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.