fearlesshistory

The Conservative mantra espoused by GOP party leaders is to “tighten” governmental belts and that “earmarks” are the devil incarnate. No self-respecting Conservative GOP would be caught dead placing the dreaded “e” word into the recently passed stimulus bill, we’re told. Also, self-respecting GOP governors, such as Bobby Jindall, would refuse the “pork” being doled their way by an irresponsible Democratically-controlled Congress and populist Democratic President.

To prove their point, some of the GOP’s most prominant and conservative members voted against the stimulus bill; obviously the GOP has stuck to their guns and won the moral high ground in a time of financial irresponsability. To support the worth of their rhetoric, Slate.com has posted a list of the top ten (10) worst porkers in the most recent bill, using evidence provided by Taxpayers for Common Sense:

1. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.: $474 million
2. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.: $391 million
3. Mary Landrieu, D-La.: $332 million
4. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa: $292 million
5. David Vitter, R-La.: $249 million
6. Christopher Bond, R-Mo.: $248 million
7. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.: $235 million
8. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii: $225 million
9. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.: $219 million
10. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa: $199 million

Way to put your money where your mouth is GOP. Also, it should be noted that while Bobby Jindall - in the great tradition of keeping Louisiana stuck at the bottom of the list of most educated states, most improved states, most employed states, lowest crime rate, and other hallmarks of civilization - “refused” bail out money in a fit if fiscal conservatism, GOP governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist have both accepted (and even devised ways to get more) “bailout” money. Wonder why? If California was a separate nation, it would be the #6  in the world. Florida makes more money - and employs more people - than 70% of the countries in the world. If Louisiana were a separate nation, it’d ranks below Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Guatemala.

If the GOP wants to vote against the economic stimulus bill, fine. They should do so and retain the moral high ground. But to say you vote against it after putting your own pork barrel earmarks in it is duplicitous in the extreme.

What the GOP refuses to face is that their jobs are on the line; they got drubbed in the last two election cycles and are looking like a party led by a drug-addled windbag so they need to bring home some money to their respective states and districts.  It’s time for the GOP to come clean about their secret lives where they don dark glasses and a trench coat while accepting the money they denounced in broad daylight.

—————————Resources———————–

“Why the GOP should shut up about earmarks ” Slate.com

Bureau of Labor Statistics “Florida’s Economy at a Glance “

_______ “California’s Economy at a Glance “

_______ “Louisiana’s Economy at a Glance “

Taxpayers for Common Sense

Mitch McConnel’s website “McConnell votes against the Democratic spending bill “

Is it ethical to freeze a living human being against their will? I mean putting them in suspended animation where they can not grow and can not experience life?

Is it a sin to place six or seven people in a room far too small to hold them, knowing that many of them will die because of lack of nutrition, overcrowding and the stress related to such circumstances?

Much brouhaha is being made over President Obama’s rescinding of the Bush-era restrictions on stem cell research. To many critics, the nub of the problem is that stem cell research destroys a “human life” because it uses cells withdrawn from a fertilized egg and the fertilized egg is thus destroyed. Here’s the problem with these objections;

No equivalent hue and cry is made over fertilization processes. Aside from the approbation directed at Nadya Suleman (mostly because she is single and has no visible means of supporting a family; i.e. a husband), there is never any ire aimed at the irresponsible use of drugs, in vitro fertilization, and other artificial means of forcing a pregnancy onto a woman who - for lack of a better term - “God” has engineered to be “barren.” During the process of artificial insemination - a technique used by the McCaughey family in addition to fertility drugs - eggs are removed from the mother’s ovaries and sperm is “donated” from the father (in a process of self pleasure which many conservative Christians still believe is a sin; strike one!). The different cells are then introduced to each other in a medical setting, not inside the mother’s uterus and literally dozens of cells are fertilized at once (instead of maybe one or two which can occur naturally). A select few (about 6 is the maximum) are the implanted into the mother through the use of medical syringes while the rest are frozen in a liquid oxygen bath.

If these cells are “living beings” and a “human soul” from the instant of conception, do they not have a right to expand, grow, and be born? Evidently it is because millions of fertilized eggs are frozen in clinics across the country.

