A Liberal Supermajority

[Drew]

* OCTOBER 17, 2008

A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.



It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html#




There's what the WSJ op-ed section is predicting. If liberals get a supermajority what do you think they will pass in the first 2 years?

[ElanthianSiren]

Don't worry, republicans; you still have the judicial branch.

The article is kind of "sky is falling" by failing to mention that. I lost focus after the fourth paragraph though.

[Garnet Doyle]

I personally liked the "OBAMA WILL TAX U INTEH OBLUVVVVION!!!" bit. When really, what is he planning to do? He's planning to return the tax code to what it was under Clinton.

You remember him? The 8 years of unbridled economic growth? The national debt being paid down? THE FUCKING DEBT CLOCK TURNED OFF?!?

I just read the other day how they had to change the "$" on the debt clock to a "1" and then tape on a non digital "$" to the left of it, just to support the mushrooming national debt. Bush came into office, and started cutting taxes, raising spending, and generally acting like a kid who discovered dad's car keys+credit card when he was away for the weekend.


It seriously blew my mind when after 4 years of pure shit-headed fuckoffery, then put him BACK IN FOR ANOTHER 4. I've also never wanted to punch a political figure, but when he was on camera at some christmas party or someshit at the whitehouse, and he starts making a joke out of iraq "Hmm... any WMDs over here? ::looks behind the curtain:: "Nope... any WMDs over here?" ::looks under the couch:: "Nope... heh..." while the troop death-toll kept climbing and climbing.


Seriously. Fuck that.

[Ignot]

I still like how they target only the Democrats for trying to raise taxes. Honestly, do you believe McCain when he says he will cut taxes? Either president will be raising taxes. That's a no brainer.

[Gan]

Whatever happens, we're definitely in for some change. And change can be scary. However, the GOP had its chance and fumbled the ball, so now the left gets its chance.

Lets hope they do not fumble as well.

Because if neither side proves they can handle the ball, then we must ask ourselves why we let them continue to play.

[Gan]

Pat Buchanan: Will Obama return to the hard left or practice moderation if elected?

Posted: October 17, 2008
5:13 pm Eastern

As Americans render what Catholics call temporal judgment on George Bush, are they aware of the radical course correction they are about to make?

This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history. Consider.

As of today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, anticipates gains of 15-30 seats. Sen. Harry Reid, whose partisanship grates even on many in his own party, may see his caucus expand to a filibuster-proof majority where he can ignore Republican dissent.

Headed for the White House is the most left-wing member of the Senate, according to the National Journal. To the vice president's mansion is headed Joe Biden, third-most liberal as ranked by the National Journal, ahead of No. 4, Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What will this mean to America? An administration that is either at war with its base or at war with the nation.

America may desperately desire to close the book on the Bush presidency. Yet there is, as of now, no hard evidence it has embraced Obama, his ideology, or agenda. Indeed, his campaign testifies, by its policy shifts, that it is fully aware the nation is still resisting the idea of an Obama presidency.

In the later primaries, even as a panicked media were demanding that Hillary drop out of the race, she consistently routed Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania and crushed him in West Virginia and Kentucky.

By April and May, the Democratic Party was manifesting all the symptoms of buyer's remorse over how it had voted in January and February.

Obama's convention put him eight points up. But, as soon as America heard Sarah Palin in St. Paul, the Republicans shot up 10 points and seemed headed for victory.

What brought about the Obama-Biden resurgence was nothing Obama and Biden did, but the mid-September crash of Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, the stock market, where $4 trillion was wiped out, the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street that enraged Middle America – and John McCain's classically inept handling of the crisis.

In short, Obama has still not closed the sale. Every time America takes a second look at him, it has second thoughts, and backs away.

Even after the media have mocked and pilloried Palin and ceded Obama and Biden victory in all four debates, the nation, according to Gallup, is slowly moving back toward the Republican ticket.

Moreover, Obama knows Middle America harbors deep suspicions of him. Thus, he has jettisoned the rhetoric about the "fierce urgency of now," and "We are the people we've been waiting for," even as he has jettisoned position after position to make himself acceptable.

His "flip-flops" testify most convincingly to the fact that Obama knows that where he comes from is far outside the American mainstream. For what are flip-flops other than concessions that a position is untenable and must be abandoned?

Flip-flopping reveals the prime meridian of presidential politics. If an analyst will collate all the positions to which all the candidates move, he will find himself close to the true center of national politics.

Thus, though he is the nominee of a party that is in thrall to the environmental movement, Obama has signaled conditional support for offshore drilling and pumping out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

While holding to his pledge for a pullout of combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, he has talked of "refining" his position and of a residual U.S. force to train the Iraqi army and deal with al-Qaida.

On Afghanistan, he has called for 10,000 more troops and U.S. strikes in Pakistan to kill bin Laden, even without prior notice or the permission of the Pakistani government.

Since securing the nomination, Obama has adopted the Scalia position on the death penalty for child rape and the right to keep a handgun in the home. He voted to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding in Bush wiretaps. This onetime sympathizer of the Palestinians now does a passable imitation of Ariel Sharon.

