Benghazi flap

From my conservative friend in Ohio:

I’m very angry over the Benghazi fiasco, but I am absolutely astounded that the liberals around the country (yourself included) are not.

The Benghazi flap (not the incident but the flap that you support and are angry liberals are not) is primarily political; an attack on the Democratic President and on a potential future Democratic President. Before you throw up your hands or throw up please consider your reaction to previous terrorist attacks.

April 18, 1983 a suicide bomber drove a truck load of explosives into the US embassy in Beirut killing 63, 17 of them were Americans. Of the Americans killed, eight worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, including the CIA's top Middle East analyst and Near East director, Robert Ames, Station Chief Kenneth Haas and most of the Beirut staff of the CIA. President Regan said that the attack “will not deter us from our goals of peace in the region.” Senator Goldwater said, "I think it's high time we bring the boys home."

Did you feel similarly after the October 23, 1983 terrorist attack in Beirut that killed 241 American servicemen? U.S. President Ronald Regan called the attack a "despicable act” and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, who had privately advised the administration against stationing U.S. Marines in Lebanon, said there would be no change in the U.S.'s Lebanon policy. Did this make you very angry?

December 12, that same year, a suicide truck bomber drove through the gates of the US embassy in Kuwait City killing 63. It would have been more if the bomb hadn’t misfired. Three terrorist attacks in one year! Were you outraged that nothing had been done to protect our embassies in dangerous places after the first attack? I don’t recall liberals attacking Republican President Reagan either.

Feb 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing, first terrorist attack on US soil killed six and injured over 1,000. Were you angry at the Democratic President Clinton?

August 7, 1998 two US embassies in East African were bombed by al Qaeda killing 223; 12 were Americans. President Clinton ordered missile attacks in retaliation one of which knocked out a pharmaceutical factory. The administration said there was ample evidence the factory was producing chemical weapons, but a thorough investigation after the missile strikes revealed the intelligence to be false. I don’t recall an uproar from the right or left.

October 12, 2000 seventeen American sailors were killed in the terrorist attack on the USS Cole.

Did you feel the same about any of these as you feel about Benghazi?  My feeling about all of them is pretty much the same, sadness over the loss of life and hope for a better future.

How Congress can cut spending

Line item expense reduction

Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton both asked for line item veto power in State of the Union addresses but the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional because it circumvents a power vested in Congress. I suggest the concept should be used by Congress to decrease federal spending. Here’s how it might work:

Wire the House Chamber with “voting” buttons that will record each congress person’s vote. When a button is pushed by the congress person their vote is recorded and available to anyone to see so that a voter or a newspaper can easily find out how any individual has voted. The total is displayed in the Chamber at the time of the vote.

Both Houses of Congress meet together as for the State of the Union. They are informed beforehand on what will be voted on that day giving lobbyists and voters time to fill their ears with biased information or, less cynically, to inform themselves more fully on the issue. There will be no discussion or debate during the meeting. A question will be projected on a screen for all including the television cameras to see and then the vote will be taken. The results of the vote, totals, will be projected for all to see. Television pundits can comment to their audience.

An Example: Congress and the media are told the farm bill will be up for spending cut review in a week. On the fateful day Representative and Senators take their seats and log into the network that they are present. The issue flashes on the screen:

Crop Insurance

Over the past decade taxpayers have paid $59.5 billion

Your vote”

A.     no change

B.     eliminate for wealthiest farmers

C.     reduce premium subsidy

D.     eliminate federal subsidy of crop insurance

If the vote for A or D is 60% or more that vote carries. If B receives 41% or more another vote screen is displayed:

            Define “wealthiest farmers.

A.     grossing over $5 million annually

B.     grossing over $2.5 million annually

C.     grossing over $1 million annually

D.     grossing over $500,000 annually

If C receives 41% or more:

            Reduce premium from current 62% to:

A.     50 %

B.     40%

C.     25%

D.     10%

The congressional delegation from Rhode Island might vote to eliminate the subsidy while the delegation from Nebraska will most likely vote for no change. This system is far from perfect since lobbyists might well tell the Rhode Island folks that they will make a significant contribution to their campaigns if they vote no change. Perhaps we should allow them to vote for a secret vote. If the substantive vote was one their constituents, we the people, didn’t like, someone running against them would have them on record as voting for a secret vote.

This is a rough proposal with room for refinement but the basic idea is the best shot we have at making serious budget cuts. Both Republicans and Democrats have refused to get specific about budget cuts because any specific cuts will stir up a hive of reaction and no elected person wants to stick their hand in the hive.

I do think that corporate welfare could be cut without loosing votes--gross contributions from the corporations that now unduly influence our congresspeople but not votes. I would sure like to know if my congressional delegation voted to keep subsidizing Exxon just to name one of the very profitable companies our tax dollars subsidize.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-12-18/commentary/35877237_1_corporate-welfare-cuts-tax-rates-budget-savings
            I invite refinement.

US debt, defict

A letter from my sister

A few weeks have passed since the election, and what is happening is all pretty boring.  I am getting turned off from politics.  All that hype about Benghazi and now Egypt and Syria…it is so depressing, in particular with regards to America becoming involved.  America has its own problems.  America is deeply in debt.  Why the hell does America have to lend money or provide military support to other countries unless we are OK ourselves?  Gosh darn, we are not OK!  Our debt is humungous!  Now as you know I don’t know anything about economics, but I simply cannot understand why the US for example continues to lend enormous amounts of money to other countries when we are in debt ourselves. It is just so disgusting, I am about to crawl back into my shell.

