Orwell or Huxley Prophecies

Two of my favorite books in my youth were George Orwell’s 1984 [published in 1949] and Aldous Huxley’s [published in 1932] Brave New World. Both wrote their books one how the future might go and both were rather dismal about it. Orwell saw government taking control of everyone’s lives. His bugaboo phrase was, “Big Brother is watching you.” Huxley’s Brave New World had happy folk in it, just stupid; they would go along with anything. They reminded me of Eloi in H.G. Wells novel The Time Machine where a time traveler goes to 802,701 A.D. and finds the rather mindless happy Eloi who are kept happy and well fed by Morlocks who lives beneath the ground and eat them upon occasion. In Huxley’s novel it is the year 2540 A.D. where the world population is a stable 2 billion people. Happy people who do not procreate (bend you mind around that. But don’t worry they still have sex.) But everyone is conditioned to accept their lot in life. They live in a caste system ranging from the Alphas, the smart ones on top to the Gammas who aren’t so smart; but they are all happy doing what they are conditioned to do.

Bill Moyers has in his blog a survey running asking folk who was the better prophet for our society, Orwell or Huxley. The current numbers are 13.35% for Orwell, 61.35% for Huxley, 25% for both and 0% for neither. This will be the basis for a talk he will be having this week with Marty Kaplan on Moyer’s show. It should be interesting.

It is a pleasure or pain type of argument for controlling human behavior. So, what do you think or does it matter?

Fear seems to dominate us in political discussion today but is seems to be based on where we think we can get the most personal pleasure.

Has anyone seen John the Savage lately?

Global Warming

PK shared this on Facebook and I wanted to share it.

1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate

www.universetoday.com

A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’  projections have proven to be rather accurate —

This video is well worth your time in watching.

Global Warming should not be a political issue but a universal area on immediate concern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8

Who Makes More, Government Employees or Private Sector?

In a comment on a previous article [The Need for Bigger Government] dmarks sited from the “Sunshine State New: Nearly one of every four federal workers makes more than $100,000 annually, a USA Today study shows.

Twenty-two percent of federal employees earned more than $100,000 last year, up from 12 percent in 2006.

The average federal salary in 2011 was $75,296, plus $28,323 in medical, pension and other benefits -- about 60 percent more than the private-sector average.

I found that interesting but made me wonder if we are comparing apples to oranges; more specifically the corresponding jobs in government in comparison to the private sector, not just averages or even medians.

I checked out this link from a Google search: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-government-employment-private-sectors-10104.html

There I discovered that government workers indeed get great benefits: health insurance, dental insurance, vacation, and retirement benefits. They also have a lot of job security.

Private sectors employees face a more vulnerable market. They point out that in 2009 government workers averaged the highest at $67,756, with private-sector averaging $45,155 and local government employees averaged $43,140.

However, when you compare exact occupations such as doctors, CPA’s, and the like, a person in the private sector averages more. This is what I expected. But I think it is still a sticky wicket and hard to make real comparisons. Educations levels I think play heavily into these comparisons.

CNN points out that Federal workers with master’s degrees or doctorates do better that those in the private sector. However, those with professional degrees or doctorates do less well that those in the private sector.

CNN also reports that the White House said that the president will propose a 0.5% increase for federal workers in 2013 which is less that the 2% increase in privates wages this past year.

Here are the conclusions from the Reason Foundation http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

Conclusions

While the recent study from the Center for State & Local Government Excellence and the National Institute on Retirement Security comparing public sector and private sector compensation levels correctly notes that aggregate comparisons of average public and private wages and benefits can be misleading, its conclusion that state and local government employees are undercompensated, compared to private-sector employees, is suspect at best.  The analysis ignores the value of virtually ironclad job security and certainty of pension benefits, features that are notably absent in the private sector.  It also overlooks the greater efficiency and productivity of private sector workers, which is a result of competitive pressures not experienced in government agencies. The conclusion that public-sector workers are more highly educated than comparable private sector workers, upon which higher pay and benefit levels is justified, is called into question by the fact that not all college degrees are equal (and may vary between public and private sector employees) and the possibility that governments are hiring overqualified workers because they face looser budget constraints than private companies (i.e., governments are overpaying for their labor).

