Who Really Runs The
Show In D.C.
Gary Gerard,
dumbhoosier.com
The more politicians purport to be different, the more they are the
same.
Remember candidate Obama? Remember all the stuff he said he would do?
Remember how he pledged to be the antithesis of President George W.
Bush?
Heck, he might as well be the same guy. But the weird thing is the
perception. While President Obama’s policies are stunningly similar to
President Bush’s in lots of ways, I don’t see the same level of angst
and fervor in the media. I mean, President Bush was routinely vilified.
Obama, not so much.
Seriously, just this week President Obama approved the use of predator
drones in Libya. Talk about your mission creep.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday the unmanned Predators
would allow for “some precision capability” against the troops of
longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. And I’m sure that’s true. And
maybe that’s a good thing. But what happened to that whole “days not
weeks” thing President Obama said at the outset of the U.S. involvement
in Libya? And why isn’t the media going crazy about it?
Seems to me when a Democrat orders up a war, it’s all good with the
media. But when a Republican does it, it’s all bad. Frankly, I’m pretty
sure it’s always all bad, but what do I know?
But what I do know is just how disingenuous the whole mess is. When you
consider that Vice President Joe Biden railed against the use of drones
while Bush was president, how bizarre is it that his and Obama’s
administration are completely comfortable using them now. In Jonathan
Alter’s book, “The Promise: President Obama, Year One”, Alter writes
that terrorism expert Peter Bergen has obtained classified information
showing that the Obama administration “conducted more Predator strikes
in its first year – 50 – than during Bush’s entire presidency.”
But, you know, that’s O.K., because Bush was a war monger and Obama is
a veritable peacenik. I mean, after all. He won the Nobel Peace Prize.
And what about all that stuff about closing Guantanamo? And how about
trying those terror suspects in the U.S. instead of by military
tribunals like Bush wanted to do? Never mind.
And how about those Bush tax cuts? Got to get rid of those, right? Nope.
And there was the multi-hundred-billion-dollar sop to the the
pharmaceutical companies during the health care debate, followed by the
sellout of the single-payer system which was supposed to be the
preferred Obama solution all along. I could go on but this kind of
stuff is really tiring.
Sometimes I think – and I swear I don’t have any tinfoil hats – there
are larger forces at play when it comes to government policy at the
highest level. It’s as if after the election, while the candidate-elect
is basking in the glow of his new-found presidential success, a group
of corporate oligarchs conduct a little meeting with the new Commander
in Chief.
It goes like this:
They tug on the new president’s lapel and say something like, “Nice
campaign. Nice speech. Nice suit. Thanks for all your hard work and
dedication. Oh, and by the way, here’s how things are going down from
now on.”
You know, I could be dead wrong about that, but how else could you
possibly explain the policy decisions being made in this country? How
can you explain the crazy level of spending and debt? How can you
explain foreign policy and how we decide where we are going to send
military hardware and/or troops?
It’s pervasive. It’s everywhere you look. Name the policy – environment
, immigration. farm. energy.
Take energy. I’ve been trying to buy a high-mileage car to hedge
against rising fuel costs. In a very short time, it became apparent to
me that the EPA Combined Average Fuel Efficiency standards are totally
bogus. On the one hand, the government wants better mileage. On the
other hand, they continually enact regulations that make better mileage
impossible. Why would they do that?
Consider this: To this day, the mpg champion – aside from plug-in
electric cars – is the little Honda Insight hybrid. From 2000 to 2006
the EPA mileage estimates for that car ranged from 58 to 61 mpg. In
2007 through 2009, the Civic hybrid was the most fuel efficient Honda,
ranging form 45 mpg highway in 07 to 43 mpg highway in 08. In 09, the
Insight returned to the Honda lineup, getting 43 mpg, fully 18 mpg less
than it’s debut in 2000. What? Isn’t this going in the wrong direction?
Even more ridiculous is the story of the all-gas Geo Metro. It debuted
in 1989 as a 1.0 litter 3-cylinder that got 52 mpg highway. For the
next five model years, the car still got 52 mpg highway. (Go on Auto
Trader today and try to buy one. They bring crazy money.) Then, in
1995, the mileage dropped to 44. In 1998, the car morphed the Chevrolet
Metro. It got 44 mpg highway. In 1999 the Chevy Metro got 42 mpg. In
2000, 41 mpg. In 2001, there were no more Metros, but the Chevy Prism
was the mileage leader. It got 37 mpg.
Today, the Chevy Cruze gets 42 mpg highway. O.K., that’s 22 years after
the Geo Metro got 52 mpg highway.
This is the advancement of technology?
It’s almost like a bad joke.
Taken as a whole – when you look at everything that’s going on in
government – it becomes pretty apparent that somebody is pulling some
strings.
And it’s not you and me.
Archives
|
