Once upon a time we had a president that knew how to lead. Admittedly, he sometimes accomplished it by dragging congressmen by their nose.

Next we had a paranoid psychotic who thought he was a leader. Strangely, the public largely bought into his delusion.

Come the presidential election of 1976 and the people were weary of strong ‘leaders,’ the war, the economy, et al. The parties measured the mood of the public. That election cycle both parties offered non-leaders as candidates.

Four years later, the people decided they really did want a leader. Instead, they elected St. Ronny. He was a good enough actor to play the part of leader.

There is no explanation for George H.W. Bush. Perhaps people thought it was his turn. He certainly wasn’t a leader. The silver spoon in his mouth would look out of place in the mouth of a receptionist but it’s difficult to justify putting him in charge of other people.

Clinton was hardly a leader but he had consummate political skills aside from leadership. He depended on being the ultimate wonk combined with a charm offensive rare in today’s political world.

Then came The Decider. It was a delicate weaving together of the humiliation of being Cheney’s puppet with a lifelong mastery of the art of being a spoiled brat. Somehow that was perceived as leadership by an embarrassing number of Americans.

Though I still question the legitimacy of the count in 2004, the fact remains that at least a large percentage bought W’s claims of being a leader. Likely it was a matter of too many people having formed their concept of leadership based on television westerns. If it swaggered, you followed it.

The 2004 election appeared to make no sense. The polls showed the majority of the public disagreed with Bush on every significant issue. Then why would they vote for him? He claimed to be a leader and bulled on through with his positions. If the public can accept a psychotic, an actor and a wannabe cowboy as embodying leadership, it should be obvious that they have not set the bar too high.

The voters thought, or hoped, Obama would lead them to change. However, everyone has since learned that he hasn’t the temperament of a leader. His preferred milieu is the conference table, not at the vanguard of the insurgents.

He might be very effective as a negotiator if only he had someone willing to sit down and negotiate. We’ll never know.

A leader has to have a specific destination, a definite goal in mind. Negotiators work to see what they can get. And never the twain shall meet.

Surveys show that the people generally like Obama. They don’t, however, see him dealing with the problems successfully. His base is disheartened. They have lost their motivation. With extremely rare exceptions, no one leads everyone. Though the present threat to the nation is in the same range of magnitude as WWII, no one has convinced the public.

It is folly to expect to lead everyone. A leader selects those he wants to lead and gives them direction, motivation. He divides to conquer. You tell your base that their goals are sacred and tell the opposition to go to hell, or more genteelly, that they are inconsequential.

You gin up the emotion of your troops. You motivate them to get off their asses and work to get all of their allies to the polls. A motivated minority can easily outvote an unmotivated majority.

Can Obama transmute into a leader? There is no reason to expect so. He seems unaware that his present course leads only to failure. If he prevails in November of 2012 he will still not be able to accomplish the goals he holds dear.

If one looks at the presidency from an historical standpoint, successful second terms are very much a rarity, indeed, an oddity. Were it not for ego and delusions, presidents would not be inclined to seek second terms. More especially, they would not expect to accomplish in that second term what they failed to achieve in their first.

That last point is such a truism that it goes beyond the allotted two terms. In blue-skying various possibilities, it was suggested that Obama might step down for Hillary to run. The next question was whether she would be successful in getting a rational health care reform. The answer has to be that she would not even broach the subject.

She is considered to have been partially involved in its loss in the early nineties. She would not in another term, even though her own, be able to resuscitate that dead issue. Someone else can do it, but it will not be Obama or Hillary.

Obama, given another term, would be unable to get further significant changes in health care, another stimulus or anything else of consequence. The only foreseeable value of a second Obama term would be to preclude the dangers inherent in the election of any of his present potential opponents.

For some reason, as each day passes, I become more and more convinced that I am Cassandra’s biological brother.

As a special treat, I have added a presentation from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich on what to expect from downgrades in the nation’s credit rating to various levels.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

My days of playing football began 60 years ago. No. We did have helmets.

Back then, we played both offense and defense. Not just because I was the 2nd smallest guy on the team, I was terrible at both.

I don’t think I could have gotten better by using steroids. They may not even have existed back then. At least we had never heard of them.

But in football, as in other areas, there are and were other ways one could cheat. A receiver traps the ball. He’ll never win an Oscar™ for that performance. He knows it wasn’t a catch but he wants credit for it. Why?

Games should be played for the fun of it. That idea died even before leather helmets. Okay. We should play to see which team is the best. Remember? It’s supposed to be a team sport.

It isn’t about fun. It isn’t about who’s best. It’s about me winning. It’s about me.

Who’s faster? Who’s stronger? Who’s bigger? Who’s got the best steroids? Who cares?

A few years back I read an article based on a study that showed over half of college students admitted cheating on tests. Getting a good grade, or just a passing one, is more important than bothering to learn the subject matter. That could explain a lot of the blunders we read or hear about on a daily basis.

I know it sounds unAmerican but our esteemed leaders don’t care what the public wants, as long as they get what they want. A president was elected. The people said they wanted him and his policies. But that’s not what some politicians wanted. They did everything they could to thwart the wishes of the electorate. They lied. They obstructed.

