I will start this post with a sincere statement of understanding for the millions of Americans around the country who are currently unemployed and are experiencing substantial financial issues. I know what it is like as I have personally been there more than once. I lived through the inflationary 1970's on limited income while raising four kids and with a spouse that suffered numerous medical conditions. So for those now caught up in difficult circumstances, I GET IT.
Having said that, I remain somewhat confused that the amount of people unemployed when compared to the total workforce could be causing a near collapse of our entire economy.
Using the numbers reported the national unemployment sits at 9.6% out of a possible 100%. Excuse me but doesn't this mean that 90.4% of workers ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED? During the past 60 years the average national unemployment rate has averaged approximately 6.1% (or 3.5% more than the current level). Most economists consider a 4.5% level to be "full employment". So in reality we are dealing with current level that is 3.5% above the 60 year average and 5.1% above a "full employment" condition. Granted the current unemployment rate is too high and certainly needs to come down to a level around the 60 year average.
BUT, do these above average unemployment numbers that we are experiencing now really have the power to offset the 90.6% of workers that ARE employed and cause the National crisis we hear about 24/7? REALLY?
How much of the "crisis" is political? How much of the "crisis" is blown up by the media for their own ratings because after all we Americans must have our constant stream of bad news, right? How much of the "crisis" has been a diversion tactic by the banks, credit card companies, home builders, and too many of the general public who spent themselves into hopeless debt?
Let me repeat, 9 out of every 10 American workers (aside from those who have stopped looking) ARE WORKING and for the most ARE paying their bills and mortgages and ARE out buying goods and services (granted at a lessor level than during the insane years of 2003 through 2007).
Are we Americans prepared to throw in the towel completely because we have an unemployment rate that is a mere 3.5% above the 60 year average? REALLY? Has American optimism been lost as well? Will we not at some point get past the problems just has we have gotten past so many immense problems in our nation's history? I'm not ready to believe that all is lost just yet.
What we need is to stop being consumed by all the negative talk and fear being thrown at us every day and start thinking and believing in a positive future. By continuing on this current path we are also projecting a "woe is me" attitude to our children and that is not good at all.
IF things are truly on the brink of total disaster at today's levels what would it be like if we approached the 25% unemployment levels of the early 1930'? YIKES!! What if mortgage interest rates were 13 to 15% as they were in those tough years of the 1970's? What if the price of meat, coffee, sugar, milk, bread, and other products doubled or tripled as they did in the early 1970's? Yet, somehow we Americans adjusted and recovered from all of those situations that I would submit were worse on family budgets than what we are experiencing today. During the hard times of my eventful life I knew of no other way out of negative situations than to roll up my sleeves and do whatever I needed to for my family and myself. Trust me, it CAN be done!
It is TIME TO THINK AGAIN
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Thursday, November 04, 2010
The Numbers Are The Numbers
We've had the mid-term elections and there will be many new faces in Congress for at least the next 2 to 6 years and the Republicans will now control the House (which they did for 12 of the past 14 years) while the Democrats maintain a slim majority in the Senate. President Obama will continue as President for at least the next two years. That is the landscape. Now on to the numbers.
I have been listening to candidates and elected officials for most of my adult life (and that's several decades now) promise that they would be the one to control spending, balance the budget, reduce the national debt and keep taxes low. Well it hasn't happened and there is no compelling reason to believe that it will suddenly happen now. The sound bite things that candidates utter has been intentionally vague about just HOW they plan to keep those promises. They couldn't be specific because the raw truth would probably cause them to lose their election. We Americans love to buy into the promise with little detail because that is easier than hearing the truth about the numbers.
So, as we all hope and believe that this group will finally be the ones with the solutions let me pose some plain and direct questions. Exactly how will a "balanced budget" be achieved? Exactly how will the National Debt be reduced? Exactly what "spending will be reduced or eliminated to make up for the 1.27 TRILLION dollar deficit projected in the current 2010-2011 budget? Can any of this actually be accomplished with no increase in Federal revenues (tax INCREASES)? It will soon be time to stop campaigning and FIX THE PROBLEM.
Here are the numbers for the 2010-2011 Federal Budget;
Total estimated revenue - - - -- - -- - - 2,567,200,000,000
Total estimated spending - - - - - - - - 3,833,900,000,000
Estimated deficit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,266,700,000,000
Total Gross Public Debt 15,144,000,000,000
(after adding the current year deficit)
Breakdown of spending;
Pensions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -787.6 Billion (20.5% of spending)
(Social Security, Fed Retirement)
(30.7% of revenues)
Healthcare - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 898 Billion (23.4% of spending)
(35% of revenues)
(Medicare- - 473.3 B
Public Health services - 4.5B
Health R&D - 38.5B
Vendor Payts (Welfare) 357.8B
296.7B of this goes to States
for Medicaid Programs
Education - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 140.9 Billion (3.7% of spending)
( 5.5% of revenues)
Defense - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 928.5 Billion (24.2% of spending)
(36.2% of revenues)
Welfare - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 464.6 Billion (12.1% of spending)
( 18.1% of revenues)
Protection - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 57.3 Billion (1.5% of spending)
(2.2% of revenues)
Transportation - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104.2 Billion (2.7% of spending)
(4.0% of revenues)
General Government - - - - - - - - 29 Billion ( .08% of spending)
( 1.1% of revenues)
Other Spending - - - - - - - - - - - - 151.4 Billion (3.9% of spending)
( 5.6% of revenues)
Balance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21.0 Billion ( .05% of spending)
( .08% of revenues)
Interest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 250.7 Billion ( 6.5% of spending)
( 9.8% of revenues)
Those are the numbers. How can we get to a balanced budget and begin to reduce the national debt as promised? The newly elected Republicans and all who remained in office have continually promised NO NEW TAXES (and most want to reduce the current tax levels) so the prospects of increased Federal revenues are not good. therefore we will assume the revenue total will stand as estimated above. Defense spending has been a "sacred cow" for Republicans so we will assume NO cuts in defense spending. Social Security (why is this included in the Federal Budget at all?) is a lightning rod for both Parties so we won't touch that for now.
The stark truth is that to eliminate the deficit (for this fiscal year) Congress and the President would have to;
1) ELIMINATE COMPLETELY ALL SPENDING FOR;
Education - - - - - - - - 140.9 Billion
Protection - - - - - - - - 57.3 Billion
Transportation - - - 104.2 Billion
General government 29 Billion
Other spending - - - -151.4 Billion
Balance - - - - - - - - - -21 Billion
___
503.8 Billion
By eliminating ALL spending and thus shutting down ALL Government services and protection the 2010-2011 deficit would still be 762.9 Billion. So, to the next step.
2) ELIMINATE ALL WELFARE ITEMS COMPLETELY
464.6 Billion
This would still leave the 2010-2011 Deficit at 298.3 Billion
In order to get all the way to a balanced budget (still with no reduction in the overall public debt) AND with NO increase in Federal revenues and no cuts to defense spending or Social Security spending we would need to;
3) REDUCE THE SPENDING FOR HEALTHCARE WOULD NEED TO BE REDUCED BY
298.3 Billion (33% of that budget)
Wow! Is there anyone out there who actually believes that all of the above can or will actually be done? Does anyone out actually believe that any politician would go this far to balance the budget while still maintaining a policy of no taxes increases and no cuts to defense or social security spending? I think not.
The Federal Budget cannot come into balance without doing one of the following or a combination of the following;
A) A substantial INCREASE in taxes to the extent necessary to balance the budget.
B) A flat 33% cut to ALL budget items (including Defense and Healthcare and Welfare)
C) The ELIMINATION of ALL spending in the categories listed above (503.8 Billion)
Well, we have arrived at the end of the numbers and the time for action. If the people in Congress and the President are unwilling to go to the deep end of the pool and deal with the numbers all their talk and spin means nothing and we will continue to have deficit spending as we have for the past 62 years (except for 8 years, and only two years since 1961).
Of course, the American people need to get past the campaign rallies and decide just what they are really willing to accept in order to "control spending" and "have limited Government" and "reduce the "National Debt". We can't have the services and aid programs and endless increases in defense spending and lower taxes forever without pushing the country and ourselves off the proverbial cliff. The Numbers are the Numbers.
Now it really is TIME TO THINK AGAIN.
