Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – III

This is the third in this series. I recommend that you read or re-read Part I, which you can find here as well as Part II, which you can find here.

In both Parts I and II I outlined misbehavior by police in my own experience, as well in the news. I don’t want the reader to come away as a result with the impression that I think the police, as a whole, is corrupt or anxious to kill. It is the usual situations of a few bad apples.

But there are many important reasons why there is often incompetence and/or corruption in the police. Most important is that the police in the US are unionized. I happen to favor unions in the private sector, where the bargaining power of the individual worker is none existent, and where the demise of unions is a major factor in the wage stagnation that we are now experiencing.

But the police are different. The police are in many ways a quasi-military force, who like the military, often have to put their lives on the line, and have the power of life or death over those they confront. It is vital that they obey orders from their superiors, and not put the interest of themselves, or of their comrades, over that of the public. Insubordination ought to no more be tolerated in the police, than it would be in the military.

Can anyone image a members of our military turning their back in disrespect on the President of the United States, or large numbers staging a slow-down because they are displeased with the policies instituted by their superiors, as the police recently did relative to the mayor in NYC. A quick court marshal would follow. We need the same discipline for our police forces throughout the US.

All this occurred in New York because the mayor, who has a son of color, expressed empathy for the demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights to peacefully demonstrate, and put into words what every father of an African-American knows (but which is probably good advise for all races) be very polite and non-confrontational with the police. Or maybe it occurred because the police were angry because they liked the freedom to stop and frisk at random in neighborhoods of color, which the new mayor and new police commissioner ended.

But what finally triggered the expression of their pent-up anger, was the assassination of two of their comrades by a deranged man, who had indicated that much of his anger against the police was triggered by the demonstrations. Of course, his anger wasn’t just directed against the NYC police, for before undertaking that wanton act, he shot his girlfriend, and thereafter shot himself, something he had considered doing in the first place.

So what are we to make of this wanton killing by a deranged man. The head of the police union immediately pointed the finger at the mayor.

I rather think that there is a clearer connection, for it falls into line with the many killings by deranged men at schools, recently at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut. See here, but less unusual then most think. CNN reports: 

After Tuesday's shooting at an Oregon high school, many media outlets, including CNN, reported that there have been 74 school shootings in the past 18 months.

That's the time period since the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 20 children and six adults were shot to death.

It prompted me to publish a letter in the North Jersey Record, which I reproduce below:

As I did in my previous blog posts, I set forth below the transcript of the letter for those who may have difficulty reading the clipping.

The tragic death of New York Police officer Rafael Ramos makes him another victim of a deranged man with a gun, though it has been presented as being the result of demonstrations against the killing of unarmed African-American men, and even as a result of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s action in ending the racially charged and racially profiled policy of stop and frisk.

It is no such thing!

It is no different from the many tragic death around the country, highlighted most recently by the murders at Sandy Hook in Connecticut. These are murders by deranged persons, who should have been in treatment, and who have easy access to guns.

How much longer must this country live with an atmosphere where the joy of owning a gun and the feeling of power that it gives its owners, not to speak of the all the money to be made by manufacturers and dealers, trumps the right to life of innocent people, whether they are school children or police officers.

It is difficult to understand why the right to own and drive an automobile can be licensed, but the right to own and shoot a gun cannot.

The second amendment has been completely distorted and given a meaning, which it does not have, and was never meant to have by its authors and did not have for most of this countries history.

Emil Scheller
Fort Lee, December 27

As I write this blog post I am reminded of the reaction of the President of the NRA, the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers, after the Sandy Hook shooting. He said:

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Well, the two cops had guns. It didn’t stop their killer. Does the NRA care? Do they care about anything but the profits of the gun manufacturers for whom the solution will always be “we want to sell more guns – we want more profits!!!

But let us not be deceived. We have many more problems with our criminal justice system.

I will go into greater detail in future posts. But for now allow me to just set out a graph that speaks volumes.

What is there about the US that would make us have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world?

I will come back to this in another context, but for now allow me to express my disappointment that our President, in his sixth State of the Union address, did not speak about this subject. It is one of the few areas where he might be able to find common ground with Republicans.

