A Message from My Shadow?

Still haven't made it out to the pub with that shadow of mine, but today I got an e-mail from someone who could almost be my shadow, that's how opposed his thinking is to mine.

The message was addressed to "all my friends . . . liberal or conservative." Then, the author went on to assert basically that a whole string of the problems America is currently experiencing—especially the financial turmoil—results from the last two years of Democratic control in Congress.

Needless to say, I had to reply. I don't know what it is about me, but I just find it hard to relax when someone slings half-truths and exaggerations at me without a shred of evidence to back them up.

The message begins, "George Bush has been in office for 7-1/2 years. For the first six, the economy was fine."

Seems as though the author forgot how the economy tanked after 9/11. Perhaps those first six years of the Bush regime weren't so rosy, after all. Let's not forget that W came into office with a debt that Clinton had reduced by more than 8% (against the GDP) from where it was when Poppa Bush left office. When W finally says bye-bye to the White House, the national debt will be back up by almost 11% from where it was when he took power. Don't believe me? Take a look at the table of "National Debt by Presidential Terms" on Wikipedia.

In fact, while you're at it, why don't you ponder for a minute or two the way the debt has risen and fallen over presidential administrations in the last half-century? The last time the debt fell while a Republican was in office was during the first term of the Nixon administration. But, contrary to what most people who classify themselves as "conservatives" seem to believe, the debt ratio has fallen in each term of every single Democrat's administration on the chart. Strange, isn't it, that the "tax and spend" Democrats have a much better track record than Republicans at reducing the national debt?

My friend's message goes on, "A little over one year ago, consumer confidence stood at a 2-1/2 year high."

Is this REALLY something the author wants to brag about, especially given the assertion in the first sentence? One year ago was 2007. Two-and-a-half years before that was 2004. That's when the nation elected W for a second term. So, what he's saying is that the man was re-elected in the middle of an economic slump. And that's true, of course. But it was an economic slump that occurred while both the White House and Congress were completely in Republican hands.

The message asserts, "Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon."

If this was true in the early fall of 2007, it was probably only true in a few parts of the country and, then, not for very long. While gas prices have troughed five times in the last four years, with the bottom of the price range most of those times somewhere around $2.00/gallon, the country as a whole last saw gasoline consistently at $2.19 (or less) in the spring of 2004. See for yourself!

It adds, "The unemployment rate was 4.5%."

That statistic is based on the recorded unemployment rate as revealed to us by administrative offices of the federal government that are under the control of guess who? George W. Bush. And I doubt he's got any interest whatsoever in making the unemployment figures look better than they might actually be. Duh! On top of that, let's talk about the jobs that ARE available to persons in the market for a new one. If they can land anything, how many of those jobs pay the same or better wages than these people were making at their former employment?

The message states, probably all too accurately, "The Dow Jones hit a record high of 14,000+. Americans were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large! . . ."

Too large, maybe? For my part, I made a conscious decision last year to live off nothng more than my paycheck, so I sure wasn't "living large." Were you? If so, for how much of it were you paying cash? I can't tell you how happy I am now that I made the choice to eliminate my debt when I did. But whether or not I had done so, the ticking up and down of the stock market doesn't have much effect on my day-to-day life. Unless you work on Wall Street, how does the market actually affect anyone personally every time it fluctuates? If it does that to you, you need to get a life.

Next the message gets into a matching series of complaints like, "Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon and climbing!"

But not today. I bought gas this morning at 1/10 of a cent under $3.00.

It says, "Americans have seen their home equity drop by 12 TRILLION DOLLARS, prices are still dropping, and 1% of American homes are in foreclosure."

And we're blaming the Democratic Congress for that!? Did they sign the papers for loans they couldn't pay? Did they dream up the anti-regulatory schemes that allowed lenders to take advantage of clients they knew perfectly well would be very unlikely to pay out the term of the exotic loan instruments they were selling?