I have been listening to candidates and elected officials for most of my adult life (and that's several decades now) promise that they would be the one to control spending, balance the budget, reduce the national debt and keep taxes low. Well it hasn't happened and there is no compelling reason to believe that it will suddenly happen now. The sound bite things that candidates utter has been intentionally vague about just HOW they plan to keep those promises. They couldn't be specific because the raw truth would probably cause them to lose their election. We Americans love to buy into the promise with little detail because that is easier than hearing the truth about the numbers.
So, as we all hope and believe that this group will finally be the ones with the solutions let me pose some plain and direct questions. Exactly how will a "balanced budget" be achieved? Exactly how will the National Debt be reduced? Exactly what "spending will be reduced or eliminated to make up for the 1.27 TRILLION dollar deficit projected in the current 2010-2011 budget? Can any of this actually be accomplished with no increase in Federal revenues (tax INCREASES)? It will soon be time to stop campaigning and FIX THE PROBLEM.
Here are the numbers for the 2010-2011 Federal Budget;
Total estimated revenue - - - -- - -- - - 2,567,200,000,000
Total estimated spending - - - - - - - - 3,833,900,000,000
Estimated deficit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,266,700,000,000
Total Gross Public Debt 15,144,000,000,000
(after adding the current year deficit)
Breakdown of spending;
Pensions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -787.6 Billion (20.5% of spending)
(Social Security, Fed Retirement)
(30.7% of revenues)
Healthcare - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 898 Billion (23.4% of spending)
(35% of revenues)
(Medicare- - 473.3 B
Public Health services - 4.5B
Health R&D - 38.5B
Vendor Payts (Welfare) 357.8B
296.7B of this goes to States
for Medicaid Programs
Education - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 140.9 Billion (3.7% of spending)
( 5.5% of revenues)
Defense - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 928.5 Billion (24.2% of spending)
(36.2% of revenues)
Welfare - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 464.6 Billion (12.1% of spending)
( 18.1% of revenues)
Protection - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 57.3 Billion (1.5% of spending)
(2.2% of revenues)
Transportation - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104.2 Billion (2.7% of spending)
(4.0% of revenues)
General Government - - - - - - - - 29 Billion ( .08% of spending)
( 1.1% of revenues)
Other Spending - - - - - - - - - - - - 151.4 Billion (3.9% of spending)
( 5.6% of revenues)
Balance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21.0 Billion ( .05% of spending)
( .08% of revenues)
Interest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 250.7 Billion ( 6.5% of spending)
( 9.8% of revenues)
Those are the numbers. How can we get to a balanced budget and begin to reduce the national debt as promised? The newly elected Republicans and all who remained in office have continually promised NO NEW TAXES (and most want to reduce the current tax levels) so the prospects of increased Federal revenues are not good. therefore we will assume the revenue total will stand as estimated above. Defense spending has been a "sacred cow" for Republicans so we will assume NO cuts in defense spending. Social Security (why is this included in the Federal Budget at all?) is a lightning rod for both Parties so we won't touch that for now.
The stark truth is that to eliminate the deficit (for this fiscal year) Congress and the President would have to;
1) ELIMINATE COMPLETELY ALL SPENDING FOR;
Education - - - - - - - - 140.9 Billion
Protection - - - - - - - - 57.3 Billion
Transportation - - - 104.2 Billion
General government 29 Billion
Other spending - - - -151.4 Billion
Balance - - - - - - - - - -21 Billion
___
503.8 Billion
By eliminating ALL spending and thus shutting down ALL Government services and protection the 2010-2011 deficit would still be 762.9 Billion. So, to the next step.
2) ELIMINATE ALL WELFARE ITEMS COMPLETELY
464.6 Billion
This would still leave the 2010-2011 Deficit at 298.3 Billion
In order to get all the way to a balanced budget (still with no reduction in the overall public debt) AND with NO increase in Federal revenues and no cuts to defense spending or Social Security spending we would need to;
3) REDUCE THE SPENDING FOR HEALTHCARE WOULD NEED TO BE REDUCED BY
298.3 Billion (33% of that budget)
Wow! Is there anyone out there who actually believes that all of the above can or will actually be done? Does anyone out actually believe that any politician would go this far to balance the budget while still maintaining a policy of no taxes increases and no cuts to defense or social security spending? I think not.
The Federal Budget cannot come into balance without doing one of the following or a combination of the following;
A) A substantial INCREASE in taxes to the extent necessary to balance the budget.
B) A flat 33% cut to ALL budget items (including Defense and Healthcare and Welfare)
C) The ELIMINATION of ALL spending in the categories listed above (503.8 Billion)
Well, we have arrived at the end of the numbers and the time for action. If the people in Congress and the President are unwilling to go to the deep end of the pool and deal with the numbers all their talk and spin means nothing and we will continue to have deficit spending as we have for the past 62 years (except for 8 years, and only two years since 1961).
Of course, the American people need to get past the campaign rallies and decide just what they are really willing to accept in order to "control spending" and "have limited Government" and "reduce the "National Debt". We can't have the services and aid programs and endless increases in defense spending and lower taxes forever without pushing the country and ourselves off the proverbial cliff. The Numbers are the Numbers.
Now it really is TIME TO THINK AGAIN.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Expectations
We are in the middle of a very interesting time. Expectations. What are they? Our economy has taken a major hit during the past two plus years. They will always be plenty of blame to go around with respect to the causes but this post isn't about that.
America and her people have grown from a rural and relatively simple society into an extremely diverse and complex nation. We, as a nation have overcome immense challenges to bring ourselves to this point in time. How did we do it? I would submit that a key factor has always been an unrelenting spirit that translated into solving whatever obstacle we've faced. During recent years we have allowed an atmosphere of doom to invade our country. At some point our political machine made the decision that the best chance at "winning" elections (and therefore gaining the power) is to paint a picture of failure and hopelessness to try and convince the voters. It appears that the strategy has convinced far too many of us that our situation is indeed hopeless. We have been losing our sense of hope and in doing that we make the situation worse. It is time to think again about what we are going to do to overcome our latest challenges.
My own family has been in America since the 1620's and generations have endured to this day. We fought in the Revolutionary War. We fought in the Civil War. We fought in both World Wars. In between we were farmers and merchants and doctors and mothers and fathers. My grand parents lost their business and their home during the Great Depression (the strain cost my grandfather his life in 1935). I lost my only Uncle in February, 1945 when his fighter plane was shot down over Germany. But most of my family have just been hard working citizens who struggled to build a life and help America evolve. As a family we always had a spirit of hope that we could overcome any difficulty. We had no expectations of anyone or any government taking care of us or making our decisions for us.
There is a movement in the country that calls for our government to essentially go away. they say that they don't want government intruding into their lives. Do they really want this? They talk a lot about our Constitution yet most have probably never even read it. The Constitution was a document born of compromise. It established the foundation for our form of Government. The Bill of Rights that so many people use for their own agendas was not even a part of the draft of the Constitution that was sent to the States for ratification. It too, was a compromise. Slavery was not abolished in the original Constitution. Women could not vote with the passage of our original Constitution and they had few other "rights". About half of the white male population could not vote with the passage of our original Constitution. Still, it was a framework and generations of political leaders have added to it through amendments and gone around it through various "legal" steps. Those who call for a return to the principles of our Constitution should beware of what they are asking. Those who keep saying that the Constitution is somehow a document based in religion are simply wrong. The word God doesn't appear in the Constitution AT ALL. Those who debated and prepared the Constitution took special care to make sure that God (which God would it be anyway?) or religion would not be the basis for governing the United States of America. Many of the recognized "Founding Fathers" were not even at the Constitutional Convention.
So, enough with using the Constitution as a misguided political tool. It does not belong to any particular political group.
If our citizens have some expectation that our Government (Federal, State or Local) is going to somehow solve all their life problems they are looking in the wrong place. Citizens that rant for less government cannot then ask the government for help. Do they truly want less Government or do they simply want "their" Government? Do they actually want the protections of our military (and the spending that goes with it) to stop? Do they really want our Justice system (and the spending that goes with it) to go away? do they really want our highway system and our consumer protection agencies (and the spending that goes with it) to go away? Do they really want social security and medicare benefits and all other aid and assistance programs (and the spending that goes with it) to go away? Really? Or is all the ranting just a scam for the politicians in the minority to gain the majority again?
