democrats

by

Who Owns America? Not You!


American political parties today are dominated by political action committees. Democrats and Republicans both have PACs who make large contributions to support their various causes. It may come as a surprise to you but the limit for giving, individually, is $35,000. There is, as there always seems to be, a catch.

Let us say, for example, that I am Charles and David Koch with more money than I know what to do with. And I decide I want Joseph Stumblebum to be president of the United States. I start by giving my $35,000 directly to Joe’s campaign. Then another $35k from my wife, another $35k from each of my kids but his kids are all grown. But there is no limit to how much I can give to a national PAC which is not directly supporting a particular candidate.   That is the loophole.

As of February 9, 2016 (www.opensecrets.org) there exist in America today 2,197 groups which are classified as Super PACs! There is no limit on how much money I can give a Super PAC. And of the top 20 Super PACs you have to go all the way down to number 20 to find the first one which supports liberal candidates. But to be fair, of those 20 top Super PACs, one claims no political persuation.

The number 1 Super PAC, which happens to support Bush (Right to Rise USA), has raised a whopping $118,300,000!

According to Forbes Magazine (October 2, 2015) Super PACs have raised over ½ billion dollars for this election cycle. The Forbes 400 estimates the contribution by those 400 to be approximately $66.5 million. But there is a problem with these figures. Like dark matter which is undetectable, Forbes has deemed this sort of giving to be “Dark Money.” It effectively challenges anyone to figure out how much it is and who exactly is giving it.

The original political action committees were formed in the 19th Century to lobby Congress for their various projects and desires. And for all of the 19th Century and a good part of the 20th Century these groups stayed away from political campaigns. It was deemed dishonorable but as soon as campaign finance reform became an idea, certain large industrial groups fearing heavier regulation, transparency of operation and being held accountable, brought the Super PAC into existence.

I am not a supporter of Bernie Sanders but God bless Bernie Sanders because he has done something no one else has had the courage to do. He has flatly refused all PAC money and is at this point running a very successful campaign for president. Bernie has flatly stated that if we want our government back we have to turn away the PACs.

Without regard to party, our Congress has abdicated its obligation to the citizens of the United States favoring the opinion of the PACs and the corporations behind those PACs. Every candidate will make the claim that he, or she, promises to do the will of the people. A multitude of polls have shown the will of the people includes, legalized abortion, tougher gun laws and controls, a higher minimum wage, a better health system (we are 37th in the world just ahead of Slovenia and behind Morocco and Colombia to name a few). Americans want a curb put on jobs being sent overseas, want their roads fixed, their water systems made safe, and their voice heard!

Sadly, America is run by about 1000 people total and not a single one is an elected official. How can I say that? The phrase Political Action Committee is merely a euphemism for political control. The majority of the most power PACs are conservative in nature but there are many liberal PACs as well.

Well, why don’t we just outlaw PACs? Seems like a reasonable solution however it would unconstitutional. It comes under protected speech of the 1st Amendment.

I believe the most reasonable solution is the enacting of term limits for members of Congress limiting any member of Congress to a total of 20 years. That would mean 3 terms for senators and 5 for representatives.

There is no simple solution to the afore-mentioned problems but Americans are going to have to come to terms with these problems if they care to regain control of their government. But until that day, regardless of your political persuasion, the person you put in office will do the bidding of the PACs they are beholding to.

by

Where Has America Gone?


I went to graduate school to study U.S. History. I have always wondered how we, as a country, have gotten to where we are. I still wonder that but at least now I have a good working knowledge of the forces which brought us to this day. I have a deep appreciation of George Santayana’s words: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I, like so many Americans today, look upon our Congress as the most dysfunctional body imaginable. The present Congress in its dysfunctionality is not, in my opinion the worst ever. That honor, if you will, belongs to the various Congresses which presided during our Civil War of 1861 to 1865. Both major parties where so horribly splintered it is amazing they ever agreed upon anything. It was only a few years earlier, 1856, when Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the senate floor, literally with his cane, beating him so badly he required medical attention. Brooks was ostensibly defending the honor of Sen. Andrew Butler whom Sumner had earlier called an “imbecile.” For his actions Brooks was fined $300.

