caesar's bust sits on the shelf...
1 Feb 2005 04:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigou...and I don't feel so well myself.
The GAO, for those of you not in the know, is not a political entity so much as one big stinkin' bureaucracy of little paper pushers and bean counters. Not that I'm picking on bean counters; I've had the (dubious) pleasure of reading GAO reports in the course of researching a thesis, and they can actually be rather dryly humorous. Some of the GAO commentary about the B.I.A.'s financial dealings with several tribes is both scathing and darkly witty. These are professional bureaucrats; they're not going to lose their jobs and they don't change based on who's in office. Their job is just to watch, record, and administer the massive machine knows as our federal budget. So what do they have to say in their latest report [note: pdf dl] about our current fiscal state? Right there, in the opening from the Comptroller:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
christeos_pir and habibti. Social Security is not the problem. Healthcare is the problem. Granted, there are issues with Social Security, but eight years ago we had enough of a surplus that running the same course, we wouldn't have seen a problem until I was well into retirement (and that's a good thirty years off). And there are several options for 'fixing' Social Security which don't involve dumping a trillion dollars into the stock market (with a good chunk o' change going straight into commissions of the private companies that would then manage these accounts, let's not forget).
For instance, currently the cut-off on Social Security is 80,000 a year. That's right. Every penny a person makes more than $80 is not taxed for Social Security. But wait, I spent five years working with people who considered -- in the tech industries -- $80K to be a starting point for income. Why not raise the max-bar for Social Security to, say, $100K? Or don't tax from $80K to $250K, and then pick up again? Why not tax those who earn considerably more? I've seen rough estimations of the numbers, and the change in forecast from just moving the bar from $80K to $100K is significant. Anyway, the report continues, discussing GAO's forum on the long-term fiscal challenge:
The fight continues over Gonzalez (including the German suit, linked in earlier post), but naturally the argument broadens to include the Dem v Repubs. It's no doubt the Dems are outranked in Congress (well, duh). They'll be lucky to get 30 votes against Gonzalez, but even a week ago those 30 seemed unreachable. Here's hoping some Repubs wise up and agree that torture is not an ethical stand, and that the Geneva Convention is not obsolete. It's true that 'terrorists' aren't normally covered by the Geneva Convention due to their own actions, but what in cases where you've not proven/determined whether the person really is a 'terrorist', and just wtf is a 'terrorist' in cold hard terms, anyway? Seems way too easy to me, indeed, to say: 'okay, all these people we rounded up are now summarily terrorists, because we say so, and therefore we're not really torturing them, because they don't fall under the Geneva Convention anyway...' This is not logic, IMO. This is whacked political semantics. How can we possibly say we defend democracy and freedom if we don't allow this to everyone? But then, I also have strong issues with the concept that closing the borders to immigration is the best way to 'protect our country.' Yeah, who needs Ellis Islands' principles, anyway. We're in, close and lock the door behind us...but I'm rambling. I'll carry on now, with the latest volley in Dem v Repubs.
In the far corner we've got the Weekly Standard piping up, voiced by Fred Barnes. A Republican slant, mostly discussing Gingrich's tactics during the Clinton Presidency: "As [Dems] remember it, Gingrich opposed, blocked, attacked, zinged, or at least criticized everything President Clinton and Democratic leaders proposed. It was a scorched-earth approach..." Which is pretty apt, in some ways. And I suppose the Dems are turning this back around and trying it again, while picking their battles -- for instance, they withheld the filibuster option on Rice, saving it for some of the issues they see coming up after her. And I'm certainly used to the propaganda and nattering that goes on in the Hill (hey, even when having drinks with Gingrich, the man never shut up), but this part makes me want to gnash my teeth:
That always struck me as somewhat...oh, I suppose one of those 'laugh, because otherwise you'll have to admit the uneasy feeling in your gut.' We've always had the discussion over what can or should be public (in terms of national security), long before we had internet or telephones, for that matter. And there has also always been a tug-of-war (so to speak) over how much dissent should be allowed or seen as ethical or patriotic in times of war. The difference, however, is that the above bolded statement now has institutional weight, thanks to the [un]Patriot[ic] Act. Prior to the uP.A., the burden of proof rested on someone to demonstrate that speech was inflammatory, as 99% of all speech could/would fall within scope of the freedom of speech. But post uP.A., things are changed and far from being for the better: are we now supposed to defend our right to speak, and couch our words in disclaimers that it's possible to criticize our government and still be patriotic?
