They either do not see their own hypocrisy or they do not care.
These so called conservatives, both the voters and the “leaders” alike are the actual and true reason our systems have become bankrupted, broken down and untrustworthy.

For all their talk of welfare queens, immigrants stealing jobs, educational quotas and any other excuses for their own economic failings, it is their own policies and exploitations that are to blame.

And while there is plenty of apathy and acquiescence from the political leaders on the “other side of the aisle,” when it comes to everyday people I’ve met far more “conservative” takers and far more “liberal” givers out in the world.

Chew on that for a bit…..

Led by legislative Demcrats, the budget includes what they are calling “$15 billion in permanent spending cuts, $12.8 billion in temporary tax increases and $11.4 billion in borrowing.”  But most of it is just legislative double-speak and it amounts to a travesty for Californians. The $15 billion in permanent spending cuts included several billion dollars worth of “automatic” spending increases that now won’t happen. But that’s not really a cut, since these “increases” don’t represent real dollars already spent. Not real program cuts at all, just keeping the automatic increases from happening this year.

The $12.8 billion in “temporary” tax hikes also are a farce, espepcially since taxes rarely get reversed. The deal between Democrats and Republicans calls for a ballot initiative to allow voters to institute a spending cap, but if voters do approve it, then the “temporary” taxes automatically last for 5 years. These taxes include increases in sales tax, car tax, and income tax.

Oh, let’s not forget too that they are still needing to borrow money to make up the budget shortfall. How does more borrowing fix anything? It doesn’t…it just passes the buck down the line for others to deal with.

I’ve grown used to the California Democratic party being a shill for the public employee unions who are more concerned with their own members and getting more and more money than the general public at large. But the California Republicans just ran on a “no new taxes” pledge to get elected in November, and with their capitulation are clearly stabbing their base in the back.

California legislators have a long history of overspending, buckling to state employee unions in boon times, and creating unnecessary government programs and policies to employ former legislators. A state garbage board meets regularly, pulls in 6-figure incomes for board members (who are political favor takers) and does little to make life better for Californians. This is but one example.

California’s prison system costs twice or three times what most other state systems spend, yet they are squallor filled breeding grounds of violence and sickness. The problem? The promised salary increases and exorbitant pensions given out to the union guards at the expense of real reform and proper care.

The list could go on and on and on, but the fact is that California is governed by idiots who care nothing for their constituents and everything for their political donors and benefactors.

It’s no surprise to see that the number of non-illegal citizens leaving California is greater than those coming in to the state. No more California dreamin’ for some time I think.

In the economic disaster that grips the nation and the world, most economists say that raising taxes is counter-productive to recovery efforts. In the power halls of California, raising taxes is the first priority to managing a mismanaged governmental budget.

That’s not leadership. Too bad so many Californians aren’t paying attention.

(cross posted at Bring It On)

Conservatives hate socialism. We know this is true because they tell us how evil socialism really is every chance they get. According to many conservatives, socialist public policies are to blame for everything from the destruction of the American family (think welfare) to the crumbling of American manufacturing (think labor unions) to the financial straits of the American government (think Social Security, Medicare, and any non-defense related government spending). If there is a problem in America, odds are that some socialist policy is behind it, or so a conservative might assert.

Many conservatives insist that socialism will destroy America, that Democrats are really just socialists at heart, and therefore that Democrats destroy America. Even more, they confuse socialism and communism, and insist that Democrats are just communists bent on destroying the wonders of American capitalism by taking “our money” and giving it to the “worthless, lazy slobs” who are too stupid to grab a real chunk of the “American dream.” Conservatives are loathe to approve public policies that spend taxpayer money on healthcare or childcare or food assistance or anything that diverts tax money away from corporations and towards the citizens.

For conservatives, the notion of Capitalist Socialism is an oxymoron, an impossibility, an evil force of perveted economics. Unless you’re talking about the kind of socialism whereby the public has to bail out private corporations who have managed their affairs so badly that their collapse might have widespread economic implications. In that case, socialism is not only okay, it’s the only way to go.

The general public actually embraces some forms of Capitalist Socialism, like the ever popular Social Security program. Truth be told, most of our “public” institutions are funded through a form of socialism. When our taxes are spent on hospitals or schools or police departments, this is a form of socialism. We all pay for the services that we all receive. Our system of capitalism depends upon socialism in this form, as does any democratic country and government. But the conservatives ignore the fact of this kind of socialism because it provides them with billions of dollars to dispense annually, and they like to give our tax money to fat cat corporations by way of no-bid contracts or public bail-outs.

