George W. Bush is Abraham Lincoln?

I am afraid I owe President Bush an apology. All this time I thought he was Herbert Hoover and now come to find out he is really Abraham Lincoln according to Vice-President Cheney. Here is what I don’t understand, you have Dick Cheney and his ilk making preposterous claims like this unchallenged but when a black man, even a respected minister calls America on its hypocrisy they are lambasted. I am in no way condoning the statements of Pastor Wright, but I have to point out the inconsistency being displayed. The fact that Dick Cheney made this statement should enrage all men of conscious and it dishonors the memory of Abraham Lincoln as well as the men who died in one of our nations darkest hours. President Lincoln must have just rolled over in his grave at this one.

Cheney compared the administration's task now to Abraham Lincoln's during the Civil War. ''He never would have succeeded if he hadn't had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there,'' Cheney said of Lincoln in an interview broadcast Wednesday on ABC's ''Good Morning America.''[1]

Having dispatched my crack research staff to review the comparison in the event I may have overlooked some hidden similarities, they returned with the following results. George Bush and Abraham Lincoln share these two common traits both are white males and Republican Presidents. So following that logic every white male Republican President could be Abraham Lincoln, this is how low the bar is to clear to be compared with who many consider to be one of our greatest Presidents. So Richard Nixon is also Abraham Lincoln. According to Dick Cheney because Lincoln presided over an unpopular war and Bush is also presiding over an unpopular war they are comparable. I personally find the comparison of the Civil War with the Iraq War a travesty. How could anyone in their right mind draw any similarities between the two, unless Mr. Cheney is finally conceding that what we have in Iraq is a civil war. In which case his acknowledgment of this fact would be the closet thing we have had to date of honesty on his behalf.

No Mr. Cheney the are a few distinctions between the war that was thrust upon Lincoln and the war created by you and Bush. Lincoln did not invade a sovereign nation on the pretense of WMD’s or support for 9/11 terrorists. Claims which were later to be proved false. To compare ousting Saddam Hussein with ending slavery is ludicrous and once again displays how far from reality Dick Cheney has gone. So, it is ok for the Vice-President of the US to make these types of statements but we are going to fall apart as a nation because of the comments of a black pastor that before this incident few people even knew? Give me a break. If we as a nation were able to survive the divisiveness of Bush and Cheney, we can certainly survive a little dose of black reality television. Of course in America war and death are easier subjects to broach than race. We don’t mind the carnage and the mortgaging of our futures for a little death and mayhem, but God forbid if we open a discussion about race. Who put the turd in the swimming pool?

''The surge ... has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror,'' the president said. ''We are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated.''

Bush appeared to be referring to recent cooperation by local Iraqis with the U.S. military against the group known as al-Qaida in Iraq, a mostly homegrown, though foreign-led, Sunni-based insurgency. Experts question how closely -- or even whether -- the group is connected to the international al-Qaida network. As for bin Laden, he is rarely heard from and is believed to be hiding in Pakistan.[2]

And finally it is good to know that we are finally defeating an enemy that didn’t exist before we invaded Iraq. Of course what Bush, Cheney, or McCain have failed to mention is that we are having to pay these people not to attack our troops. Is democracy the best? Well, I am glad to see that while we may be unable to export democracy, we sure don’t have a problem exporting capitalism. If you can’t beat ‘em, pay ‘em. Of course this begs the eventual question of what happens when the money runs out? I would be really interested to hear John McCain answer to that question, especially since he could be the next Abraham Lincoln.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Read more!

Bush And The Gas Bubble

Why is the price of gas so high? Why is crude oil trading at all-time highs? It seems like everyday we set a new record price for crude oil. Has there been an outbreak of another war in the Middle-East that I have missed? What I have learned is that the price of gas and the record crude oil prices have nothing to do with reality. The truth is that all those rich speculators and hedge fund managers that caused the mortgage crisis have now when that bubble has burst moved their money from the stock markets to commodities. That’s right with the market taking a beating from the credit mess the “smart money” has moved to oil speculation.

