HELL NO...

As President Obama addressed the nation and declared the combat mission in Iraq

at an end; newspapers, magazines and the punditocracy raised the question "...was it

worth it?" The answer depends on what the definition of "it" is. Originally, "it" was an act

of self-defense. We had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of

mass destruction. We had to stop him from giving a nuclear or biological weapon to

bin Laden who would use it against this nation. In his 2003 State of the Union Address,

President Bush said we had to attack pre-emptively to prevent another attack on this country.

We couldn't wait for proof. The smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud over Manhattan.

The American people were told Saddam was in league with the perpetrators of the September

11th attack. Congress was told a vote against war was unpatriotic, soft on terrorism, and a

career killer. The corporate media told their employees not to question the President, his

motives, or his facts. We were marching to war to prevent an imminent threat to our national

security. This was a war of necessity, not choice. If "it" had been true, "it" might have been

worth the awful butcher's bill this war has rung up. However, "it" was a lie told to the

American people to get their support for a war of choice, a war of imperialism, a war for oil,

a war for Israel, a war to show a son can outperform his father, a war not to end all wars; but

rather one which sparked wars all over the world in its wake.

Was "it" worth it? In 1998, most of the Bush national security team signed a document

supporting the invasion of Iraq. Produced by the "Project for a New American Century", the

paper declared a war with Iraq would depose Saddam; thus removing a serious threat to Israel.

(The genesis of this project began in 1992 as a proposal written for and put forward by Israeli

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.) Conquering Iraq would open the oil fields to American

corporations as a lever against OPEC. Iraq would be used as a "strategic pivot" to extend

American influence throughout the Middle East. This idea was rejected by George Herbert

Walker Bush, who said Saddam wasn't worth the life of a single American soldier and who

observed the U.S. had no one to replace him and we would end up running the country. The

"Project for the New American Century" was also rejected by President Clinton.

Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill wrote in his memoirs that one of the agenda

items at the very first Bush cabinet meeting in January 2001 was a discussion of plans for an

attack on Iraq. Counter-terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, wrote that he couldn't get anyone in

the Bush administration interested in bin Laden or the threat of al Qaeda. Attorney General

Ashcroft told Clarke not to bring up his name anymore. In January of 2002, Karl Rove met

with the Republican Governor's Association and told them the coming war against Saddam

was going to produce huge political benefits. The Downing Street Memos show the Bush

administration had already decided to go to war by spring of 2002, even while calling for

Saddam to open his country up to more inspections. The White House's Iraq Study Group

was formed to sell this war to the American people. We now know that "weapons of mass

destruction" was the vehicle they decided to use to scare America into supporting the war.

"It" was a lie from the very beginning. "It" was an act of American aggression plotted by

Wolfowitz, Cheney, Libby, Pearl, Feith, and Rumsfeld et.al., disguised as an act of self defense.

The American people swallowed the lie hook, line, and sinker. Today, 60% of the American

people say the war in Iraq wasn't worth it. Then, over 60% believed Saddam had nuclear and

biological weapons and was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the attacks

on September 11th.

If you want to know if "it" was worth it, ask some of "its" supporters. Senator Joe

Lieberman says "...if we had withdrawn, it would have had a devastating impact on the entire

Middle East and our credibility in the world. I think "it" was worth it." Military scholar

Max Boot, of the Council on Foreign Relations, says "...years of effort toppled one of the world's

most dangerous and unpredictable dictators and prevented a terrible defeat...if al Qaeda and

the Shiites had succeeded in chasing us out." Former U.N. Ambassador and PNAC signatory,

John Bolton, says toppling Saddam was worth it, "...because it kept him from acquiring

nuclear weapons." Have you noticed a theme yet? "It" was worth it to save face and topple

an unpredictable dictator; and "it" stopped him from acquiring nuclear weapons in the "future".

"It" was worth it, not because of an imminent threat, not because our national security was

in danger, not because terrorists might acquire a nuclear weapon; "it" was worth it for every

reason except the ones used to sell the American people on going to war in the first place.

Imagine if "it" had not occurred. Almost 5,000 young Americans would be alive.

