Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[OrangeFluffyCat]

Bush's Own Goal


A new Bush campaign ad pushes the theme of an "ownership society," and concludes with President Bush declaring, "I understand if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of America."

Call me naïve, but I thought all Americans have a vital stake in the nation's future, regardless of how much property they own. (Should we go back to the days when states, arguing that only men of sufficient substance could be trusted, imposed property qualifications for voting?) Even if Mr. Bush is talking only about the economic future, don't workers have as much stake as property owners in the economy's success?

But there's a political imperative behind the "ownership society" theme: the need to provide pseudopopulist cover to policies that are, in reality, highly elitist.

The Bush tax cuts have, of course, heavily favored the very, very well off. But they have also, more specifically, favored unearned income over earned income - or, if you prefer, investment returns over wages. Last year Daniel Altman pointed out in The New York Times that Mr. Bush's proposals, if fully adopted, "could eliminate almost all taxes on investment income and wealth for almost all Americans." Mr. Bush hasn't yet gotten all he wants, but he has taken a large step toward a system in which only labor income is taxed.

The political problem with a policy favoring investment returns over wages is that a vast majority of Americans derive their income primarily from wages, and that the bulk of investment income goes to a small elite. How, then, can such a policy be sold? By promising that everyone can join the elite.

Right now, the ownership of stocks and bonds is highly concentrated. Conservatives like to point out that a majority of American families now own stock, but that's a misleading statistic because most of those "investors" have only a small stake in the market. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than half of corporate profits ultimately accrue to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, while only about 8 percent go to the bottom 60 percent. If the "ownership society" means anything, it means spreading investment income more widely - a laudable goal, if achievable.

But does Mr. Bush have a way to get us there?

There's a section on his campaign blog about the ownership society, but it's short on specifics. Much of the space is devoted to new types of tax-sheltered savings accounts. People who have looked into plans for such accounts know, however, that they would provide more tax shelters for the wealthy, but would be irrelevant to most families, who already have access to 401(k)'s. Their ability to invest more is limited not by taxes but by the fact that they aren't earning enough to save more.

The one seemingly substantive proposal is a blast from the past: a renewed call for the partial privatization of Social Security, which would divert payroll taxes into personal accounts. Mr. Bush campaigned on that issue in 2000, but he never acted on it. And there was a reason the idea went nowhere: it didn't make sense.

Social Security is, basically, a system in which each generation pays for the previous generation's retirement. If the payroll taxes of younger workers are diverted into private accounts, there will be a gaping financial hole: who will pay benefits to older Americans, who have spent their working lives paying into the current system? Unless you have a way to fill that multitrillion-dollar hole, privatization is an empty slogan, not a real proposal.

In 2001, Mr. Bush's handpicked commission on Social Security was unable to agree on a plan to create private accounts because there was no way to make the arithmetic work. Undaunted, this year the Bush campaign once again insists that privatization will lead to a "permanently strengthened Social Security system, without changing benefits for those now in or near retirement, and without raising payroll taxes on workers." In other words, 2 - 1 = 4.

Four years ago, Mr. Bush got a free pass from the press on his Social Security "plan," either because reporters didn't understand the arithmetic, or because they assumed that after the election he would come up with a plan that actually added up. Will the same thing happen again? Let's hope not.

As Mr. Bush has said: "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - can't get fooled again."

///////

Bush's Born Again Drug War


Whereas previous administrations commonly framed their anti-drug arguments in secular terms, Bush's drug war, at least rhetorically, resembles that of a religious crusade. Story Tools

Listen to George Walker Bush speak about substance abuse and it's apparent that one is listening to a preacher, not a president. "There are faith-based organizations in drug treatment that work so well because they convince a person to turn their life over to Christ," Bush divulged to the religious journal Christianity Today. "By doing so, they change a person's heart [and] a person with a changed heart is less likely to be addicted to drugs and alcohol."

