Principles for Dealing with an Issue

The “fiscal cliff” provides a national stage on which the Democratic or Republican party could demonstrate their skills and abilities for leading the nation through a crisis during difficult times. Given the starring role opportunity that this dramatic production offers you might think that someone in one of the parties could rise to the occasion and take on the leading role. But it seems that the current casting auditions have only brought forth political actors that are only able to mimic and re-interpret the same old styles that past politicians have displayed before; however, the current contenders for effective leaders are not even able to bring off those reprisal roles. Lacking energy, devoid of passion and replete with uninspired dialogue these inept performers are failing not only to put on a good show; they are failing to serve the public interests and to lead the nation forward.

Pivotal to these failures is I suspect that they don’t have the training or tools for solving problems in their own careers’ chosen arenas nor any other arena from which they can attempt to transfer learned skills. The absence of effective methods and techniques in our political leaders may not be that surprising in as much as the general public seems caught up in showing no recognition that our leaders are trapped in nonproductive, incompetent and uninspired routine approaches for dealing with the nation’s most important issue. Just like the politicians, the public and the media by and large seem to think that the most effective technique for addressing the issue is to blame the ‘other’ side.

In an effort to help our ‘leaders’?, here are a couple of rules that they can use to change the dynamic in the problem-solving or as they refer to it – negotiations.

First, open up the next negotiation discussion with an acceptance of “total and complete blame”. To help the other side get out from under the trap of seeking some way to make sure that they aren’t blamed for anything that has happened before, just tell them that “It’s all my fault. So no one needs to worry about whom to blame, or how to find someone to blame. Everyone can blame me.” This will either result in everyone being stunned and not knowing what to say, or someone may try and come to your rescue and state that it’s not all your fault. Stop that person immediately and insist that there is no point is further discussion on whose fault it is or isn’t, you are taking on that responsibility. Now this is where you follow-up with the next step in move the negotiations forward.

Now that the “blame game” is off the table (note: you may have to remind some folks occasionally that you’ve already taken the blame so let’s not go back there to revisit a resolved issue), you ask if the group can now agree to work together to find a solution to the problem. It’s the problem that is important after all, and that’s where the focus needs to be.

This is where the more difficult rule comes in. In working on the issue and the proposals and positions that are still points of discussion, the leader needs to step back and let people discuss and argue their various plan and recommendations for a little bit. At some point it will be clear that the group has either settled on a path forward or are still caught in some impasse. If they have a consensus then make sure you understand and agree with it, if you do then simply ask: “So do we have an agreed solution?” If you don’t support the decision then ask some well thought out questions to see where there are disconnects with your position. At this point it’s up to you to frame a proposal that will resolve those disconnects. If you can’t get a negotiated settlement then you need to consider how to offer an ‘If Then - If not Then” solution.

At this point if you know what you’re doing you have what you need and a solution.

A Promise, Not Some Inane Pledge

With Congress and the administration so bumfuzzled about how to achieve a reasoned and rational agreement (expressly avoided using the sane and intelligent ‘compromise’ terminology) for addressing the self-imposed fiscal cliff, the American public needs to stand-up for their interests and make a promise to themselves. While “failure is not an option” on the fiscal cliff makes a nice sound-bite, I don’t really have any confidence that Congress (the Constitutionally responsible player in this game) will find a way off the cliff. Therefore, I think every voter should make a promise to their self should Congress fail yet again to do what the country needs; that is Congress must take some action to address the crisis besides inaction.

Now I also don’t believe that Congress is capable or competent enough to actually take the right actions, but I do at least expect them to try within their limited abilities to make the efforts necessary to address the nation’s issues, particularly those that affect the economy is such basic ways. Congress must decide and deliver a federal budget, tax policy and a program reform plan to resolve the budget versus spending gaps caused by their approved budget. If they don’t or can’t do that then what exactly are our Congressional representatives actually doing for you?

So what is the promise that you need to make to yourself? Well, be they Democrat or Republican (or an Independent) you need to promise to not support, fund or vote to return them to office in their respective next election cycle. You should make it abundantly clear to any party official that you come in contact with that you will not and are not going to vote for that member. It’s ok to vote and support another member of your preferred political party if you are so inclined to what to be affiliated with a political party; but not the current member.

If you do make that promise to yourself, then you should convey that promise to your current representatives in Congress; be they a member of your party or not. Just like your employers would do at your job, you should let under-performing workers know that their jobs are at risk due to poor-performance but that with a demonstration of improvement their jobs might not be at risk.

This isn’t a pledge that someone else defines and dictates to you. It’s a responsibility you have to yourself. You decide, you assess and you act. You don’t give money and power to someone else who will use your influence to their ends. It’s almost like being a free individual who is willing to participate in their democratic process.

Aspiring to Not Expire with the Expiring Tax-Cuts

Holly tax-rate Tax-man! The Bush-era tax-cuts are going to expire unless Congress does something.

We can conclude from this that even in Congress the laws of physics hold despite their wishes, desires and efforts in hoping that they don’t. There are cause and effect relationships in the actions or the in-actions that Congress takes, and time mores forward in its unrelenting and uni-directional passage into the future. And the expiration of the tax-cuts that expire on January 1^st will happen if Congress doesn’t explicitly act to re-create or restructure them.

But just because the current law expires and the tax-rates will rise doesn’t mean that the consequences are fixed and unalterable. The expiration date is a point in time on which the conditions are set to change the rules, but they are not violating any physical laws. Light will still travel at a constant speed in the universe. The hardships that the tax-rates would impose are only required to happen if Congress does nothing. Yes, Congress usually does nothing, at least nothing useful and nothing that serves the nation; but in this case Congress has to do something if they are correct that increase in taxes will be more harmful to the economy than taking some steps to mitigate that situation.

Now as long as we are going to expect Congress to act to some advantageous purpose for the country, we might as well expect Congress to act intelligently. It is a lot to expect, but with some help Congress might be able to react in a manner that will at least feign intelligence.

If the tax-rates are allowed to rise and go into effect on January 2^nd 2013, the impact to tax-payers is still capable of being adjusted. Congress could pass a tax-rate bill on January 7^th that reduced taxes to levels lower than they had been, to the same level as they were, or somewhere else. Net result is that tax-payers don’t have to be punished because Congress couldn’t get their job done.

So why can’t Congress just avoid the expiration boogey-man issue altogether and pass the same bill before the deadline? Isn’t this the simple solution? Well, no actually it’s not. To pass a bill that will pass before the deadline requires that compromises be made between the parties; and to some this is a dirty word. So before hand the leaders are afraid of their backers being unhappy with Congress acting responsibly. Because their electorate is no more intelligent than Congress itself is.

It’s much easier to wait for the current law to expire, create a ‘now you have the actual problem’ condition and reacting to the problem rather than just to the threat. Now to an intelligent person this is a stupid strategy, but to Congress this is one of the smartest things that they can deal with. What politician would have a problem promoting how they championed the restoration of a new tax-cut policy once the public is actually exposed to the taxes that they so don’t want to have to pay. Additionally, those in Congress who refuse to allow any accommodation to higher rates for any segment of the public do not have any ground to stand on once the higher rates are a fait accompli.

How do you avoid the fiscal cliff? Simple, you turn it into step toward your strategic objective.