In fact, I'd have to say that criticizing my government is the most American thing I can damn well do. I have been too many places in my life, and known too many people coming from other places, where criticizing the government is considered an act of treason, if not an indication that one will eventually be treasonous. And it's certainly seen, in enough countries, as grounds for questioning, if not imprisonment. It really rankles that anyone would call for a clamp-down on criticism, when such is often the opening shots of a debate, and possibly the first steps to improving or fixing the situation. A strong government would not fear its critics, because a strong government would know it's on the right track. The more our White House uses tax money to place shills in our media audience (which has never been that impartial, granted), the more I grow uneasy.
It's one thing to say, "I'm being paid to say this"; it's another thing to not say it and be found out afterwards. And some of it makes me do that whole 'laugh to ignore the uneasy feeling in my gut': there's Michael McManus, paid $10K "as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative" yet never disclosed this [quote from Salon.com]. For a column called Ethics, no less. And then there's Maggie Gallagher, paid $21K to write brochures and pamphlets on the Defense of Marriage Act. She claims in her defense that the only thing she did wrong was fail to divulge her subcontractor status, since, y'know...she forgot.
Hunh? Hell, I'd love to make so much money that I can just happen to forget that someone paid me a check for $21K to write propaganda for them. Or paid me $21,000 to write anything, for that matter. I mean, if that's chump change... Sheesh. Interesting Times remarked:
Anyway, if you're still with me, as I rant and ramble my way through my break between chapter revisions, there are a few good things to lighten my mood. For one, there's the bit about the Stop Government Propaganda Act, which is wonderful bipartisan, as it should be. If you're inclined to activism, it doesn't take a lot of time to call up your Representative and Senator and tell 'em you think this is a good idea. The spokesman for Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Alex Formuzis, explains: "This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. This is an issue about an independent press, and I think that's something that will cross party lines." I can only hope a majority of Congress agrees.
I know where there's a lot of propaganda, where the people didn't know what was real and what was planted by the government to convince them of situation A, B, or C. One place was the Soviet Union, and the other place is China. Our freedom - to write and say what we think, and to criticize our government and hound it into regaining its integrity and dignity - isn't just a right. It's a responsibility. I don't wanna live in a tyranny. I just wanna believe it's not too soon to undo the damage we've already got.
And now, back to ch17. Here ends today's contemplative rantings.
EDIT: I was doing okay until minor depression set in after checking in at the Asylum, and catching a post about a poll among high school students re the first amendment. So I went back and read about the rescued hippo, who's got a new home after the tsunami hit, to remind me good things happen, too. But I'm still aggravated.
