As an independent I don't subscribe to either party but I do have a preference for the goals and programs of one candidate vs. another. I think Obama missed a good chance last night. He ended up looking very defensive on foreign policy and McCain got some wonderful digs in on Obama's relative lack of experience in this area. But there were responses Mr. Obama could have made but didn't.
*Mr. Mccain stressed his long experience dealing with countries like Iraq, Pakistan, Israel...but it appears he has learnt nothing from it. The world he knew has changed drastically but he hasn't changed with it. If he had he would not have encouraged the War in Iraq, He would not now maintain such total and unquestioned support for Israel. Let's be clear, it is the US' uneven handling of the Arab and Israeli world that has got us into the Middle East mess we're in. The US' double standard means that we support Israel in flouting all the UN conventions it has previously signed, undermines the authority of the UN so it can no longer intervene in the Middle East credibly, left the neighboring Arab countries struggling to support an overwhelming refugee population. But McCain's advisers are so tied to the israeli PACs that he seems to think its weakness to show any justice for the Arab world. We really need a leader who can say to both sides--you are wrong on this, and you are wrong on that even if he understand he might sacrifice the next election. Our own intransigence means we ship US funds that are taxpayer funds to Israel--a modern state in no need of financial support--and to Egypt, a state that is so low on the Human Rights scale it shouldn't be recevieing any funds at all, to keep them both happy. But it's a payoff to Egypt from us to allow us to support Israel the way we want and allows Israel to build up its armaments while we pay their civil service costs Something's not right here. We've ceded power to the interests of others thinking it's in our own intrests when it's not. Bring that money back home and then you'll see that the two parties will HAVE to deal with each other seriously. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, US politics ahs made us total enemies of the people if not the State. These are tribal people, and while the machinery of Government seems to be modern, it's backed by 12th century cultures and values--you can't deal with them in the same way you deal with France or germany. And you can't make assumptions about their reactions to US politics unless you understand this.
* Mr. McCain says he is a maverick in the Senate but his very Maverick(ness) means he has been an ineffective leader of his own party within the Senate and within the Administration. If he could lead he would have got his peers (Republicans) in the Senate and Congress, to vote with him on all those contentious issues that he today feels the Bush regime shouldn't have done and which he's desperately trying to dissassociate himself from.
So if he's not an effective leader, even with people in his own party, why do we think he could lead a nation? Other people defected from their parties to show their integrity or to demonstrate their changed values--Lieberman did,--but McCain stayed and toed the line...no he's no maverick.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Death of a paradigm
Thank God, we're finally laying to rest the myth that "trickle down" economics works. Unfortunately, while the rest of the nation implicitly and explicitly understand this the Washington elite still seems blind. The proposed bailout is simply an extension of the "trickle down" model --"Let's help the financial firms and their rich executives" and that will keep the economy going and help the poor. What about those poor investment banking staff and mortgage loan staff who were so highly paid to increase sales of bad loans.
What absolute rubbish. So what if a few investors lose a bunch--that's the risk they took when they invested and their demands for ever greater profits made them collaborators in the meltdown. That most of us have seen our pensions erode, our savings disappear means very little to them. I could understand it if it was only the Republican gurus who were promoting the ancient out-dated- theories but the Democrats are showing total spinelessness. Where are the strong Democrats? Why have they caved to off-shore oil drilling? Why have they not demanded alternative economic solutions that would start with helping the victims.
Most of the rest of us don't have Warren Buffett's acumen. We work for companies that provide us with pensions managed by institutions (AXA-Equitable, TIAA-Cref etc...). Their sales agents provide investment advice--most of it useless. And their investment managers make the decisions about which stocks to invest in. Were they unable to see the writing on the wall or were they too paid to keep the money rolling in. I asked my account manager to re-invest my pension in much less riskier stocks and bonds after I saw my pension eroding the past year. He gave me advice--told me not to downgrade the stocks too much, to cover myself for inflation, and , BTW, would I like to consider an annuity-at a modest fee of course? How about rolling over my pension from another firm with which I had worked into one pension making it easier to manage all my pension in one place?
