ProgressiveDem

Ethically Challenged Porter Goss To Co-Chair Office of Congressional Ethics

Kaz — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:07:58 GMT

When I read the list of names of those appointed to the new Office of Congressional Ethics (more about that in a minute) and saw the former member of Congress and former head of the CIA, Porter Goss, as co-chairman, I wondered whether Nancy Pelosi had lost her mind or appointed him as a joke. What could she have been thinking?

As for the Office of Congressional Ethics, that's an oxymoron, since some of those who voted for the unconstitutional FISA bill received contributions from the telecoms that got immunity, which does rather make the office a laughingstock.

For more about it check out The Hill's article, which included this about Goss: "The appointment of Goss, a prickly personality who left the CIA after a short, turbulent tenure, surprised even some Republican members of Congress. Several shook their heads in disbelief when told he was named to the board.

"While he was chairman of the House intelligence committee, Goss opposed launching an investigation into the Valerie Plame CIA leak case."

And he's the co-chairman of this new office. What a hoot and what a terrible apointment.

From TPM comes this: "For those who may not recall, Goss' disastrous run as CIA chief ended with his abrupt resignation in 2006, shortly after the FBI raided the home and office of the then-No. 3 at CIA, Dusty Foggo, who was later indicted as part of the Brent Wilkes/Duke Cunningham corruption scandal."

And from a prior TPM Muckraker: "Over the weekend, the media had a field day speculating about Friday's sudden, unannounced, unexplained resignation of former CIA Director Porter Goss. Was it because of a turf battle? Was his ouster somehow connected to Hookergate? Was Goss wrapped up in the FBI's investigation of the Wilkes-Foggo-Cunningham poker/prostitute/bribe saga?

"Goss promoted to Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the CIA man directly implicated in the scandal, now under investigation by the FBI and the CIA's own inspector general. Did Goss's flat refusal to fire Dusty make his position atop the CIA unsustainable? It could well have been the straw that broke the camel's back, for Negroponte, or Goss -- or both.

"At worst, folks suspect he went to a couple of Wilkes' card games, mainly to show his face.

"But his involvement appears to have been enough to help drag him out of the director's seat. And when you add the details up -- hiring Foggo despite his past; refusing to take action when Foggo was clearly crossing boundaries; Cunningham carrying out misdeeds from Goss' intelligence committee; and now a key committee staffer tied into the Wilkes' party circuit -- it's clearly enough to warrant at least curiosity from the FBI. How could so much be going on around him -- right underneath his nose -- without his doing anything about it?"

And this is the person Pelosi acquiesced to as co-chair of the ethics office: the ethically challenged, unqualified as a CIA director who resigned under a cloud, Porter Goss? Is she daft? In addition to arrogantly dismissing the will of the American people by taking impeachment off the table, with this terrible appointment she shows that she is clearly not fit to be Speaker of the House.

McSame's Hypocrisy and Confusion Keep Getting Worse

Kaz — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:10:27 GMT

Can McCain and his campaign be any more ignorant? Yes. They continue to flaunt their stupidity and hypocrisy every day.

Unfit for presidency? You betcha. Unfit for any office. Apparently so.

From Think Progress: "Cenk Uygur notes that the media missed a false statement from Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) recent CBS interview where he incorrectly claimed the surge began the Anbar Awakening. When asked by Kate Couric about whether the money spent on the surge would have been better spent in Afghanistan, McCain claimed Iraq (not Afghanistan) was the "first major conflict since 9/11":

McCAIN: The fact is we had four years of failed policy. We were losing. We were losing the war in Iraq. The consequences of failure and defeat of the United States of America in the first major conflict since 9/11 would have had devastating impacts throughout the region and the world.

"Clearly, Afghanistan was the first major conflic that the U.S. fought after 9/11. But in 2003, McCain said the U.S. could just muddle through in Afghanistan. As Uygur stated, "They never saw Afghanistan as a priority."

"UpdateRawStory notes that CBS again "scrubbed" this gaffe from its television interview."

Apparently, CBS, which should be renamed Cover McCain's Stupidity Broadcasting Service. It just can't seem to stop its partisan not a member of the media anymore McSame brown nosing.

And in another gaffe, Sid McSame criticized Obama's giving a speech outside of the United States. Is he that confused and daffy, or like Dubya, lies when his lips are moving.

