Those crazy "Founding Fathers". I have often wanted to ask individuals who love to use phrases including, "The Founding Fathers intended" and other such rhetoric, which of the "Fathers" they were referring to and why. "They" were a disparate lot, farmers and lawyers, tradesman and soldiers who were, just barely, united by a common purpose....sort of. We are, I concede, a culture that values the citation as a badge of credibility whether the label fits or not. There are those among us who would pair up a phrase from Revelation with one from Leviticus and use the twain to undermine the collective message of the four Gospels. The citation is the important thing when the people one is trying to impress aren't really listening.
Thus, the "Founding Fathers"; most of them disliked the Royal authority and some of them disliked any authority. The clear motives for rebellion; the quartering of royal troops in colonial homes, warrantless searches of home and business and seizures of property, and government policy enacted by a Parliament of which the colonials were not a part of, all found their way in to the Constitution. Most of these slights are now pointed to by current politicians wanting to make a point (or rather, steal one). The "Teabaggers" (their name, not mine) were supposedly against "Taxation without representation"...."The Founding Fathers fought against it!" Cue the gnashing of teeth and wailing of women and babes. The problem of course, is that we Americans do have representation; being the minority party in a democracy is not the same as living in a colony for which no representative is allowed into the ruling nation's legislative body.
The "Founding Fathers" might have encouraged the "Teabaggers" to get a grip and fight something like; "Taxation that I don't like". Then again, the "Fathers", or at least some of them, would like the taxation. Some of the "Founding Fathers" were (again, cue the sounds of evil and despair)......LIBERALS. Oh the humanity! Oddly enough, the "Founding Father" of capitalism, Adam Smith, was the perhaps the first to suggest the necessity of a progressive income tax. Our very own FF's went through an abortive experiment in government called the "Articles of Confederation". The Articles formed a government with a federal element focused on the borders, foreign relations, and national defense. Everything else was left to the states. The reason our FF's came up with The Constitution is that the weak federal system DID NOT WORK.
I am often reminded of the other special skills the "Founding Fathers" had when I watch cable news. In my last post, I referenced the young lady who confronted Senator Spector in a tearful rage and demanded to know what he would do to return our country to what the "Founders" intended. The parallel theme here is the notion that somehow the Obama Administration has destroyed the nation in 9 months (which is what was fanatically predicted by his opponents in the campaign). The Administration has left most of the tricky items to the status quo, passed a tax cut, and if by some miracle gets health reform passed will have succeeded in just equaling the debt burden of the Reagan years. Not exactly revolutionary stuff. But I digress; we were talking of the young lady in Pennsylvania and the "Founding Fathers' intent".
Might Senator Spector have told her to go home and attend to her duties as the "Founding Fathers" intended? Inflammatory? Yes. My personal view? Absolutely not (if I was such a chauvinist, I would have a wife, mom, sister, sisters-in-law and others to contend with). The view was, however, precisely that of the FF's. Women were not citizens...that they still receive something like 70% of the pay for equal work versus men tells us something of how strong the "Founding Father's " intent really was. Slavery was not only condoned in the Constitution, but practised by the FF's. I shouldn't imagine, after this paragraph, that further evidence of the need for our government to evolve would be necessary.
The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Federalist Papers are fantastic documents that form the backbone of our heritage and the foundation of our laws. They are also as flawed as their very human writers were. There exists a reasonable need to stay within certain strictures in the Constitution for the purposes of consistency, but change is not always a bad thing. A clear and rational look at a challenge facing our democracy can be accompanied by a vigorous, bare-knuckled debate over the right course to follow. The rational middle suggests that the debate be fed by solid facts and logical arguments.
Save the name dropping for socialites!
We look forward to your commentary....
Friday, August 28, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Just a few thoughts on the imminent demise of real action on health care.....
There should have been a real conversation in this country on several topics;
- Why should taxpayers who have coverage bear a burden for the uninsured?
- How can a government program help to spur the creation of a competitive marketplace in health care?
- Why do government run programs in the rest of the world outperform U.S. providers in health care outcomes while costing less of those nation's GDP?
- Can we trust government committees with sensitive choices in regards to our family's health care?
- Why do we trust big insurance bureaucrats with sensitive choices in regards to our family's health care?
- How do the costs of action now relate to costs in the future?
All of these questions could have formed the foundation for a good conversation in living rooms and town halls around the country. The fact that instead we have spent two months trying to get people to realize that "death panels" are a myth is sobering; 30% or more still cling to the notion. Somewhere, Senator Grassley and Representative Boehner are laughing...hard. These two "gentleman" stood with straight faces and told their constituents that they would oppose any plan that included "death panels". Strangely enough, the clause in HR 3200 that forms the basis of the myth (the clause that provides funding for people who choose the public option and want to receive counseling on end of life planning...funerals, DNR's, living wills, etc...) is taken almost word for word from the 2004 Medicare law that George W. Bush and 45 GOP senators along with over 200 GOP members of the House (including Boehner and Grassley) point to as a major legislative accomplishment. That is right sports fans....Grassley and Boehner joined in criticism of a bill do to a clause that they voted on just five years earlier. You just have to love Washington!
Death panels and an impressive lineup of truly concerned citizens whipped to a frenzy by lies and sent off to drown out conversation at the town halls have formed the conversation...certainly not what the rational middle considers productive participatory democracy. The concerned and diligent young women who confronted Arlen Spector was, I believe, emblematic of the problem we face in this country. She cares about the country, is concerned about our future, and yet has no real idea of what she is concerned about. She doesn't understand our history and relies on information that is designed specifically into scaring her into opposition....politics now on both sides has degenerated into the exploitation of our poor education. I am a big fan of the founding fathers; but they were, after all, slave owners who did not acknowledge that women were citizens. There are good reasons for the evolution of our government over the last 200 years. A women standing up to advocate in tearful rage that we should go back to the way the founding fathers intended is someone who has not in fact read the Constitution. The problem doesn't end with poor education, but rather confusion. Senior citizens in town hall meetings who are attacking Democrats for (supposedly) trying to destroy Medicare and for (supposedly) trying to implement socialized health care are confused. Medicare IS socialized medicine...and so is the VA.