The Washington Post reports: 

But on issues of sentencing reform and prison recidivism, Republicans — especially several governors in Southern states — have been the leaders, earning praise from prison reform groups on both sides of the aisle for efforts to save money by implementing rehabilitation programs and curbing skyrocketing prison costs.

A nonpartisan study issued last year about how one of the bluest states in the union, Massachusetts, could cut prison costs credited Republicans states for how they have tackled prison reform…

‘This is our chance to show we can provide solutions to affect significant problems,’ said Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The renewed focus on costsaving reforms marks a dramatic, decade-long shift by Republican governors, many of whom previously won election by stumping on tough-on-crime platforms.

But, as many of those governors have noted, one way to cut state costs is to decrease the number of people being locked up for nonviolent offenses and rid the law books of mandatory minimum sentences for such offenses.

In addition to Perry, prominent Republicans who once trumpeted tough-on-crime ­stances and now call for sentencing changes and rehabilitation programs for drug and other nonviolent offenders include former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a tea party hero, has made reform of mandatory minimum sentences a major focus in recent months.

“We’re not a soft-on-crime state, you know what I’m saying? . . . We’re tough on crime,” Perry said. “But I hope we are also seen as a smart-on-crime state.”

That is quite a change from the tough on crime of Republicans in years and decades past, when, e.g. George H.W. Bush used the famous, or infamous, Willie Horton ad (See here) in his campaign against Michael Dukakis.

But whatever the past, this is an issue that now appears to have Republican support, and if the President and the Democratic Party don’t seize the opportunity, the chance for reform may well be wasted.

I will have more to say in the area of the American Justice system next time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

While I have decided not to dwell on the Israeli issue any further, I cannot ignore the outrage of the Boehner/Netanyahu axis. They are both a disgrace in meddling in the domestic affairs of the other’s country. Netanyahu will face elections in Israel on March 17 according to Fox News, but instead of campaigning in Israel, he will campaign by addressing the US Congress on March 3, two weeks before the Israeli election. This is a blatant and transparent attempt on the part of both the Speaker and the Prime Minister to meddle in the affairs of the other country. Even while this is likely to aid Netanyahu in Israel, it is at the same time an attempt to embarrass the President of the US, by Netanyahu coming here, once again, in his ongoing and endless attempt to influence the US not to negotiate with Iran and instead go to war. He has said the US has no right to tell Israel not to attack Iran, which the US has never done, while trying to ensnare the US into war with Iran.

Netanyahu’s crude attempt to meddle in American domestic affairs has a long and infamous history. He is the proverbial child always crying wolf and has been doing so since more than two years. On September 12, 2012 I published an article entitled: “I am an American”, from which I quote:

But Netanyahu has gone out of his way to violate every rule of diplomatic behavior. In my view he has been a disaster for Israel. Since any Letter to the Editor has to be short I commend readers to "Peter Beinart on Netanyahu’s Bullying Act" from The Daily Beast.

That article relates in some detail Netanyahu’s long history of meddling in American politics, so much so that the Republican Secretary of State James Baker briefly had him banned from the State Department. But beyond that, and I quote from the article, “Netanyahu has been brazenly intervening in American politics—often with an eye to screwing Democratic presidents.”…

But now he has the gall to come to the US and use our airwaves to try to dictate American foreign policy. Appearing on US Television, Netanyahu declared: “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.” I agree with the Prime Minster that no one has a right to place a “Red Light” before Israel. But, in fact no one has!!!...

The attempt by any country to dictate American policy, particularly on issues of war and peace must be rejected by all Americans.

What did the Prime Minister show to the US to demonstrate the imminent danger? Look here.

That was two years ago. Is Iran now in the final stage? Not even the man who keeps crying wolf claims that is the case. The negotiations, whether they finally succeed, or not, have delayed the Iranian progress. If the danger ever was anywhere near as imminent as the fear monger claimed, the Iranian’s would have the bomb today.

And what is the alternative to the present course? To go to war? Netanyahu is ready to hold the coat of the US. Israel is not about to commit that folly, nor would its military and intelligence agencies allow it. Should there be more sanctions by the US, which would end the negotiations, and worse, end the unity of the allies in imposing multi-lateral sanctions?

But quite aside from that, does his diagram look like an atomic bomb?

Here is a terrific YouTube video on that subject.



