">petitioned for, and been granted</a>, by the State Supreme Court a halt to the certification of the election results. Are these shades of Florida, year 2000? <br /></p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Jon Huntsman&apos;s False Reality</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/05/22/jon_huntsmans_false_reality.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14829</id>

    <published>2011-05-23T01:01:33Z</published>
    <updated>2011-05-23T02:05:49Z</updated>

    <summary> Jon Huntsman Jr.: Courtesy - Wikipedia Just listened to Presidential hopeful Jon Hunstman, former 16th Governor of Utah, speak on TV. The thrust of his pitch is that our economy is failing to grow for lack of capital (FALSE)...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="2012 Elections" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Republican Party" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="2012elections" label="2012 elections" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="consumerdemand" label="consumer demand" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="economicgrowth" label="economic growth" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="economy" label="economy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="fossilfuels" label="fossil fuels" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="johnhuntsman" label="John Huntsman" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="oil" label="oil" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="presidential" label="presidential" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<div id="image_260" class="std_side_image_high_rightimage_wrapper" style="float: right;">
  <a href="http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/assets_c/2011/05/Jon_Huntsman-260.php" onclick="window.open('http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/assets_c/2011/05/Jon_Huntsman-260.php','popup','width=200,height=214,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><br />
  <img src="http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/images/Jon_Huntsman.jpg" alt="Jon_Huntsman.jpg" title="Jon_Huntsman.jpg" style="margin-left: 8px;" width="150" /><br />
  </a>
   <div class="caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman%2C_Jr." target="blank">Jon Huntsman Jr.</a>: Courtesy - Wikipedia</div>
</div>

<p>Just listened to Presidential hopeful Jon Hunstman, former 16th Governor of Utah, speak on <span class="caps">TV.</span> The thrust of his pitch is that our economy is failing to grow for lack of capital (FALSE) and the way to ramp up the economy is to make capital investments from overseas inviting (also <span class="caps">FALSE</span>). Jon Hunstman is hitching his aspirations to the old '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics" target="blank">trickle down economics</a>' that failed our nation during the Bush years. He probably believes what he is saying, but, here is why you shouldn't.<br /></p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>American corporations are sitting on trillions of capital they don't <br />
know what to do with here, except to invest it overseas, since, there is this slow economic growth <br />
pace here in America (slow consumer demand growth). Our corporations are putting their capital to work overseas in India and China and other countries where consumer demand is far more robus. But, there are limits there, as well. <br /><br />Our domestic economy corporations could be handed <br />
double their current free capital, and they still wouldn't invest in <br />
future economic growth in America, because the simple economic fact is, <br />
business expansion requires the consumer demand to support it, and our consumer <br />
demand doesn't warrant business expansion, overall. Consumers, after a couple decades of living beyond their means on credit, are now buying down credit card debt and retail loans. The money they are using to buy down debt and increase savings, is not being spent at retailers. That is the reason for our slow but steady economic growth since the early months in 2009. There is no government way to speed this process up. <br /><br />Huntsman, therefore, is arguing a case that doesn't exist in reality. He is arguing that our economy is not picking up faster because businesses don't have capital. His case is that consumer demand is outstripping business capital to grow to meet that demand, That reality hasn't existed since the 1980's and early 1990's. But the policies that would follow from his erroneous understanding of our real economy, would be to lower corporate and wealthy individual's taxes, even more, provide business more tax payer dollar subsidies, and cut government benefits to American workers and poor in order to pay for those tax cuts and business subsidies. <br /><br />Huntsman also said, regarding energy, that America has the oil it needs, the coal it needs, the natural gas it needs, and that it is crying shame America is importing 60% of its oil. Again, Hunstman lacks understanding of the real world. First, one must ask, what does America do when it depletes its oil, assuming we could (and we can't) tap all our oil reserves in the next 10 or 20 years? Would that not make America 100% dependent upon foreign oil, instead of 60%? <br /><br />Second, Huntsman completely fails to appreciate that the oil companies greatest profit relies upon limited oil exploitation. If oil companies began drilling on the thousands of currently untapped oil leases, they would produce a glut of oil, driving the price of oil down, and hence reducing their profit margin per barrel of oil. Hunstman is running on paying back his oil company supporters by offering the public what the oil companies want the public to believe, that our future rests on fossil fuels. Even if Huntsman won the presidency and gave oil companies everything they want, the oil companies would continue to create artificial scarcity to both ensure the highest profit per barrel of oil, and prolong those highest profits per barrel for decades to come by not drilling on their oil leases. <br /><br />Huntsman is running on an "I wish this were true" fantasy view of world and how it operates. If he can convince voters that his view of the world is true, both he and the fossil fuel industry is caddy's for, will get everything they want, wealth, power, and fame. But, what will regular working Americans get? More of what came out of the GW Bush decade: record corporate profits while working Americans become less secure and less wealthy, and with far fewer benefits from their tax dollars which will be forked over to the corporations and wealthiest in America. Those who like John Huntsman will have to forget reality to vote for him, just like Huntsman does. <br /></p>
]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Dollar Saved, Dollar Earned</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/05/18/dollar_saved_dollar_earned.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14828</id>

