politics

by

Just Who Is the “Average American”


Sadly, biased political love to use the term “what Americans want” when in truth, it is really only what their more liberal or more conservative side wants.  I do think, however, it is safe to say that what Americans want is for their government to run much more smoothly than it has in recent memory.

Right now American like to think that the Congress that has been in session is particularly polarized and incapable of compromise.  And that may be true but it is certainly nothing new.  When Thomas Jefferson was elected, a Democrat-Republican, the Federalist party thought that it spelled the end of the republic for certain.  Jefferson was viewed as a radical left-winger who cared little for the safety of America.  He did, in fact, do his level best to reduce the military to near insignificance.

But the most polarized Congress ever was probably that which existed during Abraham Lincoln’s years as president.  Not only were the Republicans and Democrats at each other’s throats constantly, but within each of those party there existed groups known as “war Republicans,” “Peace Republicans,” “War Democrats,” and “Peace Democrats” who factionalized their own parties.  Each contented it knew what the American people wanted and what was best for the country.  Part of Lincoln’s greatness was his ability to bring these warring parties together.  To that end he took Andrew Johnson, a Tennessee Democrat, as his running mate for his second term.  He jettisoned Hannibal Hamlin, his first term vice-president, a rather popular Republican, taking the southerner Johnson knowing that once the war was won he would need a southerner to bring the formerly warring parties back together.  That was not the only time there was a split-ticket in the White House, but it was the last time.

In 1908 the Republican party took the more cerebral William Howard Taft over the feisty Theodore Roosevelt as Republican party power brokers viewed TR’s populist tendencies as being too radical for the “Grand Old Party.”  Roosevelt was seen as a friend to labor, had worked diligently to break up monopolies, and was responsible for the starting of the national park system and other populist ideas of the day.  After his defeat to Woodrow Wilson 1912, Taft confided that he was quite relieved from the burden of such leadership.  Years later he was appointed to the US Supreme Court, a job that he was made to do, and ended his career as its Chief Justice and is generally recognized as one of the best ever in that role.  His genius was in Constitutional  interpretation, and not in Constitutional administration as is required of the president.

The point of this, so far, is that the partisan party politics we are seeing today is nothing new, and certain not the worst this country has ever experienced.  The strength of the republic is in its ability to be greater than any single person.

Political pundits love to clamor over who are Democrats and who are Republicans.  But statistics tells us that such definition is foolish at best.  The following diagram is what is known as a standard statistical curve.  It means that when you take a mixed population of anything, in this case the people of the United States, you can present that population with a high degree of accuracy using this diagram.

curve

Look at this diagram as being read from left to right.  Think of it in terms of the left being the political left and the right as being the political right.  If you look at just the blue portion under the curve you will see 34.1% extending from the center to the right and left.  In statistics it is mathematically provable that any population will find 68.2% of whatever you are counting, in this case voting Americans.  This is also known as the first standard deviation.  The next 13.6%, or the 2nd standard deviation, in our example refers to the more liberal or more conservative members of either party, leaving the last 2.15% as the most liberal or conservative.  The mathematics behind these numbers allow for no more than a 1% to 2% error, a very small number.  But what it ultimately means, and most importantly, is that 68.2% of the voting public has close to the same opinion on any given target.

The problem we here in America have is that those political operatives who live in the 2nd or 3rd standard deviation, tend to do a lot of yelling and attention garnering with the claim that they are speaking for most Americans.  But in truth they are speaking for, at most, 25% of Americans.  These people have the sad tendency of being ideologues whose ability to moderate their view is rather limited.  They have the tendency to be heavy-handed and take a “my way or the highway” view on every issue.

I think I am like most Americans.  I am as likely to take a liberal view on any particular issue as I am to take a conservative view on it.  I am a person of strong convictions but I know that in the interest of the greater good there are times when, without abandoning my convictions, I must compromise to find the middle ground where we can all agree.  For example, even as a registered Democrat, I am extremely pro-military and I am not in favor of any military spending cuts as is now being proposed.  That is a rather conservative view I believe.  But to achieve a reasonable end I recognize I will have to give a little.  Another day is in the offing when everything will be in play once again and I can once again fight for what I believe in.