While claiming that jobs and the economy topped their list of priorities, they have yet to offer a single bill that would create jobs. Additionally, they have pursued the repeal of health care reform. That would add $400 billion to the deficit. They have offered $32 billion in budget cuts while spending most of the House’s time on what they laughingly call family values issues.

Did the people really demand a redefinition of forceable rape that claimed it wasn’t necessarily rape if it was forceable? Is abortion the number one item on the national agenda that is, according to Mr. Orange, topped by jobs and the economy? And repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell trumps jobs?

Where are the polls that show those issues at the top? Where are the polls that show that the people even want those changes?

Health care reform has again managed to attract a greater number of supporters than opponents. When asked about specific components of that reform, the majorities run as high as 78%. Does the leadership of the house care what the people want? Really?

So, why would they swim upstream on so many issues? Because they think their strategy will continue the stagnation through the next election and benefit them then.

Why do they refuse to abide by their promises to create jobs and improve the economy? Well, it’s a dirty little secret. They don’t have any plans. Why? Because everything in their economic arsenal, tax cuts, have proven to have the opposite effects.

Where are the $500 billion budget cuts? Their political prospects would be worse than Hosni Mubarak’s if they tried to cut Medicare or Social Security. The same would be true if they cut too deeply into the welfare their friends in the military-industrial complex have enjoyed for low, these many years. Well, at least they found $32 billion in cuts and no one gets hurt, except poor women and children and our education system and . .

It isn’t just professional athletes. It includes more than even college athletes. Remember, it’s students at every level cheating on their tests. The list isn’t complete even after we have added in politicians of every stripe. Regardless of the outcome of the various games they play, cheaters are, in reality, losers.

Why do so many of us have such a desperate need to win, regardless of whether we are better or faster or stronger or smarter? Parents, grandparents, other relatives and teachers are some of the culprits. We tell kids they are the future, as though we creating the present have little value. We tell the kids they are important. Potentially, they are, but only potentially.

It is impossible to go to the mall without seeing kids reveling is disrespect, for their elders, their peers; in reality a disrespect for themselves. It’s a rare outing when I am not in danger of sprawling on the floor or caning someone for putting me in harm’s way. It isn’t limited to the young. Need I even mention the terror of rush hour traffic?

There is another major causative factor. Manifest destiny. Despite centuries of killing the natives and enslaving Africans, we’re the good guys. Despite developing and propping up generals, shahs, other tyrants in Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam, China, the Congo and many places, far-flung and in our good neighborhood, we are the champions of democracy and self-determination.

We are the richest; well, not any more. We are the most generous; not by a long shot. We are the most productive; not in a long time. We are the smartest; of course our kids lag on every educational measurement. Well, anyway, we deserve our position because, somehow, we are the best. God says so. Therefore, we deserve to win. Don’t look behind the curtain at Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, et al.

Our three decades of support for Mubarak, against the best interest of Egyptians, may bite us where the sun don’t shine. Beyond that, it could lead to destabilizing several other regimes in the area.

Recent events, economic and otherwise, have sharpened our need to reassure ourselves that we still are special. The need to see ourselves as winners is the more acute. The cheating, the winning regardless, these things are not the cause, just the most obvious manifestations of the primal forces that control us. Altogether, they make us all losers.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The Democrats will learn the wrong lessons from the election. The Republicans will learn the wrong lessons from the election.

How can I say that? Because of the truth embodied in the old saw, garbage in, garbage out.

The bulk of the society has decided that what they want to be facts really are facts. People actually believe that Obama is a Muslim. They don’t believe it because it is true. They believe it because they want it to be true.

And besides, the Internet told them so.

One of the memorable moments from election night was Rand Paul, in his victory rant, saying that he had a message he was taking to Washington. Americans are going to take back their government. My question is, “from whom?”

Whatever happened to the melting pot? He gets to claim the mantle of American and brand everyone who differs as unAmerican? I grew up imbued with the sentiment behind the statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That was then. People now will readily stomp your head for daring to disagree with them.

Sharron Angle speaks of 2^nd Amendment remedies if they don’t get their way. Governor Rick Perry, Congressman Zack Wamp and others talk secession if the Republicans don’t get their way. These are the real American patriots? God help us.

And what is it that tops their lists? Tax cuts for the plutocrats. Next? Repeal ObamaCare.

Yeah, I know. Somewhere in there is to impeach or otherwise rid the country of Obama. Is this where they intend the 2^nd Amendment remedy?

Anyway, what did the Republicans think they learned?

They learned that the nation gave them a mandate to implement their agenda. Wrong

What was the public’s top issue? The economy, at 42%. Where did the public rank tax cuts, the Republicans’ top issue? At 4%. They heard what they wanted to hear.

Every mention of job creation is predicated on tax cuts for the top 2%. It had ten years to create jobs but didn’t. What has changed? Nothing. Let me be emphatic. There is not one shred of evidence that those tax cuts have or will create a single job. There is concrete evidence that unemployment insurance creates jobs. I feel better about ensuring a family has food and a roof than about giving a billionaire an extra half million, or even a whole.

An exit poll showed 30% of voters had a family member who is unemployed or has been since the last election. So, do you still remember the campaigns? The 2^nd Amendment. Immigration. Birthers. Gay Rights. Abortion. A Manhattan Mosque. Sure, any wedge issue to divide a country that needs unity to work its way out of a crisis.