Fiscal Cliff for Idiots (Think Congress Here)

The politicians are franticly seeking a path for avoiding the ‘fiscal cliff’ so that they can be the saviors of the nation. Republicans are beginning to explain how they are willing to consider abandoning their pledge against any new taxes in the context of thinking about raising the tax-rates as being their duty and responsibility to the nation and the public. Democrats are making their case for having to address changes to the entitlement programs that are a major factor in America’s spending deficit. The entitlement programs include not only Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; but also the Defense Department budget.

The politicians are ranting and raving about the impending disaster, catastrophe and Armageddon that will surely destroy the economic recovery, plunge the nation into a recession and produce wide-spread misery and suffering across the nation. Yes they are up to their old tricks, preparing the masses for the political brinksmanship that they will tout simultaneously as both a partisan and bi-partisan victory that they managed to accomplish to save us all.

 Now here’s the part that the politicians aren’t promoting. The fiscal cliff was the bi-partisan agreement reached last year in order to prevent the doom and gloom scenario that we were all collectively facing. And by the way the financial world has indicated that the prior cliff that the politicians caused because well their just incompetent cost the country even more in interest charges due to their inability to compromise on a good solution. The politicians aren’t explaining that this is a crisis of their own making and is a direct result of their not finding solutions to the obvious problems because their ‘principles’ and ‘values’ get in the way. In other words, they can’t do their jobs because they have to adhere to some strict code that is at odds with their duty and responsibility to the country and the people.

So let’s examine one of the ‘principles’ that prevents success: no increase in tax rates (even for a small select group of citizens). Many of the Republicans took a pledge to not raise taxes as a central tenet of their political philosophy and commitment. Now some Republicans are explaining that they may have to terminate their commitment to their prior oath to this principle, for the good of the nation. Considerations of some limited increase in tax rates may be necessary to address the problems facing the country. This would all be reasonable if there wasn’t a flaw in the logic. Now perhaps they will claim and argue that there is no flaw, no error or self-denial at work here; but it’s not what they think or claim at this point, it’s what you think.

In 2011, Congress passed the Sequestration bill that committed Congress to reduce the 2013 budget if they don’t come up with a plan to replace the $900 billion in cuts with which they threatened themselves. Now are approaching the deadline that will evoke the Sequestration consequences because Congress is demonstrating their inability to do their jobs. So the ‘Bush era’ tax-cuts will expire and tax rates will rise across the board for everyone in 2013. Let’s get this straight, Congress agreed to allow the tax-cuts to expire for everyone. So the difference between letting the current tax rate cuts expire and raising tax rates actively is that in one case the public will pay more in taxes and in the other the public would pay more in taxes. This distinction is a very important and significant difference indeed.

So Republican Congressmen/women voted on a bill that would not raise tax rates it would only allow tax-cuts to expire. How exactly do you think they can show the financial difference, or the difference in costs to the tax payer, or the difference in its impacts on the economy? Wasn’t Sequestration a vote for raising taxes? I am not saying it wasn’t for a good reason or that it’s not something that they shouldn’t have done; but how is it not doing the very thing that supposedly they would not do? I suppose that they perhaps made a mistake and in the spur of the moment they thought first about the needs of the country before they thought about their party’s political rhetoric.

So now we have tax rates about to rise, and Congress is desperately looking for a solution that doesn’t make them have to accept the consequences of the unthinkable agreement that they made.

Tomorrow, a simple view of how easy it is to deal with this particular problem.

Moderator-In-Chief

The criticisms that the moderators in the presidential debates are not doing their jobs in an appropriate manner are absolutely correct; however the criticisms are also absolutely wrong. Now don’t be confused; this is not a logic problem, a final exam question on a philosophy final or some thorny conundrum intended to challenge your intellect. It is a critique of those who have the presumption to speak on behalf of the public’s interests. This is an assay on the quality and grade of those who are without any basis for representing the public and without any measureable insight into what would benefit the public. Their views are that the moderator is there to be uninvolved and merely ask the questions, monitor the equality of time between the candidates and provide some limited supervision that the candidates follow the rules. This may be what the candidates and the parties view as the role that they want for the moderator, but it isn’t what is good for the public. This limited, lame and lackluster perspective doesn’t even attempt to see the value, the potential and the opportunity that a moderator who served the public interests could provide.

What the public needs, what the public deserves and what the public should demand of “their” moderator is far more than these seekers who want to be the “servant of the people” will like or find comfortable. However, how comfortable do you think I care they are with the questions or the demands to which “my moderator” will hold them accountable?

The moderator should be prepared to not just ask the questions, but to assess and determine during the candidates response if they are even coming close to answering the question which more often than not they rarely do. In these circumstances the moderator should stop the candidates’s rambling and direct them to answering the question asked. If the answer is not forthcoming the moderator should terminate the candidate’s response period and move on the next item or candidate if they haven’t had a chance to not answer the question also.

If the moderator determines that the answer was non-substantive, they would be expected to follow-up with a restatement of the question along the lines of “Could you perhaps provide something of substance that would inform the public as you prior answer did not? A simple no would be adequate if you can’t.” The mode of moderating provides the means for the public to receive information related to what they are interested in relative to the questions, rather than what the candidates are interested in telling the public.

So rather than constraining and limiting the role of the moderator, their role should be strengthened and broadened to allow them to make the debates more focused on increasing the information that the public would benefit from obtaining. We have allowed the debates to become just another reality show, a scripted show and tell, and an exercise in evasion and confusion. You would think that candidates for the presidency would themselves demand a higher standard, an opportunity to lead, and a venue for enlightening their path to the future; but oddly the contenders for the ‘leader of the free world’ position are willing to follow their uninspired advisors, their handlers and consultants on how not to be a leader.

Such debates might be more difficult to get the candidates to agree to, but then the moderator has been given an excellent solution to that problem by Clint Eastwood.

Debasing the Debates: Lowering the Bar

A plethora of stories have permeated the media over the last week about how both Democratic and Republican parties, pundits, and partisans have been lowering the ‘expectations’ for their favorite son. This political tactic is based on the premise that if the candidate doesn’t do well that their side will be able to point to the proffered expectation that no one expected them to do well. A second factor contributing to this ‘claim the low ground’ mentality is that if will create the impression that the candidate rose to the challenge and outdid themselves in whipping their opponent.

Now I don’t object to the implication the parties are presenting, that they think the American public are complete idiots and that this positioning is inherently consistent with the very notion of someone being a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. In part this acceptance of both parties’ attitudes is to some degree confirmed by the fact that about an equal proportion of the voters are registered Republicans and as Democrats; thus prone to believe idiotic things. But is it really something that a candidate’s supporters should be proclaiming and championing this level of competency about their standard bearer?

Shouldn’t the standard be that the candidate is a competent, capable and a candid communicator who can present their views and plans to the public in a compelling and informative manner? Shouldn’t the expectation that the candidate is someone who provides the public with a reason to decide that the candidate’s positions are well thought out, demonstrate an insight and understanding of the nation’s issues and problems, and who would inspire the public to support the efforts and sacrifices that will be required to achieve the vision and goals set before the voters? If the candidate cannot do this then perhaps it’s not the case that the candidate is not a good debater, but rather that this candidate is not a viable candidate for the presidency.

