|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Don't Show It Unless You're Prepared to Use It |
|
by Sudhama Ranganathan
Email: uconnharassment (nospam) gmail.com (unverified!) |
30 Nov 2011
|
|
All the candidates running for the office of President of the United States this election season ostensibly would like to get elected. It's safe to assume they would not be putting themselves through the obvious stresses of all the hoops and pressures of being a candidate entails otherwise. Candidates normally go around making all kinds of promises to get elected and upon getting elected, just change their positions on whatever they wish, to please whomever they choose. That isn't something relegated to one particular state, region or country that's pretty much universal most likely happening every day somewhere in some region of the world. |
|
Voters take false promises made by politicians with a grain of salt, and have traditionally. That's politics. But on certain issues in certain times we become more focused on the issues and what candidates are saying about them, because of our needs both collectively and individually. Because of specific events that may have a major impact on our lives, we expect politicians like us to realize the gravity of the moment, and thus to keep the promises they make more so than in other times.
Take the 2008 elections. We suffered eight years of lies, deceit and open displays of contempt for the constitution and everyday Americans so much so we overwhelmingly demanded change. The change demanded was not supposed to be merely a new face from the other party. Ushering in the other guys and wiping the hands clean would not do.
The previous administration left us with a broken economy that was sliding fast. They forced us to give the hard earned tax dollars paid to serve the public to people in the private sector that caused the problem. They gave us two very expensive wars that combined cost us over a trillion dollars. They proceeded to lose their spine on the war we were justified in engaging in, and sent us into another place unrelated to anything meriting an investment of lives and money was more important from a national security standpoint for us to go into and sent us there. The second war was so bad as a major component of their "surge" they quietly used tax dollars to pay people to stop shooting at us. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17899543) We spent a quarter of a billion dollars a year to pay people to be our friends in Iraq in addition to all the money spent on fighting insurgents. We spent and spent although by that time everyone but Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld admitted was a complete mistake.
It came from an administration that acted like being president was the same as being dictator or king. They cracked down on freedom of the press, free speech, freedom of assembly and more. They curtailed FOI requests they outed their own intelligence officer in the field at that time working on behalf of their own administration to get back at that agent's spouse, they were linked to the destruction of evidence of torture and more. They gave away $12 billion in cash through Paul Bremer the administration's head of reconstruction in Iraq via shrink wrapped bundles of taxpayer cash they'd just hand out to folks.
The company that the former Vice President worked as CEO of until months before running for office received no bid contracts and the person that called the matter to public attention was demoted. The company's contracts themselves kept turning up problems like when they had not adequately accounted for $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars in 2004. There were numerous instances of the company charging taxpayers for services it simply never provided like providing clean water for the troops. Instead they gave our men and women water so contaminated there were worms squirming around in the troop's toilet bowls - and we were paying for it. Who was it that said the private sector does things so much better than government?
As a nation we had had it, so we turned to a candidate that not only promised a change but specific changes, which after the last eight years were changes we both needed and wanted. But the man we voted for promised things he turned around on and refused to fulfill in the end. There were so many things like promises on never getting involved in wars without provocation. He said we would be out of the recession or down to a certain level of unemployment by a certain time - a date that came and went. He promised to crack down on the connections between Wall Street and Washington especially when it came to his administration, yet he got in and appointed people from the worst offending companies regarding the financial collapse to his administration. Oh the reality!
He promised to increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers. He promised to expand the child and dependent care credit. He promised to allow imported prescription drugs. He promised to forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses. He promised to sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize.
He promised to phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners. He promised to end no-bid contracts above $25,000. He promised to centralize ethics and lobbying information for voters. He promised tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials. He promised to restore Superfund program so that polluters pay for clean-ups. He promised to enact windfall profits tax for oil companies. He promised to reduce earmarks to 1994 levels. He promised no family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase." He promised immigration reform, then turned around and broke records for the amounts of people he deported in 2010 and 2011. There were many others. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promis)
They sounded great and were just what we wanted to hear as a nation at the time. In fact many of them even sound great now!! The problem was he just never delivered - either on the large stuff or most of the small stuff. Sure there was a large contingent of people actively moving to block him on legislation from the other side, but he knew it would be hard. Yet that was not what disappointed us most about him.
It was the about face and the way he turned his back on his most ardent supporters once taking office. He promised to stick by the previously set timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq a name most Americans regardless of political affiliation are just fed up with hearing altogether and are ready to get over with. Instead of easily doing what President Bush laid out, he actually tried to negotiate to stay there longer! Billions more are slated for 2012 already and we aren't even supposed to be there then. How does that work? More saran wrapped cash prizes?
We didn't expect everything to get done, but we did the major promises. In such times it is most important to voters, and politicians just don't seem to get it. Apparently President Obama, like many others from his party and the other party, thinks Americans are easily duped and you just people tell whatever to get into office, and then, once you're in, you do whatever you want with the power you've been entrusted with. They are no longer humble or thankful for their positions and they show it by turning on those most loyal to them.
Right now there are people angry on the streets protesting. They are mad for a litany of reasons and each individual has a unique set of issues they want addressed specifically. But ultimately if you step back and look at them you'll see they are all mad about the hypocrisy stemming from our government and the fact the power of rule has been taken out of the hands of ordinary people.
It's no wonder. According to the Center for Responsive Politics nearly half of all our nationally elected members of Congress are millionaires. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20075586-503544.html) A large chunk of those are members of the party supposed to be representing the little guy. I'm sure they understand our problems. I'll bet they understand how unions are so important to the middle-class.
Why exactly are millionaires leading the supposed party of the middle-class and poor? Who are their friends? Who do they dine with?
Do they talk all night with close loved ones about whether they will pay for food or the car bill? It's not that people shouldn't be rich, but can we have large numbers of wealthy people representing the rest of us and then question why our military is used to shield wealthy interests overseas? They're there to find ways to use tax dollars to keep them and their families and friends wealthy. You can't tell me those things don't cross their minds when they think of cutting defense spending overseas, regulating Wall Street and empowering unions. The other guys are no better, but they don't pretend to be. As a registered independent I have no skin in the game, only as a voter.
Congress has single digit approval ratings right now.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/congressional-approva) We need to look at that and keep our hope and faith that things will get better and channel that into new directions. The two big parties are for many in Washington just one big party and we are funding it. We can change that but we need to hold them accountable like those people living in tents and pushing for reform. They aren't just whining needlessly.
The things I just discussed are some of the things they want to see changed - eccentric fringe exceptions aside. They just want these guys to start doing their jobs and keeping those promises. That's what they are. That's what they represent.
Politicians keeping their promises is becoming more and more important and more and more scarce and we're beginning to see why. When we don't hold them accountable for backing up their displays American taxpayers end up paying the price - they're still eating steak dinners and enjoying full healthcare and flying home every weekend on our dime. With effort, hope and faith we can work for and eventually do much better. We can get them to back up their displays with real action.
To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com. |
See also:
http://www/lawsuitagainstuconn.com
|
This work is in the public domain |
Please Don't Feed the Trolls
Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as: "An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person." Boston IMC strives to provide both a grassroots media resource as well as a forum for people to contribute to a meaningful discussion about local issues. Please, when posting comments, be respectful of others and ignore those trying to interrupt or discourage meaningful discourse. Thank you.
-- Boston Indymedia volunteers
Due to on going anti spam work quick comments are currently broken please use the full comment form. We do hope to have quick comments back on line soon.
