DAILY TOL: Tree of Liberty

I took my daughter to the American Girl Doll (AGD) store a few days ago for lunch. The lunch was good, but expensive. The bill was $35 and change for the two of us. I will just rack it up to stimulating the economy. After lunch we took a cruise through the store. My daughter is on the cusp of out growing playing with her dolls, but to any female alive, the lure of the AGD store is mighty powerful. The clothes and accessories are all so beautiful and nicely made. I noticed a few other moms, with their daughters, in the store and they had big AGD bags filled to the brim with AGD stuff. Let me tell you, right now, if you don’t already know, that AGD stuff is not cheap. All I wanted to do, in that moment, was to buy my daughter what ever she wanted. But I couldn’t. I am too responsible for that. I did, however, buy her a nightgown that was $39…choke…cough…sputter. Read the rest of this entry →

Aside from hyperbole, what do the three nouns listed in this title have in common?

Surprisingly, there are many commonalities.  Others are free to list more within the comments but I’ll jot down a few as a means of providing a foundation for the rest of this article.

Racists, Rapists and Murderers

1. Have no place in civilized society
2. Should be punished for their actions
3. Make up a small fraction of our citizenry, however any number above zero is unacceptable
4. Are presumed innocent until proven guilty
5. If found guilty, are all guilty of the same sin…Theft

Theft?  I know that must seem a bit mild, but allow me to reference an amazing piece of literature and filmmaking to illustrate this point.  In 2003, an Afghan physician named Khaled Hosseini wrote a book called, The Kite Runner and in 2007 his book was adapted for the screen.  It’s a wonderfully moving bit of literature and filmmaking that illustrates how love, failings, and redemption are universal principles.  However, there is one quote that I found particularly moving and instructive with respect to both where we find ourselves as a country and the topic of this particular article.

The protagonist’s father, Baba, explains that there really is only one sin, describing it thusly:

Now, no matter what the mullah teaches, there is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft…When you kill a man, you steal a life, you steal his wife’s right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone’s right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness…There is no act more wretched than stealing. A man who takes what’s not his to take, be it a life or a loaf of naan…I spit on such a man.

Rapists commit violence on women.  They steal the purity and unifying characteristics of an intimate human act.  They steal the sense of control and of safety to which every person is entitled.  They do damage in so many ways that we will not suffer rapists to remain a part of our society.

Likewise, Murderers steal from their victim the very potential that resides within us all.

What of Racists? I contend they directly steal the humanity from those to whom their misguided views are directed and create collateral damage to all of us who witness their physical or verbal violence.  As a country, we have committed atrocities in the name of Racism.  Of this there can be no doubt nor any excuse.  However, unlike any other country we are built upon a idea and that idea is that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

For a time we didn’t acknowledge that “All men,” included all Men and all Women of all Races.  We did learn that truth and we learned it over two generations ago.  I will stipulate that some refuse to accept that truth, just as there are some who will refuse to accept any truth.  However, as a nation, we have rejected racism and there is no better proof than the family that now resides in the White House.

That said, we must remain vigilant and continue to excise racial cancers where they are found lest our negligence allow it to spread.  To extend this metaphor, we must, as any good surgeon, be sure to identify the affected tissue and use a sharp scalpel. Imagine if a surgeon who was charged with treating a patient afflicted with a tumor in their left leg arrived in the operating theater with a hand axe and no idea in which leg the disease resided.

That my friends, is how some are treating racism today.  We have former President Carter stating that an “overwhelming portion” of peoples’ objections to President Obama’s polices are based on racism.  We have a noted columnist picking up that banner to state that racism is one of “driving forces” behind peoples’ opposition to President Obama’s policies.

This is completely unacceptable.  We cannot allow unfounded accusations of racism to be used as a bludgeon for political advantage.  We are not a nation of racists any more than we are a nation of rapists or murderers.

