The President and his minions often cite the figure of 46 million Americans being uninsured, which is given as the "crisis" necessitating "Health Care Reform". Here is a breakdown of that figure, as taken from Liberal Media and Liberal Congress Create Health Care ‘Crisis’ Where There Is None.
"According to the Census Bureau, the number of uninsured is 45,657,000 people — that’s 343,000 people less than is usually reported. BUT the Census Bureau also documents that 9.7 million of the 45.7 million uninsured are “not a citizen.”
. . .
Among those uninsured are 17 million who make at least $50,000 a year (the median household income is $50,233) . . . Economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research estimate that 25 to 75 percent of people who do not buy health insurance “could afford to do so.”
Further, the Congressional Budget Office says that 45 percent of the uninsured will be insured within four months.
Finally, the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that the number of Americans who lack health insurance because they cannot afford it and/or do not qualify for government programs is between 8.2 million and 13.9 million — or an average of 11 million people.
. . .
Take the 11 million uninsured figure — the accurate one — and know that if all 11 million fell down and broke their arm, they could walk into any hospital or clinic in the country and be treated. It’s the law that they must be treated.
If you’ve ever been to an emergency room, you know this is true. . . "
Knowing these figures makes transforming 1/6 of our economy for uncertain results at tremendous cost seem a lot less necessary, doesn't it?
Comments?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Washtenaw County ISD Millage - There are Better Options
As a former school business manager, I can tell you from an "insiders" perspective that there are still ways to cut the spending of school districts that the districts are electing not to choose. Instead, they fear monger with the parents about cutting services to kids, cutting teachers, increasing class sizes, etc.
Contracting out additional support services has been recommended in the booklet "Six Habits of Fiscally Responsible Public School Districts" for over 10 years, but little adopted by school districts. At Adrian in 2006, we could have saved $800,000 per year if we had contracted out our custodial work. Only later did they partially contract out, and just recently contracted out the transportation department as well. This is not easy, and good people are adversely affected. Nonetheless, if given the choice of protecting adult jobs or better educating the students, what would be your choice? What if you were on the school board and the mission was to educate students?
Another option would be to decrease the actual total cost structure of the wages and benefits, instead of decreasing staff numbers. Education is a people intensive business, and about 85% of a district's budget is devoted to people costs. State law permits school distrists to impose a contract on the employees if agreement in collective bargaining is impossible. I am aware of only one district in the state with over 500 school districts which has had the guts to do this. The key target must be the teachers' unions, as they are the big driver of the compensation levels among all school employee groups.
I am not against teachers, as most I have had the pleasure of knowing are wonderful, dedicated educators. Nor am I against education, as education was the key for my 5 brothers and sisters and me getting out of poverty after my dad died leaving my mom with us 6 kids. But, I am not for raising taxes in the current economic downturn with struggling homeowners and businesses when there is a better way to adequately fund the education of our kids.
Also, backing a tax increase thinking it will "improve the economy" is a smoke screen we should all be able to see through.
I recommend a "No" vote on the proposed millage.
Contracting out additional support services has been recommended in the booklet "Six Habits of Fiscally Responsible Public School Districts" for over 10 years, but little adopted by school districts. At Adrian in 2006, we could have saved $800,000 per year if we had contracted out our custodial work. Only later did they partially contract out, and just recently contracted out the transportation department as well. This is not easy, and good people are adversely affected. Nonetheless, if given the choice of protecting adult jobs or better educating the students, what would be your choice? What if you were on the school board and the mission was to educate students?
Another option would be to decrease the actual total cost structure of the wages and benefits, instead of decreasing staff numbers. Education is a people intensive business, and about 85% of a district's budget is devoted to people costs. State law permits school distrists to impose a contract on the employees if agreement in collective bargaining is impossible. I am aware of only one district in the state with over 500 school districts which has had the guts to do this. The key target must be the teachers' unions, as they are the big driver of the compensation levels among all school employee groups.
