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

Every time I try to get to other issues inherent in The American Dream the financial aspects keep intruding.

Even though I was on the road on a genealogical trip, the talk of a double dip has been unavoidable these few days past. I feel compelled to respond.

Once again, most of the commentary you’ve been hearing makes as much sense as gibberish. Need I say why?

Is this in any way related to The American Dream? You can bet your bottom and your dollar.

Let’s just quickly remind ourselves that our all-time favorite double-dip was in 1937. After using a watered-down form of Keynesian Economics to almost pull us out of the recession, FDR was convinced by the scaredy-cats to balance the budget. Just look at the graph.

Here it is in a capsule: In bad times the economy suffers from a lack of cash flow. You can’t supply it. The banks (presently sitting on $2 trillion) refuse to supply it and business either can’t get a loan or is afraid to supply it until the economy recovers (hurray for the capitalist risk-takers).

That means government goes into debt during the bad times. The Republicans’ and Blue Dog Democrats’ economic ignorance insists on a balanced budget, as they did in 1937. No one who believes what they profess to believe belongs in a responsible position in government or the private sector. Take one daily, or as needed.

Anyway, this time, that is only a part of the problem. Japanese refer to the 1990s as the “Lost Decade.” They went into a recession that lasted for about 10 years. We seem destined to do the same, but only in a small part for the same reasons.

I just couldn’t resist the juxtaposition of the expected economic results of a major party responsible for it with his identifying initial.

The fact that a graph of the actual results of his incompetence won’t really match his initial doesn’t detract from the humor. We can’t afford to let any chance to smile pass us by, even if it comes from a sort of gallows humor. Well, back to predicting the future.

While there continues to be the very real danger from the Neanderthals, what should be seen as our major problem is The American Dream. What is everyone saying is our primary priority? Jobs.

This week’s stumble in the stock market is based on the latest housing report. Last month saw the biggest decline in housing since we moved out of caves. It isn’t just the number of people working in the housing sector, as noted in a previous part, it holds the biggest part of our financial system hostage.

Until the housing market rebounds, or slowly crawls back up on its walker, the economy can’t recover; at least recover the way we prefer.

Obama made a major mistake. He compromised on the stimulus and cooperated with his predecessor on crafting the bailout. He should have held out for a rational stimulus program. The $250 rebate was not stimulative. Every compromise he made to get votes for the bill weakened its ability to stimulate.

If he had stood his ground and let the professional simpletons block the stimulus we would have seen, have experienced the results of the block-heads. It would have been a great object lesson. He would not be bothered any longer by the little pests snipping at his heels. He could have actually increased his majorities in the House and Senate.

But, you say, it would have caused great pain to the general population. True. The fact is that we have luxuriated in the debt economy for 30 years. We have to pay the bill. It is way past due. Pain will accompany the necessary corrections. The pain can come quickly or slowly. It can come now or later. Whatever, whenever, it must come. The devil wants his due.

I was just trying to express the point that by letting the people whose bizarro economic nonsense got us into this mess try to get us out, the point would be made so clearly only the 18% that doesn’t hate Congress would fail to be disabused of these irrational, perverted verities. It would be painful but help us avoid so much more pain in the future.

The odds are that you know someone who wants or needs to sell their house but can’t in the present market. You may know or know of someone who has lost their job. There have been millions of foreclosures. There are millions more in the pipeline. Each one was The American Dream. Each one represents a dream lost, a dream replaced by a nightmare.

The dream is so deeply ingrained in us that it is entangled with our psyche. It is tied to our perception of our own worth. We lose the dream, we see ourselves as a failure.

Others see us as a failure; even our loved ones. Moving into a rental or an apartment that better suits our needs cannot assuage the hurt, the loss.

But, let’s return to those millions and millions of houses flooding the market. There aren’t enough buyers. Qualified buyers with access to mortgages are even rarer.

This being the case, how do prices rise to boost our economy? They don’t; at least not for a long time. Remember Japan. The government can allay some of the worse aspects of this mess. The government can eventually get us back to what can be described as a recovery but not today, not tomorrow, not in time for the next election.

The American Dream had, indeed still has, its appeal but that appeal comes at a steep price. Our mistake was in only looking at one side of the coin, the shiny side. The housing market has become not the engine that drives our economy, rather the drag.

