You people on the right, you complain about big government. You complain about entitlements. But, I don't see you turning down Medicare payments. I don't see you turning down your Social Security payments. I don't see you turning down your deductions for mortgage payments. I don't see right-leaning Congress people failing to try to extract from the federal coffers all they can manage to get for their constituents. In short, you're all hypocrites.
It does look that way, doesn't it? But, rather than label it hypocrisy, I'd label it a common disease. I'd label it a kind of leprosy or a kind of cancer. Identifying the disease doesn't save you from it. But, it might get you to begin looking for a cure.
Let's examine a the pathology of entitlements a bit more closely. The Fed pulls in all this tax money. Where does it go? Some to the military, some to social security, some for the delivery of health care, some to fund our various programs, (food stamps, the UN, etc.) and to pay for the services of our bureaucrats. But some is ear marked for return to our various states.
So the question to ask is why do we seek to have our states competing with other states for ear marks; e.g., bridges-to-nowhere? It's because our citizens work as hard as the citizens of any other state. And, that being the case, why shouldn't our state try as hard as any other state to get some of its money back. It came from here, so why shouldn't some of it come back here.
The same goes for tax deductions for mortgage payments and a myriad of other deductions. Sure, people who rent apartments don't get an equivalent deal from the government, but what would I gain by refusing a deduction that everyone who's got a mortgage enjoys. Sure, I get on average of $2 for every $1 dollar I pay into Medicare and by the same token I get, on average, more out of social security than I paid in. But, how do I, or anyone else, gain by me turning down my entitlements? Does my refusal to do so make me a hypocrite?
Okay, if everyone does it, what's the harm? Why rail against the system? Because it's just a matter of time before this system kills us. It's just like deluding ourselves into thinking we can fly. Jump off a tall building, flap your arms, and you'll be fine .... until you hit the ground. Pointing this out to our fellow citizens doesn't make us hypocrites. Accepting entitlements extended to every one else simply shows that we've got the same disease as everyone else.
The cure lies in (1) bringing down what we spend to the point where it matches, or comes in below, what we bring in, (2) doing with fairness what needs to be done as regards all citizens, and (3) making temporary all laws designed to correct cultural differences.
Number one needs no explaining.
Number two means being sure that when we give out exemptions, they not favor one group over another i.e. home owners over renters, stock traders over wage earners, non-productive land owners over true working farmers, etc.
Number three means that when we seek to help a group of people who, in the course of American history, have been socially disadvantaged, we don't make our efforts an entitlement without end. If we are going to advantage designated minority groups, let's be sure that we not include in such groups recent immigrants from third world countries, or the children of parents who have successfully risen on the economic ladder and are neither needy nor deserving of special entitlements simply because of membership in such designated groups. To do otherwise, would most certainly be unfair.
A number of countries in Europe have failed to institute programs consistent with the guidelines outlined above. That has resulted in high unemployment and riots in the street. It's not the path we want our country to follow.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Why Romney Will Lose To Obama
Sad to say it. Indeed, hate to say it, but Romney is going to lose in November and here's why:
1. The women's vote
Romney needs the fervent support of the Christian fundamentalists and these people are solidly for right-to-life. Women don't really care that no one can reverse the tide on this issue and on women's rights generally. They believe that "potentially" this right will be restricted. Romney can't say what I just did; namely, let's leave it in the platform but let's also promptly forget it. Romney can't even say that when he governed Massachusetts and the issue never arose. But, of course, that's the truth.
2 America's really tough and vitally important issues
Jobs, jobs, jobs --- the trick here is to get the economy moving upwards again. But, here there's a problem for Romney. Obama says pretty much the same thing. It's only that his background music is a little different. Obama says he'll institute job building programs (echoes of FDR). And, he'll tax the rich to build the middle class. And, also, no one will see their medicare threatened. The crowds cheer.
So what is Romney going to say? That job programs may sound terrific, but that they really don't work. (They didn't work for FDR either, even though they did result in a lot of good country music and some nice murals). People aren't going to be much enthused hearing this.
