The Agitator by Oliver_Halle
The Agitator #131: Deadly cocktail
August 28, 2014 09:45 AM | 127587 views | 0 0 comments | 2409 2409 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

view as list
The Agitator #51
by Oliver_Halle
November 29, 2012 11:04 AM | 1240 views | 6 6 comments | 15 15 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

The demise of Hostess bakery has at least two segments of the American public unhappy: those who will miss the product and those who blame the unionized workers and consider them the cause of this eighty year old company’s ending to be their fault. Just maybe the explanations are a little more complicated and a little more nuanced.

Union bashing has taken on a new meaning since the recession, particularly public sector ones. But union membership is at an all-time low, probably down forty percent from its heydays. Public sector unions may comprise the largest segment of members today. They are really catching it, but overlooked is that many states and municipalities that signed agreements never kept their end of the bargain by paying into the pension funds as promised. I think it fair to ask why unions came to be, and the answer isn’t complicated. Employers created working conditions that were intolerable. Unions not only sought better pay, but they also sought collective bargaining to improve safety, reduce the number of hours, and to protect workers against what we call unfair labor practices. In time the unions acquired power and with it came abuses that we are all too familiar with. In other words, the power and abuses shifted from the employer to the union. That pendulum has in recent years has swung back again. Today on reactionary radio you hear the talk meisters say that workers should be grateful just to have a job, that they should shut up and take whatever comes their way from their employer, that life is tough, and that everyone has to bear the burden. One of these charlatans once made the mistake of disclosing that he is a member of the Screen Actors Guild (have any readers bought a full price Broadway play ticket over the years?), yet here he was blaming the unions for Hostess going under. While these worker bashers tout sacrifice, you can bet that the likes of Rush Limbaugh haven’t given up anything ($40 million/year for His Porkulous) while trashing the working stiffs.

Back to Hostess. A few years ago Hostess went through Chapter 11 reorganization. The unions agreed to pay and benefit cuts in order for the company to survive. Then Hostess was purchased by some private equity investors and new management put in place---none with food service experience but instead, financial engineers. And what was one of the first things the new team did? They doubled their pay and took seven figure incomes. I remember that in officer training we were taught that an officer never eats until the last enlisted man has eaten, and he never sleeps until the last enlisted man has a place to sleep. That is leadership 101. But the Hostess management team went the other direction. While their company was failing they demanded that the workers take cuts while they took more out for themselves. And from what I have read, the management did nothing to try and offset the changes in American eating habits, which was shifting to healthier food products. The big boys made no effort to enter the export market in a meaningful way, something they could have done considering that the product has preservatives that would not have impeded shipping, and they made no effort to produce goods that the public wanted. No, it was too easy to clean the company out at the top and tell the bakers, drivers, and other workers to eat the crumbs that they were only too lucky to get. They overlooked the simple fact that owners and workers have a symbiotic relationship, and setting the example at the top, talking and working with your people, taking care of those that do the daily routines, can produce amazing results. Delta is an example. There are many other unsung American companies that understand good management and good leadership, that they are all in it together, and that happy workers are productive workers.

The income disparity between the C - level managers and employees has grown from roughly 40:1 in the early 1980s to 300:1 today. If anyone thinks that this is healthy, that it is making America better, so be it. I couldn’t disagree more. We grew the largest middle class in history during and after WW II. This substantially contributed to the economy and benefited everyone. Middle class people could afford to send their kids to college, to buy homes, to own two cars, and contribute to the economic growth of our great country. Upward mobility jobs with rewarding careers were the American way of life if you were willing to work for it. With less disposable income today for the middle, there is less money being spent, and our consumer economy is hurting badly. It will get worse if better heads don’t prevail and figure out that we are all in this together, that we don’t ever want to become a nation of haves and have nots, that companies like Hostess could have survived, that Hostess is just a microcosm of a very bad trend.