After the mother and father who have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to experience “God’s” miracle of birth (via science) are happy with their litter of squalling, developmentally-challenged, premature-weight children, what happens to the rest of the fertilized eggs?

They’re destroyed. Yes, they are taken out of their bath and burned in a medical waste disposal facility. They are, to borrow from the warped logic of these alleged protectors of the sanctity of life, “murdered.” But there is no objection over this portion of the process, is there?

So in summation, it’s okay to “waste” and “murder” these fertilized eggs because “God” blesses a married, mentally-unstable couple with the “miracle” of multiple births that are the result of scientific inquiry and thin or nonexistent medical ethics. But the idea that instead of destroying these “lives” needlessly and without gain, that a portion of their body be used to heal the sick and the paralyzed who are already born is a sin.

Hypocrisy (hĭ-pŏḱrĭ-sē):

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

All teleology, historicism, and interpretations aside, the whole purpose of history as a discipline is two-fold; first, to show change over time and second, to explain why that change occurred. Unfortunately, while many historians - both professional and amateur - can agree on the data that proves change over time, there is furious debate over exactly how or why that change occurred. So, in an effort (ongoing at Fearless History) to show change over time in our collective history, I am presenting some data on America’s culture, economy, and other aspects that are from reputable sources and I am interested in hearing how others interpret that data. I am therefore extending an invitation to all you who visit the site to explain the changes I am producing below. Thank you in advance and I look forward to hearing from you.

NB: All dollars are given in real amounts, not adjusted for inflation. (*) “HC is an abbreviation of “Real Dollars;” this is a measure of inflation in that a baseline of $1 worth of goods in 1900 is measured against what a similar amount of goods would cost in that decade’s dollars.

Median Salary | Median Housing | Cost of RD*

1900: $676           |  $3600                      |N/A

1910: $750           |  $6900                      |1.00

1920: $1236         | $11600                     |2.02

1930: $1368         | $12200                     | 1.69

1940: $1299         | $10000                     | 1.41

1950: $2992         | $24900                    | 2.43

1960: $4743         | $29000                    | 2.99

1970: $7564         | $26600                     | 3.92

1980: $15757       | $47000                     | 8.32

1990: $27809      | $83900                     | 13.20

2000: $55714      | $119,600                  | 17.39

2006: $55238      | $225,300                 | 20.18

———————Resources————————

Historical Archives (online), Lone Star College, Kingwood, Texas

“Average U.S. Income Showed First Rise Over 2000 ,”New York Times, 25 Aug 2008

George W. Pasdirtz’s “A State Space Dynamic Modes Model of Health Care Prices, 1900-1950 ” University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Robert M Williams “The Relationship of Housing Prices and Building Costs in Los Angeles, 1900-1953 ” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 50:270 (1955)

“1970’s Flashback “, price index

The People History, decade index (1970 , 1980 , 1990 , )

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Housing Price Index (2000 Q1, 2006 Q1 )

“Real Estate Cools Down ” CNN/Money, 16 May 2006

“The Shrinking Value of a Dollar ” Infoplease

It is easy to feel sorry for the GOP at times of momentous change, when the society has decided that it is time to make course corrections and embrace a social contract that uplifts all people, regardless of race, class, or economic standing. Take for instance 1960 when an awkward, pale, sweaty, and nervous Richard Nixon took on a tanned, well-rested, confident John F. Kennedy in the presidential debates or 1996 when a tired, teeth-gritting Bob Dole campaigned against the relatively young and energized Bill Clinton. Both candidates were missing that special something. Of course, it isn’t the GOP’s fault, it can happen to the Dems too: desperate for an “anybody but Bush” candidate, the Dems propped up the Herman Munster-like John Kerry or when Ronald Reagan absolutely ran circles around Jimmy Carter, who was seen as bumbling and inept and who couldn’t hold onto Mondale Dems. The reason is simple; it’s that hard-to-quantify, impossible-to-fake quality called “Charisma.”

