I am writing to respond to the frequent claim made by conservative-Republicans that Democrats in the Congress and in the liberal part of the news media support “RECKLESS SPENDING” by the federal government on programs that help people. I want the conservatives to tell the country which ones they want to CUT and REDUCE spending on. It certainly can’t be Defense/Military spending. It has to be Social Security because the federal government spends 24% of all that it spends on Social Security alone. THAT’S what they want to cut. What other programs are the ones where they imagine that there is much RECKLESS SPENDING on? Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, college student loans and unemployment insurance benefits.
Of course, they are NOT talking about doing something about how Medicare and Medicaid are defrauded of tens of billions of dollars every year by those in the health care/medical fields. They are NOT talking about reducing spending on these programs by lowering the exorbitant costs of prescription drugs/medications. Oh no, that would be taking away the precious “Constitutional right” of the pharmaceutical industry to make obscene and immoral profits off people’s illnesses and diseases and their resultant suffering and misery. Their “Constitutional right” to total individual liberty and freedom to rip off and exploit the American people must be protected by the conservative-Republicans.
Simply put, when they talk about cutting and reducing “RECKLESS SPENDING,” they are talking about wanting to cut the Social Security Retirement Benefits of not only future retirees, but of current retirees as well.
“Movement-Conservative” Paul Ryan has suggested a cut of 23% to 25% right at his website over the past several years (notice that he has already selected the amount of the cut that he dreams of). When conservative-Republicans like Ryan talk about “saving” and “reforming” Social Security, other conservative-Republicans know all too well that those are simply codewords and buzzwords that really mean cutting and then eventually abolishing/eliminating Social Security in its entirety. Such “stealth” tactics are encouraged by many conservatives such as the Koch brothers for conservative-Republicans to use in order to deceive, mislead, and hoodwink the American people. They do it well.
So, this is what all of you conservative-Republicans are all talking about when you say that you stand for “Compassionate Conservatism.” If that is so, then I would not want to see what a “Heartless Conservatism” would look like.
You are all-heart.
Stewart B. Epstein, Rochester, N.Y.
(Epstein is a retired professor of sociology and social work who taught at West Virginia University and Slippery Rock University.)
In his columns Jim Hightower shows a sharp, even devastating awareness of class divisions in the U.S. and their untoward consequences. That is why I was surprised that in his 10/15/18 column, “How Far Out Is Trump’s War Policy?” he announces, as if it has relevance for US foreign policy makers, that the war in Afghanistan is “stupid.” Stupid for whom, Jim? With untold trillions of mineral wealth in the ground, a strategic location near geo-political-economic-military rivals Iran, Russia, and China, an insurgency that is clearly the most powerful non-foreign force in the country and if victorious will not be co-operative with the US goal of global capitalist hegemony and will align with the aforesaid rivals, the US ruling class cannot afford to lose Afghanistan. The war is not stupid for them and they are calling the foreign policy shots.The rest of us are stupid for letting them get away with it. But that’s another story.
Thank you,
Ed Beller, Bronx, N.Y.
We’ve seen this con played before. Remember when FBI Director James Comey revealed an ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton just before the election? He violated agency policy because he feared his agency would be considered biased if they didn’t reveal and Hillary won. Turns out, the investigation found nothing illegal and it was dropped, but its revelation twisted the election toward the con artist who now occupies the Oval Office. For months, the con man had been complaining that the election was rigged and the FBI was biased, causing Comey to bend over backwards to prove it wasn’t. He bent over, way too far.
Now the Grifter-in-Chief is complaining that the Federal judge who decided a case against him is biased. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has come to the judge’s defense, explaining that judges are objective, irrespective of the President who appointed them. Is Justice Roberts now being conned to bend over and over-react to prove no bias in anticipation of a Trump case coming before the Supreme Court?
Bruce Joffe, Piedmont, Calif.
I have never understood why the defining terms of issues are set by the reactionary right, and then everyone else mindlessly parrots them. I’ll mention two particular examples, which never should have entered the lexicon, and so, are way past their expiration date.
One is the term “Christian right.” In fact, there are no Christians on the right. Remember, the foundational teaching of Jesus, the avatar of Christianity, was the “Golden Rule,” i.e. “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.” The only principle of the right is to judge and condemn anyone who differs or dissents from their distorted, patriarchal tribalism. I have never heard any of them invoke the Golden Rule as a directive, because it is anathema to their purposes.
