Third Party & Independents Archives

“Congress should NOT be in charge of managing private specialized industries precisely because voters don’t elect trained experts in those industries to be their representatives. Conversely, private industry management and lobbyists should NOT be in charge of influencing direction of public policy in the halls of government. Government, after all, is meant to serve the interests of public at large, not special minority interests, especially when those minority interests conflict with broad public interests, like fiscal management, transparency and accountability of both politicians and government actions.”

Well said

Congress just need to be prepared to bitch slap the businesses back into line again.

Posted by: Honest at February 17, 2009 09:46 PM

DR
It all comes down to electing competant representatives, willing to put the interest of their constituents and country first. There is nothing new about that. To some degree acedamia or the fourth estate can and should provide some information but they are also tied to industry. Industry expert should be listened to. They do know what they are talking about generally but a competant representitive will gather information and make decisions with the welfare of their constituents as the main focus.
Something to mention in the Green column: One major reason the California legislature has failed is because they are term limited. They are highly paid amatures with no incentive to compromise. Term limits have pushed both sides to the extreme. Simplistic solutions like term limits do not work to solve complex problems. California provides clear evidemce of that.Good government requires good decisions by the voters. There are no easy answers.

Posted by: bills at February 17, 2009 10:48 PM

Matter of convenience David. Certainly, the Congress has enough committees, staff, aids, etc to carry out the business of the people. Greenspan was noted saying he had access to a couple of hundred Phd’s and he still couldn’t understand the new financial engineering. What the man is saying is that he didn’t have ENOUGH INTEREST to determine what was going on. Rather, he knew what was going on but that didn’t require understanding/analyzing every algorithm associated with the finance industry. Ditto, for the congressperson that says they don’t understand this or that. They have big millions of dollars worth of staff to keep them ‘educated’. Now, lobbyist are THERE, 24/7, ready to kiss up or pony up. They are just ‘convenient’, along with keeping the campaign funds filled to the brim. You say there is a potential for conflict of interest. I say there is huge conflict of interest. Industry often writes the bill for Congress and then rounds up the votes for the bill they wrote. Which is why I refer to the government as nothing more than a subsidiary of big business. Your solution is quite silly. Having a multi-discipline pool of experts who are not paid representatives of their industry for analysis and advice. David, what about the coffers? Who would keep them filled to the brim? A naïve solution at best. Also, you’d like to create a competent management group to be managed under government auspices those entities taken into conservatorship.
This would seem to work but I’m not sure a high level manager in industry every really quits working for the company. Most always, at that level, they have financial ties to the company throughout their lives.
I would suggest that implementing your solutions over time, would result in something similar to the Pentagon within 10-15 years. And, experts don’t always have the common sense you suggest they need. Experts gave us this recession. Experts recommended we use a major food stock for fuel . Billions invested, and now look where ethanol production is. Bankrupt, because gas came down in price briefly.
You say we must demand better leaders. It’s true that a system of government can’t be any better than it’s leaders. You are on to something there.
David, you can’t rationalize such solutions with the klepto-plutocracy in control. Remember the ‘status quo’ thing. It should be crystal clear to all the Indies who blog here that you won’t get REAL change or REFORM from this government. There simply has to be major reform of government in order to change even some very minor things with government, such as your task force of non-industrial experts. Why would congressperson’s put their career on the line for some task force. David, nothing of import can/will be done until the influence of money is removed or severly limited in government. Insert my spiel here about a new 3rd party with a different political attitude. The junior Senator that Obama took to visit Catapillar with him - Expect him to loose in his election cycle for the lack of funds from the good ole Party.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 17, 2009 11:13 PM

I’m not sure what David is getting at - talk to the unemployed? Of course congress should talk to business. It’s the donations that cause the problems.

bills,
Exactly right!

Posted by: Schwamp at February 18, 2009 01:03 PM

Mr. Remer says quite a mouthful here by writing;

“who will take their objectives from the government that hires them, and their successful strategy and tactics from the industry in which the corporation does business.”

Mixing government objectives with private industry is one reason we have the problems we do. The people you define already exist and are called lobbyists, with the difference being that they will have two, rather than one…master.

The greatest fallacy of your proposition is that you assume the “government objective” will be the best objective and that will, of course, be a political decision which we know from our history, is not always best.

Didn’t we just witness your strategy at work in our mortgage markets? Government decided its objective would be to have more home ownership. Industry used successful strategies and tactics to accomplish that objective. Result…the complete collapse of our mortgage market.

Even our military, which resembles your strategy of elected leaders providing objectives to the military for “successful strategy and tactics” hasn’t always worked well. And, I would argue, many times has lead to huge failures.

The person with no vested interest in either politics or the private industry in which they work simply doesn’t exist.

Posted by: Jim M at February 18, 2009 01:24 PM

I know little to nothing about the government in Calif. But, if one questions why they won’t reach a compromise to shunt the worst to come, you find a narrow range of possibilities. Ideology. Likely for career politicians but not so likely for term limited folks. And, Ideology at the State level is not so strong. Nothing else comes to mind, except people serving at the will of big business. If they want the good job with the industry that supported their campaign and ‘takes care of them’ they might be inclined to hold out for that particular sector until the bitter end. Worth losing a coupla nights sleep over.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 18, 2009 01:26 PM

Roy

i lived in california all my life up until about 6 months ago. CA. has a spending problem, and has been running a structural deficit for quite sometime. at the same time they have seen an increase in revenue to the state every year. the problem is that the spending increases always outstripped the revenue increases. i believe i read that state spending has increased by @ 40% since 2004, from @100 bil. to 144 bil., and the chickens have come home to roost. the downturn in the economy has taken what was a 14 bil. deficit is now projected to be as much as 40 bil.

there is no compromise that i could think of that will solve this large a shortfall. the time to adress this was 5 years ago. by simply limiting the growth to population and rate of inflation a lot of this could have been avoided. arnold was supposed to keep the big spending democrats under control, but has proved he has niether the desire nor the backbone to do so, and the only option the republicans have is to hold up the budget until they can get some kind of concession. IMO the only real solution is to drasticly cut the states budget until things turn around, and then limit the spending increases.

Posted by: dbs at February 18, 2009 01:51 PM

david

“To date, Congressional reliance upon industry executives has proven to be contrary to public interests again and again. Such reliance is now costing tax payers, trillions in losses over generations.”

wouldn’t retired executives be the most likely candidates to serve these conservatorships you speak of ? if this is the case then wouldn’t that mean that nothing has really changed. seems like the same pig in a different dress, and different shade of lipstick. everyone has an agenda. i don’t believe that would change. you would end up with the different components of the conservatorships fighting amonst themselves over idealogical differences.

Posted by: dbs at February 18, 2009 02:07 PM

Jim M., Dead right on the mortgage thing. Greenspan is still up there touting that housing is the greatest ya da da da dah… Guess where I heard one of the smartest statements in a while? From Jane Velez Mitchell (?) on her ‘Issues’. Referring to the woman who has 14 kids she said something like, the media picks up these stories and carries them like some highly desirable miracle has happened, lauding science, and saying nothing of worldwide over population or mention of the resources required, moral issues and the like. Jim M. you said ‘The person with no vested interest in either politics or the private industry in which they work simply doesn’t exist’ That’s a pretty strong statement but I agree, it ain’t your grandpappy’s political machine any more. Below is an article that might interest a few. I particularly enjoyed visiting the 1828 webester’s dictionary. Shows how far we have come, or not.
.

Obama Declares the Beginning of the End

In his speech to mark the signing of the stimulus bill President Barrack Obama clearly established it as the beginning of the end while citizens stood cheering the declaration. When measured against the goals of our beginning, a more perfect union, he is being quite honest in his assessment.

by Gary Wood
(conservative libertarian)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Listen closely, in case you missed it. As Politico’s Josh Gerstein reported, “We have begun the essential work of keeping the American dream alive,” he declared before putting his pen to the 1,434-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “I don’t want to pretend that this marks the end of our economic problems. … Today does mark the beginning of the end.”
The first part of that statement beckons our thoughts to ponder upon the American dream. Our patriotism wells up as we embrace the ideal of it even if we no longer clearly understand what it was. He is honest in saying this new law will not end our economic problems, a glance at the market reaction will help confirm that. However, the untold message many who love our heritage will understand is the American dream is ending. This is not Pres. Obama’s fault for the American dream has been in jeopardy for well over a century. Both parties and countless government figures have kept us marching away from the dream and now we see the end.
Our foundational goal was set in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, that same document used today as merely a symbol by Washington D.C. while the federal government unites in ending the dream for our posterity. Grant a moment to consider the original goals;
1. To form a more perfect union
2. Establish justice
3. Insure domestic tranquility
4. Provide for the common defense
5. Promote the general Welfare
6. Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
These six goals were sewn together by the Constitution and, if each generation kept them as their barometer, the American dream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be feasible. By focusing on these goals our success passed from possible to highly probable. When we take time to use these to measure what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will actually do for all 6 we see it will do nothing to keep our American dream alive. It will, however, insure we have begun the end and moved to insure the blessings of liberty will not be a gift our posterity will receive.
We are not at the end President Obama, not yet. One thing each of those awakening today in support of this law must understand is the population of our great country stands divided with many focused not upon the goals of the current direction but upon the original goals. The American dream, though critically ill, is not dead. These continual assaults, these on-going efforts to kill it are merely fueling the energy of the body of the people to fight for life.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
There is no better time than now to support DownsizeDC’s “Read the Bills Act”
Remember our history, not our modern traditions that are moving us toward representative democracy. Here is some recommended reading to help begin the stirring of our memory. Study these with friends and family as if you were studying the scriptures of your religion or the stats of your favorite sports team.
Declaration of Independence
Thomas Jefferson’s Account of the Declaration
Independence a Solemn Day by Richard Henry Lee
U.S. Constitution and Amendments
Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalist Papers
1828 Webster’s Dictionary (learn the language of the founders)

dbs, it does seem Ca. is in dire straits. Maybe the legislator’s believe the Fed will bail them out if they hold out a little longer. I still have strong suspicions that catering to big business helped create the problem. As Ca. goes, so goes the Nation. The duopoly ain’t talkin to each other there? Same for Wash DC where the dems just shut out the reps in writing the stimulus bill. Now, I know a little about Wash DC in that the Dems have their favorite lobbyist and the Reps have theirs. The Dem’s live off the financials and pharmas while the Rep’s live off big oil and the conglomerates.

I tend to agree with Gary’s article in that the American dream is ending UNLESS we fight to save ourselves. Globalizaation is upon us. Never mind how it came about. When the working class gets to parity with the cheapest labor markets in the world how will Ca., or any other state hope to sustain revenue to support their programs? Who could buy $40k cars, $400k homes, $100k educations and so on? The working class is being forced to lower wages but doctors, lawyers, CEO’s etc. are only tilting further upward as I can tell. Why bother to bail out failed businesses and defaulted mortgages when it’s clear that on the other side of this recession wages will be far less for the worker?

Only way out as I see it is a new 3rd party with a different attitude about politics. A Party that can put accountability into politics through membership oversight of their elected officials. If the officals don’t follow the Party’s agenda they are subject to being rejected from the Party. A Party with an agenda targeting real reform of government, act as a countervailing force against the duopoly, achieve reform and keep it that way. We should support that effort now, rather than later. If there is another way let’s hear it.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 18, 2009 02:56 PM

Roy

i don’t know how viable a third party would be, and with the two party system having as much power as it does, i don’t see it happening unfortunately. thats from a republican who is probably a better fit for the libertarian party. here’s a speech on the floor of the house by rep tom mc clintock of ca. a former ca. state senator and someone i’ve always thought is a standup guy. i think his assesment of HR-1 is right on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8l6tn9cCLU&eurl=http://www.tommcclintock.com/

Posted by: dbs at February 18, 2009 03:20 PM

Roy Ellis provides the following quote; “In his speech to mark the signing of the stimulus bill President Barrack Obama clearly established it as the beginning of the end…”

Quoting Winston Churchill, it might have better said with; “It may not even be the end of the beginning”.

I have no reason to expect that the government spending we have witnessed in the past few days and months is the end of anything. I expect more demands for more and larger spending plans.

Consider that PO has promised health care reform, MMGW spending plans, today’s beginning bailout of those who have, and will experience home foreclosure and more. Folks, we are talking many more trillions in proposed spending by both PO and the liberal congress.

Operating on the basis of fear with all the appropriate catchwords of “crisis” and “catastrophe”, real or imagined, PO and the liberal dominated congress have cowed many of the American public into believing that only government, huge bloated government, spending astronomical amounts of money, can save us.

There is a better way and it requires some sacrifice by everyone. But then, when is the last time we ever heard a politician asking for sacrifice?

Posted by: Jim M at February 18, 2009 03:23 PM

Jim M

“when is the last time we ever heard a politician asking for sacrifice?”

your right, they don’t ask for it, they ram it down our throats, and unfortunately is always involves the sacrifice of our personal liberties, and the fruits of our labors in the form of more big gov’t nanny state solutions.

Posted by: dbs at February 18, 2009 03:35 PM

dbs, on retired executives. I think you miss the psychology of the situation. I have worked as a counselor for federal prisoners, and a psychiatric technician with adolescents. I can assure you from that personal experience and from common sense that my approach and objectives in working with federal prisoners was radically different than my approach and objectives with psychiatrically diagnosed adolescents. Employees take their objectives and approach from their employer.

Retired employees would be no different. They may have worked with the OIL industry in their career, but, if called out of retirement by the government to provide expert and unbiased advice on national energy policy, I see no incentive for them to subvert their new employer and income in deference to their previous employers. Their pensions and shares are not vulnerable after retirement to the whims of previous employers, but are legal contracts which can be upheld in the courts. They have nothing to fear from their previous employers after retirement.

They may be limited by group think and inability to think outside the industry box, but, that is a factor to be considered in the hiring of ANY expert in any field.

Hiring retiree experts for Congressional advisory positions or conservator roles does not, as some have said here in their comments, present a problem with the retirees beholding to previous employers. That is nonsense to make some other point. And common sense and vast employment experience demonstrates the notion of previous employer loyalty overriding current employer requirements and objectives, is just pure nonsense, with the rare exception and anecdote always present for sophists who would argue the converse.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 18, 2009 04:03 PM

Industry Experts ?

Experts of what ?

Fraud ?

Government is FOR-SALE, as evidenced by the 99.7% of all 200 Million eligible voters who are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/OpenSecrets_DonorDemographics.htm).

Perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan when enough of the voters are deep in-debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry ?
What’s it going to take ?
25% unemployment ?
20,000 foreclosures per day ?
More regressive taxation ?
20 or 30 more million illegal aliens ?
A few million more (over the 1.5 Million) per year of foreign workers to take jobs from the 11-to-25 Million unemployed Americans ?
Or the continued deterioration of these economic conditions which have never been worse ever, and/or since the Great Depression ?

And how many of those so-called industry experts and economists saw this economic melt-down coming ?
After all, you didn’t have to be exceptionally bright or clairvoyant to see this economic mess approaching for several years.
Federal Per-capita debt has never been larger ever. Including the $12.8 Trillion pilfered from Social Security, total federal debt has never been worse ever in size, per-capita, and as a percentage of GDP.
Yet, today we are being told it is a credit crisis.
HHHHMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm … think so?
No. It’s a debt crisis, and greed runs all through it.
The Federal Reserve is a giant Ponzi-scheme, which creates debt at a steep ratio of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves.
It must be nice to create money out of thin air (i.e. upto 90% of every loan), and then receive the interest on each loan.

There’s just one problem. It’s like playing the game of Monopoly in which one player (the banker) can print all the money they want. Before long, the bank owns everything, and everyone else is broke or deep in-debt. Cha Ching! And better yet, even if the banks fail, the Federal Reserve and the federal government simply print up some more money. But there’s another problem with that too. Eventually, the U.S. dollar is worthless. Already, a 1950 Dollar is worth only 10 cents. We have had 52 consecutive years of inflation and federal deficit spending. The consequences of decades of fiscal and moral bankruptcy are starting to be felt. Many economic conditions are now worse then ever, and/or since the Great Depression (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm).

The world has been experimenting with fiat funny-money for almost a decade. The debt bubbles (world wide) have grown ever larger, as evidenced by the total nation-wide debt which has almost quintupled from 100% of GDP in 1956 to 483% of GDP in 2008. That debt bubble can’t grow much bigger, and creating Trillions of dollars out of thin air will almost certainly lead to another economic terror which will make a bad situaiton worse: Hyperinflation

How many times do we have to bail out the banks, corporations, Wall Street, auto-makers, etc., etc., etc.? Now, instead of lowering the usurious Adjustable Rate Mortgate rates, and stopping a myriad of other abuses, it appears home-owners are going to get bailed out too.

Why can’t the government simply STOP these 10 major absues, which would save hundreds of billions per year and reduce the abuses hammering most Americans?
But OOOOOOOHHHHhhhh … right.
That would make too much sense wouldn’t it?
Congress is where common-sense ideas and solutions go to die.

Instead of addressing those 10 major abuses, the federal government is going from (1) one extreme (i.e. unfettered capitalism and a myriad of forms of unchecked greed and abuse of power and wealth) to (2) the other extreme (i.e. a cradle-to-grave nanny-state, that rewards failure, and nurtures a sense of entitlement and the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else).

Both are pathetic.
There seems to very few (if any) in our severely bloated, wasteful, corrupt federal government that isn’t FOR-SALE or cheats on their taxes.
Yet, most voters continue to reward those very same incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite the fickle voters’ dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for the severely irresponsible, incompetent, FOR-SALE, and corrupt Congress (which just gave itself its 10th raise in 12 years and an additional $93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expenses, while U.S. troops risk life and limb, go without armor, go without adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4+ tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan). Yet, on 4-NOV-2008, most U.S. voters rewarded Congress with 86.9% re-election rates.

The problem isn’t just Congress.
It’s the majority of voters who repeatedly reward their malfeasance with re-election and annual raises in salary, petty cash, and other unfair incumbent advantages.

Well, the voters will reap what they sow.
It’s too bad their children, grand children, great grand children, and great-great- … -great grandchildren will have to also suffer for it for many decades to come.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2009 04:53 PM

d.a.n, telecommunications, infrastructure engineering, health care delivery infrastructure, insurance, finance, etc. etc. etc.

Congress people are not versed in these areas of specialization by education or experience, and hence, when legislating policy in or over these industries, they have to seek counsel from industry experts in these areas, which are routinely aired in Congressional Committee hearings on C-Span.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 18, 2009 06:37 PM

What good does it do, since Congress is FOR-SALE?
Congress still carries the water for their big-money puppeteers, and then Congress gives itself its 10th raise in 12 years and an additional $93,000 for each Congress person for petty cash and expenses.
Especially when voters repeatedly reward Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite voters’ dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2009 07:00 PM

No amount of “seek[ing] counsel” will trump greed and corruption in D.C., which needs a good flush.

Only the inevitable pain and misery it will bring most Americans is likely to bring about any real CHANGE.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2009 07:03 PM

d.a.n, NOT relying on paid industry experts for information in drafting legislative policy is part of the solution to Congress being FOR SALE.

Of course, you are right when you say ultimately the solution to government for sale is the voters refusing to vote for THEIR representatives who foster government for sale. But, that was not what this article was about.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 18, 2009 07:04 PM

Congress will remain FOR-SALE as long as 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.

Money is power, and power corrupts as long as government is FOR-SALE.

I’m OK with Congress not relying solely on so-called industry experts to shape legislation. However, lobbyists swarming all over D.C. is what shapes legislation, because Congress is FOR-SALE.

Until enough voters figure it out, the majority of voters had better get ready for hard times they have brought onto themselves by loving THEIR party more than their country.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2009 07:35 PM

David R. Remer wrote: To date, Congressional reliance upon industry executives has proven to be contrary to public interests again and again.

And why is that?

Why do we have 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens in the U.S., despite most Americans wanting it stopped?

Why does the U.S. government continue to import 1.5 Million foreign workers (via H-1B Visa abuse) when 11-to-25 Americans are unemployed?

The federal government is a joke, but what does it say about the majority of Americans who repeatedly reward Congress with 85%-top-90% re-election rates?

And to top it all off, Congress just gave itself its 10th raise in 12 years, plus 93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expenses.

The arrogance, incompetence, and greed of the Congress knows no bounds.

What’s it going to take?

I guess it’s going to take 25% unemployment, 20,000 foreclosures per day, millions of homeless and hungry before enough voters finally question their bad voting habits.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2009 07:45 PM

David, without other more basic and fundamental changes in the federal government, such oversight by other organizations is just as likely to be as FOR-SALE as Congress. What we need first is a Congress that isn’t FOR-SALE. As long as Congress is still FOR-SALE, they will still pander to their wealthy and powerful puppeteers.

Only the voters can change it (if ever). I think voters will change it some day, when failing to do so finally becomes too painful.

Any way, a lot of ideas we see and hear that are designed to make Congress more responsible and accountable are all futile when Congress is FOR-SALE.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2009 07:53 PM

d.a.n said to David R. Remer wrote: To date, Congressional reliance upon industry executives has proven to be contrary to public interests again and again.

“And why is that?”

Part of the answer is found in this article.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 18, 2009 07:54 PM

d.a.n. said: “Any way, a lot of ideas we see and hear that are designed to make Congress more responsible and accountable are all futile when Congress is FOR-SALE.”

Actually that is akin to a tautology, in which there is no logical remedy whatsoever as long as Congress exists.

The whole purpose and design of our democratic republic is to permit changing of the government by the people. Not just the elected politicians.

I refuse to believe that the only choices, which you imply by your statement above are: get rid of Congress or allow the current system to fail and start all over.

It is too easy to give in to the negative when the environment is negative. Let’s not do that. Let’s instead, buck up our courage in the face of adversity and expect and demand and work for better from our government as so many other generations of Americans did during times of adversity and darkening clouds upon the American horizon. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Civil Rights civil disobedience era, and the attack on Pearl Harbor were no less challenging to those generations of Americans than this current economic crisis is to ours.

We can overcome this. But, we have to first believe we can, for without that, there is no effort to.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 18, 2009 08:02 PM

Of course in the end it’s all our faults for voting for them. I’m from Missouri and sometimes they get me, I have to vote for the Dem because the Rep’s against the things I believe in. Back to the subject, I agree the main problem is the money. If politicians weren’t in such dire need of money, they could get advice from all the experts they could find but the lobbyists wouldn’t be writing the bills. That’s why I still say we need an amendment to the constitution to make all campaign adds illegal. It’s drastic but it’s also simple and strait forward. About the only detail capable of holding devils would be deciding what constitutes a campaign add. Of course the media would never allow anything like that since campaign adds are the most lucrative adds there are.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at February 18, 2009 09:31 PM

David wrote: “The whole purpose and design of our democratic republic is to permit changing of the government by the people. Not just the elected politicians.”

I prefer the goals that I posted earlier from an article by Gary Wood. “Our foundational goal was set in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, that same document used today as merely a symbol by Washington D.C. while the federal government unites in ending the dream for our posterity. Grant a moment to consider the original goals;
1. To form a more perfect union
2. Establish justice
3. Insure domestic tranquility
4. Provide for the common defense
5. Promote the general Welfare
6. Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
These six goals were sewn together by the Constitution and, if each generation kept them as their barometer, the American dream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be feasible. By focusing on these goals our success passed from possible to highly probable. When we take time to use these to measure what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will actually do for all 6 we see it will do nothing to keep our American dream alive. It will, however, insure we have begun the end and moved to insure the blessings of liberty will not be a gift our posterity will receive.”

David wrote: “It is too easy to give in to the negative when the environment is negative. Let’s not do that. Let’s instead, buck up our courage in the face of adversity and expect and demand and work for better from our government as so many other generations of Americans did during times of adversity and darkening clouds upon the American horizon. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Civil Rights civil disobedience era, and the attack on Pearl Harbor were no less challenging to those generations of Americans than this current economic crisis is to ours.”

I’ve bucked up my courage primarily through the activities of Pres. Andrew Jackson. That man walked into the temple and tossed the money changers out. That was the problem then and that’s the problem today. Institutional greed rum rampant. Our government is a subsidiary of big business. People have “work(ed) for better from our government” since Andrew left the Presidency, to no avail. I’m taking Thomas Jefferson at his word in that we need a revolution every 20 years or so or we want have any use for the #1 thru #6.

Only way to restore our Constitution, our sovereignty, and the democratic principles we used to live by is through the power of a new 3rd Party with a different political attitude.

Otherwise, we deserve the government we have.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 18, 2009 09:39 PM

Mike The Cynic, you went full circle on that one. But I agree with your final analysis. It ain’t goin to happen. Just like Article V Convention won’t happen. The status quo is cemented in. Mess with it an you’ll loose your cohony’s (sic). Andrew Jackson believed money was the problem. Since then history has shown that others agreed that money is the problem. We all agree that money is the problem. So, what is the answer? How do we remove the influence of money from politics? I’d like to hear some recommendations.
I have one. A new 3rd Party that provides oversight for elected officials, puts accountability into the political equation, drives an agenda that is targeted at reform of government, (abolish corporate personhood, money is free speech, and routes and distributes all donations through the FEC. If the members elected to state or federal office stray to far from the Party’s agenda they are subject to rejection from the Party, becoming withering grapes on the vine.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 18, 2009 09:51 PM

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n. said: “Any way, a lot of ideas we see and hear that are designed to make Congress more responsible and accountable are all futile when Congress is FOR-SALE.”

Actually that is akin to a tautology, in which there is no logical remedy whatsoever as long as Congress exists.

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n. said: “Any way, a lot of ideas we see and hear that are designed to make Congress more responsible and accountable are all futile when Congress is FOR-SALE.”

Actually that is akin to a tautology, in which there is no logical remedy whatsoever as long as Congress exists.

The point is, as long as voters reward Congress for being corrupt, they shouldn’t expect anything but more pain and misery.

I’ve also recommended many solutions, such as One-Purpose-Per-BILL, Article-V, etc., etc., etc., but it is obvious that Congress is where ideas and common-sense solutions go to die, as long as most voters reward Congress for it.

The problem isn’t only Congress, but it’s the voters too.

David R. Remer wrote: The whole purpose and design of our democratic republic is to permit changing of the government by the people. Not just the elected politicians.

True. That’s what Article V was about too, but Congress has been blatantly violating Article V for about 100 years, as evidenced by these 730 Article V Applications from all 50 states.

David R. Remer wrote: I refuse to believe that the only choices, which you imply by your statement above are: get rid of Congress or allow the current system to fail and start all over.

When I said D.C. needs a good flush and Congress is FOR-SALE, that does not mean we should get rid of Congress. It means voters would be wise to stop repeatedly rewarding the irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress. There’s a difference.

I’ve consistently promoted the idea that it is up to voters to stop repeatedly rewarding corrupt, irresponsible, FOR-SALE, and incompetent politicians with re-election, unless the voters want to feel more pain and misery. There is little doubt that repeatedly rewarding corrupt, irresponsible, FOR-SALE, and incompetent politicians with re-election will lead to more pain and misery.

As it is today, ho can name 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable?
Perhaps the voters should start holding Congress responsible as a whole, instead of trying to figure out who (if anyone) is responsible and accountable? Unless someone can name at least 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, what does it mean about Congress as a whole, and the voters that repeatedly reward those same incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election?

David R. Remer wrote: It is too easy to give in to the negative when the environment is negative.

There’s a difference between giving in to the negative, and identifying serious problems, the root causes, and identifying the voters as the key to the solution to a problem of their own making. Especially when so many people still think THEIR party is now on the right path. It ain’t even close. There are 10 major abuses that could be reduced that would save most Americans hundreds of billions (possibly trillions) per year, but the federal government totally ignores those 10 major abuses.

Besides, there is no “giv[ing] into the negative”, or giving up simply because I think we are still on the wrong path, getting deeper and deeper into debt (which is already near/already untenable). Recommending that voters stop repeatedly rewarding Congress with re-election does not equate to “giv[ing] in to the negative when the environment is negative”. It’s just plain old common-sense. This new 111th Congress is no better than the 110th Congress, but then there’s little wonder why when 86.9% of all incumbents in the 110th Congress were rewarded with re-election to the 111th Congress.

David R. Remer wrote: Let’s not do that. Let’s instead, buck up our courage in the face of adversity and expect and demand and work for better from our government as so many other generations of Americans did during times of adversity and darkening clouds upon the American horizon.

I’m not giving up. But the voters are the key to real CHANGE. And the key is to get real CHANGE (for the better) soon than later, because later will be more painful.

Just because I think Congress is pathetic, corrupt, incompetent, and FOR-SALE doesn’t mean I’ve given up on the institution of Congress or a democratic republic. It really means I think voters have the government that they deserve and that they’d better wake up or suffer the painful consequences. The sooner the better. Regardless, a lot of pain and misery is already in the pipeline. The massive debt bubble has grown larger. The fiat-funny-money, Ponzi-scheme, monetary system is coming to the end of its cycle, as evidenced by 90%-to-95% of all U.S. dollars in the U.S. that exist as debt, and record-level nation-wide debt, record-level government debt, and numerous economic conditions that have never been worse ever, and/or since the Great Depression. If that sounds negative, then it’s not giving into the negative. It’s because the economic conditions are negative and likely to get worse if we stay on this current path of fiscal and moral bankruptcy.

David R. Remer wrote: The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Civil Rights civil disobedience era, and the attack on Pearl Harbor were no less challenging to those generations of Americans than this current economic crisis is to ours.

Yes, but what about the Great Depression? That lasted a decade. What we have today is more similar to the Great Depression. This recession could easily turn into something worse and last longer. There are many economic conditions that are worse today than in the Great Depression.

David R. Remer wrote: We can overcome this. But, we have to first believe we can, for without that, there is no effort to.

Yes, we can overcome it, but each day we move farther to the other extreme (of the two extremes listed below), the less likely that will happen anytime soon … at least, not until it becomes too painful.

The TWO Extremes:

• (1) One extreme wants unfettered capitalism, a myriad of forms of unchecked greed, and abuse of power and wealth (which we’ve seen a lot of this last decade).


• (2) The other extreme, which is a cradle-to-grave nanny-state, that rewards failure, bloat, waste, laziness, nurtures a sense of entitlement, and perpetuates the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else)

I think the majority of Americans want something more moderate, but there appears to be no one in government to represent those Americans.
The voters are the key.
They can try to muster up the motivation to do something about it as soon as possible, and in subsequent elections, or they can wait until they are motivated by pain, misery, joblessness, homelessness, hunger, and poverty.
The majority of American voters are culpable too, and they only have themselves to thank for it, since:

• 40%-to-50% of voters do not care to vote at all.


• too many voters love THEIR party more than their country.


• too many politicians in the federal government are FOR-SALE, but too many voters repeatedly reward those politicians with re-election.


• Congress carries the water for their big-money puppeteers (corporations and their owners and operators) who fill the politicians’ campaign war-chests;


• incumbent politicians have many that make their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies more secure; source: One-Simple-Idea.com/FAQ.htm#UnfairAdvantages”>unfair advantages


• Congress is programmed (by voters) to ignore the electorate, since voters repeatedly reward Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite voters’ dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress;


• Congress just gave itself its 10th raise in 12 years, plus an extra $93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expense. Cha Ching! All while U.S. Troops risk life and limb, go without adequate medical care, go without promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4 or more tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.


• too many voters choose to put party before everything else … at least, until that becomes too painful;


• too many voters fail to see how the clever No-Same-Party-Challenger mechanism keeps the incumbent politicians’ re-election rates high, and their incumbents’ incumbencies more secure, since most voters will NEVER vote for challengers in the OTHER evil party, despite the voters’ dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress, and despite their inability to name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or merely 268 (half of 535) incumbent politicians in Congress that are not irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and/or incompetent, and deserve re-election. Too many voters find it easier to pretend that the problem is everyone else’s incumbent politicians, and/or ONLY the OTHER party. Since too many voters have been convinced to hate the politicians in the OTHER party, those voters are more likely to re-elect the incumbent politicians in THEIR party, despite the fact that the incumbent politicians in THEIR party are equally irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and/or incompetent. As a result, often, even convicted felons if ever indicted or convicted, many receive pardons or commuted sentences; placing them above the law. And even if convicted and incarcerated, many still receive their multi-million dollar pensions and benefits.


• too many voters focus on indeterminable issues issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc.), to fuel the circular partisan warfare, rather than build unity to solve many other pressing problems that most voters already agree upon (i.e. both the problem and solution).


• too many voters succumb to group-think and lazily choose to wallow in the circular, distracting, divisive, partisan warfare. And politicians love to fuel it for obvious reasons. Many politicians are experts at fueling the circular partisan warfare, and capitalizing on many voters’ laziness, and propensity to pull the party-lever. Who among us has never pulled the party-lever? The party-lever was one of the many clever mechanisms that help maintain very high re-election rates for incumbent politicians.


• too many voters lazily choose to be partisan-centric or people-centric, instead of principle centric, educated, and informed. The lazy way is only easier for a short while, but eventually there are painful consequences for choosing the lazy route. However, people are imperfect, but principles are timeless. Too many voters are not aware of their own principles, much less the principles and policies of their own incumbent politicians. Most voters only care about the politician’s party affiliation, and little (if anything) more.


• too many voters let THEIR party do their thinking for them, assume that THEIR party has already carefully thought most things all through, and is truly lookin’ out for them, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary and the voters’ dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress. The truth is embarrassing, which explains the reluctance to face the truth, and the stubborness to take a serious look at THEIR own party.


• too many voters simply blame the OTHER party, rather than admit few (if any) real differences of any importance between the parties.


• too many voters lazily and blindly pull the party-lever, rather than do the work to research voting records, deeds, and official positions and policies. Many voters don’t even know who their Congress persons are, much less their voting records.


• too many voters fail to understand that short-sighted selfishness, laziness, and choosing the path of least resistance, like water running down-hill, is the path to MORE pain and misery; fueling and wallowing in the distracting, circular, divisive partisan-warfare is the opium of the masses and the path to MORE pain and misery, and too many incumbent politicians love to fuel it to distract from their own negligence, incompetence, corruption, and malfeasance;


• 99.7% of all 200 Million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more;


• 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (ususally the incumbent politician); source: One-Simple-Idea.com/OpenSecrets_DonorDemographics.htm


• too many voters choose to ignore the important issues even THEIR own politicians are wrong about (e.g. illegal immigration, regressive taxation, unnecessary wars, constitutional violations, and numerous other abuses), or sacrifice previous held principles by mimicing a pretzel while trying to somehow rationalize, minimize, and/or justify those abuses.


• too many voters rationalize blind partisan loyalty with the excuses such as “the OTHER party is worse” (which isn’t likely true to any significan degree, except for the usual shift of abused power and obstructionism available to the current IN-PARTY/OUT-PART);


• too many voters choose to blame anything and everybody but themselves … at least until that becomes too painful.

Any way, I don’t think One-Purpose-Per-BILL, or TERM-LIMITs, or Article V, or insulation from so-called industry experts is the real single solution. They are things that should be done if it increases transparency and accountability. But something else is very-badly needed FIRST. Something that voters were supposed to be doing all along. Those solutions (e.g. One-Purpose-Per-BILL, TERM-LIMITS, etc.) only address the symptoms without addressing the disease. The only way to cure the disease is to vote-out all FOR-SALE, incompetent, irresponsible, and corrupt incumbent politicians and then demand more transparency and accountability. Otherwise, government is FOR-SALE, money is power, power corrupts, and repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election only makes Congress and the federal government more corrupt. And that corruption will be accompanied by more economic deterioration which will most likely last for a very long time.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2009 10:05 PM

d.a.n said: “When I said D.C. needs a good flush and Congress is FOR-SALE, that does not mean we should get rid of Congress. It means voters would be wise to stop repeatedly rewarding the irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress.”

Agree, wholeheartedly. That will take a generation or more for voters to become that wise. In the meantime, there are other measures that can be worked on to speed the reform of our government and underwrite the growing wisdom of voters to stomp on their representatives on election day for being corrupt, inept, ignorant, or ineffective in improving government.

But, d.a.n, it is giving in to the negative to insist on a solution overnight which is impossible to occur overnight. Reforming the way voters view and hold accountable their representatives cannot be done in one, two, three, or even elections conducted every 2 years.

It is enormous progress in growing the wisdom of voters that registered independent voters now outnumber Dems or Reps. That is a major milestone en route to the voters en masses holding Congress responsible for results. But, this growing of the independent voters has been underway now since 1994. It will take a generation or more to realize the objective you cite.

It is giving in to say until then, nothing can be done and it will all collapse because voters can’t be educated in time to take responsibility for the results of their government. And there is no getting around the reality that it will be decades before the majority of voters will take that responsibility.

The political parties are designed to make voters feel good, useful, important cogs in a social community to which they belong. It will take time to counter that structure, and independent voters are proof that we are moving in that direction.

Until then however, we must maximize our citizen’s influence over government by voicing our objective critiques not just on blogs so other citizens can benefit, but to our representatives as well.

One day, they, whomever is in office on that day, will see the writing on the wall, and it will be THEY who make the real reforms in government, after independent voters have demonstrated they control elections in no uncertain terms. Which began to be apparent in 2006 and 2008. But, independent voters are by no means a consistent group with a common agenda. Their commonality is in their divorce from the Rep. and Dem. Parties. But, that is nonetheless a giant step toward a future when voters are loyal to government results, not political parties.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2009 01:24 AM

d.a.n said: “The TWO Extremes:

* (1) One extreme wants unfettered capitalism, a myriad of forms of unchecked greed, and abuse of power and wealth (which we’ve seen a lot of this last decade).

* (2) The other extreme, which is a cradle-to-grave nanny-state, that rewards failure, bloat, waste, laziness, nurtures a sense of entitlement, and perpetuates the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else)”

I have to disagree. Those are the extremes of the Republican and Democratic Party. The rapid and large growth in Independent voters is evidence these two extremes are losing ground, not gaining it. In fact, the more extreme the wings of the parties get, the more registered independent voters there will be to demand solutions that work.