Any realistic attempt to get single payer or socialized medicine in this nation died last spring when the President said he would not support it. There are, perhaps, 3 senators to go along with the 85 House cosponsors who would vote for a single payer bill (incidentally the bill is HR 676). Nancy Pelosi could not bring it to a vote in the House, let alone see Harry Reid have a Senate version passed. The myth of mandated government health care has served to muddy the waters around the real legislation, and that suits the insurance lobby just fine.
HR 3200 (follow this link...http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200.IH:) and S391 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.391.IS:) are both designed to push the market away from the monopolistic model that is now operating towards a competitive marketplace. They use public plans in conjunction with the current operators in "exchanges" to create competition...competition of course being the factor that drives service level and cost savings. Neither of the plans mandate the use of the public options, although the insurance industry is pushing for the inclusion of a mandate that all buy insurance. Funny how they want no public option to compete with, and a law creating 40 million new customers...I guess they want some big government after all.
I think about the "evil" public option often....the farmer who does not have to take a job in town to get coverage...the husband and wife who can afford to take the risk and pursue the American Dream with the opening of their own business without the prohibitive cost of private insurance....the worker who loses his or her job and does not have to buy COBRA to cover the gap until they find new work....the couple who both work "full time" in retail and have seen their hours cut to 31 per week; just under their firm's limit for insurance coverage. Sounds terrible doesn't it? Of course the CBO projects that it will fix health care inflation at 8% over the next decade....say friends, what was your increase from last year to this and repeated over the last decade? I'll bet it was more than 8%.
If you fall into the 20% of Americans who have decided over the last 2 months that Health Reform is difficult, dangerous, or too expensive; I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your reasons.
The rational middle wants you to remember those reasons for the next ten years or so if real Health Reform is not passed this time around. Remember them and be sure to look at your books as well....
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Glenbeck Syndrome
Glenn Beck went on the morning show on Fox News last week and got off a shot against the President. It really wasn't newsworthy, as much of his commentary is not newsworthy. Mr. Beck will admit to as much when pressed; he is, in his words, an entertainer and not a newsman. He feels no responsibility to check his facts before he makes an attack. Last summer Mr. Beck famously attacked Democrats for their lack of support for clean coal technology, then went on the offensive in February against the stimulus bill for its inclusion of billions for...clean coal technology.
I feel comfortable bringing this up because I understand Glenn Beck's problem. He suffers from a previously undiagnosed problem that afflicts millions of Americans...including me. Mr. Beck suffers from Glennbeck Syndrome; the uncontrollable urge to overreact to anything seen in the news or an email combined with overpowering "knowitallness" and a strong dose of bad attitude. Those who suffer from this disease take information from emails and news programs as gospel, and recirculate the information before checking the facts. Unfortunately, I have looked for years for a twelve-step program; but to no avail.
The current health care situation is a prime example of the problem; operatives from both sides have sent origin emails to people, who have then resent them to friends and relatives; who have resent them to friends and relatives; etc. Every time the messages are sent, they gain credibility, because they are sent by people that are trusted by the recipients. The reports of what is included in the "health care bill" move from the ridiculous to the outrageous. They are gaining steam, not because they are supported by the facts, but because they have been accepted by normal folks AS the facts.
There is precious little debate on costs and benefits, goals and strategies, and best or worst case scenarios; everyone is engaged in arguments about "the granny killer clause" and other nonsense.
The rational middle would hope that citizens will seek out the three bills currently in circulation; S 391, HR 3200, and HR 676; and read them for their merits. Please see the "Thomas" site at the Library of Congress for complete versions of the bills in multiple formats. Please compare the language of the bills with the assertions in the emails in circulation.
Please trust the news that you have confirmed for yourself.....we wait for your valued commentary.
I feel comfortable bringing this up because I understand Glenn Beck's problem. He suffers from a previously undiagnosed problem that afflicts millions of Americans...including me. Mr. Beck suffers from Glennbeck Syndrome; the uncontrollable urge to overreact to anything seen in the news or an email combined with overpowering "knowitallness" and a strong dose of bad attitude. Those who suffer from this disease take information from emails and news programs as gospel, and recirculate the information before checking the facts. Unfortunately, I have looked for years for a twelve-step program; but to no avail.
The current health care situation is a prime example of the problem; operatives from both sides have sent origin emails to people, who have then resent them to friends and relatives; who have resent them to friends and relatives; etc. Every time the messages are sent, they gain credibility, because they are sent by people that are trusted by the recipients. The reports of what is included in the "health care bill" move from the ridiculous to the outrageous. They are gaining steam, not because they are supported by the facts, but because they have been accepted by normal folks AS the facts.
There is precious little debate on costs and benefits, goals and strategies, and best or worst case scenarios; everyone is engaged in arguments about "the granny killer clause" and other nonsense.
The rational middle would hope that citizens will seek out the three bills currently in circulation; S 391, HR 3200, and HR 676; and read them for their merits. Please see the "Thomas" site at the Library of Congress for complete versions of the bills in multiple formats. Please compare the language of the bills with the assertions in the emails in circulation.
Please trust the news that you have confirmed for yourself.....we wait for your valued commentary.
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Race Card
Sgt. James Crowley and Henry Lewis Gates are going to have a beer with the President. The rational middle hopes that meeting goes better than their first. I will admit up front that I have no noble reasons for wishing the two men well...I just want the whole bloody story to go away. You see, what began as a series of bad judgements and ill tempers has been used by various groups as a tool for "getting the message out".
