Bush Fouls Out

Not satisfied to have the highest disapproval ratings of any president in modern times (71%), Bush now wants to foul-out in a toxic wave of last-minute “Midnight Regulations” that increase pollution and degrade the environment. Bush is sticking to his role as cringing bootlicker to the businesses that contaminate and despoil America.

Bush’s Chief of Staff, Joshua Bolten, notified federal agencies to have new rules in his office for vetting no later than November 1, 2008, so that they could be in effect by January 20, 2009—Inauguration Day. The intention was that all of Bush’s gang of environmental vandals, like Stephen L. Johnson of the EPA, would be able to enact regulations weakening existing environmental and other safeguards before Bush left office. Such regulations would be hard to overturn, and the incoming President would be somewhat hamstrung in efforts to reverse them.

One proposed rule would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job. The rule says that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies must take the extra steps of gathering and analyzing “industry-by-industry evidence” of employees’ exposure to it during their working lives. They must then publish “advance notice of proposed rule-making,” soliciting public comment on scientific information and data to be used in drafting a new rule. These steps are not now required. The proposal would delay needed protections for workers.

Among other rules being presented is a regulation that would allow mining companies to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop-removal sites closer to rivers and streams. Another rule would alter implementation of the Endangered Species Act by letting federal land-use managers approve projects like highways, mining, or logging without consulting federal habitat managers and biological health experts responsible for species protection.

One new regulation would ease current restrictions that make it difficult for power plants to operate near national parks and wilderness areas. Another new rule would circumvent the Clean Water Act by allowing factory farms to let their runoff pollute waterways without a permit.

The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management has issued a new rule that attempts to eliminate Congress’s authority to prevent mining on public land. Presently Congress has the authority to stop mineral development where it would harm the environment on public land. The new rule leaves-out all reference to congressional authority. Bush has already opened millions of acres of public land in Utah for oil and gas drilling.

Another new rule would change the Environmental Protection Agency’s new source Review Program which requires new or renovated facilities to install better pollution-control technology. A further rule would transfer responsibility for examining the environmental impacts of federal ocean-management decisions from federal employees to advisory groups that represent the fishing industry. The rule would also make it tougher for the public to participate in the environmental assessment process as is now required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

A new president can unilaterally reverse executive orders issued by his predecessor, but it is much more difficult for a new president to revoke or alter final regulations put in place by a predecessor. Courts have ruled that a new administration must solicit public comment and supply a “reasoned analysis” for such changes.

President-elect Obama will have one advantage that could help to erase all of these despicable new regulations. He will have a substantial Democratic majority in Congress. Such regulations can be reversed under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996. The CRA gives Congress fast-track authority to hold filibuster-free votes on regulations if they were enacted within 60 legislative days after Congress has adjourned. Given Congress’s frequent adjournments this year, the law may allow the new Congress to vote on regulations enacted by the Bush Administration as far back as June of this year.

There are many other rules in the works by the Bush gang intended to dirty the environment, stick it to women and the poor, and thwart the will of the electorate. Let’s hope the next Congress will promptly vote to stick these foul Midnight Regulations in the trash basket.

RAM, the Uninsured, and the Underinsured

Approximately six months ago “Sixty-Minutes” reran a program about an organization called Remote Area Medical (RAM). RAM is a non-profit, volunteer relief corps dedicated to providing free health care, dental care, eye care, and other assistance to people in remote areas of the United States and the world. It is staffed by volunteer doctors, nurses, pilots, veterinarians and support workers. It originally concentrated on areas like South America but has been more active in the United States lately because of the overwhelming need here for free medical services.

The program described the opening of a free clinic for only one weekend in a Southern town and showed the large number of people who came from hundreds of miles around to be seen by the doctors. Many people who had arrived seven hours before the clinic was scheduled to open at 6:00 a.m. slept in their cars. They were given numbers, and when the doors opened, they entered one-by-one. One woman who had had cancer surgery, but could not afford to go for a follow-up, learned that her pap smear was negative but that there were other signs that the cancer may have returned.

I was moved by the story of another woman who was virtually blind and needed new glasses. She was almost too late to get in, but was finally seen by an eye doctor. She said that she had health insurance but that it did not cover eye examinations and glasses. She wept as she described her difficulties seeing and said that she was ashamed to ask relatives and friends for help. She wondered how America, the wealthiest nation in the world, could fail to take care of its own. RAM examined her eyes and gave her new glasses.

The most gut-wrenching part of the program was when the RAM clinic had to close after the weekend was over. The clinic treated over 1000 people, but more than 400 people had to be turned away. I cannot describe the looks on the faces of those people. They would not experience the caring and expert treatment of those noble people who volunteered to be there.

Those people who were treated or turned away were not the most impoverished people in America. There is Medicaid for the very poor. These were the “working poor,” part of the 47 million uninsured and 25 million underinsured people in America. Most of them have jobs and work hard for a living. Many of the underinsured have some insurance, but it does not cover routine medical care.

A study by the Commonwealth Fund found that the number of underinsured Americans has risen 60 percent since 2003. For adults with incomes above 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $40,000 per year for a family), the underinsured rates have nearly tripled since 2003. Because of the skyrocketing costs of medical care, these people can no longer afford necessary treatment.

We think that we are a good people. We think that Americans are the most generous people in the world. We point to organizations like RAM that travel around the world helping poor people. But we are deceiving ourselves. Sure there are exceptions; the people who volunteer for RAM are heroes. But in a larger sense we are numb to the suffering of millions of our fellow Americans. While European nations provide free medical care for all of their people, we leave over 72 million people without necessary health insurance coverage. RAM and groups like it can treat only a tiny fraction of the people who need care.

Even though universal health insurance under a single-payer system would provide all Americans with medical, dental, eye care, and psychological treatment at a cost substantially lower than what we now pay for private insurance, we don’t care. We have been brainwashed by conservatives in the Bush Administration and in Congress who claim it would be “socialized medicine.”

Such thinking is shoddy and immoral. We have had Medicare for decades and it has not led us into socialism. On the contrary, the medical profession has thrived in under Medicare. Now it is time for Americans to start caring about one-another and provide Medicare for all of our people.

The Stench of Corruption

Corruption is not the greatest crime. It is not murder or genocide. It is not oppression or tyranny. They say that Adolf Eichmann could not be bribed. His evil was not that of venality. His evil was that he obeyed orders even when those orders were bestial. The philosopher Hannah Arendt has pointed out that corruption is an understandable human flaw, while the evil of genocide is beyond understanding. It is banal. But corruption can undermine the fundamentals of civilization. It can seep into the hearts of men and rot their sense of decency.

When you read the transcript of the telephone conversations by Governor Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, you can smell the stench of moral decay. Here was a man elected to an office of public trust, plotting ways to get a quid pro quo out of the appointment of a senator to replace Barack Obama. Democracy is an imperfect method of government. Sometimes the voters elect monsters.

It should have been expected that the Republican leaders, bitter and humiliated by an election that rejected them and their ideas, would revel in this exposure of a crooked Democratic politician. Several of them have tried to tie President-elect Obama to the scandal. It makes me think of Satan in Milton’s “Paradise Lost.” Satan is thrown out of heaven, hurled “headlong flaming from the ethereal sky with hideous ruin and combustion down to bottomless perdition.” Lying in the foul pit of Hell, Satan looks around at his fallen host of evil demons and tries to arouse them, saying: “What though the field be lost? All is not lost; the unconquerable will, and study of revenge, immortal hate, and courage never to submit or yield.” It could be John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or Mike Duncan of the RNC.

