President Bush's Choice

Well that was interesting. I just had my internet connection moved to to the Livingroom/kitchen of this mobile home and was able to listen to Mr. Bush's speech on CNN. Even though I knew full well what he was going to conjure about the supp. Iraq financing Bill it was still totally aggravating to hear him actually say it.

One could perceive the photo op of this speech with the totally partisan audience in which were in attendance of the speech. He was taking no chances after the bungling press statements about the House passing this legislation, and the Attorney General flap.

The President's comparisons of current Iraq to the invasion of Normandy in 1944, and our own Civil war in 1863 are hyperbolic at best. We are talking about a withdrawal date one year to a year and a half away. This current act of arrogance by our Commander-in-Chief further exposes his administration's initiative to stay in Iraq forever.

The Legislature must not back down. When Mr. Bush does veto this legislation, then, we should look at his veto as his intent to withdraw all forces from Iraq.

Mr. Bush has accused the legislature of wanting it both ways. To this I say, the legislature has heard the American people and are acting appropriately to end this "operation" in the most effective and expeditious manner that is seemingly possible.

Therefore, Mr. Bush, the ball is in your court. Veto this Iraq Supplementary Bill and begin withdrawal of our troops on May 1st (Mission Accomplished plus four years), or sign the legislation and accomplish the mission by Summer of 2008. Which, of course, would be "Mission Accomplished" plus > five years.

What can labor unions do for citizens of North America?

Actually, North America consists of three independent countries. However sovereign each country may be our problems are closely related enough to enable us to pursue an integrated approach. So, let us discuss some of the areas of mutual problems, and then probable solutions for our concerns.
The United States government, being the self-imposed single world power, believes that we must maintain supremacy over our north and south neighbors. This belief is completely erroneous, and only causes undo tension on the three countries. Canada has its own problems with supremacy from within its own borders. Quebec’s recurring succession threats help to keep Canada divided psychologically. Mexico has never been truly united since the Mexican-American war. Mexico’s government is of the elite few, and for the elite few. Mexico is relatively stable until the money drifts to another military faction of government.
Because of this, the citizen’s of North America have begun to distrust their respective governments, but this distrust must be measured in different ways for each country. In Mexico, it seems that every fifteen of twenty years they have a military coup. The current President is assassinated and capital flows into the opposing political organization. In Canada, the residents of Quebec and the Canadian Maritimes try to secede from the rest of Canada. They argue that that because of their geographic location and heritage they can no longer identify with their fellow countryman. Here in the United States this distrust of government fragments into societal disobedience. When almost one-half of the country citizenry refuse to vote in a national election, then the government becomes less of a democracy. Voter apathy is promoting alienation of the working class, alienation is causing distrust of government, and this is true in all three North American countries.
This general ill feeling towards government has evolved over the past three or four decades. The average working class citizen has witnessed their elected officials ambiguity towards them. The biggest problem is the fact that big money always taints the picture. We have no time for campaign finance reform. Any real, cognitive reform will never happen simply because we our asking our elected officials to reform themselves, and they have proven themselves incapable of achieving this desire. Therefore, what we need is the formation of a new political party. We must not consider reform parties created by billionaires for quieting the discontented. We need a People’s Party, a political organization that will stand up for the rights of the working class people, over the desires of big business and government interests.
Labor Unions, with their connections to working class people, can begin this formation by using their memberships as a catalyst for change. In the year 2000, we approach another presidential election in the United States. Naturally, the major political parties will be seeking the confidence of Labor Unions. Labor Unions should not be drawn into the rhetoric of the political campaigns. Historically, Labor Unions have stepped to the left of center buying into the rhetoric of the Democratic Party. Granted, the Republican Party is definitely the party of big business and elitist. Democrats, however, do not follow through for the working class, and they just attend to the status quo of the big economic machine.
In conclusion, let us consider this point, currently forty to fifty percent of the voting population has become disenfranchised with the political process. Labor Unions should use their present organization to bring these people (mostly working class and poor) into the political process. We need a government that will stand for rights of all its citizenry, not just the upper one percent. With forty to fifty percent of the voting population, the Peoples Party could take back the government from the hands of the big expansionist and foreign interests. We could then begin the process of ending discrimination, of more equitable distribution of income, of cleaning up our environment. More importantly, we could end the process of standing behind the status quo and protecting the institutions that need so seriously to be changed.

