Wars Cost Money - Lots Of Money !

What indeed! Any politician with even half a brain knows that wars cost money, a lot of money -- even wars that are justified (such as the war President Lincoln waged to save the union and end slavery). But evidently George Bush didn't have any functioning brain cells. He started two unnecessary wars, and then cut taxes instead of raising them to pay for the wars he started -- turning a budget surplus into a huge budget deficit. That is why we still have a huge budget deficit. And it'll probably take us many more years to pay for Bush's insanity. Taxes should have been raised 10 years ago to pay for those wars. Isn't it about time to do that -- at least on the rich and the corporations (both of which have not been paying their fair share for years now).

Obedience Is Not Always A Good Thing

Drones And American Morality

Unless you've been living under a rock somewhere, you know that the United States uses drones (remotely-piloted aircraft) to attack persons considered to be an enemy. I personally don't have a problem with the use of drones in a war zone (although I generally disapprove of war itself). If war has been declared, then there is going to be killing in a war zone (by soldiers of both sides). It just makes sense to use a method of killing that protects your own soldiers.

But the United States doesn't just use drone attacks in a declared war zone. We have used drones to attack people considered to be enemies in many countries -- countries that we are not at war with. And many times it is done without the knowledge or permission of the country in question. That is an act of war -- and the only way we get away with it is because we are the richest and most powerful nation in the world. And a tiny country is very unlikely to try and strike back, especially if we pay them off.

But there is another, even more important problem, with using drones to attack people we don't like. While the government might like to think drones are a precise instrument that targets and kills only those we want dead, that is not true. It is not uncommon at all for innocent men, women, and children to be killed in the drone attack (collateral damage). And even if one was to consider drone murders to be an ethical way to dispose of an enemy (without charges or trial), there is just no way to defend the killing of innocents when targeting an enemy.

That is my personal opinion, but sadly, it does not seem to be the opinion of a majority of Americans. The Gallup Poll recently surveyed a national random sample of 1,020 adults on March 20th and 21st. The poll had a margin of error of 4 points. Here are some of the results (with the number given being those saying "yes"):

SHOULD WE LAUNCH DRONE ATTACKS AGAINST SUSPECTED TERRORISTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES?
General public...............65%
Democrats...............55%
Independents...............61%
Republicans...............79%

SHOULD WE LAUNCH DRONE ATTACKS IN OTHER COUNTRIES ON U.S. CITIZENS SUSPECTED OF BEING TERRORISTS?
General public...............41%
Democrats...............41%
Independents...............35%
Republicans...............50%

SHOULD WE LAUNCH DRONE ATTACKS ON SUSPECTED TERRORISTS IN THE UNITED STATES?
General public...............25%
Democrats...............21%
Independents...............24%
Republicans...............31%

SHOULD WE LAUNCH DRONE ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES ON U.S. CITIZENS SUSPECTED OF BEING TERRORISTS?
General public...............13%
Democrats...............10%
Independents...............12%
Republicans...............21%

The results of this survey of Americans is very troubling. While the Republicans seem slightly more bloodthirsty than the other groups, the truth is that all groups surveyed show Americans are quite willing to kill foreigners in other countries suspected of being terrorists (in spite of the probability of killing innocent foreigners). It is only when the person being attacked is American, or the attacks are located in the U.S., that the majority begins to oppose the action. Why? Isn't a terrorist still terrorist regardless of where he/she may be living?

I can only think of one reason. Far too many Americans think the lives of innocent Americans are more important than the lives of innocent people who are not Americans. That is very troubling. Why should the life of an innocent person be valued less because they were born and live somewhere outside the United States? What (other than selfish interest) makes the life of an American of more value than the lives of people in other countries? Is that even a moral position to hold?

Life is the most precious commodity that any human can have. And that is true regardless of where in this world that life exists. If it is moral to use drones to kill people (many of them innocent) in other countries, then it has to be just as moral to do that in this country. And just the opposite is true -- if it is not moral to use drone attacks in the U.S., then it is not moral to do it in another country. Life is sacred, regardless of citizenship or country of residence.

In short, the morality of using drones to murder civilians is questionable anywhere. The only exception is in a war zone (where the morality of war itself comes into question).

Dancing

Political Cartoon is by Steve Sack in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Right-Wing Gun Lies (Israel/Switzerland)

The right-wing has been spreading a lot of lies to avoid any new gun restrictions at all. I think they know that most Americans want background checks on all guns sales (85% to 90%) and a majority want to see the sale of military-style assault weapons banned (54%), so they have been saying all sorts of things to try and change public opinion.

One of the things they have been doing to try and demonstrate that guns are not the real reason for the many thousands of gun deaths in this country every year, is to use the nations of Israel and Switzerland as examples. They want Americans to believe that large numbers of people in those countries are allowed to have guns, and since they don't have an inordinate amount of gun deaths, then guns can't be the problem in this country. The problem with that argument is that it just is NOT TRUE!

