OSU's Coach Tressell Requires Stars to "Man Up"

OSU Couch Jim Tressel

As was the case with many Ohio State football fans, Coach Jim Tressel was extremely upset that five of his junior players either knowingly or unknowingly broke a NCAA rule by selling or trading various awards that they had been given. He was disheartened by the fact they broke a NCAA rule, but also by the fact that they did not treasure these awards enough to resist the temptation to sell them. Coach Tressel did not question the NCAA's apparent inequitable treatment of his players vis a vis Auburn's Cam Newton or a player from the Georgia who had violated the same rule. He was primarily concerned about his players breaking the rules.


Although many OSU fans thought that these five players should not be permitted to play in the Sugar Bowl, the NCAA said they were eligible because of one of their obscure rules. Again Coach Tressel did not question the NCAA; he questioned his players and gave them the opportunity to "man up". These players understand that they will not be able to play the first five games of next season and that their statistics and the team's success is in jeopardy. Cynics like myself have suggested they will choose to skip their senior year and enter the NFL draft.


Given this situation, Coach Tressel talked to each player and asked them to tell him mano a mano whether they were going to skip their senior year or bolt to the NFL. And obviously, if they chose to go to the NFL, they were not going to play in the Sugar Bowl. Coach Tressel, no matter the possible outcome of the Sugar Bowl, was not going to play those who were going to jump overboard.


To their credit, all five juniors indicated that although they would be sitting on the bench for the first  five games,  they wanted to play their senior year at OSU. They in effect were willing to take responsibility for their actions.


In my opinion, Coach Tressell handled this situation with class and demonstrated to his players that integrity and loyalty are still possible in modern, high-stakes college football. Of course, the players may have lied to him, but if they did, the consequences will be more complicated than they can imagine.


Hopefully Jim Tressel's example will influence not only his players but others in NCAA football.


All of this, however, does not exonerate the NCAA for its apparent inequality and obscure rules.  

Does Tucker Carlson Value Dogs over Humans?

Tucker Carlson

On FOX yesterday (12/28/2010) Tucker Carlson filling in on Hannity said that Michael Vick "should have been executed" for "hurting dogs," and at the same time maintained that he as a Christian believes everyone should have a second chance.

Ignoring Tucker's selective Christianity, one has to wonder where he was when HUMAN BEINGS were being abused and tortured in Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay. I don't recall Tucker and his conservative friends calling for the execution of the perpetrators or anyone in the Bush/Cheney administration. I also wonder whether Tucker thinks the people in the Old Testament who sacrificed animals should have been executed? I am sure he would like to change the Ten Commandments to read: Thou shalt not "hurt" animals -- or at least, dogs.


What has become of our moral compass? When did we decide that abusing a dog deserves execution, but abusing human beings is a legitimate activity? I think the answer is: sometime after Rupert Murdoch launched the  FOX network.

Patriots: Beware of Tea Party's "Repeal Amendment"

Imagine a situation in the United States of America in which 37 State Legislatures could overturn or repeal any federal law or regulation. For example,  if the legislatures of  thirty seven of the least populated states chose to repeal the Civil Rights Act, they (even though they represent a minority of the country's population) would have the ability to repeal it even though such an action would be contrary to the wishes of the majority of the population. In effect, the minority could rule the majority.


Well, this is exactly what the Tea Party is proposing with its proposed "Repeal Amendment."  This amendment would give state legislatures the power to veto any federal law or regulation if two-thirds of of the legislatures approved. And why not?  The Tea Party  and their billionaire financial backers were successful in controlling the Republican Party in the last mid-term elections. There is no doubt that their supporters are dedicated and passionate, but they are a long, long way from speaking for the majority of the American people .On the other hand, if a dedicated minority is successful in taking over the Republican Party, they will not hesitate to try to take over the whole country by having  their "Repeal Amendment" approved.


This amendment, under the guise of "State Rights" is yet another  attempt to replace the United States of America with 50 sovereign states. This country has been great because of its unity and the dedication of its citizens to our common,  unified  welfare. We have come too far to allow a group that seeks to divide succeed in passing such an amendment.


This "Repeal Amendment" is undemocratic and a threat to our country's unity. 

