A Depressing Interlude

The Northwoods Politic

It's been four days since I've wrote. It's not that there wasn't a lot of sad crap going on in politics worth writing about, maybe it was because there was too much. Ah I guess it was kind of self inflicted. I spent a good share of my spare time watching videos of hearings on the website from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This is a great site to visit if you want to know what is going on in your government from a 'first hand' point of view. There you can read transcripts of hearing testimonies, opening and closing statements, or even watch videos of past hearings. You can also read letters sent to President Bush and other top administration officials demanding information, documents and tapes to be released. It changes, some of the videos even have a degree of drama as witnesses squirm or get defiant under pressure of questioning. This was the original venue of the video of Rep. Dennis Kucinich presented 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on the house floor.

You can go to the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate web sites and get news and video on important matters going through the House and Senate and various committee actions and news. There are online help forms to send Email communications to your representatives in office. Let your representatives know where you stand on the issues. Learn the inner workings of our government.

C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics is another great site on the web or available on most all cable and satellite television networks. This site will show many of the House and Senate hearings and debates on bills and other government business. There are news casts with current and upcoming political issues, events and coverage of the upcoming 2008 campaigns and primary elections. The TV networks have much of the same information that you can find online plus the political news casts, but online you have the option of watching and reading within your schedule when you have time to concentrate on the issues.

For our government to work correctly it is the responsibility of all it's citizens to take part to guide it on it's path. If the common people get discouraged and drop out of the process, that only leaves the rich, business, and special interests to court the government's power for their own gains. I think it has been shown again and again that left to the rich and big business that there isn't any issue more important to them than their bottom line and only things that affect their bottom line will get noticed or addressed. Our government is supposed to be balanced in it's care and deliberations to weigh the balance of educational, health, environmental, economic, and other issues. It is We the People that must stand up for our rights and demand that government is accountable to the people, or it will be We the People that continue to get the shaft.

What is really disheartening about all the illegal and immoral things that continue to go on in the government is that its like seeing a rat, for everyone that is exposed, you find there are over a dozen that you don't see.

A New Process for Selecting Our Representatives

What America needs is a new process for picking it's representatives. The way we chose our leaders has basically grown more and more flawed as the years gone by, morphing elections and thus changing politics into something totally different than our founders had ever in visioned. When this country was founded, there were only 13 colonies. It was a pretty easy task for everyone to know if one person held better leadership qualities than another person by their past actions. How we chose our leaders was much different than it is today. Through time, as our population spread out across the North American Continent, it became necessary for politicians to boast more and advertise their accomplishments to win over votes from people that they have never met or who have never heard of them before. Through the years the process of selecting our leaders has become broken. I'm not saying I have a completely worked out grand new plan to fix all our problems, but today I'm going to write about some of the reasons why I think our elections fail to bring before us good candidates for presidential selection who care as much for the interests of the common person on the street as they do for the interests of big business.

I've always heard that we are never going to get a person in office that is any more ethical or morally responsible then the people that put them in office. I somewhat agree with that statement. If the voters are not very ethical or moral, they won't hold the politicians they have elected accountable to being ethical or moral either. I do think that the way we select our politicians makes a big difference in the kind of leaders we have though.

One of the biggest failings in our process of selecting a government representative is the amount of money needed for anyone to run for office. This fails our government from the start in so many ways. One of the biggest ways this has a negative effect on our politicians is that they need to spend a pretty good share of time raising money for their re-elections, because they need lots of money to get re-elected. Usually, without some extenuating circumstances, or other form of fame and publicity, the person that spends the most money wins the election. It takes large amounts of money to travel around the district, state, or our country promoting one's self putting out television, internet, and radio ads. Ads must introduce the candidate, list where they stand on issues, tell of unscrupulous acts by the opposition, and defend one's self from smears made by the opposition. As our population grew and spread across the continent the cost of campaigning has grew.

Politicians are only human and it is human nature to do nice things for people who do nice things for us. Lets face it, people give large amounts of money or favors to candidates for basically one reason, and that is with the hope that their donations will help elect the candidate of their choice, and once in office that candidate will remember the donor's issues that they wanted help with. Other than that, whether it's a large amount of money from a large corporations or small amounts of money from individual donors, there is no other reason for anyone to give money to a candidate. It's a validation for the candidate. It's a way of saying you think like I do on the issues that matter to me, so here's some money to help you get elected so you can support those issues. Politicians are not supposed to think of who gave them how much money or let it influence their decisions when they vote on issues that may affect the donor, there are laws against it. But when money is so important to getting re-elected, who in their right mind would vote for something that would adversely affect someone who gives big money towards getting them elected?

