Soon after President Obama spoke to members of Congress about the need to pass health care reform, Senate Democrats struck a "deal."
Capital Times editorialExcerpt: Their negotiators struck a tentative agreement Tuesday night to eliminate the “public option” -- the controversial but necessary plan to set up a government-run insurance program to provide competition (and an incentive to hold down costs) for private insurers.
Not only did they drop a genuine public option choice from the reform package, they caved into Insurcorp even further by alleviating the number-crunching profit mongers of their most unprofitable and risky customer base, the 55 to 64 age group. What can we expect next? How about the government making private health insurance mandatory (remember there's no public option) for the remaining UnMedicared constituency, the 18 to 54 age group? I mean, what privately held for-profit insurance company would oppose having their most troubled assets socialized at the same time are guaranteed a cash pool expansion among the least risky?
Expect huge health insurance company profits. That’s the change we got.
Wanda Sykes: "Mr. President, remember 'yes we can, yes we can?' Well, I wish you would."
For the past six months, Janesville administration officials have been promoting the idea of building a new centrally located fire station at the site of the current ice arena. Accordingly, the current (old) fire station's location has been deemed inadequate.
JGExcerpt: The current location on Milton Avenue is not the best because the city has grown to the north and the east, Winzenz said.
Perhaps it was just a minor misstatement, but using that logic you'd think they'd plan on building a new fire station in a location to the north and to the east of the current fire station. Instead, they intend on building the new fire station even further south and a smidgeon to the west.
JGExcerpt: -- The ice arena site at 821 Beloit Ave. The location provides a good response time to the east because of Palmer Drive and to the south with Beloit Avenue.
The conversion of prime green fields into residential and commercial development (TIFS around farmland, etc.) appears to have shifted away from the northeast to the south and southeast quadrants of the city. This activity (in place of sustainable jobs growth) is consistent with the decades long city administration devised donut-shaped economic plan. The downtown of course being the hole of the donut.
On one hand, I believe if the city was as serious about downtown development as they have been about the big box developments up on Milton avenue, they would have made it a priority to keep Main Street clear of heavy commercial trucks and that includes using it as a regular route for fire trucks. There has been some recent interest and improvements downtown but... I don't think it's near where it belongs on the city administration's economic activity list. On the other hand, I'm afraid to see what the city does if a fire station or a taxroll contributor like residential housing isn't built on the large ice arena site, assuming they will waste the unique post-less million dollar facility with a bulldozer. Either way, the current ice arena site does not come as cheap as they appear to be leading on.
Capital TimesExcerpt: (John Nichols) Last week, Kagen joined Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, in proposing legislation to assess a financial transactions tax... The legislation, known as the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act,” would tax each stock transaction at 0.25 percent and futures, swaps and credit default swaps at 0.02 percent. The tax, which would not apply to the first $100,000 of a trader’s annual transactions, is designed to target the speculators. Pension funds and retirement investors are protected, via a guaranteed refund of the tax.
Center For American ProgressExcerpt: (Michael Ettinger) This idea has not been well received by the industry. Opponents on Wall Street make two basic arguments: First, they argue, financial transactions of the sort that would be subject to the tax could easily be moved anywhere in the world so if you tax them, they will go. Second, they argue that some transactions that are helpful to the economy wouldn’t be profitable even at these extremely low rates. This argument posits that traders who buy and sell constantly while making tiny profits on their many transactions would be driven from the market because the tax would eat mightily into those tiny profits.
You know Wall Street is going to fight this tooth and nail. We can expect a Wall Street Journal editorial soon from their congressional liaison Paul Ryan explaining how 401k's, borrowing rates and seniors will suffer because the tax will be passed down...or, it's unconstitutional...somehow.
Why is it the financial managers swinging the deals and working the swaps collect millions in bonuses but there's never enough left over for a quarter-point tax? A Quote To Chew On
Dick Cheney On The EconomyExcerpt: When Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill raised objections to a new round of tax cuts while warning Vice President Dick Cheney about growing budget deficits in November 2002, Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said. A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
Last Sunday, the Janesville Gazette editor posted an editorial titled "Some special groups get special attention" in what appeared to be an attempt to justify the newspaper's biased focus.
Gazette Editorial Excerpt: (Not available on open Web) GM workers, teachers and law officers. What do they have in common? All get special treatment in the Janesville Gazette. Some say they get unfair treatment, but I disagree.