I can hear our conservative brethren scoffing and sneering some awkward line about “style over substance” or some such other drivel, but the truth is, Charisma is an important part of being a leader. George Washington had it, as did George Patton. Like it or not, Fidel Castro had it back in the day, as did Gamal Abd al Nasser. Ghandi, Kennedy, Lincoln, Musolini, and Churchill all had it; the power of their presence to convey - convincingly - their ideas to their respective publics. GOP pundits and politicos on the campaign trail derided it as that “Rock Star” quality, but still tried to capture it  themselves with Sarah Palin and (as of last night) Bobby Jindal. But there’s a fundamental problem with the GOP strategy; they don’t seem to understand “Charisma” and try to create a “Rock Star” image from disparate parts.

During the 2008 campaign, the GOP worked hard to take Sarah Palin out of her element - apolitician whose fundamentalist”Christian” values were born out of a recent wave of Texan and Oklahoman immigration to what has been an historically independent, almost isolationist, somewhat socialist state (rebate checks from oil companies, anyone?) - and polish her for the rest of the nation through hundreds of thousands of dollars in new clothes, awkward interviews, and large (predominantly white) political rallies where she preached negativity. The GOP mistook youth and popularity as a beauty queen for Charisma and as the campaign broke apart, the whispers and in-fighting came to light: even GOP insiders didn’t believe in Sarah Palin.

Bobby Jindal, all rumors of a 2012 run aside, seemed to have the makings of a GOP “Rock Star” - immigrant parents, deep South governorship, young…Unfortunately, given last night’s speech, the GOP has missed the mark again. Deride President Obama all you will, my dear GOP and conservative friends, but you must admit that from the moment he appeared on the stage at the Democratic convention four years ago, he hit the ball out of the park. He inspired buzz not through his youth, his background, or through a manufactured package put together by political know-it-alls, but because he had the Charisma to pull it off. Merely look at the campaign he ran; he had a hard time convincing the African American populace (his so-called “base”) that he was black enough to represent them. He overcame the Rev. Wright fiasco with confidence and grace. He dodged the attempted swift-boating and red-herring baiting of William Ayers, “radical madrasas,” being a secret “Muslim,” and being called “the most liberal member of Congress” while building a base and planning a primary campaign that beat out the much better-funded and much more politically-connected Hillary Clinton. There are lots of people who are “smart” and lots of people who are “black” or “confident” or know “political strategy” but any of these obstacles could have tripped up anybody who lacked the force of personality to keep people from being distracted by campaign tricks and sideshows.

Yes, he has wonderful ideas and yes, he has ideas that are not so wonderful. But he is able to sell them to the American people and the members of Congress because of his Charisma. Until the Republicans can find someone that genuinely excites them - even the hard-bitten, no-nonsense, jaded politicos in your organization - then trying to substitute youth, skin color, and background for Charisma will end up with more “Kenneth the page” comparisons much to your detriment.

~QED

P.S. how many “top” titles do you GOP guys have? And isn’t John Kerry “the most liberal member of Congress”? Oh wait, maybe that’s Nancy Pelosi? Or Harry Reed? What about Dennis Kucinic? Hillary Clinton? Ted Kennedy? Get your act together guys and find new “scare” words.

“Make a list of all persons we have harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.”

-Steps 8, 9, 10 of the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program

As military historian Thomas Bass reminds us in June 2008’s edition of The American Quarterly, counterinsurgency and torture are, unfortunately, historically linked. In fact, many of the “lessons” on tactics to break an insurgency were borrowed directly from the manuals and memorandums published by French Colonel Roger Trinquier, the commander during the (in)famous “Battle of Algiers.” Like Trinquier, American specialists utilized torture, disappearances, intimidation, and indefinite imprisonments to achieve their short-term goals; to “break” an insurgency. But now that “success” in Iraq appears to be at hand, and the War on Terror seems to be shifting to the original battlefront, Afghanistan, the problem arises: what to do with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Baghram Air Base? Many of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have been subject to psychological torture and physical torture, deprived of the protection of the American justice system and international legal frameworks, and even denied visits by international human rights observers. After all this, and some prisoners having been detained for 7 or more years, the order has come down to release the prisoners.

But objections have also arisen; what to do with the prisoners?They can not come to America and European countries don’t want them. They can’t be returned to their home countries because (it is assumed) they will fall into the employ of terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda and they can not remain indefinitely. Torture, though successful in the short run, has become a problem in the long run.

