America has recently raised a new hybrid variety of genetically modified politicians across a number of the nation’s political fields. This domestic crop of representatives has yet to be valued in the public marketplace as to whether they are to be a productive and useful commodity, or just another field of weeds that will have to be up rooted in order to plant another variety in the next political season that might bear some nutritious fruit. We only have to hope that if they are indeed weeds that it doesn’t turn out that they destroy the land and leave it unsuitable for productive use or worse, lethal to the public.
New Jersey has given us one particular example in Governor Chris Christie. He has made some headway in becoming one of the new conservative poster boys and hard-nosed players on the national political scene. Certainly there is a lot of huffing and puffing, and then there is the occasional decision and its corresponding justification. Or, in more cases than not, these rationalization just sounds like a reason though they are in fact really not. You’ve all heard the proclamations that almost ring true, but upon examination of what the decision was you are left wondering if you might deserve a teaching moment or more pointedly a visit to the shed. You know the quotes: “I was sent here to make the hard decisions.”, or “This is what the American people expect.” After hearing these, it often occurs to me that I didn’t find the decision hard, but rather just stupid or wrong; or that it wasn’t what I expected of a leader but rather that of a politician as we have come to know them.
In this season of the crusading conservatives who have come to save the profligate states from their foolish ways, Christie has stood up and challenged many opponents. Some he has vanquished, others he has pronounced “Mission Accomplished” proclamations against even if he has somehow not actually managed to confront or defeat them, and there are always the battles that he fights and loses which then aren’t talked about because it would tarnish his prodigious armor. But sadly today, this is the way of politicians. It’s more how you say it looks than what it actually looks like. Given the fiscal disaster that he had to grapple with in New Jersey, he has taken actions which he has had no choice but to take. Given a knife to cut the budget, he cut the budget. Of course, was he a skilled and knowledgeable surgeon cutting away the tumor, or the quack recklessly maiming the patient? Fortunately for him, more often than not the quality of his decisions will not be determinable or attributable to him even long after his is gone.
But there are moments when the world presents an opportunity for the public to demand that such politicians stand and deliver. When the decisions that they are going to make for the ‘public good’ can be tested against the man’s/woman’s character, judgment, intellect and wisdom. Such a moment exists now for the citizens of New Jersey with regard to Governor Christie. This same moment also exists for many other Governors in other states, both Democrat and Republican.
What an opportunity! These political leaders can stand up and be counted. They can directly show the public and the nation their personal integrity, their own confidence in their judgment, and their willingness to be responsible and accountable for their decisions in office. How fortunate to be a politician in such a time. How lucky to be able to stand before the public and show them right here and now, that they ‘put it all on the line’ in their service to the people. Surely history will remember them for being the type of statesman/woman who epitomizes the American values and ideals. How could they shrink from an opportunity like this, unless they were not really conducting themselves as public servants?
What is the opportunity? Well, one case is the natural gas fracking issue. Governor Christie has indicated that New Jersey needs to proceed with gas explorations and the use of the fracking process for the good of New Jersey. He may not be a scientist, engineer or particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but he believes that providing affordable and domestic-sourced energy is vital to New Jersey and the nation; and if the process of fracking will provide that then he believes that the state should support and encourage the business. Many New Jerseyians agree and support this view, and many do not; that is why it’s a political issue. And here is where Christie can move to the forefront, here is where he can be the leader that New Jersey and the nation needs.
All that is required is that Governor Christie pledge to accept the consequences of his decision. He only needs to take a simple and easily accomplished promise; and then he must do what so many politician always fail to do, he must abide by his promise and fulfill his oath. Now if the Governor or no one else has figured out what the pledge is, I would only ask that you take a moment to think what would be an obvious, direct and immediate action that he or any other governor or politician could take. And now that you’ve thought about it, I am sure that you see it as clearly as I do.
If you don’t recognize it, well perhaps you might seek assistance from your friends and neighbors, from your colleagues and party members, or from those whose opinions and judgments you respect. And if this fails, I am sure we can find a way to provide the answer. The ‘ah ha’ moment will be well worth it.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Government – Purpose: Do They Have One?
We think of ourselves as living in a time when people are questioning the purpose of government; and we are right, we do live in such a time. The reason is that if you are alive, you live in a time when people are questioning the purpose and the role of government.
Now there are many answers to this question which explains why it never goes away. But more importantly, you can’t answer it with any useful value until you recognize that this is a question that cannot stand alone. When you answer the purpose question as the starting point, you have left the starting line before the pistol went off and without realizing what distance race your about to run. In other words, it’s an incomplete question.
So let’s answer it anyway. What is the purpose of government?
The purpose of some governments is to maintain the social order and maintains the power structure of those that are entitled, deserving and anointed to guide their society. Other governments are intended to maximize the equitable socio-economic condition of their citizens. And some governments have defined their purpose as systems of laws to ensure and guarantee their citizens a set of rights that are universal. The purpose of government then is dependent upon how the government is established, organized and controlled.
I am going to go out on a limb and assume that when an American asks: “what is the purpose of government”, that they mean “what is the purpose of our American government?”
Now, even here this is probably too simple a statement of the question and of the potential contextual space that should be considered when trying to answer it; but I suspect it will be unlikely that most people will have the patience to explore the question of the question. So I will go farther out on the limb.
Side One of the purpose of American government is simple. It is a system which is structured to organize our social life around a public space and a private space, between a commercial arena and a civic arena, and between the interests of the majority and that of the minority. And the purpose of this system is to deliver the opportunity for each citizen to live their lives according to their own design, direction and desires without intruding upon the same rights of every other citizen. That is a terse statement of our government’s fundamental purpose. It is also completely inadequate to insure that Americans would agree on what this purpose means in almost any area or on any issue that confounds, angers, frightens, inspires, or unites Americans today.
Personally I consider the purpose of our government to be the agent that is responsible for enforcing the principle: Everything that you believe you have the right to expect and demand of everyone one else in our society, you agree that they have the right to require of you.
You may think you like that principle, but I should warn you that you haven’t thought it through. I can guarantee that you will not like what it requires of you, even though it is a basic tenet of our democratic system.
I guess this will have to continue in future entries.
We think of ourselves as living in a time when people are questioning the purpose of government; and we are right, we do live in such a time. The reason is that if you are alive, you live in a time when people are questioning the purpose and the role of government.
