Taxes vs Class Warfare.

Who likes taxes? Okay, let me put it another way. Who thinks taxes are fair? Okay, let me put that another way. Who thinks we need taxes? Do you think our current federal income tax is a fair system? Who thinks we could do without tax loopholes and deductions? Okay, who thinks some of the deductions and all the loopholes should be eliminated? Alright then, who thinks our tax code is just fine the way it is? Well, what about the way it's levied, by which I mean who thinks capital gains should be less than half that of earned income? What it says is that if you sweat to earn income, it's earned and you pay more. If you sit back and put your money to work for you, that's capital gains. But if I work up a sweat to earn a dollar, that dollar is capital. That's a capital gain. If I earn two dollars, that's two capitals or capital gains. So why does your money deserve a better rate than my back does? You don't suppose it has to do with who is being taxed, do you? People who work up a sweat to earn money, whether in an office or in a ditch, are generally not rich people. They're working from paycheck to paycheck mostly. But if most of your income comes from your money at work, well then, you're probably a little better off than those other folks. In fact you're probably a lot better off than those other folks. Some people claim this kind of talk is class warfare. But just as many people think that a tax code that gives a much lower rate to some while forcing the majority to pay a higher percentage is class warfare in the other direction. I just want things to be fair. By fair I mean, them that can, should pay a little more so that them that can't, won't go hungry. Of course, you'll probably hear some people say the hungry need to go find a job. But mostly the hungry folks already have two jobs or maybe three. And if those same people get their way and the minimum wage is eliminated, those hungry folks will need four or five jobs. Now that's class warfare.

What's Foreign Policy, Anyway?

   There's a substantial number of people in this country who are convinced we're making a mistake by not orchestrating the Arab Spring more in our favor. It looks like these folks think America has the total respect and fear of the entire world. That has to be their thinking, if in fact they are thinking, because if we didn't have that kind of influence, we'd be just another super-power.
   But here's the thing. If we had that kind of power, we'd have won the hearts and minds of all Iraq, the Taliban and AlQaida in Afghanistan and the military and civilian government in Pakistan. When we told Assad in Syria to leave, he would have. Same for our man in Egypt and Qaddafi would have left years ago.
   The thing is, we don't have that kind of respect or influence in the world and haven't had it for many many years. Oh, it's true that no country wants to go toe to toe with us, but many countries and terrorist organizations aren't afraid to go at us covertly. As far back as Viet Nam. Even at the end of WWII, when we were at our strongest and most feared and respected in the world, even then little North Korea wasn't afraid to tangle with us.
   No, I'm not sure we were ever feared or respected enough to force other countries to do as we say, not as we do. That's because, in our gut, we never felt we should. We were never a schoolyard bully. We never got into the practice of trying to force other people to do as we say, unless they picked the fight first. And we were never very good at building countries, except our own.
   Now there's a mistake we have made. Building nations is not within our field of expertise. But then it's never really been in anyone's field of expertise to build other nations. Hey, it's hard enough to try building your own. No, we've not been good at bullying. I hope it stays that way. How about you?

Ahhh! The Missouri Senate Race.

Well, Todd Akin, the Senate candidate for Missouri is in. The deadline for pulling out is past. The Republican National Committee succeeded in getting him to stay in the race. No. Wait. The RNC tried to get him to drop out of the race. It was Newt Gingrich that got him to stay in. In a last minute effort, Newt convinced Akin that stating women who are legitimately raped can summon the ability to shut off pregnancy, a really neat trick if you haven't thought about it, Gingrich convinced Akin that this is no big deal. Why look at Newt himself. He's made statements that made absolutely no sense and look at what he's become. Newt also pointed out that this isn't exactly a blue state. Even the suggestion that there is a difference in how the rape happened and therefore how the female body is capable of reacting to it isn't such a stretch for a state where the majority of folks think dinosaurs wandered around creating road hazards in ancient Mesopotamia. And as proof, he's still running neck and neck with a capable incumbent. What I'm still not clear about is exactly which rapes are legitimate and which are not? I mean how do you tell which is which? Is the legitimate rape one where the perpetrator first gets official permission to rape while the illegitimate rape has no such official commendation? Is there a license or permit? Is there a course one has to take, do you need to pass a test? Is it a pass-fail test or is it graded? On a curve? Really folks, whether you're Republican or Democrat, who would vote for this guy? I mean I realize that Republicans want to win every seat, just as Democrats do, but does anyone actually want this guy on a Senate committee? What committee would you suggest? I know he sits on some sort of Science Committee in the House of Representatives. But that's because Boehner has an odd sense of humor. I'm not sure McConnell has that kind of humor. No, I think they'd have to create a new committee for Akin to inhabit. They could install Michelle Bachmann as chair of that committee and call it crazy.

