Thursday, November 17, 2011

The Argument For Not Raising Taxes - Made Well?

Yes, it is true that if we raise taxes we will pull money out of the economy and reduce our growth.  But few people seem to buy it, as they believe the rich would not be phased by paying higher taxes. 

And many of the rich are saying they would be happy to pay more taxes.

So the Republicans look rather foolish and stubborn.  And they appear to be in favor of the rich at the expense of the poor.  That is a bad public relations move for the Republicans.

I think, though, I've never heard this actually articulated, that the Republicans are holding the line on higher taxes is both because of the benefits of not taking money out of the economy but also very much to have government cut spending much more quickly than if it is continued to be fed money to support government inefficiencies and noneconomic causes.  Of course, both parties are committed to providing sufficient safety nets and safety, but the Republicans are the party standing (too?) strongly for fiscal responsibility.

If the Republicans could strongly reaffirm that, yes, they will protect the citizens no matter what, then people might accept the other argument.

The other argument, as stated above, is that we cannot feed the pig any more taxes and it will continue to be too fat.  The reason is not to protect or favor the rich, but to cut spending more quickly and to not pull money out of the economy for government spending.

The confusion by the public is understandable, if the Republicans are not clear - and given that the Democrats are obscuring the issue by accusing the Republicans of being heartless (not giving away things to the people) and of favoring the rich, implying that it is because the rich contribute to their campaigns. 

Sanity will probably not be the dominant force in politics, so we need to state clearly the reasons for something so that people can understand and thereby be empowered to make better choices. 

What do you think should be done that would be effective in increasing the sanity and the ability to make informed choices?

The Rational NonPolitician

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Income Disparity - The Real Reason

Even our President appears to blame the rich for incomes of the non-rich not rising.  I wonder if he is just not being advised of the natural economics that caused this? 

In a free market, competition and demand will determine the prices (including the price for services).

When we had a distinct advantage where we (the West) had the industrialization advantage and knew how to market and distribute goods, we prospered - because we were more productive.  We had great advantage for many years. 

But eventually other countries began to integrate the technology that had been developed, to become more organized for business and they began to compete.  Of course, their wages were relatively low.  Therefore, the business went to them - they were simply more competitive in price.  

Gradually over the last 30 years, the value of what the West could offer was less and less, as we could no longer compete.  So there was a downward influence on wages.  Actually, the wages driven down were at the lower end, where other countries could compete.  High skill manufacturing jobs dropped 17%, while low skill manufacturing jobs declined 34%.    But these other countries, so far, have not competed as much in the higher-value knowledge areas - those wages have risen, creating an even wider income disparity.

Meanwhile, quite naturally and understandably, the wealth of the rich compounded basically because they were risking and investing - and professionals and knowledge workers had their compensation increase, while all the other wages did not. 

While this is strictly economics, people have blamed the rich for it.  But clearly this is "wrong cause", where the cause is neither logically or correctly identified.

See Discussion On Income Disparities.

The solution does not lie in taking wealth away from others, but in empowering as many as possible so that there are more people contributing and are in the higher value areas - and increasing the size of the pie, rather than just splitting it differently.   And the only way to do that is to educate people in the higher skill areas and direct those resources to higher value areas, as we will not be competitive with the lower skill items that other countries can do more economically. 

Hopefully we can use rational thinking and analysis to direct our efforts - and stop the irrational and political nonsense.  What do you think?

The Rational NonPolitician

Monday, November 14, 2011

Political Expediency - Delay of pipeline til 2013?

Is this President putting an election above the country? 

1.  The route was approved after extensive studies.

2.  The jobs produced would start at 20,000 and go to 500,000, for the Americans.

3.  It allows us to become less dependent on oil from hostile source.

4.  The stand of environmentalists objecting, President Obama put the decision on whether to approve the pipeline to 2013 - after the election. 

5.  Speeding up approval/permit processes is what any country must do if it is to achieve prosperity - and this is another negative indicator on Obama.

If he is indeed doing this for political purposes this does border on being treasonous.

Follow this story and see what is more likely to be the case.  More data below.

The Rational NonPolitician


During high unemployment in the USA in a world-wide recession, the Keystone XL pipeline would start with some 20,000 jobs with another 400,000 to come on steam later down the road.

Canada, who supplies more oil to the US than any other country, also its largest trading partner is proof positive that America does not have to rely on the Middle East for its oil.


For months, the conventional wisdom had been that a presidential permit for Keystone XL was inevitable; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in October 2010 that she was “inclined” to approve it because it was better to get oil from Canada than from less-friendly nations. The State Department then said in August stating that TransCanada’s proposed route is the preferred option.

The department had already examined routes further west and northeast of Nebraska that would have avoided the Sand Hills area and had released a final supplemental environmental review in August that said TransCanada’s proposed route was the preferred option and would have minimal effect on the environment.

“This project is too important to the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and the national interest of the United States for it not to proceed,” Girling said a statement.


Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune had recently told reporters Obama’s decision on Keystone would “have a very big impact” on whether the nation’s largest environmental group funnels resources more toward congressional races rather than the race for the White House.


The delay would "effectively kill" the project, said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "The carrying costs are too high, and there's no certainty that at the end of 18 months the pipeline would be approved at all."

Russ Girling, chief executive officer of Calgary-based TransCanada, who had said rerouting delays might kill the project, said yesterday the company remains “confident Keystone XL will ultimately be approved.”

Canada’s ambassador in Washington, Gary Doer,   told reporters in Ottawa that he expected the project to be approved if judged on “merit,” rather than ”noise.”

The deferral on Keystone XL is a blow to the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who called U.S. approval of the pipeline a “no brainer.” Canadian officials underestimated the strength of resistance to the project by Nebraska farmers and environmentalists, political and foreign-policy experts said.

Canadian Finance Minister, Flaherty, 61, will travel later this week to Beijing, where he will discuss increasing energy exports to China and facilitating investment in Canadian natural-resource assets.

“The decision to delay it that long is actually quite a crucial decision. I’m not sure this project would survive that kind of delay,” Flaherty said yesterday in an interview at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Honolulu. “It may mean that we may have to move quickly to ensure that we can export our oil to Asia through British Columbia.”
The delay would "effectively kill" the project, said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "The carrying costs are too high, and there's no certainty that at the end of 18 months the pipeline would be approved at all." TransCanada wants to build the 1,700-mile pipeline to carry oil extracted from Canadian oil sands to U.S. refineries.

Japan and China 'keen' for Alberta oil

"Basically all of our energy exports are currently going to the United States. We have one customer. So it is a major fundamental strategic objective of Canada to diversify our customer base," Oliver said.

"I was in China and Japan and I just got back yesterday. And let me tell you there’s a keen interest in our resources in both those countries. The Japanese are interested in our natural gas, the Chinese in our oil and gas."



Friday, November 11, 2011

Those Corporations Are Greedy - And They're To Blame

"The corporations are greedy.  They just want to make a billion more by shipping jobs overseas.  They should not do that.  They should hire Americans here.  It is their moral obligation." 

That is what she said to me.

However, is it right for others to tell these people what to do and then get mad at them for not doing what we want them to do?  Was there any agreement made?   Who are we to determine what someone else should do?  Do we want to get into a totalitarian nation forcing things on others and controlling them?