It is of note that members of Congress in the 19th century were seldom millionaires although most were from well-to-do families. They were elected because they espoused the desires of their constituency and, as in the case of Brooks, were willing to literally fight for those desires. Brooks was incensed over the personal verbal attack abolitionist Sumner made on Butler by saying, “Senator Butler has chosen a mistress. I mean the harlot, slavery.”  These men were obviously and heatedly devoted to those causes important to their state.  Sadly, I do not believe such can be said for any member of Congress today.

Every American has 3 representatives in Congress, two senators and a representative.  But if someone were to ask me what any of those three people has done for my state, Massachusetts, lately, I quite honestly could not say a thing.  I simply do not know even though I do my best to remain informed.

At its inception the United States could easily have broken apart into 13 separate countries.  After all, each state had long before adopted its own constitution, set up its own form of democratic elections, and put together a fully and independently functional state government.  But by 1783 the colonies had come to realize the value of coalescing into a single and strong central government.  Still, they were bitterly divided upon what that government would look like and how each state could maintain a reasonable level of autonomy within the structure of a federal government.  To that end they decided on an election process which provided for the possibility of a complete turnover of the federal government at 6 year intervals.

That process was designed prior to political action committees, huge and rich corporations, and even, yes, political parties.  Thomas Jefferson believed that their need only be a single party made up of the “wise and well-born.”  But Jefferson actually oversaw that exact change when he departed from the Federalist party line, with which he greatly disagreed, and stated the Democratic Republicans.  He realized that Virginia’s needs were frequently at odds with those of Massachusetts or New York.  The original fight over state autonomy versus federal regulation continued until 1868 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment which, in part, bars states from enacting laws contrary to federal law.  At that time states fought jealously to preserve the general good and well-being of the residents of their state.  They did this through those elected to Congress.

At the beginning of the 20th Century politicians who were called “Populists” saw well-moneyed interests exerting control of the US Government to the detriment of the individual citizen.  Industrialists like Vanderbilt had lobbied and secured eminent domain so they could gain control of otherwise privately owned property.  Rockefeller who was able to gain monopolistic control of the fledgling oil industry, Carnegie the same in the steel industry and other “tycoons” of the day.  Congress enacted anti-trust laws, monopoly laws and in 1934 the Securities and Exchange Commission.  It took well over 30 years but Congress properly recognized that corporate America had systematically diluted the power of the individual American for its own use.

From 1900 until 1980 Congress and the President did an excellent job of insuring that the rights of the individual American were not trampled on by a few powerful interests.  But when Ronald Reagan became President the executive and legislative elements of our government began undoing all the work of the previous 80 years.  Reagan used sleight of hand by breaking up the communications monopoly AT&T had created while his real agenda was something entirely different.  Reagan started the charge against the average working man when he successfully oversaw busting the air traffic controllers union.  It was an entirely unnecessary action as the power of the president has always allowed for his ending a strike when he believed the national interest and the national defense were at issue.  Previous presidents had used this power to end lengthy coal miners’ strikes for example.  But none ever considered breaking up a union as this would have been viewed as un-American.  He effectively declared open season on America’s unions even though the power of all unions was lessening and the frequency of strikes decreasing.

He then took aim at the federal regulatory process, in particular financial interests.  He declared that such institutions were too heavily regulated and unnecessarily regulated, that they were self-regulating by their very nature and in their own interest.  This gives rise to the question of why the stock market crash on 1987 happened.  Is it possible that the sudden deregulation had gone contrary to the public good?  Congress ostensibly righted that ship by putting in place laws which would limit or stop stock trading should the market give signs of being in a free-fall.  But the deregulation continued.

Since 1980 control of the Congress has switched between the Republicans and Democrats many times.  But they have increasingly shown an inability to come to a consensus of compelling domestic and foreign issues, not the least of which is the regulation of the giant conglomerates existing in the United States today.  While America’s infrastructure deteriorates at an alarming speed, Congress is having a food fight over taxes, entitlements, and defense.

No state and nor individual, conservative or liberal, is benefiting from the actions of today’s Congress.  If individual members of Congress were truly interested in the welfare of their constituents, they would be figuring out how many multiple trillions of dollars it will take to bring our infrastructure back to where it should be rather than allowing it to continue where it where it is.  Such an investment would of course greatly benefit corporate America but unfortunately they are totally devoted to their own selfish interests.  Every year corporate America spends literally billions of dollars lobbing Congress to do their bidding while trampling on the rights of private Americans.  For example, the energy industry has long touted how “clean” burning natural gas is while failing to reveal that in reality from its mining to its burning natural gas actually hurts the environment more than coal!  But who has more money to spend on lobbying, environmentalists or the energy industry?  The energy industry has done such a great job of championing their cause that they have been able to get local environmentalists to do their bidding, vis-à-vis closing coal burning electric generating plants.  It would be fine if they actually maintained the 3% pollution rate they claim rather than the 16% reality.

