They say gun controls don't work because (i) there are already 300 million guns in the country, (ii) places with gun control laws still have killings - Chicago being example 1, and (iii) any controls on any guns are violations of the 2nd Amendment.
Well, mass killers don't seem to exhibit mental illness before they embark on their missions, so mental health limitation on gun ownership will not prevent anything, and many of these mass killers seem to like to buy their guns new, so limiting access to assault rifles would have some beneficial impact.
As I have said before, we need the same regulations everywhere because bad people buy guns where there are loose regulations and take them to places with tough regulations. The NRA says everyone should have a gun for self-protection. But isn't that what Chicago gang members do and look at the innocent people who die. The latest is a 15 year old girl who performed at the Inauguration and was just standing under a cover in a park while it rained. She was an honors student, athlete, and majorette with a bright future. Should she have had a gun to protect herself? Would a bunch of teenagers having fun hiding from the rain even notice that someone was going to spray them with bullets? Should they have started firing back before the other guy shot them? Would they have been charged and convicted of a crime if they did so?
Limiting access to weapons does not deny the right to own weapons under a process that controls access and distribution. You can still hunt, protect yourself and family and go to shooting ranges for fun with the non-automatic weapons. This endless distribution of guns like they are hot television sets needs to stop.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Efforts to Change Electoral College Allocations
I hate the idea of having a year ending in 13. Many buildings don't label that floor as 13 because it carries the connotation of bad luck, even though the 14th floor is the 13th floor. Too bad it couldn't be 2012+1.
The Economist made a good point this week. National referendums are a good way to solve important constitutional issues and then move on. Just think of the progress that would make in getting Congress to focus on the necessary choices to be made in balancing the budget for the next 30 years.
And finally, since Bush II won the 2000 election in the electoral college while Gore won the popular vote, I have been uncomfortable with the idea of the electoral college. However, I have not been an advocate for changing the electoral college as such a change in the Constitution would no doubt be difficult to pass. Discomfort is no reason to become opposed to something that had good reasons for being invented in the beginning.
However, if some states are going to devolve the concept of winner takes all for a given state into a division of electoral college votes based on Congressional Districts, while other states maintain a winner take all approach, we are moving the actual determination of the president even further away from the concept of each vote will count the same. In Virginia for some reason, rural districts have fewer voters than urban districts, and from somewhere, I got the idea that is not unusual across the country.
So if this trend continues, I think I will have to become an advocate for doing away with the Electoral College because it will have become something manipulated by the political parties when elections should never be determined by manipulation.
For the record here, the 2000 Presidential election popular votes were: Gore 50,999,997 Bush 50,456,002 Nadar 2,882,955.
Just think if you were one of the 97,000 Floridians who voted for Ralph Nadar. Bush won by 537 votes. Because of those !@#$%^&*() bleeping LIBERALS we have made no progress on Global Warming, we got an UNFUNDED and BORROWED WAR ON TERROR, we got a Supreme Court that has DESTROYED campaign finance law and (I will guarantee you that every female in that 97,000 is a supporter of a woman's right to choose), a Supreme Court that could very well over turn Roe v Wade. I am more angry with the 97,000 than any of the 50,456,002 because it proves that educated liberals can be really stupid when it comes to voting and the policies they advocate.
So I say to liberals, GET REALISTIC. Support a centrist path that the country can afford, while maintaining the core social safety net that everyone pays for and benefits from. And that includes you AARP. You said during the election you supported a balanced approach to entitlement reform, but now your emails are just say no to any changes in benefits and raise taxes to pay for everything. THAT WILL NOT WORK! The nation cannot have its cake and eat it too. The sooner both political parties start to tell that to the nation, the sooner we will get ourselves on the right path.
The Economist made a good point this week. National referendums are a good way to solve important constitutional issues and then move on. Just think of the progress that would make in getting Congress to focus on the necessary choices to be made in balancing the budget for the next 30 years.
