On Friday, August 17, The New York Times ran a short article entitled “Ryan Said He Erred In Seeking Stimulus Money.” It related that Ryan now considers it a mistake to have asked for Federal stimulus funds in 2009. The article reports that Ryan had earlier denied asking for money from the $787 billion bill on behalf of companies in his district in Wisconsin. But the Boston Globe confirmed that he had written to the Federal Energy Department requesting financing for two companies to develop so-called “green jobs.”
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in an interview with WCPO-TV in Cincinnati . He and Mitt Romney have both denounced the stimulus as an example of Obama’s failure to restore the economy. The Congressional Budget Office said the stimulus created 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs. In a more recent television interview, Ryan said that he did not recall writing the letters. Later his office issued a statement that he had since checked the letters.
“They were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security and Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said in the statement. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently and I take responsibility for that. Regardless, it’s clear that the Obama stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy, and now the president is asking to do it all over again.”
In other words, Ryan was for the stimulus before he was against it. What chutzpah! If Obama lets him get away with this, it will be a pity because it show Ryan to be the total hypocrite that he is. It is astonishing that the media is letting him get away with stuff like this. This guy speaks out of both sides of his mouth just as Romney does. They are quite a pair. When Romney saw Ryan, he knew he had found a kindred spirit in deviousness and deception..
The Hypocrisy of Paul Ryan, Part II
The Hypocrisy of Paul Ryan
Jesus used the word “hypocrite” with great effect. And it is a word perfectly suited to describing Paul Ryan, much as Jesus used it against the false piety of the Pharisees. The sanctimonious Paul Ryan wraps himself in his Catholicism even as he advocates policies that will be devastating to the poor, the old, and the young–the latter who would be deprived of their much-needed Pell Grants.
Until only recently Ryan spoke of how he required members of his staff to read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand, the book that is the basis for his free market, anti-governent philosophy. Mercilessly attacked by the Catholic Bishops of America for the cruelty of his budget as well as by a prominent priest at Georgetown, who let him have it in no uncertain terms, Ryan turned around by 180 degrees. Now he says that he read Rand’s novels when he was young and found them to be “entertaining” but that the inspiration for his values is Thomas Aquinas. He argues that Aquinas favored local, community-based solutions over those offered by the state. He is now going around the country preaching about the difficult life of the poor. A lot he cares about them. This hypocrite bows and scrapes before Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire who plans to spend 100 million dollars to defeat Obama. Ryan went to a fund-raiser at the Sands in Las Vegas to kiss the ring of the man who pulls the strings of the Republican Party. After the now-convicted businessman, Denis Troha, contributed $60,000 to Ryan, Ryan phoned up the Bureau of Indian affairs to tell them that the people in his district supported the casino Troha wanted to build there. Troha now says that Ryan told him personally that he considered the project “inappropriate” for the district. LOL.
Troha pleaded guilty to making unlawful contributions to Bush and to some Democratic office-holders to get support for another casino project. Ryan was not charged with wrongdoing but it is clear that his phone call to the BIA was a quid pro quo for that sixty grand he got from Troha. Is this the kind of guy you want to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? I can hardly imagine that Saint Thomas Aquinas would have endorsed this kind of behavior.
Ryan is not what he appears to be. He is no clean-as-a-whistle boy scout who is great with figures and
a terrific policy wonk. That is a myth concocted by the media and the Republicans. He is a calculating, ambitious character who schemes with Eric Cantor to bring down John Boehner so Cantor can become Speaker and Ryan can ultimately be president. Should Romney lose, Ryan will hit the campaign trail for the Republican nomination in 2016. Ryan really is a snake in the grass posing as a statesman. Beware.
Romney’s Choice
The Rasmussen poll indicated that only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Paul Ryan, so one might think that this was a suicidal choice. The Democrats are licking their chops. But all of this could well be premature. Ryan will energize the campaign and if he makes a terrific speech at the convention, which I am certain he will, Romnney’s poll numbers will go up the way John McCain’s did after Sarah Palin’s speech. But whereas Palin proved to be a liability, Ryan should be able to handle himself quite well. This could sustain the momentum.