I suppose the politicians that the country has today are a reflection of the parties’ lower values and standards, of their focus on ideology over substance and intelligence, and of their conversion to a monetary theology of campaign funders over a belief in American values. If you were to ask yourself, “Would I want a President only equal to the level of politicians that we have in Congress or the states that we have today?”, would your answer be yes?

So when I hear the ‘voices of the parties’ touting how enfeebled and inept their man’s going to be, I think I don’t want them to be president. I start off with my radar tuned into looking for confirmation that they are not viable contenders, for mistakes that add more bricks on the moron side of the balance, and to determine why they are so wrong for this job. If they do something that appears to be good, I assume I must have missed something in their answer that negates that interpretation. Yes, we remain in the land of ‘choosing the least of the worst’.

If you can’t raise the bar, then you are just letting your opponent appear to be in the contest rather than showing that they should have just remained a spectator who should have been watching someone else more qualified.

The Mislead Majority (or Why Everyone Misses the Issue)

Now that the primitive, reactionary, lizard-brain response to the latest Romney ‘place foot in mouth’ self-inflicted disclosure of his thought processes has revealed yet again that neither party knows what they are talking about, the media is possibly more clueless (as impossible as that would be given the significant nonexistence of intelligence in party die-hards), and the public is complacent and uninvolved in even attempting to think about the salient issue at the core of Romney’s “47%” faux pas. So yet again we have the bulk of the public attention span misdirected to nonsense, nuance, and nothing of import. All this off-point commotion directed at an important issue that is not being discussed meaningfully, because not one person has understood the right question or the enlightening answer that goes to the heart of Romney’s sentiment.

Now I have come to expect to be disappointed by Congress and politicians of any other stripe, and I have become immune to the debilitating insight shown by news entities, and I am confident in the public’s attention to the magician’s misdirecting movements while missing his picking of their pockets. So in an anti-Borgian attempt to fight for a futile endeavor to provide a view that has not surfaced from this gaff or from many preceding ‘sound-bites’ from all sides and in every conceivable context where America’s tax system and policies are supposedly discussed. The words you hear in these discussions would lead the casual observer to actually believe that someone is talking intelligently about taxes despite the fact that they are so far away from intelligent that we are dealing with the knowledge level found amongst rocks.

In opposition to that trend, I am presenting a puzzle for you to solve. It’s not a difficult problem, and it’s not going to require any complex knowledge or in fact any information that anyone who went through an American high-school would not have had explained to them.

Puzzle: Imagine two Americans, one “L” who earns $25,000 per year and the other “M” who earns $1,000,000 per year. Both, oddly enough, have equivalent deductions. As a result of these deductions, “L” owes $0 in taxes by the federal tax table. Now consider “M”, after working about 6.5 days “M” will have earned the same $25,000 as “L” did for the entire year. How much tax does “M” owe the IRS for that same $25,000?

Once you have figured out the answer you are ready to answer the puzzle. The puzzle is: Who was treated unfairly?

Do not read any further unless you have your answer, when you’re ready did you arrive at: Neither?

They were treated identically. The American tax system does not tax anyone at a higher or lower rate given comparable applicable tax situations. For the first $25,000 earned each party owes exactly the same tax liability. Each was given the same government “hand-outs” and “entitlements”. Why then are both Republican and Democratic leaders unable to understand this? If they are going to take a position on an issue, you would think that they would at least try to be informed about the issue.

American Intelligence Test #15: How To Create Jobs?

What with it being Presidential campaign season and with both parties issuing loud and frequent assertions that they will create jobs while their opponents will eliminate or cause jobs to decline, now is an appropriate time to put another American Intelligence test to the test. You don’t have to be afraid to take the test for fear of failing, since you can easily deceive yourself and no one will know. Besides the usual dissembling about what you have thought through is no more detrimental here than in other areas of life. On the upside taking the test does provide an opportunity for self-discovery and broadening the scope of your thinking. Not that that is necessarily a good thing if you’re an eager partisan of either party.

Just to irritate you the correct answers are provided below, but don’t cheat getting the answer right is of no value whatsoever if you haven’t gotten then based on your own cranial processing power.

Engage the grey-matter and begin the trial by a jury of your own imagination.

Question 1: Which of the following would the most capable of creating more jobs?

                A. Obama   B. Romney   C. Both   D. Neither

Question 2: Which of the following are essential to creating jobs?

                A. Low taxes   B. Minimal regulation   C. Infrastructure Investment
                D. Government spending   E. None of these

Question 3: Which of the following are essential to creating jobs?

                A. Customers   B. Employees   C. Resources   D. Profits   E. None of these

Question 4: Which of the following creates the most wealth?

                A. A wealthy upper-income group that provides investment capital
                B. Large private sector job base and small public sector job base
                C. Broad and affluent middle class income levels
                D. Unregulated free-market economy
                E. None of these

Question 5: Which of the following suppress the creation of jobs?

                A. Government spending
                B. High cost of healthcare
                C. High national debt
                D. Welfare programs
                E. None of these

Now that was painless, right? Of course that was painless; it didn’t require you to confront any conflict between your view of the world and reality. That part comes when you don’t like the answers. The answers are:

Q 1 = D;  Q 2 = E;  Q 3 = A, B, C, D;  Q 4 = C;  Q 5 = E

Given you are unsatisfied with these answers, you should take comfort with your own view as long as you can explain what the physics is that links your answer to the creation of jobs. If you can’t you are in the realm of well – “I believe that this works, but I don’t know that it works or how it works.” On the bright side, you might be qualified to be a politician.

Are You Better Off Now? How To Answer A Simple Question

I was surprised when I heard the question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? I was surprised that the Republicans asked it. I was surprised that the Democrats had such a hard time answering it. I was surprised at how inept the media was at comprehending the potential of the question. I was surprised at how the public didn’t sense the importance of the question; particularly with regard to how powerful it could be if even remotely understood correctly.

I wasn’t really surprised; surprise would be if even one of these groups did something that wasn’t inept. So with the question out there and being bantered about in the media, and used by both parties as a bludgeon trying to hammer out a meaning that suits their purpose: one offensively and one defensively.

What then is the answer to this question?

The answer is – Noooo, I can’t tell you that. How could you learn if someone just gave you the answer? It’s not the American way to be given things. You’re supposed to earn them for yourself. Besides the value comes from what it takes to attain something. So here are hints to the obvious that lead any thinking person to the right answer.

First, think of the question in the context of a scientific or engineering problem, or if that’s not your bailiwick then perhaps as a business-person, a financier, a manager or a production worker with regards to how you figure out what is going to happen next? That should be pretty simple, we do it all the time. We plan our day, our week, our year, our career, our lifetime. Planning is just part of being alive. Humans are just more active and engaged in planning in more areas of their life than your run of the mill lab rat. Thus one dimension required for properly answering the question is to set the question as a planning exercise and not answering it with just an emotional response to your fears and anxieties.

Second, the question contains within itself a comparison that not the one that everyone see immediately. So you have to see deeper into the question and ask what you are comparing, what ruler you are using to gauge your measurement, and against what situation and conditions applies to the assessment.

And the third hint is to define whether you get the same answer for yourself, your friends and associates, other people in your state and region, and the people across the country as a whole.