Now there are many answers to this question which explains why it never goes away. But more importantly, you can’t answer it with any useful value until you recognize that this is a question that cannot stand alone. When you answer the purpose question as the starting point, you have left the starting line before the pistol went off and without realizing what distance race your about to run. In other words, it’s an incomplete question.
So let’s answer it anyway. What is the purpose of government?
The purpose of some governments is to maintain the social order and maintains the power structure of those that are entitled, deserving and anointed to guide their society. Other governments are intended to maximize the equitable socio-economic condition of their citizens. And some governments have defined their purpose as systems of laws to ensure and guarantee their citizens a set of rights that are universal. The purpose of government then is dependent upon how the government is established, organized and controlled.
I am going to go out on a limb and assume that when an American asks: “what is the purpose of government”, that they mean “what is the purpose of our American government?”
Now, even here this is probably too simple a statement of the question and of the potential contextual space that should be considered when trying to answer it; but I suspect it will be unlikely that most people will have the patience to explore the question of the question. So I will go farther out on the limb.
Side One of the purpose of American government is simple. It is a system which is structured to organize our social life around a public space and a private space, between a commercial arena and a civic arena, and between the interests of the majority and that of the minority. And the purpose of this system is to deliver the opportunity for each citizen to live their lives according to their own design, direction and desires without intruding upon the same rights of every other citizen. That is a terse statement of our government’s fundamental purpose. It is also completely inadequate to insure that Americans would agree on what this purpose means in almost any area or on any issue that confounds, angers, frightens, inspires, or unites Americans today.
Personally I consider the purpose of our government to be the agent that is responsible for enforcing the principle: Everything that you believe you have the right to expect and demand of everyone one else in our society, you agree that they have the right to require of you.
You may think you like that principle, but I should warn you that you haven’t thought it through. I can guarantee that you will not like what it requires of you, even though it is a basic tenet of our democratic system.
I guess this will have to continue in future entries.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Third Law of Budgets
Now we get to the fun part of reality. The politicians are really not going to like this. If the First Law of Budgets says you can’t win (get more out than you put in), and the Second Law says you break-even (get as much out as you put in); then our crafty politicians are going to want to work on eliminating the waste (nibbles) that occur in the financial transactions that their budgets feed. Politicians will want to make the nibbles so small that they become zero. They will want to make the exchanges perfect, a typical ideological vision: a get what you pay for nirvana.
But here’s the thing, there is no perfect transaction, no truly equitable exchange, no absolutely fair-market place. Maybe you can find ways to target a specific transaction and make it more equal, but that is one exchange and not the entire system. And every attempt to modify the process and method of transactions opens the door to new nibbles that also eat away at the value of the budget.
The Third Law as interpreted by C. P. Snow is “You can’t get out of the game.” And that is what will frustrate the politicians the most. They are denied the thing that they desire the most, the ability to control how things are to be. In the case of national, state or local budgets politicians want to be able to control how the economy will function; and being denied that authority will not rest easily upon their shoulders.
So in the end, the politicians have to live with the fact that they cannot win the budget game. They will never get more than they pay for, they won’t get even as much as they thought they should, and they can’t change that. What this means is that they have to learn what the real game that they are playing is. And in the budget world, it’s not deciding how much the budget should be. The game is deciding what the government pays for via taxes, and what the public pays for through the market place. And if you want to avoid the most waste or positively put, get the greatest bang for your buck, then you have to understand which avenue works best for everything you want in your shopping cart. Oh, and if you think the government or the market-place is always superior to the other, you would be ignoring history and you would be wrong. This is way political ideology is a mental blindness. It prevents the particular ideologue from seeing things that a clear mind can recognize with little effort.
The cure for the blindness is to be able to understand the forces that affect the size of the nibbles that the particular transaction approach imposes. Unfortunately once again, the politician will be left at a distinct disadvantage in this problem space, since comprehension is not their forte.
But here’s the thing, there is no perfect transaction, no truly equitable exchange, no absolutely fair-market place. Maybe you can find ways to target a specific transaction and make it more equal, but that is one exchange and not the entire system. And every attempt to modify the process and method of transactions opens the door to new nibbles that also eat away at the value of the budget.
The Third Law as interpreted by C. P. Snow is “You can’t get out of the game.” And that is what will frustrate the politicians the most. They are denied the thing that they desire the most, the ability to control how things are to be. In the case of national, state or local budgets politicians want to be able to control how the economy will function; and being denied that authority will not rest easily upon their shoulders.
So in the end, the politicians have to live with the fact that they cannot win the budget game. They will never get more than they pay for, they won’t get even as much as they thought they should, and they can’t change that. What this means is that they have to learn what the real game that they are playing is. And in the budget world, it’s not deciding how much the budget should be. The game is deciding what the government pays for via taxes, and what the public pays for through the market place. And if you want to avoid the most waste or positively put, get the greatest bang for your buck, then you have to understand which avenue works best for everything you want in your shopping cart. Oh, and if you think the government or the market-place is always superior to the other, you would be ignoring history and you would be wrong. This is way political ideology is a mental blindness. It prevents the particular ideologue from seeing things that a clear mind can recognize with little effort.
The cure for the blindness is to be able to understand the forces that affect the size of the nibbles that the particular transaction approach imposes. Unfortunately once again, the politician will be left at a distinct disadvantage in this problem space, since comprehension is not their forte.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Second Law of Budgets
After attempting to digest the First Law of Budgets, I suspect not many politicians or members of the public would have much stomach for the second course. How annoying it must be to be told that you have to pay for everything. But for those of you who do, the Second Law is more esoteric and insidious. The Second Law of Budgets deals with the principle that in managing money the system is imperfect, you cannot attain a perfect conversion of a quantity of money into an exact equal value of whatever you equate it to. In other words, with every financial transaction there is an inequality of the exchange. Now the bookkeepers will contend that they can and do balance the books; that every penny, rupee, yuan, or pound is accounted for and that the ledger balances. But that is accounting, not money or value. The natural law that we are dealing with here, with regard to budgets, is that as money (value) flows from one region to another, or within the total system itself, that every movement includes a small (or not so small) loss to the parties engaged in the transaction. This loss can come from many factors and there can be more than one of these incremental losses nibbling away at the value of the exchange.
An example would probably be helpful. If you spend a $1,000 to buy a flat-panel TV and the value of the TV was agreed by all to be $1,000 then the exchange seems equal, balanced and exact. Except that there are additional costs that the buyer has to account for. There is typically going to be a sale-tax (both local and state), there is a cost to have it delivered or to transport it back to you abode, there may be an installation/set-up fee, and there is an immediate loss of market-value once you take it out of the box. You might even want to account for other value factors. If you gave the delivery person(s) a tip for their service then that was an additional value for the TV that is neither in its inherent value nor recoverable.
