Following my entry asking our legislators not to waste their time reading the entire healthcare bill, Senator Mike Enzi now wants a longer bill. Apparently Enzi hasn’t been able to break any furniture with the current bill. Apparently, he wants the Senate to waste more time.
Relax Mike, you’ll find some other way to waste time instead of passing this legislation. Go read the Washington Times and the Drudge Report, twice. Take a run, or at least a brisk stroll, if you’re healthy enough; due to a lack of preventive care, many aren’t. The budget bill will be along soon and you can hurl that across the room, if you can lift it.
See Republicans now arguing that the Senate health care bill isn’t long enough.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Thank You for Purposely Causing a Recession
Memo to the President
From Rush Limbaugh
Re: Thank You for Purposely Causing a Recession
Mr. President, I recently claimed, on my radio show, that you are causing a recession on purpose. While I made this outrageous accusation tongue-in-cheek, it has come to my attention that I am actually right. So, I wanted to write and thank you for your efforts in this regard.
Sir … Thank you for purposely moving our beloved country from a second great depression to a mere recession. If not for your courage and understanding of Keynesian economics (unlike my former heroes Ronald Reagan and George W Bush), even I may have lost my job … not that it’s actually work : )
Please keep up the good work and do whatever needs to done to move our economy forward. I’ll handle the outcry from my obsolete Liaise Faire brethren for you.
Rush Limbaugh
From Rush Limbaugh
Re: Thank You for Purposely Causing a Recession
Mr. President, I recently claimed, on my radio show, that you are causing a recession on purpose. While I made this outrageous accusation tongue-in-cheek, it has come to my attention that I am actually right. So, I wanted to write and thank you for your efforts in this regard.
Sir … Thank you for purposely moving our beloved country from a second great depression to a mere recession. If not for your courage and understanding of Keynesian economics (unlike my former heroes Ronald Reagan and George W Bush), even I may have lost my job … not that it’s actually work : )
Please keep up the good work and do whatever needs to done to move our economy forward. I’ll handle the outcry from my obsolete Liaise Faire brethren for you.
Rush Limbaugh
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
I Don’t Want My Congressman to Read the Entire Healthcare Bill
Do Repbublicans have to actually break a podium or table by slamming down the text of the healthcare reform bill before someone asks why they’re so obsessed with the number of pages in the bill?
Shouldn’t a bill that would reform one sixth of the economy of the United States be 2,000 some pages long? If you can write a plan on a bar napkin, an insurance executive would only need the time it takes him to finish his beer to devise a way exploit it.
Personally, I don’t want my legislator wasting her time by reading the entire bill. If I wanted her to read the entire healthcare reform bill, wouldn’t I want her to read every page of every bill, every amendment to every bill, and every position paper produced in the Congress? Has any legislator actually read the hundreds of thousands of pages that come across his desk each year? God, I hope not.
The only way to read that much would be to lock yourself away in a room for the year. Since most of these documents are rather technical and outside of any one congressman’s expertise, he couldn’t understand everything he’s reading and wouldn’t have time to learn enough about the subject matter to vote intelligently. He’d be better off going to lunch with someone who is an expert on the pending legislation.
Would I expect a congressman on the transportation committee to read and fully understand the healthcare reform bill? NO. But, would I expect a congressman on a healthcare committee to read and understand the bill? DAMN YES. At the very least, I expect our congressmen to hire staff who can understand the legislation. The only reason to demand that every congressman read every word of every bill is to stop all progress in the Congress ….
So, Congressman … DON’T READ THE BILL. Speak with healthcare committee members, discuss it with your staff, talk to your constituents, decide how you want to vote … and VOTE !!!
Shouldn’t a bill that would reform one sixth of the economy of the United States be 2,000 some pages long? If you can write a plan on a bar napkin, an insurance executive would only need the time it takes him to finish his beer to devise a way exploit it.
Personally, I don’t want my legislator wasting her time by reading the entire bill. If I wanted her to read the entire healthcare reform bill, wouldn’t I want her to read every page of every bill, every amendment to every bill, and every position paper produced in the Congress? Has any legislator actually read the hundreds of thousands of pages that come across his desk each year? God, I hope not.
The only way to read that much would be to lock yourself away in a room for the year. Since most of these documents are rather technical and outside of any one congressman’s expertise, he couldn’t understand everything he’s reading and wouldn’t have time to learn enough about the subject matter to vote intelligently. He’d be better off going to lunch with someone who is an expert on the pending legislation.
Would I expect a congressman on the transportation committee to read and fully understand the healthcare reform bill? NO. But, would I expect a congressman on a healthcare committee to read and understand the bill? DAMN YES. At the very least, I expect our congressmen to hire staff who can understand the legislation. The only reason to demand that every congressman read every word of every bill is to stop all progress in the Congress ….
So, Congressman … DON’T READ THE BILL. Speak with healthcare committee members, discuss it with your staff, talk to your constituents, decide how you want to vote … and VOTE !!!
Friday, November 20, 2009
Republicans Winning the Battle to do Nothing
Congress’s public ratings are in the dumps. So are the President’s. Why? Because they aren’t getting anything done. With large majorities in both the House and the Senate, the Government should be making great progress, but the Democrats are clearly failing to get their work done, aren’t they?
No. The Democrats aren’t failing, the Republicans are preventing action. Since 2007, the Republicans in the Senate have operated a perpetual filibuster. Individual Republicans have put meaningless holds on legislation and the President’s nominees. The Republican caucus refuses to allow anything to go forward without multiple cloture votes, including a bill to extend unemployment benefits that finally passed 98-0. So, nothing can go forward.
In the 110th Congress was forced by the Republicans to hold twice as many votes on cloture than any other past Congress (and they had a Republican president).
In the past, the filibuster was reserved for highly controversial legislation. Holds on nominees were reserved for clearly unqualified candidates. Just this year, however, Republicans placed a hold on the President’s nominee for ambassador to Brasil to hold up unrelated Cuba policy. A hold was placed on legislation benefitting veterans just to hold it up. Yesterday, the Senate confirmed its first of the President’s nominees for the federal bench. Why? Because a Republican put a hold a moderate candidate just to hold it up.
Why are Republicans putting up a wall in front of everything? This is Gingrichism at its worst. Do the math. If the voting public is mad at the Congress, we’ll want to ‘throw the bums out.’ With sixty percent of the bums being Democrats, the Republicans will lose less than the Democrats. A primary part of Gingrichism is that if both sides lose, but the other side loses worse than yours, you’re still the winner … and to hell with the damage you’ve done to the country.
Don’t be fooled … It’s not the Democrats doing nothing; it’s the Republicans forcing nothing.
