According to the Bloomberg Reports, George W. Bush, aka Bubble-Boy, is the first president in 150 years not to seek a tax increase to finance a war.(You can read the whole Bloomberg article by clicking on this entry's title.) This is going back to the Mexican-American war in the 1840s. All other presidents were smart enough to realize that you can't fight a war without a tax increase unless you are willing to go into debt. Now, the Republicans will try to argue that the national debt is going down. This is because the national debt doesn't count intra-governmental debt, ie, what the American government borrows from the Social Security trust fund to finance the government.
If Democrats wanted to go after Bush on the deficit, the first step would be to resurrect the lockbox concept that Al Gore talked about in 2000. This means passing a law that prohibits Social Security and Medicare funds from being used for anything other than those two programs. The immediate effect of this would be to illustrate how bad off the government finances are and to force reality into the debate about our government's spending and tax policies. It would also put the Bush administration into a real bind. They couldn't support such a move and opposing it would be politically unpopular. It would also reinforce the Democratic Congress's reputation as a defender of these two very popular programs.
Friday, January 12, 2007
The Iraq-Iran War?
According to the article linked to in this entry's title, NBC News anchors were very puzzled by comments Bush made to them during an off the record briefing on his speech. This article quotes Tim Russert as saying that apparently Bush expects Iran to surface as a problem very soon.
This would also explain why, during his speech on Wednesday, he announced that the U.S. is sending Patriot missiles to Iraq. Since these are missiles used against military airplanes and missiles, and since the insurgents in Iraq don't have such military assets, why are these units being sent to Iraq? Could it be because the Bush administration expects a military confrontation with Iran?
A friend of ours once told us that Bush will get out of Iraq by trying to go through Iran. We thought he was joking. He said that he wasn't joking and was being serious. It sounds like the same sort of thinking that got us embroiled in this war in the first place.
This would also explain why, during his speech on Wednesday, he announced that the U.S. is sending Patriot missiles to Iraq. Since these are missiles used against military airplanes and missiles, and since the insurgents in Iraq don't have such military assets, why are these units being sent to Iraq? Could it be because the Bush administration expects a military confrontation with Iran?
A friend of ours once told us that Bush will get out of Iraq by trying to go through Iran. We thought he was joking. He said that he wasn't joking and was being serious. It sounds like the same sort of thinking that got us embroiled in this war in the first place.
Sacrifice Increases for Army Reserve & National Guard
The U.S. Army is increasing the time that a Army Reserves or National Guard may be called for service in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In the past the Army had a policy that the Reserve and Guard could not be called for duty in Afghanistan or Iraq for more than 24 cumulative months. The new policy is that they may not be called for duty for more than 24 consecutive months, but there is no limit on the total amount of time they may be called. The Pentagon spokesperson said, however, that the Pentagon wants to limit deployments to 12 consecutive months. (Click on the entry's title to read the whole article.)
Let's see: Bush won't tax the rich to pay for his war, he won't call upon his supporters to join the Army to fight the war, but he will extend the amount of time that citizen-soldiers are ordered to fight in the war. Yep, that's Bubble-Boy's idea of shared sacrifice.
Let's see: Bush won't tax the rich to pay for his war, he won't call upon his supporters to join the Army to fight the war, but he will extend the amount of time that citizen-soldiers are ordered to fight in the war. Yep, that's Bubble-Boy's idea of shared sacrifice.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Newsweek's Fineman Sees Fear in Bush's Eyes During Iraq Speech
Howard Fineman has a well deserved reputation in Washington as being an exceptional purveyor of conventional wisdom. His reputation doesn't depend on original thinking or on pungent analysis. It depends on his ability to figure out what the conventional wisdom is among the Washington elite and then report on it. So, when he writes that he sees fear in Bush's eyes, it is significant. Not because it is true, although it may very well be true, but because this may become the conventional wisdom of the Beltway elite.
If you click on the link in this entry's title and read the article another fact jumps out at you. He apparently believes that one thing that drives Bush is his fear of being branded a "loser." Not that over 3,000 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. Not that thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives in Iraq. Not that our reputation around the world has been totally trashed or that we have lost the moral high ground that we had after the attacks on September 11, 2001. No, according to Fineman what Bush is afraid of it being branded a "loser."
