When Ronald Reagan was running for president in 1980 and during the GOP primary debate, he spoke of the concept of massive tax cuts to all Americans, but especially those at the top to give them more money so that they would invest and create jobs. One of his opponents in the primaries was a senior statesman who was formerly a Congressman and was the Ambassador to China by the name of George H. W. Bush who called the plan “Voodoo Economics.”

Well, Reagan won the nomination and selected George H. W. Bush as his running mate who later embraced “Voodoo Economics” only it was being presented to the voting public as “Trickle-Down” Economics because the increased wealth of the wealthiest of the nation would trickle down to all the people.

John F. Kennedy had once remarked that a “rising tide raises all ships” implying that as the middle-class grew in economic wealth and prosperity, the entire nation, including the wealthy would do better. Trickle-Down was designed to skip a step. Instead of policies that helped the middle-class to raise the tide, policies would be put in place that were geared towards the richest Americans (as well as the corporations and banks) and out of the goodness of their hearts; the rest of the economy would grow. Essentially, raise the ships, and the tide would follow.

As president, Ronald Reagan eliminated regulations on business and banks and sure enough, he slashed tax rates. He also eliminated tax loopholes in an attempt to maintain some revenues. Problem was, he didn’t slash the loopholes used by the wealthiest of Americans, instead he cut the loopholes used by middle and working class Americans. For instance, Americans were once able to write off the interest charges of credit cards and loans from their taxes. It encouraged them to borrow money to buy things and promote the economy. Well, it was eliminated and their taxes essentially went up and further, they borrowed less and the economy began to stagnate a bit.

Now even though Reagan took over as the economy was suffering from double-digit inflation and interest rates; this was the result of the bill coming due from the monies borrowed by Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to pay for the Vietnam War. It was actually the policies of the Federal Reserve and the lowering of their interests rates that improved the overall economy in the nation. The Reagan Tax cuts actually ballooned our deficit and national debt. As a result, Reagan began to raise taxes again, but mostly on the middle-class, not the upper classes. When George Bush ran for President he famously said “Read my lips, no new taxes” in response to his party being upset with both Reagan and him for raising taxes. However, due to the fragile status of the economy and debt from Reagan/Bush, George H. W. Bush ended up raising taxes to put a Band-Aid on a growing problem.

However, trickle-down economics remained through the Clinton administration, who nearly finished the job started by Reagan/Bush by signing NAFTA and repealing some New Deal Banking regulations like Glass-Steagall. Clinton did significantly raised taxes on the wealthiest of Americans, a move that all Republicans said would “destroy the economy.” Well it didn’t and instead, the economy boomed under Clinton. However, the underlying problems with deregulation were not fixed.

When George W. Bush took office, he placed “trickle-down” economics on steroids and pushed and received the largest tax cuts in history that again, favored the wealthiest. Problem was, he also started two wars without providing funds to wage them, he implemented Medicare Part D without paying for it or even allowing government to negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, and he removed the last vestiges of New Deal Banking Regulations. As a result, the deficit ballooned even worse than under Reagan, the housing market collapsed due to banks being allowed to gamble with investor savings and guaranteed mortgages for overly inflated home loans. Did I mention that because Bush wanted to increase economic spending, he had Alan Greenspan tell people to use their homes as “ATMs” to borrow money on the equity to spend and still write that off. That is what overpriced the housing market. Then came 2008.

Its four years later and again, the concept of “Trickle-Down” is being presented by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Well, for those who don’t get it, Trickle-Down has never created jobs and will never create jobs, by giving more money to corporations or to the wealthiest Americans they end up keeping it for themselves and will not put it back in the overall economy unless they have to. It’s very simple sociology, human nature and economics.

The goal of “For Profit” Business is to make profit. Can’t get any simpler than that. One of the highest budget item on an expense column is payroll. The more people you employ, the more it costs the company. If you can maintain production with fewer employees, paying them just enough and provide just enough benefits where they stay with you, the higher your profit margin. Businesses rarely hire people just because they have the money; they hire them because they need them to maintain production. If they can automate to increase production at a lower cost, they will and will lay off employees. If they can crush “collective bargaining” so as to remove pay and benefits to reduce labor costs and increase profits, they will crush the unions. If they can get more out of an employee so they don’t need as many in order to increase profits, they will. The goal is increased profits. Hiring people eat into the profit margins.

So, just because they have more money on their accounts due to lower taxes doesn’t mean they go out and higher people they don’t need to maintain production, if they don’t need those people and that expense. Some tax breaks were imposed to give companies incentive to hire more people. If they hire them, then they get a tax break they wouldn’t have otherwise. However, those were eliminated. Instead, tax breaks were given to companies to ship jobs overseas. Its good business for them, wages are lower overseas and they get a credit for doing it. Did this idea come from government? Well, it came from business lobbyists who end up paying for the campaign of those in government who play ball with them. Even though Mitt Romney said during his first debate with President Obama that he was unaware of such tax credits, he in fact has used them in his dealings with Bain. It’s a fact.

So, companies have more money from tax breaks and don’t use it to hire people they don’t need. In the mean time, due to the recession and fewer people working, there is lower demand for goods and services from businesses. So they don’t need the people they already have to maintain production that isn’t necessary and they lay more people off. But don’t you worry about them, thanks to the tax cuts and grants; they still have money coming in to make up for the loss of business revenues. Where do they get this money from? Well, social safety net programs designed to help the people who are out of work are slashed at the request of business lobbyists. People’s “welfare” is then diverted to “corporate/business welfare.” And what make matters worse, with no one paying taxes to fund this because the wealthy have had their taxes slashed and the people don’t earn any money to pay taxes on, the debt rises to keep businesses safe and secure. That is what is important to today’s Republican Party. Survival for the businesses that pay government legislators, officials and executives to keep them in business at the cost of the well-being of the people.

Mitt Romney is a businessman who has a businessman mentality. He has no concern for people or jobs. He wouldn’t have been as successful in business as he has been if he did. People eat into corporate profits. Mitt wants more “Trickle-Down” telling you all the same lie that the more money in the hands of the few people and corporations means they will create jobs. They never had and never will. They want government assistance that is geared more to keeping the few rich people safe and secure than the “47%.”

Their ships are still rising while the tide is out. It’s very expensive and ultimately destructive to the nation. Trickle Down only works for the richest among us, and then again, only for the short term. This economy is reaching critical mass. If government doesn’t start increasing tax revenue from those who have been prospering from 30 years of tax breaks to start repairing and growing the middle-class again, as the New Deal and post war programs of FDR, Harry Truman and Republican Dwight David Eisenhower implemented in the first place, that made us an economic giant, the ships will fall and our society is doomed.

We cannot trust anyone who still advocates and supports the failed and disastrous policies of trickle down. Time to focus on the middle class.

UPDATE:

@RATM 47% reminded me in a tweet about the “Two Santa Claus Theory” that many use to explain the “Trickle-Down” Insanity. Thom Hartmann does the best job explaining this theory:

This is a rant about writer’s block…………

It was…..er, uhm.

Forget it.

I’ll do my rant on procrastination sometime later.

Have a nice Day 🙂

We know how Paul Ryan, in addition to wanting to privatize Social Security also proposes “fixing” Medicare by introducing a “Voucher” system. In the debate, Mitt Romney suggested he still agrees with that Ryan plan for now. When I first heard of this scheme, my first thought was of the Voucher system that has been introduced over the past 20 to 30 years for education. This rant will examine my belief that Vouchers are designed to destroy successful government programs designed to help Americans and at the same time distribute wealth from the middle and working class up to those who don’t need it. In short, the reverse of the Robin Hood tale.

