Penny Found

War by any other name...

2011-12-26T06:06:00.000-08:00

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…or so Juliet surmised as she thought desperately on how to get the man without the family. Despite the truth of Shakespeare’s line - that the name of things doesn’t matter, only what things are – the words we introduce into our lexicon can evolve into a being of their own, which may ultimately have little resemblance to the way things are.

Human conflict has no recorded beginning. The use of language to describe conflict is probably as varied as the conflicts themselves. The etymology of the English word War is only about a millennia old and for most of that period the use of the word as a noun has been pretty consistent. Simply stated it is used to describe military conflict between organized societies. Rarely did the civilian element of societies actively participate. Much of recorded history over these past 1000 years has been framed by these conflicts as periods of significant change, often brought about by the conflicts themselves.

Such is not the only use of the term War. War is frequently used as an adjective relating to items or behavior connected with conflict; war-paint, war-dance, war crime, war chest, war weary, and so forth. However, something has changed regarding “war” in America over the past century, and the past 60 years in particular. It is the result of success, the speed of information, and the desire to persuade through the merchandizing of fear. It probably has no precedent.

World War I ended in 1918. It was not good experience for our relatively young Republic. Called The Great War and The War to End All Wars, the US was only in the conflict for just over a year and yet the losses were horrific, both through military casualties and, especially, disease. It was so unpopular that following it a new isolationism kept Woodrow Wilson from entering the US into the League of Nations, which he created. This did not stop, however, a growing Romantic conclusion over the years that America had essentially cleaned up the European mess, a partial truth at best.

The end of World War II was considerably different for the American population as a whole, but it built on the Romance. The success of that conflict which ended with the United States displaying powers that no other nation had (nuclear weapons) turned the attitudes of the general population toward War into something new. Not only was WWII glorified, it colored the attitudes of past conflicts, including WWI. The word War, as a noun, took on a new meaning. Instead of representing conflict it began to represent an ethical state of being.

The affect of this change in the use of the term has been profound and insidious. For this nation, after WWII the concept of War was like mainlining heroin. The high was too great, however with each successive injection the outcome became worse. The United States, more than any other nation, has become a War junkie.

Although undeclared, as required under our Constitution, the major military engagements since World War II - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq - have increasingly resembled something other than War although each has been named as such. The Iraq invasion in particular resulted in a protracted hostile occupation eight times the length of WWI and yet it was one in which we labeled as a War throughout…war against who?

It is not hard to see that nearly every time our leaders, public and private, have been faced with social issues they have applied the term and mass marketed it; the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, the War on Terrorism, or how about the War on Cancer, and the War on Pollution. There are of course the Cola Wars and even a War on Christmas, which Conservatives tag to the alleged liberal-Jewish media. The word come to represent how the nation should deal with issues…but how is that bad?

The use of the word War in all these cases, including the military conflicts, is sinister. It lures people into supporting the underlying motives of the originators, but in nearly all cases the conclusion to the “War” is not part of the equation. Historically, wars ended with a winner and a loser, even if the particulars of that ending were negotiated. With the new wars there really is no winner or loser. Does Cancer win or lose? Does Crime win or lose? In Iraq and Vietnam did we win or lose? The Korean War is still in effect, 60 years later. There is no winning or losing in all these cases because there is only the conflict itself.

The reason this is bad is because the new Romantic concept of War inhibits any productive action on the issue. There is only slugging it toward a mythical victory. The War on Drugs, for example, has cost more than most other wars (military or otherwise) and imprisoned many more people than all the American prisoners of war in all America’s military engagements combined. Yet because it is a War, those who are bent on some kind of declared victory are unable to address the real human condition and how to improve it. So the “War” goes on and on. How are we doing so far?

There is not an ounce of common sense that justifies a War on Terrorism. You might as well call it a War on Fear. As such America will remain terrorized with no end, and the politicians who trade on that fear will continue to remain in power. How easy would it have been for George W. Bush to invade Iraq and impose the Patriot Act if, instead of a War on Terrorism, we simply became part of an international effort to reduce and neutralize terrorists around the world?

War by any other name would not smell the same. In fact the word stinks. It is time to end the pursuit of “glory”… and the addiction.

Hang 'em High

2011-12-22T04:55:00.000-08:00

Led by Newt Gingrich, the Republican pack of Presidential contenders embraced a new line of contention in their December 15th debate. At least it was one I hadn’t previously noticed. They did so in a way that displayed both an eerie pandering to right-wing social interests and an embarrassing ignorance of just how our particular form of government works. I refer to their attack on our third branch of government – the Judiciary.

Michelle Bachmann was by far the most colorful in her attempts to lasso this contrived concern as a backdoor attack on such issues as woman’s rights (including abortion), gay rights, workers rights, voter’s rights, and the suspension of individual liberties in the name of security…to name a few. In her Meet the Press interview following the debate she said the following:

"What we need to do about it is have the--both the president and the United States Congress take their authority back. And I would agree with Newt Gingrich that I think that the Congress and the president of the United States have failed to take their authority because now we've gotten to the point where we think the final arbiter of law is the court system. It isn't."

I can’t imagine what foolish people out there have the audacity to think our court system is the final arbiter of law. Obviously Michelle is geh-fumpted suggesting Obama, in just three short years, has managed to turn over interpretation of US law over to the courts! Those pesky judges actually being allowed (by Obama of course) to sit at their benches and make decisions about disputes of law brought before them. What can you expect from a Kenyan socialist?

The fact that the Supreme Court currently has a Conservative majority doesn’t appear to appease her. When asked by David Gregory of Meet the Press whether she felt Congress should ignore Court decisions they (Congress) didn’t like, she said:

"No, we don't ignore those decisions. But, again, we need to remember that the United States Congress and the president of the United States have the power and authority to pass law. We have the idea that laws are ultimately made by courts today, but that isn't true. It--the, the, the--Congress, together with the president can pass law and change what the, what the Supreme Court says….The problem is the Supreme Court or other members of the court have passed decisions that aren't in conformity with our Constitution. That's what we take issue with. That's why it's important that the people have their representatives be able to pass laws as the president would sign in conformity with their will."

She also said in the same debate that she was a "serious candidate for President of the United States". I mean…seriously? The only thing she’s a true candidate for is talk show host on Fox News.

Newt Gingrich doesn’t have the same Land of Oz approach to our Constitution as Bachmann. Still, his rhetoric calls for Judges to be subpoenaed by Congress to defend their decisions, the presumption being that Congress can reverse those decisions in some fashion (by-passing superior courts?). He believes such has ideological relevance - Constitution be damned. Of course both candidates are pandering to that liberty loving right-wing element of the Republican Party that somehow believes those individual freedoms which they find personally offensive are unconstitutional. Bachmann, who has proven herself since 2008 to be a political half-wit, is about as offensive in her assertions as say…the town drunk is about sobriety. However, Gingrich, with his declaration of being a political scientist and historian, is truly offensive…and a little bit scary.

I find it an entirely reasonable argument that the US Judiciary is the most critical branch of our Government, allowing this representative democracy to survive nearly a quarter of a millennium…it is the glue. It’s the branch which brings strength to the US Constitution primarily because 300 million people for better or worse are willing to accept the conclusions it reaches in dealing with dispute. It is hardly flawless. Yet even with all the frailties human beings inherently bring to any organization, the American Judiciary has withstood the test of time with historical consistency and a remarkable resistance to corruption. It is the hidden jewel within our Constitution, keeping the Nation on track even as politicians frequently attempt to derail it.

The US Congress, a body which often operates more like a plutocracy than a democracy - pushed this way and that by social currents - is hardly a place for consistent and just arbitration, nor is the Executive Branch. One could only imagine the instability that would exist if there was no acceptance and reasonable faith in our Judiciary. Bachmann declared in the same debate that we were not a banana republic. Too bad for her.

Crazy Like a Fox

2011-11-21T11:58:00.000-08:00

The Joint Select “Super Committee” is expected to announce today that they couldn’t do what Congress was unable to do last March. Should ANYBODY be surprised? The major surprise would have been to learn that compromise had been reached, more specifically that the Republicans had allowed it to happen. The outcome was pre-ordained when, in concocting the plan, each party caucus was allowed to pick their representatives for the Committee. You might as well have asked two packs of wolves to equitably split a dead moose. If they had wanted half a chance of succeeding the Republicans should have picked the 6 Democrats for the panel and vice versa.

I absolutely believe, and the anecdotal evidence supports, that the problem is with the Republicans, who determined that they could use this committee, moreover the potential failure of the Committee, as leverage to make the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts permanent. John Kerry in his Meet the Press interview yesterday whined about that fact like a schoolboy complaining that the other kids won’t share the football unless he gives up the key to the candy cupboard - whining has become a forte’ for the Democrats.

The fact of the matter is that for Congressional Republicans, who enjoy the macho, red meat eating, flag saluting, white gridiron image they’ve cultivated, this has become a game. The objective is to lower taxes a la Grover Norquist. All the rest, including discretionary spending, defense, entitlements, regulations, and the size and roll of government is just detail. It could be something played on an Xbox. Instead of Call of Duty, perhaps it might be called Hall of Doodie.

The Republicans want those Bush Tax Cuts made permanent in the worst way, second only to removing Obama as President. They know that once they expire at the end of 2012 they won’t be able to do anything to restore them if Obama is re-elected, even if the Republicans hold both houses of Congress. But I can’t help but ask myself why it was allowed to become an issue in the first place.

I was one of many, perhaps a majority of Americans, who was incensed that Obama allowed the extension of the cuts in November 2010. The Republicans had vowed to block all legislation during the lame duck Congress (the last gasp for the Democrat House majority) if the cuts weren’t extended. Obama caved, using the growth/jobs argument as justification. How did that work out? Further, he agreed to extend the cuts till the end of 2012 placing them at ground zero for the 2012 Presidential election. I thought he must be getting ready to drink the Kool-Aid. Just crazy…or so I thought.

But now look what’s happened. Unless the US economy completely tanks during the summer and fall of 2012, even the status quo gives Obama a good shot at winning - depending on who his opponent is. The election itself will become a National referendum on whole issue of revenue, and the Bush Tax Cuts will be the tangible icon for whichever side you’re on. It will be a crystal clear difference between the two candidates. Obama will absolutely say he will veto any extension and the Republican candidate will be forced to support it. Further, the same will be true for most Senate and House seats. The direction of the economy may be the underlying issue, but the yea or nay on the Bush Tax Cuts will be something that the electorate will actually understand.

Republicans may have felt that being on the side of fewer taxes was a fail-safe position. However, perhaps Obama and his handlers had more insight for what was coming down the road. It seems downright foxy with hindsight. The spotlight on the immense increase in economic inequality, a spotlight that Republicans fondly call Class Warfare, works to the Democrats advantage. If that issue has 10 months of life to it, and it should, the idea of increased taxes for the wealthy will not be hard for the general populous to support. If there is to be a solution to the gridlock in Washington, which the American people can no long stomach, the easiest way for the 99% to deal with it will be to vote the 1% to pony up a few more bucks.

Longing to be Sunk in the Middle

2011-11-11T08:33:00.000-08:00

There is an old Lithuanian proverb that says “the older the bed, the closer the couple”. Actually…I just made that up, but old world proverbs – let’s face it - sound better than blogging bromides. The message is a good one nevertheless. Old mattresses worn in the center bring people together and if a couple wants to get some productive sleep they’d better work it out.

There is a construction currently today in America which has built a national mattress with a big lump in the middle. It seems that when too many American’s get into bed they involuntarily roll to one side or the other. It also seems that too many are oblivious to how they got there. Their time is spent primarily on tugging the blankets with those who have rolled to the opposite side.

Once again I’m reminded of one of my conservative friends, retired from business and now a part-time Methodist minister. In political discussions I have had with him, when faced with the inability to answer a point, he falls back on a simple axiom: whatever government does it screws up. He never really expands on what “government” means – Federal, State, Local, homeowners association, or all of the above? Given his fundamental conclusions he finds comfortable consistency from the ravings of (such as) Glenn Beck, who he loves, and therefore is content to be on his side of the bed…although he probably doesn’t get much sleep.

The blanket that he perceives being pulled back and forth is (to him) clearly labeled Capitalism on his side and Socialism on the other. Conservative talk personalities have successfully been able to link as synonymous the terms Liberal and Socialist for their audience, inferring of course that Socialism is just an anagram of the term Communism. They present it as if it was a secret puzzle that is completely obvious for the pure of heart: those pesky liberals are just Communists in disguise. Whipping the blanket to one side goes well beyond practicality. It becomes a duty. Of course it ignores their inherent conclusion that presidents from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Clinton and even Eisenhower, to a great degree, were all closet Communists.

The radical Right wing Conservatives have been successful in attaching “ism” to the word “social”. In doing so they have made the necessity we all have of coexisting into an economic system that they proclaim is a direct competitor of Capitalism (or its friendly synonym: Free Enterprise).

Free Enterprise is not only the critical underpinning of the American economy, it has proven (to my satisfaction anyway) to be the underpinning of the World’s successful economies and has done so by clear testing – the most recent being the collapse of the Soviet Union’s economic structure. Freedom works, and I have never heard an American economist or politician of any persuasion state anything to the contrary.

However, Republicans would have you believe that our social organization (i.e. Government) is an obstacle to Capitalism. Therein lays my friend’s black and white political/economic philosophy: business good – government bad. Yet it is absurd to think of Capitalism in a utopian fashion. Slavery works just fine in a Capitalistic model, so does child labor, or 70 hour work weeks. The entire concept of a middle class (as we hear used by politicians like it was comprised of nothing but mothers and babies) is not necessary within a capitalistic model for it to be viewed as successful. Poverty generally works against Capitalism as consumption is critical, but losing a fringe of the population to deprivation would be reasonable collateral damage. Today the most blaring example of the weakness of Capitalism is our Health Care System, which (for advanced economies) is the last for-profit Health Care System on the planet and yet the most inefficient and ineffective by a wide margin.

The fact of the matter is with 7 billion people now on this planet, 300 million in this country alone, the merging of Capitalism with social goals requires, like never before, an actively participating government to interact and even modify the direction of free economies. Historians and economists would point out that has always been the case, just never so dire - our last financial crisis case in point. When Ron Paul proclaims that things go wrong whenever Government injects itself into our economy, it resonates with many because it contains some truth. That’s especially true as special interests control legislation. However, his Libertarian conclusion (essentially shared by the Tea Party crowd) that the answer is to move to some kind of free rural economy that resembled those days when he was a lone doctor happily taking “chickens” for his labor and that gold is the answer to financial stability and growth, actually moves us toward chaos. It just isn’t the answer in a world of 7 billion. It makes no more sense than the vilification of business by the 99 percenters.

Government, which regardless what Republicans would have you believe is in fact the People, needs to impose its will to include a common good, not just to protect an individual good. That any politician calls any economic program or policy sacrosanct is reason enough to remove them from office, whether it be taxes or Social Security – throw the ideological bums out. Start with Eric Cantor. When folks roll to the center, one blanket works just fine.

Feeling the Pain…and Not Much More

2011-10-19T09:13:00.000-07:00

In last night’s Republican Presidential Debate, somehow dubbed the Western Republican Presidential Debate (is the West seceding…I hadn’t heard?), Michelle Bachmann directed an answer toward a question about how she, and the other candidates, might deal with the foreclosure problem in the Country. She responded as follows:

"That was the question that was initially asked. And what I want to say is this — every day I’m out somewhere in the United States of America, and most of the time I’m talking to moms across this country. When you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you’re talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they’re losing their nest for their children and for their family. And there are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through no fault of their own, are losing their job, and they can’t keep that house. And there are women who are losing that house."

"I’m a mom. I talk to these moms."

"I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue. It’s got to be solved. President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around."

Congresswoman Bachmann provided this “detailed solution” to the foreclosure issue while managing to produce dewy eyes on the verge of eruption. I’m somehow reminded of a used car salesman selling some junker by directing the buyer’s attention to the nifty radio and shiny hood ornament. Her compatriots and competitors did no better on the question. The whole debate in fact should have been an embarrassment to the Republican Party, if that’s possible.

Trying to convince voters that she feels the pain may garnish some support, but it won’t do a thing toward improving the economy.

The foreclosure issue is truly a critical issue directly relating to the economic “recovery” most politicians tout - with little resolve. As I outlined in my essay It Isn’t About Jobs (Pennyfound, August 22, 2011), producing some predictability to the housing market is a fundamental first step to recovery. It will, along with some increase in real wages, precede any notable drop in unemployment. The Federal Government can do something to speed that process.

The business-created perfect storm of inflated housing values, along with unbridled credit, has resulted in untold numbers of homeowners stuck in houses they can’t sell while paying mortgages based on pre-crisis interest rates. Many, either by choice or necessity, are just walking away from their homes, which they can do because mortgages in this Country are non-recourse. The resulting foreclosures only exacerbate the problem. This is all happening while mortgage interest rates have dropped to historic lows.

Neither the Obama Administration nor Congress has done anything substantive that might address a no-brainer solution to the issue. Obama’s HARP program was a complete failure by it complexity and limitations. If homeowners could refinance their mortgages to current rates (which they can’t do because of the drop in home value and thus their equity), foreclosures would be dramatically curtailed. Disposable income would increase to those most likely to spend it, having a direct effect on the overall economy. Homeowners would feel less pressure to sell (or walk away), having the immediate effect of boosting real estate values…predictability follows. What don’t these politicians get? Well…one does get it.

Currently (and finally) there is a bill in the House of Representatives, HR 363, introduced by Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) which is specifically directed toward enabling home owners to refinance their mortgages at current rates regardless of the market value of the home. All other criteria for refinancing would remain, such as credit and income, but there would be some reduction in fees. There is practically nothing but upside to this bill. It’s two years late in the making.

Amazingly this bill has received practically no support from either party or the Obama Administration. How is that possible? There is only one set of losers to this effort and I suspect those potential losers are calling the shots. Those who hold the investments created by the current mortgages and are enjoying the high interest rates, for which people are locked into paying, are the potential losers. They also just happen to be the same people, institutions, and corporations that benefited from the fiscal insanity and negligence that created the housing bubble and associated derivatives markets in the first place. Funny how that works; they know such an improvement would hurt their short term bottom line, and that bottom line appears to be one line these politicians won’t cross.

Michelle Bachmann, et al, may want to show American that she can do more than just squeeze out a tear for the people who continue to transfer their meager assets to America’s wealthiest by supporting HR 363. I’m not holding my breath…and neither should the mothers of America.

Words of Desperation?

2011-09-28T08:40:00.000-07:00

In the news clips of Chris Christie’s speech at the Ronald Reagan Library in California last night there was a woman who spoke what the news story claimed was a general consensus. She emotionally pleaded for the New Jersey Governor to reconsider his decision not to run for President… that she and the entire nation needed him…need him? His inability to emphatically close the door on such a run, as he has previously tried, allowed the news media the following morning to hype uncontrollably about the possibility. What is going on here?

Chris Christie has found his niche. Although clearly more educated and intelligent than Sarah Palin, his background has about the same depth. He has held public office now for 21 months. He has virtually no background or even any record of interest in foreign affairs. His glib, self-deprecating, and often bi-partisan approach to public communication has given him a kind of Will Rogers appeal, someone you can laugh with and trust at the same time. Somehow to desperate moderate-right Republicans this is enough to put him in-charge of the United States and the Free World, damn the details.

Sarah Palin is not likely to run for President (see Pennyfound: Ignoring the Obvious 7/5/09). On a recent interview she indicated running would cramp her style as “a maverick”. She’s smart enough to know that increased public scrutiny holds mostly downside for her, especially in the pocketbook. Chris Christie, as I said earlier, is smarter than Sarah Palin…way smarter. Much of what he has given for reasons not to run is both admirable and impressive. He has said “I’m not ready”, indicated it wasn’t the right time, pointed out his shortcomings, and simply relayed a lack of desire, among other things. He knows he’s a darling of the media that has found a talent in himself to be attractive, but he also knows that 21 months as a governor, 7 years as US Attorney (appointed under questionable circumstances), 3 years as a lobbyist, and some squirrely in and out participation in local politics does not a President make.

I think there could be something more to his decision not to run. As opposed to Sarah Palin who grew up in a conservative Christian, cheerleader, beauty pageant, weather girl kind of environment, Christie developed in the raw middleclass environment characteristic of New York/ New Jersey. The controversies that have surrounded his years both as a local Freeholder (like a county supervisor) and later as US Attorney lead me to consider that the kind of pragmatism he may have embraced is something he’s rather not have dug up and set on the table. If such is true, nobody knows this more than him. He may say that he’s not ready to run for President; however he may actually be saying that he’ll never be ready to run. The Peter Principal argues that people often rise one level above their expertise to their level of incompetence. In Christie’s case, it may be that a Governorship is the last level he can rise before he reaches his level of exposure.

It is a commentary in itself that there are so many who would follow an unknown quantity, or in the case of Sarah Palin an incompetent known quantity, simply because they are desperate for someone to believe in. If there is a lesson in here somewhere it is that leadership contains critical elements that are not intellectual or political. We all intuitively know that right…or do we President Obama?

Now and Later

2011-09-06T06:55:00.000-07:00

My son is “jacked”, or so I am told. My first image is of a car half way through a tire change. I quickly understand, however, that they reference his physique. He’s in good health, works out religiously with his girlfriend, eats “healthy” (as compared with me, certainly), and takes physical risks (sports, weight lifting and such) without much concern. He is 25 and part of an army of young Americans fit or unfit, roughly between the ages of 20 and 35 (between leaving their childhood home and starting their own home with children), who are careening toward a precipice blinded by their own temporary good fortune. They are, for the most part, oblivious to the social and economic meltdown which is health care in the United States. Yet this problem will impact them so directly and in so many ways that their ambivalence leaves them akin to free-range chickens.

America has evolved its health care differently than every other advanced economy in the world. This was a complex evolution with many factors impacting the current state. Some common factors, however, have affected every economy over the past century; such as exponential population growth, exponential advancements in medical science, exponential dissemination of information, and exponential means of communication. With those common underlying dynamics, why is the US model so different… and so inefficient?

One major reason was the outcome of the 2nd World War, later combined with a manic fear of collectivism during the Cold War. With the exception of Canada (and to a lesser extent Australia) the US immerged from WWII without devastation. To the contrary, the Country was in better shape than it had been during the prior decade. Further, there was a righteousness that came from victory that persists to this very day. It was perceived, in many ways correctly, as a victory of Free Enterprise, but to question such became unpatriotic (or deemed treasonous as what occurred in the mid-50s, or by such sages as Sarah Palin today).

Where the rest of the world after the War saw major portions of their populations in devastation and without means, the concept of universal health care was both a necessity and consistent with a world view of fallibility. Those countries in Western Europe and the Far East had the ability to conceive a collective approach to health care without deeming such as undemocratic. They intentionally or not were able to view universal health care as liberating. Ironically, the United States, an integral player in the reconstruction of Western Europe and Japan, helped construct the bureaucracies to support universal health care. Canada, the noted exception, attempted an expanded free-market approach to health care, but facilitated by their parliamentary form of government later found it unworkable abandoned it for the British model.

The for-profit health care system in post-war America meshed nicely with rapidly expanding free-enterprise. The combination of strong organized labor, combined with a shortage of workers, which persisted from 1948 to 1972, health care (via insurance) became a form of invisible compensation. This was an historical accident without precedent (on a large scale), and without any logical argument for its efficiency. Quite the contrary, given the aforementioned dynamics of population, medical science, information, and communication, this system has proven itself to be extraordinarily inefficient. However, for the most part two generations have lived through it and now too many believe that employer covered health care is a natural state of affairs.

The Republicans in Congress, who argue for the status quo like junkyard dogs at the fence, find sympathetic ears by those employed individuals who can’t see their benefits as an actual use of compensation (i.e., something they’re buying). These so-called Conservative politicians wrap patriotism with the most egregious lies about the quality of our health care, exacting support for their position. You cannot have the “greatest health care system in the world” (as Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor have said countless times) and be 24th in the world for adult mortality and 26th in infant mortality. These politicians are actually fighting for those on the receiving end of the $1.6 trillion transfer that takes place each year - 2 to 4 times that of all other modern nations on a per capita basis. Tragically, the nation eats what it’s being fed. Obama, unable to compete, ends up creating a politically expedient health law which - once he agreed to drop a public option - only entrenches the for-profit system. There’s not much light poking through the clouds.

The young adults in the US today are playing on the tracks and they can’t see the train coming. Before this American health care system becomes unsustainable too many will find themselves and their children under cared for, their lifestyles compromised by huge health care costs, their parents destitute or without legacy, their mobility compromised, their ability to take risk reduced, and their responsibility for the previous generation a near impossible social burden. None of that even includes the anxiety and diminished quality of life that comes from the fear of uncertainty at the most basic of levels - survival. Right now they have little fear; they unconsciously plan on living forever, just as they are doing right now. If they only knew…

It Isn't About Jobs

2011-08-22T06:49:00.000-07:00

It has become more than a little annoying to hear politicians proclaim that what we need in this country is jobs. Even worse is when they have to repeat the word, as if they were firing a clip from a rifle; we need jobs…jobs…jobs. Further, they usually finish this proclamation of insight by suggesting a simplistic solution such as building bridges and roads. In an economy which has been service oriented for decades I am struck by an image of laid off teachers, bank tellers, carpet salesmen, and…oh…say…accounting executives, all donning hard hats and heading off to some dilapidated corner of the country to lay asphalt.

Virtually any economist or even broker can tell you that employment is a lagging indicator of the economy. By the time employment improves or declines the factors that have led to the change have probably long been in place. That applies in times of both peace and war, since the steps taken to war usually ratchet up well before the application of resources and employment (Iraq being a notable exception).

The solution is not jobs - that’s the outcome. Maybe I should put it this way: the solution is not jobs…not jobs…not jobs. That’s not to say that public policy cannot have an impact on employment, it’s just that it can’t magically generate employment by some carefully directed expenditures or by somehow increasing the wealth of the top 2% of the nation that already currently owns 50% of our entire National net worth (excluding housing).

With no more rationality than Michelle Bachman saying gas prices will drop below $2 a gallon as soon as she is crowned, our leaders and contenders say whatever it takes to create an image that will garner them support. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (whose most notable Congressional achievement was getting a name approved for a Post Office in Richmond, VA - the Tom Bliley Post Office) is currently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars from his campaign war chest running ads reaching most of Virginia television viewers. He is proclaiming himself in the forefront of bringing good jobs to Virginia, even without competition for his Congressional seat. What is he really selling?

