Calf Roped

By Ronald E. Hignight

OK! Enough already! All you wing nuts meeting at CPAC listen up! We are throwing in the towel. Hear us? You want smaller government and we are ready to deal! How small do you want this new government? Hell, let’s get with it and cut the whole shebang down by 2/3rds, what do you say? The lines may get a little long at Social Security but, what the hell, those lines are just full of old farts anyway. We will end up with a much thinner ‘green line’ (I’m not talking about ecology either, mind you; I’m talking military green), but, what the hell, we will just aim a whole load of missiles at everyone that ain’t American – that should protect us. We can turn 2/3rds of the military personnel back to work in our mighty industrial complex, right?

And, as I understand it, you don’t want to reform a damned thing, right? OK! Status quo it is. In fact, we will help you sell the idea that the current economic downturn is actually a myth started by elitist left wing liberals hell bent on destroying the U.S.! They are the ones that mysteriously caused the auto industry decline, wrecked our Wall Street, and persuaded bankers to engage in something almost like racketeering, right?

We need Dick Cheney! We want either Michele Bachman or Sarah Palin as his running mate. They both have outstanding credentials for running the most powerful nation on earth! And that could come into play as Cheney does have a small ailing heart, right? Who cares as long as he is strongly backed with ‘stick-to-it’ character. Or maybe, we might like to see Gov. Pawlenty because, in a pinch, he will just let God take over and run things. Now, I like the sound of that and am not really too curious just which God that is as long as it’s a God. And, of course, that couldn’t be the money God, right?

Let’s get it on. No more gaffing. Make Fox news the ministry of propaganda good information. Git’er done!

No, Chicken Little, The Sky is Not Falling

By Ronald E. Hignight

It all started with a general alarm, sounded by the people of pundits, that the American Dream was falling from the sky when the Supreme Court decision was rendered holding that corporations possessed a constitutional right of free speech akin to that of individuals. Next came Obama, who heaped a little scorn upon the Justices who made that constitutional determination (it’s their job to do so) based upon a poorly written political campaign law. It’s now being suggested that we prepare for our worst nightmare – a country run by “greedy rich people (who run corporations) participating in politics only to protect their individual interests.”

I would ask first – so, what is new? This country has always, except for brief unsuccessful periods of popularism, been run by the “greedy rich people participating in politics only to protect their individual interests.” So, what is new?

The ‘sky is falling’ mantra does not set well with me. I have a good public education; I can think for myself and I don’t seize upon any and every thing let by the press. When something of import comes up, I take the time to discern both sides of an issue and make up my own decision as to what I will support or not support. And, as for Madison Avenue, the joke is on them. I drink Budweiser for the taste, not for the company’s stylish and funny advertising.

It seems when others are projecting, that I will make poor voting decisions based upon the slick Madison Ave. presentations that will be offered by corporations, they demean me. It seems to me when they think so little of my ability to discern where a future salon’s interest lies; they think me stupid and in need of protection. Those who project the falling sky do not seem to think too much of my intelligence. Excuse me; I don’t need to be protected from information. Indeed, I don’t need to be protected from forecasts of doom; for, in fact, the sky is not falling, Chicken Littles.

Demise of Space Exploration

By Ronald E. Hignight

It was recently disclosed that, by way of Presidential Advisory Policy, a decision has been reached to set aside NASA’s Constellation program which had set a goal, among other things, to work towards establishing a manned lunar station. The program has been set aside in favor of a “Flexible Path” strategy calling for the development of technologies but not setting any particular goal or destination.

Flexible Path strategy may help NASA to become an ‘engine of innovation’, as urged by its new Administrator Charles Bolden; but, something has been lost. I do not abide with the former Administrator Michael Griffin’s statement that it is a ‘stupid strategy’ which is neither productive nor efficient; but, I do lament the loss of what space exploration seems to be all about – and that is, in a word, wonder.

I have always deemed myself lucky to have been born in a time when space travel came into being. I watched with utter fascination, the launch of Sputnik, America’s un-manned and manned flights and as our heroes flew the dark heavens ultimately visiting the Moon. I watched with pride as astronauts returned to Earth after meaningful and productive excursions in the Shuttles and was bedazzled by the new things uncovered by the space station and Hubble.