And finally, since Bush II won the 2000 election in the electoral college while Gore won the popular vote, I have been uncomfortable with the idea of the electoral college. However, I have not been an advocate for changing the electoral college as such a change in the Constitution would no doubt be difficult to pass. Discomfort is no reason to become opposed to something that had good reasons for being invented in the beginning.
However, if some states are going to devolve the concept of winner takes all for a given state into a division of electoral college votes based on Congressional Districts, while other states maintain a winner take all approach, we are moving the actual determination of the president even further away from the concept of each vote will count the same. In Virginia for some reason, rural districts have fewer voters than urban districts, and from somewhere, I got the idea that is not unusual across the country.
So if this trend continues, I think I will have to become an advocate for doing away with the Electoral College because it will have become something manipulated by the political parties when elections should never be determined by manipulation.
For the record here, the 2000 Presidential election popular votes were: Gore 50,999,997 Bush 50,456,002 Nadar 2,882,955.
Just think if you were one of the 97,000 Floridians who voted for Ralph Nadar. Bush won by 537 votes. Because of those !@#$%^&*() bleeping LIBERALS we have made no progress on Global Warming, we got an UNFUNDED and BORROWED WAR ON TERROR, we got a Supreme Court that has DESTROYED campaign finance law and (I will guarantee you that every female in that 97,000 is a supporter of a woman's right to choose), a Supreme Court that could very well over turn Roe v Wade. I am more angry with the 97,000 than any of the 50,456,002 because it proves that educated liberals can be really stupid when it comes to voting and the policies they advocate.
So I say to liberals, GET REALISTIC. Support a centrist path that the country can afford, while maintaining the core social safety net that everyone pays for and benefits from. And that includes you AARP. You said during the election you supported a balanced approach to entitlement reform, but now your emails are just say no to any changes in benefits and raise taxes to pay for everything. THAT WILL NOT WORK! The nation cannot have its cake and eat it too. The sooner both political parties start to tell that to the nation, the sooner we will get ourselves on the right path.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
What conservatives need to address on health care
Most of the conservatives thought pieces this week have been ranting on health the President's inaugural speech was a liberal manifesto. Specifically, his defense of Social Security, Medicare and a belief in Global Warming.
As usual for this blog, I wish to comment on health care; the cost of which is bankrupting the nation as the baby boomers retire and high cost life extending procedures will be demanded by almost anyone in need of such procedures. Not everyone, though. I think some cancer patients will prefer an end with dignity rather than subject themselves to endless brutal chemo-therapy. But some will want that in the hope there is a worthwhile life after chemo. And most people want to decide this for themselves and do not want an insurance company or government panel to decide that for them.
So the two issues that the conservatives need to address in their plan, for holding down the cost of health care for the taxpayers, are: (i) how do you make health insurance a group cost for individuals and (ii) how do you manage end of life care?
Just turning the whole thing over the private sector insurance companies that have failed on both of these issues is not a believable answer.
My answer is to separate health insurance from employment. I am now part of a small business group, thank god, and my cost of health insurance went from $36,000 a year in the individual market to $20,000 in the group market, which is what it was when I was employed by a real company. (All those values include premiums, deductibles and co-pay estimates.) We are the same two people and the only difference in the concept of group membership. It is not right that being employed is the only path to group discounts. Individuals add up to a lot of people which would constitute a group. The GOP ignores this issue and most people who think about this in the center and on the left want a single payer health insurance plan. If the GOP wants to win on this issue, this needs to be addressed because you will never get people to give up their Medicare without convincing them they will be in a group and get credit for the money they paid in over the years.
As for end of life care, the GOP made death panels an evil concept when the Affordable Health Care Act only called for counseling. I read a book written by a Dr in charge of end of life care at Dartmouth Hitchcock where he described how such Doctors do their job and encourage people to find the path that is best for their care without spending needless amounts on treatments that will end with a death anyway. Part and parcel of this is ending fee for service. There is nothing in the GOP plan addressing this except to turn it over to Insurance Companies that created the fee for service concept and have a bad reputation for denial of treatments.