Public policy (aka Government) is essential to create the atmosphere in which the American style of Capitalism can thrive. That necessary atmosphere is called predictability, the most important ingredient for investment. The lies the Republican Right deliver endlessly, such as taxes are an inherent evil or that the free market will always do the right thing do nothing but instill fear and exacerbate the deleterious concentration of wealth in the United States. They create confusion because the 298 million people, who own less than 50% of the Nation, are deterred or reluctant to take risk because they don’t know what to count on, what is safe, or what is fair.

Free Market health care may be the single biggest drag on the economy since it transfers huge amounts of assets unproductively, burdens business, and renders workers nearly immobile with fear - and those are the healthy ones. Although Obama touts what he got passed (a massive health insurance reform bill) it has or will do little to elevate the control free market health care has due to the continued high level of uncertainty for the average US citizen. It was his worst failure, followed closing by approving the Bush tax cuts extension.

There are two areas to look for a true turn around in the economy. The first is stabilized real estate values; the second is an increase in real wages. The part of the population that own their own home need to be able to comfortably predict that the value of that home will rise at a more or less constant rate slightly ahead of inflation and that the house they may want to buy will do the same, and all workers need to predict that continued work and accumulated experience will result in increased wages at least slightly better than the rate of inflation.

For public policy to assist in those two areas it needs to trim expenditures, especially internationally, and create revenue (taxes) which will both reduce debt and the disparity in national wealth ownership. The objective is not to make the rich poorer, rather, in an expanding economy, to have the bottom 98% increase their wealth at a much faster rate than the top 2% (which currently is the exact opposite).

It also needs to include simplified regulations (not reduced regulations), the reinstatement of the pay-as-you-go policy (enacted during Clinton’s balanced budget Administration and ended under Bush), and start the process toward a single payer health care system by adding a public option to the current health care law. That creates the atmosphere; the free market will take it from there, and leave the Fed to keep inflation at a minimum with a balanced monetary policy. The jobs will come.

Are You Happy?

2011-07-27T12:57:00.000-07:00

In June of 1776 Thomas Jefferson penned in his declaration the famous “unalienable” or natural human rights that were to be a cornerstone of this Nation’s political philosophy. It wasn’t particularly original. Popular philosophies in the 18th century from men such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson had reflected on similar natural rights of Man, and George Mason had only weeks before written his Virginia Declaration of Rights using a similar phrase. However Jefferson, with Benjamin Franklin’s advice, had substituted the pursuit of happiness for (the pursuit of) property, the word used by such as Mason and Locke. This pursuit of happiness, which has been quoted a billion times in America, both in political and non-political contexts, is a befuddlement to me. The pursuit of property I understand, but just what does happiness mean? Of course the unalienable right is the pursuit, but in a real sense is it the pursuit of something which is actually attainable?

Are you happy? That is one of the most common questions in the English language, or probably most languages (but certainly not all). It, or an equivalent question, is asked by parents to children, children to parents, spouse to spouse, lover to lover, sibling to sibling, friend to friend, therapist to patient, and so on. Although the asking is easy, the honest answering of it is extraordinarily difficult. It’s so difficult that most people really don’t answer it at all. They may say “oh sure” or “most of the time” or “things are tough” or “I try to be” or “I’m feeling great”. That’s what we might say, but mostly we’re thinking: I have no idea. We might answer with conviction that we’ve been pursuing happiness, but why is it so difficult to definitively answer whether we’re there or not? We’re not even sure what it feels like… contentment?... tingly?... warm?... rich?

One could probably answer with assurance that “sometimes I’m happy and sometimes I’m not”, which might better reflect day to day life. That conclusion may, however, be confusing happiness with, say, joy. We know what joy is. It happens on a roller coaster, shared passion with one’s love, watching a good movie, or eating something delightful for example. It’s entirely acceptable that completely miserable people might have many joyful experiences. I believe the reason it is so hard to conclude whether your life is happy or, said differently, you are a happy person is because there is no such thing as happiness. Jefferson and Franklin’s natural right is directed toward something that doesn’t exist and as such has been a bedrock of continual confusion.

How can there be no happiness? You might say it’s like saying there is no love (at least we know that love and happiness don’t necessarily cohabitate). No, love is real, however I feel the word happiness is a misdirected term. I had an epiphany some time back when I realized that what we call happiness is really the absence of fear.

Fear is the single most driving emotion we possess, and for good reason. It is the primitive emotion for survival. I don’t know if prehistoric men sat around thinking about whether they were happy or not, but I can be damned sure they knew how to be scared, or driven by the panic of starvation. I can also assume that at those times when their needs were met they probably felt pretty good, but those times were not happiness, rather they were the absence of fear.

Today we find fear everywhere, not just in day to day, meat and potatoes survival. Fear is a tool of our economic and political systems. A majority of commercials and news stories in some way merchandise in fear. Crime, germs, investments, child protection, education, jobs, health, beauty, age, mechanical safety, food, weather, corruption, sex, or anybody who isn’t you. Any one of us could write a list as tall as ourselves. On a day or week or month when you shed yourself of most fear how do you think you would answer the question: are you happy?

If Jefferson had stated in our Declaration of Independence that our unalienable rights were to life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom from fear then maybe as some politicians place a gun to the nation’s head threatening to pull the trigger if they don’t get their way, more of us would have a better understanding of who is on the side of the nation’s people and who isn’t.

The Consensus Trap

2011-07-08T08:03:00.000-07:00

There are over 16 months till the next U.S. Presidential contest and it has already invited itself into the home by television, magazines, internet, radio, telephone, and conversation. Paid anti-Obama TV commercials are airing frequently. It feels like it won’t be long before they’re competing with pharmaceuticals for gross intrusion. Like a warm week in February, I can’t help wondering if this is somehow different than last time, is the hot summer starting early or not?

One reoccurring theme is an Obama vulnerability with so-called Progressives (a.k.a. Liberals or “his base”) due to his presumed failure to nail down their positions. That this should be a concern is beyond laughable to the far-right Conservative end of the spectrum, considering they’ve pinned Obama as a President way left of Mother Teresa, burying us with Socialistic edicts. Still, the dissatisfaction of Obama by the counter left seems to have legs. The Obama team, by their proactive protestations to the contrary, appears to be fearful that these legs may be walking away.

That any of this were the basis of a Shakespearian play we might need to be deep into the second act before it became apparent whether we were watching a tragedy or a comedy. I’m thinking comedy at this point. I mean, the characters won’t die in the end, in fact most will probably leave the story richer than when they started…probably whistling. An irony is that the active ends of the political spectrum are both likely to fall behind their candidate and, of course, vote, which makes concern about their support as useless as a father’s worry about the puppy he’s bringing home to his kids. The real story is in the middle.

Obama has reason for concern, but it isn’t about his failure to deliver on a Liberal agenda. A reading of The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s political opus, provides a clear transom into Obama’s real challenge to succeed the Hope candidate. I believe it is entirely possible that this treatise on his own political personality was gift to those who seek to remove him from office. The book makes the “ideal” of consensus a virtually goal, well surpassing more picayune objectives such as health care or campaign finance reforms. Bring everyone together, he essentially proclaims, and the rest will take care of itself. Unfortunately, this doesn’t make for good leadership and it is no formula for re-election.

Franklin D. Roosevelt won election by a large majority in 1937 but not because he had turned the economy around or seduced the opposition. Unemployment was still at 15% (higher if you factor out temporary government employment), equity markets stagnant, financial systems unworkable, deflation unabated, and the military in disarray. He was challenged by business and large conservative coalitions from both parties. What he did offer was strength in leadership which provided a sense of predictability to the general population. History shows both his New Deals were actually shotgun approaches to the economy, with broad uncertain bills, spending cuts, eclectic agencies, and complicated regulations, many thrown out by the courts or not bearing fruit for decades. Still, all most saw was his willingness to pull the trigger. He won the I care about you contest.

Obama was positioned for a similar outcome but instead chose a tactic of Solomon, to lead his flock by the power of his reason and personality. The Republican/Conservatives sized him up quickly as a lightweight and blindsided both him and his Congress with effective stonewalling and nastiness. It was Jimmy Carter all over again. Obama’s accomplishments to date, although notable, have not engendered the necessary I care about you mystique. He could have done it with health care. If the nation’s citizens had awakened to a world where they would never again be alone and at constant risk in obtaining health care Obama would have been politically indestructible. His inability to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire combined with reluctance to cut Federal expenditures has left him looking only political.

With only 16 months left it will be difficult for Obama to remake himself, especially with a Republican House. A noticeable drop in unemployment, an increase in real wages, or maybe a meaningful pullout from the Middle East might help. However, I think with the Misery Index staying close to that facing Carter in 1980 Obama’s best hope might come from the Republicans. If they field a Bachmann, a Newt, a Sarah, or even a Pawlenty, Obama could do well. However, all things being equal, if they go moderate and nominate someone like Huntsman (and Jon has not fathered any bastard children by his former Au Pair), well then…Obama is toast.

Who's Taking Care of Grandma?

2011-02-18T08:25:00.000-08:00

Somewhere around Scottsdale, Arizona four senior gentlemen are finishing their putts on the 4th green on an early Tuesday afternoon. It’s sunny…of course. They’re growling about the safety of their Social Security payments and the obvious government conspiracy to take those payments away, probably through taxation. Later after the game they’ll have a couple of beers at the clubhouse, mount their Acuras and ride home to wait on dinner. At the same time, somewhere just outside Columbus, Ohio a couple in their early 70s sit at the kitchen table in their small apartment trying to figure out when they can afford front tires for their 10 year old Sentra. Each golfer (with his wife) receives about $26,000 a year in Social Security, representing 30% of his current income. The Columbus couple receives $15,600 annually which represents 91% of their total income - they worry even more about their Social Security.

Social Security, your politicians explain, is fully funded through…well…a run-out-of-money date, no-viability date, buy-the-ranch date, or whatever date floats, so much so it isn’t worth remembering. Just assume it’s some time out there, so they say, which is also so much horse poopee. The reality is that it isn’t funded at all and hasn’t been as long as this nation has run deficits and accumulated debt. How can that be, you ask? They’ve got that account with those trillions of dollars of bonds in it, that bastion of security – the Social Security Trust Fund!!

The Social Security Trust Fund was born in 1983 because the original concept of Social Security in the 1930s as a pay-as-you-go system was no longer functional. It started well, but ended up bad, I guess when nobody was looking. Benefits currently paid exceeded receipts and when you ran the numbers out over decades of aging workers, they got pretty ugly to look at. Alan Greenspan spearheaded the policy to increase payroll taxes essentially replicating the early years of Social Security when current revenues exceeded current payout, but this time we decided to put the surplus in a nice safe place to fund projected claims as the population grew older. Ergo, the Trust Fund. Moreover, it preserved the concept (dare I say: illusion for the conservatively minded) that Social Security was some kind of paid in retirement plan - not the horrid W-word plan. Of course, this contrived concept was not reality; primarily because the nation’s low tax/ high spend mania could not be abated.

To give you an example of this shell game: say you wanted to fund your own retirement plan, but as luck would have it the idea of doing so would put a crimp into your lifestyle, especially when that lifestyle exceeds your income. But, being sensible and thinking of the future (which was looking pretty bleak), you decide to go ahead and put 10% of your income into your retirement plan account. Then you realize that your flat screen is way too small, the green fees down at the club just went up, you know you’d feel a whole lot safer if you drove a Hummer, and all those plans are in jeopardy because you’d be short on cash. Then you come up with a great idea. You can fund your retirement with IOUs…with interest! Now you’ve got this great retirement plan, with great interest bearing notes in it, you can even pay the interest to yourself with more IOUs, and you still get to buy all that crap you can’t live without. Does it get any better than that? One small problem: when you want to start receiving those nice fat retirement checks, you’ll have to keep working to pay for them.

National debt is simply and purely nothing more than deferred taxes (which includes fees and divestiture of public assets). There is virtually only one way to eliminate debt without the transfer of real assets (taxing), and it’s not default. A nation cannot really default, at least not American style; there is no international Chapter 11. The debt doesn’t go away. People just stop lending you money. The only real way to dodge paying it all back is by devaluing what you owe, i.e. inflation. When a $100,000 Treasury bond buys you one quart of milk the Treasury is pretty much out of debt. As it happens, as a citizen and taxpayer you’re pretty much out of debt as well. Of course, there is also a lot of other really nasty stuff that goes along with that - but let’s not dwell on economic Armageddon.

Social Security (funded through whenever) is comprised then of deferred taxes, essentially the same if there was no Social Security Trust Fund at all. We’d either cover the tab on Social Security (and OASI) by taxing the bejeebies out of subsequent generations or (as in the current scenario) taxing the bejeebies out of subsequent generations to pay off the debt - sounds kinda similar to me. Of course we could continue to borrow more and more, but that boat ain’t gonna float...not without taking a broadside from the inflation torpedo.

The only way to deal with Social Security and all so called entitlements in which future benefits are unfunded is to begin to accept what it is and what it has always been since its inception. Someone who bends to the left might call it welfare; someone who bends to the right might call it insurance. It’s the same either way.

Our politicians enacted and we have subsequently accepted that, as a nation, we don’t want people, who because of age or health can no longer work, to be left in the streets to rot in public view. Historically that was actually the case, especially in the early immergence of urban industrialization. Social Security, even with our chest pounding raw dedication to free enterprise, was created during a brief, admirable embrace of humanity. Yet very soon it was subverted into a notion of a personal investment, by those who opposed it from the outset.

Personally I like to call it insurance (does that mean I lean to the Right?). No one can project who is ultimately subject to misfortune. Some perhaps by chance, some by their own hand, but what difference does it make? By paying into a concept of spreading the risk, as we should be doing with healthcare, we cover ourselves, our parents, and our children. With any luck at all we may never need a penny of it, and when that’s the case we shouldn’t get a penny.

The solvency of Social Security should be attained by continually reducing the projected unfunded benefits to those whose needs don’t meet its purpose. There ought to be set target limits on benefits, with benefits providing an honorable lifestyle. Using the Tax Code, Social Security payments should be taxed at rates up to 100% once income reaches and exceeds those levels. There could be some minor means testing of benefits, but it is still reasonable that those who paid in more should still receive higher benefits, since their qualification to receive benefits would presume a greater lifetime drop in living standards.

It should again be pay-as-you-go and be funded through a flat tax, as it currently is, but that tax should not have income limitations. Another dumping on the wealthy, you say? Hardly. The economic and social stability of a society always has and always will benefit the wealthy most. That’s because it increases predictability, which is the cornerstone of investment.

My Pool

2011-02-07T04:10:00.000-08:00

I hated my pool.
I didn’t want it, it came
With the house, laying in the
Back yard like an old
Slobbering dog, exacting
Squeals of delight from my
Young children, humming and
Gurgling a ditty of “feed me
With your fortune” and “caress
Me with your time”.
And I relented,
Seduced by images
Of shared joy and clear, warm
Nights where light breezes
Cool my wet hair and I am
Near weightless of care. But
The years passed and I did not
Count on the winters, the
Fallout of nature’s endless
Cycle of death to life and
Back to death again. And I,
Immersed in the struggle to
Keep the waters clear, felt no
Longer capable of finding the
Delicate balance between a
Chemistry of desire and the
Tension that suspends debris
In places I could hardly reach.
I wanted to cover it, permanently,
Or fill it with something
That blended with the landscape.
Perhaps become a place
Where I could plant seeds, seeds
That said “feed me with your
Fortune” and “caress me with your
Time and I will grow for you”.
And in the spring, I did.
With great machines and trucks
Of dirt, it vanished from sight.
It no longer waits to be cleaned and
The shriveled brown leaves of fall
Blow across it unhindered.
It is gone, or good as gone.
Even if the wet earth of winter
Sinks ever so slightly in what was
The deep end.

Is Anybody There? Does Anybody Care...?

2011-02-01T11:01:00.000-08:00

…“Does anybody see what I see?” Those are lines in a song from the 1969 Broadway musical 1776. The actor playing John Adams sings this soliloquy lamenting why members of the Continental Congress can’t see what is so obvious to him, namely the need for independence from Great Britain. There are times when any of us might arrive at a conclusion that seems both obviously correct and contrarian at the same time. Later, more often than not, additional information can have us viewing things differently, perhaps even causing a touch of chagrin. Don’t you hate that, when things appeared so certain?

I currently find myself burdened by such a view and have seriously struggled to find reasons why that view might not be correct. I haven’t found any…at least not yet. I’m talking about Health Care in America. I have written about it previously, but, frankly, it cannot be brought up enough. It is the single most import issue in the United States today, because it impacts so many aspects of life simultaneously. It is the single biggest expenditure for the Nation’s people, dwarfing Defense. It’s the single biggest hindrance for freedom to seek employment. It is possibly the most inefficient system of any kind (based on size) in the history of modern man. It’s the single biggest inhibitor for small business expansion. It is a major cause of disabling anxiety for the middle class. It is the single biggest transfer of wealth in the history of this Country…or any other country. I’m not making this up. Currently $1.8 trillion annually comes out of your pocket (directly, in taxes, public debt – which is only deferred taxes - or for you by your employer) and ends up…well, somewhere else.

Yet the negative nature of this system in its entirety is nearly oblivious to large segments of our population. More amazingly, there are segments which have been convinced to actively support this System against their own best interest.

The wealthy can self-insure and since they are (unwittingly or not) the beneficiaries of the transfer they are hardly inclined to admit what is happening. Their surrogates in Congress will repeat that we have the best health care system in the world, over and over. The employed insured are annoyed but at the same time blinded by not being able to understand the true cost of what they’re paying. The poor have little incentive, because they can tap into existing welfare and have little (materially) to lose. The elderly actively resist change because they already receive universal coverage and are frightened by those who say change will take that away. The young (those say 18 to 30) for the most part are comatose on the subject, primarily kept unconscious by their natural good health.

The opinion of the wealthy will not change; moreover they will do whatever it takes to retain the status quo. The employed insured, most notably working Conservatives, will not challenge the System, unable to recognize their own deleterious behavior, even as they unload every bullet they have into their own feet. They are too malleable by use of fear. It is for the youth of America that I’m writing this piece. They are the only ones who can effect change and they are ones paying the price right now, by the accumulation of extraordinary debt and lost opportunities. They should be shouting from the roof tops or stampeding in the streets. Is anybody there?

The universal dispensation of health care cannot exist in a large modern economy today as a for-profit, free enterprise system…period. It might appear to work if you’re willing to give up the universality. You’d have to let a segment of your economy go without health care regardless of their desire to get it. More metaphorically, you have to let people die in the streets, so to speak.
Yet even then it wouldn’t work effectively or efficiently. There is nothing in a for-profit health care system that can control the cost because, in economic terms, there is almost no elasticity in demand. That means individual demand for health care services does not drop no matter how high the price goes up. Total demand might drop simply because people can no longer afford health care, fall out of the system and die, but for those paying with their remaining assets the costs would continue to spiral up. The whole concept is not self-sustaining and it is ripping apart the fabric of our nation. Does anybody care?

A young person might ask what is so different now compared to decades past…a lot actually. First and most critical, the population of the United States has more than tripled in the last 100 years. Modern medicine as we know it now is relatively new. The technological changes that have transformed medicine (micro biology, pharmaceuticals, genetics, and numerous others, for example) have mostly occurred during the lives of living generations. Further, historically through most of the 20th century the practice of medicine was mostly non-profit. Most doctors worked independently in conjunction with hospitals that were publicly or charitably owned. The massive change toward capitalization of health care with the rise of professional corporations and huge hospital corporations has taken place mostly over the past 50 years. The bones of the beast became the medical insurance corporations, and the life blood of the beast is debt, public and private.

No other large advanced economy in the world has had this experience. Universal public health care in Europe and Asia is as old as the medical industrial complex is in the United States, most originating in their current form just after World War 2. Canada tried the American approach but soon realized the obvious and converted to universal public health care in the early 60s. Now Americans pay multiples of what other modern economies pay, on a per capita basis, for health care that barely rates above third world countries for the nation as a whole. And even with all these resources spent, the fear of being turned out on the streets by the insurance companies due to a job change, or contracting a disease, or having an accident, and end up running out of assets pervades the middle class like a perpetual black cloud. Can anybody see what I see?

There should be a revolution between the young people of American against those who are on the receiving end of that annual $1.8 trillion transfer. When Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Eric Cantor endlessly repeat the phrase “government takeover of health care” to describe the recent health care law (that only modestly modified the health care insurance industry) they are using fear to maintain the status quo. Such should be heard as clarion call for American youth to demonstrate against the hypocrisy. Young people did it during the Vietnam War because they felt personally at risk. Well…they’re at risk now, as we all are. But the youth of America will bear the brunt of the disaster, the longer they wait to show up and open their eyes.

Lip Dancing

2011-01-25T09:24:00.000-08:00

Last Sunday David Gregory interviewed the Nation’s new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on Meet the Press. I was pleasantly surprised to see him appropriately aggressive in trying to extract answers from Leader Cantor. It’s not that the responses Cantor provided were notably more off point than many other politicians might deliver. It was simply more noticeable to me because I was listening - primarily because I happen to live in the District which has the ignominious honor of placing Cantor in Office.

Fortunately I happen to have a memory of inconceivable depth and, with only minor paraphrasing, can reconstruct the entire interview for those of you who missed the show. So here it is; Rep Eric Cantor (R-VA) meets the press, January 23rd 2011:

MR. GREGORY: Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

REP. ERIC CANTOR: Good morning, David.

MR. GREGORY: Everybody's talking about the State of the Union address, and the president is already previewing it. Being competitive, in his mind, also means some additional targeted spending in some areas to make America competitive, as well as cuts, as well as dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?

REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I'm, I'm really interested to see and hear what the president has to say. I heard him in a news conference talking about cutting back on the White House menu. I believe he was introducing some low cost Kenyan dishes. We applaud his thrift, yet still have no disagreement with some spending to comply with his ethnic leanings.

MR. GREGORY: But he's saying now there's got to be a combination of some spending to keep America competitive, and also cuts dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?

REP. CANTOR: What we've said is our Congress is going to be a cut and grow Congress; if you want to grow asparagus, David, you know you have to cut them to the root for the first 2 or 3 years.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

REP. CANTOR: When the president talks about competitiveness, sure, we want America to be competitive. But how does that equate to jobs jobs jobs? If we can’t eliminate Obamanistic regulations every pool boy in the nation, so to speak, could find themselves out of work.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Well, well, let's just be clear. You don't believe that there's a balance that you have to get right in terms of investing in the economy to help it innovate, to become more competitive. That's not a vision you agree with.

REP. CANTOR: David, where--what I would say is the investment needs to occur in the private sector. Doesn’t it make sense to end the egregious taxes on the wealth builders of the nation…say those with net taxable income of $500,000 and over, who are struggling to make America the land the of Free? Wouldn’t it make more sense instead to have a national sales tax on food and strike a blow against obesity?

MR. GREGORY: Right. OK, well, let's, let's pick up where Republicans have left off. Cut and grow, that's the mantra. You campaigned on a pledge to America last September, and this is a part of what you said "We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year." And then you came into office and you said, "Well, we're not going to hit that $100 billion figure."

REP. CANTOR: David, let, let's step back a minute and look at sort of the whole sort of continuum of the spending challenges. We're, we're going to really have three bites at the apple here as far as approaching reducing spending and the size of Washington. I mean apples are apples.

MR. GREGORY: Right. But $100 billion, or not $100 billion?

REP. CANTOR: And, and we've committed to say $100 billion in reductions. We are intent on making sure, on an annualized basis, that we are hitting the '08 levels or below.

MR. GREGORY: It seems like it's a straightforward question, though. Are you going to live up to the $100 billion pledge? I assume you've put a lot of thought into that...

REP. CANTOR: David...

MR. GREGORY: ...$100 billion figure. Can you make it or not?

REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. On an annualized basis, we will cut spending $100 billion. Did you hear me: ANN-U-AL-LIZED.

MR. GREGORY: Which means what exactly?

REP. CANTOR: It’s simple David. You take the savings on the first day times 365, add in potential savings projected over the remaining term of this Congress, subtract all non-budgetary defense spending, multiply by the percentage of homes in foreclosure relative to the number of housing starts, and divide by 11.

MR. GREGORY: Right. You talk about the debt, its passing $14 trillion. This is what you said in The Washington Post: "`It's a leverage moment for Republicans. The president needs us. There are things we were elected to do. Let's accomplish those if that the president needs us to clean up the old mess.” I want you to be specific here. What's the leverage moment?

REP. CANTOR: Well, let, let me be clear, David. Republicans are not going to vote for this increase in the debt limit unless there are serious tax cuts, and some damned impressive spending cuts as well.

MR. GREGORY: Like what?

REP. CANTOR: I mean--and, and that is just the way it is, OK?

MR. GREGORY: Right. But you don't have--if you say serious spending cuts, you clearly have--don't have something specific in mind, right? You--in other words, you'll, you'll know it when you see it, is that the approach?

REP. CANTOR: No, no, that's not true. When my grandmother used to make pies during the holidays, any cutbacks in fruit didn’t detract from the joy of the season.

MR. GREGORY: But let's deal with the--you're not tackling entitlements. What about defense? Is defense on the table, defense cuts on the table? Do they have to be?

REP. CANTOR: I'll get to entitlements in a second if you want.

MR. GREGORY: OK.

REP. CANTOR: But I can tell you, we've always said this, too: We put everything on the table; glasses, silverware, napkins…no one sets a table like the Young Guns.

MR. GREGORY: Including defense cuts.

REP. CANTOR: I said Young Guns, didn’t I?

MR. GREGORY: OK. But look at The Wall Street Journal, the piece by Dick Armey of Freedom Works, the tea party group. He said "Let's scrap the Departments of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development, end farm subsidies, and end urban mass transit grants, just for starters." Would those be on the table?

REP. CANTOR: Everything, David, is on the table. Salt…pepper…

MR. GREGORY: Cancer research is on the table.

REP. CANTOR: …table cloth, condiments…I can’t be more clear.

MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Social Security. Are you prepared to raise the retirement age, means test benefits or, in another way, seriously tackle the entitlement of Social Security?

REP. CANTOR: David, what we have said is we've got a serious fiscal train wreck coming for this country if we don't deal with these entitlements. Let’s face it. We have to get these people off the gravy train. Now, for me, the first entitlement we need to deal with is the healthcare bill, is the Obamacare bill, you know.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we'll get to health care. I asked you about Social Security, though.

REP. CANTOR: Absolutely.

MR. GREGORY: Well, what are you willing to do? Means test benefits, raise the retirement age?