    <published>2011-05-19T01:57:05Z</published>
    <updated>2011-05-23T02:00:15Z</updated>

    <summary> I was amazed to read on CNN Money&apos;s web site, how much money Americans are wasting on habitual behaviors of choice. I recommend reviewing this list of money savers, to see if you might be able to pocket another...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Consumer Issues" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="consumerbehavior" label="consumer behavior" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="consumerhabits" label="consumer habits" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="consumersavings" label="consumer savings" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="purchasecontrol" label="purchase control" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="savingmoney" label="saving money" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<div id="image_254" class="std_side_image_wide_rightimage_wrapper" style="float:right;">
  <a href="http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/assets_c/2011/05/money_down_the_toilet-254.php" onclick="window.open('http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/assets_c/2011/05/money_down_the_toilet-254.php','popup','width=150,height=147,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">
  <img src="http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/images/money_down_the_toilet.jpg" alt="money_down_the_toilet.jpg" title="money_down_the_toilet.jpg" style="margin-left:8px;" width="250" />
  </a>
  
 </div>

<p></p>

<p>I was amazed to read on <a href="http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/pf/1105/gallery.money_wasters/index.html">CNN Money's</a> web site, how much money Americans are wasting on habitual behaviors of choice. I recommend reviewing this list of money savers, to see if you might be able to pocket another few hundred to thousand per year for something really special and meaningful, and for no more than the cost of being aware. <br /><br /></p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>Many Americans can save nearly $500 per year in ATM fees, by using their Bank's ATM instead of the closest machine, or changing banks to one that has the closest ATM machine. Yearly savings - $475. <br /><br />Too many Americans flush an average of $520 to $1,040 dollars a year down the toilet on lottery tickets. Participants have a higher chance of getting hit by lightning than winning the big one. Yearly savings - $520.<br /><br />Caffeine drinkers spend an average $385 per year on gourmet coffee. Subtract the price of brewing a fresh pot at home in the morning and taking it along in a thermos, can produce an average saving of $225 per year, just on the coffee. If you drive to coffee fix trough, the savings can be considerably more. Yearly savings - $225.<br /><br />Cigarettes consume for many as about $280 per month, or $3,360 per year. They could save another 20 to $40 per month on health insurance premiums if they quit. Can't quit? Cut your smoking in half, and you harvest more than $1600 per year in savings. Yearly savings - $3500 per year, plus perhaps an extra couple years of life to enjoy those savings. <br /><br />A whopping $2,857 per year is spent by the average household on infomercial impulse buying. A minimum of another $2,000 per year is spent at the grocer and other stores on impulse purchases the buyer never had in mind when leaving home. The infomercial industry brings in $400 billion dollars per year. Going shopping? Make a list, and buy only what is on your list. This one simple act can pay for next year's vacation to the Bahama's with savings of nearly $5,000 per year. Yearly savings - $4,857. <br /><br />Brand names cost consumer households an average of up to $75 more per month over generic brands with comparable ingredients and quality except for packaging. In the grocery, the generics are either on the bottom or top shelf, requiring the consumer to reach over their head or bend over for the savings. Is a reach or bend worth $900 per year in savings? Yearly savings - $900. <br /><br />Restaurants. With an average of $28.47 per restaurant meal, and an average of 82 restaurant visits during the year, eat outers spent an average of $2,341 last year. Cut your eating out down to once per week, and you save $740 per year. Eat out only twice per month and the savings jump to $1480 per year. Yearly savings - $1480. <br /><br />If you are a regular bar hopper, you may not have noticed that you spend an average of $42.27 per bar hopping night. If you go bar hopping twice per month, you are spending more than $1000 per year on hangovers or DUI chicken with the police. Make it once per month, and save $500 per year as insurance for that DUI fine and fees. Yearly savings - $500. <br /><br />So, what's the potential grand total of savings for the average habitual consumer? Would you believe $12,457 per year? Add it up. <br /><br />For those kind of savings you could fly to the Mediterranean Riviera once a year for vacation. And all it cost you was awareness of your consumer activity and the exercise of some self-control in reshaping your purchasing habits. For many part time workers, $12,457 per year is more than they make on their part time job for the year. Why work a part time job when you can earn more as a better disciplined consumer? <br /><br />Can you think of other ways you and others can save consumer dollars lost on bad habit purchasing? We would love to hear them. <br /><br /><br /><br /></p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>America&apos;s Future: Improving</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/05/11/americas_future_improving.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14826</id>

    <published>2011-05-11T21:21:33Z</published>
    <updated>2011-05-14T19:24:39Z</updated>