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are telling every camera that the voters repudiated all of the policies of Obama. Pat Buchanan sees a bit more nuance. He says that the people did want Obama’s agenda two years ago but they no longer want what Obama wants.

In this election the Republicans gathered 5 million more votes than the Democrats. In 2008, 23 million voters in the 18 to 29 age group voted for Obama. This year. 9 million of that age group voted for Democrats. Fourteen million didn’t show up. Why? Not because of what Obama did. Because of the promises Obama failed to deliver. They sat on their hands, not because they wanted to give the Republicans a mandate. They sat it out from disappointment with the Democrats.

The overwhelming Republican turnout failed to materialize. What enthusiasm was seen resulted more from anger than love of the GOP. Polls showed higher approval for the Democrats but that didn’t translate into votes. Many of those who voted for Republicans were simply wanting to send the Democrats a message. It just wasn’t the message Rand Paul heard.

What about ObamaCare? Polls showed a little over 50% opposed it. One poll I recall but don’t have in front of me was 51% opposed, 41% favored. Well, that settles that. Just a minute.

The same poll then asked the same people their positions on six major parts of the healthcare reform that became law. You know, no more denial for preexisting conditions, coverage for kids until 26 years old, etc., etc. Surprise, surprise. Those 51% who opposed it supported every one of those six parts by from 59 to 78 percentage majorities.

Okay. Where is McConnell’s and Boehner’s claimed rejection of ObamaCare? They will not tell you that ObamaCare is almost indistinguishable from what Reagan offered Teddy Kennedy. Kennedy turned it down. He later said that was the political mistake he most regretted. Should we rename it RonnyCare? I guess St. Ronny wasn’t really a true conservative.

Do you realize that if half or two-thirds of that 14 million missing youth had voted, it would have been enough to eliminate every Republican from the House of Representatives and every one of the Republican Senators and governors up for reelection? Has anyone heard that message?

Over half of the conservative Democrats are gone from the House. One percent of the progressive Democrats lost. That makes the remaining Democratic caucus more progressive than before. Obama sees only the smaller numbers of Democrats and accepts the Republican interpretation of the results. One of his first post-election comments was that he may be willing to compromise on the tax cut.

The tax cut is a made to order Democratic battering ram. Regardless of what they say, the Republicans cannot reduce the debt by borrowing more than a trillion dollars. Well, you say, there could be spending cuts.

So, why have McConnell, Boehner and the others absolutely refused to identify a single spending cut? They know, as voters seem not to, that debt service, the military, Social Security and Medicare cannot be cut for legal and/or political reasons and total 93% of the budget. If you cut the FBI, the CIA, Homeland security, everything in that 7%, the government would essentially disappear but the deficit would remain.

The Republicans do not, under any circumstances, want to reduce the deficit. They want it increased. Really? Yes. Despite the Republican demands for tax cuts, the the resulting debt would add to the debt accumulated during Obama’s administration. He would get 100% of the blame. If he is stupid enough to concede anything on that issue, he deserves to be a one-term president, and probably will be.

The right has been louder. The left sat on their hands, with some exceptions, such as Nevada, California and a couple of other places.

The public did not make a big right turn between 2008 and 2010. The support for the progressive agenda is there. It will continue to trend that way if the progressives in Washington get their act together. More youth are coming of age. They lean heavily to the left. The older voters, who tend to be more conservative (as me) are dying off. They need leadership. They want to believe.

These are the times that try men’s souls. It will not be civil but it will be war. It will elicit howls of anger from those who claim the Flag as their own personal property. Obama may be too queasy to lead. If he understands that the Oval Office functions differently than a law school classroom, he has the other attributes to lead. Without that, he needs to step aside for the next election cycle.

One last secret from PoliSci 101. Bringing everyone together, were that even possible, can make a temporary majority. However, it is weak. It is soft. To put such a coalition together requires fuzzing the picture, fuzzing the politician’s image. It will take very little for those weak ties to disappear. The fuzziness doesn’t create enthusiasm.

Even a politician with less than majority support can win by dividing the electorate. That’s what the Republicans understand and the Democrats don’t. Making it us against them, creating strong lines of differences, whether they truly exist or not, generates enthusiasm. These people are motivated to get out and vote.

Bipartisanship is a viable option in an emergency such as WWII. It didn’t last long, even after 9/11. The rest of the time bipartisanship is the mark of the amateur, the naive.

The Republicans understand the above but, as for the results of this past election, they just don’t get it. Obama and some other Democrats seem to agree with the Republicans. Wrong.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Have you ever acknowledged that there was something you didn’t know? Fortunately, it’s a problem I need seldom confront.

I have a pet peeve. I constantly see politicians and others pontificate on issues as though they actually know what they are talking about.

Given the certitude with which they deliver their dicta, one would think they are the ultimate gurus. They need to be laughed off the stage. Absent that, they need to be asked questions.

One might think I would be pleased with the local political situation. After all, Bart Gordon, the leader of the Blue Dogs, decided not to run for reelection. Oh, how I wish I could take credit for his decision.

The result of his departure is somewhat of a wash.