Thomas Jefferson and most of our founders believed that if you were going to have government of the People, by the People and for the People,  those people had to be knowledgeable and educated. They introduced and promoted basic and advanced education, subsidized by government in order to get as many citizen educated for the least cost to them. Early on they were successful. Though a formal federal program of education was not in place at the time, most of the states instituted education program for their citizens. Many states like Virginia and Massachusetts, abiding by the wishes of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams subsidized advanced education for those who had the ability. Our citizens were so well-informed and educed in our early days, Alexis de Tocqueville commented about it when he toured even the rural areas our country for his book “Democracy in America” how well-informed they were of world events. Education and a vibrant Press kept our citizens able to read, reason and be aware of issues of the day.

Over time, though many States still recognized the need for government subsidized education to provide for all citizens, including those of lesser means, assistance was needed from the federal government, not only for financial support, but to establish national standards. In time, the Department of Education was created to monitor and assist this endeavor. Even in 1912 when Arizona became a State, it was written in the State Constitution that a college education was to be made as “free as possible” for citizens of the State.

Now in addition to public schools and public colleges and universities, we still had private and parochial schools and colleges and universities that wealthiest among us attended. State and federal governments knew that these schools did very well by being able to hire the best qualified teachers and professors available and still make a profit. Government developed scholarship plans to assist the less fortunate the ability to pay tuition to these schools. Though they could still get quality education from public schools and colleges for next to no cost (because tax payer dollars went to them) they had the ability to attend even higher and more prestigious schools with assistance from government or other philanthropic groups. The dividing line was parochial schools. The argument used against tax payer dollars to subsidize that was the separation of Church and State. Then came “Vouchers.”

The argument for allowing tax payer funded vouchers to allow students “of all incomes” to attend Catholic or other private schools, (and later Charter Schools) was the argument that public schools were failing to properly educate our children and the parochial and private schools did much better. Over time, the Courts relented and laws were enacted to establish vouchers for private schools. But there were some problems that were not really discussed in the open when this was going on.

First of all, although inner city public schools did have the problems you would expect from children from lower socio-economic areas that didn’t generate enough tax revenues to effectively fund those schools; overall, the public schools were doing just fine for the whole.

Another problem was “Where would the money come from to pay the tuitions for private, parochial and charter schools?” Well that was simple; money would be diverted from already underfunded public schools making matter worse for them.

Finally, “How would voucher help pay tuition for a child from a poor working class family who couldn’t come up with the rest of the money?” In theory, tuition would go down. Well in reality, they didn’t. In fact, they went up. Remember, these schools are in the private sector where profits must be maintained.

So what were the results of introducing vouchers to pay for school?

More and more tax-payer money has been pulled from public schools to fund voucher for all students to attend private and charter schools. However, since the vouchers do not cover the full tuition costs to attend those schools, working class families can’t afford the tuition with the “education coupon” they get so have only the option of the now even more underfunded public schools. So tax payer dollars end up only benefitting those who don’t even need the money to send their children to private schools. And as the costs of college education continues to sky-rocket and government cutting funding for grants and scholarships, again, only the rich end up being able to afford college educations for their children. Unless you want to get your degree and also be nearly $100,000.00 in debt after you graduate. So school vouchers take from poor, working-class, middle-class and wealthy in taxes and effectively only provide to the wealthiest among us. It is redistribution of wealth upwards.

And what is the Free Market Argument AGAINST Vouchers?

Now for Paul Ryan’s plan to voucherize Medicare (otherwise known as VoucherCare).

First of all, it has been no secret since the mid 1960’s that the Republicans want to eliminate Medicare. It is still in their mind “socialize medicine” and should have never been enacted. After all, providing needed medical service to the elderly with only a 3% administrative cost overhead puts private insurance companies to shame. Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Voucherize Medicare. Problem for them is that the people like Social Security and Medicare as it is. What was the famous sign from the Tea Party during the debate for the Affordable Care Act “Keep Government Away from my Medicare”?

So to deal with that dilemma they followed their game plan from defunding education services to fund the profits of private schools and universities, “Voucher.” Rather that have government provide healthcare benefits to the elderly, the elderly would get a voucher that they can give to a “for profit” insurance company. Nice plan if it would cover the costs. It won’t. As with educational vouchers, the money for Medicare Vouchers would come from money collected from Payroll taxes, depleting money destined for Medicare to give to the private insurance companies. So money going to an organization with only 3% cost overhead would go to a company with 20% cost overheads who have to show a profit. And keep in mind, prior to ObamaCare, insurance companies could have cost overruns far exceeding 20%. It’s by law that it is limited to 20% now. But that’s why the GOP wants to repeal ObamaCare; it eats into their donor’s profits.

Those with the money will now get tax payer money they don’t need to pay for healthcare from private insurance companies. Those who don’t have the money will get a voucher that won’t pay the premiums required for what Medicare already provides. Now they say that the increase of government money going to private insurance companies will drive down the cost. Remember, they said the same thing about private schools and vouchers. It has yet to happen. Just like more jobs being created from trickle-down economics has yet to happen. Tax Payer money going to any “for-profit” organization, whether it be education, healthcare, defense, fire-fighting, policing, what have you only results in more profits to their stockholders with reduced services to the customers who end up not even being able to afford the services provided.

Vouchers are a con from the cons who call themselves conservatives whose only interest is to redistribute money upwards to them and their campaign donors. In education it has already resulted in failing schools across the nation, even the private schools. Apply it to Medicare; it would bankrupt the program while insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank. And privatizing Social Security? Well, I think you all get the idea.

Here’s what the President has to say about Vouchers:

Education must be part of the commons for it to be any good for the entire nation as should healthcare. Privatization only provides for those at the top at the cost for those at the bottom. This isn’t what the founders wanted for a country Of the People, For the People and By the People. Corporations are not People Mitt.

I take no particular pleasure in the following rant. Anyone who’s followed my rants on Twitter and my Blog knows full well how I feel about Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The term “Sheriff” is not an appropriate title for him.

In Maricopa County, the office of Sheriff is an elected office. So you need to be a politician to take that office. To actually have law enforcement experience is a plus, providing you work as a professional law enforcement person, not a politician. From the day Joe announced his original candidacy for office and the day he took office, it was clear that Joe is more of a politician than a Sheriff. What’s worse, he’s a self-centered narcissistic corrupt and racist politician. Joe catered to the low information, non-critical thinking and racist elements in Maricopa County to become “America’s Toughest Sheriff.”

From the day he took office, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) buildings and sites had Joe Arpaio’s name placed everywhere, in much larger and bolder lettering than Maricopa County Sheriff. He effectively began a propaganda campaign that he was “tough on crime” because he was tough on criminals. He came up with pink underwear, green bologna sandwiches, and Tent City to treat criminals like slime, something low information and racist voters like to think they all are. He’s been effective in his propaganda, especially since he diverted tax payer dollars to feed his propaganda message across Maricopa County and Arizona, the country and world. Why does he need to advertise outside of Maricopa County if he’s only Sheriff here?

Well, he’s become a millionaire as Sheriff by portraying himself as “Tough on Crime.” In reality, he isn’t tough on crime. He’s tough on low-risk, minor offenders, but that’s about it. His pink underwear business got things started. He made his first million that way. As for Tent City; housing inmates in 115 degree plus weather isn’t what it would appear to be. There has never been a shortage of jail space in Maricopa County. In fact there is a maximum security jail actually sitting vacant of inmates, across the street from his 4^th Avenue Jail. He houses stray dogs and cats in the “Madison Street Jail.”

