America At War - Again
Does being elected President of the United States somehow turn an otherwise normal man into an aggressor, eager to engage American armed forces into unnecessary wars? Consider the following:
Military buildup in Afghanistan warranted, Obama says
The White House last week announced substantial increases of troops bound for Afghanistan and plans to increase training and foreign aid both in that country and in neighboring Pakistan.
Obama said Al Qaeda and its allies would be pursued aggressively but that did not mean that ground troops would enter Pakistan.
Wars are a horrific waste of economic resources and human life, yet the powers to be seem eager to “project our power” by engaging in needless and useless conflicts. What exactly is our strategy and exit plan with Iraq and Afghanistan? The lack of a c0herent strategy for conducting two wars that we cannot afford and that seem to be without purpose seem certain to backfire on the Obama administration at some point.
Poll: Most Say Afghanistan War Not Worth Fighting
WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans say the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, according to a poll released on the eve of that nation’s elections.
An ABC News-Washington Post poll found 51 percent who said the war was not worth fighting, while 47 percent said it was worth it.
Three years ago the U.S. had about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. There are expected to be about 68,000 by year’s end.
The cost of our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have reached $900 billion, $675 billion for Iraq and $225 billion for Afghanistan. I bet you thought we had taken our troops out of Iraq based on press coverage. You would be wrong. We still have 135,000 troops there, only down 30,000 since the surge. In the meantime we have escalated our presence in Afghanistan to 55,000 troops and there are serious discussions to bring that up to 100,000. We will reach $1 trillion for these two wars and what have we accomplished? I’d love to hear from my pro-war friends on this site with concrete benefits that we have achieved for $1 trillion. No democracy in the Middle East bullshit, because that is a lie. Could this $1 trillion have been spent in a better way? Or better yet, not spent at all.Obama campaigned that he would end these wars. Another lie proving that the Military Industrial Complex is all powerful. His budget actually increased for the military.
General: Afghan Situation ‘Serious’
The top U.S. commander for Afghanistan called the situation there “serious” but salvageable, in a sobering assessment issued Monday that is expected to pave the way for a request for more American troops, funds for Afghan forces and other resources.
This year, tens of thousands of additional U.S. and allied troops have flowed into the volatile country, bringing the total to more than 100,000, of which 62,000 are American. Casualties among troops have risen to their highest levels since the U.S. military overthrew the Taliban government in the fall of 2001.
Time to Get Out of Afghanistan
U.S. strategy — protecting the population — is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about “deteriorating” (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.
The U.S. strategy is “clear, hold and build.” Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.
Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.
Our Government has provided no rationale explanation for being at war in Afghanistan. How exactly is the national interest being served by expending lives and resources in a war with questionable objectives that cannot be won?
The idealistic notion of “nation building” is absurd in a country that has never had a functioning government. Is the United States prepared to spend trillions of dollars over decades to help a country that can’t help itself? The United States still stations hundreds of thousands of troops in Korea, Germany and Japan, six decades after World War II ended. Why not do some “nation building” at home? It’s time to pull the plug on this ill conceived and useless war.
Public Angst Grows
Recent polls indicate increasing disaffection with the economic and social policies being forced upon the American public by the controllers in Washington. The American public thought that they voted for “change” but what we seem to be getting is micro management and obtrusive government interference into our lives.
The imperial Washington power structure seems oblivious to the fact that most Americans do not trust their government and believe that their financial situation is being made worse, not better, by government policies.
Here are the results from the latest polls that are beginning to show a major disconnect between the average American and an out of control power elite in Washington who believe they know “what is best for us”.
Why Obama’s Ratings Are Sinking
Instead, Gallup reports that disapproval of the president’s economic policies has grown to 49% in July from 30% in February. Even among the president’s core supporters, young people in the 18-29 age group, his overall approval has dropped 11 points since January.
Dissatisfaction is spreading into open protest as members of Congress try to explain the president’s policies to the public. Angry voters have engaged in high-profile confrontations in town-hall meetings around the country over a proposed health-care overhaul that protesters complain is unaffordable, socialistic, incomprehensible, and which their representatives have not even read.
The president’s sinking approval ratings are due precisely to his administration’s free-spending ways. In a July 2009 Gallup poll, the No. 1 reason for disapproval of the president’s economic policies was, literally, “spending too much.” In second place was the worry that the president is “leading the nation toward socialism” through government takeovers and bailouts.
In January 2009, the Pew Research Center asked about 2,000 Americans, “Do you think the government does more to help or more to hurt people trying to move up the economic ladder?” Amid the most frightening economic crisis in decades, more Americans still said the government would hurt than the number who thought it would help (50% versus 39%). Independent surveys from roughly the same period found that only one in five Americans believed he or she could trust the government.
Citizens will put up with a lot—but not with anyone who imperils our future.
There is no evidence that more than a minority of Americans accept the idea that a $17 trillion national debt, greater reliance on government for jobs and health, and hyper-progressive taxation offer the hope they deserve for themselves and their children. The administration and Congress can deny these truths with charges of un-Americanism and implausible conspiracy theories about the current citizen demonstrations. But opinion polls deliver an honest expression of unhappiness over the direction our nation is taking.
