Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for October, 2015

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislators, Notable Quotables, Politicians, Vitter on October 21, 2015| 4 Comments »

“One would hope… that when an officeholder commits serious offenses, the negative reaction of the citizenry would make it impossible for him to govern effectively.”

—State Rep. and Tulane and Loyola Law adjunct professor David Vitter, writing about the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinski scandal in a New Orleans Times-Picayune op-ed in 1998.

“I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me. I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage.”

—Wendy Vitter, in an interview with Newhouse News Service in 2000, discussing what she would do if her husband cheated on her.

“You paid the man for two years after he pled guilty to three misdemeanor charges against women,” he said. “He stabbed her … big scar under her neck … he choked her. What do you say to that?”

—Former Plaquemines Parish Sheriff and State Rep. Ernest Wooton, one of six participants in a debate leading up to the 2010 U.S. Senate election, questioning Vitter on why his former aide, Brent Furer, remained on staff for two years after being arrested on suspicion of assaulting a female friend with a knife and threatening to kill her. 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Could knowledge of pending story about hooker’s paternity claim have prompted Vitter to close access to Tech debate?

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Politicians, TV News, Vitter on October 18, 2015| 19 Comments »

By now, anyone with anything more than a passing interest in Saturday’s gubernatorial primary election is aware of the latest bombshell about U.S. Sen. David Vitter and his cavorting with prostitutes: that Vitter allegedly fathered a child with New Orleans hooker Wendy Ellis. http://www.theamericanzombie.com/2015/10/david-vitter-interview-with-wendy-ellis.html

The story was published on Saturday (Oct. 17) by Jason Brad Berry of the American Zombie investigative blog and political junkies immediately began burning up the email lines just as the 2015 primary election for governor enters its final stretch. http://crooksandliars.com/2015/10/former-mistress-alleges-david-vitter-asked

It not our intent to discredit Berry (he was, after all, the first to reveal widespread corruption involving former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and some of his pals, all of whom were convicted of corruption). But Clancy DuBos, publisher of Gambit Magazine in New Orleans wisely spiked that publication’s initial story about Berry’s toxic (to Vitter) interview with Ellis after receiving court documents that shot gaping holes in parts of Berry’s blog post. http://www.bestofneworleans.com/blogofneworleans/archives/2015/10/18/vitter-update-inconsistencies-come-to-light

Nor should anyone interpret this as a defense of Vitter.

Far from it.

The timing of the story is terribly suspect, given the election was only a week away when Berry posted it. But even if Ellis’s claims ultimately fail the smell test, Vitter really deserves no sympathy in this sordid affair after the manner he has allowed his Super PAC, The Fund for Louisiana’s Future, to fill our living rooms with television attack ads containing half-truths and outright lies about his two Republican opponents, Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle and Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne.

And Vitter cannot divorce himself from those ads simply because a Super PAC accepted responsibility for the content of the ads. That does not absolve him. Louisiana’s senior senator did, after all, contribute a quarter-million dollars of his own money to the Super Pac, so he is married to the ads whether he likes it or not.

The entire gubernatorial campaign has been reduced to the lowest form of political discourse consisting of nothing but smear campaigns. While Vitter’s Super PAC was chewing up Angelle and Dardenne with B.S. claims and unabashed lies, the National Republican Governors’ Association was doing the same to the lone Democrat in the race, State Rep. John Bel Edwards. (It’s interesting to note that the GOP Governors’ Association first said it was staying out of the primary election but after witnessing a steady climb in the polls by Edwards, the association once headed by Bobby Jindal apparently panicked and decided to go on the attack now.)

And make no mistake, those ads are just as vile. And their relevance to burning issues that face this state make about as much sense as an acquaintance from north Louisiana who despite having for years claimed to be sophisticated enough that he would “vote for the best candidate, no matter the party,” told me this weekend that, “I just can’t vote for someone with a ‘D’ behind their name.” What utter nonsense, what unmitigated bias, and yes, what ignorance. What happened to that “best candidate” business, pal?

But we digress.

Where are the proposals for addressing the myriad of state problems? I haven’t heard them because they’re being drowned out by ads that are hell bent on dragging opponents through the mud and muck which only means when the dust finally settles, we’re likely to be faced with the same old problems with no one offering hard answers.