Hundreds of thousands of soldiers would not be wounded physically and mentally. One

trillion dollars would have been saved. Iran would continue to be intimidated by Iraq and

far less powerful in the area today where it extends its influence into Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq

itself. As many as one million Iraqis would be alive, uninjured, and still living in their nation.

The American military would not be so broken as to be beyond repair in some people's minds.

Most importantly, if Bush and company were not so focused on Iraq, perhaps they would have

used American soldiers at Tora Bora and killed bin Laden, Dr. Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar;

cutting the heads of al Qaeda and the Taliban and Afghanistan would be a different place today.

I don't know how the American people, after being lied to about Vietnam, allowed the

Iraq lie to fool them again. We are easily scared and perhaps fear was what Bush exploited

expertly. The corporate media made a fortune off the drums of war and was too scared to take

on a popular president. Going to war should not be an easy and facile decision. It should be

an act of last resort. Our nation has been shaken to its roots by unpopular wars based on lies.

Was "it" worth it? "It" was a badly conceived, badly planned, and badly prosecuted affair

which strengthened al Qaeda, Iran, the Taliban, and weakened us. "It" was a war of choice

which was unnecessary. "It" was a crime against humanity for which no one will ever be held

accountable. I hope "it" is the last time the American people fall for another patriotic lie.

Was "it" worth it to you? What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals.

Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

THE DEFINITION OF CHUTZPAH

Afghan President Hamid Karzai's brother, Mahmood, wants the U.S. taxpayer to

shore up Afghanistan's largest bank while depositors frantically rush to withdraw their

life savings. Mahmood Karzai also happens to be the third largest shareholder in Kabul

Bank. Does this guy have "testicular fortitude" or what?

Kabul Bank is in trouble because it wasn't a bank at all. It was a pile of money made

to look like a bank. The top share holder took hundreds of millions of dollars and invested

them in real estate in Dubai. (Mahmood Karzai lived in a palatial home in Dubai purchased

by the bank's administrators.) The same shareholder spent millions bankrolling the

presidential campaigns of Hamid Karzai and Kabul Bank is suspected of helping another

financial institution to launder drug money for al Qaeda and the Taliban. When the real estate

market crashed in Dubai, so did the bank's assets. The Afghan government has forced out

the top two bank shareholders, but the bank doesn't have enough cash to cover a "run".

Enter Mahmood (if you look up in the dictionary the definition of chutzpah, you will find

my picture) Karzai. He says America could and should support Kabul Bank to the last penny.

Karzai says bailing out the bank sure would help and he has moved out of the mansion in

Dubai as a show of good faith.

The U.S. says it has no intention of propping up the bank. You can imagine Mr. Karzai's

surprise when he heard the American decision. He watched the federal government bail out

A.I.G., Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo; as well as Fannie Mae

and Freddy Mac along with General Motors and Chrysler. He figured since we were still so

addled to support and prop up his corrupt brother, we would be willing to prop up Kabul Bank.

Go figure.

Afghanistan is a cesspool of corruption with President Karzai and his family right in

the middle. No progress has been made in cleaning it up. Things have gotten worse. Karzai

freed a close ally who was arrested for soliciting bribes and allegedly laundering money for

the Taliban and al Qaeda. His brother, Wallid, is still running Kandahar and taking a cut of

the opium industry in the region (according to the CIA, whose payroll he has been on for

years). Karzai is driving opponents into the arms of the Taliban. People who fought the

Taliban in the past are now allies because of the corruption presided over by the Karzai clan.

Despite outright thievery and financial malfeasance, Karzai's brother had the temerity to ask

for the U.S. to bail out his bank. By any metric, Afghanistan is a disaster with Karzai at the

center of most of its problems. Are Americans dying to support this guy and his criminal clan?

He is the best recruiting tool the Taliban possesses. If only he had the testicular fortitude of

his brother and cleaned up the mess, thereby creating the possibility the nation might be

governable. NOTE: Pakistan recently arrested a number of prominent Taliban leaders

because they were talking about making peace with the Afghan government. Pakistan doesn't

want peace because it might allow India to become too influential in the region. What was

Cindy Sheehan's question again? What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals.

Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

ADAM, EVE, AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER GUYS

Did you know the Roman Catholic Church no longer subscribes to the belief we all

descended from Adam and Eve? I didn't know it either. Not that I believed in Adam and

Eve literally, but I figured I was once again on the outside of Catholic teaching when I

concluded that the two founding parents were metaphors for a larger group of original

humans. Turns out I'm pretty orthodox.

In 2004, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the old Office of the Inquisition)

issued a document entitled "Communion and Stewardship". The document repudiates the

previous teaching of Pope Pius XII and the Church which stated Catholics must believe Adam

and Eve were parents of the human race. "Communion and Stewardship" accepts the

conclusion of genomics that the level of genetic variation present in humans today rules out

a founding population with fewer than several thousand individuals. In other words, no Adam

and Eve, rather thousands or tens of thousands of Adams and Eves.

This has profound implications for one of the key tenets of Roman Catholic theology and

to a lesser extent Christian theology. It completely changes the concept of original sin.

Original sin was invented by St. Augustine, among other, to answer a critical question. If

Jesus's death and resurrection redeemed the world, why should anyone belong to or need

a church? If we are all redeemed, why do we need Christianity? The answer is original sin.

Yes, Jesus redeemed the world. However, the first sin committed by Adam and Eve has been

and continues to be passed down for each generation through the act of concupiscence (sex).

Since every human is conceived through sexual intercourse, each human is stained by "The"

original sin. You need the Church to baptize you to wipe that "original" sin away.

If you are not baptized, you can't get into heaven because of the original sin on your soul.

This belief led to the concept of Limbo (also discarded by the way). If a baby dies before

baptism, the child goes to Limbo because original sin prevents entry into heaven. The doctrine

of the Immaculate Conception owes its existence to original sin. Mary was conceived without

original sin and thus couldn't pass it on to Jesus. If, instead of Adam and Eve, there were

thousands of Adams and Eves who committed "The" original sin, what if you were descended

from a pair of the good Adam and Eve's who didn't eat the apple or listen to the snake?

Original sin would not have been passed along to you, would it?

Catholic parents would freak out if their baby wasn't baptized within weeks of birth.

What parent would want to consign a child to eternal Limbo because Great Aunt Sally couldn't

make it out for the baptism for a couple of months? Baptism turned into a magic ceremony

which wiped out the evil sin and opened the gates of heaven. (Baptism was originally only for

adults...when children began being baptized due to these fears, it changed the sacrament

dramatically.) Do you remember the episode of All In the Family where Archie sneaks off

with his grandson to a church to baptize him because his children were against it? It was

because of his fear the baby might not get into heaven without it. It was total superstition.

Original sin never made sense to me theologically. In St. John's gospel, Chapter Nine at

the pool of Siloam, Jesus's disciples encounter a blind man. They ask Jesus what sin he

committed or his father committed to be cursed with blindness? Jesus responds telling them

"...the sins of the father don't visit the son". You can't inherit sin. Sin is a purposeful act we

freely choose to perform. Children can't sin. Certainly newborn babies can't sin. So, why

would they be punished for something they did not do nor can they inherit?

"Communion and Stewardship" was never publicized and certainly no one I know of ever

heard anything about it from the pulpit. Was this by design or just by accident? What is clear

is if there were no two original parents from whom we inherit all our genetic traits and instead

there were thousands of Adams and thousands of Eves; there is no possible way we inherited

an original sin committed by two of them.

The good news (gospel) is that Jesus's death and resurrection did redeem us all. You don't

need anything more. If you want to be a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim, it's up to you.

You can join the community which best suits you and which lives out the radical philosophy

preached by the little Jewish carpenter from Nazareth. Heaven is open to all and baptism is

not a requirement. What is required, according to Matthew 25, is to feed the hungry, clothe

the naked, heal the sick, visit prisoners, and do whatever you can do for the least of your

brothers and sisters. What is required is to love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, forgive

an infinite number of times, and reject much of the modern culture our children will inherit.