Diane Black, our local state senator is the odds-on favorite to take the empty seat. Our district is apparently not blessed with intelligent people willing to run for public office. More’s the pity.

There may be more but I have only seen two of her campaign ads for the general election. Let me describe them.

In the first she appears with one of her grandchildren; I would guess a girl of, perhaps, 5 years of age. Using her grandchild in pursuit of her political ambitions, she speaks of how terrible it is that the child owes a debt of x number of dollars. Parenthetically, while several politicians are using this ploy, it seems each has their own figure.

Believe it or not, she is personally going to change that. She will eliminate the debt by giving the richest 2 percent of our population a tax break that will only add a trillion or two to the national debt. Another way she intends to reduce her granddaughter’s burden is by repealing “ObamaCare.” Just ignore, as does she, that healthcare reform is a necessary part of salvaging our budget mess.

Diane’s other ad shows her in what appears to be a hospital setting. She says that, as a nurse, she understands healthcare.

I worked for Delta Air Lines for several years. I worked on the ticket counter in Atlanta. I audited the caterer and planned the meals for the 258 daily flights out of Atlanta. I ended my years there a an assembler language programmer on the IBM 360 mainframe computers. Although I have a pilot’s license with instrument and multi-engine ratings that I haven’t used for over 30 years, I never came close to qualifying on a 747. Whatever familiarity I may have had with the airline industry would not likely induce you to board a jumbo jet with me at the controls. At least I hope not.

Am I in any way an expert on the airline industry, even were my experience current? No. I may have some insight into a couple of limited aspects but certainly not enough for someone to allow me to completely restructure the system. Hello, Diane. Calling Nurse Diane.

Her expertise with regards to the deficit, the economy, the healthcare system and any number of other issues is on a par with Christine O’Donnell’s  mastery of Constitutional Law.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know some of the questions these wannabes need to be asked. You can always refresh your memory. At a minimum, simply challenge them. Ask them what background, education or experience they have in the subject. Don’t forget, being a nurse is not competency to redesign the system.

Ask them for specifics. Here you need to be careful. Read their web site first. Most of them will have canned answers, talking points. Hold their feet to the fire. Make “uh” the most frequent word coming out of their mouth.

Catch them on contradictions. The big corporate money is fighting “the government takeover of health care.” At the same time, the same big corporate donors are funding attacks claiming the candidates they don’t like are jeopardizing Medicare. It is amazing how easy it is to make these bozos look ridiculous.

If a candidate in your area promises to repeal the healthcare reform as Diane does, ask them to provide the names of the House members and Senators who will make up the 2/3rds of each house needed to override Obama’s veto.

Go to one of the many meet the candidate town meetings and ask a question. Ask it with sincerity; not as a smart alec. Ask it as though you really want an answer. It will throw them off message. Plant a seed of doubt.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Perhaps you’ve heard people complain of the government being too big. It isn’t just that they think smaller government works better. Most express a hatred for the government – their government.

They are fortunate not to get their wishes granted. Here is the word of the day for them.

dystopia (noun)

1. A vision of a future that is a corrupted (usually beyond recognition) utopian society.
2. State in which the condition of life is extremely bad as from deprivation or oppression or terror.

Dystopian is one of those words you rarely see after graduation. It’s easy to remember the meaning. It’s simply the opposite of utopia.

Let’s imagine a society that meets with the approval of libertarians and other middle school idealists. They really enjoy the fantasy of the Mad Max movies. They might be less enthusiastic about the reality of Somalia. Can you imagine grownups with Mel Gibson as their hero?

Their laments become tiresome very quickly. Why do I think of one of my spoiled grandchildren intent on crying until they get their way?

Don’t try to visit that Somalian paradise by sea. Remember, that’s where all of the pirate activity is. Your arrival may be delayed. Personally, I would experience some trepidation about their ability to provide safe aircraft. Of course we would be better off with less government, just as Somalia.

Back home the power of these backward people looking people has given us some of the pleasures of small government. That philosophy kept the FDA from actually regulating those egg producers in Iowa. Would you like them over easy, scrambled or poached, with or without salmonella? That’s what we need, smaller government.

We would be oh so fortunate if eggs were the only food whose safety was questionable. What was the last scare? Hamburgers? How about a tomato on that burger? Does smaller government save you money so you can buy more hamburgers?

Growing up there was a local grocery chain owned by the same guy that owned the largest local newspaper. He was a rabid government hater. He was going to do what he wanted to do. His stores put formaldehyde in the hamburger meat. Why? It kept it red longer.

Formaldehyde is not usually thought of as a food coloring. It caused what was called hardening of the arteries. Sometimes it caused death. That pesky government told him to stop. He didn’t. They fined him, again and again.

Frank had enough. If memory serves (this was in the 1950s) he didn’t sell the business. He just closed it down. Boy does that burger taste better with small government.

The Chinese put melamine in our pet food. They put it in their baby formula. Don’t feel safe too quickly. That company’s NASDAQ-listed stock went down so much there was talk of it being acquired by Nestle or H.J. Heinz, as a cheaper supplier of their baby formula. Trust Nestle’s and Heinz’s judgment. They both prefer small government.

Okay, so you don’t eat. Are you one of those people who travels? That terrible government built the roads, the bridges, the tunnels, the airports, etc. Without the government interference you probably wouldn’t need a car. We would starve local governments by eliminating their revenue from parking meters.

