It is time for Americans to start asking ourselves, “what is happening to our country?” As I look around, there are so many signs that President Bush, his administration and the Republican leadership are systematically destroying the values and well-being of our nation through their arrogance, greed and incompetence.
Facing a cost of $200 billion for reconstruction in the aftermath of Katrina, Bush refuses to reconsider his ideological obsession with tax cuts for the wealthy. Don’t be fooled – “no tax increases” doesn’t just mean no new taxes, it means sticking with his plan to make earlier rounds of tax cuts permanent. Burdening future generations with the cost of his largess to the wealthy, through record-breaking deficits, doesn’t seem to concern him. How can we trust a political party where 222 of its congressmen and 46 of its senators have categorically refused to raise taxes (by signing Grover Norquist’s tax pledge)? How is that a sign of fiscal responsibility?
At the core of some of our most challenging security and economic issues is our lack of energy independence. But Bush has shown zero leadership on energy – his is a policy of avoidance – looking for a few barrels of oil in Alaska and relaxing environmental standards. Instead of sending people to Mars (as NASA wants to do), our national quest should be a radical reduction in our dependence on oil, using economic incentives – including a national gas tax – to fund research and encourage conservation.
I am concerned with more than just economic security. Bush policies have deeply damaged the credibility of the United States as a protector of human rights. The very values we are fighting for in the war on terror are being systematically violated. Widespread abuse and torture of prisoners is met with indifference and no accountability, even as it turns those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. away from us. Wholesale disregard for due process (we have held prisoners in Guantanamo for more than three years without bringing charges) is acceptable, because President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have decided they are guilty. Through “extraordinary rendition”, we secretly send suspects, including our own citizens, for interrogation to countries, including Syria, that we know engage in torture.
We agonize about how we are going to protect ourselves against terrorist attacks on our soil, yet the Republicans whom we have put in charge of our executive and legislative, and soon perhaps, judicial, branches of government are beholden to the National Rifle Association, which stymies every reasonable way to restrict access by criminals (including terrorists) to firearms. That’s an organization which invites speakers who profess, “I want burglars dead…no court case. No parole. No early release. I want ‘em dead. Get a gun, and when they attack you shoot ‘em.” (as quoted in The New Yorker, 8/1/05). It is disgraceful that our president, and the majority of our national leaders (Democrats included), take their direction from an organization with so little respect for our values.
If you are disturbed by where our country is heading, I urge you to speak out.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Thursday, September 1, 2005
Katrina getting in the way of tax cuts, no way!
President Bush stated that the federal government will do its share to help the victims of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. But, he also spoke of the importance of having the American people do their share by contributing privately.
While I support charitable contributions, and have myself contributed to the relief effort, perhaps the need for private support would not be so great if President Bush had not given billions of dollars of tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans, gutting federal resources. As if a deficit exceeding $400 billion (one of the highest on record) is not enough of a wake up call for more prudent fiscal management, the administration and Republican leadership is still pushing for a permanent repeal of the estate tax, an additional $745 billion gift over ten years to the richest Americans.
The next time Bush calls for private support, perhaps he should address just the recipients of his largess, since for the vast majority of Americans, household incomes have failed to increase over the past five years, as reported by the Census Bureau. That’s a new record, neatly coinciding with the term of the Bush presidency.
While I support charitable contributions, and have myself contributed to the relief effort, perhaps the need for private support would not be so great if President Bush had not given billions of dollars of tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans, gutting federal resources. As if a deficit exceeding $400 billion (one of the highest on record) is not enough of a wake up call for more prudent fiscal management, the administration and Republican leadership is still pushing for a permanent repeal of the estate tax, an additional $745 billion gift over ten years to the richest Americans.
The next time Bush calls for private support, perhaps he should address just the recipients of his largess, since for the vast majority of Americans, household incomes have failed to increase over the past five years, as reported by the Census Bureau. That’s a new record, neatly coinciding with the term of the Bush presidency.
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
Bush report on human rights. Look in the mirror.