These issues need to be addressed if the GOP is to win over the citizens of this country.
As usual for this blog, I wish to comment on health care; the cost of which is bankrupting the nation as the baby boomers retire and high cost life extending procedures will be demanded by almost anyone in need of such procedures. Not everyone, though. I think some cancer patients will prefer an end with dignity rather than subject themselves to endless brutal chemo-therapy. But some will want that in the hope there is a worthwhile life after chemo. And most people want to decide this for themselves and do not want an insurance company or government panel to decide that for them.
So the two issues that the conservatives need to address in their plan, for holding down the cost of health care for the taxpayers, are: (i) how do you make health insurance a group cost for individuals and (ii) how do you manage end of life care?
Just turning the whole thing over the private sector insurance companies that have failed on both of these issues is not a believable answer.
My answer is to separate health insurance from employment. I am now part of a small business group, thank god, and my cost of health insurance went from $36,000 a year in the individual market to $20,000 in the group market, which is what it was when I was employed by a real company. (All those values include premiums, deductibles and co-pay estimates.) We are the same two people and the only difference in the concept of group membership. It is not right that being employed is the only path to group discounts. Individuals add up to a lot of people which would constitute a group. The GOP ignores this issue and most people who think about this in the center and on the left want a single payer health insurance plan. If the GOP wants to win on this issue, this needs to be addressed because you will never get people to give up their Medicare without convincing them they will be in a group and get credit for the money they paid in over the years.
As for end of life care, the GOP made death panels an evil concept when the Affordable Health Care Act only called for counseling. I read a book written by a Dr in charge of end of life care at Dartmouth Hitchcock where he described how such Doctors do their job and encourage people to find the path that is best for their care without spending needless amounts on treatments that will end with a death anyway. Part and parcel of this is ending fee for service. There is nothing in the GOP plan addressing this except to turn it over to Insurance Companies that created the fee for service concept and have a bad reputation for denial of treatments.
These issues need to be addressed if the GOP is to win over the citizens of this country.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Meritocracy & the Political Center
2 op-ed's today are well worth reading. The Professionals say it better than I have been.
Link to the Political Center
Link to Meritocracy
Link to the Political Center
Link to Meritocracy
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The Edge of Chaos
I once read a book, since discarded in my two downsizings (and I cannot recall the exact name), about travels through the borders of cultures where chaos either existed or potentially existed. We now find Al Qaeda continuing to surface in different parts of this ether because there is very little law in this ether.
The book's forecast was very accurate. It started in West Africa where Arab culture meets African in the Southern Sahara and northern grasslands of sub-saharan Africa and then continued through Egypt and the Middle Eat into the Caucasus's around Iran and into all the 'Stans. It finished in parts of Indonesia and the Philippines, where thankfully, now, for the most part policies are in place which may reduce the risk of future conflict.
But in the rest of the areas traveled and described, there is very little effective, democratic, or enlightened society and it is not surprising that is where the War on Terror has migrated to. Until there is effective government in these places, Al Qaeda types will find a home they can control with force and bring misery upon those who live there and those who must seek these criminals out to end their reign of terror.
The book's forecast was very accurate. It started in West Africa where Arab culture meets African in the Southern Sahara and northern grasslands of sub-saharan Africa and then continued through Egypt and the Middle Eat into the Caucasus's around Iran and into all the 'Stans. It finished in parts of Indonesia and the Philippines, where thankfully, now, for the most part policies are in place which may reduce the risk of future conflict.