If citizens have expectations that their poor decisions can or should be fixed or erased by the Government they shouldn't. Life deals all of us some bad hands. Loss of a job or a house or excessive debts or health issues are a part of the ride. It is not wrong for our government to have some programs to provide temporary assistance to those in need. It is part of the compassion that is fundamental to who we are. But too many of these programs are becoming a way of life for too many people. Politicians use the promise of these aid programs as a tool to get elected and that is wrong. We have about 45 million people receiving food stamps. We have millions of people receiving unemployment benefits and a very weak system for pushing these people to search for work. At some point the benefit ride must stop.
If citizens have the expectation that the Government can "create" millions of jobs and fix the employment problem they shouldn't. Aside from dealing with some business taxing issues the Government does not have the ability to get everyone a job. Our system is based on spending which is what created the bubble and caused it to pop. Our system is a catch 22 in that business hires people and buys or makes goods based on their expectation of selling those good and making money. The key factor is that the citizens will cooperate by spending their money to keep things flowing. Well, for too long too many people spent themselves into massive debt and when they could no longer keep spending business released workers and the down cycle has gotten worse. The debacle in the housing market was essentially a result of a systematic plan to get people into mortgages that they could not afford and the lure of the home blinded the homeowner to the reality. Home "values" got way out of line during the past 12 to 15 years and few realized that it couldn't continue. Too many people used the "value" of their homes to borrow against it so they could go out and buy more stuff. Now that "values" have adjusted downward that tool in largely unavailable and too many people ended up with monthly payments that far exceeded their real incomes and the result has been a huge number of foreclosures. Who is to blame? Everyone. Now, everyone must deal with it and get on with rebuilding their lives by whatever means necessary.
If citizens have the expectation that either major political party actually has the ability or desire for a "smaller" government or to control spending or to reduce the national debt they are being mislead. A study of the past 40 years (with 26 years of Republican administrations and 14 years of Democrat administrations) clearly shows that the Federal Government has continued to grow and our National Debt has grown from about 380 billion in 1970 to the 13 trillion it is today. There have been a grand total of 8 years since 1948 that our debt has NOT increased and ONLY one since 1961!! All the talk about one side or the other "causing" our debt is just a smokescreen. We have an institutional problem and until both sides commit themselves to put this nation ahead of partisan politics the debt, the spending, and the hateful tone will continue to grow unabated.
Anyone who does an objective study of our nation's history and reflects on the amazing accomplishments we have attained and the very serious things we have had to deal with as a nation should not see our situation now has anything but another call for America and her people to roll up our collective sleeves and fix it.
The hateful nature of our words and the projection of disaster on all fronts is eating away at one of our most valuable resources which is the AMERICAN SPIRIT. If that goes it truly will be the end of this great experiment that is America.
Are we going to let it happen?
It is "Time to Think Again"
America and her people have grown from a rural and relatively simple society into an extremely diverse and complex nation. We, as a nation have overcome immense challenges to bring ourselves to this point in time. How did we do it? I would submit that a key factor has always been an unrelenting spirit that translated into solving whatever obstacle we've faced. During recent years we have allowed an atmosphere of doom to invade our country. At some point our political machine made the decision that the best chance at "winning" elections (and therefore gaining the power) is to paint a picture of failure and hopelessness to try and convince the voters. It appears that the strategy has convinced far too many of us that our situation is indeed hopeless. We have been losing our sense of hope and in doing that we make the situation worse. It is time to think again about what we are going to do to overcome our latest challenges.
My own family has been in America since the 1620's and generations have endured to this day. We fought in the Revolutionary War. We fought in the Civil War. We fought in both World Wars. In between we were farmers and merchants and doctors and mothers and fathers. My grand parents lost their business and their home during the Great Depression (the strain cost my grandfather his life in 1935). I lost my only Uncle in February, 1945 when his fighter plane was shot down over Germany. But most of my family have just been hard working citizens who struggled to build a life and help America evolve. As a family we always had a spirit of hope that we could overcome any difficulty. We had no expectations of anyone or any government taking care of us or making our decisions for us.
There is a movement in the country that calls for our government to essentially go away. they say that they don't want government intruding into their lives. Do they really want this? They talk a lot about our Constitution yet most have probably never even read it. The Constitution was a document born of compromise. It established the foundation for our form of Government. The Bill of Rights that so many people use for their own agendas was not even a part of the draft of the Constitution that was sent to the States for ratification. It too, was a compromise. Slavery was not abolished in the original Constitution. Women could not vote with the passage of our original Constitution and they had few other "rights". About half of the white male population could not vote with the passage of our original Constitution. Still, it was a framework and generations of political leaders have added to it through amendments and gone around it through various "legal" steps. Those who call for a return to the principles of our Constitution should beware of what they are asking. Those who keep saying that the Constitution is somehow a document based in religion are simply wrong. The word God doesn't appear in the Constitution AT ALL. Those who debated and prepared the Constitution took special care to make sure that God (which God would it be anyway?) or religion would not be the basis for governing the United States of America. Many of the recognized "Founding Fathers" were not even at the Constitutional Convention.
So, enough with using the Constitution as a misguided political tool. It does not belong to any particular political group.
If our citizens have some expectation that our Government (Federal, State or Local) is going to somehow solve all their life problems they are looking in the wrong place. Citizens that rant for less government cannot then ask the government for help. Do they truly want less Government or do they simply want "their" Government? Do they actually want the protections of our military (and the spending that goes with it) to stop? Do they really want our Justice system (and the spending that goes with it) to go away? do they really want our highway system and our consumer protection agencies (and the spending that goes with it) to go away? Do they really want social security and medicare benefits and all other aid and assistance programs (and the spending that goes with it) to go away? Really? Or is all the ranting just a scam for the politicians in the minority to gain the majority again?
If citizens have expectations that their poor decisions can or should be fixed or erased by the Government they shouldn't. Life deals all of us some bad hands. Loss of a job or a house or excessive debts or health issues are a part of the ride. It is not wrong for our government to have some programs to provide temporary assistance to those in need. It is part of the compassion that is fundamental to who we are. But too many of these programs are becoming a way of life for too many people. Politicians use the promise of these aid programs as a tool to get elected and that is wrong. We have about 45 million people receiving food stamps. We have millions of people receiving unemployment benefits and a very weak system for pushing these people to search for work. At some point the benefit ride must stop.
If citizens have the expectation that the Government can "create" millions of jobs and fix the employment problem they shouldn't. Aside from dealing with some business taxing issues the Government does not have the ability to get everyone a job. Our system is based on spending which is what created the bubble and caused it to pop. Our system is a catch 22 in that business hires people and buys or makes goods based on their expectation of selling those good and making money. The key factor is that the citizens will cooperate by spending their money to keep things flowing. Well, for too long too many people spent themselves into massive debt and when they could no longer keep spending business released workers and the down cycle has gotten worse. The debacle in the housing market was essentially a result of a systematic plan to get people into mortgages that they could not afford and the lure of the home blinded the homeowner to the reality. Home "values" got way out of line during the past 12 to 15 years and few realized that it couldn't continue. Too many people used the "value" of their homes to borrow against it so they could go out and buy more stuff. Now that "values" have adjusted downward that tool in largely unavailable and too many people ended up with monthly payments that far exceeded their real incomes and the result has been a huge number of foreclosures. Who is to blame? Everyone. Now, everyone must deal with it and get on with rebuilding their lives by whatever means necessary.
If citizens have the expectation that either major political party actually has the ability or desire for a "smaller" government or to control spending or to reduce the national debt they are being mislead. A study of the past 40 years (with 26 years of Republican administrations and 14 years of Democrat administrations) clearly shows that the Federal Government has continued to grow and our National Debt has grown from about 380 billion in 1970 to the 13 trillion it is today. There have been a grand total of 8 years since 1948 that our debt has NOT increased and ONLY one since 1961!! All the talk about one side or the other "causing" our debt is just a smokescreen. We have an institutional problem and until both sides commit themselves to put this nation ahead of partisan politics the debt, the spending, and the hateful tone will continue to grow unabated.
Anyone who does an objective study of our nation's history and reflects on the amazing accomplishments we have attained and the very serious things we have had to deal with as a nation should not see our situation now has anything but another call for America and her people to roll up our collective sleeves and fix it.
The hateful nature of our words and the projection of disaster on all fronts is eating away at one of our most valuable resources which is the AMERICAN SPIRIT. If that goes it truly will be the end of this great experiment that is America.
Are we going to let it happen?