The “criminals” housed in Tent City are almost entirely low-end, low-risk first time offenders for misdemeanor offenses or those serving jail as a term of probation. Any offender classified as a high risk offender (due to history of violence, etc) is held in the air-conditioned 4^th Avenue Jail, Towers Jail, Durango Jail, etc. So the worst kind of criminal you are, the better you are treated in Maricopa County thanks to Joe Arpaio.

Joe has been responsible for millions of tax-payer dollars being spent to pay off lawsuits from inmates and families of inmates, who were needless injured or killed while in custody due to: brutal behavior, lack of basic medical care, neglect, and lack of supervision. He’s loses most of the suits filed against him, yet continues to allow cruel and negligent monitoring of inmates to continue.

People in Maricopa County don’t realize that Joe only runs a jail, not a prison. No one can be housed in a County Jail for more than one calendar year for their offense; most are housed for less than 6 months. These people get out much angrier and anti-social than they were going in, more apt to take things out on the community. This is why despite a drop of violent crimes everywhere in the nation; it continues to rise in Maricopa County. It’s human nature to not respond well to needlessly abusive behavior. Sheriff Joe make crime worse here, not better.

What’s more, he wastes money on pointless and ineffective “crime-sweeps” looking only for low-risk, low-end undocumented immigrants. He does these sweeps within city limits of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Glendale, Mesa, etc where there are already well-trained and professional police officers around to deal with these offenders. Sheriff Joe’s responsibility is to patrol the unincorporated lands of Maricopa County, not the cities and towns.

He also is sitting on 45,000 open warrants for violent felony offenders while he picks up harmless undocumented immigrants. He ignores investigating Hispanic children being sexually assaulted in El Mirage while he picks up harmless undocumented immigrants. Worse yet, to feed into his political aim of getting support from the most racist elements in Maricopa County, he’s now gone all Birther. He’s wasted tax payer’s money on a total wild goose chase on a matter already proven to be false. He made headlines for a day to two, but that’s about it.

Sheriff Joe isn’t law-enforcement, he represents the worse in low-information, angry, racist politics and as a result, crime isn’t being effectively dealt with in Maricopa County. He needs to go.

This is the difficult part of this rant for me.

Long ago I gave my support to Scottsdale Police Lieutenant Mike Stauffer. Someone brought his name to my attention and I looked him up. He originally planned to run against Joe Arpaio as a Republican in the primary. However, since Joe controls a lot of Republican politics here, he knew he would have problems. He is a professional law enforcement officer with an excellent resume. He understands the theories of law enforcement and how to effectively and economically house inmates. He’s center-right with law enforcement without being fringed right-wing, racist, or counter-productive. I gave him my support as the best alternative to Joe Arpaio, especially in a strong conservative Republican county that we have here.

A while after Mike Stauffer began his run as an independent for Sheriff; Paul Penzone began his run for Sheriff on the Democratic slate. Penzone also has a very impressive law enforcement resume. However, I had already gave my support to Stauffer and wasn’t willing to change my support. Of the two, I honestly felt that Stauffer had the better chance to grab the attentions of the people of Maricopa County and with Joe’s continuing loss of support due to people here finally waking up, had the best chance of beating him.

I was wrong. Polling done in September now shows Joe Arpaio with 44.5% support, Paul Penzone with 39% and Mike Stauffer with only 8% support. This is the closest anyone has come to beating Joe Arpaio. Mike Stauffer disagrees with these poll results. The Phoenix New Times have postulated that Mike is actually an “Arpaio plant” to take support away from his opponent. That I do not believe, but the poll results however, are convincing.

With only a month to go until November 6 and early voting about to begin, the message and answer is clear. The best opportunity we have in Maricopa County to finally rid ourselves of this obnoxious self-absorbed freak is to give full support the Paul Penzone for Sheriff.

Sorry Mike, but removing Joe is the most important thing to do and supporting you for Sheriff only helps Joe keep office. I admire what you have tried to do, but this isn’t your year.

I’m voting for Paul Penzone because he does have an excellent law-enforcement resume, is a real professional, and can beat Joe Arpaio this year.

This is a long post, but please read through to the end, I think if you are of a hopeful rational mind, you will appreciate it.

When I was checking my mail the other day, I saw this very serious “Official Republican Party Document – DO NOT DESTROY” mailed to me. And hey, this had a registration number and code. Now being one who takes the time to make sure everything is properly read and responded to, I thought I would respond to this “Survey” in real time and let anyone interested in what is being asked see what my responses are and why.

Before I begin, from someone who has his Masters in Sociology and worked on creating true and accurate public opinion surveys. To get an accurate and meaningful survey responses, beyond getting a large and representative group to question, it is important that your questions are designed to get an opinion from the participant as opposed to responding to the opinions and preconceptions of those taking the survey. To do that ends up with skewed data.

So let us begin. I will post each question and possible responses verbatim and then give my response and reasons for each response.

Section I-Presidential Performance and Issues

1)    Do you believe Barack Obama has used the presidency and the powers of his office to look out for the concerns and interests of Americans like you?

□ Yes                      □ No

I answered Yes.

2)    Do you agree or disagree with the statement below?

“President Obama inherited an economy losing 800,000 jobs a month and averted a worse economic mess while passing health care reform, saving the auto industry, killing Osama bin Laden, and winding down the war in Iraq. He has done a good job and deserves to be re-elected.”

□ Strongly agree      □ Somewhat agree

□ Strongly disagree  □ Somewhat disagree        □ Unsure

I answered Strongly agree. At this point I seriously doubt they would be tabulating any more of my answers. But to continue.

3)    How important is it to voters in your state to have candidates give attention to the following issues during the 2012 campaign?

Strengthening border security

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “somewhat” as the borders are fairly secured right now.

Reducing federal spending

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “somewhat” knowing that only federal spending at this time can get us out of the recession.

Keeping taxes low

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “somewhat” knowing that the Bush tax cuts are the biggest reasons for the deficit and somebody, preferably those with the means, should be paying more.

Exposing Obama’s radical left-wing policies

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “not” since he has no “radical left-wing policies” to expose. He’s a centrist.

Repealing ObamaCare

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “not” since ObamaCare has already proven its worth to millions in the country and is the next step to single payer which is what this nation truly needs.

Expanding domestic exploration for oil and gas

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “not” since under President Obama, we are already at record rates for both exploration and production.

Stimulating job creation in the private sector

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “very” because the Republican House has sat on all private job creating efforts presented to them by the President. They are the ones stalling growth.

Reining in government employee’s unions

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “not” because those unions have never been the problem and are in many ways the solutions to better governmental outcomes for the people. Collective bargaining is a right that should never be infringed in order to satisfy the few elites.

Demanding free and open trade to get U.S. manufacturing growing

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I voted “not” because all the Republican free trade deals have only served to end up shipping our jobs overseas instead of creating them here. Their ideas haven’t benefitted our workers and our employment rates.

SECTION II-Economic Issues

4)    Do you believe that President Obama’s policies have helped make the economy better, had no impact on the economy, or made the economy worse?

□ Strongly believe they have made the economy better

□ Believe they have made the economy better

□ Believe they have had no impact

□ Believe they have made the economy worse

□ Strongly believe they have made the economy worse

□ Unsure

I answered Strongly believe they have made the economy better. It would be better still if the Republican Congress hadn’t blocked 90% of what he’s trying to put forth for public sector job retention and private sector job growth.