And we wouldn’t want the government to help with the severe shortage of horses that would be necessary to replace cars. At least we wouldn’t have to listen to those people criticizing the government for not solving the Gulf oil spill. With small government we needn’t worry about $4 per gallon for gasoline.

Isn’t it awful that your kids are required to have shots? Whatever happened to those cute iron lungs? Just one more thing that big government helped take away from us.

Who would show up if you could call 911? The kid with the rocket? If the government was small enough, we wouldn’t have phones, or 911.

Prior to the implementation of “healthcare reform” the government pays for 45% of all healthcare in the US. That doesn’t even count the tax subsidies corporations get for providing health insurance. There would have to be lots and lots of doctors and nurses applying to cook fries at McDonald’s if the government got out. What would we do with all of those big empty hospitals? They would probably seem like good shelters to the homeless. Another problem solved by small government.

You love your kids. Do you love them enough to spend all day every day with them? You could teach them your version of history. You could teach them your version of English and economics and physics and calculus. The government is too big when it babysits your kids part of the time.

Because of the influence of these people and the money from the corporate world we already enjoy some of the benefits of small government. I know the miners in West Virginia appreciate that the government has insufficient staff and authority to bother their bosses.

We can’t help but applaud that less than half of our combatants in Afghanistan are a part of the government. The others have freedom to ignore our silly laws and treaties and chain of command.

Have you done the math? Letting everyone have a gun would save lots of money that we presently waste on judges, courts, lawyers, police, jails and prisons. Do it yourself can also relieve your stress.

Smaller government? I’m convinved.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

If you stay to the end of this post, you will see an offer you can’t refuse – no strings attached.

My last post was about a health issue, not healthcare reform. Writing so frequently on healthcare reform and the economy has built up a tremendous reserve of frustration.

I wanted to take a psychic break by expounding on other subjects but it seems not to be possible to get away from these matters. Storming once more into the breech they come again to the subject of reform.

Just now I feel more inclined to address the method than the substance. Could it be that there is so little substance to speak to?

I can’t help but wonder if anyone in Washington actually knows the definition of the word reconciliation. The dictionary says it is the reestablishing of cordial relations. All I see is animosity and hostility. How could a spirit of reconciliation engender such enmity and division? So, with the understanding that the term itself is inappropriate, let’s get on to the real problem.

That problem is the disdain so many Senators have for democracy. They seem to think that their prerogatives are more important than representing the needs and opinions of the people.

While the people have been confused, frustrated and angered at the shenanigans taking place in Congress, the majority still support the need for reform and, specifically, the public option. Many of those opposed do so out of a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the problems and possible solutions.

Throwing around such accusations as this being an attempt to take over healthcare or mischaracterizing it as socialism come from ignorance or deliberate lies. The government has Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, medical care for the active military and veterans, coverage for civilian employees and other programs which it operates or for which it pays. It also subsidizes, through tax breaks, most private policies. The government already pays for 45% of healthcare costs, not including the subsidies.

The private insurance industry is permitted to skim off the cream. It is allowed to reject anyone they wish. They reserve the right to not pay the costs for whatever they wish to avoid. They skim the money to provide their executives multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses, private jets, lavish parties and such. Can you guess who bears the brunt of their exercise of these privileges?

At this time, several companies are attempting to increase premiums in a range from 22% to 59%. This while they are reducing the actual total amount they are paying out for your health care. Last year our health costs amounted to 17.3% of our entire economy. My untutored guess is that the above-cited increases might make the economic burden even greater. You get another guess as to who will get screwed.

Takeover? No. This is an attempt to provide almost everyone with health care and save our economy. As a nation, we cannot afford to rank 37^th in the world in health care. Nor can we afford an ever greater percentage of our total resources being designated as profits for the industry that has put at such a lowly ranking.

We shouldn’t forget the millions they spend on bribes. Is it possible this is a consideration when these “public servants” refuse to permit democracy to exist in the chambers of the Senate?

This talk of reconciliation may actually result in a vote. Even more important than the outcome of that vote is the fact that it will provide us undeniable evidence of who hates democracy and has no concern for their constituents. Every one of those opposing reconciliation needs to be thrown out of office. If your Senator opposes it, you have an obligation to yourself, your family, your country and the Constitution to oppose them. Yes, it is that simple.

My apologies for the preachy tone but it comes from frustration with our elected officials.

Now for the free offer. As mentioned earlier, my last post was on a health issue. It was one that is mired in misinformation. My book, Why Are You Mad?, is on the subject of mental illness. While this subject is not of interest to everyone, it does contain some nutrition information that is of universal concern. It speaks to another area drowning in misinformation: fats, saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, the whole panoply.

So, to anyone interested, I am offering a free copy of my book. Just send me an email and I will attach a copy of the book to the return. It will be in the form of a PDF file. If anyone prefers an actual dead tree version, I will send you one for $10 – $8 off of the retail price.

Why am I doing this? I did not spend 14 years of research and almost 3 years writing it because I wanted it to make money. I wrote it to provide as many as possible with an understanding of the subject. For those not interested in the overall subject, I feel that the dietary information is likewise of importance, but to everyone.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I‘m afraid we need to get back to basics. One would think that people understood insurance.

