The Occasional Rant

Crisis Governance: The New Normal

2013-10-26T09:07:00.002-07:00

Gentle readers, have a great Halloween. You might consider going as the scariest thing out there, the Federal Health Insurance Website. I find it interesting that the House Republicans are expending a great deal of energy being upset at what they didn't want to work because it doesn't work.

Is governing by crisis the new business as usual? Can we look forward to a sanctimonious soap opera and knife fight every six months? Probably. Bear in mind that the Tea Party declared a cease fire, not a surrender.

There are four elements contributing to this new normal. The first is ideological entrenchment, i.e. your belief is right. and their belief is wrong. Ideological entrenchment is not new in American history.

The second is viewing the opposition as the enemy rather than as fellow Americans. This is relatively new in American history. The only other time this occurred was around the Civil War. Throughout most of American history, the opposition was viewed as concerned patriotic fellow Americans who had their heads up their butt.

The third factor contributing to crisis governance is an appalling lack of leadership, mainly from the President. Obama has always adopted an aloof stance with Congress, even during his first term when the Dems ran Congress. He has failed to build relationships even within his own Party. Leadership is grounded in trust, relationship, persuasion, a perceived respect. Without development of these elements by the White House, there is little chance of compromise and leverage. It will be up to Congressional coalitions to moderate extremist elements.

Some gentle readers may disagree that Obama has abdicated his influence on policy creation. It is easy to blame one guy for the failures of the System, but not accurate. I remind you that even when the Dems ruled the roost, Obama requested very few pieces of legislation, and received nothing that he personally crafted. The Affordable Care Act derisively bears his name, but Obama only requested two policy points in the Bill, and received neither when the Law was passed. Contrast this to relational Presidents such as Johnson, who were intimately involved in crafting legislation. So blaming the President for orchestrating Congressional outcomes is based in fantasy, in my view. He doesn't have the power, and apparently never wanted the power to do so.

The fourth factor of the new normal goes to the heart of the matter. Legislators want to keep their jobs. Big Money enables them to keep their jobs. Super-PACs, corporations as persons, and no caps on "free speech" by such corporate persons has created a new political landscape and options for keeping jobs. Think about it. If you had to spend forty to sixty hours of your week begging for money just to keep your job, what would you do? No wonder these guys aren't working on legislation.

While it's true that the Tea Party shutdown pissed off Republican traditionalists and business folk, but with Super-PAC dinero, Tea Party members can say screw you and access the money to keep their jobs. See, even Tea Party people aren't crazy enough to give up their jobs. There's gold in them there halls.

The nature and definition of "Republican", "conservative", and "freedom" is being rewritten and redefined by unelected special interest groups with millions of donated dollars. Such redefining is seen in the vote of the rank and file Republicans facing re-election primaries. 64% of House Republicans voted against re-opening the Government and paying our national bills. Leaders within their own Party are gutless to stand up to this handful of bullies.

The conjuncture of the four factors above appears to me to make crisis governance inevitable. Change from this model will require either a new President who can actually lead and build relationships, or a new Congressional mix and dynamics.

Also at the heart of crisis governance is the distinction between politics and governance. The differences may appear subtle but are important. Politics essentially is "our side wins". Governance is about sustaining and directing public institutions and policy for the common good. The shutdown represents a perspective that blurs the line between the two and lacks both prudence and calibration. It also lacks a higher historical perspective. The late House Speaker Tom Foley once described himself as a steward of institutions which transcend generations. Creating a framework for governance was the focus of the Founders and Constitution. Madison may well have predicted the current legislative mess when he wrote "sometimes deliberative wisdom will be conspicuously absent when it is most needed."

How are politics and governance walked out? The Democrats could test the willingness of the Reality Caucus to follow the Tea Party into oblivion by going full tilt on immigration. Immigration reform is very popular in the country and very needed for the survival of the Republican Party. If the Reality Caucus passes a reform bill similar to the Senate's, the Democrats win a substantial governance victory. If the Tea Party intimidates their colleagues and immigration reform is not passed, the Tea Party marginalizes themselves even more with the American People and the Democrats win a substantial political victory.

For over two hundred years, politics has permeated civic life. Only recently, a nihilistic anti-governance ideology has taken root in Congress. This trend is probably another iteration of the nihilistic revolutionary ideology of the 1960s, echoed expressions of an obsolete social legacy.

Tonight I was listening to a forum of average Joe and Jane Tea Party people discussing the recent shutdown. Don't ask me why I continue to do such things. They enthusiastically supported the shutdown and believed their side "won" because we sent "a message". We need to strengthen our economy. I note that our economy lost $24.1 billion from the shutdown.

We are sending a message for Government to spend less money. Ok, now their "logic" has got me riled up. Let's break this down logically, shall we?

We have three branches of government. Who exactly is spending too much money? I think we could all agree that the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) isn't throwing a lot of wild parties and overspending, although those robes look expensive. So we have the President and we have Congress left, right?

Presidents don't spend money. Civics 101. Presidents are given money by Congress to spend and may indeed spend their given money unwisely. But....Presidents don't spend money, regardless of what is heard on Fox News, the radio, or public opinion. Barak Obama has not raised any debt or spent any actual money. No Presidents ever do. The debt incurred under a Presidential administration is simply a figure of speech. Congress is always the branch of government that spends money and creates debt. But Presidents don't ever spend money. Hope that spoiler alert repetition gets the point across and provides the answer. When Congress votes not to pay our national bills, they're the people that created the bills in the first place.

Ok, so Congress passes laws and spends money. It's kind of in the Constitution. So let's keep going. Congress is composed of the House and the Senate. Who specifically is overspending, Tea Party people? Is the Republican House overspending? If yes, then why? You have no control over the reaction of another person. You always have control over your own reactions or responses. Your own reactions and choices determine what type of world you create. So if yes, get your own House in order.

If no, we are great and our spending is great, the way it's supposed to be....you must be saying the Democratic Senate is the naughty group of people overspending, right? You do realize that the Senate alone can't create laws and spending bills? The Senate can't be the only ones overspending. Government doesn't work that way. Civics 101. So YOU, Tea Party people in the House, are directly responsible for any overspending which may be occurring. To fail to take responsibility and create reforms is hypocritical. To blame another group in Congress is hypocritical. To blame the President, who can only spend the money Congress gives him, is the height of obfuscation and hypocrisy. Do I believe that Congress overspends, you bet. Do I believe that YOU, Tea Party people, are directly responsible for that spending, you bet.

What pisses me off, Tea Party extremists, is that you won't step up to make things right. Fight your own bloated pig of a Party to reduce spending. Don't just vote for budgets cutting benefits of the poor and middle class. Go after the REAL money. Fight for serious structural reforms such as closing the corporate welfare loopholes in the tax laws and make it flatter and fairer for all Americans. Fight for fast tracking business entrepreneurship and streamlining conflicting and miring regulations. Fight the predatory practices of Wall Street ($13 billion dollar penalty on a bank yesterday) which is undermining the faith, confidence, and trust of the American People.

If you are different and want to fight for the interests of We the People over the interests of keeping your job, take on the huge Big Money interests that keep the whole machine running. Fight against corporate welfare and demand accountability for "national security" spending. These expenditures and potential savings/ revenues are far larger than "entitlements" to the needy. Don't like ObmaCare? Put an alternative health care bill on the table. Fight for what you believe, Tea Party people. If you're serious about taking the country down a different course, finding common ground to cut waste and spending across ALL of government is a good start. Washington gets paid if THEY DO NOTHING. They keep their jobs when business as usual goes on. You're just providing the entertainment, Tea Party people, in a system designed not to change. Are you willing to take on the Big Money breaks and welfare that keeps your colleagues in their jobs? If yes, then you have my support. If no, you are simply incompetent fools, perpetuating the system running the show. You are the campus radicals occupying the ROTC building and thinking you can stop the War. You can't get there from here.

Tea Party people, I want you to be focused channels of effective change, but what I'm seeing is a very loud and unpredictable crowd not grounded in reality, and not likely to accomplish anything related to the word effective. In both politics and governance, it is crucial to be realistic in goals and actions. There is no realistic way to accomplish an objective such as defunding an existing law. Why don't you get off your ass and propose alternative legislation to what's not working or what you don't like? Proposing actual alternatives is the foundation of both politics and governance.

I'll tell you why you don't. Because you're not grounded in reality, tactically or strategically. I actually do listen to alternative views and have been hearing about doomsday scenarios and predictions since Obama took office. No concentration camps, national Sharia law, death panels, or other dire predictions have come true. So now I'm not interested when you repeat what you just heard on Fox News or the radio. I'm not interested in your clarion call warnings about what you're afraid of and are "certain" will happen, but never does. Your future is as grounded in fear and fantasy as your politics. And you refuse to actually govern. Why are you here?

Whether touting a doomsday liberal future or mooning misty-eyed over mythic bygone days, it is clear that the Tea Party finds the reality of our diverse, evolving, messy democracy distasteful, a reality existent for over a half century. But...you can't love America in theory and hate America in fact.

I don't care what you think will happen in the future. I don't want to hear that tense from you. I care about what actions you are currently taking on our current problems. If action (rather than obstruction) and the here and now become part of your mindset, we'll talk again.

The Devil Made Me Do It

2013-10-13T23:22:00.001-07:00

So what is the price for the House's current political course? The answer is proving surprising. As State resources are cut off, numerous State services are going offline. An you thought trickle down economics didn't work.

So who is being trickled down upon? Certainly the 9 million women and children receiving medical and food care. Less obvious is every home buyer. Dodd-Frank requires that income be verified by the IRS, which is closed.

So one could argue that the "slimdown" is affecting very few people and causing little overall pain. If the "burn baby burn" crowd had their way and pulled the plug on Government, it might illuminate the reality that pretty much every American is a taker. Whether "assistance" is received in the form of health care or other personal "entitlements", or whether in the form of tax breaks and the jobs programs of corporate welfare. Cut off these funds, and you'll hear some real screaming. It won't just hurt "those other people". We're pretty much all addicted to some degree to the Government dole. [A Micro-Rant: I note that Verizon raked in $20 billion in profit but paid zero dollars in taxes last year. Strippers pay more taxes....and they get paid in cash...in the dark...but I regress] The bottom line is that Americans want much more government than they are willing to pay for.

Stretching the social fabric of the nation seems to be brining out some new irrationalities, as evidenced by last weeks polls. They show that more than half of Republicans are Ted Cruz haters, the fellow that got them into this fine mess. The polls also show what they're calling a boomerang effect, i.e. whatever the Tea Party extremists are against, the rest of the country is now taking a shine to...like Big Government, and ObamaCare. So the Tea Party is turning out to be the ultimate beer goggles. They make everything look better.

As an aside, I'm not clear why the ObamaCare rollout was deemed a failure by Fox News. The servers crashed when 8.7 million people tried to access them in for first 12 hours. When Apple rolls out a product and can't handle the flood of orders, that rollout is called a success. Moving on...

The Values Voter Convention held last week featured Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, and Rick Santorum. Cruz was heckled by some in the crowd during his speech. Cruz accused them of being "paid political operatives helping President Obama." Ted doesn't yet realize that he is a paid political operative helping President Obama.

I point out that the reason sane Republicans are acting nuts because of a few dozen extremists is why other organizations such as the NRA take extremist positions is there is a very loud and aggressive lunatic fringe to the right of the Tea Party waiting to overturn the established order. Look for the verb "primaried", as in "you just got primaried, you surrendering Tea Party scum."

On the other side of the reactionary coin, there is a group of legislators, your elected officials, who call themselves debt limit deniers. For them, it would be wise to not pay our national bills. That's what voters get for electing someone without a background in law, economics, or history.

For example, Florida Representative Ted Yoho, a former large animal vet, stated "It would increase the stability of international markets if we defaulted." And you know this how?

When asked why he would adopt a position contrary to every domestic and international economist in his advocacy of default, Iowa Representative Steve King (the scarier Stephen King) replied that he didn't believe in international and domestic economists. I guess they're kind of like Santa Claus. When asked how he estimated the global economic impact of a default, he stated "Hey, I raised a family." Defense rests...

Political extremists don't want to cut deals because those who don't think like them are the "enemy". They don't share our "values".

This last week Values Voter Michele Bachmann advocated shipping arms to Syria. When asked if she was concerned they would fall into the hands of extremists. She replied that would simply hasten the end times and the return of the Lord Jesus.

A similar mental conflating was apparently also practiced by Justice Antonin Scalia during an interview. Scalia called the devil a person and wondered why we don't see him all that much anymore. I point out that a corporation is also a person. Many people would regard Bachmann's views as loony but consider Scalia a serious intellectual. Not seeing much difference.

Scalia went on to say, "the devil is all over the New Testament. What happened to him? He got wilier." There's a lot to be said for self-improvement.

Scalia stated that people might consider him simple minded for his traditional views. He is "a fool for Christ". Whether one is a fool for Christ or coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs, we might keep them away from shaping public policy....or interpreting laws.

I don't like this trend of bringing the devil into political discourse. Currently, people holding differing political views are not seen as fellow citizens, fellow Americans, the People. Opponents have become a dehumanized enemy, committed to destroy everything we hold dear. When opponents also become agents of evil, any evil act against them is justified.

Beginning of the End?

2013-10-13T23:20:00.001-07:00

The numbers are in...Gallup, Wall Street Journal and other polls indicated historic low support for the government shutdown and debt ceiling brinksmanship. Currently, only 28% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. Within the Republican ranks, only a handful of extremists support the current failed course of the Party. The next fight we're likely to see played out is the one between the survivalists and the suicide contingent within the Party.

A large part of the disconnect of Republicans to the People is that Republican legislators return home to gerrymandered districts with over 80% Republican support. That's fine for keeping your job but lousy for connecting to the big picture. When the people you talk to agree with you, you're likely to think you're right and that many more people agree with you. When you insulate yourself in the current "us and them" framing and only talk to the "us", you're likely to create a lot more "thems".

The Party extremists, who are there to obstruct rather than actually govern, fail to realize what their job is. Politics forges a way forward for beliefs and policies. The delusional element of the extremists is they never had a path forward, currently don't have a path forward, and really don't care about creating a path forward. Politics involves expressing the passion of your beliefs while exercising the prudence needed to shift of political realities.

The polls and public sentiment may mean a tipping point historically for the Republican Party's survival. While the current entrenched and irrational course is meant to impact the functioning of Democrats, it could well trigger the demise of extremism within the Republicans. Prominent Republican billionaires see their empires threatened have ordered a course change. When your billionaires turn against you, you lose guys. Big money runs this game. You can tick off the People, but you will lose if you tick off Big Money.

One might think that the Democrats would really benefit from this business. They might if people vote against Republicans, but people are not likely to choose to vote for Democrats. With a vacuum of leadership across the board, people have lost their faith in Government and collective action over the last few generations. Government has intruded into every aspect of life without improving the quality of that life. We are more deferential towards institutions and less trusting in general as a society. The American People are the real losers in this shutdown affair as Government loses its ability to empower upward mobility, promote social justice, and stimulate economic growth.

