Negotiating the Reopening of Our Government

Our elected officials are in the midst of negotiating the reopening of our national government,  a noble endeavor indeed. I don’t know what they’re doing as their talks are behind closed doors, but they’re probably in the process of incorporating my opinions in their decisions. Yea! You can bet on that. Not! If I may, however, please let me share them with you anyway.

The first thing we should do is center the talks around the overall good of our country, i.e. the needs, concerns, interests, and well-being of our people, and our sovereign nation as a whole to the exclusion of politics and individuals, with their personal greed, avarice, and selfish ambitions.

Secondly, our Congress should pass the proposed “clean CR” and get our government back into operation, performing its daily operations. In conjunction with this, they should either eliminate or increase the debt limit, preferably eliminating it. This mush should be done before proceeding any further with the negotiation. Both issues are imperative to the successful governance of our nation.

Third, Congress needs to take back its power and responsibility to govern from The Shadow Government of the power elite which is now governing our nation through “think tanks”, propaganda, and lobbyists, their “hatchet men” who bribe our elected officials with campaign contributions, intimidation, and harassment of those who refuse to succumb to their control. Three major efforts should be effected to accomplish this: (1) Overturn the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. FEC–corporations are not people and, therefore do not have the right of free speech. (2) Enact a law (or amendment to the Constitution) eliminating campaign contributions in any way, shape, or form and insure that all political campaigns be financed by government, i.e. the taxpayer. (3) Enact national voting rights legislation, establishing standardized voting and legality of multiple parties.

Fourth, develop a national plan to eliminate our deficit and pay off our national debt. The plan should be in writing, planned over the next ten or more years (if necessary) and “stuck to”.

This is for starters; but, in addition, I must say, also, in no way should we have an amendment to balance the budget. Neither should we have a debt limit. This limit has done nothing for the good of our nation except to precipitate dissension, argument, and cost tons of money. We should not hire school children to fill positions in Congress whom we must constantly send “to the corner” for chewing gum in class. This is ridiculous. At times our elected representatives act like clowns in a circus. It’s past time for them to grow up. There is absolutely no reason why grown intelligent men can’t manage our finances prudently without someone or something holding their hand.

That’s my say for today. What’s yours?

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Are We Having Fun Yet?

          Well, folks, our illustrious government is still at it; and the bad part of it all is that this charade is costing us a whale of a lot of money and misery. Even worse, they don’t give a damn–most of them anyway. So that I don’t confuse anybody, I’m talking about the Republican Party, who has sold themselves and our nation to big business and the elite (Unfortunately, some Democrats have done that too) in their pursuit of a false and obsolete ideology, their self-interests notwithstanding (No! I can’t tell you who; but, in your search for an answer as to whom, perhaps you should begin with anyone who accepts a campaign contribution [or bribe–what’s the difference?] from a lobbyist). To further inform you, I’m not a Democrat. I am an American, and all I care about is the American people–all of them, top to bottom, rich or poor–and our country. I want a “fair shake” and decent standard of living for everybody. Right now, we are being “taken to the cleaners”.

          In spite of all the bad news, surprise! Some good has come from all of this. They have exposed themselves and their false ideology. Allow me to ask a question. Our real losses are just beginning to be exposed; but, are you missing your government yet? Are you beginning to see how important it is to you and our economy? You bet. All this talk about eliminating government, downsizing it, is a bunch of bunk–trash talk to win elections. The truth is, we need our government. How much do we need? We need as much as our people require and are willing to pay for. We need Social Security. We need national healthcare. We need to help those less fortunate among us. We can discuss its cost (taxes) another time; but, for now, we can surely see our need for government and its importance to us. Of course, it’s easier to see when you lose it–like now.

          Should we balance our budget and pay off our national debt? Of course we should. Let’s get on with it. In reality, however, we should have done that before we “ran it up”, back in the eighties and, especially during the administration of George W Bush. As I have said before, our debt when President Carter left office was under (less than) one trillion dollars. Our deficit when President Clinton left office was zero with a surplus forecasted for years to come. Does anyone remember, “A stitch in time saves nine”; or, “A penny saved is a penny earned”? Certainly, at the time, it wasn't the Republicans. Our official national debt now is rapidly approaching $17 Trillion.

          A study of Economics 101 and Business 100 will tell you in a heartbeat that we should get our financial house in order. If you study closely, it will, also, tell you that now is the time to spend–that is, when, as now is the case, we are in a recession on the verge of a depression. President Obama inherited a financial crisis with twenty-one million people out of work (The figure remains, even now, on or near twenty million). Of course he spent money. He should have spent more. The time to eliminate the deficit and pay down (or off) the debt is when we have recovered from our current financial dilemma.

When we do reduce our spending, we should begin with all this duplication and wasteful spending our politicians have been talking about for all these many years and done nothing. We should begin by imprisoning all those people who have been committing the waste, fraud, and abuse we continually talk about and do nothing. We should install an accounting system in the Department of Defense with books that can be balanced. Maybe we should stop buying drones and airplanes only to  store in the desert and never use. One doesn't have to be a Rhodes scholar to know that spending as much or more on defense as the rest of the world combined is sheer nonsense (those who profit excepted). Maybe our illustrious Congress should go to work for a change. It’s difficult to believe all their talk in the legislature is sincere when they are preaching to a bunch of empty seats. That’s not real debate. They are wasting their time and our money.

It is long past time when we should begin to work together with one another in the interest of our great nation. We should get with it lest we lose our democracy, if we haven't already done so..