Foreclosure Insanity

Mr. and  Mrs. Miller bought a home twelve years ago for $250 thousand.  In addition to their down-payment, they made payments for 12 years and now as a result of the housing crisis their home has a market value of $120 thousand. Unfortunately for Mr. and Mrs Miller, they cannot continue to make the payments on a home that has lost half of its value. The Millers contact the bank in hopes of refinancing their home based on the current market price of $120 thousand. The bank refuses and forecloses on the property. The Millers are forced to move into an apartment, and the bank sells the property to an investor for $120 thousand. The question is: why does the bank spend money on a foreclosure and the cost of reselling the house when they could have avoided those costs and refinanced the house to the Millers who had already made a down-payment and had an established record of making payments for 12 years. And, of course, the bank would have charged the Millers the cost of refinancing.


The above example is similar to situation in Florida, but one could find similar examples in most counties in the country.


And this insanity follows on the heals of the revelations about "robo-foreclosures" by financial institutions.


And these institutions are spending millions of dollars to lobby Congress in order to the prevent regulation. The Millers, on the other hand, cannot lobby Congress and end up losing their home.

NCAA Hypocrisy: Ohio State vs. Auburn

     

Today the NCAA ruled that five Ohio State football players will be ineligible for the first five games of next season, but they will be able to play in the Sugar Bowl. Granted these players either knowingly or unknowingly have broken a NCAA rule, this ruling raises a basket-full of issues


1. Why are these five players allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl if they broke the rules?  Answer: The Sugar Bowl would be devalued without these five players. The bowl would lose money. They can't have that. The NCAA makes it very clear: it's all about money.


2. If a player receives an award, a ring, a jersey, or whatever, it is their property, and they should be able to decide what to do with it. If they wish to sell their own property, can the NCAA declare them ineligible for five games? Does the NCAA and the university attach an engraving saying "Cannot be sold by penalty of NCAA suspension"?


3. This decision may in effect encourage two or three of the star players to leave college and jump into the NFL draft. Does the NCAA want to push their star players out of college and into the NFL?  Apparently so Thus, none of this has anything to do with a college education..


4. What about Cam Newton? He left the University of Florida rather than defend himself against  charges of academic cheating. Instead he went to a junior college, and then apparently chose to go to Auburn rather than Mississippi State because Mississippi State would not pay the fee his father was demanding. Although there are text messages indicating such, the NCAA very quickly ruled that Cam would be eligible  to continue to play because he was not aware of what his father, Cecil, was doing. Reggie Bush would have liked to have claimed such a defense.


5. Based on the NCAA rulings, Tyrelle Pryor should have given his rings, jerseys, and pants to his mother and she could have sold them for more money (more than $2,500)  and as long as Tyrelle did not know the details, he would have been able to have the full senior year.


6. Maybe the Ohio State players would have been better off giving Cecil Newton their awards and having him selling them and giving the proceeds to their families -- minus his surcharge. And, of course, the player would be innocent because he, just like Cam, did not know what good old Cecil was doing.


The NCAA has to get its act together!

John Boehner Wants Our Sympathy?

New Speaker of the House,
John Boehner

Excuse me if I have trouble appreciating John Boehner's version of his life as being an unique version of the American Dream. He intimates that he had a very difficult childhood being one of eleven children and having to work in his family's  bar/grill. He tells us the he  had to scrub the floor and tote around cases of beer. And then, lo and behold, he had to work his way through college.


I have news for John. His childhood was quite normal. He had a family that provided him with food, shelter, an education, and the basic necessities. And I definitely cannot sympathize with his complaints about having to work in the family business. Almost all children who grew up on a family farm or whose family operated a small business had to help the family by doing whatever they were able. Farm children had to work both before and after school. My family owned and operated a Hardware store. My sister and I had to shovel coal for the furnace in the morning before school and then sweep, dust, organize, and stock shelves after school. We did not consider it a burden; it was life and a good life at that. For many, a family working together to succeed is a source of great happiness.


If Mr. Boehner thinks that working his way through college is unusual, he must be comparing his experience to his wealthy country club friends. I have news for him. Many Americans have worked their way through college, and many still do.


If Mr. Boehner wants to observe a difficult childhood, he should leave the suburbs and spend some time in the inner city. He was never homeless and hungry. He did not have to find cardboard boxes to keep himself warm at night. He did not go to high school during the day, work at Krogers after school, and then sleep in an abandoned car at night. He did not have to fear for his life walking home from school. His family was not evicted and put on the street. These are the circumstances of a difficult childhood.