No Democrat has ever come out of the far left of his party to win the presidency. McGovern, the furthest left, stayed true to his convictions and lost 49 states.

Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial-birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.

One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades' demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse and Wright have long dreamed of?

Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Barack wins, a backlash is coming.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78333
__________________________________________________ __

A very interesting piece by Buchanan, that adds to the OP in its concern over a Democrat controlled Exec/Legis Branch

[875000]

"A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition."

Makes absolutely no sense, and is borderline conspiracy theorist. Look at the history of Supreme Court decisions--the right-wing has favored more restrictions on free speech, historically.

Actually, what the author is refering to is the left's tendency to attempt to restrict the voices of opposing viewpoints. Which it is frequently criticized for. Some examples of which, include:

1. "Political Correctness" and "speech codes" were born by the left in acedemia in order to ban speech that they find offensive
2. The "Fairness Doctrine" is supported by Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin
3. Card check unionization, which would effectively shut down an employer's ability to even speak out about a unionization effort
4. Barak Obama's campaign's threats to use Missouri law to punish anyone who said anything "false" about him
5. And the list goes on ...

So, the author's assertion is not all that unreasonable there. All of the above either has happened or major figures within the Democratic party want it to happen.

It is true both parties tend to favor restrictions on freedom of speech. The difference is (ignoring extremists who either try to burn books, ban Christmas trees, or ban anyone with a different opinion) conservatives tend to be more willing to restrict it in an attempt to push what they perceive odious behavior underground (i.e., "Don't ask don't tell") while a liberal is trying to restrict it to minimize political and social opposition.


Which party has sought to infringe upon privacy of both foreigners and U.S> citizens without warrants?

"Freedom of speech" is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. "Search and Seizure" is protected by the Fouth. Apples and oranges.

But, since you seem to be alluding to the Patriot Act, let me remind you that the Act was initially passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties and its renewal was later criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns. Please do your research.

[Mtenda]

progression....scary

[Tea & Strumpets]

Why exactly are U.S. citizens that live in D.C. disenfranchised? Because there's a very high black population and conservatives have repeatedly blocked any and all attempts to give them a voice that matters in Congress. Denying people representation in Congress due to the political tendency of blacks to vote left? Despicable.


I usually don't respond to you because you are so stupid it's not worth explaining things, but I think there may be a little more to the story about D.C.'s representation in Congress (other than the racist Republican angle).

Your reading comprehension is awful because you are so biased.

[Keller]

I usually don't respond to you because you are so stupid it's not worth explaining things, but I think there may be a little more to the story about D.C.'s representation in Congress (other than the racist Republican angle).

Your reading comprehension is awful because you are so biased.

What do you think is "more to the story"?

[Tea & Strumpets]

What do you think is "more to the story"?

How could there not be more to the story? I don't think it's a scam to keep black people (and everyone else living in DC) from being represented.

I don't want to point out the elephant in the room, but the only members of Congress are state representatives. I think DC has around half the population of the smallest state (RI), and Rhode Island has 1 member in the house of representatives.

[Daniel]

so? They are still us citizens without congressional representation.

[Tea & Strumpets]

so? They are still us citizens without congressional representation.

That's the only issue I see with it. What is your idea to fix it, giving them 1 member in the House of Representatives, and marginalizing Rhode Island's representation?

Maybe we should just give every state another district and representative, then RI will have 2 and DC can have 1 without it being unbalanced (I am joking, that would be a ridiculous fix).

Anyway, like I said initially, there's slightly more to the story than racist republicans that don't want DC to be represented in Congress because of the heavy black population. I never said that those people (I mean people in DC, not negros) aren't represented and that's the way it should be.

[Tea & Strumpets]

A Liberal Supermajority 10-18-2008 02:16 PM Look up the issue, idiot. It's been regularly opposed by the right for this reason. "Reading comprehension" has nothing to do with it. Fuck you.

--------

This has been the best reputation comment yet.

[Gan]

A Liberal Supermajority 10-18-2008 02:16 PM Look up the issue, idiot. It's been regularly opposed by the right for this reason. "Reading comprehension" has nothing to do with it. Fuck you.

--------

This has been the best reputation comment yet.

LOL

[Daniel]

The fuck? How does giving DC a rep marginalize rhode island?

[Tea & Strumpets]

The fuck? How does giving DC a rep marginalize rhode island?

I already explained that the smallest state has 1 representative, and it has almost double DC's population. I was trying to point out a simple example of why it's not as simple as just giving DC a rep, because the number of representatives per state is based on population.

How would it not be marginalizing RI's House of Representatives vote if you gave DC the same voting rights with half the population?

[Daniel]

It's not a zero sum game. Rhode island isn't worse off because there is one more person in a house of 500+. That's just silly.

[Mabus]

The fuck? How does giving DC a rep marginalize rhode island?

Article I.
Section. 2.
________________________________________________
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [Modified by Amendment XIV]. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

(From) Section 8.
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
________________________________________________
Bolded areas concern me in this.

In order to have an actual voting member from DC in the House of Representatives we would need to do one of the following:

1) Make DC a state.
2) Have DC be a part of another state.
3) Change the US constitution.
4) Ignore the US Constitution.