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Energy

I have neither heard nor read, recently, anything about the use of hydrogen as an unlimited source of energy for our nation–even in face of the many discussions of renewable energy, from our president on down. One would think hydrogen would be included in our public discussion(s) when we discuss alternative sources of energy, i.e. windmills, nuclear, etc., especially in light of today’s current high prices of oil and gas. We know the technology is available. Hydrogen fueled automobiles have been designed and placed on the market for sale to the public for years (Honda announced their new all hydrogen powered automobile over three years ago for sale in California). And yet, relative to automobiles, only electric cars or hybrids using gasoline and electric are discussed.

I can’t help but raise my eyebrows. Something is funny here. I distinctly remember when Honda first announced their new hydrogen fueled vehicle. Only a few days later, Exxon Mobile announced they were going to exit the retail service station business and sell wholesale only. I thought that strange–very strange. It would seem to me that the lack of infrastructure would present a huge problem to the introduction and sale of a hydrogen car, the development of which infrastructure would be imperative. Otherwise, how could one drive from one city to another? Wouldn’t it be much easier for a huge multibillion dollar company such as Exxon Mobil to develop such a nationwide infrastructure than it would be for thousands of relatively small business people to do so?  

It is my personal belief that we, The United States of America, needs and should take the lead in the development and implementation of hydrogen technology in the world, if we want to remain a superpower and leader on this planet. The European Union has already announced its intention to be the first fully integrated renewable-based hydrogen superpower of the 21^st century, and it has already committed itself to making the transition from fossil-fuel dependency to a renewable energy future. Iceland has announced that they, too, are going to a hydrogen economy

Political ramifications notwithstanding, both foreign and domestic, it is time for the age of fossil fuel energy to be over. It is my feeling that we, The United States of America should be thinking of a hydrogen economy and complete independence from oil, especially foreign oil. Naturally, this should be done carefully and well planned because of its economic and political impact over the world, but we should begin now. It is my understanding that hydrogen can only be produced in conjunction with the use of other energy. I am certain that much political pressure exists to the contrary from producers of fossil fuels, but the transition to hydrogen can be much faster by using renewable energy to produce hydrogen as opposed to the use of fossil fuels. Financial considerations as well as those of efficiency would lead us in this direction.

Beyond this point in the discussion, is beyond my pay grade; but, to talk about energy and leave hydrogen out of the picture is either disingenuous or myopic or both. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to believe it might be disingenuous because we are fully aware of the dominance of “big oil” over the world. We know it to be myopic because hydrogen is too big to ignore. I think a good book to read on this subject is The Hydrogen Economy by Jeremy Rifkin.

Maybe I'm on a football field wearing my baseball suit–completely out of it. Maybe the subject has been discussed extensively, and I have just missed it. Let me know. I'm not always right. What is your take on this subject? I would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Personal “Gumption”

          Our nation’s many problems notwithstanding, there is one, above all, which is discussed very little; and, the solution to which is absolutely imperative if we are to effectively resolve the others. That is the lack of personal “gumption” within so many of us–so very many.

“Gumption”– what does that mean? Wiktionary.org, your free encyclopedia, tells us “gumption” means “energy of mind and body, enthusiasm (synonyms:  gumph or chutzpah)”. It, also, can refer to “boldness of enterprise; initiative or aggressiveness, i.e. guts, spunk, initiative.

In my August 8^th posting to this blog titled Our Underclass–The Bottom Feeders, I discussed those among us who are able to work but will not do so, i.e. don’t or won’t. There are those who can go to school but drop out, turning their backs on and refusing this golden opportunity. There are, also, those who are, or have become unemployable due to behavioral shortcomings, a lack of values, inability to relate to their fellow workers, credit problems, and so on. Now, it’s a no-brainer. It goes without saying. These folk have to eat. Their children must be fed; they must have a roof over their heads. What can they do?  They turn to crime, sell drugs (to which many become addicted), join gangs,–all these things, all bad, resulting in extreme poverty, broken homes, children out of wedlock, and discontent in general.

This having been said, I’m sure every one of you will agree that “the whole is the sum total of its parts”. Our country–any country–is the sum total of, and no better than, the sum total of its people. Therefore, it calculates just as in algebra, these people are a negative to the well being of our country–a detractor from the prosperity of our nation, and their condition must be eliminated. A way must be found to move these people up and into the middleclass. If this is done, they, you, I, and our whole nation will be much happier and well-off. So, what can we do?

There are many things our nation can do. First and foremost, for those who will accept, a strong faith in Jesus Christ will go a long way. Secondly, an immediate need is for jobs. It’s absolutely imperative. Third, a formal education is a must. Given our immense growth in technology, even a minimal high school education is no longer acceptable. You may not like it, but face it. If we want a prosperous and free country with liberty for all, our people must be able to sustain themselves. If everyone is on welfare, who will pay the bills? To this end, we need a law that mandates an education for everyone, beginning early when their learning ability is the greatest, pre K through grade 12. We should begin educating children with the teaching of values, how to read and write, arithmetic, multiplication tables, English language skills, personal budgeting, paying one’s bills, and how to reconcile their checking account; we should teach them responsibility. For some dysfunctional families, it may be necessary to go so far as to remove children from the home. All graduates must attain either a skilled trade, enabling them to qualify for employment or an academic certificate qualifying them for advanced education in college. The one given is, again, jobs.

Given the availability of work, all of the other suggestions should work. However, there is one missing element in the above solutions, personal “gumption”. I told you the definition, above; but I have my own. I call it “get up and go”. It’s a bald fact of life, folks; you can’t push a wet noodle up an inclined plane. I’m afraid I don’t have an answer to that question. I just know one thing. A country wherein a significant percentage of the people are on welfare, living off “the other half” just can’t prosper and remain stable. There are some things a person must do for himself. In the final analysis, however, this is a problem our nation must solve if we are to hold our place as a world leader.