    <summary> It is often informative to view lines of history as a tug of war between ideologies or paradigms. Some historians view our political history as a record of the swing of a pendulum from conservative to liberal, and back...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Economy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Election Issues 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Status of American Politics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="2012elections" label="2012 elections" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="america" label="America" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="democraticparty" label="Democratic Party" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="economicrecovery" label="economic recovery" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="future" label="future" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="gop" label="GOP" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="politicalparties" label="political parties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="politics" label="politics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<div id="image_251" class="std_side_image_wide_leftimage_wrapper" style="float:left;">
  <a href="http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/assets_c/2011/05/sunrise-251.php" onclick="window.open('http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/assets_c/2011/05/sunrise-251.php','popup','width=1024,height=668,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">
  <img src="http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/images/sunrise.jpg" alt="sunrise.jpg" title="sunrise.jpg" style="margin-right:8px;" width="250" /></a></div>It is often informative to view lines of history as a tug of war between ideologies or paradigms. Some historians view our political history as a record of the swing of a pendulum from conservative to liberal, and back again. Such has often been the case since the Great Depression and stock market crash of 1929. Replacing it, is a new pragmatism of necessity. <br /><br /> ]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>The capitalists in America at the turn of the 20th century <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_%28monopoly%29">were essentially monopolists</a>, competing to own their entire industry and share of the marketplace, in order to set pricing at maximum profit levels. Caught up in the struggle to eliminate competition, and the banker's profit motives in funding such endeavors, the greed motive overtook reason and rational judgment, which resulted in the capitalist barons and bankers pricing their products beyond the reach of consumers and investors, and the entire system collapsed in on itself in a series of severe and protracted economic recessions. A resurgence of this era in our history has been underway in the form of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly">oligopolies</a>, monopoly by a few cooperating competitors. <br /></p><p>Charles Dickens wrote in his Tale of Two Cities: </p>