Personally, I view the majority of our congress as being moderates.  Sadly, however, I see them being far too heavily influenced by the more conservative or liberal members of their own party.  They seem to have forgotten the mandate placed upon them by their own constituency, and this is to do the will of the people who put them in office, not the will of the power brokers.

 

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

Let’s Kill a Few Democrat Sacred Cows


If you were to check my status at the city hall where I live you will find that I am a registered Democrat.  I bring that up simply to point out that this is not some conservative’s rant against liberals.

The Minimum Wage — This is like the holy grail of Democrat policies.  The minimum wage was first enacted in 1938 under the Roosevelt administration.  At that time it was intended to help raise people out of the abject poverty so many were in.  According to an Oregon State University study, that 1938 minimum wage raised the purchasing power of the employee to well above the poverty level.  Since 2006, however, that same study shows the minimum wage and the poverty level are almost identical.  This begs the utility of the minimum wage at all.

The federal government for decades now has had in place a wage scale for its employees that is adjusted for the area in which they live.  That is, a GS-5 level employee in Mobile Alabama gets a lower base pay than does his counterpart in New York City.  It is well-established that the cost of living can vary greatly from one locale to another.  That suggests that, at the very least, the minimum wage needs to be adjusted according to the locale.  Some states, Washington, Oregon, Connecticut and others, have already adjusted that rate upwards but the question is, is that really necessary?

I suggest that the minimum wage is entirely unnecessary any more for a variety of factors.  First, and foremost, the economics of 2012 have so drastically changed from those that existed in 1938 that the logic of any minimum wage is not defensible.  For example, the minimum wage here is Massachusetts is $8 an hour as opposed to the federally mandated $7.25.  Still, I can assure you, that a person working the front at any local McDonald’s is getting well above that $8 an hour which bring into focus who is getting the bare minimum?  Another clarifying point, exempt from minimum wage laws nation-wide are farm employees and certain other tip-based employees.  That is the federal government recognizing that certain exceptions need to be made.  But it also leaves you with the question, if market demands for labor keep minimum wages above mandated levels, why do we need a minimum wage?  I suggest we do not.

Federally Supported Welfare  —  I am not against welfare at all.  But I do believe in needs to be reigned in and the best way to do that is to switch that responsibility to each of the individual states.  The theory behind such programs is everyone feeds into the top as it serves the greater good.  That is, the good people of Grasse River Nebraska reap the benefits of helping Detroit poor.  It is absolute redistribution of wealth.  But it unfairly takes from wealthier better run states and given to poorer less well-run states.  The source of all welfare funds is the individual tax payer.  The closer you put the distribution of those dollars to their source, the control of those dollars improves.

Federal Funding of Public Schools  — To be clear, I think the funding of public schools needs to increase.  However, I do not want my Massachusetts-based income tax going north to support New Hampshire schools.  I think the Federal government needs to continue to mandate educational minimums and standards, but it needs to get out of the business of funding those schools.  Again, this is another place where redistribution of wealth is just not fair.

The bottom line is, by removing these, and other Democrat and Republican sacred cows, we will necessarily remove from the federal budget many items which are viewed as “pork.”  A thing like Sarah Palin’s “bridge to nowhere” would not have received a dime of federal funding and probably would not have been built by the good people of Alaska.  It is a simple recognition of personal responsibility within any given state.  When a state is fully responsible for funding its projects, its citizens are much likely to sit up and take notice of how much it costs and why they might even need it.

by

Is Massachusetts Turning Republican?


Twenty years ago such a question would be laughable.  Even today some might scoff at it considering the makeup of the Massachusetts legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat.  I am, and always have been, a registered Democrat.  But I suspect that like me, many of my fellow Democrats in this state are rather fed up with the arrogance shown by the state’s Democrats.

Massachusetts has elected the occasional Republican to state-wide and national office, Edward Brooke and William Weld in the more distant past.  But they were more the exception.  State politics has been large dominated by Democrats since the FDR administration, and to some degree prior to that with James Michael Curley.  But recent events where Democrats have been accused and convicted of felonious acts has given the state’s voters reason to question their elected leaders.  The worst thing they have done, which is not a crime but a betrayal of faith, has been the arrogance of the party leadership in the state.