This is much more demanding than having some water splashed on your forehead or being

dunked in a river.

If you are a fundamentalist, locked into Adam and Eve, original sin, et.al., in the words of

Emily Latella..."never mind". If you haven't checked your brain at the door and picked up your

crayons, the news is good. You don't have to be afraid, God loves us all. What do you think?

I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

FOOD AND COMFORT

I have no grand insight for you today. I put pen to paper because I am feeling

nostalgic and deprived. I am one of those people psychologists rail against because

food has always represented more than nutrition. Food contained comfort. Food meant

family gatherings and community. Food was a way to celebrate good news and cope with

bad news. Certain dishes my wife would create became traditional around various holidays

and events. Each of my children has a favorite food and sharing it with them is always a

joyous event. I know, I know, this is why we are having a crisis of obesity in this nation.

I view food as more than a collection of heat units which fuel my body. I miss a lot of

different kinds of food and the people, events and memories different concoctions evoke.

My wife created items for different days of the year. St. Patrick's Day means lean corned

beef. Irish bread (Oh how amazing it is toasted the next day!), cabbage and puffy clouds of

mashed potatoes. Christmas produces a variety of quiches for breakfast and a special

tenderloin of beef and Yorkshire pudding for dinner. Summertime means she will go to

the farmer's markets and get fresh peaches or berries to make a cobbler and strawberries

to put into shortcake. If we are celebrating a birthday or family event, homemade chocolate

chip cookies are always present and if she is in a very good mood, she makes an item for

Sunday brunch called a Swedish Tea Ring which is to die for.

My wife loves to make and eat soups from scratch. Her potato-leak, turkey and chicken

soups have ruined my children. They can't go out and order soup from a restaurant because

it never lives up to what they get at home. She loves salmon and crab and makes the best

chili I have ever had. (hint: She puts cinnamon sticks into it.) My children have foods they

love and I love to share with them. Fajitas, meat loaf, buffalo wings, nachos, enchiladas, and

burritos are some. If we go to the Tennessee Grill on Taravel, my son Connor loves their

corned beef hash, as did my dad. My daughter Darcy loves Chinese food and Chinese chicken

salad. Caitlin loves to make and consume various quiches and stew served with sourdough

French bread. My son, Eamon, usually wants a bacon cheeseburger. It is impossible to not

think of them and the times we shared all of these various delights. As for me, I truly miss

waffles and a good steak. Hash browns from Sam's restaurant on Pine St. are so good. A hot,

fresh, turkey sandwich from the Arguello supermarket is fantastic and bacon makes anything

taste better. Moshe's Pipic on Hayes St. has great Polish hot dogs and Houston's on the

Embarcadero has apple-brown Betty for dessert.

For better or for worse, food is associated with so many more needs and desires than just

filling up the gas tank with correct nutrition. It probably isn't healthy and we are told we

should separate food as a reward or comfort from food necessary to keeping us alive. I cannot

do that and I'm not sure I want to. I love thinking about a donut from Bob's on Polk St. just

coming out of the oil at 1:30am or driving by Krispy Kream when the hot light is on. I cannot

go to a movie without having buttered popcorn and I may be one of the few people who knows

where all the Weinerschnitzels are in the Bay Area so I can order a Polish dog on rye bread.

What makes all of these longings even more acute is the fact I haven't had any of these

delights in a number of years now; and I miss my family and friends who used to share so many

of these joys with me. I told you I was feeling nostalgic. What about you? What food evokes

memories? What haven't you eaten in a long time that you miss? What did you eat at family

gatherings? If there was one item you could have right now, what would it be? I welcome

your comments. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

IN THE CLEARING STANDS A BOXER...

It is so easy to be cynical about politics and politicians these days. Many of them make it

easy for us as they say one thing and do another. President Obama promised change and no

more business as usual. Yet, at the end of the day, his healthcare reform leaves the insurance

companies intact, his financial reforms allow the biggest banks to get bigger, and his foreign

policy is no different than his predecessor.