Dear President Bush:
I read with astonishment the findings of the State Department's report on human rights, which calls attention to abuses by the Iraqi Government. Your policies and actions in regard to human rights, juxtaposed against
this report, represent the height of hypocrisy. While you point the finger at other countries' human rights violations, you are engaged in similar, if not as egregious, activities.
You send individuals to the very countries cited for torture (Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) in secrecy, with no due process. You have held a US citizen in detention for almost three years without bringing any charges. You are holding hundreds of foreigners at Guantanamo as virtual prisoners of war with little to no evidence that they were in fact involved in terrorist activities.
I want the United States to take an extremely aggressive stand on the war on terror. Yet your arrogant disregard for the values of our country are doing irreparable harm to my country's ability to push for human rights around the world, and are bringing into question the very meaning of being an American. Meanwhile, your obsession with Iraq has left our homeland dangerously unprotected, as evidenced by the recent report on port security.
Court after court have repudiated your belief that the United States can flout the Constitution as you prosecute the war on terror. Yet, oblivious to why your actions are so repugnant, you continue on.
I urge you to reflect on what it means to protect the values of the United States that you insist you are fighting for. You should call for an immediate end to extraordinary rendition, lack of due process and
interrogation techniques that rely on torture. And, you should hold those who have propagated these practices to account, including your Secretary of Defense and newly appointed Attorney General. It is a disgrace to the
reputation of the United States that you would even consider including these two men in your administration, let alone cite them for their service to the nation.
I read with astonishment the findings of the State Department's report on human rights, which calls attention to abuses by the Iraqi Government. Your policies and actions in regard to human rights, juxtaposed against
this report, represent the height of hypocrisy. While you point the finger at other countries' human rights violations, you are engaged in similar, if not as egregious, activities.
You send individuals to the very countries cited for torture (Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) in secrecy, with no due process. You have held a US citizen in detention for almost three years without bringing any charges. You are holding hundreds of foreigners at Guantanamo as virtual prisoners of war with little to no evidence that they were in fact involved in terrorist activities.
I want the United States to take an extremely aggressive stand on the war on terror. Yet your arrogant disregard for the values of our country are doing irreparable harm to my country's ability to push for human rights around the world, and are bringing into question the very meaning of being an American. Meanwhile, your obsession with Iraq has left our homeland dangerously unprotected, as evidenced by the recent report on port security.
Court after court have repudiated your belief that the United States can flout the Constitution as you prosecute the war on terror. Yet, oblivious to why your actions are so repugnant, you continue on.
I urge you to reflect on what it means to protect the values of the United States that you insist you are fighting for. You should call for an immediate end to extraordinary rendition, lack of due process and
interrogation techniques that rely on torture. And, you should hold those who have propagated these practices to account, including your Secretary of Defense and newly appointed Attorney General. It is a disgrace to the
reputation of the United States that you would even consider including these two men in your administration, let alone cite them for their service to the nation.
Thursday, January 6, 2005
Oppose Gonzales Nomination
A letter I sent to my CT Senators...
I am writing to urge you to do everything in your power to deny confirmation to President Bush’s nomination of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general of the United States.
It as an absolute disgrace for the Senate to have to even consider the nomination of an administration official who has so little regard for the values embodied in our constitution. While Mr. Gonzales’ exact role is still unclear, it is without doubt that he was party to the deliberations and policies of the Bush administration that created a climate leading to widespread and continuing abuse and torture of prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. And practices at Guantanamo in which detainees may be held forever without access to due process.
As a recent Op-Ed column in The New York Times stated, “By using torture, the country relinquishes the very ideological advantage – the promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights – that the president has so persistently claimed is America’s most powerful weapon in defeating Islamic extremism.”
Granted, the war on terror requires new ways of prosecuting war to be successful. But to subvert the very ideals that we are fighting to protect is not an option.
It is clear that President Bush will not hold members of his administration accountable for their moral, strategic and tactical errors. Nor is it likely that the Republican leadership will force Bush to do so. It is incumbent upon you to bring this administration to account for its moral lapses, and for the tremendous harm it has done to the reputation and integrity of the United States.
You can begin that process by denying confirmation to Alberto Gonzales for attorney general.
I am writing to urge you to do everything in your power to deny confirmation to President Bush’s nomination of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general of the United States.