The extremes are not winning here, the rolls of registered independent voters and losses in the rolls of Dem and Rep party registered voters is the reality. And that is in part victory for the movement demanding that representatives be held accountable on election day for results, not unkept promises or reasons why they were so ineffective.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2009 01:29 AM

There’s a difference, David, between somebody who picked up information in their spare time on the internet, and somebody whose life has been intertwined with the subject through concentrated education and professional interaction. Is it elitist of me to say this? No. The distinction between being egalitarian and elitist is not one of skill, but one of how much you respect the people who aren’t where you are on certain subjects, or on the socioeconomic ladder.

The question is one of another kind of interest, besides the professional. What we would want is somebody who has concentrated knowledge and experience of the field.

What we don’t want is somebody who was basically like those folks the Tobacco industry hired to sow doubt about the science of smoking. What we don’t want is a global warming contrarian who publishes in journals focused on the humanities, and whose “science” is either cooked-up, poorly modelled, or represents concerns and theories already addressed in the larger scientific community.

In short, what we don’t want are people whose job was explicitly to push a political point, and nothing else, the lobbyists and the hacks who use the language of these professional fields to sow doubt as to the inconvenient truths of the field.

That’s not going to be easy, but it makes more sense than attempting to find qualified candidates in the tiers of thoe who have lost their jobs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2009 07:21 AM

I have to disagree with you David, on Dan’s The TWO Extremes:
* (1) One extreme wants unfettered capitalism, a myriad of forms of unchecked greed, and abuse of power and wealth (which we’ve seen a lot of this last decade).
* (2) The other extreme, which is a cradle-to-grave nanny-state, that rewards failure, bloat, waste, laziness, nurtures a sense of entitlement, and perpetuates the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else)

These messed up extremes keep people voting for the two parties. “I’d like to vote 3rd party but so and so scares me too much.”

Besides what’s wrong with an amendment to the constitution making campaign adds illegal? It would be more possible than getting a 3rd party in office. But that’s not saying much.

It took Barack $750,000,000,000.00 to become president. It will go over a billion in 2012 or 2016. This way the corporations can make sure any nominee is vetted by them. We have to find a way to take the money out of it, or there never will be a viable 3rd party.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at February 19, 2009 08:01 AM

Oops too many zeros, that should have been $750,000,000.00 Barack spent.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at February 19, 2009 08:03 AM

Mike the Cynic asked: “Besides what’s wrong with an amendment to the constitution making campaign adds illegal?”

Good idea. Except then, elections would be put considerably more in the hands of the publicity folks, and to a large extent that would mean editorialists, who have their own biased agendas just as devious as the political parties.

And then there is the First Amendment guaranteeing the right to freedom of political speech, which includes the right of a person running for office to solicit contributions to pay others to help him get his message out to folks he/she doesn’t directly come in contact with. Not a small exception to the good idea.

I think the Supreme Court found the best balance in protecting the right’s of individuals to contribute to candidates and parties to help pay for the public’s access to their political speech, but, finding nothing unconstitutional in government limiting the amounts of money that an individual may contribute to individuals or parties. I don’t agree with the current limits, but limits in general strike the right philosophical and constitutional balance.

The difference between a bribe and freedom of political expression and support for candidate or party, defies a hard clean line to be drawn. Hence, where the laws against bribery laid down in the Constitution conflict with the 1st Amendment right to political free speech, a balanced approach protecting the integrity of both is the only rational approach.

At the heart of any contribution to a candidate or party is the intent of the contributor and the perceived obligation - duty of the candidate/party to that contributor. Both are virtually impossible to prove in a court of law without a sane and truthful confession. Again, a balanced approach which protects both liberty and defends the laws against bribery as a form of corruption, is best.

Where there is room for much action is when the question is applied NOT to individuals, but, non-individual legal entities such as corporations or unions of various sorts and their agents. I think we would find large area for agreement that the Constitution never intended to protect the freedom of political speech and influence of entities other individual American citizens.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2009 09:20 AM

Stephen D. said: “There’s a difference, David, between somebody who picked up information in their spare time on the internet”

Yes, but that difference is diminishing. You seem to be hung up on respecting the knowledge and wisdom of only those whose learning was obtained by the institutions of higher learning promoted and to various degrees controlled by the elitists with special interests. This country was founded in large part by those who were self-taught. Abraham Lincoln was a self-taught lawyer, and never attended any steenking Ivy League institution of higher brainwashing.

Democracy places a degree, not the whole ball of wax, of trust in the wisdom and education, formal and informal, of the citizenry. I can’t recall a Committee Hearing on C-Span which had called any Abraham Lincoln’s to testify before it. Our nation has an enormous amount of brain power and expertise which has not been ordained by the institutions of certification in industrial dogma.

The problem is we don’t have Congresspersons who can tell the wise or expert uncertified citizen from the demented on our streets who would have been psychiatrically institutionalized in the early 1960’s. In other words, our political system no longer trusts common sense, preferring instead certified dogmatic, industrialized, and institutionalized sense passing its paid biases off as objective expert opinion.

But, given that our nation does put so much stock in institutionalized certified experts from Ivy League schools, bringing together the executives of the financial institutions to advise Congress on what those institutions need to keep from plunging the nation into a Depression is just a little bit NON-sensical, don’t you think? Wouldn’t academicians serve Congress with a more likely objective counsel than the executives of the financial institutions, and with more up to date data and information than financial exec’s in their roles for years are likely to have?

Think about it. Common sense just doesn’t have any currency in American systems anymore. It has been replaced by tort systems opposed to good judgment, and rules which make mincemeat of exceptional circumstances. Someone needs to make a case for a return to the Common Sense of the likes of Thomas Paine, if our nation is to return to its founding ideals and realization of its potential therein.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2009 09:42 AM

David, your common sense approach to common sense makes good common sense to me. It’s not that most folks don’t have common sense any more. It’s that folks in high positions have an agenda that overrides their common sense. Most always the agenda they will push is backed by money.
We hear it all the time on watchblog that, yes a 3rd party would be nice but it’s an impossiblilty, could never happen, etc. Just blows me away. Cost too much money, takes to long, etc. David wrote: “Reforming the way voters view and hold accountable their representatives cannot be done in one, two, three, or even elections conducted every 2 years. “ “It is enormous progress in growing the wisdom of voters that registered independent voters now outnumber Dems or Reps.” “this growing of the independent voters has been underway now since 1994. It will take a generation or more to realize the objective you cite.” “there is no getting around the reality that it will be decades before the majority of voters will take that responsibility.” “Until then however, we must maximize our citizen’s influence over government by voicing our objective critiques not just on blogs so other citizens can benefit, but to our representatives as well.” “One day, they, whomever is in office on that day, will see the writing on the wall, and it will be THEY who make the real reforms in government, after independent voters have demonstrated they control elections in no uncertain terms.”

And, you get that same vein of thought from so many Independents. So, David, you want to deny a 3rd Party as being to difficult while voicing the comments above. You are willing to hang in here and blog for generations HOPING that “one day, they, whomever is in office on that day, will see the writing on the wall and it will be THEY who make the real reforms in government”. WOW, Wasn’t Obama supposed to do that? The CHANGE man, who is going to Canada today to reaffirm to the Can’s that he won’t renegotiate NAFTA. Getting off the subject — -

Is it not possible for our brains to handle two tasks at the same time. David, why put your apples in one basket HOPING that somewhere in the future a messiah will come and save us. Just push the duopoly aside and save us. WOW!

Why is it not possible for you to support your approach of blogging them into submission, and AVC, and VOID and a new and different 3rd Party at the same time? You not only don’t support the idea of a 3rd Party, you deny that it’s a possibility.

Mike The Cynic, get with it. Are you going to hold out for a Constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform? Don’t know your age, but you don’t have enuff time Mike.

I urge you Indies; support whatever you like but DO support a new 3rd Party with a different political attitude. Mike, you said: “It took Barack $750,000,000.00 to become president. It will go over a billion in 2012 or 2016. This way the corporations can make sure any nominee is vetted by them. We have to find a way to take the money out of it, or there never will be a viable 3rd party.” You hear that a lot. Mike, ask yourself why elections cost so much. Why is the election cycle 2 years and growing now? All that is not necessary but is done to overwhelm the 3rd parties and keep the media ever so happy. 80% of campaign money is spent on TV ads. And, recall that we barely saw the 3rd party candidates through the media.

Consider: a new 3rd Party that operates with mostly volunteers. You could be one. That sets a reform agenda to cut the election period to six months, demands free and balanced air time for candidates of the top five or six Parties, since the airwaves belong to the public in the first place. An agenda that advocates for election day being a national holiday, mandates that citizens vote. And, maybe it’s a good idea to hold all primaries on the same day across the country. All that in six months with free media for all. Sure, the first election or two while this new party is coming to power would be rough competing with the duopoly. But your not just operating on hope. Your going to get reform of government for your effort. Abolishment of Corporate Personhood, Money is Free Speech, all donations through the 1040 IRS form to a reorganized FEC that will collect and distribute the funds equally to the top five or six parties candidates. You get REFORM of government. Don’t you think people would strongly support that? Let’s not blog ourselves to death hoping for some messiah. What say ye?

Otherwise we have the government we deserve - - for a real long long time to come.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 19, 2009 11:35 AM

Extra-addded attraction! When you are thinking of supporting a 3rd Party don’t just go off willy-nillie and pick any old Party. You should want to support a Party that can:

Put accountability into the political equation

Present an agenda that solely targets government reform

Act as a countervailing force against the duopoly

Provide for membership oversight of elected or appointed officials. If an elected official strays too far from the Party’s agenda or just goes crazi he/she can be rejected from the Party if they fail to garner 66% of the majority vote.

Does the duopoly or any 3rd Party offer you that in writing? This is a Party that can achieve government reform, flat tax, fair trade and balanced budgets. You gotta like that!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 19, 2009 11:55 AM

Stephen Daugherty,

What we don’t want is somebody who was basically like those folks the Tobacco industry hired to sow doubt about the science of smoking.

Another example of “lobbyist” and “lawyer” meaning virtually the same thing. The Constitution draws no distinction between those who seek redress of their grievances alone and those who get help.

I keep seeing people trying to systematize good sense, but you can’t do it without denying somebody the chance to make really valid points.

It is up to us, you and me and the rest of the voting public, to try to get representation that can exercise good sense for us. It’s why I think of citizenship as an office, and not just a right.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 19, 2009 12:24 PM

David R. Remer-
The internet does not change the nature of time or expertise. Perhaps somebody might, in an amateur capacity, learn enough from the internet to function well, even excellently in a field. But learning in that way is rarely as effective as learning in a structured environment, whether that’s in a professional or academic capacity.

It’s a matter of efficiency and focus. Most people are doing other things, concentrating their energies on other things. People will learn best what they are immersed in, what they do day to day.

Lee Jamison-
What we need is solid judgment, the ability to understand not merely what is valid, but what is sound. I don’t want somebody who’s entire career was devoted to spreading misinformation. I want somebody who can do the management and decision making required to serve the country’s interests. Don’t give me “Heckuva Job” Brownie, give me James Lee Witt. Give me somebody who won’t favor a company line over the truth. Give me somebody who is competent enough that they don’t make wrong decisions when put under the pressure of critical situations.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2009 02:31 PM

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n said: “When I said D.C. needs a good flush and Congress is FOR-SALE, that does not mean we should get rid of Congress. It means voters would be wise to stop repeatedly rewarding the irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress.”

Agree, wholeheartedly. That will take a “generation” or more for voters to become that wise.

A “generation” may be too long, and it really doesn’t have to take that long.

The thing is, when things get painful enough, it will change fairly quickly.
I’m not giving up by wanting and expecting better sooner.

David R. Remer wrote: In the meantime, there are other measures that can be worked on to speed the reform of our government and underwrite the growing wisdom of voters to stomp on their representatives on election day for being corrupt, inept, ignorant, or ineffective in improving government.

Yes, the voters’ wisdom is growing, via learning the hard and painful way, which is the built-in automatic fail-safe. The sooner, the better, because the longer it takes, the more painful it will get.

David R. Remer wrote: But, d.a.n, it is giving in to the negative to insist on a solution overnight which is impossible to occur overnight.

Not really. Just wait and see how fast things can change when the majority of voters’ threshhold for pain is finally reached.

Again, wanting and expecting better sooner is not “giving up”.

David R. Remer wrote: Reforming the way voters view and hold accountable their representatives cannot be done in one, two, three, or even elections conducted every 2 years.

It should be, and it can be. If 2-to-3 cycles (i.e. 2-to-6 years) isn’t enough, then we’ll never be able to avoid repeatedly learning the hard and painful way. The problem isn’t only time. The problem isn’t only Congress. The problem is also the majority of voters. However, I’m confident that when the majority of voters have felt enough pain and misery, we may very likely observe very rapid changes many thought were impossible. The only thing stopping positvie change, and/or preventing more rapid reforms is the majority voters who have not yet been sufficiently motivated to do their duty to get educated about their government and the fiscal and moral bankruptcy of their FOR-SALE Congress (as evidenced by (a)40%-to-50% of voters who don’t even bother to vote at all; (b)86.9% re-election rates for Congress on 4-NOV-2008 despite voters’ dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress; (c)99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters who are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations to the FOR-SALE Congress; (d)voters love THEIR party more than their country; (e)and all of that while Congress gives itself its 10th raise in 12 years plus another $93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expenses; all while U.S. troops risk life and limb, go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4+ tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan; etc., etc., etc.).

David R. Remer wrote: It is enormous progress in growing the wisdom of voters that registered independent voters now outnumber Dems or Reps. That is a major milestone en route to the voters en masses holding Congress responsible for results.

Yes, there has been progress, but not enough. Too many voters appear to be deluding themselves that this Congress and administration is doing the right thing. It isn’t (in my opinion) by growing the already ridiculously massive debt ever larger when that debt is already near (if not already) untenable; the $10.8 Trillion Naitonal Debt is 62% higher than the previous record-high National Debt per-capita in year 1945 after World War II, and the largest debt ever in size, per-capita, and as a percentage of GDP when including the $12.8 Trillion pilfered from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching. And to top it all off, the recent Stimulus BILL is full of pork-barrel (e.g. $50 Million for National Endowment for the Arts; $650 Million to pay for digital TV conversion coupons; a portion of $40 billion for broadband internet; $600 Million for the federal government to buy new cars; a portion of $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities and the Smithsonian Museum is targeted to receive $150 million; some $252 billion for income-transfer payments to some individuals for doing nothing at all; $81 Billion for Medicaid (which millions of illegal aliens receive); $36 Billion for expanded unemployment benefits (about $1463-to-$3243 for 11.1-to-24.6 Million unemployed); $54 Billion for federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits (e.g. the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, some federal job training programs, and many more); condoms; growing the federal government by another estimated 600,000 to 800,000 employees; yet no cuts in this rampant and obscene bloat and waste?

Yes, there’s been some progress, but not enough to avoid significant pain and misery that is now already in the pipeline. We can do better. But if voters want to continue to wallow in the pathetic, petty, distracting, destructive, circular partisan-warfare, that’s their choice and they will reap what they sow. The longer most voters do that, the more pain and misery they will bring onto themselves. This message doesn’t get enough attention, because too many voters prefer to wallow in the partisan warfare, and too many voters still love THEIR party more than their country, and too many voters are delusional about THEIR party. This delusion is somewhat revealed by 86.9% re-election rates for Congress, despite the voters’ simulataneous and dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress. Perhaps enough voters will snap out of it when enough of them are bankrupt , jobless , homeless , and hungry (as occurred in year 1933 when unhappy voters finally ousted 206 members of Congress). Any way, the U.S. certainly appears to be well on its way to more pain and misery, and none of it was difficult to see coming. Many here kept saying everything was rosy, but it wasn’t and it isn’t. The seriousness of the situation justifies more pressure and attention on the situation. Primarily, there are 10 major abuses ( i.e. One-Simple-Idea.com/Abuses.htm ) that need attention as soon as possible, and a reduction in those 10 abuses would create huge savings, save U.S. lives. Yet those 10 major abuses are still being completely ignored. Also, more money-printing and fiscal irresponsibility ain’t gonna work, because no nation so ridiculously deep in-debt has ever borrowed, money-printed, and spent its way to prosperity.

David R. Remer wrote: But, this growing of the independent voters has been underway now since 1994. It will take a generation or more to realize the objective you cite.

That’s not good enough, IF the majority of Americans want to avoid a lot of unnecessary pain and misery. If the majority of Americans believe things can get much worse, they are wrong.

David R. Remer wrote: It is giving in to say until then, nothing can be done and it will all collapse because voters can’t be educated in time to take responsibility for the results of their government.

I never:

• promoted (1) “giving in”,
• never claimed (2) “nothing can be done”,
• never said (3) “collapse” was unavoidable,
• and never did I ever say (4) voters can’t be educated in time”. They can be, if they simply choose to, and they probably will when failing to do so finally becomes too painful.

David R. Remer wrote: And there is no getting around the reality that it will be decades before the majority of voters will take that responsibility.

“Decades” ?

“Giving in” is resigning to the belief that it will take that long. While it might take decades, it doesn’t have to. Education can shorten the learning curve. That’s the goal. While most are blaming politicians, the wealthy who abuse wealth and power to control government and the media, they should be targeting voters too, who have a choice of getting their education the smart and more-peaceful way, or the hard and painful way (again). What’s wrong with higher expectations? We can do better.

David R. Remer wrote: The political parties are designed to make voters feel good, useful, important cogs in a social community to which they belong. It will take time to counter that structure, and independent voters are proof that we are moving in that direction.

Yes, but it shouldn’t take decades. The debt-bubble is so huge, we probably don’t have decades. If a number of abuses aren’t addressed soon that are hammering most Americans (e.g. usury; regressive taxation; constitutional violations; illegal immigration for voters and profits; eminent domain abuse; inflation; debt; Ponzi-scheme banking systems; etc.), then a severe melt-down and societal chaos will most likely escalate sooner than the next 2 decades.

David R. Remer wrote: Until then however, we must maximize our citizen’s influence over government by voicing our objective critiques not just on blogs so other citizens can benefit, but to our representatives as well.

True. I do. All the time. However, I fear that all the worthless response letters from my Congress persons are merely running up my taxes, and part of the reason Congress decided to give each Congress person another $93,000 for petty cash and expenses. The form letters are nearly (if not completely) worthless when Congress persons can do almost anything they want, give themselves 10 raises in 12 years, a myriad of perks and benefits, and still be rewarded with perpetual re-election.

The point is, pressure on Congress isn’t enough.
Voters need to be made aware that their complacency, apathy, blind and delusional partisan loyalties, ignorance, lasziness, wallowing in the petty, circular partisan-warfare, and love of THEIR party more than their country is the path to more pain and misery (much of which is already in the pipeline), and they shouldn’t under-estimate the level to which economic conditions can deteriorate. Already, dozens of economic conditions are now worse then ever, and/or since the Great Depression: One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm

David R. Remer wrote: One day, they, whomever is in office on that day, will see the writing on the wall, and it will be THEY who make the real reforms in government, after independent voters have demonstrated they control elections in no uncertain terms. Which began to be apparent in 2006 and 2008. But, independent voters are by no means a consistent group with a common agenda. Their commonality is in their divorce from the Rep. and Dem. Parties. But, that is nonetheless a giant step toward a future when voters are loyal to government results, not political parties.