Somehow we have to take the costs of campaigning out of the equation, that is about the only way to take the advantage away from big business and special interest groups. The government actually owns control of TV and Radio frequencies, there should be a certain amount of airtime given to the process of electing our representatives that they don't have to pay for. Candidates should have to present themselves within a structured format so that people can see where each candidate stands compared to their rivals. There should be no public advertisements by special interests groups smearing rival candidates. In fact anything that is said by a candidate or endorsed by a candidate should be factual. If it is found that any candidate lied about past voting records, past positions on issues, smears against rival candidates, they should be prosecuted for lieing or slander. It should not be up to the voting public to have to check up on every statement made by politicians and try to figure out whether it is a lie or not. We should demand that when politicians speak to us that they are telling the truth, they work for us after all.

Thanks For Reading

Thank you for reading. I have noticed that I am picking up a few readers on my blog. I want to thank all who have taken the time to check out my blog and a special thanks for those who have been interested enough to return multiple times. Thank you.

Long as I have your attention... Please feel free to leave a comment if you would like. The link to comments is at the end of each article, this is where you can agree or disagree and/or state your opinions. Comments are moderated not to deny opposing comments or viewpoints, (in fact I would encourage any civil exchange of ideas) but to try to catch profanity and to keep posts on subject. Please do not use profanity, respect the right of others to their opinions, and refrain from personal attacks of others.

The Northwoods Politic is my political views about headline news from my own personal Northern Wisconsin perspective. I have been in various stages of disability from fibromyalgia the last 15 years since having a back operation. To fill my time and to try to get a better understanding on our government I have been reading political news from articles off major online publications such as The New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, articles from the Associated Press, internet sources, various local papers and magazines. I claim to not be an expert on any subject, but if you agree or you disagree and think I'm off comment about it. You may change my mind, I may change your's, but in the end maybe we will all know more about the issue than we started with.

In the future I may change formats somewhat, maybe I will have some regular feature spots, but for now, most of my articles are my off the cuff reactions I have to political current news and events. As to which topics I write about, at this time, I tend to write about whatever PO's me the most at that particular point in time.

With a Little Help For My Friends

There has been scant information regarding the 2008 American/Iraqi agreement that President Bush wants to have in place by July 31st when the current agreement that the UN has for having military troops in Iraq expires. What information that has come out is mostly from the Iraqi government commenting publicly in frustration of their disagreements with what President Bush proposed and wants in the agreement.

I was reading that the agreement that the Bush Administration has been trying to pass on the Iraqi government is very similar to what the British tried to enforce back in the 30's. as seen below.

1930 Pact Between Iraq and Britain

1.) Iraq had to consult with Britain on security issues.

2.) Iraq had to allow Britain use of all road, airports, ports, railways, and rivers.

3.) Iraq had to allow Britain to have two major military bases within Iraq.

4.) Britain could station troops through out Iraq.

5.) Iraq had to grant personnel immunity from Iraqi laws and prosecutions.

Proposed 2008 Pact between Iraq and United States

1.) Would allow officials to detain or arrest suspected terrorists with out the approval of Iraqi government.

2.) Would allow the United States complete control over Iraqi airspace.

3.) Would allow approximately 58 U.S. military bases in Iraq.

4.) Would give the U.S. troops, contractors, and personnel immunity from Iraqi laws.

The pact of 1930 did not go well, the Iraqi populations rioted in the streets and protested violently. The 2008 pact will undoubtedly be met with about the same enthusiasm. With the lesson of the history of the pact in 1930 why would anyone propose basically the same pact? One reason is by calling our occupation in Iraq a pact the Bush Administration claims that the process doesn't have to go through with getting Congressional approval to stay in Iraq. Something the administration is pretty concrete about. Also by not having to get approved by Congress the Bush Administration is hoping to keep most terms of the pact secret, most likely until the end of their term in office, at least until after the pact is agreed on. KBR, a large contractor who Vice President Cheney was formally a chief executive over working for Halliburton, for food and housing for the troop has just received a big $150 billion, 10 year contract for a Iraq.

The answer became clear about a day later when news that the five major oil corporations have been awarded no bid contracts for working Iraq's oil reserves. It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to figure out, ok we'll concede some of these crazy issues in our proposed pact if you give my buddies in the oil industry non bid contracts to work your oil fields.

