“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree”

                                                                                         Thomas Jefferson

Congressional approval ratings are embarrassingly low. They are so bad it hurts to acknowledge them. Their rating is so low I doubt if any of them even voted favorably for own quorums. President Bush’s rating was consistently about three times higher than that of Congress. To get whipped that bad by George W., takes some doing.

There is a reason. The people have lost confidence in their ability to work cohesively for our Nation. The cultural war between Liberals and Conservatives has morphed into an unending struggle for political power. Although the two sides never cease to call for “Bi-Partisanship”, vote after vote after vote gets counted right down the party lines – with almost no variation! When it comes to dealing with the problems of the people they cannot seem to work together. Endless finger pointing and name calling across both sides of the aisle mark most issues. Ideas from either side are immediately opposed and devalued, alternative plans extolled and finally the decision will be to allocate money and form a committee to study the problem. In the meantime, things get worse and nothing gets done. 

 For the moment, perhaps the real arguments should not be about increasing or cutting taxes or whether government should be large or small – it should be focused on whether or not we have government representation that we can trust to serve the best interest of the people. Are the leaders we keep electing there to serve the people or themselves?

 The biggest scam in American history has been the development of our political aristocracy – most notably our elected representatives in Washington, D.C… These ‘perfumed princes and princesses’ of government are ensconced atop of our society feeding from the public trough unaffected by the economic peaks and valleys their constituents have to cope with daily.

 When the price of gasoline skyrocketed recently most of the Country had to scramble to adjust or in some cases, just survive. But the boys and girls in Washington never felt the tiniest squeeze because they don’t have to worry about such things. When the price of a gallon of gas got up to almost five dollars it didn’t cramp their style a bit – why?

 Because our Federal Politicians, regardless of party affiliation, get their fuel bills paid for by the taxpayers. In fact, all of their transportation costs are paid by, you guessed it, the taxpayers. All of their printing and mailing is paid for (consider the advantage this gives incumbents in an election!). Their food and entertainment is paid for. They have no office overhead like private businesses – their rent, office supplies, utilities, gifts, and even their staffs are paid by the taxpayers. But that isn’t enough for our ruling class. They have even voted themselves a per Diem on top of their salaries. That is a nice little daily cash bonus in case they have to do a little extra entertaining. If not, they get to pocket it anyway!

 So while the rest of our Country is in a severe recession fighting to stave off another full-on depression, they eat out every night in expensive restaurants and ride around in limos talking on cell phones paid for by working Americans with real jobs. They are so busy enjoying themselves that most of the tasks the rest of us have to deal with daily are managed for them by their Aides. It is not uncommon for top Aides to command six figure salaries – and some members of the legislative branch have over a hundred Aides on the public payroll.  They have Aides on top of Aides paid for by you to do their bidding. Think about what your life would be like if all the tedious, mundane and unpleasant tasks were handled for you by an entourage of assistants paid for by someone else.

You have heard them time after time warn us about the danger of our Social Security system collapsing. They wag their fingers and tell us Social Security is nearly bankrupt and may not be around for the next generation. A few claim its demise may come as soon as the next decade. Some blame it on the “Baby Boomers”. But do not be fooled by all of their hand wringing. Their pretense of concern for us is just a smoke screen to hide their shenanigans.

 They have been pretty diligent at taking SSI out of everybody’s paychecks for well over half a century yet they claim the fund is almost bankrupt. How did that happen? Are you ready? They borrowed it! This is absolutely true. Our political aristocracy actually borrowed your retirement (future) to fund their current pet projects and buy votes. Of course they claim it was necessary to change the law all by them selves so they could take our money. They insist they did it all for us – (and if you buy that I have a couple of bridges I’d like to sell you).

 The truth is, our government collects over two hundred million dollars more per year than it pays out in Social Security checks, yet we are told the system is going bankrupt. The only reason Social Security is in trouble is because our stalwart legislators have continually spent every penney of surplus. The outrageous thing is they continue to spend every extra cent of even as they tell us the system is approaching collapse. The idea that perhaps they should stop spending our retirement on their personal pork doesn’t seem to have occurred to them. You see, to them, the Social Security surplus is a congressional ‘check guarantee’ to underwrite their personal re-elections.

 The looming crisis they keep warning about is not as much about you losing your retirement as it is about them losing their cash cow. In three to five years, the changing demographics of our Nation will finally reverse the annual Social Security surplus and begin a deficit. For the first time the aging of our workforce will result in the system taking in less than it pays out. This means there will be no more surpluses available for congress to borrow. To our politicians – that is the real crisis – no more free money at the expense of your retirement. When whatever surpluses that still exist flip into deficits the payouts may cease altogether – leaving your generation holding the bag with no Social Security assistance. They have mortgaged your future to pay their bills.

 The truly amazing thing is, that our political leadership stand there with a straight face and tell us they feel our pain. Although I am not sure how - since they have created their own private retirement plan separate from Social Security. No kidding, they have their own pension plan . Just for them- a much more generous plan than ours and guess who pays for it – us!

 In fact, you and I have to work and contribute for many years to get a small monthly Social Security check when we retire, but our legislators qualify for a juicy pension after serving one term! That’s right, it takes the rest of us years to get a small check, but all they have to do is get elected once for one short term and Voila! -  They can live in comfort for the rest of their lives. And of course they have built in periodic raises. Guess which of the retirement plans has increased more over the years? (Hint: not Social Security).

