The most recent attempt by a terrorist to blow up a plane on its approach to Detroit airport is a good example of how our previous administration did its job in carrying out the law of the land. And, this is an area they claim great expertise in.
“9-11” caught us by surprise approximately 8 years ago, plus we had the failed “shoe bomb” attempt. As a result of these events and threats from our enemies, our Department of Homeland Security was created. It has spent billions of dollars ostensibly to protect us from such efforts. They claim some successes; but, one of the main points of emphasis coming from “9-11” was the lack of communication among agencies protecting our security. A process was supposedly put in place to insure this communication of data and to insure proper profiling of those boarding planes on international and domestic flights.
I would think it is fair to assume that the new administration coming to Washington less than a year ago would operate under the assurance that this process was in place. Well, we found out that it isn’t and we dodged a major catastrophe only because of the failure of the terrorist to activate the bomb correctly along with the courageous, quick action by private citizens and crew on the airline stopping it.
President Obama has admirably been honest about the government’s failure to prevent this and is ordering a review of the process to get it right. So, suddenly we have yet another major issue laid on this President’s plate where he has to correct and/or reconfigure a process that should have been developed and in place over the last several years. Too much of his “full plate” is correcting “screw-ups” from the previous administration.
Apparently, when Republicans say that government is ineffective and unmanageable, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy when it comes to their ability to administer the law. On the other hand, this Democratic Administration has come to work with a positive, “Yes we can,” attitude of how government can work within our culture on behalf of the people and have a positive impact on improving this great nation. Hopefully, people will be reasonably patient, although not always in full agreement, with encouraging this administration to accomplish its growing “to do list.”
Terrorist acts against the U.S. are going to be a fact of life for many years to come. Actually, I’m surprised that our enemies have been so focused on the airline industry. I would think that they would have broadened their horizons by this time and I fully expect them to in the future. Our failed “cowboy/tough guy” foreign policy has encouraged and actually fostered a growing, more mobile, and dedicated jihad force in the world which from their point of view has a lot of “pay back” to heap on us.
In the short run, we will have to be creative, dedicated, wary, and yes militarily decisive, in a limited way I hope, to protect ourselves here and abroad. But, in the long run, we need a gradual change in our policies where we will be perceived as strong in a defensive way unless we are threatened or attacked; respectful of other nations sovereignty letting they and their people work through their own problems; and strive to set an example to the rest of the world of how a great democratic/republican nation can put their own house in order as well as provide limited assistance where needed in the world. Leading by example is always preferable to “do as I say, not as I do.”
I hope that this present failed attack will not result in an over reaction leading to unreasonable, outlandishly expensive, and/or restrictive practices in our airport security process. We already have to take our shoes off, I hope we don’t have to take off our underwear and/or be subjected to indecorous full body screens every time we get on an airplane.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Congressional Mess with Health Care Bills
To begin with, I clearly want to state that I fall into that category of feeling we need a universal health care program. Our present system is too expensive, inadequate, and unjust for an ever increasing number of people. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment suppliers, and large corporate hospital organizations are taking unfair advantage of their favorable positions at the expense of the American people. The self-regulating, free market system, so revered in this country, is a failure in health care. The only entity with enough power to make it equitable in coverage and cost is the federal government.
The two bills – one from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate – are so different in content that I find it almost unimaginable that they can be successfully blended into one in a conference committee. But, we are about to see it happen and the result should be fascinating. But, whether the bill gets enacted into law is certainly not a foregone conclusion.
Polls clearly indicate that the majority of the people have moved from overwhelmingly supporting a universal health care program a few months ago to opposing these bills. This is a real conundrum for me. I suspect there are a variety of reasons:
1. Some have succumbed to the litany of false claims and fear mongering that opponents have exposed them to – like death panels, issue of public support of abortion, claims of exorbitant costs, suggestions that there will be reduction in benefits for Medicare, etc. All it takes for some is hitting one “hot button” they feel strongly about, whether it is accurate or not, and they make a 180 degree turn.
2. Some have bought into the idea that these changes need to be made in a “slow, deliberate, careful” manner, one at a time. In the meantime, what happens with the 40+ million people with no coverage, the “cherry picking” coverage practiced by the insurance companies, and the exorbitant increases in cost of medical care? It appears that some people haven’t thought through how all these things are related to one another and that the one problem at a time approach makes no sense at all.