There are other considerations outside the scope of the report that affect discussions of the cost of government services.  Since retiree health care costs are expected to continue to rise rapidly, and public employees' retiree health care benefits are significantly greater than those of private sector employees, this will increase government workers' total compensation relative to comparable private sector employee compensation.  Furthermore, even if we assume that public employees are underpaid, or at least not overpaid, that does not mean that the number of government workers is necessary or desirable, or that the cost and scope of government is not excessive.

The fact is that state and local government labor costs are continuing to escalate drastically.  There is a reason why the City of Vallejo, California, cited skyrocketing pension costs as the chief cause of its fall into municipal bankruptcy, and why many other local governments in California and elsewhere are on the brink of bankruptcy.  There is a reason why California's pension costs have been described as unsustainable by everyone from the chief actuary of the California Public Employees' Retirement System to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, to Democratic State Treasurer Bill Lockyer. There is a reason that governments at the federal, state, and local levels achieve significant cost savings by contracting with private sector businesses to provide a wide variety of services previously performed by government workers.  State and local governments in California and across the nation must address public employee compensation levels if they are to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility, particularly in these difficult economic times.

Adam B. Summers is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation.

As I said, I think the comparisons are hard to make and you have to dig a little deeper to get a fuller picture in comparing compensation between the private and public sector. Even when you dig further folk reach different conclusions depending of the values you emphasize. One thing that came into clearer focus for me in the importance of job security which is stronger in the public versus the private sector. Other countries appear to have met that challenge better, for instance Japan but also the majority of other developed countries. Another good study to make.

in Political Ads: Half Truths

We know a lot of out of state PAC is buying lots of ads in Wisconsin. Some of them seem cookie cutter types; same format just insert the person you’re against with appropriate data. And, much of the information is true, except that they way it is presented makes more of a lie than a truth.

Some examples: Walker claims in his ad that Wisconsin has added thousands of job under his administration. That is true for the first part of this year, but if you look at jobs since he took office there has been a net loss of 14,200 jobs making the state dead last of all the states.

Falk claims jobs grew at 11.3% during her 14 years; true. But the population growth was 21% therefore unemployment increased.

A Walker ad states that under Mayor Barnett Milwaukee has the worst job creation of any big city; true. What is not said is that Milwaukee rated 40th in unemployment of the 50 largest cities in 2010 but during his tenure Milwaukee’s unemployment rate went up less than the national average.

A Walker ad says that Falk raised property taxes every year, an 80% increase. That is true of tax revenues but not of tax rates.

A Walker ad says under Barnett has one of the worst graduation rates in the country.  True in 2008 when Milwaukee’s graduation rate was 42^nd of 50 large districts. But during his term graduation rate improved greatly during his term.

Walker claims he wiped out a $3.6 billion deficit. But he uses two ways of determining figures: true if you use a cash accounting method but if you use the more accepted Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) there is s 3 billion deficit during those years.

Walker claimed he balanced the budget without raising taxes. True but his budget included reduction to two tax credits which he does not consider tax increases but the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau does.

For a fuller look at this see http://factcheck.org/2012/04/the-whole-truth-in-wisconsin-air-wars/

The upshot of all this is we voters just don’t trust the information we receive in political ads and for good reason. And this is just as true in other states besides Wisconsin.

The Need for Bigger Government

National news (ABC in this case) is or is about to do a big story on abuses against insurance companies and fraud in welfare programs. The amount I believe it is in the billions. We’re missing the news this evening, but I think that will be reported.