Is Romney going to tell people that "taxing the rich" may appeal to people out of work, but it gets the country nowhere. It certainly does nothing for the economy, and it doesn't even bring in nearly the amount of money that's needed to revitalize the economy and pay for our extraordinarily large entitlements. What he ought to explain is that he is for fairness, and that the quickest way of getting to fairness is to reform our tax code. But, here again, you have a subject that makes the average American's eyes glaze over.
And, here's the humdinger -- is Romney going to explain that our entitlements simply must be pared back? What! You mean I'm going to have to pay more for healthcare? What, when I'm on my death bed at 99, I won't be able to get a liver transplant? What, when I give birth to a child born without critical organs and about to die, you won't put that child on a mechanical device to squeeze a few more day's out of the infant? And, here's perhaps the biggest outrage: You're now telling me that for the conditions just mentioned you won't let me bring a million dollar lawsuit against the doctors and their hospital? (Enter America's lawyers.)
The reason Romney won't win on jobs, jobs, jobs (JJJ) is because to do so you've got to tackle entitlements, entitlements, entitlements (EEE). People want JJJ but no one should touch their EEE.
There's nothing really new about this. When you see Greeks or Spaniards rioting in the street, it's all about EEE. Do they have jobs? No. Unemployment for their youth is about 50%. They've gone way over the edge on EEE. In fact, economic realities being what they are, they are going to suffer significant losses of EEE, regardless of what their governments wish to do. or don't wish to do. Germans, whose governments have pared back on EEE and who consequently have the JJJ aren't of a mind to have their country's hard won wealth go to shore up their profligate cousins.
3. The Issue of Illegal Immigrants
This issue beautifully illustrates why Romney can't win. The issue of illegal immigrants, especially as it concerns Mexican immigrants, has been with us for a long time. John McCain and Ted Kennedy worked on a bill to resolve it many years ago. Had they pursued it a bit longer, the issue might have been taken care of.
The immigrant issue is basically a two part problem; namely, working out an amnesty for illegal immigrants and, secondly, getting control of our border with Mexico. With his political smarts, Obama skimmed the cream off this issue by giving a limited amnesty for a special slice of the immigrant population. He knew that Americans, being a generous people, would accept a fair minded amnesty program. And, indeed, they have. But, the important problem of securing America's borders has been left pretty much as it was. Be that as it may, Obama's move garnered him great PR with Latinos. It also cornered Romney. The border with Mexico is still a big problem, but now, whoever has the guts to deal with it, finds himself, or herself, without an important lever (or "carrot" if you prefer) to work with.
Whenever he can, we see Obama circumventing Congress. Small wonder then that he then gets so little cooperation from Congress But that's neither here nor there. It's Congress that gets blamed for not being cooperative.
4. Foreign affairs
Okay, so what have been Obama's accomplishments? Early on, upon entering office, he went on a tour throughout the middle east. What have been the results? A dead ambassador in Libya, an Egyptian president who heads the Islamic Brotherhood, and who, despite a stint at an American college, still doesn't grasp the concept of freedom of expression. The Russians view Obama as a boob. And, I'm not sure what interaction he's had with the Chinese.
It's been noted that he gives great speeches. Even I was highly impressed by his recent speech at the UN. But, he seems to have difficulty establishing one-on-one relations with world leaders. Be that as it may, mostly the voters don't care. Those Americans, who probably care most, are our troops. They see first hand the consequences of Obama's foreign policy, or the lack thereof. And, I would guess they are not great supporters of Obama.
5. Israel
I've separated Israel from "foreign affairs", because while it is one of Obama's biggest foreign policy disasters, it's one for which he's never been called to account, or suffered much in terms of declining voter support. That his policies regarding Israel are a disaster is clear. He travels through the middle east and bypasses America's staunchest ally. He shows himself to have a deaf ear as to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and then puts his thumb on the Palestinian side of the scales.
How does he get away with it? Two reasons: Military cooperation between America and Israel, has been excellent. It's yielded both forces numerous advantages and I believe Americans understand this.
