OBOF & TYMHM PART 27

 

 

 

WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

&

THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)

YEAR THREE

 

Name	Published
OVERVIEW
OBOF & TYMHM PART 14	Dec  18, 2012
OBOF & TYMHM PART 15	Jan.  02, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16	Jan.  08, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16 EXTRA	Jan.  11, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 17	Jan.  15, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 18	Jan.  22, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 19	Jan.  29, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 20	Feb.  05, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 21	Feb.  14, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 22	Feb.  20, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23	Feb.  27, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23 SPECIAL	Mar.  06, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 24	Mar.  07, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25	Mar.  12, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25-EXTRA	Mar.  14, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 26	Mar.  19, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 27	Mar.  26, 2013

 

 

IN THIS ISSUE

 

1.  The Sequester is beginning to be felt.

2.  Senate opposes SS "Chained CPI."

3.  Why Democrats should not put SS & Medicare on the table.

4.  Call it what it is.

 

 

 

THE SEQUESTER IS BEGINNING

 TO BE FELT

By Floyd Bowman

Publisher

"Opinions Based On Facts"

 

The Sequester is starting to be felt all over.  I have learned today, March 20th, 2013, that we have already had large layoffs here in Oklahoma and some Government contract put on hold; not cancelled, but on hold. 

 

Senator Rand Paul and the Tea Party Republicans are elated over this.  They have gotten a really big spending deficit stopped and they are not at all interested in stopping this sequester as it is exactly what they want to be done. 

 

The best part, from their standpoint, is that it now is beginning to look like President Obama is the one that is going to get the blame.  Up until now, the White House has thought that the Republicans would, for sure, get the blame for all the problems.  It isn't working out that way right now. 

 

They actually should get the blame, as President Obama has put forth a, more than reasonable, plan.  In fact, he is giving too much in accepting cuts in the big three entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  The Republicans simply do not want things to go good.  They act as though nothing happened last November, when President Obama was re-elected.  Their unethical actions, unfortunately, are working for their benefit.  We have to get the truth out as to why the Sequester has not been corrected.  

    

 

3-21-13

 

Republicans are throwing out the most ridiculous trivial things attacking the President.  They can't attack his policies because they are right, but look at this.  They are trying to make a big issue of the fact that the President took time to fill out his bracket choices for the NCAA basketball tournament, instead of getting his budget done.  I guess they feel that because he is President he is not suppose to have any personal time anymore as long as he is in office.  Just check out the personal time G. W. Bush had.  You'll find out that President Obama has taken about one half as much.

~~~

 

Senate Opposes ‘Chained CPI’ Cuts to Social Security, Veterans’ Benefits

March 22, 2013

WASHINGTON, March 22 – The Senate tonight voted to block cuts in benefits for Social Security and disabled veterans.

The amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) put the Senate on record against changing how cost-of-living increases are calculated in a way that would result in significant cuts.

“The time has come for the Senate to send a very loud and clear message to the American people: We will not balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans who have lost their arms, their legs and their eyesight defending our country. We will not balance the budget on the backs of the men and women who have already sacrificed for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor on the widows who have lost their husbands in Iraq and Afghanistan defending our country,” Sanders said.

The amendment opposed switching from the current method of measuring inflation to a so-called chained consumer price index. President Barack Obama favors a chained CPI as part of what the White House calls a “grand bargain” that Obama hopes to reach with congressional Republicans.

The proposed change would affect more than 3.2 million disabled veterans receiving disability compensation benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits reduced by $1,425 at age 45, $2,341 at age 55 and $3,231 at age 65.  Benefits for more than 350,000 surviving spouses and children who have lost a loved one in battle also would be cut. Dependency Indemnity Compensation benefits already average less than $17,000 a year.

More than 55 million retirees, widows, orphans and disabled Americans receiving Social Security also would be affected by the switch to a chained CPI. That figure includes 9 million veterans with an average yearly benefit of about $15,500. A veteran with average earnings retiring at age 65 would get nearly a $600 benefit cut at age 75 and a $1,000 cut at age 85. By age 95, when Social Security benefits are probably needed the most, that veteran would face a cut of $1,400 – a reduction of 9.2 percent.

A chained CPI would cut Social Security benefits for average senior citizens who are 65 by more than $650 a year by the time they are 75 years old, and by more than $1,000 once they reach 85.

Groups supporting Sanders include AARP, the AFL-CIO, National Organization for Women, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS and others.

Sanders is chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the founder of the Defending Social Security Caucu

~~~

 

Selling the Store: Why Democrats Shouldn’t Put Social Security and Medicare on the Table

 

Robert Reich

NationofChange / Op-Ed

Published: Friday 22 March 2013

 

 

 

"The richest nation in the history of the world

 should be able to respond to

 the legitimate needs of all its citizens."