To digress a bit, torture has become the fare of light television entertainment of late; from psychological tortures of reality television shows like Big Brother and Survivor to the play-acted torture scenes in 24 and Jericho, torture is no longer the domain of the sadistic, the malicious, and the evil; torture indeed has become patriotic. What if the roles are reversed? What if the hero is the one in the chair and the sweaty guy with the juper cables and needle-nosed pliers is a swarthy guy with an “Arab” accent? Who do we root for? And given that the criminal justice system - with all its safeguards to protect evidence and “due process” - still convicts a fair percentage of innocent people, what percentage of captured detainees are nothing more than poor shleps who were in the wrong place at the wrong time? What happens to an innocent man, woman, or child who is detained without rights for almost a decade, deprived of sleep, deprived of respect and decent care, deprived of basic human rights, and psychologically and/or physically tortured? We know for a fact it happened - we know it was Americans who did it. We know it was Iraqis, Lebanese, Saudis, Americans, British, and Egyptians who suffered through it. Now we are afraid of letting our victims out of the jail we have kept them in, and justifiably so.

What happened when Jack Bauer, lauded patriotic hero of the Republic, was tied to a chair and tortured? Should he have been glad to go home and hug his daughter, settled into an office job, and become a happy, productive citizen who has no ill will toward his captors?  Or did you cheer when he lunged at his captor, biting his carotid artery with a feral ferocity that spattered the small screen with blood? What if Jack Bauer’s name was Yusef Birstani? What if he sat in that chair for six, seven, or eight years? Who is the hero and who is the villain?

As Mr. Bass writes, “The most informed and thoughtful members of the U.S. military are thick in the middle of this debate about counterinsurgency and torture. These issues swirl around every mention of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo bay, and Baghram. This reality may ultimately force the military to confront the history of torture, while busily constructing historical narratives and trying to control historical interpretations about the use of torture in recent wars. The efforts will fail, and the military will harm itself in the process, if it leaves this assignment to the revisionists who want to erase torture from the historical record and lull us into refighting “better” wars than the wars we actually fought. We need to confront the truth of our contingent choices and realize that some of them were bad and others were both bad and wrong.” We can not undo the torture of the past, but we desperately need to acknowledge the wrongness of our choice to either commit it or to turn a blind eye while it was don. We need to set ourselves above the evils done to us and be a better nation; one whose enemies can not parade innocents who have been maimed and terroized by the “Free World.”

—————————sources——————–

Thomas A Bass’s “Counterinsurgency and Torture” (notes from a counterinsurgency seminar at the U.S. Army War College) in American Quarterly 60(2) (June 2008 )

I was struck by the flood of criticism about the stimulus bill that is coming from some “analysts” on the major networks. For example, Karl Rove, as guest Bush administration apologist/news “analyst” on Fox news critiqued the stimulus bill’s increase of funding for the National Institute of Health.

“Give $2 billion to the National Institutes of Health. What is that going to do to employ somebody in a manufacturing plant?”

Aside from pointing out the irony that Mr. Rove also critiqued the idea of giving money to the automobile industry - money that would “employ somebody in a manufacturing plant” - we must look at the idea of “throwing money away” by improving the American healthcare system.

One of the provisions in the stimulus bill was for an increase in Federal contributions to Medicaid. Medicaid is administered by states which also contribute a majority share to the pool of funds. The Federal government them uses some of its funds to offset that cost and keep states from having to raise taxes and/or cut benefits. Let us examine several important questions about Medicaid:

Who Qualifies? According to the New York State Department of Health, anyone who can not afford insurance is covered by Medicaid, including (but not limited to) people on disability, workman’s compensation, and unemployment assistance (please note, no state uses the term “benefits”). Additionally, if you or a family member is critically ill and can not afford the cost of treatment even IF you have health insurance, Medicaid will defray some, if not most, of the costs.