To be sure, the messages in question are valid; Civil-Rights groups concerned about the status of African-Americans and police profiling, police groups concerned about personal attacks and the limiting of their ability to do their jobs, and the media concerned about making money from a hot story. It is of course this final group who has the motive, means, and opportunity to make the story worse than reality and keep it alive past its expiration date. I am, quite frankly, sick of it all.
About 15 years ago, I experienced the weekly double; I was called a race traitor one day, and a bigot a few days later. I am equipped with limited tolerance for folks who cling to stereotypes and display selective racial memory; I have less tolerance for folks who think that using the term "racist" in relation to any Caucasian who ends up on the wrong side of an incident with a minority is acceptable. I reserve my sense of absolute hatred for "journalists" (a term I use very loosely) who like to exploit racial tension. Reporters are supposed to relay facts to the public, and let the audience make their decision. Unfortunately, a story of mistaken identity and the poorly considered behavior that followed on both sides sells far less ad time than the same story with a "racist" cop and a "enraged" black man in a white neighborhood.
I think that, given the facts, most of us would be enraged if we were asked for our ID on our front porch...BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF
I think that, given the facts, most of us know that the complaint about the police officer should be saved for after the fact.
I know from friends and relatives in law enforcement that situations are often not what they seem. Cops are yelled at when they hand out speeding tickets and criticized when they are not around. It seems, in this situation, that Sgt. Crowley came in short of facts and followed his procedure (at least until he refused to give Gates his badge number). It seems that Mr. Gates was in a bad situation and assumed the worst about Crowley (and then let his anger do the talking).
Move along people...nothing to see here. Most of us learned at a young age the lesson of refraining from judgement of someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes. It takes a deep breath and patience to get to point where you can borrow someones shoes. That deep breath can save a lot of problems....and cost a lot of network profits.
That won't be such a bad thing though........
To be sure, the messages in question are valid; Civil-Rights groups concerned about the status of African-Americans and police profiling, police groups concerned about personal attacks and the limiting of their ability to do their jobs, and the media concerned about making money from a hot story. It is of course this final group who has the motive, means, and opportunity to make the story worse than reality and keep it alive past its expiration date. I am, quite frankly, sick of it all.
About 15 years ago, I experienced the weekly double; I was called a race traitor one day, and a bigot a few days later. I am equipped with limited tolerance for folks who cling to stereotypes and display selective racial memory; I have less tolerance for folks who think that using the term "racist" in relation to any Caucasian who ends up on the wrong side of an incident with a minority is acceptable. I reserve my sense of absolute hatred for "journalists" (a term I use very loosely) who like to exploit racial tension. Reporters are supposed to relay facts to the public, and let the audience make their decision. Unfortunately, a story of mistaken identity and the poorly considered behavior that followed on both sides sells far less ad time than the same story with a "racist" cop and a "enraged" black man in a white neighborhood.
I think that, given the facts, most of us would be enraged if we were asked for our ID on our front porch...BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF
I think that, given the facts, most of us know that the complaint about the police officer should be saved for after the fact.
I know from friends and relatives in law enforcement that situations are often not what they seem. Cops are yelled at when they hand out speeding tickets and criticized when they are not around. It seems, in this situation, that Sgt. Crowley came in short of facts and followed his procedure (at least until he refused to give Gates his badge number). It seems that Mr. Gates was in a bad situation and assumed the worst about Crowley (and then let his anger do the talking).
Move along people...nothing to see here. Most of us learned at a young age the lesson of refraining from judgement of someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes. It takes a deep breath and patience to get to point where you can borrow someones shoes. That deep breath can save a lot of problems....and cost a lot of network profits.
That won't be such a bad thing though........
Friday, July 24, 2009
Your Weekly Brain Cramp
So I was watching a movie the other day on one of the broadcast style cable channels...you know the ones that rerun old network series and play movies with LOTS of commercial breaks in them.
The movie I was watching had lots of action (blood, guts, destruction, sex, and cursing) and was HEAVILY overdubbed. That is to say the cursing was dubbed out and replaced with silly words nobody uses and weird misplaced sounds and grunts. Some of the sex was cut...although the double entendres remained.
So the brain cramp happens when the commercial breaks come along. Break number one features a series of mature couples in romantic embrace finding love again through science(my favorite is the couple in matching old-fashioned tubs over-looking the lake...the idea of folks my age or older moving two cast-iron tubs out to that spot and them filling them with hot water is gut-bustingly hilarious).
Break number two features a talking toaster oven from a popular sandwich chain asking the employee to "put it in me"....
I would loved to have been a fly on the wall when that ad campaign was pitched.
So we have to dub out uncouth language, half-naked bodies, and simulated sex while leaving in gratuitous violence during the movie...presumably to shield those with impressionable minds.
When it comes to commercials however, we are OK with using drugs and toaster ovens to achieve satisfaction. Sorry...it just got me thinking.
The movie I was watching had lots of action (blood, guts, destruction, sex, and cursing) and was HEAVILY overdubbed. That is to say the cursing was dubbed out and replaced with silly words nobody uses and weird misplaced sounds and grunts. Some of the sex was cut...although the double entendres remained.
So the brain cramp happens when the commercial breaks come along. Break number one features a series of mature couples in romantic embrace finding love again through science(my favorite is the couple in matching old-fashioned tubs over-looking the lake...the idea of folks my age or older moving two cast-iron tubs out to that spot and them filling them with hot water is gut-bustingly hilarious).
Break number two features a talking toaster oven from a popular sandwich chain asking the employee to "put it in me"....
I would loved to have been a fly on the wall when that ad campaign was pitched.
So we have to dub out uncouth language, half-naked bodies, and simulated sex while leaving in gratuitous violence during the movie...presumably to shield those with impressionable minds.
When it comes to commercials however, we are OK with using drugs and toaster ovens to achieve satisfaction. Sorry...it just got me thinking.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Medical (Fact) Checkup
We all know the players in the health care debate. The teams are well-defined; Republicans against, Democrats for. The American people, overwhelmingly, want something done. The AMA, insurance industry, big pharma, the AARP, and just about every other group or lobby remotely associated with the issue will openly acknowledge a problem.