It is "Time to Think Again"
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Abusing the Constitution
For a long time now "we the people" have heard numerous elected leaders, TV talking heads and other pundits ramble on about how proposals made by whatever administration that happens to be in power are unconstitutional and how we need to return to the type of limited and small Government that the United States Constitution and our "Founding Fathers" intended.
How many have actually read the United States Constitution?
A careful read of Article 1; Section 8 pretty much lays out the powers of Congress. READ IT.
I find NO specific instruction in our Constitution that suggests or regulates that the "size" of government be constitutionally controlled big or small.
When Section 8 gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes" it places no specific limitations on those actions nor does it indicate that any particular political party would be in violation of the Constitution for asserting their Constitutional authority.
When Section 8 gives Congress the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States" it doesn't grant this power to any particular political party.
Before you as citizens simply buy into all the "constitutional" attacks, please try and realize that virtually every argument presented by the minority against the programs or policies suggested by the majority (whether the current administration or prior ones) are NOT based on the Constitution but are rather simply varying opinions.
Differences of opinion are a cornerstone of our system of Government and a healthy debate should be encouraged but when opponents attempt to portray proposed activity by the majority party as unconstitutional it is a lie and disgraceful. The various rules concerning the procedures for the House and Senate have, during the 223 years since the Constitution was drafted have certainly subverted the "intent" of those who prepared the document to create a vibrant and functioning national government.
Remember that just because it may be the "opinion" of one party or the other that the proposals of their opposition are not the correct path, it is, in the end, just an opinion.
The most dangerous aspect (at least to me) about the current trend of national politics is that all respect for the TRUTH has disappeared. So much so that "we the people" are left confused and conflicted about the credibility of our own Government and that is a very bad sign for our Democracy.
It may very well be too late already. If our Congress continues to wallow in the gridlock that has attached itself to National as well as many State Governments the entire system will soon collapse. If that is the "will of the people" so be it but somewhere in the hearts and minds of American citizens there MUST be a spirit that is more concerned about the very survival of this NATION than about the partisanship of one major political party over the other.
WE as a nation have so many critical issues to address and overcome that we simply MUST find a way to work together. The alternative is the dissolution of the United States of America.
Very soon we will know the result.
How many have actually read the United States Constitution?
A careful read of Article 1; Section 8 pretty much lays out the powers of Congress. READ IT.
I find NO specific instruction in our Constitution that suggests or regulates that the "size" of government be constitutionally controlled big or small.
When Section 8 gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes" it places no specific limitations on those actions nor does it indicate that any particular political party would be in violation of the Constitution for asserting their Constitutional authority.
When Section 8 gives Congress the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States" it doesn't grant this power to any particular political party.
Before you as citizens simply buy into all the "constitutional" attacks, please try and realize that virtually every argument presented by the minority against the programs or policies suggested by the majority (whether the current administration or prior ones) are NOT based on the Constitution but are rather simply varying opinions.
Differences of opinion are a cornerstone of our system of Government and a healthy debate should be encouraged but when opponents attempt to portray proposed activity by the majority party as unconstitutional it is a lie and disgraceful. The various rules concerning the procedures for the House and Senate have, during the 223 years since the Constitution was drafted have certainly subverted the "intent" of those who prepared the document to create a vibrant and functioning national government.
Remember that just because it may be the "opinion" of one party or the other that the proposals of their opposition are not the correct path, it is, in the end, just an opinion.
The most dangerous aspect (at least to me) about the current trend of national politics is that all respect for the TRUTH has disappeared. So much so that "we the people" are left confused and conflicted about the credibility of our own Government and that is a very bad sign for our Democracy.
It may very well be too late already. If our Congress continues to wallow in the gridlock that has attached itself to National as well as many State Governments the entire system will soon collapse. If that is the "will of the people" so be it but somewhere in the hearts and minds of American citizens there MUST be a spirit that is more concerned about the very survival of this NATION than about the partisanship of one major political party over the other.
WE as a nation have so many critical issues to address and overcome that we simply MUST find a way to work together. The alternative is the dissolution of the United States of America.
Very soon we will know the result.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
The bleeding of America in Afghanistan
Once again (and always it appears), the all powerful Military Industrial Complex has prevailed. President Obama's announcement of his decision to escalate American military involvement in Afghanistan virtually assures that the "bleeding of America" will continue for many years to come.
Our President has buckled to the wishes of the MIC by somehow being maneuvered into believing that more troops to basically protect the troops already in country will result in a "win". It won't because we are battling an enemy that knows nothing else but conflict and chaos and death is expected. We are not fighting Al Queda there because that group is almost a ghost. They have no physical roots and will move and regroup no matter what we do in Afghanistan. Pakistan is more threatened by their influence than Afghanistan. This begs the main question. Why are we in Afghanistan and what are we trying to accomplish?
When our President and others say that our primary goal is to suppress and beat back those who oppose the established government of Afghanistan and to assist in creating a stable and functioning country it "sounds" good to many here who only know a nation (America) with an established government and a functioning nation (America). The problem with these goals are many. A primary one is that to many Afghan citizens WE are just another in a long line of foreign invaders and this fact gives the Taliban or other factions a powerful tool to convince and intimidate the average Afghan citizen. A second and also important "problem" is that the "established government" is an illusion that has little impact in most of Afghanistan. There has never been a truly established government and our "goal" of creating one has been crushed by the continual corruption (nothing new at all) by many "in power" who have stolen large sums of money meant to help the citizens. WE must keep in mind that the Afghan people are one of the most uneducated and poor groups on earth. It is essentially a destitute country ruled by local tribal leaders that have almost nothing to do with the so-called "established government" in their capital. Their cooperation with their government or America is very much dependent on how much money or goods they receive. The shifting alliances by these tribal leaders and the people themselves will continue no matter what WE try to do there. There is a reason why the American people (in general) do not get to see just how depressed Afghanistan actually is and that is because if we did we might begin to realize that WE will never be able to leave behind a stable functioning country.
When President Obama told us last week that he was authorizing an additional 30,000 troops to join the fight he may as well have said 50,000 or 100,000 or 200,000 because it will not matter. We will not bring the "enemy" to their knees (as so many have tried before). The best we can hope for is that our courageous military will achieve some minor push back victories (that will be hailed here at home) and the Taliban or others will retreat (temporarily) but in the end there will be no lasting "win". The "bleeding of America" will continue and the people of Afghanistan won't be much better off when we finally leave.
When President Obama told us that his "goal" is to begin bringing our troops home beginning in July of 2011 it was more a statement to pacify his base than it was an actual goal. The "leaks" by many in the military community in the weeks prior to the troop announcement should have created much more White House outrage for many reasons but mainly because they created much public pressure and put the President in a poor position. The MIC wanted this of course because it is always very difficult for a sitting President to give the appearance of failing to support the troops. President Obama should have taken control of the situation much earlier by being prepared with a "short term" strategy for Afghanistan BEFORE being put under the political pressure because of the leaks. If the General in charge of our forces in Afghanistan went public with his opinions and requests for troops without the full and complete approval of his commander in chief then he should be immediately removed from his position. Those above him in the chain of command all the way to the Secretary of Defense must be held accountable for these lapses as well. General McChrystal asked for more troops indicating that if he didn't get them the "war" would probably be "lost" and if he got them it would help but would not necessarily result in victory. Perfect. McChrystal knows as do all the generals above him that full and complete "victory" in a military sense is not going to happen. He noted in his supposed "confidential" report that it would take 500,000 troops and at least five years to obtain a full military victory. The "bleeding of America" will continue. It is a slow bleed (because that has become acceptable to American citizens) that will continue because the MIC is designed for the long term. American oil and pipeline interests have been involved for the long term as well. We must remember that way back in the late 1990's there were intense negotiations with the Taliban leadership to secure plans for an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban would not "cooperate" and the last meeting of the parties took place in August of 2001 (yes, BEFORE the 9/11 attacks and incidental to Osama Bin Laden) and a U.S. State Department official, Christina Rocca, at this last meeting is quoted as telling the Taliban, "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs".
When "we the people" are told that our attack on Afghanistan was in response to the 9/11 attacks on American soil IT IS NOT TRUE! Military plans had been in the works for a long time before 9/11 (which answers a nagging question about just how we were ready and able to launch our invasion less than one month after the 9/11 attacks while it now takes 3 to 6 months to fully deploy the new 30,000 troops) and those plans had nothing to do with 9/11 and almost everything to do with getting rid of a leadership (the Taliban) that would not yield to our wishes to build oil and gas pipelines! This is no different than our primary motive for invading Iraq. It is always about the oil interests and the MIC is more than happy to "help" because it keeps their agenda going as well.