REP. CANTOR: David, we've got plenty of old Republicans in Congress right now receiving Social Security. This is not an issue that doesn’t hold potential sacrifice.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

REP. CANTOR: Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and I wrote a book together, and in that book we reserved a chapter for a discussion about Social Security, about Medicare, and how we can begin to at least discuss to do that. It’s called The Young Guns and it’s available on-line at Amazon and all national bookstore chains or can be purchased directly from my website at ericcantor.gov.

MR. GREGORY: But what are you for? Leader, I'm asking you what you what you're for.

REP. CANTOR: Well, what, what I'm telling you we're for, is we're for an active discussion to see what we can come together and do. We’ve written it all down. In fact, here’s a copy I brought for you…

MR. GREGORY: How long do we need to discuss Social Security and what is happening? It's been discussed for years.

REP. CANTOR: David, please…read the book. I suggest you ask your friends to buy a copy for themselves as well.

MR. GREGORY: All right, let, let's, let's move on to health care because House Republicans did repeal the president's healthcare reform plan, but the real question is what Republicans are prepared to replace it with and whether you have a serious plan. The truth is, Republicans do not have a serious alternative to covering more Americans, do they?

REP. CANTOR: I disagree with that, obviously, David. First of all, you know, we believe you can do better in health care. I mean, we want to try and address the situation so more folks can have coverage, can, can have the kind of care that they want. Obamanistic socialized government control of doctors, where panels of Kenyan and Mexican bureaucratic green card holders decide if Grandma is ready for the Ice Flow is hardly the American way of doing things.

MR. GREGORY: But, Leader, you're talking about bringing down costs. If you were serious about this, why not negotiate with Democrats in areas where you could deliver Republican votes?

REP. CANTOR: David, the problem is if we're all really desirous of trying to deal with people who are in need and want to improve the healthcare future for this country, you, you can't start with a Washington-controlled system. That's the structure of Obamacare. It’s not Americare. They don’t put the word “free” in free-enterprise for no reason at all.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you a little about politics. Do you think, as 40 percent in our recent poll thought, the president's become a moderate. Do you agree with that?

REP. CANTOR: Well, I think actions speak louder than words. Let’s just see how enthusiastically he supports our positions before we call him a moderate.

MR. GREGORY: There's been a lot of talk about discourse, about how you all can get along a little bit better and do it a little bit more civilly. And I wonder, this is the leadership moment here, OK? There are elements of this country who question the president's citizenship, who think that it--his birth certificate is inauthentic. Will you call that what it is, which is crazy talk?

REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I mean, a lot of that has been an, an issue sort of generated by not only the media, but others in the country. Most Americans really are beyond that, and they want us to focus...

MR. GREGORY: Right. Is somebody bringing that up just engaging in crazy talk?

REP. CANTOR: Well, David, I, I don't think it's, it's nice to call anyone crazy, OK?

MR. GREGORY: All right. Is it a legitimate or an illegitimate issue?

REP. CANTOR: And--so I don't think it's an issue that we need to address at all. President Obama being fathered by a Kenyan national, born under mysterious circumstances, supposedly in Hawaii, has no place in Congressional debate.

MR. GREGORY: I mean, I feel like there's a lot of Republican leaders who don't want to go as far as to criticize those folks.

REP. CANTOR: No. I think the president's a citizen of the United States.

MR. GREGORY: Period.

REP. CANTOR: So what--yes. Why, why is it that you want me to go and engage in name-calling? I think he's a citizen of the United States…as far as I can tell.

MR. GREGORY: Fair enough. Is the tea party a difficult crosscurrent in the Republican Party to manage right now?

REP. CANTOR: Perhaps. I've always said this. The tea party--first of all, the acronym for ‘Tea’ is "Taxed enough already" and the acronym for ‘Party’ is “People assisting Republican tax yodeling”. So the tea party has come in and said enough taxing already.

MR. GREGORY: So you think the tea party's here to stay?

REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. Do the carnivals still show up every Independence Day weekend?

MR. GREGORY: Right. Leader, more to do but we're out of time.

REP. CANTOR: Thanks, David.

MR. GREGORY: Thank you very much for being here.

The Game of Concentration

2011-01-24T12:50:00.000-08:00

Sunday I successfully managed to absorb the better part of six hours watching the professional football conference championships. The previous weekend I could claim nearly double that amount of time watching four playoff games. As a football game is only 60 minutes, which includes much of the players standing around time, huddling, and forming at the line of scrimmage, etc., it makes one wonder just what holds my attention so well? Now I like pro football a lot, and there are numerous moments of excitement or potential excitement in every game…but six hours is six hours.

I have watched two or three football games at one friend’s house. As we watch them he has the strategy of muting the TV during most commercials. I generally found this action mildly annoying and I’m guessing that a lot of people might immediately nod their heads in agreement. However, as I later thought about it, I became curious as to why such action should bother me at all. You see, I generally and deeply dislike commercials. If they were all like the E*TRADE baby ads, well…then my opinion might be different, but they’re not, far from it. Commercials utilize methods as those that now dominate television, movies, and (in an interactive way) video games. They employ a rapid fire change of visuals done in such a way as to make the viewer unaware that it is happening at all. Increasingly televised sporting events are adopting it, often making comprehension of the live action dependent on the instant replay.

It wasn’t always that way. In its first couple of decades television programs tried to emulate live theater, as it had neither the technology nor resources to reproduce what was being done in the film industry. In fact, a majority of early television was live and that style carried on for some time after the development of economical taping. Something changed since then and it was probably driven by advertising. Now to hold a view’s attention the visual field has to be constantly changing. I don’t believe people needed that assistance, but it works. More likely advertisers figured out that if they lost a viewer’s attention during a one minute commercial they'd lose money. This dilemma was only magnified when commercials became predominantly 30 seconds, then 15 seconds.

What is even more fascinating is how this dynamic spilled over into television programming and movies. Expectations changed. People changed. Now more and more, those that conclude what people like in these mediums use these techniques. For example, not only do we see rapid visual changes in movies, but some film makers have determined that viewers like the idea of unsteady visuals, where the camera image flies around like it’s being videotaped by somebody’s grandmother. Although they argue that such scenes are supposed to make the film appear more realistic, what’s really happening is that visuals are being converted into a nearly constant flow of change. How many people walk around and view the world that way with their eyes. Our sight doesn’t work that way, even as we look around. It’s as realistic as love on The Bachelor.

Sometime when you’re watching almost any program or commercial on television (but especially if you’re watching “reality” TV), count out loud each time the visual field changes on the screen. The numbers you’ll pile up in a given minute is eye opening. If you do it during a political commercial it’s a bit like trying to count corn kernels popping in a microwave.

So why is it when the sound was turned off during a commercial did I react negatively? I thought it might be just the logistics of turning it on and off and monitoring when to do it. No, that wasn’t it. I concluded it was because I continued to stare at the soundless flashes of scenes, but found my media concentration was compromised by the lack of commentary which acts like a glue. For those minutes, I was stuck between two realities, that which controls my concentration and everything else that exists in the present moment outside the screen. Stuck between the two of anything can be annoying, or at the very least uncomfortable.

Many a parent has berated their offspring that the television they watch is a mindless activity, even as the parents install televisions in nearly every room of the house. I’m sure I said such things too, even without the extra sets. But now I believe that television as it has developed, along with other types of media, actually immerses the viewer into extraordinary levels of concentration. Commercials in particular mesmerize the viewer. Try to face a room full of television watchers during a commercial break and you might as well be staring at the eyes of born-again Baptists watching a pole dance. This is not the lack of concentration, just the opposite; our thought patterns become those of the commercial. It’s much more akin to a Vulcan mind-meld…and it’s addicting.

It has been suggested that the increased use of machine gun images, which as I mentioned includes video games, corresponds with the unexplained national increase in Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and that there might be a connection. Perhaps...it kind of makes sense. However, what I believe we do know is that the contentment we feel when we surrender our endless and often concentrated thoughts to the actions we perform (losing ourselves into the moment of our activities) is given up to our media watching…even if it’s just in time alone. Further, the ease in which this concentration takes place temporarily relieves us of the natural anxiety that comes from wasting our time.

To concentrate is defined as to focus one’s attention. We all struggle to keep that focus rewarding. However, when it comes to the game of concentration, winning is stacked in favor of the house…or should I say set.

Irresistibly Dumb

2011-01-18T08:28:00.000-08:00

For about 25 years, with some minor gaps in time, I have had a full beard. For no particular reason every 7 or 8 years I might shave it off for a brief period or modify it in some fashion. Each time I would be fascinated that, upon arriving at my office, people who worked closely with me would not initially notice its absence. Conversely, those I saw infrequently would pipe right up and usually register an exclamation of sorts (maybe fright). My wife once went weeks without grasping that I had reduced my full beard down to a goatee, only realizing it when my daughter arrived from out of town and pointed it out. “Did you do that this morning?” she observed matter-of-factly. “No dear…3 weeks ago”. “Oh…”

Now I suppose one might assume I am an individual (or husband) who doesn’t cast a shadow. As my girth has expanded over the years, that’s actually an appealing thought. However, regardless the occasional periods of invisibility, I believe for the most part my existence is recognized (even by my family, albeit with mortification at times). I would prefer to consider that as we get to know someone well, outer appearances, especially those that rarely change, do become somewhat invisible. It’s not the beauty in the eye of the beholder concept, which incorporates a bunch of subjectivities. I actually think it is something less tangible, somewhat behavioral, and actually taps into the metaphysical; an ability to become aware of the true individual, outside our senses.

Perception is not reality, regardless what the business people may tell you, although that certainly works for business. I recall someone suggesting that an alien viewing the earth from space might conclude that dogs ruled the world; how else could they lead people around by leashes and have them pick up their poop. Perception by definition (at least Merriam-Webster’s definition) relates to concepts and cognition. We take in information then cognitively draw conclusions. Yet how we view someone else, by recognizing their inner being (if you will), results in conclusions that are more identifiable by our own behavior. Generally our thinking mind makes mincemeat of the awareness that might naturally emerge in its absence. There are, though, obvious situations that can be seen through the clutter.

All this relates to topics that have been written and reflected on for three thousand years, give or take, i.e.; the branch of philosophy we call metaphysics. There is, though, one menial aspect of it that peaked my interest lately, that being how we find another person attractive (or unattractive) without consideration of their physical appearance. What are we really seeing, if not the beard or goatee?

Aren’t you joyfully amazed at the many stories told of individuals with coarse physical handicaps who are able to find mates and social acceptance? I took upon myself to conduct a massive survey on the subject of attractiveness….I asked four people two questions (I’m still waiting for my grant). I asked them to tell me what three things they find most attractive in an individual without regard to how that person looked. Happily I got a 100% common response on two characteristics (what… they predict elections with that kind of return from 4 people!). One characteristic was humor, and the other (in so many words) was confidence. No big surprise on either. I followed up with a question of how they defined confidence (which is what I was shooting for from the beginning). The response was the same (again in so many words). They explained that it was confidence that person had in themselves and in what they knew. I have my doubts.

No mystery that confidence is extraordinarily attractive. However, my observations have led me to believe that there are individuals who are extremely confident in what they know who are hardly attractive. In extreme cases such people may take on the ignominious title of bull shitter, even if much of what they espouse contains truth. Why do such individuals fail to exact magnetic appeal if confidence normally creates the opposite polarity? Does confidence need to be silent? I don’t think so, how can it be? Does it even need a deep knowledge base at all? Perhaps not.

I have tried to gauge my feelings about other individuals in the light of this contradiction and have concluded thus. Those individuals whose understanding of the world makes them attractive are those who have a deep seated comfort in what he or she doesn’t know, not in what they do know. It’s not easy to do, but it does happen in varying degrees with a lot of people. This might explain reverence for some older individuals, since wisdom as a result of age often relates to an understanding of limitations and temporality.

So I’ve concluded it’s the confidence of what you don’t know, moreover being confident with the insignificance of your knowledge that exacts the attraction. Essentially the dumber you comfortably feel with yourself the greater the draw. Now I wouldn’t suggest that my son take the position that to score with chicks he needs to point out how little he reads. It really has very little to do with knowledge at all. We can absorb great quantities of information, but unless we can embrace that what we absorb doesn’t represent a quarks worth of what exists outside our senses and thoughts, I’m afraid we run the risk of having the intellectual equivalent of bad breath.

It Isn't About the Fringe

2011-01-10T10:37:00.000-08:00

The fact that Christine Taylor Green was born on September 11, 2001 is purely coincidental to the tragedy that took her life in Tucson, Arizona. And yet the relevance of those two events is so compelling that it is difficult not to think of the end of her short life as some kind of dark metaphor.

In the round table discussions that are part of the Sunday news circuit, the conversations were the same from show to show and, further, they explored ground that has been so trampled on at this point that it might as well be concrete. Pundits and officials of varying political persuasions resurrected the usual dialogue on how polarized and vitriolic the social and political views of the nation have become. They talked about how leaders need to “tone down the rhetoric” so that this kind of thing “won’t happen again”. Their focus was on the tragedy itself, including the assault on high officials of the US Government, and for good reason. It’s because focusing on the event itself is just so, so easy to do. Those discussing the problem of “polarization” speak as if elimination of the lunatic fringe would solve the problem. Politicians and pundits alike don’t want to face the real dilemma. To do so would be like asking Homer Simpson to give up his doughnuts.

The shooting in Tucson was not unlike other similar events that have occurred (and in a practical sense forgotten) over the past couple of decades. They have simply been responses from the lunatic fringe to a much greater uncoordinated conspiracy, and should be expected. The major response to this event will probably be the same as with prior events; huge analysis of psychiatric resources, lots of finger pointing, and increased security, even though the specific event has little impact on safety of the nation. Virtually nothing will be done, or even suggested (at levels that would make a difference) about the real problem. The tragic event is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

It is already clear, thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, that Jared Lee Loughner was mentally imbalanced and burdened with (among other things) a consistent torment; that the Government (the United States or otherwise) represents a malevolent force separate and in conflict with his perception of a free individual. In his world undoubtedly, being free meant not being in a state of torment. In Arizona he will receive the death penalty instead of life imprisonment because, incredibly, he will not be considered insane.

Loughner, like other displays of insanity from people like Timothy McVeigh, are the top of a sponge like iceberg, soaking up the relentless and aggressive rhetoric of pundits and politicians of post-Reagan Conservatism. It is born of an acceptance by both Conservative and Liberal extremes that freedom of communication means an absence of public control over the means of communication. It is fed by mercantile powers that ultimately control those means and stand to benefit from a lack of diversity. Today it is the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Rupert Murdocks, and dozens like them who are driving the frenzy. It could have been some radical left wing nuts turning the screw on the nation’s psyche (as some try), but today the big nuts are turning right.

The tragedy in Tucson is heart wrenchingly unfortunate, but the real damage from an iceberg is caused by what’s below the surface and this current iceberg is getting huge.

Interestingly we can actually identify a date when this began. As an aftermath of World War 2 the Truman Administration, with bipartisan support, recognized that unregulated control of public communication was the very thing that allowed the special interests to effectively limit information in a large industrial society. The then compelling example was of the Nazi Party’s influence over public communications in Germany in the 1930s. In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine became part of the FCC’s operation, passing judicial muster along the way. It was not a law, but a policy or regulation over public airways. It required that in order to have a license to broadcast a station must present contrasting viewpoints on matters of public interest. Under the guise of freedom of speech the Reagan Administration directed its FCC chairman, Mark Fowler, to end the policy in August 1987. By August 1988 Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting his anti-Government sputum daily, soon joined by others, making hundreds of millions of dollars. Those who found enjoyment in the mindless vitriol could happily listen or watch nothing else.

With only some minor exceptions, our political leadership has not addressed the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it. Most are content to preserve their jobs by not risking the label of being anti-First Amendment. Few, if any, are willing to address the extraordinary power of mass communication over a largely unsophisticated and uneducated population of 300 million people. For 38 years our leaders and our nation saw and accepted the advantages of regulation requiring diversity. Conversely, since then, the advantages of unregulated uniformity have been accepted and enjoyed by a relative few. The similarities to an unregulated financial system are profound, and how many lives will end or be ruined, totally unnoticed, by our inane for-profit healthcare system because the lies perpetuated about it can continue unchallenged? Is it possible the recognition that the American people and the American Government are an inseparable whole been lost? Maybe so.

The tragedy of the September 11th attack in New York and Washington was indisputably the result of myopic brainwashing within the Muslim world. The vast majority of Muslims would not have participated or condoned the attack, but they are more than comfortable with listening to the endless condemnation of the United States and other non-Muslim nations as their antagonists. The lunatic tip of their iceberg is pretty big. But make no mistake about it. The insanity that destroyed the Trade Center in New York and that which killed Christine Taylor Green grew from the same seed. Perhaps this little life might become a window to see the truth.

Economic Fundamentalism

2010-12-11T09:08:00.000-08:00

It is not hard to intellectually give fundamentalism a bad rap. Generally fundamentalism refers to an individual’s strict obedience to a specific set of theological doctrines. It can be found in behaviors ranging from Jihadist terrorism to Sarah Palin bromides. All it really means is that individuals apply certitudes to beliefs that are neither provable nor universally shared. That doesn’t make them necessarily wrong; however, the inflexibility can create a whole host of conflicts, and historically has contributed to human tragedy on a massive scale from time to time. Certainly the ability to compromise one’s fundamental position can be a virtue in a world where the population of diverse believers has grown to nearly incomprehensible levels.

The same could be said of secular issues as well, in fact even more so. After all, fundamental theological or philosophical beliefs are based on axioms which are ultimately subjective or personal, while secular issues deal more with the nuts and bolts affecting everyday living…of everybody. The issues might include things like safety or education, but mostly they have to do with economics or, in other words, survival in this world, rather than the next. For people, or more importantly politicians, to take immovable positions on issues based on their fundamental economic beliefs (taxes bad, growth good, rich bad, equality good, etc) creates an inability to deal with dynamic changes and begs for common ground. So why do I find myself in such disagreement with President Obama’s recent pronouncement of a negotiated “compromise” with the Republican caucus?

The President angrily (angry for him anyway) derided his fellow Democrat critics for not understanding the importance of compromise. Although Obama’s agreement may at first blush appeared inconsistent with his pronouncements both as a candidate and President, for anyone who read The Audacity of Hope he did what one might have expected him to do. Obama essentially declared in his treatise that the supreme value of leadership is when it breaks down intractable competition and in doing so moves the ball forward. His pragmatic approach to the Presidency (with congressional majorities) has been painfully consistent with his book. I believe, unfortunately, he got it backwards. Leadership that seeks to and ultimately unifies has value only after the fact, after it's got the job done...not before. It is the old Neville Chamberlain predicament…what sounds like a duck isn’t necessarily a duck. I suspect a few clever Republicans read Obama’s book and put two and two together.

The divisiveness of the Obama compromise was immediately apparent and I feel de facto evidence of failure to meet his proclaimed goal of moving the ball forward. The Democrats in Congress have been as fractured in their approach to governing over the last four years as the Republicans have been eerily solidified. Reacting as they did made them appear like a colony of meerkats all popping up and suddenly looking in the same direction with equal surprise. That doesn’t happen often for Democrats. Are they wrong? Am I wrong in agreeing with them? Just what is wrong with this compromise?

Don’t believe for a second that the Republican line-in-the-sand on taxation of the wealthy was anything other than political. The sound bite which says returning the top bracket to Clinton era levels would adversely affect employment (which was woefully embraced by the conservative uninformed) boarders on lunacy. There is virtually no evidence (nor educated speculation) that such would be the case. Democrats suggested raising the threshold to a million dollars which the Republican leadership immediately rejected. It could have been raised to a billion dollars of taxable income (which actually only effects a handful of people) and the Republicans wouldn’t have budged, even if every affected billionaire lined up in support of the tax. The so-called fiscally responsible Republican conservatives, whose number one stated goal is to make Obama a one-term President, wanted tax increases tagged to the Obama Administration..period. It was win-win for the Republicans as far as they were concerned, “compromise” or not. If the plan goes through as agreed upon Obama will have to campaign as a President who, if elected, will spearhead tax increases. Christmas came early for the GOP.

Obama’s real choice was also a real opportunity to salvage his Presidency, which I have reluctantly come to believe needs salvaging. He had the opportunity to tell the truth. A position does not fall under the general heading of fundamentalism when there is universal agreement. We don’t know specifically what the consequences of running continuous and mountainous deficits and compiling astronomical debt will be. However, we can all agree that they will be very bad and we as a nation will regret that we didn’t do anything about it. As such Obama was in a unique position to earn his Nobel Prize by risking his Presidency and telling the nation (and therefore the world) that it has to spend less and it has to pay currently, through taxes, for what it is spending (on everything including entitlements and wars of every kind). He should have embraced the termination of the Bush tax cuts, not just for the rich, but for everyone. That’s what a unifying President would have done, instead of arguing that the goodies we got are equal to the goodies they got. The published fears that the short term result would have stalled the “recovery” were speculative at best and not worthy of compromising the truth. I don’t believe it at all. By opposing both Republicans and Democrats on taxation and spending and demanding an era of national responsibility he had the prospect of being the unifier he truly wants to be. Instead, he has become an instrument of continued divisiveness.

The most important thing I took out of my studies as an Economics major in college was that Economics is a social science, not an exact science. Because it is merely an accounting of human behavior the ability of Government to affect it directly is very limited. What this economy needs more than anything else is to regain predictability. That will probably happen when the housing market stabilizes, if the national debt doesn’t do us in first. Predictability is always enhanced by the truth. The near-term economy will not be significantly improved or worsened by increased taxation or reduced spending. Consumer Confidence is the index that trumps them both. However, the long term health of our Economy will be significantly affected by how we apply both taxes and spending. The fights and compromises regarding social support or the widening gap between the haves and have-nots could have waited. For this round it was Economic Fundamentalism 1, Truth 0.

The Mannequin Candidate

2010-10-01T07:40:00.000-07:00

I wondered recently what would be born of combining the suspense thriller The Manchurian Candidate with the Old Navy commercials featuring the “talking” mannequins. The story The Manchurian Candidate, made famous by a bestselling Cold War novel in 1959 by Richard Condon and later into a 1962 John Frankenheimer movie (with a 2004 re-make), combines the ruthless ambitions of a politician and his wife with their brainwashed son in a plot to catapult themselves to national political power. The Old Navy commercials, on the other hand (which I hope you’ve seen), allow dummies to engage in pithy conversation without any moving parts (each time I’m unfortunate enough to see one I’m compelled to grumble – Go Army!). Merging those two concepts together, however, I was awakened to something which is far more real than the sum of its fictional parts, namely: the yet again candidacy of Eric Cantor.

Cantor has climbed the ladder of political power almost entirely unnoticed, even by the constituents in his own Virginia 7th Congressional District (which happens to be mine as well). Like Lawrence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate, Cantor was picked, planted, and pruned for a specific purpose. In Eric's case it was advancement in the Republican Party. He has succeeded by happily remaining in the shadows, displaying unswerving loyalty, and not adding a ripple to a Congressional sea beset by frequent political maelstroms. He has risen nose cleaning to an art form.

In his nearly 10 years in Congress he has individually sponsored only 39 harmless and non-descript bills, 5 were taken semi-seriously and made it out of Committee, and only 2 became law. What were those laws? One was allowing the use of the Capitol Rotunda as part of a Holocaust commemoration; the second was having a Richmond, VA Post Office building named after his retired benefactor Rep Tom Bliley. That’s about as close as you can get to an Old Navy commercial in the US House of Representatives.

It now appears, however, that he may be ready to make his move, and not simply by looking over John Boehner’s shoulder during some “Hell NO” soliloquy. He has made the bold move of trying to distance himself from the Republican establishment, that establishment which is under fire by a hodgepodge of extreme positions by Christian Conservatives and Libertarian wannabes. He and a couple of Congressional supporters have labeled themselves the Young Guns in an attempt to be the bridge that crosses the murky sludge of the Bush Administration linking the land of Ronald Reagan with a Krispy Kreme Republican future – all puffy and sweet. If he succeeds and overthrows the establishment Boehner, he could end up Speaker of the House and be just two heart beats away from the White House. Only in America.

It is altogether appropriate that Eric Cantor chose to name his “gang” the Young Guns. At age 47 he more or less qualifies for the “young” part of the title, especially if you place him next to Mitch McConnell for example. It’s the “Guns” part I find intriguing…and revealing.

I can almost see Cantor bursting into the House of Representatives, followed by Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Rep Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) walking abreast, all three sporting black leather motorcycle jackets with the arched name YOUNG GUNS emblazoned on the back…maybe beneath it a picture of teacup filled with bullets and the phrase Death To Taxes. They march down to the front of the assembly, pull out their paintball pistols and announce that the People can no longer wait to be heard. In seconds the opposition is left cowering in a pool of Republican red paint and the Young Guns stride away to quickly check their poll numbers.

I have lived in Virginia’s solidly Conservative and Republican 7th Congressional District for 29 years and therefore have been witness to the evolution of a politician who epitomizes the absence of substance in today’s political environment. Eric Cantor has worked his entire adult life in politics with the single aim of personal advancement. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, as long as his constituents know that’s all they’re electing – public service be damned.

As an undergraduate student in college his family connections got him the job as intern and later as driver for his predecessor’s (Thomas J Bliley, Jr.) during Bliley’s second campaign for Congress in our district. Immediately after Cantor’s extensive schooling (one undergraduate and two graduate degrees) he began his first campaign running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, with the help of his mentor Bliley (by then a popular Congressman), at the age of 28. There he was tucked away until Bliley’s announced retirement and the official anointing of Cantor.

Cantor was easily elected to the House in 2000 and entered Congress pre-ordained. Roy Blunt (R-MO) made the new younger gun Chief Deputy Republican Whip in only his second year, a laurel almost unheard of in a rookie’s career and for no particular reason, except perhaps that young Cantor was sufficiently dashing and by 2002 was the only Jewish Republican in Congress (a fact that persists still).

He has spent the decade successfully working the Republican establishment like a Roman column, providing a lot of internal support even while his presence was inert. It’s doubtful he could have done it any other way since despite his American Dad smile, tanned features, and artful coiffure he’s a terrible speaker. The grooming of Eric Cantor has worked flawlessly…provided he didn’t open his mouth. Unfortunately his delivery sounds a lot like a whiny car salesman, the hearing impaired reading closed captioning of his interviews are probably far more impressed.

So, establishment Republicans, like John Boehner, are in a bit of a sticky situation. On one side they have allowed in grizzly bears (mama and otherwise) who appear content to eat red meat as well as blue, and on the other side they face competition within their own family, from those like Eric Cantor et al, who have concluded that the only real winners in the French Revolution were those who didn’t get their heads chopped off.