It as an absolute disgrace for the Senate to have to even consider the nomination of an administration official who has so little regard for the values embodied in our constitution. While Mr. Gonzales’ exact role is still unclear, it is without doubt that he was party to the deliberations and policies of the Bush administration that created a climate leading to widespread and continuing abuse and torture of prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. And practices at Guantanamo in which detainees may be held forever without access to due process.
As a recent Op-Ed column in The New York Times stated, “By using torture, the country relinquishes the very ideological advantage – the promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights – that the president has so persistently claimed is America’s most powerful weapon in defeating Islamic extremism.”
Granted, the war on terror requires new ways of prosecuting war to be successful. But to subvert the very ideals that we are fighting to protect is not an option.
It is clear that President Bush will not hold members of his administration accountable for their moral, strategic and tactical errors. Nor is it likely that the Republican leadership will force Bush to do so. It is incumbent upon you to bring this administration to account for its moral lapses, and for the tremendous harm it has done to the reputation and integrity of the United States.
You can begin that process by denying confirmation to Alberto Gonzales for attorney general.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Questioning Bush isn't unpatriotic
There has been a consistent theme running through the Bush campaign that is very disturbing, and should give pause to any voter who is still undecided. Which is: if you disagree with how the Bush administration is prosecuting the war on terror, you are unpatriotic and not supportive of our troops. A cornerstone of American values is the right to challenge our government, enshrined in the first amendment’s right of free speech. While we fight the war on terror to preserve our liberties, Bush is subverting these very values here at home.
I do not question President Bush’s determination to fight the war on terror. But I support John Kerry for president because I believe he has a more sound approach for winning this war – based on the realization that the United States is stronger when it has strong alliances, that we are more likely to succeed when we consider the implications of our actions (planning for the peace, not just the battle), and holding ourselves to the very highest standards of proof and imminent threat when we commit our country to war – which puts our troops in harm’s way and kills innocent civilians.
President Bush has fallen short on all these accounts. There are no weapons of mass destruction – so there was no imminent threat to American security, or the ability to arm terrorists. There is convincing evidence that intelligence was manipulated to make the case for war. Now Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity – and over 1,000 Americans have died as a result. Meanwhile, there is a resurgent and very real threat of Taliban and Al Qaeda activity in Afghanistan, where we have only 10 percent of the number of troops that are tied down in Iraq. No progress has been made on disarming North Korea, a real nuclear threat. Insufficient efforts are being taken to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. These facts do not attest to strong leadership in the war on terror.
We are blessed that we have the right to challenge our leaders in order to make the United States a better, safer country – and I will exercise that right by voting for John Kerry for president.
I do not question President Bush’s determination to fight the war on terror. But I support John Kerry for president because I believe he has a more sound approach for winning this war – based on the realization that the United States is stronger when it has strong alliances, that we are more likely to succeed when we consider the implications of our actions (planning for the peace, not just the battle), and holding ourselves to the very highest standards of proof and imminent threat when we commit our country to war – which puts our troops in harm’s way and kills innocent civilians.
President Bush has fallen short on all these accounts. There are no weapons of mass destruction – so there was no imminent threat to American security, or the ability to arm terrorists. There is convincing evidence that intelligence was manipulated to make the case for war. Now Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity – and over 1,000 Americans have died as a result. Meanwhile, there is a resurgent and very real threat of Taliban and Al Qaeda activity in Afghanistan, where we have only 10 percent of the number of troops that are tied down in Iraq. No progress has been made on disarming North Korea, a real nuclear threat. Insufficient efforts are being taken to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. These facts do not attest to strong leadership in the war on terror.
We are blessed that we have the right to challenge our leaders in order to make the United States a better, safer country – and I will exercise that right by voting for John Kerry for president.
Wednesday, September 1, 2004
Debunking the Democratic "Tax & Spend" Myth
Occasionally I pick up the Wall Street Journal when traveling. The reference to "tax and spend" Democrats raised my ire, so I wrote the following, which apparently went into the circular file at the WSJ...