I urge the reader to watch it. If nothing else, it is funny and it does a good job of relating the history of the “the boy who cried wolf”. He points out that the cry that Iran is about to get “the bomb” goes back to 1992.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture - I

It is time to take a break from the discussion of Israel and to turn to other pressing issues. I intend to return to the subject of Israel, if for no other reason, to give Albert Nekimken an opportunity to complete his rebuttals. But now onto other issues!

There have been many unfortunate deaths in the United States lately.

“Each year, nearly 900,000 Americans die prematurely from the five leading causes of death – yet 20% to 40 % of the deaths from each cause could be prevented according to the CDC. Allow me to stress that these are pre-mature deaths, and at least 20% of those, or 20,000, and possibly as many as 40%, or 40,000, of those are preventable. More than 39,000 people died by suicide in the United States in 2011, more than twice as many who died as a result of homicide, (17,000). See here. How many die at the hands of police officers is difficult to determine.

As these figures show, homicide is far down on the scale among the causes of death. Yet our fear of homicide and our fascination with it is insatiable. Murder mysteries are a genre that has, always had, and continues to have endless fascination for us.

It apparently matters how and why we die.

The idea that we could be in danger from the police, the very people we depend on to protect us, is unacceptable and horrendous. Is it something we need to worry about? Do African Americans need to fear the police more than other races?

These questions have been forcefully brought into our consciousness by the police killings of Eric Garner in New York resulting from a chokehold, and of Michael Brown in Missouri, by the use of a gun that has led to demonstrations, which have become an increasing source of friction, and to some extent a political football.

Fox News ran a clip, widely viewed on YouTube, where the demonstrators appeared to chant: “we won't stop, we can't stop, so kill a cop", when they actually chanted: "we won't stop, we can't stop, 'til killer cops, are in cell blocks,"

This was quickly picked up by many in the press, particularly on the Right, and even a faux apology by Fox (See here) that it was all a mistake, when in fact the recording had been doctored, (See here) did not catch up even with the so-called liberal media. Thus Nicholas Kristof writing in the New York Times, after Fox had already disavowed the video, stated: “Some extremist protesters turned to the slogan ‘arms up, shoot back,’ or to chants of ‘What do we want? Dead cops.’ That was inexcusable”, showing how even well intentioned media get taken in.

But in all this heat has anybody checked the facts?

CNN had a very interesting analysis from which I quote:

Syndicated columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote this week that young black men are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by police than young white men. Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly had a much different take on his show Monday night, offering that more whites are killed by police than blacks.

In 2012, 123 African-Americans were shot dead by police. There are currently more than 43 million blacks living in the U.S.A.," O'Reilly said on his program.

"Same year, 326 whites were killed by police bullets. Those are the latest stats available.

 Two dramatically different statistics -- and they could both be right. 

But CNN didn’t bother to do the arithmetic. I did!

I focused on the O’Reilly figures. He gives the number of “blacks” in the total population but doesn’t give us a figure for the number of “Whites” in the total population. According to the Census Bureau the figures are about 198 million “Whites” in the US to about 42 million “Blacks”. That is a ratio of about 4.74 or about 5 times as many “Whites” as “Blacks”.  The killed by police ratio according to O’Reilly is 2.65 as many Whites as Blacks, so that using O’Reilly’s own figures, Blacks are killed by police as a ratio of their presence in the population at a far higher rate than Whites.

Of course, O’Reilly could have argued that this is because Blacks are more crime prone, or more given to resisting arrest, but he didn’t. His own figures seem to show that police are much more likely to kill a Black person than a White person by far.

CNN goes into a lengthy discussion as to why Kristof and O’Reilly came up with such different figures, but they miss the point. O’Reilly’s own figures show a huge discrepancy between the rate at which police kill between the races.

Does that mean that the police like killing Blacks or that Blacks are more violent and more crime prone? That there is more crime in Black communities than in White ones, there can be no doubt.

But I think the problem may lie more in police perception, than in any reality.

The North Jersey media published an interesting article entitled "Something good coming out of Ferguson" from which I quote:

Several months ago, I was struck by another incident, this one in Columbia, S.C. A young black man was pulled over by a white officer. In complying, the young man pulled into a gas station and got out of his car. He learned he was stopped for a "possible seat belt infraction."

