Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the purse string-controlling House Appropriations Committee, is calling the idea a "war surtax." He said that just as the federal government is expected to pay for its proposed intervention in the health care sector with new taxes, any escalated involvement in Afghanistan should come with a payment plan.
"If we have to pay for the health care bill, we should pay for the war as well ... by having a war surtax," Obey told ABC News in an interview that aired Monday. "The problem in this country with this issue is that the only people that has to sacrifice are military families and they've had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is making a similar demand.
I happened to agree with this idea. Just as requiring a military draft, this tax would make Americans 'think' before supporting the start or continuation of any war. Sacrificing our own treasured love ones and our own money seems to always limit our 'gun-ho' attitudes. Perhaps with a war surtax, those supporting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, along with the idea of attacking Pakistan, Iran or North Korea for their actions, Americans might have second thoughts before backing more war or any new one.
Having a military draft is also a deterrent for war. I can't tell you the amount of mothers and dads I've talked to in the past that mentioned being called by military recruiters when we first went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The recruiters wanted to talk to their son or daughter. The parents absolutely refused to allow them to even talk to their sons and daughters about joining up and serving their nation. "You can't have him/her", they'd say.
Money and our loved ones are reasons enough to control our military ambitions; however, if we must go to war to defend our nation, then we should all be willing to offer up both. This surtax should come from ALL Americans. ]]>Economists expect the joblessness that has weighed down the nation's economic recovery will start to slowly abate in 2010, but they predict consumers will continue to keep a tight rein on spending, according to a new survey...
The November outlook by the National Association for Business Economics, which is set to be released Monday, shows economists expect net employment losses to bottom out in the first quarter of next year. Employers are seen starting to add to their payrolls after that.
"While the recovery has been jobless so far, that should soon change," said Lynn Reaser, NABE's president and chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University. "Within the next few months, companies should be adding instead of cutting jobs."
I've been saying all along that I predict that the unemployment rate will drop back down to around 6-7% by late summer of 2010. I continue to believe that. My reasons have been the same all along as well. Only a little over a third of the Recovery and Reinvestment stimulus money has been allocated or used, the bulk was planned to be used in 2010 and this has already been the longest recession in history besides that during the Great Depression. Looking at our past recessions -- history tells us this recession is over and has been for 2 qtrs -- next comes the jobs.
Call it perfect timing or a political maneuver, but the timing of the release of the bulk of stimulus money, along with the way our economy conducts itself historically -- will be perfect.
Lastly, I'd like to remind folks this recession started back in 2007 during the Bush/Cheney administration and it's loss of jobs was predicted BEFORE Barack Obama became our President:
]]>"We're seeing a complete unraveling of the labor market and are on track for getting beyond 10% unemployment," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), a freshman Senator who is fighting to hold his seat in 2010, said he would support health care reform even if it cost him his job.
Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," the Colorado Democrat was asked whether he would vote in favor of the legislation even if "every piece of evidence tells you, if you support that bill you will lose your job."
"Yes," Bennet replied, succinctly.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbs2oeAcG1E&feature=player_embedded]
Finally! A person that cares more about the American people then his political job. It's extremely pleasing to hear a politician stand up for something he/she believes in. I sincerely hope this man doesn't lose his job -- he's what America needs more of.
]]>Bill Clinton decided not to attend a health care event organized by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann because Olbermann had "politicized" the event.
He explained his decision to FireDogLake's Eve Gittelso, who ran into Clinton in a gift shop of the Clinton Library in Arkansas:
"Clinton responded that Olbermann was politicizing the clinic, and that it wasn't helpful for Olbermann to do that. He said he did not feel he could show up now, because the event had turned political....Olbermann, who has invited his viewers to contribute to the National Association of Free Clinics in advance of the event, has said on his show that 'I want Sens. (Blanche) Lincoln and (Mark) Pryor to see what health care poverty is really like in Little Rock.' Lincoln has met recently with Joe Biden and President Obama, but has yet to agree to vote for debate on health care to proceed in the Senate."
I'm sorry but Keith Olberman has a right to politicize these events, they are meant to 'tell a story' to those unbelievers that Americans need health care.
They were created to not only help those without health care, they were meant to tell other Americans how much health care reform is needed.
