Andrew Cuomo's five-point plan to build a New NY.

Andrew Cuomo is the Attorney General of New York state and son of the former governor Mario Cuomo. Andrew was also a cabinet officer under President Bill Clinton. Andrew is running for governor.

Here is a link for his personal election website:

http://www.andrewcuomo.com/issues_and_agenda

It contains his five point plan, which include:

3. Rightsizing Government
Government in New York is too big, ineffective, and expensive.

Now contrast that with this link to his official Attorney General website "Meet my Senior Staff":

http://www.ag.ny.gov/senior_staff.html

Here are the titles of his "Senior Staff":

Director of Communications

Special Deputy Attorney General for Public Integrity

Special Deputy Attorney General for Guns and Gangs

Counselor and Chief of Staff

Special Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights

Chief Investigator

Executive Deputy Attorney General for Social Justice

Counsel to the Attorney General

Deputy Attorney General for Administration

Special Deputy Chief of Staff

Special Counsel to the Attorney General

Deputy Counselor and Special Assistant

Executive Deputy Attorney General for the Division of State Counsel

Press Secretary

Special Deputy Attorney General for Investor Protection

Deputy Attorney General for Regional Affairs

Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Executive Deputy Chief of Staff

Solicitor General

Executive Deputy Attorney General for Economic Justice

Deputy Attorney General for the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit

21. I may have lost count but I think it's 21. You can't make up stuff like this. And remember, this is just Andrew Cuomo's "Senior Staff".

On August 9, 2010 I had filled out a form at the website of the Attorney General of New York state, figuring I might get some attention because the office holder is running for higher office. Instead I received a PAPER letter dated August 11, 2010 from someone whose title is "Associate Director of Correspondence". Since the PAPER letter writer is only the "Associate" and since the actual "Director" is not a member of the 21 person "Senior Staff" I guess my message did not have the impact I had intended. That and the fact that the author did not provide an e-mail ID and had his phone number in miniature font size. Plus this: "We are unclear, however, as to the nature of your concerns". PAPER man could have called me. I provided my phone number. PAPER man could have sent me an e-mail message. I provided my e-mail ID. I used digital means to communicate. Why did I receive a PAPER response?

Maybe he was too busy ... attending a staff meeting. Maybe he was trying to schedule a meeting with one of those 21 "Senior Staff" people. More likely he was trying to contact one of the associates of those 21. Or an associate of one of the groups that are not important enough to be among the 21 "Senior Staff", a group such as his own: Correspondence.

Can you imagine a group named Correspondence, that is important enough to have a "Director" who is important enough to have an "Associate Director" who cannot understand a constituent's message and responds as described?

And Andrew Cuomo (Remember him?) has this as one of his five elect-me-governor points:

3. Rightsizing Government
Government in New York is too big, ineffective, and expensive.

You can't make up stuff like this.

________________________________________

The link to this message was sent to:

http://www.andrewcuomo.com/contact

Maybe we need a Dumb Democrat.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

We elected the smart guy.

http://matinale.blogspot.com/2008/11/we-elected-smart-guy.html

_________________________________

I'm starting to have a new perspective. Maybe we need a Dumb Democrat. The smart Democrats who have been elected in recent decades have not done so well: Carter, Clinton, Obama. They seem to know what to do but can't get it done. Carter was inept, Clinton and Obama too expedient. Clinton and Obama can talk themselves into and out of anything.

I'm starting to consider alternatives to Obama who shows no signs of doing anything radical enough to matter. A Dumb Democrat might be just the right balance. Someone who's dumb enough to actually try to do what is needed.

Obama can lose re-election to the first Spanish speaking president.

John Ellis "Jeb" Bush: born February 11, 1953.

Sunday Chris Mathews and his panelists stumbled around the idea that the former governor of Florida could defeat President Obama in 2012 in part because Jeb speaks fluent Spanish as a second language. They failed to describe him as the first Spanish speaking president, somewhat akin to Bill Clinton being described as our first black president.

Jeb is the son of President Bush the elder.

Jeb is the younger brother of President Bush the younger.

Jeb is smart and well spoken in English, something that his presidential relatives were not. Unlike his presidential brother Jeb seems to have actually gone to class while in college. Jeb also lacks his brother's boorish qualities.

Jeb has these advantages:

- he no longer holds public office
- he would not be immediately succeeding his brother
- his children have a Mexican mother and were described indelicately as "the little brown ones" by President Bush the elder, their grandfather.

If Jeb could garner 90 percent of the "Spanish" vote that would overwhelm Obama's 90 percent of the black vote and could decide the election.

Were Jeb to be elected president he would clarify the Bush dynasty as the greatest in U.S. history. So far Bushes have been elected to three presidential terms, one while losing the popular election. Bush the elder lost re-election.

Adamses were elected to two presidential terms, John Quincy while losing the popular vote. Both lost re-election.

Harrisons were elected to two presidential terms. The elder, William Henry, died soon after taking office. His grandson Benjamen lost the popular vote in both his elections, winning in the electoral college in the first.

Roosevelts were elected to five presidential terms but Theodore was a distant relative of Franklin who racked up four of those victories all by himself. Each had been governor of New York.

John Kennedy was elected to one presidential term. Two of his brothers were elected to the U.S. Senate and two of his nephews were elected to the House of Representatives and a niece was elected Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. I think that the Bushes already have that trumped with two presidents and a governor.

Immigration: suppose you change country to company?

http://matinale.blogspot.com/2008/02/immigration-solution-by-kenneth.html

Immigration: the solution

That's something I wrote May 16, 2006. Too bad nobody did it.

Now there is political turmoil about the Arizona law, which was enacted in April and "which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants." NY Times, July 11, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/us/politics/12governors.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

Sounds good to me. Some people are falling all over themselves in protest, way out of proportion to any conceivable negative impact. What's the worst that can happen? Some of the people in the United States who should be deported are deported.

The fallacy of the concern is that no entity in the United States would tolerate the policy that the entire United States is supposed to tolerate. Try substituting company for country. Then see how far that policy gets you. Any entity has a right to know who is in its jurisdiction and to set policy about that.

IBM, you know the big computer company, has its headquarters a few miles from where I live. What would happen if I showed up there? I might not even get into the parking lot as a non-employee. I definitely cannot get into the building without having an employee vouch for me by
signing me in and signing me out when I leave.

Let's take it a step further. Suppose that I want to work at IBM. What would happen if I broke in? Would I be allowed to stay and would I be put on track to become an employee, employment being the functional equivalent of citizenship? Does anyone think that would happen? Forget about being sent to the employment office and put on the end of the line. The only line I would be on is the one in jail.

To the knuckleheads who think that foreigners should be allowed to break into the United States with impunity: what would you do if you came home and found a family of strangers in your home? Would you call the police and have them removed? Or would you allow them to stay ... and send for their relatives to join them?

How many people who live in houses do not have a fence between their property and the property of their immediate neighbors?

And what about showing identification? We do it all the time. As mentioned previously, virtually every company requires employees to not only have ID but to wear it when at their place of employment. When a police officer stops us for a traffic matter we are asked to show our driver's license, car registration and proof of car insurance. I have no objection to showing proof of citizenship at any time.

So why do some of us pretend to have a totally different attitude about the most basic form of membership: U.S. citizenship? Every country has a right to decide who is allowed to visit, stay, become a citizen.

And why should we pretend that most of the people who violate our borders are not from Mexico and other countries further south? Why pretend that basic common sense is "racial profiling", whatever that is? People who came to the United States from south of the border are generally the overwhelming majority of those who are offended? Why? Are they really concerned? If they were truly concerned about being deported then why would they participate in public protest rallies? Apparently they are not so concerned that the police will round them up. What is the negative implication about rounding up law breakers? How about rounding up deadbeat dads? Who opposes that?

One supposed benefit is diversity. The current dynamic is just the opposite. We are allowing people from Mexico, etc. who are generally poor, not well educated and almost encouraged to leave their countries by the ruling elite of those countries. How many of these Spanish speaking intruders would favor lawless entry into the United States if there were true diversity, i.e., that people from many different countries from around the world were breaking into the United States, people who speak many languages other than Spanish, from cultures very different from theirs, with different religions?

Tolerance is an elusive thing and very subjective when truly confronted.

Conservation.

Teddy Roosevelt advocated conservation over 100 years ago. Isn't it about time that another American president do it? While the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continues unabated, no one has suggested that we conserve and use less oil so that drilling would be less necessary. Not President Obama, not the governor of Louisiana, not the governor of Mississippi, not a mayor of one of those pathetic little places which rely on the fishing industry. NO ONE! Instead of politicians who have nothing in common with NASCAR nation aficionados sucking up to them for their votes, how about SOMEBODY in a responsible position pointing out how absurd it is for the United States to embrace a culture of reckless speeding, needless oil consumption, pollution and weakening our national security through continued dependence on terrorist nations for essential energy sources?

