Ray LaHood is providing a case study in governmental appointee, Department of Transportation Secretary, who can’t see his way in the dark. The public safety and airline industry are in dire need of leadership that can step up to issues, take in the advice and recommendations of experts, and reach an informed and rational decision. This of course rarely happens because like their political superiors, a positional reference term that has nothing to do with higher levels of ability, governmental department heads rely upon policies and polls that guide their decision process. Administration leadership has nothing to do with delivering value to the American people, but in bending to the risk that it may appear to be unpopular and cause a popularity problem.
LaHood and his FAA administrator (Randy Babbitt) refuse to acknowledge that finding a way to accommodate solutions for handling on the job fatigue. Having stated strongly and uncompromisingly that “we don’t pay people to sleep at work” LaHood and Babbitt have closed off the possibility that the correct thing to do may require knowledge, reason, understanding and creativity in dealing with the problem that they are specifically responsible for, are charged with addressing and took an oath to perform. If LaHood and Babbitt cannot see how to accept the results and recommendations of their own research, the research of other experts from other industries, the work done by the US military over a half century ago and since, and some little know guys who work for NASA (not that they’re rocket scientists or anything) then are they awake on the job? They may not be asleep at the switch I suppose, they may just be lost in the dark with their bureaucratic heads stuck to far up their backside to be able to see, hear or read any such information. If they did, it would tell them conclusively that nightshifts and fatigue are significant workplace issues that must be dealt with properly or you are actively responsible for and personally accepting the predictable consequences from doing effectively nothing. Attentiveness and cognitive diligence are severely degraded when fatigues, the very competencies required by air-traffic controllers to fulfill their jobs.
There are always ways to use knowledge and information about a problem to then solve it. If someone would just go wake up LaHood and tell him it’s time to go to work. We aren’t paying for people to sleep around here! Oh, his boss should probably fire his ass! Not because he is unconscious at work but because he doesn’t know how to run his department. If he doesn’t like the concept of “paying to sleep or nap” then maybe he should ask someone how to avoid the perception that that is what he is doing. Until he does something useful, or is fired, Mr. LaHood should be mandated to fly only late at night and to take at least one trip a week. Oh, and no special precautions or warning by the FAA that he is on a flight.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Two, Three, Four, … N Wrongs Don’t Make You Right
Everyone is familiar with the adage that “two wrongs don’t make a right”. But as with everything in life, the lessons that are learned from such wisdom is not guaranteed to be passed along to the recipients with assured fidelity. Let’s take a moment to examine our major political parties. As organizations, or as individual units within the larger structure, the Democratic and Republican parties exhibit a confused and deviant deduction from such sage advice, and from their own policies and actions.
The sage councilor would expect one to comprehend that after an initial act which can be objectively and subjectively recognized as being wrong, that following that act with a second action that is known to be wrong in its own context does not result in situations or conditions in the world that are somehow realigned to an correct or righteous state. Unlike the negative in math, the product of the two wrongs is not a positive outcome. The two parties however arrive at a different political calculus, but one which is as irrational and unreasonable as any false logic that you will find among elementary school students.
Whether their failure to learn from others wisdom or from their own experience with their inept results, our politicians persist with their blind adherence to political and ideological principles. That their philosophies are irrelevant and extraneous to the issues or problems that they are addressing is not relevant to them. Somehow they have arrived at a maladaptive interpretation that success must depend on the number of ‘wrong’ actions required. If they simply continue to apply their ideological methods to the problem then eventually they will be effective in correcting all the previous errors and thus achieve the original solution they desired.
Consider President Obama, a Democrat for those who don’t know, he voted against raising the debt-limit when in Congress but now as President emphasizes that it would be irresponsible to vote against it. He concluded that it was wrong to make a political vote on an issue that was critically important for the country. Now he has made two acts (decisions) here. But if they are both wrong, then how would we expect to achieve the desired goal. Consider his first act, was voting against raising the debt-limit wrong? It’s what many Republicans, particularly of the Tea Party persuasion, think should be done now. Is advocating increasing the limit wrong? There will be dire economic consequences if the US defaults, and that won’t be good for America but it will be a godsend for our enemies. The answer is yes, they were both wrong.
Now consider the Republicans, they have been just as complicit in the disastrous economic policies we have been following for decades. Before Obama’s first two years, America had plenty of Republican decisions, including decisions on the debt-limit. How many times have Republicans advocated capping the limit? Each year for ten years Congress and two Presidents have approved raising it. Were they wrong? Was it a mistake for the Republicans to conduct two wars and expand other military efforts, to cut taxes on the wealthy, and introduce other unfunded programs without any budgetary means of accounting for their payment? Is it wrong now for the Republicans to want additional cuts in the budget as their condition for supporting raising the debit-limit? Yes, here again they are wrong.
You may wonder how it is possible for both the Republicans and the Democrats to be wrong. And the answer is simple: neither understands what they are doing, neither has a sound approach or vision for guiding the country forward, and neither has learned that just doing another wrong-headed knee-jerk will result in what is right for the nation.
It was wrong for Obama to vote against raising the limit, but because he should have insisted that Congress commit to both raising the revenues to both cover that increased expense but to also reduce the existing debt, and to reduce government spending through informed and meaningful modifications to delivering the goals and objectives of government programs at more cost effective levels. He is also wrong to advocate raising the limit now because not doing so would hurt the economy. He should be insisting that the country do the same necessary things to address the real problem.
The Republicans were and are wrong for ignoring the consequences of spending when it suits your ideology but not being responsible for those obvious and predictable consequences. They are also just as wrong in asking for governmental cuts in order to get their support. If they had a viable plan for leading America, they wouldn’t need to hold the country hostage in a game of brinks-moron-ship. If you cannot present an intelligent approach that will make sense to the public then at least they should be able to find a couple of folks who could craft one for them. But they have not done this. So yes they are wrong, and want to persist in being wrong again.
America needs leadership that can put forth a path to promoting the general welfare. I think it will be just another Nth wrong to expect it from either Democrats or Republicans.
The sage councilor would expect one to comprehend that after an initial act which can be objectively and subjectively recognized as being wrong, that following that act with a second action that is known to be wrong in its own context does not result in situations or conditions in the world that are somehow realigned to an correct or righteous state. Unlike the negative in math, the product of the two wrongs is not a positive outcome. The two parties however arrive at a different political calculus, but one which is as irrational and unreasonable as any false logic that you will find among elementary school students.
Whether their failure to learn from others wisdom or from their own experience with their inept results, our politicians persist with their blind adherence to political and ideological principles. That their philosophies are irrelevant and extraneous to the issues or problems that they are addressing is not relevant to them. Somehow they have arrived at a maladaptive interpretation that success must depend on the number of ‘wrong’ actions required. If they simply continue to apply their ideological methods to the problem then eventually they will be effective in correcting all the previous errors and thus achieve the original solution they desired.
Consider President Obama, a Democrat for those who don’t know, he voted against raising the debt-limit when in Congress but now as President emphasizes that it would be irresponsible to vote against it. He concluded that it was wrong to make a political vote on an issue that was critically important for the country. Now he has made two acts (decisions) here. But if they are both wrong, then how would we expect to achieve the desired goal. Consider his first act, was voting against raising the debt-limit wrong? It’s what many Republicans, particularly of the Tea Party persuasion, think should be done now. Is advocating increasing the limit wrong? There will be dire economic consequences if the US defaults, and that won’t be good for America but it will be a godsend for our enemies. The answer is yes, they were both wrong.
Now consider the Republicans, they have been just as complicit in the disastrous economic policies we have been following for decades. Before Obama’s first two years, America had plenty of Republican decisions, including decisions on the debt-limit. How many times have Republicans advocated capping the limit? Each year for ten years Congress and two Presidents have approved raising it. Were they wrong? Was it a mistake for the Republicans to conduct two wars and expand other military efforts, to cut taxes on the wealthy, and introduce other unfunded programs without any budgetary means of accounting for their payment? Is it wrong now for the Republicans to want additional cuts in the budget as their condition for supporting raising the debit-limit? Yes, here again they are wrong.
You may wonder how it is possible for both the Republicans and the Democrats to be wrong. And the answer is simple: neither understands what they are doing, neither has a sound approach or vision for guiding the country forward, and neither has learned that just doing another wrong-headed knee-jerk will result in what is right for the nation.
It was wrong for Obama to vote against raising the limit, but because he should have insisted that Congress commit to both raising the revenues to both cover that increased expense but to also reduce the existing debt, and to reduce government spending through informed and meaningful modifications to delivering the goals and objectives of government programs at more cost effective levels. He is also wrong to advocate raising the limit now because not doing so would hurt the economy. He should be insisting that the country do the same necessary things to address the real problem.
The Republicans were and are wrong for ignoring the consequences of spending when it suits your ideology but not being responsible for those obvious and predictable consequences. They are also just as wrong in asking for governmental cuts in order to get their support. If they had a viable plan for leading America, they wouldn’t need to hold the country hostage in a game of brinks-moron-ship. If you cannot present an intelligent approach that will make sense to the public then at least they should be able to find a couple of folks who could craft one for them. But they have not done this. So yes they are wrong, and want to persist in being wrong again.
America needs leadership that can put forth a path to promoting the general welfare. I think it will be just another Nth wrong to expect it from either Democrats or Republicans.
