Why We Don't Need A GOP President

This graphic from Think Progress is for any of you readers who somehow still think a Republican president might be an acceptable option. The truth is that all of the Republican candidates would like to give even more tax cuts to the rich, and would keep the rich from having to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes than members of the middle class pay.

All of them want to abolish Medicare and put all of our elderly citizens at the mercy of the private insurance companies (who have repeatedly shown they have no mercy). They all want to remove the few regulations that have been placed on Wall Street, and allow those giant financial institutions to continue abusing ordinary Americans while giving themselves huge bonuses.

And they all want to cut Social Security benefits -- a move that is totally unnecessary. In fact, they would all like to see Social Security abolished and a privatized system put in place that would allow their Wall Street buddies access to the FICA taxes taken out of worker's paychecks. But while they would all like to see extremely low taxes for the rich, they would like to let the corporations pay NO taxes at all.

Electing any of these Republicans would be a disaster for the American economy and insure that the American people would have to endure many more years of recession -- and do it without a social safety net.

Yes - Ron Paul Is A Racist

Both Ron Paul and his son Rand believe the civil rights laws were an unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of white Americans, and should not have been passed (regardless of the protections offered by the 14th Amendment). And his newsletter contained numerous articles that were obviously racist, whether he wrote them or not. Yet, Paul claims he is not a racist. It makes me wonder just what one would have to do in Ron Paul's fantasy world to be labeled a racist, because in the real world there is no doubt that he is overqualified to wear that label. Picture above is from the blog What Would Jack Do?.

Texas Still The Most Bloodthirsty State

Even though hundreds of innocent people have been freed from the nation's prisons in the last few years, and several dozen in the state of Texas alone, the state of Texas continues to kill people in the name of the people of Texas. And last year the state once again finished first in the nation in the number of people they killed. Here are the states that executed the most people in 2011:

Nationwide...............43
Texas...............13
Alabama...............6
Ohio...............5
Georgia...............4
Arizona...............4
Oklahoma...............2
Florida...............2
Mississippi...............2
Five other states had one execution each.

The good news is that the number of executions has been getting smaller each year -- both nationwide and in Texas. Here ate the numbers for both for the last few years (with Texas executions in parentheses):

2011...............43 (13)
2010...............46 (17)
2009...............52 (24)

But there is bad news as well. Texas has six executions scheduled for the first three months of 2012 -- a rate that could mean the state will reverse that downward trend this year, and possibly execute more people than in either of the last two years. And this is in spite of the fact that it was learned last year that Texas had executed an innocent man (Cameron Willingham).

Most states would have suspended executions after learning an innocent man had been executed, but the governor of Texas had a different reaction. Rick Perry just did his best to cover it up. He's running for president and decided if he suspended executions (even for a little while), it would make him look weak on crime to the Republican Party's teabagger base. Getting votes is more important to Perry than the idea that another innocent man might be executed.

Texas is undoubtably the most bloodthirsty state in the nation, and it looks like those in state leadership positions want to keep that dubious title.

Big Talk

Political Cartoon is by Bruce Plante in Tulsa World.

More Evidence Of Texas Republican Incompetence

The above image is of a small piece of Palo Duro Canyon in the Texas Panhandle -- the second largest canyon system in the United States (behind the Grand Canyon) and one of the wonderful state parks belonging to the people of Texas. But the state park system in Texas is currently in trouble, and it's possible that many of them might have to close down. They might have to close down because the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) doesn't have the money to keep them all open. The TPWD is now reduced to begging for donations from the general public. Here is the appeal from the department's executive director:

Record drought and heat, devastating wildfires, and a drop in visitation have led to a critical situation for state parks.

We need to raise $4.6 million to keep state parks operating, and we can't do it without you.

There are three simple ways you can help:

1. Make a year-end, tax-deductible donation.
2. Make a donation when it's time for you to renew your vehicle registration.
3. Most importantly, because visitor fees pay for about half of all park operating costs, visit a state park this holiday season.

