Dawn just received a survey from the National Republican Congressional Committee, which of course is a fund raising plea in reality. No surprise there, as that's a common practice for everyone from neo-cons to tree huggers. My problem wasn't that this was a purported survey, it's that the survey is so incredibly biased and inaccurate. No illusion of information gathering, it's all about repeating the fear-and-anger based dogma at every turn.
The Pubs have taken a page from Huxley's vision of control through media, but have replaced the banal pap that produced happy little Betas with a firestorm of negative rhetoric aimed at stirring up the masses and controlling the fear-infused plebes to their own ends. Let's call them BULBs, Bugabooed Unhappy Little Betas. The potential satirical tangents are staggering, running from planting bulbs to dim bulbs and everything in between. This whole topic warrants its own entry, so enough said at this point.
But back to the survey. So what kind of manure do you use to feed your BULBs? Well, apparently the kind that keeps them bugabooed and unhappy. To wit:
Question #1: Do you believe House Republicans must cut spending as the best way to eliminate the huge Obama-Pelosi deficits? - Well, yes we do need to cut spending (like interest payments on our National Debt, unnecessary wars, no-bid contracts to Halliburton and more), but labeling these as Obama-Pelosi deficits is like blaming the holocaust on Karl Donitz (Hitler's successor as named in his Last Will and Testament).
George Bush got us into two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) that were supposed to be low cost, or better yet, pay for themselves. Dick Cheney stated on Meet the Press one week before the Iraq War began that both wars, including recovery, should cost about $100M. The cost to date is $704 billion and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2017 (by which time the wars are done and the tab been paid), the cost (including the financing cost for fighting the wars and paying with debt - money we didn't have) will be $2.4T ($1.9T in Iraq and $0.5T in Afghanistan). A slight difference of 2,399,900% (thank goodness he was our VP and not our accountant, AND that he's a fiscal conservative).
And Bush's war games cost America far more than that - its reputation tarnished (invading another country against the UN position based on trumped-up and known false intelligence is only the tip of the iceberg) was one thing, but the blatant disregard for any domestic issue whatsoever ("Heck of a job, Brownie!), especially the economy. The ensuing meltdown of the financial system required massive bailouts of....wait....wait.....Poor people who lost their homes...no.....Um, local businesses closed due to economic impact.....no....Oh yeah, the same privateers that almost sank the ship in the first place. Although it is repeatedly referred to by political savant Michelle Bachmann as the Obama bailout, the simplest question to a high school senior (or actually reading a book) would reveal to Michelle that the financial bailout was passed before Obama took office. Note from George to Obama: "Sorry about the flaming financial turd I left on your doorstep. Good Luck!"
Question #2: Do you agree with House Republicans who say the last thing we should do in this economy is raise taxes? - Well, yes I do actually. But just a bit of a realignment in our current system. The current top rate is 35%, less than 1/2 of the rate in the '80s. Brackets are also based on antiquated levels given inflation as well. So increase the ceiling for the current highest level to $500K married-filing-jointly (most of us should be able to scrape by on that), and introduce a 45% rate for those over $500K m-f-j. And limit tax breaks for the highest category as well. The economy is driven by the middle and upper-middle class, not the very rich. And tie the increased revenue to debt reduction. Only allow $1 of additional spending from the revenue increase for every $2.50 used to retire U.S. debt. That will work toward relieving the crushing financial burden on future generations and keep us from becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of China.
Question #3: To create more private sector jobs, are you in favor of cutting tax rates on business earnings in the U.S. which are now the highest in the world? - Well, yes I do. And our corporate income tax rates are highest in the world:
Question #4: Do you believe the government has gone too far in supporting or bailing out certain companies, and that we should get back to free enterprise by allowing everyone to compete equally, knowing that some companies will fail? - Again, I agree in principle, but the devil is in the details. The "free enterprise" spoken of has never really been free. Government policy (taxes, import fees, subsidies, et. al.) has always played a role in maintaining the balance of international trade, discouraging monopolies that stifle competition, incubating emerging industries until they can stand alone, and supporting industries critical to the nation's economic health. The supporting of mature industries, however, has become an expectation in many industries. Agricultural price supports (for sugar, peanuts, cotton, dairy) are so engrained that they're viewed as birthright, and they seem sane compared to the "pay to not grow programs". Even worse is the subsidies to essential industries that are economically robust. The U.S. government gave $2B to the oil industry in subsidies at the same time they had record 1st quarter profits of $35B. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the support the Pubs are looking to cut, however, as they received 75% of the political donations made by the oil industry.
Question #5: Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal the "ObamaCare" government-run health care law, but the bill has stalled in the Senate. Do you support repealing the unconstitutional "ObamaCare" law? - No I don't. I think it's far from perfect. But it is not unconstitutional (last time I saw my civics book, that kind of thing was decided by the courts, not the political spinmeisters). And it is at least something. The amount of money spent by the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries to stop or overturn this is staggering, and points out who has the most to lose by getting health care in the U.S. Not the citizens, but the profit centers.
The propaganda line was "We have the greatest health system in the world", "The government will only fuck it up". Well, we don't. We have the greatest health system in the world for dealing with some types of injuries or illnesses, but that's it. Our doctors make roughly 50% more than the next highest country among industrialized nations, and we spend over 13% of our GDP on health care (and that's before ObamaCare) while we covered only 40% of our citizens (among all other industrialized nations, most covered 100% while the other 5 nations covering less than 100% of their citizens ranged from 77-99%. Highest infant mortality rate, #10 in life expectancy, and the most recent World Health Organization ranking of countries by health performance (covering quality, performance, cost, etc.) has the U.S. in 72nd place (I hear the chants now, "We're Number 72! We're number 72"), safely behind such international health powers as Jamaica, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia and more.
Bottom line, the health system in this country is far too expensive for too little in return, and the problems are deeply engrained and varied.
- Doctors salaries
- Drugs that cost more here, in the country they're made, than in other countries (bus to Canada, anyone?)
- Significantly higher administrative costs (due to our varied and overly complicated health insurance) than other countries
- More widespread use of high-tech, high-cost medical equipment and procedures
- A lack of affordable preventive medicine loads our system with higher cost recovery medicine
- Our tort system (wow, another system run by self-governed "professionals" that make their own rules...what a coincidence) encourages defensive medicine (extra tests and procedures to protect against malpractice rather than for clinical value)
Question #6: Should Congress make border security a top priority? - No. Many other things discussed here are far more important. Not to mention that virtually every approach they've tried up to this point has been outsmarted by Mexican peasants almost immediately.
Question #7: Should we stop President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency from imposing unprecendented, job-crushing regulations on greenhouse gas emission? - This is an old canard dressed up in hyperbole. The cost to this country for preventing ecological damage is not only right to incur, it is far cheaper than the cost of the damage done by continuing to ignore science (global warming and the impact of humans on the environment has been recognized and agreed to by 18 scientific associations and hundreds of scientists in the environmental field). But then again, this is the same party that supports teaching creationism alongside evolution in many states. And job-crushing as a description should be saved for Wall Street riverboat gamblers that take their bonuses even as they sink thousands of small businesses and empty millions of retirement funds. That's job crushing.
Question #8: Are you in favor of education policies that empower parents and local school boards to make decisions instead of federal bureaucrats in Washington? - Carefully worded and extremely ripe for manipulation. Does this mean "let's have vouchers" (so rich people can let public education go all the way to hell)? Does this mean "Let's teach Intelligent Design instead of evolution? Does this mean we've learned our lesson from George Bush's disastrous (now there's a phrase I've had to use far to often) No Child Left Behind program (I doubt it)? All I know is that education is the single biggest reason why this country is falling behind so much of the world. I cynically believe that the decline is an intentional act by our politicians...stupid people are easier to control. They're also easier to distract with reality TV, NASCAR and video games, so they don't ask all those pesky questions like "Why do you get lifelong health care, but I get none?"
This country needs to address the decline in education with the same vision and passion that they had for the space race. Our children and our future deserve no less.
Question #9: Should House Republicans ensure that terrorists are prosecuted in military tribunals instead of civilian courts? - Probably. But I worry about how that gets used going forward.
Question #10: Do you oppose public funding of elective abortions? - Not if every Republican would pledge to raise at least 3 abandoned crack babies. Otherwise, I've got to fund hundreds of thousands of unwanted kids throughout a life of poverty, crime and incarceration. It's funny how many people will scream that every life is sacred, but only an infinitessimally small fraction of them would consider showing up at an orphanage and taking home a child of color (unless there really small, you know, when they're cute). The hypocrisy is staggering.
Question #11: Should House Republcans investigate potential mismanagement in the Obama White House - especially concerning illegal use of the $800 billion in stimulus money? - Well, this "potential" misuse was already debunked long ago. But the Pubs never miss a chance to repeat a lie, rumor or innuendo if there's political capital to be gained. Where were these vigilant public servants while Halliburton was scoring giant no-bid contracts from their former exec Dick "Luke, I am your Father" Cheney? Oh, probably the same place Newt Gingrich was while railing against Clinton for infidelity (i.e. getting blown in his car by his mistress).
Question #12: Will you return your completed We The People Survey along with one urgent financial gift to the National Republican Congressional Committee to help House Republicans who want to stand up against President Obama, stop the out-of-control spending, and return our government to the people? - No. I spent most of my life remaining staunchly independent. I voted for the person, not the party. And I have always had great respect for some past Republican presidents and their positions - Lincoln and his commitment to ending slavery, Roosevelt and his commitment to preserving the environment. Both those Republicans seem to have belonged to a different party, however. A party of principle, not pandering. Of forward thinking, not fear mongering. The political strategies laid forth by Newt Gingrich put winning at all costs into the political landscape - lying to confuse, smearing and then retracting, swift boating, all were justified by the Pubs. I certainly don't love the Democrats one and all. But this continued need to lie and dissemble at every turn (see Michelle Bachmann) makes it impossible to support this institutionalized manipulation of the public. I fear the Pubs have sold their soul to the Religious Right, and there is little I fear more than the righteous, as they have no need to question or to think.
I hope they come to their senses some day, to take strong and reasoned positions, to speak their case plainly and honestly and accept the will of the people. To become a party of the conservative people again, not the money brokers, right-wing special interest groups and single-issue sects. To become Republicans, again.
