Thoughts

by

How Many Americans Are Truly Unemployed?


During the years 1929 to 1935 as many of 25% of America’s able working public was unemployed.  How did they get that number?  Simple, if you did not have a regular full-time job, you were unemployed.

That, however, is not how we do it today.  Today’s figures are gathered entirely from America’s who are receiving an unemployment check.  It does not include the homeless, who were counted in 1933; the chronically unemployed, who also were counted in 1933; or farm workers, who were counted in 1933.  Why then, you ask, are we not counting those people now?  The simple, and most truthful answer, it is not convenient.  You see, if we did count those people we would have to acknowledge an unemployment rate of well about 15% and that, regardless of what they say, is something neither political party is prepared to cope with.

When John Glenn went into space the first time, the heat shield of his capsule malfunctioned and there was worry that he would burn-up upon re-entry into the atmosphere.  NASA leadership haggled over what to do when one of Glenn’s fellow astronauts told them that they had an obligation to inform Glenn of the condition of his ship, and that Glenn, being the outstanding pilot his was, would assist in the decisions that needed to be made.

The United States is owned by the people, not but 535 congressmen and senators.  The people have a guaranteed right to assist in decisions made for them.  That, however, is difficult to do when complete information is denied them.  The American people do not know the condition of their ship, although Congress probably does, or should.  They forget, it seems, that they are servants and not masters, although it seems they believe they are the latter.

The good ship United States is mired in a recession, the stubbornness of which is confounding, but the magnitude of which is being kept from the general public by those in whom is held the public trust.  A person who is chronically unemployed or who has quit looking is not necessarily unemployable.  But when their own government stops counting them then they are right to feel neglected by their own government.  Those people have not given up a single right to which they are entitled and which the Constitution gives them guarantee.  But their government, our government, through statistical trickery, has rendered them unworthy of its time.  Who, I ask, gave them permission to do so?

I recommend, and I know this will be wildly unpopular with my more conservative friends, that any person who is unemployed be given an unemployment check for however long that unemployment lasts.  Then we will be forced as a country to look at all our citizens, without exception, and deal with the entire problem and not just that portion of it that suits us.

by

Expediant Politicians Have Compromised America’s Fighting Men


If you have read my previous posts you may believe I am beating this subject to death.  But as a veteran, and hopefully a thoughtful and patriotic American, I feel responsible to speak up on my belief that those in political power, obsessed by their own self-serving priorities, are putting our nation’s warriors in harm’s way.

In October and November of 1925, Colonel William Mitchell was court-martialed for having the temerity to speak his conscience and call into question the conviction of American politicians in providing a proper defense, in the field of aviation, for America.  For those of you unfamiliar with this case, in 1921 he predicted that Japan would launch a sneak attack by aircraft based on ships at sea, on a Sunday morning around 7AM, and upon the ships of the United States based in the port of Honolulu.  His assertion, at the time, was of course brushed off as the rantings of a man more interested in his own fame than anything else.  Mitchell, over the next four years, continued his attack on military leadership whose “conservative” views did not allow for the idea of new and revolutionary ideas.  They, in turned, conspired with the numerous politician to maintain the status-quo or, worse, weaken the nation’s defenses.

Fortunately, America no longer disregards the advances that are being made in warfare.  To the contrary, America’s development of “smart bombs” and other technological advances are a point of pride.  But a lesson that was learned in World War II seems to have been forgotten.  To be sure, America’s technological advances during World War II helped win that war.  But it was the individual fighting man who was at its base.  That is, the technological advances not withstanding, it was the overwhelming numbers of American fighting men, and women, who helped put us over the top.  America fielded over 2 million men during that war.  But out of that war came something we had not expected, combat fatigue.  It was really nothing new, had been experienced in both the Revolutionary War and World War I, but it finally had a name, and a face.

Fighting a war is like running a marathon.  The runner knows full-well that he will hit “the wall,” that point at which he runs out of initial calories, and has to do the final 8 miles on his reserves.  But he knows that at 26.2 miles he will be done, and that in mind, he can maintain a very high level of effectiveness overcoming his bodily pains to complete his mission.  Military men are no different.  They are given a “tour of duty” in a war zone that will last no longer than one year before they are returned home.  Like the runner, however, they must enjoy an extended time of rest to recover from their experience.  But unlike the marathoner, they have incurred a psychological debt that cannot be quantified and may be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

American politicians, most of whom have never served in the military, never mind in a war-zone, do not allow for the psychological damage of war to enter into their considerations when planning for a properly manned military.  They look only at the national budget, and seeing the largeness of the defense budget, they allow political necessity to rule their decisions rather than the proper defense of America and the safety of those who are entrusted with its defense, the military.

Freedom is not free but American politicians, fearful of having to defend its expense, allow for the reduction in the size of America’s military at the expense of the safety of the individual military person.  Even the Spartans, the best-trained, best-equipped, best prepared military force of its day were defeated by numbers.  As valiant as they were, in the end, they ceased to exist simply because of being overwhelmed by an extremely more extensive military force.  Could this happen to America?  Yes!

I am intensely proud of my service in the U.S. Army and am extremely protective of any who would desire to do it wrong.  Right now, as I see it, those who do it wrong are our elected officials, those who we have asked to do our bidding but who, because they lack honor, prefer to force upon the military systems it neither wants nor needs, to curry favor with industrialists who support their political careers but who have no vote in their election.