 

 

Prominent Democrats — including the President and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — are openly suggesting that Medicare be means-tested and Social Security payments be reduced by applying a lower adjustment for inflation. 

This is even before they’ve started budget negotiations with Republicans — who still refuse to raise taxes on the rich, close tax loopholes the rich depend on (such as hedge-fund and private-equity managers’ “carried interest”), increase capital gains taxes on the wealthy, cap their tax deductions, or tax financial transactions. 

It’s not the first time Democrats have led with a compromise, but these particular pre-concessions are especially unwise.

For more than 30 years, Republicans have pitted the middle class against the poor, preying on the frustrations and racial biases of average working people who can’t get ahead no matter how hard they try.  In the Republican narrative, government takes from the hard-working middle and gives to the undeserving and dependent needy.  

In reality, average working people have been stymied because almost all the economic gains of the last three decades have gone to the very top.  The middle has lost bargaining power as unions have shriveled. American politics has been flooded with campaign contributions from corporations and the wealthy, which have used their clout to reduce marginal tax rates, widen loopholes, loosen regulations, gain subsidies, and obtain government bailouts when their bets turn sour. 

Now five years after the worst downturn since the Great Depression and the biggest bailout in history, the stock market has recouped its losses and corporate profits constitute the largest share of the economy since 1929.  Yet the real median wage continues to fall — wages now claim the lowest share of the economy on record — and inequality is still widening.  All the economic gains since the trough of the recession have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans; the bottom 90 percent continue to lose ground. 

What looks like the start of a more buoyant recovery is a sham because the vast majority of Americans have neither the pay nor access to credit that allows them to buy enough to boost the economy.  Housing prices and starts are being fueled by investors with easy money rather than would-be home buyers with mortgages.  The Fed’s low interest rates have pushed other investors into stocks by default, creating an artificial bull market. 

If there was ever a time for the Democratic Party to champion working Americans and reverse these troubling trends, it is now — forging an alliance between the frustrated middle and the working poor.  This need not be “class warfare” because a healthy economy is in everyone’s interest.  The rich would do far better with a smaller share of a rapidly-growing economy than a ballooning share of one that’s growing at a snail’s pace and a stock market that’s turning into a bubble. 

But the modern Democratic Party can’t bring itself to do this. It’s too dependent on the short-term, insular demands of Wall Street, corporate executives, and the wealthy.  

It was Bill Clinton, after all, who pushed for repeal of Glass-Steagall, championed the North American Free Trade Act and the World Trade Organization without adequate safeguards for American jobs, and rented out the Lincoln Bedroom to a steady stream of rich executives. 

And it was Barack Obama who continued George W. Bush’s Wall Street bailout with no strings attached; pushed a watered-down “Volcker Rule” (still delayed) rather than renew Glass-Steagall; failed to prosecute a single Wall Street executive or bank because, according to his Attorney General, Wall Street is just too big to jail; (I have never understood this.  Why are they to big to jail?  What would happen if it were done? - by Floyd) and permanently enshrined the Bush tax cuts for all but the top 2 percent.

Meanwhile, over the last several decades, Democrats have allowed Social Security taxes to grow and its revenue stream to become almost as important a source of overall government funding as income taxes;  (This is referring to the $2.7 trillion that has simply been stolen from the SS Trust Fund by every President and Congress since, and including, Reagan. - by Floyd)   turned their backs on organized labor and labor-law reforms that would have made it easier to form unions; and then, even as they bailed out Wall Street, neglected the burdens of middle-class homeowners who found themselves underwater and their homes worth less than what they paid for them because of the Street’s excesses. 

 

In fairness, it could have been worse. Clinton did stand up to Gingrich.  Obama did get the Affordable Care Act.  Congressional Democrats have scored tactical victories against social conservatives and Tea Party radicals.  But Democrats haven’t responded in any bold or meaningful way to the increasingly concentrated wealth and power, the steady demise of the middle class, and further impoverishment of the nation’s poor.  The Party failed to become a movement to reclaim the economy and our democracy. 