Alas, Eric Cantor is no Napoleon Bonaparte, except perhaps like the one that resides in Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum. Like the evil politician in The Manchurian Candidate, who is eventually foiled by his nutso son, it is unlikely that Cantor will rise to national prominence, but it likely will be by his own inanimate doing.

In the opening chapter of his recent book Young Guns Cantor writes (with his two underlings) a verbatim recollection of a conversation the three of them had over “diet cokes and bottled water” in the commissary specifically on March 11, 2010 (I guess they always have the tapes rolling). In it Cantor says; “I think enough members finally realized that the level of frustration among the public is at a fever pitch right now that we had no choice. We had to say enough is enough.” They talk about “…corruption in the Republican Party when we had the majority”, and “We have to declare our principles (which) are the Nation’s founding principles”, a prophetic “We have new blood coming in here”, and (of course) Greek mythology. It could all be howling good copy for a John Stewart skit, but I see it more as a painfully extended Old Navy commercial with perhaps Eric’s last line being “...oh and Kevin, I just love the elephants on your tie.” It’s just too bad that the people of Virginia’s 7th Congressional District have to keep rerunning it every two years.

Der Fuhrer Obama?

2010-08-17T19:05:00.000-07:00

My 88 year old mother believes Obama is this century’s Hitler. I don’t argue the point with her…well, that’s not exactly correct. I have attempted to take issue with her conclusion but very quickly realized I was hurling jello at concrete. However, I did ask and she was quite willing to tell me why Barack and Adolf are kindred spirits. She only gave me one reason, but she claims to back that reason up with first hand validation, as she lived in Germany until 1937, leaving just before she turned 16:

“I heard Hitler speak.”

“Yes, and so?”

“Obama speaks too well, he’s too smooth…just like Hitler”.

Funny, but in old newsreels I don’t recall Hitler’s style looking like something one might call smooth. Regardless, he was obviously an effective communicator and from that standpoint I suppose commonalities might be found. Still, to mom it appears content doesn’t carry much weight. Maybe something else is going on. Perhaps when she looks back she feels duped. Isn't that the result of listening to smooth people?

When she made the comment that “Hitler wasn’t all bad” I began to think she was struggling with the history. Well, she left Germany in 1937 at a time when Hitler was immensely popular with the great majority of the German people. He had been Fuhrer for almost 4 years. She mentioned such things as trains running on time, full employment, mandatory sports, and his frequently quoting the Bible (something I wasn't aware of) among others. There was a new, generally pervasive feel-good factor that replaced the Depression (both economic and mental) which had plagued the German people since WWI and new enemies in their midst. That was most of what she remembered as a young girl. Still, hindsight is 20-20 and I can’t see the badness of a larger than life malevolence such as Hitler charted out like some kind of bell curve. But I didn’t live it either. Still, the bad stuff, the phantom enemies, had started long before she left and I wondered just how it could have remained so transparent.

There are things people have difficulty seeing when they’re living in the middle of it. Most of us know this, but it appears the knowing doesn’t help much. Those situations or attitudes that might seem logical now can appear like a collective insanity when reviewed historically. In most cases it involves the desire to protect and preserve identity. No one today disputes that the Communist panic of the late 40s and early 50s, which ruined careers, lives, and resulted in some unattractive executions (both public and private) was a bit of collective insanity…but not so at the time. Communists were seen as a direct threat to how Americans viewed themselves and their way of life…but that threat didn’t exist. Now take the recent simple event where an Islamic organization wants to build a community center two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center tragedy. What is insane and what isn’t?

When I first heard about a local city official protesting the construction I thought why the hell is that guy getting any press? His point seemed petty. Now it is a national and political controversy, and fodder for 20 million blogs such as this one. A televised poll has (supposedly) 67% of all Americans opposed to the proposed construction. Harry Reid, the dynamic and swashbuckling titular head of the Senate majority, came out against it without giving much reason, hoping to nudge himself slightly to the right no doubt, and Sarah Palin blamed it on Muslim insensitivities (Reid & Palin - strange bedfellows). Newt Gingrich pointed out a Neo-Nazi cannot hang a swastika outside the holocaust museum, making an obvious comparison. Conservative talk show celebrities are viewing this controversy like Homer Simpson views doughnuts. None that I’m aware of have publically commented on similar public efforts to thwart the construction of Muslim mosques and other buildings around the country over the past few years, which has been the case.

To tie the controversy to the World Trade Center tragedy and its many direct victims is a travesty all by itself. The political and economic powers that have used the World Trade Center attack as a reason to wage “war” have, by necessity, created an enemy to enact policy, perpetuate power, and extract profit. Were the policies that have resulted in the deaths of 4000 US soldiers in Iraq, 106,000 Iraqi civilians, 1900 coalition troops in Afghanistan, and 28,000 Afghan civilians (with many, many more injured) really all about just Al Qaida? Much of our leadership, which so stealthfully draws a distinction between a good faith and a bad faith serves up that insanity like it was health food. I shouldn't wonder that the number of people in our beloved, free democracy who would gleefully pack up every person of Islamic faith in the country and ship them off to the Middle East is probably in the tens of millions…or perhaps frighteningly more.

Even Obama has taken a stand, making an eloquent speech during a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan where he supported the Islam center, but he rests his position on the heritage and constitutionality of religious freedom in America. Religious freedom has nothing to do with the issue. Those tens of millions of good Christians who are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder against the Islamic horde carry no animosity toward Muslims practicing their faith. They believe they’re all going to hell anyway. Rather they simply perceive Muslim people as a threat to the sanctity and security of their Christian/American identities. They have taken the motives and actions of a few terrorists, extrapolated that rationale to Islamic extremists, and then finally applied Islamic extremism to every one of the Muslim faith…baddest, badder, and just plain bad. The tragic irony is, of course, that is precisely what the Al Qaida terrorists were hoping to accomplish.

Sorry mom, Obama is no Hitler, but no matter. The powers that guide public policy and private opinion don’t need a Hitler. They can extend fear and hatred so skillfully that even something as innocuous as building a religiously sponsored civic center can rally the troops nationwide. Perhaps it can’t be seen now, but I somehow think we’re in for a world of feeling duped in a couple of decades or less.

I wonder, what would happen to the terrorists if we collectively refused to be terrorized? Perhaps feeling good about a new civic center in lower Manhattan would be a small step in the right direction.

Education Be Damned

2010-08-03T10:03:00.000-07:00

For several years, starting perhaps after 1998, I began having problems sleeping. It wasn’t so much a problem of getting to sleep. Rather it was waking up, sometimes quite early in the evening, and not being able to get back to it. Not a particularly uncommon malady. I found my best answer to this problem was the radio. I would plug a single earphone in and listen to talk stations. Often within an hour or so I’d be back to sawing logs.

The difficulty with my solution was that our radio market in Richmond, VA had no FM talk shows in the evening, or anytime that I’m aware of. Further, AM reception was so bad that my radio could only pick up two AM stations; the local major ultra-Conservative talk/news station and a sports network. Well…it was what it was. Not being sports savvy I’d listen to Conservative commentary earlier in the evening and talk about space aliens and Bigfoot if I awoke in the wee hours. I mean, what the hell, the object was to get to sleep, right?

It was sometime around then that I started listening to this guy named Glenn Beck. He did me no favors toward my goal of slumber. I’d actually started paying attention to his mostly run-on commentary. I would find myself participating in a phantom dialogue with Mr. Beck trying to get him to explain any of the outrageous pronouncements that flowed unceasingly from his microphone. That was not good in the quest for rest. I was literally amazed that this guy was on the radio at all and thought he was possibly just the opening act to discussions about animal mutilations and crop circles that would air soon after his signoff. I had heard Rush Limbaugh during the daytime, again because he was the only (talk radio) act in town, and felt that Beck was much like Limbaugh, minus the crude but clever humor. Cancel out Limbaugh’s humor and you’d might as well be listening to captured conversations down at the bus station.

As my sleep problem improved I more or less lost touch with Glenn Beck, although I’d hear his name from time to time. It’s only been in the last two years that I’ve been forced to become aware that Beck has joined Limbaugh as the preeminent spokespersons for Conservatives in the US today. I found that awareness mind-boggling and not a little disturbing. How could it be? His commentary, as I recalled it, was unintelligible regardless of the content. His presentations made any Dr. Seuss book read like a Harvard doctoral dissertation in Sociology. Beck now lives in a $5 million mansion in New Canaan, Connecticut, has his own TV show and churns out bestselling books and other publications like he was Isaac Asimov. Who is this guy?

There is a serious problem in our country which I have commented on in previous postings (see The Most Evil Man in America 3/4/10). It is part of the current landscape so rooted that few can escape its effect. It’s so socially disabling that I’m waiting for the term “war” to be applied to it (which is America’s best solution to the seemingly unsolvable). It is the Conservative verses Liberal social debate, although I view it more accurately as the Conservative verses Non-Conservative social conflict. The point of this posting, however, is not to engage in the debate, rather to examine its de facto leaders and ask the question: why is education considered by Christian Conservatives to be socially debilitating? It occurred to me, as I considered Glenn Beck, to examine the leaders of ideological commentary and see if there is something to be gained to answering that question.

Beck and Limbaugh are arguably the current standard bearers for Christian Conservative commentary (Sarah Palin is coming on strong). Limbaugh has been for years and Beck the most recent messiah. It is the huge We Love Glen Beck posters that one sees at the Tea Party gatherings. I don’t think it is the least bit coincidental that the debut of the Glenn Beck TV program took place the day before Obama’s inauguration. There are two “liberal” media commentators that have been the most frequent targets of Conservative ire, and also labeled as the prime examples of mindless left-wing counter rhetoric by some considered moderates. They are Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow. Let’s take a look at these folks.

Rush Limbaugh barely graduated from high school, his mother describing him as “flunking everything”. After two semesters at Southeast Missouri State University, he dropped out to pursue a career in radio, eventually making himself one of the richest men in America. Glenn Beck also barely graduated from high school, did not attempt college, choosing to work in radio even before he finished high school. A self-confessed abuser of alcohol and drugs till he was in his mid 30s, he struggled to survive until he found “salvation”, first from AA, then in the Mormon Church. Both men proudly proclaim themselves as self-educated, which is something to be proud of in most cases.

Keith Olbermann, unlike Limbaugh who came from a well-to-do family, was the son of a pre-school teacher and commercial architect. He was accepted into Cornell University at the age of 16. Graduating with a degree in Communication Arts and Journalism he began his career as a sportscaster in radio, given his love for baseball, and later evolved into political commentary. Rachael Maddow came from a middle-class military family and attended Stanford University. She was made a Rhodes Scholar and eventually received a PhD in Political Philosophy from Oxford University. From there she went into radio. Are we seeing a contrast here?

It isn’t necessarily the education, and arguably cerebral fire-power, that Olbermann and Maddow represent that make them better than Limbaugh and Beck. In truth, Limbaugh and Beck are better at the business they're in. What bugs me is the Conservative argument that such education makes them (Maddow and Olbermann) incapable of understanding the purity of the Conservative message and, in fact, essentially makes them (and those like them) subversive. It is the same ethereal argument leveled universally by Conservatives against college and university faculty across the country. Glenn Beck is not a plumber or insurance salesman. The reality that Conservatives will not even consider is that all these people, including Beck, are in the business of selling ideas, and when it comes to determining the quality of an idea education counts. It doesn’t count to sell an idea though, no matter how inane, as one uneducated, army corporal named Adolf could have attested.

The reason Beck and Limbaugh are so much better than their counterparts is that education gets in the way of certitudes. It is so much easier to argue with Tarzanian certainty “Government bad…Freedom good” than to get into the nitty-gritty of how to make things better, which carries with it a plethora of uncertainties. Maddow spends almost all her commentary debunking absurd generalizations by Conservative leaders or commentators. It doesn’t resonate…it doesn’t sell, and eventually it gets boring. Too many people want to hear from John Boehner that “we have the best healthcare in the world” instead of getting bogged down in those nasty “subversive” facts to the contrary.

Education has become a paradox in the Christian Conservative marketplace. They want their children to obtain education, however they really don’t want them to be educated. You could possibly trace this problem back to ancient Greece and the conflict between the city states of Athens and Sparta. One proclaimed the purity of ideas, the other the idea of purity. Sparta won by the way. Education be damned.

I still have problems sleeping on rare occasions. Now, however, I just turn to the sports station and listen to them talk about all these players, coaches and teams I hardly know. Glenn never could drop any sand in my eyes anyway. I suppose that’s a good thing.

Crabgrass in the Sand

2010-07-11T14:56:00.000-07:00

I’ve been deep into a war to protect and defend green grass for more years than I can recall, or want to recall. My use of the term “war” is cynical, of course. The term “war” in post WWII America seems to be applied to practically every endeavor where the path to success is illusive or unknown, and yet success is deemed inevitable. To relate it to my lawn seems reasonable, right? However, it occurred to me today while I was out on the front lawn fighting forces that seek to attack my grass that my efforts may relate more closely to war than I previously thought.

I discovered a few things over the years on how to grow and maintain a decent looking lawn, the full disclosure not worth repeating here. One thing I learned though is that a thick healthy lawn will protect itself fairly well without much input from me. It essentially crowds out its enemies. I also learned that by simply attacking botanical invaders as they pop up does a nice job of keeping them at bay. This worked particularly well with dandelions since I started a strategy of reaching down as I walked or mowed and pulling off their little yellow heads (that the mower didn’t get) before they could go to seed. Granted, I could have used a strong herbicide, but I’m just not into weapons of mass destruction (environmental sensitivities and so forth). Even without chemicals my lawn has been nearly free of that particular springtime weed for several years.

Now it is summer and the enemy isn’t weeds, but fellow members of the grass family. The first year crabgrass invaded my lawn it basically took it over in a few weeks. I chose to let the whole mess die under the summer sun, the crabgrass being the last to go. The second year was a repeat of the first, but this time I used a lawn fork to pull up the crabgrass. I was left with huge sprawling patches of naked dirt, looking like the battlefield it was. Then, over the past few years, I decided to employ Operation Dandelion to the insidious crabgrass infiltration. To my pleasure I discovered that it works…sort of.

You see, the dandelion method worked well on dandelions because it occurred in the spring, when rain is normally plentiful and the grass healthy. The crabgrass chooses its time to invade when the grass is stressed and weakened during the heat and dryness of summer. So I began to spend a few minutes each day walking about, reaching down and pulling new stalks of crabgrass from the lawn at an early stage in their development. The result was that the overall appearance of my lawn looked good…but I realized one thing. Unlike the dandelions, the crabgrass couldn’t be beaten, not entirely. It became so pervasive and entrenched in some outlying areas that it just wasn’t worth the effort to try and eliminate it completely…and so I haven’t.

It occurred to me that this country (you and me) has been conducting the War in Afghanistan in much the same way. The War was initiated, of course, as a reaction to the September 11th terrorist attack, with the legitimate goal of eradicating the precipitators, Al Qaida. Failing that, it became a war to build a government and support a social order in Afghanistan that would act as natural barrier to the ousted Taliban, and what they represent. Moreover, it is about winning - to be able to gaze upon something and call it “healthy”.

Our policy and/or strategy in Afghanistan is to walk about the country, at great expense and sacrifice, pluck out pockets of Taliban influence, and then wait for the indigenous population to grow and root deeply in freedom and democracy. What? The fact of the matter is that the Taliban will not go away, no matter how many are uprooted from this place or that, nor are there any seeds of democracy remotely close to germinating. The Taliban, radical Islamics, and endless sects of Jihadists remain covering the mountains that are part of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and their seeds will continue to be carried west. They (the Taliban) were never the “enemy” in the first place. By our standards they were a socially repressive regime and international outcasts, but they weren’t our regime. The reality is that we are incapable of creating a fertile enough base by which the Afghan people will grow and flourish in our image, nor should they.

Our country is perfectly capable of obtaining the knowledge and taking proactive initiatives to attack assembled terrorist encampments as existed in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We knew of the Al Qaida camps that were maintained in Afghanistan, but chose not to militarily enter a sovereign nation for reasons part political and part relating to international law. Given what occurred, that reluctance is not likely to happen again. There is no need, nor should we expect that a nation must be an ally of the United States in order to aggressively address sheltered terrorists. You might as well commit to clearing crabgrass from the entire neighborhood.

Obama, in an attempt to be consistent with his campaign positioning and with his debilitating pragmatism, has adopted the failed Bush strategy of nation building as the primary bulwark against terrorism (dare I say it – the War on Terrorism). The rest of the world that joined in the initial hunt for Al Qaida and Bin Laden is quickly accepting the failure of that strategy and pulling out. Obama’s participation to advance this “War” is the only Administration policy that has received unqualified support from the Republican Party. Why wouldn’t they? It’s the only Obama policy that has nothing but downside to it politically. Continued on the same course it will, in my opinion, be the only issue that will turn a decisive Obama victory in 2012 into a narrow defeat. Republicans may deride Michael Steele for his comments now, but come 2012 they will all be calling it Obama’s War.

We somehow feel the Afghan front yard should look like our front yard. We like nice tall fescue, or maybe cut short and dense…like on a putting green. Shouldn’t everybody? John Boehner would say “HELL YES”! Actually, I don’t think God or Nature singled out tall fescue as a blessed plant to contrast with an evil and sinfully hardy crabgrass. It is our growing and tragic legacy at the beginning of this century that we sacrifice our honor, our treasure, and a select group of lives in the misguided attempt to cultivate our landscape in foreign fields.

I also know that if I stop watering the lawn and stop yanking the crabgrass it will likely take over. Undoubtedly other things would begin to grow as well, crowding out some of the crabgrass, or simply living contentedly with it. I kind of like my grassy lawn, but I don’t mind the crabgrass that grows in pockets on the periphery; after all it’s still green. Sure I continue to fight back against the creeping crabgrass, but the lawn is mine, not my neighbor’s. If crabgrass grows well in distant sands…so it is. We would do better to maintain our own lawns and let the grass itself cast its seeds to the wind.

Just Another Shot in the Foot

2010-07-06T07:43:00.000-07:00

I worked in the Tax field for 17 years, mostly managing a staff of tax accountants and their support. During that period I either completed, reviewed, researched, or had responsibility for the preparation of about 74,000 tax returns. These included returns for individuals, trusts (lots of those), estates, partnerships, private foundations, and occasionally, small corporations. Although I ended my participation in taxation almost 16 years ago some things stuck with me, things about the nature of taxation in the United States.

Like many in that field, once my expertise had been elevated to the level of being humble, I arrived at a conclusion contrary to popular opinion. I concluded that the massive body of law known as the Federal Tax Code (which includes Tax Regulations) is generally logical. There are actually a manageable number of themes that form the basis for the Federal Tax Code (the Code) from which most all tax law (fine tuned by the Courts) run consistent. State and local tax codes are less so, but most take their lead from los Federales. Once you have a grasp of the basics, when faced with a specific tax issue you can usually reach an accurate conclusion, even before you research case law (Court interpretations).

Opponents to the Code, moreover opponents to taxes generally, hold copies of the Code above their heads like dumbbells (no pun intended) shouting "look at this massive intrusion into our lives". However, for the vast majority of the American population the Code is relatively simplistic, even for businesses. I would venture a percentage of…say…95% are affected in a way that should be perfectly understandable by your average middle school student. Admittedly, inconsistencies are more prevalent on the State and local levels.

Our Federal tax system is mostly complicated (especially in volume) by use of the Code for social engineering and providing benefits to those who have the legislative clout to tweak it. Instead of just giving money to special interests, the Code is used as the vehicle for distribution - which provides a stealth element to the transfer. How easy would it be for a Congressman to hide behind a vote setting up a multi-billion dollar trust fund for oil companies? Credits and deductions are way easier. Arguably, many such laws in the code have positive intentions and outcomes. However, the inequitable or equitable use of the Code, which is really about appropriations, is not my theme here. It has to do with who is paying the bills and who doesn’t want to.

There is a huge faction in the US, mostly Conservative and frequently of limited income and wealth, who have been brainwashed and programmed to believe taxation, by definition, is evil. Although they may understand the collective requirements of funding a country, their emotional response to taxation is more closely aligned with the Roman tax collectors found in the New Testament. Taxing is the 2nd most prevalent target of the Tea Party set, right after Obama and right before Government, period. They have been successfully led (by whom?) to believe that the answer to the national fiscal quagmire is the elimination of Federal taxes combined with the elimination of Federal government spending, or as close as you can get to both. Even informed, educated Conservatives will respond in a similar fashion, which is both fascinating and frightening. What they fail to understand is, along with the vote, taxation is one of the few tools, weapons really, that the general population has to defend itself. These Conservatives are taking their beloved pistols in hand and emptying the barrel into their tootsies.

The evidence of wealth concentration in the United States is undeniable and has reached levels without precedent, in both extent of wealth and concentration. Personally I believe the primary facilitator of this lack of precedent is the demographics of population growth, which is also without precedent. Edward N. Wolff, a PhD at New York University and noted authority on the accumulation of wealth, calculates that 38% of all wealth in this country is owned by 1% of American households. If you take individual home ownership out of the definition of “wealth”, then the ownership of the top 1% increases to 50% of all asset value (property, stocks, bonds, cash, businesses, other real estate, commodities etc. etc.). Anecdotally, you just need to compare the net worth of Tiger Woods to Jack Nicklaus, or the level of Bernie Madoff’s larceny. The bottom 20% of households (about 60 million people) own nothing, their debts exceed their assets or they have no calculable assets at all (yard sales don’t count). My guess is that there are quite a few of those bottom 20% folks holding up signs at Tea Party conventions.

In order to eliminate our deficits, Wolff suggests substituting an annual tax on wealth (Property or Asset tax) instead of a tax on income (as income is an inaccurate representative of net worth). By starting at a level of $250,000 (eliminating 80% of the population from the tax entirely) and applying a progressive tax starting at 0.2% and rising to a maximum of 0.8% (for the numerically challenged: that’s eight-tenths of one percent, or 80 cents for every $100 of value) he believes we would be out of the red, all other things being equal. The very wealthy would bear the majority of the tax, but just how onerous would a tax be that diminished one’s multi-million or multi-billion dollar wealth by less than one percent annually? Could this happen in this country? Not likely.

Who would be hurt by such a system and who is helped? Answer that and you’re befuddled why such a method of taxation never even rises to the level of a discussion, while regressive taxes such as the “flat tax” or “value-added” tax are bounced around regularly. The streets outside the US capital are not filled with protesting multi-billionaires holding signs showing a Hitler mustached Obama and slogans about creeping socialism. They don’t have to. They have convinced their Conservative surrogates in the tens of millions that taxation, along with Government and Obama, is in direct opposition to their own well being. They know the general population has a gun in its hand, but the powers of wealth are chuckling mightily. With Pavlovian certainty, they know it has been trained to only shoot straight down.

In My Face

2010-06-18T19:02:00.000-07:00

I have written only 24 pieces for this blog over a two year period. Not particularly prolific. Yet even with this small accounting I have applied, in part or in whole, a disproportionate amount of my monologue to Sarah Palin. Now here I go again. However, this time I’m more interested in trying to figure out why this woman continues to be “in my face”, what it says about this American culture, and what it means to me.

Certainly the lady continues to generate press. The choices made by the media are the result of what they believe mirrors the interests of their audience – simplistic, but basically true. The importance of a chosen story, and therefore its coverage, is of course relative. If 9/11 happened today instead of 9 years ago, the oil spill in the Gulf would be page 3 news. That’s where part of my problem begins – why does the story of Sarah Palin surface above so many other things that are happening in the world, or even in this country? I think her activities (and those of Todd, Bristol, Trig, and Levi et al) trumps popular coverage of our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where soldiers are still dying by the dozens monthly. It makes no sense to me, but almost by definition it must make sense to a lot of other people.

Sarah was the topic of a recent Newsweek cover story. Given it was Newsweek and given the description on the cover I expected it to be another critical review of her inept presentations, if not an out and out bashing. I was surprised to read that it viewed her in a rather favorable light. The focus of the article was why Palin is so revered by so many Christian Conservatives, in particular Conservative Christian women. The article points out how she has attained a can-do-no-wrong status. Combine that with the superstar curiosity she generates and one can understand why she is such a huge draw wherever she goes. In a recent star studded commercial event in Richmond she had top billing over such heavy weights as Colin Powell, Rudolph Giuliani, and Terry Bradshaw (to name a few) and she only had to attend by satellite feed instead of carting her kiester down there like the others. She undoubtedly made more money than the rest as well.

She recently stumped for Carly Fiorina in Carly’s California Senate bid to oust Barbara Boxer. As Fiorina (former CEO) probably wouldn’t have given Palin a job at Hewlett-Packard above Assistant VP in charge of Inuit Marketing, one can only imagine what was going on in Fiorina’s head as she stood in the shadows behind Palin. Yet it brought out the faithful in large numbers. Whether it did Fiorina any good is another question all together.

The Newsweek article attributed her popularity primarily to the single issue of abortion and her pro-life stand. Her credibility is solid gold as she often sports Trig around on her hip, a living testimony that no man (emphasis on the word “man”) can refute. In a post-election Stephanopoulos interview, however, she was asked the question “what would you have told Bristol if she (Bristol) had come to you and said she was getting an abortion”. Palin responded that she would have counseled her daughter hoping that she would make the right decision to keep the child. Of course, that is the pro-choice position in the debate, but no one appeared to notice the inconsistency. Titling the Newsweek article Saint Sarah was not an exaggeration.

So what does this adulation say about our culture and why does it seem to disturb me to the point where I’d prefer…no, wish Palin to fade into Alaskan obscurity?

Palin only brings up the abortion issue like the gas engine in a hybrid car recharges the batteries. The perceived truth of that one issue affords her the credibility on almost anything conservative, allowing her to go miles and miles on the most outrageous positions and proclamations. A Christian Conservative (man) I know who is thoughtful and well-read described her to me as “refreshing”. I tried to get from him what that meant, but he neither had a answer nor wanted to delve into the specifics of why I thought she was the political equivalent of a carnival barker. What I think he was saying was: I like her…and I don’t care why.

I believe too many of us have reached a point where we have surrendered the search for our own identities to simplistic themes and to those who present them. Ignorance has always been the primary fuel for fear and intolerance. It is most identifiable in the presence of certitudes. Young children are the most certain of their environment because their knowledge is so limited. They are also fearful of what is unknown to them and naturally intolerant. It can take a lifetime for one of us to grow into an acceptance of uncertainty and diversity. Unfortunately, in many of us it never happens at all. When that’s the case, a person will often gravitate toward that which they intuitively feel will alleviate their fears and justify their intolerance. How many historical events could one attribute to that dynamic? So many it is history itself. Perhaps this culture is becoming the victim of its increasing inability to find comfort with the unknown as our numbers increase and our systems become more complex. Then, almost mysteriously, the Sarah Palins of the world pop up like mushrooms on a damp lawn.

