I was checking Thomasthis morning and read his post on Voting or Not. I believe it was dated October 4.
So I decided to post a little thought I had on the same subject.
I will definitely vote. Why?
I must vote. Why?
In particular where I live the alternative is nothing but bad news.
My vote may not make a difference but I am sure there are many that feel the same way.
Thus, the expected low "left" turnout.
Of course here in MO we have more on which to vote than the Senatorial seat. The propositions and "initiatives" are important also. Low "left" to higher "right" turnout means we will get or not get the "right" deciding for the whole state, again.
As a "lefty", I feel let down to an extent as do many. At the same time, I feel irritated at the ads coming from the "right". Mr. Rove is good at this stuff. He and his take the truth about where the unhappiness and the cynicism of "main street" came from and blatantly lie. They count on the short memory of people and the vengeance of the "right".
They use the Robert's Court decision that a corp is a person and all its implications to excellent advantage.
(What happened to the Constitutional Amendment declaring a Corp. is a business entity not a person? I hate talking about amending the Constitution, state or federal. But there are times.)
I could just sit here with my mouth hanging open once again but I grind my teeth and decide to fight back.
The only way I can fight back is to vote.
So I will definitely vote. I must vote.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Returning to the Study, Groups and Group-Think
Since it has been so long, sorry, since the previous posts (see Posts April 19 and April 13) on why some are so easily led and why that leads to aggression; here are some excerpts.
April 13:
Why such aggression lately. Aggression such as carrying a gun so near the President of the U.S. Aggression such as seen during the health care reform debates in Congress and at the town-hall meetings. The list goes on and on.
Have you ever noticed that groups basically are made of the followers, submissives, and the leaders or dominators.
April 19:
Dr. Altemeyer explains that in his books on authoritarians he is mostly discussing extremely submissive “followers” of established authorities, “attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional.”
He lists 3 of the personality traits of the “followers”:
Why the name “right-wing”:
The use of the word right as used here is “an adjective, right, lawful, proper, correct...”
Double Highs:
Social Dominators who also score high on the religion, fundamentalism, scale but the why is interesting. These people go to church more often than most but they go to “project a good image...”
and “It is more important to create a good image of yourself in the minds of others than to be actually be the person others think you are.”
Remember submission to “their” authorities and highly conventional. So keep in mind we are not always talking about political conservatives.
Now on to Question 2 Why are some so aggressive...
(I think it still pertains to being led and believing false “facts”.)
Lets start with more on the compartmental mind to help us understand why many can be led to an aggressive state.
The compartmental mind had no trouble in “believing that America stands for international cooperation and the peaceful resolution of conflict on one hand, while on the other hand insisting it has the “right” to attack whomever it wants...” (from The Authoritarians)
Here is a quotation from another source which I think fits nicely:
From the same story:
And according to Mr Dean in his book Conservatives Without Conscience, “Many conservatives, particularly those who are clearly authoritarians, are not aware of their illogical, contradictory, and hypocritical thinking. If made cognizant of it, they rationalize it away, neglect to care or attack those who reveal their human weaknesses.” (page 27)
Now back to aggression and prejudice.
First let us examine more from Mr. Dean as regards the “followers”.
In Conservatives Without Conscience, Mr Dean discusses Stanley Milgram'swork “...on obedience to authority.” (Milgram's experiments were set up to study delivering electrical shocks to “learners” in obedience to an authority figure.) Milgram uses the term “agentic state” to describe how a person can ignore their normal conscience “...when the individual becomes part of a group, with the individual's conscience often becoming subordinate to to that of the group or to that of its leader.” But Mr Dean does not think that the behaviors of some can be explained in this manner. (see page 44 discussion of Gordon Liddy and see pages 78-81 on I. Scooter Libby)
Further into chapter two of Conservatives... Mr Dean paraphrases and quotes Dr. Altemeyer concerning our RWA and aggression thus; “...as showing “general aggressiveness” toward others when such behavior “is perceived to be sanctioned” by established authorities...” (John Dean page 53)
In his book Dr. Altemeyer does discuss and study the religious beliefs of the RWA but as I have, at this point, some disagreement with him I will go back and restudy the chapter. Then perhaps at some point write a post on just the religious questions involved.
However, I can see Dr. Altemeyer's points about the RWA self-righteousness and their feelings that they are “guardians of the public morality”. He also mentions their view of the “...world as a dangerous place...” (Dean page 55)
If you back a dog into a corner while threatening him. Watch out now as you are facing “fight or flight”. By backing him into that corner you are interfering with his ability to flee the source of his fear so he will fight or he will submit depending on his place in the pack order. Well yes, there is the issue of his genealogy but for most dogs you will get one of these responses.
Back to Conservatives Without Conscience:
In the last section of chapter 2, Mr Dean begins with questions of his own and some answers he gleans from Dr. Altemeyer's studies.
Here are some of the answers he found:
(John Dean pages 66, 67)
As to the leaders of these authoritarian followers with a little on prejudice:
(Remember Double High Social dominators score high as both leaders and followers. They answer the follower questions as they would have others follow them not as true “submissives.)
In describing more of Altemeyer's observations concerning Double Highs and the seriousness of their threat to society, Mr Dean gives us the idea that the followers are “uninclined to think for themselves...” while the Double High leaders may well lead the intensely dangerous movements. (Dean page 61)
In both books Hitleris mentioned as, I guess, the ultimate Dominator. I would say the most obvious Dominator. I can think of some milder ones. Does anyone but me think of McCarthy and the Red Scare. Or should I say Red Scares Of course, Mr Dean relates much of his early chapters to President Nixon and reasons for Watergate. I think too of recent political leaders and their use of fear and knowledge of the followers' needs. Here is a link to an article I read this morning that pertains to some recentillogical thinking.
In this post mostly using these two books we see some answers to our questions about aggression and prejudice as well as little on who their leaders are and why. We have lots of fear in these authoritarians.
We have lots of prejudice, though I don't cover all of it. The leaders are devious and mostly out to fulfill their needs for power. The followers are deceiving themselves when they consider themselves on the moral high-ground. While the followers need leaders, they fear leaders that challenge their beliefs, not just religious beliefs either. I think their beliefs about the world too.
We now have a glimpse into some reasons,theories, behind the“group dynamics” we discussed in the first post (April 13). I am trying to give the gist of the books while trying to keep the posts relatively short. As mentioned previously, I have some disagreement with Dr. Altemeyer's analysis of religion, fundamentalism, and “ineffective consciences”. I shall go back and reread his chapter on it before commenting further. Maybe I have misread.
Anyway we have spent some time with these two books* and maybe it is time to move on to other theories. Social Darwinism and Just World? I will let you know.
*Bob Altemeyer; The Authoritarians,2006 and see website
John W.Dean; Conservatives Without Conscience,Penguin Books, 2007 or visit
Mr. Deans' blog
April 13:
Why such aggression lately. Aggression such as carrying a gun so near the President of the U.S. Aggression such as seen during the health care reform debates in Congress and at the town-hall meetings. The list goes on and on.
Have you ever noticed that groups basically are made of the followers, submissives, and the leaders or dominators.
April 19:
Dr. Altemeyer explains that in his books on authoritarians he is mostly discussing extremely submissive “followers” of established authorities, “attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional.”
He lists 3 of the personality traits of the “followers”:
1)a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate, authorities in their society;
2)high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3)a high level of conventionalism.
RWA Scale:
“The RWA scale is a personality test disguised as an attitude survey.”
the mid-point of the scale is 100. The higher the score the more the tendency to be an authoritarian follower.
Why the name “right-wing”:
The use of the word right as used here is “an adjective, right, lawful, proper, correct...”
Double Highs:
Social Dominators who also score high on the religion, fundamentalism, scale but the why is interesting. These people go to church more often than most but they go to “project a good image...”
and “It is more important to create a good image of yourself in the minds of others than to be actually be the person others think you are.”
Remember submission to “their” authorities and highly conventional. So keep in mind we are not always talking about political conservatives.
Now on to Question 2 Why are some so aggressive...
(I think it still pertains to being led and believing false “facts”.)
Lets start with more on the compartmental mind to help us understand why many can be led to an aggressive state.
The compartmental mind had no trouble in “believing that America stands for international cooperation and the peaceful resolution of conflict on one hand, while on the other hand insisting it has the “right” to attack whomever it wants...” (from The Authoritarians)
Here is a quotation from another source which I think fits nicely:
“Meanwhile a newly powerful states’ rights movement is demanding that the federal government not intrude into our affairs—a nice illustration of what Orwell called “doublethink”: the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in mind while believing both of them, practically a motto for our times.”
From the same story:
“But in a brilliant exercise in doublethink, people are led to hate and fear the deficit. That way, business’s cohorts in Washington may agree to cut benefits and entitlements like Social Security (but not bailouts).
At the same time, people should not oppose what is largely creating the deficit—the growing military budget and the hopelessly inefficient privatized healthcare system.”Chomsky
And according to Mr Dean in his book Conservatives Without Conscience, “Many conservatives, particularly those who are clearly authoritarians, are not aware of their illogical, contradictory, and hypocritical thinking. If made cognizant of it, they rationalize it away, neglect to care or attack those who reveal their human weaknesses.” (page 27)
Now back to aggression and prejudice.
First let us examine more from Mr. Dean as regards the “followers”.
In Conservatives Without Conscience, Mr Dean discusses Stanley Milgram'swork “...on obedience to authority.” (Milgram's experiments were set up to study delivering electrical shocks to “learners” in obedience to an authority figure.) Milgram uses the term “agentic state” to describe how a person can ignore their normal conscience “...when the individual becomes part of a group, with the individual's conscience often becoming subordinate to to that of the group or to that of its leader.” But Mr Dean does not think that the behaviors of some can be explained in this manner. (see page 44 discussion of Gordon Liddy and see pages 78-81 on I. Scooter Libby)
According to Milgram, "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow." Thus, "the major problem for the subject is to recapture control of his own regnant processes once he has committed them to the purposes of the experimenter." (Milgram, 1974, pp. xii, xiii). In addition to this presumed agentic state, Milgram goes on to explain, a variety of factors lock the subject into the situation. These include situational factors such as politeness and awkwardness of withdrawal, absorption in the technical aspects of the task, the tendency to attribute impersonal quality to forces that are essentially human, a belief that the experiment serves a desirable end, the sequential nature of the action, and anxiety.A Cognitive Reinterpretation...On Obedience to Authority
Further into chapter two of Conservatives... Mr Dean paraphrases and quotes Dr. Altemeyer concerning our RWA and aggression thus; “...as showing “general aggressiveness” toward others when such behavior “is perceived to be sanctioned” by established authorities...” (John Dean page 53)
In his book Dr. Altemeyer does discuss and study the religious beliefs of the RWA but as I have, at this point, some disagreement with him I will go back and restudy the chapter. Then perhaps at some point write a post on just the religious questions involved.