Do we have the right to take money away from the shareholders of the company?  Are they the ones responsible for giving other people jobs here in the US and giving up their money?   Do we want pensions for workers to have less money in them from their investments so they can't retire as well?

If this is a moral obligation, does the person who said it strictly buy American?  If we all were careful to do that, there would be millions more jobs.   But it appears that we try to buy as cheaply as we can.  But don't we have a moral obligation to give up some of our bucks so that Americans can have more jobs?

Isn't this is the culture of blame and irresponsibility.  Isn't this also irrational thinking without a sound basis, based on assumptions that we are right and have the right to tell others what to do?  Though many people are making corporations wrong or bad, does that mean they are correct in asserting that as if it were fact?

If it was a master economist who said it, is he right?  Or is he guilty of fallacious thinking, making up assumptions, and insisting with no basis that others do as he wishes.  (Krugman and Reich do that.)

Yes, global competition does drive wages down and take jobs that Americans might want to have.  But it is not "greedy" corporations who are plotting against us, depriving us of wages and jobs. We cannot expect somebody else to be responsible for our jobs.   And how much profit is too much?  Isn't that the world of judgment and blame and resentment - which is part of the world of irresponsibility?  And isn't it irresponsibility that has caused alot of our problems?

Read about the actual cause of the income and wealth inequality, but don't buy into the "therefore they're 'bad'" argument of the blamers.   I don't see any healthy thinking in taking money from others, though I do see the selfish reason for doing so.  Of course, we don't want the "fat cats" to be selfish.  (One I left off of this draft is that we allow illegal immigration, which brings in more people without educations, which in turn creates more poverty and more inequality of incomes!)

See The Actual Reason For Income And Wealth Disparity.

Note that the person quoted above is not using Rational Thinking and is also not operating from a Personal Responsibility viewpoint.     

Yours toward creating a cooperative nation based on rational thinking and decisions such that we do that which makes us powerful,

The Rational NonPolitician

Friday, November 4, 2011

Obama - Is fiscal responsibility important?

On the site (Those Who Benefit Pay), one of the key values is personal responsibility as opposed to co-dependency and entitlement, as those latter two cause not only actual "seeable" problems but also psychological problems and lack of personal development.  And these, in turn, have effects on others.  If we all were more productive and responsible, the size of the pie would be much, much greater and we all would be better off.

Part of personal responsibility, of course, is being responsible about your money and your spending.
This applies to a person, a business, and a government.

And the lack of responsibility in many small things often add up to or are at least symptoms of overall irresponsibility.


1.  more than $50 trillion of National Debt plus unfunded liabilities to its citizens for Social Security and Medicare (See Deficits/Debt summary page for overview)
2.  $2 trillion of income
3.  Over $3 trillion of spending per year

there is obvious reason for concern.  (Imagine a person being in such financial shape.)

If we have a President who submits a budget that doesn't deal with it, and it is voted down 97-0 in the Senate, do we have an adult in the White House who is taking fiscal responsibility and/or has adequate financial knowledge?

If he has to be forced by the Republicans to address the debt and deficits and does nothing otherwise is this fiscal responsibility?

If he then mentions we have to fix Social Security but never does anything concrete about it, is this fiscal responsibility? (If he gives a "tax holiday" to taxpayers but doesn't see that that makes the fund be less funded, incurring more problems down the road then does he not understand tradeoffs and costs?)

When a President, without approval of Congress, lowers interest on student loans and makes them forgivable in 20 years, does he not realize that someone else has to pay for that?  Such as taxpayers ( because the government has less money coming into its coffers).

When a President, without approval of Congress, sets up a mortgage relief program where old mortgages can be replaced with new lower interest mortgages does not see that there is an additional loss incurred by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for each cancellation and replacement, we have a problem.   And later we'll have to add to the incredible bailout (so far over $180 billion, but expected to go above $500 billion) of those two government guaranteed agencies.

This may be politically good, as everyone likes to be given benefits and not pay for them.  Or it may, which is just as harmful, be financial naivete on the President's part, where he sees only how he is being charitable without seeing the greater harm that inevitably, cumulatively, will be wrought upon this nation.

Fiscal responsibility is absolutely mandatory.  And I hope we stop demonizing those who have made proposals for being more fiscally responsible - and just accept their ideas and modify them if needed.

Objectively, we cannot continue to have this fiscally irresponsible and/or naive President in office.  That sounds political, but all facts point to this.  He should be in a different job where his brilliance and leadership fit, but not in this job.  (See Evaluation Of The Obama Presidency.)

Submittted for your consideration and feedback, respectfully,

The Rational NonPolitician

Thursday, November 3, 2011

How should Medicare be paid for and to whom?

[Below, we ask you to respectfully and conscientiously consider the following for the good of the country toward coming to better solutions for us all.]

Given the guarantee that those who can't afford it otherwise will be covered as well as they are presently under Medicare, I would choose the following:

____ Yes, ___ No.   To have the government pay to a private insurer, with rules to assure mandatory coverage equivalent to what is there now.  This is anticipated to lower costs because of competition.

____ Yes, ___ No.   To have personal responsibility and to see what the costs are so that I make more responsible choices.  This has been proven to work better than where people have no responsibility and no awareness of the costs.  (See what happened in Indiana, below, before you make your choice.)

____ Yes, ___ No.    I believe the government is a good manager of services.

____ Yes, ___ No.    I only believe the role that government can do adequately is pay out the money.

Checkmark this if you agree with it:

___ If I am guaranteed the same benefits, I do not buy the accusation that Medicare is being taken away from us. 

Express any concerns you still have:

____ I'm not sure that competition will work to lower costs.

Other comments:  

Please send your answers to your congresspersons.

The Rational NonPolitician

P. S. I recommend that a polling organization do a statistically valid poll to see what the choices are once a person is more informed.


Overall, participants in our new plan ran up only $65 in cost for every $100 incurred by their associates under the old coverage... It turns out that, when someone is spending his own money alone for routine expenses, he is far more likely to ask the questions he would ask if purchasing any other good or service:

Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.

What we found:  individually owned and directed health-care coverage has a startlingly positive effect on costs for both employees and the state.

Most important, we are seeing significant changes in behavior, and consequently lower total costs.

They were much more likely to use generic drugs than those enrolled in the conventional plan,
resulting in an average lower cost per prescription of $18.

They were admitted to hospitals less than half as frequently as their colleagues.  Differences in health status between the groups account for part of this disparity, but consumer decision-making is, we've found, also a major factor.

Source:  WSJ article 

You, the public, make the choice on Medicare

We ask you to vote on the following, which affects only people under 55 on the future of entitlement programs you pay into.

Fact:  There are fewer dollars from taxes going into a theoretical program than are taken out, by about a 2 to 1 ratio.  One could, for instance, have a tough time justifing paying in $100,000 and drawing out $200,000.  Does that make sense?

You as a citizen can now vote on how to handle this.  Which do you vote for?

___ 1.  Pay more into the program so it will have financial integrity by having enough funds to cover costs.  Keep payouts the same with no changes.
___ 2. Reduce the payouts, so people are inadequately covered.
___ 3. Not pay in any more, nor reduce any payouts, and let future generations make up the difference for us, plus cover their own costs
___ 4. Not changing pay-ins or adequate coverage, but reallocating the benefits to the poor by giving reduced or no benefits to those who are at various levels of higher income, who can afford to pay more for their own care.