According to the statement from OPEC, the global market is "well-supplied, with current commercial oil stocks standing above their five-year average." Today's prices don't reflect market fundamentals, OPEC said, but the weakness of the dollar, rising inflation and the "significant flow of funds into the commodities market."[1]

So if there is not a shortage of oil why am I paying through the nose for gas? The problem is two fold. First there is greater consumption in the world, so what was enough five years ago is not enough today. With the addition of China and India wanting to fuel their industrial revolutions the reserves are not going as far as they use to. Of course you also have the US marketing and buying SUV’s and “crossovers” like there is no tomorrow. I’m sorry I need some help on this one, we have been aware of the problems of dependency on oil and other non-renewable fuels since the 70’s and yet here it is in 2008 and instead of having vehicles that use less fuel we have the biggest vehicles in our history. Newsflash – Crossover vehicles are not smaller fuel efficient SUV’s, they are giant station wagons.

Not exactly. None of this price run-up could be possible without the unbridled consumption of oil in the United States, by far the largest oil user, and the soaring consumption of rising economies such as China and India. Increasing political tensions make shortages a possibility, and markets factor in that risk, which drives prices higher.

"I think the biggest problem is pure fear. Right now there is no supply problem," said David Wyss, chief economist for the New York rating agency Standard & Poor's. "What happens if Venezuela goes to war in Colombia? What happens if various crises in Nigeria get loose? Iran is always making noises."

Fearing the potential for shortages, investors are willing to pay a premium.

"They're not buying oil, they're buying insurance," Wyss said.[2]

Now we are forced to go hat in hand to the Saudis and other oil producers to beg for an increase in production in the hope that this will reduce prices. The second problem is that it isn’t just about production, it is about our oil policy. It is about an oil policy that rewards the big oil companies with tax incentives to continue to buy foreign oil while we spend nothing on research for renewable sources and reduction in consumption. Our energy policy eerily resembles our drug policy, instead of trying to stem consumption we spend billions of dollars to eradicate the problem in the countries where it isn’t a problem. The Saudis do not have an energy problem, we do. So while President Bush wants to continue giving his big oil friends and family tax breaks our economy rapidly approaches meltdown. And all the while we hasten the process by purchasing vehicles that don’t meet our needs but instead meet our egos.

There is no oil shortage. What there is a shortage of is common sense and willpower. I recently saw a commercial from one of the big oil companies promoting how they are now part of the solution to our energy needs. Whenever corporate profits exceed any justifiable limit they immediately roll-out these PR ads stating how they are using all of these ungodly profits not to benefit the corporate elite, but average Joes like you and me. I sleep better already just knowing that big oil is working to create renewable energy sources that will conceivably put them out of business. Remember, ignore the man behind the curtain and focus on the great Oz. The greedy see an opportunity to enrich themselves again with commodities so don’t be surprised if the price of oil is not the only thing that rises. All of which will continue to put inflationary pressure on our economy and push us closer to the brink.

Instead of having regulatory agencies that protect the consumers from this type of speculation we have “free market” forces that for some strange reason are only good when they favor the wealthy. Why aren’t free markets good for all products? Why are we subsidizing commodities like produce, oil, and sugar? The truth is that we continue to subsidize these markets because our politicians have been bought and sold like so many bushels of corn and will continue to allow industries to write their own legislation and regulate themselves and in the end we will all suffer. We will continue to have to choose between gas and food or gas and medicine. Isn’t free enterprise wonderful? This bubble will eventually burst just like the previous ones, but in the process many families are going to be hurting and that will be the real tragedy.

[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29586.html
[2] Ibid

Read more!

If You Run On Religious Issues

If you run on religious issues, then your religion is fair game. I am a secularist Orthodox Christian and I believe that a candidate for public office religious background is private, unless that candidate interjects it into the campaign. The problem I have with the Republican presidential candidates who are running on moral issues is that on the one hand they parade their religious convictions when it is convenient and when it causes uneasiness it is all of a sudden out of bounds. It reminds me of the Dick Cheney lesbian daughter deal, it is ok for Mr. Cheney to discuss the evils of homosexuality as long as it is someone else’s homosexuality, it is an invasion of privacy for someone to discuss his daughter’s sexual orientation.