Then there's the mind set of liberal Jews. Among their ranks are many young Jews who have a weak sense of their people's history and the importance of their support for Israel. Then too, Jews are divided into factions; namely, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. Or, more simply, religiously observant Jews and secular Jews
All Jews, especially Reform and Conservative, or secular Jews, are proud, and rightfully so, of their work to help Martin Luther King free African-Americans from Jim Crow. They not only contributed money to this cause, they also rolled up their sleeves and got into the thick of it. Some paid with their lives. To have a minority person in the White House is seen by them as one of their greatest achievements. Mighty Israel in their mind is surely safe, but the rights of minorities still rallies their support. They fail to see that even Nelson Mandela's legacy in South Africa has its flaws. The League of Non-Aligned Nations, various Durban Conferences and the pronouncements of Rev. Tutu come to mind.
The number of Jewish votes that Romney can peel away from liberal Jewish block is woefully small. Thank goodness for the support given to Israel by America's Evangelical Christians. They, by and large, are Romney supporters.
1. The women's vote
Romney needs the fervent support of the Christian fundamentalists and these people are solidly for right-to-life. Women don't really care that no one can reverse the tide on this issue and on women's rights generally. They believe that "potentially" this right will be restricted. Romney can't say what I just did; namely, let's leave it in the platform but let's also promptly forget it. Romney can't even say that when he governed Massachusetts and the issue never arose. But, of course, that's the truth.
2 America's really tough and vitally important issues
Jobs, jobs, jobs --- the trick here is to get the economy moving upwards again. But, here there's a problem for Romney. Obama says pretty much the same thing. It's only that his background music is a little different. Obama says he'll institute job building programs (echoes of FDR). And, he'll tax the rich to build the middle class. And, also, no one will see their medicare threatened. The crowds cheer.
So what is Romney going to say? That job programs may sound terrific, but that they really don't work. (They didn't work for FDR either, even though they did result in a lot of good country music and some nice murals). People aren't going to be much enthused hearing this.
Is Romney going to tell people that "taxing the rich" may appeal to people out of work, but it gets the country nowhere. It certainly does nothing for the economy, and it doesn't even bring in nearly the amount of money that's needed to revitalize the economy and pay for our extraordinarily large entitlements. What he ought to explain is that he is for fairness, and that the quickest way of getting to fairness is to reform our tax code. But, here again, you have a subject that makes the average American's eyes glaze over.
And, here's the humdinger -- is Romney going to explain that our entitlements simply must be pared back? What! You mean I'm going to have to pay more for healthcare? What, when I'm on my death bed at 99, I won't be able to get a liver transplant? What, when I give birth to a child born without critical organs and about to die, you won't put that child on a mechanical device to squeeze a few more day's out of the infant? And, here's perhaps the biggest outrage: You're now telling me that for the conditions just mentioned you won't let me bring a million dollar lawsuit against the doctors and their hospital? (Enter America's lawyers.)
The reason Romney won't win on jobs, jobs, jobs (JJJ) is because to do so you've got to tackle entitlements, entitlements, entitlements (EEE). People want JJJ but no one should touch their EEE.
There's nothing really new about this. When you see Greeks or Spaniards rioting in the street, it's all about EEE. Do they have jobs? No. Unemployment for their youth is about 50%. They've gone way over the edge on EEE. In fact, economic realities being what they are, they are going to suffer significant losses of EEE, regardless of what their governments wish to do. or don't wish to do. Germans, whose governments have pared back on EEE and who consequently have the JJJ aren't of a mind to have their country's hard won wealth go to shore up their profligate cousins.
3. The Issue of Illegal Immigrants
This issue beautifully illustrates why Romney can't win. The issue of illegal immigrants, especially as it concerns Mexican immigrants, has been with us for a long time. John McCain and Ted Kennedy worked on a bill to resolve it many years ago. Had they pursued it a bit longer, the issue might have been taken care of.
The immigrant issue is basically a two part problem; namely, working out an amnesty for illegal immigrants and, secondly, getting control of our border with Mexico. With his political smarts, Obama skimmed the cream off this issue by giving a limited amnesty for a special slice of the immigrant population. He knew that Americans, being a generous people, would accept a fair minded amnesty program. And, indeed, they have. But, the important problem of securing America's borders has been left pretty much as it was. Be that as it may, Obama's move garnered him great PR with Latinos. It also cornered Romney. The border with Mexico is still a big problem, but now, whoever has the guts to deal with it, finds himself, or herself, without an important lever (or "carrot" if you prefer) to work with.
