What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…or so Juliet surmised as she thought desperately on how to get the man without the family. Despite the truth of Shakespeare’s line - that the name of things doesn’t matter, only what things are – the words we introduce into our lexicon can evolve into a being of their own, which may ultimately have little resemblance to the way things are.
Human conflict has no recorded beginning. The use of language to describe conflict is probably as varied as the conflicts themselves. The etymology of the English word War is only about a millennia old and for most of that period the use of the word as a noun has been pretty consistent. Simply stated it is used to describe military conflict between organized societies. Rarely did the civilian element of societies actively participate. Much of recorded history over these past 1000 years has been framed by these conflicts as periods of significant change, often brought about by the conflicts themselves.
Such is not the only use of the term War. War is frequently used as an adjective relating to items or behavior connected with conflict; war-paint, war-dance, war crime, war chest, war weary, and so forth. However, something has changed regarding “war” in America over the past century, and the past 60 years in particular. It is the result of success, the speed of information, and the desire to persuade through the merchandizing of fear. It probably has no precedent.
World War I ended in 1918. It was not good experience for our relatively young Republic. Called The Great War and The War to End All Wars, the US was only in the conflict for just over a year and yet the losses were horrific, both through military casualties and, especially, disease. It was so unpopular that following it a new isolationism kept Woodrow Wilson from entering the US into the League of Nations, which he created. This did not stop, however, a growing Romantic conclusion over the years that America had essentially cleaned up the European mess, a partial truth at best.
The end of World War II was considerably different for the American population as a whole, but it built on the Romance. The success of that conflict which ended with the United States displaying powers that no other nation had (nuclear weapons) turned the attitudes of the general population toward War into something new. Not only was WWII glorified, it colored the attitudes of past conflicts, including WWI. The word War, as a noun, took on a new meaning. Instead of representing conflict it began to represent an ethical state of being.
The affect of this change in the use of the term has been profound and insidious. For this nation, after WWII the concept of War was like mainlining heroin. The high was too great, however with each successive injection the outcome became worse. The United States, more than any other nation, has become a War junkie.
Although undeclared, as required under our Constitution, the major military engagements since World War II - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq - have increasingly resembled something other than War although each has been named as such. The Iraq invasion in particular resulted in a protracted hostile occupation eight times the length of WWI and yet it was one in which we labeled as a War throughout…war against who?
It is not hard to see that nearly every time our leaders, public and private, have been faced with social issues they have applied the term and mass marketed it; the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, the War on Terrorism, or how about the War on Cancer, and the War on Pollution. There are of course the Cola Wars and even a War on Christmas, which Conservatives tag to the alleged liberal-Jewish media. The word come to represent how the nation should deal with issues…but how is that bad?
The use of the word War in all these cases, including the military conflicts, is sinister. It lures people into supporting the underlying motives of the originators, but in nearly all cases the conclusion to the “War” is not part of the equation. Historically, wars ended with a winner and a loser, even if the particulars of that ending were negotiated. With the new wars there really is no winner or loser. Does Cancer win or lose? Does Crime win or lose? In Iraq and Vietnam did we win or lose? The Korean War is still in effect, 60 years later. There is no winning or losing in all these cases because there is only the conflict itself.
The reason this is bad is because the new Romantic concept of War inhibits any productive action on the issue. There is only slugging it toward a mythical victory. The War on Drugs, for example, has cost more than most other wars (military or otherwise) and imprisoned many more people than all the American prisoners of war in all America’s military engagements combined. Yet because it is a War, those who are bent on some kind of declared victory are unable to address the real human condition and how to improve it. So the “War” goes on and on. How are we doing so far?
There is not an ounce of common sense that justifies a War on Terrorism. You might as well call it a War on Fear. As such America will remain terrorized with no end, and the politicians who trade on that fear will continue to remain in power. How easy would it have been for George W. Bush to invade Iraq and impose the Patriot Act if, instead of a War on Terrorism, we simply became part of an international effort to reduce and neutralize terrorists around the world?
War by any other name would not smell the same. In fact the word stinks. It is time to end the pursuit of “glory”… and the addiction.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Hang 'em High
Led by Newt Gingrich, the Republican pack of Presidential contenders embraced a new line of contention in their December 15th debate. At least it was one I hadn’t previously noticed. They did so in a way that displayed both an eerie pandering to right-wing social interests and an embarrassing ignorance of just how our particular form of government works. I refer to their attack on our third branch of government – the Judiciary.
Michelle Bachmann was by far the most colorful in her attempts to lasso this contrived concern as a backdoor attack on such issues as woman’s rights (including abortion), gay rights, workers rights, voter’s rights, and the suspension of individual liberties in the name of security…to name a few. In her Meet the Press interview following the debate she said the following:
"What we need to do about it is have the--both the president and the United States Congress take their authority back. And I would agree with Newt Gingrich that I think that the Congress and the president of the United States have failed to take their authority because now we've gotten to the point where we think the final arbiter of law is the court system. It isn't."
I can’t imagine what foolish people out there have the audacity to think our court system is the final arbiter of law. Obviously Michelle is geh-fumpted suggesting Obama, in just three short years, has managed to turn over interpretation of US law over to the courts! Those pesky judges actually being allowed (by Obama of course) to sit at their benches and make decisions about disputes of law brought before them. What can you expect from a Kenyan socialist?
The fact that the Supreme Court currently has a Conservative majority doesn’t appear to appease her. When asked by David Gregory of Meet the Press whether she felt Congress should ignore Court decisions they (Congress) didn’t like, she said:
"No, we don't ignore those decisions. But, again, we need to remember that the United States Congress and the president of the United States have the power and authority to pass law. We have the idea that laws are ultimately made by courts today, but that isn't true. It--the, the, the--Congress, together with the president can pass law and change what the, what the Supreme Court says….The problem is the Supreme Court or other members of the court have passed decisions that aren't in conformity with our Constitution. That's what we take issue with. That's why it's important that the people have their representatives be able to pass laws as the president would sign in conformity with their will."
She also said in the same debate that she was a "serious candidate for President of the United States". I mean…seriously? The only thing she’s a true candidate for is talk show host on Fox News.
Newt Gingrich doesn’t have the same Land of Oz approach to our Constitution as Bachmann. Still, his rhetoric calls for Judges to be subpoenaed by Congress to defend their decisions, the presumption being that Congress can reverse those decisions in some fashion (by-passing superior courts?). He believes such has ideological relevance - Constitution be damned. Of course both candidates are pandering to that liberty loving right-wing element of the Republican Party that somehow believes those individual freedoms which they find personally offensive are unconstitutional. Bachmann, who has proven herself since 2008 to be a political half-wit, is about as offensive in her assertions as say…the town drunk is about sobriety. However, Gingrich, with his declaration of being a political scientist and historian, is truly offensive…and a little bit scary.
I find it an entirely reasonable argument that the US Judiciary is the most critical branch of our Government, allowing this representative democracy to survive nearly a quarter of a millennium…it is the glue. It’s the branch which brings strength to the US Constitution primarily because 300 million people for better or worse are willing to accept the conclusions it reaches in dealing with dispute. It is hardly flawless. Yet even with all the frailties human beings inherently bring to any organization, the American Judiciary has withstood the test of time with historical consistency and a remarkable resistance to corruption. It is the hidden jewel within our Constitution, keeping the Nation on track even as politicians frequently attempt to derail it.
The US Congress, a body which often operates more like a plutocracy than a democracy - pushed this way and that by social currents - is hardly a place for consistent and just arbitration, nor is the Executive Branch. One could only imagine the instability that would exist if there was no acceptance and reasonable faith in our Judiciary. Bachmann declared in the same debate that we were not a banana republic. Too bad for her.