Despite US Constitutional restrictions requiring a separation of church and state, Bush's ardent Judeo-Christian faith - the President is a practicing Methodist who "accepted Jesus Christ into [his] life" in 1986 - remains the staple of his administration's anti-drug platform. Whereas previous administrations commonly framed their anti-drug arguments in secular terms (i.e., former President Richard Nixon's "War on Drugs" or the Reagan administration's "Just Say No" campaign), Bush's drug war, at least rhetorically, resembles that of a religious crusade. GW's bottom line: Only through "God's will" may one be "saved" from the temptations of illegal drugs. It's a stance that many drug law reformers view as not only ineffective, but possibly illegal.

President Or Proselytizer?

"You know, I had a drinking problem. Right now I should be in a bar in Texas, not the Oval Office," Bush told author David Frum in his 2003 biography The Right Man. "There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God. I am here because of the powers of prayer."

While stories recounting the President's prior alcohol and drug use - so-called "youthful indiscretions" - are well publicized, not as well known is his 1986 spiritual awakening that led him to quit his use of intoxicants cold turkey. It's this personal journey that led Bush to reach his conclusion that other drug users - recreational pot smokers in particular - must also undergo their own, albeit coerced, religious conversion to achieve drug abstinence. After four years in office, it's clear that Bush is willing to use the bully pulpit and Congress' deep pockets to accomplish his goal: a drug-free, religiously indoctrinated America.

As President, one of Bush's first actions was to sign an executive order establishing a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, presently headed by "Faith Czar" Jim Towey. In 2002, the Bush administration awarded nearly 500 faith-based programs - including several drug "education" and treatment programs - $477 million in taxpayers' funding. In 2002, Bush doled out an additional $568 million in federal funds to 680 self-identified faith-based groups - programs like the fundamentalist Christian drug-treatment project "Set Free Indeed," which states: "We rely solely on the foundation of the Word of God to break the bands of addiction. Once a person ... recognizes that only God can set them free, the rebuilding process can begin." To date, the Bush administration has funneled several million dollars to "Set Free Indeed," and the President singled out its founder by name during his 2003 State of the Union address, lauding it as a shining example of federally-backed faith-based drug treatment.

Religion has also been the theme of several new, high profile anti-drug campaigns launched by the administration. In 2003, just months after being tapped by Bush to head the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Karen Tandy threw her weight behind a grassroots anti-drug campaign called "Pray for the Children," which according to the group's website, maintains, "The power of prayer is unequaled" in influencing adolescents from refraining from drug use. Regarding her endorsement of the program, Tandy explained, "Drug abuse is a scourge that attacks a person's soul as well as body, so it's fitting that the solution should engage the soul as well."

Also last year, Bush launched "Faith. The Anti-Drug," a multi-million dollar campaign to encourage the religious community to incorporate pot abstinence into their spiritual teachings. "Faith plays a powerful role in preventing youth marijuana use," announced Drug Czar John Walters - himself a disciple of notorious "virtuecrat" and former drug czar William Bennett - at the campaign's kickoff party. He added, "We are urging youth ministers, volunteers and faith leaders to integrate drug prevention messages and activities into their sermons and youth programming, and are providing them with key tools and resources to make a difference."

Faith. The Anti-drug?

But are such campaigns "making a difference?" And are they even appropriate? Critics resoundingly say "no" on both counts.

"Religious drug treatment programs [like those favored by Bush] turn back the medical clock to the 19th Century," says Samantha Smoot of the Texas Freedom Network, a faith-based initiative watchdog group whose membership includes over 7,500 religious and community leaders. "The President values programs that say: 'We can pray you out of your addiction' more than programs that say: 'We will treat your addiction with counseling, medical treatment and spirituality.' Even more outrageous is his insistence that taxpayers foot the bill for his dangerous approach."

It's also potentially unconstitutional, according to Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United, a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. that argues for the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. "This is a massive shell game," he says. "The administration insists no public funds will be spent on religion, then turns those funds over to groups that openly brag about how much religion they have in their programs. The level of duplicity is staggering."

However, according to drug law reformer Charles Thomas, founder of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, religious faith can play a pivotal role in drug policy - though not in the way Bush decrees.