But in the rest of the areas traveled and described, there is very little effective, democratic, or enlightened society and it is not surprising that is where the War on Terror has migrated to. Until there is effective government in these places, Al Qaeda types will find a home they can control with force and bring misery upon those who live there and those who must seek these criminals out to end their reign of terror.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Sunday Musings 1/20
I trolled the comments sections of various news articles this past week on gun control legislation and was saddened by the generally low level of intellectual content in comments posted by either side of the argument. This is why I generally don't read such comments, but in this case, the potential legislation says so much about what we value as a society that I could not help myself because people who comment are probably people who vote. Our governments are elected by a lot of people who come across as not being very smart.
I have been thinking a lot about the issue of management skills. There is an article in today's NY Times about how President Obama is not a very good manager and doesn't seem to hire good managers. That is not only true of the President but also society as a whole. I am a terrific manager, but the only people who know that are people I have worked with in the past, and it is a very difficult skill to accurately portray on a resume. And forget about being able to discuss it in a job interview where the only two things that matter are (i) have you done that specific job before and (ii) does your personality fit the organization. Thus, many terrific managers over 50 can't find level appropriate work despite there being a general shortage of good managers in many places. I think this has been true for a long time, and I cannot think of a solution.
I have been thinking a lot about the issue of management skills. There is an article in today's NY Times about how President Obama is not a very good manager and doesn't seem to hire good managers. That is not only true of the President but also society as a whole. I am a terrific manager, but the only people who know that are people I have worked with in the past, and it is a very difficult skill to accurately portray on a resume. And forget about being able to discuss it in a job interview where the only two things that matter are (i) have you done that specific job before and (ii) does your personality fit the organization. Thus, many terrific managers over 50 can't find level appropriate work despite there being a general shortage of good managers in many places. I think this has been true for a long time, and I cannot think of a solution.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
What is a Proper Balance?
I have to admit that I favor President Obama's proposal to limit military style automatic weapons and gun magazines and am glad that NY State has passed such a law. We don't want just anybody to have shoulder fired missiles or bazookas, why would we want just anybody to have a military assault rifle?
We cannot have 1st responders worried about people assassinating them when they get somewhere (like they were in Rochester). We need to minimize the risk of automatic weapons killing many more people who might otherwise escape if only non-automatic weapons were available.
And I, for one, do not want to be anywhere near a private citizen pulling out his concealed revolver to defend citizens from another armed person? Stray bullets flying around rarely fail to hit an innocent person.
But I do recognize the right of every individual to own a hunting rifle and I reluctantly recognize the right of every individual to defend themselves in their home, although that leads to many unfortunate incidents every year.
What we must have is a systemic solution for is the following:
1) Preventing people from going to more liberal gun rights states and bringing illegal weapons back to more conservative gun rights states.
2) Preventing people who cannot handle weapons responsibly from having access to them. This might have prevented all 3 Colorado shootings.
3) Because people's mental makeup changes over time and family members mental makeup can change over time, we must limit access to automatic weapons and their large magazines. This is the only thing that would have surely reduced the number of dead from the Connecticut, Virginia Tech and Colorado shootings.
Unfortunately, nothing done now will have any immediate effect because the existing hardware will float around the country for the next 50 years at least. But at least, we will start to make progress.
I welcome any counter points from my friends who are gun owners.
We cannot have 1st responders worried about people assassinating them when they get somewhere (like they were in Rochester). We need to minimize the risk of automatic weapons killing many more people who might otherwise escape if only non-automatic weapons were available.
And I, for one, do not want to be anywhere near a private citizen pulling out his concealed revolver to defend citizens from another armed person? Stray bullets flying around rarely fail to hit an innocent person.
But I do recognize the right of every individual to own a hunting rifle and I reluctantly recognize the right of every individual to defend themselves in their home, although that leads to many unfortunate incidents every year.
What we must have is a systemic solution for is the following:
1) Preventing people from going to more liberal gun rights states and bringing illegal weapons back to more conservative gun rights states.
2) Preventing people who cannot handle weapons responsibly from having access to them. This might have prevented all 3 Colorado shootings.