However, I can see Dr. Altemeyer's points about the RWA self-righteousness and their feelings that they are “guardians of the public morality”. He also mentions their view of the “...world as a dangerous place...” (Dean page 55)
If you back a dog into a corner while threatening him. Watch out now as you are facing “fight or flight”. By backing him into that corner you are interfering with his ability to flee the source of his fear so he will fight or he will submit depending on his place in the pack order. Well yes, there is the issue of his genealogy but for most dogs you will get one of these responses.
Back to Conservatives Without Conscience:
“By and large these Americans have never been troubled by the execution of a prisoner,,,, and there has never been a war in with the United States engaged that they did not support.” (John Dean page 55)Here Mr. Dean is writing his own thoughts on the church-going authoritarians and their politics.
In the last section of chapter 2, Mr Dean begins with questions of his own and some answers he gleans from Dr. Altemeyer's studies.
“...why are right-wingers often malicious, mean-spirited, and disrespectful of even the basic codes of civility?...
Here are some of the answers he found:
“This heightened level of aggressiveness has a number of psychological roots. Right-wing authoritarians, as we have seen are motivated by their fear of a dangerous world, whereas social dominators have an ever-present desire to dominate. The factor that makes right-wingers faster than most people to attack others, and that seems to keep them living in an “attack mode,” is their remarkable self righteousness.”
(John Dean pages 66, 67)
As to the leaders of these authoritarian followers with a little on prejudice:
(Remember Double High Social dominators score high as both leaders and followers. They answer the follower questions as they would have others follow them not as true “submissives.)
(Dean, page 60)
“Experiments reveal that right-wing authoritarian followers are particularly likely to trust someone who tells them what they want to hear, for this how many of them validate their beliefs. Social dominators, on the other hand typically know exactly what song they want to sing to followers.
Ordinary social dominators and ordinary authoritarian followers both tend to be highly prejudiced against ethnic and racial minorities.
Double Highs, however possess “extra-extra unfair” natures, and they can be ranked as the most racially prejudiced of all groups. It seems that two authoritarian streams converge in them to produce a river of hostility, particularly regarding rights for homosexuals and women.”
In describing more of Altemeyer's observations concerning Double Highs and the seriousness of their threat to society, Mr Dean gives us the idea that the followers are “uninclined to think for themselves...” while the Double High leaders may well lead the intensely dangerous movements. (Dean page 61)
In both books Hitleris mentioned as, I guess, the ultimate Dominator. I would say the most obvious Dominator. I can think of some milder ones. Does anyone but me think of McCarthy and the Red Scare. Or should I say Red Scares Of course, Mr Dean relates much of his early chapters to President Nixon and reasons for Watergate. I think too of recent political leaders and their use of fear and knowledge of the followers' needs. Here is a link to an article I read this morning that pertains to some recentillogical thinking.
In this post mostly using these two books we see some answers to our questions about aggression and prejudice as well as little on who their leaders are and why. We have lots of fear in these authoritarians.
We have lots of prejudice, though I don't cover all of it. The leaders are devious and mostly out to fulfill their needs for power. The followers are deceiving themselves when they consider themselves on the moral high-ground. While the followers need leaders, they fear leaders that challenge their beliefs, not just religious beliefs either. I think their beliefs about the world too.
We now have a glimpse into some reasons,theories, behind the“group dynamics” we discussed in the first post (April 13). I am trying to give the gist of the books while trying to keep the posts relatively short. As mentioned previously, I have some disagreement with Dr. Altemeyer's analysis of religion, fundamentalism, and “ineffective consciences”. I shall go back and reread his chapter on it before commenting further. Maybe I have misread.
Anyway we have spent some time with these two books* and maybe it is time to move on to other theories. Social Darwinism and Just World? I will let you know.
*Bob Altemeyer; The Authoritarians,2006 and see website
John W.Dean; Conservatives Without Conscience,Penguin Books, 2007 or visit
Mr. Deans' blog
Monday, May 10, 2010
Here We Go Again, another Battle
Well, the President has officially announced the nominee for the Supreme Court.
I dreaded this moment because I knew no matter whom he nominated there would be a fight.
I was watching CBS and Bob Schieffer put it plainly. The process from here will be contentious not because of the nominee but because of the tough election year. And it is more about not agreeing with President Obama on anything.
That really is ridiculous. But explains anything that happens politically lately.
So I dreaded President Obama having another decision or another policy to try.
What kind of people are found in "our" Congress? Self perpetuating, they hope.
Are those jobs that much fun? No. Must be money and power-yep.
When will they decide to do the right thing, no matter the elections. I would hope someone helping to make our laws would just finally say I will do what is right no matter the elections. It isn't like they won't find other jobs or make more money on the pundit circuit.
So that is why I dreaded the announcement. I still think Pres. Obama must regret getting the job and probably late at night when he is alone,considers not running again.
I dreaded this moment because I knew no matter whom he nominated there would be a fight.
I was watching CBS and Bob Schieffer put it plainly. The process from here will be contentious not because of the nominee but because of the tough election year. And it is more about not agreeing with President Obama on anything.
That really is ridiculous. But explains anything that happens politically lately.
So I dreaded President Obama having another decision or another policy to try.
What kind of people are found in "our" Congress? Self perpetuating, they hope.
Are those jobs that much fun? No. Must be money and power-yep.
When will they decide to do the right thing, no matter the elections. I would hope someone helping to make our laws would just finally say I will do what is right no matter the elections. It isn't like they won't find other jobs or make more money on the pundit circuit.
So that is why I dreaded the announcement. I still think Pres. Obama must regret getting the job and probably late at night when he is alone,considers not running again.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Officially Old
As of the first of the Month, I am now "old". That is old as I used to view it.
I received my Medicare Card. Hoorah!
My spouse and I didn't believe we would see this day. We figured Social Security would be gone by the time we hit this age. OK. We didn't really care we were helping to pay for our parents and for a short time for a grandparent or two.
But here we are.
The feeling is of freedom.
The painful forms I was expecting at the Doctor's office didn't appear. But this time I could talk to him about drug choices without worrying about the employee drug plan telling us I could not get the drug that is better unless I paid for it myself as well as their premiums. This time I could pay my part of the visit right then instead of waiting for the insurance company to drag it out and negotiate "for me". (and by the way my part is cheaper under Medicare) I feel better about that I hated for him to give me and the insurance company interest free loans every time I saw him. Yes I still have a deductible but it is not $2500 per person. Yes we are having premiums withheld from SS but nothing like what we were paying even through the company plans. The drug plan, that could tell me I had to use a step program as the drug I had taken for 2 or 3 years was not on this company's formulary; the drug plan, that got a better deal a little later so informed the spouse that they recommended that he go on the drug I was on in the first place, is gone.
Sometimes they made me feel as though I just wasn't trying hard enough to take care of myself. Well, of course, I can do better but most of the time I work hard at it.
Now as I pick my own Part D plan, not that hard. I can hunt and find one that will allow my Dr. to have more say so at the same time hunt for the best cost plan. A plan that will not just decide to turn him down really before he submits their paperwork with his reasons for giving me the non-generic form. He is the MD after all. He has lots of education and experience. I looked long and hard for good physician and paid extra high insurance premiums to see him. We can discuss cost vs. "return". I can take the one that he believes is better for me with my family background and my already somewhat blocked carotid artery
Premiums will definitely go up but the ability for my Doctor and I to work to find the best drug for my brain's sake is worth it. And since he is very familiar with Medicare he will know how to work with them too.
Now if I had my way for everyone in this U.S. of A. I would love to see somebody go back after the Drug Manufacturers. You remember those discussions about how they pay so much in R&D, NOT! (It is advertising. I wish they couldn't advertise on TV. Oops free speech?) And if I had my way, everyone would have health care as provided by good physicians and hospitals. And drugs would be reasonable. But I don't get my way and maybe this latest version of health care, "insurance", is it for now. It is better than no regulation. It will, I hope, keep the insurance companies from kicking us out for some piece of childhood information we forgot to put down on some form. Or some other so-called "pre-existing" condition. It will, I hope, keep the companies from raising our premiums by any amount they like anytime the like.
And Don't kid yourself that wonderful caring-about-us-old-folks-and-our-Medicare, which was in the main passed by Democrats, Republican party will do away with Medicare when it can. Or maybe the plan is just let it run out of money and it will be gone.
At least for now I am on that terrible government run, socialist, insurance and glad of it. So now I guess I am a cannibal eating my children and my grandchildren.
I received my Medicare Card. Hoorah!
My spouse and I didn't believe we would see this day. We figured Social Security would be gone by the time we hit this age. OK. We didn't really care we were helping to pay for our parents and for a short time for a grandparent or two.
But here we are.
The feeling is of freedom.
The painful forms I was expecting at the Doctor's office didn't appear. But this time I could talk to him about drug choices without worrying about the employee drug plan telling us I could not get the drug that is better unless I paid for it myself as well as their premiums. This time I could pay my part of the visit right then instead of waiting for the insurance company to drag it out and negotiate "for me". (and by the way my part is cheaper under Medicare) I feel better about that I hated for him to give me and the insurance company interest free loans every time I saw him. Yes I still have a deductible but it is not $2500 per person. Yes we are having premiums withheld from SS but nothing like what we were paying even through the company plans. The drug plan, that could tell me I had to use a step program as the drug I had taken for 2 or 3 years was not on this company's formulary; the drug plan, that got a better deal a little later so informed the spouse that they recommended that he go on the drug I was on in the first place, is gone.
Sometimes they made me feel as though I just wasn't trying hard enough to take care of myself. Well, of course, I can do better but most of the time I work hard at it.
Now as I pick my own Part D plan, not that hard. I can hunt and find one that will allow my Dr. to have more say so at the same time hunt for the best cost plan. A plan that will not just decide to turn him down really before he submits their paperwork with his reasons for giving me the non-generic form. He is the MD after all. He has lots of education and experience. I looked long and hard for good physician and paid extra high insurance premiums to see him. We can discuss cost vs. "return". I can take the one that he believes is better for me with my family background and my already somewhat blocked carotid artery
Premiums will definitely go up but the ability for my Doctor and I to work to find the best drug for my brain's sake is worth it. And since he is very familiar with Medicare he will know how to work with them too.
Now if I had my way for everyone in this U.S. of A. I would love to see somebody go back after the Drug Manufacturers. You remember those discussions about how they pay so much in R&D, NOT! (It is advertising. I wish they couldn't advertise on TV. Oops free speech?) And if I had my way, everyone would have health care as provided by good physicians and hospitals. And drugs would be reasonable. But I don't get my way and maybe this latest version of health care, "insurance", is it for now. It is better than no regulation. It will, I hope, keep the insurance companies from kicking us out for some piece of childhood information we forgot to put down on some form. Or some other so-called "pre-existing" condition. It will, I hope, keep the companies from raising our premiums by any amount they like anytime the like.
And Don't kid yourself that wonderful caring-about-us-old-folks-and-our-Medicare, which was in the main passed by Democrats, Republican party will do away with Medicare when it can. Or maybe the plan is just let it run out of money and it will be gone.