When Dwight Eisenhower was made commander of all allied forces in Europe during World War II, he knew full-well it was not because he was a stellar tactician, but rather because he could navigate the harsh world of politics and do it in a manner that both mollified the political powers of the allies while tending to the emergency needs of the troops.  He of course surrounded himself with the best tacticians he could find.  The result was his ability to have exactly the number of troops he needed and resources needed to pull off to D-Day invasion of 1944.   America and Americans seemed to finally have come to terms with the idea of “whatever it takes” to win a war.  We committed unconditionally.  To be certain, in 1944 America was weary of war and wanted it over as-soon-as possible.  It continued for another 15 months beyond D-Day 1944.

Since that time America has committed itself to the defense of free thinking people everywhere and especially to the defense of the American homeland.  Nothing shows that resolve more than our response following 9/11.  But America seems to have forgotten, and needs to be reminded, particularly those who assume public office, that war is always a game of numbers, and those numbers are always a count of individual human lives.  Those numbers are necessarily the man who wears the uniform and puts himself in harm’s way in defense of the country he loves.  But men wear out just like machines, and war wears a man out more quickly than any other single endeavor.  To meet our obligations world-wide we need a large active military force.  We do not have that, nor have we for too long.  We wear our those individual parts to their detriment.  We seem to but unable, or unwilling, to pay forward the tax of field the military we promise.

Our active and reserve military forces are simply being over-taxed because there are not enough of them.  We reduce the size of our military at our own peril, and the peril of the individual we ask to go to war for us.  We need an active military in excess of 1 million men and a reserve force that numbers at least 3 million.  We are not even close to either of those figures.  What we should be learned from present-day actions, but do not seem to be, is that modern wars will be long and drawn out requiring long-term commitment from us.  It is unreasonable to keep asking the same individuals to put themselves in harm’s way time and again when we have the resources, and ability, to field far more.

by

Dealing With Traffic Congestion in America’s Cities


Even though I am addressing the growing problem of congestion in America’s cities, I am going to refer almost entirely to Boston as it is the city I am most familiar with.  In an article in today’s (August 5, 2012) Boston Globe entitled “Teh cure for congestion”  p. K10 by Derrick Z. Jackson, the method Stockholm Sweden used is put forth.  In 2006, it states, Stockholm began a 7-month trial where it charged each automobile entering the city about $1.50 on off-peak hours and about $3 during peak traffic hours.  It used 18 city entry points armed with cameras that took photos of the license plates of cars entering the city and sent the charges to the registered owners.  Public opposition t this idea ran as high as 75%.  But at the end of the trial period the amount of traffic entering the city had been reduced by 22%, and when the measure was put to the vote, the public passed the measure to make it permanent.

In 1991 I attended a professional conference initiated by then Senator Paul Tsongas at the University of New Hampshire where professional traffic management specialists put on a symposium.  At the time Boston’s “Big Dig” was in its infancy.  Even so, for reasons that eluded rational and reasonable explanation, the plan for the North/South rail link had been discarded.  And this in spite of the fact that it had been fully engineered and was included in the original plans.  For those of you unfamiliar with Boston, the city has two rail terminus, one called North Station and the other, South Station.  This is, and never has been, a rail line that links the two which has meant passengers coming from north of Boston have had to use other means of transportation to get them to South Station so they could continue the journey, if the so desired.   The additional cost of the North/South link, had it been carried out, would have cost in the tens of millions of dollars in a project that ended up costing over $15 billion.

But such short-sightedness, and political chicanery, not unusual in the world of Massachusetts politics.  To the contrary, anyone who lives in the state knows only too well the state in known for its political patronage which Bay Staters have been at a loss to do much about.

Curiously, Boston is home to one of the foremost schools for urban planning which exists within the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Moreover, the U.S. Department of Transportation has one of its larger research and development centers in Cambridge at the Volpe Center.  M.I.T. and the Volpe Center sit side-by-side not coincidentally.  But Massachusetts, in its infinite wisdom, has seldom seen fit to avail itself of these facilities most likely because its political influence does not extend to either.  By extension, if you look at other major American cities, you can find other private facilities which would welcome public monies in a state’s efforts to deal with its transportation problems.  These institutions, having no political agenda, would likely give a comprehensive and reason response to any transportation problem which is happening the city and state in which they reside.  And for far fewer dollars than corporate America can deliver with a product that would challenge any.

All major cities need a comprehensive system of rapid transportation.  By definition, that means subways systems and street cars, and any other facility whose movement is affected little, if at all, by street congestion.

Boston’s subway, the oldest in the nation, though by definition is a rapid transit system, suffers from its own form of congestion which during rush hours frequently renders it little faster than the street level automobile.  Worse yet, the infrastructure of the subway system itself is in need of extensive repair and rebuilding.  This, of course, is costly.  Worse, the system, the MBTA, is currently in debt to the tune of over $100 million.  The political response to this problem has been to raise fares, reduce service, and leave the long-term problems unanswered and unaddressed.  Other systems, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Chicago, I have little doubt, suffer from similar problems.