There are many valid complaints concerning “healthcare reform.” Those focused on insurance are not among them.

That doesn’t stop them from complaining. Some complain for political reasons. Others complain because they don’t understand what insurance is, how it works and what it is supposed to do.

Many of the young are complaining loudly that they should not be compelled (mandated) to purchase healthcare insurance. They say they are healthy. They say they shouldn’t be forced to pay for healthcare they do not need and will not use.

Insurance is supposed to be a way of sharing risks. If only the decrepit buy it, everyone in the pool will share the high costs. What is the advantage of that? Insurance needs to cover those who won’t be making claims in order to make the costs affordable.

Politicians have played to the unwashed for decades, saying that Social Security should be voluntary. Okay. So, who would opt out? The bulk of those opting out would be the very ones who would most need assistance during their “golden years.” We aren’t going to let them starve at the curb in front of our house.

Instead, we would pay for them through one of the welfare programs. We would do that rather than have them contribute to the costs during their productive years. Those who would opt out would save themselves money and force everyone else to pay their share.

What holds true for Social Security also obtains with health insurance. First, there is no guarantee that the young will not get sick. Second, when they do grow up they will appreciate having someone share the burden, particularly at a time when most have a fixed and/or limited income.

In that first case, those who have bought in, the ones who already have high healthcare costs, would be forking over for those kids unlucky enough to become ill. There is more than a remote possibility that those who are now young will get old. There is also more than a remote possibility that they will then see the merit of sharing their costs with people who only need the insurance, not the actual care.

Now, let’s look at this from another perspective. The bills that the Congress has before it are not simply means of providing healthcare to more people. Those bills require people not to pay for their heathcare. They require people to give money to private insurance companies. This isn’t quite the same as requiring people to pay into the publicly-run Social Security.

Requiring people to make purchases from private, for profit corporations is more than a slippery slope. It is an enormous, bottomless pit. What philosophical justification could there possibly be? There would be just as much justification for the government to require us to all purchase rings from a small number of jewelers. The jewelers would be largely free to decide how many carats those diamonds must be. They could also set the prices they want.

Perhaps Walmart could scrape together enough bribe money to get Congress to pass a law for its benefit.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I saw thousands of sheep on my recent trip to the Highlands of Scotland. Most were just grazing on the hillsides. A few were being herded, by border collies, men or both.

If I had more time I would have stopped and asked them if they really wanted to be herded to the slaughterhouse. They, of course, didn’t get to pick their leaders.

I had thought we were different. I thought we picked our leader November last. Apparently I was mistaken.

President Obama is an accomplished academic. He is an accomplished speaker. He has many attributes but he is not a leader. He may see himself as such, or he may not but he is not.

He knew how to select an outstanding team of campaigners. He does not know how to select a team of governing advisers. He relied on the conventional wisdom in picking a staff and cabinet. Conventional wisdom is what is responsible for our current predicament on a broad range of issues.

He selected Rahm Emanuel to lead his political efforts. Rahm is a right-of-center DINO. He might be acceptable if he were given specific direction, rather than being given his head. Given the latitude to operate as he sees fit, it is becoming more and more apparent that he has taken this administration to a point barely distinguishable from the previous one.

During this administration’s tenure there have been over 500 visits to the White House by the powers-that-be of the health industry. His staff is rife with people from that industry. So, we have not gotten the promised healthcare reform. And, we will not get it. The bills being considered by the Congress are best described as health insurance reform; reform that significantly enriches that industry.

The health industry, aside from perhaps 59% of the physicians, have no interest in your health, only your money. Where is the reform? Where is the relief from increased costs in the most expensive system ever devised? Where is the longer life expectancy, the lower infant mortality, the next miracle drug when Viagra’s patent expires?

Even more than the case with healthcare the President has cast his lot with the thieves who created our economic difficultlies. He has given free rein to those who have impoverished us while feathering their own nests. Who leads his economic team? Larry Summers, the fired President of Harvard who ignored warnings and cost that university’s endowment $1.8 billion. And that was not even the reason for which he was fired.

How about killing our kids? Sending 30,000 more targets to Afghanistan will not provide a “win.” The costs of Iraq and Afghanistan would have more than paid for real healthcare reform. Money spent on unnecessary wars enrich the military-industrial complex and impoverish the nation.

Out of about five million votes in the recent Afghani election 1.3 million had to be thrown out. It would not be unreasonable to think that even more votes were of questionable provenance. To protect, defend and depend upon such a discredited group of warlords and drug dealers seems less than advisable. The people of that benighted conglomeration of fiefdoms see us as invaders and occupiers. Will they respond by spreading palm leaves in the path of an additional 30,000 foreign invaders, bedecking the 30,000 additional occupiers with leis?

Has any active military field commander ever wanted fewer troops? Has any military commander ever admitted they could not win? Has any military commander ever declared that there was nothing to win? No, but let’s abdicate leadership and let the professionals convince us they can destroy the Viet Cong Taliban if only they had another twelve million men, 403 more years and no interference from our elected leaders.

I just saw the headline: Karl Rove On Obama Plan: ‘Stand Up And Applaud.’ At least some people are pleased with Obama’s leadership.

