Most of the industrial democracies have some form of publicly funded news service. Ever heard of the British Broadcasting Company or the Canadian Broadcasting Company? In the U.S. it's National Public Radio, a division of the Public Broadcasting System. The GOPers have been trying to defund NPR since they took over Congress — in 1994! Now they are feeling their muscle and they are at it again, and Jim DeMint will be leading the fight in the Senate. I would recommend that you call his office and tell him to shove it, but I think we know what that would accomplish. So I will ask you to read this post and let the Democratic majority in the Senate know how important NPR is to journalism and culture in this country.
House Republicans announced Wednesday they plan to force a floor vote on defunding NPR in response to the firing of analyst Juan Williams last month.
House GOP Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colo.) said that cutting funds to the publicly subsidized news organization was the winner of the conference's weekly "YouCut" contest, in which the public votes online on spending items they want eliminated. ...
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has said he will introduce legislation to defund NPR in the upper chamber.
NPR operates using both private and public money, though most of its revenue comes from non-public sources.
Read the whole story from The Hill right here: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/129723-house-gop-to-force-vote-on-npr-defunding?page=2#comments
I first heard this on NPR last week. Now a friend and reader has sent it to me and I pass it along to you. One of the best pieces of political humor I have heard in a long time. Enjoy.
As everyone performs postmortems on the recent elections, political analyst William Greider asks the question on many of our minds: Does President Obama have the guts to play hardball? The White House is no place for a community organizer, or a law professor or even a policy analyst. It's time for Obama to step up on the mound and start slinging hardballs. He's certainly been hit by enough of them.
See the whole AlterNet story at http://www.alternet.org/news/148850
Given the election results, the question Barack Obama has to decide for himself is whether he really wants to be president in the fullest sense. Not a moderator for earnest policy discussions. Not the national cheerleader for hope. Not the worthy visionary describing a distant future. Those qualities are elements in any successful presidency, and Obama applies them with admirable skill and seriousness.
What's missing with this president is power — a strong grasp of the powers he possesses and the willingness to govern the country with them. During the past two years, this missing quality has been consistently obvious in his rhetoric and substantive policy positions. There is a cloying Boy Scout quality in his style of leadership — the troop leader urging boys to work together on their merit badges — and none of the pigheaded stubbornness of his "I am the decider" predecessor, nor the hard steel of Lyndon Johnson or the guile of Richard Nixon....
Republicans, who are masters of deceptive marketing, seized on Obama's most appealing qualities and turned them upside down. Their propaganda cast him not as soft but as a power-mad (black) leftist, destroying democracy with socialist schemes. The portrait was so ludicrous and mendacious, the president's party hardly bothered to respond. Egged on by the Republican Party and Fox News, right-wing frothers conjured sicko fantasies and extreme accusations: the president is not only a black man (bad enough for the party of the white South); he is not even American. The vindictive GOP strategy is racial McCarthyism, demonizing this honorable man as an alien threat, just as cold war Republicans depicted left-liberal Democrats as commie sympathizers....
Four years ago people rose up and stopped Walmart from expanding its Folly Road store into adjacent wetlands. That was then. Now Walmart is back with a new expansion plan. They are scheduled to go before the Commercial Corridor Design and Review Board, 5:00 p.m., Nov. 18, third floor meeting room of the Charleston County School Board Building, 75 Calhoun St. Seeing is believing: http://www.charleston-sc.gov/shared/docs/0/11-18-10.pdf
Now you know. What are you going to do about it?
I just saw the documentary film Inside Job, a devastating account of how the Wall Street crowd, in collusion with politicians, regulators and even scholars from elite American universities (think Larry Summers) created the economic collapse of 2008, in order to enrich themselves by billions of dollars. Go see it as soon as you can, but first, read this column by Frank Rich in Saturday's New York Times. Read the full column at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14rich.html
IN the aftermath of the Great Democratic Shellacking of 2010, one election night subplot quickly receded into the footnotes: the drubbing received by very wealthy Americans, most of them Republican, who tried to buy Senate seats and governor’s mansions. Americans don’t hate rich people. They admire and often idolize success. But Californians took a hearty dislike to Meg Whitman, who sacrificed $143 million of her eBay fortune — not to mention her undocumented former housekeeper — to a gubernatorial race she lost by double digits. Connecticut voters K.O.’d the World Wrestling groin-kicker, Linda McMahon, and West Virginians did likewise to the limestone-and-steel magnate John Raese, the senatorial hopeful who told an interviewer without apparent irony, “I made my money the old-fashioned way — I inherited it.”
To my mind, these losers deserve a salute nonetheless. They all had run businesses that actually created jobs (Raese included). They all wanted to enter public service to give back to the country that allowed them to prosper. And by losing so decisively, they gave us a ray of hope in dark times. Their defeats reminded us that despite much recent evidence to the contrary the inmates don’t always end up running the asylum of American politics.
The wealthy Americans we should worry about instead are the ones who implicitly won the election — those who take far more from America than they give back. They were not on the ballot, and most of them are not household names. Unlike Whitman and the other defeated self-financing candidates, they are all but certain to cash in on the Nov. 2 results. There’s no one in Washington in either party with the fortitude to try to stop them from grabbing anything that’s not nailed down.
The Americans I’m talking about are not just those shadowy anonymous corporate campaign contributors who flooded this campaign. No less triumphant were those individuals at the apex of the economic pyramid — the superrich who have gotten spectacularly richer over the last four decades while their fellow citizens either treaded water or lost ground. The top 1 percent of American earners took in 23.5 percent of the nation’s pretax income in 2007 — up from less than 9 percent in 1976. During the boom years of 2002 to 2007, that top 1 percent’s pretax income increased an extraordinary 10 percent every year. But the boom proved an exclusive affair: in that same period, the median income for non-elderly American households went down and the poverty rate rose.
It’s the very top earners, not your garden variety, entrepreneurial multimillionaires, who will be by far the biggest beneficiaries if there’s an extension of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts for income over $200,000 a year (for individuals) and $250,000 (for couples). The resurgent G.O.P. has vowed to fight to the end to award this bonanza, but that may hardly be necessary given the timid opposition of President Obama and the lame-duck Democratic Congress....
The bigger issue is whether the country can afford the systemic damage being done by the ever-growing income inequality between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else, whether poor, middle class or even rich. That burden is inflicted not just on the debt but on the very idea of America — our Horatio Alger faith in social mobility over plutocracy, our belief that our brand of can-do capitalism brings about innovation and growth, and our fundamental sense of fairness. Incredibly, the top 1 percent of Americans now have tax rates a third lower than the same top percentile had in 1970.
“How can hedge-fund managers who are pulling down billions sometimes pay a lower tax rate than do their secretaries?” ask the political scientists Jacob S. Hacker (of Yale) and Paul Pierson (University of California, Berkeley) in their deservedly lauded new book, “Winner-Take-All Politics.” If you want to cry real tears about the American dream — as opposed to the self-canonizing tears of John Boehner — read this book and weep. The authors’ answer to that question and others amounts to a devastating indictment of both parties....