What Americans do not understand, and which was brought out in detail at that 1991 conference, is that is costs many times more to maintain the nation’s roads per mile than it does to maintain the right-of-way for rapid transit and commuter trains.  Even more, public transportation has the ability to carry many more people between any two points per hour than even the best highway.

Why don’t Americans abandon their cars for the more economical and fiscally responsible public transportation.  Unfortunately public transportation has the tendency to be unreliable, uncomfortable, inconvenient and largely unattractive.  The “park and ride” facilities are frequently too small and inconveniently located.  Those that are heavily used tend to fill up early which provides a disincentive to the later commuter to even consider them.  In Massachusetts, for example, there is only one parking facility, the Interstate 95/Route 128 facility, that resides immediately next to a heavily used highway.  But there are more than 10 places where the commuter rail intersects with an Interstate highway.  Urban planners know, or should know, that easy of access is key to ridership in public transportation.  But Massachusetts, which has been increasing the size of its commuter rail had done absolutely nothing to address this.

The incentive to use public transportation, as shown in Stockholm, must be balanced with a disincentive to use the automobile.  Any person who has ever traveled to western Europe or the Far East and used their public transportation systems, knows how superior those systems are to any that presently exist in the United States.  In the world arena of public transportation, the United States is little more than a third-world country.

One thing the American public needs, to help it embrace public transportation, is knowledge of the cost to maintain a road per mile.  Politicians never give out such figures even though they have easy access to those figures.  Our roadways, as every American must know, are deteriorating faster than they can be rebuilt.  Roads that are in desperate need of rebuilding are patched which in itself is expensive.  Roads deteriorate not just from age, but also from the volume of traffic they carry.  The greater the traffic load, the faster the deterioration.  And that is extremely expensive.  Conversely, rail transportation can withstand increased use far better and much longer.  It only makes sense to shift traffic from roads to rails.

America would do well to take the lessons learned in Stockholm and other European and Asian countries that have adequately addressed their country’s transportation needed.  The solution to America’s traffic congestion is not easy but it does exist.

by

Why Is America Always Trying to Disband Its Military?


When Thomas Jefferson took the oath of office in 1801, one of his first moves was his attempt to entirely disband the Federal Military Forces.  Were it not for some powerful opponents who had gone to great lengths to bring a US Navy into existence, he would have succeeded.  Jefferson considered a professional military a luxury, and one the nation could ill-afford.  His successor, James Madison, in 1812 had to deal with the result of his efforts.  British troops encountered little resistance on their way to Washington D.C. and had little trouble in burning down the nation’s capitol building.  The heroes and military leadership of the Revolution were either aging or dead, and were of no use in the War of 1812.  It must be remembered that the war was started over the United States objecting to the impressment of American merchant sailors into the British Navy.  The U.S., however, lacked the force to prevent such impressments.

Some view the Civil War as the campaign of two great armies against one-another.  But nothing could be further from the truth, at least at the beginning.  Even though most of the professional soldiers wore Union Blue at the start of the war, they were largely unprepared and lacked for good leadership.  Conversely, Confederate troops were largely irregulars but were fortunate to have a lot of good and professional military leaders in their midst.

Again, when Japan brought war to our shores in December of 1941, the US Army had a little over 100,000 regular troops.  Had Japan and Germany been able to bring a large contingent of their professional armies to our shores, we most certainly would have suffered far longer before getting ourselves properly positioned.

It seemed we had finally learned our lesson because at the start of the Korean War and then again Vietnam, we had a sufficiently large standing army, at least for the start of hostilities.

Then, not too long before the first Gulf War, a curious thing happened.  President George Bush and congress decided we had too much military, that our country could no longer afford all the men and facilities.  Enter the Base Closure Commission.  It was the mission of this commission to identify duplicate efforts, little needed facilities, and excesses and either close or combine them in the name of economics.  At its heart it was a good idea, but they had a side-agenda that received little to no publicity.  That agenda was to re-organize the American Military into what was termed “leaner” units.  The was political double-talk for troop reductions at all levels.

To be truthful, the American military mission has changed in some respects greatly from World War II.  We fought WWII as a war of attrition meaning we could throw more men and material at you than you could at us.  We could easily overwhelm you, and that is exactly what we did.  But Vietnam taught us that our WWII philosophy was simply no longer efficient.  In spite of our saturation bombing of North Vietnam, we were simply unable to overwhelm them with our might.  The North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong fought in small and dispersed units who used guerrila tactics.  They knew how to kill us using the old Chinese maxim of dying from a thousand cuts.  Afer 1975 we knew we had to fight smarter.  Americans became amused with the idea of fighting a war of technology that used machines for the close-up work and men would largely stay well behind the lines.  The first Gulf War, however, if anything, should have taught us that this view, while fanciful, was unrealistic.

In 1991 we had just enough full-time soldiers to effect a quick liberation of Kuwait and the ability to turn back the Iraqi Republican Guard to behind its own borders.  But at that point we were forced to stop until our logistics could catch up with our lines.  Simply put, there were not enough men on the ground to continue the charge, as it were.  Pres. Bush quickly activated reservists and national guard troops to help fill the breech.  Fortunately our reserves and national guard were at much higher levels on manning than exists today.  Reservists made a single six month or less rotation and were not called upon again.

