We have a serious problem with integrity of American business and industry and it seems to be growing almost exponentially. This is a tough issue to discuss publicly, because any criticism is easily construed by those in the business world as using “too broad a brush” of criticism; and, in large measure they are probably right. I would like to think that most businesses and industries operating in this country are honest, honorable, and have the best interest of their customers at heart. But, there is a growing body of examples where this is not the case. And, some of these examples of failures like our financial industry (Wall Street), energy industry (including off shore drilling), military/industrial complex, auto manufacturers, food processors, etc., are huge and the lack of integrity has had serious negative ramifications on our country’s economy, ecology, reputation, and safety.
This is important because it strikes at the heart of our preferred economic system – the free-market/capitalistic system. Most people understand the underlying driving motive in this system – the need to make a profit. The system works best if it is unencumbered by government limitations and regulation. The ideal situation is where competition amongst those in a business serves as a self-regulating process resulting in good products, good service, growth for those doing it best, and good paying jobs for their workers. And yes, for those who are willing to work hard, have the courage to take the risk, have the ability to properly manage their business, have the intelligence and skills to innovate, the end result is accumulation of wealth. This is how it is supposed to work and we hear a constant litany from supporters of this system championing this theory.
The problem is that there is more and more evidence that the system too often works correctly only in these supporter’s imagination. It sounds so good; claims are made that it is what made this country great, and in their view any criticism of the system is un-American. Too often, any attempt to reign in the capitalistic system to make it safer, more honest, and just is branded as socialistic, communistic, fascist, or whatever terminology that has a strong negative connotation.
But, it seems we wake up everyday with another crisis resulting from abuse of the free-market/capitalistic system. And, when we delve into the reason for these crises, we find that they are the result of greed, illegal activities, unethical practices, shoddy management, abuse of financial and political clout, lack of competition, desire to maintain a small group’s status quo, etc.
We’ve faced very similar crises historically and we’ve worked our way through them. The early industrial revolution in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was one period when abuses were legendary. Situations where “Robber Barons” controlled whole industries vertically – steel, railroads, and oil are examples. It was rife with abuses like child labor, unsafe working conditions, de-facto slavery of workers, vulgar accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, control over the political processes (whole state legislatures and many U.S. Congressmen were “bought”), poor and unsafe products, and lack of competition. Two factors saved us. One was that the industrial revolution was in its infancy so that innovation overcame the status quo so quickly that we constantly stayed ahead of the game. The second factor was that the national government courageously stepped in and at least tempered the abuses.
We had a second period, the Great Depression of the 1930’s, where the capitalistic system failed us again. But once again, circumstances shined on us. We had government leaders with the courage to correct abuses, we had enough people with soundly based integrity and can do attitudes, innovation once again played a big role, and a tragic but justifiable war effort (WW II) gave us a unified sense of purpose to pull us together.
I don’t have the final answer of what it will take today to save some of the major tenets of a free-market/capitalistic system. One thing for certain is that it will require government involvement. This, regardless of what some claim to the contrary, is a must. The national government is the only one with the political and economic clout to take on the abuses that are inherit in the capitalistic system. In today’s society, government is not capitalism’s enemy, it is capitalism’s savior from itself. The government is after all our collective selves. The tricky thing is that it will be a narrow line to walk to use the government’s power to save the free-market/capitalistic system. Government can get too expensive and too powerful and stifle the free-market system – we need to guard against this. But, if government is too small, too weak, ineffective, or preempted by big business and industry, it can become a tool of the privileged promoting their interests at the expense of the people, resulting in a plutocracy – government by the wealthy.
History has proven that a democratic/republican system of government and a long term healthy economy can only survive if there is a strong middle class economically. Statistics clearly indicate that we are sliding away from this and part of the reason for this is that an inadequately controlled free-market/capitalistic system combined with a weak or special interest controlled national government are not serving our interests very well. They have the resources to sell their story and the American people had best be prepared to protect their own interests by insisting on a just and balanced system. And, who we vote into office will in large measure determine the result.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The Issue of Constitutionality
An issue that has recently been rolling off people’s tongues in connection with a whole host of government initiatives is the question of constitutionality. Some actions are clearly unconstitutional and are enacted because of ignorance or “in your face” attitudes. Other actions are too close to call and will eventually be decided by our court system. Whereas, others are clearly constitutional; but, in order to gain partisan talking points and/or to fan the flames of criticism, constitutionality is questioned. In my opinion, these claims often stem from lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
There are two distinct time periods leading to the creation of the U.S. Constitution. The first is the revolutionary period beginning in the middle of the 1770’s with the “real tea partiers”, complaints of “taxation without representation”, slogans like “don’t tread on me”, and the insistence on powers being given to the states - this led to the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence. With the successful establishment of our own nation, our Founding Fathers moved into the second period where they created their own governments. This group of men had extensive experience in writing documents creating governments. Some had been involved in writing colonial governments. After the Revolutionary War, they wrote new state constitutions (in some cases more than one); plus, our first national government – The Articles of Confederation. It failed because it was too weak and gave too much power to the States.
Finally, in 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held where our forefathers designed maybe the best system that could be achieved at that moment in time – the U.S. Constitution. They had matured over the proceeding 10 + years and this time crafted a document that created a strong national government which many of the revolutionaries of their day opposed. In these Founding Father’s discussions and correspondence, they made it clear that this document was intended for their time and place in history. They undoubtedly would be surprised and maybe aghast that we still have the same constitution in place 223 years later. Most would not be comfortable with a common claim today that it was divinely inspired – it wasn’t.
In fact, we sometimes lose sight that this highly regarded document was a long way from perfect:
It didn’t include a Bill of Rights – this was added as the first 10 amendments soon after
ratification. They had to rewrite the way the President and VP were elected in 1804. Slavery was allowed until 1865. It wasn’t until 1868 that states were denied the power to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” People were denied the right to vote because of race, color, and previous condition of servitude until 1870. Income taxes were not allowed until 1913. The people couldn’t vote directly for U.S. Senators until 1913. Then, we had the liquor debacle that was on in 1919 and off in 1933. Women were finally allowed to vote in 1920. People living in Washington DC weren’t allowed to vote for President and VP until 1961. The poll tax was used to restrict voting for President, VP, and Congressmen until 1964. We finally clarified the sticky issue of Presidential succession in event of disability, death, and/or resignation in 1967. Citizens 18 years of age were finally allowed to vote in 1971. And, in 1992,
increased compensation for services of Senators and Representatives could not take affect until after an election.
The above represent amendments added to correct problems with the U.S. Constitution. This is a very difficult process. If we were limited to this for every change in our government, the U.S. Constitution would be unwieldy. Therefore, right from the beginning with our first Congress, first President, and first Supreme Court, changes were accomplished through legislation, executive action, and court decisions. Quite frankly, this is what our Founding Fathers intended and why the Constitution is so short and concise. They expected the government to be modified to meet the special needs of changing times. The U.S. Constitution is a living, evolving, changing document and has always been that way.
Whenever I hear someone suggesting that this or that can’t be done because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t speak to that issue, it immediately raises a “red flag.” Within reason, our government is what we want it to be. That is what a democratic/republican system is all about. Basic principles like civil rights and check and balance system are important and must be maintained. But, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution on purpose does not promote any religious theology; does not promote any economic ideology; does not even mention political parties; and by design, national law preempts state and local law. It is purposely vague on the details on how our government runs its day-to-day operations. It is up to us and our elected officials to fill in all the details.
When constitutionality is questioned, I would suggest that we listen critically. There is an unhealthy tendency for some in our society to “brew” up a mix that includes opposition to taxation of any kind, endorsement of the unrestricted free-market/capitalistic system, the need for us to “reestablish our roots” in the Christian religion, a demand for smaller and weaker national government, and an insistence on the view that state and local government should take a leading role in governing our great nation. When it is suggested that the U.S. Constitution supports this conservative “brew”, it is simply inaccurate spin that was not the intention of our Founding Fathers nor should it be used this way today.
There are two distinct time periods leading to the creation of the U.S. Constitution. The first is the revolutionary period beginning in the middle of the 1770’s with the “real tea partiers”, complaints of “taxation without representation”, slogans like “don’t tread on me”, and the insistence on powers being given to the states - this led to the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence. With the successful establishment of our own nation, our Founding Fathers moved into the second period where they created their own governments. This group of men had extensive experience in writing documents creating governments. Some had been involved in writing colonial governments. After the Revolutionary War, they wrote new state constitutions (in some cases more than one); plus, our first national government – The Articles of Confederation. It failed because it was too weak and gave too much power to the States.
Finally, in 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held where our forefathers designed maybe the best system that could be achieved at that moment in time – the U.S. Constitution. They had matured over the proceeding 10 + years and this time crafted a document that created a strong national government which many of the revolutionaries of their day opposed. In these Founding Father’s discussions and correspondence, they made it clear that this document was intended for their time and place in history. They undoubtedly would be surprised and maybe aghast that we still have the same constitution in place 223 years later. Most would not be comfortable with a common claim today that it was divinely inspired – it wasn’t.
In fact, we sometimes lose sight that this highly regarded document was a long way from perfect:
It didn’t include a Bill of Rights – this was added as the first 10 amendments soon after
ratification. They had to rewrite the way the President and VP were elected in 1804. Slavery was allowed until 1865. It wasn’t until 1868 that states were denied the power to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” People were denied the right to vote because of race, color, and previous condition of servitude until 1870. Income taxes were not allowed until 1913. The people couldn’t vote directly for U.S. Senators until 1913. Then, we had the liquor debacle that was on in 1919 and off in 1933. Women were finally allowed to vote in 1920. People living in Washington DC weren’t allowed to vote for President and VP until 1961. The poll tax was used to restrict voting for President, VP, and Congressmen until 1964. We finally clarified the sticky issue of Presidential succession in event of disability, death, and/or resignation in 1967. Citizens 18 years of age were finally allowed to vote in 1971. And, in 1992,
increased compensation for services of Senators and Representatives could not take affect until after an election.
The above represent amendments added to correct problems with the U.S. Constitution. This is a very difficult process. If we were limited to this for every change in our government, the U.S. Constitution would be unwieldy. Therefore, right from the beginning with our first Congress, first President, and first Supreme Court, changes were accomplished through legislation, executive action, and court decisions. Quite frankly, this is what our Founding Fathers intended and why the Constitution is so short and concise. They expected the government to be modified to meet the special needs of changing times. The U.S. Constitution is a living, evolving, changing document and has always been that way.
Whenever I hear someone suggesting that this or that can’t be done because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t speak to that issue, it immediately raises a “red flag.” Within reason, our government is what we want it to be. That is what a democratic/republican system is all about. Basic principles like civil rights and check and balance system are important and must be maintained. But, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution on purpose does not promote any religious theology; does not promote any economic ideology; does not even mention political parties; and by design, national law preempts state and local law. It is purposely vague on the details on how our government runs its day-to-day operations. It is up to us and our elected officials to fill in all the details.
When constitutionality is questioned, I would suggest that we listen critically. There is an unhealthy tendency for some in our society to “brew” up a mix that includes opposition to taxation of any kind, endorsement of the unrestricted free-market/capitalistic system, the need for us to “reestablish our roots” in the Christian religion, a demand for smaller and weaker national government, and an insistence on the view that state and local government should take a leading role in governing our great nation. When it is suggested that the U.S. Constitution supports this conservative “brew”, it is simply inaccurate spin that was not the intention of our Founding Fathers nor should it be used this way today.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Response to the Positive Power of saying "No"
I enjoy reading, “Just One Guy’s Opinion” column if for no other reason than it stirs my blood. Now and then though, a comment is required. In the column, “The Positive Power of saying ‘No’,” there are some assumptions I disagree with.
First, the claim that Democrats have an overwhelming majority in Congress is just not accurate. Why are we constantly counting to 60 votes? It is because, in what is supposed to be a democracy where majority rules (51 votes in U.S. Senate), Senate Rules have come to require 60 votes these days. Republican’s have used a Cloture Rule to block some 70% of all legislation proposed by the Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress when it was intended and in the past used only sparingly for only a few major issues. Democrats do not have a 60% majority – there are 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, and a new Republican Senator from Mass. who interestingly enough has now been branded a “RINO” because he had the audacity to vote for a modest unemployment bill offered by the Democrats. If the Democrat Party had an overwhelming majority in the Senate, health care reform, with a public option, would be done. It may still happen if the Democrats choose to use another Senate rule – Reconciliation.
Add to the above the “solid Republican” vote of “no” where they all vote like “puppets on a string” as they are instructed to by Republican leadership. The Democrat Party is made up of a wide variety of people some of whom are liberal, some moderate, and the conservative group referred to as the “Blue Dogs.” They have a habit of thinking for themselves and their constituents, and this is a good thing. Congressmen should be voting for first what is good for the whole country and secondly what is good for their immediate constituents. The idea behind a republican form of government is that we select outstanding individuals to go to Washington DC to use their own intellect, knowledge, and experience to make these determinations of what is best. Such an attitude should result in bipartisanship. We don’t have that, and we should be sending those unwilling to do so “packing.”
Then there is the claim that the majority of the people are opposed to the universal health care reform. I think a fairer statement is that they are opposed to the present health reform bills. While many, including myself, are not thrilled by the present bills, I think it is accurate to suggest that a majority of the people are supportive of a universal health care system that offers reasonable costs, good coverage, etc. to correct our present failed system.
Then, Mr. Mason’s assertion that we can compare saying “no” to prevent one from stepping in front of a bus, or a women saying “no” to unwanted sexual advances, or saying “no” to drugs, as being equivalent to saying “no” to programs like health care reform is ludicrous. Let’s get real! The government is involved in almost everything in this country, it is not our enemy! Our great country would not be the envy of the world today without government involvement.