I am not against teachers, as most I have had the pleasure of knowing are wonderful, dedicated educators. Nor am I against education, as education was the key for my 5 brothers and sisters and me getting out of poverty after my dad died leaving my mom with us 6 kids. But, I am not for raising taxes in the current economic downturn with struggling homeowners and businesses when there is a better way to adequately fund the education of our kids.
Also, backing a tax increase thinking it will "improve the economy" is a smoke screen we should all be able to see through.
I recommend a "No" vote on the proposed millage.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Consumer Confidence, the Paradox of Thrift. Is it all a Hoax?
A friend of mine and I had a running commentary on whether consumer confidence made any difference. Her contention followed the Mises Institute view that the “paradox of thrift” was a hoax and that only savings stimulated the economy. This was in response to my blog posting of The Dow Reaching 10,000 is a BIG Deal.
The earlier comments were that consumer confidence did not matter, that it was a hoax.
The problem with disregarding "unreal" things like consumer confidence is that perceptions are real things which significantly affect things, and in unforeseen and major ways. Otherwise, forecasts would be easy.
One of the things you learn when you are in business marketing a product or service is that perceptions are real, even if a perception is not true. For example, in 1974 the media made a big deal about apple growers using a chemical called Alar on apples, claiming it might have an adverse health effect. People got scared and bought far fewer apples, despite the fact that there was in truth no health concern about the product. Perceptions have real market effects. The apple growers lost money.
The same is true for consumer confidence. When people get concerned about their financial security because of real or imaginary events publicized in the media, they are a bit more cautious with their money. They spend less and save more. Individually, that is likely a good and prudent thing. Collectively, however, the reduced consumer spending has the effect of causing the economy to slow down, kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The markets are clearly affected by psychological factors, swinging from greed in a bubble to fear in a downturn. This is nothing new, and nothing concocted by the media in either the Bush or Obama presidencies. We clearly were in a bubble stage at 14,000 Dow. Only time will tell whether 10,000 is a good number.
I, however, am optimistic that nationally we have hit bottom and we will begin a slow recovery. Are there hazards? Yes. Are there things that could throw the economy backwards? Surely, there always might be. But, I am betting my money on the resilient American economy. In other words, I am putting my money where my mouth is.
Her response was to cite the following articles which contain the free market view: http://mises.org/story/851, http://mises.org/story/1156, http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-7.html and http://mises.org/story/3194
I believe there is a way to reconcile the two views.
The earlier comments were that consumer confidence did not matter, that it was a hoax.
The problem with disregarding "unreal" things like consumer confidence is that perceptions are real things which significantly affect things, and in unforeseen and major ways. Otherwise, forecasts would be easy.
One of the things you learn when you are in business marketing a product or service is that perceptions are real, even if a perception is not true. For example, in 1974 the media made a big deal about apple growers using a chemical called Alar on apples, claiming it might have an adverse health effect. People got scared and bought far fewer apples, despite the fact that there was in truth no health concern about the product. Perceptions have real market effects. The apple growers lost money.
The same is true for consumer confidence. When people get concerned about their financial security because of real or imaginary events publicized in the media, they are a bit more cautious with their money. They spend less and save more. Individually, that is likely a good and prudent thing. Collectively, however, the reduced consumer spending has the effect of causing the economy to slow down, kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The markets are clearly affected by psychological factors, swinging from greed in a bubble to fear in a downturn. This is nothing new, and nothing concocted by the media in either the Bush or Obama presidencies. We clearly were in a bubble stage at 14,000 Dow. Only time will tell whether 10,000 is a good number.
I, however, am optimistic that nationally we have hit bottom and we will begin a slow recovery. Are there hazards? Yes. Are there things that could throw the economy backwards? Surely, there always might be. But, I am betting my money on the resilient American economy. In other words, I am putting my money where my mouth is.
Her response was to cite the following articles which contain the free market view: http://mises.org/story/851, http://mises.org/story/1156, http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-7.html and http://mises.org/story/3194
I believe there is a way to reconcile the two views.