Today, in the closing weeks before the Iowa caucus, Mr. Huckabee is energetically selling his religious credentials, saying voters should pick a candidate who speaks “the language of Zion” as a “mother tongue,” and running television commercials flashing the words “Christian Leader.” He talks eagerly about theology issues in political debates (displaying his TV-trained ability to speak in exact 45-second segments) and cites Scripture on the trail.

In Iowa, where he and Mr. Romney are locked in a tight race, Mr. Huckabee has capitalized on conservative Christian animosity toward Mormons, pointedly refusing to dispute the common evangelical characterization of Mormonism as a cult.[1]

I placed this quote in the diary because to me it highlights this principle in two ways. First it shows how when it is convenient these candidates will seek to be the “great shepherd” of the flock as in Mr. Huckabee’s case, but then when that religion is questioned as in Mr. Romney’s case then it is off-limits. The other interesting part of this quote is how it depicts the heart of the modern evangelical movement in America, Mr. Huckabee is willing to cannibalize another “so-called” Christian for his own political gain. The old my God is bigger than your God mentality. Instead of using his soapbox to promote tolerance and unity of the Church, he is accepting of intolerance and bigotry within the body. If Mr. Huckabee is so willing to sacrifice a fellow Christian in the primaries what will he do in the Oval Office?

For better or for worse, we live in a secular society. The founders of this nation insured that it would be, so technically what an individual candidate’s religious affiliation is should be private. I believe that it is important to know what a candidate does or does not believe, but that belief should not qualify nor disqualify anyone for office. The problem is when you make religion and moral values campaign issues you do more to divide the country than to unite it. We do not have a state Church, nor do we have a monolithic religious body. Instead we have more different denominations and religious orders than any country in the world, so when one group comes along and claims supreme truth it tends to alienate the other groups. This may be fine for the individual group, but when you are running to lead all the groups it can be problematic.

If we have learned anything from the “compassionate conservatism” of George Bush, it should be that what a person says in public is irrelevant in comparison to what he does in private. Too often those who espouse their religious convictions publically are having a difficult time adhering to them privately. We all want to be judged on what we say and not on what we do. It is easy for candidates to espouse certain values publically (Larry Craig) and yet live a completely different way. I don’t really care what you say, I do care what you do. There seems to be this disconnect between speech and actions and it is not just confined to Republicans, they just seem to be better at it.

In his “Kennedy moment” Mr. Romney made the following quote, which I find terribly misleading and self-serving.

“I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith,” Mr. Romney told the invited audience at the at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station, Tex.[2]

The truth of the matter is Mr. Romney, yes you do define your campaign in religious terms and so to come out now that your religion is being questioned and say otherwise is a lie. When you campaign as a religious conservative and court that voting block then you are casting your campaign in a religious light. It’s funny how when he was leading in the polls he did not find it necessary to divorce his religion from his candidacy, but as soon as he begins to fade now he wants to be treated as a secular politician. I’m sorry sir, you can’t have it both ways.

It seems that once again Mr. Romney wants to reinvent and recast himself to gain political traction. Mr. Romney has no trouble creating himself into whatever he thinks will get him elected. I would have more respect for him if he remained true to his core beliefs, but with these guys they have no core beliefs to remain true to. It is all about getting elected at whatever cost.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/politics/06huckabee.html?pagewanted=3&hp&adxnnlx=1196957159-AFoWMyxhWPk2m6xuRuNh7A
[2] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/romneys-speech-on-faith/index.html?hp

Read more!

Oh My Goodness, Hamas Won?

In case anyone needs to know why the Annapolis talks are DOA, the previous statement uttered by Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice should clear up any doubt. This statement was uttered by Ms. Rice in response to the news that after the Palestinian elections she helped to usher in the Hamas faction had won the majority of seats. I remember from my pre-law days the admonition of one of my professors, “Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”. You would never schedule a democratic election, if you can’t guarantee the democratic results. Neither should you setup a final peace conference, if you don’t have any final peace agreement.