This gradual but continuing erosion of value within the exchange process is simply the operation of the Second Law of Budgets. Whatever you establish as your acquisition target there will be more and more cost bites added on to the value of what you desire or need with every person, action, and stage that the transaction encounters as you move closer to completing the purchase. In the end, you will possess the goal object but you will have spent more money for it than it will be worth at the moment of ownership/possession. As C. P. Snow would say about the Second Law: “You can’t break even.”
Now this should provide our budgetary heralds with some intriguing insights into the difficulties that Congress has to include in their reasoned and unbiased deliberations on what needs to be done by the government and what will be cared for by the private sector. I am sure that they will appreciate that every calculation of value that they think they are making will be reduced more and more by the little but persistent nibbles. The nibbles will come via the Second Law through each individual exchange along the chain of purchases, acquisitions, and trades that are the magic of the economy. Congress will learn that the best and most efficient exchange process is not in fact determined by simple and ideological approaches. The free market nor the government program set in any fixed relation to one another, and neither will ever perform as expected by the masters of the budget.
Let’s turn Medicare into a voucher/premium-supplement supported market-based insurance program. Nibble, nibble. Let’s raise the age or retirement. Nibble, nibble. Let’s reduce taxes on the wealthy to create jobs. Nibble, nibble. Let’s stimulate the economy with tax-credits and bailouts. Nibble, nibble.
What Congress doesn’t comprehend is that they are mostly a nibble, just another aspect of the Second Law of Budgets. Not only can you not get as much out of what you’re taxed as you pay in, but Congress insures that you get less. And they do so in the most inefficient manner. Democrat or Republican, they just keep nibbling and nibbling. Even when they tell you that they want to do less and tax you less, they haven’t figured in the non-government nibbles. Maybe you’re taxed too much, maybe you are not. That’s the wrong issue, it always has been. It’s just another one of their nibbles, it’s not like they have figured out that there are other nibbles out there that if not understood are worse than the one’s they want to try and change.
The national debt is in part a Congressional nibble. The deficit is a Congressional nibble. The declining entitlement programs funding is a Congressional nibble. Defense spending adds its own nibbles. Nibble by nibble the nation’s problems grow because Congress doesn’t understand the Second Law which leaves them vulnerable to it. It’s not that they make mistakes; they don’t even know the rules. They don’t make mistakes, they make actual bad decisions.
An example would probably be helpful. If you spend a $1,000 to buy a flat-panel TV and the value of the TV was agreed by all to be $1,000 then the exchange seems equal, balanced and exact. Except that there are additional costs that the buyer has to account for. There is typically going to be a sale-tax (both local and state), there is a cost to have it delivered or to transport it back to you abode, there may be an installation/set-up fee, and there is an immediate loss of market-value once you take it out of the box. You might even want to account for other value factors. If you gave the delivery person(s) a tip for their service then that was an additional value for the TV that is neither in its inherent value nor recoverable.
This gradual but continuing erosion of value within the exchange process is simply the operation of the Second Law of Budgets. Whatever you establish as your acquisition target there will be more and more cost bites added on to the value of what you desire or need with every person, action, and stage that the transaction encounters as you move closer to completing the purchase. In the end, you will possess the goal object but you will have spent more money for it than it will be worth at the moment of ownership/possession. As C. P. Snow would say about the Second Law: “You can’t break even.”
Now this should provide our budgetary heralds with some intriguing insights into the difficulties that Congress has to include in their reasoned and unbiased deliberations on what needs to be done by the government and what will be cared for by the private sector. I am sure that they will appreciate that every calculation of value that they think they are making will be reduced more and more by the little but persistent nibbles. The nibbles will come via the Second Law through each individual exchange along the chain of purchases, acquisitions, and trades that are the magic of the economy. Congress will learn that the best and most efficient exchange process is not in fact determined by simple and ideological approaches. The free market nor the government program set in any fixed relation to one another, and neither will ever perform as expected by the masters of the budget.
Let’s turn Medicare into a voucher/premium-supplement supported market-based insurance program. Nibble, nibble. Let’s raise the age or retirement. Nibble, nibble. Let’s reduce taxes on the wealthy to create jobs. Nibble, nibble. Let’s stimulate the economy with tax-credits and bailouts. Nibble, nibble.
What Congress doesn’t comprehend is that they are mostly a nibble, just another aspect of the Second Law of Budgets. Not only can you not get as much out of what you’re taxed as you pay in, but Congress insures that you get less. And they do so in the most inefficient manner. Democrat or Republican, they just keep nibbling and nibbling. Even when they tell you that they want to do less and tax you less, they haven’t figured in the non-government nibbles. Maybe you’re taxed too much, maybe you are not. That’s the wrong issue, it always has been. It’s just another one of their nibbles, it’s not like they have figured out that there are other nibbles out there that if not understood are worse than the one’s they want to try and change.
The national debt is in part a Congressional nibble. The deficit is a Congressional nibble. The declining entitlement programs funding is a Congressional nibble. Defense spending adds its own nibbles. Nibble by nibble the nation’s problems grow because Congress doesn’t understand the Second Law which leaves them vulnerable to it. It’s not that they make mistakes; they don’t even know the rules. They don’t make mistakes, they make actual bad decisions.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The Thermodynamic Laws of Budgets:
One of the reasons that politics is always so contentious is that politicians lack a common set of natural laws that they can use to explain their positions. Thus unlike the scientific laws that have allowed the productive members of society to have advanced the human race and in our instance the America condition to the high level of achievement that we prize so much. Politicians are left adrift and forced to use their own intellect to explain why their positions and policies are the more deserving of support. Given their dependence upon their own cognitive resources, is it any wonder that they are so inept and incapable of accomplishing even the very little that they do? Even more depressing is the public’s acceptance of the drivel that these same self-appointed paragons of pomposity spew in endless torrents of opinion.
To better serve both the public and our government there appears to be an urgent need for someone to lay before the public and politicians some of the natural laws that apply to the political realm and the real world that our elected officials dabble in daily with disastrous results. To that end, the following offering is presented to help raise the level of understanding of the politicians and the public alike. In the case of politicians this may be more challenging; but given their abysmal awareness, knowledge and understanding of almost anything important any infinitesimal incremental increase in comprehension will be a tremendous even astronomical gain for them.
