Category Archives: Politics

Politics

Losing Our Country – New York Times

Losing Our Country – New York Times

As Paul Krugman writes”Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families – and under the current administration, that favoritism has become extreme and relentless. From tax cuts that favor the rich to bankruptcy “reform” that punishes the unlucky, almost every domestic policy seems intended to accelerate our march back to the robber baron era.”

Well, duh. These robber baron wanna-bes are the ones that are paying for these congressmen that are passing these laws. People. WAKE UP, stop voting for these idiots that don’t deliver on their promises; the ones that are screwing you slowly.

Don’t let the propagandists lead you down the rosy path to perdition. This country worked because the general consensus was that we should promote the general economic welfare of society as a whole. As various people learned to game the system and promote their own welfare over society’s, we made corrections. Of late, it would seem that the system gamers are promoted as heroes, as good folk, to be emulated. All the while, the general economic structure that made this country great is dragged into the mud.

I do hope that the country will make the next correction soon. Unfortunately, it looks like the lawmakers have gotten caught up in the “gaming the system” syndrome and the people don’t seem pre-disposed to get rid of them, so it may be a while.

Politics

Constitutional Activism

It occurs to me that most people who complain about ‘activist’ judges ignoring or bending the Constitution haven’t read the Constitution, don’t know what the Constitution (as amended) says, don’t have a basic understanding of the Constitution, and wouldn’t vote for it today, if it ever came up for a vote.

Politics

Changing Senate Rules

If the Senate is so eager to change the rules of the Senate, why don’t they change it so that any life-term appointment requires a 2/3 up/down vote.

When you get right down to it, I would prefer that the federal judges have a super-majority consensus for appointment rather than the support of whatever idealogues are in the majority at the moment. (Judges are the only ones that get life-time appointments, right?)

General, Politics

Health-Care Costs Expected to Soar Over Next Decade

Health-Care Costs Expected to Soar Over Next Decade

This article discusses some of the pending healthcare cost rises. From an est. $1.9 Trillion in 2005 to $3.6 Trillion in 2014.

I want to look at the per person costs for healthcare. For 2005, I will figure on a Population of 290 Million. For 2014, I will use 310 Million.

Using the numbers above, our health care costs average $6,552 per person in 2005, rising to $11,613 in 2014.

If we consider insurance as a shared risk pool, it would seem to me that for a $6552 a year everyone should should get into a health insurance plan. I will even give up $552 a year for as a deductible and say $6000 a year. For Elaine and myself, a mere $12,000 a year will cover us for healthcare; rising to $22000 a year in 2014. (I am going to a $613 deductible in 2014) .

Of course, this insurance pool needs to include EVERYONE, from newborn babe to deathbed pensioner. If we allow opt-in/opt-out options, then many sub-30 people will opt-out because “We are in the Pink of Health!” And a family with 8 kids and 2 parents will face an annual insurance bill of $60,000 with a $5520 deductible. Somehow, I don’t think that will be economically viable from the family’s point of view.

My numbers are a bit higher than the article’s. I think I am assuming a lower population number, but our costs per person are close. The upshot would appear to be that while a wage-earning individual faces a reasonable average payment, the gross family payments account equal or exceed the poverty level for a family of 3, or greater. (The single Poverty rate is greater than the $6,552 for a single healthcare share. The family of 2 Poverty rate is just just less than the $13,104 healthcare rate for two.) Something seems askew when the poverty rate doesn’t include health insurance costs.

General, Politics

National Identity

I see that there are a lot of comments going on about a National ID card. Evidently, some in the Congress are trying to mandate that state driver’s licenses should contain a common set of information, that that information will be shared across a common database system between all 50 states and that a driver needs to prove their citizenship to get a license.

I don’t have any problem with Congress mandating that state’s DLs have common information. It makes sense that IDs should include a name, picture and DOB. And I think that some states don’t include all that information on a DL.

What I strenuously object to is the idea of sharing information between states. I am a citizen/resident of Colorado. I don’t need for any Californian browsing through my record, whether with good intentions, no intentions or bad intentions. It is not anyone’s business, outside of Colorado, what my DL says.

As a secondary objection, the idea of mandating that states verify US citizenship before issuing a license is stupid. The Feds aren’t going to put any money into the time and effort to handle validation. What I would suggest is that the Feds define what constitutes proof of citizenship and then ask the state to note on the driver’s license that “Proof of US Citizenship Presented” or something like that if the citizen presents proof. If someone wants a license but doesn’t want to gather the necessary documents then the field can be left blank or filled in with “No Proof of Citizenship Presented”. If someone comes in for a license and presents proof of Japanese citizenship then that can be noted on the license. I don’t see any reason to stop someone from getting a Driver License just because they aren’t a citizen. As long as they are residing in the state, I think it would behoove us to know that they know the rules of the road.

One of the on-going problems with the whole Driver License National ID is that there are a number of people who don’t drive. I know of a few non-drivers. I expect in 20-30 years I will be a non-driver. Some states, maybe all, offer a non-driver license ID so non-drivers can have the checking cashing ID form so many stores require. This could be included with the ‘National ID’ card as well.

I know some tellers get freaked out when you show them your US Passport as an ID.

PS > No Social Security Number on your Driver License. < The odds of someone hacking the DL database and getting critical ID information are pretty high. They only need to do it once. And if the state Databases are networked, then everyone loses their Identity.

Liberating Thoughts, Politics

What is a Representative Democracy?

It would appear that people have forgotten the principles of representative government and why we elect representatives to the Congress every two years.