The situation now is that we have occupied Afghanistan for 98 months now and with this new announcement we have pretty much committed ourselves to at least another 2 to 3 years and it could very well be 5, 6 or 10 or more years of American military troop commitment in the wasteland that is Afghanistan. Of course in keeping with the need and desire of the Military Industrial Complex even if President Obama were to announce in the second half of 2011 that there has been significant improvement in Afghanistan (which will be a vastly overstated report), the situation in Pakistan will have reached critical mass by then and Pakistan will be the next in line for U.S. military troops. This will be justified by the need to protect Pakistan's nuclear weapons (at all cost) and to keep Pakistan a viable U.S. partner in the region. Or, we will be told that "conditions on the ground" simply prevent the beginning of troop withdrawal in July of 2011. Also, Iran is waiting in the wings too. So sorry folks but the beat will continue. It is interesting to note that Syria has dropped off the radar as an imminent threat. Hmmm....
Our brave troops will of course continue to engage when ordered and will do so "forever" if necessary because that's what they do. American families will continue to be devastated as the "bleeding of America" continues with more and more having to deal with the death or injuries of their beloved soldiers. Families will continue to deal with the emotional toll as well. After all it's the patriotic thing to do, right? Supporting the troops is all important, even if it means giving them up to interests that are not in the best interests of the troops themselves. The sad reality is that whatever the stated result is in Afghanistan IT WILL NOT put an end to "threats" to America. There will ALWAYS be the next threat in the next geographic area of the world. The use of so many assets by our government during the past now more than 8 years is creating a huge long term problem and doesn't even consider any future threats by potential enemies (China and yes, again Russia) who would pose a much greater problem for American troops than the roaming bands of fighters we are currently chasing around the mountains of Afghanistan or the ethnic factions we "battled" in Iraq. Supporting and protecting American troops also means ONLY putting them in harms way when it is absolutely critical to their survival or the imminent survival of America herself. A "volunteer" military is struggling to keep necessary recruitment levels in large part because when it is pretty much assured that when one volunteers now they will be sent to combat as opposed to the many years after the draft was abolished when military service was viewed by many as a few years of "training" and assignments on a base with little combat expected in order to gain the GI benefits. The real world possibility that death or major injury has become the reality will no doubt change minds about enlisting.
America is at one of its cores a warring nation and has been for well over 100 years. There have been times when war was the only option but there have also been many conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few) that have been initiated and waged and supported (for a time) by convincing a majority of the American people that it was imperative to stop things like communism (Korea and Vietnam) or Islamic extremists or despotic leaders (at least those with oil under their soil). The "protection" of America here at home has been a process mired in politics and has not resulted in actually protecting "we the people" by securing our borders and ports (to the extent possible) or changing our legal immigration process to close the loopholes that allow extremists to enter and breed on American soil. But we Americans always like to hear that the "threat" is somewhere else. We certainly wouldn't want to upset the economic engine any further by focusing too close to home.
Yes, the "Bleeding of America" will continue.
Our President has buckled to the wishes of the MIC by somehow being maneuvered into believing that more troops to basically protect the troops already in country will result in a "win". It won't because we are battling an enemy that knows nothing else but conflict and chaos and death is expected. We are not fighting Al Queda there because that group is almost a ghost. They have no physical roots and will move and regroup no matter what we do in Afghanistan. Pakistan is more threatened by their influence than Afghanistan. This begs the main question. Why are we in Afghanistan and what are we trying to accomplish?
When our President and others say that our primary goal is to suppress and beat back those who oppose the established government of Afghanistan and to assist in creating a stable and functioning country it "sounds" good to many here who only know a nation (America) with an established government and a functioning nation (America). The problem with these goals are many. A primary one is that to many Afghan citizens WE are just another in a long line of foreign invaders and this fact gives the Taliban or other factions a powerful tool to convince and intimidate the average Afghan citizen. A second and also important "problem" is that the "established government" is an illusion that has little impact in most of Afghanistan. There has never been a truly established government and our "goal" of creating one has been crushed by the continual corruption (nothing new at all) by many "in power" who have stolen large sums of money meant to help the citizens. WE must keep in mind that the Afghan people are one of the most uneducated and poor groups on earth. It is essentially a destitute country ruled by local tribal leaders that have almost nothing to do with the so-called "established government" in their capital. Their cooperation with their government or America is very much dependent on how much money or goods they receive. The shifting alliances by these tribal leaders and the people themselves will continue no matter what WE try to do there. There is a reason why the American people (in general) do not get to see just how depressed Afghanistan actually is and that is because if we did we might begin to realize that WE will never be able to leave behind a stable functioning country.
When President Obama told us last week that he was authorizing an additional 30,000 troops to join the fight he may as well have said 50,000 or 100,000 or 200,000 because it will not matter. We will not bring the "enemy" to their knees (as so many have tried before). The best we can hope for is that our courageous military will achieve some minor push back victories (that will be hailed here at home) and the Taliban or others will retreat (temporarily) but in the end there will be no lasting "win". The "bleeding of America" will continue and the people of Afghanistan won't be much better off when we finally leave.
When President Obama told us that his "goal" is to begin bringing our troops home beginning in July of 2011 it was more a statement to pacify his base than it was an actual goal. The "leaks" by many in the military community in the weeks prior to the troop announcement should have created much more White House outrage for many reasons but mainly because they created much public pressure and put the President in a poor position. The MIC wanted this of course because it is always very difficult for a sitting President to give the appearance of failing to support the troops. President Obama should have taken control of the situation much earlier by being prepared with a "short term" strategy for Afghanistan BEFORE being put under the political pressure because of the leaks. If the General in charge of our forces in Afghanistan went public with his opinions and requests for troops without the full and complete approval of his commander in chief then he should be immediately removed from his position. Those above him in the chain of command all the way to the Secretary of Defense must be held accountable for these lapses as well. General McChrystal asked for more troops indicating that if he didn't get them the "war" would probably be "lost" and if he got them it would help but would not necessarily result in victory. Perfect. McChrystal knows as do all the generals above him that full and complete "victory" in a military sense is not going to happen. He noted in his supposed "confidential" report that it would take 500,000 troops and at least five years to obtain a full military victory. The "bleeding of America" will continue. It is a slow bleed (because that has become acceptable to American citizens) that will continue because the MIC is designed for the long term. American oil and pipeline interests have been involved for the long term as well. We must remember that way back in the late 1990's there were intense negotiations with the Taliban leadership to secure plans for an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban would not "cooperate" and the last meeting of the parties took place in August of 2001 (yes, BEFORE the 9/11 attacks and incidental to Osama Bin Laden) and a U.S. State Department official, Christina Rocca, at this last meeting is quoted as telling the Taliban, "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs".
When "we the people" are told that our attack on Afghanistan was in response to the 9/11 attacks on American soil IT IS NOT TRUE! Military plans had been in the works for a long time before 9/11 (which answers a nagging question about just how we were ready and able to launch our invasion less than one month after the 9/11 attacks while it now takes 3 to 6 months to fully deploy the new 30,000 troops) and those plans had nothing to do with 9/11 and almost everything to do with getting rid of a leadership (the Taliban) that would not yield to our wishes to build oil and gas pipelines! This is no different than our primary motive for invading Iraq. It is always about the oil interests and the MIC is more than happy to "help" because it keeps their agenda going as well.
The situation now is that we have occupied Afghanistan for 98 months now and with this new announcement we have pretty much committed ourselves to at least another 2 to 3 years and it could very well be 5, 6 or 10 or more years of American military troop commitment in the wasteland that is Afghanistan. Of course in keeping with the need and desire of the Military Industrial Complex even if President Obama were to announce in the second half of 2011 that there has been significant improvement in Afghanistan (which will be a vastly overstated report), the situation in Pakistan will have reached critical mass by then and Pakistan will be the next in line for U.S. military troops. This will be justified by the need to protect Pakistan's nuclear weapons (at all cost) and to keep Pakistan a viable U.S. partner in the region. Or, we will be told that "conditions on the ground" simply prevent the beginning of troop withdrawal in July of 2011. Also, Iran is waiting in the wings too. So sorry folks but the beat will continue. It is interesting to note that Syria has dropped off the radar as an imminent threat. Hmmm....