As the nation’s budget is much talked about as a highly charged political topic, it seems apropos to examine the budgetary equivalent to the scientific Four Laws of Thermodynamics. In this discussion I will at appropriate times cite C.P Snow’s interpretation of the primary 3 Laws of Thermodynamics.
First Law of Budgets: Conservation of Money
Money is Money. It doesn’t matter who has the money, it only matters how much they have. It doesn’t matter what form it comes in, in the end the money in the system always equals the same amount of value. This principle applies to the total system (globally) or to regional segments where the proper accounting is maintained. The general rule is that within a specified region (including the whole) money is equal to ‘all value’ (money) transferred into the system minus ‘all value’ transferred out, plus all value retained in the system. Think, there is no other source of funds that can be magically tapped when you need it. If you need more money, you have to have it or find someone who is willing to exchange something of theirs with value for something of yours with value that nets out to you having more than when you started.
What does this mean for Congress, the Administration, or even the Supreme Court? It means that they have to abide by the First Law. It’s not that it’s a good idea, it’s not that it’s the right thing to do, it’s the physics of monetary reality; try and resist or ignore it and you will face the consequences of the power of the universe marshaled against you. According to C.P. Cook this means, “You cannot win.”
Some things that politicians and the public need to become comfortable with because of the First Law are:
• The public pays for everything. No one except the public has any money.
• Whatever the public wants the government to do, they have to pay for from their money (wealth); they have to be taxed by the government.
• Everything required by the government, everything prohibited by the government, everything encouraged or discouraged by the government, and everything that the government does to achieve some goal requires the public to be taxed. It doesn’t matter if you support or oppose what the goal(s) is, the public pays.
• When you borrow, you create a condition where you eventually transfer more money out of your region into the one you borrowed from. You are transferring your wealth to them, and the public’s wealth will be diminished.
• Here’s a tricky one. The conservation rule sounds simple, but the recognition of how this applies to something as big as our modern economy is not simple. Comprehending the implications of every budgetary decision will not be obvious, self-evident, or even within the grasp of most politicians or the public. But understood or not, the First Law will rule and it will have its way. No force on earth or the universe can prevent it; and if you want to pray to God to intercede then you should know that he created the Three Laws of Budget.
No one reading this should assume or conclude that the obvious meaning of the First Law is that Congress should cut or raise taxes, or cut or reduce spending. Those are just actions, they don’t account for the consequences; but the actions will operate according to the Laws of Budgets.
Next up, the Second Law of Budgets; until then start looking for the operation of the First Law in the world about you. It runs through everything you do. That’s why it’s a natural law, it’s part of the fabric (the physics) of the universe.
To better serve both the public and our government there appears to be an urgent need for someone to lay before the public and politicians some of the natural laws that apply to the political realm and the real world that our elected officials dabble in daily with disastrous results. To that end, the following offering is presented to help raise the level of understanding of the politicians and the public alike. In the case of politicians this may be more challenging; but given their abysmal awareness, knowledge and understanding of almost anything important any infinitesimal incremental increase in comprehension will be a tremendous even astronomical gain for them.
As the nation’s budget is much talked about as a highly charged political topic, it seems apropos to examine the budgetary equivalent to the scientific Four Laws of Thermodynamics. In this discussion I will at appropriate times cite C.P Snow’s interpretation of the primary 3 Laws of Thermodynamics.
First Law of Budgets: Conservation of Money
Money is Money. It doesn’t matter who has the money, it only matters how much they have. It doesn’t matter what form it comes in, in the end the money in the system always equals the same amount of value. This principle applies to the total system (globally) or to regional segments where the proper accounting is maintained. The general rule is that within a specified region (including the whole) money is equal to ‘all value’ (money) transferred into the system minus ‘all value’ transferred out, plus all value retained in the system. Think, there is no other source of funds that can be magically tapped when you need it. If you need more money, you have to have it or find someone who is willing to exchange something of theirs with value for something of yours with value that nets out to you having more than when you started.
What does this mean for Congress, the Administration, or even the Supreme Court? It means that they have to abide by the First Law. It’s not that it’s a good idea, it’s not that it’s the right thing to do, it’s the physics of monetary reality; try and resist or ignore it and you will face the consequences of the power of the universe marshaled against you. According to C.P. Cook this means, “You cannot win.”
Some things that politicians and the public need to become comfortable with because of the First Law are:
• The public pays for everything. No one except the public has any money.
• Whatever the public wants the government to do, they have to pay for from their money (wealth); they have to be taxed by the government.
• Everything required by the government, everything prohibited by the government, everything encouraged or discouraged by the government, and everything that the government does to achieve some goal requires the public to be taxed. It doesn’t matter if you support or oppose what the goal(s) is, the public pays.
• When you borrow, you create a condition where you eventually transfer more money out of your region into the one you borrowed from. You are transferring your wealth to them, and the public’s wealth will be diminished.
• Here’s a tricky one. The conservation rule sounds simple, but the recognition of how this applies to something as big as our modern economy is not simple. Comprehending the implications of every budgetary decision will not be obvious, self-evident, or even within the grasp of most politicians or the public. But understood or not, the First Law will rule and it will have its way. No force on earth or the universe can prevent it; and if you want to pray to God to intercede then you should know that he created the Three Laws of Budget.
No one reading this should assume or conclude that the obvious meaning of the First Law is that Congress should cut or raise taxes, or cut or reduce spending. Those are just actions, they don’t account for the consequences; but the actions will operate according to the Laws of Budgets.
Next up, the Second Law of Budgets; until then start looking for the operation of the First Law in the world about you. It runs through everything you do. That’s why it’s a natural law, it’s part of the fabric (the physics) of the universe.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Yet Another Middle-East Peace Plan Effort
President Obama included a vision for the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan in his speech today on the Middle-East and North Africa. So as with many modern Presidents before him, he is seeking an American supported effort to bring peace to the single conflict in the Middle-East that either foments or is used as an excuse for six decades of conflicts between Israel and neighboring Arab states.
I admire the hopeful persistence that American presidents show toward this endeavor. Certainly there is nothing unworthy about attempting to bring peace anywhere, and particularly in this region that has suffered from pointless violence founded upon a poorly conceived and implemented concept of creating a Jewish homeland. But my dissatisfaction with yet another vision is that it is not actually a plan. It jumps straight to the solution without bothering to dealing with foolish things like a process and methodology to handle the obstacles that already exist or that will surface from where we are today to where the ‘vision’ has everyone at the end.
