Gretchen Schuldt's recent blog on Representative Frank Lasee's racist letter against Brown Deer's black students why have Senator Alberta Darling and Representative Jim Ott who represent that community been silent in the face of these scurrilous attacks.?
She writes:
"The silence of State Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and State Rep. Jim Ott (R-Mequon) after State Rep. Frank Lasee (R-do we really have to admit he's from Wisconsin?) sent an intensely racist letter about black high school students to the Brown Deer School District discredits them both."
You can read her entire blog, "Darling, Ott mum on Brown Deer High School racist slander,' here.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Heathcare Savings Accounts: a non-solution
Forty-seven million Americans do not have healthcare.
Since 2001, the number of people without insurance has increased by 7.2 million, while the percent of the population getting health insurance though their employer has dropped, falling again last year to 59.7% from 60.2% in 2005.
More and more citizens are being priced out of the healthcare market place.
Nationally, healthcare and pharmaceutical costs have skyrocketed, almost doubling since 2000. And in Wisconsin, healthcare costs are 26% higher than the national average!
In response to this classic case of market failure, President Bush and his fellow ideologues in the Republican Party have called for a market solution-health care savings accounts.
If our privatized system is failing, why would any reasonable person think that more privatization-private savings accounts- will solve the problem?
Citizen Action has produced a hilarious cartoon on the market fundamentalists non-solution.
Since 2001, the number of people without insurance has increased by 7.2 million, while the percent of the population getting health insurance though their employer has dropped, falling again last year to 59.7% from 60.2% in 2005.
More and more citizens are being priced out of the healthcare market place.
Nationally, healthcare and pharmaceutical costs have skyrocketed, almost doubling since 2000. And in Wisconsin, healthcare costs are 26% higher than the national average!
In response to this classic case of market failure, President Bush and his fellow ideologues in the Republican Party have called for a market solution-health care savings accounts.
If our privatized system is failing, why would any reasonable person think that more privatization-private savings accounts- will solve the problem?
Citizen Action has produced a hilarious cartoon on the market fundamentalists non-solution.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Frank Lasee: more old south than new north!
It would be easy to dismiss Representative Frank Lasee’s letter alleging widespread hallway sex among Brown Deer’s black students as simple nonsense. He is well known for bizarre ideas like arming principals and teachers to prevent school shootings.
But it would be a serious mistake to dismiss this letter as publicity seeking or nutty.
Mr. Lasee’s screed is the ugly tip of a racist Republican iceberg that demonizes the city of Milwaukee and its minority residents.
Lasee allegations, without any evidence except a crank letter, is an insult to Brown Deer's African American students, their parents and teachers for it implies they condone such behavior. It could only have been penned by someone who believes that our urban communities are dangerous places inhabited by immoral people.
Lasee comes from Green Bay where 38% of the public school students are now children of color, primarily Hmong and Latino children.
The New North initiative, an ambitious, regional economic development initiative, has embraced this growing diversity as a competitive, regional asset. It has even established the People, Possibilities and Progress Diversity Award "...intended to recognize and support New North businesses and organizations that embrace and celebrate diversity."
But, not Representative Lasee.
His response to Green Bay’s growing immigrant population was to craft legislation aimed at discouraging immigrant workers from coming to the New North despite the area’s aging population and worker shortage.
Rather than lead his community in adjusting to workforce and demographic changes, Lasee promoted a stereotype of immigrant workers on the dole. His efforts helped fuel anti-immigrant attitudes in Green Bay that culminated in the city’s notoriously restrictive anti-immigrant law.
It’s amazing that politicians like Lasee who claim to want to improve the business climate continue to promote anti-worker, anti-business legislation!
But are the sentiments underlying Lasee’s charges very different from the daily diatribes against Milwaukee's black community heard on local talk radio?
Mark Belling, mouthpiece for suburban conservatives (whatever happened for to standing up for Milwaukee?) and the right, right wing of the Republican Party routinely questions the morality of Milwaukee’s black residents, most of whom are hard working people trapped in low paying jobs and impoverished neighborhoods.