Starting around 2006 and continuing for the next 5 years the foreclosure rate in American sky-rocked mostly because of a mostly unregulated banking industry which allowed sub-prime loans to people who had little idea of the agreement they had entered into.  Worse, these very same large financial institutions were making bets on the success or failure of marginal investments.  It came to light that these institutions were cooking the books, so to speak, to justify what they did.  First came Enron, then Morgan Stanley, then Shearson, and so on.  A few failed but most were propped up thanks to the federal government, “too big to fail” was the war cry.  Why did it happen?  Deficient regulation and oversight.

Sadly, while all this was happening, Congress was kowtowing to the moneyed interests which got them elected while to some extent, if not completely, ignoring the welfare of the individual American.  Democrats and Republicans had obfuscated their duty to the individual American rather than anger the PACs which got them elected.

At this point I should come up with a solution.  Sadly, I do not have one short of saying America needs to toss out everyone who now populate Congress and put in new people.  That is not going to happen but something akin to it needs to happen.  Today’s members seem to feed on being antagonism and lack either the will or ability to come to any sort of an understanding with their adversary, they seem to believe that maintaining an adversarial relationship is the recipe for political success.  They use that very negative adversarial and contentious mood to invigorate those who voted them into office.  They sell it as acting in their constituents’ best interest when nothing could be further from the truth.  Members of Congress keep their attention focused on the next election and how they will get re-elected while subordinating the needs of those they represent.  Congress has become adept at selling Americans a ticket to hell and having those same Americans out beating the bushes for directions.

I fear for the future of my children and grandchildren, it seems very bleak right now.  I fear the America my ancestors fought and died for has been purchased by corporate America and that future governance is being decided in America’s boardrooms rather than America’s living rooms.  America is in desperate need of a revolution, a revolution that will empower them and put them back in control of their future.

by

The Deplorable State of American Politics


enemy

The cartoon above, from the strip “Pogo,” first appeared in 1952.  Walt Kelly produced this comic strip from 1948 to 1975.  Pogo Possum was a humble, personable and philosophical character who spoke on many subjects.  This particular one, I believe, speaks most tellingly about the state of our present politics.

In 1994 a Republican think tank came up with the idea of the “Contract with America” which all its members in both the senate and house signed.  In its most basic form it was a wonderful and powerful idea.  But those behind it had other ideas, sinister ideas.  Certain non-elected people had a very deep hatred for President Bill Clinton and this was supposed to be their open foray into removing him from power in 1996.  It failed simply because Clinton co-opted them by endorsing certain portions of the contract, most especially balancing the budget.  But those power brokers knew quite well how to win wars while losing a battle or two.  Clinton gave them that opportunity by having an affair with Monica Lewinsky and then denying it ever happened.  For the first time since Andrew Johnson a president was impeached.  Clinton’s crime?  Not that he had the affair but that he lied to Congress.  With attack dog Kenneth Starr at the forefront running a broad and unrestricted investigation, it was game on.

Who was behind this?  It was not the members of Congress but those moneyed interests behind the Congressional powers.  To be certain, David and Charles Koch were two of them.  Other powers behind the scenes were Republican strategists such as Karl Rove and talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.  What each of these men knew, and relied upon, was the average American’s disinterest in discovering the truth about any particular subject.  They knew their target audience would take them at their word despite the use of hyperbole, exaggeration and out right lies.

The Democrats have been equally as bad though usually not in the same way.  While Democrats love to use hyperbole, exaggeration and out right lies too, they are not nearly so well organized as Republicans and other conservatives.  And while the Democrats certainly have their share of moneyed interests, the do not have a strategist who approaches the ability of Karl Rove and have virtually no presence, let alone following, on the air waves in the form of an O’Reilly or Limbaugh.