First, it is an insult to the memory of Dr. King, Rosa Parks, Ella Baker and countless others whose courage, sacrifice, and blood purchased for us all the progress we’ve made toward racial equality.  Second, it is a conversation stopper.  There can be no debate when one party accuses the other of an atrocity.  We can no more have a debate over healthcare when opponents are accused of holding their views because of racial animus than we could have a debate over abstinence if all those who engaged in premarital sex were allowed to be accused of committing rape.

To the proponents of President Obama’s policies, I say, “Strengthen your arguments or temper your ideology.”  You cannot rely on charges of racism as the fire break for policy failures.  We have come too far to let you do that.  We have come too far to let you bring us back to days where the content of a man’s character and the merit of his ideas were viewed through the prism of race.

If every policy fails because you rely on the bludgeon of racism to chill debate, then fail they must.

We are not Black, or Brown, or White, or Yellow.

We are the People.  We are Americans.  We will not go back.

Like many Americans, I am more than a bit frustrated with the current debate surrounding healthcare reform.  It’s not the rancorous tone of the debate that bothers me.  America was born of rancorous debate; we are a rowdy lot.  If things aren’t rowdy, then enough folks aren’t paying attention.

No, my frustration comes from the near complete lack of integrity with which the debate is being held.  If the goal of affordability and accessibility were truly in the hearts of our legislators, we would not be in the current state of partisan paralysis we now find ourselves.  These noble goals have been subordinated to the desires of special intersts:  Labor, Big Pharma, Trial Lawyers, Insurance Giants, etc.

When you consider that the goals of these special interestes are often diametrically opposed to one another is it any wonder that we have a legislative disaster on our hands.  It truly is a shame that the President has not shown more leadership on this issue.  In my opinion there are two reasons for this.  First, his advisors over-learned the lessons from Clinton’s attempt at healthcare reform to the point where the Obama administration completely ceded the legislative process to congress.  A bad idea in the best of times and with Nancy Pelosi at the helm, its far from the best of times.  Second, President Obama’s own ideology works against him in crafting something that garners broad-based support.  It’s a shame because had he legislated from the center he really could have had a chance to do some good here.

Now, I’d like to stipulate that nowhere in our constitution is the right to healthcare enumerated.  That said, as a modern, compassionate society, we have a different view on the human condition that that of, say, Dickensian Britain.  However, lets not build our solution based on misinformation.  The 45 Million some claim are without health insurance, are not a homogeneous group.  They tend to break down into four primary categories.

1. Those that can afford insurance but choose to spend their dollars elsewhere
2. Those that cannot afford it and are eligible for existing programs but do not take advantage of them
3. Those that are here illegally and cannot afford it
4. Those that cannot afford it and are not eligible for any program.

Those who have read my other writings may be surprised, but I favor quasi-mandates for category 1 people.  A pure mandate on health insurance would be easier but the Libertarian in me cries out for an escape hatch.  Those in category 1 are strongly encouraged to carry health insurance and this encouragement takes the form of the following stick.  Should such individuals believe themselves indestructible and choose to “self-insure” then there must be consequences to such decisions.  When life proves them wrong in the form of an emergency room visit, they will either pay for service or have their wages and tax returns garnished using the same structures currently in place to recapture child support from deadbeat dads.  Today, these “indestructibles” retain the dollars others spend on insurance but often do not adequately absorb the risk associated with that decision.  This must end.

Category 3 people will receive subsidies from the government to ensure they have access to care.  Formalizing this approach will be more cost effective than having category 3 folks seeking primary care via costly emergency room visits.  In addition to funding this via cost savings described later, I’d recommend having a $5 checkbox at the end of every tax return.  Government often discounts the intense generosity of the American people.  They will be surprised at how many of those tax returns will come back with that $5 box checked.  Doing so would either reduce a refund or increase the amount owed

In return for swelling the ranks of their customers, Insurance companies must provide for portability while eliminating preexisting condition clauses.  State barriers must be lowered to allow the 1,300 odd insurance companies to compete nation-wide just like automobile insurance.  This will both drive down prices and ease portability.