3) Because people's mental makeup changes over time and family members mental makeup can change over time, we must limit access to automatic weapons and their large magazines. This is the only thing that would have surely reduced the number of dead from the Connecticut, Virginia Tech and Colorado shootings.
Unfortunately, nothing done now will have any immediate effect because the existing hardware will float around the country for the next 50 years at least. But at least, we will start to make progress.
I welcome any counter points from my friends who are gun owners.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Things All D.C. Politicians Should Remember
I heard a great line in a nice little movie we watched last night. "Anger soaks up intelligence"
I could also add to that "Panic results in stupid actions" and "Failure to offer respect to others is not a path to opening communication"
And finally a basic rule of negotiation with parties you need something from: "Analyze what the other side wants, and where you can give on those points, so you can achieve as much as possible on your overall objectives"
We have a divided government and both sides need to walk away with something they can claim as a victory. I am not impressed with the way any leading politician in D.C. is behaving in 2013 despite my relief that we did find some revenue. We have not solved the problem sufficiently.
For those interested in the movie, it was from Netflix and called: Adoration
I could also add to that "Panic results in stupid actions" and "Failure to offer respect to others is not a path to opening communication"
And finally a basic rule of negotiation with parties you need something from: "Analyze what the other side wants, and where you can give on those points, so you can achieve as much as possible on your overall objectives"
We have a divided government and both sides need to walk away with something they can claim as a victory. I am not impressed with the way any leading politician in D.C. is behaving in 2013 despite my relief that we did find some revenue. We have not solved the problem sufficiently.
For those interested in the movie, it was from Netflix and called: Adoration
Friday, January 11, 2013
Why does the GOP eat their own?
I have been busy with work, so reading a bit less and not being so angry with the Political World. However, I was struck this week by an article on John Boehner and the reaction of some Tea Party types to his leadership. They called him a RINO.
Now if John Boehner is a Republican in Name Only, how are the GOP every going to win the Presidency again? How are they going to achieve some influence over positive policy movements as opposed to simply blocking things by saying NO?
The GOP has real influence; they control the House and they have a blocking position in the Senate. If they simply negotiated in good faith and dealt with the Democrats as realists, there would be a path to negotiation on things that would really bring the Budget onto a path in the right direction.
Just saying No is a disservice to the country and a path to no progress on a budget position that is unsustainable. The AARP, after saying a balanced approach to Medicare and Social Security was needed in the fall, are now saying No to anything. If the left and the right are just saying NO, we are not going to make any progress unless the people in the middle are talking to each other and crafting policies that represent both sides and take us in the right direction of a balancing the budget.
However, when the GOP center does something like that and gets called a RINO, they cannot negotiate and we do not make progress. This is really a potential disaster somewhere down the road.
Now if John Boehner is a Republican in Name Only, how are the GOP every going to win the Presidency again? How are they going to achieve some influence over positive policy movements as opposed to simply blocking things by saying NO?
The GOP has real influence; they control the House and they have a blocking position in the Senate. If they simply negotiated in good faith and dealt with the Democrats as realists, there would be a path to negotiation on things that would really bring the Budget onto a path in the right direction.
Just saying No is a disservice to the country and a path to no progress on a budget position that is unsustainable. The AARP, after saying a balanced approach to Medicare and Social Security was needed in the fall, are now saying No to anything. If the left and the right are just saying NO, we are not going to make any progress unless the people in the middle are talking to each other and crafting policies that represent both sides and take us in the right direction of a balancing the budget.
However, when the GOP center does something like that and gets called a RINO, they cannot negotiate and we do not make progress. This is really a potential disaster somewhere down the road.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
The Real Problem
Neither party is candid with the voters when it comes to the real issues. Obama is reacting to the GOP hatred of him and cannot be seen as giving away the store without some give from the GOP. I believe that Obama and Boehner understand what needs to be done. Otherwise, why would we have repeated undetailed discussions of the Grand Bargain? It always breaks down when the Boehner goes back to the House and cannot deliver a sufficient number of GOP votes to pass with Democratic support. And we don't learn what the details are.