This brings up the problem with George W. Bush and indeed the whole Bush clan. They are in government not to serve the public, but to satisfy their egos. It is not about us, it is about them. It is not about solving America's problems, but about filling their need for public adulation. As far as we can tell, the history of the Bush family in politics is a history of self-gratification.
If you click on the link in this entry's title and read the article another fact jumps out at you. He apparently believes that one thing that drives Bush is his fear of being branded a "loser." Not that over 3,000 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. Not that thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives in Iraq. Not that our reputation around the world has been totally trashed or that we have lost the moral high ground that we had after the attacks on September 11, 2001. No, according to Fineman what Bush is afraid of it being branded a "loser."
This brings up the problem with George W. Bush and indeed the whole Bush clan. They are in government not to serve the public, but to satisfy their egos. It is not about us, it is about them. It is not about solving America's problems, but about filling their need for public adulation. As far as we can tell, the history of the Bush family in politics is a history of self-gratification.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
New American Troops Going to Iraq Without Better Humvees
The Baltimore Sun is reporting that new troops bound for Iraq will be arriving without the more armored transports that are supposedly being made for the Pentagon. So let's see if we have this right: initially Bubble-Boy doesn't send enough troops to do the job. Then he doesn't have body armor for the ones that he sent over. Not only doesn't he have enough body armor, but he also doesn't have appropriately armored transport vehicles. When all this is pointed out to the Pentagon, it promises to develop a better transport vehicle, only its not ready in time to be used by the troops that are being sent as BB escalates the war. If the consequences weren't so terrible for our troops, this would almost sound like a bad joke. (You can read the Sun article by clicking on the title of this entry.)
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Strickland Vetoes First Bill within 16 Hours of Taking Office
The Columbus Dispatch noted in the story linked to in this entry's title that in his first 16 hours after taking the oath of office, Ted Strickland issued tough ethics regulations for his administration. His regulations are stricter than the law passed by the General Assembly. He also did something that took former Governor Robert Taft four years to do and that was veto a bill. In the waning days of the last session of the General Assembly, the Republicans passed a bill that limited damages for lead paint manufactuers. The bill was then sent to Taft, who neither signed it nor issued a veto. Instead his plan was to allow this bill to become law without his signature. Under the Ohio Constitution, a governor has 10 days to either sign the bill or veto the bill. If he does neither, then the bill becomes law without his signature.
Now, in this case, Taft believed that since the General Assembly ended his session on December 26, 2006, the ten days started then and consequently would end on January 6, 2007, before Strickland took office. The problem for the Republicans, though, is that while the General Assembly ended its session on December 26th, the bill wasn't received in the Governor's office until December 28th, 2006. By this calculation, the ten day period had not yet expired when Strickland issued his veto. Naturally, of course, Republicans are outraged by this position and are vowing to wage "war" against Strickland.
What's important isn't whether Strickland is right or wrong. What's important is that he just showed the GOP-led General Assembly that he won't be pushed around and that he will use his powers to stop them from unilaterally enacting their agenda. If the Republicans in the General Assembly thought they could bully Ted Strickland, they just got a quick lesson in gubernatorial prerogatives. Let's hope they heed it.
Now, in this case, Taft believed that since the General Assembly ended his session on December 26, 2006, the ten days started then and consequently would end on January 6, 2007, before Strickland took office. The problem for the Republicans, though, is that while the General Assembly ended its session on December 26th, the bill wasn't received in the Governor's office until December 28th, 2006. By this calculation, the ten day period had not yet expired when Strickland issued his veto. Naturally, of course, Republicans are outraged by this position and are vowing to wage "war" against Strickland.
What's important isn't whether Strickland is right or wrong. What's important is that he just showed the GOP-led General Assembly that he won't be pushed around and that he will use his powers to stop them from unilaterally enacting their agenda. If the Republicans in the General Assembly thought they could bully Ted Strickland, they just got a quick lesson in gubernatorial prerogatives. Let's hope they heed it.
Gallup Poll Finds Big Majority Opposes Iraq War Escalation
The Gallup organization ran a pre-Bush speech (scheduled for Wednesday) poll on the issue of escalating the Iraqi War and found that a big majority opposes such escalation. (You can get the details by clicking on this entry's title. ) Gallup believes that support for the Bush's plan may increase after he gives the speech, but initially over 60% of the public is opposed to increasing the number of troops in Iraq.
