Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Hit the Link and Play the Game
I doubt there is anyway to do this without making corporate health insurance subsidies taxable income or a value added tax. This is why Romney numbers don't add up. And I wonder if he could get a GOP House to even bring them out of committee.
Balance the Budget the Romney Way
Society & Economic Policy
This post is going to be a struggle to keep clear because my thoughts are not fully developed.
Link to Article that Inspired this
The article outlines the societal outcomes that have arisen from the pressures of globalization. The new information for me in particular is how much worse we are in certain measures versus many other developed countries. We spend less on early childhood education and have much more inequality in the success of education across this land than other countries do. Combine that with globalization and you have the growth in income inequality.
I have benefited from globalization and my education made me well equipped to compete. I hope that I have imparted that advantage on my child. Time will tell, but it looks good so far. I believe in personal responsibility for parenting and education, but I also believe that as a country we should benchmark ourselves against other countries and think seriously about why we may be falling behind and what should be done about that.
For the last 30 years, Supply Side Economics has dominated Economic Policy. Tax Policy has favored capital over labor. Most of my thought process thinks leaning in this direction is healthy and would have resulted in our having widespread solid economic growth. It is possible that the Great Recession skews current measures and the interactions on a longer term basis are in a sounder position, but I am not so sure given the length of the trends.
In particular, the ability of the wealthy to convert ordinary income to capital return is not fair and working for income should be treated fairly by economic policy.
What is most interesting about many rich people is that they volunteer to give their wealth to charity as they age. But many of them do not want to pay higher taxes that would support paying for early education for the masses. Wouldn't it be better to give them skills so they don't need charity as they age?
I know reality is complex, but I have to conclude this ramble with the one thing I know is different between the U.S. and the countries that rank higher in quality of life societal measures. Universal Health Insurance paid for by individuals and neither tied to employment nor paid by the employer. Obviously we do not have that in the U.S.
What would such a system look like?
Individuals would pay for their own health insurance. It would look like health insurance today but with the government paying some portion of the health insurance rather than the employers.
Health Insurance would be portable as you move from job to job. No More Cobra.
The same Health Insurance coverage across state lines.
National Medical Malpractice policy, no more shopping for jurisdictions, with a focus on payment for incompetence not innocent mistakes. I know that is complicated but I really believe people should not look to or become rich off of insurance claims. Particularly, when a Dr had good intentions. Reform of this should address the situation where tests are given simply to provide defense from malpractice lawsuits.
You can leave the providers of health care in the private market. There is no need to employ everyone as in Socialized Medicine. Competition on being cost competitive there should be encouraged.
So, what am I advocating? Tax policies that level the playing field between capital and labor. Reduce and eliminate as much as possible tax subsidies and use that revenue to reduce tax rates preserving that element of supply side economics. National Health Insurance. And some focus on raising education standards for those in rural and lower income areas. And I am saying vote for moderates of both parties who understand this need for balance.
Link to Article that Inspired this
The article outlines the societal outcomes that have arisen from the pressures of globalization. The new information for me in particular is how much worse we are in certain measures versus many other developed countries. We spend less on early childhood education and have much more inequality in the success of education across this land than other countries do. Combine that with globalization and you have the growth in income inequality.
I have benefited from globalization and my education made me well equipped to compete. I hope that I have imparted that advantage on my child. Time will tell, but it looks good so far. I believe in personal responsibility for parenting and education, but I also believe that as a country we should benchmark ourselves against other countries and think seriously about why we may be falling behind and what should be done about that.
For the last 30 years, Supply Side Economics has dominated Economic Policy. Tax Policy has favored capital over labor. Most of my thought process thinks leaning in this direction is healthy and would have resulted in our having widespread solid economic growth. It is possible that the Great Recession skews current measures and the interactions on a longer term basis are in a sounder position, but I am not so sure given the length of the trends.
In particular, the ability of the wealthy to convert ordinary income to capital return is not fair and working for income should be treated fairly by economic policy.
What is most interesting about many rich people is that they volunteer to give their wealth to charity as they age. But many of them do not want to pay higher taxes that would support paying for early education for the masses. Wouldn't it be better to give them skills so they don't need charity as they age?
I know reality is complex, but I have to conclude this ramble with the one thing I know is different between the U.S. and the countries that rank higher in quality of life societal measures. Universal Health Insurance paid for by individuals and neither tied to employment nor paid by the employer. Obviously we do not have that in the U.S.
What would such a system look like?
Individuals would pay for their own health insurance. It would look like health insurance today but with the government paying some portion of the health insurance rather than the employers.
Health Insurance would be portable as you move from job to job. No More Cobra.
The same Health Insurance coverage across state lines.
National Medical Malpractice policy, no more shopping for jurisdictions, with a focus on payment for incompetence not innocent mistakes. I know that is complicated but I really believe people should not look to or become rich off of insurance claims. Particularly, when a Dr had good intentions. Reform of this should address the situation where tests are given simply to provide defense from malpractice lawsuits.
You can leave the providers of health care in the private market. There is no need to employ everyone as in Socialized Medicine. Competition on being cost competitive there should be encouraged.
So, what am I advocating? Tax policies that level the playing field between capital and labor. Reduce and eliminate as much as possible tax subsidies and use that revenue to reduce tax rates preserving that element of supply side economics. National Health Insurance. And some focus on raising education standards for those in rural and lower income areas. And I am saying vote for moderates of both parties who understand this need for balance.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Why ObamaCare Matters to me Personally
Yesterday, in the middle of Hurricane Sandy blasting us with wind, I found a voice mail from a nice lady in Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield's customer service department informing me that my wife's claims for her continuing chemotherapy were being denied because the cancer was a pre-existing condition. The exclusion for such claims runs for a year and then would be covered.
Now the Affordable Health Care Act and NY State Law already make this illegal if you have had insurance up until the time you became covered by Empire, which we did. However, although we had provided evidence of such insurance during the application process, that evidence of insurance went to the sales group in Roanoke, VA and apparently did not make it into the records of the Claims Department somewhere in NY. I think it is in Albany but who really knows in this modern world of the internet.