He and his counterpart at WTMJ, marching in lockstep with the national Republican Party, have waged a reckless campaign against the largely mythical boogie man of black voter fraud while ignoring their own party’s efforts, which may have been orchestrated from inside the White House, to suppress the votes of eligible voters, particularly black voters, from Florida to New Hampshire.
Closer to home, Republican leader Senator Glen Grothman (R-West Bend) was a participant in September’s Cedarburg Village Board meeting where the Milwaukee Area Technical College district board was ridiculed for have a majority of minority members (6 of 8).
Senator Grothman, elected to the Senate with Belling’s help, has distinguished himself as a opponent of racial justice. Not only did he oppose making Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday a holiday, but more recently led legislative hearings aimed at dismantling affirmative action policies designed to increase the participation of Wisconsin’s racial minorities and women in jobs and schools where they have been excluded..
Milwaukee has had the nation’s worst black white unemployment ratio for 25 years. Unemployment and poverty rates in Milwaukee and Racine rival those of the Great Depression. Rather than calling for a New Deal for our poorest citizens in our poorest communities, Grothman, Lasee and Belling demonize them.
And who could forget Governor Thompson famous promise “to stick it to Milwaukee.”
Wisconsin’s Republican Party has come a long way from its anti-slavery roots.
Lasee’s letter reflects a decline into racial politics that would have made George Wallace and Bull Conner proud-a vision that is more old south, than new north!
But it would be a serious mistake to dismiss this letter as publicity seeking or nutty.
Mr. Lasee’s screed is the ugly tip of a racist Republican iceberg that demonizes the city of Milwaukee and its minority residents.
Lasee allegations, without any evidence except a crank letter, is an insult to Brown Deer's African American students, their parents and teachers for it implies they condone such behavior. It could only have been penned by someone who believes that our urban communities are dangerous places inhabited by immoral people.
Lasee comes from Green Bay where 38% of the public school students are now children of color, primarily Hmong and Latino children.
The New North initiative, an ambitious, regional economic development initiative, has embraced this growing diversity as a competitive, regional asset. It has even established the People, Possibilities and Progress Diversity Award "...intended to recognize and support New North businesses and organizations that embrace and celebrate diversity."
But, not Representative Lasee.
His response to Green Bay’s growing immigrant population was to craft legislation aimed at discouraging immigrant workers from coming to the New North despite the area’s aging population and worker shortage.
Rather than lead his community in adjusting to workforce and demographic changes, Lasee promoted a stereotype of immigrant workers on the dole. His efforts helped fuel anti-immigrant attitudes in Green Bay that culminated in the city’s notoriously restrictive anti-immigrant law.
It’s amazing that politicians like Lasee who claim to want to improve the business climate continue to promote anti-worker, anti-business legislation!
But are the sentiments underlying Lasee’s charges very different from the daily diatribes against Milwaukee's black community heard on local talk radio?
Mark Belling, mouthpiece for suburban conservatives (whatever happened for to standing up for Milwaukee?) and the right, right wing of the Republican Party routinely questions the morality of Milwaukee’s black residents, most of whom are hard working people trapped in low paying jobs and impoverished neighborhoods.
He and his counterpart at WTMJ, marching in lockstep with the national Republican Party, have waged a reckless campaign against the largely mythical boogie man of black voter fraud while ignoring their own party’s efforts, which may have been orchestrated from inside the White House, to suppress the votes of eligible voters, particularly black voters, from Florida to New Hampshire.
Closer to home, Republican leader Senator Glen Grothman (R-West Bend) was a participant in September’s Cedarburg Village Board meeting where the Milwaukee Area Technical College district board was ridiculed for have a majority of minority members (6 of 8).
Senator Grothman, elected to the Senate with Belling’s help, has distinguished himself as a opponent of racial justice. Not only did he oppose making Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday a holiday, but more recently led legislative hearings aimed at dismantling affirmative action policies designed to increase the participation of Wisconsin’s racial minorities and women in jobs and schools where they have been excluded..
Milwaukee has had the nation’s worst black white unemployment ratio for 25 years. Unemployment and poverty rates in Milwaukee and Racine rival those of the Great Depression. Rather than calling for a New Deal for our poorest citizens in our poorest communities, Grothman, Lasee and Belling demonize them.