Note that we are avoiding using the term "surge" to describe the planned troop increase. The word "surge" implies a short-term increase in troops, but there is nothing in this administration's recent history to give us confidence that the troop increase will be short-term, no matter what Bush says or doesn't say Wednesday night. We also think that the media is playing into Bush's hands when they allow him and his supporters to decide what language is going to be used to describe their actions.
One of the ways that Bush controls the media is by getting it to accept his language. His supporters use a label and if the media doesn't accept that label, it is accused of "bias" or more specifically, "liberal bias." Apparently the charge of "liberal bias" is so intimidating that grown men and women feel that they have no choice but to give in to the demands of Bush and his radical right-wing supporters.
Here is a news flash for the media: you get to decide what language to use to describe Bush's actions. That's part of your job. You are more than just stenographers blindly reporting what Bush and his supporters say.
Note that we are avoiding using the term "surge" to describe the planned troop increase. The word "surge" implies a short-term increase in troops, but there is nothing in this administration's recent history to give us confidence that the troop increase will be short-term, no matter what Bush says or doesn't say Wednesday night. We also think that the media is playing into Bush's hands when they allow him and his supporters to decide what language is going to be used to describe their actions.
One of the ways that Bush controls the media is by getting it to accept his language. His supporters use a label and if the media doesn't accept that label, it is accused of "bias" or more specifically, "liberal bias." Apparently the charge of "liberal bias" is so intimidating that grown men and women feel that they have no choice but to give in to the demands of Bush and his radical right-wing supporters.
Here is a news flash for the media: you get to decide what language to use to describe Bush's actions. That's part of your job. You are more than just stenographers blindly reporting what Bush and his supporters say.
Why Hawks Win: A Provocative Essay
Foreign Policy magazine has an article about why "hawks' prevail over "doves" when it comes to influencing policy-makers. The article, which can be linked to by clicking on this entry's title, argues that humans have a built in "bias" that leads policy makers to prefer the advice of "hawks" over "doves." It is a fascinating article and if you are interested in a psychological explanation of why Bubble-Boy got us into Iraq, this article is for you.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Hunters Pressuring NRA to Break With Bush Administration on Access to Public Lands
According to an article in the Washington Post, (which you can link to by clicking on this entry's title). hunters inside the National Rifle Association are pressuring the NRA to resist the Bush Administration's efforts to open Federal lands to development. Why? Because such development destroys hunting habitats. The Clinton Administration proposed and adopted a regulation during the 1990s that allowed hunters to walk in and ride horses into Federal lands, but prohibited the building of roads on such lands. At first both hunters and wildlife officials resisted such regulations, but now, after watching the Bushies turn over the Federal lands to mining and drilling interests, are beginning to support such regulations.
Is Bush Losing Utah?
According to a poll by the Salt Lake City Tribune only 42% of Utah residents support Bush's handling of the war. Only 44% support a escalation of the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. Just six months ago support for Bush on Iraq was over 50% in Utah. If Bubble-Boy is losing Utah, the GOP is in BIG trouble. _____________________________________________________________________
Click on the title of this entry to read the Tribune story about the poll.
Click on the title of this entry to read the Tribune story about the poll.
Advice to Progressives: Dream Bigger Dreams!
Katha Pollitt of the Nation magazine has advice for liberals: dream bigger dreams! Advocate universal healthcare for all, cheap or free higher education, and a minimum wage of $9.00 an hour and indexed for inflation. Build a movement and stop worrying about finding a leader. If you have the right movement, leaders will emerge and come to you. It is a provocative article and can be read by clicking on the link in the title heading.
Will 2008 Mark the End of "Boomer" Obessions in American Politics
Since 1968, when Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew first used what was perceived as the rise of the counter-culture to gain political power, presidential politics has been shaped by the forces unleashed in the 1960s. Most of the time this has been to the detriment of the Democratic Party. In that period Republicans won elections in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. During that period Democrats won elections in 1976, 1992, and 1998. If you are keeping score, that's Rs 7 and Ds 3.
The decade of the sixties unleashed a form of passionate politics because the challenges of that era were very divisive. America faced challenges to the established order from movements that advocated civil rights for blacks, women, and gays, from the anti-Vietnam War movement, from the environmental movement, and from people who challenged the existing sexual mores of the time. All of those movements found a political home in the Democratic Party and all of them were bitterly opposed by other Americans. It is not surprising that their opponents found a political home in the Republican Party.
