The Benefits of Being over 60

Trust me, I've done more than my share of complaining about aging.  Those complaints include increased aches and pains, loss of stamina and strength, and even a dulling of memory.  However, in the past few years I've come to rejoice in the fact that I've lived most of my life and won't have to face a bleak future.  The times, they truly are a'changing and not for the better.  I no longer envy the young, in any way possible.

My generation, in my estimation, lived through the best of times of American history.  We also, for the most part, benefited from a high point in education on all levels.  From kindergarten through graduate school, our educational system reached its zenith.  As baby boomers we had benefits both from having parents who lived through WWII and the Great Depression and living through major progressive changes ourselves.  Our parents witnessed and/or experienced the advent of Social Security and FDR's implementation of massive expansion and improvements in our infrastructure, from roads, to bridges and dams.  That isn't saying everything was good.  The development of the atomic bomb, the bombing of Hiroshima, the Holocaust showcased the worst of humanity.

In the 1950s President Eisenhower oversaw the building of interstate highways, connecting our nation as never before.  In the 1960s we saw the first steps toward equality for all humans, recognizing people of color and women as fully human, although that fight still continues today.  The passing of the Civil Rights Act and the advent of the Second Wave of feminism helped to provide previously unavailable opportunities to a large segment of our population.  President Johnson got Medicare passed, so that the elderly wouldn't have to go without affordable and accessible health care.  Add to all this the fact that we had the best music ever - Elvis Presley, Motown, Crosby/Stills/Nash & Young, the Beatles, Carole King, James Taylor, just to name a few of my personal favorites.  As time progressed, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, and LGBT persons were coming out of the closet and beginning to be "granted" their rights as humans as well. 

What does the future hold that concerns and worries me so much?  I'll try to make the list concise:

• CLIMATE CHANGE
• AN EROSION OF RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY FOR WOMEN
• A WORLDWIDE FAILING OF ECONOMIES
• INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT/POVERTY
• INCREASED VIOLENCE, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH WARS
• EXTINCTION OF MORE AND MORE SPECIES OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS
• WORLD HUNGER
• BIGGER AND MORE FREQUENT NATURAL AND MAN MADE DISASTERS
• INCREASED DESERTIFICATION
• LACK OF SUFFICIENT CLEAN WATER, IN OUR OCEANS, LAKES, RIVERS - EVERYWHERE
• INCREASED RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY BY ALL RELIGIONS

During a time when we, as Americans, have access to a larger amount of information via the Internet, most of us remain complacent and uninformed of the dangers which are happening, whether in our own backyards or worldwide.   It seems to me that only a small percentage of Americans are actually paying attention.  Too many are simply struggling to get by, day to day.  Others just don't care, continuing to believe that things will get better and there isn't anything to worry about.  And still others resort to paranoia about fantasy bogey-men (like the UN Agenda 21).

A couple of articles that I read this morning prompted me to put up this post.  First is this from Alternet - Alaska Militia Leader sentenced to prison   I highly recommend checking out the website for the Southern Poverty Law Center to find out more about militias and hate groups, and their astronomical rise in the past four years - Hate and Extremism

And one final link has to do with President Obama's nomination of Jack Lew for Treasury Secretary.  Although I had wished he would appoint Sheila Bair, former chair of the FDIC, I never expected that to happen.  Soon to be former Treasury Secretary had helped get her booted from the early White House team.  I would have been just as happy had either Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz or David Cay Johnston been the nominee.  I never expected that to happen either.  I hadn't been concerned about Lew, despite his wacky & arrogant signature after hearing Obama's glowing introduction to the nomination.  Additionally, NPR made a point to say that Lew had photos of the FDR programs gracing his office walls, implying that Lew was supportive of these programs.  This interview on Alternet changed my mind and put a knot in my stomach.  Below is a quote about Jack Lew from Professor William Black:

So—and he has the history, in one sense, correct. He says the problem arose before deregulation. That’s true that derivatives were already a problem before deregulation. And so, Brooksley Born proposes to deal with the problem by having a regulation to deal with credit default swaps. And then the Clinton administration, in league with Greenspan, in league with Phil Gramm, and with one of the important architects of all of this being Jack Lew, squashes Brooksley Born to destroy the proposed regulation and to pass something, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act—talk about a dishonest phrase—that not only said, "You, Brooksley Born, cannot go forward with this particular regulation," the statute actually said, "We hereby withdraw all regulatory powers to protect the nation, period. From the federal government, from the state and local governments, we exempt you from the gambling laws. We exempt you from the boiler room laws to prevent fraudulent operations." It’s one of the most extraordinary abusive things in the world, heavily involved with AIG’s ability to produce not just the disaster atAIG, but the disaster of credit—of the CDOs that blew up a larger portion of the world. And those CDOs would not have been possible without these credit default swaps.

