PoliWatch - Political Meanings

China: Lessons for America and The West

2010-03-06T20:35:00Z

Ever heard of Vertical Democracy? Did you know America's democracy is termed a horizontal democracy? If not, you are missing out on world history in the making, as America will, by its political structure, lose ground against China. I highly recommend to those who wish to catch up on this history in the making, and peer into the future, John and Doris Naisbitt's new book, China's Megatrends, The 8 Pillars of a New Society.

]]> The structural differences between these two nations lay down the clearest explanation of why and how China has risen in the last 30 years from the 137th economy in the world to the second largest in GDP, today. And why America's is ever more seriously challenged. First, two structural terms in the book, need definition.

'Horizontal democracy' in America is centered around the concept of a democratically elected two party system, dividing nation and future policy agenda. The two parties have fundamentally different ideologies and philosophies, which polarize the electorate and government. Because the people are roughly equally divided, the two parties regularly change dominant positions in government. With each swap of places, the long term direction and policy priorities for the nation also change. The result is an America absent any applied long term policy agenda, with each party canceling the other's policies at least once per decade. Continuity rests heavily on the business and corporate world, but, 470 of the Fortune 500 corporations now do business in China.

'Vertical Democracy' is a brand new form of Democracy in human history. It began with Deng Xiaoping. As Wikipedia states: "While Deng never held office as the head of state or the head of government, he nonetheless served as the Paramount leader of the People's Republic of China from 1978 to the early 1990s." Deng Xiaoping, after the Great Revolution, came to reject Mao Zedong's perpetual communist revolution (aka: Mao Tse Tung). Even as the head of the Communist Party, he opened the centralized government's door to bottom up initiatives, trial and error pragmatism, and bureaucratic rejection of ideology.

The Chinese say, there are no communists in China, today. It began with 18 farmers in a dirt poor village who, with the approval of local officials, rejected communal farming and gained approval to divide into 18 independent family farms. When Deng Xiaoping heard of this violation of government policy, he did his homework. He found the families were prospering far better under the new arrangement, increasing revenues to local government officials, and he changed Chinese government policy to accommodate this more effective bottom up initiative from the people.

It proved to be the overarching theme for changes in the Chinese government thereafter, which culminated in what the Naisbitt's term, 'Vertical Democracy'. The structure of this democracy is not centered on elections (though local officials are elected), nor on competing political party ideologies, as in Western democracies. It is centered on two basic premises central to Deng Xiaoping's approach.

First, revolution is to be avoided at all costs to ideology, (a complete rejection of Mao's communism). And therefore, the people must be united around a future of hope and progress which will endear the people toward their government.

And second, the nation's needs must be defined by the people, and the people must be entrusted to the extent possible, to devise the best solutions to meet their needs, which the government will promote, by force against opposition if necessary. As conditions change, and previous solutions fail to work or, are themselves improved upon, the government's role is to quickly and efficiently mandate policy changes to reflect these improved or better solutions to meet the people's needs.

The rejection of Mao Zedung's indoctrination camps, and purges of dissidents, appears to have occurred to Deng Xiaoping in a straight forward bit of logic. Suppression of the people by the government, and divisions amongst the people will, as occurred under the divided China and civil war of Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedung, result in one bloody, costly, and counterproductive revolution, after another. To remain in a stable government, Deng Xiaoping realized that government bureaucrats must address the needs of the people by freeing their minds to embrace practical and effective solutions and initiatives, which prove to work in their local provinces.

This led to China's current embrace of massive direct engagement with the free market world. The Communist policy was that all interaction with outside markets had to go through centralized Beijing government. Increasingly, however, this proved so inefficient and stifling, that many local merchant associations and businesses simply circumvented Beijing and established direct market relationships with international businesses with incredibly prosperous results. Still, the idea of China giving up government control of the nation's future direction to corporatism, was not where Deng Xiaoping was willing to go. Hence, a pragmatic solution in the form of a compromise was established, in which, Chinese business persons were free to engage international business relations up to 100 million dollars. Beyond that limit of trade, Chinese businesses would be required by force of law, to float their propositions through Beijing's central government to insure the government remained in control of the nation's future economic direction and objectives.

This kind of pragmatism in approach to China's policies and centralized control of the nation's future policy directions, in combination with the liberation of the people to invent, create, and compete in the world and within their own country, has allowed China's economic prospects and position to soar over the last 30 years. As Eric Margolis wrote: "Deng's innocuous-sounding dictum, 'it does not matter what color a cat is as long as it hunts mice', unleashed the greatest explosion of productivity and economic growth in history."

So, what does this mean for America and other Western democracies and economies? First, despite China's rise to the second largest GDP economy in the world to America's first position, China's GDP in 2009 stood at just shy 5 Trillion dollars. America's stood at 14 and a quarter trillion dollars. Whether China's economy overtakes America's as the greatest world economy sooner, or later, or at all, depends entirely upon the American people and their government.

Though America's economy is still shakily recovering from this Great Recession, another large and expensive hit on the economy with compensating government spending in the next couple years, could result in America's GDP dropping like a stone in another Great Depression. The simple fact is, America is running out of its historical ability to borrow its way through difficult times, without seriously impacting the quality of life of Americans, especially in the future, and sowing the seeds of another civil war or revolution.

America desperately needs to forge a long term strategy and develop the means to maintain a commitment to a long term strategy to effectively deal with its rapidly growing federal debt, as well as the coinciding conversion to a dichotomous economy of low wage service employment and super wealthy corporate and fame oriented elites, effectively diminishing the breadth of the consumer middle class. The shrinking of the middle class will inevitably impact the consumer based economic activity going forward, placing increased demands on government spending and reducing government revenues, exacerbating the debt and deficit threat.

Despite this need, America's political system continues to become more polarized around the two party system, which portends the continued rotation of parties in power. In turn, this assures a rotation of ideologies and strategies, resulting in a failure of the United States to apply itself consistently to long term solutions resolving growing challenges of fiscal and economic threats. This is a stark contrast to China's capacity to stick to long term objectives and strategies, while retaining the flexibility to adjust and adapt those policies for effectiveness as conditions change. Western democracies lack this kind of timely flexibility and increasingly, the ability to stick to long term strategy. In other words, to paraphrase Xiaoping, for Americans, it matters more whether the cat is Red or Blue, than whether it succeeds in hunting mice.
.
This contrast however, does not necessarily result in China becoming the big winner and champion of the world's economic future. The simple fact is, China's economic growth is increasingly dependent upon the consumerism of Western nation's. If Western nation's economies, or government fiscal conditions fail, China's economy will be negatively impacted as well. The CIA World Fact Book states: "Throughout 2009, the global economic downturn reduced foreign demand for Chinese exports for the first time in many years." So, China has a vested interest in the future of the world's other nations.

China is not without its own significant looming challenges. The CIA Factbook reports:

The Chinese government faces numerous economic development challenges, including: (a) strengthening its social safety net, including pension and health system reform, to counteract a high domestic savings rate and correspondingly low domestic demand; (b) sustaining adequate job growth for tens of millions of migrants, new entrants to the work force, and workers laid off from state-owned enterprises deemed not worth saving; (c) reducing corruption and other economic crimes; and (d) containing environmental damage and social strife related to the economy's rapid transformation.

Economic development has been more rapid in coastal provinces than in the interior, and approximately 200 million rural laborers and their dependents have relocated to urban areas to find work - in recent years many have returned to their villages. One demographic consequence of the "one child" policy is that China is now one of the most rapidly aging countries in the world. Deterioration in the environment - notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table, especially in the north - is another long-term problem.

China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development. In 2006, China announced that by 2010 it would decrease energy intensity 20% from 2005 levels. In 2009, China announced that by 2020 it would reduce carbon intensity 40% from 2005 levels. The Chinese government seeks to add energy production capacity from sources other than coal and oil, and is focusing on nuclear energy development.

China is developing long term trade and contractual agreements with many other nations, especially African and S. American. China will require natural resource imports to continue its economic growth. To the extent that China can assist, through trade, to develop these third world nation economies and growing their middle class consumers, China can lessen its dependence upon Western nation economies and consumers as needed. This again reflects China's long term survival strategy, which embraces the reality of the present and potential realities of the future. A strong central government capable of consistent focus on the future and present at the same time, and consistent application of future oriented strategies is essential. In conjunction with a rapidly growing innovative private sector in new areas of science and technology, and confidence of the Chinese people in their government, China is capable of creating an enviable competitive advantage in the world marketplace.

Evidence of these themes can be found in China's approach to auto manufacturing. China chose not to compete with Western auto manufacturers in the area of combustion engines, where Westerners had 100 years of experience. They chose instead to enter the auto manufacturing marketplace where everyone has the same level of experience, the Hybrid and all electric automobile. A few years ago, China laid plans to export such vehicles to the U.S. in anticipation of a growing need for such vehicles by American consumers, partly due to China's competition for oil resources and subsequent sustained higher fuel prices in America.

They bought facilities in Northern Mexico, just across the U.S. border a few years ago, and erected an auto manufacturing plant that will begin exporting their cars into the U.S. market later this year. This kind of cooperative effort and partnership between the Chinese people's private sector and China's government in exploiting economic opportunities in a timely fashion, is a relationship that is fading in Western societies, whose democracies are horizontally divided by political ideology playing musical chairs with government control and interfering with effective governance of their nation's future.

China has found a way to unite its vast nation and diverse people's around a growing and promising economic future. While Western societies like the United States increasingly make the word 'United' a practical misnomer in light of growing political extremism and non-cooperative political parties, whose focus and energies are increasingly limited to short term election cycle political gains and losses. There is a brand new form of democracy emerging in the world today, whose model may well become the adopted paradigm for failed Western nations in the future.

