Five myths about Ronald Reagan (guest post from The Washington Post)

I didn't write it but wish I had:

1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.

It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore.

2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.

Certainly, Reagan's boldest move as president was his 1981 tax cut, a sweeping measure that slashed the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans from 70 percent to 50 percent. The legislation also included smaller cuts in lower tax brackets, as well as big breaks for corporations and the oil industry. But the following year, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history.

Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.

And the middle- and lower-classes have been getting additionally screwed ever since, no less so than when George W. Bush and the Republicans gave huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in the country, as though they needed it, while adding trillions to the national debt.

3. Reagan was a hawk.

Long before he was elected president, Reagan predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse because of communism's inherent corruption and inefficiency. His forecast proved accurate, but it is not clear that his military buildup moved the process forward. Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. Indeed, a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan.

4. Reagan shrank the federal government.

Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This rhetorical flourish didn't stop the 40th president from increasing the federal government's size by every possible measure during his eight years in office.

Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. Many experts believe that Reagan's massive deficits not only worsened the recession of the early 1990s but doomed his successor, George H.W. Bush, to a one-term presidency by forcing him to abandon his "no new taxes" pledge.

5. Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.

Reagan's contributions to the culture wars of the 1980s were largely rhetorical and symbolic. Although he published a book in 1983 about his staunch opposition to abortion (overlooking the fact that he had legalized abortion in California as governor in the late 1960s), he never sought a constitutional ban on abortion. In fact, Reagan began the odd practice of speaking to anti-abortion rallies by phone instead of in person - a custom continued by subsequent Republican presidents. He also advocated prayer in public schools in speeches, but never in legislation.

Will Bunch is the author of "Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy." He is a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News and a senior fellow with Media Matters for America.So you know, there is far more to the article than what is shown here.  I only put up a bit for brevity.

So much for the mightily-revered Ronald Reagan and his presidency, eh?

Happy 100th birthday, Ron, wherever you are.

Link to original post:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104.html?sid=ST2011020403674

The number of Iraqis killed in this war?

Yesterday, I was watching the Sunday morning replay of "The McGlaughlin Group" (hey, I was relaxing and taking in all the news programs on a Sunday morning, sue me) when Mr. McGlaughlin showed statistics that 100,000 Iraqis died in this Iraq War, since 2003 since "W" and Co. began it all (arbitrarily).

I took note, obviously.

At the time I remember thinking two things.

First, "that's a lot of people to die" and second, "I wonder if I/we can trust that number."

Well it seems it's a good thing I was paying attention.

Check this out.

A report out today I just saw on the After Downing Street blog (AfterDowningStreet.org) tells the following:

"The former head of the UN’s chief nuclear agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, said in an interview with the British newspaper Guardian Wednesday that those who launched the war in Iraq were responsible for killing a million innocent people and could be held accountable under international law."

A million.

A million Iraqis killed in this war since 2003.

Hmmm.

Sure gets you to thinking.

And I have to tell you, I'm inclined to trust the former head of the UN's chief nuclear agency before I do right-winger, flag-waving John McGlaughlin. He seems to always be sticking his right-wing opinions on his show lately, in particular. (Or maybe I just wasn't either paying attention or that aware, before now).

With 4,385 American Soldiers being killed to date, this 100,000--or a million--Iraqis killed, 2 to 4 million Iraqis displaced (McGlaughlin figures yesterday, again) and $700 billion American dollars spent so far on this debacle/quagmire/clusterpuck, how can anyone conclude that attacking Iraq in 2003 was a good idea? (Even Pat Buchanan has said--several times--that it was a bad idea).

But they do.

Tragic in so many ways.

And we're still deeply engaged, with no end in sight.

My depressing find for the day (week, month)

On reading a bit yesterday about the shooter at the Pentagon yesterday and then on true government hate groups, I learned that there is a group organizing a "Second Amendment March" who's coordinating a march on Washington right now set for April 19th this year.

That's bad enough by itself.

But the date?

Besides being my Mother's birthday (God rest her soul) it is also the date of the first shots fired at Lexington in the Revolutionary War, the anniversary of the fiery end of the government siege in Waco and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Sick.

Sick in so many ways.

America seems to be one sad and hurting pup.

Further proof of premeditated first-degree murder

From The New York Times:

"In her opening statement, Ms. Foulston made clear that she intended to head off suggestions that Mr. Roeder’s acts were anything short of meticulously planned. Among the evidence she promised to show jurors: a brochure from Dr. Tiller’s Wichita church, dated nearly a year before the killing, and found at Mr. Roeder’s Kansas City home; a receipt for an ammunition purchase 11 days before the shooting; a Wichita motel registration bearing Mr. Roeder’s name from one week before the killing, a weekend when Dr. Tiller happened to miss church; and Mr. Roeder’s calendar — with the day of the shooting, May 31, marked with highlight."

So from this we can gather the following:

1) Roeder had been tracking Dr. Tiller for at least one year (brochure in his pocket)

2) purchase of ammunition 11 days before (I referred to this yesterday)

3) there is a good possibility the murderer was going to commit this same murder one week earlier but for Dr. Tiller missing church

4) the 1st degree murderer had clearly planned and dated when he wanted to commit his execution-style murder of Dr. Tiller in Dr. Tiller's church, by marking the date on his calendar.


My point in covering this?

There are some things--like unlimited corporate finance of political campaigns--that are so eggregious that I want to make sure they're explained, covered and communicated, so hopefully people know what's happening and so the right thing comes out of it.

As to the Supreme Court ruling last week on corporations and campaign financing, the wrong thing happened.