It is obvious from the Blagojevich tapes that Obama had nothing to do with the Governor’s sinister schemes. I believe that Barack Obama is a thoroughly honest and decent man. I have spent my life in courtrooms listening to witnesses lie, and I think I am a pretty good judge of whether someone is telling the truth. Barack Obama is a man of integrity. His detractors are lesser men who need something to raise their petty spirits after their ignoble fall from grace.

The reasons given by politicians for seeking office are mostly baloney. People do not usually run for office in order to help their fellow men. People run for office in order to achieve personal aggrandizement. It is a normal human ambition. But sometimes politicians seek to be elected in order to aggrandize their bank accounts. Money is Power. Power is a narcotic.

Money is the golden idol we worship six days a week. The U.S. Supreme Court adopted the language of the great theologian, Paul Tillich, when it defined “religion” as “your ultimate concern….what you take seriously without reservation.” If that is religion, than money is our god. The critical fact about money is that it not only buys the necessities and luxuries of life, it confers status. Among the wealthy, money becomes the symbol of respectability and the foundation of earthly merit. Among the middle class, money is a means of elevating one’s stature in the eyes of one’s friends and neighbors. Among the poor, money is the lifeblood of survival and the means of escape.

Money exerts such stunning power over our lives that most friendships are too weak to withstand its interference. Families are torn apart over financial disputes, and children wait like vultures for loved ones to die so that they can inherit the estates. It should come as no surprise that our public and private dealings are permeated with large and small corruptions based on money.

We should treat public corruption as treason against the government and the people. The penalties should reflect the seriousness of the offense. Prison terms should be very long and act as a deterrent. The fines should make corruption a fearsomely hazardous financial risk. Conviction should mean seizure of the offender’s entire net worth.

Much of what we do in life is based on faith. If we live in a world where every act of trust is suspect, we are doomed to perpetual paranoia and despair.

The Legacy of George W. Bush

President Bush is likely to go down in history as one of America’s worst presidents. The main basis for such a judgment will probably be his miscalculations about the Iraq war and stubborn persistence in pursuing it. There are, however, other factors that will weigh against Bush. One will be Bush’s indifference to the growing recession that has engulfed the nation. On December 2, 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research confirmed that the country has been in a recession since December 2007. It seems that everybody knew about it except Bush and his befuddled Administration.

In 2006, when Bush was bragging about the “booming economy,” I wrote a commentary in which I said: “If you live in the Miami Valley of Ohio and you have watched the collapse of the Delphi Corporation, the hobbling of General Motors, the rise in gas prices, the cuts in jobs, the cuts in wages, the abolition of pensions, the removal of or reduction in health insurance coverage, the increase in adjustable mortgage rates, and the increase in mortgage foreclosures, you probably don’t feel that the ‘booming economy’ is happening here. That is because the booming economy is an illusion.” Because of Bush’s opacity to the gathering clouds of recession, he and his administration failed to take action that might have eased or averted the calamity we now face.

Throughout 2007 and 2008 Bush continued to claim that the fundamentals of our economy were strong. As late as September 2008, Bush declared that the U.S. economy was healthy enough to withstand “the adjustments that are taking place” in the financial markets. Also in September 2008, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: “I will tell you that our—from what I understand from the experts, that our economy has the strength to be able to deal with these shocks.”

It has always been a cardinal principle of the right-wing conservatives surrounding Bush that we should leave the markets alone to work-out their problems and that federal intervention in the economy is wrong. The result of that benighted concept is that Bush let things go until they were completely out of hand.

In 2005, faced with signs that the housing market was in serious trouble, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky mortgage loans. Regulators advised banks that no-down-payment, interest only, and low monthly payment or “option ARM” mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit. The proposed regulations would have required banks to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually could afford the houses being bought. Banks that bundled the mortgages for investment were told to be sure investors knew exactly what there were buying.

Banking executives opposed any change in the rules. The managing director for public affairs of Countrywide Financial Corp., the nation’s largest mortgage lender, claimed that the proposals “appear excessive and will inhibit future innovation in the marketplace.” Subsequently, the Bush Administration buckled to pressure from some of the same banks that are now being bailed-out, and backed-off proposed crackdowns on dangerous loans to unqualified home buyers. Paris Welch, a California mortgage lender, wrote bank regulators: “Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories.”

ABC News said: “The administration’s blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.” Today, those “sub-prime” mortgages constitute an indigestible lump in the stomachs of the leading banks now calling for multi-billion-dollar bailouts.

The philosophy that we should let free market forces correct the imbalances in our economy caused by greed and mismanagement, and that government intervention is contrary to the best interests of the nation, is simply dead wrong. The market does not always create wealth, jobs, and growth. Sometimes, the market creates chaos. In order to have a vibrant economy it is necessary to have strong governmental regulation and oversight to prevent the kind of disaster we are now facing.

Bush, who inherited a healthy economy with a budget surplus, is leaving it in shambles. That is his legacy.

Why We Must Save the Big Three

There was a segment on national television recently about the demise of the GM assembly plant in Moraine Ohio. All I could think of was, “What are those people going to do?” It must be an empty, sickening feeling to know that the job you have performed for many years is disappearing and that you live in an area where there are very few jobs to replace it. Unemployment insurance lasts just so long. After that, what? Will you be able to travel to another city to get work?

The anguish and pain now being felt by the people of Dayton and Moraine could be spread around America and we could face a period similar to the 1930s when a large portion of the country was out of work. The reason Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” was because he knew that along with the severe economic depression there was a powerful psychological depression in the minds of American workers. People out of work feel helpless.

There is much talk today about how, instead of being bailed out by the government, the auto makers should go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Chapter 11 provides for continuation of the company under a plan of reorganization. The idea is that under reorganization, the big three would be able to cut waste, improve management, renegotiate labor contracts, obtain financing, and do other things to make the companies leaner, sleeker, and more competitive. If that were all that was involved, it might be a good idea. There are, however, many problems with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In the first place, a Chapter 11 bankruptcy would most likely lead to liquidation under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. The creditors of a bankrupt company have the power to force the company into liquidation when the reorganization of the company does not attract sufficient capital to make the company an ongoing proposition. Liquidation means that the companies would go completely out of business and their assets would be sold or taken-over by their creditors. All employees would lose their jobs and get no termination pay. All benefits would be lost.

If General Motors, Ford, or Chrysler were to file for Chapter 11 protection it would scare off thousands of potential car buyers, worsening the company’s finances. One recent survey showed that eighty percent of consumers would not even consider buying a car or truck and taking out an auto loan with a company that might not be around down the road.

With the tremendous loss of revenue that would result from lack of sales, the company would be unable to cover its high fixed costs. This would lead to a lack of confidence in the capital markets and the company would be unable to obtain the loans necessary to prop it up during the rebuilding. Moreover, Chapter 11 bankruptcy would prompt many of the best and brightest to leave the company.

A bankruptcy by even one of the Big Three would probably set in motion a cascade of smaller bankruptcies by suppliers and other dependent businesses which would create a giant ripple effect greatly impacting the entire economy of the United States. Cities in the Midwest would become desolate areas of rampant unemployment dwarfing what we are experiencing today. This is why it is necessary to give special treatment to these companies that affect such a major portion of the economy.

Now the government has an opportunity to save the Big Three automakers and in the process, increase jobs and improve the quality of American automobile making. We should look upon the money given to the car companies as a stimulus package like the one being proposed to rebuild our infrastructure. In addition to obvious improvements in management and concessions by labor, it should be a strict condition of any loans that a large part of the money be used to retool the manufacturing plants of the industry so that the Big Three can start building the kind of smaller, alternate energy, hybrid, high efficiency, high quality vehicles like the Chevy Volt. Retooling the plants would require the addition of thousands of new jobs. On this basis the Big Three could start over.