Which one are people asking for?

[Parkbandit]

It's not a zero sum game. Rhode island isn't worse off because there is one more person in a house of 500+. That's just silly.

So you would also agree that DC isn't worse off because there is not one more person in a house of 500+.. because that would be silly.

[Nieninque]

It's not a zero sum game. Rhode island isn't worse off because there is one more person in a house of 500+. That's just silly.

Your mum's silly.

[Some Rogue]

Your mum's silly.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/No-U.jpg

[Daniel]

So you would also agree that DC isn't worse off because there is not one more person in a house of 500+.. because that would be silly.

uh... No I wouldn't. They don't have congressional representation

[Gelston]

Neither does Puerto Rico.

[Keller]

Neither does Puerto Rico.

What is Puerto Rico's federal tax liability?

[Parkbandit]

uh... No I wouldn't. They don't have congressional representation


Actually, they do:


American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are represented by one non-voting House delegate each.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

[Gan]

One could simply repeal the 23rd Amendment, give all land but the non-residential federal buildings back over to Maryland thereby granting representation and the right to vote on said representation to those residents as Marylanders thus only leaving non-residential areas for the district.

Problem solved.

[TheEschaton]

I'm still trying to figure out why any of the things listed in the first article are a bad thing.

BErnie Sanders on Bill Maher last Friday (yes, I know, I watch the unabashedly liberal media to counteract the rest of the bullshit) was talking about how socialism has been demonized in this country, even though democratic socialism (which is the kind he advocates, and which most socialists look to in this day and age) has been around for a long, long time in Europe, and they haven't melted down or been struck by lightning.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again - Americans have got to get over this idea that every man is an island, floating in the flotsam of life independent of all the actions of others, and acting without affecting anyone else. If they made this one, philosophical switch (btw, a philosophy which only came to be with the rise of Nixon), they would, like the rest of the world, be far more sensible. Socialism (and capitalism, as per France, Germany, and most of Europe) can be sensible without this extreme attitude we take of self-actualization.

IOW, the U.S. needs to get over its huge fucking ego problem.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

Actually, they do:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

I guess you dont know what the term non voting means then.

I know I'm shocked.

[TheEschaton]

Unfortunately, I'm Asian, and I think us Asians are who you should be thinking like, since we're gonna run your country in the next 10-20 years.

Edit: The Common Good continues to exist despite the individualist's attempt to deny it. What does NOT exist, but still persists as delusion, is this idea that a person can be a pure individual, a rugged cowboy making his own fate in the universe. It simply isn't true. I'd personally prefer we all sit down together and discuss, rationally, what that Common Good is, than to have people just outright deny it exists, and then claim our advocacy of it is somehow us "forcing their will onto us."

-TheE-

[TheWitch]

Unfortunately, I'm Asian, and I think us Asians are who you should be thinking like, since we're gonna run your country in the next 10-20 years.

Edit: The Common Good continues to exist despite the individualist's attempt to deny it. What does NOT exist, but still persists as delusion, is this idea that a person can be a pure individual, a rugged cowboy making his own fate in the universe. It simply isn't true. I'd personally prefer we all sit down together and discuss, rationally, what that Common Good is, than to have people just outright deny it exists, and then claim our advocacy of it is somehow us "forcing their will onto us."

-TheE-

I believe many peoples issue with this line of thinking (at least mine) lies in the idea of continually taking more of what I (in the general sense of the word) earned and giving it to someone who has no interest in doing anything but sitting back and accepting it, or accepting responsibility for their poor choices, or making better choices in the future, or rising above the crap hand life dealt them, etc.: why should they, my money will bail them out.

Meanwhile, I have to work harder and harder to remain where I am, as that margin of what's taken from me for the Common Good gets larger and larger, and my life stays the same - no matter what I do.

You mistake the ideology of self-improvement and achievement as that of cowboy thinking and believing we live on an island. I have no problem in theory with helping people out, but why does helping people out have to preclude improving my own and my families situation? There are many, many people, the middle class specifically, for whom this becomes true. It's a fine line to cross.

And yes, Daniel, entitlement and pork and etc. is a fraction of the national budget, I'm aware. I'll spare you the post. Again, it is a matter of principle.

Asians will not run this country, unless they're American Asians, in which case they're not Asian's but Americans of Asian descent. For a liberal, that was a pretty racist thing to say.

[Warriorbird]

I dunno... when we continue to sell our country off to China... who knows who'll be running us? We're also doing pretty badly in the economic war vs China and India.

[TheEschaton]

Most of my jab about Asians running this country was a joke, but I do believe Eastern philosophies of communality are far better than Western philosophies.


I believe many peoples issue with this line of thinking (at least mine) lies in the idea of continually taking more of what I (in the general sense of the word) earned and giving it to someone who has no interest in doing anything but sitting back and accepting it, or accepting responsibility for their poor choices, or making better choices in the future, or rising above the crap hand life dealt them, etc.: why should they, my money will bail them out.