3. Some in our society have the attitude that if they have adequate coverage for themselves today, they don’t need to concern themselves with those that don’t – pretty self-serving and shortsighted in my opinion.
4. Some are opposed because this national system would result in federal government involvement and/or fairly high level of government control. These are the ones who don’t think the government can do anything right and the free market, private ownership, capitalistic system can do everything better even though history has clearly demonstrated that this naïve theory is out-dated and inaccurate and will eventually lead us into a plutocracy.
5. On the other hand, I assume that some people are upset that the bills fall short of a true “single payer” universal health care system and may end up not even including a public option feature where competition would keep costs more equitable. I share in this remorse; but, I don’t want to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
6. Some have chosen to ignore that the present bills have many provisions that would solve many of our health care problems:
(1) Will cover 30 million people now without insurance plus those with
inadequate coverage.
(2) Will curtail practice of denial of health care coverage because of pre-existing
condition.
(3) Will make health care more portable from job-to-job and/or state-to-state.
(4) Will provide small businesses, families, and individuals the chance to buy
health care at reasonable costs.
(5) If the money crunchers are right, it will be deficit neutral over the next 10 yrs.
Plus, many other provisions that will improve health care coverage.
7. Some have bought into the claim by the opposition party that they have been left out of the system (not true) and that they have a much better plan to solve these problems. The truth of the matter is that their plan is a figment of their imagination. They don’t have one that anyone has seen or read, they just keep making the claim.
8. The most recent criticism results from the realization on the part of the American public of just how messy this legislative process is. It’s like many are aware of this for the first time and are outraged. It has been this way for years under both Democratic and Republican Congresses – it’s not new. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are simply operating within the system that exists, not one they created and yes, it is a “deal making,” complicated, “stupid rule” dominated system. Votes are bought and sold, special interest and lobbyist activities have disproportionate influence, and partisan politics reign. The mentality is, let’s do all we can to make the other side fail and look bad so we can win the next election and gain power.
It is a shame and it is our collective fault – we keep electing them. Whether we get some kind of universal health care program or not out of this mess, I would like to see the 2010 election be one of the most important in history. I’d like to see the American electorate vote out of office almost every U.S. Representative with 3 terms or more in office (6 years) and almost every U.S. Senator with 2 terms or more in office (12 years). Instead of concentrating on unseating the relatively new Congressmen, we need to eliminate the ones who have created/or perpetuated the present process that make legislation so ugly. And, make it a clear mandate that they are to go to Washington to make significant changes in the legislative process. If we do this over the next 3 election cycles, we have a chance of seeing the legislative branch of government establish its rightful place as an honored institution representative of the people.
The two bills – one from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate – are so different in content that I find it almost unimaginable that they can be successfully blended into one in a conference committee. But, we are about to see it happen and the result should be fascinating. But, whether the bill gets enacted into law is certainly not a foregone conclusion.
Polls clearly indicate that the majority of the people have moved from overwhelmingly supporting a universal health care program a few months ago to opposing these bills. This is a real conundrum for me. I suspect there are a variety of reasons:
1. Some have succumbed to the litany of false claims and fear mongering that opponents have exposed them to – like death panels, issue of public support of abortion, claims of exorbitant costs, suggestions that there will be reduction in benefits for Medicare, etc. All it takes for some is hitting one “hot button” they feel strongly about, whether it is accurate or not, and they make a 180 degree turn.
2. Some have bought into the idea that these changes need to be made in a “slow, deliberate, careful” manner, one at a time. In the meantime, what happens with the 40+ million people with no coverage, the “cherry picking” coverage practiced by the insurance companies, and the exorbitant increases in cost of medical care? It appears that some people haven’t thought through how all these things are related to one another and that the one problem at a time approach makes no sense at all.
3. Some in our society have the attitude that if they have adequate coverage for themselves today, they don’t need to concern themselves with those that don’t – pretty self-serving and shortsighted in my opinion.
4. Some are opposed because this national system would result in federal government involvement and/or fairly high level of government control. These are the ones who don’t think the government can do anything right and the free market, private ownership, capitalistic system can do everything better even though history has clearly demonstrated that this naïve theory is out-dated and inaccurate and will eventually lead us into a plutocracy.