What the people in those groups do, how they are compensated and how they are disciplined interests many of our readers.
How's that for objectivity?
This is how I understand it. Reality is like a wheel. It spins and wobbles at its own leisure, sometimes it's very smooth, other times it's very erratic. It loses its roundness on occasion but always bounces back - on its own, it has to. As they say, it is what it is. Now, enter the newspaper editor. To the apparent satisfaction of his readers and political model, he throws a lead weight into the spinning wheel. But not just anywhere, he's got a specific area targeted. And the weight is special too. It's checked for content, volume, density, weight and of course, direction. So the wheel picks up a whole new dynamic momentum. But there's a problem. Reality begins to lose shape, the wheel is no longer round.
Gazette Editorial Excerpt: We are frequently criticized for singling out these groups, and we are sensitive to the perception that we are unfair to them. While we're comfortable with our decision making, we consciously work to balance our coverage by providing positive stories about GM workers, teachers and police officers.
So at some point the editor decides to throw in another lead weight, but this time it's to have an opposite effect from his last course of action. Its purpose is to bring the wheel back into compliance. The main problem of course is that the wheel has been tampered with. It's back into somebody's definition of compliance, but it's not back into reality. Its been spun. Call me a simpleton.
A few days after that editorial, the newspaper's opinion editor had this to say about editorial influence on his blog.
GazetteBlog Excerpt: ...I've tried hard to focus our editorial comments largely on local and state issues, as well. After all, that's what we know best, and these are the arenas where we can exert the most influence. If the Gazette editorialized on Afghanistan, do you think it would hold sway with anyone in Washington and the decisions they make? Neither do we.
But we do believe our opinions can influence local and state decisions.
I'm not disputing any statements made by either editor nor would I make any suggestions. They confirm most of my observations posted on my blog.
So let's look at the bright side. Other than the editors statements regarding their class war journalism, spin balancing and built-to-influence editorials, the Janesville Gazette really isn't much different than any other newspaper. In the "Briefs" section of Thursday's Gazette is a schedule of listening sessions hosted by Wisconsin State Assembly (D-43rd) Representative Kim Hixson. The newspaper titled it "Politician Plans December Conversations."
I don't know how many years I've waited to hear a democratically elected leader (not a representative, there's a difference) to bluntly say he (or she) is not concerned about their re-election chances. After hearing the following comments from two of the Right's biggest blowhards and career opportunists - I'm convinced Barack Obama has to be the first.
During Wednesday's 24/7 Fox News campaign against the president, Glenn Beck wondered where is the plan for the economy - what is the long term plan? Beck continued on saying Obama quadrupled our debt (not Bush), and we won't get the benefits of health care reform until after 2013 and on, and on, and on... Beck then says, "How do you get re-elected?" So what is the long range plan here. Beck repeats, "How do you get re-elected?" And "It doesn't look like a winning strategy here." Seriously. And he's complaining!! Beck seemed genuinely worried that Obama's agenda, media campaign or whatever you want to call it is not centered on re-election. What a radical concept, huh? Damn Socialist! This coming from a hyper-partisan wanker who regularly tells his viewers to vote out useless clock-milking career politicians.
Near the end of his show, Beck mocks the President of the United States for asking folks to participate in the "remaking" of America, while the non-elected Glenn Beck begins his circus act under the banner "Refounding America."
During an interview on the 700 Club, Rep. Michele Bachmann said when President Obama met with House Republicans under the Capitol in a private closed door meeting he said, "I'd prefer to be a one-term president and achieve my agenda than being a two-term president and not achieving my agenda."
He said that? I love it!
In a perfect world, all candidates campaign on their principles and plan. The best candidate wins the election. Good presidents lay out their agenda and attempt to sway congress. The public is already convinced - we elected him. Successful presidents accomplish those plans. That is what great presidents do. If there was ever a candidate elected with a truckload of mandates to accomplish, Barack Obama is it. It's that simple. Okay, it's not that simple. But Bachmann went on to call this kind of selfless duty and career sacrifice to accomplish goals as "radical." Pat Robertson agreed saying that kind of mindset is "dangerous."
The video below contains only about half of Beck's Wednesday circus act. They cut the part where he explained Obama is in 24/7 campaign mode - thereby contradicting everything he said during the first half of the show.