While I agree that such people do exist, I largely think that the perception that the poor are lazy or somehow not worthy of our help stems from that individualist perspective. To trace it back even more, I'd say it stems from a Protestant belief in temporal retribution - that you get what you deserve. While some people do game the system, I'm comfortable saying and believing that the overwhelming majority do not. It may very well be worth it to shoulder the burden the 2-5% of gamers to help the 95% who are legitimately in need, and yes, I do think that the percentages are that skewed.

As a progressive Catholic, I'd point to the book of Job, for all the conservative Christians there. Job, knowing he is innocent, and suffering, does not give into this idea of temporal retribution - that he somehow suffers because he deserves it. He demands an accounting, not only for himself, but for all the poor, from all the people who make their wealth on their backs. The whole Catholic religion (which might trend overwhelmingly Democratic this election) is based on the idea that poverty is a sin, not of the poor, but of the society which allows it to exist.

-TheE-

[Mabus]

While some people do game the system, I'm comfortable saying and believing that the overwhelming majority do not.
Very "Locke" of you.

Unfortunately in our current society people will often do whatever they can get away with.

Be it speeding, cheating, overeating, gambling, min/maxing games, playing the bugs...
...the list goes on.

Not everyone, granted. But many.

I admire your optimism, truly. Not just saying that.

[TheEschaton]

That's because they've been raised in this individualist perspective, where only they matter. I reiterate, America has an ego problem it needs to get over first.

That's the first step.

[Mabus]

That's because they've been raised in this individualist perspective, where only they matter. I reiterate, America has an ego problem it needs to get over first.

That's the first step.
So we all must change, for the good of the herd?

Not going to happen. There will always be individuals, and where there are individuals there will be free riders.

[Parkbandit]

I guess you dont know what the term non voting means then.

I know I'm shocked.

I guess you don't know what the term representation means.

I know I'm not shocked.

[TheEschaton]

Again, I am optimistic. I believe we can reduce it to the point that it is better to help those who need it and shoulder the burden of the free riders.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

That's because they've been raised in this individualist perspective, where only they matter. I reiterate, America has an ego problem it needs to get over first.

That's the first step.

OR.. how about if you don't like the way America is.. you go to Europe.. the bastion of social idealism? Why should the entire country change because a minority of people want socialism?

[TheWitch]

While I agree that such people do exist, I largely think that the perception that the poor are lazy or somehow not worthy of our help stems from that individualist perspective. To trace it back even more, I'd say it stems from a Protestant belief in temporal retribution - that you get what you deserve. While some people do game the system, I'm comfortable saying and believing that the overwhelming majority do not. It may very well be worth it to shoulder the burden the 2-5% of gamers to help the 95% who are legitimately in need, and yes, I do think that the percentages are that skewed.

As a progressive Catholic, I'd point to the book of Job, for all the conservative Christians there. Job, knowing he is innocent, and suffering, does not give into this idea of temporal retribution - that he somehow suffers because he deserves it. He demands an accounting, not only for himself, but for all the poor, from all the people who make their wealth on their backs. The whole Catholic religion (which might trend overwhelmingly Democratic this election) is based on the idea that poverty is a sin, not of the poor, but of the society which allows it to exist.

-TheE-

I'm talking about people like the following, as "gamers" of the system:

A woman I'm acquainted with managed to scam her way into a state sponsored low-cost health care program by claiming she was running a business, so therefore qualified as a "female business owner." What was her business? Selling her and her neighbors' shit out of her basement on ebay. She chose to retire before she could afford to, is not eligible for medicaid/care but now everyone elses insurance goes up so she can have it?

Now, where does the fault lie with this? The woman, for scamming? The state government for having loopholes this big? The healthcare industry for making prices so ridiculous in the first place that people are desparate enough? The people who sue anyone and everyone, raising malpractice insurance to the point dr's can't afford a private practice? I don't pretend to know.

What I am firmly convinced about though, is that this mentality, of getting over instead of working for what you have is one of the causes of the financial crisis we're in right now: credit scams, CEO scams, international bribery and under the table deal scams, all the way down to this woman in her basement selling doilies for health insurance.

I don't pretend to have any answers, but the liberal ideology of taking money out of peoples pockets and throwing it at other people doesn't seem to offer much in the way of a solution either, it hasn't proven to.

I too long for the days of Clinton. And was raised Protestant, which probably explains a lot? heh.

[TheEschaton]

When hasn't it [this liberal ideology] proven to be a solution? I admit it, I'm 27, the only Democrat I've ever witnessed as President presided over an economic boom, while all the Republicans have heralded in recessions.

Maybe you had a case for Jimmy Carter, but I think most of the Democratic presidents of the past 100 years disprove your point.

By the way, what is it about what this woman does that makes you believe she's not a legitimate business owner? If she paid a fee to buy the crap she sells, and then sells it at a profit, then she's be a businesswoman, but because it's free stuff she's selling (to people who want it, imagine the horror from the capitalists!) she's somehow mooching? Or is it because she isn't incorporated?

Like I said in previous posts, the gamers of the system have fallen into the trap of the individualistic society, and don't think of anything larger than themselves.

Oh, and PB, I'd love to go to Europe. Unfortunately, because of America's highly individualistic and aggressive actions in the world, we've created a global society which is affected by America's actions. Therefore, I think it's important there is reform in America.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

I guess you don't know what the term representation means.