More nice ladies told me to fax said evidence of insurance, which I had in a file, and then found the fax in the system and advanced it to the next stage. Bottom line, $36,000 of claims that I will have to pay, if Empire does not, are at stake here. Empire has contrived to stall, delay and deny responsibility for payment of this every step of the way. This process started in July and will still take another 60 days for the provider to receive payment.
What if I hadn't saved the proper paperwork after sending it in with the application? What if I were a senior citizen with diminished mental capacity? This is why we need one universal health insurance system. Our old insurance company had all the information and was paying. Our COBRA period ran out and we were forced into the individual health insurance market with a different insurance company. Yes, Empire will eventually pay but only because we had the sense to save some paperwork.
Clearly, Empire has a process here that tries to protect themselves from paying things they do not have to, but in that process, they spend a lot of employees time on things that only delay payment, not prevent it. That imposes unnecessary costs onto the health care system.
Curascripts has higher working capital charges because Empire has not paid them. The Dr's office has higher working capital charges because they have not been paid. Empire has higher operating expense because they need more customer service representatives to speak with people like me and the claim's review process has more people reviewing the same claim multiple times. The next review of this claim will be the 4th one. All these higher expenses are paid by us in higher insurance premiums and provider charges. None of these expenses would occur under a universal health insurance system.
Romney Ryan want to turn Medicare into a private health insurance system that will place the elderly with their reduced mental capacities into a system that is a challenge for younger people to manage. The only result of this will be some of the elderly (and maybe at some point in life, every elderly person) abstaining from health care because they won't know how to manage the insurance coverage and think they have to pay for it, which they cannot afford to. Then they will end up in the hospital when they collapse. It will not reduce the cost of health care for the system because the last 90 days of life are the most expensive and more people will end up in hospitals for their last days.
We have Universal Health Insurance in Medicare and we should have it for people of all ages.
The current system is a nightmare when you get caught up in it.
Now the Affordable Health Care Act and NY State Law already make this illegal if you have had insurance up until the time you became covered by Empire, which we did. However, although we had provided evidence of such insurance during the application process, that evidence of insurance went to the sales group in Roanoke, VA and apparently did not make it into the records of the Claims Department somewhere in NY. I think it is in Albany but who really knows in this modern world of the internet.
More nice ladies told me to fax said evidence of insurance, which I had in a file, and then found the fax in the system and advanced it to the next stage. Bottom line, $36,000 of claims that I will have to pay, if Empire does not, are at stake here. Empire has contrived to stall, delay and deny responsibility for payment of this every step of the way. This process started in July and will still take another 60 days for the provider to receive payment.
What if I hadn't saved the proper paperwork after sending it in with the application? What if I were a senior citizen with diminished mental capacity? This is why we need one universal health insurance system. Our old insurance company had all the information and was paying. Our COBRA period ran out and we were forced into the individual health insurance market with a different insurance company. Yes, Empire will eventually pay but only because we had the sense to save some paperwork.
Clearly, Empire has a process here that tries to protect themselves from paying things they do not have to, but in that process, they spend a lot of employees time on things that only delay payment, not prevent it. That imposes unnecessary costs onto the health care system.
Curascripts has higher working capital charges because Empire has not paid them. The Dr's office has higher working capital charges because they have not been paid. Empire has higher operating expense because they need more customer service representatives to speak with people like me and the claim's review process has more people reviewing the same claim multiple times. The next review of this claim will be the 4th one. All these higher expenses are paid by us in higher insurance premiums and provider charges. None of these expenses would occur under a universal health insurance system.
Romney Ryan want to turn Medicare into a private health insurance system that will place the elderly with their reduced mental capacities into a system that is a challenge for younger people to manage. The only result of this will be some of the elderly (and maybe at some point in life, every elderly person) abstaining from health care because they won't know how to manage the insurance coverage and think they have to pay for it, which they cannot afford to. Then they will end up in the hospital when they collapse. It will not reduce the cost of health care for the system because the last 90 days of life are the most expensive and more people will end up in hospitals for their last days.
We have Universal Health Insurance in Medicare and we should have it for people of all ages.
The current system is a nightmare when you get caught up in it.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
If Only Obama had said this in Debate 1
Low Taxes do not help the rich. Low taxes help the super rich, the 1%; not the vast majority of those who are well off but depend on a vibrant middle class to buy their goods and services. That middle class has been harmed by the bursting of a real estate bubble caused by a lack of regulation and the hollowing out of our education system and infrastructure.
Link to Robert Frank who inspired that thought
Policies matter. Income inequality in the U.S. has been a long time coming and will take a long time to be overcome. The reasons for this trend are complex and based in a combination of economic comparative advantage with capitalism's ruthless pursuit of the highest return on capital. The only thing government can do is create a set of policies that allow each American to improve their own personal comparative advantage.
The Democratic set of policies is focused on balancing the budget in a fair manner. Yes, we will cut expenses in many places, but we also do so in a manner that preserves the government's ability to meet its obligations to retirement benefits, helping those who need help and spending to support education and infrastructure. To do that, we need to raise revenues from those who can afford to pay.
The Republican set of policies that supposedly will address economic inequality use disproven myths as their basis of truth and they are not true.
"America is the land of opportunity". Not for those who do not benefit from parents who can afford college. When I was a youth, my middle class parents could afford to pay for a private college education without my borrowing any money. Today, I estimate my parents would be making $80,000 to $90,000 or roughly take home of $58,000 after tax and health insurance. How could they afford to pay even the $25,000 that a public college costs let alone the $50,000 that a private school costs? Is it any wonder that students today have thousands of dollars of debt when they graduate and the debt repayment delays their participation in the middle class spending patterns. Now the Community Colleges of America cost less and do a wonderful job preparing people to participate in the economy. But public education must prepare children uniformly to be well prepared for such an education and global competition. That is why democratic policies will continue to provide financial support for education. Most kids cannot borrow the money from their parents, Governor Romney.