In all the talk of ideological "truth", purity, hostages, enemies, and surrender is a lack of talk about progress and national competition. The media shaping political realities is fixated on failure and blame, rather than promoting successes and responsibility. And there are many successes forged by the concerted action of Government. For example, the US has hundreds of land grant colleges. The EPA has removed 95% of lead from the air. We're not likely to hear what has been done well, as that doesn't divide, anger, terrify, or justify, the drivers of political media. Whatever happened to a nation divided against itself?

O Che Can You See

2013-10-07T00:09:00.000-07:00

I haven't commented much on much as of late. And there is so much to comment about around this newsworthy world. My bad. I guess I hadn't been prodded sufficiently to emerge from my exegetical seclusion. I emerge tonight after a profound poking with the stick of Tea Party polls released a few days ago.

I have much sympathy for the Republicans during this shutdown, a bit nostalgically as I used to be one. Their Party appear to have lost its course after the reign of Bush the First. Without a compass, or a soul, depending on who you talk to, this Party is always being taken over. Recently it was the Party of corporate shills, K Street incarnate. Remember Tom DeLay? The Neocons had their turn at the helm, until the Party rewrote that sad history. Now, the Tea People, around 34 of them in my reckoning, are scaring the bejezus out of the other two hundred or so House Republicans. Another day, another Party take-over. All the fun of rejecting European-style health care while gaining Italian-style governance.

So the Republican Party is conquered and the Government is shut down. What do our new overlords want? I'm not quite sure. I don't know if they're quite sure either. It seems to be a bit of a Seinfeld shutdown.

Indiana Tea Person Martin Stutzman said "We're not going to be disrespected..." Is that what all this is about...respect? You guys realize the economy is losing millions a day. The last government shutdown cost the economy over $2 billion. If you just want respect, we'll give you a plaque that acknowledges your terrific hair and prolific sexual prowess. Anyway, that's why a lot of guys get sports cars.

Representative Stutzman continued, "We have to get something out of this, and I don't even know what that is." That's a truly remarkable negotiating strategy. You know, when my six year old throws a tantrum, at least he is clear that he wants Cocoa Puffs.

Other overlord spokespeople said they are fighting for "principles". I'm guessing reducing government spending might be one of these principles. Do they realize the shutdown doesn't reduce spending, but rather increases spending? The government employees are on back pay and the money will be spent when sanity again prevails. However, tariffs, fines, and fees, i.e. revenue, will not be collected during the shutdown, and thus lost. Then again, reducing government spending might not be one of their "principles". In that case, never mind.

I note they have introduced targeted bills to keep essential services running, like the Border Patrol...fully funded. I also note they don't fund pussy agencies like the EPA or NOAA, the agencies that track hurricanes. It seems we have a hurricane currently forming and heading this way. New Orleans is reverting to traditional storm tracking practices by throwing beads at drunken college girls. At least one can tell if it's cold outside. So I guess one of their "principles" is that it's more important to keep a nanny from crossing the border than a hurricane? Better name the next one Consuela.

There is some certainty in the Tea People agenda. The current focus of their ire is ObamaCare. Wouldn't it really piss these guys off if over time people came to actually like this Law and it became knit into the fabric of American life like Medicare? Think about it. What a fantastic tribute these guys paid to Obama by actually calling the Law by his name. We don't have RooseveltCare or JohnsonCare, other Presidents weaving the social safety net. But the Tea Party ensured that generations to come will laud President Barak Obama for their great health coverage. So the Tea Party is fervently praying to Jesus (who is after all a Republican) that this Law crashes and burns. If it doesn't, that's ok guys, somebody else will just take over the Republican Party when you're gone.

A major Tea Person objection about ObamaCare concerns the erosion of personal liberty, which is what that naughty Obama likes to do. Nobody should be between you and your doctor. Obama and his regulations are putting the Government between you and your doctor. Hmmm...since the insurance industry wrote the Law and ObamaCare directs you to private insurance coverage, it seems to me that insurance companies are between you and your doctor (which is my major objection to the Law). Tea People, it would be great if you and your doctor could stroll hand in hand and you could actually pay your own health care costs. But....for a hip replacement, the hip costs $350 to make. The company sells it for $13,000, and insurance company bills you $30,000. These numbers are accurate. Have a good stroll. But I digress as my train of consciousness visits many stations.

Ok, to the point of why I'm writing.....A poll of Tea Person beliefs indicate that about half 44-53% depending on the question believe that (1) Obama wants to usurp the laws of the land and remain in power when his regime is over, (2) believe that armed revolution might be necessary, (3) believe that Obama is foreign born and illegitimate to hold office, and (4) that defaulting on our national debt would be a good thing.

It seems to me that I have heard these Tea Party beliefs some years ago, espoused by leftist radicals. Let's see....don't trust the Man, conspiratorial, advocating armed revolution, power to the people, crash the corrupt system and the corrupt economy. Yep, it's all in there. A similar message then and now, but the haircuts are shorter these days.

Also similar is the uncertainty of what the Tea Party is creating. What does a Tea Party America look like? We know what Marxist radicals were against, In like manner, the Tea Party gives us a good idea what they are against, but what are they for? It seems these new radicals are an obstructionist Party, not interested in governing or reforms, or even cutting deals. They are ideological purists and view opposing ideologies as the enemy. Why obstruct? They believe the government is too big, spends too much money, and is out of control. It is their patriotic duty to obstruct and oppose. The Tea Party folks love to invoke the language of the Constitution. I point out that the authors of that document set the common good as their legislative criteria. The Tea Party takeover moves us all onto uncharted ground within our democratic experiment.

The two Parties are using the shutdown and debt limit (again) to gain political capital for the 2014 elections. Democrats are hungry to take the House. Republicans want to survive their civil war. The new radicals are chanting "Burn Baby Burn".

All of this nonsense spotlights the profound lack of leadership across the board. The Parties are trying to "win", but both sides are fighting on the edge of the cliff. This precarious position may produce unintended and unforeseen consequences. Bygone Marxist radicals could never have imagined how to create the potential economic and political chaos we now face. This situation is a holiday gift brought to us all by our dysfunctional elected officials.

I See Rich People

2013-05-23T21:05:00.000-07:00

The top 3% or Americans continue to concentrate wealth and most pay a tax rate of 20%. This leads some people to ask, “Should the rich pay more?” The rich respond by saying to the States, try and get more money out of us and we’re moving to another State. How many of these rich folk actually move away? How much will a State benefit as far as revenue by increasing taxes on the wealthy?

Two studies released last month from Stanford and Princeton addressed these questions. Turns out very few affluent folk actually move away. The studies analyzed the impact of a 2004 tax increase on top earners in New Jersey. Wealthy people threatened to move away. The studies found that the State lost $16.4 million from people actually moving away. New Jersey increased its revenues by over a billion dollars because only a few actually made the move. You can argue with the policy and the ideology, but the results speak for themselves.

Now I’m not advocating running out and taxing rich people. I advocate that any tax increases on the wealthy only occur at the State level. The wealthy should have the freedom and option to move and live in a State with lower (or no) income taxes. Changing the Federal tax code to increase revenue limits personal choice & the exercise of personal freedom.

When We're Number Two

2013-05-21T08:16:00.000-07:00

When We’re Number Two

I predict this will be a very unpopular and controversial post, as by definition the US must be number one. Oh no, is this going to be another lefty dissing American exceptionalism? Not really. The central message here is, quite optimistic concerning our national prosperity.

The US and Europe are currently going through some tough times. Spirits are sagging. I guess everybody in the world is going through tough times, right?

In spite of our current situation, the world is in great shape, when viewed macroscopically. The chance of international war between the major powers is the lowest since statistics were kept. There were fewer deaths in international conflicts now than ever before. The global poverty rate has been cut in half, and this decline is accelerating. Huge strides are being made in reducing global hunger and childhood & infectious disease rates, mainly through private/ public partnerships.

So where’s the growth? Pretty much everywhere, but Asia is the fastest growing economic block on the planet with 500 million people living in middle class standards. Within seven years, the Asian middle class is projected to be 1.75 billion, a 350% increase. This will be the greatest economic shift in human history. I guess that’s why Hank Kissinger is camping out in China.

By 2020, it is likely that Asia will dominate global markets and relegate the US to number two status economically. Hey, it had to happen sometime. We can comfort ourselves that it took a bijillion Asians to take our title. In addition, we’ll probably always be the world’s biggest ass kicker and innovator.

So how will we respond to these economic, political and social trends? Do we live in denial (USA #1 whoo!). Do we long for Mayberry and the good old days, which is kind of like living in denial? Do we try to block and contain these global changes to preserve our current status? It is important to conceive of an inevitable change in status in order to wisely respond to that change.

I point out that in history, there is a season for all empires to decline and be eclipsed. There is a season to be another a player and not the spotlighted star of the team. We have been the star for so long we think that we’ll always be the star, that we’re entitled to be the star, that Jesus personally picked us to be the star.

Athletes know that you become and stay the star by working your butt off, by working harder and smarter than all the other players who are driven to become stars. We don’t seem to be driven much as a nation these days other than to sit our fat butts on the couch, squabble and gaze lovingly at our trophies. We’re the star. People, have the Rocky movies taught you nothing?

I am reminded of the medieval view of the cosmos in which all creation revolved around the earth, and thus around humans. We are the purpose of creation. Who are we if we’re not the center of the universe? Who are we if we just become another nation among other nations? We can still be a global leader and innovator. Our values and character can still be the light, inspiration and hope of the world. However, this requires us to get our lazy butts off the couch and back into the game…with a purpose.

It might be wise to begin NOW to craft a new world order where a dominating Asia can be leveraged and managed. This would involve creating foreign and domestic policies which enhance the lives of ordinary Americans down the road, rather than work for partisan interests of the next election cycle. We need to quit bemoaning how our nation is a victim to naughty globalization. Those bad foreign men took our jobs away. Now we can’t buy our stuff. No, we ALLOWED our jobs to be taken away and cut our corporations from the national tether so they could range far and wide, feeding on the krill of emerging markets. We might consider anew what it will take to take our jobs back, to innovate new undreamt of jobs, to become a world class competitor again, how to bring home some of the profits in the bloated multinational, former-US corporation bank accounts.

Middle classes are consumer classes. They also tend towards democratic governance. These positive trends could be derailed as this new economic wine strains old political wine skins. Wise partnerships and leadership by the US could help steer emerging nations through unfamiliar waters. Wouldn’t authentic leadership be a great projection of strength? However, providing this leadership will require new global coalitions and institutions.

I recommend reversing our trend of weakening multinational political organizations and instead leverage these alliances. For example, the present UN Security Council is predictably intractable. The Council could become more functional by adding seven additional seats. These seats would be guaranteed to emerging nations based on a four year rotation. Currently, minor powers spend millions of dollars and in-fight politically to obtain a seat and voice at the table. If emerging nations were guaranteed a seat every four years, this would enable new coalitions to be built. A reformed Security Council would be an equitable and functional win for the great powers and the smaller powers alike, and this arrangement breaks up the logjams of the current status quo.

Another way we could address the ascent of the East is moving forward with the proposed free trade treaty with the EU. This agreement would immediately create the world’s most powerful commercial block, providing goods and services to tap into emerging mega-consumer markets.

One major reason our economy is currently so weak is that global markets are soft. People aren’t buying our stuff. This changes as millions globally become consumers. A bigger pie is a better pie.

Throughout the 20^th Century, the US was socially engineered to be the world’s leading consumer nation, as well as a dominant global producer of goods and services (we were all that was left standing after WWII). Emerging mega-markets would provide the opportunity for the US to reinvent and repurpose itself as a dominant global export economy. Our extreme efficiency, innovation and automation would enable the US-EU to become a preeminent global competitor and really rake in the cash once again. Such repositioning would require domestic policy reforms to tax codes, corporate regulations and business entrepreneurial incentives. These won’t reform themselves….get off the couch!

While economic and cultural power shifts towards the setting sun, the rise of the Asian middle class will be an amazing opportunity and an amazing time for the world as a whole. We can rethink and reposition ourselves as a vital part of an amazing whole. When we are number two, will the glass be half empty or half full?

Responsibility in the Land of Shadow

2013-05-19T11:31:00.001-07:00

Benghazi is much in the news these days. One legislator called the affair the worst cover-up in our nation’s history. This serves to demonstrate a profound ignorance of history.

Responsibility vs. Blame

The Beltway is a land of blame, not a land of responsibility. Responsibility seeks out the decision makers and the facts for what actually transpired, what went wrong, and how to prevent a repeat performance. Blame is simply the intent to wound the political enemy. There are no solutions or progress in the land of blame.

There are legitimate and important inquiries to be raised in the Benghazi affair. Was there a cover-up? Sure. Washington is filled with them….hundreds of them. Most of these you will never know.

Could the Benghazi deaths have been prevented? Nope. Double the security….triple the guard…..against an estimated 100 attackers…..now you have 12 dead instead of four dead. Most Embassies have two security pros and a few Marines. They are not designed to withstand multiple assaults. Were requests for more security unheeded. Yes. If they were heeded would it matter? No, other than someone was competently doing their job. Can we learn from the mistakes made that day and not make them again? Absolutely.

On a political level, the Benghazi cover-up illustrates an ass-covering protective reaction in the land of blame. Most cover ups and behavior causing those cover ups usually stem from incompetence or selfish opportunism.

In the land of responsibility, Benghazi illustrates a broken system. A broken system within the State Department, as well as a lack of leadership and accountability shared by all. A broken system within the Administration, who clumsily handed political opponents the building blocks of scandal. Benghazi revealed a failed system within the military, who had no field-able assets to protect the consulate. It illuminated a broken intelligence system, in which most of the “consulate” personnel turned out to be CIA agents. Benghazi pointed out the broken system within Congress, which denied the State Department security funding, and subsequent failure to be accountable for such choices.

A Larger Picture

The Benghazi affair resonates with deep ideological national trends. Government is too large and intrusive. Government does not act in the interest of the People. Government is incompetent and dysfunctional. Popular belief in the perspectives is a major contributor to our national decline. Americans have historically been skeptical of Government intrusion, but until Watergate, over 70% of the People believed that Government was working towards the common good. Currently, only 19% of people believe this.

This erosion of public trust and belief in the ability and efficacy of Government is underlying the intractable dysfunction we are currently seeing in poublic life. Government has lost social connection and context. Should this crisis of confidence continue, social isolation and factionalism is inevitable.

The Legacy of Watergate

The turning point in breaking public trust was Watergate and

Vietnam

. A group whose sole purpose was to perform repeated criminal acts was housed in the White House. A President was forced to resign. Twenty nine of his top Administration officials faced criminal charges. It was a traumatic spectacle of regime change.

The nation has never recovered from the trauma of these events. In many ways, we still run from the pain of Watergate. Watergate created a scandals culture in Washington, a way of settling policy differences by other means. Scandal became a template, a handy tool, a vicious weapon used to destroy the enemy and gain a political edge. Our media and public is now addicted to scandal. Scandals have devolved into acts of reverberant cynicism, largely devoid of underlying corruption.