Again, I had held out hope that Obama would get Congress to re-instate Glass-Steagall.  That ain't gonna happen with Jack Lew at the helm of Treasury.

For more about Glass-Steagall, check out these links:
Glass-Steagall

Interestingly, Sandy Weil, formerly of Citigroup and advocate for the repeal of this law, has reversed his position and sees the error of his ways now that it's too late: Sandy Weil + Glass-Steagall

No Comment

I think this video speaks for itself.  If you haven't already voted, watch this first.

Wisconsin Recall Election – My Take on it

My anticipation about Tuesday’s election was high.  My information about the how, why, when and what of this recall election came from the Left side of politics.  I generally avoid the blogs and the radio and television shows of the Right.  

I am pro-union because I am pro-worker.  No business can operate without employees, no business can succeed without employees.  Employees are a vital part of any business and are, all too often, dismissed or ignored when the success of owners and CEOs are applauded.  And unions give employees a voice in working conditions, employee safety, wages, health care and pensions.  Within large companies and/or corporations individual employees have relatively no chance to ensure their health and welfare, along with what they are paid.  That isn’t saying that employee versus employer is a good guy versus bad guy situation.  It is more like one person, with no weapons, facing another armed with guns, ample ammunitions, tanks, missiles and more.  Or even going into a poker game where one person is dealt a single card while the other has six cards.  It simply isn’t a level playing field.  

Regardless of what news outlet you follow, there have been a wide variety of speculations, theories and hypotheses about why the election turned out as it did.  Personally, I don’t think the outcome can be narrowed down to one single reason that Walker won the election or that Barrett lost. 

Walker is only the third governor in U.S. history to face a recall.  The other two both lost and were recalled.  Each of the political pundits is feverishly competing to come up with the definitive explanation for this outcome.  Personally I think the bigger story is the solidification of the division between the opposing sides and the repercussions which will follow for, not only, the state of Wisconsin but the rest of the country as well.  Families and friendships have broken apart because of this battle.  For me it seems our  increasingly  contentious political system is becoming as toxic as the lead up to the Civil War and the animosity between those who supported slavery and the abolitionists.  

Initially, I felt certain that the imbalance of money in the election would be the determining factor in the election (Walker is estimated to have outspent Barrett 7 to 1).  After reading some of the post election coverage, I am not so sure that the enormous amount of money spent (estimated at $60 million) really had much impact on how people voted.  In one post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/wisconsin-recall-vote_n_1572662.html) it was pointed out that the vote split in the recall almost matched the initial faceoff between Walker and Barrett.  Basically the people of Wisconsin voted this time the way they voted in the governor’s race in 2010.  The undecided voters only amounted to about 8%, with new voters accounting for around 13%.  To me that means that those 8% were the only ones who might have been influenced by “the money” issue.  The article goes on to say that Walker managed to turn out a higher percentage of his original supporters than did Barrett.  

Recall elections are few and far between in the U.S., as evidenced by my earlier point that Walker is only the third governor in our history to face a recall election.  Several sources, including the one I’ve cited above, have put forth that about a third of people polled don’t support recall elections unless the politician has done something egregious, like committing a crime.  Their political affiliation doesn’t matter.  The seriousness of the offense is the concern of to the voting public regardless of political party.  What that says to me is that most voters believe in democracy, meaning the voters have chosen and the person with the most votes, whether or not you voted for him/her, is the winner.  Shut up, bite the bullet and let the winner serve out their term.  (NOTE:  I am not saying that I believe we actually live in a democracy, but that the general public believes in democracy and that our American system is a democracy……..because that is what they have been told.  The formerly and currently disenfranchised probably have a different perspective).   