Agreed. However, I’m not resigned to the idea that it must require decades to achieve significant reforms, and that difference most certainly isn’t “giving in”.

My comments are the same warnings I’ve been posting for years when others told me we were on a rosy path.
Well, we were not on the rosy path, and it didn’t require clairvoyance to see it.
This economic crisis is FAR from over.
We have a huge federal and nation-wide debt bubble, and the federal government is NOT taking simple steps (e.g. One-Simple-Idea.com/Solutions1.htm) to stop hammering most Americans. The longer that the 10 major abuses continue, the worse things will get. The banking system is a scam which defrauded the entire world via Enron-style book-keeping, cookin’ the books, peddling toxic debt as AAA securities, usury, and a steep leveraging of debt-to-reserves (e.g. 9-to-1) while receiving interest on money created out of thin air, among other abuses in league with a Congress that is FOR-SALE to their so-called industry experts. Cha-Ching!

Therefore, I’m not sure we can over-educate people about these abuses (e.g. One-Simple-Idea.com/Abuses.htm). Doin’ that is not “giving in”. When you no longer see my comments here and on other numerous blogs, my web-site, and no longer support a number of organizations that are dedicated to pushing for reforms, then the claims of “giving in” might be true. But continuing to hammer the abuses that still exist, and still have not been addressed, is not “giving in”.

That’s one thing I like about Lou Dobbs. He hammers and hammers and hammers on these abuses. I don’t agree with all of his economics, but at least he continues to address the major abuses.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2009 03:15 PM

d.a.n said in response to: “Agree, wholeheartedly. That will take a “generation” or more for voters to become that wise.”

A “generation” may be too long, and it really doesn’t have to take that long.

Sorry, my education in psychology failed to inform me of an on/off switch for wisdom for the nation’s citizenry. Perhaps you can point me to it? :-)

Yes, it does take that long. It took many generations to get civil rights wisdom engaged in the general public. You think political responsibility and accountability is a simpler form of wisdom when the entire political apparatus and funding is directed toward preventing such wisdom from ever occupying the polling booths? One must overcome the persuasion of the political parties before the majority of voters will hold their representatives, especially in their own party, responsible and accountable on a consistent basis. That will require a very large majority of voters choosing to become registered independent voters, voting by candidate qualifications, not party affiliation. Our citizenry is making great strides in this regard over the last two decades. But, there is still enormous ground to cover and social/psychological change occurs at rate far slower than you comment implies is necessary, 5 years or so.

What to do in parallel with this slower change of voting behavior is a key point for reflection and discussion. Progress can be made even as slower changes occur. Giving one’s representatives hell over results is not nearly as foreign to Americans as voting on candidate qualities and elected official results, instead of party affiliation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2009 05:16 PM

d.a.n said: “If the majority of Americans believe things can get much worse, they are wrong. “

Wow! I really have to disagree with that statement since the vast majority of Americans who want to work currently have jobs. It can get a whole, whole lot worse, d.a.n., that it is right now.

Polling indicates 60+ % of the population acknowledge that things can get very much worse, but, polling also demonstrates that the vast majority of Americans do not see themselves as having the power to make any difference over the future of the economy or government.

They believe in the Republic part of our Constitution, electing people to take care of those things for them. That belief is part of the psychological problem that must be resolved, if the Democratic part of our Constitution is to work as intended.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2009 05:22 PM

Stephen D. said: “The internet does not change the nature of time or expertise.”

Then you do not understand the internet revolution which is now underway from internet based higher education, to ‘do it yourself’ auto repair through forums of consumers, not Egspurts.

As the economy sours, the internet educational nature will grow even more rapidly in a very much broader bottom up fashion. There is very little I cannot repair myself on my vehicles thanks to the internet. I even overhauled a volvo engine myself, except for the machining, through a forum of backyard mechanics.

Complete engine overhaul, removal and installation for under $650. Imagine that. No experts needed save the machinists with very expensive machinery and the know how to operate it safely, including acid baths. Not all fields of knowledge and experience can be relegated to internet lay participant self-education, obviously. But, a lot more can, and is, than ever before, from food preparation and storage to do it yourself home building and design.

If our economy fails, it is the learn it and do it yourselfers who will fare far better than vast majority of those dependent upon paying others for the most menial of tasks like changing a water faucet gasket. And as the economy falters, the bottom up education available on the internet grows daily.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2009 05:36 PM

david

“If our economy fails, it is the learn it and do it yourselfers who will fare far better than vast majority of those dependent upon paying others for the most menial of tasks like changing a water faucet gasket. And as the economy falters, the bottom up education available on the internet grows daily.”

well said. i agree completely. i have found there is very little that cannot be found on the internet. i have repaired my own cars since i was a kid, and i can almost always find a forum that adresses a problem that i’m interested in solving, or subject that i’m interested in studying. where there’s a will there’s a way.

Posted by: dbs at February 19, 2009 07:29 PM

Roy
To the contrary. Ideaology trumps reason more under term limits. What is going on in CA is clear evidence of that. The Rep governor spent a great deal of effort to cut a deal that called for a mix of drastic spending cuts and tax increases. It failed because because his own party would not vote for any plan that included tax increases at all, ever and there is a 2/3 vote requirement for budget matters. The interplay and exchange that often occurs to get legislation passed is made more difficult because of term limits,ie. You scratch my back now and I will scratch your back next year when you need backing for what have you”. Another problem is many members are always running for office. They may be termed out of the one they have but they are running for another,Assembly to Senate or Insurrance Commisioner etc. Also because of term limits the leadership is always unexperienced. Term limits are just a gimmick and CA is a textbook example of its failure.
CA has been hit particularly hard by the real estate collapse. Most of the budget comes from property tax and that has taken a big hit. DBS is right that CA does spend a lot of money. Then again it is a huge state. The prison population is greater than most countries and quite expensive. The same idealogs that are blocking marginal tax increases also block modification of CA’s three strikes that has locked people up for life for stealing a pizza. They also block modification of drug laws that keep many prisoners for simple possession.
Prop 13 is another anchor of CA at this point. It was passed in the 60’s. It has helped people not be taxed out of their homes but there is a drawback. Property is not reassesed until its sold. This leads to unfair circumstances like the new couple paying three or more times the taxes of their nieghbor for the same kind of property. A bigger problem is that it includes commercial property. Family homes usually change hands every generation or so and get reappraised. This does not happen as often with commercial property. The huge Standard Oil Refinery in Richmond is paying 1968 property taxes for example. Attempts to modify the law to take this into account have been bitterly opposed by the same idealogs.

Posted by: bills at February 20, 2009 05:16 AM

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n wrote: A “generation” may be too long, and it really doesn’t have to take that long.

Sorry, my education in psychology failed to inform me of an on/off switch for wisdom for the nation’s citizenry. Perhaps you can point me to it? :-)

It could happen sooner. It needs to, or things will most likely get much worse than today.

Also, things can change more quickly than you think. However, unfortunately, the badly-needed motivation is usually pain and misery. However, history shows that some lessons have been learned and remembered. I’m often considered pessimistic, but I think the growing pain and misery is about to help us make another step forward. If not, which could happen, things will get MUCH worse, government will become more oppressive and corrupt, and the U.S. will suffer a very long decline that could last many decades.

David R. Remer wrote: Yes, it does take that long. It took many generations to get civil rights wisdom engaged in the general public.

We may not always have the luxury of learning so slowing, and having to re-learn the same lessons over and over and over. We can do better, and should.

David R. Remer wrote: You think political responsibility and accountability is a simpler form of wisdom when the entire political apparatus and funding is directed toward preventing such wisdom from ever occupying the polling booths?

Yes. Because eventually, pain and misery trumps greed and selfishness. Otherwise, we would have total anarchy and chaos. You accuse me of defeatism and “giving in”, but your comments seem to say we “can’t do any better”. I think we can, and will eventually. But hopefully, it will be sooner than later, since later will be more painful.

David R. Remer wrote: One must overcome the persuasion of the political parties before the majority of voters will hold their representatives, especially in their own party, responsible and accountable on a consistent basis. That will require a very large majority of voters choosing to become registered independent voters, voting by candidate qualifications, not party affiliation.

In year 1933 (not that long ago), most unhappy voters ousted 206 members of Congress. It can happen again. It probably will happen again when enough voters are bankrupt , jobless , homeless , and hungry. The goal should be to spread warnings and education of these facts to help voters out of their apathy, complacency, delusional and blind partisan loyalties before things get worse (i.e. sooner than later, since later will be more painful).

David R. Remer wrote: Our citizenry is making great strides in this regard over the last two decades.

HHHHMMmmmmmmmmmmm … True. But it needs to do much better. For the last decade, the U.S. banks have defrauded the world by bundling up massive toxic debt rated as AAA securities and selling it to the entire world. Rampant greed and other manifestations of unchecked greed are out of control, and now the pendulum seems to be trying to swing to the other extreme to create a cradle-to-grave nanny-state, that rewards failure, and nurtures a sense of entitlement and the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else).

We can do much better, and we need to do much better sooner than later. Otherwise, most Americans are in for a lot of unnecessary pain and misery (much more than the unavoidable pain and misery that is already in the pipeline).

David R. Remer wrote: But, there is still enormous ground to cover and social/psychological change occurs at rate far slower than your comment implies is necessary, 5 years or so.

And I’m a pessimist to think we can do better?

Here’s my reasoning. The motivation for real CHANGE and reforms will be pain and misery. Pain levels are rising now. The people of this nation are unlikely to tolerate an entire generation (or generations) of rising (or even curent) pain levels. There is historical progress which serves as precedence for this. Human society has progressed slowly over the millennia. In 1933, most voters ousted 206 members of Congress. And when it gets bad enough, revolutions and civil wars were the result. More often than not, those wars and revolutions led to more responsible and accountable government, more freedom, more justice, and a more civil society. However, the U.S. has now been going backwards for several decades. Pain levels are rising. Government had better pull its head out of its butt, or civil unrest is not far fetched. More people are unemployed today than in the Great Depression. There are 9,000-to-10,000 foreclosures per day. And the simple things that government could be doing to reduce these 10 abuses are being ignored. Voters will become more and more aware of this as their pain levels increaze.

David R. Remer wrote: What to do in parallel with this slower change of voting behavior is a key point for reflection and discussion. Progress can be made even as slower changes occur. Giving one’s representatives hell over results is not nearly as foreign to Americans as voting on candidate qualities and elected official results, instead of party affiliation.

The problem is actually very basic. Voters repeatedly reward bad politicians for several basic reasons, but it is largely due to delusional partisan loyalties rooted in laziness, delusion, greed, selfishness, stubborn pride, apathy, and complacency. However, eventually, pain and misery will trump that, as it did in year 1933 when most voters ousted 206 members of Congress (i.e. 44% of those up for re-election).

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n said: “If the majority of Americans believe things can [can’t] get much worse, they are wrong. “

Wow! I really have to disagree with that statement since the vast majority of Americans who want to work currently have jobs. It can get a whole, whole lot worse, d.a.n., that it is right now.

I meant to write: “can’t” and surely you knew that?

David R. Remer wrote: Polling indicates 60+ % of the population acknowledge that things can get very much worse, but, polling also demonstrates that the vast majority of Americans do not see themselves as having the power to make any difference over the future of the economy or government.

Again, I meant to write: “can’t” and I’ve said as much literally thousands of times.

David R. Remer wrote: They believe in the Republic part of our Constitution, electing people to take care of those things for them. That belief is part of the psychological problem that must be resolved, if the Democratic part of our Constitution is to work as intended.

I also believe in the “Republic” part of our Constitution. Actually, the word “Democracy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Again, the problem is rooted in some very basic human flaws (with some overlap):

• apathy, complacency, sense of futility, negligence, ignorance, and laziness;


• greed, selfishness, gluttony, lust for power and control, envy, pride, and exploitation of others and things (e.g. lawlessness, wealth, usury, wars, taxation, etc.);


• irrational fear, fear mongering, anger, intolerance, hatred, prejudice of others and things (e.g. religion, race, gender, color, ethnicity, etc.);


• delusion (deception and self deception), misplaced loyalties, partisan-warfare, misplaced compassion, misplaced priorities;

However, there IS a built-in self-correction mechanism:

pain and misery

The goal is to spread the warnings, data, statistics to educate the voters to motivate them to do their part (which isn’t repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election), before it gets worse. Voters need to understand that a lot of pain and misery is already in the pipeline, but it can get MUCH worse if they continue to repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2009 11:50 AM

d.a.n said: “Yes. Because eventually, pain and misery trumps greed and selfishness.”

Often, pain and misery breed greed and selfishness. It depends on the individual. Sociologically, however, poverty breeds a vastly higher criminal element population as a percentage than that observed from non-poverty households. Those statistics refute your statement above. For some individuals, pain and misery may trump greed and selfishness, but, for many others it breeds greed and selfishness.

d.a.n said: “In year 1933 (not that long ago), most unhappy voters ousted 206 members of Congress. It can happen again.”

Yes, it can. If 25% of our work force is thrown into unemployment, I have no doubt a similar political backlash at the polls is very possible. But, one instance does not make a rule. Just because there was a political backlash at the polls in ‘33, does not necessarily mean there will be one again if comparably bad times hit.

If the public perceives that the bad times were brought on by previous leaders and Congresspersons, and that the newer ones are doing everything possible to remedy the situation but, the situation is simply not remediable, I don’t think a ‘33 backlash would be forthcoming.

It depends very much on the perception held by the people as to where the blame lies, and as we well know, 100’s of millions of dollars are spent to shape that perception by the political parties and elected officials. If they fail to shape popular opinion in bad times, a backlash is very likely. If they are successful, a backlash is far less likely.

As for can and can’t, I responded to what was written. Communication breaks down quickly when parties to it dismiss what is said in exchange for what they think the other person should have said or meant to say. I try to avoid such projections and respond to what is written. You said can, I disagreed, you corrected and said you meant to say can’t. No more disagreement.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2009 03:15 PM

d.a.n said: “I also believe in the “Republic” part of our Constitution. Actually, the word “Democracy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. “

The Suffrage Amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution, and while those amendments may not incorporate the word ‘democracy’ (and you are right, the Constitution does not assign that term either), universal suffrage in electing government IS a major component of what we deem democracy. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2009 03:21 PM

The Constitution was created to be a living document. I complained that we have to much democracy in our REPUBLIC today. As I’ve said, we are the worlds oldest democracy. That should make one think about it. A democracy always ends up with the vocal minority in control of the silent majority, which, IMO is what we have today. The vocal(money is free speech - wealthy) minority are in complete control of the silent majority (us). Here is an article printed in the NY Post recently. “The New York Times carried a front-page article titled, “Obama Calls for Common Sense on Executive Pay. ” To which Robert Hensler responded:
An Obituary printed in the London Times - Interesting and sadly rather true.

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn’t always fair; and
- maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers:
- I Know My Rights
- I Want It Now
- Someone Else Is To Blame
- I’m A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.”

Likewise, common sense seems to get rolled by the moneyed agenda as well. Consider the one about using a major food stock to produce ethanol. Us ‘common’ folks will just sit back and laugh at such foolishness. But, we shouldn’t. Billions are being made off the backs of working taxpayers while we get a good laugh. Not a good trade off IMO. We should be angry when government sticks it to the taxpayer.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 20, 2009 06:19 PM

DR writes some very insightfull articles and this one is intriguing. But, when are we, as fellow
Americans, going to stop the writing, stop the jaw
boning and actually do something to put an end to
the waste and corruption in Washington. The politicians get re-elected and simply forget about
the people at home, aside of throwing the occassional perk their way now and again. The
new American Recovery and Reinvestment act is a
horrible peice of legislation, at least the 672
pages of it that I read. It is “Pork and agenda
laden”. I would estimate that approximately 1/3
of the bill will actually help the economy. The rest is a waste of taxpayer money. Another waste of taxpayer money is Speaker Pelosi’s junket to
Italy that cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars this past week. Other Congressmen went to India this past week. I thought they went to Washington to represent us.
The folks in their district. This money is being spent at a time when citizens are losing their jobs and homes. It is totally irresponsible.
I started an online petition to get rid of Pelosi and the democratic leaders of the Congress and Senate, as well as Mitch McConnell in the Senate.
Then I noticed there were tons of petitions for the same thing all targeted at Congress and I said to myself…it’s to bad there wasn’t a way to join forces. Together like minded people can
make it happen. We all don’t have to have the same reason, or motive, just the same goal. If someone is a republican who does’nt want Pelosi
or a democrat or independent it doesn’t matter. what matters is sending a shot across Congresses bow, that forces them to get rid of their leaders, stop waste fraud and abuse. End their
relationships with corporations and special interests and come back to their districts and
work for the people they represent.

Posted by: Bob Henry at February 20, 2009 09:47 PM

Roy

i couldn’t agree more. our founders would be sick if they could see how thier hard work and sacrifice has been squadered. a sense of entitlement, and politicians that cater to those who help perpetuate thier power has destroyed our once great republic.

Posted by: dbs at February 20, 2009 09:52 PM

dbs, yes, it’s a shame how we (voters/taxpayers) have let this country go to hell. Jeffereson warned us that we must be vigilant for our liberty and he expected us to carry out revolution when it don’t go right.
Bob Henry, couldn’t agree with you more. You said it straight up, ‘we alldon;t have to have the same reason, or motive, just the same goal. The goal, as I see it, is to reform government. I’m up to here with people in general. They know what the problems are but choose to debate or argue about which party did right by the Cuban kid a few years back. Bob, let’s get together and make something happen. Check out www.demreps.com and see what a new 3rd Party with a different political attitude could do for you, and us.

Coupla topics of late: Our major exports are now mostly commodoties; corn, soybeans and fertilizer. 07 trade deficit about $700B. 40k troops fighting tontrol cartels in Mex. Over 6k killed last year. Calderon made understatement of the century “problem had grown so serious we had to deal with it.” Recall I suggested Bush went into Iraq to beat China to the oil. China has given Russia a $25B loan for a guaranteed supply of 300,000 bbl/day for 25 years. China has loaned Brazil Petrobras $10B for oil supply guarantee. 14 banks have closed in 09. And, UBS, the high nest for my good buddy Phil Gramm, was fined $780M for failing to release names of accounts suspected of tax evasion. UBS coughed up 300 names so the suit continues. Folks never give up trying to squeeze more juice out the grapes (us taxpayers) a la Calif in raising taxes which goes directly against the recovery bill, and several states that refuse to give up the big bucks by wanting to charge you a tax based on the number of miles you drive. Folks are in the streets in Russia and many other countries around the world, but we are close to the grammies and Dolly Parton has a new broadway show coming up so we can’t be doing that. 8 out of 10 deportees who appeal their case are never deported. Some on 3rd or 4th motion after years of lawyering. $20M spent on 7200 appeal cases last year. The US has suffered 13 major financial crisis or one every 3 Presidents. Chief of Post Office received $850k total monies last year. Texas went on a border alert Tuesday. Bazookas were used in Reynosa, Mex. by cartel in fight with police and army. Those guys do not like to loose a fight.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 20, 2009 11:15 PM

Yup, just too much democracy and not enough Republic. To wit: Libel tourism is inflicting damage on the first amendment. Relating to a Wash Post editorial. Disgruntled folks who object to certain articles or books produced and distributed almost entirely in the US often turn to foreign jurisdictions for support. While US law does much to protect the first amendment, plaintiffs are going to places like Britain and winning libel suits against American citizens. One Saudi millionaire filed suit in Britain against a US author because her book document his role in financing terrorism. The books was published and distributed in the US but about 20 copies found their way to Britain via the Internet. The British judge ordered a judgment of $200k against the US author, ordered her to destroy copies of the book and apologize to the Saudi, who had filed dozens of such suits against other authors and distributors.
Here is an example of democracy gone crazi. Again from a Wash Post article: A Wheaton nonprofit agency and the county’s HHS are unable to account for more than $900k in government GRANTS. HHS paid Centro Familia the funds in 07-08 without ‘verifying the validity and the appropriateness of those payments.’ Centro Familia serves low income Latino children and their families. They offer an early childhood program to about 30 preschoolers and has trained more than 300 in-home child care providers. They have an annual budget of about $700k with about $450k coming from HHS. A council member said they were pressing the nonprofit for ‘ensuring contractor accountability and compliance’. Ain’t that just precious? Accountability in government? Novel idea, but - - nah!
The article doesn’t differentiate between illegal and legal Latino’s.
Well, that’s just one agency, one county and one non-profit. It’s kind of like trying to find out exactly how the Pentagon spends it’s money. It’s just too big with too many hairs. Most folks give up and go away.
I see where a Swiss court has refused to have UBS release 52k account names suspected of tax evasion. Nothing new there. Tax evaders 941, taxpayers 0.
Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 21, 2009 10:02 AM

Roy, the claim that there is ‘too much democracy’ begs the question, “too much for what objective?”

Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. You must define the ends to which you ascribe democracy as too abundant to achieve.

When I look at this problem, I don’t see too much democracy. I see too many reversals of policy between two competing parties, I see an inadequately educated general public participating in our democracy, and I see too much corruption of the concept of democracy (one person one vote) by the corporate and wealthy voices whose influence on government far outweighs democracy’s one person one vote definition.

I don’t think we have too much democracy. I think we have too few political parties, inadequate education in civics, history, government, and economics, and too much influential power granted to the wealthiest entities who use that power for self-serving ends.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2009 02:26 PM

dbs, many of our founding fathers would be appalled at the absence of slavery and fiefdoms like plantations, too. Our founding fathers were not Saints, and their experiment in government was far from perfection, and even many of their ideals were flawed by today’s standards.

Using the founding father’s projected disappointment as an indictment of modern times is an exercise requiring enormous specificity, objectivity, and contextual comparisons of apples and apples, not oranges and grapes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2009 02:32 PM

Roy says it is terrible how we have let this country go to hell. I would suggest to you that an immersion in history would reveal that the earliest periods of this country were also steeped in hell.

There is no period in American history in which large minorities found their own experience in America a form of hell.

Government is a necessary instrument for managing away anarchy, providing a common defense, and providing rule based exchange and interaction amongst its people. By definition, government was never conceived to be an instrument for producing heaven on earth. It can take many forms. Ours was/is unique in its attempt to balance protection of certain specified individual liberties with the instrumental objectives above for the society as a whole.

Such a balancing act will inevitably become out of balance as cultural, social, political, and technological changes and innovations manifest themselves. To the extent that our government finds its balance again following such changes, is the testament to the success or failure of that particular form of government.

Historically, our government has been enormously successful in recapturing balance after fundamental changes occur within the society. Which in our system, creates periods of more innovation and change. This dynamic function of government will fail if the attempt is made to recreate the old modes of government to accommodate the new challenges of instability.

There is a faction of political thought out there that reminisces and promotes the idea of returning to original government. Nothing would be more catastrophic for our nation and people than to try to return to a government fitted to an agrarian economy in relative isolation to the rest of the world, and to largely illiterate and uneducated population.

One can make a rational argument for a return to original principles, but, there is no rational argument that can be made to return to a previous form of our government. Government adopts social change, and adapts to the challenges those social changes present. Reverse engineering of government is the quickest route to national failure for this very reason.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2009 02:50 PM

david

“many of our founding fathers would be appalled at the absence of slavery and fiefdoms like plantations,”

they also said that all men were cretaed equal. it seems that owning slaves would make one a hypocrite, however it does not diminish the principles under which the country was founded. one could rail against child pornagraphy, and secretly be viewing it. that would not diminish the principle. it would make the individual a hypocrite, so it really isn’t apples and oranges after all.

the country was founded on certain principles. the fact that one chooses to ignore them doesn’t make them any less relevant.

Posted by: dbs at February 21, 2009 04:49 PM

dbs, Thomas Jefferson said: “All men are created equal” and he owned a hundred slaves, and to his dying breath refused to acknowledge any of them as equal. If someone had asked Jefferson what he meant by that statement, he no doubt would have replied, “All white men of property, and without debt are created equal”. Certainly he did not include women, children, nor slaves in his meaning when he wrote those words, as his own life amply demonstrated.

I am pleased to see you reiterate my words in agreement: “One can make a rational argument for a return to original principles,” when you say “however it does not diminish the principles under which the country was founded”.

Quite right. But, it is a gross mistake to believe that words of the 1700’s had the same meaning we hold for them today. Then, the word men, as used by Jefferson literally meant Males. Today, when we read his words, we include all human beings as the meaning of the word “men”.

Remember or research the fact that children had no rights at our country’s founding save what parents granted them, and women had only a few rights more than children. Poor white illiterate men without landholdings had no vote and only a few rights more than women.

One can argue that the complicated personage of Jefferson spoke to the future aspirations and ideals for himself and the nation when he wrote the words, “All men are created equal”, knowing such idealism was currently lacking in himself and his nation being formed. Unprovable, but, it has debate merit.

But, clearly, one can meritoriously argue for a return to founding principles, but, not so for a return to founding government, which was a product of the mindset, geography, culture, technology, and historical circumstances extant of those who forged it for their time.

The great strength of the American experiment in Constitutional government is that that Constitution was created sufficiently vague and amendable as to accommodate changes in the mindset, geography, culture, technology, and historical circumstances extant, for the next 232 years and beyond.

Clearly, Jefferson’s word “men” did not mean all human beings to the founders in his day, for certainly a host of the signers of the Constitution would never have agreed upon such a definition as their guide to the Constitutional provisions and laws of their day. Had the word men included African Americans, the Civil War would have commenced immediately after the British were defeated and retreated. That reality is unambiguous.

Hence, even our founding principles did not mean then, what they have come to mean today, and many of the original meanings are such that we in modern times would agree in a majority not to return to. State’s Right’s is a glaring example of a meaning of a founding principle in the 1700’s that we as a people would abhor adopting for ourselves today.

And rightly so, as what State’s Rights meant then, would if returned to today, result in unwinding the Civil Rights legislation, universal suffrage, children’s rights regarding workplaces, and abandonment of all manner of federal endeavors such as NASA, super-conducting particle colliders, and nuclear power, which the State’s themselves could not afford to maintain nor purchase from the other states.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2009 08:51 PM

Interesting Conversation!!!

David,
Why I agree that there is no better Knowledge and Wisdom than Grandfathers I would also hope that My Democratic and Republican Elected Officials would see the Love and Understanding (lack of better words) in embrassing the Dreams and Ideas of the Youth of Society since it is for Their Children that “We the People” care or should care to debate.

So here is My Personal Opinion on helping Congress in the Future. For if we combine the Expertise of Experience with the Unbridleness of Youth to help Americas’ Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders draw conclusions given the Limits of Man and His Society are “We the People” not better served?

Granted the Youth of the Political Parties will have to be checked against the Freewill of Their Parents and Peers; however, by adding their Voice to that of the Corporate Executive and Retired Experts already heard by Congress and even Our Local Community Elders I do believe that Common Ground can be discovered on how “We the People” can deal with the Issues.

For why I do not want to get Historical with you, I am forced to ponder by the tone of your posts why the Generation that forced President Nixon to let every 18 year old American vote in the 1970’s would in the 21st Century refuse to hear Their Voice in the 21st Century.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 22, 2009 12:27 PM

David wrote: “Roy, the claim that there is ‘too much democracy’ begs the question, “too much for what objective?”

That is a fair and accurate question. We spend too much time talking issues and personalities when we should be discussing principles and goals, objectives or better yet, SOLUTIONS.

David wrote: “Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. You must define the ends to which you ascribe democracy as too abundant to achieve.”

It is a means to an end. The Constitution and especially the election processes were carefully crafted to avoid direct, representative democracy. History teaches us the end of democracy. Even the 1928 U.S. Army Training Manual states, “democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.” We got to give credit for the Army knows the objectives and who is promoting more democracy in America today? Politicians from both major parties.

David wrote: “When I look at this problem, I don’t see too much democracy. I see to many reversals of policy between two competing parties. I see an inadequately educated public participating in our democracy, and I see to much corruption of the concept of democracy (one person one vote) by the corporate and wealth voice whose influence on government far outweighs democracy’s one person one vote definition.”

You see some clear results of what democracy leads too and we’ve long left our Federalist Republic experiment and embraced too much National Democracy which provides the vehicle for poor education and easy corruption. As the Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken said, “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule- and both commonly succeed, and are right.”

David wrote: “I don’t think we have too much democracy. I think we have to few political parties, inadequate education in civics, history, government and economics, and too much influential power granted to the wealthiest entities who use that power for self-serving ends.”

We have over 50 political parties. They either spend their time on issues that divide or scrambling for some minor party power grab. In the mean time those whose tradition, judiciary, and legislative leverage seek more power to control their form of government, and they do so by pressing for more democracy. We do have inadequate education…what is a real proposal to help that? We have far too much influential power granted to the wealthiest entities and their favorite method for getting their way is through the control of major parties so their puppets can pull the strings they favor while convincing just over 50% of the voters to cast their uneducated votes for them so they can reach their self-serving ends. The Constitution’s election scheme was richly debated and carefully crafted to fight these human tendencies to be led to vote inappropriately yet we abandoned what was considered to be no perfect but at least excellent.

You wrote: “Roy says it is terrible how we have let this country go to hell. I would suggest to you that an immersion in history would reveal that the earliest periods of the country were also steeped in hell.”

You make some good observations yet to your end there is a question… what have we done but return to a previous form of government historically failed miserably, democracy. Our times may have changed but the concepts, principles and goals of the founders to form a more perfect union still will work. The idea the Constitution put us on an isolationist path is grossly wrong…trade and interaction with the world was paramount to success. It was a non-interventionist approach, not an isolationist approach. A keystone was the belief public-education must include a care study of the science of government and the end goal was to have a well educated and active people within every state (nation in the old days) and to have the states work with the federal government to the end of fulfilling strict, enumerated areas.

A National Democracy is not a model of success and represents a true reverse engineering of our government that is leading us directly on a course to repeat history. Sir Alex Tytler, a historian of olde, noted that : “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by DICTATORSHIP.” I suggest we are entering the late stages of that sequence.

Social changes occur and the Constitution was built to handle those at the Federal level while states and people were responsible for dealing with them at the local levels. Returning to the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the guidance of the U.S. Constitution will not be a quick route to national failure. The route we are on is the quickest and we are nearing the end of our journey. One cannot assume a return to the principles we were founded on will produce anything faster for failure. it will allow us to adapt to the changes in our society while improving on the grand experiment with the goal of forming a more perfect union. History proves the failures of democracy repeatedly, Let’s attempt a Federalist Republic and improve upon it rather than merely becoming another footnote of a failed democracy.

We just experienced a wonderful example of Democracy gone bad with Obama dealing directly with the Mayors on the stimulus package, bypassing the States sovereignty altogether. Just one more example of the Fed making winners and losers while violating the Constitution to the max. And not a single governor held up a hand for State’s rights. (Other than the GOP dudes making a political statement) They just held out their hand for the bucks.

Otherwise, we have the Democracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 22, 2009 05:50 PM

David R. Remer wrote: Often, pain and misery breed greed and selfishness.

It is much more often the other way around, because pain and misery is something people want to end; not increase.

When the levels of pain and misery get bad enough, it may lead to revolution or civil war, which is not necessarily rooted in greed and selfishness, and is more often rooted in enough people who are angry and have decided they’ve been abused and oppressed enough. The point is, greed and selfishness leads to pain and misery. Not the other way around. Also, poverty is not always a result of greed and selfishness. While some poor communities have higher crime rates, that does not prove that pain and misery breeds greed and selfisness. Greed and selfishness breeds pain and misery. It’s not even a chicken-and-the-egg situation.

For the most part, pain and misery eventually trumps greed and selfishness, because greed and selfishness breeds more pain and misery; because pain and misery provides the motivation to end the greed and selfishness that is causing the pain and misery.

If this were not true, there would never be any progress (on average).
While progress is slow (i.e. 2.00 steps forward, 1.99 steps backward), there has been progress over the millennia.
However, over-population and limited resourced could change that.
As the world population grows, there may be more wars over resources (e.g. oil, land, water, etc.).

David R. Remer wrote: If the public perceives that the bad times were brought on by previous leaders and Congresspersons, and that the newer ones are doing everything possible to remedy the situation but, the situation is simply not remediable, I don’t think a ‘33 backlash would be forthcoming.

Pain and misery will shape perception, regardless of who is in office.

Besides, 86.9% of the 111th Congress is from the 110th Congress.

As of 2008, of 100 Senators, 17 have been in office for 30 years or more.
22 more have been in the Senate for 18 to 30 years.
39% have been in the Senate 18 yrs or more.
4 have been in the Senate over 40 years.

As of 2008, of 435 Representatives, 35 incumbents have been in office for 26 years or more.
108 incumbents have been in the House for 14 to 24 years.
33% of the incumbents have been in the House for 14 yrs or more.
5 have been in the House for over 36 years.

Unopposed elections have doubled in the last 20 years.

Your idea to insulate Congress persons from so-called industry experts isn’t a bad idea.
However, it is only one of many good ideas (along with One-Purpose-Per-BILL, Term-Limits, tax reforms, etc.) that will continue to be ignored as long as Congress is where all good ideas and solutions go to die. That is, the majority of voters’ pain and misery will continue to grow worse as the majority of voters continue to reward irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates. It’s up to the voters and enough voters will most likely question the bad habit of repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election when the pain and misery resulting from it finally becomes too painful.

Like economist Frederic Bastiat wrote in year 1848: only “when it becomes too painful”, and we finally understand the “great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else”.

What the federal government is doing now is going to make things worse, because any jobs that are created won’t last long, and will be offset by more massive debt, bloat, waste, pork-barrel, graft, and will also grow the federal government by another 600,000 to 800,000 employees:

• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts;


• $150 million for the Smithsonian;


• $380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program; this may be where the condoms were included;


• $300 million for grants to combat violence against women;


• $2 billion for federal child-care block grants;


• $6 billion for university building projects;


• $15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships;


• $4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to age 24;


• $1 billion for community-development block grants;


• $4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”;


• $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters;


• $500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities;


• $44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters;;


• $350 million for Agriculture Department computers;


• $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building;


• $448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters;


• $600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids;


• $450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”);


• $600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”);


• $1 billion for the Census Bureau;


• $89 billion for Medicaid;


• $30 billion for COBRA insurance extension;


• $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits;


• $20 billion for food stamps;


• $4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;


• $850 million for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years;


• $1.7 billion for the National Park System;


• $55 million for Historic Preservation Fund;


• $7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”;


• $150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases;


• $150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish”;


• $2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for global-warming research);


• $2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois;


• $6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program;


• $3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants;


• $3.4 billion for the State Energy Program;


• $200 million for state and local electric-transport projects;


• $300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs;


• $400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments;


• $1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries;


• $1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees;


• $8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program;


• $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects;


• $4.5 billion for electricity grid;


• $79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund;


• $54 Billion for federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits (e.g. the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more).


• There’s $66 Billion for education (with $6 Billion for university building projects).


• $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship;


• $650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”;


• $thousands or millions for condoms;

What a joke.

And how will this not create inflation? Possibly hyperinflation?

Odd. I did not see the “Prophylactic and Intervention Program” for unprogramming and reversing the brain-washing of the majority of voters who love THEIR party and wallowing in the circular partisan-warfare more than their country?.
Oh, that’s right.
Congress doesn’t want an informed and educated electorate, because too many voters might then stop rewarding THEIR incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election, despite the voters’ simulataneous and dismally low 9%-to-18% approval rating for Congress.

So, the question is:

• How much pain and misery will the majority of voters tolerate and continue to reward Congress with perpetual re-election, before the majority of voters finally decide they’ve had enough? Obviously, so far, none of this is enough?

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n said: In year 1933 (not that long ago), most unhappy voters ousted 206 members of Congress. It can happen again.

Yes, it can. If 25% of our work force is thrown into unemployment, I have no doubt a similar political backlash at the polls is very possible. But, one instance does not make a rule. Just because there was a political backlash at the polls in ‘33, does not necessarily mean there will be one again if comparably bad times hit.

That’s is not the only single instance. Also, look at the rising anti-incumbency in the elections leading up to year 1933.

There are other instances where unhappy voters ousted hundreds of incumbents in Congress.

• Start __ End __ Congress _ Re-Election ___ Party Seat-Retention


• Year ___ Year ___ # _____ Rate ________ Rate


• 1927 ___ 1929 ___ 070st ___ 83.6% ________ 96.4% (87 incumbents ousted: 22(D), 64(R), 1(FL) )


• 1929 ___ 1931 ___ 071st ___ 79.7% ________ 92.5% (108 incumbents ousted)


• 1931 ___ 1933 ___ 072nd ___ 76.8% ________ 88.5% (123 incumbents ousted)


• 1933 ___ 1935 ___ 073rd ___ 61.2% ________ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)


• … … … … … … … …


• 1989 ___ 1991 ___ 101st ___ 90.1% ________ 99.6%


• 1991 ___ 1993 ___ 102nd ___ 87.7% ________ 98.3%


• 1993 ___ 1995 ___ 103rd ___ 73.5% ________ 98.1% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)


• … … … … … … … …


• 1999 ___ 2001 ___ 106th ___ 89.2% ________ 99.3%


• 2001 ___ 2003 ___ 107th ___ 89.2% ________ 98.7%


• 2003 ___ 2005 ___ 108th ___ 87.9% ________ 98.1% (65 of 535 voted out)


• 2005 ___ 2007 ___ 109th ___ 88.6% ________ 98.7% (61 of 535 voted out)


• 2007 ___ 2009 ___ 110th ___ 84.9% ________ 93.1% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out (68=16(D)+51(R)+1(I) in the House) + (13=3(D)+9(R)+1(I) in the Senate)


• 2009 ___ 2011 ___ 111th ___ 86.9% ________ 94.0% (70 of 535 voted out (57=13(D)+44(R) in the House) + (13=3(D)+10(R) in the Senate); a few seats left To Be Determined (TBD))

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 22, 2009 07:59 PM

Roy said: “We have over 50 political parties.”

NOT IN GOVERNMENT! And the parties in government are the ONLY parties that make any difference whatsoever to the management of our nation. The other 48 parties are irrelevant.