The ruling elite in Washington seem to be oblivious to or ignoring the reality of America’s growing disaffection with the course the nation is taking. The approval rating of Congress is at 30%. Only one if five Americans trust their government. Many Americans believe that government policies are financially bankrupting the country and the future of our children. It’s almost as if our country was being run by overlords, appointed by a foreign power. It’s time for change indeed - the problem is that the “changes” being forced upon us are not quite what we had in mind.
Postal Service Poor Analogy
Now we know why the President usually does not say much without the Teleprompter in front of him; why in the world would you mention the Post Office when trying to convince America that the government should take over the health care system?
The Post Office is a prime example of how a lack of competition leads to high prices. Without competition, there is no need to worry about raising prices, providing good service or running an efficient organization - higher prices are simply passed on to the consumer. Productivity has been growing in the private sector for decades, especially with the efficiencies gained through the Internet. Yet year after year, the Post Office relentlessly raises rates far in excess of the consumer price index.
Cost Of A Stamp
Consider some of the other obnoxious results of a government run monopoly as detailed in a recent Wall Street Journal Opinion column:
Whatever possessed President Obama to mention the travails of the post office while discussing health care the other day, his timing was certainly apt. The Postal Service is headed toward a loss of $7 billion this year and another $7 billion in 2010.
Most mail today is delivered electronically via email. Traditional postal mail volume has fallen by nearly 20% since 2000, and the average household gets one-third fewer letters than a decade ago.
No private business in America could continually raise prices, lose billions of dollars and then hope to win back customers by promising poorer service.
Here’s a secret Washington doesn’t want to admit: That 14 cent per letter cost hike after inflation over the past 60 years imposes a $20 billion a year toll on the U.S. economy.
Most employees have no-layoff clauses, the starting salaries are about 25% to 30% higher than for comparably skilled private workers, and the fringe benefits are so expensive that the Government Accountability Office says $500 million a year could be saved merely by bringing health benefits into line with those of other federal workers.
The most overdue reform is to strip away the Post Service’s monopoly on first-class mail and bulk mail. Competition is the key ingredient to innovation, low prices and good service. This was Mr. Obama’s insight at his recent health-care town hall when he noted that “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”
The argument has been made for 200 years that the postal monopoly is necessary to “bind the nation together.” Once that was at least plausible. But today the Internet delivers to the most remote corners of Alaska and the Badlands at one-one-hundredth the cost of snail mail. The sooner Congress requires the Postal Service to shrink and adapt to this reality, the smaller will be the losses imposed on taxpayers.
To expect a government health care monopoly to be run efficiently defies common sense and the American public knows it. The attempt to quickly ramrod massive health care legislation into law before allowing public discussion is an outrage against democracy.
The haste to force health care legislation upon the American public implies that those pushing for “quick” legislation knew that in the light of day, the American public would reject it or demand further information on the cost/benefits of proposed changes. Elected representatives are supposed to represent the public view rather than arrogantly assume that they know what is best. The uncontrollable, unaccountable and free spending mob now running the country needs a course in basic democracy.
Disturbing Pattern of Lies, Corruption And Special Interests
Senator Dodd’s re-election campaign seems to be based on the following strategy:
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.
Senator Dodd is running ads that try to portray him as Joe Six Pack, always ready to pitch in and help working class Connecticut citizens that he claims to have so much in common with. The average Connecticut worker, of course, can only dream about leading the specially privileged and wealthy lifestyle that Mr Dodd enjoys. Dodd has as much in common with the average Connecticut citizen as a $1 a day Chinese laborer has in common with the Chinese President.
Lobbyists Love Dodd
Senator Dodd publicly advertises himself as the man who stands up against the special interests while at the same time accepting large donations and special gifts from them. Election campaigns are not cheap and the Senator has gladly accepted money from special interests and lobbyists. The same parties enriching the Senator expect and have received special treatment in return.
In return for contributions from AIG, Senator Dodd tried to exempt AIG executives from receiving bonuses. His first reaction as a politician when exposed by the press, was to deny the truth and later blame it on “his staff”.
Wealthy Senator Needs More
The Senator, a very wealthy man, saw fit to take a special low cost low rate mortgage from none other than Countrywide Mortgage, a company responsible for ruining millions of lives. When exposed by the press, he offered the usual denial and ignorance of his special treatment. How exactly, Senator, do you define someone accepting a special financial favor based on a position of power?
While denying ties special interests in the health care industry, Mr Dodd’s wife is paid $80,000 a year as a member of the board of directors at Cardiome Pharma. Board members usually work a few days a year and are typically appointed based on their connections to powerful members of government. The typical Connecticut working person can only dream about a no nothing board position paying $80,000 per year.
The Senator may say that he has been working hard for the citizens during his 28 years in office, but he seems to be working even harder for himself. Connecticut deserves better than Dodd.
Dodd’s Uneasy Dance With Drug Lobbyists
For Mr. Dodd, the support provided by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the industry’s lobbying arm, comes at a politically sensitive, if not awkward, time. He is trying to combat a perception that he has become too close to powerful interest groups in Washington after 28 years in the Senate.