Former President Bill Clinton is WRONG not to attend and support these events.
If anybody has made it necessary to make these health care events political it's been the Republican Party and those so-called conservative Democrats that refuse to budge because they are afraid to lose their own jobs. Their own job is more important then saving the lives of their constituents.
]]>In April 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the war in Iraq was "lost" and that the surge was "not accomplishing anything." He was called "reckless," "disturbing" and "playing to the worst elements of the antiwar left."
Former Senator and presidential nominee, Fred Thompson said the following about Reid's comment back then:
"The problem is that every one of Reid's comments I've noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, he's encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will."
But now Thompson is flip flopping. In a commentary on his radio show, Thompson declared that the Afghanistan war "has been lost":
"It really doesn't matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost,"
We have polls taken daily giving us the approval ratings of the Executive branch, Congress and the individuals currently holding offices in them. We have polls telling us who supports health care reform and who doesn't. We have polls telling us how many people support the wars and how many don't. We have polls telling us who supports abortion rights and who doesn't. We have polls telling us which states are happier and which are not. We have polls telling us what cars are more comfortable to ride in. We even have polls telling us which city or town in the nation is the friendliest.
When will we have polls telling us (and them) who we as Americans trust more when it comes to giving the news or talking about it? Who do we trust to give us the facts? Which reporter or commentator gives us more of the facts and less opinion? Who is more about opinion then fact? Who seems most intent in supporting one Party then another?
I realize a poll can't cover every reporter and every commentator but like in politics, it can zero in on a select few of well known (and maybe a couple of not so well known) personnel in the media. For example, our primetime news reporters, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, our Sunday talk show hosts, David Gregory, Bob Scheiffer, George Stephanopoulos, Chris Wallace, our evening talk show hosts, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck, our radio shows like Rush Limbaugh, Mancow Muller, Randy Rhoades and Thom Hartmann.
Let's hear what their favorable and unfavorable ratings are, just like we hear about the President's ratings, the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader's ratings. Perhaps like most politicians, they'll take notice of those ratings and we can finally get them back to the business they started in --- NEWS and FACT TELLING.
]]>The federal judge who helped draft Justice Department memos on torture has set up a legal defense fund to pay the costs of defending against possible disciplinary or impeachment proceedings. Jay Bybee, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge in Las Vegas, quietly set up the fund last July following widespread news reports that he and a former deputy, John Yoo, were the focus of a long-running investigation by the Justice Department's internal ethics unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), over their role in crafting the memos.
But there were no public references to the fund until this, week when Declassified noticed that a link to the fund had popped up on the Web site of Keep America Safe, an advocacy group set up last month by Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, that is highly critical of President Obama's national-security policies. The fund is listed as one of Keep America Safe's "causes we support."
It appears that he may need the money soon;
Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday that, after a nearly year-long delay and numerous internal reviews, the OPR report into the torture memos was finally slated to be released at the end of this month.
Did you notice who offered to let Mr. Bybee post his fund request on her website -- Liz Cheney. She's the woman who is currently making the rounds on television and media sites to defend the Bush's torture policies and her father. Who is her father? Former Vice President Dick Cheney, a major player in the torturing of prisoners.
First off, this is exciting news. Finally, we just might see somebody face criminal charges for what I call war crimes; the torturing of prisoners. In any other war these actions would have fallen under the Geneva Convention rules that the GOP's hero himself signed, former President Ronald Reagan. Imagine if some other nation were to treat our soldiers in this manner in the future - now that they've seen what we will do to their POWs.
Secondly, having this fund listed on Liz Cheney's website tells me the Cheney's and the Bush's are covering their rears by kissing some butt ahead of time.....praying that Mr. Bybee or Mr. Yoo don't cave under pressure of a jail sentence and give evidence against former VP Dick Cheney and Pres. George W. Bush for a lighter sentence.
That is what I'm PRAYING for. All it takes is one person to finally come forward and say --- they made me do it!
As of Liz Cheney's Keep America Safe website....is it really America she wants to keep safe or her Daddy?
In that time it will extend coverage to 31 million Americans--94 percent of citizens will be covered by 2019.
