Inflation Rates

I love the way economists rationalize inflation rates. Look at this report:

Outside of the volatile energy and food categories, so-called core inflation rose a modest 0.1 percent, the fourth straight month of small gains at this level.

In other words, if you and your family don't eat food, don't ride in your car, and don't heat your home, your inflation rate rose a modest 0.1 percent. I guess if you are a selfish American and eat, drive and heat you will sustain an inflation rate for the past two months of 1.0%. Isn't that wonderful? Guess this is a good time for me to go on a diet and walk to wherever I need to go.

The Mortgaging of America

Against calls to trim spending elsewhere to accommodate the Katrina emergency, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) did little to close those floodgates when he suggested this week that the Republican-controlled Congress had already trimmed all the fat from federal spending. "My answer to those that want to offset the spending is 'Sure, bring me the offsets,' " he said. "I will be glad to do it, but no one is able to come up with any yet."

This shows the mindset and thinking of the president and his Republican Congressional leaders in Congress. They’ve already trimmed all the fat from federal spending? They refuse to understand the financial damage that they have done to this country in the past five years.

Allow an ordinary citizen to point out the following “offsets” that the House Majority Leader can’t seem to find:
1-All of the hundreds of millions of dollars in the pork-barrel spending that was loaded into the highway bill.
2-The expensive ongoing pre-emptive war in Iraq that is costing this country billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
3-The “give to the rich and take from the poor” tax cuts that the president and his cronies passed.
4-The tax incentives given to the energy companies under the guise of helping with the energy problem.
5-The financial help to the drug companies under the phony Medicare prescription bill that helps no one except those companies.
6-The bridge to nowhere in Alaska.
7-Etc, etc, etc. for the things we don’t even know about and have been hidden by our “serve the rich and powerful” Republican led Congress.

If Mr. DeLay and his indicted friends in Texas want to find a way to finance the reconstruction of New Orleans (if it is done) they can do so. That is if they finally want to be honest and interested in helping this nation survive a fiscal crisis of overwhelming proportions. It will either be that or the devaluation of the dollar against the world’s currencies and/or more of our country being owned by those nations who hold what is fast becoming the "Mortgaging of America."

Democracy and Terrorism

In his speech before the United Nations, Bush used the speech to marry the United Nations' goals of defeating poverty and disease with his vision of fighting terrorism by promoting democracy.

Bush used his speech to explain why, in his view, democracy thwarts the growth of terrorism. "Democratic nations uphold the rule of law, impose limits on the power of the state, treat women and minorities as full citizens," he said. "Democratic nations protect private property, free speech and religious _expression."

Writing in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, F. Gregory Gause III said that a review of academic literature and statistics finds little evidence that democracy stops terrorism. Gause, a political science professor at the University of Vermont, noted that the State Department's records show that, between 2000 and 2003, India, the world's most populous democracy, had 203 terrorist attacks while, China, the world's most populous authoritarian state, had none. One study cited by Gause found that "most terrorist incidents occur in democracies and that generally both the victims and the perpetrators are citizens of democracies."

Should someone point out to the president that the terrorism attacks of 9/11 took place in a democracy? Shouldn't he be aware that the bombings in Spain and England took place in democracies?

Does that make democracy wrong? Of course not. But trying to force our version of democracy onto Iraq only increases the dangers of terrorism. We need to get out of Iraq and let them decide what form of government they desire, even if it is different than what we see as "right." We have to stop the carnage and stop kidding ourselves on what the eventual outcome will be of this war other than the death of 2,000 American troops and untold numbers of Iraqis.
We also now need that money and manpower to help in this country with the aftermath of Katrina.

"I Am Responsible"

Dear Editor:

The president said, "I take responsibility" for the problems of response at all levels of government in the devastation of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina. What exactly does that mean? If that is the case, why was Michael Brown replaced at FEMA (which he should have been)?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, responsibility is defined as: "the quality or state of being responsible: as moral, legal, or mental accountability." When military leaders do the wrong thing that causes death they are held accountable and are relieved of command. When CEOs do a poor job they are are held accountable and fired. How is Mr. Bush being held accountable?

Fooling The People

Today, Monday, Sept.12th, the president was doing his thing along the Gulf Coast and in New Orleans. At one point he was asked if he had any comment about the resignation of Mike Brown, director of FEMA. His answer was that he didn't know about that, "I'm busy working." He really thinks everyone is stupid and believes everything he says.

A replacement has already been nominated by him. Isn't it amazing that he nominated a man for a position that he didn't know was vacant, and in such a short period of time....a couple of hours.

I think Mr. Bush needs to remember the saying of a real president, Abraham Lincoln, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But, you can't fool all of the people all of the time." It's time for all of the people, including the right-wing evangelicals, to recognize how they are being fooled all of the time.

