Middle Class Part 30: Issues Article 3; Social Issues at the Heart of Darkness, Listing of Other Issues and Topless Female Soccer Matches

Plan of attack: Last time, I listed 33 issues in a hiearchy of importance. There may be some issues that I failed to include in either the ranked list or the best of the rest list below because the relevance, timeliness, persistence, or overall costliness to taxpayers simply has not occurred to me. My plan is to address as many of the ranked issues, (from last time) devoting a paragraph or more to each, until I simply give up, or if I am so ambitious, until I complete the task. Hell, I was ten days at cleaning about 10,000 rocks, in order to avoid weeds, for my latest landscape project, so I don’t know that anyone could question my diligence. I will likely also include commentary on some of those issues I have not ranked- such as those below. If I were to include a paragraph for each issue, including those I list immediately below, I don’t know that I would ever complete the task of chronicling the continued growing disparity of the rich vs. the middle class economically. The ranking or inclusion of most issues may be arbitrary, excepting the top three of campaign finance (see parts 19-21), immigration (parts 22-27) and taxation (forthcoming).

Listing of other issues: Pensions, Natural Disaster Relief, Families and Children, Canine Cinematic Achievement, Unemployment, Homeland Security/Terrorism, Prevailing Wage, Technology, Potty Training, National Debt, Federal Budget, Infrastructure concerns, Wiretapping, Insurance Industry Nightmares (car, health, life, home), Light Rail, Flag Burning, Inter-species Sexual Interaction, Drugs (legalization of), the tattooing of the universal product code on the necks of tigresses, Federal Trust Fund, Bond Money (how it is earmarked) etc. Admittedly- 30-40 more issues could be listed that concern us locally, state-wide, regionally, nationally or internationally or occur to us during the restlessness of our sleep apnea spells which disturb our REM sleep. A few of those just listed have the concern and backing of both major parties; I am fairly sure that both parties would like people who have spent 3-4 decades working and earning their pensions, to receive them. Both parties are certainly against rampant unemployment and are against terrorism and probably think the national debt is too high. It would be futile to spend space or time performing an autopsy on the carcass of unemployment when both sides can successfully avoid being considered accomplices or primary suspects in the murder of effective issue resolution techniques. Of course, with unemployment still being statistically and consistently low, 33 states currently rank at 5% unemployment or less, (money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/) it wouldn’t make for interesting reading, much like the remainder of my contributions.

Adopted resolutions: I know that the two major parties have historically been amenable to borrowing some of the best ideas that an up and coming extended party have had in order to keep the latter at bay and continue to gather the overwhelming majority of votes. Reagan, Lincoln, John Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt have all adopted ideas or approaches to issue resolution first put forth by politicians outside of their political coterie. The problem is that according to me, and millions and millions of others, given the dissatisfaction of the multitude of voters, the two major parties do not adopt these approaches at a rate conducive to earning the public’s favor. The major party’s inability to adopt a compromising resolution more often and more quickly is downright cryonic- keeping in mind the progressive nature of the voting public, their continued disaffection, etc. I wouldn’t let record voting numbers or the fact that the two major parties continue to garner the overwhelming majority of votes each election fool a conservative or liberal sheep into justifying the status quo. The more sophisticated voter, it is to be hoped, has begun to find that neither side is entirely wrong, nor are they entirely right. I am sorry, but I need a politician representing me in a republic, not a good old boy forgoing my views in an oligarchy. Michel de Montaigne, in about 1578, should be considered less aimless for roaming the countries of Europe searching for the curative waters that might bring him relief from kidney stones than the modern voter too slow to realize how little one of the major parties truly speaks to their needs. A June bug with transient acantholytic dermatosis (something, something, something of the chest, with scattered lesions of the back and lateral aspects of the extremities, lasting from a few weeks to several months) exhibits more urgency seeking a resolution to its misery than our elected politicians do for ours.

Focus: My points over the next few installments may appear to vacillate between criticizing the politicians because of the issues they are not adequately addressing and the issues themselves. This would have been apparent starting with this offering, but I have had to move the material condemning our representatives because I wanted to have the space to address all of the social issues at once, excepting Welfare which I will have to get to later. That intended approach, may appear to be fraught with a lack of focus, but it is awfully difficult to write about issues without providing commentary on the men responsible for an issue’s continued march toward insolvency. When I have begun to write about one issue or another and then provide the words- (‘see part 9’ or ‘see part 24’) it is a signal of how interconnected the issues really are, not because the material that necessitated these notations should have been previously discussed (i.e. when I was on that topic). Of course my research and blind luck can lead me from one issue to another and so can the timeliness of the news, as articles and studies can be acquired which did not exist at the time I was focusing on one issue or another.

Quoting the old guys again: Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 31 wrote- “The obscurity is much oftener in the passions and prejudices of the reasoner than in the subject. Men upon too many occasions do not give their own understandings fair play; but yielding to some untoward bias they entangle themselves in words and confound themselves in subtleties.” I have bee as guilty of that as Hamilton. In addition to my being passionate and jaded, intractable, effusive and repetitive . . . so was Hamilton. It took him five papers to state what could have been delivered in two- about the desire and need for a standing army, even in peace time and who should be able to beckon the army and to what purpose- at least that is what I believe he was advocating in #s 24-29 of his Federalist Papers where he was not a little redundant. He was tasked with an important message, that of advocating the merits of a union to the perils of a confederacy; so I will forgive him his prodigiously redundant manner, given the difficult and important subject matter. I too have chosen a subject, which I have often referred to in the course of this screed (middle class subjection), that is not easily digestible, but that can naturally incline a writer toward topical contortions. Though it may appear that I am unnaturally swaying off course at times, it should not be supposed I do so unwittingly, nor that I always do so deliberately. My arguments are likely judged to be overwhelmingly lucid about as often as my rhetoric is muddied by prose. Note- I wrote about the same thing at the beginning of part 27. Perhaps I am being redundant on purpose. I am fairly certain that Hamilton knowingly duplicated his arguments in order to drill home the imperativeness of the points he was making so that his concerns were given due consideration. However, Hamilton’s prose is severely lacking in analogies which arbitrarily assign physical or psychological maladies to animal species for a desired comic effect. I’ll add that as a demerit when grading the overall effect of his compositions.

Issue focus: Of the 33 issues I identified last time, I feel that for 17 of them, neither major political party has put forth ideas or enacted into laws, measures that might secure their resolution. That is due in large part because the opposing party (the democrats playing the antagonist to the republicans and vice versa) keep the country from enjoying a resolution to any issue imaginable. I am beginning to think that splitting an infinitive in Latin would be easier than seeing true, acceptable issue resolution to any of the top 14 issues I identified last time. (Note: it is considered impossible to split infinitives in Latin.) I side with the democrats on 10 of the remaining ranked issues from last time and four times side with the republicans. Given that my top three issues have not been adequately addressed, there is justification in deciding not to cast my vote for either party. I am equal parts pragmatist (practical) and idealist and I have continually noted where each major party falls short, having failed to act practically or ideally, when one or the other possibility might present itself.

My line of thinking—an example: In an ideal world, no immigrant would be granted amnesty, but there is absolutely no way to avoid amnesty for illegal immigrants at this point. The republicans not agreeing to let that portion of the immigration issue go, further prevents us from moving forward on the other satellite issues that revolve around the major issue of immigration. Of those satellite tasks to be performed is the building of a 2,000 mile wall and employment of hundreds of border patrol agents that I believe many democrats are against. So, in an ideal world, I would favor the no amnesty, no compromises, build that wall mentality of many republicans but looking at the issue practically, I can’t be on their side; the reality is that the cost and logistics of deporting over 12 million illegals is impractical.

So, on with the social issues which can be found to have an economic impact on all classes, even should it not be immediately apparent.

Conservative hypocrisy: Republicans are against any acknowledgement that second-hand smoke kills people after an unspecified prolonged exposure and so it makes sense that they would be against a ban of public smoking; they are also against admitting that people have had an affect on global warming (Really? With nearly 7 billion people residing on the planet, we have had no collective residual affect on any of the earth’s natural properties? Really?); and republicans also fiercely favor either no federal government control, or very little, in the areas of free trade, social aid (Social Security, Medicare, Welfare), and education, but will invade foreign countries when there is neither the public demand, nor the money, and sometimes not the overriding moral sense to do so. I do not include the invasion of Iraq as an error, just the level of involvement, given the cost to taxpayers to this point. Nevertheless, conservatives will tell gay men and women that they are not allowed to become legally bound to each other, which denies homosexuals a number of other permissions or freedoms. Now, that sounds an awful lot like hypocrisy to me. If republicans were to be forced to consider this convolution of thought and how they can so unforgivably compartmentalize certain examples of individual liberty, perhaps the ideological stranglehold they suppose is theirs in the areas of social freedom and private market (i.e. free trade) non-interference wouldn’t be so hardy. Conservatives, the individual freedom component of your ideology is a bunch of hogwash; it is the deteriorating gusset plate of consistent argumentation. It is structurally flawed from a consistency standpoint. The social holy war you fight against those who would impede your limp toward universal selfishness is a complete fraud. Unfortunately, you cannot be legally charged for political Philistinism.