"Trickle-down Economics works". If it works so well, why is the comparison of my family's place in time the truth?
"The rich are the job creators". Yes and no, entrepreneurs create jobs, but not every rich person is an entrepreneur. Converting fees earned by a firm for managing money into bonuses that for most Americans are ordinary income taxed at 28% but for such private equity and hedge funds get capital gains treatment at 15% is simply unfair. I support tax reform that equalizes income tax rates for types of activity. No rich person will fail to hire someone who produces incremental return on equity just because the equity return gets taxes at 28%, not 15%. That $ of incremental return will still add to the overall profitability increasing the wealth of the job creator.
"The cost of reducing inequality is so great it will kill the economy". If there is no middle class, where will economic growth come from?
"Markets are self-regulating and efficient". The housing bubble fueled by asset securitization was supposedly sound because the market was self-regulated and efficient. Now we are dealing with the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Never again will Wall Street greed sink the economy and force unprecedented fiscal and monetary policy!
Democrats will improve regulation, we will balance the budget in a fair manner while cutting expenses in a fair manner. Corporate handouts through the tax code will not be immune from cuts.
Joseph Stiglitz who inspired that piece
Democrats are pro-life while believing that each woman has the right to choose whether a particular set of circumstances is right for the upbringing of a child. Abortion should be rare and undertaken only when an individual woman believes she has no other choice. But the government has limited rights to control such choice because time is of the essence when a woman faces such choice and it must be between herself, her family and her doctor.
Republicans claim they are pro-life but their policies focus on only the unborn. Their sanctity of life is focused on the unborn but not protecting that child from being shot by a semi-automatic weapon, or getting medical treatment if their parents cannot afford health insurance. What about the sanctity of life for the elderly for their lifetime of contribution to society and providing them the health care and social security they have paid for?
Why do only the unborn get the right to be protected from government policy? What about the living's right to be protected from government's policy or have government policy protect their sanctity of life. Democrats see the need for balance in all of this. The Republicans want to force women to carry children borne of violent acts by deviant fathers with questionable genetic makeup and then abandon the living to vagaries of the market. That is what the privatization of medicare and social security means. The elderly, when they have diminished mental capacity, will have to figure out how to afford their health care and their investments, when more than a few could not do it well when they were at full mental capacity.
Thomas Friedman Inspiration
While President Obama lost his chance to say all of this in Denver, I hope you will be convinced that his reelection is of critical importance so that economic policy balances the needs of the rich and the middle class, the budget is balanced in a fair manner, that medicare and social security are fixed without conversion from what we know, that Obamacare is implemented without delay and fixed where it needs to be, and that woman's rights to make individual decisions for themselves are respected.
Link to Robert Frank who inspired that thought
Policies matter. Income inequality in the U.S. has been a long time coming and will take a long time to be overcome. The reasons for this trend are complex and based in a combination of economic comparative advantage with capitalism's ruthless pursuit of the highest return on capital. The only thing government can do is create a set of policies that allow each American to improve their own personal comparative advantage.
The Democratic set of policies is focused on balancing the budget in a fair manner. Yes, we will cut expenses in many places, but we also do so in a manner that preserves the government's ability to meet its obligations to retirement benefits, helping those who need help and spending to support education and infrastructure. To do that, we need to raise revenues from those who can afford to pay.
The Republican set of policies that supposedly will address economic inequality use disproven myths as their basis of truth and they are not true.
"America is the land of opportunity". Not for those who do not benefit from parents who can afford college. When I was a youth, my middle class parents could afford to pay for a private college education without my borrowing any money. Today, I estimate my parents would be making $80,000 to $90,000 or roughly take home of $58,000 after tax and health insurance. How could they afford to pay even the $25,000 that a public college costs let alone the $50,000 that a private school costs? Is it any wonder that students today have thousands of dollars of debt when they graduate and the debt repayment delays their participation in the middle class spending patterns. Now the Community Colleges of America cost less and do a wonderful job preparing people to participate in the economy. But public education must prepare children uniformly to be well prepared for such an education and global competition. That is why democratic policies will continue to provide financial support for education. Most kids cannot borrow the money from their parents, Governor Romney.
"Trickle-down Economics works". If it works so well, why is the comparison of my family's place in time the truth?
"The rich are the job creators". Yes and no, entrepreneurs create jobs, but not every rich person is an entrepreneur. Converting fees earned by a firm for managing money into bonuses that for most Americans are ordinary income taxed at 28% but for such private equity and hedge funds get capital gains treatment at 15% is simply unfair. I support tax reform that equalizes income tax rates for types of activity. No rich person will fail to hire someone who produces incremental return on equity just because the equity return gets taxes at 28%, not 15%. That $ of incremental return will still add to the overall profitability increasing the wealth of the job creator.
"The cost of reducing inequality is so great it will kill the economy". If there is no middle class, where will economic growth come from?
"Markets are self-regulating and efficient". The housing bubble fueled by asset securitization was supposedly sound because the market was self-regulated and efficient. Now we are dealing with the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Never again will Wall Street greed sink the economy and force unprecedented fiscal and monetary policy!
Democrats will improve regulation, we will balance the budget in a fair manner while cutting expenses in a fair manner. Corporate handouts through the tax code will not be immune from cuts.
Joseph Stiglitz who inspired that piece
Democrats are pro-life while believing that each woman has the right to choose whether a particular set of circumstances is right for the upbringing of a child. Abortion should be rare and undertaken only when an individual woman believes she has no other choice. But the government has limited rights to control such choice because time is of the essence when a woman faces such choice and it must be between herself, her family and her doctor.
Republicans claim they are pro-life but their policies focus on only the unborn. Their sanctity of life is focused on the unborn but not protecting that child from being shot by a semi-automatic weapon, or getting medical treatment if their parents cannot afford health insurance. What about the sanctity of life for the elderly for their lifetime of contribution to society and providing them the health care and social security they have paid for?