 Their exclusive plan is so generous that many of our former elected officials are making more from their pensions than they ever earned while in office. How they justify this double standard is beyond me. And to add insult to injury they have the hubris to collect Social Security in addition to their fat cat, taxpayer-funded pension! So they are covered if Social Security fails, but they are perfectly content to collect it on top of their pension if it doesn’t.

 Don’t bother trying to stick the blame on one political party. It doesn’t matter which party they hail from. They all indulge themselves at our expense. When and if they decide themselves, to depend on Social Security like the rest of us and abolish their golden plan, I will begin to believe they are sincere. If that miracle ever does happen you can bet they will find a way to fix Social Security and make sure the money is there pronto.

Do you see where this is going?

 They don’t face the same pressures the rest of us face. They have created an elitist culture of entitlement with layer upon layer of security and endless perks. Whether the economy is up or down they are so detached and insulated from the pressures of real life that they never feel it. They just go on TV and act like they feel it. They tell us so, but it is not true. They live in luxury regardless of what the rest of America is going through.

 Ross Perot was absolutely right when he said tax dollars are to Washington politicians what coke is to crackheads – no matter how much they get, it will never be enough. Look at their record. Each year our faithless leaders figure out more new ways to tax the American worker. That is what they do best. In fact, virtually all of their time is spent creating new taxes and they have become quite adept at it.

 From the moment you wake in the morning until you lay down to sleep at night you are working for the government. Most people are aware that the average American worker pays four to five months of their yearly wages to the government in income tax, but that is only a small part of their “contribution”. You are taxed nonstop on virtually everything you do. As soon as you flip the first light switch or flush the first toilet or hop in your car the tax meter starts spinning. Not only do we pay taxes

2010 British Election: How is Education Affected?

The results of the 2010 UK general election are in and a winning party could not be declared. Neither of the two major parties, Conservatives and Labour, won enough seats to govern in their own right. 326 seats are needed to achieve outright control in the 650-seat House of Commons.

In the 2010 election the Conservative party won 306 seats, Labour secured 258 whilst the Liberal Democrats won 57. The remaining 28 seats were won by minor parties. This result is referred to as a hung parliament, a situation which last occurred in Britain in 1974.

The hung parliament meant the three parties had to confer and reach an agreement about who would form a coalition with whom. In the end, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats joined forces and plans to change politics in Britain have begun in earnest.

As the Liberal Democrats have struck a partnership with the Conservative party, rather than Labour, concessions have been gained on their tax plans and visions for dealing with the national deficit have been enhanced.

When it comes to education, the Conservative party has adopted the Liberal Democrat’s stance on attracting a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Liberal Democrats believe that a pupil premium should be introduced to tackle social deprivation. Under the proposed scheme, payment is made directly to state schools for each pupil admitted from a disadvantaged background.

As outlined in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, the cost of implementing pupil premiums rests at around £2.5 billion but many believe that under a Conservative led government it is likely the premium will be met by reshuffling existing resources rather than having to produce completely new funds.

The Liberal Democrats are firm believers that reform should be promoted in schools so that new education providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand. There will also be an emphasis on giving schools greater freedom over curriculum.

The Conservative policy for Swedish style “free” schools will remain. Under this policy, groups, including parents, can set up their own institutions if they are unhappy with the standards of local schools.

In terms of higher education there are proposals to ensure an adequately funded university sector prevails and student debt is another area to be tackled.

In the Liberal Democrats original manifesto there were plans to find an alternative to higher education fees. The agreement drawn up between the two parties vows to look at the initial proposals to review higher education funding and the results are due to be reported in the autumn of 2010.

The coalition agreement stipulates that all schools must be held fully accountable for results and although the Liberal Democrats agree with the need for external accountability, they place greater emphasis on teacher assessment.

In all areas and levels of education, the new coalition wants to improve the quality of teaching whether that is through increased funding, pupil premiums, increased accountability or greater provision of free teaching resources.

Janine Barclay writes for a digital marketing agency. This article has been commissioned by a client of said agency. This article is not designed to promote, but should be considered professional content.

Citizen Radio hosts Allison Kilkenny and Jamie Kilstein discuss Cordoba, Social Security, and Dr. Laura. Watch the full episode at www.grittv.org! Subscribe to Citizen Radio at http

More Social Security Liberal Democrat Articles

The Political Economy of Social Justice

The Political Economy of Social Justice

Dr.R.Murali

Head, Department of Philosophy & Centre for Philosophical Research

The Madura College (Autonomous), Madurai -625011.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can

change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”- Margaret Mead

I

Social justice refers to conceptions of justice applied to an entire society. It is based on the idea of a just society, which gives individuals and groups fair treatment and a just share of the benefits of society. Hence, Ethics has many spheres to operate. Economics is one of the major spheres of ethics. According to Aristotle, Economics is a practical expression of ethics- a basic virtue rooted in justice. This concept of justice has been variously described as distributive justice or a fair share for all. In other words, the concept of social justice was accepted as being rooted in an ethical base or simply common sense and economics cannot be divorced from this. Similarly economics and politics are inseparable. Social justice is both a philosophical problem and an important issue in political economy.

It can be argued that everyone wishes to live in a just society, but different political ideologies have different conceptions of what a ‘just society’ actually is. The term “social justice” itself tends to be used by those ideologies who believe that present day society is highly unjust – and these are usually left wing ideologies, advocating a more extensive use of democracy and income redistribution, a more egalitarian society and either a mixed economy or a non-market-based economic model. The right wing has its own conception of social justice, but generally believes that it is best achieved through embracing meritocracy, the operation of a free market , and the promotion of philoanthropy and charity. Both right and left tend to agree on the importance of rule of law human rights, and some form of a welfare safety net (though the left supports this to a greater extent than the right).

Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality. So a very broad definition of social justice is that “social justice reflects the way in which human rights are manifested in the everyday lives of people at every level of society”. It can be further defined as working towards the realization of a world where all members of a society, regardless of background, have basic human rights and an equal oppurtunity  to access the benefits of their society.

Many philosophers like Aquinas, Locke, Bentham , Mill, Kant and others have discussed the problem of social justice in their works. In the latter part of the twentieth century, the concept of Social Justice has largely been associated with the political philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) who draws on the utilitarian insights of Bentham and Mill, the social contract ideas of Locke, and the categorical imperative ideas of Kant. His first statement of principle was made in A Theory of Justice (1971) where he proposed that, “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others”, a deontological proposition that echoes Kant in framing the moral good of justice in absolutist terms. His views are definitively restated in Political Liberalism (1993), where society is seen, “as a fair system of co-operation over time, from one generation to the next.” (at p.14).

Along with these philosophers some others hold that social justice is nothing but the redistribution of wealth, power and status for the individual, community and societal good. Some others hold that it is government’s (or those who hold significant power) responsibility to ensure a basic quality of life for all its citizens.

Hence, it’s very clear that economic policies of the society are very much connected with social justice. It is also true that all around in the world today many advocates of social justice are in some state of despair. Some of them fear that social justice is a lost cause in a global economy.

II

Liberalism: Social Justice as Economic Freedom

Liberal capitalism, the super economic, all pervasive model which is promoted and practiced all over the globe today has been subject to severe critical examination by economists, not only due to economic recession but also mainly for destabilizing value systems in countries and becomes responsible for social injustice across the globe.

Friedrich Hayek, Nobel laureate in Economics and a principal twentieth century defender of liberal capitalism, once stated that “…nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice.” We do not have to spend a great deal of time on his jaundiced reading of the history of struggles for social justice. What is, however, worth noting is his unequivocal presumption that social justice and the freedoms we have under modern capitalism are not only distinct from each other, but mutually antagonistic.

Sam Gindin in his article on ‘Anti-Capitalism and the Terrain of Social Justice’ severely criticizes Hayek’s position. He says that what so many others have obscured and what Hayek to his credit confronts directly, is that inequality is not an unfortunate aberration under capitalism, but an inescapable outcome and an essential condition of its successful economic functioning. Capitalism is—and this is surely as clear today as it ever was—a social system based on class and competition. Such a society guarantees not just inequality of result, but insofar as the results of inequality are passed on through the institution of the family and the spatial divisions of uneven capitalist development, the inequality is reproduced inter-generationally and inter-regionally. This leads to a decisive inequality of opportunity.

It is not surprising therefore that the most clear-minded defenders of capitalism consequently seek to displace the terrain of debate over the legitimacy of capitalism from distributive or equal-opportunity notions of social justice, to notions of individual freedom and especially market freedoms. Gindin observes that the individual is placed at the center of a world in which the concept of the community or the collective is confined to the state—liberalism’s old nemesis. Liberalism then seeks to limit the power of the state not only by the rule of law, freedom of expression and association, and elected legislatures, but also and especially by the rights of property, the inviolability of contract in market exchanges, and the protection of private-family spaces to enjoy the fruits of property and labor.

There is no denying the powerful practical appeal of this structure. Both civil and political rights and the historically unprecedented economic dynamism and possibility of rising standards of living rested on it. Yet the reality of class inequality behind this structure could not so easily be set aside. The contradictions of liberal justice rest on the fact that a market economy creates a market society, and that private property is not and never was a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people. Historically, the creation of markets and private property were not, as liberal mythology tends to present it, a matter of getting the state to stand aside so natural human propensities could unfold. Private property in particular emerged with the support of an absolutist state controlled by landed interests who asserted unconditional rights over property which had previously been constrained by traditional obligations. Those interests, backed by the state, forcibly expropriated the commons—lands formerly accessible to the community—for their exclusively private use. The need to reproduce these kinds of private property rights and the privileges they imply necessitated a permanently strong, active, and class-biased state. Today, the drive to deepen and expand such rights takes the form of neo liberal globalization.

Capitalism’s inequalities, it is crucial to emphasize, are not simply about some getting more and others less, but rather that the economic freedom capitalism embodies involves guaranteeing different kinds of freedoms for different people. For a minority, economic freedom revolves around the power to organize production and accumulate; for the rest, freedom to sell one’s productive potential in a labor market and, on the basis of that, to exercise some personal choice in consumer markets. What the minority is accumulating as part of its freedom includes power over the labor of others and therefore over their “individuality.” The freedom/power to sell one’s productive potential and to exercise some choice in consumer markets, in contrast, is founded on a dependency on those who provide the jobs and the commodities available for consumption.

The neo liberal response set out to undo the historically-acquired social limits that had redefined liberalism in practice in the postwar era. Neo liberalism named a strategy that sought to place capitalism clearly back on the track of its still incomplete

Democrats Leading Us To Socialism?

The real danger of Marxism comes not from liberals, or Obama, but possibly from the conservatives camp itself.

Marx’s theory seeks the elimination of the notion of private property in order to gain control of the economic “means of production” by taking it from the bourgeois (the wealthy or propertied class) for the benefit of the proletariat (working class.)”