Gay marriage: If two same sex adults want to be united in holy matrimony or at the court house across town, what business is it of mine- so long as the unions do not affect my freedom or my wallet. If they want to adopt children- who should prevent them? Someone who fights for every other individual freedom excepting the right for same sex couples to be legally bound is a hypocrite. Same sex couples have as much chance of succeeding as a family as two members of the opposite sex who decide to have children. Traditional marriages result in divorce anywhere between 40-60% of the time. Is the number of dissolutions among same sex couples likely to be higher for some reason? And if it could be scientifically or statistically proven that same sex couples fail more frequently and thereby bring about the ruination of familial life more often, you (Mr. conservative) would look into the face of a well-intentioned gay or lesbian couple and ban them from becoming legally bound? If two wedded people have brought one or more children into the world, separate and become estranged, just as much strain is put on the community and the government to provide for children as those brought into a non-traditional relationship. If the union of love is broken between opposite sex partners, there are just as many child care, Welfare, Medicaid and broken family issues to consider as when the broken home features the break-up of two men, two women or two lesbian members of an anteater species who will not mate with the eager male at the zoo. Government’s role in seeing to the economic concerns of children in the dissolution of a relationship is not lessened in either case.

Health benefits and social security (as they pertain to civil unions/gay marriage): I am well aware of the ancillary issues (that are actually bigger issues in their own right) which affect the potential legality of gay marriage. Not to be overlooked is a concern about the prevalence of this option as it equates to the potential of a domestic (legal) partner being in line to receive social security, pension, life insurance payouts, Welfare or health care benefits, etc. I do not believe that conservatives object to the possibility of gay marriage on these grounds. Hypocrisy and righteousness often work in concert and too often when those most responsible for exhibiting them are not made aware of it. If everyone else’s health care benefits go up and/or social security becomes insolvent more quickly and these results can be traced to the cause of same sex marriages becoming legal (whether it came into effect through petition, judicially, or legislatively) then a vast number of people will be even further disgruntled economically. It would be a problem of introducing more variables into the equation, similar to the environmental, social and economic concerns I have about vast numbers of immigrants being made legal (see parts 22-27). Variables/instances always have this effect on scientific or social experiments- which is not to say that gay marriage would be an experiment. It may be just as frustrating but more reasonable that a car with 110,000 miles breaks down as when one with 30,000 breaks down. The number of miles a car has will have a direct impact on the likelihood of the car breaking down. If it didn’t, then more people would pay $7,500 for an 1982 Pacer with 200,000 miles. The more there is of something, the more difficult it can be to control*- more venemous snakes on a movie set, more money to distribute in a will, more children per adult on a field trip, more metachlorians in the blood streams of Jedi with a lot of potential, etc. Perhaps the only instance where this is not the case involves a topless soccer match among Austrian and German females. Apparently the contest involved no more than six players a side. Every sports fan knows that a competitive soccer team traditionally includes 11 players. See- the Reuters article- “ ‘Beautiful Game’ Takes on New Meaning” June 16, 2008 (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/25199236/). Might the topless Sweedish females be fielding a team? Females from Eastern-ish bloc countries scare me for reasons that take me further away from the imagery of a topless female soccer team, and thus, well off topic.

Variables/instances/potential ancillary issues: I am not aware of a direct or indirect relationship between the legality of same sex marriages and a potential rise in health care or life insurance premiums, or the potential accelerated insolvency of Medicaid or social security, but it is something to consider before I would be a naive proponent of same sex marriages. Again, mindful of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill who adeptly addressed universal and individual freedoms from a philosophical perspective, I would not want my tax to be increased (should it come to that, which consequently would affect my earning and saving and spending freedoms- and which will directly impact my children’s futures) so that two people of the same sex could be legally accepted as married. If twelve thousand gay or lesbian couples were married, the potential economic impact to taxpayers would be less than if 100,000 same sex couples were to wed. It is as simple as that. The share of incurred costs to taxpayers would be reduced if fewer gay or lesbian couples were to become legally married. If there is absolutely no cause for concern, that the two events (same sex marriages contributing to an increase in the average middle class taxpayer’s health care costs, etc.) have absolutely no connection, then who would desire to stand in the way and why? Those two major issues (social security’s likely insolvency and rising health care costs) are bigger problems irrespective of gay marriage. The medical industry and health care costs are an issue primarily because of big pharmaceutical company lobbyists, campaign finance donations to candidates that back certain drugs or medical companies (see part 21 concerning Joseph Lieberman), the acquiring of drugs, the price of drugs, misdiagnoses, inadequate care, the charges for certain medical procedures, the duplication of efforts of medical procedures, the malpractice issues, the standardization of medical records among various providers, the administration of drugs generally, the specific issuance of multiple prescriptions which override the desired affects of other prescribed medications and on and on. Social Security, in its own right, has a laundry list of ancillary issues that cause it to be a major issue as distinguished from its potential accelerated insolvency due to gay marriage (see below).

Abortion v. Adoption: The abortion issue is a bit different. Ordinarily, I maintain that no one should be telling a woman what to do with her body, her life or the life of her child which she has just spent nine months becoming biologically attached to. I would like to maintain that stance as much as possible. For that reason, I would be in favor of increased funding to inform women at risk for unwanted pregancies of the options of adoption, in lieu of abortion. We always know when the next big Memorial Day, blockbuster movie is coming to the cinematic multi-plex because of the number of television commercials that begin airing a month or two in advance of release. I am not quite as sure that troubled women are as aware of their options excepting abortion in cases where the economic and/or familial situation is less than ideal. I don’t visit Planned Parenthood or work with at-risk teens, but perhaps a simple poster and leaflet at a family planning center is not enough information for an expectant mother to be made aware of her options. Again, we always know that a Buick may be a viable option as a potential new vehicle or that the Masters golf tournament is just weeks away from airing on CBS, but I don’t know that troubled, future fathers, who made an unwise choice of getting a girl (or a woman, because teenagers aren’t the only ones making mistakes) in trouble are aware of their options. I do not say this to be a pompous moralist.

Irresponsible procreation as an economic drain: Consider a destitute woman, perhaps with loose morals or religious or social reasons for continuing to bring poor children into the world she, or she and her spouse/mate, are ill-equipped to manage economically. Adoption is simply the best alternative to the continued, avoidable, terrible decision to bring children into the world, whose fates are incompletely considered by the parents who produce them. The feeling of the parents toward obligatory parenthood costs the parents, the child and the country too much emotionally and fiscally. Continuing to allow destitute mothers and fathers to pretend they are economically equipped to care for a child when they cannot care for the two they already have is an economic drain on the rest of the country, on the taxpayers who would like to not have to continually pay for other people’s mistakes. I am referring primarily to Welfare. See this story concerning teen pregnancy in Albany, Georgia- http://www.wfxl.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=145650. “Teen pregnancies cost Georgia taxpayers $344,000,000 in 2004 and Dougherty County has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country.” Or this one- “US Teen 'pregnancy pact' Probed” June 20, 2008- http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/US-teen-pregnancy-pact-probed-466145091.html. “US teenage pregnancies are showing signs of rising after steadily declining from 1991 to 2005. According to the National Centre for Health Statistics, birth rates for teenagers aged 15 to 17 rose by 3 percent in 2006, the first increase since 1991.”

Enable v. Compassion: Again, we have nearly 7 billion people on the planet. Too many of them are hungry and are born into a situation of depravity from which it is extremely difficult to be saved. If two parents can economically support twelve children, then they should go ahead and screw like bunnies (or like willing penguins with oafish elephant seals- see part 28). Having five kids because a religion or a personal preference prohibits one’s ability or interest to act responsibly too often requires the tax money of others who better consider the bigger picture. Oversight and selfishness should not be rewarded with a check from the government that comes indirectly from someone who has not acted so irresponsibly. This likely will be considered the most controversial thing I ever write on this overall topic—taking a healthy child from a willing parent—even more controversial than questioning the motives of economists (see part 4, no. 9). I am simply tired of the specific Welfare state in which I live (MN) and the general politically correct compassion is king, sans reason, that rules this country. Compassion is not synonymous with enabling. Where might we find money to begin to promote this method of forced adoption in the form of radio and television advertisements? Again, see part 9, the government waste offering and realize that what I included in that installment is just a drop in the bucket. And consider that the military and major social-aid programs drain the federal budget of 69% of its allotted money (military 21%, Social Security 20%, Medicare, Medicaid and other major social-aid programs 28%). See the 2007 federal budget- http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist03z2.xls. While it would be impractical to assume that all 69% could be removed from a taxpayer’s financial obligation to the state and federal government of his choice, it seems to me that not less than 20% could be removed from those combined areas and that the state and federal governments would not suffer as much as the most reasonable, least politically affiliated and therefore more objective, citizens in the land could expect. I am terrible at math and potentially cost my Canasta team a victory last weekend by assuming I had enough points to meld, so calculating the total cost of a 20% reduction in those combined areas based on the 2007 or 2008 federal budget would not be my strong suit.