Barack Bush and/or George W. Obama

During the 2008 presidential campaign I wrote that with Democrats like Obama who needs Republicans? Maybe we should search for Obama's birth certificate so that we can compare it to that of Bush the younger to make sure that they are not the same person. Maybe do a DNA analysis to determine whether Obama is an illegitimate son of Bush the elder. There must be some explanation for why Obama's policies are those that I would have expected from Bush the younger had he not been precluded from serving a third term by a constitutional term limit. Consider:


Economy:
- bailout of the auto industry
- bailout of the financial industry
- financial leaders allowed to receive HUGE amounts of money for their incompetence and possible criminality
- high unemployment
Obama's Treasury Secretary may not have been as much of a Goldman Sachs creature as Bush's Paulson or Clinton's Rubin but Geithner could not have protected Goldman Sachs more without being investigated. OK, Obama's justice department is looking into criminal charges against the financial crooks. Bush the younger would never have considered that.


Foreign policy:
- large numbers of troops kept in Iraq with no substantial improvement
- large numbers of troops kept in Afghanistan with no substantial improvement.


Environment:
- "drill, baby, drill" re-affirmed even after the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
- "mine, baby, mine" re-affirmed even after the recent coal mine disaster that killed 29 workers.


You may think that the one major divergence was on health care. Obama's convoluted legislation ensures that the insurance industry will receive government mandated revenue. Bush the younger would embrace that. This is not change that we can believe in. It is not even change.

Is nature (God) giving us a hint on dealing with mother earth?

Two recent events:

1. Coal mine cave in in West Virginia, killing many workers.

2. Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico heading toward Louisiana, causing a state of emergency.

Where are the "drill, baby, drill" and "mine, baby, mine" morons now. Maybe nature and/or God is giving us a final wake up call.

These should be our energy imperatives:

1. Fill in the oil wells and coal mines.

2. Stop burning stuff, all stuff: coal, oil, natural gas, wood. Burning is bad. Repeat: burning is bad.

Then establishing an energy policy should be easy.

A personal experience with health care insurance.

Because my former employer, AT&T, hiked the monthly charge for my insurance carrier, US Health Care, from $141 to $291, I switched to another AT&T provided option for 2010: HIP New York. Monthly cost: zero. There were some minor differences: $50 for a specialist visit as opposed to $40; $50 deductible for prescription medicine, which would be $30 per 90 days instead of $20. Nothing that would justify paying almost $300 per month. Once again, my increase was OVER 100%. Obama was dramatizing the recent 39% increase in California. Hey, 100% is more than twice 39%! With US Health Care I could go to a specialist directly without getting a referral from the primary care physician (PCP). HIP New York requires that I get a referral from my PCP. So far I have not tested this. All my specialists took HIP New York but my PCP did not, so I would need a new PCP. HIP New York seemed to be a good choice. My old single practitioner PCP is a good doctor but his office administration was terrible. Usually, I could not get anyone on the phone, I could not leave a message and his office hours were limited. Having prescriptions sent to Medco (designated by AT&T) for mail order was a continuing source of concern and frustration. I chose Westchester Medical Group, which had many doctors in multiple locations AND a web site in which I could review doctor credentials and make appointments, request referrals, submit billing questions, review test results. http://www.westmedgroup.com/ Impressive, heh? Wow, this seemed like a major improvement if my new PCP was comparable to my previous PCP. My new PCP is good but he is old and apparently he does not use his group's web site. There were issues about simple gastro medicine. He seemed unaware of Medco's mail order system and told me that he just writes prescriptions that patients take to the local pharmacy. How quaint. I insisted that I wanted mail order because it is less expensive and more convenient. He was not sure that his people knew how to submit a prescription to Medco but his nurse assured him that she did. When the Westchester Medical Group, Medco and HIP New York web sites did not mesh on the status and details of my prescription I sent a message through the Westchester Medical Group web site expressing concern, thinking that it would be handled by an admin person. I received multiple phone calls from my new PCP about this. My PCP became agitated, stating that he was just trying to practice medicine and that neither he nor his people would spend hours on the phone trying to resolve this .. and that I should call and not send e-mail. Let's just say that there were more problems and that they need to be resolved, including his switching me to a new non-generic gastro medicine that HIP New York does not classify as continuing, which limits the supply to 30, not 90, days. This medicine appears to be the usual drug company trick of creating a slightly newer medicine when its predecessor is about to go generic. The new med, of course, costs a lot more than the old. My PCP fell for it. February 5, 2010 my new PCP performed an endoscopy on me. A couple of weeks later, I received a bill for $1,050 from the anesthesiology group. They claimed that they did not have any insurance info on me. Say what? Didn't Westchester Medical Group and/or my PCP pass along that info through the hospital? I had to show my HIP New York card at the hospital. Again, how quaint. Suppose that I had lost the plastic proof of insurance? Next I received a bill from a pathological organization, which I assume is the business for the hospital pathologist. After calling that group and HIP New York I learned that HIP New York had paid only $116 of the $330 submission and I was asked to pay the remaining $214. HIP New York informed me that the doctor in the hospital pathology department was not "in network". I asked what pathologist for that hospital would be "in network". HIP New York did not know. HIP New York will re-submit the claim of the pathologist but stated that it would probably be rejected again. What the heck? I had no control over who did the pathology work. I never even heard of this pathologist until I received the bill. At least I had met, though not chosen, the anesthesiologist just before my procedure. Suppose the anesthesiologist had not been "in network"? Could I have been socked with that $1,050 bill? I understand why some members of Congress are against a single payer system for health care: some of it is philosophical but most of it is greed. What I cannot understand are all those regular people who are foaming at the mouth in opposition. Don't they have experiences that are comparable to mine? I am relatively healthy. What the heck are sick people going through? Separate health care from insurance. Have the federal government pay the bills. And if the government will not pay the entire amount, present patients with clear indications of how much they will be expected to pay BEFORE medical work is done. ____________________________________________ Sent to Paul Krugman (New York Times), President Obama, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Rep. Nita Lowey

American citizens need health care, not health insurance.

It's pretty simple and basic. Nobody cares whether or not they have insurance. They just want access to health care. Medicare for every American citizen. I advocated that back in August 2009 on this blog and in a message that I sent to my member of the House and my U.S. Senators and to President Obama. I sent it again today to those same recipients who have yet to "get the message". Drive the damn insurance companies out of business. We do NOT need health insurance! We do not have police insurance. We just call the police and they respond. And for the current Republican rant about the tenth amendment and how requiring people to buy health insurance violates the tenth amendment: hey, states require car insurance. That pretty much sums up our priorities: cars before people ... and that's in the weird world in which insurance is deemed necessary to be healthy. Prohibit employers from providing health coverage. Hey, maybe a side benefit would be to encourage them to stay in the USA and be more competitive. The government should pay the bill as it does for national defense, the interstate highway system, blah, blah, blah. Oh, that would be big government! Government run health care! YES! Get over it! USA is the most powerful country in the history of the galaxy. Stop acting like it's Mayberry. Grow the heck up! We have a government run ARMY! Want to change that to an insurance system supplied by employers? You lose your job and you lose your army insurance and you may be invaded by the Russians. Oh, well that's stupid. Yeah, so is employer based health insurance, which you lose when you need it most when your employer fires your ass! I'll take my chances with that government bearueacrat over the ones I deal with now in the private health insurance companies. And the government is not going to fire me.

Media: pound inequity of the United States Congress!

President Obama has been conducting a seminar on health care with members of Congress. All day. Right now Obama is 30 minutes from the end and a senator from Wyoming, another of the Congressional Republican doctors, is running his mouth, protecting his interests. Who is this guy, representing fewer than 250,000 people (half Wyoming's population) when a senator from California represents 17,000,000 people (half California's population)? Media people should in every instance stress the inequity of the United States Congress. For senators, don't just indicate party and state, tell us how many people that senator represents. When senators vote on a bill, don't just show the number who voted for and against. Count up the number of people represented by those votes so we can see the relative weight on each side of the issue. In the House of Representatives, show a silhouette of the member's district and the percent of voters in the major parties. Embarrass the crap out of those in protected districts until the states adopt fair districting according to municipal boundaries. Better yet, call for a Constitutional Convention so we can fix the many deficiencies left by the Fumbling Founding Fathers.

Should liberals embrace states rights?

