Tag Archives: obama

Political Rants

It ain’t broke.

Not that this is all that unusual, but I heard from various representatives of the Republican party and the “tea party” movement on NPR this morning. I really wonder why these right-wing types are so critical of NPR – the network is almost wholly devoted to providing them with outsized coverage. Every time they sneeze, Steve Inskeep is holding the rag. Sure, I listen to them regularly, because they have some good reporters, some good programs, and because they’re better than everything else on my upstate New York radio dial. But that’s a bit like voting for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Yeah, Barry’s a pretty lousy president; he’s just better by an order of magnitude than the object he was running against. Pretty low bar, frankly.

Low-bar radioWhat irks me, though, is the legitimization of truly extremist right-wing notions of governance (or lack of same) through what I’m sure NPR and other networks consider “balance coverage”. A brief example: yesterday there was a report on some research having to do with economic inequality and the degree to which people believe the federal government has an active role to play in addressing its effects. It was presented in the usual “this side thinks this, while the other thinks this” manner; specifically, 90% of Democrats believe the government should be involved in fighting inequality, while Republicans are evenly split. This was played as reinforcing the notion of a nation divided along party lines, but they buried the lead – by these percentages, it looks like a significant majority … maybe 60 -70% – agree that the government has an active role to play. Why the hell isn’t that the story?

The only reason why extremist tea party-type ideas significantly influence national policy is that they have an outsized voice in the national conversation. That’s why we are essentially cutting the long-term unemployed off at the knees, canceling their unemployment when there’s still three job seekers for every available job, slashing food stamps while cutting taxes on corporations and throwing more money at the Pentagon. Large numbers of unemployed people are a necessary component of capitalism – that keeps labor inexpensive and profits high. So to the free market fundamentalist, that system is not broken … it’s working just fine. And that is the point of view that will continue to drive the national conversation until, along with the tea party, Occupy Wall Street gets their own response to the State of the Union.

Color me disgusted.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Sucking sound +20.

We are approaching the grim milestone of twenty years after the passage of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement – a pact that is described even by bland media outlets like NPR as having benefited only corporations in the 3 countries affected. Twenty years after its passage and signing by President Clinton, the evidence is in and it seems clear that many if not all of the criticisms were justified. And now that it is well-established and that we have entered into numerous other trade deals modeled on NAFTA, mainstream news organizations can report the obvious, namely:

  • NAFTA has fueled immigration to the U.S. from Mexico. By forcing Mexican corn farmers, for instance, to compete with Cargill, the agreement effectively destroyed large segments of rural livelihood in Mexico, sending economic refugees streaming into their cities and ultimately across the U.S. border in a desperate bid to find gainful employment. (I might add that, coupled with the high demand from the U.S. for illicit drugs, this destruction of legitimate crop farming has likely led to greater resort to illegal agriculture, marijuana production, etc., in the Mexican countryside.)
  • NAFTA has undermined employment and wages in all three countries. This is the sad truth behind Ross Perot’s “giant sucking sound” – the allure of moving production to Mexico has emptied factory towns in the United States, leaving us with the miserable husk of an economy we’ve been living through these past five years in particular.
  • NAFTA has provided a pernicious model for other agreements. The Trans Pacific Partnership is just the latest in a series of NAFTA like “free-trade” – actually, investor rights – agreement that have popped up since 1994. Some have failed, like the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), which was dropped after news of its consideration became widely distributed. But generally, these pacts have contributed to a neo-imperial system of enormous corporate wealth unattached to any nation or government, pushing labor back on its heels.

The thing is, we are grappling with something more serious than a recession, and NAFTA is one manifestation of the deeper problem we face. Our basic right to earning a livelihood is under attack, and we have to be more determined in our efforts to not only defend against this attack, but to push back and press forward.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Like they care.

One more shot at this Affordable Care Act issue, and then I’ll shut up about it for a while. It irritates the hell out of me, to be honest, that I have to defend this product of a conservative think tank, but that’s the crossroad we find ourselves at. Just a few points:

Denying working people healthcare since 2008People losing health insurance. This is a shocker, but people have always been booted out of their health plans. This is nothing new. Sure, Obama didn’t qualify his claim that people could stick with their policies if they liked them. But the media’s claim that this amounts to the President’s “Katrina moment” is simply ludicrous. All of the examples of people who have been forced off of their substandard plans have involved people who can generally afford better. One brought forward by NBC was a freaking attorney in Washington. Come on!

People never getting health insurance. While the G.O.P. and the entire mainstream media have had their hair on fire about the attorney lady who lost her catastrophic health insurance, their political allies in statehouses across the country have done everything they can to ensure that the ACA is a failure. A key component of this is refusal to expand Medicaid, which is keeping millions of working poor people from getting coverage. The reason for this is purely ideological. Louisiana governor “Bobby” Jindal complained about having more people in the cart than pulling the cart, implying that Medicaid expansion would only help the unemployed. Sure it would (and it should), but it wold also help millions of working families – people who work a hell of a lot harder than he ever has.

I’m beginning to think that Bill Clinton should have climbed aboard the ACA-type plan the Republicans were proposing back in the nineties, before they went entirely insane. At least that would have been in place, and there would have been some opportunity to improve upon it since.

As it stands now, the G.O.P. have no concrete proposal to provide health coverage to every American. Their only plan is to shoot the ACA down before it gets some traction.

luv u,

jp