comments (6)
view/post comments
Frank Ward
|
December 05, 2012
Unions are still necessary for working people to help deal with the power of employers especially in wage negotiations. Conservatives say people can just quit if they are unhappy with their wages but that is simply not a reasonable alternative for many people because of the job market and of course if someone is carrying a pre-existing medical condition which would keep them from qualifying for new coverage or has an existing condition which meeds to keep being treated. Conservatives hate all unions ...not just he public sector ones....which is incredible to me because union members, for the most part, are people in the middle class economic level...people like us who are simply trying to either better their income or working conditions as we all would like to be able to do but who lack any leverage to ask for on their own. As for the goverment agencies which CobbCountyGuy refers to for employees to take their complaints, they take awhile to act for the most part and the employee has to deal with the whistleblower situation they create if they complain. Whistleblowers have been treated with scorn since time eternal by not only their bosses but also their peers. For the most part the American public seems unconcerned about the troubles and payscale of the American worker (unless it's them) because they want the lower prices created by the use of foreign workers. The American public wants the worker to take their low wages and just shut up and be happy with their low scale job.....especially the conservative part of the American public. So the worker gets little public support and unions are the only way they have to try to better their economic condition. The American middle class was never more economically well off than when unions were a lot stronger and the top execs were not taking so much cream off the top and the taxes for the top economic classes was higher than it is now. A strong middle class is the ticket for American prosperity. The rich will always be able to take care of theirselves regardless of what is going on. One more thing: I believe that KF referred to people inheriting riches from their families. I have seen that a lot in my line of work and yet many of those people complain the loudest about people receiving government help when they are down and about unions. It's truly amazing.

The Agitator #50
by Oliver_Halle
November 15, 2012 11:11 AM | 1262 views | 3 3 comments | 16 16 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
Ed. Note: This is the 50th edition of this blog, and we would like to wish Oliver a happy 1 year blogaversary!


Dr. Melvyn Fein, professor of sociology at KSU, writes a Monday column for the MDJ. No one will ever be confused about his political leanings. He is an unabashed Obama hater, and if you have read his writings over the years as I have, you will not likely have seen one kind word for the president. Oddly enough I have wondered if they know each other personally since Fein often refers to Obama by his first name. In his most recent column (November 12, 2012), Fein wrote a lamentation about Romney’s election loss. Amazingly, he described the election as the “most sleazy, dishonest, and mean-spirited political campaign… (to) prevail over decency and competence.” I have to wonder if Fein watched the Republican Primary debates in which Romney and his fellow candidates ripped each other to shreds with some of the most vulgar and personal attacks. I watched all of them in disbelief thinking that Obama would have a field day just replaying the sound bytes from them. But Obama didn’t. As is so typical with Fein’s columns, he is woefully short of facts, evidence or documentation for his assertions. Broad smears are a lot easier, although one would think that with his academic background he could do better. I also ask myself whether a student with a different political philosophy than Fein’s can get a fair shake in his class.

Fein says that the voters were “cheated, misled, and manipulated”, that they “opted for ideological purity over common sense.” Where does a PhD professor come up with this stuff? First, this comment---and in fact his whole commentary---is insulting and demeaning and not worthy of a tenured professor. I would ask the good professor to ponder just a handful of issues that some of us considered defining, and to offer a factual retort vice more calumnies against those who see the world differently than him. First, it mattered to many of us that Romney flipped and flopped on healthcare, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other social issues. Romney stated that he would have let GM and Chrysler go through bankruptcy. What he left out was that there was no private equity capital or venture capitalist money that would have jumped in. Even Ford, which took no TARP, supported the bailouts because they knew that the car parts manufacturers would have gone out of business without the other two carmakers. Second, Romney’s promise to repeal ObamaCare. The provision that has the opponents angriest is the mandatory buy-in. Yet it was Romney who rightfully said as governor that there would be no more freeloaders who got care at the ER and passed along the costs to those who had insurance. Somehow making everyone pay for their insurance is wrong, but many of the same people would insist that even the poorest pay some income tax (on top of whatever other taxes they pay).

Professor Fein seems to believe that those who think like him travel the moral high road, that they are more intelligent, more insightful, better informed, more discerning. Perhaps he forgets that people are people, and even good people make bad choices, do stupid things, and are uninformed. (The priest-pedophile scandal and sexual mishaps in Washington are illustrative.) I wonder if one of Fein’s like-minded thinkers, frequent MDJ LTE writer and blogger, “HFH” represents Fein’s views. In a blog responding to a LTE dated November 11, 2012, HFH stated, “People who think Mr. Obama is a Muslim are ludicrously mistaken. He is almost totally surrounded by far left, secular, socialist Jews. These people are the most hubristic, cynical, and mendacious folks on the planet. They mean no one any good, except themselves and their friends.” These are people from your side, Professor Fein. And there are many more where they came from. It would be interesting and educational if Professor Fein would focus his writing on what he is for and not so much what he is against. Providing facts and evidence---not just conclusions---would advance the ball of debate downfield.

comments (3)
view/post comments
Big Tony
|
November 23, 2012
Mitt should be the President elect right now. SHOW ME THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE! Barack Hussein is a fraud and should never have been sworn in at all. This is the movie The Omen coming to real life in front of us! This is the beginning of the end of American dominance in the world and marks the rise of the Caliphate! You will realize this all too late Mr. Halle.