<p></p><blockquote>It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.</blockquote>Though Dickens was writing of the plight of the lower classes in England, where the industrial revolution began, his words above are as poignant today in America, as they were in 18th century England and France. In America today, corporate profits have achieved historical highs ( the best of times), and poverty, bankruptcy, and loss of homes by middle to lower income groups have risen steeply, as has political paralysis to govern (the worst of times). <br /><br />Billionaire and millionaire numbers are climbing at an alarming rate, concentrating the nation's and economy's wealth into a disproportionately small number of the populations hands. (This is similar to capitalist baron and banker's concentration of wealth in the 1920's which preceded the Great Depression, choking consumer demand.) Conversely, the consuming public had become so debt ridden in its decades long attempt to climb the economic and social ladder against the tide of falling real wages, that the growth in consumption inevitably had to come to an end, and that sent banks into a tail spin trying to cover their obligations in the face of growing numbers of defaults on their loan and asset backed holdings. We were literally taken to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_recession">the precipice of another Great Depression</a>, with the potential for another 25% or higher unemployment rate and massive poverty sweeping the nation into political and economic disorder. <br /><br />Massive deficit spending, loans, and loan guarantees by the government, in a very, very short period of time, is what arrested our headlong plunge into an abyss of another economic depression. But, the cost of those measures to halt the spiral of unemployment, bankruptcies, and home foreclosures, now threaten to bankrupt the federal government going forward under a debt burden more than doubled from 2001 to 2011, 5.65 trillion to over 14 trillion dollars, and climbing fast. It is truly both the best of times for corporate profits and the financial elite, spared their potential losses by government intervention, and the worst of times for 10's of millions of Americans either out of work, or working at such low wages as to struggle to keep their home, put food on the table, and to pay for medical expenses. <br /><br />The extremes of capitalism and government economic intervention are now at war in this battle for the future of America, represented by the voices of the Republican (capitalist funded), and Democratic (working middle class supported) Parties. I intentionally avoid the use of the word socialist here, because, the opportunity for government ownership and management of General Motors and Goldman Sachs presented itself, and our government declined to go down that road. Our government declined to take ownership of the means of production which is the <a href="http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism">definition of socialism</a>. For lack of a better term, I shall refer to our Government's economic rescue response as 'pragmatic intervention'.<br /><br />Elections are an integral part of determining the future of our nation. Though the capitalists and pragmatic interventionists debate endlessly over priorities and ever shrinking portions of the discretionary financial pie, a number of realities have imposed themselves to the point that the winner of this debate has already been determined, and all that is left is for the loser to acknowledge their loss. That is where the election comes in. What is likely to come, is the most profound rejection of the Republican Party since the Great Depression and the elections of 1932. This rejection will, for decades to come, alter the construct of the Republican Party, either as a permanent minority Party or, a dramatically changed political party that adopts many of the tenets of pragmatic intervention in order to compete with the Democratic Party for independent voters.<br /><br />The first of the above mentioned realities which have imposed themselves on the American scene is the rapid rise in numbers of Independent voters, often referred to, somewhat inaccurately,&nbsp; as 'swing voters' (many, like myself, have no rhythm at all). A great many self-acclaimed independent voters are nonetheless, Republican or Democratic voters exclusively. The vast majority of Tea Party voters will vote Republican, regardless of who the Democratic Party, or independent candidate, is. Conversely, many independent voters would never vote for a Republican, regardless of how disappointed they are in their Democratic incumbent or challenger. <br /><br />While the meaningful measures of how independent voters vote, are sorely wanting, it is safe to say that a broad cross section of independent voters will cross party lines, and have done so, as a means of registering their discontent with either the incumbent Party or, the government's performance, in general. Such was the case in the 2006 and 2010 elections, when millions of independent voters who voted for Obama in 2008, voted for Republicans in 2010, largely to register their fear and frustration over the economy. These Independent voters now control national election outcomes, having wrested such control away from both the Democratic and Republican parties. <br /><br />The majority of the independent voters aware of Republican attempts to end Medicare and Medicaid are incensed by such GOP efforts, and are likely to forever retain that picture of Republicans killing Medicare, in future elections. No doubt, Democrats will assert that picture upon every election to come. These same independent voters now have the history of the Bush II administration doubling the national debt and fostering the Great Recession, as well as Democrats having salvaged the economy, grown jobs, and acting tough on terrorists and national defense in the killing of Osama bin Laden. These events mark a political shift that may well prove enduring for election cycles to come. <br /><br />A second and most important reality is the national debt and deficit spending by all levels of government. Texas, for example, a Republican dominated state, is 21 billion dollars in the red, despite a Constitutional mandate to balance their budget, Texas has no income tax, and relies primarily on its own legislated sales, motor fuel, and franchise taxes as well as federal revenues. Surprisingly, despite Texas Republicans railing against federal taxes and spending, only <a href="http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxbud/revenue.html">40.5%</a> of its revenues come from its own State resources, while 42% of its revenues come from the federal government. As clear a case of biting the hand that feeds one, as one can find, where Texas Republicans are concerned. <br /><br />Similarly, in the States of Ohio and Wisconsin, Republicans have earned a national reputation of being anti-worker with their union busting measures, and highly publicized assaults upon collective bargaining. In Michigan, the Republican Governor has put in place a voter nullification scheme in which his office asserts the right to put in place a manager of the Governor's choosing to replace elected city councils and mayors where that municipality's budget has fallen into the red. This is an action so clearly unconstitutional, as to be destined to the Supreme Court. In Florida, the Republican governor's approval rating has been dropping like a lead weight for a host of reasons, including rejecting federal dollars for high speed rail jobs, which the voting public has recently become aware of. (Florida is a major factor in the 2012 election for president.)