The officer asks for the driver’s license and car registration. The driver opens the car door and reaches in to get his wallet from the front seat. As he does that, the officer starts screaming at him to get out of the car, to put his hands up, to get down on the ground. And while yelling, in an almost hysterical tone, he starts shooting at the man.  

The young man was shocked. He yelled, "You told me to get my wallet. I was just getting my wallet. Why are you shooting at me?"

Then a touch of humanity entered the conversation. The officer said, quietly and with some concern, "Were you hit?" The young man said, also quietly, "Yes, I think I feel blood running down my leg," or something to that effect.

The officer kept his gun aimed at the man, but called for help.

It’s easy to brand this cop as a violent man, intent on creating a situation in which it would be reasonable to shoot a young black man.

However, what became clear to me in watching the video was that the cop was terrified. You could hear it in his voice. You could see it in the way he moved, the way he held the gun, the way he shouted at the man.

Returning to the CNN article, CNN reports

That reality, (unreliable statistics) in part a result of weak local reporting and national data gathering efforts on police homicides, has long frustrated researchers and analysts who say they need to know more about those shootings…

 The problem, experts say, is that the United States doesn't collect accurate statistics and verify nearly enough information to show definitive trends in police shootings.

 There isn't a mandatory reporting. It is a self-reporting. Almost on the honor system," Sunny Hostin, a CNN legal analyst, said on CNN's "The Situation Room" on Tuesday.

 Although the FBI does have some statistics, most people know that those statistics can't even be counted upon, because they are self-reported," Hostin said. "So my suggestion has been all along that we need mandatory reporting from our law enforcement agencies around the country and I think that the number of officer shootings involving young black males is actually much higher than is even self-reported. That's something that needs to be part of the conversation.

 "We've been trying for years, but nobody wanted to fund it and the (police) departments didn't want it. They were concerned with their image and liability. They don't want to bother with it.''

But it may be that we have become too obsessed by the race issue. It is real, and much of what is happening in this country is dictated by race, but there is an even more fundamental problem.

CNN has an interesting commentary on the broader aspect. Again allow me to quote from its web site.

The difference in the number of killings in the U.S. and the rest of the world is startling. While police in other major countries typically kill a few people every year, the numbers here are enormous….
 How many people are shot by police every year? Nobody seems to know the exact number (something that is itself disturbing -- no official government agency tracks the full data for the entire country)
 On average, at least one person is killed by a cop every day in the U.S. In contrast, not a single one was killed in Britain last year, where police fired their guns a grand total of three times, according to The Economist. In 2011, when the FBI reported 404 justifiable law enforcement homicides in the U.S., police killed six people in Australia, two in England, six in Germany.

Whether one is of white, black, brown, or of yellow complexion, these are very disturbing facts and figures.

I have long been disturbed by the behavior of some who wear the police uniform and a badge and carry a gun. I am of white or rather pink complexion, but I have had my own experiences.

I will always remember when as a teen, (or maybe it was in my early twenties) I was in the resort town of Greenwoodlake, NY, a summer vacation community straddling New York and NJ, but with the town itself in NY. I had gone into town to buy something and had parked my car legally. When I came back I found that my car was wedged between two cars so that there was very little maneuvering space for me to get out. Backing up to the maximum possible, I touched the bumper of the car behind me, and then started to move out of the space, when a police officer accosted me and accused me of trying to leave the scene of an accident. I tried to explain that I had barely touched the bumper of the car behind me and that there was no damage, where upon the officer, who appeared to also be in his early twenties, suggested that I should put up my fists, and we would duke it out. I declined, and the officer relented. But it left a lasting impression on me, that, particularly in small towns, the kids that get a uniform, a badge and a gun, may be no different from the local hoodlum, without one.

This was not the last time I discovered that police officers are not always paragons of virtue.

More next time!

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office. 

The Media in General and the New York Times in Particular

I have denounced our media again and again. I wish to God that such denunciations could be focused on the lying machines of Fox News and the vicious demagoguery of Rush Limbaugh, or other clearly Right Wing Media. Unfortunately, the so-called liberal media is failing us. Its editorials, more often than not are fine, but its more important feature articles leave much to be desired.

I have written about this time and time again. Please, please, read my blog posts "The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry" and even more important "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore."