Two national offices are being heavily contested in the state right now, that for a U.S. Senate seat, Brown vs. Warren, and US Representative seat, Tierney vs. Tisei.  And in some sense, Mitt Romney too, although I view him as truly a Michigan native rather than a Massachusetts resident.

In the case of Brown vs. Warren, we have a very affable Republican in Brown who is the state’s Republican US Senator being opposed by a very cerebral and professorial sounding Warren.  And that is her biggest problem.  She claims to come from blue-collar America but sounds anything but.  If anything, she comes across as preachy and professorial.  She is difficult to identify with at much of any level.  Brown, quite simply, comes across as entirely middle-class.  He is a middle-class veteran that I can more easily identify with than Warren’s academic persona.  If history teaches us anything, it is that people vote for who they best identify with which does not necessarily mean who is best qualified.  In this case, however, I cannot say that Brown is not best qualified to both serve and properly represent me.  That, it is my guess, is the question Warren needs to respond to more than any other and which, I doubt, the Democratic leadership of this state will come to terms with.  In the end, I expect Brown will be re-elected.  And even though I cannot say for certain right now, he may well get my vote.

Tierney is a case of absolute arrogance.  I do not, for a second, want Tisei to win this race however I feel he has an excellent chance of doing exactly that.  Not so many years Thomas Finneran had the same arrogance being displayed by Tierney.  As it turned out, Finneran was guilty of, at the very least, comprising the public trust for his own personal ends.  I think Tierney is guilty of the same thing.  It is difficult to believe that a man, as intelligent as he is, had no idea of his family’s involvement in illegal gambling activities long before it became public.  I have to admit that my distrust of Tierney pre-dates that.  It goes back to the mid-1990s when he was opposed by a man named Peter Torkilson, a Republican.  I voted for Torkilson back then on a gut feeling that he was simply the better man.  Unfortunately I am no longer in that district so I cannot have any say in that election.  I do not believe, however, that the state’s Democratic leadership has properly and fully addressed the charges leveled against Tierney by the Republican party.  It simply and arrogantly believes he will get re-elected because you have to go far before anyone’s memory to find a Republican being elected from that district.  The thing is, I know that district to be more conservative than party leaders tend to believe.  It would not take much for more conservative Democrats, like myself, to turn the present election in favor of Tisei.  And that is exactly what I believe is going to happen.

Right now probably few people in Massachusetts believe that Mitt Romney will carry his declared home-state in the presidential election.  The last time that happened was when Al Gore failed to carry his home state of Tennessee.  And as likely as it is that Obama will carry Massachusetts, it should not be taken for granted.  And yet that is exactly what Democratic leadership is doing.

In the latest round of political debates, Warren, Biden, and Obama each lost their respective debates.  Tierney and Tisei will not have any public debate forum although they should.  The point is, Democrats seem to be riding on their laurels thinking they have the upper hand.  They do not, by any stretch of the imagination.  Since those debates, each of the Democrats has lost their lead in the respective race to their Republican opponent.  That is extremely significant because it shows a reversal of fortunes.

I think most Americans find it difficult to believe much of anything politicians say, even those they vote for.  You frequently hear them state they are “voting for the lesser of two evils.”  How can that ever be a good thing?  I noted in the debates that when asked direct and simple questions, those question largely went unanswered.  The politician being asked did a tap dance around the truth, but seldom gave what was a clear and simple answer.  Would it not be refreshing to hear a candidate just once say, “I don’t know, but I intend to find out.”

I do not think Massachusetts is suddenly going to become a state in which Republicans rule the roost.  But I do believe, at least in the two contests mentioned, that Republican will prevail.  I think it good that Republican should have more of a say in this state’s politics.  It makes the Democrats more honest, or possibly honest in the first place.  But maybe, just maybe, it will knock some of the arrogance from the state’s Democrat Party.

by

Obama Has Disappointed Me But Romney Scares Me


Most people, when they think of Massachusetts, would categorize it as a liberal bastion.  In one sense they are correct as the state house is dominated by Democrat senators and representatives.  But in another, they would be wrong.  For the past two years the state has had a Republican U.S. Senator, and over the past 20 plus years it has boasted more Republican governors than Democrat, Weld, Romney and Celucci among others.  The residents of Massachusetts are more centrist than most of the nation would believe, and I feel they prefer balance far more than one-sidedness.