Why do “the poor” get free healthcare when I’m a Self-pay Entrepreneur/Middle Manager with high out-of-pocket/a law-abiding tax-payer? According to Consumer Affairs, a leading consumer advocacy group’s website, the number one cause of Bankruptcy in the United States is medical bills. in 2005 alone, 50% of Middle- and Working-Class families that had to file bankruptcy did so because of medical bills that their insurance would not pay. Families in these situations receive Medicaid as well, particularly if the patient still requires treatment.

Why do Medicaid Patients clog the Emergency Room all the time? Medicaid has a limit on the places a patient can go because of the bureaucracy involved and fraud which occurs both at the hands of the patient and at the hands of the medical care provider. Occasionally, but very rarely, according to the Illinois State Police Taskforce on Medicaid Abuse, Medicaid Recipients are able to fake illnesses or injuries well enough to get medicines or treatment they do not need. More commonly, unscrupulous medical providers, in order to pad their profits, double bill or charge for patients who do not exist.  This is a persistent crime which costs states funds, and increases regulations which discourages urgent care facility and some late-night clinics from treating Medicaid patients. The patients are then forced to head to the local ER for acute care, a move which costs 4 to 5 times as much as equivalent care at an urgent care facility.Waits can exceed 12 hours in some metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, and so on.

Essentially, states - who themselves are facing a more serious budget shortfall - would receive more federal funding from money the U.S. government has borrowed in order to prevent a catastrophic loss of services for the poor, unemployed, under insured, and underemployed. $2 Billion dollars over the course of the next, say, two years may seem like a lot, but consider this: According to The National Priorities Project, the war in Iraq costs the taxpayers in the state of Ohio alone, over $26.2 Billion dollars between March 15th 2008 and March 15th 2009.

Other critiques have come out of somewhat-left field (to forgive the ironic analogy), such as an argument against the Medical Information Act which would convert the heavily bureaucratic apparatus of medical recording and billing from paper to electronic records alone.  On a somewhat conservative blog website, an uncited quote of Karl Rove thusly:

“Rove pointed out very clearly that $20 billion of the bill goes for Health Information Technology, this will streamline the process eliminating the need for data entry clerks, receptionists and other hopital (sic) office staff “

According to Physicians for a National Health Program, 31% of every dollar spent on health costs, both from public funds (such as Medicaid and Medicare) and from private funds (BlueCross/BlusShield, Humana,etc.) goes to non-medical bureaucratic costs. Arguing that eliminating, or at least dramatically reducing, this overhead cost is akin to arguing that we should do away will cell phones and email in favor of bringing back the pony express; it makes no rational sense. Certainly, literally hundreds of poorly-trained technicians, who completed at most a 1 year certificate program, would most likely lose their medical transcription, medical recorder, or other paper-shuffling jobs, but as these are general clerical skills, their marketability in other fields - such as business - is still viable. Additionally, this may motivate some of the people working in these positions to enter into colleges and universities and expand their expertise, earn more money, and thus pay more in taxes, purchase more goods or services with their increased income, and generally have a higher cost of living than they had before. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wage of a 1-year certificate-holding medical transcriptionist is $14.00/hour. By comparison, a Medical office Manager (who would not be in danger of losing their job, according to Rove et. al.) earns upwards of $78,000 a year.

Additionally, a reduction in the overall cost of health care would not only benefit Medicaid recipients, but the American taxpayer as well; streamlines record-keeping reduces fraud, makes payments smoother, and may entice some medical providers to offer health care to Medicaid patients that would normally go to Emergency Rooms for their ailments.

Improvements to the health care system of the United States is badly needed. Some more information to fuel the debate over “wasting” medical health care dollars (all sources according to the World Health Organization, unless notes otherwise):

1) The United States’ health care system ranks #37 in the world; Costa Rica ranks #36, Morocco #29, Cyprus #24, Iceland #15, Japan #10, Australia #9, Oman #8, Spain #7, Singapore #6, Malta (a tiny island in the Mediterranean) #5, Andorra (ditto) #4, San Marino (another Mediterranean country) #3, Italy #2, France #1. Cuba (with 50+ years of embargoes) ranks #39.

2) The United States spends 15.2% of its Gross Domestic Product on health care costs. France spends 11.2%, Italy 8.9%, San Marino 7.3%, Andorra 6.3%, Malta 8.4%. Cuba spends 7.4%

3) The United States spends 40% of its GDP on “Defense” costs.