Now the knee jerk response to such stories is to say the damned government is screwed up and those evil people who receive aid are a worthless bunch of crooks that ought to be hung out to dry or just hung. So end the stupid programs. Lots of righteous indignations will spill forth. But that is an irrational response.

We don’t get the stories about all the good these programs do for lots and lots of people because it doesn’t make good news; meaning bad news is what the media likes to report because it is more profitable. This is not to say that these issues should not be brought to the attention of the public and public evils that need to be addressed.

What the story, it seems to me, should suggest to us that regulating these programs and making sure guidelines are properly following and catching folk who break the law and abuse the system need to be identified, caught, and prosecuted.

So how do you do that? You have to hire an adequate staff to make sure the programs operate as they should. You need more government employees to make these programs work as they are intended. If you are a social worker with too many caseloads to care for, more abuse will take place.

Folk who think this means we should reduce government are like who finding a particular city and a particular section that has a high crime rate and thing the solution is to reduce the number of police in the area. It is irrational; to confront the crime you obviously need additional police and programs to rehabilitate the area.

I don’t believe we have to go back to the levels of government employees of the Reagan era which if I recall was about a third more than we have now, but we need increased government employees to get the job done properly.

Or, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Scripture Reading

In a recent Christian Century blog James W. McCarty III encouraged his readers to read the scripture in unusual places such as in a garden, a street corner, on a bus, a park and the like. He says it gives the readers new insights into the passages. Apparently he and his co-teacher teach a preaching course and they encourage their students to do this to gain additional insight about the texts the will preach about on a Sunday.

It sounds like a good idea so I’ll try it. Currently I get the daily lectionary in my email each day to read, but find it easy to just delete it and write nasty things in my blog instead. Perhaps I’ll return to that as well. After all, I keep nagging folk to apply the religious thought to politics but this assumes one has a faith philosophy to begin with.

What follows is a piece the author recommended from a blog “mini-series” that Richard Beck writes of reflections of biblical passages he teaches in prisoners and how those prisoners have opened his eyes to see scripture in a new way. It’s a great story I thought I’d share it with you.

John 13: A Story from the Prison Study

Posted on 10.05.2011

Over the summer I shared with you the story of my attempt to teach the Beatitudes in the prison bible class I help lead on Monday nights.

You'll recall from that post that the inmates struggled with living out Jesus' call to be "meek" and "poor in spirit." As they said to me that night, "Kindness in here is mistaken for weakness." And the weak get hurt in prison.

We left that class on an ambivalent note. I encouraged them to try to find moments when they could embrace their humanity, and the humanity of those around them. But many still seemed skeptical. The way of Jesus, we all concluded, is a difficult path to follow. Both inside and outside the prison walls.

Since that class I'd not revisited this subject. Until last Monday when I was in John 13 and discussing Jesus washing the disciples' feet.

After reading the story I returned to our prior conversation. I asked, "Can you serve people like Jesus did here in the prison?"

As before, there was general skepticism. The comment "kindness in prison is mistaken for weakness" was repeated. But I pushed a little harder this time and waited a little longer.

"How can you find moments to serve in this place?"

There was a long silence.

Then one man, Norberto (not his real name), raised his hand.

I was intrigued by what Norberto would say. He is a big, intimidating man. He could snap me like a twig. You can tell he commands a lot of respect from the other men.

I called on him and, given his intimidating presence, figured he'd stay with the "you can't do that kind of stuff in here" consensus.

He began, speaking softly.
"Well," he started with his heavy Hispanic accent, "I don't know if this is what you are looking for but I help my celly [i.e., cell mate]."

"How?" I ask.

"Well, my celly isn't too bright. Something is wrong with his head. He was in an accident so he's not too smart." Guys who know Norberto's cellmate nod in agreement and elaborate. Apparently he's borderline mentally retarded and needs a lot of help taking care of himself and navigating prison life.