Friday, April 22, 2011
More Gas From Washington
Evidently the Republicans are all atwitter (not the internet kind) about the high price of gas. They view this as a great opportunity issue to pummel the Democrats with in the 2012 elections. I guess the obvious conclusion to reach from current high gas prices is that in just two years the Democrats have created the conditions that produced high gas prices. How unfortunately for us! Had the last election worked out the other way, no doubt the price of gas now would be more to the public’s liking. Isn’t it wonderful that America’s present economic tribulations are a godsend issue to a political party!
The Democrats are of course not blameless for the mess we find ourselves in, but not because they are the party that caused the mess. No, just like the Republicans they have failed to define or to deliver any effective or pragmatic approach to leading America toward the perpetually promised “energy independence”. I never tire of hearing the politicians tell us how they are going to save us from the ultimate doom that our addiction to foreign oil will drive us to. What would we do without them for satire?
So is the intelligent thing to turn to the Republicans because they want to reduce governmental policies that drive up the price of oil? You know, expand domestic oil production including encouraging more off-shore drilling. That would reduce the price of gas, if we don’t have to pay for another disastrous oil spill; and if, and this is a really big if, the oil companies and speculators don’t just keep the price high because that is what the world market will bear. The Republicans also want to do more of everything, more nuclear, more solar, more wind, more everything. Well they’ve got the wind part down. What has been holding them back for so long? Yes, politics is a salient factor; but more than anything else the most significant reason neither Democrats nor Republicans have succeeded is that they don’t know what to do. They just know how to promise a rosy day, if you just elect them. Then they go off and do the things that they are really interested in: forcing their views and ideologies upon everyone else.
So in the end we will return to the big question: Is the American public really so ill-informed and unaware about why gas prices are so high that they will fall for yet another pack of prevaricating politicians’ puffery? The answer will be provided shortly, see the 2012 election results.
The Democrats are of course not blameless for the mess we find ourselves in, but not because they are the party that caused the mess. No, just like the Republicans they have failed to define or to deliver any effective or pragmatic approach to leading America toward the perpetually promised “energy independence”. I never tire of hearing the politicians tell us how they are going to save us from the ultimate doom that our addiction to foreign oil will drive us to. What would we do without them for satire?
So is the intelligent thing to turn to the Republicans because they want to reduce governmental policies that drive up the price of oil? You know, expand domestic oil production including encouraging more off-shore drilling. That would reduce the price of gas, if we don’t have to pay for another disastrous oil spill; and if, and this is a really big if, the oil companies and speculators don’t just keep the price high because that is what the world market will bear. The Republicans also want to do more of everything, more nuclear, more solar, more wind, more everything. Well they’ve got the wind part down. What has been holding them back for so long? Yes, politics is a salient factor; but more than anything else the most significant reason neither Democrats nor Republicans have succeeded is that they don’t know what to do. They just know how to promise a rosy day, if you just elect them. Then they go off and do the things that they are really interested in: forcing their views and ideologies upon everyone else.
So in the end we will return to the big question: Is the American public really so ill-informed and unaware about why gas prices are so high that they will fall for yet another pack of prevaricating politicians’ puffery? The answer will be provided shortly, see the 2012 election results.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
A Medicare Prescription: Sleight of Hand, Slight of Mind
2011 may well be a pivotal year marking the end of the world as we know it. So the Mayan’s may have been wrong about their 2012 prediction. What with Congress haranguing and flailing over the 2012 federal budget, the run up to the gladiatorial 2012 Presidential and other elections, and just for kicks the US economy will be suffering from high oil and gas prices and anemic job growth. All in all, the stars are aligning to portend the inevitable apocalyptic outcome from the confluence of ideological political policies, rabid special interest groups smelling pork, and an economic environment enfeebled by lackluster political leadership. Add to this the dullards’ debates on and pathetic proposed plans for how either the Democrats or the Republicans will ‘save’ Medicare and you have the spark to ignite the powder keg that blows us all to hell.
The Republicans are going to require future Medicare seniors to choose from the for-profit market place, and that choice will somehow magically save money. It may save the government money and thus the Republicans will be able to prevent Medicare’s astronomically increasing costs from busting the budget. But it only stops medical costs from devouring the federal budget, leaving the unquenchable beast free to feed upon the vast resources that the seniors will surely have in their treasure vaults. I am not trying to demean the Republican proposal because that would imply that it has any worth, value or merit whatsoever.
You can’t blame the Republicans though. Their proposal adheres to a couple of their core tenets of ideological faith and so must be right. The problem is that the Republicans are no better at translating their ideology into practical and well conceived policies and programs than say, the Democrats are to theirs. But that won’t matter, if they are wrong then 20 years from now it won’t be a problem that they care about because they will either be retired, dead or most likely be the first to blame someone else.
Now don’t think that you can turn to the Democrat’s to save you either. Their proposal is, well not actually a proposal, is to trim some here and there; to reduce some payments on this and that; and to encourage and reward providers that improve their quality and avoid unnecessary tests. Doesn’t sound like the kind of inspired reinvention of a Medicare approach that fulfills our promise to insure medical care for seniors over 65. They don’t really know what to do either.
The secret pill that they are looking for is to leverage competition, yes the market place, but not to trust the medical industry or insurance companies; rather to watch and verify, to reward for achievement and to penalize for failure [unlike Congress], and to limit the program to it specific objective. Even if Congress understood this, they are not the people to implement it; and therein is the biggest problem: Congress cannot be the agent of change, they can only be the authorizers of a solution.
The Republicans are going to require future Medicare seniors to choose from the for-profit market place, and that choice will somehow magically save money. It may save the government money and thus the Republicans will be able to prevent Medicare’s astronomically increasing costs from busting the budget. But it only stops medical costs from devouring the federal budget, leaving the unquenchable beast free to feed upon the vast resources that the seniors will surely have in their treasure vaults. I am not trying to demean the Republican proposal because that would imply that it has any worth, value or merit whatsoever.
You can’t blame the Republicans though. Their proposal adheres to a couple of their core tenets of ideological faith and so must be right. The problem is that the Republicans are no better at translating their ideology into practical and well conceived policies and programs than say, the Democrats are to theirs. But that won’t matter, if they are wrong then 20 years from now it won’t be a problem that they care about because they will either be retired, dead or most likely be the first to blame someone else.
Now don’t think that you can turn to the Democrat’s to save you either. Their proposal is, well not actually a proposal, is to trim some here and there; to reduce some payments on this and that; and to encourage and reward providers that improve their quality and avoid unnecessary tests. Doesn’t sound like the kind of inspired reinvention of a Medicare approach that fulfills our promise to insure medical care for seniors over 65. They don’t really know what to do either.
The secret pill that they are looking for is to leverage competition, yes the market place, but not to trust the medical industry or insurance companies; rather to watch and verify, to reward for achievement and to penalize for failure [unlike Congress], and to limit the program to it specific objective. Even if Congress understood this, they are not the people to implement it; and therein is the biggest problem: Congress cannot be the agent of change, they can only be the authorizers of a solution.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The Collective Speaks. The Elective Obey
I guess the politicians will be scrambling now for yet another solution to the “problem”. Not that they have ever had a solution, nor for that matter have they understood why they don’t know what to do. How then will the Republicans or the Democrats, or a collaborative compromised agreement amongst them, solve the dilemma of the national debt and its deviant little brother the deficit with public opinion polls starting to indicate that the Great Unwashed do not like what has been proposed?
Well, our great leaders will do what politicians always do. They will change their statements and try and find some obfuscating means to accommodate their plans to appease the masses. What they won’t do is change their methodology. They will not recognize that ‘cutting’ is not the tool, at least not the tool that you should use to work this problem. Cutting equates to a surgeon removing parts of the patient because everyone agrees that the disease must be removed, but it doesn’t differentiate between healthy tissue and diseased tissue. Just cutting may result in a healthy patient (they may survive despite the cutting), the patient could wind up pretty bad off with severe impairments, or the patient might just be a corpse. And this is the technique that Congress is intent on using. They will cut us to salvation.
If our eager elective officials were problem solvers, they might want to step back, examine and study the factors that drive the spending, and once they understand what our governmental systems, programs and policies are doing wrong they need to modify the mechanisms that drive spending. Unfortunately, Congress is neither competent nor qualified to achieve such a degree of understanding. Thus Congress is in great need of the “a miracle happens here” mechanism. Congress may not have the ability to solve the problem but fortuitously they have the means to evoke the miracle; and to make it even better, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Republican, a Democrat or even someone intelligent.
The solution is not in cutting the budget. The solution is in reducing the budget. The difference is that cutting is not directed, it is not focused and it is not productive or efficient. Reducing the budget is a proactive process. Reduction will occur because it will be targeted at an opportunity, focused on a specific area of spending that can be improved to the benefit of both the funders (us) and the drivers of the spending (hopefully us also), and reduction will craft a governmental operating process that strives to continuously deliver more for less. The output of the reduction approach is, now wait for it, cutting. It’s not cutting and then seeing what you get. It’s getting what you want and when you’re done you can cut-away the excess that you didn’t need.
The polls may show what the public doesn’t want cut, but just like Congress the polls don’t tell you what to do to achieve what the polls tell the public does want. They want to be able to afford our society, our nation and our future. So reducing spending also provides a path that fulfills the other aspect of saving our economy and country that the cutting method won’t. It will insure that the pledge that every American makes will be achieved, because we will be responsible and accountable for the tasks that are required to meet our obligations of a free, democratic society.