Culture Wars

One of the things that made the presidential campaign so vitriolic this year was the craving of pro-life, evangelical, and other right-wing conservatives for a president who would push the conservative social agenda. They hoped that John McCain would appoint ultra-conservative justices to the Supreme Court and thereby create a right-wing majority that could reverse Roe v. Wade and other hated decisions.

One can tell from comments in the newspapers that the election of Barack Obama came as a bitter disappointment to these Republicans. Obama will most likely do the opposite of what these conservatives desire. Nevertheless, they seem to feel that the election was not a total loss. They point to the vote that passed Proposition 8 in California (banning same-sex marriage) and similar propositions in Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas, as evidence of right-wing vitality. It was, however, hardly a landslide. Forty eight percent of the people in California, and similar percentages in the other states, voted against such propositions.

Now everybody is speculating about what kind of Republican Party will emerge from the devastation of this election. Will the party slide further to the right, or will it consolidate into a fiscally conservative party that avoids right-wing ideology in favor of promoting smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending?.

I suspect that the thrust of the party will be more toward the kind of ideological conservatism represented by the so-called “Religious Right.” If that is the program for the next four years, I doubt that the Republicans will win many elections. This country is simply not that conservative. While the passing of Proposition 8 was a great disappointment for liberals, they can take heart in the fact that the percentage of people who support the right to same-sex marriage is growing. In a poll taken after the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the right of gay couples to marry, 53% percent of Connecticut residents supported the ruling. Other polls have shown that a majority of the people in America oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbidding same-sex marriage.

Right-wingers might say that the passage of Proposition 8 and other states’ propositions shows that the only reason Barack Obama got elected was because of the bad economy, but there were other votes in which liberalism triumphed. In California, voters rejected a proposition that would have required doctors to notify parents before performing abortions on minors. In South Dakota, voters rejected a ballot measure to outlaw abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and threat to a woman’s health.

Over the years polls have shown that a majority of Americans consider themselves to be pro-choice on abortion. A recent Gallup poll found that 61% of Americans oppose a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions. In the presidential election, there was a sharp difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on abortion. McCain said he would favor repeal of Roe v. Wade, while Obama said he favored freedom of choice. Despite the frantic efforts of pro-life people to elect McCain, Obama won handily. It wasn’t just because of the economy. Obama’s positions on social issues appealed to the majority of Americans.

Now that he has been elected president, Barack Obama will certainly reverse many of the backward positions of the Bush Administration. I believe that he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who support the constitutional right to privacy upon which the decisions in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas sodomy law) are based. He will surely reverse Bush’s executive orders on subjects such as limiting funding for stem-cell research and the granting of new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds.

Obama has said that he will support sex education that includes information about contraception. He will also expand access to contraception by young people. He has announced that he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act which reverses numerous federal laws restricting abortion. I am sure that he will also stand-up for the separation of church and state. Thank heaven for the election of Barack Obama.

Educating Sarah

There has been considerable talk about whether Governor Sarah Palin will become a new leader of the Republican Party. She did provide a spark to the McCain campaign and showed herself to be a highly attractive and gifted public speaker. Although some say she hurt McCain’s chances, I feel that she probably helped energize the Republican base of conservatives and the evangelicals.

In an interview with Greta Van Susteren, Palin indicated that she would be open to running for president in 2012. She said: “If there is an open door for me somewhere—this is what I always pray—don’t let me miss the open door…. Show me where the open door is, even if it’s cracked open a little bit, maybe I’ll plow right on through that.”

So the question remains, should Palin now become leader of the Republicans? Should she be seriously considered as a candidate for president in 2012? The answer is, probably not. There is a lot of evidence that Sarah Palin is a woefully uneducated person. It is true that America should be open to leadership by all kinds of people from all walks of life. But do we really want to be lead by a person who, by most definitions, has barely enough knowledge to be mayor of Wasilla?

During the campaign we got some hints of the rift that developed between Palin and the people who ran the McCain campaign. These people leaked word that Palin was a “diva” or a “whack-job.” But they did not give very much detail. Since the election, we have gotten more information from McCain aides about the split. Carl Cameron of Fox News reported that the McCain Campaign advisors felt that Sarah Palin lacked the degree of knowledge necessary to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

According to Cameron, although she is governor of a state that abuts Canada, Palin did not know what countries were in NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement (Canada, the U.S., and Mexico). This kind of ignorance would be excusable in an ordinary person, but we want our leaders to be smarter than the average jerk.

Apparently, in a debate that took place when she was running for office in Alaska, Palin said that Creationism should be taught in the schools along with Evolution. Combine this with her interest in banning books from the library and you have someone who, in my opinion, is intellectually challenged.

McCain people say that it was a nightmare for her campaign staff to deal with Palin. She refused preparation help for her interview with Katie Couric, and then blamed her staff when the interview was a disaster. Fox News reported that after the Couric interview, Palin turned nasty with her staff and began to accuse them of mishandling her. Palin would view press clippings about herself in the morning and throw "tantrums" over the negative coverage. There were times when she would be so nasty and angry that her staff was reduced to tears.

According to Newsweek, Palin's shopping spree was more extensive than previously reported. McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. In the beginning, one senior aide told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and three more for the campaign. Instead, Palin began buying clothes, shoes, luggage, jewelry and accessories for herself and her family from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband and children. An angry McCain aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.”

Some people feel that she can become a better-educated person if she runs for the Senate or takes the Senate seat of Ted Stevens. They say that she can pick-up the kind of knowledge of government, politics, world affairs, geography, and economics necessary to present herself as a viable candidate for president. I doubt it. She is forty-four years old. If she has not become a well-educated person by now, I doubt she will become one in the next four years.

The Spoils of Victory

Now that Barack Obama and the Democrats have resoundingly defeated John McCain and the Republicans, there will be much talk about uniting the nation and bringing people together. That is all well and good, but I believe that the campaign will have been for naught if the Democrats do not take advantage of this opportunity to enact some desperately needed legislation.

President-elect Obama has made clear that he considers the economy to be issue number one. Lame-duck Bush has indicated that he might veto an economic stimulus package during the coming months. If Congress and Bush have not already done so by the time Obama takes office, he will have to submit and Congress will have to enact a massive economic stimulus package, including the extension of unemployment benefits, aide to the states, and public works projects.

We need a mammoth program to repair and rebuild our infrastructure. This will provide needed jobs and get America working again. As Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, has said: in times like this it is necessary for the government to spend substantial amounts of money even if it means large deficits.

The next thing that needs to be done is the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. This will not end the war against terror, but it will lower the cost in lives and money of that war. We will have to redirect some of the troops to Afghanistan where our real enemies are located. That should have been done long ago.

Frankly, I do not care whether conservatives consider health care legislation to be socialistic. This country has suffered for too long with an inadequate health care system. It is time to provide universal health insurance. The program announced by Barack Obama may be adequate, but I hope Democratic members of Congress can convince him to create one that is more like the single-payer system used by European countries. There should be mandatory health insurance for all Americans, not just children. Moreover, Congress must abolish the Medicare Part D drug program, a boondoggle for the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries, and enact a program for seniors that covers all prescription medications as part of Medicare.

Congress needs to eliminate both tax breaks for oil companies and tax loopholes for rich corporations. We need to tax the windfall profits of oil companies, and thereby force them to invest their profits in alternative sources of energy. We need to repeal the tax breaks given by Bush to wealthy Americans and provide tax relief for the middle class. Moreover, Congress should provide tax relief for companies creating jobs in America.

Congress needs to protect America from the rapacious oil and gas industries and permanently prevent oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge as well as in additional offshore areas and in the 360,000 acres of public land recently opened by Bush for drilling in Utah. In addition, Congress should mandate that the oil companies begin drilling in the millions of acres where they already have leases--or lose those leases. Congress should also pass legislation supporting and encouraging companies engaged in alternative energy exploration and development. Such legislation could create many thousands of new jobs.