States rights. The very phrase has so many negative connotations outside of the DSA (Dumb States of America) - see previous post. In the first half of the history of the United States of America, states rights was an excuse to justify and maintain slavery, the south's peculiar institution. In the second half of our history states rights has been an excuse to justify and maintain second class citizenship for blacks and for other backward policies. The U.S. constitution is so flawed in the process for electing a president and in the legislature by having a senate in which California with 68 times more people has the same representation as Wyoming, it's no wonder that our policies are perverted. These inequities cannot be changed without the consent of the beneficiaries of those same inequities. The Founding Fathers were no better than what we have today. What a mess they created. And we still had a civil war. And the civil war didn't even result in addressing secession, the act which triggered it. Three constitutional amendments as a result of the civil war and none dealt with secession. Without a constitutional convention to make fundamental changes there is no way that this system will improve. So, if you can't beat them, join them. Liberals should stop worrying about Mississippi mistreating its citizens. Short of lynchings, Mississippi is unlikely to do anything really terrible with the universal spotlight of the world wide web. If needed, the feds can step in, like in the old days, the 1960s. Besides, people can vote with their feet. That's the phrase that Reagan popularized. Aren't they already doing that, migrating towards the coasts? Isn't that why old people move to Florida, Arizona and Nevada? Oops, real estate values collapsed in those states. Isn't it why retired LA cops move to Idaho? Liberals, stop cringing and embrace states rights. Change the dynamic and make the nuts cringe. Dismantle federal programs and let each state set policy that is not by its nature federal, such as national defense. When the same people get flooded out of their homes every ten years or so because they refuse to move out of Mississippi River flood zones, their state government, not the federal government, will be responsible for rebuilding their homes. Good luck there. And when a city that is built below sea level gets flooded, Louisiana will decide whether New Orleans is such a good idea after all. You want universal health care? Move to New York or California. You want to carry a concealed weapon? Move to Montana or Idaho. You don't want all that government regulation like brakes on cars? Move to South Carolina. Oh, and make each state pay for its stretch of interstate highway. Let's see how NASCAR nation likes that. Why should someone in New York City who does not own a car pay for interstate highways? States rights. Cool.

Dumb States of America (DSA)

The old Confederate States of America (CSA) could join with some of the western states that are also dumb and form the Dumb States of America (DSA). It could be a more perfect union than the one to which they currently belong. At the Olympic games DSA citizens could cheer on their athletes with chants of DSA, DSA, DSA! It should be easy for them to convert from the old USA chant to the new one. Dumb. That's what we have become. Increasingly we allow dumb people to make decisions and set policy on matters that require smart people: climate change, health care, the economy, ... People who are afraid of science. I don't know science but I know enough to know when most scientists have reached a consensus such as on climate change or health hazards of smoking tobacco or human evolution. The rest of the developed world must be laughing at us. We can't even decide to have universal health care. How dumb is that? And we act as if it's a complicated decision. Dumb. You can't have that. Smart people are not always correct but dumb people are usually incorrect. We have over 308 million people in the USA. Why do we let the dumb people have so much influence. Maybe we should split up. Let states secede and form the DSA. Then they can produce as many guns as they want, leave their children uneducated and have a nice weak central government like the old CSA. It was that weak central government that ultimately doomed the CSA.

The United States Senate is a dumb idea.

The United States of America was founded on states rights. The best example of this is the absurd nature of the United States Senate in which each state has the same number of senators regardless of population. According to http://www.census.gov/ here is the U.S. population today: 308,742,516. This includes non-American citizens. The first census was done in 1790. The state totals are here: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790a-02.pdf I created a document for the 1790 census, which shows the data: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tx0ONS8ONKuPMlty8v0CSqg&output=html In 1790 Virginia had 13 times more people per U.S. senator as Delaware. Each Delaware resident had 13 times more influence as each Virginia resident. Here is the state by state population for the 2000 census and through July 2009: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-T1-R&-ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-_lang=en&-format=US-40S&-_sse=on California has the most residents and Wyoming the fewest. Their ratio of residents per U.S. senator as of July 2009 is 68. 68! That's five times worse than the max/min ratio in 1790. Wyoming residents have 68 times more influence than California residents. This is ridiculously outrageous. Instead of laughing at each others sophomoric wisecracks, those tea party morons should be pushing to reform the system of government. Fundamental reform of the system is the only hope we have of getting better results.

Two Americas? At least.

Former Senator John Edwards used the phrase and theme "two Americas" when he ran for president. Unfortunately, there are at least that many and always have been. Our current political gridlock is derived from the mess of a start that the United States had. Ridiculous compromises and expedient deals were made simply to found this country and they persist in our system of government. The only way to purge them is to change the system, which constitutionally, is unlikely to change. In their desire to have all the relevant British colonies become part of the new nation, the founding fathers made deals that make today's look principled. Not only did they not abolish slavery, they permitted the importation of slaves for another 20 years. They permitted the offspring of slaves to be slaves even though in other parts of the world those children would have been free. They implemented a compromise in which three of five slaves would count as free people for the number of seats in the House of Representatives. They maintained the British aristocratic concept of the House of Lords by establishing the U.S. Senate. Wyoming and California each have two senators. And we wonder why our federal government has become so dysfunctional. I have written about constitutional changes before:

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Electing the President: a new system

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2008 Electing the Vice President: a new system

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2008 City States in America:

New York City ... could be a new state with its own perspective and issues... The U.S. constitution has many flaws. An obvious one is the disproportionate nature of the Senate. The founders did not intend for the Senate to be proportionate but they could never have imagined that it would become so hugely disproportionate because they could not have imagined that cities would become so populous... Once New York sets the precedent, all large U.S. cities should follow... Once cities started to secede the Congress would have no choice but to admit them as city states. _________________________________

What to do?

1. Let states and other municipalities secede. No, the American Civil War did not settle this issue. Show me the constitutional amendment, which addresses this. If Lincoln had truly been great there would have been no civil war. When slave states seceded, he should have let them go. He could have corrected some of the original mistakes while leaving the original sin of slavery where it belonged: with the slave states of the Confederacy. The peculiar institution would have ended in about twenty years and the Confederacy would have failed by then. Those states could have been considered for re-admission but on terms that would have made far more sense than what evolved out of the civil war.

2. Within the limited federal functionality that remains, let states do what they want. If they want to rely on the federal government a lot, let them. If they don't, don't force them. If people in Mississippi want to continue to act against their own best interests, let them. Let health insurance companies in Mississippi rule that industry. But if people in New York state want to rely on the federal government, that should be allowed, too. New Yorkers can have a government option on health insurance, some alternative to the private companies. New York has a lot of regulation on health insurance already. Let New York have as much as it wants. Let Mississippi continue to lose population to places like ... New York. In other words, don't fight the two Americas, the many Americas. Let them exist. With our current constitutional structure there is no choice. So unless you are willing to change the U.S. Constitution or, dare I say it, start over, multiple forms of government will exist. Give tea party people (Are they all grouchy old white people?) the option to live under a form of government that suits them. It seems that about one third of Americans are pretty nuts. You cannot reason with nutty people. Obama needs to learn this and stop wasting his time. You cannot reason with terrorists either. Obama, get over it. There is bipartisanship only with those who are not partisan. Another third of Americans are committed to their political thoughts but are not nuts. Then there are the remaining third of Americans who are dumb, either by birth or by choice. Jay Leno interviews them on the street. We generally are appalled at how much they do not know. They are morons. No offense to former Alaska governess Palin or to any of her neglected kids. Hey, to each his/her own.

One Dollar, One Vote.

The immediate reaction to the 5-4 Supreme Court decision has been an hysterical description stating that corporations may now contribute unlimited amounts of money to political activities. There was little or no mention of labor unions and political action committees being similarly unburdened. According to the instant analysis democracy as we know it may be ending or at least taking a turn for the worse.

 1. The ruling did not change limits on direct contributions to candidates by corporations.

2. You never know what will happen.

3. To combat a rich person spending a million dollars on politics, get a million non-rich people to each spend one dollar.

Democracy is not a spectator sport. That's the problem with the second demise of fundamental health care legislation in less than twenty years. Most people are not involved, especially mentally. Most are not thinking about it rationally. Special interest groups, fueled by big, soon to be bigger, money, fill the huge void left by the masses. Who is to blame: the fillers or the voiders?