Many Americans will not be shedding a tear for Mr. Boehner and his difficult childhood.

Boehner Opposes Child Marriage Prevention Act

Eric Cantor and John Boehner

Within a few days, our Republican friends in Congress have been delighted to extend a tax cut to billionaires (adding $ 858 billion to the federal deficit),  but refused to pass  the Child Marriage Prevention Act. The reasons: it would add $67 million to the deficit, and it might somehow result in more abortions. They never explained the abortion claim because all they have to do is mention the word, abortion, and the moral conservatives go into spasms.


CARE a worldwide humanitarian rights organization says: 'More than 60 million girls ages 17 and younger -- many as young as 10 -- are forced into marriage in developing countries. Many of these girls are married to men more than twice their age. Not only does this unacceptable practice thwart a girl's education, it endangers her health and often locks her into a life of poverty."


Perhaps it's time "Boehner and his Bunch" should explain their value system.

The NCAA'S Dilemma: Cecil and Cam Newton

Cecil and Cam Newton

 The 2010 Heisman Trophy winner, Cam Newton, poses a problem for the NCAA, a problem they have not dealt with effectively. Obviously, something is amiss in Newton's choice to play at Auburn instead of Mississippi State. Cam says he did nothing wrong, and the NCAA says that he was unaware of  any  failed pay-for-play scheme. Cam's father, Cecil, is another situation. Apparently, whatever shenanigans Cecil was pulling off, Cam was kept out of the loop, probably intentionally Also, it is interesting that Cam never bothered to ask his father about the charges of a payment scheme.

If the NCAA is going to allow Cam to continue to play even though the father was trying to turn a profit, they will have opened a huge can of worms. If immediate family members can break the rules with no repercussions for the athlete, the NCAA will not be able to enforce its rules.The family will leave the athlete in the dark in case they get caught. If the athlete can compete as though nothing is wrong, abuses will flourish.

Obviously, the father has not explained away his problems. Auburn does not want him hanging around, and his absence at the Heisman ceremony was noteworthy. Whatever the sins of the father, they necessarily taint the son and the NCAA will have to confront that.

General Welfare vs. Partisan Greed

   

U.S. Constitution

 We should not be surprised that these days Republicans never speak of the "common good" or the "general welfare." Those concepts appear to be anathema to them, their followers, and their lobbyist supporters. Although the Christian tradition is imbued with the concept of an individual's obligation to foster the common good, Republican politicians in this country posses a more narcissistic point of view. They have made it clear they are more interested in the welfare of their party and the interests of their lobbyist friends than they are in the welfare of the nation. When a program appears to benefit the general welfare of the country, they bemoan its effect on the deficit; but when a continued tax cut for billionaires is discussed, they maintain that such a cut is necessary for the economy -- the old "trickle-down theory of economics" disowned by its creator, David Stockman.

The examples are plentiful -- going back to the Reagan years of  "greed-is-good." Today, however, it is rampant. Just a few examples. After the Supreme Court justices who favored "states-rights" changed their minds and elected George W. Bush, Cheney and his cohorts had not unpacked their bags before they were holding a secret "energy" meeting to determine the best way to capitalize on Bush's "victory." That was followed by "temporary" tax breaks for the very wealthy, and a pre-emptive assault on Iraq, albeit, the so-called reasons did not exist. However, Haliburton and Blackwater made billions of dollars as private contractors. Skipping ahead, the country watched Sarah Palin resign as governor of Alaska because she saw the opportunity to cash in on McCain's desperate and misguided choice of her as his running mate; and  cash in, she has! Her commitment to the welfare of Alaska was not a factor. Mitch McConnell, the leader of  Republican senators has told us his goal is to see that the President of the United States fails. Apparently he does not care that if the President fails, the country fails.

Not to be too dramatic about it, but most historians agree that the fall of great empires and civilizations of the past began when political leaders became more concerned about their own welfare and power than they did the common good and the general welfare.


But the most telling statements of the oligarchs on the right are the accusations that President Obama is pursuing a program of "socialism." Their condemnation of what they label socialism, is not about socialism, but it is a condemnation of people looking out for the general welfare rather than self-interests.


Our grandfathers and great grandfathers fought two World Wars for the common good, not selfish interests. They knew that the U.S. Constitution was established to "promote the general Welfare."

The Top Ten Reasons John Boehner is Always Crying

John Boehner Crying on TV 

We have all seen John Boehner shedding copious tears on TV recently and wondered why he is bawling like a baby. Well here are the 10 most likely reasons.


