I miss you e-strip. It's been too long. I've been lurking around here again lately and the new site is sweet!

As usual, I came here to talk about politics, I haven't been writing as much, though I have been active, SB CREW Quakers VOICE

Anyway, I read in the Buffalo News Erie County is cutting $4 million cut from the library budget.


The more I thought about it, the more I realized just how insane these cuts are. Cutting jobs, and open hours at the library? When library use is up? When so many people are unemployed, and might need to use the library computers to look for a job? When parents are cutting back and taking their kids to use the library?
That ain't right.

When times are tough, we need to work together.

So I just wrote a letter to some of my local representatives and sent a letter to the Buffalo News. I hope you will email somebody and protest.

thanks,

---

Here's my letter to the Buffalo News

---

I strongly oppose cuts to the library budget. According to the article "Libraries, trimmed again" in Sunday's News, The County proposes cutting $4 million dollars, changing their budget from $22 million to $18 million, that's almost 20% savings.

Essentially each resident is saving 20% too. Since we pay about $30.13 per resident, we each save $6 per year. And the price we pay, is 200 lost jobs at the library. Just to save $6 per resident, we sacrifice 200 more jobs in Erie County.

This proposal is outrageous.
The county executive is pinching pennies, and as a direct result we lose 200 jobs. This is horrible mismanagement of government resources, by a county executive who is willing to ignore the obvious, in favor of his blind devotion to budget cuts.

I'm a homeowner, and I'm proud to pay taxes for the vital services in our community. Especially in times like this, when so many people are looking for work and may need a computer or other help from our libraries.

We should be expanding programs, not cutting back. The county should contribute its share.

Don't cut the budget.

David

---

I just wanted to mention this.

the Republicans are boycotting the committee meetings for the Environment and Public Works committee.

That committee is trying to work on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. That's how we build a 21st century economy so we can start making solar panels and other cutting edge stuff in America. I think that stuff is kind of important. But the Republicans aren't showing up. This is a video from the hearing, notice that the bottom half of the table is empty. The only Republican is James Inhofe, he stops buy for 2 minutes, drops off a statement and leaves. This is the video of that.




one of the things I hate about politics is when people put loyalty to their political party over loyalty to the country and its citizens. I think we should be talking about the environment right now.

This is especially a problem in light of the fact that the World is meeting to discuss Climate Change in Copenhagen in mid December

We need to get our act together.

Yesterday was tax day. There were a bunch of symbolic protests across the country. "Tea Party" protests. here's the article about the one in Buffalo

Anyway, I'm not going into detail here. but one slogan I saw a few places.

"Born Free, Taxed to Death"





There are a lot of ways to die... That's one of the reasons we have firefighters, and police, and traffic signals, and Medicare, Social Security, and the Food and Drug Administration.... you get the idea.

In many ways, we actually pay taxes to protect ourselves from death. Because paying $25 per year to help fund a Police force is a lot simpler, cheaper, and easier than hiring a private security force, or detective, or getting a gun or a baseball bat and going all vigilante style.

Maybe that's going a little too far, according to the Buffalo News Tea party Protesters "said they favor spending on the military, police, roads and other critical infrastructure,"

But... "social welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicaid had few fans."

"...yea... fend for yourselves.. you over 65 socialists, we don't owe you shit!!! One for.. me, and ... all for .. none... or... All for me, and none for you!!! whatever, Hows'it go?...."

I guess it sounds good. "I work hard for my money, I deserve to keep it all. And if somebody's got more money, i guess they just work super hard, and they deserve it too."

my point is this; if we worked together, we wouldn't have to bust our ass all the time just to get by.


"Yea! screw Social Security... I should be able to put my kids through college, pay medical expenses, insurance costs for my car and house, oh.. pay off that student loan. and have plenty left over to retire!... Yea!! freedom!!!!!"..../ what the fuck is that shit.

If we didn't spend so much time worrying about the future, worrying about illness, college loans, retirement... I know I'd have a lot more freedom.

We have to work together. It's patriotic, and human to care about your neighbors, your family, the citizens your country. It's supposed to be "all for one, and one for all" We should look out for each other.