Over the second 10 years, CBO projects even greater cost savings--up
to $650 billion, with the caveat that after 10 years, their analysis
become highly uncertain.
I'm reading all about how this bill will reduce the deficit and cover more Americans. I keep hearing how the government will save money by asking folks to 'get healthy' and how insurance companies will have to cover us no matter what pre-existing conditions we have and they can no longer put a limit on what they will cover.
Here's my question. While these are all good things to hear; where is the savings for those of us that currently buy health insurance? Give me an example how these two bills, the House and the Senate's, will save me money on my premiums over the next 10 years.
The House requires a public option and the Senate allows States to opt-out if they'd rather not have a public option. Ok, so either way, how is this public option going to save 'me' money. How much will it save me?
I understand the theory of getting everybody covered, so everybody's cost should go down; But by how much?
We keep getting CBO estimates on how much the bills will cost and how much they will cut the deficit. Why can't we also have the CBO tell us Americans that already buy insurance, how much we will save?
Give us that kind of information and I'm betting you'll create an avalanche of support for the bills.
Insects may have tiny brains, but they can perform some seriously impressive feats of mental gymnastics.
According to a growing number of studies, some insects can count, categorize objects, even recognize human faces -- all with brains the size of pinheads.
Despite many attempts to link the volume of an animal's brain with the depth of its intelligence, scientists now propose that it's the complexity of connections between brain cells that matters most. Studying those connections -- a more manageable task in a little brain than in a big one -- could help researchers understand how bigger brains, including those of humans, work.
Engineers hope to use that kind of information to design programs that do things like recognize faces from a variety of angles, distances and emotional states. That's something bees can do, but computers still can't...
For years I have tried to tell people that bees zoom in on me wherever I might be when I'm outside. People would just laugh and tell me, they know where the sweet stuff is.
Now I have proof. Bees know me! They actually know my face. Now whenever I see one up close I'm going to be thinking...."Have we met?" ]]>This morning on Fox & Friends, former Bush adviser Karl Rove appeared on the program to bash President Obama for paying a respectful bow before the Japanese Emperor. ..
Calling the bow "inappropriate," Rove wondered, "what's that all about?" He added that Obama "simply can't get it right" and that the bow is part of Obama's "world-wide apology tour." Rove concluded his assault with this final jab:
I think it's best if American presidents do what they have always done -- which is to stand for our small "r" republican values and do not bow to monarchies.
It's true. Unlike Obama, Bush did not have a general policy of showing respect to world leaders. Instead, he opted for a special policy of showing particularly reverent displays of affection toward monarchs he liked. Presumably, Rove would have no complaints had Obama kissed and held hands with the Japanese Emperor:
Rove needs to be told to his face, Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire!
I get sick of hearing this man claiming falsehoods about the Bush/Cheney administration and getting away with it. Why won't network stations point these lies out? It's NEWS! This man was Bush's right hand man for gosh sakes.
The media will spend hours discussing what Sarah Palin says, who's had no previous power in the White House, yet ignore what Karl Rove says about the Bush administration. WHY IS THAT? If the media is SO liberal, why aren't they ALL jumping on this LIE or at the very least-- overstatement ---by Karl Rove?
]]>WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama announced Thursday that he'll host a White House summit next month on fighting the chronic joblessness that continues to be a drag on a struggling economy.
"We are open to any demonstrably good idea to supplement the steps we've already taken to put America back to work," Obama said before taking off for a trip to Asia, where U.S. and global business prospects will be among the key issues under discussion.
Speaking at the White House, the president called a report showing fewer claims for jobless benefits "a hopeful sign." But with millions of Americans out of work, Obama said the government has "an obligation to consider every additional responsible step we can" to get people back to work.
While Obama may have good intentions and is just trying to show Americans that he knows that people are still hurting and that he really does care about those people, I think he made a mistake announcing this plan to hold a forum on jobs in December.
This is just what the Republican Party was waiting to hear. To them, this is an admission by Obama and the Democrats that their Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't do the job they had promised it would.
What makes this even worse is, Obama announced it just as they are finally coming closer to voting for a final bill for health care reform.
Can't you just see the ads now?