5. On the other hand, I assume that some people are upset that the bills fall short of a true “single payer” universal health care system and may end up not even including a public option feature where competition would keep costs more equitable. I share in this remorse; but, I don’t want to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
6. Some have chosen to ignore that the present bills have many provisions that would solve many of our health care problems:
(1) Will cover 30 million people now without insurance plus those with
inadequate coverage.
(2) Will curtail practice of denial of health care coverage because of pre-existing
condition.
(3) Will make health care more portable from job-to-job and/or state-to-state.
(4) Will provide small businesses, families, and individuals the chance to buy
health care at reasonable costs.
(5) If the money crunchers are right, it will be deficit neutral over the next 10 yrs.
Plus, many other provisions that will improve health care coverage.
7. Some have bought into the claim by the opposition party that they have been left out of the system (not true) and that they have a much better plan to solve these problems. The truth of the matter is that their plan is a figment of their imagination. They don’t have one that anyone has seen or read, they just keep making the claim.
8. The most recent criticism results from the realization on the part of the American public of just how messy this legislative process is. It’s like many are aware of this for the first time and are outraged. It has been this way for years under both Democratic and Republican Congresses – it’s not new. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are simply operating within the system that exists, not one they created and yes, it is a “deal making,” complicated, “stupid rule” dominated system. Votes are bought and sold, special interest and lobbyist activities have disproportionate influence, and partisan politics reign. The mentality is, let’s do all we can to make the other side fail and look bad so we can win the next election and gain power.
It is a shame and it is our collective fault – we keep electing them. Whether we get some kind of universal health care program or not out of this mess, I would like to see the 2010 election be one of the most important in history. I’d like to see the American electorate vote out of office almost every U.S. Representative with 3 terms or more in office (6 years) and almost every U.S. Senator with 2 terms or more in office (12 years). Instead of concentrating on unseating the relatively new Congressmen, we need to eliminate the ones who have created/or perpetuated the present process that make legislation so ugly. And, make it a clear mandate that they are to go to Washington to make significant changes in the legislative process. If we do this over the next 3 election cycles, we have a chance of seeing the legislative branch of government establish its rightful place as an honored institution representative of the people.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
A War Tax
I’ve always believed that to determine what our politicians think is truly important is to look at what they appropriate money for. But, after observing our political process over many years and watching our national debt grow and grow, I’ve narrowed this even more. To determine what our politicians think is overwhelmingly important is what they are willing to increase taxes to pay for. With the debt load we’ve acquired over the last 9 years, this question has now become paramount in any discussion of public policy. There are undoubtedly government programs that can be and should be cut and/or eliminated, but I don’t think there are enough to cover the increasing debt load. We are going to have to increase taxes for many years to begin paying down this debt.
One place it seems obvious to me is in paying for the wars and/or troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan by imposing a war tax. After all, isn't national security the number one role of government? Those who support our continued and expanded war effort should be willing, without hesitation, and with enthusiasm to step up by insisting that we impose a tax surcharge to pay for the wars. Not just for the “surge” in Afghanistan, but for the whole war effort. It should be used to pay for the day-to-day operation, for veterans benefits, and if and when these wars and deployments end, it should continue to be paid until we have rebuilt our military to “appropriate” levels.
That this suggestion being made by a few Congressmen should be so easily dismissed as unrealistic is both a disappointment and a puzzle to me. I know that there are some Congressmen who’ve based their “successful” careers on reducing and/or advocating no new taxes. This is no longer germane. I think a war tax should be viewed as “put your money where your mouth is” situation.
It should be an easy tax to impose. It would require that each of us figure our taxes each year and then add onto this tax bill a progressive surcharge for the war efforts. And, it should be combined with the elimination of the tax brakes unwisely enacted by the Bush Administration in 2001 which is coming up for review soon. One simple wrinkle I would add is that any person or any family with a spouse serving in the U.S. military in a combat zone be exempt from the surcharge.
Would it hurt financially? Yes it would! Would it be devastating to our economy? I don’t think so! But, I would hazard a guess that our involvement in these wars would suddenly be viewed differently than they are now, both by our elected public officials and the general public.