That’s not to say the government is always right. Even the original U.S. Constitution our Founding Fathers crafted wasn’t perfect. It approved slavery, did not include a Bill of Rights, didn’t clearly state the need for due process of law to protect the people from being deprived of life, liberty, and property, didn’t provide for an income tax, didn’t allow women the right to vote, allowed for a poll tax, designed an incomplete process to elect a President and VP, and didn’t provide for succession of a President who is incapacitated or dies in office. These things were all corrected by amendments; plus, much more was changed, deleted, and added to through legislation, court decisions, and executive action down through our history and that is exactly what our liberal Founding Fathers intended. Each generation was expected to modify our government to meet the special needs of their times. It is interesting to note, the biggest argument against ratification of the U.S. Constitution was that it expanded the power of the national government way beyond our first constitution – The Articles of Confederation.
This argument about the role of government has gone on for a long time. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is clear:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America.”
We need to do just as it says. I suggest that providing universal health care in our generation constitutes establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and promoting the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
We don’t need to start over with health care legislation. In my view, we need to clean up the present bill(s) in Congress by taking out the superfluous, “deal making” for votes provisions, insert at least a public option, and put it up for a vote – let the chips fall where they may. Despite criticism to the contrary, universal health care reform can be structured to be a “pay as we go” system with no deficit spending or increase to the national debt, just a fair system at reduced cost that gives excellent health care coverage.
First, the claim that Democrats have an overwhelming majority in Congress is just not accurate. Why are we constantly counting to 60 votes? It is because, in what is supposed to be a democracy where majority rules (51 votes in U.S. Senate), Senate Rules have come to require 60 votes these days. Republican’s have used a Cloture Rule to block some 70% of all legislation proposed by the Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress when it was intended and in the past used only sparingly for only a few major issues. Democrats do not have a 60% majority – there are 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, and a new Republican Senator from Mass. who interestingly enough has now been branded a “RINO” because he had the audacity to vote for a modest unemployment bill offered by the Democrats. If the Democrat Party had an overwhelming majority in the Senate, health care reform, with a public option, would be done. It may still happen if the Democrats choose to use another Senate rule – Reconciliation.
Add to the above the “solid Republican” vote of “no” where they all vote like “puppets on a string” as they are instructed to by Republican leadership. The Democrat Party is made up of a wide variety of people some of whom are liberal, some moderate, and the conservative group referred to as the “Blue Dogs.” They have a habit of thinking for themselves and their constituents, and this is a good thing. Congressmen should be voting for first what is good for the whole country and secondly what is good for their immediate constituents. The idea behind a republican form of government is that we select outstanding individuals to go to Washington DC to use their own intellect, knowledge, and experience to make these determinations of what is best. Such an attitude should result in bipartisanship. We don’t have that, and we should be sending those unwilling to do so “packing.”
Then there is the claim that the majority of the people are opposed to the universal health care reform. I think a fairer statement is that they are opposed to the present health reform bills. While many, including myself, are not thrilled by the present bills, I think it is accurate to suggest that a majority of the people are supportive of a universal health care system that offers reasonable costs, good coverage, etc. to correct our present failed system.
Then, Mr. Mason’s assertion that we can compare saying “no” to prevent one from stepping in front of a bus, or a women saying “no” to unwanted sexual advances, or saying “no” to drugs, as being equivalent to saying “no” to programs like health care reform is ludicrous. Let’s get real! The government is involved in almost everything in this country, it is not our enemy! Our great country would not be the envy of the world today without government involvement.
That’s not to say the government is always right. Even the original U.S. Constitution our Founding Fathers crafted wasn’t perfect. It approved slavery, did not include a Bill of Rights, didn’t clearly state the need for due process of law to protect the people from being deprived of life, liberty, and property, didn’t provide for an income tax, didn’t allow women the right to vote, allowed for a poll tax, designed an incomplete process to elect a President and VP, and didn’t provide for succession of a President who is incapacitated or dies in office. These things were all corrected by amendments; plus, much more was changed, deleted, and added to through legislation, court decisions, and executive action down through our history and that is exactly what our liberal Founding Fathers intended. Each generation was expected to modify our government to meet the special needs of their times. It is interesting to note, the biggest argument against ratification of the U.S. Constitution was that it expanded the power of the national government way beyond our first constitution – The Articles of Confederation.
This argument about the role of government has gone on for a long time. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is clear:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America.”
We need to do just as it says. I suggest that providing universal health care in our generation constitutes establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and promoting the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
We don’t need to start over with health care legislation. In my view, we need to clean up the present bill(s) in Congress by taking out the superfluous, “deal making” for votes provisions, insert at least a public option, and put it up for a vote – let the chips fall where they may. Despite criticism to the contrary, universal health care reform can be structured to be a “pay as we go” system with no deficit spending or increase to the national debt, just a fair system at reduced cost that gives excellent health care coverage.
Who Can Provide us with Greater National Security
Before we get too far into this year’s election rhetoric and people begin taking positions on where they stand on candidates and issues, I would like to address an issue of primary importance. The Republican Party appears poised to push the theme that they are the party that can provide the American people with the best national security. For the life of me, I can’t understand why they think the American electorate will buy into this.
Recently, the GOP leaders and pundits have had a lot to say about a variety of issues and events that are questionable:
1. They have accused President Obama of not using the words, “War on Terror.” Recorded sound bite after sound bite has our President making it clear that we are at war with terrorists. Short of tattooing something on his forehead, he can’t make it much clearer. He understands fully that our enemies follow the “law of the jungle,” rather than the “rule of law.” For example, he has been aggressive and successful in using drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen to kill al Qaida leaders and operatives. He is in the process of conducting a “surge” in Afghanistan. He has made arrangements with Pakistan and Yemen where we are working with them in attacking al Qaida without invading their countries.
2. Claiming that closing Gitmo will put us at greater risk is bogus. The existence of Gitmo with its alleged torture tactics and other practices contrary to international law have made it a “tough sell” to our allies that we follow the “rule of law;” plus, it is a rallying point for our extremist enemies all over the world.
3. The trying of terrorists, in U.S. civilian courts, that committed crimes against us in this nation is necessary – just read the VI Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Not trying terrorists for crimes in this country would be a failure to follow our Constitutional “rule of law” and would be a self-inflicted wound on our principles. Recently created military tribunals may be a suitable solution for combatants we capture in theaters of war; but even then, we need to follow international law in their treatment.
Over the last 20 years we’ve had three significant wars – all under Republican Administrations. The first one, the Gulf War, was fully justified because of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait; although, we failed to finish the job. Regime change in Iraq should have occurred then and there. Imagine the different scenario if we had done so.
The second war, in Afghanistan, if it had been handled properly, should have been an “in and out” punishment and destruction of al Qaida in retaliation for “9-11”. If we had accomplished this goal we would be much safer from terrorist’s attacks in this country today. But because of poor management, it has become a full scale invasion and occupation with an ill advised attempt at “nation building.” Our fight was not with the Taliban and the Afghan people; but, unfortunately, it is now.
The third war, in Iraq, should not have happened at all and it too became an invasion and occupation with another ill advised attempt at “nation building.” We are trying to wind this one down, but we still have about as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan and the future of our involvement could very well be long term. I certainly hope not.
Under GOP leadership, we’ve ended up loosing 4000+ service men and women, have thousands of injured veterans, and a debt load we really can’t afford. We’ve destroyed two nations, killed 10’s of thousands of innocent civilians, and made what will be long- standing enemies of a fanatical element of the fastest growing religion and culture in the world. Our policies are viewed by the radical fundamental Islamic element as a crusade perpetuated by an egotistical, decadent Western Judaic/Christian religion and culture. They are convinced that their God, which should be our same God, will lead them to victory if they mount a jihad – a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. Because of this, regardless of who is President or who controls Congress, Homeland Security is going to be challenged to protect us in the years to come.
Although not a direct national security issue, the Great Recession coming as a result of GOP deregulation of our financial system, unwise tax breaks for the wealthy, deficit spending, policy of corporate welfare, etc. may end up being a bigger national security issue than the wars and terrorist activities. It has necessitated a rush of even greater deficit spending by Democrats to prevent a depression with efforts to stabilize our financial system, save a few large corporations, attempt to stimulate our economy, continued efforts to deal with large scale unemployment, etc. Our economy may be at risk for years to come and our middle class may be at risk to even survive.
Now, you tell me, is the present GOP “party of no” who we want to turn this country’s national security over to? They suffered a major defeat in the last election and rightly so. To put them back in the driver’s seat seems akin to doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.
Recently, the GOP leaders and pundits have had a lot to say about a variety of issues and events that are questionable:
1. They have accused President Obama of not using the words, “War on Terror.” Recorded sound bite after sound bite has our President making it clear that we are at war with terrorists. Short of tattooing something on his forehead, he can’t make it much clearer. He understands fully that our enemies follow the “law of the jungle,” rather than the “rule of law.” For example, he has been aggressive and successful in using drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen to kill al Qaida leaders and operatives. He is in the process of conducting a “surge” in Afghanistan. He has made arrangements with Pakistan and Yemen where we are working with them in attacking al Qaida without invading their countries.
2. Claiming that closing Gitmo will put us at greater risk is bogus. The existence of Gitmo with its alleged torture tactics and other practices contrary to international law have made it a “tough sell” to our allies that we follow the “rule of law;” plus, it is a rallying point for our extremist enemies all over the world.
3. The trying of terrorists, in U.S. civilian courts, that committed crimes against us in this nation is necessary – just read the VI Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Not trying terrorists for crimes in this country would be a failure to follow our Constitutional “rule of law” and would be a self-inflicted wound on our principles. Recently created military tribunals may be a suitable solution for combatants we capture in theaters of war; but even then, we need to follow international law in their treatment.
Over the last 20 years we’ve had three significant wars – all under Republican Administrations. The first one, the Gulf War, was fully justified because of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait; although, we failed to finish the job. Regime change in Iraq should have occurred then and there. Imagine the different scenario if we had done so.
The second war, in Afghanistan, if it had been handled properly, should have been an “in and out” punishment and destruction of al Qaida in retaliation for “9-11”. If we had accomplished this goal we would be much safer from terrorist’s attacks in this country today. But because of poor management, it has become a full scale invasion and occupation with an ill advised attempt at “nation building.” Our fight was not with the Taliban and the Afghan people; but, unfortunately, it is now.
The third war, in Iraq, should not have happened at all and it too became an invasion and occupation with another ill advised attempt at “nation building.” We are trying to wind this one down, but we still have about as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan and the future of our involvement could very well be long term. I certainly hope not.
Under GOP leadership, we’ve ended up loosing 4000+ service men and women, have thousands of injured veterans, and a debt load we really can’t afford. We’ve destroyed two nations, killed 10’s of thousands of innocent civilians, and made what will be long- standing enemies of a fanatical element of the fastest growing religion and culture in the world. Our policies are viewed by the radical fundamental Islamic element as a crusade perpetuated by an egotistical, decadent Western Judaic/Christian religion and culture. They are convinced that their God, which should be our same God, will lead them to victory if they mount a jihad – a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. Because of this, regardless of who is President or who controls Congress, Homeland Security is going to be challenged to protect us in the years to come.
Although not a direct national security issue, the Great Recession coming as a result of GOP deregulation of our financial system, unwise tax breaks for the wealthy, deficit spending, policy of corporate welfare, etc. may end up being a bigger national security issue than the wars and terrorist activities. It has necessitated a rush of even greater deficit spending by Democrats to prevent a depression with efforts to stabilize our financial system, save a few large corporations, attempt to stimulate our economy, continued efforts to deal with large scale unemployment, etc. Our economy may be at risk for years to come and our middle class may be at risk to even survive.
Now, you tell me, is the present GOP “party of no” who we want to turn this country’s national security over to? They suffered a major defeat in the last election and rightly so. To put them back in the driver’s seat seems akin to doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Where do we go from here with Health Care Reform?
I will have to admit that as certain as I think we need universal health care reform, it doesn’t look likely it will get done this time. The election of Republican U.S. Senator Brown from Massachusetts, who is opposed to universal health care reform, may be the “nail in the coffin.” This will make it even more difficult to overcome the cloture rule in the U.S. Senate which requires 60 votes rather than the simple majority which is what the U.S. Constitution intended for passage of bills.
The people I feel empathy for are those left uninsured because of pre-existing conditions, lose or change jobs, are dropped by their insurance companies, and/or denied medical procedures that their insurance company unilaterally decides to refuse. For those who are one serious illness away from being “buried” in medical bills they may never recover from financially and may even force them into medical-related bankruptcy. For small businesses and the self-employed who, having no bargaining power enjoyed by large government entities and large companies, cannot afford medical insurance costs with decent coverage. And for seniors, who might see life long savings and investments disappear in an attempt to pay medical bills. All of the above are likely to be forced to go without or run the risk of too limited coverage. Many will simply choose to forgo medical treatment well beyond the time when it is wise to seek it rather than go through the demeaning process of public assistance.
I would prefer to see the Democrats (since the Republicans have opted out of process) work their way through a compromise between the House and Senate bills doing away with all the “deal making” provisions that were offered as compromises to get the vote of a few Republicans and/or hesitant Democrats to get the bill passed. The Democrat leadership managed this bill poorly and this administration got caught up in the process resulting in bad bills. They need to take the good provisions of the bill (about 80 to90% of what’s there), and write a “clean and clear” one. It should contain at least a public option, universal coverage, and be deficit neutral or better. Then, take it to both the House and the Senate for a vote. If Republican and Independent Senators want to filibuster, call their bluff. Let them take responsibility for their actions with the American people. If in the end the bill fails, that’s fine.
Although risky, I don’t think doing this would be devastating to the Democratic Party. The American public knows why we need this legislation. If the bill fails, we should carefully track the medical costs, coverage, along with profits of insurance companies and others in the medical field who have spent millions to defeat this bill. If they continue to be unreasonable in their costs and coverage or get worse, make it clear to the American people that an honest effort to provide good, universal coverage at reasonable costs has been offered to correct this situation. Then, remind the electorate that if they will send to Washington both Democratic and Republican Congressmen who favor meaningful health care reform, the Administration and Congress will make another run at it.