That’s the seriously condensed Readers Digest version. Ah, but HOW does it suggest this happen? How does it suggest the proletariat arrive at the point of forcibly removing the bourgeois? That the part far right conservatives either appear to avoid or simply don’t understand despite claiming Obama is a socialist. And with good reason. It completely negates the specious attacks on liberals, Obama in particular, as having Marxist agendas.

Marxism in addition to the above, says that the bourgeois (owners) will tend to invest only in themselves, in increasing their profit, while the proletariat (laborers) will experience decline. This is understood in Marxism to be the direct result of the proletariat holding value in labors, while the bourgeois holds its value in ownership and profit. The bourgeois will seek to reduce the need for labor, thus becoming more profitable, while the proletariat thus becomes weaker as labor will hold less value.

This is where in the disparity in classes really begins to widen. Marx holds that at a certain point, the divide will become so wide, the disparity in class so great, that the proletariat will have no other option than to forcibly overthrow the bourgeois and seize control of all assets, with the necessary end result being the equal distribution of property in order to remove class.

Marxism as a rule relies on class disparity in order to manifest itself. It’s the basic premise, that class disparity is what will lead to the forcible realignment of society into a socialist collective.

Nowhere in Marxism is there a premise that allows for natural or gradual transitioning as a matter of public and governmental cooperation towards a socialist state. Which is EXACTLY what conservatives repeating the socialist accusations are saying will happen with Obama or liberals in dominance of the government. It relies on discontentment of the proletariat, and economic secularity in the bourgeois to produce a forced takeover by the proletariat.

What this means for far right arguments, is manifold. And it’s not good.

It means that democrats in seeking to make taxes more progressive, are in effect reducing class disparity. By doing this, they are in fact, moving AWAY from the tenets of Marxism. They are protecting capitalism as a beneficial corollary effect of insisting on more progressive taxation, by acknowledging that disparity in the classes, leads to lowered productivity and value in the workforce which in turn leads to a breakdown in economic prosperity as a whole.

It means, that they acknowledge that a capitalist state is strongest when it invests in itself on all levels.

Only by acknowledging the true worth of the working class, by acknowledging that they are the true source of economic prosperity and contentment, and maintaining their value accordingly, can you maintain a strong capitalist society. And that is what Liberals do.

Granted, extremes on both sides, both Conservative and Republican exist, of this there is no doubt. But that there has arisen to dominance in the world’s most successful capitalist country (America) these particular two parties at odds with each other, is a natural expected event with capitalism. Too extreme of either isn’t good for the whole. Just like our divided government provides checks and balances against concentration of power, so too do the two parties work to ensure neither leads to an imbalance of economic control.

The biggest problem today, is too few want to admit, that both sides are at their best, when they practice their philosophies in moderation, and work together to reach the common good. So after a time of extreme partisanship like we see now, it’s been less effective, and disparity grows. The emphasis has become control and domination by one political ideology, rather than the actual governing of a nation.

It’s become an us or them mentality for conservatives more so than libs , which in reality is exactly the sort of mindset that Marxism and Communism MUST have as perquisite to manifest.

The far right had no problem with widening the economic disparity in society, which according to Marxism, is a mandatory and reactionary ingredient for socialism and communism to eventually become dominant. In fact, they treated it as a natural part of capitalism, which it is not. Capitalism works, because in our nation, as the founders wrote into our constitution, we have recognized, that no one group can dictate for the whole, nor is any one group more important than the other. Both weak and strong, working together are essential to the success of capitalism. So in effect, the conservative philosophy of leaving the not so well off because their labor holds less value, to fend for themselves, while insisting the well to do who hold wealth through property and investment which hold a much higher value, get to hold even more, is promoting class disparity. The mandatory reactionary ingredient needed for Marxism to take hold and lead us to socialism.

But the conservatives repeating the “Obama is a Marxist” rhetoric don’t want to address this at all. It flies in the face of accusing libs and Obama in particular, as communists.

Where am I getting this you may ask? In part from the basic theories of taxation under which our capitalist country operates. The ideas upon which it was founded. Remember your history? “Taxation without representation”. That is the biggest premise we are taught starting in grade school regarding the war for independence isn’t it? There was no accountability. We had no say.

Accountability is part of the deal between government and its citizens for paying taxes. It gives the citizens the right to hold its government accountable for its actions and inactions. It provides protection of citizen’s property since it is implicit in its necessity of citizen’s ownership. Which once again, flies in the face of Marxism. Can’t just seize and distribute the wealth for no reason, without incentive, if property is privately owned. And you can’t pay taxes on property if it isn’t yours. Why would anybody?

There are further examples of our previously republican-conservatives led government ignoring the basic tenets of our constitutional rights, that can easily be considered yet a few more stones in the path to Marxism.

Remember no bid contracts?

I expect my government to promote fair competition and trade, by fairly awarding contracts to the best applicant based on value. Not simply who’s cheaper, but who can do the best job for the best price. But we wouldn’t know if that’s the case with a no bid contract, would we? Which means there is no accountability held to the government for the spending of our money. That, is the road to dictatorship. Just trust the government to spend our tax money in our best interests, or to spend it wisely without any regard for allowing the people who provided that money to see that it were spent wisely or properly? That is not accountability. That is seizure and use without representation.