As John Aravosis at AmericaBlog reminds us: "Remember, last month, when McCain gave the campaign speech in Canada? Most of us remember. McCain doesn't:

In his interview with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, which will air on NBC's Nightly News tonight, McCain questions whether Obama should have given a speech in Berlin before becoming president.

"I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States," McCain told O'Donnell. "But that's a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make."

However, on June 20, McCain himself gave a speech in Canada -- to the Economic Club of Canada -- in which he applauded NAFTA's successes. An implicit message behind that speech was that Obama had been critical of the trade accord. Also, McCain's trip to Canada was paid for by the campaign.

"Just another small gaffe by the GOP nominee. McCain doesn't have to deal with facts. He can just make things up."

McSame's hypocrisy and lies just keep getting worse.

Minimum Wage Increase: Helps But Still Not A Living Wage

Kaz — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:26:33 GMT

Oh, yes, the minimum wage increased to $6.55 per hour. Isn't that just wonderful, whoop-dee-do! Actually, it's great that there is even this small increase but minimum wage workers still struggle.

What is the reality for those making minimum wage?

Jonathan Tasini at Working Life writes about the realities and the increase not deserving any applause.

Some highlights:

"If you do the math, it's pretty stark. If you worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you would earn $13,624. Not a single day off. No sick days. No health care. No pension.

"The official federal poverty rate for a family of three is $17,600. Meaning, at the new rate, under the official definition, you are still poor if you are a household of just three--not to mention if you have a bigger family--and you are willing to work every hour, every weekday, every single week--with no break.

"Here are some things to ponder:

Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage today is what it was in the 1950s--more than half a century ago.
To really make ends meet at minimum wage pay, two people in a household have to work three full-time minimum wage jobs.

"My friend Joel Rogers,director of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, made a stunning calculation not too long ago: Had wages tracked productivity as they have over the past 30 years, median family income in the U.S. would be about $20,000 higher today than it is.â€ Check this out: Taking into account productivity, the minimum wage should be $19.12 ”which would make it almost 50 percent above today's median wage (not to mention the pathetic $6.55).

"That's right. The minimum wage should be more three times what it is today. At that level, you would make almost $40,000-a-year. Not an outstanding amount given all the other costs and the likelihood that you would not be in a job with health care and a pension (that's another issue). But, beginning to be in the realm of respectable.

"And here's the most amazing part: passing the minimum wage also cost taxpayers. To get the minimum wage hike through Congress, Democrats agreed to a whole set of tax breaks for business, worth about $8 billion over ten years. Sure, not a lot of money in the scheme of a trillion-dollar plus budget. But, since every reputable study shows that there is virtually no negative effect on business when the minimum wage goes up at the levels we are talking about (and, some studies actually show a positive effect on business in terms of keeping workers), the only reason to shower business with more taxpayer money is to keep the political campaign cash pipeline open.

"The top one percent of the income earners burp and make far more in that brief moment than any minimum wage worker. According to Citizens for Tax Justice:

In 2008 the best-off one percent will have an estimated average income of almost $1.5 million each. Just to get into this elite group requires an income greater than $462,000. If all of that came from wages, then for single people it would take an average wage of $224 an hour to make it into the top one percent, and $722 an hour to become an average member.
To underscore: $6.55 per hour versus $224 per hour.

"We should be happy for the people who will get another seventy cents an hour in their gross pay. But, we should keep in mind that, at the grand new sum of $6.55 an hour, the minimum wage is a disgrace and a sad commentary about the state of our social safety net, the economy and our political system."

Unfortunately, even though this is the 21st century, the United States has failed and has a long way to go before it can claim to be a country of economic justice for all.

Bushite State Department Forbade Berlin US Embassy Personnel From Attending Obama's Speech

Kaz — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:50:56 GMT

How blatant are Bush's politicized departments and agencies. Pretty flagrant Bushite Republican. Take for example the State Department.

The US Embassy in Berlin forbade US employees from attending Barack Obama's speech in that city.

As reported by the Washington Post: "The U.S. Embassy in Berlin has instructed Foreign Service personnel stationed there not to attend Sen. Barack Obama's public rally today, which the State Department this week labeled a "partisan political activity" prohibited under its regulations for those serving overseas.

"Government employees serving in the United States are permitted to attend such events under the Hatch Act, which bars other partisan activity, such as contributing money or working in behalf of a candidate.