Most of the rest of us don't have Warren Buffett's acumen. We work for companies that provide us with pensions managed by institutions (AXA-Equitable, TIAA-Cref etc...). Their sales agents provide investment advice--most of it useless. And their investment managers make the decisions about which stocks to invest in. Were they unable to see the writing on the wall or were they too paid to keep the money rolling in. I asked my account manager to re-invest my pension in much less riskier stocks and bonds after I saw my pension eroding the past year. He gave me advice--told me not to downgrade the stocks too much, to cover myself for inflation, and , BTW, would I like to consider an annuity-at a modest fee of course? How about rolling over my pension from another firm with which I had worked into one pension making it easier to manage all my pension in one place?
No, No and again no! Government should let me take my money out of these funds. Let me put it in short-term CDs and for God's sake don't penalize me with whopping taxes becasue I took them out early. Now is the time to forgive me my taxes on these funds. My cd is safer than my pension fund. I'm not taking my funds out because I want to spend them now. I'm trying to preserve them for the future.
It's no wonder I'm an independent voter. I don;t see either party thinking about us. The leadership in both parties is just too, too rich. Sarah Palin excluded of course, but her candidacy is a joke anyway.
The Upside of the fiscal down-side
OK--so here I go again. There is a golden lining to this financial rain cloud. It's the opportunity that all US citizens need to reduce their footprint on the world. For years our duty as citizens is measured by our consumption--the advice to citizens reeling from the aftermath of 9/11 from the Bush Government, was to go shopping!!! Well--truth is we need to slow down that consumption. Not just our carbon footprint, but our use of all the raw materials that are collected from around the world, made into goods and products and sold to us through marketing and hype as things we absolutely need. Already we're using much more than our fair share of the earth's resources. As developing countries incomes slowly rise, they also want a share of the good life. And the good life they see on their TVs is our luxury life. In Russia, in Hong Kong, in India and China, the good life of the richest resembles the life of Paris Hilton and her useless ilk. If even a smidgen of that good life becomes part of the Middle class lifestyle in emerging economies we're in trouble and so are they. No that's not the model we need to project to the world. We used to be models of thrift. Now we barely have any savings in the Bank. The Chinese have huge reserves of cash becasue their population is still wary of the new economy and saves like mad. We spend like mad at the urging of our Government, and are perplexed when the Government tells us they won't support the basics, health insurance, prescriptions, old age pensions, public transport--the list is endless.
Our consumption rate needs to be drastically reined in permanently--not just in response to a temporary crisis. Each person should evaluate their purchases before they plonk their money down. Is the item needed or just wanted. Are we just bored with our products or do we really need to replace them. I had my house remodeled recently after 30 years of neglect. It needed it, but when I threw out my old stove, my refridgerator, my microwave, I confess I felt guilty. They still worked. Luckily some of the remodeling crew (recent immigrants from Latin America) leapt on the goods and took them home to replace their own old models.
Moving on from the individual to the State, can we please find a different model for measuring the productivity of our country than GDP? This would be a great time now to consider it. Can we instead develop an index of citizen happiness, "customer satisfaction" with the way our government supports us? Can we also throw out the pretence that "economics" is a science that can predict furture events.? Can we stop hiring economists for every important job and instead hire a social scientist (not that they're always much better) who can measure human satisfaction paired with an accountant who can calculate the cost? I am so sick of the World Bank economists, the IMF economists, the UN economists and the worst, the US Government economists. They've all persuaded us that they know and understand the future, but their history of predictions and persuasions tells a very different story. Get rid of the lot of them!!!!
Our consumption rate needs to be drastically reined in permanently--not just in response to a temporary crisis. Each person should evaluate their purchases before they plonk their money down. Is the item needed or just wanted. Are we just bored with our products or do we really need to replace them. I had my house remodeled recently after 30 years of neglect. It needed it, but when I threw out my old stove, my refridgerator, my microwave, I confess I felt guilty. They still worked. Luckily some of the remodeling crew (recent immigrants from Latin America) leapt on the goods and took them home to replace their own old models.