To the Editor/Wall Street Journal:
Congressional Budget Office projections at the end of the Clinton administration showed the federal debt disappearing by the end of the decade, a result of $5.6 trillion in federal surpluses. Over the past 25 years, 16 of which were presided over by Republican administrations, the only administration to produce a federal surplus was Democratic. Today, under four years of Bush "fiscal conservatism", the CBO is projecting the debt to reach in excess of $1 trillion by 2014 -- thought by many to be understated by several trillion dollars because it assumes no change to the Alternative Minimum Tax (which may impact up to 30 million Americans), and the unlikely sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts at the end of the decade (itself a cynical accounting move to deflate the true cost of those tax cuts).
The implication is clear -- the "tax and spend" policies of the Democrats, if that's what you want to call them, are far more fiscally responsible than the "don't tax and do spend" policies of the current and past Republican administrations -- starting with Ronald Reagan who himself was responsible for the then-largest deficits in history. At least President Reagan had the integrity to recognize his miscalculation, and began to roll back some of his tax cuts towards the end of his administration -- more than can be said for the current administration.
Here's the WSJ op-ed I was responding to...
August 31, 2004
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
A Reform GOP?
Republicans gathered in New York this week will be advertising their accomplishments, and fair enough. Yet if President Bush and the rest of his Grand Old Party want to turn their wispy hold on power into a real governing majority, they'll reassert their ebbing claim as the party of ideas.
Measured in offices held, the GOP hasn't been this strong since the 1920s. Republicans hold the White House and both branches of Congress, albeit narrowly but also by dint of an historic mid-term election victory in 2002. The party also owns 28 of the 50 governorships, including in the large, dynamic states of Texas, Florida and California. With an incumbent President seeking re-election, the GOP has a chance to forge a real mandate to govern.
Yet there is also a sense that the GOP, especially its Congressional wing, has been drifting from the principles that brought it to power. In 2000, Candidate Bush described the GOP as the party of reform -- from Social Security to Medicare, greater accountability in education and the "compassionate conservatism" of faith-based charity. Four years later, Americans are left wondering if Republicans still believe in that agenda, or if they're slowly being captured by the inertia of Beltway incumbency.
Granted, this is not the case on national security, where Mr. Bush has united the party behind the assertive use of American power. In a sense, all Republicans are "neoconservatives" now, or at least they are as long as Mr. Bush prevails in November. The party's realist, Brent Scowcroft wing is waiting to reassert itself if he loses -- represented by the likes of Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel -- but for now those differences are muted.
Under Mr. Bush, the GOP has also become the natural home for cultural traditionalists. Partly this is because the Democrats have so heartily embraced Hollywood and secularism, but it has also been driven by Mr. Bush's heartland instincts. This works to the GOP's political advantage on such issues as guns, where a majority opposes state controls. But it may cost the party on such matters as stem cell research, where science clashes with the party's dominant anti-abortion wing. At least the GOP is debating such vital matters: Democrats long ago banished any anti-abortion dissent.
Perhaps the biggest question is whether the GOP can still rightly call itself the party of smaller government. The GOP Congress -- as well as some of its state parties (Ohio, New York) -- has seemed only too comfortable acting as the party of the incumbent status quo, dolloping out pork to any interest group that might help it remain in power. The result has been the largest farm bill in history, as well as the largest new entitlement (for prescription drugs) since the 1960s. Huge energy and highway spending bills failed not from principled opposition but from internal squabbling.
If Republicans want to see the perils of this strategy, they might look at the blue (Democratic) patches of the electoral map that are Illinois, New Jersey and Long Island. Once GOP strongholds, those areas all turned left after Republican machines grew corrupt and became little different than tax-and-spend Democrats. It's no accident that the dynamic and growing parts of the GOP are in the South and West, in places like Florida, where Governor Jeb Bush has promoted school reform, or Colorado, where Governor Bill Owens has returned tax surpluses to voters instead of growing the government.
Internal GOP resistance to some of President Bush's pro-growth, reform agenda shows that too much of the party still opposes change. A rump group in the Senate have prevented him from making his tax cuts permanent, though without those tax cuts Republicans would be heading for defe a91 at this fall amid a much poorer economy.