- The paradox of thrift has a short run effect, without subsequent reallocation of resources and readjustment of prices. In the short run, no matter how much additional production occurs due to the additional savings and investment, the economy is not helped much. Just ask the (former) Big Three automakers with their swollen inventories in the past two years despite generous rebate programs.
- On the other hand, in the long run, with time for resources to be reallocated and prices to adjust, additional savings will drive interest rates down, which will not only discourage additional savings but also drive down the costs of business, allowing either higher business earnings or lower prices of the business’s products. With anemic demand, the most likely result is a reduction in prices to ultimately increase purchases to reduce those inventories. Over time, the free market system will bring things back into equilibrium, at least until the next disruptive event.
A problem in this long run scenario is the downward “stickiness” of some factors of production, most notably the wages of union workers. To the extent that these wages are not adjusted to “market clearing” levels, the equilibrium is hard to obtain. There are many other factors that drag on these adjustments as well, in our “mixed economy”.
So, I am aligned with your thinking that in theory, the economy would readjust itself and get back into equilibrium without any government intervention. What concerns many economists, however, is that despite low interest rates and a collapse of spending and mass underutilization of labor and other resources and falling commodity and other prices, the economy did not pick up for years and years in the Great Depression. (What we were taught was called “the liquidity trap”.) The danger of that experience being repeated is what brings many to support government intervention to shorten the downturn.
Of course, there is no free lunch, and the deficit spending must ultimately be paid for with increased taxes, which ultimately are a drag on the economy. When I took freshman economics, the textbook taught that there was always a net positive impact of government spending. They never mentioned the downside of the taxation, which in the long run counterbalances the stimulus. Alternatively, in the short run, instead of raising taxes, a deficit may occur which is financed by government borrowing, which has the impact of increasing the interest rates, another drag on recovery. If the Fed then tries to counteract that with increasing the money supply to hold interest rates down, then the danger of inflation rears its head. Hmm, sounds like fix after fix requires further fixes, huh?
Comments? Way too technical? Sorry, the world is a complicated place.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Dow Reaching 10,000 is a BIG Deal
My comment on Facebook, 10/14/09: “Woohoo! The Dow is over 10,000. I am glad I did not panic and abandon stocks like many others did when they did not like how their 200.5(k)'s tanked! (For the non-mathematically inclined, a 200.5(k) is your old 401(k) that was only worth half as much as it did before.)”
My primary election opponent’s comment: “WHOOP DE DO! 10K is just another number. So the market is up more than 60% from the March low. It is STILL about 30% below where it was a year and a half ago. I am more concerned with the policies at the national level, the monetarizing of the national debt, and the consequent inevitable inflation reducing the significance of any benchmark.
My follow-up: “The performance of the stock market as indexed by the Dow is much more than WHOOP DE DO!
First of all, although 10,000 may be looked at as “just another number”, it is also perceived as an important psychological barrier. Consumer perception, as translated into consumer confidence, is critical. Despite the fanciest econometric forecasting models economists create, varying levels of consumer confidence and other market psychological impacts create uncertainties that are often totally unpredictable. However, improved consumer confidence is expected to be a necessary component of a recovering economy. Personal consumption (which includes consumer spending AND government health care spending), at 70 percent, was the largest component of GDP in 2006. (The gross domestic product (GDP) is the generally accepted measure of the size of the national economy. It is the sum of investment, personal consumption, government spending, and net exports. Other components of GDP include Investment at 17%, Government spending at 19% and Net exports at minus 6%.)
“One year after a U.S. economy said to be overly dependent upon consumer spending toppled into crisis, consumption now makes up an even larger share of national output.
Personal spending on cars, clothes, food and other items accounts for 71% of gross domestic product, according to the latest Bureau of Economic Analysis data. That's slightly above the level one year ago and well above the long-term average around 65%. . . .