It is a hypocrisy that is lost on most people though, because of the demonized reputation the word “socialism” has gotten at the hands of the conservative political machine. Ask your average citizen how they feel about socialism and you’ll probably get an earful of criticism. But try to explain that we already live under a form of socialism and you’ll be speaking to deaf ears. We can’t be socialist! We’re a damn democracy, and we’re capitalists to boot.

Uh, yeah. Right.

I’m not against socialist programs per se. Our social safety net programs have helped millions of Americans over the years to avoid abject poverty. And to be fair, many of our socialist programs have not lived up to their potential, although I would insist that any failures lie at the hands of greedy politicians and political special interest groups more than in the design of the programs themselves. Social Security, one of the biggest socialist programs we have (in terms of overall cost) is nearing insolvency as much because of politicians raiding the fund as the rising population of retirees. But when it comes to corporate bail-outs where the failure lies in lax oversight or outright fraud, I have to say I’m not all that keen on corporate socialism. Especially when those individuals at the top of the corporate heap, who laugh all the way to their off-shore banks, are never held responsible in any meaningful way for their corrupt practices that result in massive financial loss to average working folks and end up costing us all when the government steps in to bail them out.

The current financial crisis in the mortgage industry is a direct result of the Bush administration’s laissez-faire attitude towards financial regulation and oversight. You’d have thought that the Enron collapse (and other corporate meltdowns over the last 7 years) would have opened the publics eyes, and maybe it did for a few minutes. But put a sweet, juicy apple in front of a horse and he may well forget that the last apple you  gave him was really just a piece of rotton fruit. When Bush proclaimed his desire to create “The Ownership Society” he was handing us an apple. It did taste pretty good for a few chews, but as we reach the core, we can see how rotton it really was. And the taste seems to be lingering far longer than it ever should.

By creating an atmosphere of lax enforcement and by stripping away funding for regulation and any sort of oversight, the mortgage industry called open season on America. They played fast and furious to get anyone into a home regardless of the financial realities such moves required. They got paid when the made the loan, then they sold the loan and got paid again. They didn’t give a crap about the people at the end of the trail though, those who would ultimately be left holding worthless loan notes because the original borrower would never be able to pay the full rates when the juicy apple revealed itself to be rotton.

And by and large, as the banking system is brought to its knees by its own greed, none of those folks who fueled the boom will be held responsible. Much like the German Army of the 19030’s and 1940’s, these fine folks were just following orders. They didn’t make the rules after all. Why should they be held responsible?

Socialism has some good qualities- like the collective payments for public institutions and infrastructure or social safety nets that promote work while offering a hand in hard times. But socialism also has an evil side, just like the conservatives tell us it does. It’s called corporate socialism. Isn’t it funny how it’s the only aspect of socialism that the conservatives really seem to love?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

What? I thought we were in some kind of recession. And rising gas prices are causing the price of everything to go up, up, and away. Thank god for the stimulus checks, because now we are all richer than ever!

Oh, wait a minute…no we are not.

The influx of tax rebates into the hands of ordinary Americans is a temporary blip in an ongoing downspin of the economy, not a harbinger of good economic times ahead. $600 buck a head may create a momentary uptick in consumer spending, but once the money is gone, income is right back to where it was-falling and failing to keep pace with inflation.

Despite the hoopla in today’s press, personal incomes, WITHOUT THE EFFECT OF THE STIMULUS REBATES, are actually flat. And when you factor in inflation and the costs of food and fuel, the personal fortunes of John and Jane Doe gets worse every day.

Economists only expect about 40% of the stimulus checks to actually find their way back into the consumer market anyhow, as people either pay down debt or save the extra cash for a rainier day instead of rushing out to buy a new flat screen television.

So Bush will have to wrap up his celebration a little early, especially since there isn’t much to really celebrate about. (Well, for him there probably is- his aides no doubt only show him the headlines that say all is well.) As Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post reminds us, our economic woes aren’t over yet:

“This thing’s going down, fast and hard. Corporate bankruptcies, bond defaults, bank failures, hedge fund meltdowns and 6 percent unemployment. We’re caught in one of those vicious, downward spirals that, once it gets going, is very hard to pull out of.”

Add inflation and recession and what do you get? Soaring personal incomes due to artificially induced, one time cash infusions? Nope- just damn tough times ahead.

Enjoy your rebate folks. According to the press, you’re doing better this month than you ever have before. I bet you feel better now and your economic outlook has never been rosier.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

A quick primer on taxes and government: government levies taxes (and fees) to pay for the services its citizens demand. Without taxes there would be no public enterprises: no roads, no schools, no fire departments or police, no libraries, no national defense, no social security, and so on and so forth. In theory, every tax collected by government is supposed to be used to advance the public good and pay for the overhead of government.