Global warming I: I wrote above of the unlikely possibility that humans are innocent of affecting our planet’s environment. I do not believe that every catastrophic event, from earthquakes in China, to tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes in the South, wild fires or landslides in California, floods in the Midwest, or prolonged below average temperatures in traditionally temperate climates are attributable to global warming. This is an extremist’s viewpoint. A man who questions the legitimacy of the Warren Commission on the J.F.K. assassination, and considers that Oswald may not have acted alone is not a conspiracy theorist, but is more drawn to the possibility of fact than to dismissing the likelihood of blame. I include global warming as a significant social issue because it is tied to fossil fuel emissions, gas taxes, cap v. tax debates, highway funding, campaign finance (environmental lobbyists), the automobile and oil industries (car manufacturers and oil special interest groups), etc. If you cannot see this, you will probably sleep better voting for McCain or Obama, secure in the knowledge that the candidate who “earned” your vote has a chance to win.

Global warming II: I am not convinced that climate change** is a reality based on our presence on the earth, but I simply think our inaction as well as our actions, may have an affect. Sorry folks, it is probable that complete and final verification of this hunch will not dance on nerve endings in our brains any time soon. Proof of the earth’s decline, that is the bloold on our hands, may only come to the minds of men long after the current occupants are found to have been the cause of the planet’s demise—only after we are buried within it. This is likely to occur well after we have so confidently exhibited the fruits of absolution that feed the disaffected conscience that is the hallmark of righteousness and impudence. How dare you consider my guilt without my consent!- might be the response of liberals who would oppose forced adoption or conservatives who are like the “Not me” gremlin parading about in the “Family Circus” cartoons. Nice mentality- just deny responsibility for everything. I will not get into the economic affects on the middle class that either ignoring or wholeheartedly accepting the “facts” that rational men might communicate on the topic of global warming mostly because I do not know them and what is more, I will not “know” them even if I devoured books on recycling, on how to be more green, average temperatures in Iceland over the past 100 years, the rise in sea levels, the migration patterns of seals or methane hydrates that could be used as a relatively inexpensive and reusable energy resource. Thing is, one of the most gifted scientist/philosophers now living in the world, should he entirely dismiss global warming as a fraud, has, as his direct opposite, another scientist/philosopher, who is just as brilliant, who just as adamantly scoffs at our lack of contrition. And even if they both agreed, I would be skeptical that nearly 7 billion people could not have an affect on the planet. Funny thing- being skeptical either way, will not solve the problem. You would have a better chance of getting a California bill through the judiciary which allows you to wire earmarked travel expenses from the state budget to the ugliest dog in the world, (L.A. Times, June 23, 2008) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2008/06/worlds-ugliest.html) a three-legged, one-eyed, Chinese-crested pooch so it could be the wedding coordinator as you exchange vows with a serial urinator of a ferret whose primary source of income is its constant participation in athlete’s foot studies than you would have of getting politicians to push through meaningful fossil fuel legislation that would disfavor the oil company’s rights to winfdall profits.

Social Security I: See the Gregg report link, and the other links referenced below for more information or perform a Google search for “social security”. Spending three columns or even three pages on a problem of this magnitude when thousands of other writers, politicians, pundits and talk-show hosts have so adroitly and continually addressed the issue would be redundant . . . and I am not into that . . . Ok, so I am into that, but just not this time. I’ll spend one page. “A report issued by the Treasury Department said that some combination of benefit cuts and tax increases will need to be considered to permanently fix the funding shortfall.” See the Associated Press article from September 24, 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20957376.

Social Security II: Privatize social security. This does not mean that the government is allowed to pick the investment funds into which our privatized money is funneled and it also does not mean that investment bankers can collect on what would normally be massive profits given the number of accounts they would be expected to manage. This would mean employing plenty of governmental fund management accountants and would probably mean that we cannot simply funnel all of the money we would invest into a risky portfolio. Supplementing our retirements with diversified portfolios would be ideal, but I am not a financial expert and would have to defer to the logic of an objective investment banker*** who does not stand to gain what I stand to lose by investing. If members of the fund management circuit are troubled by this, perhaps we should consider treating them like Darth Vader treated Lando in The Empire Strikes Back, by at least allowing him a deal in exchange for Luke Skywalker. Any and all types of workers should then be encouraged to select a retirement investment vehicle of their choice. This encouragement should not be considered akin to a concentration camp resident being encouraged to proceed toward the showers. We are taxed enough, so the fund management expenses should be fairly low, so too should the tax on our money for disbursement into an account and the annual withdrawal from it after retirement. The money would automatically be deducted from a citizen’s payroll check and placed in their account. Standard penalties would apply should the future retiree draw on the money before retirement.

Social Security III: I have currently been paying into social security for 21 years and stand to lose the chance at regaining any of the benefit I have contributed to others if a proposal such as that I propose below is adopted. That is quite a loss. I would rather have the program declared insolvent sooner rather than later, have a retirement account or two in place and not pay in for an additional 28 years to find it insolvent upon my retirement, whereby I will have paid in for twice as long and received still nothing in return. The program can continue to pay out to those who will retire within the next 25 years as its probable insolvency is due to hit in 2041 by most accounts. Discontinue payroll deductions from workers checks ASAP and let the taxpayer have the freedom to choose a retirement account of their own that is not taxed as heavily as current Roth or 401K accounts. If I am mistaken—if people cease to contribute to social security and it then would be due to be insolvent prior to 2041 then divert money from the general fund to social security as that was the primary purpose of the money to begin with. “Social Security is projected to start spending more than it collects beginning in 2017, with its trust fund depleted in 2041.” (see the Obama article link in the next paragraph). So pay out to those who will retire until then and then ask those who are thinking of retiring around that time to start saving the money that will no longer be removed from their payroll checks to fund the retirement of others into a private account for their own retirement.

Social Security- additional information: See these articles for some background information on the sub-topic- http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp. “How Big a ‘Nest Egg’ Do You Need to Retire?” John W. Schoen, November 5, 2007- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21548538. “Obama to Push for Higher Social Security Tax” Associated Press, November 11, 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/. “The Looming Crisis: Budget Impact of Social Security Insolvency is Closer than it Appears” by United States Senate Budget Committee chairman Judd Gregg. In this document (from 2005) is included this sentence- “In the five-year period from 2011 to 2016, the contracting Social Security surplus will gouge $32 billion out of the rest of the budget and with each coming year remove an accelerating amount as the Social Security surplus continues to shrink.” Surely, people can debate budget shortfalls, which party is more responsible for having adopted social security as a measure to provide for the elderly and disabled, its monies having been redirected to the general fund, what kind of risk is involved when privatized money is invested rather than stockpiled, the anxiety about its insolvency, the raising of the cap on the level of income subject to the payroll tax, the support of private accounts for lower income wage-earners, that it is 20+% of federal spending, etc. and can learn a heck of a lot more about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States.**** But the bottom line is that it is a huge drain on the taxpayer, to say the least. “Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance” or (OASDI) as it is referred to on our paychecks, is something that needs to go away. Again, other bloggers, hypocrites, geniuses, contrarians, appointing a bi-partisan commission to look into the program’s solvency issues, raising the cap via an increased reduction from the checks of the rich or those households earning less than $102,000, is not enough and blogging back and forth providing revisionist commentary, futile prognostications, arguing semantics, the finer points of the issue, arguing period, brings us no closer to a resolution. These guys—Greg Anrig Jr. and Bernard Wasow of the Century Foundation have made available a document they titled- “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea” from 2004- (http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503. I have not conducted an exhaustive search for a companion article, written by the same two gentlemen on the “12 Ways in Which Social Security Can be Successfully Reformed” because they have put all of their efforts into noting the problems (i.e. “privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere,” “young people would be worse off,” “retirees will not be protected against inflation,” etc. These guys risk nothing by being intelligent enough to note the pitfalls of Social Security reform and assist no one by doing so. But neither are they cavalierly boasting workable solutions with a neosporin-like healing time for the wounds previous generations have caused us.