I remember when Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts.  The state’s Democrat Party brought into question his legal residence, saying he actually lived in Vermont while maintaining property here in Massachusetts.  But through a legal technicality, the elections board was forced to allow his residency as meeting the standard.  It always bothers me when someone gets by on a legal technicality.  It makes me wonder about their ability to be entirely honest and forthright.  It makes me question their integrity.  Romney did an all right job as governor, not spectacular and not bad as his Republican predecessor Paul Celucci had done.  But it was obvious that he was only interested in placing himself of a national forum as he was a one-term governor who did not try to serve a second term.  Such action makes me question his commitment to the state he served as governor.

When Barak Obama came into office he made many promises, more than any politician should, and certainly more than even he knew he could keep.  Washington politics, being what it is, seldom allows any president to “rule the roost.”  FDR came the close to being able to do that and then Reagan pretty much had his way.  And so when Obama took office he said he was taking a page from FDR’s presidency when it came to helping the economy to recover.  Except for the government’s largess, his recovery program failed to come close to FDR’s vision.  FDR started named government programs, most famous being the FRA (Federal Recovery Act).  Others, the civil conservation corps (CCC) later declared unconstitutional, the Tennessee Valley Act, the Rural Electrification Act, and other programs put a name on his program and gave the general public something to look towards to measure success.  All the programs, even the CCC, were hugely successful.

FDR’s success came largely because he kept the Federal Government in charge of its investments with the states acting as expediters but not overseers.  Obama did the opposite.  He meted out the money to all the states, with certain provisions attached, but then mostly gave up federal government oversight.  The results were mixed at best.  Obama would have been better served, as FDR did, by saying a certain amount of money will go towards rebuilding America’s highways and roads, possibly naming it the Infrastructure Recovery Act, and then putting heavy requirements upon states as to how they used those dollars.  His focus on the use of the money should have been seeing that as much of the $780 billion went towards labor intensive work as possible.   Inner city revitalization would have been another opportunity, although this seems to have been missed entirely.  To be sure, America’s “Rust Belt” is no better off today than it was 4 years ago.

It is my belief that lack of federal oversight allowed too much of “Recovery Act” dollars to end up in the pockets of well-placed and highly influential individuals who did little to help America recover from its worst recession since the Eisenhower administration.  To his credit, Eisenhower did his part in putting America to work with his vision of the Interstate Highway system that he fathered.

What scares me the most about Mitt Romney are his very conservative religious views along with those of his running mate.  Let me be clear, when it comes to abortion, I am even more conservative than Romney as I do not believe in it regardless of the situation and have felt so since I was a teenager.  But, I also recognize that abortion is an issue of conscience and I have no right to  insert my beliefs as being superior to any other person’s beliefs.  And that is why I believe in the absolute right of each individual, in the case each woman, to make her own decision of conscience.  If I can influence her towards not having an abortion, great, otherwise I have no right to dictate to her what she should do.  This to me is purely a First Amendment issue, the part that refers to religion, and nothing more.

I do not like politics in the extreme, right or left.  I fear Romney is all about doing the bidding of the far right as that is where much of his campaign funding comes from.

American politics today, most unfortunately, seem to be like a scene from The Wizard of Oz.  We should all be wondering who the man behind the curtain is.  We have the man out front, Obama and Romney, but we must know who is pulling the strings behind the curtain.  Who is it exactly that most influences these men and what is their agenda?  More importantly, does their agenda align with the desires of 80% of the American public?  I fear the answer to this last question is a resounding “no!”  That is not just conservative politics,  but liberal as well.

I think it the job of every American voter to ask the candidates one simple but tough question.  Whenever one of them states that something is true, that their particular way of doing things is best, or any other boast, ask them to show definitive proof of their claim.  Ask for details, facts, and deny them elusive or vague rhetoric.

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

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

American Politics Sounding More Like Iranian Politics


That I should make such a charge might sound rather harsh at first blush but it does need consideration.  The Republican party this year has decided to make gay marriage its featured issue.  It is a moral issue steeped in religious conviction and having little to do with proper helmsmanship of a government.  Since 1979 Iran has been run by a series of religious ideologues who rule, according to them, by the rule of the Qur’an.  The Republican party will couch their issue in moral correctness but you need only ask yourself on what basis that correctness is formed.