And who could forget Governor Thompson famous promise “to stick it to Milwaukee.”
Wisconsin’s Republican Party has come a long way from its anti-slavery roots.
Lasee’s letter reflects a decline into racial politics that would have made George Wallace and Bull Conner proud-a vision that is more old south, than new north!
Monday, September 17, 2007
Greenspan rewrites history!
Alan Greenspan is revising history and the role he played in supporting the Bush administration's irresponsible fiscal policies.
In his new memoir, Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning his party’s principles on spending and deficits. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending." Greenspan wrote.
Either Mr. Greenspan is suffering from amnesia or he is purposefully rewriting history to conform to his libertarian views! Either way, Greenspan ignores that it was the Bush tax cuts which he aggressively supported, that are primarily responsible for the era's deficits, not "out-of-control spending."
Congressional Budget Office data illustrates that the $1.3 trillion 2001 tax cuts, 45% of which went to the richest 1%, have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years.
According to the CBO, legislation enacted since 2001 added almost $2.3 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2006, with half (51%) of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending).
Mr. Greenspan played a crucial role in getting this legislation passed.
President Bush initially proposed tax cuts during his presidential campaign in response to a projected $5.2 trillion surplus.
Opponents argued that it was folly to base tax cuts on projections and that any surpluses that might materialize should be used for necessary social investments (repairing New Orleans levies and the nation's ailing infrastructure, investing in education, etc.) and to pay down the national debt.
By the time Bush was inaugurated, the dot.com bubble which Greenspan had helped create through his support for capital gains tax cuts in the 1990's, had burst and the economy was slowing. The recession officially began in March 2001.
President Bush appeared to lack the Congressional support necessary to enact his high end tax cuts. He had lost the popular vote, his installation as President was controversial, and the Senate was divided.
But Greenspan, seemingly more concerned with providing political cover to the new president than the nation's economic health, aggressively supported the tax cuts.
In late January 2001, Greenspan said: "It is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases," assuring Congress that the tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits.
In response to White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, praised the Federal Reserve Chair, "We are very heartened to see that Chairman Greenspan has weighed in on the importance of cutting taxes, and hope that the Congress will join President Bush and Chairman Greenspan in cutting taxes, in passing the Bush tax cut, so we can protect the strength of our economy."
Greenspan's support was crucial mustering the votes to get the tax cut legislation passed.
In 2003 with deficits soaring, the Federal Reserve Chair supported yet another round of deficit-creating high end tax cuts proposed by President Bush.
These tax cuts created large deficits rivaling those Greenspan had insisted must be closed in the early Clinton years. But now Greenspan supported making Bush's tax cuts permanent at a cost that was more than five times the amount necessary to close the projected shortfall in Social Security over the next 75 years.
Then in a truly remarkable bait and switch, Mr. Greenspan called for cuts in social security to restore fiscal discipline. Not surprisingly his conversion to cutting social security benefits coincided with President Bush's ultimately unsuccessful effort to dismantle the system through privatization.
Despite current protestations, Mr. Greenspan was not a critic of the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility. When it mattered, at every key junction, Mr Greenspan aided and abetted the Bush administration's reckless economic policies. Buy the book, if you must. But don't believe the hype.
In his new memoir, Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning his party’s principles on spending and deficits. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending." Greenspan wrote.
Either Mr. Greenspan is suffering from amnesia or he is purposefully rewriting history to conform to his libertarian views! Either way, Greenspan ignores that it was the Bush tax cuts which he aggressively supported, that are primarily responsible for the era's deficits, not "out-of-control spending."
Congressional Budget Office data illustrates that the $1.3 trillion 2001 tax cuts, 45% of which went to the richest 1%, have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years.
According to the CBO, legislation enacted since 2001 added almost $2.3 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2006, with half (51%) of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending).
Mr. Greenspan played a crucial role in getting this legislation passed.
President Bush initially proposed tax cuts during his presidential campaign in response to a projected $5.2 trillion surplus.
Opponents argued that it was folly to base tax cuts on projections and that any surpluses that might materialize should be used for necessary social investments (repairing New Orleans levies and the nation's ailing infrastructure, investing in education, etc.) and to pay down the national debt.