<br /><br />Clearly, the Republicans did our nation a great service in bringing the deficits and debt to the foreground for Congressional and Presidential debate and policy. That is as far as they would carry that ball, however. Paul Ryan proposed a Republican budget so draconian to the middle class and poor in America, and which fails to address the debt, or even the deficits in the near term, as to have made its sales job a standing joke on late night comic shows. Embedded in that budget was favorable tax treatment for wealthy and corporate GOP funders and contributors, and was a serious source for the Ryan budget's failure to address deficits and debt in any meaningful way, at all. <br /><br />Surely, the explanation for such GOP failures rest in the fact that they were ousted from power in 2006 and 2008, and are now preoccupied with the politics of increasing their House victory in the elections of 2010, which they could not accomplish without their base. Their base, however, is splintered, and shares little in the way of policy initiatives with the majority of independent voters and virtually nothing with Democratic voters. Here is a list of just a few major ones.<br /><br /><ul><li>Replacing Medicare/Medicaid with a privatized system in the hands of for profit insurance companies.</li><li>Ending Social Security for those currently under 55.</li><li>Ending collective bargaining rights for workers.</li><li>Massive cuts to public education and expanding education by voucher supplements for private schools.</li><li>Bankrupting the current economic recovery with immediate and massive deficit cuts.</li><li>Perpetual effort to eradicate the abortion option for women in America, even in cases of rape, incest, and mother's life threatened by the pregnancy.</li></ul><br />This agenda, leaves the GOP with legislative policies enormously unpopular with the majority of voting Americans aware of those policies. Acknowledging this, the GOP is hell bent on distorting the reality that the majority of voters view, in the hopes of hoodwinking them into voting Republican in 2012. Those efforts failed in Wisconsin and Ohio, and a unanimous vote in the House to kill Medicare and Medicaid, very likely sealed the fate of Republicans in the 2012 election, if the media and Democrats make more voters aware of it. Polling this month indicates half of Americans approve of the GOP as majority in the House, apparently holding out hope for a divided political government. The door is wide open for Independents and Democrats to drive those numbers South in a significant way before next year's elections.<br /><br />And that is potentially very good news for America's future, if, Democrats continue to adopt and pursue Republican's one rhetorical strength in advocating for deficit reduction and eventual debt reduction. That is entirely possible, if it proves the case that Democratic victories in 2012 reflect a freshman class committed to long term deficit and debt reduction and incumbents convince voters of their commitment. <br /><br />In the tug o' war between the Tea Party, the radical religious right, and US Chamber of Commerce members who fund GOP candidacies, the GOP has no policy path forward that will appeal to the majority of the American voters. Many Democrats have taken up the deficit and debt cause, but, unlike the Tea Party leaders, they are not willing to kill today's economic momentum to turn deficits and debt around on a dime. That too is potentially good news for America's future, since, logic dictates you can't improve tomorrow's economy by destroying today's economy. Democrats are most likely to be the majority party going forward as a result, though my preference would be for a dramatic rise in elected Independents. <br /><br />Job creation and growth is on a steady trend upward. Investors and corporations are flush with trillions of dollars of investment cash to expand the economy, as demand increases. The incessant rise in commodity prices has been broken this week, which likely marks a reprieve from higher consumption prices going forward and some inflation pressure relief. The bottom of the housing market price fall is nearing. With, what appears to be landslide Democratic victories coming in the 2012 elections, the political stalemate in Wa. D.C. will end. This can mean the federal government will be able to proceed with more measures which will hasten the return of stable job growth, lower unemployment, energy and transportation innovation investments, and a return to sane social policies which will shore up the Middle Classes of the future in the form of education quality improvements, lowering of health care costs, reforming and sustaining Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security programs for seniors, increasing tax revenues on the wealthiest, cutting spending on defense, and ending subsidies to record profiting corporations. All of these can contribute to lowering the deficit in coming years. <br /><br />With a plan and commitment to lowering and ending deficit spending, fears of America's investors and lenders will be eased, and our debt will be underwritten with more confidence, salvaging America's potential for the foreseeable future. It is even possible, that a new economic paradigm might take root based on common sense and an entirely logical approach to providing sustenance to the American people, like food, some energy, and health care, on a non-profit basis. This one simple shift could do more to eliminate poverty, expand the Middle Class, and unleash disposable income consumption for profit oriented economic activity, than any other. Many Independents and Democrats are awaking to this potential for salvaging America's economic future. It is a model in place in nearly all other Westernized democracies around the globe. <br /><br />The single greatest obstacle to this future and 'pragmatic intervention' that can take America there, is the Republican Party which, opposes all these measures. The internal civil war within the GOP, however, very nearly guarantees that this Party will be remanded back to its historical minority Party status, and in sufficient numbers as to remove the GOP as a major obstacle to America's future progress. It will then be incumbent upon Independent and Democratic voters to demand, with their anti-incumbent vote, that the majority Party deliver on improvements in America's future progress toward fiscal balance and citizen prosperity, simultaneously. It can be done. It must be done. The alternative is Americans losing their world leader and greatest nation status hard earned in the last century.<br /><br />]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Justice: Osama bin Laden</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/05/02/justice_osama_bin_laden.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14825</id>