"How can we believe the Democrat's claim they know how to cut the cost of our health care, when just 10 months ago they also claimed they would save or create 3.5 million jobs, but now we're told they need to hold a special "Jobs Forum" because too many people still need jobs?
I predicted previously that the jobs would return in the spring and summer of 2010. I continue to believe they will, economists are also predicting this. Jobs are always the last to return after a 'normal' recession. This recession, everybody knows, was the worst we've had since the Great Depression. Of course, it's going to take a bit longer to get the jobs back. The recession began in late 2007 according to experts. It's only logical that the jobs are just now starting to slowly appear again.
Instead of holding 'steady' with their plans they made in February, the Democrats are caving once again to the pressures laid on them by the Republican Party. By even hinting that the jobs market might not be what they had hoped for by this time, they are hurting their chances politically and putting more 'fear' into the hearts of Americans.
When will they learn?
]]>WASHINGTON - Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, officials said Friday.
NBC News confirmed that Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning. ..
The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method -- waterboarding, or simulated drowning -- was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.
Indeed, this trial, while I'm sure will be a long one, it may also finally bring to light what was done to these men in the name of Homeland Security and the War on Terror authorized by those in the Bush/Cheney administration.
Could this one man's trail be the catalyst that breaks the camel's back? By holding this man's trial in New York; the court's actions will face the scrutiny of the media on an hourly basis. What sort of defense do you suppose Mohammed's attorney will put forth? I'm sure they will say, "Not Guilty your honor".
Can't you hear Mohammed's attorney now, "Mr Mohammed was beaten, thrashed, physically tortured by his interrogators," Mr Mohammed's lawyer, told the reporters. "Under this fear he recorded his so-called confession."
For example, remember this case,
The man alleged to be the sole survivor of the terrorist team that carried out the Mumbai attacks told a court yesterday that his confession -- which hints at the involvement of the Pakistan state in the atrocity -- was beaten out of him by police.
Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab is accused of being one of ten highly trained Islamist militants who raided Mumbai in a commando-style strike that lasted three days in November. He faces 166 counts of murder and is accused of waging war on India; crimes that carry the death penalty...
"Kasab was beaten, thrashed, physically tortured by police," Mr Kasab's lawyer, Abbas Kazmi, a veteran defence council in high-profile terror cases, told The Times. "Under this fear he recorded his so-called confession."
Mr Kazmi said that Mr Kasab does not want to plead guilty and intends to fight the case."
As you may know I've been pushing for a full investigation by a special prosecutor of the way the Bush/Cheney administration handled prisoners and the way they spied on American citizens over the past 8 years.
I'm no lawyer but it sure would seem that it would be entirely appropriate for the defense attorney for Mohammed to bring out the details of the way the man was tortured and harassed into confessing or saying things that were not true with the authority given by President George W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, the Pentagon and the attorney general and specific members of Congress.
I'm also guessing but you would think that the defense attorney would be allowed to demand the right to ask questions of these interrogators and anyone else that was involved with the torturing of his defendant. Could it be possible that the attorney could demand to speak to George W Bush or even Dick Cheney about authorizing such torture?
Forget about this specific crime that Mohammed committed for a moment and imagine being arrested for a crime such as a murder of a governor. This is a huge political crime and could make the prosecutor famous if he wins it. The police capture and arrest you and take you to the jailhouse. The detectives and the prosecutor in charge, in order to win this huge political case, authorizes the police to torture you into confessing or giving up names of others involved. Now imagine not being able to tell the jury this information as your own defense; not going to happen.
If the lawyer has proof, or thinks he can get it by forcing a few people to take the oath and swear to tell the truth about any such torture or abuse, that judge will most likely allow the testimony.
So my friends, I'm betting that Mohammed's attorney will be demanding to speak to a those interrogators that waterboarded his defendant. I'm betting the truth will finally come out.
Will the man get found 'not guilty' because of this truth coming out; probably not? I doubt Attorney General Holder and yes even President Obama, would risk holding this trial in United States, because of this possible defense's actions, if they didn't have other proof that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was indeed guilty of masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
Yes indeed folks, I'm finally getting a bit excited about the thought of having this trial held here in the United States instead of behind closed doors in a military trial where the facts would be forever hidden - as George W Bush and Dick Cheney would much rather have happen.
]]>