The Biggest Scam In the History of Mankind

A listener of POTUS on satellite radio called in yesterday afternoon (6/12/12) to express his outrage of the Affordable Health Care Act.  The host suggested that anyone so angry over the law should be able to explain at least 3 things that induced such strong emotions.  The caller simply stated that the law was robbing him of his “freedom and liberty”.  When further asked for a specific of how his liberty was being stolen the caller, a man, said “I’m 60 now, when I’m 70 and maybe need a bypass operation the Government will decide whether I get it or not, no matter how much money I have”.  That was where it ended…how could it continue?

A recent ABC News poll (for whatever it’s worth) indicated that 70% of those polled were not in favor of the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA).  Other reported polls track in a similar fashion.  This majority opinion is for a law which is almost a year and a half away from being applied in any meaningful way and which the GAO calculates a $500 billion savings of tax dollars over the next 10 years.  It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize something else is going on here.  The clear consensus (of who’s ever being polled) is that what we currently have is just fine…thank you very much.  What creates that kind of idiocy?

The unmitigated and truly tragic irony is that what we currently have is everything the critics of AHCA say the new law will create.  Our for-profit health care system which, by accident of history, is mostly tied to employment, contains within it the most inefficient, inequitable, and dreadful services any modern “system” could devise.  It is actually a full-out assault on our liberty, however you define it.  The inefficiency, inequity and mediocre quality are easy to show because they can be quantitatively determined.  Do the research and you’ll find those that argue for the status quo will highlight technical equipment and the desire of foreign doctors to practice in the US.  They chose not to follow the logic that manufacturers and doctors earn multiples of what they can anywhere else.  The statistics tell another story – do the research.  You’ll find the delivery of US health care is just great, as long as you don’t get sick…that’s your 70%. The problem is that the sick in this Country are a powerless minority.  What the 70% fail to realize is that any one of them could find themselves in that minority tomorrow.

What about liberty?  Even if you’re not sick our system penalizes you, if not actually promoting illness through anxiety.  Millions do not change jobs because of the fear of loss of health benefits. The will often chose jobs they don’t prefer for the same reason. There is a constant restriction on the choice of providers due to those not associated with one’s plan. Participants of plans are virtually at risk if they travel around the US, not so if they happen to be traveling around Europe or most Asian countries. There is a helpless submission to the modification of an employer provided plan including changes in benefits and cost.  And the cost…the cost is so mind-boggling high that logic would lead you to expect the streets to be mobbed in protest.  What’s going on?  Why the passivity?

Those on the receiving end of the $1.8 to $2.4 trillion annual transfer of wealth have used their resources to affectively buy an entire political party and convince you that any change to our health care system to reduce cost, increase access, and improve quality is great…as long as nothing changes.  The AHCA was originally a Republican idea.  They don’t really have any major problems with it.  They primarily wanted to make sure the “public option” was not part of it, as that would have been a possible first step to a single payer system.  They succeeded in that. Opposition to the law now is more political.  Call it “Socialism”, convince the stupid that their freedom, liberty, and American pride is at stake and ride that pony to the next election - simple. They even were able to label the law “Obamacare”, which had already been successfully used in Conservative circles as a negative term.  Most Conservatives don’t even know the actual name of the law. The term eventually was picked up by everyone; news media, progressives, and moderates included.  It’s one thing for you to name the neighbor you hate “the jerk”.  It’s quite another to get everyone else using the same name, even those who like the guy.  You know when I got a chance to know him I really like the jerk. These guys are good…but then look at the audience.

The AHCA will do little to change our broken health care system except increase access.  The most important thing it did, however, was to take us one step away from a completely dysfunctional system.  The Conservative Right and their very large moneyed interests that reap the benefits of that dysfunctional system have pulled off the biggest scam in the history of the world.  They have convinced a huge plurality of Americans to act against their own self interest.  Americans under 40 better wake up and realize that one person’s short term gain can be another person’s long term nightmare.

The Solution is Simple

You may have sensed there is a national debate in progress; it seems to grip almost everything. Although delineation of the sides involved would require some explanation, let’s just say our upcoming Presidential election more or less defines one camp from the other.  There are some folks in the middle, of course, but I believe they are generally a tired group and come this fall they may find football more meaningful than anything else.

The problem is that there really isn’t any debate at all.  What we have are two sides of a spectrum which acts like the rope in a tug of war.  A debate by definition implies the presentation of an argument, a refuting and counter-argument, and so forth until both sides are whittled to the essence of their cases and one side prevails.  

That sounds a bit like what we might think elections are all about, but not so today.  Today the “debate” is nothing more than pragmatic shouting and political gamesmanship.  Few are listening.  Further, most all the shouting is directed toward each side’s own choir.  Only the rope gets pulled and, at least right now, it’s pulling way right (Conservative).

Not only have we ended up with many tens of millions of people with anxieties related to national identity issues, but we have also generated run away Capitalism, unfunded entitlements, social-economic imbalance, irrational application of military resources, dysfunctional social justice, and government legislation (Federal & State) which has managed to reduce governance to just so many pissing contests.

Anyone who has read the entries of this blog know I strongly object to the direction we are being pulled by the so-called Neo-Conservatives.  Still I am not blind to the strong motivations of these many idealistic minded and decent, but fearing individuals.  There is a clear historic analogy in my opinion - American history at that. It is the American Civil War. The South was far more idealistic, more motivated, more unified, more dogmatic, and felt more threatened than the North.  

It was the election of Lincoln that was the last straw in an inflexible position for the South.  The election of Obama seems to have resonated in a similar way, and as with Lincoln, unyielding opposition started before Obama had flushed his first toilet in the White House.  Regardless how correct I might feel my understanding of this new divisiveness is, there seems to be no solution to this confrontation that pits brother against brother – then it hit me.  It was suddenly so obvious.

We need a Constitutional Amendment.  Not a permanent Amendment, but one that is self-repealing after 12 years.  The law would be extraordinarily simple to describe and foolproof to carry out.  It is this: once enacted and as of January of the following Presidential election year, no men (males) will be allowed to vote in any election, National, State, or local for the next 12 years. 

All political activity, social order, and law creation would be determined by individuals elected solely by women – 12 years so the law would cover at least two Senate elections in each state. That would do it.  The Country would be back on track, more over it might very well be on a better track than it ever has before.

You laugh (or just shake your head)?  If so, you don’t have the ability to see that our collective ship of state (i.e. all levels of government) has been slowly sinking in a vast pool of testosterone.   

Even the few women who have made the choice of political careers have been adversely affected.  If passed, within maybe 4 years women would hold a majority of political offices, maybe even the Presidency.  In that environment and with that constituency I can see most all of the Nation’s problems we face having a chance of being solved.  

It isn’t because women are smarter than men, more informed, more educated (although that might technically be true), wiser, or even less divisive.  They are not always better than men at what they do (I for one believe men drive cars way better than women – call me sexist).  It is for one simple reason:  most women’s identities are not threatened when faced with a competing idea – as a result, they listen, and often they do so empathetically. There would always be exceptions (think M.T. Green), but those numbers would be dwarfed by the majority.

We would gain a happy mix of practicality, individuality, and a respect for the common good.  For example take the almost intractable social problem of abortion: sure, women would remain divided among themselves on the issue, but they would have the ability to realize the value of reducing the total number of unwanted pregnancies regardless of anyone's position and would created unifying policy to that end. Men would rather go to war. 

Take almost any issue and think about.  If such an Amendment had gone into effect in 2000 I have virtually no doubt that my son would not have had to risk his life for two years in Iraq.

Could such a Constitutional Amendment be possible?  I can’t conceive how.  Still, an awareness of why it would work makes even the concept of it valuable.  Among other things, those so enlightened could vote more women into political office right now.  Perhaps men could just look around and start acting more like women when faced with controversy.  It’s possible.  

I do believe that if such an amendment went into place in 1852 (if Suffrage existed) that the American Civil War might never have happened, and yet slavery would have still disappeared.  There never would have been an epithet that said: the War that pitted sister against sister.

No Risky Business

A news story out of Ft. Lauderdale caught my interest.  It was one of those how stupid is that kind of stories that instantly makes National news, promoted by major media’s endless need to attract audiences.  It caught my interest not for its circus quality, rather for the context in which it exists, that affects almost all of us, nearly every day.

On May 8^th an 18 month old toddler was denied access on a JetBlue flight from Ft. Lauderdale because she had shown up on a terrorist “No Fly” list.  In fact, she and her parents had already boarded and were required to leave the plane.  How the media got wind of this would be interesting in itself.  According to the news story I read, the plane was held while things were being sorted out. The parents however, incensed by the incident and claiming they were held “on display” during the process, refused to re-board…and so it goes.

What makes this a Pop news story is, of course, its absurdity.  The outrage of the parents is a secondary news bit which touches on ethnic profiling (the family was of Middle Eastern decent) and potential lawsuits.  I don’t think any of those angles equate to the real story behind the incident.  I don’t believe it would have gained much traction had the story lead been “Ft. Lauderdale flight delayed 20 minutes while airline resolves conflict on flight manifest”.  I’d venture that or similar headlines could be churned out by the hundreds hourly. Yet I believe the real story behind this mini-fiasco would gain even less traction.

In financial investing there is a clear concept of risk-reward.  It is clear because the concept (in finance) is usually explained in quantitative terms (numbers), therefore it can even be understood by laymen; the greater the risk, the greater the extent of potential gain, but conversely the greater the extent of potential loss.  Buried in that concept is that there are consequences when there is an attempt to eliminate risk.  The negative connotations simply associated with the word “risk” cloud that fact and the reality that the risk-reward concept pervades perhaps all human endeavors.

The general uses of the term “risk” involve the feared loss of security or safety.  That “loss” can relate to almost anything, for example; property, “happiness”, relationships, careers, or life.  The financial advisor can sit down with a client and easily show on a piece of paper that doing nothing with your investments is neither prudent nor particularly safe.  But who is going to sit down with you and show that an inability to take risk with your time (i.e. actions) can prove counterproductive to your conception of what makes life valuable.  Although not quantitative it still is possible to explain to a reasonably open mind that doing nothing has a good chance of getting you nowhere.  But how possible is it to do the same for the "collective mind”?

We live in an age of pervasive externalized fear.  Of course to view extensive fear as unique to this time and place is as absurd as frisking down 18 month olds for hard core weaponry.  Fear, after all, is our basic primitive emotion for survival and the desire for survival has not changed since the Mystery began.  However, there is an unprecedented collective of fear that is unique to this age, born from levels of human population with no historical comparison and communication which washes over that population at speeds beyond the conception of its users. We are persistently moving in a direction aimed at removing risk from our social order.  The desire to do this relates directly with the communication of fear as applied to mass numbers of people.  Whether it be war, pestilence, violence, natural disaster, or simple loss of property (to name a few) we are beset with a perceived loss of individual control. We are becoming less concerned about the aesthetic short comings of ring around the tub, and more concerned with the deadly germs lurking beneath that ring and of whom may have failed to notify us of that fact for the protection of our children. 

The irony is that in the attempt to sanitize our world and reduce risk we begin to produce a lot of stupid.  The reason we have a situation such as an 18 month old detained because of her potential threat to our society is because there was no one, at that moment in time, who could or would take the small risk to quietly let her and her parents proceed to New Jersey.  The systems were in place to protect the nation from harm (and the company from lawsuits) and they couldn't be altered.  The net result was a whole lot of stupid and probably an equally absurd lawsuit to boot. This same scenario can be found almost anywhere, in our schools, our courts, our businesses, our governments, and all types of institutions. Think about it. That’s the real news story. Maybe that's why the lemmings eventually choose the sea.

How to Beat Eric Cantor

It wouldn’t be easy, that’s for sure. But if there’s a chance that Eric Cantor could be voted out of office it would require, more than anything else, the ability to make the truth believable.

Virginia’s 7th Congressional District has been a bastion for Conservative politicians, Republican or Democrat, at least since its re-creation in 1935. Although demographics have changed dramatically since the Great Depression, gerrymandering has kept the 7th securely Conservative, which for the past 40 years has also meant Republican. It is safe to assume that a proudly self-identified Liberal need not apply for the job.

History, therefore, leaves one to suppose that any choosing for the office needs to occur at the Party level, with the nomination, if it occurs at all. Yes, it would be a reasonable supposition - but not necessarily this year.

What Makes This Year Different: 1-2-3

First - Eric Cantor is the Republican nominee. It is hard to study the history of this District and find any former Congressman more ineffectual in representing his/her constituents than Eric Cantor. His entire career, since being anointed by his predecessor and mentor Rep. Thomas Bliley, has been directed almost exclusively to maneuvering himself within the Republican Party. He has used the indifference of his constituency like a blank check to pursue his climb in the Republican hierarchy under the radar, and with notable success. Only in this term, with his ascension to that of Majority Leader, has he truly gone public. However, instead of working to use his office to govern (in any direction) he has only used it to espouse an extreme ideological vision which has proven to be a metaphor for incompetent governing. One need only read his egotistical manifesto Young Guns to understand.

His early campaign commercials (just out) which tout his “record” as that of a job creator may work in the dark recesses of some ad agency, but are laughable in the light of day. He has provided virtually no leadership that would create jobs or anything else for that matter. He is a finger-in-the-wind politician. One day he supports TARP, then as the Tea Party gets hot he riles against “bailouts”. Because he is so obviously shallow in his aspirations, and for his choice of advocating an extreme Conservative ideology he is vulnerable. Yesterday’s Conservative is today’s Moderate, and a Moderate can beat Eric Cantor.

Second - there are extraordinarily distinct issues that make this year’s elections (State and National) a potential referendum. If Cantor can be clearly identified with the losing side of that referendum then it puts his re-election further at risk. The primary issues that have actual bills (i.e. laws) already in place which will be impacted by the 2012 elections are the Bush Tax Cuts and the Affordable Health Care Act.

The Bush Tax Cuts are at the heart of another obvious truth: that the concentration of wealth in the United States has increased beyond any historical precedent, even including the era of robber baron industrialists of the 19th century. A great part of what has made this no-man’s land of economic inequality so invisible to the general population is the tremendous amount of personal and governmental deficit spending (incl. sub-prime mortgages) that has propped up the (now identified) 99% economically, albeit on crutches. This includes, of course, so-called entitlements. Generally, Eric Cantor and his Young Guns solution is to solidify and protect this concentration of wealth by correcting the excesses of government spending totally through reductions in government services. He has signed the Norquist no-tax pledge in blood. Even many of the Conservatives in the Virginia 7th know that a moderate approach to fiscal responsibility includes both expense reduction AND revenue increases. Cantors position on the Bush Tax Cuts should disenfranchise him from every constituent not bent on shooting himself in the foot.

Regardless of one’s position on the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare), it did one undeniable thing. It moved this nation away from the status quo in health care. Cantor’s published opinion is that we need to go back. During the health care debate he, along with the Republican leadership, went to the floor of Congress to rage against changes to “the best health care system on earth”, repeating such countless times. The undeniable truth is that, except for the very rich, the US has the worst health care system of any major industrial economy in the world. Faced with the specifics of that reality Cantor has little to defend. Based on cost, inclusion, statistical results, who benefits financially, and just plain frustration and anxiety our health care system is indefensible. The candidate who argues to move forward on health care instead of going in reverse will win that debate.

Third - Eric Cantor is the poster child for a dysfunctional government. This should be a slam dunk. Most moderates (aka 1970-1999 Conservatives) actually understand that Government (in particular the Federal Government) has an important role in a healthy system of free enterprise. They have seen politicians like Cantor spend and borrow for absurd and tragic political adventures (Iraq war for example), bail out the individuals and institutions that, through greed, nearly destroyed this country economically (TARP), and then work to remove a President from office by effectively shutting down government under the banner of some quasi-Libertarian, Tea Party style ideology. We have all seen this happen, and the polls show that the 99% at least don’t like it and will no longer support it.

Eric Cantor, due to his desire for recognition and power, needs to be removed from office perhaps more than any other Representative in Congress. The people in this 7th Congressional District of Virginia can send a message to the rest of the nation, and set the standard. That’s why this is the year.

The Gift of Labor

Let’s call her Judy. She lost her job due to the decline in business of her employer. The facts were honest and understandable. Her employer offered her a part-time job doing most of the same things she did before with a 38% cut in hours, from 40 to 25 hours per week. Not surprisingly this new job included no benefits – health, vacation, holidays, or pension. Judy’s company told her that if her hours had dropped below 50% she would be eligible for 10 weeks severance under company policy due to the extreme nature of such a cut. However, since the cut was less she was eligible for nothing if she didn’t take the part-time job and only a small prorated severance (equal to less than 2 weeks) if she took the job. The interesting and blaringly omitted fact was that with the elimination of benefits her actual compensation had dropped 60% between the old and new positions. Nice deal for the employer, to force her out without cost while pretending to be magnanimous. This little story, which is entirely true, points up a shell game that the American working population can’t seem to get; benefits are compensation, not employer largesse.

It’s an accident of history that American workers have evolved to view benefits as some kind of magical foundation associated with the act of working for somebody else. So much so that when employers don’t offer benefits an employee often feels the job is somehow not whole. There is an almost compulsive desire to keep looking for jobs that offer “benefits” (notably health benefits) over those that just pay money. The negotiated Affordable Care Act feeds this illusion by continuing to implant the employer as the primary conduit in the delivery of health care in America, assuring that it will be anything but “affordable”.

The employer has less problem with understanding the realities. To the employer the expense of benefits is treated no differently on the balance sheet than ordinary wages paid. They hold the line (or try to hold the line) on costs by managing the benefits, such as deferring increasing medical premiums to their employees, or not hiring substitutes for workers away from their jobs. Such maneuvers can be inefficient, and the bureaucracy of administering it (especially health care) can be daunting, certainly for small businesses. The glue that keeps it all together is the Tax Code (Federal and most states). The problems this arrangement creates for health care in the US are mammoth, but that’s another topic altogether. The point of this essay is, of course…the Church. Did I say Church??

Yes, the Church, and in the case of this discussion – the Catholic Church. It is up in arms against the Federal Government for, as it perceives it, intrusion into religious freedom. Catholics, for which I am one, have a paradoxical deal going on with their faith. They have their Christian religion and they have their Church, each vying for a piece of the parishioner’s devotion. The supposed attack on the Catholic Church, which has made dandy headlines during the past week, has to do with, of course… sex. Okay, it has to do with health plan inclusion of contraceptives, but when do contraceptives not involve sex? Therein lays the paradox for the world’s Catholics. Because they are human and sexual (and don’t want an endless number of children, with or without spouses) they are universally comfortable with contraceptives as part of their religious faith. On the other hand they respectfully embrace the traditional aspects of their Church (which just happens to be run by a bunch of celibate men). The whole issue would be a highly entertaining farce if it weren’t for the fact that Conservatives and some progressive Catholics have brought it up as a government intrusion on religious rights. That’s where the lie starts, which gets us back to the subject of benefits.

The Obama Administration, by its requiring all employers to abide by the new health care law, is not telling Catholics (or anyone else for that matter) that they have to buy and use contraceptives. Even the critics of the Administration won’t say that, although they imply it. The Catholic Church appears to be up in arms over this supposed infringement on their faith because the benefits they provide to their employees violate their faith. They apparently feel they are being forced to pay for something that breaks with their traditions. Well, horse-poopie to that!! They haven’t, nor would they pay a cent toward it.

As pointed out above, the benefits provided to any employee, including the employees of religious organizations are compensation to those employees, not gifts from the employer. The employee is paying for that benefit with their labor. The Catholic Church clearly doesn't have any problem with Catholics spending their wages on contraceptives. The law, which is absolutely reasonable, sets standards within our concocted health care system which workers can count on. No religious organization which chooses to become an employer of non-religious services, more over any employer, such as Judy’s former company, should use benefits as ethical leverage to their own end, portraying themselves like a Kris Kringle who comes down the chimney to collect up last year’s presents because the children have been naughty.

War by any other name...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.