You know teachers work hard, so do farmers, so do computer programmers, and so do your parents... and we all couldn't get by without them. But they each make different amounts of money. And it's not because they don't work hard enough, most of the time it's just cruel luck.

You also don't need to be greedy to work hard. or to contribute to your society. I think that selfcentered individualistic bullshit is un-American. How about soldiers? They're some of the most selfless, hard working people you'll meet. totally not motivated by greed. they want to help people.... imagine that, motivated by an urge to help. Not so hard right? I think it's just human nature to want to help.


"E pluribus unum" it's on our money, a motto adopted at the founding of this country, it's Latin for "Out of Many, One," it means we're all in this together.

The essential point of government is to help us work together in an orderly way. Government is not the problem, selfcentered politicians have betrayed us.


PS. my Father in-law is in the paper, the last 4 paragraphs, about the counter protester with the Veterans for Peace Tee Shirt

I'm frustrated. I don't even know where to start. I think Washington hates change. it seems like they're doing everything possible to preserve the current systems that have destroyed the country. Life changes, circumstances change, and you have to adjust, or else you're screwed. I think we're getting closer and closer to "screwed".

So much of our way of life is unsustainable, but it seems like our politicians are trying to preserve all of it. As if they think a lifestyle based on importing chinese crap, exporting weapons, moving our manufacturing to Mexico, building McMansions on farmland, running our lives on credit, saving zero dollars as a nation, shrinking the middle class, letting our cities rot, and leaving our healthcare up to insurance companies instead of doctors, is something we should be fighting for.

I thought we had finally hit bottom, but now I'm not so sure. Corruption runs deep. There are a lot of people making money off of our misery. I was hopeful that we'd finally see some progress now that the people on top are hurting too, because of the Stock Market. But these bailout proposals look like free cash for Wall Street.

And why the hell does big business think they're entitled to free cash and aid from the government without penalty? Oh, right, cause there's no such thing as a free market, we always bail out the fat cats, that's the way it's always been.

two big issues are bugging the shit out of me. Healthcare and the Economy. I've decided to start with the Economy.

2 Opinions about the economic problem

There seems to be two general opinions on what the problem is in the Stock Market.

1) the first opinion is the Tim Geitner, Paulson, Wall Street perspective

2) the second opinion is the Krugman, Stiglitz, Robert Shapiro, Richard Freeman, and dcoffee perspective. Along with all the others who support wasting as little money as possible, protecting the public, and letting the lying gamblers on Wall Street who got us into this mess go broke.

1) the first opinion;
The main problem is that investors are scared. There is too much instability in the market, and nobody has confidence that they can make money. But things are fundamentally sound, the assets and most of the companies are OK, they're just undervalued because nobody is buying right now. But eventually things will go back to normal.

2) the second opinion;
Some of the money that people had on paper never existed, or it was grossly inflated because of the crazy housing bubble and other bundled debt that was sold. So actually there are 2-3 trillion dollars missing from the stock market, and it's not coming back.

these two ideas are not really compatible. Sure there is a crisis of confidence, that is obvious, but the money either exists or it doesn't. And if it doesn't exist, we'll have to find out what's worthless sooner or later. Or we can let the government buy the trash and save Wall Street's ass.

1) the first opinion supports the idea of giving 'aid' and 'relief' to financial institutions to help them get through this troubled period. Everything will go back to normal eventually, but right now the usual investors are just acting irrational. Maybe the government could buy the worst assets that nobody really understands, and nobody wants. Then it's our problem, instead of Wall Street's, and wall street can at least go back to normal.

2) the second opinion says that, there was a lot of gambling going on in the market, there was a lot of deception, and everybody lost money in the end. Now the public as a whole is in danger because our money was in that corrupt system. The government is the only one who can stabilize the market for the sake of protecting us all. This involves firing the people who got us into this mess, taking control of all the assets from that institution, not just the 'toxic assets'. The government reestablishes confidence by figuring out what all that stuff is really worth, and sells it back once we've made sense of it. We've done this in the past, in the 80's during the savings and loan crisis, maybe you forgot about that crisis, cause the nationalization plan worked damn well.