In 2005, I wrote this about taxation:

“Most Americans don’t really mind having to pay taxes. We understand that in order to get the things from government that we demand they provide, we must all share the burden of paying for those services. What really angers us though, is the obvious waste, corruption, diversion, and outright theft of our tax dollars at the hands of the people who are supposed to protect our precious dollars and us. And equally in our wrath, are the handfuls of corporations and millionaires that exploit an over-complicated tax code and weasel out of their share of the burden.”

I still believe this to be true- most Americans don’t mind paying taxes when they see the benefits. The anger comes when taxes are misspent and poorly accounted for. Bridges to nowhere, no-bid contracts, outright fraud by government contractors…these are the things that piss people off. And these are the things that get people up in arms whenever a politician talks about changing the tax code or hiking taxes and fees. In the view of most people, we pay enough in taxes already and its not our fault that the politicians spend more than they take in. So when someone hints that a politician wants to raise taxes, our initial reaction is “Screw You Buddy!”

In an election year, talk about who will raise taxes becomes even more rancorous, and the “truth” about the parties, their candidates, and taxes gets trotted out again. Republicans say that Obama will raise your taxes. Democrats say that McCain will simply extend tax cuts for the rich while continuing to spend as wildly as Bush has. Both positions are true. But they are not really so cut and dried.

Historically, Republican presidents have made efforts to reduce taxes in general, but the prime beneficiary has been the wealthy and the corporations. As they cut taxes to those groups, they also marginally reduce income taxes on the rest of us, but the real saving for the vast majority is barely a drop in the bucket compared to what the high-rollers get back. In addition to cutting taxes, GOP administrations also like to cut services. Seems to make sense- less taxes coming in, less services going out-perfect fiscal sanity, right? Well maybe if it were true. But what Republican administrations also do is spend a ton of money-on credit-while in office, leaving their successors with a huge deficit to contend with. They spend money on the military and on foreign meddling and promotion of American businesses abroad. What the GOP likes to spend the most money on isn’t programs at home for the benefit of Americans, but rather of the might of the American government abroad. Reagan’s deficit spending forced his Republican successor (the first George Bush) to raise taxes, and in turn, conservatives vilified him completely. The current president also began his reign by cutting taxes, mostly for the rich, and by increasing military spending on credit. Bush the Second may have lowered the taxes of the wealthy today, but his rampant spending of money he doesn’t have has all but guaranteed that future presidents will have to raise taxes just to pay the interest on the money Bush is spending now.

Historically, Democratic presidents have raised our taxes and then spent those revenues on programs that help Americans at home first, and then the outside world with the left overs. FDR and LBJ are the posterboys for tax and spend presidents, but they spent the money on projects that invigorated the American economy and gave the common folks a chance to better their position in life. Sure, these two men also spent a hell of a lot of money on war efforts (WWII & Vietnam respectively), but at least in the case of FDR it was a defensive war effort and not a war of choice. And when these two men explained to the American people what they wanted to do and why they needed the new taxes, a majority of America agreed with their ideas and felt that at least their taxes were being used well.

But for the last 8 years  Americans have watched their local, state, and national government gobble up more and more taxes while providing less and less services. Almost every legislative budget session ends with a cry from politicians about how they need more taxes to keep things running, and as they trot out the standard lines about how without taxes we’ll lose schools and police officers and the like, the voters pony up the dough. We’ve become so used to governmental waste and excuses that fiscal reality doesn’t even enter the picture. They say they need the money to give us what we say we want. Such is life. Or is it?

California state government is entering its umpteenth consecutive years of budget shortfalls. When voters were asked if they would support tax increases or spending cuts to balance the books, 63% of voters said they wanted government to cut spending. Yet when asked where those cuts should occur, no single category of services got more than half agreeing to cut costs. Most public spending in California goes to schools, health care and public safety. (Well, most really gets eaten up in nonsense studies, commissions, over-spending, and fraud, but that’s another facet of the story.) Nearly 70% of the voters would not support spending cuts in any of those areas. So the reality is that voters don’t want to cut spending or raise taxes-they want to continue to live in Fantasy Tax Land where they get all the goods and someone else (like their children and grandchildren) pays all the bills. That sounds to me a lot like taxation without representation-you know, one of those little issues that led to the American Revolution-and future generations will have financial obligations they never agreed to or even benefitted from. Our tax policies are really setting the stage for a future revolt. But again I digress…

Getting back to the current presidential election, I have heard time and again from conservative leaning voters that although the do not like McCain and do not see him as a “real conservative,” they simply won’t vote for Obama because “he’s gonna raise my taxes!” In fact, its become the latest GOP talking point in an effort to derail Obama’s growing popularity. But will it work? Not if voters really examine the issue and try to understand the dynamics of the reality.

