When any publicly known group with a significant following draws a line in the sand and refuses to back down in the face of opposition the potential for violence increases. When this same group is faced with opposition too powerful to resist, the resulting desperation opens the way to terrorism. Desperation is subjective and emotionally charged.
In this country, the principle of free press is sacrosanct while the science of manipulating public opinion has reached a high level of effectiveness. The combination of unrestrained press with scientifically powerful political advertisements can push some susceptible people further toward the fringes. The people on the fringes clump together like dust particles in a stellar nebula; eventually reaching a mass that has an attraction of its own. When these clumps are moving in similar directions it is possible for them to combine into ever increasing mass with proportionally greater attraction.
A sufficiently massive clump (or social movement) becomes capable of exerting a disruptive force on the core system (society). The increasing dissatisfaction [shown by the American people] with the central Government is the force pushing people toward the fringes. The Tea Party Movement and similar groups are indicators of the level of disenfranchisement felt by many. The number of people with interest in these groups is larger than the number of active participants. Charismatic leadership can draw many more away from the government and into opposition to the status quo.
Recently released reports of growing numbers of extremist militias operating on the fringes of society are an indicator of an even more violent opposition. With the right level of desperation, these groups can be very dangerous. If the violent militias become aligned with the growing membership of anti-government movements a very dangerous situation can arise. It may be too late to diffuse the threat but delaying a real effort will surely lead to violence down the road.
One part of the problem is the effectiveness of the media in manipulating public opinion. In the United States, the population has come to rely on the electronic media for immediate information. Slickly produced and scientifically targeted 30 second political advertisements combine with well-planned sound-bites to influence public opinion. Emotionally charged ads use strong words or phrases such as liar or “unplug grandma” to stir up the mob mentality. Mainstream thinkers soon begin to believe the accusations of both sides and decide that both sides are no longer fit to be in charge. The fringe grows stronger with each person who looses trust in the system.
Those of us who still want to work within the system to affect change must try to convince honest people to run for office. We need independent people who can be trusted to work toward real change. We need people with the guts to do what needs to be done without worrying about the next election. When a legislator is not worried about the next election he or she cannot be manipulated by the political parties into voting the party line. If we do not change the system we are dooming our children to the death and misery of civil war on this continent. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, our children should learn Chinese or Arabic to survive the new government imposed by the invading country.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
More political commentary from the streets.
More Political Commentary from the Lower Level
We have a chance to become a stronger country with a social conscience if we take the new health care law to the next level and make it work. If we continue to point fingers and decry the evils of the new law the consequences can be dire. Already several states are grouping together in opposition to the law. Does this sound familiar? It should. Similar action by the states brought on the deaths of many Americans who ended up fighting each other over the opposition to the law.
Opponents are making statements that inflame the public just as before the law was passed. The statements are either untrue or are extreme exaggerations with only small bits of truth. In the end, all the opposition can be distilled to one poisonous product. The opponents do not want to give up any of their income to taxation.
This fact may be hidden beneath several layers of pseudo-economics and high-sounding rhetoric. If you hold your nose and dig into the pile, the core of the opposition is exposed: simple and immoral greed.
People who would otherwise respond in a good way to open and honest discussion are being manipulated and incited to loud protests by the deodorized pile of crap from the richest levels of our society. The only thing these rich people have to loose is a small percentage of their amassed income. They are isolated from the world of pain and suffering here at the bottom and, truth be told, they really do not care.
Forced insurance?
The requirement that everyone buy health insurance is a response to the opposition’s demands for non-government funding of health care. The forced insurance would not be needed if health care funding were provided as a progressive tax increase. There are several options for taxation that would spread the cost across several segments of the population with the heaviest taxes on those who can best afford it. I propose a 1% tax on incomes over $15000 A 1% tax on an income of $150000 is much less painful than a 1% tax on someone with $30000 annual income. The cost of living a basic existence is universal. For the $150000 income family, anything beyond a basic existence is a luxury made possible by the extra income. This means that a 4400 square foot home is a luxury. For the $30000 family a 1000 square foot apartment is basic existence. The high income family does not have to choose the 4400 square foot home. A slight reduction in living area can offset the 1% tax. For the low income family they have no options and the 1% tax can mean less food or no medicine for a sick child. This is the basis of the progressive tax that was the original configuration of the income tax. Implementing a progressive health care tax to fund the health insurance subsidy for poor people might eliminate the forced insurance in the new law.
Be thankful for the society that gave you the opportunity to succeed.
It is my opinion that those people who have been able to use their talents, skills, training or education to reach the top levels of income should be excited to support the system of government that gave then the opportunity to succeed. There are many places in the world where this level of success is not possible. No business person, inventor, writer, sports star or media celebrity could be successful if no one is buying products or tickets. The largest group of people is in the mid to lower income levels. Letting these relatively poor people live longer with more disposable income will increase economic growth more than letting a large portion of spendable income remain in the tight fists of a relatively few high income families.
One rich family may buy one $250000 houseboat for family vacations. For the same $250000, five hundred families can buy small sport fishing boats. The fishing boat factory has 500 employees and purchases supplies in the local community. The custom houseboat builder has 50 employees and most of the exotic materials used are imported from foreign countries. The benefits of spreading the wealth outweigh the Reagan-era trickle-down approach where each level on the way down siphons off a piece of the flow. Let us have some support for health care. We can continue to work longer and earn more to spend. Spending drives the economy. A booming economy will offset the taxes on the rich because the boom benefits them most.
PS: Give me a year of health care and a paying job I can physically do and I will shut up and go to work.
We have a chance to become a stronger country with a social conscience if we take the new health care law to the next level and make it work. If we continue to point fingers and decry the evils of the new law the consequences can be dire. Already several states are grouping together in opposition to the law. Does this sound familiar? It should. Similar action by the states brought on the deaths of many Americans who ended up fighting each other over the opposition to the law.
Opponents are making statements that inflame the public just as before the law was passed. The statements are either untrue or are extreme exaggerations with only small bits of truth. In the end, all the opposition can be distilled to one poisonous product. The opponents do not want to give up any of their income to taxation.
This fact may be hidden beneath several layers of pseudo-economics and high-sounding rhetoric. If you hold your nose and dig into the pile, the core of the opposition is exposed: simple and immoral greed.
People who would otherwise respond in a good way to open and honest discussion are being manipulated and incited to loud protests by the deodorized pile of crap from the richest levels of our society. The only thing these rich people have to loose is a small percentage of their amassed income. They are isolated from the world of pain and suffering here at the bottom and, truth be told, they really do not care.
Forced insurance?
The requirement that everyone buy health insurance is a response to the opposition’s demands for non-government funding of health care. The forced insurance would not be needed if health care funding were provided as a progressive tax increase. There are several options for taxation that would spread the cost across several segments of the population with the heaviest taxes on those who can best afford it. I propose a 1% tax on incomes over $15000 A 1% tax on an income of $150000 is much less painful than a 1% tax on someone with $30000 annual income. The cost of living a basic existence is universal. For the $150000 income family, anything beyond a basic existence is a luxury made possible by the extra income. This means that a 4400 square foot home is a luxury. For the $30000 family a 1000 square foot apartment is basic existence. The high income family does not have to choose the 4400 square foot home. A slight reduction in living area can offset the 1% tax. For the low income family they have no options and the 1% tax can mean less food or no medicine for a sick child. This is the basis of the progressive tax that was the original configuration of the income tax. Implementing a progressive health care tax to fund the health insurance subsidy for poor people might eliminate the forced insurance in the new law.
Be thankful for the society that gave you the opportunity to succeed.
It is my opinion that those people who have been able to use their talents, skills, training or education to reach the top levels of income should be excited to support the system of government that gave then the opportunity to succeed. There are many places in the world where this level of success is not possible. No business person, inventor, writer, sports star or media celebrity could be successful if no one is buying products or tickets. The largest group of people is in the mid to lower income levels. Letting these relatively poor people live longer with more disposable income will increase economic growth more than letting a large portion of spendable income remain in the tight fists of a relatively few high income families.
One rich family may buy one $250000 houseboat for family vacations. For the same $250000, five hundred families can buy small sport fishing boats. The fishing boat factory has 500 employees and purchases supplies in the local community. The custom houseboat builder has 50 employees and most of the exotic materials used are imported from foreign countries. The benefits of spreading the wealth outweigh the Reagan-era trickle-down approach where each level on the way down siphons off a piece of the flow. Let us have some support for health care. We can continue to work longer and earn more to spend. Spending drives the economy. A booming economy will offset the taxes on the rich because the boom benefits them most.
PS: Give me a year of health care and a paying job I can physically do and I will shut up and go to work.
Monday, March 22, 2010
My views on the healthcare debate
Part One: My views on the healthcare debate.
Several years ago I had a supervisor that I could not get along with (one of many over the years). He assigned me a project that, in my mind, was totally unworkable. I tried to show him the mistakes and propose a workable solution. He was un-shakable. As expected, the project was a complete flop. His comment was “it would have worked if you had wanted it to.” With several years more wisdom I can see his point. I might have put in more effort if I saw some possibility of success.