10. When asked about John Boehner, Miss Lisabeth Lyons, his alleged mistress, asked "John who?"


9. He was worried billionaires were not going to receive another tax cut.


8. He was informed that Latino babies born in this country were indeed citizens and would be eligible to vote when they turned 18.


7. The oil lobby  gave him only a dozen free tickets to the Sugar Bowl.


6. A pharmaceutical lobbyist refused to write anymore legislative bills for him.


5. His country club buddies insisted that a 21 foot putt was not a "give-me."


4. The TSA would not give him a copy of his full-body scan.


3. His wife sold his tanning bed on eBay.


2. Sarah Palin did not invite him on her hunting trip to kill and slaughter a caribou.


1. Dick Cheney did invite him to go bird hunting.

That Troublesome First Amendment & Wikileaks

   

After the tragedy of 9/11 many Americans, including those in the  Whitehouse and Congress, were extremely frightened and hastily rushed to pass the so-called "Patriot Act" demonstrating once again that fear induces people to irrational actions contrary to their long-held principles. Unfortunately, something very similar may be occurring these days following the release of "secret" documents by Wikileaks. Some senators and others are trying to invoke the Espionage Act of 1917 in order to prosecute those involved even though court decisions since 1917 have found the act to violate basic constitutional rights.


Perhaps many have forgotten the abuses that occurred as a result of this act. President Wilson was successful in having the act passed in an effort to silence  his critics in a run-up to World War One. Thousands of ordinary citizens who were speaking out against the US involvement in the war were arrested. A movie director was sentenced to ten years because he showed a film which revealed British cruelty in the Revolutionary War -- the reason England was now our ally.


The poet E.E. Cummins was imprisoned beacuse he said he did not hate German. In 1918 presidential candidate Eugene Debbs received a 10 year prison sentence for reading the First Amendment in public  Judge Learned Hand maintained that the wording of the Espionage Act was so vague that it would threaten the American tradition of freedom itself.  In the 1990s, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan deplored the "culture of secrecy" made possible by the Act, noting the tendency of bureaucracies to enlarge their powers by increasing the scope of what is held "secret" (cf.Wikipedia).


Unfortunately today the psychology of fear is encouraging some to seek an easy fix by resurrecting the Espionage Act of 1917. Since we seem so eager to sacrifice the freedoms for which our forefathers gave their lives, it is appropriate to recall Ben Franklin's wisdom: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


As for the Wikileaks problem, the first question is whether most of these items should have been  classified  as"secret." Why  is our government concealing information pertaining to  large banks, huge corporations, and the Vatican? It maybe that these are stories the mainstream press should have been investigating all along.
The second and more serious concern is whether these leaks endangered some one's life or exposed one of our operatives as in the case of Valerie Plame. If that is the case there is a law to deal with that. Recall Scooter Libby was sent to prison until his bosses at the Whitehouse convinced George Bush to pardon him. As for serious threats to national security, there are laws that deal with that, We do not need to invoke the vague, possibly unconstitutional Espionage Act 0f 1917; it is an open invitation to human rights abuse.

The Toledo Blade Has Gone to the Dogs

The Toledo Blade Newspaper Building

For over a year now, The Toledo Blade has been obsessed with dogs. It is a rare occasion that the newspaper does not feature a dog story on its front page or the first page of the second section. It all began with concerns about the former dog warden and the number of dogs being put down instead of being adopted. Unfortunately, the obsession has continued. Is it that Toledo is so boring our daily newspaper has nothing else to cover? Or is it that photographs of cute dogs sell papers?

"One of America's Great Newspapers" is in danger of becoming "One of America's Great Canine Papers." It's not likely  that dog stories are going to win a Pulitzer.

Kasich's Trainwreck Sends Money and Jobs Out of Ohio

What was I thinking?

John Kasich has not even been sworn in as Ohio's next governor, and he is already costing the state money and jobs.He is the one, you may recall, who campaigned on creating jobs in Ohio, but now that he is elected,  he's not talking so much about jobs. By declaring that he is going to kill Governor Strickland's modern passenger rail plan for Ohio, he has effectively forced the Transportation Department to send the money ($385 million) that was allotted to Ohio to other states and with the money go the jobs.  But this is just the beginning; wait until he is governor and starts laying off state employees as his agenda necessitates.