Why do only the unborn get the right to be protected from government policy? What about the living's right to be protected from government's policy or have government policy protect their sanctity of life. Democrats see the need for balance in all of this. The Republicans want to force women to carry children borne of violent acts by deviant fathers with questionable genetic makeup and then abandon the living to vagaries of the market. That is what the privatization of medicare and social security means. The elderly, when they have diminished mental capacity, will have to figure out how to afford their health care and their investments, when more than a few could not do it well when they were at full mental capacity.
Thomas Friedman Inspiration
While President Obama lost his chance to say all of this in Denver, I hope you will be convinced that his reelection is of critical importance so that economic policy balances the needs of the rich and the middle class, the budget is balanced in a fair manner, that medicare and social security are fixed without conversion from what we know, that Obamacare is implemented without delay and fixed where it needs to be, and that woman's rights to make individual decisions for themselves are respected.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
The Tea Party and Typical Islamic Governance
are identical.
They feature absence of pluralism and the prevalence of "rule or die" politics -either my sect or party is in power or I'm dead.
This is dominant political feature in the Arab-Muslim world and the Tea Party.
Thank you Thomas Friedman for pointing this out.
They feature absence of pluralism and the prevalence of "rule or die" politics -either my sect or party is in power or I'm dead.
This is dominant political feature in the Arab-Muslim world and the Tea Party.
Thank you Thomas Friedman for pointing this out.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Obama 2.75 Romney 1.5
Last night goes Obama 1 Romney 0. I might have given Romney a .25 for acknowledging that the sanctions against Iran seem to be working, but he was so incoherent trying to hit his soundbites that he failed to deliver any themes about his grasp of foreign policy. I fear that he does not understand foreign policy or how diplomacy works. I am not sure Romney understands anything beyond power politics and trying that has possibly been the source of Obama's failures.
So overall Obama Biden wins the debates over Romney Ryan 2.75 to 1.5. I don't understand what President Obama was trying to accomplish in Denver and fear that may cost him the election as it seems the undecided voters decided that night and being the light thinkers that they are, stopped evaluating that night.
I will come back to undecided voters, the role of partisanship and Citizens United in my next blog whenever that may come to pass. It is not a relationship that bodes well for lowering partisanship.
So overall Obama Biden wins the debates over Romney Ryan 2.75 to 1.5. I don't understand what President Obama was trying to accomplish in Denver and fear that may cost him the election as it seems the undecided voters decided that night and being the light thinkers that they are, stopped evaluating that night.
I will come back to undecided voters, the role of partisanship and Citizens United in my next blog whenever that may come to pass. It is not a relationship that bodes well for lowering partisanship.
Monday, October 22, 2012
The Danger of Heightened Partisanship
I have been thinking about the closeness of our national elections and the power that gives to a small number of voters to control the overall policy of the country. This is the same dynamic that gave us Prohibition. Most jurisdictions where voters were given the chance to decide whether their political jurisdiction would be wet or dry voted down dry preferring to allow the legal and taxed sale of alcohol.
However, the anti-alcohol voters were single issue voters and if you were not for them, you were against them and the anti-alcohol votes could determine the winner of many elections. Thus, prohibition was passed.
Today, the electorate is roughly divided into 45% cores for each party. The remaining 10% cares about any number of issues and many are single issue voters. Taxes, abortion, women's rights, gun control, environment, retirement benefits and the list goes on.
The Presidential candidates have to both cater to their core and get them motivated to vote and pander to these single issue voters. This means that when we get into a situation where serious choices need to be made, we do not get an honest picture of what either candidate will do because they want to win the election and such victory will be determined by this 10% in the single issue category. So the candidates talk out of both sides of their mouth.
It would be far better to have a spirit of cooperation recognition that the views of the 45% that opposed you need to be respected so that problems can be addressed in a bipartisan manner. Then we can make prudent progress on our challenges and the minorities in the middle would not be dominating the majorities.
As for the remaining undecided voters, they apparently do not care about policies, but rather determine who they will vote for based upon some whim other than policy
However, the anti-alcohol voters were single issue voters and if you were not for them, you were against them and the anti-alcohol votes could determine the winner of many elections. Thus, prohibition was passed.
Today, the electorate is roughly divided into 45% cores for each party. The remaining 10% cares about any number of issues and many are single issue voters. Taxes, abortion, women's rights, gun control, environment, retirement benefits and the list goes on.
The Presidential candidates have to both cater to their core and get them motivated to vote and pander to these single issue voters. This means that when we get into a situation where serious choices need to be made, we do not get an honest picture of what either candidate will do because they want to win the election and such victory will be determined by this 10% in the single issue category. So the candidates talk out of both sides of their mouth.
It would be far better to have a spirit of cooperation recognition that the views of the 45% that opposed you need to be respected so that problems can be addressed in a bipartisan manner. Then we can make prudent progress on our challenges and the minorities in the middle would not be dominating the majorities.
As for the remaining undecided voters, they apparently do not care about policies, but rather determine who they will vote for based upon some whim other than policy
Sunday, October 21, 2012
RIP George McGovern
My 1st losing Presidential vote until Al Gore and I will admit that after the election I went on to ignore Mr. McGovern because he was irrelevant to anything I cared about. And he ran a terrible campaign with the Eagleton mess.
However, as reader of history, I discovered over time what a hero and brave soul he was during WWII flying the maximum number of bomber missions over Germany.
And he was a politician who believed in family values having been married to the same woman for ever and not desiring to be in the limelight for any purposes of self satisfaction. In his obituary I found the following quotes from him in 2011 on the importance of this election to the country and what the Democrats stand for.
However, as reader of history, I discovered over time what a hero and brave soul he was during WWII flying the maximum number of bomber missions over Germany.
And he was a politician who believed in family values having been married to the same woman for ever and not desiring to be in the limelight for any purposes of self satisfaction. In his obituary I found the following quotes from him in 2011 on the importance of this election to the country and what the Democrats stand for.
