Saturday, May 19, 2012

Unintended Consequences in Government

                                                Night blooming cerus Tucson Arizona USA 

As I grew older my understanding of long term consequences of social engineering, regulations, tax policies, R&D priorities and other phenomena has grown.  A course of action that is beneficial in the short term might not be so beneficial down the road.  An example of that is a recent celebration that consumer debt had risen and thus helped the economy.  As this debt comes due, less spending will be the result, which will negatively impact the economy for as long as it takes to pay the debt.  Interest goes to the moneylenders, who sock it away to gamble on derivatives, shorts and other nonproductive 'investments'.  Investments like these used to be called a 'stake' in gambler's lingo.  Maybe this short term gambling leads to long term malaise of the economy. 
The betting on whether a country will default or not should be confined to Las Vegas and other gambling centers.  Huge sums bet on national default in today's world will result in activity that brings default about, in order to cash in on insurance purchased.  It's like buying life insurance on your neighbor, then setting him up so you can collect.   Who is investigating if this is happening?
Student debt is of much discussion and a huge debate whether to raise student debt interest rates or not has not produced a solution to the problem that graduates don't have jobs waiting for them.  As a student, I remember knowing that degrees in the arts might not be able to get a job after graduation.  Students choose their major and apparently the student loan people do not limit the debt to people who are specializing where the jobs are. 
Why have the costs of education versus income changed so much?  The Arizona constitution guarantees an education at reasonable cost.  Is student debt a reasonable cost?  For how long is this debt reasonable or is it reasonable to demand a long term lien on future earnings in order to go to school at all?  Has it become so that the average student MUST assume debt in order to access school?  That is not a reasonable cost.
 When I entered the University of Arizona in 1963, tuition was about $424 a year plus about $160 more for books.  Working at $3.00 an hour, it took about 5 weeks to earn that money by working at a service job.  Now, in state tuition at the UofA is $9,286 a year, which would require about 1,160 hours of work at $8.00 an hour, slightly over minimum wage.   Now a student would have to work 29 weeks to earn the tuition, while in 1963 a student would work just 5 weeks to earn the tuition.   
Economic problems result from little planning and the student loan problem is a good example of what EZ Loans can do to a society, as future productivity is harnessed for the present, resulting in future economic slowdowns based on the debt service.  This harms the consumer market because the debt prevents spending on widgets and the few moneylenders who are amassing the money can only use so many widgets. 
Unintended consequences from policies and thoughtless legislation have resulted in detrimental effects towards perpetuating the long term culture.  The formation of unions when workers were little more than slaves was appropriate for the time but the politically powerful unions have now lobbied their advantage throughout the nation.  The unplanned long term consequence of requiring union membership is seen in rising costs and fewer jobs.
 Another phenomena is that of the government assisting the unions in control of workers by forcing the deletion of union dues from workers' paychecks instead of the unions collecting their own dues.  It appears that some of these organizations are so good at getting their workers such high wages and benefits that the widgets they make can be made for much less elsewhere, and shipped here for sale at a profit.  The short term planning is always higher wages and more benefits, not whether their demands will bankrupt the business in the long term.  Forcing workers to finance organizations like these is not going to result in economic recovery.     
The union stalemate creates very few high paying jobs and expensive products that cannot even compete locally in the global economy.  The laws forcing union membership  are actually preventing access to a willing and able workforce who would work for less, which would allow the production of a lower priced product.  Some unions are essential, but membership should be voluntary, with a secret ballot.  Competitive hiring would allow for more workers to be hired, at a lower rate than union scale.  The issue of 'benefits' must be addressed next.  
The long term consequences of requiring employers to buy health insurance for their workers is affecting our economy today.  Workers in hazardous jobs like mining and police work should receive coverage of job related health care costs, which was the original intent of activists who saw workers suffering from job related maladies who were then replaced without regard for compensation for injuries.  Such is the moral basis of capitalism, that businesses must legally be bound to take care of workers injured on the job but the unions have ballooned 'benefits' into total coverage for every wart for the worker and his family, even after they retire.  And the insurance companies responded to the mandatory insurance requirement by raising their prices.  Some businesses are not hiring workers due to the unpredictable escalating costs of providing insurance.
I say go back to the free enterprise system and cancel all the mandatory insurance requirements.  If an individual wants 'coverage', then that individual can find their own insurance plan and pay for it.  Employers will then be relieved of paying and arranging for insurance for employees and employees will be free to spend their money however they like.  There is already a low cost health care option in the form of the urgent care outlets and drug store nurses, who can serve the locals' minor needs quickly and inexpensively.  Individuals should not be required to buy health insurance.  Let the market determine health care costs, not the insurance companies.  The populace and employers should not see an ever increasing percentage of their income go to insurance. 
The government should not be in the business of requiring purchase of anything.  Taxes are already a burden.  The long term consequences of mandatory insurance in the workplace has been inflation in health care and insurance costs.  The insurance brokers and  health care suppliers continually raise prices, while the populace has no say but must pay ever higher costs. 
Short term thinking has resulted in problems for our nation.  The EZ loan caused housing bubble and the sale of worthless derivatives based on the subprime loans caused politicians to vote to bailout the institutions that insured those loans, rather than the original investors who were defrauded.  The long term consequences for this bailout remain to be seen, but the recent J.P. Morgan financial losses point to more of the same behavior that caused the financial crisis. 
Repeal of the Glass Steagall Act was a prime example of short term thinking that had negative long term consequences.  I disrespect anyone who had anything to do with that, including President Clinton, who signed it.
                                              Reaching For Rain  

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Qualifications for Senator and Representative


The New Arizona Senator

In Arizona this latest election is particularly important, due to the open Senate seat the voters will be filling for the new term. 
What does Arizona need from our new Senator and our Representatives?  A summary of situations in Arizona will reveal what is needed.

As of March 2012, Arizona has:

·         high foreclosure rate per capita

·         high dropout rate from public schools

·         drug smuggling problem

·         lack of excess water

·         many illegal immigrants

·         significant debt on governmental levels

·         abundant labor force and housing

·         open space and cheap land

·         high unemployment

·         Some valuable mineral resources

·         national parks and recreational areas

·         huge Indian reservations

·         a long border with Mexico

·         military bases and aerospace industries

A new Senator should have an intimate knowledge of these issues and others.  A senator should also be cognizant of international issues also, particularly since Arizona shares a long international border with Mexico.  A good Senator will work for their home state and for the greater good of the union of states called the United States of America.   Notice that I did not say that our new Senator should be responsible to donors, contributors, PACs, campaign workers or churches.  We don't need any Senators that are bought and paid for by some special interest.  We don't need any Senators who cater to lobbyists desires rather than representing the needs of the constituents. 

The first thing that should be on a Senator's mind is the revision of the General Mining Act of 1872.  Arizona has been heavily exploited by mining interests and has little to show for that exploitation.  Temporary jobs are now gone and the decimation of the landscape remains in the form of pits and dumps and poisonous runoff.  This 1872 law was enacted to facilitate the mineral resources of a developing nation, but is now used by foreign mining interests to exploit the mineral resources of Arizona for profit and jobs in foreign nations.  Responsible representatives of Arizona on all levels should call for revision of the old 1872 law before any more huge mines are permitted, in order to obtain state and federal  revenue and ease the tax burden on citizens.  Arizona is running out of resources and what remains must be protected against exploitation as a national security concern.  Any new Senator or Representatives must recognize that stripping all of our nonrenewable mineral reserves and allowing them to be taken out of the country is poor long term planning.  As world supplies dwindle, the price will go up to repurchase those reserves. 

A Senator must have a commitment to fiscal responsibility.  Even the Federal Reserve has stated that the future will be unsustainable if spending and borrowing is not limited.  It is obvious that sometime the deficit problems will be similar to Greece, where the income of the nation will sustain the nation but not the nation and the payments being demanded by creditors.  Wars have been fought over less. 