Our brave troops will of course continue to engage when ordered and will do so "forever" if necessary because that's what they do. American families will continue to be devastated as the "bleeding of America" continues with more and more having to deal with the death or injuries of their beloved soldiers. Families will continue to deal with the emotional toll as well. After all it's the patriotic thing to do, right? Supporting the troops is all important, even if it means giving them up to interests that are not in the best interests of the troops themselves. The sad reality is that whatever the stated result is in Afghanistan IT WILL NOT put an end to "threats" to America. There will ALWAYS be the next threat in the next geographic area of the world. The use of so many assets by our government during the past now more than 8 years is creating a huge long term problem and doesn't even consider any future threats by potential enemies (China and yes, again Russia) who would pose a much greater problem for American troops than the roaming bands of fighters we are currently chasing around the mountains of Afghanistan or the ethnic factions we "battled" in Iraq. Supporting and protecting American troops also means ONLY putting them in harms way when it is absolutely critical to their survival or the imminent survival of America herself. A "volunteer" military is struggling to keep necessary recruitment levels in large part because when it is pretty much assured that when one volunteers now they will be sent to combat as opposed to the many years after the draft was abolished when military service was viewed by many as a few years of "training" and assignments on a base with little combat expected in order to gain the GI benefits. The real world possibility that death or major injury has become the reality will no doubt change minds about enlisting.
America is at one of its cores a warring nation and has been for well over 100 years. There have been times when war was the only option but there have also been many conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few) that have been initiated and waged and supported (for a time) by convincing a majority of the American people that it was imperative to stop things like communism (Korea and Vietnam) or Islamic extremists or despotic leaders (at least those with oil under their soil). The "protection" of America here at home has been a process mired in politics and has not resulted in actually protecting "we the people" by securing our borders and ports (to the extent possible) or changing our legal immigration process to close the loopholes that allow extremists to enter and breed on American soil. But we Americans always like to hear that the "threat" is somewhere else. We certainly wouldn't want to upset the economic engine any further by focusing too close to home.
Yes, the "Bleeding of America" will continue.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
PLEASE MR. PRESIDENT
I will start this post by repeating the title. Please Mr. President. Anyone who may have read my postings during the past four years plus may have the impression (unless they read all of them carefully) that I simply blast away with criticism for the GOP. I have been blunt at times but mainly because I am above all interested in the truth and in a deep sense that Government actions that directly affect the ACTUAL lives of American citizens (military or not) and civilians in other places on the planet should not be carried out for "political" reasons or for any agenda controlled by corporations (oil being the main influence carrier and our own military industrial complex as well).
LIVES ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO BE USED OR SACRIFICED UNLESS THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER CHOICE!
The attack carried out against America on September 11, 2001 was without question a horrendous act and all Americans should have been outraged. But, this was hardly the first attack but rather a continuation of sporadic actions against America and her interests and allies that has been going on for decades. Too few of our citizens understand the history of America's actions across the middle east region or understand the reaction from many in that region to what they perceive as a long standing invasion by the West on their land and their culture. This posting is not strictly about that aspect but I only wanted to expand the horizon of thinking about what is at its core a cultural issue as much as it is about oil (well, maybe not that much).
When the "news" that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by the group known as Al- Qaeda and that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for funding and planning the attacks, although 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi Arabian citizens (how did our Government publish complete dossiers on all these men so quickly after the attacks?) or actual conclusive evidence has yet to be presented (many terrorists individuals or groups like to take credit for deadly attacks whether they themselves did the act or not). There are lots of questions still on the the table about Osama Bin Laden and in fact the relationship between the powerful Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia, The Saudi Royal family and the United States (or more specifically, ties to oil interests here and some powerful Americans), but that is just another area not for this posting.
The fact that Osama Bin Laden was allowed to use territory in Afghanistan (after the heat became a little too much in the Sudan) created the perfect opportunity for a double retaliation by the United States (through a military strike). A little background first. During the Afghan-Soviet Union conflict of the 1980's America was covertly (meaning unofficially) involved in providing critical weapons and intelligence support to the "freedom fighters" battling for control of their country against the "evil empire" (to quote former President Reagan). For more than 10 years, these tribal warriors (along with a large group of "freedom fighters" from neighboring areas) finally prevailed and the mighty Soviets withdrew. The scene that remained in Afghanistan was chaotic with the nation in ruins, hundreds of thousands dead or wounded and no real form of central Governmental control (has that country ever actually had a central control?). Afghanistan sank into a civil war but war and conflict is certainly nothing new to the modern heritage of the country or its people. It was 90 years ago following the THIRD Anglo-Afghan war (the first back in 1839) that Afghanistan finally regained it's status as an independent nation from the United Kingdom (just another western invader). There have been Kings and assassinations and coups and foreign influence from countries close by and far away and through it all there have been the tribes and their fighters, who have been labeled at various times as "freedom fighters" or hired guns or terrorists or just dedicated citizens of their country always willing to fight for their beliefs. No doubt the primary reason for American involvement in the Afghan war against the Soviets was motivated by the continual struggle to win the cold war or cripple the Soviets at every opportunity (much as covert Soviet support was used to aid our "enemy" in Vietnam). The Afghans were mere pawns in a much larger battle and many in that country have realized this fact over the years. But, American involvement in Afghanistan has always had another motivation which was and is to develop and protect potential oil and gas pathways in the region. Please Mr. President, be the first to actually stand up and be honest about that fact!
As I mentioned, following the Soviet conflict, Afghanistan was a nation in ruins and the mighty United States (having succeeded in their immediate geopolitical goal) walked away and did very little to assist this devastated nation and its people to try and rebuild their country. But the Afghan people are, if nothing else, a strong and determined group with long memories. They have been attacked and conquered and manipulated for literally thousands of years. It is part of their culture and something badly under estimated by the United States for decades most recently by former President Bush but now President Obama appears to have fallen into the same sinkhole. Please Mr. President, think this through. I have to believe that our new President (and probably those before him) has been counseled or at least studied the history of Afghanistan in much more depth that I and MUST realize that the task of bringing "our" form of government or religious beliefs to the people of Afghanistan is an exercise in "unreasonable expectations".
Mr. President, you waged a campaign with a main theme of ending our involvement in the debacle that the previous administration got us into in Iraq which as we know had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 but somehow morphed into a major battleground for the "War on Terror" and has yielded thousands of American dead, tens of thousands of wounded and hundreds of thousands of family and friends here at home to bear the tremendous burden this so-called war has caused, not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars spent during the past six and a half years. The Government of Iraq and the majority of the Iraqi people decided even before our 2008 elections that it is time for the Americans to leave and at least we are in the final planning stages for getting out. The situation (once we blasted out the regime of Saddam) became an internal struggle for control of a sovereign nation and it will remain so after we leave. Iraq, like Afghanistan has been an area invaded, dominated, used and abused for a very long time and there was no chance that we were going to fundamentally alter the religion or cultural structure there.
The new administration, President Obama in particular, at the very least, should finally be the one to be honest with the American people with respect to our ever increasing commitment in Afghanistan. WHAT IS THE PLAN??? What are we trying to do? We hastily invaded Afghanistan a scant six weeks after the attacks of 9/11 (we sure seemed to be gearing up for the invasion even before 9/11, didn't we?) and "if" our plan was to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden why, oh why did we not cutoff the exit routes into Pakistan BEFORE we invaded. The mission (if we wish to call it that) appeared more about toppling the Taliban than dealing with those we believed responsible for the attack of 9/11. Why? I believe that answer goes back to our "relations" with the Taliban well before the attack on U.S. soil.