There is one politician who has talked the talk and walked the walk. One politician who,

whether you agree with her or not, votes and acts exactly as she said she would and more

importantly, courageously stood up and voted her conscience on the question of war.

Senator Barbara Boxer should be re-elected based on one vote. She voted against giving

President Bush authority to go to war in Iraq. Her opponent, Carly Fiorina, says she would

have supported the Iraq war even knowing all we know now.

In October of 2002, the country was scared and angry. September 11th scared us.

President Bush and Karl Rove, et.al., played on those fears to frighten us even more. They

touted evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Then Under Secretary of Defense,

Paul Wolfowitz, cynically admitted to Vanity Fair that pushing weapons of mass destruction

was the only way to sell the American people a war with Iraq. Do you remember the time?

The corporate media was scared to death to take on Bush. Dan Rather later admitted no one

wanted to ask a tough or aggressive question for fear of being accused of being unpatriotic.

Judith Miller was writing propaganda pieces, fed to her by the White House, for the New York

Times. The Washington Post was burying stories critical of the administration or which

raised questions about the validity of their claims on page 18. CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, along

with CBS, NBC, and ABC were beating the drums of war and dissension was not tolerated or

covered. Colin Powell went before the United Nations and lied. He lied about mobile germ

warfare vehicles. He lied about Iraqi missile technology. He lied about possible nuclear

weapons and that very night Chris Matthews gushed about the power of his presentation and

how the case for war had been made. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, quoting

a Judith Miller story, went on CNN to claim metal tubes were being imported by Iraq to make

centrifuges to process nuclear bomb material. She said this even as scientists at Oak Ridge

Labs in Tennessee disputed her characterizations. Rice famously opined "...we can't wait for

the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over Manhattan." By the time they were done,

over 50% of the American people thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of

September 11th and that he had nuclear and biological weapons to give to terrorists.

Into this hysterical mess, President Bush asked Congress to give him the authority to go

to war. Hillary Clinton voted yes. John Edwards voted yes. They understood it was political

death to be seen as soft on Iraq. In fact, 74 senators voted "yes" and only 26 voted "no" and

Barbara Boxer was one of those "no" votes. She knew it was a lie. She knew this was a

disaster waiting to happen and she voted her conscience. For that one vote she should be

re-elected.

There is more to consider. Boxer voted against Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court,

Alito and Roberts. These two have turned the court into an aggressive haven, recently opening

the doors to billions of dollars of political contributions from corporations drowning out the

voices of average Americans in the electoral process. She voted against the Patriot Act, which

was a direct assault on the Fourth Amendment; and she voted against tax cuts for the rich

which cost the treasury $2.3 trillion. She voted against immunity for the telecom companies

who illegally spied on their customers for the government. She opposed torture and the policy

of rendition. She voted for the economic stimulus package, preventing a global depression

from getting worse. Fiorina would have voted against it.

Fiorina would have voted for war, torture, illegal spying, and unlimited executive

authority. She is opposed to same sex marriage and even to a woman's right to choose.

We complain and perseverate about feckless politicians who act like political windsocks

with their fingers constantly in the air. Once in a while we should reward someone who has

lived up to her public persona and who had the courage to take on a frightened constituency,

cowered media, and out-of-control President to try and stop a tragedy which cost upwards of

5,000 American lives and as many as 250,000 wounded and injured at a cost of well over

$1 trillion. She was right and should be rewarded for that.

If you agree, you need to vote. If you agree, you need to get your friends and neighbors

to vote. If you agree, you cannot let low voter turnout cost us a valuable voice. If you agree,

you have to work to get her re-elected. Vote to reward a Profile in Courage.

(In the spirit of disclosure, I was Barbara Boxer's chief legislative assistant for three years.

We didn't always agree then and we still don't, but she deserves another term.)

What do you think? I welcome your comments. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

THE NEW "N" WORD

As Doctor Laura recently discovered, sticks and stones can break your bones and words

can really hurt you. She used the "N" word and endured all the heat and condemnation that

come with it. In politics, the "N" word actually starts with a "T" and saying it out loud can

end a political career. Why?