Tort reform.  There are many different approaches to this topic and it is inexcusable that this sacred cow of the Democratic party has not be asked to sacrifice along with other stakeholders in our national healthcare ecosystem.  There are passionate opinions on both sides of the debate with respect to capping victim claims, so I’d suggest taking that off the table for the first round.  This first round should focus on lawyer fees rather than victim compensation.  Currently many fees are calculated as a percentage of the amount awarded to the victim.  This incentivizes a great deal of undesired behavior on the part of lawyers.  Allowing a percentage of the award up to a cap retains the contingency arrangement that is often the only way low income plaintiffs can gain representation.  A cap, above which only documented hourly rates will be compensated, greatly diminishes the benefits of seeking outlandish settlements, while protecting victims’s rights.

Gold Plated Plans.  Most folks are not even aware such plans exist, but there are healthcare plans that have no deductibles, no co-payments, and cover treatments from botox to swedish massage.  These gold plated plans should be taxed above a certain point.  For example, let’s assume the average plan has a value of $10,000 a year.  Applying a generous algorithm one could then set the maximum tax free value at something like $18,000.  Under such an approach, if someone had a gold-plated plan valued at $30,000, the first $18,000 would be tax free and the remaining $12,000 would be treated as ordinary income for tax purposes.  This approach would both increase revenue needed to fund subsidies and decrease demand thus freeing up much needed headroom to treat additional patients.

Finally, there are pharmaceutical costs.  Big Pharma proudly stood with President Obama during an earlier photo op, where they pledged to wring billions out of their cost structure.  However, this was only after receiving a promised quid pro quo in the form of a ban on mass drug purchases from Canada or overseas.  This is just cost shifting.  All drug plans should be able to purchase pharmaceuticals from anywhere in the world assuming the source passes safety protocols.

In summary, this common sense approach to healthcare insures all but those who are here illegally and those who have the means to purchase insurance but choose, instead, to self insure.  The insured are protected from preexisting conditions and have portability for their plans which they can purchase from a plethora of providers nationwide.  Tort reform drives costs out of the system by reducing both malpractice insurance and defensive medical tests.

This approach is simple, understandable, and makes pretty much everyone a little bit unhappy, except, of course, the American people.  Just as it should be.

The framer’s of our Constitution were a non-trusting lot.  Even a cursory examination of how the three branches of government interact shines a bright light on either their intense paranoia or inspired genius.  They knew that in man’s quest for power and control, the people would fear a government that did not fear the people.

The best way, they reasoned, to keep a government fearful of the people is by keeping that government from amassing too much power.  The first step to keep a government from amassing too much power is to split it into three parts.  Then, just to be sure, our framers interlocked the three parts in such a way that any stretch by one part to gain power would place stress on the other two and thereby maintain the desired equilibrium.  Paranoid…perhaps.  Genius…undoubtedly.

We have the Legislative branch where the raucous House of Representatives provides the closest link between the elected and the electorate to which they have to answer every two years.  It is in the House that passions flare and the inspired ideas of the people are often first given voice.  If the House is the cup in which our passions boil, the Senate is the saucer that protects the People from scalding coffee that sloshes over the side.  The Senate…where one lone voice can halt the entire body and where 60 must agree before a vote can even be taken.  It is in this most deliberative of bodies where the President must go for advice and consent when appointing those who have their hands on the levers of power.  This advice and consent provides accountability to the People indirectly through their elected Senators.

We recently witnessed one of the most crucial examples of advice and consent with the confirmation of our new Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor.  This confirmation process isn’t optional.  It is clearly spelled out in Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution which states that all “high government positions,” are required to be confirmed.

How then is it that President Obama has more than 30 unelected, unconfirmed, high government positions currently filled with people answerable only to the Executive branch.  This is simply unacceptable and we must immediately demand that these positions either be confirmed by the Senate or explicitly require by Senate resolution that no appropriated funds can be used by, or in the service of, these Czars.