Now while it may be easy for anti-Obama or anti-Democrats to believe the ideas and alarm bells rung by people like Karl Rove, it is much more important to put things in perspective, understand the  context they are offered in (in this case, Mr. Rove is not out to”help” the administration succeed), and to do your own research through reputable sources that check their facts. If conservatives are going to deride the “mainstream media” for its “bias” then they should also realize that their own news and opinion outlets, such as Fox, Limbaugh, and Rove, are equally “biased” and will twist information just as much as they think MSNBC, Al Frankin, and Katie Couric do.

QED

—————-Resources——————

Fox News interview with Karl Rove 3 Feb 2009

Rove on the “cost” of the stimulus (unsourced)

New York State Department of Health, Medicaid FAQ

Consumer Affairs, cause of bankruptcy

Illinois State Police, Medicaid Fraud Unit

National Priorities Project, cost of War in Iraq to Ohio (PDF )

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Medical Transcription

_____ , Medical Office Manager

U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, cost of ER vs. urgent Care

World Health Organization, Rank of Health Care Systems

_____ , Health Expenditures per GDP by country

As some of you may recall, in the post I proffered regarding the revisionism of the Presidency of George W. Bush I predicted that history would eventually judge Mr. Bush fairly harshly. I even referenced his association with Millard Fillmore.

I bring this up because CNN, MSN and CSPAN have released a survey of the ratings of past Presidents that was given to 60 historians. the result? Can you guess?

“In a survey of over 60 historians conducted by C-SPAN, the 43rd president ranks the seventh worst (and 36th overall) in the nation’s history, just edging out Millard Fillmore.”

I think that pretty well solidifies what I’ve felt all along; you can spin, spin, spin all you want, Washington, but History will catch up to you and when it does….well, History’s a bitch.

For more information on the story: CNN

For the Survey itself: C-SPAN

And before my conservative friends can accuse C-SPAN or the survey of bias or testing anonymous “historians and Presidential experts,” here is a list of the historians and Presidential experts who participated in the survey. Please note that they are not all “Liberal ideologues” as one obscenity-laden, now-deleted post accused me of being one of.

Sometimes I wonder if conservative such as Chuck Asay, the cartoonist above, ever experiences cognitive dissonance; the queasy, uneasy feeling that occurs when holding two contradictory opinions or beliefs.

Where is the cartoon depicting Wells Fargo’s $18 Billion trip to Vegas? Where is his critique of the CEO of Bear Stearns who accelerated the billions of dollars in bonuses so that when Bank of America took over, the former executives would not be held accountable for those bonuses? Where is the outrage when AIG took billions of taxpayer’s money and then gave a party for executives at a California spa and a UK hunting trip?

Of course, I am perhaps trying to fit the square peg of logic into the star-shaped hole of conservative dogma. But if conservatives (be they social or fiscal) are outraged that the mythological “hollywood” lobby, or the allegedly strong-arm unions, are getting money from the bailout, why aren’t they screaming for the blood of the CEOs who throw multi-billion dollar parties at the tax payer’s expense? I do believe I hit the nail upon the head a couple of sentences ago: conservative dogma.

Conservative dogma  holds that whatever is good for the rich, is good for the country…despite historical facts to the contrary (The French Revolution, Cuban Revolution, Russian Revolution, Egyptian Revolution, Chinese Revolution and Civil War, Tyler’s Revolution, etc.) Let us examine the facts:

CEOs of the major American financial institutions (AIG, WaMu, Bank of America, Bearn Stearns, Lehman Bros., etc.) come to Washington to demand money to keep their industries afloat because their reckless behavior caused a catastrophic, global financial meltdown. After a brief fight under the Bush administration and with a Republican-controlled Congress, they receive $700 billion in funds with no strings attached. AIG throws a multi-million dollar spa resport and later a hunting trip for executives; Wells Fargo spends $18 billion to send execs to an all-expense paid trip to vegas; WaMu purchases new corporate jets; literally billions of dollars in bonuses paid to CEOs, CFOs, and COOs (as well as “top tier” executives) before January 22nd, 2009 . The conservatives are curiously quiet on the subject of a corporate handout - I’m not talking my friends at their blogs, but Rush Limbaugh, Chuck Asay, and other neoconservatives have hardly had a word to say about literal, de facto corporate welfare which benefits the American tax payer in no way shape or form.