Republicans in the House keep telling Mr. Bush to forget about personal Social Security accounts, despite their appeal to younger voters. And a nativist party faction has stood in way of his far-sighted immigration reform that is essential if the GOP is ever going to attract enough Hispanic voters to sustain a majority amid sweeping demographic change.
If voters want to elect the party of the government status quo, they can and probably should turn to the Democrats. Republicans have to stake their claim to govern on individual empowerment and the reform of our unsustainable, New Deal public-sector monopolies. In this information age of global competition and rapid technological change, Americans want a party that will give them more control over their finances and pensions, their health care, and especially their time. We'll be looking for evidence this week that the Republicans want to be that party.
Copyright 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Monday, January 1, 2001
Oppose Ashcroft Nomination
Letter to Congress opposing the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general...
I am writing to you to strongly urge that you oppose the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general. His positions and actions on a wide range of legislative issues make him an exceptionally poor choice to uphold and protect the nation’s laws. This is not merely a matter of political philosophies – Mr. Ashcroft’s record demonstrates that he is not fit to be the custodian of our citizens’ rights.
Mr. Ashcroft clearly does not believe in protecting women’s constitutionally protected right to reproductive choice. He has actively pursued legislation that would criminalize abortion even in cases of rape, incest and threats to a woman’s health. He has been so extreme is his quest as to propose legislation that would ban common forms of contraception.
Mr. Ashcroft’s cavalier approach to offering constitutional amendments – whether for banning flag burning, imposing term limits or outlawing abortion make it clear that he would be eager to use our precious Constitution as a tool of partisan politics – hardly the level of integrity that this great country needs in its attorney general.
Mr. Ashcroft has little respect for our citizens’ hard won civil rights – as evidenced in his position against legislation to deal with hate crimes, his opposition to even voluntary busing to support desegregation, his extremely obstructive activities to block confirmation of judicial appointments during the Clinton administration. His integrity is further in doubt when he created blatant misrepresentations of Justice Ronnie White’s positions in order to derail his nomination. Finally, how can we believe Mr. Ashcroft will protect minorities if he accepted a degree from Bob Jones University, whose racial policies are suspect, to say the least.
President-elect Bush promised to unite the country. John Ashcroft for attorney general is about as divisive a nomination as I could personally contemplate. If he is confirmed, it will be sad day for the protection of Americans’ rights – let alone bipartisanship for the next four years.
Again, I urge you to vote against the confirmation of John Ashcroft for attorney general. I’ll be watching the votes closely.
I am writing to you to strongly urge that you oppose the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general. His positions and actions on a wide range of legislative issues make him an exceptionally poor choice to uphold and protect the nation’s laws. This is not merely a matter of political philosophies – Mr. Ashcroft’s record demonstrates that he is not fit to be the custodian of our citizens’ rights.
Mr. Ashcroft clearly does not believe in protecting women’s constitutionally protected right to reproductive choice. He has actively pursued legislation that would criminalize abortion even in cases of rape, incest and threats to a woman’s health. He has been so extreme is his quest as to propose legislation that would ban common forms of contraception.
Mr. Ashcroft’s cavalier approach to offering constitutional amendments – whether for banning flag burning, imposing term limits or outlawing abortion make it clear that he would be eager to use our precious Constitution as a tool of partisan politics – hardly the level of integrity that this great country needs in its attorney general.
Mr. Ashcroft has little respect for our citizens’ hard won civil rights – as evidenced in his position against legislation to deal with hate crimes, his opposition to even voluntary busing to support desegregation, his extremely obstructive activities to block confirmation of judicial appointments during the Clinton administration. His integrity is further in doubt when he created blatant misrepresentations of Justice Ronnie White’s positions in order to derail his nomination. Finally, how can we believe Mr. Ashcroft will protect minorities if he accepted a degree from Bob Jones University, whose racial policies are suspect, to say the least.
President-elect Bush promised to unite the country. John Ashcroft for attorney general is about as divisive a nomination as I could personally contemplate. If he is confirmed, it will be sad day for the protection of Americans’ rights – let alone bipartisanship for the next four years.
Again, I urge you to vote against the confirmation of John Ashcroft for attorney general. I’ll be watching the votes closely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