"But "we always maintain that no U.S. government Foreign Service person overseas should be seen to be advocating one side or the other," State Department Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy said, adding that "it has nothing to do with who" the candidate is.

"The American Foreign Service Association, the union of the diplomatic corps, objected to the ruling, calling it an "unnecessarily narrow interpretation" of the Foreign Affairs Manual. "The fact that you are working for the U.S. government overseas should not preclude political activity that you could engage in in the United States," one retired senior Foreign Service officer said.

"AFSA representatives met with Kennedy and State Department legal representatives Tuesday after two unnamed embassy employees complained to the union that the prohibition -- in an internal statement issued after some stationed there had asked about attending the rally -- violated their civil rights.

"Kennedy cited section 4123.3 of the third volume of the lengthy manual of personnel regulations for the Foreign Service, which says: "A U.S. citizen employee, spouse, or family member shall not engage in partisan political activities abroad."

"In the interview, Kennedy described the regulation as "a standing policy," although he acknowledged that "I don't believe we've ever had to interpret this before. None of us thinking about this could come up with a precedent" for the Obama campaign rally. "

And isn't that part of the State Depratment employees' job, to mix with the German people and find out what is going on? In this case though, the German people's feelings for Obama are obvious, erog the ban on attendace at Obama's speech. Since it doesn't violate the Hatch Act in the US, why was it a problem in Berlin? Wonder if the Bushite honchos would have forbade State Dept. employees from attending if it had been Sid McCain speaking?

A bit more background on Bushite Patrick Kennedy from the NYTimes: "After guards from Blackwater Worldwide protecting a State Department convoy killed at least 17 Iraqis in a hail of bullets last September, we hoped the Bush administration would rethink the folly of relying on mercenaries, who have no accountability to Iraqi or American law.

"The ever-stubborn administration decided it couldn't stay at war without its gunslingers. More than six months after the event, not a single charge has been brought against the guards. Last month, the State Department "which is supposed to be sensitive to local politics and perception” renewed Blackwater's contract in Iraq for another year.

"Patrick Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, told James Risen of The Times, â€œIf the contractors were removed, we would have to leave Iraq.â€

"That the United States is so dependent on 30,000 or so private guards to plug the holes in the understaffed military force underscores, once again, how badly this administration has mismanaged the occupation of Iraq” and why the United States must begin an orderly withdrawal as soon as possible."

More Proof McSame Is No Foreign Policy or National Security Expert

Kaz — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:30:22 GMT

McConfused got himself into another kerfuffle about the surge. Ultimately, this supposed national security, foreign policy expert proved that he doesn't understand the surge among innumerable other foreign and national security issues.

He managed to dig himself deeper into his myopic hole of ignorance with a confused, convoluted explanation of surge and awakening that was mind boggling in its stupidity.

Then his campaign cancelled his press availability. Oops.

More from ThinkProgress: "Yesterday evening, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) denied that he was wrong in claiming the "surge policy" in Iraq began the Anbar Awakening. Pressed by a reporter, McCain argued that the "surge" actually began before more troops were added to Iraq:

McCAIN: First of all, a surge is really a counterinsurgency strategy. And its made up of a number of components. And this counterinsurgency was initiated to some degree by Col. McFarland in Anbar province relatively on his own. When I visited with him in December 2006, he had already initiated that strategy inRamadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places.
Q: So when you say "surge" then, you're not referring to just the one that President Bush initiated. You're saying it goes back several months before that?
McCAIN: Yes.

"But McCain has previously admitted that the surge only entailed the increase in troop levels. â€œWe have drawn down to pre-surge levels, he said in May. "Was he saying, "We are drawing back down to where we were before Colonel McFarland started using counterinsurgency tactics in Anbar as part of the Anbar Awakening." No, that is completely and patently absurd, Ilan Goldenberg writes."

What is also "completely and patently absurd" is J. Sid McCain.

For a brief but excellent background on the McConfused, the surge and the awakening check out Progress Report's piece from July 24, "A Surge of Confusion."

Perhaps McSame should read it and educate himself. When will the media stop claiming that McBush is a foreign policy expert?

Army Continues Violating Rules and Promotes Christianity

Kaz — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:47:34 GMT

Not only do we have a Bush politicized Pentagon, there appears to be a Christian proselytizing military, contrary to the Constitution and military rules.