- Big Tony

The Agitator #49
by Oliver_Halle
November 07, 2012 02:25 PM | 1216 views | 1 1 comments | 12 12 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

I always enjoy listening to conservative/reactionary talk radio. Actually, I don’t really enjoy it, but I think it is important to try and understand viewpoints that are different than mine for the most part. Hurricane Sandy caused a lot of damage, made people homeless, put people out of jobs whose businesses were destroyed, and otherwise caused devastation to people’s lives. The costs of trying to restore some semblance of normality to the communities affected by the storm are staggering. Amazingly, there are reactionaries out there who don’t think that the federal government should pick up a large share of the bill to do this.

I am from Brooklyn and Staten Island. I have several relatives who still live on Staten Island, and I am intimately familiar with the geography of the island. I have been stunned by the flooding and devastation. It defies my imagination. People who have paid taxes all their lives find themselves facing staggering costs of repair, to rebuilding their homes, to rebuilding their lives. We haven’t heard yet how many people have temporarily or permanently lost their livelihoods, but we will and the numbers won’t be pretty. Reactionary radio and their followers never fail to talk about the need for staying in Afghanistan, to spend money on weapons that the Defense Department says we don’t need, to keep military bases open that the Pentagon says are obsolete, and more. But now there seems to be resistance to having the federal government contribute toward the cleanup costs of the storm. If I understand this thinking correctly, it’s okay to spend money to rebuild countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, but our own citizens are leeches for asking for help, the same citizens that have paid for the these foreign commitments and unnecessary defense costs.

The Bush administration began the bailouts of the banks and auto manufacturers. As distasteful as it was, I supported it. Sometimes you have to do things that go against every fiber in you just because it means survival. The banks have shown their gratitude by their extremely conservative lending policies. Recall too that Rush Limbaugh defended the bonuses that some of the beneficiaries of taxpayer largess took for themselves. But somehow it is “liberalism” and “typical tax and spend” Democrats who are now under attack because the states that have suffered the most from the storm need help from the federal government. Something is very wrong with this kind of thinking. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue; it should be an American issue where all of us support our fellow Americans who are desperately in need at the moment. To offer less goes against what once united us and made our country great.

comments (1)
view/post comments
Big Tony
|
November 12, 2012
Comrade Halle: I do agree that that those who advocate our never ending spending in foreign wars are intellectually inconsistent for opposing any domestic spending to help those devastated by natural disasters. However, I do not believe the government should assist those in rebuilding in the same location as their destroyed homes. I didn't support rebuilding New Orleans and spending all this money on levees when we could give those who's homes were destroyed a check and tell them to build some place else. If someone has a home in a 100 year flood plain should we rebuild it with our tax dollars if it floods? You are commended for your compassion but government bailouts have to be sensible and not emotional. If it makes sense to not rebuild in the same location then I hope the government will stand up for common sense and assist those in rebuilding someplace else. Your goombah friends may have to enjoy their chianti and zeppoles further away from the ocean from here on out. Sincerely, Big T

The Agitator #48
by Oliver_Halle
October 31, 2012 02:22 PM | 1415 views | 2 2 comments | 13 13 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

Donald Trump has made a lot of money from commercial real estate ventures. I applaud him for it. That he is the son of a wealthy real estate developer who gave him a leg up should not be overlooked, and while that does not undermine Trump’s success, it rounds out an understanding of an important component of how he achieved it. And with his success and vast wealth he has been able to acquire a media audience for his political views. Amazingly, Trump was even taken seriously for a while as a presidential candidate. It didn’t last long the more he talked, and even respectable Republicans got chills every time he got in front of a microphone.

Last week, after much touting in the media, Trump delivered a major announcement. I thought that it was going to be something so monumental that all TV and radio broadcasts would be interrupted for it. It turns out that that The Donald wanted to put $5 million on the table for President Obama to direct to the charity(s) of his choice if he would make available his Columbia University and Harvard Law School grades, the sources of his tuition, and his State Department passport file. There was one caveat, though: all the documents would have to meet with Trump’s personal satisfaction. When Obama released his long form birth certificate, Trump seemed satisfied, but then the reactionaries went to work with all sorts of unfounded assertions, and Trump withdrew his acceptance of the birth certificate. I guess anyone with a big checkbook could make similar offers to any public official they have their sights on, which would accomplish nothing.

