This blog is a collection of letters and surveys. The letters are written to family and friends, authors and politicians, those living and those long dead. Others, anyone really, may answer or comment.
You invented bubble-gum, so I'm assuming you're an expert on bubbles. Perhaps you can shed some light on our current situation. See, our economic bubble just popped, and I don't get the rationale behind our government's actions in reinflating it.
Perhaps some background is in order. Let me explain:
So that's how we got here. The government lowered interest rates back in the early 2000s to avoid the painful process that naturally happens when a bubble bursts. The bubble reinflated (more so, really) and then popped again in 2008. And again, the government is throwing everything at the problem to try to avoid the pain: Bank Bailouts, Auto Bailouts, Mortgage Bailouts, Stimulus Plans, and Spending Plans. All of these things are designed to keep the bubble growing bigger.
But Frank, all these programs, initiatives, and efforts cost a LOT of money. And President Obama doesn't seem to mind. Here's what he's decided to spend in 2009:
Now, if that goes through, here's what our national deficit will look like, compared to the past few years:
Eek! That's a LOT of money we're spending as a nation, and all with no guarantee that any of it will work.
Indeed, I worry whether our government's reaction will lead the country to become something akin to a socialized, command economy, where the government controls all the functions of production (a la China). This, in my mind, would be a bad thing, as it reduces the incentive for innovation and achievement, and treats people and their work as cogs in the government's machine.
It puts a tough question to our country's leaders right now: Is the bottom line growth of the economy the only thing that matters, or should we be concerned about the direction our country is taking on a deeper level?
Frankly, Frank, it seems that our country right now is so wrapped up in 'fixing' this problem that it is failing to consider the consequences--short- or long-term--of the policies it is establishing. And who knows how that bubble will end up popping?
So, we're trying to figure out this "Stimulus Plan." What is going on? Do we want a stimulus plan? Do we want the government to give out this money with abandon. We don't know. We just hope.
Of course hope is a two-edged sword. Friedrich Nietzsche said, "In reality, hope is the worst of all evils, because it prolongs man's torments." And that's what I worry about on the one hand. On the other hand, I don't. I think that the right kind of spending, the kind that encourages real human productivity, like jobs programs--the shovel-ready jobs (our newest polito-phrase)-- is never really bad. That kind of spending is like spontaneous generation. You print up some money down at the mint and you say to the person in soup line, I'll give this to you if dig the ditch, build the sidewalk, fix the radiator, mine the coal. Two things have been created: 1) Paper money, 2) Real sweat equity from someone who would otherwise have been standing idle. Both are something from nothing. Yet in the end, real value has been created.
If I don't print the money and the person doesn't do the work, but stands motionless, that value and the opportunity of the day has been lost. You have created nothing from nothing.
Money never means anything. Gold doesn't mean anything. It is all symbolic. We can't eat gold. It can be showy, but even that is symbol. So print money? Yes, do that, if it generates productivity.
But this example is so simplistic. We didn't even ask if the formerly unemployed person was in that state because that person is a poor producer. Perhaps this indigent enjoys indigence. If that is the case, printing money to pay for her day-labor will not produce value, at least not very much. Let's go to an even more complicated example.
What if we have a bank that is performing poorly? It is about to collapse. In this scenario, the executives of that bank already make more money than Croesus. When money is printed at the mint and the bank gets some of it, with the stipulation that the executives take a lower salary than before, the question that immediately arises is whether the bank workers are actually incentivized or disincentivized? (Are those words?) Will value be created? My gut says no. I mean, I believe in the caps on salaries and bonuses completely, but I just don't know if I believe in any of this top-down bailout bahooey.
We all want stuff. We need stuff. You, Karl, might say that it doesn't matter whether we need it or want it because stuff, or commodities, makes the economic world go round. But what is the healthiest way for everyone to get a fair amount of stuff? When the economic system begins to crumble, I think we have to look at the fundamentals. The foundation of the dyke is crumbling. A few patches and some thumbs won't do the trick.
You say that "The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of one is to the other . . . under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time." This is a fundamental. However, wall street and the gang forget or deny this. They prefer, smoke, mirrors, and unrelenting bonuses.
Simon Johnson, an MIT economist estimates that the US banks have a capital shortage of $500 billion. What does that even mean? How about this phrase, "Liabilities far exceed assets"? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
What do you believe? Do you believe that any wealth created by this capital--would be "surplus value" to which the owners of capital had no claim--surplus value stolen by the owners of capital from the owners of labor?
I think you might be right. I think that the value, of the assets, the real value, might be what we should look at, and if the true liabilities do indeed far exceed the true value of the assets, then we should NOT pull on blinders and put trillion dollars thumbs in liability-laden dykes. We SHOULD instead, invest in our labor, whether person by person or project by project, but we should create value, not subsidize liabilities.
