The Next Two Years at America’s Capital

Sadly both the president and the congress have decided that the next two years will not be about passing laws that will improve the quality of life for most Americans.

President Obama started the ball rolling with his threat to veto the Keystone XL pipeline. His contention is that there will be a consequential impact on the environment and in addition only 35 jobs will be created. He is talking about the additional jobs that will be added to already functioning refineries. He overlooks the hundreds of construction jobs that will be created in building the pipeline. He overlooks the fact that the refined oil could be used in the United States if needed. He overlooks the fact that oil sands will be transported by rail tanks cars and trucks.

Just as the Republicans are gaining support for the pipeline they distract everyone by attempting to pass an anti-abortion law that would prohibit government subsidized abortions if the woman is more than 20 weeks pregnant and had not reported being raped immediately after it had occurred. It was a large block of moderate female Republican congressional members that refused to vote in favor of the law. It was another prefect example of men deciding laws regulating women.

The other priority for the GOP is the stop Obama’s decision to not deport illegal aliens who have had no brushes with the law. Politico’s column GOP seeking Plan B on immigration suggests a few avenues the Republicans might take but none address the question surrounding the 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States.

Google “new GOP legislation” and all you find is discussion about the failed abortion law and efforts to stop Obama’s executive orders pertaining to illegal aliens.

So where is the unity among Republicans to prove to America’s voters that they can do more than say “No”? Senator Ted Cruz’s “GOP will fight Obamacare until the end of time” position is the best example of Republican philosophy.

Where are the unifiers in the Republican Party? Neither Speaker John Boehner nor Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have sufficient respect to lead the party. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on Wednesday criticized President Obama’s State of the Union address as “aloof” and “detached from reality.” But Priebus has not been a unifying force in his party.

President Obama told us about his dreams in the State of the Union address. That will be part of his legacy. The Republican legacy for the next two years will be “We said no to Obama.”

“1984” Revisited

George Orwell’s 1984 was a classic tale of a world where the government watched everyone all of the time. Televisions were everywhere and every one of them had a camera that spied on everyone no matter where they were. If that wasn’t horrible enough, the government redefined everything and required everyone to accept their definitions.

Thus green could be called blue and black could be called white. Junk yards could be called beautiful and torture could be called pleasure.

Could the story of 1984 happen in America? Most of you would say “No.”
– Eric Snowden divulged the fact that our phone lines and e-mail contacts are being monitored by the CIA.
– Cameras identified the Boston Marathon bombers within a few hours thanks to cameras mounted on the streets.
– The Fort Hood massacre by Army Maj. Nidal Hasan has been called “work place violence” but not a terrorist attack. Interesting definition when you consider that just before the shooting began, many of the witnesses recounted, the gunman yelled “Allahu Akbar,” the Arabic exhortation meaning “God is great.”
– Former Vice President Dick Cheney on this past Sunday’s Meet the Press was asked by moderator Chuck Todd how he defined torture:
Well, torture, to me, Chuck, is an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11.

Todd followed up by asking whether rectal feeding was torture, and Cheney continued his distract-with-shiny-objects strategy.
I’ve told you what meets the definition of torture. It’s what 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters did to 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

Killing unarmed Black men is justifiable homicide. We have grand juries that confirm it!

Hypocrites or Honest People?

The United States has a history of wanting to assure the world that we did something really bad and it won’t happen again. Other nations for the most part simply move on and say as little as possible about their previous misbehaviour. Turkey’s refusal to acknowledge the killing of millions of Armenians is the outstanding example. Germany is the one nation that stands out in trying to make amends for the Holocaust.

Look at the list of things we Americans champion that we once supported. In every instance America says “never again.” Today we lecture other nations about their behavior.

– Slavery: Pope Paul III forbade it in 1537. Great Britain abolished slavery in 1805.

– Massacre of indigenous people: Sand Creek Massacre in Colorado. The killing commenced on Nov. 29, 1864, when 700 members of the Colorado Territory Militia led by Col. John Chivington attacked a Native American encampment in southeastern Colorado, slaughtering between 150 and 200 Indians — mostly women, children and the elderly.

– Internment of people of Japanese descent in America during WWII.

– A Bomb use: The United States dropped it twice to end WWII. Justified or not, the United States does everything in its power to prevent other nations from obtaining the capability of building nuclear weapons.

– Torture of war prisoners: Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and in other locations, prisons were places where there was extreme torture and mistreatment.

What all of these incidents have in common is the words “never again.” However, when the United States government believes it has “the right” to its actions all holds are bared. As a nation we panic. Ebola was not even close to becoming an epidemic in this nation. Still the public and the government behaved as if there was an issue of going shopping at your local market.

When the next event occurs, and it will, you can be sure that panic will bring out the worst in us. Since we choose to investigate and report our behavior, our enemies will use those reports to prove that the United States is a really bad country.

An Ugly Downhill Slide as Democrats and Republicans Fight for the Presidency

Attention Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and everyone else “seriously considering” a run for president. You can stop pretending now.

Is Hillary really the best that the Democrats can offer? With so many opinions among the possible GOP challengers can any of them bring unity to that party?

If you think it will be easy for any candidate you are mistaken. The Republicans will have to prove they can break the grid lock. The Democrats will have to prove they can overcome eight years of grid lock that they created; thanks to Barack Obama’s refusal to include the GOP in any legislative action.

Watching Obama’s news conference tells me that he has no regrets and intends to proceed as if nothing has changed. He pledges an immigration executive order by the end of this year. Will his executive orders be grounds for impeachment? I doubt that will happen. Joe Biden would become president if Obama is found guilty. An unlikely series of events.

Chest pounding by leaders of both parties is the reaction to a GOP wave of success. These kinds of public speeches says the next two years will be a dog fight. Wait maybe this is all talk. The shock of losing the Senate has brought out the worst in both sides.

Will any of these candidates address the real issues confronting this country? I doubt it. Most people will be ignoring the politicians until the summer of 2016. Most of us are disgusted with their behavior and the unfulfilled promises.

A voter guide to California’s boring but important ballot propositions

Someone I respect.

George Skelton

Los Angeles Times

Six state propositions are on the ballot and none are sexy. All are snoozers. But each is significant.

Some, in fact, are game-changers.

Why else would the medical profession and insurance companies be spending well over $100 million to beat back Propositions 45 and 46?

Prop. 47 would punish handgun thieves with a figurative slap on the wrist.

Prop. 48 would set a precedent by allowing an Indian tribe to build a Vegas-style casino off the reservation in an urban area.

Props. 1 and 2 have nothing in common except a simple word: “save.” One measure is about saving water, the other tax money. And the weak link is saving Gov. Jerry Brown from having to talk about the fourth term he is seeking while conveniently stumping instead for these props as if they were twins.

Here’s my voter guide:

Prop. 1 would authorize $7.5 billion in bonds for badly needed water projects. It wouldn’t help during the current drought, but would prepare for future dry spells.

The money would be spent for the kinds of community projects that California should have been heavily engaged in long ago, rather than relying on massive, super-expensive facilities to transfer water from one region to another. Call it stealing.

There would be state matching money for capturing storm water, recharging aquifers, decontaminating groundwater and recycling wastewater.

More controversial is $2.7 billion for dam building. But critics ignore the fact that dams also provide flood control and recreation.

Prop. 1 is an easy yes.

Prop. 2 would force Sacramento politicians to save tax money for an economic rainy day.

To be precise, 1.5% of general fund revenue and all capital gains receipts exceeding 8% of the general fund would be salted away.

The purpose is to reduce the roller-coaster effect of revenue flow during booms and busts. A more effective solution would be to reform California’s tax system. But that would require too much courage for these timid politicians.

Meanwhile, Prop. 2 is another no-brainer yes.

Prop. 45 would allow the state insurance commissioner to regulate premium rates for certain medical plans: those covering individuals and companies with fewer than 50 employees.

Since 1988, the commissioner has been approving home and auto insurance rates. And that has worked out well for consumers.

Opponents have raised more than $56 million, mainly from four big insurance companies. Their TV pitch is that Prop. 45 entrusts too much power in one politician. But at least he is elected and accountable to voters. The insurance companies are accountable mainly to their bottom lines.

Also opposed are unelected government appointees who administer Obamacare in California and worry that the commissioner would interfere in their negotiations with insurers.

But if an elected official can control rising premium rates, he should be allowed to. A close call, but a yes.

Prop. 46 would return the limit on medical malpractice pain-and-suffering payouts to the same dollar value it was in 1975. Inflation has greatly eroded it.

Doctors, hospitals and insurers have raised more than $55 million to kill the measure. They claim it would cause healthcare costs to skyrocket. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, however, calculates the increased cost as practically infinitesimal: less than 0.5%.

Back in 1975, then-Gov. Brown and the Legislature set the cap on noneconomic damage awards at $250,000. If that had been adjusted annually for inflation, it would be $1.1 million today. That’s where Prop. 46 would reset it.

Opposition ads are demonizing trial lawyers, contending Prop. 46 is all about enriching them. But it’s really about securing justice for malpractice victims, who now have difficulty hiring lawyers because the potential awards are so low.