This vision will likely suffer the same fate as previous attempts. The peace process will either collapse after a in a new round of attacks and counter-attacks, or it will conclude with some minor and unfulfilling accord without definitive consequence. The failure inherent in these approaches is that they are conceived and attempted by politicians, power-brokers and religious die-hards; sometimes embodied in the same person. While such individuals are necessary and critical to the success of any peace process, nothing about their positions or authority bestows on them the wits, wisdom or willingness to seek innovative, inspired and insightful approaches to transitioning from their current state of hostility to a peaceful and harmonious coexistence.
The plan that the Israeli and Palestinians need is one which will move them incrementally through the steps and stages that are necessary to provide the time to identify not only the major issues that will require a resolution but the more numerous small and minor issues that will be cumulatively more important than the stumbling blocks that have prevented progress in the past. Additionally, the two principle parties will also need to comprehend why they need to take incremental steps to get to their final goal. It is a reasoned and rational methodology that have evaded past efforts. And it is deficiency that is and has been missing from the peace process toolkit. Processes directed and driven by the mighty and powerful players at the negotiating table are vulnerable to their greatest shortcoming, engaging in a game in which they do not know or understand the rules. Playing at the peace process is not an ideal strategy for something deserving of at least a half-hearted attempt at actually trying to succeed.
What Obama should do now is proceed with suggestions on how the Israeli and Palestinians can initiate the drafting of an approach to peace planning and execution. Part of his proposal would be to include individuals who are skilled at defining and resolving the goals and the requirements that need to be accommodated in the evolving effort of crafting a solution that will deliver a two-state solution of independent, viable and secure nations.
Ah! to dream. As always such a possibility is highly unlikely, it requires the movers and shakers of the world to demonstrate their own inability to deal with the very complexity that they strive to overcome. They have never learned that the one thing you want in subordinates is people who are just flat out brighter than yourself.
I admire the hopeful persistence that American presidents show toward this endeavor. Certainly there is nothing unworthy about attempting to bring peace anywhere, and particularly in this region that has suffered from pointless violence founded upon a poorly conceived and implemented concept of creating a Jewish homeland. But my dissatisfaction with yet another vision is that it is not actually a plan. It jumps straight to the solution without bothering to dealing with foolish things like a process and methodology to handle the obstacles that already exist or that will surface from where we are today to where the ‘vision’ has everyone at the end.
This vision will likely suffer the same fate as previous attempts. The peace process will either collapse after a in a new round of attacks and counter-attacks, or it will conclude with some minor and unfulfilling accord without definitive consequence. The failure inherent in these approaches is that they are conceived and attempted by politicians, power-brokers and religious die-hards; sometimes embodied in the same person. While such individuals are necessary and critical to the success of any peace process, nothing about their positions or authority bestows on them the wits, wisdom or willingness to seek innovative, inspired and insightful approaches to transitioning from their current state of hostility to a peaceful and harmonious coexistence.
The plan that the Israeli and Palestinians need is one which will move them incrementally through the steps and stages that are necessary to provide the time to identify not only the major issues that will require a resolution but the more numerous small and minor issues that will be cumulatively more important than the stumbling blocks that have prevented progress in the past. Additionally, the two principle parties will also need to comprehend why they need to take incremental steps to get to their final goal. It is a reasoned and rational methodology that have evaded past efforts. And it is deficiency that is and has been missing from the peace process toolkit. Processes directed and driven by the mighty and powerful players at the negotiating table are vulnerable to their greatest shortcoming, engaging in a game in which they do not know or understand the rules. Playing at the peace process is not an ideal strategy for something deserving of at least a half-hearted attempt at actually trying to succeed.
What Obama should do now is proceed with suggestions on how the Israeli and Palestinians can initiate the drafting of an approach to peace planning and execution. Part of his proposal would be to include individuals who are skilled at defining and resolving the goals and the requirements that need to be accommodated in the evolving effort of crafting a solution that will deliver a two-state solution of independent, viable and secure nations.
Ah! to dream. As always such a possibility is highly unlikely, it requires the movers and shakers of the world to demonstrate their own inability to deal with the very complexity that they strive to overcome. They have never learned that the one thing you want in subordinates is people who are just flat out brighter than yourself.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Weak Tea, Weak Knees, Weak Grip, Weak Willed: Just Weak
The nation’s political forces remain aligned along the same old fronts: Republicans / Democrats, left-wing / right-wing, progressive / moderate / conservative, and low / middle / upper / uber-rich income groups. Every issue is cast in terms of which forces support it and which opposes it. And these forces are confronting each other aggressively, and never more so than with America’s fiscal fiasco. The most strident entrenchments seem to be entangled with every issue and effort that Congress and the Administration attempt to address. Add to this the media’s exploitation of the political harangues as nothing more than grist for their ratings opportunities. As a result, we get a positive feed-back process that achieves only the distortion and confusion of meaning and substance on the issue.
In this turmoil of leadership, the positions and policies espoused by all parties, all allegiances, all constituencies are enfeebled, anemic, and inane attempts to deal with the issue that they purport to resolve. Do the American people really think that the way to solve complex problems is to limit the tools and methods that can be used to attack it? This is not the approach that successful and market leading businesses employ in handling the problems that confront them. They seek a thorough and knowledgeable understanding the problem, and explore all possible solutions and options that will enable them to successfully overcome the problem and emerge a stronger competitor in the market place. Is looking for simple and easy answers the goal of the education system that you would want for yourself or your children? Do you want your doctor choosing the simple diagnosis because it’s quick and easy; who cares whether it provides a course of treatment that cures the ailment! So if it doesn’t make sense to pre-judge and pre-determine what our acceptable options are for most other areas of life, what in the world would lead us to think that the best solutions for our nation’s political and economic problems can be dictated by the philosophy of “this is the way I want it to be”?
What is the logic that to believe that the chant “Stop Government Spending” or “Cut the Budget” is the answer? These may be reasonable and sound goals, but they are not being presented as goals, but rather as solutions. And as in any other endeavor, applying a rule or strategy without understanding what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what will happen when you do it; you will almost assuredly get a result that is vastly different than what you expected, desired and are willing to accept. Of course as in real life, you are forced to accept the consequences of you past actions. If you don’t believe that, then just ask how we got to where we are right now and why are you so desperate to change things to ‘fix’ the problem.