Bush and his head-in-the-sand Republicans have ignored the coming calamity of global warming for far too long. Democrats, aided by responsible Republicans, must now enact legislation to save our planet from disaster. We need laws that compel the big industries beloved by Bush to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. We need laws that compel auto manufacturers to lower carbon emissions and increase gas efficiency. And we need to sign the Koyoto Accord and other accords in order to bring the United States into line with foreign countries in the fight against global warming.

President Obama should also take this country out of the dark ages by reversing many of Bush’s executive orders, including rules regarding governmental investment in stem-cell research. Further, Congress should protect poor people from freezing to death this winter by promptly renewing and increasing funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

There are other programs which need to be enacted. During the past few years, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress were able to stifle these initiatives with vetoes and endless filibusters, but after January 20th it should be possible to go forward. Unity is a fine thing, but we have waited too long for Congress to get going.

Socialism

The McCain campaign and its supporters are claiming that we will have “socialism” if Barack Obama is elected. That kind of sloppy talk reveals ignorance about the meaning of the word “socialism” and about the principles that guide Obama and the Democratic Party.

McCain insists that Barack Obama’s plan to repeal the tax breaks given to wealthy Americans by the Bush Administration is socialism. It is no such thing. It is simply a return to the tax rates that prevailed during the Clinton Administration when we experienced enormous prosperity. America has had a graduated income tax since at least 1913. It is not a redistribution of the wealth. The idea behind it is that wealthier people can afford higher tax rates than middle income and poor people. It is not socialism. It is simple fairness.

Socialism is a system in which the production and distribution of goods is owned by a centralized government that plans and controls the economy. That is something very different from a democracy that supports free enterprise and seeks only to regulate commerce for the benefit of the populace.

Our forefathers envisioned a liberal democracy by inserting the “Commerce Clause” into the Constitution. In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, the Constitution states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. Connected to this specific power is the general power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers." (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18).

The Constitution has several provisions guaranteeing free enterprise. But nowhere does the Constitution guarantee enterprise free from any control or regulation by the government. Who would want that? Who would want to abolish all laws preventing fraud, prohibiting child labor, controlling monopolies, protecting consumers, and encouraging competition? Who would want to do away with the food and drug laws, environmental laws, product safety, air safety, and job safety laws and regulations? Such laws are not socialistic. They are the opposite of socialism. They are not enacted to eliminate capitalism. They are enacted to make commerce work better and to protect people.

The conservative Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat—Barack Obama-- for the first time in its 150-year history. It describes him as a “pragmatic centrist.” That is a long way from being a socialist.

Obama is more conservative than those of us who would like to see a single-payer health insurance system. His program would keep all private and employer-based health insurance in place, and would provide only that people without any insurance be able to buy health insurance from the federal government. If you look at Obama’s programs, you can see that they are aimed at strengthening free enterprise.

If John McCain thinks Obama’s policies are socialistic, what are McCain’s policies? McCain wants the government to buy-up $300 billion worth of bad mortgages. Why is that less socialistic than Obama’s proposals? McCain calls for tighter regulation of the banks and securities industry? Why is that less socialistic than Obama’s proposals? Let’s face it, McCain knows very well that Obama is not a socialist, but he is willing to say anything now that his poll numbers are low.

True liberals seek to prevent government from interfering with our freedoms. A liberal’s idea of democracy is for government to help people do things that they cannot do for themselves. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not forms of Socialism. They are humane programs aimed at making life bearable for seniors and poor people.

Some people have claimed that the government bailout of financial institutions (supported by McCain and carried-out by the conservative Bush Administration) is a form of socialism. On the contrary, it is a program that fits perfectly with the doctrine of free enterprise. The government is not taking-over the banks, it is simply investing cash in the banks in order to make them solvent and better able to carry-out their business of lending money.

The current financial crisis did not arise from too much government regulation. It resulted from the cancellation by a Republican President and Republican Congress of laws and regulations that would have prevented the banks and brokers from playing dice with the mortgage market. As the recent crisis has demonstrated, capitalism works best when it is properly regulated. Barack Obama and liberal Democrats do not seek socialism. They seek only to regulate capitalism for the benefit of all Americans.

The Measure of the Man

As I watched the debates between Barack Obama and John McCain, it occurred to me that Obama might not be just a good president. He might be a great president. There is something about him that makes me consider the possibility that he could be part of the answer that the world is looking for. I have looked for these qualities of greatness in many world leaders but none have matched my hopes and expectations. Perhaps I will find them in Barack Obama. I cannot predict the future, but I am filled with hope for our nation under Barack Obama.

Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley, founder of the conservative National Review Magazine, has left the magazine and announced his support for Barack Obama. In his announcement, Buckley said some important things. He described Obama as “a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect.”

John McCain does not show evidence of such greatness. Buckley has written that: “This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once first-class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget ‘by the end of my first term.’ Who, really, believes that?” Buckley adds that McCain’s “ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?”

David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, wrote in a recent column: “We’ve been watching Barack Obama for two years now, and in all that time there hasn’t been a moment in which he has publicly lost his self-control. This has been a period of tumult, combat, exhaustion and crisis. And yet there hasn’t been a moment when he has displayed rage, resentment, fear, anxiety, bitterness, tears, ecstasy, self-pity or impulsiveness.” Brooks went on to say: “It is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president.”

Obama has shown a steady, presidential mien, while McCain has shown a pettiness and inconsistency. McCain has also shown poor judgment. Look at his choice of Sarah Palin as vice presidential candidate. If anything happened to Obama, I would feel safe having Joe Biden take over the reins of government. But what if John McCain died? Would you really feel secure having Sarah Palin take over the most important position in the world? Can you imagine her sitting down with world leaders and negotiating peace, trade, and the world economy?

I wonder whether the presidential race is close because Senator Obama is half African American and half Caucasian. I recently received an e-mail that asked the following questions: What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review? What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class? What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said 'I do' to? What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to standards? What if Obama were a member of the Keating-5 Savings & Loan corruption? What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker? If these things were true, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are? Consider the educational accomplishments of the candidates:

Barack Obama: Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations; Harvard Law School- Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude, President of the Harvard Law Review. Biden: University of Delaware - B.A. in History and also a B.A. in Political Science; Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.).

McCain: United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 out of 899. Palin: Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester; North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study; University of Idaho - 2 semesters – journalism; Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester; University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism.

I do not know what it takes to be a great world leader. But I know that the world is looking for greatness, and there is something special about Barack Obama. He is a person of remarkable intellect, with unusual qualities of judiciousness, vision, compassion, and decency. He could be the answer to a lot of hopes and dreams.

The McCain Campaign Turns Ugly

Everyone predicted it. All of the liberal commentators predicted that when the going got tough in the presidential campaign, John McCain and the Republican leaders would cease debating the issues and would stoop to ugly, negative, personal attacks against Barack Obama.

It is the modus operandi used by Republicans in recent presidential elections. Now we have a broad campaign by McCain and his spokesmen to paint Barack Obama as a dangerous radical.

Sarah Palin, who is more of a hissing snake than a pit bull with lipstick, speaks about Obama “palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” She is referring to William Ayers, a college professor in Chicago who was once a member of the “Weather Underground,” a radical 1960s anti-war organization. The Republicans want to charge Obama with guilt by association because of actions that were committed by the Weathermen back when Barack was eight years old.

When Barack Obama first came into contact with William Ayers over thirty years later, Ayers was a rehabilitated and respectable Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the author or editor of 15 books on education. Ayers was an advisor to Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley who recently stated that he has long consulted Ayers on school issues and called him "a valued member of the Chicago community." The city gave Ayers its Citizen of the Year award in 1997 for his work on behalf of education..

