Obama's War

Afghanistan Body Count: 02/22/2012
Total Americans Killed: 1,901
Post Obama Inauguration: 1,301
http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------


Latest Confirmed Casualties:



*Cpl. Christopher G. Singer, 23, of Temecula, CA died Jan. 21 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*1st Lt. David A. Johnson, 24, of Horicon, WI died Jan. 25, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. William C. Stacey, 23, of Redding, CA died Jan. 31 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Edward J. Dycus, 22, of Greenville, MS died Feb. 1 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

* Brig. Gen. Terence J. Hildner, 49, of Fairfax, Va., died Feb. 3, in Kabul province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. 1st Class Billy A. Sutton, 42, of Tupelo, MS died Feb. 7 in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Osbrany Montes De Oca, 20, of North Arlington, NJ died Feb. 10 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

* Petty Officer 3rd Class Kyler L. Estrada, 21, of Maricopa, AZ died Feb. 14 in Djibouti.

*Sgt. Jerry D. Reed II, 30, of Russellville, AK died Feb. 16, in Paktika province, Afghanistan.

*Petty Officer First Class Paris S. Pough, 40, of Columbus, GA died Feb. 17, in Dubai, United Arab Emirate.

*Capt. Ryan P. Hall, 30, of Colorado Springs, CO died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

*Capt. Nicholas S. Whitlock, 29, of Newnan, GA died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

*1st Lt. Justin J. Wilkens, 26, of Bend, OR died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

*Senior Airman Julian S. Scholten, 26, of Upper Marlboro, MD died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

 
 
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

The beginning of the End?

Today, in a rare show of bipartisan action, the US Congress passed President Obama’s so called Payroll Tax Holiday for 2012. The “holiday” will keep Social Security withholding at just over 4% as opposed to the just over 6% for American workers; saving the average worker between $20 and $40 per paycheck. In December, the Republicans in Congress allowed for a two month extension of this particular tax gimmick and I wrote here and at the Examiner at that time:

“So here are my issues with this scheme. First, the very fact that we are even discussing anything to do with Social Security at a time when the Republicans (and some Democrats) seem more than willing to “review” or “modify” the program as part of the discussion of deficit reduction, should make everyone nervous. Second, as we discovered last night, there is no way this Republican Party is going to ask their millionaires to reimburse a raid into the Social Security Trust Fund. Third; but perhaps most importantly, for the past few years, we Progressives have been able to rebut Tea Party and Republican rhetoric about Social Security contributing to the national debt by insisting that the program is run from an independent fund (hence the separate deduction on your paycheck and the whole basis for the Payroll Tax Holiday) and does not impact the General Fund. With this scheme (dressed up as a blessing on working people), Obama and congressional Democrats are handing the right-wing the argument they want to validate their desire to eliminate the program (or severely cripple it) as being a drain on the General Fund.
 I ask again; why would any Progressive American support this scheme?”

Of course, at that time, the only voice to be heard from the left was Vermont’s Independent Senator, Bernie Sanders who voted against the December bill. Sanders said at the time, “My concern is diverting hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund into that immediate tax relief, so I would love to see tax relief, but done in a different way."

And then, in January, I received a response from Congressman Rick Larsen (D-WA02) which I published at the Examiner:

“You and I are on the same progressive page. A payroll tax cut that undermines Social Security in untenable. It is easier to support the most recent payroll tax cut because it does not harm the Social Security Trust Fund. President Obama and Democrats ensured that the lost revenues are made up for in general tax revenue so the Social Security Trust Fund is not hurt.”

I said at that time that apparently Rep. Larsen and I don’t quite agree on what might harm Social Security. And then, today, the Huffington Post reported this:

Sen. Tom Harkin slammed his own president and party for hatching the payroll tax cut deal that is expected to pass Congress Friday, saying he's "embarrassed" the Democrats are pushing a measure that begins the "unravelling of Social Security."

From the floor of the US Senate on Thursday evening, Harkin (D-Iowa) said this:

"This Congress will be making a grave mistake -- a grave mistake -- and reinforcing a dangerous precedent," Harkin said in a dramatic Senate floor speech late Thursday. "And I’m dismayed that Democrats, including a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president, have proposed this, and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin the unraveling of Social Security.”