1) you might call the first option, cash for trash. Or a Bailout.

2) you might call the second option, detox. Or Nationalization.


The fundamental disagreement is weather the money exists or not. Call me crazy, but I don't think people on Wall Street can't accept that the money is gone. If you're on Wall Street you cannot be objective, because you want that money, you expected it, and the fact that it's gone is just impossible, no matter how much research you see to the contrary.

What happened to the money? A lot of it was based on mortgages and other debt. Everyone assumed that housing prices could only go up. So you got a big mortgage, and bought an amazing house. Your house was like a huge credit card that not only had a big credit limit, but its value went up, and eventually you could sell it and make a profit, or at least pay off a chunk out of the debt you owed on it. You wanted an expensive house, so even lame houses became expensive, and you didn't care, cause the value could only go up. At least, that's what everyone said.

The money was based on all of our debt, and we had a shitload, we still do. But we're not so sure we can pay it back, and neither are the banks, cause unemployment is rising. When you take out a 20-30 year mortgage at 4% - 5% you end up paying double, that's right, double, go ahead do the math. So that means the banks, as soon as they gave you that mortgage, they acted like they had cash in their hand. They figured about a quarter of the overall money they were owed wouldn't be paid back. So you get a $200,000 loan, they double it to $400,000, and subtract a quarter, and they guess they're going to make $100,000 from the interest over time. so they took that money, and used it on the stock market.

Add our consumer debt to that pile. And you realize this money is not coming back.


There's a hole in the market, that money is gone. The part that bugs me is that this problem was created on Wall Street, and they expect the taxpayer to bail them out. We should bail ourselves out, and put the greedy crooks who crashed the system in jail.

Religious Right ditching the Republicans? Some prominent leaders apparently ready for something. Watch this video, it might brighten your day.


I'm starting to wonder about the Shrinking Republican party. If more moderate Republicans continue to leave the party and become Independents, who's left in the Republican Party? Fanatics, Extremists, Ideologues.. right? So that means that those are the people will be deciding who the Republican candidates are in the primary elections. Most states have closed primaries where only registered Republicans can vote in primary elections. So... following these numbers, as the Republican party shrinks, the remaining members will be fanatic Rush Limbaugh dittoheads, and other like minded far right folks, right? Seems like the Republican candidates are going to get more extreme and more partisan, and more polarizing because of the people who select them during the primary. Which ends up pushing the party further out of the mainstream, and onto the fringe. Freaky.

Schumer on the Economy...

On the other hand, I watched Lindsy Grahm (R-SC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Meet the Press Yesterday. These two guys seem smart, and they look like they can have an open discussion and agree on some issues. It was refreshing. click on the "netcast" link to watch the whole thing.

Earmarks...

There's more transparency in the process now, you can look at every earmark and see who suggested it online. And there's about one fifth of the earmarks that there were last year. Plus, these things do create jobs in most cases, so I'm not categorically against "earmarks" so long as people are willing to put their name on them, and make it public.

Nationalize the Banks...

I guess we are waiting for the "Stress Tests" to be complete before we decide what to do with what banks. Schumer says there is no "one size fits all" solution here, and I think that's practical. Let's say CitiGroup is bankrupt, you can let them fail, but that means you'll have to pay out all the FDIC insurance on deposits up to $250,000, that's gotta be expensive. Or you can buy their bad assets, and take shareholder stake in their company, also expensive. Or Nationalization, still not completely sure what this means, something about firing the board of directors, getting rid of the shareholders, and taking the assets into a government trust untill they fix the accounting and find out how much the bank is actually worth. Then they sell it back to the private market. I'm still reading this Stiglitz article about Nationalization

Employee Free Choice Act is Awesome...
We definitely would be a stronger nation with this.

One More... The GOP strategy must be broader than this Make the Democrats less popular... How about fixing your own party sometime too.

Oh, and can I get a Hell Yea for National Healthcare?

I pride myself on being able to see things from another person's point of view. Understanding Republicans or Libertarians, or WTO protesters, or Jehovah Witnesses, or other countries, or people who resort to violence, at one point I even tried to understand Limbaugh's perspective...