Please see Legislative Pileup Looms in the Senate. published following this post.
No. The Democrats aren’t failing, the Republicans are preventing action. Since 2007, the Republicans in the Senate have operated a perpetual filibuster. Individual Republicans have put meaningless holds on legislation and the President’s nominees. The Republican caucus refuses to allow anything to go forward without multiple cloture votes, including a bill to extend unemployment benefits that finally passed 98-0. So, nothing can go forward.
In the 110th Congress was forced by the Republicans to hold twice as many votes on cloture than any other past Congress (and they had a Republican president).
In the past, the filibuster was reserved for highly controversial legislation. Holds on nominees were reserved for clearly unqualified candidates. Just this year, however, Republicans placed a hold on the President’s nominee for ambassador to Brasil to hold up unrelated Cuba policy. A hold was placed on legislation benefitting veterans just to hold it up. Yesterday, the Senate confirmed its first of the President’s nominees for the federal bench. Why? Because a Republican put a hold a moderate candidate just to hold it up.
Why are Republicans putting up a wall in front of everything? This is Gingrichism at its worst. Do the math. If the voting public is mad at the Congress, we’ll want to ‘throw the bums out.’ With sixty percent of the bums being Democrats, the Republicans will lose less than the Democrats. A primary part of Gingrichism is that if both sides lose, but the other side loses worse than yours, you’re still the winner … and to hell with the damage you’ve done to the country.
Don’t be fooled … It’s not the Democrats doing nothing; it’s the Republicans forcing nothing.
Please see Legislative Pileup Looms in the Senate. published following this post.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Annoying Lies by Omission
Anyone flying recently knows how annoying carry on luggage has become. Why is everyone carrying on? Because the airlines are charging for even the first checked bag.
Today, the USA Today rightly opined that the airlines should charge for carry on luggage rather than the first checked bag. Darryl Jenkins, an airline economics analyst, wrote in his opposing opinion that the airlines charge for checked luggage in order to lower the weight of the plane and reduce fuel costs.
Nonsense. Unless my physics professor lied to me, whether that first bag is in the cabin or the cargo hold doesn’t change the weight of the plane. What charging for the first checked bag does is increase boarding and deplaning times, raise the stress level on the plane, and encourage passengers to act rudely toward each other and the flight staff. Oh, and charging for the first checked bag allows the airlines to lay off baggage handling staff.
The airlines don’t mention the human resource part of the equation, but it’s the major factor. The largest cost of most any endeavour is labor. The more people you can lay off the greater the corporation’s profit. If their customers are outraged, but not enough to forego buying the next plane ticket, that’s ok.
Call your airline. Tell them you want to check your bag, that you want a level of decorum on your next flight, that they need to correct this outrage before the next bag-hurling fight breaks out.
Today, the USA Today rightly opined that the airlines should charge for carry on luggage rather than the first checked bag. Darryl Jenkins, an airline economics analyst, wrote in his opposing opinion that the airlines charge for checked luggage in order to lower the weight of the plane and reduce fuel costs.
Nonsense. Unless my physics professor lied to me, whether that first bag is in the cabin or the cargo hold doesn’t change the weight of the plane. What charging for the first checked bag does is increase boarding and deplaning times, raise the stress level on the plane, and encourage passengers to act rudely toward each other and the flight staff. Oh, and charging for the first checked bag allows the airlines to lay off baggage handling staff.
The airlines don’t mention the human resource part of the equation, but it’s the major factor. The largest cost of most any endeavour is labor. The more people you can lay off the greater the corporation’s profit. If their customers are outraged, but not enough to forego buying the next plane ticket, that’s ok.
Call your airline. Tell them you want to check your bag, that you want a level of decorum on your next flight, that they need to correct this outrage before the next bag-hurling fight breaks out.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Capitalism is Socialism
Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism …. isms everywhere. We frequently use these terms to denigrate each other, but do we really understand what they are? Were the Soviets communists? Are we capitalists? Before we start yelling at each other, we need some definitions we can work with.
Capitalism is not the opposite of socialism, but rather a form of socialism.
It’s easiest to explain this through a comparison with political systems. First an important distinction: Political and economic systems should not be defined by their goals, but by their methods. We’ve seen many leaders who came to power with altruist goals, but ended as brutal dictators. A dictator is a dictator no matter his goals.
Political and economic systems must be defined by decision making; who makes the decisions. Using the commonly held concept of left and right, we will look the ends of the scales. The ends of the scales are just theoretical systems, but we need to understand the limits.
The left end of the political scale is Democracy: All political decisions made by the people as a whole through an equal ballot. The right end of the scale is the king, a Monarchy: One man makes all of the political decisions.
Under Democracy, everyone in the United States would vote on whether to repair the pot hole at Sixth and Green streets in Champaign, Illinois. At the other end, the king would decide. Neither of these ideas could really work, so we have modified systems. In the United States, we’re a Republic: The people, as a whole, elect a small number of leaders who make the political decisions. The Soviet Union was a Plutocracy: A small self-perpetuating group of leaders who made all the decisions.
Economic systems are analogous to political systems. They’re based on who the decision makers are.
The left end of the economic scale is Socialism, the economic form of Democracy: All economic decisions are made by the people as a whole through an equal ballot. The right end of the economic scale is the same the right end of the political scale, the king: One man makes all of the economic decisions.
Again, the ends can’t really work. We can’t rely on the population to decide on what automobile to produce, how to price it, how to market it, etc. So, we have modified systems. The Soviets had a Plutocratic Central Control Economy: A small number of self perpetuating leaders making all the economic decisions. Of course, when this small group is wrong, the results can be catastrophic. The Soviet Union collapsed, in large part, due to horrible decisions made by a few people that destroyed the entire economy.
In the United States, we nominally use a self perpetuating economic system we call Capitalism: Economic decisions are made by the people as a whole through an unequal ballot. Unlike pure socialism, each person has as many votes in capitalism as he has dollars, with each dollar representing one vote. If a product is popular and at the right price, people will pay (vote) more for it, and the product perpetuates. A lack of purchases causes a product to disappear.
Under capitalism as in socialism the people make decisions as a whole. As properly defined by the methods of decision making, capitalism is a form of socialism.
Communism (Marxism) is a marriage of democracy and socialism: All the people, through an equal ballot, make all the political and economic decisions. Of course, such a system can only work for a small cooperative group such as a monestary.
Fascism (Totalitarism) is just like the king. Fascists act like kings, but come to power through revolution rather than succession.
There is a danger lurking in our capitalist system. Central control economies inevitably fail. Too few make decisions for too many, so when the decision makers are wrong, their decisions have too great an affect on the economy.
