Now we have Donald Rumsfeld blathering on about the "fascist" threat that must be taken seriously, or welcome back Adolf Hitler!
Those Republicans. They'll say anything to get your vote.
As I wrote yesterday, equating Islamic extremism, even if you believe it directly threatens all of Western ciivilization, to World War II fascism is worse than absurd. It's a cynical and calculated PR ploy by the Republican Party to stave off defeat in the upcoming midterm elections through fear and intimidation. It's a classic attempt by right-wing politicos to "frame the issue."
The use of the specter of Islamo-fascism brings to mind Bush's attempt to "frame" Social Security privatization with the phrase "ownership society." You remember that. All Americans should see themselves as "investors" in the great engine of national productivity. It was even claimed without much dissent that most American citizens were invested in the stock market. Thus private accounts for social security and medical savings accounts made perfectly good sense.
Problem is, it wasn't true. Not even close.
A report from the Economic Policy institute, a portion of which was just released, says (and here I quote Marie Cocco's column announcing the report):
"For all the popular fascination with Wall Street greed and glory, investment wealth is still a distant dream on Main Street: In 2004, more than half of all U.S. households held no stock at all. That includes stocks held indirectly in mutual funds and in 401(k) retirement accounts. And almost two out of three households that did own stock held portfolios valued at less than $5,000."
So let's do the math. According to my calculations, only 17% of U.S. households at best have anything approaching substantial holdings in the stock market. That's a far cry from "most." In fact, it's an outright fabrication. A lie.
Fortunately, not many people believed Bush's sales pitch for privatizing Social Security. But people keep pointing to the stock market as a measure of of the health of our economy. I say it's a measure of the health of the economy only for the very wealthiest among us.
And then there's health care, and the push for medical savngs accounts, which again only the very wealthiest would be able to take advantage of. The reality is that most people now, especially in the middle class, hold on to their jobs for the health insurance benefits they provide. Not just for the wages.
Health care is a huge issue, easily the most pressing one on the domestic front. Over at Blue Oregon, coincidentally, an interesting discussion arose following a piece by Steve Novick questioning the health care bona fides of Oregon's Senator Gordon Smith. Kari Chisholm hit the health care nail on the head with this comment:
"Here's the thing: It's simply not enough to jack up spending on health care for the poor. I mean, that's FINE and GOOD - but it doesn't solve the structural problem with our health care system.
"If health care inflation is something like 17% annually, but overall inflation is only something like 3% annually, then that means that health care is consuming an ever-increasing share of the economy.
"To put it even more simply, if health care spending at, say, the local school district is going up 17% a year, but overall revenues only go up 3% a year, then one of three things will happen: Either we find a way to bring health care spending under control, we jack up revenues (taxes) to pay for it, or health care eventually consumes 100% of the budget -- no teachers, no buildings, no books."
Doing something about health care is what we should be talking about. Not Islamo-fascism.
Recent Comments