Well, our great leaders will do what politicians always do. They will change their statements and try and find some obfuscating means to accommodate their plans to appease the masses. What they won’t do is change their methodology. They will not recognize that ‘cutting’ is not the tool, at least not the tool that you should use to work this problem. Cutting equates to a surgeon removing parts of the patient because everyone agrees that the disease must be removed, but it doesn’t differentiate between healthy tissue and diseased tissue. Just cutting may result in a healthy patient (they may survive despite the cutting), the patient could wind up pretty bad off with severe impairments, or the patient might just be a corpse. And this is the technique that Congress is intent on using. They will cut us to salvation.
If our eager elective officials were problem solvers, they might want to step back, examine and study the factors that drive the spending, and once they understand what our governmental systems, programs and policies are doing wrong they need to modify the mechanisms that drive spending. Unfortunately, Congress is neither competent nor qualified to achieve such a degree of understanding. Thus Congress is in great need of the “a miracle happens here” mechanism. Congress may not have the ability to solve the problem but fortuitously they have the means to evoke the miracle; and to make it even better, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Republican, a Democrat or even someone intelligent.
The solution is not in cutting the budget. The solution is in reducing the budget. The difference is that cutting is not directed, it is not focused and it is not productive or efficient. Reducing the budget is a proactive process. Reduction will occur because it will be targeted at an opportunity, focused on a specific area of spending that can be improved to the benefit of both the funders (us) and the drivers of the spending (hopefully us also), and reduction will craft a governmental operating process that strives to continuously deliver more for less. The output of the reduction approach is, now wait for it, cutting. It’s not cutting and then seeing what you get. It’s getting what you want and when you’re done you can cut-away the excess that you didn’t need.
The polls may show what the public doesn’t want cut, but just like Congress the polls don’t tell you what to do to achieve what the polls tell the public does want. They want to be able to afford our society, our nation and our future. So reducing spending also provides a path that fulfills the other aspect of saving our economy and country that the cutting method won’t. It will insure that the pledge that every American makes will be achieved, because we will be responsible and accountable for the tasks that are required to meet our obligations of a free, democratic society.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
What Price Free Speech?
The Obama administration is attempting to improve the public’s access to information about political contributions, to make full-disclosure a requirement. I don’t object to the notion, but it will both fail and serve to create another issue that distracts from the more salient issues that are critical to the country. The attempt will fail because it is a partial measure at best, it will create a reactionary First Amendment tsunami that will have more lawsuits then Iowa has corn kernels, and here is the real problem: it is the wrong way to solve the problem. I don’t think the Supreme Court will be favorably disposed either since I am pretty sure that as illogical as they can be at time, they will be desperate to protect the corporations from the interference of anyone as irrelevant as the Government.
Now I know that the Government is multi-faceted and that this effort could be made without significantly or meaningfully impairing anything else that the Government is doing. However, once the fire-fight starts, this issue will occupy more time than is appropriate or necessary for the President and his councilors. The benefit that the public would receive from preventing Congress from acting on other things is going to be off-set by the long-term effects of distracting the administration on critical matters challenging the nation today. The public interest that is served here is important, and finding a way to help insure that the public knows who and what are behind political ads would only help broaden the public debate and would be desirable. The approach that the administration is taking is just not the right one. Trying to use a governmental policy is only a partial solution and will drive the political contribution process to find the other cracks for the financial funds to run through.
If we are to serve the public and the republic then we should deal with political contributions in a manner that will be worthy of the nation and freedoms that were declared by some staunch advocates of a democracy. One of our political short-comings is that we think the public is generally stupid. It’s not that the public is stupid; it’s that they are grossly under informed about the issues. The major culprits behind maintaining the informational deficiency are the political parties. I think they go by the names: Republicans and Democrats.
To correct the problem, the solution requires that you address the rewards and incentives that the Democrats and Republicans get from undisclosed political contributions; and equally, if not more important, the contributions to the non-candidate and “issues” political ads that corrupt our media. If the American people truly want to have awareness and knowledge about who is supporting their contending politicians when they are deciding whom to vote for, then the solution needs to come from the voters’ support of full-disclosure. If the public really doesn’t care, then trying to force disclosure is an exercise in futility. If you believe in full-disclosure then make it a key political act that any politician who even wants to think about running for office is terrified of not participating in.
The solution only requires one of the politicians running for an office to engage in full-disclosure. And part of every campaign speech, every interview, every answer to any question will include the candidates’ dedication to full-disclosure and the utter failure of their opponent to provide the public with the identity of their contributors. After all, the politician is not required to accept contributions on the basis of anonymity. In accepting such funds, they do so only because they are willing to put the interests of one party over that of the public’s. There is no argument that it infringes upon some one’s freedom of speech, if they want to support the politician they can. If they want to do so anonymously, they can but the politician has to decide that it’s in their best interest.
As for the non-candidate and ‘issues’ ads political contributions, there are a number of ways to help provide the public with the opportunity of knowing and understanding the interests of the contributing sources. But if the public doesn’t want the candidates to operate under a full-disclosure process, then I can’t believe that the corruptive influences of the other ads matters. If you are willing to sell out your vote to a politician that won’t be honest and up-front with you, how can you expect special interest groups to want you to know what their objectives might be.
Now I know that the Government is multi-faceted and that this effort could be made without significantly or meaningfully impairing anything else that the Government is doing. However, once the fire-fight starts, this issue will occupy more time than is appropriate or necessary for the President and his councilors. The benefit that the public would receive from preventing Congress from acting on other things is going to be off-set by the long-term effects of distracting the administration on critical matters challenging the nation today. The public interest that is served here is important, and finding a way to help insure that the public knows who and what are behind political ads would only help broaden the public debate and would be desirable. The approach that the administration is taking is just not the right one. Trying to use a governmental policy is only a partial solution and will drive the political contribution process to find the other cracks for the financial funds to run through.
If we are to serve the public and the republic then we should deal with political contributions in a manner that will be worthy of the nation and freedoms that were declared by some staunch advocates of a democracy. One of our political short-comings is that we think the public is generally stupid. It’s not that the public is stupid; it’s that they are grossly under informed about the issues. The major culprits behind maintaining the informational deficiency are the political parties. I think they go by the names: Republicans and Democrats.
To correct the problem, the solution requires that you address the rewards and incentives that the Democrats and Republicans get from undisclosed political contributions; and equally, if not more important, the contributions to the non-candidate and “issues” political ads that corrupt our media. If the American people truly want to have awareness and knowledge about who is supporting their contending politicians when they are deciding whom to vote for, then the solution needs to come from the voters’ support of full-disclosure. If the public really doesn’t care, then trying to force disclosure is an exercise in futility. If you believe in full-disclosure then make it a key political act that any politician who even wants to think about running for office is terrified of not participating in.
The solution only requires one of the politicians running for an office to engage in full-disclosure. And part of every campaign speech, every interview, every answer to any question will include the candidates’ dedication to full-disclosure and the utter failure of their opponent to provide the public with the identity of their contributors. After all, the politician is not required to accept contributions on the basis of anonymity. In accepting such funds, they do so only because they are willing to put the interests of one party over that of the public’s. There is no argument that it infringes upon some one’s freedom of speech, if they want to support the politician they can. If they want to do so anonymously, they can but the politician has to decide that it’s in their best interest.
As for the non-candidate and ‘issues’ ads political contributions, there are a number of ways to help provide the public with the opportunity of knowing and understanding the interests of the contributing sources. But if the public doesn’t want the candidates to operate under a full-disclosure process, then I can’t believe that the corruptive influences of the other ads matters. If you are willing to sell out your vote to a politician that won’t be honest and up-front with you, how can you expect special interest groups to want you to know what their objectives might be.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Congress Can't Empty A Boot With Instructions On The Heel
The Republicans have passed a federal budget proposal that demonstrates once again that whether the ideas in Congress come from Republicans or Democrats that the American people can depend upon Congress and its denizens to get it wrong. It's not that they're stupid, well it's not just that anyway. Congress' problem is that they fashion their policies, programs and plans from the ideological puffery that endears them to their core constituencies. Their attempts to beat their accursed foes consistently takes the fore in their efforts, leaving the matter of serving the public either in the background or completely out of the picture. It is in this context that Paul Ryan has set out his plan for 'The Path to Prosperity'.
The plan is not very long and does repeat itself a lot; much like a political speech at a fund-raising rally. In it he explains that if you take a lot of money out of government spending, that the government will spend a lot less. This may be math beyond the understanding of most Americans, but I am not sure that it would dazzle any 8th graders. He also refers to other areas where he would save money by cutting many of the items that have been noted by others here and there, including the bi-partisan committee that issued a set of recommendations for how America should deal with the national debit.
Ryan included in his plan a proposal for saving Medicare. He is sure of his plan working because he has some principles, some beliefs, that will resolve the problems that the current program is unable to deal with. And this one aspect of his plan illustrates the very reason that you cannot rely upon any one in Congress, Republican or Democrat, to solve America's problems. Ryan, our case study object of scrutiny, has put his faith in his “beliefs”, his “principles”. It's the free market, competition, and the ability of individuals and their own doctors in making the best decisions concerning their health care that Ryan knows in his heart will reduce the cost of Medicare.