Obama and Ayers first met in 1995 when they were separately appointed to a committee designed to reform and improve education in Chicago and throughout the United States. There is no evidence that Obama and Ayers ever became “pals” or social friends. They were simply acquaintances. Later in 1995, Ayers hosted a gathering at which then State Senator Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her chosen successor for her State Senate seat.

Compare Obama’s casual acquaintanceship with Ayers to John McCain’s disgraceful embroilment with a con man and (ultimately) convicted felon named Charles Keating. In the 1980s Keating, who lived in Arizona, was the owner of American Continental Corporation (American) which was the parent owner of a California bank named “Lincoln Savings and Loan Association” (Lincoln). Keating liked to spread his money around Washington, and had paid for considerable influence with a number of Senators, including McCain.

McCain was a close personal friend of Keating’s. Between 1982 and 1987 McCain received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, in April 1986, McCain’s wife Cindy and her father, Jim Hensley, invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center. McCain and his family made nine trips at Keating’s expense, sometimes aboard Keating’s private jet. Three of the trips were made as vacations to Keating’s opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.

Beginning in 1986, Lincoln came under investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) because of risky investments that were exposing the government’s insurance funds to huge losses. Keating decided to collect on his financial investment in the Senate and called upon McCain and four other senators (Collectively known as the “Keating Five”) to intervene with the FHLBB and stop the investigation.

The Keating Five met with the FHLBB on two separate occasions, and put strong pressure on the board to ease-up on Lincoln. As a result of those meetings, the FHLBB delayed action against Lincoln. During this time, because American was desperate for cash, Keating arranged for bank employees to convince depositors to swap their federally-insured certificates of deposit for higher-yielding but uninsured bond certificates of American. Later, when American and Lincoln collapsed in bankruptcy, investors lost millions of dollars. Keating was subsequently prosecuted in a $1.1 billion fraud and racketeering action and was sentenced to twelve years in prison.

The Senate Ethics Committee held hearings. McCain ratted on his fellow senators and leaked to reporters which senators were most responsible for doing Keating’s bidding. The Committee let McCain off with a slap on the wrist, criticizing him for “poor judgment.” Critics denounced the “whitewashing” of McCain. Tom Fitzpatrick of the Phoenix News Times condemned McCain as the “Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five.”

One thing became clear. McCain, who claimed to be a “straight talk” maverick, was a commodity that could be purchased in Washington D.C. for the right price.

John McCain and John Edwards

Republicans had a gleeful time talking about the infidelities of John Edwards, former Democratic candidate for president. One writer in the Gazette proclaimed that Edwards’ philandering was part of a picture “which ought to be viewed as evidence that something is desperately wrong.” In other words, John Edwards’ infidelity was one sign of a disintegrating society. If marital infidelity is a sign of a decadent society, than society has been decadent for a very long time.

I have a great big question to ask. What about the philandering of John McCain? What is the difference between John Edwards and John McCain? Why did Edwards get all of the publicity? He was no longer a factor in the election when the story broke. Despite his political irrelevance, the media, especially the Republican Broadcasting Company (Fox News), continued for weeks to harp on Edwards’ affair with another woman. But John McCain, whose story is central to today’s news, and whose story was identical to that of John Edwards, got a free pass.

Let’s go back a little. Before his tour of duty in Vietnam, McCain married a model from Philadelphia named Carol Shepp. While he was imprisoned by the North Vietnamese, she was in an automobile wreck. Her car skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. She was thrown through her car's windshield and left seriously injured. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries. She refused to let them tell her imprisoned husband about her injuries.

When Carol was discharged from the hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons were forced to cut away large sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter. Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But by the time John McCain came home from Vietnam and learned for the first time about her injuries, she had gained weight.

After his return from Vietnam, and while still married to Carol, McCain was promoted to Squadron Commander. In this role he used his authority to arrange flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and engage in extra-marital affairs. Such behavior was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates.

In 1979, at a military reception in Honolulu, McCain met Cindy Hensley, an attractive 25-year-old woman from a very wealthy and politically-connected Arizona family. Cindy's father founded the nation's third-largest Anheuser-Busch distributor. Cindy was 18 years younger than McCain’s wife, Carol. In his book, McCain described their first meeting: "She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior but poised and confident…. When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel (He didn’t mention that he was still married to Carol). By the evening's end, I was in love."

McCain then began an affair with Cindy. He later dumped his crippled wife. He filed for divorce from Carol in 1980, stating in court records that the marriage was "irretrievably broken." A month after the divorce, he married Cindy—his current wife.

Republicans have traditionally occupied the holier-than-thou pedestal of sanctity while accusing Democrats of being the agents of Satan. Why is it that John Edwards is portrayed as a complete cad while nothing is said about the identical behavior of John McCain? One hears that some of the women who voted for Hillary Clinton are switching to McCain. Perhaps these women would like to consider McCain’s behavior toward his first wife.

I do not condemn Edwards or McCain for their infidelities. They are both human. The sin that is more deserving of condemnation is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of modern-day Republican leaders. In the “Inferno,” Dante consigned hypocrites to the next to lowest circle of Hell, the Eighth. The Republicans had better hope that Dante’s great epic poem is not prophetic.

Sarah Palin, Book Burner?

In the years 221 to 213 B.C., the emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, built two walls; the Great Wall of China and a wall against enlightenment. After erecting his barrier against the Mongolian tribes, the emperor ordered that all the books of the philosophers be burned. We can never know what wisdom and knowledge, what ancient histories and commentaries went up in the smoke of that Oriental holocaust.

It has always been a practice by tyrants and dictators to burn books. The Nazis burned the books of Bertolt Brecht, Sigmund Freud, Heinrich Heine, Thomas Mann, Erich Maria Remarque, H.G. Wells, and every kind of thinker and philosopher, in a ceremony in Berlin. Book-burning was carried out in China long after the time of Emperor Qin. Under Mao, there were numerous book-burnings.

According to a 2004 UN report, the current Chinese government seized and publicly destroyed hundreds of thousands of Falun Dafa books and materials as part of its anti-Falun Gong campaign. Arab countries have witnessed the widespread burning of “Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie

Down through the ages, books have posed a threat to the smug insularity of people whose well-being is sustained by the status quo. Books have never been a match for incendiary people with a burning hatred of new ideas and unfamiliar philosophies.

Now, 22 centuries after Qin Shi Huang, the book burners are still hard at work trying to ban books from school and public libraries. This is particularly ominous to someone like me whose life has been deeply immersed in the world of books. It comes as an ill-omen for me to learn that the Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, while mayor of that Alaskan metropolis, Wasilla, looked into the possibility of banning books from the local library.

According to The New York Times and Time Magazine, shortly after she became mayor, Sarah Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books on the ground that the books contained improper material. The librarian was aghast and pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship.” Mayor Palin fired the librarian shortly thereafter but changed course after residents made a strong show of support.

It is characteristic of those opposing books that they have not read them. Indeed, such persons usually have not read much of anything. The average book-burner is perplexed by the profundity of People magazine and mystified by the erudition of Reader’s Digest. He is a stranger in the world of ideas, and new ideas generate fear and anger in his heart. But he wins many battles.

There have been conflicts all over the country with people who want to ban or burn some of our most cherished classic literature such as Bernard Malamud’s “The Fixer,” Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse Five,” Richard Wright’s “Black Boy,” Theodore Dreiser’s “Sister Carrie,” John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men,” William Golding’s “Lord of the Flies,” Shirley Jackson’s award-winning short-story classic, “The Lottery,” and “The Diary of Ann Frank.”

