BLOG POSTS

Darling of the Tea Party, Texas governor Rick Perry, says the states should decide whether to opt out of Social Security.

From the CNN ParkerSpitzer Show:

Texas Governor Rick Perry says the idea of letting states opt out of Social Security is worthy of discussion.

Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

Rick Perry: Let’s talk about it, but let’s not put it over there and say, “we can’t talk about that—that’s the third rail of politics”. I don’t believe that that’s wise and thoughtful.
Eliot Spitzer: You’ll forgive me if I’m going to push you a little on this. You’ve been the governor of the great state of Texas for a decade now

RP: Ten years

ES: A decade now, you’ve run social welfare programs, saying, “let’s make it part of the discussion” is fine, but begs for the follow up: are you for it. You’ve studied this question. You have a book here complaining about government obligations.

RP: I’m for having, I’m for pushing…

ES: Yes or no, do you want to raise the retirement age?

RP: I’m on with two very bright, capable commentators having this discussion with the American people. I don’t put in that book “Fed Up” that I have all the answers, but I think we ought to have this conversation…

ES: But you’ve got to have an answer. I don’t expect anybody to have all the answers, but you’ve got to have an answer. So, having a conversation isn’t an answer. Having a conversation is a political punt. What is the answer? What is the answer? Will you raise the retirement age or not?

Kathleen Parker: I have no control over him.

RP: Well, I’m not going to be the President of the United States, but I’m going to be engaged in…

ES: No, but you’ve been the governor for ten years and you’ve written a book harshly criticizing…

RP: Well, last time I checked…

ES: Harshly critical of federal policies…

RP: Here’s what I think would be a very wise thing. In 1981, Matagorda, Brazoria, and Galveston Counties all opted out of the Social Security program for their employees. Today, their program is very, very well-funded and there is no question about whether it’s going to be funded in the out years. It’s there. That’s an option out there.

ES: So, you want to let people opt out?
RP: I think, let the states decide if that’s what’s best for their cities.

ES: So the states will let people opt out of Social Security.

RP: They should, I think it’s a discussion…

ES: I haven’t seen anybody propose that before because that’s going to be…

RP: Well, we just laid that on the table so let’s talk about it.

ES: OK, so that’s your plan?

RP: That’s not my plan, Eliot.

ES: But, governor, I’m trying to get you, look, you’ve written a book…

RP: I know, you’re trying to get me in a corner and I don’t corner very good. What I’m trying to do is have a discussion with the people of this country on an issue…

KP: I think that’s a brand-new idea. Nobody has said that before.

ES: That’s because it doesn’t work.

RP: That nobody, nobody is willing to talk about.

ES: No, no, here is the problem I have, the Tea Party, and we’ve had everybody from Dick Armey to Richard Viguerie, folks who have been leading this movement, dodging and dancing, unable to give a single answer about what they actually support. Having a conversation is to push it someplace else.

RP: Right.

ES: I want to know if there’s an answer. Will you: raise the retirement age? Are you saying you want private accounts? You can say it, we’ll disagree, but at least it’s an answer.

RP: Sure.

ES: OK. So.

RP: I think all of those are legitimate options out there, but let the states decide. Don’t force us from Washington, DC to say, “here is the size of tube socks that you’re gonna wear down in Texas. Put ‘em on.”^[1]

Tea party politicians are all the same; they want to rip government apart, but haven’t the faintest idea what to put in its place. These people are solely career politicians with no compassion for, or understanding of, ordinary people. Many of them are politically illiterate.

I particularly liked the quote of Perry’s: “you’re trying to get me in a corner and I don’t corner very good.”

Is he, perhaps, comparing himself to a clapped-out ’57 Edsel?

^{[1] “Perry: Let states decide Social Security” CNN, November 4th 2010}

Filed under: Gubernatorial garbage

The only winner from yesterday’s mid-term election was Capitalism. A fact that will, no doubt, please many who voted Republican.

How sad is someone who desperately needs affordable healthcare, yet votes to deny it?

I read recently of one “tea-party” supporter who said he wanted the healthcare bill repealed as he “thought it would create healthcare rationing.”

Yes, a real shame if someone else got more than you did.

That person either completely failed to recognize it was already rationed – unavailable to those who can’t afford the grossly overpriced insurance policies – or didn’t care, so long as his health was well covered.

It would have been – he was a defense contractor.

The most depressing aspect of yesterday was how easily human beings can be manipulated to act against their own interests. For that, we should thank the US media. It did a great job on behalf of its corporate owners. Lies travel just as easily over airwaves as does truth.

There’s no doubt Barack Obama must be feeling brassed off this morning. I would be, in his position. After all, he’s the one who inherited the economic black hole from George W Bush and the Republicans. He’s the one who’s worked for two years to drag this country, kicking and screaming, back out of the mire.

Frankly, if I were him I’d get the hell out of it, and tell the American people where they can stick their presidency. Fortunately for the American people, I’m not him.

There’s an old saying that states something about “citizens getting the government they deserve”.

Americans are hellbent on proving it.

Filed under: Dumbasses

The British government convenes a scientific committee to advise them on illegal drugs, and then sacks the head man for not telling them what they want to hear.

That seems to be par for the course with governments these days.

It was the former Labour Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, who sacked Professor David Nutt from his position as the UK government’s chief drugs adviser back in 2009.^[1]

Professor Nutt didn’t take the rebuke lying down. He formed the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, determined to research drug problems without interference from politicians with preconceived ideas.

The committee’s report has just been published. It says just about the opposite of what government’s have been telling their citizens for years. It makes a mockery of the so-called “drugs war”.^[2]

It’s proof, if any were needed, that politicians brainwash people into believing untruths. Not that that is anything new. Like governments, organized religion has been doing it for years.

Just listen to the incredulity on the BBC’s female anchor, when Professor Nutt explains that alcohol is a worse drug than heroin.

The question here is not whether one drug is more harmful than another. It is the deceit of politicians that needs to be highlighted.

We elect these people to represent us, not to deceive us, a fact that appears to have been conveniently forgotten by those in government in Capitalist countries. They have chosen instead to represent the corporations, to assist them in making fat profits. It’s the corporations that want to continue the “drugs-war”, just as they ‘lobby’ (it’s a more acceptable word than ‘bribe’) politicians to make wars and perpetuate them.

The US Supreme Court has recently designated corporations as ‘individuals’, thus making the political representation process appear even more acceptable.

The sacking of Professor Nutt is symbolic of corruption endemic in Western political circles. Governments no longer appoint experts to advise them what to do, but to tell them what they want to hear.

^{[1] “Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked” Guardian, October 30th 2009}

^{[2] “Alcohol ‘more harmful than heroin’ says Prof David Nutt” BBC, November 1st 2010}

Filed under: Political deceit