I think the sign of Washington’s ever-present folly in its thinking came to bear when it was decided during the first base closures to close Fort Ord California.  The 7th Infantry Division of Fort Ord had been deployed to Iraq in 1992 to help win that war.  Not long after its return, the 7th Infantry Division was deactivated and then in 1994 Fort Ord was closed.  Fort Ord’s 28,600 acres comprised the US Army largest maneuver facility in the United States.  That was significant because, as anyone who had served in the military knows, armies need large tracts of land to practice their tactics and work out their problems.  Congress had deprived the American military of its best facility for that.

At the same time the federal government informed state governments that their national guard forces would be seeing a considerable reduction.  How, you ask, can this happen if nominally the national guard serves the individual states first, Title 32 of the U.S. Code, and the Federal Government during times of emergency, Title 10 of the U.S. Code?  Simple, the Federal Government pays for the lion’s share of the equipment the state governments use for their national guard troops.  Congress informed the states that, for example, it would no longer put up $1 billion for their state’s forces, but would now only give $400 million, and the state could make up any differences.  While that is a little over-simplified, it is what basically happened.  By the year 2000 many states’ national guard had been reduced by 50% or more, usually more.

Enter September 11, 2001.  George W. Bush quickly sends America to war with Afghanistan, and not too long afterwards, Iraq.  But America’s standing army is small, and its reserve and guard forces a mere shell of what they had once been.  Why is that important?

During World War II the impact of combat fatigue came to bear.  No one in America had any idea of what it was or how to deal with it.  Even though our active military forces exceeded 2 million troops during the war, our troops were being ordered to stay longer than any had signed up for.  Now in fairness, most enlistees literally signed up for “the duration,” as stated in their contracts, but few understood that to mean 2 continuous years or more of fighting on the front.  Yet that is exactly what happened to too many of our troops.  Post-war the American military dedicated itself to the ideal of requiring any person to serve no more than one tour of duty, one calendar year, in a war zone.  To that end we were entirely successful during and through the war in Vietnam. The only troops who ever served more than one tour in Vietnam requested to do so.  Americans seemed to understand, congress as well, that we needed to have a sufficient supply of active and reserve troops to fill such an objective.

We now live in an age where reservists and national guardsmen are required to serve 2, 3, and 4 tours of duty in a war zone.  It seems to have become acceptable to require part-time soldiers to do the job of a regular standing force.  We seem to have forgotten that our National Guard, originally called state militia, were meant to be called only in times of national emergency.  What, pray-tell, is our present national emergency that such a large percentage of our reservist must regularly be called to active duty and sent to a war zone?

The solution to this is simple yet expensive.  But the American public needs to come to grips with the idea, and the ideal, that a formidable standing force, full-time soldiers, is necessary to guarantee our peace of mind.  At this very moment congress is making plans to yet again reduce the strength of our active duty military.  As the old maxim says, “penny-wise and pound-foolish.”  If anything, we need to increase the size of our active military force as-well-as our reserves and national guard forces.  The type of freedom and liberty we enjoy here in the United States does not come cheaply.  Why is it then we are not willing to put forward the level of funding  necessary to insure our peace and tranquility?

“Those who do not remember their history are doomed to repeat it.”  It is not, therefore, impossible that we could suffer another “Pearl Harbor” or even worse.  Do we really want that?  Have we become so complacent that we truly believe that to be impossible?  For those of you who think the answer “yes,” we cannot possibly have another Pearl Harbor, I entreat you to read a book called “The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell” and see if you cannot find parallels to his warnings of 1925 and the conditions that exist today.

 

by

Can Mr. Smith Return to Washington?


In the 1939 movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” Jimmy Stewart played an honest man who went to Washington as a newly elected senator from his state.  Smith (Stewart) went to Washington full of idealism and energy only to encounter monied interests who were about to plunder the state for their own selfish ends.  While entertaining, the movie was a commentary on how well-connected wealthy interests were able to sway the votes of congress to do their bidding.  This was nothing new, even then, but it seems today we are faced with a crisis of the same sort.

In today’s Boston Globe (August 3, 2012), there is a story about the “Super-PACs” and their power.  To my surprise, and disgust, it was revealed that a majority of the funding of these PACs comes from a mere 10 people.  No, that unfortunately is not a typo on my part, the number is 10.  It goes on to say that about 98% of all funding of these PACs comes from just over 1000 individuals.  This should be abhorrent to any thinking individual.

It is said that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it, and so it has come to pass.  In the late 19th and early 20th century, the PACs of that era, then known as “trusts” combined to set prices, levy high taxes on imports, and restrict the amount of government regulation upon their industry.  Americans, finally fed up with this behavior, passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act, the minimum wage law, and child-labor laws.  That era, known as the Populist Era, passed quickly, by around 1915, and America quickly reverted to some of its old ways.  The result was the great stock market crash of 1929.  This time, however, it was the financial interests who had leveraged Congress to allow them carte blanch in their affairs.  Because of the nation’s crisis, FDR was able to enact a host of laws that both allowed free enterprise to flourish but had the government keep a watchful eye on exactly how business went about doing so.

But once Ronald Reagan was elected to office, he set about reversing many of the regulations, weakening oversight, and assuring large business that the government would no longer be “meddling” in their affairs.