Arguing that Social Security; funded via a separate withholding tax, had never contributed one dime to the federal deficit, he added, “With this bill, we can no longer say that. We can no longer say that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit." And, going beyond simple criticism of the tax scheme, Harkin added this warning to the Democrats who promoted and voted for this potential assault in Social Security:

“This, I believe has been the hallmark and the underpinning of the party that I've been proud to belong to. Cutting the payroll tax is a bad idea, terrible idea. I'm embarrassed that it's being proposed by a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president."

Thank you Senator Harkin. I was beginning to believe that there were no rational thinkers left in the Democratic Party.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Howard Dean on Obama's Re-election Chances

h/t: Howie Martin


The man most responsible for drawing my attention back on to the political playing field, Gov. Howard Dean, spoke recently with Ari Berman at The Nation.com; assessing President Obama’s chances for re-election. Far from the fiery presidential candidate from 2003-2004, Dean still retains my respect as someone who walks his talk and, in my opinion, should be seen as the architect of the Democratic surge in 2008 that gave us the White House as well as major increases in both the House and the Senate with his “50 State Strategy” as Chair of the DNC. (Although he will never receive his proper credit from the Obama Administration) The fact that Obama turned him out at the DNC and we got handed our hats in 2010 only reinforces my position.

About President Obama’s re-election, Dean says: “Obama’s chances have definitely improved. If Mitt Romney’s the Republican nominee, I would say it’s a one or two point win for Obama.” And he goes even further when he adds, “I’m predicting flat out that if Obama wins, Democrats take back the House.”

Now, obviously I am not one of President Obama’s biggest fans and would still prefer to see a Howard Dean in the White House but I think even the most critical Progressive; after reviewing the (current) Republican field, would have to agree with Dean’s assessment of the presidential race. As far as the House races are concerned, Berman adds this caveat: “Other analysts have recently raised that possibility, even though GOP domination of the redistricting process gives Republicans a major edge in 2012.” Still, according to Berman:

“Looking at the Electoral College map, Dean predicts that Obama will win 296 electoral votes to Romney’s 242. He believes that the president will hold the crucial swing states of Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, and “could have a shot in Arizona because of the Latino vote.” Dean cautions that Obama “could lose Pennsylvania and Michigan and will probably lose North Carolina,” where Democrats are holding their convention this fall, along with Indiana. Still, all the president needs is 270, and currently has a number of different pathways to victory.

Dean believes the Hispanic vote will give Obama and Democrats a major advantage in crucial swing states out West. “The Latino vote will break for Obama big time,” he predicts. Obama beat John McCain among Hispanic voters by 36 points in 2008, 67-31 percent. A Pew Hispanic Center poll at the end of the year showed Obama beating Romney by 45 points among Hispanic voters, 68-23 percent.”

Dean also has this to say about the Occupy Movement’s role in this year’s election:

“If Obama is re-elected, he will owe an enormous debt to Occupy Wall Street, which he will never acknowledge. Their core message is ‘the emperor has no clothes. It is the 99 percent versus the 1 percent.’ Americans have felt like that for awhile, but they couldn’t say it or talk to each other about it before OWS.”

Of course, one of Obama’s biggest hurdles this year will be to turn out the Progressive base; a great many of whom have all but given up on seeing a Progressive agenda out of DC in the foreseeable future. To Progressives, Dean has this to say,

“I believe we need a progressive party in this country. But for progressives to not vote for Obama is crazy. Citizens United would have never been put into law and America would never have been sold to the highest bidder had Al Gore won in 2000. Obama, if he wins, is going to appoint maybe one or two more Supreme Court justices. That could make all the difference. For that reason alone, you can’t say there’s no difference between the parties. Politicians in Washington may not be able to help you much, but they sure can hurt you.”

On that note, Gov. Dean and I still are in 100% agreement.



Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Brother can you spare a dime

I believe that the general definition of Profit is: The difference between what you make and what you spend.  In other words, if your lemonade stand spends $5 for a pitcher, some paper cups, and the lemons or lemonade mix and you make $10 from sales of your lemonade, you make $5 profit. If, you add an employee to mix the lemonade and pay them $1.50 for the day, you now make $3.50 profit. If you have to pay your neighbor $2 to set your stand up on their corner lot, you now make $1.50 profit. However, your new prime location brings you more business and you increase your sales to $15; you now are making $6.50 profit. Bear in mind that this profit is money that you did not have in the first place and you can do whatever you like with it. Obviously this is a very basic approach to business but, if you think about it objectively, you realize that these are the basics for any business.