Hopefully we will as we enter the Debt Ceiling Raise debate. This is a two stage process and I hope, now that we have $600 billion in hand, we can get another $600 billion from tax reform and $1.2 trillion of spending cuts. Then we will be over half way toward where we need to be.
The substance of the Economist article that the US is starting to look more like Europe is (i) a lack of candor of politicians in educating voters and (ii) kicking the can down the road rather than dealing with the real problems. Both sides need to agree on what spending cuts are coming because both sides need to convince the voters that such cuts are necessary.
Ohio is cutting reading tudors for 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders that is proven to make a long term difference in preventing drop outs because they are spending more money on health care. We need to spend money on helping people of all age groups not just the elderly.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
House GOP Refuses to Recognize Reality
Late Breaking News: 3:45 pm New Years Day
Nothing matters to the economy more than avoiding the fiscal cliff. It is the difference between positive GDP growth in the 2nd half of 2013 and a recession with higher unemployment, lower government revenues, a bigger budget deficit, and reduced savings for retirees and the nearly retired. Will valuations recover from such a recession? Who knows how many times the market can suffer from legislative ineptitude?
Now that the Senate has passed a bill that deals with the cliff and pushes spending discussions into the next 2 months when a debt ceiling bill must be passed or the U.S. will default, House GOP leaders such as Eric Cantor say they cannot support a bill like the Senate passed 87-13 because it does not contain spending cuts.
Well, if Mr. Cantor was so set on having input into such a bill why did he not work to support the Grand Bargan that Mr. Boehner and President Obama were working on? It contained both the tax increases that the Senate bill has and spending cuts that Mr. Cantor is now complaining are not in the Senate bill.
I don't understand what the House GOP wants for this country. The House of Representatives is not the only elected body in D.C. and they must compromise with the Senate and the President. Otherwise, the country is going to go down the toilet.
Nothing matters to the economy more than avoiding the fiscal cliff. It is the difference between positive GDP growth in the 2nd half of 2013 and a recession with higher unemployment, lower government revenues, a bigger budget deficit, and reduced savings for retirees and the nearly retired. Will valuations recover from such a recession? Who knows how many times the market can suffer from legislative ineptitude?
Now that the Senate has passed a bill that deals with the cliff and pushes spending discussions into the next 2 months when a debt ceiling bill must be passed or the U.S. will default, House GOP leaders such as Eric Cantor say they cannot support a bill like the Senate passed 87-13 because it does not contain spending cuts.
Well, if Mr. Cantor was so set on having input into such a bill why did he not work to support the Grand Bargan that Mr. Boehner and President Obama were working on? It contained both the tax increases that the Senate bill has and spending cuts that Mr. Cantor is now complaining are not in the Senate bill.
I don't understand what the House GOP wants for this country. The House of Representatives is not the only elected body in D.C. and they must compromise with the Senate and the President. Otherwise, the country is going to go down the toilet.
A Priceless Comment
and not all in keeping with my immediately prior post about the need to consider all points of view in reaching compromise so we can overcome problems.
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.
"Now, though, it is conservatism that is both intellectually exhausted and nearly indefensible. It is the movement of the ideologically ossified, of gun zealots and homophobes, of the immigrant-phobic and the adamantly selfish. It insists that government must be small (an impossibility!), .......... and that debt, no matter what the reason, is immoral and reckless. The movement has lost its reliable monster. Godless communists have been replaced by the church ladies of Planned Parenthood."
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.
"Now, though, it is conservatism that is both intellectually exhausted and nearly indefensible. It is the movement of the ideologically ossified, of gun zealots and homophobes, of the immigrant-phobic and the adamantly selfish. It insists that government must be small (an impossibility!), .......... and that debt, no matter what the reason, is immoral and reckless. The movement has lost its reliable monster. Godless communists have been replaced by the church ladies of Planned Parenthood."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)