This led to the rise of special interest groups in Washington who enticed members of congress to acquiesce to their desires.  But that helped bring about campaign finance reform which, briefly, worked.  But Americans are both smart and industrious, and it was not long before monied interests found all the loopholes in those laws and, of course, found a way to circumvent the law.  They will tell you, correctly, that they are acting entirely within the law.  But of course, they are entirely out of line with the “spirit” of the law.  The most egregious of these is the present-day “attack ad.”  Both conservative and liberal groups address only their party’s platform in either supporting their candidate or attacking the opposition.  They do not mention who they are supporting so such ads are not viewed, or counted, as contributions to the election of any particular candidate.  But the result, of course, is the same.

In the movie, Mr. Smith discovers that the power behind the vote is not the senator who has the vote, but the man who finances the senator.  This, unfortunately, is still going on in Washington, probably more so now than at any time in our history.  And if it is not stopped, it will spell the death of our vaunted political system.  The power of the ballot will cease to exist in the individual American, but will reside in the hands of the few who hold sway over powerful interests who do business in Washington.

The solution, in part, is a very simple one; cap the amount any person, any corporation, any organization can give to any political cause in any one year to $5000.   A PAC would simply be unable to accept any gift larger than $5000 from any single source during a calendar year.

But we as Americans are responsible for holding our elected officials to a high standard.  We must insist upon transparency of their actions.  We should know who in power is whispering in their ears.  We should demand of them the highest standard of ethical behavior.  It should not be corporate America that elects our officials, as I fear happens only too often today, but the individual voter.  We should have the knowledge that those running for office have not allowed facts to be spun so heavily as to defy good logic, a fairness of presentation, and the simple truth.  Next time a politician declares he is for or against something, look for the man behind the curtain.  Look for the secret agenda, and ask yourself if it is indeed in the best interest of those affected, and not just to line the pockets of those who are well-connected and wealthy.

Want to know how much the super-PACs take in and who they endorse?  Follow this link

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

 

by

Job Advice to “Gen Y”


The posting was evoked by a blogger whose writing I consider to generally be excellent.  I recommend you visit her site http://lostgenygirl.com/2012/07/29/companies-need-to-make-it-easier-for-gen-y-to-job-hop/

That link will take you to her most recent post about Gen Y job hopping.

I am 63 years old and have been retired for over 5 years now.  In my lifetime have held a total of six different full-time jobs.  My last job lasted 19 years and gave me the means to retire both early and comfortably.

Were you to see my resume’, in addition to those six full-time jobs, you would see that I am a US Army veteran, have a B.S. degree and a Master of Arts degree.  But even though my master’s degree is from an extremely well thought of university, I would not want to be looking for a job in today’s market.

When I speak to young people today I always advise them to do a job that thrills them, and not to settle for something that just makes good money.  I tell them that they should look forward to going to work every day and if they do not, they should reconsider the decisions they have made thus far.  It is too easy to lay the blame for not liking a job at the employer’s feet.  The fact is, for most of us we sought out them to employ us.  We went to them.  They did not come to us.  It is not enough to say “I can do this job” but you have to be able to say “I can do this job and it meets most of my requirements for my own personal success and for my future desires.”

In my last job I had to work for a few bosses who were less than wonderful, who were jerks.  But I still performed to the best of my ability and then maneuvered myself within the company into a better position and a better boss.  It is up to you to not only meet the expectations of the job into which you are hired, but to inform your boss of your personal expectations from him and the company, particularly when those needs are not being met.  Personal responsibility is key to personal success.

One of the qualities that makes a person particularly desirable to a prospective employer, beyond your formal education, are the special skills you bring to the table.  It is rare that you cannot specialize within your chosen career field, and if you cannot then possibly  you need to reconsider your career choice.  Figure out the niche you like and that is attractive to your employer and then get him to pay for it.  Most will.  Such skills gain you leverage not only within that company, but with prospective employers in your future.  For example, I worked in aviation safety and was considered a “subject matter expert” in certain aspects of aircraft.  I became that by doing the laborious and tedious work of learning as much as I could about a very specific aspect of my job.  That is both highly desirable by a present employer and as a selling point to a prospective employer.

I know from experience that career fields become a small circle of colleagues and your expertise within your field of choice becomes a matter a basic public knowledge over time.  That does not mean everyone knows your name, but it means that by presenting a small set of facts you become both a known a desirable quantity.

People who job hop cannot gain long-term skills.  As time passes, job hoppers become less and less desirable to companies.  A person is judged by their history.  Good managers budget for years in advance and they have little desire to employ a person who has shown a propensity to leave a job after a short time.

Any company that plans in the long-term does not want high turn-over, and certainly will not plan for such.  Most companies hope that once a person reaches the age of 30 he has gotten a grasp on what he wants and will stay in his job for the long-term.  Before you think of job-hopping, consider how you are going to look to a prospective employer.  It is expected you will change jobs, just do not make a habit of it.

