Most people probably know that today marks the official end of US operations in Iraq. I'm going to link to the CNN article covering the event:
I chose that one just because it was an easy way to link to video coverage of the actual ceremony. This might betray my sentimental tendencies, but I'm always fascinated when something culminates into a specific moment. Whether it's the flipping of the tassel at a graduation ceremony, getting the "I now pronounce you joined in matrimony" from the judge/priest/ship captain, or in this case, the lowering of our colors in Iraq so that they may finally come home.
Going back a ways, I remember watching the Berlin Wall come down.
I remember the experience of seeing similar footage on TV at the time and being moved, but I was fourteen at the time so I obviously has missed the bulk of the events and sentiment that led up to such a seminal moment.
With the Iraq War, I got to experience the event in its entirety. From the September 11th attacks, to the presentation by Colin Powell at the UN detailing (incorrectly it turned out) Iraq's efforts to obtain WMDs:
And beyond to President Bush's speech to our nation setting the stage to our invasion:
Part 2:
The official announcement that combat operations had begun:
At first, things seemed to be going pretty well:
Events like this led to what might have been a turning point in the conflict:
One thing to notice... the official commencement of combat operations happened in mid-March, the Mission Accomplished speech at the beginning of May. Roughly a month and a half passed between those two, a timeframe that would be dwarfed by the next eight-plus years spent in Iraq.
In the end, the Iraq War claimed almost 4,500 U.S. lives, possibly over 150,000 Iraqi lives (with some estimating 80% of those deaths as civilian), left 30,000 U.S. soldiers wounded, and cost over $800 billion.
I think the entire event is still too present in our minds to start calculating what lasting impression the conflict as a whole should have in the history books. But on last night's Rachel Maddow show, Ms. Maddow talked a little bit about the relationship between our country and our military.
In that clip, Rachel Maddow describes how our ten years and counting at war in Iraq and Afghanistan have essentially been shouldered by less than one percent of our population. The phrase "one percent" gets tossed around a lot these days in a very different context, one that represents those in this country who have benefitted (disproportionately) the most from what our country has to offer.
We let that one percent nuke the economy, get bailed out, and get massive tax breaks. The other one percent, those soldiers who fought in Iraq and still fight in Afghanistan, get to come home to this despicable mess to struggle to put their personal lives back together after such a massive disruption while trying to get by in a tough U.S. economy.
Our politics shouldered this other one percent with an unimaginable burden when we decided to invade Iraq. Our politics took this other one percent for granted while we fumbled our domestic policies, and now our politics look to continue the favoritism bestowed on the richest one percent while throwing the other one percent a jobs bill offering tax incentives for hiring veterans.
The GOP presidential candidates, except for Ron Paul, all expressed disappointment at the idea of all our troops in Iraq coming home. Some wanted to keep twenty thousand troops there, others teased at throwing down with Iran. Either way, I feel those GOP candidates fail to see that other one percent as fellow citizens, instead seeing them as a tool or a resource to throw at arbitrary goals, sort of like a credit default swap.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
If You Want Something Done Right...
From Bloomberg News:
So it appears that New York State may be about to do something that our federal government can't get done. A new income tax proposed would affect those making more than $2 million a year while cutting taxes for those making less than $300,000 a year.
New York State faces a possible $3.5 billion deficit in 2013, partially due to state revenue lost from shrinking Wall Street bonuses (take that naysayers... Wall Street was indeed hit by the current economic meltdown it fabricated). The new income tax would raise roughly $1.5 billion to go toward that deficit, with an additional $400 million going toward youth jobs programs and flood recovery efforts. From the article:
Basic economics demonstrates that people with less money spend higher percentages of what they have because they need it to get by. The middle class will now get more to spend and they most likely will. That means more money going into the New York State economy. Will it be enough to help right things locally? Who knows, but it won't hurt and it should be more effective than the alternative of cutting taxes for the wealthiest since they are more likely to hold onto that savings in some way. Either way, we get the chance to see how it plays out.
One possibility sometimes argued is that higher taxes drive the rich out of that geographical location. I guess now we'll get the chance to test that out. I imagine the bulk of these richest New Yorkers live around New York City, so lets see if New Jersey and Connecticut suddenly see an influx of millionaires. I don't think it will happen, but I guess we'll have to see, and now we get that chance.
Obviously the heart of our federal system of government intended for states to have a strong presence in governing, but I don't think our national system was ever intended to be as impotent as it currently is. So it's always good to see states taking the initiative.