The politics of the issue seem to preclude finding a solution, so the rational middle would like to take a moment to pull back from the politics and restate the basic, non-partisan facts.
The politics of the issue seem to preclude finding a solution, so the rational middle would like to take a moment to pull back from the politics and restate the basic, non-partisan facts.
- Insurance premiums for individuals and businesses have doubled the rate of inflation for at least the last decade. As there is some elasticity involved with medical costs, the amount of individuals and businesses who have stopped carrying (or offering) insurance has declined over the same time period.
- Real household income has remained flat over the last decade. Don't like or trust statistics? Take the "Rational Middle Challenge"; ask 50 families you know (your own, siblings, parents, friends, coworkers) if their income has increased by 50% over the last 10 years. That is the percentage increase (roughly) that they would need to keep up with inflation.
- Small businesses have taken a beating over the last decade; "The Rational Middle Challenge Part Two" would have you check on business owners near you; are they still in business, are their profits what they were, have they lost employees to larger firms that offer better benefit packages?
- Medical outcomes have not improved in the last ten years. It is a little annoying to rank behind a dozen or more industrialized nations in categories like life expectancy, infant mortality, and cancer rates. Don't like or trust statistics? Believe Limbaugh when he huffs and puffs about the world coming to America for medicine? Type in "medical vacations" into Google. Prepare to be surprised.
The second set of facts today relates to a promise made 16 years ago. At the beginning of Clinton's first term, Mrs. Clinton led what was the last effort to reform health care in this nation before now. That effort was resoundingly defeated. That defeat was driven by the fear of a loss of choice, and anchored in the promise that the market could self-correct and fix all of the problems it was having with cost and quality of care. The rational middle would like to examine that...
- "The Rational Middle Challenge Part Three" How long do you have to wait for service at your doctor's office, and if you don't like the care, do you have a choice?
- How long do you or your friends or parents have to wait for a specialist or MRI or surgery once you and your doctor find a potential problem? Do they have a choice in care or an avenue for complaint and satisfaction?
- The market has not fixed costs as evidenced by the above facts.
- The market has not provided the additional doctors, nurses, and associated providers needed to allow for cost, service, and care competition. The government has not provided targeted funds or incentive to correct this market failure.
- The market has not provided affordable pharmaceutical interventions and therapies for the public at large (talk to your older parents or look at you household budget for an idea of how much drugs cost).
- The market has not addressed the problem of malpractice cases and the cost of insurance to the medical industry. The government has not enacted real torte reform.
The debate over the health care crisis is critical in that different plans are weighed and evaluated on their merits and costs/benefits. When the argument becomes; "There is no health care problem", or "There should be no solution involving the government" (i.e. we the people), then the argument falls under its own weight.
This democracy has never shrunk from a challenge because of its difficulty. Slavery and the Civil War, the Great Depression, Hitler, the Space Race, Communism, Saddam Hussein, and international terrorism are all challenges that have cost us greatly in blood and treasure. We Americans have figured out how to deal with and rise above all of these previous obstacles by thinking about the issue, making a decision, and acting boldly.
It seems terribly un-American to shrink away from this issue now. The type, level, and cost of the intervention (and how it is paid for) should be what the conversation stays about. It is my humble opinion that it is our duty to do the basic research ourselves, make a decision, and check our elected representatives to make sure they are properly representing our views. We should not rely on information from single media sources (this one or any other) or politicians...all have a bias.
We should think, decide...and act boldly.
The rational middle hopes to hear your thoughts....
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Well...It Sure Sounds Good
As someone who has spent nearly two decades in the practise of and study of business, I am not a hard sell when it comes to the notion of fiscal conservatism. Waste and inefficiency are the devils that haunt entrepreneurs and managers of businesses of every size, and fads cost money.
I have learned a golden rule of sorts over the years; one person's waste is another's investment in the business. I have known perfectly rational and intelligent managers who have chased away daily coffee customers (who buy a product that returns say, $ 0.60 on every purchase) by charging for "extra" creamers, and be perfectly willing to give away a book of matches to every cigarette customer at the same total profit.
Businesses fail most often when their operators take too narrow a view of their market and operations. Short term pressures dominate businesses at both end of the size spectrum; small operations because of their small and erratic cash flows, and big corporations (publicly traded) due to shareholder/trader expectations. This factor limits many businesses, because most need to grow (or at least adapt) to remain viable over the long haul.
Enter the rational middle's favorite rallying cry; "Government should be run like a business!"
I will be gentle, and disregard the reality that most businesses are designed to run at a profit; the rational middle concedes that point is not intended. I will, however, note that the above phrase is used by any group whose tax dollars are allocated to a purpose they can not or will not understand. Liberals against the military spending of the Reagan Administration who succeeded in driving home their point with Bill Clinton in office, and Conservatives in today's politics who look down their noses at stimulus and "green jobs" and yell that the "market" will fix everything both use the phrase as a punchline. Both groups are equally wrong, because both fail to truly look at the phrase for what it really means.
Here is my attempt to do just that...and I will look forward to commentary on how close to the mark you think this is.
I have learned a golden rule of sorts over the years; one person's waste is another's investment in the business. I have known perfectly rational and intelligent managers who have chased away daily coffee customers (who buy a product that returns say, $ 0.60 on every purchase) by charging for "extra" creamers, and be perfectly willing to give away a book of matches to every cigarette customer at the same total profit.
Businesses fail most often when their operators take too narrow a view of their market and operations. Short term pressures dominate businesses at both end of the size spectrum; small operations because of their small and erratic cash flows, and big corporations (publicly traded) due to shareholder/trader expectations. This factor limits many businesses, because most need to grow (or at least adapt) to remain viable over the long haul.
Enter the rational middle's favorite rallying cry; "Government should be run like a business!"