Although I am a life-long registered Democrat, of late I have made a habit of voting Republican in Massachusetts elections.  This has been because of my disgust by state-wide politics as a whole, and those who are running for office in particular.  The brilliance of Senator Elizabeth Warren is unimpeachable but she is an uninspiring academic who had previously no civil experience.  She won, not on her merits, but because she was the Democrat who opposed Republican Scott Brown.  This sort of politics exists in every state which holds a large majority in one party, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming for Republicans, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Michigan for Democrats.

I find it troubling that the Republican Party has found itself split between their long standing moderates and those who have given their allegiance to the Tea Party.  But if you look at it closely, you will find the Tea Party is simply a reincarnation of the old Libertarian Party with a new platform.  The Democrats have their own group on the far left who, although without name, are equally as polarizing.  It is this polarization that causes intransience over issues which desperately need resolution.

The only resolution to these issues is for all Americans to hold their elected officials, those who the voted for, to back up their stands with absolute truth, to work in the best interests of their constituents and not the PACs, and to always work towards a common ground with members of the other party.  I would say that any member of Congress who votes in excess of 75% along party lines should deemed as of suspicious designs.  Each senator and representative should be able to report back to his constituents on a regular basis how each of his votes worked to the favor of the majority of those he represents.

Americans seem to be of a mind that politics as a whole are disgusting, but until each American decides to hold those he has voted into office to a higher standard, then nothing will change.

by

Who Is to Blame For America’s Present Economonic Malaise?


If you listen to the Mitt Romney political ads it is entirely Barack Obama’s fault that we have not already seen a complete recovery.  And if you listen to Barack Obama political ads it is the failed policies of the Bush-era that are to blame.  Personally, I think there is more than enough blame to go around that neither party is any more guilty than the other.

But first, let’s look at the world economy.  To look only at the American economy is a mistake because we do not operate in a vacuum.  Independent of what has been happening in America, Europe has gone through its own economic travails chiefly on the shortcoming of the Euro and the countries who use it as their sole currency.  In particular, Greece, Italy, and Spain have had it the worst.  Right now, Spain is reporting an unemployment rate of 25% which is similar to the U.S. great depression of 1929 – 1934.  That the Greek government has not gone bankrupt is largely due to the banks of Germany insuring Greek debt.  But northern Europe is hardly exempt from this as the Bank of Scotland is on particularly shaky ground at this point.

What does all this have to do with the U.S. economy?  The Bank of Scotland owns Citizen’s Bank which is headquartered in Providence Rhode Island.  Similarly, U.S. corporations have investments in every country in Europe and are therefore affected by that economy.  If a large U.S. conglomerate, say Ford Motor, is experiencing the European downturn, as it is, then that necessary reflects upon its overall corporate earnings.  And, as we saw in the Wall Street melt-down of 2009, corporations like AIG have considerable overseas accounts where they are insuring debt and investments.  If Europeans companies are defaulting or failing to make payments on their debt, that too necessarily affects U.S. corporations.

President Obama’s $750 billion stimulus plan has been roundly criticised by the Republican party.  They are suggesting that it did not work.  If it had not worked unemployment would have continued to rise and that just did not happen.  It did not, unfortunately, have the hoped-for effect but that does not mean it was a failure.  Every single dollar of that money, at least initially, went into the U.S. economy.  There is no where else it could have gone.  Was it as effectively used at it could have been? No, and that is where Obama failed.

People love to look at two journalistic publications and quote them as being authoritative on economic, and other, topics, the conservative Wall St. Journal, and the liberal New York Times.  That fact is, neither is quite so authoritative as they would have to believe.  The WSJ has more weight in the field of finances because that is its entire focus.  Even so, the people who write such articles are journalists who have a vested interest in reporting in a manner pleasing to their readership.  Simply put, such articles are biased towards conservatives which means they will emphasise data that supports conservative ideals and give less weight to data that supports more liberal ideas.  The New York Times, of course, does exactly the same thing.

The real question that should be asked in this presidential elections is, how much effect can the government, and even more so, any single person, even the president, have in the nation’s economic affairs?  The government is, by definition, the guardian of the public trust.  In deriving its power from the people, it is supposed to act in the best interest of all people without favoring any single person or group of people.  In the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, people like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and a few others, were in virtual control of the U.S. economy.  Because of that, the Chicago fire of 1872 helped precipitate the economic crisis of 1873.  Wall Street and corporate America was entirely unregulated and did as it pleased.  Corporate trusts and monopolies were accepted practices.  The titans of business and finance had themselves so well insulated from all civil and criminal prosecution that they were able to act with impunity.  But then during the Populist era, McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, laws like the Sherman Anti-trust Act were put in place to curb these excesses.  The public demanded that the government regulate and pass laws to reign in these men of great power and influence.  Corporate America was reigned in by 1920, and then after the collapse of Wall Street in 1929, the U.S. financial concerns were also reigned in.  In both cases the method of reigning in was the use of regulation and oversight.

