Understanding Liberal Democrats

.

I have several good friends who believe in liberal politics - and I fail to understand why. To me, with my understanding of liberalism, they are searching for a perpetual motion machine. It's been proven that there is no such thing and never will be. So what are they really expecting from their liberal politics?

An off the cuff answer is that liberals are looking for a free lunch, and like perpetual motion, it just can't happen.

Tax payers send money to the government. The government deducts their expenses and then sends the money back to the people to pay for projects and programs the government thinks the people need. It is the nature of a group that sets it's own pay and benefits, to expand. The cost of adding staff is free to the seated politicians and allows them to reduce their work by delegating it. The overall result naturally increases the size of government and the costs of government. To pay for these additional costs, the tax payers must pay more to the government.

The entire liberal political scheme is not worthless. There are very real reasons for the application of liberalism to best deal with certain situations. When a conservative or libertarian lists these situations, the list is usually short because they believe that free enterprise and free markets, the key stones of capitalism, can more efficiently and effectively satisfy most of our societies needs.

It is liberalism however, that better finances and manages certain key aspects of our nation. Our citizens agree that every person in America should have fundamental health care, should not go hungry, and should have a decent roof over their head. Our citizens also agree that every person within our nation's border should be protected from harm inflicted by anyone outside of our borders. They agree that our government should manufacture and control our money supply, and that the government should control and guarantee the products of the pharmaceutical industry, interstate highway system,  and that the government should establish the national legal, medical, and food supply standards. That's about it.

Most of these national responsibility assignments are enumerated in our Constitution and other founding documents. Surveys indicate that most Americans want their government to follow the intent of the Constitution. 

It seems to me that this is the point that separates liberals from conservatives and libertarians.  The worn designations of Democrat vs Republican are in my mind quite meaningless if not obsolete. The true distinction would be better described by "Conservative Republican" vs. "Liberal Democrat". To keep things straight, I consider "Libertarians" to be the far right wing of the Conservative Republicans, and the "Ultra-Liberals" to be the far left wing of the Democrats.

Now let us get back to the "free lunch" or perpetual motion idea. Since the Presidency of F.D.R. our national government has tended to create entitlements, particularly when the national economy began to fail. F.D.R. created simulus money for the economy, increased welfare to the poor, developed Social Security as an aid to retirement, and created government paid jobs to reduce unemployment. He borrowed heavily on the treasury, and advanced the notion that deficit spending would not cause a problem later. These political management tools eventually became expected. Our citizens came to believe they are entitled to them.

More later . . .

Health Care - The Manic Approach

.

Are you up to your eyeballs with opinions on health care? I certainly am. It's time to make some decisions and get this matter established on a realistic road. The 2,000 page monstrosity cobbled by Democrats and Republicans is complicated beyond the point of usefulness. There have been too many political fingers in the pie. Personally, I don't think people like Barney Frank, Thomas Dodd, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are capable of writing health related legislation, or even understanding our national health care problems. It is inconceivable to me that Barbara Boxer, Lorretta Sanchez, and John Murtha can cast a vote that decides on a vast new health care system. In addition to my concern over the  competancy and motivations of these politically biased people, I keep returning to the fundamental question; is our federal government capable of managing such a huge and critical part of our lives?

The alternative isn't all that compelling either. The system is now at least partially controlled by government regulation (or lack of regulation) of the pharmaceutical industry and the medical insurance industry. These are two of the most powerful lobbying groups that operate in Washington. Their influence has become so large as to be staggering. They control a significant number of votes in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. These two groups have had a long time to get it right, and they have, for the most part, failed. It is important to understand exactly what they have failed to do.

The insurance industry has not provided special arrangements for those who are mentally or physically handicapped, nor has it provided for people that have "pre-existing conditions". The majority of Americans look to our national government to assist in these circumstances.

The insurance industry has been subjected to legal decisions favoring ridiculously high penalties in malpractice lawsuits.  The majority of Americans look to our national government to protect Doctors, Hospitals, and other health care workers from extravagent penalties.

The insurance industry has not found a way to protect hospitals from the misuse of emergency care by indigent applicants. Uninsured, homeless, and very poor people use emergency rooms at hospitals as if they were a Doctor's office. The hospital must absorb most or all of the costs of treatment.  Those that can not do so and remain fiscally sound - fail. When they close their doors their regular patients and the entire community loses a primary source of medical care.

The pharmaceutical industry may be the worlds largest confidence game. They are able to finance years of productive and unproductive research by pricing their saleable products at hundreds, or even thousands of times the cost of making a particular product. No one really knows or controls the relationship of production costs to research costs to selling price - but the pharmaceutical companies are rarely unprofitable. Of course that is a good thing. Without profit a company fails. The question seems to surround just how much profit is reasonable. Free market competition doesn't work very well in this industry. 

