Plinking Reality

House Republicans Defining Path to the "American Apocalypse"

2011-01-04T00:54:00.002-06:00

The new House Republican majority has decided its first significant act will be to pass a bill to repeal health care reform. As this group is trying to define itself, one has to ask what its action means in terms of defining this new House Republican majority.

Think about the act itself. Repealing the Health Care Reform bill in the House will have zero effect on law. Why? With 48 Republicans in the Senate, there is no chance they can get the 60 votes needed to repeal the bill in the Senate, much less override a Presidential veto of the repeal.

So what does the act itself say? It is a symbolic gesture at best. It is meant to be a sign that they passed the repeal of health care reform but the Democrats stopped it. At its core, the act is nothing but a political move. It changes nothing in terms of the lives of you and me. It changes nothing for businesses. It changes nothing for anyone in terms of law.

So why waste the time on it? Simple. The political blame game. It is the game that Americans have fallen into and one that we must get out of if we are to fix our problems. If we reward and promote political gamesmanship instead of finding solutions to our problems, then we will get nothing more than more political gamesmanship and less solutions to our problems.

Think about the election. The focus of the Republican victories was fiscal responsibility. The focus was reigning in the government. The focus was fixing our economy to create jobs.

And the first post election actions? Extend the Bush tax cuts which maintain fiscal irresponsibility and pass a bill in the House that is nothing more than political gamesmanship. At some point, the American people must realize our politicians are now in it for the power and the game and the money. We aren't seeing solutions, we are seeing games not what is being promised.

The result is what David Stockman calls the "American Apocalypse." We need solutions not games. The longer we wait, the worse the ramifications will be for the average American.

Playing the Constitutional Tango with a Conservative

2011-01-02T23:34:00.002-06:00

Tonight, I had a conversation on Twitter over the Constitutionality of Social Security with a good friend, @RalphSmorra and some others. While I generally like Ralph, I noticed something that is a pattern for conservatives and often for bad political debaters. They tend to say things like, "do you think the Founding Fathers imagined the use of like it is used today?"

While Ralph is not a "bad debater" generally, and is quite knowledgeable, I have to wonder why he would have thought the founders would have had even the slightest vision of today's world. Do they think the founders divined the Internet or the airplane, and its needs for governing?

Generally speaking, words and their meanings are not locked into cement or a vault that prevents them from evolving to a given time and place. To imagine we knew the original intent and that it would always be the same forever is rather specious to say the least. Heck, I often get bored watching the testosterone fly as people play the "what the founders intended" game as they cite one founder after another as if their views were monolithic instead of a group with various reasons for signing on to the document.

They act as though the constitution was a strict document, stuck in a time and place instead of what it really is: a flexible document that adapts to the test of time and situations.

If it was a strict document that had to be amended every time something changed, they wouldn't have created the Executive emergency powers; they wouldn't have created vague clauses like "provide for the common defense" or "promote the general welfare" which are pretty ambiguous in their phrasing. While conservatives will say the former phrase is carte blanche for all defense needs and means, they will argue the latter must be strictly interpreted by other clauses as they seek to push their views rather than the text of the document.

While each side seeks to re-interpret the Constitution by strict or vague means for their own policy agenda, the sad reality is that too many have never read the document enough to know who is right or wrong, only to follow their dogmatic opinion leaders who seek to make a fast buck and gain power off of their ignorance.

In today's Information Society, take the time to google and read the text of the Constitution. It isn't that hard.

With that said, maybe Ralph would have been better served spending time elsewhere than to claim 70 years of SCOTUS decisions on Social Security were wrong on vague, general terms like "there is no constitutional provision for Social Security."

2011: A Need for Small Business and Economic Balance

2011-01-02T12:02:00.004-06:00

Robert Reich's economic prediction for 2011 looks good for corporations and Wall Street, but pretty poor for the rest of us. While Reich may point towards a political agenda, he also hits a pretty obvious point: American economics are out of balance, and the focus on elitism for economics will lead the rest of us poor.

What do I mean? Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" were designed not to create an elite society separate from others, but rather to restore the balance between all segments of society. Excessive taxation on the upper brackets undermined incentive for investment. At some point, it went too far.

Today, our taxation and regulatory structures have returned us to a time when the rich have all the money, and the poor are left to beg for table scraps (or jobs as it were). American society has bought into the notion that if you free up money for the rich, the rich will create jobs for everyone else. Except, the rich got rich by being frugal, watching their money, and making wise investments. They didn't get rich by throwing money at bad or mediocre investments out of some duty to create jobs for other people.

Politicians have skewed the regulatory and taxation structures in favor of corporations. That has skewed the balance away from the small business. Why is that a problem? Small business drives the economy. Small business pushes innovation. Small business creates new wealth. Small business is the American Dream. Small business is how people get from being a dreamer to living the American Dream. Undermining that small business is how the American Dream is destroyed.

If Americans want to save themselves economically, they must push their politicians for a taxation structure that is balanced, that doesn't favor the rich or corporations but rather maintains the balance between each of us. They must start taking the opportunities to build small businesses instead of focusing on waiting for the rich to create jobs for them. And they must push for net neutrality, which will continue to allow Americans a free and open internet as a forum to build those small businesses from.

In bad economic times people often forget: Economic success stories tend to come from desperation not inspiration. Bad economic times are as good a time as any to build a small business.

An Open Leader to President Obama: Fight For Us

2010-12-06T00:39:00.002-06:00

Mr. President,

Last year, you were asked a very pointed question by a woman who wanted you to give us a reason to follow you. You gave her your normal policy answer, but it is now clear you missed the point she was trying to make. You didn't get what she was trying to tell you. The result was the 2010 Election. Mr. President, we need you to lead.

One has to ask why a President who has passed as much significant legislation as you have is viewed so weakly. It is easy to blame the right wing media, but it really isn't about them. President Clinton found a way to get through the Echo Chamber with positive marks, even today. He didn't pass half the landmark legislation you have in two years, so what's going on?