My first issue with Ryan's claims is that his feelings and beliefs are the stuff of mom, home and apple-pie. I don't dislike his feelings and beliefs; but they don't constitute a plan, they don't assure anyone (except perhaps Ryan) that this will work better then the current abysmally run system, and they don't do anything like coming close to reducing the cost of Medicare. So once again we have a Congressional “Prince Vagueness” charging to the rescue with his plan to kill the evil dragon of government Medicare. He is going to replace it with the kind, generous and benevolent corporate behemoths that always do everything in their power to serve the public. And the government will be there to insure that the health care industry is fulfilling its role through the control of the government subsidies to public health care that they will manage on our behalf.
Say! Haven’t we seen this movie before?
I don't care what Paul Ryan believes. I want his plan to stand on something more firm and practical then a Congressman's intellect, particularly one warped and distorted by political ideologies that haven't worked before.
What will the free market guarantee under Ryan's plan. It will guarantee what a free market always guarantees. It will insure that the price will be what the market will bear. It may or may not be cheaper than one that is constricted by governmental involvement. Let's hope that it will be as efficiently and effectively run as say the financial institutions were over the last decade, or that the CEO's of the health care industries won't suffer too much with salaries and bonuses that will probably only be 200 to 500 times what the average American makes. Surely the public will not find the premiums to high to accommodate such sacrifices made by the officers and board of directors of these companies. Besides the public will receive a government provided subsidy to help off-set the higher costs of delivering services via for-profit institutions. Of course, the subsidy comes from our taxes, so we are getting subsidized with our own money again. Unless you are too well-off, then your money will be used to help support those who earn less. Well! At least the government won't be redistributing wealth like other plans would.
Maybe, it's the competitive factor that will insure Ryan's plan is cheaper and better than the current Medicare program. Now why is this? Because the insurance companies have boards that review and oversee what costs are covered or not under their plans. They seek to pay as little as possible for what they do pay for, and that must be how the insure that the price will go down. Well, I am glad that I won't be facing a government death-panel and can instead rely upon these corporate review boards to determine if the drug, procedure or cost of treatment is acceptable versus deciding on letting me die. And in medicine, we also always see that the price a medicine goes down with competition. Except in those cases where there is no competition like a patented drug, or a procedure performed by a capable surgeon, or the profit made by everyone if the patients have the greatest number of everything: drugs, treatments, tests, …
The reliance on the patient and doctor making the best decision thus leading to the lowest cost. You have got to be joking. If you don't see the falsifies in this logic then the drugs are not going to help you.
And now the really sad part. Ryan got close to an approach to revamp Medicare. He almost saw the way through the fog. But I think his 'feelings' got in the way. His 'beliefs' blinded him.
Ryan will be just another politician who stumbled down the road and took the wrong 'Path'. He isn't headed to Prosperity; he's on his way to Perpetuity, a place where Congress just keeps trying to get it right but lack the knowledge, skills, tools and understanding to have a chance. A pied-piper so to speak.
The plan is not very long and does repeat itself a lot; much like a political speech at a fund-raising rally. In it he explains that if you take a lot of money out of government spending, that the government will spend a lot less. This may be math beyond the understanding of most Americans, but I am not sure that it would dazzle any 8th graders. He also refers to other areas where he would save money by cutting many of the items that have been noted by others here and there, including the bi-partisan committee that issued a set of recommendations for how America should deal with the national debit.
Ryan included in his plan a proposal for saving Medicare. He is sure of his plan working because he has some principles, some beliefs, that will resolve the problems that the current program is unable to deal with. And this one aspect of his plan illustrates the very reason that you cannot rely upon any one in Congress, Republican or Democrat, to solve America's problems. Ryan, our case study object of scrutiny, has put his faith in his “beliefs”, his “principles”. It's the free market, competition, and the ability of individuals and their own doctors in making the best decisions concerning their health care that Ryan knows in his heart will reduce the cost of Medicare.
My first issue with Ryan's claims is that his feelings and beliefs are the stuff of mom, home and apple-pie. I don't dislike his feelings and beliefs; but they don't constitute a plan, they don't assure anyone (except perhaps Ryan) that this will work better then the current abysmally run system, and they don't do anything like coming close to reducing the cost of Medicare. So once again we have a Congressional “Prince Vagueness” charging to the rescue with his plan to kill the evil dragon of government Medicare. He is going to replace it with the kind, generous and benevolent corporate behemoths that always do everything in their power to serve the public. And the government will be there to insure that the health care industry is fulfilling its role through the control of the government subsidies to public health care that they will manage on our behalf.
Say! Haven’t we seen this movie before?
I don't care what Paul Ryan believes. I want his plan to stand on something more firm and practical then a Congressman's intellect, particularly one warped and distorted by political ideologies that haven't worked before.
What will the free market guarantee under Ryan's plan. It will guarantee what a free market always guarantees. It will insure that the price will be what the market will bear. It may or may not be cheaper than one that is constricted by governmental involvement. Let's hope that it will be as efficiently and effectively run as say the financial institutions were over the last decade, or that the CEO's of the health care industries won't suffer too much with salaries and bonuses that will probably only be 200 to 500 times what the average American makes. Surely the public will not find the premiums to high to accommodate such sacrifices made by the officers and board of directors of these companies. Besides the public will receive a government provided subsidy to help off-set the higher costs of delivering services via for-profit institutions. Of course, the subsidy comes from our taxes, so we are getting subsidized with our own money again. Unless you are too well-off, then your money will be used to help support those who earn less. Well! At least the government won't be redistributing wealth like other plans would.
Maybe, it's the competitive factor that will insure Ryan's plan is cheaper and better than the current Medicare program. Now why is this? Because the insurance companies have boards that review and oversee what costs are covered or not under their plans. They seek to pay as little as possible for what they do pay for, and that must be how the insure that the price will go down. Well, I am glad that I won't be facing a government death-panel and can instead rely upon these corporate review boards to determine if the drug, procedure or cost of treatment is acceptable versus deciding on letting me die. And in medicine, we also always see that the price a medicine goes down with competition. Except in those cases where there is no competition like a patented drug, or a procedure performed by a capable surgeon, or the profit made by everyone if the patients have the greatest number of everything: drugs, treatments, tests, …
The reliance on the patient and doctor making the best decision thus leading to the lowest cost. You have got to be joking. If you don't see the falsifies in this logic then the drugs are not going to help you.
And now the really sad part. Ryan got close to an approach to revamp Medicare. He almost saw the way through the fog. But I think his 'feelings' got in the way. His 'beliefs' blinded him.
Ryan will be just another politician who stumbled down the road and took the wrong 'Path'. He isn't headed to Prosperity; he's on his way to Perpetuity, a place where Congress just keeps trying to get it right but lack the knowledge, skills, tools and understanding to have a chance. A pied-piper so to speak.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
How To Fix Congress
Americans of every caliber are disappointed and frustrated with their government. It may even be possible that at this time, Americans have lowered their opinion of Congress to an all time low. While no opinion poll would ever show a negative number, since mathematically you cannot have a percentage below zero on a favorable/unfavorable question; I think that Congress may have snuck in a bill somehow that suspended the laws of mathematics. This utter lack of confidence, respect and tolerance for Congress results from the public’s experience that Congress has become stuck in the quagmire of partisan politics rendering Congress incapable of and uninterested in serving the public interests.
While some members of Congress will acknowledge that the public doesn’t view them favorably, they immediately pivot to a sound bite that “the American people have rejected the policies and positions of theparty.” They will often then claim that “the American people have sent them to Congress to change the way that Congress works”. What the American electorate hears is: “Ya-da, Ya-da, Ya-da”.
The root-cause of Congress’ problem is their blind focus on partisanship. The members of both parties have evolved through generation after generation of the electoral selection process to emerge as the inbred progeny of their different core constituencies. These enfeebled and degenerate specimens have reached a state where they can no longer function as individual agents that think independently, that have individual goals and plans, or that can relate to normal human beings outside their core constituencies. They are devoid of the ability to relate to others: no compassion or empathy, no ability to compromise, no sense of their responsibility to diverse opinions under their oath of office. They fail to garner the confidence and respect of the American people because they fail to serve the American people.
Now there are two practical ways to correct this problem. Congress could fix itself. Some small set of leaders (preferably some of each caste) could step forward and inform the rest of Congress that they were going to begin to act in the interest of the American people, and then in fact actually do it. Not only would these Congressional Lazarus-es reignite the concept of serving their nation; but they would be recognized as statesmen/women who in a time of national crisis chose to fight and to lead for the good of the Republic, for the defense of our Democracy. This is the best way and the right way, so it will not happen.
This leaves the other option. Enough of the American people who love country more than party, who prefer thought over slogan, and who have a preference for freedom over the totalitarianism of either party’s hierarchies’ ideology must elect non-partisans to Congress. I don’t mean Democrats or Republicans who claim to be non-partisan. I mean non-Democrats and non-Republicans. This option is the medical remedy that equates to the surgical removal of the diseased cancerous masses that threaten the life of the body politic for a healthy American society.
Given the tremendous obstacles that either option would have to overcome, there is little hope that American citizenry will achieve a path forward that will correct our Congressional dysfunction. It may well be that our two dominate parties will have to impair the country to such an extent that either a political uprising will surface from the tectonic shift when public opinion absolutely cannot tolerate Congress’ idiocy, or when a more radical revolution occurs because of the disparity between the powerful and the other 95% of Americans.
I have always been an optimist and hope for men and women of vision and principle to step forward during periods of chaos. One of my favorite movie quotes is: “In chaos there is opportunity!”
While some members of Congress will acknowledge that the public doesn’t view them favorably, they immediately pivot to a sound bite that “the American people have rejected the policies and positions of the
The root-cause of Congress’ problem is their blind focus on partisanship. The members of both parties have evolved through generation after generation of the electoral selection process to emerge as the inbred progeny of their different core constituencies. These enfeebled and degenerate specimens have reached a state where they can no longer function as individual agents that think independently, that have individual goals and plans, or that can relate to normal human beings outside their core constituencies. They are devoid of the ability to relate to others: no compassion or empathy, no ability to compromise, no sense of their responsibility to diverse opinions under their oath of office. They fail to garner the confidence and respect of the American people because they fail to serve the American people.
Now there are two practical ways to correct this problem. Congress could fix itself. Some small set of leaders (preferably some of each caste) could step forward and inform the rest of Congress that they were going to begin to act in the interest of the American people, and then in fact actually do it. Not only would these Congressional Lazarus-es reignite the concept of serving their nation; but they would be recognized as statesmen/women who in a time of national crisis chose to fight and to lead for the good of the Republic, for the defense of our Democracy. This is the best way and the right way, so it will not happen.
This leaves the other option. Enough of the American people who love country more than party, who prefer thought over slogan, and who have a preference for freedom over the totalitarianism of either party’s hierarchies’ ideology must elect non-partisans to Congress. I don’t mean Democrats or Republicans who claim to be non-partisan. I mean non-Democrats and non-Republicans. This option is the medical remedy that equates to the surgical removal of the diseased cancerous masses that threaten the life of the body politic for a healthy American society.
Given the tremendous obstacles that either option would have to overcome, there is little hope that American citizenry will achieve a path forward that will correct our Congressional dysfunction. It may well be that our two dominate parties will have to impair the country to such an extent that either a political uprising will surface from the tectonic shift when public opinion absolutely cannot tolerate Congress’ idiocy, or when a more radical revolution occurs because of the disparity between the powerful and the other 95% of Americans.
I have always been an optimist and hope for men and women of vision and principle to step forward during periods of chaos. One of my favorite movie quotes is: “In chaos there is opportunity!”
Friday, April 8, 2011
Congress, You Stupid Sheep! How Much Did You Save With A Shutdown?
The bickering blowhards, immoveable idiots and lackluster leaders have accomplished another great victory for the American people. They appear finally to have managed to shutdown the government, rather than continuing their ineffectual haranguing of the public through the media about their herculean struggles to bring about the meaningful change that they see as their mission in life. Never mind that none of the various ego-centric groups have actually taken the time or made the effort to think. We have just another round of ideologically arranged politicians that are only able to feed their political base the same rose fertilizer that seems to keep them content in their blissful ignorance.
Should they manage to navigate around some last minute ‘Hail Mary’ continuing resolution to perpetuate their deranged attempts to do their pathetic version of a bait-n-switch fire-sale; it won’t be because they have understood anything, it will merely indicate they want some more time to play politician at the public expense. I can’t wait for the old clichéd “the American people” want me/us to do whatever asinine bumper sticker slogan they saw on their drive to Congress.
Perhaps the news media should start a tote board on how often Congressional members are asked why they don’t address the budget areas that are the substantial cost-causers in the budget, and then proceed in not answering. Maybe reporters, pundits and new anchors could ask them if these problem solving politicos can name in order the top five budget-gobbling entities* in the federal budget. For those who claim that as a group that they were elected to deal with this specific problem this should be like reciting “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star”. If by some miracle they actually know, our hollow heroes should be asked why they are not proposing how to address the unsustainable tax-sucking economic vampires that these budget entities represent. Is it because they don’t have a clue? That they never had a clue? Or, that the concept of having an idea is too foreign to their mentality for them to even attempt it?
Should the government shut-down, the vast majority of tax dollars that are misspent will continue to be misspent. In one case, if these penny-pinching spendthrifts succeed they will increase the excessive funds thrown at one of the least well managed rat-holes available to them. What spending did the shut-down stop? Less than 15% of the budget. How much of that 15% is just delayed spending, and is not a savings at all? How much will the shut-down cost in lost effort, and is thus just more wasted money that we can credit directly back to Congress? How much damage will the shut-down do to the rest of the economy?
Certainly, our elected legislators have considered and calculated the financial value of a shut-down versus spending their time and effort in actually addressing the real problems that face our nation. And if you believe that then you should hear about this investment group that this guy, Bernie Madoff is forming and he is looking for investors.
I don’t mind political comedy, but I prefer it not being the primary and singular job of the members of Congress.
* Top Five: 1- Soc. Sec., 2 - Dept.of Def., 3. Medicare, 4. Medicaid, 5. Other Mandatory programs, 6. Interest on National Debt (a special adder for the reader).
Should they manage to navigate around some last minute ‘Hail Mary’ continuing resolution to perpetuate their deranged attempts to do their pathetic version of a bait-n-switch fire-sale; it won’t be because they have understood anything, it will merely indicate they want some more time to play politician at the public expense. I can’t wait for the old clichéd “the American people” want me/us to do whatever asinine bumper sticker slogan they saw on their drive to Congress.
Perhaps the news media should start a tote board on how often Congressional members are asked why they don’t address the budget areas that are the substantial cost-causers in the budget, and then proceed in not answering. Maybe reporters, pundits and new anchors could ask them if these problem solving politicos can name in order the top five budget-gobbling entities* in the federal budget. For those who claim that as a group that they were elected to deal with this specific problem this should be like reciting “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star”. If by some miracle they actually know, our hollow heroes should be asked why they are not proposing how to address the unsustainable tax-sucking economic vampires that these budget entities represent. Is it because they don’t have a clue? That they never had a clue? Or, that the concept of having an idea is too foreign to their mentality for them to even attempt it?
Should the government shut-down, the vast majority of tax dollars that are misspent will continue to be misspent. In one case, if these penny-pinching spendthrifts succeed they will increase the excessive funds thrown at one of the least well managed rat-holes available to them. What spending did the shut-down stop? Less than 15% of the budget. How much of that 15% is just delayed spending, and is not a savings at all? How much will the shut-down cost in lost effort, and is thus just more wasted money that we can credit directly back to Congress? How much damage will the shut-down do to the rest of the economy?
Certainly, our elected legislators have considered and calculated the financial value of a shut-down versus spending their time and effort in actually addressing the real problems that face our nation. And if you believe that then you should hear about this investment group that this guy, Bernie Madoff is forming and he is looking for investors.
I don’t mind political comedy, but I prefer it not being the primary and singular job of the members of Congress.
* Top Five: 1- Soc. Sec., 2 - Dept.of Def., 3. Medicare, 4. Medicaid, 5. Other Mandatory programs, 6. Interest on National Debt (a special adder for the reader).
Thursday, April 7, 2011
A Congressional Intelligence Test: Pointless Though It May Be
With the advancements that we have made in cognitive sciences, we are now able to measure the intelligence level of our Congressional representatives. Prior to the enhancements that increased testing measurement sensitivities, the best available evidence was that there was no Congressional intelligence. But now we know, that small as it may be, at the core of their being is a sufficient intellectual capacity to do more than just babble scripted passages about some core constituency group’s ideological on-button. They may indeed be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. So further investigations in Congressional intelligence will be of interest to see if they are ever able to achieve any decision making performance that is above that of throwing dice or following the direction of the political winds of the moment.
Our data collection opportunity is at a high point with the budget debacle. The situation provides a number of assessment points where the demonstration of intelligence becomes possible to detect. I don’t want to raise expectations so it will be best if you don’t expect much here. Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat (or even an Independent), a conservative or left/right tilting wacko, one of the old guard or the new insurgent wannabes (e.g., a Tea Party politico) the chance that your favorite or preferred representative would show any sign of intelligence is extremely rare and more likely a random event.
Let’s examine some of the most recent sample data.
In negotiations on how much to cut neither the Democratic side nor the Republican side can actually identify the amount of cutting that they have talked about and more specifically agreed to. They can remember their starting points which were between a $30B low to a $61B high.
Analysis: Their inability to comprehend the meaning of numbers is not indicative of any basic abstraction skills. By lacking to compensate for information retention issues and compensating by seeking a recording or memory assisting aid (like writing things down) show a deficiency in planning and coping skills. In situations where the negotiating group may have reached a consensus/decision, failure to document the outcome given their abysmal memory equates to there being no evidence that they have ever achieved an actual decision, and so we have no evidence of executive function.
General conclusion: No sign of intelligence.
Attention to goal: Given the task of cutting the budget, there is significant evidence that the experiments’ participants are unable to retain that goal in their mental processes during their problem solving efforts. Congress seems confused by whether they should cut from mandatory or discretionary spending programs, there are even participants who diverge into budget padding or increases as part of their reduction seeking activities. This latter behavior is either a severe impairment of their comprehension of the task or it represents search behavior that employs random actions rather than guided thought processes. Similarly, various members are unable to recognize the most obvious areas to find a solution over areas with extremely little benefit or opportunity.