Faith teaches that it's essential that America's drug laws be just and compassionate, Thomas wrote in the May/June issue of the interfaith journal, Fellowship. "People of faith may play an essential role in building public support for treating drugs as a health issue instead of a crime," he explained. "Regardless of whether or not it's immoral to use drugs, it certainly is wrong to punish people solely for using drugs. Personal morality issues should be addressed by the faith community and family, not by cops, courts and prisons."

Don't tell that to GW, however, who has escalated criminal drug law enforcement during his Presidency and overseen the arrests of nearly 5 million Americans for drug crimes - most for no more than minor drug possession. Regrettably, like the Crusades of old where religious transformation typically occurred "by fire and sword," the Bush administration ultimately believes that today's drug users federally ordained path to redemption is best achieved by way of a jail house conversion.


//////////

"Interview" Pat Robertson fed to his "Christian" Broadcasting Network viewers:
(Too bad there's not another Iran/Contra for old Pat to participate in)

Unfit For Command: Vietnam Vet Recalls Serving with John Kerry

August 13, 2004


CBN.com - The inflammatory John Kerry book, "Unfit for Command," by Swift Boat vet John O'Neill, is racing up the best-seller charts. Kerry supporters are accusing O'Neill and other Swift Boat veterans of being politically motivated. But the vets say John Kerry's lies about his record have driven them to act. Pat Robertson recently spoke with the controversial author about why he feels Kerry is unfit to be elected the future president of the United States.

PAT ROBERTSON: John, I want to ask you something about a picture that is hung in a museum in Saigon depicting foreign activists who contributed to the Communist victory over America. Is Kerry's picture in that exhibit?

JOHN O'NEILL: Amazingly, Pat, he was no hero in our unit. But he was a big hero to the North Vietnamese in their war museum in Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City. They have a hall - it is like a Cooperstown [Cooperstown, New York - site of the National Baseball Hall of Fame] of bad guys. They have el Fatah and Fidel Castro, Mao Tse Tung, and right in the middle of it is a shrine to John Kerry. A guy from our unit discovered that when he was in Saigon on Memorial Day. Copies of those pictures can be obtained right in the book "Unfit for Command."

ROBERTSON: The American people don't seem to know that. What, is there blindness now?

O'NEILL: It appears to me that there is such a mass rush among the major media to try to elect John Kerry as president of the United States, that they no longer care about the truth. To us, we have people of all different kinds in our organization, and most of the people that served with John Kerry were not Republicans or Democrats. But we care a lot about the truth, because it is our unit and it's the life story of the people who lived and died with us. We know that he lied about that unit. He exaggerated wildly his own short experience in Vietnam.

ROBERTSON: There is a man named (Jim) Rassman who wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago, and he apparently was pulled out of the river by Kerry. Kerry got a Bronze Star for this action. He said there was fire coming from both sides of the river, that Kerry had been wounded, and an explosion blew up the boat, and Rassman went in the water. He said all of the boats left except Kerry's, and Kerry stayed to pick him up. What is your take on that story?

O'NEILL: It's turned the world turned upside down. What actually happened on that morning, March 13th, according to the officers of every other boat in the incident and many of the crewmen, is that the number three boat, the boat that Kerry was not on, was blown out of the water by a large mine. All of the boats closed on the number three boat, as we always would. We would stand and fight to the end. There was one exception to that. John Kerry fled the scene. In fleeing the scene, Rassman fell off of Kerry's boat. The other boats closed on the number three boat, saved the people who were knocked off of the boat in the water, saved the boat. And finally when it was evident that there was going to be no fire, Kerry finally returned and did the decent thing, and plucked Rassman out of the water, shortly before another boat did so, within 10 or 15 yards of another boat. But the story shown to the Democratic Convention that portrayed our guys as fleeing is just a calculated lie. It makes no sense because the number three boat that they all closed on had no engines; it couldn't flee, Pat. It just couldn't happen.

ROBERTSON: So you are saying that Kerry gunned his boat, and in that Rassman fell over the side? Is that what you say happened?