For me, I find myself becoming more tolerant of Sarah Palin. She’s simply a saleswoman and she’s only meeting the demand. Instead of complaining about the mushrooms on the lawn, perhaps I should be grateful that they’re able to tell me that things have gotten a bit wet.

Let's Call Him Rand

2010-05-23T09:00:00.000-07:00

Let me admit up front that I have not followed the life or career of Ron Paul closely. In fact, I know virtually nothing of his personal life. My knowledge is limited to listening to him, to a respectable degree, during the Republican Presidential nominating process in 2008, and reading some commentary about his ideas. I found him, or really his rhetoric, compelling when contrasted to the other politicians vying for the nomination. I think it was the clarity of his arguments and his commitment to them that set him apart from the rest, who engaged in the usual political pragmatism of jockeying back and forth to maximize appeal. Paul’s semi-Libertarian position reminded me of my youth; the way an odd change in weather will make one recall a place in the past.

As I said, I know nothing of Ron Paul’s history, but I strongly suspect that he named his son “Rand” (born 1963) because to name him “Ayn” (pronounced Anne) wouldn’t work (for obvious reasons).

During the last two years of college I was an energetic adherent of something called Objectivism, sticking to me for a brief period. It was coined by author/philosopher Ayn Rand (O’Connor), 1905-1982, a successful novelist who became in the 1960s the guru of an intellectual form of Individualism. She applied basic principles of philosophy (defining human behavior) to explain both the reasons for prosperity within a Capitalist society and other reasons why a broader success for Capitalism has remained elusive. Her use of logic, as with Ron Paul to a degree, was a major part of what made her writings so persuasive. She attracted a large, college age baby boomer crowd and some heavy hitters (Alan Greenspan, for example, was one of her co-writers on essay compilations).

Her thoughts and writings, however, never went main stream…not really. Although her near worship of the “individual” certainly resonated with the American patriotic psyche (Ronald Reagan was a confessed admirer), I would suggest that she failed to appeal to the general American populous primarily because of the only commonality she had with Karl Marx – that religion was the opiate of the People (Marx’s words). Ayn Rand was hard on established religion, especially Christianity, and afforded no compromises, as I recall. She exalted reason as the only valid epistemology (the acquisition of knowledge) and that egoism (self-interest) was the sole course for human salvation. I’m afraid that just wasn’t going to cut it with your basic Christian Conservative. Oh but what strange bedfellows the clouds of dissent create, especially when they perceive a common enemy.

Rand Paul is, by any reasonable gauge, the first bona fide (Republican) Tea Party candidate. Like his father he is an articulate, thoughtful, and accomplished overachiever. Apart from his father, however, he now carries with his candidacy a new level of Libertarianism that is more closely allied with his (I assume) namesake. That’s not to say that even a decent sub-set of Tea Partiers have any knowledge of Objectivism, let alone an understanding of it. It does suggest that the anti “collective”, anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-tax, anti-controls, throw the bums out movement has at least some of its roots in a philosophy which would make a Baptist congregation howl to the rafters. Such a violation of intrinsic spirituality would have little meaning to the Tea Party crowd however, no matter how it was explained, as long as their leaders remain focused on the devil before them – Obama.

Rand Paul was recently interviewed by George Stephanopoulos and asked questions regarding (Paul’s) statements relating to Civil Rights laws. Paul did not answer the question. Like a good politician he evaded the question by simply stating he’s never advocated any change to existing law. He chose not to defend his published line of reasoning to a wider audience (you sometimes wonder why politicians even bother to accept interviews).

I understand his line of reasoning, of which he would not comment. It is Objectivist 101; if you allow people the freedom to make individual choices with private funds, ultimately and eventually practical self-interest will have them do what is most beneficial for the society as a whole. For example: if the owner of a private restaurant doesn’t want to serve African-Americans…no, let’s say blue-eyed people, then his loss of business will ultimately force him to change as he would realize he was acting against his own best interest. The stupid anti-blue-eyed restaurants would eventually go out of business. It’s logical, makes sense…sort of. It did to me in 1972. However, if you substitute African-American for blue-eyed, something doesn’t pass the sniff test.

There were legitimate concerns with the new year of 2009. The Bush Administration with the support of a Democratic Congress had completed the first TARP spending bill, but without adequate restriction on how the Bush Administration was going to spend it, and began work on a second bill at the end of 2008. The addition of massive debt to the out of control spending and revenue reductions in the Bush years was breath taking. There was every justification for overt protest, if nothing else but to provide adequate explanation and accountability.

The Tea Party protests, however, specifically focused on President Obama as, supposedly, the agent for what they saw happening. They began in earnest February 2009, less than a month after Obama’s inauguration, obviously in the works earlier. President Obama hadn’t even completed his cabinet let alone instituted policy or signed major legislation at that point. He was nearly a year away from presenting his first budget. It was the election itself that sparked the organizing that led to the first “protest”. Nothing would have defused it; not instant prosperity, not cheap health care, not budget surpluses, not the Taliban converting to Christianity, not the second coming of Christ…nothing - except the election of John McCain. The real reason for the movement was the fear of lost identity, that the external identity of being “independent”, white, Christian, and American was perceived as being gravely threatened. The awareness of their own humanity was and is currently not on the radar.

Rand Paul has found himself a leader in a movement for which logic holds little weight. His leadership is nearly an oxymoron. It is a movement which exemplifies the very reason why Objectivism lost much of its appeal to its early, now aging, educated followers. People just aren’t the chemical, cause and effect androids that compliment the logic one finds in such variant philosophies as Ayn Rand’s or Karl Marx. Without regard to positive ideas that exist in both viewpoints, people are vulnerable to the weakness of their own egos. It is the reason we have laws. As Rand Paul runs for Congress and tries, as his father, to articulate some logical Libertarian viewpoint, he’ll discover that it will hardly garner the support of those not at the Tea Party, nor those swimming in orange-pekoe. Ultimately, if he thinks he can win with a right-wing plurality, he’ll have to do just one thing – bash Obama. No logic necessary.

If I Were King - Proclamation I

2010-04-30T06:14:00.001-07:00

Preamble

There are two things that are initially repelling to most who would read the title If I Were King. First is the egotistic nature of the statement. Well…this is a blog, and any expression; spoken, written, drawn, sculpted, spray painted on cinderblock, tattooed over pectoral muscles, or whatever inextricably includes the ego - can’t help that.

The second disturbing aspect is the King thing. In our national desire to raise the concept of Democracy to that of a theology we have come to look suspiciously at other means of social order as heretical, which is a little odd considering the comedy our representative Democracy stages for us almost daily. The fact is, a generationally determined Monarchy is potentially a better, more efficient, more responsive form of government, and less blind to inequities. It just has that one pesky problem of getting really bad monarchs, which may happen more often than not. There’s not much to be done about a squirrely succession.

So, would I make a good king? No, I’d probably make a lousy king. But occasionally I believe I have a good or fun idea, and how I wish I could make it happen by proclamation instead of the perhaps greater fantasy of it coming to pass within the context of a society that believes it can be run by consensus.

Therefore, as your Sovereign, I hereby proclaim that:

I - All prescription drug advertisements shall be banned from television and radio. Doesn’t that sound good? We don’t need the information, the doctors do. All it does is raise drug costs and a bunch of other nasty stuff (see www.CAPDA.blogspot.com ).

II - All new cars sold in this country will not have analogue speedometers reading above 100mph. Speedometer inflation is both absurd and insulting - and probably promotes speeding. My little 4 cylinder Elantra’s speedometer reads up to 140mph! It couldn’t go that fast if I drove it off a cliff. Do they really believe I feel more powerful with a number like that?

III – That every male in the country upon reaching the age of 18 be required to do 2 years of “service”. Although you’ve heard that before, this service would only necessitate that they live for those two years in the house of a family who has just sent their own 18 year old son off. However, that family would have to be of an ethnic origin (European American, African American, Latin American, or Native American) different than their own. During those two years they would either work and/or attend a community college. Women could participate on a voluntary basis, because when it comes to social acceptance, quite frankly, today’s young women have their shit together and men don’t.

IV – There will, once again, be a national speed limit of 55mph. Jimmy Carter was right. 55 because no one is willing to drive the speed limit and cars hit their maximum aerodynamic efficiency somewhere between 60 and 65mph. The savings in national fuel consumption would be astronomical. The loss of 67 minutes on a drive between Richmond and New York can easily be made up by the elimination of one mindless reality program and/or the healthy consumption of Metamucil. The decline in highway fatalities would be just a bonus.

V - Social Security will simply become taxable income (instead of partially, as it is now). Furthermore, at gross incomes exceeding $80,000 Social Security will be taxed at a progressively higher rate than other income, so when a person’s total income reaches $140,000 Social Security will be taxed at 100%, i.e., those individuals will receive no Social Security. It is beyond reason that our current form of social welfare for the elderly and disabled is routinely paid out to wealthy individuals. The illusion that this is some kind of paid-in annuity strikes at the heart of why we are the largest debtor nation in the history of mankind.

VI - All push lawn mowers with grass catchers shall be banned. Only mulching mowers will be sold. This decree is intended to give psychological help to those unfortunates who believe that the few minutes of momentary bliss they receive from a spotless lawn is worth the weighted down mower, the endless stopping and dumping of the bags, the pilings of grass clippings in the backyard (or worse - plastic bags), the green fingernails, and the higher original cost.

VII – All television stations and networks shall not sell more than 20 minutes of commercial airtime advertising one political candidate over that sold to another (in any given market). It wouldn’t matter who buys the ad, but the candidates campaign would have right of first refusal. A candidate would be defined as one who is currently projected to receive at least 25% of the popular vote. Further, all commercial airtime purchased by political candidates must be a minimum of 2 minutes in duration for Presidential and Senatorial candidates and 1 minute for all others. The net result would be that there would be equal exposure or a popular minority candidate could stop the use of television commercials – a medium where 15 second political sound bites appeal to that part of the brain which handles such activities as nose picking and making imitation fart sounds. Maybe we would actually learn something from what was broadcast or find better means of learning about all the candidates. Hell, in Britain they don’t allow political TV ads at all, which errs on the side of common sense.

VIII – That 5% of all gross television ad revenues be paid over to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Call it a tax if you’d like, but for a society not to fund a media source, especially news, which is free from a corporate profit interest, is like a theft of understanding. Further, having funding within a government budget can allow politicians the same kind of leverage. Upper management and the board of the CPB would be replaced if average viewer/listenership fell below a pre-determined level for 3 successive quarters – letting the people vote on the content with their TV remotes.

IX – There will be a Value Added Tax on oil to gasoline intended to bring the price up to at least $4 per gallon. This would both reduce debt and find a strike price which will curb consumption and stimulate innovation. If consumption does not flatten or decline, the rate of tax will increase. There would be no VAT on diesel fuel, which would reduce the impact on the trucking business. One half of revenues would be applied to transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges etc), which would be mostly transferred to the States. There will be an annual windfall profits tax on energy companies. All new roads and fuel efficient cars will be named after me.

X – That all cable, satellite, and fiber optic television companies shall provide a new Sarah Palin Channel. This channel will broadcast nothing but Sarah Palin interviews and speeches in an endless loop. I hope by doing such, devoted fans will actually begin to see what this woman is saying. Every two hours there will be 10 minutes of an old 1950s Howdy-Doody broadcast inserted. The channel shall remain in effect until it is determined that polled Republican viewers can finally no longer tell the difference between Palin and Buffalo Bob.

My Enemy...My Friend

2010-04-23T08:54:00.000-07:00

This morning I watched my wife Jan go to the cupboard and take out her daily vitamin and calcium pills from their bottles, as she does each morning. I, who had snagged from CVS freebie plastic pill containers with seven handy little compartments, asked her why she doesn’t use one of them. “That way you’d only have to take your pill bottles out once a week instead of once a day”. She looked at me incredulously and said: “…why would I want to do that? I’m perfectly fine and content with doing it the way I’m doing it.” I grumbled something about efficiency and cleverly omitted the fact that I use the container to help remind me to take my damned pills – something for which her methodical abilities require no assistance.

Of course, she was right. What is the point of making a change when no change is necessary? It made me wonder if my almost evangelistic belief that there is always a better way of doing things (if one just looks hard enough) may be self-defeating. One might suggest such is the origin of the phrase don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The desire for change, in and of itself, has no explicit value. Only the value of the actual proposed change can be judged. To those who might disagree, pointing out the individuals who have championed or actually developed the many technological advancements we enjoy, I would suggest that it was dissatisfaction with the status quo that was probably the greater motivator…and doubtless money as well.

Still, I wonder. Is a desire for change per se a necessary attribute allowing us to successfully adapt? Perhaps so. There is change swirling about us continually - tied to events, tied to time, or tied to mystery for example. How do we react when what makes us content doesn’t seem consistent with the environment that surrounds us? Isn’t it a common reaction to blame “the world” or one of its many components as the cause of why this or that just isn’t the same? In spending a career working with “seniors” (say 70 and up) I noticed that those who most acutely felt the stresses of age were those to whom felt their lives abandoned. They felt they had lived a lifetime only to find that what was comfortable, what was dependable, and what had shaped trust was not clearly identifiable in the world around them. The anguish that assumption creates is a tragic consequence for individuals in the last period of their lives.

Maybe there is contentment itself in recognizing and appreciating the impermanence of all things? Some years ago I developed an infection in my sinuses and ears. For unfortunate reasons I was unable to get to a doctor, so I stuck out the illness. For about three days I lost most of my hearing. I got a kick out of driving my old pickup truck, as the low murmur of its normally ruckus engine sounded like a Mercedes-Benz E Class. When my hearing came back it also brought an unwelcomed enemy – tinnitus or ringing in the ears. I have it to this day.

At first I tried to read whatever I could about tinnitus. I wasn’t encourage to see that one, there was no cure for it, and two, some people are driven half (or entirely) mad by the condition. To consider a noise over which you have no control one could understand such a reaction. Mine is primarily in my left ear and frequently when it is quiet outside (as in the evening) or if that ear is covered the noise can sound like a relentless high-pitched car horn. However, I did find some good information, although I had to modify it for my own purposes. I found I could conquer the ringing, not by trying to overcome it, but rather by listening to it...and accepting it. This change that had taken place in my life was okay…in fact it was better than okay. It helped me to step out of the possible chains inflexibility can cause in any of us. Now at night when I lay with the left side of my head on the pillow I attentively marvel at the volume of the ringing, but when I’m through listening it essentially goes away. It has become my friend and I'm better for it. If I didn’t have the desire to embrace change could I have done this, or would I be pounding my head against a wall? I’m not sure.

I read from the internet an explanation about the baby/bath water saying. It suggested that the origin was from centuries before when an entire family would take their weekly or monthly bath in the same bath water. The baby, it said, was normally the last to be bathed and by that time you could just imagine what the water looked like. It was joked (back then) that the mother could lose the baby in the muck. I like the explanation, true or not. But it does make me think that unless we can adapt, we may be cleaning with the same water too long and lose that which is dear. Maybe a love of change helps.

The New Racism?

2010-04-21T08:31:00.000-07:00

One afternoon recently I asked a thoughtful friend, a self-proclaimed Conservative, sympathetic with the “Tea Party” events and energetically opposed to the recent Health Reform Law, if he thought racism played a part in the “spirited” opposition to the Obama Administration. He reflected that pockets of racism will likely always exist, but he emphatically believed it was not part of the current vocal Conservative activism. Further, he felt for sure that (I paraphrase) claims of racism were merely a way for Liberal big government types to undermine the issues addressed by the “Tea Party” and similar Obama opponents. I’m confident his view is typical.

The possibility of racism as a motivation for popular political or social action is difficult to swallow. It cuts at the very heart of a trend over the past 60 years where “Jim Crow” laws were not only eliminated from the books, but overtly discounted as socially acceptable. A byproduct of the election of Obama seemed to be putting a period at the end of that chapter of Americana, suggesting we had turned a new page. Here I’m not wondering that an old chapter has probably ended, but rather what exactly is the new chapter beginning?

Aside from the lunatic fringe of the Christian Conservative Right (a fringe I might add that is notably large and uncomfortably armed), one doesn’t see blatant demonstrations of racism surfacing in public by mainstream Conservative activists, regardless of their own racial uniformity. I haven’t seen it at any rate, and I would accept that for most, like my friend, it doesn’t manifest in private as well. Still, the possibility of prejudice is ever so slightly alluded to by official Administration supporters, a bit like TV weather reporters trying to suggest that a 10% chance of rain is something to be concerned about, and on the street, well… many anti-Tea Party types and African-Americans uniformly see racism as a staple of Conservative protest.

Is it not possible that these Obama Administration supporters in their zeal to discount the issues raised by Conservative activists hang onto the actions of the lunatic fringe (name calling, spitting, voicemail threats & so on) and extrapolate it out to include all Conservatives? After all, the issues raised are real by any centrist (or liberal) standard, primarily focused on the fiscal irresponsibility of lawmakers. It’s hard to see how racism is a motivation in the opposition of red ink.

Still, simple observation makes me irresistibly feel something else is going on. The issues raised by Conservative activists are hardly new to this decade. Sure, given his rhetorical skills, George W. Bush’s elections in 2000 and 2004 were like full employment acts for comedians everywhere (he got his lumps), but the massive literal and shadow debt produced by his reductions of income and unbridled expenses (much of it without Congressional oversight) didn’t spark even an ember of protest from Conservatives. Further, although he and his Lord Vader (Cheney) may have been despised by those few who actually felt the sacrifice of their foreign adventures, Bush was not that I recall vilified in the way Obama has been. An 88 year old grandmother I know, who occasionally can be confused as to the days of the week, is convinced that Obama is the new Hitler, because he “speaks so well”. She reflects the banners that show up everywhere at Conservative rallies. Another otherwise ordinary, college educated public employee shared with me his real suspicions that Obama is the Anti-Christ. I don’t believe these views are atypical.

Where has this come from? Obama’s political pragmatism has been a major disappointment to many of his supporters who had shouted yes we can in 2008 to fiscal and political change, but it should have reverberated as a relief to Conservatives, or at least dampened their vitriolic enthusiasm. Just the opposite seems to have occurred. Not even the renewed stature Obama has brought America internationally (a source of pride for me) has explicitly resonated an iota with Conservatives. The almost junkyard dog attacks on what was essentially a health care insurance reform bill, with an intended benefit for almost everyone except those wealthy enough to be self-insured, was like a beacon shinning on something perhaps new and different.

Isn’t it also possible that Obama by his stature, his position, and his race has touched on something that is difficult for a large portion of white America to accept at a gut level? As human beings we have the challenge of recognizing our humanity while simultaneously engaged in establishing our identities…and mostly we fail. We fail because our identities are usually false, based on constructs that are superficial or illusionary. They include such things as possessions, physical appearance, organizations, intelligence, nationalities, relationships, handicaps, religions, and (oh yeah) race - to name just a few. The need to want or be right as to any of these is a powerful motivator. Identifying with race is a problem for both blacks and whites. It’s almost silly to think that it doesn’t play a role here. However, is it racism as we have known it?

White Americans prior to the middle of the 20th century were comfortable with that aspect of their identities as “white” (which they never thought of as “white”) because historically non-whites were considered inferior by a variety of external standards (including laws). That concept was debunked in the last 60 years, but perhaps only intellectually and legally. Now, however, something new, something undeniably tangible has occurred much sooner than almost anyone might have predicted. Too many white Americans are negatively faced with a realization that a black man is not only more intelligent, more refined, and of higher station than they are, but is also their leader and superior. That reality cannot be rationalized away as it might for any other non-white. It undermines the core of the construct of how they view themselves, even though being white really has nothing to do with who they are or that being black has anything to do with who Obama is. If Obama were just seen as man, not as a black man, it’s hard for me to believe that the rancorous attacks would be the same. It is not that those individuals would necessarily be in agreement with the Obama Administration, they just simply would not feel so personally threatened.

This may not be racism by traditional definitions, but a cancer is a cancer whether the symptoms are obvious or not. I’d call it selfism (for lack of something cleverer) since it exists on a plain where laws or ethics cannot govern, and of which the individual is frankly unaware.

Larry King's Tea Party

2010-04-16T08:50:00.000-07:00

As I grumbled over the protracted news coverage of Larry King’s latest divorce, one gram of information sparked my interest. It was reported that King’s current contract with CNN was worth $50 million. Here is a competent interviewer in the very twilight of his career, who (in my opinion) is on cruise mode when compared to the dynamics of his industry, and still he can command an income the equivalent of a lotto bonanza to a middle class American. It’s not that Larry is an icon for humanity, his desire to be cryogenically preserved upon death speaks volumes as to his character, not to mention his eight divorces (one pending). Sure, it’s all show business, but when two hours of Larry King’s often rambling conversation is the equivalent of a provider for a family of four, working full time at a wage above the poverty line... for about 43 years…it gets me thinking.

What is it about the disparity of wealth in our country that the general population doesn’t get? In formal Economics wealth is more simply defined as the claim on resources, or what an individual (or wealth holder generally) can demand from society as a whole. It relates closely to power over other individuals. Inequality of such demand has always, and undoubtedly will always be the case to some degreee. What’s interesting is the trends that have taken place, especially here in the US.

With the founding of the country and the expansion of free enterprise (combined with universal education and representative government) the lack of parity between financial classes (if you will) went on a steady decline, with some minor exceptions, for about 200 years. It is only in the last 30 years, thereabouts, that such class structure did an about face and began to widen dramatically. The reasons are varied and complex, some simply due to demographic changes like massive population increases, many intentionally created. The point of this analysis is not to point fingers necessarily, but rather to look at the results of such disparity and how we as a nation react to it.

POTUS radio has done several man in the street interview sessions at “Tea Party” rallies in various locations. I was impressed that the producers made an honest attempt to circumvent the wacko Theodore Kaczynski types (of which there are many – including those who think writing checks out to Sarah Palin is patriotic) to interview thoughtful individuals who have attempted to reason out their activism. These Tea Party warriors have points which are often grounded in solid dirt, expounding, for example, on the long term consequences of huge budget deficits, incomprehensible national debt, the role of government in business ownership to name a few. However, one theme kept creeping back into the conversations, like the recognition of the boogie man that lives under the bed – taxation. The very concept of taxation is poison in the tea cups of these “activists”, ergo the actual name of the group based on the Colonial tax protest of 1773 (which BTW had nothing to do with assessing tax, rather representation in deciding the use of that tax).

Now let’s not be too confused with their Boston “Indian” counterparts. These 21st century “patriots” love their massive national defense bureaucracy, they like quality universal education, hurricane clean ups, filled potholes, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid (at least for their moms – bless their hearts), food subsidies, suspension bridges, intelligence agencies, crime fighters of every description, 911, attractive roadsides, national parks and on and on. They just don’t want to be taxed - plain and simple. One well thinking person I know put it this way: “I just don’t trust Government” period. Where did this thinking come from, that the funding of our government (which is effectively funding ourselves) wasn’t just a question of the efficient use of accumulated wealth, but an inherent evil or, at best, the propagation of evil. How many of such middle class Tea Party people could honestly identify how their lives were literally less meaningful due to the taxes they have paid. The contradictions are so obvious and pervasive that it nearly defies understanding.

In 2001 George Bush’s first order of business as President presiding over a Republican Congress was to enact enormous tax cuts, followed again in 2003. The CBO projected at that time that such cuts would add $1.2 trillion to the National Debt over the following 10 years (which has come to pass – further they are currently projecting an additional $1.8 trillion deficit if the cuts are extended). This was done before Bush went on a $1.2 trillion (or more) spending spree in the Middle East. The rank and file Tea Partiers don’t have a problem with any of that. Their conclusions remain unchanged, that out of control spending is the culprit (unless it's for something worth while - like killing Saddam Hussain) and that any tax cut is a good cut. But who did these tax cuts go to and who has the interest to leave them in place?

The tax cuts were spread primarily from the middleclass up. However, those who make little income have little to gain by an income based tax cut. The benefit (or lack thereof) to the poor is obvious. In the case of the Bush tax cuts, the more income the more fun at the party. The middle 20% of middle class taxpayers received 8.9% of the cut. That would be 8.9% distributed among about 50 million people. The top 0.2% of income earners received 15.3% of the benefit. The nation’s 257,000 millionaires (at that time - based on income) received an initial $30 billion in benefits. This disparity between the haves and the have-nots just doesn’t resonate with the have-nots (even the have-nots who rally at Tea Party conventions shouting rage at efforts to reverse these disparities as “Obama Socialism” pounding on their doors). Why has this complacency with those of wealth and power, never more obvious since post WWII America, been so inherent in Conservative ethics?

There’s nothing unique about Larry King. He is only one of several million individuals who by fate, ingenuity, or cunning have found themselves economically separated from mainstream America. There is a further gap between our middle class and those who struggle at the bottom of claims on resources (which may include a disproportionate portion of our next generation). The “Contract with America” Conservatism that drives the Republican caucus, the Tea Partiers, the Palins, the Limbaughs, and others has a vitriolic subtext which contains the frightening ability to get people to energetically act against their own self interest. The fight over the recent health care law couldn’t have proved it better. The benefits from such Conservatism has yielded enormous tangible benefits for those seek to retain their claim to resources and illusionary benefits for those who shout on public malls.

The musical 1776 (the life’s passion of composer-lyricist Sherman Edwards to accurately put the struggle of the founding of this country to music) has a song in it called Cool, Cool Considerate Men. It was originally entitled “Cool, Cool Conservative Men” but the producers forced the change so as not to turn away a segment of possible patrons. The song recounts what was occurring both in the Continental Congress of 1776 and the Colonies as a whole – the fight between those who advocated independence and those who wanted reconciliation with Britain. It is sung in the form of a minuet by those who felt reconciliation would protect their wealth and lifestyle. Near the end of the minuet John Rutledge, the Conservative representative from South Carolina, stops the song and asks John Hancock why he supports John Adams in Adam’s quest for independence, since he (Hancock) was “one of us” - a man of property. Hancock says “…fortunately there aren’t enough men of property in America to dictate policy”. Rutledge responds by saying “…but don’t forget that most men would rather protect the possibility of being rich than face the reality of being poor…so they will follow us.”