And, now come their pre-concessions on Social Security and Medicare. 

Technically, a “chained CPI” might be justifiable if seniors routinely substitute lower-cost alternatives as prices rise, as most other Americans do.  But in reality, seniors pay 20 to 40 percent of their incomes for healthcare, including pharmaceuticals — the prices of which are rising much faster than inflation.  So, there’s no practical justification for reducing Social Security benefits on the assumption inflation isn’t really eating away at those benefits as much as the current cost-of-living adjustment allows.   

Likewise, although a case can be made for reducing the Medicare benefits of higher-income beneficiaries, as a practical matter their savings are almost as vulnerable to rising healthcare costs as are the more modest savings of middle-income retirees.  “Means-testing” Medicare also runs the risk of transforming it into a program for the “less fortunate,” which can undermine its political support. 

In short, Medicare isn’t the problem.  The underlying problem is the sky-rocketing costs of health care.  Because Medicare’s administrative costs are a fraction of those of private health insurance, Medicare might be part of the solution.  Medicare for all, or even a public option for Medicare, would give the program enough clout to demand health providers move from a fee-for-service system to one that paid instead for healthy outcomes. 

With healthcare costs under better control, retirees wouldn’t be paying a large and growing portion of their incomes for healthcare — which would alleviate pressure on Social Security. I’m still not convinced a “chained CPI” is necessary, though.  A preferable alternative would be to raise the ceiling on the portion of income subject to Social Security taxes (now $113,600). 

Besides, Social Security and Medicare are the most popular programs ever devised by the federal government, which is why Republicans hate them so much.  If average Americans have trusted the Democratic Party to do one thing it has been to guard these programs from the depredations of the GOP.  

Putting these two programs “on the table” is also, tantamount to accepting the most insidious and dishonest of all Republican claims: That for too long, most Americans have been living beyond their means; that we are rapidly approaching a day of reckoning when we can no longer afford these generous “entitlements;” and that prudence and responsibility dictate that we must now begin to live within our means and cut back these projected expenditures, particularly if we are to have any money left to invest in the young and the disadvantaged. 

The truth is the opposite: That for three decades, the means of most Americans have been stagnant, even though the overall economy has more than doubled in size; that because, almost all the gains from growth have gone to the top, most Americans haven’t been able to save enough for retirement, or the rising costs of healthcare; and that because of this, Social Security and Medicare are barely adequate as is.  

Paul Ryan’s House Republican budget, takes on Medicare, but leaves Social Security alone.  Why should Democrats lead the charge on either? 

The Republicans are already slashing help for the young and the disadvantaged.  Democrats shouldn’t succumb the lie that the elderly and young are in competition for a portion of a shrinking pie, when in fact the pie is larger than ever.  It’s just that those who have the largest and fastest-growing portions refuse to share it. 

We are the richest nation in the history of the world — richer now than we’ve ever been.  But an increasing share of that wealth is held by a smaller and smaller share of the population, who have, in effect, bribed legislators to reduce their taxes and provide loopholes so they pay even less. 

The budget deficit “crisis” has been manufactured by them to distract our attention from this overriding fact, and to pit the rest of us against each other for a smaller and smaller share of what remains.  Democrats should not conspire. 

Needy children should be getting far more help, better pre-school care, better nutrition.  Seniors need better healthcare coverage and more Social Security.  All Americans need better schools and improved infrastructure. 