5)    President Obama has indicated that if reelected, he will fight to increase tax rates on individuals and families he considers to be “wealthy.” Do you support Obama’s position?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered yes, but let’s be clear with the question. Obama isn’t proposing tax increases, he proposing allowing the Bush Tax Cuts for those making over $250,000.00 a year to expire as they should have expired in 2010. Those people can pay the Clinton rates at no loss to their current standard of living.

6)    Are you concerned about inflation undercutting your savings, devaluing your home and increasing your cost of living?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered “Yes” which is why I will vote against all Republicans in November because it was 30 years of their policies that created the atmosphere where this could happen.

7)    Do you believe that the policies of Barack Obama have helped create good jobs and improve the economy in your area?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered “Yes” because they have and would have created more if he weren’t blocked by Congress. Further, he is now at Net Job Growth and has created more jobs in less than 4 years than Bush did in 8. Over 30 months of economic growth under the President.

8)    Do you support a federal Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to stop deficit spending in Washington?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered “no” because that is the dumbest idea anyone has ever came up with. Reasons states have to go to the federal government for assistance is because of all their “balanced budget amendments” in order to stay afloat. Federal government spending, even if its deficit spending is often indicated and necessary to keep the economy afloat in dire times. It has always worked in the past and will so for the future. It’s a lame concept presented to people with no critical thinking skills to understand the consequences of such a stupid act. It would result in ongoing depression not only here, but across the World.

SECTION III-Entitlement Spending

9)    Would you support a phased-in increase in the retirement/eligibility age for Social Security benefits that would no affect anyone over the age of 50?

□ Yes            □ No

If that was where it would stay, sure taking into account people are living healthier longer lives. However, these are not entitlements; these are payouts back to the people who paid into these programs.

10) Should retirees be exempt from property tax increases on their residence?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered “No” but have no problems with some sort of “means” testing to assist those on limited, fixed incomes.

11) Would you support allowing individuals under the age of 50 to opt to put a portion of their Social Security withholdings into private accounts that they control, but cannot access without penalty until their retirement?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered “No” because this is privatization. Privatization would bankrupt Social Security and prevent those who need it the most to avoid poverty. This only benefits Wall Street Investors, if there is privatization and we have another crash, then those who need it to just survive are quite simply shit out of luck. Stupid idea GOP that why majority of nation will never support it despite what you propose to help only the wealthiest among us.

SECTION IV-National Security Issues

12) Has the Obama Administration done enough to counter Iran’s drive to acquire a nuclear weapon?

□ Yes            □ No

They have done as much as any rational administration can do to avoid another pointless bloody war with no winners at the end. This is what those who fund the GOP appear to want.

13) Should the United States demand that Pakistan reform its military and intelligence agencies in order to receive military aid funds?

□ Yes            □ No

We need to work better with Pakistan and smarter and not forget, they are a nuclear power and doing this stupidly would have catastrophic implications for the region.

14) Do you want our elected leaders to make stopping illegal immigration a top national priority?

□ Yes            □ No

I’m game if the GOP are. Problem is they see it as an issue of race catering to the racist elements of their extreme right wind fringe. If they want to talk serious immigration reform with everything on the table, then we should. If not, then they should just continue to whine as they have for the past 30 years.

15) Do you believe Obama’s strategy of treating all countries as equals to the United States has strengthened our security and weakened the resolve of our enemies?

□ Yes            □ No

What a dumb-ass question based on another false premise. Diplomacy involves treating all participants as adults recognizing that everyone has issues important to them. To work from a position that only you matter, you accomplish nothing. We always have had and will continue to have enemies. However, to treat the World as if it’s our way or the highway despite how it impacts other human beings only serves to isolate us from the entire world and then having no one to come to our aid when needed. This is how a mature diplomatic mission works.

16) Do you believe that the United   States has done enough to ensure that Chinese markets are open and fair for imports from our nation?

□ Yes            □ No

No but this is due to Congress sitting on legislation that would address much of this. However the current set up has been very beneficial to Mitt Romney and his cronies, many of whom fund the GOP in their efforts.

SECTION V-Health Care Issues

17) Do you support immediate and total repeal of the ObamaCare health care legislation and its massive new taxes?

□ Yes            □ No

Not only am I opposed to that, it must be pointed out that ACA is not a new massive tax. In fact, the government has no control, no mechanism to even collect the “taxes” implied by the legislation and it is estimated to only impact less than 4% of the people who chose not to get healthcare and are of the means to purchase it. Another question based on a false premise.

18) Have the government and news media provided information to ensure that citizens have a good understanding of the composition, impact and costs of the Democrat-passed ObamaCare health care legislations?

□ Yes            □ No

Well, FOX has been good at feeding out misinformation about the legislation at the behest of the GOP while the mainstream media hasn’t done much to correct the record. But word is getting out that this is good for the American people and economy despite the whines from the right. By the way guys, its “Democratic-passed” not “Democrat-passed”, that just childish on your part.

19) Are you concerned that Barack Obama and the Democrats intend for their ObamaCare legislation to eventually lead to the creation of “single-payer” government run health insurance and health care system?

□ Yes            □ No

Concerned? I’m counting on it. It’s about time we join the rest of the industrialized world and get better outcomes for less money than we do under the current system. By the way, this is for funding and accessibility of health care, not health care itself.

20) Do you believe you can receive the same quality of health care and accessibility to quality care through a federal government run health care system?

□ Yes            □ No

The rest of the industrialized world does, I believe we can to.

SECTION VI-Values Issues

21) Do you support the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade to allow states to regulate/restrict abortion as they see fit?

□ Yes            □ No

Considering the needless deaths and poor outcomes across the country prior to Roe v Wade, absolutely not. Women deserve to make that choice, to say otherwise is not Pro-Life, it’s Pro-Slavery.

22) Do you believe we should keep a strong pro-life plank in our platform?

□ Yes            □ No

Your platform isn’t pro-life at all if it allows for people of limited means to not have affordable healthcare, education, jobs, opportunities and still supports illegal and pointless wars and executions for people who end up being innocent. Come up with a Pro-Life Plank and then we can discuss it.

23) Should federal funds be provided to non-profit organizations whose primary function is conducting abortions?

□ Yes            □ No

I don’t believe there are any. If you’re referring to Planned Parenthood, only 3% of their operations are geared towards providing women the choice of an abortion.

24) Do you support allowing parents to use government vouchers to send their children to the school of their choice be it public, parochial or private?

□ Yes            □ No

No school voucher system does that. It only diverts public tax money to the wealthiest who can already send their children to parochial and private schools thus saving them money. Those of limited means are left with only underfunded public schools. Vouchers are a con to the tax-payers.

SECTION VII-The 2012 Campaign

25) Are Republicans in your area enthusiastic and committed to voting for our Republican slate of candidates this November?

□ Yes            □ No

If they are, they’re totally misinformed and aren’t interested in theirs or our country’s best interests.

26) Do you support voter ID laws that require individuals to show a government issued picture ID when the go to the polls to vote?

□ Yes            □ No

Only if they are easily provided to all Americans free of charge with no strings attached. Kind of like what Bill Clinton was advocating when he was president and the Republicans balked at such an idea.

27) Do you believe the Republican Party needs to do a better job exposing the Obama record and his radical liberal agenda?

□ Yes            □ No

No, the GOP needs to actually start telling the truth that the agenda isn’t radical or liberal; it’s centrist with many traditional GOP planks in it. Stop the misinformation to the American people.

28) Are you committed to helping ensure that in 2012, the Obama-era of radical liberalism, reckless spending and embarrassing foreign policy comes to an end?