I mentioned earlier that following the Afghan-Soviet conflict, America and its allies basically walked away from that poor and destroyed country. This led to the rise of the Warlords in various regions of the country (of course armed with "modern" weaponry that WE provided) and the country descended into numerous internal struggles leading to even more civilian deaths. By 1994, the Taliban (with the backing of Pakistan) began to take political and geographic control and by 1998 they controlled about 95% of the country. The Taliban instituted severe restrictions of the "freedoms" that we hold dear and created an oppressive fundamentalist environment. WE didn't show the outrage that made it way to the surface years later for two main reasons. First, we didn't really care and second and most important to understanding what all this is really about, America in concert with a few of our oil giants still held out hope that we could negotiate with the Taliban to gain access to the territory to build oil and or gas pipelines. During 1999 and all the way to 2001, the Taliban resisted our overtures and America has never liked it when another country denies us our "rights". My contention is that as soon as Bush became President active plans were being made for the military overthrow of the Taliban and the fact that Osama Bin Laden (former "freedom fighter" supported by the United States) had been given refuge there and then the timely attacks of 9/11 provided the perfect situation fully supported by American outrage (why weren't we outraged to that point following the 1998 Embassy bombings or the attack on the USS Cole in 2000?) to invade and eliminate the uncooperative Taliban. Of course, once again we under estimated the situation. Did we really believe that by bringing in a "puppet" Government to control the Capital and building some schools and a few roads (this was already tried and it failed then as well), we were going to win the "hearts and minds" of a nation steeped in the history of conflict and betrayal? Did we really believe that the Taliban minded people were just going to go away or become enlightened about the benefits of a free and open society? The underground involvement in Pakistan (another storm on the horizon by the way), the scattering out to the territories by the Taliban faithful to wait out our firestorm, and the tribal lordships present throughout Afghanistan provided virtual assurance that any central Government inserted in the capital was doomed to irrelevance at best and complete failure at worst. When the Bush Administration made the fateful decision that Afghanistan was simply not enough to feed the appetite of our awakened military machine and set their sights on Iraq (and of course all that oil under that soil), it created a perfect opportunity for the Taliban to regroup and slowly gain their control back. The most recent estimate is that over 70% of the country is now under Taliban control once again.
PLEASE MR. PRESIDENT slow down our recent escalation of troops being deployed to Afghanistan (already double the number since you became President!) and THINK THIS THROUGH! Again, what is the plan? At the very least you owe a full and honest explanation to the American people, before the KIA numbers from Afghanistan spiral upward. ANY more death is unacceptable without at least convincing yourself and the rest of us that there is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the United States. The American military should not be placed in harms way for the purpose of nation building (something many of our former leaders always insisted we wouldn't do, but always seem to do anyway) or other economic agenda pushed by large business interests.
The "fight" against Islamic extremists or other individual enemies we may have will never be defeated by using our traditional military assets and especially not by flooding a country like Afghanistan with more and more troops who simply become targets for potshots and roadside bombs. These brave men and women are in harm's way TONIGHT, Mr. President! It was probably nice that you were able to have some quiet vacation time with your family this past week or that the Vice-President was able to attend the Little League World Series today or that our entire elected Congress (and their staffs) have been able to take an entire month off (during a time of "War" and other National crisis) but during all of that rest and relaxation, American lives have been lost because our military has been ordered to combat by their leader. Eight months into your term of office, you no longer have the luxury of our involvement in Afghanistan (or Iraq) being blamed on the former President. Yes, he got us into it but you sir, and only you, now have the power to get us out! Please do not begin to use the "excuse" that to leave Afghanistan would somehow dishonor those that have already fallen. It wouldn't at all. I suggest that a decision by you, Mr. President to remove our troops from harms way (except for a few elite squads with the sole mission of finding and taking out Osama Bin Laden) would be not only the correct thing to do but would also honor our military men and women. They will continue to fight and die, as ordered because that is their job. YOUR job, Mr. President (as I posted to former President Bush on numerous occasions) is to protect this nation from immediate threats and to protect the members of the armed forces that you command. The "threats" to America are many and could come from almost anywhere, Former President Bush talked often about protecting America and its people yet he never did manage to close the holes in our borders that at this moment could be the avenue for "terrorists" or weapons of great harm to gain entry into our country, nor did he ever fully implement a full system of checking our ports to eliminate the possibility of items that could kill American citizens here at home. Will you, Mr. President?
I realize the economy and now the issue of health care has dominated the national discussion and those are very serious subjects as well and need thoughtful attention and decisive action, but please do not let those things distract you from making the necessary decisions with respect to our foreign military engagements. The lives of our troops and the numbing effect ANY death has on their families must be more important than the price of a house or the failure of a bank or almost anything else I can consider. We have somehow let the reporting of casualties become little more than a report of numbers, like the stock market ticker or the upcoming weather report and that is not acceptable!
PLEASE, MR. PRESIDENT, it is truly; TIME TO THINK AGAIN.
LIVES ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO BE USED OR SACRIFICED UNLESS THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER CHOICE!
The attack carried out against America on September 11, 2001 was without question a horrendous act and all Americans should have been outraged. But, this was hardly the first attack but rather a continuation of sporadic actions against America and her interests and allies that has been going on for decades. Too few of our citizens understand the history of America's actions across the middle east region or understand the reaction from many in that region to what they perceive as a long standing invasion by the West on their land and their culture. This posting is not strictly about that aspect but I only wanted to expand the horizon of thinking about what is at its core a cultural issue as much as it is about oil (well, maybe not that much).
When the "news" that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by the group known as Al- Qaeda and that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for funding and planning the attacks, although 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi Arabian citizens (how did our Government publish complete dossiers on all these men so quickly after the attacks?) or actual conclusive evidence has yet to be presented (many terrorists individuals or groups like to take credit for deadly attacks whether they themselves did the act or not). There are lots of questions still on the the table about Osama Bin Laden and in fact the relationship between the powerful Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia, The Saudi Royal family and the United States (or more specifically, ties to oil interests here and some powerful Americans), but that is just another area not for this posting.
The fact that Osama Bin Laden was allowed to use territory in Afghanistan (after the heat became a little too much in the Sudan) created the perfect opportunity for a double retaliation by the United States (through a military strike). A little background first. During the Afghan-Soviet Union conflict of the 1980's America was covertly (meaning unofficially) involved in providing critical weapons and intelligence support to the "freedom fighters" battling for control of their country against the "evil empire" (to quote former President Reagan). For more than 10 years, these tribal warriors (along with a large group of "freedom fighters" from neighboring areas) finally prevailed and the mighty Soviets withdrew. The scene that remained in Afghanistan was chaotic with the nation in ruins, hundreds of thousands dead or wounded and no real form of central Governmental control (has that country ever actually had a central control?). Afghanistan sank into a civil war but war and conflict is certainly nothing new to the modern heritage of the country or its people. It was 90 years ago following the THIRD Anglo-Afghan war (the first back in 1839) that Afghanistan finally regained it's status as an independent nation from the United Kingdom (just another western invader). There have been Kings and assassinations and coups and foreign influence from countries close by and far away and through it all there have been the tribes and their fighters, who have been labeled at various times as "freedom fighters" or hired guns or terrorists or just dedicated citizens of their country always willing to fight for their beliefs. No doubt the primary reason for American involvement in the Afghan war against the Soviets was motivated by the continual struggle to win the cold war or cripple the Soviets at every opportunity (much as covert Soviet support was used to aid our "enemy" in Vietnam). The Afghans were mere pawns in a much larger battle and many in that country have realized this fact over the years. But, American involvement in Afghanistan has always had another motivation which was and is to develop and protect potential oil and gas pathways in the region. Please Mr. President, be the first to actually stand up and be honest about that fact!
As I mentioned, following the Soviet conflict, Afghanistan was a nation in ruins and the mighty United States (having succeeded in their immediate geopolitical goal) walked away and did very little to assist this devastated nation and its people to try and rebuild their country. But the Afghan people are, if nothing else, a strong and determined group with long memories. They have been attacked and conquered and manipulated for literally thousands of years. It is part of their culture and something badly under estimated by the United States for decades most recently by former President Bush but now President Obama appears to have fallen into the same sinkhole. Please Mr. President, think this through. I have to believe that our new President (and probably those before him) has been counseled or at least studied the history of Afghanistan in much more depth that I and MUST realize that the task of bringing "our" form of government or religious beliefs to the people of Afghanistan is an exercise in "unreasonable expectations".
Mr. President, you waged a campaign with a main theme of ending our involvement in the debacle that the previous administration got us into in Iraq which as we know had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 but somehow morphed into a major battleground for the "War on Terror" and has yielded thousands of American dead, tens of thousands of wounded and hundreds of thousands of family and friends here at home to bear the tremendous burden this so-called war has caused, not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars spent during the past six and a half years. The Government of Iraq and the majority of the Iraqi people decided even before our 2008 elections that it is time for the Americans to leave and at least we are in the final planning stages for getting out. The situation (once we blasted out the regime of Saddam) became an internal struggle for control of a sovereign nation and it will remain so after we leave. Iraq, like Afghanistan has been an area invaded, dominated, used and abused for a very long time and there was no chance that we were going to fundamentally alter the religion or cultural structure there.