I know that unemployment, stimulus bills, national security, the wars, financial regulation, rebuilding of infrastructure, restructuring of education, etc., are out there and need to be addressed. And, in dealing with these, we should adopt the attitude that the “big boys” have gotten their “gift horse”, and they can expect no more. In fact, they should pay back their loans and we should stop the prevalent practice of corporate welfare. Instead, the emphasis now should be dealing with the myriad of problems in a fiscally conservative fashion recognizing that it will still be expensive and will require increased tax revenues. But, we should never lose sight of the importance of medical care which represents 1/6th of our GNP. This is not a small issue we can ignore and it is one that potentially affects almost everyone. If the insurance companies and others in the medical field can’t get their house in order to give universal coverage at reasonable costs, it won’t take many election cycles before universal health care reform will be mandated. Maybe this time, we will be ready to insist on a true universal health care system somewhat similar to what every other advanced nation in the world provides their people.
It will take some political courage to approach it this way; but, in my opinion, the time has come for the electorate to step up to meet the challenge by holding their Congressmen’s “feet to the fire.” We can’t afford to continue business as usual allowing us to drift into a declining second class nation where we don’t even have the decency to provide our own people with adequate medical care when it could be structured to be a deficit neutral program or better.
The people I feel empathy for are those left uninsured because of pre-existing conditions, lose or change jobs, are dropped by their insurance companies, and/or denied medical procedures that their insurance company unilaterally decides to refuse. For those who are one serious illness away from being “buried” in medical bills they may never recover from financially and may even force them into medical-related bankruptcy. For small businesses and the self-employed who, having no bargaining power enjoyed by large government entities and large companies, cannot afford medical insurance costs with decent coverage. And for seniors, who might see life long savings and investments disappear in an attempt to pay medical bills. All of the above are likely to be forced to go without or run the risk of too limited coverage. Many will simply choose to forgo medical treatment well beyond the time when it is wise to seek it rather than go through the demeaning process of public assistance.
I would prefer to see the Democrats (since the Republicans have opted out of process) work their way through a compromise between the House and Senate bills doing away with all the “deal making” provisions that were offered as compromises to get the vote of a few Republicans and/or hesitant Democrats to get the bill passed. The Democrat leadership managed this bill poorly and this administration got caught up in the process resulting in bad bills. They need to take the good provisions of the bill (about 80 to90% of what’s there), and write a “clean and clear” one. It should contain at least a public option, universal coverage, and be deficit neutral or better. Then, take it to both the House and the Senate for a vote. If Republican and Independent Senators want to filibuster, call their bluff. Let them take responsibility for their actions with the American people. If in the end the bill fails, that’s fine.
Although risky, I don’t think doing this would be devastating to the Democratic Party. The American public knows why we need this legislation. If the bill fails, we should carefully track the medical costs, coverage, along with profits of insurance companies and others in the medical field who have spent millions to defeat this bill. If they continue to be unreasonable in their costs and coverage or get worse, make it clear to the American people that an honest effort to provide good, universal coverage at reasonable costs has been offered to correct this situation. Then, remind the electorate that if they will send to Washington both Democratic and Republican Congressmen who favor meaningful health care reform, the Administration and Congress will make another run at it.
I know that unemployment, stimulus bills, national security, the wars, financial regulation, rebuilding of infrastructure, restructuring of education, etc., are out there and need to be addressed. And, in dealing with these, we should adopt the attitude that the “big boys” have gotten their “gift horse”, and they can expect no more. In fact, they should pay back their loans and we should stop the prevalent practice of corporate welfare. Instead, the emphasis now should be dealing with the myriad of problems in a fiscally conservative fashion recognizing that it will still be expensive and will require increased tax revenues. But, we should never lose sight of the importance of medical care which represents 1/6th of our GNP. This is not a small issue we can ignore and it is one that potentially affects almost everyone. If the insurance companies and others in the medical field can’t get their house in order to give universal coverage at reasonable costs, it won’t take many election cycles before universal health care reform will be mandated. Maybe this time, we will be ready to insist on a true universal health care system somewhat similar to what every other advanced nation in the world provides their people.
It will take some political courage to approach it this way; but, in my opinion, the time has come for the electorate to step up to meet the challenge by holding their Congressmen’s “feet to the fire.” We can’t afford to continue business as usual allowing us to drift into a declining second class nation where we don’t even have the decency to provide our own people with adequate medical care when it could be structured to be a deficit neutral program or better.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Closed door proceedings in Congress
There is a big falderal over the closed door sessions to work out a compromise over the health care reform bill. Republicans and other pundits, including U.S. Representative Jerry Moran, are all over this with criticism of the process. Unfortunately, with some of deal-making done in drafting of the U.S. Senate version of the health reform bill, Democrats have given opponents ample reason for criticism. The Democratic Leadership has handled this legislation poorly. They have gotten too wrapped up in trying to write legislation that will satisfy everyone and get votes instead of just writing a good piece of needed legislation.
But, under normal circumstances, closed door sessions to work out the details in the legislative process is steeped in tradition and long standing rules. The Constitutional Convention which drafted the U.S. Constitution was conducted behind closed doors. Most if not all caucuses of both parties are conducted behind closed doors. Most committee meetings are behind closed doors. Plus, like everywhere else in life, a lot of decisions are made over a cup of coffee, a few drinks, or a meal someplace in private. Almost all strategy discussions in the executive branch are behind closed doors. Although most court proceedings are open to the public, detailed discussion of cases goes on behind closed doors and seldom is the electronic media allowed into the court room.
Yes we have televised legislative committee hearings and even televised coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives (since 1979) and U.S. Senate (since 1986). And this media coverage may very well have been a mistake that now no one has the courage to retract. The reason for closed door proceedings should be obvious. Put yourself in a Congressman’s position. Cameras and audio recordings change the dynamics of the process and usually not for the good. Suddenly, almost everyone begins posturing for the media – they are elected officials after all. With cameras rolling, little serious give and take discussion goes on. Anyone who has watched C-span coverage should know this.
In these media circus environments, Congressmen are not going to say what’s on their mind and certainly not “off the cuff.” They are not going to offer opinions and then change their minds or adjust their positions based on better arguments presented by others. They are not going to appear uninformed by asking questions for clarification and understanding. The truth of the matter is that in many cases they are uninformed and rely heavily on their staffs for position papers. If they are going into a public hearing or making a speech on the House or Senate floor, their comments and questions are carefully scripted with “talking points” that are consistent with their ideology and party positions. It isn’t that they are lazy, it’s just that there is too much information for them to be an expert on every detail of what is often complicated legislation. They simply can’t read, listen to, and/or comprehend all that comes across their desks. And, they know that if they make a misstatement of any kind or say something that can be perceived as stupid, inaccurate, or inconsistent with previous statements, it will be put in a media archive someplace to be brought out by their political enemies to hammer them in the news media and certainly at the next election.
I would suggest that that is the very reason that watching hours and hours of C-span coverage is a waste of time unless, you are well paid to do it, politics is an avocation, or you don’t have a life. This is what the media, as the “fourth branch of the government,” should be doing and then reporting in a fair, unbiased way. Whether they do this well is a matter that needs further discussion.
We have a republican system of government. We elect people to go to Washington to represent us to the best of their ability. We do encourage people to contact their elected leaders and freely express their opinion. Elections and offering our views is the democratic part of the process; but, the actual legislation process is done by Congressmen. If they do it poorly, we need to replace them – Democrats and/or Republicans – in the next election. The sad fact is, that we too often don’t and no amount of open door, C-span coverage is going to correct this.
Yes, much of what a Congressman, President, or Court Justice does should be behind closed doors. Human nature and our political process dictates this. This is how compromise, which is the heart of our governmental process, occurs. Criticism about closed doors to craft legislation only gains traction when the American electorate fails to understand how their own government works and public officials and pundits take advantage of this ignorance.
But, under normal circumstances, closed door sessions to work out the details in the legislative process is steeped in tradition and long standing rules. The Constitutional Convention which drafted the U.S. Constitution was conducted behind closed doors. Most if not all caucuses of both parties are conducted behind closed doors. Most committee meetings are behind closed doors. Plus, like everywhere else in life, a lot of decisions are made over a cup of coffee, a few drinks, or a meal someplace in private. Almost all strategy discussions in the executive branch are behind closed doors. Although most court proceedings are open to the public, detailed discussion of cases goes on behind closed doors and seldom is the electronic media allowed into the court room.
Yes we have televised legislative committee hearings and even televised coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives (since 1979) and U.S. Senate (since 1986). And this media coverage may very well have been a mistake that now no one has the courage to retract. The reason for closed door proceedings should be obvious. Put yourself in a Congressman’s position. Cameras and audio recordings change the dynamics of the process and usually not for the good. Suddenly, almost everyone begins posturing for the media – they are elected officials after all. With cameras rolling, little serious give and take discussion goes on. Anyone who has watched C-span coverage should know this.
In these media circus environments, Congressmen are not going to say what’s on their mind and certainly not “off the cuff.” They are not going to offer opinions and then change their minds or adjust their positions based on better arguments presented by others. They are not going to appear uninformed by asking questions for clarification and understanding. The truth of the matter is that in many cases they are uninformed and rely heavily on their staffs for position papers. If they are going into a public hearing or making a speech on the House or Senate floor, their comments and questions are carefully scripted with “talking points” that are consistent with their ideology and party positions. It isn’t that they are lazy, it’s just that there is too much information for them to be an expert on every detail of what is often complicated legislation. They simply can’t read, listen to, and/or comprehend all that comes across their desks. And, they know that if they make a misstatement of any kind or say something that can be perceived as stupid, inaccurate, or inconsistent with previous statements, it will be put in a media archive someplace to be brought out by their political enemies to hammer them in the news media and certainly at the next election.
I would suggest that that is the very reason that watching hours and hours of C-span coverage is a waste of time unless, you are well paid to do it, politics is an avocation, or you don’t have a life. This is what the media, as the “fourth branch of the government,” should be doing and then reporting in a fair, unbiased way. Whether they do this well is a matter that needs further discussion.
We have a republican system of government. We elect people to go to Washington to represent us to the best of their ability. We do encourage people to contact their elected leaders and freely express their opinion. Elections and offering our views is the democratic part of the process; but, the actual legislation process is done by Congressmen. If they do it poorly, we need to replace them – Democrats and/or Republicans – in the next election. The sad fact is, that we too often don’t and no amount of open door, C-span coverage is going to correct this.
Yes, much of what a Congressman, President, or Court Justice does should be behind closed doors. Human nature and our political process dictates this. This is how compromise, which is the heart of our governmental process, occurs. Criticism about closed doors to craft legislation only gains traction when the American electorate fails to understand how their own government works and public officials and pundits take advantage of this ignorance.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Responding to Terrorism
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.
“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.
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.”
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Universal Health Care
In regard to health care, I feel that we need to create a universal health care system run by the Federal Government along the lines of Social Security (SS) and Medicare. I see few if any advantages to something else. Especially, not an impossibly convoluted bill being considered presently in Congress. We can do it now, which is highly unlikely, or we can do it later when we come to realize what a mess we’ve made of what could be a relatively simple system.
A very basic universal health care program would offer coverage to everyone and be paid into by everyone. The insurance pool and premium base would be the whole nation which allows for true shared risk and reasonable cost. To keep costs down further, a basic system could be created with something like a $500 deductible per person per year and co-payment for insured of 20% up to a maximum of $5000 out of pocket and then full catastrophic coverage beyond that. Those over 65, on disability, or with a chronic disease could be eligible for a tax credit on their co-pay. I would imagine that the poor would need to be given tax credit or assistance to pay premiums they could not afford. Everyone wanting additional coverage could go out on the open market and buy it and/or employers could offer it as a fringe benefit. The basic plan would:
1. eliminate denying coverage for pre-existing condition
2. automatically provide portability
3. involve government negotiating for “fair” pharmaceutical costs
4. identify a fair price for medical procedures
5. not allow dropping of coverage and allow no upper limit on coverage.
The private sector has had well over ¾ of a century to develop a plan to give people in our country a fair and equitable system. But, the system is giving progressively worse coverage at unreasonable increases in cost – we pay more than any other developed nation in the world with health care results that are pretty paltry compared to our relative wealth. I think we should begrudgingly admit there are some things that the private sector just cannot do as well as the government and health care may be one of these. We need a system that allows for basic universal coverage and protects us from economic destitution resulting from poor health.
Would the system be socialistic in nature? Yes it would, just as many other government programs are, like SS, Medicare, universal public education, fees (taxes) on fuel to build roads, farm program with its subsidies, Medicaid and other welfare systems, corporate welfare programs, national park system, etc. At some point we are going to have to get away from the idea that government can’t do anything right and/or that the private sector can do everything better. Both are historically failed notions.
This anti-government ideology is promoted by wealthy conservatives who are comfortable with their privileged position in society and their desire to maintain the status quo; and better yet, add to their advantages. It is seldom mentioned, but they are often recipients of significant special assistance from the government. They have learned that time and money carefully spent catering to public officials pays substantial dividends. Plus, we have learned the hard way that the controls of competition, costs of labor, and supply and demand that are supposed to naturally manage the free-market system to keep things fair and equitable can be too easily circumvented. We are not a nation of small farmers, tradesmen, artisans, and small manufacturers which is what the capitalistic, free-market system was designed for by the founder Adam Smith when he wrote the book the Wealth of Nations.
I prefer that the capitalistic, free-market system be left in place as much as possible to do its magic in allowing everyone to pursue their own productive interests. Some choose to take risk to satisfy their entrepreneurial itch. When they succeed, certainly not a guarantee, they deserve the “fruits of their labor.” Others choose a safer course of selling their gifts of labor to the highest bidder. And, competitive supply and demand should dictate the price of products and services. The capitalistic, free-market system is a thing of beauty when it works this way. But, when it is manipulated in a multitude of clever ways that result in abuse, rewards greed, ignores dishonesty, allows unfair profit taking, and encourages inappropriate risk taking with other people’s money, the government is the only vehicle we have that is powerful enough to insure that the playing field is kept just and fair. In a few selected cases, I think government involvement is the only way we can maintain a vibrant classless society assuring everyone the free choice to take their own “run” at being a productive part of our economy. Health care costs and coverage should not be a barrier to this goal.
