opa-opines.net

While watching television the other evening I was treated to a political message.  I should not have found this unusual as we are approaching the mid-term elections.  What is strange to me is that the political messages have not ceased since the elections in 2008.  What is it about our current government that leads the political parties to continue to fight between elections?

Having asked that question, I decided to attempt to carefully weed through the confusing morass of messages being sent to the American public and try to find a bit on sense.

Today the topic is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Most everyone (except some officials at BP) agree that this oil spill may be the greatest environmental disaster in memory.  I know it is much worse than the Exxon disaster in Alaska a few years ago.  It also seems that no one knows how to solve the problem.  My current focus is upon the reaction of the politicians.

First the Democrats.  It is true that President Obama spoke about this problem very quickly after the spill began.  It is also true that Obama called an emergency meeting to stimulate action on the crises.  So far, however, I give the democrats little credit politically.  The democrats have talked about how they are in charge and acted like they might be able to control the effects of the great spill, but mostly they have depended upon BP to lead the fight.  Yes we have a US Coast Guard Admiral as a “point man” but what power does he have over BP and the spill site some 48 miles off our shores?   In my opinion it would be nice if the democrats could simply admit that the situation is out of control, and maybe demand that congress give the President the authority to act.

Next the Republicans.  What is it about the party out of power that leads to making   misleading statements?  The republicans were around when, after the Exxon spill, congress passed a law that limited the liability of oil companies.  The republicans were in power (1989 with President H.W. Bush) and must have been aware of how limited Presidential power was in handling a disaster caused by major corporations.  Many of the republicans have oil company experience and connections, so why aren’t they offering suggestions?  Finally, the republicans were in power when BP obtained permission to drill at the site in question.  I would expect that republican leaders would be angry at BP leaders for misleading them concerning the safety of deep water drilling.

So, if the election were held today, how would I cast my vote?  Certainly not for republicans who are complaining but offering no solutions.  Probably not democrats who seem reluctant to admit the limit of their power.

Did you ever wonder why so little work gets done in the U. S. Congress?

Citizens of the United States have been witnessing a congress that struggles to pass laws.  Many bills designed to serve the people of the United States lie dormant, awaiting action – often for years.  What is the problem?

The Senate, but not the House, has a filibuster rule.  If a minority of Senators do not like a bill they can deny the rest a vote.  It takes 60 percent of Senators to close consideration and vote.  This is true despite the fact that it only takes 51 votes to pass legislation.  Why is this?

What are some of the effects of Senate special rules?  First since it takes a  “super majority” to vote to allow a bill to be debated and voted upon, legislation that the majority of Senators (or the majority of Americans) want may never even get a vote.

I have carefully researched  the Constitution and discovered that nothing in that document requires that the Senate have a “super majority” for anything other than overriding vetoes, amending the Constitution or Impeaching Federal officials.

How has the Senate become a barrier to legislation?   Seems that the problem is their own rules – rules it invented itself.  So, think about it   Why would any  Senator want to deny action on major legislation?

These actions give each individual senator a lot of power.  This is power never intended in the constitution.  This is power that attracts big money from special interest groups.  This is the power that provides many thousands of dollars of “donations” to Senators who will agree to use the power to support the interests of big business, big banks, or big healthcare companies.

These special rules explain why our Congress accomplishes so little.  Do most senators serve the people that elected them?  I think not.  I think that most senators serve the people who pay them – big businesses, big labor, big healthcare companies, and big banks, and they hide behind their own rules to keep this power.   The “rules” have become more important than the people’s business.

I am embarrassesd for our nation that the Senate of the United States has reached such a low point in morality.

Just read an article in Newsweek* that ponders whether elections are the answer in some foreign countries.  The author wrote about Afghanistan and Iraq where “international officials who  oversee the rebuilding countries often try to nudge them towards democracy as soon as possible.”  Some political scientists tend to complain.  They note that the risk of violence “decreases during an election year, in the following year it more than doubles.”   The election “slightly increases” the likelihood of civil war.

I remember in my youth being inspired by teachers who noted the frequency with which Latin American republics lost their elected leaders when their army sponsored a rebellion.  In the past twenty years I have noticed similar incidents in Africa and Southeast Asia.  The people vote in a democratic election and lose the new leader to a coup d’état.

Paul Collier, a professor at Oxford University, says: “what an election produces is a winner and a loser, and the loser is unreconciled.”

The Newsweek article led me to think about the current political situation in the United States.  The people elected a new leader, but the rivals have not accepted the elected leader.  Opposition pundits began speaking out about the new leader before he took office and have continued their resistance.  Is this “opposition” anything like an African coup d’état?

Consider the details of the negative campaign.  They sponsor “tea parties” which remind us of the Boston tea party of the American Revolution.  They oppose every proposal he makes without even knowing the details.  They spread the word that he is dangerous since he will: take away our guns; take the military directly under his personal command; remove our civil rights; make himself permanent dictator; establish panels that will eliminate seniors; abolish Medicare; revise health care so that it is totally government controlled.  And, of course, they deny that the election of the new leader is valid, because he is not a native born American.  Each of these rumors are easily disproved with a little research, but they are delivered emotionally with much fear attached.  Such arguments do not respond well to logical responses.

If you recognize these tactics it is probably because you heard about most of them in history class when you studied the periods prior to revolutions.

I can understand that the losers of the last election may be upset.  But even most of them do not really believe that our current President is as bad as they claim.  Most of them recognize that the President’s proposals are well meaning and that he is constantly attempting compromise and consensus.  The President is far from perfect, but any semi intelligent politician will admit he is not as bad as many we have endured in the past.

So, is the US culture becoming ripe for a coup d’état?  I do hope not, but when I listen to current political opposition, I am concerned that the more fear is inflamed the more likely that an attempt will be made.

Let is pray.

* “Elections aren’t the answer,” Newsweek, August 24, 2009.

The health insurance companies are spending millions of dollars to defeat any changes to our current health care system.   Why?  Is it because the insurance companies fear that can’t compete with a public option?   Let is consider several points.

1.  Some note that the Health Insurance Companies finance republican legislators and “blue dog” democrats.  Is this support to insure that these congresspersons vote as the Insurance companies desire?

2.  Health Insurance has been consolidated into only 7 companies.  The  companies are extremely profitable.  Do they fear losing business.

3.   Insurance companies only want to offer insurance policies to younger people and people who can pay.  The poor, sick and the elderly are not good risks.

4.  Health care companies want Medicare to continue.  They do not want to insure older Americans.  They want Medicaid to continue as they do not want to insure poor people.

5.  Health Companies, between 1960-1980, spent lots of time and money to get congress to redesign medicare so that it covered all Americans at age 65.  Insurance companies then canceled policies for older Americans.  Now some offer “supplemental” insurance that pays only when Medicare recognizes the procedure (that is profitable because Medicare does the administration)

6.  Companies & RNC fatcats are sponsoring TV ads to stimulate fear – - make up charges, like the government wants to kill seniors (like H. W. Bush ?).  Is it because they only want insurance to cover rich people?  They want to leave 45 million people without insurance – maybe let taxpayers take this burden.  They don’t want a “public option”, but what is it when people without insurance go to the emergency room for care (bill goes to government and is paid for by taxes)

Should Americans have public health care?

1.  The VA is rated the best health care system in the US.  It is 2/3 as expensive as Medicare (per patient).

2.  Medicare is the best civilian system,  Most efficient, least costly.

3.  VA/Medicare costs less than 5% (admin, operations, etc.)  95% to care.

4.  Private Insurance spends more than 20 % for admin.  Only 80% to care.

5.  Members of Congress have public health care – and love it. Why don’t they want it for you?

A choice must be made, but what is really best for the American people?

I just read a fund-raising letter.  It was not for elections in 2010 or 2012, but for policy fights now.

Seems that the republican party has dropped the American custom of accepting election results and becoming the loyal opposition.  Our history is filled with hard fought campaigns, followed by the losing party working with the winning party for the good of the nation.  It was not that the losing party suddenly agreed with the winning party, it was that they cooperated in most matters (especially national security), while keeping the government’s actions in check.