The ‘giant leap for mankind’ is as much a part of my psyche as any other incident of American citizenship. Exploration of space is, in my mind, clean; we no longer speak in terms of conquering space. Space exploration does not destroy while achieving its goals. Space travel and knowledge of the universe is something that everyone can take pride in achieving. It is always, and forever shall be, about wonder.

Without some firm goal or destination, I find it hard to find that feeling of wonderment. I know the ‘flexible path’ is expedient and that space exploration is terribly difficult to justify as against the domestic needs in our present economy. I do not doubt the need for change; but, I will lament the passing of the wonder spawned by our goal driven exploration of space.

The State of the Union

By Ronald E. Hignight

There are Populist and Elitist, Liberals and Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists and whatever. One can hardly make it through an editorial or political comment without being subjected to polarized addendums to an elected official’s name. If a senator or representative suggests that they are for or against something, the reasoning employed in the decision is lost in the clamor of reporters to categorize and isolate the position for their readers.

We are now told that the President has moved from being a pragmatic leader (they could hardly call him an Elitist), to a Populist leaning leader simply because he is sponsoring a discretionary spending freeze in Federal government. Obama’s detractors grin and opine that the shift in governmental philosophy was actually occasioned by the Democratic Party’s defeat in Massachusetts and Obama’s recognition that his party is in danger of losing its franchise.

Post State of the Union, it appears that what mandated the spending freeze was not self-preservation, but rather, a move made to curtail spending in light of the projected success of TARP. Said another way, the discretionary spending is no longer necessary to achieve the aims of the Obama administration and no administration, Democrat or Republican, would want to be known as, or tolerated as, a spend-thrift administration.

Do we now have a Populist President? I don’t think so. Are we moving towards Libertarianism? Let’s hope not. We have altogether too many domestic issues to resolve before we may once again trim government to its bare-boned essentials. The belabored health care reform bill will have to be amended through a series of small battles until it is made effectual. The United States will, as a world citizen, have to curb its energy needs for the benefit of man-kind. Our un-checked capitalist economic policies will have to address the needs of the many, rather than the few, until such time as our citizens are back on their feet.

If Obama has misjudged the American people, he did so only by assigning priority to health care over jobs. It would appear that his only true ‘move’, here at the end of his first year in office, is to focus more on jobs and less on health care. If Americans do not have secure jobs paying a livable wage, there are no monies for the purchase of health care.

While some may argue against the stimulus, and I was one of them, we must all acknowledge that the infrastructure of our economy, especially the banks, has been saved by way of the stimulus. I was wary of stimulus but, pragmatically, it is working and it is time to go on to other domestic concerns – namely, jobs. As for the bail-outs – they were a bad idea and have gained us nothing. A few factory workers up north were given a temporary reprieve but few think that the auto dealers will really survive and thrive. All the bail-outs did was prolong the auto industry’s death rattle.

Obama has a plan to invigorate the economy by offering tax cuts of up to $5,000 each if industry will hire in a meaningful way. The rules are strict, but, on balance, fair to the people footing the bill. But, I’ve a more aggressive step in mind that will create jobs well into the future and end, hopefully, America’s wasteful reliance upon Wall Street to generate jobs.

What I propose is that we somehow force those who are ‘sitting’ on huge cache’s of wealth to do something with their wealth other than to pass it to Wall Street for incremental increase of their wealth. What I would have them do is to obtain direct tax credit for creating jobs. If they merely deposit their holdings with Wall Street, they will be heavily taxed. If they start a new business employing people, they will receive tax credits.

We already do this for corporations – why not extend it to investors? Not only would we be putting people back to work, we would be stimulating the economy through growth, competition and diversity. We would also be minimizing our country’s reliance upon the speculative markets of Wall Street as the basis of our economy.

Lastly, we should take a long and hard look at the insurance industry to see if the industry truly benefits society or is a leach upon society. In its un-regulated state, it is clearly a leach upon society. In its semi-regulated state, it still leaches upon society but does so in a manner that most have come to accept merely because the industry is so ingrained in our society that to fight it is very nearly impossible.

In its purest form, insurance is nothing more than paying another to take a risk that you are unwilling to abide by. Lenders insist on insurance to protect their proprietary liens against money loaned to purchase property. States compel an individual to purchase insurance as against one’s negligence towards others. Individuals seeking to provide for their families after death, purchase insurance policies affording piece of mind. Is all of this risk transferring or shifting really necessary? Is it an incidence that truly benefits society? When all is said and done, the risk is still there – it is just a matter of who pays for it.