Now if Trump was really fair and balanced he would make a similar charitable offer to Romney. It would include Romney’s Selective Service records, his tax returns, undergraduate and law school grades, and documentation of who paid for his tuition. So a fair question to Trump is why the information he seeks from Obama really matters? Is it because he is trying to show that Obama is a beneficiary of affirmative action? That Obama was given his grades and admitted to the Harvard Law Review, not on merit, but because of his race? Is he suggesting that Obama’s tuition was paid for by a clandestine foreign power that had a crystal ball to know that one day he would run for president of the United States? How far does this nonsense go? I wonder where Trump was to challenge Clarence Thomas’ qualifications since Thomas admits that he was a product of affirmative action. I don’t recall Trump asking for Thomas’ grades, source of his tuition, or proof of his very heartfelt story of growing up in poverty in Pin Point, GA. Could it be that Thomas’ ideology lines up with Trump’s so it wasn’t important?

Trump is a graduate of New York Military Academy, but despite being in the draft mix during Vietnam he never served his country in uniform. I would ask him to produce his Selective Service records to see what deferments he took advantage of. But a bigger and more important question of this great benefactor is this: why don’t you just donate the $5 million, chump change to you, to the Sheppard Spinal Center’s program in treating severe head and spinal injuries of wounded veterans? This generous contribution would fund the program for five years. That at least would do some immediate good and perhaps assuage his conscience, if he has one, for ducking military service during Vietnam. Until I see his Selective Service records I have no reason to believe that he was nothing but a loud mouth, self-serving patriot who somehow bought his way out of service. I don’t need any more proof for that statement than he seems to need for his.

comments (2)
view/post comments
Collette1979
|
November 02, 2012
Well stated - excellent article.

The Agitator #47
by Oliver_Halle
October 24, 2012 11:39 AM | 1502 views | 6 6 comments | 12 12 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

The MDJ published an editorial from The Macon Telegraph on Tuesday, October 23, 2012, about “Renewing Licenses…and the law of unintended consequences.” The day before I received in the mail my annual business license renewal form. The new Georgia Immigration Reform Act requires that anyone holding a professional license must prove that they are an American citizen each time the license is renewed. I say again---not once---but each time the license comes up for renewal. And that also includes the required annual county business license. Needless to say, this has resulted in a huge backlog in the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, where professional licenses are processed. Considering that the governor has ordered each state agency to cut their budgets and personnel, this has caused a lot of people some heartburn. What used to take a matter of days to a week or so can now take months. In the meanwhile new applicants cannot practice their profession, whether it is to cut hair, massage therapy, or any one of a long list of occupations that the state licenses. This really helps the economy. The Cobb County business license renewal paperwork has to be submitted this year by November 22nd to ensure that it will be processed in time to get your license by January 1, 2013. In past years you could complete the process in a matter of days before the end of the year with no problem.

We’ve heard from Republicans on the national and state level for years proclaim that excess regulation is killing small businesses. I’m not sure what regulations they are referring to because they never really say. If it’s the burden of the tax code, I wonder when they plan to do more than talk about it and actually pull together and pass serious tax reform legislation. Perhaps they should consider this immigration law as an example of the wasted time, which means money, that will be spent after proving once that you are legally here in the U.S. What is the logic behind this requirement? I asked two of our elected officials last year who voted for the law, both Republicans, the “why” question. You’ll never guess what they said, and you can’t make this stuff up: they hadn’t read the bill in the detail that might have alerted them to it. I suspect that there will be any number of current small business people and those about to go into business for themselves that will operate under the radar rather than comply with this unnecessary nuisance.

As a final point related to this topic, does anyone remember that the Cobb County commission quietly passed an increase in the business license fees last year? I never saw a word about it in the MDJ. I found out when I got my bill. And I thought that Republicans also supported no tax hikes because it hurt small businesses. My point is that the Democrats (I am not a Democrat) get bashed for tax hikes and increased regulation, but here are two egregious examples of Republicans talking out of both sides of their mouths.

comments (6)
view/post comments
Izzi
|
October 26, 2012
Oliver,

I whole heartedly agree with you. I operate a small business and the Cobb County Business License renewal is cumbersome and onerous. Every year when renewal comes around I have to get a letter from my accountant to verify my earnings. Since he is a for profit business this costs me extra money. Then I have to mail in the filled out form with my payment. I did note this year the fee has gone up.

Like you I just received my renewal form and was shocked at the new requirements. I have been a citizen by birth of this country for 68 years and have lived in Cobb County for 26 years. I have operated my business for the past ten years. What do I have to prove?

What I found interesting was included in my renewal packet was a pink envelope. I am still trying to figure out what I am suppose to do with it. Since the confusing instructions say that I cannot mail my ID via the mail. I must present it in person or email it. Maybe the county is supporting breast cancer awareness this month.

Lets hope the state legislature wakes up and removes this regulation. In hind sight I wish I never applied for my business license.