What is with these Christian theocratic military commanders? They seem to be deliberately flouting separation of church and state.

I've written about this before, for example, "Right wing Christian fundamentalists seemed determined to reconstruct the U.S. military into a bastion of Christianity; their brand. The most influential of these Christian groups is the Military Ministry, a part of the fundamentalist organization, Campus Crusade for Christ.

"[At Truthout, Jason] Leopold writes, 'Recently, Bush nominated Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson, the deputy Air Force Chief of Chaplains, to replace the outgoing Air Force Chief of Chaplains, and is in line to be promoted to Major General. Richardson was quoted in a front-page, July 12, 2005, New York Times story saying the Air Force reservesthe right "to evangelize the unchurched." The distinction, Richardson said at the time, "is that proselytizing is trying to convert someone in an aggressive way, while evangelizing is more gently sharing the gospel.

"He goes on to say that because of such blatant right wing Christianity exhibited by King George the Lesser, in an already politicized Armed Forces "military officials believe they have the approval of the White House to allow fundamentalist Christian organizations and their leaders to proselytize in the military."

I continued, "Let's not forget U.S. Army Lt. General William G. "Jerry" Boykin (Retired), whose media covered infamous statement in 2003 about Islam caused a firestorm and calls for his resignation. He said, "Well, you know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

"That same year Boykin, a right wing fundamentalist Christian, was also appointed Assistant Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Bush administration.

Now there is again a more recent violation.

From American United for Separation of Church and State via Talk2Action: "

"Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri offers â€œFree Day Awayâ€ as one of only two opportunities for soldiers to leave the base during eight weeks of vigorous Army training. (The other day is the day before graduation, which can be spent with parents and guests.) During â€œFree Day Away,â€ trainees are picked up by a bus sent from the Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lebanon, Mo., to participate in a day full of recreational activities, followed by dinner and a required church service.

"Trainees are given the impression that the event is sponsored by the Army and that they must attend. If they do not attend, they have to remain on the base and continue with training, while those who attend the event have a break for the day.

" 'We believe that it is of utmost importance that the Army guarantee the constitutional rights of those who risk their lives to protect our freedom,' said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. 'And that means ensuring that soldiers have the freedom to practice any faith or no faith at all.'

â€œ 'The coercive religious practices at Fort Leonard Wood are an outrage,' he continued, â€œand the Department of Defense should put a stop to them immediately.'

"In a 2003 article in the Global Baptist Times, the pastor of Tabernacle Church reported that 270,000 soldiers had participated in the â€œFree Day Awayâ€ ministry since its inception in 1971 and that 47,000 had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. The Tabernacle Church also asks the soldiers to provide their home addresses so members of their families can also be â€œsaved.â€

"Fort Leonard Wood has promoted this program for the past 36 years and the program is endorsed by the base commander, Americans United learned during its investigation."

As Talk2Action adds: "That Inspector General determined that this clearly coercive and, according to reports from numerous soldiers, unavoidable religious program was voluntary and did not violate the rights of the soldiers. Obviously, as AU points out in its letter, the base Inspector General investigating a program that is not only condoned, but promoted, by the same base commander he reports to raises objectivity concerns, which is why AU is asking for an investigation by the presumably more objective DoD Inspector General.

"But, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) has learned from experience that pursuing complaints of religious discrimination, coercion, or harassment through any military channel is all but pointless, whether a chain of command, an Equal Opportunity Officer, or even he DoD Inspector General. This is why MRFF is pursuing its case against the Department of Defense in the federal courts.

"MRFF did get the DoD Inspector General to investigate the participation of military officers who appeared in a Campus Crusade for Christ Christian Embassy promotional video, and although issuing a 47-page report finding seven officers, four of them generals, guilty of violating a number of military regulations and recommending that "appropriate corrective action" be taken, not a single one of the officers was punished. In fact, two of them were soon promoted. Maj. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, Jr., a brigadier general at the time of the Christian Embassy scandal, remained in his position of Commandant of Cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point until May 2, 2008. His promotion to major general was confirmed by Senate on April 29, 2008, and he has now been appointed to the prestigious position of Commanding General of the 25th Infantry Division. Col. Lucious Morton, a lieutenant colonel when he appeared in the Christian Embassy video, was selected to attend the U.S. Army War College, and was promoted to colonel on October 1, 2007, less than three months after the DoD Inspector General's report. Preston M. "Pete" Geren, who, as a civilian employee of the Department of Defense was not subject to military regulations when he appeared in the Christian Embassy video, was confirmed as Secretary of the Army by the Senate on July 16, 2007.The DoD Inspector General's report also completely evaded the promotion of religion issue, instead watering their investigation down and finding the officers guilty of endorsing a "non-federal entity."

