Harry Truman said, "No man should be allowed to be president who doesn't understand hogs." That's never been more true than it will be for the man or woman who walks into the White House on January 20, 2009.
Sign up for email alerts, from breaking news to weekly commentary:
Find more content in these topics: Common good, Corporate greed, Labor, Money, Poverty, Republicans, Wealth
Visit Hightower's General Store, to buy high-power Hightower books and other goodies like that.
March 2008, Volume 10, Number 3 |
Edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer |
WASHINGTON WAS EXCITED. The media establishment applauded. Wall Street smiled. Somewhere, a bluebird of happiness chirped.
In a celebrated display of bipartisanship, both parties joined hands last month to pass a whopper of a stimulus package. Cash, they crowed, would soon be flowing. "We're sending a $600 check to you, and $300 to you, and $1,200 to couples, and...well, almost everyone will get money! It's manna straight from heaven to get our big ol' economy high-ballin' down Prosperity Highway," they exulted.
"Not that there's anything wrong with our economy," they quickly added. "No, no," said the self-congratulatory stimulators. "Everything's fine. Really fine. Really."
In his State of the Union peroration, Bush insisted, "Americans can be confident about our economic growth." Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen chimed in, "The U.S. economy is fundamentally strong." Buckshot Cheney came out of his bunker to assert that America has a "solid platform" for continued economic growth. And Condi Rice assured world leaders that our economy is "resilient, its structure sound, and its long-term economic fundamentals are healthy."
Hmmm. If the basics of the economy are in such great shape, why would we need all this cheerleading by the wizards in charge? You don't have to be in Who's Who to know what's what. They can whoop it up 'til they're hoarse, but for most Americans, the kitchen-table fundamentals are nothing to cheer about. As a fellow in Missouri recently said to me, "If these are good times, why aren't I having one?"
Great article Jim! Keep up the good work by bringing these issues to the forefront.
Frank AZ
This is one of the most thought provoking articles I've seen on the topic of fixing our economic problems. You offer up solutions, not rhetoric. I'm so sick of the candidates talking about our problems and not coming up with any real methods to get this country back to what it once was. I would like to nominate Jim Hightower for President and Phillip Frazer for VP. All in favor?
Greg newsletter, Jim, especially about our debt rising 90% over the last 10 years and that the bottom 90% of Americans have seen their income drop despite working 2 more weeks over the year compared to 1973.
WHERE CAN I REFERENCE THESE STATISTICS?
Greg - Danville, CA - PitchingDoc@msn.com
In 2006, DuPont's chief sustainability officer said that DuPont has already reduced their greenhouse gas production 72% below 1990. In the process they have saved over $3 billion and grown the business by 30%. The website of the speech is below:
http://vocuspr.vocus.com/VocusPR30/Newsroom/Query.aspx?SiteName=DupontNew&Entity=PRAsset&SF_PRAsset_PRAssetID_EQ=103184&XSL=PressRelease&Cache=False
This shows that the "green" solution is also the "smart," "economic," and "best business practice," solution.
A government program focused on helping individuals do the same would put a lot of money into people's hands--through energy savings--and be a much better stimulus that would last a much longer time.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama champion fiscal responsibility on the campaign trail, but both Democratic presidential hopefuls are promising massive new spending without providing details on how they'd pay for it.
The nation already faces unprecedented fiscal challenges as the baby-boom generation - about 76 million Americans born from 1946 to 1964 - reaches retirement age and begins straining the federal budget as never before.
The federal budget deficit is projected to exceed $400 billion next year. Deficits are paid for by borrowing. The gross federal debt, the sum of what our government owes, is in the neighborhood of $9 trillion.
Clinton has proposed new spending in excess of $200 billion, much of it annual. Obama has surpassed her, promising annual spending of at least $210 billion.
Both have offered expensive plans to get to universal health-care coverage, either through incentives or by government mandate. They've proposed spending big money to help avert housing foreclosures nationwide and to help refinance mortgages for borrowers in trouble.
Both are counting on savings from reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq and rolling back some of President Bush's tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire after 2010, to pay for their new programs. Both expect that expanded use of electronic health records and other advances in medical information technology will defray some of the cost of moving to a universal health-care system.
Neither, however, has proposed a fix for the biggest near-term strain on the federal budget, the alternative minimum tax, or explained how they propose to balance the cost of their campaign promises with the looming expense of the aging baby boomers.
--EV Rider
How ironic that the government wants to send us gift certificates to spend at the mall while just this week the Airforce contract for a new military plane went to Airbus, not Boeing. What is wrong with this picture? It is a sad commentary when even our military planes aren't made in America.
Home | Contact | RSS | Privacy policy | Copyright Public Intelligence, Inc., all rights reserved 2003-2007
assessment & accountability...
The infrastructure needs defining in socio-Polity terms of "carbon" foot-Print...starting yesterday, as well as having a heartfelt imprint in the written context--the above descriptive that is basic, populous/not Libertarian, at heart!
There are too many "greying-Asphalt" areas, which means that the "oil" is done in its physical-Extent of giving-Off hydrocarbons. All U-S placard-numbered Highways are assured 4-5 feet of shoulder(s) both sides by "defense-Dept." yet, there are areas in-the-West that allot wideness beyond allowable "greenery-Strips: medians". The bridges often go so wide, one can no longer see the creekways. Primarily, transportation is in needs of "LNG" buses not CNG? The state of WYoming is so far inadept to a middle-Ground: changeover "phooel" that coal had become a crisis-of-Concern, last year. Thanking wars for an economy is a boondoggle. Bring the "bases" home, have the Pentagons/dept. of War halt there polluting "open-Ended" overseas, disposition once and for all...$600 won't be to a changeover LNG without the "technology-Investment", for sure. I agree 110% w the above!
the peace-Warrior
[ Report this comment as spam/abuse? ]