A very basic universal health care program would offer coverage to everyone and be paid into by everyone. The insurance pool and premium base would be the whole nation which allows for true shared risk and reasonable cost. To keep costs down further, a basic system could be created with something like a $500 deductible per person per year and co-payment for insured of 20% up to a maximum of $5000 out of pocket and then full catastrophic coverage beyond that. Those over 65, on disability, or with a chronic disease could be eligible for a tax credit on their co-pay. I would imagine that the poor would need to be given tax credit or assistance to pay premiums they could not afford. Everyone wanting additional coverage could go out on the open market and buy it and/or employers could offer it as a fringe benefit. The basic plan would:
1. eliminate denying coverage for pre-existing condition
2. automatically provide portability
3. involve government negotiating for “fair” pharmaceutical costs
4. identify a fair price for medical procedures
5. not allow dropping of coverage and allow no upper limit on coverage.
The private sector has had well over ¾ of a century to develop a plan to give people in our country a fair and equitable system. But, the system is giving progressively worse coverage at unreasonable increases in cost – we pay more than any other developed nation in the world with health care results that are pretty paltry compared to our relative wealth. I think we should begrudgingly admit there are some things that the private sector just cannot do as well as the government and health care may be one of these. We need a system that allows for basic universal coverage and protects us from economic destitution resulting from poor health.
Would the system be socialistic in nature? Yes it would, just as many other government programs are, like SS, Medicare, universal public education, fees (taxes) on fuel to build roads, farm program with its subsidies, Medicaid and other welfare systems, corporate welfare programs, national park system, etc. At some point we are going to have to get away from the idea that government can’t do anything right and/or that the private sector can do everything better. Both are historically failed notions.
This anti-government ideology is promoted by wealthy conservatives who are comfortable with their privileged position in society and their desire to maintain the status quo; and better yet, add to their advantages. It is seldom mentioned, but they are often recipients of significant special assistance from the government. They have learned that time and money carefully spent catering to public officials pays substantial dividends. Plus, we have learned the hard way that the controls of competition, costs of labor, and supply and demand that are supposed to naturally manage the free-market system to keep things fair and equitable can be too easily circumvented. We are not a nation of small farmers, tradesmen, artisans, and small manufacturers which is what the capitalistic, free-market system was designed for by the founder Adam Smith when he wrote the book the Wealth of Nations.
I prefer that the capitalistic, free-market system be left in place as much as possible to do its magic in allowing everyone to pursue their own productive interests. Some choose to take risk to satisfy their entrepreneurial itch. When they succeed, certainly not a guarantee, they deserve the “fruits of their labor.” Others choose a safer course of selling their gifts of labor to the highest bidder. And, competitive supply and demand should dictate the price of products and services. The capitalistic, free-market system is a thing of beauty when it works this way. But, when it is manipulated in a multitude of clever ways that result in abuse, rewards greed, ignores dishonesty, allows unfair profit taking, and encourages inappropriate risk taking with other people’s money, the government is the only vehicle we have that is powerful enough to insure that the playing field is kept just and fair. In a few selected cases, I think government involvement is the only way we can maintain a vibrant classless society assuring everyone the free choice to take their own “run” at being a productive part of our economy. Health care costs and coverage should not be a barrier to this goal.
Highway 61, McPherson to Hutchinson
Have you driven to Hutchinson lately and watched progress on the new highway being built? Is it just me, or do others agree that this project is “ridiculous over-kill?” I was caught by surprise and more than a little upset by what’s being done.
When the need was expressed that the present 2 lane Hwy 61 was in need of improvement, my thought was, yes it does. There is need for 4 lanes to handle the traffic load safely. I had envisioned another two lanes laid in close proximity to the present 2 lane road with appropriate turning lanes at busy intersections – this is not the case.
We are getting a lot more than that; we are getting a whole new road in most places that has to be a really expensive proposition. In fact, I would guess it is costing more to go around Medora than it would cost to buy out the whole town – sorry residents of Medora. We didn’t have to do that. The road is going around Inman, why? The present road doesn’t go through the main street where traffic would be slowed down to 25 mph or past a school zone with a 20 mph limitation. We have to slow down to all of 55 mph. There would have been some property displaced in both Medora and Inman to accommodate the additional two lanes; but, if fair compensation had been negotiated to displace a few homes and businesses I’m certain the cost of the road would be multiples less than what the taxpayer is now spending. Then, you add to the above the new interchange that is being built to access the new road just south of McPherson. I’m thinking this is all too expensive!
Who makes these final decisions? I intend to find out because I don’t want to be what I consider victimized again with what I feel is unnecessary spending. I’m not suggesting that I could have stopped it, but I would sure have expressed my opinion in regard to it if given the chance. I’m sure there was a public hearing somewhere at sometime that I missed – my mistake. Did our local news media make it clear to the public what was proposed for this road project? If it did, I missed it, which again is my fault. If they didn’t, I for one would appreciate it they would do so in the future.
Obviously, nothing can be done now and maybe the majority of you out there agree with what’s being built.
But, I do think that if government spending is an issue of concern to taxpayers, this might serve as an example of where a much less expensive solution could have accomplished our needs. We can blame this on the government as another example of what is in my mind reckless spending. Or, we can accept collective responsibility for allowing this to happen without at least letting one’s views be known. These are the kinds of things we citizens should be involved in which might save us from some inappropriate spending.
When they cut the ribbon for the new highway’s grand opening, I guarantee you that I will make note of those elected officials who will be smiling at the camera and it won’t be to thank them.
When the need was expressed that the present 2 lane Hwy 61 was in need of improvement, my thought was, yes it does. There is need for 4 lanes to handle the traffic load safely. I had envisioned another two lanes laid in close proximity to the present 2 lane road with appropriate turning lanes at busy intersections – this is not the case.
We are getting a lot more than that; we are getting a whole new road in most places that has to be a really expensive proposition. In fact, I would guess it is costing more to go around Medora than it would cost to buy out the whole town – sorry residents of Medora. We didn’t have to do that. The road is going around Inman, why? The present road doesn’t go through the main street where traffic would be slowed down to 25 mph or past a school zone with a 20 mph limitation. We have to slow down to all of 55 mph. There would have been some property displaced in both Medora and Inman to accommodate the additional two lanes; but, if fair compensation had been negotiated to displace a few homes and businesses I’m certain the cost of the road would be multiples less than what the taxpayer is now spending. Then, you add to the above the new interchange that is being built to access the new road just south of McPherson. I’m thinking this is all too expensive!
Who makes these final decisions? I intend to find out because I don’t want to be what I consider victimized again with what I feel is unnecessary spending. I’m not suggesting that I could have stopped it, but I would sure have expressed my opinion in regard to it if given the chance. I’m sure there was a public hearing somewhere at sometime that I missed – my mistake. Did our local news media make it clear to the public what was proposed for this road project? If it did, I missed it, which again is my fault. If they didn’t, I for one would appreciate it they would do so in the future.
Obviously, nothing can be done now and maybe the majority of you out there agree with what’s being built.
But, I do think that if government spending is an issue of concern to taxpayers, this might serve as an example of where a much less expensive solution could have accomplished our needs. We can blame this on the government as another example of what is in my mind reckless spending. Or, we can accept collective responsibility for allowing this to happen without at least letting one’s views be known. These are the kinds of things we citizens should be involved in which might save us from some inappropriate spending.
When they cut the ribbon for the new highway’s grand opening, I guarantee you that I will make note of those elected officials who will be smiling at the camera and it won’t be to thank them.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Let's Question the Quality of our Congressmen
Here are some important questions to ask the next time you get involved in a reasonably, rational, pragmatic discussion on the quality of the elected public officials that serve us in legislative bodies like the U.S. Congress. Maybe there are some good reasons why Congress suffers from consistently low ratings with the American people.
First question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to get successfully elected to Congress? I’ll bet you can quickly come up with a rather long list.
Second question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to be an excellent lawmaker in Congress? Hear a pin drop? I’ll bet it is tough to come up with more than a few and the first one is often – “Well, you have to get elected first!” Bingo! We may have identified a major problem with how Congress does its job. We are looking first and foremost for successful candidates that win elections and we seldom get beyond that.
Third question: Which of the above two is the more important if we are going to have well-crafted legislation from our Congress? After some careful soul searching, I think most would agree, the best answer would be we need people who just might become skillful lawmakers. This is especially true now. We are in one of those periods of history like beginning of 20th century, WW I, great depression, WW II, the 1960’s where legislation crafted in the next few years will be critical for our future. Things are going to change and how they change will in large measure be a result of what our lawmakers accomplish or fail to accomplish in Congress. Presidential leadership of whatever stripe can only take us so far; Congress makes the laws.
Fourth question: How much time does a U.S. Congressman really spend on lawmaking rather than getting re-elected? With a two year term in the U.S. House of Representatives, if they are honest about it, many will tell you almost none. They are running for re-election the day after they are elected. U.S. Senators, with 6 year terms, have a bit of a grace period, but they will tell you that that is changing in many races and like the President’s four year term, re-election is closer to a full time job.
Now, there are some, that for one reason or another, are so secure in their state or district that they hardly have to campaign. Hopefully, it is because they are such good lawmakers that their electorate feels honored to send such an outstanding person to Congress. There have been some of these in history in this category, they have had books written about them, and their names are often associated with the significant legislation of their time. Thank God if you have one of these from your state or district; they are truly to be treasured. Kansas has had a few, but none presently.
I really doubt that such a high honor can be ascribed to most of the incumbents that are being re-elected year after year. It is more often that they are such natural campaigners that their electors feel towards them something akin to a really comfortable pair of shoes – they just fit real well. Their offices are staffed with people who look after their constituent’s personal interests. If you go to Washington D.C. and stop by their office, they fawn all over you, probably assigning a staffer to give you a tour of the Capital. They know where to get money to replenish their campaign war chests, probably by using phone numbers speed dialed into their phones. They are undoubtedly on a first name basis with the lobbyists representing certain selected groups from their state and district where the age old practice of “you pat my back and I’ll pat yours” goes on year after year. They are readily available as speakers for certain groups where they can be counted on to entertain the troops while maligning the opposition as inept bunglers leading this country down the road to rack and ruin. They make sure they use their increasing seniority to insure that their states and districts get earmarks needed to make certain groups thankful for how “ole Joe” looks after us folks back home. The cycle goes on and on and these people have to get totally corrupt, immoral, down right crazy or senile before they lose their seat. But, unfortunately, most of these are less than stellar law makers.
Let’s circle back to the first two questions. We’ve answered the first. Wouldn’t we be better served if we could readily answer the second? Maybe the electorate should spend some quality time discussing these issues to make sure we don’t just continue to re-elect that old comfortable pair of shoes instead of sending people who have the qualities to become great lawmakers. People can make that distinction, but it takes some time and effort to discern the difference.
First question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to get successfully elected to Congress? I’ll bet you can quickly come up with a rather long list.
Second question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to be an excellent lawmaker in Congress? Hear a pin drop? I’ll bet it is tough to come up with more than a few and the first one is often – “Well, you have to get elected first!” Bingo! We may have identified a major problem with how Congress does its job. We are looking first and foremost for successful candidates that win elections and we seldom get beyond that.
Third question: Which of the above two is the more important if we are going to have well-crafted legislation from our Congress? After some careful soul searching, I think most would agree, the best answer would be we need people who just might become skillful lawmakers. This is especially true now. We are in one of those periods of history like beginning of 20th century, WW I, great depression, WW II, the 1960’s where legislation crafted in the next few years will be critical for our future. Things are going to change and how they change will in large measure be a result of what our lawmakers accomplish or fail to accomplish in Congress. Presidential leadership of whatever stripe can only take us so far; Congress makes the laws.
Fourth question: How much time does a U.S. Congressman really spend on lawmaking rather than getting re-elected? With a two year term in the U.S. House of Representatives, if they are honest about it, many will tell you almost none. They are running for re-election the day after they are elected. U.S. Senators, with 6 year terms, have a bit of a grace period, but they will tell you that that is changing in many races and like the President’s four year term, re-election is closer to a full time job.
Now, there are some, that for one reason or another, are so secure in their state or district that they hardly have to campaign. Hopefully, it is because they are such good lawmakers that their electorate feels honored to send such an outstanding person to Congress. There have been some of these in history in this category, they have had books written about them, and their names are often associated with the significant legislation of their time. Thank God if you have one of these from your state or district; they are truly to be treasured. Kansas has had a few, but none presently.
I really doubt that such a high honor can be ascribed to most of the incumbents that are being re-elected year after year. It is more often that they are such natural campaigners that their electors feel towards them something akin to a really comfortable pair of shoes – they just fit real well. Their offices are staffed with people who look after their constituent’s personal interests. If you go to Washington D.C. and stop by their office, they fawn all over you, probably assigning a staffer to give you a tour of the Capital. They know where to get money to replenish their campaign war chests, probably by using phone numbers speed dialed into their phones. They are undoubtedly on a first name basis with the lobbyists representing certain selected groups from their state and district where the age old practice of “you pat my back and I’ll pat yours” goes on year after year. They are readily available as speakers for certain groups where they can be counted on to entertain the troops while maligning the opposition as inept bunglers leading this country down the road to rack and ruin. They make sure they use their increasing seniority to insure that their states and districts get earmarks needed to make certain groups thankful for how “ole Joe” looks after us folks back home. The cycle goes on and on and these people have to get totally corrupt, immoral, down right crazy or senile before they lose their seat. But, unfortunately, most of these are less than stellar law makers.