One could argue that Rutledge’s belief was wrong in his assessment that control over an effort to exact a common good was vested in a select group of people. After all, the Revolution proceeded. Then again, maybe the only thing wrong with the prediction…was his timing.

The Genie is Out of the Bottle

2010-03-23T09:43:00.000-07:00

On Sunday night I was one of the many millions of people doing something rarely done, watching our Congress in action, live, during and just prior to the House vote on health care. In the course of the “debate” portion (an absurd misnomer for sure), one of the Republican speakers (I don’t recall which) used a 1964 quote from Ronald Reagan, which I found interesting. He used the quote both to inject the name Ronald Reagan, which has deity status with the Conservative Right, and to argue that even in 1964 Reagan was shooting bull’s-eyes on the subject of health care. What Reagan was attacking at that time with his predictions of lost freedom and lost liberty was Medicare. It was Reagan’s first political issue delivered on a national stage which he began to preach in 1961, the same year he was dropped as spokesman for General Electric and changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. In fact, he did little else during those years other than campaign against Medicare, ending with his famous keynote speech at the nomination of Barry Goldwater.

I couldn’t help but wonder how many Republicans in last Sunday's “debate” would openly demonstrate their devotion to Reagan’s “insight” by advocating the dismantling of Medicare (& Medicaid) along with stopping any attempt to make health care realistically available to the general population. John Boehner, the House minority leader and a champion of the if you say a lie with enough conviction and repetition it’s as good as true philosophy, screamed how shameful the House was in not carrying out the “will of the people”. Perhaps he felt the specter of Ronald Reagan behind him breathing sweet sound bites in his ears since Medicare never polled anything close to a 51% majority prior to its adoption into law. Nah…because the fact of the matter is that Reagan ended up as most Republicans are today, as stalwart defenders of Medicare, at least in any public setting.

The true opposition to the newly passed Health Care Reform bill (which is really more accurately a health care insurance reform bill) had little to do with health care. Every politically ambitious Republican I’ve seen interviewed since the passing of the bill is now putting emphasis on the righteousness of Health care reform and the injustice of their plans not being included (the 200 plus Republican articles contained not withstanding). The fact that the Republicans had control of the House for 15 of the past 23 years and never introduced any comprehensive health reform (but did manage to kill reform during 2 of the years they were out of power) makes their postulating a comedy, albeit a dark one. Why would they? They would never never never originate health reform because it would be contrary to the interests of their constituents. Not the duped tea party crowd I assure you, rather those powerful interests that are on the nipple end of our $1.7 trillion transfer of wealth: funds transferred from the health care consumers, taxpayers, and debtors to the for-profit health care industry. Whether you believe it or not, it’s the only thing that makes any sense.

The stark evidence of this could be seen in the days and hours before the vote. With Republican leaders holding signs from the Capital porticos egging protestors below to amplify their rage; protestors who held pictures of Obama portrayed as Hitler (as if fascism played a role?), signs with guns portrayed as a solution to meddling proponents, “activists” hurling homophobic slurs at Congressman Frank, and “patriotic” Americans outside and in the halls of the Capitol Building spitting on and calling out “nigger” to distinguished black Congressmen, including Congressman Lewis. The lunatic fringe that performed such acts may have been only the tip of an iceberg, but it was all the same iceberg. It is the sad result of unleashed profiteering zealots like Limbaugh and Beck, and political leaders like Boehner and Cantor, totally focused on their political ambitions, who have mastered the use of such meaningless generalizations as “government takeover”, “will destroy America”, “Socialism”, “rob you of your freedom”, “enslave your children”, “lose your job”, “lose your coverage”, and this Limbaugh predictive threat (which I think says it all): “lose your right to fish”!! None of it had anything to do with health care reform, let alone health care insurance reform. It only prays on ignorance and it undermines the moral integrity of a nation for the benefit of a small minority.

Ronald Reagan used the following phrase as a mantra in his election and re-election: government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. It resonated because it was combined with a conservative axiom that taxation is fundamentally evil, even if it’s necessary. The Reagan administration and the two Bush Administration then began to dismantle government regulations even as they expanded government and government debt exponentially (note that debt is just deferred taxation). Only in the Clinton “pay as you go” administration was debt accumulation temporarily paused. Republicans will now argue that “government” is the cause of all health care short comings, that “government” (currently with a distorted likeness of Obama) is poised to rob you of your wealth and happiness, and “government” can only be contained by, as Limbaugh announced yesterday, “ridding ourselves of those bastards”. They'll claim this even as they claw and scratch to be elected to (dare I say it)...government.

But on this one the genie is out of the bottle. They can’t go back, any more than they could on Medicare. The greater question is whether those who just succeeded can continue to turn an imperfect but necessary beginning into a workable future, in spite of the distortion and self interest.

What is So Special About People Over 65?

2010-03-11T05:19:00.000-08:00

One of the great ironies attached to our national health care debate is the avid support that individuals over the age of 65 (seniors) have for the status quo. I don’t mean to suggest that all seniors think alike, even on national issues, but as a group they fall pretty solidly with the Conservative message on health care - that things are better left unchanged instead of embarking onto something as demonic as Government supported health care. Anecdotally, it has been my experience in talking with many seniors that the vast majority do abhor the idea of change, even as many criticize their personal experience within our current system (interestingly, they don’t necessarily fault the System; rather they’re more likely to blame the insensitivities of subsequent generations). The irony, of course, is that they are already active and satisfied recipients of what they argue so vehemently against expanding– Medicare.

Why should they support change? I can’t think of any good reason - even the truth - as long as self interest prevails. They are one of two sets of beneficiaries in our flawed system (the other beneficiaries are those on the receiving end of the $1.7 trillion transfer that takes place every year in the United States). How did this happen? What makes Americans over 65 so special, that their health and well being is somehow more important than say children 16 and under, or pregnant women, or perhaps young adults with multiple sclerosis? Like most things, you have to go back to the beginning:

What we fondly and simply know as Social Security began as our nation was just rising in 1935 out of the first major dip in the Great Depression. After experiencing the inhumanity caused by failed financial systems, the concept was simple; provide a base line of income to a class of citizens who, as a result of age, no longer had the capacity to earn income. Like insurance, the cost would be borne by all working people in order to contain cost, but unlike free market insurance (as with annuities) participation could not be an option. However, in order to pass the legislation with the votes of those who raised the specter of Socialism, the taxes and benefits would be restricted to working Americans. Of course, as it gained in popularity and, therefore, became politically attractive, it began to grow in complexity and benefits. Even as the projected benefits began to outweigh the projected “assets”, and even as the “assets” were in the form of purchased US Debt (Treasuries) during periods of overall deficits (a bit like an individual who puts $1 into savings for every $3 he puts on his credit card), the reality of Social Security became sacrosanct to Conservative politicians (Republican or Democrat). None…I repeat none would openly argue against it today. Why? Because, even with it's flaws, the nation sees it's value. Enter Medicare.

The Social Security Act of 1965 was the first (and really the last) attempt in dealing with the problem of health care in the US. Other major laws since, such as the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which included Medicare Advantage, or the Medicare Prescription Drug (et al) Act of 2006 were attempts at fine tuning (often for votes) and whose primary beneficiaries ended up being the Medical Insurance Industry and the Pharmaceutical Industry. The idea of the Medicare law of 1965 (which included state controlled Medicaid for the indigent) was to address the growing need to provide nationally guaranteed health care beginning with those most vulnerable to the costs (those with fixed incomes), and it had a vehicle to use – the Social Security System. It was fought vigorously by Conservatives. Ronald Reagan claimed it would rob us of our freedom, George H.W. Bush, while running for the Senate in 1964, echoed it as “Socialized Medicine”. Those who supported it openly saw it as a first step toward bringing health care to the US in line with what had already happened throughout the world.

In the post WW2 years, the developed democracies, other than the US, figured out that in a new free world, where there was a desperate overall need for health care by people rising from devastation, the overall cost had to be borne by everyone in order to make it work. Universal Health Care, or as often described now as a Single Payer System, either through direct payment or manditory public insurance, became the law of the land in these democracies. This was especially (and interestingly) true of the two nations for which the United States took the primary role in rebuilding, namely Japan and Germany. Only Canada, the other major Western ally whose homeland was physically untouched by war, did not adopt a true single payer system, but they offered public health insurance immediately after the War, which evolved into full universal coverage in 1984. The United States, the great engine of free enterprise, alone chose the road of a for-profit health care system, a system that now costs multiples of what the rest of the world pays and is rife with gross and tragic inequities, discouraging patients and medical providers alike.

Even so, going back to the beginning of that post-war period, such “radical liberals” as Harry Truman saw the need to create the means by which all citizens could have access to health care and that the key to access was cost. They and others understood the obvious, that health care is a commodity that does not fit ordinary economic models. In economic terms, the demand is inelastic; it does not decline when the price increases. Therefore, in the absence of a system which includes everyone, and with an exponentially rising population, they saw that the Government (Federal, State, and Local) would become the de facto payer of last resort, and there was absolutely nothing to restrain costs from rising by those benefiting from that revenue.

The need for Universal Health Coverage was advocated during the Roosevelt administration, but attempting to create law really started during the Truman administration. Truman, for his efforts, was given the honor to sign up as the first participant in the new Medicare program in 1965. The widespread belief at that time was that an expanded version of Medicare provided to the entire American populous was only a matter of time. Of course, few foresaw the huge industry that would balloon as a result of stratospheric revenues, and how that industry would fight to keep that cash flowing. It was aided by tax law which allowed companies providing health insurance benefits to bury the costs (borne by their employees) out of their worker’s sight.

Still, Medicare/Medicaid made it under the wire, and although it is an imperfect public insurance program it pretty much accomplishes what the supporters wanted – universal health coverage for the participants funded through general payroll taxation. What it never did nor could ever do was impact general health care costs, because it controlled less than 15% of all Americans (albeit a larger percentage of cost). Which is why Medicare is now essentially funded through debt. The participants don’t care, they’re not paying, and all in all they’ve been pretty happy with the result; ergo you won’t hear a Republican advocate the dissolution of Medicare - even as they deride the idea of Medicare expanded to the rest of the population as socialistic mania.

There is nothing special about the 36 million Americans over age 65 (74 million by 2050), at least not when it comes to health care. In less than 5 years I will be 65 and be invited under that protective umbrella. If the Republicans, Conservative Democrats, and the financial recipients of the largest transfer of wealth any nation has ever seen succeed in thwarting any changes, then I will be forced to watch my children and grandchildren suffer under this system, even as I benefit. I can’t call that a benefit.

My gut winces a little each time I hear a Republican or Conservative Democratic politician announce that we have “the best health care (system) in the world” as I heard Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) recently said at the March 2010 “Health Summit”, shrouding his obstructionism in patriotism. I feel that way because I know many believe him, just as they believe the rhetorical lie that describes attempts to reform health care as a “government takeover”.

We do not have the best health care system in the world, or even the best health care for that matter (by published international standards), although we pay many times what everyone else does. If we just reduced our per capital spending on health care to that of Germany’s, the second most expensive nation, we would save enough money in ONE YEAR to pay the current health care costs for the 3 billion people in China, India, Russia, and Indonesia for the NEXT FIVE YEARS!!! We do not have the best health care system in the world, but we may have the worst. Why? Because it is a system in which the above statement on cost does not resonate at all with those who, contrary to their own best interest, have been manipulated to oppose health reform, including those contented senior beneficiaries who already enjoy guaranteed health care. In a world where access is inextricably and inversely depended on cost, what kind of vile system is that?

The Most Evil Man in America

2010-03-04T07:48:00.000-08:00

I know I know…I write a title like that and most everyone can conjure up a quick image of the individual they believe fits the bill - and then may read on with curiosity to see why their choice isn’t the same as mine. Besides, the word evil itself is more closely aligned with comics or soap operas than real life. If I were to let my first image surface it would, of course, be Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of American politics. With the news of Cheney’s most recent coronary I had an immediate picture in my head of Lucifer sitting in his fiery office, leaning back in a smoking overstuffed desk chair, and on the phone saying “…okay Dick, this is the fifth one I’ve bailed you out on. Now you either start a new war or I’ll be out of town when the Man hits you with the sixth.” But to really determine who most exemplifies the personification of villainy in America one must really define what evil is.

If evil were merely a relative concept, then for those who see Dick Cheney as a John Wayne understudy, he is hardly evil. They are right…but then, is anyone wrong? Despite the distain I harbor for Cheney (by the boatload), I actually think he is no more evil than most anyone else’s oxen you feel deserves to be gored. That’s because evil is not relative. Cheney participates in our national drama through his own self interest and lust for recognition in a manner which reflects his constituency. If he wasn’t feeding off public attitude Cheney would fall off our collective radar like a bronze medal winner. But is that evil? I think not. Maybe one might find what he does appalling, perhaps maniacal, or maybe even criminal…but not evil. He really doesn’t create opinion, he merely uses it.

Evil should not be misconstrued with its fruit. When one is told to think of an apple tree they naturally envision the apple itself and not the nature or description of the tree which bears it. There is a pervasive evil which has been growing in our country for long enough now that I, for one, have to concentrate back a while to realize that it didn’t always exist in my lifetime. It is an imbalance in the collective identity of our nation, which has permitted us to hate ourselves.

So who do I believe is the most evil man in America, and why? I give that honor to Rush Limbaugh III. Seriously…I consider the master of Conservative talk radio to be the dean, the linchpin, the standard by which a considerable handful of mostly conservative and some liberal commentators/entertainers/writers have watered the tree of divisiveness in our country, without which its fruit might not have found itself on practically every kitchen table in America. His influence has been extraordinary, or even greater than extraordinary based on Limbaugh’s own swagger. You have to go back to when it started, which some might find was not so long ago.

To say Limbaugh is smart would be a debate unto itself. I for one give the word “smart” a colloquial meaning which includes positive ethics. However, there is no doubt that Limbaugh has innate abilities that make him uniquely qualified for the roll he fell upon. His intelligence is validated by his pedigree. Father, siblings, grandfather, uncle, cousins are all jurists of note. A giggle of irony escapes me when I think that they are now all known primarily as the relative of Rush the radio guy. Rush III was an anomaly to the group. He was a bad student, his mother quoted to say “he flunked everything”. He managed his way into a lesser know state university in time to drop out almost immediately. He had to have been a black spot on the family refrigerator.

To his credit he focused early on a career in radio working a standard circuit of DJ jobs around the country and apparently, along the way, discovered his talent for glibness. I suspect that Limbaugh, a man with an ego the size of Montana, also discovered that in his chosen venue he could compete with his accomplished and certified family members at their own conservative game. Good luck, Rush. I’d guess that ultimately all his money, his influence, and his buffoonery never allowed him into the inner circle of Conservative lawyers and judges that is his family tree - just a guess, consistent with prescription drug abuse, and lawyers generally.

By the late 80’s his style of commentary had hit a cord. Freed by the repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (after being law for 38 years) he was one of the first to exploit bias as a form of entertainment. However, the use of a target as a means of gathering listenership had not yet gelled. During the administration of George HW Bush the Republicans had their problems even as they still rode the Reagan tsunami. His attraction was more his style and comedy which he intermixed with home spun commentary, a counter to the likes of Howard Stern. Although his reach through the number of participating stations was significant, his market was still not that large and actually pulled from a wider political segment which enjoyed his antics and clowning.

It was the election of Bill Clinton that changed everything. It was the 9/11 for Rush and the true beginning of his crafting the vilification of anyone not Conservative. As his listeners, comprised primarily of disappointed Conservative Republicans, began to expand exponentially, he saw the writing on the wall (and bank statement). The tone of his commentary notably changed. He was now selling fear wrapped in patriotism and he sold it well. So well in fact that for many today he has made the Clinton years of prosperity, surpluses, growth, and security a time of national shame, and the Bush years of preemptive war, terror, lost civil rights, political stagnation, colossal deficits, and near economic collapse a period of national pride. Can it get any more bizarre?

In the process of making himself a household name he also made a couple hundred million dollars, by some accounts. He certainly became in less than 15 years one of the richest men in America, simply by talking on a microphone. Incredibly, polling after the last presidential election also had him named as the Conservative Republican standard bearer, over everyone else…in America!!

His financial and influential success did not go unnoticed by others in the field. Such “commentators” as Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity jumped aboard the H&F (Hate & Fear) Gravy Train. They saw that by making “Liberals” the true enemies of “patriotic” America they could tap the kind of enthusiasm usually engendered by invasions. No wonder Sarah Palin recently got on board. Mark Levin, who renamed Liberals “Statists” because he thought the word “liberal” sounded too much like “liberty”, wrote the following in his best selling ($$) book Liberty and Tyranny:

"The Conservative must accept that the Statist does not share his passion for liberty and all the good that flows from it. The Statist does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits to society from the individual pursuits of tens of millions of others. The Statist rejects the Founder's idea of the dignity of the individual, who can flourish through ordered liberty, for one rooted in unpredictability, irrationality and, ultimately, tyranny." pp15

That kind of wholesale categorizing of people is the kind of dehumanization that can be found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf and his description of the Jews. That was a best seller too.

So just what is the Evil that I associate so closely with Rush Limbaugh and his disciples? It is what now pervades our nation, but more importantly our individual neighborhoods and even families. It is the new distain that we have for each other without the necessity of recognizing our humanity.

I remember hearing a Catholic priest once say in a lecture that if Satin could do only one thing to solidify his malevolence throughout mankind he would make us hate our bodies. He was suggesting that self deprecation of that which is the most basic and natural to us in this life was the surest way to abandon that which we revere in God. Rush has given this a socialogical twist.

As a nation and a society we have, since inception, had ideological conflict which has manifested itself into periods of tragedy and suffering. Students of the Civil War could successfully argue that period as the most obvious and poignant. At each such time there has been an imbalance caused by the demands of ideology requiring a dehumanization of those who don’t agree, essentially managing to get us to hate ourselves. Within the current health care debate there is so much hate that people virtually cannot see the problem to the point that they will actively work against their own self interest. Could anything make the devil smile more?

We are experiencing a civil war right now…and it is obvious. It began with people like Russ Limbaugh and has spread to the far left end of the spectrum in a vain attempt to create balance. It is aggravated by the nature of our political system which has currently become a manic struggle for power without substance and job security for its participants. This chapter in our history was made possible by a new age of communication, a new message of hate and fear, and was brought to you by the embodiment of the most evil man in America – Rush Limbaugh.

Healthcare: No Relief in Sight

2009-08-13T08:47:00.000-07:00

Please see my article of August 26, 2008 written during the Presidential election. It's just as relevant with today's debate...perhaps more.

Ignoring the Obvious

2009-07-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

I am appalled, astounded, and generally peeved at the recent coverage over the latest Palin pronouncement; her resigning as Alaska’s governor. It’s as if stating the obvious was somehow too risky for primetime. The endless babble over whether or not Sarah Palin ruined her chances to run for the Presidency is below the accuracy of lunatic repartee, let alone intellectual discourse. I guess that means it’s just perfect for national news.

Sarah Palin was a small town mayor who parlayed a couple of smart political moves and an attractive presentation into winning the governorship of a state that’s hardly known for conventional judgment. She was picked out of obscurity by John McCain in an insane and inane move to bolster his candidacy, a move that failed badly. She never was, is not, and never will be an even remotely viable candidate for national office. To include her name in the same context as "national office" is disinformation for marketing purposes that only belongs with the other entertainment celebrity news at the grocery store checkout counter.

However, to steal a phrase from A Coal Miner’s Daughter; the lady may be dumb…but she’s not stupid. I think she knows she’s not Vice-Presidential (let alone Presidential) timber, and to her credit she’s seems to have figured out she’s not Governor material either. She knows that remaining in office as the Governor of Alaska carries risks with it that could easily undermine her maximizing her potential, much like a football star might realize that spending two more years at the college gridiron might forever end his chances for making it big in the pros with one crushing tackle. Whether it is some bonehead scandal or an incompetent administration, she runs the potential of undermining the unique credibility she has with her fans. At the very least, finishing out her term as governor could use up precious time, and possibly leave her as an historical (and hysterical) blip in the American past.

In all likelihood she has seen how Rush Limbaugh has a reported worth of $400 million and is often described as the number one influence of what remains of the Republican Party. This former beauty contestant, turned local sportscaster, turned media starlet has probably seen that niche and fashions herself nestling into it. She couldn’t be more correct. She may want to sell the idea that she is in it for God, truth, justice, and the American way (good grief, even Rush Limbaugh touts that as his objective) and she may be delusional enough to believe that such is a half-truth, but the reality is that she wants what many of national fame have tasted: money and power. You can't fault her much for that. The beauty is that she’ll be able to do it right from her broadcast booth in Wasilla. She may end up owning more of Alaska than anyone other than Exxon-Mobil.

Exchange on Healthcare

2009-06-24T06:40:00.000-07:00

Below is an email exchange with a friend on the topic of Healthcare. I had asked him to give me his thoughts on the topic, since I suspected they differed from mine. They did, and perhaps that provides some balance:

Friend:

Well, I'm not going to be much help there. I'm not very medical. I've never really been sick, never had surgery, well oral surgery but I don't think that counts. But anecdotally I can give you some of my experiences.

In 1988 my daughter had bacterial pneumonia and spent 3 days at Children's Hospital ICU. Children's treated us like royalty. Gave us a place to stay next door and full access anytime we wanted it. I think we had Pilgrim Health Care through work which cost me $17 a paycheck. When the bill came from Children's it was around $3000 and it was marked paid in full. No deductible, no questions. And I never looked at it in any detail. Then in the 90's Hillary Clinton got on the healthcare bandwagon. It didn't last long but when she finally gave it up after a couple of years I was paying $34 a paycheck, had a deductible and the system was all screwed up. Thanks Hillary, good job.

In the late 90's Oliver North was running for senate I think. During the campaign he floated a brand new idea of the Health Saving Account. It was then that I got my first explanation of what an HSA was and how it worked. Instead of one Federal watchdog on medical costs, waste, and fraud, HSA's create 300 million watchdogs of the costs charged to their own accounts. Pretty neat idea I thought. Well, Ollie didn't get elected [whew, he was kind of a crazy] but I remembered the HSA. When I retired without any insurance, that was one of the first things we did. Now when we go to the doctor we ask. What is this test for? Why do you need these blood tests? I just had xrays last year, why again this year? Isn't it true that xrays are no longer considered an effective tool for detecting lung cancer? Ok, so why do you order the xrays? etc., etc. etc. I never did that before, And when I look back and compare my attitude before, it's no wonder that all kinds of fraud and abuse takes place. People don't ask. If somebody else is paying, let THEM ask. Well the HSA is your money in your account. The money you put into it is tax deductible and the premiums you pay for catastrophic insurance is also tax deductible.

You want a solution? In my view, there's your solution. Make everyone manage their own health care through their own account. 300 million watch dogs. Can't beat it.

OK, now having said that, I don't want to stop innovation, discovery, invention, etc. You make a strong case against profit, but it is a terrific motivator. The only reason the human gnome was mapped and currently in use by everyone is because they originally thought there was some money to be made from it. Little did they know all the possible applications that would come from it. But pure research is an essential part of a thriving society. Thousands of discoveries have come from it. Pennicillin was discovered without any idea what it's uses might be. Pure research however, is very expensive. Can we really chance not discovering the cure for AIDS, cancer, alzheimers, parkinsons, and dozens of other diseases because we somehow can't afford pure research? Can we really afford to halt the experiments of the supercollider just because no one knows what the results will be used for?

One last idea. Our founding father's did a great job.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establishJustice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote thegeneral Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.They could have added "provide for the common education" and/or "provide for the common health care" but they didn't. They only "provide for the common defense" so as to ensure an environment where you as individuals can provide for yourselves.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That all men are created equal. Not that all men are equal, but when they are born they are created and begin their lives "equal". After that [by design] you're on your own. And clearly all men are not even close to being equal. And so, by design those of you who are better than the median can provide for yourselves better than those below the median. We are the ones with this wonderful system.

This system that attracts waiting lists of immigrants from all the other countries. Many other countries have nationalized health care. They pay a 40% tax for it. We are a nation of individuals whose individual liberties are ahead of all other concerns. While this quote is a bit out of context, They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety... Franklin It occurs to me that the nationalization of the health care industry would constitute just such a forfiture of liberty. I would advocate an increase in responsibility to the individual for his own well being. I believe nationalization would relieve the individual of all responsibility for their own well being, and as such, violate what Jefferson and his bussies had in mind.

My Reply:

Good morning - funny that you started your last email with "...not going to be much help" then proceeded to pump out a thousand words (997 to be exact). We truly do have some things in common. But plenty not in common too, as I read through your message. That's a good thing.

I'll take issue with your points this way (not sure where it will end):

Many of the arguments you presented are familiar and, for me, quite frustrating when I get into discussions on the subject. I think you set the tone correctly in your first paragraph when you implied that your experience defined your view. Perfectly reasonable. However, I believe the anecdotal approach to defining healthcare is precisely what creates the inertia we find ourselves in, much to the benefit of a select sector of our society.

In those discussions, personal experiences, good and bad, expound ad nausium. Further, people quote the personal experience of other people (as in other countries) with virtually no recollection of the source for that information. I find it frustrating that I can't (in a polite and un-aggressive way) get those individuals to look at the bigger picture. I feel it is the same, almost lemming mentality that viewed the dot.com companies in the late 90s and real estate in the mid 2000s on the other side of the balance sheet. You can make opposing lists of stories about how each system (profit/single payer) works and doesn't work that could stretch to the moon. The winner in that kind of analysis is always the status quo. People have just got to ask the question: who doesn't want things to change?

It's all about cost. Not about your cost or his cost or my cost, but the total cost. You read the piece I wrote last year, so I shouldn't need to repeat. But I just don't understand why one of the verifiable facts about healthcare doesn't resonate - total cost. People hear healthcare in Britain is great, others hear horror stories, it can all be suspect, but the fact is as a nation they care for 2.4 people for every one we take care of here (and their system is expensive by world wide standards). Why doesn't that make people here spin in their seats? Every other quantitative fact regarding healthcare (death rates, infant mortality, per capita hospital beds - US#27, per capita Drs US#52, etc) the US is either on par or below other countries. What are we getting for this huge transfer of wealth, and who's getting the money? Why is it so difficult for people to see that the (dis)information they receive about how (anecdotally) we have such a great medical system is most likely being provided by those who stand to lose if we converted to a single payer system.

