The ABC TV Debates In New Hampshire

Oh, this was a very long recording on my DVR. We went square dancing while the DVR set me up for a Sunday review.

It continues to mystify me that the two political parties are rarely discussing the same issues. Are these parties discussing issues in two different countries? The message I receive is that Republicans and Democrats really have different visions of America. That is really too bad for its citizens. It may be the reason that the meeting at the University of Oklahoma tomorrow, January 7, may be very significant.

We need a president that can lead all Americans. The closest candidates that meet these criteria are Barak Obama and John Edwards. But they also do not address the issues that are discussed in any of the Republican debates. That may be the reason that the Oklahoma meeting is really very important for our nation.

Is This Really Democracy?

When the constitution of the United States was written science as we have known it in the 20^th and 21^st centuries did not exist. The authors of the constitution were merchants who were interested in protecting their wealth and way of life. That was their purpose.

Since the authors could not foresee the future they wrote the constitution to govern in the world as it existed at the end of the 18^th century. Wisely they also provided a means to amend the document. Hence the term “Living Constitution” has evolved. You can find this term in Wikipedia along with the term originalism, the view that the constituion cannot be changed from its original intent. The Wikipedia discussion is extensive and is one that I have read elsewhere. I subscribe to the idea of the living constitution.

George W. Bush has enunciated his desire to bring democracy to all the world. He is a vocal supporter of democratic institutions. However, in the United States he was not elected by popular vote. He was elected by an electoral system that was part of the original constitution. President George W. Bush was selected by a majority of electors and that happened because the elector system provides for a “winner take all” process in each individual state.

As bad as the electoral system is, the United States does not have a formal legal process in place for the selection of candidates in each party. There is nothing in the Constitution about selecting party candidates. The process is part of our common law system that was started by England.

Here are the first three candidate selection elections in 2008.

January 3—Iowa Caucus

January 5—Wyoming Republican Caucus

January 8—New Hampshire Primary

The troubling part of this is that these three states have small populations and they, for the most part, do not reflect the large population centers of our country that are ethnically diverse.

The insiders that John Edwards talks about in his campaining have control of this situation. Articles on these subjects are now making the news. Nation Has Its Fill of Iowa-NH First is a good example <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080101/D8TT8E280.html>. Changing the system will be a big challenge. Smaller states want to keep things as they are for both the primaries and the electoral college for just one reason. The have more influence on the out come.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg

The November 12 edition of Newsweek offered a cover story about a Mike Bloomberg run for president. It is an interesting biographical article but told readers nothing about his political positions. Obviously it was an introduction to his possible candidacy. Bloomberg has a political adviser, Kevin Sheekey. Mr. Sheekey probably made contact with Jon Meacham of Newsweek to write this piece. He is not perfect and the article certainly told readers that fact.The only mention of a decision to run for president in the article was that it would happen after the February 5 primaries and probably on March 5, the day of the Texas primary. Mr. Sheekey says Mike Bloomberg would only run if he believed he could actually win the 270 electoral votes needed to elect a president.

ABC World News has reported that there will be a meeting at the University of Oklahoma on January 7 to discuss options for America. It was reported the meeting will be attended by Republicans and Democrats as well as others. In attendance will be “Bloomberg, outgoing Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, both considered potential independent White House hopefuls, and more than a dozen current and retired lawmakers and others are scheduled to attend the closed-door discussions.” When I watch the TV debates in each political party it is so very apparent that they are very far apart on the issues. Actually they discuss totally different issues in each political party. The issues are so different it’s like they are not even in the same country. None of them has yet told us how he or she will bring the nation together. This nation does need a leader that will do that.

My question is can a billionaire Jew born in Massachusetts bring this nation together? My Dad would say yes. I am not so certain that America would agree. If the candidates were Chuck Hagel for President and Mike Bloomberg for Vice President, that might sell. I doubt Mike Bloomberg would accept second place.

That this meeting is occurring does give me hope for our country. What a good way to start the New Year.

What Should be the Big Issue in the Presidential Election?

Ok, maybe I am wrong but that would be only because the candidates choose to ignore this issue. It’s health care for all Americans.