Because it is fashionable to place all Patriotic arguments in terms of Left and Right, Blue and Red, Donkey and Elephant, I include for your linking pleasure a pleathora of liberally inclined patriots who have taken serious issue with this egregious extension of power by the Executive branch.

• Salon
• Senator Byrd
  • CBS
  • NY Times
  • La Times
  • CNN
• CNet

Read for yourselves.  Become educated, which means doing more than mindlessly ingesting data without engagement or analysis.  This is our Republic.  Take responsibility for your role as a member of the electorate.  Hold your Senators accountable by demanding that these Czars, too, be held accountable.

Tomorrow I may be a CommonSensicrat™ just to keep things even.

First I’d like to thank Tol for giving me the opportunity to post on his site.  I don’t know how often I’ll have something to say, but I will certainly try to keep it well reasoned and pithy.

Today I’m writing about the Left-Right divide.

My lovely wife is a rabid conservative and one of her best friends is a left of center Democrat.  They love each other dearly but do tend to snipe.  Today I was struck that their sniping was more pointless than usual because they were actually on the same side of the issue.  However, the ideologues that owned their labels were, as usual, quite far apart.

This issue at hand was President Obama’s response to the increasing carnage in Iran and how those on the ideological left and right chose to react.

My wife, let’s call her Kate, correctly pointed out that Obama and many on his left were rather tepid in their support for Iran’s protestors.  Where was the outrage from the bastions of liberal thinking, asked Kate?  They cared more for the President’s poll numbers than for their ideals.  Her friend, let’s call her Edwina, took offense because many of her left of center friends had been openly supporting the Iranian protestors and encouraged a strong American show of solidarity.

In this case, both women were right…and wrong.

The disconnect arose largely because of semantics and context. Kate defines “The Left” as the vocal minority of talking heads and members of the permanent political intelligencia. In contrast, Edwina’s view was informed by left leaners in her personal circle. The Left establishment has power and doesn’t want to risk losing it so they are dipping their toes in an issue that represents great risk to their power if it ends badly. Their sin lies in a willingness to place politics above a clear moral choice involving the grave matter of life, death, and freedom.

The Right establishment does not have power and covets it, so they encourage ‘bold” action because, for them, there is much to be gained and little to be lost. Their sin is merely a dark reflection of those on the Left. The greater sin, IMO, lies with the establishment Left in that they espouse core beliefs that, in this case, they willing forgo to achieve political advantage.

In short, Edwina’s left-leaning friends have been acting on their ideals because those ideals are more important that US politics. Good for them!!  CommonSensicrats all.

The establishment Right has been saying the correct things in too strident a fashion and for all the wrong reasons.

The establishment Left has been doing the wrong things for all the wrong reasons, chief among them is fear and an unwillingness to do something the Right suggests, even when it’s correct.

To those that would defend Obama with the Hungarian example or simply the “meddling” defense, ignore that great swath of land called, “middle ground.”

There is no reason why our country couldn’t have said from the outset, “America stands now and forever with those who seek to obtain and protect Freedom. Our hearts are with the Iranian people in their peaceful pursuit and our eyes are on the Iranian Government with the expectation that, as a society of laws, it will respect and honor the wishes of its people.”

I am Thomas Paine and I reject the notion that our country is Red or Blue.  I reject the notion that ideologues who blather within their coastal echo chambers speak for me or can define the beliefs of my friends and family.  Let them excoriate each other while the wise among us note that they exist on a mobius strip of ideas where extremes of Left and Right are but a hair’s breadth apart, driving our nation to ruin.

I reject it all and I reject them…in favor of Common Sense.

Let me start with two basic premises: 1) Globalization and the Global Economy are realities at which one may feel free to rail, but doing so is a waste of energy and 2) Protectionism is not a balm that can be applied to #1.

That said, all bets are off when it comes to companies lining up to feed at President Obama’s public stimulus trough.