I agree many new small businesses will operate under the radar than deal these new regulations.

The Agitator #46
by Oliver_Halle
October 15, 2012 01:21 PM | 1416 views | 6 6 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

During the vice presidential debate “Jumpin’ Joe” Biden said that neither he nor the White House knew that the consulate in Benghazi had requested increased security. The State Department did not notify the top chief executives of the request for reasons that we don’t know. I won’t second guess the State Department because I don’t know what they knew. What we do know is that the State Department had requested upwards of $300 million for increased security for its embassies. The Republican congress said no, a vote that included Paul Ryan’s. I am going to wait out the results of the several investigations looking into what occurred before concluding that the State Department’s security section got it wrong in how they prioritized which embassies and consulates got what. As for not notifying the White House of the request for a security augmentation, I can only wonder how many “emergency” requests are submitted daily from the Defense Department, Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and other agencies that deal directly with national security, and what the protocols are for kicking them up to the president. Limited budgets cause organizations to do triage, something that shouldn’t happen but does in these times of tight money, and where a large segment of our population doesn’t want to pay for the services that they want and expect.

I agree with Obama’s critics that the first reports about Benghazi concerning the video were wrong. But after that I go in a different direction. Intelligence gathering is both an art and science. We all know some of the incredible technology that our spy agencies use, but sorting through the voluminous information takes people and time. And we also know that HUMINT (human intelligence) is still as important as all the gadgetry. That too takes time to gather and process. There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle, a lot of moving parts.

I think it is fair to put the Benghazi intelligence failure in perspective. Intelligence failures in the this country are historic ranging from completely missing the North Korean attack on South Korea on June 25, 1950, to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Considering the untold dollar amount that is poured into intelligence gathering and spy craft, it’s hard to believe that things like this could happen, but they did and still do. How about the information that was known before 9/11/2001 that some of the terrorists were taking flying lessons but only wanted training in takeoffs? The schools reported this well before that black day, but somehow it fell through the cracks. The Tet offensive caught us by surprise. Anyone recall the great intelligence failure that led to the Iraq war? The two human sources in that fiasco, Ahmed Chalabi and the German source, Curveball, were both frauds and suspected of lying well before the March 2003 invasion. Our spy satellites, which had completely saturated the land mass of Iraq didn’t pick up any evidence of nuclear weapons or their transfer to another country. President Bush later admitted that there was no WMD---this after a few thousand American lives were lost, many more permanently injured, and countless Iraqis killed.

I am not making light of what happened in Benghazi. I am making light of much of the politicized attacks on Obama for it, especially when you put it in perspective of far more serious intelligence failures that have had much larger consequences. I can only wonder if a Romney-Ryan administration would have done things differently with the same budgetary constraints, if they would have been more prescient and able to avoid what happened. Perhaps so, but the historical record of intelligence failures certainly makes it a fair, non-partisan question.

comments (6)
view/post comments
Laura A.
|
October 27, 2012
Believe it or not, there are quite a few "average" citizens residing in Cobb who have experience in these matters...even friends on the ground in such places, so be careful who you patronize, Foley.

Oliver, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the latest reports out of D.C. as of 10-26 about our men requesting, pleading for help and TO help and being told to stand down. Where in that chain of command was the failure? Who should take responsibility? And does it make you angry at all that the message being sent to our guys on the ground in both the military and diplomatic corps is: hey, we might come to your aid, or we might not...if there's a campaign event we're trying to get to tomorrow.


The Agitator #45
by Oliver_Halle
October 08, 2012 08:44 AM | 1412 views | 5 5 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
Everyone knows the story of President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neil fighting during the day and then quietly meeting after 5 p.m. to get down to the real business of moving legislation.  Reagan had more legislative successes with a Democratic House than Jimmy Carter did, and this was probably because of the people skills needed to make things happen.  It may not have hurt, either, that a little “oil” was sipped at these gatherings.  The important thing is that the ball moved downfield toward the goal line, and both leaders could go back to their respective party leaders without being ostracized, threatened with impeachment, finding themselves with a primary opponent, or otherwise being marginalized.  