The GAO, for those of you not in the know, is not a political entity so much as one big stinkin' bureaucracy of little paper pushers and bean counters. Not that I'm picking on bean counters; I've had the (dubious) pleasure of reading GAO reports in the course of researching a thesis, and they can actually be rather dryly humorous. Some of the GAO commentary about the B.I.A.'s financial dealings with several tribes is both scathing and darkly witty. These are professional bureaucrats; they're not going to lose their jobs and they don't change based on who's in office. Their job is just to watch, record, and administer the massive machine knows as our federal budget. So what do they have to say in their latest report [note: pdf dl] about our current fiscal state? Right there, in the opening from the Comptroller:
Simply put, our nation’s fiscal policy is on an unsustainable course. As long-term budget simulations by GAO, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and others show, over the long term we face a large and growing structural deficit due primarily to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security. Our current path also will increasingly constrain our ability to address emerging and unexpected budgetary needs.If that seems abrupt and blunt to you, then you probably haven't read a lot of GAO reports. They don't beat around the bush; most of the time there's no reason to. They're rarely afforded a lot of attention unless the media or Congress decides to rally behind their words, so why bother slapping euphemisms on things? Comptroller General Walker goes on to say:
Regardless of the assumptions used, all simulations indicate that the problem is too big to be solved by economic growth alone or by making modest changes to existing spending and tax policies. Nothing less than a fundamental reexamination of all major existing spending and tax policies and of priorities is needed. This reexamination should also involve a national discussion about what Americans want from their government and how much they are willing to pay for those things. This discussion will not be easy, but it must take place.And this is where I feel vindicated after my discussions with
christeos_pir and habibti. Social Security is not the problem. Healthcare is the problem. Granted, there are issues with Social Security, but eight years ago we had enough of a surplus that running the same course, we wouldn't have seen a problem until I was well into retirement (and that's a good thirty years off). And there are several options for 'fixing' Social Security which don't involve dumping a trillion dollars into the stock market (with a good chunk o' change going straight into commissions of the private companies that would then manage these accounts, let's not forget). For instance, currently the cut-off on Social Security is 80,000 a year. That's right. Every penny a person makes more than $80 is not taxed for Social Security. But wait, I spent five years working with people who considered -- in the tech industries -- $80K to be a starting point for income. Why not raise the max-bar for Social Security to, say, $100K? Or don't tax from $80K to $250K, and then pick up again? Why not tax those who earn considerably more? I've seen rough estimations of the numbers, and the change in forecast from just moving the bar from $80K to $100K is significant. Anyway, the report continues, discussing GAO's forum on the long-term fiscal challenge:
Health care is a bigger problem than Social Security. Participants acknowledged the need for Social Security reform but emphasized that Social Security is a relatively small part of the long-term fiscal challenge when compared to spending on health care. One participant noted that the estimated Social Security shortfall is about one-third the estimated cost of recent tax cuts if made permanent. Several participants observed that few members of the public are aware of this. Rather, the general public impression is that solving Social Security would solve most of the longterm fiscal challenge, and this is not correct. Indeed, one forum participant stated that it was only by attending this forum that he had learned that health care spending was a much more important, and potentially far more difficult, component of the long-term fiscal challenge than Social Security. [emphasis in original]If any of this confuses you, I highly recommend the section on National Saving, the Federal Budget, and the Current Account Deficit (Appendix IV), which covers how the current account deficit and federal budget deficit are related.
The fight continues over Gonzalez (including the German suit, linked in earlier post), but naturally the argument broadens to include the Dem v Repubs. It's no doubt the Dems are outranked in Congress (well, duh). They'll be lucky to get 30 votes against Gonzalez, but even a week ago those 30 seemed unreachable. Here's hoping some Repubs wise up and agree that torture is not an ethical stand, and that the Geneva Convention is not obsolete. It's true that 'terrorists' aren't normally covered by the Geneva Convention due to their own actions, but what in cases where you've not proven/determined whether the person really is a 'terrorist', and just wtf is a 'terrorist' in cold hard terms, anyway? Seems way too easy to me, indeed, to say: 'okay, all these people we rounded up are now summarily terrorists, because we say so, and therefore we're not really torturing them, because they don't fall under the Geneva Convention anyway...' This is not logic, IMO. This is whacked political semantics. How can we possibly say we defend democracy and freedom if we don't allow this to everyone? But then, I also have strong issues with the concept that closing the borders to immigration is the best way to 'protect our country.' Yeah, who needs Ellis Islands' principles, anyway. We're in, close and lock the door behind us...but I'm rambling. I'll carry on now, with the latest volley in Dem v Repubs.