What do you think the public reaction would be if municipalities used stimulus money to purchase police cars that were foreign made.  To be clear, I’m talking about a foreign brand assembling cars using foreign workers in a foreign land.  I’m guessing that the UAW would have a thing or two to say about that.

Intellectual honesty suggests we apply the same outrage to the outsourcing of white collar jobs as we would to blue collar.  Over the past five years, IBM has been shedding U.S. based jobs at an alarming rate.  Perhaps taking a cue from Obama’s chief of staff, they seem be making the most of our current crisis to increase the rate even further.

I’m a capitalist and IBM operates, for the most part, an unregulated business so while I personally find their decisions distasteful, I acknowledge their right to put their shareholders first and do what it is they are doing…unless they do it on the backs of We the People.

Business week reports:

IBM is seeking a share of the $8 billion the U.S. plans to spend on high-speed rail and part of the $20 billion in the stimulus plan to digitizethe U.S. health-care system. Palmisano was one of 13 executives who met with President Barack Obama in January in an appearance aimed at pressuring the House of Representatives to pass the economic stimulus bill. He joined the CEOs of Xerox (XRX), Motorola (MOT), and Google (GOOG).

Kenney says the political climate may make IBM’s global restructuring touch raw nerves. Some economists have estimated that taxpayers are paying an average of $225,000 for each job created in the economic stimulus package. Says Kenney: “Taxpayers are saying, ‘I don’t want to give them money if they’re moving jobs offshore.’”

It’s an interesting article and I high recommend taking a moment to read it.

So what’s my suggestion?  I strongly believe that taxpayer money should be spent to benefit those who pay the taxes.  Seems pretty basic, but I have little interest in using tax money to help bolster IBM’s stock price.  Yes many Americans may have IBM stock as a part of their 401k and no we should not be protectionist.  However, while we might purchase steel from overseas to support infrastructure projects funded with stimulus money, we would never think to buy the whole bridge and have it shipped over for installation.

Our intellectual capital is a finished product as well.  IBM shipping off billions of hours of services work to digitize hospital records is no different than shipping off the building of a levee.  Under no circumstances should we be stimulating the Indian economy with debt financed U.S. stimulus dollars.

We need to view this from a macro perspective.  Yes, the work may be done cheaper if one employs the IBM model and that may be the primary consideration if you are procuring a new Point of Sale system for Walmart.  However the customer here is not Walmart; it is We the People.  So if IBM lays off 5,000 people as they did today and employs 5,000 folks from India, those newly unemployed Americans will now receive unemployment insurance, subsidized COBRA, and won’t be paying taxes.  Those costs must be added to the cost of the project IBM just shipped off and should put them at a competitive disadvantage when compared to a U.S. based small business employing all U.S. people.  To do otherwise creates an uneven playing field where large multi-nationals have an unfair advantage.  Beyond basic fairness; it’s really just stupid to use taxpayer dollars to encourage domestic layoffs and foreign hiring.

Spending taxpayer dollars to benefit taxpayers is not protectionist; it’s common sense.

Mark your calendars because today I am coining a new term that will soon sweep the nation.  I’ve coined terms in the past only to see them widely adopted without acknowledgement.  No more…I’m planting my verbiage flag today.

Bubbleheads

These creatures come in two primary varieties, Professional and Amateur.  Each of those varieties have a two minor variants, Democrat and Republican.

I don’t so much mind the professional bubbleheads because their job tends to make them that way.  Limbaugh, Hannity, Mathews, Olbermann, Maddow…bubbleheads all.  In short, they live in their ideological bubbles surrounded by like-minded bubbleheads all constantly nodding to each other.  I guess that really makes them Bobblehead Bubbleheads.

It’s when you and I join the Bobblehead-Bubblehead ranks that I really get irked.  Are we that intellectually lazy that we have to tune in for someone else to give us our opinions.  “Oh, thinking is just too hard,” we must be saying to ourselves, “Let me tune in to Chris Mathews for some spot-on analysis of the issues.”  What’s the point, folks.  Can you not predict what Chris “Obama makes a thrill go up my leg” Mathews will say about any issue?