As a supertanker may take miles to make a U-turn, size similarly bars any degree of agility to the housing market. Our economy is not sufficiently diversified. There are no other sectors that can readily compensate.

We used to have a large manufacturing base. We starved it, then shipped it overseas. I often wonder why those who saw industry moved from the rust belt to the bible belt never realized just how movable our jobs were.

As an aside, the latest surveys show that American-made cars are in the lead for quality. That may be temporary or not. The lesson to be learned is that no one stole manufacturing from us. We gave it away.

Actually, that particular we should be defined as all of the greedy, self-congratulating, overly well-remunerated idiots in charge of our corporations and their toadies inside the Beltway. Manufacturing, on a base as broad as this country, was so diversified as to avoid the concentration of the financial engine that we have with housing.

How we accomplish the blood-letting necessary in our real estate market to rid ourselves of that burden I don’t know, beyond patience. At some point we will need to refocus the economy to metropolitan centers and rural towns.

We will need to develop more urban transit. We will need to address other needs of infrastructure. We will need to change the face of America. We will need to change The American Dream.

Forget all of the talk about a double dip. That may happen. It may not. Either way the recovery will be long. Think in terms of a decade, not in quarters.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Believe. Regardless of what the facts are, believe.

Have you heard about the Democratic tax increase? Or, maybe they called it the Obama tax increase.

What, exactly, are they talking about? They are talking about George W. Bush’s tax increase. Bush’s? How can that be?

Bush said that, as a result of the downturn attributed to 9-11, we needed to stimulate the economy; create more jobs.

His solution? Tax cuts. Surprise. Surprise.

When Bush and his Republican Senate and House passed the tax cut they knew that there would be a tax increase on January 1^st of 2011. That makes it their tax increase, no one else’s.

Probably the most offensive aspect of the effort to extend Bush’s tax cuts is the hypocrisy of its supporters. Many congressmen are claiming that the reason they voted against an extension of unemployment benefits is because the bill contained no budget cuts to offset the cost. What were the costs? About $30 billion.

Sure, $30 billion is a lot of money but the human costs of cutting the lifeline of the unemployed is impossible to tally. Well, surely these fiscal conservatives also want budget cuts to offset the loss of revenue. I’m sorry. They don’t. After all, the tax cuts will only come to about $1.7 trillion by 2014. You probably should also include interest payments. That puts the costs at about $2 trillion. Of course, there is no guarantee that the tax cuts would end in 2014.

I’ve said this before and I will continue saying it until everyone understands: there are no such things as tax cuts if they create debt. They are merely deferments. They shift the burden to others. Because of interest, they cost more than stated, as in the last paragraph.

The consensus among economists is that there are far more effective ways to stimulate the economy. So, Bush said we will give the significant cuts to the top two percent. Why? Because everyone knows that they are the ones who create jobs. I’m sorry. For some reason I got left out of that “everyone.” I think the reason for my absence can be attributed to my familiarity with the facts.

Stimulating the economy is most effective when the funds are targeted at the areas most in need of attention and where the return is greatest. Where did those $250 refunds go from the last stimulus? The biggest slice went to paying down credit card debt. Paying down your debt is commendable but hardly stimulative. Most the the rest did go for consumption. Admittedly, that helped stimulate the economy. The problem is that the economy that was most stimulated was China’s.

The aspects of the tax cuts that are the points of contention are the marginal tax rates in the two top brackets: over $209,250 and over $373,650. At the point of the first, the rate would be 3% for everything between those two amounts. Above the later, the increase would be 3.6%. Those increases are only on taxable income. No one pays tax on their entire income. The wealthier you are, the greater the likelihood of being able to take advantage of a mass of deductions.

In fact, the reality is that few making as little as half a million a year will pay as much as $5,000, if any in extra taxes. In terms of what those congressmen consider wealthy you need to be considerably above that piddling amount. Just being in the top two percent doesn’t make you attractive enough to be a real friend.

Eighty percent of stock is owned by the top one percent. That makes you attractive.

If giving the plutocrats a tax break at your expense doesn’t benefit you by stimulating the economy, why would you support it? Because they tell you it creates jobs? It doesn’t.

Yeah, I know. Outgoing Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and others told a big enough lie that many believed it. The numbers they put out differed but Kay’s claim was that it created 8.1 million jobs. Maybe in China, but not here.