Now, with credit tight, wages flat-lining and unemployment steadily ticking higher, consumers are strapped. Personal spending in the second quarter was $195 billion below the figure for the same period last year. That 1.9% drop is significant — over the 20 years that ended in 2006, consumer spending reliably increased at an annual 3.3% rate.
But other parts of the economy, such as construction and businesses' spending on new equipment, shrank even faster since mid-2008. "Other components of GDP just got crushed," . . . .” http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-10-11-consumer-spending_N.htm
The bottom line is that until consumer confidence returns and consumer spending picks up, the economy cannot be expected to pick up significantly as businesses are not likely to increase production and increase their inventories until consumers resume their buying. Now, we cannot expect consumer spending to return to the recent heyday when people regarded their homes as their personal ATM machines to support unsustainable spending, Nonetheless, reasonable consumer spending is certainly much greater than the current hunkering down most people are doing, even those with plenty of money to spend.
The Dow hitting 10,000 also has another, very important effect – the wealth effect. As people perceive they are wealthier, they spend more. While 10,000 is well off the Dow high of 14,164.53 on October 9, 2007, it surely is a lot better than the recent low of 6,547 on March 9, 2009. This increase in perceived wealth from just 7 months ago will have an impact on consumer spending, if the Dow level can be maintained long enough to restore confidence.
You are right to be concerned with potential inflation caused by the massive monetization of the Federal budget deficits and other expansionary efforts of the Federal Reserve Board. So far, we have not seen the inflationary effects of the increased money supply because the “velocity” of money has dropped precipitously. (Nominal gross domestic product = money supply x velocity.) Velocity is the turnover rate, or speed that people holding money spend or invest it. As consumer and investor confidence returns, the velocity will pick up, increasing inflation pressures. As long as there is ample underutilized capacity in the economy (unemployed labor, closed or underutilized factories), little inflation is likely, as the result in the short run will be increased production.
Ultimately, however, the Fed will need to reel in the massive increase in the money supply to avoid inflation through unwinding its opening of the auction windows and its open market operations. Whether it will do so at the right time, is questionable. The Fed will be walking the fine line of wanting to bring the money supply into line to prevent inflation while not doing so too soon and squelching the economic recovery. Political pressures will be to delay until clear signs of recovery are seen, and with the lag in the effect on the economy of Fed actions, that will likely result in at least some inflation.
So, the Dow at 10,000 is a big deal, not only for the economy as a whole, but also, I like the way my portfolio looks today a lot better than I did on March 9, 2009.
Comments?
My primary election opponent’s comment: “WHOOP DE DO! 10K is just another number. So the market is up more than 60% from the March low. It is STILL about 30% below where it was a year and a half ago. I am more concerned with the policies at the national level, the monetarizing of the national debt, and the consequent inevitable inflation reducing the significance of any benchmark.
My follow-up: “The performance of the stock market as indexed by the Dow is much more than WHOOP DE DO!
First of all, although 10,000 may be looked at as “just another number”, it is also perceived as an important psychological barrier. Consumer perception, as translated into consumer confidence, is critical. Despite the fanciest econometric forecasting models economists create, varying levels of consumer confidence and other market psychological impacts create uncertainties that are often totally unpredictable. However, improved consumer confidence is expected to be a necessary component of a recovering economy. Personal consumption (which includes consumer spending AND government health care spending), at 70 percent, was the largest component of GDP in 2006. (The gross domestic product (GDP) is the generally accepted measure of the size of the national economy. It is the sum of investment, personal consumption, government spending, and net exports. Other components of GDP include Investment at 17%, Government spending at 19% and Net exports at minus 6%.)
“One year after a U.S. economy said to be overly dependent upon consumer spending toppled into crisis, consumption now makes up an even larger share of national output.
Personal spending on cars, clothes, food and other items accounts for 71% of gross domestic product, according to the latest Bureau of Economic Analysis data. That's slightly above the level one year ago and well above the long-term average around 65%. . . .