Add to this that the opinion of unions, unlike in the mid 20^th century, is mostly negative.  After about 50 years of chipping away at the number of American workers who belong to a union or have a union member in the family, the number of union workers has declined substantially.  Where once both union and non-union workers banded together in solidarity, it has become a mostly contentious relationship, where union workers are seen as greedy, lazy and recipients of unfair pay scales, benefits and pensions.  Big business has succeeded in demonizing the collective power of unions who were responsible for the 5 day 40 hours work week, minimum wage, paid sick time and the formation of OSHA to protect the safety of workers on their job.  For me, that is the story, not the fact that Walker successfully kept his job.  It’s the workers and employees of America  that are the losers in this race.  

Random Thoughts on the Presidential Campaign & Politics

I’ve been spending an inordinate amount of time watching MSNBC (love Rachel Maddow), the endless Republican debates (thank you Brian Williams for silencing the audience), reading the amazingly informative, intelligent blog and comments at Skydancing (http://skydancingblog.com/) and, of course, watching and loving The Daily Show. 

Initially my reaction to Mittens releasing his tax returns was “Ho Hum.”  He’s rich.  Knew that.  He pays his taxes at the legal rate.  Knew that, too.  Then I watched last night’s Daily Show and, thanks to the wonderful staff on the show, Jon Stewart provided some background information that it would be wonderful if every American knew.  Mittens was shown stating that he pays his taxes according to the law and that he didn’t think the American people would expect (or want) a candidate who paid more than they actually owed.  On the surface, that sounds reasonable.  But Jon pointed out that Mittens didn’t tell the whole story.  Back in 2007, Chuck Grassley (a Republican Senator) had sponsored a bill to raise the taxes on capital gains and carried interest.  Mittens and his hedge fund, venture capitalist buddies formed a lobbying group to fight this bill.  And, amazingly, the bill went nowhere.  The tax rate on these ‘funds” remained at 15% instead of being increased to 35%.  Watch the segment here:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/indecision-2012---i-know-what-you-did-last-quarter?xrs=share_copy

On the same show, Jon’s guest was Elizabeth Warren who is running for Senate in Massachusetts against Tea Party favorite, Scott Brown.  Here’s a link for the interview, Part 1:  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/exclusive---elizabeth-warren-extended-interview-pt--1?xrs=share_copy   In the clip Ms. Warren says that the top 50 (I believe) companies in the U.S. spend more money on their lobbying efforts than they pay in taxes. 

But back to Mittens.  After The Daily Show I then moved on to Hardball.  Matthews talked more about Mittens’ wealth -he makes from his investments about $ 58,000 A DAY!  And he doesn’t actually WORK a single day a year.  That’s more than I make in an entire year, working 35 hours or more 52 weeks a year.  It got me to thinking about the Republican rhetoric surrounding the Obama Administration’s and the Democrats in Congress call for letting the Bush tax cuts expire for Americans making over $ 1 million dollars a year.  The Republicans rallying cry:  don’t increase taxes on The Job Creators!  Taxing them more would stifle economic growth.  It would prevent them from creating jobs to the unemployed and underemployed in America.  And I thought, just how many jobs has Mittens created with his tax break during the time he stopped going to work?  He left Bain Capital in 1999.  He served as Massachusetts governor from 2003 – 2007.  For all intents and purposes, Mittens has been “unemployed” for at least 4 years, years when our unemployment rate soared.  If he is the astute business leader he says he is, why didn’t he come to the rescue with his reduced taxes windfall and start a business?  Create jobs for people?  Put that money to work to improve the economic outlook for hundreds or even thousands of Americans?  How many of the other uber-wealthy like him who are living on the interest from their investments have taken the same path as Mittens?  How many have simply sat back and kept their hands wrapped tightly around their wealth while the middle class collapsed, thousands upon thousands of families lost their homes and the ranks of the homeless swelled across the country? 

The 1% are NOT job creators, they are wealth protectors – their wealth and that of their cronies.  It’s THEIRS, all theirs and damn it, they are going to keep it for themselves.  America, stop being fooled by the rhetoric, the empty catch phrases.  The 1% understand self interest and it’s past time for average, every day Americans to do the same.  Vote like your very life and livelihood depend upon it, because they do.  Vote YOUR self interest, not THEIR self interest. 