It is important now more than ever for the President to demonstrate active leadership and attempt to restore public trust and faith that Government can work towards the common good. Government is like fire. It can do great good or great harm.

It is up to the values, vision, integrity, and leadership of the men at the helm to demonstrate responsibility, to hold this Government accountable. Many people now feel that our system impedes such leaders to participate on the public stage. Many Americans have lost hope.

This nation needs responsible leadership and is suffering from a lack thereof. Without vision, the people perish. Restoring public faith that collectively (which is what Government is) we can make things better is crucial to the future of our national prosperity.

Obama falls short as a leader in many ways. Although he is an affable public speaker, Obama’s cool and detached leadership style is easily interpreted as aloof, uncaring or disconnected. He seems to work towards minimizing political damage rather than step up to accountability and inspiration….rather than aggressively respond to challenges by putting structures, policies and cultures in place to build and safeguard the public trust.

Contrast Obama’s style to that of JFK. Kennedy hated the idea of invading Cuba. The Bay of Pigs invasion was Eisenhower’s plan, executed by the CIA. After this humiliating rout, Kennedy immediately took responsibility, since he was at the helm. He stated, “Victory has 100 fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”

Public officials should remember that power corrupts and concentrated power promotes over-reach and abuse. To promote the common good, a disciplined culture of restraint is necessary. Restraint is evidently lacking in Washington’s current culture. Restraint was lacking in the Justice Departments over-reach in their AP News investigation. Restraint was absent in the IRS recent discrimination and over-reach which violated the public trust. Washington’s current climate is a failure of values. Benghazi is a symbolic failure of values.

Reasons for a Cover Up

Now let’s shift our thinking. Consider why would Obama, knowing immediately that the Benghazi assaults were an Al Qaeda affiliate attack, deny this or point things in another direction? Did he love Muslim “terrorists”? He had Bin Laden shot in the head. He’s proven himself to be no buddy of extremists, regardless of the views of persons drawing a paycheck at Fox News.

Why would Obama deny an Al Qaeda affiliate attack? Political opponents contend the admission would hurt his re-election chances. He was making the case that Al Qaeda was no longer a national threat, and would be embarrassed by an attack. That’s why he intentionally removed references to the attack. Factoid- Al Qaeda Prime, as it’s known in the Company, is no longer a national threat. Four out of five of their top leaders….dead. The other is hiding too deep to be an operational threat, but remains in the cross-hairs if that groundhog sticks his head up to see his shadow. The top 20 senior leaders and innovators….all dead. Al Qaeda Prime are now ghostly images on the internet. What about their affiliates?

There can be no reason to deny that Al Qaeda Lite (not what the Company calls them), the Dairy King opportunists of political vacuums and sectarian discontent, are very dangerous…if you camp out in their back yard and wave a flag. If you stick your hand in a hornets nest you might get stung. Obama has a strong anti-terrorist record and Al Qaeda affiliates not being dangerous are not a logic for a cover up.

Was the US Embassy in Libya in Benghazi? Well, kind of. We had some buildings there. US diplomats live in Tripoli, not Benghazi. Benghazi was the dangerous Wild West of that country.

This Benghazi compound was a “consulate” complex with a bunch of buildings, not a palatial edifice you might see in downtown New York. What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi with such light security? A more pertinent question which sheds light on this affair is, “What was really going on in the compound?” Answer- An ongoing CIA operation.

The Real Story Behind Benghazi

After 9/11, we tasked the CIA with assassination of Enemies of the State. The White House determines who is an Enemy of the State.” The CIA then sends killer drones in on covert operations all over the world. Bear in mind, fifteen years ago the President couldn’t tap a phone without a court getting involved. Man, is this slope slippery. You might be cool with such covert unaccountable killing. Bear in mind that these killings are done in your name.

When you enter the shadow land of “national security”, cover up is the nature of the beast…..thousands of them. Most of these you will never know.

So let’s now enter the shadow land of “national security”, which appears to me to be at the heart of this affair. The scenario presented here may be disclosed, or it may not. Either way, it is another potential facet of complexity.

An ongoing covert agenda of this Administration is the overthrow of Assad in

Syria

. The CIA was tasked with this mission. This is reminiscent to the CIA mission during the 1950s and 1960s before the Church Commission. Benghazi was a marketplace and hotbed for extremist fighters in Libya. Sucky place for an Embassy. Great place to recruit fighters. A great port to ship weapons bound for Syria.

The Benghazi compound was a CIA operation, recruiting fighters, interrogating bad guys, and shipping Libyan weapons to Syria. This “Embassy” held prisoners who were being interrogated. This attack was an inside job, likely aided by some of the fighters we were recruiting to destabilize Iran and Syria. We hired them as “security” for the Embassy. These guys knew precisely the secret safe house everybody bugged out to. That may have been their target. The attackers released the prisoners, so these may have been their target. Bear in mind that the personnel killed in Benghazi were CIA, other than Stevens and his aides. This was a CIA operation that went south. These operations are still ongoing in the region.

Why was Ambassador Stevens in this compound at that time? He was secretly brokering an arms deal, meeting with a Turkish diplomat in order to arrange Libyan arms shipments to Turkey bound for Syria. We’ve been shipping weapons and recruiting fighters for years through Gulf State countries, primarily to destabilize Iran. Do you think these chickens might eventually come home to roost?

So the main reason, in my assessment, for the Presidential cover up was to obfuscate ongoing CIA counterinsurgency practices. Are these legal? Probably not. Never stopped them before. I have lots of examples. The Company will carry out their mission, until that mission changes.

Presidents should be willing to take political heat to preserve national security operations and secrets. After Sputnik, Eisenhower took massive political heat since it appeared the Russkies were ‘ahead”. He took the secret that we had satellite launch capability to his grave for the sake of national security.

In the real world, situations are complex and interdependent. We once waged a Cold War. Now we wage a Shadow War. Things are not as they appear.

There are many lessons to be drawn from Benghazi to improve our national security. These will be found in the land of responsibility…..or one could remain side-tracked in the land of blame.

Stating a Path Forward

2013-02-21T19:19:00.002-08:00

In the midst of the non-starters called the State of the Union, I heard a few possibilities for a way forward strategically (although not politically).

Critics of our economic policy contend that we may end up like Greece. Not a chance. We are too vibrant and innovative a nation for this outcome. However, we certainly are becoming like Japan. In the 90s, Japan was poised for economic dominance in the electronics and finance sectors. But they have slipped from the world’s second largest economy to 24th, and their debt ratio to GDP is 230%. Why did this vibrant economy tank? Their government seized up and refused to make the tough choices needed to reform and move them forward. For Americans desiring their “side” to win at the expense of the other “side”, knock it off. If we don’t all move forward, we all lose.

It is unclear what direction Obama will actually devote energy towards, but he could jump start the economy with a few focused directions in structural reform and human capital investment. Since the Pope is quitting, I’ll put on his hat and provide some “if I were king” recommendations to the powers that be:

Energy- Convert the country to natural gas, since we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas production now. Might as well use it. Bring in the oil from Canada and shoot for energy independence from people who hate us. Build more refineries. Why the hell do we have to send oil to Texas? Those refineries are knocked offline during every hurricane. Put more Americans to work in the energy sector until decentralized solar disrupts the whole damn thing in around a decade from now.

Tax reform- Get off the tax rich people bandwagon and onto the major overhaul the 73,000 page tax code bandwagon. Think Ronald Reagan. Lower the corporate rates and close the special interest loopholes. Create a new taxation category for small business to separate it from personal taxation and provide incentives for business creation. Fast track and incentive-ize business start-ups, hiring, and investment.

Infrastructure- We need to move away from infrastructure projects funded with taxpayer money. An infrastructure bank would create private/ public partnerships and toll-based building projects which could efficiently create thousands of new jobs, as well as keeping our bridges from collapsing.

EU trade agreement- A little recalled and less understood point was made concerning next years EU free trade agreement talks. This announcement is a blaze rather than a glimmer of good news. This trade agreement represents the consolidation of 50% of the planets production capability. Goods and exports could be manufactured and transported at per unit costs rivaling China. If handled wisely, this agreement could make the US-EU the most powerful economic zone on the planet and add millions of new jobs to supply emerging markets.

The Message on Medicare

2013-02-10T20:34:00.003-08:00

The upcoming sequestration will force automatic spending cuts in two large areas of government spending: defense and discretionary spending. While reducing spending might seem a lovely thing, across the board cuts will mean contracting the economy into recession, laying of over a half million people (who will want “benefits”) and reducing government services and capabilities.

I’m not sorry to see cuts in “defense”. An internal audit under Gates concluded $300 billion in waste, fraud & redundancy. That’s just in the Pentagon. Since 9/11, the “national security” infrastructure has grown beyond the size of eight Pentagons. Most of these agencies still get blank checks in the name of “security” against Abdul with a bomb in a backpack.

While these issues may be rant-worthy, the point of this blog concerns the popular consensus on health care. It is clear that Medicare is unsustainable. It is also clear that the People don’t want their Medicare benefits reduced. People want far more government than they are willing to pay for.

The People don’t want reductions in Social Security or Medicare. Democrats are riding that wave. The People don’t arrive at this position in a partisan manner. They have a longer memory than polls and pundits.

Social Security was passed in the midst of the Great Depression in 1935. This was the first social safety net at a time when most Americans were falling off the fiscal cliff of the day. When Social Security was passed, less than 5 million Americans had any type of health coverage. Most health care was provided by small town doctors and care was administered in the home. When it was your time to go, you went. The People remember that level of health care.

Medicare was passed in 1965. At that time, health insurance cost on average $1.65 a month and only 140 million Americans had it. Although medical care had advanced, urbanization made home care less of an option. The sick and elderly were packed off to relatives, much as had been done during the 19th Century. Hospitals were where you went to die. The People remember that level of care.

Now we have whiz-bang Star Trek super-expensive medicine. An aspirin costs $50 in the emergency room. We can keep Gramps alive whether his brain is working or not. It only costs a bijillion dollars. We have more and more Gramps coming online all the time. Hence the unsustainable part of Medicare.

I think that what the People are saying is they remember what life was like before Medicare and they’re not willing to live that lifestyle or quality of life. It’s just that simple. So in the sea of conflicting political messages, they’re saying “Find something else to cut. Get your Government hands off my Medicare.” I still love that one. Anyway, I think this is the heart of the message and it might be wise for politicians to reduce costs without reducing care.

Legal Stances

2013-02-06T21:19:00.001-08:00

Some interesting stories in the news this week:

The Big Banks have pretty much settled with the Government (State & Fed) to avoid further prosecutions for fraud and predatory lending, mortgage, and foreclosure practices. Slap on the wrist , got off for pennies on the dollar.

Yesterday, the Federal Justice Department announced a suit against Standard & Poor's. This is the first federal suit brought against a credit rating agency. Such agencies enabled the Great Recession by rating very risky mortgages as AAA, i.e. they lied. Sixteen state Justice Department's have also filed suit when internal documents emerged showing that they lied (allegedly). Standard & Poor's is accused of defrauding investors to increase profits and market share. We’ll see if anyone actually goes to jail. Hold no breath. S&P's defense? Everybody was believing and doing the same thing as they were. If everybody jumped off a cliff...wait a minute, they did.

For persons desperately concerned about our federal deficit and the burden it will place on future generations, the CBO projected yesterday that the deficit will fall to $840 billion. Last year's deficit was $1.1 trillion.

For persons desperately opposing investment in infrastructure because the spending will burden future generations, Texas A & M University released a study yesterday on how much time commuters spent in their cars. Largely because of gridlocked roads, commuters were found to spend 5.5 billion hours more in their cars in 2011 than they did in 2010. I would assume that since infrastructure does not magically repair itself, the 2012 numbers won't look much better when released. The study estimates $12.1 billion was wasted in time and fuel. All that sitting around released an additional 56 billion pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere.....which might turn out to be a burden on future generations, if you think about it.

Professional bloggers tell me that blogs should focus on only one subject, and be no more than 500 words long. They misunderstand that I am Lord of my Writing Realm, and as sovereign, I make up the rules as I go along.

In a similar manner, the Justice Department yesterday released their logic and legal reasoning for targeting and killing Americans living abroad who may be or might become a “terrorist” enemy mastermind. Tips for your next vacation: drones only travel at 89 mph. Drive fast.

The leaked document was an internal Justice Department memo, and Administration officials scurried to clarify, justify, and cover bottoms. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder stated that the Administration’s policy of lethal force was based on a Congressional statute permitting combat against Al Qaeda and related groups. The Administration policy is to take “these kinds of actions” when there is “an imminent threat, when capture is not feasible, when we are confident that our actions are consistent with federal and international law.” The Justice Department white paper was prepared for a Congressional committee last year, and calls targeting senior enemy leadership “lawful acts of self-defense and not illegal assassinations. ”The White House Press Secretary called such actions “legal, ethical and wise.”

It is certainly wise strategically to eliminate enemy innovators.

Israel

tested and repeatedly demonstrated this model. When key innovators were eliminated, enemy cells dissipated. I absolutely agree with removing the heads of Hydra.

My caution concerning this policy is not based on a defense of our enemies, but rather the threat posed to our civil liberties. The stated legal rationale is sketchy and incomplete. The leaked White Paper was based on Justice Department memos, which continue to remain classified.

The leaked document demonstrates that this Administration is continuing the fine 21st century tradition of expanding Executive branch power. The lethal force decisions made by the Administration are not subject to any judicial review, and would appear to deny American citizens their right of due process. The Administration solely determines what constitutes an “imminent threat” and whether the American citizen/target is an enemy of the State. This “threat” may not reflect any actual plot, need not be based on clear evidence, or place the target near a battlefield. Did I mention that these decisions and executions are not subject to any other review, before or after. The target may represent a future rather than current security threat. For example, the 16-year-old son of an operational leader was killed while having dinner with friends. I guess he looked suspicious, or the White House crystal ball was working that day.

Such “limits” on Executive power appear rather subjective, like Dick Cheney with a dartboard. If the administration can “make up”their own limitations, they would appear not to be limitations at all.

On the other hand, this is an incomplete summary document, leaked without permission. It does appear to be an effort at creating a narrow, restricted rationale for limiting Executive power. It also appears an attempt to reconcile Constitutional and international law with the changing realities of war. The drafters of this document point out that current armed conflicts present limited facts and require real-time decision-making. In addition, while due process accountability is usually experienced within our domestic legal system, it is not limited to the courts. Historically, Presidents been accorded latitude to exercise coercive force on American citizens during wartime. The document attempts to balance these key issues.

While Executive latitude may appear realistic, the “limitations” on Executive actions expressed to date, such as imminent threat, are so broad and subjective that no other nation endorses the legality of this position. The assertion of power is expansive, a global reach. It is troubling that the Administration will not release rationale or criteria for vetting decisions concerning the use of lethal force. They are also strongly resisting any congressional or judicial oversight or accountability for these decisions.

