[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Ufpj-disc] "No Blank Check" or "No %$#!*@ Check"

[Brussel Morton K.]

Begin forwarded message:

>
>
> "No Blank Check" or "No %$#!*@ Check"
> http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36169
> By David Swanson
>
> The last time the Democrats all started bleating "No blank check -  
> No blank check" it meant only one thing. They were signing a check  
> and scribbling a bunch of nonsense in the memo line.
>
> If history is any guide, we can expect a bill to come out of  
> Congress requiring that the Secretary of the Treasury make a report  
> to Congress within three months on all areas covered by the  
> legislation, with the exception of those he chooses not to report on.
>
> In particular, he will be required, if he chooses, to report on the  
> progress being made toward compelling families that have lost their  
> homes to pay for their own foreclosures. Fair is fair, and the  
> Iraqis are going to start paying for their own occupation someday  
> very soon.
>
> The Treasury Secretary will be required to report, if he chooses,  
> on key benchmarks, including equitable sharing among all plutocrats  
> of our Social Security savings. This is a question of fair and  
> equitable distribution of resources and might serve as a model for  
> the still badly needed Iraq hydro-carbon law, which is also purely  
> about fairness. The same goes for Medicare and the money raised  
> from selling off our schools.
>
> At least that's the pessimistic prediction. On the other hand,  
> there is an important variable that has been altered in this case.  
> We are talking about throwing a trillion dollars of our  
> grandchildren's money at people who do not need it, but this time  
> we're proposing to do it for something other than war. There are no  
> flags waving or war music playing for this one. As a result, it's  
> possible to see things like an article on CNN that begins:
>
> "NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- 'NO NO NO. Not just no, but HELL NO,'  
> writes Richard, a reader from Anchorage, Alaska. 'This is robbery  
> pure and simple,' Anna from Denver posted on CNNMoney.com's  
> TalkBack blog this weekend. 'It's our money! Let these companies  
> die,' added Claudio from Plainville, Conn."
>
> Similar comments on wars are simply not published by CNN in the  
> heat of an invasion. Will our so-called representatives notice the  
> difference? I wouldn't count on it. The smart investment right now  
> is in a moving van pointed toward Canada.
>
> I just read Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew," and his central  
> point is a timely one. When neocons wreck government they consider  
> it a victory. Scandalous earmarks on bills are a good thing because  
> they make people hate government, which is the higher purpose of  
> all governmental malfeasance. When FEMA proves incompetent, success  
> has been achieved, because the goal is to convince everyone that  
> government is incompetent, that corporations are where all skill  
> and responsibility can be found.
>
> "People being pissed off at government is the very ore of right- 
> wing discontent," Frank writes. "Corrupt earmarks, inserted by  
> conservatives, lead to conservative victory. But, you protest,  
> nobody really falls for this. Everyone knows that the guy who got  
> the 'Bridge to Nowhere' earmark was a conservative Republican.  
> People know where the blame belongs, and they punish the malefactor.
>
> "Maybe so. But remember the long-term effects of Watergate. While  
> the immediate consequences of Nixon's outrageous behavior were jail  
> sentences for several conservative Republicans and the election of  
> a bumper crop of liberals to Congress in 1974, Watergate  
> permanently poisoned public attitudes toward government and stirred  
> up the wave that swept Ronald Reagan into office six years later --  
> and made antigovernment cynicism the default American political  
> sentiment."
>
> All of which puts a different perspective on a government proposal  
> to hand governmental levels of funding over to Wall Street. If the  
> proposal goes through and the companies survive, the credit goes to  
> Wall Street and the crushing debt requiring slashing of useful  
> services goes to government. If the proposal fails, it also  
> succeeds, by turning people against big government spending and  
> interference in the Marketplace. After all, this proposal is  
> "socialism," and if you oppose it, then you certainly must oppose  
> such identical horrors as "socialized medicine."
>
> For neocons, this was an easy decision. When you control the media,  
> and your opponents are Democrats, there's almost no way for you to  
> lose. So why wouldn't you propose borrowing a trillion dollars to  
> hand out to your friends?
>
> Of course, in theory, the Democrats could stop saying "No blank  
> check" and start saying "No +&*^%!# check!" but I'm not going to  
> hold my breath until they do.
> ***************************************
> This is a list for member groups of United for Peace and Justice to  
> discuss organizing plans and the work of this coalition.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080922/68f55bee/attachment.html