"new approach to solving global warming"

A "new approach to solving global warming": that's the description of an interview shown yesterday on Fareed Zakaria's weekly CNN news program: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/ http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2009/12/20/gps.climate.change.cnn.html The basic idea is to actually reduce the stuff that is causing the earth's climate to change. No, not reduce the amount of stuff that we continue to add to the problem but to actually reduce the amount of bad stuff in the atmosphere that causes climate change. This is a radically different approach to all the nonsensical tinkering like "cap and trade", which allows entities to pollute. We could outlaw polluting. That would work but even that would not reduce the amount of bad stuff in the atmosphere. The real question, especially after the huge disappointment of the U.N. climate change meeting that just ended with a giant thud in Copenhagen, Denmark, is whether world leaders, particularly U.S. President Barak Obama, are truly interested in solving the problem or whether they are like Jerry Lewis. Yes, Jerry Lewis, the ancient comedian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lewis_MDA_Telethon The Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon (also known as The Jerry Lewis MDA Labor Day Telethon) is hosted by actor and comedian, Jerry Lewis to raise money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA). It has been held annually since 1966. Many years ago I heard Jerry asked why he didn't simply appeal to Congress to allocate the money needed for muscular dystrophy. He brushed it off as unacceptable. I realized that Jerry was more concerned with making himself feel good than with solving the problem. So, is Barak Obama like Jerry Lewis, more interested in making himself feel good than with solving the problem of global climate change? Or is Barak Obama willing to accept ridicule by considering a radically different approach, one with which his science advisers must now be familiar, even if they were not before they let the president travel to Copenhagen and submit himself to the indignity of chasing the head of the Chinese government to be included in the only meaningful dialog that mattered, that between the planet's two leading polluters: the U.S. and China. President Obama, be radical. You're already holding your nose when you read that embarrassment of a health care bill that your former colleagues in the U.S. Senate just passed. It has become what I expected all along: legislation but not reform. As mentioned previously, we simply need to extend Medicare to all American citizens. The solution to global climate change may be just as simple. Are you willing to embrace the simple direct approach to solving a problem? It's a simple question. _________________________________________________ Note: The link to this message and most of its content was sent to the president through the form at the White House web site. See the auto response below. A formal response was requested and will be published at this blog web site. http://www.whitehouse.gov/thank-you Thank You! Thank you for contacting the White House. President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history. That begins with taking comments and questions from you, the public, through our website. Our office receives tens of thousands of messages from Americans each day. We do our best to reply to as many as we can, but please be aware that you may find more information and answers to your questions online. We encourage you to visit WhiteHouse.gov regularly to follow news and updates, and to learn more about President Obama's agenda for change. For an easy-to-navigate source of information on Federal government services, please visit: www.USA.gov Thank you again for your message. The Office of Presidential Correspondence

Afghanistan: some common sense.

Six days ago President Obama formally announced his policy on the war on terror in Afghanistan. He did it to the corps of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY. This address should have been made from the oval office in the White House. The president should not have used the cadets as political props. As I have written previously, Barack Obama is incapable of taking a firm stand. He cuts issues into halves and half again and again, until there is very little substance in the final position. Obama wants to win but not pay for the surge in troops by raising taxes, much as Obama does not want to pay for increased health care coverage with extra taxes. Obama wants to stay the course but have a deadline. Obama wants the 27 other member countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to also increase the number of troops that they have in Afghanistan. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm Obama intends to place 30,000 more U.S. troops in Afghanistan. NATO apparently may place 7,000 more troops in Afghanistan. It would seem that those 27 other NATO nations could easily match the U.S. commitment soldier for soldier. A principle tenet of NATO is that an attack on one member is regarded as an attack on all. That is what kept the old Soviet Union (Russia) from swallowing up Germany after World War II. On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by Muslim terrorists sponsored by the group known as Al-Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan. NATO rightly took military action to destroy this terrorist base. Unfortunately, that military effort failed. Whether the U.S. overthrow of the dictator in Iraq undermined the action in Afghanistan is debatable. The fact is that after eight years no substantive goals in Afghanistan have been met. Further efforts are folly, especially the typical half measures that Obama is doomed to repeat on all his issues. My position, as stated previously, is that NATO should immediately withdraw from Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan eventually drove out the Russians in the 1980s by themselves. The U.S. supplied some weapons, primarily shoulder mounted stinger missiles. Neither the U.S., nor any other nation supplied any troops. If the people of Afghanistan could defeat the Russians, why can't they defeat some of their own: the Taliban ... a radical Sunni Islamist movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until late 2001, when they were removed from power by NATO forces during Operation Enduring Freedom? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban Dependence on the U.S. government should be removed with strong incentives and deadlines. Both major U.S. political parties agree on that. They just disagree on the issues where it should be applied. Republicans think it makes sense on social welfare programs. Democrats think it makes sense on war and occupation. Both are correct. We Americans never seem to learn. Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968 based largely on his secret plan to get us out of Viet Nam. His ad agency phrase once in office was to VietNamize the war, i.e., turn over responsibility to the people of that country. It never happened. Sound familiar? Remaining in these backward countries never works. Never. Corrupt politicians in the occupied country have no incentive to let the U.S. leave. The U.S. is the source of their power and wealth. No matter how well intentioned American policy is, it never works in these situations, which by definition involve relationships of dependency.

Afghanistan: how about no boots on the ground?

President Obama is conducting yet another of his public decision making ordeals, this time agonizing over Afghanistan. As I have written previously, Obama instinctively tries to split every problem, even those that cannot be split. Instead of agreeing to the request of his hand picked U.S. general for Afghanistan for an additional 40,000 troops, Obama would like to send 40,000 half troops, maybe some waist up, some waist down.

We should eliminate the U.S. Army. That would deprive the commander-in-chief of the option to occupy someplace. We would still have the Air Force, Navy and Marines. That's plenty for what is practical. Oh, and of course, plenty of nuclear warheads on ICBMs and nuclear submarines.

When he was the general in charge of the Persian Gulf war in 1991 for President Bush the elder, Colin Powell popularized the phrase "boots on the ground" as in how many troops do we need. He also popularized the concept of overwhelming force. That's good for winning a war and President Bush the elder had both the common sense and restraint to win and leave Iraq. However, President Bush the younger wound up occupying Iraq and lacking the common sense to know when to leave. He engaged in nation building, even though he stated during the 2000 presidential campaign which gave Al Gore more popular votes that he, Bush the younger, abhorred nation building. Bush the younger did the same in Afghanistan with the same lack of success.

Now these are Obama's wars, despite the amazingly annoying practice of Bush haters to continue to call them Bush's wars. Obama must end them. Obama has shown no inclination to do anything very different so far. He won't do it but it's pretty simple: get the heck out. That's how you end them. Occupation is no longer an option for a civilized country. Too much publicity. Scandals and brutality are inevitable. Even the Russians would have difficulty and they don't care what anybody thinks. To occupy or impose a Pax Americana as President Kennedy phrased it during his inaugural address requires force and plenty of it. No matter how gently one tries to use such force it is always resented. Resentment is the best reaction to hope for. Insurgency is more likely.

Don't do it. Don't occupy. We currently occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither occupation will work well for the United States. We need to leave ASAP. No boots on the ground.

President Obama to receive the Nobel Peace prize: is this a hoax?

When I wake up I use my Palm TX to connect to the Internet via WiFi. While still in bed I check e-mail, then The New York Times online. I usually don't comment on breaking news but what I read as the lead story so shocked me that I wrote this almost immediately.

President Barack Obama had been voted to receive the Nobel Peace prize.

What?

My immediate thought was that it was a hoax. When I got up I checked CNN, which was also reporting the story. That confirmed it. Who could fool both The Times and CNN?

The Nobel description of why Obama had won was pretty vague. I had thought that the recipient had to actually do something not merely talk about it. This is not Obama's fault but this prize is at least a year early. Maybe the Nobel voters should have waited for at least one of the following:

- peace between Israel and the Palestinians

- Iran to stop its nuclear program

- Obama to figure what he will do in Afghanistan

- climate change policy to be implemented.

I can think of some prominent people who are more than a little miffed about this:

- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

- former Presidents:

---- Bill Clinton

---- Carter, who waited decades to receive his Nobel Peace prize

---- Bush the elder, who presided over the end of the cold war

---- Bush the younger, who clearly was a target

- Senators John Kerry and John McCain who lost the last two presidential elections.

Wow! What next? Sports writers vote Obama manager of the year? Voted into the baseball Hall of Fame as the greatest Chicago White Sox fan of all time? An Academy Award?

Wow!

The right wing nut professional talkers will be apoplectic. Maybe that was considered, to see whose head would explode over this.

It also puts pressure on Obama to not use military force ... anywhere. How bad would that look, for a peace prize winner to implement shock and awe? It appears that part of the intent is to attack Obama's predecessor, George Walker Bush. I think this is unfair. I never confused Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney with the enemy.

Bush was popular among most Americans for his reaction to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks because he was right and because his statements made common sense:

- if you're not with us, you're against us

- better to fight terrorists "there" rather than here

- if you harbor a terrorist, you'll be treated as a terrorist.

I have long thought that if Bill Clinton had been president when we were attacked those same words and actions, including invading Iraq, would have been applauded by many of Bush's critics, most of whom could not get over the disputed 2000 election, which they felt was improperly awarded to Bush by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court panicked. It should have let the Constitutional process play out. The majority of state delegations in the House of Representatives would have elected Bush president and the new Senate would have elected Al Gore's running mate Joe Lieberman vice president. Dick Cheney would have been an advisor, probably with less influence and Bush would have been more constrained. Wow, that's quite a digression.

So, President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace prize. Wow.

Health care: how about both?

There seem to be two camps: public option and co-ops. Are they mutually exclusive? Why not forge a compromise and put both into the legislation?

Medicare eligibility: not just 65 and older.

I read a New York Times article about a 48 year old woman on Medicare with ALS. The point of the article was the stupid way in which Medicare and private insurers decide what device it will pay for to help such a person. I wondered why a 48 year old woman was eligible for Medicare, which is intended for those 65 and older. I went to the Medicare web site and entered info for someone who is disabled but younger than 65 and found these three conditions:

End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)

Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS)

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) / Railroad Retirement Benefits (RRB)

Why these three? Why any? Why not Medicare for all U.S. citizens?

Rep. Joe Wilson should secede.

Rep. Joe Wilson is the jackass who two days ago cried out in the middle of an address by President Obama to a joint session of Congress: "You lie!".

I doubt that President Obama lied any more than his predecessor, George Walker Bush, lied. They engage in political talk, something with which jackass Joe Wilson should be familiar. One of the astonishing things about this is the subject: whether illegal immigrants will receive health care coverage. Is that the issue that hits the core of jackass Joe Wilson's being? Is that the MOST important thing in the world to jackass Joe Wilson? Is that what caused jackass Joe Wilson to humiliate and embarrass himself, his Congressional district, his state of South Carolina, his Republican party, the United States of America? Health care for illegal immigrants? What a jackass!

I had pretty much let the matter drop except that now, two days later, the unapologetic jackass element of American society is fully supporting jackass Joe Wilson, 3 to 1 in his home district, South Carolina's second Congressional. I can remember a co-worker putting up a sign in 1987 during the Iran-Contra hearings: "Go get 'em, Ollie!". I remember thinking: Go get whom? Our elected representatives who were trying to get Oliver North to tell the truth about an illegal project that was disavowed by President Reagan? What kind of jackass cheers for the criminal?

Jackass Joe Wilson has made what appear to be deliberately lame apologies, blaming his apology on his party leadership, which I am guessing is backing away from its immediate contrition to embrace the unexpected jackass outpouring from its natural constituency: middle class people who have a bottomless and endless capacity to act against their own best interests.

What do jackasses want in health care?

1. Lose it when you lose your job! Yeah!

2. Deal with private bureaucrats, not public bureaucrats! Yeah! The ones over whom we have absolutely no control! Yeah!

3. Have our doctors make boatloads of money! Yeah!

4. Opt out: have no health insurance! Yeah! Why should we pay for something we may not need? Yeah!

5. Deny health care to illegal immigrants! Yeah! This actually makes sense except that the reality is that illegal immigrants will get health care in the most inefficient and most expensive way: the emergency room.

What makes a jackass run? In this case, race: the fact that the president is black. Is it just a coincidence that jackass Joe Wilson is from South Carolina, the state that started the American Civil War by attacking a federal fort!? I think the reason some people are so hot about some of Obama's policies is the fact that Obama is BLACK!

What should be done about jackass Joe Wilson? The House of Representatives should sanction him as it would if his outburst had occurred during a session of the House. Jackass Joe Wilson should go into the well of the House and apologize to that body, to the President and to the American people ... with no caveats or other weasel words.

Then jackass Joe Wilson should secede. If his Congressional district does not like it, the district should secede. If his state of South Carolina does not like it, South Carolina should secede. It already knows how. Am I the only one to notice that the issue of secession was never resolved constitutionally? Just because the Union army won and forced the rebellious secessionist states back into the union does not mean that they do not have the right to secede. Let them. If Lincoln had been truly great there would have been no Civil War. Lincoln should have either resolved the matter or let them go. Does the United States of America really need South Carolina? Mississippi? Alabama? Louisiana? Even Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia? Let them take their peculiar institutions and go. GO!

Gang of Six represent dirt, not people.

Tonight President Obama addresses a joint session of Congress about health care. He has finally called the gang of six senators to account. They are:

three Democrats:

Max Baucus (Montana)

Kent Conrad (North Dakota)

Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico)

three Republicans:

Chuck Grassley (Iowa)

Mike Enzi (Wyoming)

Olympia Snowe (Maine)

http://washingtonindependent.com/53115/gang-of-six-not-quite-the-voice-of-the-nation

This link shows that others have already pointed out the obvious: that these senators represent dirt, not people. How the heck can dirt senators develop health care legislation for people?

Not one of these six states contains a city large enough to have a sports team in MLB, NFL, NBA. What a joke. This cannot be an accident. Random choice would have resulted in at least one state with more than 14 people. It shows the carnival atmosphere preventing serious progress on this basic issue. Neither Grassley nor Enzi are senator level individuals. Maybe they are good enough to be elected to a backward congressional district in the House but to be elected to state wide office does not reflect well on their home states.

Barack Obama, get serious. Barack Obama, GET TOUGH!

Old people against health insurance ... for others.

Who are they, those awful old people who continue to scream against government health insurance at "town hall meetings" weeks after President Obama seemingly put that nonsense to bed by pointing out that the Medicare that they cling to is government health insurance?

Are they members of Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation", survivors of the great economic depression of the 1930s and World War II, my parents generation? Are they post World War II baby boomers, like me? Whoever they are they have no right to be so stupid and selfish. Instead of caring about the future, they care mostly about themselves.

Hey, old people, grow the heck up!

Why isn't Medicare available to all Americans?

In the middle of the health care insurance debate, I thought I'd turn the single payer issue around. I favor a single payer system, basically Medicare for everyone. Then I wondered: why isn't Medicare available to all Americans?

Or, to put it another way: how can it possibly be legal to limit it by age? Why isn't that age discrimination?

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer or I would not ask such silly questions. If it were so clear a case of age discrimination, why wouldn't a group of young lawyers have already filed a case about this?

Here is the eligibility: "people age 65 or older, some disabled people under age 65, and people of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant)."

http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareEligibility/home.asp?version=default&browser=Safari|2|WinXP&language=English

Still, it makes me wonder. Maybe we can save the president and Congress the agony of making decisions about health care insurance. Just have young people sue for coverage and see what happens. Maybe the solution to health care insurance has been there all along.

Health care coverage reform: message to Congress.

I went to their web sites and sent individual messages to my congressional representatives:

Rep. Nita Lowey

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Sen. Charles Schumer

Here is my message:

Health care coverage reform:

My preferences in order:

1. single payer system: phase in Medicare for all.

2. public option.

That's it. Anything else is junk. Forget co-ops and any other junk distractions. Vote NO unless legislation contains items one or two.

Note: This link and the text of this message was then sent to President Obama at the White House web site. A response was requested.

Boys and Girls on the Supreme Court.

President Barack Obama is considering nominees for a seat on the Supreme Court. He is considering Diane, Nancy, Elena, Sonia, Jennifer. Obama is not considering John, James, Eric or even Juan or Mohammad. All girls, no boys.

New Justice Could Hold the Key to Presidential Power. The New York Times

The article does not mention the gender restriction. Apparently the restriction is understood, accepted and approved. How did we get here: a society that has lost its ability to reason?

Maybe Obama just wants to appoint someone like his two children, both of whom are girls. Maybe he wants to make nice to Hillary and her injured supporters who thought during the 2008 presidential primary that the boys were being mean to Hillary. Maybe Obama is doing a Bill Clinton deal and trying to make the Supreme Court look like America. That will be difficult with only nine members.

Do we want emergency room doctors restricted to girls only? Or do we also want to allow boy doctors to save our lives? Obama grew up in a society that had stuff like "bring your daughter to work". Omit the boys, bring the girls. This was being done by the parents, mostly mothers, of these boys. With that type of illogical thinking ingrained, restricting Supreme Court nominees doesn't seem so wacky.

What the heck is this? Obama is eliminating about half the population? OK, about now is when some of you reading this are screaming: hey, that's what happened through most of U.S. history. Yeah, right. We had slavery and lynching, too. Should we now make up for that by enslaving white people and hanging a few of them?

Grow the heck up!

I'm less outraged about Obama than I am about the lack of reaction. Obama is doing his political thing. If he could, he would appoint a Spanish, homosexual woman. He can safely ignore Asians because they are not vocal. What a mess.

How about considering really good Americans for the Supreme Court? That's good enough for me.

Torture: yes we can.

In the second Godfather movie there's a scene in which Tom Hagen asks Michael: why do this; you've won; do you have to wipe everybody out?  Michael responds: I don't feel I have to wipe everybody out, just my enemies.

Barack Obama seems to agree with Michael.  Obama just does it in such a nice way.  Obama and his Democratic party have won, both the presidency and control of Congress as exemplified by the continuously embarrassing speakership of Nancy Pelosi in the House.  Pelosi continues to insist that she is the only House member briefed on torture policy by the CIA during the Bush administration who was not told that it was happening.  Pelosi's problem is that she has been insulated far too long in a weird congressional district that is geographically and socially apart from most of the rest of America.

Why do the Democrats insist on speaking in public about the prisoner and torture policy of Bush and Cheney after those two have left power?  It's clear that Obama has no real plan for dealing with the war prisoners (I deliberately avoided the more specific phrase prisoners of war) who have been kept at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

More alarmingly Obama appears to be well defined by the Republican campaign phrase "dangerously naive".  Nancy Pelosi is all that and delusional.  Even Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, implied this during the primary.

Especially irritating is the insinuation that Obama and those who agree with him are morally superior to those of us who are honest enough to admit that we understand the sad reality forced on us by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  There really is such a thing as evil and it cannot be fought exclusively by platitudes mistaken for our ideals.

Of course we oppose torture.  We want our own prisoners of war to be treated according to the Geneva Conventions that the United States signed.  The terrorists did not sign those or any agreements to behave in a civilized manner even in war.  Most of us were embarrassed and concerned for members of the U.S. military when the prisoner abuses in Iraq came to light.  We immediately thought of Senator John McCain who had been tortured as a prisoner in North Viet Nam forty years ago.  We were concerned also because it seemed low level and pointless, torture just to torture.  Americans oppose that.

However, we are realistic and any rational person can define circumstances in which torture would be used, not by sadistic criminals, but by reluctant citizens doing their duty to protect and defend the American people.  To deny this is dishonest.  Here are two examples.

1. Ticking time bomb.  This has been presented by many others yet Obama and others continue to consider it an unrealistic example.  It is a situation that calls for strict code of conduct to get information in an emergency to save lives.  Suppose we capture Osama bin Laden and he tells us that his terrorists will begin a series of attacks on American civilians starting at noon the next day.  Would President Obama authorize torture to make him divulge the information that could prevent those attacks?  If this were all known and being covered by the media, would instant polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans  approve torture in this specific case, not to punish bin Laden, but to get information that would save lives?  How intense would the pressure be for President Obama to torture bin Laden after the first attack occured?  After the second?  The third?

2. Sasha, Obama's younger daughter, is kidnapped by four people, one of whom is captured.  The world wide web soon begins to show a live web cam with the president's daughter and statements that body parts of the little girl would be cut off starting in one hour.  Sasha is pleading: Daddy, please save me.  How long would it take for Obama himself to torture the captured kidnapper to get the information to save Sasha?

Of course we have ideals.  But we also deal with real world problems.  Some of those problems cause conflict between our ideals and our actions.  We can try to define circumstances when our ideals must be compromised, to limit the digression as best we can.  Denying this dilemma does not help.  It just makes for a more difficult time when the situation arises.

What's bad for General Motors is good for the country.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,827790,00.html

Dwight Eisenhower first encountered Wilson while serving as the Army's Chief of Staff in the postwar years; in 1952, after Ike was elected President, Wilson was his choice for the job of Secretary of Defense.

"You Men." Washington, although it eventually became quite fond of him, never understood Charlie Wilson—and Detroit's Wilson certainly never understood Washington. The Wilson remarks that would have passed for wry banter in a General Motors boardroom became matters of controversy in the capital's political climate. During the closed hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee on his confirmation, Wilson made a comment that was widely misquoted and was to dog him throughout his governmental years. According to the press, Wilson told the Senators: "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." What he actually said: "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."

_______________________________________

Times have changed.  The opposite is true.  GM and Chrysler should be driven out of business.  Instead President Obama and Congress are spending unimaginable sums of tax payer money to save these companies.  They will remain more unchanged than the President would like to admit.

The auto industry is joined at the hip with the oil industry.  I can understand why oil wants to cling to auto but why does auto continue to cling to the fuel source that is its ruin?  It suggests a level of mismanagement that is still pervasive.

Former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich has been accusing the Democrats of wanting to punish the American people, equating any policy that discourages certain activities with punishment.  There are many Republican backed examples but the most appropriate is their perpetual opposition to universal health care.  If a citizen becomes unemployed that person must then start to pay for health care.  Now that's punishment.

If the United States had universal health care there would not be contention between two natural allies: retired auto workers and those currently employed.  The worst of the Chrysler creditors are resisting the federal government's attempt to ease Chrysler into organized bankruptcy.  Some speculators recently bought Chrysler debt at bargain rates figuring the feds would pay off when bankruptcy came.  Obama is now caught in an embarrassing position, one of many, as he suffers from his congenital condition of trying to split every hard decision down the middle and making a mess of the whole thing.

Why do conservatives love pollution?  They use every excuse no matter how silly to protect it.   They would have us believe that we need to keep the polluting auto industry in tact to protect its suppliers and dealers.  We need to continue polluting the galaxy and weaken national defense to help car dealers?

Bite the bullet.   In 18-24 months the pain will be over.  Suppliers will have adapted or changed to other business.  Dealers?  Who cares?

Obama is doing what Bush was doing when the financial industry began to crumble in September.  Obama protects unworthy industries and their rich leaders.

What is good for this country is to break with the past.  Let dieing industries die a natural death.  Help new industries replace them.   General Motors has been bad for the country for a very long time.

Fear and Loathing at the DMV

Other than the federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are there three words that produce more fear and loathing in red blooded Americans than Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)?

It's easy and trite to put the phrase "fear and loathing" before almost anything and get a snicker.  Hunter S. Thompson wrote "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (never read it, watched most of the movie on TV)  in the early 1970s when he popularized the concept of gonzo journalism.  At that time I fancied myself as the father of gonzo programming at AT&T where I knew the previous DMV Commissioner, Nancy Naples, who, like Commissioner David Swarts, was from Erie county.  Who knew that Erie county had such a motor vehicle talent pool.

Three days ago I ventured into the belly of the beast: Traffic Violations Division of the DMV on Fordham Road in the Bronx.  I had all my paper documentation.  When I presented my traffic ticket and uncashed check I was told that I had to see a judge.  I asked why my check had not been cashed in Alnaby?  I was told that I had to appear in person for this particular violation.  I stated that I had read the ticket carefully several times and there was no such indication.  I asked how I could have known that.  I was told that I could not have known without doing research in a DMV manual.

Somewhere the sun is shining.  Somewhere children shout.  But not at the DMV.  I settled up and left ASAP.

What's to be learned from this month long annoyance?  Small town politicians are petty.  Yes, but there is more.

May 16, 2006 I wrote "Immigration: the solution" and posted it on this blog FEBRUARY 20, 2008.  Here is a quote:

President Bush proposes an ID card but only for aliens, not for U.S. citizens. That won’t work. If a person states that he/she is a U.S. citizen, how will the employer know that the person is not lying? Will the employer request documentation? That will be fun. Americans have been conditioned to irrationally resist a national ID card or database with unexplained elliptical emotional metaphors such as 1984, black helicopters, Nazis, Communists, Waco. You name it. We currently rely on state drivers licenses. Great, national security based on the competence of the motor vehicle department. Times 50.

Americans have come to depend on the DMV to identify themselves.  That was a scary thought for me years ago but after my recent experience it emphasizes the extent to which we have mismanaged a basic function.  We need to know who and where we are.  We cannot have the people like DMV Commissioner David Swarts in positions of authority or responsibility.  Swarts  and those in the Comptroller's office responsible for dealing with government waste, fraud and abuse who receive but do not respond to e-mai messages sent to investigations@osc.state.ny.us are unacceptable for public service.

Why do Swarts and the Comptroller's surrogates not respond?  You would think that they would want to explain and defend themselves, to protect their good names, to do their duty, to serve the people of the State of New York.  Do they think that I and my situation are unworthy of them, too powerless to matter?  Are they dense?  Are they frightened?

David Swarts was appointed by former governor Elliot Spitzer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swarts

In September 2007, Swarts and Gov. Spitzer developed a plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. The plan was the subject of much debate on the state and national level, and was ultimately scrapped.

Maybe that's all we need to know.  Swarts obviously has no sense or skill.  When he fades back to Erie county he will reclaim the anonymity he so richly deserves.

With Democrats like Obama, who needs Republicans?

Today President Obama outlined his auto industry policy: business as usual. He intends to continue to try to save a dieing industry that deserves to die. If Obama had been president 100 years ago he would be saving the horse drawn carriage industry.

I am appalled that he is wasting this opportunity to make fundamental change. The change that he campaigned on is apparently not much change at all, just enough to get him elected.

Obama claims that he is concerned not only about GM and Chrysler but also the thousands of small companies that produce and supply parts. Many if not most of those suppliers will remain in business even if the two big pigs do not. Some will supply foreign manufacturers with plants in the United States. Some will produce other stuff, maybe even the stuff that goes into the types of cars that should be created, not the pig-mobiles that will continue to roll off the assembly lines thanks to the lack of courage of the president of the United States of America.