Even with the supposed jobs resulting from the tax cut, Bush, according to the Wall Street Journal, only managed about 3 million jobs created during his first 7 years. The number was 23 million during Clinton’s 8 years, without a stimulating tax cut. Bush’s final year saw an actual loss. The mess he left caused a loss of 8 million jobs over the last months of his administration and the first year of his successor.

But, you say, I’ve always heard that the wealthy are the ones who create jobs and the more money they have the more jobs they create. It sounds nice, doesn’t it? It seems to make sense, doesn’t it? Only if you think the economy is that simple and every wealthy person’s every waking moment is how to benefit those less financially fortunate.

No president since Herbert Hoover has created so few jobs as Junior while everyone since WWII has done it with higher tax rates on the top end. If a low tax rate on the wealthy is the key, how did presidents out-perform Bush when his top rate was 36% and theirs was 91%? In several comparisons, the higher the top marginal tax rate the greater the job creation. I don’t care if that is counter to the received truth that Junior read on those stone tablets or not.

Put the tax rates in perspective. Allowing the increases called for in Bush’s tax bill will put them back to where they were during the Clinton administration. They will still be less than they were under Reagan. Show me any proof that reducing taxes on the uber-wealthy creates jobs and I will let you borrow the Holy Grail that I possess. The Holy Grail may exist. I don’t know. But, I know the other doesn’t.

It may be a shock to some that, if you reduce revenue while you are in debt and running a deficit, you will have a larger debt. Look at this chart.

Okay, class. What do we see? The presidents responsible for the largest increases in our debt gave us the largest tax cuts deferments. They also created the fewest jobs.

Let’s review the claims of the fiscal conservatives. They say tax cuts for the wealthy creates jobs. Wrong. They say tax cuts generate more revenue than they cut. They say that tax cuts more than pay for themselves. Wrong. Not only do they not pay for themselves, they don’t even pay for the increased interest on the debt.

Do you remember David Stockman? He was Reagan’s economic guru. Remember Supply-side economics? Remember Trickle-down? Did you read David’s book – the one he wrote after he left the White House? He admitted that he and the other advisers knew at the time that it was all a sham. I think we have more than sufficient data now to support his contention.

The question is not why the fiscal conservatives continue to spout such nonsense. They are just trying to serve their masters. The real question is why is so much of the public still so gullible?

I have some partial answers. First, they don’t understand the issues. They think they do. But, that’s not quite the same. They say that it’s the philosophy on which this country was founded. Emphatically not true. They say it works. I’m going to tear out my hair. They think those saying it are telling the truth and share their values. I’m going to tear out your hair. No. No. No. No.

They lied. They are lying. They will continue to lie. It’s their job.

Do they care about you? You don’t have to be unemployed to grasp that they routinely vote against your interest. You just have to know the facts. Facts to them are like sunshine to a vampire. They are far more closely related to Kim Jong Il than to you and me.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Some readers may have skipped the Classics. Some may just have memory problems associated with age. That I can identify with.

Ms. Cassandra’s beauty caught the eye of Apollo. He gave her the gift of knowing the future.

She spurned Mr. Apollo, so he cursed her. Her predictions were to be ignored. Obviously she is no more welcome here today than when she warned that the Trojan Horse was filled with armed men.

Have you been enjoying the economic meltdown? You will not need nostalgia to relive these exciting times when you have a few more rings around your trunk. There will be another.

Why am I upsetting you with my pessimism? Because nothing is being done to correct the structural faults that brought on the collapse. Because nothing is being proposed by our leaders to address the problems.

In March of last year the President met with the heads of the thirteen largest banks. He made them promises. Their banks would not be allowed to fail. He had their backs. One year forward, not a single one has lost his job. The promises were kept. (Under no circumstances are you to mention the promises made to you and me.)

The more you do of what you’ve done, the more you’ll have of what you’ve got.

Everything is just as it was. There are no new regulations. There are no new, or any, penalties. Whenever they want to put the world’s economies in the Dempster again, the stage is still set. Chris Dodd is putting together a reform bill but it is really a diversion. Since he’s preparing to leave the Senate, he’s not even bothering to make it appear effective. The more you do . . .