I know I'm not shocked.

apart of political representation is the ability to weigh in on issues. You can not do that in a democracy without a "vote".

[Daniel]

I believe many peoples issue with this line of thinking (at least mine) lies in the idea of continually taking more of what I (in the general sense of the word) earned and giving it to someone who has no interest in doing anything but sitting back and accepting it, or accepting responsibility for their poor choices, or making better choices in the future, or rising above the crap hand life dealt them, etc.: why should they, my money will bail them out.

Meanwhile, I have to work harder and harder to remain where I am, as that margin of what's taken from me for the Common Good gets larger and larger, and my life stays the same - no matter what I do.

You mistake the ideology of self-improvement and achievement as that of cowboy thinking and believing we live on an island. I have no problem in theory with helping people out, but why does helping people out have to preclude improving my own and my families situation? There are many, many
people, the middle class specifically, for whom this becomes true. It's a fine line to cross.

And yes, Daniel, entitlement and pork and etc. is a fraction of the national budget, I'm aware. I'll spare you the post. Again, it is a matter of principle.

Asians will not run this country, unless they're American Asians, in which case they're not Asian's but Americans of Asian descent. For a liberal, that was a pretty racist thing to say.

What? On one hand you say that it's a matter of principle while acknowledging that it's just a fraction we spend and on the other you try and say that it precludes you from progressing in life.

Which is it?

The principle argument falls a tad short if you don't look at the other factors which greatly effect your tax burden.

[Parkbandit]

When hasn't it [this liberal ideology] proven to be a solution? I admit it, I'm 27, the only Democrat I've ever witnessed as President presided over an economic boom, while all the Republicans have heralded in recessions.

Maybe you had a case for Jimmy Carter, but I think most of the Democratic presidents of the past 100 years disprove your point.

By the way, what is it about what this woman does that makes you believe she's not a legitimate business owner? If she paid a fee to buy the crap she sells, and then sells it at a profit, then she's be a businesswoman, but because it's free stuff she's selling (to people who want it, imagine the horror from the capitalists!) she's somehow mooching? Or is it because she isn't incorporated?

Like I said in previous posts, the gamers of the system have fallen into the trap of the individualistic society, and don't think of anything larger than themselves.

Oh, and PB, I'd love to go to Europe. Unfortunately, because of America's highly individualistic and aggressive actions in the world, we've created a global society which is affected by America's actions. Therefore, I think it's important there is reform in America.

-TheE-

Again.. you are in a clear minority for this reform. We don't want socialism and that isn't my ego talking.

Here's an idea:

Make a guild in World of Warcraft. Charge extra guild dues for those who farm mats and play the game more than others... put that gold into the bank and then at the end of the month, divide it up among everyone. Make sure everyone gets their 'fair' share.. even those people who haven't logged into the game in months.

Tell me how long that guild lasts.

[Daniel]

Again.. you are in a clear minority for this reform. We don't want socialism and that isn't my ego talking.

Here's an idea:

Make a guild in World of Warcraft. Charge extra guild dues for those who farm mats and play the game more than others... put that gold into the bank and then at the end of the month, divide it up among everyone. Make sure everyone gets their 'fair' share.. even those people who haven't logged into the game in months.

Tell me how long that guild lasts.

You act like there aren't guilds that require farming for the guild or that don't support younger characters.

Alternatively, you could look at the polls and see how many people are supporting the 'socialist'.

[Parkbandit]

You act like there aren't guilds that require farming for the guild or that don't support younger characters.

Alternatively, you could look at the polls and see how many people are supporting the 'socialist'.


Just because Obama is elected or leading in the polls doesn't mean America is ready for socialism. Obama has done a masterful job of disguising his political aspirations. He's currently portraying a "middle" type of candidate.

[Warriorbird]

Both parties back socialist policies. That doesn't make either 'socialists.' It's just McCarthyesque bullshit designed to be eaten up by a certain portion of the populace.

[Parkbandit]

Both parties back socialist policies. That doesn't make either 'socialists.' It's just McCarthyesque bullshit designed to be eaten up by a certain portion of the populace.


They are both Democrats.. but Obama is far more 'socialistic' in his ideals. "Spreading the wealth" is just a glimmer to what he has planned.

[Warriorbird]

Bullshit. Both McCain and Obama would probably go for another stimulus package. Obama will tax people over 250k more but reduce taxes for more people. McCain will spend at an epic rate and then likely get us into another war all while continuing to cut taxes for the rich (and making health insurance taxed to get a subtle tax raise on the middle class and poor).

Really... the upshot is that neither of their policies are particularly 'socialist.' They will both redistribute wealth (McCain to the wealthy, Obama to the middle class) but the biggest socialist danger spurs from the Congress.

...and yet you don't hear that institution tarred with it.

[Parkbandit]

Bullshit. Both McCain and Obama would probably go for another stimulus package. Obama will tax people over 250k more but reduce taxes for more people. McCain will spend at an epic rate and then likely get us into another war all while continuing to cut taxes for the rich (and making health insurance taxed to get a subtle tax raise on the middle class and poor).