This is my take on the matter, folks. What are your thoughts? I really would appreciate your comments and/or suggestions.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Energy

I have neither heard nor read, recently, anything about the use of hydrogen as a source of energy for our nation–even in face of the many discussions of renewable energy, from our president on down. One would think hydrogen would be included in our public discussion(s) when we discuss alternative sources of energy, i.e. windmills, nuclear, etc., especially in light of today’s current high prices of oil and gas. We know the technology is available. Hydrogen fueled automobiles have been designed and placed on the market for sale to the public for years (Honda announced their new all hydrogen powered automobile over three years ago for sale in California). And yet, relative to automobiles, only electric cars or hybrids using gasoline and electric are discussed.

I can’t help but raise my eyebrows. Something is funny here. I distinctly remember when Honda first announced their new hydrogen fueled vehicle. Only a few days later, Exxon Mobile announced they were going to exit the retail service station business and sell wholesale only. I thought that strange–very strange. It would seem to me that the lack of infrastructure would present a huge problem to the introduction and sale of a hydrogen car, the development of which infrastructure would be imperative. Otherwise, how could one drive from one city to another? Wouldn’t it be much easier for a huge multibillion dollar company such as Exxon Mobil to develop such a nationwide infrastructure than it would be for thousands of relatively small business people to do so?  

It is my personal belief that we, The United States of America, needs and should take the lead in the development and implementation of hydrogen technology in the world, if we want to remain a superpower and leader on this planet. The European Union has already announced its intention to be the first fully integrated renewable-based hydrogen superpower of the 21^st century, and it has already committed itself to making the transition from fossil-fuel dependency to a renewable energy future. Iceland has announced that they, too, are going to a hydrogen economy

Political ramifications notwithstanding, both foreign and domestic, it is time for the age of fossil fuel energy to be over. It is my feeling that we, The United States of America should be thinking of a hydrogen economy and complete independence from oil, especially foreign oil. Naturally, this should be done carefully and well planned because of its economic and political impact over the world, but we should begin now. It is my understanding that hydrogen can only be produced in conjunction with the use of other energy. I am certain that much political pressure exists to the contrary from producers of fossil fuels, but the transition to hydrogen can be much faster by using renewable energy to produce hydrogen as opposed to the use of fossil fuels. Financial considerations as well as those of efficiency would lead us in this direction.

Beyond this point in the discussion, is beyond my pay grade; but, to talk about energy and leave hydrogen out of the picture is either disingenuous or myopic or both. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to believe it might be disingenuous because we are fully aware of the dominance of “big oil” over the world. We know it to be myopic because hydrogen is too big to ignore. I think a good book to read on this subject is The Hydrogen Economy by Jeremy Rifkin.

Maybe I'm on a football field wearing my baseball suit–completely out of it. Maybe the subject has been discussed extensively, and I have just missed it. Let me know. I'm not always right. What is your take on this subject? I would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Let Us Understand

Day six of the shutdown of our government is upon us, another day in the trenches. Let us understand. This country is in desperately serious trouble. As a whole, our people, after three quarters of a century, living under a false prosperity fostered by exorbitant debt and extravagant living, have become fat, spoiled, lazy, and passive sheep, preyed upon by a “Shadow Government” consisting of the “Power Elite”, pulling the strings from behind the scenes, and a body of elected officials whose primary concern is serving their own interests and perpetuating themselves in office by selling themselves to the former. In conjunction, a major segment of corporate capitalist power in our nation, resorting to slave labor abroad, tax avoidance and evasion at home, and bribery of our elected representatives through campaign contributions, intimidation, and other, has focused their purpose and priority on power and profits, to fill their coffers to the detriment of our people whom they are supposed to serve and their standard of living. The words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt come to mind: “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics.”

Are we ever going to learn? We didn’t learn in 1929; and, it seems, we aren’t learning now. It is déjà vu, all over, again.  

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Entitlements

I turned on the news channel this morning and the first thing I heard was talk about negotiating a reduction of entitlements in order to “reopen” our government. I don’t really like that word, entitlement. For one thing, it is ambiguous. I am not always quite sure what that means. For now, however, I’m going to assume they are talking about Social Security and Medicare. What do you know? Isn't that what I have been telling you? This is the strategy they have been pursuing all along–to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. See?

I don’t know how successful I have been, but I have tried to write my postings to this blog in a discussion mode and not preach. This, however, is one instance when I feel I must. From the viewpoint of one who feels strongly in favor of a strong and prosperous nation with equal opportunity and security for all the people, Social Security and national healthcare are absolutely imperative. We should NEVER let anyone talk us out of or take from us that belief.

I frequently hear from young people, “Social Security will not be around when I retire”. I’ll tell you something folks, Social Security will be here if you want it, but you must be willing to fight for it. It is still true that WE VOTE. That much hasn't changed–YET. In the same vein, so, also, must we continue our fight for national healthcare. We will have nothing if we continue to remain passive and apathetic, looking to others to carry on our citizen responsibilities of governing.

I don’t know how aware you are of this, but we are literally sitting on an economic and social powder keg in this country. I don’t know the exact figure; but, what our illustrious politicians tell us notwithstanding, there are close to twenty million people out of work. And, they continue to remain out of work. Furthermore, they aren't going away. For all the jobs we create, there are just as many (approximately) coming new into the market every day. Many of our unemployed are down and out, hungry, with some living in their cars and on the streets. This isn't light stuff.