Contrary to concerns raised by industrial giants and financial gurus of those early days, America boomed until 1974 when America was hit by an artificial oil shortage, the inception of the oil cartel, also known as OPEC.  Democrats, largely in power at the time, responded slowly and poorly.  But when Reagan took office in 1981 he decided, and sold a rather naive American public, on the idea that heavy government regulation was holding back the expansion of corporate America.  Had anyone at the time been versed in history they would have instantly known that nothing could have been further from the truth.  The truth was, corporate America, particularly in heavy industry, had not bothered to retool after World War II and were still using 1940 technology while rising industrial giants like Germany and Japan had entirely retooled and were on a firm footing to sell in a global economy.

The 1950s and 1960s American domination of the electronics market, for example, quickly gave way to the Japanese, and in time to Taiwan, Malaysia and other Asian countries.  America was importing cheaper steel from Germany, and then cheaper, and better made, Japanese cars.  It was not until the bailout of the American auto industry in 2009 that it became apparent to all that Detroit’s decision the all the status quo had been an abysmal failure, and only a government infusion of cash would save it.

When Reagan brought about the deregulation of corporate America he was effectively saying, “We trust that corporate America will behave itself and always work in the best interest of America.”  You would have to be a fool to believe such things.  Corporations, by their very nature, always and only serve in their own best interest.  And that is exactly as it should be!  They are not required hold sacred the public trust, that is the government’s role.  Good business practices dictate that you will always buy from the least expensive source.  If that source happens to be China then that is where you buy.  It is unreasonable to expect American businesses to act otherwise.

As to what the U.S. owes foreign governments the Romney’s campaign that Obama has borrow money from China is foolish!  Does the U.S. government owe China money?  Absolutely!  But that comes as a result of international commerce.  In an attempt to gain a foothold in mainland China, a number of large U.S. corporations have invested heavily in China.  In doing so they necessarily us U.S. dollars.  And what is a dollar but the federal government promising to pay.  It is a debt that says the federal government guarantees payment on each and every dollar proffered.  When China gets those dollars it can then put a demand for payment to our government.  One form of payment, of course, is gold.  But whatever form that payment takes it is always between governments and not individuals.

One thing every American needs to be aware of.  About every 25 years or so America goes through an economic downturn, some worse than others.  This is one of those.  Most such events happen as a result of what is called a “market correction.”  When stocks do not properly reflect their value of the company they represent, this overvaluation brings a downturn.  This time is was the real estate market that was way overvalued.  Part of it was over-investment, but another part, and more important, was a lacking in regulation and regulatory oversight that allowed speculators to reap huge profits where none should have existed.  This was the state of the “sub-prime” market.

American businesses resist regulation because they want as free a hand as possible in doing business.  But the truth is, regardless of the degree of regulation, they are going to continue to do business in a manner that reaps them the greatest profit possible.  And that is exactly as it should be.  But it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the responsibility of the government to assure our economic success.  That is the responsibility of corporate American and there is one thing you can always be certain of, corporate America will bring about success regardless of anything and everything else.  That means that they were responsible for the malaise and they will be in line for the credit when things improve.

by

The Truth About Political Debates


There was a time, long ago, when candidates were forced to go to open air venues to have their debates in public places so people could take their measure.  In the early 20th century, a man named James Michael Curley burst upon Massachusetts politics.  At the time, 1910, he was simply trying to become a U.S. Representative for the 10th district, a seat no Democrat in anyone’s memory had ever held, and no one expected that to change.  But the 10th district had a heavy Irish population and other new immigrant groups.  Curley was a charismatic Irishman who had grown up poor but had worked in the wards under the bosses of the day.  He was an excellent speaker, never at a loss for words.  Curley was anything but a household name but at those debates he skillfully used his opponents own words against him.  He could turn a phrase and get his audience to identify with him.