Ryan’s job is to keep attacking spending, something designed to appeal to independent voters who could start to like him more. And no question, spending will be a big issue as the Republicans will assert that it’s the spending and the deficit that are causing the sluggish economy and the eight percent unemployment. Ryan will also keep up the mantra that there should be no tax increases because tax increases hurt the economy. By cutting taxes, he will argue, the economy will grow and there will be more revenue to balance the budget and pay down the debt.
Americans have short memories so the Democrats are going to have to remind the voters that this is
what George H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics.” Reagan’s budget director David Stockman now blames the Republicans from the time of Reagan until today for the economic mess the country is in.
There is no question that many will buy into Ryan’s argument since very few even remember the Laffer Curve, which predicted that a cut in taxes would bring in more revenue. It was false then and it is false now. As for an austerity budget, you have only to look at Britain to see that this doesn’t work. British growth has actually decreased and they are heading towards another recession. If you’re going to cut spending, you have to do it, as Terry Sanford used to say, “under the supervision of a physician.” What he meant by that was that drastic cuts were like a crash diet–you will end up putting all the weight back on. Drastic cuts will hurt growth and lead to a bigger deficit.
But more than this, Ryan is not sincere in saying that Romney and the Republicans will be able to tackle the deficit. He actually favors a dramatic increase in defense spending, which shows him to be nothing but a typical congressman who plays the same old Washington game–give Lockhheed Martin whatever it wants and cozy up to its hordes of lobbyists and the generals who are capable of undermining their own Secretary of Defense. They and the hacks in the Defense Department will go through the revolving door and end up working for Lockheed even as Lockheed executives will end up with important positions in the Defense Department. The lobbyists will assure the flow of campaign contributions to congressmen who, like Ryan, do their bidding. Ryan is not a breath of fresh air. He gives off the same old stench of the Iron Triangle that runs Washington.
Ryan is often praised for his courage in taking on entitlements. But that is also untrue. His plan to privatize Medicare (a terrible idea in any event) will, he admits, not kick in for another ten years. Where is the savings in that? And cutting back on benefits from Social Security and extending the retirement age will for certain be met with considerable hostility. Ryan has given every indication that he is backing away from that position.
Paul Ryan is a phony and if the voters buy his snake oil, they will get what they deserve. The only question is who is the bigger phony, Ryan or Romney? There is a wonderful line from Preston Sturgess’s “Hail the Conquering Hero.” ”The phony aways wins until a bigger phony comes along and then he wins.” But I don’t believe Obama is a phony. He has made mistakes and has his faults. He is a politician, with all that entails but he has done his best to represent all of the people, not special interests. The American people better wise up or they will end up in a worse condition than they are in now.
Ryan & Rand
Returning to the theme of Paul Ryan’s infatuation with Ayn Rand and his supposed adherence to her ideology there are in actuality considerable gaps between them. Even as Ryan calls for drastic cuts to balance the budget and the privatization of Medicare he supports increased military spending. Rand opposed the Vietnam War vociferously and like Ron Paul considered aggressive war incompatible with capitalism. She never would have supported increased military spending and would no doubt have denounced Ryan for his position.
Rand supported Civil Rights and Women’s Rights and said her favorite president was Gerald Ford because of his policy of deregulation. And whilst she said that her basic philosophy could be found in “Atlas Shrugged,” she insisted that she never expected it to be adopted as a practical matter. The most important philosophers she argued were Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Is it possible that Ryan has read them? Not likely.
It was Aristotle who maintained that what he called distributive justice was essential to
the stability of the state. He defined it as the ”equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of society.” Without this he insisted there would be social unrest that would threaten the well-being of the well-off. Don’t expect to find anything like this in Paul Ryan’s thinking.
Rand was foremost a notorious atheist who ridiculed religion unlike the Ryanites who use religion as a cover for their ideology as though they had never read the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles which call for the sharing of the wealth. When Rand met William Buckley she told him that he “was too intelligent to believe in God.” Instead of parrying by saying that she was too intelligent not to he cut her off, became permanently hostile to her and drove her from the conservative ranks.
