Tuesday, August 31, 2010

roy and seniors. cops remove the old folks



-------
my understanding, cops called and dangerous folks removed.

Monday, August 30, 2010

more teabag nonsense

from todays msnbc's countdown. another "get rid" of social security guff

------

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



----------

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Friday, August 27, 2010

cat food committee--debt committee and social security

cat food, staple of older Americans diets, could become even more prevelent if "debt commitee" has its way.

How do I know this? Obama selected many on the debt commitee whom are active supporters of social security "phae-out" or privatization.

Whom knows what a lame duck congress will do?

from excellent article at http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/obama-packs-debt-committee-with-supportes-of-social-security-benefit-cuts-and-privatization/

-------

go on:



President Obama has packed the Debt Commission (also known as the cat food commission) with members who have an overwhelming history of support for both benefit cuts and privatization of Social Security.

The “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform” is operating in secret over the objections of both parties. John Boehner and John Conyers have both raised concerns that the commission will make recommendations in December that could be passed by a lame duck Congress that doesn’t have to worry about being reelected. They requested that the commission report its findings prior to the election so that the public can have a chance to factor in the recommendations into their voting decisions in the election. The commission denied the request.

As we are seeing with Audit the Fed, it is falling to Judd Gregg — who doesn’t have to worry about being reelected — to raise concerns about “populist pandering,” and he is likely to be the one to refuse unanimous consent and force a cloture vote that will impose a 60 vote hurdle. (The transpartisan support for Audit the Fed we’ve built over the year makes it difficult for anyone with re-election worries to play the Joe Lieberman role, even Joe Lieberman.) Though they have different agendas with regard to the outcome, the concerns of both Boehner and Conyers and the commission’s lack of transparency are well founded.

As we reported at the time, the Obama White House has been interested in cutting Social Security right out of the gate. David Brooks reported that three administration officials called him to say Obama “is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security as well as health spending” in March of 2009. The neoliberal TNR/JournoList set who cheered on the Iraq war and the corporate-friendly health care bill are already lending their support: Privatizing Social
No, Cutting Social Security, Si! says Jon Chait.

Chait conflates and confuses two separate statements. Obama has dismantled liberal opposition to many of George Bush’s policies, and whatever he wants to do with Social Security will be accepted by many just because they like him. Matt Yglesias had this to say about Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court: “Clinton & Obama like and trust [Kagan], and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama.” To which Glenn Greenwald rightly responds, “In other words, according to Chemerinksy and Yglesias, progressives will view Obama’s choice as a good one by virtue of the fact that it’s Obama choice. Isn’t that a pure embodiment of mindless tribalism and authoritarianism? ”

What Wall Street wants is to wind up with a good chunk of the Social Security trust fund in its own coffers. Where that intersects with the objectives of the commission remains to be seen, but the fact is that Obama has packed it with people who have a strong history of supporting both reducing benefits and privatization. Even the token “liberals” like Jan Schakowsky have a history of abandoning their strongest principles when the President asks it of them, and Dick Durbin is now telling “bleeding heart liberals” to be open to benefit cuts for the sake of the fiscal responsibility.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

more economics--entitlement cuts and more

entitlement: social security is one and presently one overpaid by workers. The "overpayent" has resulted in the $2.5 trillion dollar pile of 't'bills. This is the largest pile of cash in history. any wonder it up for grabs?

how many years of continued tax cuts would the result from looting the fund?

--------



----------

Monday, August 9, 2010

radioactive scabs and the lockout 2

This ia a letter to the editor in today's St Louis Post Dispatch on the locked out steelworkers:


Posted: Monday, August 9, 2010 12:00 am |

Locking out workers in a time of war

Regarding "Uranium plant dispute rocks town" (Aug. 1): At the Honeywell Corp. plant in Metropolis, Ill., workers process "yellow cake" uranium. The United Steelworkers have been negotiating with Honeywell for months. Despite an offer by the union to continue working without an agreement, corporate officials locked out the workers.

These workers have performed this dangerous work for more than 50 years. There is growing proof that workers, families and area residents have a cancer rate much higher than normal.

In wartime, unions give up raises and agree to "no-strike" clauses and pay freezes. US Steel, Ford, GM, Alcoa and others continue to make huge profits from war production. What would the public say about a union that went on strike against the steel, aluminum, aircraft or automotive industry in a time of war? The workers would be reviled.

The United States is engaged in two wars that have killed more than 6,000 Americans. If this plant does not produce, it could endanger national security. Why are patriots not crying out against the unpatriotic Honeywell?

Honeywell CEO David M. Cote got $9.7 million last year. It's time for Honeywell executives to do the right thing for the people who make the sacrifices for the corporation: the workers.