REALITY CHECK: Republican debate in South Carolina

Based on previous debates and the intervening press coverage, I’ve actually been looking forward to this particular debate.  From the outset, it was obvious that the candidates had been studying, practicing and getting educated on foreign policy and national security. 

Based upon the candidates’ resumes and past performances, I fully expected Herman Cain to exhibit how little he knows about the rest of the world and the United States’ place in the world.  He fielded the first question and, frankly, he surprised me.  It’s not that I think he’s not intelligent, it’s that he has continuously relied upon what he considers his sense of humor when answering questions or walked circles around those questions without providing a clear answer.  

  

While each candidate actually – much to my surprise – said some things with which I found myself agreeing, the only two candidates who made the most reasoned and responsible responses were Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman.  Huntsman, for whom it amazes me that hardcore Republicans haven’t rallied to, lost me when he stated that his economic plan was simply three words – THE RYAN PLAN.  I was so stunned that it took me nearly five minutes to realize that he meant the Paul Ryan Plan.  OMG!  Huntsman has in the past said some things that seriously bothered me, but this – THIS was beyond the pale.  

Former Governor Romney answered a question about Iran and nuclear weapons by saying he would wage war against them to prevent a nuclear program in Iran.  My follow up question to him would have been – “would you send your four sons to Iran to fight?”  This man is pro-war now, as he was during the last presidential election, yet his four sons have not done military service.  As President he would be willing to send the sons and daughters of other Americans into battle.  Why not his own?

Newt Gingrich – well, he was/is Newt Gingrich.  His arrogance and condescension were, as always, front and center.  His demeanor is part teacher, part dictator, always self-promoter whenever he has the microphone.  He is well-educated and probably the smartest person in this field, but his ego is too enormous to measure.  And I rarely agree with his version/interpretation of history, recent or otherwise.  

What disturbs me about all political campaigns, regardless of political party, are the promises.  One person cannot change our laws, our policies or our government.  “If I am elected” or “when I am elected”  I will do (fill in the blank).  They can try, they don’t succeed nearly all of the time.  What the voters must do is change their focus from promises and demand that candidates provide us with their honest answers to questions about their positions on issues, their values and who they really are.  A few of them have – Bachmann, Santorum and Paul.  Others tell the voters what they want to hear – Romney, Gingrich and Perry.  Cain bobs and weaves and avoids.  Huntsman is treated as an afterthought in these debates and gets little or no press coverage. 

It is up to the voters to educate themselves, not only the issues that are the top priorities for them but, on all of the issues.  And it is important to look at both sides of an issue.  The side that you traditionally oppose might, possibly, have valid points that your side doesn’t discuss or take into account.  Don’t rely on sound bites.  Catch phrases rarely capture everything involved in an issue or in implementation. DIG DEEPER!

Voters also need to know on which issues the President can make a difference.  We have three branches of government so that power is not concentrated in the hands of one or only a few.  The President doesn’t MAKE laws, the Congress is charged with doing that.  The President can sign a bill into law or veto it.  So, what issues are important to you? 

Although I have serious problems with President Obama, I will be voting for him once again.  The environment is my number one priority.  Some of the positions he has taken have been of concern to me.  His appointment of Ken Salazar to head the Interior Department bothers me.  Approving deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and allowing a lease offshore in the Arctic are simply wrong.  However, I know that none of the Republican candidates, except possibly Huntsman, have any concerns about protecting the planet or the impact of environmental degradation on the health and well-being of Americans.  Yes, jobs and the economy are a priority, however, Republicans in general do not see the connection between working toward a sustainable, clean environment, which will provide jobs, national security and a healthier country.  

Many of the Republican candidates talk about American exceptionalism and our position as world leader.  Shouldn’t we be leading in clean energy?  Shouldn’t we be leading in preventing debilitating diseases and providing exceptional healthcare to our citizens?  Shouldn’t we be leading in helping people escape from poverty?  Shouldn’t we excel in educating our youth?  Should we continue to export our bad habits?  American exceptionalism will only return when we show we care about all Americans and giving all Americans the opportunity to be the best that each individual can be and are able to realize their full potential.  Which candidate cares more about YOU than about themselves and those who fund their race for the Presidency?  Who do you trust to look out for YOUR self-interest and success?