By the time Bush was inaugurated, the dot.com bubble which Greenspan had helped create through his support for capital gains tax cuts in the 1990's, had burst and the economy was slowing. The recession officially began in March 2001.
President Bush appeared to lack the Congressional support necessary to enact his high end tax cuts. He had lost the popular vote, his installation as President was controversial, and the Senate was divided.
But Greenspan, seemingly more concerned with providing political cover to the new president than the nation's economic health, aggressively supported the tax cuts.
In late January 2001, Greenspan said: "It is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases," assuring Congress that the tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits.
In response to White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, praised the Federal Reserve Chair, "We are very heartened to see that Chairman Greenspan has weighed in on the importance of cutting taxes, and hope that the Congress will join President Bush and Chairman Greenspan in cutting taxes, in passing the Bush tax cut, so we can protect the strength of our economy."
Greenspan's support was crucial mustering the votes to get the tax cut legislation passed.
In 2003 with deficits soaring, the Federal Reserve Chair supported yet another round of deficit-creating high end tax cuts proposed by President Bush.
These tax cuts created large deficits rivaling those Greenspan had insisted must be closed in the early Clinton years. But now Greenspan supported making Bush's tax cuts permanent at a cost that was more than five times the amount necessary to close the projected shortfall in Social Security over the next 75 years.
Then in a truly remarkable bait and switch, Mr. Greenspan called for cuts in social security to restore fiscal discipline. Not surprisingly his conversion to cutting social security benefits coincided with President Bush's ultimately unsuccessful effort to dismantle the system through privatization.
Despite current protestations, Mr. Greenspan was not a critic of the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility. When it mattered, at every key junction, Mr Greenspan aided and abetted the Bush administration's reckless economic policies. Buy the book, if you must. But don't believe the hype.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Olbermann Responds to Republican Minority Leader Boehner
Keith Olberman and Senator Joe Biden respond to Republican (Ohio) Minority Leader John Boehner's cavalier comment that "the Iraq War is a small price to pay...."
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Greenspan's revisionist history
Alan Greenspan is revising history and the role he played in supporting the Bush administration's irresponsible fiscal policies.
In his new memoir, Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning his party’s principles on spending and deficits. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending." Greenspan wrote.
Either Mr. Greenspan is suffering from amnesia or he is purposefully rewriting history to conform to his libertarian views! Either way, Greenspan ignores that it was the Bush tax cuts which he aggressively supported, that are primarily responsible for the era's deficits, not "out-of-control spending."
Congressional Budget Office data illustrates that the $1.3 trillion 2001 tax cuts, 45% of which went to the richest 1%, have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years.
According to the CBO, legislation enacted since 2001 added almost $2.3 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2006, with half (51%) of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending).
Mr. Greenspan played a crucial role in getting this legislation passed.
President Bush initially proposed tax cuts during his presidential campaign in response to a projected $5.2 trillion surplus.
Opponents argued that it was folly to base tax cuts on projections and that any surpluses that might materialize should be used for necessary social investments (repairing New Orleans levies and the nation's ailing infrastructure, investing in education, etc.) and to pay down the national debt.
By the time Bush was inaugurated, the dot.com bubble which Greenspan had helped create through his support for capital gains tax cuts in the 1990's, had burst and the economy was slowing. The recession officially began in March 2001.
President Bush appeared to lack the Congressional support necessary to enact his high end tax cuts. He had lost the popular vote, his installation as President was controversial, and the Senate was divided.
But Greenspan, seemingly more concerned with providing political cover to the new president than the nation's economic health, aggressively supported the tax cuts.
In late January 2001, Greenspan said: "It is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases," assuring Congress that the tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits.
In response to White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, praised the Federal Reserve Chair, "We are very heartened to see that Chairman Greenspan has weighed in on the importance of cutting taxes, and hope that the Congress will join President Bush and Chairman Greenspan in cutting taxes, in passing the Bush tax cut, so we can protect the strength of our economy."
Greenspan's support was crucial mustering the votes to get the tax cut legislation passed.
In 2003 with deficits soaring, the Federal Reserve Chair supported yet another round of deficit-creating high end tax cuts proposed by President Bush.