Insurance companies write thousands of policies seeking to spread the risk among its policy holders as against a single claim. And, to make it work, they invest the monies collected, rather than merely reserve them, in order to make profit. This sets up the first problem of the insurance industry. How to manage investments in order to make a profit? The record of AIG, for example, shows what can happen if the insurance company mismanages its investments.

The second problem with the insurance industry arises from the not-so-little disparity between the premium paid and the payout. In fact, they have nothing to do with each other on the balance sheet. Claims, however, are treated as though insufficient premiums have been collected and are vigorously fought and denied by the insurance industry.

In those areas where a State has sought to regulate insurance, i.e., where the State has mandated the purchase of insurance in such areas as Workers’ Compensation, the insurance industry is required to pursue approval of premium rate hikes. They are required to show neither the effect of claims paid nor of their secrete investments. They are merely required to assert that they need upward premium adjustments to maintain their franchise. In other words, they want more money, but are not required to prove that they need more money, and will seek whatever the market will bear.

To cover these problems, the insurance industry falls back on its manufactured credibility and reputation image with the aid of Madison Avenue. It distorts its condition and viability presenting policies of insurance in a fully positive light without danger of loss. With subliminal messaging, it even seeks to secure a larger purchasing pool by convincing individuals that insurance is an absolute necessity of life. Competition as among insurance companies has virtually destroyed self-restraint of the type implicit within their Madison Avenue messages.

The so-called ‘public-option’ in health care reform would have eventually led to more self-restraint within the private insurance industry had it been enacted. I suspect that a ‘public-option’ in home, auto and life insurance would likewise lead to self-restraint in those insurance domains as well. It seems that the insurance industries objection to regulation and unwillingness to engage in self-restraint, leaves little alternative other than to enter into competition with the industry through a government operated agency.

In time, and with public-options, the insurance industry will lose most of its leaching aspect and might tend to benefit society. The public-option competition would force insurance companies into a ‘lean and mean’ approach to do business and would eventually cure both principle problems associated with the industry. If they refuse to go lean and mean, they would vanish.

To be sure, health, the environment, international conflicts and jobs are going to be capturing the limelight of political discussion. Unless we bring insurance under control, through meaningful and far-ranging political discussion, we will, however, continue to wander towards a cliff with lead weights in our pockets somehow expecting to overcome gravity and fly into prosperity. My cut is that we will fall to our doom.

The Shoe Heard Around the World

By Ronald E. Hignight

It was not long ago that we witnessed the “shoe heard around the world” fly past President Bush’s head. With surprising agility, GWB dodged the shoe. The event highlighted, and ended, an era of bully, smash and bash politics. Bush was a lame duck at that point and all of us were looking forward to change.

Change. We were looking to increase the esteem not only of the office of President, but that of this Country as well. We were looking eagerly to the Legislature to perform miracles with a Bush-failed economy and to get past Republican obstructionism towards national welfare; most especially health-care reform. And, we were looking for the government to do some long-range thoughtful planning with respect to the environment rather than continue the ‘fix-it when it’s broke’ solutions of the past.

But what we failed to account for, even as among Democrats who secured the necessary majority to achieve these things, was the fact that all politicians – whether they are conservative or liberal or middle of the road – secure their positions by learning and employing the duck and dodge maneuver so expertly displayed by President Bush.

What we have been left with is a collection of salons in charge of the Legislative branch who are trained to react to every adversarial challenge by ducking, dodging and side-stepping. No one of them is capable of directly confronting a challenge and is constantly looking for the euphemistic compromise. If the shoe thrower is appeased, the current salons believe that they will be better able to survive the next election. And, it appears that such is their only concern.

Where are the men and women of character who are capable of taking a shoe to the head and keep on going? President Obama, upon learning of Republican Brown’s seizure of a Democratic Senate seat, stated that he was not going to abandon the fight for health care just because the fight will be tough. Hopefully, the salons in the Legislature will follow suit and take a shoe to the head if one is thrown. After all, they may find that voters are likely to hold them in higher esteem if they have the force of character to stand up to adversity.

Vote for Change or Compromise?