Why wouldn’t they want to discuss and debate this? Simply because both candidates will want to avoid any issue that will reduce their chance of winning the election in November.

All three of the leading Democratic candidates have published their ideas about universal health care. The leading Republican candidates have all taken a position on health care.

Health care is an issue that has been repeatedly been discussed in newspapers and magazines as well as the discussions on radio and television. It was the cover story for the December 3, 2007 BusinessWeek magazine. The December 10, 2007 Newsweek has a section titled Health For Life and in it there is an article titled “Cures for an Ailing System.”

Everyone is having problems paying for health care. The biggest corporations in this country complain about their healthcare costs. General Motors says their cars are costing too much in healthcare benefits < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64599-2005Apr18.html>. The cost of providing health care adds from $1,100 to $1,500 to the cost of each of the 4.65 million vehicles GM sold in 2004. When southern California supermarket employees went on strike in 2003 the primary issue wasn’t the pay rate, it was the medical insurance coverage.

Of course smaller companies can’t afford to provide health insurance. Competition reduces their profits. There just isn’t enough money made to provide that benefit.

Most reliable reports says there are at least 43 million Americans that have no medical insurance. It’s no wonder. Many people do have health care but the cost is a significant burden.

Here are some real costs in my own family. My son is 35 years old and in business for himself. A major medical insurance policy with a $5,000 deductible costs $124.00 per month in San Jose, California. My 31 year old daughter lives in Los Angeles and has Blue Cross PPO with a $1400 deductible and a $40.00 co-pay at a cost of $178.00 per month. The ultimate in cost is my wife’s Kaiser Permanente plan. She has a $50.00 co-pay and it costs $387.00 per month. Wow! I am a member of Kaiser Permanente too but I have Medicare coverage.

What do member of congress pay for their health care? I could not find the answer. I am sure it’s a great plan. Perhaps someone will email me that information.

Our nation needs a reliable health care system that cares for everyone. Let’s hope that all presidential candidates participate in the discussion.

Pakistan Matters to the U.S.

“The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has dealt a severe blow to U.S. efforts to restore stability and democracy in a turbulent, nuclear-armed Islamic nation that has been a critical ally in the war on terror”. This from an analysis written by Matthew Lee of the Associated Press. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071227/D8TQ1RKO0.html

This was a truly sad event for Ms. Bhutto’s family, Pakistan, and the United States. George W. Bush’s nation building was all about spreading democracy. That opportunity now seems remote in Pakistan. The assassination also signals us that we live in a desparate world that will do anything to stop the changes that the western world wants to advance everywhere.

The fragility of many U.S. allies in the Islamic world reminds us that our national issues can be overshadowed by events on the other side of the world. If we let this fear distract us, the United States will no longer be a leader.

Too many political commentators are saying that this assassination will change our voting behavior in the elections of 2008. ”. That would not be good for America.

The Charge It Nation

This nation thrives by buying everything using credit. It’s the plastic! Credit cards have become part of our economic system.

When we shop at Sears or Costco or Walmart we are barraged with the “buy” mentality. I am just as guilty as the average American. I bought a flat screen TV last January for no money down and no interest charge for one year. After that one year I will be charged at the rate of 24% for the balance due dating back to the original purchase date. Why did I do that purchase? Every time I went into Costco to buy staples (e.g. bottled water, chicken, cleaning supplies) I walked by the flat screen TV display. I could not resist temptation.

All my friends say they pay their credit card bill every month in full. I don’t believe them! They are just ordinary people. Perhaps slightly more well off than most but the evidence convinces me that at least some of them are not entirely truthful. In September 2006 the amount owed by consumers on revolving debt exceeded $850 Billion. A year later, this past September, the amount owed had risen to almost $925 Billion. The source of this data is the Federal Reserve.

Why is this happening? The United States is a consumer nation. As individuals we have decided to buy everything we want regardless of our ability to pay for those items. The most recent glaring example is the purchase of homes with little or no down payment.

There is a positive side to this behavior. Americans have very comfortable life styles. We have a history of being the biggest consumers in the world. The Canadian Broadcasting Company did a report in February of 2005 informing us that China has surpassed America < http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/16/china-consumption-050216.html> in the first years of this century in most buying categories.