Ryan will never balance the budget by increasing military spending and keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy. His and the Republican position is essentially a hoax. It is worth remembering that Ronald Reagan campaigned on “cutting the Gordian Knot” by balancing the budget. He drastically increased military spending and produced a gigantic deficit whilst increasing the size of the government substantially. Under Bush Clinton’s surplus quickly vanished and here was a new gigantic deficit owing in good part to the war in Iraq and his tax cuts. Under Clinton and Gore the government was at its smallest since Eisenhower. Under Bush the government grew substantially with the Republicans going along with it. Where was Paul Ryan then? Ryan is peddling snake oil and is not to be trusted. Ayn Rand would have been flattered that he makes his staff read “Atlas Shrugged” but would otherwise have considered him a bad joke.
America’s Future
America could have a really great future if it could figure out what it wanted to be when it grew up. Its biggest problem is emotional immaturity. Why so many Americans are so infantile is a mystery. It takes longer and longer for people to become adults and even then many never make it. When a person grows old and doesn’t grow up, he becomes a grotesque and the country is filled with them.
The entire debate over health care is not unlike a fourth-grade food fight. If you look at the players, you can find America’s greatest grotesque, Mitch McConnell, leading the attack. This has nothing to do with politics and economics and everything to do with an infant posing as an adult. Mitt Romney is totally high school. Obama’s problem is that he is the only mature adult in a war of babies. Whatever he does, the kids just keep throwing pieces of their lunch at him. What should be dismissed as laughable childish behavior is treated by the media as serious discourse.
This is not to excuse many liberals who are capable of behaving as hysterical second graders without adult supervision. Challenge any of their assumptions and they go bananas. There IS a Santa Claus and don’t tell us differently. When I outed liberal hero Allard Lowenstein as CIA they became totally hysterical. They have no understanding of the seriousness of the debt and the bloated nature of the government. It’s like telling them the cookie jar is empty when they want more. The ultimate infantile reaction is the refusal to accept the crisis of climate change. The mass hysteria this has engendered on the right is the best evidence of how many babies there are posing as adults. The same is really true about the financial types who can’t make enough money. They will do anything, including wrecking the country, to keep getting the goodies. Out where I live in the Hamptons, the snooty WASPs won’t let blacks and Jews into their clubs. We don’t like you and we won’t let you play with us! The obsession with guns (bang! bang!) is another symptom of infancy.
There was a time in America when fourteen-year-old boys went to sea and became captains. They started businesses and ran farms. Grow up, America! Or you’re toast.
Scalia, Immigration and Slavery
In his dissenting opinion in the Arizona immigration case, Justice Scalia wrote: ”Notwithstanding ‘[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration’, in the first 100 years of the Republic the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.”
This is extraordinary. To rely on those ancient and hateful laws of the slave South as precedent ups the ante for Scalia’s reasoning. Those laws were adopted before the Federal government made it clear that immigration was a Federal matter. It is as if he has never heard of the doctrine of preemption. Will he next rely on the Roman law of slavery to justify the reinstitution of that institution? But there may be something to his position.
Immigrants from across the Mexican border are often treated as slaves and are paid off the books at a pitiful rate for hard physical labor. Illegal or not, once they are gone, Arizona will be faced with a serious labor shortage. Farmers are already complaining that they are unable to harvest all of their crops. And before long, those anti-immigrant whites who populate the wealthy suburbs of Arizona will have no one to take care of their lawns watered with what is left of the water supply. The cooks at their dinner parties will disappear and so will the numerous other Latino flunkies who make their life easy in Scottsdale at low cost.
Romney is already changing his tune and talking about paths to legalization, no doubt the result of the
vast expansion of his luxury home in San Diego. Who is doing all that work and who will will service it once the construction is complete? Who will take care of the pool and maintain the tennis court? We know full well. One anti-immigration pundit I know confessed to me that he uses illegals at his home in the Hamptons and that he could not do without them. It was Reagan who granted the biggest amnesty in American history, his motive being to provide corporate American with cheap labor and to break the unions. Do the conservatives really want to give all of this up?
They will rant and rave to whip up the racism of the Dumb Goyim that make up their base and then pull a fast one as they did in Arizona by drafting a law they knew the Court would strike down. The last part of the law the Court upheld will fall once it is applied and things will go back to the way they were, have no fear, amigo. Do they really care about the jobs of the lower class whites? LOL. They didn’t care in the Old South and they don’t now.