I will be gentle, and disregard the reality that most businesses are designed to run at a profit; the rational middle concedes that point is not intended. I will, however, note that the above phrase is used by any group whose tax dollars are allocated to a purpose they can not or will not understand. Liberals against the military spending of the Reagan Administration who succeeded in driving home their point with Bill Clinton in office, and Conservatives in today's politics who look down their noses at stimulus and "green jobs" and yell that the "market" will fix everything both use the phrase as a punchline. Both groups are equally wrong, because both fail to truly look at the phrase for what it really means.
Here is my attempt to do just that...and I will look forward to commentary on how close to the mark you think this is.
- Businesses hate "transparency". It is a political "gotcha" phrase now, and most of us want to know where the money is going, but transparency is not available in powder form on the shelves of your local mega-mart. Transparency costs time and money in the form of administrative tasks that do not add value to the finished product. Ask a top manager at a publicly-traded firm about Sarbanes-Oxley (the accounting law passed in the wake of the Enron debacle) and they will tell you how much "transparency" costs. It is contradictory to demand that the stimulus bill be transparent, and then demand a rapid distribution of funds. Imagine a trip to the grocery store; now imagine your spouse and a manager having to go line by line over every item on the list and receipt as the clerk rings in your purchase.
- Businesses must invest in infrastructure, labor (training and benefits), and new or improved products. To get this investment, they can do one or more of the following; add new ownership, reinvest profits from the highest performers in their portfolio, or raise debt capital. Most of your favorite businesses, small and large, have grown and are continuing to grow by leveraging themselves. They get a small business loan, a short term loan to cover seasonal cash shortfalls, or issue bonds in order to operate. When you see a factory or other large facility built, it is almost certainly being financed by debt. Something like 15-20% of our annual (federal) budget goes to debt service. I would challenge all to look up the reports of your ten favorite companies and see how that compares; then look at your own spending. I have a hunch that most households spend twice that percentage on debt service.
- Businesses tend to be successful when they are led by a single unifying force. Whether that force is a strong management team or a motivated small business owner is not the question; the applicable phrase being "Too many chefs spoils the soup". We live in a participatory democracy, with many chefs, all theoretically of equal importance. Those that advocate that government be run like a business are well to remind themselves of Stalin and Hitler; capable management should not be the first or last thing scrutinized on a resume.
Being mindful of the budget, and selecting worthwhile projects that add value to the nation are excellent goals to have for those who are employed by, or vote in our government. We, as a nation, do have large scale needs that require the investment of tax dollars for our "business" to succeed in the future. The trick is in the balancing act; need versus expense, short term pressure versus long term growth. The market, when it is functioning well, regulates two things well; price and production level. The notion that it does anything else flies in the face of hard-earned experience. Unless you like the slaughterhouse upriver managing your fish population, or the big corporate group uptown running your police force, the rational middle believes that your stake in this very American style business we call government is something to be proud of.
Looking forward to your comments....
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Evil of Sotomayor
Bigot. Racist. Unqualified. Activist. Empathetic. Pure evil was about the only attack left unsaid.
There has been an avalanche of accusations and characterizations directed at Sonia Sotomayor since her appointment to the Supreme Court by President Obama. To the extent that Americans are touchy about the topic of law and the court system, the reaction is understandable. We love to hate lawyers in this country, and yet we do nothing to limit the amount or reach of the profession. We hate lawsuits until we perceive an opportunity to file one beneficial to us. We love the idea of justice, so long as it is favorable to whatever cause we favor. Contradiction breeds strife and raw nerves, and this confirmation battle is trampling on the raw nerves of people left, right, and center.
The rational middle wants to know; what are the facts behind this choice, and is there anything worrisome in her selection? I will go through the major points of contention and make a case for a more reasoned debate. I hope you will join me in this debate in the comments.
There has been an avalanche of accusations and characterizations directed at Sonia Sotomayor since her appointment to the Supreme Court by President Obama. To the extent that Americans are touchy about the topic of law and the court system, the reaction is understandable. We love to hate lawyers in this country, and yet we do nothing to limit the amount or reach of the profession. We hate lawsuits until we perceive an opportunity to file one beneficial to us. We love the idea of justice, so long as it is favorable to whatever cause we favor. Contradiction breeds strife and raw nerves, and this confirmation battle is trampling on the raw nerves of people left, right, and center.
The rational middle wants to know; what are the facts behind this choice, and is there anything worrisome in her selection? I will go through the major points of contention and make a case for a more reasoned debate. I hope you will join me in this debate in the comments.
- Impartiality- "I would like to believe that a wise Latina....." We have all read this quote at some time in the last few months. As a white male, I admit to being struck by it when I first read the quote. The important question when reading or listening to the news nowadays is, "Is the quote paraphrased, is it representative of the speaker or writer who gave it voice, and what are the motivations of those who published it?" Yes, the quote is lifted out of context from a very long (and boring) speech given by the judge at Berkeley. In the 2 paragraph section that contained the quote, the judge was speaking about the fundamental weaknesses of humans and their capacity to fairly judge. She referenced what she would like to believe about herself, then went on to say that fundamental impartiality required that any judge attempt to daily set aside personal prejudice and assess the case on its merits. Please read the entire speech for clarification, and judge for yourself.
- Political Leanings- The American Bar Association has rated her as a legal neutral, meaning that she has been a down the middle judge over her very long career. Her judgements are, in fact, unexciting and (mostly) non-controversial. She has resisted the urge throughout her career to make sweeping judgements, and has established a record of methodical, case by case rulings. First nominated to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, her most noteworthy ruling prior to the infamous fire fighter's case was when she ruled with the Bush Administration on an abortion case; an issue that has Pro-Choice people up in arms about her selection.