Prior to the election, Ohio was moving ahead to create a modern, efficient railway system that could eventually become a high-speed system linking Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, but now Kasich has declared that trains are dead -- something that warms the hearts of Dick Cheney and Big Oil oligarchs who dumped big money into his election.


Senator Sherrod Brown (D, OH) reacted:  "It's a great day for New Yorkers and Californians but a truly disappointing one for Ohioans waiting for jobs and waiting for passenger rail. With so many Ohioans struggling, I don't understand why we would give up on funds that create thousands of jobs and promote millions of dollars worth of economic development."


Outgoing Governor Strickland said: "I fear that history will show that this one uninformed decision will be looked aupon with regret by future generations of Ohioans,"


And the future is what it is all about. Senator Brown observes, "It's not just manufacturing and construction jobs we're losing. It's lost economic development opportunities along the proposed route and surrounding the proposed stations. By turning our backs on this federal investment, we are turning our backs on opportunity to bring rail manufacturing jobs to Ohio."


Personally, I tend to think that Kasich's Wall Street buddies from Lehman Brothers (no sisters there?) were the ones who told him "the train is dead"  --  meaning that a modern, efficient  passenger railway system will not be good for their bottom line.

The Sad But True Story of Bottled Water

source: www.foodandwaterwatch.org

THE STORY OF BOTTLED WATER

Sarah's Greed and Tea Party's Dishonesty

  

On Monday the "Tea Party" president, Judson Phillips and many Tea Party supporters  urged Sarah Palin to take over as the chair of the debt-ridden Republican National Party.

They offered two reasons. One was her pop-star recognition and the second was her fundraising ability -- a major issue for the RNC.

What in the name of Hades were these people thinking? There was no way in hell this woman was going to take a job raising money for anyone but herself. Remember this is the woman who resigned in mid-term as the governor of Alaska to personally cash in on the fact that McCain thought she could be vice president.  And "cash in" she has. What with two books she "wrote," reality show appearances, speaking engagements, dragging her daughter onto "Dancing with the Stars,"  she has accumulated mega bucks, making the abandoned governor's position look like chicken feed.  Again, I ask, why do her Tea Party supporters think she would give up her personal quest of money for the sake of the GOP?


This is  part of Sarah's response: "...the primary role of the RNC chair seems be that of fundraiser-in-chief, and there are others who would probably be much more comfortable asking people for money than I would be, and they would definitely enjoy it more." One cannot quarrel with that, she is much more comfortable and adept at amassing a personal fortune


By way of a footnote: the "Tea Party" insisted throughout the mid-term elections that they were neither Republican or Democrat. So why is it that they are now so concerned about the Republican National Committee? Me thinks the Tea Party was not telling the truth back in September and October.

House GOP's Cynical Approach to Energy Committee

      
 
above: Joe Barton
below: John Shimkus

It appears that the Republicans are considering Joe Barton and John Shimkus to chair the House energy committee next year. What a travesty! Shimkus says we don't need to worry about climate change, and Barton is the congressman who apologized to BP officials for harsh questions from other congressmen about the Gulf oil spill.


If either becomes the chair it will reinforce the public perception that energy policy for House Republicans means keeping the oil companies happy. And who knows, maybe that is the message they want to send. After the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, the oil companies dumped tons of money into the Republican coffers and would be pleased to have someone like Barton or Shimkus heading the energy committee.

Susan Collins, Woman Up on DADT!

Collins and G. W. BUSH

In spite of the fact that this conversation has gone on for a minimum of sixteen years, that 70% of the military are in favor of it, that the Pentagon recommends it, and that the majority of the American citizens support it, Susan Collins, the Republican senator from Maine, does not want to vote on the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" because she thinks the Senate needs to talk about "some more."


Obviously she plans to vote against it, but wants to delay the vote as long as possible. Come on Susan, woman up!

Chad Ochocinco and Sarah Palin?

               Chad Ochocinco (Johnson)                                            Evelyn Lozada


Due to his lackluster performance on the football field, Chad Ochocinco 
has not been in the news recently and that  drives him crazy. He has done almost everything possible to get his name in the news, including participating in "Dancing with the Stars," but his publicity cache has diminished. Therefore, he had to play his last card; become engaged to a beautiful model, Evelyn Lozada. That should generate a new round of publicity & money for Chad.