This "Free Day Away" is blatant religious discrimination since those who don't attend must stay on base and train. It is also promotion and support of Chrisitanity by the military. There is no place in our military for theocracy. All of these senior officers should be made to resign. They have done a grave disservice to the military and violated their solemn oaths to the Constitution.

Bush's Bogus Ranch Fitting Reminder Of His Fraudulent Presidency

Kaz — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:06:32 GMT

Just like Duby's bogus suitablility for the presidency, so to his ranch is Crawford was just one of the props in this worst presidency ever.

It was the stage for a fictional narrative of the Shrub as a rancher, a rancher who was actually afraid of horses and didn't have a ranch, much like his terms as presidency: all form, no substance except to eviscerate the Constitution, ignore the rule of law, create an imperial, authoritarian executive above any law, destroy the integrity of the US, and damage this country.

Via Cursor.org comes a blast from the past, an article from Democrats.com that reminds us just how the Bushites perpetrated another fraud on the American people.

"Have you seen all those article and pictures of Bush "at home on the ranch" in Crawford - the ones that imply that he is "just an ole ranch hand" more comfortable on the family homestead than in the "Big City," be it Austin or D.C.? Well, if you bought this image, you've been royally snuckered. The Bush family homestead in Crawford is nothing more than an elaborate set. The house, built in 2000, was designed to be ready for Bush to step into - like a set awaiting an actor - during the 2000 presidential election. Not only was the "ranch" created in 2000 - so, essentially, was the "town" of Crawford! Before then only about 400 people lived in the area. The Crawford Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture were formed shortly after the ranch was finished.

"The 1,600 acres on which the "ranch" sits was purchased in 1999 for an undisclosed price, but it was a helluva lot less than the current real estate agents' appraisal of $1.2 million. Yep, worth $1.2 million, but G.W. has a sweet deal at the tax appraiser's office, where the property is valued at about $988,000. Oh, and that "homey ole ranch house?" It's actually a 10,000-square-foot single level mansion/compound that won't even be 2 years old until this November! The compound features a swimming pool for daughters Jenna and Barbara, who apparently loudly demanded it - the Bushescall it the girls' "Whining pool." Btw - we hear Bush got a sweet deal on the house construction, (the cost, of course remains undisclosed): the builders came from a religious community in El Mott, Texas. The original completion date of the house was November 7 - election day 2000. In other words, the curtain went up on the set on schedule for "show time." The very timing of this event indicates that Bush was absolutely confident that the election would be successfully engineered in his favor.

"The whole idea behind the ranch set, of course, was so that the public could be treated to footage of Bush seeking a quiet "retreat" at the family ranch. Americans would thus assume that the ranch was a rooted family homestead or compound like the one Kennedy's had in Martha's Vineyard or FDR had at Campobello. But when Bush retreated into his "homestead" in November, 2000, he was merely walking onto a prepared set upon which the paint had barely dried, let alone even the barest of roots put down! When we see photos of Bush bombing around the ranch in his leather jacket in his "ole pickup," supposedly knowing every tree and bush - it's all pure fantasy! If Bush knows every tree and bush after actually spending, all told, a total of about 2 months on the ranch (if you put the odd days end to end) since it was bought, then I''d like to know when he found time to hold all those endless Crawford press conferences! Seems to me he'd be way too busy introducing himself to trees and bushes.

"Until Bush and handlers decided that a rural ranch would be a slick bit of PR for the presidential campaign, Bush had no interest in a "home on the range." Instead, his preferred weekend retreat was to the Rainbo Club, an exclusive lakeside hunting club in Henderson County, about an hour south of Dallas, much closer to the comforts of Austin. When a Bush run for president began to look like a pretty good bet, the 1,600 acres were bought and the Bushes started making weekend trips to a 60-year-old ranch house that existed on the property - not of course, before refurbishing it! - so they could build the "lore" that would take in the American public, hook, line and sinker."

Unfortunately, Bush fooled some of the people all of the time.

