Hyping the death of a terrorist

As I was driving home from work today, I heard a caller on a radio station say that in the course of his and most people's daily lives, the killing of Osama bin Laden isn't going to make any long-term difference. He spoke of other more pressing priorities and cautioned people and the media (including the dismissive talk show host who obviously wanted to hype the killing) not to make more of this than it deserves.

You know what? He's absolutely right.

It has been a good several days for President Obama. He proved he wasn't born in a foreign country or on another planet by releasing his long-form birth certificate. Then yesterday, he confirmed that he was indeed a patriot and a darn smart strategist by directing the military mission to kill bin Laden in a targeted manner rather than bombing the heck out of the hideaway in Pakistan. It's nice to have a president with guts and brains. Obama's not getting much credit from all the usual idiots, but I think the taking out of bin Laden pretty much sealed the deal for the 2012 election.

Well, maybe sealed is too strong of a word.

Bin Laden swimming with the fishes doesn't really do a lot for me. It's mildly satisfying at best but won't influence my vote. We have worse threats both in the international world of terrorism and in our own domestic backyard. I want my president focused on getting us out of wars and into jobs. I want a fair president who doesn't rob the poor and middle class in order to give to the rich. I want a visionary as a president -- a person with a sense of fairness, honor and respect for the planet.

Symbolic victories are just that -- symbolic. They don't lower gasoline prices. They don't get people back to work, slow down foreclosures or reduce crime. Symbolism doesn't cure cancer, stop corruption on Wall Street, educate young people or prevent oil spills. Those are far tougher problems that if solved would actually change millions of lives in positive, tangible ways for generations to come.

If Obama were to fail in his bid for a second term, it would probably be because of the sluggish economy. He can have bin Laden killed, show his birth certificate and rally young people into a frenzy in front of the White House, but if he doesn't address the economy in a meaningful manner, his re-election will not be a slam dunk. The caller on the radio, I suspect, represents how many Americans will feel once this feel-good moment from Sunday night wears off. As we enter the voting booth, we tend to focus more on what really matters in a practical sense. The demise of bin Laden won't get the potholes fixed. Nor will it stop people from trying to murder Americans.

The killing of bin Laden gives us immediate, primal satisfaction but doesn't put food on the table or teachers in the classrooms. As evil as bin Laden was, comparisons with Adolph Hitler by the media and others are absurd. Stopping Hitler changed the world. Killing bin Laden won't even prevent us from getting frisked at the airport.

We need a little perspective, folks. Seven or eight years ago this would have been a bigger story because bin Laden would have been perceived as a more viable threat. Now, as boxed in as he became, does anyone really think his death in 2011 is a game-changer in the lives of most Americans?

American aristocracy's stranglehold

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

- Thomas Jefferson, America's third president

Today is Thomas Jefferson's birthday. The above quotation has a permanent home on right-hand column of this blog's home page.

Unfortunately, we didn't heed Jefferson's warnings about corporations running the government. Not only did we give birth to an aristocracy, but that segment of society is all grown up now and creating havoc for the rest of us at a time when we desperately need to pull together.

In one corner are the lobbyists, the big corporations sitting on piles of cash demanding more tax breaks, and the politicians (mostly Republicans) who shake in their boots every time an obscenely overpaid CEO makes a threat. In the other corner are the rest of us -- folks without a whole lot of power just trying to get by, hoping that the worst corporations won't pollute our backyards, poison our foods or steal our retirement funds. If we're nice to them, maybe they'll throw us a bone and create a few low-wage jobs They have the funds to do better but won't, which is why no one should believe that cutting corporate taxes helps create jobs.

It doesn't take a liberal to charge what many large corporations prove every day, that hoarding profits is more appealing than expanding the payroll. So if these employers aren't creating much-needed jobs, why would we continue to give them tax relief? And if you think that new jobs aren't needed at many companies, ask any regular Joe or Jane employed in an office that has been devastated by layoffs whether they could use some extra help. The need is there, the business is there, but the will of the greediest executives isn't.

Not only have the corporations challenged the government, but they are the government. They have thousands of lobbyists twisting arms on Capitol Hill and even more lawyers finding tax and other legal loopholes so that they can make more money that they are becoming less willing to share or reinvest.

What do the rest of us have? One vote each and a political/social gullibility that is allowing for what Jefferson feared. We don't need a Tea Party. We need a Wake Up and Smell the Coffee Party.