At least for now I am on that terrible government run, socialist, insurance and glad of it. So now I guess I am a cannibal eating my children and my grandchildren.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
More on We Want but...
I may have to eat my words.As an update to my rant I add these points that may be of interest.
In my own fine state, it appears we close schools while keeping a nice tax break for large boats, I call them lake yachts. According to a report in the KC Star we cannot be sure of the costs to the state,
In the last seven years, the state auditor has asked the Revenue Department three times to come up with such a figure, but revenue officials declined, maintaining that it would “increase the burden of reporting on taxpayers.”
As recently as last month, the auditor noted that “the cost in terms of reduced state revenue for each exemption cannot be determined.”
Read more: In a time of budget cuts, yacht sales sail through untaxed in Missouri - KansasCity.com link
And go to this link for a few states that handled their budget problems differently. Just look for the section marked State Progressives in bold type. In that section will be many more links if you want to be sure of what you read.
Maybe some are willing to pay for what they want. Maybe just maybe I will have to eat my words.
Friday, February 19, 2010
We want but ...
One very long rant here.
Let's see the Neo-cons are back; the Glen-Beck nut-cases are out in force; Limbaugh is still mouthy; Bohner wants to be Speaker of the House; Left Progressives are not happy we didn't just leave the wars; the jobless want jobs; the greedy Bankers want less regulation; big Pharma is sorry it wasted its lobby money; Insurance companies want to insure many more people but without losing any money; we do want the Federal Government to be responsible for making jobs; we do want the Feds to do something about the deficit; we don't like Federal debt; we don't want foreign governments taking our jobs; we don't want foreign corps to own everything; we want security from terrorists both foreign and domestic; we want the right to carry anywhere; we want tougher law enforcement; we want Gitmo closed; we don't want trials “in the homeland” for the terrorists, so-called; we don't want our schools closed; we want a better education for our kids; we want our health care; we want corp. greed punished; we want free speech for all and we do mean all; we want the biggest military-industrial complex in all the world; we want to sell weaponry but we don't want it used; we don't like Social Security unless we are at or near retirement; we need to “fix” Medicare; we want a cleaner environment; we don't want to spend on energy research; we want credit but we don't want big banks to get bigger; we want to get rich on Wall Street. After the fiasco of Greenspan, with his belief in Ayn Rand's separation of economy and state, people are reading Ayn Rand for guidance. (Congressional testimony)( Rand follower ) Oh I know he wasn't a true objectivist. He tried to apply the theory from within. Well, maybe he still is. He did say he saw a flaw but he didn't know how important the flaw or how long it would last.
We want a lot but we don't want taxes raised in any form to pay for anything. We don't even want to cut back on what we already take from the environment. We don't even want to admit that we are responsible for any environmental changes this old world is suffering; that population growth, therefore energy needs grow, is causing some of it. We want bankers, corps, and the fed punished in some way but we want to give all organizations extra free speech. We want Congress to quit taking money for elections from all the interest groups but we want the CEO's able to run ads against or for them and able to threaten them more than they already do. We don't want to give $5 each for election campaigns to lessen the impact of the organizations. We want Congress to pass laws but we don't want our party to give to the other party. We don't like Wall Street investment firms or banks but we want to get our share first. We want to invest but we don't want to know that great investment is financing wealthy foreign corps. We want balanced budgets in our cities, states, and federal government but we don't want to pay more taxes when so many are unable to pay their share. We value families but we want the other guy to work longer hours and more days so he can't spend time with his. We want a great army but no draft. We want people to quit going to ER for the things they should just be going to the Dr.'s office but we don't want to pay for it either.
And when all is said and done we want to throw the bums out because they can't do all these things on nothing. We want to throw the bums out for taking lobby money or the promise of future jobs but we don't like to give them pay raises. We want to throw the bums out for not working together but my congressman/woman needs to be tough, code for stand up for my point-of-view, because I am a conservative, libertarian, progressive, or liberal. We don't like them adding “pork” except for my state. Just what new bums will you believe when they tell you they are going to change Washington. Seems we have heard that before.
This new President too needs to be tough or not depending on who you are. He should or should not talk about the facts from the previous administration. The mess is his now. He should be positive not tell us the truth, We Will have to give some and pay more. If he is really tough maybe he will have to inform us that he tried something and failed. FDR, in the eyes of many, did some great things but he did have to try different ideas and some got knocked down right or wrong. He made some grave errors.
President Obama tried to learn from past Presidents. He let Congress try to put together it's own health care reform. Wasn't that supposedly partly what went wrong with the Clinton health care bill-he didn't let Congress have more say so. Wasn't the Executive Branch out of hand in the previous administration? Didn't that administration get called “the Imperial Presidency”? Weren't there times President Bush was called “King George”?
The new Attorney General needs to quit trying to be a guy who believes in the law until he figures out how to be more political. The Treasury Secretary needs to go because he is too familiar with all that went wrong. No way can he use that information to find a better way. He can wait like others then acknowledge his mistake in believing less regulation was the way to go The head of the Fed. Needs to relinquish power to someone else-but who? The Treasury, the FDIC, who should take the regulation on? Congress?
Here are a couple of anecdotal stories so you can more personally relate to the mess in which we find ourselves.
There is a large county here that is about to close many schools. Parents and non-parents attend meetings to try to stop their school from closing. Their reasons are good reasons. But they either can't or won't offer more funding. The Mayor of K.C., MO has said basically if you don't want some service cut then tell me what you do want cut. Smart man. Not popular for a lot of reasons, but he is “tough”.
Here is another state answer to budget problems.
“Mississippi’s governor is proposing to cut state aid to K-12 schools by over 9 percent, close four mental health facilities, and cut most other agencies’ budgets by 12 percent.” (ref here and pdf here ) The pdf file shows the rankings of “input”, money and the educational results therefrom.
So here we are. We want but don't want. We have our hands out but we don't want other people's hand s out. We want a balanced budget but we don't want to contribute any funds. We want seniors to take less Medicare now but we don't want to take care of them later either. They should help out their kids now or at least get out of the way but when they are in the last years who will pay for their care? Won't it cost more later? We don't like Social Security taxes because we might not get it but we forget it was a pay backwards system in the first place. Don't want your parents living with you from retirement or disability-then pay backwards. Trust me most parents don't want their kids living with them long term or vice versa. We are not the Waltons.
Now do you want to run for office on any level let alone be President. He will get most of the blame for anything not done, or done that someone doesn't like, and in the short term little praise for any small step forward.
Well, I guess he asked for it. I still think though there was probably a minute when he won election with all the newest messes breaking that he asked if there was any way out of the job.
The “beast” is starved and yet enlarged. Let's just hope our debtors are the kind who don't break legs when we can't pay our bills. And when all services are cut I hope you can stay home to take care of your family.
I hope you can educate your own kids, I hope you can nurse your sick, I hope you are in shape to raise your own food or within walking distance to your source of food. I hope your water wells or rivers are clean when you walk down with your water bucket and your dirty laundry-no droughts please. I hope you enjoy your outhouse or the ditch along the paths. Maybe you can barter for some paper to use instead of those rough leaves. Believe me this would not be a fun life. Been there done some of it.
Let's see the Neo-cons are back; the Glen-Beck nut-cases are out in force; Limbaugh is still mouthy; Bohner wants to be Speaker of the House; Left Progressives are not happy we didn't just leave the wars; the jobless want jobs; the greedy Bankers want less regulation; big Pharma is sorry it wasted its lobby money; Insurance companies want to insure many more people but without losing any money; we do want the Federal Government to be responsible for making jobs; we do want the Feds to do something about the deficit; we don't like Federal debt; we don't want foreign governments taking our jobs; we don't want foreign corps to own everything; we want security from terrorists both foreign and domestic; we want the right to carry anywhere; we want tougher law enforcement; we want Gitmo closed; we don't want trials “in the homeland” for the terrorists, so-called; we don't want our schools closed; we want a better education for our kids; we want our health care; we want corp. greed punished; we want free speech for all and we do mean all; we want the biggest military-industrial complex in all the world; we want to sell weaponry but we don't want it used; we don't like Social Security unless we are at or near retirement; we need to “fix” Medicare; we want a cleaner environment; we don't want to spend on energy research; we want credit but we don't want big banks to get bigger; we want to get rich on Wall Street. After the fiasco of Greenspan, with his belief in Ayn Rand's separation of economy and state, people are reading Ayn Rand for guidance. (Congressional testimony)( Rand follower ) Oh I know he wasn't a true objectivist. He tried to apply the theory from within. Well, maybe he still is. He did say he saw a flaw but he didn't know how important the flaw or how long it would last.
We want a lot but we don't want taxes raised in any form to pay for anything. We don't even want to cut back on what we already take from the environment. We don't even want to admit that we are responsible for any environmental changes this old world is suffering; that population growth, therefore energy needs grow, is causing some of it. We want bankers, corps, and the fed punished in some way but we want to give all organizations extra free speech. We want Congress to quit taking money for elections from all the interest groups but we want the CEO's able to run ads against or for them and able to threaten them more than they already do. We don't want to give $5 each for election campaigns to lessen the impact of the organizations. We want Congress to pass laws but we don't want our party to give to the other party. We don't like Wall Street investment firms or banks but we want to get our share first. We want to invest but we don't want to know that great investment is financing wealthy foreign corps. We want balanced budgets in our cities, states, and federal government but we don't want to pay more taxes when so many are unable to pay their share. We value families but we want the other guy to work longer hours and more days so he can't spend time with his. We want a great army but no draft. We want people to quit going to ER for the things they should just be going to the Dr.'s office but we don't want to pay for it either.
And when all is said and done we want to throw the bums out because they can't do all these things on nothing. We want to throw the bums out for taking lobby money or the promise of future jobs but we don't like to give them pay raises. We want to throw the bums out for not working together but my congressman/woman needs to be tough, code for stand up for my point-of-view, because I am a conservative, libertarian, progressive, or liberal. We don't like them adding “pork” except for my state. Just what new bums will you believe when they tell you they are going to change Washington. Seems we have heard that before.
This new President too needs to be tough or not depending on who you are. He should or should not talk about the facts from the previous administration. The mess is his now. He should be positive not tell us the truth, We Will have to give some and pay more. If he is really tough maybe he will have to inform us that he tried something and failed. FDR, in the eyes of many, did some great things but he did have to try different ideas and some got knocked down right or wrong. He made some grave errors.
President Obama tried to learn from past Presidents. He let Congress try to put together it's own health care reform. Wasn't that supposedly partly what went wrong with the Clinton health care bill-he didn't let Congress have more say so. Wasn't the Executive Branch out of hand in the previous administration? Didn't that administration get called “the Imperial Presidency”? Weren't there times President Bush was called “King George”?