But even as Mr. Dodd attempts to distance himself from these special interests, he is clearly relying on their help as he prepares for his re-election, a reality seized upon by his Republican critics.
He has not only benefited from the hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertisement courtesy of the pharmaceutical industry and Families U.S.A., a health-care advocacy group the industry teamed up with. But a few weeks ago, Mr. Dodd attended a $1,500-a-plate campaign fund-raiser sponsored by lobbyists representing U.S. Oncology, a provider of cancer drugs and services.
The support Mr. Dodd has received from PhRMA comes at a crucial time politically for him, with polls showing voters in his home state disapproving of his performance.
Mr. Dodd’s problems stem in part from the view among some voters that he has developed cozy ties with the corporations he is supposed to oversee in his capacity as a senior member of several committees with jurisdiction over the financial, health care and other industries.
In some ways, he is to blame for this perception.
In March he faced a firestorm over his support for a measure that would serve to exempt American International Group, a big campaign contributor of his, from Congressional efforts to limit some executive compensation packages to Wall Street firms that received federal bailout money. After initially denying that he was behind the measure, he acknowledged that his staff introduced it at the urging of the Obama administration.
That came only months after he was accused of receiving preferential treatment from Countrywide Financial Corporation, which assigned him to a V.I.P. program in 2003 when he refinanced mortgages on his homes in Connecticut and Washington. Mr. Dodd said that he did not believe that he received preferential rates, however.
Over his decades in Congress Mr. Dodd has raised more than $550,000 from drug company representatives, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In addition, Mr. Dodd’s wife, Jackie Clegg, was paid nearly $80,000 as a member of the board of Cardiome Pharma Corporation, according to the documents most recently filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Ms. Clegg also holds more than 200,000 shares in Javelin Pharmaceuticals, where she is also a board member.
Lost American Initiative
Whatever happened to the “can do” attitude that allowed this country to put a man on the moon when such a feat was perceived possible only in science fiction movies? Essential and long overdue improvements to US infrastructure now take decades as work is delayed by bickering special interest groups, mindless bureaucrats and endless state and federal regulations.
The recent opening of 3 new runways at 3 major airports is cause for celebration, but the amount of time required to complete these long overdue expansions is appalling. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year in energy and human resources are dissipated each year as we still rely on unexpanded and unimproved infrastructure built decades ago.
Consider the time required to reap the benefits of 3 new airport runways.
In the eight months since a new runway opened at the U.S.’s second-busiest airport, plagued for decades with lengthy flight delays, O’Hare has operated with above-average on-time arrivals—better than Dallas, Atlanta and Denver in 2009, according to FlightStats.com. O’Hare’s on-time arrival rate improved by 27% so far this year compared with the same period of 2008. That was twice the improvement of any other big U.S. airport.
The new runway, opened last Nov. 21, gets much of the credit. While airline reductions in flight schedules have eased congestion and reduced flight delays, the ability to now land three planes simultaneously in most weather conditions instead of two jets at a time has turned O’Hare from a choke point into a reliable airport.
Because of the enormous cost and heated legal battles with neighbors and environmentalists, building runways at big airports is a rarity—and a major reason air travel has been bogged down in the past 10 years. Last fall, three major runways opened with much fanfare on the same day in Chicago, Seattle and Washington, D.C. Seattle’s new runway took two decades of planning, approval, court fights and construction. O’Hare’s new runway was the first at that airport in 37 years.
Economic growth relies on an efficient transportation system. The fact that the second busiest airport in the US could not be expanded for 37 years speaks volumes for the inability of government to “get things done that need to be done”. Think about this the next time you are wasting 8 hours of your life due to a flight delay.
According to the FAA, 30,000 flights at O’Hare were delayed because of weather in the first five months of 2008. This year through May, only 8,800 weather-delayed flights were recorded “and we had a crazy winter this year with all kinds of snow,” says Ms. Drouet.
Consider the similar multi decades delay for Seattle to add an additional runway:
At Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, delays typically stacked up in the frequent fog and rain because the two existing runways were too close together to have planes landing side-by-side in poor visibility. So the airport wanted a third runway far enough from the existing runways so planes could land two at a time in any weather.
The project took more than 20 years and cost more than $1 billion. Heavy construction started in 2004.
Stimulus Spending Largely Wasted
A significant amount of the country’s infrastructure was built during the depression. The interstate highway system was built during the Eisenhower administration before many of us were born. How much better off would all of us and our children be if necessary improvements to the country’s infrastructure was addressed in a comprehensive, time sensitive manner?
“Stimulus spending” of almost a trillion dollars was deployed to reduce taxes, enhance special interest spending and pass out funds to those who would most quickly spend it at Walmarts on Chinese imported goods. This type of foolish spending leaves us another trillion in debt while keeping Chinese factories busy - it does not leave the country with anything of lasting value.
Vacuous Leadership
Of course, even if every dollar of stimulus spending had been directed exclusively to infrastructure enhancements, it would not be spend for 15 years if the airport runway example applies. Therein lies the pitfalls of democracy - those making the spending decisions are more focused on the next election rather than the strategic long term needs of the Country.
Designed By :