What are your choices?  Note that you could make a choice to combine some of them, such as paying in more plus also allocating benefits differently.  (There is another choice  also:  to have a later age for coverage to start.)

You choose.  Let your Congressman know what you will accept.

It is up to you, the Citizens, to responsibly understand the choices and then to actually make them.  So you are hereby asked what your choice is.

The Rational NonPolitician

The next blog is how to pay for the benefits, without reducing them at all.

(I would recommend also that a polling organization take a statistically valid poll as to the choices once one has been informed.)

Consider also reading from the site:Medicare, section called Which Of These Would You Support, If You Think It Out?

Guarantees to those over 55 - Be clear!

One of the key lies that are believed out there, even supported rather ignorantly by an ad by AARP (amazingly enough - what is going on?), is that older people's Social Security and Medicare benefits would be affected by any proposed changes.

The Republican Party should, without talking about anything else (in order to not confuse people with more than one subject), individually across the spectrum say "we guarantee that there will be no changes for people 55 or over, period.  Please let us know if there is any question about that?" 

Doubt on this is the key issue that is causing alienation of the senior citizens to the Republican Party.  Correct it, stomp it out, make it absolutely clear and completely known!

Then, see the next blog on "choices" on how people under 55 will be covered - and make this point clear. 

The Rational NonPolitician

If the "third rail" (Social Security and Medicare) is not dealt with that will be the height of irresponsibility.  I understand why the Democrats will not address the issue as it has caused Ryan immense problems, as the only responsible person to make a concrete proposal.  (In the railroad, the third rail, if touched, electrocutes one.)

Mr. Obama, will you stand up against such lies?

Scenario in a Presidential Election Debate, Romney to Obama:

"Mr. Obama, please allow me to finish this and then I request the courtesy of a reply.

Mr. Obama, do you understand that if a consulting firm is going in to save firms that layoffs may be required to save the company - and that that is what will save thousands of jobs that would have been lost otherwise if the company had gone out of business?

If you do, then will you stand still for the lie that I was a destroyer of jobs, when actually there were many jobs saved?

In the name of ethics and decency, are you willing to call off the dogs and to speak out publicly to tell your supporters to cease and desist in this lie?"

Make sense?

Yours for standing for ethics and decency,

The Rational NonPolitician

Conduct a campaign consistent with American greatness

“My campaign will be a campaign of American greatness.” 

[I recognize that we can campaign on division and attack, but, the speaker of the above continues, saying what follows.]

“I believe instead we need to draw together, that we need campaigns and leaders who will draw on the greatness of the American spirit, as opposed to people who will divide us, and look for scapegoats, and demonize fellow Americans, or find a street that’s responsible for our problems.”

Now, that's what I call an adult message.  I believe Romney when he said it, as I saw him immediately pull a negative ad re: Perry that his campaign people put out.

So, Mr. Obama, are you willing to make a pledge to do the same and to pull all lies and false negatives immediately and to discourage them?  Or will you do what is politically expedient?

The Rational NonPolitician

P. S.  Mr. Obama, I think you would be reelected for sure if you stepped up to acting as an adult, letting go of the divisive speech and half truths (where the essential other side is omitted).  And then you could be a President that I could have some rational confidence in...

"Occupy" movement - where is the limit on hurting other people?

I wrote about  "Occupiers Of Wall Street - Listening - And Educating" on October 18th.

Yes, they are expressing their free speech rights, but does that include hurting others and running up big bills?

They are asking for benefits and compassion, yet hurting businesses and costing them and the cities hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They even shut down the Port of Oakland, depriving fellow "99%ers" from their daily wages. 

Yes, there must be listened to and there must be free speech, but we must draw the line at other people being hurt and the damage that is being caused. 

I believe that a true leader is needed here, who will be the compassionate but wise adult in the room.  We should have a President who steps up to the plate, even if there is political advantage for him in repeating his 1% against the 99% theme and inciting voters to go to him.

He has an ethical choice here

To do what is best for the nation or
To do what is best for his election

A full blown speech and "talking to" is merited here - one that does not exploit the politics but encourages solution and cooperation.  The President has been light on both, although he advocated them in his campaign speeches, as is pointed out in the chronicling of the President's moves in Ron Suskind's book Confidence Men.

Such a speech would express compassion (a good thing to show to be reelected) and understanding, laying out their concerns and pointing out that particular races, creeds, and types should not be blamed but that the system has to be fixed to support what works.  And then he needs to lay out what will be done and can be done, calling on them to seek positive solutions and to be responsible for producing results as productive citizens operating without blame.

Is there an adult in the room?   Will we draw a line between where someone can flail their arms and where they are hitting us in the nose (beyond the boundary of no harm)?

Will we begin to have an adult conversation that is absolutely necessary and will lead us further to creating a strong America, with each citizen stepping up to pitch in?   If so, we can have a great future.  If not, then...

I hope there is a rational choice made here.

The Rational NonPolitician
( )

I voted for Obama (see the site for why) and I had hoped he would do what he said he would do.  But now all fact finding points to his not following through on his promises plus being unable to govern nor to have the perspective to be able to make the right choices.  Unfortunately, "on the job training" is not effective for a President.  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Are Gay Civil Unions or Marriage Inevitable?

Yes, they are inevitable. 

According to a recent Gallup Survey 53% of Americans favor legal gay marriage.  And as younger people become voters this percentage will increase.

So, those opposing gay marriage would best rationally just accept that gay unions with the equivalent of full marriage rights are inevitable - and being righteous about it will do anyone any good - I think Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, and the Dalai Lama would agree that righteousness and make wrong are not "right" acts.

The best that can be accomplished is to protect the term "marriage" for those who extremely value it as being a unique family unit.  I think the majority of Americans do not have the right to trod on others - especially since there is another way to give equal rights to gay people.

The rational choice is to have a legal name such as civil unions for the gay person's full rights and to leave intact the term marriage for the traditional meaning, not changing the definition nor imposing the majority's will on others.

So, give up opposing such unions for gay people.

And, for others, please consider honoring others' beliefs and even holy values by giving them the respect of keeping intact the meaning of the family value of marriage.

This involves only a small compromise on both sides and accomplishes creating a greater good overall for the people involved - and that is what ethics is.  And Ethics is how we should run our country and our lives.  (Read Ethics.)

Will rationality prevail?  Will you support rationality?   What do you think about all of this?

Let's just be settled on this and accept the inevitable in a gracious way while being respectful of others...and let's get on with the key matters that will determine our future, creating an America of strong values and great effectiveness for producing financial abundance and benefit for all...and for creating greater happiness and health.

The Rational NonPolitician

Are abortion rights endangered?

It would appear from all the data that those who are concerned with abortion rights being taken away have nothing to worry about. 

AND it is also true that those who do not want the federal government to pay for abortions have nothing to worry about. 

These are areas of intense emotional importance to many people.  That's just fine. 

But it is not fine for politicians to exploit this nor for anybody to not look at the facts and stick to rational discussion of it - neither should be acceptable if we want a well functioning society.

Nancy Pelosi flunks the objectivity, fact-based, rational test.  She accuses the Republicans of wanting to deny care to women who need abortions where there life is threatened, that they will be left to die on the hospital room floor.  It is not true by any reasonable interpretation of the actual words in the Protect Life Act recently passed in the House 251 to 172.  The exaggerative language is readily apparent to any discriminating thinker.