The new Attorney General needs to quit trying to be a guy who believes in the law until he figures out how to be more political. The Treasury Secretary needs to go because he is too familiar with all that went wrong. No way can he use that information to find a better way. He can wait like others then acknowledge his mistake in believing less regulation was the way to go The head of the Fed. Needs to relinquish power to someone else-but who? The Treasury, the FDIC, who should take the regulation on? Congress?
Here are a couple of anecdotal stories so you can more personally relate to the mess in which we find ourselves.
There is a large county here that is about to close many schools. Parents and non-parents attend meetings to try to stop their school from closing. Their reasons are good reasons. But they either can't or won't offer more funding. The Mayor of K.C., MO has said basically if you don't want some service cut then tell me what you do want cut. Smart man. Not popular for a lot of reasons, but he is “tough”.
Here is another state answer to budget problems.
“Mississippi’s governor is proposing to cut state aid to K-12 schools by over 9 percent, close four mental health facilities, and cut most other agencies’ budgets by 12 percent.” (ref here and pdf here ) The pdf file shows the rankings of “input”, money and the educational results therefrom.
So here we are. We want but don't want. We have our hands out but we don't want other people's hand s out. We want a balanced budget but we don't want to contribute any funds. We want seniors to take less Medicare now but we don't want to take care of them later either. They should help out their kids now or at least get out of the way but when they are in the last years who will pay for their care? Won't it cost more later? We don't like Social Security taxes because we might not get it but we forget it was a pay backwards system in the first place. Don't want your parents living with you from retirement or disability-then pay backwards. Trust me most parents don't want their kids living with them long term or vice versa. We are not the Waltons.
Now do you want to run for office on any level let alone be President. He will get most of the blame for anything not done, or done that someone doesn't like, and in the short term little praise for any small step forward.
Well, I guess he asked for it. I still think though there was probably a minute when he won election with all the newest messes breaking that he asked if there was any way out of the job.
The “beast” is starved and yet enlarged. Let's just hope our debtors are the kind who don't break legs when we can't pay our bills. And when all services are cut I hope you can stay home to take care of your family.
I hope you can educate your own kids, I hope you can nurse your sick, I hope you are in shape to raise your own food or within walking distance to your source of food. I hope your water wells or rivers are clean when you walk down with your water bucket and your dirty laundry-no droughts please. I hope you enjoy your outhouse or the ditch along the paths. Maybe you can barter for some paper to use instead of those rough leaves. Believe me this would not be a fun life. Been there done some of it.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Circles of Confusion
I purposely will not write on the State of the Union address for a while. It is being hashed and re-hashed. I want to listen to it and check out all the "analysis", the many sides, before I even think about writing here. I will wait until the dust settles then maybe I will but, maybe there will be nothing left for me to think about. There are so many great thinkers I may not need to think. (I am just kidding but many do let others tell them what to think.) So here is a post on other things.
After watching Frontline on PBS the other evening I couldn't help myself I had lots of "thoughts" I just needed to put down before I forget them. (Nope I am not just letting them think for me but it was a pretty good reference point.)
First a few definitions regarding "loan sharks", credit, and debt. I do not reference Wikipedia here as we are told it is a liberal reference. (Baloney but I don't want to get stuck in the liberal-or-conservative reference game.)
http://www.answers.com/topic/loan-shark
2 definitions of loan shark:
n. Informal
One who lends money at exorbitant interest rates, especially one financed and supported by an organized crime network.
From the Banking Dictionary: Loan Shark
Lender, other than a regulated financial institution, who makes a business of lending money at rates above legally permitted interest rates. For example, a $5 loan on Monday to be repaid Friday for $6-an annual percentage rate of 1040%, not including interest compounding. Loan-sharking was a pervasive activity through much of the nineteenth century, leading to the formation of cooperative associations, such as mutual savings banks and credit unions, to arrange small loans at reasonable interest rates. State small loan laws generally prohibit loan-sharking, although state laws differ on what is, or is not, an excessive rate of interest.
Now the Law Encyclopedia:
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
A person who lends money in exchange for its repayment at an interest rate that exceeds the percentage approved by law and who uses intimidating methods or threats of force in order to obtain repayment.
In most jurisdictions usury laws regulate the charging of interest rates. Loan sharking violates these laws, and in many states it is punishable as a criminal offense. The usual penalty imposed is a fine, imprisonment or both.
(My italics above.)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usury
Definition of Usury:
1. The practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate.
2. An excessive or illegally high rate of interest charged on borrowed money.
3.Archaic Interest charged or paid on a loan
Now here is a link to the whole Frontline program:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/creditcards/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=proglist&utm_source=proglist
full
This link is where you can find text or video of the Treasury Secretary Geithner interview for the Frontline program last night.
I was surprised that Sec. Geithner made sense to me in many places. (I had listened to the “one of them” drumbeat and being a lefty I considered that the beaters may know something.) But, I was also struck when he said we can't cap interest rates because some people now need credit more than before. Check out thisinterview with Nessa Feddis. She is a senior counsel and V.P. Of the American Bankers Association.
Ms. Feddis makes almost the same statement Sec. Geithner did in her interview. Or for a interviews on capping interest rates go here.
So, is he, Sec Geithner falling for the if you cap interest we can't make loans or do they all really believe it. Excuse me. I want to yell, if you don't make loans I, the taxpayer, will not make you a loan and will “foreclose” on any loans you already got.
I know it wasn't really a loan. Why, I actually own stock in many financial institutions. Or, I know this is not the way to look at it all. The whole economy could have, I think still could, collapse. I know the terrible “recession” is over. Well, except for many of the real people that walk around or sleep on main street.
This credit fiasco reminds me of the Nation borrowing so much. It is particularly interesting to look at the borrowing from China. We, the tax-payer, borrowed money from China. At the same time we were helping shut down manufacturing jobs in the U.S. by buying Chinese products. So we spent our money to help end US jobs. All the while borrowing the money from the very source of cheap goods made by people who get very little of any of the money we spent.
Or put in another way the nation spent our way further into debt by spending, spending, spending or maybe buying, buying, buying; and borrowing, borrowing, borrowing so we could end much of the manufacturing in the U.S. (we won't even mention the IOU s sitting in the SS files. G.W. Had this one right, those are pieces of paper but guess what they are coming due. So I guess we borrow that too. I'll bet this surprises you I give G.W. Credit for getting something right? Now, does this mean that we senior citizens weren't the ones cannibalizing our children and grandchildren? Yes and No. After all ignorance is bliss. So is playing ignorant.)
I hope that you get the picture it is hard to write a circle or a spiral.
But let me get back to credit and debt:
It is easy to speculate that the population as a whole might see their government cycle of spend and borrow as another justification for their own personal cycle of buy and borrow. I think I remember, it seems so long ago, a budget surplus-don't I remember that or is my mind completely gone? Did we all follow that example? Nope.
gov. savings chart. Now I do realize that other things go along with less saving, or maybe cause it, such as flat wages or no wages. Of course then there is the cost of drugs, “health care” if you will. Add to that the ads for “stuff” and the ads for cheap credit and you have contributed to the downward slope of personal savings.
As to the personal debt problem, we were already using credit in all its forms to have our “Babbittry”* now. I use the term to designate the “stuff” that goes with the attitude. Why wait for that new TV?
Now add to the “instant gratification” attitude of the American Consumer a President of the U.S. telling us one answer to 9/ll was to “spend”, borrow to spend is what many did. We were so used to credit
and debt. So some people used that excuse to get more “stuff”, or a trip, or whatever they justified.
Where was the call to save, or to buy bonds, give your time, something other than spend your money. What money? Use your credit card or overdraft protection: it is just that easy. As the old ads used to say “Buy now pay later!”
So now there are many who cannot even pay the rent, electric bill, water bill, doctor's bill, and on and on, unless they get their over 400% loan until the paycheck or the income tax refund gets to them. And there are still those who get that loan to buy their toys, their Babbittry.*
Now instead of looking at our own failures many will find someone to blame. And are right to do so. Consumers have had lots of help getting into trouble.
There will always be loan sharks for those who need or want them. Though it is not like from the old movies, the feds. aren't going after these loan sharks. In fact after watching and re-watching the interviews, it almost looks as though some government officials either won't touch them because they agree with the the practices, or want to keep their previous and future jobs open.
So I am right where I was about health care in a previous blog. We are all somewhat guilty for the mess. We, meaning many consumers, the shark; the government; and many politicians.
Well, I guess this post will cause a ruckus. So be it.
As Artemus Ward said: "Let us all be happy and live within our means; even if we have to borrow the money to do it." www.famous-quotes.com
*You can find the book Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis, 1922 on Google or you can buy it on AmazonIt is not a fun read in total, some descriptions of daily life are funny, but it is a worthwhile read. George F. Babbitt is a Realtor selling houses in the burbs around Zenith “for more than people can afford to pay.” (page 2) The book jumps right away into the love of gadgetry and newness, justifications, and “keeping up with the Jones” as well as mid-life crises.
Change George Babbitt's occupation to mortgage broker if you like or leave it Realtor depending on where you live and your state's licensing laws.
I give you this "lefty" quotation:
ETHICS -- LOBBYING FIRMS PREPARE TO OFFER JOBS TO RETIRING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: The last few months have been marked by a series of congressional retirements. To date, 19 members have decided that they will not be seeking reelection this November, including the recent retirement announcements of Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND). With all of these Capitol Hill veterans soon to be looking for new work, Roll Call reports that "law firms and lobbying shops are preparing for a flood of résumés from soon-to-be unemployed Members." With so many retirements already confirmed -- "and many more likely to come after Election Day -- K Street's top firms will have their pick of the litter." Since 2005, at least 195 members of Congress have crossed over to lobbying, according to Congressional Quarterly. Some of these former lawmakers were instrumental in lobbying against health care reform last year, as "three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls." "Depending on their committee assignments," retiring lawmakers could see "baseline offers as low as $250,000 for part-time gigs, all the way up to $1.25 million salary packages for former chairmen and party leaders." There is no indication, however, that any of the retiring lawmakers have already begun negotiating post-retirement employment. "Both Senators and House Members have to publicly disclose to the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House within three days of starting negotiations with the private sector. None of the retiring Members has made that move yet."
http://www.americanprogress.org/
After watching Frontline on PBS the other evening I couldn't help myself I had lots of "thoughts" I just needed to put down before I forget them. (Nope I am not just letting them think for me but it was a pretty good reference point.)
First a few definitions regarding "loan sharks", credit, and debt. I do not reference Wikipedia here as we are told it is a liberal reference. (Baloney but I don't want to get stuck in the liberal-or-conservative reference game.)
http://www.answers.com/topic/loan-shark
2 definitions of loan shark:
n. Informal
One who lends money at exorbitant interest rates, especially one financed and supported by an organized crime network.