The ones getting crushed by the modern-day Republicans and large corporations are the middle and lower classes, students, seniors and folks with serious illnesses. The Republicans hitched their wagons to the corporations and together sold middle America (and Fox News) on the idea that somehow they were on our side, even though they want to rob us of everything we've worked for in our lifetimes. While this new breed of CEO/Republican is despicable, our supporting and electing these aristocrats is totally on us. They can't do what they do if we don't buy into it.

On this 150th anniversary of the Civil War, I wonder if we're heading for class warfare. You see, the rich corporations and extreme right-wingers aren't just after our money. They want to change the entire social agenda of America and get rid of anyone who doesn't look or act like them. They want to be free to pollute in the name of doing business. They don't want to pay a dime for a new road or a new school unless it directly benefits them or their companies. They want to separate themselves from street crime but are perfectly willing to commit more damaging white-collar crime at every opportunity they get. Their silver-spooned vision for America is one that probably has all of our founding fathers stirring in their graves.

As President Obama has learned, it is hard to fight the good fight when the opposition has the resources of corporate America behind it -- the same corporate America that shipped our jobs overseas and needlessly laid off more employees than it had to during the Great Recession. If citizens are going to continue to believe in trickle-down fairy tales and other flag-waving failed theories, then I fear we are done as a just and compassionate nation. When we lose our soul, we will lose our freedom and prosperity.

While liberals have often erred on the side of throwing too much money at social problems, new conservatives are shoveling money at corporations and saying, "Here, you guys lead us back to the mountaintop." Well, that is not what corporations do in 2011. Corporate prosperity and societal prosperity are two different things now. We've lost the balance between the two because the government, including some Democrats, have placed too much trust in businesses that are only concerned about their own bottom lines and executive bonuses. What is good for GM or a publishing giant like Gannett (my former employer) is not necessarily good for America. All the bailouts and profits have not put much of a dent in unemployment. The lack of taxes being paid by companies like General Electric or the government subsidizing of the oil industry are simply mind-boggling.

You can disagree with what I believe, but you can't ignore the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are getting poorer. Who is to share the blame for that seems rather obvious to me. On this birthday of one of our wisest, visionary founding fathers, and with all the political smoke-and-mirror games being played today, take a long look at those words above and then tell me that Jefferson wasn't spot on with his concern about excessive corporate intrusions.

Another loss for journalism, society

Bob Herbert's final column in The New York Times is essentially a summary of what I have been saying since I started this blog. Our failing economy (as well as many other societal problems) is the result of institutional and individual greed at the very top of our society. Unemployment, record deficits, pollution -- heck, the disappearing of pollinating bees -- can be directly linked to the worst instincts and actions of the most powerful people and greediest corporations.

However, we must also look at ourselves. Columns like Herbert's aren't as well read as they once were because people are not only moving away from reading quality newspapers and becoming apathetic about current events, they are morphing into imbeciles -- refugees of a worn-out, dumbed-down culture who are unable to hold political leaders and the mega-wealthy accountable. Self-inflicted ignorance, as much as anything, is the reason we're on the edge of figurative and literal extinction.

We let it happen -- allowed the rich and powerful fool us into thinking they were somehow on our side. All we needed to do was elect them or put them into the corner office. Then the money and jobs would flow. Well, all they've done for us is take our jobs and support each other in their lies. They lie about war. They lie about profits. They even lie about global warming.

There is no place left for aging writers and editors like Herbert. In this troubling era, when we need thoughtful commentators and smart, objective editors, we are tragically left with Fox News and large newspaper chains that only care about their own stock prices and reducing newsroom payrolls.

Click here read Herbert's last column.

A coalition of America and little else

The chart on the left shows the so-called coalition countries that are allegedly involved in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. Note the "deployment status." (Click on the chart to enlarge).

Despite the political distortions out of Washington about our taking a backseat in this latest military action, it is clear that once again the United States has no problem essentially going it alone to police the world. As the chart indicates, our launching of bombs in Libya has been non-stop while most other nations sit idle.

Folks, we're spending over $1 million for every Tomahawk missile that we propel into Libya. No matter how honorable our intentions might be, do we have the money to spend on another campaign of explosions that is likely to produce even greater costs as time goes on? This isn't even our fight.

The cost of deploying American jets and ships to the region is off the charts. And I take no comfort in the fact that a handful of countries are cheering us on from the sidelines as we empty our wallets again.

We're still trying to recover from the worst recession of our lifetime and dealing with a record deficit, and we're doing so while fighting three wars. Running a peace-time economy in war-time era is beyond stupid. How do you explain to a layoff-weary nation that we need to keep bombing foreign lands rather than pay for unemployment benefits or job-training programs at home?