Speaking about oil industry buddies... President Bush lately has been pushing to have federally owned land and the coastal shelves opened up to drilling for oil saying that we need this to bring down the price of gas, but here's the kicker, the companies that make the big drilling rigs are already five years behind on their orders for deep water oil drilling rigs. If American oil companies put in their orders for oil rigs right now, it would be over five years before they would posess any new oil rigs. American oil interests already own the drilling rights on big areas of land that they are not utilizing yet. So why is it that there is a push to open coastal areas to drilling now? Well we have to set our oil buddies up now before the Bush Administration leaves office this fall, it has nothing to do with the price we are paying for gas right now. In fact many of the articles are carefully worded as this move would' "help surpress the high price of gas", that means to slow the rising of the cost of gas, not the reduction of the cost of gas.

It's just business as usual for the Bush gang. Their eithics seem to be that nothing is wrong with gouging the American public and their tax contrabutions and giving as much of that money as possible to their friends in high places before leaving office. Oh what a way to get by with a little help for my friends.

Bend Over America

In the latest news of the fleecing of America as reported in the New York Times. Charles M. Smith a former civilian overseer for the Army, overseeing the largest contractor of the Iraq war for food services, KBR, said he was ousted from his job because he refused to pay one billion dollars for questionable charges that were not substantiated by KBR. The Bush Administration must hate the New York Times.

KBR is a Houston-based company that provides food, housing and other services to the troops stationed in Iraq. KBR stands for Kellogg, Brown and Root and is the subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas company that Vice President Dick Cheney previously served as chief executive. Mr. Smith's position was then given to a colleague and KBR received all the money it was asking for, including the one billion that didn't have supporting records for.

So we have a war that support was gotten from Congress and the American people through the lies and misstatements from members of the Bush Administration, which included Vice President Dick Cheney, who has had strong ties with the KBR company. Doesn't this sound a bit like conflict of interest on the part of Vice President Dick Cheney? Hmmm, can we say kickbacks? For someone that came into a very high level of government from being a chief executive of the company in question, it would be hard to not imagine some kind of benefits coming back Cheney's way in some form or another. I suppose we will learn later, as this story breaks, that this is probably another one of the Bush Administration's no-bid contracts. If we are getting fleeced for at least one billion in food services, what about the other services that KBR supplies like in troop housing and other services? We'll see huh? It's a big surprise,not, that in our failing economy the only businesses doing well, extremely well, are businesses that the president and vice president are/were involved in, oil companies and companies involved with supplying services and weapons for the war in Iraq. Now Bush is pushing for the oil companies to be allowed to drill off shore, something that oil companies have been pushing for for some time, coincidence? I think not.

We can count on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will look into this and find in this case, as it has for other cases in the past, misconduct on the part of the Bush Administration. Yet, Hello Democrats, there will be no push by Democrats to follow through on impeachment proceedings against Bush or Cheney as there are already articles of impeachment that have been sent to the Judiciary Committee that are basically sitting on ice. I agree with Democrats on most things, but when it comes to doing their constitutional duties in regards to protecting the American people against a corrupt administration they are nutless. I can't understand why that is? I can't believe that Democrats are so afraid that people, who voted them into office on their platforms of fixing a corrupt government and getting us out of the Iraq war, are going to chastise them during an election year because they would be doing what the American people put them in office for. Where is the justice? Instead they give lame reasons that they have more important things to do during the remainder of their terms.

What is more important than protecting the Constitution? What's more important than impeaching the people in office, who have done so much damage to the American people's constitutional rights. What's more important than making sure that the people who got us into an illegal war with Iraq which cost over 4 thousand American solders their lives and countless Iraqi lives, costs to the American people of trillions of dollars, a failed economy and high gas prices, are brought to justice. Instead the Democrats are content to piddle with trying to pass bills that have no chance to pass because even if they can get enough support from the House and Senate, the crook of a president we have will veto them. What's more important than fixing that?

Most of this doesn't make sense. About the only way any of this makes sense to me is:

The Democrats don't really want to bring this war to and end as the American public wants. The Democrats think that they will get more support, or more support for a Democratic president, from the American people passing bills that are repeatedly vetoed by a Republican president. The Democrats secretly want to keep the executive powers that President Bush claimed for their own use when they get one of their own in the president's chair. The Democrats are completely clueless as to their jobs in office. What ever their excuses are, they don't make sense. If they don't watch it, it will back fire this fall and the American public will be so fed up with their inaction that they will vote independent or even Republican cause even if the Republican's objectives are different than the people's objectives, they at least know how to get what they want, specially when no one is willing to call them or stand up to them on their illegal procedures and activities.