Dylan Ratigan was a star of the financial network CNBC until he realized what a farce Wall Street is. He was offered a show on MSNBC and now provides succinct explanations for the uninitiated as to what it all means. I am unable to embed that network’s videos here (until someone shows me how) but here is the link to a recent segment on what he calls the Great Con Job of the Fed.

Few (or none) would favorably compare my physiognomy with Cassandra’s. Apollo never saw the need to bestow upon me any special powers or talents. They are unnecessary. Predicting another global economic meltdown is within the ability of my 7-year old grandson.

Right now these plutocrats are occupied. They are dotting all of the eyes and crossing all of the teas in their imminent theft from the people of Greece. It appears that their intended itinerary is: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, the UK, the US.

Recently, appearing before a Congressional committee, Alan Greenspan abandoned character and admitted that he was surprised that the market didn’t behave as Ayn Rand and the Chicago School of Economics had ordered. Now his ego has recovered.

Alan told Congress today not to blame him for our problems. It wasn’t his fault. After all, he bragged that he was right 70% of the time. Wow! That is impressive. Maybe not impressive enough for your pilot, or your physician, or your Toyota engineer. Perhaps 70% would not even get you into a decent college.

But, it seems that the former god of economics was proud that he was correct some of the time.

Greenspan’s successor has been busy defending the Federal Reserve. Bernanke and the 12 regional Fed chiefs are sending to Dodd’s committee what business correspondent Shahien Nasiripour characterized as a veiled threat. Actually, it is as scripted as a Japanese Noh play.

Now I must pull back a little. Chris Dodd has been difficult to get a bead on lately. Given the freedom not running for office would provide, he often mouths some good generalities. I’m guessing that he also is factoring in his potential as a lobbyist when he doesn’t leave the District. Sometimes he seems to be backsliding.

It’s probably not wise to put all of your marbles on either Chris Dodd just yet. One can hope that he will think of his old best friend, Teddy Kennedy, and try to leave a legacy. However, my skepticism pushes me to expect less than airtight rules and regulations for the banks.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

It happens to everyone. My personal life and other commitments have intruded upon the time I have had to devote to this blog for the past few weeks. There has been an almost constant string of matters hitting me at an accelerated pace.

There have been funerals and visiting friends in the hospital. That is likely a factor of my age and that of my friends.

There is my attempt to help with a lawsuit that deals with Constitutional issues relating to mental illness. There is research on other matters. And the list goes on.

I am taking a shortcut by posting an Op-Ed piece from the New York Times by Phil Keisling. It offers a potential solution to an endemic problem of our body politic.

As one of my degrees is in Political Science and I have had the practical experience of holding public elective office, I find Mr. Keisling’s post of particular interest. This idea is not original to him. He points out that the State of Washington has already implemented it and it is on the ballot in California.

It is far from a cure-all but it should provide some relief to the present toxic level of political discourse.

I feel certain that there are at least one or two Republicans in Congress who might find themselves in agreement with the Democrats on some obscure issue. At present though, every Republican is in lockstep, opposing every Democratic proposal.

I’m not suggesting total comity but you are likely as disgusted as I with the total comedy that is our political system. Party loyalty has replaced our political representatives’ obligation to us and engendered a disturbing lack of decorum. The parties are jerking the strings of our politicians. They are, to varying degrees, willing puppets. This suggestion will not cut all of the strings but it can begin the task.

Want to get serious about reducing the toxic levels of hyper-partisanship and legislative dysfunction now gripping American politics? Here’s a direct, simple fix: abolish party primary elections.

From now to September, virtually every state will hold primaries to select Democratic and Republican candidates for the November general election. At stake are 36 Senate and 435 Congressional seats, along with 37 governorships and more than 6,000 state legislative seats.

What can we likely expect? Abysmal voter turnout; incessant waves of shrill, partisan invective; and legions of pandering politicians making blatant appeals to party extremists. Once you understand the role that party primary elections really play, and who votes and doesn’t, the real question isn’t why our politics are so dysfunctional — it’s how could they not be?

The current party primary system was actually reformist, an early 20th-century innovation to replace the smoke-filled backrooms of party bosses. Though party leaders fought this effort, within a generation it and the direct election of senators eventually swept the country — and improved our politics considerably.