The Brahmins of Boston, the well-entrenced Republican establishment, were outraged.  In  a later election when Curley ran for mayor of Boston, he said that on his first day of office he would turn the Boston Common into a parking lot.  Of course this was only a slap at the landed gentry who still failed to recognize the trials of the working class.

But it was not until 1960 and the Kennedy – Nixon debate, sometimes referred to as “the checkers debate,” that politics embraced television, and it has been downhill ever since.  Political parties write the speeches, figure out how to portray political positions, and dictate how any given answer needs to be given.  These are not debates at all but well-scripted advertisement.

I have a pretty good sense of who Barack Obama is and who Mitt Romney is, having lived in Massachusetts during his governorship.  I also have a pretty good idea of who Scott Brown is but, sadly, I do not have much of an idea who Elizabeth Warren is.  Something that is very important to me, family, seems to have been avoided by Warren making me very suspicious of her, and pushing me, a Democrat, into the position of likely voting for her Republican opponent.

It was during their last so-called debate that I came to this decision.  I found both of them to be rather disingenuous.  Each seemed to be responding to questions with very well-scripted answers that seldom properly responded to the question on the floor.  Frequently each simply side-stepped the question and said whatever they felt was important rather than simply answer the question at hand.  But this is our present state of politics at the national level.

It is my firm belief that when these politicians speak we are not hearing what they really think but rather what their handlers, those nameless people behind the scenes, want us to hear and nothing more.  The question on every American’s mind when they hear a politician in one of these so-called debates say something that appears to exactly reflect their views, ask yourself if they are simply playing up to you and in reality have another agenda entirely.  I suspect, regardless of party affiliation, the latter is closer to the truth than the former.  We need to go back to the days when two guys would stand on a stage, say their peace without anyone prompting them as to what is proper and what is not.

by

A Few Things I Do Not Understand and Need Explained


Health Care Reform a.k.a. Obamacare — Under the new health care reform, millions of Americans will be sending many more millions of dollars to private insurance carriers to cover their health care costs.  How does a new revenue source for private companies hurt America?  How will it ruin our health care system, as claimed?

Reducing the Size of the Military — Democrats think we spend too much money at the Department of Defense and say a smaller military is the answer.  Why is it I do not feel equally as safe under that plan as I do now?  How does that improve our national defense posture?  Republicans claim it is just a leaner more efficient fighting force.  How?

Reducing Taxes — Mitt Romney says he will reduce taxes on the middle class by 20%.  How is that going to work considering our increasing national debt?  He has not proposed reducing the size of government which is where all that money goes.  This is like saying, “I can afford the monthly payments on my Rolls Royce even though I only earn $20,ooo a year.  Believe me!”

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life — Why are we still trying to legislate morality?

Death Penalty vs. None — In this case, why are “pro-lifers” in favor of killing people?  Isn’t that just a bit inconsistent?

Ending Federal Funding for Public Television — Is Sesame Street really just a liberal thing or do all children benefit from it?  What left-wing ideas are Antiques Road Show, Nova, American Experience, etc. promoting?

Subsidizing Oil Companies — Really?  How do you justify that?  I really don’t get it.

Subsidizing Corporate Owned Farms — Same as above, really?  I mean, really?

Government Ethics — Every non-politically appointed government employee must adhere to a strict code of ethics.  Why are politicians exempt?  In reality, should we not expect the Secretary of Defense to adhere more tightly to ethical behavior than his office manager, or his office manager’s secretary?

Public Education — Why do we expect our students in public schools to get the same level of education when the per student cost of education is four times higher in the private sector than the public?  How will vouchers fix that? (The average cost per student in the public schools is a little over $5000 while at a private school it is over $20,000)  How are our public schools repairable when we are not willing to pay for the level of education we want?

Regulating Wall Street — If Wall Streeters are a bunch of foxes, and we are the chickens, who is supposed to protect us from the foxes if there are no regulations and therefore no regulation enforcers?  Don’t foxes love to eat chickens?

Too Big to Fail — Republicans constantly avow free market ideals.  But is not one of those ideals allowing for corporate failure when the corporate entity becomes inefficient and/or corrupt?

The Liberal Press — If the liberal press is so powerful, so persuasive, how did Bush become President?  How does any Republican ever win in those states dominated by the liberal press?  Is it possible the “liberal press” is largely a myth?

Patriotism — Are Republicans and conservatives naturally more patriotic than Democrats and liberals, or is that just another myth?