Obviously California is known for having its own set of environmental guidelines. Massachusetts, under Mitt Romney, put a health care mandate in place requiring everyone to carry health insurance. Texas, under Rick Perry, put together measures to help young girls get the HPV vaccine. Vermont has a single payer health care system in place. Now New York State is going to tax the richest elite a little bit more to help deal with its current economic situation.
While these ideas may all seem like a classic liberal agenda, I would argue that they all rooted in common sense that many people, not just typical liberals, could get behind. Going back to all that market forces talk of taxes pushing millionaires to move, I'm curious to see if certain states that take the initiative to implement common sense ideas currently flummoxing Congress see any population movement. Will people leave Mississippi, one of the unhealthiest and poorest states in the country, to go to Massachusetts? Will businesses move to Vermont, incentivized by not having to deal with as much health care red tape?
I used to hear people joke/threaten to move to Canada if things kept tanking in the USA. Congress might achieve such a high level of uselessness that states themselves will have to find ways to actually listen to the people and get things done. Maybe if enough of that occurs, I won't need to move to Canada to find a government that listens, I'll just need to move to Vermont, or Massachusetts, or New York, or whatever state handles things in a way I feel makes sense.
Sure that might crystalize a state's redness or blueness, but it will also help minimize the impact of that because Congressional self-crotch-punching will also be less impacting.
So it appears that New York State may be about to do something that our federal government can't get done. A new income tax proposed would affect those making more than $2 million a year while cutting taxes for those making less than $300,000 a year.
New York State faces a possible $3.5 billion deficit in 2013, partially due to state revenue lost from shrinking Wall Street bonuses (take that naysayers... Wall Street was indeed hit by the current economic meltdown it fabricated). The new income tax would raise roughly $1.5 billion to go toward that deficit, with an additional $400 million going toward youth jobs programs and flood recovery efforts. From the article:
“As a matter of simple math, there is not an intelligent or productive way to close the current gap without generating revenue,” Cuomo said.The first part of that quote is sort of the shocker to me because of how clearly it states the issue. It's not a plea for morality, or a treatise on fairness, it just calls out the mathematical truth. New York State is short of cash, let's find a place to get some from. Simple as that. No revenue neutral obfuscation, no shifts of deficit burdens from the rich onto the poor and middle classes. Simply tax the very richest, put more money in the pockets of the middle class, and let's see what happens.
Basic economics demonstrates that people with less money spend higher percentages of what they have because they need it to get by. The middle class will now get more to spend and they most likely will. That means more money going into the New York State economy. Will it be enough to help right things locally? Who knows, but it won't hurt and it should be more effective than the alternative of cutting taxes for the wealthiest since they are more likely to hold onto that savings in some way. Either way, we get the chance to see how it plays out.
One possibility sometimes argued is that higher taxes drive the rich out of that geographical location. I guess now we'll get the chance to test that out. I imagine the bulk of these richest New Yorkers live around New York City, so lets see if New Jersey and Connecticut suddenly see an influx of millionaires. I don't think it will happen, but I guess we'll have to see, and now we get that chance.
Obviously the heart of our federal system of government intended for states to have a strong presence in governing, but I don't think our national system was ever intended to be as impotent as it currently is. So it's always good to see states taking the initiative.
Obviously California is known for having its own set of environmental guidelines. Massachusetts, under Mitt Romney, put a health care mandate in place requiring everyone to carry health insurance. Texas, under Rick Perry, put together measures to help young girls get the HPV vaccine. Vermont has a single payer health care system in place. Now New York State is going to tax the richest elite a little bit more to help deal with its current economic situation.
While these ideas may all seem like a classic liberal agenda, I would argue that they all rooted in common sense that many people, not just typical liberals, could get behind. Going back to all that market forces talk of taxes pushing millionaires to move, I'm curious to see if certain states that take the initiative to implement common sense ideas currently flummoxing Congress see any population movement. Will people leave Mississippi, one of the unhealthiest and poorest states in the country, to go to Massachusetts? Will businesses move to Vermont, incentivized by not having to deal with as much health care red tape?
I used to hear people joke/threaten to move to Canada if things kept tanking in the USA. Congress might achieve such a high level of uselessness that states themselves will have to find ways to actually listen to the people and get things done. Maybe if enough of that occurs, I won't need to move to Canada to find a government that listens, I'll just need to move to Vermont, or Massachusetts, or New York, or whatever state handles things in a way I feel makes sense.