And folks, that begins with the candidates for governor and quickly flows downhill into both chambers of the Louisiana Legislature. With more than half the incumbents being returned to office to cut deals and to pass laws favorable to campaign contributors, we’re quite likely to see the same trend in corporate tax giveaways continue unabated.

Indeed, the entire dialog this election cycle has been reduced to quickie TV ads that spew shameless misrepresentations of the facts. And it will only be ramped up a few notches for the general election.

Has Vitter overlooked the fact that he, along with the others, is in reality, interviewing for a job? When you are seeking a job, you put your best foot forward; you don’t walk into the interview trashing those competing for the same job. That’s a fast way out the door. You give your prospective employer your curriculum vitae and you come prepared to discuss your experience, your accomplishments and your career plans should you be hired. And you better not waste his or her time with disparaging gossip about the other applicants.

Ellis previously (in 2007) passed a polygraph test which indicated that she did indeed have a sexual relationship with Vitter for at least four months although she now says the relationship lasted for nearly three years, from 1998 to sometime in 2000 when she informed him she was pregnant.

She says Vitter first denied paternity and then suggested she get an abortion. She didn’t. Instead, she put the baby up for adoption raising the immediate questions of just who was the pro-life advocate in this scenario?

The emerging saga prompted a reader of one online blog to suggest that many of the so-called “family values” types like Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, and Josh Duggar “have more skeletons in their closets than Jeffrey Dahmer.”

Vitter, for his part, of course, is keeping mum. But then, that’s been his approach the entire duration of this repugnant campaign: stay far away from the media and voters, and for God’s sake, don’t get drawn into any open debates in which questions are not provided in advance. If you’ve been paying attention, he is letting The Fund for Louisiana’s Future do all his talking for him. (Well, there is that one pitifully wretched ad in which he props wife Wendy in front of the camera to tell Louisiana’s voters what a wonderful husband and father he is.

But when he does appear, it is always—without exception—in a controlled venue in which no one has a chance to ask any embarrassing questions.

All of which brings me to my final bit of speculation:

Is it just possible that the reason last Thursday’s debate among the four candidates at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston was closed off not only to students and the general public, but to the media as well—and the reason Vitter was the only one of the four to skip out on a post-debate meeting with media types who were relegated to an adjoining room during the debate—was that he knew Berry was developing this story for imminent release and he simply could ill-afford to have that stink bomb tossed into the middle of the debate—on statewide TV? http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/vitter_debate_problems.html

After all, Berry said on his blog that he had contact with David Vitter’s legal counsel and repeatedly requested a telephone interview with him to address the story but his lawyer stated he was too busy to talk with me.”

Really? Seriously, Dave? As determined as you are to evade addressing the burning question of whether or not you broke the law by soliciting prostitutes, this is a bit more serious.

Too busy to discuss a pending story that you may have fathered a child by a prostitute? By telephone, yet?

Sorry, Dave, but true or not, you don’t get to busy to discuss matters of this magnitude.

Unless you have a reason for not talking.

But, Dave, Berry says he has “much more information” that he will be sharing soon.

You may wish to reconsider and give him a call.

Read Full Post »

LouisianaVoice submits FOIA request for communications from Vitter on parameters of Thursday night’s TV debate

Posted in Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Media, PACs, Politicians, Public Records, State Agencies, Transparency, TV News, Vitter on October 16, 2015| 23 Comments »

Complaints and protests had no effect on the decision by Louisiana Tech David Vitter to restrict access to Thursday night’s gubernatorial debate on the Ruston campus, so LouisianaVoice has submitted a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request under Louisiana’s Public Records Law (R.S. 44:1 et seq.) for any documentation revealing Vitter’s thumbprints on the unprecedented decision to bar access to the debate to students, the public and the media.

It is as obvious as that great big elephant in the room that Vitter is Bobby Jindal reincarnated as far as his unwillingness to take unscripted questions or questions not approved in advance. His propensity for appearing only in tightly controlled venues is doing little to blot out the ugly memory of eight years of Jindal’s avoidance of unpleasant questions.

