Sunday, October 14, 2007
GOP DEBATE CHORUS
According to the Washington Post, the recent GOP debate on cable television was “a chorus singing the praises of free trade, less regulation, private health care, and reduced spending.”
Well, at least the newspaper writer did not refer to the republican debate as a “Burger King” affair, i.e. one whopper after another, although such might have been appropriate.
The issues of trade, regulation, health care, and spending are certainly worth exploring. It is too bad that the candidate chorus sang the same old songs in addressing these. Let us examine their position.
The candidates praise free trade, almost unconditionally, in the face of clear and incontrovertible evidence that their kind of “free trade” is not working. Trade imbalances are draining our capital and sending it to China.
China holds a huge share of our bonded debt, yet we continue imports unabated. They now have the power to destabilize our currency, put our debt on the open market, and disrupt our entire economy.
It is quite obvious that we desperately need different, less “free,” trade policies. We must stop the loss of capital and jobs out of this country.
As a result of less regulation, we have toys imported from China and distributed by American companies endangering the health of our kids. We have rampant food poisoning because of too few inspections by poorly financed, impotent food and drug regulators.
We have mergers in industries concentrating the supplies of materials, books, and communications into the hands of a few super corporations operating in each or several arenas. Yet merger after merger continues -- to the disadvantage of the American consumer and even the very democracy in which we live.
It is obvious that the welfare of the people, and the survival of our democracy, demand that the government regulate and maintain rules for the environment in which our capitalistic system functions.
The private health care system, with or without tax incentives, as extolled by GOP candidates, is an unholy mess. Forty-seven million have no health insurance, many more are under-insured, and the freedom of America’s insured to seek and choose providers is largely a myth.
What voter in his/her right mind would think that the health care problems of the lower classes could be solved by private tax deductible health accounts for the upper class? How many in low-paid or part-time jobs would find a bonanza in tax incentives to encourage purchase of private health insurance?
The question of reduced spending always revolves around the question --- for what?
Republicans dislike “entitlements” and want to reduce spending on programs that benefit people -- like school lunches, school aid, aid to towns for infra-structure, health care, scientific research, public television, environmental protection, social security, veterans’ care, regulatory agencies, aid for dependent children, pensions for government workers, aid to law enforcement, and aid for the aged and disabled.
Republicans finance the Iraq War with a deficit, give tax breaks to the rich, give tax breaks to business and industry, give tax breaks to hedge funds, give aid to rich farmers, and give subsidies for industries to produce things like sugar and ethanol. They continue tax breaks for deep oil wells, although the price of oil is four times that when breaks were adopted.
America cannot survive another eight years of flagrant republican spending on erroneous military adventures combined with tax cuts and tax breaks which add to the concentration of income and wealth in the top 1%.
The Reagan and Bush-1 years of tax reductions, corporate welfare, and soaring deficits were interrupted by the Clinton years, culminating in a balanced annual budget. These further years of fiscal irresponsibility under Bush-2 have added more to the debt than accumulated under all previous presidents in history combined.
We cannot afford more of these policies echoed by that candidate chorus.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Well, at least the newspaper writer did not refer to the republican debate as a “Burger King” affair, i.e. one whopper after another, although such might have been appropriate.
The issues of trade, regulation, health care, and spending are certainly worth exploring. It is too bad that the candidate chorus sang the same old songs in addressing these. Let us examine their position.
The candidates praise free trade, almost unconditionally, in the face of clear and incontrovertible evidence that their kind of “free trade” is not working. Trade imbalances are draining our capital and sending it to China.
China holds a huge share of our bonded debt, yet we continue imports unabated. They now have the power to destabilize our currency, put our debt on the open market, and disrupt our entire economy.
It is quite obvious that we desperately need different, less “free,” trade policies. We must stop the loss of capital and jobs out of this country.
As a result of less regulation, we have toys imported from China and distributed by American companies endangering the health of our kids. We have rampant food poisoning because of too few inspections by poorly financed, impotent food and drug regulators.
We have mergers in industries concentrating the supplies of materials, books, and communications into the hands of a few super corporations operating in each or several arenas. Yet merger after merger continues -- to the disadvantage of the American consumer and even the very democracy in which we live.
It is obvious that the welfare of the people, and the survival of our democracy, demand that the government regulate and maintain rules for the environment in which our capitalistic system functions.
The private health care system, with or without tax incentives, as extolled by GOP candidates, is an unholy mess. Forty-seven million have no health insurance, many more are under-insured, and the freedom of America’s insured to seek and choose providers is largely a myth.
What voter in his/her right mind would think that the health care problems of the lower classes could be solved by private tax deductible health accounts for the upper class? How many in low-paid or part-time jobs would find a bonanza in tax incentives to encourage purchase of private health insurance?
The question of reduced spending always revolves around the question --- for what?
Republicans dislike “entitlements” and want to reduce spending on programs that benefit people -- like school lunches, school aid, aid to towns for infra-structure, health care, scientific research, public television, environmental protection, social security, veterans’ care, regulatory agencies, aid for dependent children, pensions for government workers, aid to law enforcement, and aid for the aged and disabled.
Republicans finance the Iraq War with a deficit, give tax breaks to the rich, give tax breaks to business and industry, give tax breaks to hedge funds, give aid to rich farmers, and give subsidies for industries to produce things like sugar and ethanol. They continue tax breaks for deep oil wells, although the price of oil is four times that when breaks were adopted.
America cannot survive another eight years of flagrant republican spending on erroneous military adventures combined with tax cuts and tax breaks which add to the concentration of income and wealth in the top 1%.
The Reagan and Bush-1 years of tax reductions, corporate welfare, and soaring deficits were interrupted by the Clinton years, culminating in a balanced annual budget. These further years of fiscal irresponsibility under Bush-2 have added more to the debt than accumulated under all previous presidents in history combined.
We cannot afford more of these policies echoed by that candidate chorus.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