Given the hints you should now be ready to see the hazard in asking the question. The Republicans should have considered these facts prior to using this as a political theme, if they think they did and the assessed the intellect of the public correctly then it may be a winning move; if they did not it could be the card played that loses the hand. The Democrats should be assessing the question and responding with an assessment that either supports or guides their strategy; haven’t seen an evidence of that yet. And the media should be using the question to put political contenders and supporters of either stripe under the bright light of being capable of dealing with much better phrased questions then they are to date.

The public needs to engage in their individual assessments to determine what it informs them about the qualifications of each side.

The last thing you should know is that the answer is neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ but requires much more than that to answer it. If you think it’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’ then you must be a registered party member.

Swimming Upstream: Tax Free Medals?

Clearly these thoughts will provoke, agitate, rile and annoy most people because they have already emotionally and viscerally committed and connected to the idea the American athletes who win medal in the Olympic Games should not be expected or made to pay taxes on the monetary prize that accompanies the medals themselves. Surely it is fundamentally and essentially American to not have anyone who is representing the nation to the world in these international competitions to have to pay taxes on such awards.

But while it is clear and obvious that Americans think it is patriotic and American to not make our country’s athletes pay taxes on the Olympic prize money, it is worth a minute’s worth of consideration for the basis in logic, principles and fairness. So let’s take a minute and consider.

The athletes represent America voluntarily and in the spirit of serving the nation as our ambassadors to the world. They have spent years training and competing to attain their status as the best in their sports. This dedication and drive is exemplary of American values: working hard, struggling against the odds, and let’s face it succeeding. Often these athletes pursue their ascent to the top positions in their sports in relative obscurity where only those intimately knowledgeable about the sports know who them, to the American public they are not household names. [Note: there are some exceptions like NBA stars and women beach volleyball players. Who make decent money and really need the help from the political brain-trust.]

Are athletes in some way truly unique in representing America to the world, and thus warranting of a special exemption? We don’t want to consider the military personnel that are deployed in both larger numbers and in more countries? They represent America every day in situations that are substantively more important and centric to American values than sports. Should we tax them for fighting and protecting our nation because it’s not entertaining and the medals often won are not for things that anyone would strive to have happen to them? Surely this is more aligned to our American values; and thus the tax exemption is not justified on the basis of representing America. What about scientist and Nobel prize winners? Do they represent American values less honorably, less importantly or less meaningfully?

So it’s hard to come up with the specialness that makes the exemption so appropriate here?

Now if the politicians wanted to show their recognition of the significance of the athletes’ accomplishment and believe that the athletes deserve the full value of their prize money, they could be (what do you call it? Oh, yeah!) smart. They could think, perhaps for the first time, about an issue before they choose the simple-minded and good old political answer to everything: let’s pass a half-baked, half-considered, half-assed law that creates an opportunity to look like they are doing something good (a rarity in itself).

Why not insure that the athletes get to keep their prize money by making the solution a true American approach to solving the dilemma? If they can’t think of any, they could consult with people who could show them how to handle the problem. They could turn the solution not into a government mandated solution but into a patriotic recognition consistent with American values. This doesn’t require the politicians to do anything, so they could continue to do what they are good at – doing nothing. They could tell the public how the athletes could keep the prize money without them having to take credit for it, but then they couldn’t take credit for it.

So why do I think it’s wrong for our politician’s to rush into this issue which they seem ill-equipped to handle? Because the politicians should be true leaders and just try and take credit for charging to the rescue when they are just seizing the spotlight.

American Spartacus Moment: Contempt of Congress

Congress is poised to hold Holder “in contempt of Congress”. Yet again, neither the Republicans or the Democrats, neither the executive or legislative branches, or the media have demonstrated any competence in handling or addressing this program and the proper determination of accountability and responsibility. Why should Congress bother to put their efforts into managing the investigation of this program in an intelligent, responsible and ethical manner when they could have used this opportunity to serve the interests of the American people?

I guess you can’t expect better of them. They are rewarded for acting irresponsibly. Congress wins their position by acting in self-serving and self-aggrandizing ways. Their respective parties only provide them with recompense if they tow the party line and do the party’s bidding.

So do I expect Congress to find Holder in contempt? Yes. Do I expect the consequences to be the same as it has been when previous Republican and Democratic public servants have been cited with the same contempt? Yes. Do I believe the public interest will have been served? No.

What I am waiting to see is whether there will be an “American Spartacus” movement.

What is an American Spartacus moment you may ask? It’s exactly what you should have reflected it to be. We should start seeing people standing up and declaring, shouting and demanding that “I am in contempt of Congress!” I am willing to be the first, because there is no doubt that I have contempt for Congress; and perhaps I am an American Spartacus.

Recovery: Sluggish, Steady, Studied, or Surprise!

A big, if not the biggest, political campaign issue for this election season will be the economy. Whether the issue is cast directly in terms of the US economy as an all encompassing concept or in other conceptual terms related to the economy – tax rates, unemployment, inflation, consumer confidence,  government spending, et cetera; it will be the central issue essential to determining the outcome of the election Thus the political parties, pundits and provocateurs will inundate the media, masses and muggles with innumerable claims and accusations based on nothing more than their belief and opinion that they know anything relevant to the issue when in actuality they possess no useful or substantive insight into anything germane to the causal factors that drive the US and the global economies.

The public will be desperately seeking to find some reason(s) to believe that any of the candidates: Presidential, Congressional, and state level, have an answer to their fears, needs and aspirations.  But of course this is not a reasonable expectation as the politician, parties and industries that make their living, careers and vast amounts of money by serving the interest of special-interest groups who may care of the economy but it is strictly their economy and not anyone else’s. Unfortunately for them, and more so for us, the US and global economies are not real world systems the politicians, their owners, their controllers, or their parties have the ability to control.

The US economy, like any other, operates under governing “laws of physics” that are not controlled by the wishes or desires of foolish people who think they can make the economy operate according to their dictates and rules. These bumfuzzled clowns persist in presenting to the American people the ‘promise’ that they will fix everything. They are persistent buffoons however, they continue to expel their simple-minded drivel and pledge to make all thing right; knowing that when it all doesn’t work out that they can blame the other side for having thwarted their valiant attempt to win through for the good of us all but alas they could not. But “think how much worse” it would have been “if I hadn’t been here to prevent disaster!”, or “if only I had been here to avert disaster!”.

The economy is recovering slowly. So this is a good sign or a bad sign, just spin it to meet your needs. Unemployment would be much higher/lower if our policies had been followed/not hindered by the other side. You’ve heard them, you’re going to hear them again and more. Previous recoveries have been stronger/weaker, shorter/longer, or broad/narrow; so American would be better/worse if we just do what I say.

Where are the questions that demand that the candidates provide answers that inform and demonstrate their understanding and competency to lead? Questions of this type aren’t asked, and if somehow someone comes close to a question of this type, they are never answered.

So before you pick the office holder of your choice, insure yourself that they have provided an answer to the question: What will you do for the country to make up for the consequences of your policies, if you are wrong?