“We are the party that believes we can’t let the strong kick aside the weak,” Mr. McGovern wrote. “Our party believes that poor children should be as well educated as those from wealthy families. We believe that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and that everyone should have access to health care.”
With the country burdened economically, he added, there has “never been a more critical time in our nation’s history” to rely on those principles.
“We are at a crossroads,” he wrote, “over how the federal government in Washington and state legislatures and city councils across the land allocate their financial resources. Which fork we take will say a lot about Americans and our values.”
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Thursday 10/18 musings
Why didn't either of the 1st two Presidential debates address medicare, medicaid and social security in some detail?
As for the economy, there is an interesting commentary in the 10/13/12 Economist on the differences in productivity measures between those working in urban settings vs those working in rural settings. It has real implications for what government policies should be in place and what people in rural settings should be thinking about for their own life choices and expectations.
And someone should ask Candidate Romney and the GOP Congressmen if they intend to close the Food and Drug Administration. I think they do and I would like to know who would be dealing with this meningitis outbreak caused by a private pharmaceutical company if not for the FDA and the public health services throughout this country. Government oversight is critical to protecting the trusting population from people who will take shortcuts to turn a profit for themselves. There is a 200+ year history of scoundrels trying to make money off of fraudulent medicines and the population needs protection.
As for the economy, there is an interesting commentary in the 10/13/12 Economist on the differences in productivity measures between those working in urban settings vs those working in rural settings. It has real implications for what government policies should be in place and what people in rural settings should be thinking about for their own life choices and expectations.
And someone should ask Candidate Romney and the GOP Congressmen if they intend to close the Food and Drug Administration. I think they do and I would like to know who would be dealing with this meningitis outbreak caused by a private pharmaceutical company if not for the FDA and the public health services throughout this country. Government oversight is critical to protecting the trusting population from people who will take shortcuts to turn a profit for themselves. There is a 200+ year history of scoundrels trying to make money off of fraudulent medicines and the population needs protection.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Obama 1 Romney .25
The totals are now Obama Biden 1.75 Romney Ryan1.5
Romney gets a 1/4 point for some legitimate digs at Obama and for being in favor of affirmative action. That was a beautiful moment when Romney said "get me some female candidates for my jobs so we can have a balanced administration". Will Romney appoint Supreme Court justices who believe likewise?
Obama held Romney's feet to the fire and showed his numbers do not add up. How do you cut tax rates for everybody, eliminate taxes on interest and dividends and capital gains, increase defense spending and pay for it by limiting deductions to $25,000? That does not add up and Romney had no rebuttal for it when pressed. He just said it adds up! This is a guy who knows how to run a business? or was his business asset stripping which doesn't take as much skill.
Also, how does repealing Obamacare reduce the cost of health care to employers and create jobs? Health costs and the cost of health insurance are steadily rising in the current system, the uninsured are still not getting preventive or early care in the current system; Obamacare tries to control these costs and may or may not be successful, but the one thing I know is that there is nothing in the current system that even tries to control these costs. No one who is not hiring because of Obamacare would be hiring without Obamacare. Anyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth.
Obama gets the full 1 point for pointing out what he has accomplished, the challenges he faced upon coming into office and promising to protect the things he cares about.
I may have missed it, but I don't think I heard any questions about Medicare (I tuned in 3 or 4 minutes late)
Romney gets a 1/4 point for some legitimate digs at Obama and for being in favor of affirmative action. That was a beautiful moment when Romney said "get me some female candidates for my jobs so we can have a balanced administration". Will Romney appoint Supreme Court justices who believe likewise?
Also, how does repealing Obamacare reduce the cost of health care to employers and create jobs? Health costs and the cost of health insurance are steadily rising in the current system, the uninsured are still not getting preventive or early care in the current system; Obamacare tries to control these costs and may or may not be successful, but the one thing I know is that there is nothing in the current system that even tries to control these costs. No one who is not hiring because of Obamacare would be hiring without Obamacare. Anyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth.
Obama gets the full 1 point for pointing out what he has accomplished, the challenges he faced upon coming into office and promising to protect the things he cares about.
I may have missed it, but I don't think I heard any questions about Medicare (I tuned in 3 or 4 minutes late)
Sunday, October 14, 2012
The Importance of the Democrat Republican Difference
On this slow Sunday when all three NY teams may well go down to defeat and I may or may not be screaming at the TV (although if I watch one more Curtis Granderson strikeout I may commit hari kari), I am reminded about the real difference between Romney and Obama.
First, Nicholas Kristof highlights the importance of everyone being compelled to buy health insurance. This long time friend of his did not and now his $500,000 plus cancer treatment bill is being absorbed by the system. Romney refuses to say how he will control costs but he is bound and determined to end Obamacare and not try to find a way to end the problem of the uninsured. We cannot control health care expenditures without ending the problem of the uninsured. The uninsured get sicker because they don't go to the Dr sooner. Early treatment of cancer might cost $100,000 and be successful so the individual returns to a productive life and pays back some of that expense through their health insurance premiums. Late treatment costs as much as $500,000 and more potentially and likely results in death with no repayment from the individual. And when such expensive treatment is not paid for, somewhere else in the system prices are raised and we all pay for it.
Link to Kristof article
There is also an article in the Times about how the 1%'s focus on preserving their wealth through a focus on lower taxes is destroying upward mobility. And there is an article about a hard working woman who finds her profits going down because her city's economy is in a long term decline and she doesn't know what she can do to reverse it. Both stories reflect political realities, but neither brings into the discussion the real issue at play here.
Link to "The Self Destruction of the 1%
Link to 2nd story
The real issue is globalization of everything. The cost of doing business in the U.S. is too high relative to the rest of the world. Costs are rising in the rest of the world and eventually, this will reverse and jobs will come back to the U.S. but it will not help today's workers who cannot compete in the Global Economy. So what can be done for these people?
There is no magic bullet. But universal health care would be a good start. If we control the cost of health care, there will be more $ left over in employed people's wallets to spend on something else. That will create jobs through the multiplier effect.