His Fear Exposed His Lie; McHypocrite Cancels Oil Rig Visit

Kaz — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:10:39 GMT

McSame's hypocristy continues unabated. When he speaks, McHypocrite is confused or deliberately lying.

This time his blatant lies about the safety of offshore oil rigs during Hurricane Katrina, came home to roost on a personal level for him.

From ThinkProgress: "In announcing his newfound support for offshore drilling, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) consistently touts the safety of offshore oil exploration. "It's safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage," he said recently. To make his case, McCain was scheduled to helicopter tomorrow to an oil rig in the Gulf Coast.

"But it seems even McCain is fearful of being caught on an offshore oil rig during rough weather. Jonathan Martin reports:

Just over an hour after finalizing plans to visit an oil rig tomorrow, the McCain campaign has cancelled the visit. "The meeting with Governor Jindal has been postponed and we are cancelling the trip to the rig due to weather," said spokesman Michael Goldfarb.
The campaign declined to comment any further about the quick decision to spike the trip other than to cite the weather.

"Ironically, the weather of concern is the strengthening Hurricane Dolly, which has been bumped up to a category 2 hurricane (Katrina was rated a category 5) with winds up to 100 miles per hour. Today, Dolly made landfall in Texas.

"As the Wonk Room's Brad Johnson has noted multiple times, McCain and his surrogates have for weeks been peddling the false claim that Hurricane Katrina caused no major oil spills to push for expanded drilling.

"The hurricanes destroyed 113 offshore oil platforms and caused 124 offshore spills and hundreds more onshore. In fact, because of Hurricane Dolly, "at least 62 production platforms and eight drilling rigs had been shut down and evacuated in the Gulf."

"As McCain makes his push for increased oil production, Louisiana officials are also dealing with a barge collision that caused a spill of an estimated 9,000 barrels of fuel into the Mississippi River, resulting in a 12-mile long oil slick. "Television stations reported the stench of diesel fuel wafting across the French Quarter."

"McCain has put safety first today, putting off his oil drilling photo-op for another day."

In essence, his fear exposed his lies and hypocrisy. If he truly believed his blather that offshore oil rigs are safe in hurricames, he would have visited the rig on schedule.

Jonathan Tasini: The Rich Get Richer: Time For A Change

Kaz — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:04:31 GMT

I saw the Wall St. Journal article about the rich in the US getting richer and paying less in taxes. How lovely for them while the rest of us regular hardworking Americans with stagnant wages must take up the slack.

Instead of writing about it as I had planned, Jonathan Tasini already did a wonderful job so I'l post his excellent piece. Jonathan and I seem to both be channelling Joseph Welch today.

"The Rich Get Richer: Time For A Change"

by Jonathan Tasini
Wednesday 23 of July, 2008

"The robbery of our country by a small elite has continued, unabated, for the past eight years. That may sound like a radical statement. But, it is simply a fact--a fact reported today by that radical, left-wing publication, The Wall Street Journal...

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.
Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.
The figures are from the IRS's income-statistics division and were posted on the agency's Web site last week. The 2006 data are the most recent available.

And...

As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes

"In other words, they are stuffing more cash away, while their share of taxes has not kept pace.

" So, let's get this straight:

"While 47 million Americans have no health care and millions more have pathetic and expensive coverage;

"While millions of Americans are staggering from personal debt because of health care costs, rising tuition, gas prices, elder care and a whole host of other basic needs (Americans carry $2.56 trillion in consumer debt, a rise of 22 percent in just eight years, according to the Federal Reserve Board, with the average household credit card debt up 15 percent in that period to $8,565; college debt has doubled since 1995);

"While wages have not kept pace with the ability to pay basic bills;

"While real pensions have disappeared (the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that only 21 percent of workers in the private sector have defined-benefit pensions. In 2005, only 55 percent of full-time and part-time private sector workers worked at firms that sponsored a retirement plan. Of those, only 45 percent participated in an employer-sponsored plan. This compares with a 60 percent employer sponsorship rate and 50 percent employee participation rate in 2000.)

"While our infrastructure is falling apart and we will soon have a third-world infrastructure because government is being sucked dry by tax cuts for the rich (The Economist recently reported that, "In 2005 the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that $1.6 trillion was needed over five years to bring just the existing infrastructure into good repair. This does not account for future needs");

"While all this, and more, is happening, the rich have piled up even more money. This isn't necessarily news. But, the facts laid out in these stats are pretty startling.