I personally have stopped judging by Wall Street. I wish they wouldn't tell us, "We're doing what the economic experts tell us to do." These same economic experts were driving the yacht when it hit the shoals. I think we had better go back to the basics. Let's check our fundamentals. Let's look to labor.
I cannot watch the inauguration live today. I must do something else. I must go to a street corner on this cold snowy day and stand.
On this great day, we are reminded of much history. You have focused our attention on the past. That attention is deserved. You have made us look to Abraham Lincoln whose inauguration you are mimicking and whose inauguration was fraught with security issues, as yours is, for a great Civil War was about to begin.
Lincoln placed his hand to take the oath of office on a Bible that had been purchased by the clerk of the Supreme Court and whose inscription on the flyleaf attests to the fact. You are using that one, too.
There are other things to remember today. Awful things are there that we could remember. I searched the internet to remind myself. I saw a picture of a slave who had run away from Mississippi and joined the Union troops at Baton Rouge. He had run away previously, been caught and whipped mercilessly. Still he ran again, not just to find freedom, but to aide the Union troops in bringing freedom to all the people of his race. This is worth remembering, too.
Tuesdays, women in Knoxville put on black clothes and stand on the street corner in front of the federal building. They do it rain, snow, or shine. They do it because freedom isn't finished. Below is a letter from an Israeli woman. It explains why she stands in Israel, at a Palestinian checkpoint to guard whatever remnants of freedom exist there. We stand because it is all we can do from this point on the globe, to call for a kind, and dignified, and peaceful solution to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I'm writing you today because during the next four years you will be able to do more than I will. I'm asking you to do it.
Congratulations! May this day, for you, be one of joy and remembrance.
My daughter and I have been debating the issues of the 2008 election. It has been fun and arduous. We have come to different conclusions. I think that is ok. She is a wonderful, intelligent human being who cares deeply about other people and lives compassionately. She believes like you do, like you say in this video, "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper."
We have talked the issues to death. I'm not going to talk about issues anymore. Here, though, in my final words before this long awaited election, I thought that I'd tell you why I would like for you to be president of the United States. It kind of has to do with issues, but not completely.
The video that I have chosen is one that talks less about issues also, and more about you as a person. It talks about a man who is introspective and understands what it is like to search for who you are and what your purpose is here in this world. I spend a lot of time wondering about that. I don't find precise answers as I search, but I try to be true to that introspective work. I would like for you to be president because you are introspective.
I would like for you to be president because you are intelligent. You have revealed over the last two years an intelligence that knows how to communicate, not always simply, in sound bites, but with clarity and depth. And, thankfully, you use correct grammar and pronunciation.
I would like for you to be president because you have consistently shown a deep love and respect for your family, your wife, your children, your mother, your grandparents, and even your long absent father. The image of your sweet family may do more for the healing of our American culture than any of the legislative initiatives that you may ever be called upon to sign while president. Michelle says, that when you were first getting to know each other, you took her to a community organization meeting. That reminds me of one of my first dates with my husband, now of 33 years. There is nothing more attractive than a person who is able to care for others. I would like for you to be president because you are willing to dialog without preconditions and with kindness. You have maintained such a calm temperament in the face of much animosity. Oh, how our world needs such calm.
I would like for you to be our president, because you have come, not from a family of wealth and prestige, but from one like mine, where work was not an option or a pastime, but a livelihood. This, I know, helps you to understand one of my great concerns. You talk about a living wage and you know what that means. These words, "living wage" are important and should, in my estimation be the guiding principle for dealing with poverty and the economy. It is a touchstone. If I could tell you one thing as you enter the presidency, if I could tell you to do one thing, to get one thing right, I would say . . . "A living wage, Mr. Obama, a living wage." And I feel certain that you would understand.
"One person's struggle is all of our struggle," you say in this video. So it is. You say of injustice that you realized that "if you don't fix it, nobody else is going to fix it." I like that. "Empathy," you say, "kindness, faith." These are things that make me say, I would like Barack Obama to be the president.
Did you like being the center of attention, for a while the other night, during the presidential debates?
The guys had lots to say about you in the midst of the back and forth about Iraq.
It seems to me, and tell me if I'm right, that Barack Obama is a proponent of a new kind of engagement as a backdrop to his practical policies about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Al Qaida, and the war on terror generally. That backdrop is one that is partly expressed when he speaks of being open sitting down and talking to other world leaders with preparation but without preconditions. He is saying, that in the 21st century we must explore new avenues of diplomacy. McCain accuses Obama of being naive. But it isn't naivete is it, General Petraeus? It is a recognition that the Powell doctrine* of the late 20th century has died. The Petraeus doctrine has arrived.
Both McCain and Obama seem to acknowledge your importance. But I think that they appreciate different things. McCain wants to say, "Hah, the surge worked. Military might really does work." But his understanding is hearkening back to the Powell doctrine. Obama says instead, and perhaps with more understanding than McCain of the Petraeus doctrine, "Hm.m.m, the surge cannot be a surge of might. It is instead a surge of cultural engagement." Embracing some of the new thinking from military philosophers such as John Nagl, Obama accepts that events such as those of 9/11, “conclusively demonstrated that instability anywhere can be a real threat to the American people here at home.” For the foreseeable future, political conditions abroad rather than specific military threats will pose the greatest danger to the United States.
General Petraeus, have you seen this video? It will take about eight minutes, but I think it is eloquent.
When Obama does sometimes sidestep the question of "winning" the war in Iraq, he is acknowledging that traditional military victory is secondary to the greater necessity of instituting diplomatic scaffolding that will maintain lasting stability throughout the region.
"According to the emerging Petraeus Doctrine, the Army (like it or not) is entering an era in which armed conflict will be protracted, ambiguous, and continuous—with the application of force becoming a lesser part of the soldier’s repertoire."
Instability creates ungoverned spaces in which violent anti-American radicals thrive. Yet if instability anywhere poses a threat, then ensuring the existence of stability everywhere—denying terrorists sanctuary in rogue or failed states—becomes a national-security imperative. Define the problem in these terms, and winning battles becomes less urgent than pacifying populations and establishing effective governance.
War in this context implies not only coercion but also social engineering. As Nagl puts it, the security challenges of the 21st century will require the U.S. military “not just to dominate land operations, but to change entire societies.”
. . . enabling the Army, he writes, “to get better at building societies that can stand on their own.” That means buying fewer tanks while spending more on language proficiency; curtailing the hours spent on marksmanship ranges while increasing those devoted to studying foreign cultures. It also implies changing the culture of the officer corps. An Army that since Vietnam has self-consciously cultivated a battle-oriented warrior ethos will instead emphasize, in Nagl’s words, “the intellectual tools necessary to foster host-nation political and economic development.”
We are living in a very different world from the one that predated the global society. Even the lessons of Vietnam don't quite apply, do they? To effectively maintain just and decent leadership in this world, we cannot afford to place all of our hopes on the gun, on the bomb, on the power of power. We must seek a new solution. That is what Barack Obama is saying when he calls for an end to the military engagement in Iraq.
Could you say that too? Would you serve him as your commander-in-chief?
*The Powell Doctrine held that military force should only be used if there was a clear risk to national security; that the force used should be overwhelming; and that the operation must have strong public support and a clear exit strategy.
You have been in a painful slide lately I think. As one of your faithful, if somtimes confused, supporters, it has frankly been hard to watch. I want to believe you had an honorable heart in all this mess, but often I am unsure. I am here to engage the topic of Iraq today, and as I researched and thought about this subject, I just kept coming back to you.
This picture was taken this week, as you talked to us about the latest blow to hit your presidency, the impending collapse of the financial market. You frankly looked beaten. I heard the quacking of a lame duck calling the two Ganders to waddle their way to Washington to assist in the decision that would really affect their administration more than yours.
It made me think back to the days not so long ago when you were younger, determined, and riding a wave of public support. You had comforted us after the terrible day of 9/11, you had taken a posse and sent them to Afganistan to string up the outlaw who did it, and you were ready to show that you were not only a reactive guy, but proactive as well. There would be no second 9/11 on your watch. Hussein would be the next to go. I wonder if you regret the speech below now, especially the prophetic lines that those of us who were listening did not expect to be as true as they turned out to be.
There are now few that don't hate you for this decision. Did you know that the weapons of Mass Destruction would never quite show up? Was it really all about oil? Or was it about the human rights violations against millions in Iraq? I guess we will never know. Right or wrong, you have suffered. And maybe I am naive to still hope that your intentions were good. But even corruption has been corrupted now, with the evilest standing up and calling themselves the best, so how are we on "main street" to know.
So now, we have two men with plans for what to do next. I was struck by something McCain said in the debate this past week. Obama was talking about why this war was the wrong war at the wrong time. But now that is a mute point. We are here and it is now and there is no going back. So the question is what do we do now.
See minute #2 for the quote. Watch the whole video for McCain's side of the debate on Iraq. I wish it had both sides of the debate, but this is what I found.
The fact of the matter is, we cannot "lose" in Iraq. Remember how that went with Vietnam? But how do you define "winning" when you are fighting against guerilla warfare? When the enemy army has a global pool to draw from? And when the enemy does not value the lives of its own members? In fact, the enemy blends with the civilian population one day and blows them up the next. Lets just say it gets confusing.
So, to the point. What does John McCain recommend? On his site he says he "believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred." OK, what else...
"The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home." A democratic state that poses no threat to its neighbors? I disagree with that. Its neighbors should be at risk of catching the same disease...democracy and freedom. Those terrorists take refuge with Iraq's neighbors...But Iraq should be able to safe guard themselves, I agree.