The reality is this: our government is broke and operating only on imaginary currency and borrowed cash. The War in Iraq has created a multi-trillion dollar sinkhole, financed by loans from abroad and the guarantee of future generations toiling for a foreign master. The Bush Administration has continued the fine GOP tradition of slashing taxes, but they forgot to cut costs as well. If the old “truth” we started with ever did apply, it certainly can’t be true today. In todays world, Republicans not only tax less, they spend more than ever before, and in the prpocess create the worst fiscal imbalance ever seen in such a short time.

So what’s the next president to do? Cut taxes even more and keep fighting wars of choice or raise taxes and adjust spending to accomplish the things we need and want to accomplish?

In trying to decipher the difference between Obama and McCain on taxes, the truth can be boiled down pretty easily, and Business Week does a good job with it:

“Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their aftertax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts, and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their aftertax income rise much less.

In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise. “

Of course, the details become a bit convoluted, but that is the crux of their attitudes on taxation. If you are really rich and taxes are your only concern, by all means vote McCain. But to say that Obama is going to raise taxes on Americans, and then to fear his leadership because of that, is simply not logical.

But suppose Obama does indeed raise taxes on us all. What if he has to? He has said that he would help fund many of his ideas from the savings we are spending in Iraq. Sorry Obama, we don’t have that money anyway. Any money not spent on Iraq is only money that future generations won’t have to repay. It’s not money we have that we could spend at home today. So maybe he will have to raise taxes. If he does, you only have the GOP to blame.

And might McCain also have to raise taxes at some point? Or would he continue to heap debt on future Americans?

When it comes to taxes, and the waste of the whole system, both political parties share the blame. The current Democratically controlled Congress has been as fiscally irresponsible as their GOP predecessors, and certainly in state governments like California, Democrats deserve more of the blame for bad fiscal policy.

But this presidential election is more important than just who might raise taxes, and if you really look at the details, Obama’s tax policy ideas are much friendlier to the average working American than McCains are. And more importantly, Obama’s thoughts on how best to use America’s tax resources-for Americans in America-make for a better future than McCain’s tax and bomb mentality ever will.

(Cross posted at Bring It On!)

Boiled down into even simpler terms, public transit means less congestion, less pollution, and greater efficiency at a low price.

At least, that’s the theory. And in a few places the theory holds up pretty well. Who can imagine traversing New York City without subways and busses? In 2004, nearly one-third of the nation’s public transit users lived in NYC, with over 50% of New Yorkers using public transit for commuting to work. In DC, it was 37%, Boston and San Francisco 31%. This makes sense too, because these metropolises have huge populations concentrated into relatively small areas. Imagine the traffic congestion and accompanying pollution if every one who worked in NYC drove to work alone in a car?

But get away from the east coast (well, okay, and San Francisco) and public transit usage drops way down- 12% in LA, 6% in Houston- so that the national percentage of Americans using public transportation to commute to work in 2004 was only 5%.

Being that it is a public enterprise, public transportation funding comes from a combination of fares and taxes. Fares from actual users, taxes from everyone regardless of whether they ever step foot on a bus or train. A major chunk of the taxes come from fuel excise and sales taxes. This funding system actually relies on a larger number of people NOT using the service to keep it afloat financially. Paradox #1.

When fuel tax revenue declines, public transit coffers suffer. For public transportation, more efficient vehicles plus more public transit users means a loss of revenue and an increase in costs for its own fuel requirements to accommodate more users. So fares go up. And ridership declines.

If one of the benefits of public transit is a reduction in environmental pollution, it should be a goal of public transit agencies to increase public usage. But to do this, public transit authorities have to develop a system that is both expansive and convenient. Out west, historically low usage of public transit has not encouraged systemic expansion, meaning that would be users of public transit face longer and more difficult commutes to get from point A to point B and choose to drive themselves. A lack of comprehensive transit stops and connections reinforces the inefficiency of the system and puts more cars on the road that could otherwise be parked. Paradox #2.

So public transit relies on people NOT using the service to keep financially solvent and poorly designed public transit actually keeps MORE cars on the road due to its inefficiency. Except for New York City, public transit seems to be a net loser, in spite of its valuable service to lower income Americans.

But wait! Gas heads towards $5 a gallon and a lot of people start looking at public transit as a reality. Demand for public transit is increasing. Fewer people can afford high gas prices, and even more are trying to help reduce pollution. But the more efficient cars that continue to drive use less fuel which decreases income for public transit, even as fare paying costumers increase. What’s a transit authority to do?