It’s apparent in most of these accusations, that most repeating the Marxist socialist mantra really have no idea what it all really means. The only part considered, is someone wants to take their money, and give it to someone else. The problem? That’s what we’ve been doing our entire lives, and it’s what makes a country like ours possible. We are a nation built upon the efforts of all for the one. We all pay, so that we can all be as one. Safe, secure, and strong, as one nation.

More Social Security Liberal Democrat Articles

Democrats Will Not Win House, Republicans Will Lose It

Tomorrow is Election Day in the United States. Every member of the House of Representatives is up for re-election, and one third of the United States Senate. It is difficult living in the greatest democracy in 12,000 years of civilization, and not after a while grow use to the freedoms that our ancestors gave their lives for.

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence could only have been created by a specific generation in the 18th century, the time known historically as the “Age of Reason”. These men, and they were men, knew more about the history of ancient Rome and Greece than we do. They had studied and read Plato, and Aristotle. They met in groups and talked and educated one another.

I dare say that today in a country of 300,000,000 Americans, we could not replicate the brilliance of the individuals, and their youth that met long ago and formed our government. It is truly one of the miracles of history, and this grand experiment has evolved and lasted for more than 200 years. It has survived the Civil War, a conflagration that consumed more lives than all other wars combined that the United States has been in since. We survived the Great Depression, thanks to the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt. Viet Nam and Watergate ripped the social fabric of this country apart, and we survived it.

Now tomorrow November 7, 2006 is our first opportunity to pass judgment as voters on the Republican’s handling of the Iraq war, and indirectly terrorism. President Bush is not up for election, and this means that people must vote indirectly on his policies. This vote will be communicated through the House of Representatives. I believe that people will not be voting for the Democrats tomorrow. I believe they will be voting AGAINST Republicans.

The momentum or perhaps anger against the President’s policies is so strong that the House of Representatives will switch hands, and with it will go the power to slow down the President’s momentum, and perhaps reverse many of his policies. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight in looking at how our country has been guided over the last several years, but let’s revisit some of what has gone on, and decide the merits of the President’s actions.

IRAQ
We know now that the basis for the war was without merit. The underlying assumptions that Saddam was manufacturing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and perhaps would have used them to create great calamity for others was FALSE. Nevertheless we must now deal with the aftermath of the invasion. Iraq can not turn out well for us at this point. Regardless of what happens from this day forward, it will not be a friendly end for our involvement, just as Viet Nam did not end well. When you open Pandora’s Box, you do not know what will come out. Politically Pandora’s box is the equivalent of the “Law of unintended consequences.” We are paying a price for opening the box, America with its treasure, and energy, and more importantly our soldiers with their lives, and limbs.

We did not arm our soldiers well, many pay for their own body armor, and are cannibalizing steel off of other vehicles to reinforce the steel of the vehicles they drive. This happens in a country as rich as ours. The President wages war but sought no sacrifice from the American people. Instead he expands the National Debt to finance the war, and puts the burden on our unborn children to pay for. Simultaneously he created tax cuts for the Rich, which I approve of, but not in a time of deficit. You don’t borrow money from Japan, China, and the Europeans, and then give it to the rich via tax cuts, once again leaving the burden to the young in this country. That’s just plain WRONG.

Eavesdropping and the Bill of Rights

The President chose to circumvent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by having the National Security Agency (NSA) create a huge funnel whereby conversations of ordinary citizens in the United States were monitored in the name of Anti Terrorism. Thirty year employees of the NSA reeked in horror at the notion. Every bone in their bodies told them it was wrong. All the President had to do was appoint Federal Judges to the NSA to approve and monitor the program. There are similar judges who sit in the FBI offices full time for over a decade now who routinely approve Federal wiretap orders.

The President has put himself above the law in this case. He knew he was secure with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress who would protect him in ways that Richard Nixon was not protected. Nixon would never have been driven from office if he had posssessed a Republican majority.

What about Congress itself?

I have been a student of Congress since Lyndon Johnson was President in 1963. For many decades I actively worked to create a Republican majority in both branches of the Congress. My background includes being a Barry Goldwater Republican. I have seen the filthy, back room, money changing aspects of politics all my life, and it has been on both sides of the aisles. What I see now that is unique is in your face corruption. The waste use to amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.

The waste is now billions of dollars, even tens of billions of dollars. There was a time as they say when the MERE APPEARANCE of IMPROPRIETY would be enough to drive an elected official from office. Now the appearance doesn’t mean anything anymore. You have Senators and Congressmen on both sides flying around in private corporate aircraft. As a result they have debts to the owners of those planes that must be paid for with favorable votes on bills. These bills cost the American taxpayer billions of extra, and unnecessary dollars.

An example is the Drug Bill for Senior Citizens where by the law specifically states that the federal government can not enter into negotiations with the drug companies to demand, and FORCE lower prices. Wow, you talk about giving away to billion extra dollars per year. Frankly, I don’t think the Republican members of Congress got enough from these drug companies. The drug companies gave the Republicans million in contributions, and got back tens of billions in the laws that were passed. If you are going to be corrupt, you ought to get paid more than that.

I believe that Tuesday, Election Day there will be a momentum tide that will sweep out the Republican majority in the House, and come close to taking the Senate. With this act, the American people will put the Congress and the President on notice that these types of actions will not stand. We may go back to gridlock, but for this writer, gridlock is a pleasure compared to our experiences of the last few years.

Goodbye and Good Luck

Richard Stoyeck

Related Social Security Liberal Democrat Articles

Is America Slipping Into Socialism?

Well it should. Anyway, eventually it will, it’s inevitable. Why?