Wah!: If anyone has a better plan to combat the future insolvency of social security- by all means let us know. The Wikipedia link offers a number of revenue raising and cost trimming measures, which I am sure politicians and voters will promote the adoption of, so that this issue can be put to rest. My proposal perhaps has as many problems as an out of work cartoon animal addicted to having phone sex with a carnival worker, but we have to start somewhere. Please find a way to keep it solvent without reducing benefits or without raising taxes, including the taxes of the rich, because they’ll never go for it, nor should they. And remember- immigrants who currently reap relatively few rewards for having paid in will soon enough demand their social security benefits to be paid in full commensurate with their contributions- hopefully you have taken that into account. Perform a search for “immigrants and social security benefits” and find out for your self. Consider this frequently asked question and the accompanying answer from this website- http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/ff/faq/immigrants.html.

Q: “Is the number of immigrants a significant effect on the financing of Social Security, and if so is it taken into account when the projected deficit date is produced?”

A: “Yes, the number of immigrants has a significant impact on Social Security. The actuaries do include immigration rates in their projections. According to the 1998 Trustees Report prepared by the actuaries, the Social Security cost rate (the ratio of the cost of the program to the taxable payroll for the year) decreases with increasing rates of net immigration, due to the fact the immigrants are usually relatively young and thus increase the number of covered workers earlier than the number of beneficiaries.” Please see the site directly above for other pertinent questions and answers concerning immigrants and Social Security benefit payments. Immigrants are “relatively young”; and when they age, when they retire they will also need to be collecting social security if it remains as a social aid program. What will we do then, in 2085 when our children begin to retire at age 75? Import the Antereans (mythical planet alien life-forms from the movie "Cocoon") to work picking lettuce, nursing us through our pancreatic cancer or laying asphalt on our streets? The will never get sick, never grow old and never die, and thus will never have the need for social security . . . or Medicare or Medicaid. Then we can spend more money on military hardware to fight against the Chinese.

Wah II!: Anyone aged 30 or over who is in the middle class and has yet to have set up a retirement account is a lunatic. If you have a big screen television, spend all your money on booze, cancer sticks, high-speed internet, trips to Nascar events, fishing boats and new pick-up trucks, and unsuccessfully and repeatedly lost all of the money you’ve withdrawn early from your 401K trying to breed box turtles for profit do not complain to anyone that you are being economically pinched.

Medicare and Medicaid: Medicare covers about 43 million elderly or disabled people and total expenditures from the American government were $256.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. “Enrollment in Medicare is expected to reach 77 million by 2031, when the baby boom generation is fully enrolled.” 1.45% of each worker’s net income is withheld from their paychecks to fund Medicare. I can afford that so that some old guy can have the health care he needs or so that some woman can have the medications she needs. About 42.9 million people, as recently as 2004, were enrolled in Medicaid at a total cost of $295 billion. The Medicaid “program, on average, tak[es] up 22% of each state’s budget.” I have not scoured the internet hoping to find a dozen articles on the governmental mismanagement of either of these two social aid programs. I would suspect we could find plenty of millions of dollars worth of wasteful spending but I would imagine that much of that is the fault of the health care industry, which I’ll get to in a later installment. 28% of the 2007 federal budget went to the funding of Medicare, Medicaid and other major social aid programs. The two major Medi-programs would not be exempt from being audited on the grounds of potential misallocation of government funds, because said funds were previously the property of taxpaying Americans. Military and social aid program expenditures combined comprise too much of the federal budget for us to assume, without vigorous attention paid to their respective allocations, that the monies are consistently properly used. For information revealed above see the Wikipedia articles on Medicare- http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) and for Medicaid- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid. One thing I do know- allowing in immigrants to keep either or both of these programs solvent is a massive mistake. We brought in the French to help us out with the Revolutionary War and the French still haven’t paid off that debt. No, I did not misstate that. It is quite an obligation to be beholden to a mass of people that arrogant, whose ideas on reparations run so completely counter to reason. A French gendarme would probably arrest a wildebeast (said animal has the most successful conception rate of all mammals) for jaywalking if it had impregnated a female while crossing the Avenue des Champs-Elyses. The French are not consciously aware of their own impotence . . . of course, neither are many Americans where the effects of widespread, continued, unregulated immigration is concerned.

Gloom and doom for Medicare and Social Security: “Each spring, administration officials release the annual reports on the benefit programs and warn they will go bust without urgent intervention. The officials and Congress then spend the rest of the year not fixing the problem.” (Courtesy of Dana Milbank, “Spring Forecast? Its Always Gloomy” Washington Post, March 26, 2008- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/25/ST2008032503837.html. Medicare is expected to be insolvent at some point in the next eleven years according to the article, 22 years before Social Security’s expected insolvency. Medicare’s “projected solvency has shrunk by six years in President Bush’s tenure. Bush’s prescription-drug benefit has added $915 billion in costs to the program” but as the secretary of health and human services points out, that is “ ‘about $117 billion less than we felt it would be last summer.’ ” Oh goody. So we can tell a man who is certain to drown that he gets to struggle for 30 extra minutes before he goes the way of Leo at the end of “Titanic.”

Medicare’s insolvency: Just a couple of closing quotes on the subject of Medicare from a Glenn Beck CNN.com article from March 14, 2008- http://www.cnn.com/2008/us/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html. “Only an immediate 122 percent increase in Medicare taxes . . . can prevent . . . its impact.” Beck had metaphorically hinted at the connection a Medicare asteroid would make with earth, thus the use of the word “impact.” “ ‘Without change,’ [says U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson] ‘Rising costs will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues, and threaten America’s future prosperity.’ ” Huh, apparently I was making all that stuff up about the amount of concern Americans should have for the future economic insolvency of the middle class relative to the rich. I know, quoting one man does not make this so. I have quoted well over a hundred sources (excepting online articles about animal insurrections) that contribute to my argument. Beck reveals that: “former Comptroller General of the United States David Walker . . . writes that our unfunded promises translate into “ ‘an IOU of around $455,000 per American household.’ ” I don’t think my 2-4% cost of living increases over the next 28 employable years will cover that. But, retirement age will likely be 70 by then, so I will be provided that additional five years to struggle against drowning. Medicare will be insolvent; I probably will not qualify for Medicaid because I would make too much money; and Social Security will also have just become insolvent . . . unless of course the immigrants they are allowing into our country are allowed to “rescue” us from the domestic nightmares I have just detailed.

Heart of Darkness: It was Joseph Conrad who wrote- “. . . I found myself lumped along with Kurtz as a partisan of methods for which the time was not ripe: I was unsound! Ah! but it was something to have at least a choice of nightmares.” We can reduce benefits or raise payroll taxes to continue to fund our social aid programs, or we can privatize retirement accounts; we can allow in immigrants to “solve” those problems for us. We can allow gays to marry and should if they do not affect our economic bottom lines; we can continue to scoff at the notion of our impact on the environment in which we live or we can be foolhardy reactionaries and allow our ears to adore all that Al Gore tells us****** (see “An Inconvenient Truth”; we can continue to fund the lives of children who will largely, given the family situation they will have been born into, have less and less of a chance to succeed as the woes continue to go unaddressed (for one cannot possibly argue that if all types of taxes and necessary costs continue to rise as expected, that the middle class will be able to afford to have 3-4 children should they desire to; we can force mothers who love their children no less for their expected pauperism to give their children to strangers who will be better able to provide for them. Yes, it is great to have our choice of nightmares.

Welfare: Is simply too large a topic to be snuck in at the end of this installment, though it would normally be considered, at least to me, as a social issue.

Special note: Goodbye- Tim Russert and George Carlin- your diligence and irreverence, respectively, are qualities I can certainly appreciate.

* Not designing to control gay marriage or its participants or its prevalence, just attempting to illustrate a point about how an excess of anything- 60 gallons of water in a 50 gallon tub, can be problematic, all things considered.

** “Climate change” is what the democrats have started to call global warming to avoid the negative stigma that is spirited up by those/conservatives who clamor for either silence or irrefutable evidence of mankind’s contributions to all kinds of statistical weather phenomenon- (i.e. unseasonably warmer temperatures any and all types of catastrophic events, including the prevalence of them).

*** Investment bankers- show me in which ways you are or are likely to be financially compromised by market conditions that would preclude you from becoming rich (perhaps not in the proportion that you would desire) and I would reconsider a proposal.

**** Several potential solutions are included within the Social Security Wikipedia entry, but I imagine that one member or another of the Social Aid revisionist intelligentsia would have a problem with each of them. I plan to address the back and forth sniping, in tennis-like fashion, of bloggers who solve nothing by counter-pointing each other to death. Look for this commentary following the Cap v. Tax fossil fuel debate I will get to at some point.