Let’s circle back to the first two questions. We’ve answered the first. Wouldn’t we be better served if we could readily answer the second? Maybe the electorate should spend some quality time discussing these issues to make sure we don’t just continue to re-elect that old comfortable pair of shoes instead of sending people who have the qualities to become great lawmakers. People can make that distinction, but it takes some time and effort to discern the difference.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Getting Out of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
As debate and discussion goes on in the Obama Administration and in the U.S. Congress as to what our continued role in Iraq and Afghanistan should be, I pray that a way be sought to extradite us from there ASAP. The underlying reasons for involvement in both conflicts was flawed with the exception of destroying al-Qaida and their ability to attack us. Our conduct of these wars was simply bad judgment compounded by more bad judgment. It has proven to be and continues to be too costly in lives lost and injuries sustained by both our soldiers and the citizens of these nations. It was and continues to be too costly a use of our limited resources. In my view, we cannot afford to continue with these policies. It is terribly destructive for both us and these nations and is destabilizing for this region and the rest of the world.
When one invades another nation, essentially destroys it with superior raw military firepower, kills and injures thousands , and then attempts to impose our cultural, economic, and political systems upon them, justifying it as “nation building” in our image, you accomplish nothing but ill will. Their hatred of us resulting from our actions will continue on for generations to come. Why wouldn’t they. Just put yourself in their shoes. What would be the attitude of most in this country if we were to be militarily invaded, our country destroyed, where almost everyone in the country had friends and relatives killed or injured, and our cultural, economic, and political systems were forcibly altered. How many generations would it take to forget this. Afghan’s history is one of almost constant war against invading armies or amongst themselves. Because of their strategic location as a buffer between several powerful civilizations, they have been invaded by about every notable army beginning with Alexander the Great. All of them found Afghanistan to be inhospitable. In modern times, both the British and the Russians took their turn at occupying them only to leave several years later thinking the effort too costly and of little value. Afghanistan takes great pride in thwarting these efforts whatever the cost and we should have factored that into our plans.
One of the biggest barriers to getting out of these conflicts is our unwillingness to “lose face.” I submit that this is a terrible indictment of our collective ego. We are so afraid that it will be perceived as weakness on our part that we are willing to seriously consider expanding our military involvement with its continued injury and loss of life to our soldiers, the continued squandering of our limited resources, and the further solidifying of their hatred towards us. Our military capability to kill and destroy has been well documented here, but short of genocide, you don’t win insurgency type wars with military “shock and awe.” You might win conventional wars with this type of military action, but not wars of this nature, but we don’t seem to “get it.”
Another major concern is whether getting out ASAP will put as at a greater risk from extremist, militant, Islamic groups. Yes it might. They are out there, they want revenge, they want to “bring us down,” and they are dedicated to jihad. We’ve spent 8 years in the region and we still haven’t destroyed al-Qaida and now it is wider spread and very mobile. We’ve made it more of a monster than it already was and put ourselves at greater risk than before. We will have to remain vigilant at home and abroad. We will have to be ready to move quickly and be devastating in our military attacks on their training centers, work to disrupt their lines of communication, and most importantly, move to cut off their supply of money needed to support themselves. It will require that we develop and institute the tools to do the above and probably more.
Our Presidents, our National Security Council, our Congress, and our Department of Defense have let us down over the last 35 years. We should have been prepared for this kind of struggle with lessons learned in Vietnam and been prepared to modify it to other geographic regions and cultural and political situations. Instead, despite warnings from President Eisenhower back in 1961, we have spent billions of dollars in supporting a conventional “military industrial complex” that we now know was out dated. It has been our “Maginot Line,” and it has cost us dearly. And, if and when we move beyond this, we need to heed Collin Powell’s warning to avoid a terrorist military-industrial complex. Unfortunately, there is and will continue to be too much money to be made in the war business.
Another, and in my mind the saddest problem with getting out ASAP is, how do you say sorry to individuals and families of our soldiers who went off to war under the belief that they were doing their patriotic duty to make America safe and to preserve our great nation. They put themselves at great risk, they suffered life time injuries, and were killed doing what they were told was right. And then, for us to say, “We screwed up,” is a “bitter pill.” It will take incredibly courageous political leadership to make this admission because of the firestorm of criticism from the hawkish, hard line, conservative right. But, we dealt with it before with our disengagement from Vietnam and our wise acceptance of limited objectives in Korea and the Gulf War. No matter what is said or how it is couched, it won’t correct the mistakes. Those who served need to be honored for their sacrifice and we can only hope that in turn they will magnanimously agree that continuing to put others in harms way does not make good sense.
When one invades another nation, essentially destroys it with superior raw military firepower, kills and injures thousands , and then attempts to impose our cultural, economic, and political systems upon them, justifying it as “nation building” in our image, you accomplish nothing but ill will. Their hatred of us resulting from our actions will continue on for generations to come. Why wouldn’t they. Just put yourself in their shoes. What would be the attitude of most in this country if we were to be militarily invaded, our country destroyed, where almost everyone in the country had friends and relatives killed or injured, and our cultural, economic, and political systems were forcibly altered. How many generations would it take to forget this. Afghan’s history is one of almost constant war against invading armies or amongst themselves. Because of their strategic location as a buffer between several powerful civilizations, they have been invaded by about every notable army beginning with Alexander the Great. All of them found Afghanistan to be inhospitable. In modern times, both the British and the Russians took their turn at occupying them only to leave several years later thinking the effort too costly and of little value. Afghanistan takes great pride in thwarting these efforts whatever the cost and we should have factored that into our plans.
One of the biggest barriers to getting out of these conflicts is our unwillingness to “lose face.” I submit that this is a terrible indictment of our collective ego. We are so afraid that it will be perceived as weakness on our part that we are willing to seriously consider expanding our military involvement with its continued injury and loss of life to our soldiers, the continued squandering of our limited resources, and the further solidifying of their hatred towards us. Our military capability to kill and destroy has been well documented here, but short of genocide, you don’t win insurgency type wars with military “shock and awe.” You might win conventional wars with this type of military action, but not wars of this nature, but we don’t seem to “get it.”
Another major concern is whether getting out ASAP will put as at a greater risk from extremist, militant, Islamic groups. Yes it might. They are out there, they want revenge, they want to “bring us down,” and they are dedicated to jihad. We’ve spent 8 years in the region and we still haven’t destroyed al-Qaida and now it is wider spread and very mobile. We’ve made it more of a monster than it already was and put ourselves at greater risk than before. We will have to remain vigilant at home and abroad. We will have to be ready to move quickly and be devastating in our military attacks on their training centers, work to disrupt their lines of communication, and most importantly, move to cut off their supply of money needed to support themselves. It will require that we develop and institute the tools to do the above and probably more.
Our Presidents, our National Security Council, our Congress, and our Department of Defense have let us down over the last 35 years. We should have been prepared for this kind of struggle with lessons learned in Vietnam and been prepared to modify it to other geographic regions and cultural and political situations. Instead, despite warnings from President Eisenhower back in 1961, we have spent billions of dollars in supporting a conventional “military industrial complex” that we now know was out dated. It has been our “Maginot Line,” and it has cost us dearly. And, if and when we move beyond this, we need to heed Collin Powell’s warning to avoid a terrorist military-industrial complex. Unfortunately, there is and will continue to be too much money to be made in the war business.
Another, and in my mind the saddest problem with getting out ASAP is, how do you say sorry to individuals and families of our soldiers who went off to war under the belief that they were doing their patriotic duty to make America safe and to preserve our great nation. They put themselves at great risk, they suffered life time injuries, and were killed doing what they were told was right. And then, for us to say, “We screwed up,” is a “bitter pill.” It will take incredibly courageous political leadership to make this admission because of the firestorm of criticism from the hawkish, hard line, conservative right. But, we dealt with it before with our disengagement from Vietnam and our wise acceptance of limited objectives in Korea and the Gulf War. No matter what is said or how it is couched, it won’t correct the mistakes. Those who served need to be honored for their sacrifice and we can only hope that in turn they will magnanimously agree that continuing to put others in harms way does not make good sense.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Walking/Jogging/Biking Corridors Column 1
This will be the first of several columns that I am offering regarding the proposed walking/jogging/biking corridors (WJBC) that a substantial number of people in town feel should be constructed.
A year ago, the McPherson Planning Commission initiated a look at such a program. Our first effort was to meet with the elementary schools (public and parochial) and middle school site councils. They showed enthusiastic support for the idea. Then, a study committee of some 27 people, representing a broad cross section of McPherson, was formed and met over several months preparing a plan which was approved by the Planning Commission. The plan was presented to the City Commission at a study session and at the City Commission meeting Tues., 10-6-09. It was well attended by local citizens, many of who were there to offer support for the plan.
We have a mission statement which reads: “The WJBC Study Committee recommends the following comprehensive plan for an interconnected network of corridors which includes sidewalks adjacent to selected streets/avenues/roads, bicycling lanes, paths, and trails to be used by pedestrians, joggers, tricyclists, bicyclists, those pushing strollers, wheel chair users, skaters, skate boarders, and scooters in and around the City of McPherson. The primary purpose is to encourage people of all ages to use non-motorized alternatives of transportation (with exception of motorized wheel chairs) on safe and convenient corridors that are clearly built and designated for these activities. These uses are intended to be both functional (to get from point A to B in town) and recreational (for exercise, relaxation, and family/socializing activities) which promotes healthy lifestyles.”
Also, we prepared a list of priorities that grew from one to six as time went on with our committee meetings. They are as follows:
1. Establishment of corridors for students (especially young ones in the 5 to 14 age group) to go safely to and from schools, parks, and recreational areas.
2. Provide corridors for adults as well as students to safely travel to public points in town like the Post Office, library, YMCA, Community Building, Court House, Municipal Building, colleges, churches, theatre, Opera House, parks, and recreation areas.
3. Establish corridors so that employees at our local businesses and industries can elect to commute safely to and from work by walking and biking.
4. Provide safe corridors for citizens of all ages to reach shopping areas down town and on the outskirts of town.
5. Provide safe and attractive corridors that would appeal to and be used by visitors to our city as well as those considering relocating to McPherson.
6. Further develop recreational paths and trails which would be removed from normal vehicle traffic providing a more relaxed walk and/or ride through a more natural setting.
On the surface this project does not appear to be a complicated one. However, when one gets into the workings of what is required to accomplish this corridor plan, it gets involved. There is need to justify the program by making it clear what benefits such a program would bring to the community; there is a monumental amount of engineering to be done by the public works department to determine how to do it and the cost; it could require a re-write of our city ordinances and policies regarding sidewalks; and of course the 800 lb. guerilla of how it is to be financed sets out there.
I intend to address most of these things over the next several weeks and would welcome community input. If you choose, you can contact me directly at 241-0606 or e-mail me at jeboyer1@cox.net. Those in support of this plan think that “it is the right thing to do and now is the right time to do it!”
(A feature I will be putting in the column is the “walk or bike ride of the week.” Imagine you are doing this in all kinds of weather. You can draw your own conclusions if you give them a try) Walk or ride of the week: From Foxfire or Deerfield neighborhoods, go west on Ave. A to the Middle School or Washington Elementary School at same time kids are going to school and/or east when they are coming home from school.
Jim Boyer
PS. I want to commend our local school district for their organized, pro-active observance of National Walk to School Day conducted Wed. 10-7-09. The number of participants was good to see. These are the kinds of activities that are needed to encourage healthy life-styles. We just need to build infrastructure to support these programs.
A year ago, the McPherson Planning Commission initiated a look at such a program. Our first effort was to meet with the elementary schools (public and parochial) and middle school site councils. They showed enthusiastic support for the idea. Then, a study committee of some 27 people, representing a broad cross section of McPherson, was formed and met over several months preparing a plan which was approved by the Planning Commission. The plan was presented to the City Commission at a study session and at the City Commission meeting Tues., 10-6-09. It was well attended by local citizens, many of who were there to offer support for the plan.
We have a mission statement which reads: “The WJBC Study Committee recommends the following comprehensive plan for an interconnected network of corridors which includes sidewalks adjacent to selected streets/avenues/roads, bicycling lanes, paths, and trails to be used by pedestrians, joggers, tricyclists, bicyclists, those pushing strollers, wheel chair users, skaters, skate boarders, and scooters in and around the City of McPherson. The primary purpose is to encourage people of all ages to use non-motorized alternatives of transportation (with exception of motorized wheel chairs) on safe and convenient corridors that are clearly built and designated for these activities. These uses are intended to be both functional (to get from point A to B in town) and recreational (for exercise, relaxation, and family/socializing activities) which promotes healthy lifestyles.”
Also, we prepared a list of priorities that grew from one to six as time went on with our committee meetings. They are as follows:
1. Establishment of corridors for students (especially young ones in the 5 to 14 age group) to go safely to and from schools, parks, and recreational areas.
2. Provide corridors for adults as well as students to safely travel to public points in town like the Post Office, library, YMCA, Community Building, Court House, Municipal Building, colleges, churches, theatre, Opera House, parks, and recreation areas.
3. Establish corridors so that employees at our local businesses and industries can elect to commute safely to and from work by walking and biking.
4. Provide safe corridors for citizens of all ages to reach shopping areas down town and on the outskirts of town.
5. Provide safe and attractive corridors that would appeal to and be used by visitors to our city as well as those considering relocating to McPherson.
6. Further develop recreational paths and trails which would be removed from normal vehicle traffic providing a more relaxed walk and/or ride through a more natural setting.
On the surface this project does not appear to be a complicated one. However, when one gets into the workings of what is required to accomplish this corridor plan, it gets involved. There is need to justify the program by making it clear what benefits such a program would bring to the community; there is a monumental amount of engineering to be done by the public works department to determine how to do it and the cost; it could require a re-write of our city ordinances and policies regarding sidewalks; and of course the 800 lb. guerilla of how it is to be financed sets out there.
I intend to address most of these things over the next several weeks and would welcome community input. If you choose, you can contact me directly at 241-0606 or e-mail me at jeboyer1@cox.net. Those in support of this plan think that “it is the right thing to do and now is the right time to do it!”
(A feature I will be putting in the column is the “walk or bike ride of the week.” Imagine you are doing this in all kinds of weather. You can draw your own conclusions if you give them a try) Walk or ride of the week: From Foxfire or Deerfield neighborhoods, go west on Ave. A to the Middle School or Washington Elementary School at same time kids are going to school and/or east when they are coming home from school.