Whenever he can, we see Obama circumventing Congress. Small wonder then that he then gets so little cooperation from Congress But that's neither here nor there. It's Congress that gets blamed for not being cooperative.
4. Foreign affairs
Okay, so what have been Obama's accomplishments? Early on, upon entering office, he went on a tour throughout the middle east. What have been the results? A dead ambassador in Libya, an Egyptian president who heads the Islamic Brotherhood, and who, despite a stint at an American college, still doesn't grasp the concept of freedom of expression. The Russians view Obama as a boob. And, I'm not sure what interaction he's had with the Chinese.
It's been noted that he gives great speeches. Even I was highly impressed by his recent speech at the UN. But, he seems to have difficulty establishing one-on-one relations with world leaders. Be that as it may, mostly the voters don't care. Those Americans, who probably care most, are our troops. They see first hand the consequences of Obama's foreign policy, or the lack thereof. And, I would guess they are not great supporters of Obama.
5. Israel
I've separated Israel from "foreign affairs", because while it is one of Obama's biggest foreign policy disasters, it's one for which he's never been called to account, or suffered much in terms of declining voter support. That his policies regarding Israel are a disaster is clear. He travels through the middle east and bypasses America's staunchest ally. He shows himself to have a deaf ear as to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and then puts his thumb on the Palestinian side of the scales.
How does he get away with it? Two reasons: Military cooperation between America and Israel, has been excellent. It's yielded both forces numerous advantages and I believe Americans understand this.
Then there's the mind set of liberal Jews. Among their ranks are many young Jews who have a weak sense of their people's history and the importance of their support for Israel. Then too, Jews are divided into factions; namely, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. Or, more simply, religiously observant Jews and secular Jews
All Jews, especially Reform and Conservative, or secular Jews, are proud, and rightfully so, of their work to help Martin Luther King free African-Americans from Jim Crow. They not only contributed money to this cause, they also rolled up their sleeves and got into the thick of it. Some paid with their lives. To have a minority person in the White House is seen by them as one of their greatest achievements. Mighty Israel in their mind is surely safe, but the rights of minorities still rallies their support. They fail to see that even Nelson Mandela's legacy in South Africa has its flaws. The League of Non-Aligned Nations, various Durban Conferences and the pronouncements of Rev. Tutu come to mind.
The number of Jewish votes that Romney can peel away from liberal Jewish block is woefully small. Thank goodness for the support given to Israel by America's Evangelical Christians. They, by and large, are Romney supporters.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Economic Lessons From Germany
I've been reading this article from the Tuesday NY Times, 9/25/12. Its headline is "A German Job Problem Is Finding Workers." Hey, I think, that should only be our problem.
Then, half way through the article, the paper spills the beans. It explains that a big factor in bring down the jobless rate from 13% in 2005 to a figure of less than 7% today was a steep cut in jobless benefits. In addition, laws were passed making it "easier for companies to hire temporary workers with fewer protections against dismissal."
In short, "(increased employment) came at the expense of the comfortable but costly social benefits many treasured. People had to give up the security of a guaranteed long-term income if they became unemployed. They faced more pressure to take jobs they did not want. Even better paid workers had to make do with meager pay raises."
I imagine that would sound pretty awful to most people. But, consider the upside. Germany is financially solid. What entitlements it does grant can be relied upon. And, it is to Germany that countries like Greece and Spain look to for money to shore up their banks.
Greece and Spain are not just names. They are lands occupied by people who are rioting because they don't have jobs and they are finding their retirement benefits being cut. Bad deals are always being made. It they're made between companies, one company will profit and one will suffer. If a deal is made between workers and companies at the behest of the government, and it's a bad deal for the worker, the companies will profit. If it's bad deal for the companies and a good deal for the worker, the company will suffer and the worker will profit ---- but only in the short term. In the long term, the worker will also suffer.
This is what Germany and its workers understood. The rejiggered deal between companies and workers allowed companies to be a little more profitable, and left many workers with less than they might have hoped for. In the long run, however, everyone won. Workers can now find work and companies can now compete.