The Contradiction of Paul Ryan
Republican Congressman Paul Ryan worships Ayn Rand and makes any new staff member read “Atlas Shrugged.” His campaign to abolish safety net programs has little to do with a desire to balance the budget and everything to do with his political philosophy based on Rand’s hatred of the state. How his plan to privatize Medicare will go over in the election remains to be seen. He also wants to abolish Social Security in gradual steps.
Yet Ryan, who comes from a wealthy family, received his college education at Miami University in Ohio, a state research institution. He benefitted from the low tuition that a state-run university was able to provide him. Would he abolish Miami University? Someone should put that question to him. In this respect he is not unlike the Tea Partiers who demand that the government keep its hands off their Medicare.
In a larger context, the underlying issue is what does “smaller government” mean? Does it mean creating a much more efficient government that makes better use of taxpayers’ money or does it mean abolishing the safety net. Libertarian hero Noble Prize-winning economist F.A.Hayek supported Social Security. What he opposed was a centrally planned economy, which is quite different from abolishing Medicare and Social Security. There are ways to increase funding for these programs without gutting them, such as extending upward the income level at which Social Security taxes are collected making those who make their money from buying and selling securities pay Social Security taxes and raising the Medicare taxes on those who can afford to pay more.
Ryan’s position is untenable. He would cut back or abolish essential programs while keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The
argument for his position is the old Republican “supply side” economics that was tried and failed. This is all Ryan has to offer and it will not work. Under Reagan and Bush this approach created huge deficits and this will be the result once again. Obama’s deficits have been designed to prevent a depression and he is amenable to cuts to the budget to bring it under control. Instead of working with him, Ryan advocates policies that will harm average Americans. That, of course, doesn’t mean they won’t vote for it. As Churchill once remarked, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
What Young Lawyers Should Do
Many years ago I was seated at a table next to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas at a Columbia Law School luncheon in Washington, D.C. He was an impressive man and looked not unlike Spencer Tracy. At some point, I asked him what a young lawyer should do. His answer came back in a short. “Practice law and go into politics.”
There are numerous young law grads in search of work who also owe thousands in student loans. They have no idea what to do or how to pay back the loans. They need to use some imagination to get out of their predicament. They should search Martindale-Hubbell and find single practitioners in small towns around the country and contact them and ask them if they could work for them, without pay if necessary, to learn the ropes. The older the single practitioners, the better because that would give you a chance to take over their practice when they retire. Get involved in the community and join a church. When you are ready, register in one of the two major political parties. If you are in a red state, register Democratic because there are always people in those communities who want to change things and upset the status quo. Get around, join Rotary and the like.
Then get into politics on the local level where ideology is not important. Learn the issues and appear practical. Go to as many meetings
and community luncheons and dinners as possible. Be sure to have lots of cards to hand out. If the lawyer you are working for still doesn’t pay you, open your own practice with your own clients. Don’t worry about your student loans. You can start repaying them as soon as you start to make money, which you will. People say there are too many lawyers but there is always room for a good one. Small-town lawyers tend to be lazy so be anything but. They will resent you, but so what? Take any kind of case and get to know the assistant DAs so you can plead out speeding tickets.
Get married to a local girl whose family knows lots of people. Be terribly nice to everyone and get elected to some local body. Keep at it and keep your eye set on higher targets, like the state legislature and even Congress. Don’t be surprised is you find yourself nominated for higher office. And laugh at all those so-called successful grads from the top law schools toiling nights at the big firms in the big cities. Most of them won’t make partner and the ones who do will be stressed and depressed. And don’t ever forget that the world is your oyster.
You will need some money to start so ask your parents or other relatives. Don’t be shy. They will be making a good investment.
Eye Of Newt
It seems like a century ago when Newt Gingrich led the charge to overthrow decades of Democratic rule in the House of Representatives using his Contract for America as the blueprint for an agenda that included balancing the budget and term limits. At the time, the Democrats were stale and liberalism an obsolete political philosophy that had hardened into political correctness. What Gingrich did was nothing less than to revolutionize American politics, turning Tim O’Neil’s maxim that all politics was local on its head. Thanks to Gingrich, all politics was now national and he ran the Congressional campaign as if it were a British parliamentary election. The Republicans won and America has never been the same.