Today, in this country, we keep hearing that “government is interfering with the profit motive of business and putting a damper on job growth and economic development in the private sector.” We hear that, “Regulation is breaking the back of business; stifling investment and punishing the consumer.” Many of these people seem to forget the time when Boston Harbor and Lake Erie were able to be set ablaze because of the unchecked disposal of chemical waste by the factories that were built along their shores. They seem to forget (maybe some are simply not old enough to know) when every photo of Los-Angeles was taken though a chemically induced fog and daily life there included a check of the “Smog Index.”  During the time when Republican, Richard Nixon was in the White House, the people made their concerns about their overall health and well being. Cancer rates were rising and birth defects or still births were all too common in the areas where large factories operated. The EPA was created to set and enforce strict guidelines on what could be spewed into the air we breathe and the water we drink. The cry from business was that they would be put out of operation if they had to comply with these regulations. Years before when people were becoming ill and dying from tainted meat and poultry, the government; again responding to the pleas of the people set up regulation to protect the health and well being of the citizens. Most of these regulations have met their purpose and, as a result, many people today simply assume that large corporations operate out of some sense of civic obligation and that the government “over-regulates” to the detriment of those businesses and that is what accounts for high costs for the things we use every day.

Well, let’s look at a few industries that average Americans rely on every day and see just how badly government regulation (and taxation) is hurting them:

According to Fortune magazine, in 2010 the top 5 pharmaceutical companies made a combined profit of $50 Billion. The top 5 health insurance companies made a combined profit of $12 Billion. And there is this report from ABC News in April, 2011:

Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell today reported first-quarter profit increases of 69 percent and 30 percent, respectively, from the same period last year. With rising gas and oil prices, analysts expected the five biggest oil companies -- with Exxon as the largest -- to report that they are swimming in revenue.

Exxon earned $10.7 billion in the first quarter, up from $6.3 billion. Shell announced profit of $6.3 billion in the first quarter this year, up from $4.8 billion.
BP and ConocoPhillips announced their first quarter earnings Wednesday, in a week when the biggest oil companies have begun to release their 2011 profits. The "Big Five" oil companies include BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil and Shell.

ConocoPhillips said its first quarter earnings increased 43 percent to $3 billion from $2.1 billion in the same period last year. BP's first quarter earnings dipped this year -- $5.48 billion compared with $5.60 billion during the first quarter a year ago -- including a charge of $384 million related to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Note these are Quarterly Profits! 

Profit is AFTER expenses.

Now I know that America is supposed to be driven by Capitalism but honestly, can you really look at those numbers and tell me we are not driven by greed? And yet millions of Americans believe that the reason they are paying too much for things is because the government is interfering with corporate profits. It hasn’t always been this way in the U.S. There was a time before the so-call Reagan Revolution when a growing number of Americans made a decent enough wage that it only took one wage earner to support a family. The family typically had one nice car, a decent house, and even a television to watch “Father Knows Best.” I get emails all the time calling these the “Golden Years” or the “Good old Days.” Of course, back then (with Republican, Dwight Eisenhower in the White House), there were few “Corporate Barons” and most business owners made maybe twice or three times as much as their highest paid wage earner. The government took on the task of building the interstate highway system and higher education was attainable for all GIs and most of their dependents. Of course there were higher taxes, yet prices were lower. Oh sure, many will say that the unions forced wages and benefits up and that’s what caused the rise in prices.

Profit is AFTER expenses.

Now most people realize that I have my Socialist leanings. But for sanity’s sake, do you really call the kind of profit taking we are seeing today (at the expense of working people) simple Capitalism? Well it is. Which leads to the next question; are we any longer a Republic? Here is your word for the day:

Oligarchy:      A form of government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.

OK; back to your government bashing.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Our Obama, Right or Wrong...

Yesterday I shared a link to an article by Glenn Greenwald (Salon.com) on my Facebook page. The article was about the level of hypocrisy on the left when it comes to President Obama and his continuation (and, in some cases, strengthening) of certain George W Bush policies – especially in the realm of foreign policy and civil liberties. Greenwald cites a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that finds some 70% of respondents approve of Obama keeping open the detention center at Guantanamo – with some 53% of self-identified liberals indicating their approval of this obvious failed promise from the 2008 campaign.