A few years ago, Swedes were given an opportunity to vote to reduce a high tax burden

(up to 60% of income). They were told a reduction in taxes would mean a reduction in social

services, social safety nets, and most of the government-run services the nation is known for.

They rejected the temptation to pocket a little more coin at the expense of what they

considered a very "civil" society.

For both the nation and California, revenues do not match spending. The federal

government can run deficits. The state government cannot. In both cases, part of the way to

deal with inadequate revenue is to increase taxes. Along with spending cuts, it is the only way

to solve the problem. Spending cuts alone won't do it on the federal level because Medicare,

Social Security, and interest on the debt are locked-in expenses. Add in the military budget

and what is left, even if totally eliminated, will not balance the budget.

In California, voters have tied Sacramento's hands. Proposition 13 limits the ability to

increase property taxes. Proposition 98 mandates how much of the budget must go to

education. Two thirds of the legislature has to approve a budget, meaning the minority can

veto anything the majority supports. There is no way to balance the budget just by cutting

alone. Yet, Whitman says she can balance the budget without raising taxes. She won't say

what cuts she will support, but she has a plan. Ahh-nold had a plan too. He was going to find

billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. He was going to make government more

efficient. He refused to raise taxes. You know the rest of the story.

Your taxes have been going up for years on the local level in order to make up for the

lack of state and federal money. What did a parking ticket cost twenty years ago? How much

were building permits? What about the cost of a speeding ticket these days; and can you think

of a city, county, or state service you use for which you are not charged a fee? Fees at state

parks and national parks, fees to get a license, professional fees...these are all taxes you are

paying. How much does it cost to go to a museum or the aquarium or the zoo? These are all

taxes by a different name.

Americans today enjoy some of the lowest income tax rates in our nation's history. Despite

what regressives would like you to believe, you are not overtaxed. (I know everyone feels they

pay too much and no one likes them, etc.; but it's true.) Democrats and Republicans have

reduced the corporation tax to almost nothing. The capital gains tax has been cut to about 15%.

Federal income tax rates have dropped from a top rate of 90% in 1960 to about 38% today.

Most Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than income taxes. Corporations have been

given tax breaks to do business abroad and even more to bring some of that business home.

At the same time, President Bush refused to impose a war tax (as was done in Vietnam)

to pay for his disastrous wars. He simply added $1 trillion to the national debt. He cut taxes

for the richest 2%, which reduced revenues by $2.3 trillion. Add in a Medicare Prescription

Drug Program along with the Wall Street bailout and the economic stimulus package, and it's

easy to see where the deficits came from.

To suggest raising taxes as a piece of a fiscal formula to solve our financial woes is

anathema. Why? Do Americans or Californians think there is such a thing as a free lunch?

Do Americans understand nations like China are financing our debt which has national

security implications?

At one time, the University of California system was the envy of the world. It was

virtually free to attend and along with the state colleges and community colleges, provided

vehicles for people to better themselves, be competitive, foster innovation, and attracted

students from around the world. Today, one year at a UC school will cost over $14,000 for

tuition alone. Fewer students are admitted. State colleges face the same fate and for the first

time in history, community colleges are turning students away. Money for basic research is

almost non-existent. Tens of thousands of teachers and public safety workers face layoffs.

The state and federal infrastructures, the roads and bridges, are falling apart. The electrical

grid resembles that of Haiti or Somalia rather than Sweden or Portugal (which by 2050 will

be getting over 40% of all their energy needs from alternative sources). California's levee

system is in terrible shape, a disaster of Katrina proportions just waiting to happen.

When did Americans decide that "taxes" was the new "N" word? When did we stop

demanding government live within its means or raise revenue to make up for the shortfall?

Why would anyone vote for a politician who says this problem can be solved without additional

tax revenue? You know it's a lie. Why do you reward the liars who perpetuate this myth?

I am frequently accused of bitching and moaning without proposing solutions. Here are

some ideas. Amend Proposition 13 so commercial property is no longer exempt from property

tax increases. Change the rules in the legislature so a simple majority can pass a budget and

raise taxes. Increase the state sales tax and increase the state income tax rate for the top 5%

of taxpayers. At the same time, any new state employees have to contribute more to their

pension plans which will no longer be defined benefit programs. Any new start-up business

which employs more than ten people is exempt from state taxes for the first three years.