 Dear Sister Chris,

Unplugging the news is not a bad idea, especially if you are getting riled up. I did that for several years and it was great. However, if you want to stay in touch there are better sources than FOX news. If you can get the News Hour on public television or news on public radio, you will get a much more balanced and intelligent report. If not on television, I'm sure you can get them on the internet.
 

The debt is a problem. When George W. sent taxpayers back their money because, he said, it was our money and we should get it back, he should have used it to pay down a chunk of debt because the debt was ours too. At the time I commented that he was planning to destroy the government by starving it. Then came the wars, one with some justification the other for no reason than to further bankrupt the country. Then came the recession.

There is an interesting thing about the federal government. It makes money when people make money since it taxes income. Thus when someone buys a dinner at our restaurant, we pay income tax on what is left over after expenses. The expenses include buying food and booze and paying employees. The employees pay taxes on the money we give them as do the purveyors on the money we pay them and they in turn pay money to the people who supply them and so on. This is why stimulus programs, though turning up on the expense side of the ledger, make sense on the income side.

     I have been an advocate for getting out of debt for many years. I would love to see a balanced budget amendment but, if put into place without a long range (not too long) plan to reduce the current debt load, it would probably put us into a depression. A part of that plan needs to be putting money in the hands of people who will spend it because the more money changes hands the more revenue the country gets. That is part of the President’s plan (stimulus spending) Cutting government programs that put government workers out of work is recessionary. That is also part of the Presidents plan and the Republican; it better be balanced with stimulus which the Republican plan is not. Giving money to people who will spend it will help growth.
 

Whenever someone talks about cutting foreign aid as part of deficit control they are either stupid or blowing smoke. Write them off. The money we give to foreign countries is minuscule, less than 1% of the federal budget. I won't go into reasons for it as you can Google US foreign aid as percent of budget to find answers.

Attention FOX "News" aficionados

Attention FOX “News” aficionados, I assume you are Republicans as I once was. If you care about your party, if you hold the view that smaller government is best, that government that does less is best, that government should be fiscally responsible; you need to stop getting what FOX puts forward as news and try some other sources. FOX was and remains so wrong about the last election from their pundits being 100% wrong in pre election predictions to their analysis of why Governor Romney and so many other Republicans lost the election.

What I’m hearing on FOX now is that it was demographics; they need to get the Latino vote by bringing in Republican Latino stars like Senator Rubio. There is no discussion about how Romney had to turn himself into a pretzel to get support from the Tea Party and social issue folks and then try to untwist himself to appeal to the rest of us. There are some good Republicans out there. John Huntsman would make a fine president in my view and Cristy would probably do a good job; certainly his straight from the shoulder persona is appealing. If O’Riley and Hannity could get their heads around the concept, they might be able to bring enough focus to make it possible for the Republican Party to become a positive force in our government but I see no interest at FOX for bringing us together and they are enough of a force to make divisiveness work. Clearly some Republican politicians in Congress get all their news views from FOX. Perhaps all the conservative media (Murdoch Media) and their Congressional followers want is to keep government from working. I see some of them nodding their heads. Unfortunately, they really don’t have a concept of what that would mean…to them personally.

FOX folks are found of saying that they are the most watched news. I will listen more carefully the next time I hear the claim to make sure they are saying “on cable” which is true; they have more viewers than MSNBC or CNN however MSNBC and CNN combined have more viewers which is significant when you consider that FOX stands alone for biased conservative television. If that is what turns you on, you have only one source. All other sources--CNN, MSNBC ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS--by FOX’s definition are “liberal media”. FOX does have more viewers than MSNBC which is liberal biased television, not many more viewers but that, at least, is a reasonably fair comparison.

FOX’s liberal media might better be called corporate media as they all, even PBS, rely heavily on corporate sponsors/advertisers. There is even evidence that mainstream media has been influenced by the federal government (I’m thinking of the lead-up to our preemptive attack of Iraq which cost over 4,000 American lives.)It may be impossible to get unbiased news but The News Hour on PBS and National Public Radio are pretty close and checking in on the biased folks can be helpful as long as you balance them yourself.

Are Maine Voters Crazy?

My friend from Ohio wrote: What’s with the recent election … Ron Paul?  Can he even find Maine on a map? Considering the mild winter, the good folks of the north woods can’t even claim brain freeze. They’ll have to go some to match Minnesota … Wrestler for Governor and gag writer of US Senator … However, this is a good start. So, what gives?

Dear Old Right-wing Nut Friend:

I gather you support Mitt which is fine; I think he has the potential to be a reasonably good president. But if not Mitt, who was your “anybody-but-Mitt” front runner—Gingrich, Santorum?

All things considered I think the good Republicans of Maine (you do realize you are questioning Republican voters?) made a fine choice. It was unfortunate that the Republican establishment apparently, to the Paul supporters who followed it all very closely, pulled some fast ones on the vote count of the local caucuses. The Paul supporters, those I know at least, are very dedicated. When I talk with them they sound a lot like you. They certainly pulled a good surprise on the establishment folks at the state convention.