Watch the European countries like, Brittan, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, or even France, all of them are socialistic, which means, their citizens do, and quite naturally so, have affordable healthcare and social services; their economies are stable. In Sweden, for example, everyone’s gotten lazy from too much of the good thing. As the human nature tends to be, we would get lazy too by taking the ordinary things for granted.
Humanity seeks security and stability. Families must make sure that their children get good education and a good start in life. It’s a natural trend, even Rome recognized it more than 2000 years ago, and gave us the new idea.

At the break of the 19th and 20th centuries, the socialistic movements, spurred by completely natural desires, fought for their rights. Extremities like Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism were only born due to the rust-jammed capitalistic machinery enjoyed by the privileged few. The Stalins and Trotzky’s threw God away, or rather religion, just so that it’s controlling element on the human mind might be eliminated in order to spur industrial expansion. (Today China copies this model). The selfish capitalist machinery had rusted giving way to revolutions and reforms.

America was too young to go through this process; instead, it was preoccupied with labels. Like Abbott Castello’s “who’s on the first” who is a commy and who ain’t, was America’s paranoia, at least of some. McCarthianism only served us too well, protecting what? Waste of precious time.

What are we fighting for? Something the Europeans have enjoyed for decades, and which became a normal way of life? Why do we need this big hoopla about health care? Do we need champions for something which elsewhere is basic?

It is not a Democratic or Liberal idea, but common sense. If we do not regulate, we will be forced to regulate. Something must be centralized and not evolve all by itself, money is not a bacteria, it lives as long as the living navigates it. If the living has gotten too selfish and too greedy, irresponsible and uncaring then the hammer must fall on the anvil; we should not wait to long but strike the anvil now.

Government buys bad debt? Who ever heard of such a scheme? We are buying government bonds and securities? Just as the name ‘security’ suggests, there will be nothing secure to buy from the US government anymore. What will we invest in, junk bonds sold to us by Uncle Sam?

Whether we like it or not, especially now, with the banking crisis on our sick-with-worry heads, we slip into a mild form of socialism, which means that the taxes-paying citizens should be taken care by their government.
Is it too much to ask?

Security Politics and Regional Integration: ASEAN, MERCOSUR and SADC

Introduction

During the Cold War, Latin America, Southern Africa and even the dynamic Southeast Asia hardly figured in international politics. Studies on the Cold War politics and the scramble for security in other parts of the world, particularly in the industrial West mostly overlooked the Third World countries and their quest for security. Even after the Cold War ended, Third World security predicaments remain because of the existence of a very complex balance of power that is often precariously balanced. The current phase of the globalisation, as Kenichi Ohmae (1990; 1993; 1996) puts it, has become a â??borderless worldâ?? where economic forces and free trade have become the main theme of international relations. In such a situation, the Third World countries often have to play awkward balancing acts. This article is therefore an attempt to look into this Third World security predicament at three analytical levels â?? the international system, the regional and state levels. This analysis is done using three important regional organisations in the Third World â?? ASEAN, MERCOSUR and SADC. This is an attempt to reveal how security politics and regional integration are interrelated and intertwined in the Third World. In the process, it will contribute to our understanding of how these regional organisations cope and deal with security issues with the current phase of globalisation.

What is security?

Security in international politics is a moot point, and it remains so to date. For a very long time, the traditional thinking had been that “the state is and should be about security, with emphasis on military and political security” (Buzan et al 1998:37). This notion of security has been prevalent since the Westphalian peace of 1648 where the concept of the nation state was created. This view became more important during the twentieth Century with the two World Wars and the consequent Cold War that lasted for almost five decades. Following the end of the Cold War, the scope of security in academic studies has been changed with many “wideners” who argued that the subject needed to embrace a more varied range of threats and move beyond the traditional emphasis on the military aspects of security for the state. Such changes in perception have created debates between those still subscribing to the traditional thinking and those who wanted to “widen” the definition of security so as to include other nonmilitary threats too.[1]

Security in the Third World

Since 1945, many of the most significant threats to state security have become internal rather than external, a shift which has profound consequences for international relations. As Holsti (1996: 15) writes, security between states in the Third World “has become increasingly dependent on security within those states.” For the Third World states, security does not simply refer to the external military threat dimension but also to the whole range of the stateâ??s existence which includes internal security and nation building; secure systems of food, health, economy, trade and environment (Thomas 1987). The Third World states, like all states are concerned with their own security, internal and external. But as they are mostly poor, underdeveloped and postcolonial, Third World states inherited their colonial economies, political structures and security perceptions. Some are pre-modern and weak, characterised by low levels of sociopolitical cohesion and poorly developed structures of government. The securities of these states are therefore shaped by these characteristics. To the authoritarian governments of the Third World, security also means countering internal subversion and keeping internal order at any cost.

The next three sections will deal with security politics and regional integration in the Third World mostly through the different dimensions of security at three analytical levels â?? the international, regional and state levels. Where appropriate, the security dimensions will include the military, political, economic, societal and environmental sectors.[2] Besides these dimensions, security concerns are located in both the external and internal dimensions. As mentioned before, this analysis will be done looking at how the three regional organisations of ASEAN, MERCOSUR and SADC deal with security issues.