The editorial pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post usually say the right things, but the news and feature stories are far more important, and they too often go for the sensational, or the just plain sloppy.

What has set up my ire today is a front page article in the New York Times entitled "Payroll Tax Cut Is Unlikely to Survive Into Next Year."

Here is what the article says at paragraph three: “Independent analysts say that the expiration of the tax cut could shave as much as a percentage point off economic output in 2013, and cost the economy as many as one million jobs.”

But at paragraph 10 it says: “independent economists say that the economy could shoulder the payroll tax increase without undue harm.”

Who are the independent analysts? Who are the independent economists? Is there a difference?

The author doesn’t say.

But that’s not all!!! The article goes on to say, “Many Republicans vehemently opposed its passage last year, as it would divert money from the Social Security program.”

Really? Since when do Republicans worry about diverting money from a program they have long wanted to gut and abolish. But in fact, the program doesn’t divert money from the Trust fund. Under its provisions any revenue lost to the Social Security Trust Fund must be, and is made up out of general revenue. See the applicable IRS Bulletin. 

But the New York Times article doesn’t tell us that. It leaves us believing that the reduction in the payroll tax negatively impacts the Social Security Trust Fund and the long-term viability of SS. This is simply not true.

But I don’t want to single out the New York Times. I focus on that paper because I read it more than any other and so its sins of omission and commission come to my attention more frequently.

But let us not overlook the highly regarded PBS Newshour, which was recently reprimanded by its ombudsman, for presenting a segment on global warming saying ” … it is wrong to create an artificial or false equivalence…”

But this is not the first time that the Newhour, a program I watch religiously, as being one of the few good news programs on the air, gave false information, or sought a false equivalency. While I have no proof, the fear of a funding cut-off from Republicans in Congress undoubtedly makes the program careful not to allow truth to offend those who hold the purse strings. What we need is for enough money to pour into PBS for it to be endowed with funds making it truly independent of outside pressures.

I could undoubtedly go on and on about our inadequate media, but neither my time nor my readers patience will allow that.

So let me close with a reference to Fareed Zakaria on CNN last Sunday and in the Washington Post on September 26 where Zakaria in effect assumes that Romney is so vague about his budgetary plans, that if he gave out more details he would offend his Tea Party base. Why does Zakaria assume that the real Romney is the centrist who governed Massachusetts, despite all evidence to the contrary? The evidence for those who choose to have their eyes and ears open is that he has in fact become the Tea Party acolyte he appears to be, and that he is vague about his plans, not because he is afraid of offending his Tea Party base, but because he is afraid that he would lose most of the centrist voters, and maybe many of those 47%, non-income tax-paying voters who amazingly still support him, if they knew of his real plans.

And so his plans are a secret, just as his tax returns are secret, for the more we know the fewer votes he would get.

But to me the attempted false equivalency infects the news media. If the Republican Party adopted the Flat Earth Society platform we would undoubtedly soon have debates in our media on the subject of whether the earth is flat.

But it is not only false equivalency. It is the echo chamber. Once a certain paradigm is set, no one questions it. Thus we hear again and again how “no sitting president facing an unemployment rate more than 8% has won another term since Franklin D. Roosevelt.” and this is repeated over and over again, often without mention of FDR’s re-election. The message becomes, intended or not, that no President deserves re-election with such an unemployment rate. But what is left out of this equation is that no President since FDR has inherited an economy as bad as this one, and somehow that is rarely if ever mentioned. If the one is constantly repeated, shouldn’t the other? But the media is stacked. Not the liberal way, as we keep hearing. But subtly, ever so subtly, in favor of the Right. But this is never enough. The attacks on the media as being too liberal will keep on coming, and the media ever craven will accommodate, and move further and further right to stop the attacks, which will never, ever, stop until all we get is clones of Fox.

The Media – A Postscript On A Final Comment

When I wrote my post entitled: "The Media – A Final Comment" I had intended to leave this subject and move onto others that I believe need to have more light shined upon them. However, since then the Times has once again offended what I consider to be fundamental tenants of good journalism, and I cannot, or at least will not, be silent.