Decades ago the Republican party always portrayed itself in the light of national security, hawkishness, and conservative economics, and that was more than enough for them.  In 1952 they enlisted Dwight David Eisenhower to be their presidential nominee.  In truth, party leaders did not know what Eisenhower’s political preference was when they asked, but he was a national hero and someone who epitomized what they stood for.  Eisenhower ran roughshod over Stevenson that year and again four years later.  He could best be described as a “Nationalist” who Americans idolized.  The most popular political button of the era said, “I Like Ike.”   That was enough.  Not once in either elections did any sort of religious banter enter.

In succeeding elections, right through Clinton’s first election, economics and defense continued to lead the way.  Only once during that time, the early 1980s, did religion make a forray into politics and that was the Jerry Falwell “Moral Majority.”  This far-right political rhetoric, as had been historically true, quickly ran amok and fell into disfavor with the general public.  People recognized that they were not served well by any religious group that tried to control their political convictions.

Today that far right ideology has made a resurgence in the form of the Tea Party.  Madison Avenue marketing has made this into a group that harkens to our nation’s founding, and the men who bravely defied King George III.  But was it lost in translation is that those men of 1774 were a group of disparate political beliefs, some were even self-described agnostics.  Their aim was to make a single point that truly represented the beliefs of all Americans and had absolutely no political designs whatsoever.  The be certain, had the crown relented, ended the tea tax and returned colonial governorships to the control of the people, the revolution, at least at that moment, would most certainly have been delayed, if not completely avoided.

Our country has many pressing problems but nowhere in the top ten, or probably even the top 100, should be found the issue of gay marriage.  That issue, as it is being promoted by the left, is one of civil authority only.  That is the only place it can be politically.  Otherwise it becomes an issue that is contemptuous of the first amendment.  I expect that few American church, at least in the near future, will allow gay marriage within their domain.  But that a political body gives credence to a lawful joining of a couple needs to be left at just that.  It is absolutely not an assault on the institution of marriage as a religious institution.

One thing people of conservative ideology need to consider is the children.  It is not illegal for a lesbian couple to conceive a child.  In fact, once that child is born, the lesbian mother is held to certain legal standards.  A legal marriage between that couple serves to extend that legal, and moral, responsibility.  Even more, gay men can legally enter into a contract to have a surrogate birth a child.  And as in the case of the lesbian couple, a gay male couple would also be held to the rule of law in the care of that child.  Without marriage, the law has little standing with the otherwise unrelated parent.

The thing is, this is one of the most foolish issues the Republican party has ever brought to the front.  To me it says they are more interested in spending short resources on defending that position than to finding solution for the far more pressing issues of the day.  We still have a fragile economy.  We have enormous issues with our military strength and our foreign policy.  We are struggling with issues of non-renewable energy sources, water shortages, and a decaying national infrastructure.  Does it not make more sense to put those issues at the forefront than allowing gay people into legal contracts?

Iran has allowed itself to be led by ultra-conservative religious groups.  They are the “Qur’an Thumpers” of their nation just like the “Bible Thumpers” of ours.  I have no problem with religion.  I think it a very good thing.  But as was recognized in 1789, it has no place in our government.  We can never be a country that is religiously defined except that each person is allowed to believe as he wishes and that no one religious view can prevail over another.  If the issue of gay marriage is allowed into our political arena then it is necessarily dragging in a strictly religious viewpoint.  No court could make a decision on gay marriage, from a moral point of view, as to do so would be to assault the first amendment.  The far right has made this a moral issue and therefore a religious issue.  Following this tack is tantamount to agreeing with the direction a government like Iran takes.

by

Who Owns God?


If you went to church with me when I was a kid, you would have heard that God was properly defined by the Roman Catholics, and everyone else had an incorrect version.  And that was even after Vatican II.  While Catholics certainly have moderated their world view of their religion, it still reeks of “we got it right.”

In today’s world we hear a lot about the Moslem version of God.  I think it fair to say that their view is an extremely unpopular one here in the United States.  That probably includes most Moslems who live here as well, but that is just a guess.  I say that because it is my firm belief that most Moslems who live here have adopted a very moderate, or mainstream, view of God.  They certainly are not the ones yelling, “death to infidels!”  And they certainly are not advocating a jihad against America.