But no sooner had he been sworn in as Speaker, he opted to accept a book deal from Rupert Murdock for millions of dollars, violating the rules of the House. Term limits vanished from the agenda. Dick Morris, Bill Clinton’s close advisor, told Clinton to adopt the Republican agenda by balancing the budget and changing the welfare system to end permanent dependence. It worked and Clinton won reelection.
Then Gingrich blew it by closing down the government. The Republicans lost numerous seats in Congress and he resigned. His legacy was his censure by Congress for ethics violations and his party’s defeat. Most wrote him off as finished in politics and it appeared as if he wrote himself off as well. His extramarital conduct became the stuff of legend and he vanished from the political scene, starting a consulting business and authoring countless books, including works of fiction. He married his last mistress and became a Catholic.
When he announced his candidacy for president, most dismissed him off as a has-been with absolutely no chance of winning. As if to confirm this, he took his wife on a cruise in the Greek Islands and most of his staff quit. He announced his intention of staying in the race but this was counted as bravado. He had no money and no organization, yet he had sufficient numbers in the polls to get into the debates, during which he actually sounded sane and he began to attract attention. The radical right, in its quest to stop Mitt Romney, first went with Michele Bachmann, whose over-the-top comments made her seem loony. Then they supported Rick Perry, who turned out to be an idiot. There was the flirtation with Herman Cain, whose campaign imploded in the wake of allegations by women of sexual misconduct. Because Ron Paul opposed aid to Israel, he was anathema to the Evangelicals so his poll numbers have remained in the low teens. Finally there was Newt, who espoused conservative values with sufficient clarity during the debates that he began to pick up support. No one was more surprised by this than Newt himself, who was running in order to keep charging thousands for speaking engagements, receive lucrative book contracts and increase the clientele of his consulting business. It came out that he has made millions as a consultant to the health-care industry and to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, but none of this halted his sudden rise.
This was a “new” Newt, observers said, more mature and stable, whose new-found religious faith made his past personal transgressions fade into insignificance; he had gone to confession and been forgiven.
So far, his poll numbers have not been affected by the negative ads attacking him in Iowa since most people are concerned about the economy and think Romney is a Wall Street insider, a representative of the old GOP Establishment, which the Tea Party despises. In their search for a candidate of their own, they settled on Newt, with his unadulterated support for capitalism.
But is this really a new Newt? Remember Richard Nixon’s comeback, when commentators described him as the “new Nixon”?
He was more self-assured and less strident and looked comfortable in his skin. He bested both Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination and won a close election against Hubert Humphrey. In the wake of the disastrous McGovern campaign, he won his long-sought landslide and seemed to have more power than any president in the past, including Lyndon Johnson, who had self-destructed.
But this was no new Nixon at all. It was the same old Nixon, devious, dishonest and vicious. Under pressure, he cracked and became the first president in American history to resign. Gingrich is made of the same stuff and the Republicans will nominate him at their peril. But what he’s got is an ability to throw the base raw meat the way no other candidate can. His remarks on the Palestinians show he knows how to appeal to key constituencies of the GOP in a powerful way. It would be a mistake to count him out because, like Nixon, he has a subterranean connection to the worst impulses of many Americans and is unafraid to exploit that connection. Democrats, gleeful at the idea that Newt could be the Republican nominee, should remember that they could get what they wish for and come to regret it.
A Culture Of Death
During the first debate among the Republican candidates for president, the moderator began a question to Rick Perry, the governor of Texas with this: “During your eleven years as governor of Texas, you have overseen 234 executions.” Before he could go any further, thunderous applause filled the Reagan library, lasting several minutes. At the next debate, co-sponsored by the Tea Party Express and CNN, the moderator posed this question to the panel of candidates: “Suppose a young man without health insurance is hit by a car requiring six months hospitalization. How could his expenses by paid for or should we just allow him to die?” Shouts of “Let him die!” filled the auditorium.