While strategically justifiable, the ability of the Executive branch to execute Americans abroad appears to me as much an overreach legally as torture and secret prisons. It is outside our values and ethical tradition. I have heard such language before, during the Cold War. Anything was justified in the name of stopping Communism, our existential enemy. We tend to define ourselves relative to our enemies. “Terrorism” is our new existential enemy, although a rather ragged and toothless one.

A person may put great faith and trust in the decision-makers of the Obama Administration. Another person might not. It seems obvious how a precedent for subjective executions might be manipulated and abused. As in the Cold War, the question lingers: Who will watch the Watchers?

More Cliffs Ahead

2013-01-07T17:52:00.002-08:00

Ok, who’s sick of hearing about a financial cliff? That’s called consensus. The fiscal cliff bill made the Bush tax cuts permanent but raised taxes on ½ of one percent of the population. It is certainly a symbolic statement of equity for Main Street and Democrats. However, it may be a Pyrrhic victory as both sides are less likely to negotiate in the near future. In other words, less likely to go to work, i.e. govern. These days it’s all about ultimatums and winning for both sides. Most of the top 2% won. The White House & Congressional special interests received a stimulus, so they won. The American People, not so much. An unsavory bill all around. This bill represents everything wrong with Washington, all the dysfunction and missed opportunities.

What’s wrong with those dang politicans? Why won’t they represent the will of the People? They are. But the two Parties are in opposed gridlocked conflict. No, the two Parties are reflecting quite well the will of the American People. Both Parties want a large welfare state and not pay for it, regardless of their rhetoric. That IS the will of the People. When it’s said that social programs are “popular”, they are, as in “Get your Government hands off my Medicare”. The People DON’T want to sacrifice, suffer, or diet down to where they need to be. And ALL the politicians seem to be offering hot fudge sundae diets.

So the rich get richer, Big Money makes the rules and runs the show, and Congress works very hard...to keep their jobs. That’s the way it is....that’s the way it’s always been, right?

But didn’t the People clearly say in the last election that they wanted solutions and working together? Apparently not. Look who we elected. A billion dollars was wasted for things to stay the same. We send a mixed message because we have a mixed mind.

Don’t believe me that BOTH sides want a big welfare state without paying for it? Medicare (actually the underlying out of control health care costs, which are a different animal) is unsustainable. Democrats don’t want to discuss it. Sounds like a bad marriage. The Republicans want tax cuts, certainly Keynesian and certainly irresponsible. If you’re serious about balancing the budget, you have to be serious about bringing more money in the door as well as reducing the use of the national credit card. That’s the not wanting to pay for it part. And Republican “spending cuts”? It seems that if the average Joe or poor people aren’t hurt by spending cuts, they’re not really spending cuts. There are billions in welfare cuts to special interests that can be made. “Defense” and “national security” are some of the fattest pigs at the trough. Domestic spending is a few percent of the budget. If you’re going to talk about cutting spending, get serious.

During our next national fight, Republicans will squabble about not wanting to pay our national credit card bill, money they themselves spent. Sound nutty? Simple message: The People want a larger government than they want to pay for.

You can see this same thinking disorder locally as well as nationally. We bitch about wanting better schools , but vote down funding for school districts. We want more firemen, policemen, and bridges that don’t collapse, but vote no to a tax raise for these services. We are psychosocially a house divided.

So those weary of cliffs are wandering around the wrong terrain. The recent trauma simply shows that our leaders are incapable of making hard and smart choices. It would be smart to go to work NOW on the next three cliffs, but everybody is dug in and trying to hurt the opposition. And the People end up the loser.

This blog is about the long term challenge we face, the debt. Our leaders are dysfunctional drama queens unable to deal with our immediate challenges: (1) the debt ceiling, (2) the sequester, and (3) funding the Government. I point out that these guys dug these pits and created these problems themselves, because of gutless can kicking. All of these bills come due in March. Rather than Congress solving problems for the benefit of the People, what are they talking about? Drink a shot every time you hear the phrase “kill the hostage” on the news. See you at A.A. BTW, that hostage is you. The guys pulling the trigger already have cushy jobs , pensions and health care for life. And these geniuses just gave themselves a well deserved raise.

Our nations short term challenges involve stimulus (aka investment in our country, not sustaining business as usual), growth and jobs. I usually spend a lot of time ranting in this short-term space. I often say that our problem with the national debt is not immediate. The reality is that it is not immediate, but is likely fatal down the road. We can currently easily pay the interest on the debt (around $300 billion) and nations are still throwing their money at us at the lowest borrowing rates in our history. We borrow currently at 40% lower than the time of the last predicted borrowing catastrophe, the last debt ceiling fight/S&P downgrade.

However, all the partisan posturing is a waste of time. The size and scope of Government will have to be reduced, or revenues will have to be raised to pay for it. Hard choices about Medicare will have to be made. Hard choices about “defense” will have to be made. We should take a cue for The Donald and keep firing people until we discover those capable of making hard choices. The People should also make some hard choices and get their heads clear one way OR the other on the role of Government in our lives. Business as usual is unsustainable all around. We shouldn’t expect elected yahoos whose goal is keeping their jobs to have more clarity than we collectively do.

We need to also gain clarity and find people who can make smart choices as well. Certainly the smart thing to do is to means test the whole damn thing. Before you go after Granny, cut out waste, fraud and redundancy and you will bend several curves. Bear in mind you only need to reduce $4 trillion to bend the whole budget curve towards sustainability. Do you think there’s $4 trillion sloshing around a Government without authentic oversight? Do we really need still fund a global empire?

Did the fiscal cliff bill end the conversation about tax reform? Seriously? Don’t we need to shrink our bijillion page special interest tax code? Don’t we need to rethink small business taxation? Don’t we need to seriously close corporate loopholes that keep corporate tax payments in the single digits, or not at all, or receiving subsidies while not paying taxes? I guess you have those three choices if you write the tax code.

Enough about these simple immediate and short-term challenges. The long term problem is the national debt. A few quick definitions to clarify terms: deficit (difference of what we take in to what we spend), Debt (the amount and interest put on the national credit card from the time of the nation’s founding). The CBO keeps bitching about “unfunded” debt. Like high blood pressure, unfunded debt is the silent killer. This is debt that Congress spends (for those bitching about Obama spending money, Presidents don’t spend money) that is not reported on a budget. Most of what Congress spends is not reported on a budget. What is reported on a budget is very misleading. It would be like you diligently reporting the movie you just bought about horseracing onto your Quickbooks and then running out and buying a polo pony. Doesn’t benefit most people and probably not the smartest spending choice. Congress buys a lot of polo ponies.

And ponies are expensive. The interest alone on the debt this year is $359,796,008,919.49. This will grow every year due to unreported spending and already made promises. What sort of things are unfunded and unreported? Our trillion dollar foreign adventures (do we still need an empire?), Medicare, Social Security, and the pensions of government workers are all off the books pre-promised obligations. Polo anyone?

According to the House Ways and Means Committee figures (not in the actual budget if we actually had a budget, we don’t), the actual annual cost of Medicare and Social Security alone is $7 trillion. So gee, that’s very different from the numbers officially reported. Good rule of thumb, whenever you see an “official” figure for the national deficit (how much we’re really paying out versus what we take in), it’s about 1/5 of the actual amount being payed out.

So I seem to be picking on Medicare and Social Security. Why are these two programs unsustainable? Health care/insurance costs continue to escalate. The population continues to age. The number of workers in the workforce is declining.100% of payroll taxes are used to pay into the current years bills of these two programs. So we’re losing money every year. Make sense?

But rising costs and an aging population are fraying the social safety net across the board. The FHA last year faced a $16.3 billion deficit, the first in its history. The Disability Insurance trust fund will be depleted by 2016.

The main problem with massive unfunded debt is that it is invisible. It’s off the books and off the radar. Can this trend be reversed? Not with current thinking. The Republicans can’t cut enough discretionary spending and hurt enough average Joes to fix the budget problem. Democrats can’t arrange the deck chairs on the Medicare Titanic and unpromise what has been promised. Can we reform this budget mess? The Government has probably gotten too big, spent too much for too long, wasted too much, and promised too much to “reform”. So probably not.

A different way forward will involve moving beyond stale 20th Century thinking. It will involve authentic honesty and authentic leadership that lays the authentic problems out to the People. The People will have to grow up and help their representatives make tough choices for the benefit of all. Without honesty, leadership, shared sacrifice and tough choices, it is unlikely that business as usual can be sustained. It is unlikely that doing nothing can be sustained. The debt to GDP (& interest) will continue to rise until the whole thing implodes.

If we just keep on trying to do business as usual (personally and nationally) we’ll be a nation in decline. We will be a very large plane spinning out of control. We have flown very high and will have a very long way to fall. But the end of the story won’t be happily ever after. Time to wake up the pilots.

And here you thought that a fiscal cliff fight affecting .05 percent of the population was exhausting.

A Look Back 2012

2013-01-04T19:25:00.002-08:00

Historians look for things called inflection points. Inflection points are moments in time when events occurred or could have occurred that significantly impact the future. Inflection points also reflect shifts in national conversation and consciousness. This blog speculates on what inflection points future historians will note for the year 2012.

Climate Change

it is likely that the most crucial inflection point in 2012 involves climate change. Sandy shifted the national conversation about climate change from the theoretical to the experiential. A few weeks ago, a UN study of the latest climate data concluded that we have passed the tipping point, that point of no return where global temperatures will rise on their own, polar ice will melt, and sea levels will rise precipitously over the next 50 years. Let us pray to St. Gore for mercy.

I have for some time been curious about what conditions specifically constitute a tipping point. This is the first report I have seen which provided this answer. The tipping point occurs when global temperatures (land and particularly sea) rise by 3.6°F. Global temperatures have risen more than 2° since St. Gore descended on his aerial lift to prophesy climate change doom.

The causal link between temperature rise and human carbon emissions remains unclear. However, it may be wise to cut back on the emitting. Humanity pumped out 400% higher CO2 levels in 2011 than many climate change models predicted. The world will try again in a few years to craft a global treaty curbing carbon emissions. A few more Sandy's might get the US to that table.

Political extremists are fixated on the onerous debt burden that will be borne by future generations. These folks believe that debt is bad but deny the reality of climate change. Let us pray that they are correct. If Gramps could have taken actions that position future generations at the low end of of the disaster prediction scale, and didn't take such action, or didn't believe in such action, future generations will be pissed off at far more than owing a few bucks to the Chinese.

Gun Regulation

Mass shootings and public tragedies have in the past produced little social change or political traction for authentic gun regulation. Guns, like booze, are part of our national heritage and identity. However, recent tragedies are shifting the national conversation towards “common sense” gun regulation.

Like many problems our nation faces, gun violence is very complex. With some interest, I have listened to recent proposals to curb gun violence. These proposals have made little practical sense to me.

We need another ban on assault weapons. I note that assault weapons are merely cosmetically different from hunting rifles. Connecticut already has a ban on assault weapons. The recent shootings were not conducted with assault weapons. No assault weapons were needed for the assassination of the Kennedys and MLK.

Put metal detectors in all schools. Schools already look like factories. Should they look more like airports? I note that the pistol used in Connecticut was plastic and designed to go through a metal detector. They catch guns at the airport using x-ray machines, not metal detectors.

Gun violence is a mental health issue. A nutty person with the gun is indeed a problem. However, the shooters in recent years do not fit a predictable psychological profile which deviates significantly from the American population. Perhaps the American population is a bit nutty. If you could identify someone who would potentially harm others, it's currently against the law to lock them up. Some states have laws which allow such people to be locked up. People are not locked up, even those requesting treatment, because the laws controversially restrict civil liberty. People also are not being locked up or receiving treatment because states with such laws don't fund the mental health system. You get what you pay for.

Destigmatize mental health treatment. It’s a social norm. Good luck with that.

Put armed guards in every school. We got a new sheriff in town, little pardner. I point out that school districts can't fund teachers, much less a gun packing doughnut-eater who sits around all day to give more peace of mind to little Johnny's helicopter mama. Columbine had an armed guard on duty.

Violence in entertainment and pop-culture makes our society more violent. Most of the industrial world has the same entertainment culture as our own. We differentiate ourselves by incorporating gun violence into our national identity, who we are as a people.

England

has exactly the same entertainment influences as we do, but has only a few dozen firearm homicides a year.

Japan

has a much more violent pop and entertainment culture than our own, but has less than a dozen firearm deaths per year. This is also true in China, which has a bijillion people.

Limit clip size and ammunition capacity. Seems sensible to me.

If six shots was good enough for Billy the Kid, it should be good enough for modern looney-toons as well. Let's hope that bad guys don't get hold of a Lone Ranger sixgun, which fires 80 shots without reloading.

We need more identity checks and regulation of secondary markets. This also sounds reasonable to me. Limiting access of criminals, the insane, and terrorists to one gun a month just makes sense. But it may be bad for business.

So why does England, Japan, bijillion people

China

, and pretty much any other industrialized country have a much lower rate of firearm murders? The rest of the industrialized world limit private access and ownership of guns. Not having access to guns doesn't slow down murderous looney toons, however. On the day of the Connecticut school shooting, a wacko with a knife attacked schoolchildren in

China

. He stabbed many children, but none of them died. The wacko was shot by police. School stabbings also occurred recently in Russia and Europe.

Limiting private ownership of guns is not an option in the

. Guns are part of our national identity. We are a nation awash in guns. Nearly half a million guns were sold on Black Friday alone. Just talking about any type of ban clears out the gun store inventory. The US has 5% of the world's population and 50% of the world's guns. After the Cold War, the Maj. General in charge of the KGB admitted that invasion of the

United States

was never entertained because of the number of guns in private hands. People terrified of a government seizure of their gun collection should take comfort from that fact. Ain’t gonna happen.

Other countries think of guns differently than we do in the US. For our great love of guns, we have quite an adolescent, irresponsible view of them. Other nations view guns much more responsibly. Rural England has many firearms but almost no firearm homicides. Pretty much every household in Israel has an automatic weapon, but are quite responsible in their use.

Recent tragedies may provide an inflection point to the conversation and legislation of gun violence. However, until we explore and assess the relationship of guns to who we are as a people, such tragedies are likely to recur.

Political Trends

Several emerging political trends were seen in 2012. The introduction of social media and multiplatform monitoring shifted the electorate from passive observers to active participants. Expect this major trend to transform the political landscape.

The last election revealed the naked avarice of Big Money as unrestrained billionaires attempted to promote personal political ideologies and agendas. It is surprising relative to return on investment how little traction Big Money had on electoral results. $1 billion was wasted as little change was seen on the political chessboard. What benefits could $1 billion have provided for our country, or is that communist thinking?

The electorate trended towards moderation and extremist positions lost ground. The transformative influence of minorities and diverse demographics increased. The impact of the conjuncture between statistical analysis and information technology was at its infancy but will doubtlessly redefine future political contests.