But now, for some reason, politicians are raising money to battle in the media for policy alternatives they failed to sell during the last election.  What are the trying to sell?  I have heard of three areas: economic recovery, the war, and healthcare.  All three of these issues were fought over in the last election campaign.  The election is over, so the fighting should now be in congress not in the media.

Congressional sessions are mostly dull and meaningless.  The democrats  propose a bill, and the republicans say no.  This is not working toward a solution to our problems, but an expensive avoidance.  This is not legislating, but attempted intimidation.  If a politician does not like a proposal, he buys media time for ads that attack the opponents,  instead of researching the issue and presenting either arguments diminishing the problem or alternatives to the offered solution.

Much of what politicians put in the media is flagrant fear mongering.

This must end.  The American people have not trusted congress for many years and with all the mindless bickering, the lack of trust will surely grow.  We the people need to stand up and tell congress to do their job.  We need to tell them to get to work at the people’s business or plan to be fired at the soonest opportunity.

Robert Samuelson complains inordinately about how the Obama administration is hurting oil and gas companies by not encouraging exploration. Sounds horrible. But what he is really saying is that our national government hesitates to provide monetary incentives (welfare) to giant oil companies. They already make huge profits off of our purchase of their products, and are provided favorable leases on government land.

Giant corporations preach against programs that help people in need. To them, and to many rich people, “welfare”, funds to assist people and families in need, is very bad. However funds, tax credits, and favorable breaks, like very cheap fees for leasing federal lands, is wonderful. Is it the role of our federal government to support business and not citizens?  I certainly hope not.

During previous administrations our government encouraged the oil companies with numerous incentives. We provided tax breaks, exploration grants, cheap leases of government land for oil exploration and production. Why is that not enough now? Is Robert Samuelson suggesting that the companies will decide not to conduct dependable business without another government program?

Our federal budget is limited, especially now. Too many giant corporations are looking for more government handouts. We need to revise our policy. We need government incentives that provide jobs, not profits. We need programs to rescue our economy from the mess that was made by huge financial corporations who were seeking more profit and selfishly ignoring the public good.

Another of Samuelson’s complaints was that we should reduce any funds for “green” energy and apply it to oil and gas instead. To me that is very short sighted. Samuelson claims that green sources will not replace the oil and gas we need for automobiles and trucks. He is probably correct in the very near future, but with a real technological push, green sources such as solar, could fuel batteries that could power our vehicles. If we do not make such efforts a goal, we will certainly fail to reduce our use of petroleum. And if we do not reduce our use of petroleum we will at the mercy of other countries. Personally, I think being at the mercy of oil exporting nations is a very dangerous concept.

A recent article in Newsweek led me to wonder, when does choice become control? The article concerned a newly developed process whereby a woman can have her eggs harvested and frozen for latter use. What interested me was the rationale for the procedure: it expands a woman’s control over her body. That comment was followed by an explanation that currently women, who previously had to choose between a successful career and a family, now “could have it all”.What I question is when does choice become control, and is having the choice or option of controlling one’s body necessarily a good thing?

 

Where do we draw the line concerning choice? Many unanswered legal and ethical concerns often follow having a choice. If we aren’t careful, science presents options before society has considered either law or ethics. One example is the medical breakthroughs that allow a hospital to keep a human body alive long after the heart and/or brain cease to function independently. Who decides the outcome?

 

So, I present several current dilemma and ask for comment. For each, should we have a choice, and who should have the power to decide?

Right to die -

1. If person is a vegetable with no hope of recovery.

2. If a person is viable but has a terminal disease that cannot be healed but can be treated. The patient can live longer while being treated (blood cancer, for example). Consider the implications if the patient must continually suffer.

3. If s person is old, alone, depressed, and in frequent distress.

Right to life -

1. If the person is a hardened criminal who has killed several people.

2. If the person is disabled and has no means of earning a living.

3. If the person is a single mother without means of financial support.

Right to independence and emancipation

1. If the person is a battered wife with children

2. If the person is a teenager who disagrees with parents beliefs

3. If the person is an underage combat soldier returning from battle

There are numerous such “choices”. Should we, as a society, determine such questions?