When insufficiently regulated, power in a capitalist system coagulates. A few develop overreaching decision-making power. The system converts from capitalist to a Private-Sector Central Control Economy. An unelected, self perpetuating, group make the critical decisions. Private-sector central control can be just as dangerous as public-sector central control.
The auto industry is a great example of central control. The basic theories of capitalism mandate hundreds of auto manufacturers, rather than the few that we have. Functional markets must have so many players that decisions made by any one cannot affect the market as a whole. Poor decisions made by the few players in this market have the auto industry on the brink.
If the people want greater regulation, such regulation fits with capitalism. On the left side of the scale the people determine what form their economic system should take.
Capitalism is not the opposite of socialism, but rather a form of socialism.
It’s easiest to explain this through a comparison with political systems. First an important distinction: Political and economic systems should not be defined by their goals, but by their methods. We’ve seen many leaders who came to power with altruist goals, but ended as brutal dictators. A dictator is a dictator no matter his goals.
Political and economic systems must be defined by decision making; who makes the decisions. Using the commonly held concept of left and right, we will look the ends of the scales. The ends of the scales are just theoretical systems, but we need to understand the limits.
The left end of the political scale is Democracy: All political decisions made by the people as a whole through an equal ballot. The right end of the scale is the king, a Monarchy: One man makes all of the political decisions.
Under Democracy, everyone in the United States would vote on whether to repair the pot hole at Sixth and Green streets in Champaign, Illinois. At the other end, the king would decide. Neither of these ideas could really work, so we have modified systems. In the United States, we’re a Republic: The people, as a whole, elect a small number of leaders who make the political decisions. The Soviet Union was a Plutocracy: A small self-perpetuating group of leaders who made all the decisions.
Economic systems are analogous to political systems. They’re based on who the decision makers are.
The left end of the economic scale is Socialism, the economic form of Democracy: All economic decisions are made by the people as a whole through an equal ballot. The right end of the economic scale is the same the right end of the political scale, the king: One man makes all of the economic decisions.
Again, the ends can’t really work. We can’t rely on the population to decide on what automobile to produce, how to price it, how to market it, etc. So, we have modified systems. The Soviets had a Plutocratic Central Control Economy: A small number of self perpetuating leaders making all the economic decisions. Of course, when this small group is wrong, the results can be catastrophic. The Soviet Union collapsed, in large part, due to horrible decisions made by a few people that destroyed the entire economy.
In the United States, we nominally use a self perpetuating economic system we call Capitalism: Economic decisions are made by the people as a whole through an unequal ballot. Unlike pure socialism, each person has as many votes in capitalism as he has dollars, with each dollar representing one vote. If a product is popular and at the right price, people will pay (vote) more for it, and the product perpetuates. A lack of purchases causes a product to disappear.
Under capitalism as in socialism the people make decisions as a whole. As properly defined by the methods of decision making, capitalism is a form of socialism.
Communism (Marxism) is a marriage of democracy and socialism: All the people, through an equal ballot, make all the political and economic decisions. Of course, such a system can only work for a small cooperative group such as a monestary.
Fascism (Totalitarism) is just like the king. Fascists act like kings, but come to power through revolution rather than succession.
There is a danger lurking in our capitalist system. Central control economies inevitably fail. Too few make decisions for too many, so when the decision makers are wrong, their decisions have too great an affect on the economy.
When insufficiently regulated, power in a capitalist system coagulates. A few develop overreaching decision-making power. The system converts from capitalist to a Private-Sector Central Control Economy. An unelected, self perpetuating, group make the critical decisions. Private-sector central control can be just as dangerous as public-sector central control.
The auto industry is a great example of central control. The basic theories of capitalism mandate hundreds of auto manufacturers, rather than the few that we have. Functional markets must have so many players that decisions made by any one cannot affect the market as a whole. Poor decisions made by the few players in this market have the auto industry on the brink.
If the people want greater regulation, such regulation fits with capitalism. On the left side of the scale the people determine what form their economic system should take.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Update: Serbs Ordered to Pay for the Mosques
Bosnian Serb authorities have been ordered to pay Muslims $42 million for the destruction of 16 mosques in the city of Banja-Luka during the 1992-1995 war.
As posted earlier, (Karadzic's Destruction of Bosnia Lasts Long After War), Bosnian Serbs destroyed every mosque in the Serb controlled city of Banja-Luka. Banja-Luka is now the capital of the Republika Srpska autonomous region of Bosnia-i-Hercegovinia.
The Srpska Republika News Agency quoted the Islamic Community's lawyer Esad Hrvacic as saying that "For us, what is far more important than material compensation is that for the first time Republika Srpska has taken complete responsibility for the destruction of the mosques."
The most prominent of the mosques, built in 1579, the Ferhadija Mosque was on the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites and is being rebuilt.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Against the War in Afghanistan? Are You High?
Afghanistan is NOT Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was a tantrum by a group of megalomaniacs. The invasion of Afghanistan, however, was not by choice. It was necessary to protect the United States and the united nations. This war against the Taliban needs to be concluded even if it means extending the war into Pakistan.
A recent CNN poll showed that a majority of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan. We’re nearing the isolationist fervor we exhibited between the world wars, which ended in the disaster of the Nazi aggression and genocide in Europe. Afghanistan is not altogether different from Europe of the 1930s.
------
Since we seem to have forgotten, let’s start with a brief history of modern Afghanistan.
Following centuries of possession by foreign powers, Afghanistan finally emerged with a progressive secular, but pro-soviet, government in the 1970s. The United States decided to covertly fund the Mujahidin to annoy the Soviets. In 1979, the Soviets invaded to prop up the Soviet-leaning Afghan government. The United States then funded and trained the Mujahidin to fight a proxy war against the Soviets. After nine years of occupation, the USSR pulled out. Unfortunately, the United States similarly pulled out, leaving behind a horrific civil war. The Taliban came to power in 1996.
The Taliban government created an extreme Wahhabi version of Shariah law where women were to be illiterate baby producing machines. Women who were educated, showed any part of their bodies (even their eyes) in public, or were even found outside of the home without their husbands were publicly executed.
The Taliban supported and were supported by Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. When Bill Clinton managed to kick Bin Laden out of the Sudan, the Taliban gladly gave him room for his training camps. The ‘9/11’ hijackers were all trained in Bin Laden’s Afghan camps.
Although Al Qaida has been in hiding since the beginning of the Afghan war, the Taliban is reemerging as a power in the Waziristan regions of Pakistan.
-----
The Taliban, one of the worst regimes in modern history, is regrouping; the weak (if not dysfunctional) Pakistani government has the bomb; opium production is at an all-time high; and civil war rages in the Khyber wastelands. The Asian people are as desperate as the people of 1930’s Europe and they have a leader: Bin Laden. Pakistani militants assassinated Benozir Bhutto, seiged Mumbai, and protect Al Qaida. Al Qaida and the Taliban intend to take down western civilization ….