The International System

The Cold War Period

The politics of the Cold War had dominated the working of the international system for a major part of the second half of the twentieth century. It is interesting to note that while the Third World states were unimportant in the global balance of power and hardly figured in the security agendas of Western policy-makers, the prevailing bipolar system and the preoccupation of the Western powers with the spread of communism and its containment exacerbated conflicts in the Third World. While conflicts in the core and strategic areas of Europe and North America were avoided, the Cold War turned out to be a hot one in and for the Third World states where the superpowers played the game of international politics. The Vietnam War was the clearest result and example.

The intensity of the Vietnam War and the increasing involvement of the Soviet Union and the growing threat to regional security led ASEAN to adopt a nonaligned policy. The Vietnam War continued to strain membersâ?? relationships and threaten regional security. Communist victories in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam worsened the situation. By 1976, ASEAN was forced to contemplate being an association with security as its predominant concern. Thus at the February 1976 Bali Summit Meeting, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and the Declaration of ASEAN Concord were signed. They agreed to “The right of every state to lead its national existence; free from external interference, subversion or coercion; non interference in the internal affairs of one another; settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means; and the renunciation of the threat or use of force” (ASEAN 1976). The reunification of Vietnam, the worsening internal security problems and the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia led to another security dilemma for ASEAN during the mid-1970s. Negotiations followed during which time ASEANâ??s importance as a regional organisation to settle disputes and maintain security was widely recognised. Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia in 1989 and the Vietnam War was concluded by the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement.

Meanwhile, the southern African security problem during the Cold War was exacerbated by the presence of apartheid South Africa, a regime which also adopted a strong anticommunist policy and came out harshly against any socialist orientations. Angola and Mozambique, having chosen this path, were particularly targeted. During the 1950s and more in the 1960s, the South African Defence Force (SADF) developed a national security doctrine (Total Strategy) stressing the psychological, social and economic means to target its enemies, in addition to the military means. The South African government established a framework for implementing policies which completely cut across all sectors of public life, called the National Security Management System. Louis Nel, then South African Deputy Foreign Minister, said in November 1982, “The Kremlin has actively supported the southern African Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movements in their quest for power in Angola, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. The Kremlin is currently backing SWAPO, the South African ANC and the South African Communist Party who operate against SWA/Namibia and the Republic of South Africa, respectively” (Quoted in Hanlon 1986: 8). Using such words had two advantages â?? the policy of apartheid could be seen as communist-inspired and it demanded Western support as it was a bulwark against the communist onslaught (Hanlon 1986: 8).

The United States, being a great power, recognises Latin America as being under its sphere of influence. Beginning mostly with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 when the US President James Monroe warned the European powers to keep out of the Americas, the US has, in effect, reserved the right to exert influence and interfere in Latin America. This has been a policy factor for the US as well as many Latin American countries for a long time. The Cold War also cut Latin American countries (LAC) from the possibility of relations with other regions. As a result, many of the countries of the region lessened their dependence on the superpowers. It was the UN Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) that shaped much of the South American regionalism. This can be seen as an indirect opposition to the superpower hegemony. Contrary to Europe, this part of the world has been relatively peaceful until the 1960s when the Cold War became a hot one with the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. While several interstate wars erupted after the 1960s, the real security problem for Latin America was the Cold War, with the countries of the region progressively becoming an American zone of influence. Since the 1960s, the United States had increasingly intervened militarily in its own backyard and installed puppet governments.

The Cold War also ushered a dangerous arms and nuclear race. In the face of such a threat, in 1971, a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) Declaration was signed by member states of ASEAN. This Declaration can be seen as a reaction to the emerging multipolarity of the region with the USSR, US, China and Japan as the principal powers influencing events in Southeast Asia. Likewise, through the Foz de Iguazu Declaration of November 1985, Brazil and Argentina declared that their nuclear programs were to be for peaceful purposes only. Such action on the part of Third World states can

Why is it that women vote for liberals more often than men do? The reason can be seen in one’s motivation for purchasing a large SUV. Men choose these cars to feel big and powerful. Women choose these cars in order to feel safe. Republicans offer citizens more freedom and less social insurance. Democrats offer more social security and less freedom from taxes and rules.

Women look at the micro level issues while men see macro level conditions. For example, a male who sees a car accident will first report on how the accident occurred while the female focuses on the suffering of the individuals in the cars. Men see things more numerically and women see things more emotionally. Republicans are more interested in the economy and finances while democrats are more interested in the wellbeing of the individual.

Feminine personalities emphasize compassion just as Democrats do while masculine personalities rely on standards in measurement just as Republicans do. These differences are visible in our evolutionary history and has been a requirement for the survival of humans. The man protected the woman and the woman nurtured the children. Under the umbrella of the government women want the government to nurture its citizens while men would prefer that their government look into the financial future.

Women are more likely to vote Republican after getting married and having children. The desire to be protected becomes satisfied by a present husband and the female’s need for government protection becomes less necessary. Perhaps the freedom available to the husband in a free society becomes more important to women when they are married to one because the husband will be able to protect their wife and children more effectively under Republican rule because of lower taxes and second amendment rights. This switch over to conservative values for women may be a result of increased levels of testosterone in older age.

The reason women are less likely to enjoy the entertainment of a train or truck is because it is less enjoyable to nurture than a doll. The stereotypes presented here are stereotypes because they tend to apply but the genders do share some of the same traits some of the time. The genders do seem to be blending more than they used to and perhaps it’s because the “Y” chromosome is deteriorating.

