Congress Isn't Ending the Wars

In October 2007 I wrote a blog post here saying that protests weren't going to end the Iraq war. I wrote the following paragraph to end the piece:

What can the anti-war movement do to get Congress to cut off funding? Put pressure on them. Organize letter writing campaigns. March on each congressional member's local office and demand an end to the war. March on the Capitol on a weekday when Congress is working. These activities are going to do more to end the war than marching on Washington on a Saturday when no one who can do anything to end the war is there. Hell, just writing a letter every day to your representative and senators would do more than a Saturday march on Washington.

Examining that paragraph again, what was I thinking when I mentioned organizing letter writing campaigns? I was under the illusion that Congress listened to the people. I was completely wrong.

It's obvious now that Congress doesn't listen to the people, but in my defense, I wrote the post a year before the bank bailouts. The American people wrote and called Congress, and the people were against the bailout 100 to 1. Congress voted to bail out the banks anyway, despite the strong opposition from the American people.

The bank bailouts showed Congress doesn't care what the public thinks. On March 10 Congress showed they have no intention of stopping the wars. The House voted 356 to 65 against Dennis Kucinich's resolution to leave Afghanistan.

Let that sink in. The vote was 356-65 in favor of continuing the Afghanistan War. 356-65 is not the Republicans and some Blue Dog Democrats coming together to keep the war going. 356-65 is strong bipartisan support for war. Democrats voted 189-60 to continue the war. Over 75% of Democrats, the supposed anti-war party, voted to continue the war. That should be a wake-up call to anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will end this article on a positive note. In my original article I said there were two ways to end the wars: the President can withdraw troops and Congress can cut off funding. There is a third option. The military could stop fighting. It worked in Vietnam, but it's tougher with an all-volunteer army. But the military getting fed up and refusing to fight is our best option at ending the wars right now.

Debt Can Get You Canned

I woke up today to see the following headline in the front page of the local paper:

67 DFAS workers to lose jobs due to personal debts

You can read the entire article, but if you don't want to, I'll summarize it. The War Department is firing 67 civilian employees in Cleveland because they have too much debt. They are not being fired for poor performance, but for having too much debt. Because they have too much debt, they are being fired by the War Department, which is part of an organization that is over $12 trillion in debt. Ironic, isn't it?

How are these people supposed to repay their debts if they get fired? Many companies won't hire people with bad credit. No job means no income. And no income means no way to repay their debts. It sounds like the government is trying drive people into bankruptcy.

Why Liberals Should Abandon the Democratic Party

I was reading the comments on this post on Dennis Kucinich's folding on Obama's health bill at A Tiny Revolution. Someone commented that liberal Democrats could learn from Republicans about when to compromise and when to walk away. A commenter named freemansfarm made the following response to that comment (If you read the comments, it's dated March 19, 2010 at 10:03 PM):

Almost all Republicans are conservatives, at the voter and office holder level. Only about half of Democrats are liberal, at both levels. Thus, the conservative "base" has a lot more leverage over "its" party than we, the liberal "base," have over "ours."

Although freemansfarm votes for Democrats, he makes the ultimate argument to not vote for them in the three sentences I quoted. The Democratic Party has no reason to do anything liberals want. Suppose you're a Democratic Party leader and have two options on an issue: Option A, which liberals like and non-liberals hate, and Option B, which liberals hate, and non-liberals like. Which option would you go with?

If you care about winning elections, you'll go with Option B. If you go with Option A, the non-liberals can go to the Republicans, which means you lose. By going with Option B, you get all the Democrats. The non-liberals stay with you because you're doing what they want. The liberals will be upset, but they'll vote for you. They won't vote Republican. They won't vote for a third-party candidate or not vote at all because they fear Republicans being in power. Democrats get the most votes by ignoring what liberals want and doing what non-liberals want.

Politicians care about one thing: getting elected. Democratic politicians currently increase their chances of getting elected by ignoring liberals and doing what non-liberals want. They will continue to do this as long as liberals continue to vote for them unconditionally. The only way for liberals to get Democratic politicians to enact liberal policies is to stop voting for Democrats.

Way to Go, Democrats in Congress

You stood up to the health insurance companies by passing the bill they wrote for you. Proud of you.

Who cares if everyone is forced to buy crappy private health insurance? What's important is Obama and the Democrats in Congress look like they're doing something to reform health care. Obama looking good is more important than actually reforming health care.

And a special thanks to Dennis Kucinich for selling us out. Thanks for voting for a healthcare bill you know is a massive giveaway to health insurance companies. And why did Dennis vote for such a terrible bill? So Obama's presidency isn't harmed. We can't have Obama's presidency harmed. If it were harmed, he might not be able to continue the stupid wars, the domestic spying, the torture, and the giveaways to corporate interests. He might not be able to continue giving us Bush's third term.

Union Money vs. Corporate Money

If this article is correct, unions gave the Democrats $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The Democrats have done nothing to help unions, which brings up a question. Why are politicians beholden to corporate money, but not union money?

When corporations give money to political candidates, the corporations get their way. You can see this in the health care debate. Health insurance companies and drug companies gave millions of dollars to candidates. In exchange, the Democrats made sure to cut off any discussion of single-payer health care or the federal government negotiating lower drug prices.

When unions give money to candidates, they get nothing. You would think $400 million would be enough to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. But the Democrats were principled enough to take the money and not let it affect their support of the Employee Free Choice Act. Why can't they be as principled with corporate money?