Independents - The Deciding Deciderers

Whether the Republican flag-bearer or the Democratic placard-holder wins the 2012 Presidential election, it will all depend upon and rest in the hands of the Independent voters; and probably more so in the laps of women Independents. So from now until the election we will all be privileged with experiencing the sycophantic Republicans and toadying Democrats bombarding us with their fawning promises that they and only they can save us from the ravaging catastrophic policies of the other side and restore the America to it shining ubiquitous prosperity. In other words, the politicians will be continue to use the established technique of “promise them anything” and don’t worry that they have no plans, intentions or more pointedly ability to delivery on them. So the test to the Independent will be of their own ability to assess, judge and determine what policies they see as necessary steps to implement and for accomplishing the functions and roles that our government is able to provide.

The Independents will have to decide if ‘cutting’ is a solution or just another one of the simple-minded slogans that doesn’t explain, guide or guarantee anything in specifics or reality. Cutting costs is always a good objective whether for an individual, a family, a business, a community, a state or the federal government; but except in political campaigns just cutting is hard, has consequences (not always good one) and requires some degree of intelligence to accomplish a goal aligned with the cutting. This ‘cutting’ solution applies to taxes, government spending, size of government, and the economy both local and nationally.

The Independents will have to likewise decide if making the wealthy pay their ‘fair share’ or protecting the wealthy’s role (though spuriously questionably) as the essential job creaters in the economy is to be the guiding principle in vectoring the direction forward on taxes, tax rates and tax policies. Once again the Independents will have to separate the ‘fluff’, fuzzy-math, false claims and fallacious proposals that are touted as a choice between freedom versus servititude, jobs versus unemployment, security versus armaggedon, and prosperity versus destitution. Each parties’ candidates for the numerous offices will obviously be shouting why they, and only their vision, will deliver the former and the election of their opponents distorted and evil views will portent the latter. Not an easy task given the enormous financial sums that special interest groups will be plowing into the media blitzes that will inundate everyone with the tempting ‘candies’ and ‘gifts’ offered by these strangers accosting the unwary in public square. They will need to remember to adhere to their parents’ warning to “not take candy from strangers.”

The Independents will need to recognize the manipulative use of issues that are deemed important to the Independents but which are meant as lures to hook and ensnare these voters, rather than to inform the voters about policies or to establish a principle by which they will govern. I am sure that the Democratic and Republican bases have the same or similar issues, but there are already trapped in their partisan party alignment and unable to overcome the intellectual impedance required to chose outside their affiliation’s anointed one.

What will the Independents decide? That is the question that is plaguing the Republican and Democratic leaders, strategist and media consultants. We can only hope that the Independents will ignore the parties and focus on the issues and assess them with their own critical eye. That they will decide with a view to what the nation’s interests and how both their own and their countrymen/women will be best represented and lead.

When the “More Verbal” Sex Cannot Express Their Selves

What was the flash of illuminating brilliance? What salient and meaningful issue got surfaced by a Democratic consultant today? Well none actually! But a completely inept and addlepated issue has been thrust upon America’s political landscape because no one including evidently the spokeswoman herself may or may not have known what the significant issue should have been understood to be. Another missed opportunity to surface a real issue or several issues, all because even the more social and communicative sex is no better at comprehending the context of the situation than their bumbling and verbally challenged male counterparts.

What was the issue that surfaced? The ever significant question of ‘stay at home mom’ versus ‘super career working’ woman.  This debate issue always adds to the meaningful discussion of, well I am not actually sure what it really brings to the public discussion. It may be that women (much like men) like to view their own personal choices as the correct one and one to which they have every right to choose and will stand up and fight anyone who thinks otherwise, even when no one is or has prevented, impeded or challenged it. So let’s spend excessive hours of news cycle after news cycle, and public surveys and panel discussion on not only a completely bogus issue; but simultaneously avoiding an meaningful issue.

Forget the pretend and irrelevant issue about how necessary it is to make sure people understand that being a mother is hard work. If they don’t know that already then they are probably your political office holder or one of their savvy political advisors. The issue that Mrs. Rosen should have explained the listening audience and media representative were unable to ken is does the experience of Mrs. Romney raising her family under the daunting burden and oppressive weight of the meager financial resources that her husband was able to provide. I am sure that the vast majority of stay-at-home or working moms; married or single women with children; or women with Republican, Independent or Democratic orientations would believe that their concerns, issues and challenges were very comparable to Mrs. Romney’s. Further did the experience of raising their family under these awful circumstances not imprint an indelible appreciation of the struggles that most American mothers and fathers face on a daily basis?

Now there’s an issue! Do your political leaders really know or care about you?

Taxing the Intelligence of Politicians

Why is it that I don’t have high expectations for the “Romney Rule”, the “Buffett Rule” or any “Rule” that politicians are capable of formulating? Oh yes! It’s because politicians are only capable of thinking in a one track / rut of either cut taxes or raise taxes. If you think I meant that Republicans only think of one of these options and Democrats only the other then you are stuck in a parallel rut. The answer to taxes and fair tax treatment is not to be found in the minds or plans that our members of Congress, our President or President-in-hoping, the political parties, or well pretty much any group who harp about one point or another.

The tax issue is a challenging test for our politicians; they have an opportunity to make a difference, to create an approach and policy for taxation. Developing a solution to the tax issue would allow an intelligent politician to demonstrate his/her competence and appreciation of a crucial element of our governmental and democratic system. They could show the public how to make a far more sensible tax system than the one that has evolved, been distorted and corrupted by politicians and special-interests to the disadvantage of the general public, and that has not kept current with either the financial realities of our economic environment or with the changing impacts that the current policies have created to the detriment of the nation’s fiscal viability.

The “Romney Rule”, the “Buffett Rule”, the “Bush tax cuts”, and the plethora of quaint platitudes employed to support any given politician’s position do not demonstrate an understanding of the problem or the complexity of taxes and tax policies’ consequences within our economy and society. These catch-phrases and sound-bites demonstrate rather the true problem, burden and obstacle to Americans and their taxes. Politicians and their ilk continue to show that they do not understand, have a clue or even know enough to know they are the most significant factor that constitutes the tax problem. They may be the worst obstacle to addressing our tax problem, but they are only marginally running ahead of numerous groups who have their own ‘simple’ solutions. I will admit that their proposals are simple, but not that they are solutions.

Even though politicians can’t think of a rational tax system, they could present an alternate version of their own plan that keeps everything that they see as the solution but which adds a ‘consequences’ plan. If the results that they ‘promise’ will result from their plan don’t materialize then the ‘consequence’ portion of the plan kicks in. It’s sort of a “I didn’t know that was going to happen” safety valve.

I don’t expect politicians to do this of course. It has three problems: 1. They would have to think of a ‘consequence policy’, 2. They would have to adhere to the consequence and not ‘stand up’ and deliver, and 3. They would have to be much smarter than they are since it requires being able to understand concepts beyond ‘raise taxes’ (more) and ‘cut taxes’ (less). Consequences require you to be able to actually think.

What our Republican and Democratic leaders won’t do is find people who can lead them by the hand through the thorny issue and show them how to enter into a new tax system that benefits the whole spectrum of Americans.

Gauging America’s Scientific Mind – American Intelligence Test #14

Is America still the leader in scientific research? Questioning America’s dominance in the sciences would have been unthinkable not that long ago; but while Americans probably like to assume that we are still the world leaders in research and discovery, the question cannot and should not be casually dismissed today. This in itself is a serious indication that one of the most salient factors that has benefited America’s competitiveness and buttressed our society and economy is perhaps being indiscriminately frittered away. So whether the US is or is not the world-leader in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is not the direct subject of this test; but instead this test assesses the issue of who the suspects or even the responsible parties in our national decline. The term ‘science’ will be used in this test to refer to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics solely for brevity purposes.