In the far corner we've got the Weekly Standard piping up, voiced by Fred Barnes. A Republican slant, mostly discussing Gingrich's tactics during the Clinton Presidency: "As [Dems] remember it, Gingrich opposed, blocked, attacked, zinged, or at least criticized everything President Clinton and Democratic leaders proposed. It was a scorched-earth approach..." Which is pretty apt, in some ways. And I suppose the Dems are turning this back around and trying it again, while picking their battles -- for instance, they withheld the filibuster option on Rice, saving it for some of the issues they see coming up after her. And I'm certainly used to the propaganda and nattering that goes on in the Hill (hey, even when having drinks with Gingrich, the man never shut up), but this part makes me want to gnash my teeth:
The media tolerate or even encourage Democratic rage. But the White House can't afford to. Senate Democrats have enough votes to block major Bush initiatives like Social Security reform and to reject Bush appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. They may be suicidal, but they could undermine the president's entire second term agenda. At his news conference last week, Bush reacted calmly to their vitriolic attacks, suggesting only a few Democrats are involved. Stronger countermeasures will be needed, including an unequivocal White House response to obstructionism, curbs on filibusters, and a clear delineation of what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq. Too much is at stake to wait for another Democratic defeat in 2006. [emphasis mine]After 9/11, there were a lot of signs on the overpasses along the highways around here: 'these colors don't run', 'god bless america', &c. We also had our share of American flags, hung up and left to be rained on, have the sun set on them. (Which, as a former military brat, bugged the crap out of me -- am I the only one who sees it as marginally ironic that in the act of attempting to appear patriotic, those idiot souls putting up the flags were actually being far more disdainful and disrepectful?) One of the signs we passed on the way to work had the simple question: "Is it safe to question the government again?"
That always struck me as somewhat...oh, I suppose one of those 'laugh, because otherwise you'll have to admit the uneasy feeling in your gut.' We've always had the discussion over what can or should be public (in terms of national security), long before we had internet or telephones, for that matter. And there has also always been a tug-of-war (so to speak) over how much dissent should be allowed or seen as ethical or patriotic in times of war. The difference, however, is that the above bolded statement now has institutional weight, thanks to the [un]Patriot[ic] Act. Prior to the uP.A., the burden of proof rested on someone to demonstrate that speech was inflammatory, as 99% of all speech could/would fall within scope of the freedom of speech. But post uP.A., things are changed and far from being for the better: are we now supposed to defend our right to speak, and couch our words in disclaimers that it's possible to criticize our government and still be patriotic?
In fact, I'd have to say that criticizing my government is the most American thing I can damn well do. I have been too many places in my life, and known too many people coming from other places, where criticizing the government is considered an act of treason, if not an indication that one will eventually be treasonous. And it's certainly seen, in enough countries, as grounds for questioning, if not imprisonment. It really rankles that anyone would call for a clamp-down on criticism, when such is often the opening shots of a debate, and possibly the first steps to improving or fixing the situation. A strong government would not fear its critics, because a strong government would know it's on the right track. The more our White House uses tax money to place shills in our media audience (which has never been that impartial, granted), the more I grow uneasy.
It's one thing to say, "I'm being paid to say this"; it's another thing to not say it and be found out afterwards. And some of it makes me do that whole 'laugh to ignore the uneasy feeling in my gut': there's Michael McManus, paid $10K "as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative" yet never disclosed this [quote from Salon.com]. For a column called Ethics, no less. And then there's Maggie Gallagher, paid $21K to write brochures and pamphlets on the Defense of Marriage Act. She claims in her defense that the only thing she did wrong was fail to divulge her subcontractor status, since, y'know...she forgot.
Hunh? Hell, I'd love to make so much money that I can just happen to forget that someone paid me a check for $21K to write propaganda for them. Or paid me $21,000 to write anything, for that matter. I mean, if that's chump change... Sheesh. Interesting Times remarked:
The two aspects of this scandal (and I do think it is scandalous) that I find most disturbing are (1) the use of federal money to advocate policy change as opposed to just educating the public on existing policy and (2) the use of federal money to pay advocates who are already supporters, suggesting that federal money is being used as a reward for good behavior.Well said. This is the same attitude that's giving me ulcers with the Social Security fiasco. Did you know if you called Social Security (not sure if the recording's still there, but it was for a long time, and some report it's still running), that while you were on hold, you'd get fed a whole bunch of information about how much trouble SS is in? Wait, so we're using the limited funds of a department that's supposed to be two steps from complete failure, and we're taking out some of those funds in order to fund an educational program that will tell people about how we're about to crash? Waitaminnit. Am I the only one who thinks that's a bad use of funds? (And more so in light of the GAO information at the top of this rather lengthy post.)
Anyway, if you're still with me, as I rant and ramble my way through my break between chapter revisions, there are a few good things to lighten my mood. For one, there's the bit about the Stop Government Propaganda Act, which is wonderful bipartisan, as it should be. If you're inclined to activism, it doesn't take a lot of time to call up your Representative and Senator and tell 'em you think this is a good idea. The spokesman for Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Alex Formuzis, explains: "This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. This is an issue about an independent press, and I think that's something that will cross party lines." I can only hope a majority of Congress agrees.
I know where there's a lot of propaganda, where the people didn't know what was real and what was planted by the government to convince them of situation A, B, or C. One place was the Soviet Union, and the other place is China. Our freedom - to write and say what we think, and to criticize our government and hound it into regaining its integrity and dignity - isn't just a right. It's a responsibility. I don't wanna live in a tyranny. I just wanna believe it's not too soon to undo the damage we've already got.
And now, back to ch17. Here ends today's contemplative rantings.
EDIT: I was doing okay until minor depression set in after checking in at the Asylum, and catching a post about a poll among high school students re the first amendment. So I went back and read about the rescued hippo, who's got a new home after the tsunami hit, to remind me good things happen, too. But I'm still aggravated.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 1 Feb 2005 11:39 pm (UTC)I've booked it though, and will attempt again when I get a moment. *looks at all the pretty flashing AOL IM lights* it might be awhile.
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 12:34 am (UTC)But seriously, your post hurts the heart and gut. Health care costs are a huge concern and unless something is done to reduce malpractice costs and the share of our premiums that go to administration, rather than actual medical care (which is an incredibly high proportion in the US) then we'll get a situation where people may not have enough money left for health care even after they've used all their assets in old age. And, there's gonna come a time when other countries won't want to finance the US twin deficits - current account and fiscal - and then we'll find ourselves paddling in excrement.
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 12:52 am (UTC)*happy former economics student sounds*
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 03:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 03:32 am (UTC)Uh...naw, I don't think so. Not if you can get a suitably mortified and humiliated kid outta the deal, right?
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 03:39 am (UTC)Oh, and that's not Caesar's bust on the shelf, it's Buddha. You were there when I bought it, remember? {G}
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 04:00 am (UTC)I'm not entirely certain it can be carried both ways, but the real gist -- that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply because in our current world "the main challenges to peace do not arise from the threat of conflict between large national armies, but from terrorist organizations and rogue nations." ...Well, to my eyeballs that's just a very roundabout way of saying the Geneva Convention is obsolete.
But hey, we didn't need those European Allies -- who consider the Convention a damn fine piece of work -- after all, did we? Sometimes the hypocrisy amazes me. We can get up-in-arms (so to speak) that the UN would dare to tell us to revise our Bill of Rights (or even toss it out altogether), and yet we would gladly toss out a document that they find just as important, in some ways. What's worse, we agreed to the Geneva Convention.
*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 04:13 am (UTC)Ah, well... The nice thing about studying history is that you learn that the excesses of one era are usually replaced with a different set of excesses in the next.
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 10:17 am (UTC)I mean, WTF? I cannot comprehend this attitude among a lot of US people that it's unpatriotic to question the government. Because, hello? It's your democratic DUTY to question the government! They are responsible to YOU, and it is YOUR responsibility to make damn sure they act within the law.
It's not something that'd ordinarily happen over here, because we all love to criticise our politicians, but recently there seems to have been a disturbing trend among New Labour members (makes preventative religious signs) to consider Blair and his circle politically inviolate. And I cannot BELIEVE that any British government in the 21st century could even consider holding prisoners without trial. It's sickening.
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2005 03:01 pm (UTC)Yeah, the whole prisoners without trial sickens me. (See CP's comments above.) Really, if they're POW, then hold them as POW and stop torturing them. If you're questioning them, then you've proven nothing yet but are still investigating, in which case torture is out of the question, because you've not proven the person's a terrorist (IMO) and therefore the Geneva Convention applies. You really can't have it both ways...and why should it be a question? I'd think those of us from cultures that are more advanced, higher technology, higher quality of living, greater freedoms...it would behoove us to act in a more mature manner.
Hmm, what is that phrase again about only nations and three-year olds think violence is the solution?