McCain calls for 1. Support of the successful counterinsurgency strategy (see BRD's discussion of the Patreaus doctrine). 2. Push for Political reconciliation and good government, 3. Get Iraq's economy back on its feet, 4. Call for International pressure on Syria and Iran, 5. Level with the American people about what is going on in Iraq
He closes his Iraq info with this: “I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.”
I fear that I still agree with your administration, Mr. Bush, and with John McCain. I think you both sort of agree, although all this politics has addled my brain a bit. I just know that simply promising to bring troops home does not a successful strategy make. We are where we are, and we must, slowly but surely, strengthen Iraq and prepare to leave. There will be risks, there are always risks, but we must allow this butterfly, which we removed from its cocoon a bit before it was ready, to spread and strengthen its wings. And then when it can fly, we must let it.
AND THEN>>> We must decide what we will do with evil in this world, both the evil that threatens us and the evil that does not. What about the Darfurs? What about the Irans? There are probably 10 more places we could go to war at for all the same reasons that you took us to war in Iraq. So what kind of possible consequences will we allow to drive us to that point again? It is something that American's must grapple with. We must also grapple with where in the world we will spend our money, especially now. 2 Billion to Georgia to support democracy...how many billions to the world in general to cut poverty in half by 2015?
"The world has changed, I can feel it in the water, I can feel it in the earth". America must change with it, and we must decide who we are going to be globally... "freedom bully", nuclear enforcer, savior, uncle money bags, trouble maker, scape goat...what?
But I digress and fall into so many other topics. One last thing I want to say though, is that I am glad for what you have done in Africa. I wish more people knew about this. With all the horrible things going on in Iraq, there have been so many good things in Africa. But no one wants to report the good things...the people living better, surviving longer with AIDS, prevention of the spread of AIDS, etc. Thank you for doing this.
So enjoy your last few months in the White House, and I truly hope you can enjoy retirement on the ranch. It will be here very soon.
Your friend and critic,
CaDh 8
p.s. Oh, yeah, And Bush, I did not get to talk about that unbalanced budget, but it is one of my major gripes with you. If America had had to feel this war due to spending cuts to make war funding possible, I think the war would have been handled very differently from the beginning. But maybe that is a topic for next time...
So we have been hearing from the candidates of late. Partisanship politics paired with bi-partisan statements while a national game of chicken ensues. I was frankly disappointed at the "joint statement" just released, as I felt like it was mostly fluff. I thought they were going to tell us something. But it was just "Kum-by-ah". I don't think Kumbyah will get us out of this one.
Both McCain and Obama took time out of the Clinton Global Initiative to lay out some of their "real" plans.
McCain had 5 points regarding the bail out plan. He thinks these are requirements for any plan that is put in place. Washington post online provided this recap: "As he has said before, McCain said five principles must be included: greater accountability and independent oversight; a path for taxpayers to recoup the money; transparency in decisions on which companies to help; a cap on the executive pay of those companies that take part and no earmarks in the plan for any specific businesses." and "McCain said that a second economic stimulus package should not be attached to the legislation."
Obama kept his points to 4, but the Washington post was a bit more free with their word count and line space when outlining his ideas: "Obama's proposed additions include: --A ban on generous payouts for "irresponsible CEOs on Wall Street." Obama warned: "There has been talk that some CEOs may refuse to cooperate with this plan if they have to forgo multimillion-dollar salaries. I cannot imagine a position more selfish and greedy at a time of national crisis. And I would like to speak directly to those CEOs right now: Do not make that mistake." --Replacing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's absolute authority over the bailout's execution with a bipartisan independent board. Obama noted that Paulson signaled during testimony this morning that he may be open to the broadening idea. --An investor stake for taxpayers. "The American people should share in the upside as Wall Street recovers," Obama said, adding, "There are different ways to accomplish this." --Assistance for people who are in danger of foreclosure. He outlined several possible ways to provide aid, including giving the government the authority to purchase mortgages directly, instead of the mortgage-backed securities that have cause the banking woes. He also called for a stimulus package, although he added that it shouldn't be attached to the bailout bill. "
So there are some definite similarities here. Both want to limit CEO profits, independant or bipartisan oversight, and a way for the taxpayers to recover the money and/or make profits based on what happens with the bailed out companies. I think most can agree on these points. They are fairly good. But I think there is a giant hole in the points of both men. I mean, what about this 700+ billion dollars? None of these points really directly address that part. Why are we putting that money up? What are we getting for that money? Would mortgage insurance, similar to FHA, do a better job at protecting the market while keeping companies solvant? Are there real homes backing up the 700+ billion, or just "toxic paper"? And how will this toxic paper turn to, well, for lack of a better analogy, green, acid free, recyclable paper?
And what about the whole stimulus package that both men discuss? Didn't we just try that in the fall. Sure it was great to get $1200 in the mail, but I feel like somehow now is not the time.
So I am still confused. But at least we can see that our candidates do agree on a few things. I hope that they can help out up there is Washington. I think I may have a party to celebrate that tomorrow night, if they meet their deadline, regardless of whether the debates are on or off.
You are all invited. We will be having bean soup. No time like the present to start saving money.
Thanks for the nice email you sent earlier today. I got a nice card from Michelle too! The other day Joe wrote also. I just don't know how you all have time to write these personal emails.
But I was so glad to hear what you said this about the Wall Street debacle.
No Golden Parachutes -- Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.
Main Street, Not Just Wall Street -- Any bailout plan must include a payback strategy for taxpayers who are footing the bill and aid to innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure.
Bipartisan Oversight -- The staggering amount of taxpayer money involved demands a bipartisan board to ensure accountability and oversight.
I have to remark, though, I wonder why, when I knew these mortgages that these banks were writing were ridiculous, didn't Congress and the Treasury Department know it and act about 4 or 5 years ago. I do want you to do something now, but earlier would have been better.
By the way, CaDh8 wrote an incredible blog about making use of our resources and such (better than Wall Street has.) You must read it.
Michelle sent me a nice video too. Have you seen it?
So a debate. And Michelle asked me to throw a party. Is she nuts? Well OK, maybe my friend T.S. Eliot would come. He's a bit of a cynic. Here's what he said the other day:
"An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry." T. S. Eliot
So drop over on Friday after the debate. We'll have wings!
My question, when I think about the issue of health care in the United States, is a simple one.
Should the richest country on earth allow it's 47 million poorest citizens to be without health insurance? The statistics on this come from Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004.That 47 million is 15.7 percent of the total population and includes, probably, most of the 12.7 percent of the population that lives in poverty.
I think that another critical question is whether or not being without health insurance is the same thing as being without health care. That distinction is subtle but important, because my concern isn't about insurance. Insurance is paperwork and, in a way, a straw man. What is important is that people can get health care when they need it and are not discriminated against when they do not have health insurance. Perhaps as we try to think through the problems related to health care in the U.S., a solution might be found outside of the insurance box.
Obama says:
Reduce costs for employers and businesses by having the government pay for certain high ticket health care items.
Build a system of health risk prevention.
Improve quality of care.
Move to a system based on information technology, computerizing record keeping.
Break the stranglehold of insurance and drug companies.
In the process of setting up a new system, get all concerned parties "around the table" to draft the program.
This is a nice video. It is both personal and filled with ideas. They are good ideas, but even Obama admits that they are not the only ideas and that other ideas will play a part in building a new health care provision network. He does promise that he will redo the system by the end of his first term in office. Hm.m.m. Have I heard that before? It is an enormous task. He'll have to work really hard to do that.
Obama says, insurance companies and drug companies should have a seat at the table but they shouldn't be able to buy every chair. Click this link to see a long but casual and informative video that ends with a little discussion on how Obama will build a coalition of groups to plan health care changes.
I guess there is another big question related to all of this. How do we pay the bill? That is the hard part of all of this. I think that many countries that have a socialized form of medical care for its citizens have faced these hard questions. I am in favor of limits to coverage. I don't think any politician likes to talk about that. There is much waste and inefficiency in the way we go about treating the sick. Certainly we have made great advances in the treatment of disease, but some of those advances are so over the top that people have to make living wills in order to avoid heroic and unnecessary treatments.
We need a systemic overhaul of our systems, health care and health care insurance. Barack Obama wants to do an overhaul.
Obama's goal is to expand government-provided health care and create a form of “managed competition".
Obama supports expanding SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility.
Although Obama does not support a health insurance mandate for adults, he does support a mandate for children and young adults (any one 25 or under).
Obama’s goal is to increase health care access, he would support a “pay-or-play” mandate.
All but the smallest employers would be required to provide health insurance; those who didn’t would be compelled to pay into a national fund covering these uninsured workers.
The mandate would likely require a minimum benefits package.
Overall, Obama is pushing towards more government provided health care and more regulation.
Yes, it is true. I know how to reduce all of our chance of dying...well at least temporarily. Maintaining a healthy weight (which for most of us means losing a pound or two) and not smoking. And guess what, this also solves some of our health care needs, as it will decrease rates of other health problems as well. I guess this would increase costs some though, as people would need care for longer lives, but those longer lives would be lived healthier.
OK, so I know I did not just solve all of America's health care issues with that one little statement. But here is a comment that Sarah Palin made in 2008:
"Our choices often lead to heart disease, diabetes, underage drinking, drugs, violence, and abuse. Soaring health and public safety costs are sometimes unfairly passed on to others. But more importantly, by ignoring or accepting selfish choices that cause the abuse, children, families and entire communities are destroyed. Government cannot cure all ills. And don't assume more laws foisted on Alaskans are the only answer--most "bad activity" is already illegal. We have got to make wise, healthy personal choices, including choosing not to ignore child abuse. I'm counting on families, communities and faith-based groups to step up, together, to help passionately here, too." Source: State of the State Address to the 25th Alaska Legislature Jan 15, 2008
I think that this comment captures two things. One is that our outcomes are based on the choices we make. This is true on several levels. One point is that our health on a personal level is dependant on our own choices. We choose to eat well or not, to exercise or not, to smoke or not. Are some of these choices very hard? Of course. Are there some things we are powerless to control. Yes to that too. And we must choose not to ignore the things we can change.
This goes for spending as well. Both personal and national.
Personally we must choose to prioritize health care. It is not a travesty that at times we would choose not to get medical care because of the cost. I personally have made this choice over the past year, since I have chosen a high deductible with low coverage for myself. So I only go to the doctor when I NEED to. I am not afraid to go, though, because I use the money I save on premiums to build my savings for times of need. But I know that health care must come before cable and eating out and other "wants". It is a need.
Nationally we also must consider this debate. What do we want as a nation, what does it cost, and what will we give up in order to get it. Oh yeah, and who will pay. Here is an interesting video...it is a bit long, but talks about the limits to our budget and what we can spend on all government programs. This candidate will take your vote, I am sure, if you don't like either of the current front runners.
But the thing is, no one wants to cut spending. Everyone seems to say "Gimme Gimme". And there are lots of arguments why we should give people more in the way of health care. But I fear out attempts to 'give' some people more will eventually lead to much less for all. And when we get more from the government we become slave to them. When they control our most important needs, we become beholden to them. So I fear to give them control over my health care. They have already messed up so many things.
Well, in the interest of information, I am just going to link to John McCain's website for his planks on Health care. There was just too much to summarize here. But with his plan, designed to give power to the people and tax breaks so we can buy our own health care. The thing is, this still means there will be less money to the government, so they will have to fix their spending problem. Obama wants the government to provide more health care, so costs will go up and either taxes must match or spending must go down. Either way, we as a nation must fix our spending problem and make good choices...
But so must individuals. We must get off credit cards, give up goodies, and prioritize our spending. And guess what...if we did this we may not even need the governments help. Just think about that one. You can solve your own problems!! Be empowered.
We all know we need an affordable, sensible way for all people to get health care. And the government does need to be involved. But so do we. The government must fight corruption and help those who have no other options. Both candidates say they will do that, and even after some research I still wonder how.
And we must open our eyes to those around us. Don't expect the government to take care of YOUR neighbor when you can do it much better.
And if you don't like this plan, you may like the Dunlap-Brawls health care plan. I warn you, there are some crude spots, but nothing too over the line. (And yes, this is facetious).
Hope these thoughts add to the debate. This is a complex problem and I know I did not wade to deep, but I think the spending issue is the lead in issue to the HOW of the healthcare debate.
I thought that you would like this video clip. Maybe O'Reilly disagrees with Mr. Obama, but I say, "You go, neighbor!" Wikipedia says that you, Mr. Hood, are "an archetypal figure in English folklore, whose story originates from medieval times but who remains significant in popular culture where he is painted as a man known for robbing the rich to give to the poor and fighting against injustice and tyranny." If that is what O'Reilly means by calling Obama Robin Hood, I think I'll vote Democrat!
One of the most maddening realities of our tax system, to me, is the cap on social security taxes. If Obama swoops down and wrests that booty from the rich and super rich, I would say that a good deed has been done for sure and the men and women of Sherwood Forest will have much about which to be merry.
I'd like to talk with you about immigration to see if I've got this straight, that is, what you think about the immigration issue.
In May of 2007, in the Senate, you said,
“The time to fix our broken immigration system is now… We need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace… But for reform to work, we also must respond to what pulls people to America… Where we can reunite families, we should. Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should.”
This is one issue where I'd like to be sure that when we go about fixing our "broken system," that we fix the right part. As a grandaughter of an immigrant, I feel like I'm just two heartbeats away from the "home country," so I'm quite glad for generous immigration policies.
I was listening to what you had to say:
I agree with you mostly. Here are some of your immigration-related ideas that I have been thinking about:
You talk about fixing the bureaucracy. That is really an area where there isa need for change. The hidden bureaucracy is where we should start. You talk about needing to speed up the process of doing background checks. I think that this is really true. In a world where computers can do a gazillion things per millisecond, it seems like we ought to be able to address this issue.
At the debate in Texas you said, "It is important that we fix the legal immigration system, because right now we've got a backlog that means years for people to apply legally. What's worse is, we keep on increasing the fees, so that if you've got a hard working immigrant family, they've got to hire a lawyer; they've got to pay thousands of dollars in fees. They just can't afford it. It's discriminatory against people who have good character, but don't have the money. We've got to fix that. We have to improve our relationship with Mexico and work with the Mexican government so that their economy is producing jobs on that side of the border. The problem is that we have had an administration that came in promising all sorts of leadership on creating a US-Mexican relationship. Bush dropped the ball. He has been so obsessed with Iraq that we have not seen the kinds of outreach and cooperative work that would ensure that the Mexican economy is working not just for the very wealthy in Mexico, but for all people."
A number of things about this statement ring really true to me. My grandfather came to this country with $11.00 in his pocket.(See Ellis Island document below.)
I sure agree that we don't want to price immigrants out of the American dream. You and Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced the Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007. Included in it are provisions that prohibit the increase in naturalization fees. And (another nice feature) it requires that test for citizenship be administered uniformly nationwide, with no extraordinary or unreasonable conditions placed on applicants taking the tests. The age, education level, time in the United States, and efforts made by citizenship applicants would be taken into account when they take the tests.
I love that. It might allow for some consideration of immigrants who have served our country in the military.
Additionally, your emphasis on Mexico and a joint policy with the Mexican government is particularly important. Facts is facts, reality is reality. Mexico is our special situation. It is our border country. We share a history. And we share the economic problems driving both the legal and illegal transfer of population from Mexico to the United States. This idea is central to a great immigration policy. And here, I think, Bush has built a base to stand on. Save the distraction of the Iraq War, we may have made some headway at solving this problem.
I need to say something about fences and walls. I know you have said some things about local communities deciding for themselves what is effective in terms of physical barriers. And that's a safe position for a politician. But Robert Frost and I believe that something there is that doesn't love a wall. So rather than mending those walls we've got going down along the border, let's make a different music this next eight years.
I met this guy, Glen Weyant, while doing an article for Stimulus, the Alumni newsletter for the UT College of Social Work. Instead of building walls, he makes music by using the border fences as an instrument. Below is a rather strong expression of his views about the walls. I thought you might find it interesting. The music is created from the natural sounds electronically collected while "playing the wall."
BRD
Note to readers: Here are some other links to info.
"The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down." SENATOR BARACK OBAMA, speaking in Berlin.
Presidents are great ones for making speeches in Berlin. You probably don't remember John F. Kennedy, do you? He had such a smart wife. She knew languages and people. But she was on the quiet side. Upper crust. Back then, if a woman used a family name as a middle name they were upper crust. Later on, they were feminists. But JFK made a great speech in Berlin one time. "Ich bin ein Berliner," he said.
Kennedy is remembered for this line. It was actually a gaff of sorts. "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner!" Apparently after the show, Jacqueline corrected Jack's grammar, telling him that he had actually told the crowd, "I am a jelly donut." The crowd was forgiving and the speech went off famously.
Then there was the speech that Ronald Reagan made. That was significant.
When I was a little girl, the great communist horror was symbolized by a great wall in Berlin that symbolized oppression and lack of free speech, movement, and commerce.
"Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," said Reagan in 1987. And within a short while really, gates were opened and the wall came down. People took pieces of that wall and gave them as souvenirs.
Even Bill Clinton made a speech in Berlin, where he tried his hand at simple German. "Berlin ist frei" ("Berlin is free"), he said, in July of 1994.
So you have added your voice to a great crowd of witnesses to the importance of . . . what? Our relationship to Germany? Maybe. Or maybe to just to the power of language and the fine way words can go together. I'm glad your voice resonates so well.
Woman 1: "Ooh! Let me show you. Let me show you our picture. This was me and my husband when we were first married." Woman 2: "I always slept on one side, left room for my husband." Woman 1: "And that's me when we were sixteen" Woman 2: "But this, this, this, this is not the case. I still do it. I still lay on the half of the bed. (pause) We used to sneak in. . . "
Dear Barack Obama,
I've laid on my side of the bed almost longer than you have lived, so I want to tell you a little about loving and about growing up and what is important. And what it takes to get beyond 16. Too many people keep going back to 16, back to when we didn't know up from down or yes from no. But we do so need more real adults around here.
Back a ways, when I was 16, life and sex and marriage had a little different taste. Not that the sex drive has changed all that much. (Did you know that even old women can still pant long after their children think that our sexual pleasures should be relegated to long term memory?) But the flavor of sex back then was tinged with a certain reality. The reality was that sex often led to procreation. That procreation was good and anticipated by married couples. When my husband moved over into my side of the bed, we had fun and we had children.
But there was a dark side. Most of culture, religious and non-religious, painted that darkness upon couples, and, particularly, women who tasted sex and then pregnancy before they tasted a wedding cake. One of my first jobs was at a home for girls, "predelinquent girls" they were called. They carried with them a tang of the outcast, each wearing some style of scarlet letter affixed to their lives. People helped them, but not without attaching to these beautiful, young Eves a stigma, a curse.
The best thing that resulted from the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, was that some people finally were forced to reassess their view of women who carried children to birth, married or not. These women, we came to see, were neither delinquent nor cursed, but were indeed responsibly mature and blessed. That has been the shining beauty of Roe v. Wade. People think of Roe v. Wade as the decision that opened the doors to abortion. It did that. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a cultural shift that has changed life for those women and girls who are not married but are pregnant and choose to give their babies birth.
I've raised three girls to womanhood. Any mother thinks, at some point, what words would I say, were my daughter (or son) to come to me and say, "I'm not married, but I'm going to have a child"? I decided what my response would be, were I ever to need one. My answer is, "A child is always good. Let us rejoice in this life. How wonderful!"
Last March, in answer to a question about this subject, you said, "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old, I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby." Of course I don't agree with everything you say politically. But this isn't politics, so I'm going to give you some grandma type advice. If your daughters ever come to you and talk about a baby that is their own, DON'T call it a mistake. Don't curse that child. A life, young and new, whether mother or baby, is not delinquent because of a pregnancy. Call it beautiful. Call it blessed. Call it theirs. Call it yours. Call it love.
And punished? I think that there is a lie being told to a whole generation of potential parents. They are being told by everyone from Jerry Seinfeld to you, Barack Obama, that children are a punishment. This is a lie. I have never experienced any joy in life that even remotely compares to the joy of holding my babies. You know that I'm speaking the truth, because you have Malia and Sasha. Ooh, I'm not trying to be slobbery. I'm just reminding you, and a whole generation, that life and meaning is not found in self-indulgence and purposeless pleasuring. It is, however, found in the kind of responsible decisions and sacrifice that result in strong families and healthy children, like mine and like yours. It's no mistake and it is not punishment.
Sure, not everyone will become a parent, but the truth of the matter is, no one is ready to do it until they do it, and it is in this type of mature embracing of responsible living that brings an individual to adulthood. Fully responsible adults arise from the ranks of those who embrace their lives, their own and their children, not because they are picture perfect but because they are theirs, and because they savor the goodness that comes with it all.
When I was young, gasoline cost $.27. We got into motor cars and toured. We thought that a super highway was four lanes wide (Wow!) and really was "Super!" The turnpike was made of concrete and when you drove along it, the lullabye of the tires went ka-thunk, ka-thunk. Now, it seems that gasoline prices are so high, that anytime I want to go somewhere, with Lou or with anyone, I think, I should walk, that's all. But I don't need to go anywhere, because I have the internet. And, it takes me everywhere, with not so much as a ka-thunk. . . just the gentle click of the keys. See?
The click of the keys to go somewhere is my point, not the price of gas. For the internet is our super highway. And it is faster, wider, longer, and more critical than the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. When I was younger, and this sweet young girl was helping me learn how to use a computer, she said, "Look, Mrs. D., it's like a system of highways, and the url is the address you are headed for." She was a nice young girl with red hair. She told me she didn't want to have children. But finally she did. And isn't she happy now! I told her, but she didn't believe me. But she told me about computers, and I am so happy.
Today, the internet is as important as highways, do you see? So that is why you are going to have to make the way the country handles the internet one of the things to add to the list of things you have to change. Even Vint Cerf says so, and he helped Al Gore make the internet, they say.
Anyhow, you need to look into this, because highways are important, and keeping them running right has always been something the government does. There isn't any doubt, in my mind that our newest system of transportation needs to run smoothly, and without too many ka-thunk ka-thunks.
"I would give honestly and without regret, one hundred dollars for that picture." —Simon and Garfunkel 101.
I was leafing through old pictures the other day. From World War II. That wasn't the war to end all wars. We knew better by then. But, a few years ago, we got the idea that we ought to give war a go once more. Maybe this time, we could use war to “get ‘er done.”
I did a little anti-war protesting, before Congress took it's vote, but in the end, off the troops went. I remember saying to a friend of mine, another old peacenik, “I hope they are right, because I hate to demonstrate against a war, when our troops are risking their lives.” My Congressman, Jimmy Duncan, voted against going to war in Iraq. He's a Republican. I wrote a letter to him and told him I thought he was a wise American.
The picture I was looking for the other day was captured at Anzio. I found was this one, taken from inside a tent. You can see the flap of the tent. Perhaps this photo was an accident. It is grusome, but it tells the truth about war.
Does it matter, when you see a pile that is bodies? Does it matter if they are Americans or Germans, French or Iraqi, Japanese or Afghan? I don’t think it does. Not 64 years later, it doesn’t matter. They aren’t Americans, they are a tragic memory. And today what matters is trying for peace and trying for a different picture, a different memory.
I would give, honestly, and without regret, one hundred dollars for that picture.
Now, if that goes through, here's what our national deficit will look like, compared to the past few years:
Posts