Michelle Bachmann was by far the most colorful in her attempts to lasso this contrived concern as a backdoor attack on such issues as woman’s rights (including abortion), gay rights, workers rights, voter’s rights, and the suspension of individual liberties in the name of security…to name a few. In her Meet the Press interview following the debate she said the following:
"What we need to do about it is have the--both the president and the United States Congress take their authority back. And I would agree with Newt Gingrich that I think that the Congress and the president of the United States have failed to take their authority because now we've gotten to the point where we think the final arbiter of law is the court system. It isn't."
I can’t imagine what foolish people out there have the audacity to think our court system is the final arbiter of law. Obviously Michelle is geh-fumpted suggesting Obama, in just three short years, has managed to turn over interpretation of US law over to the courts! Those pesky judges actually being allowed (by Obama of course) to sit at their benches and make decisions about disputes of law brought before them. What can you expect from a Kenyan socialist?
The fact that the Supreme Court currently has a Conservative majority doesn’t appear to appease her. When asked by David Gregory of Meet the Press whether she felt Congress should ignore Court decisions they (Congress) didn’t like, she said:
"No, we don't ignore those decisions. But, again, we need to remember that the United States Congress and the president of the United States have the power and authority to pass law. We have the idea that laws are ultimately made by courts today, but that isn't true. It--the, the, the--Congress, together with the president can pass law and change what the, what the Supreme Court says….The problem is the Supreme Court or other members of the court have passed decisions that aren't in conformity with our Constitution. That's what we take issue with. That's why it's important that the people have their representatives be able to pass laws as the president would sign in conformity with their will."
She also said in the same debate that she was a "serious candidate for President of the United States". I mean…seriously? The only thing she’s a true candidate for is talk show host on Fox News.
Newt Gingrich doesn’t have the same Land of Oz approach to our Constitution as Bachmann. Still, his rhetoric calls for Judges to be subpoenaed by Congress to defend their decisions, the presumption being that Congress can reverse those decisions in some fashion (by-passing superior courts?). He believes such has ideological relevance - Constitution be damned. Of course both candidates are pandering to that liberty loving right-wing element of the Republican Party that somehow believes those individual freedoms which they find personally offensive are unconstitutional. Bachmann, who has proven herself since 2008 to be a political half-wit, is about as offensive in her assertions as say…the town drunk is about sobriety. However, Gingrich, with his declaration of being a political scientist and historian, is truly offensive…and a little bit scary.
I find it an entirely reasonable argument that the US Judiciary is the most critical branch of our Government, allowing this representative democracy to survive nearly a quarter of a millennium…it is the glue. It’s the branch which brings strength to the US Constitution primarily because 300 million people for better or worse are willing to accept the conclusions it reaches in dealing with dispute. It is hardly flawless. Yet even with all the frailties human beings inherently bring to any organization, the American Judiciary has withstood the test of time with historical consistency and a remarkable resistance to corruption. It is the hidden jewel within our Constitution, keeping the Nation on track even as politicians frequently attempt to derail it.
The US Congress, a body which often operates more like a plutocracy than a democracy - pushed this way and that by social currents - is hardly a place for consistent and just arbitration, nor is the Executive Branch. One could only imagine the instability that would exist if there was no acceptance and reasonable faith in our Judiciary. Bachmann declared in the same debate that we were not a banana republic. Too bad for her.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Crazy Like a Fox
The Joint Select “Super Committee” is expected to announce today that they couldn’t do what Congress was unable to do last March. Should ANYBODY be surprised? The major surprise would have been to learn that compromise had been reached, more specifically that the Republicans had allowed it to happen. The outcome was pre-ordained when, in concocting the plan, each party caucus was allowed to pick their representatives for the Committee. You might as well have asked two packs of wolves to equitably split a dead moose. If they had wanted half a chance of succeeding the Republicans should have picked the 6 Democrats for the panel and vice versa.
I absolutely believe, and the anecdotal evidence supports, that the problem is with the Republicans, who determined that they could use this committee, moreover the potential failure of the Committee, as leverage to make the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts permanent. John Kerry in his Meet the Press interview yesterday whined about that fact like a schoolboy complaining that the other kids won’t share the football unless he gives up the key to the candy cupboard - whining has become a forte’ for the Democrats.
The fact of the matter is that for Congressional Republicans, who enjoy the macho, red meat eating, flag saluting, white gridiron image they’ve cultivated, this has become a game. The objective is to lower taxes a la Grover Norquist. All the rest, including discretionary spending, defense, entitlements, regulations, and the size and roll of government is just detail. It could be something played on an Xbox. Instead of Call of Duty, perhaps it might be called Hall of Doodie.
The Republicans want those Bush Tax Cuts made permanent in the worst way, second only to removing Obama as President. They know that once they expire at the end of 2012 they won’t be able to do anything to restore them if Obama is re-elected, even if the Republicans hold both houses of Congress. But I can’t help but ask myself why it was allowed to become an issue in the first place.
I was one of many, perhaps a majority of Americans, who was incensed that Obama allowed the extension of the cuts in November 2010. The Republicans had vowed to block all legislation during the lame duck Congress (the last gasp for the Democrat House majority) if the cuts weren’t extended. Obama caved, using the growth/jobs argument as justification. How did that work out? Further, he agreed to extend the cuts till the end of 2012 placing them at ground zero for the 2012 Presidential election. I thought he must be getting ready to drink the Kool-Aid. Just crazy…or so I thought.
But now look what’s happened. Unless the US economy completely tanks during the summer and fall of 2012, even the status quo gives Obama a good shot at winning - depending on who his opponent is. The election itself will become a National referendum on whole issue of revenue, and the Bush Tax Cuts will be the tangible icon for whichever side you’re on. It will be a crystal clear difference between the two candidates. Obama will absolutely say he will veto any extension and the Republican candidate will be forced to support it. Further, the same will be true for most Senate and House seats. The direction of the economy may be the underlying issue, but the yea or nay on the Bush Tax Cuts will be something that the electorate will actually understand.
Republicans may have felt that being on the side of fewer taxes was a fail-safe position. However, perhaps Obama and his handlers had more insight for what was coming down the road. It seems downright foxy with hindsight. The spotlight on the immense increase in economic inequality, a spotlight that Republicans fondly call Class Warfare, works to the Democrats advantage. If that issue has 10 months of life to it, and it should, the idea of increased taxes for the wealthy will not be hard for the general populous to support. If there is to be a solution to the gridlock in Washington, which the American people can no long stomach, the easiest way for the 99% to deal with it will be to vote the 1% to pony up a few more bucks.
I absolutely believe, and the anecdotal evidence supports, that the problem is with the Republicans, who determined that they could use this committee, moreover the potential failure of the Committee, as leverage to make the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts permanent. John Kerry in his Meet the Press interview yesterday whined about that fact like a schoolboy complaining that the other kids won’t share the football unless he gives up the key to the candy cupboard - whining has become a forte’ for the Democrats.
The fact of the matter is that for Congressional Republicans, who enjoy the macho, red meat eating, flag saluting, white gridiron image they’ve cultivated, this has become a game. The objective is to lower taxes a la Grover Norquist. All the rest, including discretionary spending, defense, entitlements, regulations, and the size and roll of government is just detail. It could be something played on an Xbox. Instead of Call of Duty, perhaps it might be called Hall of Doodie.
The Republicans want those Bush Tax Cuts made permanent in the worst way, second only to removing Obama as President. They know that once they expire at the end of 2012 they won’t be able to do anything to restore them if Obama is re-elected, even if the Republicans hold both houses of Congress. But I can’t help but ask myself why it was allowed to become an issue in the first place.
I was one of many, perhaps a majority of Americans, who was incensed that Obama allowed the extension of the cuts in November 2010. The Republicans had vowed to block all legislation during the lame duck Congress (the last gasp for the Democrat House majority) if the cuts weren’t extended. Obama caved, using the growth/jobs argument as justification. How did that work out? Further, he agreed to extend the cuts till the end of 2012 placing them at ground zero for the 2012 Presidential election. I thought he must be getting ready to drink the Kool-Aid. Just crazy…or so I thought.