Janet Rosenbaum studied these claims for the National Institute of Health (NIH), and she found two things -- neither country has anywhere near the number of guns possessed by civilians per capita as the United States does, and both countries have much more restrictive laws on gun possession by civilians than the U.S. does.

The United States has an estimated 83 to 97 guns per 100 residents. That is far more than either Switzerland or Israel. Switzerland had about 16 guns per 100 residents in 2002, but they issued long guns to some residents when they reduced the size of their standing army. The ratio now is between 31 and 60 guns per 100 residents (and very few of those are handguns). Israel has far less than that, at only about 7.3 guns per 100 residents. And in Israel, most of those civilian-possessed guns are in the settlements (and are not handguns).

The laws for possession of a handgun by a civilian in both countries in much stricter than in the United States. While a citizen in the U.S. can own an unlimited number of handguns, in Switzerland and Israel a citizen can only own one gun -- and the ownership of that one handgun must be approved by the government (and Israel leads the world in turning down handgun permits by rejecting at least 40% of all applications).

In both countries, a citizen must demonstrate a justifiable need for a handgun before the government will issue a permit (and "home defense" is not considered a justifiable need). After satisfying the government that the need has been met, a Swiss citizen is issued a permit for six months, and then that permit must be renewed every three months. In Israel, a permit is issued for a year and must be renewed annually, or whenever the permit-holder changes residence, job, or national security status (and no one who takes psychotropic drugs or has been arrested for domestic violence, even if not convicted, can get a permit).

The NIH report concludes by saying:

Swiss and Israeli gun ownership is rare, regulated stringently such as by putting the burden of proof on permit applicants to demonstrate a specific need for a gun, and neither country encourages gun ownership.

By using these two countries as examples, the right-wing gun proponents in this country are hurting their own argument for less restrictions on gun ownership. Both countries have far fewer guns possessed by civilians per capita than the U.S. does -- and both countries have far more stringent rules about gun ownership and possession (especially of handguns). Personally, I think their gun laws make a lot more sense than ours do.

A Growing Rainbow

Political Cartoon is by Nick Anderson in the Houston Chronicle.

Bernie Speaks Out On "Grand Bargain"

In my opinion, Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is one of the two best senators in this country (with the other being Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts). On March 20th, he wrote an article for The Hill on thr so-called "Grand Bargain" that the media says Congress and the president are trying to reach. Here's what Bernie had to say:

The media appear fixated about when and if a so-called “grand bargain” on our economy will be reached. Wrong question! The question we should be asking is: What should be in a “grand bargain” that works for the average American?

At a time when the middle class is disappearing, 46 million Americans are living in poverty and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider, we need a “grand bargain” that protects struggling working families, not billionaires.

With corporate profits at record-breaking levels while the effective corporate tax is at its lowest level since 1972, and 1 out of 4 profitable corporations pays nothing in federal income taxes, we need a grand bargain that ends corporate loopholes and demands that corporate America starts helping us with deficit reduction. We must not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor. We must not cut Social Security, disabled veterans’ benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, education and other programs that provide opportunity and dignity to millions of struggling American families.

Before we pass a grand bargain, we have got to take a hard and sober look at what’s happening economically in our country today. In doing so, we must acknowledge that the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth and that inequality is worse today than at any time since the late 1920s. Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America — 150 million Americans. The top 1 percent owns 38 percent of all financial wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns just 2.3 percent. Incredibly, the Federal Reserve reported last year that median net worth for middle-class families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007-2010. That’s the equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for the average middle-class family.

The distribution of income is even worse. If you can believe it, the last study on the subject showed that all of the new income gained from 2009-2011 went to the top 1 percent. ALL of the new income!

In America today, the average middle-class family has seen its income go down by nearly $5,000 since 1999, adjusting for inflation. Real unemployment is not 7.7 percent, it is 14.3 percent, counting those workers who have given up looking for work or who are working part time when they want to be working full time. While youth unemployment is exceptionally high, millions of young people are struggling with student loans they can’t afford to pay back. While we talk about the need to strengthen the middle class, we have to understand that more than half of the new jobs that have been created since 2010 are low-wage jobs paying people between $7.80 and $13.80 an hour.

That’s the economic reality facing a large majority of our people, and that’s what has to be taken into consideration when we discuss deficit reduction and a “grand bargain.”

As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, here are my priorities:

We need a budget that puts millions of Americans back to work in decent-paying jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and transforming our energy sector away from fossil fuels and into renewable energy and energy efficiency.

We need a budget that keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, veterans and the most vulnerable by protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

We need a budget that makes sure that the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes. We must end corporate loopholes that allow Wall Street banks, large corporations and the wealthy to avoid more than $100 billion a year in federal taxes by stashing their profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens.