We bomb countries and don't seem to leave after we do, yet at the same time talk about possibly reducing Social Security benefits to save what we spend in a matter of weeks in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. Republicans slam health-care reform but won't say boo about the expense of the war against the Taliban -- the longest war in our nation's history -- a war that is not winnable. There simply seems to be no fiscal worries whatsoever when it comes to flexing our military muscle, even when we're not at risk of being attacked.

It is truly amazing that ever since the U.S. got rid of the draft, Americans have lost interest in protesting something that is just as ill-conceived today as it was during the Vietnam era. We're still losing lives in no-win conflicts, but since no one is forced to serve anymore, well, the deaths and financial costs are just not on our radar screens.

We can't pay for basic domestic services anymore, but we can apparently fight a third war while coalition partners like Spain stand "ready to participate" in the attack. Ready to participate?

Yeah, right.

I never thought President Obama would drag his feet in getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, especially when we could use the money to employ teachers and rebuild infrastructure at home. But he has. What is more shocking is Obama's selling of this operation in Libya as something it is not. We're paying the check again and that is shocking at this time, in this economy and with this president in charge.

The media covers the Libya story as a military operation but says little about the battles we all face on a daily basis on countless American Main Streets. Reports fail to put Libya into context because there is no context for the average American. Additionally, the media, like the politicians, seems to have a tendency to take its eye off the ball. And the ball is and will continue to be the economy.

Source: Chart compiled from The Washington Post

Recession's most powerless victims

More homeless children and a poverty rate that will likely hit 25 percent in the not-so-distant future -- that is what is emerging from America's so-called economic recovery, according to a 60 Minutes report last Sunday.

A new generation of Americans will be raised in sketchy motel rooms, parked cars and worse places. These are the children of the previously stable, hard-working middle class -- not kids born into decaying urban neighborhoods or to transient families on perpetual welfare. These are the kids who would have gone to college or trade school and become taxpayers themselves one day, helping to pay down the national debt that we've created for them. They have parents who were accountants and teachers, writers and secretaries -- responsible folks who played by the rules, only to find out the game was fixed (and still is).

Parents have been unable to find comparable work for a variety of reasons. Age discrimination, companies stubbornly sitting on piles of cash, politicians using joblessness as venom ... we know what's happening. The point is, kids are now paying the price for a lack of political will to fix the damn problem. We will all be feeling the effects of this institutionalized neglect for a long time. The backbone of this country -- the middle class -- has all but been broken, and few people have given more than lip service to a problem, that if addressed, might also mend or prevent other social and financial problems.

What did we think was going to happen to the families who depended on the 8 million-plus jobs that were lost since 2008? Whatever modest employment gains have been made recently don't even keep pace with the number of Americans who are entering the job market for the first time. Underemployment figures are worsening. Men and women are accepting lesser jobs that don't pay enough for them to live on, let alone enough to raise a family. What will be the mindset of this generation as it grows into adulthood in the back of a Dodge Caravan?

The new norm for millions of Americans is an unfolding tragedy that will transform the United States in ways that go beyond the despair of mass homelessness or the expanding federal debt. The spirit of millions of people -- young and old -- is being shattered with each foreclosure sign that goes up and each rejection letter that is received by a desperate jobseeker. Tax collections are shrinking as layoffs continue. Yes, people are still getting laid off, although you'd never know it based on the lack of news coverage.

The unemployed and underemployed are slowly being forgotten by a society increasingly distracted by celebrity news and other trivial matters reported by mainstream media fighting for its own financial survival and making decisions based on ratings rather than sound news judgment. A free press is only beneficial to a democratic society if it lives up to its responsibilities and the citizenship shows more of an interest in being informed on important topics.

At a time when things are getting bleaker for young and old -- as kids who were once riding their bikes along pristine sidewalks are disappearing from the suburban landscape and Baby Boomers are abandoning retirement dreams -- we could use more informative reports like the one on 60 Minutes.

Big fish facing rapid extinction

I am beginning to wonder if there is anything human beings haven't messed up in the last three or four decades. Whether it's financial deficits, the faltering environment or the destruction of our own "American dream," it appears that massive consumption, over-population and a sense of unrestrained entitlement are directly responsible for an array of societal and environmental problems.

Today I learned of this bit of sobering news: Scientists have concluded that more than 54 percent of the decline of large predator fish has taken place in the last 40 years. Forty-years! That's not even a blink of the eye in the timeline of mankind.