O'NEILL: I am saying exactly that. Rassman fell off of Kerry's boat. Kerry's boat fled the scene. It was the only boat to flee the scene. All of the other guys, as we always did, stood to fight, to save the survivors of the number three boat. There was no fire, as it turned out. They saved the survivors, and after it became evident there was no fire, Kerry returned. His story is the world turned upside down, according to the people involved in that incident.

ROBERTSON: He said on the floor of the United States Senate that he had spent Christmas in Cambodia, and this was in 1968. And he said he was amazed that President Nixon, who was not in office at that time, was claiming we were not in Cambodia, and he was taking fire from the Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge and other groups. Was any of that true?

O'NEILL: It is a total lie, Pat. This is one of his war crimes story. He made up the story that the U.S. Government had secretly ordered him into Cambodia on Christmas Eve, and Christmas Day of 1968 he sat there desolate, wondering how they could illegally do this, listening to President Nixon, who as it turns out, did not become president for a long time. Every person that I know of - Hundreds of people - will say that is a complete and total lie. It is a typical Kerry lie, because it is made up to libel up the chain of the command and portraying Kerry as sort of an involuntary guy engaged in war crimes. And if I am not telling you the truth, if John Kerry was in Cambodia in December 24th and 25th, sue me today, Pat. John Kerry, sue me today, because once again, it is a complete lie about our unit.

ROBERTSON: Where was he?

O'NEILL: He was down at SaDec (SaDec Province, in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam), Pat. In his biography entitled "Tour of Duty," all of a sudden, instead of being in Cambodia on December the 25th and 25th - as he had said more than 50 times in articles, and on the floor of the Senate - all of a sudden in his biography "Tour of Duty," he is 55 miles away, at a base, safely ensconsed in a base, writing a letter about sugar plums dancing in his head.

ROBERTSON: What do you think about the other people who are veterans? It seemed like the number of veterans who are going for him, his own men who were on that boat, seem to swear by him. Has he somehow twisted their minds on that?

O'NEILL: They were, first of all, out of all the veterans in our unit, a very small number. Seven or eight people who served directly with him, out of about 10. And then, another small number of other people supported him from our unit. But there are 250-plus that signed the letter that can be found on www.swiftvets.com. A list of all their names, running from vice-admiral down to seaman, are contained in my book "Unfit for Command." The truth is, there are a very small number of people who support him. You'll find that some of those people were with him for as short a period of time as two days. The officers who served with him, 25 of them, two are dead. Out of the 23 living survivors who served with John Kerry day after day, operation after operation, 17 of them have condemned him. Seventeen of them indicated he was unfit to be the president of the United States. That's the truth, Pat.

ROBERTSON: You are being attacked for this book, I'm sure. I think there is a complaint before the FEC (Federal Election Commission) that this book was somehow funded contrary to the Campaign Finance Law. What are you going to do about that?

O'NEILL: They have so far had two large law firms send letters to 20 stations threatening suit if they carry our ad. Three different Kerry-related organizations filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission. None of that is going to silence us, Pat. We have 60 people who received the Purple Heart in Vietnam and nine who received the Silver Star. We bought that with blood and service in Vietnam, and when affairs of our unit are being discussed, it is integral to the First Amendment and integral to the ability of people to gain the truth, that we have the right to speak. One thing they can't do yet, Pat, is burn a book. They won't be able to burn this book.

ROBERTSON: It is looks like it is burning the records from amazon.com, and it was just released yesterday. It just came out, and ladies and gentlemen, you really ought to read this. "Unfit for Command." It is an explosive book, and it has pictures in here of all of the pictures we are talking about, including that war museum there in Saigon. You ought to find it interesting. And give it to your friends. John, thank you for so much for being with us today.

O'NEILL: One thing I'd point out is, any proceeds from my interest in the book are going to military-related charities. I am not making a dime off of the book.

ROBERTSON: Fantastic. John O'Neill, ladies and gentlemen, the author of "Unfit for Command." It is dynamite.

////////

On one hand, you call Bush ( and this is just paraphrasing ) a blathering idiot. Now, on the other hand, you claim he knows exactly what he's doing? You can't have it both ways.