If you’re not good at tests, don’t worry; if you fail this one it’s only because you have failed many and much more important ones already. If you’re older then you have failed your parents’ test, if you’re simply ‘mature’ then you have failed yourselves and everyone else, and if you’re younger then you are failing yourself but may have time to redeem yourselves. It’s a short test, only five questions, not much to fear.

OK, there is no reason to delay further; this is a discussion that the nation is long overdue in having. It’s test time.

Q-1: Is science a primary political issue in America’s elections?    Yes         No

Q-2: Does the Government have a principle roll in insuring the quality and competitiveness of America’s scientific standings?          Yes         No

Q-3: Are the members of Congress competent to establish national policies for science, intelligent enough to direct funding for scientific programs, and adequately suited for judging the value of the scientific worth and value derived from government funding?    Yes         No

Q-4: Which of the following are responsible for the decline in America’s scientific rankings among other nations?
A. Congress        B: Presidents     C: Media    D: Dept. of Education     E: Democrats     F: Teacher Unions G: Republicans   H: Public      I: Businesses   J: Religious orgs/groups   K: Courts    L: Lawyers

Q-5: From the list of choices given in Q-4 above, which of those entities would you trust to place your life and future, and the lives and futures of your families into based on their decisions and intelligence?

That’s it! And if you’re interested in how well you scored on the test; then the correct answers are:

Q-1 is No,  Q-2 is Yes,  Q-3 is No,   Q-4 is ‘all of them’ (you must have seen this coming), Q-5 is already answered, you have already relied upon these groups to get the nation to where it is; not only in science but also in its economic and societal conditions.

If you want confirmation of these answers, pay attention to the Presidential and other election campaigns that will illuminate the capabilities of our leaders, parties, and special-interests.

The solution is unfortunately only to be found through a scientific approach to dealing with our challenges, problems and needs. So unless you demand more of the people that you elect in these areas than you have in the past, they will continue to ‘believe’ that they are capable of handling America’s scientific paths, priorities, and purposes.

Prior tests can be found at now4yourconsideration sourced at blogspot.com.

Ryan's Second Budget Swing - Strike Two

Mr. Ryan is trying something that is generaly a compulsive response given his conservative economic views. There is much to be admired by a politician who actually tries to formulate a policy, like his budget proposal, consistent with his beliefs. But the admiration must be diluted since he is creating his budget based on beliefs of how he wants things to work, rather than based on knowledge or informed principles that would directly address the issue and problems that the country is facing. For example, his proposal to cut spending on Medicare is a common simple-minded solution to a long-standing problem that less inspired politicians have been equally able to propose in the past.

But why go with such a simple solution: cut funding so that you will spend less? Isn't this the type of solution that we would expect from those who understand rules like - do the opposite and the opposite will happen. Where is the inspired, innovative ideal(s) that lead to a solution that lessens the costs, improves the benefits, and demonstrates that America's problems can be solved by applying intelligence, insight and informed decision making to such issues.

Now Ryan appears to be intent upon helping America; so if he can't see beyond the trival any more than all the other political hacks, Republican or Democrat, Ryan should seek counsel from people who can explain how to solve the Medicare problem thorugh a forward-looking, reasoned approach. It may be a problem that has been around for a long time, and Congresses past and present may have consistently failed to come even marginally close to seeing an easy solution, but that they failed in no way indicates that it is hard to solve or that there is no solution. It shows only that our politicians are particularly bad at comprehending the problem or the solution.

Give it another try, it is not a difficult problem to solve; and best of all you won't have to cut the program to ill-effect, it will reduce it's own budget by delivering more for less. That should be a sufficient hint, I think.

You Could Be A Religious, A Political, or A Women’s Health Leader; or You Could Be Smart

The Senate voted today on an amendment to the transportation funding bill to allow employers with a religious or moral objection to a health care procedure the right to be exempted from having to provide that coverage (that is, pay for a health care program providing that benefit). Certainly a transportation funding bill is the appropriate place for such a legislative initiative, but obviously health care is provided via a form of transportation. But that his not the actual problem in which the current political, religious, social and health care debate is mired. The real problem is that the individuals who have attained their respective (or jointly held) positions of authority as religious leaders, elected political office holders, or experts on health care or social values are all obviously unqualified for those positions.

In the case of the religious advocates who are ranting about the threat to their religious freedoms, they appear to be stuck on their view that the rights and values of anyone who works for them fall under their moral judgment. Christian leaders are very clear on their objection to particular health care practices, and that they should not be required to pay for something they are absolutely against. But they are extending their right to choose their own health care needs from being required to provide their employees with the exact same right. Not one religious person is required  to pay for any procedure or treatment that they do not specifically want of their own accord. So where is the infringement on their rights? Besides their Christian teachings  instruct them to not place their judgment on another’s right of conscience.

Political leaders are on one side or the other of this debate, but their failing is not purely along a religious, moral or societal line. After who considers politicians as religious, moral or possessing a societal value? But none the less, they advocate for one constituency or another who are interested in imposing their views upon everyone else. Not one politician on either side of this issue has pointed out the failure of their peers to see a legislative solution to the debate that would satisfy both the religious freedom and the individual rights problems that the less informed have latched onto as a point of contention. It is quite easy to protect religious freedoms, insure individual rights to health care, and keep the government from creating another divisive policy and increase the efforts of the political parties from doing more damage to American values.

The health care experts, providers and insurance industry has also failed to show the religious communities or the political groups the errors of their ways. They have either joined one side of the debate or the other, or have stayed out of the debate all together. This failing must be because they haven’t been able to figure out that they can offer a solution to the issue that religious groups should already have recognized, that politicians should have proposed and legislated , or that any semi-intelligent individual could figure out.

The problem with this issue is that religious, political and health care experts have found an effective way to keep any smart people from showing them a simple solutions.

I Can’t See! I Can’t See! - Your Eyes Are Closed.

OK, the Republicans screwed up, again! But isn't the point that should be really important on this issue be that not one Republican has been able to put forth a solution that resolves this issue to the satisfaction of both sides. Nor by the way has one Democrat put forth a solution that will resolve the issue and not deny someone's freedoms are trampled upon. So the political leaders of our nation and our political parties with all their political advisors and lobbyists are so befuddled by this issue that they haven't been able to think the three minutes it takes to make the issue and the debate go away.

 And we can't blame that it's an election year for this abysmal failure of intellect or disgusting display of ineptitude. Our elected leaders are the bumbling, self-centered, pandering incompetents that are required to create this asinine situation.

 The experts on religious liberty were of no use in this endeavor either. No guidance from above evidently on how to settle this issue so that their religious freedoms are not compromised and the rights of those who wish to live their lives according to own pursuit of happiness. It's not that there isn't a solution to this conundrum, because there is. Are these experts so knowledgeable that they can't see past their own noses?

 Surely the advocacy groups, on either side, have smart people that can step up and present the solution.

 Hello! I am waiting. Is any one there?