Perhaps worse than the Democratic Party’s acceptance of GITMO is the poll’s finding that Obama’s increasing use of unmanned drones to rain death and destruction onto innocent people has even wider approval. According the Post:

“The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns.

The president only recently acknowledged the existence of the drone program, which some human rights advocates say operates without a clear legal framework and in violation of the U.S. prohibition against assassination.

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.”

The drop in support for targeting Americans is detailed by the Post’s Greg Sargent who got a break down of the polling numbers:

“The number of those who approve of the drone strikes drops nearly 20 percent when respondents are told that the targets are American citizens. But that 65 percent is still a very big number, given that these policies really should be controversial.

And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35.”

Now I would like to say that I am dubious of “self-identified liberals” for any number of reasons but with percentages as high as are being reflected in these poll numbers; combined with face to face discussions I have had with certain “self-identified liberals” of my acquaintance, it is a major reason why I am so dissatisfied with what is passing as the modern Democratic Party. It is one thing to say, ‘I will vote for Obama because the other guys are so much worse in many ways’, but what seems to be happening is an embrace of the policies in order to reinforce the support for the man. Nowhere in these numbers does it reflect a party base that is still hoping for change.

There is no doubt that there has been a steady drift to the right in this country over the past 30 years. Sadly, with numbers like the ones reflected in the Post poll, it would appear that the drift has turned into a rush.



Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Marriage Equality and the Battle Ahead

Yesterday the Washington State House of Representatives followed the historic lead of their colleagues in the senate and passed the Marriage Equality bill by a vote of 55-43. With Governor Gregoire’s signature, Washington State will become the 7th state in the country to recognize marriage equality for all of our citizens.


But wait! Don’t be too quick with the champagne. Before the ink is dry on the law that will strike down sanctioned discrimination in our state, the American Taliban is lining up to strike down the law. Opponents of marriage equality have already announced that they have $1 Million to put into a referendum effort. A great deal of the money is coming from out of state. This group of would be “Christian” soldiers will soon be recruiting signature gatherers for their petition to continue imposing their fundamentalist (read: out of step) views on the citizens of our state. Much of the recruiting will be done from the pulpit and many of the recruits will file directly from their pews to the streets. Don’t misunderstand me. I will defend with my life anyone’s right to worship and express their religious beliefs. What I will not abide is someone attempting to force their personal religion on any other citizen. More than fight, I will join in any effort to remove tax exemptions from any and all religious persons or organizations that use their houses of worship and their positions of influence to engage in the political process.

As for the effort to overturn the soon to be new law, the obvious best outcome here would be for a successful “Decline to Sign” campaign to deny the homophobic zealots enough signatures to place a referendum on the November ballot. However, if the effort to deny equality to all of our citizens should find itself on that ballot, we are left to hope that, just as with Referendum 71, the more rational among us will force these losers back into the dark ages where they belong.

By the way, if you have not signed the “Thank You” petition at Daily Kos, check out the link on my previous post here.



Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

A word of thanks for Marriage Equality

Today I’m participating in a Washington United for Marriage and Daily Kos blog swarm to help support the marriage equality campaign in Washington State. I’m joined by bloggers from Bilerico Project, Pam’s House Blend, Good As You, AMERICABlog Gay, the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, the Seattle Lesbian, The Bent Angle, on the-Ave, MadProfessah, HRC, Hella Bus, Horsesass.org, Step Forward, LGBT POV, FrontiersLA, the Left Shue and more.

This has been an incredible week! On Tuesday a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, the court wrote, ”Prop 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

On Wednesday, the Washington State House passed a same-sex marriage bill, and now it the bill is headed to Governor Gregoire’s desk for her signature. She promised to sign the bill before Valentine's Day!

Please click here to thank Governor Gregoire.

Governor Gregoire’s leadership was instrumental to the success of passing a marriage bill in Washington State. She not only supported the bill, but she introduced the bill. This is as much her legislation as it is our community’s legislation.

Please join us during this blog swarm to thank Governor Gregoire for her leadership and her friendship. There is little doubt our opponents will make their voices heard, but we know that together our voice for equality is so much stronger.

Please click here to the Washington United for Marriage’s and Daily Kos' joint petition to thank Governor Gregoire for making history.

When our friends speak up for us, we need to speak up for our friends, so join us in thanking Governor Gregoire today!

Did you sign the thank you petition? Share it with your friends: http://wufm.it/4


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue