<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19258">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=cge@shout.net href="mailto:cge@shout.net">C. G. Estabrook</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=peace-discuss@anti-war.net
href="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net">peace-discuss@anti-war.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, August 04, 2012 10:26 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [Peace-discuss] America a democracy? Really?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="Z-INDEX: auto; POSITION: static; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 10px"
id=divTitle><FONT color=#111111 face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 32px"><B>[We
can certainly appreciate the sophisticated sham of a democracy
that produces two candidates for president, neither of whom represents what
people want, but only what the 1% want.
--CGE]<BR><BR></B></SPAN></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="Z-INDEX: auto; POSITION: static; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 10px"
id=divTitle><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: rgb(17,17,17); FONT-SIZE: 32px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">America
a democracy? Really?</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="Z-INDEX: auto; POSITION: static; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: rgb(17,17,17); FONT-SIZE: 32px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; PADDING-TOP: 10px"
id=divTitle>
<DIV style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 12px" class=newsByline>By Dave
Lindorff
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(139,155,180); MARGIN-TOP: 10px; HEIGHT: 3px"
class=detailSep></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 5px; COLOR: rgb(119,119,119); FONT-SIZE: 12px"
class=newsDatetime>Fri Aug 3, 2012 9:55AM GMT</DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 20px"></DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); FONT-FAMILY: Arial; HEIGHT: 20px; FONT-SIZE: 20px"></DIV>
<DIV
style="Z-INDEX: auto; POSITION: static; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); WIDTH: 440px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 20px"
id=divDetailBody>
<DIV style="COLOR: rgb(91,91,91); FONT-SIZE: 22px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold"
id=divLead>We Americans are taught it in school. The propaganda put out by Voice
of America repeats the idea ad nauseum around the globe. Politicians refer to it
in every campaign speech with the same fervor that they claim to be running for
office in response to God’s call: America is a model of democracy for the whole
world.</DIV><BR><BR>But what kind of democracy is it really that we have
here? <BR><BR>Forget that only half of eligible voters typically vote in
quadrennial presidential elections (less than 30% in so-called “off-year”
elections for members of the House and a third of the Senate, and less than 25%
in municipal and state elections). Forget that the government is increasingly
trampling on the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, with a burgeoning
surveillance program and a growing militarization of the
police. <BR><BR>The US government doesn’t even do what the majority of the
citizens want. In fact, these days it flat out ignores what we the people
want. <BR><BR>Consider the polls, and what they show public sentiment to be
on key issues, and then look at what the government, composed of supposedly
elected representatives and an elected president, actually
does: <BR><BR><B>1. Military spending</B> <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; FONT-STYLE: italic; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 20px; PADDING-RIGHT: 20px; COLOR: rgb(91,91,91); FONT-SIZE: 15px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; PADDING-TOP: 0px">Most
polls show that Americans, tired of the endless wars that have been raging
almost without pause since the end of World War II, and the huge amount of
taxes devoted to the military (currently over $1 trillion per year!), favor
cutting the military. Just recently, the Center for Public Integrity conducted
a poll and found that when asked whether they wanted to cut funding for
education, veterans’ benefits, homeland security and other areas, or military
spending, 65% of people said they wanted military spending to get the
axe.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Overall, people favored an 18% cut in the military budget.
Democrats wanted a 22% cut, while even Republicans, usually perceived as
pro-military, wanted a 12% cut. Of those wanting military spending cut, the
largest group, 27%, favored cutting nuclear weapons funding, followed by 23% who
wanted ground forces spending cut. Yet both President Barack Obama and his
likely opponent in November’s election, Republican Mitt Romney, are both calling
for increased military spending next year, and Congress can’t even bring itself
to cut spending on a new fighter program that is both way over budget at half a
billion dollars per plane, and a failure (the F-22 cannot fly
safely). <BR><BR><B>2. Healthcare</B> <BR><BR>Even with the passage of
a sort of healthcare reform, the ludicrously and optimistically named Affordable
Care Act, most Americans still tell pollsters that they would prefer a
Canadian-style plan in which the government provides health insurance coverage
for all, paid for by taxation. For decades this has been true. In 1988, a
Harvard University/Harris poll found 61% favoring a Canadian-style so-called
“single-payer” healthcare system. By 1990, the LA Times found support for such a
system had risen to 66%, while in 1991, the Wall Street Journal found public
support had reached an astonishing 69%. In 2003, the Washington Post and ABC-TV
found 62% in favor of extending Medicare, the government health program for
those over 65, to cover everyone. In 2007, despite decades of anti-government
ideological rhetoric, CNN found that 64% favored government health insurance for
all. In 2009, as the Obama administration was flat-out refusing to even discuss
the idea of Medicare-for-all, or a Canadian-style health program, the Kaiser
Family Foundation, which is associated with a private health insurance
organization, found 58% of Americans nonetheless were in favor of a
Canadian-style health program. So far, however, neither the President nor
Congress or either of the country’s two political parties will even consider a
national health program. <BR><BR><B>3. Social security and Medicare
programs for the elderly</B> <BR><BR>Last year, President Obama, who
campaigned for election in 2008 vowing never to cut Social Security benefits or
Medicare programs, appointed an advisory commission heavily weighted towards
people who favored such cuts, and told them to come up with recommendations for
“reforming” both programs. He pointedly added that “nothing” was “off the table”
in terms of ideas, including benefit cuts. Right wing politicians and business
lobbies have long been calling for cuts in both programs, claiming that they
will “run out of money,” in a decade in the case of Medicare and in 45-50 years
in the case of Social Security. What they fail to mention is that if people were
taxed on income of over $106,000 a year with the Social Security tax, and if the
Medicare tax, currently less than 2% of income, were raised, there would be no
shortfall at all. <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; FONT-STYLE: italic; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 20px; PADDING-RIGHT: 20px; COLOR: rgb(91,91,91); FONT-SIZE: 15px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; PADDING-TOP: 0px">The
public, despite all the propaganda thrown at them, and all the calls in
Congress for cuts in the programs to reduce the nation’s ballooning budget
deficit, are clear though. They don’t want either program cut. The most recent
poll, released last week by the respected Pew Research Center, found that 60%
want Social Security and Medicare benefits left alone. Only 32% said they
wanted the budget deficit cut, and would be willing to see Social Security and
Medicare take a hit to do it.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Never mind the public though.