General conclusion: No sign of intelligence. A possibility of irrational dysfunction as a primary behavior pattern.
Social Awareness capacity as a measure of intelligence is assessable in a number of areas, one particularly notable concerns self-interest at the expense of group-interest. When attempting to handle the budget crisis problem, group members are interjecting extraneous conditions and requirements for the group to deal with that both distract from the central task and which serve not a common interest for the group nor the task, but are an attempt to gain a self-serving advantage at the expense of the group. This is a basic hind-brain behavior that seeks only to satisfy the self. That it creates an barrier to achieving the actual goal of the group, shows a diminished ability to see the whole when a self-interest object seems available.
General conclusion: A kind of animal intelligence is present, but the social value level of intelligence is missing. No credible human intelligence observed.
Panic and Attack Response: With the group’s efforts failing to find a path to their goal, their emotional brain centers appear to come into action. Sensing the group tension from perceived failure, the members begin to lash out at any member that seems different. Family bond relationships in the group begin to take priority over any other goal, and defensive postures are taken. Eventually under the stresses and continued fear and anxiety from the situation being unresolved, some member initiate attack responses. At this point the budget problem becomes irrelevant.
General conclusion: Inability to control primitive behavior, no evidence of advanced thinking or ego control.
So we have our rats in their budget maze, running around and looking for an all-or-none solution to the budget problem that must meet their expectations, where the all-or-none condition is in fact a condition that guarantees only failure.
In summary, we have additional evidence that Congress is basically devoid of intelligent behavior.
It may occur to the reader that a study correlating the level of intelligence in Congress with that of the electorate might provide informative insight into the source of the problem. Well, that for a later time.
Our data collection opportunity is at a high point with the budget debacle. The situation provides a number of assessment points where the demonstration of intelligence becomes possible to detect. I don’t want to raise expectations so it will be best if you don’t expect much here. Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat (or even an Independent), a conservative or left/right tilting wacko, one of the old guard or the new insurgent wannabes (e.g., a Tea Party politico) the chance that your favorite or preferred representative would show any sign of intelligence is extremely rare and more likely a random event.
Let’s examine some of the most recent sample data.
In negotiations on how much to cut neither the Democratic side nor the Republican side can actually identify the amount of cutting that they have talked about and more specifically agreed to. They can remember their starting points which were between a $30B low to a $61B high.
Analysis: Their inability to comprehend the meaning of numbers is not indicative of any basic abstraction skills. By lacking to compensate for information retention issues and compensating by seeking a recording or memory assisting aid (like writing things down) show a deficiency in planning and coping skills. In situations where the negotiating group may have reached a consensus/decision, failure to document the outcome given their abysmal memory equates to there being no evidence that they have ever achieved an actual decision, and so we have no evidence of executive function.
General conclusion: No sign of intelligence.
Attention to goal: Given the task of cutting the budget, there is significant evidence that the experiments’ participants are unable to retain that goal in their mental processes during their problem solving efforts. Congress seems confused by whether they should cut from mandatory or discretionary spending programs, there are even participants who diverge into budget padding or increases as part of their reduction seeking activities. This latter behavior is either a severe impairment of their comprehension of the task or it represents search behavior that employs random actions rather than guided thought processes. Similarly, various members are unable to recognize the most obvious areas to find a solution over areas with extremely little benefit or opportunity.
General conclusion: No sign of intelligence. A possibility of irrational dysfunction as a primary behavior pattern.
Social Awareness capacity as a measure of intelligence is assessable in a number of areas, one particularly notable concerns self-interest at the expense of group-interest. When attempting to handle the budget crisis problem, group members are interjecting extraneous conditions and requirements for the group to deal with that both distract from the central task and which serve not a common interest for the group nor the task, but are an attempt to gain a self-serving advantage at the expense of the group. This is a basic hind-brain behavior that seeks only to satisfy the self. That it creates an barrier to achieving the actual goal of the group, shows a diminished ability to see the whole when a self-interest object seems available.
General conclusion: A kind of animal intelligence is present, but the social value level of intelligence is missing. No credible human intelligence observed.
Panic and Attack Response: With the group’s efforts failing to find a path to their goal, their emotional brain centers appear to come into action. Sensing the group tension from perceived failure, the members begin to lash out at any member that seems different. Family bond relationships in the group begin to take priority over any other goal, and defensive postures are taken. Eventually under the stresses and continued fear and anxiety from the situation being unresolved, some member initiate attack responses. At this point the budget problem becomes irrelevant.
General conclusion: Inability to control primitive behavior, no evidence of advanced thinking or ego control.
So we have our rats in their budget maze, running around and looking for an all-or-none solution to the budget problem that must meet their expectations, where the all-or-none condition is in fact a condition that guarantees only failure.
In summary, we have additional evidence that Congress is basically devoid of intelligent behavior.
It may occur to the reader that a study correlating the level of intelligence in Congress with that of the electorate might provide informative insight into the source of the problem. Well, that for a later time.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Rather Than The Difficult Choices
Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to determine and fund the country’s budget. This responsibility was assigned to them specifically because they were thought to most directly represent the people and the people’s interests in the government. Clearly they have done a stellar job in regard. And as we are all witness to, they continue to conduct themselves with the high level of effectiveness that has brought the country to its current state of economic vitality and stability, its well rated public regard and appreciation, and its effective and efficiently managed government bureaucracy. In other words, Congress is proceeding in the same inept, disorganized, partisan driven, and moronic manner that the American people have come to value from the best and brightest.
The budget battle lines are drawn along new contending fronts that divide the old established guard from the new insurgents that have erupted with the tectonic shifts that have introduced new instabilities wrought by the Tea Party. Injecting these new players has substantially improved the ability of Congress to serve the people’s interests notably. It has been generations since we have seen politicians that are as skilled and adept at finding the compromises that enable the Government to fulfill its Constitutional duties. Of course there are a few members of Congress aligned on some particular high-ground of their own making, who are unable to participate in open debate that exchanges ideas and informs both their peers and public alike.
These different groups of like-minded elected sages are often confused by subtle concepts like “compromise”. It appears that the concept of finding a workable agreement that benefits each disparate group is either not understood or defined as losing which is a non-negotiable and unacceptable condition. Their lack of knowledge and appreciation of the significance and central role that being able to compromise had to the creation of our nation, its founding laws, and the advancement of our democratic system is in stark contrast to their ability to prevent progress.
Unfortunately for the country, there are enough of these small groups that in aggregate they represent sufficient numbers to oppose any effort by anyone else to insure, provide, promote and secure our public and private interests.
What we get in exchange for appointing them to the halls of power is partisan bickering about how much to cut from the budget, where the cuts are allowed to come from and where they are not, and the inclusion of social agendas into a budget process because if you can’t get people to accept your point of view let’s be totalitarian about it. It is so inspiring to see a group of people who value only their own views as our founding fathers would have advised them to do.
The budget issue is not just an issue of cutting or spending. In fact, these are not the issue or problems at all. Surely someone in Congress is smart enough to see where the problems are, and could help lead the Congress to a solution that will establish Justice for everyone, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Instead of deluding not just themselves, but through their actions or more appropriately their inactions and ineptitude missing the moment that America so disparately needs.
Why is knowledge and understanding so unrepresented in Congress, and undesired by the voter?
The budget battle lines are drawn along new contending fronts that divide the old established guard from the new insurgents that have erupted with the tectonic shifts that have introduced new instabilities wrought by the Tea Party. Injecting these new players has substantially improved the ability of Congress to serve the people’s interests notably. It has been generations since we have seen politicians that are as skilled and adept at finding the compromises that enable the Government to fulfill its Constitutional duties. Of course there are a few members of Congress aligned on some particular high-ground of their own making, who are unable to participate in open debate that exchanges ideas and informs both their peers and public alike.
These different groups of like-minded elected sages are often confused by subtle concepts like “compromise”. It appears that the concept of finding a workable agreement that benefits each disparate group is either not understood or defined as losing which is a non-negotiable and unacceptable condition. Their lack of knowledge and appreciation of the significance and central role that being able to compromise had to the creation of our nation, its founding laws, and the advancement of our democratic system is in stark contrast to their ability to prevent progress.
Unfortunately for the country, there are enough of these small groups that in aggregate they represent sufficient numbers to oppose any effort by anyone else to insure, provide, promote and secure our public and private interests.
What we get in exchange for appointing them to the halls of power is partisan bickering about how much to cut from the budget, where the cuts are allowed to come from and where they are not, and the inclusion of social agendas into a budget process because if you can’t get people to accept your point of view let’s be totalitarian about it. It is so inspiring to see a group of people who value only their own views as our founding fathers would have advised them to do.
The budget issue is not just an issue of cutting or spending. In fact, these are not the issue or problems at all. Surely someone in Congress is smart enough to see where the problems are, and could help lead the Congress to a solution that will establish Justice for everyone, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Instead of deluding not just themselves, but through their actions or more appropriately their inactions and ineptitude missing the moment that America so disparately needs.
Why is knowledge and understanding so unrepresented in Congress, and undesired by the voter?
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Ryan The Republican – Another Comic? You Wish.
We can all relax now. The 7th term Paul Ryan (R-Rep. from Wisconsin) has seen the way to fix the health care system. Well, not really fix the system, but to get rid of the unsustainable Medicare program. Ryan proposes that the Government limit Medicare to people who are now 55 and older, and to create a new system that will provide subsidizes to future retirees who will select from private companies’ insurance plans. Not government vouchers, which Ryan the Republican knows is an unacceptable concept/term; but government subsidizes for insurance premiums. Because we all know that a voucher is a designated amount of money collected from our taxes, whereas a subsidy is a designated amount of money from our …? Well, anyway a subsidy which will solve our Medicare problem.
Ryan’s plan solves the Medicare problem because after about 40 or 50 years, the Medicare problem will be uhh! ... dead. And because Medicare is over, there is no government funding problem and no Medicare entitlement program. I am not sure Ryan has thought about it in detail yet, but there will be a new Government program and bureaucracy for administering the Ryan Economic Administration and Management Entitlement Department (REAMED) to collect the taxes required for the vouchers (sorry, subsidies), to maintain records of payments by individual, determine eligibility and allocation of payment amounts to individual retirees, and to engage in all the other governmental, legislative, bureaucratic, and budgetary activities that are necessary to have a government program, particularly an entitlement program. So that is one way the Ryan’s plan is different than Medicare.
But surely when we examine his plan in greater detail, we will see that there are many ways that it will reduce health care costs for the American public. For example, instead of using the leverage that the Government has under Medicare with health care providers, it will rely upon the insurance companies to not really care about the cost of services rendered. Fortunately, the additional cost that private insurers will impose on the health care industry segment, the providers will spontaneously and wit a self-sacrificing spirit reduce their costs. This is not to even mention the additional costs for insurance and health care that will be funneled into political contributions to support even more legislative efforts to reduce any leverage that a tax payer would have against the health care industry.
I also suspect that unlike Medicare, which collects taxes from current wage earners and spends these funds immediately for those retirees needing payouts to cover their incurred health care expenditures. The new Ryan plan would collect taxes for a number of years and then after you retire return those funds back to you. Oops! Who pays for the Medicare costs incurred during this transition period? Oh, yes. You do. Those funds collected will I suspect be spent and then Ryan’s plan will be spending it’s incoming taxes on the out-going subsidies (vouchers) just like Medicare.
Al least we won’t have the same issues with the current system. Ryan’s plan doesn’t involve creating the dreaded ‘death panels’ the Republicans’ terrorize those ill-equipped to relate to reality. His plan employs two paths simultaneously. First, those who can’t afford a private plan can just expire, the self-directed death panel so to speak. Second, the pre-existing private health insurance companies’ claims review/approval boards, the corporate death panels who are eager to kill grandma to insure a good bottom line, will execute their profit-motivated approaches as they do today.
There are going to be many similar superior differences just like those mentioned above that will make the Ryan Plan clearly different from the Medicare system. I am overjoyed with the prospects of such a wondrous plan. Fortunately or unfortunately, I am already too old to have such governmental largess granted to me.
What does annoy me is that Rep. Ryan, just as ineptly as any Democrat, does not understand the problem. He has the answer though, a feat that cannot be matched by the best minds in any other field or area of life. What a remarkable individual he must be to be able to solve a problem without a clue as to what the problem itself actually is. It never amazes me to see politicians take an important issue and turn it into a political platform without any notion of what they are doing or what its consequences are. The short-view of the small minded to address the complexity of a problem that has eluded his peers for generations, and which cannot seek a solution that would be more profitable for the private sector, more effective for the medically in need, and far cheaper for the American people.
Ryan’s plan solves the Medicare problem because after about 40 or 50 years, the Medicare problem will be uhh! ... dead. And because Medicare is over, there is no government funding problem and no Medicare entitlement program. I am not sure Ryan has thought about it in detail yet, but there will be a new Government program and bureaucracy for administering the Ryan Economic Administration and Management Entitlement Department (REAMED) to collect the taxes required for the vouchers (sorry, subsidies), to maintain records of payments by individual, determine eligibility and allocation of payment amounts to individual retirees, and to engage in all the other governmental, legislative, bureaucratic, and budgetary activities that are necessary to have a government program, particularly an entitlement program. So that is one way the Ryan’s plan is different than Medicare.
But surely when we examine his plan in greater detail, we will see that there are many ways that it will reduce health care costs for the American public. For example, instead of using the leverage that the Government has under Medicare with health care providers, it will rely upon the insurance companies to not really care about the cost of services rendered. Fortunately, the additional cost that private insurers will impose on the health care industry segment, the providers will spontaneously and wit a self-sacrificing spirit reduce their costs. This is not to even mention the additional costs for insurance and health care that will be funneled into political contributions to support even more legislative efforts to reduce any leverage that a tax payer would have against the health care industry.
I also suspect that unlike Medicare, which collects taxes from current wage earners and spends these funds immediately for those retirees needing payouts to cover their incurred health care expenditures. The new Ryan plan would collect taxes for a number of years and then after you retire return those funds back to you. Oops! Who pays for the Medicare costs incurred during this transition period? Oh, yes. You do. Those funds collected will I suspect be spent and then Ryan’s plan will be spending it’s incoming taxes on the out-going subsidies (vouchers) just like Medicare.
Al least we won’t have the same issues with the current system. Ryan’s plan doesn’t involve creating the dreaded ‘death panels’ the Republicans’ terrorize those ill-equipped to relate to reality. His plan employs two paths simultaneously. First, those who can’t afford a private plan can just expire, the self-directed death panel so to speak. Second, the pre-existing private health insurance companies’ claims review/approval boards, the corporate death panels who are eager to kill grandma to insure a good bottom line, will execute their profit-motivated approaches as they do today.
There are going to be many similar superior differences just like those mentioned above that will make the Ryan Plan clearly different from the Medicare system. I am overjoyed with the prospects of such a wondrous plan. Fortunately or unfortunately, I am already too old to have such governmental largess granted to me.
What does annoy me is that Rep. Ryan, just as ineptly as any Democrat, does not understand the problem. He has the answer though, a feat that cannot be matched by the best minds in any other field or area of life. What a remarkable individual he must be to be able to solve a problem without a clue as to what the problem itself actually is. It never amazes me to see politicians take an important issue and turn it into a political platform without any notion of what they are doing or what its consequences are. The short-view of the small minded to address the complexity of a problem that has eluded his peers for generations, and which cannot seek a solution that would be more profitable for the private sector, more effective for the medically in need, and far cheaper for the American people.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Supreme Logic: Don't Put Them In Charge of the Budget
The Supreme Court ruled today that a tax credit to school tuition organizations does not impact a tax payer and thus does not warrant giving the tax payer a standing with the court for bringing a case. The court's decision says that allowing a tax credit to a religious school does not constitute government endorsement of a religion, and does not violate the Constitutional proscription against the establishment of religion. This ruling does allow religious groups to direct money to their particular group and to receive a dollar for dollar deduction in their tax obligation. And this in no way is harmful, detrimental nor an imposition upon other tax payers (according to the Court, it appears).
Now I am not particularly bothered by people donating money to an educational organization, especially if it is limited to rational amounts, by rational I would see $500 to $1,000 dollars as reasonable upper limits. And yes, I am sure that most of the people who take advantage of this tax credit are getting an off-set on their tuition costs with the same said school tuition organizations for their respective children. Yes, it is a form of governmental support of religious organizations, and by many standards that is a violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court over the last half century or so. That some of our strict original interpretation-ists justices are able to perform the mental gymnastics required to score a perfect landing on this decision, well that is just another illustration of the wonders that the human mind is capable of when it wants to justify its actions.
My issue with the justices is that their logic is flawed, and worse it is so obviously flawed. Oh, not on a legal basis explicitly (but there is the mental pivoting that they have to do there), but on the reality basis. I guess that it is possible that Supreme Court justices don’t have to abide by the physical laws of reality, but you would think they would not want to render a judgment that so easily exposes their lack of intelligence and common reasoning.
Let’s suppose that we take the justices’ decision and do the good-ole what-if analysis. You know, let’s see where it leads us and see if you think the justices are floating free of reality and un-tethered to logic.
The justices claim that a tax credit by one tax payer for something like a tuition donation does no harm to another tax payer. Note: they did not claim that the harm it did is minor or inconsequential; but that it had no import to the other tax payer. Thus they have no reason to be admitted to appeal to the government/courts to redress the harm.
Now let’s remove the limit of the donation; something the justices did not indicate was of consequence and thus we are free to modify without effect (their ruling would still apply). The donating tax payer determines that they will owe $10,000 in tax and will thus donate $10,000 to the school tuition organization. The donating tax payer will thus owe $0 in tax. Nothing!
But the other tax payers in the state (or country if we went national), would have to make up for that ‘missing’ state income. Now I know that $10,000 averaged over a large number of tax payers would not have a huge impact on any single individual, but it is a real impact since it is other than zero. It’s not Nothing!
Wait! There are other individuals who avail themselves of the school tuition organization tax-credit. So there is not one person but perhaps many. What if there were 10,000 donating tax payers. All of whom pay Nothing in taxes to the state/nation. That’s $100M dollars!! Even to a Supreme Court justice, I suspect that this is starting to sound like real-money. And if we turn to the other tax payers who have to cover the check then they may actually be impacted in some noticeable way, noticeable even to a Supreme Court justice.
Now to drive it home just a little more, let’s take all the tax-payers of a state except one. And let’s make the one, say the Supreme Court justice him/herself. Surely the justice would find if reasonable and rational for the entire tax burden of their state (or of the nation for that matter) to fall entirely upon their wallet. In fact, I think we need to tell Congress that we have a solution to their problem. We can solve the national budget problem, and everyone (except Supreme Court justices) will be fine. We just put the entire tax burden upon them. It can’t be illegal because they would have no standing for a law suit.
God, I hope no one in Congress reads this! They are just about bright enough to think this is a good idea. We already know that the justices think it is (except for the dissenters).
I think the blog at http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=7&threadid=5281305#5281305 might have been useful here.
Now I am not particularly bothered by people donating money to an educational organization, especially if it is limited to rational amounts, by rational I would see $500 to $1,000 dollars as reasonable upper limits. And yes, I am sure that most of the people who take advantage of this tax credit are getting an off-set on their tuition costs with the same said school tuition organizations for their respective children. Yes, it is a form of governmental support of religious organizations, and by many standards that is a violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court over the last half century or so. That some of our strict original interpretation-ists justices are able to perform the mental gymnastics required to score a perfect landing on this decision, well that is just another illustration of the wonders that the human mind is capable of when it wants to justify its actions.
My issue with the justices is that their logic is flawed, and worse it is so obviously flawed. Oh, not on a legal basis explicitly (but there is the mental pivoting that they have to do there), but on the reality basis. I guess that it is possible that Supreme Court justices don’t have to abide by the physical laws of reality, but you would think they would not want to render a judgment that so easily exposes their lack of intelligence and common reasoning.
Let’s suppose that we take the justices’ decision and do the good-ole what-if analysis. You know, let’s see where it leads us and see if you think the justices are floating free of reality and un-tethered to logic.
The justices claim that a tax credit by one tax payer for something like a tuition donation does no harm to another tax payer. Note: they did not claim that the harm it did is minor or inconsequential; but that it had no import to the other tax payer. Thus they have no reason to be admitted to appeal to the government/courts to redress the harm.
Now let’s remove the limit of the donation; something the justices did not indicate was of consequence and thus we are free to modify without effect (their ruling would still apply). The donating tax payer determines that they will owe $10,000 in tax and will thus donate $10,000 to the school tuition organization. The donating tax payer will thus owe $0 in tax. Nothing!
But the other tax payers in the state (or country if we went national), would have to make up for that ‘missing’ state income. Now I know that $10,000 averaged over a large number of tax payers would not have a huge impact on any single individual, but it is a real impact since it is other than zero. It’s not Nothing!
Wait! There are other individuals who avail themselves of the school tuition organization tax-credit. So there is not one person but perhaps many. What if there were 10,000 donating tax payers. All of whom pay Nothing in taxes to the state/nation. That’s $100M dollars!! Even to a Supreme Court justice, I suspect that this is starting to sound like real-money. And if we turn to the other tax payers who have to cover the check then they may actually be impacted in some noticeable way, noticeable even to a Supreme Court justice.
Now to drive it home just a little more, let’s take all the tax-payers of a state except one. And let’s make the one, say the Supreme Court justice him/herself. Surely the justice would find if reasonable and rational for the entire tax burden of their state (or of the nation for that matter) to fall entirely upon their wallet. In fact, I think we need to tell Congress that we have a solution to their problem. We can solve the national budget problem, and everyone (except Supreme Court justices) will be fine. We just put the entire tax burden upon them. It can’t be illegal because they would have no standing for a law suit.
God, I hope no one in Congress reads this! They are just about bright enough to think this is a good idea. We already know that the justices think it is (except for the dissenters).
I think the blog at http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=7&threadid=5281305#5281305 might have been useful here.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Sub-preme Court-ing: an Exercise in Ignorance
Given the intense and exhaustive (and exhausting) scrutiny Supreme Court justices receive before and during their confirmation hearings, I always want to believe that the country is fortunately getting individuals who regardless of political bent are some pretty high caliber intellects, at least in the legal arena. And while I don’t always think they have rendered the best decision on those cases that I pay any attention to, I usually feel they have made reasonable, rational and realistic judgments and decisions of those cases.
So I am just a tad anxious about the media’s reports on and political/policy wonks’ interpretations of statements made by various justices in the oral arguments presented in the Wal-Mart sex-discrimination class-action case. The quoted questions asked and comments made in response to answers would indicate that the justices are in the deep-end of the pool on this case. I think they are apparently over their heads because to apply their vast knowledge and insight into the law and the applicable Constitutional areas that would inform their deliberation and decision, the justices must also be competently conversant in and comprehending of the science and mathematics that would provide a critical aspect of the case and for serving as a basis for reaching an informed decision.
This case may rely more critically upon an understanding of the scientific analysis of the situation than directly upon the applicable law or the Constitution. And from the questions, it may be that in this case that the justices are ill-equipped to appreciate their own deficiencies. That the plaintiffs’ and the defendant’s legal teams may be equally in the dark or in even darker regions of the intellectual universe, doesn’t provide the justices with guides who can navigate the justices through the esoteric jungle that they must traverse. The competency with which the justices are able to understand the context of the case is just as important to the specific issue that the Supreme Court is focused on at this time, which is whether it is reasonable for a class-action case of over a million women to justifiably be applied in a discrimination claim.
This case may well become a case-study for future legal studies in how an abundance of understand and skill in the law proves impotent and ineffective in understanding and resolving the dispute which rests first and foremost on data, its interpretation and its comprehension. Oddly, both legal teams will probably use data and an interpretation of it; but they are unlikely to comprehend it or to recognize their short-fall of understanding. In the end, the justices will retire to adjudicate the case based on their individual understands and biases, and upon the information presented whether meaningful or not. And from this murky and infrequently visited domain of scientific understanding, the justices will render their decision. Based on that decision, the country will follow a legal precedence that will direct the path that individual freedoms with respect to corporate power will have travel for years to come.
We cannot expect the justices to be perfect in each and every case; not the least because that would be impossible given the large groups of people who support one side or the other of the opposing positions in the cases themselves. But can we as citizens feel comfortable that American justice is becoming increasingly vulnerable to decisions that are made by a Supreme Court that is second to none in their expertise in jurisprudence, but who may be excessively ignorant about the true facts of the case that they judge?
I don’t know if there is a way to avoid this inherent vulnerability; but I think we should seek a way to provide a modern day ‘checks and balances’ solution to these situations. I am not proposing a diminishing of the power or authority of the Supreme Court, but rather that it might be prudent for the Supreme Court to have access to advisory resources that are responsible for independent and impartial analysis and interpretation of technical, scientific and analytic information presented in cases brought before them.
The best chance for justice depends upon both knowing the facts and on understanding them. Without either, no decision can be depended upon to serve the interests of the nation nor to protect our freedoms.
So I am just a tad anxious about the media’s reports on and political/policy wonks’ interpretations of statements made by various justices in the oral arguments presented in the Wal-Mart sex-discrimination class-action case. The quoted questions asked and comments made in response to answers would indicate that the justices are in the deep-end of the pool on this case. I think they are apparently over their heads because to apply their vast knowledge and insight into the law and the applicable Constitutional areas that would inform their deliberation and decision, the justices must also be competently conversant in and comprehending of the science and mathematics that would provide a critical aspect of the case and for serving as a basis for reaching an informed decision.
This case may rely more critically upon an understanding of the scientific analysis of the situation than directly upon the applicable law or the Constitution. And from the questions, it may be that in this case that the justices are ill-equipped to appreciate their own deficiencies. That the plaintiffs’ and the defendant’s legal teams may be equally in the dark or in even darker regions of the intellectual universe, doesn’t provide the justices with guides who can navigate the justices through the esoteric jungle that they must traverse. The competency with which the justices are able to understand the context of the case is just as important to the specific issue that the Supreme Court is focused on at this time, which is whether it is reasonable for a class-action case of over a million women to justifiably be applied in a discrimination claim.
This case may well become a case-study for future legal studies in how an abundance of understand and skill in the law proves impotent and ineffective in understanding and resolving the dispute which rests first and foremost on data, its interpretation and its comprehension. Oddly, both legal teams will probably use data and an interpretation of it; but they are unlikely to comprehend it or to recognize their short-fall of understanding. In the end, the justices will retire to adjudicate the case based on their individual understands and biases, and upon the information presented whether meaningful or not. And from this murky and infrequently visited domain of scientific understanding, the justices will render their decision. Based on that decision, the country will follow a legal precedence that will direct the path that individual freedoms with respect to corporate power will have travel for years to come.
We cannot expect the justices to be perfect in each and every case; not the least because that would be impossible given the large groups of people who support one side or the other of the opposing positions in the cases themselves. But can we as citizens feel comfortable that American justice is becoming increasingly vulnerable to decisions that are made by a Supreme Court that is second to none in their expertise in jurisprudence, but who may be excessively ignorant about the true facts of the case that they judge?
I don’t know if there is a way to avoid this inherent vulnerability; but I think we should seek a way to provide a modern day ‘checks and balances’ solution to these situations. I am not proposing a diminishing of the power or authority of the Supreme Court, but rather that it might be prudent for the Supreme Court to have access to advisory resources that are responsible for independent and impartial analysis and interpretation of technical, scientific and analytic information presented in cases brought before them.
The best chance for justice depends upon both knowing the facts and on understanding them. Without either, no decision can be depended upon to serve the interests of the nation nor to protect our freedoms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)