Free your mind, Neo.  I swear, if I ever run for office…and God help you all if I do…I would hold regular Opposition Townhall Meetings, where the price of admission is to completely disagree with what I believe.  If we truly want to move our country forward, we first must have vigorous debates.  In times like these, the most intellectually honest of us should be seeking ideological whiplash by reading about an issue first in the Weekly Standard and then Daily Kos.  Watching it first with Olbermann and then with Hannity.

If you are a liberal, put down the Chris Mathews crack pipe a minute, take a long pull off the Sean Hannity pipe and see if you feel like your head is about to explode.  If it does, that’s good, it means your brain still works and you can stop being such a bubblehead.  Use these professional bubbleheads to challenge your assumptions not validate them because such validation is a foregone conclusion and turns your brain to jelly.

Check out the clip below where Chris Mathews couldn’t control himself for even 30 seconds when Bobby Jindal came out to deliver the GOP response to President Obama’s address to congress.  He just had to exclaim, “Oh, God…”  I’m pretty sure Mr. Mathews wasn’t actually being visitied by God which leads me to say, “Mr. Mathews…you, sir, are a Bubblehead.”

A few days ago I wrote about my belief that our government is incenting personal irresponsibility.  One of our readers evidently created a link from my post to their Facebook and I ended up getting quite a bit of e-mail, the vast majority of which was quite positive.  I’d encourage those that sent e-mails to memorialize their thoughts as comments, good, bad, or indifferent.

In that post, I anticipated certain characteristics of President Obama’s, then forthcoming, Housing plan.  Unfortunately, many of the aspects I feared are present in his proposal.  I’ll rehash a bit of that here, but for a different purpose than presented in the original post.

First, I’ll start with the premise that I believe it is patriotic to do what is in the best interest of the country.  If you disagree with that premise, you certainly won’t find much common ground in this post.  That said, regardless of where one stands along the Liberal to Conservative spectrum, I believe most of us agree with this premise.

That being true, it follows that fostering one’s ideology in service to a political party can hurt the country and thus be unpatriotic.  In such situations, having the virtue of intellectual honesty becomes indispensable.

Here is a quick example and then I will tie it back to the Housing proposals.  First, I think it was quite nice that Tol gave a nod to Daily Kos and its founder in his first post, but I think that site very often places winning before country.  I scan the front page Diaries at Daily Kos regularly and Kos regularly keeps folks updated on the MN Senate race, but I have never read a cogent post against Al Franken.  Two issues:  First, just on the face of things, is it reasonable for everyone in a community to believe that Al Franken would be a better Senator than Norm Colman.  Al Franken?  Everyone? I’ve done considerable research on both men and I simply don’t think a strong, let alone, absolute argument can be made for Franken.  He seems to be the choice of those who want to “Win” rather than do what is best.  Ok, but more important than any one man or one election is the electoral process itself.  If the people of MN want Franken, they should get Franken.  However, they seemed to first have chosen Colman and under recount now may have chosen Franken.  I’ve done a fair bit of research here as well and there definitely seems to be multiple standards applied to what constitutes a valid vote, depending on where in MN it was cast.  I could well be wrong, but on Daily Kos I found no such discussion but plenty of gloating and plenty of what appeared to be win-centricity.

I understand the genesis of this passionate group-think from folks who, perhaps, felt disenfranchised and disillusioned after the last eight years, but principles are things you should embrace most tightly when tempted to discard.  Regardless of label, vigorous debate is good and homogeneous thought is, at best, pointless.

Allow me to tie this back to Housing via some personal disclosures.  A couple years ago I moved my family for medical reasons, selling a house and purchasing a new one.  I had been in the old house for a while and accumulated some equity.  When establishing the new loan, I used all that equity as a down payment.  I made this decision over the advice of my mortgage broker who suggested I max out the loan to value on the house, which would free up that equity to buy new cars, a family vacation, or “something nice for my wife.”