The defining moment was on health care reform. It is where you lost your base and your independents. You told us that we would change Washington. You told us that we could change the world. You told us that things would be different. You told us that we wouldn't be helpless to profit hungry corporations, but we would be given choices to bring them in check. And then you compromised. We didn't get what you told us was the key to all those things: A Public Option.

Health Care Reform was something that could have been passed in two months before Senator Kennedy died with a Public Option. Instead, it dragged on for month after month after month, and you sat on the sideline publicly. I am sure you and the White House was working behind the scenes to make a deal to get it done, but none of us ever saw it. And yes, we looked. The Public Option is where you lost your mojo.

Democrats lost 2010 because of two reasons: You failed to lead them on health care reform and lead the American people through the economic troubles; and the Democrats were so busy reading polls trying to figure things out that they couldn't even take a stand on the most basic of policies of tax cuts before the election. Those two things tell us, the American people, that neither you nor the Democratic Party wants to lead.

As we had to Christmas, we see votes on tax cuts that Democrats know will fail for the sake of taking votes. It would make sense if there was a strategy to get the votes and then use them to publicly pressure Republicans with a PR strategy to get what you want. Instead, we got how you were "disappointed" but that is all you ever get.

Mr. President, maybe you aren't getting it. We want you to lead by fighting for those ideals you put forth in your campaign. They weren't just ideals to be compromised on. That would be the way Washington has always worked. We didn't vote for doing things the same way Washington always has worked. We voted to change how Washington works. You were fired up and ready to go, but we haven't seen you fired up over anything since you took office.

Mr. President, there are defining moments. For President Bush 41, it was raising taxes. For President Reagan, it was telling the Soviet Union to tear down a wall. For President Clinton, it was standing up to Republicans and shutting down the government over Social Security. What will be your defining moment?

You need to pick one and make it. We need you to pick one and fight for it. Whether it is insisting that unemployment benefits and each tax bracket be passed as separate bills to be voted on separately; whether it is a public option; whether it is a new stimulus bill; whether it is deficit reduction; no matter what it is, pick something and fight for us. Show us what is important to you.

Don't be "disappointed." Do something. Fire a shot across the bow. Use your Veto. Spend a week talking about nothing but one issue in strong terms instead of soft policy nuances.

If you want your base back. If you want your independents back. Stand up and fight for us. Stand up and show us how you are making Washington about us, not about deals and compromises. Show us how you are making America better for us and not business as usual.

Until you stand up and fight for us, you may be on your way to being a one term President who will have your accomplishments simply repealed.

The Tea Party gained power not because everyone believed in it. Heck, the platform is hardly coherent. The Tea Party was about the government caring about us and doing things for us instead of business as usual. The Tea Party was nothing more than the far right Ron Paul Libertarians and Paleoconservatives appealing to the independents who voted for you not because they agree in ideology but because you didn't stand up and fight for the things you said you would.

Mr. President, it is time to get off the sidelines. You should have started fighting for us two years ago. But if you don't start now, you will have started too late.

Simply put: Mr. President, Fight For Us.

Fed Trying to Grow Economy, Republicans say Focus on Deficits, Actions say otherwise

2010-12-06T00:27:00.003-06:00

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spoke on the economy in a 60 Minutes interview about the economy, explaining the concern about long term job growth and the need for more economic support to boost the system.

Bernanke explained the Federal Reserve will continue to boost easing efforts because the federal government has sent the signal it will focus on deficit reduction instead of additional stimulatory efforts. By focusing on deficit reduction, the American public can rest assured the job growth outlook will not improve anytime soon. Deficit reduction means policies designed to save money, not to get money flowing through the economy which is what creates jobs.

Bernanke's comments seem to indicate the federal government needs to do more for the recovery, not less. The problem is the deficit has grown so large it is difficult to deal with for most Americans. The numbers are larger than they could have imagined.

It is similar to the Reagan era, where a debt topping $1 trillion was unimaginable. Yet, Reagan's budgets increased the debt 180% in eight years. We got used to it. Similarly, politicians ran on deficit reduction, but did little work to honestly cut it. The insistence on passing tax cuts costing $700 billion for the richest among us indicates the same is true today.

The mistake was made a decade ago, and we will be struggling to overcome it for decades to come. When deficits are run up, they need to be paid off. In 2000, American voters decided they did not want to pay off that debt. They made the choice to take a tax cut and ignore the debt, leaving it for future generations. Today, we have far less flexibility to deal with the economy because of those voting decisions.

We made our bed. Now we have to lay in it.

Tax Deal: What Does It Say About the GOP and To Our Kids?

2010-12-05T23:55:00.005-06:00

For many people in America, they can be thankful this holiday season that there is an apparent deal in the works to deal with unemployment benefits and tax cuts. During an economically troubling time, generally speaking, tax increases or cuts of things like unemployment benefits can be economically troubling.

However, it does show somethings that are significant:

First, the claims of focus on the deficit by the Republicans during election season were a token campaign promise at best. They are about to agree to maintain $700 billion in debt for the top bracket of tax cuts, while adding to spending by extending unemployment benefits. Deficits should not be the primary focus during economic troubling times, but it does show the dishonesty of the Republican's approach.

Second, it shows how Republicans think of the richest among us. They have held hostage tax cuts for everyone else and unemployment benefits for those who are unemployed in hard economic times (not lazy people, but people who are simply struggling to find a job). They seem to believe that the rich are struggling too, and that those making over $250k and $1 million per year need lower taxes as much as those who can't find jobs need unemployment benefits to survive. That much is evident as they held up Democrat bills that have renewed unemployment benefits and tax cuts for everyone under both of those levels.

Republicans ran on the idea of all deficits are passing on the costs to future generations for today. I can understand the ideas of running deficits for people to keep them from starving to death and spending the winter on the streets in the cold.

I have to wonder how they explain to their children why they are going to pay $700 billion plus interest on future debt so the richest among us can pay 3% less in taxes.

Just for Fun: 10 Technological Failures

2010-11-27T02:44:00.003-06:00

I caught this article detailing the "Top 10 Tech Failures" and thought I would put it here.

There are many reasons for their failures, and they reminded me of some that I saw when I was younger, as well as some I didn't know about. For the tech geeks among us, or simply the trivia geeks, take a look.

There may be a quiz later.

Understanding Technological Advancement

2010-11-27T02:33:00.002-06:00

What is the next Facebook Killer? Pete Cashmore writes an interesting article with a pretty good understanding of how technological replacement happens.

Essentially, he argues that technological clones don't overtake something. Diaspora, for example, has sought to be just like Facebook only more private. Yet, it has barely gained any traction for all its efforts. It is too much like Facebook long after Facebook built its base.

Ironically, Cashmore argues Facebook may be the next Google Killer because of the amount of information it has about people in its own databases that Google doesn't necessarily have access to.

The point and reason I focused on this article was simply because I often push the idea that we must build new small businesses. Therefore, I wanted to give people a basic understanding: Business wins because it takes a different angle to do things better.

While Vonage is taking on traditional phone companies by trying to do the same type of thing: create a landline, only cheaper; the major companies went for the cellphones to undermine Vonage by making landlines obsolete.

While power companies are seeking to set up the fight over controlling alternatives to our current energies, they haven't embraced solar or wind power for a simple reason: to embrace it is to give up control over power because you could (and should) be building them on your roofs without them. They want a power source that is more efficient than oil/gas/coal and allows them to control it.

While e-mail certainly hurt mail, what is killing mail is not email but rather Facebook, Text Messages, and more that make the "letter" obsolete. We can now communicate so freely and easily that one has to wonder who writes letters anymore?

Then again, how much more significant is an actual hand written letter when you receive it, than say... a text or a poke?

GOP Holding Middle Class Tax Cuts Hostage for the Rich

2010-11-27T02:21:00.002-06:00

As the GOP hold legislative bill after legislative bill hostage, effectively shutting down anything the Democrats can do, it is important to realize what they are creating for you and me. One such important area is in tax cuts where the GOP will be holding our tax rates hostage in order to give the richest Americans their tax cuts, and they are willing to screw the rest of us in order to get it for them.

Now, I don't totally blame the GOP. After all, if my major cash donor was going to take a tax hike, I guess I would stand up for them too. I just wonder what the rest of Republicans are thinking.

One such program is the Making Work Pay tax cut in the Stimulus Bill that is set to expire. It is the tax cut most Americans got from the Obama Administration to give Americans $400 for single people and $800 for married couples. However, the GOP is holding it hostage as well as many other tax benefits that Middle Class Americans normally get.

Half the problem is the amount of lies and disinformation that is out there. Politifact has gone through and done a lot of myth debunking on both sides... take a look and send letters to your congresspeople to deal with the realities of the tax cut debate instead of the myths.

Tom DeLay: The Latest GOP Criminal, The Next GOP Super Hero?

2010-11-27T01:13:00.002-06:00

Former GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay couldn't avoid justice for committing money laundering under Texas law. There can be no liberal bias claims in this one. There can be no liberal witch hunt in this claim.

Yet, there is no doubt he will join other conservative felons in finding a high paying job for his actions. The conservative code of loyalty for "taking a bullet" for the party runs so strong that it is the major exception in their views on the Rule of Law. Loyalty over ideology.

I doubt that conservatives or liberals really think through what they are voting for, other than a party they believe represents their views more closely than the other. I doubt that conservatives ever really figure out that the people they vote for run on a platform based on the idea that government is corrupt and fails, then they elect them, only to find out their policies failed or were corrupt.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Instead of realizing they are electing corrupt failures, they simply cite it as proof that government is horrible, and keep electing the same type of people, only to wonder if the problem can ever be solved.

Then again, as a society, we eat tons of fast food, find out it is killing us slowly through obesity, so we get upset and buy another extra large Big Mac Value Meal.

The problems in society aren't structural. They are us.

Drug Arrests Prove Border Fence was Waste of Money

2010-11-27T00:53:00.002-06:00

A recent drug arrest indicates one more reason why a "border fence" was such a joke: Tunnels. The recent tunnels found were a half mile long, as deep as seventy feet below the surface, with light rail to move drugs through.

While the drug debate is another question, I have to admit when I first read the article, the first thing that came to mind was just how meaningless "The Wall" idea was to stop immigration.

Since the beginning of "The Wall" being put in place, I have seen video of people simply walking around it in three feet of water and numerous stories of people tunneling under it, showing how a billion dollar project can be simply a waste of time.

I remember talking about how a "Wall" would simply leave people wanting to illegally immigrate to find other ways of getting here. They said I was overreacting, the wall would work. Apparently, I wasn't.

Until there is more incentive to stay in Mexico than there is to migrate here, no wall, no Coast Guard, no "virtual fence" will keep illegals out. It is really that simple. To prove the point, just look to Canada. With an even more open border, we don't really have a huge Canadian illegal immigration problem do we?

The Left Must Stop "Feeling" and Start Thinking

2010-11-27T00:45:00.002-06:00

Someone sent me a link for Alternet today, and while I had seen people post stories from there, I really never read many of their articles. I had a feeling it was a left leaning website, but had some interesting views, but I just never went there... until today that is.

I caught some interesting articles, and some had good points, but one common theme I seemed to find was the notion that the "rich" are "heartless" and corporations lack "compassion" and so on. The constant playing on "feelings" sounds whiny and pathetic honestly.

If your answer is don't cut Social Security because it is heartless... then cut it. If your answer is don't cut Medicare because it isn't compassionate... then cut it. If your answer is don't cut Unemployment Benefits because it is mean... then cut them.

You just have to do better than that. Those may be some of the worst arguments ever. Society can't make good policy decisions based on not being heartless anymore than based on Biblical reasons. Public policy just demands more thought on our part.

Social Security is a good idea not because it shows our heart, but because of a few reasons. First, it is a safety net for those who take risks and encourages risk takers to start new small businesses because they know that even if they fail, they will not be homeless. And those small businesses drive the economy. Second, it is good for business because no one runs a good business with homeless old people begging in front of their businesses. Third, it is good for government and taxes because it means old people don't get arrested for vagrancy and loitering costing taxpayers in jail time. Fourth, it is good for the economy because it doesn't drain consumers paying for their parents, so they can drive the economy in other ways.

Sure, it also has a heart, but that just isn't a good public policy reason for any policy. We need better policies. We need more thought in Washington and less emotionalism. Both sides would be better to learn that.

What Does Ahmed Ghailani's Conviction on 1 of 285 Charges Mean?

2010-11-19T11:53:00.003-06:00

The case of Ahmed Ghailani's conviction on a charge of conspiracy to commit terrorism, but acquittal on 284 other charges has created a stir about President Obama's trial of Gitmo detainees in civilian court.

Some Republicans have indicated it is evidence that President Obama made the wrong decision about trying these criminals in civilian instead of military courts. They imply that Ghailani would have been convicted of more charges in a military court.

However, this does create some questions that we need to address as a society:

Do we determine the validity of a court system based on the outcome we want or the process that protects people? Remember, our court system was put in place because our founding fathers believed it was important because in a free society, people had to have the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof should be on the government. They wanted to make sure government did not have too much power to wrongfully imprison people for political outcomes. Were they talking about exactly this type of situation, where it is politically popular for convictions even if someone may be wrongfully charged?

What makes anyone thing military courts would convict at a higher rate than civilian courts? Sure, civilian courts have more rights than military courts, but in a post 9/11 world, does anyone really believe there is a civilian bias to free people charged of terrorists? The case was tried in New York City. Can anyone reasonably believe that New Yorkers have a desire to acquit terrorists? That claim is a bit outside the scope of rational thought, in this writer's opinion.

At some point, people need to move beyond emotionalism and a complete lack of rational thought, and stop buying into mindless talking points, and think about what is being said by talking heads. This may be one of those cases.

Is California on the Verge of Leading the World in Energy Innovation?

2010-11-19T11:39:00.003-06:00

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger makes the case that California is leading the way in Green Innovation and Technology. Given that energy problems showed themselves most in California years ago when they had blackout problems due to energy company collusion, it isn't surprising they would rebel and seek to control their energy future.

Many remember the blackouts of California, but few remember the court decision that determined Texas energy companies colluded to create the power shortages. Power companies have been trying to lobby and campaign against alternative energies to stay in power, even promoting myths and unsubstantiated claims to undermine alternatives or scientific evidence. Many have bought into it, but some still remain as staunch advocates for controlling our energy future in sustainable ways.

While the energy revolution going on doesn't take away power from energy companies, it does shift to more sustainable means of powering, and creates new jobs, new technologies, that will be the foundation of a global economy at some point. Some places have required shifts to microgeneration of power on all new homes which will empower people to not pay massive energy companies for power, but not enough at this point.

We will be watching Governor to see if your energy revolution continues and what impact it has globally. However, it certainly has the potential to put California on the cutting edge of global energy technology, which could turn California around yet again to lead America and the world's economy. We will be watching.

Unemployment Benefits or Tax Cuts for the Rich: What does our choice say about us?

2010-11-19T11:15:00.003-06:00

Congress is facing a decision about unemployment benefits and tax cuts which may reveal the changing priorities in America.

There is no doubt that unemployment benefits should not last forever. However, the question really is about how to address a large economic downturn that hasn't fully recovered. When almost 10% of Americans are unemployed, and even more are unemployed but outside the system's definition of unemployed, cutting things that prevent consumers from spending is generally a bad thing. Consumer spending drives our economy, so cutting it would hurt businesses, the jobs of other people, and the people who receive the cuts.

The budget deficit does need to be dealt with though. So the things we keep and the things we cut say volumes about us. The tax cuts being fought over are for those making over $250,000 a year currently. Certainly, not in economic trouble. And the debate is over about a 3% increase on the top margin of their taxes, not their entire taxes.

So the question is: Do we prioritize the richest among us or those who need our help the most in an economic downturn?

And what does it say about us when we make this choice?

How will GOP Freshman Deal with First Debt Ceiling Vote in a few Months?

2010-11-19T10:54:00.003-06:00

With an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars and an economy still very fragile, not growing jobs, and with major concerns of a double dip; the debt ceiling is facing Congress in the next few months leaving freshman on the right in a difficult position: Do you vote to allow the debt to grow to keep government running while you campaigned against raising the debt ceiling OR do you vote against the debt ceiling raise and shut down government, kill vital services for people, and risk destroying the US economy almost overnight?

No one argues that the deficit needs to be addressed, however, how that is to be done is another question. Everyone likes the talk of shared sacrifice or cutting the budget or raising taxes depending on their views. However, they never seem to want it to be their taxes raised or their projects cut.

Additionally, while the deficit needs to be managed, to shut down government and refuse to allow any further spending so sharply could have several negative consequences, including crashing the economy very quickly as people suddenly and dramatically lose benefits and services.

To cut over a trillion dollars from government spending overnight would absolutely crush the economy too.

At some point, ideologues need to start dealing with reality. The question that concerns us should be: will we have to suffer from their naivity?

Obama in India: Day One-$10 billion in New American Business and Laying the Groundwork for the Future

2010-11-06T23:50:00.003-05:00

President Obama's trip to India has resulted in $10 billion in deals for American businesses on Day 1. It turns out that President Obama has taken an unusual approach by bringing hundreds of American corporate officers with him to India to work on finding business opportunities for American exports to India, and American projects in India. While highly unusual, the approach of creating links between American businesses with foreign businesses and governments to create jobs in America may be one more notch in the Obama belt.

Demographically speaking, the largest generations of the American population are either preparing to retire, or are in school preparing to enter the economy. That means the bulk of American consumers are not in the prime of their spending on consumer products to grow the economy. To speed up the growth of the American economy, exports will be a key area. That is why continuing to develop alternate energy technologies is so important.

India has a massive population, but it also has significant goals for development. Both India and China have needs for energy in their most rural areas, but oil and gas will not meet those needs. There simply is not enough of it in the world, and adding so much demand for it will only increase the prices which are probably already too high for provincial people in the two countries. That means, they need alternative energies to develop.

India already has some projects whereby their students go to universities to learn how to build some technologies, and they are making them, and selling them in the provinces. The result is villages with reliable nighttime power for the first time. That means the child in the village no longer has to make a choice between working on the family farm to survive or doing homework for school. With light at night, the child can do both. It is creating new opportunities for Indians.

It is also creating opportunities for American companies who seek to meet the emerging needs of the Indian and Chinese consumers. Their workers are largely low skilled in the factories America outsources to. That means higher technology products and developmental products are industries that America has and can export to help India and China. It is a win-win situation.

These types of deals will increase production here, which also means increases in productivity and decreases in prices, and that benefits the American consumer. We will be able to purchase these goods at lower prices; and more importantly, alternative energies that are focused on microgeneration empower Americans to both live free of energy corporations, but also to minimize their monthly bills which allows them to spend in other areas.

Day One has been a big success for President Obama's trip. It is not enough to say all of our problems are solved, but it is a good start. Initial reports are that Day One will create about 50,000 jobs in America. Given some of the comments made on Day One, it may well lay the groundwork for far more jobs and far more business than we know at this point. It is good to see someone laying the groundwork for the future.

Texas Conservatives Ready to Turn Away Medicaid: Leave Intellectually Disabled and Children Without Care

2010-11-06T14:42:00.003-05:00

In the wake of the election this week, Texas lawmakers that ignored the $25 billion budget shortfall during the election discussion, have now decided that to address that shortfall, they may elect to eliminate Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIPS).

The focus of Medicaid is for the poorest among us, but it also includes people with intellectual disabilities as well as other disabilities. In other words, the Texas Legislature, run by conservatives, wants to put the mentally retarded people out on the streets, without any funding to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.

Keep in mind, those that can take care of themselves, probably are not receiving Medicaid funds in Texas Supported Living Centers. The thousands and thousands of individuals who live in those centers, some of which have severe physical handicaps to go with the mental disabilities, would be put out in the streets to fend for themselves if they have no families (and many of them don't).

Keep in mind, many of them are in facilities because their families have either died, could not take care of them, or could not afford to take care of them. Their care is very expensive, but does that mean we should take our ideological conflicts out on them? Did they really have a choice? Or are these legislatures saying they don't deserve to live if they can't get a job to pay for themselves.

What are they going to do when some of them are put on the street, but are fed through tubes? Let them starve? Or let them die as they aspirate food into their lungs and die of pneumonia?

What are they going to do when some of them are put on the street, but are bed ridden and cannot walk? Leave them on the side of the road until someone runs over them or they die?

What about the children? Are we going to put the children in the middle of our ideological conflicts, leaving children to get sick and die if they can't find a job to make up for what their parents cannot afford?

At some point, Texas conservatives need to realize that while they are waging an "ideological culture war," they are also screwing Texans.

At some point, Texans need to start realizing what is going on instead of simply doing the same ole thing over and over, and still ranking last in the nation in education, and first in minimum wage jobs, and first in food stamps.

It is one thing to take it out on the intellectually competent poor, they chose to vote you into office. It is quite another to take it out on the intellectually disabled who don't vote, the children who can't vote, and both who are defenseless and innocent victims on your chosen battlefield.

I guess they will just call it collateral damage and ignore them. I don't know about you, but I can't ignore them. They deserve better. We owe it to them.

The Suspension of Olbermann Exposes MSNBC

2010-11-06T00:58:00.002-05:00

Keith Olbermann donates $2400 to 3 candidates, and has been suspended indefinitely. Sean Hannity has given thousands to Republican candidates, but nothing. MSNBC says it is a sign that Fox is a political organization and MSNBC is a news organization that has higher standards.

It could just be me, but it seems as though MSNBC doesn't want to admit the same thing Fox fails to admit: Both are focused on political. To say that Olbermann is a "journalist" is a bit of a stretch. He is a pundit, an advocate, a critic from the left who openly goes after the right. To proclaim the suspension based on them being a "news organization" is to admit the deception, implicitly, that MSNBC is playing the same game as Fox, only from the other side.

If they had the integrity, they could have easily said "Olbermann is clearly an advocate with his show, and as such, is not bound by the policy of ethics our journalists have" and they would have actually saved the credibility of their journalists... but they chose not to.

MSNBC, in its prime time show selection, has shown the world it wants to be the left wing Fox. Olbermann is simply the antithesis of Hannity or O'Reilly on Fox. Sure, you can argue credibility issues to differentiate them, but they are each pundits or advocates for their parties. Let's not lie to ourselves and proclaim that Olbermann, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc., are objective journalists. They are pundits, advocates, and spending money for their cause probably increases their credibility with their audience, not decreased their credibility like it might with a journalist.

Prison Business in AZ drives anti-immigrant laws; Civil Campaign in CT; Mail from Yemen; Rally to Restore Sanity; and GDP Report Delivers Message

2010-10-29T23:40:00.004-05:00

Thoughts for October 30, 2010:

* The GOP Model continues: Big Business pays GOP lawmakers in Arizona to get the immigration law that was so highly protested in private and write the legislation for the people they buy to pass it. Then they fan the flames of emotion on issues, pushing hot buttons without regard for actual policy facts, and the result is big prison business living off of govt subsidies to make massive profits: The GOP version of Socialism.

* I wish this was the way politics was done: Two candidates, being civil, engaging in open discussion continually through a campaign, without negative attack ads, focused on helping their state to be better. The ability to have an honest discussion without worrying about negative ads, political gotchas, and pasts from 20 years ago is a campaign near extinction, sadly.

I wish it would catch on. But there is too much money on the line, too many people buy into these tactics, and quite frankly, it doesn't pull in audiences in a 24/7 news cycles. It isn't sexy, but it is how things ought to be. Too bad the odds of it becoming common are about the same as Rush Limbaugh campaigning for Barack Obama in 2012. Just ain't gonna happen.

* Today's major event has to be the US bound packages from Yemen, some containing bomb materials, that were intercepted. There are numerous debates that will abound, and many of them will be emotional but completely lacking any thoughtfulness.

I think people don't understand just how lucky we are. Al Qaeda isn't seeking to kill Americans, but rather to break America and its global credibility. It isn't to cause chaos. It isn't to kill millions of Americans. It is to expose America as a global hypocrite, a dominater not a liberator.

God protect us the day they realize they want to kill Americans and realize how easy it really is. The amount of chaos, disruption, and death that a few people acting independently and simply is something most Americans don't realize. It doesn't take a nuke. It doesn't take anthrax. All it takes is a few people dedicated with enough creativity to see the easy and the obvious.

America needs to live up to its values and stop just talking about them to turn away this threat. Until it does, we will continue to be in danger.

* Who's going to Rally to Restore Sanity? Apparently, there is a broad range of people, ages, and reasons for going. Don't forget, there are a ton of events going on around the nation in numbers that are incredibly impressive for those who can't get to DC.

While Stewart's message is the same as it was when he addressed CNN's Crossfire crew years ago; I am sure he hopes it will have more impact today than it had then.

Our focus on the clash, the conflict, that creates negative ads that seemingly are increasingly jumping the shark in campaigns appears to have eliminated the ability to have civil discourse in all but one race in Connecticut. Will people get the point or jump on their own reason for going ignoring Stewart's reasons? Only time will tell.

* The GDP Report brought a mixed bag: The GDP grew 2 percent in the third quarter. However, it was lower than it could have been because most of the purchases were imports instead of domestic products. There are signs of consumer and business confidence improving, but it takes time for that to create jobs, and it takes time for it to build upon itself.

The question for many Americans is how long will it take to create jobs? The answer needs to be that they should start utilizing the best business environment around, where starting your own business in this internet era is easier than ever before. Don't wait for a job, start a small business. And if you have a job, you should start one too.

The sad reality is given how the election appears to be lining up, the economy will not receive any additional stimulus, but will probably see a decline in government stimulus efforts. That means any gains will have to come in spite of conservative efforts to dampen the economy by cutting spending in areas like unemployment, food stamps, welfare, social security, and medicare.

Reading the Stock Market. Obama the Anti-Colonialist or not so much? Cutting Defense? Implications of Rove's New Power . New Financial Tools.

2010-10-14T01:57:00.005-05:00

Thoughts for Thursday, October 14, 2010:

* It is interesting to see how people try to figure out economics based on the stock market without understanding it. Since 2003, the market has been driven by dividends, which doesn't mean economic growth necessarily at all, and can be a negative sign of expansion.

And if you are heavily invested in the market, you may want to move your money before 2013. We may well be looking at a significant market crash/collapse around 2013. Why would it do that? Think about what happens when the largest generation and the first generation so broadly invested in the stock market starts to retire and pull their money out of their 401k to retire on, most of which is in the... wait for it... stock market. Put your 401k into another retirement fund that is not market reliant before then. The flip side: Great market pricing opportunities around 2015.

* One of the most embarrassing CSM pieces ever spouts that President Obama is an ideological copy of his father (by implication a communist, and many other things) meaning he is "anti-colonialist." It is poor argument because it creates a poor argument with weak internal linkages. Why do people write garbage like this? The answer is simple, some people aren't taught to critically evaluate it better than this.

Look at Obama's policy actions: Focus on privatizing local space, shift NASA's mi...ssion to Mars and planetary missions (which are expensive), which means spreading the costs among nations so the American taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill for everything (fiscal responsibility), and use that opportunity to improve relations with Muslims for national security reasons... seems more pragmatic than anti-colonialist. There is still the colonizing of space through planets, and privatizing the colonization of local space and the moon. Hard to call that decolonizing.

Then again, some will believe anything the RW spouts without thought.

* Ron Paul and Democrats call for cutting Defense Spending to balance the budget. Defense spending is out of control, that is true. And to say cut defense to a reasonable number makes sense. But there are two problems with it:

In the generic sense to say cut something is one thing, but when you get down to the specific cuts, support shifts dramatically. That makes all cuts hard.

The black budget is so woven throughout the whole budget, not just the DoD budget, that defense spending cannot be reigned in honestly until we start to expose the black budget. Some estimates have the black budget ranging as high as almost $1 trillion in the budget. That is probably too high, but the hundreds of billions may well be true.

So what can you do? Take the anti-American hits for trying to balance the budget or fail to heed Eisenhower's warning and go broke?

* Karl Rove seem to have more power outside the White House than inside it with his raising of $56 million to spend on campaigns nationwide. Outside groups aren't a problem... ugh... dating back to the Swiftboat group in 2004 and before, outside group influence has shifted the balance of power from individuals to the corporate cash cows (Thanks SCOTUS with Citizen's United for a bad decision).

It wouldn't surprise me to start to see corporate wars fighting for government contracts in the future through the election of political parties, all done through fundraising by outside groups who can function largely outside the campaign finance rules that parties and candidates must endure, but are closely enough linked to almost seem in lock step.

Is it a better world? Imagine the founders and their reactions.

* Here are some interesting ideas emerging in money management and social networking. Take a look, and share your thoughts. I am still thinking threw some of the implications of them, but here is your chance... what do you think?

Gays and Gay marriage, Unemployment and Trickledown Economics, and Progressives as a Social Movement

2010-10-07T17:49:00.003-05:00

Today's thoughts for October 7, 2010:

* For the first time in 15 years, less than 50% of the nation opposes gay marriage. There are still more people that oppose gay marriage than support it, but it is significant progress for gay marriage advocates.

The question has to be about the strange supporters and opposition to gay marriage. The "anti-government" party that claims to want liberty, freedom, and choice for all Americans wants the government to outlaw gay marriage, a free choice for individuals to make; whereas, the "pro-government" party wants the government to allow people to be free to have more choices about who they may marry. Is it a role reversal issue? How ironic.

* Jobless filings fell below 450,000 this week, which is the lowest we have seen in about three months. It shows signs of progress, but is still high for a "recovery" period. Clearly, there is reason for concern about having so many jobless claims and prolonged unemployment above 9%. President Obama has taken heat for his claim that we needed the stimulus plan to keep us below 8% unemployment, showing America he is a politician, not an economist.

One major reason is the focus on trickle down economics that has largely been accepted in the last 30 years, largely as a misunderstood theory. The way it is commonly understood is that if we give money to rich people, they will spend and invest it, creating jobs for all. That is a big mistake as we are finding out. Currently, US companies are sitting on a ton of cash and not spending it. They claim many reasons, but the primary one is that American consumers aren't spending like before, and thus, they won't get a solid return on their investment.

Reagan had the right point, but it was spun out of control. If we give people incentive to invest, incentive to take risk, incentive to start their own business, and the freedom to do it, they will create new businesses, new industries, and new jobs for everyone. The problem became when it shifted to giving the rich everything, and praying they would invest it to create jobs for everyone. Currently, they have the money, but aren't investing it in jobs.

To create new jobs, we need to shift from major corporation lovefests, to incentives and leveling of the playing field for new small business owners and innovators. We need to insure things like Net Neutrality which give benefits to small business owners; we need to level the playing field between corporations and small businesses which has been skewed to corporations for too long; we need to remind people that they have skills and should take the risks to start their own businesses instead of just job hunting; and we need to restore the tax incentive structure to help corporations re-invest their money to avoid a balanced capital gains and dividends tax.

* Periodically, friends and family find links to articles and send them to me for my thoughts. Nate Silver's column in 2009 recently became one of those articles. Nate argued about a distinction between types of progressives, differentiating between "Radical Progressives" and "Rational Progressives."

While semi-interesting in its application, it became pretty obvious it was little more than the basic application of social movement theories. If you simply re-frame it in terms of any movement, where "zealots" or "core" members of the movement start it, and to grow the movement, they must appeal to more moderate people which create two "factions" of a movement, it becomes the exact same thing.

That is, in general, how a movement works. A small group of people get upset or energized over a cause. They have a view that is specific, but they need support. Others see the problem that energized the group, and join in. They may not share the exact vision, but they support ending the problem in a similar way. The movement needs to get more people to achieve its goals or it will remain small and eventually die as an ineffective movement. Thus, it often moderates its message to get more followers.

As the movement gets more followers, two paradoxical things happen: First, the movement gets larger and stronger. Second, the core group often loses influence since the followers are more moderated. The result is they get upset when the movement doesn't go after or achieve the more "radical" views of the original group, but instead the more moderate views are adopted.

In many ways, it is an incremental approach for change in society that utilizes the zealots as leverage in a societal "negotiation" for change.

It was nice to see someone apply basic social movement theory to a situation properly, but it wasn't some revolutionary piece of work. It wouldn't surprise me if some student in a social movements class in the last three years hadn't already done something similar. They just didn't publish it on their blog.

* I try to avoid Sarah Palin commentary because it is just too easy to take a shot at. However, Sarah recently said she "chose" not to be gay. This leads to a couple thoughts:

First, I highly doubt Sarah thought about it at all before her first attraction to a male. I know that I haven't found anyone tell me they actually thought about their first attraction's gender prior to being attracted to them. Maybe someone on the internet will stand up and shout, "I was 5 and I actually had a thoughtful discussion with myself about whether or not I should like Johnny or Jane in Kindergarten. Anyone? Bueller?

Second, I think the question of whether or not we choose to be gay or straight may be one of the biggest wastes of political time we face. I find it ironic that those who shout the loudest for "liberty" actually care about people exercising that liberty between two consenting adults in their own bedrooms. Whether someone chose to be gay or was gay by nature is irrelevant. They are two or more consenting adults, why should they have to justify those actions to the state, their neighbors, or anyone else if they keep the sexual behavior in their homes and bedrooms?

Oh, and who cares if they kiss in public? If you don't like it, don't watch! You can turn your head the other way when I kiss my wife too, but I am still going to kiss her in public and private. Anything beyond that, you don't get to see. If you see it, you went looking for it, and they aren't to blame.

It could be me, but the gay vs straight debate may be the most idiotic issues of the day. If you want to be gay or straight, go for it. If you want to enter into the contract of marriage, go for it. If a church wants to marry you, go for it. If an employer finds a benefit in giving you and your partner (gay or straight) access to benefits, go for it. After all, it is supposed to be a free country, right?

Stewart And Colbert: What's the Point?

2010-10-04T23:17:00.003-05:00

Source after source continues to try to figure out what to make of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. While it doesn't seem that difficult, it appears that Republicans didn't get Colbert before they asked him to speak at a White House affair only to be shocked that he was not one of their own. Today, the Christian Science Monitor asks if they are walking on dangerous ground and getting serious with their events in Washington DC this month.

It seems that people don't seem to understand the role of comedy in society. Comedy is a mirror that shows us ourselves. It tries to get us to see something that we might otherwise ignore, or that is too serious a topic for us to see in another light. It seeks to show us something about ourselves in a different, often a deconstructionist light.

To ask if Stewart is getting serious is to ignore his past. It seems as if they forget when Stewart went on Crossfire and asked the pundits to "stop," as he explained just how they were "hurting us." Stewart has been making a serious point for quite some time as a media critic through the lens of comedy. He has done it well enough that many young people actually get their information from Comedy Central instead of news organizations.

What people forget is that in this day of 24 hour media, where networks don't use news as a loss leader or a public service, but as a profitable vehicle; the news gets presented in a way to attract viewers, not to serve the public. And that isn't evil, but it is a reality that far too few realize. And when you don't realize what's going on with the media, it is too easy to get duped. And that is where Colbert fits in, as he shows just how bad this propaganda machine can go.

Don't get me wrong. Stewart is correct. It isn't the left or the right. It is the media machine that tries to define the "news" as a debate of two ideologies instead of some attempt to find an objective truth (note: this does not mean objective in an unbiased sense, but rather objective in the attempt to discover and report the information discovered with as little "spin" as possible.). It is the media machine that focuses on the clash, not the public service, not the "truthiness" of the information, not the importance of the subject.

Fox is the right wing media machine, MSNBC has decided to move to the left, and CNN has long focused on the drama regardless of truth or implication. None of them care about what matters to society or the people involved other than that those people should create the type of story they want for their viewers because they believe those are what attracts their viewers. And more viewers means more ad sales and more profits, while suiting their purposes.

Stewart is a critic, but he is also an artist. Artists tend not to focus on their wallets as much as the significance of their views of society, and how it ought to function. Thus, explaining Stewart's comments on Crossfire where he begs with the pundits to help the people instead of the corporations and politicians.

Whether Stewart's interpretation is correct or not, he clearly has indicated that he feels a responsibility to fight "for the people" against the politicians and the corporations in that appearance. He views himself as one who can see through the things others can't see through, as well as being able to present it to the people in a way that makes the problems apparent to them.

The primary question isn't about whether or not Stewart and Colbert take themselves seriously, or are trying to be serious with a point; all comedians have a serious point.

The primary question is: will their audience get the point, act on the point, create the right changes, and create those changes in time to have the desired impact before it is too late.

The focus isn't right versus left. The focus is on the process: How can the people make informed and intelligent decisions in the democratic process if they are never given the relevant information about the people and the issues they are voting on?

Stewart and Colbert seek to show the people the smoke screen, not to decide the policies. And that is their role as critics.

Will The Tea Party Splinter; Are Americans Battling Depression; and How Important is Pre-Natal Life?

2010-10-03T20:14:00.004-05:00

Sunday Review:

* Republican Senator John Thune spoke about the possibility of the Tea Party splintering off of the GOP on Sunday. That isn't a very good sign for the GOP considering the Tea Party is simply the invigoration of a group of Republicans that show up periodically throughout US history. It sets up the possibility of what has happened in Kansas, where the differences in the GOP split the party so badly that a Democrat was elected Governor twice, while being in a party that was dramatically smaller than the other.

Given the disjointed nature of the Tea Party platform, such a split may well be coming regardless of what the GOP does. The party itself is a paradox in its interest groups and their values. It can only be a matter of time before such a split happens.

* Who would have thought that one in ten Americans is battling depression? I have to admit, I didn't expect the number to be that high, but I also realize a lot of depression goes undiagnosed. One has to wonder what the cause of the depression rates might be. It is plausible that the economy and unemployment rate has a lot to do with it, since they are at comparable levels.

There could be various other causes too, from the stress of the political election season, to the decline of real wages, to marital problems, and more. It may point to a niche market exploding for motivational speakers and life coaches though.

* The debate of how we grow up has largely focused on the nature versus nurture debate, but new research is indicating that the pre-natal period may be just as important. Research is finding that the cycle of poverty may start before birth for many people, as well as that sweet tooth you may have. The research is still in its infancy, but if you are considering having a child, as my wife and I are, pre-natal health may be just as important as everything you do after birth.

Things to work on include managing stress, avoiding toxins, and having a healthy diet. There are many things that are important, and using the internet and the information available today to find out what one should do before having a baby is a parental responsibility. We owe it to our children just as much as health care or a college education.

Moving Beyond Political Blame: Honest Viewing of The Debt

2010-10-03T11:44:00.004-05:00

Candy Crowley's State of the Union interviewed Republican Ed Gillespie where he indicated that President Obama had significantly raised the deficit far worse than President Bush. This is not a new claim, but one that the Right has perpetuated on talk radio, on social media, on blogs, on Fox, and so on. Even Politifact can't seem to get it right, as they evaluated a Dick Durbin statement in June:

For those keeping track, the debt estimate for the end of 2010 -- two years into Obama's term -- is $13.787 trillion. That's a 38 percent increase over two years. Looked at another way, the debt under Bush went up $4.357 trillion over eight years, while it has gone up under Obama by $3.801 trillion in two years.

However, they seem to have changed their evaluation in August, when evaluating a Chip Rogers claim:

Third is that it's not fair to blame Obama for budgets that he didn't control, Riedl said. The 2009 budget went into effect Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before Obama took office.
...
By Riedl's reckoning, for 2009, you can hold Obama responsible for discretionary spending he signed off on after he took office, plus the $220 billion of the stimulus package spent that year. You can also pin the debt for fiscal year 2010 on him as well.

This comes to about $2.1 trillion,...

The easiest way to explain this is as follows:

The federal budget does not start in January. It starts on October 1. That means the budget ends on September 30.

When a President takes office, he has eight months to work with Congress to get a budget passed. When President Obama took office, the spending going on was from President Bush's budget. On October 1, 2009, President Obama's first budget took effect. Given that the budget was passed in 2008, it is impossible to blame President Obama for the budget ending in 2009.

In fairness, sometimes, emergency spending measures are passed that impact the immediate budget. In 2009, the Stimulus Bill had some tax measures that did affect the 2009 budget, estimated to cost about $220 billion. However, most of the stimulus bill took effect in 2010.

To assign credit/blame, let's look at the budget numbers.

When President Bush's first budget was passed in 2001, the debt was: $5,807,463,412,200.06.

When President Bush's last budget ended, the debt in 2009 was: $11,909,829,003,511.75.

About $220 billion of the 2009 deficit belonged to President Obama, so to be fair, we will take it out to make the number $11,689,829,003,511.75.

We are not counting the 2001 tax cuts that took effect in 2001 and applied to the Clinton budget because we don't have a good value for that. So President Bush gets a favorable accounting for his debt evaluation.

Thus, President Bush's credit/blame for the debt over 8 years is valued at $5,882,365,591,311.69 or an increase of 101.28% over what he inherited.

It is time that we move past the ignorance of "on my watch" blaming and credit for actions when many of the actions were put in place prior to someone taking office, or happened with no relation to the person in office.

Until we get a better understanding of our world, we will continue to credit and blame politicians for things totally unrelated to them. We will also continue to insist that government is responsible for the consequences in our world, even when they had nothing to do with it or should have nothing to do with it. We need to look at what is really going on, seek to understand it realistically not ideologically, and move towards individual action first.

In some cases, political action needs to happen. But too often, we get so caught up in assigning blame, we don't even seek to find out why something really happened. The recession didn't happen because of political actions of the GOP or the DNC, but because of basic demographics. Yet, both sought blame very quickly. We must move past that.