Mr. Bush's Idea of De-Criminalization?

What, I believe, we have here is the Bush Administration's ploy to make the Democrats look like they are witch hunting for more corruption in his administration, and not offering any real (on his terms) policies to "win the war on terror."

One would have to be either stupid, or sagacious to lay this at the feet of the Democratic-controlled Congress, and Karl Rove is not stupid! This is more Republican crap politics. I can hear the pigs whining all the way up here in the hills of NY. It's so twisted, like a effin' pretzel, that it is difficult to describe in a rational, logical string of words.

However, I'll try. When the lies really start to unravel, then, they must give up more to the Dems to investigate for the sake of investigating, and all of this investigating is in reality for the castigation of the democrats by the republicans.

What was the big republican complaint about democrats during and after Nixon/Watergate? In Nixon's own paranoid words, "They won't have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore." This meaning, the menacing democrats were so pissed of over Nixon's electoral victory that they were out to get him.

It is the same scenario today. The democrats are being set up to look like they are out to get George W. (Poppy) Bush. It is truly sad when the
facts speak in volumes that the republicans choose to run the other way and cry about the democrats not playing nice.

The day cannot come soon enough, for America and Americans, that we do not have George W. (Poppy) Bush to kick around. Because then he and his administration will stop kicking America and Americans around.

The Congress needs to step in and reinstate these fired U.S. Attorneys. If this goes unchecked, then, I'm afraid Mr. Bush's handpicked lawyers will continue kicking Americans around. Even when he is long out of office, as is supposed to happen in about a year and a half.

Liberty, Justice, and health care for all!

It is indeed a crying shame that our government thinks more of our defense industry, oil industry, and tax cuts for millionaires than they do the citizens of the country.

The health care issue is not just an issue of children that lack health care. Is it not a fact that in every home of a child that does not have health care there is at least one adult, care giver, without health care as well? How are parents that lack adequate health care supposed to raise healthy children, also that do not have adequate health care?

The so-called moral majority has so-screwed the moral fiber of our society, and left the majority of citizens in anguish that it is insane. This majority includes any without health insurance, any on Medicaid, Medicare, and Veterans benefits.

One really must look at all of these areas, and the area of our levels of government concerning health care insurance, to understand the relativity of this problem. The health insurance industry is made up of normal benefit/cost organizations that are by nature stock driven and publicly financed.

When the health care insurance industry has a market that is shrinking, then, they must cover their costs by increasing their cash flow by raising their prices. This is old school economics. However, this has exacerbated the health care crisis in the United States.

Why is the health care insurance market shrinking? Government. Think of the list I just mentioned of people that are not included in the health care insurance market. When you add up all of the people with Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, and the ones with government insurance (all tax payer financed) you can see the shrinkage of the private health insurance market.

The are 60.1 million unduplicated Medicaid recipients, and 39.6 million Medicare recipients. both HI (Hospital Insurance) and SMI (Supplemental Medical Insurance) inclusive. Factor in Veterans receiving VA medical benefits, and Governmental employees receiving government medical benefits and you have one-third to one-half of the United States population.

Now factor in the estimated 45 million people that are without any type of health care insurance and market comes into better focus. The federal government is already supplementing, or out right providing health care insurance for one-half of our citizen's, while another one-fifth cannot afford health insurance and do not qualify for government health care plans.

That leaves the insurance industry with just 30% of the population as a potential market for their product. Show my work, okay: 1/2 +1/5=7/10, therefore 70% are out of market,leaving just 30% within the health care insurance market. Is it any wonder health care insurance premiums have gone through the proverbial roof? They have to balance their books on the backs of just 30% of their total market.

Okay, Democratic congress, now you have the ball, so take the offense and do something with it!!