Vote for Change or Compromise?
In the last election, I suspect that those who empowered Obama and the Democratic led Congress did so in order to change government. Had it been otherwise, we would now have a McCain administration and a Republican controlled Congress. McCain and his cohorts ran for office professing that, with only slight modification, the policies of the Bush administration and its Congress would be continued in part and compromised in part. The electors spoke loudly, though, that change rather than compromise was what was expected of government.

While change can mean reversal, it is often used to denote a break in one direction in favor of another and, invariably, means, as Lord Tennyson said, “The old order changeth, yielding place to the new.” Conversely, compromise, such as we have seen in Congress’s efforts to produce Health Care Reform, means a give and take appeasement reaching middle ground. As said by Lord Cecil, a compromise is “[a]n agreement between two [parties] to do what both agree is wrong.” It can resolve impasse for good or bad. If, however, you consider P.J. O’Rourke’s observation that, “[a] compromise is the sense that being bitten in half by a shark is a compromise with being swallowed whole[,]” then compromise can only be bad.

It seems that the Obama administration and the Democrats ensconced in Washington are hamstrung with the Pollyannish notion that bi-partisan support is necessary to formulate a cohesive and comprehensive Health Care Reform measure. We gave them a mandate to change and they should whether Republicans join them or not. Some of course, blame the various Democrats themselves for creating the differing ‘fixes’ needed to overhaul what is a patently critical situation involving good health care. What those contentious Democrats should consider, however, is that they received their jobs by hanging onto the coattails of Obama and adopting the change mantra to get elected. They, too, should embrace and pass the health care reform bill that Obama was elected to foster into law. It is time for the Democratic whips to whip.

Change? Where's the Beef?

Years ago, 1984 to be exact, there was a television commercial run by Wendy’s, which put forth a question that has relevance today. It featured a nice older woman opening an oversized hamburger bun, in front of a sales clerk, and pointing to an absurdly small hamburger patty. In a firm "I will not be patronized" sort of way, the lady asked, "Where's the beef?" We should all be asking today, of President Obama and the Legislature who promised 'change', "Where's the beef?"

It has been over a year since we retired the Smash, Bash and Bully mentality of the Bush administration. The new administration promising change seems to be doing nothing; or, as most recently criticized, is “dithering,” to which might be added the charge of, “withering.” What little the Obama administration has done, by analogy, leaves us wondering, "Where's the beef?"

So far, all that has been done is to hand out huge sums of money to big corporations, banks and insurance companies. That was not a change. In fact, it mirrors what Bush and his Republican legislature did in the form of tax credits in the early “ought’s.” Only the rich have benefited – not the American in the street – and whatever is meant by the “Wall Street to Main Street” mantra sounds a whole lot like “trickle down” which was a huge failure for us all.

We wearied of wars being urged and initiated by the Bush administration but did not manage to put our collective ‘foot down’ until it came to light that we went to war not to protect the U.S. from weapons of mass destruction; but rather, to insure that we had control of our need for petroleum. We knew we had been duped and voted with anger. We had been duped before into believing that by force of arms, we could and should "Americanize" other countries. That theory of international diplomacy failed. The wars are still smoldering, in part, and escalating in part. There has been no change. We are still at war.

The Bush administration effectively blocked all lingering attempts at Health Care Reform left over from the Clinton administration. We sent the new President a new Democratic controlled Legislature expecting a change in health care. Though there is a bill being bounced around in Senate and House committees, we can only expect that it will be so washed down and neutered that it will amount to nothing more than boondoggle. There will be no change. We will still not have meaningful health care that we can actually afford.

To spawn unparalleled growth in American industry, the Bush administration removed all roadblocks to carbon based fuel consumption totally ignoring the consequences of global warming. That administration feared loss of economic growth if any credence was given to an anticipated global catastrophe. We listened, evaluated and determined that whatever economic considerations there were, in conflict with protecting the environment, that the earth must win out. President Obama, and the salons that we sent to Washington, promised alternative energy initiatives but they have done so on so small a scale as to be ludicrous. Our government of change went to Copenhagen with no intention of changing status quo. There has been no change.

This withering and dithering on important public concerns is no less fruitful than our previous posture of smash, bash and bully. We still see money, unearned money, going to the rich. We still see body bags returning from the Middle East. We still see no meaningful control on health care. We still see no change in policy and direction regarding global warming.

Where is the change – where is the beef?