Norberto continues. "Well, when my celly first got put in with me I noticed that he never took off his shoes. He always left them on. So one day I finally asked him, 'Why don't you ever take off your shoes?' He wouldn't tell me. Finally I got him to tell me. He was embarrassed. He didn't know how to take care of his feet. So his toenails were all overgrown, smelly and ugly looking. So I asked him to take off his shoes and socks. And his nails were awful. But he didn't know how to cut them.

So I sat him down and had him put his feet in water. Then I took his foot in my lap and cut his toenails for him. I don't know what people would have thought if they walked by, his foot in my lap. And I would never have thought I'd be doing something like that."

There was now a deep silence in the room. The image before us was so unexpected. Here was this huge, intimidating man taking the time, almost like a mother, to gently wash the feet and trim the nails of his mentally retarded cell mate.

Breaking the silence Norberto looked up at me and asked, "Is that an example of what you were talking about?"

"Yes," I said. "Yes, that is an example of what I was talking about."

Selfish Bastards

I like articulate knowledgeable Republicans such as George Will, who while I think he is wrong, makes a good case for smaller government that is historically informed and a clear thinker despite the fact that he forgot how to smile in his teen years. On the other hand I find a number of the more extreme Republicans just plain selfish bastards.

You all know the type. They complain about government in all ways, “Anything the government touches it messes up,” is a line I hear. Government is too big, spends too much, is entirely composed of those who love to spend others money; democrats that is.

And there they sit, educated by government programs by teachers educated by public colleges who received public loans to get their education, driving on American tax created highways, in the cars many bailed out of going out of existence by government bails outs, using credit cards to buy things they can’t afford at usury interest rates by big banks again bailed out by the government. They can have jobs created by and upheld government subsidies. There are also many who are disabled relying on government support in order to have a place to live and food on the table. Many want lower taxes while they fall into the category that pays no taxes. These are the folk who have bought into an ideology that has nothing to do with their real lives.

They complain about the debt they blame on Democrats that was created by Republican administrations. They are often supportive, in the short run, of wars which were not approved by congress and are funded by loans rather than the sacrifices citizens made as in WWI and WWII. They want guns and drive motorcycles without helmets, but if they get injured by those items they want the government to pay their medical expenses because they can’t do it themselves.

They get up in arms about the misdeeds of public personages including and especially politicians while their own lives would make Lady Chatterley blush. They complain about government regulations while the cheerfully like to get paid in cash under the table and cheat their fellow taxpaying Americans. And they do this while telling stories about folks they know who cheat of welfare programs, but won’t report them.

I’m clearly not talking about the upper 1% or even the upper middle class; I’m talking about struggling citizens that have been sold a bill of goods by the power elite. I’m talking about folk who have a disconnect in their political thinking in contrast to the life they lead. I don’t even think they are intentionally selfish bastards but the pawns of selfish bastards; said at the risk of my own desire to make this a place of civil discourse. But then there are just plain selfish bastards who adhere to the Republican mantra, “I’ve got mine, screw you.”

It’s Sunday so I will turn the other cheek and forgive them their foolishness; but it is still foolishness.

More Thoughts from William Greider’s Book

Greider extols the economics of John Maynard Keynes and the government led economy following WWII. All of it was condemned by the right but it worked and it worked well. The right saw it as a socialist intrusion. Greider also see correlations to our times. He says debt is not the problem if the money borrowed is invested in the future that creates jobs and wealth and a better economy which is what happened following WWII.

Despite what the right thought the wartime debt receded and for the next 35 years the economy expanded the “debt-to-GDP” ratio declined. We were in debt 120% of the GDP after the war and by 1980 it was 35% of GDP.

Then came Reagan and peacetime deficits which ran the debt back up to 70% of GDP, wartime numbers. But this debt was used to create tax cuts for the wealthy and subsidies to old industries rather than investing in new ones. And, of course, there were the ill conceived war costs in Iraq.

This spending was at the expense of the infrastructure, roads, bridges, schools and the like. And we as individuals spent like crazy; we became the buyer society rather than a producer society.