Take your research argument, a popular one. Still, most medical research in this country today is done through our University system and it is mostly (if not nearly entirely) publicly funded (which includes charity - bolstered by tax policy as you described). The private (multi-national) pharmaceutical industry operating in this country has become so focused on profits and ROE that they've become counter-productive as expeditures directly relate to healthcare research. Did you read my piece on drug advertising? That aspect is like a metaphor for the entire industry. There are very few other countries that allow such to exist - for very good reason. To make the assumption that very smart dedicated people will stop pursuing careers in medical research because they won't make mega dollars at some corporation is unreasonable and doesn't reflect human behavior accurately. I would venture many if not most of those kinds of people hate working for such companies (simply because of the pressures for profits and ROE), are less productive, and work shorter careers because they can't wait to get out of that atmosphere (I clearly and personally empathize with that).

I don't even think the tax debate is relevant. We pay it one way or the other. For myself alone I pay (with my company subsidized insurance) about $8500 a year in insurance and deductibles. My tax could skyrocket and I'd be no worse off. Although with our system I am also given (at no extra cost) the added anxiety of never knowing if my own insurance costs will eventually outpace my resources or if medical illness or accident to anyone in my family will wipe out my assets. Of course, that may oddly help medical costs, since that kind of stress probably cuts years off of people's lives.

You provide a good Libertarian approach to managing cost, but I really believe that ideal ended in this country a hundred and fifty million people ago, at a time when technology was less complex and the profit aspect of medicine (by comparison to today) didn't really exist. Remember profit is defined as that in excess of fixed and variable expenditures (which includes labor). The healthcare industry in this country today (as I wrote) is almost totally inelastic. The demand side of the equation is currently unaffected by price increase. We either pay, exhaust our resources and have government pay, or decline services and die. There is virtually no impetus in the private sector for efficiency in medical care, because to do so would reduce profits, dollar for dollar. You may wisely refuse an x-ray today, but try doing it when your 85 and drooling in your wheel chair. Besides, you still pay the cost whether it's you getting the x-ray or the crack addict who bumbles into the emergency room. There has to be oversight in an industry which must meet the needs of every human in the country.

Despite what you say, I don't sense you're an 'everyone for himself' kind of guy, where healthcare is only for those smart, clever, and resourceful (or lucky) enough to properly work the system. However, you are correct that if access to adequate healthcare is not considered one of those basic "all men are created equal" inalienable rights (maybe under the “Life” right), then nationalized healthcare has no place in this country. Then you would also need to start advocating the elimination of the publicly supported healthcare already in this country (which is huge - Medicare being the biggest piece - and supplies much of the profit to the private sector) and get ready to start looking like most other third world countries with deformed children begging in the streets with their inalienable right for the pursuit of happiness.

Marriage

2009-05-11T06:46:00.000-07:00

With my son's engagement, it got me thinking about what makes a marriage (really a relationship) last.

I think a good marriage is built on a foundation of 3 ‘Cs’ – Commitment, Compromise, and Compassion…and probably in that order. I’m guessing being engaged has all the same factors, only instead of Commitment you have Commit without the (ce)ment.

I use the term foundation since the complexities of a relationship are so immense that to simplify the totality of a relationship is both futile and foolhardy. Therefore, you find simple axioms to act as a base on which one can deal with the minutia. If we accept that certain basic things remain constant, anchors if you will, we just might keep the boat from running adrift when the currents and individual waves begin splashing over the gunnels. Like all axioms these 3 ‘Cs’ are not subject to analysis, just as one keeps a faith. By agreeing to them, however, doesn’t mean they don’t require work, but it does mean they are not up for debate…they are not ‘gray’.

Commitment is the most important and most difficult. It is what takes you through the inevitable periods of questioning, second guessing, and (for lack of a better term) the bad times. Frankly, it is also relatively rare, but it is as necessary as yeast is to risen bread for those relationships that actually go the distance. Somewhere in the development of a relationship it must be overtly and clearly confessed to each other and then it requires periodic reinforcement, neither of which is easy to do. As difficult as it is, I feel one cannot over emphasize the importance of making the effort. The attempt, or lack thereof, will be as telling to the relationship as the Sun, or lack of it, is to vacation weather.

Compromise is the grease that allows the Commitment gears to mesh with less friction. Like Commitment, you enter into Compromise without analysis or other great truckloads of personal garbage. The point of compromise is the basic understanding that there can be no winner in a contest without a loser. Of course, I’m not talking about Scrabble or arm wrestling, but rather in the judgments we make in viewing the actions of someone else. What we compromise is our judgment itself. Outside a marriage to do so may be foolish or even dishonorable. However, in a marriage it is Romance without equal, because it accepts and confesses the understanding that there is someone in your life without which life would have little meaning. Like all Romances it is something to strive for, but unlike Commitment there can be real day to day evidence of the attempt. It is like money in the Bank. You may not know the balance of your account, but you’ll feel mighty rich with each deposit.

Compassion is the great reward. It should be obvious, but let me clarify anyway; Compassion is not the romance, sex, churning stomach, longing, or other treats of a new relationship. Compassion exists when you realize (not easily) that your lust for life is intrinsically bound with your chosen partner. It’s the source of such sappy (but meaningful) movie lines as “…you complete me”. It is different from simple passion because at its root it demands that it be a shared experience. But just like passion it provides the palette of colors we all search for, to paint our lives as we’d like to think they should look. Like Compromise, it should be communicated often and overtly, giving credit where credit is due. Compassion is what makes confessions like “I love you” have real meaning.

There it is, 3 'Cs'. How simpler could it be? Of course, that's like saying growing vegetables is just seed, dirt, and water. Think that and don't count on tomatoes in July.

Obamanomics?

2009-01-14T07:35:00.000-08:00

When I majored in Economics the discipline was quite a bit different…and not. It makes me recall the old saying; everything is different…nothing has changed. Back then, we were on the waning cusp of the Keynesian Revolution, and the Monetarists, led by (the later Nobel Lauriat) Milton Friedman were happily waxing. The theories were different than what we see today, but the fundamental approach has remained unchanged. That lack of change continues to be the bane of most economists, politicians, and financial soothsayers of every description.

After 35 years since graduation, and even with my attempts to remain well-read, I would probably be challenged to get a respectable grade in an Econ 101 course. Nevertheless, the fundamental I took from my education remains fresh and, I believe, timeless. It is this simple fact: Economics is a behavioral science, not an exact science. That fact would not receive much debate in academic circles, yet the practical application of it seems to be lost in the practical application of economics in the real world.

The unchanging part of formal Economics is the insatiable desire to apply formula to human behavior. Our politicians are currently struggling to do just that and with resources (in the form of debt) that have no precedent (that I can think of), certainly on a scale never before imagined. Our leaders, including Obama, are tapping into their favorite economists to give them direction, probably based on what economists are currently in favor. Yet economists are like stabled horses; you check out their papers, look at their teeth, examine their gate, admire their confidence, but when you get on to ride you can’t be sure what’s going to happen. In all likelihood the economists or economic theorists chosen are the ones with the latest successes, but those successes might have been on a dry track and perhaps now the raceway is inches deep in mud. That may explain why I occasionally hear that some politicians (and academics) want to saddle up Maynard Keynes again to see if he’s good for another spirited ride.

I do believe that certain economic assumptions have value if they are consistent with the understanding that human behavior is inherently inconsistent (or erratic, to be less gentile) and it begs for the application of common sense. Human behavior, economic behavior included, reacts to two opposing stimuli: risk and certainty (more accurately predictability since certainty doesn’t exist except perhaps in natural science). In the real world, individuals (of varying numbers) get rich in an environment of risk, but societies economically flourish in an environment of predictability. What the Bush and (it appears) the Obama administrations are trying to do is create growth by heaving great loads of cash into the system, which Monetarist theories tell them will accelerate the economy. Several other nations are doing the same. What they fail to understand is that these attempts very likely will have no effect on growth since they don’t address the major underlying problem: the perceived lack of predictability by the people who comprise the Economy.

Take what most people, including me, feel is the major stumbling block to economic stability: the housing market.

Why the housing market as opposed to say, the job market (another good choice)? Housing is, I believe, one of the great fundamentals of human behavioral stability, along with food and safety. More importantly we have matured as a specie to think of the stability of our habitat as a precursor to much of the rest of our decision making (maybe we always did – leave that to the anthropologists). Of course this doesn’t include all people, but certainly a vast majority enough to drive economies. As we have come to rely on the certainty of our dwellings, and more over the value of those dwellings, we are freed to approach many other economic adventures with a sense of predictability. Now many are uncertain of the viability of remaining in their homes and most everyone feels uncertain as to the value, present and future. Restoring predictability to the housing market is what is needed, not attempting to restore value, or keep people in homes they never should have owned in the first place.

If I had the opportunity to lobby Mr. Obama, I would push him in the one direction everyone seems to be running from; underwriting prospective homebuyers who do not qualify under our current standards. Basically, go back to what many think got us (and the financial markets) into this problem in the first place, sub-prime lending. However, I would trim the fat in three ways; it would be publically funded (eliminating the greed that drove that last perfect storm), direct it only to buyers who do not currently own a home, and not eliminate the income or equity (appraisal) portion of the mortgage qualification.

The underwriting would be to lower the threshold on credit score. This would all be geared to starting the domino effect that has always been part of the modern real estate housing market, the movement of individuals from one home to another. Many renting individuals who may have defaulted on a sub-prime mortgage due to the size of the mortgage relative to the value of their home (a home they should never have been in) would be able to get the opportunity for finance to a smaller home, provided their income supports it. Just the smell of inflation in the housing market, however slight, due to movement of homeowners, would help jumpstart the entire process.

It’s impossible to predict what level housing values may evolve to in such a process or even how long it would take. However, I’m comfortable with one forecast: once the housing market has achieve a level of predictability where individuals can feel comfortable about what their home is worth and that the opportunity to leave that home or stay in it is a matter of simple choice and not necessity, then the rest of our economy (in the absence of catastrophe or conflict) will begin to show its own renewed sense of predictability and growth. The economists will rewrite their new formulas and we’ll just get on with the next crisis. I’m concerned, nonetheless, that if our leaders, especially Obama and his advisors, continue to widen this tsunami of debt in the attempt to buy confidence, then we will be left with simply a widened crisis…and some very, very rich people.

Obama and the Next Black Revolution

2008-11-05T08:24:00.000-08:00

As the media began to transition from the prospect of a President Obama to the reality of it, I was struck by the emphasis given to his race and the historic nature of it. For me, though the election of an African-American had been a wonderful achievement, it nevertheless was a sidebar to the man himself, who I had early pinned my hopes of true leadership for this Country. Still the attention to race gave me pause and got me thinking about what it meant. I don’t believe Obama’s race will have any immediate effect on the underlying problems associated with the darker side of America’s cultural evolution, but I’m hopeful that it will mark the beginning of changes in race relations that will bring us closer to being a colorless nation.

Real changes in race relations in the United States are not marked by events or people; they’re marked by decades and generations. Being part of the baby boom generation I can anecdotally see the changes that have taken place over that last 70 years by looking back at my parents and their contemporaries and then looking ahead at my children and their friends. Without even analyzing myself and my own generation, I can surmise that the baby boomers are likely the mean between that of my parents and children. It’s not hard to imagine the future mindset of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren in a very positive way. But I am not African-American and my experience is quite different from the Black experience. I don’t believe the change in my grandchildren will come from me, although I’d like to think it. The major changes that will take place over the next generations will come from America’s black culture, just as the prior changes have done, and the Obama election may historically be seen as the beginning of that period.

I believe the Black experience and White prejudice in American can, to date, be divided up into 3 distinct periods. In each the changes in the general prevailing attitude of White America has lagged behind the changes in Black culture. Of course the first period is obvious, early America was a nation that either tolerated or actively engaged in black slavery. Non-black slavery was essentially called indentured servitude, but the philosophical and ethical difference between the two was enormous since the difference between black and white was deemed biological and not just a difference of social class.

By 1870 and the end of the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, the Nation began the 2nd period of race relations which lasted for another 70 years, ending with World War II. It was a period of black acceptance of political freedom but social inequality. It many ways African-Americans were only elevated to the level of indentured servitude. They retained the economic shackles which denied them access to the means of becoming part of the economic mainstream, primarily education, but they also retained the stigma of being deemed biologically inferior. Except for the brief period of Reconstruction, Black history between the Civil War and WWII has minimal historical significance as African-Americans were not invited to the table where power and innovation were being served. Again, it took those 7 decades for Blacks to refuse acceptance of political and cultural inequality. Non-black America eventually followed with changes both in law and attitude, but only so far.

The 3rd period began with the close of WWII and perhaps ended with the election of Barack Obama. The civil rights movement was the natural end of the post-Civil War Jim Crow era which by the 60’s had ended statutory inequality between the races (and, in theory, all social sub-sets, such as women, religions, and gays). However, this third period was that in which the biological and cultural inferiority of African-Americans was attacked. Its beginning was marked by the efforts made during the 50s and 60s, not by such as Martin Luther King and his contemporaries, who finished the inequalities that began in 1870. Rather it began with what was seen at the time as radical behavior by Black America, with such movements as Black Power and Black is Beautiful, and spread to every corner of American culture such as politics, media, art, music, or athletics. These were the young people, primarily black but also many whites, who sought to elevate the black culture to a level of equality by emphasizing the uniqueness of the culture with a sense of pride. It evolved from the obvious need to overcome the philosophical and psychological chains that remained from the antebellum period.

The changes that have taken place over the 63 years since WWII have been as dramatic as the earlier changes that set the stage for the elimination of Jim Crow and the separate but equal myth. The contribution by Blacks to the American culture has been extraordinary over the past 6 decades and, as opposed to the post-Civil War period; recent history cannot be recorded without the significant impact of the African-American influence. I believe it can be argued that the election of Barack Obama is evidence of the success of cultural equality. But still, what have we got left?

The racial barriers that remain in the United States are still profound. The last 63 years may have eliminated the sense of cultural and biological inequality between races, personified by Barack Obama, but we still have a huge cultural divide created in great part by the efforts meant to achieve cultural equality; specifically the desire to be unique and separate from a perceived white culture. These barriers, complimented by the acceptance by both black and white cultures as being inherently separate, result in (among other things) depressed economics and the dilemma of Black poverty and social turmoil. As a consequence, most Americans, but primarily Black Americans, see the cultures of the races still distinctly black and white. Young Black men in particular view the assimilation into the greater economy as a conflict, or even denial of their own cultural heritage, which they may feel has been so recently vindicated.

Education is the key and the most important tools will be the English language and the family unit. It is my hope that the next revolution that may begin to take shape over the subsequent 10 years will be acceptance by the African-American community that there is but one Western economy in which they, as Americans, have an individual role to play. Not as Black Americans, but simply as Americans. White America will follow willingly. Maybe the next black President elected will get but 55% of both the white and black vote and no one will think anything of it. Then perhaps the racial differences of wealth, neighborhoods, languages, ethics, families, fears, or even skin color will be something my great-grandchildren will only read about, as they ponder their own generational challenges.

The Case Against Prescription Drug (Rx) Advertising

2008-10-10T05:50:00.000-07:00

(This article is also found on the blog www.CAPDA.blogspot.com . Please visit that blog and lend your support for the legislative elimination of Rx advertising, thank you)

In 1987, under the banner of deregulated free markets holding sway during the Reagan/Bush years, Congress lifted the restriction on pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television and radio. Since that time the Nation’s drug suppliers have spent amounts approaching (or exceeding) $200 billion on “direct to consumer” advertising of prescription drugs (Rx). In 2005 the annual outlay was $29.9 billion (see New England Journal of Medicine). I suspect the 2008 expenditure will greatly exceed that.

There has little controversy to this practice surfacing from time to time, but mostly there has been a passive acceptance. The affect of advertising is normally positive in a free market, even necessary, but it is also potentially insidious. We view advertising submissively, rarely thinking about it. Its very purpose is to create recall only at the time of or decision to purchase.

The limited debate over Rx advertising has mostly focused on the affect advertising has on the decision making of the doctor, to what extent does the motivated patient adversely sways the doctor's decision making on which drug to use. I believe that debate is useless. It requires second guessing physicians and that cannot be determined in any practical way even if we intuitively know it’s true. The debate should be centered on the economics of Rx advertising, what is really happening and what the obvious consequences are.

Advertising by definition is targeted toward the consumer who might be interested in purchasing the product advertised, or to the individual who might influence the purchaser (such as advertising to small children). Rx falls loosely into that second category. The identity of the Rx consumer, however, is the first misnomer.

The patient is not the consumer when it comes to Rx, rather the purchaser is the physician. It is important to understand that the patient doesn’t buy Rx for himself, rather he/she buys it for the physician. Prior to the development of retail drug establishments, doctors disseminated Rx when the patient was seen and the patient would pay or reimburse the doctor as part of the overall cost of treatment, just as it’s currently often done in hospitals. As the number of Rx expanded it became impractical for doctors to maintain the inventory and so Drug Stores became a centralized point from which doctors could disperse medications.

Therefore, Rx advertising is directed toward individuals who can’t buy the product, any more than a three year old can buy that box of Cocoa Puffs she’s seen on TV. The difference is, of course, the Rx purchaser is an adult who actually thinks they are the one buying the Rx. At least the 3 year old intuitively knows their Cocoa Puffs are coming from mommy. I believe it is this fundamental misunderstanding by adult patients which maintained the restrictions of Rx advertising up to eleven years ago, and why most of the rest of the world still retains that restriction. However, it is far from the only reason why mass marketing in the form of television and radio advertising should be eliminated.

Cost of Health care and Prescription Drug Advertising: The cost of health care in the United States has reached the kind of insanity level that real estate values did in the second half of this decade (see http://www.pennyfound.blogspot.com/ article Health care…No Relief in Sight). The health care consumer must constantly be remembering that the cost of healthcare for him/her is revenue for someone else. There is a transfer of wealth in the US of over $1.7 Trillion annually (see current World Health Report). Over $30 billion of that amount goes to those involved with the marketing of Rx (advertisers, media, and the marketing overhead of the pharmaceutical companies). It matters not what health care plan our current or prospective political leaders espouse, none will work unless the cost of health care in the US is reversed. The billions spent on Rx advertising are perhaps the most wasteful dollars spent in our pending health care catastrophe as they do not directly benefit the health care recipient or the system generally. In fact, as implied above, there is no benefit, direct or indirect, to the patient.

Prescription Drug Advertising as a Disincentive for Drug Research: The argument frequently heard from drug companies is that the price of a drug is often very high due to the large investment that took place prior to the drug being released to the public. It is a good argument as those costs must be recovered, as well as the costs of research on failed drugs that ultimately are not released. However, once the drugs are released the revenues can be used for further research on new and improved Rx, but what happens? The Pharmaceutical Companies continue to invest in these drugs, in the billions of dollars, through mass marketing. Not only are those billions not being used for further research, but they drive up the cost. Further, with the Pharmaceutical Companies continuing to invest billions in a drug to make it more profitable, where is there incentive to develop new drugs that might not have the same profit margin or may even replace the highly marketed drug? It is simple human nature (and therefore business nature) that they will continue to support these marketed drugs rather than new ones due to the continued investment from which they have calculated an expected financial return. None of this equates to any benefit for the patient…past, present, or future.

Prescription Drug Advertising Adversely Impacting the Quality of Rx: As the Pharmaceutical Companies continue to invest in a prescription drug they become less likely to continue critical review of that drug, or maintain even a practical semblance of objectivity in any critical review. Again, why would they? Not only have they invested in the development of the drug, but after its release they continue that investment and now have projected levels of profits to defend. There is a further element, however.

With mass marketing the pharmaceutical companies have exposed themselves to more liability; both on a retail level which can affect shareholder equity, and on a tort level with possible injured parties. This has already been made obvious by several highly public drug failures such as with Vioxx and several statin drugs. The heavily marketed drug increases public awareness, which is what mass marketing is supposed to do. With that visibility, however, comes equally visible news worthiness should a drug fail. The declining affect on stock value for the owning pharmaceutical company can be huge. Further, the pharmaceutical companies know that a problem with a highly marketed drug could well disseminate to the public in such a way that a higher percentage of unaffected users may seek legal action against the company. In both those cases there is a built in incentive for the company to be defensive and disinclined to police the quality of the drug - in the legal world knowledge is poison. As an aside one should note those increased defensive costs are already factored in and increase the cost of the Rx, even as the company seeks to avoid them.

There are other less critical reasons why Rx advertising should once again be banned from radio and television.

The information regarding the prescription drug that is supposed to be provided with the advertisements is laughable and completely ignored by the FCC. It is the audible and visual equivalent of an 80 year old trying to read minuscule type on a label without glasses, she knows it’s there but it has no meaning. In fact, it is a practical impossibility further strengthening the point that drugs are marketed to the wrong people.

Unregulated mass marketing of Rx forces pharmaceutical companies to compete in the practice, even if internally they might prefer to do otherwise.

We know the uninformed influence of the patient adversely affects the doctor’s best decision making, we only don’t know how much, and we never will. We also will never know to what extent mass Rx advertising contributes to defensive medicine, although it surely does, putting both the patient at some additional risk and driving up cost.

The last point I’d like to make, although certainly not the last of the negatives, is that these ads, television commercials particularly, are incredibly annoying and often the television equivalent of fingernails on a backboard. They are either a painful manipulation or an insult to our intelligence…and they are constant (not surprising for $30 billion being spent). I know that’s true for me, but when ever I’ve broached the topic the response I get is the same. Generally speaking, nobody likes them, even as they are manipulated by them.

Mass marketing of prescription drugs exists because, for the most part, it accomplishes what it seeks to do. It gets the patient to influence the consumer (the doctor) to buy the Rx thus increasing sales and profit. However, in a world where healthcare should be an available standard commodity to all people, like clean water, then prescription mass marketing takes us in the wrong direction. It is far from an answer to the overall healthcare problem, but its elimination would take us one step further in the direction we need to go, and at $30 billion a year it would be no small step.

The Alien Liberal

2008-10-01T18:03:00.000-07:00

The Richmond, Virginia radio market is a tough one for someone like me. I like talk radio, but in Richmond one is limited to the Rush Limbaugh storm troopers, with its assorted cadre of hypersensitive Christians, conspiracy nuts, second amendment fanatics, peach pie philosophers, and Alien enthusiasts (to name a few) calling in. I try to listen as long as I can, as if letting water drip on my forehead might prepare me for more challenging things, but it’s no use. I start to get angry, then incredulous, then resigned, and finally feeling very alone.

As a Liberal I’ve come to understand from Conservative broadcasters that my very existence has unleashed a horde of illegal, benefit laden Latinos, promiscuous women on welfare, mentally unstable college professors, and union lemmings (among others) to claw away at real patriotic American’s automatic weapons, steal their earnings, or perhaps leave their children unattended at bus stops. I always thought I was a nice liberal, but from what I listen to, that distinction is an oxymoron.

I’d like to think of myself as a Reagan Liberal. That would be a Liberal who ends his speaking points with an aw-shucks chuckle (well…gosh, Senator McCain…maybe that’s why mavericks never lead the herd). Mostly however, I’m just run of the mill. I don’t understand when we find ourselves in a world economy honeycombed with multi-national corporations, complex energy distribution, lightening fast communication, terrifying weapons (large and small), and unprecedented population growth why so many in this country are opposed to considering collective solutions to free market failures. Oh hell…of course I know… it’s the money, or more accurately those who stand to lose money and their extraordinary ability to scam people (usually through fear) that any restriction to the free market is like letting Lucifer in the front door.

I don’t like the “new” Liberal that calls him/herself a Progressive. I guess I just don’t like the term… it’s a copout, or at best confusing. The Liberal position is important and doesn’t need re-titling. It has been underrepresented in both government and our culture at large for over 30 years, yet it’s critical because the path that leads to the successful evolution of the American culture is laid between the Liberal and Conservative ideologies. Without the counterbalance we end up in the ditch and as of late we’ve been in the ditch that bears to the Right.

I’m really hoping that President Obama is a consensus builder and that the Conservative side of the highway retains enough ideologically sound champions to keep him in the road. Perhaps then we might actually create a single payer healthcare system which compliments business growth, or international cooperation which enhances American influence, or debt control which can be viewed as patriotic.

I will say this about the Conservative talk shows though…I think they may be on to something regarding UFOs and Aliens. If they’re right, the Aliens have to be widespread among us and totally stealth. I think I may have figured it out…it’s the squirrels. Think about it...we know they’re everywhere even though we only see them in random flashes. They’re always looking and examining, they’re obviously communicating in a fashion we can’t figure out, they’re very nervous, and isn’t it possible that the occasional squirrel one sees dangling from a power line suffered his fate for attempting to go to “the other side”? I think President Obama might consider trying to make contact. It would be the gracious thing for a Liberal to do.

McCain's Age Counts

2008-09-19T13:18:00.000-07:00

Watching Carly Fiorina reproach Sen. Claire McCaskill on Meet the Press for mentioning John McCain’s age in a discussion about McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, I was struck by McCaskill’s option not to respond. It was as if there was something turning in the back of her head saying; “don’t go there”. Whether it’s silence due to political correctness or the howling of a blatent discriminatory assault, in either case we don’t get the opportunity to address what should be freely discussed, and which is also quite relevant.

John McCain’s age is a factor in this election, no less a point of discussion than Obama’s experience or his race. Age brings with it a set of potential positives that are often ignored or overlooked. The most notable is that capability we used to revere: wisdom. There can be other characteristics enhanced by age as well, such as; patience, connections, demanding respect, and compassion. Most people are more aware of the possible negatives since we (certainly those over 50 say) dread their inclusion in their own lives. Those might be memory loss, confusion, and disabling health, to name a few.

When John McCain decided to run for the Presidency at the age of 72 the nation had the opportunity to make a judgment as to his fitness for the job. Thus far he has shown himself to be up for the task and it does not appear that primary voters saw him unfit. It is ludicrous, however, to think that the ordinary limitation that we associate with age wouldn’t become evident during the race. We all need to look and come to our own conclusions, and the people, the media, the competition, or the McCain campaign itself can’t be afraid to reflect on it.

McCain himself took it one step further, however. Certainly for his opposition to suggest the disqualification of his bid for the White House based purely on age would be unethical and simply wrong. However, the age and physical condition of the candidate is absolutely fair game in the discussion of the Vice President. That’s what I wanted to hear Claire McCaskill say. When McCain chose a running mate with virtually no national or international experience he allowed his age to become topic one.

