Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids. 
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up). 

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Thursday, February 17, 2011

DOD included in spending cuts/freezes

It would seem that any real attempts at reducing the national debt would have to have cuts to the DOD.  I think it is a shame but military families would have to suffer from the cuts as well.  Is this even on the discussion? I doubt it and it is one of those programs that many will say that cannot be cut due to national defense.  I am not for lessening our defenses (especially with the Mexican drug war looming from across the river) nor am I for cutting benefits to the the men and women that serve our country, but any real budget cutting has to be across the board.  I want to remind the gentle reader that military service is not the only place where one can serve their country.  What about police and fire departments?  What about the lonely educator?  Service is in whatever form it takes and those people should be protected from cuts as much as possible.  We have hard times coming...

DoD Looks to Cut Spending in Budget Request

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials asked for $42 billion less to fund the wars next year and an increase of less than 1 percent in the military’s base budget for fiscal 2012, holding defense costs down as Congress stresses fiscal restraint.
 
But before they lobby for that money, military leaders are pleading with lawmakers to pass last year’s budget request, shelved by the last Congress in December after months of political in-fighting. For now, service officials are operating with roughly $22 billion less this fiscal year than they had hoped, under a temporary budget bill that expires next month.
 
“This department has been operating under a continuing resolution going on five months, resulting in difficulties that may soon turn into a crisis,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters at a news conference Monday.
 
At least $14 billion of that missing fiscal 2011 money is needed to ensure “the level of resources needed to protect this nation’s security and vital interests around the world,” Gates said.
 
The $553 billion budget plan, up $5 billion from last year’s budget request, is highlighted by billions in spending cuts and “efficiencies” outlined by Gates last month.
 
That includes ending development of the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and several Army missile programs, cutting contractors and flag officer billets, and consolidating a number of organizations, including Joint Forces Command. But most of those savings will be reinvested in other department priorities, such as a new long-range bomber program for the Air Force and purchase of new Navy ships.
 
The Pentagon’s base budget has increased by at least $15 billion each of the last five years, and is up more than $126 billion since fiscal 2005. The modest $5 billion increase in this year’s request covers little more than routine increases in personnel and maintenance costs. Some of the sharpest cuts are reserved for military construction and research.
 
“This budget represents a reasonable, responsible and sustainable level of funding, the minimum level of defense spending that is necessary given the security challenges we are facing around the globe,” Gates said.
 
The military budget proposal calls for a 1.6 percent pay raise for all servicemembers next January, a 4.2 percent bump in Basic Allowance for Housing and a 3.4 percent boost in Basic Allowance for Subsistence.
 
The pay raise is slightly above the 1.4 percent increase troops saw this year. President Obama announced a pay freeze on federal workers in December, so civilian defense employees and Department of Veterans Affairs workers will not see a cost of living increase in 2012.
 
Cuts in the funding for war operations are even more dramatic. The department has asked for $118 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan costs, down more than 26 percent from the nearly $160 billion request last year. Officials said that reflects Pentagon plans to finish the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and “modest declines” for funding of Afghanistan operations.
 
Gates said the reduction in Afghanistan spending does not correspond to a specific number of troops leaving the country in the next 18 months, since the size and scope of any drawdown will be based on conditions on the ground.
 
“But that’s not to say that we will have 98,000 troops at the end of FY12,” he said. “In fact, it’s a lead-pipe cinch that we won’t.”
 
But Pentagon officials portrayed the budget as reasonable and sustainable spending that continues Gates’ efforts to focus the military not just on Iraq and Afghanistan but also on future contingencies: beefing up cybersecurity, building counterterrorism-oriented special operations forces, and maintaining a check down to China’s and Iran’s militaries.
 
In addition, the department will also ask for 1,000 more small-sized unmanned aerial vehicles than officials purchased last year, and more Predator-class, medium-altitude spying platforms. The Pentagon also wants $500 million to build a new Joint Operations Center for U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade, Md., in addition to increased spending on cyber-related inventions from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
 
But it’s not all high-tech: Gates is requesting more than $300 million to buy more slow-flying MC-12 twin-engine propeller planes. The four-seat planes “have produced valuable battlefield intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
 
And nearly $13 billion of the overseas funding will go toward training and equipping Afghan Security Forces, whom lawmakers and defense officials have deemed the critical piece in American forces’ eventual withdrawal from that country.
 
Pentagon officials included a controversial premium hike for certain veterans using Tricare, a proposal that has met fierce opposition from veterans groups and Congress for the last decade.
 
Under the plan, retirees would see a monthly increase of $2.50 for individual plans and $5 for family plans starting next January, and link future increases to medical inflation costs in future years. Prescriptions bought through retail pharmacies will cost another $3, while generic drugs brought through mail order programs will have a $3 reduction in co-pays.
 
Pentagon officials should quickly get an idea how their modest spending increase will be received on Capitol Hill. Gates will testify about the budget plans on Wednesday before the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, whose members include a number of new lawmakers elected last fall on platforms that called for deep cuts in government spending.
 