In recent years there have been many efforts to ban books from school and public libraries. The Miami-Dade School District banned a book entitled: “A Visit to Cuba,” by Alta Schrier. There have been several incidents of Harry Potter books being burned. In 2005, the Muhlenburg Pa. school board voted to ban "The Buffalo Tree," a novel set in a juvenile detention center and narrated by a tough, 12-year-old boy incarcerated there.

One high school principal who confiscated copies of “Death of a Salesman” by Arthur Miller, claimed that local ministers had complained of its “vulgar language.” The principal admitted he had never read the play. Yes, there is some vulgar language in this, the greatest American play. But when I read about incidents like this I feel like uttering a lot of vulgar language.

So it is with some concern that I learn that the Republican candidate for Vice President is one of those who would consider banning books. The greatest threat to our freedom comes not from outside, but from right-wing zealots and religious fanatics who wish to ban our most treasured literature, and from left-wing ideologues who would outlaw books that are not politically correct.

The Republicans are Responsible for the Financial Crisis

Many people think that no party or president can cause an economic crisis like the one we are now enduring. They are wrong. A president’s policies can directly impact the economy. The policies of George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress are directly responsible for our current mess.

The root of our recent problems is the mortgage crisis. It was caused by the fact that because of Republican legislation which deregulated the banking industry, banks and financial institutions made billions of dollars worth of sub-prime mortgage loans to unqualified people. Thanks to the Republicans, those mortgages were than traded in bulk on the stock market and were purchased by brokerage firms and large banks.

The collapse was the Result of Republican anti-regulation philosophy that put consumers at the mercy of large banks and brokerages. Despite his recent calls for reform, John McCain has always supported broad deregulation of banks and brokerages. He has always characterized himself as a deregulator and he has no history prior to the presidential campaign of advocating steps to tighten standards on investment firms.

Back in 1933, following the stock-market crash, Congress enacted the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated the functions of commercial banks from those of stockbrokerage houses and regulated the way banks could make loans. From then on the government limited the banks in making mortgage loans. It was always the economic philosophy of Republicans in Congress, however, to oppose governmental regulations and to try to abolish the regulations governing banks and brokerages. Among the Republican senators in the 1990s who fiercely opposed any regulation of banks and financial institutions was Phil Gramm of Texas. Gramm, who has always been a close ally of John McCain, is now McCain’s chief financial advisor and co-chair of his campaign. Gramm is being spoken of by the McCain campaign as a top candidate for Treasury Secretary.

In the 1990s, when the Republicans took control of Congress, Phil Gramm was able to pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which largely deregulated the banking industry and allowed banks to merge with securities firms. John McCain voted for the bill. After that, Gramm slipped an amendment into an omnibus appropriations bill which deregulated the trading of financial instruments and allowed banks and brokers to trade mortgages as if they were stocks and bonds. This opened up the floodgates to massive trading of sub-prime mortgages.

Gramm later left the senate for a top position with UBS, an international financial firm involved in banking, brokerages, and wealth management. UBS is the parent company of the investment firm, PaineWebber. At UBS, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the Treasury Department on behalf of the banks. He sought to have Congress pass a law designed to forbid stronger state laws against predatory lending. As a result of Gramm’s efforts, the law forbidding state regulation of banks was passed, and lenders were free to practice predatory lending. Sub-prime mortgages became routine, and the trading of sub-prime mortgages in bulk became a widespread practice on Wall Street. When millions of people defaulted on those mortgages, the economy went into a tailspin.

Now John McCain, one of the Republicans who deregulated the banks and brokerages and enabled this disaster to happen, is running for President. Without any trace of irony, this Republican is shouting out against the lack of bank regulation! This Republican is talking about putting the chief congressional deregulator of banks into the cabinet as Treasury Secretary. We are being asked to forget about the perennial Republican opposition to bank regulation, and to forget about McCain’s role as a deregulator. We are asked to forget that Phil Gramm and other McCain advisors have been powerful lobbyists for the banking industry.

Governmental regulation of banks and security firms are intended to protect the consumer. If the bank regulations had not been erased by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and other Republican acts, we would not have had this crisis. We now face the devastation of our economy thanks to a Republican and his buddies who got us into this mess in the first place. Do you want eight more years of this economic philosophy? Do you want to reward the gang that caused this disaster?

McCain and Change

John McCain reminds me of Captain Renault, chief of the gendarmes in the movie “Casablanca.” After the Nazis have ordered Renault to shut down Rick’s café, Renault (played by Claude Rains) says to Rick (played by Humphrey Bogart), “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!” Just then a croupier comes up and hands Renault a fist full of money saying, “your winnings sir.”

John McCain and the Republicans are shocked, shocked that there is such a mess in Washington! Despite the fact that there has been a Republican administration in power for the last eight years, and despite the fact that the Republicans controlled Congress for six of the last eight years, they seem appalled that our economy is nearing a depression, that there is widespread unemployment, that there are massive foreclosures and bankruptcies, and that we have gigantic budget deficits.

Watching the Republican convention I felt that I had wandered into Alice in Wonderland. Here was a party that had been in charge for most of the past eight years, complaining about what they have done to this nation. One had a surreal sense that the Republicans were unaware that this whole debacle was their fault. They are running on the slogan that they are the party of “Change.” The truth is that they are not offering any real change. All they are doing is dragging-out the same old elephant—with white hair and lipstick.

During the primaries John McCain bragged that he was a genuine conservative and that he had voted with President Bush 90% of the time. In 2005 he said on Meet the Press: “The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” Now he says that he is a “Maverick” and is his own man. Well, what is he?

The biggest issue today is the war in Iraq. McCain has repeatedly said: “‘No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.” McCain has not outlined any change that he would bring to Iraq. On the contrary, he would keep our troops there indefinitely. That war is costing us $144 billion a year, and the huge deficits that this is causing are ruining our economy. Obama opposed that war from the outset. Which candidate stands for change?

McCain has said that he supports President Bush on the tax cuts that Bush gave to wealthy Americans. He would not only make those tax cuts permanent but would increase them. He would also lower the tax rates for corporations, thereby giving oil companies an additional $3.7 billion a year. He refuses to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. Obama has said that he will give tax cuts to middle income and low income Americans and will increase taxes only on wealthy Americans, wealthy corporations, and oil companies. Which candidate stands for change?

McCain supported Bush’s plan to risk our Social Security and Medicare benefits through privatization. Is this the kind of change that McCain stands for? Would he destroy our Social Security system? Obama would protect Social Security and Medicare.

Though he claims to have a "comprehensive economic plan," McCain supports the same Bush economic policies and unfair trade deals that have hurt American workers and have led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. He has repeatedly voted against programs to assist workers displaced by International trade agreements. Obama would deny tax benefits to corporations that ship jobs overseas. Which candidate stands for change?

McCain’s health-care plan would do nothing to solve the massive health insurance problem faced by millions of Americans. While Obama would make sure that all Americans are covered by health insurance, McCain says he would treat employer-sponsored health benefits as taxable income. Nothing in his plan would deal with the underlying problem of uninsured and underinsured people.

On March 5, President Bush embraced John McCain, and John McCain said that he wanted Bush to campaign for him. You know that this would not have happened if McCain had opposed Bush on any big issues. Bush knows that McCain has supported him throughout, and he’s the man Bush wants in the White House. It is the next best thing to having Bush there himself.

Obama and Taxes

It has become increasingly clear that the Republican leaders have a very low opinion of the average voter’s intelligence. They call for offshore and ANWR oil drilling when they know very well that such drilling would do nothing to lower the cost of fuel. Now, in a group of advertisements for John McCain, they are pressing the argument that Barack Obama, if elected president, would raise taxes on everybody. Their commercials try to scare the public by claiming that such taxes would mean disaster for the average household. Just as with the claims about oil drilling, they know that their claims are false, but they go on lying to the public anyway.

