|
First, here is the original article I was responding to, from the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/14278604.htm
And here is my response:
I am a resident of Columbus, Ohio. I read with jaw-dropping disbelief the disingenuous opinion piece by someone called "James K. Boomer" in your April 6, 2006, online edition. What a load of unmitigated garbage this silly Bushbot has spewed onto your website! Wow. Let's have a look at some of Mr. Boomer's inane remarks, shall we?
------------
Boomer: "President Bush’s tax policies are responsible for today’s robust economy in which commerce and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth are at record levels."
The Facts: The Bush administration made a concerted effort to trumpet a “booming” U.S. economy in early December, widely understood as an attempt to reverse what polls indicate to be the public’s largely negative views on the matter.
There are, of course, obvious reasons the majority of Americans dissent from the White House’s rosy presentation of the economy: Most American households are not, in fact, seeing their economic fortunes improve. GDP is up, but virtually all the growth has gone into corporate profits and the incomes of the highest economic brackets. Wages and incomes for average workers, adjusted for inflation, are down in recent years; the median income for non-elderly households is down 4.8 percent since 2000 (Economic Policy Institute, 8/31/05). The poverty rate is rising, as is the number of people in debt.
But rather than confront these realities, and explore the implications of the White House’s efforts to deny them, most mainstream media instead assisted the Bush team’s PR by themselves feigning confusion over the gap between the official view and the public mood.
Source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2854 (FAIR, April 2006)
------------
Boomer: "In spite of those who complain about absolute dollars, which is meaningless, the fiscal year (FY) 2005 national debt was only 2.6 percent of GDP, a very manageable number. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget deficit estimates for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are 3.2 percent and 2.6 percent of GDP respectively, decreasing to less than 2 percent of GDP from FY 2007 through FY 2011."
The Facts: One can rail against the fiscal irresponsibility of an administration and Congress that have let federal spending grow by 5 percent a year in real terms, the fastest in 40 years, while slashing taxes and reducing revenues to levels that haven’t been seen since cars had tail fins.
One can also rail about the hypocrisy of policymakers agonizing over budget cuts that amount to three-tenths of 1 percent of federal spending while approving tax cuts and new appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina that dwarf the Lilliputian budget cuts.
Deficits have a way of hitting home in much more personal terms. If they continue to rise, they will crowd out investment, slow economic growth and reduce the average family’s annual income by $1,800 in just eight years.
Government debt probably will drive up interest rates, making the typical $250,000 mortgage, plus the interest that Americans pay on other purchases, cost about $3,000 more a year.
Moreover, if we keep our current promises to the elderly, without reforming entitlements, the average family would have to pay $7,000 a year more in taxes by 2030.
Source: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/14286619.htm (Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, April 7, 2006)
------------
Boomer: Unemployment is at 4.8 percent, the point at which the Federal Reserve worries about the economy “overheating.” And job growth is excellent.
The Facts: The most troubling aspect of the current economy is that many middle- and lower-income Americans have experienced few, if any, real income gains in recent years after adjustments for inflation -- despite increases in worker productivity and rising corporate profits.
Moreover, the retirement outlook for millions of Americans is worsening as a result of companies' cutting or freezing traditional pension benefits or eliminating such plans altogether for new employees. The retirement picture is further clouded by the failure of the Bush administration and Congress to successfully address the long-term funding shortfalls facing the Social Security and Medicare programs.
Times are especially tough for many low- and moderate-income, working-class Americans who are hammered by spiraling energy prices. They're paying appreciably more just to gas up their cars and heat their homes.
Many of them also are among the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance. If they're fortunate enough to have insurance, they've probably seen their premiums balloon at a rate that far outstrips any wage increase.
In August, the Census Bureau reported that the nation's poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent in 2004, the fourth consecutive year it has increased. That same Census report showed what has been a pronounced trend over most of the past quarter-century: Income inequality in America is growing appreciably.
Source: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/14065653.htm (Dallas-Ft.Worth Star-Telegram, March 10, 2006)
------------
Boomer: President Bush’s initiatives are right. We are going after those whose aim is to kill Americans and other free people (remember 9/11?). Regarding Iraq: For 11 years, Saddam Hussein, a terrorist and murderer who rewarded families of suicide bombers, defied the United Nations’ demands that he come clean on his weapons systems, in spite of his promises to comply. After 11 years of failed multi-nation diplomacy, President Bush called for either action or admission that the UN is a toothless paper tiger.
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction infrastructure and systems.