 And that my fellow American's is our problem. We don't demand that our officials, their friends, their advisors, or anyone step up and address the problem, and present a reasonable, thoughtful and insightful solution. In this case, you don't get what you pay for. You get what lets our politicians distract and divide the attention of the media and public. You get what you deserve.

 If you don't want this stupidity any more, then you have to actually do something about it.

 If you don't know the answer to the problem, you might consider starting by asking if someone has a proposal that both sides can accept (a solution this the public recognizes as fair and balanced. That the politicos will have to accept because they can't reasonably or rationally oppose it).

When Christians and WWJD Conflict

Catholic Bishops have decreed that they do not accept the Obama Administration’s accommodation on the employee health care issue. The bishops have “serious moral concerns”. One casually wonders if moral concerns should ever be anything except serious especially for bishops, but this is only a passing thought. Of more substantial concern is whether the bishops and other Christian groups are following a religious or faith-based path, or a political power-based path. If through some extraordinary confluence of events and personalities the bishops and others have for the first time in the entire history of their religion floundered into an error in judgment or morality, we should all be charitable and forgiving since they have never before been on the wrong side of a moral, ethical or Christian issue.

The bishops’ moral issue is fundamentally that they should not be compelled to pay for an action that they sincerely believe is contrary to their beliefs and violates their principles. And if they were being forced to personally act against their own conscience then I would wholeheartedly support their position both as a Christian, as an American, and as a thinking human being. But here is where the issue divides not just those who see a political issue that they hope to leverage to advance their careers, position and power, but it is an issue that separates Christians from Christians. No bishop or Christian is being asked to engage in any action that is a violation of their faith. They are in fact being asked to adhere to and follow the one of the core principles of their faith(s), do good unto others.

Because this is an issue that quickly evokes emotional responses and programmatic responses, it does not lend itself to efforts to critically contemplate and analyze either the facts or the moral issue that should be the question and not the one that is grabs everyone’s attention but is as deceptive as the devil’s promise.

I am sure that many of the people on both sides of this issue will recognize the ‘WWJD’ acronym (or some equivalent variant applicable to other religious groups). In the context of this issue the WWJD question offers an interesting perspective that I am sure will not result in a singular and definitive answer acceptable to all combatants in the debate. But that fact is more telling and more relevant to the issue than the issue itself. Think of it. Members of the same faith group, even Catholics, do not see the issue or the answer in the same way. They do not reach the same answer to the WWJD question, even though they are all working from the same playbook. So is the admonition that Mark provides one of the teachings that we are not attending to, that a house divided cannot stand. Perhaps one of the reasons this issue is so divisive is that it pits one individual right against the individual right of another. Of course it should be a necessary condition that both rights are actually in contention. When this condition is not met, it seems irresponsible and immoral to threaten the rights of one group when another’s are not under attack.

WWJD then? I believe he would instruct the faithful to attend to their rights, but to honor and recognize the legitimacy of the rights of others. If you are to be the first to cast a stone, be without sin. The reaction of hatred and anger is not in that message. The judgment that you should feel anointed to determine the righteousness of another’s choices is not your to perform.

If the Catholic Church or any denomination doesn’t wish to offer health care benefits then don’t, if you believe they are not already a moral obligation. But if you think the church or any member of the church has the right to decide what another’s health care needs are, no that is not a moral obligation. In fact, it is a contradiction of our moral teachings, value and beliefs. WWJD? He would tell the church to treat every member and every employee with the respect, dignity, and compassion that he has shown us is the way. If you don’t want to serve the needs of your employees then offer them nothing. If you want to do what is right either offer them health benefits uncontaminated with a presumptive judgment of what is their personal and individual right. If you can’t provide that plan directly, then provide employees with appropriate compensation so they can rightfully and morally search out what their heart tells them is proper and that their society guarantees them is theirs and theirs alone, to live their lives with freedom, liberties and faith unabridged by the judgment of others.

Political Physics: Force = Madness X Absurdity

The religious hard-liners have foisted another misguided political decision into America’s national health care policy. Their right to free-speech allows them to present their opinion, their right to petition the government is in full force unabated and unthreatened by any attempted action of the government, and their right to exercise their religious beliefs are not only unchallenged but as fully protected as ever. So in this religiously dangerous political environment, a large portion of Christian religious groups and organizations are up in arms about the governments assault on their beliefs. Their claim: that the Obama administration is trying to force them to go against their beliefs.

At the center of this perceived attack on personal conscience is the forced obligation to provide employees with access to birth-control under their health care insurance. But as a Christian I am disturbed by the same level of disregard that these faith-based groups and organizations are remonstrating about regarding their responsibility to treating their fellow men and women with respect, compassion and charity. I am troubled that in defense of their freedoms, which aren’t being abridged or threatened that they are causally tossing aside the rights and freedoms of others. This is not only an unchristian act, but also a debasement of our American freedoms, principles and values.

If I understand their line of argument, they contend that they are being forced to pay for health care and medical procedures that they are opposed to on the basis of their religious beliefs. This does sound like a totally improper and immoral invasion upon their faith. But claiming it; doesn’t make it true, or valid, or appropriately judged. The physics of their position depends upon the axioms that that claims are dependent upon.

Are they being forced to pay for a health care benefit that they do not accept as a morally correct act? Are they being forced to violate their right of conscience in any action? Does their religious belief require or direct them to oppose and resist the government imposed obligation regarding health care? If the axioms of their position are neither self-evident nor necessarily consistent with their beliefs then the derivative conclusion of their faith-based actions are invalidated.

The first axiom of being forced to pay for benefits they see as immoral. The religious groups are not being asked to pay for particular procedures. They are paying for health care benefits for their employees. Certainly it is axiomatically true that health care as a righteous act by an employer and socially expected by Americans in general. There is nothing immoral about providing for others’ health care, an imposed obligation to do so doesn’t violate Christian principles which should never require the compulsion to begin with. Further, the faith-based entities’ efforts to extend their judgment of their right of individual conscience to be applied to the individual health care needs of another person and onto that other person’s own individual right of conscience is wholly without merit and without consistency of freedom of religion precepts. In America, your religious beliefs provide a range of authority and responsibility for yourself, and go no further than the choices you are responsible for making; another’s health care needs and decisions are not inside that sphere.

The contention that they are forced to act against their beliefs is axiomatically invalidated in that they are not required to engage in any action that their faith prohibits them from personally doing. They don’t have to use any birth-control methodology that they don’t approve of. No one cares if they do or if they do not use or engage in such activities. They are also not forced to pay for specific procedures of a health care insurance program unless they are self-insured in this area. And in that case if they object to providing an option directly because of their objection then they only need to provide an appropriate form of compensation in lieu of the coverage that their employee has a legal right to obtain.

For some religious groups they contend that they are forced to oppose the government’s requirement that they provide health care coverage that acknowledges the rights of the covered to their own beliefs and conscience. They don’t phrase it that way of course, but they position their resistance in terms of their faith-based moral imperative. They have a legal right to voice their objection but then no more or less so than those who support the position that even religious-based organizations are responsible to provide health care programs that provide the beneficiaries with legally sanctioned treatments. I also admit that their views may be consistent with their understanding of the bible or other teachings of their faith; but I find the bible provides equally valid teachings that would instruct the faithful to follow their own faith but to not judge the faith of others, and to respect the rules of the society that protects their right to practice their faith.

So the physics of Christian groups does not constitute a valid equation of faith. It doesn’t provide a moral answer to the problem at hand. The force they are complaining about is one of their own creation. They are choosing to see their beliefs as preeminent to others, to society and to the laws that have protected the freedom of religion successfully for generations. The moral teachings and examples being set by these religious groups are not consistent with the a faith of charity toward others, a faith of loving thy fellow man/woman, or a faith of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Politics, Religion and Health Care: Let’s Count The Intelligent People

The contraceptive coverage for health insurance mandate the Health and Human Services department of the Obama Administration, has raised the hackles of numerous groups. Not surprisingly the politicians and many religious groups have seized upon this decision to sound the alarm about this being a direct and deliberate attach on religion and religious groups in America. Evoking the “attacking religion” card makes for good political theater, provides a sure-fire fund raising issue, and manages to avoid the real issue itself. It’s not often that politicians and their parties can engage with a topic that is so exemplary of a complete and absolute misunderstanding of our Constitutional freedoms.

The requirement for faith-based organizations and businesses to provide a health insurance plan that includes coverage of contraceptives and birth-control is a three or more party issue, and not a government versus religion two-party issue. The mischaracterization of this issue as between the government and religion ignores the more salient and precise legal, ethical and democratic principles that our Constitution would direct us to attend to. So let us count the people so are turning their blind mind’s eye to the political equivalent of entertainment television.

Politicians, the keepers of America’s moral compass, are rapidly seeking their way to the low points usually sought out by their fluid ethical principles. Just like rain on a road, the politicians are running to the left or right gutter carrying with them the pollution and waste littering society. The politicians are either insisting that requiring a religious-sponsored or founded business or organization to provide health insurance coverage that includes contraceptive treatment is a violation of a persons’ right to freely practice their religion, or that the government must protect women’s rights to choose. None of the politicians have seen the Constitutional light, the flame of freedom embodied in our highest laws. So our politicians get a thumbs down. They fail again. The politicians demonstrate yet again they don’t have the wisdom to fathom the basic intentions of the Founding Fathers to protect our individual freedoms.

Religions, the pillars of our society, are letting us all down by actively inserting the primacy of their judgment on acceptable public policy and our legal principles. The proud pharisees of the religious communities are presenting their views and beliefs as above the highest laws of the land, including the one that protects their right to hold and practice their particular faith. Their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs apparently includes their right to dictate what they allow another person’s freedoms and right to entail. If they follow their faith in serving the social good, they also get to restrict what anyone working with them is permitted to think, do or believe. Nope, religious groups are allowed to limit what their members are to believe and even do; but they cannot impose that judgment onto the rights of another, particularly outside the practice of their religion. Your freedom does not diminish mine, and for many of the Christian faiths I know that is a tenet of their faith.

Religious organizations beyond the direct practice of their faith such as charities, hospitals, schools and such are allowed to offer services to the public and demonstrate the values and morality of their beliefs through their good works. However, they cannot claim a level of authority over or jurisdiction over the rights or actions of their employees outside the work environment. Health insurance and coverage for the employees of such organizations is a benefit of the individual, of the person who that insurance protects and provides for. It is not the domain or realm of the religious organization or business that provides it to their employees. Since it doesn’t belong to them, and they are not responsible for health care treatments that the individual determines is in their own best interest; the faith-based organizations or businesses do not have the right to express their religion at the expense of an independent, free and private individual.

The media is quickly dispensed with. They only contribute to the noise, the misunderstanding, and the misdirection. If they can’t provide a sound analysis of the issue then we must dismiss their efforts to stoke the fires just to see the moths get attracted to the flames.

The answer is to address the issue. Does the government have the right to require that employees have a right of access to contraceptive coverage under their employer provided health care, it they desire it? Do not jump to the ‘freedom of religious expression’ question. Should an individual have the right to choose health care coverage that conforms to their views? If you think they do not, then be careful of going down the religious freedom argument road. The answer has to relate to the employee’s right, there is no religious question, issue or conflict here. If you think employees have no right to choose the nature of their coverage then religious freedom doesn’t come into play. So take the argument away and stop bothering people, focus on your real point. Employees don’t have these rights period.

If you think employees have the right to choose their coverage, but that it cannot abridge the rights of other persons’ religious beliefs then the problem is not with the law or the government’s rule. If your religious organization or business does not want to provide contraceptive coverage then don’t. You don’t have to pay for this type of coverage. All you need to do is give the employee a voucher to purchase a health care insurance coverage that they want on the open market. This approach does not require the religious entity from funding any activity of which they do not approve.

Keep the government out of your faith, and keep your faith out of someone else’s as the Constitution and the Bible teach us.

Conscience and Health Care the Conundrum of Rights

Health and Human Services (HHS) has sparked another health care crisis on the political front this week. HHS has enraged religious organizations by mandating that many faith-based charities, organizations and businesses provide health care plans that include birth control coverage. Religious groups have responded with a condemnation of the policy as an overt intrusion into and violation of their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religious beliefs. The Catholic Church is one example of the religious community coming out in protest of the government forcing them to compromise their faith.

But wait! Why does the HHS mandate create this untenable choice for these groups in terms of their faith? The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that the HHS ruling interferes with members’ rights of conscience. The bishops and other Catholic leaders contend that the government is forcing people of faith to choose between following their beliefs and following the law. Having heard the call to respond to the Administrations action in church this morning, I find a dissonance between the admonitions from the Church on this issue and the teachings of faith I have received from it.

The Church is insisting that providing medical coverage that belongs to the individual covered, a compassionate and charitable gift provided in accordance with basic principles of the Church, is a violation of the individual’s right of conscience. But the Church is imparting its standard on the individual, its conclusion of that individual’s conscience, and its judgment of what that individual’s free exercise of religion is permitted to be. They certainly have the right to try and impose their moral authority on others, but they don’t have the right to or means of defining anyone else moral values, principles or personal conscience. This after all that was the first and primary gift from God that was given to you, your own soul with its own responsibility for moral decisions.

So I ask you, how is the Church forced to make a decision against its conscience? Are the bishops being asked to decide to choose whether to use birth control methods? Are the priests being asked to purchase condoms for others? Is Catholic Charities being required to determine if a woman needs an abortion? What is the Church being asked to do here that violates their moral choice? I don’t see how they are being asked to choose to make any other moral decision here than to provide people who work for them, Catholic or not, any more than any American would expect their employer to provide to a worker. Are their employees not worthy of health care; to choose the medical care of their conscience; to following the teaching of their faith; to promote the values and morals that they see as required to meet their views on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The Church doesn’t have to offer a medical coverage, self insured coverage, if they feel it compromises their conscience. They can provide employees with the option to choose coverage they provide or pay them a fair amount to purchase insurance coverage that suits the individual’s own conscience.

I wonder why the Church has only found the logic and reasoning that imposes a moral judgment on others that is not required by their faith. The Bible provides ample teachings on such issues that would be at odds with the Church’s current stance. American Catholics should be asking their own conscience what are they required to do in following their personal consciences. Is it really a Catholic moral value to impose our moral judgment on another? Is it really Christian to restrict charitable acts to those who only adhere to your views or your faith?

There are many solutions to this discord. The Bible teaches us this. I don’t believe Jesus would cast this stone.