Raise fares of course. And cut services too.

I guess the message is that public transit is a great thing-just so long as not too many people use it.

Just at a time when we should be increasing public transit and making it more available and affordable, public transit agencies are talking about reducing stops and raising fares. Just at a time when the larger public finally seems to consider the benefits of public transit, agencies are forced to make it less attractive just to stay in service.

So if you try to save money, energy, and reduce pollution by using public transportation, you’re really making public transit authorities cut their services and raise the fares for everyone by overloading the system and not paying enough taxes. Why do you hate America?

Maybe we should all just stay home.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Consider that when Bush took office the federal government had a budget surplus, and despite way too many pork barrel projects, earmarks were much lower than they are now. But then came a series of tax cuts, an increase in federally mandated spending programs, an unnecessary war, a couple of tax rebate give-aways, and unprecedented borrowing to finance the largest expansion in the federal government in over 50 years. The surplus disappeared. The spending didn’t.

Republicans like to pretend that the only thing Democrats care about is “Big Brother” government. Hah! Bush has presided over the biggest “Big Brother” expansion ever. Republicans think that only Democrats expand the size of government. Hah! Bush has added more government jobs to the federal payroll than probably any other president since FDR. Republicans like to pretend the Democrats will take all your tax dollars and waste them on untested and ineffective social programs that ultimately hurt people more than they help them. Can anyone say No Child Left Behind???

The fact is that Republicans aren’t alone in disliking taxes. Democrats don’t much like them either. But where Democrats can accept the fact that it takes taxes to run government, Republicans only seem to think that taxes are evil.

Here it is kids…no matter who takes over as next president, we are going to have to see a serious reversal in domestic funding policy. That likely means higher taxes and lower spending. Hopefully the next president will get us out of Iraq which would save a serious amount of change. but it won’t be enough, especially in the short term. Especially when our government (both Dems & Reps) think it is wiser to borrow another $150 billion they don’t have to hand out to citizens so they will rush out and spend it. This is an economic stimulus plan? For what? A month? Gee Mr. President (and all the rest of you in Congress), what kind of stimulus plan will we get when that $600 bucks is all gone? Do they really think that peopl e are going to have extra money all the time now that the government sent them a check for a few hundred bucks? The only thing this plan stimulates is the Chinese manufacturing industry and the banks- for about a month.

Of course, in our brave new world, most people don’t give two seconds thought to government finances, just so long as their special interests are being funded.

Fiscal prudence means that not everyone gets everything all of the time. Fiscal malfeasance means that some people get everything they want, most get a bone thrown to them, and behind the scenes the red tape is stacked higher than the Sears Tower.

Well boys and girls, federal spending affects us all, and when you turn over the federal purse to a bunch of failed businessmen and drunken sailors, somebody eventually has to pay. That somebody will be all of us when the next administration gets to town.

So for all of you whining GOPers who are so upset that a Democrat in the White House will raise your taxes, shut up already. YOUR guy put us all in this situation to begin with. Just because he’ll be out of office when the bills come due doesn’t make it any less his fault. If you want to complain, send a letter to Bush. But quit whining to me about it.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Tobacco taxation, in its msot current incarnation, is touted as a way to reduce the smoking of tobacco by increasing the price of the product. The theory (and it has been proven to a small extent among some smoking populations) is that if the price of tobacco increases fewer people will smoke, or at least those who smoke will smoke less. In this case, tobacco taxation is being used as a tool to change behavior. But you should ask yourself if the government really wants to have fewer smokers around. I submit that they do not, and the constant attempts to increase tobacco taxes to pay for any myriad of government projects should bear out my stance.

For instance, in the case of SCHIP, the federal government decides that in order to fund the program they need to increase tobacco taxes. Yet, under the behavioral modification theory, the fact that they plan to increase taxes on tobacco should lead to fewer packs of cigarettes being sold, meaning that there would be less tax money to fund SCHIP. In that case, where does the remainder come from? In fact, the government hopes that raising tobacco taxes will not affect most smokers, who are in fact addicted to the substance, and they will just keep smoking and paying the taxes. They know this is what will happen, and they count on smokers keeping right on smoking. They WANT smokers to keep smoking.

But SCHIP isn’t the only thing dependent on tobacco taxation. Aside from health related programs (that are dependent primarily, if not solely, on tobacco taxes) governments use tobacco taxes to swell their general funds accounts, thereby using tobacco money for projects unrelated to health care. When the states sued the tobacco companies and settled for multiple billions of dolalrs, they said that those funds were to be dedicated to health care costs for smoking related diseases. But state governments have repeatedly raided those “windfall funds” and used them for anything from roads to environmenta l impact studies to school building projects and so on. And they rely on smokers to keep those dollars rolling in.