These most basic of feelings that all humans seem to hold, that of a person deity, are the very reason I speak up strongly for the separation of church and state.  We are the only country in the world, that I know of, that has this admonition.  Those Americans who want God worked into portions of our government would do well to ask themselves, which God.  That is, which particular religious slant on God are you in favor of?  You have to choose simply because there is no generic God that I have ever heard of.  That is because as soon as you evoke the name God, in each person’s mind this takes on a very particular point of view.  Hence, our forefathers understood that extremely well and they did not want a Church of England God, or even one of their homegrown versions to have any place in our government.

Since monotheism has existed there has always been a mix of God and religion.  For most of history men have been incapable of separating the two.  Mostly, they have had no desire to separate the two.  I believe that is because they have the notion that there has to be a mixed for a society to be successful.  For a long time that actually worked.  Prior to the 20th Century most societies lived almost entirely within themselves.  Tribalism, as sociologists call it, defined a religious belief and that tribe in turned formed a government for itself.  The people were monolithic, that is, all of one kind.  Until the 20th Century it was not at all unusual for a person to never travel more than 20 miles from where he was born.  That meant these societies were so homogenous that singular beliefs usually worked.

Still, certain groups of people decided even before the 20th Century that their take was the proper one and anyone not so defined was a “heathen.”  For Americans, a great example of this was the European view of the Native American cultures.  Even those Native Americans were mono-theistic, since the did not refer to “God,” and did not understand the European concept, it was clear to those European that the Native Americans were obviously heathens.  Many organized religion set out to bring Christianity to a group that neither wanted nor needed Christianity.  They were mono-theistic and it was Christian ignorance that brought on the problems.  Christians had a long history of such foolishness.  The Inquisitions of the 15th Century and before that the crusades to the middle east to ostensibly recover the Holy Grail.  I say ostensibly because the true reason was the European belief that old Christian churches were somehow being desecrated by the Moslems.  Just a little bit of education by the Christians about the Moslem religion would have shown them that nothing could have been further from the truth.  Even so, I doubt that would have stopped them.  Ignorance and passion have a way of getting together in mankind to bring death and destruction to anyone who has the temerity to believe something different.

I have serious problems with the way the Moslem religion is practiced in the Middle East.  Even in today’s world they are still little more than second class citizens in their own societies.  In Saudi Arabia they cannot drive a car.  Why?  I have not a clue.  In many countries in the Middle East, a woman found guilty, or even suspected, of infidelity to her husband is subject to stoning and death.  Most such countries also require her to wear a burka, to one extent or another.  Men, on the other hand, are not hindered by any such restrictions.  Even the adulterous husband does not fear for his life.

But I can allow for that a whole lot more than some of the practices that are going on right here in America.  These days in America there is more religious intolerance than I think we have had at any time in our history.  And I am a US historian by degree so I can say that with some conviction.  The native Americans of Massachusetts had a word for religious tolerance that bears remembering, “Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg,” which means, you fish on your side, I fish on my side, and no one fishes in the middle.  They were all about peaceful co-existence.

Conservative politicians in America have taken God hostage and are holding him over the heads of Americans.  They tell us how our morals need to be shaped.  They do this via their own religious background.  They are openly contemptuous of anyone who dares believe anything different as well.  They are smart enough to live the name God out of their discussions, but if you could nail one of them down on the origins of their belief, which I doubt you could, they would have to admit that it is directly tied to their God.  One of the great debates in America today is over gay marriage.  Those against it say it is somehow ruining the institution of marriage.  Really?  How is that a country that has literally hundreds of definitions for religion can only have one with regard to marriage?  I find that rather peculiar, and rather disingenuous of anyone to make such a claim.  For centuries in this country the acceptance of marriage free from all religious entanglements has been understood as an absolute right.  If two people desire only a judge or justice of the peace to declare them legally married does that not separate marriage from all religious views?  The corruption comes when people insist that when the marriage is between same-sex individuals somehow God has to be magically introduced into the equation.  That is some of the worst logic I have ever heard and yet, it is the conservative Christians of this country who had taken God and force-fed it upon our entire society.  They tell us that their version of God and marriage are the correct one and God help anyone who differs with that version.