The other is “pro-life.” This implies that anyone who disagrees with their position is “anti-life.” In fact, everyone is pro-life. Otherwise, there is nothing preventing people from committing suicide, to solve the problem. And, of course, they claim obedience to the will of God, to justify their anti-choice stance. Unfortunately, the word abortion is not found anywhere in their Bible, nor does Jesus say anything about it in the New Testament. Considering the enormous amount of things he is recorded to have said there, why would they have chosen something that he didn’t say as the basis of of their most fervent dogmatism? Only because it empowers their paternalistic view of creation.
In fact, G.O.D. (generator, operator, destroyer) created life and death in equal measure and perfect balance. This is universally true, whether we like it or not.
What we can do is think and communicate clearly and truthfully, and not perpetuate falsehoods. This may be the most radical action we can perform.
Mark Ivan, Calexico, Calif.
In “The Republic” Plato has Socrates (who never wrote anything as far as we know) say that the fatal flaw in Democracy is the incorrect assumption that all citizens are equally capable of self-government. Given that fallacy, Oligarchs can hire Sophists (we call them “Spin Doctors”) to use their rhetorical skills to convince unenlightened citizens to vote agains their own best interests. If that doesn’t sound familiar, you’re not paying attention.
Democracy is decompensating all around the world. Trump is just a symptom of a much larger problem. So, the question is: will Democracy just turn out to be another failed Utopian scheme? The answer is not in yet, but … If it is to survive, the first step has to be massive turnout by citizens who do “know better” and election of Representatives who understand that the first order of business is to rein in the cowardly Conservative/Reactionaries who have seized control of our country. Heraclitus’ river (you could look it up) is just moving too fast for them, so they sit backwards on the Horse of Life, eyes firmly glued on the receding horizon, hoping to resurrect a fictional “Golden Age” when they felt safer and more in control.
Shorey H. Chapman, San Francisco
Re: “The Final Sermon of St. Oscar Romero Resonates Today,” by Amy Goodman [11/15/18 TPP], how ironic that Ronald Reagan, who is considered by millions of Americans as a great president, and revered almost as a saint, was indirectly complicit not only in the killing of Archbishop Oscar Romero, but also in the massacre of tens of thousands of Salvadoran civilians (mostly poor indigenous peasants) by the death squads under the Salvadoran reign of terror backed by Reagan’s administration.
For that reason, and his obsession to topple Nicaragua’s legitimate government with US trained terrorists known as Contras, Reagan is widely known in Latin America as the butcher of Central America.
Our government’s conscience carries a burden of shame, which most Americans have fashioned into a banner of virtues by the alchemy of denial and the teaching of American history not as an impartial academic subject, but by converting it into a powerful engine of propaganda.
How sad! Instead of glorifying our country’s misdeeds, the shame of them should feel as heavy as an anvil pressing on our hearts.
David Quintero, Monrovia, Calif.
Shame on Sally Herrin for perpetuating two stubborn myths [in “Indivisible November 2018” in the 11/1/18 TPP], namely that a) Al Gore lost and b) Ralph Nader and/or his supporters caused it. Though not by such a resounding margin as Hillary Clinton, Gore easily won the national (popular) vote and calling it a loss just legitimizes the ongoing Electoral College thievery.
The “We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” approach has given us 25 years of a new and unimproved Democratic Party that cozies up to to weapons industry, agribusiness, Wall Street and various tyrants around the world, while treating labor and small business like last week’s trash.
And, of course, along came those DCCC missives in the mail, with the promise of the party actually growing a spine and ending the sniveling, all the while known they will absolutely ignore liberal/progressive ideas, ideas far superior to the “Third Way” ones.
The saddest part of this? That Democratic supporters have such a numerical advantage over GOP supporters that if the D’s would just do what the masses want, the GOP wouldn’t be able to steal elections on a regular basis.
Brian Hetzel, Buffalo, N.Y.
There are a few people (including a few Democratic legislators) advocating a strict background check before a person is allowed to purchase firearms. They think it would do away with all the murders and suicides with this check. They are sadly mistaken. What happened in the case of Mr. Powers, the man accused of shooting 11 worshipers in a synagogue in Pittsburgh? Was he not checked? Checkers could not find this man had a latent hatred for Semites — so much for their background check. When President Trump visited Pittsburgh there were no words for this “so-called” background check. Now he wants to rescind the 14th Amendment. It would be nice for him to talk about the Second Amendment — at least this way he would not have gone to Pittsburgh — and thereby save a lot of taxpayers’ money.
G.M. Chandu, Flushing, N.Y.
From The Progressive Populist, December 15, 2018
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652