The holders of those offices certainly don’t want the people to think about how they are not doing their jobs. They would prefer to distract ‘The People’ and point to irrelvant issues to consider.

Taken in the light of ‘The People’ governing themselves, I don’t see very many liberals on the National Political Scene. And it may be that you have to sell your soul to get to that level. ‘The People’ don’t seem to have much to say about critical federal items like debt-ceiling and deficits. Everything seems to be pork barrel politics; get the goods for your district and keep the voters happy, even if you have to compromise your principles by supporting someone else’s bill that doesn’t really impact your district anyway.

And it may be that people just aren’t paying attention to what the idiots in DC are doing this term, because at the Federal level there aren’t that many items that have a direct daily impact on people. How your representative voted regarding salmon fishing farms of the coast of Washington State probably doesn’t have much impact on the average citizen not on the coast of Washington State. But what sort of deals were cut to get that vote?

Maybe, in the global scheme of things, Salmon Fish Farming has a role. I think that is part of why representatives are in Washington. To get the information together that will alow them to make an informed vote and not a bought vote. Their vote should be for their constituents first, and for the US second, if they do’t see their constituency as being a primary player.

We don’t have a very representative democracy anymore, here in the USA. There is 1 person representing almost 1 million citizens in Montana. That doesn’t sound very representative to me. On average, each representative represents 650,000 citizens. That doesn’t sound very representive to me. I think one representative for every 100,000 citizens is a fair goal. It may get a bit chaotic on the Hill trying to get 50% of 3000 representatives to agree on something, but democracy isn’t pretty.

I would actually suggest that a 2/3 majority is needed to pass a federal law, but that might be going to far. I’m willing to compromise on 50%+. If you can’t get 67% of the representatives to agree on a budget, maybe there are some things in it that don’t belong there.

General, Politics

Estate Taxes

I heard the the House has passed a bill that will do away with the Estate Tax in 2010, so it doesn’t come back as currently allowed.

What I don’t understand is why the Republicans think that the estate tax is ‘unfair’. The person who earned the estate, built it up penny by penny, is dead. They don’t need it anymore. Once you leave the playing table, your chips revert to the bank.

All right, so they want to pass their ill-gotten gains onto others. How is this fair? One measure of success in our society is your net worth. So these inheritors are suddenly swimming in money without lifting a finger. How is that fair?

Not having an Estate Tax is inherently unfair. It promotes the growth of an aristocracy that claims great material wealth based on the activities of their ancestors. I think the British have already demonstrated the usefulness of these twits.

Another argument made about the Estae Tax is that it causes family businesses to break up because they have to sell the business assets to pay the tax.

My solution is simple. Property that is inherited is not taxed at the time of inheritence. It is only taxed when it is sold. If someone passes on the family farm, worth 10’s of millions of dollars, to three children, along with 10 million dollars, the Estate Tax would be figured on the dollars and not the farm (unless the children want to sell it). When one or all of the children decide to sell part or whole of the farm, then they pay the Estate Tax on it. The same can be done for paintings, artwork, jewelry, family heirlooms. No tax until they are sold. Stocks, bonds, money instruments, basically anything the SEC might oversee, are taxed when inherited, if the total value of the Estate at time of death exceeds some set value. (We don’t count property appreciation after death.)

What would be a good set value to start Estate Taxes? How about 10 times the anual salary of the President of the United States? or 5 times? That allows the value to change with the times and not squeeze everyone once inflation pushes the poverty level up to $1,000,000.

Liberating Thoughts, Politics

What is a Liberal?

I can across this commentary last week and it addressed a question I have been puzzling about for a while.

“What exactly is a Liberal?”

I have peripherally been following the Conservative/Liberal clash in the US and am puzzled why the term ‘Liberal’ has picked up such a bad connotation. ‘Liberal’ has been the hallmark of American politics for over 220 years.

Mahablog answers this in a perceptive way, A liberal is one who believes that ‘The People’ can govern themsleves; a conservative believes that ‘The People’ can’t govern themselves, but instead appeals to a higher or singular authority to enable governance. (This makes Scalia’s comment a lot more obvious.)

The conservative approach is to appeal to a higher authority, to deify or sanctify one individual, usually the President in US politics, and say that he is the Ruler and that what he wants is the ‘right thing’ and that all who oppose him are evil. If the President doesn’t come up to snuff, then you can point to an ayatollah or a newt for governance.

Kings, Caesars, Dictators, High Priests, Archbishops, Witch Doctors, Chiefs, Elders, Popes, Jedi Knights. These are all higher authorities that people look to for guidance. So often, it is the cultural background that demands obedience without evidence. And questioning them for the evidence is heresy and undermines the faith of others. Faith. That is the ultimate appeal of the higher authority. You don’t need evidence if you have faith.

When ‘The People’ singularly, or within groups, give up their right to determine for themselves who shall represent them, and instead follow the dictates of a demagogue who is influenced and guided by larger demagogues, then democracy is lost.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Iraq in the next few years. My impression, albeit from sketchy sources, is that the Iraqi people don’t necessarily believe that ‘The People’ should govern themselves. There are learned and wise people who have studied the arts of governance and they are the ones that need to be in charge. How they determine the top dog is their problem, not a problem for ‘The People’. I hope I am wrong. I hope that the Iraqi’s will work out the governance problems and become liberals. We shall see.

Democracy is not pretty. Democracy involves working with people you wouldn’t want within a thousand meters of you. Democracy means being a liberal.