Really... the upshot is that neither of their policies are particularly 'socialist.' They will both redistribute wealth (McCain to the wealthy, Obama to the middle class) but the biggest socialist danger spurs from the Congress.

...and yet you don't hear that institution tarred with it.

I agree with your criticism of Congress and their massive "plan" to pour more money on this problem in hopes that it will just go away... but what Obama has planned for us is far closer to socialism that what McCain does. And with the expected majorities gained in the House and Senate, not even the minority "Conservative" voice will even be heard enough to stop them.

And I think their dismal approval rating in the teens in Congress is their tar.

I think McCain missed a golden opportunity to vote against the bailout bill and prove he was actually for government controls and spending cuts.. now he looks like every other politician in there. He's a democrat, plain and simple.. trying to cater to the conservatives for their votes, but has no real alliance or common values with them.

[TheWitch]

What? On one hand you say that it's a matter of principle while acknowledging that it's just a fraction we spend and on the other you try and say that it precludes you from progressing in life.

Which is it?

The principle argument falls a tad short if you don't look at the other factors which greatly effect your tax burden.

First of all, I was speaking in the general sense of the word, so my statements are not about "me" per se, but millions of people in a similar financial range.

Speaking of tax burdens. The Federal tax burden is the largest, but it is by far not the only tax burden carried by the majority of the middle class. How about property taxes, state taxes, and the other line item deductions taken from paychecks to pay for this, that and the other?

Inflation is running 8.5%, therebouts, last I saw. Property taxes in my county (sub-urban to NY) are going up by 6%, as are my mother's (semi-rural midwest). Gas, while lower, is still on average 40 cents higher per gallon than it was this time last year. Home heating costs have skyrocketed.

Meanwhile, people are being told by their employers, sorry no raises. So effectively, they are running as fast as they can and still falling behind. Three quarters of the economy of this country is based on consumer spending. If consumers can't spend because their discretionary income has evaporated, what kind of viscous cycle does that create? Add to that an additional tax burden? Just exactly where is that supposed to come from, the grocery money?

Once again, I'm not talking about myself here. I don't need to be personally effected by these trends to see the impact of them.

Currently, this represents a fraction of the national budget, yes I recognized that. But if more and more things become nationalized, that drop gets bigger and bigger doesn't it? Get out of Iraq, problem solved. Don't we wish it were as easy as that.

As to the scammer, my problem is two-fold.

First, she retired early, by choice. She was not asked to retire, she was not forced out, her health did not prohibit her from working, she chose to retire, from a job with a nice pension but no long term health benefits once she left. She could have remained employed for several more years and maintained her health insurance in a legitimate way.

Second, from a quick reading of the policy under which she's claiming these benefits, this was not what the state intended. The state intended this program as an incentive for women to start business that employed other people as well. I'm all for the capitalist idea of selling free stuff just because other people want to buy it - I've unloaded a metric ton of shit on ebay myself. I'm not all for the scammer mentality of trying to twist that into being owed something by the governement.

And really, I think these kinds of programs just beg for abuse. So, I suppose that's where my objections lie at this point: all the rampant abuse of these entitlement programs - and I don't mean by the "lazy poor people."

One last case in point: the Long Island Railroad is being investigated right now, along with the US Railroad Compensation Bureau (something like that) because a staggering 98% of retirees from LIRR are retiring not just with generous pensions, but also disability payments. The Compensation Bureau approved every application that came across it's desk, and the doctors that approved them are being investigated as well. Millions of taxpayer and commuter dollars are being paid to people who point blank do not deserve it.

[Warriorbird]

Given the Bush administration, the Iraq War, the potential Iran War, and the actions of the last Republican Congress... I just find the script has flipped, PB. I also don't like the idea that somehow running up the deficit and debt is somehow conservative. We've had a Democrat (Clinton) who didn't do that to the same extent... we haven't had a Republican do that since before Nixon. The McCarthy style attack is well played to appeal to Republicans who actually still have some conservative ideals (a group I actually class you in.)

[Keller]

\Meanwhile, people are being told by their employers, sorry no raises. So effectively, they are running as fast as they can and still falling behind. Three quarters of the economy of this country is based on consumer spending. If consumers can't spend because their discretionary income has evaporated, what kind of viscous cycle does that create? Add to that an additional tax burden? Just exactly where is that supposed to come from, the grocery money?

So you support tax cuts on 95% of the working class and a modest increase for people who can easily afford groceries?

Great!

[TheWitch]

So you support tax cuts on 95% of the working class and a modest increase for people who can easily afford groceries?

Great!

If I thought that was actually going to be what happens, yea.

Unfortunately, I don't.

[Keller]

If I thought that was actually going to be what happens, yea.

Unfortunately, I don't.

What do you think will happen?

[TheWitch]

What do you think will happen?

I think The Obama has good intentions. I think he honestly would like to do what he says he's going to do.

The math just doesn't work out for me as far as what he wants to do and how much it's likely to cost, versus the tax cuts and credits he's promising. It looks good on paper, but I don't think the reality will be quite so tidy. And I think a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress isn't going to help.

If you honestly want to know what I think? I think he'll lower taxes - and add a line item dedcuction ala FICA of virtually the same value to pay for some of these government funded boondoggles.