- Qualifications- Her academic record is exemplary, and typifies a fast-track lawyer's school career. Her professional career prior to being a judge is solid; a start prosecuting child-molesters in New York followed by a solid civil practise. She also has more experience on the federal bench than any appointee in recent memory. Her record as an appellate judge is still above the norm concerning the number of cases successfully appealed over her head (even after the New Haven case). I can see attacking an appointee on cases and personal comments, but the attempts by some conservative talking heads (namely Limbaugh and Hannity) to label Sotomayor as "incompetent" are just silly.
- Judicial Activism- A flashpoint issue for conservatives who are upset about gay rights and other social issues where judges and courts have overturned civil law passed by popular demand, "activist judge" is a label preselected by Obama opponents for any appointee. His suggestion that a judge needs compassion and understanding along with a grasp of the law was seized on as a shot fired in the culture war, and Judge Sotomayor has been caught in the crossfire. The irony here is the New Haven fire fighter's case. The city took the extraordinarily foolish step of throwing out test results because no African-Americans had passed the test for management. The first stage of the irony are the plaintiffs in the case: one of them was a Hispanic male. The contention then, is that Sotomayor is a reverse racist who ruled against...another Hispanic? The second stage involves the decision itself. The three judge panel was unanimous in ruling that the lower court had formulated a fair judgement; in essence, they refused to take the position of judicial activism. In the end, the more conservative Supreme Court played activist and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against the city. That most would agree with the decision is just off the point; we have not been talking about popularity but justice, and Sotomayor ruled with two other judges on the merits of a single case over personal feelings.
The record of this judge is a long one, and all of it is available on any number of websites in the public domain. The rational middle would hope that all would take the time to look at the record, listen to and read the full context of the judge's more controversial statements, and evaluate for themselves her place on or off the court. The basic plea of this post is; ignore that chattering class in the media and politics, and do the research yourself. Is she evil or just wrong for the job? Is she a hero or just the right selection for the post?
Looking forward to every one's thoughts.....
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Soulmates and Blue Dresses
Poor Mark Sanford. His soul mate is in Argentina, his life is in South Carolina, his career is in trouble, and his wife is incensed. All throughout the United States one question is being asked; "What was he thinking?"
Eleven years ago President Clinton found himself in the same, ahem, awkward position. In between there have been dozens of instances where representatives, senators, governors, and others have been forced into finding a way to "spin" their "indiscretions". For the rest of the world, the cheaters just have to fess up and duck. I hope we all can agree that this issue is bipartisan; when it comes to fooling around, neither party is better or worse than the other.
The parties do try to make these events into political hay, and occasionally they are successful. The fact of Al Gore's popular vote win in 2000 underscores that Monica Lewinsky and her dress might have been collaborators in Dick Cheney's rise to the co-presidency. Mark Foley's shenanigans were crucial in the landslide victory for the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term elections. These results show that most Americans care about the character of those they entrust with the keys to the democracy, but I wonder how much of our concern is just wishful thinking? Many popular presidents have turned out to have been scoundrels of one form or another, and some of our least favorite were (apparently) great guys.
The attention that politicians and their families are subject to, and the ridicule they receive when they put their name in the hat are at once intense and suspect. I will confess to looking on Governor Palin with derision and contempt, but have found myself questioning the notion that I could "hate" anyone that I hadn't had the chance to have coffee with. It seems to be our nature to label those in the public eye in the harshest terms, and hold them accountable to standards that most of us are unable to reach. The Kinsey report found that 50% of men, and over 25% of women would have an instance of sexual impropriety in their lives. On the surface it would seems that we the voter have allowed ourselves very little room for maneuver.
The rational middle believes that we are responsible for the failings of our elected officials, and that we should be accountable to ourselves. We complain that politicians lie, but we will not elect one that tells the truth. Campaigns are won by the candidate who tells the most convincing exaggerations of a possible truth. Freshman members of the House go to Washington and do what their whips tell them to do. Aaron Schock, the engaging first term Conservative who represents Peoria and surrounding areas, is as accomplished as they come. He was given three committee assignments and is, unusually, a deputy whip to Eric Cantor. The fact remains that he will vote as all freshman reps will; the way he is told to. It is simply the only way that one will be supported by the party (either party) the next go around. This fact is common knowledge to any that payed attention in U.S. Government class, and yet we will not elect someone who makes that point in their campaign. Representatives tell their perspective constituents that they will go to Washington and fight for them; a candidate who would stand and say; "Here are my principals, but I will not be able to exercise them until you have elected me at least twice." will not go very far.
Members of the House represent 100's of thousands of people, senators millions, and the President over 300 million. All of those folks have differing viewpoints across a range of issues, and the majority are willing to exercise their right to be angry when the politician in question does not embody their (emphasis on the individual) view completely. On top of these political considerations, these elected officials must deal with a society that believes that they have a right to know exactly what is going on in the lives of their politicians and their families. Can you imagine that level of scrutiny applied to your life and family?
These people who we, sometimes derisively, call politicians, believed at some point in the importance of the participatory democracy. Most of them, be they Republican, Democrat, or Independent are in this because they care about their country. A few bad apples can't spoil the bunch if we don't let them. The "Sanford Affair" is not a headline, it is a painful family matter. It is no more correct that we dwell on that, than it was proper to impeach a President for his version of the act. I am not writing this to put my long held belief on paper, but rather to turn over a new leaf on this day of celebration for our country.
I am still no fan of Governor Palin, and I don't care for her politics; but if she is ever in town I will offer to buy her a cup of coffee. I will talk to her about the weather and the crops. I will ask her of her family, and share pictures of mine. I will look forward to a sharing of disagreements in an agreeable manner; and I will treat her like a human being.
The rational middle wishes you all a safe and happy Fourth of July!
Eleven years ago President Clinton found himself in the same, ahem, awkward position. In between there have been dozens of instances where representatives, senators, governors, and others have been forced into finding a way to "spin" their "indiscretions". For the rest of the world, the cheaters just have to fess up and duck. I hope we all can agree that this issue is bipartisan; when it comes to fooling around, neither party is better or worse than the other.