Hopefully the right and true, correct outcome will arise from Wichita and this Roeder, murder case and he will get a full life sentence, with no possibility of parole.

Michelle Malkin smart?

In response to SOJOCO's claim of how bright Michelle Malkin is. This is purely to give two sides to the coin, so to speak. (To be clear, I don't wish to get into a "pissing match", to use a crude euphimism, with SOJOCO or anyone else. As I said, I just want to give a 2nd side to a stand here).

See links--and proof--below:

Ms. Malkin, hoping--like Rush "Porkulus" Limbaugh--that the President fails:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/28/malkin-obama-fail/

Ms. Malkin, for instance, wasn't invited to sit in on Sen. John McCain's conference calls, while he was running for President last year:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/18/michelle-malkin-not-invit_n_102305.html

Ms. Malkin called Michelle Obama, during the campaign "First Crony":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/michelle-malkin-calls-mic_n_219247.html

Alex Koppelman describes Ms. Malkin's White Supremacist ties in detail:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-koppelman/michelle-malkins-white-s_b_20873.html

On Right-wing Conservative Bill Kristol calling Ms. Malkin a fascist:

http://hyerstandard.com/2008/01/08/michelle-malkin-is-an-idiot-and-thats-putting-it-nicely/

On Ms. Malkin claiming people would rather claim unemployment than work:

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/michelle-malkin-uses-bogus-claim-gets-s

On Ms. Malkin being photographed with a man and his Obama/Swastika sign:

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/you-stay-classy-michelle-malkin-poses

Ms. Malkin, in her own words--via video--on why President Obama was trying to have the Olympics in Chicago:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/cspanjunkie/michelle-malkin-why-obama-pushing-have

Now, admittedly, this is just dog-piling but here goes:

http://www.michellemalkinisanidiot.com/

http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=51713


It's just too easy, folks. She opens her mouth and out it comes.

Oh, and finally, I think Nicholas Kristof is the smart one here, hands down.

Again, have a great weekend.

The importance of this acknowledgement can not and should not be overlooked

A quote from far-right-wing Pat Buchanan from The McGlaughlin Group, earlier this evening:

"The Iraq War was a war of intervention, it was a war of choice, it was an unnecessary war."


The admission of this is such a blatant indictment of the George W. Bush Administration, it should not be overlooked or under-considered.

But it will be.

This makes me nearly weep for the over 4,000 soldiers, their families, friends and loved ones who lost their lives in this admittedly big mistake called the Second Iraq War.

Crazy, Right-wing, gun-loving Arizona

Did you see where Right-wing Arizona went koo-koo recently and got a few more extremely conservative laws on their books as of yesterday?

Oh, yeah. Guns and abortion.

I won't touch the abortion subject here but I couldn't pass up their gun ideas.

"The new laws allow guns to be kept in cars on campus, as well as on public and private properties."

Makes you want to send your son or daughter to ASU for college, doesn't it?

Here's the part that really gets me:

"Another new gun law allows licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons into bars and restaurants unless there is a sign on the property prohibiting firearms, according to state legislative documents."

You got that right.

Arizona is going to let people take their guns into bars.

That's always a good idea, don't you think? Guns and alcohol, your safest bet.

Fortunately, at least the head of the university sees the insanity of this:

"ASU President Michael Crow said in an Arizona Board of Regents meeting Friday that allowing concealed weapons in locked vehicles on campus goes against the environment he wants for the University.

'Our job as university presidents is to create an environment for openness, tolerance, communication, understanding — all these things,' Crow said. 'The public projection of weapons is a counter to the creation of that environment.'"

I'd love to hear what stand the local police groups had to say about allowing guns in bars and on university campuses.

To tie in with this story, I was doing some research to respond to a comment sent me by a reader and found an article from April, 2008 that showed that gun-related deaths in Hawai'i are the lowest in the nation and that this coincides with their stricter gun laws.

In yer' face, NRA.

I repeat, "more guns" is never the answer.


Here's the link to that story and data:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/04/26/editorial/editorial01.html

and this one:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/04/25/news/story01.html

While this links you to a story about Arizona's new laws:
http://www.statepress.com/node/7967

Sarah Palin?

Okay, Biden I get now, of course.

And I get the choice of Sarah Palin, too. She fits right in with the right-wing, conservative, religious, intolerant gun-toters. It's easy to see the appeal to that group.

But really. How easy is this?

I can't wait 'til the debate.

Question: If a 17 year-old young lady is pregnant, isn't SOMEBODY guilty of statutory rape?

Just askin'.

It's a whole other country, all right

Texas. Oh, yeah, like their advertising campaign of a few years ago said, it's a "whole other country", all right.

The proof this week?

It seems there is a small town--Harrold, Texas--that is letting its school's teachers and faculty carry sidearms.

Yeah. Guns.

Whereas the rest of the country--and maybe the world--sees the countryside as bucolic, peaceful and quiet, this town feels it must arm itself "just in case", because it's 20 or 30 miles from the nearest Sheriff's office. Should something happen, they want to be ready.

To me, this is further proof of why I want to stay away from that "God-fearing", gun-totin' state of Texas. Between their right-wing, narrow-minded, again, God-fearing, evangelistic viewpoints and their collective stance on guns, of which this is further proof, I'd just as soon not go. Outside of fun- and music-loving, more liberal Austin, which I'd only visit, you literally couldn't pay me enough to live in that whole, big place called Texas. No, thanks.

There are plenty of people who view Texas the way Californians view--or used to--their state of California. That is, there is no other place to live. But for me, between the heat and these various ways of thinking just become more and more proof of why I want to stay away.

And they won't be disappointed if I do.

See the full story here:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n15386617-texas-guns/