Well, financing cars, vacations, or something nice for my wife over 30 years struck me as wrong so I opted for a smaller loan, smaller house payment, and more equity.

Less than a year after buying the new house, I received an unsolicited appraisal showing that it had appreciated by around 40% and was offered a home equity loan for all that appreciation PLUS some of the original down payment I had made.  We still had the same old cars so could have swapped them out for even better ones than those suggested by the original mortgage broker, but my principles hadn’t changes so I declined.

Since that point, about 35% of that 40% appreciation has vaporized and had I followed conventional wisdom, I would be nearly upside down on my house, with huge payments and a risky job market.

Whose fault would that have been?  Predatory lenders are, well, predators but temptation is as old as Adam and we have to take responsibility for the apples we eat.  Or do we?

Under this week’s proposal people can “transition from home ownership” (the new euphemism for foreclosure) without affecting credit ratings.  Those that continue to make payments are eligible for $1,000 from the government.  Bankruptcy judges can reset mortgage terms. And on and on…

Forcibly removing families from their homes evokes a visceral reaction in me.  I hate the idea.  It makes me angry and it makes me deeply sad.  Angry at the lenders.  Angry at those too weak to resist temptation thereby placing their family’s well being at risk.

And yes, righteous anger, as one of the vast majority who has acted responsibly and has sacrificed to try and ensure their family’s safety.  Some may say, that it is sour grapes because the Joneses are driving around in their new Lexuses while their mortgages are being reset.  No, it is that the government’s actions will cause via deflation and later inflation, me and my family to literally pay for the poor judgement of others.  $1,000 to people who stay current on they payments?  Since when did doing the right thing become behavior subsidized by the vast majority who have been doing the right thing all along.

It simply is not sustainable.  With each action that rewards irresponsibility, some additional fraction of Americans will throw up their hands, succumbing to the siren’s call of eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow the government will cure my hangover.  When we pass that tipping point where our countrymen simply vote themselves bread and circuses, collapse and/or revolution becomes inevitable.

This seems self evident to me, but if I am wrong show me where.

It angers me nearly beyond words that Ideologues like those at Daily Kos do not even discuss this.  Surely most of them pay their mortgages and live within their means.  Surely being progressive doesn’t mean advocating irresponsible behavior that they must then pay to correct.  I don’t care what side of a reasoned argument someone comes down on, but have the argument…Please!!

In its absence, I can only assume monolitic agreement occurs because they want their party to Win more than they want their country to win.

President Obama paraphrased scripture in his inaugural when he stated that it was time to put away childish things.  I quite agree.  Self-centered irresponsible behavior subsidized by one’s neighbor and placing party before country are two childish things whose time never should have been.

The law of unintended consequences is one of those immutable things that generally creates havoc with even the best laid plans.  When looking at the recently passed $800 billion spending package, I think there are few who would argue that it was a well laid plan, so the previously mentioned law is only heightened in its affect.  As a brief aside, I really like the Obama Administrations commitment to additional transparency, as evidenced by their commitment to having new legislation published 48 hours prior to a vote.  I like that even more than the promise not to have lobbyists serve in senior positions.  I’m less excited and more than a little disillusioned that over the past three weeks both promises were broken on multiple occasions.

But back to the point of this post.  I’m a bit on the horns of a dilemma.  What does one do when faced with the very real prospect that doing the personally responsible thing is not the best thing for their family?  I honestly believe that the recent “stimulus” legislation and the upcoming housing legislation will place people in that situation.

I don’t really have answers here, but do have some personal experiences to relate on which others may ruminate.  All the examples below are real situations that either I or those around me are dealing with.  As with most things I will post in this forum, I don’t see them as partisan but rather ideological.  IMO, People often ascribe a party to ideology when they shouldn’t.