I feel that most people are rational. If people are honest with you, you can usually understand their perspective when you look at their life experience and values. And you can have a rational discussion.

Right now I don't understand the Republicans, and it's kind of bothering me.

Last week, they actually called for a spending freeze. They wanted the federal government to call some kind of time-out and not spend any money until October.

Honestly, if we followed that idea it would be an instant death blow to our economy. All the employees that would be laid off from state local and federal jobs? Probably around a million, at least. All the construction projects around the country that would come to a halt. Government programs like medicare that would dry up and leave us without a safety net. It really would be like the Great Depression all over again. No safety net, no jobs, no money, tent cities, food riots, the whole miserable package.

And this wasn't some talking point floating around on cable news, they introduced a Bill in the House of Representatives and voted on the crazy thing. AND every Republican voted FOR it, along with 8 Democrats in the house. I'm serious.

Can you find a single economist who thinks that is a good idea? Even at the Heritage Foundation or PNAC? It's completely Insane.

Some Republicans do not agree with this kind of... policy?

David Brooks calls it "Insane" David Frum, says the party should fight for independent voters minorities and women, instead of worrying about Rush Limbaugh and his audience of True Believers.

These Republicans make more sense to me, I can follow their train of thought, even if I don't agree. They are not liberal, they're definitely 'invisible hand of the market' types, but I just think they're critical thinkers, they're logical, so I can understand them.

Sometimes You gotta Change Your Mind

You have to govern based on the facts you have available, and the situation that's in front of you. I think some Party Loyalists are just married to their talking points, they've worked so hard over the years to burn their slogans into our brains. "Big government = Bad" "Tax Cuts = Good" "Big Business = Efficient" "Government = Wasteful"

Those slogans are Old, they originated based on circumstances that no longer exist. You Must adjust to the facts, and address the current situations.

You know Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. If he ran today, he'd have Grover Norquist and Karl Rove chasing him out of the country and calling him an anti-American Socialist, who would bring an end to America as we know it.

That reminds me, knock it off with the Socialism please. We were not socialist under Clinton, and we are not a 4.6% tax increase away from becoming Cuba. Ditch the slogans and talking points, get your heads out of the box, and look at the information that's in front of you.

Maybe...

Maybe Nationalizing the Banks is smarter than letting them fail and cheaper than pumping out a few trillion to resurrect them.

Maybe GM wouldn't need a bailout, and neither would anyone else if we abandoned the Employer Based Healthcare system that is bankrupting our companies.

Maybe "Free Trade" never really benefited America, and we should try manufacturing things in our own country again.

Maybe lowering taxes on the rich doesn't create the most jobs. And maybe some government programs are actually useful and should be expanded.

Maybe, just maybe, sometimes you have to try something else. because the facts and the circumstances have changed.

"Ronald Reagan was a great leader and a great president because he addressed the problems of his time. But we have very different problems-and we need very different answers...." We need real solutions.

It's obvious at this point, the Republican Party is in permanent campaign mode, still. Their primary concern is regaining power and making the Democrats look bad. They are most concerned about elections, about their own political future, not about doing what they honestly think is best for the country.

Case in Point, Arlen Specter, Republican Senator who listened to his conscience and actually voted for the bill. Arlen believes that some of his Republican colleges are glad the bill passed "without their fingerprints on it". From an interview after the vote, "My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary....'" (translation, he might offend the Limbaugh's of the world, and they'll try to smear him in the Primary election) you can listen to the actual audio there too. (Another Example: Dancing about obstruction. ) there's plenty of examples.


I think we can take it as a fact, the top concern of at least SOME Republicans is reelection, and their internal calculations told them voting against the bill would work out better for them. (others may just have nonsensical thought patterns :) which allowed them to believe their convoluted arguments against it, like spending doesn't stimulate the economy, and the New Deal didn't work. Sorry, but you have to wonder) anyway

If your top concern is reelection, or the survival of your party... Governing, and serving your constituents, becomes your second priority, along with everything else.

How can Obama beat the math and bring the change to Washington that he promised?