But a century later, this reform has outgrown its usefulness. We are left with a system in which almost every state still outsources its elections to what are actually private organizations. With the approval of the Supreme Court, the parties have the authority to exclude independent voters or other non-members who might seriously challenge their partisan shibboleths or taboos.

Some state parties deign to allow non-members to participate in their primaries. But very few independents bother. Most party members don’t, either. In 2006, during the last non-presidential primary cycle, most states had turnouts of only 15 percent to 30 percent of registered voters (New York had less than 5 percent). So far, the 2010 primary cycle has shown a new low of 23 percent in Illinois, and 16.5 percent in Texas, a record high for that state.

So what can be done? States should scrap this anachronistic system and replace it with a “fully open/top two” primary. All candidates would run in a first round, “qualifying” election, with the top two finalists earning the chance to compete head-to-head in November. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, even “None of the Above’s” could all run in the first round. Voters would certainly know candidates’ party affiliations, but no political party would automatically be entitled to a spot on the November ballot.

This would create far more races that were truly competitive, especially across the vast majority of lopsided districts where winning the party primary essentially guarantees election. In those districts, both finalists might be from the same party, but there could be genuine differences between the two that would give voters a meaningful choice.

Of course, it’s likely that the finalists of most qualifying elections would still be a Democrat and a Republican. But these candidates often would be (or, at least, act) different than those produced by partisan primaries. Gone would be the ideological purity tests of primaries, which more and more punish the Republican concerned with global warming or the Democrat wrestling with eye-popping budget deficits. Candidates wouldn’t have to practice the dark arts of the “message zigzag,” securing the base then feinting to the center. A system without partisan primaries would reward candidates who work, from Day 1, to appeal openly and forthrightly to the broadest group of voters.

To replace party primaries with this fairer election system requires no federal legislation, or even any changes to most state Constitutions. State legislators or voters could do it with simple, majority votes, as Washington State voters did in 2006. This June, California voters will have a chance to become the second state free of party primaries — a move favored by 68 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats there, according to a recent poll. I myself was the chief petitioner of an unsuccessful ballot measure to change Oregon’s system in 2008. I hope we’ll have another chance here.

The primary system gives disproportionate power to the shrillest and most mean-spirited of our partisans, while preventing civil dialogue and progress on a host of important issues. But a “fully open/top two” system would empower every American to be able to vote for the best candidate in every election. That is as good and achievable an antidote to what now ails the body politic as our democracy can hope for.

Phil Keisling, a Democrat, was the Oregon secretary of state from 1991 to 1999.

Whether this is one of the needed solutions or not, it is worthy of consideration.  Term limits would be of great benefit but are at least a long way off, if even possible. Are you aware of other answers?

.

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

We need to send some senators to Guantanamo. They are far more dangerous to our country than any of the people already in residence there.

I’m certain you have at least heard the name of Christopher Bond, Senator from Missouri. You, however, may be forgiven for not recognizing Martha Johnson’s name.

Miss Martha was the President’s nominee to head up the General Services Administration. It’s difficult to think of a political appointment to a less political position. The GSA is primarily the nation’s landlord and maintenance arm. They do the grunt work so that government employees have a roof over their heads.

What connection is there between these two?

Little Chris (Kit) was pissed about something to do with a new Federal building in Kansas City. So, he did what any grammar school kid would do. He took “his” ball and refused to let the others play. He put a hold on her nomination.

Believe it or not, the Democrats finally showed some backbone and forced a vote. What was the outcome of this controversial nomination? She was confirmed: 96-0.

Senators are so impressed with themselves that they refer to the Senate as the world’s most exclusive club. Sometimes they call it the world’s most exclusive debating club. One problem – they no longer debate. They just pose for the cameras and talk past each other.

Given how impressed they are with themselves, they feel they deserve special privileges. So, they give themselves a bunch of special considerations. My problem with that, beyond the attitude that engenders it, is that essentially all of these privileges are anti-democratic. Somehow that doesn’t seem meet in, arguably, the world’s most successful democracy.

The privilege pertinent to the above embarrassment is the rule that permits any Senator to put a hold on any nominee or bill, for any reason, or for no reason. Any single Senator can put the whole country on hold, at his pleasure. It this any way to run an airline?

