Juan: Reactionary Governing

After doing a review of the past six years, I've discovered one constand point. If liberal legislation had been passed, all of the major catasrophes of the 2000s could have been avoided or lessened. I know, that's a bold statement, but let's take a look...

2004 Tsunami:
The US was approached in 2001, after W took over, to be part of a multi-national investment to build a tsunami advance warning system. The US share of the $100 Million (not billion) program was around $30 Million. About 1/10 of the amount of aid we sent initially. This was pushed for by democrats who thought that it was important to protect our third world brothers. I'm suprised the corportions didn't fund it themselve to protect the people working our outsourced jobs in India. this was shot down in congress because they didn't see a need to help other countries. Thousands dead, billions spent.

2006 Fuel Shortages:
"Our dependancy of on foreign oil is a threat to our national security." Nice job, W. You've read your history books. This is not W's quote. This is Jimmy Carter in 1978. Republicans pushing for new fuel saving measure and alternative fuels is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. If you told Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh six years ago that they'd be praising hybrid cars and bio-diesel, they'd call you a dirty hippie. Lets not full ourselves. Bush and the GOP are pushing for the same thing that Jimmy Carter told us about in the 70s and Al Gore ran on in 2000. Had the country passed legislation over the past 25 years to be prepared for oil shortages and middle-eastern violence, we would not be in a crisis now. Result, increased strain on the working class, record profit for big oil and war fo the next ten years. Thousands dead, billions spent

2005 Katrina:
Boy, that Al Gore knew what he was talking about. In the 2000 election he said, "we have some major infrastructure problems in America." Yeah, like the New Orleans levees. Unfortunely for Louisiana, their senators and congressmen don't have the clout of a righty idealogue like Ted Stevens who can have a bridge built to nowhere. The money to rebuild the levees was removed from appropriations bills on at least three different occasions, by republicans. It was called pork. Most estimates put the cost of rebuilding levees around $300 Million. Pork, huh. Bridge to nowhere is around $1 Billion. Now we have hundreds of thousand of homeless and have lost one the greatest American cities. One of the few remain cities with real culture. Thanks Frist.

2005 Dead Coal Miners:
Unions are for communists. That's why they are in a constant legislation and lobbying fight to increase safety for their respective workers. Union lobbyists pushed for coal mine saftey reform numerous times of the past 50 years. One specifically called for mine owners to use technolgy to save workers stuck in collapsed mines. Defeated in the West Virginia assembly by republicans. So the owner's profit trumps worker saftey? Of course it does. 12 dead.

2001 9/11:
This is beyond the memo titled "bin laden determined to strike inside the US." This is about the things that have come about in reaction.

First off, Homeland Security. They even stole the title. Before being defeated by draft dodger Saxby Chambliss in Geogia, Max Cleland proposed a bill calling for the formation of a Department of Homeland Security-in 2000. It basically called for standardizing airport, port and infrastructure safety. It was defeated by republicans and dismissed as "big government." Cleland voted against the bill written after 9/11 in protest. Rove and GOP used it against it him. They labeled him a traitor in his election campaign against Saxby. I guess he left his three limbs in Vietnam for the communists to use against us.

Secondly, intelligence reform. This dates back to the Carter years as well. After Vietnam, the democrats called for a review of the intelligence channels. It was ended by the 1980 elections. Clinton tried again in 1996, but it was shot down. It is obvious from the 9/11 Commision Report that failed intelligence channels were to blame for the attacks. Yes, thousand dead, billions spent

2001-2006 Military readiness and staffing:
In Rumsfeld and W's miliary reform of 2001 (pre-9/11) they failed to build a military that was ready to fight a modern war. The first act was to realign the military to have the Air Force be the lead branch. In their eyes, all wars in the future could be resolved through air superiority. Also, in my opinion, to guarantee trillions of dollars to GOP contributors in the form of defense contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed. They built the military around the concept, and in the process re-approriated many active duty operations to the National Guard. This results in a smaller Army and strained National Guard. When Rummy said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want," it was suppposed to be a shot at Clinton. Well Donald, you made the army you wanted. Explain that to the National Guard college student who's been on active duty for three years and probably won't be able to finish school because of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Or explain it to the people who lost their homes in the wildfires. Wildfires that normally would have been fought by National Guard firefighters who were busy in Iraq and Afganistan. It's okay to expand the military. It doesn't have to mean more war. It means function, less strain and more jobs.
Thousand dead, billions spent.

So there are a couple examples. Keep your eyes peeled in the next ten years. There are numerous things that liberals have been fighting for that will end up being crisis that the repulicans will throw money out. Mad Cow, sustainable farming and health care debt are on the horizon.