□ Yes            □ No

The last question and yet again based on a false premise and with a mix of projection on the GOP’s part. To put it succinctly, No fucking way losers!

Now if this was just a survey, that would be it. But it wasn’t, it’s primarily a request for contributions. Following the last question was the hit for money. You have three options to pick from:

□ Yes, I will give money to help elect Mitt Romney… etc, starting at $35.00.

□ No, I don’t want to participate but will return the questionnaire with a contribution to “help build the Republican Party’s national campaign to defeat Barack Obama and elect Republicans to all levels of government in 2012.” Starting at $35.00.

□ No. I do not wish to participate, but I am returning this Document with a sponsoring contribution of $15 to help cover tabulating my Survey. I found this last option of the only three absolutely insulting.

There was a final Section after the contribution part for additional comments. I would simply add, fire Reince Priebus and bring some adults back to run the party.

The purpose of this “survey” was so transparent. It started off harmless enough with basic and safe questions of opinion. However, as you will note, as you moved through the survey, the questions were more geared towards the fringed radical right extremists of the GOP. The tone of each question spoke more to the opinions of those who wrote the question and asking for confirmation from those they hope agree with them. As a result, the Right Wing Nut Job who actually completes the survey is so angry at the end, they will contribute money.

Now the fact of the matter is, the GOP has lost sight of the fact that the extremists in their party have driven many Republicans away in the past two years. They have become Democrats or Independents. However, many do still remain in the party but lay low. There is an organization out there:

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

who represent the last few sane members of the party. This survey would most likely cause them to leave also.

From 2008:

And from this year, Republican Women for Obama:

Anyhow Reince Preibus, I’m not returning this survey to you with a contribution. But you have mine and I believe the answers of rational people to your “survey.” Tabulate it at your own cost, not mine.

Remember ACORN? It was during and after the 2008 election cycle when things weren’t looking good for the McCain ticket, and the right-wing were convinced that ACORN, (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), were a subversive group with deep ties to the Obama organization for years. They alleged that there was wide-spread election fraud from ACORN operatives along with other scandals.

Timothy McVeigh look-alike James O’Keefe pulled his infamous and as it turned out in later Court cases, edited “under-cover” taped investigation of the organization trying to link them to fraud and prostitution. Of course it was later determined that not only were the O’Keefe tapes were an edited fraud, no criminal or ethical malfeasance was ever found and the people who were conned were all cleared of any wrongdoing. However, the backlash of this witch-hunt to shut down an organization whose sole purpose was to get eligible voters registered and active, so as to be involved in matters that affected them (can’t have that in a democracy) was so effective, the organization lost money and support and ended up shutting down. To date no criminal charges against the agency were ever proven.

These were the allegations against ACORN that were soundly debunked:

(From 2008)

Despite John McCain’s claim that the group is “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history … maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” Nothing of the sort ever came to the light of reality. It turned out to be a desperate red herring from a desperate campaign.

As the clip above shows, there were never any ties of Obama with ACORN prior to or during the campaign, other than him being one of several attorneys, working with the U.S. Department of Justice in a successful 1995 lawsuit against the state of Illinois that made it easier for people to register at driver’s license offices.

There were never any indications of voter fraud or election fraud committed by the ACORN agency itself. Although they had filed registration forms for obviously false applicants, it turned out that ACORN was required by law to submit all registration applications. Further, when turning these forms in, ACORN advised that they were likely fraudulent.

Canvassers hired by ACORN at $8.00 an hour to collect registrations, actually perpetrated fraud against ACORN itself and were identified and terminated. Some of those canvassers were prosecuted with the assistance of ACORN.

None of the “fraudulent” voter registration applicants made it to the polls due to the diligence of ACORN themselves. They identified the fraudulent voter registration forms, turned them in as required by law and the voting jurisdictions took appropriate action. No fraudulent votes for any candidate were cast as a result. As noted, voter fraud in this country is next to zero, literally.

So now let us fast forward to today and what has been revealed in Florida. I bring this up because recently I had a RWNJ on Twitter boasting that the Republicans have been registering more people than the Democrats. Of course, Florida came to mind. The man may be correct, but here is the reason why.

The company at the heart of this is Strategic Allied Consulting. This is shaping up to be true voter registration fraud. Unlike ACORN, there appears to have been a true orchestrated effort from people at the top to commit the fraud. Further, there is a direct link between the GOP and Strategic Allied Consulting along with links to the GOP nominee, Mitt Romney. Strategic Allied Consulting is run by long-time GOP operative Nathan Sproul.

Keep in mind, the Democratic Party was never linked to ACORN. The DNC never hired ACORN to do anything or paid them anything. How do we know there is a connection between the GOP and Strategic Allied Consulting? Well for one thing, the GOP just fired them after the allegations of voter registration fraud came to light. They had been hired in five swing states (Florida, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia) to register Republicans. Florida is where the problems came to light and are being investigated for criminal wrong-doing. Further, there are allegations coming to the surface in the other states involved.

Florida is interesting. The efforts of the Rick Scott administration to make voter registration nearly impossible and to purge voters who lean left, are legendary and beyond doubt. So much so that a recent study showed nearly no new Democratic Registrations in Florida compared to GOP. In Clay County alone, only 67 new Democrats were registered compared to 4,008 Republicans compared to 2,204 Democrats and 3,733 Republicans during the previous presidential election cycle. Strategic Allied Consulting was involved.

According to electoral watchdog Brad Friedman, “A massive GOP voter registration scheme, which appears to involve the upper-echelons of the national party, [has begun] to emerge.” At the center of the controversy is Mr. Sproul, whose firm has faced allegations of questionable tactics in the past, including changing or throwing out registration form filled out by Democrats. ACORN was never accused of changing or throwing out any registration forms.

Mr. Sproul has worked for a number of GOP presidential campaigns including Mitt Romney’s, who hired him last year as a consultant, despite his interstate record of alleged voter registration fraud. In 2004, his group was found to have been tricking Democrats into registering as Republicans, surreptitiously re-registering Democrats and Independents as Republicans and shredding Democratic registration forms. Despite this history, his company was given a $1.3 million from the GOP to register voters in Florida and additional money for the other states. There are currently allegations of missing social security numbers, fake addresses, and dates of births that did not match up. As mentioned earlier, as the evidence comes in, it has been so convincing, that even the GOP has fired Mr. Sproul’s firm with several days to go in these five states to register voters prior to the November election. It’s appears to be far more convincing and real than any of the allegations against ACORN.

As with ACORN, law requires all completed voter registration forms to be turned in. The difference between ACORN and Strategic Allied Consulting has been that:

Strategic Allied Consulting did not alert officials to problems with the registrations being turned in.

They are accused of throwing out non-GOP registrations instead of filing them (something ACORN was never accused of).

The allegations of ACORN were only directed to those hired to fill daily quotas.

There are reports that the canvassers for Strategic Allied Consulting were doing this at the instructions of the upper echelons of the company to included GOP operative Mr. Sproul.

ACORN was never linked directly with the Democratic Party, they were community based.

Elections can be stolen. But they can only be stolen if the race is close. To keep the race close you need to suppress votes, either by caging, purging or hiring people to only get your people registered, not the ones likely to vote for your opponent. And of course enacting voter ID laws that disproportionately affect your opponent’s likely voters is also a good way. The GOP is trying everything this year. Thankfully due to Mitt Romney’s poor campaigning, the race isn’t as close as it needs to be. However, you need to still register, make sure you are registered, then get out and vote no matter what. Oh, and make sure everyone else does to. This cannot be close.

