THE NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY - TEA BAGGERS!

Before we give any credit to the “new” Tea Party, what apparently the Republican Party is destined to become, let’s remember just exactly who these people are and what their politics have historically been. Before your friends embrace this new political force remind them of what their actions have been in the past. At the core, they are against government, taxes, and they’re for war and U.S. bullying of foreign adversaries and allies. One might say they put the “con” in conservative. To be accurate, they’re fooling themselves as much as anyone else. I think they actually believe their hype. They’ve just really never examined the end game of their policies. They ignore history and reality.

These are the folks who labeled the Clinton 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act, which raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, as government intrusion and the catalyst that would lead to a seismic recession (the sort we’re seeing now after the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest in 2001). They are anti-government, anti-regulation (the kind that led to the financial meltdowns in too big to fail banks, and too big to fail corporations), the sort we’re now dealing with because of the excesses during the Bush free-market years. They were the same folks who were trumpeting the need to convert the Social Security Trust Fund into stock investments (just before the crash of 2007). They’re all for engaging in war (for any reason) in Iraqi, Iran, Viet Nam, Korea, Central America, South America…wherever there is a government (whether elected through a democracy or not) to illustrate that WE ARE the only military superpower. They are the champions of pre-emptive war. It’s good enough for them to justify an aggressive military action just because they conceive threat from any source, justified or not. “Walk softly and carry a big stick” has been replaced with “shoot first and ask questions later.”

The Tea Party has its roots in the South, where they believed slavery was worth initiating a civil war, where as late as the sixties and seventies they were standing in the doorways of public universities to prevent African-Americans from attending schools of higher learning with white students. They are of the political continuity of George Wallace, Lester Maddox, John C. Calhoun, Bull Connor (the Alabama Sheriff who turned fire hoses and dogs on civil rights protesters) and Dick Armey.

They have an unblemished record as being wrong on civil rights, evolution, stem cell research, climate change, and if we could transport them back a few centuries I believe they would have been the same people who thought the sun revolved around the earth, and that the world was flat.

They’re bad judgment has been duly illustrated to have been drastically wrong. Had they prevailed in redirecting the Social Security Trust Fund in the stock market in the George W. Bush second term millions of senior citizens who would have planned on retiring in the last three years would have had their futures irrevocably changed. They’re prediction that the fiscal policies invoked by the Clinton Administration would lead the country into a recession proved to be 180 degrees incorrect. Those policies led to the longest period of expansion in history. Whereas the free-market, laissez-faire, cut taxes for the wealthy policies of the Bush administration led to banks making ill advised loans and the payment of massive undeserved bonuses, along with the deepest recession since the Great Depression. By the way, only the last minute intervention of the Bush Administration, followed by the massive stimulus of the Obama Administration along with the vigorous re-installation of federal regulators like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Reserve prevented this “Great Recession” from becoming a “Greater Depression.”

As Nobel Economist Paul Krugman put it in his December 28, 2009 New York Times Op-ed, “now that their policies of tax cuts and deregulation have led us into an economic quagmire, their prescription for recovery is – tax cuts and deregulation.” Or, as a good friend of mine once described his hunting dog when he said, “he has lighting speed but, no since of direction.” If we ever follow these revisionists with their “charge backwards” philosophy we’re going to find ourselves in the same place. With the rich getting richer, the middle class disappearing, and the poor among us swelling. True, a rising tide lifts all ships…but, the rising tide is the base of the economy, not the apex. If we ever learn to lift the poor and middle class the wealthy will discover it will improve their lives too.

Before anyone joins this merry band they better recognize exactly where this group of drunken soldiers is leading them. And, it’s not to a better or higher standard of living that we’ve become accustom to. It’s a direct route to returning to the also-rans. These folks are as dishonest with themselves as they are with the rest of us. They ignore the benefits of an organized society where a democratically elected government oversees the activities of its members (citizens) to insure everyone plays fair and respects each other. If we didn’t need government regulations we could do without street signs, speed limits, air traffic control, paved streets…at least streets that weren’t controlled by trolls collecting tolls for passage.

What they purpose is to “water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots”…but, to follow them will lead to something totally different!

SO YOU WANT TO BE A LIBERAL

I sympathize with my ultra left liberal friends. I’m not happy about the result of the healthcare bill in the Senate. I’m disappointed in the Democrats who allowed a few goofy Democratic Senators, and one goofy Independent Democratic Senator, to hijack what should have been…and, could have been the kind of healthcare reform that should have been on the mark from the very start. But, the stars weren’t in alignment.

But, truthfully, the President told us what to expect when he campaigned for the office he now holds. He said he wanted to change the culture in Washington. And, I’ve got news for you…he’s living up to that commitment that he made. If Lyndon Johnson were president rather than Barack Obama he (President Johnson) would have knocked some heads together to get this thing done right. But, that’s not what this president is attempting to create. This president is going to be, I think, two things…patient and persistent. That’s the new way.

If we’re going to be different as liberals than the R’s are as conservatives…we’re going to have to get tougher than our opponents are. And, I’m not talking about tougher the way Republicans were when they forced absolutely absurd policies on us as a country. The R’s forced a tax break for the rich on us that reversed what would have resulted in a $2.4 trillion dollar surplus which instead, resulted in a $10 trillion dollar debt. We are going to have to commit ourselves to this new culture. I think this new culture will have to possess the patience and persistence that the president is demonstrating. We’re going to have to act like adults rather than spoiled children. So, we didn’t get what we think we needed for proper healthcare reform. Rather than holding our breath until we turn blue, we need to commit ourselves to pressing for additional work on the bill immediately. I mean before the ink has ever dried. We need to make it clear to the Democrats who weren’t playing on our team that we’re going to run real Democrats against them. Lincoln, of Arkansas, Landrieu of Louisiana, Nelson of Nebraska, and Lieberman need to know we’re not taking their defection and deal making lightly. They need good strong competition for their sacred senate seats.


We cannot sit out any election ever again…ever. We’ve got to get those $10 and $20 internet donations back into action. We need our fellow bloggers to saturate the internet with the facts that the voters need to know in order to throw these Democratic actors out of office and elect real authentic liberals and progressives.

I love Kos, Fire Dog Lake, Ed Shultz, all those liberal voices and bloggers. But, we just got our foot in the door. No, we didn’t get what we needed…but, we got what we needed to get a good start. Now is not the time to stick our heads in the sand…now is when we need to prove we’re a force that’s not going away and is a force to be reckoned with.

If we don’t, there’s another group of radicals who will be persistence although not patient. The Tea Party…the “tea baggers” (How great a name for them is that?). Get tough! Be patient and persistent! We’re not going away and we’ll be at the voting booth and donation windows in every election from now on!

MAKING A DIFFERENCE

Things are happening regarding banking regulation. The most remarkable story emerged the week of December 7th regarding what I think is a very brave Georgia woman who worked for Bank of America, Jackie Ramos. Ms. Ramos was fired by Bank of America after she took a stand against the bank's policies regarding the workout of credit card loans. Her descriptions of the bank’s insincere efforts to act like they want to modify the loans of customers who are experiencing severe credit problems highlight the real intention, to generate more fees and keep the customer in debt.

She gives her, first person, experience in accessing $15 "convenience" charges and $39 over-the-limit fees on helpless customers. Then, of course, Bank of America (and, don’t fool yourselves…BOA is not the only abuser of these practices) will represent to the U.S. Government and bank regulators that they are “breaking their backs” to help these customers who find themselves service charged into oblivion and paying 30%...excuse me (as Ms. Ramos puts it) 29.99% interest rates on their credit card accounts.

Make no mistake about it…the only thing these “too big to fail” banks are breaking their backs doing is figuring out how to get themselves back to the position of paying obscene salaries to their top few executives, all the while telling their own, lower paid employees, that the economy won’t allow them to give good raises or hire additional workers, or get back to the purpose banks exists for…lending money to credit worthy borrowers. Regulators in Great Britain are onto this scam and have decreed that all bonuses over approximately $40,000 will be taxed at 50%. Having been in a position that paid large bonuses, I don’t see this as onerous on executives at all. It should encourage employers to construct the salary of their employees on the basis of a better base, but a fair reward for the performance of the employees work. However, I don’t see where the likes of “to big to fail” banks or large corporations who pose a systemic risk to the well being of the U.S. economy are in a position to demand an obscene bonus when many of their profits are only due to the bailout of AIG, a corporation who insured the risk these banks were taking and that ultimately failed.

If you haven’t seen Ms. Ramos’ YouTube video, I recommend you watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5E0WNO7e_Q&feature=player_embedded.

Then, five House Democrats called for a return to a Depression-era law, known as the Glass-Steagall Act, that separated Wall Street investment banking from commercial banking.If the law is enacted, it would give banks one year to choose between being commercial banks or investment banks. The nations biggest -- those now commonly referred to as "too big to fail" -- would be broken up. The reason this makes since is that commercial bank deposits are insured by the FDIC. Consequently, the blurring of investment and commercial banks provides a window for the investment bankers to have access to insured deposits to gamble in the stock market. A classic heads, I win, tails you lose scenario.

The amendment's five co-sponsors -- Maurice Hinchey of New York, John Conyers of Michigan, Peter DeFazio of Oregon, Jay Inslee of Washington, and John Tierney of Massachusetts - want to restore the Act which originally passed in 1933, which also prohibited commercial banks from underwriting stocks and bonds. The act was repealed in 1999 and unfortunately signed into law by President Clinton, although the energy behind the repeal was Senator Phil Graham, of Texas. Mr. Graham foresight into the economic future has been consistently wrong. He predicted the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 would send the economy back into a deep recession. The actual result was the longest period of expansion on record.

The amendment would seem to have the backing of former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker who is one of a number of financial experts that are suggesting a return to Glass-Steagall is necessary going forward. In addition, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, much to my surprise, also endorsed the concept in a recent editorial as a way to "reduce moral hazard" and "limit certain kinds of risk-taking by institutions that hold taxpayer-insured deposits." Unfortunately the Wall Street Journal doesn’t realize that insured deposits aren’t tax payer funds they are premiums assessed on member banks with the “full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.” There’s a big difference.

As a result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall big banks began getting even bigger. The four largest in our country -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo - now hold more than half of the nation's mortgages, two-thirds of credit cards and two-fifths of all bank deposits.

Because the deposits of these banks are insured by the FDIC, there's growing concern that they would have little restraint in making risky bets through their investment subsidiaries because they know if they lose, the FDIC and potentially the U.S. Treasury will ultimately bail them out.

Volcker also admonished the financial community this week delivering a jarring message to high-level bankers and regulators at an exclusive meeting in Sussex, England. "Has there been one financial leader to say [executive pay] is really excessive? Wake up, gentlemen. Your response, I can only say, has been inadequate," he said, according to the Times of London.

Volcker, a veteran of the financial world and currently chairman of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, spoke this past Tuesday at the Future of Finance Initiative conference, organized by the Wall Street Journal.
Amid throngs of bankers arguing that new regulations should not impede on financial "innovation," Volcker pushed back, accusing Wall Street's increasingly complex financial products as useless to economic growth. In demeaning the meager contributions of the big banks, he named the ATM cash machine as the most successful financial innovation in the past 20 years, the Times reported.

Financial reform is coming, and soon, because if it isn’t we’re going to go through this exact same exercise on down the road…only it’s going to be more severe the next time and every time thereafter.

FOCUS ON THE MIDDLE CLASS

I’ve harped forever that the key to a robust growing economy is a simple formula. Focus on the middle class. Targeting tax cuts to the wealthy is fool’s gold, and not more than a deceitful ruse. If you want to grow the middle class with tax policies write them to reward creating jobs at the bottom and penalize large salaries at the top of the income charts. Tax cuts for a guy without a job doesn’t encourage anything, and targeting tax cuts for the upper 5% of income earners doesn’t create jobs…it just pads the bank accounts of the wealthy.

Elizabeth Warren (Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the banking bailouts) wrote this past week about the shrinking middles class. She is well respected and her advice is worth paying attention to. She wrote, “In the boom of the 1960s median family incomes jumped by 33%. But the boom of the 2000s resulted in an almost-imperceptible 1.6% increase for the typical family. Wages of the average fully-employed male have been flat since the 1970s. But core expenses kept going up. By the early 2000s, families were spending twice as much (adjusted for inflation) on mortgages than they did a generation ago. They also had to pay twice as much to hang on to their health insurance. But higher housing and medical costs combined with new expenses for child care, the costs of a second car to get to work and higher taxes combined to squeeze families even harder. Even with two incomes, they tightened their belts. Families today spend less than they did a generation ago on food, clothing, furniture, appliances, and other flexible purchases.”

She goes on to say, “While the middle class has been caught in an economic vise, the financial industry that was supposed to serve them has prospered at their expense. Top executives kept their jobs and retained their bonuses. Even though the tax dollars that supported the bailout came largely from middle class families. Families understand with crystalline clarity that the rules they have played by are not the same rules that govern Wall Street. They understand that no American family is ‘too big to fail.’”

Ms. Warren is a Law Professor at Harvard in addition to serving as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel. She is an expert regarding public finance policy and her assessment is spot on. I know lots of us on the left are baffled at the cluelessness of the upper class to recognize that a growing middles class isn’t just good for those in the middle class but, it’s exactly what creates more wealth for the upper crust too. More customers…more business! How much easier can it be to see?

Unfortunately the sin that blinds the wealthy from learning this easy economic lesson is simply GREED. Greed leaves you completely without vision or imagination. Fortunately for us…a democratically organized government that combines the best of capitalism and socialism is the counter balance to blindness by a wealthy minority. A tax policy that will reward the creation of jobs and prohibit vulgar executive compensation can be the best medicine for curing an ailing economy and restoring a middle class that will once again leave us the envy of the world.

Everybody does better…when everybody does better!

WAR AND HONESTY

I don’t like our options in the war in Afghanistan. I, like most Americans, believed in what we did when we committed to engage the enemy after the events of September 11, 2001 in Afghanistan. However, that opportunity disintegrated when the last administration lead by the former weak excuse for a president, also with a vice president who can only be categorized as evil, along with a defense secretary who acted as any accomplice does in supporting a criminal who he serves, in this case the vice president. However, I believe the assessment given to our country this evening, December 1, 2009, was an honest message to what we as a nation face.

I am most interested in withdrawal. The fact that at least a date was set is the message I wanted to hear. Prior to this evening I told my friends I actually didn’t care if the president committed 100,000 troops if it meant that it was eventually going to lead to our withdrawal. So, I’ll give the President time to follow through on his strategy.

What I most appreciated most was his acknowledgement of my point of view. That I think there’s nothing to be served. My belief is that Afghani’s must fight for their destiny. I don’t think al Queda is likely to return to Afghanistan from Pakistan…because the nuke’s are in Pakistan. This President is a thoughtful guy. If I’d have ever believed, or been convinced, that Bush or Cheney were thoughtful I’d have give them some consideration. But, I like most of you always got the impression that I was never being told the truth. That whatever the reason for invading Iraqi after retaliating in Afghanistan was for a reason beyond the notion that Iraq was an imminent threat.

My preference is to pull out…but, the President convinced me to given him the consideration someone in authority deserves if they are approaching a problem thoughtfully.

I like it that he gave this fateful decision in the front of cadets at West Point. And, their reaction, after the address, leads me to believe they appreciated his approach too. They were intent, although some were clearly sleepy (not something anyone should hold against a college student especially one at a military academy). The picture I will be left with is one cadet who was reaching over a couple of lines of his classmate with his hand extended to shake the President’s hand…although this hand was trembling. I think that’s the way those of us who believe in this President are feeling. We are ready to follow him…but, we’re trembling at what may await us.

God’s speed Barack Obama.

AMBUSHED BY WHAT YOU READ. REALLY?

Come on Sarah! Ambushed by Katie Couric asking you what you read. Really? Ambushed?

Sarah seems awfully defensive about the simplest question she was asked during her failed run to be “one heartbeat away” from being the President of the United States, the most powerful job on the face of the earth to a guy who was in his 70’s and had recovered at least once from cancer. Sarah (I’ve been told) wrote in her book that she felt “ambushed” by the Katie Couric question. Then, I heard her on Faux News tell “Gritch’n” Karlson that she would like to interview Katie to see if Katie had learned anything about Alaska since she asked Sarah that “sneaky” question. My bet is Katie probably knows more about Alaska than Sarah does.

But, could an easier question be asked? “What do you read?” Sarah…the question wasn’t about the Bush Doctrine (which you nothing about), or the duties of the Vice President (which you knew nothing about). The question wasn’t about foreign policy (which you only seemed to think was about the short distance between Alaska and Russia). It wasn’t about how you would approach healthcare (which apparently is limited to your objection to “death panels”…we’re all with you on that one Sarah). The question wasn’t about trade policies (which you never commented on), or tax policy (which you just object to in general…by the way, Sarah, how would we finance the wars, and the highways…stuff like that). It was just about “what do you read?”

I would think any good conservative could rattle off The National Review (you know the publication begun by Wm. F. Buckley…you do know who Buckley is don’t you?), or the Wall Street Journal (for goodness sakes, it’s a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, he also owns Faux News). I would have even accepted an Anchorage newspaper…they have stories about the nation and the world, don’t they? Heck, I’m not nearly smart enough to be the Vice President but on even short notice I can tell you I read the Dallas Morning News, the New York Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, the Nation, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, The Hill, and Politico, shoot…I even read People magazine when my wife leaves it in the bathroom. I can name several books I’ve read…even ones that don’t involve national issues.

You were ambushed just like I was in high school and college when I had the arrogance to show up for a test when I hadn’t read the assignment, or made any attempt to prepare for the test. I failed the test…and, so did you Sarah.

Those of you who insist that Sarah is qualified to be president ask yourself if you really think someone who has shown the character for breaking under pressure the way she has(why else would you quit half way through her first term as Governor in one of the smallest states in the country) could possible stand up to the pressure of being president. Do you just think when she becomes the leader of the free world, and the person the rest of us depend on, that she will just automatically become curious? I’ll tell you what I’m afraid of…she will be just as rattled as she was when Katie Couric asked her, “what do you read?” I’m afraid we’d have to send in the Marines to pull her out from under her bed.

John McCain created a monster!

What do you read? Really!

Liberty and JUSTICE

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish JUSTICE, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America)


I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty AND JUSTICE for all. (The pledge of allegiance)


Our conservative, free-market friends on the right are very passionate about freedom. Freedom, of course, is expressed as “liberty.” The free market advocates adamantly proclaim that liberty is the cornerstone of the founding of the United States. They genuinely believe there should not be any restrictions on their freedom…well, at least where business is concerned. The un-restrained free market will solve all inequities in their opinion. They would gladly turn over your fate and safety to the free market economy. Business will do right and the inequities will be forced to the sidelines in a “free market economy,” they will tell you.

However, these dedicated friends of ours overlook an important aspect of the founding fathers. Liberty is tempered with “justice.” Establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare are all components of securing the blessings of liberty. The founding fathers never thought that liberty wouldn’t need to be tempered. And, justice, domestic tranquility, a common defense and promoting the general welfare were the buffer they foresaw as predicates to freedom, or liberty.

I’ve used this example several times to demonstrate to my children why there is a need for regulation, or what some might call “government interference.” When you go to buy gasoline for your car you drive into the convenience store of your choice, you put the nozzle into your gas tank and begin to fill up your tank. You don’t stop to think about whether the pump maybe filling your gas tank with water, sugar water, or something else harmful to your car engine. You know you’re getting gasoline. You don’t have to weigh the fuel to determine whether you’re getting a gallon, or quart, or pint. You know you’re getting a gallon of gas. Then, you don’t have to calculate whether you were charged the amount advertised on the marquis of the station sign. You know the fuel pump is accurately measuring and charging you correctly. Why is that?

That’s because government regulations (or what some call government interference) require the business to be honest about the advertising, the government inspects the fuel to insure they are selling gasoline and not something else, and the government calibrates the pump to insure the correct amount is being charged. Because of all this we have confidence in the commerce of our country. Similar regulation exists for most all avenues of our economy. That’s the JUSTICE insuring the “blessings of liberty.”

It’s time for our conservative free market, “keep your hands off my…whatever,” friends realize that justice, and promoting the general welfare, is as much a part of our national DNA as “freedom or liberty” is.

And, when they start waiving their copies of their pocket size U. S. Constitution in your face inquiring where the Constitution says the government has any right dictating healthcare for the country…suggest they read that document they carry around. Explain that “promoting the general welfare” is exactly what provides for the government to enact laws regarding the health of our citizens. They won’t have to read very far…it’s in the first sentence.

Remind them that it’s not justice when “too large to fail” banks, oversized insurance companies, and investment banks are allowed to gouge “we the people” in the name of freedom, free markets, or liberty.

Liberty and JUSTICE for all!

TO SERVE, NOT TO SPEAK

It’s a scam that goes back to the beginning of religion. If you claim to speak for God…then you can’t be wrong, because if you challenge one who claims to speak for God, then you’ve challenged God. Except, of course, no one…NO ONE can speak for God. Now, I’m not disputing the existence of God. In fact, I’m a believer myself. I think, in my life God has spoken to me. But, never by someone who had actually claimed to be speaking for God.

The most memorable time I believe God spoke to me was when one of my daughters, without prompting, advised me that she always gave money to street people who asked for money. Her belief was that anyone who had to ask her for a dollar needed the money more than she did. For me, God could not have been clearer and my attitude has been different about giving money to persons who ask me for money on the street ever since. That’s the way God has always spoken to me…and, I’ll bet that’s the way God normally speaks to you too.

However, the ruse that the “executives of the clergy” use, whether they be our neighborhood church pastors, or preachers who have infected the airwaves, is they tell you they speak for God. That way…you have no standing to question their edict. Very convenient, don’t you think? Not all pastors are this way. Some actually devote themselves to the purpose religious teachings espouse…SERVING. That’s what Christians, Muslim’s, Hindu’s are supposed to do. Serving mankind is our admonition. It can’t be said any clearer than the admonition from the Bible…”do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

I have not read Sarah Palin’s book…nor, do I intend to. However, Frank Rich (who has read all of Sarah’s book) in his Op-Ed article of Sunday, November 22, 2009 in the New York Times mentioned a two page portion of the book were Sarah signed a letter from God in her book as though it was God who wrote and sent the letter. Mr. Rich states, “The book’s most frequently dropped names, predictably enough, are the Lord and Ronald Reagan (though not necessarily in that order). Easily the most startling passage in “Going Rogue,” running more than two pages, collates extended excerpts from a prayerful letter Palin wrote to mark the birth of Trig, her child with Down syndrome. This missive’s understandable goal was to reassert Palin’s faith and trust in God. But Palin did not write her letter to God; she wrote the letter from God, assuming His role and voice herself and signing it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.” If I may say so — Oy!” Rather bold don’t you think.

Sister Sarah’s latest foreign policy position (something she’s never had before) comes via her biblical interpretation of the book of Revelations. She believes the Jews should continue settling in the Gaza since, as she states, “in the days and years ahead the Jews will be returning to this land.” You’ll need to read up on Revelations to see exactly where her divine foreign policy emanates from, but let me give you what I remember God revealing in the Book of Revelations… “no man knows the time!” The earth is estimated by scientist to be approximately 4.5 BILLION years old but Sister Sarah and her spiritual guide Billy Graham know we are in the “end of times.” Yes…as much as it hurts me to say this, because I grew up admiring Billy Graham. However, Billy and his son Franklin also engage in this deception. They submit themselves to us as “SPEAKING” for God.

Evangelical and Catholic…churches of all denominations use this technique (that they SPEAK for God). Say you speak for God…and then no one can dispute your position. I grew up in Southern Baptist churches where most, not all…but, most, of the ministers tried to use this ruse. Catholics use it with gusto. Even to the point they think they should determine whether a parishioner can take communion or not! This is outrageous. We are either all children of God…or none of us is a child of God.
Our purpose is to SERVE God…not to SPEAK for God. To speak for God in my way of thinking takes issue with the third commandment to “take the name of God in vain.” I’m not proposing to be a member of this elite, arrogant, evangelical group…but, let me let you in on a little secret. I know who speaks for God. GOD SPEAKS FOR GOD!
Finally let me conclude with the case of Bishop Thomas Tobin, Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island, who proposes to enforce the will of the Catholic Church on members of Congress who are Catholic. The Bishop stated on November 23, 2009 (Hardball with Chris Matthews) “…the point is that any Catholic in public office, his first commitment has to be to his faith, not just for a Catholic, but for a member of any religious community. No commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith, because it involves your relationship with God.”

I remember how in the 1960 election, we Southern Baptist, we’re worried that John F. Kennedy would allow the Pope to govern the country through President Kennedy, a Roman Catholic. To dispel this concern President Kennedy said the following, “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source, where no religious body seeks to impose its will, directly or indirectly, upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.”

Chris Matthews had one of the best exchanges I have ever witnessed with the fine Bishop. Chris stated, “…what we’re talking about here is the law, not the morality of the issue, but the law.”

This is exactly the point. Adultery is adverse to the teachings of the Christian Church, yet we’re not proposing nor imposing criminal penalties for adultery are we…Senator Vetter, or Senator Ensign? The Roman Catholic Church through Bishop Tobin is telling Catholic members of Congress how to vote.

Chris went on to challenge the Bishop regarding what the criminal penalties for abortion should be. Chris said this…“You said that we should go back to where we were before Roe v. Wade in '73. So let's go back to that, if that is the prescription you're offering here. If you outlaw abortion at the state level, say at the Rhode Island level, or the Pittsburgh level in Pennsylvania, where you come from, or anything like that, then you make it illegal for a person to go get on abortion. So what does that do, in fact? What's the effect on human life? You want to respect and preserve human life. What is the effect that has if you say a doctor can't perform an abortion? Would you criminalize it? Would you put people in jail? If it's murder, as you see it, would you criminalize it? And the Bishops reply…“I wouldn’t even pretend to be in a position to do that.” Read that again…”I wouldn’t even pretend to be in a position to do that.” Well then, what the hell is the Bishop doing telling a member of Congress, elected by much more than the Roman Catholic Church and it’s members, regarding his vote on anything.

Chris Matthews (a Roman Catholic himself) had some very poignant comments to make to the Bishop…and all of us in my opinion.

Chris said, “I think you're intervening. I think you're getting into law here, and you don't like Congressman Kennedy's voting record in Congress.” And if there is a hesitancy to punish a woman for having an abortion, maybe that's instructive to you because when you realize you don't really want to punish a woman for having an abortion, under the law, then maybe you should step back from using the law as your tool in enforcing moral authority. Maybe your moral authority comes from the pulpit and from teaching, and a congressman has a totally different role, which is to write the law. When it comes to the law, it's a secular question. It has not to do with the moral - we do a lot of things in this country we don't like, we think are immoral. But the question is what sanction do you apply to it? What should be the penalty for a young woman or a girl, even, to have an abortion? You have no idea, and it's not your area. And yet this is the very area you've transgressed in. You've gone into the area of lawmaking, and condemned the behavior of public officials who have to write public policy. The difference between rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, which is the law, and rendering to your flock and people like me what is right and wrong.”

“Your problem is you haven't gotten people to obey your moral code through teaching, and you have resorted now to use the law to do your enforcement for you. And the problem with that is you are hesitant to state for me now what the punishment should be under the law for having an abortion, because you know, deep down, if you said one minute in prison, you would be laughed at, because the American people, catholic and non-catholic, do not think it's a criminal act to have an abortion.”

“They may not like it. They may think it's immoral. But they don't think it's criminal. And yet you are here bringing the force of the law, the authority of the police, and the bench, the law, the judiciary. You want to bring it all to bear, including the Constitution, to enforce your moral beliefs.”

Powerful words from a Roman Catholic lay person (Chris Matthews) to a Roman Catholic Bishop. I doubt even Chris Matthews realizes the Bishop does not SPEAK for GOD…the Bishop is supposed to SERVE God. And, there’s a big difference.

INSTANT ECONOMY

I’m one of those who indulge in instant meals more than I should. It’s just too easy to wake up in the morning, pop a cup of water into the microwave, empty a package of instant oatmeal or grits into a bowl, add the boiling water and presto…breakfast is served. Just like everyone, after going twelve hours or so without any food, an instant hot meal cures all that is wrong. Plus, most of the time it provides the necessary nutrition.

That’s the way most of think a stimulus cure for the economy should work. We discover we need a recovery, we argue over adding billions of dollars of government spending to the economy, finally settle on an amount, pour some money into the economy bowl and presto…we expect our economic hunger to be solved. Here it is, a little over six months since we poured this hot stimulus money into the bowl, and we’re wondering why we’re still suffering…still economically hungry.

A couple of business and economic writers and experts wrote comments on the state of the economy this week…which by the way has stabilized, if not begun to improve.
Newsweek’s Daniel Gross noted the following in a story titled “A Birder’s Guide to D.C. …The deficit hawks squawk too much.”

The deficit grew from $248 billion in 2006 to $1.4 trillion for fiscal 2009, and Mr. Gross noted that much of that can be pinned on cyclical factors. Mr. Gross goes on to highlight that when the economy contracts two factors have a detrimental effect on the deficit. Tax receipts go down, and demand for government spending goes up in the way of unemployment benefits, bailouts and government stimulus.

It should also be of interest that spending rose 18% and revenue fell 16.6% in fiscal 2009. This contrary motion, of income and expense, was the worst decline for the United States since the 1930’s. However, the budget deficit predicted to be $1.84 trillion in May of 2009 actually came in somewhat better by fiscal year end at %1.58 trillion. The rally of the stock market, for all it hasn’t been for Main Street American, helped recover corporate profits, and coupled with the now expanding economy have resulted in higher than expected tax revenues. So, when the Treasury Department ended the country’s fiscal year in October of 2009 the final deficit was $1.42 trillion even better than in May and $138 billion less than the July prediction. As the late great Senator Everett Dirkson once said…”a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

Mr. Gross notes that historically “the consensus of economists and politicians has continually underestimated the strength and timing of the recovery.” As a result of the change of direction for the economy the Treasury announced it would need to borrow 42% less than expected in July…$276 billion less. “A billion here, a billion there…” So, we might be able to reasonably expect a 10% to 20% improvement in the 2010 deficit.

The sad fact about deficit hawks is they ignore the affects of the costs of health care and the improvement that a “robust” public option would do for deficit spending. Then, there are still those lingering problems caused by the Bush tax cuts, and the adverse effect they have on the deficit and entitlement spending. Our conservative adversaries still stupidly call for us to scale back the not-yet-spent stimulus funds in the name of fiscal discipline.

But, the “Quote the Day from Daniel Gross’s article was this: “Being obsessed with deficit reduction when the economy has suffered its largest setback since the Depression is like being obsessed with water conservation when your house is on fire.” This is rich and a quote worth remember when your conservative friends want to start preaching the gospel of fiscal restraint. Restraint, after eight years of a spending spree by the Bush Administration, that looking backwards, would have been a great time for debt reduction. Remember Alan Greenspan’s admonishment that we would damage the economy if we saved too much…and these Republican hacks stood there drooling like high school seniors standing at a craps table in Las Vegas.

The other notable opinion on the economy came from the November 13, 2009 Op-Ed page of the New York Times. This piece, by Nobel Economist Paul Krugman, compared the United States approach to tackling joblessness to that of Germany. Mr. Krugman advocates “policies that address the job issue more directly.” For example, the “New Deal style employment programs.” This article reminds us “that at their peak, the W.P.A. and the Civilian Conservation Corps employed millions of Americans, at relatively low cost to the budget. If you are interested in reading more about Great Depression era solutions like the W.P.A and the Civilian Conservation Corps I would suggest you read “the Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008” by Paul Krugman, and “The Defining Moment” by Jonthan Alter.

Paul Krugman’s article advocates that regulations that would discourage firing, coupled with incentives for hiring, or modifying working hours to prevent additional layoffs could help us with unemployment.

Mr. Krugman makes another poignant point…“right now, workers who lose their jobs aren’t moving to the jobs of the future; they’re entering the ranks of the unemployed and staying there.” Furthermore, the longer you’re out of job the harder it is to get another job. What Paul Krugman suggests, and we all should be able to agree, is that “we should introduce an employment tax credit” and a job-sharing subsidy which would help workers on the bubble keep their jobs.

FEAR FOR A CAUSE

I was having a conversation with one of my colleagues in the banking industry a few days ago about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the 2009 Stimulus Package). We were discussing the past history (in the depressions of the 1930’s) and success of a government stimulus. History records the facts as follows; after assuming the presidency, Franklin Roosevelt, pursued a government stimulus that successfully revived a depressed economy. However, encouraged by deficit hawks to abandon continuing the stimulus, he deviated returning to government austerity to quickly, and sending the economy into another depression. But, a significant world event occurred. The president and members of congress, having lost their confidence for government deficit spending were involuntarily re-engaged in a massive deficit stimulus when the fear of the Nazi’s in Germany and an aggressive enemy in Japan forced them into the kind of deficit spending program that the economy not only needed to recover but, to issued in a long period of productivity and wealth that brought the United States to be the leader of the World (free and otherwise) that we are today.

What we lack today, for a similar recovery, is the “fear” which would launch us into a similar recovery. Today, deficit hawks are again cautioning about a federal deficit of $1.4 trillion…a fear to be sure…but, the wrong kind of fear. This is their (conservative deficit hawks) reason for saying no to everything…including the most recent debate about healthcare. This argument is based in denying history and ignorance. It’s a prescription for a continuation of a weak recovery and possibly a re-entry into another great recession or even a new depression. Their argument will result in a long slow recovery, possible negating any meaningful recovery, and continuing the suffering of the under-employed, and the unemployed.

Here’s the facts as recently described by The Nation Magazine. “The mobilization for World War II produced one of the most remarkable success stories in US economic history. War production not only overcame lingering weaknesses from the Great Depression but transformed the economic system into the modern powerhouse that became the platform for our long-running postwar prosperity. All this was achieved by the government, largely with borrowed money. By war’s end Washington had piled up federal debt totaling around 120 percent of annual GDP (nearly double today’s debt level).” DID YOU GET THAT…120% of the annual GDP!

The Nation goes on to say, “During the wartime emergency the government took charge of the economy and rapidly shifted the industrial system to armaments while suppressing domestic consumption. Deficit spending force-fed the rapid development of new technologies and new basic industries. In a few short years, economic output expanded by about 75 percent. Despite rationing and wage and price controls, Americans at large were replenished: per capita income rose by almost 70 percent (with industrial jobs opened to women and blacks).”

Another massive government stimulus plan, that I like, which lasted for years was the Interstate Highway System enacted during the Eisenhower Administration. I could argue that this government program created additional wealth and prosperity for all of us, rich and poor. The key to un-locking prolonged economic opportunity continues even unto today, although this system is crumbling and badly in need of repair (roads and bridges). This presents an opportunity for additional stimulus and growth in our current crisis.

We, as a country, need a new fear which would force us into making the commitment to our predicament of today. We need a public “Jobs Program.” A “Jobs Program” that would create jobs when the private sector seems unable or unwilling to do so. We should commit to creating “green jobs” that would supplement environmental construction, and re-tooling standing buildings with environmental efficiencies, not to mention high speed rail which would encourage green efficiencies and conservation. We need to encourage and create “green companies” and our government should support and purchase from those companies.

SEED MONEY

Having grown up on the “buckle” of the “bible belt,” I have been exposed to my fair share of the language of evangelicals. One of the coin phrases, especially of televangelist, is to “plant seed money.” Of course, what they’re actually enticing their viewer to do is to send their money to the televangelist with the promise that it will come back “ten fold.” “Ten fold” is also one of the phrases in their vocabulary because that’s what they want their followers to give, at a minimum, out of every dollar that passes through the follower’s hands. Sort of a 10% church tax, as I used to like to think of it.

But, let’s go back to their idea of seed money and consider that under their “snake oil” salesman pitch that maybe we could borrow that phrase from them in regard to our current national, and world, economic dilemma. What if rather than Wall Street Investment firms, and banks paying those obscene bonuses they instead used that money to hire a few more employees, or pay the lower employees a little more, or even used the money to start new businesses that would hire new employees. It would be legitimate “seed money.”

I’ve never understood how big business and the wealthiest of us have missed the point that the key to economic growth and greater income for them as well as the lower and middle class is not tax cuts but, is a growing middle class. The economic principle is simple…the more customers you have the more products you can sell and the more money you can make. Basically, everybody does better when everybody does better. The “cardinal rule” of EVERYBODY WINS! Paying $30 million dollars to a single employee is obscene and it’s happening thousands of times every year in our society. What would be wrong with executives, who by the way were the architects of the financial meltdowns and obviously aren’t worth the big salaries they’re getting, trimming their unjustified salaries back to $10 million a year and using the balance to hire new employees and create new companies that would create new jobs.

But, what we’re left with is Wall Street paying out billions of dollars of over the top bonus and Main Street unemployment topping 10%. It ain’t right! And, let’s keep this all in perspective…paying a 50% or 100% bonus to a $250,000 salaried worker isn’t the same as paying a $25 million bonus to a multi-million dollar executive.

A recently published article out of Time magazine’s September 9th issue by Allan Sloan accurately described the character of these Wall Street firms as having “collapsed out of ignorance fueled by avarice – a particularly toxic combination.” And, this avarice lives on.

The rescue of the financial industry by the Bush Administration and then followed up by the Obama Administration had a few very glaring holes in the plan. Some of this was justified…the plan had to be enacted on a emergency basis and unfortunately we didn’t have the luxury of knowing all the repercussions. However one glaring deficiency which needs to be corrected is there should be a requirement for the money to be lent to the public in the form of consumer, commercial and real estate loans…and not back to the government in the form of T-bill investments. The plan should correct this miscalculation today by refusing to allow the money to be directed back to T-bill investments for the spread between interest rate they got the money from the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) Fund for and what the yield on T-bill is today. That money was to rescue all of us…not just Wall Street.
Let’s use the TARP money and those big bonuses to “seed” the economy. I think it would work.

Additionally, we all need to recognize this is not a problem that can be turned around on a dime any more that an ocean liner could. As a country we need to be smarter than we act like from time to time. It’s as though a builder was hired to build a billion dollar complex and we showed up at the site three months later and wondered why the building wasn’t finished. We need to get real…but, we need to hold commercial and investment bankers feet to the fire. Believe me, I’ve worked with them for my entire profession career and they really don’t get it!

THE QUEST TO STAY IN POWER

Before the last election I received a phone call from the Congressional Campaign Committee soliciting funds. I declined to donate and expressed an opinion that because I felt the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Congressional Majority had failed to hold the former President accountable for his misdeeds. The solicitor began what ended up being a rather long solicitation call. He argued, very forcefully, that it was more important for the Democrats to stay in power than it was to pursue the former President for his misdeeds. I couldn’t have disagreed more then…and now!

About a week ago I listened to a Democratic Strategist, Steve McMahon, argue on the Ed Schultz Show that it was more important for Democrats in Congress to capitulate on the Public Option in regard to healthcare reform so they could remain in power. The same old tired argument.

Let’s get this straight here and now…we didn’t elect Senators and Congressmen, or the President, so they’d have a long and prosperous career. They were elected to make things better. To hell with whether they hang on to power. And, what good is power if you don’t use it for the good of the people. If they’re looking for a career path they need to find a job that provides for upward promotions. I don’t care if they stay employed simply because I voted and elected them to a prestigious position. We’re not voting for them…we’re voting for us. So, if they want to accept our “temporary job,” they need to do something that benefits us…not prolongs they’re precious careers. The candidates who improve society usually do stay in office for a long time. Those that don’t serve the people normally slip and fall along the way. I give you Ted Stevens (Senator – Alaska), Larry Craig (Senator – Idaho), Richard Nixon, Joseph McCarthy (Senator – Wisconsin), et al.

I would suggest the best way to stay in power is to do something positive. People reward that. Oh, there are those that are mesmerized by the power of elected office, or captured office in the case of dictators…but, those personalities normally end in tragedy, and rightfully so!

Reforming healthcare isn’t about staying in power. It’s about getting needed medical care to children, women, men, the poor, the left out and those who’ve given up hope. Vote the right way and the people will reward you. But, the voters don’t give a damn about whether you have the majority after the next election if you’re not doing any good for the people.

CAPITALISM V. SOCIALISM – SOCIALISM V. CAPITALISM By Lt & Lt. Jr.

It’s time to correct the age old belief that capitalism is all good and socialism is all bad. The fact is there are some things about capitalism that are bad and, some things about socialism that are good. I’ve believed for some time that liberals are at their very best when they convince us that the “chain is only as strong as the weakest link.” And, conversely, conservatives are at their very best when they convince us that the “chain” is most efficient when it’s not all tied up in knots.

A complete free market capitalistic system leads to the “haves” taking advantage of the “have-not’s.” And, complete socialism discourages hard work. The polar opposite of capitalism is democracy, and the polar opposite of socialism is dictatorship. The fact is that this “great experiment” we speak of as the United States of America is a bit of both. It’s not all one or the other.

As I’ve written before the constitution provides for the “general welfare” of its subjects. We need rules in order to promote civil organization. Just picture what our highway system would be without organization. No stop signs, directional signs…everybody just doing whatever they think is right. The highway system would be disorganized, and a disaster. By the same token…we need to encourage and reward those who work hard. But, hard work doesn’t always equal high pay. I dare say the guy who pours concrete to build a highway probably works harder than the CEO of one of the major companies. But, we need to be fair about the distribution of wealth.

It has always amazed me that most of the extremely wealthy seem not to realize that the best way for them to make more money is to have more customers. So…BUILD THE MIDDLE CLASS. That is the best way to create customers. Think how much better off the whole economic system would be if the Wall Street CEO’s who make $100 million a year would redirect $85 million of that treasure chest to create a lot of $100 thousand jobs. The more people work and spend the more products they buy. The old story about Henry Ford (whether true or not) is the best example of this philosophy. Henry Ford supposedly said, “He wanted to pay the workers who built his car enough that they could buy his product.” The larger the middle class the larger the customer base…and let’s face it, isn’t that what capitalism his about? …selling to customers.

But, having had a life time of working with bankers I can honestly tell you they do not get it. They are not capable of any vision beyond their greed. Consequently, if we don’t keep them honest the disparity between the rich and poor will continue to expand until one day this “great experiment” will end in a revolution of the “have not’s.” Don’t believe me…go read about any great civilization and you discover that essentially how they all came to a conclusion. The oppressed will eventual strike back.

It’s time we ended the notion that our democracy is just about free market capitalism. It’s about how we treat the least in our midst. That sounds familiar, “The least of these.” I wonder whether our Christian capitalistic friends will remember where they’ve heard it before.

FOCUS ON THE EXIT STRATEGY

The mission was already screwed long before President Obama took office. Afghanistan was where the real war should have been waged. Afghanistan was where our real enemies existed. George W. Bush and President Cheney (this is not a typo) never were serious about Afghanistan or bin Laden. They always wanted Iraq. Not because of Sadam, or weapons of mass destruction, or creating democracy in the Middle East. We may never know the real reason. But, we all think it was because of the oil.

However, nine years later, and our best intelligence says there may only be about 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan. They were allowed to slip into Pakistan and now reside in country that actually has a nuclear weapon. Why would they want to return to Afghanistan? Since Pakistan isn’t exactly active in clearing them out, it seems they are quite content to wait out their exile until they can pounce on a real live nuke. Our real options are very limited.

We need to focus on an exit strategy from Afghanistan. It doesn’t matter whether it’s no new troops, or 100,000 troops. The real goal needs to be to leave. We have hundreds of years of world history to tell us this is not going to end well. If the Afghan’s want to save their country…they’ll have to be the ones to save it. The same goes for Iraq. If the Iraqi’s don’t take responsibility for their destiny they’ll return to another ruthless dictator.

I hate this because of what is likely to happen if the Taliban returns and what they’ll do, particularly to women. But, the Afghan’s have a history of being intense fighters and in the end they will have to fight for their destiny too.
All we’ll do is risk even more 18 to 30 year old men and women. I’m sick of reading the list of troops killed in action day after day. Twenty year old after twenty year old. This needs to end now!

I trust the President with this decision…but, unless he focuses on the exit strategy the outcome will be the same as Vietnam. These enemies are patient. They will wait forever. They are poor and they have no reason to be in a hurry. If there was a chance for us to succeed in affecting their future we missed it when we didn’t supply humanitarian effort and relief after the Afghan’s had defeated the Russians. Had we build schools, hospitals, municipal services, and assisted in creating small businesses we might have had a chance. That day is long past.

Commit one troop or 500,000…just focus on exiting this country as soon as possible.

IF THE R’S REALLY WANT TO COMPROMISE

Here’s the compromise…combine the Republican demand for competing across state lines with the creation of a robust, national, public option. Now if the Con’s (conservatives) really think this will bring down prices then the public options really won’t be an issue because purchasers will want the efficiency of private enterprise over the inefficient government, won’t they?

Con’s have assured us that private industry does EVERYTHING better…right? It seems this could be the soft landing we’re all looking for. It will prove that a ‘government run” system isn’t as good as the privately run healthcare industry. But, I believe the result will be something different. The “across state line” argument is nothing more than a “red herring.” It will be the same companies competing across state lines that now compete within state boundaries. And, the price is not going to be different from Wellpoint - New York, than it is for Wellpoint - New Jersey.

The real risk of this experiment for Con’s is that it may prove government isn’t so bad after all, and it may cause the whole country to take another look at this “anti-government” baloney the Con’s have been shoveling.

The Con’s go out of their way to demonize government at any level…although, my bet it they are pretty cautious about depositing their checking accounts with institutions that aren’t FDIC insured (FDIC as in FEDERAL Deposit Insurance). I’m guessing they wouldn’t want to replace the FAA when a plane they’re traveling on is landing with a “for profit” run business. I’m guessing they wouldn’t want to have a “for profit” company responsible for putting a fire out in their house. After all, a privately own fire fighting company may decide the effort isn’t worth it. I think we all pretty satisfied with public police protection too.

This anti-government argument needs a test…maybe this is it.

"NO UPSIDE?" "THE DAMAGE IS DONE?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Republican operatives are furious. They are beside themselves. Their faces are beet red and steam is coming out of their ears. The President...President Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel PEACE Prize! How dare he!!! Have you no shame, sir.

Moderate Republican Joe Scarborough, none the less, has pronounced..."the damage is done"..."there is no upside." Are you kidding me? The guy just won the NOBEL PEACE...PEACE PRIZE, Joe. What's the downside?

My fellow liberals...we must put ourselves in the conservatives shoes. After thinking about it...I realized...there is no upside............FOR THE CON's! That's right. If your party is lying lower than a snakes belly, well then, affirmation that the President is liked by the world is really bad news. The fact that this President, in less than a year, has completely turned around world opinion about us is not something there is much upside for Republicans.

These right wing NUTS are into war, fear, and intimidation.

They've got to run against this guy for the next seven years. Yep...the damage is probably done.

But, they better pace themselves and start asking these right wing critics "how is the world going to react to all this criticism from the right, inside our United States, about an award being given to the first black president in a country, known in part for it's narrow views and much racism?" The world may see these righties for what they are...moron's that can't think past the ends of their noses. They may hurt conservative politics all over the world.

To the Prez's credit...he did know how to act. The first thing out of this mouth was "I don't deserve this award." And, you know what...that ought to be the reaction of anyone who has ever won the award. Maybe the right lacks the manners to congratulate the President for being recognized for his efforts to promote peace in the world...but, the President understood what it was about. It wasn't about him...it was about US! We're back. We're once again respected in the world.

"No upside!" "The damage is done!" ...really?

STEPPING ON THEIR “DICKS”

That’s what we sometimes call making an arrogant decision that causes your own demise in Texas. And, it’s what Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michael Steele, Michelle Maulkin, and all the other radical right wing conservatives did to themselves when they celebrated the failure of Chicago to be awarded the Olympics for 2016.

The President made a trip overseas to make a pitch to the International Olympic Committee (IPC). The Right Wing Nuts railed against the misuse of the time by the President to make a pitch for Chicago. Of course, their real fear was that the President would use his charisma to accomplish getting the 2016 Olympics for Chicago, an effort that would have created jobs and economic development for Chicago.

My guess…looking backward…is that the President had be apprised that Chicago would probably not get the Olympics. I’m sure the President’s advisers knew that he would be blamed when another city was named by the Committee. You could have bet your next year’s paycheck that Limbaugh, Beck, and company would have been all over the President for not making a effort for his own home town and “America,” when Chicago lost the bid.

But, here’s where the Right Wing Nuts demise in cheering failure comes into play. Eight-four percent of all the country wanted Chicago to get the Olympics. It’s as patriotic as baseball and apple pie, a no brainer, when it comes to wanting the Olympics to showcase the United States and all it offers to the rest of the world. And, cheering against Chicago, and “America,” is as unpatriotic as it comes. Now, these blowhards have really exposed themselves. They’re not patriotic by any means. They are pure and simply EGOTISTICAL! Period! The end! Checkmate!

They could care less about the country or the well being of our citizens. They could care less that 18 – 30 year old men and women die fighting a war that was never justified, they could care less about whether our friends and neighbors are sick and may die because of the lack health insurance. They only care about their own ideas, and who they want to control the White House, the U.S. Congress and the Senate. It isn’t about us…it’s about them.

Oh, the fringe they play to will eat up their egotistical rhetoric. But, for those on the center right, center, and center left…who occasionally are influenced by all their misinformation are going to see them in a renewed light as being the blight on the American Culture that they are.

Yeah…they stepped on their “dicks.” And, to quote one of their most respected names…Dick Cheney…they stepped on them…”BIG TIME!”

CHRISTIAN NATION…A FUNDAMENTALIST MYTH

I was again today confronted with the notion that the Founding Fathers conceived the United States as a Christian Nation. Of course there’s nothing in the Constitution, nor the Federalist Papers, remotely linking Christianity to these United States. I was raised a Southern Baptist and still consider myself a Christian, and a true believer, although I don’t claim to be a Southern Baptist any longer. But, growing up, I was led to believe that Christianity and patriotism went hand in hand. This notion is, however, without any foundation outside the claim of evangelical fundamentalism.

Let’s start from the beginning…the United States Constitution, the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…

Brooke Allen is the author of two collections of essays, Twentieth-Century Attitudes and Artistic License: Three Centuries of Good Writing and Bad Behavior. Allen recently wrote in “The Nation” magazine the following regarding the linkage (or lack thereof) of Christianity and the notion the United States was created to be identified as a “Christian Nation.”

“Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].”

Even if you believe the reference is to GOD (as I do)…there is absolutely no reference to being a “Christian nation.” GOD…could be, God as I perceive God…or God, as a Muslim perceives of God…or any other religion. We are a pluralist religious country (which would include those that don’t believe in God at all)!

Allen goes on to note…”In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."

Heavy stuff…don’t you think.

The Radical Right now asserts that among other abuses President Obama has committed against Man and God is that “we’re no longer a Christian Nation.” Well…WE NEVER WERE! Sure, he declined the invitation to the “National Prayer Breakfast” as if that is the defining of Christianity.

“By their fruits you shall know them.” Fruits…like love, compassion, providing for the “least” of these. This new evangelical fundamentalist brand of Christianity is known for loving war, complaining about providing “welfare” for the “least” in our society, neglecting “heath care” for those unable to afford it. But, I guess they are known for the “National Prayer Breakfast.”

If you’ve got to go to the “Prayer Breakfast” to be a good Christian…I’m wondering how many of my Christian brothers out there got their invitation.

BALANCE IS NOT FACT VS. FICTION

I miss Tim Russert. No one has come close to taking his place. I recently tried listening to George Stephanopoulos on ABC...but, George for the smart guy he should be lacks the honest reasoning that’s missing from news coverage we go in the 60’s and 70’s.

You would never hear intelligent reporters give credibility to any debate that pitted reason against flat out misrepresentation before the creation of Fox News. George Stephanopoulos made commentary on Fox News and MSNBC as “parallel universes” on the Sunday Show (September 20, 2009). There is no way you can label Fox for anything except what they are...involved in outright misrepresentation. When you have to listen to Sean Hannity remark on the President calling health insurance executives “bad people” when the President said just the opposite, you can’t call that anything but dishonest. The president said “insurance executives aren’t bad people...they’re just looking out after their profits.”

You can’t call these two networks parallel anything. MSNBC will correct their mistakes...Fox goes out of their way to make misrepresentations. Ed Shultz is passionate...but, accurate. Keith Oberman is entertaining...but, still accurate...and very quick to correct himself when he’s made an error, many times before the program is even over. Rachel Maddow is clearly the most intellectual program on any network.

Fox wouldn’t know the truth if is slapped them in the ass. But, yet we get George Stephanopoulos presenting them as just two extremes. They aren’t two extremes...just Fox is. There a difference in civil disagreements and carnival barkers who are out to mislead anyone dumb enough to buy facts that are so easy to confirm that intellectual laziness is the only explanation for buying their blather.

I’ve had enough with the real press giving a pass to the faux press.

DISPELLING “ACROSS STATE LINE COMPETITION”

The most prominent opposition to the reform of Healthcare is a theory that “if we just allowed competition across state lines the price of health insurance would decrease.” Really…that’s their plan. Just open competition up across state lines. Then…United Healthcare of Oklahoma can compete with United Healthcare of Arkansas for Texas healthcare business. They’ll be competing against themselves. And, you don’t have to have a Nobel Economic Prize to know that won’t bring down any cost. It will just disguise the ruse.

Think about this…you can buy gasoline across state lines. Does Shell Oil or Exxon sell gas cheaper in California than they do in Nevada, or in Oklahoma cheaper than they do in Texas? Of, course they don’t. It’s a stupid argument and someone should call them on it. If resident s of New York bought insurance in New Hampshire they’d pay premiums developed for residents of New York, not residents of New Hampshire.

The Public Option is the only proposal out there that will control cost. However, there is one other. Control Healthcare Insurers like public utilities are regulated. Make them conform to what they have to cover, who they have to cover, and how much they can charge. And, monitor the hell out of their denial of claims…with substantial penalties handed out for bogus denials. Given that option…I’ll bet they’ll opt for the public option too.

THE DESPAIR OF HEALTHCARE

Just imagine the despair of watching your loved ones, whether its husbands, wives, parents, or worst of all…children, suffer without hope of obtaining the aid of a doctor, nurse, or hospital. Imagine being employed in a low wage job…enough to escape poverty but, just above the line without a job that provides healthcare. Imagine having three small children. Imagine watching a young son suffer and not knowing why, all the time not having access to a doctor. Imagine as the degree of suffering slowly growing to the point of intolerance. Then, finally when the condition becomes dire you finally have to use the emergency room facility. Imagine as the doctor advises you that your son has bone cancer. But, by this time the condition is beyond treatment of any kind. Then, imagine as you find your daughter begins to mysteriously suffer. You see her suffer the same way your son suffered. You finally seek emergency room assistance and discover she has lung cancer, a cancer that demands radical, aggressive, chemotherapy and you still lack medical insurance to help with the treatment. Same as before, you’ve had to wait too late in the game to effectively have hope of saving this child. Imagine as you find out that the third child suffers from asthma. Again, you have no insurance to cover the prescriptions to alleviate the suffering. This child finally succumbs as the oxygen is literally choked out of him.
I suspect the potential for all this to occur might have been why Senator Ted Kennedy worked so relentlessly for national health care for all who call the United States home. This is exactly what happened to Ted Kennedy’s family…only Ted had the resources to provide health care for his family. So, the son lost a leg but, his life was saved. His daughter suffers the treatment of chemotherapy but, recovers. The youngest son lives with asthma…because he has access to the prescriptions that allow him to breathe freely.

Oh, the vitriol I’ve read on the internet from acquaintances I have that claim to be “good” God fearing Christians”…but, for the life of me I can’t put my finger on a single characteristic that would lead me to believe they followed Christian ethics. They certainly don’t have compassion. They would lead you to believe that Ted Kennedy was defined totally and completely with the incident identified simply as Chappaquiddick. Because of what clearly was a mistake by the Senator…they believe he has no path to redemption.

Well…the Christian instruction to “do to the least of these” because that is doing unto God is what all of us can do, regardless of our history. Redemption is for learning to do better. Maybe these fine Christians can look at the admonition of the New Testament once again. I wish they would…they’re becoming an embarrassment to those of us who think the “Kingdom” Jesus proclaimed was built on compassion, and treating the “least of these” with the kindness demonstrated in the New Testament.

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven” (from Matthew in the 10th Chapter). This passage from the New Testament doesn’t exactly lead you to believe taking care of the haves is purpose of Christianity.

PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

A common argument among Republican Conservatives (con’s) is that the constitution does not provide for the creation of government interference in healthcare. I just recently heard one of those deep thinking con’s from Oklahoma who asked one of his constituents where she thought the U.S. Constitution said they government should provide healthcare for its citizens.

Well…Senator Colburn…you have to read really deep into the document, almost to the middle of the FIRST SENTENCE. Yes, after lengthy research of almost a full second…there it was…”PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE.”

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But, I wasn’t satisfied…so, I continued to read. Then…there in Article I…it said it again…”PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE.”

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So, that seems pretty compelling to me. The health of the citizens of the United States is certainly part of the general welfare. I grew up in Oklahoma…so, it’s just a bit more embarrassing to me when the likes of James Inholfe and Tom Colburn say such outrageously ignorant things like “where in the constitution does it say the government should provide national healthcare,” or “global warming a is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on man.”
Makes you wonder if those two have really ever read the constitution, doesn’t it?

EMPLOYMENT GOING FORWARD

The third and fourth quarter of 2009 looks to be where the United States will reach an unemployment percentage of 10% and possibly over 10%. Thus, the hand ringing begins. Granted, anytime an able and willing worker goes without a job the unemployment rate is too high. But, all this is certainly going to change in 2011 when the first wave of baby boomers begins to reach the age of 65,

You'll notice below that 76 million boomers (actually 75.8 million) were born between 1946 and 1964 (18 years). Most economists believe that an additional 5 million immigrants have been added to that population...consequently they usually speak of the baby boom population as being 80 million. Even though this source indicates they now represent 28% of the population it's a much larger share of the work force. Conventional thinking is that one-third of the workforce is made up of baby boomers.

The numbers I gave you mean an average of about 4.5 million will begin leaving the workforce beginning in 2011, or about 370,500 per month. Most economist believe the economy needs to produce about 150,000 per month (1.8 million per year) to keep up with the people entering the workforce. Obviously that's going to get easier when 370,000 people begin exiting the workforce each month. Although this would not be new jobs created…but, jobs replaced.

According to bbhq.com.

"For the years 1940-1994, inclusive, 202 million Americans were born; about 77% of all Americans now living were born after 1939. During the baby boomer years, 1946-1964 (inclusive), 75.8 million Americans were born. The ratio of males to females has stayed relatively constant. There were approximately 1.05 male births for every one female birth.

The biggest year of the boom was 1957, when 4.3 million boomers were born. Why it took over 10 years for so many post-World War II families to get going is a matter of speculation. For the 5-year period between 1956 and 1960, inclusive, 21.2 million boomers were born, nearly 1 1/2 times the number born between 1941 and 1945, and the largest for any 5-year period in the 20th century.

Boomers today represent 28% of the U.S. population. But in 1964, they represented about 40% of the population. In other words, in 1964 more than a third of the population was under 19 years old! No wonder the baby boomers attracted so much attention. "

Then, according to babyboomercaretaker.com

“Within a decade, a large percentage of baby boomers would be approaching their age of retirement, thereby raising a deep concern on the issue of depleting work force that can affect the national economy significantly. Baby boomers comprise of one-third of entire work force in the United States and there are not enough youngsters who have the necessary skill so as to be considered a replacement. This situation has forced many companies to change the method of recruitment, retention and work schedules.

Mature workforce is a privilege in this current era of competitiveness as these workers are considered to be reliable, efficient, compassionate and honest. An effect of aging employees is a phenomenon that is going to have a global impact during the next decade that can cause a significant threat to future growth and productivity.

Hence, the issue of aging workforce has forced companies to recognize and value the issues surrounding the mature workforce. Companies are rethinking their policies related to recruitment and employee retention. It has changed the entire definition of working patterns. Considering the requirement of aging workforce, employers are bringing in flexible working hours in the office. Preference for part time jobs, telecommuting and job sharing is constantly on a rise among baby boomers. These people are less interested in working for long hours.
Baby boomers have also influenced the concept of retirement. Many of them want to still continue working even after retirement so as meet basic financial needs and to be engaged in their related fields. Others want to balance work and leisure during retirement. There are certain other groups who are getting enrolled into colleges so as to pursue their schooling ambitions. Some companies have casual worker program where aging people are re-employed, while providing limited benefits. Educated and experienced baby boomers are also being recruited as consultants.”

This modification of the workforce will dramatically alter employment going forward for the next 18 years. The short fall of available workers is going to turn our current employment environment upside down. Where we have had more workers that jobs…we start in 2011 to have more jobs than workers, probably in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 100,000 jobs per month. That is exactly the opposite effect as there is today.

The corrections will require figuring out ways to keep the baby boomer at least partially engaged in the work market. It may mean those pesky immigrants, the right wingers constantly complain about, may become very important. I suspect shorter work weeks, job sharing, flexible working hours, and probably an idea or two which might not previously have been considered will be used to persuade baby boomers back into the workforce.

It will have some positive effects on the national budget deficit. Although, due to the reckless use of funds during the Bush years, lavishing tax cuts on the wealthy and pursuing a war of choice, government spending has been ballooning to portions that make our heads want to explode, going forward unemployment spending, and even educational spending should come under control. Keep in mind, spending on food stamps would also subside with full employment. And, the need for educational loans would also like decrease as employers take over the training of their workers, and jobs being plentiful will coax students out of school and into the workforce. All this coupled with the lessons learned from engaging in needless wars and the disengagement in Iraq and Afghanistan should lessen the annual deficit and help return to paying down the national debt.

It’s going to look a lot different. And the recognition of this new environment is why we should always be thinking long term. Just as I knew Alan Greenspan and George W. Bush were blowing smoke up our collective asses when the proclaimed at the beginning of Dubya’s term that record surpluses would cause a problem going forward, it’s plain to see that we need to be aware that going forward we’re going to have a much different landscape for the economy. There will be government spending alterations, and we need to consider them. It would have been nice for Alan and Dubya to have considered what will all those surpluses mean if we have a recession or find ourselves getting into a protracted and expensive war. Those tax cuts for all Dubya’s buddies might not have been so attractive…at least to the rest of us.

The country will need to get through this recession recognizing how much different this will look in a couple of years. Politician’s will need to recognize that pulling back from the stimulus might push us into the depression we avoided (just go back and revisit the Roosevelt mistakes of 1933 when he decided to reign in the spending and the country went right back into depression). Think long term. There will be a time to deal with the national debt…but, now is not the time to fight that battle. However, beginning in 2011 the time bring spending into balance and to pay down the debt may come again.

THE POLITE SOCIETY

How long do you expect it will be before “lefties” start showing up at public political events with guns strapped to their side? I think the common notion is that only those on the right own guns. That would be a big mistake. Those on the left own them too. They’re probably more open to gun control laws than those on the right…but, trust me…they have guns.

I love the goofy logic of the Ron Paul group that if everyone had a gun we’d be a more polite society. What in God’s name makes these righties think that big ego’s don’t trump “give everyone a gun and no one will get out of line.” A bully is a bully, pure and simple. Give a bully a gun, it doesn’t matter whether his political leaning are to the right or the left, sooner or later the bully is going to want to show us all exactly how tough he is. Is there anyone who thinks we’d be better off if everyone on a commercial airplane had a gun? Are you really dumb enough to think you’d be safer?

The recent gun toting protester at President Obama’s town hall meeting in New Hampshire bore a tee shirt with the famous Thomas Jefferson quote that “the tree of Liberty must periodically be watered with the blood of patriots.” It’s a catchy phrase…but, I think it’s time someone ask the question of “why must the tree be watered with blood?”

Let’s not forget this was the same quote adorned by Timothy McVeigh when he was arrested for the Oklahoma City Bombings. Let’s also remember some of the blood Mr. McVeigh was watering the tree of Liberty with was that of CHILDREN who were attending day school in the Murray Building.

This country has tried the gun culture that was supposed to create the “polite society” referred to by Congressman Paul. It was called the “WILD WEST.” It really didn’t work out that well.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m resolved that the constitution provides for the “right to bear arms.” If anyone believes they need a gun to protect themselves I believe they have the “right” to own a gun. But, I don’t think that means without any control. I mean…we don’t have the right to bear “nuclear arms” now do we? And, I think that in order to prevent an unruly crowd (say like we’ve seen at some of the recent health care town hall protest) we might exercise some self-governing and say that a crowd of right and left wing zealots is more likely to insight gun-play than discourage it.

Given this country’s history with political assassination…Lincoln, the Kennedy brothers, Dr. King, not to mention those that were just shot at…Regan, Ford, George Wallace (you do recognize that those last three names were conservatives, which only proves my point that it’s not only the right that should be feared). It’s just plainly not a good idea to have gun toting protesters clearly in sight around political gatherings where the country’s first African-American President is in attendance. In fact, it’s probably not worth the risk where a Senator or Congressman are in attendance either.

Let’s keep those weapons in places that we might need them for defensive purposes and not offensive aggression.

THE SECRET OF BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

The airwaves are overcome with speculation as to WHY the President continues to hold out hope for bipartisan support for Healthcare Reform. I hate to let the secret out…but, this isn’t about bipartisan support if you expect 25% to 50% of the Republicans in the Senate to vote for Healthcare Legislation with a public option…or, really anything about healthcare in it. However, this is about getting two specific Republican votes. Both are in the Senate representing Maine. Yes…this is all about Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins.

Those two are really the only Republicans who have open, objective minds at all. Really, one wonders why these two haven’t jumped ship and come to the Democratic side anyway. However, those are the two that all of this bipartisan talk is pointed. And, in the end they will be the only Republican votes. Senators Snowe and Collins are acutely aware of the need for healthcare legislation that will address covering all our citizens, eliminate pre-existing conditions, be affordable, and reign in the era of excess by the health insurance companies.

As for the rest…let’s recognize the Barney Frank philosophy, “there no sense in arguing with a dining room table.”

The Profit Motive

Do we truly want the “profit motive” to be the prevailing energy for everything? For example, is it the Christian intention that only “profitable churches” are useful? Are only the pastors who are profitable doing “God’s” work? Is that the way Muslims, or Jews evaluate a Mosque or Temple? If we pursue the religious teachings of virtually all religions and especially Christian denominations to take care of the poor…can that ever be profitable? Of course not!

How is medical treatment for the sick much different? Do we really want the treatment of the sick, especially those who happen to also be poor, to be based on profit? If it’s a member of your family, and a life saving medical procedure that’s needed, do you really want it to be premised on whether you can pay for the procedure with an adequate percent of profit added to the cost? I doubt it!

We are sooner or later going to have to recognize that the necessity of profit shouldn’t have a prominent place in medical care. Sooner or later we’re going to have to recognize that the INSURANCE COMPANIES are the problem. I don’t know how many ways there are of telling this story. But, to those reading…the insurance companies have legions of employees who are dedicated to doing one thing and one thing only…denying your claim. The ruse works like this. You file a routine claim for an annual check-up for one of your small children. You’ve had coverage since the birth of the child, so why would you think the doctor’s visit wouldn’t be covered. But, then you get a denial of the claim back from the insurance company.

Unfortunately, many people would go ahead and accept liability for the bill themselves and try to figure out how they would get the funds to pay their doctor or health provider out of the family budget. However, since you work for a large company you challenge the denial through your company’s administration office. The insurance company advises you they turned down the claim because you had ambiguously answered a question on the insurance application about whether the child was eligible for alternative insurance. A question that simply requires a yes or no answer…but, they say you answered ambiguously. But, you’re a single mom. The father has never been involved in the child’s life. How could that have been the case…especially after the insurance company had paid for several regularly scheduled check-ups in the child’s life?

The answer is, of course, there was no ambiguity. The insurance company was only testing two theories. One, maybe you wouldn’t dispute the denial and go ahead and pay the claim. And, two, if you don’t pay the claim they still get an extra 30 to 120 days use of the money while you straighten out their confusion and/or fight the denial.

You say this couldn’t happen. Oh, it did. And, it happened in my own family. It happens in a lot of other families too. It’s time to declare that healthcare is not a place for obscene profits. It’s a place for care and compassion. It should be driven by profit. The least of my worries is whether a private insurance company can compete with a government sponsored plan, or a non-profit plan. I also don’t think the Mega Churches are doing all of God’s work. I think a lot of small congregations who aren’t “profitable” are tending to the teachings of Christianity.

Or…how about you want to buy medical insurance...so, you contact several companies to see what’s available. However, your young son who experienced an infantile seizure is uninsurable because of this pre-existing condition. You have the money to pay the premium…but, can’t get the coverage. Not in America, you say. Oh, yes…in America. Again, this happened to one of my own family members…so, I’m not speaking in the third person or creating a straw man argument.

Then of course, there’s the issue of obtaining a catastrophic policy during a period of unemployment. You find out that you have a malignant tumor on your small intestines and the insurance carrier wants to insist you had a pre-existing condition and just didn’t tell them. Oh, you finally get coverage after you threaten them with bad faith and tell them to prove you had the condition and knew when you took out the policy. Once, again…this happened inside my own family. We had the ability to challenge the insurance company…but, what about the family or individual who doesn’t have that ability.

Then the best of all…you have what is supposed to be the best health insurance money can buy. You fall from a transit authority bus and suffer a fall. The fall results in a compound fracture of your arm. The bone is exposed to the pavement. The city bus driver, being a good employee, immediately calls 911 to request an ambulance. When you get the bill for the ambulance service…the insurance company denies the claim because the ambulance service wasn’t a plan provider. Now, get that picture once again. This is a medical emergency…but, the vendor of an emergency service has to be a planned provider. What kind of insurance is that? I’m not making this up folks…this all happened to my family…not the family next door or somewhere on the other side of the country. And, I don’t think I’m on an island out here. I think this is happening inside of your family too if you just ask around. It’s not doctors, hospitals, nurses, or care providers that are causing the problem with healthcare in this country…it’s the insurance companies.

There are plenty of businesses that are legitimately “profit” driven. But’ they don’t all have to be that way.

I say good riddance to them.