A federal budget is not just a set of numbers. It is a value statement of what we, as a nation, stand for. We must fight for a grand bargain that stands for justice, opportunity and the needs of our middle class. We must reject any approach that continues the economic assault on working families.

Pop Goes The Bachmann

Political Cartoon is by Steve Sack in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Inequality Is Not An Accident

This is very true. It's no accident that the rich have been able to hog most of America's wealth. It is the result of years of Republican politics -- where they have weakened unions, deregulated Wall Street and corporations, given subsidies and tax breaks that were not needed, and generally tilted the economic playing field to benefit the rich (and punish the working and middle classes). The have re-distributed income from most Americans into the bank accounts of the rich. It is time to re-distribute that wealth in the opposite direction. That's not class warfare -- it's self-defense (and patriotism, because it will lead to a healthier economy for everyone).

Oops! Forgot My Seventh Blogiversary

Well, this is embarrassing. This blog turned seven years old over a week ago -- on March 16th. And for the first time I forgot to mark the occasion on that date. I hope that's just a sign that I'm so used to blogging that such an anniversary means less now, and is not a sign of approaching senility. Either way, I'm not inclined to make a big deal of it this year. I just want to say that I've still got the passion to blog and hope to continue doing it for many more years. But most important, I want to say how deeply I appreciate you readers who choose to spend some time with me -- whether daily or occasionally. I hope you will continue to find something of value here every now and then.

Social Security

Raising Minimum Wage - Important For All

Raising the minimum wage is an issue that affects all Americans -- even those currently making more than the minimum wage (because it would put an upward pressure on all wages). But it is especially important for the women of this country. As the graphic above points out, women make up a majority of those working for minimum wage. And many times, those women working for minimum wage are single mothers -- which means they live well below the poverty line.

Most Americans understand that the minimum wage needs to be raised to a more decent level, and several polls have shown that they support raising it to at least $10 an hour. Why won't Congress do that? The only reason I can think of is that most in Congress have sold out to the giant corporations and Wall Street. They still cling to the failed belief that whatever is good for Wall Street is also good for Main Street (which is the kind of thinking that got us into this current economic mess).

No one who works full-time should be paid a salary that puts them below the poverty line. Capitalists do not make make money just off their own efforts. They make that money off the labor of others -- and those laborers should be fairly paid. The rich deserve a decent return on their investment, but workers also deserve to be paid decently for their work -- because neither can exist without the other (and compensating either labor or investors unfairly is a prescription for economic disaster).

Raising the minimum wage does not punish investors. It just levels the economic playing field (and actually would help the economy by creating more demand -- which would increase business profits and create new jobs). Opposing a raise in the minimum wage is the worst kind of short-term economic thinking -- putting today's profit and stock prices above what is good for business, workers, and the economy over the long-term.

Raising the minimum wage is the single most important thing that could be done to put our economy back on the right track. It is also incredibly important for the women of America, because it would lift millions of them out of poverty and allow them (and their children) to achieve the American Dream through their hard work.

Divided

Political Cartoon is by John Darkow in the Columbia Daily Tribune.

The War On Drugs - A Monumental Failure

There is probably no more spectacular failure of a government program than the "War on Drugs". Since the early 1970s, the federal government has spent well over a trillion dollars to wage this "war" on drugs -- and it has accomplished nothing (except to fill our prisons with non-violent offenders, and turn us into the country with the most prisoners in the entire world and the most prisoners per capita of any nation).

But this turning of America into a prison-state has done nothing to reduce the availability of drugs, the percentage of the population that are drug addicts, or the profitability of the drug trade by criminal organizations. We might as well have just burned that $1.5 trillion for all the good it has done. And the craziest part is that the government keeps spending ever larger sums of money in the vain hope that someday this failed war on drugs might actually do some good.

If any other government program had this record of utter failure to even minimally accomplish the stated goal, it would have been discontinued long ago. Why then, do we continue to throw money down the war on drugs rat-hole? I think there are two main reasons. First, there are many groups who are making a lot of money off the war on drugs (even though they are accomplishing nothing). Second, too many of our politicians have been deluded into thinking that social problems (like drug use) can be simply solved by criminalizing them.

Whether we like it or not, turning drug use and possession into criminal acts has not worked to combat the nation's drug problem (which has remained pretty constant since before the "war on drugs" was begun). It is time to recognize that fact, and change our national strategy toward drugs. We should legalize marijuana possession and tax the sale of marijuana (at all levels of government). Then we should decriminalize the possession of small amounts of other drugs, and treat them like the medical problem that they really are (through education and rehabilitation).

I know there are some who will say that we must keep the drug laws to prevent crimes like theft, burglary, and armed robbery (which may be committed to get drug money). I disagree. Those are already criminal acts, and those who commit them should be convicted of the actual crime they committed -- not the reason for committing the crime.

It is undeniably stupid to keep spending money on a "solution" that doesn't work (and has never worked). It makes far more sense to search for a solution that does work, and stop this "feel good" waste of taxpayer money.