Those responses, one suspects, were not a reflection of a small minority of Americans. Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare and Rick Perry’s attacks on Social Security have actually not affected public opinion as liberals have hoped. To the contrary, polls show a growing advantage for Republicans in a generic election for both houses of Congress. And the attacks on Perry from the other candidates have caused no slippage for him in the polls. If anything, they seem to have increased his lead.
What is one to make of this new culture of death that is sweeping America? It demonstrates a total lack of empathy, which means that individuals are concerned only when something affects them directly. I knew a Republican politician who opposed government involvement in health care until a close relative required round-the- clock dialysis. He then sponsored a bill in the state legislature to provide financial support for dialysis, making it virtually free in the state.
There is, one suspects, an element of racism in all of this. White people across the country increasingly resent paying for services provided to indigent blacks because they believe they are shiftless and responsible for their own situation. This goes largely unsaid, except by Hillary Clinton during the desperate hours of her losing candidacy when she went around the country shouting about “hard working white people.” It was a shameless appeal to race that almost pulled it out for her, and yet she remains an American liberal icon.
When Roosevelt was pushing for his New Deal legislation, one of his most important allies was the powerful racist senator from Mississippi, Theodore G. Bilbo, who would go on to argue for the deportation of all blacks in America to Africa. That proved too much even for a Senate that continually held up civil rights legislation and he was forced to leave the Senate. Still, Roosevelt found in him a useful ally because the alliance indicated to the white population that these programs were designed to help white people. Roosevelt never made any move towards civil rights and even his wife, the progressive Eleanor Roosevelt, kept saying that it was too soon to do anything about that. It is only when those programs start to benefit racial minorities that resistance arises.
The one policy of Rick Perry’s that is commendable and which could cost him support is his backing of the rights of children of undocumented immigrants to attend public schools and their further right to attend state universities at in-state tuition. When attacked for this, Perry countered by saying that these were “human beings who deserve to be treated as human beings.” But before one ascribes this to Perry’s munificence, it should be noted that Texas has a burgeoning Mexican population and that his policies are wildly popular with them. He also knows that for a Republican to win the presidency, he must be able to appeal to Hispanics, who are increasingly turned off by the Democratic Party. There is an element of race involved in this as well since many Hispanics resent the power of blacks in the Democratic Party, and choose to identify with the whites.
Adolph Hitler declared himself to be a socialist but he had an interesting spin on this term. He insisted that
socialism was fundamentally about race. If a country is made up of a “volk,” a homogeneous population in which everyone identifies with everyone else like a family, then socialist policies can succeed because the people will want to care for each other. His socialist policies of job creation, through public works, housing, free universities and medical care were highly popular because the German racial state was taking care of its own. In “Being and Time,” Martin Heidegger suggested that humans are different from other species because they have a sense of time, leading them to understand that their time on earth is limited. Because of this, he concluded, they care for each other. Heidegger also concluded that the best person in a nation was the soldier, because he was willing to sacrifice everything, including his life, for his people. When Heidegger bought into National Socialism and became a disciple of Hitler, it was because he shared the notion that caring is linked with race. If you got rid of all the people of color in America, the programs the Tea Party now is attacking would once again become popular. Racialism is at the heart of the Republican Party, notwithstanding several conservative blacks in the party who are treated like pets, tokens to show that Republicans are not racists. These are blacks that identify with the oppressor, much as Jewish Majority Leader Eric Cantor identifies with a party that is largely anti-Semitic. If this is the direction the nation is heading, the future will see much more of this as it becomes commonplace to abolish federal programs that were designed to provide a safety net for Americans. The Bismarckean compromise of Social Democracy to defeat Socialism, which Bismarck hated, is not appreciated in America, which lacks a Social Democratic tradition, so it should come as no surprise that there is support for abolishing the safety net. But it should be remembered that Bismarck invented Social Democracy for a racially pure Germany, a far cry from multi-racial America.
There are forty million people in America classified as poor, with over fifteen percent of the population living below the poverty line. Alas, America has no Jonathan Swift to write America’s version of “A Modest Proposal.” This country can’t even come up with brilliant satire.

















Connect With Me