The parties do try to make these events into political hay, and occasionally they are successful. The fact of Al Gore's popular vote win in 2000 underscores that Monica Lewinsky and her dress might have been collaborators in Dick Cheney's rise to the co-presidency. Mark Foley's shenanigans were crucial in the landslide victory for the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term elections. These results show that most Americans care about the character of those they entrust with the keys to the democracy, but I wonder how much of our concern is just wishful thinking? Many popular presidents have turned out to have been scoundrels of one form or another, and some of our least favorite were (apparently) great guys.
The attention that politicians and their families are subject to, and the ridicule they receive when they put their name in the hat are at once intense and suspect. I will confess to looking on Governor Palin with derision and contempt, but have found myself questioning the notion that I could "hate" anyone that I hadn't had the chance to have coffee with. It seems to be our nature to label those in the public eye in the harshest terms, and hold them accountable to standards that most of us are unable to reach. The Kinsey report found that 50% of men, and over 25% of women would have an instance of sexual impropriety in their lives. On the surface it would seems that we the voter have allowed ourselves very little room for maneuver.
The rational middle believes that we are responsible for the failings of our elected officials, and that we should be accountable to ourselves. We complain that politicians lie, but we will not elect one that tells the truth. Campaigns are won by the candidate who tells the most convincing exaggerations of a possible truth. Freshman members of the House go to Washington and do what their whips tell them to do. Aaron Schock, the engaging first term Conservative who represents Peoria and surrounding areas, is as accomplished as they come. He was given three committee assignments and is, unusually, a deputy whip to Eric Cantor. The fact remains that he will vote as all freshman reps will; the way he is told to. It is simply the only way that one will be supported by the party (either party) the next go around. This fact is common knowledge to any that payed attention in U.S. Government class, and yet we will not elect someone who makes that point in their campaign. Representatives tell their perspective constituents that they will go to Washington and fight for them; a candidate who would stand and say; "Here are my principals, but I will not be able to exercise them until you have elected me at least twice." will not go very far.
Members of the House represent 100's of thousands of people, senators millions, and the President over 300 million. All of those folks have differing viewpoints across a range of issues, and the majority are willing to exercise their right to be angry when the politician in question does not embody their (emphasis on the individual) view completely. On top of these political considerations, these elected officials must deal with a society that believes that they have a right to know exactly what is going on in the lives of their politicians and their families. Can you imagine that level of scrutiny applied to your life and family?
These people who we, sometimes derisively, call politicians, believed at some point in the importance of the participatory democracy. Most of them, be they Republican, Democrat, or Independent are in this because they care about their country. A few bad apples can't spoil the bunch if we don't let them. The "Sanford Affair" is not a headline, it is a painful family matter. It is no more correct that we dwell on that, than it was proper to impeach a President for his version of the act. I am not writing this to put my long held belief on paper, but rather to turn over a new leaf on this day of celebration for our country.
I am still no fan of Governor Palin, and I don't care for her politics; but if she is ever in town I will offer to buy her a cup of coffee. I will talk to her about the weather and the crops. I will ask her of her family, and share pictures of mine. I will look forward to a sharing of disagreements in an agreeable manner; and I will treat her like a human being.
The rational middle wishes you all a safe and happy Fourth of July!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Other People's Big Government
We humans are a funny lot. Most of us can see the flaws in others and miss our own; "do as I say, not as I do" generally being the rule of the day. For my part, I am publishing this blog to attempt reasonable discussion of political issues in spite of my own tendencies towards well, being unreasonable.
Taxes and "Big Government" are my two favorite examples of what my wife tenderly calls, "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine". Everyone, and that means you Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Conservative, wants big ticket programs from your governments, federal, state and local. Everyone, and now I am writing of you Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Liberal, despises the notion of paying ANY tax. And so, one of the fundamental obstacles of our democracy is the endless attempt to win the argument over what we the people buy and who pays for it.
Living in rural Illinois has helped to make this problem clear to me. The area in which I reside is among the most conservative in the country, even while it maintains a bewildering array of local governments. By way of comparison, my home state of Nevada has perhaps 15% of the sum total of government of Illinois. As an experienced practitioner of, and student of business, the dilution of responsibility and effort represents a shocking violation of the rules of scale economics and a monumental waste of money. The irony of course is that the conservative residents wouldn't have it any other way. Despite the additional cost, the citizens largely fight for the arrangement because it is how they maintain their voice in the democracy.
The rational middle believes that the final point is the critical issue, that the cost or tax must serve a fundamental purpose to the participants in the democracy. Restated as a question, is your government giving you value for money? When we allow ourselves and our representatives to get away from that question and get lost in the contradictions, we do a disservice to the democracy. The current debate that involves health care, energy/climate change, bailout, and stimulus devolved quickly into a battle of contradictions. If we could get the politicians to put their collective slogans down, we might solve some problems..
The first issue they have to get past is debt. I can almost guarantee you that there is not a single financial advisor or guru in this country who will advice you to delay purchasing your home until you can afford to pay for it in cash. Most homeowners have a mortgage with a value 2 or 3 times (or greater) than their household income, and will pay substantially more than that in interest over the term of the loan. We as a nation borrow money at a rate that would make we the individuals jump for joy. Countries like China buy our debt, not because they want to own us, but because the act of buying our debt helps to keep their currency undervalued. A lower value currency helps them export more goods to us. If they stopped buying our debt, our currency would fall in relation to theirs and their export-oriented economy would suffer (and our manufacturers would be able to send more to China; kind of like "fire hydrant pees on dog"). The critical issue for debt is twofold; that the interest payments servicing said debt remains manageable, and that the nation either improves its productive capacity or protects its citizens and property.