All politicians, of course, would prefer to appear at events that evidence overwhelming support and if a politician is willing to take the risk, he will encounter hostile crowds or, at least an enterprising journalist who isn’t afraid to ask the hard questions. Vitter, however, has taken his aversion to such risks to a level at which even Jindal would be envious.

His reasons are quite obvious. He refuses to entertain, let along answer, the BIG question: “Senator, did you break the law?”

Ask Edwin Edwards that and he would likely say, “Sure, but you’re going to have find out for yourself which one it was.”

Ask Paul Newman in his lead role in The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean that, and he would simply tear that page out of the law book and say, “That’s a bad law. I just repealed it.”

Ask Jindal that and he’d probably hire Jimmy Faircloth to file suit against the law.

But you just can’t ask Vitter that. Plain and simple, he’s not going to put himself in that position, which presents a conundrum of sorts or, as the late Johnny Carson might say, “A sticky wicket.” The problem I have with that is this man is asking us to place our trust in him and to elect him Governor when he is not willing to accept questions about his moral character.

Moral character. An interesting term and one might justifiably ask what that has to do with his ability to govern. After all, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, JFK, FDR, Bill Clinton, Warren Harding, and 14 other presidents are rumored to have carried on affairs in the White House—some with male partners.

For the answer, I will only point to the fact that Vitter ran as a family values candidate and in 1998 Vitter opined that Clinton “should resign…and move beyond this (Monica Lewinski) mess.” http://cenlamar.com/2010/08/21/can-we-be-honest-about-david-vitter/

But now, after being linked to prostitutes in Washington and New Orleans, doesn’t have so much to say on the subject of infidelity. As a candidate for Louisiana’s chief executive officer, he has instituted his very on “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

And he’s making damn sure no one gets to ask that. Hence, the controlled venues, including barring the media and the public from a “public debate” in a public facility on the campus of Louisiana Tech University Thursday night.

Which must beg the question in the minds of any citizen of Louisiana who can get past the latest exploits of those wild and crazy Kardashians: what else might he refuse to share with the electorate of this state? Will he, like Jindal, shut off the governor’s office from all outside inquiries, including those about legitimate state business? Will he invoke the “deliberative process” as did Jindal for eight long years?

He was uncomfortable enough at Thursday night’s debate when the question of his attack ads against fellow Republicans Jay Dardenne and Scott Angelle arose. Of course, he denied his hand in the attacks, saying that he didn’t buy the ads; that The Fund for Louisiana’s Future did.

Well, The Fund for Louisiana’s Future just happens to be his very own Super PAC and while federal law dictates that candidates not involved themselves in the decision-making process of plotting strategy and ad buys with Super PACs, never doubt for a nano-second that it was his hand stirring the pot. After all, Vitter gave a quarter-million dollars of his own money to The Fund for Louisiana’s Future.

So, in a sufficient state of outrage over Vitter’s exclusion of the very public he is asking to elect him, I, Tom Aswell, on behalf of LouisianaVoice has submitted the following public records request of Louisiana Tech President Les Guice:

Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana (R.S. 44:1 et seq.), I respectfully request the following information:

Please allow me to review all communications, including text messages, twitter messages, emails and any other written correspondence between any representative of Louisiana Tech University (including any member of the university’s administration and/or the university public information office from U.S. Sen. David Vitter and/or any member of his Senate and/or campaign staff or representative/spokesperson for David Vitter, including aides, public relations firms, advertising agencies, Fund for Louisiana’s Future, or anyone else serving in a capacity to promote his gubernatorial campaign. Such request is limited to any and all discussions of the gubernatorial debate of Thursday, October 15, 2015 at Louisiana Tech University, including, but not limited to any and all parameters, restrictions, and/or criteria of said debate, including any advance questions submitted or to be submitted to such spokespersons and/or David Vitter, any demands, suggestions and/or stipulations as to who may or may not be allowed to attend said debate and any reasons and/or justification given to support such demands, suggestions and/or stipulations.

Just so there are no misunderstandings about what information I am entitled to, below are some major requirements of the Louisiana Public Records Act (R.S. 44:1, et seq.) and remedies that are available to us for non-compliance with the law:

LOUISIANA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, L.R.S. 44:1 ET SEQ

WHAT ARE PUBLIC RECORDS UNDER THE ACT?

