The Reason Andrew Stack’s Crashed His Plane

I can’t believe what’s being said, and not said, on the news about Andrew Stack flying his plane into an office building Austin, Tx. that housed IRS offices on Thursday. I expected it to be just about all that would be on the news for the rest of the day yesterday and today. But instead I’ve heard a lot more about Tiger Woods news release apologizing for his sexual transgressions. I’m surprised that it isn’t being called a terrorist attack. But it isn’t. Instead it is being characterized as an act by a disgruntled nut with a grudge against the IRS. I expected to hear the most extreme Neocons shouting loudly that it is an example of Obama’s failure to protect America from terrorist attack. But so far none of them has even mentioned it.

The talking heads on TV are saying Stack was mad at the IRS for what he considered unfair treatment. But if you read the statement he made and posted to his blog it wasn’t the IRS. It is with the entire U.S. Government. He was disillusioned by the way they treat the average citizen and the way they favor those who are extremely wealthy. He clearly states that the government doesn’t care at all about him or people like him. He goes so far as to say that there is no congressman that has ever cast a vote for the common citizen. He saw that the government is the instrument of the very rich and has no interest in the population other than as it can be used by the rich to increase their wealth and power. He saw it very clearly and worked tirelessly to bring about change until he became discouraged that anything short of his act of suicide, and probably even that, would be futile.

If you think the powers that be could allow the idea to be expressed that Andrew Stack was on to the truth, dream on sucker! There is no way! So they are using Tiger Woods apology as a smoke screen to hide the truth and as a red herring to distract us from it. They do that with the TV news coverage whenever they don't want us to know something. If the American people ever wake up to the truth about who the government serves we will probably revolt as our forefathers did when the British Crown failed to protect the colonists from exploitation by the corporations and instead only gave the corporations more power over them.

Andrew Stack is a canary in a coal mine. He is a wake up call for the government and those who control it. Our leaders will do well not to ignore or bury Stack’s real story or try to minimize it like they’re doing. They would do well to address the problem and rain in the power of the corporations to control the government. The government needs to start acting on behalf of the masses. Andrew Stack was not an isolated case. He was only one of many, a growing number of individuals, who see the truth of how things are in America and aren’t going to be mollified by rhetoric. There are storm clouds gathering on the horizon. It is a storm that will sweep away the old despotic regime as out forefathers did and replace it with a new government that will serve the people first. I hope when it comes it armed insurrection as was necessary with out forefathers. I hope it takes the form of a massive grassroots movement that votes out those in office who hold to the old ways and replaces them with ones who will give us government of the people, by the people and for the people.

The Owners of the Corporations

The people who own the controlling interest in the corporations are so much richer than the rest of us that their attitude towards the world and the people who inhabit it is totally different from ours. In the first place they feel entitled to extravagant privileges far greater than those of the common citizen. They feel that it is their right to use us for their own profit and that they have no obligation to give back as much as they get. They recognize no obligation to give adequate compensation to enable those that they exploit to maintain themselves at a decent standard. The owners of the corporations see no reason to grant human rights to those who serve their interests. The owners of the corporations have so little conscience that they are willing to eliminate entire civilizations and lay waste to vast areas and destroy whole ecosystems in the interest of making a profit.

The owners of the corporations see no reason to let us have a say in the way things are done and will do everything they can to keep us from having any say at all. They will do everything they can to maintain complete control. And the Supreme Court has given the owners of the corporations even more power to do just that. It will take either a revolution or a massive grassroots movement to convince those who are supposed to represent us to amend the Constitution to take all private, and corporate, money out of politics to end this economic feudalism.

Health Care Reform-Push It Through Or Start Over?

How we pay for health care is a big deal for America. We pay far more than any other developed country and get results that are inferior to those of many only semi-developed countries, like Cuba and Costa Rica for instance. Every European country pays less and gets more for their money than we do. And the situation is getting worse! Last year was the most profitable for the insurance industry with their profits up very substantially from the previous year. And this year their rates are up as much as 30% for most of us that are lucky enough to be insured. Health Care Insurance now eats up 17% of what we spend and next year will rise to above 20%. Something has got to be done or we soon won’t have any money to spend on food, rent or mortgages, cars, clothes or utilities, etc. Business is already suffering and the rising cost of health care is a big part of the problem.