UPDATE: This young woman was working for Stategic Allied Consulting in Colorado following their script and instructions. Now that this clip has been released, she was fired for doing what she was told to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdk55dLsFhc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This group doesn’t want the majority of people voting in this country because that is the only way the Republicans can win.

As he was running for President, the country had been under Republican rule for years. The economy was in shambles. Little had been done to effectively deal with the financial crisis that was resulting in continuous job losses with no end in sight. He ran on a platform of changing things in Washington and work with the Republicans. He had a contested primary for the Presidential Nomination. The feeling of the nation was turning against what the Republicans had created after years of deregulation and poor oversight of economic issues. People were complaining about the huge deficits being run up by the federal government. He won the presidency with a vast coalition of labor, blacks and other minorities. Prior to taking office he was the target of assassination plots from extremists who feared what he would bring to the White House.

During his first term, he had a full agenda of things he wanted to accomplish to make the country a more stable and better place for all. The economic collapse that begun under and due to Republicans that preceded him made his work difficult. Of course, the economic downturn was also world-wide. He wanted to govern under the principles of “relief, recovery and reform.” He regularly spoke to the American people and was ridiculed for it by the other side. They felt he was giving himself too much air time to feed his own vanity. He saw that Americans weren’t spending, placing money in the economy so he pushed for economic stimulus from the federal government to get things moving again. Initially Congress assisted, but later complained about how these government programs were increasing the national debt. Though there were signs of early success, things were not improving fast enough and the Republicans ran against him on a lackluster recovery in the following mid-terms. They also ran against him for the social programs and bank regulation programs he instituted with the help of the Democrats in Congress over the almost universal objections of the Republicans. Trying to work with the Republicans, he scaled back some of his stimulus requests in order to cut federal spending. As a result, some small gains were actually lost. However, recovery came back, but again at a slower pace than the country wanted to see. As he entered the end of his term, the Republicans felt they had him and ran against him on his “failed record” and increased deficit spending as it related to GDP.

The Republicans nominated a man who was a former Governor and who by all accounts was a “moderate” but to get the nomination presented himself as a conservative. He railed against the president about how his policies were hostile to business and a waste of tax payer dollars. The President was called a Socialist. The pundits all said it would be a close race. The country wasn’t satisfied with the President and what he failed to deliver from his first race.

I am of course talking about Franklin Delano Roosevelt who took office during the GOP depression created and perpetuated by policies of Herbert Hoover and his second run for the Presidency against Alf Landon. Despite the problems FDR faced and the “learned” opinion of the media of the time saying it would be a very close race and FDR could lose, Roosevelt ended up winning in one of the largest landslide in popular votes, states won and Electoral College votes. FDR took every state with the exception of Maine and Vermont. Further, there was a landslide of new Democrats being elected to Congress giving FDR a larger advantage than he had before in Congress.

After the election, it was determined that FDR, though seen as a socialist was still very popular in the country, especially over his opponent, Alf Landon. Further, Social Security was taking shape and hold and the people liked it and didn’t appreciate calls from the Republicans to repeal it. People saw that though the rate of recovery was slow, it was still a recovery and recognize that many of the problems in its success was obstruction from the GOP in Congress as well as the Supreme Court at the time. The American people were more aware than the media gave them credit for. FDR won in 1936. He won again in 1940 becoming the first President to win three terms. And he won in 1944. His economic policies, his handling of the War, his likability and populace leanings made him unbeatable. The country did so well under Democratic Rule; the GOP successfully changed the Constitution limiting a President to only two terms. Since FDR’s death, they continued to work to overturn or privatize Social Security. Though FDR was unable to get healthcare passed, his understudy in Congress Lyndon Johnson was able to get Medicare passed when he became President and the GOP has been working to eliminate that program too. When Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan say they want to strengthen both programs, you have to ask why they would want to do that when it’s been the policy of the Republican Party to this very day to repeal those programs.

ObamaCare is starting to take effect in much the same way Social Security took effect in 1936 and more and more people are seeing the benefits of it. Many insiders in the GOP are now acknowledging that it will not go away. Its popularity continues to increase as people learn more from it and experience its merits personally. What’s more, people are now seeing the open and unabashed obstructionism of the GOP in Congress. Not only is it likely President Obama will win re-election, he may be bringing back a Democratic House and a much more Democratic Senate as the centrists/independents of the country realize we cannot go back to the Republican policies that placed us in this mess in the first place.

Of course the key has been, and always will be voter turnout. People must register, ensure that they are registered, make sure they have the proper ID to thwart suppression efforts, and most important of all Vote. The higher the turn out, the more likely Obama and other Democratic Candidates will win. The GOP knows this and knows this is the only way they can hold on to any power in Washington. Don’t let them. Make sure you get your family and friends to also register, confirm, and get ID and vote. Give them all the assistance you can. What’s at stake?

Social Security

Medicare

Medicaid

ObamaCare (ACA)

Direction of the Supreme Court (populace centered or corporate centered?)

Economic Recovery

If you are for corporate control of Government and you, then do nothing. Otherwise get active and vote.

Here’s a gem floating around on YouTube right now. Give it a listen and wonder which Mitt Romney will debate President Obama next week.

This is why his Secret Service Code name is “Weather Vane”

Many feel that the “War on Drugs” began in January 1971 when then President Nixon declared that “drug abuse is public enemy number one” and later in January 1972 when he coined the term “War on Drug Abuse.” The fact of the matter is, the actual United States War on Drugs actually began on December 14, 1914 with the Harrison Narcotic Tax Act and continues to this very day. The war is a campaign of prohibition, foreign military aid and military intervention undertaken by our government.

In June, 2011 the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a critical report on the “War on Drugs” declaring “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug policies are urgently needed.”

In 1937 the “Marijuana Transfer Tax Act” was passed. This was designed to destroy the Hemp Industry because Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst and the DuPont family saw hemp as a cheap substitute for the paper pulp they sold for the newspaper industry as well as other materials being developed by the DuPont’s. Many believe that this was the reason marijuana become illegal and classified as a drug. Hemp interfered with the business interests of the wealthy in the country, even though it was never documented to have created any problems prior to the 1937 act like more illicit drugs like Opium and Cocaine.

In 1988 the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was established by the National Narcotics Leadership Act, which mandated a national anti-drug media campaign for youth. The director of the ONDCP is commonly known as the Drug Czar, was coined by President H. W. Bush in 1989. In 1993 the ONDCP Director gains Cabinet Level Status by President Bill Clinton.

In 2012 the director of ONDCP announces that their policy was to no longer wage a “War on Drugs” saying that United States had revised their policy to create a “third way” approach to drug control based on investments in research on the disease of substance abuse. They did not see drug legalization as a solution to drug control and that “it is not a policy where success is measured by the number of arrests made or prisons built.” However, since this decision, little has been done to curb the incarceration rates of those caught up on drug charges nor has very much been placed in drug treatment across the country with the possible exception of federal funding of Drug Courts.

Although it is now the policy of the United States Government that drug use/abuse is a disease, it remains the policy of the United States Government to treat this disease via the Criminal Justice System.

Since 1980, due significantly to the “War on Drugs” our prison population has exploded.

The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. (743 per 100,000 population). In 1994 it was reported that the “War on Drugs” resulted in the incarceration of one million Americans each year. Of these arrests, approximately 225,000 are for possession of marijuana, the fourth most common cause for arrest in the United States. In 2008, 1.5 million Americans were arrested for drug offenses of which 500,000 were imprisoned. During the 1980’s, the number of arrests for all crimes in the nation rose 28% while the arrests for just drug offenses rose 126%.