It’s bad enough that tobacco taxation is a regressive tax policy, that is, one that targets those with less overall income disproportio nately. But what makes tobacco taxation policies worse, to me, is the fact that it is a hypocritical policy based on saying one thing while depending on the other. Governments claim to want less smoking, but then they turn around and base programs and policies on a dependence to tobacco taxes.

How does this even make sense? It doesn’t, and everyone knows it doesn’t.

And when you consider the fact that government rules and regulations are constantly limiting the places where people can smoke, you have to wonder where all these smokers are going to go to continue to light up so that the governments can continue to collect the taxes that they rely on.

Smoking is a bad health choice. That much has been proven pretty conclusively . But instead of trying to ban smoking (as the government does with much less harmful drugs like marijuana) the government takes a two-faced approach- don’t smoke, but if you do, smoke over there in the street; and please smoke because we want your money to pay for these programs.

One wonders if the government really even cares about the programs they seek to fund with tobacco taxes. If they were indeed intent on taxing tobacco out of existence, they’d surely not tie that revenue to programs that enjoy wide support, like children’s health insurance. Unless they want the program to die a slow, smoker-like death.

How can anyone support the current dichotomy of tobacco taxation? It is a policy riddled with contradictio n and hypocrisy. I think legislators simply have too much smoke in their eyes to see the absurdity of their actions. Maybe we should apply a tax to bad governance instead.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

In the President’s own message (accompanying the official budget), Bush says, “This Budget reflects our highest priorities while reducing the deficit and achieving a balanced budget by 2012. I am confident that this approach will help make our country more secure and more prosperous.”

We can only surmise then that for Bush, helping the richest .2% get even richer on the backs of the middle class and the poor is our highest priority. And his deficit reduction plan is ludicrous to expect so long as he keeps funding wars off the books and through ’emergency spending.’ The only people who will gecome “more secure and prosperous” are the corporate oligarchs to whom he owes his political legacy.

Bush wants to permanently extend the repeal of the Estate Tax he pushed through in 2003, an act that would reduce the federal kitty by over $440 billion in the next decade. (Of course, in politics nothing is ‘permanent’ but a decade of tax free hand-me-downs is the next best thing.) Longer term projections show that a permanent repeal would cost the Treasury up to $1 trillion by 2021.

So what cuts does Bush propose to offset these tax losses- money not being paid by the richest of the rich? Who are the winners and who are the losers in the Bush Budget? A little compare and contrast helps illustrate the picture for us( these figures are projected over the next decade):

The Walton family (owners of the world’s largest retailer) would receive an estate tax break of $32.7 billion.
The Bush budget cuts Medicaid by $28 billion over the same 10 year span.

Winner: Walton Family
Loser: Every American family who has medical co-pays or buys prescriptions. (And this will be on top of the 10-year, $28.3 billion cuts to Medicaid passed by the Republican Congress last year.)

The heirs to the Mars Candy Bar fortune would receive a tax break of about $11.7 billion.
The Bush budget cuts over $3 billion from the VA budget over the next five years.

Winner: Mars candy heirs
Loser: Every wounded veteran alive today.
The Cox family, heirs to the Cox Cable fortune will gain $9.7 billion by the permanent repeal of the estate tax.

The Bush budget cuts $1.5 billion from education. I guess the rhetoric about No Child Left Behind is just that- rhetoric.

Winner: Cox family
Loser: Kids and local school districts who are buried under an avalanche of federal mandates that continue to be underfunded.

The Nordstrom family rakes in over $825 million with the tax break.
The Bush budget wants to eliminate one of the country’s most successful anti-poverty programs, the Community Services Block Grant program. The ‘savings’ amounts to $630 million. The fact that this program provides dervices and aid to over 15 million of the lowest income people in the country is apparently not part of the compassionate conservatism practiced by Bush.

Winner: Nordstrom family
Loser: 15 million of the poorest Americans

The Ernest Gallo family (makers of cheaep wine) can expect to pass down an extra $468 million dollars from tax breaks.
The Bush budget wants to cut $420 million from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, that quaint little federal safety net that keeps 5.4 million senior citizens and low-income families from freezing in the winter time.

Winner: Nordstrom family
Loser: 5.4 million needy seniors and families.

Former Exxon Mobile CEO Lee Raymond and his family will keep a larger portion of that ludicrous retirement package, saving $164 million due to the permanent repeal of the estate tax.
The Bush budget wants to eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. This is a program that provides food for poor seniors, and low-income children and mothers. The price tag is…$164 million.