To be “public,” the record must have been used, prepared, possessed, or retained for use in connection with a function performed under authority of the Louisiana Constitution, a state law, or an ordinance, regulation, mandate, or order of a public body. This definition covers virtually every kind of record kept by a state or local governmental body. La. R.S. 44:1(A)(1). In Louisiana, a “public record” includes books, records, writings, letters, memos, microfilm, and photographs, including copies and other reproductions.

WHO CAN REQUEST PUBLIC RECORDS?

In Louisiana, any person at least 18 years of age may inspect, copy, reproduce or obtain a copy of any public record. La. R.S. 44:32. The purpose for the document request is immaterial, and an agency or record custodian may not inquire as to the reason, except to justify a fee waiver.

HOW TO MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

A request to review or copy a public record is made to the custodian of the records. The custodian is the public official or head of any public body having custody or control of the public record, or a representative authorized to respond to requests to inspect public records.

You may also make an oral request in person to inspect a public record. At that time, the public record must be immediately presented to you, unless the record is not immediately available or is being actively used at the time. If the public record is not immediately available, the custodian must promptly notify you in writing of the reason why the record is not immediately available and fix a day and hour within three days (excluding Saturday, Sunday, and legal holidays) when the records will be made available.

Enforcing The Public Records Law

A custodian who determines a record is not public, must provide written reasons, including the legal basis, within three working days. If a requester is denied a public record by a custodian or if five business days have passed since the initial request and the custodian has not responded, the requester may file a civil suit to enforce his right to access. The custodian bears the burden of proving that the record is not subject to disclosure because of either privacy rights or a specific exemption. The law requires the courts to act expeditiously in such suits and to render a decision “as soon as practicable.” If the requester prevails in the suit, the court will award reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. If the requester partially prevails, the court may, at its discretion, award reasonable attorney’s fees or an appropriate portion thereof. (The custodian and the public body may each be held liable for the payment of the requester’s attorney’s fees and other costs of litigation; however, the custodian cannot be held personally liable for these fees and costs if he acted on advice from a lawyer representing the public body.) The court may also award the requester civil penalties of up to $100 for each day the custodian arbitrarily failed to give a written explanation of the reasons for denying the request. In addition, if the court finds that the custodian arbitrarily or capriciously withheld a public record, it may award actual damages proven by the requester to have resulted from the custodian’s action. (The custodian may be held personally liable for the actual damages unless his denial of the request was based on advice from a lawyer representing the public body.)

In addition to civil remedies, the law also provides criminal penalties. Anyone with custody or control of a public record who violates the law or hinders the inspection of a public record will be fined $100 to $1,000, or imprisoned for one to six months upon first conviction. For a subsequent conviction, the penalty is a fine of $250 to $2,000 or imprisonment from two to six months, or both.

We amended this request about five minutes after we sent it after we received additional suggestions from a reader. The amended requests reads thus:

Any and all documents related to the Louisiana gubernatorial debate held on the Louisiana Tech campus on October 15, 2015.

Requesting specifically any and all e-mails, documents, audio files, digital files, and printed matters related to the debate rules, venue choice, reasons for not allowing an audience and press to be able to watch the event.

Requesting specifically any and all e-mails, documents, audio files, digital files, and printed matters from or to David Vitter, his office, his staff, including Luke Bolar, and others to any employee or volunteer at LA Tech since April 15, 2015. Requesting specifically any and all e-mails, documents, audio files, digital files, and printed matters from or to President Les Guice with the words “debate,” Vitter, “Edwards,” “Angelle,” “Dardenne,” “Senator,” “Governor,” or “Sen.”

Requesting a written rationale for not allowing students, staff, faculty, or the community to view the debate in person on campus.

Requesting a written rationale for the decision to allow certain radio and television stations to broadcast the event. and not allowing others.

Requesting a list of names, titles, and e-mail addresses for all persons involved in any way with planning, promoting, facilitating or decision-making related to the debate.

(Disclaimer: Not that it matters, but I am a 1970 graduate of Louisiana Tech.)

Read Full Post »

LouisianaVoice October fundraiser final day is Friday

Posted in Uncategorized on October 15, 2015| Leave a Comment »

Friday is the final day of the second (and final) LouisianaVoice fundraiser of 2015.

