Swing voters - Read this to think deeper

Please pass this on to those who are independent or undecided voters in the swing states and to people who will pass it on to people in the swing states. 

__________________ 

Barack Obama, who I had voted for in the dearth of alternatives and in the hope for change, is a good, committed fellow but he has the misunderstandings typical to an idealist and a person with no grounding in the real world of economics and what actually works and doesn’t work (which is what one learns from actual experience where decisions and strategies must work in actual results).

Yes, we do need to make sure we take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Yes, we do need to do those functions that can only be done from a centralized system to benefit all Americans. And that includes especially assuring that Americans are educated and productive, able to cover themselves and contribute to the overall good.

But there is an argument of how much further should we go along the continuum of practicality versus idealism.

The ultimate “further” is the ever appealing Socialism. (We are not there, but the question is how far to go.)

“We can do it together. We can provide for all. We can assure equality and that the rich and powerful do not take over.”

The argument in Socialism is fired up by choosing an enemy, or bad guy. The same goes for Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals (which Obama taught in Chicago).

The argument is further fired up by the appealing concept of the government providing for all.

The danger lies here in “entitlement” or classic codependency where people are enabled to depend on rescue and security from another – and this results in less ambition and less self-esteem for the individual but it results in many fewer people contributing to the productivity and welfare of the nation.

The indicator of this that is concrete is the number of people depending on the government (exclusive of those who have paid into a system). (About 50% pay no federal income taxes. Is that reasonable?)

That indicator can creep up without our noticing it.

How much is too much?

Of course, we can’t get all capable people who are unproductive to be productive, but we should be able to limit those who aren’t to, say, 10% (this is in addition to those who are in fact not capable). Surely it would make sense for us to demand that they do whatever they can to carry their own load - and not reward them with any money beyond the slightest subsistence that is demanded by the humanitarianism of not letting anyone starve. But those people must be called on to be responsible – and to contribute– which will help us have more money for the good causes.

Ultimately, Socialism calls for “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” (Wikipedia)

And “we will take care of you” is the ultimate way to get people “fired up” – many people get excited by it.

But it falls short in that it fails to meet the final tests:

1. There is no clear path on how this is to be actually provided. We must not be misled into believing that the rich can provide it (from each according to his ability), because, though appealing, there is not enough wealth for the rich to be able to do that. If you increased taxes on them by 10%, exclusive of the economic effect on growth, only 1/5 of the current deficit would be paid for. Anyone using the argument that the rich can cover you is possibly doing the pied piper approach – for there is no substance to the argument, there is no way to make it work.

All the hope in the world will not make it work, for there is no proven way to make it work.

And note that Socialism has always failed.

And before it ultimately fails, the leaders have to start imposing their own authoritarianism to force people to comply, always.

The beginning is always with the idea of “doing the right thing” by providing for the people. They use their form of “executive orders” (leader orders) to implement “the right thing”, which, incidentally, does look like the right thing and it may be the right thing, but the consequences are not identified clearly(or we would seek a different balance, given that there are tradeoffs – and we must realize that the good fairy will not show up to make it all work).

The leaders fail to stick to the laws and go around them without working it out with the legislature, which is the entity to make the laws – after all, the leaders’ judgment is “superior”to theirs.

Yes, it appears innocuous at first.

Who cares if the budgets submitted to Congress are voted down 100% - by both parties!

Who cares that the immigration laws (which the leaders have determined are not right) are not enforced – and surely it is wonderful to not deport those who have never known another nation. I agree with the latter idea, but shouldn’t the lawmakers agree and be the ones who formulate the laws?

Who cares that the leaders impose regulations and restrictions that support their constituencies even though they are doing it by essentially creating their own laws or not waiting for them to be created by lawful means? No big deal, right?

No big deal, just lots of little changes – which gradually accumulate and catch you before you realize it.

And isn’t it wonderful that we impose these requirements on the evil profitmaking health insurance companies, where they are to provide “for free” certain benefits to all (yes, there appears to be a “good fairy” here). Free is good, and it is appealing, but do we have the right to dictate (as in orders from a dictator)? And without agreement in law?

Where are the limits? And aren’t there signs of going around the law and the rules? How far should we allow that to go? It seems harmless, but we should be aware of it.

2. We are limited by what is real and practical and we should address that,, yes?

And if there are financial concerns shouldn’t we address those with a concrete plan? Or should we just ignore it and rely on hope –hope that it will solve itself in the long run – which of course does not work in the real world!

If we have promises of more and more and more, but we fail to set up a means of fulfilling current promises (currently behind by $100 trillion, per the Trustees reports!), aren’t we in for problems in the future?

But, no, it is easy to ignore that and easier to fire up the people with more promises, briefly alluding to “I’ll take care of that and yes it is serious but we’ll handle it” and “don’t vote for those who are mean and force us to face tradeoffs” (said more convincingly than that, of course).