Winner: Raymond family.
Loser: The poor, the hungry, the huddled masses.

And these are just some examples to think about. Bush wants to give as much money back to the wealthiest of all Americans and balance those loses on the rest of us, including all those military men and women he keeps saying he supports. That is absolutely disgusting.
It is up to Congress to put a stop to this massive wealth transfer scheme. It’s been going on too long under Bush already. We know what Bush’s priorities are, and they have nothing to do with the welfare of American citizens. Not even the wake-up call in November can open his eyes. And forget about opening his heart. Bush hasn’t got one.

FACT: Oil is the world’s largest source of convertible energy at the present time.
FACT: Most of the world’s known oil sources lie beneath the sands of the Middle East, specifically in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran, in Russia, and in Venezuela.
FACT: Most of the oil in the world is used by the United States, China, Japan and Russia.
FACT: Current U.S. debt is around $8.5 Trillion.
FACT: Japan holds $440 Billion of that debt. China holds $122 Billion. China also holds $361 Billion in foreign currency reserves, much in U.S. dollars.
FACT: The U.S. and Russia have the largest operational nuclear stockpiles with 8,000 warheads and 8,600 warheads respectively. China has around 400 operational nuclear warheads.
FACT: Other nuclear nations include Britain, France, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, and recently, North Korea. No other nations are known to possess operational nuclear warheads, though Iran is making great efforts to produce some.
FACT: China is the most populous nation on Earth. As it continues to modernize itself, it’s need for resources and goods will result in a shifting of global resource allocation causing either greater cooperation between nations or giving rise to great enmity.
FACT: China’s major trading partners include Japan, Russia, and the United States.
FACT: Iran is governed by fundamentalist Islamic religious leaders who vilify the western world and Israel. Their interpretation of their religious texts drives their ideology towards conflict with those whom they describe as infidels.
FACT: Iran’s major trading partners include China, Japan, and Russia.
FACT: George W. Bush comes from a wealthy oil family. He has numerous ties to the oil industry, the Middle East and specifically Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Prior to entering politics and government, George W. Bush was a failed businessman, losing money in Texas oil over 10 years. George W. Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who has said that God chose him for the job of president. Among fundamentalist beliefs is the ‘end times’ scenario, a time of great upheaval, war, natural disaster and various maladies upon Earth and the human race.

When I was a young boy, growing up in eastern Washington State, I became aware of nuclear weapons. I read all about the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II and the resulting devastation that they caused. I learned that in the years following WWII, the United States and the Soviet Union (now Russia) engaged in a tremendous build-up of nuclear arms, each pointed at the others country. Many U.S. nukes were located on the Soviet doorstep, so to speak, in Western Europe and the Soviet attempt to place nuclear missiles close to America resulted in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which had the potential to escalate into a full-scale nuclear war. As history tells us, war was narrowly averted, but the arms race continued unabated through the 1970’s and 1980’s culminating in over 100,000 nuclear weapons between the two nations. With the flick of a switch, the annihilation of the human race was a distinct possibility, and tension between the two nations was high. In the early 1980’s, I lived near one of our major SAC bases where nuclear-armed B-52’s were housed. My town was listed as a primary target for Soviet nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear war. When I allowed myself to think of the possibilities, I was very much afraid.

But then the Cold War came to a screeching end with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, largely because they had spent themselves into bankruptcy trying to amass the largest nuclear arsenal. Arms reduction treaties between the U.S. and what was once again known as Russia helped decrease the likelihood of nuclear holocaust. Fears of being evaporated faded, not just for me, but for most of the world. It seemed that we had moved on, as a species, away from nuclear Armageddon. Conventional wisdom held that the United States, although the only nation to use a nuclear weapon in war, would never again use a nuclear device against another country unless first attacked by nuclear weapons itself. No U.S. President ever credibly considered nuclear warfare as a viable option, instead understanding that the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was lose-lose for everyone, including the U.S.

The last decade of the 20th century seemed to be a turning point in the nuclear gambit, as the world turned away from Cold War nuclear ambitions and turned towards creating a global economy. Advances in communications helped launch an era where national boundaries were more blurred, especially in relation to economic growth and the pursuit by corporations to extract every ounce of profit from every corner of the globe. Fueled in large part by American multi-national corporations, the control and acquisition of energy, specifically oil, became the bedrock foundation of national goals as modernization spread across the globe. Where once countries vied for political advantage, they now compete more heavily for resources and access to resources.