What has changed?  One of the biggest causes has been changing the lines to redistrict congressional seats.  Today you have congressmen who represent overwhelming majorities in their districts.  Why should they have to work for your vote?  Phil Gingrey and Tom Price each have a Democrat running against them in November.  I’ll be surprised if either doesn’t get between eighty to eighty-five percent of the vote.  John Lewis in Atlanta has never had a serious challenger.  They aren’t the only ones.  This is a nationwide phenomenon.  And I think it is fair to ask what legislative accomplishments of note Gingrey has had?  Lewis has held his seat for almost 25 years, and while he was a major player in the civil rights movement and is called the conscience of the House, does anyone know of any meaningful legislation that bears his name?  Why should these and other representatives work for your vote if they know the voters will always support you because of your ideology and not anything you have done?  In fact, they don’t.  Their mailings increase, and they may do a few more town hall meetings around election time, but you can be sure that they are busy dialing for dollars, always in fear of drawing an opponent and always trying to scare one off with a big campaign war chest.  Meanwhile, little of substance gets done and the American people end up with a situation like the one that is about to bring our country down: sequestration.

After Senator Richard Lugar, Republican from Indiana lost his seat in the primary, conservative radio talk show host Eric Erickson gloated and promised that Saxby Chambliss could expect a Tea Party opponent in 2014.  This was because Chambliss dared to try and reach some sort of compromise with the Democrats to dig us out of our financial predicament.  Compromise, reaching across the aisle, are considered treason today.  Ideology reigns supreme and renegades get punished.  Democrats want more taxes to increase revenue in return for spending cuts.  Republicans only want spending cuts.  And Grover Norquist, the Californian who somehow gets even state legislators of the other 49 states to sign his pledges to never vote to raise taxes, holds up the pledge to any Republican that dares to compromise, and threatens to bring him down.  

No one wants spending cuts that effect them; no one wants to pay more taxes.  Something has got to give.  We have one presidential candidate promising to restore the Bush tax cuts, adding his own tax cuts on top of that, increasing defense spending, restoring $760 billion in Medicare cuts, and not providing any details other than some abstract explanation that somehow it’s all going to work out.  We are truly a nation in deep trouble.  Let the finger pointing continue, but until reason prevails and both sides see what Reagan and O’Neill saw, our memories will be all that’s left of better times than these. 
comments (5)
view/post comments
Lib in Cobb
|
October 11, 2012
Cobb: OK, you have listed two bills which have passed, not an outstanding average of bills submitted to bills passed. McConnell, Boehner and Ryan pledged to work toward President Obama serving only one term It is not the job of a member or members of congress to establish a false sense of failure on a president. Their job is to represent the people, which includes coming to an agreement which may benefit all of us. The GOP side of congress is doing just the opposite.

The Agitator #44
by Oliver_Halle
September 28, 2012 04:28 PM | 1335 views | 1 1 comments | 10 10 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

Something has changed over the past few presidencies. The current occupier of the White House seems to be held to a higher standard geared toward a militant response when it comes to foreign policy. This despite Obama being the only candidate in 2008 who said that he would violate the sovereignty of other countries to pursue terrorists wherever they can be tracked down and killed. His record of achieving by far and away more kills in four years than his predecessor is beyond dispute. It is also well known that Ronald Reagan did absolutely nothing when terrorists killed 240 marines in Lebanon. Nothing. Then there is the USS COLE. This U.S. Navy warship was badly damaged with concomitant loss of life by terrorists on October 12, 2000. Clinton was still president at the time, but it wasn’t until late December that the CIA tentatively identified al-Qaeda as the author of the bombing. More conclusive evidence came in shortly after Bush was sworn in as president on January 20, 2001. In June 2001, Osama Bin Laden released a tape bragging that he was behind the attack. I am unaware of one single response that the Bush administration took against al Qaeda or OBL between his inauguration and shortly after 911. And I don’t recall Bush facing the harsh criticism that Obama has met with concerning the embassy attacks. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt at the time thinking that maybe he was doing something behind the scenes. If he was it is still a very well kept secret. Times change.

Then there was last week’s remark by Mitt Romney about the 47 percenters who receive government benefits. It has been fun to watch all the explanations on talk radio defending what Romney “really meant”, as though they could take his words and divine from them an intent that wasn’t articulated. Romney would have been a little bit more honest if he had included other forms of government largess that would probably bump up the percentage considerably. Government loan guarantees given to banks where heads they win and tales you lose, are common. For starters they include FHA, VA, and SBA loans. Let’s not leave out government subsidized flood insurance and farm subsidies. Then, of course, are the tax loopholes that allow the wealthy to take advantage of code provisions that their friendly Washington representatives vote into law for them. Would I be cynical if I suggested that their whopping contributions and PAC money didn’t have any effect on these representatives? One letter writer and blogger attacked Obama for the 360% increase in Tricare, which benefits military families and retirees. What she left out is that the annual cost for Tricare for a family was set in 1995 at $460/year. It will go up on October 1, 2012 to $538.56/year. That doesn’t include deductables and co-pays, which everyone pays, including Medicare recipients. The cost will continue to escalate on a scale with the cost of living. It is also worth noting that the increased cost was pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by both houses and signed into law by the president. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pushed for the law stating that the medical costs for retirees was taking up much larger portions of the defense budget to the detriment of our fighting capabilities. Gates is a Republican. In a time of deep recession where everyone has to have an oar in the water, Gates got it right.