Gary Gaines • Granite City

Support Honeywell Workers --vid

more on locked-outworkers in Metropolis

------

ThePaducahMoon | July 09, 2010
AT 6:30 P.M ON MONDAY JUNE 28, 2010 THE COMPANY LOCKED THE UNION OUT OF THE PLANT EVEN THOUGH THE UNION OFFERED TO WORK UNDER THE OLD AGREEMENT.

THE UNION AGREED TO A CONTRACT EXTENSION AS LONG AS THE COMPANY AGREED NOT TO LOCK US OUT! THE COMPANY HAS FALSELY CLAIMED THAT WE REFUSED TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT.
=====

Saturday, August 7, 2010

radioactive scabs and the lockout






It pleased me greatly to stand with steelworkers locked out in Metropolis, IL. today.

Steelworkers from several areas (including a good group from Granite City} we also in attendance. Director Jim Robinson, Jeff Rains, Dave Dowling and a couple score of eaststders made the trip. Other District 7 folks and leaders we there

Impressive as well was the public support shown by the local community.

Local 7-669 had the right stuff today and has earned the respect of labor.

-----article: http://www.westkentuckystar.com/Featured-News/USW-Union-Members---Supporters-Rally-in-Metropolis

USW Union Members & Supporters Rally in Metropolis
By WestKyStar Staff

METROPOLIS, IL - A community rally, organized by the United Steel Workers Local 7-669, was held Saturday afternoon in Metropolis. Organizers praised those in attendance for coming out in such huge numbers.

Hundreds of union workers, along with families and supporters from southern Illinois and western Kentucky, marched through Metropolis to Fort Massac State Park to send a message of solidarity to Honeywell and other employees in the area. Union groups from surrounding communities attended as USW leaders spoke to the large crowd gathered following the march. Illinois politicians also took to the podium at Fort Massac to encourage the striking union members and their families.

Union employees reportedly were locked out of the Honeywell plant on June 28th when their Local 7-669 would not guarantee a 24 hour notice prior to possibly going on strike.

Negotiations since June between Honeywell and the union representatives have failed to produce a resolve, but are scheduled to resume August 10th.

C and Carnahan

this is excellant article and this is close to our "post-election" post mortum of primary night at our Augut meeting.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40716.html


-----------

Prop. C spells trouble for Carnahan
By: David Catanese
August 6, 2010 04:35 AM EDT

While Washington is obsessing over what the results of Missouri’s anti-health care reform ballot initiative mean for President Barack Obama, the state’s political insiders are debating whether it’s Democratic Senate nominee Robin Carnahan who needs to be worried.

A staggering 71 percent of Show-Me state primary voters cast ballots Tuesday opposing the new federal health care law — a symbolic yet resounding message that places Carnahan on the opposite side of a supermajority of the electorate.

The overwhelming vote in favor of Proposition C, a measure crafted to reject a portion of the law that requires most people to carry health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine, is the first tangible demonstration of how unpopular the president’s signature achievement remains in the Midwestern state.

Republicans argue the result from the country’s first proxy vote on the health care law is an ominous sign that bodes ill for Carnahan’s chances of capturing outgoing Republican Sen. Kit Bond’s seat this fall. As they see it, the lopsided vote crystallizes the challenge she faces in explaining her support for the legislation as she attempts to narrow her deficit in the polls with Rep. Roy Blunt, the Republican nominee.

“This is a very difficult issue for Robin Carnahan, because the crown jewel of Obama’s legislative career has been health care, and 71 percent of those voting in the primary — people who are going to come back in the general [election] — are voting for this,” said Patrick Tuohey, a Kansas City Republican who managed the Yes on Prop C campaign.

Democrats argue that placing the referendum on an August ballot stacked with more competitive Republican contests intentionally skewed the outcome.

For instance, while Republicans had competitive House primaries in the 4th and 7th Congressional Districts and an expensive statewide campaign for auditor, most Democrats on the ballot faced only nominal opposition. And 65 percent of the Senate primary ballots were cast on the Republican side, where Blunt disposed of a nominal challenge from tea party favorite state Sen. Chuck Purgason, 71 percent to 13 percent.

Even White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, when asked to assess the impact of the vote, glibly replied, “Nothing.”

“I don’t understand why people are treating this outcome as a surprise. This was a primary electorate. The single most important fact to come from Tuesday’s results is that Republicans don’t like health care reform. Stop the presses!” said Democratic consultant Roy Temple, who has worked on races in Missouri.


“I would be a lot more worried about the 30 percent of the GOP primary vote that I didn’t get if I were Roy Blunt than I would be about the 20 to 30 percent of Democrats who supported Prop C if I was Robin Carnahan. After all, it’s not exactly as if Robin is making health care reform the centerpiece of her campaign,” he added.

