I just got back from a discussion with one of my conservative friends ranging over the usual territory but ending as usual with the "outrage du jour", "the government takeover of healthcare". Elsewhere I've I've documented how the U.S. healthcare system is simply a lousy value but that isn't what we're talking about here. The argument as I understand it is that the recently passed healthcare legislation is unconstitutional on the grounds that (a) nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government can legislate requirements for a healthcare system and (b) nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to require that individuals spend their money to acquire healthcare coverage.
Ok. Let's talk about roads.
If "we, the people" decided that we would like a road from Atlanta to Birmingham and that rights-of-way were acquired almost all the way in either direction until we came to a farmer who simply didn't want to sell his pasture, where in the Constitution does it say that government has to power to acquire his land, particularly at a price that is set by the purchaser, the government? The answer is of course nowhere is this explicitly stated. It is assumed under general powers of government. I would imagine that few of my conservative friends would argue that our roadway system is a bad thing. I also assume that few would argue that we would have a better road system if I got inspired to build a bit of road in front of my house and waited until my neighbors were similarly inspired. Roads are simply and example of what "we the people" can do better together than we can individually.
And that is what this argument is really about. "We the people" have established a democracy which means simply that we have joined together to rule ourselves, to do things together. Those who argue that government is the enemy are un-American. If the government is us, saying the government is the enemy is saying "I'm an enemy of the people" and therefore an enemy of America.
So is healthcare an example of something we can do better together rather than individually? I think so. Other nations with better outcomes and lower expenses have thought so. But it is reasonable to argue otherwise. I think however that to argue that this is a Constitutional crisis or, as my friend suggested today, that this is a battle between good and evil is just another attempt by the right to whip up their faithful into a frenzy where reasonable reflection and debate become impossible.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The Miracle of Earth
There are those of us who seek and find miracles by seeing Jesus in a pancake.[1] This is all well and good for those who need miracles of a more, shall we say, esoteric type. However I think that they may be overlooking a miracle closer at hand.
Every year the U.S. government and the scientific establishment spend quite a bit of money looking for “Earth-like” worlds orbiting distant suns. This is of course a bit of a fraud on those of us contributing the money to do so. The gullible public and media’s minds go immediately to visions of cities filled with little green men flying around in zero-gravity airships. As any reputable scientist would tell you however, that is not quite what is meant by “Earth-like”. What they are saying is ‘roughly the same size as the Earth, roughly the same distance from their sun as Earth, and said sun being roughly of the same type as Earth’s sun. So what’s so fraudulent about that? Well, it overlooks the “miracle” of Earth; what makes Earth, so far as has been found, unique.
Let’s start with a few of those “roughlys” in our own solar system. There are two other planets circling the Sun with us that are roughly the same size as Earth and roughly similar in distance from it. Of course I’m referring to Mars and Venus. Mars is about 53% of the diameter of Earth[2]; Venus around 94%. Mars’ and Venus’ orbits are around 150% and 72% of Earth’s respectively. Were we being observed from one of those distant “Earth-like” worlds they would say that there were three “Earth-like” worlds in our solar system.
We however would hardly consider Mars and Venus Earth-like. Mars effectively has no breathable atmosphere, less than 1% of Earth’s air pressure. In its average temperature of 80 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit), water, were there any, would be solid ice. On the other hand Venus’ atmosphere is around 92 times as dense as Earth’s. Its average surface temperature is 865° F. Needless to say liquid water is impossible there.
Breathable air and liquid water are essential to life as we know it.
Why don’t Mars and Venus have them? Let’s consider first of all that if the positions of Mars and Venus were reversed, the newly positioned Venus would be considerably hotter than the old Mars and the new Mars would be considerably colder than the old Venus. Why? Atmosphere. Atmosphere traps heat. And Mars is just slightly too small to have sufficient gravity to have held onto the atmosphere that undoubtedly it once had. Venus, only a bit larger, has a crushing atmosphere and blazing temperatures. Its size, its gravity, is sufficient to have retained its atmosphere; in fact far too much of it to be truly “Earth-like”.
But wait? Didn’t I just say that Earth is slightly larger than Venus? How is it that Venus’ gravity retained an extremely dense atmosphere and Earth didn’t? The answer is the true miracle of Earth, the Moon. The Moon is over 70% as large as the planet Mercury and is in fact almost half again the size of the (former) planet Pluto; it’s about half the diameter of Mars. In fact, judging by diameter, it is a planet in its own right. As it is only around 380,000 miles from Earth, the Earth/Moon pair should rightly be thought of as twin planets. And what has having another planet this close to the Earth done to it? Among other things over the eons the Moon has dragged away much of Earth’s atmosphere, leaving just sufficient air to trap just enough heat to keep water liquid.
So what are the odds of that? A planet of just the right size at just the right distance from just the right type of star and this planet is one of a pair, a twin planetary system. If the little green men come from worlds like ours they must be very rare indeed.
Air and water, essential to life. Let’s think for a moment about our air, our atmosphere. Almost all of it is contained in the troposphere; that’s the 7 mile thick layer that our weather occurs in (although only the first mile or so is dense enough to breathe). To us, crawling along the Earth’s surface, this seems an immense mass. It is in fact an incredibly thin film over the surface of the planet. Every junior high school student learned that, despite Earth’s soaring mountains and deep oceanic trenches, if the Earth were reduced to its size it would be smoother than a pool ball. Were that pool ball dipped in very thin paint, that would be our atmosphere. Another way of thinking of it is to imagine a stack of 20 decks of playing cards. If we were to slide an extra card in at the top and bottom they would be our atmosphere; very thin and, as we are learning, very fragile. If that coating of paint were twice as thick, if two cards instead of one were added to the top and bottom of the stack, our planet would be uninhabitable. The Moon; thank the Moon.
And water; what a remarkable thing that is. So simple, composed only of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms yet able to contribute so much to our carbon-based life. Water also has remarkable heat transferring properties absorbing and releasing heat in ways that make life possible. [3] The inventor William Lear, who gave us among other things the Lear jet and 8-track tape player, thought that if he could find a substance with better heat-transferring properties than water he could devise a modern steam engine more efficient than the internal combustion engines that drive most of our cars. After years of experimentation he came up with a substance he called Learium III which, as he admitted, “mixes well with scotch”. [4] It was water. If there were a better liquid for storing and releasing heat Bill Lear couldn’t find it. And why do we have an abundance of liquid water? Mars doesn’t have it (not enough atmosphere); Venus neither (too much). Thank the Moon
And how did this remarkable thing, this Moon, come about? Various theories for the origin of the Moon have been proposed but the currently favored one [5] is that shortly after the Earth’s formation a Mars-sized planet collided with it. Large portions of the Earth were ejected and this matter coalesced into the Moon which settled into orbit around the Earth. While startling that seems simple enough, but think about it.
The Earth could have just shattered and dispersed but it didn’t.
The ejected material could have had such velocity that it just kept on going, but it didn’t.
The ejected matter could have drifted around and then come crashing back into the Earth, but it didn’t.
The ejected matter could have been insufficient to make the planet-sized Moon with all the attendant consequences noted above, but that wasn’t the case.
Instead a planet-sized pile of debris was ejected from a planetary collision and this debris coalesced into a planet that settled into orbit around the Earth; quite a coincidence and just what we needed.
The Moon, Earth’s miracle.
Every year the U.S. government and the scientific establishment spend quite a bit of money looking for “Earth-like” worlds orbiting distant suns. This is of course a bit of a fraud on those of us contributing the money to do so. The gullible public and media’s minds go immediately to visions of cities filled with little green men flying around in zero-gravity airships. As any reputable scientist would tell you however, that is not quite what is meant by “Earth-like”. What they are saying is ‘roughly the same size as the Earth, roughly the same distance from their sun as Earth, and said sun being roughly of the same type as Earth’s sun. So what’s so fraudulent about that? Well, it overlooks the “miracle” of Earth; what makes Earth, so far as has been found, unique.
Let’s start with a few of those “roughlys” in our own solar system. There are two other planets circling the Sun with us that are roughly the same size as Earth and roughly similar in distance from it. Of course I’m referring to Mars and Venus. Mars is about 53% of the diameter of Earth[2]; Venus around 94%. Mars’ and Venus’ orbits are around 150% and 72% of Earth’s respectively. Were we being observed from one of those distant “Earth-like” worlds they would say that there were three “Earth-like” worlds in our solar system.
We however would hardly consider Mars and Venus Earth-like. Mars effectively has no breathable atmosphere, less than 1% of Earth’s air pressure. In its average temperature of 80 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit), water, were there any, would be solid ice. On the other hand Venus’ atmosphere is around 92 times as dense as Earth’s. Its average surface temperature is 865° F. Needless to say liquid water is impossible there.
Breathable air and liquid water are essential to life as we know it.
Why don’t Mars and Venus have them? Let’s consider first of all that if the positions of Mars and Venus were reversed, the newly positioned Venus would be considerably hotter than the old Mars and the new Mars would be considerably colder than the old Venus. Why? Atmosphere. Atmosphere traps heat. And Mars is just slightly too small to have sufficient gravity to have held onto the atmosphere that undoubtedly it once had. Venus, only a bit larger, has a crushing atmosphere and blazing temperatures. Its size, its gravity, is sufficient to have retained its atmosphere; in fact far too much of it to be truly “Earth-like”.
But wait? Didn’t I just say that Earth is slightly larger than Venus? How is it that Venus’ gravity retained an extremely dense atmosphere and Earth didn’t? The answer is the true miracle of Earth, the Moon. The Moon is over 70% as large as the planet Mercury and is in fact almost half again the size of the (former) planet Pluto; it’s about half the diameter of Mars. In fact, judging by diameter, it is a planet in its own right. As it is only around 380,000 miles from Earth, the Earth/Moon pair should rightly be thought of as twin planets. And what has having another planet this close to the Earth done to it? Among other things over the eons the Moon has dragged away much of Earth’s atmosphere, leaving just sufficient air to trap just enough heat to keep water liquid.
So what are the odds of that? A planet of just the right size at just the right distance from just the right type of star and this planet is one of a pair, a twin planetary system. If the little green men come from worlds like ours they must be very rare indeed.
Air and water, essential to life. Let’s think for a moment about our air, our atmosphere. Almost all of it is contained in the troposphere; that’s the 7 mile thick layer that our weather occurs in (although only the first mile or so is dense enough to breathe). To us, crawling along the Earth’s surface, this seems an immense mass. It is in fact an incredibly thin film over the surface of the planet. Every junior high school student learned that, despite Earth’s soaring mountains and deep oceanic trenches, if the Earth were reduced to its size it would be smoother than a pool ball. Were that pool ball dipped in very thin paint, that would be our atmosphere. Another way of thinking of it is to imagine a stack of 20 decks of playing cards. If we were to slide an extra card in at the top and bottom they would be our atmosphere; very thin and, as we are learning, very fragile. If that coating of paint were twice as thick, if two cards instead of one were added to the top and bottom of the stack, our planet would be uninhabitable. The Moon; thank the Moon.
And water; what a remarkable thing that is. So simple, composed only of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms yet able to contribute so much to our carbon-based life. Water also has remarkable heat transferring properties absorbing and releasing heat in ways that make life possible. [3] The inventor William Lear, who gave us among other things the Lear jet and 8-track tape player, thought that if he could find a substance with better heat-transferring properties than water he could devise a modern steam engine more efficient than the internal combustion engines that drive most of our cars. After years of experimentation he came up with a substance he called Learium III which, as he admitted, “mixes well with scotch”. [4] It was water. If there were a better liquid for storing and releasing heat Bill Lear couldn’t find it. And why do we have an abundance of liquid water? Mars doesn’t have it (not enough atmosphere); Venus neither (too much). Thank the Moon
And how did this remarkable thing, this Moon, come about? Various theories for the origin of the Moon have been proposed but the currently favored one [5] is that shortly after the Earth’s formation a Mars-sized planet collided with it. Large portions of the Earth were ejected and this matter coalesced into the Moon which settled into orbit around the Earth. While startling that seems simple enough, but think about it.
The Earth could have just shattered and dispersed but it didn’t.
The ejected material could have had such velocity that it just kept on going, but it didn’t.
The ejected matter could have drifted around and then come crashing back into the Earth, but it didn’t.
The ejected matter could have been insufficient to make the planet-sized Moon with all the attendant consequences noted above, but that wasn’t the case.
Instead a planet-sized pile of debris was ejected from a planetary collision and this debris coalesced into a planet that settled into orbit around the Earth; quite a coincidence and just what we needed.
The Moon, Earth’s miracle.
[1] This bizarre fact and others from http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/nw060319.html
[4] “Popular Mechanics” August 1972. http://books.google.com/books?id=NNQDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA116&ots=uIIoh1HIgJ&dq=learium%20iii&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q=learium%20iii&f=true
Bang for the Buck: US Healthcare vs the Other Top 10 Spenders
The liberals are always saying that the United States spends more and gets less for its health care dollar than other industrialized countries. Being an open-minded kind of guy I thought I’d do some independent research on that; here’s what I found out.
The U.S. is number one in per capita health care spending world-wide; almost twice as much as other top ten spenders.
Of the top ten spenders:
• The U.S. is number one in infant mortality, twice as bad as others in the top 10.
• The U.S. is number one in mortality of children under five years old, twice as bad as others in the top 10.
God bless America.
The U.S. is number one in per capita health care spending world-wide; almost twice as much as other top ten spenders.
Of the top ten spenders:
• The U.S. is number one in infant mortality, twice as bad as others in the top 10.
• The U.S. is number one in mortality of children under five years old, twice as bad as others in the top 10.
God bless America.
| Country | Annual Health Care Expenditure Per Capita (USD) | Rank | Infant Mortality Rate (Per 1000 Live Births) | Rank | Under 5 Mortality Rate (Per 1000 Live Births) | Rank | ||||||
| United States | $6,096 | 1 | 6.3 | 1 | 7.8 | 1 | ||||||
| Luxembourg | 5,178 | 2 | 4.5 | 3 | 6.6 | 2 | ||||||
| Norway | 4,080 | 3 | 3.3 | 9 | 4.4 | 9 | ||||||
| Switzerland | 4,011 | 4 | 4.1 | 8 | 5.1 | 8 | ||||||
| Austria | 3,418 | 5 | 4.4 | 4 | 5.4 | 5 | ||||||
| Iceland | 3,294 | 6 | 2.9 | 10 | 3.9 | 10 | ||||||
| Canada | 3,173 | 7 | 4.8 | 2 | 5.9 | 3 | ||||||
| Germany | 3,171 | 8 | 4.3 | 6 | 5.4 | 5 | ||||||
| Belgium | 3,133 | 9 | 4.2 | 7 | 5.3 | 7 | ||||||
| Australia | 3,123 | 10 | 4.4 | 4 | 5.6 | 4 |
| Country | Annual Health Care Expenditure Per Capita (Relative to U.S.) | Infant Mortality Rate (Relative to U.S.) | Under 5 Mortality Rate (Relative to U.S.) | |||
| United States | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | |||
| Luxembourg | 84.94% | 71.43% | 84.62% | |||
| Norway | 66.93% | 52.38% | 56.41% | |||
| Switzerland | 65.80% | 65.08% | 65.38% | |||
| Austria | 56.07% | 69.84% | 69.23% | |||
| Iceland | 54.04% | 46.03% | 50.00% | |||
| Canada | 52.05% | 76.19% | 75.64% | |||
| Germany | 52.02% | 68.25% | 69.23% | |||
| Belgium | 51.39% | 66.67% | 67.95% | |||
| Australia | 51.23% | 69.84% | 71.79% | |||
| Sources: | ||||||
More about Government et al; What is to be done?
Continuing the transcribed e-debate begun below.
Paul
"Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity"
Hebrews 5:2
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
Hebrews 11:1
I think that the majority of Americans would agree that the moral rejuvenation of our nation is desirable so let’s start a movement, we’ll call it the Moral Majority. No, that one’s taken.
I think we started off with "what’s going to get done about healthcare?" That morphed into "nothing because of the corruption of our government; what are we going to do about that?" This became "nothing until we undertake the complete moral rejuvenation of our nation." A laudable and worthy goal. So, what’s going to get done about healthcare?
Returning to our habit of quotations, "Politics is the art of the possible." (Bismarck 1867). Or how about "What Is To Be Done?" (Lenin 1902) which starts with "Where To Begin". Would electing more Democrats just mean more hogs at the trough? I firmly and truly believe it would. I also believe that the result would be better healthcare for most if not all Americans.
As to the desirability of founding our moral crusade on the precepts of Christianity, well …. I spend several hours a week engaged with other folks attempting to make their approach to and engagement with life have a more spiritual basis. At one time I was regularly in a small group where (at least) three faiths were represented and at some point a representative of each faith stated that it was clear that the spiritual principles we were studying originated in their belief system. From this I took it that valid spiritual principles are universal or as Buddhists say "there are many paths up the mountain." As to the utility of the Judeo-Christian precepts I note that their "Big 10" includes things like "you shall not kill". Can you say, if you didn’t kill anyone today, that today I am a moral person? I rather like the more granular 12 tire tools that I’ve been given which say things like, we make "a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves" and "when we were wrong we promptly admitted it". A little more "day to day" I would say.
So much for my discursus. I note that another thread has been introduced into this conversation; our imbalanced budget, with various side notes on the two parties. First I would note that the last time we had a balanced budget (setting aside for a moment the national debt) was under a Democratic administration. This was immediately followed by a budget-balancing tax-cutting two term Republican administration and we have the largest national budget deficit in our history. Judging by results, which party is the fiscal hawk? When I’m in charge I’ll cut the military to what is sufficient to protect our shores and eliminate the cap on Social Security payments. I’m not sure that a tax hike would be in that case required. ("Vote for Me" on the Pragmatic Progressive ticket)
Respondant SB
I not only have no problem with your 12 tire tools; I heartily support you and them.
The verse you quote about not having compassion unless one senses one's own infirmity may provide an answer of where to begin. Perhaps if we the people rose up and demanded the removal of healthcare benefits from all personnel of all branches of government, they would begin to feel the national healthcare infirmity born by so many and act accordingly. The only infirmity politicians and lobbyist seem to sense now is their own electability.
As to having the military have a bake sale to raise money, leaving us to direct our tax dollars to help the infirm, if only it were that simple - the Department of Defense base budget in 2010 is $533.7 billion
The CBO outlook for mandatory spending on just Soc. Sec, Medicare & Medicaid for 2010 is $1.5 trillion and increases to a cumulative $8.7 trillion 2011-215. If military spending were eliminated entirely it wouldn't make a decent dent in the spending the federal government, by law, is obligated to under these entitlements.
However politically unpopular & painful on either side, it seems impossible that the budget curves will not be bent into line without serious changes on both the revenue and cost side…a position I believe held by Obama’s new Bipartisan Deficit Commission.
As to our morphing conversation, how can a gigantic national overhaul like healthcare reform be considered apart from budget and the guiding values of those authoring the bill and those to whom they owe allegiance? (not to mention particulars of what is therefore in and not in such legislation)
If you can do that, I certainly will vote for you on any ticket for any office you wish ;-)
Paul
Re DoD budget:
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.
When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009 the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than Obama had requested. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expected an additional supplemental spending bill, possibly in the range of $40-50 billion, by the Spring of 2010 in order to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.
In addition, the Pentagon has access to black budget military spending for special programs which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures
So the real DoD budget is roughly twice the "line item" of $533.7 billion.
In 2009 Social Security receipts were roughly $807 billion; expenditures $670 billion, which is the "top line" number in the reference of the forwarded email. Inadequate for projected needs but not quite the avalanche it appears. To this I note "Removing the Social Security earnings cap virtually eliminates funding gap":
This shortfall is less severe than is often presented by proponents of Social Security privatization. SSA's projections show that a 1.9 percentage-point increase in the existing payroll tax dedicated to Social Security would close the projected funding gap over a 75-year period. Using slightly less pessimistic economic assumptions about the next 75 years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the gap could be closed over the next 75 years with just a 1.0 percentage-point increase. Currently, all earnings up to $90,000 are taxed at 12.4% to fund Social Security. Each dollar earned over and above this cap is completely exempt from Social Security taxes.
This cap affects benefits as well: calculation of Social Security benefits are based on a formula that does not take earnings over the cap into account. Since higher income during one's working life translates into higher Social Security benefits, removing the cap on the benefit side would increase Social Security payments to high-wage earners.
The figure below shows the current actuarial shortfall faced by Social Security under both the SSA and CBO estimates, and the effects of removing the earnings cap on taxes and benefits, based on a 2005 memo by the Office of the Actuary for the SSA. Removing the earnings cap on taxes and benefits improves the 75-year actuarial balance by 1.7% of payroll, thereby eliminating 90% of the funding deficit forecast by the SSA. Removing the cap would completely eliminate the deficit forecast by the CBO with its more plausible economic assumptions.
Respondant SB
Here are a couple of paragraphs that put the US budget into perspective from an article here (not agreeing or disagreeing with his suggestions, just found the description compelling):
Let's look more closely at budget revenues and outlays. In a normal year, our federal tax system takes in around 17% of GDP -- less in the current recession and more in years of financial bubbles, when capital-gains-tax collections are high. It's important to understand what those revenues buy us. Military spending accounts for around 5% of GDP. Health spending (including Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' health) is around 5% of GDP, as is Social Security (retirement, disability and veterans' benefits). Interest payments on the debt will soon reach 2% of GDP. In short, the Federal Government collects tax revenues sufficient to cover just four budget items. The rest of the budget is funded by borrowing.
Here are some of the things not covered by government revenues that we are currently borrowing to pay for: homeland security, unemployment compensation, job training, support for state and local governments, federal higher-education outlays, satellites and manned space missions, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, community development, food stamps, low-cost housing, roads, bridges, environmental protection and conservation, emergency relief and reconstruction (such as for New Orleans), the judicial and penal systems, international diplomacy and poverty reduction, renewable energy. These aren't temporary programs or things we can do without. They are core public services needed for an efficient and fair economy.
Based on a similar general view, former comptroller general of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)"the nation's top auditor" - David Walker in his recent book Comeback America asserts that our nation's financial condition is worse than advertised and it's deteriorating with each passing day. We face a $56 plus trillion dollar financial sinkhole that is growing rapidly.
He computes this as $13.5 trillion 2010 federal debt, plus $49.9 trillion in total long range"fiscal exposure" of all federal debts, obligations, mandatory payments and entitlements, etc. that are on the books and by law must be paid to various holder and beneficiaries. The sinkhole grows because the hard wired obligations continue to rise while revenue shortfall (the annual deficit) continues to grow. By 2040, Walker believes federal tax revenues will only cover interest on the debt, and Medicare + Medicaid - if nothing changes.
Based on the GAO's latest long-range budget simulation, this country's single largest federal expense within 12 years will be interest of the federal debt. And that assumes interest rates won't rise which is totally unrealistic given expected borrowing levels
He’s pretty equally hard on Republicans and Democrats for this and outlines a broad set of solutions, including tight federal budget control laws; raising the Soc Sec cap and pushing out retirement age, etc.; rationalizing Medicare; reigning in and rationalizing military spending and a host of other things. A bulleted summary of some main points can be found here:
http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/oped/combackamerica/
He not posit these number just to frighten, but, whether you agree or disagree with his exact conclusions or particular proposals, to bring into focus the reality of our situation which is far more serious when you look at the whole forest than might appear when looking at the individual trees, according to this top CPA.
I have bought the book...I might (possibly) attempt to provide a better summation/critique after I have read it.
Paul
"Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity"
Hebrews 5:2
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
Hebrews 11:1
I think that the majority of Americans would agree that the moral rejuvenation of our nation is desirable so let’s start a movement, we’ll call it the Moral Majority. No, that one’s taken.
I think we started off with "what’s going to get done about healthcare?" That morphed into "nothing because of the corruption of our government; what are we going to do about that?" This became "nothing until we undertake the complete moral rejuvenation of our nation." A laudable and worthy goal. So, what’s going to get done about healthcare?
Returning to our habit of quotations, "Politics is the art of the possible." (Bismarck 1867). Or how about "What Is To Be Done?" (Lenin 1902) which starts with "Where To Begin". Would electing more Democrats just mean more hogs at the trough? I firmly and truly believe it would. I also believe that the result would be better healthcare for most if not all Americans.
As to the desirability of founding our moral crusade on the precepts of Christianity, well …. I spend several hours a week engaged with other folks attempting to make their approach to and engagement with life have a more spiritual basis. At one time I was regularly in a small group where (at least) three faiths were represented and at some point a representative of each faith stated that it was clear that the spiritual principles we were studying originated in their belief system. From this I took it that valid spiritual principles are universal or as Buddhists say "there are many paths up the mountain." As to the utility of the Judeo-Christian precepts I note that their "Big 10" includes things like "you shall not kill". Can you say, if you didn’t kill anyone today, that today I am a moral person? I rather like the more granular 12 tire tools that I’ve been given which say things like, we make "a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves" and "when we were wrong we promptly admitted it". A little more "day to day" I would say.
So much for my discursus. I note that another thread has been introduced into this conversation; our imbalanced budget, with various side notes on the two parties. First I would note that the last time we had a balanced budget (setting aside for a moment the national debt) was under a Democratic administration. This was immediately followed by a budget-balancing tax-cutting two term Republican administration and we have the largest national budget deficit in our history. Judging by results, which party is the fiscal hawk? When I’m in charge I’ll cut the military to what is sufficient to protect our shores and eliminate the cap on Social Security payments. I’m not sure that a tax hike would be in that case required. ("Vote for Me" on the Pragmatic Progressive ticket)
Respondant SB
I not only have no problem with your 12 tire tools; I heartily support you and them.
The verse you quote about not having compassion unless one senses one's own infirmity may provide an answer of where to begin. Perhaps if we the people rose up and demanded the removal of healthcare benefits from all personnel of all branches of government, they would begin to feel the national healthcare infirmity born by so many and act accordingly. The only infirmity politicians and lobbyist seem to sense now is their own electability.
As to having the military have a bake sale to raise money, leaving us to direct our tax dollars to help the infirm, if only it were that simple - the Department of Defense base budget in 2010 is $533.7 billion
The CBO outlook for mandatory spending on just Soc. Sec, Medicare & Medicaid for 2010 is $1.5 trillion and increases to a cumulative $8.7 trillion 2011-215. If military spending were eliminated entirely it wouldn't make a decent dent in the spending the federal government, by law, is obligated to under these entitlements.
However politically unpopular & painful on either side, it seems impossible that the budget curves will not be bent into line without serious changes on both the revenue and cost side…a position I believe held by Obama’s new Bipartisan Deficit Commission.
As to our morphing conversation, how can a gigantic national overhaul like healthcare reform be considered apart from budget and the guiding values of those authoring the bill and those to whom they owe allegiance? (not to mention particulars of what is therefore in and not in such legislation)
If you can do that, I certainly will vote for you on any ticket for any office you wish ;-)
Paul
Re DoD budget:
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.
When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009 the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than Obama had requested. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expected an additional supplemental spending bill, possibly in the range of $40-50 billion, by the Spring of 2010 in order to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.
In addition, the Pentagon has access to black budget military spending for special programs which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures
So the real DoD budget is roughly twice the "line item" of $533.7 billion.
In 2009 Social Security receipts were roughly $807 billion; expenditures $670 billion, which is the "top line" number in the reference of the forwarded email. Inadequate for projected needs but not quite the avalanche it appears. To this I note "Removing the Social Security earnings cap virtually eliminates funding gap":
This shortfall is less severe than is often presented by proponents of Social Security privatization. SSA's projections show that a 1.9 percentage-point increase in the existing payroll tax dedicated to Social Security would close the projected funding gap over a 75-year period. Using slightly less pessimistic economic assumptions about the next 75 years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the gap could be closed over the next 75 years with just a 1.0 percentage-point increase. Currently, all earnings up to $90,000 are taxed at 12.4% to fund Social Security. Each dollar earned over and above this cap is completely exempt from Social Security taxes.
This cap affects benefits as well: calculation of Social Security benefits are based on a formula that does not take earnings over the cap into account. Since higher income during one's working life translates into higher Social Security benefits, removing the cap on the benefit side would increase Social Security payments to high-wage earners.
The figure below shows the current actuarial shortfall faced by Social Security under both the SSA and CBO estimates, and the effects of removing the earnings cap on taxes and benefits, based on a 2005 memo by the Office of the Actuary for the SSA. Removing the earnings cap on taxes and benefits improves the 75-year actuarial balance by 1.7% of payroll, thereby eliminating 90% of the funding deficit forecast by the SSA. Removing the cap would completely eliminate the deficit forecast by the CBO with its more plausible economic assumptions.
Respondant SB
Here are a couple of paragraphs that put the US budget into perspective from an article here (not agreeing or disagreeing with his suggestions, just found the description compelling):
Let's look more closely at budget revenues and outlays. In a normal year, our federal tax system takes in around 17% of GDP -- less in the current recession and more in years of financial bubbles, when capital-gains-tax collections are high. It's important to understand what those revenues buy us. Military spending accounts for around 5% of GDP. Health spending (including Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' health) is around 5% of GDP, as is Social Security (retirement, disability and veterans' benefits). Interest payments on the debt will soon reach 2% of GDP. In short, the Federal Government collects tax revenues sufficient to cover just four budget items. The rest of the budget is funded by borrowing.
Here are some of the things not covered by government revenues that we are currently borrowing to pay for: homeland security, unemployment compensation, job training, support for state and local governments, federal higher-education outlays, satellites and manned space missions, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, community development, food stamps, low-cost housing, roads, bridges, environmental protection and conservation, emergency relief and reconstruction (such as for New Orleans), the judicial and penal systems, international diplomacy and poverty reduction, renewable energy. These aren't temporary programs or things we can do without. They are core public services needed for an efficient and fair economy.
Based on a similar general view, former comptroller general of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)"the nation's top auditor" - David Walker in his recent book Comeback America asserts that our nation's financial condition is worse than advertised and it's deteriorating with each passing day. We face a $56 plus trillion dollar financial sinkhole that is growing rapidly.
He computes this as $13.5 trillion 2010 federal debt, plus $49.9 trillion in total long range"fiscal exposure" of all federal debts, obligations, mandatory payments and entitlements, etc. that are on the books and by law must be paid to various holder and beneficiaries. The sinkhole grows because the hard wired obligations continue to rise while revenue shortfall (the annual deficit) continues to grow. By 2040, Walker believes federal tax revenues will only cover interest on the debt, and Medicare + Medicaid - if nothing changes.
Based on the GAO's latest long-range budget simulation, this country's single largest federal expense within 12 years will be interest of the federal debt. And that assumes interest rates won't rise which is totally unrealistic given expected borrowing levels
He’s pretty equally hard on Republicans and Democrats for this and outlines a broad set of solutions, including tight federal budget control laws; raising the Soc Sec cap and pushing out retirement age, etc.; rationalizing Medicare; reigning in and rationalizing military spending and a host of other things. A bulleted summary of some main points can be found here:
http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/oped/combackamerica/
He
I have bought the book...I might (possibly) attempt to provide a better summation/critique after I have read it.
Healthcare, Government, and the Whole Catastrophe
A couple of months ago a few friends and I met for pool and discussion. We followed up with a series of emails, here edited, anonymized, and transcribed.
Paul:
“Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others”, Winston Churchill
I think Churchill was sharing the outrage that we all expressed tonight. I think however that it is a misreading of history to think that our government today is any more corrupt than democratic governments of other times. The quote attributed to Bismarck about sausages and laws would have been from almost a century and a half ago. A study of American history would find long periods of corruption that make today’s mild by comparison.
I think that what distinguishes our times is that we have much greater and more immediate exposure to the existence of this corruption. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? I’m conflicted. I’m afraid that the reaction to the knowledge of this corruption, not that it is any worse than other times, will lead to what we are seeing from the Tea Party followers. For after all, it isn’t that “democracy is the worst form of government”. It is that, “except all the others.” It is in other words the best form of government; a dull tool but the best tool and most importantly the only tool we have.
It is an interesting fact of history that revolutions do not occur when people are most oppressed but rather less, when they have the leisure to reflect on just how oppressed they are. I see a parallel in this wave of knowledge, or at least reportage, on the corruption of our government. This may spur a revolution but the only ones picking up arms are those who would reduce the utility of the tool of democracy. I have therefore put my outrage aside; I have fear.
Respondant SB:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." oft attributed to Edmund Burke, but in fact there is no clearly definitive original by Burke.
In discussing our fear and outrage, perhaps a lose framework would be useful whereby we might determine what, if anything, we agree on and what, if anything, good men such as ourselves should do:
1. Agreement of broad principles
2. What is the essence of the problem....the causes, not the symptoms
3. Brainstorming options for meeting the challenge, changing the course of history, etc...
4. What could we support doing
5. What will we actually do
Here are a few of my rambling, perhaps shocking, opinions:
1. Agreement of broad principles:
1. Democracy is best -check
2. Current process is corrupt and broken - check
3. It was ever thus - check (however here I part with you Paul in this regard: while previous levels of corruption may be equal to today's, there is a major difference: by and large the government in previous scandals still functioned through the corruption and/or the dynamics of "life in general" was such that, excepting maybe Pearl Harbor, it could go on even with government gridlocked. Don't have the facts of the early days of the Great Depression in front of me and there may have been a significant lag in government functioning in the early FDR years, but soon enough there was at least some action...and from the action some certainty and trust. What is completely broken today is not just the level of corruption but both the fact of and psychological/economic impact of complete uncertainty and distrust...something not present during earlier episodes at anywhere near these levels. Distrust grew out of the Vietnam, Watergate, etc and has continued to grow....but now that is coupled with truly scary international and domestic circumstances...mix that with uncertainty over what IS the new tax policy and what IS the new health reform impact and what IS the stability and governance of our major financial institutions, etc......not a good mix, and I submit....as new in context as it is dangerous.)
4. Neither party is either all right or all wrong - though I am tired of hearing it, I sometimes wonder of both sides are not to some degree accurate about what they say about the other. personally, I am not so much interested in Democratic or Republican success as I am in seeing "the worst form of government" work for we the people before present circumstances become catastrophic...and I don't think either side has all the answers
2. What is the essence of the problem - what are we outraged about?
1. As mentioned above - trust.
2. And from lack of words and actions that are trustworthy, lack of some level of certainty in what is and what is coming...
3. Need for transparency, compromise, empathy, civility, etc. that would require a change in how some of the current process is undertaken and the rules by which institutions function. The Senate as near as I can tell is just about totally broken as a functioning body.
4. The lobby-go-round - perhaps in some form of truth in advertising we should demand an influence control breakdown for our elected officials similar to the nutritional breakdown required on food packaging: This candidate is controlled: 28% by Finance industry, 15% by the defense industry, 15% by big oil, 12% by insurance and 5% or less by combinations of lawyers, teachers, doctors and bartenders.
5. Implications for recent Supreme Court decision giving corporations carte blanche in a way that may push us toward some form of "except for the others"
6. If we don't figure out a way to turn outrage into meaningful action to help "the problem" we are outraged about, then either continued gridlock, or the resulting Tea Bagger nut case revolution, will bring us to a place that is cause indeed for fear.
3. Options for what we the people do about it
1. Law of holes - stop digging. Hit the reset button. Just stop...until we can figure out something is not the equivalent of just doing the same thing and expecting different results.
2. What blunt tools are available to us? The greater and more immediate exposure is an opportunity. I think even the people of Nebraska rebuked Nelson when they found out what he had done. Sunlight is an amazing antiseptic.
3. Transparency in the process...there is a requirement that some legal documents have a "plain English" version (e.g., pension Summary Plan Descriptions)...no reason bills could not simultaneously have similar versions published for x time prior to straight up or down votes
4. Line item veto for the President
5. Minimize lobbying...no idea how. I would love to see a TV program that actually showed a demonstration of a lobbyist in action. Maybe have a congressperson and a lobbyist sit at a table and then have an announcer introduce the action: "And now for those of you who don't understand exactly how lobbying works and why it has such a huge influence on our government, lobbyist X will now lobby Congressmen Y here on camera so you can see it in action. We asked Congressmen Y before the show how he would vote on Proposition Z. We will ask him after he has had a dose of lobbying how he will vote and why."
4. What could I support
1. As spoken by others, until the Democrats are willing to embrace cutting government spending and the Republicans are willing to embrace increasing taxes...to fix this giant hole we are in that is getting deeper, I would be willing to support a 3rd party. One that would hopefully bring independents and the center 20% or so of both parties along.
2. Willing to consider many ideas as long as I believe it would truly effect some lasting change and not just reinforce the intensity of the current useless mutual blame game.
3. Things that would help promote and give a voice to different grass roots movement...based on rational, moderated response that demands change, fueled by some of the same sense of frustrations that the Tea Baggers feel, but with a more reasoned, inclusive vision.
As I write that last blurb I realize I am expressing the hope I had about Obama. Perhaps the best action is to get him to emulate Toyota: recall the crap that is not working, fix it, and try to regain the lost trust with the honest, open leadership the brand was supposed to deliver.
Look forward to the next round...slings and arrows, anyone? ;-)
Paul (Out of band to SB)
An offline comment or two. First I want to apologize for “rebuking” you in public; the heat of the moment got to me. I’m sorry.
Interesting you should quote Burke. I was recently about a third of the way through “Reflections on the Revolution in France” before I left it in a bar or somewhere; this showing at least that I’m willing to listen to informed conservatives.
Another interesting quote is from science-fiction author Ursula K. LeGuin who talked about the “banality of evil”.
More (possibly) considered reflections (possibly) to come.
Respondant SB
No apology needed...I thought your challenge was spot on. What indeed should be done and how?
I share the sense of fear...which in part fuels my outrage...which is significant enough to motivate me to some as yet to be defined level of action.
Respondant JR
thanks for kicking off this whole exchange (addressed to SB BTW, {sigh}). is this what is called a chat room? thank you also for the thought you have put into your extensive posting.
fear and outrage.
i find myself lacking in both departments at present.
my greatest fear days occurred when richard nixon was elected president and dr strangelove became secretary of state which presented the spectre to me of american totalitarism and nuclear warfare. these concerns were paramount in my psyche before the day of his inauguration on which day i was incarcerated while in the army to spend two months awaiting my court martial on drug charges. i felt a cosmic connection between the two events
re outrage: we have had conservative government in america since this same 1968 election up to this last blessed election, carter and clinton representing the right wing of the democratic party. thus me being pissed off about the state of government in this country is baseline for me. much of the tea-party-republican outrage is a result of them not getting there way right now to which they have become accustomed.
but they are getting their way: gridlock obama and the government until they are back in control. they are not interested in health care reform. they are insured and comfortable. they are governmental minimalist. the less action on the federal level the better off we all will be they tell us.
i said it saturday and i mean it. you want more government action and less gridlock elect more Democrats. no more handjobs given to the likes of ben nelson, joe lieberman, and the pharmacuetical industry because we don't need their votes.
corruption. ubiquitous on both sides of the aisle. especially acute now.? maybe but i doubt it. and then there is those 182 member states of the UN i was referring to on sat.(paul, you weren't at the table at this point). how many of these governments are corruption free. some? none? how many are a lot worse? most of them?
and the republican response: this most recent obscene supreme court decision unleashing the coffers of corporate america in the name of freedom of speech. that's the obscene part.
but you know what? we get the government we elect. the government is not the core problem. our corrupt nation is the problem. driven by consumerism, greed, me-firstism, short term gratification and a bunch of other moral shortcomings.
Respondant SB
(To JR) I certainly agree with your final sentence or two.
In the words of former governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox, when asked about improving the abysmal conditions in the penal system, he replied he could not be expected to bring about prison reform until he was given a better class of prisoners to work with.
In fact I have been mulling over thoughts along the lines of your closing comments in considering what might be done about present problems and am convinced that a revival of basic virtue - not "more Democrats"...nor any of the ideas I previously considered - is the only realistic answer. Only that would change the raw material of both we the people and the government we deserve. If the raw material is corrupt, as you describe and with which I agree, then little in the way of new elections, new rules, new debates will make much of a difference.
This nation did not rise to freedom, economic and military might and then try to decide what virtues, if any, it embraced. It started with deep and passionately argued and held convictions of virtue, of ethics of character and work, out of which grew its freedom & might.
My fear & outrage stem from observations of the erosion of this nation, and what that means to my own son, as I watch the erosion, as you point out, of those values.
Therein, I believe, lies the problem - all else is symptom.
So, while there may be practical things that could be done in the political sphere, I have come back to my true roots here in considering all of this. This is not a political or philosophical or electoral issue, it is a spiritual issue. The spirit of this nation is sick, poisoned one might say, and until that is righted, all else is in vain and will profit but little, but Godliness is profitable unto all things.
Putting churchianity and other forms of hypocrisy aside, one of the great benefits of Christianity is that it is practical as a tire tool....it just works. If virtues of honesty, charity and service – the golden rule - were more uniformly practiced we would not be having this conversation about what’s wrong with our country.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God and the wisdom of God is foolishness to this world.
And that is not to try to blur the separation of church and state. If the people of this country were, in spirit and in truth, more right with God – a little less wrapped up in the self-serving pride & vanity wisdom of this world - then the separate operations of government would be working just fine.
People get the kind of government they deserve and if the government is rotten then the only way to fix the government is to fix the people.
From the book of Jeremiah:
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not: Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence?
For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich. They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge.
Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
From the Leonard Cohen song, Suzanne:
And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them"
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your (and apparently Mark Twain's) wisdom like a stone.
And no, since this message of Godly repentance for salvation, in one form or another, is widely broadcast already, I do not have any ideas at the moment on what to do that they may have ears, and hear.
Paul:
“Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others”, Winston Churchill
I think Churchill was sharing the outrage that we all expressed tonight. I think however that it is a misreading of history to think that our government today is any more corrupt than democratic governments of other times. The quote attributed to Bismarck about sausages and laws would have been from almost a century and a half ago. A study of American history would find long periods of corruption that make today’s mild by comparison.
I think that what distinguishes our times is that we have much greater and more immediate exposure to the existence of this corruption. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? I’m conflicted. I’m afraid that the reaction to the knowledge of this corruption, not that it is any worse than other times, will lead to what we are seeing from the Tea Party followers. For after all, it isn’t that “democracy is the worst form of government”. It is that, “except all the others.” It is in other words the best form of government; a dull tool but the best tool and most importantly the only tool we have.
It is an interesting fact of history that revolutions do not occur when people are most oppressed but rather less, when they have the leisure to reflect on just how oppressed they are. I see a parallel in this wave of knowledge, or at least reportage, on the corruption of our government. This may spur a revolution but the only ones picking up arms are those who would reduce the utility of the tool of democracy. I have therefore put my outrage aside; I have fear.
Respondant SB:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." oft attributed to Edmund Burke, but in fact there is no clearly definitive original by Burke.
In discussing our fear and outrage, perhaps a lose framework would be useful whereby we might determine what, if anything, we agree on and what, if anything, good men such as ourselves should do:
1. Agreement of broad principles
2. What is the essence of the problem....the causes, not the symptoms
3. Brainstorming options for meeting the challenge, changing the course of history, etc...
4. What could we support doing
5. What will we actually do
Here are a few of my rambling, perhaps shocking, opinions:
1. Agreement of broad principles:
1. Democracy is best -check
2. Current process is corrupt and broken - check
3. It was ever thus - check (however here I part with you Paul in this regard: while previous levels of corruption may be equal to today's, there is a major difference: by and large the government in previous scandals still functioned through the corruption and/or the dynamics of "life in general" was such that, excepting maybe Pearl Harbor, it could go on even with government gridlocked. Don't have the facts of the early days of the Great Depression in front of me and there may have been a significant lag in government functioning in the early FDR years, but soon enough there was at least some action...and from the action some certainty and trust. What is completely broken today is not just the level of corruption but both the fact of and psychological/economic impact of complete uncertainty and distrust...something not present during earlier episodes at anywhere near these levels. Distrust grew out of the Vietnam, Watergate, etc and has continued to grow....but now that is coupled with truly scary international and domestic circumstances...mix that with uncertainty over what IS the new tax policy and what IS the new health reform impact and what IS the stability and governance of our major financial institutions, etc......not a good mix, and I submit....as new in context as it is dangerous.)
4. Neither party is either all right or all wrong - though I am tired of hearing it, I sometimes wonder of both sides are not to some degree accurate about what they say about the other. personally, I am not so much interested in Democratic or Republican success as I am in seeing "the worst form of government" work for we the people before present circumstances become catastrophic...and I don't think either side has all the answers
2. What is the essence of the problem - what are we outraged about?
1. As mentioned above - trust.
2. And from lack of words and actions that are trustworthy, lack of some level of certainty in what is and what is coming...
3. Need for transparency, compromise, empathy, civility, etc. that would require a change in how some of the current process is undertaken and the rules by which institutions function. The Senate as near as I can tell is just about totally broken as a functioning body.
4. The lobby-go-round - perhaps in some form of truth in advertising we should demand an influence control breakdown for our elected officials similar to the nutritional breakdown required on food packaging: This candidate is controlled: 28% by Finance industry, 15% by the defense industry, 15% by big oil, 12% by insurance and 5% or less by combinations of lawyers, teachers, doctors and bartenders.
5. Implications for recent Supreme Court decision giving corporations carte blanche in a way that may push us toward some form of "except for the others"
6. If we don't figure out a way to turn outrage into meaningful action to help "the problem" we are outraged about, then either continued gridlock, or the resulting Tea Bagger nut case revolution, will bring us to a place that is cause indeed for fear.
3. Options for what we the people do about it
1. Law of holes - stop digging. Hit the reset button. Just stop...until we can figure out something is not the equivalent of just doing the same thing and expecting different results.
2. What blunt tools are available to us? The greater and more immediate exposure is an opportunity. I think even the people of Nebraska rebuked Nelson when they found out what he had done. Sunlight is an amazing antiseptic.
3. Transparency in the process...there is a requirement that some legal documents have a "plain English" version (e.g., pension Summary Plan Descriptions)...no reason bills could not simultaneously have similar versions published for x time prior to straight up or down votes
4. Line item veto for the President
5. Minimize lobbying...no idea how. I would love to see a TV program that actually showed a demonstration of a lobbyist in action. Maybe have a congressperson and a lobbyist sit at a table and then have an announcer introduce the action: "And now for those of you who don't understand exactly how lobbying works and why it has such a huge influence on our government, lobbyist X will now lobby Congressmen Y here on camera so you can see it in action. We asked Congressmen Y before the show how he would vote on Proposition Z. We will ask him after he has had a dose of lobbying how he will vote and why."
4. What could I support
1. As spoken by others, until the Democrats are willing to embrace cutting government spending and the Republicans are willing to embrace increasing taxes...to fix this giant hole we are in that is getting deeper, I would be willing to support a 3rd party. One that would hopefully bring independents and the center 20% or so of both parties along.
2. Willing to consider many ideas as long as I believe it would truly effect some lasting change and not just reinforce the intensity of the current useless mutual blame game.
3. Things that would help promote and give a voice to different grass roots movement...based on rational, moderated response that demands change, fueled by some of the same sense of frustrations that the Tea Baggers feel, but with a more reasoned, inclusive vision.
As I write that last blurb I realize I am expressing the hope I had about Obama. Perhaps the best action is to get him to emulate Toyota: recall the crap that is not working, fix it, and try to regain the lost trust with the honest, open leadership the brand was supposed to deliver.
Look forward to the next round...slings and arrows, anyone? ;-)
Paul (Out of band to SB)
An offline comment or two. First I want to apologize for “rebuking” you in public; the heat of the moment got to me. I’m sorry.
Interesting you should quote Burke. I was recently about a third of the way through “Reflections on the Revolution in France” before I left it in a bar or somewhere; this showing at least that I’m willing to listen to informed conservatives.
Another interesting quote is from science-fiction author Ursula K. LeGuin who talked about the “banality of evil”.
More (possibly) considered reflections (possibly) to come.
Respondant SB
No apology needed...I thought your challenge was spot on. What indeed should be done and how?
I share the sense of fear...which in part fuels my outrage...which is significant enough to motivate me to some as yet to be defined level of action.
Respondant JR
thanks for kicking off this whole exchange (addressed to SB BTW, {sigh}). is this what is called a chat room? thank you also for the thought you have put into your extensive posting.
fear and outrage.
i find myself lacking in both departments at present.
my greatest fear days occurred when richard nixon was elected president and dr strangelove became secretary of state which presented the spectre to me of american totalitarism and nuclear warfare. these concerns were paramount in my psyche before the day of his inauguration on which day i was incarcerated while in the army to spend two months awaiting my court martial on drug charges. i felt a cosmic connection between the two events
re outrage: we have had conservative government in america since this same 1968 election up to this last blessed election, carter and clinton representing the right wing of the democratic party. thus me being pissed off about the state of government in this country is baseline for me. much of the tea-party-republican outrage is a result of them not getting there way right now to which they have become accustomed.
but they are getting their way: gridlock obama and the government until they are back in control. they are not interested in health care reform. they are insured and comfortable. they are governmental minimalist. the less action on the federal level the better off we all will be they tell us.
i said it saturday and i mean it. you want more government action and less gridlock elect more Democrats. no more handjobs given to the likes of ben nelson, joe lieberman, and the pharmacuetical industry because we don't need their votes.
corruption. ubiquitous on both sides of the aisle. especially acute now.? maybe but i doubt it. and then there is those 182 member states of the UN i was referring to on sat.(paul, you weren't at the table at this point). how many of these governments are corruption free. some? none? how many are a lot worse? most of them?
and the republican response: this most recent obscene supreme court decision unleashing the coffers of corporate america in the name of freedom of speech. that's the obscene part.
but you know what? we get the government we elect. the government is not the core problem. our corrupt nation is the problem. driven by consumerism, greed, me-firstism, short term gratification and a bunch of other moral shortcomings.
Respondant SB
(To JR) I certainly agree with your final sentence or two.
In the words of former governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox, when asked about improving the abysmal conditions in the penal system, he replied he could not be expected to bring about prison reform until he was given a better class of prisoners to work with.
In fact I have been mulling over thoughts along the lines of your closing comments in considering what might be done about present problems and am convinced that a revival of basic virtue - not "more Democrats"...nor any of the ideas I previously considered - is the only realistic answer. Only that would change the raw material of both we the people and the government we deserve. If the raw material is corrupt, as you describe and with which I agree, then little in the way of new elections, new rules, new debates will make much of a difference.
This nation did not rise to freedom, economic and military might and then try to decide what virtues, if any, it embraced. It started with deep and passionately argued and held convictions of virtue, of ethics of character and work, out of which grew its freedom & might.
My fear & outrage stem from observations of the erosion of this nation, and what that means to my own son, as I watch the erosion, as you point out, of those values.
Therein, I believe, lies the problem - all else is symptom.
So, while there may be practical things that could be done in the political sphere, I have come back to my true roots here in considering all of this. This is not a political or philosophical or electoral issue, it is a spiritual issue. The spirit of this nation is sick, poisoned one might say, and until that is righted, all else is in vain and will profit but little, but Godliness is profitable unto all things.
Putting churchianity and other forms of hypocrisy aside, one of the great benefits of Christianity is that it is practical as a tire tool....it just works. If virtues of honesty, charity and service – the golden rule - were more uniformly practiced we would not be having this conversation about what’s wrong with our country.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God and the wisdom of God is foolishness to this world.
And that is not to try to blur the separation of church and state. If the people of this country were, in spirit and in truth, more right with God – a little less wrapped up in the self-serving pride & vanity wisdom of this world - then the separate operations of government would be working just fine.
People get the kind of government they deserve and if the government is rotten then the only way to fix the government is to fix the people.
From the book of Jeremiah:
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not: Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence?
For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich. They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge.
Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
From the Leonard Cohen song, Suzanne:
And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them"
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your (and apparently Mark Twain's) wisdom like a stone.
And no, since this message of Godly repentance for salvation, in one form or another, is widely broadcast already, I do not have any ideas at the moment on what to do that they may have ears, and hear.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
... and away we go
This morning I suggested to a friend that he start a blog to keep folks informed about the status of his father-in-law's failing health. "Do YOU have a blog?" was the reply. Well, now I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)