President Obama wants the Congress to push a health care reform bill through even if it isn’t all that he wants or even very good. It is a badly flawed bill and has a lot of opposition from nearly all quarters. No Republican is supporting it and the majority of the population doesn’t like it either. It does too much for the insurance companies and almost nothing, as far as I can see, to control cost. President Obama is still trying to get some Republican cooperation. But that is highly unlikely to happen.

Now there is a call to trash this bill and to start over. I think we should. I think we should get the Democrats and the Republicans to get together in conference and put both parties’ ideas on the table for consideration. And it should be done in the clear light of day. The people of this country who will be most affected by it should be able to see it and to comment on it. Maybe if they did pressure from constituents would get the Congress and Senate to do something that would work to get real reform. And if they would put single payer on the table this time maybe it would have a chance of passing.

A single payer system is what most other countries use that do better than we do at a lower cost. Insurance industry propaganda makes it sound like it isn’t nearly as good as the private health insurance system we have. But the people in those countries are, for the most part, very satisfied with it and think we are the ones with the scary system. I agree with them. Our system sucks and it is scary!

Having a single payer health care system like Medicare for all doesn’t mean there would be no private health care insurance. I get money taken out of my Social Security and given to an insurance company instead of Medicare. And I get more for my money than if I used Medicare. I think it would be a good thing to adopt a similar system for everyone. We already take money out of pay checks to pay for Medicare. Give everyone Medicare and let them opt out and buy into a private plan if an insurance company offers a plan that would save money or give better coverage for the same money. We might have to deduct more than we do now to pay for Medicare but if it is in lieu of the insurance premiums Americans pay now we would still save. It would end most of the problems we have now with the high and upward spiraling cost of health care. It would be real health care reform.

The Tea Party Movement

For some time now there has been a lot of talk in the news about the Tea Party Movement. Some, mostly on Fox News, say it is the future of American Politics. They say that politicians, especially incumbents, from both parties are running scared. Newscasters on the left are saying the Tea Party is just a bunch of right wingers who don’t like Obama and his measures to bring the economy back from the brink. In either case their influence is yet to be determined.

The Tea Partiers don’t like government spending. And they really don’t like taxes. I don’t have any idea how they hope to improve the economy or stimulate jobs growth. They are generally dissatisfied with the way things are. The deficit is too high. Banks don’t loan enough money to small business and employment is too low. All are legitimate concerns. So far though they have only offered criticism of those who are trying to fix the problems but have offered no solutions of their own other than going back to the policies that got us to where we are.

One problem I see with the Tea Party Movement is that it doesn’t seem to have any clear agenda aside from replacing a bunch of incumbents, especially Democrats, with Tea Party candidates. The movement seems to be a conglomerate of wing nuts who are still pushing the notion that Obama really isn’t an American citizen and “Birthers”, disillusioned Republican moderates, and Independents who don’t feel that either party is listening to them but acting on behalf of special interests instead of on behalf of the common citizen.

The Tea Party doesn’t seem to have a dominant leader either. Tom Tancredo, Sarah Palin and several other Republicans seem to be trying to hijack the movement and bring it into the Republican Party. Others seem to be worried that the Tea Party movement will fracture and further weaken the Republican Party. Meanwhile the Democrats are also divided as to the affect the Tea Party will have on their ability to keep their majority in the Congress and the Senate. Unless a strong leader with a clear agenda can get control of the movement I see them as a divisive element to the Republicans. Because of this I don’t see them as being a great threat to the Democrats. I think the general public sees them as a bunch of dissidents and will dismiss them come election time and vote for the major party candidates as usual. I think history will remember the Tea Party as another passing phenomenon like Ross Perot.