It is no wonder, then, that the politics spawned by that era was and remains very personal and divisive. Time, however, changes everything. The "baby boom" started with people born in 1946 and ended with people born in 1960. The oldest boomers are now 60 and the youngest are 46. They are starting to give way to the next generation.
According to Howard Fineman of Newsweek this could lead to a politics that is no longer dominated by boomer obsessions. (You can read his article by clicking on the title of this entry.) Although his article doesn't go on with this analysis, Democrats far more than Republicans will benefit from America moving past the "culture wars." From our perspective it can't happen soon enough.
The decade of the sixties unleashed a form of passionate politics because the challenges of that era were very divisive. America faced challenges to the established order from movements that advocated civil rights for blacks, women, and gays, from the anti-Vietnam War movement, from the environmental movement, and from people who challenged the existing sexual mores of the time. All of those movements found a political home in the Democratic Party and all of them were bitterly opposed by other Americans. It is not surprising that their opponents found a political home in the Republican Party.
It is no wonder, then, that the politics spawned by that era was and remains very personal and divisive. Time, however, changes everything. The "baby boom" started with people born in 1946 and ended with people born in 1960. The oldest boomers are now 60 and the youngest are 46. They are starting to give way to the next generation.
According to Howard Fineman of Newsweek this could lead to a politics that is no longer dominated by boomer obsessions. (You can read his article by clicking on the title of this entry.) Although his article doesn't go on with this analysis, Democrats far more than Republicans will benefit from America moving past the "culture wars." From our perspective it can't happen soon enough.
Reader Submission: Getting the Government We Deserve
A Cleveland columnist recently said no one should expect state government to save the state. He said it should get out of the way so the entrepreneurs and big business can save us. Do we actually believe that?
State government is the 500-pound gorilla. Ohio has been terribly ill-served by this state government and particularly this legislature for more than 10 years. They have taken university and public school systems that were once considered in the elites of this country and practically dismantled them. Think employers want poorly educated workers?
This legislature has sent a resounding message around the country that Ohio is not an inclusive and welcoming state. Think cutting-edge industry and innovative entrepreneurs want to locate here with a message like that?
While declaring they've lowered taxes, this legislature has ferociously pushed the tax burden down to the local level. Upset about your local school taxes? Point your finger at this legislature.
What concerned parents will move to a state that doesn't value public education?
Look around this country and you find prospering areas have forward-thinking, innovative governments unafraid to lead. Those areas not doing well often have self-serving governments more interested in the next election than defending the people's interests.
We usually get the government we deserve. Unfortunately, right now we are getting exactly what we deserve. We swept the executive offices clean this last election. We'll see how our new leaders perform. However, the lame duck legislature's performance this month should have shamed all Ohioans. A majority of those folks are back next year. That does not bode well for our state.
Wake up, Ohio. Government does matter. Until we begin voting our economic interests we will continue our descent into the lowest-tier states. You and I and Ohio deserve much better.
Michael E. Kovack
Medina County AuditorMedina, Ohio
___________________________________________________________________
Mike Kovack is a Democrat and has been county auditor for Medina County since 1993. He was re-elected in 2006 without opposition.
State government is the 500-pound gorilla. Ohio has been terribly ill-served by this state government and particularly this legislature for more than 10 years. They have taken university and public school systems that were once considered in the elites of this country and practically dismantled them. Think employers want poorly educated workers?
This legislature has sent a resounding message around the country that Ohio is not an inclusive and welcoming state. Think cutting-edge industry and innovative entrepreneurs want to locate here with a message like that?
While declaring they've lowered taxes, this legislature has ferociously pushed the tax burden down to the local level. Upset about your local school taxes? Point your finger at this legislature.
What concerned parents will move to a state that doesn't value public education?
Look around this country and you find prospering areas have forward-thinking, innovative governments unafraid to lead. Those areas not doing well often have self-serving governments more interested in the next election than defending the people's interests.
We usually get the government we deserve. Unfortunately, right now we are getting exactly what we deserve. We swept the executive offices clean this last election. We'll see how our new leaders perform. However, the lame duck legislature's performance this month should have shamed all Ohioans. A majority of those folks are back next year. That does not bode well for our state.
Wake up, Ohio. Government does matter. Until we begin voting our economic interests we will continue our descent into the lowest-tier states. You and I and Ohio deserve much better.