Is the absolute public position that we can’t touch Social Security, or we have to guarantee that the elderly continue to be covered by Medicare (and its ilk), or Defense spending must be increased, or pick your own personal insane no-compromise, no-retreat, no-sacrifice, no-change issue.
It’s this inept mind-set that prevents politicians from even comprehending that they are not qualified to solve these problems. They are responsible to get them addressed for sure; but that doesn’t equip them with the skills, information or capacity to solve the problems.
A worthy politician, if one exists in our system today, would look for solutions that can be explained to the public in terms of what the consequences are: who benefits and who sacrifices, why it is reasonable and just, why it is better than other proposals, and why it requires whatever action it requires. If you limit your choices, then you are just limited. America was not build by people who limited themselves.
In this turmoil of leadership, the positions and policies espoused by all parties, all allegiances, all constituencies are enfeebled, anemic, and inane attempts to deal with the issue that they purport to resolve. Do the American people really think that the way to solve complex problems is to limit the tools and methods that can be used to attack it? This is not the approach that successful and market leading businesses employ in handling the problems that confront them. They seek a thorough and knowledgeable understanding the problem, and explore all possible solutions and options that will enable them to successfully overcome the problem and emerge a stronger competitor in the market place. Is looking for simple and easy answers the goal of the education system that you would want for yourself or your children? Do you want your doctor choosing the simple diagnosis because it’s quick and easy; who cares whether it provides a course of treatment that cures the ailment! So if it doesn’t make sense to pre-judge and pre-determine what our acceptable options are for most other areas of life, what in the world would lead us to think that the best solutions for our nation’s political and economic problems can be dictated by the philosophy of “this is the way I want it to be”?
What is the logic that to believe that the chant “Stop Government Spending” or “Cut the Budget” is the answer? These may be reasonable and sound goals, but they are not being presented as goals, but rather as solutions. And as in any other endeavor, applying a rule or strategy without understanding what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what will happen when you do it; you will almost assuredly get a result that is vastly different than what you expected, desired and are willing to accept. Of course as in real life, you are forced to accept the consequences of you past actions. If you don’t believe that, then just ask how we got to where we are right now and why are you so desperate to change things to ‘fix’ the problem.
Is the absolute public position that we can’t touch Social Security, or we have to guarantee that the elderly continue to be covered by Medicare (and its ilk), or Defense spending must be increased, or pick your own personal insane no-compromise, no-retreat, no-sacrifice, no-change issue.
It’s this inept mind-set that prevents politicians from even comprehending that they are not qualified to solve these problems. They are responsible to get them addressed for sure; but that doesn’t equip them with the skills, information or capacity to solve the problems.
A worthy politician, if one exists in our system today, would look for solutions that can be explained to the public in terms of what the consequences are: who benefits and who sacrifices, why it is reasonable and just, why it is better than other proposals, and why it requires whatever action it requires. If you limit your choices, then you are just limited. America was not build by people who limited themselves.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Perhaps Stupid Is To High A Bar
The political, economic and social arenas in America are roiling and churning over issue after issue, problem after problem. And what do we get from our political leaders in these particularly uncertain times? Is it wisdom, intelligence, or even the ability to think? No, we get the idiotic ideology of the incompetent. In other words, we get politicians.
They all have solutions to the problems. Not the same solutions, not solutions based on rationality, not solutions that will serve the American people, and certainly not solutions that require them to make any sacrifice or do anything challenging. They have faith that their solution will work because it is founded upon something they believe it. It has to be the right answer, or else their faith would be misfounded. And it’s not like we have any examples in our lives of people who have an absolute faith in their view of what it right and how to go about making everyone else accept their view.
Obviously this must mean that both sides of the solution spectrum cannot both be right. In party terms, the Democrats and the Republicans cannot each be correct. So they would have you pick sides, preferably their side because what other choice do you have. Of course, it has not occurred to most people that there is at least one other interpretation of the situation.
Consider some of the positions that divide the populace.
Cut taxes vs. raise taxes. The cut taxes side maintains that only by cutting taxes can the economy be turned around, only then will business be able to create jobs. This position is not a guarantee of course. If you believe that cutting taxes will create jobs then all you have to do is hope you’re right. Or take the raise taxes position, people need to make sacrifices to return the country to a stable fiscal position. And of course, they are both wrong. I don’t think anyone would disagree that raising taxes is always unfavorable and difficult; except that there are reasons and conditions that justified it in the past, and there have been notable benefits that were derived from people actually paying taxes. There is something to be said for paying your way, it is an American value or at least use to be.
Small government vs. big government. This is a favorite issue, and I mostly enjoy that as with many divisive issues in America, it is mis-phrased and a misdirection of what should be the question. Big vs. small allows everyone to think it’s just a question of cost. That question really isn’t a big vs. small question but one of value vs. price. The real question is what functions do Americans expect their government to deliver. This is a much more complex and difficult question, and thus why it must be avoided by the clueless.
Health-care: Save Social Security and Medicare vs. privatize and rely upon the market-place to control costs. This issue has two major dimensions that confound the politicians and so they pick an answer that can’t work but sounds like it will. The two dimensions that are not discussed are: you have to pay if you spend, and the free-market doesn’t solve your cost problem.
So for the next eighteen months we will get to hear the debates about how each parties’ candidates will address these and many other issues. The faithful will rush toward the lemmings’ reward with no consideration that the promise doesn’t deliver; it just dangles the bait within sight of the salivating hordes. Not exactly the standard that you want people to aspire to, not the height of the bar that you want leaders to overcome.
This is not leadership, this is not vision. What we are witness to is the ascendancy of the mediocre. This is the triumph of the ideologues to spew their lunacy and direct the parade down the dead-end alley. Who is responsible for this situation? It’s the voters who cannot see beyond the smoke and mirrors and the choice of the lesser of two evils. We can all welcome the dissolution of American greatness because we would not do the one thing that has always made America a great nation. We use to stand up and be responsible for doing what needed to be done, even when it was painfully hard and required sacrifice.
If you can’t find someone worthy of your vote; then you must look farther afield.
They all have solutions to the problems. Not the same solutions, not solutions based on rationality, not solutions that will serve the American people, and certainly not solutions that require them to make any sacrifice or do anything challenging. They have faith that their solution will work because it is founded upon something they believe it. It has to be the right answer, or else their faith would be misfounded. And it’s not like we have any examples in our lives of people who have an absolute faith in their view of what it right and how to go about making everyone else accept their view.