Now, another Senator has taken the next illogical step. He has put a hold on all nominations. Who is this terrorist? He goes by the American-sounding name of Richard Shelby. Unsurprisingly, he comes out of Alabama, our leading state – at least alphabetically.

Surely there is a serious national danger that calls for such a drastic measure. What could it be?

Old Dick wants a government contract to go to a defense contractor who would do assembly work on a new tanker back home in Alabama. I’m convinced that he merely wants government-funded jobs for his constituents. It has nothing to do with his being on the contractor’s payroll.

Actually, the Dick has another reason, as well. He wants the FBI to build an explosives testing facility in Alabama. We mustn’t locate such a facility too conveniently to the FBI’s primary offices in Virginia. That would only help one part of the government function more efficiently. That would violate one of his “conservative” tenants.

The Dick is famous for how tentative his tenants can be. He once pontificated, “Far too many of the president’s nominees were never afforded an up or down vote because several Democrats chose to block the process for political gain.” That, of course, was when Bush had a majority of Republicans in the Senate.

Another rule has become a “privilege.” That is the rule requiring a super majority. When the Democrats had 60 votes, that meant any Democratic Senator could stand in the way until he/she got what they wanted. That worked out so well we ended up with a joke called a healthcare reform bill. It was more like a ménages à cent.

Now, with the Republicans having 41 votes, one of that group can either stop the majority or broker a deal to get what they want. What about what the people want? Silly question.

How do they justify these privileges? They sometimes resort to calling them a part of the system of checks and balances. Pure BS.

The Constitution provides for several checks and balances. There are what are considered to be the main ones: between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. We also have another between the two branches of Congress. The primary one was to be between the people, on the one hand, and Congress and the White House on the other. That one has been effectively eliminated by the Senate.

There are several ways to eliminate these anti-democratic privileges. The Vice President could, at the beginning of the next session, declare them eliminated. It seems he is not so inclined. The Senate Majority Leader could also lead. Not much chance of that.

The Constitution begins, “We the People.” Forget the Constitution. The Rules of the Senate take precedence. The people have been beaten into complete submission. Do you really think the people are prepared to take time away from their 50″ flat screens and video games to regain the power promised by the Constitution? Sure, there are the teabaggers but they are a thankfully small group of yoyos that are too easily led by faux populists such as Dick Armey and the corporate interests he represents. They are ready and willing to blindly follow con men to support policies that are against their real self-interests.

It doesn’t make much sense to depend on such as the corporately mislead teabaggers to help rid us of the corporate-owned legislators. What is the solution? Realistically, there seems not to be one. They say knowledge is power. How I wish that were true.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Have you heard? The economy is in the tank.

Have you heard? Unemployment is in the double digits.

Have you heard? Congress wants to give themselves a pay raise.

Your Congressman needs that money more than your piggy bank does. You would just spend it on something silly, such as food, shelter, clothing, medicine or some other essentials.

What do you think it is? Could it be some variant of Mad Cow Disease? Is it a contagion they picked up from Wall Street? It appears they actually think they deserve to be paid by us.

I have been laboring under the assumption that they were well-paid by their employers; the health industry, the casinos, the banks, et al.

There have been several members showing up on the tube complaining that they haven’t had time to read this or that bill. I feel like emulating Joe Wilson, that stalwart Congressional nincompoop from South Carolina who yelled, “You lie,” at the President.

That would not exactly fit the bill, so to speak. Literacy is not a requirement for that office and is seldom exhibited by most members. They have aides to read the bills for them; to translate them into single-syllable speak. They have aides to write their speeches for them. Most of what they say on the floor was actually never said. That is why they are given “permission to revise and extend” ‘their’ remarks.

How many aides do you pay for? The latest figures I have are from the 1990s. The House has, or had, about 11,000 aides. The Senate has around 6,000. Still, that is not the entirety. If one counts the support staff of the Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Police, Library of Congress (the Congressional Research Service), General Accounting Office, Congressional Budget Office, and Office of Technology Assessment, the total number of legislative branch employees topped 30,000.

Given the hours and wages of staff on the Hill, one would not miss the mark all that much by comparing the place to a plantation. Like the plantation owners who bragged about how many acres ‘they’ planted, Members of Congress try to impress people with how heavy their workload is. I guess they are counting all of the required parties they must attend, the visits to the bordellos, time spent waiting in airport restrooms, waiting for those dollar bills to thaw and grandstanding for the media.