The richest nation in the history of the world should be able to respond to the legitimate needs of all its citizens.

~~~

CALL IT WHAT IT IS:

 "A Class War"

David Sirota

NationofChange / Op-Ed

Published: Friday 22 March 2013

 

Supercharged as it is, that phrase—

"class war"—

is appropriate and accurate.

 

When it comes to the Republican budget proposal that passed the U.S. House this week, I agree with those who find it strange that anyone sees the initiative as a serious attempt to "grow the economy," as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) claims. I also agree that the overwhelming barrage of reports that accompany such an initiative render most non-political junkies confused, bored, or both.

However, all of that doesn't mean the proposal Ryan spearheaded is unimportant, nor does it mean that there are no worthwhile analyses to explain that significance. On the contrary, the proposal is quite important because it endorses an economic war waged by the upper class against everyone else. Two simple studies make this war painfully obvious.

To properly contextualize those studies, first keep in mind three facts:

1) According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, "The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation's income every year" and control 40 percent of the nation's total wealth, 2) The bottom 80 percent of Americans own just 7 percent of the nation's wealth, and 3) Stiglitz notes that "while the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall."

 

Considering this, it is no surprise that the United States is one of the industrialized world's most economically unequal nations. Just as unsurprising is International Monetary Fund data showing that such acute inequality reduces macroeconomic growth. In light of that, any proposal purporting to create what Ryan calls a "pro-growth economy" should, in part, include policies that aim to make the United States less stratified.

That brings us to the first report on Ryan's budget, courtesy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

As that watchdog group shows, the allegedly "pro-growth" GOP proposes no big cuts to corporate welfare or other subsidies that enrich the already rich. Instead, the party proposes that 66 percent of the cuts come from "programs that serve people of limited means." Yes, that's right — the "pro-growth" GOP is proposing to primarily cut the programs that reduce economic inequality and, thus, spur economic growth.

Where do much of the savings generated from those cuts go? That gets us to a report by Citizens for Tax Justice. The nonpartisan group discovered that after a decade of trickle-down tax cuts delivered more economic inequality and historically weak macroeconomic growth, the GOP is now proposing a budget whose centerpiece is a proposal to give those with an "income exceeding $1 million (an) average net tax decrease of over $200,000."

Taken together, these two analyses spotlight the self-evident moral argument against such a budget. With all those aforementioned facts showing the rich getting richer and everyone else getting hit so hard, how heartless does a political party have to be to propose this kind of budget blueprint?

That however, is the wrong question, because this isn't about morality; it is about ideology and more specifically, an ideological commitment to a class war.

Supercharged as it is, that phrase — "class war" — is appropriate and accurate. As the data prove, the GOP and its financiers are so committed to a class war that the party is willing to put forward a budget proposal that quite clearly preferences fighting that war over doing what's actually necessary (read: addressing inequality) to fix the economy.

That may not make for a proposal that is a serious attempt to address America's problems, but it does make for one that is significant in how honestly it states the Republican Party's true long-term goals.

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again next Tuesday April 2, 2013.

 

God Bless You All

&

God Bless the United States of America.

Floyd

 

OBOF TYMHM & MORE PART 26

 

 

 

WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

&

THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)

YEAR THREE

 

Name	Published
OVERVIEW
OBOF & TYMHM PART 14	Dec  18, 2012
OBOF & TYMHM PART 15	Jan.  02, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16	Jan.  08, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16 EXTRA	Jan.  11, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 17	Jan.  15, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 18	Jan.  22, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 19	Jan.  29, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 20	Feb.  05, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 21	Feb.  14, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 22	Feb.  20, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23	Feb.  27, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23 SPECIAL	Mar.  06, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 24	Mar.  07, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25	Mar.  12, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25-EXTRA	Mar.  14, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 26	Mar.  19, 2013

 

 

IN THIS ISSUE

 

1.  President reaches out to Republicans for a Grand Bargain.

2.  Return to Sender.  Status of USPS.

3.  Facts as to where we are now.

4.  Introduction of Constitutional Amendment.

5.  F35 fighter problems.

 

 

 

 

PRESIDENT REACHES OUT

TO GAIN A

GRAND BARGAIN

By Floyd Bowman

Publisher

 "Opinions Based On Facts."

March 19, 2013

 

The week before last, President Obama invited 12 Republican Senators to privately dine with him at the White House.  Then this past week he went to Capitol Hill to meet with both Republican and Democrat Caucuses in both House of Congress.

 

The purpose was to repair his relations with the Lawmakers, hopefully to set the stage to negotiate for a "Grand Bargain" of entitlement reform and revenue increases to reduce the deficit.  This entitlement reform really scares me.  Considering his talk about a "Grand Bargain," and other information I have been hearing, I believe, he is considering changes in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that just are not at all acceptable; not acceptable to me and not to 72% of America.

 

It has been reported that the President talked to Caucuses about immigration, guns, and energy policies, but above all emphasized the need to work together to create a long-term budget plan to reduce the deficit spending.  It has, also, been reported that Republicans received him well and Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said that Obama was "genuinely reaching out, and Senator John McCain said that the conversations "could lead us to a Grand Bargain."

 

Now, I am going to try to keep a close eye on anything that may develop as a "Grand Bargain."  If it should  start to develop, as much as I support Pres. Obama, I am concerned that, based on past performance, he might start to give away the store.  If that should happen we all need to start contacting our legislators  and put pressure on them as to no changes in SS, Medicare, or Medicaid.

 

Senator Bernie Sanders, (I) of Vermont, is leading a strong charge in the Senate to keep the big three as they are.  Anytime you see or hear anything from him you can take it to the bank.  He is really a great man and really has his head on straight, as I call it.

 

Irrespective of the above, the two Parties are so far apart ideologically that this may not have a chance of happening anyway.  The Republicans will know he is serious only if he puts real tax reform - - with lower overall rates - - and serious entitlement cuts on the table.  I don't want to believe that the President would go that far, BUT WE HAVE TO WATCH IT CLOSELY.