If it weren't for Social Security, we would be in a depression right now; and some of our leaders, aka politicians, want to reduce it (i.e. eliminate)? Angrily, I might call them “nuts” or “stupid”. Truthfully, I know they aren't “nuts” or “stupid”.  They are, for the most part, really intelligent people, or they wouldn't be where they are. It’s their integrity I question–even, at times, their patriotism. They know exactly what they’re doing. They know what they are after, and they have a plan to attain their goal. I don’t know what their ultimate goal is, but one can rest assured it isn't for the benefit of your or my interest, the common people in this nation. Neither is it for the benefit of our nation. I submit to you, folks. We are productive in this country–we produce; and we produce everyday enough gross domestic product (GDP) for us to do what we have to do and pay for what we need to pay in order to remain strong, prosperous, and with equal opportunity for all within a balanced budget, if we only will. We produce the money, folks, the only question being who receives it–into whose bank account it goes. The numbers are there for all to see. The growing inequality of income and wealth, and to whom it is going is no secret either. Guess what! It ain't us!

I see these bumper stickers every day that say, “Take back our country”. Oh? What does that mean? Who is going to take it, and from whom is it going to be taken? How? When? I’ll tell you this. It is going to take more than a bumper sticker to get our affairs back in order; but, whatever, it has to begin with YOU.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Negotiations–Government Shutdown

We have arrived! We are there, folks! We have come to the place where the leaders of the Republican Party have been manipulating our nation for these past years, i.e. to negotiate away our safety nets of Social Security and healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid), under the threat of bankruptcy of our nation. They squandered our surplus, ran up our debt and, through deregulation and intentional neglect, put our nation on the verge of financial failure. I’m scared folks–really scared. These people, a minority, are trying to destroy us and our future generations.  Social Security is a must. Healthcare is a must. To reduce the benefits or either will be a disaster for our country. Please, Mr. President, don’t give away the store.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Government Shutdown

The bars in Washington, D.C. were full last night; our government is shut down again; and whom do you think are the losers? Of course, it’s the government workers; and, ultimately, the American people. The children play, and we pay. Are we having fun yet?

I want our Speaker of the House, John Boehner, to answer a question for me. What are he and his people trying to accomplish and why? I just thought of a second question. Are they out of their minds?

Let me give you my take on this from the “gitgo”. This whole thing is a game of political chess with no real issues involved other than a grab for political power which I don’t think will be successful. Maybe I’m wrong. We’ll see. I do know this, however. As this circus plays out, the American people will pay dearly for it in wasted money, lost jobs, and an increasingly faltering economy.

Nevertheless, let’s talk about it. Let’s suppose the issue is to rid ourselves of “Obamacare”, which, if so, it is one whale of a very expensive charade. No way will shutting down our government solve that issue. Does anyone, politics notwithstanding, really think it will? I submit to you, President Obama couldn't approve elimination or, even dilution (for that matter) of his healthcare plan if he wanted to. His whole political heritage is vested in that program. Beyond that, what other issue might there be?

You know my view of the Patient Protection and affordable Care Act (PPACA), i.e. Obamacare. I want to see it replaced by a single payer National Health Insurance (NSI) plan run by the private sector, financed through government (armed with the ability to negotiate prices, eliminating the insurance companies from the picture along with their horrendous administrative expenses and excess profits), on a pay as you go basis by a national sales tax. I outlined the whole concept to you in my blog posting of September 30^th. The benefits of such a plan are exponentially better for our country. But, shutting down our government is not the way to accomplish anything. Doing that only puts on display, for the entire world to see, the ignorance and myopia of those who propose and support such tactics.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

National Healthcare

          I have discussed this subject before; but, especially in light of current events, I would like to discuss it again today–perhaps, even more candidly. I’ll be honest with you. If I were a member of Congress when the Patient Protection and  Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka Obama Care, was passed, I was so angry with rejectionists like the illustrious Kentucky Colonel, Mitch McConnell, I would have voted for that bill without hesitation, even though, however, I was, in all honesty, really not in favor of it. I say to you as I have said to others, the law is an exercise in masturbation. I told that to my friends then; and, also, I wrote President Obama, telling him that, too (He, eventually, thanked me for my letter but didn’t mention the subject of healthcare). Today, four years later, I feel even more negative toward it. This law has good intentions, but it fails the people of this country. I see a train wreck coming. It is coming, and it’s going to hit hard. When it does, the American people are going to be mad as a swarm of bees. Mark my word. Don’t forget I said it, Mister Politician.

It is anything but affordable for the masses of the people; it is confusing, bordering on being unintelligible to most; and it is so complicated and expensive, it could drive all of us, people and government into bankruptcy.   In tackling our problem of healthcare, President Obama made the same mistake as President Clinton; by, in his effort to be conciliatory and bipartisan with the Republican Party, invited the major stakeholders in the medical industrial complex to the negotiating table, assuming that consensus there would bring reform. Who are those stakeholders? They are the pharmaceutical, hospital, physician, and insurance industries–the primary focus of all of them being profits, with the interests of the people being last on their list. They not only fought the administration on this, they fought within against themselves. I ask you. Who ever heard of the customer or client coming in first on the list of any insurance company? Really!

          I submit to you that healthcare is not a commodity like oil, sugar, pork bellies, credit default swaps, housing, automobiles, and so on. Healthcare is not adaptable to or compatible with the free market (a myth at best) in any way, shape, or form. Who beside the most skilled can intelligently evaluate an insurance policy; who but the most skilled physicians can evaluate the abilities of a doctor; when you need to go to the hospital, how often is it you who has the decisive choice as to where to go; and, lastly, who of you is able and has the expertise to knowledgeably determine the proper drugs you should take when you are ill? I am certainly not qualified and neither are almost all of us.

Healthcare is a need of all of us–a need we share in common. Accordingly, it should be governed in common. Healthcare is our RIGHT. How do I justify that? It is stated as such in our Declaration of Independence. We all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We should be allowed to have and enjoy that right. We need a system that will work, one we can afford, and one for which we have the ability to pay (Surely no one thinks it can be free). We need a single payer, national healthcare system modeled after Medicare with, like the VA, the ability to negotiate prices.  

Immediately! I hear someone cry socialism. In this individual instance, why should you care if it works? As one person once said, “It doesn’t matter if the cat is white or the cat is black. The cat we want is the one that catches Mice” (or something like that). A single payer healthcare system will catch mice. If we were talking about the whole country going socialists, we would need, I would think, to sit down and have a long talk about the matter–a very long talk. In this instance, however, no one is even thinking about that. We already know socialism has failed as a whole, so this isn’t even the subject of the matter. We need a system that works for us.

Let me tell you about that word, socialism. The word socialism is inflammatory; used, primarily, to arouse and anger people in order to influence their minds in one direction or another. To most people, it is something bad, from which one will turn away with rejection. We hear it every day from those who don’t believe in government, usually some form of anarchists. It usually comes from those who want to control your mind and lead you in the direction they want you to go. Do you really need that kind of people?

I want to call your attention to a fact of the matter. When Medicare was made into law in the 1960’s, it was up and running in a year. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was passed four years ago and still is not working, some provisions of which are being moved back even now, as we speak. Medicare, on the other hand has been in effect for over forty years and working just fine even now. How about that? Our illustrious politicians haven’t been willing to even so much as give single payer national healthcare a national hearing for consideration. Is that Democracy?

How should we pay for such a plan? I have given a lot of thought to the matter and changed my mind from when I first wrote about “single payer”. Please allow me to bring another issue into the picture, Social Security. This safety net, also, is moving forward to the day when our government allows it to become a national crisis. Social Security, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the most efficient, well run programs, with the lowest costs of administration of any other program in government. A big reason for this success is that the fund is “stand-alone”, “self-funding”, and not included in our general budget. In this way it is highly controlled and does not affect our national deficit. Our biggest problem with financing this program is, in my mind, five-fold, the recession in our economy, the retirement of our “baby boom” generation, our massive unemployment (Whereas, in the past we had more people paying in than those receiving benefits, we now have less paying in–I am told only three paying in now for twelve receiving.), the aging of our people, and increasing disabled coming onto the rolls. Obviously, payments into this fund have to be increased, and cutting benefits and cost of living adjustments is absolutely unacceptable. Having said that, raising payroll taxes on employers and employees (the money is going to have to come from somewhere) will create additional hardship and political tensions no one needs or can stand just now.

Let’s now get back to the question (or issue) of single payer healthcare. It, too, must be financed. Again, it’s not free. It will be expensive, but it will be a lot less expensive than Obamacare–a lot less. I might, also, call your attention to the fact we are not feeling the full pain of even our current healthcare expenses, as exaggerated as they are. We are paying for a lot of them “on the cuff”–it’s in our deficit. But I digress. We should administer single payer healthcare in the same manner as we do Social Security, with a stand-alone fund into which go all receipts and out of which go all disbursements. In no way should the accounting for healthcare be mingled with the accounting for government. In no way should healthcare funding be allowed to affect our deficit. Tax rates for payments into both the healthcare and the Social Security funds should be automatically adjusted annually for any expense overruns or surpluses. So I don’t cause confusion, in no way should our stand-alone healthcare fund be co-mingled with our Social Security fund. The accounting for both must be kept completely separate and open to the public.

Now, let’s get to the question for which you have been so patiently waiting (if we have come this far and you are still with me, you must be patient). How should we pay for this? I believe we should create two separate and apart national Federal Sales Taxes, a separate sales tax for each fund. For states which presently have sales taxes, we should take advantage of their systems in order to prevent duplication in costs, using them for collection. For states without sales taxes, currently, they should set up a system and be reimbursed by the government for collection. These taxes should be itemized separately on every sales receipt, separate from those of the state.

In conclusion, what will we accomplish by all this?

We will have a national single payer cradle to the grave healthcare system, the cost of which will be much more acceptable to the taxpayer.

We should save trillions of dollars by eliminating insurance profits and reducing healthcare costs through allowing government to negotiate prices (this suggestion presumes that healthcare remains private and government is the single payer). Additional savings should, also, be realized by increased efficiencies.

Employer and employee payroll taxes will be eliminated, a boon to both and a stimulus to the economy.

Healthcare will no longer be a “monkey” on the back of business.

The pressure for reduced work weeks will be eliminated.

Uncertainty of the future will be reduced and business will be better able to plan.

The adjustments and uncertainty surrounding both healthcare and Social Security will be resolved, the tax rates being adjusted annually.

The immense and horrendous worry by our people will be significantly reduced.

And last, but not least, hopefully our people will be more at ease and stable.

Let’s quit fighting. Let’s quit arguing and bickering. Let’s quit the politicking and put our country first. Let’s pull together and  get the job done. Let us implement single payer healthcare and protect our Social Security. This is just one more step in taking back our country from the “power elite”, our Shadow Government. Get with your representatives today. Unlike those of whom we spoke, above, we can’t pay them off, but we can let them know where we stand and how we vote.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Our News Media

Have you noticed how bad our news reporting has become in these current times? I am one of those who try to keep abreast of what is happening around me; and I have to tell you our news media, from my perspective, does not do a very good job. I find it to be very disappointing. I have sent emails to some, but to no avail. I don’t even get the courtesy of an answer. Depending on your particular interests, you may or may not agree with me, but here are my views for you to consider.