Though our economy and country is not the same as it was following WWII there are similarities. During WWII Americans had forced saving as materials went to the war effort, everybody tightened the belt so at the end of the war there was enthusiasm for spending and the money, middle class money, to do so. Would we not benefit from government enforced suppression of spending to increase our savings? Would not government investments in innovative industry and work on the infrastructure not benefit all? These are the things that would jump start our economy. And, would this not also lead us to more even import export ratios?

What Greider recommends is not likely to be popular and because of that probably will not happen. But it certainly is time for us to start thinking in longer terms and use economic theories that are proven rather than prolonging economic theories, supply side economics, that have failed.

A lot of this I think hinges upon significant changes in banking practices such as the mega-banks that followed immoral and illegal procedures that cause much of today’s problems. Regulations need to be instated and enforced. The FED needs to quit catering to Wall Street and focus upon middle America which has always be the driving force of true and equitable wealth in this country.

Corporate Pension systems need nationalized or so well regulated that businesses can no longer steal money from the employees while CEO’s continue to collect bonuses. This is in addition to shoring up Social Security.

We are far too complacent as a country and continue to allow abuses by the wealthy and their influence upon the government. It is our government not the means of a selected few who can buy influence. The tax codes need to be radically changed to support progressive change for our society. It is a moral issue not just an economic issue and should be understood as such.

Greider remains optimistic about our future because things have gotten so bad he believes this will force into clearer and more equitable thinking. I hope he is right. I would hope the President Obama becomes for FDR like and that congress, especially congress get behind the necessary changes to bring about a healthy nation.

I Found this piece mull-worthy, so I'll share it with you.

How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality

From http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html#ixzz1onKozqYU

"Conservatism is true." That's what George Will told me when I interviewed him as an eager student many years ago. His formulation might have been a touch arrogant, but Will's basic point was intelligent. Conservatism, he explained, was rooted in reality. Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.

Watching this election campaign, one wonders what has happened to that tradition. Conservatives now espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America's present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U.S.(See "The Heart of Conservative Values: Not Where It Used to Be?")

Consider the debates over the economy. The Republican prescription is to cut taxes and slash government spending — then things will bounce back. Now, I would like to see lower rates in the context of tax simplification and reform, but what is the evidence that tax cuts are the best path to revive the U.S. economy? Taxes — federal and state combined — as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. The U.S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies. So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts but is simply a theoretical assertion. The rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes.

Many Republican businessmen have told me that the Obama Administration is the most hostile to business in 50 years. Really? More than that of Richard Nixon, who presided over tax rates that reached 70%, regulations that spanned whole industries, and who actually instituted price and wage controls?

In fact, right now any discussion of government involvement in the economy — even to build vital infrastructure — is impossible because it is a cardinal tenet of the new conservatism that such involvement is always and forever bad. Meanwhile, across the globe, the world's fastest-growing economy, China, has managed to use government involvement to create growth and jobs for three decades. From Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth.(See a dozen Republicans who could be the next President.)

Of course, American history suggests that as well. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s, the U.S. government made massive investments in science and technology, in state universities and in infant industries. It built infrastructure that was the envy of the rest of the world. Those investments triggered two generations of economic growth and put the U.S. on top of the world of technology and innovation.

But that history has been forgotten. When considering health care, for example, Republicans confidently assert that their ideas will lower costs, when we simply do not have much evidence for this. What we do know is that of the world's richest countries, the U.S. has by far the greatest involvement of free markets and the private sector in health care. It also consumes the largest share of GDP, with no significant gains in health on any measurable outcome. We need more market mechanisms to cut medical costs, but Republicans don't bother to study existing health care systems anywhere else in the world. They resemble the old Marxists, who refused to look around at actual experience. "I know it works in practice," the old saw goes, "but does it work in theory?"(See "When GOP Presidential Candidates Skip, They Quickly Stumble.")