So what is it about human beings in the last half century that make them so destructive? Are there just too many of us now? Or have we lost our sense of stewardship? Maybe it's a combination of many things, including the never-ending quest for expanding profits. We can blame it on technology that tends to proclaim more is better, or bad parenting, or some sort of cosmic shift. But there is no denying that there is something wrong with a generation of humans that has left so many scars on the planet so rapidly that in one or two more generations we may have to visit an aquarium to see anything bigger than a guppy or a zoo to see a large cat. And if those were the only problems related to mass extinctions, it would be sad but survivable for us. However, extinctions have a domino effect that impacts virtually everyone and everything. Of course, as we get dumber (yes, our rankings in education in the U.S. have also plummeted in the last few decades), it seems less likely that we're going to fix what ails us.

The real predators in this world aren't the sharks. They only take what they need. It's human beings who will cut off a shark's fin (for soup) and callously discard the rest of the fish. It's human beings who destroy oxygen-producing rain forests and kill the Chesapeake Bay with factory farm-produced toxins so that some corporation can produce chickens at a rate that keeps stock prices high. It's developers who knock down trees and fill in wetlands so that it's easier and more cost efficient to build shopping centers and residential subdivisions, even as current retail stores and homes remain vacant. And we're all guilty of wanting everything we consume for the lowest possible price, which leads to all sorts of abuses, including child labor and defective products. So in a way, we create the predators who are cleaning out the oceans and depleting other natural resources.

Click here to read more about the assault on our oceans and why you eventually will be eating sardines instead of cod or salmon.

Loose lips sink Boehner's credibility

When George H.W. Bush used the "Read my lips" comment to proclaim that he wouldn't raise taxes during his presidency, well, you know how that turned out. His reversing course cost him a second term.

So why would the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, use the same phrase this week to claim he is serious about cutting spending? Essentially, it's a tarnished political cliche and should be shelved for the next few decades. Plus, does anyone believe a politician who excludes the military budget and gives massive tax breaks to billionaires is serious about the deficit or the federal budget? Most people understand the need to cut government spending, but I can't believe Americans want to do it in the way Republicans are suggesting.

I am beginning to think that Boehner just isn't very bright, something some Republicans seem to pride themselves on in recent years. The other day Boehner bragged about his desire to cut government jobs, after first lying about how many federal positions have been created in the last two years by the evil Obama administration. He used the heavy-handed phrase "so be it" to explain how he didn't really care whether federal employees lost their jobs. You would think a guy representing a party that claims to have all the answers to the unemployment problem would be more careful with his words. Putting tens of thousands out of work -- regardless of whether that work is done in the private or public sector -- is not very intelligent or responsible, let alone caring. We don't need for a more competitive job market by displacing thousands of workers. Those federal employees pay taxes just like private-sector employees. I am not saying that some federal jobs aren't a waste of taxpayer dollars or shouldn't be trimmed, but the majority of government positions help to protect our food supply, teach our kids and patrol our streets. C'mon Mr. Boehner, don't kill what little credibility you might have by making Palin-like comments that show no insight or willingness to address the facts. Don't attack PBS (another GOP target) like it's the main reason for our deficit. Don't ask me to read your lips if you aren't serious about cutting from your pet projects.

Here's a fact: The rich are getting richer, the middle class is getting poorer, and the money and jobs are not trickling down as wealthy conservatives continually claim will happen but never does. The dwindling middle class needs to wake up and read the facts.

As I watched a documentary about Ronald Reagan recently, I wondered how Reagan could have turned his back on people who needed a hand when in fact his own family, as he was growing up, received government assistance to weather the economic storm of his childhood. Without that government intervention, Reagan might not have gone very far in life. Heck, he and his family might have found it hard to simply survive or put food on the table. Many people need a helping hand at some point in their lives, something Republicans fail to comprehend. They see it as a weakness. It was Reagan, the first Democrat-turned-Republican to make it to the White House, who made it OK to turn away from those down on their luck. But even Reagan wasn't quite as ruthless or dishonest as the current crop of conservatives. He had some redeeming qualities, unlike today's hardcore conservatives who seemingly want the middle class to go away so that the fat cats can get fatter.

Then there is the military and the funding for our policing the world.

Look, I am all for a strong defense. But I am not for overkill, especially in lean times. We already have enough explosives and war machinery to destroy the entire world multiple times. How many aircraft carriers do we need to stop underwear bombers? But hold onto your wallets because the Republicans, not the Democrats, are aiming to take your Social Security away or delay benefits until you're too old or dead to collect much of anything. Yup, Social Security is just one of those old, nasty government programs that new Republicans hate. In their eyes, the money would be better spent on occupying some foreign land.

