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.