Please act now, to help keep Texas State Parks open for everyone to enjoy. Our state parks won't be the same without you.

Thank you,
Carter Smith
TPWD Executive Director

Mr. Smith blames the shortage of funds on the drought, wildfires, and a drop in visitation. That's just what I would expect from a Republican-appointed state agency head. But the truth is that the TPWD should have been funded well enough to survive weather-related problems. After all, it's not like drought and wildfires are uncommon in Texas (and there would naturally be a drop in visitation in the years they occur. The fact is that the Republican governor and legislature under-funded the TPWD (along with dozens of other state agencies and the state's public schools).

During the last legislative session, the state did face a huge biennial budget deficit (about $27 billion). They could have broadened the sales tax base, fixed the faulty franchise tax, put a surtax on millionaires, eliminate unneeded subsidies for oil and gas companies, or done a myriad number of other revenue-enhancing things, but they didn't. They just fell back on the only solution Republicans seem to have -- cut the budget (except for giveaways to corporations).

And they cut so deeply that all Texans (except the rich) are hurting. Education was slashed by about $5 billion (even though the state already had the nation's lowest per pupil funding level). Most state agencies are now seriously underfunded and unable to perform at expected levels. Now we see that the TPWD is another of those agencies that did not receive adequate funding -- and thanks to this Republican incompetence, many state parks may now have to close down.

Republicans have been talking about the Texas "miracle", but there is no miracle -- just a legacy of mismanagement and incompetence.

Tossed Into Trouble

Political Cartoon is by Bill Day at caglecartoons.com.

Happy New Year !

I want to take this opportunity to wish all my readers and fellow bloggers a very happy new year. I hope 2012 brings you nothing but happiness, good health, and success in whatever ventures you undertake.

President Signs Defense Bill (With Reservations)

President Obama has signed the new Defense Authorization Bill into law. Frankly, I find that very disappointing. I wish he had vetoed the bill and sent it back to Congress. I don't say that because the bill contains far too much military spending, although I believe that is true. I say it because of a provision which would allow the indefinite detaining of an American citizen in a military prison without a trial -- as long as the government labeled that person as a "terrorist". And applying such a label to a person is very easy, especially since it would not have to be proven in a court of law.

That provision in the bill also made the president uncomfortable. He said:

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

But he went on to assure Americans that he would not use the provision against American citizens, saying:

 I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

I believe the president. I don't believe he wants to destroy the constitutional rule of law that has been established in this country -- a rule of law that protects American citizens against their own government (and for freedom to exist, there must be established limits beyond which government cannot go, because even a democratically-elected government can go to far in denying rights if there are no established limits).

But President Obama is not going to be president forever, and who's to say that the person who inhabits the White House next (or down the road a way) will have the same respect for the Constitution and rule of law that President Obama has. Is there any doubt that the Bush/Cheney administration would have jumped on the opportunity to abuse such a provision, even against American citizens? How can we know that such an administration will not be elected in the future (especially after viewing the caliber of Republican presidential hopefuls)?

This was a bad bill that never should have passed Congress or been signed into law, but it has been. All we can hope for now is to elect better men and women to Congress -- people who respect the Constitution and will overturn this ridiculous new provision of law.

Job Downgraded

Political Cartoon is by Jimmy Margulies in The Record (New Jersey).

"English Only" Is Just Bigotry

Does the above sign bother you because it gives the same information in two different languages? It does bother some people. These people want the United States to adopt an "official" language, English, and mandate that only that language be used on all signs, official paperwork, and in government offices. That would mean anyone in this country, whether visiting or living here, would just be out of luck if they could not speak fluent English.

And one of those people who want the United States to adopt an "English only" law is presidential candidate and current governor of Texas, Rick Perry (which is kind of weird since Spanish was spoken in Texas for a couple of hundred years before English was). In an Iowa campaign stop the other day, Rick Perry agreed with a teabagger who complained about other languages being used in this country.