Health Care Summit: Politics as Usual

2010-02-26T08:21:28Z

The Health Care Summit with Pres. Obama and select Congressional individuals of the Donkey and Elephant persuasion, was obviously well prepared for by both sides. Each had their scripts well crafted, and lines rehearsed like veteran Shakespearian actors. It was as predicted, political theater at its worst.

]]> Democrat's strategy was abundantly evident by their members repeatedly asserting their well rehearsed phrases, "we are not that far apart", "we are very close together", and "there is not that much that prevents us from moving forward". The strategy was to paint the Republicans as those who would not take that last step to give the American people health care reform. It may prove to have been a successful strategy for those who watched and listened, as the Republican's strategy and telltale lines will demonstrate.

With pure repetitive precision, Republicans at the Summit recited their lines verbatim and repeatedly: "Let's start over", "start over with a clean sheet", and "let's start over and take this step by step". The Republican position was absolutely clear. Nothing Democrats had put together could remain. If Democrats wanted Republican support, they would first have to abandon all they had crafted, and begin the 11 month process all over again with Republicans having equal authorship in the bill's crafting.

Essentially, both sides agreed on the objectives. But, when it came to the methods by which those objectives could be achieved, the Earth opened into a wide chasm. Fundamentally, Democrats and Republicans don't agree on one central issue. Democrats believe every American in need of medical treatment has a right to receive that treatment, as a matter of humanity and citizenship. Republicans take the position that health care is not a right, and the poorest and unemployed should not receive needed health care at the expense of their tax dollars.

The Democrat's proposals would insure 30 million Americans currently without insurance, and the rest down the road. Democrats would require all Americans to carry health care insurance or, pay a penalty. The penalty would offset the cost of insuring everyone else and avoid deficit spending.

The Republican's proposals would insure 3 million more Americans instead of 30. They would not require everyone to carry insurance, and they would leave Americans free to choose to use emergency rooms for their medical needs or, pay out of their own funds until they are depleted, instead of being forced into a health insurance plan or penalty payment.

On most of the other issues, Republicans and Democrats really are not far apart. Both see the benefit of competition introduced into the insurance markets as a positive approach. Both acknowledge the benefit of creating pooled insurance purchasing for those with high cost conditions, effectively lowering their costs. And both sides agree to prohibit insurance companies from canceling policies due to medically necessary high costs.

The politics of the health care reform issue are vastly more complex than what I have outlined here as fundamental differences and areas of agreement. Republicans will continue to act the Party of "No" on Democrat's health care proposal votes in Congress. And Democrats, knowing this, are left with only two choices: abandon health care reform and earn the ire of the public for their failure in leadership as the majority Party, or, find a way to garner enough Democratic votes to pursue the Reconciliation method of passing the legislation with 51 votes in the Senate. Democrats are in pursuit of the Reconciliation option. However, it is not assured as an option, yet. The House and Senate parliamentarians (keepers of the rules), have yet to determine if such a procedure would be allowable.

In the end, the chasm remained wide as ever. The partisan lines did not move an inch. And the American people remain on hold waiting for their government to effectively deal with the one thing both sides absolutely agreed on, that health care reform is necessary if our nation and economy are to survive and avoid the coming deficits and debt due to spiraling health care costs.

The President came off as cool, collected, and in control. Though many might well argue he was an uneven moderator, often interrupting Republican Representatives and Senators, presenting the appearance of keeping the discussions on track, civil, and productive.

Some of the many Republican proposals were incorporated into Pres. Obama's recently unveiled plan for reform, and the White House wasted no time setting up a web page outlining these. If their was anything gained by this summit, it was gained by Pres. Obama. He pledged in his election campaign to work for bi-partisanship and to include good ideas, regardless of who they came from. He did not break his promise in this Summit, nor in his reform plan.

There were quite a few incorrect and misrepresented facts thrown out in the Summit. Fortunately, FactCheck.Org has already issued their corrections for viewers to use in their debates over he said, she said.

Health Care Reform: Public Option, Reconciliation, DOA?

2010-02-23T21:12:04Z

Last night, Sen. Jay Rockefeller announced he would not likely support a Public Option reform through the Reconciliation process (a process by which different legislation passed by the House and Senate, can be reconciled and bypass a Senate filibuster with 51 votes.) That announcement, for all intents and purposes, spells the death knell for the reconciliation push to pass health care reform with a Public Option. Sen. Rockefeller has been a strong supporter of the Public Option. He expressed his reservations, leaving a bit of room to change his mind, but, it is hard to imagine what would, given his arguments against it.

]]> Sen. Rockefeller is pinning his hopes on a bi-partisan approach, still, which would include a similar measure in the Senate version of the Health Care Reform bill. Rockefeller stated:

I don't think you [pursue] something like the public option, which cannot pass, will not pass. And if we get the Senate bill--both through the medical loss ratio and the national plans, which have in that, every one of them has to have one not-for-profit plan, which is sort of like a public option.

It appears then, that Sen. Rockefeller is not opposed to the Reconciliation process, which Republicans used 3 times during the Bush administration to provide tax cuts to the wealthy. He appears only to be opposed to pushing the Public Option through the Reconciliation process.

Which means, that the Senate's version of Health Care reform is still on the table to be passed through Reconciliation, and would likely receive Sen. Rockefeller's support. There are some 20 Senate Democrats who have signed on to urge their leadership to push the reform through the Reconciliation process, but, with the Public Option from the House version added.

It remains to be seen whether Democrats are going to be able to muster the votes necessary to use the Reconciliation process. Many are waiting for the results of Pres. Obama's health care summit meeting, which Republicans were invited to participate in, later this week. There are enough conservative Democrats in the House to derail the Public Option being added to the Senate version of the bill using Reconciliation. This may be influencing Sen. Rockefeller's calculus on the issue.

It remains to be seen if Republicans will remain seated at the 'summit' meeting' in lieu of storming out in protest to Democrats unwillingness to scrap everything and start over, again. In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News day before yesterday, Sen. McConnell had this to say:

We know where the American people are on the bills the House and Senate passed, the 2,700-page bill that cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars, raises taxes by a half a trillion dollars.

The NPR poll just a week or so ago indicated the American people were against that 58 to 38. They really want to us to shelve this bill and start over, and I hope that's what the president does when he puts this new proposal on the Internet later today or tomorrow.

This was masterful political theater by Sen. McConnell. He refers to this NPR Poll. The numbers were 55% opposed, and 39% in favor. McConnell either lied about the result in his argument's favor, or, has no business quoting poll numbers he can't remember, as if he does. But, look at the polling question:

As you may have heard, President Obama has proposed a plan to change the health care system that recently passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate. From what you have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama's health care proposal?

The question is confusing and without specifics. First, President Obama has presented no health care plan, only four objectives to be met by any health care plan the Congress passes. Second, the Senate bill is radically different than the House bill. These polled persons are being asked for a yes or no support answer to two different health care plans, neither of which is the President's crafting. It is like asking a person, "Do you prefer Blue or Orange? And they respond, Yes, or No.

Those responding to this question likely thought they understood the question, but, the question is both false in its reference to 'Obama's health care reform bill', and bogus in its structural reference to two different proposals, leading the respondents, most of whom likely know very little about which bill contains what, to answer in support or not support of legislation they don't know about.

Senator McConnell's reference to this polling result completely circumvents the straightforward question in other polls about the Public Option contained in the House version of the Bill. When the question is clear and informational, instead of confusing and falsely stated, the result is very different. In a Newsweek sponsored poll [PDF] of Feb. 19, here is the question and result:

Do you favor or oppose: Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans.

Favor: 50% Oppose: 42% Don't Know: 8%.

In this same poll, respondents were given specifics on the health care reform bills, and asked for their overall assessment of Obama's reform plan, (committing the same mistake as the NPR poll), favor, not favor, or don't know.

Now please think about the proposals I just described to you. ALL of these proposals are included in Barack Obama's health care reform plan. Having heard these details, what is your OVERALL opinion of Obama's plan - do you favor it or oppose it?

Favor: 48% Oppose: 43% DK: 9%

This is what happens when politicians cherry pick their data to make their arguments. The reality is, the more the public knows about what is in these bills, more favor them than disfavor them. Republicans know this, which is why they have been on a confusion and misinformation campaign with the public since this health care debate began.

Which raises the question, why are Democrats like Sen. Rockefeller still holding out hope for a bi-partisan passage of health care reform? Even the one lonely House Republican who voted for the House version, has now said he will not vote for Reconciliation to pass the health care reform. How could it possibly be clearer that the GOP has no intention of allowing Democrats to give the majority of Americans what they want on health care reform, regardless of what shape it takes?

The President's bi-partisan health care summit is going to be pure political theater. Televised, this meeting will give Democrats the opportunity to contrast their plan with the Republicans. The Republicans will no doubt use the meeting to portray themselves as cooperative and conciliatory, and Democrats as unwilling to compromise, or, alternatively, find an appropriate point at which to rise up together and walk out in indignation. Both sides will be using this summit to their advantage. And that's precisely how and why the American people continue to be left out of the priorities of our current day politicians and their political Parties.

I am not betting that health care reform will get done this year. Both Parties now have too much to gain politically as the election approaches, by demonizing the opposing Party for depriving their majority of the American people what they demand and expect for their tax dollars. And in the meantime, the Medicare/Medicaid deficits for the States and the U.S. government will grow, as will the millions more Americans having to live in America without health care insurance, using expensive Emergency Rooms for illnesses which should never have progressed as far as they did. This inaction by our Congress continues to grow an unsustainable debt upon the earnings of our children, when they enter the work force, and potentially bankrupts the U.S. government.