So no, I won't support Boehner's selfish beliefs and inarticulate cliches. If Republicans and Tea Party radicals want to make a case for turning off grandma's heating (a miniscule savings at best), they better first find a way to milk their own sacred cows -- the extremely wealthy, the oil companies, the military. That's where the real recovery could occur without breaking the back of Americans who have nothing left to give. That's not class warfare, that's just a sense of fairness -- something we are losing in recent years as we allow one political party to fuel the flames of hatred towards the unemployed, the elderly and anyone else who isn't in a position of power.

And please, let's not even get into Boehner's so-called humble background. As I mentioned, Reagan also forgot where he came from as he stuck a dagger into union workers -- this from a man who was the head of a union early in his career. You would think these types of self-made human beings would help lift others up, but they don't. It's not in their nature. They believe that hard work was solely responsible for their success and that unsuccessful people just aren't vigilant enough.

Any talk of addressing the deficit must begin with where the money really lies, not with nickel and diming the middle class to death and robbing folks of their benefits that they worked for a lifetime to obtain. Not investing in clean energy and education, while continuing to cater to big oil and rich bankers, is short-sighted at best. If Republicans want to act as patriotic as they claim to be, they can start by demanding more from their entitled friends who rarely give back to society in any meaningful manner but seemingly get every tax break known to humankind.

Since becoming the leader of the House of Representatives, Boehner has displayed almost no leadership ability or big-picture thinking. His tone is often hyper-political and confrontational, and could lead to the government shutting down in March if the budget debate worsens. Boehner shoots from the hip and only has the back of the most privileged people in society -- the people and corporations who financially support his campaigns. He is, like so many Republicans these days, a political machine, void of any sense of fair play or fresh ideas. He is the perfect modern-day Republican -- a visionless version of Ronald Reagan with lots of tears and no heart. His shining city on a hill is gated and consists of CEOs driving around in large SUVs while their employees watch their health-care premiums go up.

Republicans are exposing their true identity and lack of intellect lately. You don't have to read between the lines to see it. You just need to read their lips.

Oh, say can we replace this song?

"The Star Spangled-Banner," musically speaking, is not a good song.

Why do I say this?

Did you hear Christina Aguilera's version before Super Bowl XLV? She is the latest talented singer to maul the tune. Not only did she forget the words at one point, but she also mangled the melody in an attempt to win style points and/or recover from the lyrical error.

Our national anthem has clunky lyrics that don't exactly roll off the tongue. Frank Sinatra wouldn't be able to smooth out the words. To make matters worse, the melody isn't, well, much of a melody. When compared with "America the Beautiful," the SSB is melodically challenged. If it weren't our anthem, and symbolic of something larger than just a song, it would be difficult to sit through without covering your ears.

Sports stadiums aren't great venues for artists to showcase their vocal abilities. Recent halftime shows at Super Bowls have been peppered with production problems that make the performers sound off. The anthem in particular is almost always on the brink of disaster. The only exception I can recall is Robert Merrill at Yankee Stadium. For whatever reason, the opera singer nailed it almost every time. Or at least nailed it as much as it could be nailed, and did so before countless games and other events in New York.

Every time someone botches the anthem, there is a group of people who thinks they did it intentionally out of some kind of ego-driven need to be disrespectful. In most cases, I don't think that is true. I do think, however, that the song is a lemon that needs to be replaced.

Back in the saddle with a new twist

It should appear obvious by now that Calvacca Blog has been somewhat revived in recent weeks. What is not so obvious is that I am back in the saddle again in terms of having a "regular job" -- a place where I go each day to work, learn and share.

The the details of the job that I started this week aren't as important as the fact that I have ventured outside of the mainstream media for the first time in my three-decade career. I am working in the communications department at a quasi-governmental organization in Northern Virginia. Many of my journalism skills are expected to transfer well as I get deeper into the job, which is not to say that there isn't a whole lot of new stuff that I need to learn in the meantime. I am grateful for the opportunity and welcome the challenge.

While I have sometimes questioned the usefulness of former journalists starting blogs -- it's almost a cliche, particularly since the start of the recession/layoffs in 2008 -- I can report that blogging (and all that goes with it) appears to have been a worthwhile endeavor that helped me land my current position, which required online and writing skills, in addition to a journalistic and design background. In fact, this was the second regular job that I was offered in recent weeks with similar responsibilities and technical requirements. Both hiring managers came from the newspaper world and seemed to have an appreciation for the time that I spent at USA Today and other papers. Neither employer made age an issue, which was a nice change from what appears to be the new norm at many other companies.