Obviously this must mean that both sides of the solution spectrum cannot both be right. In party terms, the Democrats and the Republicans cannot each be correct. So they would have you pick sides, preferably their side because what other choice do you have. Of course, it has not occurred to most people that there is at least one other interpretation of the situation.
Consider some of the positions that divide the populace.
Cut taxes vs. raise taxes. The cut taxes side maintains that only by cutting taxes can the economy be turned around, only then will business be able to create jobs. This position is not a guarantee of course. If you believe that cutting taxes will create jobs then all you have to do is hope you’re right. Or take the raise taxes position, people need to make sacrifices to return the country to a stable fiscal position. And of course, they are both wrong. I don’t think anyone would disagree that raising taxes is always unfavorable and difficult; except that there are reasons and conditions that justified it in the past, and there have been notable benefits that were derived from people actually paying taxes. There is something to be said for paying your way, it is an American value or at least use to be.
Small government vs. big government. This is a favorite issue, and I mostly enjoy that as with many divisive issues in America, it is mis-phrased and a misdirection of what should be the question. Big vs. small allows everyone to think it’s just a question of cost. That question really isn’t a big vs. small question but one of value vs. price. The real question is what functions do Americans expect their government to deliver. This is a much more complex and difficult question, and thus why it must be avoided by the clueless.
Health-care: Save Social Security and Medicare vs. privatize and rely upon the market-place to control costs. This issue has two major dimensions that confound the politicians and so they pick an answer that can’t work but sounds like it will. The two dimensions that are not discussed are: you have to pay if you spend, and the free-market doesn’t solve your cost problem.
So for the next eighteen months we will get to hear the debates about how each parties’ candidates will address these and many other issues. The faithful will rush toward the lemmings’ reward with no consideration that the promise doesn’t deliver; it just dangles the bait within sight of the salivating hordes. Not exactly the standard that you want people to aspire to, not the height of the bar that you want leaders to overcome.
This is not leadership, this is not vision. What we are witness to is the ascendancy of the mediocre. This is the triumph of the ideologues to spew their lunacy and direct the parade down the dead-end alley. Who is responsible for this situation? It’s the voters who cannot see beyond the smoke and mirrors and the choice of the lesser of two evils. We can all welcome the dissolution of American greatness because we would not do the one thing that has always made America a great nation. We use to stand up and be responsible for doing what needed to be done, even when it was painfully hard and required sacrifice.
If you can’t find someone worthy of your vote; then you must look farther afield.
Congress: Logic Not Allowed
The Senate held a hearing today with the CEOs of the five largest oil companies. As with most activities of Congress (Senate or House) nothing useful or meaningful was done. They played to their respective core constituencies and to the media. The problem was that despite focus on the oil companies extremely large profits, no one managed to put forth a line of reasoning that framed the issue in a clear and easily understandable manner.
I don’t find this surprising, after all, when has Congress ever managed to demonstrate a competency on anything; particularly on something that affects every American. On the Democratic side, except for Democrats from oil producing states, they were explaining why the oil companies should pay more taxes since they make so much money on very high priced gasoline. The Republicans were predictably defending the oil companies because, well, because they get a plentiful wad of contributions from these gas pumpers. So for a prolonged period of time these sound bite hawkers volleyed back and forth about why the other side was wrong.
But what was the real issue? What should the American people know about the long established and cozy relationship between Congress and the oil companies? Let’s frame the issue for them, they’ll never be able to do it for themselves and definitely not for the voters.
The question that should be addressed in the public arena is: Do the oil companies receive special and advantageous treatment from the federal government and thereby from which they derive an economic benefit at the expense of the American public? Now everyone already knows the answer to the question, right? Probably not.
OK, we’ve got the question; but what do we know about the circumstances and facts pertaining to the question?
Do the oil companies get any special tax breaks / benefits from the government?
Do the oil companies gain economically from these breaks?
If the oil companies pay less taxes because of the tax breaks, then who is left to make up the difference in Government spending? (Whether the Government spends too much or not enough is not the question, whether the Government spends an amount as low as the most rabid “smaller government” ideologue or as huge as the most expansive zealot of big government; someone picks up the cost of what the oil companies do not contribute.)
In order to make the profits, the oil companies have to charge who a price that includes the profits?
Is it equitable that corporations are more equal than individuals when it comes to the taxes that they pay?
If the oil companies pay less, then isn’t Congress raising the taxes on the average American?
So the question isn’t that oil companies should pay more taxes because they make huge amounts of profit. The question isn’t whether oil companies should share a greater burden than other industries. The question is should oil companies be special? The questions isn’t even should oil companies be able to use their profits to buy politicians.
The question is: Are the American people being treated fairly by their government?
And given the answer, both the Democrats and the Republicans are in the wrong. Again!
I don’t find this surprising, after all, when has Congress ever managed to demonstrate a competency on anything; particularly on something that affects every American. On the Democratic side, except for Democrats from oil producing states, they were explaining why the oil companies should pay more taxes since they make so much money on very high priced gasoline. The Republicans were predictably defending the oil companies because, well, because they get a plentiful wad of contributions from these gas pumpers. So for a prolonged period of time these sound bite hawkers volleyed back and forth about why the other side was wrong.
But what was the real issue? What should the American people know about the long established and cozy relationship between Congress and the oil companies? Let’s frame the issue for them, they’ll never be able to do it for themselves and definitely not for the voters.
The question that should be addressed in the public arena is: Do the oil companies receive special and advantageous treatment from the federal government and thereby from which they derive an economic benefit at the expense of the American public? Now everyone already knows the answer to the question, right? Probably not.
OK, we’ve got the question; but what do we know about the circumstances and facts pertaining to the question?
Do the oil companies get any special tax breaks / benefits from the government?
Do the oil companies gain economically from these breaks?
If the oil companies pay less taxes because of the tax breaks, then who is left to make up the difference in Government spending? (Whether the Government spends too much or not enough is not the question, whether the Government spends an amount as low as the most rabid “smaller government” ideologue or as huge as the most expansive zealot of big government; someone picks up the cost of what the oil companies do not contribute.)
In order to make the profits, the oil companies have to charge who a price that includes the profits?
Is it equitable that corporations are more equal than individuals when it comes to the taxes that they pay?
If the oil companies pay less, then isn’t Congress raising the taxes on the average American?