 

by

Supreme Court’s Healthcare Decision: Democrats Should Not Cheer Just Yet


Democrats should restrain themselves at today’s Supreme Court decision.  What the SJC did may have made the healthcare issue more confusing now than ever.  Why?  It ruled that Congress overreached in a part of the law where commerce is concern; that is, the law would have acted as a sort of restriction to free commerce which the Constitution absolutely prohibits.  These are the words that can be found in Thomas’s dissenting opinion.  It is curious, however, that the SJC being 5 – 4 in conservative leanings, had conservative Justice Roberts voting for the measure’s passage.  This could easily be a case of the conservatives of the United States “all or nothing” approach to government these days.  They argued that since the commerce portion of the law was invalid it should have invalidated the entire law.  Roberts, however, it seems felt differently.

What the SJC did say is that Congress could levy a tax penalty upon persons who do not have health insurance starting in 2014.  That is a problem because President Obama has already stated that it is the law’s intent that each state will make key decisions on the enactment of the law within that state.  But not all states have a personal income tax which by default means that the Federal return will necessarily be impacted.  The SJC also said that Congress could not entirely withhold healthcare funds from states that opt to not take part in mandatory health insurance.  How will that play out?  The SJC has effectively made this law a lot more difficult and, possibly, killed it by making its provisions too difficult for Congress to satisfactorily meet.  And that is saying we can even have a Congress that works to make the bill usable.  I believe the Republican Party will simply stonewall participation in making the necessary changes.

What I do not understand more than anything is why the Republican Party is so against affordable health insurance for all Americans.   Mitt Romney, who started this whole thing when he was governor of Massachusetts and successfully lobbied for mandatory health insurance in that state, now has reversed himself 180 degrees.  He has failed to offer a reason.  But the question remains, why would anyone be against requiring health insurance companies to make available affordable insurance to all Americans, and, even more importantly, be restricted from denying young people insurance because of pre-existing conditions, of unreasonably raising health insurance rates when someone incurs a life-threatening illness, and from simply over-charging the tens of millions of present policy holders?  These are questions that have not been answered by those who oppose “Obama-care” as they call it.

I challenge all those who are against the Obama healthcare program to offer what they would do in its place.  Doing nothing is not an acceptable answer as our healthcare system was, and still is, broken.  They are defiantly against socialized medicine as exists in Canada, England, and many other countries, which, by the way, get rated more highly than the U.S. in health care, but I do understand and agree with the sentiment against socialized healthcare.  But short of that what do you propose?

Here is what I suggest to those who persist in being against healthcare reform.  Consider that your wife, your sister, your mother has breast cancer.  Under the present system she will receive the care she needs but she can expect her premiums to go up drastically.  She will also likely face an arbitrary life-time limit, in dollars, to how much the company will cover.  Breast cancer has a very high rate of recurrence even when it is successfully treated.  These limitations and consequences are eliminated under the present healthcare reform.  Kill the reform and retain the conditions.

Most people, as they age, lose bits and pieces of their health to one degree or another.  Medications and treatments become necessary to sustain life at a comfortable and reasonable level.  Simply put, as your grow older your need for comprehensive health insurance becomes greater.  And right now, like it or not, agree with it or not, hospitals and other medical professionals decide the level of care each individual will receive according to that person’s ability to pay.  If you think that is wrong, next time you visit your primary care doctor ask for a candid response to the question.  You will likely be surprised by the response as long as he does not leave with “it all depends.”  You must start at a worst case scenario because that is, in truth, why we all have major health insurance in the first place.  Otherwise we would each simply pay the $150 or so cost of our annual visit and avoid paying a thousand or more dollars a year in insurance premiums.

by

Is Cutting Taxes Really a Good Idea?


Stockton California is filing for bankruptcy, the seventh U.S. city to do so this year.  The principle of bankruptcy is a very simple one: your debt load far exceeds your ability to pay it off in a timely manner at the very least but usually means your income goes to zero before you are able to pay the minimum of your debt service.  Such is the plight of Stockton and many other U.S. cities are on the brink.  By law, government has a single source of income, taxes.  The law also requires that they annually construct a budget, bring it before the town meeting or city council, and then vote on it.  If they have done their work properly, town and city leaders have done the homework properly in balancing their income against their outlays, and leave a little in reserve for emergencies.  States and the Federal Government must do the same thing but public discussion of those budgets is generally limited to elected officials and their appointees.  Still, government’s income at all levels is derived from the single source, taxes.   Stockton probably got into trouble, in part, from poor management of its debt load but had there been a tax reduction initiative earlier, this certainly would have happened all the same, just earlier.  Is this what we want for the United States in general?

Every level of government so has the ability to carry a certain level of debt.  Usually this debt arises from the issuance of bonds.  Bonds are usually issued to cover the cost of major construction programs, such as schools at the local level, and large transit projects at the state level.  These bonds can be found in the Moody’s Investment Guide and are rated according to the entity’s credit worthiness.

The Federal Government is a whole different story, however.  It too sells bonds on the U.S. market.  But it also sells its debt and that is usually to other governments of the world.  Right now, China is one of the largest holders of U.S. debt.  This worries a lot of people.  China could, for example, say, “We want all our money, now.”  It is a “demand” kind of debt.  But this is unlikely to happen simply because the adverse hit on the U.S. economy from such a move would have world implications what would, of course, affect China negatively.

The amount of debt the U.S. is carrying now is well over one-trillion dollars.  People worry about this, as they should.   The ways to reduce debt are to reduce spending or increase income.  In the case of governments you can reduce spending by reducing the government’s size.