It’s a rough life but somebody has to do it. They are just not adequately appreciated. There are even certain killjoys inconsiderate enough to suggest they spend some of their precious time paying attention to people without Inc. following their name.

An idea that I have had no success with involves their remuneration. How about the government buys enough apartments in the area East of the Hill to house all of the members for free. Then pay each member whatever the average family income is in their district. If they help increase what their constituents earn, they get a pay raise. The opposite would also apply.

I want everyone to know that I am doing my part to fund a pay raise for our public servants. My Social Security check is frozen for the next 3 years. Are you doing your part for this worthy cause?

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

This is not a prediction. It is only what I see as an optimistic scenario.

What’s going to happen with healthcare reform in Congress? Your guess is as good as mine. Because there is no leadership, no one knows what the outcome will be.

We do know a few things, however. Since it was given away before the issue was put on the table, there will be no single-payer system. In other words, there will be no real reform. My optimistic scenario really devolves into a hope that we get a couple of the crumbs that remain.

What remains will be an expensive mess that will further enrich the healthcare industry. Why? Because Obama learned the wrong lesson from Clinton’s failure.

Obama saw Clinton’s failure as being partly due to the opposition of PhRMA, AHIP, AMA and AHA. He decided to lure them into being allies. PhRMA agreed, if they could get his promise to accept their phantom concessions in return for increased looting of the national treasury, i.e., more subsidies and getting the government to guarantee them more customers. They got that promise.

The American Health Insurance Programs industry group is in a death match fight against reform, even though they would benefit more than anyone else from it. The AMA is fighting it but they represent only 20% of physicians. Fifty-nine percent of physicians support single-payer. Seventy-five to seventy-nine percent support the public option.

The American Hospital Association isn’t fighting quite as hard because they want to maintain communication, in the hope of getting greater subsidies. They are crying crocodile tears while still spending tons of money against reform.

The other lesson Obama thinks he learned was that the Congress didn’t go along because Clinton gave them a plan in which they had no input. That is only partially true.

What lessons should Obama have learned? There are two. One is that people respond to leadership, even when they are not in full agreement. Bush understood that. He called himself the decider and the Republicans followed. Even some Democrats fell in line. Obama started off by saying he would let Congress lead. I cannot, for the moment, think of a funnier joke. I doubt there is one.

The other lesson should have been that people are averse to complexity. A thousand-page bill offers the opposition a million points of attack. But it offers potential supporters only the opportunity to run around like a chickens with their heads cut off trying to defend against those attacks. Supporters are enervated by the effort to defend, leaving little energy or time to organize effective support. They are in a permanent defensive mode.

That could have been overcome with a simple Medicare-For-All bill of perhaps 10-15 pages. Then his primary tactic would be a constant parade of seniors extolling Medicare. A high degree of visibility for seniors would also intimidate Congress to some extent as seniors are much more likely to go to the voting booth.

Okay. Let’s get to my little scenario. There are 5 bills; 2 in the Senate and 3 in the House. Each house will combine its bills. There will be one for each. All except the Senate Finance Committee have the public option. It may end up in the Senate’s final bill. It may not. It will be in the final House bill.

Each house votes on their own bill. Then they go to the conference committee. Even if the public option is not in the Senate bill, it is likely the House will insist on it being in the compromise. The House will pass it. Obama must have something to show for his efforts. He will have to exert all of the pressure he can on Senate Democrats.

It will require going the reconciliation route if there are not 60 votes. Reconciliation allows the funding aspects to pass with only 50 Senators plus the Vice President. The other parts still would require 60 but a few Senators could vote against it on the funding part but for the other part. This would give them some political cover by saying that they voted against funding it.

It is still doable but nowhere near a certainty. Any public option that survives will be watered down. It will not be available to everyone. Various versions see it covering from 5 to 20 million of the uninsured.

Any bill will contain bans on denying people for preexisting conditions but that won’t be a problem for the insurance companies to find a way around by charging outrageous premiums or more subtle tactics.

They can avoid the ban on annual and lifetime limits by the same tactic. They don’t have to pay for people they don’t insure.

As I have contended all along, without a single-payer system, reform is little more than a catch phrase.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites