So what was the survey, you ask? Democracy Corp ran a survey asking Americans how they felt about American leadership with regard to National Security and world respect for the identity of the United States of America. What they found is that the majority of Americans feel that the world sees us worse today as compared to two years ago and that Republicans are awarded higher credit for National Security than both Obama and Democrats in Congress.
The devil is in the details. 51% of Americans surveyed said that “American standing” has dropped during the first 13 months of President Obama's administration. That is compared to 41% of Americans who say the opposite.
So who is Democracy Corps and are they promoting a particular political agenda? Wait for it.
According to the Washington Times reporting on the survey results, 50% of likely voters feel that Republicans would likely do a better job of providing National Security. Only 33% favored Democrats in the pole.
Nearly one year ago (May of 2009) just after the Presidential transition, the same poll showed that the American people felt Democrats were equally as capable as Republicans with regard to national defense. When asking questions like “Keeping American Safe” or “Ensuring a strong military” or “Making America Safer from nuclear threats” Democrats now trail Republicans at 13%, 31% and 11% respectively.
So now, you are thinking that numbers can be made to look favorable to whomever is pimping them, right? I would agree with you. What is interesting is that Democracy Corps was founded in 1999 as the result of a few people feeling outraged at the political partisanship of Congress when they impeached President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 2000, Democracy Corp rallied the proverbial troops of voters when their preferred candidate, Al Gore, didn't get elected the next President of the United States. Said another way, this group isn't about to win any political conservatism awards.
And now they are reporting that America is disappointed in the Presidency of Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats. Why would that be? Well, it appears that today, the Democracy Corps is dedicated to what they would call “making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people.” They clearly take issue with the fact that the government doesn't appear to be listening to the people.
All of the poll on health care demonstrate the same exact outcome. The trend as it were, exclaims loudly that the American public don't feel the current administration nor Congress is listening, and they are being vocal.
There is plenty of advice the group gives to Democrats in Congress and the White House. They label that advise “Analysis.” But regardless of their politically aligned advice, the bottom line is: American's feel that we are less safe and the world has a lower opinion of America now than it did the day this administration took over Washington, DC.
Feel free to read more straight from the horses mouth:
http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2010/03/the-politics-of-national-security-a-wake-up-call/?section=Analysis
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Monday, March 8, 2010
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Many Faces Of Health Care Reform
I can't keep up these days... and I am really trying. But the winds at the White House are changing so fast. or maybe they are not and it is just a tactic, I don't know. I hate to think the worst but when something totally stumps you, you have to look at the possible alternatives.
The big debate right now on Health Care Reform is "the public option" meaning government would provide a competitive alternative to current insurance plans. Many people fear that because the government will play the role of both "health care insurance company" as well as "health care insurance rules judge" that they will always beat out any competition. This will result in the government taking over health care both in terms of (1) health insurance and (2) health insurance regulation, but also in providing health care (because of new regulations on Doctors and the fact that they would then be paid by the government.)
The other side of the debate has everything to do with providing health care for uninsured people. Forget the fact that not everyone wants to buy insurance and that senior citizens would be forced into the government program (if they don't spend their money on a government-approved alternative.) The fact is that the other side of the debate is concerned with providing health care insurance to the currently uninsured. Whether they understand how this gets paid for or if millions of Americans flooding into that new solution creates health care rationing, just about anyone agrees with the altruistic goal of helping people. That isn't the debate. The problem is in the "how."
So, this blog post is not about the details of the plan. This post is about the mixed messages coming from the bills largest proponent, the President.
Over the weekend the Washington Times (and a number of other news groups) wrote that the White House communicated President Obama was not married to passing a Health Care Reform bill that contained a "public option." Since that time other Democrats went on the record saying that the Public Option didn't have enough Democrat support in the Congress to pass the reform bill and that we should move on to focus on "reform" and stop flogging that dead horse. The White House even did a little more face-saving by saying, ...We have been saying this for about two months now. Now, I thought I was paying attention and I don't recall them ever saying they were fine with supporting a bill that didn't include the "public option."
Next in the time line comes a letter from the Congressional Democrats sent to Obama asking, "What the? No Public Option?" This only just happened and was likely the result of so many Democrats hitting the road to pimp Health Care Reform including the public option and taking a beating in public forums.
Now, in today's Washington Times President Obama is said to be back in vocal support of the Public Option. The source: his letter back to Congressional Democrats. Obama basically writes back and says, wait a sec... I still want a public option and nothing has changed.
So how do we take this? Here are my alternative explanations for this kind of double-talk:
Semantical Accuracy: If you look at both sides of what President Obama is saying at the same time, then he is communicating... I want the public option just like you, Liberals, but I am not married to it and would sign health care reform bill into law without it, like you, Conservatives.
Liberal Bias: If you look at this as a liberal, then you think that the President saying he is fine without it but really wants it simply means that he wants people to cool their jets in opposition to it, while he gives a wink to the liberal folks and says, ...hey, keep pushing for it because we really still want it. At the same time liberal folks who have stuck their necks out and said stuff like health reform without a Public Option is a waste of time (Nanci Pelosi) are worried that Obama might be simply pandering to them if he is really willing to sign a Health Care Reform bill into law without it.
Conservative Bias: If you have your conservative hat on then while you thought that the President's wavering commitment to the Public Option felt like a move in the right direction, now you simply wonder if he was pandering to conservatives while still sending support to the senators who are hitting the road pimping the Public Option. The conservative mind feels worried that the President is pandering at best and lying at the worst if he isn't really willing to sign a bill into law without the Public Option.
At this point the double-talk only serves up one outcome for those who are paying attension: a loss of trust for somebody. If you are a liberal and you want him to simply be pandering to the conservatives but in the end he signs a bill into law that doesn't include the public option, well, then you lose trust. If you are conservative and he refuses to sign a bill without the public option, then he is a liar to you, and you lose trust. Someone loses trust as a result of this experiment in words.
There is one other reaction at this point that I can think of and it goes like this...
Fan-boy: The substance of the President's words matter less that your ability to spin them into unwavering support. One week ago you were championing along with the President for Health Care Reform that included the Public Option and this week (for at least a moment) you were celebrating the seemingly bi-partisan move to not be married to a bill that must contain the Public Option.
The problem with fan-boy is that the only guiding value in that scenario is unwavering support for the icon that is the President. If you were a proponent of the Public Option and looked at the details then you would likely have a very difficult time cooling your jets and suddenly be fine with not including it. If you opposed the bill then you understood the ideological, social and financial difference that the Public Option made and were not about to simply start endorsing it. If none of that mattered to you, then I have a difficult time imagining that you were paying attention, because one way or the other a decision in this category would end up shaping the lives of Americans. So the details matter.
The big debate right now on Health Care Reform is "the public option" meaning government would provide a competitive alternative to current insurance plans. Many people fear that because the government will play the role of both "health care insurance company" as well as "health care insurance rules judge" that they will always beat out any competition. This will result in the government taking over health care both in terms of (1) health insurance and (2) health insurance regulation, but also in providing health care (because of new regulations on Doctors and the fact that they would then be paid by the government.)
The other side of the debate has everything to do with providing health care for uninsured people. Forget the fact that not everyone wants to buy insurance and that senior citizens would be forced into the government program (if they don't spend their money on a government-approved alternative.) The fact is that the other side of the debate is concerned with providing health care insurance to the currently uninsured. Whether they understand how this gets paid for or if millions of Americans flooding into that new solution creates health care rationing, just about anyone agrees with the altruistic goal of helping people. That isn't the debate. The problem is in the "how."
So, this blog post is not about the details of the plan. This post is about the mixed messages coming from the bills largest proponent, the President.
Over the weekend the Washington Times (and a number of other news groups) wrote that the White House communicated President Obama was not married to passing a Health Care Reform bill that contained a "public option." Since that time other Democrats went on the record saying that the Public Option didn't have enough Democrat support in the Congress to pass the reform bill and that we should move on to focus on "reform" and stop flogging that dead horse. The White House even did a little more face-saving by saying, ...We have been saying this for about two months now. Now, I thought I was paying attention and I don't recall them ever saying they were fine with supporting a bill that didn't include the "public option."
Next in the time line comes a letter from the Congressional Democrats sent to Obama asking, "What the? No Public Option?" This only just happened and was likely the result of so many Democrats hitting the road to pimp Health Care Reform including the public option and taking a beating in public forums.
Now, in today's Washington Times President Obama is said to be back in vocal support of the Public Option. The source: his letter back to Congressional Democrats. Obama basically writes back and says, wait a sec... I still want a public option and nothing has changed.
So how do we take this? Here are my alternative explanations for this kind of double-talk:
Semantical Accuracy: If you look at both sides of what President Obama is saying at the same time, then he is communicating... I want the public option just like you, Liberals, but I am not married to it and would sign health care reform bill into law without it, like you, Conservatives.
Liberal Bias: If you look at this as a liberal, then you think that the President saying he is fine without it but really wants it simply means that he wants people to cool their jets in opposition to it, while he gives a wink to the liberal folks and says, ...hey, keep pushing for it because we really still want it. At the same time liberal folks who have stuck their necks out and said stuff like health reform without a Public Option is a waste of time (Nanci Pelosi) are worried that Obama might be simply pandering to them if he is really willing to sign a Health Care Reform bill into law without it.
Conservative Bias: If you have your conservative hat on then while you thought that the President's wavering commitment to the Public Option felt like a move in the right direction, now you simply wonder if he was pandering to conservatives while still sending support to the senators who are hitting the road pimping the Public Option. The conservative mind feels worried that the President is pandering at best and lying at the worst if he isn't really willing to sign a bill into law without the Public Option.
At this point the double-talk only serves up one outcome for those who are paying attension: a loss of trust for somebody. If you are a liberal and you want him to simply be pandering to the conservatives but in the end he signs a bill into law that doesn't include the public option, well, then you lose trust. If you are conservative and he refuses to sign a bill without the public option, then he is a liar to you, and you lose trust. Someone loses trust as a result of this experiment in words.
There is one other reaction at this point that I can think of and it goes like this...
Fan-boy: The substance of the President's words matter less that your ability to spin them into unwavering support. One week ago you were championing along with the President for Health Care Reform that included the Public Option and this week (for at least a moment) you were celebrating the seemingly bi-partisan move to not be married to a bill that must contain the Public Option.
The problem with fan-boy is that the only guiding value in that scenario is unwavering support for the icon that is the President. If you were a proponent of the Public Option and looked at the details then you would likely have a very difficult time cooling your jets and suddenly be fine with not including it. If you opposed the bill then you understood the ideological, social and financial difference that the Public Option made and were not about to simply start endorsing it. If none of that mattered to you, then I have a difficult time imagining that you were paying attention, because one way or the other a decision in this category would end up shaping the lives of Americans. So the details matter.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The Purpose for H.R. 3200 is Not Misdirected, sort-of
H.R. 3200 is such a hot debate, but what is interesting (at least in the D.C. area) would be that people are willing to talk about it. Only one month ago in my office people would be quick to make small talk about T.V. shows or movies or ideas for new T.V. shows or movies, but just this week things have changed. I have noticed that there are quite a few people who will just bring up a news tidbit about what is going on in Health Insurance Reform (that would be the “street name” for H.R. 3200) and ask each other questions or share what they have read about it.
This week in the news the Congressional Business Office decided to release a preliminary review of the cost estimates for the bill if it were set into motion. While I would love to discuss the social ramifications of H.R. 3200 on the average American, I will decline to do that right now. If you want to know how the bill would affect you where you live, then go read the 1,036 page bill at...
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
At the moment there is only one part of the bill I believe is worth reviewing for the sake of this blog: the charter statement at the beginning. It goes like this...
To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce
the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.
As a goal I think that people aren't going to say such a statement in a vacuum is a bad thing. I want people to experience affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduced growth in health care spending. The last phrase bothers me a little, however. The phrase “and for other purposes” is a catch-all phrase which supports two relatively common abuses of extravagance in government: it allows for the funding and addition of special pork-barrel projects within the documentation and it hides the fact that the bill actually does much more in the last phrase than it does in the first two phrases. Allow me to demonstrate.
Nothing in life is free. We all know that. When the government spends money, it is always our money. If you are willing to say something like, “Well I make so little money I don't pay taxes, so it isn't my money,” then you are missing the point. It is someone's money and you are disrespecting that reality.
The first phrase in this declaration of purpose is “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans.” Well, let's quickly test the phrase affordable. At this point the CBO says that the government program will add $239 billion to the federal budget deficit over the next 10 years. beyond the first ten they are specifically not willing to estimate but have said that if there is any saving in the second ten years into the program, it is so small that it wouldn't be considered any economic advantage. And this is just the beginning of the estimates. This is if nothing changes in that healthcare program from day 1 to 20 years into it. It also does not include the cost of the Government administrating the plan. Again, if you are imagining health care cost savings, then you have to imagine revenue and there isn't enough of it built into the program. This means that while they are proposing paying for this by raising taxes (again there is the real cost bearing it's weight on Americans), after 10 years of deficit spending we would realize a real net deficit of around $65 billion added onto the national debt. Affordable as a term quickly becomes a meaningless selling point if there really is no savings.
Next let's look at the word “quality.” This last week I drove to work a couple of day. Typically I take the metro, but I was running late and driving gets me there quicker even if parking is a horrible problem (let's just say that I recently invested $40 to the City of Alexandria because a meeting ran long and I couldn't get outside to move my car fast enough.) On the drive home the classical music station I sometimes listen to was reporting news about the causes for the rising cost of health care. The top two items on their list: government regulations (for good or for bad, a necessary evil or a federal fundraiser, they are whatever they are, let's not debate that now) and the demand for improvements. You see, as people get smarter we create smarter ways of doing things. And some of those smarter things mean new cutting edge technology or retraining doctors. All of this adds cost.
A number of years ago I worked for an electronics manufacturing company that built everything from cell phones to medical devices. My job was to be sure that the statistical data that was generated as a result of testing the quality of devices being produced was accurate and easily reported in near-real-time for our clients. While the nature of testing electronics is mostly the same regardless of the product being produced, the regulations around electronics varies quite a bit. Take for example a cell phone versus a heart monitor. Nearly everyone has read that little sticker on devices that claim it was tested to not create radio interference. Now imagine the quality demanded out of medical devices! This is no cheap venture.
So how is the government going to increase the quality of care? Well, first they tell you in the bill that a committee will be the one to define that. You can begin to imagine a conflict of interest by it's nature on this one. If a car company were to claim “we make the safest cars” and then you found out that they are the group who gets to define what “safe” means, this word “safe” would become (again) a meaningless selling point.
Now let's look at the phrase “for all Americans.” At this point if you are like me then you've been hearing the number 40 million a lot lately. Congress tells us that this is a number of Americans who don't have health insurance. Then you find out where that number comes from. 40 million is the number of any American who was without health insurance at some point during the last year. This is a very flexible number, in other words. In an alternate universe called “reality” something like 8 million are currently without health insurance rather than this very unspecific and knowingly inaccurate 40 million (which implies we currently have 400 million Americans walking around right now without insurance of any kind.) When all of the more realistic math is cut and calculated the number of uninsured comes down to about 2% of the U.S. population. What does that mean then? Well, it should mean that with such a huge program generating such an amazing deficit we really ought to be able to help out those 2% of U.S. citizens right? Well, sadly this is not true either. The fact is that there are Americans who aren't poor enough to qualify for certain benefits outlined in H.R. 3200 while at the same time don't make enough money to purchase private health insurance. H.R. 3200 doesn't bring a remedy to these people either. So the phrase “for all Americans” is also meaningless since the plan actually doesn't serve all Americans.
Finally, let's look at the phrase “reduce the growth in health care spending.” How will they do this? Can Congress put a “cap” on health care spending? Will they “cap and trade” our benefits and we pay a penalty if we use too many? Are they going to control the salaries of doctors or overrule medical law suites to contain costs? Will they approve less medical procedures, reducing demand hence reducing costs? Are they going to hand out coupons for “half off an appendectomy?” The fact is that we don't know and they don't know. In only a few industries has the government jumped in and controlled a pricing structure. More importantly, if the government does force prices down, then those services will get cut in another way to offset the artificially low cost. That is the nature of economics. In fact I believe this item in the list is nearly meaningless simply because it completes with the other items in the list. Now, from time to time an industry will innovate and create ways of reducing product or service costs. That innovation sometimes means more revenue and it sometimes means more people are able to more cheaply gain access to those products or services. That is a result of traditional Capitalism. But at the same time the government of the U.S. to-date has NEVER INNOVATED IN A MANNER SO AS TO CONTAIN COSTS. Zero times, people. If the U.S. Government wants more, then they KNOW they have to spend more. They don't have the “technology” to pull off this goals and history proves that I am correct on this point (though, please prove me wrong if you can come up with stories that validate how the U.S. Government innovated and generated lower costs that resulted in more people gaining cheaper but better benefits.)
Base on these issues alone I don't see how this plan will be able to achieve it's own dream. It is dead on arrival. In the spirit of fixing Wall Street and using their lingo, this entrepreneurial effort is a poor investment because it will not meet it's own goals set forth by it's charter. If Congress where a health care company, and H.R. 3200 was it's business plan, I would deny it's request for start-up-capital investments.