From the Banking Dictionary: Loan Shark
Lender, other than a regulated financial institution, who makes a business of lending money at rates above legally permitted interest rates. For example, a $5 loan on Monday to be repaid Friday for $6-an annual percentage rate of 1040%, not including interest compounding. Loan-sharking was a pervasive activity through much of the nineteenth century, leading to the formation of cooperative associations, such as mutual savings banks and credit unions, to arrange small loans at reasonable interest rates. State small loan laws generally prohibit loan-sharking, although state laws differ on what is, or is not, an excessive rate of interest.
Now the Law Encyclopedia:
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
A person who lends money in exchange for its repayment at an interest rate that exceeds the percentage approved by law and who uses intimidating methods or threats of force in order to obtain repayment.
In most jurisdictions usury laws regulate the charging of interest rates. Loan sharking violates these laws, and in many states it is punishable as a criminal offense. The usual penalty imposed is a fine, imprisonment or both.
(My italics above.)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usury
Definition of Usury:
1. The practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate.
2. An excessive or illegally high rate of interest charged on borrowed money.
3.Archaic Interest charged or paid on a loan
Now here is a link to the whole Frontline program:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/creditcards/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=proglist&utm_source=proglist
full
This link is where you can find text or video of the Treasury Secretary Geithner interview for the Frontline program last night.
I was surprised that Sec. Geithner made sense to me in many places. (I had listened to the “one of them” drumbeat and being a lefty I considered that the beaters may know something.) But, I was also struck when he said we can't cap interest rates because some people now need credit more than before. Check out thisinterview with Nessa Feddis. She is a senior counsel and V.P. Of the American Bankers Association.
Ms. Feddis makes almost the same statement Sec. Geithner did in her interview. Or for a interviews on capping interest rates go here.
So, is he, Sec Geithner falling for the if you cap interest we can't make loans or do they all really believe it. Excuse me. I want to yell, if you don't make loans I, the taxpayer, will not make you a loan and will “foreclose” on any loans you already got.
I know it wasn't really a loan. Why, I actually own stock in many financial institutions. Or, I know this is not the way to look at it all. The whole economy could have, I think still could, collapse. I know the terrible “recession” is over. Well, except for many of the real people that walk around or sleep on main street.
This credit fiasco reminds me of the Nation borrowing so much. It is particularly interesting to look at the borrowing from China. We, the tax-payer, borrowed money from China. At the same time we were helping shut down manufacturing jobs in the U.S. by buying Chinese products. So we spent our money to help end US jobs. All the while borrowing the money from the very source of cheap goods made by people who get very little of any of the money we spent.
Or put in another way the nation spent our way further into debt by spending, spending, spending or maybe buying, buying, buying; and borrowing, borrowing, borrowing so we could end much of the manufacturing in the U.S. (we won't even mention the IOU s sitting in the SS files. G.W. Had this one right, those are pieces of paper but guess what they are coming due. So I guess we borrow that too. I'll bet this surprises you I give G.W. Credit for getting something right? Now, does this mean that we senior citizens weren't the ones cannibalizing our children and grandchildren? Yes and No. After all ignorance is bliss. So is playing ignorant.)
I hope that you get the picture it is hard to write a circle or a spiral.
But let me get back to credit and debt:
It is easy to speculate that the population as a whole might see their government cycle of spend and borrow as another justification for their own personal cycle of buy and borrow. I think I remember, it seems so long ago, a budget surplus-don't I remember that or is my mind completely gone? Did we all follow that example? Nope.
gov. savings chart. Now I do realize that other things go along with less saving, or maybe cause it, such as flat wages or no wages. Of course then there is the cost of drugs, “health care” if you will. Add to that the ads for “stuff” and the ads for cheap credit and you have contributed to the downward slope of personal savings.
As to the personal debt problem, we were already using credit in all its forms to have our “Babbittry”* now. I use the term to designate the “stuff” that goes with the attitude. Why wait for that new TV?
Now add to the “instant gratification” attitude of the American Consumer a President of the U.S. telling us one answer to 9/ll was to “spend”, borrow to spend is what many did. We were so used to credit
and debt. So some people used that excuse to get more “stuff”, or a trip, or whatever they justified.
Where was the call to save, or to buy bonds, give your time, something other than spend your money. What money? Use your credit card or overdraft protection: it is just that easy. As the old ads used to say “Buy now pay later!”
So now there are many who cannot even pay the rent, electric bill, water bill, doctor's bill, and on and on, unless they get their over 400% loan until the paycheck or the income tax refund gets to them. And there are still those who get that loan to buy their toys, their Babbittry.*
Now instead of looking at our own failures many will find someone to blame. And are right to do so. Consumers have had lots of help getting into trouble.
There will always be loan sharks for those who need or want them. Though it is not like from the old movies, the feds. aren't going after these loan sharks. In fact after watching and re-watching the interviews, it almost looks as though some government officials either won't touch them because they agree with the the practices, or want to keep their previous and future jobs open.
So I am right where I was about health care in a previous blog. We are all somewhat guilty for the mess. We, meaning many consumers, the shark; the government; and many politicians.
Well, I guess this post will cause a ruckus. So be it.
As Artemus Ward said: "Let us all be happy and live within our means; even if we have to borrow the money to do it." www.famous-quotes.com
*You can find the book Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis, 1922 on Google or you can buy it on AmazonIt is not a fun read in total, some descriptions of daily life are funny, but it is a worthwhile read. George F. Babbitt is a Realtor selling houses in the burbs around Zenith “for more than people can afford to pay.” (page 2) The book jumps right away into the love of gadgetry and newness, justifications, and “keeping up with the Jones” as well as mid-life crises.
Change George Babbitt's occupation to mortgage broker if you like or leave it Realtor depending on where you live and your state's licensing laws.
I give you this "lefty" quotation:
ETHICS -- LOBBYING FIRMS PREPARE TO OFFER JOBS TO RETIRING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: The last few months have been marked by a series of congressional retirements. To date, 19 members have decided that they will not be seeking reelection this November, including the recent retirement announcements of Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND). With all of these Capitol Hill veterans soon to be looking for new work, Roll Call reports that "law firms and lobbying shops are preparing for a flood of résumés from soon-to-be unemployed Members." With so many retirements already confirmed -- "and many more likely to come after Election Day -- K Street's top firms will have their pick of the litter." Since 2005, at least 195 members of Congress have crossed over to lobbying, according to Congressional Quarterly. Some of these former lawmakers were instrumental in lobbying against health care reform last year, as "three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls." "Depending on their committee assignments," retiring lawmakers could see "baseline offers as low as $250,000 for part-time gigs, all the way up to $1.25 million salary packages for former chairmen and party leaders." There is no indication, however, that any of the retiring lawmakers have already begun negotiating post-retirement employment. "Both Senators and House Members have to publicly disclose to the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House within three days of starting negotiations with the private sector. None of the retiring Members has made that move yet."
http://www.americanprogress.org/
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Bragging Rights
Am I crazy?
Reports are that Massachusetts may well send a Republican, a "no to health care" and another photogenic Republican at that, to replace Sen. Kennedy. Here is NY Times Topics on Mr. Brown OK that is pretty in your face for the Republicans. They get bragging rights for even coming close. (By the way, don't Republicans hate lawyers?) I hate to hear it though as they won't admit it is because they are good at their jobs. Instead they will say it is because the people have spoken against this and this and ...
What I can't understand is how the state that has it's own health care "reform" gets to decide for the rest of us whether we will have "reform" or not. I may not like the bills as they are but I was hoping to wait and see what the final version looked like. Oh I will, but Massachusetts gets to decide if it matters or not.
Who is running the Democratic Party-nationally or in Massachusetts? Were they asleep? How could they lose with States Atty Gen. Coakley as their candidate? Her information as in NY Times
Wasn't there a way to keep track of the Republican campaign? When the guy compared himself in some round-a-bout way to JFK, where were the folks to call him on it?Someone needs to lose their job. Probably more than one someone needs to lose jobs.I know this is a recession, no that's over, jobless recovery, but some Democrat campaign manager needs to lose his/her job.
So shame on the Dems. and shame on the Repubs. and shame on us, the easily led, ignorant voters.
And here is the Mark Twain quote for the day:
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.(Reference Site)
I hate to say this but maybe he got this one wrong.
As a post script here is quotation from an article about "Hardball" coverage of the two Massachusetts campaigns:
Beyond noting the obvious impact on health-care legislation, Matthews shed little light on the experience and policy positions of the two candidates. Instead, watchers of “Hardball” got to hear Coakley’s brief confusion over Schilling’s allegiance in the Yankees- Red Sox rivalry and learned that Scott Brown is a photogenic guy who travels around in a truck.
Matthews dispensed with the serious stuff. He had little interest in mentioning Coakley’s history as an aggressive prosecutor, her central role in winning settlements from contractors of Boston’s infamous Big Dig project and from Wall Street firms that engaged in deceptive practices, including $60 million from Goldman Sachs to settle allegations that it promoted unfair home loans...
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Be Careful Who Decides for You
After reading a post at the foundation-wallace entitled: Cointelpro, I began to wonder about generational differences, historically speaking. Thomas is apparently much younger than I. Which then led to the definition of generation. demographics from the Census Bureau is very interesting. Basically though a generation is considered those being born within a 10-12 year time frame.
Back to Thomas' post. I did not know the term Cointelpro, but was certainly aware of much that happened. In particular the things that happened when the Director of the FBI was J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI bio.
I remember the TV show "I Led Three Lives" synopsis here. Many in my family watched it every week.
Even though it was based on a book about spying in the 40's, to me it was happening all around me. I was pretty young. Young enough to believe that the FBI was wonderful and anything they did was all right with me. By the 70's I would finally begin to wonder about civil rights for all. (What can I say, I was wrapped up in my own little life.)
Personally, I don't care whether Dir. Hoover was a cross-dresser, gay, black, or white. None of these types of things interest me until I run across someone who yells the hardest and attacks others for their personal preferences. The thing was that Hoover was black-mailing all kinds of "important" people to get power and to keep power. When he didn't have legitimate cause to go after someone he probably made it up. No one dared try to reign him in at all.
So here is a little research on the FBI under Hoover to get the next generation started.
Dir. Hoover probably did believe His Way was best for the country. This quote may be of interest to you:
From the same site on Dr. King:
Dir. Hoover appears to be certain he was protecting the country from the evil communists. He was a man of certainty. Speaking of certainty here is one of my spouse' favorite quotations, (probably next to "a woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." Kipling) often called the certainty quote, which probably applies to Dir. Hoover and upon further thought humans:
Keep that quotation in mind when you are willing to give up some of your civil rights. Or put another way-when you believe that in order to be secure some civil rights must go out the window, who will decide which "little" rights you will give up and who will decide how far to go to protect your security. As we now see with some of the DNA analysis being done, many an innocent person has been found guilty.
Back to Thomas' post. I did not know the term Cointelpro, but was certainly aware of much that happened. In particular the things that happened when the Director of the FBI was J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI bio.
I remember the TV show "I Led Three Lives" synopsis here. Many in my family watched it every week.