I’m rather proud of Maine’s voting record in the 40 years I’ve been here. Senators Cohen and Mitchell were two of the best Washington has ever seen and Senator Muskie… well you probably don’t like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act so I guess you think we Mainers were brain dead giving him 4 terms in the Senate. Of course his tears did knock him out of running for President. I guess it’s a darn good thing Republicans are allowed to cry otherwise your Rep Boehner might have to go back to the family bar.

Our current governor, however, is reason to question our voting acumen but he got less than 40% of the vote.

I’m proud of our two current Senators, both Republicans. Unfortunately Olympia couldn’t stand the partisanship and who could blame her after working on health care reform for months only to be told by Republican leadership to lay off and then having Boehner say repeatedly that Republicans were left out of the debate. The good news is that Independent Angus King is running for her seat and I’m sure he will win. He was one of two Independent governors we have had and was the best governor of all in the past 40 years. He has a great sense of humor and a great record. He is a friend and I love him.

In a way I wish I lived in Ohio so I could join you in your throw-the-bums-out voting pledge but our congressional delegation is really quite good.

Raise My Taxes, Please!

Dear Senator Snowe,
I just read the "Snowe Report" and I agree that the LIHEAP (Low Income Energy Assistance Program) should be funded at a higher rate than in the budget and that deficit reduction is important though the juxtaposition of these two statements in your report is a bit ironic, don't you think? Every spending program (like LIHEAP) is important to some people somewhere which is why spending cuts are so difficult.
There is one thing that the majority of people all across the country and in Maine agree upon as a deficit reduction measure yet you don't mention it. Why? Why don't you support raising the income tax on those of us who are doing well? The answer I keep hearing is that it will kill jobs, that the wealthy who create jobs will not bother to make more money and thus create more jobs if they are taxed too much. That is a bogus answer. We have had tremendous job losses under the low tax on the wealthy for 8 years running which should prove that argument to be spurious.
Did you know that the highest income tax bracket was over 90% throughout the decade of the 50s and that was a time when a family could be raised on one income. Perhaps the reason middle class people could get by on one income in that decade was because there was little incentive for entrepreneurs, business owners, corporate boards, bankers and the like to make gross amounts of money so they paid better wages and charged less for their products and services. That explanation, at least, makes a lot more sense than saying that taxing incomes over $250,000 will stifle job creation.

Whitney Houston

Only in Tinsel Town would they do a spur of the moment tribute for an addict who just OD’d, This from my right wingnut friend.

Perhaps they were looking at the positive things about her.

but they wouldn’t do anything to help her while she was still alive.

I guess you know more about her life than I do.

This is one very messed up world we live in, but nowhere is it more is it as messed up as in Hollywood. So people want to rely on advice from those idiots on issues like global warming and who should run this country.

Ah, yes, those liberals in the entertainment world should be silenced. They should not be allowed to express their views. I mean really, Jane Fonda for flake of the year, right? She tried to stop the war in Vietnam. Maybe there should be a Constitutional amendment to stop liberals from expressing opinions. It would have to be just liberals because if you said actors or all entertainers were not allowed to voice their opinions or give money to candidates, that would affect people like Charleston Heston and goodness knows you want someone who has the weight of Moses behind him to speak out against gun control. And who was that actor who was governor of La La Land California, and then became president? He was quite a dashing figure in Tinsel Town, wasn’t he? Then there is Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, Loretta Lynn and Tom Selleck whose voices and candidate support must not be hindered.

Amend Constitution

I read your latest blog entries, and do share much of your perspective when it comes to the country's current political situation. Where I diverge (I think) is when it comes to believing that there's a real distinction between the two major Parties, or at least enough of a difference to justify dutifully casting my vote and hoping the system itself will lean toward real change. John G. in Mass.

I’ll keep casting my vote and I will remain hopeful that the President, whoever that may be, and the Congress, whichever party dominates, will do their best for our country. I will hope that I will hear from the party leaders interesting and positive responses to ideas put forward by the opposition even though Boehner, Reid, Pelosi and McConnell have given me no reason for this hope.

However, since it is so difficult to remain hopeful, I have another hope. I hope we the people will rise up not in anger but in mass with positive solutions to some of the problems we face. This is still a democracy and we are still in charge. The Tea Party went the route of electing people they thought would fix things. I’m sure many Tea Party voters are disappointed with the results or lack thereof. Voting in politicians who spout the rhetoric we want to hear is not the solution because once in they find themselves in a system that resists change and soon they are seduced by the benefits of their position. Voting in “the right people” is not the solution. We must put pressure on the people in office to do our bidding. Corporations and rich people have undue influence because not enough of us are voicing our intent to vote the bums out. We are allowing money to talk. The Occupy Wall Street folks are on the right track. Now they need a mission which I think should be an amendment or two to the Constitution that will cut the influence of money in our government. Votes are what the politicians need. Republicans have gotten candidates to sign pledges to get votes. We should be getting candidates to sign pledges to put forward Constitutional amendments. Amendments are then put before the states and in our states we the people can overcome the money (I think).

PS: It is tempting to call for a new Constitutional Congress. I suspect those called to the CC would be the same people who are being influenced by money today and that the money would be there as well. Better to take one or two issues at a time, the simpler the better.

More politics

From Sis Chris: “I’m addicted right now I have to admit, to this real live soap opera about players for power, but more importantly, players for leadership in our country. Unfortunately power seems to be much more attractive than leadership to most politicians. Otherwise they could at least give each other credit for good decisions, goals achieved, and goals aimed for.”

Dear Sis, I agree and am always looking for politicians to find the good, or places they can agree with the “other side”. I thought Governor Daniels in the Republican response to the State of the Union address got off to a good start. There are Republicans who wish he were running for President. One interesting scenario in the Republican race is that they could go into the convention with still no candidate with enough votes to win the nomination on the first ballot. After that it could get very interesting as anything could happen.

I’m going to give a thumbs-up to Maine’s Governor for a leadership moment. In his first State of the State address he ended by saying that family abuse should not be tolerated, that 80% of the abusers were men, and that this was not a woman’s issue but a man’s issue and it was time for men to stand up against abuse. That is leadership. He plans to pursue the issue though government intervention but saying it passionately is the kind of leadership I’d like to see much more of from those who are in a position to get media attention—putting things in human terms, pushing we the people to be better rather than droning on about issues that are beyond our understanding like trillions of dollars.

What I found most powerful in the State of the Union address was the accomplishments of the past 3 years. As for his path ahead, it sounds good but I won’t be impressed until I see results. I have given credit to two Republicans and withheld positive judgment of the President’s speech which may make me sound like a Republican. In fact, I was once and would be again if the party did what they say they believe in—less government (why do Republicans try to legislate morality?); uphold the Constitution (fine, stop trying to get religion into government.) spend less (Every Republican President in recent times has expanded government and increased the national debt.). I’m proud of our President and will vote for him but if a Republican wins, I will be supportive of my president.

A Republican guest on a liberal television show repeatedly referred to the President as “your president” until the host finally said, “I thought he was our president.” Good on him as you say in New Zealand.

Politics

Politics from my sister in New Zealand

“He(Gingrich) knows how to deflect a negative against him back onto the projector as proven by his stern reprimand of John King at the beginning of the CNN debate.”

Yeah, that was classic Republican-right shoot-the-messenger and it seems to work very well for them.

“I am dismayed by voting statistics that say married women have rallied behind Gingrich.” My mother, a staunch Republican, said of Rockefeller, a Democrat, when he was running for president 50 odd years ago that she could never vote for someone who was divorced reasoning that if they couldn’t run a marriage they couldn’t run a country. It didn’t matter several years later when she voted for divorced Republican Ronald Regan.

I watch the Fox news channel occasionally to try to understand where those folks are coming from. The most recent rant seems to be how unfair the “liberal media” was in their attacks on Gingrich when they gave Clinton and Edwards a free pass on their extramarital affairs. Apparently the Murdoch Media (FOX) doesn’t watch Liberal Media because it was on “Liberal Media” that I got more information about Clinton’s blow job and Edwards’s affair than I cared to hear. If the Liberal Media was so over the top attacking Newt, you would think they would have brought up the South Carolina governor’s lying and affair with the woman in South America. If they did, I missed it. I’m betting FOX would have made something of it if the governor and Newt were Democrats.

“Personally I cannot stand Sarah Palin being inserted into the conversation, as if she has any influence.”

Ah, ha, you are watching Fox because the only place I ever see Palin these days is on Fox where she said: “If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going I’d vote for Newt and I would want this to continue. More debates, more vetting of candidates because we know the mistake made in our country four years ago was having a candidate that was not vetted…” I guess Palin wasn’t paying attention to the Democratic primaries and the debates between Obama and Clinton and the close scrutiny of Obama by the “liberal media” and the Murdoch Media. Of course, she wouldn’t have been paying attention then because that was before she was picked as Republican VP candidate and she was much too involved in her job as Governor of Alaska, a job she loved so much she quite mid-term. (For any who don’t know me, that last sentence is meant to drip with sarcasm.)

Mort Media here says Newt must like quitters as he told CNN “I would ask her to consider taking a major role in the next administration if I’m president…” Like what, Newt, Secretary of State?

“I would sure like to know your opinion about this election process to date.”

Well, Sis Chris, I think we have more problems than any president can fix without making a lot of people unhappy. I think that we, the citizens of the U.S., have come to the place that someone said of our Constitution 200 years ago that when we figured out we could vote for our self-interest our system of government would fail. We don’t seem to have a long view. Rich people seem to think that they can hold onto all the money and somehow the economy will thrive even though the vast majority doesn’t have buying power. Henry Ford paid his workers good wages so they could buy his cars. Smart.

We are afraid to make a transition to a different source of energy even though the current source is killing us, damaging the world we live in, contributing to our national debt and making us vulnerable to foreign powers. We have a political system that is so divisive it is unlikely any leader no matter how extraordinary he or she might be has little chance of making positive change. There is a part of me that thinks one of the Republican candidates as president might not be such a bad thing as they would not fix the problem and could then take the Republican nonsense down in flames two years later and then again two years after that but then a better part of me holds out hope that four more years of Obama might give him a chance to turn things around.

This is a difficult time to be a caring U.S. citizen with a long view.

Kodak and HP in trouble

Kodak and Hewlett Packard are in trouble because they don’t care about their customers. Their leadership is focusing on investors and profit—money rather than people. I say this because they both really piss me off. The first digital camera I got was a Kodak. I was able to download the pictures easily into my computer. Each picture was a file that I could open with several programs. I could copy, delete it, send it in an email. That camera belonged to my boss so when I left the job I got another Kodak camera but what a difference. I couldn’t find the files easily. Everything was tied up in something Kodak wanted me to do. A few years later my daughter sent me some CDs of pictures she had taken and put on a Kodak CD. These got me even more entangled with Kodak. I was unable to send any of these pictures without using some Kodak program. To make matters worse in the process of trying to do what I wanted to do Kodak got into my computer and started sending me unwanted messages each one pissing me off more.

HP is doing the same thing. I got a printer. It is hardware for Gods sake. I don’t want my hardware sending me messages telling me how to do things I have no interest in doing and then, whenever I change a cartridge, they tell me to waste a piece of paper to “align” the cartridge which also uses some of the ink in the cartridge all of which—say it with me now—pisses me off.

The good news is that these two companies are in trouble. Unfortunately the executives who got them in trouble made lots of money, will make more and will probably be hired by some other company at a grossly high salary.

Additional good news there are companies run by people who care about their customers and realize that the best way to serve investors is to serve customers, to focus on customers’ needs.

The bad news is that there are so many people in industry and government who haven’t an empathetic bone in their head.

Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party

[I have added a conservative response to this.]

The Tea Party raised the hopes of many though it soon morphed into a right wing social agenda leaving moderates who felt a need for change in the dust. Occupy Wall Street has raised the hopes of many but hope for what? The right wants to pit it against the Tea Party but I think the basis for both is the same. OWS’s lack of a clear agenda is both its strength and its weakness. Without an agenda each hopeful person can hope the agenda will align with their hopes and they grow evermore anxious to see “their” agenda articulated. Once an agenda is articulated there are bound to be many who will feel “that’s not my agenda”.
What brought about the TP and OWS is frustration and anger by many that our system is broken. We are all mad as hell and loosing patience. We blame it on the politicians and the lobbyists, the bankers and the stock brokers, greed and avarice. Our frustration is that in a democracy we the people are supposedly in charge—we are the boss, we can fire those who don’t do our bidding and yet when we fire incumbents, the replacements are little, if any better and often worse. The TP threw out the bums and gridlock in our government got even worse. OWS is focusing more on bankers and stock brokers and avarice but where will that focus lead? Some good was done by picketing a bank. Bank of America was picketed and responded by removing a recently added fee. This worked because there was a specific and easily understood goal and a clear target. The picketing drew enough media attention to get the bank to respond.
That is a great model for OWS—pick a specific and easily understood goal with a clear target and bring attention to it by getting media attention.
Example: A constitutional amendment putting some limits on congress is a possibility that both TP and OWS people could support. It takes a two thirds vote in the Senate and the House of Representatives to start the amendment process. Clearly it would take a lot of pressure for Congress to make a vote that would limit them in any way but if the TP and OWS teamed up to get it done, I think it could happen. Both get a lot of media attention now, imagine the power if they joined forces on one issue. It could become a major campaign issue with candidates signing a pledge to vote for Amendment 28 if elected.
I rather like the idea of term limits and making it illegal for anyone who has served in congress to become a lobbyist. It would decrease the motivation for getting elected to become rich and, hopefully, increase candidates’ interest in moving our country forward. It would also free up a lot of the time now spent by our congresspeople on raising funds and campaigning for the next election, time they could put to good use by focusing on the job we sent them there to do. Or a similar idea from Warren Buffett. "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”
Cynic that I am I doubt this will happen simply because the OWS folks wouldn’t want to join an idea that came from the TP folks and visa versa. The Tea Party is and Occupy Wall Street likely will become as polarized as Congress.

FOLLOWING IS A REPEAT OF THE ABOVE WITH COMMENTS (in color) FROM MY CONSERVATIVE FRIEND. MY LIBERAL FRIEND HAS COMMENTED ELSEWHERE. My cynicism is well placed though my reason for it was overly optimistic.

The Tea Party raised the hopes of many though it soon morphed into a right wing social agenda leaving moderates who felt a need for change in the dust. Occupy Wall Street has raised the hopes of many but hope for what? The right wants to pit it against the Tea Party but I think the basis for both is the same. OWS’s lack of a clear agenda is both its strength and its weakness. How can the inability to articulate your position ever be interpreted as a strength? Without an agenda each hopeful person can hope the agenda will align with their hopes and they grow evermore anxious to see “their” agenda articulated. Once an agenda is articulated there are bound to be many who will feel “that’s not my agenda”.

What brought about the TP and OWS is frustration and anger by many that our system is broken. We are all mad as hell and loosing patience. We blame it on the politicians and the lobbyists, the bankers and the stock brokers, greed and avarice. Our frustration is that in a democracy we the people are supposedly in charge Not the way it works, not even the way it’s designed to work … we elect people who are in charge. —we are the boss, we can fire those who don’t do our bidding and yet when we fire incumbents, the replacements are little, if any better and often worse

. Obviously, we’re not making good choices, but in this case you haven’t given the new guys time to do much of anything … first you need to give them a clear majority in both houses. The TP threw out the bums and gridlock in our government got even worse. Nothing could be worse than the one-party system we had for two years starting in early 2009. OWS is focusing more on bankers and stock brokers and avarice but where will that focus lead? Some good was done by picketing a bank. Bank of America was picketed and responded by removing a recently added fee. This worked because there was a specific and easily understood goal and a clear target. The picketing drew enough media attention to get the bank to respond. Methinks that you give them some undeserved credit relative to overturning the monthly charges on debit cards.

That is a great model for OWS—pick a specific and easily understood goal with a clear target and bring attention to it by getting media attention.

Example: A constitutional amendment putting some limits on congress is a possibility that both TP and OWS people could support. It takes a two thirds vote in the Senate and the House of Representatives to start the amendment process. Therein lies the problem and a bunch of kids sleeping in tens on Public Square aren’t the way to address it. Clearly it would take a lot of pressure for Congress to make a vote that would limit them in any way but if the TP and OWS teamed up to get it done, Somehow I’m having difficulty getting my mind around the notion of a bunch of Ivy League liberals teaming up with a gang of red neck conservatives on anything. I think it could happen. Both get a lot of media attention now, the media has been and continues to do everything possible to completely ignore the TP. imagine the power if they joined forces on one issue. It could become a major campaign issue with candidates signing a pledge to vote for Amendment 28 if elected.

I rather like the idea of term limits (dream on) and making it illegal for anyone who has served in congress to become a lobbyist. Can’t happen any more than enforcing employment agreements that prohibit you from working in the same industry for a competitor … it’s restraint of trade and unconstitutional. However, Congress has passed laws limiting a retired bureaucrat’s ability to lobby his former co-workers for a brief window … it’s either 1 or 2 years. It would decrease the motivation for getting elected to become rich and, hopefully, increase candidates’ interest in moving our country forward. It would also free up a lot of the time now spent by our congresspeople on raising funds and campaigning for the next election, time they could put to good use by focusing on the job we sent them there to do. Did you read the piece I sent yesterday about elected officials trading on insider information on land purchases it was a transcript of something 60-Minutes ran on Sunday. Or a similar idea from Warren Buffett. "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.” And this is going to get passed in the Senate when?

Cynic that I am I doubt this will happen simply because the OWS folks wouldn’t want to join an idea that came from the TP folks and visa versa. The Tea Party is and Occupy Wall Street likely will become as polarized as Congress. They already are. We happen to have a vocal little band of Occupy Cleveland so I get some things that you never get to hear or see … they are remarkably disorganized … I can’t think of any single belief that they share with the TP. I love it when they talk about getting Congress to pass a law to get the rich to pay their fair share … don’t they know that Congress did that a long time ago … it’s called the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) and that’s worked so well that guys earning as little as $110K got hit last year, but on a percentage basis old Warren paid less than his secretary.

I think we get too focused on buzz words and fuzzy political double talk. I do know that the media does a piss poor job of vetting candidates that they like and go into assassination mode on the ones they don’t like. I would like to believe that you’re right about the public being angry enough to get off its collective fanny, but I don’t see it. However, they did get mad enough at W to vote for Obama though in retrospect he was less qualified for the job than my Brittany Spaniel. Wish I could embrace one of the GOP candidates. By the way, what is so bad about a Mormon? I’m missing something there … not real excited about the guy, but certainly not over his religion.

Dear President Obama

Dear President Obama,
You need to take a lesson from Ross Perot and make up some simple charts to help us understand government economics.
1. Budgets are balanced by taking in more money and/or spending less.
2. Your government gets money by taxing income so there are two ways to increase revenue, raise taxes and/or raise income. Let’s look at the two ends of the spectrum super rich and those near or below the poverty level.
3. Last year the median income for the top executives of the top 200 corporations was $10.8 million. There is only so much these people can spend even if they eat in the fanciest restaurants, buy yachts and cars and extra houses. They invest the rest. Investment in businesses that create jobs is a good thing. The stock market is getting closer to the record highs before the recession so you would think there would be more jobs. That hasn’t happened. Clearly taking money away from the super rich is not going to hurt job growth. We should raise their taxes.
4. Those near or below the poverty level will spend any money they can get their hands on for necessities like food and shelter. Cynics might say they will spend it on frivolous things like flat screen televisions but whatever they spend it on, it becomes income for someone else and that income is taxed. Let’s say they bought the TV, the people who sold the TV got money, the people who stored the TV got money, the people who imported the TV (this would be an even better example if the TV were made in the USA) got money and all of those people had income on which they paid taxes thus more money came into the government helping keep our national debt from getting even larger.
5. Did the stimulus package work? Absolutely. Without it unemployment would have gone over 10% and we would have gone into a depression. While it wasn’t enough to bring down the unemployment figure, it did keep it from getting much worse.
6. We would all like to see the federal government spend less BUT we need to be careful we don’t make the recession worse by taking money out of the economy where people will spend it. When we take jobs away from teachers, firefighters, police, and others employed by our towns, states and the federal government we are adding to the unemployment problem. When we take money out of the hands of people who will spend it because they need to in order to live we are also decreasing tax revenue.
These are simple facts, Mr. President. Explain them to the people. Maybe even Congress will understand. My senators, even though they are moderate republicans, won’t listen to us. If we are going to vote reasonable people into office, we need your help, dare I say leadership?

Arizona killings

I have a logic question for you...
If I say "kill Sarah Palin" and then someone who never heard me say that does kill her, can I accurately state that I had nothing to do with it?

Using logic I would say that you would have to say it where it could not be heard by anyone who could pass the thought on to another who could pass it on to another who could pass it on to Kevin Bacon. Philosophically I would answer that you need to be careful when you shoot an arrow into the air. Mystically, ah, that is where it gets really interesting.
Did I ever tell you that in November 1996 I made an effort to locate my half sisters, three women I had not seen or had any word of for 25 years when they were ages 16, 14 and 10? I was unsuccessful. Within a week I received a letter from the middle sister who was living in New Zealand, as far away as you can get from Maine on this planet asking, “Hi! My name is Christie Mather and I am wondering if you are my lost brother?” If this is more significant than mere coincidence, then one might consider the possibility that any thought could have consequences especially if it is thought by many.
I hope you have been amusing yourself with the conjecturing about whether or not any good will come of the Arizona murders regarding rhetoric. First you have the “liberal left” suggesting that Palin’s targeting the Representative may have influenced the murder (ignoring the fact that targeting political races is common practice for both parties though the cross-hairs was unwisely suggestive). Then you have the “wing-nut right” and their pundits attacking the liberal left for capitalizing on the tragedy while doing the same thing themselves. How would the rhetoric go if Sarah Palin was shot? There can be no doubt that the wing-nuts would rant about how the left had killed her with their rhetoric while the left would attack with similar rants to those being used by the right today.
Those of us awash in the mire being sloshed back and forth between those who seem to be operating under some sort of hypocritical oath wonder, “Will it ever stop?” Sure, eventually. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime though I will continue to hope. I will continue to hope for civility, for acceptance of each other and our right to disagree without being disagreeable, for respect.
As I watched Bill O’Riley and six of his pundits tear into the liberal left and at one point putting up a picture of the New York Times building as a symbol of what’s wrong with our country I couldn’t help but wonder what his reaction would be if the building was blown up. My mystical side ought to be more careful. What if that thought went viral?

Congress convenes

Just for the record I'm hopeful that John Boehner and the Republican majority in the House will do some positive things. In Maine we have a Republican governor and both houses went Republican for the first time in quite awhile. There, too, I am hopeful. It is my attitude at the beginning of every administration no matter the party. I believe that people who run for office have the best intentions of the people of their state/country at heart and I bless them for their commitment and wish them well.
I confess that I don't see any good for the country in the House trying to overturn what Republicans are fond of calling Obama Care since it will get nowhere in the Senate and even if it did the President would veto it. It seems totally political which is what we hate most, isn't it? If they went after it piecemeal starting out by saying "we like these parts and will keep them" and then had an honest debate about the rest, I'd be impressed. I hope that is the approach they take. I'd also like to see them do a little horse trading like saying, "we'll accept a government program as an alternative as long as you Dems accept reining in lawsuits."

Political change

My sister, Christie, living in New Zealand asks “In my whole lifetime and I am fairly sure in your whole lifetime, no change has been made. We are doomed to a mediocre world when we could have so much more. Why can’t we live in a perfect world?”
Dear Chris, There has been a lot of change during my lifetime. I was born at the end of the great depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt was president. He had instituted many programs to bring the country out of the depression and regulations to keep it from happening again. The 1950s was a decade of good times as depicted in television shows like Father Knows Best, Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It to Beaver—the good old days when one wage-earner could support a family. Interestingly, and I think it is related, income of more than $1.3 million was taxed at over 90%. In other words, someone earning $2.3 million only got to keep less than $100,000 of that last million. What would be the incentive to make more than $1.3 million if you could only keep $100,000? This question is usually asked with the assumption the high wage-earners are those who create wealth by creating more businesses, more employment etc. That’s not the way it actually works, however, as we see today in the multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses of CEOs of individual companies.
Let’s look at a very public business owning a sports franchise like the New York Yankees. The owners of sports teams don’t go out and create new teams. They may build a new stadium (or get the local government to build one for them) but the business is largely the expenses of paying team members, paying the people who sell hot dogs and the like. The income side is from ticket sales, sale of broadcast rights and advertising. If the owner had to pay really high taxes on really high income thus taking away his incentive to make gross amounts of money; he would have no incentive to keep salaries low either to players or other workers, no incentive to raise ticket prices. In fact the tax would have the exact opposite effect. Why raise ticket prices and why not pay higher wages and bonuses? Star athletes would have little incentive to hold out for an outrageous salary making it likely the other athletes on the team would get higher salaries. Now we have more people with a high enough wage to support a family. Isn’t that what family values are all about?
The change from the 50s has been gradual, wealthy people exerting more and more influence on politicians. I remember when Congress removed restrictions on banks allowing them to get into all sorts of other businesses; just one of many changes from the regulations that FDR put in place to keep the country from going into another depression. Reagan did the major drop in taxes for the rich which has created the super-rich who can exert even more influence on our political system.
You want a change away from rule by the greedy? It will come. It will get worse before it gets better but it will come.

I’m reading The Story of Civilization by Will and Arial Durant, 11 volumes averaging about 1,000 pages each. I read the last two first Rousseau and Revolution and The Age of Napoleon before beginning at the beginning. I’m about to finish volume IV now, six down and five to go. I admit to being proud of my accomplishment but it is not a chore. I’m having trouble putting them down (I’m also having trouble holding them up as they are heavy.) Every large society has gone through changes from caring about the people to focus on wealth and the power of the wealthy over the rest of society. Greed is really interesting, much like a disease. People who have it can’t get enough. They think that more—more money, more power, more things—will bring happiness yet when they get more they think they are happy yet a hunger for more persists. Rather than consider the possibility that the more they have been chasing is like the donkey chasing the carrot suspended in front of him on a stick tied to his back, they keep chasing the carrot rather than looking around to see if perhaps there is something other than money and power that would bring them contentment.
Obama did bring change. He brought us back from the brink of a depression. The loudest voices are those of the greedy who override voices of reason. Change takes time. We are a society of the instant—no patience, no foresight.
As for a perfect world, it may exist right now waiting for us to perceive it. Would a video game be perfect if everything went along easily? Would chess be fun is the opponent always made the moves you wanted? Perhaps all we need to live in a perfect world is the ability to accept this world as it is and play the game it presents to the best of our ability without unrealistic expectations.

birthers

A friend of mine thought the following was “priceless”:
Governor Mike Huckabee said, “If we want to keep our Nation’s secrets ‘SECRET’ … store them where President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate.”
I replied:
That is priceless. I thought Huckabee was smarter than that so it's good to know this stuff. Not to worry, I know he was making a joke and that he is smart enough to know that the President was born in the US and has shown his birth certificate at least as many times as he has and that his college transcripts are at least as public as his but this humor panders to those foolish enough to believe the transcripts and birth certificate are less than genuine. Those people, and, unfortunately, there are even some in Congress, should have their driver's licenses and passports revoked. Let them try to get them back without a birth certificate.
PS The President has a valid passport and drivers license though I don't think he has to show them anymore.

Hate to pay taxes? They have been around in various forms since the beginning of civilization. Those who point to a time when there were no taxes in the U.S are pointing to the beginning of the federal income tax. People have hated to pay taxes, tithes, duties, dues and the like to those in power (church, state, lord of the manor, etc.) also since the beginning of civilization.
There was a time when I hated to pay taxes. I would rail in frustration, “I’m working the first four months of the year for the government!” I got so worked up that I did something about it. I got my income tax burden down to nearly nothing. Steve Forbes, take note, here is how you can stop paying income tax. It’s really fairly simple and I found it very invigorating. They don’t tax income if you don’t have any. Of course in Mr. Forbes case he would have to give away about half a billion that is earning him income without his having to work for it but it would still be easier than being president which he has tried to do twice.
I no longer hate paying taxes though I’m now paying more than ever before. I’m paying more because my income is bigger but I’m still able to keep the taxes at a reasonable level by giving away some of my income. It feels good to be able to help others and to help with projects people are doing to protect or improve our environment. As for the taxes? I just gave myself an attitude change. Rather than feel bummed out about having Uncle Sam’s hand in my pocket I now feel good that I can be a part of all the good the country I love is able to do. Oh yeah, I can point to things my country is doing that I don’t think are good. The last “good war” (one I feel we were compelled to enter) was WWII. I also think there are things the federal government messes in that local governments and citizens could do better but if I get focused on the negative, I’ll loose my good feeling about paying taxes.

Boehnercare

The Democrats need top stop trying to be reasonable, that is to apply reason. They need some catchy phrases. Take lessons from the conservatives and dismiss any reporting that doesn’t agree with your agenda as the Don’t-confuse-me-with-facts media. The Republicans say they want to overturn the health reform legislation which they label as Obamacare. Do they really want to go back to the way it was before “Obamacare”? How many years have both Democrats and Republicans been proclaiming the need for change? For goodness sake Democrats get on television and radio demanding Boehnercare!

Dumb populace

10/19/10 In the news: French Pension Protests. Masked youths clashed with police officers and set fires in cities across France on Tuesday as protests against a proposed hike in the retirement age took an increasingly radical turn.
Idiots! Sure the government screwed up plus the baby boomers will be retiring very soon putting more pressure on retirement funds plus people are living longer putting more pressure on retirement funds and there will be fewer, percentage wise, people paying into the funds making the gap between what is available and what is required even wider; but, “Idiots, what is your solution to the problem? You just want to get yours even if it bankrupts the government? Open your foolish minds and try to help yourself and your countrymen (and women). Recognize the larger problem and say, ‘Yes, I want to be part of the solution.’”
Golly I really got wound up there. Thank goodness nothing like that will happen in this country. We aren’t just for ourselves and damn the rest of the population. We know that we will have to make sacrifices for the good of our country and our fellow citizens. We…. About now you should be wondering what drug I’m on because we, the majority of us, not you and I of course but the majority, will vote against any sensible way to save social security like making the retirement age older or even dispensing with cost of living increases. Some people are getting riled up because the cost of living hasn’t gone up so they aren’t getting an increase in their social security check.
We blame the politicians but we are the problem and the tea party solution of throwing the bums out is not the answer because if the new politicians want to be reelected, they will have to be bums. Several years ago a Maine representative the US Congress voted for closing a military base in Maine. It was the right vote for the good of the country. Usually the politicians work it out so that everyone can vote for the narrow interests of the state, take cover as it were, while others make the hard vote, though not hard for them because the vote doesn’t affect people in their state. This representative was slaughtered by his opponent in the next election on that one issue. Politicians are not as dumb as we may think. They just do things that are dumb for our country but smart in getting reelected by a dumb populace.