I don’t like the idea that the “other” party has alternate values to my own, though I cannot prove mine are right, as they are only opinions. I respect theirs. But as I look at it, 72% of the people in the US approve of 1^st trimester abortions, so there will be no difference there regardless of who I vote for. And I know that it is not true that the other party will let people starve in the streets, nor do I think that they could impose that even if they wanted to, as the people would have a say-so in that and no one would let it happen. And gay rights will continue to improve.

I see no loss of basicsocial benefits, but I do see a greater ability to be effective plus a willingness to address the tough issues – not just the national debt but the $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare (still unaddressed by Obama after 3 ½ years; politically wise, but a sell-out on the American people).

One path, in my analysis, has no hope of succeeding, with a leader who has no practical capability and experience, though noble intent. The other will do no damage, because they can’t go beyond the will of the people, but it will at least seek to do what is right and workable and practical – with at least good solid potential.

There seems to be no contest here.

One path is virtually guaranteed not to work – there is no good fairy that will rescue us.

The other path is systematic, disciplined, with a capable proven leader and ‘rescuer’ of businesses, Olympics, and a state. (And in his famous op-ed that was titled by the New York Times and was misleading, he actually proposed to save Detroit by a managed bankruptcy to make each company safely viable and then, and only then, to have government guarantee the necessary loans, so that necessary capital could be obtained. Read the op-ed; don’t rely on the false representations made about this. Detroit.)

And if the people fail to realize that we must follow a path that works, in this world of imperfection and real limits, instead of one that literally has no hope except for the good fairy showing up and rescuing it all – if they fail to realize it, we will suffer greatly as a nation – and drop even further behind in being able to finance all that is good and beneficial in the world.

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.

With

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

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.


THE INDIANA RESULT: (Excerpts:)

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.)

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   

What Is The Responsibility To Tell The Truth?

Chris Christie in his speech today indicated that one of the keys to progress in his state was that they educated the public of dire consequences. 

He did not say "Well, we kinda mentioned it as a problem and that we should address (sometime)."

The President needs to lead in this area and to tell the truth.

Also, he needs to lead by not having the executive branch wait for the others to come up with suggestions. 

The President will not have fulfilled his obligation to be an honest leader until:

1.  he acknowledges specifically the amount of the unfunded obligations of Social Security and Medicare and
2.  puts forward a set of specific suggestions on how to solve the problem.

Yes, there is a political risk but he must make a decision of being political or of being in integrity.

Whether someone agrees with all the specifics of the suggestions or not, Paul Ryan put together a comprehensive plan.  Yes, the opposition did make claims that he was destroying Medicare "as we know it" and that it would cost $6,000 more per person or household for insurance.  But they failed to address the whole picture, that the poor would be covered and that there would be benefits that would be means-tested - in other words those who could afford their own care would receive less benefits even though they paid into the "fund".  That is actually a tax increase for the wealthy, but it is one that would work. 

Will we have leaders that educate us with the truth and specifics about the dire consequences?  Will you support someone who doesn't meet this key test?

Will we have leaders who do not make specific suggestions on how to solve problems?  Will you support someone who doesn't meet this key test? 

Obama actually ignored any necessities when he submitted his budget, which the senate voted down 97-0.  There is a more significant statement there than has been emphasized.  Do we want a President who ignores or is not fully aware of the problems?  

There are too many questions...and, it seems, not very positive answers to them.  We need the President to represent the people's interests - all the people - with integrity. 

What do you think?

The Rational Non-Politician

HIDDEN EXTRA DEBT: $2.5 TRILLION

If a corporation promised a future retiree a pension, the corporation would have to record that amount as a liability and then note it down as an expense of doing business during the year the liability was incurred. 

The US government does not do this basic required accounting.

So, we think the deficit is "only" $1.6 trillion this year, but it is actually MORE if we consider our unpaid  future extra liabilities we incurred this year.  

Congressmen, and maybe even the President, do not understand this.  Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer have said "There is no problem with social security.  We have a huge surplus" - But, with thinking and an analysis and understanding of the facts and factors involved,  I declare those are "unknowledgeable" statements, completely incorrect and misunderstood.  (I am not optimistic about our legislature adequately dealing with what is needed!!!!)

Medicare is behind $36.3 trillion, considering all that we've promised in the future (minus what will be paid).
Social Security is behind $7 trillion.  (And those are the low estimates.) 

I hope the congressmen, and perhaps the reader, reads, on the related site:

The Unfunded Liabilities Explanation (kind of an Accounting 101)
Social Security - What is the real liability?
Medicare - This is a bigger problem.  Get the whole perspective.

The problem is solvable if we do the practice of "handling a problem while it is little so that it does not get big" - except it is already very, very big, but we can prevent being run over by a big freight train, if we anticipate - and use our reasoning power, with the facts and consulting the true experts.

Will we face the biggest problem of our era?  Will Congressmen learn and then deal with it? 

I certainly hope so!!!

The NonPolitician

As always, corrections, additions, and feedback are always welcome.