***** Excepting those whose income is less than his support obligation.

****** See Gore in the starring role in “An Inconvenient Truth” which won the 2006 Oscar for best documentary.

Middle Class Part 29: Issues Article 2; Parties, Canadian Political Parties and a Listing of Issues

Habeas corpus: “The name given to a variety of writs having for their object to bring a party before a court or judge.” My writ promises to be in excess of three-hundred pages and has largely concerned “the restraint of liberty by due process.” In the course of my blog manifesto, two parties have been brought to judgment, something that is seldom as comprehensively done, not even at election time. Surely, more able and more adled minds than mine have been more or less equipped to do so, sometimes to less and greater success, respectively. In a land where all men were created equal, I am reminded of George Orwell’s famous Animal Farm quotation- “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This is the mantra of the pigs in Orwell’s 1945 novella about the animal overthrow of a human owned farm (ahem, see part 28). This is for the purposes of foreshadowing- just a hint- I may bring up particular fictitious pigs in the course of this offering.

James Madison I: I have already referred to Madison’s ability to effectively consider the nature of factions and while I was not able to agree with him on everything, particularly with his Robin Hood mentality of taking from the rich what they have earned, he is too equipped with talent and truth to dismiss. In The Federalist No. 10, he wrote so many profound words it is difficult for me to summarize or choose which quotations to use to communicate my point, to justify the reason for attacking both current major political parties accountable for the nature of politics affecting the middle class. I have chosen two sets of words: “an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good.” In addition, I might add, neither do they co-operate for the common good of people who do not favor either side. In between that quotation and the one in the next paragraph, Madison points out the differences between a democracy which he feels is inadequately represented by relatively few men and a republic (which he favors) as considering the views of a far greater number of people, spread over a more vast tract of land. In the former case he was concerned with the “cabals of a few” and in the latter “the confusion of the multitude.” He further writes about the causes, dangers and cures of factions and in one sentence uses the words “desideratum” and “opprobrium,” two words I didn’t know the meanings of until I looked them up; did I mention they appeared in the same sentence? Jeez.

James Madison II: I refer to many American politicians, political party wonks, members of the media, etc. so wrapped up in party politics- election vampires because they steal away our chance to hear issue debate, the life-blood of politics at the time when we most need it coursing through our veins- at election time. Madison wrote: “The friend of popular governments, never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice [the “violence of faction”]. He will not fail therefore to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils, have in truth been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have every where perished;” even though we have been remiss over the course of 219 years to call this form of popular government- a democracy. It is time to flush out the issues, to know the issues and to vote on issues, rather than on candidates who say what they feel needs to be said in order to be elected.

Extended party: Any prospective party beyond the democrats and republicans, an extension of those parties- (ex. third, fourth, fifth parties, etc. as distinguished from the aforementioned parties). Continually referring to additional parties using the latter method would become too cumbersome. “Extended” is also a synonym for a hardship or obligation born of necessity; in this case, the necessity would be to combat the political status quo. The caveat, as I have mentioned a few times, is that any subsequent party would ultimately become popular enough to take campaign finance money and its integrity would also be compromised. The hopeful dawning of various other parties is not unlike the inclusion of additional menu options on the placard of a patron’s favorite restaurant. It is not often that we only enjoy having two food choices when we go out to eat. Why would we enjoy only having two candidates as options for something that affects us much more than how chicken Alfredo is going to treat our digestive system? Consider the potential additional parties as dishes we might order when dining out. Rather than having just two choices, consider that we have five. While it is true that a number of people frequenting a particular restaurant already have in mind what they plan to order, others need to look at the menu to decide and the former might consult the menu to eliminate dishes they might think of ordering, to try something different. Imagine that avenue was not open to them- you now can see what a frustrating endeavor it is for an Independent to order up a politician who is not on the menu. Prices on various dishes at restaurants might go up, this is just as true of the most high-priced democrat or republican seafood item as it is about the rarely chosen meat and potatoes, those dishes with a little more substance (i.e. the Independent choice on the menu). Another untrue cliché when pontificated upon in connection with politics- “you get what you pay for.” No, no you don’t. Voters pay plenty and do not get all that much.

One thing I briefly touched on last time (the number of major political parties in Canada) will set me going on this installment.

Canada’s major parties: Perhaps it is strange to compare the number of parties from which we have to choose when electing our representatives (presidential, congressional as well as state and district reps.) to a country just north of us. We probably dismiss Canada as a country filled with royalist hicks, inconsequential mountie-lovers, unfettered by reason, who haven’t the extensive world-view knowledge that us Americans possess. However, we are further away from the veritable Canadian utopia of multiple-choice political parties than we are to the average Venezuelan coup attempt. Just kidding. Our election vampires* nearly commandeer themselves into political office considering the near political monopoly they have delivered us, preying on the mass of voters who are unable to vote outside the box. We see this in the deal brokering of each party and this year it is especially prevalent with the democrats. Do we seat the Michigan and Florida delegations at the national convention, allow them a ½ vote (guess so). Some have wondered whether Obama’s electoral vote advantage was going to be enough for him to wrest the democratic nomination from a Clinton last-minute super delegate overthrow, even though the majority of primary voters have chosen Obama.

Consider this: Congressional approval ratings have been under 25% for quite awhile and tied an all-time low in mid May of 2008. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/05/congressional_approval_rating.html- Key in the search “congressional approval ratings.” Traditionally, voters re-elect congress-people at the rate of 90%. Now, I am no math major but that sounds awfully like a voting public merely choosing between the lesser of two evils. Are we that afraid of the unknown? Perhaps only the continued use of community mugs at Colonial meetings was more historically detrimental to the cause of rational thought because it made everyone sick. (The sharing of mugs caused all kinds of germs to be passed from one social drinker to the next.)

Canadia: In briefly perusing what is available on the internet in terms of the nature of Canadian politics I saw the same type of political strife, partisan rebuttals, anxiety, frustration and disgust among the Canadian citizens and between their political parties as is found in our America. So, no, having four major political parties and something called Le Bloc Quebecois (a fifth) who want Quebec to be recognized as its own sovereign state, but still derive economic benefits is not going to solve the problem. The Quebecois are pretty much what a pretentious bloated woodtick must feel like when it has funneled all of the advantage of a connection into its system (i.e. blood) without assuming any obligation. In America, we call those people neo-democrats** . . . or we can still just keep calling them woodticks if it is generally understood that we are referring to democrats. In consulting the world map, it looks like if the Bloc Quebecois wanted to separate from the rest of Canada, they would have to bring Newfoundland and Labrador with them- unless they are not talking about a physical topographical split, whereby I should think they are hoping to find a continental plate (plate tectonic) that might deliver them from the torture of being lumped in with those willing to speak a language other than French. (Note: I’ve briefly perused articles written by a couple of sources, one of which was http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/canada/the-canadian-political-spectrum.html but any pertinent search such as “Canadian politics” could do the trick. The woman who wrote the article just referenced breaks down the platforms of the parties and I can see that the four parties pretty much encompass what we get out of our two parties. The point- there is cross-over, some blending among issues in Canadian politics- not a lot of blending but some, excepting the conservative party*** (see the Canada eZine article I reference directly above). See the Jon Stewart quote I included last time on how the combination of some of the political issues under the republican and democratic platforms in connection with each other make no sense at all. Canada’s parties seem more fluid, and I think we like a little more stability in our country. It would be great if this stability did not come at the cost of representative status quoism as sanctioned by the media and complacency on the part of the voter. The first three parties she lists in the eZine article seem to have some, but not all, goals in common. There probably will not be a perfect candidate out there for everyone in America, but a voter should not have to make a deal with one devil (i.e. an important issue identified) in order to allow another to prevail. I seem to be relying on the theme of crude blood transfusion metaphors (vampires, woodticks); I would not assume this to be accidental, as elections do have the tendency to suck the life out of those who follow them.

Winds of change: The two parties give us little choice on election day. My belief is that they run rather unopposed for the political offices of their choice. The two major parties are so at odds with each other, just as any two people who have come to so resemble each other; we come to despise most aspects of another whom we detest because they so remind us of our own faults. For our government having turned out as it has we could blame: 1) James Madison (for he was the surrogate father of the Constitution);**** 2) the voter because we too often relent, like a penguin that is treated first as a food source and then as a proposed sexual conquest of an elephant seal (without the formal consent of the penguin- see part 28; I could continue with this analogy but I will move on); 3) the politician for continually skating through elections without addressing the urgent needs of the voter. True, the voter puts signs in their yard and thinks only inside the box when it comes to deciding which virtual leader we shall embrace. We do not force politicians to debate on the issues and we become rather distracted by the sideshows that spring up like the weeds that keep us from enjoying our lawn. The republican candidates never even mentioned the probable insolvency of social security when they debated in Florida, a state that’s per capita total of citizens who wear belts just under their armpits (i.e. where retirees go to die while collecting social security) is the largest in the nation. Candidates speak when their guard is down and their associates (Bill Clinton or Reverend Wright) speak when their dander is up, saying things which echo for far too many news cycles. Politics is a circus and I think that the politicians enjoy the media driven virtual scandal sideshows.***** (Looking for examples? Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia sniper fire comments, McCain’s comment about staying in Iraq for 100 more years if necessary and Obama’s comment about his uncle having liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp.******) Don’t forget about the John Kerry swift boat distraction, or Kerry’s flip-flop controversies of 2004; Bush Sr.’s “read my lips” comment in 1988 was a media distraction and on and on. We are far too easily distracted from the issues by those types of media-driven non-issues. The two parties suppose that they have each side of the major issues covered within their platform, underneath their protective umbrella, but umbrellas are harshly treated by the wind; I will attempt to provide the wind. Keep the windbag comments to yourself . . . or not.