And, in closing, I’d like to add the following from my brilliant mentor and personal editor, Judith V:

“Because “this is America,” the majority of us think someday we will be rich, and it’s always been thus. For hundreds of years, settlers, then immigrants, came here because “getting rich was not just the right of kings.”  Well, don’t vote your aspirations – 99% of us working class people will never enter the top 1%, so why vote for people and policies that favor this very small minority and keep you working two jobs and in debt up to your eyeballs. We must always, always vote “our realities and NOT our aspirations,” otherwise we will remain indentured to that top 1%!”

Happy Days Are Here Again?

The race for the Presidency of the United States is in full swing.  The candidates for the Republican nomination have been busy traveling the country, participating in debates, giving media interviews and just plain speechifying.  What have we learned so far?  Here’s my take on The Issues:

• They are pro-life.  Translation:  they are pro-fetal life and anti-abortion.  To see their positions on the already living, see the other points below.

o   Rick Perry loves to hunt.  In fact, he’s gone hunting with the Champion of Thrill Killing, Ted Nugent.  Apparently his pro-life stance doesn’t extend to other species.

o   Mitt Romney, many years ago, put the family Irish Setter in a crate and tied the crate to the top of the family station wagon for a road trip to Canada from Massachusetts.  Back then, though, he was pro-choice.  I’m willing to bet, had the dog been given a choice, he would have preferred to ride inside the car.  

• The Federal Government spends too much money.  Translation:  social problems, education, Social Security and Medicare are bankrupting our country.  The wars and the Department of Defense, on the other hand, need even more money. 

o   Mitt Romney has four grown sons, none of whom have served in the military.  Even one of England’s princes has served in the Afghan/Iraq wars.

o   The wars in Afghanistan & Iraq (money only, not lives) is approaching $ 1.3 trillion dollars

o   The latest budget for the Defense Department is $ 680 billion dollars.

• The Department of Education is bad.  Michelle Bachman wants to dismantle it and the others want to decrease its budget.

• Climate change isn’t real.  Rick Perry accuses scientists of making it up to obtain grant money.

• Obamacare is bad.  I abhor this moniker.  The health care plan was negotiated in Congress and passed by Congress, it was not a Presidential order, nor written by the President.  In 2010, 26% of Americans do not have health care coverage. 

•  The issue that is the top concern of most Americans, jobs, is an issue that most of the candidates agree on.  They want to cut corporate taxes (even though many corporations, because of allowed deductions and write-offs, tax loopholes and savvy accountants, pay little or no taxes already) and lower the tax rates for the “job creators.”  Of course after 10 years of the Bush tax cuts, those so-called job creators have slashed jobs instead of creating them.  Wealth is more heavily concentrated in the top 2% now than it has been since the period preceding the 1929 stock market crash.  If 10 years of lower taxes on the top income brackets has led to the highest unemployment numbers in nearly 100 years, why extend this failed policy? 

o   And this is Ron Paul during one of the Republican debates:

“Do you advocate getting rid of the minimum wage, would that create more jobs?” Politico’s John Harris asked Paul during Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate.

“Absolutely,” Paul declared. “It would help the poor people who need jobs. Minimum wage is a mandate. We’re against mandates so why should we have it? It would be very beneficial.”

Additionally, to spur job growth, the candidates blame the cost of over regulation on the lack of job creation.  Having to meet minimum safety requirements or environmental regulations (like Clean Air & Clean Water standards) hampers businesses and prevents them from being able to afford to add more employees.  In their minds, government intervention is to blame for the high unemployment rate in the U.S. 

So where exactly is the concern for the American people who are out of work?  Well, here’s Herman Cain’s take on Occupy Wall Street and the unemployed:

CAIN: I don’t have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration. Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself! [...] It is not someone’s fault if they succeeded, it is someone’s fault if they failed.

I guess that the “Compassionate Conservative” days are over.  Let’s all sing that upbeat standard from the Great Depression, “Happy Days Are Here Again.”  

 I’m beginning to feel that the movie Soylent Green isn’t far from becoming Science Fact instead of Science Fiction.  

If these are the faces of democracy in word and action, they are making socialism look pretty damn good.