I have written before about the purpose of a business being to fulfill a need, the need of its customer(s) or client(s)–to provide a product or service. That’s the purpose of a business–the only purpose. To do that profitably, service should be the primary focus and priority of the business. What has happened is that business has changed its priority and focus from service to the maximization of profit. Everything else comes last–customers, employees, our nation, and on.

I don’t sit and time these things using a stopwatch, and I’m not going to now; but it appears to me that we are experiencing more and more commercials and less news. The majority of the time when I tune in my favorite news station, a commercial will come up. It seems there are more commercials than programming. It has gotten so bad I watch that particular channel half as much as I used to watch it. There is increasing entertainment, gossip, political propaganda, and what people like to hear, but less news.

Let me give you some examples. What triggered our financial crisis in 2008 was the market crash in credit default swaps (derivatives). At the time, I heard there were $400 Trillion of them in the world market. On the same news program a couple weeks or so later a different executive reported there were $900 Trillion in existence. Our whole world GDP only amounts to around $70 Trillion Dollars. Think about that. Don’t you think the accuracy of those numbers has worldwide importance? I have hardly heard any reporting on credit default swaps since. Why?

Another example–The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report on the causes of the 2008 financial and economic crisis reported in January, 2011 that twenty one million people were unemployed. I think that is important, if not critical, news. When was the last time you were updated on unemployment today? I’m not talking about this fiction you hear, like 7.6%, etc. How many people are out of a job today–including those who are part time only or given up looking? I submit to you that many, if not most of them, will never find meaningful employment again in their lifetime. Don’t you think that is important? Are they to meld into the woodwork to be forever forgotten?

For the sake of brevity, I’ll give you one last example. You remember, don’t you, the killing of a suspect in the Boston bombing in Orlando? Allegedly, he was a friend or had some kind of relationship with the bomber in Boston. He was reported as having been led into a room in Orlando for questioning by the FBI when he lunged at the questioning agent, who shot and killed him. It’s my understanding that suspects are searched for weapons, when they are detained, before they are questioned. Was this the shooting of an unarmed man? In light of our belief in justice, i.e. a suspect is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, don’t you think the media should follow that story right down to reporting the findings of its investigation? Don’t you think knowledge of that event is in the public interest? The story of the young woman who murdered her boyfriend was on the news for weeks just a while back, including her sex acts. In my opinion, that had nothing to do with the public interest, but it was reported in infinite detail. Rather than being reported as news, it was, I think, entertainment.

Another disturbing aspect of today’s news has to do with editorializing by journalists. An anchor will be interviewing an “expert” on a particular subject. He or she will persistently interrupt and argue with the expert. What’s wrong with this picture? I want to hear the expert, the one with the expertise. I don’t want to hear the opinion of one who is the less knowledgeable on the subject.

When I turn to the news, I want to be informed; I want to be educated; I want to hear the pros and cons of the issue being reported; what I don’t want to hear is the opinion of the reporter. I’ll make up my own mind. What do you want to hear? What’s your view?

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Justice–Real Justice

I read an article in my local paper, The Jacksonville Times Union, recently, regarding the owner of a tree service company who, charged with aggravated manslaughter, is facing thirty years in prison because a fourteen year old employee of his was killed, falling out of a seventy foot tall tree. As I understand, the owner of the business was in violation of OSHA regulations, allowing this young man to perform hazardous work. I write this with not a little trepidation because of my feelings for the parties involved and the tragedy they have suffered. I have never met either of them, but I can feel their pain. I mean that; but, feelings notwithstanding, there is a problem here far bigger for our nation than the problem at hand.

Perhaps this business owner should be charged with something. He violated an OSHA safety regulation–but, aggravated manslaughter? Presumably, this is the owner of a very small business. Has he even ever heard of OSHA? I want to tell you something, people. There is another business, J.P. Morgan, which has just been convicted of committing a serious crime that caused many  people and/or business to lose millions, if not billions, of dollars. I don’t know how many bankruptcies, broken homes and, possibly, even suicides may have been caused by this event, and the perpetrator(s) did not serve one day in jail. Their company was fined, I have read, one of the greatest fines in history for such an offense, which their stakeholders had to absorb–but not the offenders. Where is the justice in that?

Another example–in 2008, our nation suffered the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression because of downright greed, fraud, and negligence in our nation’s financial sector, from which we still have not recovered. Millions remain unemployed. I don’t know how many bankruptcies, broken homes and, possibly, even suicides may have been caused by this event, also; and, again, the perpetrator(s) did not serve one day in jail. Where is the justice in that?

Let me give you one more example, the detail of which I have copied from Wikipedia: “In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA plead guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in US history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.

In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims. In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.” And who was HCA’s chief executive, responsible for the management of the company? His name is Rick Scott. And what was his penalty? He was forced to resign, paid $9.88 million in a settlement, and left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million, and in 2011, the people of the State of Florida elected him governor (something else to think about).

          Somebody tell me why this young man, owner of a small tree service business, should spend thirty years, the prime of his life, in prison. This is what we call justice? Or, is justice just for the poor?

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Left, Right, What?

‘You know? When one thinks about the words, left, right, conservative, and liberal, it is very interesting. Studying the matter just a little further, I turned to my dictionary to search, first, for the definition of the word(s), right wing (as you might expect, my thinking was politically oriented), when the words, noble and commoner, were added to the process.