Amendment XXVIII To The Constitution

For over five years I have been saying that there is too much money in politics and that we should amend the Constitution to take the private money out. The ability of those with a lot of money to use it to influence our lawmakers gives them an advantage over the ordinary working class and deprives the us, the people, of equal access and the ability to be heard. Consequently almost everything that Washington does it does for the benefit of the super rich and the corporations they control. During those five years and more I have found very little support for the idea. Then the Supreme Court gave the corporations the right to spend as much money as they want to influence politicians. And now the idea seems to have gotten wings and is taking off. Its about time!

Representatives Donna Edwards and John Conyers have introduced a bill to amend the Constitution. The amendment would allow the Congress and the states to regulate political expenditures by corporations.

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Politicians rightly believe that most Americans decide who to vote for based on the information they get form thirty second TV commercials. And the corporations can buy a lot more really slick commercials than the average citizens can even in groups and organizations. So any politician who doesn't go along with the corporations and give them what they want will find themselves the victim of corporate wrath. They will find that their opponent is supported with far more negative TV ads maligning them and supporting their opponent than they can afford to buy. No politician who isn't willing to stand against the corporations and risk not being reelected or to serve only one term will be elected. They won't even be likely to be willing to run. We might as well dispense with elections and just let the corporations appoint the lawmakers. So this amendment is a good thing. It just doesn't go far enough!

We need to take all private money out of politics completely. As well as prohibiting corporations from funding our elections we should make our elections publicly funded. Elections should be paid for from a fund taken from tax revenue and set aside for that and only that purpose. The funds should be distributed equally to all candidates who manage to get the signatures of a percentage of all registered voters in the district they seek office in. That would give them an equal chance to state their views and their position on issues and to say how they would legislate. It would give us a much better idea of who were voting for and why.

We also need to make it a crime to bribe an elected official. And it should be considered a bribe to give money, or anything of value, to a lawmaker. That includes such things a giving to a charity or institution like a hospital or university in the politician's name. And it should be considered a bribe to take a lawmaker to dinner at a five star restaurant or on a Caribbean cruse or a golfing outing in Scotland, etc. Lobbyists should be restricted to talking to the lawmakers during regular office hours or at town hall meetings where you or I or any ordinary citizen could go and present their case for or against legislation.

It isn't easy to amend the Constitution. It takes two thirds of the Congress and three fourths of the states. Now with the corporations able to spend as much as they want to to prevent an amendment that would deprive them of that ability it will be even harder than it would have been before the Supreme Court ruling. It will take a truly massive grassroots movement. We, the people, must make our Congressmen believe that they will not be reelected if they do not support the amendment. Without it we are doomed to rule by the corporatocracy.

Should We Try AbdulMutallab In Federal Court Or A Military Tribunal?

There is a lot of talk in the news about whether of not we should prosecute the so called Christmas Bomber, AbdulMutallab, in Federal Court as a criminal or in a Military Tribunal as an Unlawfjul Enemy Combatant. There are what sound to me like good arguments for and against both options. There are also what I think are purely political reasons against both options.

On the side for the Military Tribunal option instead of in Federal Court is the cost of a trial in Federal Court. A trial in Federal Court is likely to take five years and cost a billion dollars. The most often given reason that I feel is political is that it would be more secure because it would increase the likelihood of bringing a terrorist attack on the scene of the trial, especially if it is in New York City. New York City is already a prime target for a terrorist attack and has been since the first attack on the World Trade Center. An attack is likely there whether there is a trial there or not. If they can attack New York City they will, whenever they can. So I see no validity in that argument. There is no evidence for that argument. There is only philosophic reasoning behind it and that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. We have already successfully tried several Al Qaeda members here in America in Federal Court and none of them brought a terrorist attack. Several Al Qaeda members are being held in our Federal Prisons and none have yet escaped nor have the prisons they are in been attacked by terrorists. So trying him in a Military Tribunal would not be any more secure than one in Federal Court.