But now look what’s happened. Unless the US economy completely tanks during the summer and fall of 2012, even the status quo gives Obama a good shot at winning - depending on who his opponent is. The election itself will become a National referendum on whole issue of revenue, and the Bush Tax Cuts will be the tangible icon for whichever side you’re on. It will be a crystal clear difference between the two candidates. Obama will absolutely say he will veto any extension and the Republican candidate will be forced to support it. Further, the same will be true for most Senate and House seats. The direction of the economy may be the underlying issue, but the yea or nay on the Bush Tax Cuts will be something that the electorate will actually understand.
Republicans may have felt that being on the side of fewer taxes was a fail-safe position. However, perhaps Obama and his handlers had more insight for what was coming down the road. It seems downright foxy with hindsight. The spotlight on the immense increase in economic inequality, a spotlight that Republicans fondly call Class Warfare, works to the Democrats advantage. If that issue has 10 months of life to it, and it should, the idea of increased taxes for the wealthy will not be hard for the general populous to support. If there is to be a solution to the gridlock in Washington, which the American people can no long stomach, the easiest way for the 99% to deal with it will be to vote the 1% to pony up a few more bucks.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Longing to be Sunk in the Middle
There is an old Lithuanian proverb that says “the older the bed, the closer the couple”. Actually…I just made that up, but old world proverbs – let’s face it - sound better than blogging bromides. The message is a good one nevertheless. Old mattresses worn in the center bring people together and if a couple wants to get some productive sleep they’d better work it out.
There is a construction currently today in America which has built a national mattress with a big lump in the middle. It seems that when too many American’s get into bed they involuntarily roll to one side or the other. It also seems that too many are oblivious to how they got there. Their time is spent primarily on tugging the blankets with those who have rolled to the opposite side.
Once again I’m reminded of one of my conservative friends, retired from business and now a part-time Methodist minister. In political discussions I have had with him, when faced with the inability to answer a point, he falls back on a simple axiom: whatever government does it screws up. He never really expands on what “government” means – Federal, State, Local, homeowners association, or all of the above? Given his fundamental conclusions he finds comfortable consistency from the ravings of (such as) Glenn Beck, who he loves, and therefore is content to be on his side of the bed…although he probably doesn’t get much sleep.
The blanket that he perceives being pulled back and forth is (to him) clearly labeled Capitalism on his side and Socialism on the other. Conservative talk personalities have successfully been able to link as synonymous the terms Liberal and Socialist for their audience, inferring of course that Socialism is just an anagram of the term Communism. They present it as if it was a secret puzzle that is completely obvious for the pure of heart: those pesky liberals are just Communists in disguise. Whipping the blanket to one side goes well beyond practicality. It becomes a duty. Of course it ignores their inherent conclusion that presidents from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Clinton and even Eisenhower, to a great degree, were all closet Communists.
The radical Right wing Conservatives have been successful in attaching “ism” to the word “social”. In doing so they have made the necessity we all have of coexisting into an economic system that they proclaim is a direct competitor of Capitalism (or its friendly synonym: Free Enterprise).
Free Enterprise is not only the critical underpinning of the American economy, it has proven (to my satisfaction anyway) to be the underpinning of the World’s successful economies and has done so by clear testing – the most recent being the collapse of the Soviet Union’s economic structure. Freedom works, and I have never heard an American economist or politician of any persuasion state anything to the contrary.
However, Republicans would have you believe that our social organization (i.e. Government) is an obstacle to Capitalism. Therein lays my friend’s black and white political/economic philosophy: business good – government bad. Yet it is absurd to think of Capitalism in a utopian fashion. Slavery works just fine in a Capitalistic model, so does child labor, or 70 hour work weeks. The entire concept of a middle class (as we hear used by politicians like it was comprised of nothing but mothers and babies) is not necessary within a capitalistic model for it to be viewed as successful. Poverty generally works against Capitalism as consumption is critical, but losing a fringe of the population to deprivation would be reasonable collateral damage. Today the most blaring example of the weakness of Capitalism is our Health Care System, which (for advanced economies) is the last for-profit Health Care System on the planet and yet the most inefficient and ineffective by a wide margin.
The fact of the matter is with 7 billion people now on this planet, 300 million in this country alone, the merging of Capitalism with social goals requires, like never before, an actively participating government to interact and even modify the direction of free economies. Historians and economists would point out that has always been the case, just never so dire - our last financial crisis case in point. When Ron Paul proclaims that things go wrong whenever Government injects itself into our economy, it resonates with many because it contains some truth. That’s especially true as special interests control legislation. However, his Libertarian conclusion (essentially shared by the Tea Party crowd) that the answer is to move to some kind of free rural economy that resembled those days when he was a lone doctor happily taking “chickens” for his labor and that gold is the answer to financial stability and growth, actually moves us toward chaos. It just isn’t the answer in a world of 7 billion. It makes no more sense than the vilification of business by the 99 percenters.
Government, which regardless what Republicans would have you believe is in fact the People, needs to impose its will to include a common good, not just to protect an individual good. That any politician calls any economic program or policy sacrosanct is reason enough to remove them from office, whether it be taxes or Social Security – throw the ideological bums out. Start with Eric Cantor. When folks roll to the center, one blanket works just fine.
There is a construction currently today in America which has built a national mattress with a big lump in the middle. It seems that when too many American’s get into bed they involuntarily roll to one side or the other. It also seems that too many are oblivious to how they got there. Their time is spent primarily on tugging the blankets with those who have rolled to the opposite side.
Once again I’m reminded of one of my conservative friends, retired from business and now a part-time Methodist minister. In political discussions I have had with him, when faced with the inability to answer a point, he falls back on a simple axiom: whatever government does it screws up. He never really expands on what “government” means – Federal, State, Local, homeowners association, or all of the above? Given his fundamental conclusions he finds comfortable consistency from the ravings of (such as) Glenn Beck, who he loves, and therefore is content to be on his side of the bed…although he probably doesn’t get much sleep.
The blanket that he perceives being pulled back and forth is (to him) clearly labeled Capitalism on his side and Socialism on the other. Conservative talk personalities have successfully been able to link as synonymous the terms Liberal and Socialist for their audience, inferring of course that Socialism is just an anagram of the term Communism. They present it as if it was a secret puzzle that is completely obvious for the pure of heart: those pesky liberals are just Communists in disguise. Whipping the blanket to one side goes well beyond practicality. It becomes a duty. Of course it ignores their inherent conclusion that presidents from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Clinton and even Eisenhower, to a great degree, were all closet Communists.
The radical Right wing Conservatives have been successful in attaching “ism” to the word “social”. In doing so they have made the necessity we all have of coexisting into an economic system that they proclaim is a direct competitor of Capitalism (or its friendly synonym: Free Enterprise).
Free Enterprise is not only the critical underpinning of the American economy, it has proven (to my satisfaction anyway) to be the underpinning of the World’s successful economies and has done so by clear testing – the most recent being the collapse of the Soviet Union’s economic structure. Freedom works, and I have never heard an American economist or politician of any persuasion state anything to the contrary.
However, Republicans would have you believe that our social organization (i.e. Government) is an obstacle to Capitalism. Therein lays my friend’s black and white political/economic philosophy: business good – government bad. Yet it is absurd to think of Capitalism in a utopian fashion. Slavery works just fine in a Capitalistic model, so does child labor, or 70 hour work weeks. The entire concept of a middle class (as we hear used by politicians like it was comprised of nothing but mothers and babies) is not necessary within a capitalistic model for it to be viewed as successful. Poverty generally works against Capitalism as consumption is critical, but losing a fringe of the population to deprivation would be reasonable collateral damage. Today the most blaring example of the weakness of Capitalism is our Health Care System, which (for advanced economies) is the last for-profit Health Care System on the planet and yet the most inefficient and ineffective by a wide margin.