Spending $ to update our decaying infrastructure would also be a good start to employ construction workers who are not working. This will create job through the multiplier effect.
Making sure our schools educated people to compete in the Global Economy is critical as well. Support community colleges. They are the market answer to control the ever rising price of college.
But the fiscal deficit must be cured over the intermediate term or debt will swamp the ability of the government to meet its obligations. This means some form of Simpson Bowles must be passed. This means revenues must be raised. Romney has said he will not raise revenues. Obama will raise revenues in a fair manner. The 1% are competing in the Global Economy and doing fine. They can afford to pay more. In fact, the top 10% or 20% of the population is competing in the Global Economy and doing well enough to pay more in taxes. But there must be expenditure control as well. Simpson Bowles suggest a mix of 1/3 revenue 2/3 expenditure cuts. Something in that neighborhood is the right answer.
Romney's policies will be heartless. When people do not have health insurance, they make poor decisions. Only by preserving Obamacare will we proceed down a productive path to finding balanced economic growth and preserving the social mobility contract that is so important to the psychology of the country.
First, Nicholas Kristof highlights the importance of everyone being compelled to buy health insurance. This long time friend of his did not and now his $500,000 plus cancer treatment bill is being absorbed by the system. Romney refuses to say how he will control costs but he is bound and determined to end Obamacare and not try to find a way to end the problem of the uninsured. We cannot control health care expenditures without ending the problem of the uninsured. The uninsured get sicker because they don't go to the Dr sooner. Early treatment of cancer might cost $100,000 and be successful so the individual returns to a productive life and pays back some of that expense through their health insurance premiums. Late treatment costs as much as $500,000 and more potentially and likely results in death with no repayment from the individual. And when such expensive treatment is not paid for, somewhere else in the system prices are raised and we all pay for it.
Link to Kristof article
There is also an article in the Times about how the 1%'s focus on preserving their wealth through a focus on lower taxes is destroying upward mobility. And there is an article about a hard working woman who finds her profits going down because her city's economy is in a long term decline and she doesn't know what she can do to reverse it. Both stories reflect political realities, but neither brings into the discussion the real issue at play here.
Link to "The Self Destruction of the 1%
Link to 2nd story
The real issue is globalization of everything. The cost of doing business in the U.S. is too high relative to the rest of the world. Costs are rising in the rest of the world and eventually, this will reverse and jobs will come back to the U.S. but it will not help today's workers who cannot compete in the Global Economy. So what can be done for these people?
There is no magic bullet. But universal health care would be a good start. If we control the cost of health care, there will be more $ left over in employed people's wallets to spend on something else. That will create jobs through the multiplier effect.
Spending $ to update our decaying infrastructure would also be a good start to employ construction workers who are not working. This will create job through the multiplier effect.
Making sure our schools educated people to compete in the Global Economy is critical as well. Support community colleges. They are the market answer to control the ever rising price of college.
But the fiscal deficit must be cured over the intermediate term or debt will swamp the ability of the government to meet its obligations. This means some form of Simpson Bowles must be passed. This means revenues must be raised. Romney has said he will not raise revenues. Obama will raise revenues in a fair manner. The 1% are competing in the Global Economy and doing fine. They can afford to pay more. In fact, the top 10% or 20% of the population is competing in the Global Economy and doing well enough to pay more in taxes. But there must be expenditure control as well. Simpson Bowles suggest a mix of 1/3 revenue 2/3 expenditure cuts. Something in that neighborhood is the right answer.
Romney's policies will be heartless. When people do not have health insurance, they make poor decisions. Only by preserving Obamacare will we proceed down a productive path to finding balanced economic growth and preserving the social mobility contract that is so important to the psychology of the country.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
NIMBY's Please Be Realistic
After the modern Republican Party, nothing gets my dander up more than NIMBY's. Now I am not referring to all things here; as even I will agree that a nuclear power plant 30 miles from 12 mm people does not make sense and even I will agree that the environment needs to be looked after. I am an environmentalist. But we need energy and we need economic development. Without either, we do not have employment opportunities for those who need work.
This means we need to drill for energy, not say no to everything as some do. Just make sure they drill cleanly and safely. Responsible drillers do that. If you take the highest royalty check from some no name outfit, you have only yourself to blame for not dealing with a reputable firm.
We need pipelines to transport that energy, not say no to a pipeline that will be underground somewhere near you. Oh boo hoo to the family somewhere in upstate New York where their bucolic horse pasture was going to have a gas pipeline buried underneath it. Move the bloody horses during construction, make them replant grass, and move the horses back and get over it. You are being paid for your trouble.
You can not be against drilling and pipelines and against wind farms on ridges or solar panels in your neighborhood. Some greens are against all of this. What do they want to do? Ride horses and live by candle light at night huddled around a wood fire in the fireplace for warmth in the winter. That economy ceased to exit 100 years ago and there is no going back. If you want that, buy a farm and live however you want to.
Finally, what set this off today. There is a closed golf course in White Plains, NY. Like all Westchester golf courses, it is a lovely natural setting that the local wild life can frolic on. The golf course failed because the economy for golf courses changed and no wanted to buy it as a golf course. The City of White Plains thought about it, but a minority of its citizens golf and there is already a county owned golf course in White Plains, so it was not seen as a pressing need for city expenditure. Particularly, when the French American School of New York wants to buy the land, build their school needs on it and preserve the rest as open space. Now some people want the city to buy the land and build a park. It would be nice to have this as a park, but the City really doesn't have the money to buy the land and the owners would like to get what they can for the land and the FASNY is offering a nice sum for the land.
Yes, fans of this blog, some residents of White Plains do not want the FASNY to get this land and operate their school on this fabulous property for a school. Who in their right mind would not want something like FASNY to take over a vast property and maintain most of it as green space? The alternative is a developer buying it and building estates on 1 to 2 acres. That would add to the property taxes (which every municipality needs), but the green space would be eliminated. These NIMBY's are not being realistic and they should be. We all need to be realistic.