I am a prefect example of the spoiled American. We have two cars, cell phones, multiple television sets, two computers with two printers, stereos, washing machines for clothes and dishes, etc. etc. etc. Unfortunately many of these items were bought on credit.

Consumption taxes or value added taxes will never become part of our nation. They would defeat our consumerism. They would reduce the consumption that makes our nation thrive. That would result in less jobs and a lower standard of living.

Oh, by the way I did disappoint Chase Credit Card Services. You see I did pay the last part of my purchase of the flat screen TV in December. It took me 11 months to pay for the TV without an interest payment. Chase immediately called to ask if I would like a new credit card with a special cash back feature. No thanks, I already have three other cards and I will soon have zero balance on each.

John Edwards is Correct

Former senator John Edwards is correct when he said, ”There’s a wall around Washington and we need to take it down. The American people are on the outside. And on the other side, on the inside, are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy.” Mr. Edwards spoke about the corporate control of our nation in the last Iowa debate. He was talking about the well connected in Washington D.C. as well as the wealthy.

Look at just the issue of auto and truck fuel economy. It has taken 32 years to increase those standards. The new standards are not effective until 2020. That is 48 years since oil embargo in the 1973-74. The automakers and oil companies are the two groups that have blocked this legislation. Of course the congressmen and senators from Michigan supported the status quo. The consequence of this situation is that the U. S. is still importing 80% of its oil from the Middle East at high prices and the environment is being affected too.

Another issue is the current scandal on Wall Street over home loans in the secondary market. That is a large group of home loans given to people who could not afford a conventional loan. Wall Street brokers packaged those loans and sold collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) to money market funds. These CDOs were offered with money back guarantees. This issue was discussed in detail in the December 10, 2007 issue of BusinessWeek <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_50/b4062026774092.htm> . This is another great example of protection of the wealthy over protection of the average American but packaged as protection for the sloppy home buyers.

The Federal Reserve under the guidance of Alan Greenspan, a Wall Street maven and a conservative economist moved the markets to protect and enhance the wealth of his brethren. Easy money lead to growing wealth for the wealthy, not the average American. Mr. Greenspan also devised the idea of “core inflation”. That is inflation that ignores the cost of volatile items like food and energy. The idea was to convince us less wise Americans that inflation really is at a very low level. Recent article articles in both BusinessWeek and Newsweek point out the foolishness of this idea.

When I graduated from CSUN (California State University, Northridge) in 1962 there were over 30 million Americans in labor unions. Today there are approximately 16 million Americans in labor unions. Manufacturing was a significant part of our employment. Today almost every product we buy was made in another country. The leading exporter to the U. S. is China. Actually the number of people in manufacturing has remained almost the same as it was in 1947. From Economists View http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/02/manufacturing_e.html consider that “Because the population and, hence, the labor force has grown, the share of manufacturing employment (to total employment) has been steadily falling since the Korean War. Approximately one in every three workers was employed in manufacturing after the Second World War; today, that number is about one in ten.” Are corporations impacted by this situation? Of course, their profits are higher than ever because the labor costs are significantly lower.

It is unlikely that John Edwards will be the next president. He really would be an agent for change.

Is This The Wild West or What?

Las Vegas police say six young people in junior high or high school were shot after they got off a school bus on Tuesday afternoon.

Reported on local Los Angeles television on Sunday, December 9 and confirmed by the Associated Press, there were two threats to kill. Police arrested a 21-year-old Loyola Marymount University student in connection with an online threat to shoot and kill as many people as possible on campus before being killed himself according to police. This past Friday an Australian man was arrested after he allegedly posted a message saying a shooting attack would take place at The Grove shoppping mall near Beverly Hills.

On the same December 9 in Colorado there were three people killed at two church facilities. At the second incident the shooter was killed by a guard. No one knows at this time if the killer at the second incident was the shooter at the first incident.

In an Omaha shopping mall eight people were killed and another five injured on December 6. That killer committed suicide at the scene of that massacre.

Of course we all remember The Virginia Tech massacre comprising two separate attacks about two hours apart on April 16, 2007. The perpetrator killed 32 people and wounded many more before committing suicide; making it the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.

Another masacre was the October 3, 2006 killing of five children in a one-room Amish schoolhouse.

No one will forget the Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado near Denver and Littleton. Two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, embarked on a shooting rampage, killing 12 students and a teacher as well as wounding 23 others before committing suicide.

There have been many other killing incidents over the past years.

The second Amendment to the Constitution says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Based upon that amendment this country has allowed everyone to own as many guns as they can afford.

I am opposed to the manufacture and ownership of handguns. The second amendment would not allow my ideas to become law. However, does a “well regulated militia” mean that everyone has the right “to keep and bear arms”? My interpretation of this amendment is that members of a militia have the right “to keep and bear arms”, not the general public.

The distribution of handguns is so prevalent that we cannot prevent ownership by every responsible citizen. We can limit ownership to those who have been licensed by the government. That licensing requirement ought to be limited to those people that have passed a written and operation test in addition to a psychological evaluation. The testing should be similar to the testing that we give people operating a car.

I know the NRA will take exception to this idea. My view is that our society needs to protect itself from those people who are incompetent to operate a fire arm or are not psychologically normal. In every instance the killers have been evaluated to have troubled backgrounds. The right “to keep and bear arms” should not take priority over the constitution’s preamble that calls for “justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare…”

Oh, This Hurts!

How many people are following the debates (really forums) put on by each political party? Many commentators have said the numbers are small. I have not found any data on the internet to support or contradict those statements.

Although most of the candidates tend to mimic each others opinion in each political party there are some differences. Watching the news and listening to the candidates has slowly helped to define my positions. I am disappointed that none of the candidates have a vision of the future.

Here are my views on some of the leading candidates

-Mitt Romney has changed most of his positions from the time he was governor of Massachusetts to when he became a candidate for president. His views as governor were relatively liberal and mostly aligned with the Democrats in that state. Now as a past governor and a man trying to win support in his conservative party he has espoused views that support very conservative positions. Romney is a flip flopper. He bows to opinion and has not taken any stand on any issue even if it is unpopular. His speech on his Mormon religion was excellent but does not change his flip flopping on issues that really matter. He has not said anything that makes him a standout in the crowd.

-Mike Huckabee has declared himself the Christian candidate. He does not believe in evolution. He has implied that there is something wrong with Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion. There is no religious qualification for this job. As to Huckabee’s position on issues he seems to have mimicked Mitt Romney when he was governor of Arkansas. To Huckabee’s credit he does defend his action when he was governor. Defining himself as the Christian candidate eliminates him as someone I would support.

-Hilary Clinton has defined herself as the candidate with the experience that will enable her to walk into the White House and capably go to work because she was there before. She voted for the war in Iraq and does not regret it. Recently Mrs. Clinton voted to declare a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization. In light of the NIE report that Iran stopped developing nuclear weapons in 2003 it appears her decision was wrong. Her contention that experience trumps new ideas is hard to swallow. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney came to the current administration with significant experience and their assessment of Iraq was entirely wrong. Still she is smart, wise, and seems most likely to be the candidate most likely to succeed as president.

-Barack Obama calls himself the man with hope (his book “The Audacity of Hope”) and the man with new ideas. He points out that he would not have voted for the war in Iraq. He would directly personally negotiate with the leaders of other countries to avoid war. He does have some issues that he has not resolved or cannot resolve. He is young and in his first term as a Senator. His experience in government is small. Mr. Obama was not present to cast his ballot on the resolution to declare a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization (the one that Hilary Clinton voted yes). He then proceeded to criticize Mrs. Clinton’s decision to vote yes. In the Philadelphia debate in October Mr. Obama criticized Mrs. Clinton’s equivocation on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens but he too gave a long answer to the yes or no question (Should illegal aliens be issued driver’s licenses?).

-John Edwards has a clear vision of where he stands on most issues. Like Barack Obama he has limited experience in government. He did vote for the Iraq war but has regretted that decision. His positions have been strongly in support of unions and working class people. He is wealthy and that has been held against him because he earned the money as a lawyer. I have not found any significant contradictions in his positions although he has become more strident with the passing of time.