Please visit www.bonshops.com

“That’s Bullshit” with Sam Seder: Pointing out Bullshit so you don’t step in it. This week, on behalf of the lesser people, Sam calls Bullshit! on having to fight a Democratic Administration over the Alan Simpson co-chaired, Debt Commission and the false claim that Social Security has anything to do with our deficit and needs to be cut. supporting links: fdlaction.firedoglake.com socialsecurity-works.org krugman.blogs.nytimes.com counterpunch.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Related Social Security Liberal Democrat Articles

What Do Democrats Believe in Anyway?

According to dictionary.com, the technical definition of Democrat is “a member of the Democratic party.” This is not exactly helpful, especially if you are new to politics and trying to figure out where you fit in the political spectrum. At the risk of sounding partisan and getting the political bloggers on my back, the basic difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want bigger government while Republicans want smaller government. Obviously there are plenty of ways to incorporate both philosophies into a political belief system, so don’t think that this article is going to favor the Democrats over the Republicans. We only want to explore what makes Democrats…well, Democrats!

It might be hard to believe with all of the partisan bickering happening in Congress, but Democrats were, once upon a time, members of a party called the Democratic – Republican Party, which was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Democratic Party officially separated from the Republican Party when Andrew Jackson was elected.

That’s all fine and good, but what do Democrats really believe? We can’t speak for individuals within the Democratic Party, but the party defines itself as believing in the following:

Raising the minimum wage
Investing in and favoring renewable energy over oil
Lower taxes for the middle class
Higher taxes for the wealthy (currently defined as those who make more than 0,000 per year)
Public funding for Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security
National/Universal health care
Lower pharmaceutical costs
Protection of the environment 
Lower costs for Higher Education
North American Free Trade Agreement
Central American Free Trade Agreement
Adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax
Equal Opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion
Making gay marriage legal
Pro-Choice legislation
Stem cell research
Ending the war in Iraq
Reversing Unilateralism
Decolonization of Puerto Rico (if Puerto Rican citizens want that)
This is simply a quick laundry list of what Democrats believe in as a party. All of these points have paragraphs of complicated policy behind their headlines (which we do not have time to explore in this article). Within both political parties there are members who do not agree with every facet of a party’s political platform.

The 2008 election has caused the balance in Washington to tip toward the Democrats’ side of the aisle. Americans have elected a Democratic President and both the House of Representatives and the Senate will have Democratic majorities when everyone has been sworn in to session. Many Republicans worry about how this will shift the balance for laws and policy in the United States. It is important to remember that you cannot paint all Democrats (or all Republicans) with the same brush. It is also important to remember that being “liberal” and being “a democrat” do not always mean the same thing. In the last few decades the “liberal” brush has been used against Democrats and it is important to remember that liberals can be found in the Republican, Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties as well!

For more information on politics, visit http://www.democratsmicroblog.com and http://www.republicanmicroblog.com.

Four Issues of Mental Healthcare Reform that Still Need Improvement

Healthcare reform is becoming a reality and the importance of mental health and behavioral healthcare is receiving due notice. We find evidence of this achievement throughout the healthcare reform law – mental health and substance use services must be provided by all plans that participate in the new exchanges, and these benefits must be offered at parity. Healthcare home and Accountable Care Organization pilots must address substance use and mental health disorders. Additionally, the law includes a number of provisions specific to mental health and substance use, including authorization for new grants to co-locate services as well as new workforce development grants.

Even with all the progress that has been made, many areas of policy and payment need to be improved for the behavioral health sector to fulfill its intended role in a reformed healthcare system. National and community mental health organizations around U.S. are committed to advancing the following issues:

1.) Extension of the temporary Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage increase

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress provided a temporary increase to the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage to help cash-strapped states meet their Medicaid obligations. An extension of this important provision is critical, given the combination of state revenue projections and Medicaid growth.

2.) Federal policy and payment equity for behavioral health organizations

In recognition of the healthcare access and use challenges confronting communities that are low income or have high rates of illness and few medical providers, Congress has enacted a number of policy and payment preferences for “safety net” providers, including enhanced reimbursement under Medicaid, federal funding to provide care to uninsured people, loan guarantees, and access to federally subsidized malpractice insurance. Unfortunately, the safety net does not offer equity. To correct this situation, mental health advocates are working with other national organizations to advance the notion of federally qualified behavioral health centers. This effort includes establishing national treatment and reporting standards for organizations that choose to obtain this designation as well as a proposed reimbursement model that more accurately reflects the costs of providing services.

3.) Healthcare information technology funding fix

For healthcare reform to be successful, all medical providers need to share information to better coordinate care, reduce inefficiencies, and improve client outcomes. Behavioral healthcare providers need access to federal funding for the meaningful use of health IT (information technology). One solution is to extend Medicare and Medicaid facility payments to community mental health and addiction organizations as well as private and public psychiatric hospitals.

4.) Medicare parity implementation

In June 2008, Congress enacted payment parity in Medicare’s Part B benefit, which provides copayment equity for mental health and addiction services. Although this is an important step, much more needs to be done in Medicare for there to be true parity. First, the types of outpatient mental health interventions paid for by Medicare need to be extended to include, for example, case management, psychiatric rehabilitation, and other intensive community-based interventions. Medicare also must recognize mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists as independent practitioners.

The policy successes of the last few years would not have been possible without the active involvement of advocates of mental health – down to the individual level. Passage of healthcare reform is only the first of many steps necessary to improve the lives of people with addiction disorders and mental illness. National and community mental health organizations must continue to reply on the support and voice of the general public to bring this “unfinished business” to completion.

Related Healthcare Reform Articles