Who Can Come to America — Imigration quotas, by nationality, were set in 1922 based on 1900 data.  Why are we still using that data to decide who can emigrate?

Feel free to add to this list.

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

Should the Government Require People to Buy Health Insurance?


Here in Massachusetts it is already law, yes, you must buy health insurance.  On Massachusetts tax forms you must certify that you have health insurance and provide proof.  If you do not, there is a penalty you must pay.  But is this a good thing?  Is it a legal thing under our Constitution?  Those are the very questions the US Supreme Judicial Court is considering right now.

Republican Governor Mitt Romney was responsible for bringing this law into effect in Massachusetts.  The Democrats since Pres. Obama has been in office have made it their priority to get health care to everyone while the Republicans have been four square against it.  But should the U.S. have a law that requires all American buy health insurance?  That is the question before all of us right now, and it seems a majority of Americans are against this requirement as it now stands.

I have heard that upwards to 40% of all Americans are not covered by health insurance.  But when they get sick, hospitals are required to treat them.  Doctors cannot turn a patient away for lack of health insurance.  Even more, hospitals and doctors supply medication and other items generally covered by health insurance.  These costs are picked up by those of us who have health insurance.

I have always had health insurance.  Even though I am retired I still have health insurance as a part of my retirement plan.  I do, however, still have to pay 50% of the premium but I consider that insignificant when I think of what life would be like without health insurance.  Actually, I do not want to have to think about such a thing but millions of American do have to think of exactly that.  Some, upon retiring, lose company supplied health insurance.  I suspect such people put off retirement for as long as possible.

This particular portion of President Obama’s health care plan is tricky.  It is reasonable for us to expect the 25-year-old who is employed by a company that supplies health insurance to buy it, but he has no requirement to do so.  That means when he is sick or injured he has a right to “free” care at a hospital.  But his bill is paid by those of us who have insurance in our premiums.  But should we require self-employed people and small companies to buy health insurance?  Do we do this to make it fair for the rest of us who do buy insurance and pay the sometimes pricey premiums?

Well, I cannot in good conscience, my Democrat Party leanings not-withstanding, go along with a law that requires someone to buy insurance.  I think it goes against the basics of a free society.  I do believe, however, that affordable healthcare in the form of insurance, is a right the every person in a free society should have.  Right now that is not true.  Regardless, it is my belief that the US SJC is going to declare this part of the health care bill as being unconstitutional, and it should be.

This should bring into focus for the Republican party the absolute necessity for a comprehensive health care plan that covers all Americans without penalizing any portion of Americans as is now true.  Maybe that means hospitals and doctors can turn away anyone who does not have insurance?  That would at least be fair.  Or maybe it means if you are on some sort of public assistance you must be given free care while everyone else must pay?  You see, that is the problem!  How do you resolve getting health care to those currently not covered by insurance without penalizing those who are covered.  The Democrats solution of throwing a lot of money at it or requiring everyone to get health insurance is not the solution.  But the Republican idea of ignoring it altogether, and offering no solution what-so-ever is equally as unacceptable.

We are supposed to be a very intelligent nation.  We are, in fact the richest nation in the world.  But then we are ranked only 37th in healthcare by the World Health Organization.  What this says is that the Democrats have the right idea but the wrong solution and the Republicans need to join the Democrats in finding a solution to this problem even as they, properly, object to the law as it is.  The only moral high ground here is that which includes a solution to this long-standing problem.  Nothing short of that is acceptable.

 

by

Political Identity Crisis


For my entire adult life I have been a registered Democrat.  I am not certain what in my childhood pushed me in that direction as both my parents were registered Republicans.  I loved my parents.  Politics was never discussed in our house so that was not an influence.  But I know my parents supported Eisenhower and Nixon.  In 1968 when Nixon was elected president I was in the army but I did not trust him for reasons I am not certain of.  I was not of age to vote but I remember having strong negative feelings about him, even though I was already in the military.  Those feelings did not change some years later when he was responsible for a huge increase in our military pay.

I bring up my military background because I have very strong feelings about the military.  I am very proud of my service and feel very protective towards it when I see anyone threaten any part of their existence.  That is, I have never fully embraced the base closures and reductions that started under the first Bush and have continued to this day.

