Afghanistan

Unfortunately those who want to continue the war in Afghanistan and those who want immediate withdrawal have no crystal ball and do not know how either approach will turn out.

We are there because our previous president thought wrongly that we should be there.  The hawks who got us there are still hawking about how it is necessary to be there. I would like to get out of there as quickly as possible but the president has made his decision and he thinks it is the right one.

Unlike our previous administration I do not believe he minimizes the horror of the war or the expense or war's burden on the American people. I am confident he would like to get this mess over with as quickly as possible.

The one phrase I was looking for was a challenge to the Afghani people: "Get your government to take over the fight against your enemies and our enemies and those who believe terrorizing the rest of the world is the answer. When you can prove you are capable of protecting yourselves and other countries from terrorists we will withdraw."

If I were President Obama I would say. . .

Fellow Americans;

When I ran for the presidency I promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, regulate Wall Street and banking, clean up the real estate industry, the credit card companies and the Insurance companies. I also promised health care reform and fair Immigration policies. Those were my priorities.

The framers of the Constitution, in order to protect our citizens, divided the powers into Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches. They envisioned all these groups working together. They did not foresee the enormous power that big business would attain, and the money its lobbyists would spread around to buy your representatives votes.

There are representatives who keep blocking our road of success because they would like to see me fail. There are representatives who pledge their allegiance to the campaign contributions of big business. There are others who vote for their constituency to the detriment of the country. They refuse to realize we are one nation and as president I am sworn to serve you all.

Fortunately, in our democracy you can make the changes I am fighting for happen. If you believe in these changes you have the final vote. You can tell your representatives to support the policies you elected me to enact or you can vote them out of office.

Thank you.

(I am sure he would say it better - if he took off the kid gloves and spoke up for himself.)

True campaign reform

1) No elected or appointed official who receives a pension for his/her government work can then go on to work with or for a lobbying group without forfeiting his/her pension.

Reason: It makes no sense to have an elected official use his/her job to further a career at voters' expense, and then work against the voters' interest.

2) All candidates shall have a cap put on the amount of money spent on their campaigns, beginning with the smallest political jurisdiction. The candidate running against an incumbent  shall be allowed to have an additional 50% to spend.

Reason: An incumbent has the advantage of name recognition and office and record. This levels the playing field a bit.

3) The campaign shall not be allowed to spend the money alloted to it until a specified date which should not be six months before the election.

Reason: This will help do away with the incumbents' needs to start fundraising while they are supposed to be working on legislation. This will also help because it eliminates the need for the outrageous sums of money spent on elections by parties and candidates.

Realistically I do not expect these points to be taken seriously by incumbents, political parties, TV networks, newspapers, radio stations or anyone else who makes money on elections.

But one can hope.

Beware of Bi-Partisan Compromises

While bi-partisanship occasionally works to improve legislation, it often leaves both sides unhappy. Compromise is only possible when both sides have a common goal and a common desire to succeed. When one side only wants to make the other side look bad, compromise is nearly impossible.

There's no satisfactory compromise on Gay Marriage or Universal Health Care, there are only compromises on ways to achieve those goals. Either you want everyone to have the right to marry or you don't. Either you believe everyone should have access to affordable medical care or you don't. Now, compromises are possible in determining how you achieve affordable medical care but not as to whether or not you should have it.

Here are two examples of the problem with compromise:

A group: All people should have the right to marry.
B group: No.
A group: Let's compromise- Only those over 35 years of age.
B group: OK, but only if they were previously married to a person of the opposite sex - and had the marriage annulled.
A group: In the interest of bi-partisanship and compromise we can go along with that.

A group: We should increase taxes on all those who make over $1,000,000 dollars a year.
B group: No.
A group: How about if we make it $1,000,000 dollars and they must have
$10,000,000 in the bank.
B group: How about $10,000,000 and $5,000,000,000  in the bank.
A group: In the interest of bi-partisanship and compromise we can go along with that.

Someone always ends up with the short end of the stick. Add in campaign finances, lobbyists and the need to get re-elected and the all of the public ends up with the short end of the stick.