First you get the public on your side, then the politicians follow. Work from the bottom up, outside of Washington. If Congress is worried about reelection, go straight to the people who elect them.

I think Obama's press conference, and his town hall meetings were very effective. And the underlying reason is that he looks like he is fighting for the public, meanwhile congress looked like it was fighting amongst itself.

The reason for Obama's 70%-80% approval rating is his working class hero image, and his promise to bring the public into the government.

Obama left Washington, and met with people at his town hall events. He heard our concerns, and he basically promised solutions. Manwhile back in Washington, the Democrats followed his lead, to make sure those promises were kept.

I watched Obama on TV, and I called my Congressman. I wanted more School funding and state aid, but with a pre-condition of strict oversight, because I know state governments are corrupt too. I wanted the housing tax credit provision eliminated, or focused on less expensive homes so it would be useful to my neighbors who don't make $150,000 per year, and whose homes sell for $70,000. Not sure if my voice mad it to negations (Higgins was there) but my concerns were addressed.

The point is, People hear Obama speak, and they agree, then they call their congressman. That's how you get the job done. Bring the heat from the street.

The Irony, Obama is kind of a Washington outsider with a bold list of changes. As president, he is the leader in Washington. But Washington has stubborn traditions, that don't die easily. He seems to do well when he's fighting from the outside.

Symptom: Ideological Blockage
Solution: Leave Washington

The economic recovery bill.

critics are claiming that the bill won't effect the economy for two years. Because government projects take a while to start. The state and local governments have to request proposals, and approve things before they get the project started.

OK we live in Buffalo, things tend to drag on for a while. But many of the projects in Buffalo are just waiting for money, and now that the state has budget problems, even more of those projects have been thrown into limbo. I can think of street projects in South Buffalo, the inner harbor project, and the Rath building just off the top of my head. These projects have already been approved and, the contractors have been approved too. We have projects here that are immediate. Plus even if it takes 6 months to approve a contractor for the other 100 plans in Buffalo, once the contractor gets that project, they can count on that money. Since they have money on the way, they can spend what they have in the bank on some new equipment, or they'll be more likely to get a loan based on their projected income. And Buffalo is just one city, there are thousands like us in the US that have been neglected for years. We've got the projects, $billions of them.

and as for the price tag, if the banks get $700 billion, so should the middle class.


The CEO Pay cap at $500,000

Critics call this government intervention in private business. I call it terms of the loan. The point is this, if these companies went to a private bank for a loan, they wouldn't get it. If they did get a loan it would have strict rules, and an extremely high interest rate. These companies thought that since the loan was coming from the government it was easy money, free money, why not apply for it (that was M&T's take on it). But the government decided not to be their bitch, they decided to look out for the taxpayer and not reward failure.

$500,000 salary cap, big deal, we're loaning you the money and those are our terms. Take it or leave it. So today Goldman Saks decides maybe they don't want the loan after all. GOOD, saves us money. That's the point, this is an exceptionally good loan for those who have no credit, it's a service of the government, because no private business is going to do it. But there are conditions, it's not free money, and if you don't NEED it, don't take it. Why should we give money to banks that don't need it.

I'm pissed off at the Republicans. I hope the party goes extinct. Really. because I don't believe they have the best interests of the country at heart.

I hope that isn't true, for America's sake, I hope they actually are patriots, and I'm trying to understand why they act this way.

Why are they so divisive, why are they so misleading, why do they refuse to compromise?

In case you missed it, no Republicans in the house of Representatives voted for the economic recovery package. What's up with the herd of opposition?

If you are working on some legislation, you propose an idea or you advocate for some changes, and when those changes make it into the final bill you usually vote for it. The democrats took out a bunch of 'liberal' provisions and 'wasteful spending'. The Democrats compromised, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public trusts the ideas of Democrats when it comes to the economy.

The republicans got a lot of what they wanted, much more than they ever gave the Democrats. But not a single house republican voted for the economic recovery bill. You'll see the republicans all over the media criticizing the bill, and offering no suggestions for improving it, except tax cuts or reducing the price tag (both of which would make the bill less effective).

Why?

I have a few ideas.