This is a lesson never learned by Greece and other European countries. The workers choose to give back nothing peacefully, the result is stagnation and joblessness. Ultimately, this economic lesson must be learned. There's really no escaping it. But the sooner the lesson is learned the less painful it is to bear.
Then, half way through the article, the paper spills the beans. It explains that a big factor in bring down the jobless rate from 13% in 2005 to a figure of less than 7% today was a steep cut in jobless benefits. In addition, laws were passed making it "easier for companies to hire temporary workers with fewer protections against dismissal."
In short, "(increased employment) came at the expense of the comfortable but costly social benefits many treasured. People had to give up the security of a guaranteed long-term income if they became unemployed. They faced more pressure to take jobs they did not want. Even better paid workers had to make do with meager pay raises."
I imagine that would sound pretty awful to most people. But, consider the upside. Germany is financially solid. What entitlements it does grant can be relied upon. And, it is to Germany that countries like Greece and Spain look to for money to shore up their banks.
Greece and Spain are not just names. They are lands occupied by people who are rioting because they don't have jobs and they are finding their retirement benefits being cut. Bad deals are always being made. It they're made between companies, one company will profit and one will suffer. If a deal is made between workers and companies at the behest of the government, and it's a bad deal for the worker, the companies will profit. If it's bad deal for the companies and a good deal for the worker, the company will suffer and the worker will profit ---- but only in the short term. In the long term, the worker will also suffer.
This is what Germany and its workers understood. The rejiggered deal between companies and workers allowed companies to be a little more profitable, and left many workers with less than they might have hoped for. In the long run, however, everyone won. Workers can now find work and companies can now compete.
This is a lesson never learned by Greece and other European countries. The workers choose to give back nothing peacefully, the result is stagnation and joblessness. Ultimately, this economic lesson must be learned. There's really no escaping it. But the sooner the lesson is learned the less painful it is to bear.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Economics As A Faith
What man understands and can prove by replicating a test can be categorized as "fact." We can thank Newton for helping us establish a great many physical facts. For Greeks, fire was a gift of God. We take it more as a matter of combustion. Anyway, it's a matter of chemistry. And, for Biblical Jews, disease was God's punishment. Fortunately, we've moved a bit beyond that.
How an economy works is something that is struggling to come down from some mountain on high. Were it only that we could bring it down to earth where we could analyze its nuts and bolts as we might an automobile engine.
Adam Smith didn't refer to God. Instead, he referred to "the invisible hand of the market." The phrase is generally recognized as a metaphor to describe the manner in which markets work. He actually used it only three times in his book, The Wealth of Nations, but it has proved itself to be a rich mine for all sorts of commentary. It kind of reminds me of the discussions once engaged in by theologians, who argued endlessly over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Many have toiled in this field; John Maynard Keynes comes to mind. We're never quite sure of whether their theories can be relied upon or not -- probably something in between. Paul Krugman says one thing and a list of economists as long as your arm says something different; that list includes a number of Nobel prize winners.
So who cares? If we're worried about America's unemployed, we should care. If we're concerned that America's fate is to follow the path taken by Italy, or Greece, or Spain, we should care. If we're worried about America becoming the sick man of the 21st century, --- you figure it out.
The horror is that the average American voter has no idea of economics. He, or she, rarely can tell you who Milton Friedman was, or the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy or how our government works to institute appropriate polices, or why our legislators do what they do. And, as for our understanding the ramifications of our health care entitlement? Forget about it. There seems to be nothing that Americans can really do when they caste their vote other than to put their faith in God.
How an economy works is something that is struggling to come down from some mountain on high. Were it only that we could bring it down to earth where we could analyze its nuts and bolts as we might an automobile engine.
Adam Smith didn't refer to God. Instead, he referred to "the invisible hand of the market." The phrase is generally recognized as a metaphor to describe the manner in which markets work. He actually used it only three times in his book, The Wealth of Nations, but it has proved itself to be a rich mine for all sorts of commentary. It kind of reminds me of the discussions once engaged in by theologians, who argued endlessly over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Many have toiled in this field; John Maynard Keynes comes to mind. We're never quite sure of whether their theories can be relied upon or not -- probably something in between. Paul Krugman says one thing and a list of economists as long as your arm says something different; that list includes a number of Nobel prize winners.
So who cares? If we're worried about America's unemployed, we should care. If we're concerned that America's fate is to follow the path taken by Italy, or Greece, or Spain, we should care. If we're worried about America becoming the sick man of the 21st century, --- you figure it out.
The horror is that the average American voter has no idea of economics. He, or she, rarely can tell you who Milton Friedman was, or the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy or how our government works to institute appropriate polices, or why our legislators do what they do. And, as for our understanding the ramifications of our health care entitlement? Forget about it. There seems to be nothing that Americans can really do when they caste their vote other than to put their faith in God.
American Jews and African-Americans
My Jewish, GOP friend is puzzled why American Jews vote in such large numbers for Obama, in light of the fact that this president seems to have virtually no empathy for Israel or Israelis.
It's a matter of Jewish cultural norms, I explain. Every Passover, Jews celebrate their freedom from Egyptian bondage. We celebrate what God did for us. And, we feel that this must inform our attitude towards others. (If I am not for others, who am I? If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If not now when?)
True, in the dark days of American slavery, there were some slave owners who were Jewish. It's also true, however, that there were freed slaves who also owned slaves. I say that not to exonerate Jewish slave owners, or any other slave owners, but simply to point out that history has some strange wrinkles.
Also, when Martin Luther King led the fight to free blacks from Jim Crow, we Jews can take pride in the number of our fellow Jews who stood at his side. Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, who died along side the black youth, James Chaney, come to mind. This is not to say that white Catholics and Protestants didn't also stand with the Rev. King, but Jews can take pride in the extent of their support.
In social struggles there will be winners and losers. I'm thinking of the white teachers and principals, who were driven out of their schools in Brooklyn when many such schools were turned over to community control. I'm also thinking of the white parents, who's kids worked hard to find a place in prestigious institutions of higher learning, were beaten out by kids with poorer scores because they didn't belong to the "right" race. I guess that goes under the heading of you-can't-make-an-omelette- without-breaking-an-egg. But, I think it best not to give this explanation to children of poor immigrants who arrived in America in the early days of the 20th century.
At any rate, liberals, and this includes most Jews, are proud of the progress that has been made in American race relations. There are still differences between our various ethnic groups. And, admittedly it seems Chinese-Americans are not playing by the rules. (Why are their kids always showing everyone else up with their sky-high test scores?)
I hope I've helped my friend begin to understand his fellow Jews, but I have my doubts. The other day he tells me he saw a You Tube clip of Obama at a conference of southern, black ministers. The clip shows a minister telling Obama that Holy Scriptures say that man shall not lie down with man, and that a woman shall not lie down with a woman. The minister then turns to Obama and tell him that, of course, they will vote for him. He is one of them.
Hey, my friend tells me, I looked in the mirror this morning and I suddenly realized that I wasn't black!
What can I do to explain to my friend that the Jewish view of our candidates is a matter of faith and not reason?
It's a matter of Jewish cultural norms, I explain. Every Passover, Jews celebrate their freedom from Egyptian bondage. We celebrate what God did for us. And, we feel that this must inform our attitude towards others. (If I am not for others, who am I? If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If not now when?)
True, in the dark days of American slavery, there were some slave owners who were Jewish. It's also true, however, that there were freed slaves who also owned slaves. I say that not to exonerate Jewish slave owners, or any other slave owners, but simply to point out that history has some strange wrinkles.
Also, when Martin Luther King led the fight to free blacks from Jim Crow, we Jews can take pride in the number of our fellow Jews who stood at his side. Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, who died along side the black youth, James Chaney, come to mind. This is not to say that white Catholics and Protestants didn't also stand with the Rev. King, but Jews can take pride in the extent of their support.
In social struggles there will be winners and losers. I'm thinking of the white teachers and principals, who were driven out of their schools in Brooklyn when many such schools were turned over to community control. I'm also thinking of the white parents, who's kids worked hard to find a place in prestigious institutions of higher learning, were beaten out by kids with poorer scores because they didn't belong to the "right" race. I guess that goes under the heading of you-can't-make-an-omelette- without-breaking-an-egg. But, I think it best not to give this explanation to children of poor immigrants who arrived in America in the early days of the 20th century.
At any rate, liberals, and this includes most Jews, are proud of the progress that has been made in American race relations. There are still differences between our various ethnic groups. And, admittedly it seems Chinese-Americans are not playing by the rules. (Why are their kids always showing everyone else up with their sky-high test scores?)
I hope I've helped my friend begin to understand his fellow Jews, but I have my doubts. The other day he tells me he saw a You Tube clip of Obama at a conference of southern, black ministers. The clip shows a minister telling Obama that Holy Scriptures say that man shall not lie down with man, and that a woman shall not lie down with a woman. The minister then turns to Obama and tell him that, of course, they will vote for him. He is one of them.
Hey, my friend tells me, I looked in the mirror this morning and I suddenly realized that I wasn't black!
What can I do to explain to my friend that the Jewish view of our candidates is a matter of faith and not reason?
Friday, September 14, 2012
USA: Going Over The Edge With Selma And Louise
According to Robert Rubin, a former Sec. of the Treasury, we are facing a dire financial situation. When will we go over the edge? That's hard to say. However, it is worth noting that Greece's bonds sold for a very long time at a meager spread from German bonds. Then suddenly, when it dawned on people that Greece couldn't continue without a lot of help from the EU, the interest rate on those bonds shot up.
James Baker was also on that C-SPAN panel, 9/14/12, with Rubin. He tied together a number of "dots." First, America's strength is no greater than its financial strength. Also, we can solve the situation now or later; but, the longer we wait, the harder it gets.
Taxing the top 1% or top 5% will do virtually nothing to solve America's fiscal problems. However, whether it solves the problem or not there must be some demonstration of fairness. The best way to tackle the fairness question is to reform our tax code.
Then, of course, we must tackle American entitlements. This won't be easy, but it's got to be done.
I feel that this job can best be done by Romney. Unfortunately, women are voting Democratic. And, I can see why, in light of the GOP Right-To-Life plank in its platform. women are put off by the GOP. Still, by giving the win to Obama, what they're doing is going over the cliff and taking all of us with them.
James Baker was also on that C-SPAN panel, 9/14/12, with Rubin. He tied together a number of "dots." First, America's strength is no greater than its financial strength. Also, we can solve the situation now or later; but, the longer we wait, the harder it gets.
Taxing the top 1% or top 5% will do virtually nothing to solve America's fiscal problems. However, whether it solves the problem or not there must be some demonstration of fairness. The best way to tackle the fairness question is to reform our tax code.
Then, of course, we must tackle American entitlements. This won't be easy, but it's got to be done.
I feel that this job can best be done by Romney. Unfortunately, women are voting Democratic. And, I can see why, in light of the GOP Right-To-Life plank in its platform. women are put off by the GOP. Still, by giving the win to Obama, what they're doing is going over the cliff and taking all of us with them.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Obamacare: True or False?
1. The $716 billion to be saved (or deducted, or stolen) from Medicare by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare):
Republicans call the reduction of spending increases to be taken over 10 years a theft.
Democrats call this legitimate cost cutting that will reduce waste in Medicare, but will not harm patients who will continue to be entitled to the care they need. It will only restrict payments to doctors and hospitals.
Republicans: These cuts will reduce the incentive of healthcare providers to treat Medicare patients.
Democrats: Paul Ryan's plan would make the same medicare cuts to reduce taxes (for the rich).
2. Paul Ryan charges Obama with failing to support his own commission; namely, Simpson-Bowles.
Democrats: Paul Ryan was on this commission and voted against it.
Republicans: Four Democrats and three other Republicans also voted against the commission. Those against felt the commission did not go far enough in controlling Medicare spending.
Democrats: The main reason Republicans voted against the commission was their pledge to raise no new taxes.
According to Barron's, Editorial Commentary by Thomas G. Donlan, all the above statements from both Republicans and Democrats are true as far as they go. But all are also false because of what they leave out. That is to say, they are a perfect reflection of politics and politicians.
Republicans call the reduction of spending increases to be taken over 10 years a theft.
Democrats call this legitimate cost cutting that will reduce waste in Medicare, but will not harm patients who will continue to be entitled to the care they need. It will only restrict payments to doctors and hospitals.