~~~

Return to Sender

 

 

Fredric Rolando

Other Words / Op-Ed

Published: Sunday 17 March 2013

 

NOTE FROM FLOYD:

 

This article gives you the entire story about the Postal Service.  The point that I want to make at the beginning is, that when the step was taken to make the Postal Service pay up pensions and health benefits fund for 75 years in just 10 years, it was done for just one purpose.  As you might expect, this was accomplished with a Republican Congress.  It was done to make the Postal Service go broke, so that it could be abolished and then privatize the service.  This would make many rich people, richer.

 

It was known at the time that the Postal Service, or any other business for that matter, could not possibly do this and still make a profit.  This article really sets us straight as to how the Postal Service is really doing.  It must not be abolished and it should be relieved of the ridiculous burden that has been placed on it.

~~~

 

 

 

Rooted in the Constitution and older than the country itself, the U.S. Postal Service supports 7.5 million private-sector jobs in the mailing industry.  The Postal Service is essential to the fast-growing Internet sales industry.  And the USPS is navigating this struggling economy relatively well, even making an operating profit in the most recent quarter.

Yes, making a profit.  When you count how much money the Postal Service earned on postage, and subtract how much it spent delivering the mail and paying related bills, the Postal Service earned a $100 million profit in the last three months of 2012.  And remember, the USPS uses no taxpayer money.

So, why all this talk about the Postal Service losing money?  And why is Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe planning to end Saturday mail delivery?

There’s no question the Postal Service faces big challenges. Both email and a struggling economy are dragging down mail volume.  But the Postal Service’s financial problem is actually driven by Congress’s decision to “pre-fund” retiree health care costs.  Beginning in 2007, the USPS has been required to pay 75 years of those costs in advance, and to do so within just ten years.

 

This pre-funding accounts for about 80 percent of the “losses” sustained by the Postal Service over the last six years that you’ve heard so much about.  Indeed, that last quarterly profit was wiped out by a $1.4 billion pre-funding payment.

No other government agency or private company is required to pre-fund retiree healthcare.  This isn’t the same thing as postal pensions, which should be, and are, pre-funded. Most businesses just pay retiree health care bills when they’re due, but the pre-funding law forces the USPS to pay these bills all at once, far in advance.

Any other company would use its available funds to modernize so it can stay healthy.  The Postal Service should be taking advantage of the enormous growth in package delivery driven by Internet sales. Instead, because it must put every spare penny into pre-funding retiree healthcare, it’s stuck in crisis mode.

What’s more, the savings from dropping Saturday delivery would be much smaller than they appear.  Cutting Saturday service will drive away some Monday-through-Friday customers too, such as magazine and newspaper publishers that may just switch to other delivery services for the entire week.  A study by the Postal Regulatory Commission found that ending Saturday delivery would hurt the public and save significantly less than previous claims suggest.

Saturday delivery is particularly vital for the elderly, disabled, people in rural areas, and those who need medicine or equipment delivered to their doors.  No other company provides universal delivery service to every address in the country, six days a week.  Even private shippers such as FedEx and UPS use the U.S. Mail for up to a third of their final deliveries to customers’ doors because they can’t match the efficiency of the postal network.

Congress has required Saturday delivery by law for three decades.  Instead of trying to defy Congress, Postmaster General Donahoe should urge lawmakers to fix the pre-funding problem and give the Postal Service room to adapt for the future.

Letter carriers aren’t waiting for Donahoe to figure this out.  We’ll be out in full force across America on Sunday, March 24. At rallies in Mobile, Alabama, Bismarck, North Dakota, San Diego, California, and more than 100 other cities and towns, we’ll have a clear message for Congress — keep Saturday delivery, end the unnecessary pre-funding, and develop a real reform plan that gives the Postal Service the freedom to grow and innovate in the digital era.