The fact of the matter is with 7 billion people now on this planet, 300 million in this country alone, the merging of Capitalism with social goals requires, like never before, an actively participating government to interact and even modify the direction of free economies. Historians and economists would point out that has always been the case, just never so dire - our last financial crisis case in point. When Ron Paul proclaims that things go wrong whenever Government injects itself into our economy, it resonates with many because it contains some truth. That’s especially true as special interests control legislation. However, his Libertarian conclusion (essentially shared by the Tea Party crowd) that the answer is to move to some kind of free rural economy that resembled those days when he was a lone doctor happily taking “chickens” for his labor and that gold is the answer to financial stability and growth, actually moves us toward chaos. It just isn’t the answer in a world of 7 billion. It makes no more sense than the vilification of business by the 99 percenters.
Government, which regardless what Republicans would have you believe is in fact the People, needs to impose its will to include a common good, not just to protect an individual good. That any politician calls any economic program or policy sacrosanct is reason enough to remove them from office, whether it be taxes or Social Security – throw the ideological bums out. Start with Eric Cantor. When folks roll to the center, one blanket works just fine.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Feeling the Pain…and Not Much More
In last night’s Republican Presidential Debate, somehow dubbed the Western Republican Presidential Debate (is the West seceding…I hadn’t heard?), Michelle Bachmann directed an answer toward a question about how she, and the other candidates, might deal with the foreclosure problem in the Country. She responded as follows:
"That was the question that was initially asked. And what I want to say is this — every day I’m out somewhere in the United States of America, and most of the time I’m talking to moms across this country. When you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you’re talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they’re losing their nest for their children and for their family. And there are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through no fault of their own, are losing their job, and they can’t keep that house. And there are women who are losing that house."
"I’m a mom. I talk to these moms."
"I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue. It’s got to be solved. President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around."
Congresswoman Bachmann provided this “detailed solution” to the foreclosure issue while managing to produce dewy eyes on the verge of eruption. I’m somehow reminded of a used car salesman selling some junker by directing the buyer’s attention to the nifty radio and shiny hood ornament. Her compatriots and competitors did no better on the question. The whole debate in fact should have been an embarrassment to the Republican Party, if that’s possible.
Trying to convince voters that she feels the pain may garnish some support, but it won’t do a thing toward improving the economy.
The foreclosure issue is truly a critical issue directly relating to the economic “recovery” most politicians tout - with little resolve. As I outlined in my essay It Isn’t About Jobs (Pennyfound, August 22, 2011), producing some predictability to the housing market is a fundamental first step to recovery. It will, along with some increase in real wages, precede any notable drop in unemployment. The Federal Government can do something to speed that process.
The business-created perfect storm of inflated housing values, along with unbridled credit, has resulted in untold numbers of homeowners stuck in houses they can’t sell while paying mortgages based on pre-crisis interest rates. Many, either by choice or necessity, are just walking away from their homes, which they can do because mortgages in this Country are non-recourse. The resulting foreclosures only exacerbate the problem. This is all happening while mortgage interest rates have dropped to historic lows.
Neither the Obama Administration nor Congress has done anything substantive that might address a no-brainer solution to the issue. Obama’s HARP program was a complete failure by it complexity and limitations. If homeowners could refinance their mortgages to current rates (which they can’t do because of the drop in home value and thus their equity), foreclosures would be dramatically curtailed. Disposable income would increase to those most likely to spend it, having a direct effect on the overall economy. Homeowners would feel less pressure to sell (or walk away), having the immediate effect of boosting real estate values…predictability follows. What don’t these politicians get? Well…one does get it.
Currently (and finally) there is a bill in the House of Representatives, HR 363, introduced by Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) which is specifically directed toward enabling home owners to refinance their mortgages at current rates regardless of the market value of the home. All other criteria for refinancing would remain, such as credit and income, but there would be some reduction in fees. There is practically nothing but upside to this bill. It’s two years late in the making.
Amazingly this bill has received practically no support from either party or the Obama Administration. How is that possible? There is only one set of losers to this effort and I suspect those potential losers are calling the shots. Those who hold the investments created by the current mortgages and are enjoying the high interest rates, for which people are locked into paying, are the potential losers. They also just happen to be the same people, institutions, and corporations that benefited from the fiscal insanity and negligence that created the housing bubble and associated derivatives markets in the first place. Funny how that works; they know such an improvement would hurt their short term bottom line, and that bottom line appears to be one line these politicians won’t cross.
Michelle Bachmann, et al, may want to show American that she can do more than just squeeze out a tear for the people who continue to transfer their meager assets to America’s wealthiest by supporting HR 363. I’m not holding my breath…and neither should the mothers of America.
"That was the question that was initially asked. And what I want to say is this — every day I’m out somewhere in the United States of America, and most of the time I’m talking to moms across this country. When you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you’re talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they’re losing their nest for their children and for their family. And there are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through no fault of their own, are losing their job, and they can’t keep that house. And there are women who are losing that house."
"I’m a mom. I talk to these moms."
"I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue. It’s got to be solved. President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around."
Congresswoman Bachmann provided this “detailed solution” to the foreclosure issue while managing to produce dewy eyes on the verge of eruption. I’m somehow reminded of a used car salesman selling some junker by directing the buyer’s attention to the nifty radio and shiny hood ornament. Her compatriots and competitors did no better on the question. The whole debate in fact should have been an embarrassment to the Republican Party, if that’s possible.
Trying to convince voters that she feels the pain may garnish some support, but it won’t do a thing toward improving the economy.
The foreclosure issue is truly a critical issue directly relating to the economic “recovery” most politicians tout - with little resolve. As I outlined in my essay It Isn’t About Jobs (Pennyfound, August 22, 2011), producing some predictability to the housing market is a fundamental first step to recovery. It will, along with some increase in real wages, precede any notable drop in unemployment. The Federal Government can do something to speed that process.
The business-created perfect storm of inflated housing values, along with unbridled credit, has resulted in untold numbers of homeowners stuck in houses they can’t sell while paying mortgages based on pre-crisis interest rates. Many, either by choice or necessity, are just walking away from their homes, which they can do because mortgages in this Country are non-recourse. The resulting foreclosures only exacerbate the problem. This is all happening while mortgage interest rates have dropped to historic lows.
Neither the Obama Administration nor Congress has done anything substantive that might address a no-brainer solution to the issue. Obama’s HARP program was a complete failure by it complexity and limitations. If homeowners could refinance their mortgages to current rates (which they can’t do because of the drop in home value and thus their equity), foreclosures would be dramatically curtailed. Disposable income would increase to those most likely to spend it, having a direct effect on the overall economy. Homeowners would feel less pressure to sell (or walk away), having the immediate effect of boosting real estate values…predictability follows. What don’t these politicians get? Well…one does get it.
Currently (and finally) there is a bill in the House of Representatives, HR 363, introduced by Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) which is specifically directed toward enabling home owners to refinance their mortgages at current rates regardless of the market value of the home. All other criteria for refinancing would remain, such as credit and income, but there would be some reduction in fees. There is practically nothing but upside to this bill. It’s two years late in the making.
Amazingly this bill has received practically no support from either party or the Obama Administration. How is that possible? There is only one set of losers to this effort and I suspect those potential losers are calling the shots. Those who hold the investments created by the current mortgages and are enjoying the high interest rates, for which people are locked into paying, are the potential losers. They also just happen to be the same people, institutions, and corporations that benefited from the fiscal insanity and negligence that created the housing bubble and associated derivatives markets in the first place. Funny how that works; they know such an improvement would hurt their short term bottom line, and that bottom line appears to be one line these politicians won’t cross.
Michelle Bachmann, et al, may want to show American that she can do more than just squeeze out a tear for the people who continue to transfer their meager assets to America’s wealthiest by supporting HR 363. I’m not holding my breath…and neither should the mothers of America.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Words of Desperation?
In the news clips of Chris Christie’s speech at the Ronald Reagan Library in California last night there was a woman who spoke what the news story claimed was a general consensus. She emotionally pleaded for the New Jersey Governor to reconsider his decision not to run for President… that she and the entire nation needed him…need him? His inability to emphatically close the door on such a run, as he has previously tried, allowed the news media the following morning to hype uncontrollably about the possibility. What is going on here?
Chris Christie has found his niche. Although clearly more educated and intelligent than Sarah Palin, his background has about the same depth. He has held public office now for 21 months. He has virtually no background or even any record of interest in foreign affairs. His glib, self-deprecating, and often bi-partisan approach to public communication has given him a kind of Will Rogers appeal, someone you can laugh with and trust at the same time. Somehow to desperate moderate-right Republicans this is enough to put him in-charge of the United States and the Free World, damn the details.
Sarah Palin is not likely to run for President (see Pennyfound: Ignoring the Obvious 7/5/09). On a recent interview she indicated running would cramp her style as “a maverick”. She’s smart enough to know that increased public scrutiny holds mostly downside for her, especially in the pocketbook. Chris Christie, as I said earlier, is smarter than Sarah Palin…way smarter. Much of what he has given for reasons not to run is both admirable and impressive. He has said “I’m not ready”, indicated it wasn’t the right time, pointed out his shortcomings, and simply relayed a lack of desire, among other things. He knows he’s a darling of the media that has found a talent in himself to be attractive, but he also knows that 21 months as a governor, 7 years as US Attorney (appointed under questionable circumstances), 3 years as a lobbyist, and some squirrely in and out participation in local politics does not a President make.
I think there could be something more to his decision not to run. As opposed to Sarah Palin who grew up in a conservative Christian, cheerleader, beauty pageant, weather girl kind of environment, Christie developed in the raw middleclass environment characteristic of New York/ New Jersey. The controversies that have surrounded his years both as a local Freeholder (like a county supervisor) and later as US Attorney lead me to consider that the kind of pragmatism he may have embraced is something he’s rather not have dug up and set on the table. If such is true, nobody knows this more than him. He may say that he’s not ready to run for President; however he may actually be saying that he’ll never be ready to run. The Peter Principal argues that people often rise one level above their expertise to their level of incompetence. In Christie’s case, it may be that a Governorship is the last level he can rise before he reaches his level of exposure.
It is a commentary in itself that there are so many who would follow an unknown quantity, or in the case of Sarah Palin an incompetent known quantity, simply because they are desperate for someone to believe in. If there is a lesson in here somewhere it is that leadership contains critical elements that are not intellectual or political. We all intuitively know that right…or do we President Obama?
Chris Christie has found his niche. Although clearly more educated and intelligent than Sarah Palin, his background has about the same depth. He has held public office now for 21 months. He has virtually no background or even any record of interest in foreign affairs. His glib, self-deprecating, and often bi-partisan approach to public communication has given him a kind of Will Rogers appeal, someone you can laugh with and trust at the same time. Somehow to desperate moderate-right Republicans this is enough to put him in-charge of the United States and the Free World, damn the details.
Sarah Palin is not likely to run for President (see Pennyfound: Ignoring the Obvious 7/5/09). On a recent interview she indicated running would cramp her style as “a maverick”. She’s smart enough to know that increased public scrutiny holds mostly downside for her, especially in the pocketbook. Chris Christie, as I said earlier, is smarter than Sarah Palin…way smarter. Much of what he has given for reasons not to run is both admirable and impressive. He has said “I’m not ready”, indicated it wasn’t the right time, pointed out his shortcomings, and simply relayed a lack of desire, among other things. He knows he’s a darling of the media that has found a talent in himself to be attractive, but he also knows that 21 months as a governor, 7 years as US Attorney (appointed under questionable circumstances), 3 years as a lobbyist, and some squirrely in and out participation in local politics does not a President make.
I think there could be something more to his decision not to run. As opposed to Sarah Palin who grew up in a conservative Christian, cheerleader, beauty pageant, weather girl kind of environment, Christie developed in the raw middleclass environment characteristic of New York/ New Jersey. The controversies that have surrounded his years both as a local Freeholder (like a county supervisor) and later as US Attorney lead me to consider that the kind of pragmatism he may have embraced is something he’s rather not have dug up and set on the table. If such is true, nobody knows this more than him. He may say that he’s not ready to run for President; however he may actually be saying that he’ll never be ready to run. The Peter Principal argues that people often rise one level above their expertise to their level of incompetence. In Christie’s case, it may be that a Governorship is the last level he can rise before he reaches his level of exposure.
It is a commentary in itself that there are so many who would follow an unknown quantity, or in the case of Sarah Palin an incompetent known quantity, simply because they are desperate for someone to believe in. If there is a lesson in here somewhere it is that leadership contains critical elements that are not intellectual or political. We all intuitively know that right…or do we President Obama?
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Now and Later
My son is “jacked”, or so I am told. My first image is of a car half way through a tire change. I quickly understand, however, that they reference his physique. He’s in good health, works out religiously with his girlfriend, eats “healthy” (as compared with me, certainly), and takes physical risks (sports, weight lifting and such) without much concern. He is 25 and part of an army of young Americans fit or unfit, roughly between the ages of 20 and 35 (between leaving their childhood home and starting their own home with children), who are careening toward a precipice blinded by their own temporary good fortune. They are, for the most part, oblivious to the social and economic meltdown which is health care in the United States. Yet this problem will impact them so directly and in so many ways that their ambivalence leaves them akin to free-range chickens.
America has evolved its health care differently than every other advanced economy in the world. This was a complex evolution with many factors impacting the current state. Some common factors, however, have affected every economy over the past century; such as exponential population growth, exponential advancements in medical science, exponential dissemination of information, and exponential means of communication. With those common underlying dynamics, why is the US model so different… and so inefficient?
One major reason was the outcome of the 2nd World War, later combined with a manic fear of collectivism during the Cold War. With the exception of Canada (and to a lesser extent Australia) the US immerged from WWII without devastation. To the contrary, the Country was in better shape than it had been during the prior decade. Further, there was a righteousness that came from victory that persists to this very day. It was perceived, in many ways correctly, as a victory of Free Enterprise, but to question such became unpatriotic (or deemed treasonous as what occurred in the mid-50s, or by such sages as Sarah Palin today).
Where the rest of the world after the War saw major portions of their populations in devastation and without means, the concept of universal health care was both a necessity and consistent with a world view of fallibility. Those countries in Western Europe and the Far East had the ability to conceive a collective approach to health care without deeming such as undemocratic. They intentionally or not were able to view universal health care as liberating. Ironically, the United States, an integral player in the reconstruction of Western Europe and Japan, helped construct the bureaucracies to support universal health care. Canada, the noted exception, attempted an expanded free-market approach to health care, but facilitated by their parliamentary form of government later found it unworkable abandoned it for the British model.
The for-profit health care system in post-war America meshed nicely with rapidly expanding free-enterprise. The combination of strong organized labor, combined with a shortage of workers, which persisted from 1948 to 1972, health care (via insurance) became a form of invisible compensation. This was an historical accident without precedent (on a large scale), and without any logical argument for its efficiency. Quite the contrary, given the aforementioned dynamics of population, medical science, information, and communication, this system has proven itself to be extraordinarily inefficient. However, for the most part two generations have lived through it and now too many believe that employer covered health care is a natural state of affairs.
The Republicans in Congress, who argue for the status quo like junkyard dogs at the fence, find sympathetic ears by those employed individuals who can’t see their benefits as an actual use of compensation (i.e., something they’re buying). These so-called Conservative politicians wrap patriotism with the most egregious lies about the quality of our health care, exacting support for their position. You cannot have the “greatest health care system in the world” (as Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor have said countless times) and be 24th in the world for adult mortality and 26th in infant mortality. These politicians are actually fighting for those on the receiving end of the $1.6 trillion transfer that takes place each year - 2 to 4 times that of all other modern nations on a per capita basis. Tragically, the nation eats what it’s being fed. Obama, unable to compete, ends up creating a politically expedient health law which - once he agreed to drop a public option - only entrenches the for-profit system. There’s not much light poking through the clouds.
The young adults in the US today are playing on the tracks and they can’t see the train coming. Before this American health care system becomes unsustainable too many will find themselves and their children under cared for, their lifestyles compromised by huge health care costs, their parents destitute or without legacy, their mobility compromised, their ability to take risk reduced, and their responsibility for the previous generation a near impossible social burden. None of that even includes the anxiety and diminished quality of life that comes from the fear of uncertainty at the most basic of levels - survival. Right now they have little fear; they unconsciously plan on living forever, just as they are doing right now. If they only knew…
America has evolved its health care differently than every other advanced economy in the world. This was a complex evolution with many factors impacting the current state. Some common factors, however, have affected every economy over the past century; such as exponential population growth, exponential advancements in medical science, exponential dissemination of information, and exponential means of communication. With those common underlying dynamics, why is the US model so different… and so inefficient?
One major reason was the outcome of the 2nd World War, later combined with a manic fear of collectivism during the Cold War. With the exception of Canada (and to a lesser extent Australia) the US immerged from WWII without devastation. To the contrary, the Country was in better shape than it had been during the prior decade. Further, there was a righteousness that came from victory that persists to this very day. It was perceived, in many ways correctly, as a victory of Free Enterprise, but to question such became unpatriotic (or deemed treasonous as what occurred in the mid-50s, or by such sages as Sarah Palin today).
Where the rest of the world after the War saw major portions of their populations in devastation and without means, the concept of universal health care was both a necessity and consistent with a world view of fallibility. Those countries in Western Europe and the Far East had the ability to conceive a collective approach to health care without deeming such as undemocratic. They intentionally or not were able to view universal health care as liberating. Ironically, the United States, an integral player in the reconstruction of Western Europe and Japan, helped construct the bureaucracies to support universal health care. Canada, the noted exception, attempted an expanded free-market approach to health care, but facilitated by their parliamentary form of government later found it unworkable abandoned it for the British model.
The for-profit health care system in post-war America meshed nicely with rapidly expanding free-enterprise. The combination of strong organized labor, combined with a shortage of workers, which persisted from 1948 to 1972, health care (via insurance) became a form of invisible compensation. This was an historical accident without precedent (on a large scale), and without any logical argument for its efficiency. Quite the contrary, given the aforementioned dynamics of population, medical science, information, and communication, this system has proven itself to be extraordinarily inefficient. However, for the most part two generations have lived through it and now too many believe that employer covered health care is a natural state of affairs.
The Republicans in Congress, who argue for the status quo like junkyard dogs at the fence, find sympathetic ears by those employed individuals who can’t see their benefits as an actual use of compensation (i.e., something they’re buying). These so-called Conservative politicians wrap patriotism with the most egregious lies about the quality of our health care, exacting support for their position. You cannot have the “greatest health care system in the world” (as Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor have said countless times) and be 24th in the world for adult mortality and 26th in infant mortality. These politicians are actually fighting for those on the receiving end of the $1.6 trillion transfer that takes place each year - 2 to 4 times that of all other modern nations on a per capita basis. Tragically, the nation eats what it’s being fed. Obama, unable to compete, ends up creating a politically expedient health law which - once he agreed to drop a public option - only entrenches the for-profit system. There’s not much light poking through the clouds.
The young adults in the US today are playing on the tracks and they can’t see the train coming. Before this American health care system becomes unsustainable too many will find themselves and their children under cared for, their lifestyles compromised by huge health care costs, their parents destitute or without legacy, their mobility compromised, their ability to take risk reduced, and their responsibility for the previous generation a near impossible social burden. None of that even includes the anxiety and diminished quality of life that comes from the fear of uncertainty at the most basic of levels - survival. Right now they have little fear; they unconsciously plan on living forever, just as they are doing right now. If they only knew…
Monday, August 22, 2011
It Isn't About Jobs
It has become more than a little annoying to hear politicians proclaim that what we need in this country is jobs. Even worse is when they have to repeat the word, as if they were firing a clip from a rifle; we need jobs…jobs…jobs. Further, they usually finish this proclamation of insight by suggesting a simplistic solution such as building bridges and roads. In an economy which has been service oriented for decades I am struck by an image of laid off teachers, bank tellers, carpet salesmen, and…oh…say…accounting executives, all donning hard hats and heading off to some dilapidated corner of the country to lay asphalt.
Virtually any economist or even broker can tell you that employment is a lagging indicator of the economy. By the time employment improves or declines the factors that have led to the change have probably long been in place. That applies in times of both peace and war, since the steps taken to war usually ratchet up well before the application of resources and employment (Iraq being a notable exception).
The solution is not jobs - that’s the outcome. Maybe I should put it this way: the solution is not jobs…not jobs…not jobs. That’s not to say that public policy cannot have an impact on employment, it’s just that it can’t magically generate employment by some carefully directed expenditures or by somehow increasing the wealth of the top 2% of the nation that already currently owns 50% of our entire National net worth (excluding housing).
With no more rationality than Michelle Bachman saying gas prices will drop below $2 a gallon as soon as she is crowned, our leaders and contenders say whatever it takes to create an image that will garner them support. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (whose most notable Congressional achievement was getting a name approved for a Post Office in Richmond, VA - the Tom Bliley Post Office) is currently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars from his campaign war chest running ads reaching most of Virginia television viewers. He is proclaiming himself in the forefront of bringing good jobs to Virginia, even without competition for his Congressional seat. What is he really selling?
Public policy (aka Government) is essential to create the atmosphere in which the American style of Capitalism can thrive. That necessary atmosphere is called predictability, the most important ingredient for investment. The lies the Republican Right deliver endlessly, such as taxes are an inherent evil or that the free market will always do the right thing do nothing but instill fear and exacerbate the deleterious concentration of wealth in the United States. They create confusion because the 298 million people, who own less than 50% of the Nation, are deterred or reluctant to take risk because they don’t know what to count on, what is safe, or what is fair.
Free Market health care may be the single biggest drag on the economy since it transfers huge amounts of assets unproductively, burdens business, and renders workers nearly immobile with fear - and those are the healthy ones. Although Obama touts what he got passed (a massive health insurance reform bill) it has or will do little to elevate the control free market health care has due to the continued high level of uncertainty for the average US citizen. It was his worst failure, followed closing by approving the Bush tax cuts extension.
There are two areas to look for a true turn around in the economy. The first is stabilized real estate values; the second is an increase in real wages. The part of the population that own their own home need to be able to comfortably predict that the value of that home will rise at a more or less constant rate slightly ahead of inflation and that the house they may want to buy will do the same, and all workers need to predict that continued work and accumulated experience will result in increased wages at least slightly better than the rate of inflation.
For public policy to assist in those two areas it needs to trim expenditures, especially internationally, and create revenue (taxes) which will both reduce debt and the disparity in national wealth ownership. The objective is not to make the rich poorer, rather, in an expanding economy, to have the bottom 98% increase their wealth at a much faster rate than the top 2% (which currently is the exact opposite).
It also needs to include simplified regulations (not reduced regulations), the reinstatement of the pay-as-you-go policy (enacted during Clinton’s balanced budget Administration and ended under Bush), and start the process toward a single payer health care system by adding a public option to the current health care law. That creates the atmosphere; the free market will take it from there, and leave the Fed to keep inflation at a minimum with a balanced monetary policy. The jobs will come.
Virtually any economist or even broker can tell you that employment is a lagging indicator of the economy. By the time employment improves or declines the factors that have led to the change have probably long been in place. That applies in times of both peace and war, since the steps taken to war usually ratchet up well before the application of resources and employment (Iraq being a notable exception).
The solution is not jobs - that’s the outcome. Maybe I should put it this way: the solution is not jobs…not jobs…not jobs. That’s not to say that public policy cannot have an impact on employment, it’s just that it can’t magically generate employment by some carefully directed expenditures or by somehow increasing the wealth of the top 2% of the nation that already currently owns 50% of our entire National net worth (excluding housing).
With no more rationality than Michelle Bachman saying gas prices will drop below $2 a gallon as soon as she is crowned, our leaders and contenders say whatever it takes to create an image that will garner them support. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (whose most notable Congressional achievement was getting a name approved for a Post Office in Richmond, VA - the Tom Bliley Post Office) is currently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars from his campaign war chest running ads reaching most of Virginia television viewers. He is proclaiming himself in the forefront of bringing good jobs to Virginia, even without competition for his Congressional seat. What is he really selling?
Public policy (aka Government) is essential to create the atmosphere in which the American style of Capitalism can thrive. That necessary atmosphere is called predictability, the most important ingredient for investment. The lies the Republican Right deliver endlessly, such as taxes are an inherent evil or that the free market will always do the right thing do nothing but instill fear and exacerbate the deleterious concentration of wealth in the United States. They create confusion because the 298 million people, who own less than 50% of the Nation, are deterred or reluctant to take risk because they don’t know what to count on, what is safe, or what is fair.
Free Market health care may be the single biggest drag on the economy since it transfers huge amounts of assets unproductively, burdens business, and renders workers nearly immobile with fear - and those are the healthy ones. Although Obama touts what he got passed (a massive health insurance reform bill) it has or will do little to elevate the control free market health care has due to the continued high level of uncertainty for the average US citizen. It was his worst failure, followed closing by approving the Bush tax cuts extension.
There are two areas to look for a true turn around in the economy. The first is stabilized real estate values; the second is an increase in real wages. The part of the population that own their own home need to be able to comfortably predict that the value of that home will rise at a more or less constant rate slightly ahead of inflation and that the house they may want to buy will do the same, and all workers need to predict that continued work and accumulated experience will result in increased wages at least slightly better than the rate of inflation.
For public policy to assist in those two areas it needs to trim expenditures, especially internationally, and create revenue (taxes) which will both reduce debt and the disparity in national wealth ownership. The objective is not to make the rich poorer, rather, in an expanding economy, to have the bottom 98% increase their wealth at a much faster rate than the top 2% (which currently is the exact opposite).
It also needs to include simplified regulations (not reduced regulations), the reinstatement of the pay-as-you-go policy (enacted during Clinton’s balanced budget Administration and ended under Bush), and start the process toward a single payer health care system by adding a public option to the current health care law. That creates the atmosphere; the free market will take it from there, and leave the Fed to keep inflation at a minimum with a balanced monetary policy. The jobs will come.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Are You Happy?
In June of 1776 Thomas Jefferson penned in his declaration the famous “unalienable” or natural human rights that were to be a cornerstone of this Nation’s political philosophy. It wasn’t particularly original. Popular philosophies in the 18th century from men such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson had reflected on similar natural rights of Man, and George Mason had only weeks before written his Virginia Declaration of Rights using a similar phrase. However Jefferson, with Benjamin Franklin’s advice, had substituted the pursuit of happiness for (the pursuit of) property, the word used by such as Mason and Locke. This pursuit of happiness, which has been quoted a billion times in America, both in political and non-political contexts, is a befuddlement to me. The pursuit of property I understand, but just what does happiness mean? Of course the unalienable right is the pursuit, but in a real sense is it the pursuit of something which is actually attainable?
Are you happy? That is one of the most common questions in the English language, or probably most languages (but certainly not all). It, or an equivalent question, is asked by parents to children, children to parents, spouse to spouse, lover to lover, sibling to sibling, friend to friend, therapist to patient, and so on. Although the asking is easy, the honest answering of it is extraordinarily difficult. It’s so difficult that most people really don’t answer it at all. They may say “oh sure” or “most of the time” or “things are tough” or “I try to be” or “I’m feeling great”. That’s what we might say, but mostly we’re thinking: I have no idea. We might answer with conviction that we’ve been pursuing happiness, but why is it so difficult to definitively answer whether we’re there or not? We’re not even sure what it feels like… contentment?... tingly?... warm?... rich?
One could probably answer with assurance that “sometimes I’m happy and sometimes I’m not”, which might better reflect day to day life. That conclusion may, however, be confusing happiness with, say, joy. We know what joy is. It happens on a roller coaster, shared passion with one’s love, watching a good movie, or eating something delightful for example. It’s entirely acceptable that completely miserable people might have many joyful experiences. I believe the reason it is so hard to conclude whether your life is happy or, said differently, you are a happy person is because there is no such thing as happiness. Jefferson and Franklin’s natural right is directed toward something that doesn’t exist and as such has been a bedrock of continual confusion.
How can there be no happiness? You might say it’s like saying there is no love (at least we know that love and happiness don’t necessarily cohabitate). No, love is real, however I feel the word happiness is a misdirected term. I had an epiphany some time back when I realized that what we call happiness is really the absence of fear.
Fear is the single most driving emotion we possess, and for good reason. It is the primitive emotion for survival. I don’t know if prehistoric men sat around thinking about whether they were happy or not, but I can be damned sure they knew how to be scared, or driven by the panic of starvation. I can also assume that at those times when their needs were met they probably felt pretty good, but those times were not happiness, rather they were the absence of fear.
Today we find fear everywhere, not just in day to day, meat and potatoes survival. Fear is a tool of our economic and political systems. A majority of commercials and news stories in some way merchandise in fear. Crime, germs, investments, child protection, education, jobs, health, beauty, age, mechanical safety, food, weather, corruption, sex, or anybody who isn’t you. Any one of us could write a list as tall as ourselves. On a day or week or month when you shed yourself of most fear how do you think you would answer the question: are you happy?
If Jefferson had stated in our Declaration of Independence that our unalienable rights were to life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom from fear then maybe as some politicians place a gun to the nation’s head threatening to pull the trigger if they don’t get their way, more of us would have a better understanding of who is on the side of the nation’s people and who isn’t.
Are you happy? That is one of the most common questions in the English language, or probably most languages (but certainly not all). It, or an equivalent question, is asked by parents to children, children to parents, spouse to spouse, lover to lover, sibling to sibling, friend to friend, therapist to patient, and so on. Although the asking is easy, the honest answering of it is extraordinarily difficult. It’s so difficult that most people really don’t answer it at all. They may say “oh sure” or “most of the time” or “things are tough” or “I try to be” or “I’m feeling great”. That’s what we might say, but mostly we’re thinking: I have no idea. We might answer with conviction that we’ve been pursuing happiness, but why is it so difficult to definitively answer whether we’re there or not? We’re not even sure what it feels like… contentment?... tingly?... warm?... rich?
One could probably answer with assurance that “sometimes I’m happy and sometimes I’m not”, which might better reflect day to day life. That conclusion may, however, be confusing happiness with, say, joy. We know what joy is. It happens on a roller coaster, shared passion with one’s love, watching a good movie, or eating something delightful for example. It’s entirely acceptable that completely miserable people might have many joyful experiences. I believe the reason it is so hard to conclude whether your life is happy or, said differently, you are a happy person is because there is no such thing as happiness. Jefferson and Franklin’s natural right is directed toward something that doesn’t exist and as such has been a bedrock of continual confusion.
How can there be no happiness? You might say it’s like saying there is no love (at least we know that love and happiness don’t necessarily cohabitate). No, love is real, however I feel the word happiness is a misdirected term. I had an epiphany some time back when I realized that what we call happiness is really the absence of fear.
Fear is the single most driving emotion we possess, and for good reason. It is the primitive emotion for survival. I don’t know if prehistoric men sat around thinking about whether they were happy or not, but I can be damned sure they knew how to be scared, or driven by the panic of starvation. I can also assume that at those times when their needs were met they probably felt pretty good, but those times were not happiness, rather they were the absence of fear.
Today we find fear everywhere, not just in day to day, meat and potatoes survival. Fear is a tool of our economic and political systems. A majority of commercials and news stories in some way merchandise in fear. Crime, germs, investments, child protection, education, jobs, health, beauty, age, mechanical safety, food, weather, corruption, sex, or anybody who isn’t you. Any one of us could write a list as tall as ourselves. On a day or week or month when you shed yourself of most fear how do you think you would answer the question: are you happy?
If Jefferson had stated in our Declaration of Independence that our unalienable rights were to life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom from fear then maybe as some politicians place a gun to the nation’s head threatening to pull the trigger if they don’t get their way, more of us would have a better understanding of who is on the side of the nation’s people and who isn’t.
Friday, July 8, 2011
The Consensus Trap
There are over 16 months till the next U.S. Presidential contest and it has already invited itself into the home by television, magazines, internet, radio, telephone, and conversation. Paid anti-Obama TV commercials are airing frequently. It feels like it won’t be long before they’re competing with pharmaceuticals for gross intrusion. Like a warm week in February, I can’t help wondering if this is somehow different than last time, is the hot summer starting early or not?
One reoccurring theme is an Obama vulnerability with so-called Progressives (a.k.a. Liberals or “his base”) due to his presumed failure to nail down their positions. That this should be a concern is beyond laughable to the far-right Conservative end of the spectrum, considering they’ve pinned Obama as a President way left of Mother Teresa, burying us with Socialistic edicts. Still, the dissatisfaction of Obama by the counter left seems to have legs. The Obama team, by their proactive protestations to the contrary, appears to be fearful that these legs may be walking away.
That any of this were the basis of a Shakespearian play we might need to be deep into the second act before it became apparent whether we were watching a tragedy or a comedy. I’m thinking comedy at this point. I mean, the characters won’t die in the end, in fact most will probably leave the story richer than when they started…probably whistling. An irony is that the active ends of the political spectrum are both likely to fall behind their candidate and, of course, vote, which makes concern about their support as useless as a father’s worry about the puppy he’s bringing home to his kids. The real story is in the middle.
Obama has reason for concern, but it isn’t about his failure to deliver on a Liberal agenda. A reading of The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s political opus, provides a clear transom into Obama’s real challenge to succeed the Hope candidate. I believe it is entirely possible that this treatise on his own political personality was gift to those who seek to remove him from office. The book makes the “ideal” of consensus a virtually goal, well surpassing more picayune objectives such as health care or campaign finance reforms. Bring everyone together, he essentially proclaims, and the rest will take care of itself. Unfortunately, this doesn’t make for good leadership and it is no formula for re-election.
Franklin D. Roosevelt won election by a large majority in 1937 but not because he had turned the economy around or seduced the opposition. Unemployment was still at 15% (higher if you factor out temporary government employment), equity markets stagnant, financial systems unworkable, deflation unabated, and the military in disarray. He was challenged by business and large conservative coalitions from both parties. What he did offer was strength in leadership which provided a sense of predictability to the general population. History shows both his New Deals were actually shotgun approaches to the economy, with broad uncertain bills, spending cuts, eclectic agencies, and complicated regulations, many thrown out by the courts or not bearing fruit for decades. Still, all most saw was his willingness to pull the trigger. He won the I care about you contest.
Obama was positioned for a similar outcome but instead chose a tactic of Solomon, to lead his flock by the power of his reason and personality. The Republican/Conservatives sized him up quickly as a lightweight and blindsided both him and his Congress with effective stonewalling and nastiness. It was Jimmy Carter all over again. Obama’s accomplishments to date, although notable, have not engendered the necessary I care about you mystique. He could have done it with health care. If the nation’s citizens had awakened to a world where they would never again be alone and at constant risk in obtaining health care Obama would have been politically indestructible. His inability to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire combined with reluctance to cut Federal expenditures has left him looking only political.
With only 16 months left it will be difficult for Obama to remake himself, especially with a Republican House. A noticeable drop in unemployment, an increase in real wages, or maybe a meaningful pullout from the Middle East might help. However, I think with the Misery Index staying close to that facing Carter in 1980 Obama’s best hope might come from the Republicans. If they field a Bachmann, a Newt, a Sarah, or even a Pawlenty, Obama could do well. However, all things being equal, if they go moderate and nominate someone like Huntsman (and Jon has not fathered any bastard children by his former Au Pair), well then…Obama is toast.
One reoccurring theme is an Obama vulnerability with so-called Progressives (a.k.a. Liberals or “his base”) due to his presumed failure to nail down their positions. That this should be a concern is beyond laughable to the far-right Conservative end of the spectrum, considering they’ve pinned Obama as a President way left of Mother Teresa, burying us with Socialistic edicts. Still, the dissatisfaction of Obama by the counter left seems to have legs. The Obama team, by their proactive protestations to the contrary, appears to be fearful that these legs may be walking away.
That any of this were the basis of a Shakespearian play we might need to be deep into the second act before it became apparent whether we were watching a tragedy or a comedy. I’m thinking comedy at this point. I mean, the characters won’t die in the end, in fact most will probably leave the story richer than when they started…probably whistling. An irony is that the active ends of the political spectrum are both likely to fall behind their candidate and, of course, vote, which makes concern about their support as useless as a father’s worry about the puppy he’s bringing home to his kids. The real story is in the middle.
Obama has reason for concern, but it isn’t about his failure to deliver on a Liberal agenda. A reading of The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s political opus, provides a clear transom into Obama’s real challenge to succeed the Hope candidate. I believe it is entirely possible that this treatise on his own political personality was gift to those who seek to remove him from office. The book makes the “ideal” of consensus a virtually goal, well surpassing more picayune objectives such as health care or campaign finance reforms. Bring everyone together, he essentially proclaims, and the rest will take care of itself. Unfortunately, this doesn’t make for good leadership and it is no formula for re-election.
Franklin D. Roosevelt won election by a large majority in 1937 but not because he had turned the economy around or seduced the opposition. Unemployment was still at 15% (higher if you factor out temporary government employment), equity markets stagnant, financial systems unworkable, deflation unabated, and the military in disarray. He was challenged by business and large conservative coalitions from both parties. What he did offer was strength in leadership which provided a sense of predictability to the general population. History shows both his New Deals were actually shotgun approaches to the economy, with broad uncertain bills, spending cuts, eclectic agencies, and complicated regulations, many thrown out by the courts or not bearing fruit for decades. Still, all most saw was his willingness to pull the trigger. He won the I care about you contest.
Obama was positioned for a similar outcome but instead chose a tactic of Solomon, to lead his flock by the power of his reason and personality. The Republican/Conservatives sized him up quickly as a lightweight and blindsided both him and his Congress with effective stonewalling and nastiness. It was Jimmy Carter all over again. Obama’s accomplishments to date, although notable, have not engendered the necessary I care about you mystique. He could have done it with health care. If the nation’s citizens had awakened to a world where they would never again be alone and at constant risk in obtaining health care Obama would have been politically indestructible. His inability to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire combined with reluctance to cut Federal expenditures has left him looking only political.
With only 16 months left it will be difficult for Obama to remake himself, especially with a Republican House. A noticeable drop in unemployment, an increase in real wages, or maybe a meaningful pullout from the Middle East might help. However, I think with the Misery Index staying close to that facing Carter in 1980 Obama’s best hope might come from the Republicans. If they field a Bachmann, a Newt, a Sarah, or even a Pawlenty, Obama could do well. However, all things being equal, if they go moderate and nominate someone like Huntsman (and Jon has not fathered any bastard children by his former Au Pair), well then…Obama is toast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