Pharmaceutical products are typically "blind" items. There is no way a consumer or competitor can tell if the price is too low or too high. The typical result of this problem is that the pricing is established too high, the consumer is abused, and the drug producer can pay employees exorbidant salaries and still make a terrific profit. Most Americans think our government should find a way to better control the pharmaceutical industry and to bring it's profitability into line with other industries.

The point is made, is it not?  Most Americans expect our government to play a larger role in the health care industry. At the same time they are reluctant to have partisan politicians manage health care. In my judgement, we are trying to find some compromise that will improve the availability of health care, insure those who are now uninsurable, and reduce the overall costs of health care. 

I have read only several individual pages of the current health care legislation being proposed. I find it to be contradictory and overly complex.  It does not appear to  satisfy any of the above concerns - or if it does they are well hidden in mumbo jumbo verbiage. Everything imaginable, from hangnails to headaches,  has been thrown into this bill with the government deciding the level of treatment rather than insurance companies and Doctors. This is not good legislation. Almost no one including the politicians who must vote yea or nay, have read it or understand it's provisions.

End

Too Sensitive For Our Own Good

.

For some reason I am especially disgusted. Down low in the mouth. Why? Because I finally decided that Political Correctness is for the birds, that's why. In a perverse sort of way PC is threatening our way of life and I don't like it. I don't have to, right?  In elementary school I was the red headed, four eyed kid with a temper and a bad attitude. The other kids called me the sun burned Irishman, carrot-top, the freakled freak, and worse. My friends were Ray Rierson (the frozen Norwegian), Wyman Carlson (the dumb Swede), Billy Craven (the snooty rich kid), Punky North (the world's stupidist ox) and Solly Solomon (the big nose kid). The nick names may not have been PC but everyone had such a handle and no one even thought about lawsuits. Times have changed. People have become very sensitive about how they are labeled, and in many respects, it's a good change. 

It's no longer acceptable to call a Negro anything but Black, Jews can't be called Sheenies or Hymies, Italians can't be called wops or dagos, Polish - Pollacks, Germans - Krauts, Frenchmen - Frogs, and so forth.  Today Political Correctness tells us such labels are terrible insults and might even be illegal.

But the PC people have carried sensitivity one step too far.

Our politicians say we are waging a War on Terror directed toward real and potential enemies who (oddly) happen to be members of the Islamic faith. Hmmm. On closer inspection it appears that 99% of the terrorists are radical Arab Islamic extremists. 

In other words radical members of the Religion of Islam are responsible for all of the atrocities in recent years. They have murdered thousands of innocent, non-combatant civilians, and they continue to  teach, subsidize, and equip an increasing number of recruits. They are the enemy.

This enemy threatens all non-Muslims everywhere on the planet - yet our civilian security people are prohibited from "racial profiling" in their pursuit of the terrorists. 

Does this make sense?
What brilliant liberal politicians push this idea?

End

An Extra Sad Funeral

.

Just returned from a funeral. Young girl named Lisa. First Syracuse College year. Eating disorder. Heart stopped. Found in her school apartment. Catholic service in Huntington Beach. Beautiful church. Fine soloist. Sanctuary filled. Mostly local high school mates. Priest very welcoming to all religions present.

Lisa's mom member of Fountain Valley Kiwanis Club where I was a member for many years and President three or four years ago. Didn't know Lisa's mom very well - but did know her to be a very nice person and anxious to help in our Fountain Valley community. Losing her bright and pretty daughter so young must be just terrible.

I looked at the dates. 1988 to 2009. 21 short years. Thinking about that left me a bit guilty. Is it natural to wonder why I have been granted so many years and she so few?

Opraheadline

.

My how the pundits tittle and roar. The mighty Oprah may decide to close her tv door. Everyone may (sob, sob), cry now. Actually the old girl with the minor weight problem is a very talented, very smart, and I suspect, a very nice person. She has delighted the tube for some 25 years and deserves to fish with a bobber for a while. Afterwhich (I predict) she will return to the public eye and everyone will say "good for you" and clap and be happy again.

Is Anything Worth Protecting

.

We have attached importance to national borders. They geographically define America and since 1776 we, as a nation, have asked our government to protect those borders and every thing and everyone within. We have collectively joined to defend our nation against political interference, physical trespassing, and military attack. My question is: what are we protecting?

On the face of it the question is easy to answer. We are protecting America. Okay, but just what precisely does that mean? Our political system is unique and one of our basic assets. That would qualify. Our population requires laws, enforcement, and a judicial system. That too would qualify. Our historical traditions of honesty, integrity, charity,  and providing public education for our children would all qualify.  Our societys' work ethic, promotion of a free market,  and individual enterprise, and etc. This kind of list could go on and on, and can only partially describe the America we are pledged to defend.   