Excuses not to Impeach Bush

This is a response to an article I read off a web site called The Daily Kos written by Kevin Holsinger, Tuesday June 10^th, 2008, titled, I believe we should let George Bush get away with breaking the law because...

Read Kevin's Article Here

At first while when I started reading through the article, I was under the impression that these were Kevin's views on the subject, but reading on through the rest of the article and some of the responses that he got and addressed after the article was posted, he clarifies that this is not the case. In fact Kevin states, “I support impeachment, doomed or not.”

I couldn't help but comment and give argument to the reasons Keven listed to support why, I believe we should let George Bush get away with breaking the law because... Right or wrong I decided to go through Keven's points of argument from my Wisconsin Northwoods perspective.

I believe we should let George Bush get away with breaking the law because...

1. the attempt to hold him accountable has unscrupulous motivations.

   Yes, what could be more unscrupulous than protecting and upholding the constitution?

2. the attempt to hold him accountable diverts people's much-needed attention to getting a Democrat in the White House.

   This might bite you in the ass in the long run. Stay the coarse of not bringing up or supporting the impeaching of President Bush, no matter what the growing, undeniable facts are that are piling up show, and there is a good chance that people will start to see this is it is, a spineless, politicized excuse for not wanting to make waves during an upcoming presidential election. Democrats in office are betting that the people will act less negatively to a subject not brought up then they will to congress actually taking initiative to do their jobs.

3. the attempt to hold him accountable should have been made long ago, and since it wasn't, it's now most likely useless.

   Yes the attempt should have been made long ago, but that's no excuse for not standing up and doing the right thing still. Before the last elections there was a Republican majority in control that wouldn't allow articles of impeachment to proceed any way. What signal or deterrent do we send to future administrations if we don't hold George Bush accountable for his crimes? There might still be too much opposition, but wouldn't it look better on your records to show that you at least tried to do your constitutional duties while in office?

4. the attempt to hold him accountable will play into the media's desire to not focus on things that matter, which impeaching Bush doesn't qualify as.

   What is more important than getting a criminal who continues to break laws as he is getting called on them, out of public office? Here is a person who probably didn't even earn the honor of being president with all the questionable acts that reportedly happened around the polls during the national elections and after. He's taken us into war with questionable motives and intelligence. He's broke all kinds of federal and international laws and agreements such as torture, holding people prisoner for years without charges, spying and creating data banks on American citizens, the list goes on and on. Doesn't qualify as things that matter???

5. the attempt to hold him accountable means nothing unless you go after other people first.

   Wouldn't it be possible to go after as many people as are relevant?

6. the attempt to hold him accountable isn't realistic.

   Isn't it realistic to have faith that the laws of our country will be carried out, enforced, and applied equally no matter who you are or how much money you have or don't have?

7. the attempt to hold him accountable won't get enough Republican supporters.

   Same as mentioned in answer to question 3. Wouldn't it look better on your records to show that you at least tried to do your constitutional duties while in office?

8. the attempt to hold him accountable is being led by someone that people like to make fun of.

   So if you are so much more respected, jump on board. It's a good cause, it's what you should do, uphold the constitution and to do your constitutional duties. Lend your credibility to the cause.

9. the attempt to hold him accountable is about dwelling on the past.

   These things are still going on right now as we speak, Bush is still breaking laws, still stonewalling congressional investigations, still claiming that we don't torture, but reserve the right to torture, still illegally tapping lines of the American people and building data bases. These are all issues of the present not the past.

10. the attempt to hold him accountable would upset a sizable portion of Americans who wouldn't like that a President they (allegedly) elected and then (allegedly) re-elected is now facing impeachment.

    I'm not positive, but I think the numbers doesn't support this claim.

11. the attempt to hold him accountable wouldn't be as useful as waiting for Barack Obama to maybe become President so he could maybe investigate Bush then.

    Bush needs to be held accountable no matter who wins the presidential elections. This would essentially pass the buck from the people who should have been addressing this issue in the past, passing the buck from those who should be taking on this issue now. This would also leave a very dangerous man in office for another 6 months, a man who could still do grave damage to American's rights, America's economy, America's reputation, a person who even now is carrying out plans of ramping up to gain support with the claims that Iran also needs to be invaded to stop their nuclear weapons of mass destruction... Didn't we learn anything from the current war with Iraq?

