According to the March 28 Wall Street Journal, President Obama's new budget, to be released this week, will contain Social Security benefit cuts. Just as only Nixon could go to China, only Obama can cut Social Security. With whom is that popular, other than our obnoxiously greedy elites? And with the way they've crapped all over our world, why do they still get all the say about everything? These people live on a totally different planet than the rest of us -- which is why we have to remind them we're here. The Campaign for America's Future helps you tell Mr. Obama not to cut Social Security benefits. If he's not going to protect the programs we've fought for and paid into all our lives, what is the purpose of him? (The Senate went on record as opposing the "chained CPI" benefit cuts last week -- but what if that vote's just cover so nobody has to take responsibility for doing the deed? How absurd would it be for them to run on their non-binding vote instead of the vote that actually did the damage?)
Meanwhile, an Exxon pipeline ruptured in Mayflower, Arkansas last Friday night, dumping thousands of gallons of heavy crude oil and prompting the evacuation of 22 residents. And guess what? That pipeline runs through Lake Maumelle, an artificial lake which provides drinking water to hundreds of thousands of good folks in central Arkansas -- the spill didn't occur there, of course, but why wouldn't it? And though the heavy crude that traversed the Pegasus wasn't tar sands oil (though they are quite similar), you can see why so many good Americans immediately thought of Mr. Obama's impending decision on building the Keystone XL pipeline, which also would run through aquifers and thus potentially befoul the heartland's drinking water. You might see why so many Americans would be a little conservative about such matters. Thus the League of Conservation Voters helps you tell the Obama Administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.
In other news, the North Carolina state legislature mulls HB 217, which would allow the state to try 13-year-olds as adults and send them to jail with adults. Golly, which mode of attack should we use on this legislative mound of dung? Should we point out that studies tell us that putting kids in jail with adults makes those kids more likely to commit more crime when they get out? Or should we merely say hello, these are kids we're talking about? Who, we have long accepted, need our guidance to make the right decisions, and whose behavior reflects on us? No use complaining that kids today are out of control, or pointing to times kids act out and people die -- kids do that today because we have abandoned them, both as parents working too many jobs to make ends meet and as a culture that thinks every-man-for-himself is not only deep philosophy but good economic policy. If you're a North Carolina resident, Color of Change helps you tell your NC state legislator to reject HB 217, and restore some sanity to our justice system.
Finally, the Philadelphia City Council passed a bill in mid-March giving all Philadelphia workers at least four days of paid sick leave, and SignOn helps you tell Mayor Michael Nutter to sign the bill. Yup, even though the Mayor's a Democrat, we have to tell him to sign a paid sick leave bill, because he's already vetoed one in the past. And the noises emanating from the Mayor's office sound suspiciously Republican -- it'll hurt small businesses (like sick workers bringing in their walking pneumonia don't!), the economy's too bad (like you should only do good works when it's convenient for you!). Actually, the bill requires that workers get four paid sick days if they work for small businesses; Philly's other employees would get seven. Yikes, that sounds almost like the kind of compromise we used to see when Democrats and Republicans talked to each other, before our elites redefined "compromise" as abject capitulation to their will. It wouldn't be too conservative of me to yearn for actual compromise again, would it?