To those of you have responded so generously, we cannot begin to thank you enough.

We are still a little short of our goal and we still need your support to continue. We work at gathering information from the time we arise in the morning until we retire at night and we travel the state in order to keep you informed of what those you have entrusted with running the state are doing. One recent trip took us to the State Capitol in Mississippi in pursuit of documents pertaining to an incident in that state that involve a high ranking state official.

Those contributing $50 to $149 will receive a signed copy of my first book Louisiana Rocks: The True Genesis of Rock & Roll. Anyone giving $150 to $249 will receive a signed copy of my upcoming but as yet untitled book about the Bobby Jindal administration due for publication in January. Those giving $250 or more will received signed copies of both books.

To contribute by credit card, simply click on the yellow “Donate” button below right. Or you may mail checks to:

Capital News Service/LouisianaVoice

P.O. Box 922

Denham Springs, Louisiana 70727

Thanks so much.

Tom Aswell

Publisher

Read Full Post »

Guest columnist Earthmother unloads on economic theories of the 1 percent vs. poverty, hunger, inadequate health care

Posted in Economy, Education, Elections, Ethics, Guest Columnist, Health Care, Media, Politicians on October 15, 2015| 20 Comments »

“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” (Mahatma Ghandi)

“If you don’t want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don’t.” (Comedian John Fugelsang, sometimes mistakenly attributed to former President Jimmy Carter)

“A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling the poor people that other poor people are the reason they’re poor.” (NOLA.com comment, Oct. 14, 2015)

 

By guest columnist Earthmother

           Not being an economist, there is much I do not understand about macro-economics.  But as an observer, I have some questions that I hope some of you who do understand economic structure can help me comprehend.

(Disclaimer: I am not an ascetic and have not followed Jesus’ teaching to sell all that I have and give the proceeds to the poor. We’ve worked hard, have a nice home and nice things, way more than we need.  I try to remember that money is not the root of evil—the love of money is. In most ways I’m no different from any other middle class American.)

I get the thinking behind the desire of the “one percenters/oligarchs” (or whatever we choose to call the wealthy ultra conservatives) for a poor educational system for the masses while their own children attend outstanding non-public schools. This creates a latter day feudal, Dark Ages situation where people who are kept ignorant and uneducated are easier to control, and provide an unending source of cheap labor. With no critical thinking skills, the disadvantaged vote as they are told by overlord politicians and the hate media….never realizing that they themselves are members of “The Other” that the hatemongers are telling them are the reason their lives are difficult. (Here’s a sad little rabbit trail—to a suggestion that a woman speak to her school board member, she replied in fear, “Am I allowed to speak to elected people?  Will I get fired from my job or punished?”)

Several journeys to Third World type countries make one highly sensitive to socio-political trends that could result in similar conditions in this great country of ours. Here’s a brief, firsthand glimpse of what a nation looks like when the wealthy can afford all the luxuries the world offers while the majority of the population cannot afford the basic necessities of life.

With a minimal tax base and small government, there are few government services, and those are often corrupt.  Many streets are littered with garbage; people live in housing sometimes made of scraps, cardboard and tin—with no electricity or indoor plumbing. Children and adults, dressed in rags, beg for food or change, eat from garbage dumps, and root through trash for anything of use. People who get sick or injured often die because they are unable to afford basic healthcare; there is no government “safety net.”

People of all ages walk for a day to see a missionary doctor in a schoolhouse, then walk for a day back home. People bathe in and drink from polluted streams of water; they are infested with parasites, and die from infections that could be prevented with over-the-counter medicines but which are out of their reach.

When you’ve bought food for toddlers abandoned to the streets because the parents cannot afford to feed them, worked in an orphanage and talked to children who were rescued as army personnel and fun-loving civilians rid neighborhoods of “vermin” street children, you cherish you own kids more and pray such things could never happen at home.  (Google “street children shot” if you think this is melodramatic.) Women have babies they can’t afford to feed, in patriarchal societies where women have few rights and no access to birth control and family planning services, and are beaten if they say no. Men abandon their families en masse either to work far away or just to avoid their responsibility. Women have little education or job skills to be able to support themselves and their children. Even scarce jobs in skilled labor areas such as welding and construction pay paltry wages, leading to illegal immigration.