Now we have a patchwork effort at healthcare reform being heralded as a giant leap forward. Opponents are loudly proclaiming it won’t work. The opponents have managed to install into the legislation several impediments to real success. Chances are it will not work unless the opponents are willing to make an effort to make it work. Unlike me, they could open their minds and look for effective solutions to the problems they see. Simply standing in the way or dragging back on progress will make failure more possible.
We have to look at the motives of the opposition. Do they want to strengthen the country and take a moral approach to improving society or do they want to be vindictive crybabies because they were voted down? There are some legitimate concerns about the costs at all levels. There are some concerns about the effect on jobs, recession recovery and budget deficits.
The sensible thing to do would be to find ways to solve the individual problems and make the changes work to improve lives and bring the country together. Recent history seems to indicate another approach is forthcoming. There will be several months of nay saying, finger pointing and vindictive actions unrelated to this issue.
Legitimate opposition is important. Continued opposition after the fact leads to mistrust and opens the door to divisiveness that weakens the country. We only have to look to the two wars we are engaged in to see where stubborn, vindictive, uncompromising, blind opposition leads. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are divided by two or more internal groups that oppose each other on irrational grounds. The result is unnecessary death of innocents. Draw a line through the recent events and extend it into the future and you will see the internal unrest of today leading to a Chinese-led peace-keeping mission arriving to stop the American Civil war.
This is one possible future, however unlikely. There are other possibilities that are much more in line with the visions of our founding fathers. We can regain the respect of the world and become the beacon of hope that we once were.
Part Two: Moral responsibility?
There is little doubt that many healthcare proponents have endangered their re-election chances. I applaud those individuals who had the guts to do what was morally right in the face of potential political backlash. I point a finger of shame at those who let their personal ambitions of re-election drive their decisions. Their ambitions very likely killed a few people who could have been saved by quick action several months ago. We could have extended help to many who are now dead.
Most of the people who opposed the reform packages did so from a narrow-minded self-focused greed. They do not want to pay taxes. There is significant opposition to the rich folk’s tax that is part of the reform bill. This tax is aimed at families earning $250,000 per year. How can any family at that income level experience any hardship because of an additional 1% tax? Will he have to drive his Mercedes a couple more months before trading it for a new one? Will his family have to shorten their European vacation by a day or two?
Contrast that to people like me. I have a total income of $1200/month. I am unemployed, uninsured, and (even if I had the money) uninsurable due to several medical conditions. My unemployment benefits will expire in three months. A doctor’s visit or two and some prescription support might extend my life. Chances are I’ll not survive to benefit from the reform since the main benefits are delayed four years. Thankfully I have no children suffering with me but many people in similar circumstances do have kids. How can the “hardship” of 1% extra tax on that rich family compare to the suffering we on the other end of the spectrum live daily? Really! How many families in this country earn more than $100,000/year? Multiply that by the amount of a 1% tax and the product would pay for health coverage for many people like me.
I have worked hard all my life. That hard work in unhealthy environments probably contributed to my current medical conditions. Now all I have to look forward to is a painful death. My wife is suffering too, but that is another story. I am an intelligent person with the skills to earn a living in spite of my medical problems. I shouldn’t have to die as a drain on society. Some health insurance could get me turned around and make me productive again. I could get a job and pay part of the insurance premium. I can still live on $1200 a month. Any additional income could pay for medicine and insurance premiums. Contact me and I share my whole story if you get to me before I die.
Several years ago I had a supervisor that I could not get along with (one of many over the years). He assigned me a project that, in my mind, was totally unworkable. I tried to show him the mistakes and propose a workable solution. He was un-shakable. As expected, the project was a complete flop. His comment was “it would have worked if you had wanted it to.” With several years more wisdom I can see his point. I might have put in more effort if I saw some possibility of success.
Now we have a patchwork effort at healthcare reform being heralded as a giant leap forward. Opponents are loudly proclaiming it won’t work. The opponents have managed to install into the legislation several impediments to real success. Chances are it will not work unless the opponents are willing to make an effort to make it work. Unlike me, they could open their minds and look for effective solutions to the problems they see. Simply standing in the way or dragging back on progress will make failure more possible.
We have to look at the motives of the opposition. Do they want to strengthen the country and take a moral approach to improving society or do they want to be vindictive crybabies because they were voted down? There are some legitimate concerns about the costs at all levels. There are some concerns about the effect on jobs, recession recovery and budget deficits.
The sensible thing to do would be to find ways to solve the individual problems and make the changes work to improve lives and bring the country together. Recent history seems to indicate another approach is forthcoming. There will be several months of nay saying, finger pointing and vindictive actions unrelated to this issue.
Legitimate opposition is important. Continued opposition after the fact leads to mistrust and opens the door to divisiveness that weakens the country. We only have to look to the two wars we are engaged in to see where stubborn, vindictive, uncompromising, blind opposition leads. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are divided by two or more internal groups that oppose each other on irrational grounds. The result is unnecessary death of innocents. Draw a line through the recent events and extend it into the future and you will see the internal unrest of today leading to a Chinese-led peace-keeping mission arriving to stop the American Civil war.
This is one possible future, however unlikely. There are other possibilities that are much more in line with the visions of our founding fathers. We can regain the respect of the world and become the beacon of hope that we once were.
Part Two: Moral responsibility?
There is little doubt that many healthcare proponents have endangered their re-election chances. I applaud those individuals who had the guts to do what was morally right in the face of potential political backlash. I point a finger of shame at those who let their personal ambitions of re-election drive their decisions. Their ambitions very likely killed a few people who could have been saved by quick action several months ago. We could have extended help to many who are now dead.
Most of the people who opposed the reform packages did so from a narrow-minded self-focused greed. They do not want to pay taxes. There is significant opposition to the rich folk’s tax that is part of the reform bill. This tax is aimed at families earning $250,000 per year. How can any family at that income level experience any hardship because of an additional 1% tax? Will he have to drive his Mercedes a couple more months before trading it for a new one? Will his family have to shorten their European vacation by a day or two?
Contrast that to people like me. I have a total income of $1200/month. I am unemployed, uninsured, and (even if I had the money) uninsurable due to several medical conditions. My unemployment benefits will expire in three months. A doctor’s visit or two and some prescription support might extend my life. Chances are I’ll not survive to benefit from the reform since the main benefits are delayed four years. Thankfully I have no children suffering with me but many people in similar circumstances do have kids. How can the “hardship” of 1% extra tax on that rich family compare to the suffering we on the other end of the spectrum live daily? Really! How many families in this country earn more than $100,000/year? Multiply that by the amount of a 1% tax and the product would pay for health coverage for many people like me.
I have worked hard all my life. That hard work in unhealthy environments probably contributed to my current medical conditions. Now all I have to look forward to is a painful death. My wife is suffering too, but that is another story. I am an intelligent person with the skills to earn a living in spite of my medical problems. I shouldn’t have to die as a drain on society. Some health insurance could get me turned around and make me productive again. I could get a job and pay part of the insurance premium. I can still live on $1200 a month. Any additional income could pay for medicine and insurance premiums. Contact me and I share my whole story if you get to me before I die.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Imminent Collapse of the United States
The Collapse of the United States is Imminent
Many people are realizing how flawed and fractured our government has become. Elections across the country have degraded into a choice between two or more equally distasteful options. Legislative decisions are determined by party leaders and the opinions of individual legislators are unimportant. Public opinion is commanded by the most effective marketing campaign financed by the party. If consumer products were marketed with the same strategies, the public would be outraged. We have actually forced tobacco companies and alcohol companies to follow strict marketing rules yet we continue to accept the marketing of political opinion as freedom of speech. Opinion is covered by freedom of speech. Marketing has been proven to be subject to regulation and is not protected by the constitution. Political advertising is marketing more than it is opinion and should be subject to regulation. Truth in tone and content should be required. Exaggerated claims and emotionally charged proclamations should be restricted. If truth in advertising is applied to political ads, the public’s respect for the government just might improve. When Jon and Jan spend millions on political ads calling each other liars, the public begins to believe it. Both Jon and Jan suffer from decreased respect and trust. Eventually nothing either says is accepted and anyone connected with either Jon or Jan is a suspected liar too.
Marketing is a science. The techniques of effective marketing are well known. The erosion of respect and trust caused by emotionally charged political advertising becomes a grand canyon of distrust and disrespect into which all politicians fall. When any one politician begins to climb out to gain some public respect, the others reach up and pull him/her back down into the muck. The roiling battle to prevent trust and respect makes the 21st century American public the most misinformed ever.
If Americans do not regain respect and trust for the government, the country will surely fall apart. Alaska already has a movement toward declaring independence. Texas has had a taste of independence and southern states still hold some bitterness toward the federal government. Political and economic pressure destroyed the USSR and that country was much more ruthless in respect to the member states than the United States has been since 1865. It can happen and the more we grow to distrust the central government the more likely a collapse becomes. It will be deadly. The (possibly foreign) country that picks up the pieces will determine how our children live or die, the language they speak and the religion that they follow. Think about it. Find a way to convince your representatives that the current path leads to weakness and danger.
Many people are realizing how flawed and fractured our government has become. Elections across the country have degraded into a choice between two or more equally distasteful options. Legislative decisions are determined by party leaders and the opinions of individual legislators are unimportant. Public opinion is commanded by the most effective marketing campaign financed by the party. If consumer products were marketed with the same strategies, the public would be outraged. We have actually forced tobacco companies and alcohol companies to follow strict marketing rules yet we continue to accept the marketing of political opinion as freedom of speech. Opinion is covered by freedom of speech. Marketing has been proven to be subject to regulation and is not protected by the constitution. Political advertising is marketing more than it is opinion and should be subject to regulation. Truth in tone and content should be required. Exaggerated claims and emotionally charged proclamations should be restricted. If truth in advertising is applied to political ads, the public’s respect for the government just might improve. When Jon and Jan spend millions on political ads calling each other liars, the public begins to believe it. Both Jon and Jan suffer from decreased respect and trust. Eventually nothing either says is accepted and anyone connected with either Jon or Jan is a suspected liar too.
Marketing is a science. The techniques of effective marketing are well known. The erosion of respect and trust caused by emotionally charged political advertising becomes a grand canyon of distrust and disrespect into which all politicians fall. When any one politician begins to climb out to gain some public respect, the others reach up and pull him/her back down into the muck. The roiling battle to prevent trust and respect makes the 21st century American public the most misinformed ever.
If Americans do not regain respect and trust for the government, the country will surely fall apart. Alaska already has a movement toward declaring independence. Texas has had a taste of independence and southern states still hold some bitterness toward the federal government. Political and economic pressure destroyed the USSR and that country was much more ruthless in respect to the member states than the United States has been since 1865. It can happen and the more we grow to distrust the central government the more likely a collapse becomes. It will be deadly. The (possibly foreign) country that picks up the pieces will determine how our children live or die, the language they speak and the religion that they follow. Think about it. Find a way to convince your representatives that the current path leads to weakness and danger.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The failures of modern government
The gentlemen who designed the United States had certain concepts that they were passionate about and were sure to include in their documents. The more arbitrary items that may have been part of the discussion were left out of the "official" documentation. That documentation is the constitution and it is the foundation of our country. The bill of rights was the first addition to the constitution and it was intended to specify the limits of government interference in private lives.
Since those high-minded gentlemen completed their work we have made repeated attempt to improve it - most often causing more damage than improvement. Those amendments that were focused on personal choices with no real victims are the most glaring failures of the amendment process. The most obvious failure was prohibition.
Those amendments that reinforced personal freedoms are the most successful. Foremost among the successes is the prohibition of slavery. Other amendments were intended or required to address social changes and technological advances never envisioned by the founding fathers. The amendment process allows the constitution to evolve with the needs of an evolving society.
Over history, many prominent societal collapses can be laid at the feet of government - either all or in part. A strong yet responsive government can stand and grow with the support of its people. Tyrannical, self-centered, or isolated governments generally have a limited life-span. The collapse can be devastatingly sudden as demonstrated by the Sadam Hussein government in Iraq or it can be a dismally slow process like the fall of Rome. Either way the population suffers.
Our current government is failing the population in several ways. There have been several symptoms of disease in our government. We can choose to ignore the symptoms like a stubborn man who refuses to have that chest pain investigated or we can get our regular checkup and take corrective measures.
At this point a disclaimer is in order. This writer has a deep populist and liberal leaning so the opinions expressed will be biased by that leaning. The ideas put forth are intended to trigger discussion among intelligent persons in positions to influence the direct of the government's evolution.
The government of the United States originally had limited, if any, influence on private business ventures. Allowing the aggressive pursuit of wealth gave the most dynamic people the chances to expand and build the country. The government even supported commerce by using military force to battle threats to American commerce. This government was empowered by the citizens through voting and taxes.
Every citizen bears some responsibility for financing the government. Taxes are the primary financial resource for the government and when tax revenue does not meet the demand on resources the government must borrow against future revenue. When demands continue to exceed resources only two solutions are available. The government can increase income by increasing taxation or it can reduce the demand by eliminating expensive services.
There comes a point where cutting services any more becomes counter-productive. There is a point where a society begins to deteriorate. When the structure of a government shrinks and puts a growing number of citizens on the margins the marginalized citizens are corrosive to the government. As more people become marginalized the motivation to force a change grows.
We are seeing indications of the marginalization of segments of society daily. Individual acts of desperation are becoming a daily occurrence. School shootings, workplace shootings, wide ranging gang activities and drug distribution organizations are everywhere. The more people are marginalized the greater the potential army of revolution. These people do not vote and politicians are not interested in them in any way.
The professional politicians who should be in positions to direct change are simply using their positions as jobs. They have developed the skills to promote themselves to the voting public and to court the money needed for the next re-election campaign. No one in Washington or any state capital is willing to promote the changes that we need to insure the survival of our country. No position that draws any public opposition will be supported. Personal power and wealth are more important than the country that politicians should be taking care of. They will say anything to get the support of the voters, realizing that once elected what they promise cannot be delivered.
Independent thinkers who will not be controlled by the party leadership have no chance of election. The leadership of both parties will not allow the election of independents. The resources of both parties will be poised against any promising independent. Both parties are intent on preserving their powerbases and will not let the existing power structure be threatened by rogue independence.
This party solidarity and the absolute refusal to compromise for the good of the people have made the government ineffective at best and dangerous in potential. As voters we need to refuse to support any candidate who hints at a party affiliation and receives any support from either of the national committees. Professional politicians must surrender their power to real people who want the country and people to survive and who are willing to do what is required. As people we need to stop believing the party propaganda and learn to think for ourselves. If we do not change the way the government works we (or at best or grandchildren) will loose the privileges our forefathers gave us.
The constitution gives us the means to correct some of the current failures. A couple of well though-out amendments that revise the party system and secure personal rights are needed. Any sign of positive effort by the elected leadership will ease the growing unrest we are experiencing.
The erosion around the margins can be neutralized by a forward-thinking government with the guts, integrity and willingness to make radical changes. Without these changes the country is in definite danger of collapse. A charismatic leader with the support of the poor and disenfranchised can look to foreign powers for assistance. We will find ourselves fighting for survival on American soil. Internal opposition groups can create enough confusion to weaken us to invasion. Another natural disaster might be all that is required to break the public’s trust in the government and allow anarchy to take over.
Since those high-minded gentlemen completed their work we have made repeated attempt to improve it - most often causing more damage than improvement. Those amendments that were focused on personal choices with no real victims are the most glaring failures of the amendment process. The most obvious failure was prohibition.
Those amendments that reinforced personal freedoms are the most successful. Foremost among the successes is the prohibition of slavery. Other amendments were intended or required to address social changes and technological advances never envisioned by the founding fathers. The amendment process allows the constitution to evolve with the needs of an evolving society.
Over history, many prominent societal collapses can be laid at the feet of government - either all or in part. A strong yet responsive government can stand and grow with the support of its people. Tyrannical, self-centered, or isolated governments generally have a limited life-span. The collapse can be devastatingly sudden as demonstrated by the Sadam Hussein government in Iraq or it can be a dismally slow process like the fall of Rome. Either way the population suffers.
Our current government is failing the population in several ways. There have been several symptoms of disease in our government. We can choose to ignore the symptoms like a stubborn man who refuses to have that chest pain investigated or we can get our regular checkup and take corrective measures.
At this point a disclaimer is in order. This writer has a deep populist and liberal leaning so the opinions expressed will be biased by that leaning. The ideas put forth are intended to trigger discussion among intelligent persons in positions to influence the direct of the government's evolution.
The government of the United States originally had limited, if any, influence on private business ventures. Allowing the aggressive pursuit of wealth gave the most dynamic people the chances to expand and build the country. The government even supported commerce by using military force to battle threats to American commerce. This government was empowered by the citizens through voting and taxes.
Every citizen bears some responsibility for financing the government. Taxes are the primary financial resource for the government and when tax revenue does not meet the demand on resources the government must borrow against future revenue. When demands continue to exceed resources only two solutions are available. The government can increase income by increasing taxation or it can reduce the demand by eliminating expensive services.
There comes a point where cutting services any more becomes counter-productive. There is a point where a society begins to deteriorate. When the structure of a government shrinks and puts a growing number of citizens on the margins the marginalized citizens are corrosive to the government. As more people become marginalized the motivation to force a change grows.
We are seeing indications of the marginalization of segments of society daily. Individual acts of desperation are becoming a daily occurrence. School shootings, workplace shootings, wide ranging gang activities and drug distribution organizations are everywhere. The more people are marginalized the greater the potential army of revolution. These people do not vote and politicians are not interested in them in any way.
The professional politicians who should be in positions to direct change are simply using their positions as jobs. They have developed the skills to promote themselves to the voting public and to court the money needed for the next re-election campaign. No one in Washington or any state capital is willing to promote the changes that we need to insure the survival of our country. No position that draws any public opposition will be supported. Personal power and wealth are more important than the country that politicians should be taking care of. They will say anything to get the support of the voters, realizing that once elected what they promise cannot be delivered.
Independent thinkers who will not be controlled by the party leadership have no chance of election. The leadership of both parties will not allow the election of independents. The resources of both parties will be poised against any promising independent. Both parties are intent on preserving their powerbases and will not let the existing power structure be threatened by rogue independence.
This party solidarity and the absolute refusal to compromise for the good of the people have made the government ineffective at best and dangerous in potential. As voters we need to refuse to support any candidate who hints at a party affiliation and receives any support from either of the national committees. Professional politicians must surrender their power to real people who want the country and people to survive and who are willing to do what is required. As people we need to stop believing the party propaganda and learn to think for ourselves. If we do not change the way the government works we (or at best or grandchildren) will loose the privileges our forefathers gave us.
The constitution gives us the means to correct some of the current failures. A couple of well though-out amendments that revise the party system and secure personal rights are needed. Any sign of positive effort by the elected leadership will ease the growing unrest we are experiencing.
The erosion around the margins can be neutralized by a forward-thinking government with the guts, integrity and willingness to make radical changes. Without these changes the country is in definite danger of collapse. A charismatic leader with the support of the poor and disenfranchised can look to foreign powers for assistance. We will find ourselves fighting for survival on American soil. Internal opposition groups can create enough confusion to weaken us to invasion. Another natural disaster might be all that is required to break the public’s trust in the government and allow anarchy to take over.
Friday, October 30, 2009
A somewhat less controversial posting on Science
Some rambling thoughts.
Pure science is science done simply to improve understanding of a subject. This can be any of what I like to call hard sciences. Hard sciences can be verified and demonstrated in real world terms. Physics is a hard science. Much of medical research can be hard science. Astronomy is mostly a hard science. There are other examples but I don’t want to expand on a personal list that will certainly offend someone whose science I see as soft.
Any scientist who is on the payroll of a for-profit company and is working on any project that is approved or funded by any segment of that company’s management is not working on hard science. (My writing; my definition). Privately funded research is a very good thing and most of the advances that benefit mankind come from private research. The research that will make the breakthroughs required for humans to reach the stars will not be privately funded.
I have spent a small amount of time following the LHC project in Europe. This project has the potential to produce breakthroughs that can revolutionize particle physics. Understanding particle physics is the next step toward mankind’s destiny. The amount of international cooperation and international (not-for-profit) funding make The Large Hadron Collider the best example of current hard science. There is almost no way for any corporation to profit from the research.
Now to my point, why would the United States citizens even consider abandoning the space program? Sure there is no expected payback but that has not strangled the LHC project. Pure science is much more important than payback. The potential benefits of continued space exploration exceed any concept of profit or rapid ROI.
There may be disagreements about what killed the dinosaurs but the possibility of our little marble being struck by a high-speed rock is real. We need to be out there learning to survive and work in space so we can save ourselves when the need arises. If our civilization collapses, mankind’s true destiny in this universe evaporates.
Geology has some real benefits for profit-seeking companies. Precious minerals and energy sources are valid reasons for private research. On a more pure level though learning about the potential destruction of civilization from super-volcanoes is very important. Money spent to learn how to predict super-destructive eruptions will give us the time to save our technology and maybe millions of lives.
We need to restrict the resources accessible by the more animalistic members of our world society. As long as people are concentrating on killing each other our ability to survive as a civilized society remains in question. Look at the real reasons for any of the ongoing conflicts on the planet. In the end every conflict is some person or group trying to force their will on some other group. We should spend as much time and resources to learn to respect individual rights. Then we could cooperate for the good of humanity as a whole.
Of course someone has to be willing to pound anyone who is not working for the good of mankind into protein meal to feed the hungry. (Soylent Green?)
Intelligent human beings are in short supply.
Pure science is science done simply to improve understanding of a subject. This can be any of what I like to call hard sciences. Hard sciences can be verified and demonstrated in real world terms. Physics is a hard science. Much of medical research can be hard science. Astronomy is mostly a hard science. There are other examples but I don’t want to expand on a personal list that will certainly offend someone whose science I see as soft.
Any scientist who is on the payroll of a for-profit company and is working on any project that is approved or funded by any segment of that company’s management is not working on hard science. (My writing; my definition). Privately funded research is a very good thing and most of the advances that benefit mankind come from private research. The research that will make the breakthroughs required for humans to reach the stars will not be privately funded.
I have spent a small amount of time following the LHC project in Europe. This project has the potential to produce breakthroughs that can revolutionize particle physics. Understanding particle physics is the next step toward mankind’s destiny. The amount of international cooperation and international (not-for-profit) funding make The Large Hadron Collider the best example of current hard science. There is almost no way for any corporation to profit from the research.
Now to my point, why would the United States citizens even consider abandoning the space program? Sure there is no expected payback but that has not strangled the LHC project. Pure science is much more important than payback. The potential benefits of continued space exploration exceed any concept of profit or rapid ROI.
There may be disagreements about what killed the dinosaurs but the possibility of our little marble being struck by a high-speed rock is real. We need to be out there learning to survive and work in space so we can save ourselves when the need arises. If our civilization collapses, mankind’s true destiny in this universe evaporates.
Geology has some real benefits for profit-seeking companies. Precious minerals and energy sources are valid reasons for private research. On a more pure level though learning about the potential destruction of civilization from super-volcanoes is very important. Money spent to learn how to predict super-destructive eruptions will give us the time to save our technology and maybe millions of lives.
We need to restrict the resources accessible by the more animalistic members of our world society. As long as people are concentrating on killing each other our ability to survive as a civilized society remains in question. Look at the real reasons for any of the ongoing conflicts on the planet. In the end every conflict is some person or group trying to force their will on some other group. We should spend as much time and resources to learn to respect individual rights. Then we could cooperate for the good of humanity as a whole.
Of course someone has to be willing to pound anyone who is not working for the good of mankind into protein meal to feed the hungry. (Soylent Green?)
Intelligent human beings are in short supply.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Another health care proposal
OK, I realize health care reform has become a tired subject but I must address it again. I still believe the root cause of all opposition to reform is money. The insurance industry is afraid of loosing profits. People who have health insurance are afraid they will have to pay more. Legislators are being pressured by money to support the opposition. Rich people (compared to me) are too greedy to pay more taxes. Doctors are afraid the Government will set prices for services. Drug companies are afraid of loosing research subsidies. All in all it is just money and greed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my proposal. I realize no one asked for it but you’re getting it for free so don't complain.
The current health care system has the following failures:
The costs are steadily increasing and each price increase eliminates some people from access.
Even employer-provided insurance plans are increasing in cost; both for the employers and the employees.
As plan costs continue to increase increasing numbers of employers are forced to stop providing health care for employees.
Millions of people with chronic conditions are denied coverage even from employer-provided plans.
Disguised costs such as increased co-pays, higher deductibles, and coverage limits are being used to keep front end premiums down by adding the costs to the insured’s back end.
If you are happy with your current plan it is going to cost increasing more to keep your current setup. Sooner or later the cost will exceed your ability to pay or the plan will change in ways you can’t tolerate.
The problem of someone choosing your doctor instead of you is already part of your life. How many of you have to pay more to see a doctor “out of your network”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government alone has the power to fix this. There is no possible fix from the private sector.
We need a health care tax. This can take several forms but the purpose is to finance a public option.
The public option will cover people who for whatever reason are not and cannot be covered by private insurance – either by employers or privately funded. This means all the high cost patients can be eliminated from private insurance coverage. Private insurance premiums can be drastically reduced. Employers whose insurance plans deny coverage for certain employees will have to pay the equivalent premium into the public option fund. What this does is reduce the premium costs to businesses while keeping everyone covered. Private insurance providers will be able to tailor coverage to their clients’ needs. A standard will be developed for plan coverage where highly restrictive plans will be taxed at a higher rate than more inclusive plans. This tax will also be part of the funding of the private option.
Drug companies can and should do without any government subsidies.
Agreements between coverage providers and service providers for reducing costs will be encouraged.
This is just the basics of my proposal and there is nothing here I have not said before. I just have to say it again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my proposal. I realize no one asked for it but you’re getting it for free so don't complain.
The current health care system has the following failures:
The costs are steadily increasing and each price increase eliminates some people from access.
Even employer-provided insurance plans are increasing in cost; both for the employers and the employees.
As plan costs continue to increase increasing numbers of employers are forced to stop providing health care for employees.
Millions of people with chronic conditions are denied coverage even from employer-provided plans.
Disguised costs such as increased co-pays, higher deductibles, and coverage limits are being used to keep front end premiums down by adding the costs to the insured’s back end.
If you are happy with your current plan it is going to cost increasing more to keep your current setup. Sooner or later the cost will exceed your ability to pay or the plan will change in ways you can’t tolerate.
The problem of someone choosing your doctor instead of you is already part of your life. How many of you have to pay more to see a doctor “out of your network”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government alone has the power to fix this. There is no possible fix from the private sector.
We need a health care tax. This can take several forms but the purpose is to finance a public option.
The public option will cover people who for whatever reason are not and cannot be covered by private insurance – either by employers or privately funded. This means all the high cost patients can be eliminated from private insurance coverage. Private insurance premiums can be drastically reduced. Employers whose insurance plans deny coverage for certain employees will have to pay the equivalent premium into the public option fund. What this does is reduce the premium costs to businesses while keeping everyone covered. Private insurance providers will be able to tailor coverage to their clients’ needs. A standard will be developed for plan coverage where highly restrictive plans will be taxed at a higher rate than more inclusive plans. This tax will also be part of the funding of the private option.
Drug companies can and should do without any government subsidies.
Agreements between coverage providers and service providers for reducing costs will be encouraged.
This is just the basics of my proposal and there is nothing here I have not said before. I just have to say it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