But I think he has missed an opportunity. He could have gone on "Dancing with the Stars' with Bristol's mother, Sarah Palin. What an opportunity. Forget the beautiful model and team up with another publicity-seeker like yourself. 

Test for the Tea Party

          

If the Tea Party is serious about cutting the deficit, we will know by observing whether  they cut or eliminate farm subsidies -- a program that almost all agree is "Welfare for the Wealthy."


If they do eliminate farm subsidies, they would make a substantial statement on two fronts. First, they would indicate they are serious about reducing the deficit, and second, they would be demonstrating that they are not beholden to the undisclosed wealthy who financed their campaigns.


This issue comes close to home for some Tea Party Republicans. Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota wants to eliminate farm subsidies although her father-in-law has received $250,000 in subsidies within the last 15 years.


The newly elected congresswoman from Missouri, Hartzler,  wants to keep the program that has provided her and her husband $770,000 of  taxpayers' money in fifteen years.


Although Stephen Fincer, new GOP congressman from Tennessee, campaigned on cutting federal spending, he defends farm subsidies which have provided his family with $3.2 million in the last ten years.


We will know them (the Tea Party) by their works.


(Subsidy payments available at Environmental Working Group website.)

Confession of a NFL Nerd

                

A friend of mine, ala Jeff Foxworthy, has compiled a list entitled: "You might be a nerd if........" And, to my surprise, I learned that I am a nerd. One item on the list is: "You might be a nerd if you read a book while watching a football game." I plead guilty. 


In fact, I wonder why everyone doesn't read while watching an NFL game. A typical game lasts approximately three hours and in that period of time the viewer sees less than twenty minutes of actual football plays. That leaves two hours and forty minutes! Time that could be used to read a good book which would provide much more entertainment.

Deficit Commission more about Size of Gov. than Deficit

Read Kevin Drum's article to see why the Deficit Commission's Proposal is about cutting the size of the federal government, not the size of the deficit. 

Is the Deficit Commission Serious?

— By Kevin Drum

| Wed Nov. 10, 2010 8:46 PM PST

— President Barack Obama meets with Erskine Bowles and Sen. Alan Simpson, co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. | © Christy Bowe/Globe Photos/ZUMApress.com.

I've been trying to figure out whether I have anything to say about the "chairman's mark" of the deficit commission report that was released today. In a sense, I don't. This is not a piece of legislation, after all. Or a proposed piece of legislation. Or even a report from the deficit commission itself. It's just a draft presentation put together by two guys. Do you know how many deficit reduction proposals are out there that have the backing of two guys? Thousands. Another one just doesn't matter.

But the iron law of the news business is that if people are talking about it, then it matters. So this report matters, even though it's really nothing more than the opinion of Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. So here's what I think of it, all contained in one handy chart from the Congressional Budget Office:

Here's what the chart means:

• Discretionary spending (the light blue bottom chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It takes up about 10% of GDP forever. What's more, pretending that it can be capped is just game playing: anything one Congress can do, another can undo. So if you want to recommend a few discretionary cuts, that's fine. Beyond that, though, the discretionary budget should be left to Congress since it can be cut or expanded easily via the ordinary political process. That's why it's called "discretionary."
• Social Security (the dark blue middle chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It goes up very slightly between now and 2030 and then flattens out forever. If Republicans were willing to get serious and knock off their puerile anti-tax jihad, it could be fixed easily with a combination of tiny tax increases and tiny benefit cuts phased in over 20 years that the public would barely notice. It deserves about a week of deliberation.
• Medicare, and healthcare in general, is a huge problem. It is, in fact, our only real long-term spending problem.

To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious. The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That's not serious.

There are other reasons the Simpson-Bowles plan isn't serious. Capping revenue at 21% of GDP, for example. The plain fact is that over the next few decades Social Security will need a little more money and healthcare will need a lot more. That will be true even if we implement the greatest healthcare cost containment plan in the world. Pretending that we can nonetheless cap revenues at 2000 levels isn't serious.

And their tax proposal? As part of a deficit reduction plan they want to cut taxes on the rich and make the federal tax system more regressive? That's not serious either.

Bottom line: this document isn't really aimed at deficit reduction. It's aimed at keeping government small. There's nothing wrong with that if you're a conservative think tank and that's what you're dedicated to selling. But it should be called by its right name. This document is a paean to cutting the federal government, not cutting the federal deficit.