On the other hand, tax breaks and financial incentives are paid out to “green industry jobs.” Immediately, these energy-generating jobs for an American public addicted to all things electronic and woefully dependent upon oil purchased from Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and Saudi Arabiaare attacked. Unions, without whom there would be no weekends, 8 hour days, safe work spaces, an end to child labor, workman’s compensation, or good-pay blue-collar manufacturing jobs that made America a superpower, are reviled as entitled beggars robbing from the people of the United States.

So, in essence, it’s okay for financial leaders (who perform no real work of their own and make money from Usury) to play with the economy as if it was a crap shoot then get out of paying their debt scott-free but industries and organizations that are aimed at helping middle- and working-class families as well as putting the United States back on a healthy path to recovery are the bad guys.

Cognitive Dissonance: you has it.

Though I have gone on and on about this subject before, and to much the chagrin of my conservative colleagues, I felt like a Liberal hysteric for all the seriousness I have been treated with when asserting that CEOs are literally “thieves and robbers” and much less “barons” that they suppose themselves to be. The level of chicanery and thievery was hinted at in recent months and many people are angry about CEO bonuses. In fact, I applaud President Obama’s imposition on the earnings of CEOs who receive “extraordinary assistance” (I had, briefly, hoped that “extraordinary assistance” was the friendly shove onto the C-130 cargo plane bound for Azerbaijan and a nice round of waterboarding). As it turns out, I was not only right, but my conservative colleagues who scream of “Socialism” and “undermining the American middle class” should really consult Jim Jubak. I had seen him occasionally giving advice that was generally sound about investing and Capitalism, so there’s no need ot fear he’s some hippy Liberal out to make everyone eat tofu and wear Birkenstocks. Here is what he has to say about CEO bonuses.

In Japan, CEOs are paid about 10 times what the average worker is

In Germany, CEOs are paid about 11 times what the average worker is

In the United Kingdom, CEOs are paid about 25 times what the average worker is

In the United States, CEOs are paid between 170 to 340 times what the average worker is

Here’s a link to what he has to say:

Jim Jubak

AS I was saying, while conservatives bitch and moan about the so-called “power” of the Unions - whose job it is to stand up for Middle and Working Class Americans - and defend the idea of “trickle down economics” and that tax breaks for the wealthy would create jobs, think on this: The IRS released a statement in 2008 that the average American made $38,000 a year which means the lowest paid CEO makes 6.46 Million dollars and the most well-paid CEO makes 12.92 million a year. How CEOs can sleep at night while cutting the jobs of average Americans who struggle to make ends meet as it is anyway while receiving exorbitant sums such as this is beyond my comprehension.

To my dear conservative friends; wake up, you have been duped and are being used by the wealthy who would sell your children into slavery if it meant another million dollar bonus.

I am alarmed at the number of Democrats who - for one reason or another - fail to pay their taxes. But then again, perhaps I should not be.

First, we have Timothy Geitner, the no-head of the Treasury. He failed to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $38,000 in taxes but submitted an apology and was given a pass, more or less. Then we had Nancy Killefer who, we were assured, would bring her  smart business accumen to the post fo Chief Performance Officer but who failed to pay taxes on the help she hired for her household. Finally, and perhaps most aggregiously, Tom Daschle and his more-than $100,000 in unpaid taxes.

What the hell is wrong with these people? I, as a self-employed blogger, writer, and adjunct faculty know that I have to pay taxes on pretty much everything I earn. Why are these so-called leaders so ignorant of tax law? To top it all off, my Wife works for the Treasury department and a colleague of hers was fired for doing exactly what Tim Geitner did - except the colleague only owed a few thousand, not $38,000! I am glad that both Killefer and Daschle have “withdrawn their names” from nomination, but seriously, the Obama administration needs to vet these people much, much more thoroughly especially if it is going to raise taxes and talk about sharing the burden.

QED