    <published>2011-05-02T06:17:21Z</published>
    <updated>2011-05-14T19:19:45Z</updated>

    <summary> OBL - Deceased America celebrates tonight the delivery of justice upon the head of Osama bin Laden, leader of al-Queda which perpetrated the 9/11/2001 attacks upon American soil by way of hijacked airliners. Osama Bin Laden and his company...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Foreign Policy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="alqueda" label="al-Queda" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="binladendead" label="bin Laden dead" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="humannature" label="human nature" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="justice" label="justice" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="osamabinladen" label="Osama bin Laden" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="ruleoflaw" label="rule of law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="terrorism" label="terrorism" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<div id="image_248" class="std_side_image_high_rightimage_wrapper" style="float: right;">
  <a href="http://discussamerica.org/comerford_take/assets_c/2011/05/Bin_Laden-248.php" onclick="window.open('http://discussamerica.org/comerford_take/assets_c/2011/05/Bin_Laden-248.php','popup','width=341,height=457,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">
  <img src="http://discussamerica.org/comerford_take/images/Bin_Laden.jpg" alt="Bin_Laden.jpg" title="Bin_Laden.jpg" style="margin-left: 8px;" width="150" />
  </a>

<p>   <div class="caption" style="text-align: center;">OBL - Deceased</div></p>

<p></p></div>

<p>America celebrates tonight the delivery of justice upon the head of Osama bin Laden, leader of al-Queda which perpetrated the 9/11/2001 attacks upon American soil by way of hijacked airliners. Osama Bin Laden and his company had a choice, surrender or fight. They chose to fight, and, that was the last decision bin Laden will ever make, thanks to the chain of command from Pres. Obama all the way down to the Navy Seals and other American military personnel who assumed the risks of apprehending Osama bin Laden in his residence.<br />&nbsp;<br /></p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>There is little doubt that al-Queda will seek retribution. They may well already have plans for this fateful day ready to put into play. Pres. Obama and many other Western nations will be heightening their intelligence efforts and defensive around likely targets. al-Queda cannot now, pretend anymore that they can get away with murderous terrorism against the U.S. and hope to survive. Their choice is clear. Don the role of suicidal terrorist or abandon al-Queda. As long as bin Laden was alive, escape and survival of U.S. authorities was plausible. It isn't plausible anymore. Nowhere in the world is safe for al-Queda leadership now that bin-Laden has been brought to justice in Abbotabad, Pakistan. <br /><br />For Americans who lost loved ones and friends on 9/11, this day brings some measure of closure and justice their suffering. Justice does not lessen the loss of loved ones and friends. Unjust acts unpunished, however,  creates its own kind of suffering like a wound that will not heal. This kind of suffering can now come to an end. <br /><br />Except for the relief, this is a chapter of war with 'religious' fundamentalist terrorists that can now be closed. Al-Queda has not disappeared, fundamentalist religious extremists still abound in all nations of the world, and murderous terrorism as a tactic, has not been erased from the minds of human beings. This battle against those who choose violence as their method to address grievances, is as old mankind, and can never be won, once and for all, as long as human beings exist. Humanity dictates however, that such persons shall be deemed outlaws, and their murderous acts shall warrant their being hunted and brought to justice. <br /><br />It is, these days, all too easy for passions to clamor for laws that legitimize violence as a methodology of choice to resolve differences. When terrorists strike fear into the hearts of otherwise, humane persons, such persons can be impassioned to abandon their humanity in the name of justice. This is, in fact, the argument and defense by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. People of conscience and morality must safeguard their own humanity, not against the terror of their enemies, but, against their own passions which would set their own humanity aside, in the pursuit of justice. <br /><br />This operation to seek out and apprehend Osama bin Laden in the name of justice ended in violence, but, that was the choice of Osama bin Laden and his defenders. This operation was governed by the concerted efforts of U.S. law, Pakistani law, and international law enforcement, with the objective to apprehend and try Osama bin Laden for his crimes. That he chose suicide by cop does not confer upon those conducting this daring raid on bin-Laden's compound, any blame, whatsoever. Law enforcement, which is given no choice but to use deadly force in defense of themselves and their efforts to apprehend perpetrators, bears no responsibility or blame for the violence that ensues as a result of the perpetrators hostile defensive actions. <br /><br />There is no doubt, al-Queda will spin this night's events as murder committed by the United States. But, that is because al-Queda observes no law beyond. Expedience in obtaining their objectives governs their actions, without moral code, without ethical consideration, and without any law observed by humane persons in the world's society's today. The difference between the actions of bin-Laden in aiding the perpetration of the 9/11 attacks and many subsequent terrorist acts, and those of the U.S. military this night, is like that of night and day. <br /><br />If human beings are to retain their humanity, they must submit to the rule of the law, or, non-violent means of changing that law, which act as a check upon passions that would otherwise, deprive them of their humanity. This is the difference between the al-Queda and Western type democratic societies. And it is a difference we should all recognize and never forget, nor abandon, when we become the victims of violence. <br /></p>
]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Debt Ceiling Will Be Raised. </title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/04/19/debt_ceiling_will_be_raised.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14824</id>

    <published>2011-04-19T06:11:08Z</published>
    <updated>2011-05-14T19:15:17Z</updated>

    <summary> Debt Ceiling The federal government&apos;s debt ceiling will be raised on a bi-partisan vote and signature of the president. There is only one condition, in which, that previous statement could end up not true, and that would be, political...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Economy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="National Debt" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Status of American Politics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="debtceiling" label="debt ceiling" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="economicdepression" label="economic depression" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="economy" label="economy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="politicsofdebt" label="politics of debt" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="recession" label="recession" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<div id="image_242" class="std_side_image_wide_leftimage_wrapper" style="float: left;">
  <a href="http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/assets_c/2011/04/Debt-Ceiling-242.php" onclick="window.open('http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/assets_c/2011/04/Debt-Ceiling-242.php','popup','width=472,height=315,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">
  <img src="http://discussamerica.org/remer-blog/images/Debt-Ceiling.jpg" alt="Debt-Ceiling.jpg" title="Debt-Ceiling.jpg" style="margin-right: 8px;" width="250" />
  </a>
  