The USA Needs "The Disclose Act"

After the unprecedented amounts of undisclosed money spent on political advertising in the most recent mid-term elections, Americans of all political persuasions should demand the passage of THE DISCLOSE ACT.


It is estimated that in this election spending cost $4 billion, tens of millions undisclosed. (The 2000 Presidential election was $3.1 billion). In this election millionaire farmers from Ohio were able to donate as much as they wanted to Rob Portman without being identified. And of course they are hoping that good ol' Rob will help them continue to receive millions of dollars in agricultural subsidies -- a welfare program for the wealthy- a golden cow for corporations, even though the corporation might consist of two farmers.


As a result of the activist 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court (Citizens United), corporations are equated with individuals and entitled to give as much as they choose and not  required to disclose their identity.  With the absence of disclosure, it will be impossible to even question a "quid pro quo." Looks to me  much like legalized deal-making.


THE DISCLOSE ACT was passed by the House in June, but blocked by Senate Republicans.


If we want the rest of the world to look to us for the way democracy works, we have to pass this act or we will appear to have a plutocracy rather than a democracy.


If corporations want the same rights to free speech as individuals, they should have the cajones to identify themselves.

Tea Party: Do Your Home Work

Michele Bachmann

           Rep. Michele Bachmann and her Tea Party friends keep screaming that our country has to bow down and worship the Constitution of the United States. Not a bad idea. I'm all for it. But the problem is they want us to worship their version of the Constitution. It appears they are the anointed interpreters of what the Constitution "really" means. For example: Alaska Senate nominee Joe Miller says unemployment benefits are "unconstitutional;" Rand Paul, the new Republican senator from Kentucky questions the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; West Virginia Senate Nominee John Raese insists the minimum wage be eliminated; and some Tea Party candidates want to repeal amendments for the Federal Income Tax and the direct election of senators. Furthermore, contrary to the 14th Amendment,  Rand Paul wants to stop the US from granting citizenship to native-born children of  illegal immigrants. And of course, Sarah Palin says the Constitution "acknowledg(es) that our inalienable rights...come from God." (Both she and John Boehner have trouble distinguishing their documents.)


        Michele, Sarah and friends, just read what the document says. It is quite clear; you do not have to interpret it for us. Our Founding Fathers were much more proficient with the English language than you are; we do not need your obfuscations. Perhaps you should have paid attention to the teacher when you were in High School.

Free E books Online: Project Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is a treasure trove of free ebooks.


 "Download over 33,000 free ebooks to read on your PC, iPad, Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader, iPhone, iPod Touch, Android or other mobile or cell phone.


We carry high quality books: Our free books were previously published by bona fide publishers and digitized with the help of thousands of volunteers.


No fee or registration is required, but if you find Project Gutenberg useful, we kindly ask you to donate a small amount so we can buy and digitize more books. Other ways to help include digitizing more books, recording audio books, or reporting errors."


Over 100,00 free ebooks are available as well as audio books ( both human-read and computer-read), CDs, DVDs, and digital sheet music.


Go to: www.gutenberg.org.

Farm Subsidies: Welfare for the Wealthy

Farm Subsidies

At a recent party, I listened to a group of well-to-do friends carry on at great length about lazy, unproductive Americans who are receiving some form of public assistance from the government. I presumed they were talking about the unemployed, the homeless, single working mothers with children, the elderly who lost their health insurance, and a whole litany of fellow citizens who are down and out.


There were several ironies in play at this party. Many of those complaining were "well-to-do," not because of their hard work or superior intelligence, but because of good luck or hefty inheritances.


A second and greater irony is that, as I learned later, they themselves are receiving government assistance, quite in excess of the young working mother who is raising three children. An environmentalist friend directed me to the EWG (Environmental Working Group) website which among other things lists the farm subsidies provided to farmers and  agricultural corporations.  I learned that in Ohio, the federal government doled out 6.43 billion dollars between 1995 and 2009, and 10% of  the largest farmers/corporations received 70% of the 6.43 billion. In Lucas County one incorporated farm received $1,028,591; in Wood County another incorporated farm received $1,423,388 in subsidies in that period of time.


This, in it's simplest form, is government welfare for the wealthy.


And now, following the 5-4 Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, these corporations can anonymously donate as much money as they choose to re-elect politicians who will see to it that they continue to receive their government hand-outs while they continue to complain about the money spent on food stamps and Medicaid.