Political weather: Politicians should be less respected than weathermen. I feel as if the weather, for purposes of fact, ought to be given just one minute of time on our local news. They should only be allowed to tell us what the weather was for that day, and provide a quick glimpse into the next day’s weather because they do not know anything else. Politicians know even less. They will not agree on what type of political weather we just had if you consider asking one of the republican or democratic forecaster/historians. An exchange between both parties relative to the likelihood Tim Pawlenty would make a good republican vice-presidential candidate considering his supposed recent treatment of the needs of Minnesota provides just one such example. See Lori Sturdevant’s “Still in a Minnesota State of Mind?” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 25, 2008 (Opinion Exchange section) where a democrat rails on Pawlenty’s contributions while a republican defends him. Just a warning- not a ton of objectivity from either side. The democrat begins just about every comment with the word "but." Candidates do not want to comment much on the topic of the insolvency of social security or the just as probably insolvent pensions for public workers. Check the Washington Post story: “Growing Deficits [which] Threaten Pensions” (see- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24449812/, May 11, 2008) because politicians do not want to talk about a real plan to deliver the pension money a teacher or policeman has earned, but which they might lose, “ ‘Because the fuse on this time bomb is long, politicians flinch from inflicting tax pain, given that problems will only become apparent long after these officials have departed’ ” wrote billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett. Of course, why tell us the truth about the storm that not too many people see coming. Waiting in hope that the problem will go away is something a man does when he hopes his wife will stop nagging him about household chores, not what a politician should do when a tornado of an issue might touch down on the expectations of those who have earned their reward from toil.

Blame game and Tommy Boy: For those thinking we could blame the media for building up and tearing down candidates in the name of ratings. Or for those desiring to blame Congress for giving us the rather ineffectual Federal Elections Commission for being the equivalent of a 21st Century monarchy and Tommy Boy combined- well, I just don’t think that pig is gonna fly; the FEC, or a regulatory body like it, has never really been empowered to check the malignancy of elections and are merely figureheads of campaign finance justice. Oh, the Tommy Boy component of the FEC. As of January 2008, during the heart of perhaps the most hotly contested race for the presidency in forty years, and considering the collective prospective nominees will have spent, by the time the election is over, more than $1 billion campaigning- it makes complete sense that the Commission has seated just 2 of the 6 positions because of partisan bickering on the part of the senate who vote on a potential member’s appointment to the Commission. The plot of Tommy Boy was less predictable; the American voters are going to need to be sold (Tommy Boy was a salesman) on an improved FEC methodology, for the Commission cannot be made up of any more than three members of either political party- who I am sure are all completely benign in their decisions. Just like we need an ethics committee to protect the country from corrupt politicians once they are in office (see next paragraph), we need an empowered agency to be much more than a glorified accountant. Empower an election regulatory body, comprised of Libertarians or Independents or Undecideds, you know, impartial citizen-judges to help police all types of election-time nightmares to protect us from the set of people all vying for the honor of being the next collection of representatives to fiscally disappoint us at the highest levels of government . . .

For example: Alaska representative Don Young claiming “he did nothing wrong when he secretly changed a 2005 highway act, after it had been passed, to redirect $10 million to a new transportation project favored by one of his wealthy donors!” A footnote from the Common Cause e-newsletter I quoted from goes on to state that the “$10 million earmark directly benefited real estate developer Daniel Aronoff, who helped raise $40,000 for Rep. Young . . . only days before Congress considered the highway act. Aronoff needed the money to build a new highway interchange that the local zoning commission had twice refused to fund because the road would destroy local wetlands.” For a more detailed account of the story see- http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/young/story/9447181p-9358502c.html “Earmarks, favors: Young used position for funds and his donors' projects,” by Greg Gordon and Erika Bolstad of the Anchorage Daily News, November 11, 2007. I wonder if the two member FEC is looking into an issue that deals with the unauthorized redistribution of American tax dollars in exchange for campaign finance money. Rep. Young reminds me of the sea otter in captivity that consumes its allotment of shellfish as quickly as possible so that it can steal from its mates.

Hoover sucked: I am not advocating voting for a Herbert Hoover of a third party candidate just for the sake of thumbing our nose at the establishment, especially if it is KNOWN that an extended party politician is of the ineffectual variety, like Hoover. Keep in mind- Hoover was elected in part, because voters disapproved of the Roman catholicism of Al Smith (courtesy of Wikipedia). That is not quite as great a reason as voting for someone because they might breathe knew life into old issues and not the kind of breath that further sets the nation on fire but that might minimize the combustible nature of the issues by providing more workable solutions. Politicians should be restricted to making the wrong decisions for the voting public only after they have unavoidably been elected to office (see the paragraph immediately above). We should want to empower a committee with some teeth to pour over not only the financial component of political elections but to hold politicians accountable for the nature of issue debate, or lack of it, for attack ads where only half-truths are disseminated, etc. This political regulatory body would conduct a veritable autopsy on the candidates, not only on their means but on their ways as well. The cumulative aroma of formaldehyde does not so offend us until after we have been dissecting the frog for an hour in seventh grade science class, even if it is a sumo-sized frog training to be the aggressor against man (see part 28). There is an analogy in there somewhere- work for it.

The Independent Bangladesh: I always consider the life of a Bangladeshi (it is the new- what would jesus do virtual touchstone) before strongly putting forth opinions of a political nature- or not. This column refers to a proposed boycott of Bangladesh’s two major parties from the next general election. No comment . . . but you know what I'm thinking. See- http://www.independent-bangladesh.com/200805095165/country/without-two-major-parties-elections-can-still-be-fair-eu.html, May 9, 2008, “Without Two Major Parties Elections Can Still Be Fair,” BDNews24.com. This quotation amuses me- “ ‘The EU [European Union] is convinced that elections in 2008 are essential for securing a sustainable democracy in Bangladesh and securing progress towards the goal of achieving the status of a middle income country.’ ” Sir, when you achieve the goal of a sustainable democracy you let us know. Did I read that right- "achieving the status of a middle income country"? Just checking. Is Bangladesh a place where middle income people can go to die or at best, continue to become irrelevant- or should they stay in America and suffer the tragic fate of a typical old money family out of a William Faulkner novel?

Get Carter . . . to debate: Too often candidates who may become serious contenders are frozen out of the election process because of arbitrary rules or because one of the two major party candidates refuses to acknowledge or debate a third party candidate. I already mentioned that Ron Paul was frozen out of a republican primary debate (see part 17). In 1980- former president Carter “refused to participate in a debate with [John] Anderson, because he deemed Anderson a ‘creation of the media,’ and so Reagan and Anderson debated alone.” (see- http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/3p.anderson.html?200819.) Mr. Carter- if the media never covered you, because they thought that you might be a foreign policy nightmare of a president, who seemed to nervously speak like a high-pitched, dim-witted Georgian seraphim whom they imagined sat on his front porch in a rocking chair all day sipping homemade lemonade, imagine where you would not have been- you would not have been allowed to be president. I visited your presidential library once- prior to my learning how much of a roadblock you were to free elections. I wrote in part 17, and it bears repeating, that Ron Paul a populist conservative was caught in a media and politically devised catch-22: the media doesn't cover him because he hasn't polled very well and he hasn't polled very well because the media won't cover him. We need a governing body, with voting representatives who determine who should and should not be allowed into the debates, at whatever level- for president or state district house member and the RNC and DNC are not those to which we should turn for an objective decision in that matter. The League of Women Voters and the Federal Elections Committee were two such entities that allowed Anderson into the one 1980 debate, but then “Anderson’s poll numbers dropped, and the LWV excluded him from further debates, which were closer to the November election.” (see geocities- from above) The decision on who to include in the debate should not be left to either political party because they make decisions like the BCS geniuses who still can’t get us a playoff system in college football- (see Survivor- Hubris Fantasy Island, Episode IV, the conclusion).

The great debate: The source I quote from above also mentions that “the debate issue took on additional importance, because Anderson was the first credible third party candidate in an election with televised presidential debates . . . [and that] only one third party candidate, Ross Perot in 1992, has participated in presidential debates since.” Now, as a rule, people can keep voting for a democrat or a republican if it so suits them and continue to resist a change that might be good for them and their children, but extended party candidates should be heard. “Where does it stop” says someone from one of the two major parties who stands to lose (they contend) by allowing in additional debate participants, or perhaps because they would like to guard against the election process being made a mockery of. My friends, it is too late to object on those grounds- America hasn't taken politics all that seriously since Nixon left office. Limit the participants vying for office in local, statewide or national contests to 6 or 8 entrants, enough to reduce the likelihood that a viable voice would be silenced by not allowing him or her to be heard, which would reduce the impropriety of the monopoly of the two major parties. Ask the people which 6-8 candidates they would like to hear from and then lengthen the time they have to debate. An extra 60-90 minutes wouldn’t kill anyone. On many radio programs I listened to when the nomination for both parties was at stake, I heard callers asking to hear more about Ron Paul and in every instance the ego-agenda of the host took over and dismissed Paul as someone that cannot win. I do not need the help of any talk-show host in determining which candidates are most worth listening to. The OMI (Opinion Mass Index) of the average talk-show host precludes my being interested in their bloviating and I feel I am better equipped than they, given their ego-agenda of damning the whole of Americans to the host’s partisan ways, to filter through the candidates. I prefer the screed form of my own bloviating. As many people as possible should economically and socially prevail after the election process is over. We cannot continue to attend to the inexcusable clamor of our current American media hegemony and find this urgent need realized. In short, I can do my own political BS vetting- let sound voices be heard and I’ll decide. I am not equating Paul, or any future populist, to a political jesus christ, but maybe he is more like an apostle Paul out there somewhere, or a panda that has some decent English as a second language (ESL) skills and looks good on camera- like Arnold Schwarzenegger. (That was a joke at Arnie's expense- I am not backing him politically.)

A voting conundrum: Here is a confounding conundrum consisting of three completely contradictory arguments put forth by those who are certain that either a democrat or a republican is the person for the elected office up for grabs- 1) the voting intelligentsia find it unconscionable to refrain from voting at all, for any reason. People have fought and died for citizens to have the right to vote- the battle cry used back in the 1770s was “no taxation without representation,” a battle cry that millions could still use today if they so chose. While I understand the sentiment, I can excuse those who are too lazy or too ill-informed to vote. If you don’t know the issues then you shouldn’t cancel out someone else’s well-informed vote. I didn’t vote until the MN gubernatorial race in 1998, ten years after I was of legal age. Ok, so according to the voting Nazis, not voting is not allowed. 2) Further, voting for an Independent, or third party candidate is considered a wasted vote by the voting Gestapo because a politician who is not a member of the two parties does not have a chance to win. That one only works for me if I were deciding which form of death I was forced to choose. Yep, my guy can’t win, so I lose- I choose being smothered in the love of a geisha manatee. When millions decide to cast a protest vote, it can influence an election. I mentioned this before but Bush Sr. lost in 1992 and Gore lost in 2000, because in both cases enough people decided not to vote for either party. So, those protest votes made a difference . . . course, in the case of Gore, having a 4-5 liberal minority in the Supreme Court didn’t help. 3) Lastly- so I decide to vote for either a democrat or a republican, because as I just wrote- I cannot refrain from voting and I cannot waste my vote. So, the candidate I vote for wins the election and is sworn in to achieve at least some of the aims, of which I approved, that he or she promised to pursue. But because they are a pathological liar, are ineffectual in terms of building support amongst their own or the other party, or promised the NRA that they would vote against the ban on assault rifles (i.e. because they are in bed with any number of special interest groups/lobbyists who gave them millions in campaign finance money), they are not capable or allowed to effect change. So, the constituents of the losing side in that election simply deride those who elected the winner. So, excuse me for upsetting the apple cart in the name of real change. The path of least resistance is a dangerous one and the economic well-being of an entire class of people hangs in the balance, not the balance between how many democrats and republicans are seated in congress, but how many other voices can be heard from on the political stage.

Summation and blindness: Not voting and voting for someone many feel does not have a chance to win are unacceptable alternatives to voting for someone whom you will later be blamed for assisting into office. You had no knowledge beforehand, as you are not the blind Grecian prophet Tiresias, that the candidate who received your vote by default would have sex with an intern, be involved in Unconstitutional wiretapping, claim to have seen monkeys flying a UFO, or claimed to have been a production assistant in the 1973 cartoon version of Charlotte’s Web (a movie about a pig, a rat and a spider).******* Makes sense to me. Next you will tell me that a select group of house fly ninjas are training in the country of Bhuton, which is shaped like the eye socket of a rock creature from a fantasy movie, to assassinate members of the termite parliament coalition who have deemed their defection to Vietnam a viable way to lengthen their lives.

Past history: People extending an argument such as mine, that voting for a third party candidate has upset the outcome of an election, often focus on the impact of recent elections and restrict the affect a protest vote might have on Mssrs. Perot and Nader. But they forget that of the 44 elections held after 1832, 29 of them included a third party. While many have ended in utter failure for the party considered the third party at the time there have been other interesting developments. In 1844, James G. Birney of the anti-slavery Liberty Party (clearly the third party to the democrats and whigs at the time) gathered 3.25%, (or 16,000) of the New York vote. The eventual winner, James K. Polk won the electoral vote 170-105 over the whig candidate Henry Clay, but bested him by just 5,000 votes in New York. “If Birney had not run, the majority of his votes would have gone to the Whigs rather than the pro-slavery Democrats, but whether or not Clay would have netted five thousand more votes is unknown.” The state of New York was then worth 36 electoral votes; if Polk loses 36 and Clay then wins the 36, the result of the election is quite different. (Note I: run the search “third parties in past presidential elections” and take a look at the Wikipedia result. Note II: if there had been no history of the existence of a third party up until the present time, that would not be proof that a vast number of voters these days are not entitled to more than two choices come election time.) The past can provide us with apocryphal information or can signal the will of the people by giving us hints of desired change. That is enough- because proof is not always to be found and when it is, it can come too late. It is wise and entertaining to consider many things- wise = clipping your nails before gardening; entertaining = considering the chances that a pig could be a champion sheep-herder to the initial disgust of a border collie. Forgive me- I just watched the movie Babe. Pigs . . . sheep . . . is this guy still writing about politics? Yep. Sometimes a guy can do research while distracting his children. (Hint- politicians = pig, sheep = voter, herding = convincing sheep to vote for a pig.)

Cliché 1: The saying goes- “You can fool some of the people all of the time and fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”- unless they are republicans or democrats in love with their own state of being an unqualified lemming. Now, in the famous cliché above, replace the word “fool” with “please”. Such is the nature of politics. I am not attempting to justify an approach that would please all of the people all of the time- this is impossible; just as impossible- pleasing them as infrequently as politicians currently do now. The mole that may tear up the rock garden in my back yard this summer if it finds enough grub worms to pacify its appetite displeases me no less than most politicians.

Cliché 2: The most applicable and most easily understood cliché of all time is- ‘everything in moderation.’ This is just as true in politics as it is in ordering fast food. Many people have sought to balance the large fries and Big Mac they order by drinking Diet Coke (good luck with that); we ought also seek a little more balance in our political lives. By this, I do not mean to vote for half of the republicans and half of the democrats on the ballot. Rather, find the balance on each issue, if neither side has the copyright on the truth they are attempting to sell, according to you- then don’t buy it. Don’t take the road on the left or the right, even if they seem the most worn, they are only worn because so many sheep have been led down them, perhaps they had too often been led by pigs.

Issues 1: Consider the list of issues below. It isn’t a complete list and I may not have accurately depicted where the two major parties stand on all of them. Certainly, particular politicians may be a republican and be pro-choice and certain democrats may be for the war in Iraq and may have always been. Finding out how one politician feels on an issue can be difficult because many of the issues have more than two sides to them, which again would be why having more options at election time would not overwhelm any American with an IQ above that of a fifth grade mosquito. The abortion issue is a suitable example of this- what about partial birth abortions, cases of rape, incest, economically unsuitable parentage, etc. The smoking ban is another example- to allow or not to allow smoking in bars, restaurants and public places is not the only option. Should theater nights be allowed in bars and restaurants? Should smoked pork be served (i.e. pigs with emphysema- which is a medical malady and not a combination of the words “emphasis” and “Zima” used to describe the important desire someone might have of consuming a strangely popular girlie drink of the early 90s.) The two examples above, prior to the lame Zima joke, may seem harmless to some and be considered mere social issues which wouldn’t seem to affect any economic class on the surface. But consider how a woman who produces three children in an economically disadvantageous situation creates a strain on all other taxpayers who may have to incur the cost of being socially, and thus economically, responsible for her children who are born into a broken home, should her religion keep her from condescending to use birth control. The smoking ban affects bar owners and employees whose economic well-being depends on paying customers more likely to eat out if they can pollute their own, and other’s, lungs with toxic carcinogens. Often, the best approach on any issue is to choose the better option between the ridiculously partisan choices desired by both major parties. The mind of the modern voter is more dynamic than that. And I wonder that we shouldn’t vote for issues via a referendum than for candidates to begin with. I’ll get into that down the road. In the meantime . . .