Barack Obama is not going to raise taxes on middle or lower income Americans. On the contrary, he wants to provide a tax credit to all Americans who earn less than $250,000 per year. The credit would be $500 for individuals and $1000 for families. The only people whose taxes would rise under Obama would be people earning over $250,000 per year. For these people, Obama would let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 and would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends.

There are several other things that Obama would do to help the low and middle income taxpayers. He would create a new 10 percent universal mortgage interest credit that could be used by people who do not itemize their tax deductions. The current mortgage interest deduction excludes nearly two-thirds of Americans who do not itemize their taxes. Obama would ensure that anyone with a mortgage, not just the well-off, could take advantage of this tax incentive for home ownership. This credit would benefit an additional 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.

Obama would eliminate income taxes for senior citizens earning less than $50,000 per year.

Obama would simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans could do their taxes in less than 5 minutes

Obama would eliminate special interest loopholes and tax breaks for corporations and other businesses and crack down on international tax havens. Obama said that we have over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code. According to a report released recently by the Government Accountability Office, two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005. Obama would rectify that and require corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Moreover, he would stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas and he would save tax breaks for companies that keep jobs right here in America.

Obama would end American involvement in the dirty war in Iraq. The war is costing us $144 billion a year, and well over $600 billion so far. That money could be used to help balance the budget and pay for better health care and benefits for war veterans.

Unlike Obama, McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy permanent. An analysis of both campaigns’ proposals by the Washington-based, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that for people with annual incomes above $603,000, Obama would raise taxes by more than $115,000 a year, while McCain would cut them by $45,000.

McCain has shown that he would rather tax middle-class Americans than wealthy oil companies. He opposes taxing the gigantic windfall profits currently being earned by the oil companies. Such taxes would constitute an incentive for the oil companies to invest in alternative energy projects, refinery expansion, promotion of energy efficiency, and conservation.

The centerpiece of McCain’s tax plan is two huge tax cuts for Ameri­can corporations. As president, McCain would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 per­cent to 25 percent and allow corporations to immediately deduct all of their invest­ments in equipment and technology. According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reducing the corporate tax rate alone would deliver a $3.8 billion tax cut to the five largest American oil companies. Apparently McCain does not feel that the immense profits being earned by oil companies are sufficient. He wants to hand them another $3.8 billion a year.

The old Republican lie about “tax-and-spend-Democrats” never dies. After eight years in which the Republicans took our country from a budget surplus to the largest deficits in history, after eight years of monstrous pork-engorged and earmark-stuffed budgets by greedy Republican congresses, it ill behooves the Republicans to accuse Barack Obama of being a tax-and-spend Democrat.

John McCain and John Edwards

Republicans have had a gleeful time talking about the infidelities of John Edwards, former Democratic candidate for president. One recent writer in the Gazette proclaimed that Edwards’ philandering was part of a picture “which ought to be viewed as evidence that something is desperately wrong.” In other words, John Edwards’ infidelity is one sign of the disintegration of our society.

I have a great big question to ask. If John Edwards’ infidelity is a sign of the decadence of our society, what about the philandering of John McCain? What is the difference between John Edwards and John McCain? Why is Edwards getting all the publicity? He is no longer a factor in the election. Despite his political irrelevance, the media, especially the Republican Broadcasting Company (Fox News), continues to harp on Edwards’ affair with another woman. But John McCain, whose story is central to today’s news, seems to be getting a free pass.

Let’s go back a little. Before his tour of duty in Vietnam, McCain married a model from Philadelphia, Carol Shepp. While he was imprisoned by the North Vietnamese, she was in an auto wreck. Her car skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. She was thrown through her car's windshield and left seriously injured. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries. She refused to let them tell her husband about her injuries.

When Carol was discharged from the hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons were forced to cut away large sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter. Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But by the time John McCain came home from Vietnam and learned for the first time about her injuries, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

After his return from Vietnam, and while still married to Carol, McCain was promoted to Executive Officer and later to Squadron Commander. In these roles he used his authority to arrange frequent flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and engage in extra-marital affairs. Such behavior was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates.

In 1979, at a military reception in Honolulu, McCain met Cindy Hensley, an attractive 25-year-old woman from a very wealthy and politically-connected Arizona family. Cindy's father founded the nation's third-largest Anheuser-Busch distributor. Cindy was 18 years younger than McCain’s wife, Carol.

McCain described their first meeting: "She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior but poised and confident. I monopolized her attention the entire time, taking care to prevent anyone else from intruding on our conversation. When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. (He didn’t mention that he was married to Carol). By the evening's end, I was in love." He then began an affair with Cindy.

He dumped his crippled wife. He filed for divorce from Carol in 1980, stating in court records that the marriage was "irretrievably broken." A month after the divorce, he married Cindy Hensley—his current wife.

Republicans have traditionally occupied the holier-than-thou pedestal of sanctity while accusing Democrats of being the agents of Satan. I have written about the hypocrisy of men like Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, and Bob Barr concealing their own betrayals while crying out for the blood of Bill Clinton during Clinton’s impeachment.

Why is it that John Edwards is portrayed as a complete cad while nothing is said about the behavior of John McCain? One hears that some of the women who voted for Hillary Clinton are switching to McCain. Perhaps these women would like to consider McCain’s behavior toward his first wife.

I do not condemn these men for their peccadilloes. The drive to spread one’s seed is the oldest instinct in man. If John Edwards’ infidelity is a sign of a decadent society, than our society has been decadent since societies began.

The sin that is more deserving of condemnation is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of modern-day Republicans. In the “Inferno,” Dante consigned hypocrites to the next to lowest circle of Hell, the Eighth. The Republicans had better hope that Dante’s great epic poem is not prophetic.

Dick Cheney

At the start of the Bush-Cheney Administration, former Vice President Dan Quayle visited Dick Chaney and tried to explain what it was like being Veep. He said: “Dick, you know, you're going to be doing a lot of this international traveling, you're going to be doing all this political fundraising . . . you'll be going to the funerals. " Cheney "got that little smile," Quayle said, and replied: "I have a different understanding with the President."

The power wielded by Dick Cheney, and his malevolent influence on the policies of the Bush White House, can be traced to the insecurities and incompetence of George W. Bush. Although the Constitution decrees no particular authority for the Vice President, Bush ceded wide power to Cheney at the outset, and Cheney has expanded on that power ever since.

Cheney is one of the chief government officials responsible for the Iraqi War. He manipulated the intelligence process to invent a threat by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Cheney’s chief of staff, I Lewis Libby, repeatedly pressured CIA analysts to report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda.

Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney claimed that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attack, stating that it was “pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was “in fact reconstituting his nuclear program” and that if the U.S. invaded Iraq, American troops would be “greeted as liberators.”

When Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson contradicted the President’s assertion that Saddam Hussein has purchased nuclear materials in Africa, Cheney, in order to discredit Wilson, coordinated the revelation in the press that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover C.I.A. agent. Cheney then allowed his lieutenant, Libby, to take the blame for the disclosure.

Cheney overruled advice from White House political staffers and lawyers, and withheld crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

After 9/11 Cheney influenced the President to begin illegal interceptions of communications to and from the United States. Such interceptions without warrants had been forbidden by federal law since 1978. Cheney insisted that they were justified under his greatly expanded theory of the President’s war powers.

Cheney was behind the creation of military commissions to try captured al Qaeda and Taliban fighters without the benefits of due process. The commissions were later struck-down by the Supreme Court. It is estimated that as many as one-third of the detainees at Guantanamo prison had no affiliation with al Qaeda or the Taliban and were innocent of any actions against the United States. These innocent captives would have had no chance of vindication under the Cheney commissions.