Maybe it's the permanent campaign mentality. Your team must win, and the other team must lose. Therefore the other team can absolutely never have a good idea, unless they agree with you of course. And when they agree with you, you get to say I told you so and call them weak.

Maybe it's their conservative market philosophy of self-interest spilling over into everyday life. The 'invisible hand' of the market, where if everyone follows their own rational self-interest, we magically end up with the best collective solution too. So they are all looking out for their own self interest first and foremost. Which I guess means winning elections, hoarding power, making lots of money, and get lots of campaign contributions and political favors.

Maybe redistricting and gerrymandering plays a role too. House members represent little pieces of a state, so they put the democrats on democratic pieces and the republicans on republican pieces. So the voters in their district largely prefer to keep the same party every year. Their seats are in safe Republican territory, they don't have to fear running against a Democrat (there usually is none, the incumbent is unopposed anyway) So the only thing they have to worry about is another Republican challenging them in the primary. And they only way that could happen is if the incumbent pisses of his donors, and they fund the opposition instead.

hmmm, following the logic in that last one, I guess it's about the money?


well none of those are patriotic reasons, but they seem the most logical to me. I mean, we've tried tax cuts for 8 years, did George "the king of tax cuts" Bush miss that one essential tax cut that will fix all our problems?


Maybe the Senate won't be so confrontational. They each represent an entire state, which is more politically diverse than a house district. and they also have more time between elections. Maybe they'll act more like statesmen, then their brothers in the House who look like prep school punks.

I doubt the Senate would filibuster, this is a popular bill, and they can't afford to slow it down. Especially after Obama has shown them so much compromise and respect (especially compared to the last 20 years).

Let them vote against it, and watch in horror when it passes and actually puts people back to work. Then all the campaign commercials in 2010 will ominously say "he voted against Obama's recovery package. Wrong on the economy, wrong for America"

I'm interested to see how this 'economic recovery package' works out.

There's a lot going on. I just hope our representatives put the country first, and get down to business. Are you loyal to your political party, your ideology? Or are you a patriot, who cares most about the well being of our citizens.

I hope we have enough patriots in Washington to get us out of this hole.

I'm sick of the he said she said crap that passes for political discourse. I'm sick of the perpetual campaign, where you're always trying to make 'my colleagues on the other side of the aisle' look evil. I'm sick of power struggles, political favors, and games. I'm sick of hidden agendas.

I don't care what party you're in, you were elected to represent the will of the people. We elected You, because we trust you to look out for us, NOT to look out for yourselves.

I don't want to be too hard on the Republicans, I'd really hate to be in their shoes. And I'm sure the Democrats aren't going to be easy on them. When the Republicans had power, they used that power to exclude and marginalize the Democrats. Payback has got to be appealing..

It's not going to be easy to put this bitch back together.

I gotta say though, this past weekend was a stunt. All the Republicans doing a full court press, all over TV, to tear down the stimulus package. Every one of them saying they'd vote against it. This was a game. A decision by the Republican party to begin the 2010 campaign now. Start attacking Obama, and drawing lines in the sand. I really don't think the country has patience for that shit.

Some fanatics out there must believe that the Democrats are evil, or something, because they'd rather see Obama fail. They'd rather see the next 2 years land us in a Great Depression so they can point fingers and say "see, I told you so, the democrat party was in power, and look what happened. You fools better elect some Republicans to fix their mess." Boy that would be great for the Republican party, the more Obama fails, and the more the country and the economy are destroyed, the better their chances in 2010, or 2012.

But I hope those are only the fanatics. Because the people in Washington have more important things to do than watch the country burn.

Every person I've talked to since the election says, "I hope Obama gets something done quick, we got some serious problems in this country, I hope he can deliver." It's not just democrats, everyone has a family member who isn't making both ends meet. Laid off, part time, pay cut, can't find work, turning off the cable and internet, getting rid of a cell phone or a car. Americans are not as divided as we were, we all have the same problems. I think we're also optimistic that we can solve those problems. We're a proud nation, we have faith in ourselves.

You know what the public wants, Fix it, get 'er done. Get to work, putting us back to work.