This I thought is an excellent presentation from Rachel Maddow in almost every respect - from the war hero Bush to the daffy Palin to the Peace Prize winner Obama. The ill-conceived pre-emptive first-strike doctrine and the continuous global wars appear to be handed down from one president to the next along with a cynical disregard for nation sovereignty - Obama looks more like his predecessor as each month passes.
Despite all the talk now about Obama breaking a promise to end the war (message mostly from Republicans), while on the campaign trail in July of 2008, he said that Afghanistan and not Iraq should have been the primary focus in the war against terror, and called for sending thousands more US troops to Afghanistan.
Boston.comExcerpt: In what is being billed as a major policy speech, Obama declared this morning that if elected president, he would redirect attention and US forces to Afghanistan.
As far as that goes - it's promises kept.
Response from Wisconsin Democrats On Obama Troop Build-up
Senator Russ Feingold: I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there. I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world.
Representative Tammy Baldwin: “In 2001, I voted to authorize the use of force to bring to justice those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I believe our current actions in Afghanistan and President Obama’s proposal for moving forward bear little resemblance to that original, narrowly-focused mission. I cannot endorse a military surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s time for our troops to come home.”
Potential Congressional Candidate Paulette Garin: (Garin was a 2008 Democratic Candidate for Congress (WI-01) and contemplates a 2010 run.) President Obama’s authorization to send another 30,000-plus troops to Afghanistan is clearly a move in the wrong direction. Our involvement in Afghanistan has been morally suspect and legally questionable from its inception. Who are we fighting? Al-Qaeda? The Taliban? What are we fighting for? The War on Terror? Protect President Karzai and a government of doubtful credibility?
We have placed our troops and our treasure in an un-winnable conflict at a cost of almost $1Million dollars per soldier per year. Too many lives have been lost on all sides struggling to endure this conflict. Our continued involvement is economically unsustainable. We cannot allow Afghanistan to become the next Vietnam . There is no military solution in Afghanistan . Our military has served us well--but to no avail--please bring them home to their families.
President Barack Obama said in his inaugural address, "your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." Therefore, our efforts in Afghanistan should be focused on a political solution and increased humanitarian aid.
According to a Senate Report released last week, Osama bin Laden was within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when Bush Administration officials made the crucial decision not to pursue the terrorist leader.
YahooExcerpt: The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man.
Also, around the same time...
Cheney's Halliburton Makes A KillingExcerpt: In December 2001, Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, secured a 10-year deal known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), from the Pentagon. The contract is a "cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity service" which basically means that the federal government has an open-ended mandate and budget to send Brown and Root anywhere in the world to run military operations for a profit.
Barring a catastrophe, it's a safe bet the wars will be winding down by the end of 2011, regardless of who's president. Even Nostradamus didn't have this easy.
But whether Bin Laden was dead or alive, George W. Bush made sure Americans continued to feel the phantom terror throughout his presidency. I never thought Bush intentionally let Bin Laden get away like some folks insisted Bill Clinton did, but back in 2006 after Bush referred to Bin Laden in the past tense during a speech, I certainly felt there was enough evidence to think that he deliberately kept Bin Laden's legacy alive to keep the war fires burning.
In this youtube video, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY-D) intuitively connects the dots and claims the Bush Administration deliberately let Bin Laden go to justify the war in Iraq. Few can deny the premise back then, that if Bin Laden were captured or killed at that crucial time immediately following 9/11, Bush would have had a very difficult time convincing the American public of the need to invade Iraq. It can also be said that the "uranium out of Africa" threat was a Plan B standby fabricated in case Bin Laden was "accidentally" terminated. One way or another, Bush was invading Iraq.
Instead of peeling back the layers of doubt or offering evidence to the contrary, political hacks posing as weak-minded journalists like David Shuster or Bill O'Reilly prefer to just call Rep. Hinchey a "Pin Head" or crazy. Did O'Reilly wonder how Bush Administration officials would react to Hinchey's assertions or ask why they failed to get Bin Laden when he was most vulnerable? When a member from the Council on Foreign Relations made the same assertion (failure to get Bin Laden) against Bill Clinton in 2001, O'Reilly had nothing but questions for the Clintonoids.
In hindsight, the Senate Report is just another small piece of evidence to consider why Bin Laden got away during Bush's presidency. Few people are asking the right questions because there is too much money still to be made.