The New Oxford American Dictionary (right out of my amazonkindle) defines “the right wing” as: “the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system, <ORIGIN> with reference to the National Assembly in France (1789-91), where the nobles sat to the president’s right and the commons to the left”. My take on this (I confess. This is where personal pride and prejudice shows its ugly face), is that nobles are better than commoners. Now, I must tell you, I don’t like that. Reality and common happenstance notwithstanding, it just doesn't go down right with me. I consider myself a commoner (and I am); and, there is no way (expletive delete) I accept another, as better than me. Commoners on the left, nobles on the right–that’s something to think about, now isn't it.  

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Our Fiscal Cliff

Our illustrious Congress is looking high and low for cost reductions in government in order to make it smaller, reduce the deficit and, consequently, begin a pay down of our national debt–a noble cause if there ever was one. Whoop de doo! I know no other way to say this than to just come out and say it with all candor. The root cause of the current financial condition of our country lies squarely in the lap of our illustrious Congress in the first place. They are the ones who brought this whole mess down upon us–and, they did it with full knowledge of what they were doing–I call it, “with malice and forethought”. They are those who, under our Constitution, are charged with the responsibility of managing our nation’s affairs. And what happened? We elected them; we trusted them; and they betrayed us. Perhaps not all of them, but the net results are in and the facts are on the table. Our nation is in deep doo, and they put us where we are–the very people we trusted and elected. Now, they spend their time (and our money) arguing, bickering, playing political chess, and pointing fingers at one another.

If you don’t believe I’m telling you the truth, check out our constitution which outlines the responsibilities of our elected representatives. See for yourselves who is responsible for spending our nation’s money. “Go back to 1981” (figuratively, of course) and read a little history, coming forward to the present. Be sure to read about the theory of “Starving the Beast” from which our spending habits were derived–habits which brought us to our current position.

At the end of our fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, immediately before President Ronald Reagan entered office, our national debt was approximately $ 990 BILLION. Now, that is about as close to zero as you are going to see in your lifetime or probably the lifetime of your children if not your grandchildren. Eight years later, just before President Reagan left office, our national debt had increased 187%, almost triple. When President George H. W. Bush left office, our debt increased another 56%, not quite doubled. When President William Clinton left office, our debt had increased only 40% with the budget substantively balanced and with a surplus (NO DEFICIT) projected for years ahead. We were, finally, in a position to begin paying down our national debt. When President George W. Bush left office eight years later, just after the end of our fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, our national debt was $10 TRILLION, with an increase for his term of 77%, almost double that at the end of the Clinton administration–this on top of the surplus Clinton left him. In addition, George W. left a national deficit of more than a $Trillion, a nation in financial chaos, and a deep recession with twenty-one million people unemployed (And, for the most part, they still are. The only thing that prevented our going further on into a great depression was our safety nets of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment Insurance, programs we didn’t have in 1932, programs of the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, and the bailout and economic stimulus packages initiated at the time).

In these 28 years since the Carter administration (20 years of which were under a Republican president), our total debt increased $9 Trillion–1,004%.  Under five years of President Obama, our debt has increased another $7 Trillion on top of that, reflecting carry-over of the bailouts incurred by the financial crisis, deficit carry-over from the prior administration and stimulus expenditures incurred in the administration’s attempt to stimulate the economy from the recession caused by the financial crash of 2008. Nobody talks about this–not the Democrats, not the news media, and certainly not the Republican, the biggest complainers about spending of all (and the biggest spenders, also, obviously).

The Middle East wars we fought notwithstanding, what is really behind all of this? What is the hidden agenda? I’ll tell you what I think it is. Certain people among us have decided we should not have such programs as Social Security and National Health Care. They think these kinds of programs are Socialism. If they can spend us to the verge of bankruptcy, our fiscal cliff if you will, they will then be able to force us to bargain away these programs in order to come back to a balanced budget. If you don’t believe what I am saying, step back, and look again. Look at Grover Norquist. Who elected him to solicit binding agreements from our representatives whom we elected? Whose payroll is he on? We’re back to the power elite, the one percent again, aren’t we? Look and listen to those who constantly shout for lower taxes when Federal Income Tax rates are the lowest in years. The top one percent certainly isn’t paying taxes according to their ability to pay as the law was intended. You can surely see that. How many corporations are not paying taxes, sheltering their money in foreign territories? Relative to those who are advocating health savings accounts, privatizing social security, or investing social security monies in annuities, what is their point? Their point is they want that money in their banks rather than our public funds. That’s what their point is.

I have tried to think out of the box on this one and have a suggestion for a cost reduction, which over the years will save us many billions of dollars. Since they haven’t been accomplishing anything anyway, wasting their time arguing, bickering, stalling, going on junkets, etc., etc., let’s reduce the size of Congress. We don’t need that many people anyway. For that matter, most of them aren’t even there most of the time. It takes at least two for a debate; and, haven’t you noticed, most of the time they spend their time reading to an empty audience anyway. Let’s reduce The House of Representatives from 435 members to 218 and the Senate from 100 to 50. Of course we would need to do this carefully so as not to change existing political party balances. That kind of change is best effected at the voting booths. Now that I think about it, why don't we go all the way and eliminate the Senate altogether and have our fifty Governors perform that function in addition to what they are now doing. Our big corporations would term that as increasing productivity. Wow! That’s an idea. That would reduce the size of government–wouldn't it. 

What our politicians tell us notwithstanding, I believe our country remains under the threat of continued financial crisis, mass unemployment, and long term economic decline. We desperately need to get our house in order and do it now. Our national sovereignty and our people’s safety and well being are far more important than the pocketbook of the elite or anything else, this side of heaven.

This is where I stand. Where are you?