You are misapplying.
No one is having it both ways.
Yes, he's perfectly aware his yammer is just rhetoric.
And yes, he's aware of the ill that comes to people, and the nation, when the weakest on the eco ladder buy at bubble valuations. And no, he doesn't care. It's just one more batch of soundbites, fake "themes", under the pretense he's
"for" the average citizen. You've seen reason to be concerned re valuations for some time, yet you don't expect him to be aware, and to behave responsibly on the issue rather than capitalizing on what he considers "sounds good" for votes/his image. (He's pushed for some of those "creative" methods of buying, and has done nothing to establish sounder credit policies -- although he does support making it tougher for the average person to declare bankruptcy.) Same as he hasn't cared about anything else he's done that has harmed the country. Being aware, and being bright enough, and principled enough, to institute truly sound policies, are two different things.

Blathering idiot?
Well, those are your words. He is not the brightest thing to fall of the political tree by any means. He will leave behind a legacy of stupid quotes unmatched in history. No competant person would do the things he does. We have never before had an administration that actively cultivates propaganda networks to the degree he, and other connected with him have, and encouraged the citizens to participate in them (be taken in by them), and in them solely. Nor have we opted to pervert and deny true science in favor of a faction's agenda. Democracy will not survive this. Politicians have only escalated their use of these tactics. Once a part of Reagan administration, even more so now. No one who cared about the constitution, or the true good of the country would. He has consistantly been dishonest. For this country to accept people of his caliber in the highest office of the land is not good for the country. A generation has been affected, and not for the good, already. "It worked for Bush" is no incentive for future politicans to do anything other than engange in the same behavior destined to destroy democracy. We are a fascade of democracy at this point.

The Iraq war is absurd.
It did NOT have to be fought "that" week, or the next.
We could easily have been positioned to move at an instant, yet maintained our focus on Afghanistan. Now we have a mess in 2 countries -- needlessly. Bush's methods only allowed the window that enabled WMD, if there ever were any, to slip over borders -- borders we made porous and vulnerable to that, and to terrorists, solely by our mishandling the situation. Instead of what could have been a positive situation, we have something we will pay for domestically and abroad for decades. We didn't need more of that. It would have been far to our benefit to make Afghanistan a true success. To deal with one, then the other, if needed. It's appalling the entire Bush administration was so incompetant. It is NOT appropriate to go into a war with no backup plan, no idea what the hell you are going to do when your "establish democracy which will seed through the region" so-called game plan doesn't pan out. That whole fallacy wasn't supported by people outside the administration that are knowledgeable about the region, and what we were doing. Took old George no time at all to drop those soundbites and switch to the "well we gave 'em a chance/it's their fault" batch of rhetoric, soley because HE needs an out for his idiocy. The 200 billion or so, could have been spent far more wisely in truly making this country more secure. When next we sustain damage in this country, it won't be because "Kerry" got electeed, or any other excuse, it will be because of Bush and his gang. It is INEXCUSABLE to go to war with no idea of what you are going to do -- other than with no warning double the length of time people stay, and call up people who are in their 50s. That is NOT a right appropriate to be given to administrations at whim, or due to their inability to wage war properly.


That's an opinion of yours, not based on fact and one that can neither be refuted or supported.
*That* is just an opinion of yours.
And more apt to be refuted by fact, than not.


It's not *just* Bush, though he is an appalling sign of how far the system has fallen. We need a thorough revamping of our political structure. It serves the interests of parties, and of individual's personal aspirations, at the expense of the country and its citizens. They capitalize on various
voting factions bigotry, lack of knowledge, apathy, and the general willingness to let politicians feed us a bunch of rhetoric, and behave in any manner they please.
An ignorant populace suits them.

Most of the people in Congress and Senate aren't qualified for their jobs, and it's only getting worse. Elections have been "a choice between lousy choice A and lousy choice B" for far too long. Contrary to what people think, no nation
bumbles along as we have been, forever, before it takes a major toll on the country.

As much as anything, actions of politicians, administrations, over past decades are the cause of us dealing with terrorism on our shores. That's a price of an ignorant electorate not demanding stark change in governement.