I must admit that I have never understood this viewpoint. For one thing, even when immigrants come to this country without a knowledge of English their children and further generations are English-speakers. The inability to speak and write English never extends beyond a single generation. So even if this is a problem, it is a problem that corrects itself within a generation.

Second, how fair is it to cut off new immigrants from basic knowledge that everyone should be privy to? If a sign warns of danger or prohibits some kind of behavior (like the sign above), shouldn't as many people as possible be able to understand it? If a person has business in a government office, or must go to court, is it fair that the business be conducted in a language they don't understand? Of course not. Any American in a foreign country would expect a translator if they had to go to a government office or court, and we should do the same.

Third, just how does it hurt any English-speaking American to have signs, ballots, or other things in more than one language? The answer of course is that it doesn't hurt anyone. If English is your only language (which is sadly true of most Americans), then ignore the parts of the sign or document that aren't in English. Nobody is hurt by bi-lingual signs or documents, and some people are helped. That in itself is reason enough to continue doing it.

The only reason I can think of for wanting an English-only law is to force other people to be just like you. And trying to force others to be like you is not freedom -- it is just old-fashioned bigotry. It takes a pretty small-minded and bigoted person to think that their language or customs are better than those of other people.

Frankly, I love living in a country where a variety of languages are spoken and customs honored. And as a Texan, I believe the Spanish language, customs, and heritage (which were here long before any other) give a rich sub-text to the Texas experience -- and I wouldn't have it any other way.

We are lucky to live in the most interesting country in the world. It's time to set aside the bigotry and enjoy the rich texture of our modern America. Diversity is not a curse -- it's a treasure.

Inheritance

Political Cartoon is by Randall Enos at caglecartoons.com.

Des Moines Register Releases Its Poll

For the last few elections, the most accurate of the polls was the one done by the Des Moines Register. Last night the paper released its official poll for the GOP Iowa caucuses. Romney came out in first place, but the paper said both Paul and Santorum were positioned to give him a good battle. Here are the official numbers for the poll:

Mitt Romney...............24%
Ron Paul...............22%
Rick Santorum...............15%
Newt Gingrich...............12%
Rick Perry...............11%
Michele Bachmann...............7%

The poll was conducted from December 27th through December 30th. While the poll over the four days shows Santorum in third place, the last two days of the poll shows he is surging. The 302 people polled in the last two days actually had Santorum in second place, ahead of Paul.

Election Year

Political Cartoon is by John Cole in the Scranton Times-Tribune.

Insurance Company Says NO To Saving Money

I got a rather shocking letter in the mail yesterday. It seems that the insurance company covering my drug prescriptions doesn't want me to save them any money.

I take the drug Lipitor (10 mg) under orders from my doctor. The drug is to keep my cholesterol at a reasonable level, and for many months now it has worked very well. Although Lipitor is a very expensive drug, my insurance company covers it and I only have to make a very small co-pay -- about $6.50 a month, which is more than reasonable.

But last month the patent ran out on Lipitor, and now there is at least one generic on the market (and more on the way as soon as they get FDA approval). My personal view is that no one should pay more for any product than they have to pay, not even an insurance company. So I asked my doctor to change my prescription to the generic form of the drug. It would make very little difference in what I pay for the drug, but I figured it would save the insurance company some money (and if enough people did that maybe it would encourage them to keep from raising their premiums).

Well, I guess I was wrong. The company did not appreciate my efforts at saving them some money. Their rather nasty letter said they would no longer pay for the generic (and only paid for the first prescription because Medicare rules required them to do so). They suggested I change my prescription to a drug included in their official formulary. So, since the more expensive Lipitor is in their formulary, I will be returning to it when I get my next refill. In short, the insurance company is ordering me to get the more expensive version of the drug -- even though they are the ones paying for it.

Now I don't have a problem with going back to Lipitor instead of using the generic, but the whole thing does strike me as rather stupid. When insurance companies (and I suspect they are all pretty much the same) refuse to let their customers save them a few dollars, is it any wonder that premiums are going up so much and so often?