Cultural Shifts

2012 revealed many cultural shifts occurring within the

population. Main Street political thought appeared more centrist and progressive. For the first time, popular votes affirmed gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana. California voters gave themselves a tax increase. Pigs should start flying anytime now.

Global Trends

in the Middle East, populations continued to struggle for political self-determination. The Syrian Civil War and the Egyptian elections are both examples of popular self-expression. It is interesting to note that modern Islamic political thought had its orgins in Egypt, and Egypt remains a crucible of regional political evolution.

A quiet, but I think quite important event, was the debut of Chinese space flight. A space program is a long-term commitment to becoming a global superpower. Political scientists understand that to be a superpower, the people of the nation must see themselves as a superpower and desire to be a superpower. The national identity of China is still emerging.

North Korea

successfully launched an ICBM. This may turn out to be a very dark inflection point indeed.

So these are some of the major inflection points I observed in 2012. Future historians will also no doubt note that the world did not and in December of that year.

Super-Weather Response

2012-11-04T11:47:00.002-08:00

Is climate change still controversial? Climate change means extreme weather. We just got hit by a Superstorm. Last year we had a bunch of Supertornadoes to go along with “hundred year” droughts and floods, which are now occurring every couple of years. We had 14 billion dollar disasters last year and seven so far this year. All we need is a giant lizard wreaking havoc. So we are now experiencing Super-weather. Are there capes involved? Aren’t there supposed to be Super-Heroes to protect us?

Is “global warming” occurring? There is no doubt of it for those who observe rather than “believe”. The numbers are clear. 2012 was the warmest year since records began to be kept in 1895. Temperatures continue to rise globally every year for the past few decades. Expect coastal sea levels to rise by two feet, with storm surges averaging eight feet by 2050. By 2100, expect coastal sea levels to rise by about six feet from present, with all the accompanying challenges that will bring. More water in the atmosphere means more extreme weather patterns. So weather will get more extreme more often. Welcome to the new normal.

If a “storm of the century” happens every few years, it becomes a new normal and business as usual. So how does business become usual again when faced with the “unusual”? How do we protect our cities and communities from extreme weather?

Most of us have lived in the State of Denial. There is a temptation when it dawns on us that something is “going on” to rush towards the State of Over-Engineering. “We have to build our cities to withstand (insert your naughty weather event here)”. We can’t afford it and it won’t help.

If the future (and present) doesn’t resemble the past, it is difficult to predict what we need to do to protect ourselves. We can say with certainty we have to rethink how we build and where we build. It is not difficult to see that we could over-build and over-engineer in anticipation of upcoming Super-weather events.

I would advocate that our goal and outcome to shoot for in renewing our communities and homes is resilience, how to “bounce back” quickly from an extreme event. We should retool our infrastructures, when we bother to rebuild them, to be engineered for resilience. We should likewise consider preparing our homes and families to increase resilience. Resilience involves changing our thinking in addition to changing our engineering.

But aren’t our cities more environmentally conscious? Many of our large cities have green initiatives to reduce heat, emissions, and save money. Resilience is not yet a factor or priority in these designs. Since the Government is accountable to the People in this country, we should direct them to make it a consideration and priority.

What specifically should we renew for resilience? First of all, anything underground such as subways, tunnels, sewers, and water treatment plants, or anything else that shouldn’t be an aquarium. This is less about making them waterproof and more about routing water out of them if needed.

I could drone on a list of specifics important for resilience, but the bottom line is we all have to become more aware and committed to preparing for extreme weather events. We have to hold the decision makers and purse string holders accountable to prepare for such events. We need, as a society, to become more adaptive, constantly improving our ability to respond. This is true in our homes as well as in our communities. Is all of this “renewal” expensive? Sure, but consider the alternatives. And don’t wait until solutions are “perfect” to start implementing them. That’s part of adaptation. If we fail to adapt, we will shift our budget from the Pentagon to FEMA.

A major component of the “global warming” controversy is how much people cause and perpetuate extreme weather. Frankly, Scarlet, I don’t care. The Super-Hurricane knocking at your door also doesn’t care what you “believe”. We need to work together to reduce emissions to get at the low end of climate change projections. If our lifestyles are promoting severe weather, for our sake and the sake of our kids, we might consider changing our lifestyles. Not because we “have to” but because it’s “smart to”.

We should essentially create social wisdom around the subject of extreme weather. Our policy makers, insurers and private sector should partner to create new risk assessments and value estimates. We can’t live like we have always lived because our climate is changing. Extreme weather was not a factor in our past decision making. It is cost prohibitive to sustain the past or thoughtlessly create the future.

We need a strategic perspective to making ourselves safer. The conversation is not more resilient structures versus emission reduction. This is not either/or. Do I stop smoking or get off my Cheetos diet to get healthier? We change our personal health after that first heart attack. We need to change our lives and society across the board because we will continue to get our butts kicked by Mother Nature.

It is human nature to think and plan locally. To shift our thinking, it is important to keep our conversations local. Is my community, my house, my family prepared for an extreme weather event? What is the most important or cost effective steps we can take to become better prepared?

Disasters are good opportunities for change. Governors say they will “rebuild”. If we rebuild the past rather than the future, we do ourselves and future generations a disservice. We sow the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

Budget Breakdown

2012-11-04T11:25:00.001-08:00

Anyone suffering through a Congressional budget debate on C-SPAN has had their sensibilities assaulted with lies. Polite people and lawyers call these mendacity. Here are some hard facts about the Federal budget.

Last year, 63% of money was spent without a Congressional vote. This autopilot spending went for past obligations made by past Congresses. Few legislators have the courage to make tough choices for future spending, much less renege on such past promises.

Our social safety net sucks up quite a bit of this money. In 1960, 9.5% of the federal budget went to health care. Currently, 25% of the federal budget goes to health care. The CBO estimates that in 10 years, healthcare costs will be 33% of the federal budget. We cannot control spending without controlling healthcare costs.

So if around two thirds of our Congressional budget is on autopilot, why can't we just fire some of the people on those fat Federal payrolls and reduce our spending? The difference between what our government owes in what our government brings in is called a deficit. Our national deficit is currently over $1 trillion. The combined wages and benefits of all federal employees is $435 billion. We couldn’t put a dent in our $16 trillion debt by firing everybody in the Government, including the military. Rather than bankrolling a bunch of employees, the numbers indicate that most of the money Washington takes him if sent back out in benefits, contracts, and assistance to States.

Military spending accounts for about 20% of the federal budget, around $700 billion. This amount is more than the combined spending of the next 17 largest military budgets. Feel safer yet? Do you want to continue to pay for us to be the worlds policeman?

Look at the scope of these appropriations. Congress tells the Defense Department they have to have 11 aircraft carriers. Bear in mind that other nations have one. If you have an aircraft carrier, it has to be replaced every five years and this costs $11 billion. Do we have to have 11? $11 billion would replace 750,000 shoulder, knee and hip joints under Medicare. This is the scope of decisions made at this level.

An additional 20% of the federal budget goes to Social Security. So three areas account for 65% of the Federal budget. The rest of the budget is for everything else. What spending would you advocate cutting, and what do you base your decision on? Sorry, Big Bird.

The interest on the federal debt deserves a mention. The federal debt was created by Alexander Hamilton, who convinced the States to consolidate their debts into a single Federal debt. Last year the interest on the Federal debt was $220 billion. This is larger than the combined budgets of Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, and the Federal courts combined. Last year, 6% of Federal spending went towards interest on the national debt. Bear in mind that the rates of other nations charged to buy our debt is at historic lows. If the international climate changes, the rates could become much higher.

A budget breakdown would be incomplete without mentioning revenue or taxes. The hard facts are that taxes on the middle class, the primary source of Federal revenue, have been declining for the last 30 years. This hard fact may come as a surprise to some in the middle class. In 1979 before the Reagan tax reforms, middle-class tax rates were around 19%. In 2007, before the Crash, middle-class tax rates were 14%. They have continued to decline since then.

So where are the decisions made which divide up our $3.7 trillion national budget? Are they made in Congressional subcommittees or before the cameras of C-SPAN? Nay, Nay! They made in private meetings with lobbyists. The hard facts are that lobbyists keep legislators in their jobs, so lobbyists greatly influence how our national budget is spent. In 2011, Treasury took in $1.3 trillion in taxes. Loopholes influenced by lobbyists accounted for an additional $1.1 trillion in lost revenue.

It is the role and responsibility of the free press and informed citizens to question the decisions made by legislators, particularly involving health care and defense. Our conversations should be less about individual beliefs and ideology and more about benefits to all Americans. I encourage you, an informed public, to make your voices heard this election day. Remember, Presidents can't spend money or create debt. That is the province of Congress. Bear this in mind when you place your hope and trust.

We are on the brink of an economic cliff in December. Since Congress didn’t have the balls to make tough choices, mandatory budget cuts will go into effect, gutting 5.1% of GDP in one year. Such cuts during a struggling recovery are economic suicide. Our economic challenges are all solvable, if legislators work together to cut a deal benefiting all of us. We need a balanced bipartisan solutions. Legislators actually have to govern, not be ideological purists. If you hate a broken Congress and broken System, don’t put one in place with your vote. Current voting trends indicate an 80-90% partisan ticket. You can’t have it both ways, winning an election for “your side” and having a Congress that works. I voted for both Democrats and Republicans this election, depending on who is willing to work together. I recommend you do the same. Our economic suicide is in your hands and the message you send.

The Peaceful Warrior

2012-10-31T19:37:00.001-07:00

We recently saw the passing of George McGovern. Some defined McGovern in terms of a failed Presidential bid in 1971. Others define him as a commie peacenik hippie. He was, in fact, one of the most influential figures of modern politics.

Following his combat experiences in WWII, McGovern hated war and saw it necessary only as a last resort. He vigorously opposed involvement in civil wars such as Vietnam. He opposed the recent Iraq adventure as unnecessary and immoral. Throughout his public life, McGovern served as a national conscience and moral compass. McGovern opposed sustaining a global military empire. A favorite phrase was “Bring America home”. The debate remarks of both Obama and Romney about nation building here in the US strongly reflects McGovern’s sentiments and mission. In addition to speaking out against needless foreign entanglements, McGovern dedicated his life to eliminating domestic and global hunger. McGovern leaves behind a rich legacy of peace and reason.

There are two figures who profoundly shaped the course of modern politics, George McGovern and Barry Goldwater. Both were political philosophers, both reinvented their Parties, and both served the role of providing a national moral compass. Both were profoundly inspirational. Without McGovern, there would have been no Clinton or Obama. Without Goldwater, there could have been no Reagan.

There is another way to define his legacy. George McGovern answered his nation’s call, leaving the fields of South Dakota at the age of 22. He piloted a B-24 through 35 harrowing combat missions. Stephen Ambrose, the Poet Laureate of American military history stated, “George McGovern was as great a patriot as I have ever known. He had the trust, confidence, and love of his crew. His acts of courage were enormous and we all owe him an enormous debt. I just want to show that you don’t have to be a hawk to be a great patriot.”

Next Weeks Elections

2012-10-31T19:21:00.001-07:00

Next weeks elections on November 8th promise to be exciting. It is unclear who will take the helm, but it will probably be Xi Jimping. Yes, election watchers, it’s time to break out the balloons and horns for the Chinese elections.

China is our closest symbiotic trading partner. Our fates and fortunes are inexorably linked. So this is proving to be a historic election, the changing of the guard from old to new.

This transition is fraught with anxiety, within the government and on the street. The new leaders will have to deal with larger and more complex problems than any of their predecessors. The people on the street are anxious because they don’t know much about their new leaders.

They will doubtlessly be male, young, children of Party officials, highly educated within China rather than abroad, and have different sentiments and ambitions than their elders. All of these men thrived within the system. Analysts feel that because of their backgrounds, the new leadership will undertake as little reform as possible.

Xi will probably head the Council of Seven. China doesn’t have a single leader at the top. Xi is the son of a Mao lieutenant and joined the Party in 1974.

The main problem facing China is the erosion of the Deng Xioping Strategic Model, which has worked successfully for 30 years. This model has three planks:

1. Economic and export-centric reforms- Deng bet on demographics. He knew that China had millions of young unemployed people which he could move from the farms to the coast and put to work cheaply in factories. The social shift we took over a century to make, China made in a few decades, and experienced over 10% growth rate for the last 30 years. The major problems with this model is that most people have now moved to cities, so the cheap labor force is diminishing. The population shift is also straining urban infrastructures. In addition, standards of living are rising across China. Per capita income is over $4,000 annually, well above third world standards. The World Bank reports that China has brought 500 million people out of poverty since 1981. An additional source of tension inherent in the model is the creation of massive, profitable State-owned enterprises. Incomes for the average worker are not increasing and the gap between rich and poor is the highest since the Revolution, even greater than that of the US. China knows it needs a new economic direction, but it is unsure what that is.

2. Political technocracy- Decades ago, China was replete with cronyism. Deng’s vision was to create a merit and performance based society. While much of what roils beneath the surface is placidly hidden, it is clear that there is aggressive infighting and political maneuvering for power. That’s what concentration of power and big money will do. Perhaps the Chinese need to Occupy something in protest. Also evident is rampant, permeating corruption. The level of corruption in China has never been seen in modern capitalism, due to the amount of money involved. The new leaders will be challenged with getting the country through this phase of their economic development. Historically, many countries have successfully transitioned out of corruption. The post-war economies of Japan and Korea were very corrupt. The United States had rampant corruption at the turn of the 20th Century. What all these countries had that China doesn’t is the rule of law, a free judiciary and free press, and the ability for the people to throw corrupt politicians out of office. China is also facing an expectations gap as their populace demands more and complains more. This gap is becoming very volatile and frustrating on the street.

3. Pro-Americanism- The third plank of Deng’s strategy is crumbling as anti-American sentiment currently permeates all strata of Chinese society. There is a deeply held belief that the US will attempt to contain China or limit the rise of Chinese emergence as a Superpower. Our politicians appear to be enhancing this perception. In the near future, expect many public protests and demonstrations against the United States. Bear in mind that such demonstrations not only express popular beliefs, but also are the only permissible and sanctioned expression for a frustrated population.

China’s new leadership will have to chart a new course as their long held political strategies unravel. While the Chinese don’t have a viable ideology to rally around, there is tremendous pride in the Chinese nation and accomplishments. Expect the Chinese to rally around their flag when times are uncertain or difficult.

President of Ohio

2012-10-27T05:00:00.003-07:00

Our national fixation on Presidents continues as Mitt and Barrack contend to become President of Ohio. They have outlined two murky but distinct roads forward: investment (Government spending) vs. Reagan lite (tax code reform, close loopholes, deregulation). Both are newly born-again middle class populists and indistinguishable from each other on many policy points. And for Republicans, another time before the cameras is another opportunity to promote a tax cut.

Speaking of tax cuts, who will pay for the hot fudge sundae diets these guys are proposing? Bearing the burdens to keep the country running is more than about revenue. It is about fairness. Fairness is a big portion of the mandate people give a President. It answers the question “So what Mr. Big Shot now that you’ve won?”