And speaking of our elected representatives in Washington, many readers have seen the internet claim that they receive lifetime pensions, lifetime healthcare, and other benefits after serving just one term. This is false. They don’t. But here is some of the rest of the story. Our representatives/senators created the current federal employee retirement law in 1984. It allows for a representative to receive a retirement annuity and subsidized healthcare based on years of total government service. But, and here is the big but, our representatives voted to include themselves in the much better retirement plan afforded to federal law enforcement officers. Federal law enforcement officers are provided a larger annuity because they must retire no later than age 57, and because of the special demands and nature of the job. I guess our representatives concluded that facing constituents who may have tough questions is the functional equivalent of what federal law enforcement officers face. I wonder if Romney included them in his 47 %.

 

comments (1)
view/post comments
Lib in Cobb
|
September 29, 2012
In red states no one likes a Liberal, no one likes a Democratic president who has what is believed to be extreme liberal leanings. President Obama is all of that and more. There is still more than a significant number of people who believe he is Muslim and has affiliations with terrorists. To add to that hatred of our president, is the beat down delivered to McCain and his running dope in 2008. The deterioration of the GOP which began long before the 2008 campaign also adds to the hatred of our president. Then to make matters worse we elected a black man with an Islamic name to the highest office in the land. Even McCain said, "He is a good man, he is a good family man".

President Obama is different, he is different than any other president we have ever had. I and most other Liberals welcome and celebrate that difference, many "Right Wingers" fight it all the way. I will also raise the issue of race. President Obama is also hated because he is black or bi-racial, please don't tell me no it doesn't exist. I hear the comments, I hear the ugly jokes, not just in the south, but in various parts of the country, yes, even in my home state of MA.

If those who hate President Obama would listen closely to his message, perhaps they wouldn't hate so much. President Obama is questioned and criticized on most every decision made because he is different and the right just can't get over it.

One day we will have a Latino president and it is my hope that the hate will be gone by then.

The Agitator #43
by Oliver_Halle
September 21, 2012 08:31 AM | 1302 views | 4 4 comments | 10 10 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
I have written a number of times about the abysmal failure of our congress to pay for the costs of war, which include our wounded veterans and those veterans rotating back into civilian life and looking for decent employment.  We all, as Americans, should bear the burden of paying the price, whatever it is, if our country goes to war, whether a war we didn’t choose or one of choice.  Lip service in the form of bumper stickers to support our troops, ostentatious display of the American flag, and other acts of patriotism do nothing to help those who paid the price and need and deserve our help.  

I did not see it reported in the MDJ, but it was reported in the liberal/lame stream New York Times and AJC, among other media outlets, that all but five Republicans in the senate voted against a five year, billion dollar jobs training bill for our veterans.  Part of the bill would have been paid for through fees levied on Medicare providers and suppliers who are delinquent on their tax bills.  Republicans defended their action, or inaction, by claiming that the bill did not specify where the money would come from.  Since any kind of tax, in this instance a war tax, is unthinkable by Republicans, I assume the message sent to our men and women in uniform, intended or not, is to eat cake.  For those who have been touting for the past three years a slam dunk Republican victory in November, this should really help to make it across the finish line.  Especially when voters recall the billions spent in earmarks in past years.  

At the same time that the veterans jobs bill was voted down, former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates (an Eisenhower Republican---an extinct species) commented on the sequestration effects that will occur on the defense budget in January if Congress doesn’t address the problem.  The Obama haters are blaming him for the problem, but the fact is that it was a bi-partisan agreement in which both houses provided for automatic cuts and tax increases to offset the debt over ten years by 1.2 trillion dollars.  That includes big cuts to the defense budget and all discretionary federal spending that happens to encompass federal law enforcement, aircraft controllers, and a myriad of other services that the American people depend on.  Gates pointed out that defense contractors have figured out how to diversify their manufacturing  to as many states and congressional districts as possible in order for our elected representatives to resist shutting down any projects that would impact jobs---even weapons systems that the Defense Department says it doesn’t need.  Those who are angry at the potential defense cuts and consequences should look at their own delegations for answers, many of whom also voted down the veterans jobs bill. 
comments (4)
view/post comments
anonymous
|
September 24, 2012
Seems to me Romney wasn't saying he doesn't care about the 47 percent...he said his campaign can't reach them with the lower tax message and must find another way to picque their interest.