A bankrupt U.S. government is the surest way of finding out whether the American people really want small and limited federal government. Haiti has small and limited government. Somalia has small and limited government. Afghanistan has small and limited government. Is it really necessary to test common sense in this most extreme way? Small and limited government creates inordinate hardships on its people. Government needs to be whatever size the nation's people and her future require of it to continue as an effective government. Our government is no longer effective. Size is not the reason.

Sen. Mitch McConnell highlights the politics at play when he said in the above mentioned interview: "But the American people who are already quite angry about the effort to jam this down their throats are going to be even angrier."

Only 13% of Americans place health care reform as their top priority, though this was the second highest priority in the poll to Jobs and the Economy. If the majority of the American people believed health care reform was being jammed "down their throats", one would think it would be a vastly higher priority, especially to the majority who are still working in their jobs. These drastic and dramatic kinds of statements are designed to evoke a negative response in the American people. And that negative response is showing up as an approval rating of Congress well below 30%.

My family has very good health care insurance through the wife's employer. But, the premiums have been increasing dramatically year after year. And it no longer provides long term catastrophic coverage. Our deductible has risen from $500 per person, per year, to $1500 per year, in little over a decade. And the costs for medical procedures which we, and our insurance company pay, has skyrocketed over that same period. The system is broken and unsustainable as it is. Reform is absolutely necessary. The political parties stand between the American people and the reform they now, or will soon, desperately need.

Bayh & Nuclear Bombshells

2010-02-16T19:46:17Z

Two bombshell news stories occurred back to back this morning. Sen. Evan Bayh announces he will not run for reelection, and Pres. Obama announces $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees for America's first new nuclear power plant in nearly 3 decades. The import and aftermath of these two news announcements strike at the heart of what is broken in American politics, demanding repair, or inviting failure.

]]> Bayh

Sen. Evan Bayh's announcement opens the door to a possible Republican majority in the U.S. Senate in Nov. 2010. That's not the bombshell, though many a liberal might think so. The bombshell is Sen. Bayh's stated reason:

There is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving... Even at a time of enormous challenge, the people's business is not being done.

These words could not be more important for the American people, nor more true. After just two terms, this Senator believes his efforts are no longer worth the time and energy it takes to get so little accomplished in addressing the nation's most pressing challenges. Partisans in America will condemn or praise Bayh's announcement, as either cowardly or overdue, depending on whether the partisan is a Democrat or Republican. But, from a non-partisan point of view, his announcement marks yet another milestone on the road to ruin for America and Americans.

Sen. Bayh of Indiana, was a moderate Democrat, fiscally conservative on deficit and debt issues, and more liberal on social issues of equal protection under law and preserving individual choice from overbearing government intervention. Sen. Bayh was one of the Democrats capable and willing to work with, and compromise with, Republicans across the the Congressional aisle. But every attempt to reach out to them to solve the nation's challenges were rebuffed when it came time to vote. If you know the ship is sinking, and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, it is prudent to jump and swim toward terra firma.

I, however, can find no blame for Sen. Bayh's decision. If he were my Senator, I would have voted for his challenger, instead. Not because I don't respect his efforts in the Senate, but, because his efforts failed to produce solutions to the problems taking my nation down the path to ruin. Democrats will argue his failure to produce results was the fault of the obstructionist Republicans who refuse to vote for anything Democrats propose, except for more war. Some Republicans would argue that their agenda is not becoming policy and therefore, there is no justifiable reason to vote for Democrat's objectives.

Sen. Bayh, in the middle of these intractable lines drawn in the sand, is exiting this exercise in futility, and I cannot blame him. In a Hollywood movie, Sen. Bayh's script may call for his refusal to give up, to stay and fight the futility, and become an unsung martyr in the wake of the anti-incumbent movement growing amongst the voters across the nation. But, this is no movie. And in real life, at this time in American history, people working sensibly to do the right thing are lost and forgotten amidst the spectacle of sacrificial gladiators in the political arena battling for appeal to a public and media that values blood over diplomacy, vitriol over consensus, and winners and losers over solutions.

Just as the gladiator's of Rome fought to appease the crowds as Rome fractured and faded from history, America's political gladiators fight to the death of America through neglect of what is really important to save our future: solutions; forged out of rational and reasonable debate which puts nation first and foremost.

Obama

Pres. Obama said this morning that safe nuclear power plants are a necessary investment in America's future and will further America's objective toward energy independence. Critics on the Left will argue there is no such thing as safe nuclear power plants until a permanent, safe, and cost effective solution to getting rid of nuclear waste is found. They will argue Pres. Obama is putting the cart before the horse in announcing construction before such a solution to waste is found.

"To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply the nuclear power. It's that simple.", Pres. Obama said. Politically however, it will be anything but simple, and very likely prove to be impossible. New nuclear generated electric power will be enormously expensive up front, and as Pres. Obama acknowledged,

Energy leaders and experts recognize that as long as producing carbon pollution carries no cost, traditional plants that use fossil fuels will be more cost effective than plants that use nuclear fuel. That's why we need comprehensive energy and climate legislation...

And therein lies the potential impossibility of moving forward toward a national energy policy that achieves energy independence. Republicans have been calling for nuclear power for years. But, they will fight artificially increased costs of fossil fuels through higher taxation. Republicans officially do not recognize America's contribution to global climate change, and will therefore, don gladiator garb and weapons to defeat Pres. Obama's plan for a comprehensive approach to energy independence, just as they opposed Democrat's comprehensive approach to health care reform.

Before reforming health care, energy, and wasteful government spending; before reforming tax codes, education quality - availability, and runaway deficits due to entitlements, America must reform its broken political system, which blocks all these other reforms from becoming reality. Asking a Democrat or Republican politician to reform the political system is like asking a heart attack victim to perform bypass surgery on himself, which means no anesthesia. It will not happen.

Two things must happen before the needed political reform can take place. The first is, Americans must collectively look into the Abyss that lies ahead, and agree with each other that they do not wish to jump headlong into it. And second, the majority of American voters must give up their role as gladiatorial spectators of the carnage in the political arena, and vote: not for Democrats or Republicans, not for liberal or conservative. No, the majority of American voters must vote for results, which are now absent from our Congress.

How does one vote for results, when there are none forthcoming, one might logically ask? The answer is quite simple. Voting for a sitting politician who has been ineffective in producing results to date, is certainly not the answer. However, voting for a challenger to an incumbent in Congress seeking reelection, is a vote which megaphones a simple message to the new politician who wins election. That message is: Produce results or your election will be a one time event, and you will be the incumbent getting the boot when it is your turn to seek reelection.

Politicians rather like getting reelected. Deprive them of reelection; even threaten their potential for reelection, and they will jump through hoops to meet the voter's demand for results. As voters divided, we are puppets to to the politicians. United as voters, they become our puppets.

Voting for results instead of Party label, will force our Congress to find and enact the solutions which, will prevent our hurtling into the Abyss. This is the mission, logic, and message of the non-partisan political action committee known as Vote Out Incumbents Democracy. We can shove each other into the Abyss, or join with the voters of V.O.I.D. to force the political reform that must come before any other reforms can.

Republicans Have Gone Anti-America

2010-02-04T20:37:13Z

The Republican Party, also known as the Grand Old Party, or GOP, has evolved from a very pro-America Party in in 1994, to an anti-America Party through the last decade, taking giant strides in that direction since Americans threw them out of power in 2008. Greed, duplicity, anger, vengeance, and paranoia have taken over the group think psychology of Republicans in Congress, as well as a great many of the remaining supporters of the GOP. It is time the GOP be labeled for what its member's actions demonstrate.

]]> Even the GOP's website (link above) demonstrates its loss of priorities and focus on the purpose of a political party in America. Good business web site design standards have organizations putting their key purpose and reason for existence boldly at the top center of their web site's entry page. What does the GOP have top and center of theirs? Consuming most of the front web site page real estate is a Sales Promotion for partisan junk; buttons, T-shirts, key rings, ties, elephants and bumper stickers. The GOP's web site speaks to their focus, getting supporters money while getting supporters to advertise their the GOP brand, for free. The GOP web site has become that of a brand retailer centered on sales, not governance.

But, in Congress today, and the RNC cultural infrastructure, the GOP is selling anti-America behavior in opposition to democracy, in opposition to good governance, in opposition to government itself, in opposition to the concept of integrity and logical common sense, and in favor of vengeance acted out toward the Democrats and public at large for having thrown them out of power.

Unbridled passion and emotion are the enemy of reason and sanity; so say Eastern philosophies and Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame. More specifically, as David at Raptitude.com writes: "Money doesn't come in exchange for passion, it comes in exchange for what other people value." The Republican Party and many conservatives, act as though money alone will bring them back into power.

But, what of value, besides mutual anger fests, contradiction, and conflicting rhetoric, does the GOP have to offer? For those in our society who are angry at their government for whatever reasons, the Republican Party is offering support of that anger. But, protracted anger is inherently unhealthy physically and psychologically. Most Americans will not choose to remain in a Party of hostile passions, bent on obstruction and vengeance toward others for the GOP's self-created woes.

This poses an enormous problem for Republicans as their passions translate into actions of disdain for government and democracy. America can't be separated from its government. Our constitutional government is what defines our history and culture and in large part underwrites who we are as a people today. But, Republicans are on the war path against American government.

Republican Supreme Court appointees and conservative justices just weeks ago ruled to allow corporations to use their enormous billions of dollars of profits to campaign for or against candidates for elected office, literally opening the door for a marriage between the Republican Party and corporate rule of American government. Everywhere on the campaign trail Republicans are heard denouncing big government promising to get rid of government programs and services which make all of American's lives more secure and safe from predatory behaviors by those like Bernie Madoff or Timothy McVeigh, who serve greed or nurture hate toward America and its government.

Republicans are mired in a logical trap of their own making. In fostering hate of government, they are fostering hate toward America which is inseparable from the government that defines it. And in demonstrating contempt for government services and programs, which they want to cut, they are displaying contempt for the American public and voters who are served by Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. These are many of the same Americans who took majority power away from Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections, for doubling national debt, leaving the economy in shambles, and making entitlements and government health care spending an even more urgent and threatening issue.

Democrats had their power taken away, and they worked long and hard to court the American people's demands and restore the people's faith in Democrat's respect for democracy (will of the people), as well as to earn their confidence in Democrats willingness to address the massive debt and deficits and torn economy left behind by Republican rule. Of course, deficits have always been the government's response to economic recessions since The Great Depression. So, Democrats are in a box, overcome the recession through deficit spending, and fight deficits and debt growth, at the same time.

What are Republicans doing to win back confidence and trust? NADA! Nothing, except to poison the well of bi-partisanship and taking every opportunity to deny tax payers a functional government that can work for them.

Holding up health care reform, holding up Obama's agency head nominations, holding up environmental protection legislation (Cap N Trade), and holding up virtually every other attempt by Democrats to fulfill their campaign promises to the people, except escalation in Afghanistan, is what Republicans are doing. This does not engender trust or confidence, and the polls show it in abysmal approval ratings of the GOP.

Republicans who supported trying terrorists in our courts when they had power, now scream Democrats doing the same are aiding and abetting the terrorists. Republicans who nearly doubled the national debt through deficit spending, much of it off-budget so the public wouldn't know as much, now scream about Democrats deficit spending to recover the economy. Republicans who expanded the Medicare entitlement program with the Rx drug plan paid for through borrowing and deficits, now scream at Democrats for trying to drive down health care and Medicare costs, paid for without deficit spending. Republicans who defended Bush against criticism of the Far Left calling such critics disloyal and traitors to America, now attack Obama as a socialist, communist, terrorist, and quite literally, Un-American questioning his birth certificate published in Hawaiian newspapers.

These Republican hypocrisies and Janus faced positions in total contradiction point to the GOP's evolved philosophy as becoming anti-America, anti-democracy, and anti-government. Their insistence on torture and demands for double standards in our justice system for trying the accused stand in stark contradiction and contempt for America's Constitution, treaties, and laws. Using the filibuster to halt government in its tracks, not only damages our nation and future and prevents us from solving the challenges before us as a nation, but, it also promotes and stands for rule by the elite minority, to serve that minority's ends, which is about as anti-democracy as any Party can get in America.

Only Republican supporters can exert the necessary pressure on the GOP to force it to rectify its deplorable state, and turn back this ideological evolution toward anti-government, anti-democracy, anti-America behavior and positions. Many Republicans are trying to stop their GOP leadership from engaging in these anti-America activities, in the hopes that one day, their Party may begin to restore public confidence and trust in it again. This civil war within the GOP, however, is damaging our nation's ability to solve problems, along with the efficacy of the Grand Old Party. And the Tea Bagger supporters and independent voters would be foolhardy indeed to support Republicans on Election Day, Nov. 2, if clear headed leadership and fostering American strength and vitality is their aim.

SOTU. We Don't Quit. I Don't Quit !

2010-01-28T14:54:46Z

Image via Wikipedia

The President's State of the Union (SOTU) speech was realistic, mostly accurate, and proscriptive. It was not a "feel good" speech. It accurately summarized where the nation is domestically, divided and behind schedule in addressing many of its most pressing issues. His speech pragmatically stipulated that he alone cannot bring the solutions to pass (a campaign refrain); Congress and the people have to carry their share of the load, the confidence, and responsibility.

]]> There was nothing in his speech to force the far Left and Right together. There was nothing in his speech to force congressional representatives to put the nation's needs ahead of their own reelection needs. There was nothing in his speech to indicate it would be easier going forward. Pres. Obama did, however, lay the burden of overcoming the nation's challenges rightfully at the feet of those who have not delivered or contributed to meeting our nation's future needs responsibly.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -- what they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences, to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills, a chance to get ahead, most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

Pres. Obama tasked those who would deny America's future from being what it should be:

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together.

Then our President closed the speech with a note of praise, encouragement, and a perennial source of optimism in saying:

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -- what keeps me fighting -- is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "... are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.

And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "USA! USA! USA!" when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward and to strengthen our union once more.

It was a realistic account of where America is today in foreign affairs, economically, politically, and psychologically. And he highlighted the most obvious: the obvious that is too frequently overlooked. We will succeed together, united as a diverse nation, or, we will not succeed in rescuing this great nation's future. It is up to all of us to hold ourselves, and each other, responsible for doing our share in keeping the dream of a worthwhile future alive with our own honest efforts in that direction.

Supreme Court: Corporate Influence Over Elections

2010-01-21T16:08:42Z

The Supreme Court, a conservative court on the belief that money is protected speech as far as elections are concerned, overturned a century of precedent and laws moving in the other direction. Republicans continue to sabotage America, even after being deposed from majority power to rule, via their Supreme Court activist judges. As usual, Republicans say one thing and do the opposite. For appearances they rail against activist judges, all the while appointing their own activist judges to the federal benches.

]]> In law, there is the centuries old guide called 'stare decisis', a latin phrase which simply represents a legal principle and obligation of judges to maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been previously established by preceding judges and courts, without compelling Constitutional fulfillment grounds for doing so. This ruling by the Robert's Court violates in several ways the principle of stare decisis.

As early as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response, Congress enacted several statutes between 1907 and 1966 which, taken together, sought to:

* Limit the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections;

* Regulate spending in campaigns for federal office; and

* Deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances.

Today's S.C. ruling overturns all these precedents and public interest objectives.

In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties and political action committees (PACs). Still, without a central administrative authority, the campaign finance laws were difficult to enforce.

Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. The 1974 amendments also established an independent agency, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the law, facilitate disclosure and administer the public funding program. Congress made further amendments to the FECA in 1976 following a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo; major amendments were also made in 1979 to streamline the disclosure process and expand the role of political parties.

The next set of major amendments came in the form of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Among other things, the BCRA banned national parties from raising or spending nonfederal funds (often called "soft money"), restricted so-called issue ads, increased the contribution limits and indexed certain limits for inflation.

Public funding of federal elections originally proposed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 began to take shape in 1971 when Congress set up the income tax checkoff to provide for the financing of Presidential general election campaigns and national party conventions. Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in 1974 established the matching fund program for Presidential primary campaigns.

The FEC opened its doors in 1975 and administered the first publicly funded Presidential election in 1976.

The 5 Justices responsible for this monumental reversal, essentially resorted to defining corporate and organized interests as equal to that of an individual where funding of broadcast political speech is concerned. Their method was simple. Money is speech, and political speech is protected by the First Amendment.

That is a defensible position if the individual happens to be Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. But, for the rest of the 330 million individual Americans, their resources are hardly equal to corporations and organized minority groups like unions. This decision hands a megaphone to wealthy special interests and mutes the political speech of individual working Americans in a very fundamental way, giving the advantage to the wealthy special interest groups to shape the issues and message heard at election time.

And here is the kicker. This ruling overthrows the requirement of identity disclosure. That's right. The wealthy special interests using 100's of millions of dollars to control the political speech in the public sector do NOT have to identify who they are, and therefore, their agenda can remain completely hidden. It is an appalling ruling, which portends the undermining of democracy in America and the promotion of oligarchy and plutocracy, government controlled by an elite and wealthy privileged few.

As Republicans own this decision, it will curry them no favor in the public's eyes today, I hope, as Americans already rail against the preferential treatment Wall St. has received over Main Street. It seems Republicans just can't stop themselves from alienating the majority of Americans, in, or out of power.

Mass. Election. Independents and Anti-Incumbents!

2010-01-20T16:01:57Z

For years, I have advocated for independent voters to unite around the ant-incumbent strategy. Pres. Obama won as the challenger to the Bush/Republican years, riding the wave of disapproving independent voters. He won with 53% of the vote, and his approval rating remains in that ball park, depending on what poll you look at. The off-year gubernatorial races in 2009 were dominated by anti-incumbent independent voters. And now, in an historically Democratic State, Democrats lost and a Republican shall take the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Are the Parties acknowledging this wake up call?

]]> Sen. Elect Scott Brown's victory, however won't be applauded long by Republicans given his pro-choice stance. And Democrats will find Brown an obstacle on all their major initiatives going forward, from Cap and Trade and deficits to health care reform. Massachusetts voters won't remain happy with their choice either, as Brown said this morning, he intends to protect and fight for the interests of his State. Well, that is precisely what most other Senators do, put their State's interests above those of the nation's. So, when it comes to pork spending, or national challenges requiring his constituents to pony up a bit more in taxes to fight deficits and lower national debt, Sen. Elect Brown will be nothing new nor independent.

But, what choice did Mass. voters have? There were only 2 candidates running with any chance of winning, and the anti-incumbent mood and independent voters were courted with some expertise by Brown, and not at all by Martha Coakley. And Mass. independent voters are intent on demonstrating their non-partisan, bi-partisan capacity where incumbent parties, or incumbent candidates are concerned, as long as they have reason to disapprove of the results coming from our government. There were, of course, many other factors that played into this upset election, but, the polls show a dominant variable was the independent voters who can no longer tolerate the performance and results of Congress.