Save For A Rainy Day

Dear Editor:

As a young boy I was taught the lesson to save for a rainy day. It was important to put a little aside on a regular schedule, so that when the surprises of life or when unforeseen problems or opportunities arise, I could be in a position to handle those times. Good lesson.

As a young, family man in the business world I was taught to face reality and plan for the future by having three months income set aside to handle unforeseen problems, like the possibility of being out of work for a period of time, or the chance of family emergencies. Living within one’s means was another good lesson.

As a corporate leader I knew the lesson of balancing a budget and planning for the ups and downs of business. A company has to have liquidity in order to operate and must learn to do business, whenever possible, within its own cash position, or with borrowings that can be paid back over a reasonable period of time. Banks and boards insist upon this. Another good lesson.

With these lessons and knowledge we look at the president and federal spending. The federal deficit in 2002 was $450 billion; in 2003, $984 billion; in 2004, $800 billion; and this year, the House has passed an increase of another $781 billion, on which the Senate has yet to act. That totals a stunning $3 trillion in additional debt in four years -- a 50 percent increase in the cumulative debt from all of America's previous history. In addition to this, future planning made no provision for the continuing costs of the war in Iraq, the Republican plan to end the estate tax and making all the Bush tax cuts permanent. It also did not realistically calculate the costs of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, let alone his costs for privatizing a portion of Social Security.

And now our rainy day is here and in the first 10 days since Katrina hit, the president asked Congress for $62 billion, which is probably going to be just a drop in the bucket. Mr. Bush obviously doesn’t know his lessons, and we aren’t prepared financially. We'll do it, but at what cost?

Someone else's letter

Bravo to the lady who sent this letter to Newsday (Long Island, NY):

Dear Editor:

How could anyone be impressed by President George W. Bush's "sincerity," the hugging of victims, the delayed effort to travel to the disaster zone, when it is so obviously done for effect and not out of concern? How could anyone sensitive to the victims talk about Trent Lott's lost house and the magnificence of the new one he is building? How could anyone believe that this president could be so clueless that he actually said that no one could have anticipated the destruction of the levees? This president is so integrity-challenged that he becomes one of the biggest hurdles we have to overcome in our war on poverty, our war on terror and our fight to preserve this democracy.

Ruth Karter
Great Neck, NY

FEMA Out At Sea

FEMA has contracted with Carnival Cruise Lines for three ships to house evacuees for the next six months. The cost is $192 million plus $44 for fuel costs and that amount will be paid whether the ships are used or not. The fact is that people do not want to leave dry land but rather want to start looking for their families, new homes and new jobs in their new cities, or back in New Orleans when and if they return As a result the ships are remaining empty. Has anyone truly looked into the cost of this debacle?

At least the concept is creative: Lease cruise ships to temporarily house Katrina evacuees. It sounds like a good idea, but that doesn't make it so. The federal government will pay $236 million to house 7,000 people on cruise ships for six months. That works out to $33,700 for every evacuee. Are you kidding? If you have to spend the money, I say do it. But, let's do something constructive with it to help these people who have lived (and still living) through a disaster.

Why, Oh Why

Letter to the Washington Post

Dear Editor:

In his Sept. 6th column "Why, Oh Why," (Talking Points), Eugene Robinson points out the poor leadership that Mr. Bush has shown in a crisis. He and his administration over and over again have talked a good game of how well things are going, even in the face of disaster. This is true both in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and in the war in Iraq. It is as if he and his cabal are living on another planet. Or maybe they think we are so stupid that we will believe anything they say, even when we know (or at least should know) the opposite to be true.

Let's face it, Mr. Bush knows nothing about the meaning of responsibility. He will only assign it to others, the ones that he had appointed to his administration, with whom he shares that responsibility. Remember, you can assign authority but not responsibility.

Avoiding Responsibility

Dear Editor:

Many of us have taken into our home family, friends, and even strangers who evacuated New Orleans. You can’t help but open your hearts and homes to these people who have lost so very much. But, it leads one to ask a question.

How many evacuees has the president taken in? How many has the president’s mother and father helped out with space in their home? How many has Cheney, Rove, Frist, DeLay, or Rumsfeld taken in? They think that we should do it, but they don’t do it. Guess it’s the same as, how many of that group have children or grand-children, as so many of us do, serving in Iraq? They are busy sending other people’s family to serve in that pre-emptive, phony reason war, and must bear the responsibility for almost 2,000 American troop deaths.

Remember, even though the president may blame Homeland Security for a slow response to Katrina, it is an old business adage that you can assign authority, but you can’t assign responsibility. It’s obvious he never learned that.