The measure also does two other things. It would require drug and alcohol testing of hospital doctors. And to fight pain pill addiction, it would force doctors to use a state database that tracks patients’ prescription histories.

It’s long past time to bring the medical malpractice cap into the 21st century. And there’s nothing wrong with requiring hospital doctors to undergo drug testing, as pilots and bus drivers do. Controlling pain pill addiction through modern technology also makes sense.

Prop. 47 would reduce the penalty for personal use of most hard drugs — like cocaine and heroin — from a possible felony to always a misdemeanor. OK, perhaps.

More significantly, however, the measure would lower to a misdemeanor other crimes deemed nonviolent and nonserious, such as petty theft, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, writing bad checks and forgery. If the value were less than $950, it would always be a misdemeanor.

Any savings from less incarceration would be earmarked for improved mental health and drug treatment programs.

But most handguns are worth less than $950. Steal one and it’s only a hand slap? That’s too big a flaw. No way on this Prop.

Prop. 48 would ratify a compact negotiated by Brown allowing the North Fork tribe in the Sierra foothills to build a casino down in the San Joaquin Valley on busy Highway 99 near Madera.

When Californians voted to allow Indian casinos 14 years ago, we were promised the gambling halls would be kept on reservations.

If Vegas-type casinos are now going to be permitted in California cities, we should take away the Indians’ monopoly and allow all interests and ethnicities to own them.

Prop. 48 would set a bad precedent.

The Next President of the United States

The biggest issue for me in the next presidential election is the economy. I do not expect the results of the November 4 election to change the course of the country during the next two years.

The middle class is shrinking thanks to technology and foreign competition. From the 2000 to the 2012, real U.S. median household income decreased 6.6 percent. That is a decrease from $55,030 in 2000 to $51,371 in 2012 according to The U.S. Census Bureau. In the meantime the wealthiest in our country became even richer. It is, by now, well-known that income inequality has increased in the United States. The top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s overall income in 2012, the highest proportion recorded in a century of government record keeping.

Where are the ideas that will enable this country, the United States, to thrive in this century? By 2016 we will already be well into the 21st century. Things happening on the other side of the world do effect what happens here. Our economy is struggling to find a new direction. Our leaders are silent on their ideas about where we as a nation should be going.

Others may say it is too early to expect any ideas from the 2016 candidates but I do not agree with that view. I want to hear new ideas. I want to hear what the candidates will do to lead this country.

Obama’s 2008 campaign used the slogan “Change we can believe in” and the chant “Yes We Can”. John McCain’s 2008 campaign used the slogan “Country First.” Can anyone explain the meaning of those slogans? Neither told us what those candidates would do as president. We all know how that turned out. We chose change but obtained grid lock and a lack of leadership skills.

I am not interested in their political party as much as I am interested in their plans. Candidates should fill in the remainder of this statement. “If I am elected president I will ______.”

It is unlikely there will be a candidate that will make this statement. We will be inundated with new slogans and words telling us how bad the opponent is for the country.

How many of us will ride above the political party line and vote for the best man? Or is it the best woman? Hmm. The gender, sexual orientation, or religion of the candidates might be the big issue. And once again we won’t be focusing on the real question. Where will you take this country?

The Difference Between a Progressive and a Liberal

February 5, 2016

This posting was originally made on Oct 22, 2014. I believe both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders meet the Teddy Roosevelt definition of a progressive. The difference between them is that Senator Sanders favors greater change at a rapid pace that he calls a “revolution.” Mrs. Clinton wants those changes at a slower pace that she calls “evolution.”

Watching The Roosevelts on PBS has helped me to identify my political and economic position. I am a Progressive as was Teddy Roosevelt.

Progressives want laws that improve society.
Progressives emphasize doing the most for the most – which is how we got socio-economic programs such as Sherman Anti-trust Act, Social Security, Medicare, Obama Care, the 40 hour work week, and a minimum wage.
Progressives want businesses to thrive but do not want monopolies or near monopolies.
Progressives pursue issues; liberals support candidates; so do conservatives.
Progressives have new ideas.

David Sirota, Newspaper columnist and radio host in 1969, wrote this on the Huffington Post:

To put it in more concrete terms – a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more “progressive” solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry’s profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

Conservatives stand for no change. They want to maintain the status quo. They would turn the clock back if they could. That is the way of the religious members of society. The orthodox religious people want no changes to their practice. Look at those who oppose gay marriage and abortion. They usually hold orthodox religious views. They are part of the conservatives.

Progressives don’t simply support laws that bring about change. It’s just that progressives are willing to consider making changes that will improve life for everyone.