To illustrate that point, I will point to a pair of Republican presidents in contrast. Ronald Reagan's budgets dramatically increased the federal debt, as did President George W. Bush's. Considering Reagan first, there is a good argument that the dismantling of the large top marginal tax rate helped to stimulate growth, and the military spending served two purposes; combined with the diplomacy of Reagan's second term it helped democratic forces in the Soviet Union open that nation to economic reforms, and the scale of the spending (done mostly within the borders of the U.S.) served as a Keynesian stimulus to the economy. President Bush's efforts were decidedly less focused. His tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion, and focused as they were on the top tier of American earners contributed little to the economy while falling short of the Laffer Curve (the theory that a substantial tax cut will spur an economy such that tax revenues end up staying even despite the lower rate). The war in Iraq damaged U.S. security and will cost more than $3 trillion by the time its done.
The current debate surrounds President Obama's agenda and its affect on U.S. stability, financial and otherwise. To this point, the debate between right and left has looked much like a duel between two blind snipers; both sides expertly firing their weapons in the general direction of what they think is their opponent. The right yells about size while the left yells about need, with neither adequately making a case that pairs purpose with value. The initial steps towards health care reform were a good start, then the lobbies got into the fray. What began as productive discourse degenerated into dueling ad campaigns about the uninsured poor and the importance of insurance companies in our daily lives (irony intended). The climate change/energy independence mess should be a discussion on how to make this country the leaders in 21st century energy and business efficiency; it has become a struggle between two competing sets of unrealistic and narrowly focused numbers regarding household cost. Is the number $15 per month or $70 over the 20 year period? Nobody is referencing the historical fact that household energy costs rose $41 per month in the period between 1981 and 2001, or the reality that current fossil fuel sources will become more expensive as they get more scarce.
Room for debate exists aplenty, but discussion would be more productive. This is, after all, our government, big or small. Our engagement in rational discourse, and our demand that politicians follow our example will define the effectiveness of our democracy.
The rational middle wants to hear your opinion......
Taxes and "Big Government" are my two favorite examples of what my wife tenderly calls, "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine". Everyone, and that means you Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Conservative, wants big ticket programs from your governments, federal, state and local. Everyone, and now I am writing of you Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Liberal, despises the notion of paying ANY tax. And so, one of the fundamental obstacles of our democracy is the endless attempt to win the argument over what we the people buy and who pays for it.
Living in rural Illinois has helped to make this problem clear to me. The area in which I reside is among the most conservative in the country, even while it maintains a bewildering array of local governments. By way of comparison, my home state of Nevada has perhaps 15% of the sum total of government of Illinois. As an experienced practitioner of, and student of business, the dilution of responsibility and effort represents a shocking violation of the rules of scale economics and a monumental waste of money. The irony of course is that the conservative residents wouldn't have it any other way. Despite the additional cost, the citizens largely fight for the arrangement because it is how they maintain their voice in the democracy.
The rational middle believes that the final point is the critical issue, that the cost or tax must serve a fundamental purpose to the participants in the democracy. Restated as a question, is your government giving you value for money? When we allow ourselves and our representatives to get away from that question and get lost in the contradictions, we do a disservice to the democracy. The current debate that involves health care, energy/climate change, bailout, and stimulus devolved quickly into a battle of contradictions. If we could get the politicians to put their collective slogans down, we might solve some problems..
The first issue they have to get past is debt. I can almost guarantee you that there is not a single financial advisor or guru in this country who will advice you to delay purchasing your home until you can afford to pay for it in cash. Most homeowners have a mortgage with a value 2 or 3 times (or greater) than their household income, and will pay substantially more than that in interest over the term of the loan. We as a nation borrow money at a rate that would make we the individuals jump for joy. Countries like China buy our debt, not because they want to own us, but because the act of buying our debt helps to keep their currency undervalued. A lower value currency helps them export more goods to us. If they stopped buying our debt, our currency would fall in relation to theirs and their export-oriented economy would suffer (and our manufacturers would be able to send more to China; kind of like "fire hydrant pees on dog"). The critical issue for debt is twofold; that the interest payments servicing said debt remains manageable, and that the nation either improves its productive capacity or protects its citizens and property.
To illustrate that point, I will point to a pair of Republican presidents in contrast. Ronald Reagan's budgets dramatically increased the federal debt, as did President George W. Bush's. Considering Reagan first, there is a good argument that the dismantling of the large top marginal tax rate helped to stimulate growth, and the military spending served two purposes; combined with the diplomacy of Reagan's second term it helped democratic forces in the Soviet Union open that nation to economic reforms, and the scale of the spending (done mostly within the borders of the U.S.) served as a Keynesian stimulus to the economy. President Bush's efforts were decidedly less focused. His tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion, and focused as they were on the top tier of American earners contributed little to the economy while falling short of the Laffer Curve (the theory that a substantial tax cut will spur an economy such that tax revenues end up staying even despite the lower rate). The war in Iraq damaged U.S. security and will cost more than $3 trillion by the time its done.
The current debate surrounds President Obama's agenda and its affect on U.S. stability, financial and otherwise. To this point, the debate between right and left has looked much like a duel between two blind snipers; both sides expertly firing their weapons in the general direction of what they think is their opponent. The right yells about size while the left yells about need, with neither adequately making a case that pairs purpose with value. The initial steps towards health care reform were a good start, then the lobbies got into the fray. What began as productive discourse degenerated into dueling ad campaigns about the uninsured poor and the importance of insurance companies in our daily lives (irony intended). The climate change/energy independence mess should be a discussion on how to make this country the leaders in 21st century energy and business efficiency; it has become a struggle between two competing sets of unrealistic and narrowly focused numbers regarding household cost. Is the number $15 per month or $70 over the 20 year period? Nobody is referencing the historical fact that household energy costs rose $41 per month in the period between 1981 and 2001, or the reality that current fossil fuel sources will become more expensive as they get more scarce.
Room for debate exists aplenty, but discussion would be more productive. This is, after all, our government, big or small. Our engagement in rational discourse, and our demand that politicians follow our example will define the effectiveness of our democracy.
The rational middle wants to hear your opinion......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