On the front page of a recent edition of the New York Times Sunday Review there appeared the eye-catching headline "Small Donors Are Slow to Return to the Obama Fold." That immediately struck me as rather bad news for the Obama reelection campaign. I wondered how bad that news was – how did it compare with small donor contributions of the 2008 campaign. I started to read the article, but than I paused – I remembered that the FEC quarterly campaign contributions reports were due on October 15. The Times article appeared on September 25, three weeks before the figures might become available. Did the Times get insider information that allowed it to jump the gun?

I read the article with great interest looking for the figures. There weren’t any! I waited until today to see if the figures released on October 25th would support the Times' allegation. A search of the web and of the Times shows no figures that would support that screaming headline.

What was there in the article that prompted the conclusion about small donors supporting or rather not supporting Obama? Did the Times conduct its own poll? No! The whole article, with its sensational headline was based on a few anecdotal quotes.

A man from Arizona, a Mr. Alasadi said:

When I was pro-Obama in 2008, I was thinking of him as a leader who could face the challenges that we were tackling,... Now I am seeing him as just an opportunistic politician.

Nadine Kurland, 62, of Falling Waters, W.Va., is quoted as saying:

I have been very disappointed in the president, he has not stood up to the Republicans.

After some more quotes like this and some concessionary positive quotes like:

I am happy with him, ... I just feel like the Congress is completely obstructing him.

The Times concedes:

Aides to Mr. Obama said the campaign was well ahead of its 2008 benchmarks. That year, Mr. Obama did not reach one million total donors until February, about a month after he won the Iowa caucuses.

A campaign spokesman said that the number of people who had given more than once to Mr. Obama this year and the number of people who had contributed for the first time were both higher than his total number of donors at the same point in 2007

...which seems to completely contradict the headline and the theme of the story.

So how do we get the sensational headline, which ends up being repeated by the media echo chamber, so that we find the Huffington Post quoting the Times article. As far as I can tell, the headline came first. Then the quotes were sought to support the conclusion.

That is not good journalism and illustrates more than ever that our icon, The New York Times, has clay feet. The editorial page may be liberal, but the news pages are there to draw readers. Sensationalism is the bi-word.

But the Times isn’t satisfied with reporting that the small donor segment has left Obama. Sunday, October 16, sees the headline, “Romney Beating Obama in a Fight for Wall St. Cash" but then concedes:

Mr. Obama continues to dominate Mr. Romney — and the rest of the Republican field — in overall fund-raising. He has raised close to $100 million so far this year for his campaign, three times more than Mr. Romney, as well as $65 million for the Democratic National Committee.

In fact other news reports show the President out-raising all the Republican candidates combined.

But it would be hard to realize this from the New York Times headlines. As far as the headlines of the Times are concerned what we get is small donors aren’t giving to the candidacy of the President. Wall Street donors aren’t giving donations to the candidacy of the President. But the President’s fund raising is greater than all Republicans combined. Well, will the Times tell us where the money is coming from, or does this not make a good headline. Or even worse, does it not fit into the message that has been decided upon without reference to any facts.

Maybe Fox, with its obvious bias, is better than the Times with its deceptive liberalism, or pretended objectivity.

Readers beware!!!! Read critically!!!!

The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part III)

In my posts entitled: "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part I)" and "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part II)" I set forth an analysis showing that the urgency of the deficit has deliberately been exaggerated, for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to use it as a wedge to decimate all the protection that we have built up, not only from the deprivations of our senior years, but from all the threats that modern technology, if unchecked, subjects us to. Many of these, such as the FDA keep our food and drugs safe, or the EPA which keeps our water and our air from being ever more contaminated, the SEC that keeps our securities safe from rigging (at least when properly funded and properly headed) than it is. I could go on and on, but let me mention a few more such as our schools and libraries, our National Parks, our National monuments such as the Lincoln Memorial. Or the agencies that are supposed to prevent oil spill disasters, such as the Valdez spill in Alaska, or the more recent one in the Gulf of Mexico. Even our safety in riding an interstate bus depends on Federal Regulation, which the recent fatal bus crash in the Bronx dramatically reminds us.

They all need adequate funding and inadequate funding, which I am afraid is what is happening in the cuts that are quietly being agreed to, will decimate the protections on which we depend.