To end, I want to share a small insight I gained from having swapped a couple emails with the U.S. Senator representing northern Virginia. This last week I wrote the man a letter and he wrote me back. There is nothing he said in that letter which shed any new light on either H.R. 3200 or that gave me confidence that he even understood H.R. 3200. In fact the content of his letter defied the information coming out of the CBO. This is no surprise because even the White House is now reinventing history telling us that H.R. 3200 isn't about “cost savings” even though, as you can see here, they claim it is. I am convinced that Congress is doing a whole lot of posturing around the content of a Bill they they haven't even read.
So, to the Senator representing northern Virginia. If you would spend as much time reading H.R. 3200 as you do crafting opinion papers that defy the facts rather than represent them, I think America could benefit from any true insight you can bring to the situation. As well, please remember that you represent us, and that this is not a monarchy. We send you as much to vote on our behalf as we send you to be our voice and not your own. Please be a leader and not a follower.
And to my reading friends. Write your senators. Tell them your story and how you feel. If you believe that we should help the uninsured then write them and request they your Senate regains focus and drafts a Bill that simply does that and avoids clauses like “and for other purposes.” Tell them that you support helping others but that this Bill does more harm than help simply because it has already been proven to not accomplish it's charter objectives. And if you feel that it is not the job of the government to provide health care, then let them know that they are extending their own power without the approval of the citizens. Tell them that they draft their authority from you and not the other way around. Remind them that this government is “by the people” and that they are only your employees at the end of the day.
This week in the news the Congressional Business Office decided to release a preliminary review of the cost estimates for the bill if it were set into motion. While I would love to discuss the social ramifications of H.R. 3200 on the average American, I will decline to do that right now. If you want to know how the bill would affect you where you live, then go read the 1,036 page bill at...
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
At the moment there is only one part of the bill I believe is worth reviewing for the sake of this blog: the charter statement at the beginning. It goes like this...
To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce
the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.
As a goal I think that people aren't going to say such a statement in a vacuum is a bad thing. I want people to experience affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduced growth in health care spending. The last phrase bothers me a little, however. The phrase “and for other purposes” is a catch-all phrase which supports two relatively common abuses of extravagance in government: it allows for the funding and addition of special pork-barrel projects within the documentation and it hides the fact that the bill actually does much more in the last phrase than it does in the first two phrases. Allow me to demonstrate.
Nothing in life is free. We all know that. When the government spends money, it is always our money. If you are willing to say something like, “Well I make so little money I don't pay taxes, so it isn't my money,” then you are missing the point. It is someone's money and you are disrespecting that reality.
The first phrase in this declaration of purpose is “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans.” Well, let's quickly test the phrase affordable. At this point the CBO says that the government program will add $239 billion to the federal budget deficit over the next 10 years. beyond the first ten they are specifically not willing to estimate but have said that if there is any saving in the second ten years into the program, it is so small that it wouldn't be considered any economic advantage. And this is just the beginning of the estimates. This is if nothing changes in that healthcare program from day 1 to 20 years into it. It also does not include the cost of the Government administrating the plan. Again, if you are imagining health care cost savings, then you have to imagine revenue and there isn't enough of it built into the program. This means that while they are proposing paying for this by raising taxes (again there is the real cost bearing it's weight on Americans), after 10 years of deficit spending we would realize a real net deficit of around $65 billion added onto the national debt. Affordable as a term quickly becomes a meaningless selling point if there really is no savings.
Next let's look at the word “quality.” This last week I drove to work a couple of day. Typically I take the metro, but I was running late and driving gets me there quicker even if parking is a horrible problem (let's just say that I recently invested $40 to the City of Alexandria because a meeting ran long and I couldn't get outside to move my car fast enough.) On the drive home the classical music station I sometimes listen to was reporting news about the causes for the rising cost of health care. The top two items on their list: government regulations (for good or for bad, a necessary evil or a federal fundraiser, they are whatever they are, let's not debate that now) and the demand for improvements. You see, as people get smarter we create smarter ways of doing things. And some of those smarter things mean new cutting edge technology or retraining doctors. All of this adds cost.
A number of years ago I worked for an electronics manufacturing company that built everything from cell phones to medical devices. My job was to be sure that the statistical data that was generated as a result of testing the quality of devices being produced was accurate and easily reported in near-real-time for our clients. While the nature of testing electronics is mostly the same regardless of the product being produced, the regulations around electronics varies quite a bit. Take for example a cell phone versus a heart monitor. Nearly everyone has read that little sticker on devices that claim it was tested to not create radio interference. Now imagine the quality demanded out of medical devices! This is no cheap venture.
So how is the government going to increase the quality of care? Well, first they tell you in the bill that a committee will be the one to define that. You can begin to imagine a conflict of interest by it's nature on this one. If a car company were to claim “we make the safest cars” and then you found out that they are the group who gets to define what “safe” means, this word “safe” would become (again) a meaningless selling point.
Now let's look at the phrase “for all Americans.” At this point if you are like me then you've been hearing the number 40 million a lot lately. Congress tells us that this is a number of Americans who don't have health insurance. Then you find out where that number comes from. 40 million is the number of any American who was without health insurance at some point during the last year. This is a very flexible number, in other words. In an alternate universe called “reality” something like 8 million are currently without health insurance rather than this very unspecific and knowingly inaccurate 40 million (which implies we currently have 400 million Americans walking around right now without insurance of any kind.) When all of the more realistic math is cut and calculated the number of uninsured comes down to about 2% of the U.S. population. What does that mean then? Well, it should mean that with such a huge program generating such an amazing deficit we really ought to be able to help out those 2% of U.S. citizens right? Well, sadly this is not true either. The fact is that there are Americans who aren't poor enough to qualify for certain benefits outlined in H.R. 3200 while at the same time don't make enough money to purchase private health insurance. H.R. 3200 doesn't bring a remedy to these people either. So the phrase “for all Americans” is also meaningless since the plan actually doesn't serve all Americans.
Finally, let's look at the phrase “reduce the growth in health care spending.” How will they do this? Can Congress put a “cap” on health care spending? Will they “cap and trade” our benefits and we pay a penalty if we use too many? Are they going to control the salaries of doctors or overrule medical law suites to contain costs? Will they approve less medical procedures, reducing demand hence reducing costs? Are they going to hand out coupons for “half off an appendectomy?” The fact is that we don't know and they don't know. In only a few industries has the government jumped in and controlled a pricing structure. More importantly, if the government does force prices down, then those services will get cut in another way to offset the artificially low cost. That is the nature of economics. In fact I believe this item in the list is nearly meaningless simply because it completes with the other items in the list. Now, from time to time an industry will innovate and create ways of reducing product or service costs. That innovation sometimes means more revenue and it sometimes means more people are able to more cheaply gain access to those products or services. That is a result of traditional Capitalism. But at the same time the government of the U.S. to-date has NEVER INNOVATED IN A MANNER SO AS TO CONTAIN COSTS. Zero times, people. If the U.S. Government wants more, then they KNOW they have to spend more. They don't have the “technology” to pull off this goals and history proves that I am correct on this point (though, please prove me wrong if you can come up with stories that validate how the U.S. Government innovated and generated lower costs that resulted in more people gaining cheaper but better benefits.)
Base on these issues alone I don't see how this plan will be able to achieve it's own dream. It is dead on arrival. In the spirit of fixing Wall Street and using their lingo, this entrepreneurial effort is a poor investment because it will not meet it's own goals set forth by it's charter. If Congress where a health care company, and H.R. 3200 was it's business plan, I would deny it's request for start-up-capital investments.
To end, I want to share a small insight I gained from having swapped a couple emails with the U.S. Senator representing northern Virginia. This last week I wrote the man a letter and he wrote me back. There is nothing he said in that letter which shed any new light on either H.R. 3200 or that gave me confidence that he even understood H.R. 3200. In fact the content of his letter defied the information coming out of the CBO. This is no surprise because even the White House is now reinventing history telling us that H.R. 3200 isn't about “cost savings” even though, as you can see here, they claim it is. I am convinced that Congress is doing a whole lot of posturing around the content of a Bill they they haven't even read.
So, to the Senator representing northern Virginia. If you would spend as much time reading H.R. 3200 as you do crafting opinion papers that defy the facts rather than represent them, I think America could benefit from any true insight you can bring to the situation. As well, please remember that you represent us, and that this is not a monarchy. We send you as much to vote on our behalf as we send you to be our voice and not your own. Please be a leader and not a follower.
And to my reading friends. Write your senators. Tell them your story and how you feel. If you believe that we should help the uninsured then write them and request they your Senate regains focus and drafts a Bill that simply does that and avoids clauses like “and for other purposes.” Tell them that you support helping others but that this Bill does more harm than help simply because it has already been proven to not accomplish it's charter objectives. And if you feel that it is not the job of the government to provide health care, then let them know that they are extending their own power without the approval of the citizens. Tell them that they draft their authority from you and not the other way around. Remind them that this government is “by the people” and that they are only your employees at the end of the day.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
White House FY 2010 Budget Has A New Name
The Fiscal Year 2010 Budget from the White House is now being renamed by Obama's Treasure Secretary. While it was once described as “A New Era of Responsibility” it has now been labeled “an exploding budget deficit.” And do you think that the answer should be to tame that budget by cutting back programs that we cannot afford, the same tactic that all Americans employ when faced with a financial short come? No. We are being told that the answer could be a tax-hike for the Middle Class.
One of the latest additions to an already run-amuck budget: H.R. 3200. The H.R. 3200 bill, dubbed “America's Affordable health Choices Act of 2009,” seems anything but affordable. At the minimum it promises to add $1 trillion do our national debt and since President Obama doesn't want to appear irresponsible, rather than simply tack that onto our national debt (nobody wants that) his White House staff are leaving the door open to ask the Middle Class to foot the bill. When National Economic Council Director Larry Summers was asked if Obama would tax the Middle Class rather than keep his campaign word when he repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," Summers said "There is a lot that can happen over time... it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
Now, I know a number of Americans who would like to stick it to the high priced insurance companies and find a way to bring down the cost of health care. The trouble is that H.R. 3200 is so far reaching that it funds programs, makes decisions and eliminates choices faster than it brings in alternatives or a savings. To answer your question in advance, no I have not read the entire bill consisting of more than a thousand pages. But I have struggled through the first 50 pages, and it is painful. For the government to create an affordable competitive plan they first have to take over the game. In fact, for them to compete they have to pretty well fix the game. To bring to light a comparison, imagine the following scenario:
Imagine that the U.S. Government wanted to make buying cars more affordable. Well, according to this plan, first it needs a horse in the race. So it goes and buys a car company (hmmm... check that off the list.) But owning a car company doesn't make cars more affordable. So what does it have to do? Well, it needs to control the features on the car, “optimize” them to keep the costs down. How does it do this? By creating a committee that decides who (which Americans) get what features. That is the first part of the equation: keeping costs down. But how does it make it competitive? Well, private car companies could just offer nice features at a reasonable cost and keep the U.S. own car company out of the game, right? We all win then, right? Well, no. You see the U.S. also needs to define what it means to be competitive. How do they do that? Well, they allow existing car companies to maintain their existing cars for the next four years, at which point all non-government-owned car companies now have to play by the new rules as defined by the government. Literally all of the cars older than four years old would have to come off the road at which point everyone would have to get into a car that now played by the governments new rules. In other words, if you are happy with your car, feel free to keep it... well, for the next few years, at which point all cars will have to look like the government cars. Hmmm? And the committee keeps deciding whose car gets what features? You guessed it.
Now we do the math! If you are in the Middle Class then you are currently paying a good sum of money for your health care. Next, imagine that H.R. 3200 gets passed. Now you are paying for your private health care and at the same time paying for other peoples health care because your taxes just got hiked up. I thought this was supposed to be cheaper... or “affordable?” Apparently, it is only affordable if you aren't paying taxes at all. But wait for it! You might anyway. Since Joe Biden was voted into the White House as the Vice President he has headed a task-force to define WHO the Middle-Class really is. So, for all you know even if you make less than $50,000 per year (currently the cut-off for the Middle Class), soon you might fit into the definition of Middle-Class. At what point does this plan become affordable?
Well, if you are anything like me, you are seeing a pattern here. The American public was first duped when Obama said he wouldn't raise your taxes. During the election he defied John McCain when he confidently declared to America that he could pull off his budget plans without raising taxes. He named his first fiscal budget “An Era of Responsibility” but we all now know that it is “an exploding budget deficit” at the admission of his own Treasury Secretary. I am waiting for the same Americans who voted President Obama into office to finally realize that the “America's Affordable health Choices Act of 2009” is both not affordable and oxymoronically eliminates “choice” by simply becoming the gatekeeper for the definition of what our “choices” will eventually be.
As a sidenote to this health care debate: research the history on Medicare and Medicaid. These struggling programs are constantly in jeopardy due to the way they exist and are managed by Congress. While you are at it understand that H.R. 3200 is modeled after elements of both of those programs as well as the Social Security system all of which have been bailed out over the years due to the unsustainable fiscal reality of those programs. Why are we sitting on our hands imagining that Congress is suddenly able go from mismanaging those three programs and yet we are cool with them taking on something so much larger and further reaching!?
CALL, EMAIL or WRITE YOUR CONGRESS-PERSON and tell them NOT TO SUPPORT H.R. 3200. If ever a public health care plan was a good idea, this is not that plan (and Congress knows it... now you need to tell them you know it too!)
One of the latest additions to an already run-amuck budget: H.R. 3200. The H.R. 3200 bill, dubbed “America's Affordable health Choices Act of 2009,” seems anything but affordable. At the minimum it promises to add $1 trillion do our national debt and since President Obama doesn't want to appear irresponsible, rather than simply tack that onto our national debt (nobody wants that) his White House staff are leaving the door open to ask the Middle Class to foot the bill. When National Economic Council Director Larry Summers was asked if Obama would tax the Middle Class rather than keep his campaign word when he repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," Summers said "There is a lot that can happen over time... it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
Now, I know a number of Americans who would like to stick it to the high priced insurance companies and find a way to bring down the cost of health care. The trouble is that H.R. 3200 is so far reaching that it funds programs, makes decisions and eliminates choices faster than it brings in alternatives or a savings. To answer your question in advance, no I have not read the entire bill consisting of more than a thousand pages. But I have struggled through the first 50 pages, and it is painful. For the government to create an affordable competitive plan they first have to take over the game. In fact, for them to compete they have to pretty well fix the game. To bring to light a comparison, imagine the following scenario:
Imagine that the U.S. Government wanted to make buying cars more affordable. Well, according to this plan, first it needs a horse in the race. So it goes and buys a car company (hmmm... check that off the list.) But owning a car company doesn't make cars more affordable. So what does it have to do? Well, it needs to control the features on the car, “optimize” them to keep the costs down. How does it do this? By creating a committee that decides who (which Americans) get what features. That is the first part of the equation: keeping costs down. But how does it make it competitive? Well, private car companies could just offer nice features at a reasonable cost and keep the U.S. own car company out of the game, right? We all win then, right? Well, no. You see the U.S. also needs to define what it means to be competitive. How do they do that? Well, they allow existing car companies to maintain their existing cars for the next four years, at which point all non-government-owned car companies now have to play by the new rules as defined by the government. Literally all of the cars older than four years old would have to come off the road at which point everyone would have to get into a car that now played by the governments new rules. In other words, if you are happy with your car, feel free to keep it... well, for the next few years, at which point all cars will have to look like the government cars. Hmmm? And the committee keeps deciding whose car gets what features? You guessed it.
Now we do the math! If you are in the Middle Class then you are currently paying a good sum of money for your health care. Next, imagine that H.R. 3200 gets passed. Now you are paying for your private health care and at the same time paying for other peoples health care because your taxes just got hiked up. I thought this was supposed to be cheaper... or “affordable?” Apparently, it is only affordable if you aren't paying taxes at all. But wait for it! You might anyway. Since Joe Biden was voted into the White House as the Vice President he has headed a task-force to define WHO the Middle-Class really is. So, for all you know even if you make less than $50,000 per year (currently the cut-off for the Middle Class), soon you might fit into the definition of Middle-Class. At what point does this plan become affordable?
Well, if you are anything like me, you are seeing a pattern here. The American public was first duped when Obama said he wouldn't raise your taxes. During the election he defied John McCain when he confidently declared to America that he could pull off his budget plans without raising taxes. He named his first fiscal budget “An Era of Responsibility” but we all now know that it is “an exploding budget deficit” at the admission of his own Treasury Secretary. I am waiting for the same Americans who voted President Obama into office to finally realize that the “America's Affordable health Choices Act of 2009” is both not affordable and oxymoronically eliminates “choice” by simply becoming the gatekeeper for the definition of what our “choices” will eventually be.
As a sidenote to this health care debate: research the history on Medicare and Medicaid. These struggling programs are constantly in jeopardy due to the way they exist and are managed by Congress. While you are at it understand that H.R. 3200 is modeled after elements of both of those programs as well as the Social Security system all of which have been bailed out over the years due to the unsustainable fiscal reality of those programs. Why are we sitting on our hands imagining that Congress is suddenly able go from mismanaging those three programs and yet we are cool with them taking on something so much larger and further reaching!?
CALL, EMAIL or WRITE YOUR CONGRESS-PERSON and tell them NOT TO SUPPORT H.R. 3200. If ever a public health care plan was a good idea, this is not that plan (and Congress knows it... now you need to tell them you know it too!)