The government’s actuarial tables show the average life span of an American male age 72 is 12 years. What that means is one-half (50%) of all American men age 72 will be dead prior to their 84 birthday. If you run the numbers it means that McCain has about an 18% chance of dying during his first term in office. The percentage possibility of him ending his Presidency is greater if you add the chances of incapacity to the chances of death. Of course, this is a simple average and a wealthy, white male has better odds, but then a cancer survivor has worse odds. Besides, many have justifiably argued that an American President ages 3 years for every 1 year in office. Bottom line, without any of the variables, there is a 20% likelihood that if McCain were elected, Sarah Palin would end up running the Country and the Free World. If a 1 in 5 chance of that happening isn’t enough to scare the begeebees out of the electorate, then plan on seeing the best and the brightest start flooding the Canadian border.

Sure McCain will have his senior moments (take his recent failure to remember Spain’s Prime Minister), but face it, all of us over 50 do. The key to whether that disqualifies him as a candidate will be his ability to admit and minimize the negative value of those moments. His campaign’s response to the Spain flub, saying he meant what he said, is not the way to do it.

However, his first decision and fatal flub, the nomination of Sarah Palin, make his age reason enough not to elect McCain. That alone should garner him no more votes than Bush might get were he running for a third term. I hope the subject of McCain’s age come up and often, as the consequences of the choices politicians make need to be trucked out in the light of day.

The Palin Principal

2008-09-13T10:53:00.000-07:00

There is an understandable complaint from Democrats, and probably many independent voters, that the Palin obsession which has gripped both the media and ardent Republicans is a distraction of major proportions. It is a distraction of course, but the complaint from Democrats has as much to do with attention diverted from Barack Obama as it does with the suspension of discussing critical issues that currently face this nation. I would argue that the affect the Alaskan Governor has had on both campaigns is an issue unto itself, not a distraction, and maybe more important (in terms of our electoral process) than the debates that have and will take place over energy, healthcare, abortion, education, and several other important domestic issues.

Lost in all the rhetoric that surrounds Presidential campaigns is the fact that the President of the United States has limited power over many of the policies they emphatically suggest will occur once they are in office. Somewhere around middle school, each citizen should have successfully learned that the President has direct control over the State Department, the Military (National Defense), and the direct spending of resources allocated to the administrative branches of government (headed by the various cabinet secretaries), and also the power to nominate the members of the Judiciary for consideration by Congress. Beyond that the President only acts as a check against legislation, and also influences national opinion from, as Teddy Roosevelt coined, the “bully pulpit”. Therefore, on matters other than foreign policy, the Presidential campaign rhetoric is like witnessing a hen house full of roosters… plenty of clucking, but not much yoke.

Does that make “debate” worthless, or worse…deceptive? Not at all. Foremost is the fact that foreign policy is much more important than the average American believes or understands, and that debate needs to take place. The importance of foreign policy in this shrinking and dangerous world, which includes the Military, cannot be understated, but that does not relate to the affects of the Palin nomination. Leave it to say that if a series of plausible events took place leaving Sarah Palin as President of the United States, the detriment to our foreign policy would make George W. Bush look like Winston Churchill. Her semi-candid description of our relationship with Russia, for example, quickly throwing military action on the table left me to believe that she has no concept of “mutually assured destruction”, by which both our countries survived the 40 year Cold War. She is a small town mayor and short term governor in a state where her understanding of Russia is based, she says, on its physical proximity. Perhaps Alaska’s lack of proximity to the continental United States explains why she is challenged by US foreign policy. Bottom line is we shouldn’t be expecting anything more.

The Palin issue is not about foreign affairs or even her competency to take the highest office in the land; it’s about how today the collective psyche of this country decides how we choose our leaders. It is an issue of determining what governance over ourselves means. Sarah Palin is not the first, but I can’t recall when a candidate has exposed a certain national mindset of leadership approval so quickly, so clearly, and so completely. Therefore, I herewith forever dub it the Palin Principal (and wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if that or some similar phrase eventually finds its way into our lexicon).

In listening and observing the Palin Principal I have been struck by the fact that she not only usurped the attention Obama had successfully cultivated with the media, but she also blew past McCain in popularity almost immediately. In fact, to hear at one point on the road McCain’s address to the audience being drowned out (rather rudely) by chants of “Sarah…Sarah…Sarah”, was the motivation for me to write this article. She is clearly the first choice between the two candidates representing the Republican faithful.

Sarah Palin was virtually unknown nationally prior to September 18th for a reason. There was nothing this woman had accomplished in her life that elevated her to a level of national attention… period. So why then was she accepted by so many people as being a person for whom the mantel of leader of the Free World could rightfully reside? Why was she accepted by so many people…fully accepted, when they knew practically nothing about her, and were not particularly interested in learning more? That’s what the Palin Principal looks like, but what exactly is it?

Definition: Palin Principal – The immediate acceptance of an individual to political leadership based on a perceived emotional empathy by the constituents.

The idea that an individual could garnish a following by things as simple as gestures, appearance, swagger, emotional issues (abortion) and simple language (lipstick and pit bulls) is hardly new, quite the contrary it is ingrained in our anthropology. In the purest sense we often call such followings cults. But leadership derived from intangibles is not only common, it is also appropriate. Barack Obama would be hard pressed to make his case for leadership based solely on his historical background and one must consider his knowledge and skills for leadership. Still in most all cases there is a courtship, a growth period where a bond is developed and a rationale for leadership is merged with more basic emotions. That is true even when there is the commonality of religious beliefs or social activism. That is not, however, the Palin Principal. Why is it then that Sarah Palin was accepted quickly, so quickly in fact that within just a couple of days of her coming out the Republican base would have replace John McCain with her without (as Sarah puts it) blinking an eye?

I believe the Palin Principal is different than the ascendency of past political leaders because the reason for it did not exist in the past. The Palin Principal has been born of Information Technology and the new demographics, our new ability to use lightening fast communications to invite someone into the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and then, just as fast, reflect on the emotional reactions of a subset of those people. That subset may only be a fraction of the population, but when the original numbers are in the hundreds of millions that fraction can still represent a huge number.

In the case of Sarah Palin she was trucked out one day and by the second most all of us had seen her attractive demeanor, her folksy charm, fed the generalizations of her record (80% approval rate, etc), and (most importantly) listened to the unflinching and excited approval of a small group of people. However, the size of the crowd whooping it up is not perceived as small. For those whom an emotional identification with Palin could be made, those devotees being broadcast on TV and internet represented the millions of people with which they identified. The problem of course is there wasn’t millions of people, but because of rapid communications, within days or even hours that small group of people, like a nuclear reaction, mushroomed into a national following.

The day after the Sarah Palin gave her first speech the Friday before the Republican Convention, my 86 year old mother (a lifelong Republican) called me. She said with great animation in her voice, “I’m so excited. I wasn’t sure I was going to vote for McCain (she’d been mulling about it for weeks), but now that he’s picked Governor Palin I’m definitively going to vote for him”. I asked her what she knew and liked about Palin (note: I talk to my mother gingerly on political matters). She knew virtually nothing about Palin except that she sounded great, the cheering was wonderful, and how dreadful the Democrats were in claiming Palin’s Down syndrome child was really her daughter’s.

I’m not sure how much risk the Palin Principal represents to the American people. When something or someone like Sarah Palin is placed on a pedestal made of ice cream, it doesn’t take long for even modest heat to make a rather unsightly mess on the floor. Given her first interviews it’s very hard for me to imagine that she will retain any but the blindest of devotees. But it is not a principal for us to taken lightly. In a free democracy in this day in age, a given set of circumstances might elevate someone to control this nation and, quite literally, have the ability to alter the face of the planet. If the reasons that place an individual in a position of authority don’t have the time to self-correct through public awareness (or enlightenment), then Representative Democracy will have lost its way from the beginnings of the American experience, the ability to accurately reflect the will of people.

The Maverick

2008-09-10T18:45:00.000-07:00

It's All About Abortion

2008-09-04T07:44:00.000-07:00

The confounding choice of Sarah Palin to the Republican presidential ticket has created a firestorm of news, both critical and supportive for the VP nominee. It was speculated from the outset that part of the reason for her choice was to, in a sense, dominate the debate by dominating media attention. One might as well assume such since it has turned out to be so successful. After just 5 days one might wonder if Obama and Biden are on an extended vacation or for that matter if McCain is still with her on the ballot. During her announcement speech August 29th she referred to John McCain as “my running mate”, a title normally reserved for the VP slot, but no one appeared to notice or even question the reference. Perhaps that was telling. Certainly, in this brief window of the campaign, the question of who is going to be the next President seems to be rising and falling with swells caused by this little know political figure.

Is that the reason McCain made the pick? Of course not, despite the effective strategy. If not then, why was she chosen? Even Republican leaders at the Convention (amazingly) took no exception to the report that McCain had wanted Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, actually confirming the report. It was communicated in a public fashion that if one of those individuals was chosen there would be a floor fight during the Convention. So McCain succumbed. I heard one Republican leader say later during a radio interview, “(McCain) may have had his bones broken as a POW, but it didn’t affect his hearing”. So why did this “maverick” so quickly decide to run with herd? It’s simple...it’s all about abortion. As far Right as Palin is on other social issues; creationism, Christian orthodoxy, welfare, gun control, and healthcare for example, it is her strict, no exceptions stand on abortion that created the collective sigh of relief from the Republican base when she was picked for the VP spot.

What is it about this “issue” that engenders such divisiveness in our culture and which doesn’t have an equivalent anywhere else on earth? Barack Obama made only one reference to the abortion question during his acceptance speech and it was bi-partisan. He essentially said that the debate is not going to end and perhaps will never end, but at least there should be an effort by both sides to come together and commit to a common goal, that being to reduce the number of abortions. I believe John McCain would like to say the same thing, but he can’t.

I think the entire abortion debate is pretty much divided into 5 Groups; (1) those for whom the elimination of abortion is a showstopper, where there is no consideration of any other issue until that one has be accepted, (2) those who agree with the right to life philosophy, but accept that it is a social issue not shared by a great many people who are, on the whole, very nice people, (3) those who believe that women have both the God-given responsibility and burden to make decisions about what happens within their bodies, (4) those who think that the effort to pass laws which would restrict a woman’s right to choose is no more than the attempt to violate female civil rights, and (5) those who don’t give a flip, one way or the other.

Essentially all politicians fall in Groups 2 or 3 (with perhaps a smattering in Group 5 - the truth be known). In order for anyone to reach a position of governance they must address the priorities of the offices they seek and that forces them to look beyond the abortion debate once they’re elected. However, it’s the individuals in Groups 1 and 4 who drive the debate, and for the Republicans, spearheaded by evangelical Christians, the folks in Group 1 are currently holding sway. They have provided the springboard for other politicians, George Bush being the most recent major beneficiary, but nothing comes close to the power they wielded on the selection of Sarah Palin to (possibly) become the single human being in this country to lead us and the free world should her 72 to 76 year old, cancer surviving President become incapable of holding the office or die (check ordinary actuarial tables if you want to see how high the chances of that happening is. I doubt McCain could get life insurance – fortunate for him he doesn’t need it).

The reason that the extreme wing of the Republican Party forced this hand is because she is one of them. Where in their heart of hearts they know loyal politicians basically give them lip service (those in Group 2), with Palin they’re giddy when expressing that she’s the “real deal”. I think they’re right, that they now have on the national stage an authentic Group 1 politician. The fact that she is also a woman, a mother five times over, delivered a child she knew would be handicapped, talks of Jesus like he was the 4th branch of Government, and has a 17 year old daughter that neither embraces abortion, adoption, or (apparently) birth control is just icing on the cake.

The primary difficulty I see in this abortion debate is that the Group 1 folks have boxed themselves (literally and emotionally) into a corner from which they can’t emerge. They cannot separate their own personal belief from the controversy; that to live in a society that allows abortion is an unacceptable compromise to that belief. Ironically, their defiance to simply work for the common good (i.e. reduce abortions) radicalizes their position and assures that a significant subset of the population (probably a large majority) will never provide support. They feel, understandably, that this is a life and death position they defend which must be attained through legislation. They fail to see that the debate is really about decision making and, more amazingly, they fail to see that such decision making by the individual, choice itself, is totally consistent with Christian teachings.

The pro-choice people (Group 4) also often fail to understand and communicate that the burden of a life and death decision by a child-bearing woman was given by the same Power that created the woman in the first place, and not by the wise benevolence of a free society. As such they lose an ability to share the tragedy, dehumanizing their position. However, their position does allow them to look beyond the issue and place it in its proper context as it relates to governing a nation. Had they not and were forced to satisfy some some extreme wing of their party, we might be looking at the mayor of some other sheltered municipality of 7000 a heartbeat away from running this country of 300 million should Barack Obama become President. Once again, a collective sigh of relief.

Stop it John...You're Killing Me

2008-08-31T13:37:00.000-07:00

Is McCain playing with my head? I don't think so, but once again I am stunned by what I'm seeing in American national politics. The choice of Sarah Palin as the next VP seems to make the argument that if a politician does something stupid enough, people will give him (or her) the benefit of the doubt, even support, because the alternative of accepting that an individual risen to that level of national importance could do such a thing is so distasteful. After all, the current President Bush has turned that strategy into an art form.

Although I would like to express my wonderment and befuddlement over this extraordinary political choice by McCain, I will only address here the defense made by several individuals in the wake of this anointment, regarding Sarah Palin's lack of experience (which gives the word 'understatement' new meaning).

As with several (convention located) Republicans being interviewed this morning (the most outrageous being Lindsey Graham) the argument here is ‘why should her experience be questioned, just look at Obama’s’. Even though anyone staring down on this planet from space might look at the Palin nomination and think they were watching a Disney family movie, the imminently clear difference between Obama’s obvious limited experience and Palin’s is that Obama’s experience has been reviewed and judged by nearly 50 elections over the last 9 months in the most viewed and participated-in nominating contests in the history of this country. Sarah Palin, by comparison, achieved her position by winning an election (without a plurality – 48%) in a state with a population one-fourth the size of greater Cleveland, then was picked out of the blue, primarily by McCain’s advisers, and presented to the public on a plate – this is what’s on the menu, eat it or shut up.

That said, I am even more in awe of those defending the decision than the actual McCain’s team choice in the first place. But then I’m the guy, with a son in Iraq, who thought Bush would lose the 2004 election by a margin greater than Herbert Hoover lost his re-election. Is common sense officially dead in this country?

Healthcare...No Relief in Sight

2008-08-26T13:21:00.000-07:00

Jay Morehouse
August 26, 2008

There is a malevolent undertone that runs beneath the healthcare debate in America. The wickedness is found in the confusion and uncertainty that seems to be generated by the participants. It mirrors the confusion and uncertainty which is inherent in sickness and disease, the precise anxiety that healthcare should be neutralizing. To try to understand what is happening (and what has been happening during the transition to mass healthcare world wide) one needs to step back and consider the fundamentals of human behavior, and why that behavior has kept this country from making that transition efficiently and effectively.

The published and accepted fact is that the per capita medical expense in the United States greatly exceeds that of every other country in the world. The 2006 World Health Report showed per capita spending in the US at $5,711 annually. By comparison the next largest country was Germany at $3,204 (44% less), then France at $2,981, Japan at $2,662 and Canada at $2,669. Other emerging industrial nations such as Brazil ($212), South Korea ($705), and Mexico ($372) increase the contrast.

There is no debate that within the US health industry there is a huge transfer of resources taking place. Further, and perhaps more important, there is no understanding by the American people, and our leaders, of what the upper limits of those healthcare costs are. The simple reason is that within the gargantuan and shadowy nature of our healthcare system, nobody knows.

What do we know then? As already stated, we know we spend a lot on healthcare. Despite the arguments, we do not know that our system of healthcare is better than other relatively wealthy, educated nations. There are absolutely no studies that definitively show technological advances available today not being extensively used by other nations sociologically and economically on par with the US, nor is there any evidence that attention to healthcare, both treatment and prevention is any better or worse overall. What we hear is anecdotal information (or disinformation) which is used to support a point of view. Given the enormous size of the healthcare systems in any country, making use of any one person’s experience is meaningless. We need to throw away the magnifying glass and just stare at the beast with our eyes open.

So what is it about the American healthcare system that is “broken” as all players in the political debate have advocated. I suggest that ‘broken” is a convenient term for politicians to use because it infers that it was somehow unbroken at some point in the past (and they can be the one to put the shell back together again, provide they’re elected). Our healthcare system is not broken, nor has it fundamentally changed since the advent of modern medicine at the beginning of the 19th century. The better term to use is “old” or perhaps “outdated”. It is outdated because the unique American brand of independence, entrepreneurial spirit, and individual rights has clashed with the realities and dynamics of population growth and lightening fast communication. Not only did we need the system to gear up for the huge increase in patients, but the knowledge and understanding of medical treatment and its technological advances began to find its way to every segment of society setting new levels of expectations. As a result, the volume of business in the health field started a precipitous rise, and like all supply/demand equations, the costs began going up. What throws the demand side of the equation out of whack is that money to support it has been seemingly unlimited, but that leads to the question of why we so willingly and intentionally begin to pay for healthcare at any cost?

Countries that began regulated single payer or other similar systems effectively removed from the equation the one hallowed and revered behavior buried deep in our American capitalistic marrow, namely: profit. To most conservative thinkers, to question the concept of ‘profit’ is the equivalent of irreverent graffiti spray painted on the Statue of Liberty… you just don’t go there. Yet if we honestly step back and observe the Beast, the clear and obvious problem is that there is simply too much money in the system to be gained by too few.
Whenever there is that kind of uncheck transfer of wealth there are those who will view, not the opportunity to advance social gains, but to maximize their return on investment. For most businesses this is a fine process and more often than not the most efficient. But in most cases the supply/demand model will show a drop in demand as price goes up. That’s not the case with healthcare since the demand continues to be supported by both public (taxes) and (hard earned) private funds, and with huge amounts of debt, both the public and private.

Who benefits from the profit? Almost everybody on the deliver side of the service; medical corporations, pharmaceutical corporations, medical retail businesses, doctors and other medical professionals, medical advertisers, lawyers, medical supply and equipment companies, and the insurance companies are the ones that seem to stand up and salute first. The number of individuals is so large and so influential that the process of bringing real change to the system can seem almost as romantic as the change itself. Our politicians love to bash the corporations because it’s so easy to identify themselves as individuals (like you and me) trying to take the bull by the horns (good for votes). They only end up like flies in the field, annoying to the bull but nonetheless irrelevant. What kind of leader out there is going to take on the doctors and the lawyers? Nothing will happen without them in the formula. Who’s going to present the plan that cuts the profits of medical professionals or restricts the awards for tort lawyers? Who’s going to advocate taking the unlimited profit out of the System? I hear neither from McCain or Obama, quite the opposite. Neither of their proposals address the unchecked profits realized within the system; they only attempt to change the pattern to the flow of money so that fewer people (at least temporarily) will not fall through the cracks. It will, however, ultimately fail under its own unchecked weight.

McCain mind’s is as old as the aged system he refers to as ‘broken’. My hope is that once Obama is in office and the need for re-election is a minimum of 4 years away that a true change to an efficient universal healthcare system in the US may begin. He has suggested he represents a new leadership which is not shackled by special interests. We’ll see. Until then (if ever) we’ll just have to watch the transfer of wealth continue until the inevitable stress on the American public, that sees its assets evaporate, its future mortgaged, and no end in sight, finally fractures under the pressure.

Bless Those High Gas Prices...

2008-08-25T10:59:00.000-07:00

...And Keep Them Coming

By
Jay Morehouse,
July 3, 2008

A few days ago I was leaving Sam’s Club on a warm, sunny June afternoon. Next to my vehicle, an empty space between, was a beautiful, shiny green, full size GMC Yukon Denali, the kind that could tow your mother to Florida, including her condo. It caught my eye because the engine was running, although it was closed up and I saw no driver. The air conditioner was cycling on and off. Curious, I ambled up to it only to be startled by the rapid, high pitched yapping of a small dog (the kind missing its muzzle). I was amazed and looked about. The store was pretty far away and I saw no one around. Irritated I left the owner a note under the wiper suggesting that in the future they leave their dog home (and some other things that suggested they were the cause for the entire energy and economic crisis we now face). In fact, I wasn’t totally exaggerating.

How high does the cost of gasoline have to go before that little dog has to wing it alone at home? The underlying tragedy in our energy debacle is that we have operated under an economic model that free market supply and demand will determine price, and that price in turn will self-correct available energy resources and alternatives. The reality is that the dynamics at play for both supply and demand are so fixed and expansive, relatively, that it requires the issue be addressed with long term planning. No where is that more important than in the United States where the per capital use of fossil fuels exceeds the rest of the world stratospherically. Our government, which we fondly refer to as We the People, has failed us (or does that mean we failed ourselves?). Perhaps by incompetence, callus disregard, political expediency, or in bending to the will of those who benefit financially by short term gains (I’m leaning mostly on the last…because in the end money talks and too many listen) we are in trouble, regardless of the reasons. Of course, that wasn’t always the case.

In the oil embargos, and resulting gas shortages (and price increases) that took place between 1976 and 1980, the administration of Jimmy Carter took some pains to look at the big picture. The Carter presidency was rife with poor judgment, much like the George W. Bush Administration, but without the ignorance, arrogance, and self-dealing we’ve come to be in awe of with our current President. Despite its shortcomings, the Carter Administration arrived at two important conclusions which were actually correct. First, that cheap oil was finite, and second, that the only way to transition from oil to other energy alternatives was through the combination of conservation and the public financing of alternatives. The reason was as obvious then as it is now; the infrastructure of our oil based economy is far too rigid to be changed by ordinary forces of the free market if cheap oil suddenly stopped (or even slowed down). Conservation by definition requires sacrifice and as business leaders can tell you, especially those in the oil and auto industries, if given a choice between sacrifice and self-interest people will always choose the latter (or would they just be speaking for themselves?).

The poor judgment used by our government in the late 70’s was to argue their case through the use of fear. We the People were told that we needed to begin to act as a new collective to address the realities of energy (and also pollution) by changing the way we used resources - that was good. However, they chose to convey that message and gather support for legislation by taking the roll of Chicken Little. Oil and natural gas, we were told, were going to run out and we would soon be living in our big empty-tank cars, surrounded by garbage, if something wasn’t done right away…at least that’s what I remember hearing. It was all going to happen in a time frame to affect the WW2 generation and younger. This drumbeat was nicely amplified by record high gas prices (only just recently surpassed in constant dollars) and high inflation.

Carter’s administration was actually gaining some traction with a variety of legislation which began to move the nation toward a more efficient demand. Whether it was auto mileage (overall MPG improved more in those 4 years then they have in the following 28), auto usage (reducing speed limits), electrical usage, mass transit, fiscal policy (tax incentives and credits on alternative energy), or simple conservation (from the bully pulpit), the general public, fearful of a future that was one big blackout, accepted the changes grudgingly. But like the Emperor’s New Clothes, there was one little boy out there who was about to point out that Jimmy Carter was stark naked, his name was Ronald.

When Reagan took office in 1981 one of the first actions he took was to deregulate domestic oil pricing, which had been suppressing domestic production. He also had skillfully worked out, prior to his taking office, the release of the hostages in Iran, which took place the day after his inauguration, and instantly added new stability in the Middle East. With both these acts the Middle East oil cartel fractured and the supply of oil mushroomed as the speculative price of oil plummeted. It’s been Katie-bar-the-door ever since, to the point that even as late as 1998 gasoline could be found for less than $1 per gallon, making it cheaper, in constant dollars, than at any time since Henry Ford began to mass produce his Model T. Conservative Republicans, Reagan included, accepted the Carter axiom that cheap oil was finite (as does every relevant study since the mid 20th century). The argument has always been ‘when’ the wells would begin to dry up, and Reagan knew for sure it wouldn’t be happening on his watch.

The long term energy considerations and conservation efforts of the 70s virtually evaporated. Thousands of small businesses and initiatives in the alternative energy field became defunct or were viewed as laughable. The American auto industry began its assent to produce the biggest, heaviest, most profitable behemoths that have ever crushed pavement on the American highways, and the foreign auto makers eventually followed suit. There has been no coherent, long term energy policy pursued by any administration or either political party since the Carter years, despite continued political rhetoric about “energy independence”. And why should there be? Guided by the free market, the American people have not had any incentive in the last 28 years to address what everyone agrees is inevitable. Certainly the lobbied leaders in Washington were not incented either, or were they incented to the contrary?

George Bush said we were “addicted” to oil, and he should know, being a key supplier of the petroleum equivalent syringes, rubber hoses, and cooking spoons. As Obama and McCain campaign around the country, I have not heard from either even the slightest glimmer of energy reality, only the same old, tired energy rhetoric. Neither has spoken to the true realities of our “addiction”. I could expect it from the pragmatic McCain, but I was hoping for something more from Obama. It appears both aspire to the old adage; the first job of any politician is to get elected. Obama at least calls for increased mileage standards from automakers, yet hedges on the goals. Has either called for an immediate and enforced drop in speed limits which would virtually overnight reduce US oil consumption by tens of millions of barrels annually? If they don’t have the confidence to advocate the obviously simple, how can we feel confident that either can lead the nation to more substantive changes?

The current spike in oil and, therefore, gasoline is difficult to decipher. An economic trend that is disproportionate to its relevant influences (world demand for oil for example, although continually growing, has not doubled in the last 6 months) normally will correct. We saw that with the dot.com insanity of the late 90s, and again with real estate in the first half of this decade. In both cases the demand was out of proportion to the true value. In both cases it was fed by erroneous speculation. Could oil be the same or are we actually experiencing the beginning of the end of cheap oil? The Peak Oil theorists (and there are plenty of respected scientists in that camp) have been proclaiming for some time, like bearded prophets on street corners, that the end is near. Even if they’re wrong, we still know there will be an end and we really don’t know when that will start. What is it that will make the world, and especially the American people, sit up and take notice on the off chance it isn’t actually too late? Clearly our leaders will not take the lead.

Will it be the $4 a gallon gas prices we now experience, or will it take $5 or $8 a gallon? What will it take for that SUV owner to leave his peka-whatever in the doggie bed at home? I know if I were King, aside from proclamations regarding industrial re-tooling and restrictions on energy wasting behavior, I would sign into law that the price of gasoline could not fall below whatever the price was that made people sit up and take notice. If that price was $5 a gallon then there it would stay. If the cost dropped below that price then the profits would be taxed 100%, with that revenue going directly toward rewarding success in the production of alternative energy and conservation, and providing assistance through tax credits to those truly impaired by the cost. The expectation of decreasing demand would cause the underlying price to drop and the resulting input of billions into new industries would spur economic growth.

But I’m not King (thank goodness), nor are we in a Kingdom. We have a government Of the People, but unless the representatives of the people are willing to look beyond their own elections and the profits of their well endowed constituents, we may continue to air condition our dogs with 475 horsepower V-8 engines until the cool air runs out.