And just what do you suppose might be the political affiliation of the former CEOs of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bare Stearns, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, etc., etc.—all of whom have taken home huge paychecks over the years they ran their organizations into the ground? At whose expense? Sorta seems to me that the Paulson bailout the administration crammed down Congress' throat is making the American people buy off these losers for the third time!

The author of the message whines, "As I write, the DOW is probing another low."

Actually, it was up 500 points the last I heard today (around 2:00 p.m. CDT). But, like I said, how many real people base anything they do in their daily lives on fluctuations in the stock market? For crying out loud! It can go up and down several times in any given hour of the day!

Then, the author expands on what the declining stock market means, "2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS has evaporated from Americans' stocks, bonds and mutual fund investment portfolios!"

And, we're all in that same boat together, aren't we—whether Democrat or Republican? Unless, of course, you happen to be so wealthy that you've put most of your money offshore in a bank that won't be touched by the current mess you probably helped create here at home.

Let's say the absolute worst happens to the American economy and we enter another Great Depression. Shall I remind you how America got through the last one? By people pulling together. Of course it wasn't pretty and it wouldn't be now, but at the moment we're still a long way from 1929. So, stop panicking!!

Then the author gets to the crux of his "argument," "Remember, the President has no control over any of these issues. Only Congress has that. And, what has Congress done in the last two years? Absolutely nothing."

The Democratic Congress of the last two years has been blocked every step of the way by the Republican minority that sees no reason to cross the aisle and work for bipartisan relief as long as their president doesn't want them to (and sometimes even when he does). Just because Democrats wrested minimal control of the House from Republicans who had taken the opportunity of the previous six years to gerrymander Congressional districts so that it was almost impossible for them to regain control (remember Tom DeLay's special visits to Texas in 2003), that doesn't mean they're to blame for the mess that was set in motion by Reagan and brought to fruition by the current Republican administration and the twelve years of a Republican-controlled Congress, six of which this administration has had at their behest. If we're looking to pick on Congress, does anyone need to be reminded that it was the Republican-controlled 105th Congress who thought one of their most important jobs was to investigate the sex life of Bill Clinton for months and months?

In any case, if "Congress has done absolutely nothing in the last two years" (which I don't think is true), that's mostly because the Democrats do not have a clear majority in either house and, therefore, they're unable to override any attempts to block legislation by the still strong Republican minority. Finally, we should also remember that whatever action Congress takes, the President can veto. And what does it take to overturn a veto? A super-majority, which the Democrats have NOT had. Moreover, W has had no trouble using his veto or the threat of it to keep Congress dancing to his tune these past two years. On top of that, he's taken advantage of "signing statments" more than any other president, and in doing so he basically countermands the responsibility of his administration to act according to the terms of any Congressional legislation he doesn't like.

Then comes the clincher, "Now, the Democratic candidate for president claims he is really going to give us change—along with a Democratic Congress!"

Let's not forget that the Republican candidate has also been singing the "change" song! He keeps telling us that he's a "maverick" and a Washington "outsider" (even though he's been in Congress for 25 years). I really don't think it's proposing to change things in Washington that's the problem. It's all the ways that the Washington establishment thwarts any real efforts to substantially alter the status quo, with which they're perfectly content and from which they're making lots of money—K Street, campaign finance reform, the Electoral College, tax reform, Social Security reform/management, education reform, health-care reform . . . do I need to go on?

The message ends, "Just how much more CHANGE do you think you can stand?"

Personally, I think America can stand a lot of change. And, boy, do we need some right now! When Barack Obama tells me that's what he plans to work for, I believe him. Whether or not he can be successful in his dream depends a lot on you and me. But, not for one minute do I buy it when either Sarah Palin or John McCain tries to say the same thing. The only dreams these people have are nightmares and you can see that on McCain's face every time he tries to smile.

I doubt that the person who sent me this message was its original author. That means you may get one like it from your "liberal or conservative" friend, too. If so, feel free to use any part of my response that you think apt.
. . .