On Sep. 9, 2009, President Obama told Congress that under his legislation, “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”  The new proposed law only codifies his executive order, as executive orders can be changed at any time.
(See the contents, summary or full text: Act - and judge for yourself.) 

A March Pew Research Center poll shows that 54 percent of Americans surveyed support the right to a legal abortion in all or most cases.  As more and more young people enter adulthood, this is likely to increase, as that age group strongly favors abortion rights.   The Right To Choose will stay in place, so it is not wise for the "other side" to do battle against it - any temporary restriction would be overridden by popular movement.

About 2/3 of Americans are against federal funding of abortions.  That, too, appears to be irreversible.

In both cases, it is wisest to now focus attention on what we can change, while saying a version of the Serenity Prayer. 

Or, like the old song says, but in regard to these two issues:  "Don't worry, be happy...". 

Instead, focus on which candidate for President can actually run the country effectively to create a strong America for the future.

The Rational NonPolitician

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The "Lie" about the Obama Jobs Plan, Student Loan Plan, and etc.

I am saddened to see non-complete, non-informative, non-truth rhetoric from the President.

He blames the Republicans for not wanting people to have jobs, which, is, of course, preposterous.  He fails to mention that the non-starter, which he knew was a fixed position, was the increase in taxes that the Republicans would not accept. 

Instead of funding the jobs bill with expenditure cuts elsewhere in order to keep balance, he chose the unworkable route of more taxes.  The effect of adding a 5.6% tax for the over million dollars a year group would be $45 billion a year, which, in the "new math", would amount to $450 billion over 10 years, which is the amount of the cost of the jobs bill.

So, this would mean the deficit is increased by $405 billion this year, since that amount will be coming in over the remaining nine years.  Undisclosed fact - and I am saddened by this modus operandi - not angered, but tremendously disappointed in the lack of true leadership, of which I think truth-telling is a major element.

His beneficence on shortening the time before student debts are forgiven simply allows for not having that money paid back to the federal government, which creates a hole that must be filled by passing the burden on to future taxpayers.  (See Student Loan discussion.)

His 'Mortgage Relief' beneficence in allowing people who are up to date on underwater mortgage loans passes a burden to taxpayers, as there is no free lunch.  This burden is not obvious, though it is logical.  To have a new lower interest loan an old loan must be cancelled, which causes a loss.  In this case, the loss is to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which will result in adding to the bailout costs, largely not discussed, which are estimated to be the biggest of any in history.   The estimated costs will be between $450 billion to well over a trillion dollars.

When we relieve Americans of paying payroll taxes for Social Security, guess what happens.  The Social Security fund is then short by that amount.  And that means that future generations must make up the difference. 

And we don't see these discrepancies in the pitches that are being made, as they are being made without proper and complete disclosure.  The irony is that this government is pushing for better consumer disclosure and other disclosures - but it is being out of integrity with its own disclosures.

A culture of responsibility is the only solution, rather than a culture of sales pitches and being irresponsible for the consequences that will inevitably, predictably occur.  

And I am saddened and disappointed by all of this - and I stand for picking leaders who will face the responsibility with full integrity.  We do not have a leader who is doing that...

Yours for rational choices,

The Rational NonPolitician

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Republicans will not do well in the elections, unless...

There appears, though I could be wrong, to be nobody running the political show overall for the Republicans - all this while the Democrats are doing a great job, as is their very politically able leader Barack Obama. 

The Republicans, as is one of their main tenets, bear 100% responsibility for this. 

They make statements that do not include compassion or concern for the non-rich, yet they are doing, with their actions, what is truly in the best interests of the citizens, while the Democrats are attempting to do the same but with strategies that do not confront the economic realities.  There appears to be integrity in the Republican actions, but it is not recognized nor properly communicated.

The Democrats are successful in labeling the Republicans:

As uncaring, 'uncompassionate' demons

The Republicans stand for being "tough" for the benefit of all, but they come across as harsh and uncaring - a real loser when dealing with human beings!  (This will lose the election, where it will be easy to say that the Republicans don't care, so vote for us - on an emotionally appealing level.)

The Republicans do not parry Obama's move to get the public to be against them, as they do not mention that the reason they don't vote for any "jobs related" bill is because each of them add new taxes - and Obama knows the Republican position about no new taxes.  (Sad commentary on a President's ethics.)

Caring only for the rich

The Republicans do not win points for claiming the idea that we do not want to tax the rich because "they are the small business owners" - well, they are not so small if they make more than $1,000,000 and they will not be much affected by an increase in taxes of 4% above a million of net income.  The Republicans should make it clear, in every discussion, that they are standing strong against any new taxes in order to force the government to stop its foolish spending and to be disciplined.

Taking away benefits (Social Security and Medicare). 

The Republicans need to publicize the amounts owed clearly - people don't see it!!! - and then request that individuals go on a site explaining this and then to 'vote' as to what the citizens would recommend.  (See Medicare - Which Do You Choose?.) And then the results of the poll should be published and more people invited to visit the site to see why people voted this way.   

And they should say:  "Our only goal is to have these programs work for those who need it.  Those 55 and older will not see any changes.  For the rest of us, the public can choose whether it wants to pay in more to make it work or to start taking it later or not.  There is no legitimate choice to not deal with this."

Just being political

The big mistake, which, with good advice, should never be made:  "Our primary goal is to get rid of Obama."

That is not well-stated at all.  It is to get a new President who can be effective for the people.

There should be one clear site that people can go to, including the Republican politicians, to see the explanations and recommendations about what to do and how to do it, with no nastiness or "twisted" rhetoric - a site which all citizens can go to in order to understand.  (The Democrats should do the same.)  The Republican National Committee site is not updated, not organized well, and not easily understandable or usable by the public. 

Hopefully, we can reach a place where there is more clarity and rationality that is fact-based in our discussions for the benefit of ALL of the stakeholders in the USA, so we can create a great future - and we are clearly not doing that right now!

The Rational NonPolitician
The Site

Obama will beat Romney unless...

Clearly Romney would run the government for much greater benefit (see Romney Evaluation) than Obama, yet it looks like Obama will win the hearts and the personal interests of the base.  (See Obama Evaluation.  In that piece, I discuss why I had voted for Obama as the rational choice last time, but...)

An example, one of many, is “As to what to do for the housing industry specifically and are there things that you can do to encourage housing: One is, don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” 

While technically correct probably, it appears heartless, especially in the state with the highest foreclosure rate in the nation.

I know Romney does care, but the voters need to know - if Romney makes it past the other Republican rivals.

If one is right plus doing what it takes to look tough to the 'right wing', one will not do well if he looks cruel and heartless - especially when that is the theme being used by the Democrats.  Being "right" is the booby prize if one does not win the overall objective.

In Advice For Romney, if he doesn't hire Frank Luntz, I suggest that the way of speaking be adjusted to a more balanced and human approach - and that there be on the website an easily referenceable explanation for any strategy (not buried in a long report). 

For example, in the mortgage discussion, the phraseology should at least include a "human" and/or "compassionate" statement - and a true one, of course. 