So far, Republican leadership in the House has been reluctant to propose deeper cuts in defense spending than Gates has publicly called for, but conservative lawmakers have said they intend in coming weeks to push for more than $100 billion in cuts already outlined by party leadership.
 
As details of the budget plans emerged, fiscally conservative think tanks blasted the military spending plans.
 
“This isn’t a budget cut. It’s just not a reduction in defense spending,” said Laura Peterson, senior policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense.
 
Peterson said while Gates’ request presents a slower rate of growth than planned, it does not match the belt-tightening occurring across the rest of the federal government, proportionally.
 
“I’m not convinced that even this is going to be sustainable over the long term,” she said.
 
Christopher Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute said the budget gives the appearance of reining in defense spending, but in reality only shifts around money cut from a handful of defense programs to other military buys.
 
“In the past 12 years, the budget has doubled in real, inflation-adjusted terms,” he said in a statement. “Deeper cuts should be made along with an effort to lessen worldwide defense commitments, reducing the strain on the force.”
 

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Class Warfare?

Truly I am hoping that the following article is incorrect in some it's findings.  There is a big difference between what is good for "Wall Street" and the top 1% of income earners and what is good for the middle class.  The middle class is the engine that powers the United States.  If that engine becomes stagnant then what happens to the country.  If  it comes to class warfare then that will be the end of this experiment. The end of the United States.  We need to constantly remind the politicians that what is good for the "rich" is not what is necessarily good for the country.

How the middle class became the underclass

, On Wednesday February 16, 2011, 9:28 am EST
Are you better off than your parents?
Probably not if you're in the middle class.
Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.
In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust. Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology and globalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves and have-nots.
But there's more to the story.
A real drag on the middle class
One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions and other labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now a professor at Rutgers University.
Because of deals struck through collective bargaining, union workers have traditionally earned 15% to 20% more than their non-union counterparts, Rodgers said.
But union membership has declined rapidly over the past 30 years. In 1983, union workers made up about 20% of the workforce. In 2010, they represented less than 12%.
"The erosion of collective bargaining is a key factor to explain why low-wage workers and middle income workers have seen their wages not stay up with inflation," Rodgers said.
Without collective bargaining pushing up wages, especially for blue-collar work -- average incomes have stagnated.
International competition is another factor. While globalization has lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn't exactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.
Factory workers have seen many of their jobs shipped to other countries where labor is cheaper, putting more downward pressure on American wages.
"As we became more connected to China, that poses the question of whether our wages are being set in Beijing," Rodgers said.
Finding it harder to compete with cheaper manufacturing costs abroad, the U.S. has emerged as primarily a services-producing economy. That trend has created a cultural shift in the job skills American employers are looking for.
Whereas 50 years earlier, there were plenty of blue collar opportunities for workers who had only high school diploma, now employers seek "soft skills" that are typically honed in college, Rodgers said.
A boon for the rich
While average folks were losing ground in the economy, the wealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, and driving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest of America.
For example, though globalization has been a drag on labor, it's been a major win for corporations who've used new global channels to reduce costs and boost profits. In addition, new markets around the world have created even greater demand for their products.
"With a global economy, people who have extraordinary skills... whether they be in financial services, technology, entertainment or media, have a bigger place to play and be rewarded from," said Alan Johnson, a Wall Street compensation consultant.
As a result, the disparity between the wages for college educated workers versus high school grads has widened significantly since the 1980s.
In 1980, workers with a high school diploma earned about 71% of what college-educated workers made. In 2010, that number fell to 55%.
Another driver of the rich: The stock market.
The S&P 500 has gained more than 1,300% since 1970. While that's helped the American economy grow, the benefits have been disproportionately reaped by the wealthy.
And public policy of the past few decades has only encouraged the trend.
The 1980s was a period of anti-regulation, presided over by President Reagan, who loosened rules governing banks and thrifts.
A major game changer came during the Clinton era, when barriers between commercial and investment banks, enacted during the post-Depression era, were removed.
In 2000, President Bush also weakened the government's oversight of complex securities, allowing financial innovations to take off, creating unprecedented amounts of wealth both for the overall economy, and for those directly involved in the financial sector.
Tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration and extended under Obama were also a major windfall for the nation's richest.
And as then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan brought interest rates down to new lows during the decade, the housing market experienced explosive growth.
"We were all drinking the Kool-aid, Greenspan was tending bar, Bernanke and the academic establishment were supplying the liquor," Deutsche Bank managing director Ajay Kapur wrote in a research report in 2009.
But the story didn't end well. Eventually, it all came crashing down, resulting in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.
With the unemployment rate still excessively high and the real estate market showing few signs of rebounding, the American middle class is still reeling from the effects of the Great Recession.
Meanwhile, as corporate profits come roaring back and the stock market charges ahead, the wealthiest people continue to eclipse their middle-class counterparts.
"I think it's a terrible dilemma, because what we're obviously heading toward is some kind of class warfare," Johnson said.

ARTICLE LINK