A Thank You Goes a Long Way

I was doing a little spring cleaning last year, moving boxes around here and there, creating space for yet more boxes.  Filled with stuff I can never quite throw away, they are things from my past that have been tucked away for years, nearly forgotten.  A life condensed to a pile of boxes; that was my thought.  My son was helping me and whenever he saw something interesting, he'd stop and take a look.  It was slowing down the process.

"Hey, Dad, what's this?"  He'd  already done this several times that day, but I walked over, took a look and chuckled, "Oh, yeah, I remember that."  This time, however, he wanted to know more about it.  "Is this for real?"  He asked in the astonished tone of voice that comes from a kid who discovers something new about his parent.  "Sure, it's real."  "Wow," he said.  Sensing an opportunity to talk with my son, I decided to stop and tell him the story.

It was the night of July 4th, 1988, it was late.  I had just finished playing a holiday concert at a festival on the riverfront in St. Louis, near the Gateway Arch.  I had driven down earlier that day from Chicago and was told to arrive early to get a parking spot near the outdoor stage set on the riverbank.  As I negotiated my way through the parking lots that afternoon, when stopped by a parking attendant, I'd simply say the magic words, "I'm in the band."  Authorities hear those words and they let you right through.  They pointed me down one aisle after another until, finally, I parked close to the stage.  I played the rehearsal, waited around a few hours, played the concert - no problem - I'd done it so often, it had become routine; another gig, another paycheck.

The general rule for parking lots is this:  first one in, last one to leave.  Knowing this, I packed up quickly after the gig and headed to my car.  I figured people would stay for the fireworks show, so I thought I could get out before the crowd.  Except, I couldn't.

I looked down the aisle and saw a police barricade.  A bunch of official looking cars were parked in the aisle and my path to the exit was blocked.  After cursing to myself, I walked down and asked one of the policemen, "Listen, I'm in the band, I've just finished playing.  Is there any way I can get out of here?"  "No, not right now."  "How long will I have to wait?"  "Dunno," he replied.  I knew I was stuck; in a few minutes, thousands of people would head to their cars.  It was going to take forever to get back on the road to Chicago.  Frustrated, I walked back to the car, threw my equipment in the trunk, cracked open a cooler, leaned against the car and settled in for a long wait.

I spotted a couple of guys in suits walk toward me down the aisle with flashlights, looking at every parked car.  When they finally got to me, one guy flashed a badge and said, "United States Secret Service.  This is a secure area.  What are you doing here?"  So, I said the magic words, "I'm in the band.  I just finished playing.  I'm waiting to get out of the lot."  He said, "Unless you submit to a search, you're going to have to leave the area.  Do you consent to a search?"  "Yeah, sure."  So, he patted me down, I opened the trunk, he looked in my equipment bags, then turned to his partner and said, "This guy's ok."  They moved on down the aisle as I began to watch the group that followed.  When they passed me, one tall guy separated himself from the group, walked over, smiled and stuck out his hand, "Hi.  I'm George Bush."

I had a moment alone with the Vice-President of the United States, a man in the midst of a presidential campaign.  We couldn't have talked more than a couple of minutes, but when you talk to someone that important, it seems longer.  He was sincere, down to earth; I noticed the kindness in his eyes.  He seemed genuinely interested in talking with me.  There was nothing political about the conversation.  He asked about my family, he told me about his.  He asked the names of my wife and kids.  He asked about my career.  He told me he had heard a bit of the concert and it sounded great.  He also didn't seem to be in a hurry, but he finally looked around and said, "It was a pleasure talking with you, Larry, but I've got to get out of this parking lot before the traffic."  I said, "I've got the same thought."  The Vice-President paused, then said, "Hey, why don't you pull your car right up behind mine and we'll go out together.  I'll tell them you're with me and you'll get right out of here."  And, that's what I did.

A woman came up to me as Mr. Bush was walking away and asked, "Do you mind giving us your name and address?  The Vice-President likes to keep records on every person he meets."  So, I did and after a couple of weeks, a small letter appeared in my mail box, the size of a thank you note.  I didn't recognize it at first; the envelope was hand written and the return address was simply: Number One Observatory Circle, Washington, D.C.  Inside was a hand written note that read:

"Dear Larry,
It was my pleasure to meet you the other night in St. Louis.  I enjoyed hearing about you, your lovely wife, Judy, and your two wonderful children, Jennifer and Elizabeth.  Barbara and I wish you much success in the future.
Sincerely,
George Bush"

Apparently, I had never told that story to my son, John, who was holding the letter that day cleaning out the closet.  He asked, "You met George Bush?"  "Sure I did."  "Did he write this personally," John asked?  "Well...I think he did, John.  That's his signature."  "How do you know he really signed it?"  "If someone else had signed his name, they'd have put their initials underneath," I said.  "I'm quite sure he wrote the note himself."  "Wow," John exclaimed. 

I read an article later about George H.W. Bush and his habit of sending thank you notes.  He'd kept up the practice his entire career. Bush suggested that the simple act of a thank you has a powerful effect.  It worked with me - I voted for him.  And, years later, my son thinks greater of me because of it.  A thank you goes a long way.

The Copyright Alert System Will Hurt You

On Monday, February 25th, 2013, the "Copyright Alert System" (CAS) was quietly implemented by five Internet Service Providers (ISPs):  AT&T, Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner and Verizon.  Those five ISPs provide internet service to 75% of Americans.  A trade association called "Center for Copyright Information" (CCI) is coordinating the system on behalf of large content providers like the Recording Industry of America and the Motion Picture Association of America.

I suspect everyone who uses the above mentioned ISPs will soon get an innocuous looking letter indicating their Terms of Service have changed.  Buried somewhere in the small print of that document may be a description of the new CAS.  It is an arbitrary system that allows content providers and your ISP to control your access to the internet.  

Large content providers have hired "thug" companies to monitor public use of the web.  If a surveillance company believes you are illegally downloading copyrighted material, they flag your IP (Internet Protocol) address and forward it to your ISP.  Content providers and ISPs have developed a "six strike rule."  Each time a subscriber is flagged, they receive a penalty.  It could start with a warning from your ISP.  Additional flags might cause your ISP to slow down your internet speed or temporarily suspend your service.  Finally, after five or six flags, they can accuse you of repeated copyright infringement and may terminate your internet service entirely.

Someone might say, "Hey, this doesn't apply to me.  I don't illegally download music or movies.  What have I got to worry about?"  Well...plenty.  Surveillance companies can't actually tell what you are downloading.  They make an educated guess.  Monitoring companies use software programs that determine the likelihood that your downloads are illegal.  And, according to the website Daily Dot,  they get it wrong a lot of the time.
 
Perhaps, you are downloading a manual for your furnace or a video of your grandchildren posted to a cloud site.  You could be downloading files under the "fair use" exemption in copyright law.  You might have digitized your LP music library and are downloading your own legal copies from an online storage site.  You could be a small business that uploads and downloads large files to and from clients.  You might operate or use a public wi-fi system like those commonly found in small coffee shops or libraries.  It doesn't matter.  Content providers and your ISP don't have to legally prove you're engaging in illegal activity to deny you internet service.   

Do you have any recourse once you're flagged?  Yes, according to the CCI website.  You pay a $35 fee to appeal to what the CCI calls "an independent review board" (hired by content providers) where you must prove your internet activity is legal.  Surely, this is not what Congress intended when they passed the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) in 1998. 

How has the CCI convinced ISPs to penalize their own subscribers?  The CCI has taken the position that if ISPs do not implement the "Copyright Alert System," ISPs lose their "safe harbor" protection under the DMCA.  In other words, CCI claims if ISPs do not have a termination policy for repeat copyright offenders, they lose their protection from prosecution under the law.  