Enter the presidency of George W. Bush, a man who has adopted a doctrine of preemptive war and embraced the goals of multi-national corporations as his own. A man who avows a religious worldview that includes an eventual Armageddon in which only ‘true believers’ will be rewarded. A man who has recently renewed the possibility of nuclear war with a newly updated nuclear doctrine that departs from the conventional wisdom of our predecessors, stating that the U.S. objective is now “to ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.” (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations p. JP 3-12-13). As a corporatist, George W. Bush views the accumulation of wealth as a prime goal, and any means that achieves that end is considered a victory. George W. Bush is also an evangelical Christian who views the end of this world and the second coming of Christ as the ultimate goal to be eagerly anticipated. Is it time to be afraid again?

On September 11, 2001, America sustained a horrific attack that has been attributed to the fundamentalist Islamic group al-Qaeda. As rationale for this attack, al-Qaeda alternately uses their interpretation of the Quran’s dictum to attack all infidels and their underlying hatred of American governmental intrusion to the politics of the Middle East in general. In retaliation, and under the guise of defeating Islamic terrorism, the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, the host country of al-Qaeda. Much of the world supported this action by America. But then, George W. Bush turned his sights on Iraq. And now he is aiming at Iran.

Put together some of the facts that preceded this essay and see how those pieces fit together to form a very bleak picture of where things may be headed if this president continues along the present path.

Here’s one possible outcome that I can derive: Eventual war between the United States and China, and possibly Russia too, with the Middle East being the initial stomping grounds. If the U.S goes into Iran, China will have to respond because this would be a serious threat to her own ambitions. China will
likely begin with economic warfare, calling in much of their U.S. debt holdings. This will result is economic turmoil across the globe, either because the dollar will fall to disastrous levels or because the U.S. will refuse to pay and will instead ratchet up their war efforts in Iran, possibly using nuclear weapons in the process, in an effort to control more oil in the region. (We already have some marginal control over Iraq’s oil, in that U.S. troops and corporations are operating in Iraq much like early American settlers conducted themselves in the Western regions of America during the 1800’s.) U.S. control of the oil will be used against China in retaliation for calling in U.S. debt, forcing China to engage in active warfare against U.S troops to reclaim access to the oil. With the introduction of nuclear weapons by the U.S., several nations will side with China to rein in American aggression and irresponsibility.

The net result of this scenario could well be the destruction of much of this planet through nuclear warfare, giving the ‘end times’ scenario a chance to play out. In this scenario, anyone not part of the fundamentalist Christian religion loses out, because according to their doctrine, anyone not part of their group is damned to hell. Whether that hell is literal or not becomes irrelevant as the actions of Bush’s warmongering will make this planet much like depictions of hell anyhow.

Of course, all of this is simply supposition on my part, but with the trend of current events, it is hard to see where else the foreign policy aims of this administration will lead us. Is this outcome unavoidable? I would like to think it is, but with the current make-up of the U.S. government, acting largely as a rubber stamp to Bush, it is unlikely that they will stop Bush’s plans for control of the oil of the Middle East. For Bush, who really cares mostly about himself and his group of corporate benefactors, either situation is win-win. If he attacks Iran and no one stops him, he gets more oil, thus more money and economic leverage- a win in Bush’s book. If his war turns out to be a disaster and leads to nuclear warfare and widespread destruction, he’s just created the conditions for Jesus to return, according to his evangelical beliefs- a win in Bush’s other book.

But for most of the world, both scenarios are losers. We are indeed at another crossroads in world and American history. As George W. Bush says, “One of our making at a time of our choosing.” The problem is, Bush is choosing these paths and making these realities, not based on widespread support of the American people, not based on sound economic, scientific, military or foreign relations principals, but instead on his own desire to see his warped worldview come to fruition- a worldview that says he who dies with the most money and power gets to sit on Jesus’ lap for eternity.

The only chance of avoiding these scenarios is a serious cleaning of house in the U.S. Congress, the administration and it’s ministers, in favor of people who will turn towards a new course for America, followed by a revamped foreign policy that embraces cooperation, energy exploration, reparations for past U.S. aggression, and a greatly changed attitude and expectation of the future. I hope it won’t come too late.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about all of this. I hope I am. But using the facts presented at the beginning of this post, can you offer another possible outcome? Remember too that no one likes a bully, and at the very least, the actions of George W. Bush give the United States of America a big reputation as the world’s bully. As I recall, most playground bullies eventually get their comeuppance. Ours is coming too, if we don’t seriously change the path we are on.

[All the information presented as FACT at the beginning of this essay were found from various publications and websites using google search words. If you don’t believe them, look them up for yourself. I don’t intend to debate the facts, but I will debate their interpretation.]