   <div class="caption" style="text-align: center;">Debt Ceiling</div>
  
 </div>

<p><br />
The federal government's debt ceiling will be raised on a bi-partisan vote and signature of the president. There is only one condition, in which, that previous statement could end up not true, and that would be, political imbecility. It will take only one political extremist, or dummy, to pull this off, and there are several candidates for the role. <br />&nbsp;<br /></p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>Sometimes the obvious is so obvious as to be nearly invisible, like opening one's eyes upon awaking to find one's face pressed hard against the ceiling. That ceiling will not appear to be a ceiling, but a mono-colored textured surface without dimension or other detail. Here are just a sampling of the myriad reasons the debt ceiling will be raised. <br /><br /><ol><li>The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will not allow the federal government to default upon its credit and debt ratings. Would be horrible for business.</li><li>With interest rates so low, the stock market is the premium venue for growing invested money. The stock market would be crushed by a government default on its debt obligations. Investors would have no place to earn money for possibly years, which includes virtually every Senator and Congressman on Capitol Hill.&nbsp;</li><li>Failure to raise the debt ceiling will constitute an unprecedented admission of failure by those in both houses Congress.</li><li>Since, failure to raise the debt ceiling would put the economy back into a deep recession and very likely, a depression, voters will rally around the anti-incumbent voting theme in unprecedented numbers sweeping incumbents of both parties out of office in unprecedented numbers. <br /></li><li>Neither the Dem's nor GOP's would benefit from the failure, politically, in the long run.</li><li>In the wake of a new Recession or Depression, civil unrest would ensue, and security surrounding politicians would become tentative, at best. <br /></li><li>The domino effect would become world wide, wiping out fortunes of the wealthiest. <br /></li></ol>There are however, scenarios, in which the imbeciles in Congress could prevail in forcing the U.S. government to default on its interest payments, halt medicare and social security payments and checks, and send unemployment to 25% or higher. If the Tea Partyer's are capable of inducing just one Senator to filibuster the legislation to raise the debt ceiling, the unthinkable would occur and unfold. <br /><br />There are no Democrats on the radar screen who would filibuster raising the debt ceiling. There are however, a number of Republican Senators, who might be induced to do so, in order to secure the Tea Party vote in 2012. A dark horse Presidential candidate currently occupying the Senate for example. Sen. Rand Paul might be just such a candidate. His political rhetoric would be consistent with such a filibuster. With the economy in a recession or depression, Obama's reelection would be dubious, and a political opportunist like Sen. Scott Brown might see the debt ceiling as a path to the White House as the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_horse" title="Dark horse" rel="wikipedia">dark horse candidate</a> who encourages Rand Paul, or another, to filibuster.<br /><br />An obvious candidate for the job of filibustering would be Sen. Jim DeMint who has <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/18/sen-demint-threatens-filibuster-debt-ceiling-vote/">publicly stated</a> this week: "I will oppose any attempt to vote to raise the limit on our $14 <br />
trillion debt until Congress passes the balanced budget amendment." This is just the kind if imbecile who could destroy America's economy. If he is true to his words, he will filibuster, and raising the debt ceiling will not occur. There is no way in hell that a Constitutional Amendment could pass, and be ratified by the majority of States, before the debt ceiling has to be raised to avert a default on government obligations. <br /><br />DeMint's demented logic, may be calculating that defaulting on government obligations to Medicare and Social Security recipients would be a good thing. However, imbecile's aren't able to think through the consequences. If the government defaults on its obligations to its own citizens, what will that communicate to our international lenders about our obligations to them? It would quite literally, be economic suicide for America, pulling the floor out from the bottom of the value of the U.S. dollar. Americans would need wheel barrows of $50 dollar bills just to do the week's grocery shopping. It's happened before in the 1930's, and apparently Republican Jim DeMint intends to repeat the flaws of history, as the ignorant are want to do.&nbsp; &nbsp; <span style=""></span><br /><br />It is unwise for any to presume that Nero won't fiddle while Rome burns, on the basis that Nero is the caretaker of Rome. In fact, it just may be Nero who orders the fire to be set.<br /><br />Whether or not, Standard &amp; Poor's had such specific scenarios in mind when they downgraded America's economic outlook <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/04/get-ready-game-chicken-over-debt-ceiling">from stable to negative</a>, I do not know. But, they certainly are considering similar scenarios to assert such odds as one in three that America could default on its debt obligations. It is time for all good men and women with families to provide for to come to the aid of their futures by contacting their representatives and demanding that the debt ceiling be raised and a steep economic decline be averted. <br /><br />This is one issue which, if political Russian Roulette decides the day, could destroy a hundred million, or more American lives over the years, or even decades, to come. Something is very wrong with the American political system when any ONE person in the Senate has the power to destroy the economy for all Americans for years or decades. Yet this is precisely the situation America finds herself in. <br /><br />Contact your Congressman and demand that the debt ceiling be raised. Contact you friends and family, and ask them to do the same. Or, you can sit back and enjoy the game of Russian Roulette and blindly hope that Sen. DeMint, or another, doesn't choose to destroy your financial future for the sake of some insane principle.&nbsp; <br /><br />This is no time for Americans to be fiddling while Republican Senators play with the fire of extremism. <br /><br /><br /></p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Apolitical Budget Process</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://poliwatch.org/2011/04/14/apolitical_budget_process.php" />
    <id>tag:poliwatch.org,2011://16.14823</id>

    <published>2011-04-14T21:06:39Z</published>
    <updated>2011-05-14T19:09:39Z</updated>

