The Food Stamp President

That's what Mitt Romney and the Republicans call President Obama.  Some look at this as a slam against the President who as a child received food stamps.  Some point to the fact that the number of people on food stamps has increased during his presidency and that somehow he made it easier to qualify for food stamps.  The facts on food stamps are a little more complicated.  The majority of the recipients have jobs.  So, why would they qualify for food stamps?  Because both wages and hours are down since 2008, but in reality they have been in decline for 30 years.  The bottom line is that you have more people who simply cannot afford to live in this country.  If we would reduce the food stamp program (both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are on record although recently they have change their mind) Paul Ryan would be able to get in a nice photo op at the soup kitchen probably similar to the depression.  You remove the floor and people are going to fall hard.  The Republicans believe that this is what should happen.  My question is what is the point?  Does anyone really believe that if you cut off aid to the poor suddenly the poor will get higher paying jobs or start a business?  Of course not.  What will happen is that we will see the true effects of this economy, which is that it is disastrous for the majority of Americans.  Maybe, we as a country need to go through a period like this so that people will finally wake up and understand that the wealthy, the corporations, and the politicians did this to us and finally demand change.   

The Case for War

Paul Ryan says that he and Romney will only take the US to war if the national interests of this country are threatened.  He didn't really define this but there are indicators from past actions.  While Mitt Romney was dodging the draft of a war that he not only fully supported but a war where he helped organize pro-war protests.  That war was Vietnam.  A war where there were no clear threats to our national security other than the domino effect of communism.  In fact today with the communists still in charge Vietnam has become an important trading partner, Mitt may have even shipped some American jobs over there.  Paul Ryan voted for the war in Iraq and Mitt Romney supported it.  Again another conflict without a clear threat to the country.  So, if they win expect to go into both Syria and Iran not that either country poses a threat to this country.  Even if Iran had a bomb they would be incapable of delivering to the United States.  If by some miracle they pulled off blowing one up in the US what exactly would happen to Iran?  I think that we would no longer have to worry about the Iranians.  Syria is simply not a threat and there is no clear good group worthy of our support.

Race Baiting

Jonah Goldberg was writing about how the Democrats see race when that is not really the issue.  He took the example of the Republicans saying that Obama uses the Chicago way of politics.  Two Democrats have said that this remark is racist.  I agree with Jonah it isn't racist.  Where I disagree with Jonah is that it is a statement that implies corruption.  The "Chicago Politics" comment harkens back to the machine politics of a past generation which doesn't exist anymore than saying that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are disciplines of the Chicago School of economics.  Which may be true if you look at their policies.  But, I fail to see an equivalent for the corrupt politics charge against Obama.  Is the President and his minions working to suppress the vote to get elected? Appears to be Republicans.  Is the President working to create pro Democrat voting districts to deliver a majority in Congress?  Again it would appear to be the Republicans.  Is the President using stimulus to create loyal workers?  Yes, but in States led by Republicans they are turning the money down.  No the President is a shadow of the political bosses of old, but the Republicans are looking very much the part and they are looking like Chicago School of Economics disciples as well.

The Problem With Paul Ryan

The man is entitled to his views and I can agree with some of them.  The problem that I have is his going around the country talking about how government programs are somehow hurting the people that they are supposed to help and creating a culture of dependence.  Fair enough but he himself was a victim of these same programs.  My daughter and other who I have talked to say that he changed his views and pointed out that my views have changed.  Also fair!  The difference is that I can discuss how and why I changed my positions over the years and Paul Ryan has not.  He has not said how he was harmed by the Government.  They assisted in funding his education at an out of state public (not deals there) university.  He could have stay in his beloved state and gone to one of the UW system schools for a fraction of the cost of attending Miami of Ohio.  I'm just wondering how that was a good use of taxpayer money.  Paul Ryan and his family also collected social security survivor benefits a program that he wants to dismantle (I can agree with this because Social Security was not intended to be a life insurance policy or a pension program, it was intended as assistance for the people who worked hard all of their lives).  I for one, want to know how he was victimized by this program?  Will Paul Ryan answer questions like these?  Doubtful

Paul Ryan Guest Editorial

Paul Ryan wrote a guest editorial in the Wisconsin State Journal today about college debt since this is graduation day at the UW.  He says that the reason that college tuition has gone up so fast is because of the easy money that can be gotten from the federal loan program.  Aside from the sheer irony of this coming from a man whose college education was paid for by the taxpayer (working students included) this is crazy.  Doesn't the congressman think that if the State of Wisconsin reduces funding of the UW by more than $100 million dollars, tuition would increase?  Apparently not, according to Paul Ryan they are increasing tuition because they can.  The theory goes that if college becomes unaffordable the students will just borrow from the federal government.  This is nonsense.  The schools are passing along the reductions in revenues from State and Federal sources.  The schools could offset this by going to corporations and suggest that they place more research with them instead of hiring people (could be a problem for graduating students).  The schools could also offset this by reducing salaries and benefits.  This is certainly something that the Republican party is for.  They believe that unless you are a wealthy conservative you should be thankful to have a job.  If you are a public employee that feel that you should be working for free.  What a concept.  If this continues public education in this country will be destroyed which will make for a lot of ditch diggers but not too many engineers and scientists.  Now we just need to get rid of the minimum wage and create a bunch of menial jobs.  I fail to see how this will allow the country to compete in the 21st century.  The United States became a great nation because of the affordability of college education.  We are going to witness a decline into a society that operates much like an aristocracy with a privileged class and a serf class .

The Ryan Budget

Paul Ryan has proposed his budget where he helps the poor and the middle class by cutting off programs that they need to get ahead and gives more breaks to the wealthy. His budget cuts things like student loans and social security income (if a parent dies). He says that this encourages laziness so his budget encourages incentive through deprivation. I guess that he would know because what he doesn't tell people is that his father died when he was young and the family had to live through the shame and laziness promoting policy of receiving SSI and then grant money for college. So, Paul Ryan knows first hand how these Government programs crush the spirit of Americans. Granted he was able to survive because he's Paul Ryan the GOP savior but he knows that others are not likely to be so fortunate.

Another example of a survivor is the President. Unlike Paul Ryan, President Obama believes that everyone should have the same opportunity that he was given, a chance a college degree, a chance for a better paying job, a chance to get out of the poor neighborhoods, and finally a chance to be President of the United States. Which vision do we want, the one where the safety net is gone or one where the government is actively promoting the general welfare of the people. Do we want a country where only a few people are doing alright or do we want that number to be the majority? Paul Ryan's budget is bad for America, I only wish that we had a time machine so that we could have the young Paul Ryan live under the older Paul Ryan vision for America.

The Real Paul Ryan

I like many have wondered what would have prompted Paul Ryan to come up with his budget proposal that begins to undo 70 years of social welfare programs. Was he from a rich family that despised any handout that didn't go to them? It turns out that he wasn't. It turns out that Paul Ryan owes an awful lot to the United States Government and the US taxpayer. It turns out that his family collected social security survivor benefits. It turns out that the US taxpayer funded his college education. I'm sure that he was treated under medicaid. May have even collected food stamps, but unlike say the President (similar situation) who would leave the safety net Congressman Ryan says no I got mine. What Paul Ryan should do is write a big check to the US taxpayer for everything that they did for him plus interest. While the Congressman was enjoying his subsidized college years some of us were working, paying taxes, and covering our own college expenses. I can relate to the sentiment of doing away with all of these handouts because I have never gotten one but maybe we should recover money from the people who these programs helped.

New York 26th

The fall out from the special election in New York's 26th congressional district has been interesting. You have Democrats saying that it is the coming end of the Republicans. You have Republicans saying that it is meaningless. The most interesting reaction comes from our own Paul Ryan. Congressman Ryan said that the Democrats ran a campaign based on untruths and fear mongering about medicare. That the media fell for it and essentially created an environment where they couldn't win. Come on Paul! How do you think the Republicans won in 2010? How many times did we hear how disastrous "Obamacare" was? How many times did we hear about the "failed stimulus"? How many times did we hear that Obama raised taxes? That campaign was all about fear mongering. The truth on Medicare in Congressman Ryan's budget is that it will only affect those under age 55, so he is correct in that the seniors have nothing to worry about, but he is wrong that the rest of us have nothing to worry about. The truth is that you will get $8000 dollars to purchase health insurance without any increase for inflation when health care costs are rising at around 20% per year. The increase has slowed in recent years so maybe this will be ok. The problem comes with whether you can get insurance for $8000? The problem is can you get insurance for $8000 if you have a pre-existing condition? The problem is can you get insurance for $8000 if you are over 65? I'm afraid that the answers to these questions are no. When you combine that with the elimination and or reductions to pension plans, corporations eliminating or reducing the corporate match to 401K and stock purchase plans, and forecast reductions to Social Security and you rightly get fear. The Republican party wants to take the country back to 1928, when the safety net was practically non-existent and there was a tremendous amount of poverty and lack of healthcare among the seniors and the unemployed and the poor.

Our Own Paul Ryan

It is good to see one of our own garnering all of the media attention. The problem is that his plan for the future would be disastrous for the country. Okay, it cuts $4 trillion in spending, it reduces revenue collections (tax cuts) by almost an equal amount. He leaves defense alone at $724 billion. This is more money than any other country spends and it certainly more than the guys that we are fighting spend. What it does cut is everything else including the taxes of the wealthiest Americans. The thinking has got to be that we have had these tax cuts for 10 years and they have not created jobs in fact the opposite happened with the recession in 2008, the bank collapse, and the housing market collapse so we need to give them even more of a break. Wait hasn't the amount of money available to the top 2% of Americans increased exponentially but yet they won't hire people. Interesting, a thinking person would say that the tax cuts didn't work, but not Paul Ryan he says we need more. We also need less help for people who have not shared in the concentration of wealth. It is really too bad that Milton Friedman didn't live to see his policies enacted in the US. You would have thought that we would have learned something from South America.

Give the Money Back?

A day after the capitalists take over it was announced that 49 Wisconsin Companies (presumably led by capitalists) were going to share 13.1 million dollars in Federal Grants from the health care act.  This would be the act that Ron Johnson and Paul Ryan as well as others have said they would repeal.  Not only that but Ron Johnson and Scott Walker has said that government should not be in the marketplace.  What is their position on these grants?  Are they going to introduce legislation to get this money back?  Are these companies going to do the right thing and give the money back because they believe that business should not accept government help?  I want to know!  This country needs to follow Capitalist theory, the people have spoken, which means that the market picks winners and losers not the government.  I say that it is time to hold these businesses to what they preach.  The tea party patriots talk about the constitution.  There is nothing in the constitution that explicitly says that it is the duty of government to help business.  The same goes for tax cuts to business, again it is government helping business.  Look at Quad Graphics, $49 million in credits.  Their competition didn't get a deal, it is unfair competition directed by the government.  I for one will continue to point this out but I don't expect to see this anymore, we have a new administration in town.