Example 1:  Stay at home mom reluctantly re-enters the workforce to help cover a child’s college expense.
Governmental Consequence:  If this mom stayed home, their family could qualify for grant assistance under last week’s bill.  In addition, under a similar provision in the upcoming housing bill, her family could qualify for a reduction in interest rate, mortgage principle, or both.
Question:  Why not just stay home and let the government pick up the bill?

Example 2: Family 1 has on multiple occasions, deferred the purchase of new cars to keep debt and cash flow at what they believed were responsible levels.  Their neighbors, Family 2 have replaced both vehicles within the past two years and have done so with cars priced 40k+.  These neighbors are now faced with reduced bonuses at work and are having difficulty making mortgage payments.
Governmental Consequence:  Under proposed housing bill such people are considered under distress and eligible for having the terms of their mortgage reset by the courts.
Question:  Why shouldn’t Family 1 roll the dice and enjoy new and safer cars every couple years and if things go south, just have the government reset their mortgage.

Example 3:  Wife 1 is working in a job that she tolerates but is not her passion.  She is the primary breadwinner so works diligently at here current job while exploring other options.  Wife 2 believes she is entitled to have work that fulfills her completely, so quits her current job.
Governmental Consequence : Under current law, if someone quits their job or is fired for cause (stealing, violence, etc) they are NOT eligible for unemployment benefits.  Under the bill passed last week, employees CAN receive unemployment benefits even if they voluntarily quit their job for a compelling reason.  A list of compelling reasons is not provided by the legislation and instead a “reasonable” test is used.  I’ll insert some personal bias here in positing that most people could come up with a “reasonable” explanation for why they quit their job.
Question:  Given that unemployment benefits have now a) been extended through December 31st, b) been enhanced with 60% subsidized COBRA insurance during that time, and c)  been increased in monthly payout, why shouldn’t Wife 1, follow in the footsteps of Wife 2?  Going back to my first example, why shouldn’t that formerly stay-at-home mom just quit her job.?  By doing so, she did she would get:

• College grant for her child
• Refundable tax credit for her family to cover incidental expenses not covered by the grant
• 60% subsidized COBRA insurance
• 10 Months of enhanced unemployment payments
• More time with her family

So I am back to where I started?  Why should any of us live responsible and thrifty lives?  Why not buy that new car?  Why not put that new TV on your credit card?  Why not quit that job you don’t really like?

Someone help me out here, ’cause I’d like a new car, perfect job, and a home theatre system.  After all, aren’t we entitled to that?  

I will close with a quote from my namesake, the founder of the Democratic Party:

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Imagine my surprise, but one of the things I prize most in any discussion is intellectual honesty. To disagree with someone on a point simply because of their ideology or because you’ve disagreed with them on all previous points is simply intellectually dishonest.

Here’s the backdrop.  David Gregory has picked up the mantel of Meet the Press and clearly went to school on the man whose giant shoes he’s agreed to fill, the late Tim Russert. He does a good job and I recommend his program. Today, he asked Barney Frank why so many politicians fail to live up to the public’s expectations. I’m paraphrasing, but Rep. Frank said, “The voters do not hold us accountable enough.”

I couldn’t agree more. And let’s start with Rep. Frank. Why do the people of his district return him to Washington every two years? While he attempts to shift blame, he has Chaired the Financial Services Committee for over two years now. How is it in that time he never caught wind of the tsunami in which we now find ourselves. More, a year ago Rep. Frank was publicly proclaiming Fannie and Freddie fundamentally strong.

There are many issues on which Rep. Frank and I disagree, but that is not the point of this post. My point here is that until our representatives believe there are consequences for failure, their behavior will not change. Voter’s must enthusiastically cross party lines when their party’s incumbent fails to deliver. Democrats in Massachusetts should have gleefully sent Rep. Frank packing for his abject failure as Chairman.

Speaking for my lone vote, I have placed my Senators and Representative on notice, just because my state and district is Red/Blue, don’t be complacent. The people are roiling mad at your continued bickering and ineptitude. Your party affiliation will not protect you from incompetence, at least if I have anything to do about it.