These tax cuts created large deficits rivaling those Greenspan had insisted must be closed in the early Clinton years. But now Greenspan supported making Bush's tax cuts permanent at a cost that was more than five times the amount necessary to close the projected shortfall in Social Security over the next 75 years.
Then in a truly remarkable bait and switch, Mr. Greenspan called for cuts in social security to restore fiscal discipline. Not surprisingly his conversion to cutting social security benefits coincided with President Bush's ultimately unsuccessful effort to dismantle the system through privatization.
Despite current protestations, Mr. Greenspan was not a critic of the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility. When it mattered, at every key junction, Mr Greenspan aided and abetted the Bush administration's reckless economic policies. Buy the book, if you must. But don't believe the hype.
In his new memoir, Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning his party’s principles on spending and deficits. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending." Greenspan wrote.
Either Mr. Greenspan is suffering from amnesia or he is purposefully rewriting history to conform to his libertarian views! Either way, Greenspan ignores that it was the Bush tax cuts which he aggressively supported, that are primarily responsible for the era's deficits, not "out-of-control spending."
Congressional Budget Office data illustrates that the $1.3 trillion 2001 tax cuts, 45% of which went to the richest 1%, have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years.
According to the CBO, legislation enacted since 2001 added almost $2.3 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2006, with half (51%) of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending).
Mr. Greenspan played a crucial role in getting this legislation passed.
President Bush initially proposed tax cuts during his presidential campaign in response to a projected $5.2 trillion surplus.
Opponents argued that it was folly to base tax cuts on projections and that any surpluses that might materialize should be used for necessary social investments (repairing New Orleans levies and the nation's ailing infrastructure, investing in education, etc.) and to pay down the national debt.
By the time Bush was inaugurated, the dot.com bubble which Greenspan had helped create through his support for capital gains tax cuts in the 1990's, had burst and the economy was slowing. The recession officially began in March 2001.
President Bush appeared to lack the Congressional support necessary to enact his high end tax cuts. He had lost the popular vote, his installation as President was controversial, and the Senate was divided.
But Greenspan, seemingly more concerned with providing political cover to the new president than the nation's economic health, aggressively supported the tax cuts.
In late January 2001, Greenspan said: "It is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases," assuring Congress that the tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits.
In response to White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, praised the Federal Reserve Chair, "We are very heartened to see that Chairman Greenspan has weighed in on the importance of cutting taxes, and hope that the Congress will join President Bush and Chairman Greenspan in cutting taxes, in passing the Bush tax cut, so we can protect the strength of our economy."
Greenspan's support was crucial mustering the votes to get the tax cut legislation passed.
In 2003 with deficits soaring, the Federal Reserve Chair supported yet another round of deficit-creating high end tax cuts proposed by President Bush.
These tax cuts created large deficits rivaling those Greenspan had insisted must be closed in the early Clinton years. But now Greenspan supported making Bush's tax cuts permanent at a cost that was more than five times the amount necessary to close the projected shortfall in Social Security over the next 75 years.
Then in a truly remarkable bait and switch, Mr. Greenspan called for cuts in social security to restore fiscal discipline. Not surprisingly his conversion to cutting social security benefits coincided with President Bush's ultimately unsuccessful effort to dismantle the system through privatization.
Despite current protestations, Mr. Greenspan was not a critic of the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility. When it mattered, at every key junction, Mr Greenspan aided and abetted the Bush administration's reckless economic policies. Buy the book, if you must. But don't believe the hype.
Anti-war soldiers die in Iraq
In late August I reprinted an article, "The War as We Saw It," written by seven active duty U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
They wrote:
To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched...Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence....
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
It concluded: "We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."
Now, two of the seven soldier authors, Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance T. Gray are dead.
How many more young lives will be sacrificed to President Bush's vanity and willful ignorance?
For details read:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091307O.shtml
They wrote:
To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched...Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence....
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
It concluded: "We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."
Now, two of the seven soldier authors, Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance T. Gray are dead.
How many more young lives will be sacrificed to President Bush's vanity and willful ignorance?
For details read:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091307O.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)