~~~

FACTS AS TO

 WHERE WE ARE NOW

 

For democracy,   Robert Weissman President, Public Citizen
	Floyd:                                                                       3-9-13 Corporate profits have never been higher. The stock market just hit an all-time peak. A typical CEO makes more in a day than an average employee makes in a year. All of the gains in our economy from 2009 to 2011 (the last year for which there is data) went to the richest 1% of Americans. For the rest of us, not even the proverbial trickle. Meanwhile, Congress and the White House are sinking in the quicksand of a completely false deficit “crisis.” Blind or indifferent to its impact on everything from meat inspections to airport lines to job losses, Congress drove the country into the sequester, unnecessarily jeopardizing critical public safeguards and services. Congress — and, it must be said, and with disappointment, President Obama — are seriously considering cuts to Social Security and Medicare, two of the most effective and vital public programs in our nation’s history. Millions of Americans who want and need work can’t get a job, while those with jobs see their wages stagnate even as they have become more productive than ever before. Millions of Americans go hungry and do not have health care. Millions of Americans lost their homes or their savings or their pensions to Wall Street’s pathological pursuit of profits. It just doesn’t add up. The mega-rich and corporatized are doing as well or better than ever. Yet the rest of us are being asked to continue scraping along. There is enough — more than enough — to go around. The key phrase there being “go around.” Prosperity doesn’t go around anymore. It is, instead, sucked up and socked away by the few who already have it as if it is their birthright and theirs alone. The greediest individuals and corporations maniacally rake in all they can grab while muttering “mine, mine, mine.” Why is this happening? Why can’t our politicians see what’s right in front of them: Over here, people are suffering; over there, people with more money than they could ever spend are demanding still more? The reason, while insidious and dispiriting, is quite plain: Our politicians have become beholden to those with the money to keep them in or out of office. The problem of money in politics affects every challenge facing us as a society. You know better than to ignore this systemic and fundamental problem for sounding too “inside-the-Beltway” or seeming to be a step removed from other issues you care about. Think it’s long overdue that we join our peers throughout the developed world who ensure that affordable, quality health care is available to every one of their citizens? The insurance and pharmaceutical industries put puppets in office who will shout “socialized medicine” and “death panels” at the merest mention of an expanded and improved Medicare-For-All program that will at last provide health care as a matter of right and end our inhumane infatuation with allowing a handful of giant corporations to profit at the expense of millions of our fellow Americans. Think we ought to enact some commonsense curbs on Wall Street’s basest impulses — to which it has shown a seemingly bottomless susceptibility — before the Big Banks barrel toward the brink of disaster again? The financial behemoths spend practically without limit to push their agenda in the White House and on Capitol Hill. That agenda basically boils down to “Trust us.” Do you trust them? Think we should look at whether some industries have offshored too many good jobs? Special interests with deep pockets are scheming to extend NAFTA-style trade pacts over the entire globe in a race to the bottom for health and safety standards, environmental protections and worker rights. Think we should talk more about the morality of using drones — even to target U.S. citizens on U.S. soil? Some politicians will put your life — and the Constitution — in robotic crosshairs if it means increasing the stock value of their military-industrial sponsors. Think we should invest even a little more in solar and wind energy before we open up every wild space to drilling, allow BP to crack open the ocean floor again, and pipe toxic sludge from Canada straight through our nation’s heartland just so more oil can be exported overseas? The oil industry spends and spends and spends to get politicians elected who will perpetuate our addiction to fossil fuels and deny the science proving that we’re endangering our planet’s ability to sustain us. What can you do about it? Until we take back our democracy from the billionaires and multinationals, nothing is safe from their greed. That’s why Public Citizen devotes so much of our resources to researching, exposing and fighting — in all branches of government and at the grassroots; at the local, state and national levels — the ways corporate money corrupts our democracy. And that’s why I’m asking you to contribute whatever you can today. Whether you chip in $5, $50 or $500, every dollar helps carry on the work we’re doing together to put We the People back in charge of our country, our lives and our future. A pathogen is rotting our democracy from the inside out. We can eradicate it. But only with your help.
	P.S. Just this week, Public Citizen filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether Chevron broke a law against election spending by government contractors when it contributed $2.5 million to a Republican super PAC last fall. Yesterday, we launched a grassroots petition drive to put citizen pressure on Chevron to stop meddling with democracy for its own profit. Our effort has already made headlines in The Huffington Post, Roll Call, the San Francisco Chronicle and numerous other outlets. This is what Public Citizen does: we root out corporate corruption and crime, we bring our expertise and power to bear on the appropriate government agencies, we activate our nationwide network of citizen activists, and we make sure the media is telling the story. Make a generous contribution today so that we have the financial resources required to do the critical work we’re doing together.

~~~

INTRODUCTION

OF A

CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENT.

For democracy,   Robert Weissman President, Public Citizen
	Floyd:                                                           3-12-13 Good news: Earlier today, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ted Deutch introduced resolutions in both houses of Congress for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. More good news: It’s called the Democracy Is For People Amendment. That’s right, Sen. Sanders and Rep. Deutch named their proposed constitutional amendment after Public Citizen’s campaign! Send a quick email to your representative and senators urging them to sign on as co-sponsors of the Sanders/Deutch Democracy Is For People Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Democracy Is For People Amendment not only would give Congress the authority to regulate money in politics, it also — and without additional congressional action — would end all corporate election spending. After all, democracy is for people. We are proud to have worked with Sen. Sanders and Rep. Deutch in crafting this landmark effort to reclaim democracy for We the People. There could be some bad news, though: If we don’t show our members of Congress — right away — that there is widespread support for this constitutional amendment among their constituents, it might never get off the ground. Learn more about the Democracy Is For People Amendment and ask your members of Congress to support it. When we launched our campaign for a constitutional amendment, we were almost a lone voice in the wilderness. Now, just three years later, two respected progressives in Congress have introduced a constitutional amendment that bears the name of our campaign. Make sure your members of Congress know that you expect them to join this historic movement by co-sponsoring the Democracy Is For People Amendment. Take action today, and maybe in another three years, corporations will no longer be able to overrun our democracy.
Onward,   Robert Weissman President, Public Citizen