Conservatives used to be the ones with heads firmly based in reality. Their reforms were powerful because they used the market, streamlined government and empowered individuals. Their effects were large-scale and important: think of the reform of the tax code in the 1980s, for example, which was spearheaded by conservatives. Today conservatives shy away from the sensible ideas of the Bowles-Simpson commission on deficit reduction because those ideas are too deeply rooted in, well, reality. Does anyone think we are really going to get federal spending to the level it was at under Calvin Coolidge, as Paul Ryan's plan assumes? Does anyone think we will deport 11 million people?

We need conservative ideas to modernize the U.S. economy and reform American government. But what we have instead are policies that don't reform but just cut and starve government — a strategy that pays little attention to history or best practices from around the world and is based instead on a theory. It turns out that conservatives are the woolly-headed professors after all.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html#ixzz1scaXzjsS

Public? Media

We all know that the media makes tons of money on political advertising during campaigns which seem to run almost year round anymore. But do we know how much money they make? No. Do we want transparency in government? Yes. Do we want transparency in who spends how much in the media? I think so, but they sure don’t want us to know.

Currently a lot of the media is lobbying against disclosure of how much they are making and how they are making it from. Following is a list of those involved in these lobbying efforts:

§  News Corporation, which owns the Wall Street Journal and Fox News

§  Walt Disney, which owns ABC News and ESPN

§  NBCUniversal, which is owned by Comcast and includes NBC News

§  Allbritton, which owns several TV stations and Politico

§  Gannett Broadcasting, a division of Gannett, which owns USA Today

§  Post-Newsweek Stations, the broadcast division of the Washington Post Company

§  Belo Corp, which owns 20 TV stations

§  Cox Media Group, which owns the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Austin American-Statesman, and other newspapers and TV stations

§  Dispatch Broadcast Group, which owns Ohio and Indiana TV stations

§  Barrington Broadcasting Co., which owns several television stations around the country

§  The E.W. Scripps Company, which owns TV stations and newspapers including the Commercial Appeal in Memphis

§  Hearst Television Inc., which owns 29 TV stations

§  Raycom Media, which owns TV stations

§  Schurz Communications, which owns TV Stations and newspapers around the country

Wow! The news agencies which ask for transparency about the things they want to report on are resistant to transparency in their own operations. That appears to me to be a bit hypocritical.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the agency that must make the ruling on this and they are scheduled to vote this April 27^th. The list above are doing all they can at this point to get any regulations at all watered down to meaninglessness.

A group called ProPublica is working against these lobbyists. You can go to http://www.propublica.org/article/meet-the-media-companies-lobbying-against-transparency/single#republish  For their original article.

I don’t know about you but I would sure like to see that information listed on the internet.

Philosopher Kings for the U.S.A.?

Folk refer to our government as a republic, or a representative democracy. Some now are calling it, with some justification, a oligarchy or better yet, a plutocracy. And it does seem more and more to the American public that the wealthy have the best access to and the most influence upon our country. Many wonder if what Alexander de Tocqueville, the American experience, will survive.

A democracy/republic is often slow to react and to change which is a definite liability is a rapidly changing world. In the past other countries looked at our freedom and economic success – the ability to better your place in life and envied the “American Dream”, nowdays many countries are looking elsewhere for models that will bring about their dreams.

Since reading Plato’s Republic I have always been fond of rule by Philosopher Kings, a group of people especially trained for the governance of a democratic city state. The philosopher kings envisioned by Plato were wisdom lovers.

The idea of special training for rulers appeals to me on a certain level. In most occupations we require particular education that is appropriate to the job they are to undertake. Colleges have people training in major and minors to equip them for certain work. Technical colleges provide training very specific to jobs. Every job requires some type of training even among the so-called unskilled workers.

But do we require in the way of training for the leaders of our nation? Nothing. Well next to nothing, some age requirements and for the president born American, but no real training. And with todays changes in higher education and even on the primary and secondary levels towards the more technical training versus overall knowledge the problems grow.