Obama not fighting the good fight on health care

Our president seems to be slipping in the polls and he deserves to be.

The candidate I voted for was a man of principles and intelligence. The one who has taken on the fight for health care reform is neither.

It does not make any sense to keep fighting for what he cannot get. The Republicans are out to have him fail on the health care initiative. He is also losing the moderates, and liberals who he promised to protect.

In his knuckling down to the Republicans and the Mad Dog Democrats he has done a disservice to the people who voted for him. The cooperative idea has absolutely no chance of working and may be an even bigger disaster than our present system.

Here is why. The cooperative idea will cost a lot of money with no strings attached or plans to ensure it will work. Some cooperatives will have different rules than others and someone moving will have to join with different rules. In order to achieve maximum benefit, it is likely that some cooperatives will not take in people with pre-existing conditions. Some cooperatives will be taken over by the very people who are against making the health care system better. I can see the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies,  and those that will gain from weak rules and entry conditions doing so.

The only system that will work to reform health care is one that takes the good of Medicare and and expands on it.

So in order for our president to do what he promised, he has to fight for a public option and explain why to the American people and those who are fighting him on it. They will back him and vote out the naysayers. But to do so the president will have to regain his principles and intelligence.

Term limits: Good or bad?

Let's look at the political system.

The average elected official starts out at the local level. After being elected more than once he/she gets to be on committees and perhaps chair them. This brings more money to their campaigns (and perhaps pockets) and more pork to their districts. They use the fact that they have brought this pork home to their districts as a reason to re-elect them.

When the next position up the ladder opens up, they run for that position. If they are elected to a state position and get on committees and chair them then they make more money and have more power. This encourages  them to run for Congress. Possibly even for the Presidency. That is the normal progression.

If you have lots of money or name recognition, you can skip some of the steps. You can run for Mayor, Governor, or President without doing the grunt work at the lower-level positions.

The problem with continuous incumbency, however, is that after a while the politicians forget who elected them and why. They believe they were elected simply to make more money, get bigger pensions and gain more power.

But who benefits from this  power? They do.  The lobbyists who've supported them do. Like barnacles, lobbyists seek out the most ambitious or most needy politicians and attach themselves for the ride. It is much easier to have influence over people who see you as a means of helping them keep their jobs, or have greater ambitions. You can offer to help finance their run or offer them people who would work for them.

The politicians with power have power to vote a lobbyist's position or keep an opponent from voting against it.

Others who gain from that power are the non-profit organizations that need their funding to exist. On rare occasions these non-profit organizations are even threatened with lack of funding if they do not help in the candidate's campaign.

Who loses from this increasing power?

The average voter who just wants a fair shake in the legislative process. The consumer who wants to see the banks, the credit card companies, the utilities and the cable companies treat them fairly and honestly, and the agencies that exist to protect the consumer, do just that.

If you take a look at the politicians who have committed malfeasance in office you will invariably find that they were career politicians.

So the process that makes incumbency desirable - the ability to gain more power for your constituents - is the very process that makes term limits the smart thing - because the amassed power rarely comes back to help the constituents.

Many politicians go into politics with altruistic purposes, but the system - with their own compliance - beats and corrupts them.

Spoiling the party

Our  politicians think we are all fools and if we let them get away with their shenanigans we are.

Our election boards spend lots of time and tons of taxpayer money to have primaries so Democrats and Republicans can vote for who they want from that party  to represent them in general elections. It is almost like a contract. For elected officials to then change their mind about their party affiliations during their term in office is tantamount to breaking a contract. If the elected official is not happy to represent that party, and the voters, the official should resign. While still in office the official should vote his or her conscience - if he or she has one.

The time to change parties is if and  when they run again

We have just had Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate make a mockery of the voting process in N.Y. State. They have played games with their party affiliations and the voters, for financial and personal gain.

They have made the whole election process a joke,  and stalled the legislation process. If Albany cannot do anything about this fiasco, then the voters should. They should call for a referendum limiting the State  elected officials to two terms. One that cannot be overruled.

When Pro-Life Means Death

An open letter to those who celebrated the death of Dr. Tiller.

To preach violence is the sheer height of hypocrisy  for anyone who claims they are "Pro Life." Scott Roeder killed another person, but I will not call it murder. Only a jury in a court of law can do so, under the American justice system.

If you are a woman and believe that abortion is wrong you have the right not to have one. You, other women, and men also have the right to tell others that you believe abortion is wrong. You all have the right to advocate to make abortion illegal. What you do not have the right to do is call for violence because of your belief.

Abortion is not murder unless a court says it is. If you think the doctor who performs it is committing a crime you have the right in our justice system to make that claim. You also have the right to vote for anyone who believes the way you do.

Today you go after the doctor, soon you will go over the individuals who were responsible for the fetus in the first place.

What has always seemed strange is that some "Pro Life" advocates also approve of war, gun owners rights, and the death penalty. As for gun ownership, no Pro-Life advocate has ever needed a gun to protect himself from a Pro-Choice doctor. But unfortunately, too many Pro-Choice doctors seem to need guns to protect themselves from those who call themselves Pro-Life.

Pro-Life advocates should try to create a climate in which the children  of natural disasters, like floods, fires, earthquakes, poverty. etc. can look forward to a brighter future. They should also provide comfort and support for women forced to make decisions that may forever scar them and acknowledge that some fetuses allowed to come to term would live extremely short, terribly painful lives. Sometimes abortion is the most humane course of action.

Humanity. Sympathy. Empathy. That's what I consider Pro-Life.

Transparency and campaign reform

Most voters are familiar with the pork and earmark money that comes into their districts. They are made aware of these funds by their representatives through newsletters and campaign literature.

But those funds come at a price and representatives, while they tout their successes, don't publicize that price.

Here is a simple method of campaign reform.

It should be made mandatory that representative's newsletters, which, after all, are paid for (whether they want them or not) by the constituents, must contain the voting record of the representative  on all issues. It should also be mandatory that all campaign donors and their donated amounts be listed. Candidates running against an incumbent must also list all their donors and campaign contributions. In the event that the opposing candidate has a previous voting record it should also be listed.

These transparencies will give voters the information needed to make an informed voting decision.

If the representative doesn't want to list his/her voting record or their campaign contributions in his/her newsletter he/she must at the very least list them in a local newspaper.

If nothing else, we may find that our mailboxes will be stuffed with less useless political material.

Best way to help small business? Not banks

Why is the administration begging banks to loan money to small businesses, when it has under its wing the Small Business Administration?

Instead of giving direct loans as it once did it is depending on the banks to make loans to small businesses. As it stands now a small business corporation must be turned down by two banks for a loan before the Small Business Administration will get involved.

Obviously the banks, without regulation, are not a dependable source for deciding who should get loans and who should not.

The Small Business Administration should be in the business of helping Small Business grow. I cannot see how the extra cost of administration with the banks helps in this area.

The Indispensable Mayor

The mayor who makes his money with Bloomberg News, which covers the world of business, did not see the economic disaster before us, but now tells us he and only he has the knowledge to correct the situation.

(He also was in favor of deregulation of banks, which was one of the causes of this disaster.)

Here are some of his great ideas. He wanted to have a stadium built in downtown New York City. Then he decided to  help his friends the Yankees and Bruce Ratner with tax breaks the City could not afford, so that he and his friends could have special seats at the new Yankee stadium.

Then he decided on the Congestion Pricing plan that was dependent on the MTA providing good service in order for it to work.

The other day at 1:30 in the afternoon I went downtown and there was standing room only on he subway because the MTA cut back on some of the trains.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the mayor's Congestion Pricing plan had gone into effect.

Now he has decided tolls on bridges going into Manhattan is a great idea and making a mall for tourists will work. The plan is to stop Broadway traffic and make motorists use Seventh Avenue. But the traffic on both these streets is mainly bus and Taxi traffic. If everyone on Broadway is routed to Seventh Avenue all we've done is created a massive traffic jam on Seventh Avenue.