Drastically reduce the state prison population by putting first-time non-violent offenders on

supervised release and probation saving billions of dollars.

Nationally, increase the age when you can start receiving Social Security benefits to

seventy over a five year period. Means-test Social Security benefits. Tax all income, not just

the first $106,000. Continue to reform healthcare and bring down the cost of Medicare.

Reduce the military budget and once again release all federal non-violent first offenders to

supervised release (saving $3 billion easily). Return tax rates to their 2001 level for the

richest 2% of taxpayers. All new federal employees must contribute more to pensions and

healthcare and except the end of defined benefit plans. Suspend corporate income taxes for

five years for any new company employing over fifty people. End federal water subsidies for

agribusiness and let them pay market rate. End crop subsidies paying farmers not to grow

food and end price supports. Freeze all federal spending at current levels for four years with

any surplus going to reduce the national debt.

Take your pick. Make your own suggestions. However, we have to say the "T" word over

and over again until we are willing to do what is necessary to fix what is broken and leave a

better nation for our children. We must stop voting for the panderers and the liars who tell us

what we want to hear knowing full well it is a crock of "bull-geschichte". What do you think?

I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

IT'S THE SAME OLD SONG...

I heard a radio ad for Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. Whitman

claims since she built eBay, she is the perfect person to solve the fiscal disaster which is

California. How will she pull off this political legerdemain? Will she raise income taxes?

No. Will she modify Proposition 13 so commercial property taxes can be raised? No. Will

she support raising the state sales tax? No. Will she cut the $10 billion prison budget? No.

Will she support a constitutional change so that a simple majority in the legislature can pass

a budget? No. Will she cut education funding? She won't say. Will she cut Medicaid or other

social programs? No comment. So, what is her plan? She is going to cut waste, fraud, and

abuse in state spending. Where have you heard this before? (Hint, hint, go back and listen to

some of Ahh-nold's campaign speeches)

Whitman says there are too many people at Cal Trans working on too few contracts. She

says she is going to create a grand jury to investigate waste and fraud; and if she catches anyone

they will go to jail. She is going to go over the budget with a fine toothed comb and she will

save...wait for it, wait for it...billions of dollars.

How much longer will California voters fall for this con? You could close CalTrans and do

very little to close the budget deficit (and watch our infrastructure fall apart). If she was

focused, maybe she could save $1-2 billion ferreting out fraud and waste. What about the other

$15 billion or so she needs? She won't say. She has a plan, but she won't say what it is. She

directs you to her website. Has anyone looked? Did you find the other $15 billion in there

somehow?

I am not a big Jerry Brown fan. He is a great thinker, but a terrible administrator. At

least he hasn't tried the old waste, fraud, and abuse dodge. The reality is, the state deficit

cannot be addressed without a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. This isn't

rocket science. All it takes is political will. However, Meg Whitman will not earn her own

chapter in "Profiles in Courage" by ducking and dodging when asked what specifically she

would do differently than the last two governors; and she insults the average gum-chewing

Californian when she tries the old waste, fraud, and abuse scam.

Is there waste in Sacramento? Absolutely. How about having the legislature meet only

every other year? Cut out each state legislator's per diem. Take away the state cars and all

the other perks which cost Californians a fortune. Dock their pay when a budget isn't passed

on time. Want something radical? How about returning control of education money to the

local school districts and then fire administrators who don't produce results.

Whitman is spending upwards of $100 million to win this race. Shouldn't she have the

courage of her convictions to lay out exactly what she would do? If she is scared to tell us,

why does she want the job to begin with?

If she is elected, I predict no one will ever go to jail for wasting taxpayers money or

committing fraud. She won't produce even $1 billion in savings from her statewide grand jury.

It will go away just as it did for Ahh-nold (I believe he identified about $100 million in waste).

Meanwhile, Sacramento will still be in gridlock and you and I will have to wait four more years

to see if anyone truly cares. What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals.

Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com