I wonder if a legal challenge about taxpayers being forced to pay for debts incurred beyond the elected officials' term of office would be in order.  Why should a politician be allowed to run up debt, without regard to the ability to pay it back or without regard for the people who are paying for it?  What was achieved by the borrowing and is it worth the interest and payments for a long period?  Sovereign long term borrowing should be strictly prohibited in all constitutions unless voted upon by the taxpayers.  A debt limit is supposed to protect taxpayers.   No more off budget non-declared wars.  The taxpayers need protection from this debt load.   Senators and Representatives should be ready for this gigantic hassle.

As for Arizona, Tourism, Recreation and Retirement Communities are important sources of renewable income along with the military bases and aerospace industries.  Arizona Senators and Representatives should be ready to support that which benefits the state.  The earmark controversy should end with a ban but for now I would expect our Senators and Representatives to obtain earmarks for our state.  It's foolish not to. 

Arizona has a high foreclosure rate and the economy was damaged by the boom and bust.  An Arizona Senator should be well versed in the facts concerning the recession, the bailouts and their results, current litigation concerning the housing bust, the enabling legislation that precipitated the crisis, the unregulated trading in oil futures and other issues.  We cannot afford to send an unread individual to Washington to represent us.  We cannot afford to send an individual to Washington to represent us who will depend on lobbyists to brief them on pending legislation.  If a candidate doesn't want to read the legislation they are voting on, they shouldn't run.  This decadence must be corrected.

I think lobbying and fundraising should be banned from Washington while  in session in an effort to curb dereliction of duty and corruption. 

Illegal immigration has slowed because there are few jobs but is still an issue due to the lawlessness of illegal immigration and the related drug smuggling.  Thus, an ideal Senator will sponsor legislation to revise immigration policies, a process that should be led by border state Representatives and Senators.  It appears that the federal government has not sent grants to Arizona hospitals and other institutions that are serving resident illegal immigrants at state and charity expense.  Money from Washington to help out those institutions would be a benefit to Arizona.  Our new Senator should work for those goals.

Considering the state of the real estate and related industries in Arizona, the retention of federal land as open space and national parks for recreation and ranching brings in tourists and college students, which benefits the local economies.  More land on the market will only erode land value further, due to the housing glut caused by overbuilding and foreclosures.  It is suggested that empty housing and commercial units be heavily taxed, like Israel is now doing in an attempt to lower rents.  If there is any tax break taken for foreclosures by the lien holders , it should be cancelled.  A tax  on foreclosing and on holding the unit empty should be instituted instead, which will discourage foreclosures.   Understanding complex tax issues is necessary for a Senator or Representative.   They must be able to vote for a bill that displeases a big donor, because the good of the country is more important than any donor.  Even a donor will ultimately know this. 

Arizona's water problems are not going away.  As the drought continues, water supplies are dwindling.  The declaration of drought on the Colorado River complex will cut supplies to Tucson and other areas, which will impact economic development and devalue land.  It is obvious that heavy water users in industry are not feasible in Arizona, with a falling supply and rising rates.  Arizona needs renewable businesses in aerospace, astronomy, medical research, defense, assembly lines, the educational institutions, and other businesses that do not require much water to operate.   There has been some talk of an international distribution center to be located near Tucson, related to the new Guaymas, Mexico deep water port.  It is important that our Senators and Representatives understand the business need to cooperate with Mexico.  Water resources are critical in the border states and a dialogue with Mexico is needed.   International trade is a huge business and Arizona is a part of that.   Arizona's border with Mexico is an economic advantage for our state and more could be made out of it.

Smuggling is rampant where ever a government attempts to control the free flow of goods, illegal or not.  Many Latin American countries, including Mexico under President Calderon, want to decriminalize drugs in order to stop the crime wave, rather like the ending of Prohibition of alcohol in the USA ended an organized crime wave.  The emissary to a recent meeting where this was discussed was Vice President Biden.  This issue is not going away.  The lucrative nature of this smuggling has caused vicious turf battles but the participants are able to halt the violence for a visit by the Pope, which shows  power.  This phenomena will not vanish and practical ideas to cope with the situation are needed. 

The responsibility inherent in the Senate and the House to cooperate and produce compromise in order to solve fiscal problems cannot be ignored.  The foolishness of signing a pledge to never raise taxes crushes a valuable tool to control social damage from the private sector, such as the subprime scam.  None of the perpetrators should have had a tax break on any of the failed  investments or foreclosures brought on by the housing bust.   There are proposals to rewrite the tax code and our Senators and Representatives must be knowledgeable in that area.

Another area of expertise needed by Senators and Representatives is that of the  bureaucratic focus of organizations, which will determine policy wherever possible.  A thorough investigation of the mortgage lenders FANNIE and FREDDIE and a comparison of their stated goals and their actual goals must be made and steps taken to change the business culture that led to a nonproductive focus.  They wrote policy to make money on creating mortgage securities rather than on financing affordable housing for the population qualified to take out a loan.  The question of mortgage derivatives, the involvement of Fannie and  Freddie and the financial adventurism that has led to questionable investments must be understood. 

In conclusion, any candidate for office must be able to understand that long term planning is crucial to our survival as a nation.  Dedication to short term planning is foolish, like forgetting to gas up before you hit the interstate.  A lobbyist is not AAA for a politician out of gas.  The voters need politicians who will read the documents, research the material and make choices on the basis of long term planning with prorated short term goals that benefit the people represented. 


Friday, February 24, 2012

HIGH ENERGY PRICES

The recent runup in gasoline prices to $3.15 wholesale as of 24 February 2012 and the ongoing predictions of further price hikes do not bode well for this feeble economic 'recovery'. If the price of fuel continues to rise, recovery will metamorphose into recession or depression, depending on how strict the definition used.


It appears that warmongering against Iran has a price for United States consumers, as the price hike in fuel is attributed to the hassle. The WMD idea has reared its head again as an excuse for attacking Iran, because they have claimed the right to nuclear energy as a source of electricity for the population. I am in no position to claim that Iran is building a bomb or not, as I am not privy to classified information. Common sense will say that if someone is threatened, then they will take action in defense. One way threatening privileges is not a realistic goal, however.

So the sanctions against Iran went into effect and the world now pays more for fuel as a result. Warmongers on both sides have created another economic crisis for the world as this price hike will also raise food prices and production and delivery costs for everything, as the poor of the world pay for saber rattling and punishing. I actually heard a pundit rejoicing that the Iranian people are suffering due to the economic embargo, like they deserved to be punished for the actions of their leaders who refuse to back down over the nuclear issue. Insensitivity is where hate comes from on both sides. I heard the average Iranian makes $400 a month.

I even heard on TV that the Greek 'crisis' must be paid for with higher energy prices for all, since major oil producers contributed to the bailout fund and they expect to be paid back. Why is Goldman Sachs so into the Greek financial thing? Why not tap the USA for that money just in time for Memorial Day and the summer vacation season?

So is the warmongering worth it? Has anything been accomplished? Is the drain on the USA economy due to higher fuel prices worth what has been gained? Do the people of the USA really want the common people in Iran to suffer? I don't think so. This media manufactured crisis is demanding war when serious diplomacy is always the answer. I'm tired of the press and foreign nations choosing diplomatic issues for our government. I'm tired of the expense of war. This verbal war over nuclear energy in Iran is costing every citizen money every time they fill their gas tank.

It's not worth it. Settle the hassle some other way.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Catholics and Greeks


CONTRACEPTION CONTROVERSY


So the insurance plan format includes contraception, which did not surprise me for the following reasons:

• Cost Effectiveness: contraception is cheaper than pregnancy coverage.

• Social Costs: Population growth is not a desirable outcome when unemployment rates are high.

• Population growth is not a desirable outcome when welfare rolls are high and rising.

• Religious Implications: A church is attempting to dominate what should be a business decision.

• Contraception is legal and is the custom of the people, whether the church likes it or not.

Other implications would encourage discouraging immigration while the unemployment rate is so high. I know the implications of the educated immigrants but our own population needs to be hired. High Tech industries should be ready to invest in educating workers. I am also aware of the social value of welcoming educated immigrants, as it develops ties between the countries.

GREEK ECONOMIC CRISIS

The Greek economic crisis is now beginning to mention the plight of the people vs the plight of the lienholders. I heard a 40% rise in suicides in Greece. People standing in bread lines. Molotov cocktails within view of the Parthenon. All this to pay debts. A default would put the Greek government within 10% of the needed budget cuts to balance revenue with expenditure. I don't know who those lienholders are or why they are so desperate for money they would actually decimate a whole economy to pay for it, but it's haircut time.

A little research into the Greek entry into the eurozone is in order. Since the Greek government had so much debt upon entry into the zone and the zone was now beholden to pay it off, where was the debt before it became apparent? Did a big investment bank set up a deal that hid the debt? If they did, they should be liable for all Greek default debts. Clean them out. Governments and people are not pawns.




Saturday, February 04, 2012

Keystone Pipeline Opinion

The Keystone Pipeline is a controversial issue in the nation and President Obama rejected the pipeline deal after being pressured by Republicans to speed up the decision. Some Republicans want the pipeline. I watched some of the hearings concerning the pipeline and have gleaned a few items about this pipeline.


• Is owned by a Canadian company called TransCanada

• Proposes an oil pipeline from Canada to refineries in Texas

• Plans to use Port Arthur, Texas to export the pipeline products after refining

• Port Arthur, Texas is a free port, which means no tax would be paid on the exports

• The Keystone pipeline official refused to say that these petroleum products would remain in the USA, thus might not assist the goal of energy independence.

• The proposed pipeline routes go through the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides water for this large arid region and some of the pipeline is planned to be in contact with aquifer water, risking the water supply

• Refineries are notorious polluters and the Keystone oil will be corrosive, low quality crude

The following quotes illustrate the corruption around the pipeline. I think a look at campaign donations might reveal a pattern of giving designed to get the pipeline through without really investigating environmental concerns. Corruption in the State Department needs to be addressed and the following quote illustrates political influence around the pipeline.

"The State Department has also faced charges of political conflict of interest over its handling of the Keystone XL application because TransCanada’s chief Washington lobbyist, Paul Elliott, was a top official in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign."

As evidence of the corruption of the laws designed to protect the people from exploitation:

"The State Department allowed TransCanada to solicit and screen bids for the environmental study. At TransCanada’s recommendation, the department hired Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston, even though it had previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a “major client” in its marketing materials." (web address reference below)

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/k/keystone_pipeline/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Somebody ought to be fired in the State Department for corrupting our government.

As evidence of the intensity of this issue, A Nebraska rancher testified during the hearings that TransCanada had approached landowners along the route of the pipeline and made monetary offers to buy the land. If the landowners didn't take the offer, then TransCanada threatened them with Eminent Domain. I guess TransCanada had enough political backing to ensure that the landowners would be forced to hand over their land. I can imagine how these landowners feel. I deplore the use of eminent domain to force private individuals to hand over their land to other private concerns. It's unamerican.

TransCanada has also threatened our government with another pipeline to their west coast, where ships from the Orient will be glad to load this corrosive oil to haul it to the nearest heavy petroleum refinery. I'm sure the people of that beautiful coast will be glad to get this business and will be confident that no spills will ever occur.

Since I'm not one to criticize without offering a solution: How about TransCanada building a refinery up by where the tar sands are and refining this corrosive crude right there and then selling us the gas and diesel? Sounds like a plan to me.




Dorothy Prater Niemi February 2012

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Primary Elections and Reform Ideas

                                          Mojave County, Arizona, USA

The latest presidential race is unique in the number of 'debates' among the candidates, the power of the press and the growing power of the internet. However, it appears that the respective major parties are still in the predigital age.


The primary process is outdated and in need of overhaul, as are the east coast based party systems. During a recent expose' on the Dylan Ratigan Show about demands made on freshmen legislators to donate to the party on a consistent basis, I came to realize that the legislators should be in Washington D.C. to do their jobs, not fundraise from among the lobbyists present. Perhaps this party money in both parties is too much concentrated in one place, from my perspective out here in Arizona. These financial demands encourage legislators to take the easy way out and take lobby money and perks in return for favorable votes. Party money is then allotted to 'strategic' races across the nation. These 'strategic' races are coveted endorsements that produce cash for the candidate, like an out of state windfall that influences local elections.

Powerful individuals within the parties should not be making donation demands on legislators, nor should legislators be required to spend any time fundraising when on the job. A ban on lobbying and fundraising while in session needs to be instituted. No lobbying and fundraising in Washington D.C. should ultimately be the goal, as the halls of government should be free of special interests at all times.

Lobbyists are a chronic problem. Banning lobbying activities for the duration of the session is necessary to clear the halls and permit honest discourse without lobbyists interpretations and interference. Registered lobbyists should be required to wear badges that states the employer and the name of the individual, in order to remind and inform legislators and the public that these people are not their friends: they are hired to do a job on you for their employers. When a certain high politician talked about not running for another term, she evidently felt beholden to her donors to run again, not her constituents, her donors!

Term limits is another issue. Some long term legislators are unresponsive to their constituents because the lobbyists and donors become more important to their lifestyle. As long as big donated money and expensive media advertising dominates the voters, the politician can be voted in even though the overall voting record may not benefit the constituents, or even the nation. An argument can be made that term limits would enable the 'hired' people to run the government, but I suggest that study sessions on the issues and the legislation be made mandatory for voting members. Just the facts. Legislators need to study and learn about the issues, not spend their time in Washington attending fundraisers put on by vested interests. The national health insurance reform bill was not even read by most of those voting on it. That's ridiculous and decadent.

Money is greasing the system and those with money don't want the system changed. I think the moneyed class should admit that they found ways to control the economic system to their advantage but they also created the tea party and the occupiers and jobless college graduates. Riots and arrests in Oakland. Squatters in D.C. and a much heralded jobless recovery. What next? Financial control of the pundits on TV until the American people have only two candidates, both of which represent the groups gaming the capitalistic system? Business as usual, including the jobless recovery. And let's throw in some austerity in order to pay for the debts the politicians ran up with impunity. Give the schmucks easy credit using tax money so my associates can access the tax money using a property only worth a fraction of the price charged. Is capitalism now to be defined as access to tax money?

It's easy to create a game you can win when you control the players. The only problem is that capitalism is not really a game, but is a survival mechanism for our species created over eons of history. Creating a way to manipulate capitalism for short term gain of money and power is relatively easy compared to the task of maintaining capitalism in the face of declining availability of commodities per person due to the high population growth rates. Looting the system by creating new imaginary 'products' that the peons can't begin to understand, but that money managers are all too quick to invest money in, was hugely successful for a pitiful few gaming the system. With housing values down to a more manageable level, the disparities between existing mortgage values and new mortgages is actually growing, down some 45% here in Tucson, down 1% in 2011. Perhaps the perpetrators of the derivatives and mortgage securities frauds weren't so smart after all. Why did our legislators go for deregulation of the controls put into effect after the fall of 1929 and the Great Depression? Those who are not studious end up stupid and greedy. It's time to clean house, folks.

Back to reform of the primary electoral system. It appears that the nominee is always decided back east with a palliative thrown in by the Midwest. In the early primaries, the candidates don't run in the west or even the Texas powerhouse. According to the pundits, the primary will be decided in Florida and they have the winner all picked out by the polls for us. Voters in Texas, Arizona and California and Oregon have no vote, according to these pundits because all the money required to 'win' will exhaust the poor candidates while allowing the rich to shine. Yuk. I know this was not the intent of our founders. I'm sick of these people telling the viewers how the debates went, who won, what their latest unsubstantiated poll says and discussing ad nauseum the private lives of some of the candidates. The other night I watched a controversial issue discussed by three people, all of whom agreed. That's not journalism, that's manipulation and propaganda. So what are the credentials of the Media Judges? I think some are using the power of the media to influence elections.

True reform needs to happen. I suggest that the Primary begin in New Hampshire, then moves to Nevada, then to Georgia, then to Iowa and so on, representing all areas of the country in the early primaries, instead of all of them concentrated in the Eastern Seaboard. Let's have a Mexican border state represented also. How about a super Tuesday with several states from around the country to start it off? The primary is not fair to the rest of the states and regions.

To continue the meaning of true reform, campaign spending must be linked to the population of the state: no more than X amount per voter can be spent, and make the amount modest. If a business chooses to unilaterally support a candidate in ads, then the business and CEO must be identified in the ad. No more PACS. Limited campaign spending and more concentration on real issues needs to happen.

I liked the 'debates', although some were better than others. The debates that were actually debates, instead of the candidates answering different questions, were more fun but the questions allowed the candidates to express themselves, albeit in a tightly controlled manner. I liked the exposure to public view but saw that the glib candidates had a huge advantage over the others. I'm not sure glibness is the quality we need in a president. Studious intellect is sometimes not so immediately vocal. I think the future campaigns will be even more visual and more data will be available on the internet. Effective political campaigns waged on the internet are low cost and accessible, a level playing field, as it were.

The pundits on TV bother me because they are so sure of themselves and are usually unknown people with questionable credentials to critique the actions of others. Everyone has an opinion, of course, but the ceaseless self assured statements concerning the candidates 'performance' wear thin as they become an obvious attempt to influence public opinion. I really don't care what Miss X thinks of any candidate's 'performance' and I'm tired of this kind of 'reporting' instead of factual news. Miss X's opinion is a waste of my time and is deceptive as to value from the time spend on it. Give me some real information like a voting record analysis, speech clips concerning health care, tax records analysis and other relevant information concerning the candidate. I think it is interesting that the establishment candidates are the favored ones, with the reform candidates receiving bad ratings and reviews by the self appointed experts among most of the media. The media benefits from the campaign spending.

Campaign spending needs to be limited in order to save Democracy. The Internet must not be limited for it is the medium of free speech and will play a crucial role in future elections, giving power to the people to search for facts without a media filter.


Friday, January 13, 2012

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Tea Party


                                         San Xavier Mission near Tucson Arizona


The Meaning of Civility


Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz expressed the possibility that the Tea Party might be responsible for the lack of civility she perceives. Perhaps the 'incivility' grew out of financial frustration with the massive ripoffs that occurred during the financial crisis. The Tea Party is a symptom of the same problem that created the Occupiers.  The Tea Party is a sympton, not the cause. 


Please, Rep. Schultz, listen that the assailant was a known nut case in town that some perceptive people knew was dangerous. In response to a legal problem, the assailant was said to have received mental health treatment, but I do not know if any follow ups or treatment took place. The assailant has been declared insane.

What is actually uncivil is to convince a buyer they can afford a property, set the debt up in a way that you know they will fail, and to sell the mortgages generated this way to somebody far far away who then resells them as AAA securities to the unwary investor. Who does this leave angry and frustrated?

• All who lost their property through foreclosure

• The investors who bought the securities while their brokers bought insurance on the failure of the same securities, payable to the broker, not the investor.

• Anybody who had money in funds affected by mortgage derivatives

• Any investor who lost money

• Construction workers who lost their jobs

• Laid off workers in construction related industries

• Property owners with upside down mortgages

• Job seekers

• Students with debt and no job prospects

• Voters who oppose bailouts

• Can you think of anybody else?

I define civility in public life as the behavior that is produced from fairness, transparency, honesty and a moral commitment to keep free enterprise going in such a way that perpetuates the system, instead of gaming the system. I define civility as a respect for law intended to keep people safe and perpetuate the system, not wealthy individuals controlling what law is produced and profiting from their control. Face to face civility tends to become less important when your family is evicted and you can't find a job. Face to face civility is comfortable, but should not be a shroud for wrongdoings and a reckless disregard for future consequences beyond immediate profit taking.

Our nation is not a game of chess where the King and his cohorts have all the wealth and the others are dead. Are the honchos really expecting that Americans can all compete among themselves for a portion of the 1% allotted to them through the legal process of public debt, foreclosure and taxes? Sickening terms like 'jobless recovery' float from the mouths of politicians and financiers while they deal in 'jobless securities and insurance', gambling amongst themselves while the 99% become restive and maybe a little uncivil.