Iowa? The Gatekeeper?

I don't often read Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, but he hit on something today that I liked and have to agree with. In finding fault with the lineup in the Republican Nomination fight, he asked why Iowa? Why has Iowa, 30th in population and so conservative that even someone who thinks women can control whether or not they get pregnant can be leading in the polls for a seat in the U.S. Senate, how does Iowa get to go first? To set the tone for the whole campaign. I mean shouldn't the first state to vote in the primaries be a state that mirrors the country. That is to say is more evenly split between moderate and terribly biased. It just seems to me that Iowa is no more representative of our country than Saudi Arabia is. If you aren't rabidly anti-Democrat, you aren't allowed to be a Republican there. Cohen calls it Gatekeeper. But I don't think Iowa should be a gatekeeper to the town dump. Hey, Rick Santorum won the caucuses there. All this is not to suggest that Iowa is all of the Republican party's problems. To be successful and a Republican, you have to be ultra-orthodox in your far right conservatism. No room for moderate in this Republican party. But maybe a more relaxed state instead of such a fanatical one. But where might you find such a place. All the red states are becoming more and more radical. Maybe a blue state? How about a swing state. But most of them are larger and that would never do. I'm, not sure why, but everyone says it, so it must be true. I suppose the answer would be to pick a state, clear it out and then repopulate it with moderate thinking citizens. Do you think we could do that? Uh huh, me neither. Well what other options do we have? I don't know what other options we have, but I can tell you Iowa isn't the answer to our election process. What we need is a state that elects based on direct voter decisions. Whoever gets the most votes gets to win the whole state. No gerrymandering, just a direct vote. In fact if every state did that, things would be somewhat different. On the other hand, we'd still have ballet shards someplace.

Look At America This Way.

Do ya know why America is having such trouble in the Middle-East? It's because of European Feudalism. Now I know that just doesn't make sense on it's face, but give it a chance. The mindset of Europe for more than a thousand years was the lords owning everything and the Serfs living and working much like slaves for the lords of the castle. Now forget about the Crusades, which we westerners have done, but Arabs have not forgotten. If you then look to the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of 20th century, you see European domination of much if not all of the underdeveloped world including the Middle-East. European powers set borders, installed governments and governed trade. During and after that time the United States went along with whatever Europe wanted. We weren't or claimed not to be interested in colonialism or expansion beyond our own borders. But a funny thing happened on the way to today. We found out that the middle-east had something we did want after all. It had oil, and good oil and in abundance, and we had a way to get it back to America, cheaply. So without realizing it, we took over for the Europeans at least to some extent. We supported despots who promised to like us, at least enough to sell us their oil, cheaply. But we didn't ask the people if they wanted things that way. We just asked the despots. Then there was the Viet Nam war which was terribly ill advised and which we lost. We really had had no business being there. The middle-east saw that. The greatest country in the world humbled by a little country. So despots became more independent and populations in the middle-east finally began to overthrow despots that we liked and even those we disliked. America still thought of itself as being big enough, strong enough to push and shove and put in place governments we wanted. Middle-Easterners had already decided they weren't going to let us decide for them. Then we got involved in two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which we should have been involved in to the extent we were. Afghanistan should have ended as soon as we got rid of AlQaida in the country. Nobody wanted or wants us to build their government. They want us to stick to our own business and then they'll stick to theirs, thank you very much.

Judicial Activism or Activism Against Judicial?

Ya see? Here's the kind of thing that's gonna get this country into more trouble than people realize. Out in Iowa, many ultra-conservative voters called for three state Supreme Court justices to be recalled because of a single vote. It had to do with same sex marriages. Now whether you are for or against same sex marriages isn't the question. The question, when it came to the court was; is the law constitutional or not. If a law is written that is clearly unconstitutional and apparently this one was because the decision was unanimous, then those three judges did the right thing. They did it regardless of whether they had a preference in the law or not. Well, now they're trying to oust another of the justices to be recalled for the same vote. This time they're bringing out the heavy guns. Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana and former Pennsylvania Senator and failed  presidential candidate who won the caucuses io Iowa, Rick Santorum to campaign against this justice. This is  completely inappropriate judicial activism on the part of rabidly fundamentalist group. The justice, David Wiggins, refuses to take money from potential supporters because he believes that to be inappropriate and against the principles of an independent judiciary. We should all applaud him, on the other hand it could cost him his job. So why does this sort of thing in Iowa relate to elsewhere in the country? Because this kind of activism is slithering into nearly all states. These groups are intent on forcing the country and it's courts to rule in their favor or be kicked out. The problem is that although you may agree on a particular subject with these groups, you may not agree with on other subjects. That's not good enough. To these groups you must kowtow completely on every subject every time. That's not American. That's not freedom. That's the kind of demand placed by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Osama BinLaden and Syria's dictator. It will be a shame if Judge Wiggins is forced out. You and I will loose.

Vote. The Sooner The Better.

Well, are ya ready to vote yet? Have you seen and heard enough to make up your mind by now? You know it's only a matter of a little over six weeks until the election. Will you be allowed to vote? Will your vote count? Will you be among that group of citizens that are so fed up and so confused by all the misinformation coming from both camps that you don't know who's telling the truth or when they are? Election campaigns are serious business. Not at all like this year's campaign has been. Candidates and parties have lied about their opponents for very nearly our entire history as an elective democracy. But this year (and a half) and even longer if you consider the Senate's minority leaders statement after Mr Obama was elected that the focus of the minority party in the Senate would be to make him a one term president. When you say something like that, you don't leave any room for pretending otherwise.  This campaign has been about lying and misleading and misinformation nearly exclusively, by both parties. So getting back to my questions of whether or not you're ready to vote. Are you? If so, then wouldn't it be nice if we could vote this Tuesday. Because pretty nearly everyone who intends to try to vote has also decided who they will vote for and the few who haven't, could easily decide in a matter of hours. Think of all the advertising money that could be saved, or the hours of attack ads we would be spared from. Those millions of dollars saved could be spent to rebuild our highway systems and energy systems and communications and water and sewer systems. They could even take up a collection from all those folks who would be relieved not to have to listen to one more attack ad. That would certainly cover the costs of education for the rest of this school year. What if the campaign season were only as long as just one of our seasons? Thirteen weeks. No advertising before that, no political speeches. Just do your job like you were elected to do and hopeful candidates would have to continue whatever they were doing before they got the urge to become one of government's dependents and official leaders. I think it's time. Maybe past time.

We're In The Forth Quarter, The Score Is 53 to 47.

Well, Gov. Romney made a blooper when he spoke at a fundraiser in Boca Raton last May. His 47% talk touched on a lot of sensitive nerves. So he backpedaled a bit and his running mate, Paul Ryan, tried to explain that Mitt was inarticulate. At the very least. But now it turns out that a radio talk-show host acquaintance of Ryan's wrote a book with nearly identical wording in it. Of course that doesn't mean his claim is true. And frankly it doesn't matter all that much.  What does matter is that there are that many people in this country who don't pay any income taxes. Now, there certainly is a portion of that 47% who don't work and are semi-professional moochers. But it's a small portion. The larger portions are divided into two groups. Those who do work, and some even two or three jobs and still don't earn enough to pay income taxes and the other group that includes seniors who are retired and living on Social Security, maybe even with a small pension. There is another category. Those making way over a million a year. Some of those folks don't pay any taxes either. But the real shame of this country is that so many people can't earn enough money to live in even the slightest comfort, while so few have so much and yet are dissatisfied. There's nobody who can whine and cry like a multi-millionaire or billionaire who fears a tax increase from 13% to maybe 14%. Well except maybe for a small child who's just been told he can't have another Popsicle. Wage earner income has stagnated over the last three decades while executive financial packages have skyrocketed. Notice the difference in terminology? Wage or financial package,  there's the culprit. Maybe if everyone got a financial package or if everyone got a wage and nothing more, maybe we wouldn't see this widening of income disparity. If you want more people to pay income taxes, pay them more. If that 47% made more money, they'd owe taxes. Then all you'd have who don't pay taxes would be the Semi-pros and the ultra-wealthy with their loopholes.

What's In A Budget?

There's an online game you can play to try your hand at balancing the Federal Budget. Think Paul Ryan has the answer? How about Romney, or Obama? Think again. None of the above can close the budget without the country going bankrupt. To be fair, I couldn't either. But then I wasn't hired to do that. Our Congressmen and Senators and the President are hired to do that. So how are all those smart, dedicated politicians making out on that front? Well, like I said, not too good. Ya know that financial cliff everybody is worrying about? You ain't seen nothing yet friend. As I see it, we need one of two things to happen. Either we go off that cliff in spades or we get this economy humming along at about 120%. Now since nobody want's to go off the cliff on 1-3-13, we must be working towards getting that economy humming again. And how are we doing on that front? Not too good. At the current rate of increase to the economy, it should be humming along in about 20 years. But never fear. Our country's leaders know how to fix it. In fact they have two sure-fire paths to prosperity. You can't go wrong with two paths, can you? Actually our leadership has found a way to go wrong. Those two paths are in conflict with each other and neither one would work anyway. See, what's called for is some adult conversation in which our national leaders sit down and agree to compromise on tax increases and on spending cuts to some entitlements and defense and everything in between. So what are the chances of that happening? ZERO! At least unless the people get after them to act like adults. It's time for all of us to act like adults and demand that our political leaders do too. By the way, if you'd like to play that game its at www.budgethero.org  Give it a shot. Whatta ya got to loose.

You'd Think The 47% Would Change

I tried to keep my big mouth shut on this. I tried, but I just can't. It seems Gov. Romney is upset with 47% of the people of America. He thinks they are the moochers (my word, not his), the folks who live on the government dole because they're too lazy to work and so they want other people to pay for their basic needs. I presume he means people like Rep. Michele Bachmann who rakes in hundreds of thousands as a "Farmer." Or maybe he speaks of all the folks who enjoy the freedom they receive as a result of the lives of young military service men and women given to protect their freedom. People like Gov Romney, who served his church in mission in the south of France instead of his country in the south of Viet Nam. I guess that most of us Americans enjoy the fruits of other people's efforts one way or another. What I don't get is why some folks think they should complain about what other people get, but just expect what they get. Those folks should read the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence again. Where the founding fathers said "we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." Too bad there's not a little more of that kind of honor in America and a little less petty greed and selfishness. We need leaders today who are more concerned about the well being of all our citizens and a little less concerned for the ideology of their political parties. Is that asking too much? Maybe it is. Gov Romney will never measure up to a founding father as long as he thinks like that.

The Great American Lemming.

Are you at all familiar with the lemming? If you are, then you realize the myth that all lemmings commit suicide is false. Its also true that many lemmings do in fact wind up falling off cliffs or drowning in bodies of water. Knowing this, let me tell you of a story about three groups of lemmings. The first group of lemmings prefer the cliffs to the east. they claim these are the very cliffs used by the first lemmings in history and as such have set a standard and a custom that requires all lemmings to use these cliffs. The second group prefers the cliffs to the west. Their rational is that the rocks at the bottom of the western cliffs are much softer and therefore the western cliffs are much more desirable. The eastern and western factions are in complete disagreement and neither will compromise. Then there is that third contingent of lemmings. They prefer the cliffs to the north. They believe they have the best solution to the disagreement. Their reasoning is that, they claim, there are far more succulent grasses on the approach to those northern cliffs. the trails to the north have sweeter, more tender grasses than do either of the other approaches. They point out that it is the approach to the cliffs that makes the difference, not the heritage or the comfort of the fall that matters. After all, sustenance, or lack thereof, is the reason for the fall, in the final analysis. These Northern Cliff Lemmings believe that if there were better forage, there would be no need for the cliffs at all. In the meantime, the eastern and western cliff lemmings continue to squabble over which cliff is the cliff that all should follow. Now if you compare the Great International Lemming Dispute to the American political campaigns, you'll get an idea of just how silly we look and how easy a solution to our problems would be, if only each side would come out of their respective corners, shake hands and take a good long and honest look at what the other side is proposing and decide to work together. 

You Think You Have A Problem?

Ezra Klein writes a column in the Washington Post and today he brought up something I had to agree with. It was about unemployment in America and exactly what the problem is. He pointed out that there are several thoughts on the subject. One such thought is that unemployment is high because workers don't have the skills to fill jobs that already exist or will become available. Another thought is that, basically, there is no demand for products, so no jobs, which means less buying which means fewer jobs. But Klein claims there's a third reason for high unemployment. Its the politicians. This makes a lot of sense. Here's the thing. Both groups of politicians believe whole heartedly in their favorite reason. And they're not about to give in to the other side, mainly because the other side is all wet on this issue. Each side knows that if only their side could go ahead and do their thing it would solve the problem. Each side also knows that if the other side gets to do their thing, it won't work. So neither side will compromise. But you see, the problem is that they're both wrong. And the reason they're both wrong is that they're both right. What we need is to create jobs in the short term and retrain for the long term. Frankly it makes a lot of sense. Which is probably why neither side can see it. The reason neither side can see it is that both sides are run by politicians. So until both sides stop thinking like politicians and start thinking like businessmen and unemployed workers, the problem ain't gonna get solved.  

Who's Exceptional?

I was reading Thomas Friedman's editorial in the New York Times this morning, but what really caught my eye was the response by "misterwi" who said "It takes more than fairy dust and repeating 'American Exceptionalism' and 'the best country in the world' to actually BE the best country in the world." The reason it caught my eye and struck a cord is that we're falling behind many other countries in nearly every category for which statistics are kept. It's hard to be the "Exceptional" person in the room if most of the others in the room are better educated than you. It'd hard to claim to be the best place in the world if too many of your people can't find a job. So if education is so important, why is it that its the first place to feel the ax? When taxes absolutely must be cut, how come it's education that takes the hit? And then to add insult to injury, you hear the claim that more money does not translate into better education. As if less would improve it. We need to improve our education system. Who in the world would think that to do the research and make the changes needed to our system would somehow be cheaper? And at the same time continue to educate? Because it isn't something we can just put on hold until we've decided on a new and improved model. We still have lots of school age youth who need that education. Because I don't think anyone is advocating that we discard those students. So not only are we cutting  back on the education dollar, but we're not going forward with a strong national research project to improve the system. When we found ourselves behind in the space race, we created NASA to put us on top. Where's the school NASA? Where's the K-16 or even K-14 plan? Hey, we don't even have a new K-12 plan. Not even a new preschool plan. What do we hear? "We don't want a one size fits all system." Really? How many school districts are there in this country? Is that how many plans you expect? If so, you better give up the Exceptionalism idea. Why? Because too many districts will want to save money and cut the heart out of their systems or will want to teach theology instead of science.

I Wonder If We Can Have It Both Ways?

Okay, let me see if I understand the problem. Conservatives explain that in order to spur the economy on, to create jobs, we must make it easier for job creators to do what they do, that is to create jobs. The argument is that without lower taxes, fewer regulations and smaller government, job creators won't even consider expanding. They also need more flexibility in lending. But mostly they need to feel reassured that things are stable. Like the economy and the government. I think I understand that. Progressives, on the other hand, think that the need is slanted more toward the middle class and poor. The job doers, if you will. They believe that it is the middle class and poor that are the giant demographic that must be satisfied and spurred into buying the products and services that will enable the job creators to justify expanding. It is this demographic that needs the tax cuts and greater regulation to protect them and infrastructure improvements by government that would create jobs as a starter, in order to begin to spend. I think I understand that. So let me see if I have a clear understanding of the problem and therefore the solution to the main question. If I understand this correctly, we need flexibility in lending, fewer regulations, more regulations, government spending, smaller government and tax cuts for everyone. This all seems easy enough to fulfill. But there is that kicker. That small problem of the debt and deficit. So we need a solution to that as well. Again, not such a big problem. As I see it, the answer to all our problems is simple. We can do one of two things; We can put all of the manufacturing facilities back into production. Then hire every able bodied person in the country, institute a 100% ownership of all private property, 100% tax an all money, income or investments and allocate a living stipend sufficient to see to your needs and just cancel the debt and deficit. Or we could fold up the game of life and start over, with different players.

I've Studied Studies And Agree.

Tell me, exactly what is it that's in 'organic'? I mean if I had eaten organic, would I have been taller, handsomer, healthier, richer? Would I have become a great athlete? How about a great orator or scientist? Well as it turns out, studies seem to point to a "none of the above" answer. Are you disappointed in this finding? Well don't be. If you wait a year or two, there will be other studies that will assure you that you will be one or all of those above. Or would have been if you hadn't stopped eating organic and thus canceled any chance of ascending to the heights of success. I guess that's the point of my rant today. The scientific community undergoes many studies during the course of each year. And each year many studies reach their conclusions. These conclusions please or displease, encourage or frighten us into doing or not doing or eating or refraining for eating all sorts of products and activities. That's a fact. It's also true that if you don't like a particular finding, you need only wait a year or so for the next report to disparage the first report. Organic foods are good for you except when they're not so good for you. Coffee and eggs are bad for you except when they're good for you. Alcoholic beverages are bad for you but can be good for you. Lots of exercise and staying thin are helpful and will bring you longevity except when they won't make any difference. There have been studies that prove that red meat is bad for you, but apparently is good for your dog and cat. Aren't we carnivores too? There are studies that claim a good night's sleep is the best thing for you. Maybe, unless your house is on fire.  I've just completed a study that has found that paying close attention to studies will provide you with a sense of security and well being except when they do not.

Oh Wall Street. What Have You Done?

I read an article in the Washington Post this morning that the U.S. has slipped from fifth to seventh in competitiveness in the world. The ranking is by the World Economic Forum. In it's findings, it exposes a failure of the leaders, that's plural, for past and continued political disputes, as well as business's continued criticism of both public and private sectors. But it was one of the followup comments by (bnkarpus) that I was most impressed with. He, or she, stated "New wealth needs to be created and that is NOT done by Wall Street firms, they only recycle and take a part for themselves." That's a statement I would rank about as high as any single indictment we could use to explain the problems that exist in this country. Not of Wall Street or its work, which is useful to business and industry, but the extent to which Wall Street has taken over the economy of this country. It has become the driving force behind this country. Private equity and derivatives and similar businesses rule how and what this country will do or have. And they spend untold millions to recruit top college graduates and influence politicians to work for them and for their interests. The problem is, that's exactly opposite to what the function of Wall Street, Banks and private equity firms should be, and was many years ago. It's the main reason that in 1929, this country fell into a Great Depression. When the acquiring of wealth becomes more important them the creation of wealth, this country suffers. When you make something, you've created wealth, but when you take that product and finance and refinance and leverage it for all those to profit from it, that only raises the cost of that product for the user. It does not create new wealth like the actual building of that product does. So while we often need to finance and sometimes refinance, it should only be to increase the creation of wealth and not to recycle the wealth, which increases the cost without adding real value.

Depression Or Growth, You Pick.

It's hard to imagine just how close America came to a second Great Depression in 2008. Our economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month by the time the elections rolled around. We came about as close to Great Depression II as I'd care to see. Depression 1 started in 1929 and didn't end until the mid 40s. But this time we went from minus 750,000 jobs to plus 150,000 average per month, in three and a half years. And let's not forget it took WWII to get us out of the Great Depression. This time we're getting out of two wars and still growing. I'd call that a success story. All that is not to say the job is done. Look at all the people still out of work. But if we can keep up that pace, it would mean an increase of 900,000 new jobs per month for the next three and a half years. Almost three million new jobs? And with no wars to fight, maybe we could concentrate on creating even more. And remember, we did that without raising taxes on the middle class or lowering them on the rich. Oh, I know, if you're still unemployed or underemployed, then to you, we're still in a depression. But the question is; are we better off now then we were three and a half years ago? Well, there has been the economic turn around. Osama BinLaden is dead. The stock market is back. We're on our way to  having healthcare for every American. That ain't half bad. But there's still a long way to go. So the question comes down to whether you want to continue on this course or do you want to try a policy that has failed in the past and failed again. Can reverse robin hood economics work? Should we give to the rich and take from the poor? Here's a hint; the poor don't have anything to give. That's why they're called poor. That leaves the middle class. But the middle class is the economic driver. Without middle class spending, no growth. No growth, no jobs. The only folks with any money are the rich. No class warfare, just facts.

The Big Nine Are At It Again.

There was a Supreme Court decision that I missed at the time. It was about campaign reform. The Supremes struck down an Arizona law that gave public money to candidates who were up against folks who had much more money to spend. The court said it would suppress free speech. Now how giving someone more money for advertising would suppress free speech, I'm not sure. Perhaps the thought was that somebody with lots of money against someone with little money is fair, but if the poorer candidate is suddenly given some money to help even up the chances, then somehow the person that's loaded with funding won't be able to out shout his opponent. The only conclusion I can come to is that party politics has nothing to do with it. Nor does ideology. Only the haves against the have-nots. I assume the haves should be allowed to continue to have the advantage, while the have-nots should not be given an equal chance. Sorta like saying only the wealthy or well connected should apply. Well now a similar law, this one in West Virginia, covers judicial election public funding. Should a judge with tons of money have the advantage or should the less well heeled contender get some public funding? Now as far as I'm concerned, while I don't like anyone having an unfair capital advantage, a politician for some office is one thing, but a judge? It seems to me that a judge should be above this sort of money fight. Judges should absolutely be equal in their opportunity to present their cases for election to the bench. That means both should have about the same amount to spend and no more. I await a decision with baited breath. But I won't bet on the Supreme Court.

What Medicare Change?

Here's what I don't understand. I don't understand how Rep. Paul Ryan's plan for medicare would work. I mean, I understand that he wanted to change medicare into a strictly voucher system until he found out that wouldn't pass, then he allowed folks to decide to do that or stay with Medicare. And in order not to get seniors too upset, he allowed things to stay the same for anyone over 55. But here's the thing, if folks over 55 won't be changing, then it seems to me nothing will be changing for another ten years. All the while healthcare costs keep rising six to ten times inflation. At which point those who choose to move to a voucher won't be getting Medicare but will get an amount toward whatever insurance they decide on. Okay, but where's the saving? Where does his plan save a dime for the next ten years and thereafter? Unless he plans to give people less than they would have gotten on traditional Medicare. In which case, I can't imagine that being a better deal for retirees. The thing is, there are only a few ways for Medicare to become even revenue balanced. Cut the amount of coverage you will receive, cut the amount Medicare pays hospitals, doctors and insurance companies, raise the payroll tax portion on Medicare, or a combination of the three. That's it folks There ain't no more. No sugar daddies. You pay more or somebody gets less. No, I think the only thing that makes sense is to change the way our health industry works. Stop paying for unneeded tests and procedures and begin to pay for results. To do that, we might have to give up some of the rights to sue for hangnails and any little thing that might go wrong. I'm not saying you can't sue, I'm saying you might not be allowed to sue for silliness. And Doctors won't get paid for tests that are only done for legal protection.One thing's for sure, we need change and we can't wait ten years for that change.