The liberal arts colleges and degrees are rapidly fading. All of this leads us to a less informed voting public. Do civics classes even exist in high schools anymore? Do colleges require basic education in history, languages, literature (especially the “great books”), mathematics, music, philosophy, political science, psychology, religious studies, science and theater? [Liberal arts.]

Today it would seem to me that political leaders at minimum should have degrees or at least significant training in political science, economics, history and hopefully philosophy.  

Philosopher Kings were also lifetime occupations. The founding fathers thought of congressional leaders as short termers. But they really thought of the wealthy folk who had the time and the education so they could take time off from the vocations to dedicate service to their country in terms of leadership. But that was long ago and far away from today’s world.

Term limits are popular and have some merit perhaps at the highest level, the presidency. But the popular idea that other governmental leaders  caught in the phrase, “they’ve been in office too long” argument seems nonsensical to me. If you educate a teacher, then give them practical experience in the classroom it would be absurd to fire them just when they are getting good at their jobs. (Though some want to do that for ill-informed economic reasons; newer teachers cost less and for good reason, they are not as competent.) This is also true in business and most every other occupation. Even in a youth culture, we still hold some respect for the training and wisdom of those who have expertise in one field or another.

Our system of electing anyone who can get the votes to office, generally by catering to special short term interests of a fickle society seems haphazard at best. And then we further mess up the process by turning these folk loose on the public in the form lobbyists to promote the interests of those who can afford them. It seems incestuous and ought to be illegal. It certainly has caused our country horrific problems and has led to the charges of our becoming a plutocracy.

Just some thoughts that crossed my mind on a rainy day.

A National Journal poll shows little support of the proposed changes by Ryan in Medicare. 64% want it to stay as it is with only 26% favoring the plan that would give seniors a fixed amount of money to purchase private health insurance or to pay the cost of the remaining current Medicare program. Even Republicans support the current system 56 for and 30 against.

According to RealClearPolitics 65 year-olds will be paying 68% of their medicare coverage costs by 2030 compared to 35% today. Others claim that the GOP bill will cost average seniors an extra $2,200 per year plus many will have to pay up to $6,000 extra for medications, because it reopens the infamous drug donut hole.

The issue here is privatization. Republicans consistently claim that privatization will save money but it doesn’t. Privatization always includes a profit element and national programs don’t. Wikipedia states that in 2006 per capita spending for health care in Canada was $3,678 compared to the USA’s $6,714. The USA spend 15.3% of GDP on health care versus Canada’s 10%. See other country comparisons below.

The New England Journal of Medicine concluded as early as 1999 that the gap between U.S. and Canadian health care administration had grown to $752 per capita.

It is widely known that our medical system is the most expensive in the world but is not the best care.

If you really want to look at a very comprehensive comparison of U.S. health care spending and care in comparison to other countries I would suggest you take a look at this link to a study by Cornell University ILR School done in 2007.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1316&context=key_workplace

As a senior all this scares the bejeebers out of me.

This Makes This American Proud

What country leads the world in the clean energy race? We do! I think that is absolutely great. We just reclaimed that position from China which led since 2009. Other countries that are leading the way include Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and India; but we lead once again and this is the type of leadership in which we can be justifiably proud.

Over a quarter of the trillion dollars was spend on the development of alternative energy last year; that is a 6.5% increase over 2010. Of that the U.S.A. had investments of $48 billion.  Solar energy saw $128 billion in investment globally about half of all investment in alternative energy. The investments are working; 83.5 gigawatts produced in 2011.

For more information you can go to PewTrust.org.  http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=85899381163&WT

This is great!

Some Things Should be Obvious

Why are we even talking about the Buffet Rule? I see folk swatting gnats about how much revenue it will raise for the government; some see it as a paltry $5 million, hardly worth bothering with, others run the numbers as far larger and they also place them in different time references which ever will benefit the argument the most.