If you want to find out what people really think about these wars, make them a “pay-as-we-go” process. We’ve conducted these wars in an attitude of limited personal impact except for those people who have family members actually serving in the armed forces. With some wars in the past there has been a “war effort” with high progressive tax rates, victory gardens, war bond sales, rationing of certain consumer goods, etc. With our present wars, there has just been debt piled on debt while most of us have gone about our lives without much personal impact.
If the “war on terror” is a reality which can bring this country down, the least we can do is get serious about making it a true “war effort” where we are all expected to sacrifice, at least financially, to bring it to a successful conclusion. Plus, if this were to become a standard policy in any potential war effort, I think some tough questions would be raised regarding whether it is a wise move like: what is the justification for the war; what vital interests are at stake; what is the extent of our troop involvement; what casualties can we expect; how much fire power will be brought to bear; what is the military strategy; what is our enemy’s resolve in fighting this war and will it warp into an insurgency; how much destruction including collateral civilian casualties will be visited on our enemies; how much real support can we expect from our allies; what effect will it have on the world’s view of our action; will it destabilize a region or the world; what support will our enemies get from other nations and what is the nature of that support; how much will it cost; how long is it expected to last; is nation building a part of the conflict; what is the end strategy going to be; are there popular, just, and respected leaders we can turn the country over to when we leave; along with other pertinent questions we still haven’t answered with these present conflicts 9 years later. If we would ask and could answer these questions, maybe we would learn to quit going to war “by the seat of our pants.”
One place it seems obvious to me is in paying for the wars and/or troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan by imposing a war tax. After all, isn't national security the number one role of government? Those who support our continued and expanded war effort should be willing, without hesitation, and with enthusiasm to step up by insisting that we impose a tax surcharge to pay for the wars. Not just for the “surge” in Afghanistan, but for the whole war effort. It should be used to pay for the day-to-day operation, for veterans benefits, and if and when these wars and deployments end, it should continue to be paid until we have rebuilt our military to “appropriate” levels.
That this suggestion being made by a few Congressmen should be so easily dismissed as unrealistic is both a disappointment and a puzzle to me. I know that there are some Congressmen who’ve based their “successful” careers on reducing and/or advocating no new taxes. This is no longer germane. I think a war tax should be viewed as “put your money where your mouth is” situation.
It should be an easy tax to impose. It would require that each of us figure our taxes each year and then add onto this tax bill a progressive surcharge for the war efforts. And, it should be combined with the elimination of the tax brakes unwisely enacted by the Bush Administration in 2001 which is coming up for review soon. One simple wrinkle I would add is that any person or any family with a spouse serving in the U.S. military in a combat zone be exempt from the surcharge.
Would it hurt financially? Yes it would! Would it be devastating to our economy? I don’t think so! But, I would hazard a guess that our involvement in these wars would suddenly be viewed differently than they are now, both by our elected public officials and the general public.
If you want to find out what people really think about these wars, make them a “pay-as-we-go” process. We’ve conducted these wars in an attitude of limited personal impact except for those people who have family members actually serving in the armed forces. With some wars in the past there has been a “war effort” with high progressive tax rates, victory gardens, war bond sales, rationing of certain consumer goods, etc. With our present wars, there has just been debt piled on debt while most of us have gone about our lives without much personal impact.
If the “war on terror” is a reality which can bring this country down, the least we can do is get serious about making it a true “war effort” where we are all expected to sacrifice, at least financially, to bring it to a successful conclusion. Plus, if this were to become a standard policy in any potential war effort, I think some tough questions would be raised regarding whether it is a wise move like: what is the justification for the war; what vital interests are at stake; what is the extent of our troop involvement; what casualties can we expect; how much fire power will be brought to bear; what is the military strategy; what is our enemy’s resolve in fighting this war and will it warp into an insurgency; how much destruction including collateral civilian casualties will be visited on our enemies; how much real support can we expect from our allies; what effect will it have on the world’s view of our action; will it destabilize a region or the world; what support will our enemies get from other nations and what is the nature of that support; how much will it cost; how long is it expected to last; is nation building a part of the conflict; what is the end strategy going to be; are there popular, just, and respected leaders we can turn the country over to when we leave; along with other pertinent questions we still haven’t answered with these present conflicts 9 years later. If we would ask and could answer these questions, maybe we would learn to quit going to war “by the seat of our pants.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