On the side of a trial in Federal Court is that we should show the rest of the world that we are a nation of laws and that we recognize the rights of individuals to due process. Military Tribunals would give the world the impression that we don’t recognize other people’s rights. As already stated we have already given terrorists from other countries the same rights we give our citizens by trying them in Federal Court. We really should take the moral high ground and let the world see that we do. We have enough trouble with the way the rest of the world sees us and we shouldn’t make it worse.

In my opinion it was a big mistake to create the classification of “Unlawful Enemy Combatant”. I think it was immoral! It was done to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and free us from the necessity of following them in the treatment of those taken prisoner in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration didn’t want to be bound by those restrictions. They thought more intelligence could be gotten by using methods that violated the Geneva Conventions. They also thought it would give us the right to hold those prisoners without trial or due process of law for ever. It has increased the hatred of us in the Muslim World and made it easier to recruit terrorists and made it even more likely that we will be attacked. It has cost us our moral standing. Trying AbdulMutallab in Federal Court would help to restore it.

A Tax Rate Increase

Since the inception of the income tax when the maximum marginal tax rate for an individual was above 50% there has been economic stability. When it was below 50% there have been economic bubbles, boom and bust cycles.

In 1913 we got the income tax with the top income rate of 7%. In 1917 the top rate was raised to 67% and it fluctuated between that and 46% with the high being 77% until 1925. Then it was lowered to 25% where it stayed, except for 24% in 1929, and we had the “Great Depression”. In 1932 it was increased to 63% and from then until 1987 it was no less than 50%. Most of that time it was well above 50% with the highest being 94% in 1944 and 1945. Through most of the ‘50s and in to the ‘60s it was 91%. The economy was pretty stable during that time.

The top tax rate wasn’t paid on the total amount of income. It was a graduated rate. The first few hundred dollars went tax free. Then from some figure to another higher one the taxes were at a higher rate. There were several brackets each with its own tax rate. Only the amount above the top bracket was taxed at the top rate.

The top marginal tax rate was dropped to well below 50% to a low of only 28% from ‘88 to ‘90. Ever since we have had the old low tax rate cycles of bubbles growing and bursting. Now it is only 35% and once again America is in real economic trouble.

During the time since the top income rate has been below 50% the rich have increased the disparity between their income from about 20 to over 400 times that of the average worker. There has been a tremendous increase in the wealth of the country but it has all gone to the richest few, those who own the majority of stock in the corporations. And the average citizen has less buying power now than they had before the tax rate was lowered.

American business has been sending jobs to other countries to cut costs so they can sell their goods for less. Unemployment rates have soared! Consequently revenue from taxes has not kept up with the demands of the country. On top of that we have been fighting two wars without paying for them. President Obama has submitted a budget proposal of 3.8 trillion dollars with a deficit of 1.56 trillion. The national debt has increased to 11.4 trillion dollars. Lower taxes have not served the country well!

In light of historical statistics we should increase the top tax rate back to where it was during the times of greatest stability, above 50%, about 70% to 90%. This would place a significant part of the tax burden back on those who benefited the most from the tax structure of the passed years when the top marginal rate was below 50%. It would give the country a lot more money to reduce the deficit and pay for the financial obligations like Social Security, Medicare, education, the infrastructure and defense. It is the intelligent thing to do. It is necessary if we are to get out of the economic doldrums we are in within the next decade or more.

The Budget Deficit

The President is sending a 3.8 trillion dollar budget proposal to the Congress that has a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit for the coming year. The interest on the national debt is one of the biggest financial obligations we have. It is enough to pay for Social Security and Medicare. It is enough to make paying off the debt very difficult when added to the other obligations. We must pay for Social Security and Medicare as well as things like the national defense, education, infrastructure, and running the government. Many economists say our children and grandchildren will still be paying off the debt.

There are basically two ways to reduce the deficit. One is to reduce spending. The other is to raise revenue. Spending could be reduced by cutting or eliminating programs. Revenue could be increased by stimulating business or raising taxes.

There aren’t many non essential programs that could be eliminated if you consider Social Security, Medicare, education and defense essential. There are also few areas where cutting back can be done. We could reduce some of the cost by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse but it wouldn’t be enough. So we are left with the options of waiting for business to increase providing more tax revenue or increasing taxes as well as reducing spending where possible. Waiting for business to increase will take a long time. And many say it will take more spending before that happens anyway. And there is very strong resistance to raising taxes, especially during this time when business is struggling. So what are we to do?

The way I see it we spend way too much on defense. We are maintaining military bases in other countries all over the world. I don’t think it is necessary to do this in order to keep other countries from attacking the U.S. homeland. In fact I think it feeds a negative feedback loop. The more we are in other countries the more other countries hate America and want to attack us, or our interests. I don’t think it is our homeland they want to attack anyway but our interests that we are protecting by being in those other countries. What interests? Business interests! Which businesses? The corporations! Who owns the corporations? Most of the stock is owned by a very few very rich people, not the average citizens. So we, the people, pay for the protection of the interests of the rich. Unfunded wars have been the biggest contributor to the national debt. I think we should decrease the national debt by closing most of our overseas bases.

Rich people control the government by bribing our lawmakers to legislate on their behalf and give the bill to the people. As well as reducing military spending we should raise taxes on the money the owners of the corporations make from the operations of the corporations or the sale of stock in them. I don’t think it would be very detrimental to business expansion to do it and they have ridden the gravy train while the rest of us paid the taxes that kept the country going while protecting their interests. They should be made to pay their fair share. But to do that we need to take the money out of politics so that the ultra rich can’t buy influence with those who can raise their taxes. I think that the only way to do that is with a Constitutional amendment. And to do that we will need a massive grassroots movement. If it doesn’t happen we are likely to become a washed up formerly great country that only has a very small privileged class and a very poor underclass.

Politics by The Parties

I wonder why the founding fathers didn’t provide for political parties in the Constitution. I think it might be that they saw the danger of partisan politics. Perhaps they foresaw that the House of Representatives and Senator might vote along party lines instead of for the good of the country. Maybe they knew that the majority party would shut the minority party out instead of bringing them into the process, thus disenfranchising a large part of the population. If so it was a very prophetic vision! That is what we have happening now.

The Republican Party voted as a block not to pass the Economic Stimulus package. They voted as a block not to pass the Health Care Reform package. Recently seven Republican Senators cosponsored a bill setting up a commission to bring the deficit under control. And when it came up for a vote all seven of them voted against the bill that they thought was good enough to sponsor. Not one Republican voted for the bill and it was defeated. Why? For party solidarity!

The Democrats are no better. For instance, they accepted very few, if any, of the Republican proposals for economic stimulus or health care reform. When it comes to working together for the good of the country it seems like both parties just aren’t interested. They seem to think what matters most is that their party rules! They do their best to not let the other party get anything done.

The really sad thing about partisan politics is that neither party represents the majority of the American people. Independents outnumber both parties yet there are only two independent Senators and no independent Congressmen. The reason for this is because the parties run the primary elections. In most states the major parties automatically get a candidate on the ballot for the general election. An independent candidate can’t even run in a primary and the parties make it almost impossible for one to get on the ballot for the general election. So the unaffiliated voters have only candidates that don’t represent them or their positions to choose from. Its no wonder the American people have a very low opinion of the Congress, the Senate and the Government in general.

Climate Change and Nuclear Power Revival

I was in school in the Atomic City, Los Alamos, N.M. in 1951. I guess they knew it would be futile to "Duck and Cover" in a nuke attack! So we weren’t drilled in that exercise. We were constantly reminded that the Soviets were our rivals for world domination and that they might attack us at any moment without warning. We were never allowed to forget that it might happen.

Nuclear power was a really big thing back then. At first we were told that it would make electricity so cheap that they wouldn’t even meter its use. Just send everyone a bill for a nominal service fee to cover administrative costs. And of course there was always the nuclear deterrent! Remember MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction! If you attack us we will destroy you before we are ourselves destroyed.

Three Mile Island melted down and changed the way Americans view nuclear power. Suddenly the word got out that it wasn’t really as safe as we had been led to believe it was. We found out that we had been lied to by both the industry and the Government. We found out that it wasn’t without cost to the people who mined the ore and processed it into fuel rod pellets. Remember Karen Silkwood? She was killed in a car crash on her way to testify at a hearing exposing the dangers to workers in nuclear fuel processing. Some say it was no accident. Americans came to fear the nuclear industry and if the government had continued to support it we would have come to fear the government too. So the nuclear industry lost support and all but died.

Now that we don’t have the Soviet Union to be afraid of anymore and since Americans have learned of the dangers inherent in nuclear power there is no reason for large scale uranium mining and milling. So the nuclear industry has been lobbying heavily for a revival of nuclear power plants. They are saying the same things they told us before, that it is safe and clean and will be cheaper than coal or petroleum fueled power plants. They have convinced Jeff Bingaman, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, to support it. He is from New Mexico and there is a lot of uranium in New Mexico and the state is hurting for money. And President Obama has bought into it too. They are hoping to give many billions of dollars in subsidies to revive the industry. It may not contribute to global warming because it doesn’t emit greenhouse gasses. But it is neither clean nor safe!

Keep the masses afraid and you can control of them. If it isn’t fear of war with a foreign power it is fear of a terrorist attack. Or, knowing that most Americans think global warming is a problem, use that as a means of keeping us feeling that we need the government to protect us. I don't know when it started but I am sure the Government has been doing it for a very long time. Just keep the threat level high! I wish they would act in a way that would make us feel secure instead of constantly worrying. Maybe they think it is the only way to maintain control over us. And now big money is exerting itself spending lots of money to convince us and our lawmakers that they will save us. Nuclear power to the rescue!

The State Of The Union

Tonight President Obama is going to give his State Of The Union speech. I wonder what he will say. He will probably say, more or less, that the union is in a pretty sorry state.

The President may say something about the state of the union being in bad condition because the banks can and do gamble on credit default swaps and derivatives, etc. He may give some lip service to bank regulation to prevent it. He may ask for legislation to make the banks loan money to small business so they can operate and expand creating new jobs.

He may also give lip service to climate change. He may ask for tax breaks and other incentives for business to produce clean energy. He may ask for legislation to limit the emission of greenhouse gasses. But the biggest polluters are the ones with the deepest pockets. They will spend as much as they need to in order to stop any regulation that would cut into their profits.

I doubt that he will say the state of the union is in bad condition because our lawmakers are owned by the corporations. I doubt that he will say that they bribe our elected officials to ignore the needs of the people and legislate on behalf of the corporations instead. And I doubt that he will offer any solution to this problem.

He will probably not tell us that any legislation that goes against the corporations will be overturned by the Supreme Court. He could ask for the only solution that will stand against the Supreme Court. He could ask for a Constitutional amendment to take the money out of politics. But I doubt that he will.

If money isn’t taken out of politics, the state of the union will not improve substantially. Not for the masses! If the corporations are allowed to spend as much as they want to influence politics we will end up like Haiti or Zimbabwe. There will be no middle class. There will only be a few who are filthy rich and the masses will be desperately poor.

Bank Loans To Small Business

There is a lot of talk about how the banks aren’t loaning money to small business either to start up or to help them with operating expenses enabling them to stay in business. The talking heads say this is because before the melt down the banks would loan money to small businesses that were not well run or for some other reason were not good risks and defaults were high. Now the bankers say they won’t loan to a small business that doesn’t have a good business plan or that has a history of poor management. They say they need to be sure a small business will be able to repay the loan. I wonder why they didn’t do this before the melt down. Maybe it was because they got paid bonuses for making loans instead of on the profit made from a loan when it was repaid.

Since small business is the number one source of new jobs in America it is important to give them the money they need to operate or start up. But the banks are just not loaning money to enough small businesses to stimulate employment and decrease the jobless rate. It is more profitable for the banks to gamble on credit default swaps and other creative financial schemes than it is to make loans and so there really isn’t much incentive for them to make loans to small business.

Over the past twenty years there has been an enormous increase in wealth in America. The problem with this is that the increase hasn’t been distributed evenly. Those at the very top of the income scale, the owners of by far the largest share of the business community, the corporations, have gotten virtually all of the increase. The working class, the line workers and small business owners, are actually worse off now. Their buying power is down from what it was twenty years ago. So there isn’t the profits generated that are needed to pay for the expansion that would create new jobs.

Lack of banking regulation has resulted in this sad state of affairs we find ourselves in. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the corporations can spend as much as they want to on political campaigns and politicians, there isn’t likely to be any new regulation of the kind necessary to change this. The banks will continue to gamble instead of making loans to small business and the unemployment rate will remain high.

I see no solution to this problem except for the masses of people to demand that our representatives pass an amendment to the Constitution to take money out of politics. As long as the corporations can buy the influence of our lawmakers there isn’t much chance that they will act on behalf of the common citizen instead of the corporations.

Should Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke Be Reconfirmed?

There is a lot of talk in the news lately about whether Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke should be reconfirmed or not. There seems to be a growing opposition in the Senate to his continued rain as chairman. President Obama does still support him and voice his confidence in Bernanke and his ability to set the economy back in order. I, and many others, don’t share his confidence.

If you were sick and the doctor you had been seeing had led to your illness through practicing bad medicine would you continue seeing that doctor? Not likely! You would choose another doctor who would use another treatment instead of continuing to use the same one that allowed you to become sick. It makes about as much sense to reconfirm Ben Bernanke, who followed policies that led to the economic decline and really hasn’t done very much to get back on track to stability and job producing growth, in the position of Chairman of the Fed.

The banks are doing great now thanks to massive bailouts using taxpayer’s money. But without the working people who pay the taxes those bailouts came from they aren’t likely to be able to sustain their prosperity indefinitely. Home owners will continue to lose their homes to foreclosure because they lost their jobs. Unemployment will remain high and the revenue from taxes on working people will remain low under Chairman Ben Bernanke’s leadership.

Ben Bernanke still exhibits no willingness to adopt policy that would bring about job growth. So someone else who has a better approach to economic regulation should replace him as Chairman of the Fed. But the banking lobby is very strong and Obama and several Senators undoubtedly under their influence and will give their allegiance to the bankers. They will continue to give them what they want instead of replacing Ben Bernanke with someone else who would institute new job producing economic policy.

Aid For Haiti

I have to admit that I’m ashamed and disappointed that the government of the U.S. is still not in Haiti in full force 12 days after the quake delivering aid and supplies to the victims of the earthquake. Nearly every other nation that is there got there before we did much more than think about going. While others were delivering aid our government was, supposedly, organizing our forces. And when they did finely start to get to Haiti is was armed forces. People with guns! Like that was needed more urgently than medicine or bandages or food or clean drinking water. Men with guns are more important? What kind of aid is that?

Where was the food and medicine? Where were the tents and blankets? Where was the heavy equipment to move the rubble out of the way so that relief supplies could be gotten to where they were needed? Where was the aid?

Maybe the reason is because it was the government. We all know that they don’t do most things as efficiently as those in the private sector. The government seems to have become too dependent on contractors to do things it once could do itself. Maybe the government should have given a no bid contract to Bechtel or Halliburton.

After the Great San Francisco earthquake President Roosevelt ordered every tent the Army owned in the U.S. to be sent to San Francisco as soon as they could be sent. And the next day a train load of relief supplies left for San Francisco. The government could act efficiently in those days. What ever happened to change that? Could it be that there is too much money in politics? Could it be that the government is owned by the corporations now?

Approach To Health Care Reform-Piecemeal Or Package

President Obama's approach to health care financing has been much the same as Clinton's was, a package deal. The only real difference I see is that Obama left it all up to the Congress and Senate to work it out while Clinton put the package together and sent the package to the Congress and Senate to pass. In my opinion it would have been much better to use a more piecemeal approach in both cases. The package deal was too much for enough Senators or Congressmen to accept in its totality. There were too many parts to both that some just couldn't accept. So the package is rejected.

We know what is wrong with the health care financing system. It costs too much and doesn't cover everybody and has too many limitations. If you already have a condition you can't get coverage. If it costs too much the total won't be covered. If you don't work for a company that offers health care coverage you can't afford it. There is no competition between health care insurance companies. And if you change jobs or lose your job you lose your coverage.

Both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on most of these points. But there are just too many items in the package that some on both sides don't agree on. Even enough Democrats don't agree on enough of them to get the total package deal done. Some in both houses and a lot of the talking heads are saying the approach that should be taken now is to tackle these items one at a time, the piecemeal approach. I think that's the way it should have been done in the first place. Do the things both houses agree on in a way they can agree on. Do the easiest ones first and then move on to the ones that have been sticking points with the package.

The public hasn't really been behind the reform package from the start and as time has gone by less and less of them support it. When health care reform first started being talked about polls showed that a large majority, including some 70% of health care workers, favored a single payer system. But that was kept off the table by Senate finance committee chairman Max Baucus and President Obama. Why? My answer is because of the influence of the insurance companies!

If we had expanded Medicare to cover everyone the insurance companies would have lost business. Also, republicans didn't like the idea because taxes would have to be increased. But I doubt that the increase would be as much as policy holders pay now in premiums. I believe total cost to the public and individuals would have decreased. But the total package deal the House and Senate came up with would have cost even more than we are paying now. And there is no agreement on how to pay the increased cost. So the whole bill is dying and we are getting more of the same. And insurance premiums are up.

Will the lawmakers take a piecemeal approach now? Or will they take a scaled down approach like many are advocating? If the insurance companies have their way it will probably be the latter approach because it won't do as much to decrease their profits. As long as there is so much money influencing politics I don't expect real change to either the approach to health care reform or the high cost.

Affect Of Corporate and Union Money In Politics

I've been wondering what affect the SCOTUS decision to allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on election campaigns will be. Now they can buy as many TV ads promoting or opposing a candidate as they can afford. And they have very deep pockets! Only an organized group can come up with anywhere near as much money from private citizens. So what? So the American people mostly make up their minds who to vote for from 30 second TV ads. You can't get much information into a 30 second ad. So Americans vote without knowing very much about who they are voting for and what that candidate stands for. They really don't have a clue how that candidate will vote in office if elected. They have no idea if he, or she, will vote intelligently on legislation that will affect our lives or if they will just vote along party lines or in favor of the corporate or unions interest. Never mind if it will be good for the people of the country or if it will only further enrich the special interests who paid for those 30 second TV ads. So the chances are that in the future we, the people, will not be represented in government. It isn't like we are now, but it is even more unlikely that the lawmakers will take the good of the people into account when passing legislation.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court has ruled that the corporations and unions can use their immense wealth to influence the outcome of political campaigns. This will mean that they, not the common citizens, will have the greatest influence over our lawmakers. Even more laws and regulations will benefit them instead of us. We will be the ones that pay for their increased profits while we benefit very little from any of it.

There is, however, a solution to this problem. It is a Constitutional amendment taking private money out of politics.

Elections should be paid for a out of a fund from general tax revenue. The money should be distributed equally to each of the qualifying candidates. To get campaign funding a candidate should have to get the signatures of, lets say, .01% of the registered voters in the district the candidate is running for election in.

Further, it should be illegal to donate money to a lawmaker or take them to lunch at a five star restaurant or on a Caribbean cruse or to play golf in Scotland, etc. A lobbyist should only be allowed to go and talk to a lawmaker during the lawmakers regular office hours or at a town hall meeting where an ordinary citizen would be able to state his case for legislation or regulation.

Violation of this amendment should be considered bribery and punishable as a felony.