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

Gun Control

Almost always when politicians discuss an issue–any issue, there is, usually, the ostensible issue at hand, and there is the hidden issue–the seen and the unseen, as Frederic Bastiat would say. So it is with the issue of gun control and our second amendment.

I will first address what I believe is the hidden issue–the unseen; and that is the removal of guns from everybody–every home within our nation. A people without guns are a controlled people. Hitler proved that. As Hitler also learned, however, for the most part, only the “good” people gave up their guns. As to the criminals, were they not part of the resistance?

Let us now discuss the seen agenda–gun control. Ostensibly, if we can control the buying and selling of guns within our country, we can reduce to a minimum, if not eliminate, the mass shootings and killings, tragedies, which we are now experiencing almost daily (Well, it may not be quite as frequent as that, but it sure seems that way). Frankly, I don’t believe that. I submit to you that if we outlawed guns completely and repealed the second amendment tomorrow, such tragedies would continue to occur–the only difference would be the use of different weapons. These tragedies are not caused by guns. They may be facilitated by them, but guns are not the cause. Essentially, these tragedies emanate from one or a combination of two causes, mental illness and anger, both of which appear to be on the increase every day, and our government seems set on exacerbating them–another subject for another time.

There is another aspect to this subject. We already have laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It is against the law to commit a crime with a gun. It is against the law to commit murder. It is against the law for a felon to own a gun. One cannot legally buy a gun without identifying himself. We have computers which can track felons, gun sales, and just about everything else; and yet, we don’t seem to effectively do that. We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books. It seems to me.

In conjunction with this, we have problems with gangs in our country. We talk about them; we occasionally arrest some of them; we know who they are and what they do; we have been following their activities for years on end, forever investigating them; and, yet, we seem to never do anything to eliminate the problem. I don’t know. Perhaps this is what we want.  

 Also, we have abominable drop-out rates in our schools about which we, for the most part, do nothing. Maybe I misspoke. We do “dumb down” curriculums, cut school budgets, increase class sizes, and do away with discipline, for whatever all that is worth to our nation and society as a whole. To this, I want to make a side comment. We all aren't blessed with the same level of intelligence, but a little hard work will go a long way toward equalizing our knowledge. There are a lot of very smart people out there who don’t know a “hill of beans”.

 But I digress. Here I am talking about subjects which I said above are for another day. Besides, these are problems for someone else to worry about. These aren't our problems. What we need is gun control. What do you think?

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net

What Are We Going to Do?

          When you read our Declaration of Independence; when you read the Preamble to our Constitution; when you read our Constitution; and then, when you read the amendments, including our bill of rights, to our Constitution; how can you doubt, as President Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg in November of 1863, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom–and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”. From all that has gone before, how can we doubt that? And yet, despite all we have sacrificed and endured throughout the history of our great nation and all the blood which has been shed by our valiant soldiers on the battlefields here and abroad, we the people have effectively lost control of our government. Our government is no longer “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Rather, our government is of the power elite (essentially, the top one percent of us), by the power elite, and for the power elite. Extending their tentacles, acting through the media and those whom we term lobbyists, they have brainwashed us with misinformation and propaganda and bought out our elected representatives to such an extent that we the people no longer have control of our government. Our great nation has become their playground and we are slowly but surely becoming their serfs.

Probably the final nail in our coffin was in the form of Citizens United v. FEC, when the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-4 margin ruled that corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections. Effectively, the Court ruled that corporations have the right of free speech, the same as people. Corporations are people. How many people outside of those belonging to the one percent do you know who can stand up to that kind of political power? The net result is that our elected representatives pay little or no attention to us. We the people are no longer in charge. As I said before, our government is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

What are we going to do? How can our people take back our government? Just for starters, we need new amendments to the Constitution:

We need corporations to remain legal entities. However, we must amend the Constitution to the effect that corporations are not people; and, therefore, do not enjoy the benefit of our bill of rights. They do not have the right of free speech.

We must amend the Constitution to the effect that all elections will be publicly funded from the public treasury, Federal, State, and Local, with caps per campaign to be set for all expenditures; no candidate will be allowed to use his or her personal assets nor those of family to finance campaigns; no candidate will be allowed to solicit or accept outside contributions other than those provided from the public treasury; and all campaigns will be limited to six (6) months duration. Separate “standalone” funds will be established for each elections entity to account for all campaign transactions and financed by single fully identifiable tax assessments “earmarked” for each entry, i.e. strict accounting control.

In the conduct of all elections within our nation (Federal, State, and Local), through another amendment to the Constitution, we need to establish fair and consistent voting laws throughout, wherein all candidates and parties are treated equal and have equal opportunity under the law. Multiple political parties should be allowed with equal opportunity upon which to be voted.

We should reorganize our government into four branches, adding a “Branch of the Controller”, with the complete responsibility for accounting, control, reporting, budgeting and planning, internal auditing, and investigative reporting over all operations, including subcontractors and the capital police, throughout government. To those opposed to bigger government, I must emphasize that this change should not and must not increase the size of government one twit. Every function indicated in this recommendation is being performed currently throughout our government. This recommendation will put all these functions under one head, thereby eliminating duplication of functions and costs as well as (currently a problem), the fox guarding the henhouse. I further recommend that the head of this new branch of government be appointed by the President, approved by the Senate, and serve an indefinite term, renewable every eight years. If he would be willing to accept the offer, I recommend we begin with General David Walker who is intimately familiar with the inter-working of our government and of excellent character. He should be given all authority and power necessary to successfully implement and execute the responsibility of this position.

Let us take back our government folks. Let’s get business and government back to serving the people rather than the people serving them. It’s up to you. Only if we work together can we achieve this end. What do you think?

Ronald Miller

mtss86@bellsouth.net