Jim Boyer
PS. I want to commend our local school district for their organized, pro-active observance of National Walk to School Day conducted Wed. 10-7-09. The number of participants was good to see. These are the kinds of activities that are needed to encourage healthy life-styles. We just need to build infrastructure to support these programs.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
We need universal health care
To better understand this “debate” over a universal health care plan let’s look at why the government has gotten involved in our lives with various new programs in the past.
You can go clear back to the founding of the U.S. Constitution and the issue of slavery. This great document, the U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights (which by the way came after ratification through amendments) among other things, guarantees us our freedoms. But, great as it is, it originally sanctified slavery. It was 70+ years later before slavery was ended. Then, we had a period of almost 100 years before minorities actually got civil rights because of Democratic Conservative opposition like “Jim Crow” laws, unequal employment opportunities, unequal educational opportunities, and segregation of all kinds. Status quo defenders don’t give up easily. Things have gotten better as witnessed by a biracial President, but even today, when one views issues like education and job opportunities, things are still not equal. There is a clear propensity for conservatives in all stages of our history to do all in their power to resist change even when it is just and clearly appropriate for our times.
You can study the history of American labor where abuse, including long hours, poor pay, no fringe benefits, unsafe working conditions, etc., were the norm in many jobs. It wasn’t until the 1930’s that the government stepped in with the right to collective bargaining of labor unions. Finally, the fate of American labor improved as we emerged from WW II which led in part to the 1950’s which was one of the classic periods of relative prosperity embodied by a solid middle class. This battle isn’t over and may need to be addressed again as one sees the American labor union’s position weakening with a simultaneous flattening and decreasing of wages and buying power. What has saved many American working families in the last 60+ years is two family incomes resulting in a significant impact on our culture.
Social Security came about because of the change in our society where the extended family, private, and “faith based” charities were overwhelmed in the Great Depression resulting in the disgraceful status of our elderly. Even though Social Security is well established, this battle is not over. The last Republican Administration took a run at it’s elimination by recommending privatization which, in view of what’s happened economically, should serve as an example of what a disaster that would be. Social Security will need to be re-worked with our aging population and younger people better stay involved because there are many conservatives who would love to see it eliminated.
In the middle of the last century, it became obvious that the elderly’s ability to provide enough savings for retirement failed to insure enough money for reasonable and adequate medical care in their old age. One serious illness with rising medical costs wiped them out. This led to a huge battle over what eventually became Medicare. To their credit, there were Moderate Republicans who worked with Democrats to craft a working Medicare Law. But, like Social Security, it needs re-working and the young in our society better stay involved or we are likely to see Medicare “put-to-rest” as a failed liberal experiment.
We could go on and on with historical examples where it was essential for the government to involve themselves in correcting unfair and unjust practices. Some of these would be anti-trust legislation, elimination of child labor, graduated income tax, women’s right to vote, regulation of financial and investment markets, farm programs, Medicaid, environmental programs, OSHA, etc. Rest assured that every one of these new government involvements was fought “tooth-and-nail” against by conservatives of their era and took years to be established as law.
Now along comes the “debate” over universal health care. Hopefully, you watched or read the President’s speech on this issue. One of the more interesting sections occurred early on where he clearly listed the undisputed facts of why our present system is at the “breaking point.” I have not heard these facts disputed in all the criticism I’ve heard of the President’s speech. They include refusal by insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, non-portability, excessive cost, etc. I won’t repeat them all, but by my count there were eight, clear, serious, glaring, problems that could potentially affect us all at some point in our lifetime. They have been around for 60+ years and are getting rapidly worse and more devastating for a growing part of our population. Something needs to be done and the President offered some solutions plus assured us that they can be deficit neutral. And, to his credit, even in the face of all the nasty criticism, he continues to hold out the olive branch of bipartisanship and an “open door policy” of a willingness to listen to alternative suggestions.
The discouraging thing is that at this point-in-time, the Conservative Republicans in Congress and the Right Wing media have nothing to offer except the policy of “NO” to everything. Not only no, but they have chosen to use the tactics of fear, demagoguery, name calling, out right lies, and personal attacks on the President’s character and motives.
As discussed earlier, down through history, anytime someone has suggested a change with more government involvement we know that the conservative element in our society will oppose it regardless of its need. This is O.K. if it is done responsibly. It serves a role of “devils advocacy” and insures us that negative ramifications of any new legislation are considered. Historically, Republicans have been good at this and Democrats not so good. If the Democrats had been better at it we wouldn’t have had tax cuts in 2001; we wouldn’t be involved in a war in Iraq and would have limited our involvement in Afghanistan to justifiable punishment and destruction of al Queda; we wouldn’t have had devastating deregulation of financial markets in the early 2000’s; or unfunded prescription drug program and no child left behind programs.
Personally, I think we need a universal health care program. I’d like to see some responsible Republican input; but, since there doesn't appear to be any forthcoming, I’m rapidly getting to the point where I’d accept a Democratic power play to force it through Congress. I find it hard to believe that the Republican opposition is so unanimous. It reminds me of a quote from the longest serving Speaker of the House, the late Sam Rayburn, when he said, “when two people agree about everything, only one of ‘ems thinking.” I wonder which Republican is doing all the thinking. While we are quoting Sam Rayburn, I think another of his comments is appropriate, “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.” Where are the Sam Rayburn’s when you need them?
You can go clear back to the founding of the U.S. Constitution and the issue of slavery. This great document, the U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights (which by the way came after ratification through amendments) among other things, guarantees us our freedoms. But, great as it is, it originally sanctified slavery. It was 70+ years later before slavery was ended. Then, we had a period of almost 100 years before minorities actually got civil rights because of Democratic Conservative opposition like “Jim Crow” laws, unequal employment opportunities, unequal educational opportunities, and segregation of all kinds. Status quo defenders don’t give up easily. Things have gotten better as witnessed by a biracial President, but even today, when one views issues like education and job opportunities, things are still not equal. There is a clear propensity for conservatives in all stages of our history to do all in their power to resist change even when it is just and clearly appropriate for our times.
You can study the history of American labor where abuse, including long hours, poor pay, no fringe benefits, unsafe working conditions, etc., were the norm in many jobs. It wasn’t until the 1930’s that the government stepped in with the right to collective bargaining of labor unions. Finally, the fate of American labor improved as we emerged from WW II which led in part to the 1950’s which was one of the classic periods of relative prosperity embodied by a solid middle class. This battle isn’t over and may need to be addressed again as one sees the American labor union’s position weakening with a simultaneous flattening and decreasing of wages and buying power. What has saved many American working families in the last 60+ years is two family incomes resulting in a significant impact on our culture.
Social Security came about because of the change in our society where the extended family, private, and “faith based” charities were overwhelmed in the Great Depression resulting in the disgraceful status of our elderly. Even though Social Security is well established, this battle is not over. The last Republican Administration took a run at it’s elimination by recommending privatization which, in view of what’s happened economically, should serve as an example of what a disaster that would be. Social Security will need to be re-worked with our aging population and younger people better stay involved because there are many conservatives who would love to see it eliminated.
In the middle of the last century, it became obvious that the elderly’s ability to provide enough savings for retirement failed to insure enough money for reasonable and adequate medical care in their old age. One serious illness with rising medical costs wiped them out. This led to a huge battle over what eventually became Medicare. To their credit, there were Moderate Republicans who worked with Democrats to craft a working Medicare Law. But, like Social Security, it needs re-working and the young in our society better stay involved or we are likely to see Medicare “put-to-rest” as a failed liberal experiment.
We could go on and on with historical examples where it was essential for the government to involve themselves in correcting unfair and unjust practices. Some of these would be anti-trust legislation, elimination of child labor, graduated income tax, women’s right to vote, regulation of financial and investment markets, farm programs, Medicaid, environmental programs, OSHA, etc. Rest assured that every one of these new government involvements was fought “tooth-and-nail” against by conservatives of their era and took years to be established as law.
Now along comes the “debate” over universal health care. Hopefully, you watched or read the President’s speech on this issue. One of the more interesting sections occurred early on where he clearly listed the undisputed facts of why our present system is at the “breaking point.” I have not heard these facts disputed in all the criticism I’ve heard of the President’s speech. They include refusal by insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, non-portability, excessive cost, etc. I won’t repeat them all, but by my count there were eight, clear, serious, glaring, problems that could potentially affect us all at some point in our lifetime. They have been around for 60+ years and are getting rapidly worse and more devastating for a growing part of our population. Something needs to be done and the President offered some solutions plus assured us that they can be deficit neutral. And, to his credit, even in the face of all the nasty criticism, he continues to hold out the olive branch of bipartisanship and an “open door policy” of a willingness to listen to alternative suggestions.
The discouraging thing is that at this point-in-time, the Conservative Republicans in Congress and the Right Wing media have nothing to offer except the policy of “NO” to everything. Not only no, but they have chosen to use the tactics of fear, demagoguery, name calling, out right lies, and personal attacks on the President’s character and motives.
As discussed earlier, down through history, anytime someone has suggested a change with more government involvement we know that the conservative element in our society will oppose it regardless of its need. This is O.K. if it is done responsibly. It serves a role of “devils advocacy” and insures us that negative ramifications of any new legislation are considered. Historically, Republicans have been good at this and Democrats not so good. If the Democrats had been better at it we wouldn’t have had tax cuts in 2001; we wouldn’t be involved in a war in Iraq and would have limited our involvement in Afghanistan to justifiable punishment and destruction of al Queda; we wouldn’t have had devastating deregulation of financial markets in the early 2000’s; or unfunded prescription drug program and no child left behind programs.
Personally, I think we need a universal health care program. I’d like to see some responsible Republican input; but, since there doesn't appear to be any forthcoming, I’m rapidly getting to the point where I’d accept a Democratic power play to force it through Congress. I find it hard to believe that the Republican opposition is so unanimous. It reminds me of a quote from the longest serving Speaker of the House, the late Sam Rayburn, when he said, “when two people agree about everything, only one of ‘ems thinking.” I wonder which Republican is doing all the thinking. While we are quoting Sam Rayburn, I think another of his comments is appropriate, “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.” Where are the Sam Rayburn’s when you need them?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Planning for the City of McPhrson - Demographic Considerations
It is critical that McPherson encourage growth, which typically involves a growing population with additional business and industry offering good paying jobs, affordable housing, appropriate medical facilities and services, excellent schools, broad based retail trade options, cultural offerings, and superior recreational opportunities.
The list could be much longer. And, when one judges McPherson against this list, we fair pretty well with a few exceptions.
Assuming that growing a community involves attracting new people to town, let’s look at what that entails. Just getting everyone who works here to live here would be a good start. Encouraging those who grew up here to stay or return here with their families would be a real plus. We certainly want to create an environment where young people get “homesick” for McPherson when away and strive to find a way to live here. And of course, getting the word out to people over a broad area, who are looking for “one of the best places to live in the country,” could lead to people choosing McPherson.
One group that I think is too often overlooked in this mix of new people being sought are the older/retired ones (55 to 80+). By not going out of the way to encourage the growth of this group we may be “swimming upstream” against an inevitable trend. I agree we need a good demographic mix of age, race, and culture for a vibrant community; but, the aging of our country’s population is a given and could offer a good opportunity for growth.
There are geographic areas and communities in this country that have targeted this aging population with astoundingly positive results. But, some of these communities have grown to the point where they have lost their appeal – they are too big, too crowded, too noisy, have too much traffic, have too much crime, are too expensive, are too hot, and are just too different culturally to be comfortable. A community like McPherson might be able to fill a need.
Let’s look at McPherson’s advantages:
1. We are smack dab in the middle of a region and state with a slow growing population where many small towns are struggling to stay viable socially and economically. Many of these people what to retire in a “small” vibrant community where their investments, for example in housing, are more secure and the culture is one they are familiar with.
2. We are solid economically with potential for a continued strong mix of industry, business, education, etc. Unless we rest on our laurels or really make some stupid decisions, we should remain economically viable a long way into the future.
3. We have deep Midwestern roots that many demographers use as a model of honesty, integrity, good work ethic, strong religious beliefs, family values, etc. We don’t have to create little enclaves of like minded people in a larger, possibly “foreign” culture – our community’s present lifestyle promotes and perpetuates this culture.
3. We have seasons. Some people flee extremes, but there are many others that are invigorated by the seasons. Winters can be cold, but not terribly so and not too long, Summer can be hot and windy, but only for a few months, and there are those long beautiful Springs and Falls.
4. For those seeking “cultural” activities, our community with our two colleges, rebuilt Opera House, theater, library, secondary schools, churches, and community ventures do a good job of giving people these exposures. And, it isn’t prohibitively far to go to large towns and cities in the area to supplement these experiences.
5. We don’t have what some would describe as spectacular scenery like is offered by mountains, deserts, and coastal areas. But, the prairie has its own beauty and spectacular habitat. This is one of the truly underdeveloped resources this State fails to cash in on. That is largely the result of so much private land where access is limited. Our natural wonders end up being small pockets of nature where state and federal agencies and organizations, like the National Conservancy, have saved out some land for public access. More funding and better marketing programs need to be conducted by these agencies and organizations to encourage their use, and opportunities to expand these offerings need to be sought where appropriate.
Maybe McPherson needs to look at what I would call the “tweener” group of people who don’t see themselves as old and don’t act old. This group has a little money, they have time, have broad interests, and often are interested in learning new things. Some might still want to work a little or a lot, some are entrepreneurs and might start businesses, many possess important knowledge and skills gained from years of lifetime experiences, and some are to the point in time in life where they want to “pay back” for their good fortune. All of the above are attractive traits that could be useful in a community. McPherson might want to consider doing more in a community wide, coordinated, planned fashion to welcome this group “making our community a special place to live.”
I think our present efforts to “grow” our community may be a bit too exclusively concentrated on the younger group. Our focus should possibly be broader based, by developing an attractive environment for a demographic group that already has a propensity to choose a community like ours. There are hundreds of other communities out there that could serve as examples and/or provide us with models of “best practices” to pick and choose from. I think it is worth considering.
The list could be much longer. And, when one judges McPherson against this list, we fair pretty well with a few exceptions.
Assuming that growing a community involves attracting new people to town, let’s look at what that entails. Just getting everyone who works here to live here would be a good start. Encouraging those who grew up here to stay or return here with their families would be a real plus. We certainly want to create an environment where young people get “homesick” for McPherson when away and strive to find a way to live here. And of course, getting the word out to people over a broad area, who are looking for “one of the best places to live in the country,” could lead to people choosing McPherson.
One group that I think is too often overlooked in this mix of new people being sought are the older/retired ones (55 to 80+). By not going out of the way to encourage the growth of this group we may be “swimming upstream” against an inevitable trend. I agree we need a good demographic mix of age, race, and culture for a vibrant community; but, the aging of our country’s population is a given and could offer a good opportunity for growth.
There are geographic areas and communities in this country that have targeted this aging population with astoundingly positive results. But, some of these communities have grown to the point where they have lost their appeal – they are too big, too crowded, too noisy, have too much traffic, have too much crime, are too expensive, are too hot, and are just too different culturally to be comfortable. A community like McPherson might be able to fill a need.
Let’s look at McPherson’s advantages:
1. We are smack dab in the middle of a region and state with a slow growing population where many small towns are struggling to stay viable socially and economically. Many of these people what to retire in a “small” vibrant community where their investments, for example in housing, are more secure and the culture is one they are familiar with.
2. We are solid economically with potential for a continued strong mix of industry, business, education, etc. Unless we rest on our laurels or really make some stupid decisions, we should remain economically viable a long way into the future.
3. We have deep Midwestern roots that many demographers use as a model of honesty, integrity, good work ethic, strong religious beliefs, family values, etc. We don’t have to create little enclaves of like minded people in a larger, possibly “foreign” culture – our community’s present lifestyle promotes and perpetuates this culture.
3. We have seasons. Some people flee extremes, but there are many others that are invigorated by the seasons. Winters can be cold, but not terribly so and not too long, Summer can be hot and windy, but only for a few months, and there are those long beautiful Springs and Falls.
4. For those seeking “cultural” activities, our community with our two colleges, rebuilt Opera House, theater, library, secondary schools, churches, and community ventures do a good job of giving people these exposures. And, it isn’t prohibitively far to go to large towns and cities in the area to supplement these experiences.
5. We don’t have what some would describe as spectacular scenery like is offered by mountains, deserts, and coastal areas. But, the prairie has its own beauty and spectacular habitat. This is one of the truly underdeveloped resources this State fails to cash in on. That is largely the result of so much private land where access is limited. Our natural wonders end up being small pockets of nature where state and federal agencies and organizations, like the National Conservancy, have saved out some land for public access. More funding and better marketing programs need to be conducted by these agencies and organizations to encourage their use, and opportunities to expand these offerings need to be sought where appropriate.
Maybe McPherson needs to look at what I would call the “tweener” group of people who don’t see themselves as old and don’t act old. This group has a little money, they have time, have broad interests, and often are interested in learning new things. Some might still want to work a little or a lot, some are entrepreneurs and might start businesses, many possess important knowledge and skills gained from years of lifetime experiences, and some are to the point in time in life where they want to “pay back” for their good fortune. All of the above are attractive traits that could be useful in a community. McPherson might want to consider doing more in a community wide, coordinated, planned fashion to welcome this group “making our community a special place to live.”
I think our present efforts to “grow” our community may be a bit too exclusively concentrated on the younger group. Our focus should possibly be broader based, by developing an attractive environment for a demographic group that already has a propensity to choose a community like ours. There are hundreds of other communities out there that could serve as examples and/or provide us with models of “best practices” to pick and choose from. I think it is worth considering.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Is our present administration going too fast and taking on too much?
I’ll make a clear statement here: “I’m really tired of hearing the naysayers complaining about President Obama going too fast and ‘biting off more than he can chew’.” In my opinion that is rubbish.
First, I think most of the complaints are from conservative Republican naysayers who want to maintain the status quo of what they created over 12 years prior to 2006 and were able to continue on to 2008 with President Bush’s vetoes. They spent money “hands over fist” on projects and programs that padded their supporter’s pockets with all sorts of lucrative subsidies, favorable contracts, and topped it off with tax breaks for the wealthy. They got to live a conservative Republican’s dream of deregulating about everything they could deregulate which led to all kinds of financial and governmental failure. They got to be “tough guys” with countries elsewhere in the world that didn’t kowtow to their view, even to the point of unilaterally starting an unnecessary war which distracted from a fully justifiable, clear cut military retaliation that itself has now warped into a war with both of them lasting longer than either of the World Wars of the 20th century. And, they would still be following these failed policies if the economy hadn’t done a “humpty-dumpty” off the wall and they couldn’t put him back together again.
Secondly, I think some are opposed to Obama’s drive to fix things, which requires changing things, because they just don’t like to work that hard. Too many are “too old” and “too slow” and they were coasting in their comfort zone. They are elected from “safe” districts and states; they’ve gotten their “pork barrel” bills through Congress to show people back home how much they “love” them; their campaign “war chests” are full or can be easily refilled with a few phone calls because their supporters both owe them and own them; they’ve got their staffs doing all their grunt work; and they are out doing what they do best – getting re-elected over and over. (In all fairness, there are some Democratic Congressmen that are in the same position which is our collective fault.)
Then, along comes this young President who actually wants to take a shot at doing what he said he was going to do in his campaign. This is almost unheard of in their political world. He has turned them upside down and made them very uncomfortable. When they say he is trying to do too much, it really means he is forcing them to have to hustle just to keep up. When you hear Congressmen publicly complaining about how many pages are in a bill, like Universal Health Care, and that they are struggling to get it read that’s a “smoke screen.” Important bills are almost always that long and most Congressmen haven’t been reading them for years. The best hope is that their staffs have been and give them a one or two page summary with a few talking points to use out on the stump. Suddenly they want time to read these bills? They are just “grasping at straws” and stalling.
Thirdly, when you hear them say they want to slow down and consider all the ramifications of a proposal like Universal Health Care, they are stalling again. Where was the slow down and consideration of ramifications for our unilateral rush to war, our deregulation of the financial world in the early 2000’s, or the creation and inadequate funding of prescription drug program? Drafters of legislation do their best to factor in consequences when they write legislation, but no one can second guess the ramifications of some changes until you get into them. You win some and you lose some and conservative Republican’s lost the last election because the ramifications of their policies resulted in failure.
Every change is a bit of a gamble and ramifications can’t always be forecast accurately. But, if you have problems like a failed economy, failed health care system, failed energy policy, failed educational system, collapsing infrastructure, and failed foreign policy, it behooves you to try to fix them.
But, instead of facing these problems head on and cooperatively working together to find solutions, the conservative Republicans have decided the easiest thing to do is to “stop the train” or at least slow it down with constant negative innuendo, a policy of no to everything, conjuring up a wagon load of fears, and repeating outrageous lies over and over again. There are legitimate concerns and need for serious bi-partisan discussion to deal with these problems – for example how should we pay for these solutions. President Obama has been admirably patient in trying to do this – more than I would be.
If you have a company with bad or out-dated product, poor customer service, sinking sales, "tired" inefficient manufacturing facilities, poorly trained and performing workers, status quo loving “fat cat” managers, etc. you better not approach these problems with let’s go slow and take one thing at a time. You do that, and you are out of business. You had better bring in some new high energy management people with creative minds and innovative ideas. You better do some serious R & D. You’d better invest in up-to-date infrastructure, train and motivate your workers, and hustle to retain existing customers and get new ones. And guess what, you are going to have to borrow money big time to get it done! Try as you may, you aren’t going to foresee all the ramifications of your changes in advance. You are going to have to dump some things, cutting your losses when mistakes are made. You will need to tweak, adapt, build and expand on those things that do work. But, you’d better not rely on “smooth talking”, “glad handing”, “do nothing”, “too old”, “too slow”, “fat cat”, “status quo loving conservatives” to get things up and running. There is a great book written by Jennings and Haughton for the business world in 2000 that I’d recommend, it’s not the Big that eat the Small……it’s the Fast that eat the Slow. We’d better be ready or the Big ole USA is going to be eaten by the rest of the world that is getting faster and faster and smarter and smarter.
First, I think most of the complaints are from conservative Republican naysayers who want to maintain the status quo of what they created over 12 years prior to 2006 and were able to continue on to 2008 with President Bush’s vetoes. They spent money “hands over fist” on projects and programs that padded their supporter’s pockets with all sorts of lucrative subsidies, favorable contracts, and topped it off with tax breaks for the wealthy. They got to live a conservative Republican’s dream of deregulating about everything they could deregulate which led to all kinds of financial and governmental failure. They got to be “tough guys” with countries elsewhere in the world that didn’t kowtow to their view, even to the point of unilaterally starting an unnecessary war which distracted from a fully justifiable, clear cut military retaliation that itself has now warped into a war with both of them lasting longer than either of the World Wars of the 20th century. And, they would still be following these failed policies if the economy hadn’t done a “humpty-dumpty” off the wall and they couldn’t put him back together again.
Secondly, I think some are opposed to Obama’s drive to fix things, which requires changing things, because they just don’t like to work that hard. Too many are “too old” and “too slow” and they were coasting in their comfort zone. They are elected from “safe” districts and states; they’ve gotten their “pork barrel” bills through Congress to show people back home how much they “love” them; their campaign “war chests” are full or can be easily refilled with a few phone calls because their supporters both owe them and own them; they’ve got their staffs doing all their grunt work; and they are out doing what they do best – getting re-elected over and over. (In all fairness, there are some Democratic Congressmen that are in the same position which is our collective fault.)
Then, along comes this young President who actually wants to take a shot at doing what he said he was going to do in his campaign. This is almost unheard of in their political world. He has turned them upside down and made them very uncomfortable. When they say he is trying to do too much, it really means he is forcing them to have to hustle just to keep up. When you hear Congressmen publicly complaining about how many pages are in a bill, like Universal Health Care, and that they are struggling to get it read that’s a “smoke screen.” Important bills are almost always that long and most Congressmen haven’t been reading them for years. The best hope is that their staffs have been and give them a one or two page summary with a few talking points to use out on the stump. Suddenly they want time to read these bills? They are just “grasping at straws” and stalling.
Thirdly, when you hear them say they want to slow down and consider all the ramifications of a proposal like Universal Health Care, they are stalling again. Where was the slow down and consideration of ramifications for our unilateral rush to war, our deregulation of the financial world in the early 2000’s, or the creation and inadequate funding of prescription drug program? Drafters of legislation do their best to factor in consequences when they write legislation, but no one can second guess the ramifications of some changes until you get into them. You win some and you lose some and conservative Republican’s lost the last election because the ramifications of their policies resulted in failure.
Every change is a bit of a gamble and ramifications can’t always be forecast accurately. But, if you have problems like a failed economy, failed health care system, failed energy policy, failed educational system, collapsing infrastructure, and failed foreign policy, it behooves you to try to fix them.
But, instead of facing these problems head on and cooperatively working together to find solutions, the conservative Republicans have decided the easiest thing to do is to “stop the train” or at least slow it down with constant negative innuendo, a policy of no to everything, conjuring up a wagon load of fears, and repeating outrageous lies over and over again. There are legitimate concerns and need for serious bi-partisan discussion to deal with these problems – for example how should we pay for these solutions. President Obama has been admirably patient in trying to do this – more than I would be.
If you have a company with bad or out-dated product, poor customer service, sinking sales, "tired" inefficient manufacturing facilities, poorly trained and performing workers, status quo loving “fat cat” managers, etc. you better not approach these problems with let’s go slow and take one thing at a time. You do that, and you are out of business. You had better bring in some new high energy management people with creative minds and innovative ideas. You better do some serious R & D. You’d better invest in up-to-date infrastructure, train and motivate your workers, and hustle to retain existing customers and get new ones. And guess what, you are going to have to borrow money big time to get it done! Try as you may, you aren’t going to foresee all the ramifications of your changes in advance. You are going to have to dump some things, cutting your losses when mistakes are made. You will need to tweak, adapt, build and expand on those things that do work. But, you’d better not rely on “smooth talking”, “glad handing”, “do nothing”, “too old”, “too slow”, “fat cat”, “status quo loving conservatives” to get things up and running. There is a great book written by Jennings and Haughton for the business world in 2000 that I’d recommend, it’s not the Big that eat the Small……it’s the Fast that eat the Slow. We’d better be ready or the Big ole USA is going to be eaten by the rest of the world that is getting faster and faster and smarter and smarter.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Another opinion on Town Hall Meeting in Lindsborg
It was interesting in a kind of disconnected way. You had U.S. Representative Jerry Moran with sweat dripping off his face and soaking his shirt being pleasant, obviously intelligent, showing a good sense of humor, and being very articulate. He was clearly well prepared and spent less than 30 minutes telling his audience his views on the big issues of the day. He was obviously “preaching to the choir,” getting all kinds of smiles, applause and moral support for his rendition of Republican Party ideology. He was “home” and you could tell it bolstered his spirits and he rose to the occasion.
However, one could feel a current underlying his opening statements where people in the audience were only somewhat patiently waiting for him to finish so that they could have “their day in court.” This is where the disconnect began.
He announced at the end of his opening comments that he didn’t put much stock in polls, not mentioning the fact that they are usually conducted these days following very scientific processes, but instead he put more stock in “pressing the flesh” and talking directly to the people. I thought “bologna,” but since he is a politician I let it pass until the very end of the town hall meeting when he asked for a show of hands on several topics including how many supported the universal health care plan, the public option in the plan, etc. With a crowd of obviously strong Republican supporters, he got the response he came for, seemingly ignoring the fact that this is about as unscientific a measure as one could imagine. I wondered if he went away from there truly convinced that the overwhelming number of people in Lindsborg really agreed with him.
Then, the people began to speak. Some were well prepared and had good quality questions, comments, and life experiences to share which made it a good learning experience. But, there were some that were to say the least, “off the wall.” People who liked to hear themselves talk and had been saving up for years for their chance to tell their life story to a U.S. Representative and an audience of some 200 people many of which had already made up their mind. It made me happy that we have a small “r” republican form of government, not a pure democracy.
There were quite a few partisan anti-government questions like, “When are you going to shut down this liberal government in Washington that is taking away our freedoms and leading the country to “rack and ruin.” I wondered if this guy wasn’t aware that we recently had a national election where the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency because the majority of the people in the country believed that the Republican President and Congress (of which Moran was a part) had led us down the “tubes” for years.
One commenter said he had read 45 pages of the 1000+ page plan which Rep.Moran’s staffer had set on the podium as a visual aid. I guess they did so to show that the bill is long and involved. Are we to assume that an issue like this can be reduced to a one or two page list of bullet points? It was interesting that no one, including Rep. Moran, pointed out that this bill was just one of several bills circulating in Washington and that the one he showed from the Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives is not the important one. The one still being hammered out in the Finance Committee by Senator Baucus, of Montana, with the White House’s help, is what most experts are waiting for. This commenter then stated that “the plan on the table,” contained provisions where a committee with a chairman appointed by the President would take up to 18 months to work out the details ‘scares the devil out of him.” I stood there wondering if this guy doesn’t understand that this is the constitutional process in our government – legislative branch (Congress) passes a bill (makes a law) and the executive branch (President) administers the law with Cabinet and/or other agency appointments and that it takes a while to put a process like this in place.
There was a young couple who very emotionally talked about how they opposed the health care bill because it would result in euthanasia of their special needs child. I lost a lot of respect for Rep. Moran when he lacked the courage to come out and say “there are no “death panels” called for in this bill or any other bill and that rumor is out-of-line and totally unfounded. Neither Democrats or Republicans would support such a thing.” He dodged around it and kind of left the audience with the feeling that there might be something to it. Shame on him! Some of the other rumors that are equally out of line were mentioned and he chose not to accurately squelch those either.
In answering a series of questions and comments about how our present system needs changing, Rep. Moran went through a rather long laundry list of how our present system is “broke.” His conclusion was, let’s take this piece-meal and eventually get it fixed. I stood there wondering why. All of the things he mentioned, that have been around for 50+ years and are getting worse, are addressed in these bills being written and discussed. Why wouldn’t you want to fix them ASAP?
Also, he “pulled on the heart strings” of the audience by claiming universal health care would destroy an already marginal/on-the-edge medical service industry in rural America – a lot of applause. It sounded interesting to me as to why. But, he gave no explanation and I left still wondering whether this was just anti-universal health care hype or something to really be concerned about.
The “socialism” word was thrown around a lot in questions and comments – we don’t want socialism! I don’t want socialism either, but what about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Farm Program, universal education and several other programs that we have that few in the audience would seriously consider eliminating? The U.S. Constitution was written in the 1780’s for a time and period that no longer exists and that one of our country’s strengths is that we have adapted our government to meet the needs of each generation. As conditions change, role of government must carefully change with them and our mixed economy and political structure is a testament to that.
As I said at the outset, there were a lot of disconnects in the experience, but I did think it was good to see this many people out expressing their views. I would like to have seen it run along the lines of the old TV Gong Show. It would have saved a lot of time and allowed more questions and comments. And, it would have been even better if one had the feeling that someone was really listening and really cared rather than just solidifying votes for opinions already held. However, in my mind, one redeeming fact is that up to this point Rep. Jerry Moran is sooo much better than Todd Tiehart.
However, one could feel a current underlying his opening statements where people in the audience were only somewhat patiently waiting for him to finish so that they could have “their day in court.” This is where the disconnect began.
He announced at the end of his opening comments that he didn’t put much stock in polls, not mentioning the fact that they are usually conducted these days following very scientific processes, but instead he put more stock in “pressing the flesh” and talking directly to the people. I thought “bologna,” but since he is a politician I let it pass until the very end of the town hall meeting when he asked for a show of hands on several topics including how many supported the universal health care plan, the public option in the plan, etc. With a crowd of obviously strong Republican supporters, he got the response he came for, seemingly ignoring the fact that this is about as unscientific a measure as one could imagine. I wondered if he went away from there truly convinced that the overwhelming number of people in Lindsborg really agreed with him.
Then, the people began to speak. Some were well prepared and had good quality questions, comments, and life experiences to share which made it a good learning experience. But, there were some that were to say the least, “off the wall.” People who liked to hear themselves talk and had been saving up for years for their chance to tell their life story to a U.S. Representative and an audience of some 200 people many of which had already made up their mind. It made me happy that we have a small “r” republican form of government, not a pure democracy.
There were quite a few partisan anti-government questions like, “When are you going to shut down this liberal government in Washington that is taking away our freedoms and leading the country to “rack and ruin.” I wondered if this guy wasn’t aware that we recently had a national election where the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency because the majority of the people in the country believed that the Republican President and Congress (of which Moran was a part) had led us down the “tubes” for years.
One commenter said he had read 45 pages of the 1000+ page plan which Rep.Moran’s staffer had set on the podium as a visual aid. I guess they did so to show that the bill is long and involved. Are we to assume that an issue like this can be reduced to a one or two page list of bullet points? It was interesting that no one, including Rep. Moran, pointed out that this bill was just one of several bills circulating in Washington and that the one he showed from the Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives is not the important one. The one still being hammered out in the Finance Committee by Senator Baucus, of Montana, with the White House’s help, is what most experts are waiting for. This commenter then stated that “the plan on the table,” contained provisions where a committee with a chairman appointed by the President would take up to 18 months to work out the details ‘scares the devil out of him.” I stood there wondering if this guy doesn’t understand that this is the constitutional process in our government – legislative branch (Congress) passes a bill (makes a law) and the executive branch (President) administers the law with Cabinet and/or other agency appointments and that it takes a while to put a process like this in place.
There was a young couple who very emotionally talked about how they opposed the health care bill because it would result in euthanasia of their special needs child. I lost a lot of respect for Rep. Moran when he lacked the courage to come out and say “there are no “death panels” called for in this bill or any other bill and that rumor is out-of-line and totally unfounded. Neither Democrats or Republicans would support such a thing.” He dodged around it and kind of left the audience with the feeling that there might be something to it. Shame on him! Some of the other rumors that are equally out of line were mentioned and he chose not to accurately squelch those either.
In answering a series of questions and comments about how our present system needs changing, Rep. Moran went through a rather long laundry list of how our present system is “broke.” His conclusion was, let’s take this piece-meal and eventually get it fixed. I stood there wondering why. All of the things he mentioned, that have been around for 50+ years and are getting worse, are addressed in these bills being written and discussed. Why wouldn’t you want to fix them ASAP?
Also, he “pulled on the heart strings” of the audience by claiming universal health care would destroy an already marginal/on-the-edge medical service industry in rural America – a lot of applause. It sounded interesting to me as to why. But, he gave no explanation and I left still wondering whether this was just anti-universal health care hype or something to really be concerned about.
The “socialism” word was thrown around a lot in questions and comments – we don’t want socialism! I don’t want socialism either, but what about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Farm Program, universal education and several other programs that we have that few in the audience would seriously consider eliminating? The U.S. Constitution was written in the 1780’s for a time and period that no longer exists and that one of our country’s strengths is that we have adapted our government to meet the needs of each generation. As conditions change, role of government must carefully change with them and our mixed economy and political structure is a testament to that.
As I said at the outset, there were a lot of disconnects in the experience, but I did think it was good to see this many people out expressing their views. I would like to have seen it run along the lines of the old TV Gong Show. It would have saved a lot of time and allowed more questions and comments. And, it would have been even better if one had the feeling that someone was really listening and really cared rather than just solidifying votes for opinions already held. However, in my mind, one redeeming fact is that up to this point Rep. Jerry Moran is sooo much better than Todd Tiehart.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The World's Gun Culture
We have a gun culture in this country and evidently so do many other countries in the world. There are conflicts raging all around the globe where groups are fighting one another using automatic weapons, grenade launchers, hand held rocket launchers, mortars, etc. And, the incoming fire from these weapons is too often directed at our soldiers. My questions are, why are these weapons so prevalent and where do these groups get what seems like an inexhaustible supply of ammunition to keep these weapons firing? These are simple weapons by military standards, but they certainly are not something so crude that one can build them in one’s basement. Plus, road bombs, car bombs, and suicide bombers require access to plastic explosives and often sophisticated triggering systems. This equipment has to be made in a factory somewhere, warehoused somewhere, shipped by someone, cached somewhere, and then distributed to the end user. These weapons and ammunition are bulky, heavy, and not easily transported in massive amounts.
Our diplomatic core spends significant amount of time “gnashing their teeth” over nuclear weapons and delivery systems that if used would be disastrous. But, in the meantime our soldiers and innocent civilians are being killed daily with these much simpler weapons.
It seems so logical that nations ought to address this massive arms trade. Governments all over the world could insist that production of these weapons and ammunition be carefully controlled. Obviously, their own military and law enforcement need them. Beyond that, controls should exist on selling of surplus weapons or even obsolete weapons. Stock-piling and shipping could be severely curtailed using technology that now exists. Clandestine arms dealers should be put out of business. I understand that some of these weapons are well built and have excellent longevity, but they are simply a hunk of metal without ammunition and spare parts.
We’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for years and they are still shooting at us every day. In fact, TV footage often shows them indiscriminately firing guns up in the air to celebrate and/or protest this or that – often us. It’s crazy watching it on TV and it has to be dangerous and scary for our military in these areas. One has to wonder how long these two wars would have gone on without these weapons and ammunition.
I have not seen nor heard of any concerted efforts by our government and other “peace loving” nations actually discussing ways this could be shut down. In fact, the weapons industry is one of the best kept secrets and our news media is strangely silent on any reporting on this huge industry. Existence of inexhaustible supplies of weapons and ammunition is not a shrug one’s shoulders inevitability – it could be gradually reduced and eventually stopped. But, part of the problem is that we are as guilty as other nations in the world in trafficking in weapons systems. After all, there is a lot of money involved in this business plus all the behind the scenes maneuvering to supply some group in our good graces in order to off-set this other group not in our favor. We have been an enabler in many of these conflicts.
The drug war along our border with Mexico is a good example of where our gun culture has come back to haunt us. News reports suggest that many of the weapons used in this war are coming from the U.S. Then, we have a criminal element in our own country who are often better equipped with automatic weaponry than our own law enforcement people.
I view our fascination with guns that have no use except to kill others as some kind of insane perversion. And, I’m not anti-gun. I own and have shot guns of various types all my life in a sporting atmosphere. But, some group’s insistence that guns of all types and configurations be readily available is crazy. This availability and lack of control lends itself to abuse. The military should have them, law enforcement should have them, and maybe a few responsible gun owners who view collection and firing of these weapons as a hobby are fine – they are for the most part very responsible. But, with these exceptions, availability of these weapons should be strictly limited, regulated, and licensed. However, the best place to stop this insanity is not with the end user, but with a concerted effort by government to control manufacturing, distribution, and supply. The world would be a much safer place if insurgents, intolerant tribal fanatics, terrorists, and criminals were limited to throwing rocks. The only people who win in this gun culture are businesses and governments trafficking in this activity.
Our diplomatic core spends significant amount of time “gnashing their teeth” over nuclear weapons and delivery systems that if used would be disastrous. But, in the meantime our soldiers and innocent civilians are being killed daily with these much simpler weapons.
It seems so logical that nations ought to address this massive arms trade. Governments all over the world could insist that production of these weapons and ammunition be carefully controlled. Obviously, their own military and law enforcement need them. Beyond that, controls should exist on selling of surplus weapons or even obsolete weapons. Stock-piling and shipping could be severely curtailed using technology that now exists. Clandestine arms dealers should be put out of business. I understand that some of these weapons are well built and have excellent longevity, but they are simply a hunk of metal without ammunition and spare parts.
We’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for years and they are still shooting at us every day. In fact, TV footage often shows them indiscriminately firing guns up in the air to celebrate and/or protest this or that – often us. It’s crazy watching it on TV and it has to be dangerous and scary for our military in these areas. One has to wonder how long these two wars would have gone on without these weapons and ammunition.
I have not seen nor heard of any concerted efforts by our government and other “peace loving” nations actually discussing ways this could be shut down. In fact, the weapons industry is one of the best kept secrets and our news media is strangely silent on any reporting on this huge industry. Existence of inexhaustible supplies of weapons and ammunition is not a shrug one’s shoulders inevitability – it could be gradually reduced and eventually stopped. But, part of the problem is that we are as guilty as other nations in the world in trafficking in weapons systems. After all, there is a lot of money involved in this business plus all the behind the scenes maneuvering to supply some group in our good graces in order to off-set this other group not in our favor. We have been an enabler in many of these conflicts.
The drug war along our border with Mexico is a good example of where our gun culture has come back to haunt us. News reports suggest that many of the weapons used in this war are coming from the U.S. Then, we have a criminal element in our own country who are often better equipped with automatic weaponry than our own law enforcement people.
I view our fascination with guns that have no use except to kill others as some kind of insane perversion. And, I’m not anti-gun. I own and have shot guns of various types all my life in a sporting atmosphere. But, some group’s insistence that guns of all types and configurations be readily available is crazy. This availability and lack of control lends itself to abuse. The military should have them, law enforcement should have them, and maybe a few responsible gun owners who view collection and firing of these weapons as a hobby are fine – they are for the most part very responsible. But, with these exceptions, availability of these weapons should be strictly limited, regulated, and licensed. However, the best place to stop this insanity is not with the end user, but with a concerted effort by government to control manufacturing, distribution, and supply. The world would be a much safer place if insurgents, intolerant tribal fanatics, terrorists, and criminals were limited to throwing rocks. The only people who win in this gun culture are businesses and governments trafficking in this activity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