Nearly seven tumultuous years later, Ms. Rice, as secretary of state, has led the Bush administration to a startling turnaround and is now thrusting the United States as forcefully as Mr. Clinton once did into the role of mediator between the Israelis and Palestinians. The culmination of her efforts occurs this week in Annapolis, Md., as Mr. Bush, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, meet to set the outlines of a final peace agreement before the end of Mr. Bush’s term.[1]

These talks have a snowballs chance in hell of creating any long-term peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Prior to a conference on this scale there has been behind the scenes negotiations that have ironed out the language and details of the agreement, to my knowledge there have been no such meetings. Without the proper groundwork what could she possibly hope to accomplish? The answer of course is nothing this is just another one of this administrations dog and pony shows where there is all sizzle and no substance.

There has been no movement on either side on the major issues that divide both sides, namely the borders and the refugee questions. There has been no movement on the roadmap. You have the majority of Palestinians supporting Hamas who was not invited to the conference, so what can you hope to accomplish without one of the major parties being present? If this weren’t so important and tragic, it would be almost hilarious. Ms. Rice has never been willing to push Israel enough to get a comprehensive agreement with enough concessions to make it palatable to the Palestinians. Just the fact that they are negotiating with a wounded Prime Minister from Palestine shows the desperation of Ms. Rice and this administration to be known for more than the Iraq war debacle.

Many other Middle East experts remain unconvinced as well, particularly since the failure so far of the Israelis and Palestinians to agree on a joint statement to come out of the 40-nation conference has forced Ms. Rice to recast Annapolis as the start rather than the end of negotiations. Critics say she is organizing little more than an elaborate photo opportunity.[2]

So it seems rather than produce any meaningful agreement, this administration in the person of Ms. Rice is content to present a charade for the cameras and the US media. It will give everyone cover for continuing the status quo. We will have plenty of pictures of serious looking diplomats discussing the seriousness of peace in the Middle East, followed by a joint statement of nothingness by all parties, vowing to continue seeking peace. Once the cameras have been turned off, there will be a continuation of business as usual. There is too much invested for all concerned in maintaining the status quo, Abbas has no mandate outside of what Israel and the US gives him, Olmert does not have the political muscle to secure major concessions especially with the Palestinians being fractured, and the US has its hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran on the horizon, the other Arab states just need to look like they are seeking peace and justice for the Palestinians to keep their populations stable. The only ones seeking peace have no power to bring it about.

For Ms. Rice, Annapolis reflects her evolution from passive participant to activist diplomat who has been willing to break with Mr. Cheney and other conservatives skeptical of an American diplomatic role in the Middle East. Mr. Cheney argued with Ms. Rice against a pivotal Middle East speech that Mr. Bush gave in 2002 in the Rose Garden, fought her on a host of other issues, including Iran and North Korea, and today surrounds himself with senior advisers dubious about the Annapolis meeting.[3]

Condoleezza Rice has no serious backing in the administration for this effort. The President is vague and not invested and the Vice-President is totally not onboard. It appears that this is just Mr. Bush offering a token concession to Ms. Rice for her loyalty and their friendship. His position does not appear to have changed from early in his first term, where he did not feel obliged to become entangled in the whole Middle East peace process. Peace and negotiations are messy and tiresome, it’s not the cowboy way. Cowboys kick butt, cowboys do regime change and invasion. Negotiations are for weaklings and sissies, not tough guys like Bush and Cheney.

So let’s give a toast to Condi Rice and all the other dignitaries who will be getting face time on television and the cable news talking heads, but in the end, “oh my goodness, Hamas still won…”

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26rice.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1196111064-1JAQdjqOZo2fhh95B2WPLA
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26rice.html?hp

Read more!

Cheney – George Bush’s Spine

If Karl Rove was Bush’s brain, then Dick Cheney must certainly be Bush’s spine. The rogue VP whose office is conducting its own foreign policy, domestic agenda, and war-mongering has been the architect of many of the debacles of this administration. The ever bellicose chicken-hawk continues to pump his chest with heroic prowess, yet when given the opportunity to display this warriors courage decided to dodge the war. He was needed in Wyoming to fight the local VC insurgents who were planning a behind the lines enemy offensive.