Roy said: “The idea the Constitution put us on an isolationist path is grossly wrong…”

Straw man. The 1700’s saw 4 main economic and national powers in the world for America to interact with, the British, French, Spanish, and the Indian nations of America. Since we were at war with all 4 at various times, and the rest of the world was either undeveloped or isolated themeselves, and since it was the intent of the Constitution to insure that the U.S. never again became the subservient to any of those 4 other economic and national entities, it is both logical and self-evident that aside from trade upon which levies could be invoked for our own good purposes, isolationism and development of within N. America was and remained the focus for the next century and a half.

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence do not speak of isolationism, but, they do speak to sovereignty and its defenses. The historical context and history from the Declaration of Independence through to the beginning of the Civil War speak to isolationist intentions and actions save for certain trade agreements and treaties designed to serve our strategic and expansionist goals. (See treaties and trade with British, Canada, Mexico, and France, and certain American Indian nations such as the Cherokee treaty with the Confederacy.) Such treaties and trade served our isolationist and/or expansionist efforts from 1776 to the Confederacy’s treaty with the Cherokee Nation (not that the Confederacy would was going to invite the Cherokee nation into the fold upon the Confederacy’s victory over the Unionists, a clearly isolationist stance by the Confederacy in addition to that held with the Unionists.)

Your entire argument against democracy is predicated upon insufficient foundations for it to function well, lack of education by voters, lack of vestment and interest by voters in the product of government, and voter dependency upon 2 political parties playing musical chairs with power. The fact is, our universal suffrage democracy would be vastly superior to what exists today if 1) education were vastly improved as previously discussed, 2) the halls of our government were filled with 3 or more political parties forcing and forging compromise and consensus for vastly longer periods of time lending consistency applied to solutions enacted, and 3) an pervasive awareness by voters as a result of their education that they have a serious stake in what their government representatives decide and enact, making watchdogs of the majority of voters.

Hence, I offer as an alternative, a public demand and public policy based dedicated to superior secular education in history, civics, economics and government, which when combined with our already existing universal suffrage would result in the democratic part of our current Constitution functioning far better than the Republic portion does now.

It is not democracy that has brought our nation to its economic knees, it is the Republic which has, with its elitists (lawmakers and corporate execs) making the decisions for themselves, which the nation and the people then must suffer.

The Republic is nothing more than granting power to the elite to make decisions for everyone to bear. That is what is crippling our nation, not democracy, though there is no argument that our democracy is a freaking joke, given the educational preparation and success of the voting masses, and their inability to fathom the workings of their own government and the elites within it, let alone influence the elites regarding policy and national direction.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2009 12:35 AM

d.a.n said: “It is much more often the other way around, because pain and misery is something people want to end; not increase. “

Sorry, your comment clearly indicates a lack of experience with the social state of poverty. It is not much more often. Poverty breeds greed and selfishness to significant extent, which accounts for the extremely high crime rates in poverty stricken areas of other nations and in our urban and rural environments.

Bootlegging was the most historic example of this, born out of poverty and necessity and which still constitutes a major crime fighting focus of the ATF in backwoods of America amongst folks with limited education and other vocational means. Bootlegging is motivated by little more more than money to provide for oneself and one’s family, and while such greed and selfishness for money by otherwise poor bootleggers can be justified by their poverty the lack of opportunity in their rural areas, it is greed and selfish motives, nonetheless that moves them to criminal activity. Parallels now exist in the billion dollar pot and amphetamine industries, which will now grow as unemployment and fears of poverty rise.

Greed and selfishness are not solely the province of the wealthy, nor is charity only to be found amongst the working poor, many of whom are the most generous people to be found.

d.a.n said: “because greed and selfishness breeds more pain and misery;”

I know of some hedge fund managers who got out of the business in 2007 and 2008 who would disagree with your comment vociferously if they could be contacted in the Italian, Swiss, or Carribean Villas. :-) I am of course being facetious, and you are right, corporate greed and selfishness unchecked, unregulated, and not overseen, will lead to boom and bust cycles in which a few make out big in the boom and everyone else pays and pays back during the bust cycles.

And Bust cycles will be accompanied by increases in violent crime, theft, robberies, and embezzlement, and a dramatic growth in the illegal drug and pleasure industries, motivated by greed and selfishness of the other end of the wealth ladder, the newly unemployed, and newly poverty stricken or, about to be.

There is an ethical difference however to be made between those who selfishness leads to theft in order to feed their children, and those whose selfishness motivates them to amass wealth as a measure of their ego and greed at great cost to others (Bernie Madoff being and extreme example).

In my court the former would be set free and given an opportunity to work. The latter would would be found guilty of fraud and theft for each person they stole from, and each count would require its own non-concurrent prison sentence under law. Having been so lavishly rewarded for so long, the Bernie Madoff’s are unlikely to ever to be trusted with freedom to govern their own actions in society again.

Just as the execs of the Citibanks and BofA’s are not to be trusted now, or ever again, with the financial management of a pay toilet, let alone corporations too big to allow to fail, IMO.

If Obama allows these execs to remain heads of these corporations, even as he authorizes tax payer TARP funds to those companies, he is himself breaching the trust the American people placed in him in Nov. of 2008.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2009 01:06 AM

d.a.n, you can’t make an argument for a bill proposal that never saw the light of day as law. Citing condoms and other items which only proposed but never made it to the bill Obama signed, taints the power of your argument with fallacious data.

There are no millions for condoms. That was one of the first things to be cut from the bill proposed by the House. The House you must remember is filled with representatives representing a vast array of special interests and constituencies. They can propose wants, but, the Senate being the more deliberative body representing vastly larger constituencies and even whole States, also get a say, and the the Conference Committee gets its say, and then the President gets their say.

Usually, the really ludicrous gets eliminated by this process, though one must hasten to add, not always.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2009 01:13 AM

Not to mention few (if any) read the BILL before they voted for it.

David R. Remer wrote: Usually, the really ludicrous gets eliminated by this process, though one must hasten to add, not always.

Really ?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 23, 2009 11:22 AM

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n said: “It is much more often the other way around, because pain and misery is something people want to end; not increase. “

Sorry, your comment clearly indicates a lack of experience with the social state of poverty.

Not true.

The type of crimes are merely different. Different types of crimes are merely more prevalent at different levels of wealth. Some of the biggest scams and crimes are not perpetrated by the poor. Bernard Madoff and numerous wealthy CEO’s cookin’ the books have devasted many more people’s lives. And consider Bill Gates, the wealthiest person in the nation who lays-off American citizens while hiring foreign H-1B visa workers and begging Congress to increase the H-1B visa limits. How greedy is that? Why do we need to continue to import 1.5 Million foreign H-1B visa workers per year when we have 11-to-25 Million unemployed? Also, that and other types of greed and selfishness aren’t necessarily illegal, but still have huge negative impacts on society. A lot of our problems today are rooted in too many decades of excessive greed and selfishness, and I don’t think the poor are the major cause of it, nor the major cause of crime. Thus, I don’t believe pain and misery causes greed and selfishness. It is the other way around. Greed and selfishness causes pain and misery, and the poor are no more guilty than anyone else.

David R. Remer wrote: It is not much more often. Poverty breeds greed and selfishness to significant extent, which accounts for the extremely high crime rates in poverty stricken areas of other nations and in our urban and rural environments.

I completely disagree. What do you think pushes a lot of people into poverty? What are the root causes of rising unemployment today? Poverty is more often the result of greed and selfhishness by others. Right this minute, there is age discimination in which people of age 55 are losing their jobs at the highest rate (it jumped by 50% from last year).

We’ll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, poverty is NOT the cause of greed and selfishness, but the results of greed and selfishness. I’ve taken and studied pyschology too, and while many people think poor people are poor because they are excessively lazy, corrupt, greedy, and selfish is unfair to say the least. And how about the shrinking middle-class today? They are culpable too, but that does not explain away the greed of many wealthy people who have been abusing power from wealth for decades which is widening the wealth disparity (i.e. the wealthiest 1% of people who owned 20% of all wealth now own 40% of all wealth, and 80% of all Americans now own only 17% of all wealth). Many greedy banks and many in executive management of many corporations have been screwing everyone they can. Many greedy banks bundled up toxic debt, rated it AAA, and fraudulenty peddled it to the rest of the world. Yet you say poverty breeds most of the crime? I don’t think so. The poor don’t have a monopoly on greed and selfishness as you suggest.

David R. Remer wrote: Bootlegging was the most historic example of this, born out of poverty and necessity and which still constitutes a major crime fighting focus of the ATF in backwoods of America amongst folks with limited education and other vocational means.

The poor were not the biggest offenders. Joe Kennedy was far from poor. Many in organized crime organizations were far from poor. That example doesn’t prove that the poor are any more greedy and selfish than any one else.

David R. Remer wrote: Bootlegging is motivated by little more more than money to provide for oneself and one’s family, and while such greed and selfishness for money by otherwise poor bootleggers can be justified by their poverty the lack of opportunity in their rural areas, it is greed and selfish motives, nonetheless that moves them to criminal activity. Parallels now exist in the billion dollar pot and amphetamine industries, which will now grow as unemployment and fears of poverty rise.

Sure, it was motivated by greed and selfishness, but the poor don’t have a monopoly on greed and selfishness. Poverty is not the major cause of greed and selfishness, and the poor are no more greedy and selfish than the wealthy. In fact, the magnitude of the crimes by the wealthy (such as those listed below) often dwarf the crimes by the poor.

Crooked CEOs, CFO, Presidents, VPs, etc.:
• Bernard Madoff ($50 Billion dollar Ponzi-scheme)
• Ken Lay (ENRON)
• Bernard Ebbers (WorldCOM)
• David Myers (WorldCOM)
• Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco)
• Mark H. Swartz (Tyco)
• John Rigas (Aldelphia)
• Timothy Rigas (Aldelphia)
• Scott Sullivan (WorldCOM)
• Burford Yates (WolrdCOM)
• Jeff Skilling (ENRON)
• Andrew Fastow (ENRON)
• Lea Fastow (ENRON)
• Samuel D. Waksal (ImClone Systems)
• David Duncan (Arthur Andersen)
• E. Kirk Shelton (Cendant)
• Ben Glisan Jr. (ENRON)
• Dan Boyle (ENRON)
• Weston Smith (HealthSouth)
• Aaron Beam (HealthSouth)

David R. Remer wrote: Greed and selfishness are not solely the province of the wealthy, …

Right. And neither is greed and selfishness solely the province of the poor, but that is essentially your argument above (i.e. that poverty more often breeds greed and selfishness).

Greed and Selfishness grows where there is a lack of transparency, opportunity, and accountability. That explains a LOT. That’s why Congress is so FOR-SALE, irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt. That’s why Congress just gave itself its 10th raise in 12 years, plus another $93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expenses (while U.S. Troops go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4+ tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan).

David R. Remer wrote: … nor is charity only to be found amongst the working poor, many of whom are the most generous people to be found.

I never said the poor aren’t charitable. However, you stated …

David R. Remer wrote: Poverty breeds greed and selfishness to significant extent, which accounts for the extremely high crime rates in poverty stricken areas of other nations and in our urban and rural environments.

Again, you make it sound as if the wealthy don’t commit as much crime. That’s highly debatable. The types of crimes (on average) may be different for people at different levels of wealth. That’s all. For example, consider what Mark Twain said about Congress:

• [The U.S.] is a nation without a distinct criminal class “with the possible exception of Congress.” — Mark Twain

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n said: “because greed and selfishness breeds more pain and misery;”

I know of some hedge fund managers who got out of the business in 2007 and 2008 who would disagree with your comment vociferously if they could be contacted in the Italian, Swiss, or Carribean Villas. :-) I am of course being facetious, and you are right, corporate greed and selfishness unchecked, unregulated, and not overseen, will lead to boom and bust cycles in which a few make out big in the boom and everyone else pays and pays back during the bust cycles.

There are exceptions. But someone else suffered for that example of greed and selfishness. Also, too many in the U.S. have spent too much time trying to make money by playing with money. As a result, many greedy banks and many on Wall Street bundled up toxic debt, rated it AAA, and fraudulently peddled it to the rest of the world. That greed and selfishness has definitely has led to more pain and misery. Not the other way around.

David R. Remer wrote: And Bust cycles will be accompanied by increases in violent crime, theft, robberies, and embezzlement, and a dramatic growth in the illegal drug and pleasure industries, motivated by greed and selfishness of the other end of the wealth ladder, the newly unemployed, and newly poverty stricken or, about to be.

True, but pain and misery isn’t the cause of it. Greed and selfishness creates pain and misery. And the poor are also NOT the root of more pain, misery, crime, and societal chaos. The poor don’t have that much power for the most part (most of the time). Money is power, and power often corrupts. The poor don’t have the money or power much of the time. Thus, their crimes are often dwarfed by the scale of crimes by the wealthy and powerful.

David R. Remer wrote: There is an ethical difference however to be made between those who selfishness leads to theft in order to feed their children, and those whose selfishness motivates them to amass wealth as a measure of their ego and greed at great cost to others (Bernie Madoff being and extreme example).

I agree completely. There are degrees of everything.

I’m not saying all wealthy people are excessively greedy and selfish. I’m merely saying that wealth is power, and power often corrupts. Especially when it is accompanied with a lack of transparency (or complexity to help obfuscate and reduce transparency), opportunity (such as in our FOR-SALE Congress), and a lack of accountability (such as 85%-to-90% re-election rates for a FOR-SALE, irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt Congress; for which the majority of voters are culpable too).

David R. Remer wrote: In my court the former would be set free and given an opportunity to work. The latter would would be found guilty of fraud and theft for each person they stole from, and each count would require its own non-concurrent prison sentence under law. Having been so lavishly rewarded for so long, the Bernie Madoff’s are unlikely to ever to be trusted with freedom to govern their own actions in society again.

I agree completely. The scale, ramifications, and motivation for the crimes are completely different. Yet, Bernie Madoff is still hangin’ out in his multi-million dollar pent-house/apartment.

Where we disagree is the source of pain and misery.
I say pain and misery is a result of excessive greed and selfishness.
You say it is most often the other way around, and try to portray the poor as more greedy and selfish.

David R. Remer wrote: Poverty breeds greed and selfishness to significant extent, which accounts for the extremely high crime rates in poverty stricken areas of other nations and in our urban and rural environments.

I strongly disagree. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

David R. Remer wrote: Just as the execs of the Citibanks and BofA’s are not to be trusted now, or ever again, with the financial management of a pay toilet, let alone corporations too big to allow to fail, IMO. If Obama allows these execs to remain heads of these corporations, even as he authorizes tax payer TARP funds to those companies, he is himself breaching the trust the American people placed in him in Nov. of 2008.

Obama will allow it. One or two may be cut down for appearances, but wealth is power, and power corrupts, and the majority of CEOs and cheats will get away with it to a large degree.

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, you can’t make an argument for a bill proposal that never saw the light of day as law. Citing condoms and other items which only proposed but never made it to the bill Obama signed, taints the power of your argument with fallacious data. There are no millions for condoms. That was one of the first things to be cut from the bill proposed by the House.

Condoms did not make it to the final BILL? OK, if true, Good. But what about all of the other pork-barrel?

David R. Remer wrote: The House you must remember is filled with representatives representing a vast array of special interests and constituencies. They can propose wants, but, the Senate being the more deliberative body representing vastly larger constituencies and even whole States, also get a say, and the the Conference Committee gets its say, and then the President gets their say.

So what about the other pork-barrel and waste in that BILL ?

David R. Remer wrote: Usually, the really ludicrous gets eliminated by this process, though one must hasten to add, not always.

It appears that a lot of the ludicrous still made it into the final BILL. What about:

• $650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”;
• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts;
• $150 million for the Smithsonian;
• $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters; is this the department that wants to end e-Verify?
• $44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters;;
• $350 million for Agriculture Department computers;
• $1 billion for the Census Bureau; will that include 12-to-20+ illegal aliens?
• $850 million for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years;
• $1.7 billion for the National Park System;
• $55 million for Historic Preservation Fund;
• $7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”;
• $150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases;
• $400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments;
• $8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program;
• $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects;
• $54 Billion for federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits (e.g. the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more).
• $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship;

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful). Posted by: d.a.n at February 23, 2009 11:27 AM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2174278/posts

Posted by: d.a.n at February 23, 2009 02:58 PM

Here is where a few taxpayer bucks are stashed. “A federal judge decided Monday it will take months to determine if and when the Internal Revenue Service will learn the identities of 52,000 wealthy Americans who have secret accounts at Swiss bank UBS AG.

“Such violations would expose these (UBS) employees to substantial prison terms, as well as fines, penalties and other sanctions,” the UBS lawyers said in a court filing last week. “There is simply no reason to have, nor equity in having, such an expedited process here.”

Federal prosecutors in Miami previously charged a senior UBS executive, Raoul Weill, with conspiring to defraud the U.S. by helping American customers conceal some $20 billion from the IRS. Weill is a fugitive living in Switzerland, but his New York-based attorney has said he is innocent.”

Californian’s are grouping to propose a State convention over their dysfunctional state government. Failing that they will try a ballot initiative to try and right their fiscal posture.

The US Gov is about the only growth industry at this point. Gov created 150K jobs last year while the public sector lost 4M.

We can expect to hear more of the Fed’s effort to take control of all water and waterways in the country. There was the Ga./Al. thing a year or so ago due to a drought situation and now the Colorado water shed is being threatened by more growth. This represents yet another move to a Democracy vs a Republic. The Fed intends to finesse the States out of their water rights one way or the other.

Likewise, the 2nd amendment is under attack with the appointment of the new Atty General. Illinois is pushing to require a gun owner be insured to a $1M. Accidental death due to firearms is the lowest for any other reason for accidental death. The Atty. Gen. is backing HR45 that requires every gun be registered and registered every five years. DC’s gun control law was recently overturned by the Supreme Court but DC came right back and require registration every 3 years or do time.

Otherwise, we have the Government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 23, 2009 09:33 PM

d.a.n replied to: ” David R. Remer wrote: Just as the execs of the Citibanks and BofA’s are not to be trusted now, or ever again, with the financial management of a pay toilet, let alone corporations too big to allow to fail, IMO. If Obama allows these execs to remain heads of these corporations, even as he authorizes tax payer TARP funds to those companies, he is himself breaching the trust the American people placed in him in Nov. of 2008.”

with the following:

“Obama will allow it.”

There you go with that Crystal Ball again. Sure wish you would sell me one with such clarity. I keep having to wait until Obama does something before I can critique its merits or foibles. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 07:00 AM

Roy, a few years ago I wrote here somewhere that the Republicans had paved the way for the very wealthy to stash their wealth undetected as the economy and nation were fleeced out of its future, knowing well that when America fails the wealthy will live like rulers in other countries around the globe, leaving impoverished America behind wearing the lable: “SUCKERS”!

Regretfully, no one then paid much attention. Hopefully, these buzzards will be stripped of that wealth for having attempted to conceal it overseas and avoid paying their fair share in taxes toward the preservation of America’s future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 07:06 AM

David, In the balance of things you may be right. RFK ssaid something like ‘the Republicans are 90% corrupt and the Democrats are 75% corrupt. That’s the fine line separating the two. d.a.n gave me a hyper-link (password protected) to his crystal ball so I can tell you that if and when the FBI gets the 52K names out of UBS the ratio of Dems to Reps will be something like 40% Dems and 60% Reps. I agree the Reps have had a good run but that’s because of the strength of oil patch. Jim Hightower (sic) Phil Gramm, Bush I and II, John Conally and a host of others. Basically, the Reps chase big oil and financials while the Dems chase big pharmas, medicals, and financials.
Dunno David, to be and Indy you tend to lean hard toward the Democrats. And, you are right, it’s going to take a little more time to zero in on Obama. He has back off a number of campaign pledges, all in the name of dealing with this disastrous recession. But, downloading from the crystal ball again, in 2011 folks will be begging for a Rep or 3rd party to come save them. The crystal ball tells me the in party is the more corrupt party.
David, can you tell me what Rosa Parks and Davy Crockett have in common?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 24, 2009 10:15 AM

There you go with that Crystal Ball again. Sure wish you would sell me one with such clarity. I keep having to wait until Obama does something before I can critique its merits or foibles. :-)

You don’t need a crystal ball, nor be clairvoyant.

Decades of the same irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, corrupt, plutocratic kleptocracy is way more than enough to make an accurate prediction.
After all, all the talk about CHANGE and HOPE is now being replaced with repeated “lowering-of-expectations”, and arguments that not only justify mediocrity, but the status quo too, in order to pave the way for more of the same status quo.
Do you really believe there will be any significant resistance to stand up to the greedy banks and corporatios, when so many in the federal government are mostly (if not completely) puppets of their corporate puppeteers? No. They haven’t yet, and aren’t likely to any time soon. Not until enough voters have felt enough years of pain and misery to finally hold their elected officials accountable. That’s what history has shown us repeatedly.

What ever this administration and Congress do with greedy banks and corrupt corporations, it will most likely be diluted and merely provided for appearances.
Few (if any) will dare speak above a whisper in condemnation of the banks:

• “Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when the speak in condemnation of it.” — Woodrow Wilson, President of the U.S. 1913-1921.


• In a letter to Edward M. House (President Woodrow Wilson’s closest aide), dated November 23, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “The real truth of the matter is, and you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.” — Woodrow Wilson


• “I sincerely believe … that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” — Thomas Jefferson


• “Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money.” (Daniel Webster)
  “All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” — John Adams


• “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” — Lord John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), renowned British economist

When there is finally some real CHANGE and some real steps to stop some of the most obvious abuses hammering most Americans, then there may be some valid reason to “cut ‘em some slack” and a more “wait and see” approach. Until then, it’s clearly “business as usual” and real CHANGE is nothing more than another gargantuan lie and more of the same status quo, because:

• (01) Hundreds (about 500: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ ) promises were made in the election, but all we hear now repeatedly is “lowering-of-expectations”.


• (02) There is no sign that this administration and FOR-SALE Congress are much (if any) different than any of those fiscally and morally bankrupt that preceded it. Why should there be when 86.9% of the 110th Congress is now in the 111th Congress?


• (03) These dozens of deteriorating economic conditions have never been worse ever, and/or since the Great Depression, and the federal government still refuses to stop these 10 major abuses that are hammering most Americans. Instead, Congress just gave itself its 10th raise in 12 years and another $93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expenses, while U.S. troops risk life and limb, go without armor, go without adequate medical care, are cheated out of promised benefits, have to do 2, 3, 4+ tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.


• (04) Pork-barrel isn’t only still rampant. It’s worse. The Stimulus BILL is full of pork-barrel that won’t create nearly enough jobs.


• (05) e-Verify is about to expire.


• (06) Another shamnesty will most likely be passed (again).


• (07) Taxes are still regressive.


• (08) The Federal Reserve is still creating massive amounts of money out of thin air; growing the doomed debt-pyramid ever larger.


• (09) The severely bloated federal government is still growing beyond current nightmare proportions.


• (10) 52 consecutive years of inflation appears very likely to continue.


• (11) Illegal immigration, H-1B and H-2B abuse is still rampant (importing 1.5 Million foreign workers per year with 11-to-25 Millioin Americans unemployed).


• (12) Many of the appointments in the “new” administration cheat on their taxes.


• (13) The debt-bubble is near (if not already) untenable. Yet, the federal government is growing it ever larger, as if basic principles and laws of the universe no loger apply.


• (14) The $10.8 Trillion National Debt is 62% higher per-capita than the previous record-high in year 1945 after World War II. That doesn’t even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching.


• (15) The federal government isn’t very good at creating jobs, despite their claims. Especially if 600,000-to-800,000 of those new jobs are in the government. And even if the federal government creates 2-to-3 million jobs, there are currently 11-to-25 Million unemployed (and climbing fast as of FEB-2009; source: (www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data) ). There are now more umemployed than the 12.8 Million unemployed in the Great Depression. While the unemployment percentage may be less (for now) than in the Great Depression, do those 11-to-25 Millions of unemployed Americans give a damn about percentages?


• (16) The severely bloated federal government is already the biggest employer in the nation. There are more people employed by the government than all manufacturing jobs nation-wide.


• (17) Corporate owners have been outsourcing jobs for decades. The nation’s manufacturing base has been deteriorating for decades. China ($1.3 Trillion) and Germany ($1.1 Trillion) each have more exports than the U.S. The U.S. is the world’s biggest importer. However, this can’t last much longer. We can’t all wash each others’ laundry.


• (18) The U.S., manufacturing and exporting less every year, is now in liquidation mode. Foreign owned assets in the U.S. has grown from $6 Trillion in year 1997 to $22 Trillion in year 2007.


• (19) There are $11 Trillion foreign owned U.S. dollars which could all come rushing back to the U.S., if only the U.S. manufactured more. Instead, the liquidation will continue (by about $4 Trillion per year, on average);


• (20) The U.S. is a debt junkie. It is the biggest debtor nation on the planet, and all human history. The $67 Trillion nation-wide debt is $220,000 per per-person (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/67Trillion.gif). Where will the money come from to merely service the interest on so much debt, when tnat money does not yet exist? At only 4.0% interest, it would take 433 years to pay down the current nation-wide debt, if it were able to pay $223.34 Billion per day ($2.68 Trillion per year) on the $67 Trillion nation-wide debt. That’s the minimum payment, or the debt continues to grow ever larger. And the way things are going, it looks like it will continue to grow ever larger until the crushing debt destroys the economy and millions of lives.


• (21) In year 1956, the nation-wide debt was about 100% of GDP. Today, the $67 Trillion nation-wide debt (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#NationWideDebt) has almost qunitupled and is now over 483% of GDP. Where will the money come from to merely pay the interest on so much debt, when that much money does not yet exist?


• (22) There are 9,000-to-10,000 foreclosures per day. Greedy banks and their agents wrote many tens of millions of sub-prime loans. Then the greedy banks jacked up the interest rates on millions of mortgages, causing monthly mortgage payments to double (or more), causing millions of foreclosures per year (for many years). Then the greedy banks and Wall Street bundled up all of that toxic debt, rated it AAA, and fraudulently peddled it to the rest of the world. And there’s still a $55+ Trillion Credit Default Swap bubble looming (One-Simple-Idea.com/CDS_Market.jpg), which is a serious problem for many banks. It’s killin’ AIG. With high inflation and people running all about like chickens with their head cut-off, looking for investments to avoid the incessant erosion of their money, the U.S. financial sector dishonestly and deviously peddled toxic debt to investors. It started with shady loans to Americans and then bundling those bad loans into complex financial instruments (CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligation), SIVs (Structured Investment Vehicles), ABSs (Asset Backed Securities), CDSs (Credit Default Swaps), etc). However, as time went on and the inflows of money increased, financial institutions became reckless in their efforts to manufacture AAA products. They made loans to sub-prime borrowers (sub-prime CDOs) and used financial wizardry to create securities out of thin air (synthetic CDOs). Towards the peak of this financial greed and insanity, banks added large amounts of leverage to their exotic investment products (sub-prime CDOs-squared, and CPDOs (Constant Proportion Debt Obligations)), and built complex, highly leveraged, off-balance sheet vehicles which funded themselves with short term debt (SPVs (Special Purpose Vehicles), SPEs (Special Purpose Entities), VIEs (Variable Interest Entity), and SIVs). Through financial engineering and the mis-pricing of risk, the value of derivatives now far exceeds the amount of real assets and economic resources in the U.S. In addition to the derivative bubble, financial institutions used leverage to sell insurance on an enormous amount of debt, creating today’s $55 trillion CDS market. In order to de-leverage and close out their positions, CDS issuers are being forced to buy back huge quantities of insurance, driving up the cost of insuring corporate debt. The higher premiums for CDS translate as higher loan rates for corporations and governments. While cookin’-the-books and packaging risky U.S. debt into complex and exotic vehicles for investors, the financial sectors grew until it consumed 27% of corporate America’s total profits. As the credit crunch fuels the disintegration of the financial sector, it leaves a gapping whole in the economy, and increased unemployment. Incessant inflation and federal deficit spending for 52 consecutive years, easy credit, predatory loan practices, cookin’-the-books, fraud, and massive debt over the last 30 years have warped the U.S. economy.


• (23) The Federal Reserve is a dishonest, usurious, inflationary ponzi-scheme. It creates new money out of thin air at a very steep 9-to-1 ratio of debt-to-reserves, and then receives interest on that money it loans to member banks. Hell of a deal, eh? As a result, 90%-to-95% of all money in existence in the U.S. exists as debt. The U.S. has had 52 consecutive years of inflation. A 1950 Dollar is now worth 10 cents. And when the banks foreclose on a bad debt, they confiscate the debtor’s property, essentially converting money-created-out-of-thin-air into real property and assets. Cha Ching! But it gets better. If the banks are irresponsible (even crooked and fraudulent), and they lose a lot of money, the tax payers get the awesome privilege of bailing out the bad banks, corporations that cooked the books, greedy CEOs with fat salaries and bonuses, , and Wall Street who peddled toxic debt to the entire world. Cha Ching! Cha Ching!


• (24) The federal government will continue to despicably sell-out and pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, disguised as compassion. And when enough illegal aliens can be imported, the federal government raises (or eliminates) the limits on H-1B and H-2B visas. Why is the federal government importing 1.5 Million foreign skilled workers per year when we have 11-to-25 Million unemployed (source: AmericanWorker.org)? That does not even include the 12-to-20+ Million of illegal aliens taking millions of jobs from Americans. There is little (if any) doubt that Obama and Congress want another shamnesty, like the one in 1986 which quadrupled the problem. That’s another obvious abuse that is costing U.S. tax payers an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion per year in annual NET losses (One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Burdens). Yet, Obama and Congress choose to continue to despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, disguised as compassion (severely misplaced compassion at best: One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Compassion).
  


• (25) Instead of addressing the 10 major abuses hammering most Americans, the federal government is going from (1) one extreme (i.e. unfettered capitalism and a myriad of forms of unchecked greed and abuse of power and wealth) to (2) the other extreme (i.e. a cradle-to-grave nanny-state, that rewards failure, and nurtures a sense of entitlement and the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else).


• (26) The federal government and the Federal Reserve are lying about major economic statistics. I said in 2007 that there would be a recession (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/Recession2007.htm). Yet, the federal government and the Federal Reserve kept telling us GDP was growing. It wasn’t. But it was more than a year before they finally admitted that a recession started in DEC-2007. Even then, the recession really started earlier. GDP measured in any other year’s inflation-adjusted U.S. Dollar was negative since early 2007 or late 2006. Also, the huge dip in the GDP has never been larger in 100+ years (see chart of GDP in 1950 and 2005 inflation adjusted U.S. dollars: One-Simple-Idea.com/Recession2008.htm)


• (27) A whopping $3.2-to-$8.5 Trillion of money has been pumped into the banking system. How will all of this borrowing and spending not cause more inflation? Possibly, hyperinflation, which will make a bad situation much worse (source: www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-113008-fi-pricetag-g,0,5292528.graphic) ?


• (28) Congress has its head way, way, WAY up its butt. But why shouldn’t it, when the majority of voters repeatedly reward Congress for it with 85%-to-90% re-election rates (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2011.htm), despite the voters’ dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress? What’s that say about the majority of voters ? It says that a whole LOT more voters will have to feel many more years of pain and misery before they finally do something about it, such as what most unhappy voters did in year 1933, when they voted-out a whopping 206 members of Congress (44% of incumbents up for re-election). Perhaps enough voters will do the same when enough voters are bankrupt , jobless , homeless , and hungry. We appear to be well on our way, but it may take a few more years. Even in 1933, the voters waited too long to avoid another decade of pain and misery. There are MANY things the federal government could do to help most Americans, but it is doing few (if any) of those things to stop the 10 major abuses hammering most Americans. There are MANY things the federal government could do, but Congress hasn’t changed. Congress is where good ideas and common-sense solutions go to die.

So, who needs a crystal ball?

While no one can predict the future 100% of the time, it’s wasn’t hard to see this mess coming, and it isn’t hard to see where it is going.
Decades of the same irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, corrupt, plutocratic kleptocracy is way more than enough to make an accurate prediction.
We will see. While I seriously hope I’m wrong, I’d wager a large sum that there’s a very good reason why we are now seeing repeated “lowering-of-expectations”.
As you already alluded to before, to avoid significant pain and misery, it requires many things be done exactly right (i.e. somehow carefully “thread the needle”).
That’s not happening now.
In fact, if anything, the fiscal insanity has grown worse, because many seem to believe that basic principles and laws of the universe no longer apply.

Roy Ellis wrote: The crystal ball tells me the in party is the more corrupt party.

Exactly. By virtue of the power from their majority. More money, more power, and eventually more corrupt.

Too many voters choose to over-look that fact, because today, too many voters love THEIR party more than their country … at least until that becomes too painful.

Roy Ellis wrote: … in 2011 folks will be begging for a Rep or 3rd party to come save them.

Maybe. Hopefully a 3rd party, or at the very least, a massive ousting of incumbents. That’s the only thing that has much of a chance of sending a loud-and-clear message to elected officials (as occurred in year 1933, and the growing anti-incumbency leading up to year 1933).

• Start __ End __ Congress _ Re-Election ___ Party Seat-Retention
• Year ___ Year ___ # _____ Rate ________ Rate
• 1927 ___ 1929 ___ 070st ___ 83.6% ________ 96.4% (87 incumbents ousted: 22(D), 64(R), 1(FL) )
• 1929 ___ 1931 ___ 071st ___ 79.7% ________ 92.5% (108 incumbents ousted)
• 1931 ___ 1933 ___ 072nd ___ 76.8% ________ 88.5% (123 incumbents ousted)
• 1933 ___ 1935 ___ 073rd ___ 61.2% ________ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)
• … … … … … … … …
• 1989 ___ 1991 ___ 101st ___ 90.1% ________ 99.6%
• 1991 ___ 1993 ___ 102nd ___ 87.7% ________ 98.3%
• 1993 ___ 1995 ___ 103rd ___ 73.5% ________ 98.1% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)
• … … … … … … … …
• 1999 ___ 2001 ___ 106th ___ 89.2% ________ 99.3%
• 2001 ___ 2003 ___ 107th ___ 89.2% ________ 98.7%
• 2003 ___ 2005 ___ 108th ___ 87.9% ________ 98.1% (65 of 535 voted out)
• 2005 ___ 2007 ___ 109th ___ 88.6% ________ 98.7% (61 of 535 voted out)
• 2007 ___ 2009 ___ 110th ___ 84.9% ________ 93.1% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out (68=16(D)+51(R)+1(I) in the House) + (13=3(D)+9(R)+1(I) in the Senate)
• 2009 ___ 2011 ___ 111th ___ 86.9% ________ 94.0% (70 of 535 voted out (57=13(D)+44(R) in the House) + (13=3(D)+10(R) in the Senate); a few seats left To Be Determined (TBD))

I thought anti-incumbent sentiments and the number of incumbents ousted on 4-NOV-2008 would have been a little larger (e.g. about 85-to-90 incumbents ousted). Instead, most voters beleived that this new administration and Congress will finally start to solve problems instead of ignoring and/or creating problems. Well, I think the majority of voters got it wrong, by rewarding far too many incumbent politicians in Congress with yet another re-election. Unfortunately, the voters will reap what they sow. Perhaps some day, the voters will stop doing that when enough of the voters are bankrupt , jobless , homeless , and hungry?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 24, 2009 12:01 PM

d.a.n said: “You don’t need a crystal ball, nor be clairvoyant. “

To see the future actions of a new president. Yes, you most certainly do. We shall just have to disagree on your prescient abilities. And I certainly hope you will not be reluctant to admit you were wrong if Obama frustrates your prescient ability on this.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 03:00 PM

Roy said: “RFK ssaid something like ‘the Republicans are 90% corrupt and the Democrats are 75% corrupt. That’s the fine line separating the two.”

Sounds like a pretty accurate assessment to me, even today.

Roy said: “Dunno David, to be and Indy you tend to lean hard toward the Democrats.”

I used to vote Democrat a long time ago. But, that has little relevance in my positions today. I was uninterested and ignorant then. If the only 2 choices presented me are D and R, on about 60% of issues I would side with D’s. On about 40% I would side with R’s.

That is because I do believe as individuals we sink or swim based on how well we hang together in support of each other, which is a fundamental philosophical (and hypocritical) difference between D’s and R’s these days. But my belief in that underlying position does not in anyway make me a Democrat, as my writings and thoughts demonstrate, I seek empirically based pragmatic solutions which address the underlying causes of our major challenges, and that leaves me no rational choice but to champion Independent voting status, often choosing between a limited set of bad and gawd awful candidates and policies.

I voted for Obama. To many that casts me in their eyes as Democrat. I have no control over how others measure things. But, you know, if Obama had run as Independent or Martian Alien candidate, I would still have voted for him, because of all the candidates in last year’s race, his clarity and vision of where we need to go as a nation was superior to all other candidates. And I am pleased to have been joined in that assessment by a majority of my fellow Americans. It was getting downright lonely and frustrating over the years voting for Nader all the time. :-)

But, on a whole range of issues I see both D’s and R’s as equally and structurally unable to govern effectively, rationally, and in the nation’s long term interests, most especially from the Congress, where political party power is usually more compelling than the voter’s power back home in representative’s districts.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 03:17 PM

Sorta seems like technology can solve quite a bit of this. When our country was founded and information had to be spread hand to hand. Representative Democracy made sense. What was the alternative really?

Today we have the means to institute direct democracy. Perhaps there is still a need for a minimal staff of people to prepare bills but there is no longer any excuse for having some bought and paid for congress person casting a vote.

If we can vote for the next winner of Dancing with the Idle, then we can certainly vote directly for less important things, such as stimulus packages.

Posted by: JayTea at February 24, 2009 05:10 PM

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n said: “You don’t need a crystal ball, nor be clairvoyant. “

To see the future actions of a new president. Yes, you most certainly do.

No one said they could see the future.

We’re talking about probabilities, and nit-picking the difference doesn’t minimize the probabilities of more of the same status-quo based on many decades that have preceded this mess.

To believe Obama (one person) is going to make Congress significant more responsible, and the federal government significantly better, is a stretch, and what I’m seeing so far is barely less disturbing than the administration and Congress which preceded it. But then, the 111th Congress consists of 86.9% of the 110th Congress.

David R. Remer wrote:We shall just have to disagree on your prescient abilities.