Even though it was based on a book about spying in the 40's, to me it was happening all around me. I was pretty young. Young enough to believe that the FBI was wonderful and anything they did was all right with me. By the 70's I would finally begin to wonder about civil rights for all. (What can I say, I was wrapped up in my own little life.)
Personally, I don't care whether Dir. Hoover was a cross-dresser, gay, black, or white. None of these types of things interest me until I run across someone who yells the hardest and attacks others for their personal preferences. The thing was that Hoover was black-mailing all kinds of "important" people to get power and to keep power. When he didn't have legitimate cause to go after someone he probably made it up. No one dared try to reign him in at all.
So here is a little research on the FBI under Hoover to get the next generation started.
Dir. Hoover probably did believe His Way was best for the country. This quote may be of interest to you:
"I would have no fears if more Americans possessed the zeal, the fervor, the persistence and the industry to learn about this menace of Red fascism. I do fear for the liberal and progressive who has been hoodwinked and duped into joining hands with the communists..." Testimony of J. Edgar Hoover before HUAC - March 26, 1947I found it Here.
From the same site on Dr. King:
J. Edgar Hoover's obsession with King is also well-documented in FBI files. These files show examples such as the FBI calling Marquette University in 1964 to tell them not to award an honorary degree to King. At Springfield College (Mass.) a month later, the FBI told the college that King's SCLC was "Communist affiliated". J. Edgar & Martin
Hoover's FBI mailed tapes of King's sexual affairs to his wife and tried to blackmail him politically; in an anonymous letter, encouraged him to commit suicide; and, among other disinformation successes, convinced Marquette University officials in 1964 to back out of giving King an honorary degree. [source]
Dir. Hoover appears to be certain he was protecting the country from the evil communists. He was a man of certainty. Speaking of certainty here is one of my spouse' favorite quotations, (probably next to "a woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." Kipling) often called the certainty quote, which probably applies to Dir. Hoover and upon further thought humans:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.(Yeats, Wm. Butler)
Keep that quotation in mind when you are willing to give up some of your civil rights. Or put another way-when you believe that in order to be secure some civil rights must go out the window, who will decide which "little" rights you will give up and who will decide how far to go to protect your security. As we now see with some of the DNA analysis being done, many an innocent person has been found guilty.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Sweet Lemons and Cold Weather
Politically speaking things just go along. As a liberal liberal I am not alone in feeling this way.
Hope for real health care reform is low. (People like me always try to find a sweet lemon somewhere. Though, I am having a hard time finding one.)
We got pretty much “Insurance Reform”-sort of. The insurance companies are getting more to cover and with little change on their part. And money flows like water still. Yes, I know previous conditions will supposedly go out the window. (Ah, that slice of sweet lemon, maybe.) That really is a great thing. I don't trust them though. I can't wait to see how insurance companies get around this one.
I will say I have a new appreciation for Sen. Reid. I didn't think he had it in him to push and shove and keep our Senators at it until he got some sort of agreement. As far as the deals cut. Most of them are not terribly consequential at least not in the long term. I may not like it but what interesting meetings and “discussions” were held for the past week. Of course now the two houses must come together and reconcile the bills. Just for learning sake I would love to hear the out of the public deals. This stuff would all be so interesting if it wasn't about the lives of people.
Now I wait to see if there are any real regulations for the investment banking industry. Doubtful.
Too Big to Fail will probably stay that way. However, they may find that the taxpayers won't be there for them anymore. Hey where are we supposed to get money to pay taxes anyway.
Let's see. What about the nation's borrowing, the government in our name. I agree there are times we just have to urge the economy by printing and borrowing but thanks to previous happenings, don't forget the previous administration, we were already in debt up to our eyeballs. Unemployment is high and not much happening to help. A December 26th article from the NY Times, you will not enjoy reading Recession Hovers as Winter Halts Construction Work. We are going through another dramatic change in the ways we can earn income-buggy whips anyone?
I was hopeful for a green economy but people are slow to move and Congress has to argue. More money flowing. Then, what about those who cannot restart. We are not all young and flexible. Will it take a generation or just a few years? Read the article in the Dec. 26th, NYTimes about the Earth-Friendly Elements we use. We just can't learn can we.
I get so much information from progressive groups but I don't get many answers. I get calls for, you ready, sign our petition and contribute. So many petitions I wonder if Congress pays attention to any of them anymore. Who gets the money contributed and why? Progressives need to pool their resources for a little while. That would make for a bigger lobby. But who will hold them together and for how long.
Here some slices of that sweet lemon. We can relax a little now about torturing people in our name; our civil rights at home are not in as much jeopardy; a few more people admit global warming; the present administration did take a little time to decide to send more troops into war; the President didn't say God told him to do send them. Oh, our V.P. hasn't shot anybody. The Republican party suddenly loves Medicare and seniors. The Republican party tried to hold up that awful defense spending-we shouldn't question the why of it. The Republican party that spent so much of our money is now worried about our spending. So see there are sweet lemons to be found.
Now there is the weather. We didn't get hit as badly as many. Most people made it through Christmas safely here. But, why is it there are certain folks who just can't stand staying home for more than a day? It is boring for many but the rest of us would like to relax for a short spell. No, not if you belong to a family of “macho” folks. Does this sound bright to you? Driving when you don't really need to do so; getting stuck so you have to have someone else come to your rescue. Or worse.
Oh, these are actually the kind of people that pay no heed to things like a health-care crisis until there is no such thing as health care except for the wealthy; let banks get too big too fail; depend on the mid-east for energy, destroy the planet; depend on other countries for loans, not countries that exactly care either. Why think ahead we are too busy thinking in the moment.
P.S. Now we are having tougher security at airports. Uh after the fact. Well, at least we try to learn. (sweet lemon)
Now, don't you wish I had stayed quiet.
Find the NY Times HERE.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Trying to Stay Positive and See the Steps Taken
Why haven't I written lately?
Several reasons actually. I just felt I had nothing to contribute.
Seems as though we, my family, have been somewhat in turmoil since September here. Nothing really major as far as that goes but just one of those spells. You know the spells I'm sure. One thing after another until we get worn out and then the small problems become large problems.
The roof is now done. (that even had its funny moments as well as the frustrating moments. another post?) There is some much needed reorganization done. Not nearly enough but some. I'm so tired I forget the progress made sometimes.
Some have mentioned the hectic Christmas season as the reason. Not in this case just on-going stuff and the times in which we all have been living taking their toll.
I enjoy Christmas and feel it has actually helped me get through some of this mess. I love "fluffy" Christmas movies and, some days, Christmas music. I love to watch parents that got to sneak off to shop for their kids and each other. This year I noted that people are smiling quietly. They are not laughing aloud nor are they arguing with the little kids as noted in the past. It is more low key. I really expected the stress levels to be higher but I think the bad times have been going on long enough that people are just deciding better ways to shop. I'll bet the debt levels of many families won't soar as in the previous 7-8 years.
Politically, I got very disgusted when "we" decided to send so many to Afghanistan.
I was already frustrated with the typical junk in the health-care "debate". I don't even read the NY Times right now. I just peruse the front page. I am sure many others feel the same. I had several days of "I give up" thoughts and living in a fairly red state doesn't help any. I grew up in this state and then came back years later. I have watched the changes for many years now and wonder what really happened. This is not the state for which I had such pride.
No I don't want to move out of state; I would have to move across country-politically speaking.
Not so sure the others in the family would go for it.
Another time but fun to read Mark Twain, as always, makes you smile. The site generally keeps me engrossed. I end up searching and reading with amazement at the brilliance of Mr. Twain. Thus I get lost in time. I hope you take time to read a little. My gift to you today.
Anyway, those are a few of the reasons I was not able or in the mood to post a thing.
I hope all who read this are having a good season, whether it be religious or just a beautiful December. Peace and quiet are my wishes. May all our problems be problems we can resolve by taking it one baby step at a time. I, for one, will try to remember the small positive steps we take and try to see the beauty of the world around us all. I am already forgiving myself for not getting everything done. To me, the Christmas season is a beautiful time even if I don't have cards sent or even the tree "up".
So...
Joy to you and yours,
Kanna
The photo is of a little Carolina Wren at the feeder.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Protests at Home and Abroad?
Robert Reich's Blog post of November 17th: Obama, China, and Wishful Thinking About American Jobs is very interesting. You can find it here
He quoted Pres. Obama: “We cannot go back...”
“...we're taking out a bunch of credit-card debt of home equity loans, but we're not selling anything to them.” Dr. Reich is discussing here the wish that the many Chinese will become consumers of American goods and services.
He went on to describe one reason the Chinese government will not, cannot, let that happen. Why they are building more factories to produce more than they can consume. If they do not create more jobs for the poor that are heading for the factories, they face possible “massive disorder”.
Thus China wants American “know-how”. So in order to sell products in China, US companies must cut deals to make goods in China not in the US. He ends this blog post with the following:
Both societies are threatened by the disconnect between production and consumption. In China, the threat is civil unrest. In the U.S., it's a prolonged jobs and earnings recession that, when combined with widening inequality, could create political backlash.
Why is it that in the U.S. The fear is only of political backlash? Why isn't there more “civil unrest” here? Of course civil unrest here doesn't need to be the same as in China. We don't need to worry about deaths to the demonstrators. We don't need to worry about trials for the demonstrators. Well mostly we don't have to fear these reactions. Why?
There are many questions in that paragraph. Maybe you have some good answers? Here are a few of my thoughts.
Maybe we are getting older and lazier? Maybe we are too busy watching TV? Maybe we are just too depressed to march? Maybe we no longer feel we have any way to make changes- “Our government doesn't listen no matter what we do.” ? Maybe we don't have the money to make the trip to ...? Maybe we have so much going on, or not as the case may be, we are in a state of confusion? (Sometimes that is me) Too many groups asking you to email, write, call, or march about so many good causes?
As for the last Why: Maybe the government and the politicians have figured out that if you let people march in protest without a lot of push back they won't get much coverage and they will pack up and go back to their meager little lives after their little protests. Think about it.
With all these questions and the many answers, the vote becomes more important than ever. My idea is that maybe instead of dread and disgust with politicians and politics we should start to study them now.
Remember 2010 could get very interesting.
Don't forget Vote Smart. It is a good way to keep up to date and keep track.
Photo is an edited photo taken by my Baby Brother.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Can You Make a Difference? More on Word Play
While rereading parts of Dr. R. Reich's book, Locked in the Cabinet, I discovered a conversation Dr. Reich had with his wife, Clare, about living in Washington. (Washington here meaning the Federal Government Washington) Her take on Washington is not new.
Dr. Reich has his Page at Wikipedia if you are interested. Read the paragraph on this book there. Apparently he fictionalized some conversations.
Whether fictionalized or not her description of Washington is one to which many of us can relate.
It's always the same thing. Who's up? Who's down? Who's in? Who;s out?
It's a one-company town, Bob. Everyone works for the same company in
some way or other. Politicians, journalists, bureaucrats, lawyers, lobbyists.