Cheney was directly responsible for the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Graib. Convinced that the “war on terror” required “robust interrogations” of captured suspects, Cheney pressed the Bush Administration to carve-out exceptions to the Geneva Conventions. It was Cheney who chaired the meetings in the White House where various methods of “enhanced interrogation,” including water-boarding, were approved.

Cheney made himself the dominant voice on taxes and spending. He is one of the main architects of the Bush tax cuts. Although some in the Administration wanted the tax cuts to benefit the general public, Cheney was successful in having the cuts benefit primarily the wealthiest Americans.

Cheney saw it as his role to reverse years of environmental protection and rules which hamper industry. He has constantly stepped-in to prevent enforcement of laws which protect the environment and endangered species. As a result of his rough tactics, the first Administrator of the EPA under Bush, Christine Todd Whitman, resigned.

Chaney has always been opposed to governmental action to prevent global warming, and even now is one of the few remaining people who oppose governmental action to lower the emission of greenhouse gases.

American democracy is a messy business, with three branches of government checking and balancing one another, and a constitution which guarantees our citizens a host of rights. There are some Americans who oppose all of the best symbols of our advancing civilization, such as constitutional rights, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations, International Law, and the World Court. They believe that such things make a people soft. Such a person is Dick Cheney. Such thinking is barbarism.

Stephen L. Johnson, Stooge of Corporate Polluters

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 to protect human health and the environment. It employs 17,000 people, and has more than a dozen labs. Its staff is highly educated and technically trained; more than half are engineers, scientists, and policy analysts. The Administrator of the EPA is appointed by the President. The current administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, is a stooge of America’s corporate polluters.

According to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island: “Administrator Johnson suggests a man who has every intention of driving his agency onto the rocks, of undermining and despoiling it, of leaving America’s environment and America’s people without an honest advocate in their federal government.”

Four senators, including Whitehouse, Boxer of California, Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Lautenberg of New Jersey, have called upon Johnson to resign. They claim that he has not only favored polluters, but has violated the law and committed perjury before Congress.

On December 19, 2007, Administrator Johnson denied a request by California for a waiver of the Clean Air Act so that it could impose a set of standards on motor vehicle emissions that were stricter than the federal standards. This was the first time in over 50 instances that the EPA had ever denied outright a California waiver request. In sworn testimony before Congress, Johnson testified that he based his decision on California’s failure to meet criteria required under the Clean Air Act. He swore that the decision was “mine and mine alone.”

According to the senators, it was a lie. It was perjury.

Former Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett later testified that Mr. Johnson had in fact determined that California met the Clean Air Act criteria necessary for approval of the waiver and had communicated to the Bush Administration that he intended to grant the waiver. After White House officials told him that such a waiver was contrary to the President’s policy, Johnson reversed course and denied the waiver.

The senators accused Johnson of inaugurating a reign of terror, attempting to intimidate scientists and employees of the EPA, and instituting a pro-polluter policy.

The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report detailing the increasing politicization of the EPA. Of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists surveyed, 889 of them — 60 percent — “said they had personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in their work over the last five years.”

Scientists had been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from EPA scientific documents, misrepresent scientific issues, and omit important scientific findings.

Hundreds of scientists reported being unable to openly express concerns about the EPA’s work without fear of retaliation. The highest rate of political interference (84%) was found among scientists who conduct risk assessments that could lead to strengthening regulations.

Among Johnson’s acts of misfeasance: he departed from the consistent recommendations of agency scientists, public health officials, and the agency’s own scientific advisory committees, and instead set an ozone standard that favored polluters.

He had EPA's top environmental regulator in the Midwest fired over her efforts to force Dow Chemical to clean up chemical spills.

In defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. E.P.A., he dismissed findings by his own agency that greenhouse gases pollute our air and threaten the public; he refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

He willingly allowed his advisory panels to be infiltrated by the very industries they are meant to regulate and control.

He removed a prominent toxicologist from a scientific review board investigating chemicals used in common plastic goods because the industry didn’t like an opinion she had stated years before regarding the dangers associated with those chemicals.

At the behest of President Bush, he overruled scientific recommendations on smog standards.

He repeatedly refused to appear before congressional committees or to produce materials requested by Congress.

Senator Whitehouse and others have accused Mr. Johnson of a long list of other misdeeds. He has turned the EPA from an agency that protects the environment into an agency that protects corporate polluters; in effect, an environmental pollution agency. He has blocked stronger regulations and prevented enforcement of the environmental laws now on the books.

You would think that prevention of pollution would be a nonpartisan issue. Isn’t everybody against pollution? Apparently not. The industries that pollute, contaminate, and poison our environment are violently opposed to efforts to strengthen and enforce the anti-pollution laws. Bush and his den of scoundrels, including Johnson, totally support the industries, not the American people.

Untapped Oil

Why don’t the oil companies drill for more oil in the places where they already hold leases? According to oil-industry sources, of the millions of offshore acres for which the industry has thousands of leases, approximately 75% have not been drilled and are not producing oil. It is estimated that if all these existing areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by almost 5 million barrels a day--which would relieve our dependence on foreign oil. So why open up more areas to drilling? Why not drill in the places where the oil companies are allowed to?

The answer is, duh, money. The oil companies want to have the right to drill in millions of additional offshore acres, and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), but they have no intention of immediately drilling in those areas. They haven’t even started drilling in the areas where they are allowed to. Right now, with the high price of oil, they would rather just buy oil from other countries and resell it to the American public at a premium. After all, under the current system they are making colossal profits.

Few people realize how expensive it is to drill for offshore oil. It can cost from $500 million to $1 billion dollars to build an offshore rig. Before drilling can even begin, years of exploration is required. Building offshore rigs and platforms, drilling the wells, transporting the oil from oil platforms to shore, and building the roads, pipelines, pumping stations, refineries, and other things required takes many years and enormous amounts of money. At the present time, the oil companies don’t have the huge amount of equipment necessary to carry out a large amount of additional drilling. It would take them over ten years to begin drilling in new areas like the continental shelf or ANWR. They would rather pocket the massive profits they are now making than plow that money into offshore oil rigs.

The oil companies are also worried about the economics of the volatile oil market. What if they went ahead and spent billions to erect the platforms and drill in the new places, or even the places where they currently have leases, and then the price of oil plunged? It has already showed signs of going down.

So if they don’t want to drill now, why do they want the government to open-up the outer banks to more offshore drilling? Why do they want to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to violent depredation and despoilment?

I can understand why the Republicans in Congress are screaming loudly to open-up the new areas to drilling. They don’t give a hoot about the energy crisis, the environment, or price of gas. Faced with a slowing economy, an unpopular president, his miserable war, and ethics embarrassments (like the indictment of Ted Stevens, their leader in the fight to open-up ANWR), they are clinging to a political lifeline-- drilling for oil. They have gotten together and analyzed the mood of the public. They have probably held a big meeting and passed-out talking points for the coming election. They have officially made drilling for oil the central issue in their campaigns.

The public thinks that there is a problem with short supply of oil and that if we open-up new areas to drilling the price of gas will go down. You and I know it won’t, but the average Joe doesn’t know that.

The oil companies are pressuring Congress for the right to drill in the additional offshore and ANWR areas because they want to stockpile millions of acres of land for the future. It is a land grab. They want to take advantage of the current panic. Someday in the distant future, when they are finished with the equipment they are currently using, or the oil in their current leases begins to diminish, and they are able to get additional tax breaks from a friendly Administration, they will try drilling in the other areas where they have leases. If they can get Congress to agree, they will also drill in the additional offshore areas and in ANWR; but not now.

I also think that there is another motivation. The oil company executives have made billions in the recent markets, but they have visions of gold. They look at the fabulous modern palaces being built by wealthy Arab sheiks and emirs, and think how nice life would be if they held the rights to the largest remaining oil reserves in the world.