So, how in the hell can you be against the war?
A recent CNN poll showed that a majority of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan. We’re nearing the isolationist fervor we exhibited between the world wars, which ended in the disaster of the Nazi aggression and genocide in Europe. Afghanistan is not altogether different from Europe of the 1930s.
------
Since we seem to have forgotten, let’s start with a brief history of modern Afghanistan.
Following centuries of possession by foreign powers, Afghanistan finally emerged with a progressive secular, but pro-soviet, government in the 1970s. The United States decided to covertly fund the Mujahidin to annoy the Soviets. In 1979, the Soviets invaded to prop up the Soviet-leaning Afghan government. The United States then funded and trained the Mujahidin to fight a proxy war against the Soviets. After nine years of occupation, the USSR pulled out. Unfortunately, the United States similarly pulled out, leaving behind a horrific civil war. The Taliban came to power in 1996.
The Taliban government created an extreme Wahhabi version of Shariah law where women were to be illiterate baby producing machines. Women who were educated, showed any part of their bodies (even their eyes) in public, or were even found outside of the home without their husbands were publicly executed.
The Taliban supported and were supported by Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. When Bill Clinton managed to kick Bin Laden out of the Sudan, the Taliban gladly gave him room for his training camps. The ‘9/11’ hijackers were all trained in Bin Laden’s Afghan camps.
Although Al Qaida has been in hiding since the beginning of the Afghan war, the Taliban is reemerging as a power in the Waziristan regions of Pakistan.
-----
The Taliban, one of the worst regimes in modern history, is regrouping; the weak (if not dysfunctional) Pakistani government has the bomb; opium production is at an all-time high; and civil war rages in the Khyber wastelands. The Asian people are as desperate as the people of 1930’s Europe and they have a leader: Bin Laden. Pakistani militants assassinated Benozir Bhutto, seiged Mumbai, and protect Al Qaida. Al Qaida and the Taliban intend to take down western civilization ….
So, how in the hell can you be against the war?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
I Love When Professionals Pick Up On My Posts
I Love When Professionals Pick Up On My Posts
This morning's USA Today includes an editorial called "In Defense of Earmarks - 'Pork' in Congress feeds the people," written by Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University.
Nice pickup Ross.
This morning's USA Today includes an editorial called "In Defense of Earmarks - 'Pork' in Congress feeds the people," written by Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University.
Nice pickup Ross.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
There’s Nothing Wrong With Pork
Many rail against ‘pork’ and ‘earmarks’ in government spending, but there’s just nothing wrong with either one. They say pork is wasteful spending and earmarks hide spending. Not true. The problem is in the definitions.
‘Pork’ is nothing more than Federal spending on local projects, or more to the point, spending on projects that have a location. There aren’t many projects that don’t have a location. All spending on bridges and roads, military bases, hospitals, etc. have a location. Even spending for the IRS has a location; they’ve got to put their personnel in an office, after all.
An ‘earmark’ is a directive, instructing a state how to spend congressionally appropriated money. Congress can’t get a bridge repaired unless it tells a state to use money for the project.
What is wrong with pork is when congressmen use undue influence or cave to lobbyist pressure in allocating money for projects. Complaints about earmarks surfaced when congressmen began inserting earmarks into comprehensive spending bills at the last moment, hiding the spending until it’s too late.
Even lobbyists are valuable and necessary when kept in their place. No congressman can actually be an expert on every issue before Congress. Lobbyists inform and educate. How could any person, on his own, understand the complexity of providing our world with energy while protecting it from energy? The problem is when congressmen stop listening to both sides of an issue. But when excessive campaign contributions push a congressman to take direction from a lobbyist or even allow the lobbyist to write legislation, lobbying must be curbed.
Now let’s stop flying off the handle over misused terms. Pork is necessary; earmarks are necessary; and even lobbyists are necessary. We should call congressmen on their misuse of legislative tools, not their necessary use.
Posted on CNN today: Earmarks: Myth and reality
Rational discussion of earmarks from President Obama: Obama calls for overhaul of earmarks
‘Pork’ is nothing more than Federal spending on local projects, or more to the point, spending on projects that have a location. There aren’t many projects that don’t have a location. All spending on bridges and roads, military bases, hospitals, etc. have a location. Even spending for the IRS has a location; they’ve got to put their personnel in an office, after all.
An ‘earmark’ is a directive, instructing a state how to spend congressionally appropriated money. Congress can’t get a bridge repaired unless it tells a state to use money for the project.
What is wrong with pork is when congressmen use undue influence or cave to lobbyist pressure in allocating money for projects. Complaints about earmarks surfaced when congressmen began inserting earmarks into comprehensive spending bills at the last moment, hiding the spending until it’s too late.
Even lobbyists are valuable and necessary when kept in their place. No congressman can actually be an expert on every issue before Congress. Lobbyists inform and educate. How could any person, on his own, understand the complexity of providing our world with energy while protecting it from energy? The problem is when congressmen stop listening to both sides of an issue. But when excessive campaign contributions push a congressman to take direction from a lobbyist or even allow the lobbyist to write legislation, lobbying must be curbed.
Now let’s stop flying off the handle over misused terms. Pork is necessary; earmarks are necessary; and even lobbyists are necessary. We should call congressmen on their misuse of legislative tools, not their necessary use.
Posted on CNN today: Earmarks: Myth and reality
Rational discussion of earmarks from President Obama: Obama calls for overhaul of earmarks
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Political Math and the Stimulus
The Media is giving the Republican Party a pass on its arguments against the ‘stimulus’ package. Instead of accepting the Republican arguments, the Media should look at the political math behind the Republican’s apparent push against the stimulus.
The political math shows that the Republican argument against the stimulus is a sham. Republicans have a laser focus on the 2010 elections and their approach to the stimulus is based almost entirely on regaining the majority in the Congress
There are basically two possible votes on the stimulus coupled with two possible outcomes of the package. The package will either succeed or fail. Republicans can either vote for it or against it. Thus, assuming Democrats for the stimulus, there are four possibilities for Republicans:
1. Vote for the stimulus : Stimulus succeeds
Result: Status quo. The entire Congress gets credit and the balance of power remains as it is.
2. Vote for the stimulus : Stimulus fails
Result: Status quo. The entire Congress gets blame and the balance of power remains as it is.
3. Vote against the stimulus : Stimulus succeeds
Result: Democrats pick up a few more seats. This is risky, but if it fails, the Republicans merely start campaigning for 2012.
4. Vote against the stimulus : Stimulus fails
Result: Republicans pick up seats. Enough to retake control?
Voting for the stimulus package cannot possibly help the Republicans regain control of the Congress. Thus the political math requires Republicans to vote against the package no matter what’s in it.
Please contact your favorite media outlet and ask them to cover the political math.
The political math shows that the Republican argument against the stimulus is a sham. Republicans have a laser focus on the 2010 elections and their approach to the stimulus is based almost entirely on regaining the majority in the Congress
There are basically two possible votes on the stimulus coupled with two possible outcomes of the package. The package will either succeed or fail. Republicans can either vote for it or against it. Thus, assuming Democrats for the stimulus, there are four possibilities for Republicans:
1. Vote for the stimulus : Stimulus succeeds
Result: Status quo. The entire Congress gets credit and the balance of power remains as it is.
2. Vote for the stimulus : Stimulus fails
Result: Status quo. The entire Congress gets blame and the balance of power remains as it is.
3. Vote against the stimulus : Stimulus succeeds
Result: Democrats pick up a few more seats. This is risky, but if it fails, the Republicans merely start campaigning for 2012.
4. Vote against the stimulus : Stimulus fails
Result: Republicans pick up seats. Enough to retake control?
Voting for the stimulus package cannot possibly help the Republicans regain control of the Congress. Thus the political math requires Republicans to vote against the package no matter what’s in it.
Please contact your favorite media outlet and ask them to cover the political math.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
I Think They Learned ....
It would appear DHS did learn from Katrina. At least, the Administration discovered the political risk of failing during a natural disaster.
DHS and its compatriots, the cities and states, were more proactive as Gustav and Ike approached.
Have they learned the short term lessons? Will the President and the candidates stay away from the disaster areas or will they interrupt the recovery process for political theatre?
Have they learned the long term lessons? Will they actually rebuild the wetlands? Will they build structures to work with the floods instead of just pushing the water off to the next parish?
I guess the long term issues are for the next administration to deal with.
DHS and its compatriots, the cities and states, were more proactive as Gustav and Ike approached.
Have they learned the short term lessons? Will the President and the candidates stay away from the disaster areas or will they interrupt the recovery process for political theatre?
Have they learned the long term lessons? Will they actually rebuild the wetlands? Will they build structures to work with the floods instead of just pushing the water off to the next parish?
I guess the long term issues are for the next administration to deal with.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Katrina Review
With Hurricane Gustav bearing down on New Orleans, it's time to review the the government's preparation for Hurricane Katrina
Katrina Debacle Entirely Homeland Security’s Fault
The debacle of the Hurricane Katrina was entirely the fault of the Department of Homeland Security. I’m not referring to the flooding of New Orleans, but to the lack of coordination and planning prior to, during, and following the disaster.
DHS was charged with helping states and cities plan for disasters and developing coordination between federal, state, and local agencies. It failed. No coordination existed in 2005 and no coordination is in place now.
Although the State and the City failed in their own planning, it was still DHS’ responsibility to make sure that the State and City had a plan. Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff did nothing to assure the states and cities of the gulf coast had planned for such disasters.
The true Rovian purpose to creating the behemoth that is DHS, after the President had originally rejected it, was to deprive almost 90,000 federal employees of their right to organize. Only a small oversight body was required to coordinate all of the departments that DHS absorbed, but instead, a monster agency was created where employees have no worker’s protections.
Due to the White House’s misplaced priorities, DHS is a failure. DHS should be turned into an oversight agency and power should be returned to the diverse agencies from which it was taken.
Katrina Debacle Entirely Homeland Security’s Fault
The debacle of the Hurricane Katrina was entirely the fault of the Department of Homeland Security. I’m not referring to the flooding of New Orleans, but to the lack of coordination and planning prior to, during, and following the disaster.
DHS was charged with helping states and cities plan for disasters and developing coordination between federal, state, and local agencies. It failed. No coordination existed in 2005 and no coordination is in place now.
Although the State and the City failed in their own planning, it was still DHS’ responsibility to make sure that the State and City had a plan. Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff did nothing to assure the states and cities of the gulf coast had planned for such disasters.
The true Rovian purpose to creating the behemoth that is DHS, after the President had originally rejected it, was to deprive almost 90,000 federal employees of their right to organize. Only a small oversight body was required to coordinate all of the departments that DHS absorbed, but instead, a monster agency was created where employees have no worker’s protections.
Due to the White House’s misplaced priorities, DHS is a failure. DHS should be turned into an oversight agency and power should be returned to the diverse agencies from which it was taken.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Just Like a Bully --- Tough Talk Without a Fight
George Bush and John McCain have both wallowed in the time honoured tradition of talking tough when there’s no chance for a fight.
At least McCain spoke following the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia, accusing Russia of imperialism and demanding it withdraw from Georgian territory. McCain is not President, however, and cannot effect the war. So, McCain talks tough and balls up his fists knowing his buddies will pretend to hold him back.
Bush actually waited until the war was over. He didn’t speak until significant military operations were already completed. Then, he demanded Russian get out of Georgia, or else. Thanks, in part, to Bush’s foray into Iraq, he has no credibility and cannot make Russian retreat. Tough talk as the fighting parties are being dragged down to the principal’s office.
The Bush Administration has egging Georgia into picking a fight with Russia for years, telling President Saakashvili he can join our gang if he stands up to Russia. Now that Saakashvili has picked his fight, Bush abandons him, just like a bully.
Barrack Obama, on the other hand, spoke with reason and foresight. Following the beginning of the war, he called on both parties to stop fighting and have an independent party get in the middle. The only middleman available in this fight is the European Union.
Now, a cease fire has been negotiated, by Nicholas Sarkozy, representing the EU. Bush and McCain knew from the start (hopefully), that only the EU could broker a cease fire here, so they took the opportunity to look tough to the American voter.
Instead of calling on the EU to step up, Bush and McCain played the bully card. McCain even refused to pronounce President Mededev’s name correctly, a standard and bizarre tactic for the Republican party.
Bush and McCain’s tough talk on the Russian/Georgian war has only one target, the American voter. Yet again, they’re trying to paint the Democrats as weak on defense. It won’t work anymore. We don’t need another bully in the White House.
(Yes, this is an opinion piece)
At least McCain spoke following the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia, accusing Russia of imperialism and demanding it withdraw from Georgian territory. McCain is not President, however, and cannot effect the war. So, McCain talks tough and balls up his fists knowing his buddies will pretend to hold him back.
Bush actually waited until the war was over. He didn’t speak until significant military operations were already completed. Then, he demanded Russian get out of Georgia, or else. Thanks, in part, to Bush’s foray into Iraq, he has no credibility and cannot make Russian retreat. Tough talk as the fighting parties are being dragged down to the principal’s office.
The Bush Administration has egging Georgia into picking a fight with Russia for years, telling President Saakashvili he can join our gang if he stands up to Russia. Now that Saakashvili has picked his fight, Bush abandons him, just like a bully.
Barrack Obama, on the other hand, spoke with reason and foresight. Following the beginning of the war, he called on both parties to stop fighting and have an independent party get in the middle. The only middleman available in this fight is the European Union.
Now, a cease fire has been negotiated, by Nicholas Sarkozy, representing the EU. Bush and McCain knew from the start (hopefully), that only the EU could broker a cease fire here, so they took the opportunity to look tough to the American voter.
Instead of calling on the EU to step up, Bush and McCain played the bully card. McCain even refused to pronounce President Mededev’s name correctly, a standard and bizarre tactic for the Republican party.
Bush and McCain’s tough talk on the Russian/Georgian war has only one target, the American voter. Yet again, they’re trying to paint the Democrats as weak on defense. It won’t work anymore. We don’t need another bully in the White House.
(Yes, this is an opinion piece)
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
It’s NOT the surge
Just about everyone claiming "the surge" worked, crediting the surge for the reduced violence in Iraq. However, the surge has been only a minor factor in the calming of Iraq.
Violence in Iraq has lessened primarily due to the number of mercenaries being paid by the US Government, the implementation of Carter policy of paying combatants not to fight, and the near completion of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad.
The surge is an increase of 30,000 American troops, bringing the total to 160,000 troops in Iraq. The surge troops are only twenty percent of the American force in the country. Such a small increase couldn’t possibly have had the effect some claim.
Meanwhile there are 180,000 contractors, many of them mercenaries, like Blackwater. Non-mercenaries contractors, work for the military, doing jobs soldiers would have performed in past wars.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, General Erik Shinseki said we would need over 300,000 troops to stabilize the country. His military career was ended when the White House decided to do the job on the cheap. Now the troops are there, even if over half are simply on the payroll. Apparently Shinseki was right.
More important to the decrease in violence is the Awakening movement. The Sunni Awakening movement started several months before the surge. Peace was already breaking out before the surge began.
The Awakening is an implementation of the Carter policy, developed for the Camp David Peace Accord in 1979. The US Government has poured foreign aid into Egypt since 1979, in exchange for peace between Egypt and Israel.
Now, the United States has implemented a policy of paying Sunni leaders to not fight, at a cost of $500,000 per day. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_the_us_government_paying_factions_in.html. The Sunni leaders tired of fighting and foreign insurgents; they eagerly took the payments in exchange for peace.
In Baghdad, the neighborhoods have been largely cleansed. Sunnis have been removed from Shia neighborhoods and Shia have been cleansed from Sunni neighborhoods. Mixed neighborhoods are now fairly abandoned or undesirable. Shia and Sunni have calmed down in Baghdad mainly because there’s nothing left to fight over.
Yes, the American military is doing everything it can, but it is disingenuous or ignorant to assert that the surge “has worked.”
Calling the surge a success is like giving Barry Bonds credit for winning lopsided baseball game by hitting a home run in the ninth inning.
Violence in Iraq has lessened primarily due to the number of mercenaries being paid by the US Government, the implementation of Carter policy of paying combatants not to fight, and the near completion of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad.
The surge is an increase of 30,000 American troops, bringing the total to 160,000 troops in Iraq. The surge troops are only twenty percent of the American force in the country. Such a small increase couldn’t possibly have had the effect some claim.
Meanwhile there are 180,000 contractors, many of them mercenaries, like Blackwater. Non-mercenaries contractors, work for the military, doing jobs soldiers would have performed in past wars.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, General Erik Shinseki said we would need over 300,000 troops to stabilize the country. His military career was ended when the White House decided to do the job on the cheap. Now the troops are there, even if over half are simply on the payroll. Apparently Shinseki was right.
More important to the decrease in violence is the Awakening movement. The Sunni Awakening movement started several months before the surge. Peace was already breaking out before the surge began.
The Awakening is an implementation of the Carter policy, developed for the Camp David Peace Accord in 1979. The US Government has poured foreign aid into Egypt since 1979, in exchange for peace between Egypt and Israel.
Now, the United States has implemented a policy of paying Sunni leaders to not fight, at a cost of $500,000 per day. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_the_us_government_paying_factions_in.html. The Sunni leaders tired of fighting and foreign insurgents; they eagerly took the payments in exchange for peace.
In Baghdad, the neighborhoods have been largely cleansed. Sunnis have been removed from Shia neighborhoods and Shia have been cleansed from Sunni neighborhoods. Mixed neighborhoods are now fairly abandoned or undesirable. Shia and Sunni have calmed down in Baghdad mainly because there’s nothing left to fight over.
Yes, the American military is doing everything it can, but it is disingenuous or ignorant to assert that the surge “has worked.”
Calling the surge a success is like giving Barry Bonds credit for winning lopsided baseball game by hitting a home run in the ninth inning.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
American Oil Won’t Lower Prices
Some count on the ignorance of the average person, but when the average American’s brain is turned on, he tends to show intelligence and even wisdom. We've been listening to a ridiculous argument for the past several weeks. It's time to clear this up and turn on our brains. So here goes . . .
Drilling for oil in ANWAR and offshore will not lower energy prices
Providing new oil drilling leases in the Alaska wildlife refuge (ANWAR) and offshore will lower oil prices in America . . . or will it?
Let’s do the math. Supply and demand tells us that prices will fall due to significant change in demand or supply. To keep the math simple and conservative, we’ll assume no more increase in demand (not likely) and no problems developing oil fields, like hurricanes and wars (not likely).
Oil is a worldwide commodity market. Commodity prices are based on world markets, not national markets. Oil produced in America does not go just into the American market, but into the worldwide market. Although some want us to believe oil produced in America can be separated from the rest of the world, it can’t.
So, we need to deal with oil prices on a worldwide basis. Experts predict ANWAR holds about 10 billion barrels of oil and offshore there is about 18 billion barrels. World oil reverses top 1,300 billion barrels. www.mz-energy.com.
If America taps ANWAR and the entire American offshore, that would amount to just over two percent of the world oil reserves. Oil prices should go down less than three percent. If the price for oil is $120 per barrel, the price of a barrel would lessen by $2.58 per barrel. The price for Petrol, if going for $4.00 per gallon would go down by only nine cents.
Lowering petrol prices by nine cents certainly will not solve our energy problems.
It’s really a world energy market
Speaking of energy, American oil production is not just part of the world oil market, it’s part of the world energy market. The world energy market consists of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc.
Oil makes up about 35 percent of the energy market. www.iea.org. The entire world energy market equates to 3,700 billion barrels of oil. Our 28 billion barrels of oil would be less than one percent of the world energy market.
The oil in ANWAR and offshore would have no real effect on the world energy market.
So, why do the oil companies want these leases?
Producing oil does not increase an oil company’s value; assets do. Ownership of these very valuable leases increases an oil company’s bottom line much more than production does. And, remember, the goal of any company is not producing product, but profits. Offshore oil drilling is a sham. It’s really about ownership of assets, not production.
How do we use supply and demand to actually reduce our energy costs?
The United States uses about 25 percent of the world’s energy. If we lower our use by fifty percent (We can do this. We’re Americans, damn it. (See note 1, below.)) we would reduce the world energy demand by over twelve percent.
If the United States were to get twenty percent of our energy demand from renewable sources we would increase the world’s supply of energy by five percent.
A decrease in demand of twelve percent and an increase in supply of five percent would lower energy prices by 17 percent: a good start.
How we use energy is also critical
T. Bone Pickens is right. Please see http://www.scribd.com/doc/4453094/How-Energy-is-Really-Used
Note 1: The highest demand for energy in the United States is from buildings; in particular, air conditioning; not automobiles.
Drilling for oil in ANWAR and offshore will not lower energy prices
Providing new oil drilling leases in the Alaska wildlife refuge (ANWAR) and offshore will lower oil prices in America . . . or will it?
Let’s do the math. Supply and demand tells us that prices will fall due to significant change in demand or supply. To keep the math simple and conservative, we’ll assume no more increase in demand (not likely) and no problems developing oil fields, like hurricanes and wars (not likely).
Oil is a worldwide commodity market. Commodity prices are based on world markets, not national markets. Oil produced in America does not go just into the American market, but into the worldwide market. Although some want us to believe oil produced in America can be separated from the rest of the world, it can’t.
So, we need to deal with oil prices on a worldwide basis. Experts predict ANWAR holds about 10 billion barrels of oil and offshore there is about 18 billion barrels. World oil reverses top 1,300 billion barrels. www.mz-energy.com.
If America taps ANWAR and the entire American offshore, that would amount to just over two percent of the world oil reserves. Oil prices should go down less than three percent. If the price for oil is $120 per barrel, the price of a barrel would lessen by $2.58 per barrel. The price for Petrol, if going for $4.00 per gallon would go down by only nine cents.
Lowering petrol prices by nine cents certainly will not solve our energy problems.
It’s really a world energy market
Speaking of energy, American oil production is not just part of the world oil market, it’s part of the world energy market. The world energy market consists of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc.
Oil makes up about 35 percent of the energy market. www.iea.org. The entire world energy market equates to 3,700 billion barrels of oil. Our 28 billion barrels of oil would be less than one percent of the world energy market.
The oil in ANWAR and offshore would have no real effect on the world energy market.
So, why do the oil companies want these leases?
Producing oil does not increase an oil company’s value; assets do. Ownership of these very valuable leases increases an oil company’s bottom line much more than production does. And, remember, the goal of any company is not producing product, but profits. Offshore oil drilling is a sham. It’s really about ownership of assets, not production.
How do we use supply and demand to actually reduce our energy costs?
The United States uses about 25 percent of the world’s energy. If we lower our use by fifty percent (We can do this. We’re Americans, damn it. (See note 1, below.)) we would reduce the world energy demand by over twelve percent.
If the United States were to get twenty percent of our energy demand from renewable sources we would increase the world’s supply of energy by five percent.
A decrease in demand of twelve percent and an increase in supply of five percent would lower energy prices by 17 percent: a good start.
How we use energy is also critical
T. Bone Pickens is right. Please see http://www.scribd.com/doc/4453094/How-Energy-is-Really-Used
Note 1: The highest demand for energy in the United States is from buildings; in particular, air conditioning; not automobiles.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
John McCain Controls the Airwaves
| The McCain campaign has complained for months that Barack Obama is gets too much coverage on major media outlets. John McCain gets the majority of coverage and its mostly glowingly positive. Meanwhile, coverage of Barack Obama is generally negative. McCain shows, over and over, that he doesn’t understand what’s going on. He says the ‘surge’ in Iraq caused the ‘awakening’, but the awakening started long before the surge. Was McCain questioned about this? Hardly. McCain shows he doesn’t know how social security works. He calls the idea that money workers pay into the system goes directly to retirees a “disgrace.” Well, Mr. McCain, social security was designed as a pay-as-you-go system. Does the media question McCain’s misunderstanding of social security? No. Instead, they spent a week talking about how a comment by Jesse Jackson could hurt Obama’s campaign. Obama meets with Hamad Karzai; rather than covering the substance of the meeting, the media questions Obama’s purpose. Coverage of Obama’s overseas trip started, on CNN.com, with a article on how an Obama presidency could hurt black America. This morning, Daniel Shore, a long time commentator on NPR, talked about Obama’s trip. Weekend Edition’s host pushed him, repeatedly, to condemn Obama purpose and finds mistakes in Obama’s performance. John McCain’s complaints regarding media bias are just a show designed to create even greater bias.
If the media reported on John McCain’s slips, mistakes, and senior moments the way they attack Obama’s bowling, this election would already be Bob Dole all over again. |
Friday, July 25, 2008
Karadzic's Destruction of Bosnia Lasts Long After War
 Imagine this is your church. The Ferhadija Mosque, in Banja Luka, Bosnia-Hercegovina (BiH) was built in the 16th century. Until May 7, 1993, the mosque served as a center of faith and community for hundreds of Bosnian Muslims in Banja Luka, the second largest city in BiH. |
 This is your church now. |
| This is a photograph of the Ferhadija Mosque I took during the summer of 2001. On May 7, 1993, the mosque was destroyed by Bosnian Serbs who'd been whipped into a frenzy by war criminal Radovan Karadzic. Between April and September of 1993, in an effort to rid their city of Muslims, Bosnian Serbs destroyed every mosque in Banja Luka (16 mosques dating back to medieval Europe). In 1991, there were over 82,000 non-Serbs in Banja Luka. Only 15,000 non-Serbs live there now. During the war, Serbs destroyed numerous mosques and Catholic churches across Bosnia. Even in June, 2001, 400 hundred policemen were needed, as security, at the corner stone laying ceremony to begin rebuilding the Ferhadija Mosque. The corner stone was immediately taken away and stored. Only in 2007 did the actual reconstruction begin. |
 Six years after the war ended with the Dayton Peace Accords, Sarajevo still smelled of smoke and the Parliament Building still looked like it was about to fall down. Muslims, I talked to Banja Luka were sick of the war and the Serbs were tired of being the bad guys. I worked with Terra, a legal-aid firm helping with property returns thru the Office of the High Representative and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Most of the staff were Bosnian Serbs. I got the sense that many were embarrassed by the actions of their countrymen; that they could be conned into trying to cleanse parts of Bosnia of their Muslim and Croat minorities. |
 This was the war that coined the term "ethnic cleansing." And, it wasn't just Bosnian Serbs. President Franjo Tuđman tried to eliminate Serbs from the Krajina region of Croatia. He died before he could be indicted.Radovan Karadzic, along with General Ratko Mladic, have been hidden from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for the past 13 years. In order to 'cleanse' the country, these guys, with their goons, convinced Bosnian Serbs that their Muslim or Croat neighbours had already committed atrocities and were about to attack them. Serbs would then 'defend' themselves by attacking their neighbors, starting a village war, and justifying ethnic cleansing. Karadzic and Mladic opened concentration and rape camps and wiped out entire villages. Just before the end of the war, they executed over 8,000 men and boys in Srebinica, nearly wiping the village off the map. Bosnia is a beautiful country, filled with religious tolerance; one of the few countries where most villages have Catholic and Orthodox spires and Islamic minarets. Sarajevo is an eclectic mix of religious temples: |
 |  |  |
| The arrest of the architect of the of Bosnian war, Radovan Karadzic, is promising signal for the future of this country and its Balkan sisters, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, and Kosovo. Serbianna News Post reports that Republika Srpska (the Bosnian Serb autonomous region) Prime Minister Milorad Dodik recently said “Radovan Karadzic is not Republika Srpska. It is not his creation but the creation of its people.” I'm sure the Bosnian Serbs I met are eager to separate themselves from the days of Radovan Karadzic. Hopefully, all of Bosnia is ready to retake its mantel as a home for Muslims, Serbs, and Croats. |
Friday, July 18, 2008
Why are conservatives so pessimistic about America?
Yesterday, Al Gore called on America to create 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources within ten years. This would take all of our prodigious intellect and ingenuity. But, aren’t we Americans?
So, why did conservatives and republicans respond with their customary pessimism? Yet again, they said we can’t do it, we’re not smart enough. Why can’t we raise the café standards to 50 miles per gallon? We’re not smart enough. Why can’t we get off fossil fuels? We not smart enough. Why can’t we provide health care and pensions for all? We’re simply not smart enough.
When are we going to return to the days of optimism? When the congress would pass “technology forcing legislation” believing we’ll figure it out? In the 1930s and 40s, we helped end a worldwide depression and defeat Hitler’s Nazi armies. We created social security, rebuilt Europe. In the 1960s we overturned a century of American apartheid. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon signed the clean air and clean water acts. Why can’t we get off oil?
If we don’t use our incredible ability to figure things out and get things done, Germany, France, Japan, and even China will do it, reaping all the benefits stemming from such advances
It’s time to call on the republican party to stop whining and help bring American back to its position as undisputed leader of the world.
So, why did conservatives and republicans respond with their customary pessimism? Yet again, they said we can’t do it, we’re not smart enough. Why can’t we raise the café standards to 50 miles per gallon? We’re not smart enough. Why can’t we get off fossil fuels? We not smart enough. Why can’t we provide health care and pensions for all? We’re simply not smart enough.
When are we going to return to the days of optimism? When the congress would pass “technology forcing legislation” believing we’ll figure it out? In the 1930s and 40s, we helped end a worldwide depression and defeat Hitler’s Nazi armies. We created social security, rebuilt Europe. In the 1960s we overturned a century of American apartheid. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon signed the clean air and clean water acts. Why can’t we get off oil?
If we don’t use our incredible ability to figure things out and get things done, Germany, France, Japan, and even China will do it, reaping all the benefits stemming from such advances
It’s time to call on the republican party to stop whining and help bring American back to its position as undisputed leader of the world.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Why Investment Bubbles? Reagan’s Tax Slaughter.
Occam’s Razor tells us to look simply for answers. So, what basic principal applies to our current economic crisis? Supply and Demand. More than anything else, the basic laws of supply and demand have caused the investment bubbles of the past twenty years.
During the Reagan Administration, aided by a republican congress, Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. In 1980, the income tax rate on the highest bracket was 70 percent (Married, filing jointly - Income over $215,400). By the time Reagan left office, the rate on the same income was only 28 percent ((Married, filing jointly - Income over $155,320). http://www.taxpolicycenter.org. With after-tax incomes soaring, the investment class invested irrationally, causing bubble after bubble. The economic downturn we’re experiencing, now, is the inevitable consequence of Reagan’s policies.
Let’s take the dot.com bubble for instance. The dot.coms started growing in the early 1990s. At that time Reagan’s tax cuts had fully taken hold, giving the investment class much more money to invest than there was equity in which they could invest. The basic laws of supply and demand tell us that when there is excessive demand for something and insufficient supply, prices will soar. Investors had too much money to invest and equity could only be created so fast. So, the demand for equity was extremely high and the supply was limited. Investors bid up the price of stock in dot.coms to levels many times higher than its actual value. In fact, no dot.com made a profit until the late 1990s. Because such prices were unsupportable, eventually the industry collapsed.
We’ve seen the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble. Now we’re entering into the age of the oil bubble. The collapse of the oil bubble could have catastrophic effects around the world. We need to re-graduate the tax system before the investment class causes the next disaster.
During the Reagan Administration, aided by a republican congress, Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. In 1980, the income tax rate on the highest bracket was 70 percent (Married, filing jointly - Income over $215,400). By the time Reagan left office, the rate on the same income was only 28 percent ((Married, filing jointly - Income over $155,320). http://www.taxpolicycenter.org. With after-tax incomes soaring, the investment class invested irrationally, causing bubble after bubble. The economic downturn we’re experiencing, now, is the inevitable consequence of Reagan’s policies.
Let’s take the dot.com bubble for instance. The dot.coms started growing in the early 1990s. At that time Reagan’s tax cuts had fully taken hold, giving the investment class much more money to invest than there was equity in which they could invest. The basic laws of supply and demand tell us that when there is excessive demand for something and insufficient supply, prices will soar. Investors had too much money to invest and equity could only be created so fast. So, the demand for equity was extremely high and the supply was limited. Investors bid up the price of stock in dot.coms to levels many times higher than its actual value. In fact, no dot.com made a profit until the late 1990s. Because such prices were unsupportable, eventually the industry collapsed.
We’ve seen the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble. Now we’re entering into the age of the oil bubble. The collapse of the oil bubble could have catastrophic effects around the world. We need to re-graduate the tax system before the investment class causes the next disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