The polls say that the economy is the number one issue for the country. With more than 15 million unemployed, it is no surprise that jobs constitute the primary concern of most people. So, what have these titans of Wall Street designed for us? Well, there was the stimulus package. So far, $100 billion of that $787 billion has been spent. Oh, they also handed out $90 billion in tax refunds. Leaderless incompetence – the Daily Double.

I was one of those that had hope. I voted for change. Silly me.

When we, as a country, are headed in the wrong direction, we don’t magically come to some unanimous conclusion as to which way to turn to avoid disaster. We have to depend on a leader to show us the way. But what happens when the leader quits (are there any Sarah fans out there to explain this to us)? What happens when the ones who led us (sold us) down the road are richly rewarded for their avarice and hubris and kept in those same positions? Would you believe that they failed to experience a teachable moment? Would you believe they continued down the path that had proven so rewarding to them?

People put themselves forward for the presidency for various reasons. Some do it simply out of ambition. Others have some agenda to promote. Some because they thought daddy was entitled to a second term. No one wants to be president because they think it is easy. Few who seek the office are really qualified. The position requires several attributes. The primary one should be leadership, particularly in troubled times.

Maybe leaders are born, not made. I hope that is not necessarily the case. But, ironically, hope is all we have.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

You have been sold down the river. So have we all.

We need to differentiate between healthcare reform and tinkering with health insurance. Yes, there is a difference. The entire burlesque these past few months has revolved around the tinkering.

A handful of congressmen offered HR 676, Medicare-For-All. That represents reform. All of the rest of our political entertainment has been farce and sleight of hand.

I will get to the parts that all of you younger folk are concerned about but first let me speak to one that is of more consequence to us geezers. That would be a part of the “secret deal” between al-PhRMA, the White House and Max Baucus – the do-nut hole.

I had the chance to do some more reading of the Senate version of healthcare. It really is quite interesting despite being written in a language no human has ever mastered.

For anyone unfamiliar with the do-nut hole, let me explain. Medicare Part D was a present from the Bush administration to the drug pushers and insurance companies. Not only was it unfunded, it costs the government more than any of the “reform” plans that came out of either house of Congress.

A senior has a choice of insurance plans covering most, not all, prescription drugs. In my case the choice was among 50-odd plans. You are required to pay premiums, deductibles and co-pays until you reach the hole. Once in the hole you pay 100%. Though you are still required to pay premiums, the insurer pays out nothing. It begins at $2,830 for 2010. As with everything connected to healthcare, there are substantial annual increases.

You can reach this amount fairly quickly because it includes all of the above items that you pay plus whatever the insurance company pays. However, getting out is just a bit different. The exit point is $4,550 but there is a catch. You arrive at that figure on your own. Payments made by the insurer are not included.

Now you must remember, this plan was not designed to benefit seniors. The government is forbidden to negotiate drug prices for Medicare. The VA is not so constrained and averages a discount of about 58%. This means that, having insurance, the drug dealers have more customers and they get the full retail price. That price is whatever they want it to be.

No, they didn’t forget the insurance companies. They are guaranteed against loss and receive subsidies from the taxpayer.

Now that you understand Part D, let’s see what the “secret deal” contains. It promises the drug dealers that Medicare will continue to be forbidden to negotiate. The drug dealers promise to help out with $80 billion, spread out over 10 years. Most of that will supposedly be going to reduce seniors’ costs in the do-nut hole.

To get that help, a 50% savings only while the senior is in the hole, you must buy brand names, no generics. Again, that is 50% of whatever the drug dealers want to charge.

Interestingly, al-PhRMA commissioned a study of what all of this will cost them. That study shows that, despite forking over $80 billion over a 10-year period, they will realize an increase of $137 billion in just the next 4 years. That, of course, is in addition to the windfall that Part D itself gave them.

They may have been too embarrassed to extend the study out any further, as a close reading of the plan shows that the do-nut hole will not be closed immediately. It will gradually be closed over a period of 13 years. Oh, lordy. They’re doing all of this for poor little me?

By the way, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tells us that there will be substantial increases in the premiums seniors will pay for their do-nut hole discount.

And, now we have just one more bit of information that might be of interest. While the drug dealers are generously offering a discount of $8 billion a year, they are raising prices. This year they have already raised the overall prices the greatest amount since 1992. That would work out to more than $10 billion already this year.

If that doesn’t sound bad enough, let’s look a little more closely. Since those $6,000 per dose drugs, and others up on the high end, are not being raised much, if at all, the bulk of the increases are on the most commonly used drugs. That makes the effect on most people even more pronounced.

The various plans that were developed had price tags from something over $800 billion to $1.1 trillion. That is tax money. That doesn’t count increased premiums, deductibles and co-pays. The government will pay the costs for those who can’t pay. They will subsidize small companies providing healthcare. They will also continue to subsidize the insurance companies. This is in addition to the subsidies represented by the present tax exemptions for health insurance benefits.

I have already covered many of the general problems of the various plans. While the elimination of bans for preexisting conditions is in the plans, there are ways for the insurance companies to circumvent that stricture.

Ms. Pelosi proclaimed the inclusion of the public option and spoke of the plan covering 35 million people. The impression was intentionally left that the public option would cover those 35 millions. Actually, that increase in coverage comes from requiring small businesses and some individuals to purchase coverage. The public option is estimated to be available to up to 6.5 million.