Now, with credit tight, wages flat-lining and unemployment steadily ticking higher, consumers are strapped. Personal spending in the second quarter was $195 billion below the figure for the same period last year. That 1.9% drop is significant — over the 20 years that ended in 2006, consumer spending reliably increased at an annual 3.3% rate.
But other parts of the economy, such as construction and businesses' spending on new equipment, shrank even faster since mid-2008. "Other components of GDP just got crushed," . . . .” http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-10-11-consumer-spending_N.htm
The bottom line is that until consumer confidence returns and consumer spending picks up, the economy cannot be expected to pick up significantly as businesses are not likely to increase production and increase their inventories until consumers resume their buying. Now, we cannot expect consumer spending to return to the recent heyday when people regarded their homes as their personal ATM machines to support unsustainable spending, Nonetheless, reasonable consumer spending is certainly much greater than the current hunkering down most people are doing, even those with plenty of money to spend.
The Dow hitting 10,000 also has another, very important effect – the wealth effect. As people perceive they are wealthier, they spend more. While 10,000 is well off the Dow high of 14,164.53 on October 9, 2007, it surely is a lot better than the recent low of 6,547 on March 9, 2009. This increase in perceived wealth from just 7 months ago will have an impact on consumer spending, if the Dow level can be maintained long enough to restore confidence.
You are right to be concerned with potential inflation caused by the massive monetization of the Federal budget deficits and other expansionary efforts of the Federal Reserve Board. So far, we have not seen the inflationary effects of the increased money supply because the “velocity” of money has dropped precipitously. (Nominal gross domestic product = money supply x velocity.) Velocity is the turnover rate, or speed that people holding money spend or invest it. As consumer and investor confidence returns, the velocity will pick up, increasing inflation pressures. As long as there is ample underutilized capacity in the economy (unemployed labor, closed or underutilized factories), little inflation is likely, as the result in the short run will be increased production.
Ultimately, however, the Fed will need to reel in the massive increase in the money supply to avoid inflation through unwinding its opening of the auction windows and its open market operations. Whether it will do so at the right time, is questionable. The Fed will be walking the fine line of wanting to bring the money supply into line to prevent inflation while not doing so too soon and squelching the economic recovery. Political pressures will be to delay until clear signs of recovery are seen, and with the lag in the effect on the economy of Fed actions, that will likely result in at least some inflation.
So, the Dow at 10,000 is a big deal, not only for the economy as a whole, but also, I like the way my portfolio looks today a lot better than I did on March 9, 2009.
Comments?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Activists' Dilemma: My Party's Candidate and I Don't Agree!
A very conservative person (or perhaps a person who feels strongly about a particular issue ) often faces a dilemma. What are they to do when their party’s elected official or candidate is running for office but who advocates positions which are not consistent with the conservative citizen’s views? Vote for the Democrat? Or sit on their hands in protest and allow the Democrat candidate to win due to their inaction? I believe neither strategy is the best solution.
The choices legislators face are not always the ones they would like to face. In the State budget standoff currently, for example, we have a Democrat Governor and a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives. The choices basically are spending cuts, tax increases, a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, or in the event of no agreement, a government shutdown. If the Republican Senate insists on no tax increases as the solution and the Democrat House says no more spending cuts, a “game of chicken” occurs. Who is going to give? If neither, an extended government shutdown (or an extended period of “continuation budgets”) occurs. This reflects negatively nationally and globally as a place to locate or start a business.
Pressure mounts on the legislators to “do their job” and reach agreement. The legislators are expected to be “statesmen”, to give primacy to “the public good”, and to give up their individual preferences.
Choices between evils must be made by someone. Ultimately, more likely, some compromise is reached where all must accept something they regard as evil. Tactically, those who are forced to make these hard choices (i.e., to take the hard votes) are allocated by the respective Republican and Democrat caucuses in each chamber to those legislators who either are not going to run for office again or those legislators who are in “safe” seats. This scenario angers many of the voting public who feel strongly that their legislator has “sold out”, and many more are disgusted on how the process has played out due to the “political games”.
It is also helpful to better understand the mindset of an elected official, so that unrealistic expectations of elected officials are not created. Elected officials are faced with multiple, complex issues. Further, as much as single issue advocates would like to believe, there are few simple, controversial issues faced by a legislator, where a stand for principle must be made. Many such votes are not close, so a vote is easy as the vote really does not affect the outcome of the vote. If the vote is close, again, the “hard votes” are allocated by the party caucus to those who either are not going to run for office again or those legislators who are in “safe” seats.
Legislators seldom make the hard choices to take the hard votes until there is either a deadline or a crisis. That is why little was done to adopt a state budget until September 30 arrived. No one wants to give in. No one wants to take a hard vote against their constituents or vocal advocacy groups.
Do we like this situation? No, but that is reality. The saying that, “There are two things you don’t want anything to do with once you have seen how they are made – legislation and sausage” is all too true. However, we must deal with what is, while working to make things better.
Another factor to consider is that our elected officials make decisions in an atmosphere with much more information about an issue than most citizens have access to. What appears like a simple, black and white decision to some may be some shade of gray to the better informed. For example, on the climate change issue, I see that the weight of the evidence is that global warming is occurring and the man’s activities are causing the warming. But, I have been presented with disconfirming data and arguments that appear to refute that “consensus” opinion. What am I to believe? As an average citizen, I don’t have easy access to trusted experts to evaluate the credibility of the new information. Elected officials do. Now, whether the elected officials seek out that additional expertise or whether they have the intellectual capacity to digest the additional information is another question. Obviously some do and some don’t.
An activist with access to a candidate can attempt to persuade the candidate to change his or her position based on logic or new information the candidate may not have heard before. Or, promises of support (or veiled threats of withholding support) may be tried. Obviously, the ability to persuade will depend tremendously on the relationship you have previously built with the candidate, your credibility and the network of people you can deliver for or against a candidate. In the end, you must usually somehow appeal to “What’s in it for me?” from the candidate’s perspective to effectively persuade. Do they want to be right on an issue? Or do they simply want votes regardless of the correctness of their position?
For hints on how to bridge the chasm between the public and elected officials, see the Citizens or Experts: Who Should We Listen To? page on my Coming Together: Reaching Common Understanding website.
Want to see how your elected official is voting? You can track your US Senators' and Representative's votes by e-mail by signing up for the service at Congress.org. The Mackinaw Center for Public Policy publishes the “Michigan Capitol Confidential” that publishes voting records for state legislators. You can also search your state legislator’s voting record at http://www.michiganvotes.org/
Comments? Suggestions?
The choices legislators face are not always the ones they would like to face. In the State budget standoff currently, for example, we have a Democrat Governor and a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives. The choices basically are spending cuts, tax increases, a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, or in the event of no agreement, a government shutdown. If the Republican Senate insists on no tax increases as the solution and the Democrat House says no more spending cuts, a “game of chicken” occurs. Who is going to give? If neither, an extended government shutdown (or an extended period of “continuation budgets”) occurs. This reflects negatively nationally and globally as a place to locate or start a business.
Pressure mounts on the legislators to “do their job” and reach agreement. The legislators are expected to be “statesmen”, to give primacy to “the public good”, and to give up their individual preferences.
Choices between evils must be made by someone. Ultimately, more likely, some compromise is reached where all must accept something they regard as evil. Tactically, those who are forced to make these hard choices (i.e., to take the hard votes) are allocated by the respective Republican and Democrat caucuses in each chamber to those legislators who either are not going to run for office again or those legislators who are in “safe” seats. This scenario angers many of the voting public who feel strongly that their legislator has “sold out”, and many more are disgusted on how the process has played out due to the “political games”.
It is also helpful to better understand the mindset of an elected official, so that unrealistic expectations of elected officials are not created. Elected officials are faced with multiple, complex issues. Further, as much as single issue advocates would like to believe, there are few simple, controversial issues faced by a legislator, where a stand for principle must be made. Many such votes are not close, so a vote is easy as the vote really does not affect the outcome of the vote. If the vote is close, again, the “hard votes” are allocated by the party caucus to those who either are not going to run for office again or those legislators who are in “safe” seats.
Legislators seldom make the hard choices to take the hard votes until there is either a deadline or a crisis. That is why little was done to adopt a state budget until September 30 arrived. No one wants to give in. No one wants to take a hard vote against their constituents or vocal advocacy groups.
Do we like this situation? No, but that is reality. The saying that, “There are two things you don’t want anything to do with once you have seen how they are made – legislation and sausage” is all too true. However, we must deal with what is, while working to make things better.
Another factor to consider is that our elected officials make decisions in an atmosphere with much more information about an issue than most citizens have access to. What appears like a simple, black and white decision to some may be some shade of gray to the better informed. For example, on the climate change issue, I see that the weight of the evidence is that global warming is occurring and the man’s activities are causing the warming. But, I have been presented with disconfirming data and arguments that appear to refute that “consensus” opinion. What am I to believe? As an average citizen, I don’t have easy access to trusted experts to evaluate the credibility of the new information. Elected officials do. Now, whether the elected officials seek out that additional expertise or whether they have the intellectual capacity to digest the additional information is another question. Obviously some do and some don’t.
An activist with access to a candidate can attempt to persuade the candidate to change his or her position based on logic or new information the candidate may not have heard before. Or, promises of support (or veiled threats of withholding support) may be tried. Obviously, the ability to persuade will depend tremendously on the relationship you have previously built with the candidate, your credibility and the network of people you can deliver for or against a candidate. In the end, you must usually somehow appeal to “What’s in it for me?” from the candidate’s perspective to effectively persuade. Do they want to be right on an issue? Or do they simply want votes regardless of the correctness of their position?
For hints on how to bridge the chasm between the public and elected officials, see the Citizens or Experts: Who Should We Listen To? page on my Coming Together: Reaching Common Understanding website.
Want to see how your elected official is voting? You can track your US Senators' and Representative's votes by e-mail by signing up for the service at Congress.org. The Mackinaw Center for Public Policy publishes the “Michigan Capitol Confidential” that publishes voting records for state legislators. You can also search your state legislator’s voting record at http://www.michiganvotes.org/
Comments? Suggestions?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Can We Defend Ourselves? The Heritage Foundation says, "No."
"The Southeast Michigan Committee recently screened 33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age. This is a thrilling, one-hour documentary that tells the story of the very real threat foreign enemies pose to every one of us. The truth is brutal - no matter where on Earth a missile is launched from, it would take 33 minutes or less to hit the U.S. target it was programmed to destroy. Despite this present and growing danger, our government has failed to build the missile defense systems capable of defending us against such attacks." Watch the trailer on the Heritage Foundation site.
President Reagan proposed a anti-missle defense system in the '80's that was visionary (labeled derisively at the time as "Star Wars" by the opponents). During the "Mutually Assured Destruction Doctrine" (MADD) era, an anti-missle defense system was considered destablizing, as that would permit the perception that we could launch a preemptive strike and then be able to defend against the retaliatory strike from the USSR. That lessened support for the defense.
Now that deterring a nuclear attack from a major super power is less of a concern than during the Cold War, that concern about "destabilizing" no longer is relevant. What is of concern is the fact that weapons of mass destruction are now or soon will be in the hands of unstable regimes or regimes which support terrorists that within 10 years could have the capability of striking the US via intercontinental ballistic missile. For example, North Korea has been testing its missles and has continued to defy international pressure to stop its nuclear program. Will we be ready to defy its demands once it has the capability to hold us hostage with a threat of attack?