There is a clear distinction made as far as fairness. The Democrats want to tax rich people. Their reasoning is that they’ve benefited in recent years when most of us suffered and they should contribute from this abundance. The Republicans are more fuzzy with their math...and equity.

Since I have a memory, I point out that the sacred budget Ryan initially proposed gets 62% of its revenue from cutting programs to poor people. Since our working families are quickly becoming our working poor, this may be of some interest. It becomes about us and not about those other people.

I note that the Republicans still impose no additional burden on the luckiest, the most advantaged, and the most privileged among us. I simply make the point that who will pay is a clear distinction between the Parties. The “bear any burden” sentiment of previous statesmen apparently does not apply to campaign donors.

Social equity goes beyond an ethical imperative. As previously stated, it becomes part of a Presidential mandate. When you have mostly agreement between these guys, what does it mean when one or the other wins? What is the mandate the people are expressing and conferring? What is the mandate when the country is evenly divided?

While we fixate on Presidents, because its easy to do so, the important race is actually for Congress. I have heard MUCH talk of debts and deficits of current and past Presidents, of bad policy choices made by one side or the other. I remind gentle readers that Presidents don’t create budgets (other than a symbolic one), spend money, don’t create debt, and don’t make laws. Congress doses.

So while one guy is easy to blame for social ills, it is inaccurate. Presidents have very little ability to actually fix or create anything. They can influence and persuade, but they can’t order. They’re not the boss of Congress. Ask any Congressman.

So while we Twitter about the latest Presidential “Big Bird” comment, we need to actually be focusing on fixing our broken Congress. I don’t care which candidate gets your Presidential vote. They have large made themselves indistinguishable and their job is marginal anyway. And we know they would never say one thing and do another. So vote for whomever.

Bottom line - We need to fix a broken Congress and need a simple clear criterion for electing Congress-folk. I have one. Can they work together? Can they reach an understanding and move forward and actually craft imperfect but actual legislation? That is the governing process our nation was founded on...pass laws and fix them later. If you can’t pass laws or fix them, if you don’t want to work together, if things gets reduced to enemies and traitors, go back to the cracker barrel, Clem. As the Donald says, “You’re fired!” (while poking with the finger).

As a People, we need one or two clear criteria and red lines to keep or fire Congress-folk, since they work for you. I propose the desire and ability to work together. What single criteria would you recommend?

Once we decide on a single criteria, we can start a political movement. Use the criteria to hire and fire and you will quickly put the fear of God into these career-fixated squabbles. Remember the Tea Party and their single issue of lowering the debt? They are putting the fear of God into the Republican Establishment. They are also putting the fear of their extremism into the general public. Parties with a single policy issue are myopic and largely destructive. However, people understand and got behind a single issue Party. That’s why I advocate a PROCESS rather than a policy issue as a criteria.

What could we call a movement based on working together? Collaborationists? Sounds very old school....maybe have a logo with a snake or something? How about the Work Together Party (WTP) or Work Together Congress (WTC)? Hmm...they sound like programs from the Great Depression. Well, you guys will think of something. Let us all know what we are called and we’ll start a national political movement using social media. We’ll have that Congress fixed in no time.

Middle East- Current Affairs

2012-10-11T20:04:00.000-07:00

This blog touches on current events in the Middle East. I think foremost in many people's minds is the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Libya. Details of this event continue to emerge daily and a clear picture of the affair will emerge over time. In addition to Libya, I want to touch on Iran, Turkey, and where we stand in our ”war” with global terrorism.

Libya

For many people, images of Islamic riots and burning US Embassies brought to mind the revolutions and State-sponsored terrorism of the 1970s. Thousands across the Islamic world burned and pillaged in protest of an inflammatory anti-Islamic movie. In one sense, this part of the world is irrationally volatile. Islam is a religion of peace and if you say otherwise, we'll kill you.

Unlike ourselves, our enemies recognize our “war” is not a fight for territory or body count, but rather for hearts and minds. It is a clash of beliefs and narratives. Consequently, our enemies continually scour the Internet and media for any fruits of our free speech which they can use to inflame the masses to turn hearts and minds against us. We in the West should consequently be aware of two realities: this part of the world is irrationally volatile and inflammatory things inflame. We’re continually astonished when protests and riots occur, but we should be astonished if they didn’t. If you poke a hornets nest with a stick, don't be surprised if you get stung. It may be wise not to pass around sticks rather than wishing that hornets don't sting.

So our enemies provoke riots and utilize such riots to their own ends, as was seen in Libya. Initial announcements portrayed the storming of the US Embassy as a spontaneous action by protesters. Dude, you don't take rocket launchers to a protest. It is clear that our enemies used the anti-video rioting as cover and launched a planned attack. So is this Al Qaeda? No, but we'll get into that in a bit.

The daily domestic wrangling concerning the killing of our Ambassador concerns who's to blame, who knew what when, and why wasn't there enough security? Have you visited many embassies, Sparky? Third world Embassies are always under-resourced and this is a really dangerous part of the world. The Benghazi Embassy was classified as “temporary” and resourced as such. Stevens was killed in a safe house guarded by Navy SEALs rather than at the Embassy. Don't be surprised if our enemies had guys on the inside. I would question the Butler.

What is different about this incident and Islamic disruptions of the 1970s and 1980s is that governments across the Middle East are taking a public stand against such violence. Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Turkey all publicly denounced anti-American violence. This may not seem like much to the grieving West, but it is historically huge in the region.

There are pros and cons to these fledgling democracies. They are authentic, though struggling, democracies who want to partner with us against extremist elements. The downside is that they are fragmented and weak compared with the autocratic States they replaced. They are much less agile and capable partners.

So why did the Libyan people hate us? Didn’t we just help them out? They don't. Two thirds of the Libyan people support the United States and want better relations. However, the Benghazi region is particularly dangerous. This region has a long history of producing violent extremists. This region sent more fighters to Iraq than any other nation. So it's a pretty big hornets nest to camp next to.

Iran

The West and Israel continued to stay fixated on potential Iranian nuclear bomb-making hijinks. Since a majority of Israelis don't favor a first strike, it is likely their incendiary government will keep its saber sheathed.

Western sanctions are ravaging the Iranian economy. The value of their currency continues to fall. The average Joe and Jane are fed up. Merchants are rioting in the streets of Tehran. The nations current political and economic course appears unsustainable. Expect major change to start with next year's elections.

Syria

The West still does nothing while the Syrian Civil War devolves into ethnic and sectarian violence. The Assad regime is sponsored by Iran and Russia. Iran hopes to increase his political influence in a Syrian power vacuum and promote another Shiite State.

Russia provides the Assad regime with weapons and military support, as well as running interference with the West. For Russia, Syria is the last of their Middle Eastern client States as well as their only Mediterranean port. Russian strategists worry about a “Shiite underbelly “ forming and posing future threats. Putin probably views overthrow of a repressive regime as an existential threat to his own. He may well fear a “Russian Spring” around the corner.

The loudest regional voice against the Assad regime is from Turkey. They're afraid that the raging fire in Syria will spread to consume their own house. They have recently snubbed the Russians, although they are afraid of them. Snubbing the Russians also jeopardizes the ten year growth arc the Turks have enjoyed. Cross-border military tensions may escalate, but Turkey would be isolated during a Syrian war and has little appetite for a full-blown conflict. The recent downing of a Russian passenger plane and seizure of its cargo was based on intelligence provided by NATO. Look for Turkey to play an increasing role as a surrogate for quiet Western intervention in the Syrian conflict.

Terrorism

So what is the status of our “war on terror”? The pros divide our enemies into three broad categories:

(1) Al Qaeda prime-the original Al Qaeda, accept no imitations. They are hiding in Pakistan, pretty much cut to ribbons. The future chance they could cause major casualties in the United States, about zero.

(2) Al Qaeda affiliates- the media often calls these Al Qaeda. They are not. These are extremist Islamist cells adopting the brand and franchise of Al Qaeda. They park themselves within various nation states and can be quite a nuisance. These are the guys who keep the ideological engines running, inspiring new generations of adherents. They plan minor operations against the West but don't seem particularly competence in their execution. They won't pose any threat to grandma in Terre Haute. But don't send your kid to the University of Sama’a.

(3) Al Qaeda inspired- there are a lot of these troublemakers milling around, domestically and abroad. These are individuals and small groups inspired by a jihadist narrative. These are probably the new “normal” within the global fabric. They produce shooting sprees, suicide bombers, and bombs in backpacks. Although sowers of tragedy, they are hardly a threat to Western Civilization as we know it.

So did Al Qaeda kill Stevens? Nope. Local extremists supported by regional affiliates did. Kind of between zone 2 and 3. That’s the current read on the inside.

Our intelligence leadership assesses terrorism in terms of a “surface game” and a “deep game”. Our strategy for the surface game is to take out high-level bad guys and high visibility propagandists. We have done quite well in playing the surface game.

For over a decade, the deep game has been a deep concern. This is the war for hearts and minds. This is what they call the “pipeline” that produces new enemies and new generations of enemies. For over a decade, our enemies produced as many or more followers than we killed. That’s one downside of parking US troops on Achmed’s doorstep.

With the Arab Spring, a new regional narrative was introduced, crafted on the Arab streets. However flawed, fledgling democracies provide hope and vent frustrations that were long repressed. For the first time since 9/11, our strategic analysts are observing ground gained in the deep game.

Extremist elements may be a fact of modern life, but they can in time wither as regional popular support for violent protest wanes. Just as the Arab Spring symbolizes new political direction, symbolic tragedies such as the murder of Ambassador Stevens or the shooting of Malala Yousafzai may serve to erode support for violent narratives within this volatile region.

Annoyed In Ohio

2012-10-08T19:39:00.004-07:00

Okay, I'm officially annoyed with Romney after his VMI speech concerning foreign-policy. I look for a couple of things in a candidate, distinction and detail. What would they do differently and specifically what would they do differently. I get none of that with this guy.

The differences between his positions and Obama's appear rhetorical rather than substantial. That's annoying. I guess he's doing well with people who don't know the facts of the matter, whose memories don't extend beyond....the last speech he made.

Take, for example, Romney's criticism of Obama's mishandling of Iran. The President hasn't set a "red line". True. Setting a redline limits your options. What red line would you set, Mitt? The Israelis want a red line at a certain percentage of uranium enrichment, which they will have to guess has been achieved. The Neoconservatives want Iran to have no nuclear capability, military or peaceful. This is against the law, which doesn't really matter much if you're above the law. So what would you do, Mitt? In previous speeches, Romney said he advocates crippling sanctions, positioning our military for action if necessary, and keeping a military option on the table. These three things are currently the policy of the Obama Administration. Just pointing it out. I certainly don't agree with all of Obama's foreign policy choices, but he did put together an international coalition to levy the most crippling sanctions in history on Iran. Last week, there were riots in the streets of Tehran because their currency has lost half its value. The candidates in next years Presidential elections pledgeD that Iran will move towards a moderate and secular stance. Sounds like something might be working.

So lots of smoke, but I can't find fire. Romney criticized Obama for failing to reconcile Palestine and Israel. He would do better but doesn't say how. Frankly, I don't think Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Hillary (the US seems to always be in the mix)could reconcile that lot in six party talks. Perhaps Romney could invite Bibi for a sleepover. In May, Romney called a two state solution unthinkable. How many supporters remember that? I guess its now thinkable. That boy has gained his mind.

Romney is very skillful at creating an impression, leading the uninformed to a certain conclusion, of stating sharp differences and personal competence when none are visible. It will all work out, trust me is not a plan, Mitt. But he knows the conclusions he draws are not true. When you know you're lying and Bubba doesn't, I have a problem with that. Let the Bubba beware.

Romney is drawing these distinctions to win an election. I don't care who is the best campaigner. I don't care who's great at winning the popularity contests we call elections. I care who will provide effective governance and leadership.

Another annoying example, during the debate (I point out that I have avoided the details and mudslinging at both candidates in the past, but I'm in a slinging mood), Romney implied that $90 billion was wasted when Obama picked a few pet losing investments in alternative energy. The facts are that only a small percentage of this R&D money went into the fields of solar and electric cars. For instance, $30 billion went into cleaning up a polluted nuclear site. Billions went to clean coal research, which still doesn't exist. We do need to maximize domestic energy production and minimize dependence on foreign energy. However, the main reason Obama's a loser companies failed was not because of corruption but rather competition. Solyndra failed because the Chinese make solar panels cheaper than we possibly can, plus their accounting was goofy. Tesla didn't fail and still rocks.

We are far behind the rest of the world in green energy. We need to be the head and not the tail. We need a breakthrough in solid-state hardware and battery power and other stuff that blows the world away. We need to dominate this market rather than play catch-up.

Another debate example, Obama took $700 billion out of Medicare. Hear that, grandma? Vote for me. I'll put $700 billion back into Medicare. It is a fact that Obama took $700 billion out of Medicare in the Affordable Care Act, but he took this money away from the insurance companies. The law then puts $700 billion back into Medicare to keep it running for eight more years, and close the doughnut hole for seniors. This makes Medicare stronger and more sustainable. Mitt apparently wants to give $700 billion back to the insurance companies. Got that, grandma?

Now I'm not a big supporter of Obama's leadership on healthcare reform. I have a memory. Obama asked Congress for only two things he wanted included to their Bill, and didn't get either of them. So much for Obama's contribution to Obamacare. I recall that Obama abdicated leadership on healthcare to Congress and it became a liberal feeding frenzy. That's also annoying. Plus this giant omnibus pig of a law sucks. That's what happens when insurance companies write your laws.

So Mitt's solution to this giant omnibus pig of a law, which was based on Romneycare, which was based on Clinton's model, which was based on Nixon's model, which was based on Truman's model, which goes all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt (not kidding), is to have each State create their own Romneycare. That sounds efficient.

And don't forget that panel that's going to get between you and your doctor, that panel that decides what treatment you get. Mitt made this last point three times during the debate. Spoiler alert....the fact is that this is an advisory panel, not a governance panel. It is against the law for them to prescribe treatments. Like other advisory panels, they look at an ocean of numbers and medical outcomes, and pick out efficient "best practices", and recommend these changes to Congress, which Congress may pass the changes or tell these guys to take a hike. So the fact is that rather than having too much power, these guys have no power. That's the law. Sorry, Sarah.

So I'm not interested in how well Romney can run a race and win an election. I'm interested in distinctions and specifics, and until I get some, I will remain annoyed.

A Simple Choice

2012-10-08T02:09:00.001-07:00

America is an exceptional nation. Our national heritage and character have forged a people of extraordinary potential. However, we are an exceptional people when we behave exceptionally. We can't wear “Exceptional” like an honorary title or doctorate. “Exceptional” is a standard which must be earned.....everyday.....through our actions.

We are a People of destiny. But our national destiny must be commonly forged...by all Americans. Our exceptionalism is in our own hands. Edward R Murrow reminds us that “our future lies not in our stars but in ourselves.””