    <summary>There is a simple formula for our politicians to follow to end deficits and pay down debt. If followed, this 5 rule budget process will reap political advantage for the Party that subscribes to it. It is common sense. Most...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>David R. Remer</name>
        <uri>http://poliwatch.org/remers/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Congress" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="National Debt" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="budget" label="Budget" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="economic" label="Economic" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="middleclass" label="Middle Class" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="peoplesbudget" label="People&apos;s Budget" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="revenue" label="Revenue" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="taxation" label="Taxation" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="unitedstates" label="United States" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://poliwatch.org/">
        <![CDATA[<p>There is a simple formula for our politicians to follow to end deficits and pay down debt. If followed, this 5 rule budget process will reap political advantage for the Party that subscribes to it. It is common sense. Most middle class families in control of their monthly bills and income will recognize it right away. Let's take a look at these short and simple, common sense budget rules.<br />&nbsp;<br /></p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>Budgeting Rules: <br /><br /><b>Rule 1.</b><br />Take no action which would jeopardize or diminish revenue. Quitting one's job or taking another job with lower pay, everyone knows, will make <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget" title="Budget" rel="wikipedia">budgeting</a> more difficult, and cause one to give up more of what one needs, and or, wants in order to balance one's budget. In government terms, this means taking no actions which cause job or wage losses for tax payers, or reduces other <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_revenue" title="Government revenue" rel="wikipedia">government revenues</a>. <br /><br /><b>Rule 2.</b> <br />If opportunities exist to increase income without sacrificing quality of life, take advantage of them. If a better paying job comes along that allows a person to do what they already do, and increase their income, it is dumb not to take that better paying job or pay increase. In government terms, this rule means increasing revenues, taxes, wherever doing so will not harm the economy or <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life" title="Quality of life" rel="wikipedia">quality of living</a> standard for Americans in any significant way. <br /><br /><b>Rule 3.</b> <br />Accurately assess what your income is, and subtract 20% for unanticipated expenses that are certainly to arise. Going forward, put that 20% subtracted, into an emergency account to be accessed only in emergencies that would otherwise bankrupt you. In government terms, this means putting politics aside, and realistically projecting what revenues will be. It means getting rid of ideological theories that make no sense, like cutting taxes will increase revenues. That only happens when economic growth is being strangled by a lack of profits by business, or ability to borrow to expand their business. That is clearly not the case in these times.<br /><br /><b>Rule 4.</b> <br />Once you realistically know what your income will be, make a list of expenses and obligations that are absolutely essential to keep your family from leaving you, keep your health and income intact, and keep you out of bankruptcy. This is the core of your budget. Make a rule that no one in the family may do anything that would jeopardize the family's ability to afford these obligations. In government terms, this means making a list of expenses that will prevent revolution, keep workers employed and employers employing, defending the nation from hostile acts toward it, and meeting the nation's debt obligations and maintaining its good credit risk rating. (Demonstrating that our government is following these rules, will insure our good credit risk rating.) <br /><br /><b>Rule 5.</b> <br />Make two lists. A high priority list and a low priority list. In the high priority list include everything that would either improve your financial position in the future, or, make your family feel healthier, happier, or more fulfilled over the years to come. In the lower priority list, include all your wants that would provide you and your family a short term fulfillment with no residual benefits later on. In government terms, the high priority list would include measures that would improve the quality of life for Americans either continuously or increasingly over the decades to come, like investments in cleaner environmental conditions and space exploration which will eventually preserve the species in the event of an extinction event on Earth that will inevitably occur. The low priority list would include items with a short term or one time benefit, like a new National Park, monument, or, one year subsidy to farmers, whose profits dropped precipitously due to a non-recurring anomaly in weather patterns for that year.&nbsp; <br /><br />Allocate your remaining income to the high priority list, first, and then any remaining income to items on your low priority list, without borrowing. Stick to your budget, and you go no further in debt. If you have debt, paying it down as fast at an accelerated rate, becomes an item in your high priority list. If interest expense is eating your income up, then paying down debt must become the first item in your high priority list. This will free up your income for other high and low priority items as soon as that debt is paid off.&nbsp; <br /><br /><b>Summary:</b><br />That's it. Five simple rules to guide the budgeting process to insure America's solvency and one day increase prosperity for generations to come. To be sure, there is ample room for debate and arguing over what should go on these lists and how to prioritize them. However, these are simple common sense rules which, it is safe to say, the majority of Americans who manage their own budgets, would agree are rules their representatives should adopt and follow in managing the big budget for us all.<br /><br />One thing every American voter should remember is that a budget's primary purposes are to guide you in keeping what you have, and with that taken care of, improving your financial condition going forward. If our politician's are talking budgets that fail this test, they aren't representing you or your interests. <br /><br />I personally intend to use this 5 Rule Budget to measure the actions of my representatives, and the President as well. If they demonstrate that they lack the common sense contained in these rules, they don't deserve my vote and shouldn't deserve yours. After all, what future do any of us in the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class" title="Middle class" rel="wikipedia">Middle Class</a> have if our politicians destroy our nation's economic future? Short of leaving America, it will be a most difficult and unhappy future, indeed. <br />&nbsp;<br /><br />
</p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>

</feed>