Mitt Romney is running a campaign, as so many Republicans have before him, George W. Bush included, of tax reduction.  Their logic says that it will put more money in the pockets of the average American and therefor stimulate a sluggish economy.  They say this with great certainty, strongly enough that their message is “you should absolutely believe them.”  There is one problem with their hypothesis.  They are projecting into the unknown and this is what Americans with actually do with that extra dollar or two.  Personally, I’d pay down some of my own debt but I certainly would not be out on a spending spree, and  think that is the same thing many Americans would do.  This act is neutral with regards to the national economy, it neither grows nor shrinks the economy.

Now if you listen to Ron Paul, he will tell you that the way to deal with lowering taxes is reducing the size of the government.  And on that point he is exactly correct.  Government is expensive at all levels.  But government is also necessary at all levels.  If you take away the aspect of national defense from government and international relations, pretty much every other government entity exists, in some form, at every level.  All levels have police forces, fire fighters, lawyers, road maintenance people, tax collectors, land assessors, and so on.

Let us say, for example, that the city of “Big” one day declares that it can no longer pay for all the services is supplies.  The Mayor of Big, after long and arduous discussions decides his city has to cut back immediately on at least one of his city’s services.  He sees that maintaining the city’s streets is one of his biggest expenses so he declares that hence forth the people who own property along a street will be required to pay for its maintenance at the level required by state law.  The people of that street must pool their money and see to the street’s maintenance which includes its repair, snow removal, and resurfacing as called for.  He then dismantles the city’s highway department and not only is his budget in balance, but now he has extra cash on hand to pay down the city’s long festering debt.  He tells the voters that their property tax is immediately reduced by 5% because of this.

With this initial success under his belt, and people all over Big declaring him their savior, he announces that he can low property taxes by another 5% just by eliminating the fire department.  When asked how, he says it requires a simple principle that was actually used in the U.S. in the early 19th Century.  People would support a local privately owned fire department.  They pay their annual dues and their house or business would have a placard placed upon it saying the owner was a member in good standing of the local fire department and fires at that address will be attended to.  Even better, he announced, you are not required to buy into the program!  You can save even more money.  But, if your house does catch fire, then you are personally responsibility for putting out the fire, and are responsible if the fire spreads to other houses and businesses.

The people are so excited after a year, and paying hundreds of dollar less in taxes, that a man from West Big, suggests to the city council that all parks and recreation areas be maintained by the neighborhoods in which they exist!  The people of West Big, where most of the population exists, love this idea because most of those parks are located in East Big where the rich people live.  Their thinking is, why should they have to pay for something they don’t use very much, if ever.  The people of East Big like the idea because not only can they afford to pay for the parks but it gives them the right to say who can and who cannot enter into “their park.”  They have long groused that a “certain element” seems to come to their neighbor which they find unsavory.

Until this point the people in South Big haven’t had much to say about anything as they are all farmers who own large tracts of land and have been relatively unaffected by all the new smaller government ideas, and they of course have benefited greatly from the greatly reduced property tax.  But South Big is where the town’s lake exists and this is the summer escape for all the residents of Big.  But the few residents of South Big decided, in accordance with the latest law, to put up a fence around the lake and declare it closed.  They promise to maintain it, as required, but since they do not have the resources to run a public beach, nor to the desire to run the beach even if they did, they simply close it down.  Suddenly the city of Big is at odds with one-another.  The time-honored right to enjoy the summer on the shores of their lake has been taken away by four farmers who simply are not interested in keeping the tradition going.  People all over Big are asking each other how it happened that so much power fell into the hands of so few people.  The farmers replied to them that they were simply using the new laws, and besides, most of their families had lived in Big as long as anyone else, if not longer.  Weren’t they entitled as much as anyone to exercise their rights under the existing laws?

The basic tenant of government is to provide services to its constituents that cannot be reasonably, or equitably, provided by private organizations.  There was a time in its early history that the United States was a morass of private highways and bridges.  To leave Boston, for example, you had to pay a toll to cross one of the few bridges over the Charles River.  Towns and private citizens set up toll booths along public and private ways to collect monies for their upkeep and for the right to use them.  Philadelphia is renowned for its private fire companies in the 19th century who actually had wars between companies over who would cover which houses.

The point is a simple one: if you want a continued level of service you now enjoy in your city or state, or at the national level, then you have to pay taxes because they simply are not free.  If you think government is inefficient then you must offer solutions in how to make it more efficient.  It is not enough to point at some government entity and declare that they are very inefficient.  You must provide both the proof of the inefficiency and the method of improving its efficiency.  In the mean time you must accept the level of funding just to maintain what you have.

My suggestion is that there needs to be a major revision in the tax code.  Although I never liked Ronald Reagan as a President, he did come up with the idea of a “minimum tax” that he thought everyone, particularly the rich, should pay.  Somehow that has fallen into disfavor by today’s Republicans.  Personally I think a national sales tax, together with the elimination of all personal income tax, would solve many tax problems and reduce the size of one portion of the government greatly.