Moving on from the individual to the State, can we please find a different model for measuring the productivity of our country than GDP? This would be a great time now to consider it. Can we instead develop an index of citizen happiness, "customer satisfaction" with the way our government supports us? Can we also throw out the pretence that "economics" is a science that can predict furture events.? Can we stop hiring economists for every important job and instead hire a social scientist (not that they're always much better) who can measure human satisfaction paired with an accountant who can calculate the cost? I am so sick of the World Bank economists, the IMF economists, the UN economists and the worst, the US Government economists. They've all persuaded us that they know and understand the future, but their history of predictions and persuasions tells a very different story. Get rid of the lot of them!!!!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
no bailout
Today I'm not writing my own words. I'm quoting from someone else :
From the Huffington Post 24 September 2008
A critical - and radical - component of the bailout package proposed by the Bush administration has thus far failed to garner the serious attention of anyone in the press. Section 8 (which ironically reminds one of the popular name of the portion of the 1937 Housing Act that paved the way for subsidized affordable housing ) of this legislation is just a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that's so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one's hair on fire. It reads, in its entirety:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency
The deal proposed by Paulson is nothing short of outrageous. It includes no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gives congressional blessing and funding to what he has already been doing, ad hoc. He plans to retain Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper. There are to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that get relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital. Both Obama and McCain have opposed the provision denying any judicial review of decisions made by Paulson -- a provision that evokes the Bush administration's suspension of normal constitutional safeguards in its conduct of foreign policy and national security. [...]
The differences between this proposed bailout and the three closest historical equivalents are immense. When the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the 1930s pumped a total of $35 billion into U.S. corporations and financial institutions, there was close government supervision and quid pro quos at every step of the way. Much of the time, the RFC became a preferred shareholder, and often appointed board members. The Home Owners Loan Corporation, which eventually refinanced one in five mortgage loans, did not operate to bail out banks but to save homeowners. And the Resolution Trust Corporation of the 1980s, created to mop up the damage of the first speculative mortgage meltdown, the S&L collapse, did not pump in money to rescue bad investments; it sorted out good assets from bad after the fact, and made sure to purge bad executives as well as bad loans. And all three of these historic cases of public recapitalization were done without suspending judicial review.
From the Huffington Post 24 September 2008
A critical - and radical - component of the bailout package proposed by the Bush administration has thus far failed to garner the serious attention of anyone in the press. Section 8 (which ironically reminds one of the popular name of the portion of the 1937 Housing Act that paved the way for subsidized affordable housing ) of this legislation is just a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that's so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one's hair on fire. It reads, in its entirety:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency
The deal proposed by Paulson is nothing short of outrageous. It includes no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gives congressional blessing and funding to what he has already been doing, ad hoc. He plans to retain Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper. There are to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that get relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital. Both Obama and McCain have opposed the provision denying any judicial review of decisions made by Paulson -- a provision that evokes the Bush administration's suspension of normal constitutional safeguards in its conduct of foreign policy and national security. [...]
The differences between this proposed bailout and the three closest historical equivalents are immense. When the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the 1930s pumped a total of $35 billion into U.S. corporations and financial institutions, there was close government supervision and quid pro quos at every step of the way. Much of the time, the RFC became a preferred shareholder, and often appointed board members. The Home Owners Loan Corporation, which eventually refinanced one in five mortgage loans, did not operate to bail out banks but to save homeowners. And the Resolution Trust Corporation of the 1980s, created to mop up the damage of the first speculative mortgage meltdown, the S&L collapse, did not pump in money to rescue bad investments; it sorted out good assets from bad after the fact, and made sure to purge bad executives as well as bad loans. And all three of these historic cases of public recapitalization were done without suspending judicial review.
On foreign aid
So...today I'm writing about the needed changes in our foreign aid program. yes I know the candidates have their own advisers but I want to offer the advisers some advice. Stop. Stop offering advice based on rapid trips to far off countries. Stop tinkering with poor people's lives based on the pleas from wealthy rock stars with limited concepts of what make a system run.
AIDS--20 years ago, WHO categorized AIDS as a disease of choice--along with some cancers and diabetes. Why? Becasue in the West and indeed in many parts of developing countries it's a disease related to people's personal behaviors-that these are rooted in culture makes no difference it's still their behavior that's the culprit. WHOs identification however was quickly slapped down by the West. Today we are spending million in AIDS treatment programs, but one research study suggests that if we can get girls into secondary school, they remain AIDS free for the most part. In Uganda and Malawi two thirds of girls in secondary school are AIDS free while two thirds of girls not in school have AIDS or HIV. So why aren't we putting money into girl's education, giving them the self esteem to say no to men, delaying marriage until they can get better choices? Because our pharmaceutical industry doesn't want to change the focus from treatment. The entire AIDS program is a boondoggle for the US pharamaceutical industry.
WATER and ELECTRICITY are the engines of development. Without water no health, without water no agriculture. Without energy no environment (wood becomes the fuel of choice), yet there's virtually no money going into rural electrification programs and very minimal amounts into water. MDGs are a joke today--Most African countries are not going to make the majority of their development goals.
If the next iteration of USAID is going to make a dent in development here's what they should do. Focus on just three things. Water, energy and education (especially for girls but for both boys and girls where possible).
AIDS--20 years ago, WHO categorized AIDS as a disease of choice--along with some cancers and diabetes. Why? Becasue in the West and indeed in many parts of developing countries it's a disease related to people's personal behaviors-that these are rooted in culture makes no difference it's still their behavior that's the culprit. WHOs identification however was quickly slapped down by the West. Today we are spending million in AIDS treatment programs, but one research study suggests that if we can get girls into secondary school, they remain AIDS free for the most part. In Uganda and Malawi two thirds of girls in secondary school are AIDS free while two thirds of girls not in school have AIDS or HIV. So why aren't we putting money into girl's education, giving them the self esteem to say no to men, delaying marriage until they can get better choices? Because our pharmaceutical industry doesn't want to change the focus from treatment. The entire AIDS program is a boondoggle for the US pharamaceutical industry.
WATER and ELECTRICITY are the engines of development. Without water no health, without water no agriculture. Without energy no environment (wood becomes the fuel of choice), yet there's virtually no money going into rural electrification programs and very minimal amounts into water. MDGs are a joke today--Most African countries are not going to make the majority of their development goals.
If the next iteration of USAID is going to make a dent in development here's what they should do. Focus on just three things. Water, energy and education (especially for girls but for both boys and girls where possible).
Lies and more lies
So I find I have really strong opinions about certain issues that a re coming up in this campaign. I checked out the websites of the principal candidates, Obama and McCain. Both of the sites encouraged me to write in my ideas and help shape policy--I thought wow! that's so participatory. It would be like an electronic town meeting soliciting advice. So I write about the issues I cared about. I thought carefuly about them, researched data, and then sent them in, My bad!
I really thought they might care about citizen ideas. Noooooo!! it turns out all they want is my e-mail address so they can pound me with unwanted messages about their candidates. I have yet to have someone even send me an electronic response like "We have received your message on such and such a subject and are giving it careful consideration..."...I am such a sucker and they are so full of lies. Where's the meat in this election??????
The same thing happens if you send an e-mail to your Senator. Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin--watch out.!You're two of the worst offenders. Ask for input from your constituency electronically but ignore it when you get it. Black hole. Need your votes, don't need your ideas, Got my own !!! Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Congressman at least has his website set up to give an automatic response. Whether he or his aides ever read the notes I can't tell, but at least there's a response.
And as for applying for jobs on-line? It's a joke...your application goes into a black hole. Anyone who works in a large company knows that candidates are pre-selected and advertising a post serves only to fulfil "company policy" about fair and open competition. If you want a job, if you want to get into a University use the same method developing countries use--get to know someone inside who can champion you. In the Arab world they call it "wasta"--someone with influence. Here we call it nepotism but we do it anyway. Isn't it "wasta" when an Alaskan admits he calls Sarah Palin's husband if he wants the ear of the Governor? Isn't it "wasta" when Secretary Paulsen ($700 million dollrs rich from his period at Goldman) pushes to save salaries of the richest men in America, men with whom he worked at Investment banks and called his friends-- when they were all accumulating money in shameful and greedy ways? His best friends are in Beijing.
I really thought they might care about citizen ideas. Noooooo!! it turns out all they want is my e-mail address so they can pound me with unwanted messages about their candidates. I have yet to have someone even send me an electronic response like "We have received your message on such and such a subject and are giving it careful consideration..."...I am such a sucker and they are so full of lies. Where's the meat in this election??????
The same thing happens if you send an e-mail to your Senator. Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin--watch out.!You're two of the worst offenders. Ask for input from your constituency electronically but ignore it when you get it. Black hole. Need your votes, don't need your ideas, Got my own !!! Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Congressman at least has his website set up to give an automatic response. Whether he or his aides ever read the notes I can't tell, but at least there's a response.
And as for applying for jobs on-line? It's a joke...your application goes into a black hole. Anyone who works in a large company knows that candidates are pre-selected and advertising a post serves only to fulfil "company policy" about fair and open competition. If you want a job, if you want to get into a University use the same method developing countries use--get to know someone inside who can champion you. In the Arab world they call it "wasta"--someone with influence. Here we call it nepotism but we do it anyway. Isn't it "wasta" when an Alaskan admits he calls Sarah Palin's husband if he wants the ear of the Governor? Isn't it "wasta" when Secretary Paulsen ($700 million dollrs rich from his period at Goldman) pushes to save salaries of the richest men in America, men with whom he worked at Investment banks and called his friends-- when they were all accumulating money in shameful and greedy ways? His best friends are in Beijing.
on the power of health Insurance companies
So...recently I had a major shock when I retired early (62) and found I couldn't get health insurance. I was rejected becasue I have high blood pressure and cholesterol--so do 65% of women in my age bracket according to the CDC. Of all the people in the US with these two ailments, over 50% are women over 60. So when an insurance company rejects us on the basis of pre-conditions are they rejecting an entire class of people...is that possible? A few years ago my cholesterol levels were considered good at just slightly over 100. then the insurance companies funded research and dropped the "healthy cholesterol levels" from 200 to 100, so now I'm at-risk and I have to pay higher premiums. Hmmmmmmm!!!. Ditto for blood pressure. Ditto for weight. Ditto for a number of health issues that are very common and that the insurance companies don't want to pay for.
My husband went for a physical and was told that since he was slightly overweight, they now consider him obese and won't cover him either. He's an athlete with minimal weight gain. I found out the same company that rejected us on an individual contract was willing to take us when the State was paying the bulk of the premiums. So where's the insuranc risk? Theya re supposed to be making profits based on their exposure to risk, but when ther's no exposure to risk...you see what I mean?
Insurance companies, banks, and investment firms are the bane of existence in the US. With McCain talking about de-regulating this industry is it any wonder that so many Americans are seriously thinking of going overseas in their golden years--somewhere cheaper, where health care doesn't have to consume 60% of their monthly allowance? We don't need de-regulation in this industry. We need a single service provider--the state. Let's talk about the basic needs of citizens,--food, housing, health, transport, education and once those costs are covered in our national budgets then let's talk about other issues.
My husband went for a physical and was told that since he was slightly overweight, they now consider him obese and won't cover him either. He's an athlete with minimal weight gain. I found out the same company that rejected us on an individual contract was willing to take us when the State was paying the bulk of the premiums. So where's the insuranc risk? Theya re supposed to be making profits based on their exposure to risk, but when ther's no exposure to risk...you see what I mean?
Insurance companies, banks, and investment firms are the bane of existence in the US. With McCain talking about de-regulating this industry is it any wonder that so many Americans are seriously thinking of going overseas in their golden years--somewhere cheaper, where health care doesn't have to consume 60% of their monthly allowance? We don't need de-regulation in this industry. We need a single service provider--the state. Let's talk about the basic needs of citizens,--food, housing, health, transport, education and once those costs are covered in our national budgets then let's talk about other issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