But if Carnahan won’t talk about health care — her campaign declined to comment for this story — Blunt will repeatedly attempt to force her to do so. If anything, Proposition C gives the seven-term congressman an additional incentive to raise the issue and highlight Carnahan’s position and alliance with Obama, whose approval rating has slumped into the mid-30s in the state, according to recent polling.

And considering heavier GOP turnout, there’s no dismissing the overwhelming numbers — only voters in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City voted to reject the repeal measure. In some of the most rural, conservative counties, where Democratic candidates need to pull at least one-third of the vote to remain competitive statewide, opposition to the repeal registered only in the midteens. Equally worrisome is the fact that in some traditionally Democratic counties, like Jefferson County, which is part of Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan’s Southside St. Louis district, the initiative passed with over 70 percent.

“Look at counties with Democrat turnout that was almost the same as Republican, Prop C still got more than 70 percent,” said David Steelman, a former GOP state House floor leader and the party’s 1992 nominee for attorney general. “Compare to heavily Democratic areas like Kansas City or St. Louis, where Obama exceeded 80 percent but the ‘no’ vote on Prop C was less than 60 percent.”

Steelman, who served as his wife Sarah’s most trusted adviser during her unsuccessful 2008 gubernatorial bid, said the vote could also be a chilling omen for Rep. Carnahan, who is attempting to stave off an aggressive challenge from Ed Martin, former chief of staff to Gov. Matt Blunt, and to Democrat Tommy Sowers, who is trying to knock off seven-term moderate GOP Rep. Jo Ann Emerson in the southeastern Bootheel region.

“This is a very early indicator that candidates like Carnahan, and Sowers and Russ Carnahan, too, are in the wrong place at the wrong time. And if candidates like Russ Carnahan lose their seats, this is a tsunami,” Steelman said.

Though the proposition won’t appear on the November ballot, the GOP contends it sparked a level of conservative enthusiasm that is unlikely to fade anytime soon.


“This is the kind of stuff that the tea party people love. They are energized by this victory, and they will show up in November to finish the job. It’s Scott Brown in Missouri,” Tuohey said, referring to the Massachusetts senator who won a stunning Republican special election victory in January. “The complication for Robin is she endorsed a ‘no’ vote.”

“This would’ve won in November. Democrats wanted to move it by the primary; they did not want Robin Carnahan at the same time as this,” said Tuohey, who acknowledged that he was surprised that the vote was more than two-thirds affirmative.

But he also acknowledged that there may be an unknown percentage of people who were confused by the language and voted yes on the measure, mistakenly thinking they were supporting the health care law.

“Tea party groups were saying no for a year and now they were asked to say yes,” Tuohey explained. “Is there a possibility some people were confused? Sure, but that could’ve been true on both sides.”

Added Temple: “The impact of the confusing ballot language on Democrats is unknowable. You voted no if you were for health care reform. I did hear anecdotes that some voters may have been confused.”

But with Democrats on defense in many parts of the country, the GOP believes the August vote could signal that Missouri — a traditional bellwether state that did not support Obama at his peak of popularity in the 2008 general election — may not be a place where national Democrats spend time and resources this fall.

“The question will be whether to spend money in a state that did not vote for Obama, that voted 71 percent to reject his health care plan on a candidate trailing 6 to 8 points for months now. When the national people are looking where to put their money, this 71 percent is going to haunt Robin Carnahan because they would rather put it towards protecting Harry Reid instead of trying to pick up Kit Bond’s seat,” Tuohey predicted.


© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

Monday, August 2, 2010

Garrett Hardin on the Tragedy of the Commons

some very simular arguments will be made by those wishing to cut social security and medicare. "The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma described in an influential article by that name written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968.[ The article describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen."
-----

-------
I might also suggest you check our "Life boat" ethics where Garrett makes the case against helping the poor.

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html

Hardin uses the metaphor of a lifeboat to make his argument. Lifeboat ethics is a metaphor for resource distribution proposed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1974

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Missouri Prop c vids

here is a sampling of Missouri prop C vids. Right is very vocal in Missouri. Left is for the most part silent.

Only the Jobs for justice and a handful of others vocal in opposition I fear victory handed to teabaggers in Missouri. something that will haunt progressives for a time.
----- ---------



----- --------------



----------

from Kmov newsblog:
Proposition C: Health care On the August primary ballot, voters will be asked if Missouri statues should be amended to deny government the authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance. Of the Democratic voters polled, 27 percent are in favor of Proposition C, and 48 percent oppose the measure. On the other side, 67 percent of Republican voters say they would vote “yes”, and 16 percent say they would vote “no”.