Sure that might crystalize a state's redness or blueness, but it will also help minimize the impact of that because Congressional self-crotch-punching will also be less impacting.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
A Flashback Round-Up Filler Episode of Congress v. United States
Just some headlines here to keep my four readers informed on the goings on of the nation. First, and probably the biggest piece of news, is that Herman Cain has been accused of having a thirteen year affair.
First it was just cash settlements to women claiming Herman Cain played a bit of grab-ass with them. Now we've got someone coming forward alleging an affair that lasted longer than many marriages. The best part? If you watch the video that's part of the above linked ABC News article, you'll get to see Herman Cain addressing his supporters.
It feels surreal to listen to him talk about how "they" don't want him to win, and "they" just want to drag his name through the mud to hurt his presidential chances. I'm not sure that's what the original accusers had in mind all those years ago when they brought action against him, but maybe that's how Cain sees it. Cain's version:
For what it's worth, Cain's run has basically ended anyway, so it's really neither here nor there if he stays in the race. Turns out that being either a moron or an accused sexual harasser isn't enough to fall in the GOP polls. But put the two together and that might just be all that the voters can stand. Enjoy this nugget as Cain starts to fade away.
Yeah, Herman Cain really did quote the Pokemon movie in a GOP debate.
With Cain falling, Newt Gingrich has stepped into the GOP flavor of the month role. We already now all about Gingrich's tendencies to cheat on his current wife (usually when she's gravely ill, like divorcing his first wife as she recovered from cancer surgery and dumping the second wife for a 20-year younger aide just as the wife is diagnosed with MS). There doesn't seem to be any weird tweets, IMs, or texts to underaged dudes, so I'm not sure what dirt will scuttle his run at the top. Gingrich takes a lot of heat for not acting conservative enough, and he also has a flip-flopping problem.
Maybe stuff like this will also help to scuttle his efforts:
I guess we'll have to see how it goes. Meanwhile, Jon Huntsman, possibly the most rational and best match for Obama, can't seem to make any headway despite most of the GOP field coming across like contestants on a VH1 reality show.
Obviously the debate system our media has set up is deeply flawed, designed to help keep front-runners up front and the also-rans marginalized... but the fact that Huntsman won't even be allowed to enter the building seems harsh. Come on, the dude even did Saturday Night Live.
Huntsman admits that his campaign is all or nothing with New Hampshire, but that hasn't stopped him from hinting at the possibility of an independent run. One possible ally might be the newly formed Justice Party.
Wrong Justice, wrong Party. More like this:
French techno jokes aside, I may actually cast my ballot toward this effort if it can get off the ground. Former Salt Lake City mayor, Rocky Anderson, severed ties with the democratic party last summer because he got so fed up with corporate interests taking over the American political process. Here's a breakdown of the Justice Party's platform:
All good stuff that I could get behind. I think I heard that part of the Justice Party platform was donkey-elephant agnosticism, something else that I would happily embrace. Even though Rocky Anderson is running for president with his Justice Party, he has talked up Huntsman as well, not sure if that's to get Huntsman's independent efforts on board. Obviously the two both hail from Utah, so maybe Anderson is looking to get the band back together. We'll have to see how it plays out.
Michelle Bachmann started fading a long time ago, but I admire her efforts to stay relevant. Like this recent stumble:
Of course, we closed that business down in 1980. But maybe that's not really fair if you take into account her defense that she was speaking hypothetically, just like it's not really fair to post the following image:
When she really looks more like this:
But I guess that's the nature of politics.
Lest we forget Rick Perry, here's his latest;
And just for the hell of it, here's John Boehner crying a lot:
And that concludes our post-November sweeps flashback filler recap entry here at Congress v. United States.
First it was just cash settlements to women claiming Herman Cain played a bit of grab-ass with them. Now we've got someone coming forward alleging an affair that lasted longer than many marriages. The best part? If you watch the video that's part of the above linked ABC News article, you'll get to see Herman Cain addressing his supporters.
It feels surreal to listen to him talk about how "they" don't want him to win, and "they" just want to drag his name through the mud to hurt his presidential chances. I'm not sure that's what the original accusers had in mind all those years ago when they brought action against him, but maybe that's how Cain sees it. Cain's version:
"You know... just in case Herman Cain ever decides to run for president in the future, maybe I should sue him now just to insure his campaign gets scuttled."I think the more likely scenario plays out like this.
"Hey, that guy at table three just grabbed my ass!"Either way, Cain decided to reassess his campaign and spend the weekend with his wife, face to face, to see how she's holding up with all of this.