Friday, July 31, 2009
F-22, the President, and Spending Cuts
There has recently been a bit of press about how President Obama is going toe-to-toe with Congress declaring that he wants to see spending cuts! Specifically, he says that he will not sign any bill that attempts to fund the F-22 aircraft project. Now, I thought that the President was a spend-thrift? Does this spending cut action prove me wrong? Let's take a look at the details.
Well, it is true that President Obama has said the program needs to be cut and that he won't sign any bill that funds the program. It sure feels like he is wanting to cut some pork, right!?
The bill the President is referring to is a $636 billion bill coming out of Congress. Within that bill you can see the f-22 project getting funding. The price tag for the f-22 in this bill: $369 million. Our heads start to spin... millions, billions! These are numbers we never have to deal with in our everyday lives. Let's put these numbers into perspective. The President is saying that he refuses to sign a bill that funds a project worth about 1/20th of 1% of the entire bill. Let me type that again... one twentieth of one percent of the entire bill.
Does this mean that the President is a man of principle? That might seem like a plausible guess. It isn't about how much of the bill it equals, but based on the primciple of not wanting to approve wasteful bork barrel spending, he refuses to sign a bill because he objects to a line-item worth 1/20th of 1% of the bill's total worth.
Here is the problem with that. Pork barrel spending watchdogs claim that the bill contains over 1,000 porkbarrel items in it. The f-22 project is maybe one of those one-thousand items!
Ok, there goes the case for "principle" out the window. Why then is this such a big deal? Well, to you and I who will never see $369 million in our lifetimes, it IS a big deal. But in reality it is a sham of a deal, a token if you will, of what might be wrong in this situation.
If the Presidents gets his fractional cut hacked out of the bill then it will likely be heralded as a "victory for the President" and will be remembered as his move to uphold his promise to get the pork out of Congress. But now, you and I both know, this is a dog and pony show.
This is like the President allowing Congress to go into all of our wallets and at the last minute putting on a loud show, "Wait just a minute! How DARE YOU CONGRESS. Give that man back his empty wallet! How DARE YOU take his wallet from him! You can take all the cash you want from the wallet but LEAVE THE MAN HIS WALLET FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!"
If you want to see the pork out of Congress, well... HEY I am with you. But this is a show and not principle. And if you are still thinking this is a pricipled move because the President really just wants to reduce military spending, well, you have another think coming! If they pull the f-22 out of the bill he said he would sign it: The remaining $636 billion of the bill is all funding programs at the Pentagon... think again!
Well, it is true that President Obama has said the program needs to be cut and that he won't sign any bill that funds the program. It sure feels like he is wanting to cut some pork, right!?
The bill the President is referring to is a $636 billion bill coming out of Congress. Within that bill you can see the f-22 project getting funding. The price tag for the f-22 in this bill: $369 million. Our heads start to spin... millions, billions! These are numbers we never have to deal with in our everyday lives. Let's put these numbers into perspective. The President is saying that he refuses to sign a bill that funds a project worth about 1/20th of 1% of the entire bill. Let me type that again... one twentieth of one percent of the entire bill.
Does this mean that the President is a man of principle? That might seem like a plausible guess. It isn't about how much of the bill it equals, but based on the primciple of not wanting to approve wasteful bork barrel spending, he refuses to sign a bill because he objects to a line-item worth 1/20th of 1% of the bill's total worth.
Here is the problem with that. Pork barrel spending watchdogs claim that the bill contains over 1,000 porkbarrel items in it. The f-22 project is maybe one of those one-thousand items!
Ok, there goes the case for "principle" out the window. Why then is this such a big deal? Well, to you and I who will never see $369 million in our lifetimes, it IS a big deal. But in reality it is a sham of a deal, a token if you will, of what might be wrong in this situation.
If the Presidents gets his fractional cut hacked out of the bill then it will likely be heralded as a "victory for the President" and will be remembered as his move to uphold his promise to get the pork out of Congress. But now, you and I both know, this is a dog and pony show.
This is like the President allowing Congress to go into all of our wallets and at the last minute putting on a loud show, "Wait just a minute! How DARE YOU CONGRESS. Give that man back his empty wallet! How DARE YOU take his wallet from him! You can take all the cash you want from the wallet but LEAVE THE MAN HIS WALLET FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!"
If you want to see the pork out of Congress, well... HEY I am with you. But this is a show and not principle. And if you are still thinking this is a pricipled move because the President really just wants to reduce military spending, well, you have another think coming! If they pull the f-22 out of the bill he said he would sign it: The remaining $636 billion of the bill is all funding programs at the Pentagon... think again!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Another $18 million down the drain
Recently I have read stories where we are being told that the economy is once again sound, but not quite back to where we would really like to see it. In other words, “Everybody relax, but not too much.” And why should we relax but not too much? Mostly because there is more fund raising to do. Current the Congressional Budget Office took a look at the recent government plans for health care and announced that it will now add yet another $1 trillion to our national deficit. This is on top of the few other trillions of dollars scheduled to be added onto the deficit since the conclusion of the 2008 election. It was at this time that now in an unprecedented reach-out to influence the Congressional Budget Office, the White House has invited the leadership of the CBO over for a private meeting. Hmmmm? If I am a betting man I would guess that the meeting might have to do with the unfavorable review of the financial outlook of the plan.
Back to the fund raising. While we should relax, one reason we shouldn't relax is because if we don't and health care keeps treading forward as it is today, then we are being told that we could be buried under the expenses of medicare and medicaid costs in future years. On that point alone we are told we should quickly approve this current government health care makeover plan. But, then again, these were the same people who told us to “act now” on the near trillion dollar bailout so that we can save jobs only to completely blow away their worst case scenario on national unemployment anyway (despite the fact that congress “act(ed) now!”) These were the same folks that admitted not long ago that the economy was worse off than they anticipated and that “they were wrong” about their understanding of it. Now we should relax, but not so much that we don't feel this new pressure to solve something else that they are likely wrong about as well.
And the newest, well, not so new fiasco has everything thing to so with how they intend to share information about all of the recovery dollars being spent. Recently Elijah Cummings, the Democrat from Maryland said “If we can't show them that we are doing the right thing with their money, we're going to have problems.” So how will they show us?
Check out the website... http://www.recovery.gov
This is a new website, but apparently it is not new enough. I know, the web moves quickly and this site has been up for what... a couple months now. That is like a century in internet years, right? We'll that is what the White House thinks. So, they recently awarded what will turn out to be an $18 million contract to a company called Smartronix from Maryland (isn't that convenient) that will... redesign the site? That's right. I know of a multimillion dollar company that revamped their entire e-commerce / website by simply putting a single company on less than $1 million annual retainer! They are doing fine! And yet for some reason Recovery.gov needs $18 million to pull this off? That is pretty amazing.
And here is the killer. What are they going to do for recovery.gov again. They are going to redesign the site. Let's take a look at their website.
Go check out... http://www.smartronix.com
Is this a web 2.0 demonstration of social interactive web technology? Does this group even advertise “website redesign” tallent in their top skillset? No!!!
And buckle up for the final note: How will this $18 million pay out? Over the next five years! Said another way, the White House would have us believe that the economy is sound, but could be doing better, so shift your focus to spending $1 trillion in deficit on national healthcare, but well, understand that we feel it is important to set into motion a 5 year plan on phase 2 of a website that explains how we are still recovering from this slump we recently shouldn't feel too bad about, but well, don't get too comfortable?
Are you feeling schizophrenic yet? Well, you should be feeling crazy. Because this current batch of politicians seem to be willing to say whatever the heck they want in completely contrary directions so people will do what they want them to do. What kind of suckers are we? What kind do they take us for?
If you watched TV tonight then at the minimum maybe you got a small feeling of levity when President Obama cracked a few jokes. He can be a very endearing and personable seeming fellow. I can honor that in the man. But it is time to get real people. He may be personally likable, but we don't have to like what he is doing with the other face he seems to have.
Back to the fund raising. While we should relax, one reason we shouldn't relax is because if we don't and health care keeps treading forward as it is today, then we are being told that we could be buried under the expenses of medicare and medicaid costs in future years. On that point alone we are told we should quickly approve this current government health care makeover plan. But, then again, these were the same people who told us to “act now” on the near trillion dollar bailout so that we can save jobs only to completely blow away their worst case scenario on national unemployment anyway (despite the fact that congress “act(ed) now!”) These were the same folks that admitted not long ago that the economy was worse off than they anticipated and that “they were wrong” about their understanding of it. Now we should relax, but not so much that we don't feel this new pressure to solve something else that they are likely wrong about as well.
And the newest, well, not so new fiasco has everything thing to so with how they intend to share information about all of the recovery dollars being spent. Recently Elijah Cummings, the Democrat from Maryland said “If we can't show them that we are doing the right thing with their money, we're going to have problems.” So how will they show us?
Check out the website... http://www.recovery.gov
This is a new website, but apparently it is not new enough. I know, the web moves quickly and this site has been up for what... a couple months now. That is like a century in internet years, right? We'll that is what the White House thinks. So, they recently awarded what will turn out to be an $18 million contract to a company called Smartronix from Maryland (isn't that convenient) that will... redesign the site? That's right. I know of a multimillion dollar company that revamped their entire e-commerce / website by simply putting a single company on less than $1 million annual retainer! They are doing fine! And yet for some reason Recovery.gov needs $18 million to pull this off? That is pretty amazing.
And here is the killer. What are they going to do for recovery.gov again. They are going to redesign the site. Let's take a look at their website.
Go check out... http://www.smartronix.com
Is this a web 2.0 demonstration of social interactive web technology? Does this group even advertise “website redesign” tallent in their top skillset? No!!!
And buckle up for the final note: How will this $18 million pay out? Over the next five years! Said another way, the White House would have us believe that the economy is sound, but could be doing better, so shift your focus to spending $1 trillion in deficit on national healthcare, but well, understand that we feel it is important to set into motion a 5 year plan on phase 2 of a website that explains how we are still recovering from this slump we recently shouldn't feel too bad about, but well, don't get too comfortable?
Are you feeling schizophrenic yet? Well, you should be feeling crazy. Because this current batch of politicians seem to be willing to say whatever the heck they want in completely contrary directions so people will do what they want them to do. What kind of suckers are we? What kind do they take us for?
If you watched TV tonight then at the minimum maybe you got a small feeling of levity when President Obama cracked a few jokes. He can be a very endearing and personable seeming fellow. I can honor that in the man. But it is time to get real people. He may be personally likable, but we don't have to like what he is doing with the other face he seems to have.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Living On Credit Cards
Dear Friend,
For some time now my budget has been busted. I have been spending way more than I can afford or even have. And right now I feel so sad because the people around me are also suffering financially. So here is what I have decided to do. I have asked all of my friends to pool as much of their disposable income with me as they can.
Some can afford a little and some can afford more. Many are not giving at all. I am doing my best to lay on thick the guilt trip to those friends who are doing well (or at least better than me.) The tact I have taken is to make them feel bad for being a success when people around them are not. The trick is that I say this fairly loud and in the presence of people who aren't doing well. The people who are poorer than me even add to the angry feelings toward the folks that are doing well.
I mean, who do those wealthier people think they are after all? Why do they have money while others don't? Wait. Don't answer that. I don't even want to know. I just want to hear the sound of them opening their wallets.
Now, once I have created this pool of funds, I have decided to turn around and open a huge line of credit using those funds as collateral. Sure the interest rates are fairly high on this sort of fund, and I am having to borrow that money from people not in my neighborhood, but in the end, it feels soooooo good to hand out wads of cash to people. I mean, they need the money right? And I am giving it to them, right? How cool is that. By the way, I actually took the loan out in their name. So when the lender from the other neighborhood shows up to collect, well, let's just say that won't really be my problem.
It just feels good to help, well, to help right now. Right now is when we need it the most, right? I mean, sure, we are living on credit together, but as long as I keep handing out the cash, it seems to me that nobody is asking questions, you know? They just need the cash.
So what if in a while they figure out the cost of that cash? They need it now, no matter the cost. And I am willing to help, no matter the cost. Gosh, that makes it sound like I have values and like I am taking on the responsibility of that cost. I am not. My friends and neighbors are, but let's not get distracted by those details. Let's just be good neighbors and get out there and buy new microwave ovens and locally manufactured automobiles and homes.
Oh man, take the wad of cash I handed you and follow my example by getting out a loan against your wad of cash. It is amazing how you will feel, well, right now! Maybe later you will realize it costs more, and more for a fairly long time (how long have we all been making payments on those crazy credit cards now?) but that is the magic of living on credit. Sure you are paying for it until you die, but man what a house, right? Well, what a house until the not so close neighbor takes it away when they come to collect their loan back. But I just can't think about that right now.
Right now I need to do something. And not a smart well thought out something, but a right now kind of something. A quick close your eyes and sign on the dotted line and ignor the fine print kind of something. We don't have TIME for talking about alternatives or shopping for better loans or whatever! Because, in the end, I know that I will feel good once they hand me that briefcase full of money. And I know I will feel better once I am handing that out to my neighbors! Who cares if it comes from China, right? Who cares if we are paying for it darned near the rest of our lives. We just need to focus on the cash, people! Focus! Over here! Not over there, over here! Seriously, stop looking at the fine print over there and just look at the cash in this briefcase over here.
Clearly this is the answer. Just ask all of my friends. When the chips are down and we are out of money, we just pull out the credit card and go have dinner and movie, right? I mean, what else could we do? Wait. Don't answer that. Focus!
- America, 2009
Updated:
Hi! America here! That was me back in 2009. Wow, I was not really thinking of my future. I quickly found myself buried under amazing debt and it wasn't until I stopped panicking and started talking to all of my friends that I started to get things under control. Unfortunately, here in 2030 life is getting a little better. I have paid down a lot of debt, but it started with getting my spending under control. My friends called it a budget and while it took a few false starts to learn how to live on one, I am now doing much better. Budgets really help you to prioritize, I tell you. For a while there I was calling things priorities that should never have been. After the spending was under more control and I was doing a lot better monitoring my ability to live under my budget, next I was able to refocus a bit. It is funny. Living under a budget helps you set realistic goals (and in my case my goals were all over the place.) By re-examining my purpose I was able to focus on my goals again, pay down my debt and focus on that purpose. It's funny what happens when you are in a tight spot and panic sets in. I really stirred myself up and got all freaked out. Thank goodness some of my friends were not all joining me in my panicky freakout sessions. I even accused those friends of not caring because they weren't freaking out with me (I was such a dork!) If they hadn't been patient and forgiving I might not have chilled out and took their advice. It is funny. I really knew what I needed to do all along. It is just too bad I made the decisions I did anyway (I guess the fact that I am still paying for it serves as a good reminder.) In the end, I can say that being in a tough spot was somewhat my fault and somewhat not, but my reaction is something I needed to own up to. And I continue to own up to it each day. Thank God for caring, patient, long suffering friends.
For some time now my budget has been busted. I have been spending way more than I can afford or even have. And right now I feel so sad because the people around me are also suffering financially. So here is what I have decided to do. I have asked all of my friends to pool as much of their disposable income with me as they can.
Some can afford a little and some can afford more. Many are not giving at all. I am doing my best to lay on thick the guilt trip to those friends who are doing well (or at least better than me.) The tact I have taken is to make them feel bad for being a success when people around them are not. The trick is that I say this fairly loud and in the presence of people who aren't doing well. The people who are poorer than me even add to the angry feelings toward the folks that are doing well.
I mean, who do those wealthier people think they are after all? Why do they have money while others don't? Wait. Don't answer that. I don't even want to know. I just want to hear the sound of them opening their wallets.
Now, once I have created this pool of funds, I have decided to turn around and open a huge line of credit using those funds as collateral. Sure the interest rates are fairly high on this sort of fund, and I am having to borrow that money from people not in my neighborhood, but in the end, it feels soooooo good to hand out wads of cash to people. I mean, they need the money right? And I am giving it to them, right? How cool is that. By the way, I actually took the loan out in their name. So when the lender from the other neighborhood shows up to collect, well, let's just say that won't really be my problem.
It just feels good to help, well, to help right now. Right now is when we need it the most, right? I mean, sure, we are living on credit together, but as long as I keep handing out the cash, it seems to me that nobody is asking questions, you know? They just need the cash.
So what if in a while they figure out the cost of that cash? They need it now, no matter the cost. And I am willing to help, no matter the cost. Gosh, that makes it sound like I have values and like I am taking on the responsibility of that cost. I am not. My friends and neighbors are, but let's not get distracted by those details. Let's just be good neighbors and get out there and buy new microwave ovens and locally manufactured automobiles and homes.
Oh man, take the wad of cash I handed you and follow my example by getting out a loan against your wad of cash. It is amazing how you will feel, well, right now! Maybe later you will realize it costs more, and more for a fairly long time (how long have we all been making payments on those crazy credit cards now?) but that is the magic of living on credit. Sure you are paying for it until you die, but man what a house, right? Well, what a house until the not so close neighbor takes it away when they come to collect their loan back. But I just can't think about that right now.
Right now I need to do something. And not a smart well thought out something, but a right now kind of something. A quick close your eyes and sign on the dotted line and ignor the fine print kind of something. We don't have TIME for talking about alternatives or shopping for better loans or whatever! Because, in the end, I know that I will feel good once they hand me that briefcase full of money. And I know I will feel better once I am handing that out to my neighbors! Who cares if it comes from China, right? Who cares if we are paying for it darned near the rest of our lives. We just need to focus on the cash, people! Focus! Over here! Not over there, over here! Seriously, stop looking at the fine print over there and just look at the cash in this briefcase over here.
Clearly this is the answer. Just ask all of my friends. When the chips are down and we are out of money, we just pull out the credit card and go have dinner and movie, right? I mean, what else could we do? Wait. Don't answer that. Focus!
- America, 2009
Updated:
Hi! America here! That was me back in 2009. Wow, I was not really thinking of my future. I quickly found myself buried under amazing debt and it wasn't until I stopped panicking and started talking to all of my friends that I started to get things under control. Unfortunately, here in 2030 life is getting a little better. I have paid down a lot of debt, but it started with getting my spending under control. My friends called it a budget and while it took a few false starts to learn how to live on one, I am now doing much better. Budgets really help you to prioritize, I tell you. For a while there I was calling things priorities that should never have been. After the spending was under more control and I was doing a lot better monitoring my ability to live under my budget, next I was able to refocus a bit. It is funny. Living under a budget helps you set realistic goals (and in my case my goals were all over the place.) By re-examining my purpose I was able to focus on my goals again, pay down my debt and focus on that purpose. It's funny what happens when you are in a tight spot and panic sets in. I really stirred myself up and got all freaked out. Thank goodness some of my friends were not all joining me in my panicky freakout sessions. I even accused those friends of not caring because they weren't freaking out with me (I was such a dork!) If they hadn't been patient and forgiving I might not have chilled out and took their advice. It is funny. I really knew what I needed to do all along. It is just too bad I made the decisions I did anyway (I guess the fact that I am still paying for it serves as a good reminder.) In the end, I can say that being in a tough spot was somewhat my fault and somewhat not, but my reaction is something I needed to own up to. And I continue to own up to it each day. Thank God for caring, patient, long suffering friends.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Obama Youth Brigade
There has been a bit of buzz in various circles about what is being nicknamed the "Obama Youth Brigade." Here is part of an article from the website www.thevoicemagazine.com ...
This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it.
There are parts of this bill that read in a very shifty manner. The goal of this bill is to reshape volunteerism in America. The way they are doing this is to require all student loan recipients to server at least three months in an approved volunteer capacity. And there are two categories it seems: there are groups that receive federal funding for volunteerism, and then there are roles that are added to groups where the specific role is federally funded (less about the organization and more about the role.) What does this mean and why might it be shifty?
If you read the approval part of the bill is says the following...
SEC. 132A. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132.
Now, many groups may read this and loosely imagine that it implies that any student who is receiving loans cannot be involved with such groups for the period they are serving their minimum three month volunteer duties. This would basically imply that if you want to belong to or relate to a church, then you have to disavow any involvement for the service period to remain eligible for funding. I think there might even be folks who grant or govern such loan programs that attempt to read this section in that manner, but that isn't really what it is saying.
This really says that you cannot consider your "religious" service to be the thing that fulfills your 3 months of service. Why would that be? For the above reasons. It isn't saying that you can't be involved in such stuff. It is simply saying that you can't get federal credit for it. At one point it even contradicts itself a little more stating that if the role simply has nothing to do with the above list (let's say your role is to stand in a closet and take inventory of choir robes) then your time can count for that. As soon as you put one on and start singing, you are off the volunteer clock.
Is this a bad thing? I think it is, but not for the reasons you might suppose. What I think is crazy about all of this is that it has nothing at all to do with effectiveness. You could get credit at a food pantry that simply facilitates the lifestyles of people who need a food pantry simply because it has nothing to do with God. At the same time, there could be a food pantry around the corner that also helps get people work and retrains them for that work providing job coaches, but because the people in the program also believe wholeheartedly that God in the lives of people is a good thing, the government simple categorically says that program can't be supported as a location worthy of your volunteered time.
This is "life on a curve." Said another way, because the government decides to single out religion as a factor for prejudice apart from other criteria that it could assign prejudice to, our life's experiences favor a certain view of life if we want to accept that criteria in our life scenario.
But, Steve, what about separation of church and state? Hmm, let's say I feel like I get value from working with diverse groups of people. Let's also imagine the government wants to encourage that so it rewards (or rather doesn't penalize) my employer if my employer promotes this and hires accordingly. At the same time there are times in that environment of diversity that people do stuff that is offensive to me (this can happen in very diverse groups quite easily.) So do I turn around and say that the government is sanctioning their behavior or overtly supporting it because it allows it to occur within the greater opportunity called diversity? Heavens no. At the same time people in Congress think that in the middle of a diversity of service if "religion" exists, then allowing that to happen would be the same as sanctioning it and endorsing it. For them, it is more important to be prejudice in that scenario than to allow volunteers to experience effectiveness. Worse yet is the fact that they might hide behind the notion that to allow it is breaking down some sacred "separation of church and state."
The fact is that our constitution say that the government shall not establish a state religion, but that was not meant to imply that the government should categorically prejudice itself against the ever real and possible effectiveness of helpful programs that emerge from the religious world today. In fact, I think it is more constitutionally sound to imagine that the government should be a friend to all citizens equally and limit itself to that strictly, rather than attempt to have more influence than it ever should have had.
I think this prejudice is the real problem. If volunteerism was a relay race, and volunteers wanted to spend time with the fastest and strongest teams they could gain access to, then the government just rigged the race such that an entire "class" of teams that have been running this race for a very long time have become immediately disqualified for some of the worst criteria imaginable.
But, Steve, if they want to go volunteer in a church, nobody is stopping them... what is the big deal? The deal is that people are about to be forced to put in a minimum of three months of service IF they accept student loans. If you are a student and you do this, THEN you are in the program. AND if you are in the program, then you must agree to serve BUT just not with "those groups over there." Let's hope that these kids decide to make volunteering a life-long activity. At this point they will be busy in school, and only if they agree to bow down to the federally sanctioned volunteer opportunities with their extra time will they be eligible for funds. Maybe I am lazy, but if I were throwing 2 hours a week at helping my church food pantry out as a kid, that would likely go away under a program like this simply because the Fed has decided that my church isn't in the race. Now THAT seems wrong to me. I think I am just not seeing what the big deal is with sanctioning this prejudice. Why is it necessary? If you have ideas, feel free to share them.
This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it.
There are parts of this bill that read in a very shifty manner. The goal of this bill is to reshape volunteerism in America. The way they are doing this is to require all student loan recipients to server at least three months in an approved volunteer capacity. And there are two categories it seems: there are groups that receive federal funding for volunteerism, and then there are roles that are added to groups where the specific role is federally funded (less about the organization and more about the role.) What does this mean and why might it be shifty?
If you read the approval part of the bill is says the following...
SEC. 132A. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132.
Now, many groups may read this and loosely imagine that it implies that any student who is receiving loans cannot be involved with such groups for the period they are serving their minimum three month volunteer duties. This would basically imply that if you want to belong to or relate to a church, then you have to disavow any involvement for the service period to remain eligible for funding. I think there might even be folks who grant or govern such loan programs that attempt to read this section in that manner, but that isn't really what it is saying.
This really says that you cannot consider your "religious" service to be the thing that fulfills your 3 months of service. Why would that be? For the above reasons. It isn't saying that you can't be involved in such stuff. It is simply saying that you can't get federal credit for it. At one point it even contradicts itself a little more stating that if the role simply has nothing to do with the above list (let's say your role is to stand in a closet and take inventory of choir robes) then your time can count for that. As soon as you put one on and start singing, you are off the volunteer clock.
Is this a bad thing? I think it is, but not for the reasons you might suppose. What I think is crazy about all of this is that it has nothing at all to do with effectiveness. You could get credit at a food pantry that simply facilitates the lifestyles of people who need a food pantry simply because it has nothing to do with God. At the same time, there could be a food pantry around the corner that also helps get people work and retrains them for that work providing job coaches, but because the people in the program also believe wholeheartedly that God in the lives of people is a good thing, the government simple categorically says that program can't be supported as a location worthy of your volunteered time.
This is "life on a curve." Said another way, because the government decides to single out religion as a factor for prejudice apart from other criteria that it could assign prejudice to, our life's experiences favor a certain view of life if we want to accept that criteria in our life scenario.
But, Steve, what about separation of church and state? Hmm, let's say I feel like I get value from working with diverse groups of people. Let's also imagine the government wants to encourage that so it rewards (or rather doesn't penalize) my employer if my employer promotes this and hires accordingly. At the same time there are times in that environment of diversity that people do stuff that is offensive to me (this can happen in very diverse groups quite easily.) So do I turn around and say that the government is sanctioning their behavior or overtly supporting it because it allows it to occur within the greater opportunity called diversity? Heavens no. At the same time people in Congress think that in the middle of a diversity of service if "religion" exists, then allowing that to happen would be the same as sanctioning it and endorsing it. For them, it is more important to be prejudice in that scenario than to allow volunteers to experience effectiveness. Worse yet is the fact that they might hide behind the notion that to allow it is breaking down some sacred "separation of church and state."
The fact is that our constitution say that the government shall not establish a state religion, but that was not meant to imply that the government should categorically prejudice itself against the ever real and possible effectiveness of helpful programs that emerge from the religious world today. In fact, I think it is more constitutionally sound to imagine that the government should be a friend to all citizens equally and limit itself to that strictly, rather than attempt to have more influence than it ever should have had.
I think this prejudice is the real problem. If volunteerism was a relay race, and volunteers wanted to spend time with the fastest and strongest teams they could gain access to, then the government just rigged the race such that an entire "class" of teams that have been running this race for a very long time have become immediately disqualified for some of the worst criteria imaginable.
But, Steve, if they want to go volunteer in a church, nobody is stopping them... what is the big deal? The deal is that people are about to be forced to put in a minimum of three months of service IF they accept student loans. If you are a student and you do this, THEN you are in the program. AND if you are in the program, then you must agree to serve BUT just not with "those groups over there." Let's hope that these kids decide to make volunteering a life-long activity. At this point they will be busy in school, and only if they agree to bow down to the federally sanctioned volunteer opportunities with their extra time will they be eligible for funds. Maybe I am lazy, but if I were throwing 2 hours a week at helping my church food pantry out as a kid, that would likely go away under a program like this simply because the Fed has decided that my church isn't in the race. Now THAT seems wrong to me. I think I am just not seeing what the big deal is with sanctioning this prejudice. Why is it necessary? If you have ideas, feel free to share them.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Party Of No
It is time for a "political" reality check and they are accompanied by a few "scenarios" I would like to run past you. Give your most honest answer to the following questions:
My best guess is that even the most conservative or liberal individual can think of a dozen very reasonable alternatives to any of these crazy scenarios to make for a positive outcome. Being given no options where only agreeing makes you look reasonable and disagreeing makes you look like a jerk IS unreasonable. Did you enjoy being pigeonholed into simply agreeing with someone who was threatening to call you bad-names if you didn't? The fact is, it is tyranny to pretend like you are getting choices when you aren't.
When the Henry Ford was selling his Model T in the 1920s and was asked "What colors will it come in?" his reply was, "You can have any color you want, as long as that color is black." Well, this is the mantra of the Democrats in congress as well as our President at the moment. "You can have any change you want, as long as it's the change we are promoting," with the caveat, "and if you don't want our change, screw your alternatives, you are just the 'party of no' that's what you are."
If you are an American and you believe in democracy then you have to stand up to this tyrannical rediculum that is forcing their agenda without debate and calling anyone who opposes them bad-names, creating political commercials and smear campaigns to propagandize the masses! (and before you run out and blame Republicans for the defense-related political decisions of the post-9-11-era, go back and look at debates and voting records on those issues before your polarize your perspective. Things can change and should. But they should change because it is the change we want(sound familiar) and not because one group calls us names if we want to look at our options.)
- Your kid just blew his allowance on candy, ate it all, got sick from it, and now has your checkbook. That kid is now saying that the only way to keep from getting more sick is to get a bit more of the "hair of the dog that bit him" and needs you to finance the next candy run. "Mom, I am sick! This is the recommendation from the person holding your checkbook! Are you really just going to do NOTHING!? I am sick and getting sicker... what is your ANSWER?" Yes or No. (Remember, your only option is Yes = more candy, or NO = be accused of doing nothing.)
- Your neighbor drove home last night drunk... into the side of their house. Their entire home is now an uninhabitable portico. Give it a few more hours and the roof will cave in. The people in the next town think that the house looks horrible and that crappy drive-through home must be bringing down the value of your home. So here is the thing. Those folks from the next town over think that they should do something about this and so they grab your checkbook. The "thing" they do is tell you, "Hey, if we don't stabilize this house so that your reckless drunk-of-a-neighbor can keep living there then it won't bode well for you. This is the recommendation from the person holding your checkbook! Are you really just going to do NOTHING!? They are about to not be able to live in that house... what is your ANSWER?" Yes or No. (Remember, your only option is Yes = spend your hard earned money on refinancing your neighbors ability to continue living in that house regardless of their relationship to that property, how they got into it, or how they are taking care of business, or NO = be accused of doing nothing.)
- You check your bank account only to find out that your spend-thrift spouse has slowly been bleeding dry your retirement on various pet projects that are all currently falling to pieces around you (sculptures in the back yard, half a hole dug for an in-ground pool, a few half-built guest houses designed for a couple visiting relatives now all semi-permanent homes to two dozen people you don't know demanding better room service.) You recall having "financial risk" conversations about this sort of thing previously, and you even wanted to set thresholds on those accounts but couldn't get your spouse to agree... now you know why. You confront your spouse, and that spouse simply yells at you saying "Well, your name is on the account too, YOU should have STOPPED ME! So really this is your fault! Moreover, we have half a pool here and people need their pillows fluffed, so I need you to go take out another mortgage on the house so we can finish this pool and buy bigger pillows! This is the recommendation from the person holding a copy of your checkbook! Are you really just going to do NOTHING!? This POOL AIN'T GONNA SWIM IN ITSELF HERE!!! ...what is your ANSWER?" Yes or No. (Remember, Yes = refinance your own home to save, stabilize and bring to fruition a number of projects that are full-on imploding in your own backyard, or No = be accused of doing nothing.)
My best guess is that even the most conservative or liberal individual can think of a dozen very reasonable alternatives to any of these crazy scenarios to make for a positive outcome. Being given no options where only agreeing makes you look reasonable and disagreeing makes you look like a jerk IS unreasonable. Did you enjoy being pigeonholed into simply agreeing with someone who was threatening to call you bad-names if you didn't? The fact is, it is tyranny to pretend like you are getting choices when you aren't.
When the Henry Ford was selling his Model T in the 1920s and was asked "What colors will it come in?" his reply was, "You can have any color you want, as long as that color is black." Well, this is the mantra of the Democrats in congress as well as our President at the moment. "You can have any change you want, as long as it's the change we are promoting," with the caveat, "and if you don't want our change, screw your alternatives, you are just the 'party of no' that's what you are."
If you are an American and you believe in democracy then you have to stand up to this tyrannical rediculum that is forcing their agenda without debate and calling anyone who opposes them bad-names, creating political commercials and smear campaigns to propagandize the masses! (and before you run out and blame Republicans for the defense-related political decisions of the post-9-11-era, go back and look at debates and voting records on those issues before your polarize your perspective. Things can change and should. But they should change because it is the change we want(sound familiar) and not because one group calls us names if we want to look at our options.)
Friday, March 6, 2009
Budget Spending & Earmarks
I think earmarks are worthy of a fight. By that I mean I think year-to-year we throw too much money away on earmark spending. I would like to imagine that I don't send so much extra money to the Federal Government each year in taxes that politicians can fund their little local projects that have nothing to do with the scope of national programs that are made more obvious to the public.
Having said that, I think that John McCain is making a big deal about the current earmark spending. You here this message all of the time now. "Come on John, earmarks and less than 1% of the total budget being proposed." That still amounts to a lot of money. Enough money, in fact, to bail out a good number of families on the eastern seaboard. I digress.
I still think earmarks are worthy of a fight. Here is why: Obama said he would fight earmark spending. He even got specific about how: Now-President Obama then candidate Obama said he would go through the budget line-by-line and deal with earmarks. Having said that Congress handed him the equivalent of 7 sub-budgets all wrapped up in one in hopes to bury him in paperwork the same way that he did to them with the bailout budget. And it looks like earmark spending as a battle topic will be all but ignored. This is offensive.
I hear people say that we don't have time to be petty. I disagree. Economies move slowly. This is the time to put everything under the looking glass and ensure that we are not going down the wrong road. Tell me, honestly: if you are under financial pressure, do you spend more faster, or slow down and weigh how you intend to spend each and every dollar? Hello, Congress? Wake up!
Having said that, I think that John McCain is making a big deal about the current earmark spending. You here this message all of the time now. "Come on John, earmarks and less than 1% of the total budget being proposed." That still amounts to a lot of money. Enough money, in fact, to bail out a good number of families on the eastern seaboard. I digress.
I still think earmarks are worthy of a fight. Here is why: Obama said he would fight earmark spending. He even got specific about how: Now-President Obama then candidate Obama said he would go through the budget line-by-line and deal with earmarks. Having said that Congress handed him the equivalent of 7 sub-budgets all wrapped up in one in hopes to bury him in paperwork the same way that he did to them with the bailout budget. And it looks like earmark spending as a battle topic will be all but ignored. This is offensive.
I hear people say that we don't have time to be petty. I disagree. Economies move slowly. This is the time to put everything under the looking glass and ensure that we are not going down the wrong road. Tell me, honestly: if you are under financial pressure, do you spend more faster, or slow down and weigh how you intend to spend each and every dollar? Hello, Congress? Wake up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