I hate the way you Democrats have put words in his mouth to create your fallacious narrative. Republicans need to correct you when possible, otherwise, they deserve to lose. But also, truth loses. Doesn't that bother you?

The Agitator #42
by Oliver_Halle
September 17, 2012 08:55 AM | 1233 views | 2 2 comments | 13 13 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

This was a difficult week for the United States in the Middle East, North Africa, and other parts of the world. It’s too early to know what lies ahead. And it’s too early to form hasty opinions about President Obama’s foreign policies. Yet that hasn’t stopped the armchair pundits and those who think that some sort of military solution is always the answer to any overseas problem. Candidate Mitt Romney thought he saw an opening to call Obama weak and inexperienced; if anything, it was Romney who proved to be tough on talk and inexperienced. We only hear generalities and sound bytes about Obama being in over his head, but Romney won’t share with us what he would do differently that would make the world a nice place to live, work and play together. It’s kind of like Nixon’s 1968 campaign promise of trusting him to end the war in Vietnam with his secret plan that he wouldn’t disclose. Turned out his secret plan only prolonged the war for the U.S. for another four years.

Romney was asked in 2008 if he would violate the sovereignty of other countries to pursue terrorists. He said no. Obama was asked the same question; he said yes. Promise made, promise kept. Contrary to all the right wing radio propaganda and Romney’s ratification of same that Obama has apologized to other countries for past U.S. policies or actions, it is not true. Obama has acknowledged that the U.S. has been wrong at times, but that is hardly an apology. It is merely an acknowledgement that we are human too, that we make mistakes. This is not unlike admitting to someone, perhaps a loved one, that you may have used bad judgment in a given situation, but that falls far short of an apology---it is pleading guilty with an explanation. And what is wrong with admitting when you are wrong? Where was the outcry when George Bush apologized, yes apologized, for Abu Ghraib? Bush did the right thing, and from the silence on the Right at the time, I suspect that they approved of the apology. Amazing how many on the Right will argue that we are a Christian nation, but when it comes to practicing Christian values, especially when it involves people who live somewhere else and are different from us, that it is okay to choose which values to suspend. Apologizing or admitting you are wrong when you are is to demonstrate moral virtue, confidence, and strength. And it does not undermine our strength as a country; I would argue that it makes us stronger and more respected. (I am not talking about apologizing to terrorists yesterday, today, tomorrow, or forever---eliminating them is the right generic policy; how we do it is a different matter.)

It is absurd to think that Obama’s pulling the plug on Hosni Mubarak has somehow weakened our hand in the Middle East. Mubarak was the poster child for corruption. The unemployment rate for the young working force and disparity of income, things Mubarak had a lot to do with, is what drove the populace to rebel. If we had supported Mubarak against the tidal wave of his own people’s anger, I think a case can be made that things would be even worse. Recall too that most Republicans wanted the United States to actively support the rebels in Libya. We did and our involvement proved decisive. But terrorist attacks against the U.S. can happen anywhere including Europe and right in our own backyard.

The MDJ recently opined that the Left is suddenly eager to jettison the First Amendment protections of those who do not share their politics, with reference to the moviemaker who may have been responsible for the turmoil in the Middle East and elsewhere. Yet the Right condemned the Supreme Court for upholding the fringe Christian group that peacefully protested military funerals with their hate filled rants. I am glad to live in America where one can make despicable political or religious statements, and where others can just as justifiably respond in kind. More speech is always better to the alternative of violence.

I recall that the Right was all about unity during the very divisive Iraq war. Anyone who disagreed with our policies there was labeled with every treasonous slogan imaginable. But it’s okay when we need to stand as one nation to combat terrorism and stand behind our commander-in-Chief, to undermine his efforts with bitter calumnies as though the defamers have the silver bullet solution. If Romney has the silver bullet to create world peace and to create 12 million jobs, it’s time to tell the American people and make his case. To quote Ronald Reagan, “Trust, but verify.”

comments (2)
view/post comments
Samuel Adams
|
September 24, 2012
Most Republicans, sir, looked at Obama's interference in Libya and said, "WTF?"

page 1 .. 8 
10 .. 14 
Oliver Halle of east Cobb is a retired FBI agent and has law degrees from The University of North Carolina and New York University. He commanded a Swift Boat in Vietnam, where he earned the Bronze Star with the Combat V for meritorius action. While with the FBI he helped investigate and prosecute members of the Columbo organized crime “family” and later launched the investigation that resulted in the conviction on corruption charges of Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell.

Other Blogs: