it's amazing that they call these things debates. Debates are when two opposite points of view are argued on the facts and the viewers decide which of the debaters made the more convincing case.
The only thing the Republican candidates disagree on is which of them can pander better to an illogical belief that the budget can be balanced without raising revenues and ending the wars and that somehow we are better off with the Affordable Health Care Act being repealed. Then people with pre-exisitng conditions can be thrown into the uninsured camp, people who do not have health insurance through their employers can be royally screwed, and the cost of medical care in this country can continue to rise. Oh, and I forgot, we will turn retiree benefits back to the states. Mitt actually did a good job of trashing this one, but wait, Tea Party house members don't trust the states to run gun control as they see fit so what do they trust the state's with?
If you live in NY, you know you can't trust the state with much of anything except gun control.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Who does the Tea Party Sound Like?
President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
He denies the Holocaust! He denies Israel's right to exist in the body that authorized it! He denies 9/11 was an Al Qaeda event! and now for good measure, he states that the U.S. started World War II.
This is not an individual who lets facts get in the way of his statements. It is his way or the highway.
Well, that is exactly what the Tea Party advocates. Their way or the highway. They will not compromise on any point. They will not acknowledge that other views may have validity. They will not adhere to consistent philosophy.
I am not suggesting that any Tea Party person believes that Ahmadinejad does, only that stylistically they are following the same script.
Of course, most Tea Party people want us to bomb Iran, but the U.S. cannot afford a war of that magnitude with our fiscal situation unless we were forced into it by Iran starting the shooting.
He denies the Holocaust! He denies Israel's right to exist in the body that authorized it! He denies 9/11 was an Al Qaeda event! and now for good measure, he states that the U.S. started World War II.
This is not an individual who lets facts get in the way of his statements. It is his way or the highway.
Well, that is exactly what the Tea Party advocates. Their way or the highway. They will not compromise on any point. They will not acknowledge that other views may have validity. They will not adhere to consistent philosophy.
I am not suggesting that any Tea Party person believes that Ahmadinejad does, only that stylistically they are following the same script.
Of course, most Tea Party people want us to bomb Iran, but the U.S. cannot afford a war of that magnitude with our fiscal situation unless we were forced into it by Iran starting the shooting.
Logistics Require an Exit Strategy from Afghanistan
Those who know me professionally know that my 1st Rule of Emerging Market investing is never put a dollar in a country ending in "stan". I have that rule because you cannot trust those countries to behave by rules that we recognize. Unfortunately, the U.S. government cannot follow that rule because when you leave the "stan's" to their own natural outcome you end up with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
But Pakistan is the big problem now and we cannot invade Pakistan. Unfortunately, we cannot keep the troops in Afghanistan without the fuel they need passing through Pakistan. Mike Mullen called out the ISI for things I have believed for some time and he has more access to hard evidence then I do. We can't give the ISI money to shoot at our troops and we can't keep our troops in Afghanistan if ISI will not allow the fuel to be delivered to them.
It would be nice if Afghanistan military/police were ready to battle the Taliban on their own without U.S. help, but since Pakistan wants Afghanistan to be on their side, maybe the Afghan's could cut a deal with ISI and we could leave sooner rather than later. Then we could use the money we give Pakistan to pay for drone coverage of anywhere Al Qaeda and its affiliates hide out. The drone's are a big improvement on the cruise missiles that we missed Osama bin Ladan with in 1998.
And we could bring the troops home, call out ISI for what it is, a sponsor of state terrorism, and save a lot of $ in the effort to balance the budget.
But Pakistan is the big problem now and we cannot invade Pakistan. Unfortunately, we cannot keep the troops in Afghanistan without the fuel they need passing through Pakistan. Mike Mullen called out the ISI for things I have believed for some time and he has more access to hard evidence then I do. We can't give the ISI money to shoot at our troops and we can't keep our troops in Afghanistan if ISI will not allow the fuel to be delivered to them.
It would be nice if Afghanistan military/police were ready to battle the Taliban on their own without U.S. help, but since Pakistan wants Afghanistan to be on their side, maybe the Afghan's could cut a deal with ISI and we could leave sooner rather than later. Then we could use the money we give Pakistan to pay for drone coverage of anywhere Al Qaeda and its affiliates hide out. The drone's are a big improvement on the cruise missiles that we missed Osama bin Ladan with in 1998.
And we could bring the troops home, call out ISI for what it is, a sponsor of state terrorism, and save a lot of $ in the effort to balance the budget.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Art of Negotiation
I took a course in Negotiating a long time ago and learned that the first rule of negotiating is defining what you want and figuring out what the other side wants. But for negotiating to work there has to be some overlap between the desires. No overlap, no point in negotiating.
This is the essence of what the Constitution was designed to preserve. A path forward for the nation to move along has to accommodate a variety of views. The Tea Party instead just wants to lower their taxes to they have more to spend on themselves and then they have the nerve to say the Democrats are promoting Class Warfare. The Republican assault on government through the failure to preserve budget balance through the last decade by failing to pay for the War on Terror instigated this class warfare.
Now it has become clear that the Republican Party nationwide is abandoning negotiating because they think that by stopping all progress on everything they will win reelection. Well I can only hope that the voters wake up and vote them out, but it will take the Democrats to make that an issue.
Where does this come from? Well we see it in Congress every week as they fail to compromise on raising revenues even from limiting tax deductions/subsidies and lowering the overall tax rate. We see it in NY, as they fail to pass the enabling legislation to create a Health Insurance Exchange even though Republican dominated Utah has one and it works fine as a competition enabling vehicle. And now, Jerry Brown has found in CA, that the Republicans in the legislature will not agree to anything that allows the voters to express their opinion on how to fix their miserable budget mess.
Republicans are not interested in negotiating, they are only interested in tearing down the safety net. Democrats need to learn how to run on this point and get the voters to give them a mandate to fix our fiscal problems by addressing entitlements while preserving their important role in providing a safety net that helps those who lose their way in this market economy.
This is the essence of what the Constitution was designed to preserve. A path forward for the nation to move along has to accommodate a variety of views. The Tea Party instead just wants to lower their taxes to they have more to spend on themselves and then they have the nerve to say the Democrats are promoting Class Warfare. The Republican assault on government through the failure to preserve budget balance through the last decade by failing to pay for the War on Terror instigated this class warfare.
Now it has become clear that the Republican Party nationwide is abandoning negotiating because they think that by stopping all progress on everything they will win reelection. Well I can only hope that the voters wake up and vote them out, but it will take the Democrats to make that an issue.
Where does this come from? Well we see it in Congress every week as they fail to compromise on raising revenues even from limiting tax deductions/subsidies and lowering the overall tax rate. We see it in NY, as they fail to pass the enabling legislation to create a Health Insurance Exchange even though Republican dominated Utah has one and it works fine as a competition enabling vehicle. And now, Jerry Brown has found in CA, that the Republicans in the legislature will not agree to anything that allows the voters to express their opinion on how to fix their miserable budget mess.
Republicans are not interested in negotiating, they are only interested in tearing down the safety net. Democrats need to learn how to run on this point and get the voters to give them a mandate to fix our fiscal problems by addressing entitlements while preserving their important role in providing a safety net that helps those who lose their way in this market economy.
Focus on Middle Schools
NYC's schools are not the easiest to administer, and with the multiplicity of ethnic and language backgrounds, not the easiest to achieve uniform performance.
So, some time ago in an effort to reduce drop out rates, Mayor Bloomberg promoted the establishment of smaller high schools. My cousin's daughter attended one of these and did fine and the overall program has had success. So now the Mayor wants to do this with Middle Schools. This is a great idea because if you lose a kid in middle school, it is almost impossible to get them back in high school. You also need good elementary schools if a kid is to perform well in middle school. And you need parents who care. The last one is probably the most important one in forming a good base for a kid's effort. (Thank you RSL for teaching me that over the last 29 years.)
Last week the Economist focused on what type of school organization produces the best results around the world. Beyond parental involvement, and teacher preparedness, one key takeaway was availability of schools in proximation to youth. Smaller, multiple schools. and they pointed out that a such a structure stills supports the employment of teachers, it is just that they have to held accountable for their success or failure.
There is no greater problem in these times than our mass of undereducated young workers, who are only qualified to do construction and we don't have much need for more of that. So, I applaud Mayor Bloomberg for this focus and want to say that I think school vouchers with family choice of schools is a good idea. It will take a while for that to have improvement and the states will have to come up with a way of making sure the schools actually are doing there job or else we will have a bunch of Rick Perry's out there who think evolution is a theory and the million year old skeleton of Lucy an oddity that has no relevance to understanding science.
So, some time ago in an effort to reduce drop out rates, Mayor Bloomberg promoted the establishment of smaller high schools. My cousin's daughter attended one of these and did fine and the overall program has had success. So now the Mayor wants to do this with Middle Schools. This is a great idea because if you lose a kid in middle school, it is almost impossible to get them back in high school. You also need good elementary schools if a kid is to perform well in middle school. And you need parents who care. The last one is probably the most important one in forming a good base for a kid's effort. (Thank you RSL for teaching me that over the last 29 years.)
Last week the Economist focused on what type of school organization produces the best results around the world. Beyond parental involvement, and teacher preparedness, one key takeaway was availability of schools in proximation to youth. Smaller, multiple schools. and they pointed out that a such a structure stills supports the employment of teachers, it is just that they have to held accountable for their success or failure.
There is no greater problem in these times than our mass of undereducated young workers, who are only qualified to do construction and we don't have much need for more of that. So, I applaud Mayor Bloomberg for this focus and want to say that I think school vouchers with family choice of schools is a good idea. It will take a while for that to have improvement and the states will have to come up with a way of making sure the schools actually are doing there job or else we will have a bunch of Rick Perry's out there who think evolution is a theory and the million year old skeleton of Lucy an oddity that has no relevance to understanding science.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Inconsistency in the Republican Philosophy
The one thing I ask of anyone is consistency in belief, unless the facts change to support a new view.
But when it comes to philosophy, there should be only consistency. You believe what you believe.
So the Republicans believe in State's Rights for Health Care and any other number of issues, including historically, gun control.
Now, the House Republicans are trying to pass a law that will allow concealed weapons with permits from Florida to be legal in any state, even if concealed weapons are illegal in that state. Do state's have the right to control their own guns or not?
Gun Control, particularly hand guns, has had me perplexed for a number of years because there is no greater risk to Police Officers than automatic weapons and hand guns. Yet, the NRA has fought efficient permit processes and any regulation of these weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. Meanwhile, the Republicans who support law & order and protecting the police, endorse the NRA positions.
It is bad enough that this allows haphazard regulations across states, but at least I know as a resident of NY, that there is some effort to protect me from some random person starting to shoot a concealed handgun when I am in proximity to them. Now, the House Republicans want to end that comfort for me and allow Florida's laws to override NY's.
Are they for State's Rights or NOT! and if they are not, where does that put the philosophical back drop to fight the Affordable Health Care Act
But when it comes to philosophy, there should be only consistency. You believe what you believe.
So the Republicans believe in State's Rights for Health Care and any other number of issues, including historically, gun control.
Now, the House Republicans are trying to pass a law that will allow concealed weapons with permits from Florida to be legal in any state, even if concealed weapons are illegal in that state. Do state's have the right to control their own guns or not?
Gun Control, particularly hand guns, has had me perplexed for a number of years because there is no greater risk to Police Officers than automatic weapons and hand guns. Yet, the NRA has fought efficient permit processes and any regulation of these weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. Meanwhile, the Republicans who support law & order and protecting the police, endorse the NRA positions.
It is bad enough that this allows haphazard regulations across states, but at least I know as a resident of NY, that there is some effort to protect me from some random person starting to shoot a concealed handgun when I am in proximity to them. Now, the House Republicans want to end that comfort for me and allow Florida's laws to override NY's.
Are they for State's Rights or NOT! and if they are not, where does that put the philosophical back drop to fight the Affordable Health Care Act
Saturday, September 17, 2011
How Republicans Can Get the Mandate They Desire
This morning there is an AP article that all the Republican Presidential candidates are coming up with proposals to privatize social security in one manner or another for younger people.
Never mind that most people (including me) are frightened by the volatility in the stock market and wondering how that fits with our retirement needs. Putting one's retirement money in the stock market is basically a gamble on where the economy is when you retire. Economy good, stock market good, you win and have a nice retirement. Economy bad, stock market low, you lose and have whatever you can afford. Oh, and good luck selling your home so you can downsize and free up money from that to live on. (Sorry, that one is hitting me personally right now and I am a bit bitter about it.)
So if the Republican want to balance the budget by privatizing social security and medicare (I am still wondering how they plan to privatize Medicaid, even with Pat Robertson urging Alzheimer care givers to divorce and put their spouse in a home on Medicaid?), they should run on the following platform.
Voters here is your choice for budget balance: Republicans: Let us privatize social security and medicare and we will cut your taxes while maintaining tax subsidies for multinational companies. Democrats: We must raise revenues to pay for the War on Terror and keep social security and medicare viable (albeit with some changes). If you want #1 vote Republican, If you believe in #2 vote for the Democrat.
That way, at least every winning candidate will know where their voters stand and there can be a reasoned discussion in Washington
Never mind that most people (including me) are frightened by the volatility in the stock market and wondering how that fits with our retirement needs. Putting one's retirement money in the stock market is basically a gamble on where the economy is when you retire. Economy good, stock market good, you win and have a nice retirement. Economy bad, stock market low, you lose and have whatever you can afford. Oh, and good luck selling your home so you can downsize and free up money from that to live on. (Sorry, that one is hitting me personally right now and I am a bit bitter about it.)
So if the Republican want to balance the budget by privatizing social security and medicare (I am still wondering how they plan to privatize Medicaid, even with Pat Robertson urging Alzheimer care givers to divorce and put their spouse in a home on Medicaid?), they should run on the following platform.
Voters here is your choice for budget balance: Republicans: Let us privatize social security and medicare and we will cut your taxes while maintaining tax subsidies for multinational companies. Democrats: We must raise revenues to pay for the War on Terror and keep social security and medicare viable (albeit with some changes). If you want #1 vote Republican, If you believe in #2 vote for the Democrat.
That way, at least every winning candidate will know where their voters stand and there can be a reasoned discussion in Washington
Saturday Musings
Well, it has certainly been a tough week for those of us who would like to see rational discussion of serious complex issues and the only thing I can say about the special election results is "Hang on, it is going to be a wild ride through the 2012 election and I personally doubt that the 2012 election will give us a definitive direction." If Obama wins reelection, the Republicans will still do everything to keep him a failure (and the country will suffer as it has for the last 10 years). If the Romney wins, the Democrats will still have 40 senators and will adopt the Republican scorched earth policy of protecting whatever they can through obscure Senate procedural rules that the Republicans use so well to maintain their agenda.
On some other points briefly:
1. I see the Republicans do not want to fund the Food Safety administration because it would be an "increase in taxes", even though the Food Industry, which would pay the fees, supports the changes and funding. Is there no regulatory role that the Republicans will support? It was a failure of banking regulation that put us in this dire economic situation and the fact that 99.9% of our food is safe is the result of good oversight of food production and distribution.
2. The President's Israeli policies are blamed for the loss of the Congressional Seat in NY. Yet, the U.S. is suffering deteriorating relationships with every Middle Eastern country other than Israel because we are seen as Israel's protector. Now, I know that the Palestinians do not present the ideal negotiating partner, but no one short of someone willing to commit genocide can fail to see that the Palestine must come into existence as nation if peace is ever to be found. Israel's government and its supporting majority (there is a minority that see this as I do in Israel) cannot fathom giving up the West Bank settlements for a successful peace process. The President has simply tried to get Israel to step up to the plate and negotiate in a sincere manner. For that he is blamed for insufficient support for Israel. Well, somebody has to tell the Israeli's to start dealing with reality. The Arab world is not willing to suffer intolerant autocratic governing. That is the message of the Arab Spring. Military control of a nation is seen as intolerant autocratic governing and that is how Israel's control of the West Bank is seen in the Arab world. This is not a sustainable position and Israel has to be willing to allow change. Otherwise, it will find itself (and the U.S. will as well) more isolated on this point and the risk of someone terrible happening to Israel will increase. Israel has benefited from peace with Egypt and Jordan. That could end if they do not find a way to allow a Palestinian state. This is where President Obama has been cajoling Israel to go and for that he is blamed as being an insufficient supporter of Israel. Well, the U.S. has a right to develop its own Middle East policy and not be a prisoner of Israel's policies. We can support and protect Israel while urging them to find a path to the negotiating table. We can urge them to give up the West Bank settlements to attain a peace treaty. Mutual religious fervor, which is what you have between the most conservative wings of Islam and Judaism, will inevitably lead to conflict and that must be defused by both Israel and a responsible Palestinian government. Only a government that is in charge of a Palestinian nation will have the necessary respect to make that happen.
3. RedStateVT renewed his high deductible health care policy recently and was upset that the cost went up from $220/month to $300/month (for those who do not recognize those $ costs be aware RedState has a $25,000 deductible) despite his son getting a job and dropping off the policy. The HealthCare company blamed the Affordable Health Care Act, so RedState did also. Now I know my healthcare provider is losing money on our high deductible so it is entirely possible that RedState's was too and the person on the phone didn't know that or didn't care to share it.
But that is just background for the point I want to make here. RedState paid almost his entire deductible over the last year with a series of medical needs. Because he had access to the insured price for those services they fit within his deductible and what he could afford. If he had not had access to the insured prices, I bet they would have been closer to $75,000 and RedState would have been complaining about that. There is no justice in the uninsured paying one much higher price and the insured another lower price. One of the primary goals of the Affordable Health Care Act is getting the uninsured access to insurance so everyone's cost is on the same playing field. The Insurance Exchanges are supposed to be the market based vehicle for that to occur, but Republicans everywhere are fighting the establishment of these exchanges. Why do the Republicans want to prevent the establishment of a market based solution to providing heath insurance for the nearly 50% of the population that no longer gets health insurance from an employer? Nothing frustrates me more about the current state of political interaction between Republicans and Democrats than the unwillingness to allow a market based solution to develop on this point.
4. And that readers, is why I am very pessimistic about where this country is going. Unlike many, I do not blame the President. The Republicans set up to make his Presidency a failure and they have been successful in domestic policy. I note that the President has had a very successful Presidency in Foreign Policy (absent Israel, but that is not his fault). Republicans have worked themselves into a state where they believe that the government can do nothing to help anyone in any area other than National Defense. For those of us who have seen the government do things to help people over the last 80 years and seen the nation accomplish great things, this belief defies my logical base and is an exhibit of self interest at the expense of societal progress or even maintaining what society has accomplished since 1930.
On some other points briefly:
1. I see the Republicans do not want to fund the Food Safety administration because it would be an "increase in taxes", even though the Food Industry, which would pay the fees, supports the changes and funding. Is there no regulatory role that the Republicans will support? It was a failure of banking regulation that put us in this dire economic situation and the fact that 99.9% of our food is safe is the result of good oversight of food production and distribution.
2. The President's Israeli policies are blamed for the loss of the Congressional Seat in NY. Yet, the U.S. is suffering deteriorating relationships with every Middle Eastern country other than Israel because we are seen as Israel's protector. Now, I know that the Palestinians do not present the ideal negotiating partner, but no one short of someone willing to commit genocide can fail to see that the Palestine must come into existence as nation if peace is ever to be found. Israel's government and its supporting majority (there is a minority that see this as I do in Israel) cannot fathom giving up the West Bank settlements for a successful peace process. The President has simply tried to get Israel to step up to the plate and negotiate in a sincere manner. For that he is blamed for insufficient support for Israel. Well, somebody has to tell the Israeli's to start dealing with reality. The Arab world is not willing to suffer intolerant autocratic governing. That is the message of the Arab Spring. Military control of a nation is seen as intolerant autocratic governing and that is how Israel's control of the West Bank is seen in the Arab world. This is not a sustainable position and Israel has to be willing to allow change. Otherwise, it will find itself (and the U.S. will as well) more isolated on this point and the risk of someone terrible happening to Israel will increase. Israel has benefited from peace with Egypt and Jordan. That could end if they do not find a way to allow a Palestinian state. This is where President Obama has been cajoling Israel to go and for that he is blamed as being an insufficient supporter of Israel. Well, the U.S. has a right to develop its own Middle East policy and not be a prisoner of Israel's policies. We can support and protect Israel while urging them to find a path to the negotiating table. We can urge them to give up the West Bank settlements to attain a peace treaty. Mutual religious fervor, which is what you have between the most conservative wings of Islam and Judaism, will inevitably lead to conflict and that must be defused by both Israel and a responsible Palestinian government. Only a government that is in charge of a Palestinian nation will have the necessary respect to make that happen.
3. RedStateVT renewed his high deductible health care policy recently and was upset that the cost went up from $220/month to $300/month (for those who do not recognize those $ costs be aware RedState has a $25,000 deductible) despite his son getting a job and dropping off the policy. The HealthCare company blamed the Affordable Health Care Act, so RedState did also. Now I know my healthcare provider is losing money on our high deductible so it is entirely possible that RedState's was too and the person on the phone didn't know that or didn't care to share it.
But that is just background for the point I want to make here. RedState paid almost his entire deductible over the last year with a series of medical needs. Because he had access to the insured price for those services they fit within his deductible and what he could afford. If he had not had access to the insured prices, I bet they would have been closer to $75,000 and RedState would have been complaining about that. There is no justice in the uninsured paying one much higher price and the insured another lower price. One of the primary goals of the Affordable Health Care Act is getting the uninsured access to insurance so everyone's cost is on the same playing field. The Insurance Exchanges are supposed to be the market based vehicle for that to occur, but Republicans everywhere are fighting the establishment of these exchanges. Why do the Republicans want to prevent the establishment of a market based solution to providing heath insurance for the nearly 50% of the population that no longer gets health insurance from an employer? Nothing frustrates me more about the current state of political interaction between Republicans and Democrats than the unwillingness to allow a market based solution to develop on this point.
4. And that readers, is why I am very pessimistic about where this country is going. Unlike many, I do not blame the President. The Republicans set up to make his Presidency a failure and they have been successful in domestic policy. I note that the President has had a very successful Presidency in Foreign Policy (absent Israel, but that is not his fault). Republicans have worked themselves into a state where they believe that the government can do nothing to help anyone in any area other than National Defense. For those of us who have seen the government do things to help people over the last 80 years and seen the nation accomplish great things, this belief defies my logical base and is an exhibit of self interest at the expense of societal progress or even maintaining what society has accomplished since 1930.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Bizarre Republican Attitudes Towards Life
At the debate the other night, the Tea Party audience approved of the concept that adults who do not buy health insurance should be allowed to die because they cannot pay their hospital bills. Yet, these same people will not vote for someone who is in favor of allowing women the right to choose whether or not they should have a child.
No one can accuse these people of consistency.
No one can accuse these people of consistency.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Rick Perry Proves Obama's Affordable Heath Care Bill Necessary
"Texas just hasn't proven it can run a health system," said Dr. C. Bruce Malone III, an orthopedic surgeon and president of the historically conservative Texas Medical Assn.
More than a quarter of Texans lack health insurance, the highest rate in the nation, placing a crushing burden on hospitals and doctors who treat patients unable to pay.
Those costs are passed to the insured. Insurance premiums have risen more quickly in Texas than they have nationally over the last seven years. And when compared with incomes, insurance in Texas is less affordable than in every state but Mississippi, according to the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.
Thank you to the Los Angeles Times for this article.
More than a quarter of Texans lack health insurance, the highest rate in the nation, placing a crushing burden on hospitals and doctors who treat patients unable to pay.
Those costs are passed to the insured. Insurance premiums have risen more quickly in Texas than they have nationally over the last seven years. And when compared with incomes, insurance in Texas is less affordable than in every state but Mississippi, according to the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.
Thank you to the Los Angeles Times for this article.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Individual Governors do not create jobs
Job creation is any one state is primarily a function of (i) the national economy, (ii) historical economic development in the state and its natural resource base, and (iii) many years of state legislative/administrative construction of taxation and labor rules. So for any one governor to claim success at job creation during their administration for their actions alone is a failure to be honest with the voters.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Why I am an Environmentalist!
I realized while writing the headline that I am not going to be as general as that might imply . I am watching a NatGeoWild show on Tigers and the search for them in the last area necessary to complete an uninterrupted landscape along the Himalayas for them to live in.
Tigers are a magnificent breed that have survived for many millennium in Asia. Now mankind is expanding into their territory and poaching, for bizarre reasons, is a very real risk for any surviving Tiger.
I do not believe that Tigers have any use for mankind to exist beyond their inherent Spiritual Existence as a magnificent being. Humans are also magnificent beings and we should do everything possible to help the Tigers survive as an example of what Natural Selection has allowed this wondrous world to evolve into.
Thank you Hermann Hesse for that education.
Tigers are a magnificent breed that have survived for many millennium in Asia. Now mankind is expanding into their territory and poaching, for bizarre reasons, is a very real risk for any surviving Tiger.
I do not believe that Tigers have any use for mankind to exist beyond their inherent Spiritual Existence as a magnificent being. Humans are also magnificent beings and we should do everything possible to help the Tigers survive as an example of what Natural Selection has allowed this wondrous world to evolve into.
Thank you Hermann Hesse for that education.
Gun Control?
The repeated carnage from the lack of gun control, accompanied by unrelenting pressure from the NRA, leaves me baffled. Within the last 48 hours, we had someone with no reason at all kill 3 or 4 courageous members of the Nevada National Guard at an IHOP. He did this with an automatic weapon which has no hunting value at all. Why does the NRA protest regulation of Automatic Weapons and handguns.
No advocate of gun control has every said hunting guns should be made illegal. What is wrong with gun registration? How is it different from a drivers license? And, how is allowing anyone to own an automatic weapon in the national interest or in the interest of preserving hunting rights?
The sad thing about this, is that it will stir no debate about gun control as the NRA has paralyzed the entire center of the political spectrum, including me until tonight.
Automatic weapons should be tightly regulated.
No advocate of gun control has every said hunting guns should be made illegal. What is wrong with gun registration? How is it different from a drivers license? And, how is allowing anyone to own an automatic weapon in the national interest or in the interest of preserving hunting rights?
The sad thing about this, is that it will stir no debate about gun control as the NRA has paralyzed the entire center of the political spectrum, including me until tonight.
Automatic weapons should be tightly regulated.
The Post Office Saga
That the Postal Service's challenges have been known for some time. The current state of affairs was obviously inevitable several years ago, but management did not start the conversation with Congress early enough and then when they did last year, they got shot down on both a rate increase and a cut in operations. So, both the Post Office management and Congress are to blame for this financial mess.
Now it does not take a rocket science business person to know that the Post Office should have started downsizing years ago. If one Post Office can serve 20,000 homes, you don't need a Post Office in every small town when there are other small towns within 15 or 20 minutes of each other.
The Post Office has good market share. They can compete, they need to downsize and then charge an appropriate price for their basic service.
Now it does not take a rocket science business person to know that the Post Office should have started downsizing years ago. If one Post Office can serve 20,000 homes, you don't need a Post Office in every small town when there are other small towns within 15 or 20 minutes of each other.
The Post Office has good market share. They can compete, they need to downsize and then charge an appropriate price for their basic service.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
One way to insure US solvency
Extend the duration of U.S. debt from 5 years to 10 years at current rates. Just like every homeowner should have a sub 4% mortgage ASAP, the government could lock in sub 3% money for a long time. That would keep interest expense from exacerbating the fiscal deficit.
The Importance of Reading
Two articles caught my attention this morning. One was a blog on the NY Times by a Republican consultant.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/should-democrats-play-by-republican-rules/
It does a wonderful job of explaining the role of political party membership and the role that political parties need to play. Political parties funnel information to the electorate in a manner that allows the electorate to focus their time on their daily needs and not have to delve deeply into details to form an opinion. The political parties therefore need to keep their message simple and keep repeating it while not getting caught in any inconsistency.
Of course, reality is more complicated than that and reality changes, so the political message should change to reflect reality gradually to avoid being accused of inconsistency (or it needs to be changed suddenly with a lot of explanation and then the new position needs to be held onto with consistency).
The second article is on Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-06/osama-bin-laden-fulfilled-his-one-true-ambition-noah-feldman.html
Osama Bin Ladan wanted to being down the U.S. as far as he could. He thought he could do it with violence and trigger a revolution in the Middle East overthrowing our friends there. However, he was much more successful than that. He got the Bush Administration to combine its zeal for tax cuts with an overriding desire to conduct wars with the aim of establishing democracy to replace autocracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, we borrowed 100% of the funding for the War on Terror in combination with a massive fiscal stimulus (combined with a lack of regulation - another Bush administration priority) and created the housing bubble. When the housing bubble burst in a systemic manner it crushed both the allocation of credit and the primary savings vehicle for most of the population.
The only solution to this environment was massive government intervention to save the banking system and an effort to prevent a depression with fiscal stimulus. If we hadn't borrowed the War on Terror, this would have been easily affordable and probably not even likely because the fiscal stimulus in the mid 2000's would have been much smaller.
Why did Osama Bin Ladan win? Because the U.S. economy is now into its 4th year of economic turmoil and this is likely to continue for at least another 2 to 3 years. Neither party has a coherent message on how to fix this because both are caught up in their historic simple messages.
Republicans: Cutting taxes and reducing regulation will create employment. Balance the budget.
Democrats: Stimulate with fiscal policy and protect the social safety net.
Well we need to do what each party (Republicans and Democrats) wants but the only way to get there is to have the country build a political consensus around all these things. That is not a easy message to simplify into a political campaign theme. But that is the President's reelection challenge.
It also the obligation of every Democrat to somehow incorporate into their message because the Republicans are stuck on their consensus that less regulation and lower taxes will create jobs while privatizing the social safety net will balance the budget. I have commented repeatedly about why I do not believe eliminating the social safety net is good for society. Universal healthcare is what the country needs to create a competitive work place for our employers vs other countries. The U.S. does need tax reform. Eliminating tax subsidies is preferable to raising tax rates, but some combination is needed to raise revenues to aid balancing the budget without destroying the social safety net. And as for the Republican desire to reduce regulation, it was a failure to regulate that created this crisis and helped Osama bin Ladan achieve his goal beyond his wildest imagination.
Now the Republicans did not knowingly aid Osama bin Ladan's achievement of his goal. Rather, their adherence to their policy message with no adjustment for changes in reality created the synergy. Their campaign is heading down that same path and the Democrats need to challenge that message with a coherent middle ground message of their own.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/should-democrats-play-by-republican-rules/
It does a wonderful job of explaining the role of political party membership and the role that political parties need to play. Political parties funnel information to the electorate in a manner that allows the electorate to focus their time on their daily needs and not have to delve deeply into details to form an opinion. The political parties therefore need to keep their message simple and keep repeating it while not getting caught in any inconsistency.
Of course, reality is more complicated than that and reality changes, so the political message should change to reflect reality gradually to avoid being accused of inconsistency (or it needs to be changed suddenly with a lot of explanation and then the new position needs to be held onto with consistency).
The second article is on Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-06/osama-bin-laden-fulfilled-his-one-true-ambition-noah-feldman.html
Osama Bin Ladan wanted to being down the U.S. as far as he could. He thought he could do it with violence and trigger a revolution in the Middle East overthrowing our friends there. However, he was much more successful than that. He got the Bush Administration to combine its zeal for tax cuts with an overriding desire to conduct wars with the aim of establishing democracy to replace autocracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, we borrowed 100% of the funding for the War on Terror in combination with a massive fiscal stimulus (combined with a lack of regulation - another Bush administration priority) and created the housing bubble. When the housing bubble burst in a systemic manner it crushed both the allocation of credit and the primary savings vehicle for most of the population.
The only solution to this environment was massive government intervention to save the banking system and an effort to prevent a depression with fiscal stimulus. If we hadn't borrowed the War on Terror, this would have been easily affordable and probably not even likely because the fiscal stimulus in the mid 2000's would have been much smaller.
Why did Osama Bin Ladan win? Because the U.S. economy is now into its 4th year of economic turmoil and this is likely to continue for at least another 2 to 3 years. Neither party has a coherent message on how to fix this because both are caught up in their historic simple messages.
Republicans: Cutting taxes and reducing regulation will create employment. Balance the budget.
Democrats: Stimulate with fiscal policy and protect the social safety net.
Well we need to do what each party (Republicans and Democrats) wants but the only way to get there is to have the country build a political consensus around all these things. That is not a easy message to simplify into a political campaign theme. But that is the President's reelection challenge.
It also the obligation of every Democrat to somehow incorporate into their message because the Republicans are stuck on their consensus that less regulation and lower taxes will create jobs while privatizing the social safety net will balance the budget. I have commented repeatedly about why I do not believe eliminating the social safety net is good for society. Universal healthcare is what the country needs to create a competitive work place for our employers vs other countries. The U.S. does need tax reform. Eliminating tax subsidies is preferable to raising tax rates, but some combination is needed to raise revenues to aid balancing the budget without destroying the social safety net. And as for the Republican desire to reduce regulation, it was a failure to regulate that created this crisis and helped Osama bin Ladan achieve his goal beyond his wildest imagination.
Now the Republicans did not knowingly aid Osama bin Ladan's achievement of his goal. Rather, their adherence to their policy message with no adjustment for changes in reality created the synergy. Their campaign is heading down that same path and the Democrats need to challenge that message with a coherent middle ground message of their own.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Dick Cheney Says
President Obama has not been very effective in the economic area. Well, since economic effects take at minimum 12 months to 24 months to become effective, I guess that is a comment on the Bush II administration's economic policy!
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Global Warming: Partisan Politics Destroy Reasonable Discussion
I don't like to comment on topics where I have less intellectual knowledge than a basic college education provides. So while I believe that Global Warming is real, because I only took the Science of Music (I do understand why vibrations produce sound) in college, I generally keep my opinions on this to myself.
However, with the political campaign picking up, the shrillness of some commentators on Global Warming (believers and disbelievers) has reached an irritating level for me that compels me to put fingers to the keyboard.
First let me side with the disbelievers. Global Warming did not cause the devastation of Irene in the Catskill and Green Mountains that have been my home for most of my life. 100 year floods happen every 100 years or so. The East Sidney Dam was built to control flooding in the Susquehanna in the 1950's. But that did not prevent Sidney from having its flood plane inundated with a flood in 2006. Man can only do so much to control water. Building plans have to take 100 year floods into account when designed. Such farm land needs to be managed around the periodic floods.
I also do not believe that any other periodic bouts of weather are caused by global warming in any specific case. Irene was the 1st hurricane to hit the U.S. in 3 or 4 years, when "normal" is for us to be hit by at least one somewhere.
However, the disbelievers in global warming are ignoring one basic reality. The earth is warming and ice caps are melting. The less intellectually honest disbelievers shout that the believers are cooking the data. Most of those, I believe, probably don't believe in evolution either and probably believe in any other number of conspiracies. The somewhat more intellectually honest believe the earth goes through regular warming and cooling cycles and you cannot attribute this warming to green house gases. In their view, the market will generate the signals to provide solutions to global warming when it becomes real.
I don't think this should be left to the market. Lack of regulation led to the free enterprise system dumping toxic waste into any number of waterways and the air. Does anyone want to return to those days? I have been to China and their toxic waste is not managed well and that is the primary reason I don't ever want to go back despite the many interesting tourist activities. Now, the Chinese people want good regulation of toxic waste and the pressure is on the politicians to do so. Pollution imposes a societal cost that is not priced. So either the government puts a price on it in a form of a tax or regulates it without putting an explicit cost on it. But every government should do something to try and reduce green house gases.
The decline in ice caps is proof to me that the earth is warming. There are scientific studies that show this in other ways. The U.S. needs to be a leader for the rest of the world in this. Cap & Trade was designed by members of both political parties to let the market figure it out. But this has gone nowhere with the current state of partisanship by the Republicans.
Believers in global warming need to promote non-fossil fuel energy in an economic manner. That means, do not be a NIMBY if there is an economic location for solar, wind or water power. Figure out a way to improve your car's cash mileage. That will create demand for such products and reduce their cost.
The earth started to warm with the Industrial Revolution. The pace of this warming as far as we can tell is unprecedented in history. Even the CIA believes this and ranks in its top 5 global concerns for creating future conflicts. A rational discussion is needed on what mix of regulation and economic signals should be put in place for the U.S. to be a leader in moving towards a less fossil fuel centric economy.
However, with the political campaign picking up, the shrillness of some commentators on Global Warming (believers and disbelievers) has reached an irritating level for me that compels me to put fingers to the keyboard.
First let me side with the disbelievers. Global Warming did not cause the devastation of Irene in the Catskill and Green Mountains that have been my home for most of my life. 100 year floods happen every 100 years or so. The East Sidney Dam was built to control flooding in the Susquehanna in the 1950's. But that did not prevent Sidney from having its flood plane inundated with a flood in 2006. Man can only do so much to control water. Building plans have to take 100 year floods into account when designed. Such farm land needs to be managed around the periodic floods.
I also do not believe that any other periodic bouts of weather are caused by global warming in any specific case. Irene was the 1st hurricane to hit the U.S. in 3 or 4 years, when "normal" is for us to be hit by at least one somewhere.
However, the disbelievers in global warming are ignoring one basic reality. The earth is warming and ice caps are melting. The less intellectually honest disbelievers shout that the believers are cooking the data. Most of those, I believe, probably don't believe in evolution either and probably believe in any other number of conspiracies. The somewhat more intellectually honest believe the earth goes through regular warming and cooling cycles and you cannot attribute this warming to green house gases. In their view, the market will generate the signals to provide solutions to global warming when it becomes real.
I don't think this should be left to the market. Lack of regulation led to the free enterprise system dumping toxic waste into any number of waterways and the air. Does anyone want to return to those days? I have been to China and their toxic waste is not managed well and that is the primary reason I don't ever want to go back despite the many interesting tourist activities. Now, the Chinese people want good regulation of toxic waste and the pressure is on the politicians to do so. Pollution imposes a societal cost that is not priced. So either the government puts a price on it in a form of a tax or regulates it without putting an explicit cost on it. But every government should do something to try and reduce green house gases.
The decline in ice caps is proof to me that the earth is warming. There are scientific studies that show this in other ways. The U.S. needs to be a leader for the rest of the world in this. Cap & Trade was designed by members of both political parties to let the market figure it out. But this has gone nowhere with the current state of partisanship by the Republicans.
Believers in global warming need to promote non-fossil fuel energy in an economic manner. That means, do not be a NIMBY if there is an economic location for solar, wind or water power. Figure out a way to improve your car's cash mileage. That will create demand for such products and reduce their cost.
The earth started to warm with the Industrial Revolution. The pace of this warming as far as we can tell is unprecedented in history. Even the CIA believes this and ranks in its top 5 global concerns for creating future conflicts. A rational discussion is needed on what mix of regulation and economic signals should be put in place for the U.S. to be a leader in moving towards a less fossil fuel centric economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)