Go FASNY and Boo to the No FASNY sign holders.
This means we need to drill for energy, not say no to everything as some do. Just make sure they drill cleanly and safely. Responsible drillers do that. If you take the highest royalty check from some no name outfit, you have only yourself to blame for not dealing with a reputable firm.
We need pipelines to transport that energy, not say no to a pipeline that will be underground somewhere near you. Oh boo hoo to the family somewhere in upstate New York where their bucolic horse pasture was going to have a gas pipeline buried underneath it. Move the bloody horses during construction, make them replant grass, and move the horses back and get over it. You are being paid for your trouble.
You can not be against drilling and pipelines and against wind farms on ridges or solar panels in your neighborhood. Some greens are against all of this. What do they want to do? Ride horses and live by candle light at night huddled around a wood fire in the fireplace for warmth in the winter. That economy ceased to exit 100 years ago and there is no going back. If you want that, buy a farm and live however you want to.
Finally, what set this off today. There is a closed golf course in White Plains, NY. Like all Westchester golf courses, it is a lovely natural setting that the local wild life can frolic on. The golf course failed because the economy for golf courses changed and no wanted to buy it as a golf course. The City of White Plains thought about it, but a minority of its citizens golf and there is already a county owned golf course in White Plains, so it was not seen as a pressing need for city expenditure. Particularly, when the French American School of New York wants to buy the land, build their school needs on it and preserve the rest as open space. Now some people want the city to buy the land and build a park. It would be nice to have this as a park, but the City really doesn't have the money to buy the land and the owners would like to get what they can for the land and the FASNY is offering a nice sum for the land.
Yes, fans of this blog, some residents of White Plains do not want the FASNY to get this land and operate their school on this fabulous property for a school. Who in their right mind would not want something like FASNY to take over a vast property and maintain most of it as green space? The alternative is a developer buying it and building estates on 1 to 2 acres. That would add to the property taxes (which every municipality needs), but the green space would be eliminated. These NIMBY's are not being realistic and they should be. We all need to be realistic.
Go FASNY and Boo to the No FASNY sign holders.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Biden .75 Ryan .25
I would have given Joe a 1 but neither RSL nor I could stand his smirking. Come on, you are over 60 and can't you control that sort of thing. Now I will admit both RSL and I laughed out loud immediately upon Ryan's statement that the GOP Congress tried to be non-partisian. That deserved more than a smirk upon reply.
But all in all, I thought Biden did a good job of describing how the Democrats would conduct themselves over the next 4 years and what they would try to accomplish. I was glad Biden went into the importance of the Supreme Court appointments over the next 4 years. I think I will bump him up to a .75 for that (he was a .50 before I wrote that).
I give Ryan a .25 because he clarified Romney's "if you are around 60, you will get your medicare" to include 59 year olds like me. (actually he returned to the standard of 55 year olds).
Actually, RedStateVT, maybe you should think about a vote for Obama so you can get to the right side of 55 before anything changes.
But all in all, I thought Biden did a good job of describing how the Democrats would conduct themselves over the next 4 years and what they would try to accomplish. I was glad Biden went into the importance of the Supreme Court appointments over the next 4 years. I think I will bump him up to a .75 for that (he was a .50 before I wrote that).
I give Ryan a .25 because he clarified Romney's "if you are around 60, you will get your medicare" to include 59 year olds like me. (actually he returned to the standard of 55 year olds).
Actually, RedStateVT, maybe you should think about a vote for Obama so you can get to the right side of 55 before anything changes.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
The GOP Has No Clothes On Embassy Security
"The purpose of the pre-election hearing, presumably, is to embarrass the administration for inadequate diplomatic security. But Issa seems unaware of the irony that diplomatic security is inadequate partly because of budget cuts forced by his fellow Republicans in Congress."
"For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for theState Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected."
From the Washington Post
Why Don't Business People Care About National Security
I am amazed that telecom executives are not alarmed by the facts surrounding Huawei Technologies and ZTE Inc. These two Chinese companies manufacture and install critical infrastructure hardware and software for telecommunications. The need for security that prevents private phone calls and data streams from being intercepted and used by others is critical and essential. The manufacturer is the one point in the chain where something can be installed and not easily findable. Can U.S. telecom users afford the risk that the Chinese are intercepting streams of information?
The short answer is no. And Huawei is suspect. It is a private company owned by its employees and conducts no disclosure that would be reflective of an open company. And what kind of company in China is owned by its employees? A socialist one? A State owned one? There is no concept of ESOP in China. What benevolence on the part of the initial capital providers would have prompted giving away massive amounts of wealth to workers? There is no evidence of such wealth amongst the workers and certainly there would be at least anecdotal evidence of the workers attaining wealth by working at Huawei.
My conclusion is that the Chinese government or the Army owns Huawei and we cannot trust them to provide US buyers with clean equipment and software. I don't understand why Telecom executives in Kentucky would want to save money and install suspect equipment.
And I do understand why the U.S. Congressman are concerned about this. I am concerned about this.
The short answer is no. And Huawei is suspect. It is a private company owned by its employees and conducts no disclosure that would be reflective of an open company. And what kind of company in China is owned by its employees? A socialist one? A State owned one? There is no concept of ESOP in China. What benevolence on the part of the initial capital providers would have prompted giving away massive amounts of wealth to workers? There is no evidence of such wealth amongst the workers and certainly there would be at least anecdotal evidence of the workers attaining wealth by working at Huawei.
My conclusion is that the Chinese government or the Army owns Huawei and we cannot trust them to provide US buyers with clean equipment and software. I don't understand why Telecom executives in Kentucky would want to save money and install suspect equipment.
And I do understand why the U.S. Congressman are concerned about this. I am concerned about this.
Someone can explain President's Debate Failure
I know no one is perfect, but this does explain President's lack of salesmanship on the Affordable Health Care Act and Simpson Bowles.