Maybe the worst thing that he announced is a huge tax incentive to get Americans to buy new pig-mobiles this year. This is exactly backwards. It is exactly what I expected Hillary Clinton to do if she had been elected president, which is the main reason that I supported Obama for president. It's not even 100 days and I am already very disappointed in Obama.

He signaled his expedience in his inaugural address. As I pointed out at the time he must have known that he was stating something that was incorrect when he described himself as the 44rd person to take the oath of office. I asked why would he state something that he knew to be incorrect. His policies since then reveal an all too basic instinct for political acceptance by the mainstream media and political establishment.

Barack Obama: half hearted.

If President Barack Obama received conflicting medical advice, one advocating a heart transplant, one opposed, he would choose to receive half a heart.  That is Obama's nature and political calculus.

His policies seem doomed to fail, not because he is dumb, not because he is getting bad advice, but because he is trapped in compromise even when compromise is not an option.

We have been presented with opportunities to make fundamental change but Obama is not capable of seizing them. 

1. The U.S. auto companies General Motors and Chrysler should be allowed to fail.  Obama cannot bring himself to do that.  He knows it is the best option but he chooses  the path to half failure, lingering death, avoiding the inevitable.

2. He knows that the solution to national health care is a single payer system of universal coverage.  He has stated that if we were starting from scratch that's what we should consider.  However, he cannot bring himself to start from scratch.

3. We should nationalize companies that are too big and/or important to fail.  Obama cannot do that.  Then we should let them fail.    Obama cannot do that either.  Instead he chooses a half way, half hearted policy.

4. We need to infuse HUGE amounts of capital into the financial markets to jolt them back into normal operation.  Instead we infuse large amounts but never enough to accomplish the goal, wasting all that money.

The political wisecrack is that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.  Obama is the most wasteful leader we have, because he knows better but he cannot act on his knowledge.  Bush the younger and McCain are dummies who are locked into old thinking.  Obama knows what to do but cannot do it.  Who is more culpable?

AIG bonuses: do NOT pay!

AIG execs and employees are set to receive huge bonuses amounting to millions of tax payer dollars due to the federal government bailout. President Obama and his wimpy Treasury secretary are reluctantly agreeing to pay because the AIG people have contracts.

Do NOT pay! Break the contracts. Let them sue. Then turn over anyone who sues to a new SWAT team of IRS auditors and audit them like their worst nightmares. And audit their spouses, parents, children. Bring down the hammer! Who is going to stick up for them? Only wimps and idiots.

Close the schools.

If we are really in an economic crisis, close the schools.  Nothing is more wasteful than schools.  Ordinarilly, they are closed two months, have many other days off and short hours anyway. 

This would save lots of money.  Let's try it for a year.

A year off might be a nice break for students.  The main argument for keeping them open is the dirty little secret: they are the world's most inefficient baby sitters.  Wherever will parents dump their kids?

I would never have suggested this before the web but kids can learn a lot on their own simply by accessing the web, which is a lot less expensive than keeping those brick and mortar buildings occupied. Busing kids to buildings is really old thinking.

Credit cards for everyone.

OK, not everyone.  Just adult citizens.

The Treasury department is sending out stimulus checks.  However, many people may save the money rather than spend it.  Here's a better idea.

Send credit cards with a money limit and a time limit.  That forces people to SPEND the money NOW.  That's the idea, isn't it?

Plus, if the economy needs another jolt, just reactivate the cards.  Cool.

National health care needs a single payer system.

Barack, enough already with the compromise stuff.  You need to be big and bold.  Nationalize the banks and call for a single payer system for national health care and universal coverage of all citizens.  I know this runs against your natural inclination to be cautious but these times demand much boldness.

Stop worrying about the word game: nationalize, socialize.  Who cares if someone still wants to pretend that it will be construed as socialism?  Call it whatever you want, just do it.

Health care is one of several important issues with obvious solutions that people like you are too timid to advocate.  Your position on health care is that if we were starting from scratch you would want a single payer system but that we need to consider all those special interest groups including insurance that have been preventing the USA from getting universal coverage.

Aside from health care itself, there is a consensus among economists that health care costs are the major problem that must be solved in the long run.  So, solve it!  Single payer system!  Let's go!

Economic policy: bigger, bolder.

I am not an economist and those who are don't really know what to do to correct the financial system, which has been in crisis mode since September 2008, and the more recent descent of the Dow Jones industrial average to 6,763, which was last seen in 1997.  The drop in stock prices undermines confidence in a fundamental way: it hurts those who acted responsibly and saved.

I took early retirement in 1997 and thought that if the Dow reached 10,000 I was home free, that I would have financial security.  While I am not hurting I cannot do anything either.  If I needed a new car and there was one with a plug, I would not buy it.  It makes no sense to sell shares in my stock mutual funds at a big loss.  I would wait until the Dow went well over 10,000 again.

There are fall back positions such as selling my White Plains, NY condo, which has retained value, and relocating to one of the warmer states that have had the biggest drops in real estate: Florida, Arizona or Nevada.  That is not a bad plan to leverage the equity in my home, which is now too large a percentage of my net worth.  I would like to make my portfolio more balanced and have more cash and more reliable investments.  I will not do it by selling stocks.  But taking equity out of my home by either relocating or trading down here is a viable option.

President Obama needs an economic policy that is bigger and bolder.  I do not know what the details need to be but he has got to find them and make them BIG and BOLD!

Barack Obama: Get tough!

Many years ago I was watching the old Boston Celtic basketball dynasty on TV with center Bill Russell as the key player.  For the seasons ending in 1965 and 1966 Boston had a backup center named Mel Counts, a young seven foot skinny, soft looking guy sitting on the bench.  There was a banner upstairs in the old Boston Garden: Mel Counts, Get Tough!

I am reminded of that by President Obama's feel good attempt to achieve unified support in Congress for an economic stimulus package.  What is called for is toughness, even meanness.  Obama needs to push radical policies such as nationalizing industries (banking, auto, energy), imposing universal government supported health care and putting huge chunks of the stimulus money to be spent directly into the hands of American citizens.

Instead Obama is succumbing to the nicety of bipartisanship.  Obama needs to do what Bill Clinton did not even attempt when he tried to reform health care in his first term: enforce party unity and pass the legislation without the other party.

Bold action is needed, not the insipid middle ground that appeals to the small minded.  Obama, be radical, not neutral.  We elected you to be the chief executive.  You must write the legislation.  You cannot wait for Congress to write the legislation.  Allowing the two houses to bat this legislation back and forth only plays to the natural inclination of the timid to delay.

It is not a question of letting the elusive perfect detract from the good.  This legislation is not good.  It is still trickle down economics but on a massive scale.

Weak policy will fail.  Obama may get a compromise bill.  It will not work.  Radical change is needed.  Now!

How we count: presidents, champions, points.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/

"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."

Wrong!  Forty-THREE.  For some reason historians counted Gover Cleveland twice because his second term did not immediately follow his first term.  Even wikipedia describes him as "both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States".   Even if that made sense, which it does not, what Obama said is clearly incorrect.

A guy as intelligent as Obama must have known this.  Why would he state something so obviously incorrect?  The Bushes may not have known, which makes their referring to each other by presidential number even more pathetic.  Cleveland won the popular vote each of the three times that he ran (1884, 1888, 1892) but was defeated by Benjamin Harrison in that silly old electoral college in 1888.  Maybe since Cleveland won three popular elections we should give him three numbers.  Since he had two terms why not count Washington as both our first and second presidents?

Sunday the Pittsburgh Steelers narrowly won their sixth super bowl.  ESPN and others are claiming that this is a record.  If the definition is limited to what we describe as super bowl victories, that is correct.  However, the term super bowl was originally applied to the game played on January 15, 1967 between the champions of the NFL and AFL, during one of the multiple times that there were more than one major professional football league.  That lasted four years until the AFL merged into the older NFL with three NFL teams changing to the AFC to balance the number of teams in the two conferences that would then comprise the NFL.  After that the super bowl was simply another name for the NFL championship game.  The three teams that left the NFL for the AFC were the Baltimore Colts, Cleveland Browns and Pittsburgh Steelers.

Until then Pittsburgh had been a dismal failure with its owner Art Rooney viewed as an affable incompetent.  Not only did Pittsburgh never win an old NFL title but it never even played in the championship game.  Today Pittsburgh is hailed as a model franchise with the Rooney family as some sort of wizards.  Pittsburgh was the NFL team of the 1970s, winning four super bowls in six seasons, the fourth coming Jan. 20, 1980 but for the 1979 season.  Funny thing but this model of consistency did not win another super bowl until Feb. 5, 2006.  TWENTY-SIX years!  Pittsburgh played and lost its only appearance in the NFL title game during those TWENTY-SIX years.

What about NFL championships won before the advent of the super bowl or more to the point before modern memory dominated by television?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_champions

During the years (1920-1932) when there was no championship game Green Bay Packers had the best record three times, Chicago Bears twice.  Even the Chicago Cardinals who migrated to St. Louis then Arizona lead once.  Arizona lost to Pittsburgh Sunday and the Cardinals are described as a team that never won a super bowl.

Championship games were played from 1933 through 1965 between  the two conference winners with no playoff system.  Chicago Cardinals won again in 1947.  Green Bay Packers won six more for a total of NINE before winning the first two super bowls against the AFL champion.  Green Bay Packers won another super bowl, really an NFL championship, on Jan. 26, 1997.  That would make twelve.  Twelve is twice as many as six.

Chicago Bears had won eight old NFL titles through 1963 and won the super bowl on Jan. 26, 1986 for nine.  Nine is 50% more than six.

New York Giants won four old NFL titles plus three super bowls for seven.  Seven is more than six.  The Giants have shown more recent consistency than Pittsburgh having won for seasons 1986, 1990 and 2007.  That's one in each of the three most recent decades.  Pittsburgh missed two decades, 1980s and 1990s.  Oh well.

Last night Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers scored 61 points at Madison Square Garden against the New York Knicks.  It was hailed as the most points ever in the garden.  Well, yeah, in this garden, which is only forty-two years old despite Kobe's gushing about how much it meant to him to do it in the last of the old buildings.  But what about the previous gardens, especially the preceding one?  Ignoring that building ignores the big scoring seasons of Wilt Chamberlain.  Note that Wilt scored his NBA record 100 points against the Knicks but it was in Hershey, PA.  Former player and long time announcer Hot Rod Hundley for decades "bragged" about the night he and teammate Elgin Baylor combined for 73 points in the garden: Elgin scored 71, a new NBA record in 1960.

Wall Street Bonuses

President Obama (that has a nice ring to it) expressed outrage at the $20 billion in bonuses that Wall Street executives awarded themselves despite the fact that their firms received taxpayer money to encourage them to make loans, which have not been made. Didn't members of Congress fall all over themselves in the fall of 2008 babbling about how they insisted that such conduct must be forbidden for them to vote for the Wall Street bailout pushed by former President George Walker Bush? I thought that Congress had taken care of that. What happened?

Gov. Paterson, why pick an upstater?

New York Governor David Paterson picked Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to be U.S. Senator replacing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The nature of the Senate is that it over represents rural areas. Wyoming has two senators just like New York even though New York has a population about 20 times that of Wyoming. That puts populous states like New York at a disadvantage.

Now New York's own governor has chosen someone from a rural area. Since this person has not been elected to the office, Gov. Paterson should have chosen someone who comes from New York City or nearby, so that the overwhelming majority of the state population would have one of its own in the Senate.

The list of candidates was weak except for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, for whom Rep. Gillibrand worked briefly as special counsel when Cuomo was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bill Clinton. There was also former Nebraska Governor and U.S. Senator Bob Kerry, currently president of the New School in New York City.

This appointment will help define David Paterson in 2010 when he seeks to be elected to the office of governor, an office to which Paterson ascended unelected when his predecessor resigned in disgrace because of a sex scandal. Former governors Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt must be turning over in their graves.

Nationalize the damn banks!

A couple of days ago Paul Krugman wrote in his New Times OpEd piece that no one wanted to consider what seemed like the obvious course to correct the economy's money problems: nationalizing the banks.  We should nationalize any institution that we think should be bailed out, especially the banks.  This is an extension on my original position that the Federal Reserve BANK (that four letter word that is always omitted) lend money directly.

Otherwise what you have is trickle down economics on a massive scale: providing private banks with money and hoping that they do what you want them to do with the money.  Just do it!  Treat the banks like loan sharks, pests that you tolerate but do not need.

What I have in common with President Obama to the exclusion of all other presidents.

Each of us is the son of an immigrant.

Obama is president. What a relief.

When Jimmy Carter was inaugurated in 1977 it was a breath of fresh air.  The stench of Nixon's scandals and Ford's preemptive pardoning of Nixon left the country in need of a good airing out.   Carter becoming president did that.

Clinton succeeding Reagan/Bush in 1993 was refreshing.  Finally another smart guy.  It was a break from the small mindedness and trillion dollar per four year term of increased federal national debt.

Obama succeeding Bush the younger, who won two elections he should have lost, is a relief.

What a great country.  No other country could have come this far, this fast, to overcome second class citizenship for blacks and move into an entirely new culture.  This is why America is better than other countries: we use all our people.  We do not hold them back.  That generates enormous energy and creates a huge pool of talent.  It enables us to imagine.

Laura Bush for U.S. Senator from New York

Laura Bush.  Of course.  She has exactly the same qualities that Hillary Clinton had when Hillary became U.S. Senator from New York:

1. Laura does not live in New York.

2. Laura was married to the President of the United States for the previous eight years.

3. Laura has never held elective office.

New York Governor David Paterson yesterday indicated that he may take gender into consideration in selecting a successor to Sen. Clinton (who is becoming Secretary of State) because only 17 of the 100 U.S. senators are women.  Hey, Laura is a woman!

Gov. Paterson also indicated that ethnicity may be considered.  Well, he mentioned only one  ethnic group: Hispanics.  He said that New York has not had an Hispanic hold state wide elective office.  I cannot recall an Hispanic person being the nominee of either the Democratic or Republican parties for governor, U.S. senator or state attorney-general.  Comptroller maybe? Being a candidate would increase chances of being elected so I do not understand the governor's reasoning in singling out one particular ethnic group for special consideration unless, maybe, the governor is playing politics.  For instance I do not recall an Asian person being a candidate for any of those offices and the governor does not seem to be concerned about them.  Maybe because they are not vocal.

New senate candidate for New York.

Bob Kerry.  No, not John Kerry.  Bob Kerry.  Bob Kerry has been living in New York longer than Hillary Clinton has been a U.S. senator from New York.  Bob Kerry is president of the New School where he may have worn out his welcome.  Good.  That frees him to consider the senate seat soon to be vacated by Obama's ill considered nomination of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State.  Hillary will be only the second politician to be Secretary of State since 1947.  The other was Maine Senator Edmund Muskie who was filling in during Carter's last year because Cyrus Vance had resigned in protest to Carter actually taking action after Americans had been taken hostage in Iran.  Remember all that?

Bob Kerry is a Viet Nam war hero who lost a leg fighting for his country.  He was elected governor of Nebraska, then U.S. Senator from Nebraska.  After that he moved to New York City.  He had the courage to propose real changes to reform the Social Security system.  He briefly ran in the 1992 presidential primary, which was ultimately won by Bill Clinton.

Bob Kerry would be a great choice to succeed Hillary Clinton as U.S. senator from New York.

Obama enters by train.

Barack Obama will enter Washington, DC by train.  He will arrive in Philadelphia, then take the train to Wilmington, DE to pick up his VP, Joe Biden, then slowly head to Washington waiving to onlookers along the route.  Great imagery.  Great message.  That moron Bush could never have mustered enough imagination to make this simple but fundamentally important trip.

As president he should take the train to New York City to go to the United Nations building to address the General Assembly.  I have been waiting many years to see a president make that train trip.  The last president to do it may have been Truman.

We need trains.  America should have the best trains in the world.  Since we need to spend gobs of money to stimulate the economy, spend it on trains.  That helps with energy, manufacturing, jobs, infrastructure, environment, national defense.  Whew!  That's a lot.  So let's do it!

Bush is a pig.

I just read that George Walker Bush, outgoing president of the United States, is buying an 8,500 square foot house in a Dallas, TX suburb.  That makes him a pig.

1. We are in the middle of financial meltdown with many foreclosures.

2. We have finally accepted that we have a big problem with energy and need to conserve and stop burning stuff (oil, gas, coal, etc.) to create energy.

How the heck does this total failure justify his opulence and ignoring the twin realities mentioned above?  He must be a pig.

8,500 square feet for two people?  How much energy will each of them consume living there?

I did not expect Bush too return to that prop ranch that he bought to imitate his presidential hero.  No, not his father.  Reagan, who had a prop ranch long before Bush the younger would have ever thought of it.  Why are they props?  What actually gets done?  Both prop masters cleared brush to have a pretend activity that might justify the description as a ranch.  Plus, it gave each a photo op to show to the white trash who flocked to them against their own best interests.

Way to go, white trash.  Elect pigs who use up way more than their share of the resources and at your expense.  White trash electing pigs.  Great metaphor.

Call for a special election for open New York Senate seat.

Considering the unfolding scandal in Illinois to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by president-elect Barack Obama, I urge New York Governor David Patterson to ask the New York state legislature to set a special election for the soon to be open New York Senate seat currently occupied by Hillary Clinton who has been nominated by Obama to be Secretary of State of the Unites States.