Hopefully, I'm wrong, because McCain might as well retire and head for the nursing home now.

[ClydeR]

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide...

The Drewster makes a good point about felons voting. According to the Washington Post, there are 4.7 million people who cannot vote because of felon status.


On Election Day it will not matter to some 4.7 million Americans whether they are Republicans, Democrats, independents or whether they have an opinion on anything at all. Under various state laws, they are barred from voting because they have felony records. This includes not just prison inmates (48 states), parolees (33 states) and probationers (29 states) but also a large number of people -- one third of the disenfranchised in all -- who are off parole and "free." Minorities are hit particularly hard by these state laws: They deny 13 percent of African American men the vote.

Incarceration in America is up 600 percent since 1974, and the absence of this fast-growing shadow population has been altering the nation's politics.

The 14th Amendment permits states to deny the vote "for participation in rebellion, or other crime." And it can be argued that prisoners should not vote; after all, the purpose of prison is to deny freedom. But with ex-cons, the argument shifts.

Some say those who break the law lack the trustworthiness to make it. Todd Gaziano of the Heritage Foundation argues that felons might form some kind of "anti-law-enforcement bloc" and elect bad officials. But last year Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors stated a bald truth: "As frank as I can be," he said, "we're opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don't tend to vote Republican." He is right: People with low incomes, low education or minority status -- all benchmarks of convict populations -- vote Democratic 65 to 90 percent of the time.

Another bald fact: Many disenfranchisement laws trace to the mid-1800s, when they were crafted to bar blacks with even minor criminal records from polls. Today this poisonous legal lineage tells not only in the South, which retains the most repressive statutes, but in states such as New York, where ex-parolees theoretically get their rights back but in reality encounter local election officials who demand discharge papers that don't exist, give misleading information and find other reasons to turn them away. A class-action lawsuit in New York charges that this system bars so many voters in high-crime neighborhoods that the districts effectively have lost their voice. In Florida, where many felons are barred forever unless the governor personally decides otherwise, 8 percent of adults cannot vote -- including one in four black men.

More... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html)

According to another website (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/678725/felons_can_vote_and_will_in_the_2008.html) that I found on the Google, Maine and Vermont are the only two states that allow felons to vote while they are in prison.

You have to wonder what "or other crime" means in the 14th amendment. It may be like "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which a president can be impeached. When Clinton was impeached, we learned that the phrase does not have an exact meaning. I think the only way the federal government can force the states to allow felons to vote would be to amend the constitution. Perhaps Congress could use its spending power indirectly to force states to allow felons to vote.

[Gan]

So you support tax cuts on 95% of the working class and a modest increase for people who can easily afford groceries?

Great!

Of which only 40% do not pay taxes at all. So its really not a tax cut, perse.

[Warriorbird]

That's a ludicrous statement. Just because a tax cut doesn't apply to all of a specific class of persons doesn't make it not a tax cut.

[TheWitch]

That's a ludicrous statement. Just because a tax cut doesn't apply to all of a specific class of persons doesn't make it not a tax cut.

I read that to mean, 40% of the people earning below 250K aren't going to notice any difference because they don't pay taxes in the first place - so while their situation doesn't get worse, it doesn't get better either. Which I agree, doesn't make it less of a tax cut for the other 60%.

What it does lead me to believe is that that 40% will have a bunch of money thrown at it, whether they need it or not, in the form of entitlments ripe for abuse. And abused they will be. Which is the fundamental problem with entitlements: no one wants to say no, and too few people are proud enough to say to themselves, I don't really need this, I'm not going to take it.

[Warriorbird]

Even less rich people and big companies are going to say 'I'm not going to take it.'

[TheWitch]

Even less rich people and big companies are going to say 'I'm not going to take it.'

That made no sense.

They're not going to take what, the entitlements?
Good, they shouldn't be eligible, they bloody well better not.
They're not going to take the tax increase?
Of course they're not, which is why the line item will need to be added to actually pay for all this shit, because the corporate and wealthy taxpayers will do what they've always done, find shelters, send their money overseas, do some fancy bookeeping and write down a paper loss, etc etc etc.

This is pretty much my point - it has to come from somewhere, and it will not come from where it should come from - as much as The Obama wants it to.

Blood from a turnip and all that. All IMO, of course, and yea the glass is definitely half empty in my view.

[Warriorbird]

All the money McCain will continue to hand out to companies and the extra tax cuts he'll pitch towards rich people. Those folks are the ones that benefit from the Republican version of the entitlement culture.

[TheWitch]

All the money McCain will continue to hand out to companies and the extra tax cuts he'll pitch towards rich people. Those folks are the ones that benefit from the Republican version of the entitlement culture.

Not surprisingly, I don't necessarily agree with that rather simplistic statement, but then who knows where McCain stands on anything at this point. Although he seems to want to cut everyone's taxes, middle class, corporate and wealthy - and yea, that'll work. /sarcasm.

Sadly, not even McCain seems to know what he stands for anymore.

He's been so badly handled, I really kinda feel sorry for him. It's like the republicans knew they couldn't win after Dubya's performance, so he's like a sacrificial ... whatever an old sheep is.