Funding the construction of an anti-ballistic missile defense system now when the economy is weakened, when the American people are tired of funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and when the US budget deficit is already enormous will face tough opposition. But, defending our country is the number one priority stated in the US Constitution, and a priority it would be folly to ignore.
Comments? Arguments?
President Reagan proposed a anti-missle defense system in the '80's that was visionary (labeled derisively at the time as "Star Wars" by the opponents). During the "Mutually Assured Destruction Doctrine" (MADD) era, an anti-missle defense system was considered destablizing, as that would permit the perception that we could launch a preemptive strike and then be able to defend against the retaliatory strike from the USSR. That lessened support for the defense.
Now that deterring a nuclear attack from a major super power is less of a concern than during the Cold War, that concern about "destabilizing" no longer is relevant. What is of concern is the fact that weapons of mass destruction are now or soon will be in the hands of unstable regimes or regimes which support terrorists that within 10 years could have the capability of striking the US via intercontinental ballistic missile. For example, North Korea has been testing its missles and has continued to defy international pressure to stop its nuclear program. Will we be ready to defy its demands once it has the capability to hold us hostage with a threat of attack?
Funding the construction of an anti-ballistic missile defense system now when the economy is weakened, when the American people are tired of funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and when the US budget deficit is already enormous will face tough opposition. But, defending our country is the number one priority stated in the US Constitution, and a priority it would be folly to ignore.
Comments? Arguments?
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Fight Over a Health Care Reform Bill is not Done
Vocal opposition to the “Health Care Reform” efforts in Washington, D.C. is cooling. In part, this is because most citizens who become politically active only do so for a short period of time, before returning to their immediate needs in their daily lives. Others have been fooled by the Baucus Senate Finance Committee “health care reform” bill which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation have calculated will not raise the deficit.
Beware!
Beware!
- There is no “Baucus bill” as it is only a conceptual framework without actual legislative language. See Jubilation over the “Health Care Reform” Bill that Isn’t a Bill and Isn’t Going To Be the Bill and Max's Adventures in Wonderland.
- The calculations include increased revenues and “savings” over ten years but the cost of benefits over only 8 years.
- The increased revenues are obtained by tax increases.
- The “savings” are achieved by benefit reductions, primarily to seniors, and vaporous “cutting fraud and waste”.
- The bill is estimated to still leave 25 million Americans uninsured.
- The Democrats are likely to ram a bill through the Senate using either
a. 60 votes to invoke the cloture rule to close debate (either by having all Democrats vote for cloture or bring along one or two Republican Senators, such as Snow) or
b. Using Congress’s budget reconciliation process which requires only a simple majority vote, which is outside the normal Senate procedure, which requires 60 votes to end debate on a bill; thus taking away the filibuster, letting some Democrat Senators off the hook to vote for a controversial bill and passing the bill without the need for any Republican votes.
c. And, carving out a bill such as use H.R. 1586—a bill passed by the House in March to impose a 90-percent tax on bonuses paid to employees of certain bailed-out financial institutions—as a ‘shell’ for enacting the final version of the Senate’s health care bill (to evade the Constitutional requirement that such a bill originate in the House of Representatives) The House Democrats are very reluctant to take “unnecessary” hard votes on a bill which may not have the votes in the Senate, due to the first term Democrat Representatives being very nervous about their ability to get re-elected next year.
d. And, passing the bill with little time for the public to read and react to “the final agreed upon” bill, despite cries for the proposed minimal 3 day period that a bill be posted prior to passage. Oops, it appears House and Senate Democrats recently blocked amendments that would have required health care bills to be posted online for 72 hours before a committee vote. Hmm, I guess citizens really wouldn’t be interested anyway, you think?
In short, a bill may be passed using a very unusual closed door procedure to craft the bill with no input from the American people. Such a bill will NOT be bi-partisan, and it will not achieve the dual objectives of containing costs and universal coverage that were the original reasons for many Americans initially supporting the concept of health care reform. This is NOT the change we need!
Comments? Arguments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