Nearly all Republicans, and even many Democrats, in Congress, all recipients of
large amounts of corporate campaign cash, continue to call for cuts in Social
Security and Medicare benefits. <BR><BR><B>4. Higher taxes on the
wealthy</B> <BR><BR>Back in the early 1960s, the marginal tax rate on very
wealthy people was 95%, meaning that if they earned over a certain amount, the
extra income was taxed at a rate of 95%. It was a period of high, sustained
economic growth in the US, and also an era when the gap in wealth between the
poor and the rich, and between the rich and the so-called middle-class, shrank
dramatically. Since then, the tax on upper incomes has fallen steadily, and is
now down at 33%, scarcely double the 15% paid by the lowest income taxpayers on
their meager incomes. Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor has become a
chasm. <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; FONT-STYLE: italic; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 20px; PADDING-RIGHT: 20px; COLOR: rgb(91,91,91); FONT-SIZE: 15px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; PADDING-TOP: 0px">With
the US budget deficit soaring, with infrastructure crumbling, and with
pressures mounting to cut important social programs like health care,
education and welfare for the poor, there are increasing calls from the public
for higher taxes on the wealthy again. President Obama has responded by
calling for a slight increase in taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a
year, back to a 35% rate that was in effect in 2000, but nobody in government
is talking about seriously taxing the rich. As for the public? Poll after poll
shows strong support for socking it to the wealthy. A Pew Research poll in
July found that 44% favored higher taxes for those above $250,000 a year in
income. Only 22% said they though such higher taxes were a bad idea. 44% also
said higher taxes on the rich would be “more fair,” while 21%
disagreed.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><B>5. Action to combat climate
change</B> <BR><BR>Since taking office in 2008, President Obama, who had
campaigned calling for action on climate change, has done almost nothing to
reduce or even slow the pace of US carbon emissions. Neither has Congress done
anything. The US, internationally, has actually worked openly and
behind-the-scenes to prevent any global treaty on climate issues. Yet the
American people want action. <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; FONT-STYLE: italic; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 20px; PADDING-RIGHT: 20px; COLOR: rgb(91,91,91); FONT-SIZE: 15px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; PADDING-TOP: 0px">A
Gallup Poll last April, for example, found that 65% of Americans support
having the government impose mandatory controls on CO2 emissions, even if that
meant higher prices for energy and other things. Despite massive propaganda
against government involvement in industry, 66% say they favor government
spending on alternative energy, including for cars. At a time when Democratic
and Republican elected officials are all talking about cutting regulation of
the environment, 64% also say they favor stricter enforcement of environmental
regulations.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><B>6. The war in
Afghanistan</B> <BR><BR>President Obama and his advisors say that even
after 2014, the US will continue to have troops fighting in Afghanistan.
Candidate Mitt Romney isn’t talking about pulling out of Afghanistan at all. And
there is no move in Congress to stop this war that began 11 years ago, and that
has become a costly quagmire for US forces. Yet only 27% of Americans in a
recent poll by AP-GfK said they support that war. A whopping 66% said they
oppose it and want it ended. <BR><BR><B>7. Invading
Iran</B> <BR><BR>The propaganda from the US government about Iran’s alleged
goal of building a nuclear bomb has been relentless, with most US news
organizations helping it along by publishing uncontested “leaks” by officials
sources, often of outright lies. Despite all this warmongering, though, most
Americans still say they oppose any military “solution” to this trumped-up
problem (Iran insists it is not seeking to build a nuclear weapon). According to
a poll in March by the University of Maryland, published in the Christian
Science Monitor, 70% of Americans said they wanted a diplomatic solution to
dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. If the question was phrased to assume Iran
was shown to be constructing a bomb, the result was different, with 56%
supporting a US attack on Iran, but given that even US intelligence officials
say there is no bomb program underway, this is not the issue. <BR><BR>And
yet the US continues to send ever more offensive weapons to the borders of Iran,
and to support covert terrorist actions inside the country, in the name of
combating the country’s alleged nuclear program. <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; FONT-STYLE: italic; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 20px; PADDING-RIGHT: 20px; COLOR: rgb(91,91,91); FONT-SIZE: 15px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; PADDING-TOP: 0px">Looking
at this huge disconnect between what the public wants on issue after issue and
what the government actually does, one has to wonder how much different the US
system is from one like China’s or Saudi Arabia’s, where there is no pretense
of democracy.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Certainly Americans have the right and the ability
to vote for candidates, but that alone appears not to produce what President
Abraham Lincoln, back in 1865, called a government “of the people, by the people
and for the people.” </DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing
list<BR>Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<BR>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<BR></BODY></HTML>