Michael E. Kovack
Medina County AuditorMedina, Ohio
___________________________________________________________________
Mike Kovack is a Democrat and has been county auditor for Medina County since 1993. He was re-elected in 2006 without opposition.
Ken Blackwell: A Sore Loser Until the Bitter End
Ken Blackwell, the outgoing Secretary of State, has decided that he will not turn over the keys to his office until 12:01 am on Monday, January 8, 2007. Since the election he has refused to meet with Jennifer Brunner, the incoming Secretary of State. We have always wondered whether Republicans are worse losers than they are winners. As far as Blackwell is concerned, we know the answer, he is equally obnoxious in defeat as in victory.
You have to wonder where this kind of attitude comes from, since it is shown by a lot of Republicans. Basically we think that it stems from a belief that they are better than others, and that kind of mindset cannot handle voter rejection. We believe that they are overlooking the opportunity their recent state-wide defeats have given them. Now they will be able to put into practice their belief that the private market is better at economic evaluation than government. They will now have a chance to show everyone just what the private market thinks of their abilities. On second thought, maybe that is exactly what they are afraid of and could explain why they are so bitter about losing power.
___________________________________________________________________
Click on the title of this entry to read a news article on the transition of power in various state offices.
You have to wonder where this kind of attitude comes from, since it is shown by a lot of Republicans. Basically we think that it stems from a belief that they are better than others, and that kind of mindset cannot handle voter rejection. We believe that they are overlooking the opportunity their recent state-wide defeats have given them. Now they will be able to put into practice their belief that the private market is better at economic evaluation than government. They will now have a chance to show everyone just what the private market thinks of their abilities. On second thought, maybe that is exactly what they are afraid of and could explain why they are so bitter about losing power.
___________________________________________________________________
Click on the title of this entry to read a news article on the transition of power in various state offices.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
ABC News Reports: Senators Regret Iraq War Vote
ABC News is reporting that at least 57 Senators would vote against the Iraq War Resolution if it was presented for a vote today. ABC News reports that, at most, only 43 Senators would vote for the resolution. _________________________________________________________________
You can get the full details by clicking on the arrow next to this entry's title. Thanks to the blogger Minor Ripper who sent us the link to this story.
You can get the full details by clicking on the arrow next to this entry's title. Thanks to the blogger Minor Ripper who sent us the link to this story.
State Senator Capri Cafaro's Swearing-In
State Senator Capri Cafaro was sworn in this week as a new Ohio State Senator. Capri had run for Congress in the 13th District and had campaigned extensively in Medina County. She was kind enough to send us photos of her swearing in and we decided to share them with our readers. If you have photos of Democratic events and would like to share them with MCDAC, send them to us at the email address below the picture of State Senator Cafaro.
Dems Adopt "PayGo" in the U.S. House
The Democratic controlled U.S. House of Representatives voted yesterday to change the budget rules for the U.S. House. They went back to a system that the Republicans used during Clinton's presidency, but abandoned when George W. Bush became president. The system's nickname is PayGo and works like this: any new spending increase proposed has to be backed by either tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere and any new tax cuts have to be backed by either spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere. (You can link to the CBS News story about PayGo by clicking on the arrow next to this entry's title.)
Adopting PayGo will help to restore fiscal sanity to Congress, but only a third of the Republicans voted for it. Why? Because it will make it harder to extend Bush's reckless tax cuts when they expire in 2010. Given a choice between cutting taxes and moving toward a balanced budget, most Republicans chose cutting taxes. This vote, more than any other that will be taken this session, shows that Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility, they are the party of reckless tax cutting. Republicans used to call Democrats "tax and spend liberals". Well, the vote on PayGo shows that they are "borrow and spend radical conservatives."
Adopting PayGo will help to restore fiscal sanity to Congress, but only a third of the Republicans voted for it. Why? Because it will make it harder to extend Bush's reckless tax cuts when they expire in 2010. Given a choice between cutting taxes and moving toward a balanced budget, most Republicans chose cutting taxes. This vote, more than any other that will be taken this session, shows that Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility, they are the party of reckless tax cutting. Republicans used to call Democrats "tax and spend liberals". Well, the vote on PayGo shows that they are "borrow and spend radical conservatives."