For 233 years we Americans have been successful.  We have, in fact, been even more than successful. Our nation has become the most powerful the world has ever seen. With our dominence we have been able to sign treaties and to make obligations to help other nations defend themselves. With our power we have enforced embargos and restrictions on other nations in an effort to persuade them to support our international interests.

We have not sought to take territory or plunder. This could be argued of course, but generally our purposes were ultimately defensive. The fact of it forces these questions:

(1) Why do we maintain a military presence in Germany and in several other foreign nations?

(2) Why do we need to manufacture thousands of nuclear weapons when only a few are capable of destroying humanity?

(3) We won the WAR in Iraq. Why do we need to support and rebuild that battlefield?

(4) We have enough oil reserves to serve our country for hundreds of years. Why do we insist on importing foreign oil?

(5) Japan has grown to be one of the leading nations in the entire world. An economic powerhouse. Why do we provide Japans' continuing military defense?

(6) We have immigration laws to prevent overwhelming migration to America. Why do we not enforce them?

And so forth . . .

Doesn't it seem like something is wrong?

Amen

At What Point Does Conflict Become "War"?

.

A while back nations declared WAR and armies took the field to battle it out. The American Civil War was perhaps the last WAR that soldiers (Union) lined up in a row to shoot at soldiers (Confederate) lined up in a row to shoot back. Amazing. I can't think of anything as stupid as that!

During World War One the troops were just a bit further apart and there were trenches to offer a little protection. By the time World War II came along there had been a huge technology leap forward, the world had industrialized, long range weapons and airpower helped to increase the size of the battleground.

For some reason the declaring of WAR stopped in it's tracks.

Korea became a "Police Action". Exactly how was it different? 

Next, we went to Viet Nam as "Advisors" which was an obvious sham.  We stayed and fought in Viet Nam for many years - but WAR was never declared. 

And in neither case, Korea or Viet Nam, did we win the "what-ever-it-was".

In Korea a line was drawn and a truce declared. In Viet Nam we simply pulled out and let the Communist/Nationalist/Cambodian/Vietnamese sort the mess.

Which brings me to the "WAR ON TERROR". What does that mean? There is no government involved, no army, no territory, no boundaries - and etc.  If we are at WAR -who are we at WAR with?

Our leadership (such as it is) tells us we are not at WAR with the religion of ISLAM. Okaaay .... then why is it that only MUSLIMS have attacked us?  Our leaders tell us  "not-to-worry" because it is only:  

       *   a few RADICAL MUSLIMS operating as individuals,

       *   and rarely but sometimes MUSLIMS that are part of 
           small ISLAMIC hate groups,

       *   or just larger ISLAMIC terrorist organizations like
            the al Qaida, or Taliban.

Am I the only one that notices that the TERRORISTS ARE ALL MEMBERS OF: 

THE  RELIGION OF ISLAM?

More to come . . .

Sarah Palin - Someday

.

When McCain chose her for his running mate I knew the Republicans were doomed. McCain had a long record of dubious politics and was not a strong candidtate to start with. Sarah Palin just didn't cut the mustard as a candidate for Vice President. Right from the start everyone knew she did not have the moxie to replace the elderly McCain should he have health problems.

To my surprise Sarah turned out to be something of a bright light in the Republican camp.  She stood out because no one else did. She spoke the Conservative story and saved McCain's candidacy from disaster. Despite all the negatives - they almost won! 

Sarah Palin spoke plainly and talked common sense, valued American traditions and promoted Conservative principles. She was demonized and hated from the get-go by the mean spirited liberal Democrat crowd, who got out their famous attack squad and zeroed in on Sarah Palin and her family with a vengence. The liberal media immediately fell into lock-step and biased reports so as to portray her as a despicable, clueless, inexperienced  airhead, and totaly worthless candidate. The overly vicious campaign was nasty and unfair.

The voters actually believed Mr. Obama's brilliant rhetoric and misdirected agenda. They have since discovered that they made a monumental error. They elected a brilliant but incompetent man to be President and he immediately began the dismantling of the historic American political system. Mr. Obama collected a staff and cabinet filled with like minded radical liberals anxious to destroy our national traditions and value systems. He moved aggressively to nationalize key industries and to initiate a plethora of unfunded welfare schemes.

Sarah Palin, despite being so hated by the radical liberals in America, apparently plans to be with us on the political stage in the future. I have seen her make no attempt to know and understand our foreign entanglements, diplomacy, or treaty obligations. I've not seen her attempt to study and understand our military power and it's proper use, and there has been no evidence that she understands the fundamentals of our economic system. Because she seems to lack these prerequisites, I still consider her "not qualified" to be President.

She seems bright and energetic and perhaps able to learn. She understands and promotes the overall Conservative agenda, and this alone will bring her cheering audiences. I think, at this stage of her political career, she would make an ideal cabinet secretary in a Conservative Republican administration. 

She has done nothing to warrant the terrible personal attacks by the competition.

Dixon

Morte to come...