STRANGELAND.NET

So there has been a lot of talk about the Republican cries of ‘death panels’ and rationing of health care for older Americans if nationalized healthcare becomes a reality. There is an article in Newsweek by Jacob Weisberg entitled ‘Why is the GOP Gunning for Grandma.’ He puts forward several situations where the GOP are really the ones who have it in for the elderly. Reading threw it, I was amazed at just how he had to twist things to get to this point.

Point one was regarding the Estate tax, which drops to 0% next year. At the end of the year, however, it expires and goes back up to 55%. Weisberg’s claim is with the sunsetting of this, it will drive some older Americans to either commit suicide, find ways to die, or push their heirs to pull the plug before the tax cut sunsets. Since the Republicans were the ones to champion this bill, obviously they have it in for seniors. This, of course, ignores the fact this tax cut could be made permanent. Obviously with the Democrats in charge right now, this won’t happen. After all, setting up a legal way to get 55% of money that’s already been taxed in many cases is something that likely has several of them drooling. And they don’t even have to do anything to make it happen. They can simply say ‘well, this provision was in there to begin with, so it’s not our fault.’

Next Weisberg moves on to Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security. He leaves out a rather important part, however. Bush’s plan would have let people direct the investment of a very small percentage of their Social Security contributions. Nevermind that Social Security is functionally bankrupt and is the biggest legal Ponzi scheme in the US. In Weisberg’s eyes, we can’t allow people the personal freedom to direct how they set up for their retirement, because that would lead to people being destitute and having a poor quality of life. He simply changes the facts to make his point a bigger one by casting this as Bush having tried to privatize all of Social Security.

The last thing he hits on was Bush’s curtailing of Federal funding for Stem Cell research. I will be the first person to agree that Stem Cell research is one of the best avenues for finding cures for many debilitating diseases. I could go into the discussion of what stem cell lines Bush removed from Federal funding lines and the like, but really that ignores the main point. Funding this isn’t the responsibility of the Federal Government. This is something that should be handled by private industry and not by throwing tax dollars at it. When it was originally done, I had zero issue with Bush’s actions (not touching the discussion of his reasons for his actions, however). However, Weisberg clearly wants to cast this as another way the Republicans want to kill of Grandma and Grandpa.

If one side is going to throw stones, they really should make sure their walls aren’t made of glass before doing so. Even more so, they really should make sure what they’re throwing are the stones they want them to be. Of course, politics anymore is based on the idea of the Big Lie. Tell it often enough, and people will believe it. Or at least enough people that it doesn’t matter.

stranger Personal Thought

It should come as no shock to anyone that I disagreed with the legislative agenda of Senator Edward Kennedy in many cases. Today, however, none of that matter. Regardless of how I felt about his actions as a Senator, the fact remains he had a profound impact during his time in the Senate.

There are two stories I’ve heard about Edward Kennedy, however, that remind me that at the end of the day, he was a person like the rest of us. The first of these is an anecdote given by Jamie Dupree, WSB’s Washington Correspondent. He has noted that one of his best memories of Kennedy is seeing him often at the end of the day go out to the park across the street from the Senate office building with his dog and spend time just throwing the ball with his dog.

The other involves a friend of mine and my dad’s who works in Martha’s Vineyard. He and his family attend the same church that Edward Kennedy did, and his stepson would sell papers outside of the Church on Sundays in order to make money. Every Sunday, Senator Kennedy would stop, buy a paper, and encourage the boy to keep up the good work. A few years later, Senator Kennedy offered to put forward the boy’s name as a candidate for a military academy as a reward for his willingness to work.

Both of these situations illustrate that while I did not agree with the man’s political policies in many cases or some of his past actions, he was still a person like the rest of us and generally a good person.

Rest in peace, Senator Kennedy. Your passing closes the final door on Camelot.

stranger News, Personal Thought

I was driving back from running to the grocery store at lunch today and saw a truck pull out ahead of me with an “Impeach Obama” bumper sticker. When I saw that, I had to wonder if this person was either ignorant or willfully stupid about what was required for a Federal official to be impeached. This in turn got me thinking about recent presidents and what is required for impeachment.

So let’s look at Presidents who have been impeached or seriously threatened with it. Andrew Johnson was impeached in the House and found not guilty in the Senate. With Richard Nixon, there was a motion with a lot of steam to impeach him that he headed off by resigning. Bill Clinton was impeached in the House and found not guilty in the Senate.

In order for the President to be impeached, there has to be enough evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for the House to vote in favor of articles of Impeachment. You cannot impeach a President (or any other Federal official) just because you dislike their policies or you think they’re doing things wrong. Andrew Johnson was accused of violating the Tenure of Office Act. I’m sure most people are aware of why impeachment was being considered for Nixon. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Right now, I’ve yet to see anything Obama has done that would warrant impeachment. Do I agree with everything? Absolutely not (not that this is a big shock to anyone reading this). Do I think some of the things he’s done have been shady and borderline? Sure, but then so were many of the things G.W. Bush did in his administration.

Calling for impeachment just because you don’t like a President’s policy cheapens the process and what impeachment means. Disagree all you want, but if you’re going to start yelling for impeachment, please make sure there’s something worthy of it. Much like people on either side of the healthcare discussion screaming ‘NAZI’ at the other side, calling for impeachment on frivolous grounds just makes you look like an idiot.

stranger Personal Thought