For what it's worth, Cain's run has basically ended anyway, so it's really neither here nor there if he stays in the race. Turns out that being either a moron or an accused sexual harasser isn't enough to fall in the GOP polls. But put the two together and that might just be all that the voters can stand. Enjoy this nugget as Cain starts to fade away.
Yeah, Herman Cain really did quote the Pokemon movie in a GOP debate.
With Cain falling, Newt Gingrich has stepped into the GOP flavor of the month role. We already now all about Gingrich's tendencies to cheat on his current wife (usually when she's gravely ill, like divorcing his first wife as she recovered from cancer surgery and dumping the second wife for a 20-year younger aide just as the wife is diagnosed with MS). There doesn't seem to be any weird tweets, IMs, or texts to underaged dudes, so I'm not sure what dirt will scuttle his run at the top. Gingrich takes a lot of heat for not acting conservative enough, and he also has a flip-flopping problem.
Maybe stuff like this will also help to scuttle his efforts:
I guess we'll have to see how it goes. Meanwhile, Jon Huntsman, possibly the most rational and best match for Obama, can't seem to make any headway despite most of the GOP field coming across like contestants on a VH1 reality show.
Obviously the debate system our media has set up is deeply flawed, designed to help keep front-runners up front and the also-rans marginalized... but the fact that Huntsman won't even be allowed to enter the building seems harsh. Come on, the dude even did Saturday Night Live.
Huntsman admits that his campaign is all or nothing with New Hampshire, but that hasn't stopped him from hinting at the possibility of an independent run. One possible ally might be the newly formed Justice Party.
Wrong Justice, wrong Party. More like this:
French techno jokes aside, I may actually cast my ballot toward this effort if it can get off the ground. Former Salt Lake City mayor, Rocky Anderson, severed ties with the democratic party last summer because he got so fed up with corporate interests taking over the American political process. Here's a breakdown of the Justice Party's platform:
- Hold the Banksters who destroyed our economy accountable. Who has been sent to jail yet?
- Bring to justice those who lied us into the Iraq War! Both Congress and the Administration have left this issue unaddressed
- No jobs, no justice, and there are a lot of people who don't have economic justice because there are no jobs. Time for a concerted push for jobs creation, which continues to be avoided.
- Bailouts for the fleeced homeowners, not Wall Street and auto manufacturers only. As major corporations continue to report record earnings, homeowners are facing bankruptcies and decreasing value of their homes, yet no one lifts a hand to help. Sure there have been a couple ineffective programs, but not enough to make a dent.
- Torturers in our midst must be brought to justice, and those who enabled them through twisted and weak legal arguments must be held accountable. How else can we be confident that they won't do it again?
- Fair elections - it's clear we have problems with our patchwork election system. Whether it be restrictive registration laws, gerrymandering of congressional and legislative districts, ignored sunshine laws, gutted (thanks Supremes!) campaign finance laws, no-paper-trail voting booths... enough said. We need uniformly fair elections if we are going to have justice.
- Filibuster reform - The filibuster is unconstitional. Say it with me again, the 60% majority required to overcome the filibuster in the US Senate is unconstitional. It must go. The majority rules in this nation, and it's time to get rid of this unfair provision that prevents progress and provides cover for gutless politicians.
- National Initiatives - Change you can believe in? Seems more like the same old, same old. National initiatives would surely change that. If Congress can't get off their butts to do the work of the people, we need a way for the people to step up and make the decisions. Time is long overdue.
- So on and so forth... think labor laws being gutted, GLBT citizens paying more taxes than their straight counterparts, seniors, low income and unemployed falling through our social safety net, immigrants that are criminalized when all they want to do is contribute to our society, etc. etc.
All good stuff that I could get behind. I think I heard that part of the Justice Party platform was donkey-elephant agnosticism, something else that I would happily embrace. Even though Rocky Anderson is running for president with his Justice Party, he has talked up Huntsman as well, not sure if that's to get Huntsman's independent efforts on board. Obviously the two both hail from Utah, so maybe Anderson is looking to get the band back together. We'll have to see how it plays out.
Michelle Bachmann started fading a long time ago, but I admire her efforts to stay relevant. Like this recent stumble:
Of course, we closed that business down in 1980. But maybe that's not really fair if you take into account her defense that she was speaking hypothetically, just like it's not really fair to post the following image:
When she really looks more like this:
But I guess that's the nature of politics.
Lest we forget Rick Perry, here's his latest;
And just for the hell of it, here's John Boehner crying a lot:
And that concludes our post-November sweeps flashback filler recap entry here at Congress v. United States.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)