And to get even with the people who voted for term limits he decided to thumb his nose at them and run again.

Beware an INDISPENSABLE, UNAPPROACHABLE, UNIMPEACHABLE MAYOR.

Bi-partisanship is like Trickle-Down-Economics: Neither works

Bipartisanship can't work because loyalty to party and winning at all cost is a priority. The very fact that there are minority and majority leaders and whips proves it.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, Republicans started to attack immediately. Newt Gingrich declared a "Contract for America." The Republicans went after Clinton in numerous ways that had nothing to do with governance.

When he lied to them on a sexual matter it only made it easier for them. They would not help him with the Health Care issue. Then they bugged him with the nice sounding idea of giving the public the right to opt out of government Social Security and invest in the stock market. We know how that would have ended. In spite of an uncooperative and unfriendly Congress he managed to leave our economy in excellent shape.

Then came "the Decider". He decided he would lie to Congress, the American people, and the rest of the world. He would get us into an unnecessary war that was costly in lives and finances. Then he and his Republican majority resurrected the failed "trickle down theory," which may work, but only if everyone  plays by the rules. Self aggrandizement cannot enter into the equation.

For example, a grandfather leaves money in his will for his grandchildren's college education. He makes the father the executor. The father buys a new luxury car, a yacht, and a private plane to take him to meetings, and uses up the trickle down money. Then the "Decider" with help from Phil Gramm of Texas and other friends induce Alan Greenspan, the Economic advisor, to push for Deregulation of the Banking industry. The justification is to shore up the stock market with low interest loans. It will also allow Americans to buy into the American Dream, (home ownership). That they could not afford this dream was not considered, so the dream turned into a nightmare. (Incidentally they did it with the help of some Democrats.)

Disaster followed so the public looking for change voted for a Democrat named Obama.

The Republicans who came close to destroying the country suddenly thought they had all the answers. They demanded changes in Obama's stimulus package, but even when they got some of their tax cuts in the bill, refused to help pass it.

Here is why.

1. If it succeeds they take credit for making it successful.

2. If it fails they then blame Obama for not including enough of their proposals in the bill.

Conclusion: When winning is the only thing, bipartisanship gets in the way. If our Congress spent 1/4 of the time governing that they do campaigning, we would have far more sensible laws and much better government.

My priorities for the Stimulus Plan

1. Create Jobs.
2. Take care of Infrastructure, Amtrak
3. Help States and Cities with Unemployment insurance, Schools, libraries, and local transportation
4. Help individual home owners, prioritize those who lost there jobs.
5. No tax rebates.
6. Help solvent banks give loans and credit. Banks were too busy with Big Business, and balooning Real Estate prices they could not sustain at the expense of Small Business.
7. No money for subprime lenders and failed banks.
8. No money for Hedge funds.
9. No money for Sports Arenas.
10. No money for Wall Street and Failed Financial Institutions.

I would go back to regulating banks and Wall Street. Wall Street should never have been artificially shored up with low interest for Real Estate loans. Clients took money out of the banks because of low interest and invested their savings in stocks and we all know what happened. A good business climate is enough to pay dividends on stocks. Credit card companies and banks with low opening charges induced peopple who should have known better to buy on credit they could not afford to pay, because they did not have money in the bank when things got tough.

The problem with politics

Here are three examples of conversations between paid lobbyists and elected officials. They're not verbatim, but you get the idea:

Lobbyist to Representative: Your leader said I should speak to you. If you want the money for your library we need your help on HR deregulation. He needs your yes vote.

Lobbyist to Representative: The M.T. A. will give you the expansion of the bus route you wish. It will look good on your campaign literature. All they need in return is help on eminent domain and re-zoning. It is a good trade off for you.


Lobbyist to Representative: The government needs your help on the filter plant that we wish to put in your district. In return we will give you money for parks and other things you need for your resume. But we really don't care if you use the money for the parks, etc.