Republicans: These cuts will reduce the incentive of healthcare providers to treat Medicare patients.
Democrats: Paul Ryan's plan would make the same medicare cuts to reduce taxes (for the rich).
2. Paul Ryan charges Obama with failing to support his own commission; namely, Simpson-Bowles.
Democrats: Paul Ryan was on this commission and voted against it.
Republicans: Four Democrats and three other Republicans also voted against the commission. Those against felt the commission did not go far enough in controlling Medicare spending.
Democrats: The main reason Republicans voted against the commission was their pledge to raise no new taxes.
According to Barron's, Editorial Commentary by Thomas G. Donlan, all the above statements from both Republicans and Democrats are true as far as they go. But all are also false because of what they leave out. That is to say, they are a perfect reflection of politics and politicians.
Political Give and Take Among Hofstra's Retirees
Puck's PEIRs {Political Entertainment In Retirement}
Saturday, September 1, 2012
The U.S.: Will It Rise or Will It Fall?
Will Evangelists and others on the far right in their single-minded determination to save every embryo, regardless of whether it came into being through rape, incest, or stupidity, end the hope that this great country can regain its footing and proceed on its upward march? Will the majority of America's women, turned off by a Republican platform that elevates the status of embryos and fetuses above their rights and their humanity, help sink any hope for a rejuvenated America. This despite the true meaningless of the nonsensical right-to-life plank in the GOP platform?
Too much has been promised by America's politicians. It's not simply the entitlements that were granted despite the impossibility of our being able to pay for them. It's also that methods of providing for healthcare have not been kept up to date. The same-old-same-old won't do.
Is Simpson-Bowles the answer? Is Paul Ryan's bill, now in its third iteration, the answer? I don't know. But what I do know is that the Republicans have tried to do something. I also know that whatever eventually gets done with regards to healthcare will leave many Americans unhappy. That leaves us with the question as to which party will show the necessary leadership to do what's necessary?
Getting the economy to move back to a growth of 4%, or more, would help enormously. Drilling, and laying the necessary pipelines would be a major step in that direction. It would bring lots and lots of jobs and it would put us on the path to energy self sufficiency. Applying regulations that would be sufficient to keep harm from being done to our markets as well as keeping free markets from doing harm would be a further major step in the right direction. Excess regulations can do as much harm as inadequate regulation. Furthermore, policies regarding regulation should be conveyed to the markets so that entrepreneurs could proceed building business with a reasonable degree of confidence that their efforts will not be undermined by capricious governmental interference.
In all these matters, the Republicans seem far better positioned than the Democrats. But will they be permitted to do the job? Not if America's women are turned off by the distraction of "right-to-life. "
Will American women come to the realization that this plank in the party platform must be viewed as secondary to revitalizing our economy.
Too much has been promised by America's politicians. It's not simply the entitlements that were granted despite the impossibility of our being able to pay for them. It's also that methods of providing for healthcare have not been kept up to date. The same-old-same-old won't do.
Is Simpson-Bowles the answer? Is Paul Ryan's bill, now in its third iteration, the answer? I don't know. But what I do know is that the Republicans have tried to do something. I also know that whatever eventually gets done with regards to healthcare will leave many Americans unhappy. That leaves us with the question as to which party will show the necessary leadership to do what's necessary?
Getting the economy to move back to a growth of 4%, or more, would help enormously. Drilling, and laying the necessary pipelines would be a major step in that direction. It would bring lots and lots of jobs and it would put us on the path to energy self sufficiency. Applying regulations that would be sufficient to keep harm from being done to our markets as well as keeping free markets from doing harm would be a further major step in the right direction. Excess regulations can do as much harm as inadequate regulation. Furthermore, policies regarding regulation should be conveyed to the markets so that entrepreneurs could proceed building business with a reasonable degree of confidence that their efforts will not be undermined by capricious governmental interference.
In all these matters, the Republicans seem far better positioned than the Democrats. But will they be permitted to do the job? Not if America's women are turned off by the distraction of "right-to-life. "
Will American women come to the realization that this plank in the party platform must be viewed as secondary to revitalizing our economy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)