While the job market remains pretty tough, particularly for former newspaper professionals with ink in their blood, there does seem to be some glimmer of hope for folks who are able and willing to make a few sacrifices and to learn some new tricks. But be prepared. One's prior credentials or pay grade don't always carry the same weight in a new field. In some ways, you have to embrace starting over. Depending on your financial obligations, that isn't always easy to do.

The vibe of a newsroom is a fairly unique thing. It grows on you. It's hard to duplicate in other businesses. Back in the day, if you were patient and did your job well, you could eventually make a decent living on an editor's salary at a large publication. Those days are just about gone, as journalists with big paychecks are being shown the door at an alarming rate. But there does appear to be life outside of the newsroom, and with any luck, it will be an acceptable life -- one that doesn't involve the constant threat of layoffs that has poisoned the newspaper business and cut tens of thousands of careers short.

Note: I expect my blogging to be light for the next few months. However, I do want to continue to have a presence here, so please feel free to check out the blog from time to time.

Health care a distant second to jobs

Republicans like to refer to the U.S. House of Representatives as the “people’s house.” Ever since the election in November, they have been on a mission to conduct what they say is the No. 1 priority of the people – repealing health insurance reform.

There is only one problem with that. It’s not true.

According to every legitimate poll, including the recent CBS News/New York Times survey, unemployment (still over 9 percent and much higher in some parts of the country) continues to be the top concern of the majority of Americans. Joblessness is causing cities, towns and local governments to decay. Buildings are still boarded up. Foreclosure signs continue to litter many neighborhoods. Yet, the new House of Representatives, led by John Boehner of Ohio, charged ahead last week and voted to repeal the recent health-care reform package, labeled “Obamacare” by radio talk show hosts, as well as Boehner himself, who should be above this sort of parochial nonsense.

It is appalling that the House has chosen to make this symbolic repeal vote its first major piece of business, particularly when millions of folks are still out of work. And to be fair, I have also stated in this blog that President Obama was wrong in highlighting health care while unemployment was seemingly on the back burner during his first several months in office. Only now has Obama, with his upcoming State of the Union address, seemed to have shifted his full attention to jobs.

Little has changed in American politics in recent months. Republicans won big in November for one reason and one reason only: They were not the party in power while unemployment hovered around 10 percent. Somehow they took what American voters told them (fix unemployment) and twisted it into some sort of mandate to attack everything Obama, including needed financial and health-care reforms.

Trying to tie unemployment rates to health care legislation, as Republicans are now doing, is not only contrary to every objective economic study, but it is also proven to be incorrect by recent history.

We didn’t have insurance reforms when we got into this economic mess three years ago. We didn’t even have the law for the first part of the Obama presidency. So repealing the act and expecting jobs to miraculously reappear is not only wrong, it’s ignoring the need for feasible economic solutions.

Where are the studies showing that repealing health reform will reduce unemployment? Probably in the same file that suggests the wealthy create jobs with the extra money they get back from Uncle Sam. Instead of making these broad and often outdated assumptions, Republicans (and GOP-slanted media outlets) should produce facts based on objective research. Show me sound data that says for every $50,000 a billionaire saves on taxes, that money is used to hire someone. Until then, I have a hard time accepting these trickle-down theories, particularly when the income gap between the wealthiest Americans and the middle class continues to widen.

Going back to a system that allows insurance companies to gouge customers, or worse, lets people needlessly die, is not going to put America back to work in jobs that pay livable wages. Losing one’s house because they got sick isn’t going to improve the real estate market. The mood of the country isn’t going to get better by funding unjust wars or continuing to ship jobs overseas.

Congress needs to do better, act with more dignity and intelligence, while attending to the real-life issues that continue to confront our nation. Getting sucked into a Palin/Limbaugh universe is a recipe for further economic and personal disaster. Jobs not only propel the economy, but they also fuel individual self esteem and tighten the moral fabric of this country.

It is time for politicians to turn off Fox News and pay attention to what real journalists and pollsters are reporting. The margin of error for most scientific polls is 5 percentage points or fewer. With health care well behind jobs in most polls in the last two years, there should be no excuses to not make the economy the No. 1 priority in Washington, state houses and the media. The people have spoken. Will Mr. Boehner and others listen, or will they continue to misinterpret the message from the 2010 elections?