I have many friends who have very conservative Christian views of the world.  I am happy for them.  Some I even admire in the way they practice their religion.  I think they know better than to tell me what is moral and what is not.  They simply are not interested in hearing my lash out at them, and they know they will.  But Americans have become extremely lazy about the separation of church and state.  Instead of finding abhorrent anyone trying to force via legislation morality upon them, they allow politicians, PACs, and religious groups to get away with exactly that.  They are allowing those groups ownership of God, and in doing so, allowing for a particular take on God to be foisted upon all Americans.  It is time for that to stop!  In fact, it is long overdue.  The death of this country is very likely to come from religious zealots who have little tolerance for opposing views.  They are still living in 16th societies that no long exist.

Americans gasp when they hear about the religious intolerance and excesses of the Middle East.  But Americans need to take a second look at themselves.  Are we not doing the same sorts of things?

by

The Six U.S. Presidents Who Did the Most For America


This is, of course, just my opinion.  But, I hope I will show enough proof for you to consider them.

1.  George Washington — We all know that Washington more than any other commander during the revolution, helped America win.  But between 1783, when the English capitulated, and 1789 we really do not hear a lot about him.  That is because he felt his job was done and he wanted to go back to being the gentleman farmer.  But once Washington assumed the presidency he helped bring stability to the colonies.  His putting down the Whiskey Rebellion was his was of asserting the federal government as a central power.  There was doubt in the states that the federal government was strong.  The government needed income and put a tax on whiskey which brought about the insurrection.  Washington’s popularity with the general public helped reinforce the people’s trust in the government and its ability to act in their interests.

2.  Andrew Jackson — Jackson’s election set America on its ear.  People were outraged that a divorced woman would be the first lady.  Unfortunately, Rachel Jackson died before her husband took office.  Jackson also had to weather the dying Federalist Party that said a person of Jackson’s character would ruin the office of the president.  Jackson had been known for bar fights in his younger days and had an outstanding warrant for his arrest in the state of North Carolina from just such an event.  Jackson took on the powerful banking interests of the day.  A private bank, the Second National Bank, virtually had the nation’s finances hostage.  Jackson saw to it the charter of the bank was made null, and then oversaw the formation of the federal banks that exist to this day.

3.  Abraham Lincoln — It is difficult to imagine anyone would need to be convinced of his selection as one of the ten best.  Lincoln was a brilliant political tactician which is seldom talked about.  His first vice president, Hannibal Hamlin, was a safe partner for him.  He was a Maine Republican, who helped Lincoln balance his mid-west roots with Hamlin’s northeast.  But in the election of 1864 Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.  Johnson’s Democrat affiliation along with his North Carolina heritage was done to appease Southern Democrats who Lincoln saw rejoining the government.

4.  Theodore Roosevelt — Roosevelt was arguably one of the most ambitious presidents this country has ever had.  Roosevelt was William McKinley’s assistant secretary of the Navy when the Spanish-American war broke out.  Roosevelt resigned his office so he could fight in the war.  He saw it as an opportunity to bring glory to himself, which he did rather successfully.  Once he became president after McKinley’s assassination, Roosevelt focused on American expansionism.  He was responsible for the assumption of the Panama canal and America’s overseeing it for the next 99 years.  He established the Hawaiian Islands and Guam as American territories.  He assisted Panama in becoming its own nation.  That territory had formerly been Colombia.  He established the National Parks System with his good friend John Muir.

5.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt — Roosevelt made more changes to the federal government than any president in history either before or since.  Roosevelt was key in establishing the FDIC after the bank failures of 1931, he established the social security system, he brought electricity to rural America with projects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and others.  He put desperately poor Americans back to work with his Works Project America.  He also skillfully guided America through World War 2.

6.  Dwight David Eisenhower — During his time in office, Eisenhower was criticised for what was seen as excessive time on the golf course, and his propensity to back problems which kept him from the Oval Office many times.  But Eisenhower took his European experience, having seen Germany’s modern highways, and brought those ideas to American.  He was behind the formation of America’s Interstate highway system.

I really wanted a list of ten but none of the rest achieved nearly as much as these six did.  What I will do next is post a list of the ten worst presidents of all time.  That is an easy list, and I am sure, a controversial one.