Link
If Obama losses this election, it will be truly ironic when history looks back and sees that the two President's who promoted women's rights most actively, Clinton and Obama, generated a Supreme Court that took away a woman's right to choose by conducting themselves in such a manner that two Republican Presidents were elected. Clinton with the Lewinsky Affair that cost Gore the election and Obama by not explaining to the electorate the positive reasons to vote for him.
So Bush II got to appoint Alito and Roberts, and Romney may get to appoint who knows who, but we know whoever they are will vote to overturn Roe v Wade.
Link
If Obama losses this election, it will be truly ironic when history looks back and sees that the two President's who promoted women's rights most actively, Clinton and Obama, generated a Supreme Court that took away a woman's right to choose by conducting themselves in such a manner that two Republican Presidents were elected. Clinton with the Lewinsky Affair that cost Gore the election and Obama by not explaining to the electorate the positive reasons to vote for him.
So Bush II got to appoint Alito and Roberts, and Romney may get to appoint who knows who, but we know whoever they are will vote to overturn Roe v Wade.
Islam needs to show outrage
I know I have no Islamic readers so this is just me spinning words into the digital world.
It is truly outrageous that the Taliban would shoot a 14 year old girl for advocating education for girls and some decent level of rights for women. And since this occurred in Pakistan which has had numerous women in senior roles of government, you would expect this to be an accepted fact of life at the policy level.
But there is no outrage directed at the Taliban by the Pakistani government for this shooting. There is no outrage in any other part of the Islamic world. While I might understand the lack of such outrage in the Gulf States where women have no rights, I expect more from Muslims in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia. They need to show they disapprove of such actions and the scorn in brings down on the Muslim Religion by people who have other faiths.
It is truly outrageous that the Taliban would shoot a 14 year old girl for advocating education for girls and some decent level of rights for women. And since this occurred in Pakistan which has had numerous women in senior roles of government, you would expect this to be an accepted fact of life at the policy level.
But there is no outrage directed at the Taliban by the Pakistani government for this shooting. There is no outrage in any other part of the Islamic world. While I might understand the lack of such outrage in the Gulf States where women have no rights, I expect more from Muslims in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia. They need to show they disapprove of such actions and the scorn in brings down on the Muslim Religion by people who have other faiths.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Romney 1 Obama 0
Of course, a campaign is more than one debate, but even I thought Romney came across better in tone and content. The problem with the content was that he turned his back on what he has been campaigning on. He sounded moderate so he sounded reasonable and came across well.
However, Romney promised not to cut defense spending, restore $749 bn to Medicare, not raise taxes on the middle class while cutting tax rates on the wealthy, not change Medicare for anyone over 60 (I am 59 and now find myself where the 54 year olds used to be when 55 was the magic age for such changes) and a few other promises. All-in-all, if you added up what he proposed for the budget, he is not going to balance the budget any better than he portrays that Obama would. You can't do all this things and lower the deficit. So we don't know what Romney stands for and my mind is not changed.
I will admit I missed the 1st 25 minutes because we were watching a Netflix disc with a BBC show called The Hour. I highly recommend this show. It is only 2 discs with 3 hours on each one. Very interesting plot with decent acting. I also channel surfed to keep up with the Yankees Red Sox so I may have missed President Obama make a compelling counterpoint, but that is what I thought he missed doing and why I think most people feel he lost the debate.
However, Romney promised not to cut defense spending, restore $749 bn to Medicare, not raise taxes on the middle class while cutting tax rates on the wealthy, not change Medicare for anyone over 60 (I am 59 and now find myself where the 54 year olds used to be when 55 was the magic age for such changes) and a few other promises. All-in-all, if you added up what he proposed for the budget, he is not going to balance the budget any better than he portrays that Obama would. You can't do all this things and lower the deficit. So we don't know what Romney stands for and my mind is not changed.
I will admit I missed the 1st 25 minutes because we were watching a Netflix disc with a BBC show called The Hour. I highly recommend this show. It is only 2 discs with 3 hours on each one. Very interesting plot with decent acting. I also channel surfed to keep up with the Yankees Red Sox so I may have missed President Obama make a compelling counterpoint, but that is what I thought he missed doing and why I think most people feel he lost the debate.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
71% of Republicans Believe Polling is Biased Against Them
This is what makes me so angry toward the GOP today. Remember, I used to be a Republican and this anger is what made me start this blog and why I cannot entertain voting for a Republican today.
As if it were not enough to claim the media is biased against the GOP (notwithstanding Fox News, and syndicated radio shows), now Republicans believe the polling organizations steer the results in favor of the Democrats somehow. While I will admit that some organizations are clearly biased (Fox News, MSNBC), there are many that are not (CNN, the major newspapers away from their editorial pages, the news magazines).
Why can't Republicans accept the fact that somewhere between 50% & 55% of the voters are rejecting their policies in a significant enough way to vote for the Democrats and the GOP needs to compromise their policies with Democratic policies to get this fiscal picture stabilized and on a path to lower deficits?
Of course, none of this should surprise me because 31% of Republicans believe President Obama is a member of the Muslim faith. When ignorance is so widespread in a political party, one cannot expect rationality to be at the forefront.
Politics is the art of the possible and that is reality. Republicans apparently do not believe that and it makes me very angry.
As if it were not enough to claim the media is biased against the GOP (notwithstanding Fox News, and syndicated radio shows), now Republicans believe the polling organizations steer the results in favor of the Democrats somehow. While I will admit that some organizations are clearly biased (Fox News, MSNBC), there are many that are not (CNN, the major newspapers away from their editorial pages, the news magazines).
Why can't Republicans accept the fact that somewhere between 50% & 55% of the voters are rejecting their policies in a significant enough way to vote for the Democrats and the GOP needs to compromise their policies with Democratic policies to get this fiscal picture stabilized and on a path to lower deficits?
Of course, none of this should surprise me because 31% of Republicans believe President Obama is a member of the Muslim faith. When ignorance is so widespread in a political party, one cannot expect rationality to be at the forefront.
Politics is the art of the possible and that is reality. Republicans apparently do not believe that and it makes me very angry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)