The Facts: I'm sorry, but this is simply so crazy that it doesn't require a detailed response. The implication that Bush's Iraq War is some sort of "payback" for 9/11 is, of course, absurd. Even Bush has denied this. Saddam had no WMD, so he could not "come clean on his weapons systems", other than to deny their existence, which he did. The "11 years of failed multi-nation diplomacy" had Saddam boxed in, with no-fly zones, with no weapons and no military of any note. None of his immediate neighbors felt threatened by him, yet we in America were to quake in our boots over his aluminum tubes, unmanned drones and yellowcake from Niger. Please.
------------
Boomer: In spite of the violence, Iraqis are on the road to a democratic society. They have prepared a constitution; they have had major elections with massive turnouts; major strides have been made in rebuilding their education, power, water, sewage treatment, healthcare and economy, all in shambles under Saddam (see the U.S. Agency for International Development Web site at www.usaid.gov for details). Major progress has also being made creating capable armed forces and police forces.
The Facts: The Brookings Institution's Iraq Index says that before the war, clean water was available to 12.9 million Iraqis, or about half the nation. In 2005, 8.25 million people had clean water. Before the war, 6.2 million people had access to sewer systems. Today only 5 million do.
Before the war, Iraq generated about 4,000 megawatts of electricity per day. Today it's up to 4,100 megawatts a day. But in Baghdad, where 6 million Iraqis live, electricity usually is available only eight hours each day. Before the war, the power was on in the city 16 to 24 hours a day.
The United States promised to build or repair 425 electricity projects and 136 water and sewer projects. But in January, the office of the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction estimated that about a third of the projects would not be finished.
The Washington Post reported Monday that Parsons Corp. of Pasadena, Calif., which got about $1 billion in reconstruction money, would not complete 120 of the 142 health clinics it signed on to build. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is overseeing the project, terminated the contract and allowed Parsons to walk away.
Source: http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/editorial/14287030.htm (Belleville News-Democrat, April 7, 2006)
More Facts: The world got one more demonstration this week of the daunting complexity of the task before the United States and its allies in Iraq. In an attempt to move forward the stalled process of forming a central, ''unity'' government, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw flew into Baghdad. Sadly and maddeningly, their visit made the situation worse, not better.
The direct message from Secretaries Rice and Straw was that almost five months after that country's historic election, it remains bogged down in bringing together the country's ethnic and religious factions. Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite, has been unable to get the support of fellow Shia, much less the independent, Sunni and Kurdish officials. Thus, while Secretaries Rice and Straw were speaking in public about ''freedom on the march,'' they also were urging Mr. al-Jaafari to give up, to step aside. The hope, of course, is that another Shiite leader would do better.
In a word, Mr. al-Jaafari's response was ''no.'' The two secretaries might have expected that — the Iraqis are no less proud than the people of other nations, so the prospect of changing a leader because Western diplomats say so wasn't going to lead to an immediate change. However, when the visitors left, new facts about this quagmire came into view. Haider al-Abadi, one of Prime Minister al-Jaafari's top advisers, said the visit had backfired — ''They shouldn't have come.'' Others trying to form a government, including Sunnis and Kurds, said the same thing. In other words, both supporters and opponents of Mr. al-Jaafari ended the week at a more pessimistic place than they were last weekend.
Source: http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/all-editorial1apr07,0,51928.story?coll=all-newsopinion-hed (Morning Call Online, April 7, 2006)
Still More Facts: In fact, in February 2004, the Iraqi Governing Council failed to meet an imposed deadline for drafting an interim constitution, which was to provide the basis for the handover of power later that year. Additionally, in August 2005, the interim Iraqi government failed to meet three deadlines for reaching a consensus on a draft constitution. Iraqi citizens eventually approved the constitution in an October 15, 2005, referendum. Cheney then claimed that Iraq's security forces have seen "major progress." He claimed that "the reality" is that the Iraqi military has "been very successful now in terms of training and equipping over 100 battalions of Iraqi troops, and it continues to improve day-by-day."
While Schieffer immediately challenged Cheney, claiming that it is "also a reality that the violence continues," he failed to correct Cheney's assertion that the Iraqis have "met every single deadline." Also, as Cheney touted the progress in training Iraqi security forces, Schieffer failed to note that in February, the Pentagon reported that the number of Iraqi battalions capable of conducting operations without assistance from U.S. troops had been downgraded from one to zero.
Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200603210005 (Media Matters, March 21, 2006)
------------
Boomer: Those who call for major change in the administration need to objectively evaluate the progress our country has made under President Bush and offer specific, practical alternatives instead of misleading inaccuracies and blather.
The Facts: Boomer's loopy diatribe itself consists entirely of "misleading inaccuracies and blather", as I have just shown. I would think that the readers of your newspaper and its website deserve better. Do you agree? |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
