Obama Embraces Neo-Con Agenda

President Obama continues to embrace a conservative reformist agenda with his Monday fiscal summit and his speech to the congress last night. In particular in education he has embraced merit pay and he told congress his administration wishes to expand charter schools. This later move has been the child of the Cato institute in the U.S. and the Fraser Institute in Canada. It is the bugaboo of the neo-con revolution, market delivery of public education by private companies. Setting up competitive private schools in competition with public schools. It as been tried in Alberta and B.C. and has not delivered any greater success in student achievement than public schools. Where it has succceeded is due to a simple fact; smaller class sizes which results in more indidivdual student attention.
At his Monday joint summit meeting, proposals for education reform included merit pay, despite union opposition to this idea, While on the surface merit pay may appear a good idea, it is all in the details. Who decides what merits the pay increase? Is it test scores? Is it an evaluation by students and parents? If it is the former test scores do not reflect real cognitive learning, rather they reflect the limited ability of rote learning; memorising anwsers to test questions.
The Obama administration is embracing other neo-con ideas as well in the areas of health care and social security reform. They begin with the premise that some one is ripping off the system, and a review of health care rip offs was announced to congress by Obama. He also promised that younger American workers would be able to supplement their social security with a persoanl tax free retirement investment plan. Where have we heard this before? Why from the Bush and Clinton administrations of course.
Like Clinton before him, he is a classic liberal, and as I have pointed out here before, classic liberals are embraced by libertarians, radical republicans and liberals. That he is willing to embrace ideas of the neo-con era, shows he truly is bipartisan

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:

Barack Obama, Barack, Obama,government, Conservatives,

Obama's Bipartisanship

Missed by the American media pundits on the cable political talk shows was that Obama's bipartisanship has nothing to do with charming Republicans but about meeting with Conservative PM Stephen Harper.

"If Canadians were no fans of Mr. Bush, their conservative leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, found in him a kindred philosophical spirit . . . "

In personal terms, there should be excellent chemistry between these two guys. In generational terms, they belong to the same baby-boomer cohort. Harper was born in 1959, Obama in 1961. They both come from modest backgrounds, where their mothers were the most important influence in their lives. They both saw themselves as agents of change, both made audacious reaches for power at a young age, and both have grasped the brass ring.

Never mind that Obama is a liberal Democrat and Harper is a right-of-centre Conservative. Both have taken parties of chronic losers and made them winners. That's the starting point between them. And in any event, the left in the U.S. can be to the right of centre in Canada. Obama wants to double U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan, while Harper has promised to pull Canada out of the country by 2011. Obama would never support legislation or constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in the U.S., while Harper called a free vote on it in Canada, and dropped his opposition when a parliamentary resolution backed the courts.

After all as I pointed out here on several occasions Obama is a classic liberal, that is a 'progressive' conservative. While Harper too is a classic liberal, though more influenced by American Republican interpretations of libertarianism equating it with Ayn Randism. Underneath their discourse was the common view that it was time to fortify the gates of fortress North America, which includes Mexico, over issues of common security, shared climate change policy and mutual stimulus packages.

Despite big differences in philosophy and style, Obama and Harper presented a common front on issues as varied as the war in Afghanistan, reversing the recession and pushing back the hot-button issue of trade protectionism.

Together, they announced a "clean energy dialogue" aimed at finding technological answers to the twin environmental dilemmas of Alberta oil sands and American coal.

For left wing Americans and Canadians who think Obama is left wing, their enthusiasm for Obama is simply their misunderstanding of his realpolitik, as Thomas Walkom notes.
His vision is that of Lincoln Republicanism, especially the radical Republicans who have nothing in common with the right wing evangelicals who took over the current party under Reagan, nor anything in common with the isolationists of the Republican Party of the FDR era.
In that he and Harper share a common understanding of the classical liberal politics of self improvement through self reliance and self responsibility, progress through merit, not class or status. These are the masonic values of the enlightments further espoused by the utilitarian philosophers.
Yes the visit to Canada was truly an expression of Obama's successful bi-partisan politics, the politics of radical republicanism.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:

Barack Obama, Barack, Obama,government, Conservatives, Harper,

Made In Canada Climate Policy RIP

Remember all the Baird bluster about how the Harpocrites were going to create a 'Made In Canada' Climate Change policy. Their alternative to Kyoto. Well now it seems that its going to be a Made In The USA policy....The Canadian government offered a hint of its eagerness to work with Bush's successor this week. Less than 12 hours after Obama had delivered his victory speech, the Conservatives were already describing plans to seek a North American climate treaty with the next president. As I said watch for Obama to save Harper on the Climate Change issue.




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Kyoto, APEC, Stephen Harper, Barack Obama, Greenhouse gases, CO2, Conservatives, Canada, Harper, carbon-credits, EU, pollutionKyoto, climate-change, government, environment, oil, electricity, capitalism, sustainablity,

Political Astrology of the US Election

I came across an interesting article on political astrology of the U.S. election day, Nov. 4, predicting Obama's win.

The celestial events taking place now are amazing. Pluto rules nations, and Capricorn rules governments. The last time Pluto was in Capricorn was from 1763 to 1778.This was the time of the American Revolution which culminated in the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.The next time that Pluto was to return to Capricorn was this November.
Today, the planet Saturn is in direct opposition to the planet Uranus. Saturn represents the status quo; and Uranus represents revolutionary change at a grassroots level. These two opposing forces meet each other head-on!
When you look at the charts ofMc-Cain and Obama, we see McCain is a Virgo, with moon in Aquarius and Pisces Rising.
Obama is a Leo, with moon in Gemini and Aquarius Rising.
Both these guys are successful go-getters. What will make the difference is which one of their charts has the strongest connection to the chart of the U.S. based on July 4, 1776, 2:24 p. m. I'll cut to the chase and tell you right off--it's the chart of Barack Obama, hands down.

Along with this being a once in a 250 year event Pluto in Capricorn means a major realignment of the world economy as well.

On November 27th Pluto goes back into Capricorn until 2023. If you ever wanted a signal that the world is in major reconstruction follow the path of Capricorn for the next fifteen years. The mantra that I give the transit of Pluto in Scorpio is ‘brick by brick and stone by stone’.

There's plenty of blame to go around for why the nation and the world finds itself in such a financial pickle. Greed. Lack of regulation. Too much easy money.
But some astrologers put much of the blame on that pesky one-time planet Pluto. Rumson astrologer Flo Higgins said Pluto is moving from Sagittarius (laissez-faire attitude, not following rules) to Capricorn (conservative, regulated).
"Things have got to be destroyed and rebuilt and that's what's happening in the world," Higgins said. "We're not doomed to eternity like this. It'll be okay, but we have to go through some life lessons.

Those who pooh-pooh astrological predicitions forget that they are essentially mathematical formula's, and their predictability is over the long term. And given their predicatability, they function well for long term global events. As for being irrational, as my skeptical friends like to dismiss them, nothing can be more irrational than Stock Market Capitalism.

For instance here is an interesting political astrological pre-election predicition.....

Saturn vs. Uranus: The Smackdown
Friday, October 31, 2008

On Tuesday, November 4th, Saturn in Virgo will be exactly opposite Uranus in Pisces. This hasn't happened since 1967, when the two planets were reversed -- Saturn in Pisces and Uranus in Virgo. Again in 2008, the times are indeed changing, as Dylan said. Back then we had the Vietnam war and the summer of love: two distinctly opposing poles in a roiling paradigm shift. Now we have youth, charisma, and hope writ large in the symbol that is Barack Obama. He has inspired millions and gotten us to take to the streets in a living, breathing network of change-making. All the organization and grassroots fundraising he's done is a testament to these beautiful progressive values. It is indeed interesting that Obama has Aquarius rising (the sign connected to the planet Uranus.) On the other hand, we have John Mccain, whose Saturn in Pisces is opposed to the Cosmic Taskmaster's current placement in Virgo. He's also a Virgo sun, so Saturn is sitting right on top of his sign, affecting his health, happiness, and making him angry all the time. Americans have a major choice to make right now, and the world is watching with baited breath. We can choose hope (Uranus/Obama) or we can choose fear (Saturn/Mccain). Just a quick word about the insanity of election day aspects: it doesn't look like it's necessarily going to be over by midnight. The moon and Mercury both change signs that day, Mars squares Neptune, and Saturn dukes it out with Uranus, putting everyone on edge. Be vigilant, and vote early if you can in your state. If not, clear your schedule and wait as long as it takes on that line at the polls. Document your experience there with your cell-phone camera. Don't be cowed by anyone that tells you can't vote -- voting suppression will be out in full-force in swing states, but documentation of irregularities will go far to prevent another stolen election. Even if we have to wait days, weeks, or months for a final result, let's hope that it reflects our democracy's best intentions.

India is awash in astrologers as well as mathmaticians and theoritical physicists, all of whose predictions are based upon the Vedic system; whether mathematical or astrological. And they too predicted Obama's win.

Indian astrologers predict sweeping Obama win
AFP - 30 Oct 2008


I have posted before on political astrology....

The Monkey On Paul Martin's Back

Year of the Pig and the Liberal Green Alliance

Burma's Curse

And I am not the only one to note the signifigance of te political astrological impact of the American election....

Obama, by Jupiter!
If the stars were aligned today for the coronation of the king of Bhutan, what does the president-elect's horoscope foretell?
Jupiter is why former president Ronald Reagan, a keen follower of astrological advice, took office as governor of California in January 1967 at the bizarre time of quarter past midnight. The giant planet was then high in the sky, promising a prosperous term for the king of the B movies. So it proved.
Might Jupiter have been similarly shining down on the victory of Barack Obama two days ago? Actually, no. By the time Obama was greeting the crowd in Chicago's Grant Park, Jupiter and most of the planets were below the horizon.
However, those looking for astrological omens for the Age of Obama (quite a few people, as a glance on the web confirms) have already noted that his inauguration – at noon on January 20 2009 – finds Jupiter perfectly aligned alongside the sun at the peak of the event's horoscope.
Most astrologers would look at the chart of the event and find it promising. By contrast, the inauguration of George W Bush in 2000 came dominated by Mars, planet of war.


So lets look at the new leadership of the U.S.

Barack Obama Astrology Natal Horoscope Report

Michelle Obama's Astrology Chart: The New First Lady - SpiritNow

Joe Biden is a Scorpio and is well suited to be the watery fire sign, not unlike Michele's Capricorn which is a watery earth sign, to balance off Obama.

Like many celebrities, Joe Biden has a stellium (more than three planets in one sign) in his chart. He has four planets in Scorpio, meaning that this is not a man to be messed with. He has the sun, Venus, Mars and Mercury in Scorpio. This line up speaks of pure power, as Scorpios are very good at politics, but they are ruthless when crossed! This many planets in Scorpio would also account for his incredible charisma.

And it is interesting to note that Sarah Pallins chart, she is an Aquarian, reveals her true self, which is that because of her Uranian/Neptunian nature she is a trickster. She is not what she seems.Scorpio is Novembers sign and it was not good for Pallin. She stung herself to political death.

All of these "sudden revelations" about Sarah Palin do smack of Uranus, though, and sure enough using this chart we have transiting Uranus retrograding over her progressed Midheaven. That would fit perfectly with her being picked out of nowhere and then this rapid meltdown.

Irene Mack
October 28, 2008 12:37 PM
Her Aquarius planets square Neptune in Scorpio. Transiting Neptune is on her Sun, reinforcing the Neptunian energy. Am I the only person here who is seeing someone who isn't who she professes to be? It's obvious to me that she's a phoney. Unfortunately, with that Neptunian energy she has going, she does have some people hypnotized into believing she's the real thing. And Venus in Aries. Please.She loves herself first.


I have posted here before about how Obama models himself on Lincoln....so lets look at their astrological coorespondence;

Barack Obama vs. Abraham Lincoln
September 22, 2008 ·
Their career paths have been compared, and almost parallel in their meteoric rise from being state legislators to Presidents (in Obama’s case potential president). But what do their charts say. Are they similar? And if so how? Let’s take a look at the man who helped start the Republican party and the current lead Democrat.

Others have gone further in associating Obama with Lincoln and indeed with JFK through their astrological charts, let alone Obama's adoption of their political iconography.

Last March, prominent psychic, Gordon Michael Scallion, speaking to a group at the A.R.E. (Association for Research and Enlightenment, The Edgar Cayce Foundation) in Virginia Beach, channeled the information that Obama is a reincarnated Abe Lincoln-- a compelling if improvable thesis. Lincoln may have freed the slaves and defeated the Confederacy, but he did not live to complete his mission of reuniting the nation. Many of the deep divisions that persist today are the legacy of a reconstruction gone awry. Obama is passionate about uniting the country, as if to complete Lincoln’s unfinished business. His statement I don’t see red and blue states, I see the United States, echoes Lincoln’s sentiment to bind up the nation’s wounds. Pundits are already predicting that the electoral map will morph into the color purple. Obama often cites the motto on the Great Seal epluribus unum, out of many one. Unity is essential if we want to effect real political change and fulfill the founders’ vision.

And while saying Obama is the reincarnation of Lincoln is pushing it the political iconography being used by Obama of continuing the Lincoln legacy is psychically potent as a political metaphor within the American mindset as he well knows.

The Presidential Inauguration will be held on January 20, 2009. A week of festivities will include the Presidential Swearing in Ceremony, Inaugural Address, Inaugural Parade and a night of Inaugural Balls and galas honoring the new President of the United States. The theme for the 2009 presidential inauguration will be "A New Birth of Freedom," commemorating the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. The words come from the Gettysburg address, and express Lincoln's hope that the sacrifice of those who died to preserve the nation shall lead to "a new birth of freedom" for our nation. The theme is particularly appropriate in light of the historic election of Senator Barack Obama.

Words of Lincoln Will Be Woven Into Obama Inaugural Activities

And lets not forget that when Obama won his first primary we were still in the Chinese Year of the Pig...we are now in the last phase of the Year of the Rat...... by the time he takse power we will be in the year of the Ox.

A Rat Year is a time of hard work, activity, and renewal. This is a good year to begin a new job, get married, launch a product or make a fresh start. Ventures begun now may not yield fast returns, but opportunities will come for people who are well prepared and resourceful. The best way for you to succeed is to be patient, let things develop slowly, and make the most of every opening you can find.

the year of the Rat is still ruled by the cold of winter and the darkness of night. Those who speculate indiscriminately and overextend themselves will come to a sad reckoning.

In the Chinese zodiac, McCain is a rat and Obama is an ox. "2008 is a rat year, but next year is Year of the Ox and that favors Obama," says Weber. According to Weber the rat is a sign ruled by water and that makes McCain's personality one that conflicts with the energy of the coming year and explains much of his actions. "Looking at McCain during the debates, you could tell his emotions fluctuated and, like water, were more fluid."
Rats are considered positive, charismatic, hardworking and industrious and their negative qualities are over-ambition, ruthlessness, intolerant and scheming. If McCain came into office, it's possible that his emotions would get the better of him, as he's often known for a hot temper and quick reactions.
"Watching Obama in the debates showed his Ox qualities of being unflappable and steady," Weber explains. An ox is associated with the earth element and is known for being dependable, calm, methodical, and resolute and their negative qualities make them stubborn, materialistic, rigid and demanding.
According to Weber, McCain's rat energy would keep him from being effective in the Oval Office because the 2009 energy is earth and earth dams water. "It would be a "dammed" presidency from the start," she quips. Even so, rats are industrious and opportunity-driven and have great qualities for business, but with next year's energy, the rat energy isn't harmonious because water added to earth makes mud.
Obama, on the other hand, has earth qualities that will create a harmonious start with the earth energy of next year, and Weber explains, that next year has a double earth energy making the steady approach of the next president important in order to settle down the "rollercoaster we've been on" and take care of important things like America's standing in the world and investing in American infrastructure. "You could look at it as McCain's Year of the Rat is almost over, but Obama's Year of the Ox is the future. Speaking purely to the feng shui of time and energy, feng shui supports Obama over McCain."

A rat's life
For those who believe that the world is shaped by historical coincidence (a small minority populated entirely by sports commentators), a more worrying US election trend is also visible - 2008 is the Chinese Year of the Rat. In five of the last six Year of the Rat American elections - 1996, 1984, 1972, 1948 and 1936 - the incumbent president has been re-elected.
George W. Bush's greatest political asset has been his ability to win elections in which he seemingly had little or no hope either before or after the votes had been cast.
Let us hope that this Rat Year election proves a bridge too far even for him.

The Year of the Rat has been a rough one for China's richest, with fortunes being dragged down amid a 60% plunge in mainland stocks and a 50% drop in Hong Kong shares in 2008. The combined net worth of the 400 richest dropped to $173 billion from $288 billion. The top 40 lost $68 billion, or 57%. The minimum net worth slipped $20 million to $180 million.

On the Western calendar, the start of the New Year falls on Monday, January 26, 2009 — The Year of the Ox.

The OX year is a conservative year, one of traditions and values. This is not a year to be outrageous. A slow but steady year.This OX year will bring stability and growth where patience and diligence pays off.
This is a year of Harvest - when we reap what we have sown. Take care of business this year, do not let things slide.


SEE:

The First Computer- Second Century B.C.

Snake Oil Saint

1666 The Creation Of The World

Lucky Number 7

Godel, Cantor, Wiener and Schrodinger's Cat

Kabbalistic Kommunism


Tags:
Barack Obama, Barack, Obama, astrology, America, Michelle, Senator, Chicago, Illinois, USA, politics, Democrat, President, Presidentialrace, John McCain, republican, U.S.presidential election

America's Historic Election

The election of Barack Obama as 44th President of the United States was the fulfillment of the drream of Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglas, who himself ran for the Republican nomination for President. Obama kicked off his campaing in Springfield, Illinois Lincolns home. His politics of unity, his sweep in the polls showing America is neither Blue nor Red but purple; his politics as I have pointed out here before are those of classic 19th century liberalism. He appeals to the old Republican party, the progressive, labour party of Lincoln not the later nativist, neo-con party of Reagan. And he made that clear in his victory speech....


Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.


While McCain supporters chanted USA, USA, Barack appealed not to a narrow jingoist nationalism but to a greater vision of Americans by their own merit and pulling together in a collective effort to meet the historic challenges facing them with his call; Yes We Can.

He is a Lincoln Republican and a FDR Democrat, remembering the the latters success was based on the progressive movement that pushed not for his election but for the third party candidate; Robert La Follette. A party and movement often overlooked for its impact on American politics, after it got Teddy Roosevelt elected president.

Obama was that third party candidate who used the Democratic party to win election, while appealing to both Republicans and Independents to join him in a bi-partisan campaign to make history. He swept red states and those he didn't win he got more votes in than any other Democrat ever has. He vindicated Howard Dean's fifty state strategy, and he did it by using the grassroots organizing of Saul Alinsky and the Civil Rights movement.

Lincoln and Douglas would be proud as would both Kennedy brothers, and LBJ who in their own way paved the way for Obama's historic election. Today is the fulfillment of the dreams of Martin Luther King, A. Phillip Randolph and Malcolm X. And it is the redemption of the Democratic party forty years after the debacle in Chicago in 1968.

The tears of Afro-Americans from the young students on campuses shown on TV to the celeberities in the crowd in Chicago; Jesse Jackson and Oprah Winfrey, were the geniune mass weltashung of the realization that finally the ugly history of slavery and segregation were ended last night. And a man was elected on the merit of his belief's not his skin colour.

It's a new dawn in America.



SEE:

America's Real Conservative Choice For President



Lincoln Obama



Black Like Me

Winds of Change

The Blue Origin of the Red States



The Era Of The Common Man

A NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:

Barack Obama, Barack, Obama, Kenya, America, Indonesia, Senator, Chicago, Illinois, USA, politics, Democrat, President, Presidentialrace, 2008, Abraham L incoln, labour, labor, black, white, workers, unions, working class, America, Martin Luther King, MLK, Martin Luther King Day, AFL/CIO, A. Phillip Randolph, W E B Dubois, Afro-Americans

America's Real Conservative Choice For President

Much has been made about Barack Obama being a socialist and a Marxist by the dwindling white power base that is the decrpit Republican Party. But the reality is that tommorow America will have a choice between a real conservative President and a Republican. That choice of course is Barack Obama.

For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one.

His politics of unity; the third way, his appeal to Americans that they need to take personal responsibility for their families and their neighbours, his rise to power as an example of American meritocracy, his appeal to hard work, and a fair share for all, are traditional American conservative values, indeed they are the values of bourgoise enlightment exemplified by Freemasonry. His are the values of both Abraham Lincoln and FDR, not Ronald Reagan. After all prior to Regans unholy alliance of neo-cons, paleo-cons and evangelicals, conservatism was really just an outgrowth of 'classical liberalism'.

His endorsement by Colin Powell, as well as by other leading Republican's and conservatives such as Chris Buckley, shows that Obama's polics are more closely aligned to 'tradtional American values' than those of the evangelical right wing that hijacked the party of Goldwater.

And his promise to expand the war in Afghanistan means that he and Harper have something in comon despite the difference in their party labels. And Obama's Green Plan will coincide with the one that is still to be unvieled by the Harpocrites.


A Conservative For Obama
Ronald T. Wilcox
I'm a conservative. I've spent my money and my time in support of Republican candidates. I also support Barack Obama for president.
Modern conservatism is deeply rooted in ideas and political philosophy, in rational discourse and pragmatism. John Stuart Mill matters to conservatives.
Conservatives used to ask the tough questions and did not accept simplistic solutions. That is why it is deeply disappointing to me, both personally and professionally, that John McCain has run a campaign that is so antithetical to rational discourse about public policy. His campaign has been about glib answers to complex problems. His choice for vice president was political malpractice.
He has catered to a wing of the Republican Party that believes everything will be all right--if only the government gets out of the way. No matter the problem, that is the only acceptable solution. To suggest that research about or thoughtful analysis of a situation might, in some cases, point in a different direction is apostasy.
For these Republicans, simply the act of doing policy analysis must mean that you are a liberal. They know that real Republicans, and real men, don't need to think things through. I do not respect these people. They have dragged a proud movement that had much to offer our country down into the mud of ignorance.
And yet the reason I now support Obama is only partially due to McCain's decision to embrace this base form of populism. It also stems from a growing respect for Obama's thoughtfulness, which reveals itself when he's faced with difficult questions. I do not agree with all elements of Obama's tax policy, but I certainly get the impression he has thought about it a whole lot more than McCain.

The attraction of Obama to Sullivan and other conservatives is not surprising. In fact, their support is consistent with the constructive wing of the philosophy of conservatism. Those stuck in the world of divisional politics can be baffled by this. How, they ask, can people who admire Reagan and Thatcher also have time for Obama?Aside from his positive message of unity, there are a number of things concerning Obama which appeal to conservatives, not least his appreciative attitude towards traditions and his understanding of the importance of learning from history. In her ambitious New Yorker profile of Obama published last May, Larissa Macfarquhar writes that Obama was critical of his parents and grandparents for breaking up from their respective communities and moving to other towns and countries. They allowed themselves to be seduced by the American dream of individualism and mobility, something which to Obama seems "credulous and shallow." To Obama, the abandonment of their surroundings in Kenya and Kansas to start anew somewhere else seemed, writes Macfarquhar, "a destructive craving for weightlessness." Freedom has a price, and this is shattered communities and loneliness.

Many traditional conservatives (not the neo-con subspecies) are embarrassed by George Bush and are looking for a way out of the foreign and domestic policy nightmare that he has engineered. They also understand that John McCain would be more of the same or even worse. There is a lively discussion of Barack Obama that is taking place both in the blogosphere and in the media directed at a conservative audience, and much of the discourse is surprisingly receptive to the idea that Obama, though a liberal, could bring about genuine change that will benefit the country. A recent article by Boston University professor and former army officer Andrew Bacevich appeared in The American Conservative magazine and is available on the internet at www.amconmag.com. It is entitled "The Case for Obama" and makes the point that Obama is a candidate that is certainly no conservative, but he is the only real hope to get out of Iraq and also avoid wars of choice in the future. Bacevich rightly sees the Iraq war and its consequences as a truly existential issue for the United States, one that should be front and center for voters in November. Any more adventures of the Iraq type will surely bankrupt the country and destroy what remains of the constitution. Bacevich also notes that the election of John McCain, candidate of the neoconservatives and the war party, would guarantee an unending series of preemptive wars as U.S. security doctrine and would validate the disastrous decisions to invade Iraq and wage an interminable global war on "terrorists." Electing Obama instead would be as close as one could come to making a definitive judgment on the folly of Iraq and everything that it represents, a judgment that is long overdue. Many conservatives would agree that the Obama commitment to leave Iraq is the right way to go and long to return to the days when America only went to war when a vital interest was threatened.




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:Barack Obama, Barack, Obama, Kenya, America, Indonesia, Senator, Chicago, Illinois, USA, politics, Democrat, President, Presidentialrace, 2008, Abraham L incoln,

White Power

Is race an issue in the upcoming American Presidential election? You bet. It was clear to anyone who watched the two America's which appeared this summer at the Democratic and Republican conventions. While the media and pundits have focused on VP Pallin's success in appealing to the Republican base, that base is white. The sea of white faces during the republican convention was overwhelming. And it sends a message; Republican America is old rich white people. The amount of Afro-America, Latino, or Asian American faces in the crowds can be counted on one hand. Indeed during a recent McCain rally, the only African Americans present were his Secret Service detail.

A sea of white faces grey and blue rinse hair stared out at us from the floor of the Convention. Since then the sea of white faces that surrounds McCain and Pallin at rallies, may not be the core of the rich upper class white Republican party, but it is white none the less.

The messaging that Obama does not understand small town America, those who love their guns and bibles is aimed at this white base.

The result is that McCain and Pallin are addressing themselves to the issue of race, they speak for White America.

The Democratic convention by contrast was the real America, multiracial, young and old, women, men, gays and lesbians, latinos, blacks, asians, and yes even the forgotten Americans; those of the First Nations. Blue collar workers, students, professionals, and yes rich lawyers. But the overwhelming nature of the crowds that gather at Obama rallies, whether vote for him or not, is by contrast with the McCain crowd, the real America, a demographic diverse crowd.

In order to make himself appear popular amoung youth McCain and his handlers have been lining up young people behind him on the stage, many who are clearly not of voting age.

McCain and Pallins campaign to appeal to White America has resulted in the predicatable; White supremacist 'plot' to kill Barack Obama: A history of hatred

By claiming by inference that Obama is not American, not white, a terrorist sympathizer, a socialist and a Marxist, all the key words used by StormFront and other radical right wing conspiracy types to justify their hatred of America's diversity. McCain and Pallin launched their Nativist attack on Obama at the Republican Convention and the result has been to shore up their racist base and to appeal to those on the fringe of America who brought us Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma Bombing.

I note that not one media pundit has pointed out that the Republican convention and the McCain rallies are overwhelimngly white. They are in fact White Power rallies.

While discussing supposeded white working class anathema to Obama, and the issue of race, these same pundits both liberal and conservative refer obliquely to 'ethnic' America. Now we in Canada would use that term differently, it would refer to our multicultural heritage. In American Speak it refers to white Americans an in particular those whose politics are reflective of American Nativism.

Will white Americans vote for Obama, of course, overwhelmingly. That is not the real question the pundits are asking, rather will white Nativist/racist Americans vote for Obama? And the anwser is they have their own party and candidate; the Republican Party and John McCain.

And with the recent attacks on Obama and the this latest assassination plot, Black America's very real fear is that once again a Black leader will be assasinated before he gains power, or in the immediate aftermath of his election. American history of the long march for Civil Rights proves this fear is valid.

The Republican campaign which has focused on the politics of fear makes this a very real possibility. While the apologists will say that the Neo-Nazi's are a fringe element, they are very much part of the base of the Republican Party that Pallin in particular appeals to.

McCain has spent weeks overtly linking Obama to "terrorists" and "Palestinian donors" and posing the sinister question: "Who is the real Barack Obama"? Right this very minute, the McCain/Palin campaign is running massive robocalls in numerous battleground states, including North Carolina, alleging that Obama "has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home, and killed Americans" and, if elected, "will enact an extreme leftist agenda." Last night on national television, McCain vehemently defended Sarah Palin's repellent and patently false accusation that Obama "is pallin' around with terrorists."

But the McCain brand in recent weeks has taken a beating. In reaching out to that still-restive conservative base, McCain, a gambler partial to craps, in late August put his own history on the line. A survivor of several bouts of dangerous skin cancer, he picked an untested and, critics say, largely unqualified running mate in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whom he barely knew. And he launched a negative campaign against Democratic Sen. Barack Obama that has unleashed outbursts of nativism and racism at his rallies that have appeared at times to even startle the nominee. The Palin gambit initially worked in hard-fought states like Florida. "When he named her and settled on the theme that they would be the ticket for change, he really altered the campaign's dynamic and momentum here," says Aubrey Jewett, a University of Central Florida political science professor. "But days later, the economic crisis overshadowed everything."
Even some of McCain's most ardent supporters say they have been stunned by the campaign's singular, provocative focus on painting Obama as "dangerous" and a "pal" of terrorists because he served on an education reform board in the 1990s with 1960s-era antiwar extremist William Ayers, now an education professor in Chicago. "The campaign is heavy into character assassination," says a longtime McCain admirer who, like many, believed that McCain, with his maverick flashes and his appeal to independents, was the only Republican who could win this year after two terms of an unpopular GOP president. "I don't know what the hell is going on."

Sarah Palin has stopped being a joke and is becoming a danger in this troubled democracy of ours. Her job has been to excite the hard-core right-wing base (which McCain could never do) and she is doing it with a strident, demagogic amalgam of nativism and McCarthyism.
She is generating us-against-them warfare, pitting small-town America against the cities. Seems odd at first blush, since there are more votes in the cities—until you recognize that the big difference between her kind of small town and the wicked cities has everything to do with diversity of population.
The cities are filled with others. The cities are filled with “them.” The cities are filled with people like “that one.”
In Palin’s small-town universe—limited to only certain parts of the country—people are pro-America. The others…well, that’s where people pal around with terrorists, don’tcha know. That’s why her audiences are inspired to call for Obama’s execution. Hey—how about “lynch”? We haven’t heard that in a while.
She is the worst demagogue I have ever seen on a major party ticket—including Richard Nixon at his lowest.
Palin is not alone in this drive. Last week we saw U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota update Joe McCarthy, proclaiming that “leftists” such as Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi—to say nothing of Obama himself—were not really pro-America. Fact is she wants the media to investigate and expose all Democrats because they are likely against America.
It takes a lot to make my jaw drop, but this return to Red Scare days sure unhinged my mandible.
It is interesting to see that two women are in the vanguard of this new-found America-First-ism. But then, John McCain’s own brother pointed out that northern Virginia—the D.C. suburbs—is communist territory. Not like the real Virginia, where the founding fathers kept slaves on their plantations. Hey—only kidding folks.
These are not just retro weirdos on a soapbox in Bughouse Square. This is the vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party and governor of one of our 50 states. This is a sitting congresswoman from the upper Midwest.
Their words come as we stand at the brink of a major recession—the kind of economic environment that produced native fascists such as Father Coughlin and Huey Long. These are dangerous times for dangerous words—and win or lose we have not heard the end of them from Sarah Palin and her cohort.

Tags

John McCain, republican, U.S.presidential election, Sarah Pallin,
Obama,
Skinheads,
Democrats,white power,nativism,racism,

McCain A Socialist

Call this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, McCain calls Obama's economic policies socialist Yesterday on Meet the Press McCain admited his own home mortgage buy back plan originated in the 1930's under FDR, and was originally proposed by Hillary Clinton. Now who is a socialist?

MR. BROKAW: But there, there is this continuing use...
SEN. McCAIN: ...I feel that...
MR. BROKAW: ...of the phrase "socialism." How would you describe the $700 billion bailout that has the United States government buying shares in American banks, in effect nationalizing those banks to a degree, and even your own mortgage plan of spending $300 billion to buy bad mortgages from banks, having taxpayers who have done the responsible thing, in effect, subsidize people who've done the dumb or wrong thing?
SEN. McCAIN: Because we are in a financial crisis of monumental proportions. The role of government is to intervene when a nation is in crisis. A homeowner's loan corporation was instituted in the Great Depression. They went out and they bought people's mortgages, and, over time, people were able, then, to pay back those mortgages. And the Treasury actually made some money.
This Treasury in this administration is spending its time bailing out the banks. The cause of the crisis was the housing crisis, as we know. And how--home values, as long as they continue to decline, then we're not going to see a turnaround in this economy. A lot of other things have to happen, have to happen, but at least let's understand that we ought to keep people in their homes. That's the American dream. And they say now that maybe they're going to address that problem. Let's address it first. And so when a, when a nation is in crisis, that's when a government has to intervene.
Now, a lot of the times you were talking about, 2004, other times, times were pretty good overall. You had different--you have to have different roles of government in different times. I'm a fundamentally--obviously, a strong conservative. But when we're in a crisis of this nature, that's when government has to help. That's, that's what, that's what our fundamental belief--the reason why we have governments. In times of crisis, we go in and we try and help the people, especially in this situation where they're the, the victim of a drive-by shooting by excess, greed and corruption in Washington and Wall Street. And again, I and others said we have to have legislation to rein it in. Senator Obama didn't lift a finger.
MR. BROKAW: Well, you did--you made your comments about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the time of the accounting issue, when that was first raised. Can you cite a time...
SEN. McCAIN: In, in reality, we, we proposed legislation and made a statement that said, "Look, it's not just the accounting, this whole process is going to lead to disaster." I'd be glad to provide you with the letter.
MR. BROKAW: Let me ask you quickly about your $300 billion bailout of, of mortgages.
SEN. McCAIN: Hm.
MR. BROKAW: Some people have said, look, if there's a homeowner out there who's done the irresponsible thing...
SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. BROKAW: ...and a bank is looking at that foreclosure and saying, "Hey, I don't have to work this out. I can just get the government to pick it up," why should a taxpayer in Waterloo, Iowa, or in Akron, Ohio, have to subsidize somebody who has done the dumb, wrong thing?
SEN. McCAIN: Well, in simplest terms, if their neighbor next door throws the keys in the living room floor and leaves, then the value of their home is going to dramatically decrease as well. And again, this has been done before. As I said, during the Great Depression and...
MR. BROKAW: And that's when Republicans called it socialism under FDR.
SEN. McCAIN: Well, look, in the Great Depression, there were some things that worked and some things that didn't work. But for the government to do nothing in the face of a massive crisis of proportions that we have not seen, I mean, it's hard for us to imagine how, in, in retrospect, how serious the Great Depression was, but the fact is that Senator Obama, by the way, opposes that, that; and I want to use some of the $750 billion to go and buy those mortgages and that, I think, will stabilize the market. It's not the only thing that needs to be done, but I think it's a vital first step so Americans can realize the American dream.


SEE:
No Austrians In Foxholes

tags
Great Depression, John McCain, market crash, free trade, Republicans, recession,

Come Back Kid Or Pyrrhic Victory

Repeating her husbands famous 'comeback kid' routine Hillary Clinton tried to make her win in Rhode Island and Ohio and tie in Texas the big come back. Well it was a Pyrrhic victory of sorts. She has no mo', Obama has mo', she has the fight of her life, still. She was the front runner, she is the front runner, she is the inevitable candidate. Except she lost eleven primaries in a row until last night. And she lost Vermont in a big way.

Despite the her landslides in Rhode Island, and Ohio it was a squeaker in Texas, it was a virtual tie.

In Texas, with 77 percent of precincts reporting primary results, Clinton had 51 percent of the vote and Obama had 47 percent. Obama led in caucuses held after the primary vote, with 56 percent to Clinton's 44 percent, with 5 percent of precincts reporting.

Unlike Ohio she did not win overwhelmingly in Texas as she needed to. So she remains behind in delegates. And that's what counts. Delegates.

The Associated Press reported that all told, Mr. Obama retains his lead in the delegate count, with 1,477 pledged delegates compared to Mrs. Clinton’s 1,391. The A.P. said that 170 delegates from Tuesday’s contests have yet to be assigned, many from the Texas caucuses.

This is not a comeback it is a momentary gasping for air as her campaign continues to shamble along trying to figure out how to counter the Obama momentum. Sure she can claim Ohio as a big win, but it ain't really because in order to really be the come back kid she need to win big in BOTH Ohio and Texas and she didn't.

No Knockout in Dem Contest

Her whole campaign has been focused on early overwhelming victories. And in this she has been defeated by Obama. By this time her campaign had figured she would have already been her party's nominee. And she ain't. It will be decided at the convention. Which is good for the Democrats and Obama and bad for Clinton.

tags
US Presidential race,
Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton,

Bill Clinton A Reagan Democrat

Bill Clinton went all ballistic, again, over Barack Obama's comments that Ronald Regan was a 'transformational' president and that the Republicans were the party of 'ideas' through out the eighties and nineties. He of course became President in the nineties. And his was leadership was created by Reagan Democrats in the Democratic Leadership Council, who thought the be best way to beat the Republican Revolution of Newt Gingrich was to join it. Clinton is as hypocritical on this as he is on his purported opposition to the War in Iraq.

CNN.com - Clinton defends successor's push for war - Jun 19, 2004

Bill Clinton: I opposed war from start - Decision '08- msnbc.com

It was Clinton who fought for and signed into law one of key planks of the Reagan Neo Con Revolution; Welfare Reform which consisted of Work For Welfare.

This so called first Black President of the US signed into law this regressive bill aimed specifically at African American Women. He was not only two faced, speaking as a Democrat and ruling as a Republican, he did it in Al Jolson Black face. A longstanding Southern Democrat as well as Vaudville tradition.



That he should attack Barack Obama with such hypocritical indignation shows that he knows that this is exactly what Obama has pointed out about his six years in office. It was Democratic Black Face covering Republican White Majority Neo Conservative agenda.

Welfare Reform: The Personal Responsibility Act

One of the key ingredients in the initial Contract With America has led to one of the most contentious debates in Washington: reforming the welfare state. The Personal Responsibility Act in the Contract included prohibiting welfare going to mothers under the age of 18, halting the increase of benefits for mothers each time they had additional illegitimate children, and cutting welfare spending. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson declared a so-called War on Poverty; but 30 years later, after spending an estimated $5.4 trillion on welfare programs, it seems that poverty is winning the war. Thirty years of central government welfare programs seem only to have worsened the situation. The key problem, as my colleague at The Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, has pointed out, is that "the welfare programs present a 'moral hazard' -- a strong tendency to increase the behaviors which are rewarded by welfare benefits." Specifically, "when welfare benefits are tied, directly or indirectly, to such behaviors as low work effort, divorce, and illegitimacy, welfare strongly promotes an increase in those behaviors." This only creates an ever-escalating cycle of more spending.

The Personal Responsibility Act of the Contract sought to fundamentally revamp the role of the state in welfare policy by developing policies to reduce teenage pregnancies and illegitimate births by prohibiting aid to mothers under 18 who give birth out of wedlock and requiring them to name the fathers of their children, who would be held accountable for their actions. Such women would be required to live at home to receive any aid and would not get housing subsidies to set up their own apartments. The Act also required that aid be cut off if recipients did not work.

The federal government provides 72 percent ($234.3 billion) of all welfare benefits, compared to 28 percent ($90 billion) by the states. This has led the Congress to set certain general standards and criteria that recipients of aid must meet to receive benefits. But beyond some general restrictions, the key reform of welfare consists of attempting to decentralize the program to the 50 states and thereby stimulate numerous creative approaches to dealing with social problems.

This reflected the general conservative philosophical view in the Contract. As Speaker Gingrich writes in his book To Renew America: "We must replace our centralized, micro-managed, Washington-based bureaucracy with a dramatically decentralized system more appropriate to a continent-wide country... 'Closer is better' would be the rule of thumb for our decision making; less power in Washington and more back home, our consistent theme."

New York Times Op-Ed Contributor

How We Ended Welfare, Together

By BILL CLINTON

Published: August 22, 2006

Most Democrats and Republicans wanted to pass welfare legislation shifting the emphasis from dependence to empowerment. Because I had already given 45 states waivers to institute their own reform plans, we had a good idea of what would work. Still, there were philosophical gaps to bridge. The Republicans wanted to require able-bodied people to work, but were opposed to continuing the federal guarantees of food and medical care to their children and to spending enough on education, training, transportation and child care to enable people to go to work in lower-wage jobs without hurting their children.

On Aug. 22, 1996, after vetoing two earlier versions, I signed welfare reform into law. At the time, I was widely criticized by liberals who thought the work requirements too harsh and conservatives who thought the work incentives too generous. Three members of my administration ultimately resigned in protest. Thankfully, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill because they thought we shouldn't be satisfied with a system that had led to intergenerational dependency.

Welfare before welfare reform

The major welfare programs of the Great Depression in the United States for able-bodied workers involved the WPA and the CCC. They were abolished when full employment returned during World War II. The states, however, continued to provide welfare for people who were unable to work; disability insurance was provided by the federal Social Security System. After the War on Poverty in the 1960s, welfare rolls grew rapidly, angering conservatives. [Katz 1986] Before 1996, welfare payments were distributed through a program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In the 1980s, the program drew heavy criticism. There were numerous stories of "welfare queens", women who cheated the welfare system, receiving multiple checks each month and growing wealthy while not working. Many critics claimed that welfare bred a poor work ethic and a self-perpetuation "culture of poverty" in which ambitions focused on staying on welfare and avoiding productive work. [Katz 1986]

The AFDC system was under constant attack in the 1980s; these continued in the 1990s, with Presidential candidate Bill Clinton vowing to "end welfare as we know it." Clinton, once elected, worked with a Democratic congress and met with considerable success in moving people from welfare to work through state waiver programs. These programs allowed states to experiment with various welfare reform measures. The system became a common target of Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders, though changes had already been set in motion by Clinton and the Democrats. Toughening the criteria for receiving welfare was the third point (out of ten) in the Republicans' Contract with America. The tide of public opinion in favor of some change to the welfare system was considerable. The stage was already set by 1996. The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.[Haskins 2006]

One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive. Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars).[Haskins 2006; Blank 2002].

Clinton Signs Welfare Reform Bill, Angers Liberals

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 22) -- President Bill Clinton today signed a sweeping welfare reform bill that ends the open-ended guarantee of federal aid and shifts much of the responsibility for public assistance to the states. (288K WAV sound)

The measure, hammered out in Congress over the past several months, imposes a five-year limit on benefits, requires able-bodied recipients to go to work after two years, and gives states incentives to create jobs for people on welfare.

Clinton said it's far from perfect legislation, but will go a long way toward overcoming "the flaws of the welfare system for the people who are trapped in it."

The president told a White House gathering the legislation also should end the scapegoating and politicking that has surrounded the welfare debate for decades.

"When I sign it, we all have to start again," Clinton said. "And this becomes everybody's responsibility. After I sign my name to this bill, welfare will no longer be a political issue.

"The two parties cannot attack each other over it. Politicians cannot attack poor people over it. There are no encrusted habits, systems and failures that can be laid at the foot of someone else.

"This is not the end of welfare reform, this is the beginning, and we have to all assume responsibility," Clinton added.

In a talk that seemed aimed at liberals who have accused him of betraying poor children, the president said he and Congress can correct what's wrong with this bill, but they could not afford to miss the chance to fix a system that does not reinforce the values of work and family.

He quoted Robert F. Kennedy, who said, "Work is the meaning of what this country is all about. We need it as individuals. We need to sense it in our fellow citizens, and we need it as a society and as a people."

Said Clinton: "Today, we are taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life."

"If it doesn't work now, it's everybody's fault: mine, yours and everybody else," Clinton said. "There is no longer a system in the way."

The president vetoed two earlier bills which he said contained too little protection for poor children, but said this one contains $14 billion for child care -- $4 billion more than the present law.

"I signed this bill because this is an historic chance, where Republicans and Democrats got together and said we're going to take this historic chance to try to recreate the nation's social bargain with the poor," he said. "We can change what is wrong. We should not have passed this historic opportunity to do what is right."

Clinton uged businesses, non-profit agencies and individuals -- anyone who's ever made a disparaging comment about welfare recipients, he said -- to consider what they can do to help someone move from the welfare rolls to employment rolls.

Clinton was introduced by Lillie Harden, one of those "success stories" that politicians love to surround themselves with.

A resident of Little Rock, she first meet Clinton in 1984 when he was governor. After getting benefits for two years, she enrolled in an experimental program called "the Arkansas Work Program." In 1986, at the National Governors Convention, Clinton held her up as an example of how welfare reform can work. Today she works in the deli department of a supermarket and supports her four children.

Asked about opposition to the bill, even by groups normally allied with the president, such as the National Organization for Women, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said: "We acknowledge there are strong feelings against this bill amongst those who are traditionally supportive of the president and president's party. But the president is determined to make welfare reform work; he promised the American people that we would reform welfare as we know when he ran in 1992."

This was the week's third bill signing, part of the White House's effort to generate momentum going into the Democratic convention, which starts Monday in Chicago. Earlier, Clinton signed legislation boosting the minimum wage and guaranteeing the portability of health insurance, when workers change or lose jobs.

Welfare's Changing Face

By Dan Froomkin
Washingtonpost.com Staff
Updated July 23, 1998

Welfare as we knew it no longer exists.

The 61-year American tradition of guaranteeing cash assistance to the poor came to an end with the signing of legislation in August 1996.

Under the old system, founded during the Great Depression, the federal government provided fairly uniform benefits to the nation's poor – mostly mothers and children – without regard to the details of their personal circumstances, and with no time limit.

But over time, the system became increasingly unpopular. Political opinion turned against the idea of anyone getting rewarded for being idle. Social critics said welfare was responsible for a permanent underclass of people living off government checks because the incentives to go to work were so weak.

Now, a federal system that was once fairly consistent has been turned over to the states, where programs are diverging widely. And it is far from clear whether the poor will be better or worse off

The New System The welfare "reform" of the Clinton era consists of two major elements: a revolutionary change in the basic goals set by the federal government; and a dramatic "devolution" of responsibility – turning what used to be a federal, centralized system over to the states. Reflecting the new federal mission, welfare rules now: Require most recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance, Limit most assistance to five years total, and Let states establish "family caps" to deny additional benefits to mothers for children born while the mothers are already on public assistance. The devolution to the states is in some ways even more dramatic. Traditionally, the federal government set eligibility guidelines on a national basis, then parceled out money to the states to fund specific programs at certain levels. But now, the federal money allocated for public assistance is sent to the states in block grants. The federal role is limited to setting goals, financial penalties and rewards. States and even counties are designing their own programs for the poor, picking and choosing from approaches they hope will get results. Many of the new approaches require subjective judgements. A human being has to decide when individual recipients are, say, ready for work and should be cut off from assistance. By and large, those responsibilities are falling to welfare caseworkers – who in the past did little more than hand over checks. As a result, assistance to the poor, which used to be pretty recognizable anywhere you went in the United States, now differs dramatically from state to state, from county to county, and even from caseworker to caseworker. Some Examples Some states and counties are adopting tactics that are much more assertive than the federal guidelines suggest. Wisconsin is widely considered on the cutting edge. The state is pursuing an aggressive course that combines strict work requirements with an unrivaled support system. For instance, welfare mothers considered able to work will soon lose their checks, regardless of whether they have a job. But at the same time, community service jobs are being enormously expanded, as is spending on child care. In New York City, some welfare recipients are working off their monthly checks by sweeping streets, cleaning parks and doing other municipal chores. Twenty-five states are instituting "diversion" programs, one-time payments meant to keep families from ever coming onto the welfare rolls. In some states, including Virginia, families who accept a lump sum for staying off the rolls are barred from receiving welfare for a certain period of time. Numerous states are requiring individualized "personal responsibility" contracts, spelling out when adults must go to work and the length and type of training they will receive. The Concerns The old system was often criticized for granting benefits to people who didn't deserve them – and should instead have been working. But the new system creates the distinct possibility that people who do deserve assistance will be denied it. And because most public assistance goes to families, many of the victims would inevitably be children. Standardization, for all its drawbacks, also ensured a certain kind of blind fairness. In the new system, there is so much discretion involved that civil-rights activists wonder whether minorities and people with drug problems will be dealt with fairly, and whether people with legitimate reasons for not being able to work will nevertheless be cut off from assistance. All the variation in public assistance could lead to migrations of welfare recipients to places where benefits are more generous. And some worry that the result could be a "race to the bottom" as local governments reduce benefits in an attempt to avoid attracting more poor people – or even drive them out entirely. The Politics Politically, welfare reform is perhaps the most conspicuous example of how President Clinton adopted – some say co-opted – parts of the Republican agenda. Historically, Democrats had defended the old welfare system against GOP attacks. Clinton defined himself as a centrist Democrat in his 1992 campaign in part by promising to "end welfare as we know it." After the Republican takeover of Congress, he fended off certain GOP welfare provisions but ultimately signed a bill that liberal members of Congress considered much too cruel to the poor. In another notable reversal, it is generally liberals who champion social engineering – and conservatives who scoff at the idea that government should try to change individual behavior. Now it is conservatives who most strongly support certain welfare rules, including the family cap and a requirement that most teenage parents live with their own parents in order to receive benefits. When Clinton signed the welfare legislation, critics from the left berated him in particular for the provision that stripped disability and health benefits from legal immigrants. Clinton vowed to "change what is wrong" about the bill and, defying the skeptics, ultimately got Congress to restore those benefits during the balanced-budget negotiations in July 1997. Where It Stands Supporters of the recent changes in welfare maintain that they will be good for the poor, bringing many of them out of subsidized poverty and into the world of work. Clinton has stumped hard for programs that would help welfare recipients get jobs, training, child care and medical care. He has also encouraged both the private and public sectors to go out of their way to offer jobs to welfare recipients. But the evidence suggests that getting the vast majority of welfare recipients into jobs will be difficult. While two thirds of welfare recipients are either on assistance only for a short time, or on-and-off, the remaining third have proven impervious to prior attempts to find them lasting work. For some, the problems are concrete and potentially addressable: lack of child care or transportation. For others, notably those who have never held a job, the problems are harder to tackle: poor health or lack of skills, desire or confidence. Will the new welfare system help or punish the poor? Even the results so far are in dispute. On the one hand, public assistance rolls continue to decline sharply – 12 percent in the year after the reform legislation was passed. That decline prompted Clinton to declare that "We now know that welfare reform works." But critics attribute much of the drop to a robust economy. They worry about what will happen during the next recession, when jobs become scarce and local governments are looking for ways to cut their budgets. And they wonder whether some of the decline in the rolls consists of a new underclass, this one composed of people so disenfranchised and destitute that the government no longer even knows they exist. © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

Bill Clinton on Welfare & Poverty

President of the U.S., 1993-2001; Former Democratic Governor (AR)

Biblically-inspired social justice, especially serving poor

Clinton holds to an evangelical theology, affirms the doctrines of the Apostles' Creed, and "believes the Bible to be an infallible message from God." Clinton's commitment then and today is to biblically inspired social justice. "He is especially committed to living out the 2,000 verses of Scripture which call upon us to respond to the needs of the poor," says a pastor. "Both in the presidency and since leaving the presidency, the verses concerning serving the poor have guided his life." Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.173 Jul 18, 2007

Reform attacked by Christian left; but genuine middle ground

The historic 1995 welfare reform initiative between Bill Clinton and the new Republican Congress sought to decentralize the way that welfare was delivered. To this day, this remains the most genuine overture by Bill or Hillary toward a truly middle groun initiative.

Marian Wright Edelman wrote to Bill: "Do you think the Old Testament prophets Isiah, Micah, & Amos--or Jesus Christ--would support such policies?" It was a display of moral arrogance by Edelman. Sure, Jesus wanted Christians to help the poor, as Christian Republicans and Democrats knew, but nowhere in the Gospel did the Messiah weigh in on whether he preferred centralizing or decentralizing Medicaid.

Bill Clinton signed the bill. In response, Edelman's husband, Peter, resigned his post in the Department of Health and Human Services saying this was "the worst thing Bill Clinton had done." Contrary to Edelman's predictions, welfare-reform proved an enormous success, maybe the greatest domestic achievement of Clinton's presidency.

Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.141-142 Jul 18, 2007

Help Low-income Fathers Support their Children

The Administration’s budget proposes $255 million for the first year of a new “Fathers Work/Families Win” initiative to promote responsible fatherhood and support working families, critical next steps in reforming welfare and reducing child poverty. These new competitive grants will be awarded to business-led local and state workforce investment boards who work in partnership with community and faith-based organizations, and agencies administering child support, TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid, thereby connecting low-income fathers and working families to the life-long learning and employment services created under the Workforce Investment Act and delivered through one-stop career centers.

$125 million for new “Fathers Work” grants will help approximately 40,000 low-income non-custodial parents (mainly fathers) work, pay child support, and reconnect with their children.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site Sep 6, 2000

End welfare as we know it

On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, fulfilling his longtime commitment to ‘end welfare as we know it.’ As the President said upon signing, “... this legislation provides an historic opportunity to end welfare as we know it and transform our broken welfare system by promoting the fundamental values of work, responsibility, and family.”

The law contains strong work requirements, performance bonuses to reward states for moving welfare recipients into jobs and reducing illegitimacy, state maintenance of effort requirements, comprehensive child support enforcement, and supports for families moving from welfare to work -- including increased funding for child care. In May 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidance on how states and local governments can use welfare block grant funds to help families move from welfare to work.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site Sep 6, 2000

Address Homelessness via federal, state, & county govt

President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been committed to helping homeless Americans become more self-sufficient. HUD alone has invested nearly $5 billion in programs to help homeless people since 1993 -- more than three times the investment of the previous Administration. The Continuum of Care approach has helped more than 300,000 homeless people get housing and jobs to become self-sufficient. The Continuum of Care made clear that homelessness was more than simply a housing problem, and focused attention on long-term solutions which included housing as well as job training, drug treatment, mental health services, and domestic violence counseling. The Administration is also proposing to expand access to mainstream health, social services, and employment programs for which the homeless may be eligible through a new $10 million program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, States, and large counties. Source: HUD Statement before House Veteran’s Affairs Subcommittee Jun 24, 1999

Welfare-to-work, instead of welfare as a way of life

For 15 years, going back to my service as governor of Arkansas, I have worked to reform welfare, to make it a second chance and not a way of life. As a result, Arkansas became a national leader in reforming a wide range of family and welfare programs. I helped write the 1988 federal welfare reform bill.

[As president], we cut welfare red-tape and approved welfare-to-work programs for 40 states. And it has worked. There are 1.3 million fewer people on welfare today than there were when I took office. Food stamp rolls are down by more than 2 million.

In 1991, I said we needed to end welfare as we know it. Now, with the passage of new welfare reform legislation, we have an opportunity to establish a new system based on the following principles:
1. It should be about moving people from welfare to work.
2. It should impose time limits of welfare benefits.
3. It should give people the child care and health care assistance they need to move from welfare to work without hurting their children.

Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 66-68 Jan 1, 1996

Welfare reform includes states, communities, & businesses

[My proposed welfare reform law] gives states and communities the chance to move people from dependence to independence and greater dignity. But the real work is still to be done. States and communities have to make sure that jobs and child care are there. They can use money that used to go to welfare checks to pay for community service jobs or to give employers wage supplements for several months to encourage them to hire welfare recipients. They should also provide education and training when appropriate and must take care of those who, through no fault of their own, cannot find or do work. These are important new responsibilities not just for welfare recipients, but for states, communities, and businesses. But is welfare reform is to work, all must shoulder their responsibilities.

This reform is just a beginning. We must implement this legislation in a way that truly moves people from welfare to work, and that is good for children. We will be refining this reform for some time to come.

Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 69-70 Jan 1, 1996

SEE

Fire Democrats?

Obamaphenom



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Bill Clinton,
Bill Clinton Black President,
black face,
Welfare Reform,African-American, Reagan Democrats, presidential elections 2008, Barack Obama, Democrats,
Hillary Clinton,