Issues 2: FYI- head to http://www.ontheissues.org/republican_party.htm (and substitute democrat for republican in the preceding URL) for more information on the widely considered issues at hand or should you have opposable thumbs, unlike a pig, there are informative lists about issues all over the internet. I have highlighted the side of the issue I favor and when I find that neither side has provided an acceptable viewpoint, I have highlighted the issue. People are always going to disagree not only on what the issues are, but will also consider the relative importance of one issue as compared to the others. The three issues at the top I had previously identified as the most important. If the top three were resolved, it would go a long way in fixing the inherent problems of the cluster of 11 (from education to litigious society) which immediately follow. There is not much separation in importance between the top three and the next eleven, but there is some- in my opinion. Almost all of the issues are at least to some degree connected. Free trade cannot be discussed without job outsourcing and global warming cannot be investigated without the detail of carbon credits, peak oil and polar bear extinction; connecting free trade with polar bears is probably more difficult, considering how pissed polar bears have been lately about the melting of the polar ice caps. Without further ado, for there has been enough ado already, here are the issues:

Key: D= democrat, R= republican. I had wanted to do a column intensive listing but will have to settle for a paragraph style delivery due to formatting and unavailable presentation limitations in this electronic format or because I am just not bright enough to figure it out.

Campaign finance reform: D=ok with excess; R= Unconstitutional
Immigration: D=here, have our country; R=no amnesty, build that wall
Taxation: D=tax the rich and middle class; R=tax the poor and middle class

(Note- $1 billion collectively will have been spent by the candidates running for president in 2008; 1.1 million illegal immigrants cross our border each year; if the Bush tax cuts, which never helped the middle class as much as they helped the rich, aren’t extended in 2011 we’ll have an even bigger problem being able to afford education, health care, gas, saving for retirement, and purchasing necessary cost items- etc.)

Education: D=favor govt control; R=controlled by the state govt
Health Care: D=favor government control; R=leave to the industry of medicine
Society/Amer. Culture: D=let it go to hell; R=protect it
Civil liberties/Rights: D=only for non naturalized citizens; R=protect those here legally
Corporations: D=anti tax shelter; R=pro tax shelter
Oil supply: D=probably in bed with big oil; R=definitely in bed with big oil
Free Trade: D=more regulatory; R=carte blanche
Medicare/social aid: D=as much as we can give to poor; R=forsake the poor, favor the rich
Military: D=reduce the military budget; R=increase the military budget
Gun control/street violence: D=anti-gun; R=pro gun
Litigious society: D=allow it; R=allow it

Judicial Appointments: D=Interpret the law (criminals walk); R=enforce the law (criminals pay)
Judicial Elections: D and R: why not? we finance politicians for their vote, why not finance judges for their verdict
Social Security: D=must have it; R=privatize it

Strong Federal Govt. v. State's Rights: D=strong federal; R=pro state’s rights
Crime/capital punishment: D=go easy on ‘em; R=pro capital punishment
Global warming: D=very real probability; R=not a chance
Environment: D=tree-huggers; R=tree-cutters

Mortgage crisis: D=help them all out; R=the buyers made their own bed
Energy (heating oil, electric) D=promote renewable energy; R=scoff at renewable energy
(renewable, solar and air, etc.):
Foreign policy/Terrorism: D=more laissez faire; R=go get ‘em
Religion: D=more secular; R=in god we trust

Federal reserve: D=inconclusive; R=what ya’ gonna do? (I don't know what the hell to think about the Federal Reserve.)
Church and state: D=separate but . . .; R=joined at the hip (Pledge of allegiance in school- hell yeah, president acting as if his every desire has been mandated by god- no good.)
Drugs: D=fewer regulations; R=strict controls (Legalize medicinal marijuana)
Jobs-outsourcing: D=various and sundry; R=various and sundry
National ID/Real ID: D=not in favor-illegals should vote; R=violation of individual liberty
Smoking ban: D=can’t stand the smoke; R=individual liberty violation
Abortion: D=pro-choice; R=pro-life
Same sex marriage: D=legalize; R=dismiss

I have about twenty others in mind but have decided to reveal those in a later installment.

Oink: If there were extended parties to choose from on election day, whose candidates have natural inclinations which cause them to seek solutions to issues that fall somewhere between the polarizing options indicated above, which better represented the complex desires of the voting public, we would be better off. I do not imagine a utopian community where those who are mortal enemies now would hug each other on the street, but a better country is in the offing with an improved political climate that allows an extension of political ideals, not a smothering of them. Perhaps that sentiment is an echo of Hamilton who wrote more succinctly in The Federalist No. 1- “we are not always sure, that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonist.” We have been at issue debate so long in this country that I would not still contend that the truth of an issue is really what we are still debating. We are debating about which side is more right. Problem is, we all lose if we wholly embrace either party. Continuing to vote for one candidate over the other because he or she supports the somewhat randomly collected agendas listed above, and being proud of it, is downright (and not virtually) pig-headed.


* I am not accidentally comparing the nature of our election process to that of a country where a general stages a coup attempt and am only being a bit fecicous. I could include a number of historical instances, that we know about, that would make our election process not seem as democratic and pristine as both major parties pretend- one example three words- Kennedy . . . 1960 . . . Chicago. So when I compare that to something like this maybe I am not too far off: “Chaos Looms as Thailand's Prime Minister Sweeps Vote Unopposed,” to find out more about election vampires such as Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was called upon to quit over corruption allegations. Words like these are included in the article- “authoritarian style” “urban rage” “retains loyalty among impoverished rural voters,” “boycotted ‘pseudo-election’ ” “tyrant” “cronies” and “undermined democratic checks and balances.” Wow, sounds like they are referring to Alexander Hamilton (excepting the rural voter part), or dozens of the politicians whose reelection would be contingent on their being able to complete a word jumble and given the hint that the above words were associated with either their initial election or how they have conducted business since. Let your super-ego complete the word jumble. The article was written by Jan McGirk in Bangkok, April 3, 2006. (See- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chaos-looms-as-thailands-prime-minister-sweeps-vote-unopposed-472547.html.)

** Though I have never heard this term, we ought to bring about its use to differentiate old-school democrats from the new version. A neo-democrat would be someone who gains by another’s toil and is not shamed by it. Too many people feel entitled to social aid, to Welfare, to unemployment compensation, to abusing taxpayer contributions in order to assuage their grief over misfortune that’s statute of limitations should have been long gone. Playing the victim is the game of the neo-democrat. Yes, “the meek shall inherit the earth” by whining until someone puts a rich man’s earnings in a poor man’s hands.

*** I think it humorous that the woman who wrote the article writes that only 25% of Canadians would fall under the Canadian version of the conservative party. If you read the broad platform goals of this party, otherwise known as “ ‘The ConservaNAZI Party’ because of their right-wing values [which are according to her] borderline racist and discriminatory.” Guess they have many of the same problems we have concerning political parties. Thing is- a lot of what is listed as goals of the Canadian Conservative party is pretty much what our republican/conservative party has on their wish list.

**** I refer to Madison as the “surrogate” father of the Constitution to be both a contrarian- because everyone calls him the “Father of the Constitution” and because I cannot believe that a man who wrote so thoroughly in his near 30 contributions to the Federalist Papers series could have left so much out of the
Constitution, which is expected to be a living, breathing guide to the country’s citizens and the citizen’s representatives, but because what he included reminds me of Hamilton. I would explain, but again that may be outside of the overall topic at hand; hey, something has to be.

***** I could put virtual in front of all kinds of things- I am writing about politics- virtual hope and virtual change are the name of the game.

****** The man said it was his uncle that helped liberate Auschwitz. In actuality, the Russians did that, without the assistance of Obama’s great uncle at Buchenwald. Running for president Sir, try not to make this stuff up as you go along. At this rate, we may as well have Tommy Flanagan file as an Independent in 2012- Flanagan: I was in the military . . . yeah . . . I was the military . . . I am the one who liberated Japan from Godzilla, the bad Godzilla- that’s the ticket; I was allies . . . with Mothra- yeah.

******* There is an analogy to politics in there somewhere.