~~~

 

Victims of F-35 Base.

 Vermont Prefers Sacrifice

 

Exerts from an article.

 

 

Vermont’s highest elected officials continue to promote class warfare in their reflexive support for basing the F-35 stealth nuclear-capable strike fighter in the middle of Vermont’s only urban area even though the world’s most expensive weapons system, $396 billion and counting, has been grounded since mid-January because it’s unsafe to fly.

 

Whether the Speaker of the House will let any of this legislation come to a vote is anybody’s guess, but the longer the delay, the more people will see reporting from sources such as the Defense Industry Daily suggesting that the F-35 “Can’t Turn, Can’t Climb, Can’t Run” or Business Insider explaining “How The F-35 Turned Into Such A Disaster” as bad news about the F-35 continues to accumulate.

 

Meanwhile, at least for the time being, none of it matters, because the world’s most expensive weapons system still can’t fly.

 

NOW THE FACTUAL

TRUTH!

By Floyd Bowman.

Publisher.

"Opinions Based On Facts."

March 19, 2013.

 

I have obtained the following information from a very reliable source that is directly connected to Lockheed Martin, the builder of the F35.  There have been 54 F35s built to date.  In the testing of all of these planes, there has not be any crashes and, of course, no deaths.  In the industry, the average when testing a completely new aircraft is 3 crashes and 1 death. 

 

The statements above relating to a base for the F35s in Vermont are extremely over exaggerated.  It is true that all F35s were grounded for a period of time, as in their continual test checking of all 54, they found one plane that had a crack in one blade of the engine.  It turned out to be a manufacturing flaw and did not show up in any of the other 53. 

 

The claims that the F35 can't turn, can't climb, can't run, and can't fly, simply are not true.  Test pilots have given the F35 excellent ratings.

 

While the F35 is referred to as the most expensive weapons system ever, it should be noted that the cost now, after building 54 planes, is 50% of the cost of the first production plane.  With each additional lot ordered the cost continues to go down.  If, however, they try to spread future orders out over a longer period of time the cost will go up.

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again next Tuesday March 26, 2013.

 

God Bless You All

&

God Bless the United States of America.

Floyd