[Parkbandit]

All the money McCain will continue to hand out to companies and the extra tax cuts he'll pitch towards rich people. Those folks are the ones that benefit from the Republican version of the entitlement culture.

Yea... if we just hand out money to the poor, they will somehow stop sitting on their asses and start hiring people to get this economy running again....

40% of Americans don't even pay fucking income taxes. 4 out of every 10 people you see today. WTF!? I've been paying fucking taxes since I was 22. FORTY PERCENT!?

And under Obama, this number will climb. I mean wtf.. why work when you can just get another handout.

Those fucking evil rich people.. working all the time. I hope they are all punished!

[Parkbandit]

That's a ludicrous statement. Just because a tax cut doesn't apply to all of a specific class of persons doesn't make it not a tax cut.


It's not a tax cut if you aren't paying taxes. It's welfare.

[Warriorbird]

Another kind of stupid statement. Mostly it means 'some won't qualify.'

Clinton actually did more to address welfare issues than anyone before or since (outside of on a local or regional level...Giuliani did great stuff in NY).

As far as simplistic statements go... PB's idea that Obama will increase welfare ranks right up there. I'd much rather pay for some Americans to go to college than waste the money on some Middle Eastern people who couldn't give a fuck about our country.

I don't think all the companies and CEOs who fucked up our banking industry should be rewarded with the opportunity to do it again. McCain had an opportunity to get some credit back from me by opposing the stimulus. He didn't.

[Parkbandit]

Another kind of stupid statement. Mostly it means 'some won't qualify.'

Clinton actually did more to address welfare issues than anyone before or since (outside of on a local or regional level...Giuliani did great stuff in NY).

Actually it was the Republican Congress that did pal... something the liberals are still pissed about. They feel that it was a slap in their face.. but Clinton didn't have a choice.




As far as simplistic statements go... PB's idea that Obama will increase welfare ranks right up there. I'd much rather pay for some Americans to go to college than waste the money on some Middle Eastern people who couldn't give a fuck about our country.

OMG REALLY!? YOU THINK THE WAR IN IRAQ IS A WASTE? HOLY FLYING SHIT, THIS IS BREAKING NEWS REALLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T BRING IT UP IN EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL THREAD!

I hope you hold the liberals to the same fire since you are so extremely concerned about the deficit. Barney "The Mush Mouth" Frank already stated:


"I think at this point, there needs to be an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second, uh, a second seat. I do think this is the time for a very important kind of dose of changenism.


I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road that would cover some of this money."

Let's hope you are still concerned about the deficit and huge spending in an Obama administration.... otherwise I'm going to have a field day with your hypocrisy.



I don't think all the companies and CEOs who fucked up our banking industry should be rewarded with the opportunity to do it again. McCain had an opportunity to get some credit back from me by opposing the stimulus. He didn't.

250K a year are not the big companies and CEOs... and let's be honest.. a shit ton of responsibility for this fiasco can be laid right at the feet of the liberals in Congress, ala Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I've decided to not expand one of my businesses in 2009.. so I won't be hiring 3-4 people, increasing my purchasing of supplies and other contract labor. I'll also be stopping my lawn service next year as well as cutting back in some non-essential services such as extended cable TV, an additional cell phone and fax / secretarial services. I'll stick my money into tax shelters and do everything I have to legally to lower my tax burden.

And if you think I'm the only pro-active business owner out there that is taking these steps, you are dumber than I thought.

[Warriorbird]

Funny how a lot of folks (including Clinton) think of welfare reform as one of his ideas... an early example of the whole triangulation bit.

As I've pointed out... I'm concerned by the deficit and deficit spending... I'd just rather if we're going to wholesale bleed money that it go to actual Americans... and not just the ones who sit on the boards of fortune 500 companies or who make over 250k a year.

The problems that you're complaining about can hardly just be laid on the shoulders of a few idiots in Congress... how long has Bush had the presidency? Oh, wait... that'd be 8 years now?

[Parkbandit]

Funny how a lot of folks (including Clinton) think of welfare reform as one of his ideas... an early example of the whole triangulation bit.

Revisionist history at it's finest. Do yourself a favor and look up the facts. After many months, the Republicans finally pushed it through.. much to the dismay of the liberals who believed that the poor were the real victims of the reform.



As I've pointed out... I'm concerned by the deficit and deficit spending... I'd just rather if we're going to wholesale bleed money that it go to actual Americans... and not just the ones who sit on the boards of fortune 500 companies or who make over 250k a year.

Just hold their feet to the fire if they get in WB.. otherwise, I'm going to have fun at your expense. Obama has already promised to spend only that which he has.. and not spend into the deficit. Let's see if this is just one more promise he has no intention of keeping.



The problems that you're complaining about can hardly just be laid on the shoulders of a few idiots in Congress... how long has Bush had the presidency? Oh, wait... that'd be 8 years now?

Republicans have been warning about this for a few years now.. including Bush and McCain... but no one gave two shits because they were more interested in getting their special project moneys.

This year alone, we will spend AT LEAST ONE TRILLION DOLLARS we don't have for the first time in history. I blame all of Government for this injustice.