On January 1, 2008 more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States were in prison or jail. In 2008, 1 in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States was behind bars or being monitored on probation or parole. Of this population: one out of 18 men, one in 89 women, one in 11 African-Americans (9.2%), one in 27 Latinos (3.7%), and one in 45 Caucasians. 70% of prisoners in the United States were non-whites. Prison populations have surged in recent years due to mandatory sentencing guidelines and the “War on Drugs.” However, during this same period of time, violent crimes and property crimes have declined since the early 1990s. Only 7.9% in federal prisons were in for violent crimes. And only 52.4% of those in state prisons are in for violent crimes.

It has been estimated that the greatest single force behind the growth of the prison population has been the “War on Drugs.” The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelve-fold since 1980. Yet the percentile of illegal drug use across the country remains unchanged. Of those who end up being incarcerated, there is a 67.5% chance they will be rearrested within 3 years of their release with 51.8% of them going back to prison. Studies verify that going to prison and serving more time results in a higher probability of being returned to prison after release.

That percentile drops for those who get probation without incarceration, and even less for those who complete a drug diversion program instead of being placed on probation. So evidently the less government sanction imposed on a drug offender the better. But as a nation, we tend to throw the book at them. Especially if they are minority and/or not affluent.

In 1986, it was determined that the sentencing disparity of possession of crack cocaine to the possession of powder cocaine (minority use versus Caucasian use) was 100:1. In 2010 the Fair Sentencing Act cut that particular sentencing disparity to only 18:1 (sigh). Crime statistics show that in 1999, African Americans were far more likely to be arrested for drug crimes and receive much stiffer sentences than non-minorities. Nationwide, African-Americans were sent to prison for drug offenses 13 times more often than other races even though they comprise only 13% of regular drug users.

So what do we know about drug use in this country?

We know it is considered a disease like alcoholism, we know that drug use is illegal though alcohol use isn’t and we know that there is often violence associated with the drug use, manufacturing and sale. So is using the criminal justice system the most effective and cost effective way to curb drug use in the country?

Currently, those convicted of a drug crime that do not end up being incarcerated still end up in the criminal justice system. Often they are placed on probation with conditions requiring attendance in substance abuse programs as well as some substantial fines. Rarely does government pay for this treatment, but requires it none-the-less for the offender to avoid further sanctions. So failure to attend treatment or pay the fines, or any continued use of drugs can result in arrest and imprisonment.

Many court jurisdictions have what are known as “Drug Courts.” Drug Courts are advertised as treatment orientated Courts where drug offenders, in addition to treatment and regular contact with their probation officers actually see the Judge on a regular basis. They are given immediate awards for good behavior as well as immediate punishment (to include incarceration) for non-compliant behavior. It’s behavioral modification based on the Pavlovian model. They say that “Drug Court Works,” that’s their motto. However, it is relative depending on what you are comparing it to. Even though it is treatment based, there is a cost of Court supervision attached to it. Many drug users, especially those who end up in the criminal justice system for lack of good attorneys, don’t have the means to pay for treatment, court costs or fines. So financially they end up deeper in the hole, adding to their stress and increasing the likelihood of relapse into drug use for an escape from an ever depressing reality.

What is the illegal drug use rate in this country?

In this country, an estimated 20.4 million people will use some kind of illicit drug during a 30-day period. About 8.3% of all persons age 12 and over are involved in use of illegal drugs or the nonmedical use of prescription drugs. These are conservative numbers.

14.8 million People or 6% of the population use marijuana.

2.4 million People use cocaine.

1 million people use hallucinogens including Ecstasy.

731,000 use Methamphetamine.

7 million use prescription drugs without a valid prescription.

The rate of illegal drug use has remained constant in this country since 2002, despite efforts to curb illegal drug use via the criminal justice system with the drug war. Billions spent and nothing to show for it.

What are the costs for drug treatment?

The costs of effective drug treatment vary according to the programs available, their location. However, it is estimated that the average cost of treatment is $1,433.00 per treatment program and course of treatment. Their effectiveness depends on the type of treatment and what kind of lapse-relapse prevention is offered. It is accepted in the field that once a substance abuser, always an abuser. A person is either in relapse or recovery for the rest of their lives. Many studies tend to bear this out.

So what are the costs to incarcerate drug users?

In 2007, $74 billion was spent on corrections. The total number of inmates in federal, state and local lockups was 2,419,241. That equates to $30,600.00 per inmate per year. The amount does vary depending on location. However these are costs to the tax payer. This is where your money goes.

With the advent of the private prison system, the costs actually do go up, while the security and treatment of the offenders goes down. And again, those costs go to the tax payers, while the profits go to the private prison industry. By the way, the private prison industry is a big advocate on the “War on Drugs.” ALEC sponsors anti-drug laws with mandatory incarceration to “aid” society in dealing with these people.

What are the costs of the “Drug War” compared to the cost of drug use?

So what has the “War on Drugs” brought us?

I agree that illegal drug use is a problem. It is a disease and should be treated as such. Alcoholism is also a disease. However, it is only when someone is “drunk and disorderly” or worse yet, driving a motor vehicle under the influence, do they face arrest and serious legal consequences. Simple possession or use of even a small amount of drugs is grounds for severe financial consequences as well as arrest and possible incarceration. Further, those so treated, will find it difficult to get good jobs and end up being more prone to needing assistance for housing, food and healthcare from tax payers because they are unable to get good work. All because we treated a human ailment as a felony with the entire stigma attached to convicted felons.

It is clear that it is more cost effective and we would have better outcomes to simply treat the drug user so they can take control of their disease. When we label them as criminals, sanction them with probation, incarceration, fines and a permanent record, we make their situation worse. They tend to go on and commit more serious crimes in order to survive. Crimes that do have a direct impact on the community and her safety and well-being.

The “War on Drugs” is a failure and has only served to make the matter worse, create more crime, and cost the tax payer more while enriching those in the private prison industry who simply love the business, by mistreating the offender.

I do not believe in the legalization of drug use; with the possible exception of Marijuana. That drug is proven by study after study, to be no more harmful than alcohol.

Other more serious drugs should remain illegal; however, decriminalized in order to treat the disease, not incarcerate the patient.

If someone commits a crime under the influence of a drug or in attempts to get a drug, then they should face severe criminal sanctions like we do with DUIs. But to continue to go after people who simply use and harm anyone but themselves and their immediate family, leave them to themselves and their family.

A truly conservative government wouldn’t be involved in telling people how to live, if their lifestyle doesn’t impact society in a dangerous way. The “War on Drugs” has failed and it’s time to call an end to it and clean up the mess.

Again, I’m not for legalization, but some level of decriminalization may be of benefit:

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.” – Henry David Thoreau

I know it’s become cliché each election cycle, but I’m going to say it anyway, this is the most critical election of our time. Rarely in the history of this country have the American people been confronted with two widely different views of how to proceed as a nation. One side is populace, advocating an altruistic society where all are entitled to a level playing field with the assistance of government by the people. The other side clearly advocates an Ayn Rand society ruled by the elites. When I say elites I mean the wealthiest people who have the means and the intention to ensure they have a government in place that allows them the freedom to do what they will despite the impact on the people. They say they hate government, yet want to have government around to ensure they will always be wealthy and quite frankly, won’t allow anyone else into their clubhouse (literally).