June 29, 2007 - Dick Cheney is like “Zelig,” the Woody Allen character with the uncanny ability to turn up everywhere. We always suspected his dark influence throughout the government, and now it’s been documented chapter and verse in an exhaustive series in The Washington Post. Cheney operates largely in secret, and because he is such a skilled bureaucratic infighter, he’s able to do end runs around everybody, including President Bush, who does nothing to rein in his evil twin.[1]

Dick Cheney articulates the Neo-Con wingnut philosophy in a manner that limits the choices George Bush is allowed to consider. A President is bombarded by information, opinions, and opposing views on every issue that crosses his desk. It would be a monumental task to keep abreast of all of this information for a very intelligent person, but for a C, legacy student it would be impossible. So like many of his predecessors that have lacked intellectual curiosity, Mr. Bush relies on close allies to direct his decisions. This is why loyalty is valued more than competency in his administration. It is more important to protect the President’s incompetence than to be qualified to make correct decisions. This is why Mr. Bush has never held anyone accountable in his administration for anything, no matter how calamitous the results.

Cheney, 66, grew up in Lincoln, Neb., and Casper, Wyo., acquiring a Westerner's passion for hunting and fishing but not for the Democratic politics of his parents. He wed his high school sweetheart, Lynne Vincent, beginning what friends describe as a lifelong love affair. Cheney flunked out of Yale but became a highly regarded PhD candidate in political science at the University of Wisconsin -- avoiding the Vietnam War draft with five deferments along the way -- before abandoning the doctoral program and heading to Washington as a junior congressional aide.[2]

Mr. Cheney personifies the tough western American image; he manages by fear and intimidation. He is what George Bush wishes he could be, someone feared and whose authority goes unchallenged. Cheney has shown a total disregard for any authority outside his own, as evidenced by his statement of being a separate branch of the government. It has been asserted that Cheney is the engine that makes the train goes, but I disagree. Cheney asserts a certain level of power over Bush, but not by overt means. He asserts this power through the limited choices he provides Bush and through his evisceration of any competitive opinions. By providing Bush with limited choices that Cheney has condensed through his input at the staff level, he focuses the President’s agenda to only the options he provides.

We should not be fooled; Cheney is providing the options to policies the President has signed off on in broader terms long ago. Cheney gives direction and targets for Bush’s overall agenda. An agenda that Bush brought with him to Washington, one that Cheney provides methods for implementation. It is in these methods that Cheney exerts influence over Bush. When a situation may offer two options; one using diplomacy and the other projecting American military power, these are the arguments Cheney has prevailed in. This is why I call him Bush’s spine; he emboldens Bush to become the “warrior President”. I just find it strange that when both men had the opportunity to display their warrior prowess, both chose to decline. It’s easy to be tough with someone else’s life.

The vice president's reputation and, some say, his influence, have suffered in the past year and a half. Cheney lost his closest aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to a perjury conviction, and his onetime mentor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, in a Cabinet purge. A shooting accident in Texas, and increasing gaps between his rhetoric and events in Iraq, have exposed him to ridicule and approval ratings in the teens. Cheney expresses indifference, in public and private, to any verdict but history's, and those close to him say he means it.[3]

Many believe that Cheney’s influence is waning based on a number of calamities in the past year or so concerning his office and his lost of key personnel, I am not so sure. I think his influence is decreasing, but not because of any change in the relationship between Bush and Cheney, but because as Bush surveys his time in office and its place in history he is discovering he has little if any positives. Hence his willingness to sign off on the North Korea deal, even though Cheney and his wingnuts were totally against it. It’s strange how when a President finally acknowledges the finality of his presidency he wants to become the statesman he never was before. That whole legacy syndrome thing being played out on the world’s stage. Bush will need less spine and more brain to try to recoup any semblance of a successful presidency.

[1]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19507575/site/newsweek/
[2] http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/
[3] http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/

Read more!

The Best Government Money Can Buy 3

Limit the number of lobbyists, the amount of money they are able to donate, and require a ten year ban on government officials and employees from joining or lobbying for corporations in which they have worked on legislation for.

My next suggestion for returning our democracy to the people concerns lobbyist and special interest groups. For the purpose of demonstrating how off track the process is, I will refer to the recent legislation of adding the prescription drug bill to Medicare. If witnessing the blatant influence peddling and quid pro quo of this lobbying effort by the pharmaceutical companies in conjunction with our government officials does not elicit anger and outrage then I am afraid nothing will.