What can you do about it?  First, your email attachments are probably safe.  Surveillance companies that work for content providers are not monitoring email traffic.  But, here are some steps you can take to guard your internet privacy:  If you have a wireless network in your home, password protect it so others cannot use it for illegal purposes.  Assume that any bit torrent type of data transfer will be monitored.  Do not trust that proxy servers or switch proxy settings on your browser will protect your internet privacy.  To be completely safe, do what tech savvy Chinese and Iranians do to circumvent their national firewalls:  Get a VPN.  Google the search string "What is a VPN" and learn about virtual private networks.  Using a VPN is easy, inexpensive, protects your privacy and won't slow your internet speed.  Protect yourself from the surveillance monitoring and false accusations from your ISP.  Get a VPN!



       

No Greater Moral Imperative

Behind my house is a dense wooded area surrounding a creek that flows into a lake near my home.  Deer often make their way up the creek bed during winter searching for food.  Gaunt and weak, they come out of the woods at night to pick at the tree bark and eat branches off shrubs in my yard.

As they crowd around me on those cold, bleak, snowy nights, they stick their noses in the feed bucket as I pour a mixture of rolled oats and corn onto the ground.  Feeding the deer is not nature's way, but nature didn't surround them with sub-divisions either.  The city accuses me of contributing to an overpopulation of deer, but I reject that.  If there is a deer problem in my area, it's because the city and county do not have a wildlife plan.  Starvation is not a plan, it's the result of no plan. 

In a similar fashion, I was shocked the other day to learn of a new public relations campaign in Kansas City encouraging community and church organizations to stop feeding the homeless.  Led by the Police Department and officials at City Hall,  the city council is threatening to pass an ordinance making feeding the homeless illegal.  As incredible as their logic seems, the city contends that feeding the homeless contributes to a homeless problem.  Does the city actually believe people are willing to give up their homes and live on the streets just to receive a free sandwich on cold February nights?

Each evening, food trucks roll out of community centers and churches, passing out blankets, shoes, coats and food to the homeless.  However, to hear community leaders talk, that should be a crime.  Quoting Leslie Caplan, president of a local neighborhood association (Kansas City Star, 2/2/13), "It's killing our wonderful neighborhoods and historic homes."  Sean O'Byrne, of the Kansas City Downtown Council, says, "Throwing a sandwich to someone in a park is getting redemption on the cheap."  Thankfully, community and church organizations are refusing to comply.  Neal Jorgenson, of the Salvation Army, explained it this way, "We are not enabling them.  We are keeping them alive tonight."

Eric Cantor (R-Va), the House Majority Leader, said in a speech last week before the American Enterprise Institute (2/5/13), "There is no greater moral imperative than to reduce the mountain of debt facing us..." It's the idea that if America can't afford to fund it's obligations, we should start by cutting social programs, instituting a sort of economic triage.  Let's save the people who have jobs, who have money, while depriving the poor of food, shelter and medical care.  That's not a moral imperative, it's the absence of one.  

Funding social programs doesn't make the United States a welfare state.  It is precisely those government programs, large in scope, that give our nation it's most effective tools to address problems in a cost effective way.  For instance, only FEMA can bring to bear the overall resources needed in an emergency.  Yet, the GOP finds it difficult to fund disaster relief at all.  In the final passage of the recent Hurricane Sandy relief bill, 179 Republicans in the House, nearly 80% of their caucus, voted against it. 

For all the faith in God that conservative Republicans profess to have, they conveniently forget that Christ had his budget problems, too.  Yet, He managed to feed a multitude with five loaves of bread and two fish.  How is that different from the Food Stamp program feeding 32 million children?  Perhaps, our budget problems would disappear if we built our society from the bottom up instead of the top down.  Feed the hungry, heal the sick and give shelter to the homeless.  There is no greater moral imperative.

Eric Cantor, who wants to exact his pound of flesh from the poor to avoid paying higher taxes, would do well to heed Portia's admonition to Shylock in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I:

"The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show like God's
When mercy seasons justice."

      

How could anyone be THAT Wrong?

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports LLC, a national polling firm, is an active conservative author, speaker and columnist.  The GOP relied heavily on Scott's company to produce polling numbers during the election season.  Scott's polls became daily headlines on conservative websites like The Drudge Report.  Fox News outsourced all their polling to Rasmussen.  His polls were used repeatedly by conservative media types such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.  Scott was the darling of conservatives, an advocate who appeared often on Fox and in conservative print media.

It was Rasmussen's poll numbers that helped give the illusion of widespread momentum toward Republicans in the weeks leading up to the election.  After the first debate, all of a sudden, it was 2004 all over again.  Rasmussen Reports showed Romney surging to the lead in swing states.  Republicans had the big "Mo" - Momentum.  Except, they didn't.  On election night, it wasn't even close.  Democrats won the presidency and gained seats in the Senate and House.  And, GOP political pundits had few explanations for what happened.  Scott Rasmussen's polls turned out to be a total fraud - so badly wrong that it begs the question - how could a professional pollster be THAT wrong?

In Senate races, Rasmussen had Missouri candidate Todd Akin (R) closing the gap on incumbent Claire McCaskill (D).  Todd Akin, if you remember, was the candidate who uttered the phrase "legitimate rape."  After Rasmussen's polling supported Akin's internal polling that showed him down by only 3, GOP super-pac money poured into Missouri.  In the final week, Newt Gingrich toured the state with Akin.  McCaskill destroyed Akin by 16 points.

In Florida, Rasmussen had incumbent Bill Nelson (D) ahead of Connie Mack (R) by only 3, within the margin of error.  Nelson won by 13, well beyond the margin of error.  Rasmussen had the Wisconsin Senate race tied.  Tammy Baldwin (D) beat Tommy Thompson (R) by 6.  In Connecticut, Rasmussen had Murphy (D) winning by 6 over McMahon (R).  Murphy won by 12.  In Ohio, Rasmussen showed Brown (D) and Mandel (R) tied; Brown won by 5.  And, Rasmussen's presidential polling was just as inaccurate.

The weekend before the election, Rasmussen had Romney winning Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Iowa, with Wisconsin and Ohio tied.  Obama won all of them, many beyond Rasmussen's margin of error.  For instance, Rasmussen had Romney winning Colorado by 3, yet Obama won by 5.  In Rasmussen's presidential popular vote tracking poll, Romney led Obama twelve straight days before the election, and up by an average of 6 points in swing states.  So, how could a professional pollster get the election so wrong?

Rasmussen polled only landlines, a huge mistake.  Most polling organizations include a mix of cellphones because they skew toward younger voters while landlines over represent older voters.  Rasmussen's explanation was that he included results from online polling.  That is grossly inadequate -  online polling represents a different methodology and there's little to prevent a landline voter from being polled twice.

Since many Tea Party members identify themselves as independents, Rasmussen's polls over represented Romney's strength among true, unaffiliated independents.  When Rasmussen compared his sample data with past voting histories of districts, counties, and states, he came up with overall totals that consistently skewed Republican.

Rasmussen was unable to identify demographic trends that altered historic voting patterns.  White voters, as a percentage of the total vote, dropped from 77% in 2004 to 72% in 2012.   Rasmussen's robocalls could not keep people on the phone long enough to ask follow up questions.  It's not as though Rasmussen's sample size was so large, polling couldn't have been conducted by real people.  Rasmussen's samples were as small as 500.

Yet, in spite of producing different results than most polling organizations, Republicans believed Rasmussen's polls to be accurate.  Republicans have this perception, promulgated by conservative talk show hosts, commentators and libertarian think tanks, that there is a vast liberal conspiracy at work in the country.  It's a conspiracy that includes the mainstream media, polling organizations, even going so far as to say educational institutions brainwash college students to be liberal.  In other words, according to Republicans, the other polls were biased toward Democrats.

It is clear the composition of the American electorate is changing.  On issues such as immigration and continued support for social programs, voters endorsed the Democratic point of view.  There is irrefutable evidence that the GOP must modify it's positions on key issues and address demographic changes or risk continued losses in national elections.  One would expect a polling organization to identify these trends well in advance.  In the case of Scott Rasmussen and his company, Rasmussen Reports LLC, apparently not.   

After being so wrong, if I were Scott Rasmussen, I'd consider another line of work.  Oh, I forgot - Scott doesn't need a job; he's rich.  He's a co-founder of the ESPN Sports Network.  Why is a sports network guy doing political polling?  I have no idea.



         

E pluribus unum - Out of Many, One

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Mitt Romney's comments at a GOP debate in June echo loudly.  Asked by John King (CNN moderator) about the how the federal government should deal with natural disasters, Romney said this:  "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better."  Offered a chance to back off that statement, King followed up, "Including disaster relief, though?"  Romney responded, "We cannot afford to do those things..."

Disaster relief has always been bipartisan because only the federal government is strong enough to address large scale emergencies.  Not anymore; disaster relief has become something of a political football.  House and Senate Republicans have attempted to eliminate FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) numerous times over the last two years, while Democrats have fought to preserve it.

Today, however, there are no Republicans or Democrats on the East Coast.  There are only survivors.  When lives are at stake, people work together, regardless of political affiliation. 

Republican Governor Chris Christie's comments today regarding President Obama's efforts (taken from the New York Times, 10/30/12):  "Wonderful,” “excellent” and “outstanding” were among the adjectives Mr. Christie chose.  And, while national Republicans complained about Christie's remarks, the governor said, "I have a job to do in New Jersey that is much bigger than presidential politics."

President Obama's comments today:  "America is with you. If they are getting no for an answer somewhere in the federal government, they can call me personally at the White House,” adding: “Get resources where they are needed as fast as possible, as hard as possible, and for the duration."  He offered praise for Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Governor Christie of New Jersey for "the extraordinary work they have done."

This is the way we have always handled emergencies - together, as one.  And, this is the way we should handle our fiscal crisis, too - as one.  

However, Mitt Romney's approach sounds more like a budget manager than a statesman.  Here's what Romney told the Weekly Standard in an interview published April 2nd, 2012:  "...I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So will there be some that get eliminated...? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now."   That should give you a clue about the real Mitt Romney:

"Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market... Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt...and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale."  David Stockman - October 15, 2012, The Daily Beast

The question should not be what departments and agencies will be eliminated.  Mitt Romney does not make our country stronger by eliminating FEMA, unemployment benefits, food stamps, pushing Medicare seniors into private insurance, privatizing Social Security and cutting Medicaid and education - while at the same time eliminating taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.     

The question should be this:  How do we keep EVERYTHING and still keep our country strong.  Everything is important and everyone is important.  The answer is everyone contributes a little more and everyone sacrifices a little more.  Whether it's a corporation or a person (is there a difference these days?), let's make it patriotic to support our society - all of it.  We don't balance the budget on the backs of any one group - we don't cut the support out from under seniors and the poor.  And, we don't prohibit people from making a fortune, either.  We simply ask everyone to sacrifice a little more, while asking everyone to accept a little less.

Whatever the challenges are, whether it be a national emergency, or whether it is solving government deficits, we do it together, each person making the contribution they are able, while sacrificing what they can, moving toward a better future as one people, as one nation.  Let's take our motto seriously - E pluibus unum.  Out of many, one.

And, that is a view from Missouri.

Don't Tax Me, Bro!

One of the main elements of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign is his proposal to cut personal income tax rates by 20%.  Romney is careful to point out he intends to offset the rate cut by eliminating individual deductions, such as home mortgage, but somehow it's all going to work out:  Taxpayers will pay less, but the government will receive the same amount of revenue.  It isn't true, of course, and Democrats are correct to point out Romney's proposal doesn't add up. 

Here's what Romney's proposal means for individual taxpayers:

70% of taxpayers do not itemize deductions, which appears to mean the larger portion of taxpayers can simply receive full credit for a 20% rate reduction on their taxes.  Not true because of three words:  Alternative Minimum Tax.  A 20% reduction in tax rates pushes the AMT farther down into middle class wage earners.  Be aware that the Romney proposal does not address the AMT.  If you're thinking Congress will pass an AMT patch (which raises the AMT minimum income eligibility), as they have done in previous years, forget about it.  The AMT patch is being held hostage by dueling spending bills in Congress.

If you are among the 30% who do itemize deductions, deductions will be capped, except for people in the highest tax brackets because Romney also proposes eliminating all capital gains, interest and dividend taxes.  In 2011, middle income wage earners received only 3% of their income from capital assets, while 70% came from wages.  By contrast, the top 1% received 35% of their income from capital assets, while only 30% came from wages.  Since Mitt Romney reported no income from wages on his tax return last year, the effective tax rate for him, and others like him, would fall to near zero under his proposal.

Romney's 20% across the board rate reduction is actually a plan to allow the wealthy to pay less tax while shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class.

Here's what Romney's proposal means for government revenues:    

Even the most conservative economists admit the elimination of deductions, even if all of them were to be eliminated, does not pay for a 20% across-the-board reduction in tax rates.  Estimates of a government shortfall go as high as 5 trillion dollars.  What Romney is counting on is that tax cuts will promote economic growth to make up the difference.  There is no data that supply side economics actually works.  There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, however.

The history of tax cuts does not favor the Romney proposal.  The Reagan tax reform act of 1986 slowed the economy to negative economic growth.  George H.W. Bush and Clinton both raised taxes and the economy boomed.  The George W. Bush tax cuts, over time, contributed to economic collapse.  Romney's proposal is a recipe for disaster, both for individual taxpayers and the economy. 

Bruce Bartlett, who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, may have said it best, "I think he (Romney) and his advisers simply made up a proposal that was everything to everybody without checking for internal consistency." (NY Times, Aug. 21, 2012)

And, that is a view from Missouri.




 

Are These Guys Out of their Mind?

The reason many childhood diseases have been eliminated from the United States is simple:  All schools, public and private, require immunizations.  Children can't attend school without them.  As a result of mass immunizations, once feared childhood diseases have been eradicated.  This is an example of great health policy - complete coverage for the protection of everyone at the lowest cost.

That is why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan must be out of their minds when Romney says, "When I'm elected president, my first day in office, I will repeal ObamaCare."  The key to great public health is to cover everyone.  Over the long term, it produces a better result at less cost.

If a "cover everyone" system is cheaper and healthier, why hasn't it been adopted until now?  Health care didn't start out as a national program in the same way that Social Security did.  As a result, health insurance came to be regulated by the states instead of the federal government.  While health insurance companies have grown into corporations that transact business across state lines, state insurance departments don't regulate across state lines.  Without a national health care policy, companies have held states hostage by unilaterally setting rates, defining coverages, and if state insurance departments refuse to accept the terms, companies pull out.  As costs have escalated out of control, health insurance companies have become effective lobbyists, political contributors and no president has had the political will to take on the health insurance industry and establish a national health care policy.

The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is not a government take over of the health care system, but rather a coordination of health care policy that sets minimum standards for consumers and insurance companies across the country.  It fills the coverage gaps that private insurers have failed to address.  Republicans readily accept such national policy coordination over the entire spectrum of business and industry.  With health care costs approaching 20% of the entire economy, isn't a national health care policy needed?

Medicaid and Medicare are also big parts of the health care system, but the G.O.P. doesn't like those improvements, either.  Republicans claim the Obama administration would cut 716 billion dollars from the Medicare program.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The Obama administration would slow the future growth in Medicare costs by 716 billion without any cut in services to beneficiaries.  Romney claims controlling costs in Medicare would force hospitals to refuse to accept Medicare.  Again, not true.  Any hospital which has accepted any federal funds for any purpose whatsoever is required by law to accept Medicare.  Romney claims doctors will stop accepting Medicare.  Again, not true.  Physicians are already free to accept or decline any health plan.  The real problem is not the lack of doctors who accept Medicare, it's a basic shortage of primary care physicians.  Many primary care practices are closed to new patients, no matter what insurance plan they have.  That will be made worse by Romney, who plans cuts to the student loan program, something which is essential to pay medical school costs that are nearly $250,000 for every graduate.

While the Obama administration has used some of the savings created by the Affordable Care Act to increase coverage to low income seniors, children and the disabled through Medicaid payments, Republicans have fought the adjustments.  Republican governors have declined to accept funding increases even though they are fully paid for by the federal government through 2016 and 90% funded through 2020.  Romney would actually cut the program in half by 2030.  Quoting the Congressional Budge Office: "Because of the magnitude of the reduction in federal Medicaid spending under the (Romney/Ryan) proposal... states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding. To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues."

The Obama administration has done what no other president has been able to accomplish: put the nation on a course toward a national health policy that reduces costs and increases care.  I'm sure Governor Romney agrees since he helped pass a nearly identical plan as governor of Massachusetts.  But, candidate Romney doesn't - he's running for president.

And, that is a view from Missouri.

Walmart Logic

The Walmart near my home is a huge facility with 30 check-out stations.  But, they only keep 3 or 4 lines open at any one time.  How many times have I waited in line and thought, "Why don't they open more check-out lines?"  The answer, of course, is demand determines the number of open lines.  No business is going hire more workers than they need.

To hear Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about pro-growth tax policy, you'd think that reducing corporate taxes is going to cause businesses to hire people.  News Flash:  Reducing corporate tax rates is not about increasing employment - it's about increasing profit and shareholder value.

But, wait!  Maybe Romney is talking about cutting individual tax rates.  Well, Romney says his plan for individual tax rates is a flatter and fairer system.  That should offer no comfort to the middle class.  But, Romney believes Obama is vulnerable on the unemployment issue, so he has been pushing pro-growth tax policy as a means to create jobs.

Here's what Ben Stein (noted economist and speech writer for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford) had to say about Mitt Romney's position on the economy, "He has bought into what I think is a bit of nonsense about supply-side economics. He has bought into the idea that by cutting taxes, you automatically spur the economy. That would be wonderful if true, and it may be true, but there's no data that it's true,” he said. "And it certainly isn't true that by cutting taxes you spur the economy enough so you make up the lost tax revenue." (from Politico 8/31/12)

Economic growth is something of a chicken or the egg argument.  Which comes first, do jobs create growth or does growth creates jobs?  I'd like to talk about jobs - Steve Jobs.  Let me use Apple, Inc., Wall Street's highest priced stock, as an example of how problematic the question of jobs actually is.

Apple employs 43,000 workers in the United States, but over 700,000 overseas. (Robert Reich in Salon 7/19/12).  When you buy an iPhone, only 6% of the purchase price of an iPhone goes to American workers.  The other 94% goes overseas where the iPhone is actually produced.  What does Apple have to say about this: “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.” as an Apple executive told the New York Times. (Robert Reich in Salon 7/19/12)   In other words, Apple's corporate responsibility extends only to it's shareholders.

In today's economy, it is new technology, like the iPhone for example, that produces growth.  But, unless that technology results in increased jobs here at home, the only growth possible is shareholder value.  It's education, research and development, producing new products and services in the United States, creating jobs up and down the supply chain - that's what creates growth.  Romney's business experience is in eliminating jobs, not creating them.  His ideas increase corporate profits at the expense of labor and do nothing to address long term, chronic unemployment.  

The Obama administration created The Bring Jobs Home Act, which provided tax breaks for companies that bring jobs back to the United States and eliminated tax deductions for companies that move jobs overseas.  Sponsored in the Senate by Debbie Stabenow (D- Michigan), it was a brilliant bill designed to promote jobs for American workers.  Republicans, however, through a filibuster in the Senate, blocked the bill.  Why?  Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority leader, said it would threaten economic growth.  Economic growth for whom?  Executives and shareholders?  The richest 1% of Americans?

As you can see, I have plenty of time to think while I'm in line at Walmart.  On the way home the other day, I decided to call it Walmart Logic; the idea that tax cuts are going to increase employment.  Republican tax cuts are designed to increase shareholder value and put more money in the pockets of the wealthiest among us.

And, that is a view from Missouri.         

That's a Clown Statement, Bro!

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in his comments about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (health care act) called it "the single biggest step in the direction of Europeanizing America."  Excuse me, Senator, but the language you're speaking came straight from Europe.  Have you eaten any Italian food lately?  The neoclassical style of the building you're working in?  Straight from Europe.  The guy who built it?  French.  The individual rights we have as Americans were derived from the Magna Carta.  Senator, I'm sure you're praying every Sunday for an Obama defeat, but the church and the service you attend were patterned after European tradition.  Even the American legislature you work for came out of the English parliamentary style.  To suggest that American society is fundamentally different than Europe is a clown statement, bro.

American business and industry is supported by government subsidies and tax breaks which puts the United States more in line with the governments of China, Russia and most European countries.  You protect nearly all those subsidies, Senator. 

What would the G.O.P. do if they ever obtained a majority government again?  Force Americans to put their social security into the stock market.  Supporting American business and industry with Social Security money sounds like a lot like European style governance. 

What about auto insurance?  Requirements that drivers purchase private auto insurance sounds a lot like an individual mandate to me.  State auto insurance funds for individuals who cannot access the private auto insurance market sounds a lot like requirements under the health care law, but Senator, you don't object when it comes to transportation.

It is the health care law, of course, that Senator McConnell is talking about in the above quote and if one believes health statistics, Europeans rank above Americans in nearly every health category.  The Senator doesn't mention that.  Of course, Senator McConnell's home state of Kentucky ranks nearly last in state rankings of public health, but he's not keen on pointing that out, either. 

The Senator, himself, is in a pretty nice position.  He has his government health care plan to take care of him and his family, unlike the people he represents who, according to statistics, rank high in percentage of uninsured.  I haven't heard Senator McConnell offer to give up his government health plan or cut his cushy government pension in the face of budget cuts.  Cut everybody else, but not me.  That's a clown attitude, bro. 

I suggest that in the real world, people like the Cobra plan when they're laid off; they like having their kids remain on health plans after the age of twenty-one; they like the elimination of discrimination due to pre-existing conditions.  I also suggest that employers would like to be relieved of managing health insurance coverage for their employees.  Of course, Senator McConnell doesn't live in the real world.  He and his G.O.P. colleagues believe people go without health insurance by choice.  That is a clown belief, bro

I suggest Senator McConnell's number one legislative agenda in Washington "to make Obama a one term president" is a clown agenda.  He's completely devoid of new ideas about health care, tax policy, government debt or anything else.  His one idea, which he repeats often, is cut taxes.  What I'm saying is Senator McConnell sounds a lot like a clown, bro.

Socialism

Republicans often use the word "socialism" as a scare word like the word "communism" was used in the 1950's.  Any proposed legislation by the Democrats is labeled socialism by the G.O.P.  None of them define exactly what socialism means; they just want to make everyone afraid it.  Here's what the word socialism means according to a dictionary:

A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

As a practical matter, important segments of our society are highly socialistic if you judge them by definition, but people don't seem to be frightened by it.  Why?  The public has control of it.  Take public utilities, for example, which are regulated by state commissions.  Utilities, telecommunications, transportation, education and other large segments of our society are socialistic in the sense that there is a public interest in the quality and quantity of service, and at some level, public control of it. 

 

Take a closer look at society's infrastructure, though, and you find that all those industries are public/private partnerships.  A school district contracts with private companies for support services; state highway departments bid construction contracts to private industry, public electric companies contract with private suppliers for fuel, and so on.  It is this balance of public interest and private enterprise that brings most infrastructure to our lives at the highest quality for the lowest cost. 

 

In a time of financial stress, should public services be cut?  The answer is maybe.  When politicians cut government, they also cut the underlying private sector jobs that support them.  However, budgets are about balancing revenue versus expenses so every aspect of government should be fair game.   

 

However, Scott Walker, Republican governor of Wisconsin, took budget cutting one step farther.  Governor Walker removed the rights of public employees to bargain.  Mr. Walker survived his recall election largely by framing the issue as a budget debate, which it was not. 

 

Governor Walker's actions were an attack on individual rights.  If the governor were truly interested in budget cuts, he should have shown some leadership by asking the legislature to cut his own salary and benefits.  He didn't because his actions were not about cutting budgets; they were about the elimination of individual rights.  

 

Across the country, using the buzzwords like socialism and budget cuts, Republicans are rolling back the rights of individuals, whether it's voting rights, women's and minority rights, the right to free access to information, the right to free speech, the right to collective bargaining.

The next time a Republican says the word "socialism," grab your Bill of Rights and hang onto them.  The G.O.P. wants to eliminate your individual rights.

Holding Hostage

As Republicans continue to reject any proposal to increase revenue to offset budget cuts in the current negotiation over raising the federal debt ceiling, it is hard to believe the G.O.P. is serious about deficit reduction.  The GAO (General Accounting Office), the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), former Secretaries of the Treasury of both parties, scores of economists (including a Nobel Prize winner in Economics) and the bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson commission (National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform) have all concluded budget cuts alone will not balance the budget or pay down the national debt.  The only way to solve the debt crisis is by raising government revenues while cutting spending at the same time.  Democrats agree.  President Obama and Congressional Democrats put forth a plan that cuts 4 trillion dollars from the federal budget and contains a mix of modest revenue increases which will balance the budget and put the nation on the fast track toward eliminating the national debt.  Republicans, however, insist that Democrats agree to budget cuts without raising additional revenue; otherwise, the G.O.P. will force the federal government to default on it's debt obligations.  

The Republican Party is being held hostage by a block of ultra right wing "Tea Party" Libertarians in the House of Representatives whose approach includes many radical ideas, like the legalization of recreational drugs and prostitution (Ron Paul, R-TX) and legalizing discrimination by race (Rand Paul, R-Sen. - KY).  Equally disturbing are their ideas to dissolve many functions of the federal government, including the elimination of the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve, Department of Energy, the Internal Revenue Service, Medicaid and all welfare programs, privatizing Social Security, and forcing Medicare into the private health insurance market.  The Republican Party has no intention of balancing the federal budget or solving the debt crisis.  Their goal is to completely destroy the federal government, the economy and the social compact of the United States of America.  

It is important to understand how the United States came to a debt crisis in the first place.  Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush quadrupled the national debt under 12 years of G.O.P. administrations.  After four straight years of budget surpluses under the Clinton administration, Republican President George W. Bush turned surpluses into huge deficits, doubled the national debt in 8 years and led this nation into the worst depression since 1928.

Republicans believe that lower taxes lead to greater prosperity.  However, recent history shows the opposite to be true.  George W. Bush's tax cuts created neither jobs nor economic growth.  During the Bush presidency, employment grew at a 0.9%  annual average rate (CBS MoneyWatch 11/30/2010) compared with a 2.5% average rate for comparable periods since WWII.  Median household income was lower in 2007 than in 2000.  And, while Republicans claim to be defenders of small business, the Bush tax cuts were skewed to the super-rich and less than 2% of small business owners qualified for them (US News, August 10, 2010).

Senate G.O.P. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's favorite phrase, "job killing;" is used to justify Republican resistance to many Democratic initiatives, but especially raising taxes, as if there were jobs just waiting to be created if the government would lower taxes.  Tax cuts, if they create jobs at all, create them in Asia where American multi-national corporations find lower employment costs and no environmental regulations.  The Bush tax cuts of the last decade amounted to a huge jobs program for Asian countries.  And, since interest rates in the United States have been at historic lows, tax cuts encourage investment outside the United States, not in it. 

Republicans constantly complain about the high corporate tax rate in the United States.  The marginal rate, at 35%, is one of the highest in the world, but, the actual (effective) corporate tax rate is one of the lowest (averaging 14%) due to thousands of tax credits, loopholes and givebacks in the tax code.  General Electric, the nation's largest corporation, got a tax refund last year.  In fact, these ten companies paid no tax at all last year:  Exxon Mobil, Bank of America, General Electric, Chevron, Boeing, Valero Energy, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, ConocoPhillips, Carnival Cruise Lines (Senator Bernie Sanders', I-VT, as published April 15, 2011 by MoveOn.org).  A study in 2008 by the GAO found that 55% of American companies paid no income tax at all in at least one of the last seven years (New York Times, May 2, 2011).  A bounty of subsidies, shelters and special breaks have made American multinationals “world leaders in tax avoidance,” according to Edward D. Kleinbard, a professor at the University of Southern California, who was head of the Congressional joint committee on taxes (NY Times, 5/2/11).  Last year, corporate tax revenue dropped to 9% of federal income in spite of corporate profits hitting an all-time high in 2010.

Yet, Republicans have taken corporate tax loopholes, tax breaks and givebacks to corporations off the table in current budget negotiations.  Republicans call this approach "pro growth" after a decade in which business and industry used these tax breaks to create no jobs and kept wages for the American worker flat.  In some cases, Republican legislators have voted to keep tax breaks that benefit them personally.  For instance, noted Tea Party Republican Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a G.O.P. presidential candidate, receives $250,000 per year in farm subsidies for her family farm.  Kristi Noem (R-S.D), who won in 2010 on a platform of spending cuts, has received millions of dollars in federal farm subsidies over the last decade.  It should be no surprise that Republican legislators refuse to cut farm subsidies, but favor cutting social programs instead. 

If the United States is serious about solving it's debt crisis, we need legislators who are willing to put aside special interests, ideology, and partisan debate.  President Obama, Vice-President Biden and other Democrats are doing just that.  We need Republicans to do the same.

And, that is a view from Missouri.

Health Care and the Budget

The health care industry reminds me of the auto body repair business.  If your car bumper needs to be repaired, the first question an auto body shop will ask is if you're paying out of pocket or using insurance.  The reason?  They will write a higher estimate if you're using insurance.  Private auto body businesses know how to milk the system.

After an auto accident last year, my ex-wife had an MRI.  The charge to the insurance company was $700.  But, I go to the same MRI firm and pay $250 out of pocket for my son's MRIs (he's a baseball pitcher and has had several of them).  No one would think of the health care industry as "scam artists" in the same way we often think of auto body shops; they are worse. 

The next time, God forbid, one of your family members is in the hospital, ask to see an itemized list of charges.  You will find $50 ibuprofen, $250 doctor visits, $400 per day room charges - a laundry list of inflated charges.  Hospitals and doctors charge the insurance company inflated rates, the insurance company passes those costs on by raising premiums.  The cycle is repeated over and over until the system is out of control.  Everyone used to joke about the Pentagon paying $500 for a hammer, except that health care costs are no joke.

One might think it silly to defend such a system, but that's exactly what Republicans do under the "free enterprise" philosophy of government.  The private sector unrestrained, according to the G.O.P., will solve ANY problem by itself.  I have my own idea about free enterprise and it goes like this:  A company, completely unregulated, will charge the HIGHEST price they can get away with.  And, if you don't believe that, I know a lot of auto dealerships that would like to see you on their showroom floor. 

What is free enterprise doing with health care?  It is opening health clinics in drug stores with unqualified personnel that barely speak English.  The person giving flu shots was the same person I saw the week before at the cash register.  That, my friends, is unregulated health care. 

That latest Republican health plan comes from Representative Paul Ryan under the disguise of budget cuts.  Ryan's plan would end Medicare and Medicaid.  If you're on Medicare, Ryan's going to give your $96 back (taken out of your social security check for Medicare) and expect you to buy private health insurance.  It's impossible to find private health insurance for $96 per month.

Ryan's Medicaid plan is going to lower payments and, eventually, phase them out.  Here's what you need to know about seniors and Medicaid:  Most people in nursing homes use Medicaid because they run out of assets before they die and they have nowhere else to turn.  Am I supposed to watch thousands of elderly people be denied entrance to nursing homes or indigent AIDS patients denied life saving drugs just so the Republicans can balance the budget without raising taxes?

There are solutions.  Universal health care plans such as the Massachusetts plan continue to control costs by lowering premiums 20-40% and improve overall health by covering 98% of citizens.  I'm not concerned with where solutions come from, whether free enterprise or government.  But, free enterprise health care better offer me something more than a health clinic at the local drug store.  That place sucks.

Paul Ryan's budget that ends Medicare and Medicaid is not a solution.  It is a problem.     

And, that is a view from Missouri.    









            

Acceptable Casualties

Seventeen percent of Americans suffered food poisoning last year resulting in death, sickness, and nationwide product recalls.  In spite of this, 25 Republican senators voted against improving food safety in the last session of Congress.  Republicans viewed the legislation, which passed and became law, as job killing, which it is clearly not.  It is the lack of a safe food supply that is job-killing:  Most of the western world refuses to buy U.S. beef products.  While the rest of the world tests every piece of beef produced, the American beef industry violently opposes testing with the support of Republicans. 

It is interesting the G.O.P. doesn't view the lack of food safety as people-killing.  The G.O.P. propaganda machine ignores the facts about food safety and keeps churning out pro-business rhetoric - eliminate unnecessary regulations, lower taxes and get the government off the backs of business.  

The truth is that food manufacturers consider food poisoning to be part of the cost of doing business.  Their legal budget in any given year reflects the funding the company predicts it will need to fight claims.  And, here is where Republicans can be a big help:  passing legislation to limit tort awards.

In this sense, the food industry measures people's lives in dollars:  The additional profits generated from reduced safety procedures and testing versus the cost of legal fees and awards won by plaintiffs years after all appeals have been exhausted.

The food industry loved the Bush administration.  For eight years, Republicans cut the number of safety inspectors in regulatory agencies, installed industry professionals as heads of agencies and eased safety standards across the board.  This left business and industry virtually policing themselves.  Of course, George and Laura didn't need to worry - the White House tests every piece of food served.  They just didn't feel everyone else deserved safe food products.     

The G.O.P. considers the freedom of business to act unimpeded, in its own self interest, to be as important as an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The Republican version of freedom is the anarchy of business; the right of business and industry to pursue unlimited profits at the expense of the individual.  Our nation, defined by Republicans, is nothing more than a marketplace that balances itself through unregulated and unrestrained competition.  That's not what I read in our founding documents.  Our founding documents talk about personal freedom, not the freedom of large corporations.

Evidently, Republicans feel the seventeen percent of Americans who fall ill from food poisoning each year to be an acceptable casualty rate.  Otherwise, Republicans would have voted in favor of food regulation.  Republicans would do well to remember that the pursuit of corporate profit does not equal the pursuit of my individual liberty. 

And, that is a view from Missouri.

Health Care Nightmare

I received my "2011 Annual Notice of Changes/Evidence of Coverage" for my health insurance the other day.  It is a 247 page document.  Of course, that's only half the book.  The other half is attachments; hundreds of pages of them.  The entire document is written as to be unintelligible.  I would have to pay an attorney to tell me what's in there. 

Can anyone tell me what an "Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening" is?  Am I supposed to know this?  I have no idea what it is.  I guess I'm supposed to understand it because the insurance company tells me to read the book.  But, hardly any of it matters because of the phrase "usual and customary."  If the insurance company doesn't like it, it doesn't matter what it is, they'll refuse to pay for it.  

My doctor doesn't like the health care system any more than I do.  While the insurance company raises my premiums, they lower his payments.  The doctor is forced to accept health insurance company discounts because if he doesn't, he'll go broke treating people who can't pay.  The health insurance industry works best when there are a lot of uninsured people.

To make up for these discounts, my doctor runs more patients through his office per hour than he'd like.  The doctor would like to spend a little time with me, get to know me, but he can't.  The exam rooms must turn over quickly.  You're in and you're out.  Nurses do the actual work so the doctor can meet his quota of patients per hour.  No offense, doc, but isn't there anyone in the office who can draw blood without sticking me eight times? 

For health insurance companies to make windfall profits, they must charge people high premiums, pay doctors low fees and make sure they enroll healthy people who don't need medical care.  They don't insure pre-existing conditions, have long waiting periods to make sure you're healthy, have large deductibles, hefty co-pays, mandatory payment caps and so on.  The health insurance industry is a scam.

To protect themselves, health insurance companies must game the system.  They spend billions of dollars lobbying Congress, giving political contributions, funding political action committees and billions more in advertising, sales and public relations.  Instead of that money going into care, it goes into protecting the jobs of paper pushers who do nothing to treat people.  I knew a guy who was vice president of a large health insurance firm; his kid played on my baseball team.  The family was filthy rich.  Multiply that by all the health insurance executives around the country.  You talk about Wall Street profits?  Health insurance executives are making big bucks.    

The best health care system would be to give every citizen in the United States a single payer Medicare system that covers everyone, cradle to grave.  You and your doctor make the decisions; everything is covered.  The system does not have to make a profit and our elected representatives manage the system.  Citizens pay into the system through taxes, but would pay far less than they do now because the system is not for profit.  

Republicans call this socialism.  But, what the G.O.P. is actually doing is protecting a health insurance industry that pays big bucks to Republican candidates.  I don't care what it's called; call it anything you want.  If we eliminate the for-profit middleman - the health insurance company, with all its inefficiencies and wasteful spending, and replace it with a non-profit Medicare style system, we will get better coverage at lower cost.  

People are a nation's greatest natural resource.  If we are going to invest in anything, it should be ourselves.  We should invest in every single person, not just those who can afford health care.  We should stand up to Republicans who protect the windfall profits of insurance companies, take control of our health care away from insurance companies and put it in the hands of ourselves.

And, that is a view from Missouri.    
      

Rare Earth Elements

Spending time with my grandparents in southern Missouri as a child in the 1950's, my grandfather often took me in the early morning hours to check his trot line across the Gasconade River.  A trot line is a rope that stretches from one bank to the other, off which fish hooks descend into the water.  The trot line, when baited, sinks into the water so as to be unseen, except for the ends on each bank which are tied to trees.  I was in charge of the linseed cake, which Grandpa used for bait.  "Hand me another linseed cake," he'd say as he worked the boat across the river, lifting the line to take fish caught overnight, then replacing the bait.  It was a simple question posed to my grandfather one morning that made me aware of rare earth elements.

"Grandpa, why are so many of the farms around here vacant," I asked.  "The government is buying up all the land," he said.  Naturally, my next question was, "Why?"  "There's precious metal in these hills and the government wants to control it."  Immediately, I asked him, "Gold?"  "No, something more valuable than gold - uranium.  Now, hand me another linseed cake," he said as he threw a catfish into the bottom of the boat.  I have always remembered that conversation because Grandpa believed uranium had something to do with my future. 

Now, if you can name all of Santa's reindeer really fast, try saying this list: Scandium, Yttrium, Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodymium, Promethium, Samarium, Europium, Gadolinium, Terbium, Dysprosium, Holmium, Erbium, Thulium, Ytterbium and Lutetium.  These are the names of rare earth elements in the periodic table.  (If the names have a Scandinavian flavor, it is because rare earth elements were first discovered in Sweden.) They exist all over the world, but only in a few places are they in deposits large enough to be extracted from the earth; places such as the Bayan Obo deposit in China, Mountain Pass in California, Thor Lake in Canada and as it turns out, the Pea Ridge area in southeast Missouri.

Why should you care about this?  Well, you're carrying around rare earth elements in your pocket.  Your cellphone uses them.  In fact, rare earth elements today are used in medical imaging technology, solar panels, wind energy systems, battery systems, magnetic industrial applications, lasers, computer chips, cellphones, optical fiber communication systems, flat screen televisions, automobiles, scientific research applications, radar systems, aircraft, in guided missile systems, particle accelerators, on the space shuttle, and in a myriad of other modern electronic applications.  Current technology relies on these elements; you can't build the stuff without them.

China produces nearly 100% of all processed rare earth elements in the world.  Yes, that is correct; China has a monopoly on rare earth element production.  Recently, the Chinese have begun using that monopoly as a political weapon.  That's why you should care.

This fall (September, 2010), China banned exports of rare earth oxides to Japan in retaliation for the detainment of a fishing boat captain by the Japanese Coast Guard.  Earlier, The Economist reported that "China...announced the latest in a series of annual export reductions, this time by 40%."  China hinted strongly that future exports of rare earth elements will be allowed - only - to countries that produce their finished products in China.  According to The Economist, "Slashing their exports of rare-earth metals is all about moving Chinese manufacturers up the supply chain, so they can sell valuable finished goods to the world rather than raw materials."  In other words, China wants to control industries that use rare earth elements by forcing the finished products to be made in China.  It is a blatant power grab.       

Well, the entire Western world is in a panic.  Everywhere, the question is being asked:  What if China completely shuts off supplies?  Meetings, conferences, governmental hearings, appeals to the World Trade Organization to intervene; the world is taking action.

The United States is responding, too, but will it be soon enough to avoid a disruption in supplies of rare earth elements?  We have significant reserves of rare earth elements, roughly 10% of the world's supply.  Molycorp Minerals plans to re-open California's Mountain Pass Mine in 2012.  Wing's Enterprises, in St. Louis, is re-developing the Pea Ridge site here in Missouri to mine not only magnetic iron ore, but rare earth elements as well.  However, it takes years to open mines and build a supply chain.  From the complicated extraction techniques used in the mining of rare earth elements and extensive processing of these minerals to their shipment and use in finished products, China is simply the center of the universe when it comes to rare earth elements.

It should have never come to this.  In the 1980's, under President Reagan, trucks simply backed up to American rare earth processing facilities and entire factories were moved intact to China.  As a result, American mines, such as Molycorp's Mountain Pass Mine (which used to be the world's largest producer of rare earth elements), were forced to shut down and an entire generation of mining and processing expertise was lost to China.. 

When our national security is threatened by China, I expect something more than Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's strategy, "The number one legislative agenda for Republicans will be to make sure President Obama is a one term president."  I expect our political leaders to fight China on trade policy and currency valuation.  I expect our leaders to resurrect the rare earth mining industry and close a national security weakness.  We need Republicans willing to engage the Democrats in a serious discussion of issues instead of pandering to the Tea Party Express and powerful business interests.  Is that too much to ask?  Evidently, it is.

And, that is a view from Missouri.  

Joyce Kaufman and Allen West

Hired as the Chief of Staff to Congressman-elect Allen West (Republican Tea Party candidate elected from Florida's 22nd District), Joyce Kaufman has a long history of incendiary remarks.  A South Florida radio talk show host, Kaufman did not last long as West's Chief of Staff.  She resigned the position within a few days after her show was linked to threats of gun violence against the Broward County School District and government buildings in the county. The threats led to a county-wide school lockdown effecting 300 schools and 230,000 students. 

Among Kaufman's irresponsible remarks are these:  "if ballots don't work, bullets will."  She advocated the formation of militias to take guns and hide in the hills of Kentucky and Vermont to fight an election outcome that didn't please her.  "Some things are worth dying for." she said.

Speaking of illegal immigrants, she said, “If you commit a crime while you’re here, we should hang you and send your body back to where you came from.”

These are just a couple of the frequent rants that come from this sick person who, unfortunately, has made a living broadcasting such nonsense in the South Florida radio market.  How that qualifies her to be the Chief of Staff to a Congressman, I'm not quite sure, but Allen West sure seems enamored with her:  "I was not hiring a talk radio host; I was hiring a very brilliant political mind, someone that has been in South Florida politics for 20 plus years," West said.  He went on to say, "Joyce Kaufman is the most honorable, with the most impeccable integrity and character that I have met in my life"  Kaufman was one of West's most vocal supporters during the campaign.  He appeared as a guest on Kaufman's radio show over 100 times.

Allen West seems to have a couple of screws loose, too.  “You must be well-armed because this government that we have right now is a tyrannical government," West said.  West is "focused that this liberal, progressive, socialist agenda, this left-wing, vile, vicious, despicable machine that's out there is soundly brought to its knees.”  Listen to the way he defended Kaufman, ""I think the American people are sick of the way that they went after Joyce Kaufman."  "The fact that they're attacking a woman like this, that shows me something about sexism and misogynist behavior."  Really, all the media did was dig up video and audio clips of Kaufman and publish them.

Here's the scoop on Allen West:  While serving in Iraq as commander of the 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery Regiment of the U.S. Army, Lieutenant Colonel West helped interrogate an Iraqi civilian.  When interrogators could not ilicit information from the Iraqi, West walked into the room, drew his gun and fired past the Iraqi's head.  The information West received from the Iraqi, after firing his gun close to the detainee's head, turned out to be false.  West said later, "It's possible that I was wrong about the detainee."   West was charged by the U.S. Army with violating articles 128 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  West was found guilty of misconduct and assault and he resigned from the U.S. Army.

Whether West is qualified to serve in Congress or Kaufman was qualified to serve as his Chief of Staff is not for me to say.  If the people of Florida's 22nd District want West to represent them, far be it for me to criticize them.  But, I will say this:  Those Tea Party candidates and their supporters are goofy.  It would be funny, except that it's so frightening. 

And, that is a view from Missouri.

Note:  Sources used for this post were The South Palm Beach Examiner and The Florida Independent.

Texas

If people are interested in knowing what life would be like under the rule of conservative Republicans, they need to look no farther than Texas.  Texas is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the country (yes, larger than California) due to oil refineries, coal burning power plants and manufacturing in the state,.  If Texas were its own country, it would be the seventh largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.  Yet, State Attorney General Greg Abbot has filed seven lawsuits in the last year alone to block EPA from regulating greenhouse gases in Texas.  Texas is the only state that will refuse to enforce new EPA greenhouse gas emission standards which go into effect after the first of the year. 

Texas Republicans, however, have a different view.  "EPA is cramming this down the throats of citizens and the states," said Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, another plaintiff against the EPA. Republican governor Rick Perry said in his victory speech the other night, "People are tired of the government cooking up new ways to micromanage their lives," he said. "They're tired of the government killing jobs with their do-gooder policies that have nothing to do with science or economics."

On the other hand, public health doesn't seem to be a concern for Texas Republicans.  Texas ranks highest in the number of people without health insurance and ranks 40th lowest in the number of doctors per capita.  A recent proposal by far right Republican lawmakers would drastically worsen public health in Texas: opting out of the federal Medicaid and Chip programs (Children's Health Insurance Program).  Quoting Republican State Representative Warren Chisum, “This system is bankrupting our state,” he said. “We need to get out of it."

The State of Texas has no state income tax, folks - that's why they are having budget problems.  But, instead of paying their fair share in taxes, rich Texas oil barons would rather cure their budget deficit on the backs of the poor.  I suggest a modest state income tax would provide the Texas legislature with all the funding they need to cure a budget deficit. 

At the expense of the environment, and through the suffering of poor children, Texas Republicans will balance their budget.  Let's hope ordinary Texans rise up and take control of their government. 

And, that is a view from Missouri.   

The Big News on Wednesday, November 3rd

While election results dominated the news yesterday, along with all the analysis of the outcome, equally important was the Federal Reserve's announcement that they intend to interject another 600 billion dollars into the banking system with the purchase of government bonds.  This is in addition to the Fed's continuing purchase of Treasury debt using proceeds from mortgage related holdings that could drive the intervention to somewhere between 800-900 billion dollars by next year.  If the Fed is correct, this intervention will lead to lower corporate and government bond rates, greater corporate investment and help create a jobs recovery.

With this action, the Governing Board of the Federal Reserve has signaled that fiscal stimulus is an important weapon in the fight against recession.  In doing so, however, the Federal Reserve directly opposes the G.O.P. plan for economic recovery.  Mike Pence, a prominent Republican congressman from Indiana put it this way shortly after the announcement was made: “Diluting the value of the dollar by continually increasing the supply of money poses an incalculable risk,” he said. “Instead, Congress needs to embrace pro growth fiscal policies to stimulate our economy rather than masking our fundamental problems by artificially creating inflation.”

What are the pro growth policies that Pence talks about?  The G.O.P. strategy of cutting taxes while cutting spending will not work according to leading economists, the Congressional Budget Office and Obama's bi-partisan Economic Commission.  Cutting spending is a good idea, if accompanied by tax increases to offset, but will only serve to increase the deficit if taxes are cut.  I'm tired of hearing Republicans say they are going to put more money in my pocket.  They intend to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy.  And the spending cuts?  They won't be in defense; I guarantee that.  They intend to cut social programs that help the poor.     

I've heard the G.O.P. mantra of "get government off the backs of business."  Cutting regulations on business is irresponsible.  I've had enough of oil spills, mining disasters, tainted lettuce, and auto company recalls.  Regulations are in place to protect the consumer.  I'm not worried about government being on my back; I've got representatives in government.  I'm worried about getting business off my back. 

Fiscal stimulus is the weapon of choice by governments fighting a recession.  Quoting Laurence H. Meyer, a former Fed governor. “Bernanke (Federal Reserve Chairman) has said that fiscal stimulus, accommodated by the Fed, is the single most powerful action the government can take for lowering the unemployment rate, when short-term rates are already at zero,” Mr. Meyer said. “He has nearly pleaded with Congress for fiscal stimulus, but he can’t count on it.”  

A further danger is a movement by the G.O.P. is to bring the Federal Reserve, currently independent, under the control of Congress.  Who died and made Republican leader John Boehner an economist?  The Republican Road Map espoused by G.O.P. congressmen is a recipe for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.  We've already witnessed the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich in the history of our country - enough already!

I'm counting on the Federal Reserve, the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress to reject the Republican plan of tax cuts, deregulation and budget cuts that affect the middle class. 

And, that's a view from Missouri. 

Note:  This article used quotes from the New York Times. 

Canary in the Coal Mine

Doctors know there is a "herd immunity" in public health.  That is to say, when a critical mass of people are healthy, all are protected.  I read an alarming statistic today: only 56.2 percent of Missouri children are receiving immunizations, down from 80.6 percent in 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control.  The decrease is due, primarily, to a lack of public health funding.  For instance, here in Kansas City, the Health Department no longer has the funding to search public school records for children who lack immunizations.

For a free enterprise system to work properly, there must be losers; people for whom bad decisions has led to failure.  While free enterprise may work in many economic sectors, it definitely does not work in public health care.  Disease and infection spread without regard to demographics such as income, occupational status and location of residence.  For every child who does not receive immunizations; for every uninsured person who cannot afford a flu shot; for every homeless person who does not receive medication, there is a price to pay far beyond that single act.

If conservative Republicans are to take control of Congress as pollsters are predicting, we should listen closely to their plans for the future.  A rollback of the new health care law, cuts in public health care funding, education and other "human infrastructure" areas will lead to disaster.  That only half of Missouri children are receiving immunizations is a huge sign that trouble is on the way.  The canary just died.

And, that is a view from Missouri.

Red State Health Care

There is a sign inside the emergency room at the hospital nearest my house, "If you cannot afford to pay, we will stabilize you and send you to another facility."  I interpret this to mean if you can't pay, the hospital will do the minimum necessary to avoid a lawsuit, then shove you out the door and leave you in the back of an ambulance.  It is a for profit hospital, of course.  Immediately upon entry, this hospital tells you that payment for services is equal to the lives of their patients. 

During the health care reform debate this year in Congress, I heard all manner of arguments in favor of a free market system of health care coming from Republicans.  It is an ideological argument that says a free market health care system produces the best health care at the lowest cost.  Death panels, socialized medicine, government control of health care decisions were just a few of the scare tactics that Republicans used to try to block health care reform.  The G.O.P. pushback against a Democratic bill was fierce; nearly all Republicans voted no. 

Republican rhetoric caused me to wonder, what is so good about the current system that convinced Republicans to vote no?  I researched health care in states represented by Republicans in Congress and dominated by the G.O.P. in state government, the so-called Red States, and was struck the low level of medical care, general health of those populations and the high cost associated with that care.

For instance, Mississippi ranks 1st in heart disease among it's population, 3rd in highest number of uninsured as a percent of population, an infant death rate over 50% above the national average, ranks 50th in number of doctors per capita and citizens have a life expectancy rate over four years less than the national average.  Mississippi ranks 1st in the nation in the percentage of people below the poverty line (21.2%), but 48th lowest in Medicaid per capita spending ($8,711).  I doubt you will hear Republican Governor Haley Barbour boasting of those statistics.

Texas ranks 1st in percentage of highest uninsured, but 40th in number of doctors per capita (2.15 per 1,000 people) and 35th in Medicaid spending.  Oklahoma ranks 2nd highest of all states in heart disease, 6th highest in number of uninsured, the life expectancy of it's population is nearly three years below the national average and ranks 50th in Medicaid spending..  Alabama has the 3nd highest rate of heart disease, well above the average in cancer deaths, an infant mortality rate 33% higher than the national average, ranks 43rd in the number of doctors per capita, and ranks last (51 out of 51 including D.C) in Medicaid per capita spending. 

Whether it's South Carolina ranking 11th in most uninsured, above average cancer, heart disease, infant mortality rates and lower life expectancy, or statistics from other red states such as Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, red states, especially from the south, have negative health statistics compared to national averages. 

I've not heard Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky talk about his state having the highest percentage of cancer deaths in the country, nor that Kentucky ranks 2nd in the nation in percentage of people below the poverty line, but 46th in Medicaid per capita spending.  Yet, McConnell and many of his Republican colleagues complain that universal coverage would not only reduce the quality of care, but make health care more expensive. 

Statistics, however, show exactly the opposite to be true.  Massachusetts (the only state with a universal health care system) spends an average of 13% of their per capita income on health care, while Kentucky spends an average of 17% (2007 numbers); Alabama spends 19.8%, Oklahoma spends 14.3%. 

To be fair, western Red States fare better in health care statistics, but spend far more in Medicaid dollars to produce them.  Alaska, for example, has outstanding rankings in nearly every health category, but ranks 6th highest in Medicaid spending.  Idaho ranks 11th; Kansas 19th. It is disingenuous for Republican senators in those states to espouse an argument in favor of free market health care when their their states accept higher than average Medicaid payments. 

Republican defense of a free market system of health care is a fraudulent argument and shows a disconnect between Republican senators and the constituents they represent.  The G.O.P. is protecting the business interests of health care at the expense of the citizens they represent.  Ideology stops at the front door of the hospital.  People are the greatest natural resource and we should do everything possible to care for our population.   

To the hospital near my home that refuses to treat patients who cannot afford to pay, I ask why do you use one of Christ's apostles as your name?  You have Medicaid dollars available to you for low income patients and your development department is working full time to garner grants to pay costs.  It is indefensible that you would refuse to care for the poor.

To the Republican senators who voted no to health care reform, shame on you.  To vote no while you, yourselves,  enjoy the superior benefits of a Congressional health plan paid for by tax payers is indefensible.

And, that's a view from Missouri.

Note:  The statistics in this post were obtained from the U.S. Census, the Social Security Administration, Virginia Commonwealth University, StateHealthFacts.org, StateMaster.com  and the Gallup-Healthways Well Being Index 

















  .