Exceptional achievement requires common vision collective resolve, and concerted action. However, our ability to act as a nation has recently been jeopardized. Our Congress is ideologically entrenched and divided. Jesus points out that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This passage was quoted by Lincoln the last time in our history our ability to govern became intractable. Lincoln appealed for unity and the street responded with Civil War. We might need another one, a political civil war, to break the stranglehold of extremist intractability we now face.

Much attention, energy and passion is currently focused on the Presidential race. Most Presidents are mere figureheads, with little personal ability to affect change. National solutions are not found in the Presidency.

Presidents are blamed for many things they don’t do and have no control over. They don't create jobs, make laws, repeal laws, spend money, increase taxes, or create deficits, regardless of strident daily media contentions to the contrary. That’s Civics 101. Congress does all those things. Our focus, attention, and passion should be directed towards who is sitting in Congress.

Our nation is in a crisis and at a crossroads. In two months, we collectively face three monumental political/economic decisions. We need legislators that can effectively govern. Our legislators currently cannot effectively govern. Regardless of who takes the White House, the creation of a functional Congress should be our top national priority. Like our national destiny, our political institutions must be collectively and intentionally forged and refined.

We do not receive our Constitution from God, passed through Jesus, to Moses, to the Founding Fathers, to the average exceptional Joe and Jane on the streets. Our Constitution and nation was founded using bipartisanship, the ability to strongly disagree and yet craft a legislative way forward for the American People.

Our Founding Fathers had profound ideological disagreements. While crafting the Constitution during the stifling heat of summer, they locked the windows and doors so that people in the street could not hear them screaming at each other. Their legacy shows that it is okay to disagree. It is okay to scream at each other. We are a nation of disagree-ers and screamers. Their legacy also shows that we are a nation that is willing to listen, respect, find common ground, and craft a way forward.

Our founders did not want to create a parliament, where one side wins all. Our current national political logic leans toward capturing all political institutions for their Party. Rather, our Founders envisioned an adversarial yet productive form of governance based on the principles of discourse, respect, and bipartisanship.

We are in a crisis and at a crossroad. We all need a collectively clear choice. Here it is. Since our form of government is based on the ability to reach across the aisle, we should view any legislator who devalues or opposes these core principles as someone opposing the fundamental tenants of our Democracy. We should fire them.

We must guard both our liberty and our ability to govern from those who would seek to seize the reins of power and distort our political system. Some political circles hold the view that bipartisanship is considered weak and treacherous. Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is the enemy and an illegitimate un-American traitor. They are not fit to hold office, even if they are within my own Party. These enemies of bipartisanship are enemies of the American People. Their distortion of our fundamental political values must be purged.

These intractable legislators wrap themselves in ideology, patriotism, and religion to justify their stance. We can't back down or compromise. It would be like denying my faith. Sparky, you ain't running for Pope. We need a legislature that works, however flawed. We don't need a bunch of true believers sitting around drawing a public paycheck. We need people that will work, and work together. I love it that you have immovable beliefs and values. Save them for the cracker barrel, not our national Congress.

I want to be clear that I'm not advocating any Party, policy or position. I don't really care who's in there as long as they can work together. If they can't, fire them.

We are in a crisis and at a crossroads. Let's make this choice real simple. We need a Congress that works .....bottom line. Creating a Congress that works is our job not their job. If we currently have people in there that can't work together or refuse to work together, it's our fault.

Priority one, know the collaborative track record of the people on the ballot in front of you. Creating a government that works is your responsibility. Anyone who opposes bipartisanship and collaboration must be fired. So fire them.

Firing these people will not solve our national problems, but if we can't pass legislation, we can't move forward. We stay broken. If we can't move forward, we’ll be sitting in our trenches grumbling four years from now waiting for the next offensive. Don't end up in a roadside ditch. If you want to open up the political landscape, make support for bipartisanship the sole criteria for your vote. Throw out enough of the guys who can't work together and the rest of the guys will get the message.

So this election season, vote for whoever you want to for President and the wrong road they’re pointing down. Focus your attention on Congress, because whether Congress can function determines the future of our nation.

I recall the word of Pericles, “I am less concerned about the strategies of my enemies and more concerned about my own mistakes.” It is up to us to define the 21st century, to determine what we shall become. It is up to us to get our house in order anc achieve that vision. The future is ours to determine, but that determination will require rethinking, retooling, renewal, and re-prioritizing. It will require chnging coure and making tough choices. It will require working together.

Debate Impressions

2012-10-07T18:07:00.000-07:00

The first of the Presidential debates is behind us. Romney’s performance was aggressive and effective, and Obama’s was insipid and lackluster. It is strategically unclear why Obama was so reticent, but he is historically so during debates. He chooses to go for the capillaries rather than the jugular.

This exchange was fraught with untruths, illogic, and vagaries. Romney came in as a national unknown, even though he's been campaigning for eight years. His campaign emerged energized and renewed. This is because they have a new candidate, one we have never seen before. Will the real Mitt Romney...

Both contenders struck me as men not having a clear plan. It will all work out, trust me. That's not a plan, sorry. Romney did say with certainty that he would encourage Congress to repeal some laws, mainly Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act. I remind our gentle readers that Presidents can't repeal laws. They are not a king. Congress repeals laws. Hence the first campaign promise that can't be delivered.

Another specific was a Republican promise to cut Federal funding of PBS. So based on these two specifics, we can expect celebration on Wall Street and despair on Sesame Street.

In some ways, Romney reminded me of George Bush, Jr. during the 2000 election. He advocated a moderate political stance, bipartisanship, compassionate conservatism, marketplace regulation, State-provided healthcare.... who is this masked man?

I'm told by insiders that Romney's performance more accurately reflects his authentic persona. What will the extremist legislators and media sense makers make of the new Romney? If he genuinely is a moderate, will he have the courage and integrity to push back against extremist elements?

For gentle readers confused about the numbers and statistics posited by the candidates, don't worry about them. They’re not true. Modern politics is driven by ideology rather than facts. One is more likely to be blinded by illogic than science.

Both sides were untruthful with facts, although Romney was more masterful in his mixture and delivery of fact and fiction. Facts were used to “give in impression”of the opponent that was not accurate.

Rather than a contrast of clear plans forward, the Presidential race is characterized by broad ideological roads meandering in different directions. During a global recession and facing an entrenched Congress, Obama”s more of the same is unlikely to produce significant benefits, particularly in the short term. Obama wants to make a lot more strategic investments in infrastructure, education, energy, etc. If any strategic investments do make it through Congress, they will take 10 to 30 years to bear fruit. The private/public partnerships which produced world class schools and the electronics, telecommunications, computer industries in the 1970s began under Eisenhower.

Contrasted to Obama's current business as usual is Romney's former business as usual. Broadly, Romney's direction reforms the tax code and creates many high-paying jobs. The budget is balanced not by raising taxes, but by more working Americans paying taxes and increasing revenues. Romney's economic approach sinks or swims on the creation of high-paying jobs. Romney did cite accurately the over $4000 per capita decline in household income. Every month, incomes for the average worker continue to fall and the Middle Class continues to erode. A study released last week indicated the average worker makes what they did in 1979.

The logical disconnect is that Presidents can't make companies pay their workers more money. Obama can't and Romney can't. Congress can't make employers pay their people more money. No law or regulation can do so. American business is currently as productive as it was before the Crash, even with 12 million fewer jobs. We have learned to do more with less and we pay the less less. Corporations are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, but wages continue to fall. Of all the vagaries of Romney's economic plans, increasing worker pay is a central tenet. I would love to see the connection between business profits and worker benefit restored. Unless Romney has a clear plan to achieve this, his smoke and mirrors are mainly smoke.

          So Romney emerged a kinder, gentler candidate and Obama just seemed weary. Following the debate, much backpedaling is occurring as Romney distances himself from these warm and fuzzy policy positions. I would love to see a Presidential candidate who trust the People enough to tell them the truth. For decades, we've done what I baseball players do. We've substituted steroids for actual muscle building. We've injected massive amounts of credit and debt into our economic system for an extended self-gratifying binge. We are going to have to pay for that. When candidates don't trust the People with the truth, they don't receive the trust of the People

        We need a Presidential candidate who presents solutions and vision at the scale of the problem. Don't tell us we can build a prosperous future painlessly, that we can get it all from rich people or pending. As it is, we have two candidates both promoting hot fudge sundae diets, promising growth and prosperity without personal discomfort and inconvenience. Such talk makes people anxious. Without vision, the people perish.

         So what am I looking for in a candidate? We nee Wto cut spending We have made promises to future generations we can't keep. We need to raise revenue, not just cut spending, because we need to continue to invest in the sources of our strength. I'm Looking for a candidate who comes to the American people honestly and intelligently with a clear plan that matches the scale of the problem. The plan should be fair. Everyone should pay. The rich should pay more because they've been fortunate for the last few decades, but everyone should pay something. Finally, I look for a plan that's aspirational, inspiring the nation to greatness. I don't see our current choices offering more than talking points.

       Romney’s moderation was not entirely unanticipated. Over the last month, he’s been retooling his public presentation into a five-point stump speech whose subjects mirror Obama’s stump speech. He talks about (1) exports, (2) domestic energy, (3) retraining programs, and (4) deficit reduction. The two diverge in their emphasis of a final point. Romney emphasizes small business and Obama emphasizes national security. Romney continues to strike me as a smart and caring man trapped in a Party that forces him to adopt extreme and impossible positions. Obama may face something far worse than a talented debater. He may be facing an authentically moderate Republican.

The Middle East- Limiting Civil Liberties

2012-10-02T04:25:00.000-07:00

Threat to Civil Liberties

The 9/11 plotters committed themselves to a complex and expensive plot designed to intentionally inflame and provoke US popular sentiment. Likewise, the video which sparked the current round of Mideast violence also reflected an elaborate and complex plot also intended to inflame the popular Arab populace. Readers might be astonished how much effort and how many intentional choices went into producing this inflammatory and provocative product.

Because it is legal to produce such materials, there is national dialogue about limiting such expressions of free speech. I do not advocate limiting free speech. However, I do advocate the wise and socially responsible expression of free speech. Ultimately, production of intentionally provocative and inflammatory material becomes a moral and ethical issue rather than a legal one. Just because you can do something, should you do it?

I would make two points. The first is acknowledging the reality of the world stage. When an inflammatory and provocative political or religious product surfaces, it spark looting, pillaging, and general destructive mayhem throughout the Arab world. This is guaranteed. This is the reality of the situation. It is not the reality of our situation. This is an important distinction.

Intentional production of such provocative materials is an ethical issue rather than a legal issue simply because we don't have arson, murders and riots in US streets when the next offensive cartoon rolls out. If we did, it is likely we would limit civil liberties and free speech. If posting a particular video caused inner-city riots within our own country, we would classify such videos as hate speech and make them a federal crime.

Intentional production of provocative products is hate speech. It’s just not illegal. These products are produced with the intentional foreknowledge and anticipation of generating mayhem and violence. Should such products remain legal to produce?

The second point is that our enemies, religious and political extremists within the Arab world, scour Western media for ammunition to support their narratives. It is the goal of our enemies to generate more hate, fear, and mistrust of the “other”, i.e. the West.

Self-righteous producers who intentionally produce provocative materials become unwitting or witting allies of our extremist enemies. In one view, they become fools or traitors. These Americans put lives, property, national interests, and the welfare of American troops in jeopardy. While we can produce such products, should we be able to? Should these be legal to produce?

These are very complex questions. Limiting civil liberties is a very complex issue. There are many cogent points to be made concerning many aspects of the issue. I do not advocate any particular course other than social responsibility. However, I think the two points raised above should be considered in any evaluation of limiting civil liberties.

The Middle East - It's All About Us

2012-10-02T03:57:00.003-07:00

In the aftermath of the egregious murder of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, television screens were filled with images of burning US Consulates and violent protests across the Arab world. Many Americans remain surprised at the amount and intensity of anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East.

Many people ask ,“Why don't they like us?” Didn't we just fight three wars to free Arab people? Aren’t we still fighting a war to free Arab people? Is all this destruction really the result of one offensive video? Consequently, many people conclude that Arab popular opinion is irrevocably and violently supportive of extremism, that Islam is at its core a religion of hate and violence, and that it may be in our best national interests to withdraw our support and efforts from that part of the world.....as long as we keep getting our oil.

Isn't this the same why don't they like us question we asked after 9/11? Apparently many of us still don't understand why some extremist elements hated us enough to craft an extensive and elaborate plot to fly airplanes into buildings as a symbolic gesture. We still don't understand the level of popular discontent which is fomented populist revolutions across the Arab world. We still don't understand why the US and the West remains hot-button targets for hatred and blame in that region. We still don't get it.

It’s All About Us

There is a myth that American power is more influential in shaping world events that it really is. There is also a myth, particularly during an election season, that US Presidents are much more influential in influencing international affairs than they really are.

If only we had a different policy, we made a different speech, we sent a different tweet, the world would be very different. This seems to be the lens many Americans used to view international affairs. This introspective inflation of our importance misses the actual scope of our direct influence. Seeing the world exclusively from our cultural point of view also keeps us from understanding the true motives of other people around the world. After all, aren't all people really just like us?

This myopic view is called provincialism. Since the early 1800s, Americans have been globally viewed as provincial. We focus on ourselves and assess the rest of the world through our own cultural lens. We’re not really interested in how other people think and feel. This is not an aspersion, simply an observation. A people who look at other cultures exclusively through the lens of their own culture are guaranteed to have a distorted view of others.

Not only do we have distorted perspectives of why others do what they do, we have an over-inflated sense of importance, that we can make others do something else than what they do. The heart of the political narrative for the first decade of this century was that we can impose US perspectives and interests upon the rest of the world. We could create a world in our own image. Our foray into nation building turned out to be not as successful as we had hoped.

Still, the old beliefs linger....that it's all about us. We don't like this globalization stuff. It takes our jobs away. Let's stop this globalization stuff. A President allowed globalization to take our jobs away. Our President should have allowed this Arab Spring business. It's causing trouble. Our President should stop this Arab Spring business. Sigh!

US influence should not be confused with US leadership. We have changed the world through the inspiration of our values, aspirations and ideals. However, history has demonstrated that our ability to directly influence international affairs is quite limited. Authentic friends and authentic peace are unlikely to develop at the barrel of a gun. We have a lot of guns. Our two big levers of power are military and economic projection. Both of these are inadequate and insufficient to change international hearts and minds.

So we squabble on about posture and policy, as though a tweak here and there, a good saber-rattling or exhibit of strength/weakness will greatly impact the international scene. As with all human beings, authentic understanding and friendship will emerge when we actually empathize and listen to those dang foreigners. We might have to care enough to stop our “busy” lives to listen and respect. It is unlikely that human relationships develop positively unless this occurs. This is true concerning the person down your block as well is across your oceans.

Who Is That Masked Man?

2012-09-23T22:02:00.003-07:00

A video has surfaced in which Romney candidly tell supporters that 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes and are immune to the magic bullet of tax cuts. Where did this 47% number come from? They come from an Urban Institute-Brookings study conducted in 2006, which was redone in 2011. The current number on non-income tax paying households is 46%.

A person might assume that those not paying income taxes are “victims” living on the dole, suckling the national teat. The Brookings Tax Cetner, who conducted the study, points out that 60% of people not paying income taxes are working. They are paying many other taxes, including payroll taxes, property taxes, state and local taxes, and Social Security taxes. According to Brookings, the reason these Americans don’t pay income taxes is that their tax obligation is zeroed out by deductions. They point out that the tax code benefits Americans of all socio-economic strata. They note that the greatest beneficiaries of the tax code are the wealthy.

I note that our current numbers of Americans not paying income taxes are a historic anomaly. These numbers rose sharply after the crash of 2008 and peaked in 2009. Current numbers show that 49% of American households receive some form of Government benefits. This is up from 30% in 1986. I see a strong correlation of Government benefits and an aging population and a profound permeating need within our society.

23 million Americans are un- or under-employed. One out of seven households is on food stamps. Wages are falling. Americans are suffering more now than they have in decades.

Those are the numbers. Then there are the narratives which capitalize on them. One popular narrative is that in America, half of our population is dependent on Government. This segment of the population wants views Government assistance as an entitlement and wishes to increase such aid. Like most political narratives, this is not particularly reflect the facts, but this won’t deter true believers in that narrative.

Another popular narrative is that the Democratic agenda is redistribution of wealth, i.e. socialism. Republicans recently trotted out a tape of Obama stating that he favored redistribution of resources. Like all political narratives, this one is not quite accurate. The recording came from Senator Obama’s (first term) speech at Loyola University in 1998. I’m waiting for a replay of Reverend Wright any day now. If you actually listen to the Loyola recording, Obama advocates redistributing resources to create a social safety net, and then spends the rest of the speech promoting free market capitalism. Besides, Obama may actually have learned something about how the world works and think differently than he did in 1998.

The Presidential race is a contest of narratives, i.e. alternative worldviews. It is also a contest of perceptions. Romney’s problem is one of public perception. At the core, he appears to be hiding something. He doesn't appear authentic, connected with average people. For example, Romney released his 2011 tax returns along with compilations of previous returns. Why on earth his campaign would voluntarily submit compilations rather than actual tax returns is beyond me. The standard is to release 10 years of tax returns. He looks evasive.

People don't really care what percentage/amount of taxes Romney actually paid. It might cheese off a few people that he paid half the percentage that they did, but that's not what all the “tax controversy” is about. Essentially, Romney plays into the narrative that he is out of touch with the lives and concerns of many Americans, whether this is framed as he's a guy who writes off half the country or has offshore bank accounts to hide his money. Like all political narratives, these are not particularly accurate. I’m not sure why Romney seems so distant and evasive. I do observe that he hides his true personality and ethics behind a Neocon persona.

It is really too bad that Romney is forced to hide who he is. It's too bad the Republican Party is so screwed up that they put a bushel over this guy’s light. Romney's personal ethic is that of service and caring. There are many, many personal examples of this. Do you know of any? Why? Blame it on the thought police in his Party.

Romney is not permitted to talk about his religion, his family, his integrity, his charity, and the many lives he has blessed A Gallup poll this week shows that Obama connects with the average person 66% to 23% for Romney. This number shows that half of Romney's own supporters don't believe he connects with them. For the Republicans, Romney was always more of a concept than a cause. Now the accusations and blame are flying within his own Party. A campaign in trouble is like a bad marriage.

While my praise for Romney’s character might sound like a bromance novel, there may be some truth in the instinctive public caution against embracing Romney. People can tell if they are respected. While a solid case can be made for Romney's caring on a case-by-case basis, his personal value system may keep him from authentically viewing the average Joe and Jane with respect. These are people who want jobs. They don't want to start a business. They don't want to build a great corporation. They are not extraordinarily ambitious. They are not entrepreneurs. They just want a job. They want security and to work for somebody else. Joe and Jane still mentally live in the 20th century.

In some ways, I agree that the America of the past is in the past. Americans have to get smarter, innovate, and become entrepreneurial to compete in the 21st century. Most Americans would not agree with this. They just want a job. They would say they want “opportunities”. So what are you going to do? You need to respect people where there at......or not.

So if Mitt’s fundamental values of entrepreneurship and initiative are not where most Americans are, perhaps this is what most Americans are sensing. Mitt, if you want to be respected, you have to respect others first.

I also am unclear what Romney is passionate about but I am quite interested. Listen to a passionate person. You can't fake passion. It is apparent that Romney is a non-ideologue running in an ideological age. Consider the disconnects this might produce.

In my opinion, to move forward Romney needs to do some soul-searching. He has to define for himself what he stands for, what big change he will make, and make that message clear. Whatever that message is, it will be unpopular with many people. Big messages usually are. But it is an act of leadership and will earn my respect. He should craft his message as though he was talking to his grandchildren and fill in the blank “In 2012, I stood for....” By not clearly taking a stand, the narrative is that you

Avoiding the Healtrhcare Waterfall

2012-09-13T17:10:00.001-07:00

Some health insurance numbers came out this week. Health care premiums went up 4% so far this year. Health care premiums went up 9% last year. Wages for the average Joe and Jane went down 7% over the last two years. See a problem here?

The Census numbers out this week show a 2 1/2% decline in average household income. The poverty rate did not follow previous patterns and remained flat. Analysis of the census data indicated greater economic inequality currently that at any time the Census has been reported (middle to top, middle to bottom, top to bottom, etc.). Such economic inequality continues to increase. Americans without health insurance coverage fell to 48 million. Analysts attribute this decline to increased enrollment in Medicaid and the initial effects of the Affordable Care Act.

So them’s the numbers. This blog is on healthcare and the vital importance of reforming provision for this basic human need. The political debate is framed around the doctor and the patient. Additional government bureaucracy should not get between the doctor and the patient. We don't want the government calling the shots on how we’re cared for, when we’re care for, and where we’re cared for. Keep your government hands off my medical care, and off my Medicare.

I agree that unqualified government bureaucrats should not get between a doctor and a patient. Apparently, that is the job of health insurance bureaucrats. The health care debate should be seen not in terms of who provides the care, but rather who pays the bills.

Most Americans receive their health coverage from their job, albeit somewhat tarnished and diminished compared with the health plans of the good old days (insert your good old days here). When insurance companies actually cover and pay for continues to shrink while premiums continue to rise. Hey, but we need some kind of health coverage, and we don't want no stinkin’ socialist government health coverage. So, just keep it the way it is. But can we..... just keep it the way it is?

Why are your wages shrinking? Like most of the world, and unlike most television “news” programming, the answer is complex. I point out that the Facebook status of your shrinking wages are “It’s complicated”. A few reasons for the non-two-per-center’s now-you-see-it-now-you-don't magic show are: (a) Many businesses have little social conscience or responsibility. If you take a hit, it's just business. (b) There are a lot more stupid regulations these days which makes running a business more expensive. (c) Commercial credit and thus cash flow is tougher to obtain. (d) Business get stuck paying for your healthcare.

The numbers this week indicate that average annual per capita premiums are over $16,000. That's just premiums, just so you can have peace of mind in case you might get sick. Three quarters of these premiums are paid by your job. So if you think that you're paying more and more for your health coverage, imagine what your employer is thinking.

Joe Blow didn't start the company you work for in order to provide health coverage for you and your kids. Oddly enough, Joe Blow started the company you work for in order to make money. If insurance companies continue to raise their rates, how long will Joe Blow be inclined to provide health coverage for you and your kids? That's called a waterfall.

We might blithely drift downstream as the waters grow more turbulent, only to eventually encounter the waterfall we've been ignoring. For gentle readers unsure of the definition of a waterfall, it is a big cliff with water pouring over it in order to clean up the mess at the bottom. I recommend taking a different river.

Why is healthcare a political football? Why is healthcare political at all? Because there's Big Money in healthcare. That's called a trough. This trough is too high off the ground to be of much benefit to the average person. The trough is created by the system (providers, insurance companies, politicians, etc.) and the system reaps the benefits. The system makes the rules of how the game is played. But all the average person wants is healthcare when they're sick.

The average person can't afford the rates the system charges. So the average person pays protection money and get a little protection in the Big-Money shell game known as healthcare. Like in Defense, our technology is the best on the planet, and our costs are the highest on the planet. If we pay a bijillion times more for Defense or healthcare, it's a very hard case to make that we’re a bijillion times safer or healthier. The numbers show that we are not either of those things.

Like the business you work for, the healthcare system was not created to provide health coverage for you and your family. The irony is.... Oddly enough, like the business you work for, the healthcare system was created to make money. Elements of the healthcare system, such as providers and drug companies, have dual agendas. They want to help people, but they also have to make money. In recent years, the making-money part of that equation is winning out. Other elements, like insurance companies, simply are in business to make money. Most people don't stop and consider that the mission and purpose of insurance companies, like all corporations, is to make profits for shareholders. This is a similar to lawyers working for auto insurance companies. When you’re in an accident, the lawyer’s job is not to protect your interests. That’s the job of your lawyer. What, you can’t afford a lawyer? Don’t you have lawyer insurance with your job? Another racket...but I regress. The insurance company lawyer's job is to protect the interest of the auto insurance company. The purpose of the auto insurance company is to make profits for shareholders. Just some musings to pass the time on our trip down the river.

So one reason government is involved in healthcare is that it benefits from the Big-Money at the trough. It helps politicians keep their jobs. Another reason is that the healthcare industry (providers, insurance companies, drug companies, etc.) are highly regulated. The healthcare industry was not visited by the regulation fairy. Government helped create the system and the trough.

Government has the influence to be a solution. But government is not thinking clearly. What a surprise. We’re offered two choices by government,(1) governments wastefully and inefficiently pays for your healthcare, and (2) you pay for your own damn healthcare. Are these the only two alternatives you guys could come up with, seriously? We’ll feed your family. You have the choice of a Bic Mac or a bucket of lard. One is on sale. Choose wisely.

You might say the Republican approach is to provide vouchers and let market competition make healthcare more efficient. I stopped typing until the laughter subsided. Think about it. You charge $20 for your healthcare service. The average sucker, I mean citizen, receives $20 from the government to cover your fees. What will you do? You'll raise your fees to $40. The sucker, I mean citizen, pays the difference out of their pocket. You keep your profit margin. You can always raise rates next year. You make up the rules.

This is a bit like education. Everybody needs healthcare, whether you get it from the witchy-woman or the Mayo Clinic. Government, in it’s infinite wisdom, has decreed that everyone must plant their butts into seats for so many years to get an education. It's tough seeing tweens doing hard time. So the public schools are babysitting factories. We’ll send our kids to shiny new market-competitive schools. But Joe Blow starts a market-competitive school to make money. If the Joe Blow Academy charges $5000, and Uncle Sam shells out $5000 to pay the fees, what will Joe Blow do? He will raise the rates to $10,000. Profit margins must be retained. So many people will be pounding on the door with their government vouchers Joe can charge any amount he wants. It's good to be Joe.

Not so good to be in the public schools. Government has to shell out for vouchers, so money is cut for the public schools. But every kid has to go to school. The public school is not allowed to turn away kids. They have to take in all the little Mansons-in-training. Your little monster who so cute when they're sleeping has to go to school. It's the law. Joe Blow knows that your little monster who looks so cute when they're sleeping will blow his numbers and profit margin. Your kid is trouble right here in River City. Even if you shell out the $10,000, or $20,000, your kid will not be attending the Joe Blow Academy. They will have a five year waiting list . Duh! Private business can cherry-pick students. Public schools can’t. You can’t solve education by throwing money at it, Republicans. What are you, Democrats? You can't fix education with vouchers. You can't fix healthcare with vouchers.

So if the system makes the rules, how can healthcare get fixed? Left on its own, it will not fix itself. The guys making the rules will not give themselves less money, oddly enough. Faget about it!

There are three parts to the fixing healthcare solution: market competition, incentives, and regulation. For most folks, regulation is a wash-your-mouth-out dirty word. What is regulation? At one level, it's how the game is played. It establishes the boundaries of the playing field. Republicans want market forces and competition to change healthcare. Market forces are creating the current rules. They cannot/will not change healthcare. The market is not the place to start. Regulation is the place to start. Our current river still leads to a waterfall. I recommend a different river.

We currently have a sick care system based on fees-for=services. The system treats the average person when they're sick and charges them for drugs, tests and procedures. That's what the market does. That's the way the game is played. With the Republican, market-driven approach, that's the way the game is played. Medicare is a sick-care fees-for-services system. For government paid health care, that's the way the game is played. Under the Democrats, that's how the game will be played.

So I'd like you to see two things: (1) healthcare is about who pays the bills, and (2) the power lies in who defines what healthcare is. If healthcare is defined as sick-care fees-for-services, it doesn't matter which captain is at the helm when we get to the waterfall. I recommend reframing the definition of healthcare in creating a new regulatory framework to send us down a different river. Who has the power to do that..... squabbling politicians, faceless bureaucrats, big-money think-tank policy wonks? I remind our gentle readers that the power is in their hands, the whole We the People thing. Government power, regulation, and policy is ultimately in our hands.

The new definition of healthcare should be centered on the concepts of wellness and improving quality of life. Rewards and incentives within healthcare should be based on getting you well and keeping you well. It should also incorporate personal incentives and disincentives for keeping ourselves well. That is a different river.

Healthcare is currently paid by the government and by insurance companies. Under the new definition of healthcare and new regulatory framework, government should for the most part get out of direct pay for healthcare business. Government can partner with industries to provide scalable incentives. There should also be a national pool to distribute cost and risk for catastrophic and end of life care. Actual payment for healthcare should come from private sector insurance companies. Insurance companies should be told that if they want to keep playing the healthcare game, they will make their money by completing for patient wellness, quality of life, and quality of care. Obviously, the insurance company most effective in organizing providers for these outcomes will be the most popular and received the most profit. So the People, not the system, would make the rules of how the game is played. Free-market forces could do what they do best.....innovate, compete, reduce costs and gain market share while increasing our national wellness and quality of life.

While all this is an extreme oversimplification, the fact is, as I see it, we have to reframe the fundamental definition of health care to get fundamentally different results. A regulatory approach, although driven by popular sentiments, is essentially top-down. Healthcare can also be reformed from the bottom up. This also requires a reframing of the definition of healthcare and commitment to economically support that direction. By spending your healthcare dollars on the insurance companies and providers which best promote wellness and quality of life, you more stably establish these concepts is a viable market drivers. More and more companies will organize and compete around these principles and may eventually shift how the game is played.

A bottom-up approach to health care reform involves your actually caring, considering what you would like to experience from providers, having conversations with providers and neighbors, investigating market alternatives, making your voice heard in organizing locally or at work to advocate a particular provider choice, and making an economic commitment to support the providers moving in the new direction. These actions are what is needed for healthcare reform. They're also what is needed for good government. We need to understand that we are personally responsible for the quality of the health care we receive, as we are personally responsible for the quality of the government we share. There’s a waterfall ahead. Choose wisely.