So the question isn’t that oil companies should pay more taxes because they make huge amounts of profit. The question isn’t whether oil companies should share a greater burden than other industries. The question is should oil companies be special? The questions isn’t even should oil companies be able to use their profits to buy politicians.
The question is: Are the American people being treated fairly by their government?
And given the answer, both the Democrats and the Republicans are in the wrong. Again!
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Only Three Ways to Fix Medicaid
I was listening to a newscast discussing Medicaid and the ‘reality’ that politicians must confront in dealing with the situation that it is on critical life support. Without the proper corrective action, the prognosis for Medicaid is it will be economically terminal if it isn’t already. The topic under discussion was how an out-of-pocket cap would impact Medicaid. In addressing the situation the interviewee indicated that there were only three options available to politicians:
The option of cutting back on what is covered is used a little, but it’s really hard to stand-up and say that you want to restrict, limit and prevent the needy; particularly the sick needy from getting the care that they require. It won’t be called a restriction, limit or barring of access; it will be called rationing. And for most politicians the prospect of being the one who wants to ‘ration’ health care is not a banner they want to carry; particularly those who spoke out against any other plan that they insisted was going to ration health care. When you erect a building, you sometimes have to live it its shadow.
So this leaves the punting option. If you are to cowardly to step up to either of the first two, you must go with the make someone else do it. It won’t work of course, because it’s the typical solution that politicians come up with. It’s simple: that means that they don’t know what they’re doing. It’s easy: that means that they haven’t considered or figured out the consequences, again they don’t know what they are doing. And, it’s cheap: which means they haven’t added the costs that will be generated because …, you know the rest.
But wait! Are there just these three options? Perhaps the politicians and their advisors and policy wonks have missed something. This may seem impossible for the ‘best and brightest’, after all the problems of Medicaid are well understood and have been around for quite a while. They’ve had the time to examine it, to analyze it, and to create any number of solutions to the issue. So these must be the only options; but they’re not.
A number of State Governors say they could fix the Medicaid problem in their state if they were given the funding but relieved of the federal restrictions. So they must know the solution. But do you really think they have a solution, or they are just going to mix and match the original three? They’ll do it discreetly of course.
But why has no one proposed the competitive option, or the reward option, or the evolutionary option?
The answer is that they don’t understand how to solve a problem by using the health care system, they are fixated on the same old “we’re in charge, and we have decided how to fix the problem we caused to start with”. Maybe if the politicians just accepted that they don’t know what to do, how to do it, and why it work then they could turn to solving the one problem that they might, just might, be able to handle. Find someone who can.
Well, since it’s not their money; why should they care?
- Cut back on who is eligible
- Cut back on what is covered
- Cut back on how much doctors/facilities are paid
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Democrats and Republicans: Ranking Parties
The House passed a bill today to prevent funding of the health insurance exchanges, the part of the 2009 Health Care reform bill that would enable states to establish insurance exchanges that offer health care coverage to individuals and small businesses. This provides an opportunity to assay the intelligence exhibited by our legislative liabilities. As with most analytic procedures you only need a small sample to determine the quantity and quality of substance in the specimen. This is significant because we would not want to risk extracting any more from the Congressional population than absolutely necessary to avoid depleting whatever amount of valuable resource might exist at all, given its extreme scarcity in that environment.
So rather than pose the question crudely as: Which party is more stupid than the other? Let’s approach the topic in a civil manner and ask: Is there a level of intelligence distinguishing between the Democrats and Republicans?
The Democrats shoehorned the 2010 Health Care reform bill through Congress last year, much to the chagrin of the Republican minority. Within the reform bill was a provision to have insurance exchanges set up by states to provide access to affordable health care insurance. Under the reform act most tax-payers would receive a government subsidy. The Republicans viewed this as just another government take-over of health care. Their position was that it was impractical and unaffordable.
In a major Republican proposal by Paul Ryan, chairman House Budget Committee, which most Republicans tout as a significant forward looking proposal claim that it will provide for affordable national health care. Under this plan most individuals would receive a government premium subsidy to assist paying the insurance companies for an approved health care plan.
One can see instantly the obvious and clear radical distinctions between these two approaches.
My problem is that neither does anything productive to address the real problem with affordable health care. Neither plan is substantively different than the other, other than who is paying whom campaign contributions, and who is appointing the “death-panels”. Ryan reformulated an approach that changes how insurance companies will get their piece of the pie, but he also came close to envisioning a new approach that would actually help America’s health care system, reduce government spending, and present a bill that would be capable of garnering bi-partisan support. Unfortunately, close does not assay as there.
So how do the two parties measure out on distinguishable levels of intelligence? Fortunately for all of us, neither party is completely devoid of intelligence. This of course was a foregone conclusion since I cannot prove the absence of any intelligence. But neither does either party show enough intelligence to be evaluated as having any value and thus non-differentiating.
The inability of Congress to serve the American people is almost inconceivable.
So rather than pose the question crudely as: Which party is more stupid than the other? Let’s approach the topic in a civil manner and ask: Is there a level of intelligence distinguishing between the Democrats and Republicans?
The Democrats shoehorned the 2010 Health Care reform bill through Congress last year, much to the chagrin of the Republican minority. Within the reform bill was a provision to have insurance exchanges set up by states to provide access to affordable health care insurance. Under the reform act most tax-payers would receive a government subsidy. The Republicans viewed this as just another government take-over of health care. Their position was that it was impractical and unaffordable.
In a major Republican proposal by Paul Ryan, chairman House Budget Committee, which most Republicans tout as a significant forward looking proposal claim that it will provide for affordable national health care. Under this plan most individuals would receive a government premium subsidy to assist paying the insurance companies for an approved health care plan.
One can see instantly the obvious and clear radical distinctions between these two approaches.
My problem is that neither does anything productive to address the real problem with affordable health care. Neither plan is substantively different than the other, other than who is paying whom campaign contributions, and who is appointing the “death-panels”. Ryan reformulated an approach that changes how insurance companies will get their piece of the pie, but he also came close to envisioning a new approach that would actually help America’s health care system, reduce government spending, and present a bill that would be capable of garnering bi-partisan support. Unfortunately, close does not assay as there.
So how do the two parties measure out on distinguishable levels of intelligence? Fortunately for all of us, neither party is completely devoid of intelligence. This of course was a foregone conclusion since I cannot prove the absence of any intelligence. But neither does either party show enough intelligence to be evaluated as having any value and thus non-differentiating.
The inability of Congress to serve the American people is almost inconceivable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)