Brown did not run as a Republican. His party affiliation appeared almost nowhere on his campaign materials, and support from the RNC was paltry. He did not reference himself as a Republican on the campaign trail talking with voters. In hindsight, this may have helped him, because independent voters have no love for the GOP or RNC either. Some Democratic voters may have woke up yesterday feeling hoodwinked upon discovering that Brown is a Republican. But, that would be their own fault with no one to blame but themselves for not having become better informed. They know better than to expect full disclosure and honesty from politicians. Or, at least they should know better. The Supreme Court ruled in a case in recent years that politicians lying to the public is not a violation of Constitutional proscriptions.

Bragging Republicans don't seem to grasp what happened here, and are being drawn into false conclusions. Mitch McConnel views this race as evidence of a sea change in public opinion against Democrats and alluding to the potential of these same voters moving over to the Republican camp. He doesn't seem to grasp the concept of anti-incumbent voting, nor the concept that independent voters hold a disapproving attitude toward both parties. Republicans who believe their own incumbents will be safe in the 2010 elections, are missing the boat in understanding independent voters.

Democrats intent upon pushing through this Health Care reform regardless, are also failing to acknowledge the import of the ant-incumbent groundswell movement occurring amongst independent voters. Democrats will lose a number of seats in 2010 at the hands of independent voters by not courting their agenda for significant change in the way our federal government conducts its business. But, Republican gains may very likely also be offset by key Republican incumbent losses.

If Democrats or Republicans believe they can manipulate these voters into supporting their Party, they are chasing a fool's errand. By and large, this new breed of independent voter is a results oriented voter, and they are holding their own representatives responsible for those results, finally grasping the fact, the their vote cannot hold any other representatives responsible. Independents are discovering the true power and intent of their vote, to express their dissatisfaction by voting against their own representative or his/her party. We saw this in the 2006 and 2008 elections where independent voters rejected the Republican Party wholesale.

These voters are not for sale. They will vote for incumbents and for a Party again, when they can approve of the performance of the federal government, and not before. This understanding of this new breed of voters, appears to be lost upon the leadership in both the Democratic and Republican Parties, Obama excepted.

Pres. Obama knows keenly the importance of the Independent voter. He won the presidency seeking their vote and agenda for change in D.C. Obama did not draft health care reform plan details, which would have alienated so many independent voters as the Congressional drafts have. He outlined 3 basic principles and left the sausage making detail process to the Congress. In retrospect, given Obama's personal likability ratings, it was an insightful move.

Sen. Mitch McConnel hasn't got the wake up call. Neither has Gloria Trotten of the Progressive Majority, who in an email today said this election was a wake up call, but, then went on to explain that it is all about the strength of the enemy Republicans, and Progressives must give her PAC ever more money to fight this evil, or words to that effect.

The rancor and lack of constructive bi-partisan effort to make our federal government work for the American people in return for their hard earned taxes, and that of their children's already borrowed against, is central on the agenda of independent ant-incumbent voters. But, the party leaders in the Congress don't appear to get this at all. They have not yet heard the wake-up call these voters are sending. And that has to occur before they can begin to yield to these imminently reasonable demands of these voters.

Political Decisions

2010-01-13T21:31:20Z

Political decisions must, by definition in a diverse society, alienate some in that society. This truism is dictated by the concept of opportunity cost. For those without business school backgrounds, opportunity cost is the cost of not having selected the other choices. Every decision anyone ever makes, carries an opportunity cost. Example: The wife takes the shortest route to work. In doing so, she avoids alternative longer routes which may make her drive more interesting, less hazardous as the lesser traveled routes, or less fortuitous in passing up the opportunity to give Bill Gates a ride after his HumV broke down, which he appreciates with a sizable thank you check of a million dollars.

]]> In taking the shortest route, the opportunity cost was a more interesting drive, greater risk, and missing B. Gate's thank you check. Note however, that there are two kinds of opportunity costs, here. Those one can foresee, and those which one cannot. The less interesting drive and greater risk costs of the wife taking the shortest route, are foreseeable. She considers these costs and in deciding to take the shortest route, consents to bear those costs attending her decision. Bill Gates breaking down on the lesser traveled route, however, could not be foreseen. She may regret reading in the paper the $Million dollar thank you check another person received for helping Bill Gates on that day and road she chose not to travel, but, it was not foreseeable, and therefore, blame or responsibility for missing the reward by taking her usual shortest route, does not logically attend her decision.

An enormous amount of media and political coverage is spent on assessing opportunity costs which could not be foreseen, and which come to light only after the political decision was implemented. Politicians love to use such unforeseen opportunity costs as a bludgeon on the heads of political adversaries, but, the public should know better than to buy into such false critiques and rhetoric. Regretfully, the public by and large, is incapable of even detecting when this is taking place.

All political decisions should be viewed in these terms to more accurately understand how they are made, and more accurately critique those decisions based on the weighing of the costs attending each of the decision options, and whether or not, they were foreseeable costs. If this sounds a little more complex than most voters wish to engage in, I would have to agree. However, our founding fathers understood that as many voters as possible be capable of such assessment if this democracy was going to work, at all. And with that understanding, they chose to grant the vote to classes of citizens most likely to be able to assess political decisions in these terms; white, male, landowners. In their day, males were better educated than females, whites were better educated than African Americans and slaves, and landowners had motive to take an interest in what the government was doing, eminent domain and taxation being what it was under King George.

The point however, which the founding fathers understood keenly, was that democracy cannot work if ignorance chooses the deciders. This is, in fact, the primary cause of the rise of political parties after George Washington's first term as president. The parties formed to inform the voters, and select educated and informed candidates for office, who would make sounder decisions by calculating the opportunity costs and avoiding those choices in which the costs attending them outweigh the benefits of that decision.

Adam Smith refers to this kind of decision making as acting with "enlightened self-interest" and he presumed such interest would be the foundation for the "invisible hand" that moves the market place. When the invisible hand is guided by ignorance instead of enlightened self interest, that hand becomes enormously destructive as we just witnessed with the collapse of the housing, financial, and job markets over the last 24 months.

In the book taking the country by political storm, "Game Change," written by political journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, cite sources within the McCain campaign at the time of choosing and prepping Sarah Palin, claiming that Sarah Palin had to be given basic high school history and geography lessons in World Wars I and II, the Korean War, what it was about, where it is, and why there is a North and South Korea, and how these wars connected to each other and the Cold War, and Viet Nam, in preparation for her debate with Joe O'Biden, whose last name she just couldn't nail down, precipitating her asking Sen. Joe upon entering the stage, if she could just call him Joe. He agreed. But, even that failed to keep Ms. Palin from referring to O'Biden on that stage. (See 60 Minutes' excerpts regarding the books coverage of Sarah Palin by clicking here.)

When ignorance guides the candidate selection process, when the greed for power so dominates a Party's or candidate's views as to blind them to the opportunity costs of bad decisions, when voters vote for a party that demonstrates year after year, violations of its own platform and principles, and remain loyal to that party, the nightmare of the founding fathers granting universal suffrage is realized beyond all dread. If even half of what is reported in "Game Change" is true, we have been given our wake-up call as to the tenuous nature of our nation's future.

American politics are mired in ignorance, incompetence, avarice, and the Peter Principle. And this ignorance that begets more at the highest levels of government, begins with voters, who vote as if for an NFL championship contender, instead of voting as if their life and future depended upon their vote, which, by the way, it does. There is only one way to correct this debilitating condition of modern American society, and that is with dramatic education reform.

Unfortunately, the reform Pres. Obama and Congress are contemplating entirely misses the mark. Pres. Obama clearly states his view of education is to prepare children for the work place. That's it. No more. While it is vital to our national interests to insure as many of our young people as possible are optimally prepared to enter the work force, this myopic view fails to consider that the majority of our lives are NOT spend in the work place, but, in traffic jams, consuming products, raising families, paying taxes, and making political decisions which impact all these other activities.

I am frankly, wholly disheartened by Pres. Obama's focus, which demonstrates an acute lack of understanding of a broader education than just Constitutional Law, which he appears to have acquired and uses in his personal life. Yet he fails entirely to grasp the significance of that broader education for use by the rest of American citizens of the future. I make this point, because our schools are more and more vocationally oriented, as if preparing little machines for repetitive tasks on an assembly line, rather than embellishing all the potential of every child to conduct their lives with confidence, with adequate information, and most important, with an understanding of human knowledge in its broadest strokes, to insure their own offspring have the broadest base of knowledge upon which to draw from in their earliest formative years when values, discipline, and principles are first forged.

This last sentence above goes to the heart of the education dilemma in America. Education begins at home. Schools don't receive children until their first 5 formative years have already passed. Therefore, it is often not even possible for our public and private schools to shape the values, discipline, and principles in a positive way when hostility, combativeness, and defensiveness have already shaped the temperament of the child. Nor, would we want schools to engage in that early formative training of our young. But, really bad parenting is correlated with really limited education.

To break the cycle of ignorance, apathy, and uncivil behavior in our society, we must educate all of America's future parents as far as their abilities and our resources can take them. Our schools must being to teach students the basic principles of good parenting, the basic principles of good citizenship, and the basic principles of money and time, and their good management. Our schools must teach an unbiased American and World history, so that we can produce future leaders in America who are not limited by such biases in recognizing reality for what it is and dealing with forthrightly. And our schools must begin to teach the basic principles of government, in a non-partisan way, such that our future voters will be capable of assessing their representative's record in office objectively, and in terms of their own enlightened self-interest, which is what our founding father's vision of democracy in choosing our leaders was predicated upon.

The most important political decision to be made today for our nation's future is how we are going to reform our educational system in America. There is a general consensus that reform is needed, but the urgency and import of that reform has not even begun to be discussed in political circles. We pay an enormous amount of taxes for an incredibly insufficient and ineffective educational system in America. To have a future for our nation, we must address this issue today.

Obama's Afghanistan Decision

2009-12-02T20:04:26Z

Obama's process, approach, and decision on where we go from here in Afghanistan was outstanding. Gen. Petraeus lauded Obama's process and decision as having gathered all of the assumptions, data, and projections and compared and evaluated them in a deliberative and nuanced way which, no other process could have permitted. Gen. McCrystal says he is 100% behind both the number of troops and the time line to begin withdrawal. Australia and the head of NATO applaud Obama's decision.

]]> I say, because neither the Left nor the Right are pleased with the decision, and that Afghanistan remains a dilemma without an optimal solution, Obama has made the best decision possible, given the circumstances he inherited.

The idealogues on the Left fail to see any justification of more lives or economic costs lost on Afghanistan since Pakistan is now the real threat in the region, and Afghanistan will never be a European ally to the U.S. What the Left fails to appreciate is that Afghanistan is where our enemies in Pakistan will go if we withdraw from Afghanistan, and focus our efforts on Pakistan.

The ideologues on the Right fail to appreciate that we cannot afford attempts to nation build Afghanistan into a European ally look-alike country which will, in all likelihood fail, regardless of how many trillions of dollars we invest in that poorest of all nations in the world. Estimates indicate only about 100 al-Queda remain in Afghanistan, and the Taliban can never be eradicated from Afghanistan without a decades long Maoist like reeducation and brainwashing effort following an entire makeover of the nation's economy, creation of modern infrastructure for international trade at the cost of bankrupting our own nation.

I frankly don't see any appealing scenario or outcome in Afghanistan. But, then, I have not been privy to the 9 comprehensive intelligence meetings over the Afghanistan situation, which Obama has been part of. I therefore, acknowledging our presidents having taken all the steps necessary to completely inform himself of all options, defer to his judgment and assessment based on everyone's input, that Afghanistan will never be a country we can be proud of like Japan or Germany after vanquishing their armies.

Given the praise McCrystal and Petraeus are issuing forth to Obama, it is obvious to me Obama has made a decision based on all the best expert advice and intelligence available, and among a set of less than desirable outcomes based in reality, Pres. Obama has chosen a course which best resolves the Afghanistan drain on American resources while producing the best outcome in Afghanistan that can be achieved within our limited resources of manpower and deficits.

Health Care Reform Critic's Refuted

2009-12-01T19:57:31Z

The NY Times reports:

The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.

]]> I would like to leave this article there with the NY Times quote. But, alas, I must respond to critics' arguments I have heard before.

Those who would poo-poo the CBO, are very likely the same people who CITED the CBO when it first reported on an anticipated House version of the Health Care Reform bill which said the initial cost would be over a trillion dollars and would no lower the deficit but increase it. It would seem such critics are cherry pickers, and will condemn the this independent CBO when it doesn't like their findings, and use their research as a megaphone when results support their argument. The CBO crunches numbers based on proposed scenarios for legislation. Their methodology and reliability is the same regardless whether the results support Democratic Party or GOP positions.

Those who pedal the false allegation that the government will take over American health insurance are to be regarded as paranoids of their own imagination. Current legislation would insure most of those not now covered or who will lose their insurance in the future. This bill in no way attempts to put private insurance out of business. The numbers are in by the CBO. The Senate version of the bill would reduce costs, not increase them, for many people who buy insurance on their own (not employer provided insurance). If costs would go down for private insurers, OBVIOUSLY, those companies would not be declaring bankruptcy, as price increases would be a step to avoid bankruptcy though some corresponding lost market share in the short run.

Additionally, it would change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans with employer health insurance. Same conclusion follows. Those private insurers providing employer based health insurance would not be bankrupting over the Senate version of the bill. Therefore, those who continue to rant that this reform will increase costs for the majority and constitutes a government takeover of the health insurance industry have no basis in fact for their claim. Further, they are liars engaging in deception to further their own personal interests, not those of America and American health care insurance consumers, or those who want health insurance and can't for any of a number of reasons, get it.

The best argument critics can put forth honestly, is that the Senate bill is not in its final version, and the Senate bill will be further compromised by the conference committee that will resolve differences between the House and Senate versions, and therefore, the CBO results on the current Senate version of the bill is irrelevant. Final legislation will not be what this Senate version is. Hence, reform could still end up costing Americans more.

However, since there is no provision in either the House or Senate bills to take over the health care industry and socialize it, the final version of the legislation will not move in that direction either. It wouldn't pass if it did and everyone knows it.

The Senate version of the bill provides enormous benefits to those without insurance at reasonable and affordable cost, insures all Americans of a health insurance policy throughout their lifetimes should they lose their private insurance for any number of reasons from unemployment to pre-existing condition, and does this without increasing the cost of health care insurance for large numbers of Americans.

Taxes will go up on the very wealthy, not anyone else. It's in the bills.

Critics will have a valid argument in speculating that this reform bill, if passed, may increase our deficits in the short run, and fail to lower the increases in health care costs in the long term. Conservative Democrats and all Republicans insured that would be the case by rejecting previous options which could have held costs in check in the short and, especially, longer term. But, that is what legislation is, the bartering and compromising process of getting to consensus which has a form that can achieve sufficient votes to pass. It is American. It is Constitutional. And it has been our way of legislating since the founding of our nation, and even before.

Senate Vote Moves Health Care Reform to Debate.

2009-11-22T21:40:22Z

Last night, in a show of Party unity, Democrats, and two Independents, voted last night to move health care reform legislation to the Senate floor for public debate. Republicans, to a person, voted to shut health care reform down, before it could be debated on the Senate floor. Regardless of what one thinks of Sen. Harry Reid personally. or politically, this was a victory for him and his skill as majority leader.

]]> With weeks more of obstruction by Republicans, via myriad amendments and delaying parliamentary procedures, health care reform has yet, many more hurdles and challenges facing it. Sen. Joe Lieberman who voted last night to move the bill forward for debate, has stated he will side with Republicans on a filibuster if the bill contains a 'public option' (government sponsored health insurance for those who can't afford it or, have been refused insurance by the private sector.)

There is speculation still that Republican Olympia Snowe may still support the legislation's passage, off setting Sen. Lieberman's vote, which would allow passage out of the Senate. If, Democrats are successful in this effort, the reform measure goes to a Committee, made up of House and Senate representatives, who will resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. Then the Committee's bill gets sent back to the House and Senate for a final vote on passage, before Pres. Obama weighs in to sign, or veto the legislation. There are miles to go before Democrats may sleep on health care reform.

With so many hurdles, and vote margins so tight that one vote can derail the entire reform package, why would any rational person hold out hope of health care reform becoming a reality? The answer: that hope rests on no one in the House or Senate wanting to be the one person who killed health care reform for America. That one person would be responsible for depriving the uninsured affordable health care, allowing insurance companies to continue to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and to cancel policies when treatment becomes too expensive.

Republicans have the apparent perception of safety in numbers. In other words, they are acting as if there will be no political blow back if they stand united as a party against the Democratic reform package. But, what if it is the Republican Party in Congress that deprives America of health care reform? Will they not wear that albatross in the mind of every American family who can't get health insurance, or loses it by cancellation, or no longer being employed? Will the GOP not be held responsible by the younger voters for a lifetime as they replace older voters in elections to come, as health care inflation eats an ever greater portion of their wages, assuming they can get coverage at all when they need it in their '30's and 40's?

Which is going to be politically worse: Democrats try and fail or, Republicans not trying at all to pass health care reform? There is little doubt that hosts of political analysts in both parties are trying to divine the answer to that question. I will speculate here and now, that the answer will be bifurcated. The Democrats will bear the heavier political cost in the short run, 2010 and possibly 2012 elections. But, if another couple decades come and go before there is political will to address this issue again, the Republicans will bear the heavier cost for very much longer than Democrats.

The reasoning is simple. Independent voters, according to polls, are more concerned about national debt and deficits than they are about health care reform. If Democrats fail to pass reform and fail to prove over the next two elections the world didn't fall apart because of its passage, independent voters will exact a price at the polls on Democrats.

However, with the passage of 4 to 6 years, the growing negative consequences of failure to pass health care reform will impact those same independent voters' pocket books and family lives. Once the impact of America's broken health care system hits independent voters personally, they will reject Republicans for having killed reform, for as long as reform is wanting, which could be decades.

The future without reform will have independent voters witness escalating Medicare and Medicaid payroll taxes and, or, serious cuts in benefits, in addition to rapidly rising deficits and national debt due to government sponsored health care costs. They will experience private health care insurance premium inflation at a rate of between 15 and 25% per year, putting private health insurance out of reach for a great many more. Then there will be the dramatic rise of employers bankrupting over health care costs or, discontinuing it for their employees in order to remain competitive and profitable, leaving ever growing numbers of independent and other voters without health insurance and the ability to afford it.

For those years and decades to come in the absence of health care reform, what Democratic candidate for office, local, state, or national, will overlook the opportunity to remind voters that what they are witnessing as a consequence of defeated health care reform was brought about by Republican's refusal as a Party to vote for it? Tying the hardships of America without health care reform to Republicans refusal to vote for it, will be the easiest Democratic campaign strategy for elections upon elections to come.

Oh, but, when Republicans get back the majority, they will pass health care reform independents can be proud of, one might argue. But, if it is this hard for Democrats to pass, with majorities in both Houses of Congress and a Democratic President, just how long will it be before Republicans have comparable majorities and why would it be any easier for them than for Democrats today? Will Democrats not take a learning page from Republicans efforts today to defeat a Republican health care reform a decade or two from now?

Can America even survive another decade or two, economically, while waiting for Republicans to get those majorities in Congress and a Republican president too at the same time? Baby boomers are already taking early retirement. And in 14 months, they become eligible for full retirement benefits, the most costly to the nation being Medicare and Medicaid. Without competition, those costs will skyrocket. The health insurance oligopoly will take advantage of trillions of dollars of tax payer paid premiums for seniors to bump their profits ever and ever higher. They won't care that they are bankrupting the government and nation, they will have gotten theirs and if they have to move overseas to a better country, they will.

There is no question that health care reform, regardless of which party sponsors it, is going to make powerful enemies of the opposing party and health insurance industry, failing to appeal to everyone. Which begs the question, if not now, when. If not now, why? The price of failure to pass health care reform now, will be carried
on the shoulders of every American alive, in one way or another, years from now, in the form of higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, and inability to afford or, get insurance when they need it. Health care reform will not be easier, or better, later. It will provide less, and will cost enormously more.

Investing and Politics

2009-11-18T16:59:27Z

If folks stowed their money away in fixed rate investments during the latter part of the Bush economy, and then reallocated that money into stock investments for the Obama economy, those folks have to be pleased at having saved as much as a 50% loss at the end of the Bush economy, and approaching as much as a 50% gain during this Obama economy, starting in March of this year.

Of course, President's don't control the stock markets. Myriad factors, most knowable, some not, play roles in the direction of market investments. The trick is to acknowledge and accept the trends without prejudice, political or otherwise. As far back as 2006 and 2007, there were clear indications the Bush economy was going to implode.

]]> Back in June of 2006, I wrote an article at WatchBlog recommending 401K owners heed the collapse warnings of the Bush Administration's economy due to a housing meltdown. Because I followed my own advice, transferring portions of 401K money out of stocks and into fixed funds on market highs, by 2007, all our 401K funds were allocated to fixed rate investments. The inevitable market collapse was visible in 2006, thanks to the keen eye of trend watchers like Jon Markham.

In March of 2007, I wrote another WatchBlog article:

Personal Debt for Americans is record breaking. The national debt continues to set new records now approaching 9 trillion dollars, and the trade deficit is set to hit another mind boggling deficit of 3/4 of a trillion dollars this year alone. America is experiencing a negative savings rate, which means we are spending more than we are taking in. In a nutshell, America is drowning in debt, and collector's are beginning to demand payback or, higher interest on the higher risk loans.

Indeed, Bank of America and Chase are killing consumers this year with interest rate hikes on consumer borrowing as high as 29%. And that is on credit card holders with excellent credit payment histories. In this same March, 2007 article, I wrote: "The squeeze is on. The economy is about to show larger drops in GDP growth fueled by the loss of home construction and associated jobs." Those who heeded these words, got their investments out of stocks when the Dow was still above 12,000.

The crash came in late 2008. Early in 2009 I wrote another article at WatchBlog recommending 401K investors buy back into stocks on the dips. If readers followed this recommendation, their 401K's are now up between 20 and 30% this year depending on their mix and aggressive timing in buying stocks after the market lows in March. The point here is not that I was right. The point is, the signposts are there to be heeded, and if heeded, one can invest wisely in political trends. It was clear in February of this year, that the stimulus bill, banking and auto sector protective measures undertaken by the Obama administration and Congress, and the drastic cost cutting measures underway by corporations, were going to result in corporate earnings that beat, the then gloomy projections going forward, when potential meltdown was still in investor's minds. And, that was a signpost that the stock markets were going to rebound with intensity this year.

Taking money out of play from the Bush economy, and putting it back in play for the Obama economy, has proven to be an enormously profitable strategy to date. Avoiding the 40 to 50% losses before the crash, and reaping the 20 to 30% gains since March of this year, have yielded investors who heeded the signposts a net 60 to 80% gain in their stock index investments over those who let their Bush economy investments ride, and sold on Obama's election. Perhaps this why conservative political investors are so cranky these days, having missed the greatest investment earnings opportunity in a lifetime from 2006 through 2009.

So, what are the political investment signposts today? Unlike 2007, 2008, and early 2009, the signposts going forward in the short term, through 2010, are illegible. Everything is in flux awaiting outcomes of some key political events. Those who look at the end of this year as an opportunity to begin hedging their investments, taking some major earnings off the table, and adopting a wait and see position, will likely be proven very wise.

2010 will unfold many political outcomes. Health care reform will be resolved one way or another. The bulk of the stimulus spending will have been doled out by Summer of 2010, which leaves open the enormous question of whether or not job recovery can be sustained with the lapse of government stimulus spending (Recovery and Reinvestment Act) next Fall and Winter. And of course, the November mid-term elections will in no small part be determined by whether the health care reform bill passed and whether job recovery is clearly underway, or not.

And therein lies the market's direction based on political trends in 2010. The markets are very likely to move sideways in a trading range throughout most of 2010, until it becomes clear the outcome of health care reform and job recovery, and to a lesser extent, the Nov. elections, which will be largely determined by health care reform and job recovery.

Regardless of health care reform and job recovery however, Democrats will very likely lose their majority in either the House or Senate. The reason for this is simple: the unmistakable anti-incumbent movement underway, which will not be slowed by health care reform passage or even a robust job recovery in 2010. The independent voters now determine federal election outcomes, and they have adopted an anti-incumbent attitude not seen in many years. And there are millions more of them today.

Independents diverge on most political issues into Left, Moderate, and Right encampments. But, they share some common traits. These traits are

loss of faith in federal government management
gross distrust of politicians, including a growing distrust of their own representatives
and an absolute abhorrence of our 12 trillion dollar national debt and the unsustainable $trillion plus annual deficits now keeping the American economy afloat in the short term.

This glue that binds independent voters nearly guarantees that Democrats will lose seats next November. As Chris Cillizza wrote in his Wa. Post article this week:

While it's likely that any sustained sentiment of this sort [anti-incumbent] will hurt Democrats more than Republicans, this sort of political environment is decidedly unpredictable and could lead to surprising defeats for presumed safe incumbents -- of both parties -- next November.

So, what does that mean for investors in 2011 and beyond? Frankly, it should strike paralyzing fear into every investor regarding their long term investing prospects in U.S. equity markets. A politically divided Congress in 2011 and beyond will produce the same results a politically divided Congress produced in 2007 and 2008, which was deemed the "Do Nothing" Congress. Grid lock and absence of forward momentum on any substantive challenges facing the nation will be the result.

What does get passed by Congress with neither Republicans nor Democrats having a majority in both houses of Congress, will be so compromised and watered down, as to be rendered largely ineffective in addressing the challenges to our nation's future, and they are many. Here is an abbreviated list of challenges to be addressed in 2011 and beyond:

Trade deficits, especially with China
energy independence
federal deficits, need to surgically increase taxes and cut federal spending
rising crime rates and tax dodging behavior, especially in a growing underground economy
Afghanistan goals vs. Afghanistan costs
global spread of al-Queda and terrorism
border security and low wage worker demand
rising interest rates and cost of servicing our national debt
foreign students flooding our universities replacing American students
rising economic and production competitiveness by Brazil, Russia, India, and China drawing increasing corporations out of America along with manufacturing and innovation jobs
falling real mean wages of the working middle class in the face of inflationary pressures
bankrupt State and local governments
and last, but not least, an increasing domination by extremists, on both the Left and Right, over American political issues supported and enhanced by media profits.

Failure to address these challenges in bold and effective ways, will dramatically increase the costs of America's future at a time when America's economic resources will be severely stressed, if not diminishing. A politically divided federal government, unable to achieve consensus on bold and effective solutions, creates a very negative climate for long term investors in American equity corporations, and a riskier investment environment for government and corporate bond investors. The net effect of this trend will be increasing volumes of American dollars flowing away from U.S. borders, invested in foreign market exchanges, and eventually as investment risks rise ever higher, in foreign government / corporate bonds and fixed rate investments.

'Reap ye earnings whilst ye may', and prepare to be educated in foreign exchange markets where future investment profits lie, as long as America remains a politically divided and uncompromising nation.

Term Limits: The GOP's Fake Gesture is Resurrected

2009-11-12T23:41:39Z

Some Republicans are calling for Term Limits of those in Congress. When you are done laughing your arse off, please continue reading. Term Limits were in the Contract With America, offered by Republicans in 1994. As soon as Republicans acquired the majority in government to enact term limits, the entire issue was never spoken of by the GOP again. Until now, that is. Now, that they are the diminished minority, again.

]]> Despite the Supreme Court's two rulings striking down term limits questions as unconstitutional (arbitrarily restricts voter choice on election day), and despite Republicans failure to get even close to the majority required in the House in the 1990's for a Constitutional Amendment to invoke Congressional term limits, some Republicans are raising the issue again. (Constitutional amendment by legislature requires 2/3 majority assent in both houses of Congress, and then ratification by 3/4 of the State's legislatures or conventions.) The reason Republicans are raising the issue again is clear, and it has nothing to do with hopes of its passage which, are non-existent.

Proponents of term limits can be found amongst Democrats, Republicans and independent voters. But, when push comes to shove on Election Day, Democratic voters vote for their Democratic incumbent, and Republican voters vote for their Republican incumbent, and only Independent voters are prone to vote against the incumbent by voting for their challenger, regardless of the incumbent's Party. Since, independent voters now control the outcome of federal elections, it is politically shrewd of some Republicans to cater to this independent group by attempts to resurrect the term limits issue as champions of it, knowing that the majority party would logically oppose term limits. Which begs the question, are Republicans playing independent voters for dupes and dopes, or, are Republicans themselves dupes and dopes in wasting our time and effort on a proposal that doesn't even have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing?

California established Term Limits for their Legislature in the early 1990's. What do voters think of the results? More than four in ten registered voters (43%) think that limiting the terms of state legislators has had no effect on the overall job performance of the legislature. Of the rest, 24% believe that there has been an improvement, while 15% think term limits have led to a decline in their overall performance. Clearly, term limits has not had the anticipated result in California.

If you are an independent voter, don't be a dupe or dope in attaching any loyalty to Republicans calling for term limits. It is both a gambit and ruse. The practical and plausible action to invoke term limits without a Constitutional amendment is simple. Don't vote for incumbents (those in office seeking reelection). Convince your friends and family that the only term limits available today to voters is their refusal on Election Day to vote for an incumbent. If you usually vote Republican, vote for a challenger in the Republican Primary. If you usually vote Democrat, vote for a Democratic challenger in the Democratic Primary election.

And if your purpose is to really throw a wrench into the well-honed system of gerrymandered and seemingly predetermined election choices, vote cross party for the other party's challenger. The goal is to deny the politicians their predictability in being reelected. One of the main reasons politicians do NOT vote in Congress according to the demands and will of the people is simply because the people traditionally don't hold incumbents responsible on election day. Voters can change that, and they are. These off-year elections this month demonstrated a clear anti-incumbent sentiment and intention by voters. The PEW Research Center poll indicates 53 percent of those polled want incumbents to get the boot next year, (the poll conducted Oct. 28 - Nov. 8, 2009).

When politicians can't be assured of their reelection because their actions result in government performance voters will NOT reelect, then, and only then, will Congressional politicians acknowledge that their reelection now depends upon improving government performance in the eyes of the voters, and not on their wealthy special interest lobbyists and campaign donors. This has been the vision of the PAC known as Vote Out Incumbents Democracy since its formation in 2006. Their Vote Out Incumbents car window/bumper stickers can be seen in more than half the states of the union.

Voting out incumbents is not as sexy or easily communicated from person to person as Term Limits, but, it is available to every single voter in the nation, unlike Term Limits legislation which will never be legal as long as the majority Party in Congress refuses to vote for such legislation, and why would the majority Party vote for legislation that would unseat so many of their own?

So, if you are a realist or, a practical voter who wishes term limits were possible, you will invoke term limits with your vote in 2010 by refusing to vote for you representative running for reelection. And you won't have to wait for a Constitutional Amendment which, will never come.

I also highly recommend laughing in the face of any elected Congressman or woman, Democrat or Republican, who tries to get your reelection vote by telling you they will vote for Term Limits to unseat themselves. Perhaps, with enough of us laughing at these Congresspersons all at once, we can render them all deaf and they will resign, which would be just as good as term limits, if not better.

The Stakes Could NOT Be Higher

2009-11-09T16:43:16Z

Failure in Washington is not an option. America last year finished its long circular journey from 1940 to return to the precipice of national collapse. Unlike 1929, however, instead of taking that next drop off step, we sidestepped along the edge of the precipice, where we still remain today; at the edge.

]]> The stakes could not be higher in Washington D.C. and for the American people. This much, the Tea Baggers get very accurately, along with the Federal Reserve and economists, and some, but, possibly not enough, in Wash. D.C.'s halls of government. We shall see.

All political and legislative policy issues now lead back to the Economy. Whether it is Afghanistan policy, missile defense in E. Europe, or education and law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services at home, the cost of addressing these issues will impact upon our long term economic future and our ability to survive that future without 1930's type desperation and futility experienced by 100 million Americans or more. Even debates over whether 9/11 planners are warriors or criminals, are costing America precious time. America has far more pressing and consequential demands placed upon our nation, such as, more than doubling the national debt in 9 years and how to stop that growth, fighting wars on multiple fronts against all wisdom of military history, and untold numbers of failures to address domestic economic and infrastructure needs, roadways, education, and waste and water transport,
in a timely, and far less costly fashion.

Those hoping for a divided Congress in 2010 have very short memories. The Congress between 2006 and 2008 was a politically divided Congress which killed Pres. Bush's legislative agenda, and caused both Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to wear the despicable label in the press of the "Do Nothing Congress". And every indication to date indicates another Do Nothing Congress is precisely what we will have in 2011 and 2012. Which means, if any of America's difficult long term systemic problems are to be resolved, they must be resolved in the next 12 months. One year is a pitifully short period of time to attempt to restructure oversight, accountability, and transparency on Wall St., restore jobs and economic activity for approximately 14 million unemployed, and create health care reform which will avert the disastrous consequence of bankrupting the middle class and poor in the future and the American economy along with it.

The delay and obfuscation tactics of Republicans in Congress are wasting America's precious time and resources to address our nation's major priorities. The Democrat's succumbing to the corporate interests and lobbyists is so compromising reform efforts, as to render some of them more harmful than helpful; as in the case of Banking System reform which, current Committee bills utterly and completely fail to reform at all by reinstating the essential provisions of the Glass Steagal Act, and overturning the economically lethal provisions in the Gramm Leach Bliley Act. These bills also completely fail to address breaking up these Too-Big-To-Fail financial institutions, which only perpetuates the threat they posed to our nation, and the world, in 2008.

Rep. Boehner is right when he said this week that there is a rebellion occurring in America. However, his political myopia completely misses the mark in attempting to identify that rebellion. The thrust of his argument is that Americans are moving toward the GOP and conservative ideology. The empirical evidence doesn't support his argument. The empirical evidence coming from polls and off year elections demonstrate that the rebellion underway is against BOTH the Democratic and Republican Parties, and toward a more individual candidate choice not based on party affiliation but, voter's confidence in that candidate's proposed solutions to the problems voters face locally and nationally. The dramatic increase in Independent voters and losses of momentum in growth of registered Democrats and Republicans stands as stark evidence of this fact.

The problem for America in addressing solutions to its challenges is that this new majority of self-identified Independent voters lacks any cohesive or consistent approach to political solutions. They even lack any kind of cohesive Independent Party to represent them as a new voter block majority. This does not bode well for the direction of America's future in the short term. It would appear the only common traits Independent voters share as a voting block is their growing propensity to vote anti-incumbent, and their rapidly growing distrust of both major political parties. How does America build a consensus in policy approach based on this paucity of shared Independent voter traits?

Pres. Obama has come closest to answering this question in any kind of meaningful way when he built his campaign on the concept of change. Change in policy did appeal to the majority of independent voters in 2008. But, now that changes are taking shape in the form of legislation, that unity behind change has quickly splintered, especially amongst independent voters. A majority of Americans acknowledge and agree that health care reform is mandatory to saving their own middle class financial future as well as the nation's economic future. But, finding a 50% plus one majority amongst Independents for the current legislative proposals for health care reform is like finding a dropped penny in Mammoth Cave without any light, whatsoever.

Historically, in times of great peril and threat to the nation and her future, Americans have in 5 years or less, found resolutions that could rescue that future for all. While such history offers up hope that Americans and their leaders will once again rise to the occasion before it is too late, one is hard pressed to identify the mechanics of just how such a rescue is even conceivable, given the current political lack of will by America's leaders to even embrace the changes which are called for by the challenges facing the nation and people.

The wealthiest in America will be largely immune from the collapse of the American economy and its devastating effects on the America public. Yet, it is a common perception of the non-wealthy population that these very same individuals are in control of the process of designing America's future direction and fate. The anxiety and sense of foreboding which this creates in the American public is why the polling of government policy and direction are so negative. And the public is rebelling in a several ways.

The Tea Baggers represent one form of rebellion. The 8 fold increase in the savings rate is another, which is in many ways a very positive form of rebellion except for the drag it places on climbing away from the economic recession experienced this year and the 10.2 percent falsely stated unemployment number which in reality, considering all categories of the unemployed, now rests around 22% give or take a few percent. Desertion from the registered voter rolls of the GOP and Democratic Party are another form of rebellion. The growing number of American citizens choosing to live overseas is another form. And the most devastating form of rebellion shows up in the rising drop out rate from our schools, employment system, and the rise of homelessness which increasingly represents a rise in hopelessness amongst American citizens, a percentage of which is made up of former armed forces veterans.

These are the signs of our times, which the media does not want to cover, the government and politician's don't want voters to be aware of, and which extremists wish to exploit for their own power and recognition development. Hopelessness preceded the decimation of the American Indian tribes by Manifest Destiny. Hopelessness preceded the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and grew throughout the Viet Nam War. Hopelessness pervaded the Jim Crow era, and founded the fear base for the rise of the Red Scare and McCarthy era in the 1940's and 1950's when Americans feared those they could not identify but feared were walking amongst them in disguise.

The stakes could not be higher. If Americans embrace hopelessness, America's challenges will go unsolved and our future will be horribly diminished by it. The alternative is that Americans shun hopelessness, and begin making demands and holding to account the leadership of our nation using their email, their phones, and their votes.

The hope lies in Americans rediscovering their power over their leaders by revoking such leadership roles until the replacement leaders respond to the American people's demands for better. I disagree with the information base and premises of the Tea Baggers, but, I must admire and commend their activism and taking charge of their own fate and future in this country as American citizens. If the majority of Americans in this country will allow themselves to become equally active in demanding better than what we are now getting from our leaders, hope can yet guide the design of America's future.