Folk with more money ought to pay at higher rates as then have benefited the most from our country, let alone the moral obligation they have to those less fortunate in our country.

Those with very high incomes often benefit from the capital gains tax rate which is lower. Now for those of us who are retired, whose paycheck does not rise with the inflation or cost of living by any significant margin benefit by that and I think it seems fair. But if you are a millionaire it takes on an entirely different moral picture.

If you watched my video link on Robert Reich’s explanation of how Mitt Romney got rich you get a good idea of how this works. Entrepreneurs by definition are risk takers, he isn’t; he risks others people money and then ends up paying low capital gains taxes. That does not seem moral to me. Today’s morality may just be changing from concern for the public good and care for all to just get what you can get and to hell with you fellow human beings. It is the morality of expediency and it stinks. I do see morality at work business but most of they are in the small businesses where they have personal contact with those who whom they do business.

I heard a comedian of TV recently who joked that the church on wants 10% of our money the government wants more. But he has it wrong on many counts. The “Tithe” he refers to in the Old Testament was 10% it was more like 20% or more. The religion and the government were the same so it was a different time. The morality of hospitality was also much different in that any stranger in your midst was to be treated as a treasured guest; we are just suspicious of strangers and wary of them. And in the New Testament we are taught “to whom much is given, much is required.” That is a moral basis of a progressive tax. And I believe it is what lies behind Warren Buffets statement that got this whole ball rolling. He seems to understand moral responsibility while  others are argue for the law of the jungle or I’ve got mine to hell with you. Warren Buffets idea adheres to the concept of the tithe, which is percentage giving of your income.

The same thinking is apparent when we talk about government’s role. The major demands that we cut government spending on social issues yet when it comes to each specific program, they don’t want them cut. It reflects bad morality; impersonal ideologies versus human concerns for neighbors.

What offends me the most are the self-righteous Christian conservatives who often are the harshest in judging the needs of the fellow human beings. They are the Pharisees of our day who are legalistic and inflexible, uncaring and even condemning about their neighbors; they ignore the basic moral teachings of Jesus who tells us to love our enemies as well as our neighbors and to care for the disadvantaged.

The Buffet Rule, health care provided for all citizens, guaranteed wages, equal wages, eradication of poverty, social safety nets, infrastructures than benefit all and the like should be obvious in a moral country. These are the goals we should seek to accomplish and as a rich nation have the ability to undertake. Arguing about the proper procedures is worthwhile, but to just oppose them is immoral.

The Buffet Rule is a powerful symbol of how our country thinks.  In the baselinescenarion.com, Simon Johnson see three ways forward, “There are three ways forward.  Either the Republicans begin to compromise – and agree to raise taxes as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction and debt control strategy, just as Ronald Reagan did.  There is a great deal of confusion about whether Reagan raised taxes after first cutting them; see chapter 3 of White House Burning for the details of what actually happened.

” Or the Republicans who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge will prevail – no one’s taxes will go up and, most likely, some people’s taxes will go down.  In this case, either the deficit will continue to grow (which is what Newt Gingrich is proposing) or Medicare and almost everything else the federal government does will be scrapped (which is the position represented by Paul Ryan).  My guess is that, in this scenario, we will say farewell to any meaningful form of social insurance – good luck getting healthcare when you are 85 (unless you earned over a million dollars a year for many years).

”Or the Republicans will lose big – and fiscal consolidation can proceed without them.”

The moral center of this country seems to have shifted over the years and not in a positive way. Fear and meanness appear to be the way to try and get our ways. It is perfectly possible for folk to argue over moral issues, disagree but still act cordially and caring for each other. I know it for I have seen it. I have seen in mainline churches dealing with controversial issues. I hope to see it in the political arena but I’m not holding my breath.

We free end speeches, “And may God bless America.” God has, we need to respond as being blessings to each other.