The new administration, President Obama in particular, at the very least, should finally be the one to be honest with the American people with respect to our ever increasing commitment in Afghanistan. WHAT IS THE PLAN??? What are we trying to do? We hastily invaded Afghanistan a scant six weeks after the attacks of 9/11 (we sure seemed to be gearing up for the invasion even before 9/11, didn't we?) and "if" our plan was to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden why, oh why did we not cutoff the exit routes into Pakistan BEFORE we invaded. The mission (if we wish to call it that) appeared more about toppling the Taliban than dealing with those we believed responsible for the attack of 9/11. Why? I believe that answer goes back to our "relations" with the Taliban well before the attack on U.S. soil.
I mentioned earlier that following the Afghan-Soviet conflict, America and its allies basically walked away from that poor and destroyed country. This led to the rise of the Warlords in various regions of the country (of course armed with "modern" weaponry that WE provided) and the country descended into numerous internal struggles leading to even more civilian deaths. By 1994, the Taliban (with the backing of Pakistan) began to take political and geographic control and by 1998 they controlled about 95% of the country. The Taliban instituted severe restrictions of the "freedoms" that we hold dear and created an oppressive fundamentalist environment. WE didn't show the outrage that made it way to the surface years later for two main reasons. First, we didn't really care and second and most important to understanding what all this is really about, America in concert with a few of our oil giants still held out hope that we could negotiate with the Taliban to gain access to the territory to build oil and or gas pipelines. During 1999 and all the way to 2001, the Taliban resisted our overtures and America has never liked it when another country denies us our "rights". My contention is that as soon as Bush became President active plans were being made for the military overthrow of the Taliban and the fact that Osama Bin Laden (former "freedom fighter" supported by the United States) had been given refuge there and then the timely attacks of 9/11 provided the perfect situation fully supported by American outrage (why weren't we outraged to that point following the 1998 Embassy bombings or the attack on the USS Cole in 2000?) to invade and eliminate the uncooperative Taliban. Of course, once again we under estimated the situation. Did we really believe that by bringing in a "puppet" Government to control the Capital and building some schools and a few roads (this was already tried and it failed then as well), we were going to win the "hearts and minds" of a nation steeped in the history of conflict and betrayal? Did we really believe that the Taliban minded people were just going to go away or become enlightened about the benefits of a free and open society? The underground involvement in Pakistan (another storm on the horizon by the way), the scattering out to the territories by the Taliban faithful to wait out our firestorm, and the tribal lordships present throughout Afghanistan provided virtual assurance that any central Government inserted in the capital was doomed to irrelevance at best and complete failure at worst. When the Bush Administration made the fateful decision that Afghanistan was simply not enough to feed the appetite of our awakened military machine and set their sights on Iraq (and of course all that oil under that soil), it created a perfect opportunity for the Taliban to regroup and slowly gain their control back. The most recent estimate is that over 70% of the country is now under Taliban control once again.
PLEASE MR. PRESIDENT slow down our recent escalation of troops being deployed to Afghanistan (already double the number since you became President!) and THINK THIS THROUGH! Again, what is the plan? At the very least you owe a full and honest explanation to the American people, before the KIA numbers from Afghanistan spiral upward. ANY more death is unacceptable without at least convincing yourself and the rest of us that there is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the United States. The American military should not be placed in harms way for the purpose of nation building (something many of our former leaders always insisted we wouldn't do, but always seem to do anyway) or other economic agenda pushed by large business interests.
The "fight" against Islamic extremists or other individual enemies we may have will never be defeated by using our traditional military assets and especially not by flooding a country like Afghanistan with more and more troops who simply become targets for potshots and roadside bombs. These brave men and women are in harm's way TONIGHT, Mr. President! It was probably nice that you were able to have some quiet vacation time with your family this past week or that the Vice-President was able to attend the Little League World Series today or that our entire elected Congress (and their staffs) have been able to take an entire month off (during a time of "War" and other National crisis) but during all of that rest and relaxation, American lives have been lost because our military has been ordered to combat by their leader. Eight months into your term of office, you no longer have the luxury of our involvement in Afghanistan (or Iraq) being blamed on the former President. Yes, he got us into it but you sir, and only you, now have the power to get us out! Please do not begin to use the "excuse" that to leave Afghanistan would somehow dishonor those that have already fallen. It wouldn't at all. I suggest that a decision by you, Mr. President to remove our troops from harms way (except for a few elite squads with the sole mission of finding and taking out Osama Bin Laden) would be not only the correct thing to do but would also honor our military men and women. They will continue to fight and die, as ordered because that is their job. YOUR job, Mr. President (as I posted to former President Bush on numerous occasions) is to protect this nation from immediate threats and to protect the members of the armed forces that you command. The "threats" to America are many and could come from almost anywhere, Former President Bush talked often about protecting America and its people yet he never did manage to close the holes in our borders that at this moment could be the avenue for "terrorists" or weapons of great harm to gain entry into our country, nor did he ever fully implement a full system of checking our ports to eliminate the possibility of items that could kill American citizens here at home. Will you, Mr. President?
I realize the economy and now the issue of health care has dominated the national discussion and those are very serious subjects as well and need thoughtful attention and decisive action, but please do not let those things distract you from making the necessary decisions with respect to our foreign military engagements. The lives of our troops and the numbing effect ANY death has on their families must be more important than the price of a house or the failure of a bank or almost anything else I can consider. We have somehow let the reporting of casualties become little more than a report of numbers, like the stock market ticker or the upcoming weather report and that is not acceptable!
PLEASE, MR. PRESIDENT, it is truly; TIME TO THINK AGAIN.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
DEMS SHOULD BE CAREFUL
The democrats should be careful before getting too much deeper into the government bailout and government ownership business. At some point the "talk" from the GOP about the excesses of too much Government will become a reality. We the People always express a desire for "change" and the winning Party always "promises" that they will be the ones to deliver that change. The reality though is that the change that occurs almost always falls short of the expectations of the voters. The best policy for the Federal Government moving forward will be to move the issues that belong in the States back to the States and stop trying to micro manage the entire country from the oval office or the U.S. Congress. It is NOT the duty of the Federal Government to attempt to control every aspect of State business and the lives of all the citizens. The individual States and the individual cities and towns throughout this country had better reclaim their rights and quit looking to the Federal Government to solve all the local problems.
Citizens had better stop looking to the Federal OR State governments to "fix their lives". It won't happen. If you lose your job, go out and get another one! This is what you did in the first place, right? If you cannot afford the house you purchased (for whatever reason), let it go and start over. Getting into fruitless reorganization schemes will only bring you back to the same spot again very soon. THINK things through and make an honest and realistic plan and then, along with your family, begin to make the plan work. You do not need the Government to "give you a life", nor should you want them to.
Nothing of value is ever easy and that fact hasn't changed in all of history. I've been up and down and down and out many times and I found the only thing to do was to acknowledge whatever the current situation is and then go out and make it better.
If the collective "we" keeps putting out hands out expecting the Government to keep giving us things, we will become the dependent, socialist nation in a short period of time.
Help yourselves. Help your neighbors. Help your towns and cities. Do it from the streets and before long your children will learn the lesson of honest effort and compassion and perhaps the next generation will not be struggling with the very same issues that were being discussed 100 years ago!
Citizens had better stop looking to the Federal OR State governments to "fix their lives". It won't happen. If you lose your job, go out and get another one! This is what you did in the first place, right? If you cannot afford the house you purchased (for whatever reason), let it go and start over. Getting into fruitless reorganization schemes will only bring you back to the same spot again very soon. THINK things through and make an honest and realistic plan and then, along with your family, begin to make the plan work. You do not need the Government to "give you a life", nor should you want them to.
Nothing of value is ever easy and that fact hasn't changed in all of history. I've been up and down and down and out many times and I found the only thing to do was to acknowledge whatever the current situation is and then go out and make it better.
If the collective "we" keeps putting out hands out expecting the Government to keep giving us things, we will become the dependent, socialist nation in a short period of time.
Help yourselves. Help your neighbors. Help your towns and cities. Do it from the streets and before long your children will learn the lesson of honest effort and compassion and perhaps the next generation will not be struggling with the very same issues that were being discussed 100 years ago!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)