Among conservatives, it seems to me, there is a belief that if you are a registered Democrat you are not strongly in the military’s corner.  Nothing could be further from the truth for me.  I guess that means that my beliefs about the military are extremely Republican.  I have no desire to change that in the least.

Then there is my somewhat strange stand of being anti-abortion but pro-choice.  For me there is nothing conflicting about such a stand.  I think abortion to be morally wrong, reprehensible.  But since I view it as a moral issue I also believe in the idea that each person must have the right to make a decision about the morality, or lack of morality, associated with abortion.  Every woman must be given the right to decided if having an abortion is the right thing to do.  Were I to be asked by such a woman, I would always tell her that I think she should not have an abortion, regardless of the condition that made her pregnant or of any implication of the state of the child upon birth.  I simply believe that upon conception there exists a human life.  We as a society decry the taking of a human life and I extend that to mean “at any stage of life.”  To differentiate is to abrogate responsibility.  This, quite sadly, includes cases of rape, incest, and where it is reasonable to expect that a live birth will result in a child with substantial physical and/or mental problems.  I am also against the death penalty for the very same reasons.  I believe in consistency and I think it inconsistent to believe in one but not the other.

I think that we as Americans have a responsibility to the unfortunates of our society.  That includes programs such as welfare and other such government sponsored programs.  But that said, I also think we have gone beyond the point of reasonableness in the administration of these programs.  We have made it easier for some to continue on such welfare programs than it is desirable for the individual to remove themselves from its roles.  The size of social programs need reduction, desperately.

We are one of the most violent nations in the world.  We want all deserving Americans to be afforded the right to possess the fire arms of their choice but we are unwilling to take the responsible task of clearing each person for their right to possess any single arm.  It seems to me reasonable that any law-abiding person would not mind a background check to ensure they have not at some point in their past given up the right to legally possess a fire arm.  I do not think there should be any restriction, with a very few exceptions, on the type of fire arm a person might purchase, just on how that comes to pass.  Any reasonable person who truly desires to have responsible purchase and sale of fire arms necessarily wants safeguards in place to restrict the criminal element from gaining access to such arms.  That does not exist in America today.  That means Americans, right now, do not mind criminals purchasing fire arms since they refuse to allow reasonable background checks.

In that same vein, Americans are also unwilling to provide for the proper incarceration of criminals, particularly violent criminals.  America’s laws in the prosecution of violent criminals can vary greatly from one state to the next.  A criminal can commit a murder, admit to it, and walk free because of certain deals that prosecutors make.  If we are ever to get a substantial reduction in our crime rate we must do several things.  One is a more uniform sentencing criteria from one state to the next.  Part of that would include a universal minimum sentence requirement in all states, to include cases where a criminal makes a plea deal.  Minimum sentencing would eliminate any criminal from getting “a walk” on a serious crime because of his help in prosecuting another criminal.  But this also means we are going to have to build more facilities to accommodate the increased prisoner population.  We also have to increase the size of our police forces and their budgets of course.

There is no place for God in our American government.  God is a purely religious concept that has as many variations as there are people in the United States.  To allow God into the government, regardless of the level, necessarily requires definition.  The creates the problem of what definition is accepted, and ultimately, how is that definition fair to all the people of the United States.  To be fair, there are millions of people, other than atheists, who do not believe in God as the Judeo-Christain concept goes.  Ultimately those people are opted-out when such a definition is decided upon.  Our government must be better than that.  It is better that all religious definition be removed from our government than to allow even an amalgam in.

I believe in my state that my district US representative and both my state’s US Senators have failed us.  The are more concerned with political expediency that constituent desires.  I have heard nothing out of the Elizabeth Warren camp in her opposition to Scott Brown, the incumbent Republican.  My tendency now is to vote for Brown even though I am a Democrat because I think the arrogance of the Democrat party in Massachusetts has resulted in too much failure.  I can only think Warren is displaying some of that arrogance now, thinking Massachusetts Democrat tendencies will propel her come November.  She will be surprised if she continues to think that way.

I am disillusioned with America’s Republican and Democrat political parties because I think it painfully obvious that each has allowed PACs to rule its positions, to select its candidates in some cases, and to ultimately become insensitive to the needs of its constituency.  Each party has with lies, which it euphemistically calls spin, to justify positions it takes.  Each party uses various fear tactics to reel in voters to the positions they desire, even when such positions are at the peril of the very voters they represent.  As Pogo said so eloquently, and so long ago, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”