But let me address the elephants in the room: Social Security and Medicare. If you think the attempt to end Medicare and Social Security is something that Republicans feel is necessary to solve the deficit think again. It has been their goal since at even before the Administration of Ronald Reagan, who before he became President denounced the then incipient passage of Medicare with the following:

We do not want socialized medicine…behind it will come other government programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Norman Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism…We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.” He went on to say: “The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

(Emphasis added)

You can find both the quote and a video of the speech here.

When Reagan became President he became somewhat of a pragmatist and, as far as I can find made no effort to have Medicare repealed. In fact, despite his rhetoric on Social Security where he had scorned Social Security as “as an involuntary, quasi-socialistic example of government running amok” and argued, in a nationally televised 1964 speech for GOP candidate Barry Goldwater, that Social Security should become a "voluntary" program. But as President he made an agreement with Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. It raised the payroll tax, it raised the retirement age from 65 to 67 to be phased in by 2027; it required government employees to pay into Social Security for the first time; and beginning in 1984, includes up to one-half of Social Security benefits as taxable income for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income, combined with half their benefits and any tax-exempt interest they may have exceeds $25,000 for a single taxpayer and $32,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. Benefits received by married taxpayers filing separately are taxable without regard to other income. Appropriates amounts equal to estimated tax liability to the Social Security trust funds. These reforms extended the life of Social Security by many decades.

But this sort of compromise is not one the new inflexible ideologues of the Republican Party are seeking. George W. Bush proposed in 2005 doing away with Social Security and substitute for it private investment accounts. “While the White House has helped convince more than two-thirds of those polled that Social Security is heading for a crisis or possible bankruptcy without change, 56 percent disapprove(d) of his approach…” wrote the Washington Post in March of 2005 The proposal went nowhere.

So it was obvious that the determination to abolish all that had been accomplished by Roosevelt –Social Security; by Lyndon Johnson - Medicare and Medicaid, by their own Richard Nixon –the EPA and all the other programs, e.g. Theodore Roosevelt – Food and Drug Administration or our under funded National Parks the first of which having been created in 1896 under the Administration of Ulysses S. Grant, would, if they have not already been, be either abolished or have their funding severely cut. Rahm Emanuel once said” You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," but here there is a desire not only to take advantage of a crisis, but one that doesn’t really exist, and that to the extent that it does, was deliberately created by them, for the very purpose of finding a rationale, an excuse, to do what the public would not otherwise let them.

In case anyone doubts that even our National Parks and all conservation efforts are under attack, see what the non-partisan Wilderness Society has to say or regarding the arts and NEA funding see Advocate For The Arts.

Every decent program conceived by either party in years past, before the Republican Party became an irresponsible radical party, is endangered.

But before I close, and despite the risks of making this too, long allow me to revert to my last post: “The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part II)” where I quote from the Economist.

I believe this quote is so important that with your indulgence I will repeat it here:

Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programs for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people. Mr Ryan has been fulsomely praised for his courage. The Progressive Caucus has not.

I'm curious to see what adjectives people would apply to the Progressive Congressional Caucus's budget proposal. But it's hard for me to imagine the media calling a proposal to raise taxes "courageous" and "honest". And my sense is that the disparate treatment here is rooted in class.

Yes, the conservative, Economist, is more inclined to tell it the way it is than the so-called “liberal” and so called “un-biased press.”

This struck me last Friday night when I listened to the highly respected PBS program Washington Week where in their endeavor to sound non-Partisan, they ended up explaining nothing and made this epical battle over the future of our country sound like a squabble between of playground kids, or as though, or at best, it was a sporting event. Worse of all, when they finally, did concede that great philosophical divides are what drives the power play, they defined it as, “Big government vs. Small Government” which is exactly the way Tea Party members, and indeed Republicans in general, would like to define it, for in polls when the issues are defined that way Republicans win, while if it is defined as specific programs that are endangered, from Medicare, to SS, to our clean air, water, etc. Democrats win. Thus as the Economist points out, we do not have to look for “Fox News” to find a “disparate treatment… rooted in class.”

It is very discouraging that we can not find unbiased reporting on such an important subject even on PBS – or are they too worried about funding from the Republican Congress and Corporate underwriters.

Again in order not to make this unduly long I will, in my next post, “The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part IV)” review how they planned, nay, plotted to create this crisis for the very purpose of gutting all these programs.