"And to that I ask, to paraphrase Joseph Welch, is there no sense of decency among the rich, and their enablers in the government and in politics and in the chattering classes who worship before the altar of market fundamentalism, a point at which they say "enough is enough. We have enough to last many lifetimes and other need to get the riches of our society".

"If the answer is no, then, this, my friends, means revolution."

McSame Health Care Plan Terrible; Time For HR 676, Medicare For All

Kaz — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:02:56 GMT

Yes, health care coverage will be a major issue in the election.

However, which health care plan?

Robert Borosage at Campaign for America's Future explains why McCain's plan is terrible: "So this fall, Americans will discover an inconvenient truth about John McCain. He wants you to lose your employer-based health care. He thinks you aren't sufficiently conscious about the cost of your health care, and you are using too much of it.

"His plan is designed "with sugar and sticks” to push you to negotiate on your own with the friendly insurance companies. He'll give you a tax credit ”$2,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a family” to help you pay the price. And he'll revoke the tax exemption for any health benefits your employer provides. Under his plan, those benefits will be taxed as income. McCain says this will reduce our health care expenditures. He might be right. His preferred option ”health saving accounts” generally feature low monthly payments and very high deductibles. People tend to insure themselves against catastrophe and take a chance on routine health care.

"On average, health savings accounts will work pretty well if you are young and healthy and lucky. But if you are sick, if you have suffered serious illnesses in the past, if you have what insurers call a "pre-existing condition," or if you are older and at higher risk, you're in trouble. For many, insurance won't be available at any price. That's why Elizabeth Edwards noted that, neither she nor McCain would be eligible for coverage since both have struggled with cancer. Many more will find adequate coverage unaffordable. Others will have to wrestle with choosing between paying to see a doctor or buying the weekly groceries. You'll be more "sensitive to price," but you might not think that a good thing.

"McCain extols the benefits of private health insurance, but he's never had to negotiate with insurance companies. He's been on government-provided health care virtually his entire life. He was raised on military health care, as the son of an admiral. He then went to the Naval Academy and to the military. A year after leaving the military, he was headed to the Congress and enjoying the best government-supplied health care of all.

And he is correct, McCain the millionaire's plan is awful.

Here is what Borosage writes about Obama's plan: "For the nine of 10 voters that have some kind of health insurance at work, the contrast will be clear. Obama will give them a choice between the health care they have and being able to buy into a public plan, something like Medicare. McCain will tax their employer based health care, and give them a break to negotiate their own deal with the insurance companies. At the same time, he will liberate the insurance companies from the state-based regulations that have provided some protection for consumers."

But there already is a public plan, like Medicare. It's called HR 676, also known as Medicare for All which I've written about before, for example here, here, here, and here. Why should Obama re-invent the wheel?

As for the nine of 10 voters who have some kind of health insurance at work, the know what is happening to workplace health care coverage that Health Care for America Now and Mr. Borosage are unaware.

Marie Cocco at Truthdig explains: "The United States needs nothing less than a new social compact that recognizes what most workers already know: that employers no longer are a reliable source for health insurance or pensions; that workers lack the bargaining power once provided by strong unions and nothing has replaced it."

Since employer offered health coverage is becoming an unreliable source, HR 676 is now, more than ever, a Medicare for All whose time has arrived.

McSame Implies Obama Is Treasonous

Kaz — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:16:47 GMT

McBush is big on the "do as I say, not as I do" school of conduct. He calls for running respectful campaigns but has repeatedly made disparaging comments about Barack Obama (while his wife has done the same regarding Michelle Obama). Bofh of these millionaires are apparently integrity challenged.

However, McSame's latest salvo of accusing and implying that Barack Obama is treasonous has crossed the line.

As CBS News On The Road reports McCain's obscene statement: " 'The surge has succeeded. It has succeeded. We are winning the war. If we had done what Sen. Obamawanted, we'd have lost,â€ McCain said.

â€œ 'Apparently Sen. Obama, who does not understand what's happening in Iraq or fails to acknowledge the success in Iraq, would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.' â€

How dare this hypocrite make such insulting comments?

As Joseph Welch, head attorney for the US Army, said to hatemongering, lying, witchhunter Republican Senator Joe McCarthy: "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?'