12. the attempt to hold him accountable would make the Republicans want to illegitimately impeach a future Democratic President, and the warfare between the parties would never end.

    What planet are you living on? The warfare between parties will never end, both parties are way more interested in doing things to promote their party above things that would help the general population. Any impeachment should be done on legitimate standing, whether the subject of impeachment is Democratic or Republican, the articles of fact should dictate the end result.

13. the attempt to hold him accountable would suck up money that, without a doubt, our Legislative Branch would use to fix our broken infrastructure.

    Much better that our monetary resources be spent on investigating steroids in baseball or taping during football games. The money that is spent getting a corrupt politician out of office is probably just a small portion compared to the money we have been spending and getting ripped off by the dubious accountability of bid less contracts, reconstruction in Iraq, or in other corrupted areas of our government.

14. the attempt to hold him accountable would suck up time that, without a doubt, our Legislative Branch would use to deal with other issues of importance...time that also can't be split between holding Bush accountable and tackling these issues.

    In my opinion that time has been pretty wasted already since we put a Democratic majority in the house and senate. Instead of tackling the important issues right away, they have been spinning their wheels getting no where because of not having enough votes to override presidential vetoes. If we wouldn't have a secretive administration that is more concerned with keeping information from the American public to protect their ass, it might be a lot easier to address these other issues that are not going anywhere with or without impeachment proceedings going on.

15. the attempt to hold him accountable is only supported by left wing extremists.

    I think again and again at town halls across the country have in frustration, because their federal government is broken, passed their own articles of impeachment. I don't think this statement can be true unless you label a large majority of the American public as left wing extremists, which by virtue of being a majority, would not define them as left wing, which would mean that the politicians going against the majority would be better deserving of the tile of extremists.

16. the attempt to hold him accountable is really pointless since he's leaving anyway, and what matters is that he's not around to commit any more crimes, not whether or not he committed crimes in the past.

    I beg to differ here. If we as a country allow Bush and other people in his administration to go without being held accountable, we send a message to future administrations of being compliant and gullible.

17. the attempt to hold him accountable would be used to the advantage of the pro-Bush media.

    The world is a changing.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich Presents Articles of Impeachment

Monday June 9th Ohio Representative, Dennis Kucinich, presented 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on the house floor. It sounds like he broke away from the views of other Democrats, who have stated impeachment was off the table, and others that have stated that they did not have the time to make the case for impeachment against President Bush, along with involving members of his administration known and unknown.

For the idea of impeachment to be off the table has never made any sense to me. I for one would not be surprised if Nancy Pelosi somehow, in some way, receives some kind of benefits somewhere a long the line for her highly opinionated view that "impeachment was off the table". I mean how anyone can just blatantly proclaim that rules and laws don't pertain to them like Bush and Cheney did is just beyond me. The Bush Administration has been the most secretive presidency seen in modern times, so we don't even know what all other laws have been broken. I believe that there are many in the Bush Administration that not only need to be impeached, but charges should be brought against them to the full extent of the law. Because they are supposed to be our leaders that uphold the constitution by sworn oath, I would even be willing to have their punishments harsher than the letter of the law.

The other argument by spineless Democrats during this election year, that they just don't have the time to go through impeachment procedures with all the other issues they want to take up before the November elections... What?? There are many important issues, but not one so important as to take the place of bringing accountability of the Bush Administration to justice for the abuse of power against the American people that has been systematically carried out the last eight years. From possibly stealing the last election, illegally doing wiretaps, searches of library records, internet searches, and internet book sale lists, compiling data bases of U.S. citizens, detaining people for years at a time without charges or reason, torture, and abuse of the very people's rights that they are sworn to protect, I don't think there has been any administration that has did more to destroy and harm the rights of the American people and done more to tarnish the United States' reputation with peoples and governments of the world. The very laws and principles that they violated are supposed to be the foundation stones on which our government was founded.

I for one solute you Rep. Dennis Kucinich for standing up and taking the initiative to do your duty. There are people all over the country that are indebted to you

My Complaints Against Democrats

Although I lean more towards Democrats, there are things going on that disturb me. One of the biggest things that bother me, and I no doubt bothers other people who have been watching the Democrats is that they are not picking up the ball when it comes to doing their constitutional duty to protect our constitution.