You would think these choices are obvious to the American people and that the populace side of the argument would be double digits ahead of the other with the people. But it’s not. The polling is still tight. Despite the information out there, many people support what is seen as issues and candidates not representing what’s in their best interests. Sad but true. I propose that the current situation is a culmination of years of careful manipulation, mainly from the right, to compel educators in our country to leave out “Critical Thinking” skills from curriculums across the country. Worse yet, a concerted effort to convince people in the country to not think critically via the mainstream media, both news and entertainment.

As John Dean points out, the right-wing mentally is one who “follows orders” without question. They believe it and do what they are told to do. If people have developed critical thinking skills, they would question what they are told, demand explanations as to why things are the way they are and then question the explanations. It is often amusing to hear a child ask “why” and when told ask “why” again. As we have matured, we’ve been given answers and are told to accept those answers for what they are. The chants of the 1960’s “Question Authority” had a purpose. You rarely hear that anymore because to question authority place authority in a bad place, they can’t rule without explaining what they are doing to everyone’s satisfaction.

So to begin, what is Critical Thinking?

“Critical thinking…the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself”

The concept of critical thinking has been developing throughout the last 2500 years. However, the term has it’s roots in the mid to late 20^th Century.  Per http://www.criticalthinking.org:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observations, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. 

          It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking – in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes – is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking. 

          Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills (“as an exercise”) without acceptance of their results. 

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem: Everyone thinks it is our nature to do so. However, much of our thinking left to itself is biased, distorted, partial, uniformed or down-right prejudiced. Shoddy thinking is costly both in money and in quality of life.

A Definition: Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.

The Result: A well cultivated critical thinker raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely and then gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively and comes to well-reasoned conclusion and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards. They think open-mindedly and communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

It is the concept of critical thinking that led to the scientific method that resulted in the advancement of the human race in terms of controlling our environment and extending our lives by extending our knowledge of the world around us. The method takes nothing for granted or for face value. All things need to be explained, reasoned and then shown to be applicable. It is why we no longer see the world as being flat, or the center of the universe. It is why we no longer see disease as “bad humors” or demon possession resulting in medical treatments to cure or control affliction and extending life. It is why we no longer see monarchs as descendant from God Himself and entitled to unfettered obedience. It is why democracy was created; it is why we created government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is why we know that all people are equal and helps us to advance as a civilization. It involves continued progression forward, not staying put accepting things for how they are; for that is conservatism. This is why the concept of critical thinking has been purposefully eroded away whenever those of the conservative movement get the chance.

For example, in July 2012 the Texas Republicans sought to ban critical thinking in the public schools, the schools where the masses attend because they cannot afford the private and charter schools where the elites and entitled future leaders of the State and country attend.

From the position paper in the 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform:

“Knowledge Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a re-labeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” 

This was a follow-up to Arizona’s HB2281 that banned the teaching of Chicano Studies in public schools and the fact that the numbers of minority students in Texas public schools have been increasing. Perhaps they fear that if these students are taught not to accept that they are anything other than “minority working class” people, and to not challenge the authority of the ruling classes, because they are always right, they may actually challenge that authority. Again, critical thinking allows, compels people to not accept things for as they are. It encourages change in a world that is supposed to be always changing as we learn and experience more.

In July 2010, Breanne Harris wrote about “Why Does Gen Y Lack Critical Thinking Skills?”

http://critical-thinkers.com/2010/07/why-does-gen-y-lack-critical-thinking-skills/

She notes that numerous studies are confirming that the new entrants into the workforce and recent graduates (Gen Y) rate below average on critical thinking. The blame is placed on the parents. She implies that Gen X people have been taught that no matter what, everybody wins, everybody gets a trophy. So they did the same with their children. There is no emphasis on studying, that life is a competition, that there are consequences to not putting in the effort. They empower the entitled views of those currently graduating and entering the work force. So the need for critical thinking is not nurtured. Why should it? If everything is fine, if you are already the best you can be, why aspire to more? Why question the ways things are and explore ways to make things better?

This cannot be blamed on Republicans. This is the result of frankly lazy parenting. Parents wanting to avoid conflicts with children or give them painful memories for not being the best every parent think their child is. I think this is a problem that spans all political views. However, if the schools will not instill critical thinking into their curriculums the problem is not resolved. Schools are indirectly forced to no spend time teaching critical thinking because of “high stakes testing” where they need to teach students “to the test” instead of how to find the answer themselves or question why that is the correct answer, or even if it is the correct answer. Teachers must do this or face getting bad reports from test results that could impact their pay. So it is a systemic problem in educating our children. So the major problem is that we have a growing number of people entering our workforce, entering the citizenry who lack critical thinking skills and are now prone to accept what they are told by the power elites without question.

So how does this play in the political process? Well though I think many of our leaders, especially on the right side of the aisle lack critical thinking skills (those who question climate change, those who think women can’t conceive after “legitimate rape,” those who think non-whites are inferior to whites, those who think cutting taxes will increase revenues) the problem is with the voting populace.

We have growing numbers of citizens who have not been raised with refined critical thinking skills, as they enter our society they are subject to mainstream media who create a narrative that political issues are closer than they actually are to get viewership. They confuse the populace with trivial matters that play to the more mundane and base emotions of the voters. They love to preface any inane, factually incorrect statement with the phrase “some people say” that cons the viewer into thinking that this is a legitimate issue with voters. They don’t question it because that isn’t how they were raised. The media leaves out important facts to the populace in presenting their stories and providing their explanation as to why something happened. The 2010 sweep of Republicans into Congress and State Houses and Governorships was presented as a complete repudiation of the Obama agenda. They didn’t mention that only 37% of registered voters casted ballots in 2010 and those who did vote tended to be more of the conservative bent. By leaving that out, those who thought differently began to think that if that was the case, maybe we are a more right-wing country than we actually are. That wasn’t the case. Even today, you poll people on individual issues, abortion, progressive tax codes, water and food safety, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid; specific provisions of “ObamaCare,” the vast majority of voters actually support the left-wing agenda. However, all they hear is that we are “centered right” without explaining why, over what specific agenda items, makes us center-right?

So mainstream media leaves us only a partial story and few people have the intellectual curiosity born from developed critical thinking skills to “question authority” and do their own research to determine is what they are hearing is in fact true.

This is our current political state. This is why someone so provably anti-populace candidate like Mitt Romney or the Republican slate that is financially supported by not the majority of people, but a handful of millionaire and billionaires, are still close enough in polling to actually win. The information is out there for people to get, but they don’t seek it out, they accept what they are told even if it doesn’t quite ring true. The way the GOP wants it. However, just to make sure, they’ll suppress the votes they can.

So what can be done about this? Well challenge the views of people who not only are opposed to your own, challenge your own views. Keep informed. One of my favorite radio personalities in Randi Rhodes. On her website, before each show she has her “homework” section. A list of stories, research papers etc for you to read to challenge the views being presented that day. Those who follow me on Twitter may notice I usually do an article dump during the day. These are the articles I get from Randi. Sometimes the articles support the right side of the aisle and are worth the read. It challenges me to confirm if my views are valid. You will notice that no one on the right will offer anything to support what they say on the air, only the preface “some people say.”

With issues pending regarding our national debt, stalled economic recovery, women’s health rights, healthcare availability for the average person in the first place, increasing levels of poverty due to decimation of the middle-class, ever-increasing income disparity between the classes, war with Iran, global climate change, we need to be thinking about these issues and how best to address them.

Here is where the lack of the Government and nation’s use of Critical Thinking really failed us all:

Knowledge is power, but you need to have the inclination to get that knowledge and carefully consider that knowledge. Question authority and accept we cannot progress unless we are willing to change long-held views for an ever-changing world. And by all means, be critical.