The bottom line is, every American has to ask himself what level of service he expects from the government and at the same time, he must realize that it will cost him something.  He must also recognize and accept that everyone is going to have their own idea of how much government we need to have.  But in the end, regardless, we will have to pay taxes to pay for that government.  Highways, fire departments, police departments, national defense, airports, and so forth are things we all have to pay for.  They are not cheap.  If you want your highways to be as good as they are now, or better, then you must pay for that.  This is not the time to cut taxes.  It might be the time to reorganize government at all levels, but it is not the time, yet, to reduce taxes.

 

by

Republican Nominating Process Shows Demise of American Political System?


It was reported in the Boston Globe (June 24, 2012, P. B1) recently that the state Republican Party revoked the delegate status of 17 Republican delegates.  Why?  They had refused to sign an oath of support to Mitt Romney.  Massachusetts, of course, voted overwhelmingly for Romney as the Republican candidate but state Republican party rules do not bind delegates, nor does it require any oath of allegiance.  The state party decided that had to be changed.  Why?  The 17 delegates in question were supporters of Ron Paul.

What state party leaders fear is that the Paul delegates, once at the Republican Convention, would draw attention to Paul’s agenda.  That, of course, has the possibility of gaining support from delegates of other states at the convention and bring on unwanted turmoil.  This is nothing new, of course, but it is showing the power of the super-pacs who now seem to control our election process.

To be fair, I think the same sort of process exists within the Democrat Party but since it is not looking for a candidate this year, it is not nearly so important that party doctrine be held in lock-step at their Republican counterparts seem to need.

This really started about 1994 when Republican party leaders demanded that all congressional members sign their “Contract With America.”  On the outside it seemed not only harmless, but a truly good thing.  Much of what the contract contained were statements that seemed entirely common sense.  But it served as a vehicle to reign in party members in the future.   By the time of Pres. Bush’s first election party leadership brought in their “our way or the highway” by threatening the withholding of election funding.  It has been, to say the least, effective.

The point is, Americans have allowed the election process to be co-opted by extremely well-financed political action committees.  These committees, both conservative and liberal, set agendas.  And now we have the “super-PACs” to deal with.  These PACs have made public financing of campaigns irrelevant.  That means, a single person or business can give as much money as it wants to a PAC that is not directly supporting any single political candidate.  How have the gotten around that?   Simple.  They launch attack ads against opponents’ ideas without ever mentioning the candidate they support.

Campaign Finance Reform of many years ago was designed to keep this exact thing from happening, but there are truly gifted and talented people who can find a hole in a seeminly solid slab.  They have an army of lawyers on the ready, as well, to back up their position should they be challenged.

I fear we are becoming a country where puppets of well-placed people do their bidding in the halls of Congress.  Our elected officials only get there after they have been vetted by rich and powerful groups.   Simply put, the best candidate for office will never get past the nominating process if he/she does not sign on the line with the PACs that support their party.  If Abraham Lincoln had to run his campaign then, as things are now, he would never have been supported.  He was an unknown from Illinois who was not presently in public office and who had only once served a two-year term as an Illinois representative.  Family problems that become known once he was president would have served as fodder for his opponent.

We cannot allow our political system to be taken over by the rich and powerful.  This is at the heart of what the founders of this country feared.  Such had been the case in 1775 England when the Lords of English Parliament held a deaf ear to their American cousins.  And that, as much as anything, is what is at the heart of our Constitution.  No other country had regularly scheduled elections as we do here in America, a purposeful design of the constitution.  No other country in the world has the absolute separation of powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, as we do in America.  And nowhere else is the power of the people so heavily invested in the words of a constitution as is in ours.

The PACs and super-PACs serve only to undermine those powers for their own selfish purposes.  PACs do serve a good purpose but their power and sway have got to be brought into check.  They wield far too much power in our elections and now, seemingly, hold the power of who, at the very least, will be that party’s nominee to any elective office.  This is a serious affront to the ideals that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and so many others fought for.  It is time Americans became not just angry, but furious with the way the PACs are conducting themselves, and in turn, affecting our sacred political process.

by

Think Your Car is Made in America? Think Again and Check the List Below


1.  Chrysler, most assembled in America although some in Canada, some transmissions made in Mexico and Brazil

2. Ford

– Escape, engine manufactured in Mexico, tranmission manufactured in Japan, assembled in Missouri

– Explorer, engines manufactured in Germany and U.S., tranmissions manufactured in U.S. , assembled in U.S.

– Focus, engines manufactured in U.S., transmissions manufactured in Germany and U.S., assembled in U.S.

– Fusion, engine made in U.S., tranmission made in Mexico, assembled in Mexico

– Mustang, manufactured and assembled entirely in U.S.

– Taurus, manufactured and assembled entirely in U.S.

General Motors

– Buick, engine made in U.S. and Canada, tranmission made in U.S. and Mexico, assembled in U.S.

– Cadillac, engine made in U.S., Canada, and Mexico; tranmissions made in U.S., France, and Mexico, assembled in U.S.

– Chevrolet, engine made in U.S., Canada, and Mexico; tranmissions made in U.S., France, and Mexico, assembled in U.S.

– Honda (all) Manufactured and assembled entirely in U.S. except for some transmissions which are made in Japan

– Nissan (all) engines made in U.S., transmissions made in Japan and Mexico, assembled in U.S.

– Toyota (all), engines manufactured in U.S. and Japan, transmissions made in U.S. and Japan, assembled in U.S.