The public option will, therefore, not play the claimed role of competing with private plans so as to keep their prices down. The only potential positive that might come from the public option would be as a foot in the door. It might, only might, be a way of expanding its coverage at some point in the indeterminate future. Don’t hold your breath.

By mandating that more people buy insurance and not holding the companies’ price increases down, the industry will reap tremendously increased revenue and profits. Those will be born by the average Joe, by increases in premiums, deductibles and co-pays, as well as subsidies from the government, i.e., taxpayers.

Obama and the Congress took single-payer off of the table before the “negotiations” began. They gave the various parts of the medical industry places at the table while ignoring the public and the majority of physicians. Then they cowered and kow-towed before al-PhRMA, AHIP, the AHA and the AMA, which represents less than 20% of physicians and stands against the wishes of the majority of them.

I have difficulty comprehending how that can be described as change or leadership or reform. I am convinced that the better way is for the President to take charge, to declare the entire process and resulting mess a failure and to demand a new start based on Medicare-For-All. That would not just require leadership; it would actually be leadership.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Do you REALLY want a democracy? The healthcare reform farce we see in Congress is proof positive that we do not actually enjoy a democracy in the United States.

Who is to blame? You and me. Who can bring back democracy? Only you and me. How, you ask. Well, that’s what I’m here for. I have the answer. While I have the answer, that doesn’t mean that I can do it alone. I need your help.

I recall a BC comic strip from during the 1968 presidential campaign. One of the characters was Peter. He had a stone couch and gave psychiatric advice. One of the other characters came to him complaining of a recurring dream. He dreamt he was in the voting booth and that there was only one name on the ballot. Peter asked what was the name. The response was Humphrey-Nixon-Wallace.

There actually was no choice. Corporations donated to all three campaigns. Things have changed. They have worsened.

Kent Conrad is the most prominent Democratic Senator opposing the public option. Yes, I know about Max Baucus. He says he is for it (he isn’t) but will not support it because it can’t pass. Anyway, back to Conrad.

The North Dakota Democratic Party held a convention. They voted, without dissent, to include the single-payer system as their healthcare reform policy. They sent a letter to Conrad, the state’s other Senator and to their lone Representative. That letter stated their policy and added that, if single-payer was not to be, their fallback position was for a public option.

Senator Conrad has received $2,362,436 in bribes from the insurance companies, health industry and lobbyists. I’m guessing that he didn’t share any of that with his state’s Democratic Party. A poll in his state shows an overwhelming support for the public option. Still, he is recalcitrant. Who does he represent? The people of North Dakota are missing that little thing called democracy. Remember the immortal words of Deep Throat, “Follow the money.”

Conrad was in politics before but he came to the Senate in 1987. He promised he would not run for re-election if the budget deficit was not reduced. It wasn’t. He ignored that promise. By the way, his present position is Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. He is in his 23^rd year in the Senate. That is the problem.

He needs all of those bribes to pay for his re-election campaigns. No re-election campaign, no need for campaign funds. Without those bribes, he could vote the way his constituents want – for single-payer. Wow. Just think about that for a moment.

Term limits would solve the problem. But, what are the chances of them voting themselves out of office? Nil. That leaves it up to us, the voters, and those who are eligible but don’t vote.

That should be easy. While the approval rating of Congress is 9%, 95% of them get re-elected. We, you and I, are to blame. We are stupid, gullible, lazy, don’t care enough or some combination of those virtues. They won’t do it, so we must.

The corporations have a Congress. We don’t. So, the answer is obvious. Don’t re-elect incumbents.

While the overall approval rating for Congress is 9%, the majority has a higher opinion of the member from their own bailiwick. Or, maybe we are just more forgiving. That may explain why a Congressman can consistently vote against his constituents’ interests or even get caught lying, stealing or making trips to The Argentine and still maintain the support of many, possibly most, of the voters in his district.

About a third of Congressmen run unopposed. Incumbency, and the money that comes with it, keeps a lot of good people from running. We could have a peoples’ congress. And, it wouldn’t cost us a dime. All we have to do is vote against all incumbents.

Would the very few good ones get ousted? Yes, but I’m willing to bet that there are other good people in their district. Perhaps they, as Sarah Palin, can work more effectively for our benefit outside of the system, without the onerous responsibilities of office.

After one or two election cycles they might feel it to be in their interest to enact some term limits. I would personally prefer an individual limit of ten to twelve years of total public office, i.e., combining the time of holding any combination of offices, with no more than two terms in any one office. Also, no elected or appointed official should receive retirement benefits or any other benefit after leaving office. While in office there should be no benefits not available to average citizens.

Judges are required to recuse themselves if they have any relationship with either party. They implement the laws. However, Congressmen, who make the laws, are permitted to take money from various parties and still vote on those laws. What is good for the courts is good for the legislatures.

Pay for each Congressman should be based on the income of the average family in their district. If they maintain a residence in their own district plus one in the Washington area, they would get the sum of that plus the average income for residents of D.C. Their pay would be tied to how their constituents fare.

Ridding ourselves of career politicians isn’t just something that would be nice. It is absolutely vital to reestablishing this country as a democracy.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites