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.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