I never claimed to be clairvoyant or have special abilities.

Making predictions based on decades of history, and what is already know is not clairvoyance.

David R. Remer wrote: And I certainly hope you will not be reluctant to admit you were wrong if Obama frustrates your prescient ability on this.

I will be the first to admit I’m wrong.

I don’t want to be right.
I also wrote above …

While I seriously hope I’m wrong, I’d wager a large sum that there’s a very good reason why we are now seeing repeated “lowering-of-expectations”.
As you already alluded to before, to avoid significant pain and misery, it requires many things be done exactly right (i.e. somehow carefully “thread the needle”). That’s not happening now.

But to ignore reality would be foolish.
Had I not got out of the failing market a long time ago, and used it to pay off mortgages and other debt, that would have been a huge mistake.
Making predictions is not something to be condemned, unless they are mostly wrong.
We all recognize that preductions may not come true.
In this case, I hope I’m wrong, but based on decades of track-records, 86.9% of the 110th Congress in the 111th Congress, the deeply engrained status-quo, and the current fiscal insanity and massive debt growing ever larger beyond nightmare proportions, the predictions of severe economic chaos in the years to follow are not unrealistic to say the least. You don’t have to be clairvoyant. And based on Obama’s history and positions on several issues, it’s not hard to know where he’s headed either. Obama, you, and others are in the camp that believes massive stimulus spending is necessary. I’m not, because I believe it will only make the problem bigger, prop-up failed banks and business, grow the debt ever larger, there are other MANY important things the federal government could (or stop doing) that don’t cost much, and would help most Americans a lot. If jobs are important, why is the government still importing 1.5 Million foreign H-1B and H-2B visa workers, when there are 11-to-25 Million unemployed Americans? It appears as though e-Verify is about to be allowed to expire.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 24, 2009 05:19 PM

d.a.n said: “I never claimed to be clairvoyant or have special abilities. “

Sure sounded like it when you said you knew what Obama was going to do before he has even done it. Your exact words were: “Obama will allow it.”

Since, Obama has not yet taken action one way or the other on it, your statement lays claim to knowledge of a future act by Obama. By definition, that is laying claim to knowing the future before it arrives.

You may be right about what Obama will do, but, there is no way to declare at this moment that he will, or will not allow it, without engaging in prescience. Now if you are venturing a guess as to what Obama will do, we can differ and await Obamas action to validate your or my guess about the future. But, that is very different from you or I stating with certainty at this moment that he will, or will not, allow it. Such certainty about the future can only be achieved by prescience and I have no convincing evidence or proof that any human being has that kind of power. Hence, my jocular reference to your crystal ball.

I am sure you meant to say you are sure that Obama will allow it, which is different from the declarative statement that “he will allow it”. But, it seems appropriate to me to respond to what people actually type, as opposed to what I think they should have typed, if I were them. In the latter case I can simply look in a mirror and debate my image for all the benefit it would provide.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 07:31 PM

JayTea, I trust you are joking about direct democracy. The unintended consequences of direct democracy in the hands of the education level of this population in math, civics, history, economics, and the Constitution, are horrifically monumental in scale.

Not to mention the fact that immediately upon enacting direct democracy, the talking heads and radio and TV editorialists would become the new representatives for the masses who haven’t the time, energy, or inclination to properly inform themselves directly on issues before casting their vote.

Direct democracy is an enormously FLAWED concept, except for small groups managing decisions with equal access and review of all the information impacting their decisions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2009 07:41 PM

d.a.n you just keep gettin bettern better. referring to #276089. Bullets offering quotes from folks in the 1800’s. Them boys are tellin it like it was, is, and will be.
Meanwhile, Obama is on the tube about now telling us how he is going to cut the budget in half in four years. I think back to Joel’s article, Audacious Arrogancy’ or something like that. Don’t think we need a crystal ball on that one. Meanwhile, he’s dusting off a new budget, something over $400B or 6% up from last year. Over $8B in earmarks which both he and Pelosi swore off if I recall. But, you know, the recession and everything. Gotta spend that money.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 24, 2009 09:26 PM

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n said: “I never claimed to be clairvoyant or have special abilities. “

Sure sounded like it when you said you knew what Obama was going to do before he has even done it. Your exact words were: “Obama will allow it.”

I should have wrote …

d.a.n wrote: “Obama will [most likely] allow it.”

David R. Remer wrote: Now if you are venturing a guess as to what Obama will do, …

Yes, I was venturing a guess. What else could it be since no one has a crystal ball that reads the future?

David R. Remer wrote: I am sure you meant to say you are sure that Obama will allow it, which is different from the declarative statement that “he will allow it”. But, it seems appropriate to me to respond to what people actually type, as opposed to what I think they should have typed, if I were them. In the latter case I can simply look in a mirror and debate my image for all the benefit it would provide.

OK, OK, OK ! I should have wrote …

d.a.n wrote: “Obama will [most likely] allow it.”

Roy Ellis wrote: d.a.n you just keep gettin better ‘n better. Referring to #276089. Bullets offering quotes from folks in the 1800’s. Them boys are tellin it like it was, is, and will be.

Thanks Roy. Yes, many smart people in the past knew there was (and still is) something terribly wrong with the monetary system.

Here’s some more quotes.

Roy Ellis wrote: Meanwhile, Obama is on the tube about now telling us how he is going to cut the budget in half in four years.

Or cut the deficit in half? I’ll believe it when I see it. I wonder where the money will come from when the money doesn’t yet exist, and 90%-to-95% of all U.S. Dollars in existence in the U.S. exists as debt? OHHHhhhh … that’s right. We have a money tree called the Federal Reserve. Cha Ching! I wonder what a U.S. Dollar will be worth by 2012?

Roy Ellis wrote: I think back to Joel’s article, Audacious Arrogancy’ or something like that.

Yeah. Joel calls it a mass delusion. I think he’s right. What else could explain 85%-to-90% re-election rates for incumbent politicians in Congress, despite the voters’ dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress?

Roy Ellis wrote: Don’t think we need a crystal ball on that one.

Nope. Like I’ve been sayin’ for years, this entire economic mess wasn’t hard to see coming. And it’s unlikely to get better anytime soon, with the largest debt per-capita in U.S. history.

Roy Ellis wrote: Meanwhile, he’s [Obama is] dusting off a new budget, …

Yep. We’ll see. I don’t know how balanced budgets and massive borrowing can co-exist. I guess we’ll see.

Roy Ellis wrote: Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

That’s right. The voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful). Posted by: d.a.n at February 24, 2009 11:01 PM

Word is that the reason college costs have increased yearly is that the cost has been shifted from the state to the family while actual college outlay has been flat for a decade.
The Fairness Doctrine was defeated in the Senate but Durbin (Il) got a bill passed stating that the FCC will inforce or investigate ‘diversity of ownership’ of media. No clear understanding of that one yet.
The new Atty Gen. wants us to abandon the Bill of Rights and go for a ban on assault rifles (read semi-automatics) to prevent them from crossing the border and ending up in the hands of the druggies. C’mon Eric, who sells more assault rifles? China, Russia or the U.S. citizen? Strange that the Mex. government won’t give U.S. authorities the serial numbers of guns seized from the druggies.
The Dems made a downpayment to LaRasa and the Neighborhood Investment groups. Through the stimulus bill LaRasa will receive $950K for their ‘development fund’ and NIG (Acorn) groups will receive $181M.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 27, 2009 10:20 AM

Think there going to see a sea change over There? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1150666/2trillion—terrifying-total-national-debt—thats-33-000-man-woman-child-Britain.html

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 27, 2009 07:07 PM

Not just in Britain Rodney. Whether you believe this recession was intentional or accidental it really plays into the hands of the globalized economy wonks. This recession is somewhat different in that it is likely to last long enough to not only effect the working folks but the upper eschelon as well. Deflation is likely across all sectors. So, when we come out the other side we may indeed be ready to compete in a globalized economy. Kinda like the whole world getting reset to near zero and starting from scratch. Intriguing, I guess, for economist. Your old degree won’t hack it, will be obsolete, etc. You may need ‘green tickets’ to break into the work force. One thing for certain, you will be making a lot less $money.
I see where 1/3 of Japan’s work force is made up of temp work immigrants. Unlike in the US where the government has paid for these type folks to ‘winter over’ in Japan they either leave for the home country or go on the street. Russian workers are taking a real hard line with their temp workers, actually driving them out of certain areas, fire bombing houses and the like.
Would it not make more sense to get off this thing of mandating 5-8% growth every year and adopt a policy of training people here but send them back to their country to help develop it. Put some investment in impoverished countries so they could begin to grow and develop. Mexico for example. Ready to go under and be taken over by the druggies. More billionaires there than you can shake a stick at. Why couldn’t we start some needed businesses in Mexico, train some workers in this country to operate them and let them develop from there?

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 27, 2009 08:37 PM

At US$60 billion, Carlos Slim Slim? A friend of mine a Doctor went down into mexico back in the mid 1990s trying to get into Telecommunications They said come on down and he did with about 5 million of his and some friends money, Guess what he came back home Broke.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 27, 2009 09:06 PM

Couple of majors to take note of. I’ve posted recently about American’s sitting back and taking it while the rest of the world is out on the streets. Recently, we have the ‘newamericanteaparty.org’ I believe, who have been on the streets in a few cities protesting the stimulus. And, a movement sparked by Glenn Beck, ‘We Surround Them’, is planning several ‘viewings’ across the country in early March. Now that’s a WOW. Lots of people are silently protesting government actions. Let’s hope these new groups spark a bigger movement yet.
Otherwise, we have the end of the era of Reganomics. DOW is down 50% from it’s 07 high. O’s administration is calling for end of farm subsidies for owneers making over $500k. Some commission is pushing for a 2 cents a mile tax on the miles you drive. Ryanair wants to put coil slots on their toilets. The Gov. of W. Va. received a 58% pay raise, from $95k to $150k, while starting pay for social workers there is $16k. Below poverty line and those folks are eligible for food stamps. 16 banks failed this year.
Napolitano says 100% scanning of containers before they leave from overseas won’t be possible by 2012. Problems dealing with foreign governments. That’s why, in our VISIONUSA page, we propose building a high tech merchant marine fleet whereby containers can be checked on board while enroute to the US. Serves a number of pruposes. high tech through lo tech jobs for workers which is needed until we can get some kind of same trade policy in place. Provides a means to ship military equipment/supplies during war time and emergency situations and, provides for container security. No reason the US should cede shipping to the rest of the world. Other countries might be willing to use our high tech fleet to insure their imports are safe as well. As bombs get smaller security is going to become a bigger issue.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 27, 2009 11:26 PM

“O’s administration is calling for end of farm subsidies for owneers making over $500k.” Hows he going to do that he can’t even get the congress to use some amount of fiscal restraint I heard nothing from him, He voted for that crazy ethanol bill, “if you’re going to talk the talk, you’ve got to walk the walk” .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 28, 2009 10:23 AM

That $410 billion spending bill, about 40% of the pork in it was Republican pork. Quote “Democratic Congressman David Obey of Wisconsin defended earmarks, saying they were fully disclosed and a small part of the bill. He added that without them, “the White House and its anonymous bureaucrats” would control all spending.” Otherwise! and Like my other friend d.a.n. says (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 28, 2009 12:07 PM

And, something like 8000 earmarks in the budget bill. Obama is telling the lobbyist to ‘bring it on’ re the budget. I would say they have already brought it on, to the tune of about $4B in earmarks. Obama gonna whoop up on the lobbyist. There goes that that horny little flea crawlin up the elephants leg again.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 28, 2009 07:44 PM

Roy, please quote where Obama is telling the lobbyists to bring it on, re: the budget.

All I heard was Obama asking Congress and the public and the Governor’s to provide their input on what they believed could be put in the Budget to meet the nation’s needs and objectives both for maintenance of operations and rescuing jobs, homes, and the economy going forward.

People can suggest. It remains to be seen what Obama will accept as tolerable in moving the nation forward on its objectives, security, halting the economic decline, and investing in the future viability of our nation and her people.

You and I both know there are wasteful porky earmarks, and there are earmarks which meet the standard of fulfilling national and public needs. Earmarks are not necessarily equivalent with pork or wasteful spending.

You and I both know that our government and political party structure is one in which bargains and compromises are made to bring a consensus on board to pass a bill. We both know that this structure has inefficiencies inherent within it which will not result in optimal anything coming out of Congress.

The test will be whether there is a chasm between what passes the public’s smell test and what passes Obama’s veto test. There will be some ‘pork’ according to someone, in any spending bill that reaches the President’s desk. If however, there is a small amount of pork and the vast majority of the rest of the budget will fill the nation’s needs in moving forward toward improving our future, then such a bill should pass be signed by the President, would you not agree?

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 06:07 AM

Rodney Brown, you cannot compare Obama’s votes as a Senator of Illinois representing Illinois interests, with Obama’s actions as President representing the interests of the nation. If you seek consistency in his actions as Senator and as President, you will be disappointed, as you should be.

When I was a psychiatric technician I was very supportive and non-threatening toward patients. When I was a counselor for federal prisoners in a halfway house, threat of reincarceration was a tool of my job. Obama has a different job now, and will use different tools to meet the differing objectives of his new job. Or, that is what we would expect of him, wouldn’t you agree?

He may still support Ethanol subsidies, I don’t know. But, if he does, I would expect he would do so due to ethanol subsidies being an integral part of a success oriented energy transition to an energy independent nation, not due to his representing the interests of corporate Illinois Corn farmers in lieu of the national interests for all 50 states.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 06:17 AM

I would Agree David,I Kind of got a chuckle out of Obey’s excuse he can be a hot head and it’s almost like he’s Drawing a line in the sand interesting.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 1, 2009 10:11 AM

David, closest I can get to a quote is where Obama warned off special interests and lobbyists who, he said, “are gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is, so am I.”
I’m appalled that you are so condescending to the Dem’s. Shouldn’t we expect better from government? David, this is 2009. Why do we need guys running around with boxes of lobbyist money under their arms, $90k stashed in refrigerators, keeping pricing for ‘congressional fixes’ penciled on your hand, etc.? Why, when ICE is carrying out their duty under federal law, do we need Napolitano demanding to screen every ICE operation to put her political stamp of approval (or denial) on it? Why do we need to give $B’s to banks that failed and have them turn around and hand it out as bonuses? Shouldn’t DEMOCRACY have taken care of that stuff by now. Wash Post says this morning, in great detail, that Rubin, Summars and Geithner realized we were headed for a crash but chose not to speak out. Why would I then want them to manage the US economy? Twice Clinton has had to put Obama on the right track. Once over fear mongering and once over nationalizing banks. I would say we are governed by a bunch of ‘free trade’ light weights. This immigration thing has been with us since before the Regan admin. What does it say about a government that ignores it’s own laws? “We don’t like the law so we are going to take the law into our own hands”. What do you call that David? Vigilante-ism comes to mind. I call it a Klepto-Plutocracy! Does that sort of Democratic (as in Democracy) action endear folks to their government?

Time for reform. We don’t need any more of this crap. It’s clear, very clear, the US brought on this worldwide recession. They BROUGHT IT ON David. Greenspan, Barney, Phil Gramm, free traders, etc. Time to support one or more 3rd Parties, but not just any 3rd Party. A Party that will put accountability into the political equation by having its membership provides oversight for elected and appointed officials. A Party that can serve as a countervailing force to the duopoly, achieve major reform of government, and keep it that way. How about a Party with a name like ‘Republic Sentry’, guardian of the Republic? Visit www.repdems.com to see how this Party might function.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 1, 2009 02:43 PM

Roy asked: “David, this is 2009. Why do we need guys running around with boxes of lobbyist money under their arms, $90k stashed in refrigerators, keeping pricing for ‘congressional fixes’ penciled on your hand, etc.?”

Thanks for an easy question. Because we keep reelecting them regardless along party lines, from gerrymandered districts designed to perpetuate their continued reelection along party lines.

OK. I am ready for your next one. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 08:22 PM

Roy said: “Time to support one or more 3rd Parties, but not just any 3rd Party.”

Your party, my party, all parties will follow the same overarching mandate, win a majority of votes.

I long ago decided for myself long ago as a Nader supporter, that voting for or against the individual candidate based on whether they have improved governance or not, or will as a victorious challenger, is a far better choice and rationale to voting than by any party label.

A third party is what floats your boat. Get one going, and I will still judge its candidates and incumbents by my standard above, rather than vote for a candidate only because they belong to this or that party.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 08:27 PM

Working on it.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 1, 2009 10:55 PM

I’ll sign up Roy! It’s Our Congress i have the Biggest beef With both sides, Reform their is needed the most.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 2, 2009 09:29 AM

Ditto.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 2, 2009 09:59 AM

Yes, we really do need members and volunteers to get the Party, Republic Sentry, moving. 2012 seems like a long shot but we may be able to make a showing. Really doesn’t take a lot of money to get a Party going. Just takes some volunteer effort by several interested folks. Instead of ranting against the system I should be concentrating more on getting the Party up and running. We have a new website up, www.repdems.com, and it needs work, some rewrites, etc. We need more ideas and participation right now. Volunteers that can generate some interest in different states.
Just think. If Congress had to read and debate each bill think how that would impact their legislation. What if they had to run the pork and ear marks through as a bill? Man, if that wouldn’t throw cold water on a bunch of fraud and corruption.
Read an article in the Wash Post this morning that goes to the heart of why we need a 3rd Party that can put accountability into government. A W. Va. coal mine operator sued a larger outfit claiming the larger outfit pushed him out of business. The small miner won a $50Maward in the lower courts. Meanwhile, the big operator donated $3M to persuade voters to get rid of a judge he didn’t like and elect one he did. Your right, the high court dismissed the case by one vote. The new Judge could/should have recused himself because of the obvious conflict of interest. But, as done all over this country, he sat on the court and voted for his lobbyist.
Now, if this Judge was a member of Republic Sentry or a similar party that provides for citizens’ oversight of elected and appointed officials, the Judge could be held accountable. That is, if a certain percent of Party members register pro-forma complaints about the Judge on the Party website a mandatory vote is required. Party members in the effected political district are notified by email that they must vote the Judge up or down. If the Judge fails to garner 66% of the vote he is rejected from the Party. Now, the judge continues to serve through the end of his term. But, his chances of being re-elected are close to zero with no Party support to back him up. Grape withering on the vine concept.
Electing Judges through political campaigns is the norm in 39 States. Well, an agenda item for Republic Sentry is to abolish ‘corporate personhood’ and ‘money is free speech’ as law. Re-organize the FEC into two bodies. One to receive public donations and one to distribute those donations. All/any donations would come through the 1040 tax form. Similar reform of State campaign finance would be pursued. In so doing the money influence is severely, if not completely, eliminated from politics.

Republic Sentry! A Party for Independents! Check it out!

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 2, 2009 05:54 PM

The W. Va. case is before the Supreme Court now. Plaintiff’s lawyer said: constitutional right to a fair trial “means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal.” Scalia replied with: “have we ever had that?” “I was appointed to the bench by Ronald Regan” adding that he an others on the court routinely rule on cases involving the Pres. who appointed them. “Should I have been any less grateful to the person who appointed me” .…” than the judge here was grateful to the person who spent a lot of money in his election?”

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 4, 2009 06:19 PM