When Senator Rockefeller, after giving a press release about how the Bush administration bent intelligence to rally support for the invasion of Iraq, was asked if anyone in Bush administration should be charged for misleading the people and congress to get support for going into war, his response was something on the order of, it would be a grand act. If I were asked whether in the grand scheme of things it is something that should be done the same as in the issue of impeachment, I would say yes, but if you are asking if we are going to do something about it now, the answer is no. If we were to take on something like this it would take up all our time, there would be no time left to take on the important issues of things like global warming.

While I agree that there are other important issues, I do think that the Bush administration and what has transpired during their control of Washington is riddled with very important issues that need to be addressed. Global warming is a big issue, but no more important than addressing the audacities of the Bush administration. Looking back on the last eight years there are the issues of leading the country into war with Iraq, presidential powers during war time, weapons of mass destruction, the illegal wiretapping, holding prisoners labeled as enemy combatants for years without charges, the secrecy of the administration on issues of releasing CIA agents names, the firings of prosecutors, missing emails, torture, non bid contracts, and the list goes on and on. These things are as important if not more than anything that the Democrats need to try to accomplish in the time left before the presidential elections. Democrats were voted into office on the platforms that they would end the war in Iraq and bring in government accountability, this they have not done. Instead they are mired down in the stonewalling of their investigations and the lack of enough votes to pass veto proof bills. Even though people and governments across the country want government accountability and impeachment for the wrongs they have observed, it seems no one in the Democratic party is listening. Basically in my opinion most Democrats have been totally spineless in the shadow of this falls elections and I'm willing to bet that has a lot to do with their low approval ratings.

Barack Obama Clinches Democratic Nomination

As most people probably know, Barack Obama has the Democratic Nomination for the presidential election in the fall. What a historical event the primaries have been, first woman and first black American to run for president. This morning I have read that Obama's first order of business as the Democratic presidential nominee was to instruct the Democratic National Committee to adopt his policy against accepting donations from federal lobbyists or political action committees... Now that is change.

I have great faith that Barack Obama can and will restore the United States' reputation with the rest of the world. I believe that Obama is honest, truthful and sincere when he speaks. I don't envy the work ahead of him when He wins the presidential election in the fall. I think we are all aware of how the Bush administration has politicized every branch and government agency and controlled what information has come out of those agencies, and how our constitutional rights have been trampled. I think it will be years before we are even aware of all the damage the Bush administration has done. With that in mind, I hope that Obama insures the Bush administration is held accountable for it's illegal actions and that any and all perpetrators are brought to justice and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

There is a lot of talk right now about whether Obama should offer Hillery the vice president position on his ticket. On one hand I can see where that might help to bring Hillery's supporters to his side, but on the other hand she is tied into big business more than Obama, and I got the impression during the primaries that she was willing to say about anything to get votes depending on what group she was talking to even if it meant stretching the truth or telling the truth at all. For this reason I personally hope that Barack Obama finds another candidate for his vice president, one that closer shares his political values and ethics. I also think that having Hillery as his vice president and by default having President Clinton involved would give McCain and the Republicans negative fodder to use against Obama in the presidential race this fall. These are my personal opinions though, what do you think?

Weep for the Rich

I just read an article in the New York Times by Christine Haughney called, "It's Not So Easy Being Less Rich". I feel so bad for these people she writes about. People who are bent out of shape cause they used to make 8 million dollars and now have to make ends meet with 2 million or having to make due with 8 million instead of 20 million plus bonuses. Give me a break. I'm 49 years old, have worked my butt off most my life in many different jobs trying to support my family and I have never ever earned over $25,000. Now I'm disabled and in the process of waiting three years to get through the process of getting disability to get around $700 a month, in the mean time my two boys and I have to survive on public assistance for food and medical and $354 cash we receive from child support. A million dollars would last me the rest of my life living well, in fact my two boys and I could probably live comfortably on the interest from a million dollars.

Of the things Christine writes about, the rich are gaining weight from the stress and not being able to afford personal trainers for $600 to $800 a month, having to cut back on $350 highlights and $150 haircuts, cutting back on jet rentals of $10,000 and hour, selling some of their extra 2 to 35 carat diamond rings and Rolexes that no one will notice, they are afraid their children will get snubbed when invitations to the right birthday parties are sent out, they are going into hock borrowing against their 2 million dollar art collections, having to fly charter jets instead of private jets or renting Beech jets and Learjets instead of Gulfstreams, and it's even affecting their marriages and sex life.

I don't know if I can fight back the depression from worrying about these people going through their bad luck, I will try. This really puts things in perspective, maybe the wealthy really do need the tax breaks that Bush and McCain want to continue giving them. What do you think?