Louisiana already looks much like a Third World country in many ways. The litter problem is a startling similarity. We have cities with neighborhoods with lovely homes, world class restaurants and attractions, sprawling university campuses that turn out graduates who go on to lucrative careers in prestigious fields.

But we are also a national leader in several less attractive quality-of-life areas: poverty, chronic disease, AIDS and STDs, violent crime and income inequality, and we remain near-last in education and literacy, health care accessibility and outcomes, life expectancy and economic parity. There is a possible correlation between Louisiana’s high poverty rate and poor education, etc., and the fact that we also have the highest percentage of the population incarcerated in the U.S., which has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, gives us the dubious distinction of being the prison capital of the entire world.

Add an unfair, regressive  tax system, wages kept low so that people at the top can take home more, a criminal justice system that appears designed to perpetuate poverty,  uncaring and/or ineffective leaders, all agenda-driven and backed by a sophisticated and effective propaganda machine, and we have a Third World-style society in the making.

So finally to my questions: Since the one-percenters already have more money than they can spend in several lifetimes, and the servant class is already sufficient in number to care for them, how does it benefit them to impoverish large numbers of people and create a huge underclass? With no money to buy things, the poor can’t purchase the goods and services to keep the wealthy wealthy.

Why inflict the unpleasant sights of abject poverty on their families?  (Seeing these things is very disturbing if one has a heart at all.) Often the “let them eat cake” people don’t notice the poor and disadvantaged in our midst. No one has explained that people who are hungry, poorly nourished with non-nutritious foods, and chronically ill, are not good students or employees.

If not motivated by altruism, what about the purely pragmatic idea that throwing a bone to the underclass keeps the upper class safe in their homes and safe from people who have little and want to take theirs in order to survive. If you read local and national news it should come as no surprise that we already have a huge problem resulting from the struggle between the Haves and the Have-Nots.

Does denial of healthcare services to the less advantaged provide more and better care for the wealthy? Does paying a living wage and allowing employees to work enough hours to qualify for benefits and earn enough to pay the rent and buy food somehow diminish the rich?  Why destroy traditional corporate pension plans and also attempt to cut Social Security benefits, so that retirees fall into poverty and lose their dignity?

How does it make sense to deny birth control and family planning services to poor women, then penalize them for getting pregnant by curtailing pre-natal care and seeking to withhold nutrition assistance to mothers and children? Why continue to insist that cost-free abstinence-only is all that’s needed to prevent pregnancy, when it’s proven to be rather unrealistic? Has anyone reasoned that when women are abstinent, theoretically their male significant others are, too? Just ask Sen. Bill Cassidy’s teen daughter if it works, and ask never-married spokeswoman-in-chief Bristol Palin how that abstinence thing is working out for her and her growing family.

Why do smart people ignore the failure of Friedman Chicago School economics, wherever it’s been implemented, worldwide? (Hint: read Naomi Klein Shock Doctrine.)

It would be naïve not to acknowledge the fact that every dollar (or euro, kroner, peso, lempira, or whatever) not given up by the wealthy in the form of reasonable taxes or fair wages and benefits for employees is another dollar in their bank account. Employers’ base pay rates on the value they place on work, and employers certainly have that right. What does it say about one’s attitude about the inherent value of people who perform menial task—those who clean their toilets, secure their property, and cook and serve their food? When is more than enough enough? And why is it desirable and moral to deny everyone else a reasonable standard of living?

Seriously, what is the rationale for the rich wanting to keep other people down?   How does it benefit them? How does it enhance their lives, or take anything from them if other people have sufficient resources to live on? I was taught that the U.S. classless society was different from other countries where aristocrats controlled the peasants. Was that teaching wrong or just invalidated by human nature?

When did the term “common good” become socialist/un-American/anti-capitalist? When did it become alright to take funds from needy children, the poor, the sick, the disabled, and give those tax dollars to the rich in the form of corporate welfare, including sports franchises and motorsports tracks owned by mega-millionaires? Why do free market capitalists thinks it’s their right to demand government handouts to grow their wealth instead of investing their own money?

Awaiting enlightenment from folks wiser and more educated than I.

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »