Pragmatic Pundit

America Sucks

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:04:00 +0000

I'll start this piece by saying that I'm an American, I live here, and I do love and support my country. I'd love to see us return to a country that can lead the world again, with our innovation, strength and intelligence.

However, right now, we suck. I keep hearing people talk about "American Exceptionalism", as if it's a given, and if you don't support the idea, that you are somehow anti-American. Well I'm absolutely PRO-American, and I'm also claiming that, right now, we are in no POSITIVE way, exceptional.

I'd love for someone to explain to me what exactly we are exceptional at. I can list off the things that we are extremely ORDINARY at, and a few things we are exceptionally BAD at.

Creating jobs--we stink. Asia's pulling out of recession. Brazil's survived, and is on the way up. We have more unemployment than the Europeans we had taken to making fun of for their high unemployment rates. And the jobs we create don't support a bustling economy that can grow and create further jobs.
Fiscal policy--we're not just bad, we're brutal, bordering on Mexico and Zimbabwe-bad. Deficits out for decades. Manufacturing leaving in droves. No small business plans to stimulate real, competitive production in the US. Even our labor jobs are going to cheaper immigrants, legal and illegal. Our tax policy is misguided, our trade agreements are one-sided, our ability to pay off our debt is non-existent, and our day of reckoning with the US dollar, and our obligations to sovereign nations is practically upon us. Won't it be a real hoot when we're all scrambling to accumulate Mexican Pesos and Argentine dollars for their strength and stability?
Education--"We're number 30! We're number 30!" Glad to see we have our priorities in order.
Health Care--again, we spend twice what every other first world country does, and get half the care. We can't cover 1 out of 6 people. We're going broke, in both the public and private care spaces. I appreciate the Republican's putting out their health care plan, so I can finally dispel the claim that it's all the fault of litigation. Their efforts to curb such "frivolous lawsuits" would save us $41 Billion over the next 10 years (or about $4B a year), ignoring the unfunded liability of tens of TRILLIONS. Spare me the crap about our system being the best in the world. It isn't. Period. We may have had the best doctors 10 years ago, but to think we have the best here, now, is at best a tenuous argument. I don't have any imperical evidence to say we're the best, but plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that we are in many ways, LESS able to care for even the sickest patients than other countries. Anyone going through an illness (serious or not) in the past 5-6 years can tell you that the system just doesn't work. It's funny how I only hear us in America saying that these other health care systems are broken. I don't hear the French or the British, or the Germans saying that...
Innovation--What happened to us? All the best stuff is made overseas. All the best American invented stuff is made overseas. What happened to all the green jobs? Stuff's all made in Germany and China. What happened to high-speed rail? We got a $5/week tax cut instead (which got eaten up by my $10/week increase in health care premium increases...). What about scientific breakthroughs? A more fuel-efficient car? "Smart Grids"? Do we know how to do ANYTHING in America anymore?
Defense/Military--Actually, we do ONE thing better than everyone else. We have the best soldiers, and the best bombs. So we can scare the crap out of everyone. That being said, all the bombs in the world can't convince Afghanistan or Iraq to like us or respect us. Just ask Mikhael Gorbachev about Afghanistan. The best line I ever heard about the Afghan-Soviet war was the Soviet General who said that "we bombed Afghanistan UP TO the stone age", and still couldn't win. I'm all for just wars, but there are reasons the French, Germans, and Russians don't like to fight in wars. They've all had their Afghanistans in the last 80 years (French--Algeria, Germans--WWII, Russians--well, Afghanistan). They learned their lessons. We had Vietnam, but it seems that we didn't learn OUR lesson. Because, hey, we're exceptional, and those other countries can't achieve what we can. We can change the will of soverign nations through force, right? Because I can't point to a single instance of such an endeavour working throughout history...

I'm not writing this because I'm happy about all this. I think my favorite Football team, the Washington Redskins, suck too. I complain bitterly about them, their personnel, their desire, their management, etc. But in the end, I still root for them, and support them, with the hopes that this will finally be the week that they turn it around, and return to glory.

I'm not ready to move to Luxembourg. My point, however, is that until we face up to the fact that the world has caught up to us, and is passing us by, we'll never get back to being leaders in the world. The world used to look up to us. Now they see us as fat, out of shape, past our prime, prone to irrational decisions and possibly violence. Once the world realizes they don't need our dollars anymore to survive, we'll truly have to look in the mirror, and realize that to be considered exceptional, you have to BE exceptional.

That day is upon us.

Getting Real About the US Budget

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:40:00 +0000

It's been a busy month, both personally, and in US policy. Health Care reform looks like a real possibility (although in what form still remains to be seen). Afghanistan is on the top of the President's mind. I've made my opinion clear on this (get out now). But it's time to start getting real about the elephant in the room (all references to the GOP aside). We're on the road to financial ruin. And reality is beginning to box us in.

"But Pundit..." you ask, "...weren't you FOR the Economic Stimulus? Aren't you FOR a government option for health care? Aren't you part of the problem..." All I can say to that is, "possibly..." But rather than argue this point, let's take a look at the current situation, and what can be done.

Here are the facts. And they are NOT in dispute:

Projected budget inflows for the Federal Government in 2010--$2.33 Trillion
Projected budget outflows for the Feds in 2010--$3.59 Trillion
Projected deficit--$1.26 Trillion

Pretty scary. But I do get the idea that we've needed to kick-start the economy, and stave off a depression by keeping the faith and credit in our lending institutions and the dollar. That all has contributed to the deficits, and is probably okay.

Here's the problem. We have no good options to get out of this situation. The gap cannot be wiped out through economic good times alone, as even a 10% growth in tax receipts through improved employment figures won't alone contribute to the bottom line anywhere near the amounts needed to truly close the shortfall.

And this obsession by the Republicans about cutting the pork out of the budget, or "earmarks" is just beyond laughable. It takes our attention away from the true work that needs to be done. The savings on all these crazy projects, while it makes for good PR, and buys John McCain the title of "Maverick", it doesn't really make a dent in the overall problem. So let's look at the stuff in the budget that will really "move the needle" some, shall we?

Medicare/Medicaid--$1.06 Trillion budget
Department of Defense--$742 Billion budget
Social Security--$749.1 Billion budget
Public Debt interest--$454.5 Billion budget
EVERYTHING ELSE--$580 Billion

Now, remind me what that deficit was again? Oh yeah, $1.2 Trillion a year. Don't think raising taxes is a good idea? Remember, a 10% increase in the GDP next year (which is HIGHLY unlikely, and could lead to inflationary or other fears) wouldn't get us more than a quarter of the way to solving the deficit problem. So what do we go after to cut?

Want to go after the Department of Labor? Think it's those damn liberals spending on Unions? You'll get $106 Billion in savings, but you'll also lose the $89 Billion set aside for unemployment benefits. Can't do it. People can't be thrown out in the streets. Even if you did, you'd still have $1.15 Trillion to cut, and I'll remind you of that decision if you get laid off...

How about Foreign aid? We must give a TON away to these poorer countries. Time to shut off the spigot! Well...in reality, that will save us about $12.9 Billion. We still have only $1.25 Trillion to go. It only costs us in the goodwill department. I think we've proven during the previous administration that good foreign relations aren't really that important.

Do I need to keep going?

Housing and Urban Development? Only $54.8 Billion
Education? $100 Billion
NASA? $18.4 Billion
Transportation? $90.5 Billion (half of that is fixing roads...)

All that together, and you STILL have over $800 Billion to go before balancing the budget.

Can we get serious now?

The places we need to cut, to even start to SEE fiscal responsibility are HARD.

Defense--Time for tough choices. Let's forget the geopolitical ramifications of this for a moment, and discuss the costs saved with a pull out in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan. War supplementals of $183 Billion. Now, let's look at a 10% reduction in purely Procurement, Operations and Maintenance (the cost of our defense weaponry, tanks, etc). That's only going to net us about $40B in costs. Despite what our Liberal base tells us, the costs of the Defense budget is not as full of excess, nor is it as easy to cut, as they would have you believe. Still, a 10% reduction, while SIGNIFICANT, still doesn't close the gap all the way. But let's make these two cuts for argument's sake:

Costs Saved: $223 Billion

Medicare/Medicaid--This is the behemoth! How do you save dollars here? Do we let the government negotiate prescription drug rates? Do we tackle fraud, waste and abuse? Can we really save $80 Billion a year that way? I would suggest that if we cannot, we must at least cap the rate of increase for the premiums paid to the doctors at the rate of inflation. It's going to suck royally for doctors, but the only way this truly works is if we move to a single payer, or public option, because the doctors are going to pass the cuts along to the taxpayers, in the form of higher charges on private insurers. But that's a different discussion, different day. Somehow, we need to get these capped, and find an additional $150 Billion in savings:

Costs Saved: $180 Billion

Social Security--I don't know what you can do here, other than continue to lie about the rate of inflation, and start to creep up the initial age one can draw on the funds provided. This could yield about a $20-30 Billion savings, but in the end, may not do much better.

Costs Saved: $30 Billion

I can't find more savings without a meat cleaver, so let's take our $450 Billion in savings, and combine it with additional tax increases of $400 Billion (IF the economy comes back, and IF the Bush taxes on the top 1% are allowed to expire, and if...), and at least show that cutting the deficit to about $4-500 Billion the next two to three years is achievable. Past that, perhaps a renegotiation of the debt could yield some benefit on the interest owed, but I would see that difference as minimal.

None of my suggested changes are even politically viable anyway, so perhaps we can continue to debate things like federal funds for abortion clinics, flag pins, gay marriage, and the like, while we slowly devalue the dollar, ship our jobs and skills overseas, and end up a third world nation over the next 10 years. Because let's face it, who's going to buy the next round of debt we offer?

Personally, that idea of a carry trade with Swiss Francs or Singapore dollars, looks better every day...

To President Obama--Prove you are worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:51:00 +0000

So our President has now won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. This is amazing. I wasn't aware he was even up for the award. I keep thinking this is a joke, and I'll have to pull this post down. But this is an interesting achievement, and one that will get some play for the man from Chicago/Hawaii/Kansas/Indonesia/Kenya...well, let's just say from all over.

For starters, it really shows me how a simple move back to diplomacy, something most of our past Presidents have employed as part of their typical governing approach, could be so welcomed by the rest of the world. Simply addressing the rest of the world with an open hand, rather than a closed fist may sound simple naive, but it has already achieved much. The positive relationships with Russia, China, Europe, and even much of the Middle East have been so torn asunder by the events of the past decade (some done TO us, some done BY us), that a move back to civil discourse was the only alternative to complete polarization--which had been the path of foreign policy until this year.

In the last two election cycles, people finally realized that we were not a nation of bullies and fighters. We were a nation of listeners, and of leaders. A nation who used force when it HAD to, not when it CHOSE to. And we continue to have hope that we have a leader who understands this, and is moving to match the foreign policy agenda to the reality of the world landscape.

BUT

We shall see if that really happens. My hope is that a success in Health Care, coupled with this honor of the Nobel Peace Prize, will give the President the courage to do the right thing, and END the mission in Afghanistan. It is time.

We need to get our troops home from Afghanistan, and from Iraq. It's been far too long to spend our money and soldiers on a mission that is NOT achievable. Notice I did NOT use the cop-out language of "mission that is not defined". I think we all know why we're in Afghanistan. At least we know why we went originally. And I agreed with that decision...back then.

But we are no longer achieving the mission we set out to achieve. And we cannot achieve this mission, as long as we are seen as the occupying force in these countries--unable to ever fully root out this "evil" that our previous President kept referring to. And THAT, sadly, is not going to change, while we are still in these countries with 200,000+ forces and countless mercenaries, shooting at anyone that wears a "black hat".

We can't achieve the mission because it is unachievable. The best I can understand it is that we don't want the Taliban to rule Afghanistan because they will let al Qaeda back in, set up camps, and attack us again. So we shoot at the Taliban, and sometimes the locals, and hope that the people of this country will somehow rise up and take back their native lands, and do our bidding on our behalf--rooting out al Qaeda and the Taliban, and ultimately, Bin Laden himself (remember him!?).

Sound like a plan? Somehow we've conflated this goal into the ultimate winning or losing struggle. "If we don't win this game, we're doomed". I don't understand why we should even be playing. Our odds of achieving this aim can't be better than 1 in 5. And for that long shot, we'll waste time, money and resources (lives!) so that, in a BEST case scenario, we only have to fight our enemies in 10 OTHER places around the globe. Sorry. This dog don't hunt no more. Time to pull the plug.

Here's hoping Obama has the guts to make the right call.

About-Face on Afghanistan

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:07:00 +0000

For a long time, I've been a supporter of the efforts in Afghanistan, to support a "fledgling democracy", to root out the Taliban, and to hunt for Osama bin Laden. But I think an "about-face" is not only preferable, it's needed.

I keep watching the news reports about General Stanley McChrystal's push for a renewed "surge" of sorts, in Afghanistan. But there's no good reason to be in Afghanistan. Let's look at the reasons to stay, and the reasons to go.

Reasons to stay:

1. Fighting al-Qaeda--really? I heard the common line of "fighting them there, so we don't fight them here..." I think it's a bunch of bull. Recent arrests in Denver, and numerous bombings around the world, from London and Spain, to a resurgence of al-Qaeda in Somalia and other North African and Arabian Peninsula countries would indicate that putting all of our troops in Afghanistan doesn't really serve our interests too well on this front.

2. Fighting the Taliban--again, REALLY? This is the group that gave Osama bin Laden refuge. So did the Sudan. Heck, we could make a case to remove a number of bad guys around the world for harboring terrorists. Not only that, but we can't force a country the size of Afghanistan to root out the Taliban on its own. This is a country that lived under Taliban rule for years, had it forcibly removed, and would allow itself to be re-occupied by the same group 9 years later? Seriously? Why are we going to spend decades and trillions of dollars to stop this from happening again?

3. Getting Osama bin Laden--This is actually a good rationale for going into Afghanistan. I do think that makes sense. This guy attacked us on our soil, and around the world for years before 2001. But that doesn't seem to be the strategy in Afghanistan today. He's kind of like an ancillary benefit of the war. "Fight the bad guys in Afghanistan, and by the way, if you find Osama, kill him too..." Not exactly a rallying cry the likes of Henry the Fifth at Agincourt.

4. "Can't back down, or the Terrorists win..."--Can we just end the schoolyard theatrics already? Are we really interested in spending our money and pride so foolishly? Since when did we sink, as a nation, down to the level of such jingoistic BS? I won't allow such foolish pride to cloud my judgement on this issue. Certainly, those who would oppose a pull out in Afghanistan, but support killing any domestic spending program "for budget reasons", isn't looking at the same world stage I am.

Reasons to Leave:

1. Money--The National Priorities Project puts the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at over $900B, or $150B a year roughly, that is spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. Assuming Afghanistan is even 1/3rd of that outlay, a $50B a year, or $500B over 10 years reduction in our government spending could make up any public health care option shortfall. OR, it could certainly close the budget gap a lot quicker than John McCain's "War on Pork Barrel spending", which costs Americans a whopping...what....$8B a year? Glad to see McCain's got his priorities in order...

2. Lack of Objectives--What are we there for again? American pride? Fight the terrorists? Support the government in Afghanistan? Somebody make a case for this war (spare me the usual "you just don't get it..." BS rationales. And for Pete's sake, spare me the "...we were attacked on 9/11 because of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan". I understand having vigilance, and perhaps an off-shore presence. What I don't understand is upwards of 50,000 troops there to shoot at ghosts, and get picked off by snipers on a regular basis. Don't confuse the objectives for the rallying cry.)

3. Rebuilding of relationships with our allies and diplomacy with our adversaries--Obama has started this in earnest. Have we not already seen what shooting first has done for us? We have a lot of damage to undo. I'm glad to see that America is leading the charge in respectful dialogue around the globe once again.

I am not conflicted in this issue any more. It's time to leave Afghanistan. Cut the funding, get the soldiers home, and let's call it a success (it wasn't, and isn't much of a "war", so I'm not sure Victory is really the right word for either side).

Make way for SENATOR Obama

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:17:00 +0000

On November 4, 2008, almost 70 Million Americans cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate, Senator Barack Obama, to become the next President of the United States. Many of these people chose Obama's messages of change and put in this new President, their hopes and dreams of a better day in America.

And we got the man we wanted. The problem, however, has been this. In his attempts to "build consensus", Obama has proven to be not the Presidential leader, but rather the 101st Senator from "America". His leadership on positions and issues has not come with clear messages to his party on what he'd like to pass. Rather, he's allowed the Max Baucus's and Kent Conrads to dominate the dialogue, and has catered to Ben Nelson's every need, in order to get a watered down version of whatever legislation he was originally seeking.

And Conrad, Nelson, Bayh, and Baucus have been more than happy with the circumstances--giving them the platform and clout they seek to gain fundraising for their next campaigns, appear to be "moderates" with their majority Red-state constituencies.

The problem with the current situation, however, is that Obama has a real agenda, but he's not articulated the specifics of the deals. Recently, he "wimped out" on his movement towards normalizing relations with Cuba, continuing the current relationship status for another year. Clearly this was a backpedal on an issue that would have caused waves with certain elements of the population. Why do we keep a draconian policy in place when the benefits of such actions have far outlived their usefulness? Are we anticipating an imminent attack from Havana on our shores, and all that stands in the way is that darn trade embargo?

Spare me the lecture on Castro's role in the Cuban missile crisis, or Grenada, or even Nicaragua. Clearly isolating him hasn't stopped his influence on the Hugo Chavez's of the world, and at 80+ years old, I don't think there's an imminent plan on his horizon to take over Costa Rica, or Alabama, or whatever.

Yet Obama made the move that most SENATORS would make--consensus, and give a little to get a little. No movement on this issue means keeping it off the table, while you fight for health care.

But his moves on Health Care, and even on the Stimulus, for that matter, were bold initiatives that required someone to stand up and say "this is my position! Here's why it helps the Most Americans! etc, etc". Instead Obama put the legislation ideas forward, and then let Rahm Emmanuel twist the arms, let Max Baucus and Kent Conrad drive the deal cutting where they are bargaining basically against themselves. Obama has yet to make the case to the American people that he should get his way, all soaring rhetoric to the contrary.

Without someone to stand up and say "here's what I believe in!", the only other voices out there that can be heard are the Glenn Becks, and Birthers, and the rest of the nut-jobs who need access only to a bull-horn, a cell phone camera, or a Fox News Correspondent.

Despite endless press conferences, Obama looks ever more ineffectual, ever more meek, and ever more timid in his approach to issues. We see it in business all the time. Someone gets promoted into a new role, and perhaps they are smart enough, but don't yet believe in their message, or leadership skills. They appear timid, and allow stronger personalities around them to dominate initially. It's sad, really, because Obama is the best orator in the game. The best player on the court. But he is like the kid brother who has outgrown his father, but still loses the head-to-head matches because he lets his father psyche him out.

Obama seems to be confused at this vitriol from the Republicans, and as the Independents of the nation watch to see how he reacts, they are increasingly dismayed at his lack of sturdiness. He seems easily knocked off message. Unable to do much more than deliver a line. If John Boehner, Joe Wilson, or Glen Beck can do that to Obama, what could Putin do? It's an answer the Obama camp had better come up with quick.

All that being said, I still think as President, Obama has made a lot of strategically excellent decisions. A year after Lehman Brothers collapsing, we are in much better shape economically, and fiscally, than I ever thought we'd be. Yes, we are in a deficit hole that's exceptionally large, but the alternative of depression and deflation is not the kind of movie I'd want to see. I think March of 2009 was enough of a preview for my liking.

In the end, Obama has failed to take leadership positions on major policy initiatives, from Afghanistan and Iraq, to global warming, to energy. He's tried hard, and advanced 8 efforts at the same time, but nothing has actually come to pass that would offer real change. It's like my boss tells me, "I'd rather have 100% of 3 things done than 3% of 100 things done." The point is, Obama needs to choose some initiatives, push his agenda, and get it done. The nice guy, "let the Congress sort it out" approach has led to speculation on Death Panels, socialism, and all the rest.

This Senatorial approach to running the Executive Branch has left his party confused and leaderless, and emboldened the minority party into stalmateing every initiative, or crippling them. This is the definition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on each legislative initiative. If Obama isn't careful, he will end up with the albatross around his neck of another nice guy but ineffectual leader--Jimmy Carter.

The Modern Republican Party

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:22:00 +0000

It's been an interesting time to watch politics. Not for the hot races (although there are a couple). But for the action in the protests, and the town halls. I've been scratching my head trying to understand the appeal of people like Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Mike Huckabee, and even a Rush Limbaugh.

I'm not sure I'll ever get the appeal of their ideology, but I think I'm starting to understand why they are the face of the Republican Party these days.

There is no current Republican Politician in the government that really represents and articulates the Conservative point of view these days. It's brutal. No wonder the Conservative heartland looks to the Hannitys, Roves, and Cheneys for leadership. I tried to take a real, hard look at the current leadership, and I almost felt like Alexander the Great, who cried when he recognized there were no more worlds to conquer. Unlike Alexander, I DO think the Republican Party will endure, and I agree with the odds makers giving them a 1 in 3 chance of taking back the House in 2010. However, if they do, this current crop of leaders isn't exactly the stuff of legends.

Mitch McConnell--about as inspirational as Harry Reid. He's been somewhat effective in blocking some Democratic policy, but for the most part, has not been able to stop the Obama freight train. And lets face it, he's been the leader of a shrinking party since he took over. He barely won his own state in re-election, and if the Republicans took over the Senate in 2010, perhaps its time to look to someone like John Thune for a makeover of the face of the party.

John Boehner--Speaking of faces of the party. What color is the sun in Ohio anyway? Why is he always orange? The guy cries on the floor, and whines and complains like a teenager. Seriously, if you took some of his speeches and put them in Miley Cyrus's mouth, they would sound like, well a typical teenager. Which leads to Boehner's #2...

Eric Cantor--About as appealing as watching toast on television. He's no Gingrich or Delay in the making. Civil, soft-spoken, and, well, he reminds me a little of Harry Reid as well. Or perhaps Tom Daschle.

John Kyl--This guy is no Conservative. He's no great leader. But he backs it up by being uninteresting on the stump too.

What is a Conservative to do? There really is NO ONE who represents their ideology in the top echelons of the Party. Michael Steele? Forget it! For people who are true believers, the only outlet for their frustration are the Palins, Huckabees, Mark Levins, and others on the Right. It's comfort food, as much as MSNBC is for Liberals.

I can't fault people for wanting to listen to what they want to listen to. But I do find it interesting that, with the death of Kennedy, the Liberals feel that their great leader is gone. They now know what Conservatives have been feeling like since 1/20/09, and in many ways, since 1989, when Reagan rode off into the sunset. Unfortunately for the Conservative Right, it won't change much for 14 more months. Fortunately for Conservatives, current trends are their friends. So keep your chin up, and get out and vote for candidates that support your vision for the world. Lots of races to win. Things can change. Ask the Liberals who were so destitute after 2004...

America the Crazy

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:06:00 +0000

When did America turn into Crazyland? Somehow, growing up, I don't recall the fact that Ronald Reagan talking to kids about his jelly bean jonzes, or Nancy Reagan asking drug addicts to "just say no" were causes for such moral and ethical outrage. Perhaps a few good-natured jabs at the notion that a message from Nancy Reagan would really lead a crack-head to give up the pipe just because the first lady said so, were about the most an indignant left wing could muster.

So now, a sitting President isn't allowed to address the students of America to work hard, stay in school, and help the President think of ways to achieve full graduation rates by 2020?

Spare me the details of his "socialist agendas". The man won an overwhelming victory on election night, and he is our President. He was elected to try to fix the economy, health care, and our status in the world. Unlike our previous President, he has a more pro-active approach to all three. I'm not suggesting I agree with all of his moves thusfar, but I appreciate the fact that he's trying to help the country out of a recession, two wars, and a faltering health care system, that is crippling our competitiveness in the world.

I can understand criticism of his policies, and even people who have an issue with his stance on certain issues. But let's be clear. This is NOT a man interested in turning to a Communist style of Government. This is not a Nazi. This man has done nothing to indicate that he's going to "Bring the crazy".

Introducing concepts like "death panels", public school socialism indoctrination, and the like just sounds nuts. I used to think that people like this were just the fringe of society. I still hope that's true.

However, I'm hearing it more and more in my conversations with people "in the streets", and in restaurants, the office hallways, and the like. And it has to end. This is our President, and he's qualified, and has stood in the national public spotlight for years now. I would suggest that none of his efforts to try to fix what has ailed America has been an abject failure.

But what has been a failure has been a lack of leadership for the common sense cause. No one has stood up to some of these people and said, "that's just nuts!" And they should. No one is suggesting death panels. No one is suggesting Obama wants to indoctrinate your son or daughter into being a Hitler Youth. People have been watching movies for so long, they seem to have forgotten what reality is.

People out of work? "that's all the illegal's fault"
Got no health insurance? "can't have health care for all! That would be wrong!"
Looking to reduce dependence on foreign oil? "drill baby, drill"

We've become the land of the uneducated, the land of the fat, lazy, stupid, jingoistic, "me first" ,"FU!" bullies. It's time for the people of common sense in this country to stand up and say "ENOUGH!!!"

I'm for a PUBLIC OPTION. It helps insure more people, and makes us competitive with the rest of the world again.
I'm FOR a Cleaner environment, and if Cap and Trade is better than what we have today, SO BE IT!
I'm FOR another Stimulus, because I think the one we have had so far IS helping.
I'm FOR more spending on Education. Because people should understand that things like Science and Evolution are real. Certain aspects of their explainations are subject to debate, but their theories are rooted in fact, study, trial and error, and have a foundation for support. People need to learn these things, or America will be marginalized from the rest of the world.
I'm FOR pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, because we can do no more good in either place. If you disagree, convince ME that all of our money spent over there couldn't have been better spent on the poor, uneducated, or otherwise disadvantaged we have here in America.
I'm FOR a lower corporate tax rate, as long as we also eliminate many of the existing loopholes currently being exploited today.
I'm FOR Free Trade, because import tarriffs are the fastest way to shut down our economy.
I'm AGAINST people who have clearly malevolent intentions towards our President, and hide it under false pretenses (ie. carrying guns to town hall meetings, calling Obama a "Hitlerite" or "Marxist". These are just code words.)
I'm AGAINST people screaming in town hall meetings, as if the bully credo really works (might makes right!). If it does end up working, it will be a truly sad day for America, because we will take our place with a long line of countries that have succumbed to fear and intimidation.
I'm AGAINST doing nothing, and waiting for the market to fix things.
I'm AGAINST the endless commentary railing that "I want my country back!" For most of us, we're glad to finally have OUR country back...from the lunatic fringe that brought us the likes of Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin in the last election cycle.

and I'm FOR whatever works. But right now, we need to be trying these things, not shutting them all off in favor of a Laffer Curve Theory that hasn't proven any more apt at economic recovery in the 80's than Clinton's tax increases did in the 90's.

I'm FOR electric cars, increasing legal immigration, and pragmatic solutions to what ails us today. Perhaps increased taxes on Social Security and Medicare. Or perhaps raising the age of recipients instead. If opening the fed window to all home owners to refinance their homes at 4% is an option, we ought to pursue it.

Don't like what I'm for? Don't worry. It's not like a single thing I've pushed has actually been passed into law. We've got far bigger issues to worry about. After all, Obama may want to go to a 7-11 tomorrow, or something, and we can't possibly have THAT! We need to boycott 7-11's! And why 7-11s? Does Obama have something against Cumberland Farms!? Or County Fairs!? I KNEW he was a Socialist...

Can America BUY its way to a better future?

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:36:00 +0000

Here we are, about 8 months into the new Obama administration, and much is different in the Obama approach to American values, our world relations, and economic strategy. The Obama team has tried a number of things to work on everything from health care, to the economy, to the environment, and foreign affairs. I think the best we can say about most of these efforts is that they have not yielded immediate success. None are abject failures at this point either, but one program did seem to yield an unforeseen success--cash for clunkers.

Why was this program so successful? I think the answer is obvious. People in America today need REAL incentives to behave in a manner that is different from their status quo. Just about everyone wants a cleaner environment, less dependence on foreign oil, even universal health care that is first rate, affordable, and less costly. Everyone wants a balanced budget. Everyone wants peace in the world.

Okay, perhaps not 100% of Americans, but I don't think that these goals are particularly partisan in nature. The fact is, though, that most Americans aren't as partisan as the media makes them out to be. Most Americans will do just about anything offered, as long as it makes common sense, and it's either economically neutral, or benefits them.

So, back to cash for clunkers. A 10% incentive to trade in my old gas guzzler for a shiny, new fuel efficient car? Now THAT's an incentive! The problem with previous attempts has been that the incentives were too small, too hard to figure out, and on items with price tags too large to begin with. Am I really going to go solar if you offer me a discount, but only if I go with pre-approved installers, and only if I'm in a certain tax bracket, and I buy over a certain amount, and the certainty of the benefits might be 20 years from now, and...

I think an America that uses less imported oil in its cars, more efficient appliances in its homes, develops alternative energy sources that are cost competitive and efficient, goes to schools that are equipped and able to teach, and has health care that's affordable for all, is within reach. But perhaps we have learned that there is a way to do it after all. So let's see what we can learn from "cash for clunkers".

For starters, why not continue the program? I admit, recycling the entire US auto fleet into cars that get 10 MPG more than their predecessors really only translates into about 10-20 days of less fuel per YEAR than today. Not great. However, electric cars are on the way, and perhaps a $10k per vehicle incentive on Nissan or Chevy electric cars is achievable in the near future.

And can we do better than a $50-$200 credit for efficient appliances? What about helping people who want to install solar panels achieve a break even point on costs that is 5 years or less? Costs on solar installations have dropped dramatically, and a kick start on solar could really take a bite out of our dependence on home heating oil, and other costs.

And what about health care. I have been clear about supporting a public option. But more importantly, I'd really like to see a reduction in costs. I have incentives in my health plan (meager, but incentives nevertheless) to remain healthy. I can achieve up to $340/year in "gift certificates" by doing things to stay healthy (visit the dentist, get a checkup, exercise, etc). I'd love to see such incentives for more Americans. I'd love to see a $500 credit for a yearly checkup in which people's weight went DOWN from year to year.

I have offered a few options here. What we now have in America is a country used to being paid for behavior. So rather than lament such an environment, let's embrace it, and start thinking about way to use it to our advantage. To those of you who cry "socialism", I ask you whether Ford Motor Company, or its workers are crying about increased production, and sales. I'd make a point to you that we are already in the wealth redistribution business in so many ways in America. It's time to think about how to at least do it in such a way as to incent good behavior, and give people a way to find some additional bucks in their own pockets, rather than the governments. At the end of the day, we're all trying to get to the same place.

Obama's failure to lead

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:02:00 +0000

I had a chance to watch Bill Maher's show on HBO this past week. Maher, who would never be confused for a small-town, Conservative values voter, had a discussion with his panel, made up of Chuck Todd, Jay Leno, and Democratic Congresswoman Jean Schakowsky. Schakowsky is one of the most prominent Democratic Congress persons in the House today, and has continued to be rumored as someone who may try to run for Barack Obama's former Senate seat in Illinois.

To say the least, it was embarrassing to watch the Congresswoman go on a show, where the host is GIVING her a platform to exhibit leadership, and watch how embarrassingly out of touch she seemed on the health care debate.

Maher basically told her that the Republicans were winning the debate, and that she had an opportunity RIGHT THERE to make a succinct point to start to turn the tide in the debate. She couldn't string two sentences together to say anything resembling a clear point.

At this point, I conceded the debate. Passing Health Care with this Congress is a hopeless debate. As saddened as I was to see that Ted Kennedy died this past week, it was merely a reminder to me (being under the age of 45, I have no memories of Kennedy, Camelot, Chappaquiddick, or any of the other newsworthy reminders of the Kennedy's prominence in America.) that there really is no leadership of note in the Democratic Party.

Which brings me to President Obama. Someone in the media really summed it up best for me: Obama leading the Democrats is the equivalent of Michael Jordan playing for the Washington Generals. Take him out of the equation and it really is a pathetic group. Don't like watching Max Baucus or Kent Conrad running the Finance committee, holding up the bill? The White House has leverage on these folks. Leadership can strip people of their chairmanships. Don't like the Blue Dog's howling about spending? There's always a way to strip money out of their districts to balance things some. Don't like the Republican's sudden religion on budget deficits? Remind the country that the last time we faced economic downturn and fought to balance the budget was in the early 1930's. Anyone want to try that play again?

I'm not suggesting that there aren't some Democrats that truly do believe that they are doing the right thing for the country by opposing a Public Option in the Health Care debate.

However, for the rest of the 80% of Democrats opposing the bill, who think it will lose them their next election, I would remind them that they have already lost their seats if they vote this down. Does anyone remember the mid-term elections of 1994?

I would also encourage someone (anyone) who really believes in a Public Option to explain--in 2 sentences or less--why we need one. Obama has utterly failed to step up and make the case. It's embarrassing to watch the best orator in 50 years lose a debate to Chuck Grassley and Sarah Palin.

So, someone must step up for the cause. Explain why doing nothing is a guarantee of bankruptcy of the current system. Why doing nothing will pretty much ensure a premium rate hike of 15% next year in my health care premiums. Why doing nothing has led to a doubling of my personal premiums ALONE in the last 5 years. That doesn't even count the TRIPLING of my co pays. We talk about Medicare going up by the rate of inflation. But my private health care premiums and co pays have gone up FAR faster than that. We talk about inefficiency of government run health care, yet Medicare receives better customer satisfaction than any private run health care services do. Watching the Democrats screw this up is like seeing someone dealt a full house in Poker, and turning in 3 cards, just to make it seem fair to the other players...

Look, I'm not suggesting that this combination of bills being put forth is perfect. No bill ever is on the first try. However, doing nothing is already on a path over the cliff. Imcrementalism won't fix the issues fast enough. Everyone has auto insurance. Everyone should have health insurance. If you want Congress to work on healthy lifestyle incentives separately, fine. If you want to point to a lack of legislation on improved facilities, pharmaceutical R&D, etc, fine. But let's not confuse this bill with the notion that if it's not a panacea, it must be killed.

Obama has failed to lead on this. Let's see what happens in the next couple of weeks, but I'm not encouraged by anyone's leadership on this issue. It's a sad harbinger of things to come, as the Republicans take control of the debates, and we get back on to issues like religious values, flag burning, earmarks, Terri Schiavo, illegals, etc.

I hope people remember this debate, as they all howl at the unimaginable rate increases in their health care in the next 5 years. Enjoy that Private Insurance coverage, folks, because you won't be able to afford much else...

Health Care Debate 2009--A Simple Flow Chart for the Masses to Keep Score

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:09:00 +0000

For those of you watching the Health Care debate, I know this is getting a little confusing. So here's a simple flow chart to explain how things have gone, and even a preview into next steps for the debate, and impacts on the political landscape. I hope this helps...

Health Care Debate--1993 Redux

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:32:00 +0000

Okay, Politics fans, let's see how many parallels we can draw between 1993-1994 and 2009-2010. Ready, set, go!

1. A popular, young President is elected on the back of a message of change and hope.

2. His message resonates during a time of economic recession, against an aging veteran/war hero who just can't believe that the country would elect someone like his opponent.

3. With a mandate of voters in hand, the new President pushes for sweeping changes in government spending, with no bi-partisan support.

4. The new President pushes for the holy grail of politics--Health Care reform--only to finally be rebuffed as having "pushed too far" to the left for the country to accept.

5. The mid-term elections, (often won by the party out of power, due to the lax attention paid by the majority, and the fervent support of the minority party), undo the Democratic Majorities in both Congress and the Senate, where Republican leadership takes hold for over a decade.

Okay, the last two haven't happened quite yet, but point #4 is soon to arrive. Odds have dropped on getting a health plan passed at all, to about 50% (and I'm being generous at that!)

The interesting thing about this is that, despite the 2010 elections being 15 months off, the Democratic losses may already be a fait accompli. Why? That's simple.

Demographics--The whole concept of a "blue dog" democrat is kind of silly, when you think about it. What Republican would vote for a "Republican lite" Democrat, when they could have the real thing? I'd make the same point for Republicans. Lincoln Chafee and Gordon Smith are two perfect examples of good Republican Senators who lost their elections because a lot of Democrats said, "hey, I like Chafee, but I don't want Mitch McConnell running things in the Senate." Republicans were disgusted with his voting record because it was too liberal for their tastes. In the end, losing on health care, but "standing up for their blue-dog conservative values" will not help any of these guys get re-elected. Their liberal constituencies in these districts will desert them, and the conservatives in their districts will vote for the conservative candidate, hoping to get Nancy Pelosi out of power. It may not be enough to flip the House into Republican hands in 2010, but it will certainly be close.

Political savvy--The smart thing for the Blue Dogs, the Ben Nelsons, the Evan Bayh, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln group of Senators to do on health care, is get something passed this year. If they delay, and take their time, and pass nothing, they are all in trouble. Bayh can kiss his seat goodbye. Lincoln will finally get some opposition. And Nelson will also face trouble in 2012. For the same reason as I noted earlier, these people will lose the support of the left, and the right will smell blood, and put up their own candidates to take these seats. There is one saving grace...

Economic Recovery--It's funny how people are less riled up when they all have jobs. Inflation will be a worry in the near future, should the economy turn around. However, a good economy is what saved Bill Clinton in 1996 (that, and a poor showing from Bob Dole). It could very well save enough of the Senators and Congressmen and women to keep Democratic Majorities in the Congress. But Republicans know how to win elections, and messaging has never been the problem (until recently, anyway).

(lack of) Courage--the Republican party is excited that they are finally able to recruit some better candidates and get some money in the coffers? Why? It's easier to run against a face of opposition, rather than hang onto a majority. Also,the Dems have controlled the debate, which means that the people who were used to their issues getting attention for 8 years, are particularly upset about having to deal with the "other guy's" issues for the past year or so. That's normal.

But the Dems are showing a surprising lack of courage in their approach to health care. It's almost incomprehensible that the votes for such a reform as health care wouldn't have been counted before pushing ahead with a "public option" platform. But it's clear that the Kent Conrads and others are not going to move forward with such a plan. Therefore, any good Republican candidate should be able to put their Democratic opponent on the ropes over this issue again and again. It won't work in places like Massachusetts or New York, but it will change the House representation in Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and other places where Democrats have made inroads into Republican territory.

So we will have to watch and see how the upcoming failure of Health Care changes Congress's appetite for tackling big issues. Obama's Waterloo may be just around the corner. But most Presidents face about 5 "Waterloo's" in their terms, and we'll soon see just what the new face of the Republican party looks like. Is it Sarah Palin, and her "death panel" postings that turned the tide? She may make that case to enough people, that her stature climbs significantly in the upcoming months.

Let's see how the health care debate plays out. Much more to come...

2012 Republican Candidates--It's never too early...

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:19:00 +0000

I've been away from my favorite subject for far too long. I always enjoy a good election, but the odd year elections are a little sparse. We can discuss the New Jersey or Virginia Governor's races some other time. right now, let's see what our favorite GOP Presidential candidates are up to, shall we?

These candidates are NOT in ranked order:

Sarah Palin--"quitting" her post as Governor of Alaska may have its advantages in terms of availing Ms. Palin to more exposure in the lower 48 states. She can now campaign anywhere she wishes. However, she continues to be a polarizing force for independents, and some on the Right don't like the tag of "quitter" that they now feel she has to wear in any future election. Certainly, the bumper stickers already popping up (Sarah Palin--2012-2014 1/2) won't give her comfort.

Definitely not a good couple of months for the ex-Governor.

Newt Gingrich--I wonder why a guy who has so much going for him, would go on Meet the Press and represent to America that there are "those in the government" that are for Euthanasia... Really, Newt? Keep pushing this position. Watch the polls just slide right away.

In reality, Newt continues to be a strong force, and should be a favorite for the nomination...if he can avoid that "foot in mouth" situation, or Diane Sawyer interview...

Jeb Bush--I may be the only person here, but I still think Jeb's the favorite if he decides to run. He has the family connections, the experience, the more moderate tone, the popularity in Florida, and a hint of his father's pragmatism. Will America forget the legacy of his brother by 2012, though?

Bobby Jindal--The best thing Jindal's done recently, is NOT put himself out on the national stage. Jindal's a smart guy, and can play to the "penny loafer" segment of the party. He's an ideal vice president candidate in my mind. He helps a candidate without having to be too charismatic.

Paul Ryan--A new entry to the discussion, Conservatives have had their eye on him for a while. Like Jindal, Ryan may be a little young and inexperienced for the GOP to put him up at the top of the ticket in 2012. But he has experience and finance credentials, that would make him a formidable VP option. He'd make an interesting primary candidate.

Tim Pawlenty--Pawlenty is a popular guy, and considered a leader in the GOP. However, he has a problem. He's not really the darling of any real faction of the party. The evangelicals will prefer Huckabee, the Social Conservatives will pick Palin, Libertarians prefer Ron Paul, and the Economic Conservatives will prefer Newt or Mitt. That leaves Pawlenty as the also-ran, and will result in a quick exit from the race.

Mitt Romney--On paper, this should be THE guy for the nomination. Only no one in the GOP seems to really like him. He's not really anyone's first choice, so he has the same issue as Pawlenty. I think he'll do better, though, because he has more money, and since Romney is in his 60's, he may sense this is his last chance. He'll push harder, and he already has better infrastructure.

Mike Huckabee--Huck has done well with a standing platform (his Fox News show), radio spots, and a built in base of evangelicals from the last election. I'm not sure that alone is enough to push Huckabee over the top, though. He's too weak among the other demos in the GOP, and I'm not sure he'll have the dollars or the moxy to compete with Newt, Palin, or Bush (should he enter the race).

Haley Barbour--to me, Barbour is the dark horse in the race. A conservative from Mississippi, he's held leadership posts in the party, he's an acting Governor, and seems to represent Republicanism. He has a Southern Base who should favor him over many of the candidates listed here. If the primaries fracture, Barbour could win some primaries with, say, 18%, and gain momentum, as other candidates drop out. I still think he's not going to win, but he could very well gain himself consideration as a VP candidate.

Ron Paul--The Libertarian darling, Paul continues to have a loyal following. Certainly, those worried about "socialism" have a home in Paul's camp. At 78, though, he'll be an old candidate, and with the exception of Reagan, and perhaps William Henry Harrison, non-incumbent candidates older than their mid-60's have struggled. I wouldn't count Paul out, but I wouldn't hold my breath either.

Mitch Daniels/John Thune/Other--Some other Senators, Governors, and perhaps Congressmen may dip their toes into the nomination fray. But most will probably be looking to build support or organize for future campaigns. It will be a stretch for any of these guys to jump to the top of the list in 2012.

So that's the Pundit's take. Let's see how the next few months play out...

Government Run Health Care...what does that even mean?

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:28:00 +0000

Do people really understand what's being proposed here for health care? Probably not. Basically, the whole idea is to create a public option to provide the kind of pricing pressure that has a chance of controlling costs, and can still provide increased coverage to all Americans. I think everyone would approve of the ends in mind.

Clearly, the objection half of America has to this health care proposal is in the means. The government or "public" option just sounds too socialistic. Too much government. But people don't realize that in reality, we have these kinds of situations everywhere. What is being proposed for medicine already exists today in other areas of our economy, and are not considered the end of capitalism. There are very few, if any instances of our economy where public works are the only game in town. And many of the utilities may be private, but are heavily regulated by the government. Even most governmental agencies contract work through private businesses.

"But private companies can always run their business better..." you may say? Not necessarily. Let's look at some areas where public and private compete...

Fire Department--I'm so glad that there are private fire department companies. If my house was burning down, I'd like to be able to know which firefighters cost how much, so that I don't waste my hard earned taxpayer money on the most expensive firefighters, when a far more reasonable team could do the job, for less. Perhaps while my house is burning down, I could call a few firefighter companies, compare prices, and then choose the best one to put out the smoldering ashes left of what was once my home. Wait, there AREN'T any real private fire departments? What a shocker...

Police/Defense-- Blackwater could be seen as "competition" for the US Army. Certainly they can police the streets of Iraq more effectively for less dough, right? If they can't, then certainly Halliburton and their spin off--Kellogg Brown and Root, could do the job without inefficiency or taxpayer waste, right? Er...maybe that's not such a good example...

Mail--But what about the post office? It competes with FedEx and UPS. And the government controlled pricing power of the USPS has simply put FedEx and UPS out of business, hasn't it? Well, maybe not, but we're getting warm...

Education--Ah, education. There's private and public schools. And if people want their kids to get a parochial, or top-flight secular education, they can spend the additional cash to send their kids to private schools. If they can't afford such a luxury, their kids can go to public schools. Ah, now we're getting closer to the right comparison...

"So? Public schools are a mess..." you may say? That may be true in some circumstances. But funding for education has been severely lacking in recent years, and there are proposals on the table now to use school vouchers and magnet schools to help to address some of these issues. Ahhh...the free market at work...

So...let's take the school analogy and apply it to health care...giving people the option of going to whatever doctor they want, but having the government provide the voucher to pay for it and set the rates...

You know what that sounds like? The current Congressional proposal.

Health Care Update--Now a Shout-fest on Race

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:51:00 +0000

As I'm watching this Health Care debate play out, I can't help but think there's a real discussion going on here, but it's just not playing out in words. The debate about health care seemed to be going the Democrats way until about 2 months ago. Once the polls started to soften on support for a bill, and the GOP started to block progress, the momentum shifted. Then the fun started.

Activist groups, led by Rick Scott, Dick Armey, Betsy McCaughey, and the rest of the "do nothing, we're #1!" faction started to put their plan into action to kill the health care reform efforts.

But to kill health care reform, you need a bogeyman. Ted Kennedy just wasn't cutting it. So why not go for the race card, and (in the words of Robert Shapiro), play it from the bottom of the deck?

Go for the big cheese. Obama himself. After all, he doesn't look like you! He's got Hillary running State, Sotomayor running the Supreme Court, and Holder running Justice. Pretty soon, he'll have you standing in front of Death Panels, justifying your right to live. And he wasn't even born in this country! And did you know he's a secret Muslim, when he isn't busy paling around with terrorists, and did you see what his Pastor said during the campaign ads last year!?

It's small wonder that anyone who doesn't like where "this country is going" from a demographic standpoint would be more susceptible to such an argument. If you notice, who has been shouting down all of these town halls? I have noticed a stark dearth of color in these movement groups. Suddenly, a lot of people (many of whom are on Medicare NOW!) hate government health care, and don't like the idea of it. But listen to what they say. It's not that they don't like Government health care, it's that they don't like OBAMA health care. Interesting, isn't it?

These cries of "socialism", and "I want my country back" just make me sad. After all, democracies have elections, and the winners put their policies in place. The losers cry and howl, but in the end, understand that they have rights and protections. There were no disruptions of town halls, and threats to lawmakers (swastika signs spray painted on Congressmen's signposts), or people coming to Presidential Town Halls, with loaded guns during the Teri Schiavo case (by the way, a loaded gun!? seriously!? I wanted to ask that guy yesterday, "are you out of your mind!? Do you really think any one's going to be allowed to bring a loaded gun into a room with the President?")

In the end, this is about one thing. This issue (health care) is just the latest in a series of events that have shown that there is a contingent of Americans who hate the idea that their team (the White Males) have lost the majority of the power. They hate the notion that this country is growing, but it's growing through increases of Hispanics, Asians, Indians, and even Muslims (if you can really count a religion the same way you can count national origins).

The sad part is, this country has ALWAYS been one to change and grow in different directions. The Irish were not welcomed with open arms. Nor were the Italians. I would need a whole different blog to describe how the African Americans were welcomed to this country.

And now, the country is going to take a new direction, one where Whites still may hold the largest plurality, but one where their hold on leadership is checked and diminishing.

But to a group of people in this country, the Health care Debate symbolizes ALL of these frustrations--with losing power status, with seeing a President who is more of a citizen of the world than his predecessors, with leadership that is more demographically mixed, with leadership that is more secular in nature--and these town halls give people a chance to channel all of these frustrations in a way that allows them not to have to appear racist.

To these people, I say, "sorry Charlie". You can dress up the language, you can try to change the topic, but your words don't match the deeds. Yelling and disrupting the town halls, hasn't actually been about debating the health care system. No one seems to be yelling anything constructive. It's all be yells about government, Obama, control, etc. It's about not wanting the "black man", the "bogeyman" take over our most precious possession--our personal health.

To me, it's sad to see. Because Health Care really is a topic we need to debate. I'm not sure I love every part of the bill, and I may regret supporting health care reform in 5 years, should it pass this year. But I like the fact that my President is trying to come up with a plan to make health care a right for everyone. And I will support it and him.

So to THAT end, here's my message to the following groups:

To the Democrats--pass the bill this year. Do it through a vote, reconciliation, or whatever means necessary. Don't be cowed by this, or you are guaranteed to lose your seat. Because you'll lose every Democrat who voted for you, and the Republicans who cheer your vote will vote for one of their own too.

The alternative to a yes vote is nothing. And that's just unacceptable. While you're at it, get out to talk to your constituents with a message of why this vote HELPS THEM! Enough with the town halls. Give a speech instead.

To the Republicans--be careful what kind of party you are running. If you're going to go to bed with the dogs, be prepared to wake up with the fleas. For those of you comfortable with Sarah Palin, Orily Taitz, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Scott, and Rick Santorum leading your party, have at it. You'll be in the minority for years to come.

To the Media--call a spade a spade (pun intended). All of these signs with the swastikas, the hammer and sickle, etc. It's important to show what kind of people are attending these rallies on the side against reforming health care. Ask yourself why these groups don't look like all of America, just one section of America?

To the anti-Obama team--"I want my country back?" It was never YOURS to begin with. And the days of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestantism are gone, if they ever really existed to begin with. You may even get 4 more years of such leadership, sometime in the next 10 years. But in the long run, you're going to have to face some sobering truths. You will not be the majority demographic going forward. You will not have the power. And while I'm at it, some more straight dope. America's domination of business and economics will erode in the next 20-30 years. It's not because we aren't doing as well. It's simply that the rest of the world will catch up. The Internet makes all things possible now. It's just reality. You can scream at the tides to stop coming in, or you can plan for changes, and prepare yourself for a different reality.

Somehow, I don't think this is a group of people who will listen to me...

Economic Doom and Gloom--Where does it END?

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:40:00 +0000

I should start this piece by saying I am a natural pessimist. I like to call myself a realist, but in reality, I am a pessimist. The glass is seldom half full in my world.

It has been through this pessimism, however, that I can play out worse, and worst case scenarios, in order to avoid issues that I will face going forward. Often times, I find this to be a survival instinct that has served me well throughout my life. And it is when I least expect bad things to occur, and haven't prepared for them, that the truly bad things in life have hit me hardest.

With that in mind, I have been attempting to boil down all of the noise coming out about the economy, and separate fact from fiction, genuine prognostication from tired, irrelevant talking points, and figure out where things are going, so I can hop off the train, as it heads for the cliff.

Here's where I have gotten to at this point:

The economic downturn still has a ways to go:
Sorry, Charlie. Like me trying to grow grass in by backyard, green shoots have a tendency to get me excited, for a week or two, before dying out in the hot summer sun, or the snows of November and December. I am afraid a Stimulus package (or perhaps even a second one being discussed), can't really change that very quickly. Here are the other reasons I am pessimistic:

a. Commercial Real Estate--this has started to crater. I have read estimates that this could be a multi year bottoming process. And before you start to call me a pessimist, let me know how that Residential Real Estate collapse, which started in 2007, is doing two years later? Still don't think Commercial Real Estate has a 2-3 year bottoming process inherent in it? Then I have some swampland to sell YOU in Florida...

b. Consumer demand/sentiment--People are not making purchases these days. They are concerned about their jobs. They are concerned about their debt to equity ratios. They are concerned about their mortgages. And who can blame them? Despite news that the savings rate has improved and turned positive over the past year or so, there are more than a few good fiscal savings and spending months before we are out of this consumer debt situation. This could take a decade or so of responsibility on the part of the American Family. Let's hope that the economy can stay afloat in the meantime.

c. Oil and Gas--I'm sorry, did I miss some sort of major oil strike, or find recently? Why are people under the impression that oil will be there for the next number of decades at $50-80 a barrel? And since when did we think that the US Dollar, which is the de facto currency peg for oil, would stay strong, in the midst of a lousy US Economy, debt levels over $10 Trillion, and no sign of strength in the economic leading indicators? Perhaps we need to rethink this strategy, and start to figure out how we can really get our dependence on Foreign oil under control. All options should be on the table...

d. Federal Debt--Speaking of Federal Debt, recent public auctions have gone pretty well...for now. This just can't continue indefinitely, and once it breaks, it will break HARD. I'm not predicting a great depression, but if we can't finance our government, we will be wishing for the economic prosperity of 2008-2009 by this time next year.

e. A broken economic engine--I am wondering what we actually MAKE in this country anymore? Perhaps the only good news about a downturn like this is the fact that labor here may become cheap enough that India, China and Brazil send their outsourcing efforts to the US for a comparative advantage. If we are ever in that situation, you know that America's influence in the world will have long since "jumped the shark".

Wow! Depressed enough? Well, let's not get hysterical. Here's a few things to look for, though, to tell us that we have avoided some of this debacle.

What to look for:

a. Consumer debt improvement--There are monthly measures of consumer debt, and I have been paying attention to these, as a measure of financial strength in the private sector. I care more about this than even the US Government's financial situation, because in the end, the US can always float the bonds necessary to keep itself going. If the US private sector has the wherewithal to buy these bonds, then things can't get too far out of whack. But it does mean that SOMEONE has to have the assets on their books to make the system work...

b. Housing to level off--I am glad to see that housing hasn't continued to be in free fall. However, I don't think people's leverage on housing loans has gotten much better in the past year. And I am hearing about all of the predatory loans, and easing of mortgage restrictions coming back into vogue. If we are ever going to have a recovery, home equity has to be the basis for it. People have to feel like their debt burden is manageable, and the home mortgage is by far the biggest piece of debt for most families.

c. Car sales improvement--another sign of improvement would be at least a levelling off of car sales declines. This has been an indicator of a terrible drop in personal wealth. Cars are being sold at below replacement levels, which may not be a bad thing for the environment, but is a terrible thing for our automakers. Perhaps GM can survive, post-bankruptcy, but I'm skeptical. Anyway, even a modest improvement here would be a tremendously encouraging sign.

d. Economic growth--Job Creation--As a starting point, the rate of job losses has slowed. That's good. But to reach at least parity, we need to see about 100,000 job losses a month. It used to be more, but since no one has actually been HIRING lately, a monthly job loss of 100,000 would probably indicate the tide is turning. Sadly, we are 4-5 times higher than that, and most people who have been unemployed, are not getting rehired.

Where will we be at year end?

I love playing prognosticator. As my caveat, please note I am NOT an economist, nor do I play one on tv. My predictions should not be relied upon, but are merely meant for scenario testing, and a means for looking back and making fun of my personal naivete 5 months from now. With that in mind, here we go...

1. Unemployment rate--11%, with an underemployed rate close to 20%--I think the factors I mentioned above will end up really hurting us. States won't be able to close budget shortfalls without laying off workers, and those states that can use fiscal stimulus to either keep some existing workers on the payroll, or boost unemployment payments, will do so at the expense of hiring people for "shovel ready projects". As my grandmother would say, "nah good!"

2. Oil--$85/barrel--why so high, in an economic downturn, you ask? Simple. The dollar will continue to weaken. Auctions will start to fail, and the fed will have to consider raising interest rates to entice interest. Another real deflator for the economy.

3. Health Care? Not happening--This will also really hurt, since people are struggling with the existing health care issues we face now. But it will signal a real shift in economic policy from the Dems to the GOP. I think a second stimulus is out, and Obama will have to start to discuss ways to expand tax cuts, or reign in major spending programs. This will NOT help economic expansion short term, but could be a longer term benefit to the perception of US Debt in the broader markets.

4. Major Bankruptcy filing--I would expect at least 1 major bankruptcy. Sadly, if I have to choose, I'd prefer it be General Motors over AIG. Why? If AIG should fail, we will see what true financial pain is. The financial markets could implode with the fall of AIG, and a bailout of obligations will make our hand-ringing about $160M in bonuses look like a pittance.

5. Conflict with North Korea--This may be inevitable. I am wondering how their recent sabre-rattling ends without military confrontation, unless we work out a deal quickly. Obama's got a challenge on his hands here. Can he get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and escalate with North Korea? Not likely.

How's that for doom and gloom? Fortunately, these things seldom come to pass all at once. However, I'd like to think that putting them on the table can help to identify what to tackle first, and gives us a chance to react to each scenario the right way, rather than in a knee-jerk fashion, or from the gut.

And lord knows, we have an awful lot of work to do here....

All Eyes on Obama--How's he doing?

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:00:00 +0000

The past month or two have marked a clear change in the groupthink of American Politics. We had spent this past Winter and into early Spring recovering from the Bush Administration, the cold winter, the free fall of the stock markets, and the sense of imminent doom and gloom. All issues, from Iraq to the Economy, to the bad weather, were pinned on George Bush, or his boss, Dick Cheney.

But that sense of the world's problems being laid at the feet of the Republican leaders is far into the rear view mirror at this point. And people are starting to see the issues of today squarely in the hands of Barack Obama. And his opinion polls have showed recently, that the bloom is somewhat off the rose.

So let's take a look at the Obama Presidency thus far, and grade the performance, shall we?

Economy: Green shoots not really blossoming...yet. Stimulus seems to be sputtering. But the economic picture was clear to everyone (seemingly) except the administration. Did Obama really think that passing a Stimulus Bill would stop 700,000 people a month from losing their jobs, at the drop of a hat? Anyone in business for more than 5 years knows these things take more time, and even recoveries take time to develop. At this point, his grade on the economy is hovering at around a D, but he should take some solace in the fact that if unemployment has turned the corner by the end of the year, that grade should move up in a hurry. That's a BIG IF right now. I was willing to let the Bush tax cuts work their magic, and I am willing to see if the Obama stimulus package can also work some magic. I'm not holding my breath, though. Current Grade--D

Organization: It took Obama a few tries to get the people he wanted into place. This isn't uncommon for administrations, but it does look disorganized, and reflects the fact that this is a man who is trying to put an administration in place faster than any of his predecessors ever had. Those points, however, don't change the facts on the ground. Obama has learned from this experience, and we'll see if he continues to improve in this space. Current Grade--C+

Diplomacy: The President can give a speech. That was clear in Cairo, in Chicago, in Washington, and almost anywhere in between. He's also enamored with the notion of an inclusive Cabinet, he's kept his word (er, for the most part) on pulling out of Iraq, and has done a lot to help calm world tensions with America. About the only thing he has struggled with is the idea that he's not quite the charmer on a personal level that Bill Clinton was. Bush 41 had a good handle on how to play the international game. So did Reagan, and so did Bill Clinton. Obama has shown good signs of improving on this front, but overall, this has been a surprising strength of his administration. Current Grade--A-

Courage: What I've been such a big fan of is the fact that Obama has taken on a lot of large topics. The TOUGH topics. Environment. Energy. Fiscal Spending. Defense. Health Care. Immigration is on the agenda. These are topics that are so big because they have been kicked down the road for so long. It's been since the 1960's that many of these issues were last truly debated. Reagan took on Social Security in the early 1980's, Clinton's Health Care initiative was over before it began in 1993, Bush 43 tried to take on Immigration somewhat a few years ago, but other than that, none of these issues has been seriously debated in this nation. I'm not sure Obama will win the legislation he wants on many, or perhaps even ANY of these debates, but he's certainly willing to fight for each of them. And that's a change from many of our recent government leaders. So on the Big Issues, I give him an A for Effort.

Ironically, he has NOT pushed some of the more liberal social agendas. Notably, Gay rights, Affirmative Action, even Abortion or Gun control--these all seem to be basically off the table. The upcoming Supreme Court nominations (and there WILL be more in the next 2-3 years) may change some or all of this, but for now, he's shown very little willingness to take on these topics. For that, he receives a C- for courage on the social agenda.

Achievement: I have never seen any President move more of his agenda in 6 months with a fewer bumps in the road. Grade to date--A-. But we'll see if he can move his biggest ticket items--Energy, Environment, Health Care. This grade is definitely incomplete.

Overall: I have to give President Obama a B- at this stage for all that he has done, and all that he has attempted to do. That being said, the biggest issues left to be determined (Health Care, Economy, Iran, North Korea) are STILL incomplete.

One thing that can't be mentioned here anymore, however, is the "mess" that some think he was saddled with. The time for blaming Bush's actions have come and gone. It's time to focus on President Obama's decisions, and start to figure out if we are headed in the right direction. So we'll keep an eye on how things are shaping up...

Guest Blogger Point of View: Michael Jackson

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:31:00 +0000

I love the note I just got from someone about Michael Jackson. As I offer on the site, we'll publish an alternative point of view from self-proclaimed "fly-over country", and I can play counterpoint in the comments section:

MICHAEL JACKSON: ANNA NICOLE WITHOUT BOOBS

At some point, certain celebrities drive past the last exit to Normalville and head to Freaktown. Michael Jackson passed that exit years ago. If anyone hasn't noticed, the man's last successful album was 20 years ago. And even his successful ones were little more than dance pop used to seduce drunken sorority girls. He also made MTV. The network that brought us Beavis and Butthead and the Surreal world. Nice.

As the mayor of Freaktown, Jackson took the art of freaky celebrity to a level heretofore unknown in the civilized world. He wasted more money than imaginable, built his own theme park, slept with little boys, bought white man's sperm for his surrogates and had more plastic surgeries than the Catwoman. Let's not forget the creditors he has stiffed over the years and the gallons of prescription drugs he consumed.

When a junkie is found dead on a mattress in a seedy room with an uncovered light bulb dangling from the ceiling, they are hauled away, placed in a fiberboard casket and planted in a potter's field. They are looked down on with disdain and pity. Had they been accused of child molestation, the decent folks who shunned them while alive would be consistent and ignore them in their death. The junkie will not be missed.

Michael Jackson was that junkie. He was that accused child molester. He was that example of how not to live your life. He was mentally ill and never learned the meaning of the word,"no." Unlike scores of dead junkies, he had all the resources in the world at his disposal to get help. Many drunks and junkies have to hit bottom. They must risk losing moral and financial support before figuring it out.

There is no bottom in Freaktown. Running out of money? Just go on tour. Release some photos. Sell a book. Become a Lifetime movie. Need new friends? Rent them.

Because Michael Jackson was the mayor of Freaktown, the same parasitic news organizations that profited from reporting what a freak he was now cash in by deifying him in death. Wall to wall, nonstop coverage of the death of the most significant human of the 20th Century! More important than Princess Diana! A greater impact on race relations, international peace and cooperation and the world in general than Reagan and Pope John Paul II COMBINED! Scoffed at in life; canonized in death!

Hypocrisy knows no boundaries.

We consumers of news, whether the hard news or the tawdry fluffy stuff, like this story, believe we are far more sophisticated than our great grand parents who visited the circus side show. After all, the parade of midgets, the bearded lady and "ReptileBoy" were all exploited. We don't do such politically incorrect things now. No, now, we send reporters out to harvest the freaks and deliver them to us. No need to get our hands dirty.

At the end, Michael Jackson was nothing more than Anna Nicole Smith. Someone who was in the news for the sake of news. Neither one was accomplishing much, unless surrounding oneself with permanent medical parasites, yes-men and assorted hangers on counts as an accomplishment.

The lesson to be learned is if someone is one of those medical parasites, yes-men and hangers on, they need to do a better job of keeping the host alive. The residents of Freaktown will keep going full steam until they crash off the proverbial cliff. But when they do, a lot of people lose their means of support. Sure, some will write books and hit the talk show circuits. Others will lose their medical licenses, and hit the talk show circuits. But the majority will drift off into obscurity until the next Freaktown resident moves in. Then, the whole cycle starts again.

Twenty years from now, people will occasionally play Jackson's music. Children will ask, "Who was Michael Jackson?" Much like we were told, Elvis was that fat singer who died on the toilet, the response will be, "He was a freaky singer who died from a drug overdose."

"You mean like Linsey Lohan?"

"Yes, a lot like that."

Sarah Palin--Presidential Candidate (2008-2009)

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:34:00 +0000

I can only hope that my eulogy of Sarah Palin's Presidential aspirations mark a true end to the life of the notion that is "Sarah Palin--President of the United States of America".

What's truly remarkable, however, is the following:

a. How close we came to that reality.
b. That there are still 1 in 4 Americans who believe this is a good idea.

I think in some ways, the election (TWICE!) of President George W. Bush provided a control in the experiment of electing a "regular Joe" to the White House. Ya know? Someone you'd want to have a beer with? A regular "Joe Six-pack?" Someone who clears brush from his Texas Ranch, when he's not busy running oil companies, or professional baseball teams. A real Guy's guy!

We learned what electing an incurious, C-, underachiever, shallow thinker can lead to. And it isn't what Bush himself did that was so troubling. It was what he allowed to happen on his watch, with the people he trusted to make decisions that were really his to make.

I lay this out not just to jab at Bush, but to show what we would have had in store for us in a Palin administration. Another incurious, talking point memorizer who wanted the power to be "the decider", without having to actually study the issues, and take responsibility. Someone who would cloak themselves in the flag of "Ronald Reagan", while appealing to the hot button issue of the day (Abortion? Immigration? Whatever you got today...). A delegator of responsibility and blame, but a glory hog. We all know people like this.

And the more we have seen of Ms. Palin, the worse it gets. The rambling, incoherent speeches. The personal sense of greatness and destiny that comes from...just where exactly? This is a person who has capitalized on a sharp tongue, a good handle on pushing people's hot buttons, and adversaries underestimating her toughness. That can get people of determination a great distance. In Palin's case, it got her to the Governor's mansion in Alaska. However, there comes a time in all careers that there has to be some substance, or the house of cards will come crashing down. We saw this with George Bush. America isn't ready, at this point, to go for round two. Especially not with someone who lacks the pedigree of two generations of Leadership (Grandpa Bush was a Senator from CT, and daddy Bush was...well...just known as "forty one").

In this case, Palin's initial charm has worn out, and all that is left is a bitter shell of a person who has played offense for the first 44 years of her life in the political and social world, and has grown tired of a year of playing defense (defending her policy positions, defending her behavior, etc). In politics, even the best in the game don't always get to have the ball. Only talk radio hosts and bloggers get that right! The rest of them do have to be able to defend themselves, and have the deft touch, the knowledge and instincts to side step a few cow pies here and there.

I watched the soon to be former Alaskan Governor babble incoherently about how quitting her role was the only way to show that she wasn't a quitter, or perhaps the only way to justify drawing a salary, or something like that. There were references to dead fish, full court presses, and other such nonsense that was actually interrupted by the sound of...well...I think it may have been geese? When she finally finished her ramblings, there was the sound of about 10 people clapping. I could only think how sad the whole affair seemed. Sad, yet compelling to watch. After all, was I watching the death of Presidential aspirations here?

I can only hope so...

Robert McNamara's place in history

noreply@blogger.com (David Kaplan) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:55:00 +0000

Just a blogging guest looking to get the Pragmatic Pundit's interpretation on Robert McNamara...
If you ask anyone over the age of 40, they may likely tell you the McNamara was a war criminal. If you ask anyone over 60, and they will tell you that the escalation in Vietnam was part of a bigger picture, and that we had not choice to escalate. Looking to read something on this.

GOP and Morality--Can we finally put this issue to bed?

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:57:00 +0000

Can we FINALLY put this ridiculous argument that one party owns the morality code to bed, once and for all? Let's take a look at how the mighty GOP has fallen:

Newt Gingrich--impeaching Bill Clinton for an affair, while cheating on your wife at the same time!? The height of hypocrisy. But this is Newt. He has a career of such hypocritical activity. Bringing down Jim Wright on his book deal, only to ink a book deal signing bonus of his own.

Rudy Giuliani--Dating Judy Nathan while in Gracie mansion with Donna Hanover? And let's not even discuss that first marriage to his cousin. Or the dressing in drag scene.

Sarah Palin--Ms. Family values certainly has kept her all-American family in the public eye...er...except that part about the child out of wedlock.

Rush Limbaugh--thrice divorced, drug-addictions...yeah, this is the leader of the cultural and spiritual Right, who gets to sit in judgement of other's wrongdoings. Swell pick, Conservatives...

Mark Sanford--seems like a solid family values guy. Except the whole running off to Argentina to be with his girlfriend thing. What's this I am hearing about potentially having other girlfriends as well? For a boring guy, seems like a lot going on at the Governor's mansion in South Carolina.

John Ensign--"honestly, how can Bill Clinton have lied to his WIFE in such a way as this...er...I mean John Ensign, how could you have accused the former President of such an immoral act? You would NEVER be caught DEAD in such a situation, right? Whoopsie...

Larry Craig--Sorry, this one's too easy...

Mark Foley--jeepers, I am running out of shock and awe here!

Duke Cunningham--I give up!

It's time to get back to debating real issues here. Who's going to help me get better service for my taxpayer dollars? Who's going to help us with law enforcement better? Education? Environmental policy? Foreign Policy? and on and on...

Let's leave the morality where it belongs. For those of you who hold it up so high, remember what the bible says--"judge not, lest ye be judged..."

What is the End Game in Iran?

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:16:00 +0000

I saw a presentation on C-Span a little while back, from someone at the Pentagon (I wish I could recall or find that presentation. It was fantastic), where the speaker discussed how countries like Iran, Brazil, Russia, China, India, and the US, would find that they had more in common with one another over the next 15-20 years or so, and would find ways to share ideas on how to manage and govern large, multi-ethnic, heterogeneous populations.

I thought it was fascinating to hear him throw Iran into that mix, given what I had perceived it to be a country that shared few of the common attributes of the countries just mentioned: I thought of Iran as rather homogeneous, smaller in relative size, and much more autocratic, less nationalistic and less secular than many of the other countries listed.

As we are finding out, this is a much more complicated society than most of us had imagined, more pragmatic than I had believed, more nationalistic certainly than its neighbor, Iraq, and as we learn more, it becomes clear that we have more in common with a country like Iran than we may have with a country like, say, Sweeden.

As I watched this person's presentation I thought, "but for Iran to be part of the discussion on large countries sharing governance ideas, doesn't Iran have to modernize its policies and rule of law?" This would seem to be the case.

As we are currently witnessing, large nations like Iran may be able to live under certain government auspices we in the USA don't agree with or understand (theocratic rule, certain moral standards, etc). But NO nations with the size and nationalist tendencies of a country like Iran will tolerate mistreatment by its government for long, before demanding something better.

It is too clear to the public at large that the Iranian election was a fraud. It is too clear to the people that their voices are not being heard, and that telling them who their leader will be, even after choosing someone different, stands in stark contrast to the sheer will of the masses. This is a long term losing position for the Iranian theocracy, and if they don't know this, they soon will.

I suspect they do know this, and are searching for a way to hold onto the power structure they have put into place. But what does that look like?

Recent events in Iran have left me speculating as to what that country will look like a year or two from now.

The options I keep seeing laid out are as follows:

The "America's Dream" Scenario: Here, the people continue their uprising, after these days of calm have passed, and eventually overthrow the current establishment, leaving a more conciliatory leader in someone like Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who will become a great transformational leader, moving Iran towards a pro-Western stance, and a more open democracy. Call me skeptical of this scenario...

The "Tiananman Square" Scenario: The Iranian leadership cracks down hard on the protests, and in the process, takes more drastic steps to impart its will on the people. Laws and rules become more strictly enforced on certain moral and ethical codes, and opposition leaders are arrested, or detained indefinitely. The media blackout continues, and a humanitarian crisis erupts, as people strike, unemployment shoots up, and people are scared.

The "Cut a Deal" Scenario: The Mullahs agree to a more conciliatory position to those who are leading the uprising--the Mousavi's, Khatami's, Rafsanjhani factions--and a deal is reached allowing for certain geopolitical stances to be changed. Language towards Israel is tamped down, and Ahmadinejad, while still in the Presidency role, is badly weakened as an international face of the country.

I think the third scenario seems most likely, although scenario 2 seems to be playing out at this point. I hope, though, that regardless of the outcome, Iran has taken the first steps towards joining the world in more pragmatic cooperation, and can use this more positive stance towards the Western world as a way to begin to deal with the problems that all large diverse countries face.

Iran--The Idea Whose Time Has Come

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:47:00 +0000

There is a notion in this world that nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come. Seldom has such a notion been as apparent as the recent Iranian "uprising". I have been watching the events of the past week and a half with astonishment, horror, fascination, satisfaction, and sheer amazement, and I can't seem to turn away. A bevy of emotions and reactions come to mind, all of which I will try to get through here, but through it all, I can't seem to get this one theme out of my mind. This could be Iran's time for "re-introduction" into the geo-political debate and discussion. This time as a constructive force and voice. All I can say is that the world just might be a better place for it.

So what have been the striking themes of the story at large? In no particular order, here is what has driven my thoughts through all this:

1. The (lack of) American role--Obama's speech in Cairo served as a key enabler in this uprising. Most importantly, it was what Obama did NOT say or do. Offering an open hand to the people of Iran, and making it clear that America was not the enemy of Islam, or Iran, was an important first step. It allowed Iranians seeking a better country, economy, and relationship with the world, to rally towards something better than a regime that had held America up as the enemy to rally against. Without the "Devil" to scare the population, it was clear that Iranian leadership would have to find other reasons for its own failures to lead their people to prosperity. And the people have begun to demand more from their leaders.

What that will entail will surely play out over the course of the next weeks and months.

I am glad that President Obama has NOT fallen for the cheap, reactionary voices of John McCain (Sen-AZ) or Mike Pence (Rep-IN) , calling for America to jump into the fray, and demand regime change. Such actions are reckless, and immediately give credibility to the Iranian leadership, who are desperate for just such a move. It is this type of thinking that has led to such a problem with the Iranian nation over the past 8 years, and it is exactly this type of thinking that America rejected last November.

2. The attempts to block out the Media--We can see how the Internet has truly changed everything. 20 years ago, the Chinese uprising was quashed in Tiannemen Square, as media was blacked out, and no one could see what was happening. Today, Iran cannot control Twitter, Facebook, or other news avenues, despite cutting off CNN, ABC, BBC, CBS, etc. The eyes of the world continue to be upon Iran, despite the Ayotollah's great wish that everyone would just stop paying attention. Unfortunately, there is no way to shut it all down, and to try to attempt it would derail an economy dependent on communications (railways, hospitals, etc). Such a move could be equally devastating to Khameni as it is to his adversaries.

It's been a truly incredible experiment in modern day technology vs. old time political dictatorship. Currently, technology is winning.

3. The diverse points of view of the Iranian people--I have learned so much about the diversity of the Iranian people in the past week. The varying degrees of religious sects, education levels, and sophistication of the population at large. It is truly a nation, not of backwards people, but of modernity, albeit very theocratic, and one that wants better relationships with the world.

4. The nationalistic pride of the Iranians--This is still a nation of mighty Persian descent, of great learning, and of past dynasties. This is NOT Iraq, which was a nation carved out across three separate and distinct religious sects, who did not get along, and never had the kind of national pride that is clearly evident in all Iranians who have been speaking of their homeland recently.

5. Repression can never last forever--As I am watching the news on this, it shows me that no country has ever been able to keep it's people repressed forever. Eventually knowledge comes to the people, and they demand a better governing body. It happened in Eastern Europe in the late 1980's, and Russia in the early 1990's. Even if Iran's new regime looks much like its old one, it will no longer be one where the people don't have a say. And that's a change we can all believe in.

Attempts to keep the people down have met their match, in a youtube video showing the murder of Neda Agha-Soltan. If the current regime isn't careful, the rallying cries of "Neda" will make the Alamo seem like a cute little forgettable one-liner in comparison.

I will continue to watch the events unfold in Iran, and I urge all of you to do the same. Any sharing of knowledge on this topic here would be appreciated.

A little catch up on the world of politics-Pragmaticpundit style

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:39:00 +0000

Lots of things going on in the world these days. I couldn't make up my mind on what to write about these days. So I figured we'd try something new this week. Snapshots of the topics--in one paragraph or less. Here we go...

Palin/Letterman--Letterman's comments were childish and silly. They do demand an apology, since Letterman clearly did not understand that Willow Palin (14), not Bristol Palin (18) was with her mother at the time of the Yankee game. Palin should drop this issue, and spend more time worrying about getting her energy creds up to speed. Unfortunately, this isn't winning her any points with the independents. You have my sympathies. Time to earn our respect.

Justice Nominee Sotomayor--still waiting for something...anything that is a truly disqualifying factor to come out. She isn't a racist. She isn't even a liberal. Not even the firefighter case in Connecticut seems to be much of an issue in this debate. To use a horrible segue here, there's no smoke, no fire. Let's have our Senate Hearings, so we can finally see if this person is truly up to the challenge. So far, there's no real debate.

Obama in the Middle East--I have been truly amazed at the impact a speech in the Middle East on foreign policy can have. Has Obama's speech truly galvanized people enough to move the needle in a vote against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and rioting in the streets over the Iranian election? Could it be so? I don't see why not. After all, people seem to attribute the fall of the Soviet Empire to one Ronald Reagan speech in front of the Berlin Wall in the late 1980's. Let's see how this plays out. But it has to be encouraging to all on the side of democracy, and a more peaceful middle east.

Health Care--I am truly elated that this issue is finally getting the kind of debate it deserves. All of the talk shows had this as the centerpiece this morning. Sadly, it appears that trivialities like Single Payor are going to be debated, and could kill any real progress. If the left really wants it, they may only get it off the base of universal mandates, a la the Massachusetts model. If they get greedy and push for it now, they could end up losing the whole bill. Time to get real. Fight the fights that can be won. walking away with a better health plan than the one we have today is a victory, and you must build on the victories. Nothing in Washington moves faster than that.

GM--can we stick a fork in these guys already? Sorry, charlie. Let's break it up, sell of the parts, put up the for sale sign, and start getting ourselves back to the business of free enterprise. Yeah, it sucks. I'm not happy to have arrived at this point in my thinking. But GM's been dead since 2002, and it took this long to pull the plug. Time to get the hulking jalopy off the road, and get in some competition. Time for Government Motors to be put to bed.

Murder of Abortion doctors--This is truly abhorrent. To think that the only way to save the babies is to kill the doctors. And the sad thing is that it's working. Abortion clinics are being scared into shut down mode. I am not advocating abortions, but do we really want to go back to the days of back alley abortions? We can debate whether this is truly a state issue, or whether late term abortions should be overturned, or perhaps even discuss whether federal money should be put towards funding of abortion clinics. But this is not the way issues are debated in America. The moral majority advocates who believe in this should really look in the mirror and ask themselves what they are fighting for.

North Korea--an unstable dictatorship getting more unstable by the day. This could really be Obama's undoing. There are no good options here, and Kim Jong Il and his successor son seem intent on pushing a bad situation to the brink of disaster. What is the end game here?

Holocaust Murder--Like the abortion doctor murder, this is just a sad, tragic event. Sad because the people who were killed are (as usual) the innocent, who were in the wrong place and the wrong time. This white supremacist, holocaust denier has hopefully reminded us all that there is hate, misinformation, and radicals in this world who are ready to take a shot at destabilizing all we know here in America. And they don't all come from the Middle East.

Hopefully, I'll get more time to put more content up here in the upcoming weeks. I've been pleased with the slow down in job losses, but I am still concerned that we haven't seen a robust rehiring of people just yet. And the interest rates at the long end of the curve are really steepening out the overall 2-10 spread. Could result in stag-flation, or high-inflation. I'm sticking with gold, oil, and Swiss Francs. That and doing whatever I can to keep my job for one more paycheck, one more mortgage payment, one more savings contribution...

Turning the corner on the economy

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:21:00 +0000

We have now seen the first real signs that economic recovery may be coming. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak. Recent economic data shows that the economy shed only 345,000 jobs in May. For me, the retreat from the 600,000+ range is a sign that things are starting to stabilize. Employers have substantially made employment cuts, and are starting to take a breather, to look around at where we stand.

Additionally, I have been writing here that I simply don't understand how the stock market could have rallied so much in the past couple of months, without any real positive economic data to support such a move. In the end, the most obvious answer was that government intervention with Billions, and perhaps over a Trillion dollars, had no where to go with the money, other than the stock markets, and that this has been a primary driver of the recent run up. I'm not complaining. I feel better about my investments than I have since St. Patrick's Day.

But I have some real concerns about the economy, and what economic bad news is still to come. I worry that the light at the end of this tunnel is really the train coming to flatten us. We have economic issues to still face, and work through. But the good news is that every day we work through these, and the economy, the national security, and the markets don't falter, is one more day closer to a more stable, prosperous new day.

We still need to absorb GM and Chrysler workers that are losing their jobs. Along with the corresponding dealership jobs, and supplier and ancillary jobs associated with the auto industry. We still have a housing issue of foreclosures, of rising mortgage rates, Commercial and Prime Mortgages that are starting to default. We have state crises, pension guaranty issues. The list is still long.

BUT...

We are starting to face each of these issues head on, starting with GM, and housing. States are having to make tough cuts, but most are making them, and people are starting to develop better habits of saving and spending less. While that doesn't help our economy in the near term, it does help our overall fiscal health in the long run, as people end up less reliant on a government assistance program for survival.

Stemming the tide on employment is the first step here. Stabilizing markets is the second. If we can start to figure out how to work through the home mortgage issues, I think we are on our way. Things like fighting inflation, and dollar devaluation...heck even budget deficits are more manageable when people have jobs, and businesses can hire workers. And we can start to focus on how to step on the gas, as a society, rather than fixing the leaky boat.

But this was a good week of economic data, as far as I am concerned. It could represent a changing of the tide. For the pessimist/pragmatist like me, these signs are a "green shoot" of hope for a better economic tomorrow, coming soon.

Enough about Ronald Reagan

noreply@blogger.com (The Runnin Fool) — Tue, 26 May 2009 10:19:00 +0000

I am just so tired of this drivel. Enough already. If I have to hear one more person in the Republican Party discuss Ronald Reagan as some sort of Saint, I think I am going to scream.

It reminds me of the scene towards the end of Blazing Saddles, when Sheriff Bart is trying to convince the town to stand up to the cretins of the Governor's Assistant, Hedley Lamarr. The townspeople, unconvinced to stay and defend their town, are moved only by the Sheriff's line, "you'd do it for Randolf Scott..." Suddenly, the town gasps, the heavens sing his name, and Howard Johnson says to the Sheriff, "okay, you have 24 hours..."

The reverence for this man in the movie (a master stroke on the part of Mel Brooks, since Randolf Scott was not a legend of the old west, but in fact, an early actor in Western films, once again playing on the absurdity of the situation of a film about the filming of a Western) is one of the people who would do just about anything for the memory of a man who wasn't even one of them, and were willing to put their lives in jeopardy for someone as obscure as a forgotten Hollywood Western actor.

The irony is ripe here, considering that Reagan himself was a "b-list" Hollywood actor, who had also starred in Westerns.

But unlike Randolf Scott, who is revered in a spoof on the film genre, Reagan is held in reverence by people who cannot communicate new ideas, fresh thinking, or any way of relating to the people or problems of today. Why they do this is puzzling to me.

After all, Reagan was first elected in 1980, which was 29 years ago, for those of you keeping score at home. People of voting age have never been alive during his Presidency. People below the age of 43 were not even of voting age the last time he ran for the office. We have had two Republican Presidents in the interim, and a Legislative branch dominated by Republicans for the better part of 12 years since Reagan left office. Yet this man is still held up by any serious Republican contender as the only model (perhaps there are a few who would consider themselves "Goldwater Republicans", but that's their way of saying, "I'm not as Conservative as all THAT") with which they want the public to think of them.

But what is it that people who unfailingly speak of Reagan in reverence, point to as his crowning achievements? Making the Supreme Court a bastion of Conservative Reactionary policy? Being fiscally irresponsible, as he cuts taxes on the wealthy? "Beating the Commies?" I may even concede the point that Reagan did a lot to hasten the demise of the Soviet Union--in part by TALKING to the enemy. Certainly, Dick Cheney wasn't running around in 1984, trying to convince people that if we talk to the Soviets, we will all be less safe (or was he? I don't seem to have much Youtube video from that point in time...)

Enough with the endless references, and deference to the altar of Reagan. It's been over 20 years since he left office. 25 years since he won an election. Half this country's population have little to no recollection of him, his policies, or understood them well enough to even have formulated an opinion on them.

All of the reverence for this man seems to be just the fact that he was a culmination of an electoral victory that denounced the FDR Democratic philosophy, and ushered in a new time of...what? Moral, Social and Religious superiority? Deficits don't matter? Defense spending is necessary, despite being reckless and mismanaged? Covertly sending arms to the Contras via Iran makes long term sense?

Reagan was a great communicator, I won't deny that. And he is a hero for the Right, much like Clinton, Kennedy, FDR, or Obama may become for the Left. The Conservatives have been looking for that kind of positive communicator since 1988, but have never found the man for the job. In the end, they have been trying to evoke Reagan, but have instead copied the other great Conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh. In the process, all of the positive, sunny messages from Reagan, coming out in a bitter, nasty diatribe of division and condescention, sounds confusing, mean-spirited, and in the end, unelectable.

Yet Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal (etc, etc) would do anything for the memory of Ronald Reagan, and they try to make America remember again how good it was during the Reagan days. Unfortunately, its time for Republicans to learn what the Dems had to in the 30 years after Kennedy. Camelot is gone. People don't remember. They vote in the here and now. And if you can't give people a vision for the future, rather than a memory of the past, you can look forward to watching the other party seize the mantle of leadership for years to come.