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Republican County Treasurer vs. Republican County Commissioners
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on Wednesday that earlier this week Republican Medina County Treasurer John Burke sent a letter to the three Republican Medina County Commissioners demanding that they personally help reimburse his office for a missing tax payment. (The story can be viewed by clicking on the arrow next to this entry's title.)
In 2006 approximately $1,000.00 that was received as a tax payment was found to be missing from the County Treasurer's office. Employees of the Treasurer's office made up the missing money from personal funds. In the letter Burke claimed that the missing payment was the result of the Medina County Commissioners not providing him with adequate computer software and equipment. He therefore suggested that the County Commissioners each contribute $12.00, which was the same amount contributed by each of his employees. The Commissioners are refusing this request.
In 2006 approximately $1,000.00 that was received as a tax payment was found to be missing from the County Treasurer's office. Employees of the Treasurer's office made up the missing money from personal funds. In the letter Burke claimed that the missing payment was the result of the Medina County Commissioners not providing him with adequate computer software and equipment. He therefore suggested that the County Commissioners each contribute $12.00, which was the same amount contributed by each of his employees. The Commissioners are refusing this request.
Bush to Blame General George Casey for Iraq Problems?
The New York Times published a report that Bush has supposedly lost confidence in General Casey, the head of the American military in Iraq, and is going to replace him as the top commander. The article, which can be read by clicking on the arrow next to the title of this entry, quotes unnamed administration sources as saying that Bush lost confidence in Casey over the last year. Never mind, of course, that Bush and Cheney kept singing Casey's praises in 2006, someone has to take the fall for Bubble-Boy's screw-ups, and Casey's name has come up.
The attempt to blame Casey for the mistakes of the Iraq War brings this question to mind: is there anyone involved with George W. Bush who has not suffered a loss to their reputation? Think about it. Tony Blair, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, even Dick Cheney, to name just a few, have all suffered damage to their reputations. The United States Supreme Court has seen its reputation decline since it put him in office with the dubious reasoning of Bush v. Gore. The American people have suffered an enormous blow to its reputation because of the Iraqi War. Bubble-Boy trashes the reputation of everyone involved with him.
The attempt to blame Casey for the mistakes of the Iraq War brings this question to mind: is there anyone involved with George W. Bush who has not suffered a loss to their reputation? Think about it. Tony Blair, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, even Dick Cheney, to name just a few, have all suffered damage to their reputations. The United States Supreme Court has seen its reputation decline since it put him in office with the dubious reasoning of Bush v. Gore. The American people have suffered an enormous blow to its reputation because of the Iraqi War. Bubble-Boy trashes the reputation of everyone involved with him.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Bush to Call for Sacrifice?
The BBC is reporting that President Bush, aka "Bubble-Boy", is going to call for sacrifice when he announces to America that he is increasing the number of troops in Iraq. (You can read the article by clicking on the arrow next to this post's title.) That brings up this question, just who is sacrificing for Bush's war?
The over 3,000 American troops killed have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their families have sacrificed. The over 22,000 American troops wounded have sacrificed. Their families have sacrificed. The men and women serving in Iraq are sacrificing. Their families are sacrificing. That's it. No one else. Why? Because George W. Bush has not demanded that his supporters, who don't fall into one the above categories, sacrifice anything to support his war.
He has not demanded that they support a tax raise to pay for the cost of this war.
He has not demanded that they consider enlisting to support this war.
His children are not enlisting to support this war.
In short, he has not demanded any sacrifice of the American people or of his supporters in support of this war, unless they fall into one of the groups listed above. It just seems to us that if our government is going to send American men and women to war, it should at least ask the rest of us to bear some cost of that war.
The over 3,000 American troops killed have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their families have sacrificed. The over 22,000 American troops wounded have sacrificed. Their families have sacrificed. The men and women serving in Iraq are sacrificing. Their families are sacrificing. That's it. No one else. Why? Because George W. Bush has not demanded that his supporters, who don't fall into one the above categories, sacrifice anything to support his war.
He has not demanded that they support a tax raise to pay for the cost of this war.
He has not demanded that they consider enlisting to support this war.
His children are not enlisting to support this war.
In short, he has not demanded any sacrifice of the American people or of his supporters in support of this war, unless they fall into one of the groups listed above. It just seems to us that if our government is going to send American men and women to war, it should at least ask the rest of us to bear some cost of that war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)