"I am very concerned for those who are being foreclosed on, especially those where it was no fault of their own.  I am committed to doing what is best for the greater good of all for the long term. I've thought long and hard about this.. The question here is what role government should take and what will work for the greater good for the long term.  If we interfere, then the problems get prolonged and there is actually more harm.   It is best to let the market work itself out, so we can recover more quickly. There is no magic solution.   I would of course encourage those of our citizens who wish to voluntarily contribute to a national fund to help those who need help where help is justified - it is not appropriate to force the burden on to other citizens, I believe.  I would encourage lenders to do what they can, but the Federal Government cannot force them to do this.   Otherwise, the safety nets are in place for those who need it.   I have a deeper explanation on for those who are interested."

There is a greater moral issue here.  The future of this nation.  It is deteriorating for reasons on site.  Mitt Romney's management and problem solving capabilities are needed to do a "turnaround", as we cannot afford to continue the path we are on. 

(Romney should also correct this, by adding a piece such as is included in Mortgages on the Rational NonPolitician site.)
Yours for rational, fact-based decisions,

The Rational NonPolitician

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Being Presidential with no negative engagements

Being Presidential requires that one is the "adult in the room", operating without blame, rancor, twisting the facts or omitting relevant details.  (Obama has totally failed that test.)

A President must not get engaged in a rancorous exchange.  The Presidential person would not even look at the person who is accusing him of something, but should calmly assert what is true, referring to what "Mr. _____" says is not true and then giving the facts.  He must not engage or be engaged in any rancorous conversation, nor should he get heated up.  He can stand strongly for the truth and for what he believes and contrast himself with the other candidate.  He must always raise the level back to leading to a constructive end point. 

A President must be civil and direct and always progressive and principled. 

And a President (a future one) must set an absolute standard - and not be pulled down into the morass.

The Rational NonPolitician

P.S. The tackiest bit of the Republican debates was when Rick Perry twisted the facts plus continuing on an issue that was already fully answered.  He accused Romney of hiring illegals and being a hypocrite when he had asked his the company that does his gardening maintenance to remove an illegal (when it was discovered by a Boston paper) and thought the problem was solved.  When he found out later that there was an illegal working for that company a year later, he fired the company.  What else could he do? 

Based on that conversation, I would exclude Mr. Perry for consideration as a President.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Occupiers Of Wall Street - Listen...And Educate

The expression of dissatisfaction from those "occupying Wall Street"  needs to be listened to by those "in power" and the problem of unemployment and the feeling of injustice need to be addressed. 

I personally would set up a large room for the protesters to come into, handing out a sheet of rules of using rational, healthy, fact-based discussion without heated hate, which they must agree to as a condition of entering this meeting -  and specifying that this would be an indication of their willingness to create positive results.

And from that, as part of the above agreement, I would write up a summary of the key points and the solutions that they suggested.  Then I would go back and come up with (which would be one of the promises in the rules) a plan to address those issues.  (Depending on how the meeting goes, it would include a "greenlight" brainstorming session on solutions and/or a separate session where the group selecting, say, 15 members to participate in that meeting.)

Now, of course, with little experience in life and not yet alot of perspective on things, the young people would easily buy into not-so-well-thought-out conclusions.  But it will do no good to criticize anyone for not yet being aware of what works.  One can only address that with education - meaning facts and sound reasoning.   The education should not only be in written form(s) but also in brief videos, all linked together on a website the protesters could go to.

The issues:

Per surveys, 34% think the US is as bad as Al Qaeda.

Some say "replace capitalism with democracy" - which no one would say with perspective (as both exist side by side and are not contradictory).  Teaching simplified lessons in what capitalism and socialism are and how each has worked or not worked.

The 1% being unfair and harming the 99%.  (Most citizens in the US don't think they are not well off enough, but still the others who are not well off need to be educated and also given more insight into how to prosper.)

Those evil wall street people (even lumping in CEOs in general) are the cause of the problems (instead of looking at the many causes). 

Recalling, with empathy

When I was that age, I believed I knew more than I knew and I had several things out of whack. 

Ridiculing any group, as far as I can tell, never brought things to solution.  Only listening with empathy for how they feel, even if there is not agreement yet, is what works.  Only addressing the issues, with empathy and respect, is what works.  Only teaching, in a way that is compatible with the age group, is what works.  And collaborating further, until the sides come together in cooperation and compromise is what works.

I don't see that happening right now.

A President taking advantage of this

Although Presidents in the past have not been perfect examples of this, I believe a President must be an adult in this matter.  Though he could take advantage of this conversation to confirm how wrong others are and to create more dissension, for his political benefit, that would not be "in integrity".

This President has said he stands for, and has even promised that, getting rid of the dissension and resolving things in cooperation, but his actions have not matched his original rhetoric at all - in fact they have been a near opposite.  Whether his ideas are correct or incorrect is not the issue here - his behavior is.

If we are to resolve this "class warfare", we must use "what works", not do the opposite.

The "occupiers" must be fully heard and honored and respected - and a resolution arrived at.

This is not a question of which side of the argument you are on, but a question of whether we are to do what works.

Mr. Obama (and the rest of you), are you willing to put "what works" ahead of politics?

As always, rational inputs that are helpful are welcomed.

The Rational NonPoliticia

P.S.  I am sad to see the opposite sides use this for political gain, for make wrong, for blame, or for any other purpose than an ethical one that is aimed at resolution and cooperation.

Looking at the facts in this Presidency

Barack Obama is very likable and a very good guy, just not one who is in the right job.

You might wish to read Thank You, Barack Obama, For Trying Your Best.

Yes, I voted for Mr. Obama - and we must admit the mistake and not truly looking in more depth.  My vote was made without as in-depth an analysis as I would do now - and I allowed myself to be trapped by avoiding the other bad choice (see why, in the above article and in Evaluating The Republicans Overall).  

People should vote for effective leadership regardless of whether all the other issues align or not.

Will you support yourself and others looking at the facts and making a rational decision?

The Rational NonPolitician
(Not always right, but doing my best to stick to a rational process based on facts.)

Already in law: 4.7% extra tax for over $200,000

The Affordable Health Care Act has a number of provisions to make it "balance", in addition to taking $500 billion from Medicare [which of course must be paid for later; a bogus non-source of spending reduction!!!].

The President is currently lobbying for charging more taxes to the ultra rich. 

If he is successful, he will add to the already-in-law taxes added via the health act, to start in 2013.  Singles with income above $200,000 and marrieds above $250,000 must pay an additional 3.8% of income taxes above that level, plus they must pay an additional extra Medicare tax of .9%. 

That's a 4.7% increase in tax rates - and not just to the ultra-rich!

Despite the arguments on both sides, I thought it reasonable to point these facts out for the people in the US. 

The Rational NonPolitician   

Obama. Adult? Bringing people together?

In Ron Suskind's Confidence Men, a current history of the White House, etc., certain of Obama's main people state that working with Obama leaves them "home alone" with "no adult in the room", so they had to step up to fill the holes. 

Evilizing the Republicans for "wanting more pollution" while "we want to employ the teachers" - is that an adult conversation?  (A fuller version:  "You can't pretend that creating dirtier air and water for our kids and having fewer people on health care and less accountability on Wall Street is a jobs plan!"  I am deeply saddened to see our President tell such fibs, exaggerating, twisting, etc., as if politics and nastiness were an acceptable objective above making things work and causing cooperation.  )  

Will it lead to working together?  Is this unfair exaggeration and "coloring" things unfairly?  Is that the President we want to be the adult leader?

He neglected to say that the Republicans had already told him that no increase in taxes would be allowed and that it was part of his package that was to be accepted in whole (which even many Democats would not vote for).   To color Republicans as being against the American people and against jobs is clearly not true, yet the President states it strongly.  And he wonders why there is an atmosphere of non-cooperation.

Of course, the President blames others for the very same thing - as 'justification' for his not being an adult? 

Will the President turn around and behave as an adult?  Will he become effective so that the people who work with him will see that he is? 

As I read this, it sounds as if it is political.  But I am looking at it purely in what is logical, factual, and good for the country (not politics or winning elections).  If there is something here that needs to be corrected or enhanced, with no blame or oppositional talk, please do share that!

The Rational NonPolitician

See also Evaluating The Obama Presidency.

"God made the gay people..."

Science has proven that being gay is based on a different combination of hormones released early on that causes formation of what causes attraction to the same sex. 

In religious terms, the argument that "God made the gay people too" makes sense.  It is not some dysfunctional choice - and, yes, there is a choice on whether to do the behavior or not - but how many of us can resist our chemicals, especially when they are a powerful (God-given?) forces. 

People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.  To place ourselves above other people who have different circumstances causing different things and different exposures causing their beliefs and models is what, I think, God might not say is very Christian or Muslim or whatever

Hate or discrimination is primitive uninformed behavior, lacking logic and facts. 

If people are to be true to the essence of religions, they would not do anything other than "love" and accept others.    Those who believe they are 'right' cannot "prove" that, other than citing sources that are in themselves unproven and only taken on faith - and all faith is based on interpretation.  And in elementary psychology we are taught that our perceptions and our unproven beliefs are not 'facts', no matter how many times they are repeated. 

No one religion can be proven to be right over the other 10,000 that claim to be the right religion - and, of course, they can't all be right.  So maybe the proper attitude here would be that of humility and no longer righteousness, when one is not 'for sure' right. 

So, we are all humans and we almost all agree that there are certain inalienable human rights

It is indisputable, no matter what your religious beliefs, that it is appropriate to respect others of all persuasions - and to follow the simple rules of only restricting what are clear and harmful excesses.

Gay rights are logical, totally. 

Holding marriage as being what it has been defined for centuries makes sense too.  

If we do not have the right to suppress others or impose our will over others unless there is a true ethical purpose, then the logical conclusion would be to not damage the institution of marriage and all the beliefs of those people that cherish it, and to assure those rights are allowed for a gay person but in a different form that is the virtual equivalent in substance.  The logical alternative is to use "civil unions" or whatever special name that works but does not impinge on others' beliefs. 

And can the gay rights side allow the marriage rights side to be honored just as the marriage rights side should allow the gay rights side to be honored?  The street goes both ways.  Compromise and cooperation are what works - not hate, righteousness, and/or suppression.

Comments welcome.  Is this logical and fact-based?  Does it remove the oppositional quality of the argument?  Isn't it better to eradicate hate and come to a workable compromise where no one position is wiped out?

What do you think?

The Rational NonPolitician

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Mr. Mitt Romney, I See Your "Why"

I have studied the candidates and then looked more deeply into them.

And, I think, people do not get the powerful "why" for Mitt Romney. 

WHY does he want to be President?

In a simple statement it is, I think, "to use the abilities I have acquired so that I can direct this nation back to prosperity and strength for all Americans."   And a subtext is, I believe, "my heart is broken when I see the suffering and struggles that now exist in this country...and I want to do as much about it as I can."

For some reason, his "why" doesn't show up clearly.  He needs to (as we all do) consider the message in this TED talk (18 minutes) of Simon Sinek "How great leaders inspire action". 

I am hoping that Mr. Romney will get the "why" to be known, so that he can be the one to lead this nation.

We have learned, I think, that great rhetoric and wonderful motives are insufficient for the most important job in the world - and that it cannot be left to someone who does not have the capabilities, no matter how nice and good the person is.

You, Mr. Romney, are the only one who is immensely qualified to recreate a strong foundation and prosperity for America. 

So, please do what it takes to win the primary, and then go on to be President.  We cannot afford not to have you as President. And you need to make your "why" clear to all of us, so we can match it with your great abilities and elect you to restore the strength of this nation.

This is my rational opinion.  If you have a contribution to make in this regard, please do so.

Yours for rational decisions and prosperity,

The Rational NonPolitician

P. S. After my investigation, I have written several pieces.  You can find them via the Evaluation Of Romney page.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Cain For President - Republicans, do not repeat the errors of the past.

In the 2008 primaries, Republicans "voted with their hearts" (which they do have, despite the assertions of the Dems), instead of their minds.   They voted for what seemed to correspond with their beliefs, but not for what would create the best results

Even then the standout, though not yet as well seasoned politically, debatewise, and image-creating-wise, for who could do the right job was Mitt Romney. 

McCain, while being a good man with lots of legislative experience, was not the man for the job.

This is not the first case of "good man, wrong job", surely.  The effect of that was fully illustrated with our experience with Barack Obama's Presidency.  (See Evaluation of Obama's Presidency.)

The evangelists voted, at least at first, for somebody embracing something closer to their beliefs.  This time they need to vote for what will create the best results for all concerned, as the nation will not, in a practical sense, ever, ever, ever go over to voting for any of the more extreme positions - though, of course, they are backed up with good values and beliefs, but ones that differ too strongly from others.   While we must respect their beliefs, we also must balance that with respect for the beliefs of the other citizens, without imposing one set of beliefs on others - and that is one of the key elements of our fiber as a nation, so we cannot and will not violate that.

This is a "right of center" nation.  And that is where the ultimate laws will inevitably go.  Yes, they will sometimes go to some way-off-center laws when one political party dominates for a while, before they are thrown out of office in order to adjust the laws back toward the middle.   

McCain, though I respect age, was too old to be able to be sure he could live long enough and, fatally, I think, too inexperienced in management.  Feisty and a good debater, yes.  And willing to fight the establishment (a maverick) to some extent.  But not the right man for the job.  And then he selected a good person who was a much more colorful maverick and which he thought would ignite the party and the woman's vote - he was partly right but disastrously wrong as it was soon apparent that she could not have a prayer of being a capable President if McCain died.

Good people, wrong job.  And it is a fatal mistake to hire someone for the wrong reasons!

Now Herman Cain is achieving high results in the polls.  As I look at that, I wonder what is happening and feel the urge to say "Are you kidding me?" or "What are you smoking?"

He is a good, proper, proven executive, but he'll have a big learning curve as to how to operate in government.  And we've seen what happened with the harmful effects of the current President, though a good and intelligent man, being unqualified and having go through a huge learning curve, which is actually virtually impossible to do even in four years.

You need to hire the right man for the right job.  I have no affiliation with Romney nor any prejudice for him, but I have investigated deeply enough to come to the rationally, factually-based conclusion that he is the best man, by far (similar to what Christie said in his endorsement). (See Evaluation Of Romney.)

Vote this time for the best man for the most important job in the world.  Please sit down and reason with the facts in order to make the best decision.  Please hire the most qualified man, not just the candidates who you find appealing or which agree most with your beliefs!. 

Yours for the greater good of this nation,

The Rational NonPolitician

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Hiring A CEO For The Nation - Producing Prosperity

The job before us as citizens is to hire a CEO For The Nation, for producing prosperity, abundance, and a nation that serves us all. 

Of course, the CEO is not just focused on economics, but is focused more broadly on assuring that the citizens are better off overall:  more capable and happier, with rights and liberties fully installed.

As I look and go deeper on all the candidates, the standout is Mitt Romney, as a proven and effective CEO, with excellent values and consideration for all. 

This might look like a political position, but I assure you that it is my best attempt at looking at what is best for the nation.  See Evaluation Of Romney, Evaluation Of Obama's Presidency, and Obama Vs Romney On The Issues, and Ratings Of The 2012 Candidates.

Hiring such a CEO is critical for the nation, as we can no longer insert "enemies, blaming, class warfare, fighting" and such into our thinking, as it displace problem solving and progress.  We need a CEOPresident who knows how to create results and cares for all the people. 

Now is the time.

The Rational Non-Politician

(Yes, I can be wrong/incorrect on some issues/facts, etc., so please provide factual and reasoning inputs.  I have no doubt, because of the very wide advantage of Romney over the others that he is the best choice, by far, for the nation!).

Religious Righteousness Against Mormonism

Robert Jeffries, who introduced Perry at a recent speech, assert that Mormonism is a cult and that they are not Christians.  (Perry has refuted this, to his credit.)

This is an example of righteousness and what seems to be very unchristian behavior.  Would Christ do this? 

This man, in this instance, is being irrational and righteous - a combination which has created a great deal of harm in this world.  He needs to learn how to reason and be fair, or he'll be leading people into more irrationality and what causes the problems in the world.

Of course, the name of the Mormon church, also called the LDS church, is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of The Latter Day Saints.  It would appear that Jeffries should check things out in more depth before making assertions.

Throughout history, churches have fought against other churches and religions.  They do this all in the belief that they are right and the others wrong.  However, the others believe they are right also.  So, we have 10,000 variations of religion most of whom believe they are the right one - but, at the very best, there would logically be 9,999 of them that were not right in some way. 

It is preposterous to believe that one 'knows the truth' based on explaining what is unexplainable and 'knowing' the truth of the unprovable and often unknowable. 

A religion with mature perspective allows for and tolerates other religions.  Muhammad urged tolerance.   See Jesus quote below.  All wise religions support "love".  Jeffries is doing a perfect example here of hatefulness and righteousness, which is the opposite of good religion.   

With regard to Jeffries and his learning more, Jesus statement might be used here: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."   So, the solution, as always, is to educate those like Jeffries so that they can do what works better for the world and stop their harm.

Until we rid the world of such thinking as Jeffries engages in, the world will not be as good as it can be.  He is not to blame for he is simply doing the best he can, given the current limits of his awareness.  He is not the problem.  It is his lack of awareness/knowledge.  So the solution is to solve the lack of awareness.

What do you think?

The Rational Non-Politician
(aka The Rational Problem Solver)

A cult? Well, certainly not as large as the cult of Jeffries.  It seems, from my knowledge and review of their principles and 'books' that they are a community that is progressive and of very high character and values. 

See the brief comments on Mormonism - Not A Factor under Evaluation Of Romney.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Rationally Evaluating Romney - Extraordinary

I decided to look deeper and to determine who would be the best for the United States.  I was very impressed about how extraordinarily capable and caring he is. 

If one puts aside biases for a moment and conflicts of beliefs, one will find that all citizens, on the left or the right, will be better off if Mitt Romney becomes the President. 

I would predict that he will be the best President ever, in terms of effectiveness in improving our economy and the benefits we derive from it.

From The Site, Evaluation Of Romney:

Among all the candidates for President for 2012, there is no competitor (with the exception of Huntsman) who even comes close as to the qualifications and ability to manage the United States government for the betterment of all, regardless of one's party affiliation.

If one reviews his background, in areas that are controllable, he has had extraordinary results, including these:

1. Taking all of the employees of the firm to locate a partner's missing young daughter (see video Mitt Romney Hero),
2.  Turning a $3 billion dollar deficit for Massachusetts into a $1 billion dollar surplus (see video on his governorship An Introduction).
3.  Rescuing the 2002 Olympics from disaster and fraud and making it highly successful and profitable (see documentary video Olympics Turnaround).
4.  Turned around a major management consultant firm and consulted with many businesses to improve their operations.
5.  Ran a business investment firm, buying and/or financing and then consulting or managing, with an extraordinary set of results, averaging an astounding return on investment of 113 per cent.  See documentary video The Businessman

He is fair and highly conscientious about protecting those who are in need (proven by his actual actions) and he is avid about creating opportunity and educating people so that they will prosper.

He has prepared a thorough plan (while Obama has never produced a thorough written plan) for jobs and economic factors:  See The Plan or The PDF Summary (at Mitt Romney, Jobs). 

Extraordinarily effective and caring to do what is right - this is a potent combination that could benefit this nation more than ever before.   With him in charge, I am certain that our culture and our country will prosper. 

Look at the evaluation and decide.   This is an important time.  (You might want to review the Evaluation Of Obama's Presidency, 10/11.)

The Rational Problem Solver

As always, I welcome corrections, additions, analyses and any comments.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011


(Consider also reading and providing input to Evaluation Of Obama's Presidency 10/11.)

Are we taking a road to passiveness and the easy route?  Will a true leader let that happen?  Will we empower ourselves to create prosperity?


Entitled means to get the title to (own) something.  It is a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract.  Do we have a right to benefits with no exchange and no payment for it? 

Yes, we are entitled to get our social security benefits because we buy them based on a contract with the U.S. government.  The same with Medicare.   But if we don’t pay in enough to be able to get what we will get out of the other end, does it make sense that we should be entitled to something we haven’t purchased the right of the benefits to, where we haven’t paid in?


In socialism (which I am not saying we have) or communism, the social contract is that people have the right to have their needs taken care of – and that people must contribute based on their abilities.

The only problem is that humans have been proven to need incentives.  So socialism and communism go broke (but that is often put off through the mechanism of force, which requires an autocratic state and lots of harm).  They have been proven not to work, despite their appeal..

When people march to “get their share of the money” because it is “unfair” to have the rich have so much, they are not seeking to earn the money but to redistribute it.  The irony is that, if they win, people will no longer have the incentive to create wealth.  And that results in less wealth.  And less wealth results in not being able to afford to give so much to the poor.  

The solution lies, instead, in increasing the size of the pie rather than trying to slice it differently.  Those people marching for a “fair share” are actually marching out of the desire to live well (enough).  And they will live well by contributing and being paid for delivering value, which means they are earning the entitlement to certain benefits, not expecting something for nothing.  

Before anyone protests capitalism, they should learn about it:  Capitalism - How It Works.


Of course, any good system can have its excesses.  And, of course, we need to protect from any great harm that is directly caused there.  But how to do that is a matter of opinion – hopefully, informed opinion.  So, capitalism needs to be “controlled” from going to extremes that will harm society.  We need to determine where things can be excessive and then prioritize and then control only that which has a true payoff.

Hopefully, we would avoid the ignorance that is illustrated by Dick Durbin’s sponsorship of a bill that included limiting what banks can charge businesses when a debit card is used – essentially limiting their rights to run their business.  He apparently fails to see that markets work.  If a charge were too high, then competitors would come in at lower rates in order to get the profits.  Instead, one result is that Bank Of America is shifting to charge $5 for a month’s worth of use to the debit card holder if the card is used in a particular month (there is no extra charge for the number of times used, however, and no charge if it is only used at the atm). 

The great uproar about it being “unfair” is the typical protest/complaint of the unthinking, believing that they know what is “right”.   But the market will take care of this situation – if B of A is charging too much, one simply shifts one’s account to another business.  Unless there is a monopoly, which we have laws to protect against, the market (the people) is the judge, where people decide to purchase something if it is worth the price and where competitors come in and offer a lower price to get the business if there is still profit in it, and the price is driven down to closer to the costs – it takes care of itself. 

Overprotecting results in restricting.  Overtaxing results in more businesses doing their business elsewhere, so that there are fewer jobs for Americans.  Good business judgment must be used in order to strike the proper balance.

The question is not “what’s fair?” but “what will work that will provide the greatest overall benefits for those involved?”  No one knows what “fair” is.   Generally, we know that those who cry “unfair” more than in a few limited situations are those who don’t take responsibility for creating their own circumstances, for earning their own benefits. 

There are no “entitlements” except those that are purchased in one way or another (except for those are actually unable).  Being entitled where one does not exchange anything for it is strictly not a right, not a given, and perhaps a preposterous absurdity. 


However, people can choose to be charitable and to give to another.  And, in many ways, certain benefits that are chosen to give are only possible through the mechanism of government.  But surely it is not our right to take from others involuntarily.  There is a word for that – theft, robbery, stealing, unjust enrichment. 

The majority of us in the US, as far as I can determine, are committed to the values of:

  1.  Protecting our citizens who are not able to provide for themselves from inadequate food and shelter and health care. 
  2. Assuring that the able citizens are educated adequately to be able to contribute to society and to earn adequate food and shelter for themselves for their lifetimes.  This is not only for the benefit of the individual but for the collective whole, which benefits from the greater prosperity of the nation – which, in turn, creates a greater ability to protect its citizens.
  3. Protecting property rights and protecting the citizens from harm, whether criminal, through nature, or any cause.
  4. Assuring that the economic structure and freedoms are such that we produce a high level of prosperity without producing excesses that cause harm. 
  5. Providing direction and education on values and character and how to operate in life so that citizens are aware enough to operate in their own interests and more able to contribute to others.  (This is a value that may not be seen at this point, but one that, if implementation around it is done, will more than pay for itself.)
(Implicit in a "responsibility, prosperity" society is our paying for what we get, to the extent of our abilities.  This would conceivably be handled via a Citizen Loan Account.)
Other than number 5 above, it is my judgment that both parties are committed to achieving those values.  They simply differ in their understanding of how to get there – and both make mistakes and are affected by conflicts of interest.  The Republican party cannot correctly be labeled as ‘heartless’.  The Democratic Party cannot correctly be labeled as being against business and capitalism. 


The pity right now is that there are those in politics who are making others wrong in order to get more votes and to stay in office – who prioritize that instead of benefitting the country – who are lacking integrity and who are not congruent with what they say.

Those who speak of and implement cooperation and compromise are working toward the greater good.   Those who call others “the enemy” are creating divisiveness and warfare.  Those who speak of the “fat cats” are evilizing the rich and/or those in business, creating greater divisiveness and warfare – after all, isn’t that the mechanism that has been used to create wars with other nations, where the people of the other nation are made into “devils”, losing their humanity in the sight of those who wish war.  

Those who are not adequately educated in economics and what works in life should not be our representatives even if they are “on our side” in terms of beliefs, for they are more prone to bad decisions without adequate knowledge, reasoning, and facts. (See Educating Our Representatives.) Those who are dysfunctional, who rely on hate and “making others wrong” and distorting the facts to win votes, they are not who we want in office. 


Leadership is judged by its results. 

To the extent a leader blames “those other people” or his/her predecessors, he is not taking responsibility for bettering things – he is spending time in excuse making, in worthless/harmful politics.  To the extent he condones the uninformed behaviors of others, he is not leading toward the highest good for all.  To the extent he attempts to make “others” wrong, he is not leading – he is creating more divisiveness and at the same time recruiting the side he is on to feel they are more right in making the others wrong – and the focus is not on what will benefit for the greater good.  To the extent he distorts the facts on purpose to make others wrong, he is being harmful or at the very least dysfunctional.

A small, but illustrative, example is where there was a soldier who was relieved that there was no longer a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.  Perhaps two people in an audience of thousands booed, briefly, but stopped quickly, possibly for lack of support.  Perhaps they were against gay rights or perhaps they thought it impractical to have a policy based on “whatever”.  Some top leaders of the opposition attempted to lower other people’s opinions of the debaters on stage and their political party as being without moral character because they did not object to such behavior. (Note that the conclusion is not based on sound reasoning and uses generalization, while also relying on incorrect, blown up ‘facts’, greatly exaggerated – I believe this is something that is unacceptable for any leader, as a leader must be rational and fact-based and knowledgeable in order to lead our country productively and ethically.) 

Ironically, the leader of our country, a few weeks ago, followed the speech of a union leader who used foul accusations and labels and created others as enemies, yet our designated leader made no comment about what the union leader had proclaimed, with our leader not calling it unacceptable in politics.  To accuse others, and yet be guilty of the very same behavior, is inauthenticity at its least and lack of mature positive behavior and thinking at its best.

A leader must have integrity and authenticity to lead.  He must follow the values he espouses.  He must, to quote a current saying, be “the adult in the room.”  He is not a true leader if he claims to be the adult yet behaves in contrary, divisive ways as means to achieve political ends.

And, to return to the lead in to this piece, if a portion of his citizens are marching for entitlements, to make others wrong, etc. and etc., it is a leader’s job to intervene and to educate and to lead to productive attitudes.  It is malevolent to use those marches for his own political purposes. 

A leader is responsible for results.  And if the results are not good, he does not make excuses or blame others.  He, instead, asks what went wrong and now what can we do to get better results – and then he goes about it.   Yes, it is true that he might lose the election that he might have won by manipulating the people and using misinformation, but at least he will have done what is honorable – and not sold his soul to the devil, no matter how righteous he may feel, no matter how noble his goals.

Who shall we choose who is a true leader, in terms of actual capability and integrity rather than “appeal” or “empty promises” (even if the latter is sincerely made but made without a realistic assessment of the ability to deliver)? 

I would hope our existing leader would ‘see the light’ and work toward the greater good instead of being stuck on ideology or limited to his own understanding of economics and how things work – which, of course, can only be done through accessing lots of brains and lots of knowledge, in true cooperation.  Yes, I voted for this man for his potential to shake things up in the right direction and to lead with integrity. 

He has, based on results, not done that. 

Yes, there are conflicts, such as having to please his “base”, but he must, as soon as possible, get in gear to produce results asap instead of being governed by and diverted by his politics.  And he must do that in cooperation and compromise - for “being right”, as any adult knows, is not the ultimate workable stance. 

Yours toward using reason, facts, and knowledge to achieve better results,

The Rational Non-Politician

P. S. Although there are many anti-productive behaviors on both sides of the aisle, I think it is worthwhile mentioning one big error that has been used against the person’s party.  That is where McConnell stated that his chief objective was to get Obama out of office.  He failed to make his true point, which was that the attitude of Obama was counterproductive for the nation and then to state ‘why’ and how it was.  He made the classic mistake in emotional intelligence which was to ‘condemn the sinner, rather than the sin.”  The statement he made is no better than Obama’s calling the Republican “the enemies”.  Both were divisive and harmful.