Here is some quick background on the bill for those who missed the slaughter of our legislative process. The purpose of the bill was to provide affordable prescription drug benefits to Medicare for seniors who were spending too much money for medication not covered under the current Medicare plan. On the surface this seemed like a noble and appropriate task for the government to do, it was part of President Bush’s domestic agenda and bipartisanship was suppose to ensure that the bill would address the concerns of all Americans. What was supposed to be a modest increase in an existing program turned into the biggest government giveaway and new program in 40 years, so much for fiscally conservative. The only times these guys are fiscally conservative is when it is something that may benefit the working poor or just plain poor people in general (minimum wage, food stamps, etc.).

Now here is where the picture gets fuzzy, once the bill began to be constructed and debated it became extremely difficult to distinguish the lobbyist from the government staffers and elected officials. It was only after the bill passed and was signed that we realized why it was so difficult to tell who was who, it appears that a number of government employees were actually auditioning for new jobs with the pharmaceutical companies. How is this possible?

On June 23, 2004, Public Citizen released a study noting that:

Drug Industry and HMOs Deployed an Army of Nearly 1,000 Lobbyists to Push Medicare Bill

Special Interests Spent $141 Million in 2003, Hired 431 Lobbyists With "Revolving Door" Connections to Congress and the White House

"The revolving door between the White House and K Street has made the Bush administration indistinguishable from the industry," said Craig Aaron, senior researcher for Public Citizen's Congress Watch and lead author of the report.

"If it wasn't bad enough that most of the key negotiators working on the Medicare bill were preparing to cash in on K Street as soon as it passed, Bush has brought in more drug industry and HMO insiders to implement and promote this disastrous new law."[1]

The number of lobbyist working Washington DC in 2005 was 34,750; this is double the number since 2000. This is ridiculous. How can we expect our representatives to get anything done when they are swimming in a sea of sharks? Of these 34,750 lobbyists, how many do you think represent the middle-class, working poor and poor people of this country? Why is it that we can’t regulate the industries in which the rich dominate? We need to begin to regulate this industry today. This isn’t some group of guys trying to make an honest buck working their tails off; no, these are the influence peddlers and corporate minions hijacking our democracy.

Next, we need to limit the amount of money corporations and special interest groups and donate to any political party or candidate. This isn’t about 1^st Amendment freedoms; those freedoms were designed for people. We have been hoodwinked into believing that by limiting these funds that we are impeding the rights of corporations. Corporations have no rights under the Constitution; they only have the rights we accord them. They are not entitled to freedom of speech, equal protection, or any of the other rights we afford to humans. Congressman Walter Jones puts it this way.

As Jones put it, “the pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill.” It is amazing that an industry can control the rules and regulations made to govern them. How long will the American people put up with this?[2]

Legislation is no longer being written by our elected officials, it is being written by the same people it is suppose to restrain. Imagine if you will a major polluter being able to not only influence, but write the legislation that will set the standards that it will have to live by; amazing! Whatever happened to government oversight? It appears ladies and gentlemen that anything is possible in DC so long as you are the highest bidder. I can only echo Mr. Jones, “How long will the American people put up with this?”

The next area for overhaul is the policy of elected officials and staffers passing legislation and then going to work for the industry benefitted by the legislation before the ink can dry on the bill. Example: Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La steered the drug bill through the House and for all of his hard work he received a 2 million dollar a year lobbyist job for guess who? He became president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the chief lobby for brand-name drug companies. This goes beyond the laughable, if it wasn’t so tragic. The sad thing about it is Mr. Tauzin is not the only one using the revolving door from government to industry and vice versa. Remember our current Vice-President used the same revolving door to go from Halliburton to his current position in Never, Neverland.

I propose that there be a 10 year waiting period for all elected officials and staffers to go from government to an industry in which they had input into legislation. If this were done I guarantee you all this quid pro quo would be reduced. We must send a message to industry and our elected officials that influence peddling and corruption will not be tolerated. We want government, by the people and for the people to mean something once again.

---

[1] http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1733

[2] http://www.easyarticles.com/article.php?action=fullnews&id=48810

Read more!