iraq is doing just fine … you still need a bullet proof west though

mccain is visiting iraq, and he will probably proclaim again that things are going great and are no different than they are in any US city. well, i guess with the exception of the bullet proof west you have to wear (even at the heavily guarded airport in the middle of nowhere)  the story about his visit on the nyt web site includes an interesting quote from a iraqi on the street: 

Some Sunni Arabs were not so pleased by the visit. “If the Republicans win the election, then nothing will really change in Iraq, and we need a big change to kick the occupiers out of the country,” said Abu Mohammed, a 30-year-old barber shop owner in Samarra, north of Baghdad. “I would like to show him the schools and hospitals and how the children and women suffer.”  

 on a side note, the trip is being paid for by tax payer money … because it is a trip mccain undertakes as a member of the armed services committee … hm, yes, i see (so much for maverick, he is just another washington politician who takes any money he can get). 

Mr. McCain has said the trip is not primarily political. He told reporters last Friday: “I do want to emphasize again that the three of us are going as members of the Armed Services Committee.”But on Thursday, Mr. McCain will attend a $1,000-per-plate fund-raising lunch at a home in London. His campaign has said that Congress would be reimbursed for the political parts of the trip, including the fund-raiser in London.  

the fiscal conservatism myth by the republicans

every time there is an election in the US there will be a conversation of which of the two parties is more fiscally conservative. each time republicans complain about the democrats’ fiscal irresponsability complaining about the potential for higher taxes and increased government spending. and each time the press and most of all american voters fall for this myth!

and republicans have already started to ensure the public that they are not going to increase taxes and that the democrats will likely do so. today bush proposed his $3.1 trillion budget. here is what business week has to say about the impact of this budget:

Slumping revenues and the cost of an economic rescue package will combine to produce a huge jump in the deficit to $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, the White House says, just shy of the record $413 billion set four years ago.

but this is not all … the next paragraph in this article shows just how fiscally conservative republicans and bush are:

But even those figures are optimistic since they depend on rosy economic forecasts and leave out the full costs of the war in Iraq. The White House predicts the economy will grow at a 2.7 percent clip this year, far higher than congressional and private economists expect, and the administration’s $70 billion figure for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is simply a placeholder until the next president takes office.

so hiding one of the biggest cost areas (two major wars) and on top of this calculating with the rosiest of economic growth rates available is called conservative? i just want to remind people her that the previous administration (a democratic one) balanced the budget, something which is actually fiscally conservative, and this one squandered all of this. and here is how these fiscally responsible republicans plan to save a little bit:

 Now, he’s [Bush] relying on spending cuts — for everything from transportation to Medicare and Medicaid to nonprofit groups that help the poor — to do the job in order to keep his signature 2001 and 2003 tax cuts intact instead of expiring at the end of 2010. … Bush proposes killing or cutting back sharply 151 programs to save $18 billion next year. Many of those cuts have been proposed and rejected by Congress before, such as moves to eliminate community services grants to nonprofit groups that help the poor, a food program aimed at low-income seniors and grants to help states keep illegal immigrants convicted of felonies in jail. Lawmakers will surely restore proposed cuts to clean water grants, funding for local law enforcement and homeland security grants to states and local governments. … For 2009, that means just a 1 percent boost in a universally supported food program for poor pregnant women and their children, despite rapidly rising food costs. Health research funded by the National Institutes of Health would be frozen, which is likely to mean fewer research grants. …  The budget proposes eliminating the $283 million federal program to help people make their homes more energy efficient and would cut energy aid to poor households by $500 million, a 22 percent drop over this year’s spending.

so much for compassionate. as for fiscally conservative … well it is a joke. none of these little programs makes a dent in the budget. if this administration wants to save money then they have to look at the defense spending, that is where the money goes, at the cost of the millions of poor, uninsured americans. to say that a possible tax increase by a democratic administration is big government or tax and spend is just plain stupid. one can ask anyone, but if one is short of money there are two options:

1. cut spending
2. make more money

there certainly has to be a reduction in spending, but with an economic downturn this can’t be done on the backs of the working poor (because it will only reduce the number of people that can consume), spending cuts have to happen where there is real money and not just pocket change. and if there just is not enough money then those that have a lot have to give a bit more … this is the same logic that bush used when he said there is a budget surplus so the government should give money back to the people.

so when people go to vote for a new president later this year they should ask themselves two questions:

1. when was the last time a republican lead government was really fiscally conservative (cut the budget and reduced spending across all of americans not just the working poor)?
2. were taxes back in the ’90s really unbearably high?

giuliani demonstrates his lack of understanding of terrorism

i just watched this clip of the last republican debate in which ron paul is getting hammered by the other republican candidates for his views on terrorism and america. while i am not a republican and not a supporter of ron paul, i have to say that when it comes to his foreign policy views and especially his views on understanding and fighting terrorism i completely agree with him and i applaud him for sticking to his views.  what was quite interesting in this clip and what made me post it was a comment by giuliani which  comes towards the end of the clip. after ron paul’s comment about the need to understand why terrorist attack the US, giuliani paints islamic terrorists as a group of fanatics that are just out to look for killing westerners and the destruction of the western way of live. during his little rant he mentions several of the recent terrorism attacks (in bali, spain and england) and then goes on to mention in the same sentence that those islamic terrorists also attacked germany during the olympics in the ’70s. unfortunately the clip fades out there, so i don’t know if there was any follow up to this sentence. but the press made a big deal out of some stupid foreign policy comments by huckabee recently i wish they would point out this absolute stupidity by giuliani who people think is a bit smarter than the preacher from arkansas. it is exactly this half- or non-knowledge of the terrorism threat that is dangerous. ron paul is right when he says we need to understand the threat to fight it, and giuliani proved him right in that we don’t seem to understand it. to throw palestinians and al qaeda into the pot is not just stupid and shows how little knowledge he has about the matter, but this ignorance also shows that people like giuliani or bush (or the other republican candidates who seemed to agree with giuliani) have no plan on how to really address the islamic issue.