And all that really counts is your rank in the company. Power, power, power!
No one cares about ideas, values, or even their families.
Robert B. Reich, Locked in the Cabinet, Alfred A. Knopf, NY,1997,Page 5
And while perusing a “blog of note”Meanderings in Hickville I came upon this: “Parks dedicated to liars should catch on in the states. Every politician will have their very own swing set. “ Under a picture in Italy of a park named for Pinocchio. Do Italians really love liars or just puppets that would be boys?
How many times have you heard politics or government described in similar terms. All my life I have heard people say things like: “they're all crooked”; or that voting is picking “the lessor of the evils”; or why should I “it won't make any difference”...
Now take a look at the N.Y. Timestoday. The front page, above the Internet fold, is stories of decisions being made in our names, or not, many of which are tied to money and money is, or buys, power. (Of course, I expect Dr. Krugman to write about money or banking or some parts of the economy.)
The article concerning the war in Afghanistan and the Taliban economy is well written but not really much new. What is striking are comments about how it is a bigger economy than was thought by a member of the House Representatives and that the decision to send more troops depends to some degree on Taliban economy. That decision is also dependent on whether there is an “legitimate” government of the country. The Karzai government is accused of fraud both in the election and in the governing of Afghanistan. The government is accused of ties to drug money, the same drug money the Taliban unofficially taxes.
Another article is on the lobbying of the climate change bill. The different energy groups are each trying to attack different parts of the bill. Hundreds of millions of dollars being spent. Who knows if these groups being split will help or hinder the passage of legislation but money is power.
There is an editorial concerning income tax evasion by the wealthy in various ways. This is one about the off-shore accounts and more on the Swiss Bank Accounts. It ends by saying maybe we can now get the wealthy to pay their taxes. (Dream on)
New arrests in hedge-fund scandals and again in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
There are two articles concerning us peons. One is really more about foreclosures causing stresses on the homeless shelters. The other is a slide show article on gardening and cleaning up a neighborhood in Flint, Michigan. In small ways people made a difference in one neighborhood.
Then read Dr. Reich's blog post on paying hush money and the health care reform. Big money therefore big power. No matter what people really wanted in the first place.
No wonder we all feel it is us versus them. Just look at the above articles as view of the spread of wealth. Maybe it is just life in a capitalistic society where money is power or the purchase thereof.
One big way for you to make a difference in the decisions made for you is if the “you” is a collective pronoun, sometimes replaced with “you guys” or “y'all”, not the singular pronoun. Then the “you” will become “we the people”. Nah, don't count on it. “We the people” will probably never totally agree with the “yous” of us. Yet opting out or “fence-sitting” is making a decision to allow others to decide for “YOU” the singular.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Another Post Script
Now a Post Script to the Cannibalizing post:
''Taking money from a program already in financial trouble is not responsible,'' LeMieux said. ''It's not fair to our seniors who paid into the program, and it's not fair to our children and grandchildren who will be burdened with massive debt obligations.'' Sen. George LeMieux of Florida as quoted in the NY Times here
The Senator is speaking of Medicare but also now worries about people being forced onto Medicaid.
These guys are good.
''Taking money from a program already in financial trouble is not responsible,'' LeMieux said. ''It's not fair to our seniors who paid into the program, and it's not fair to our children and grandchildren who will be burdened with massive debt obligations.'' Sen. George LeMieux of Florida as quoted in the NY Times here
The Senator is speaking of Medicare but also now worries about people being forced onto Medicaid.
These guys are good.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
While Watching the Senate on Cspan-2 one day...
While watching two Republican Senators on the floor of the Senate I just shake my head.
They are holding what is called a colloquy on the health care issues. A colloquy is a discussion. In the Senate, one Senator has the floor and is holding it, another Senator asks for a colloquy with the first and away they go. A colloquy is used while waiting on someone else to come to the floor or when the two involved have a scripted conversation and one has the floor time assigned to him or her.
These two just brought up a "fact". Seniors are against the health care bill thus far by 2 to 1 because they will lose some coverage under Medicare. These two, Republicans remember, are for the Seniors. Isn't the Republican party the one that not too many years ago was yelling about Seniors cannibalizing their children and grandchildren? Wasn't this the party that was wanting to do away with, fought against forever, Medicare? Isn't this the party that has had Medicare on their hit list since its inception?
But then there is this: These two are saying because the bill and the President want to cut the government subsidies to Medicare Advantage companies that is cutting Medicare. HUH? Please read this article from the Washington Posthere We, the taxpayers are subsidizing these companies.
Free enterprise? Capitalism at its finest? I think not? Government helping big business? I think.
My take on other articles I could find along with a little history of the Medicare Advantage program is that it started off saving then as with all these ideas to promote "outsourcing" the government to private contractors it now costs more than the government version. That too, is one of my concerns about a so-called "trigger" option for health care. The private sector insurers will keep costs down only as long as they have to do so.
Yes, and the two Senators want to put the bill up on the internet for 72 hours for the public to review and then 2 or so weeks for the public to comment back to them.
Isn't this the party that for the last 8 years did away with most of the Sunshine Law? Besides that little "fact", I really hope you will think about trying to read one of these bills. I often say I don't know how the Congresspeople do it. How does the staff for them do it? How does anyone do it? Well in the case of the Congresspeople they expect the staff to do it for them and fill them in on the fine print. The staff knows what the Congressperson, or the Party, wants to find or not find so that is what they get in their reports. Well, maybe not all staffers do it but my guess is most do-if they want the job for long.
More later, I must go check out the Senate,Circus Maximus, so-called debate now.
Later today I believe they will be debating Defense Spending.
Just found this
Sunday, August 23, 2009
A Good Article on Why the Status Quo Must Go.
Dying for affordable healthcare — the uninsured speak
In a week of claim and counter-claim about the merits of healthcare provision in the US and UK, Ed Pilkington travelled to Quindaro, Kansas, to see how the poorest survive
Here is another reason the status quo must go. Guardian
Sunday, August 16, 2009
To Frank Rich August 16
Frank Rich wrote a very interesting column in the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16rich.html
Here is a quotation from it.
It’s through this prism we might re-examine the raucous town hall eruptions this month. Even if they are inflated by activist organizations and cable-TV overexposure, they still cannot be dismissed entirely as made-for-media phenomena made-to-measure to fill the August news vacuum. Nor are they necessarily about health care. The twisted distortions about “death panels” and federal conspiracies “to pull the plug on grandma” are just too unhinged from the reality of any actual legislation. These bogus fears are psychological proxies for bigger traumas.
The column was about Mad Men, the 60's and 2009. I was too late to post a comment on the column so I post my thoughts here.
Wrong on bogus fears.
Yet right on bogus fears.
My husband and I sent links to a very funny blog, answers to health care questions, to many people we know. It was an extremely funny blog post. It was sarcastic irony at its best.
To our surprise, though why we were surprised I do not know, several people took it seriously. What has been and is wrong with our educational system? Or is it as a friend reminded me. “Just remember the average IQ is 100. Therefore about half the people are below the average.” (He was being sarcastic)
Many people do believe the “bogus fears” about pulling the plug on grandma and some government panel deciding who can have treatments for ailments. They already live with insurance companies doing some of this so the fear of government doing it is easy to accept. Grandma is told that she is sapping the younger generation, “your kids or grandkids”, by taking Social Security and Medicare. By the way, Grandma probably paid into the system for years and is helping support those "kids and grandkids". So Grandma may believe it is possible that some may well want to pull the plug. (Why is it Grandma and not Grandpa we talk about in this context?)
We have lived as if addicted to consumerism. Many of us who could afford it have not paid attention to our own health and expect a drug to “take care” of any problem that arises from it. More consumerism because of the constant barrage of drug ads. We are told over and over that our educational system is failing. Yet, there are no real answers forthcoming and most of us don't take time to demand real answers. And the kids in school hear that their schools are no good-so why stay in the system. We talk about our kids as products-consumerism mentality. Some of us buy things to learn how we too can be among the wealthy classes. We frantically purchase anything and everything. We now see programming on how to save money, yet keep spending, by purchasing things we don't need at discount stores or flea markets. We purchase goods from many of these discount stores that are made in China to undercut our own economy. At the same time we are told saving and investing is great, but then told by saving now we hurt the economy.
Yes, there are so many anxieties. Many of us are watching as the economy is in a mess. We fear, maybe it is a fear well-grounded in reality, the government is not paying attention to “we the people”. There is no government watching or regulating much of anything. It seems corporations and various industry coalitions have purchased control. Is anyone going to really do anything about “too big too fail”. Really do anything. The very air we breathe is in question. Yet, some of our government is saying we can't change now the economy can't take it. The debt to China is concerning at the least. The deficit and the debt are in numbers we cannot even picture or read. The TV media, and much of the print media, jumps quickly from “hard news” to the latest scandal from any sector-cultural or business or … Why? Because we, the consumers, want to forget all the anxieties we cannot control. And business wants us to keep watching and reading so they can advertise at us; therefore to keep us spending.
We do feel “Don Draper's disorientation”.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Getting Money Out of "OUR" Government, maybe
When you look at what is happening with the so-called health care reform maybe you are like me thinking why. Answer:There is a huge problem--the monies the lobbies and the corps spend. This problem seems to rear its ugly head issue after issue.
So what to do???
Maybe the answer lies in campaign reform.
Meanwhile, the states have been plagued by the same problems afflicting campaigns for federal office. As the costs of campaigning for statewide office and state legislative seats skyrocketed over the last few decades, legislators have begun to place greater emphasis on fundraising. PACs,http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_pac.shtml ,
and large donors have played an increasing role as sources of campaign revenue, and incumbents have been outspending challengers by larger and larger sums.http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform
About the only way I can think of to change the balance is to challenge the way “our” elected officials get money for campaigns. But, what about the free speech issue and freedom of the press? http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform/campaign-finance-reform-buckley-v-valeo And See: http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court.html
Basically the courts say that candidates' must be given the right to opt in or out of any system of campaign finance. Maine is one state where the court upheld their version because it is voluntary.
The Maine law is a little different though:
Maine's campaign finance law, known as the Clean Elections Act is different from those in other states because those who agree to accept public funding must forgo any private contributions (beyond a small amount of "seed money" and qualifying contributions) and run an entirely "clean" campaign.http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform/campaign-finance-reform-maine
The law was passed by Maine voters in a referendum in 1996 and came into effect in 2000. Candidates who demonstrate citizen support by collecting a set number of $5 qualifying contributions from voters within their districts (50 contributions for a State House race, 150 for the state Senate, and 2,500 for a gubernatorial race) are eligible for fixed and equal campaign funding from the Clean Election Fund. To receive their money, candidates must agree to forgo all private contributions (including self-financing), and limit their spending to the amount from the fund.
Other states have “clean election” laws.
A Supreme Court decision in January 2000, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, was the court's first ruling on campaign contributions and free speech since Buckley v. Vale. In it the court essentially reaffirmed Buckley vs. Valeo, by allowing state limits to campaign contributions, but not spending, so long as the contribution limit was not "so radical...as to...drive the sound of a candidate's voice below the level of notice, and render contributions pointless." However, the decision did counter a trend whereby federal courts have recently been striking down contribution limits even above the $1,000 (per individual) permitted in Buckley v. Valeo.
As of 2008, five states have passed "clean election" laws, laws that provide public money for state election campaigns if a candidate agrees to strict spending limits.
Maine was the first state to enact such a law, by voter referendum, in 1996.
In June 1997, Vermont became the first state to pass a bill modeled after the Maine law through its legislature. Both laws served as models for the clean election initiatives passed by Arizona and Massachusetts voters in November, 1998. The Massachusetts law, however, was repealed by the legislature in 2003. Connecticut's legislature passed a clean election bill in 2005, and it was amended in 2006 to remove an unnecessary step for third party candidates.
New Mexico expanded the program to include candidates for judgeships on the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of New Mexico in 2007.
New Jersey's legislature passed a clean elections pilot project in 2004, which put into place two legislative districts for the November 2005 election. Following its success, three more districts have been selected to be part of the 2007 Fair and Clean Elections Pilot Project.
Out of State Contributions
Out-of-state or out-of-district campaign contributions corrupt the political process because an elected official may become more beholden to these contributors than to the community she represents. Alaska and Oregon have adopted limits on out-of-state or out-of-district contributors. Both have been overruled by federal courts as violations of the First Amendment. While the Oregon law has been repealed, the Alaska law has been suspended and is on appeal in the Alaska Supreme Court.
Because these laws so well embody the principles of localism and republicanism, the New Rules Project offers them here as models that should be reinstated.
http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform
All this is really great but as long as it is voluntary, in the name of free speech, I am not sure what good it all is. (By the way another thought just occurred to me. Note the Out of State restriction on Alaska's law. Maybe this is why Palin left office early? Why wait for the Alaska Supreme Court to decide. Maybe you just run from another state?)
I really do hate“Out of State Contributions”. It lets any big group, or its lobby, to select even your state and local candidates for you. Suppose you are big Energy and there is a reliable Energy candidate in some state-you will put your money where their mouth is. Now I realize too that the reverse may be true, Green Energy may like a candidate in your state or local government so they can back them.
But shouldn't each state's population be deciding their own government therefore their own laws and taxes spent. Maybe that wouldn't work either. Some would just move from a red state to a liberal blue state somewhere. Or the conservative would move to a nice red state. Actually this is happening on a small scale already. Well, one thing about it when the media draws its election forecast maps it would be easier. Or would some pay somebody else to move into the opposite view state. Hey this has the makings of a great movie or short story.
So just as the health care laws are difficult and hard to write, I can imagine the nightmare of election reform. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy and laws are, or at least should be, difficult to write. But, it may be the only chance we have to get at least some money out of the system.
For those who love charts and statistics here is an interesting site. http://www.cfinst.org/data/VitalStats.aspx
Here is a link to a “working paper”, for a forthcoming book, on campaign finance “after Obama”. The beginning sentence is an attention grabber about the total collapse of public funding for Presidential campaigns. http://www.cfinst.org/president/pdf/PresidentialWorkingPaper_April09.pdf
I highly recommend you visit Vote Smart to take a look information on Congresspersons. It is an excellent site. I thought about volunteering to work for them years ago. Very fair-minded site. http://www.votesmart.org/ I couldn't get their widget added but will try again. Also this group may be one to consider a donation if you can.
Then too maybe we just need to redefine corporations as entities when it comes to the Constitution. This will be the next post.
P.S. Note the italics on the section about the "Oregon law". I stand corrected by Dan(please see comments section). He states it is not a law it is an amendment to the Oregon Constitution and has not been repealed. Also see where they were working to change http://www.afd-pdx.org/E-mails/2009_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE_REFORM-1.html
Friday, August 7, 2009
What a mess.
As I read this morning; liberals- President Obama's supporters, are not fighting back against the mobs threatening the town-hall meetings of Congresspeople. I read there are even death threats received by some Congressmen. How do you fight that kind of mentality? I am too old and too little to brawl.
What Can Be Done?
It's time that this whole shabby (and insane) business be exposed, vilified in run out of town on a rail by whatever responsible Republicans -- if any -- that are still in the party and who want to see the fortunes of their party revived. Republican leaders taking insurance industry money via lobbying firms and using it to organize what amounts to roving bands of thugs not only need to be exposed but thrown out of the public debate forever. They should become absolute pariahs.
It's time to give this garbage in name: insurance industry funded fascism.
Right-Wing Turncoat Gives the Inside Scoop on Why Conservatives Are Rampaging Town Halls
By Frank Schaeffer, AlterNet. Posted August 7, 2009.
Of course Republicans aren't the only ones getting monies from the health-care big boys. But they are the ones behind most of the mobs.
Then too there are the brilliant ones at FOX news. Here is a fine example of the brilliant bulbs' work. (Be sure to read what the real story is on the great conspiracy.)
Beck conspiracy theory: "Cash for clunkers" site lets Feds control your PC, by Jed Lewison Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:32:03 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/1/760538/-Beck-conspiracy-theory:-Cash-for-clunkers-site-lets-Feds-control-your-PC
So all an older lazy person like me is try to put out the REAL word as best they can find anyway.
Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, August 7, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080603854.html?hpid=news-col-blog
Here is another interesting viewpoint to read. You Do Not Have Health Insurance
Wednesday 05 August 2009by: James Kwak as posted on truthout.org.
And now in defense of President Obama in general. Let's have a little list of unimportant accomplishments for which this President is responsible.
Unemployment is slowing earlier than expected. (We know how we got the high numbers in the first place now, don't we. I don't think the present Administration caused it.)
We have a new Supreme Court Justice. (Not a right-winger either.)
The Cash for Clunkers program is working better than expected. (Now, why is it we needed it? Oh, previous administration again.)
Soldiers are leaving Iraq. (Don't blame this President if Iraq becomes a mess either. We all know how we got there.)
There are more soldiers and equipment in Afghanistan. (If you are going to have war, at least put some effort into it. Previous Administration again.)
As of yesterday the DOW was up 17% since President Obama took office. (Can we remember how we got this mess in the first place?)
So when this President is losing poll numbers, I think we have very short memories and expectations were very high when he won the election. But, read Vanity Fair, February, 2009 and you will think this guy is a gift from above. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/bush-oral-history200902
The right and corporate America use tactics learned from Bush's great one, Karl Rove. What a guy!
From the Vanity Fair article this quote: “I remember that Rove was out there talking at some events about how we'd use 9/11, run on 9/11 in the midterms and that it was important to do so.” (Scott McClellan) And: “Karl wasn't receptive to ideas that would've called the country to certain things and brought them to a common purpose...Karl came from a perspective of you defeat people in politics by calling one side bad and one side good.” (Matthew Dowd)
There is an article too in the issue Fannie Mae's Last Stand. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/fannie-and-freddie200902 . “...But, for decades, Fannie Mae had been under siege from powerful enemies, who resented its privileged status, its hard-driving C. E. O.'s, and its huge profits.”
And please don't give me the old stuff like: “That's right bring up Bush.” I will and I shall.
He is responsible for the messes with which this President is dealing. Future Presidents will be dealing with them too for a long time to come. We all will! Eight years of disasters leaving a legacy for years and years to come. I still wonder if that was the plan all along.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
A Moth to a Flame, Drawn in by the Media.
Well I have many thoughts about many things going on right now. For what that is worth.
Let's see the military-industrial complex is cooking right along. Read this one entitled Earmarks Fill Up Defense Spending Bill by Stephanie Condon.: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5169649.shtml
Here is another: House approves defense spending bill, cuts funding for F-22 fighter amid Obama veto threat by Ben Pershing/ Washington Post http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/07/house_approves_defense_spendin.htm
Then there is Health Care Reform. Or some mild form of regulation, some tweaking of the present system but not really health care reform. (Well unless you are an insurance company who will get to add lots of folks you probably threw out of the system back into the system with someone else paying for it.) According to the media “we the people” are torn between wanting something done and fearing to have something done. Now how could that be so? Maybe it is the monies being spent to stop any real reform?
Michael Winship, Truthout: "This week, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that in the second quarter of this year alone, the pharmaceuticals and health product industries spent $67,959,095 on lobbying, and the insurance industry $39,760,477. Another $25,552,088 was spent by lobbyists for hospitals and nursing homes. That's a total of $133,271,660 in just three months, and that's not even counting the lobbying money spent to fight health care reform by professional associations like the US Chamber of Commerce."http://www.truthout.org/080109Z?n
And to those who were so concerned about the rush to get something done this ought to be a fun month ahead for TV advertising budgets. I am sure the ads will be very informative and educational. You really don't need to attend any town hall meetings by your so-called representatives. Save gas. Look up their records and their donors and you will get the answers to your questions.
Also I ask you to remember the history of Health Care Reforms since who knows when. Always the same arguments. The only thing that may be different this time is the big boys such as Pharma and Insurance Companies are saying they are all for health care reform while sneaking around on The Hill. See Wendell Potter's blog for more much more on this one. http://www.prwatch.org/blog/35267
Or read about Mr. Potter here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change
Then let us think of the “media”. They seem to be thrilled that the President's poll numbers are dropping a bit. I guess anything to get excited about instead of trying to explain any of the above to us poor unfortunates. Let US Argue again.
If that won't get the arguments started maybe race?
Let's see President Obama said the police acted “stupidly”. Probably right here. Dr. Gates probably was upset too. So now take a step back. If you are any color other than white in this country, you are very noticeable. Seriously think about it. If you drive a visually sporty car on a crowded highway, you are probably going to get watched harder and pulled over more often whether you speed or not. Now you have the police officer probably very proud of his work on racial profiling-professor Gates gets a little in his face. Dr Gates is preset to react. Can't say as I blame him. The officer now is indignant.-how could he, of all police officers, be accused of racial profiling.
But the point is really the media. I will grant that this is a terrible societal situation and I will say I am extremely glad I wasn't handcuffed and taken “downtown”. But the media enjoyed the leap from health care reform to racial profiling just a little too much. It had more argument appeal.
Seems as though I also recall the media coverage of the stimulus isn't working blah, blah, blah. The President polls are down, blah, blah, blah. Now note the media coverage of the stimulus may be having some effect after all. Some but not much. I did note someone mention Bernanke's name in a positive way but pragmatic President Obama got something about him trying to once again control expectations. I do love the media. Oh and the “Cash for Clunkers” success gets coverage about how it was running out of money then got more money but not much about it actually was working to stimulate the economy. I say again: I love the media. If there is a way to downplay successes and keep arguments going they will find it since Bush duped them and they find more money and audience in hype and “star-power”.
So there you are my many thoughts on many things. Twisted-maybe, angry-some, but they are my thoughts and that is the name of the blog after all. Now it is your turn, have at it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)