I'm sending the following letter to the President:
Dear President Obama -
Want to reduce healthcare costs? Make healthcare less necessary! A vast part of our health problems are avoidable. But the healthcare industry focuses on fixing problems because that's where the money is. To reduce costs, avoid problems before they must be fixed.
To do this, connect improving one's health and fitness with patriotism, just as you did with education. I loved your line regarding dropping out: "you're not just giving up on yourself, you're giving up on your country." How about "A stronger America requires stronger Americans!"
Not everyone can be a superb athlete, but everyone can improve their level of fitness. Overweight? Lose ten pounds. Sedentary? Start walking or running. Even elderly people can benefit from simple weight training or other exercises done in their own homes. And the typical American meal could be vastly improved in terms of promoting health. Best of all, if people are properly motivated, this doesn't have to cost the government much, if anything.
During World War II, people sacrificed 'for the war effort' and felt good about doing it. Almost every facet of society had to make significant adjustments. Reducing our huge, non-sustainable healthcare costs requires a similar effort, and it can't be limited to just the healthcare and insurance industries.
Citizens want to know how they can help. They want to be active participants in solving our nation's problems, rather than just victims of forces beyond their control. Tell them "Here's what you can do for your country: Eat properly, lose weight, be physically active." If you hammer this message home, you'll see the demand for healthcare significantly decline.
Keep up the good work,
- Ned
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Sunday, October 26, 2008
What we need: Commitment to Truth; Faith; Trust
We (our nation and our world) need three things, which are intertwined:
Commitment to the Truth:
Truth has a very high value; we should recognize this fact. Truth multiplies the power of groups, because individuals can rely on the information they receive from others without the inefficiency of questioning the motives of others. With truthful communications, groups can operate as a single organism, collecting and processing information no single individual could collect and process alone.
Truth is more than facts, and more than a collection of facts. Our presidential campaigns bombard us with huge numbers of facts in attempts to convince us to vote for their candidates. They purport to tell us the Truth, but they carefully lead us away from facts that might weaken their candidates' positions. We should not stand for this. The time before elections should be a nationwide discussion about what is True, with every side willing to concede points (where warranted) to others in a quest to determine where we are and where we should go.
This discussion necessarily requires that we accept that people can honestly disagree about important issues. In fact, Truth is subjective. What I feel is True may not be what you feel is True. What I feel is True today may not be what I felt was True yesterday, or tomorrow. But what is important is that when we interact with other people, we communicate Truthfully about what we know and what we feel. And the fact that our own knowledge and feelings change over time should help us understand that someone else's differing perception of Truth doesn't make them evil, or even a bad person; they're just different. If we can convince them that our perception of Truth is superior to their perception, great. But if they manage to convince us, we need to admit it. In few cases will either perception be either fully correct or fully incorrect; the full Truth lies outside either perception, waiting to be more fully uncovered.
The object is not to define a static, objective Truth that all can agree on; the important thing is that all parties be committed to the search, and honest in communicating what they find.
The second thing we need is Faith. We need Faith that Truth is our friend. Too often we are afraid to tell the Truth, or know the Truth, or seek the Truth, for fear of the consequences. Faith is the confidence that we'll be OK without depending on the status quo. My wife, a statistician, is fond of saying the most important factor in predicting whether you'll be alive tomorrow is whether you're alive today. The reason you're alive today is that, overall, the things that led you to where you are now have kept you alive. You have a lifelong record of survival. There are any number of things in your past that could have led to your demise, but you have avoided them all. That's a high recommendation for keeping on doing what you're doing.
This thing about committing yourself to Truth is pretty threatening. You got to where you are based on a set of assumptions (which may have change quite a bit through the years) about what is important, what is True, what's, what's wrong, what's OK, and what's not OK. And when these assumptions are challenged, you have a choice: you can either be open to change, or you can defend them. It's often safer to defend them. Change is a threat to your survival, because what you perceive before you change has been successful in keeping you alive. That's why Faith is important. You have to have Faith in the Truth in order to seek Truth. And you can't be committed to Truth without seeking it.
Trust is the third component to this triad. We need to trust others. If we're confident others are committed to Truth, trusting them is simple. And that's another reason for being committed to Truth ourselves; others need to be able to trust US.
Trusting doesn't require us to accept as fact everything anyone else tells us. If someone tells me that Vitamin C can prevent cancer, I, frankly, wouldn't believe it. But I should be able to trust that the other person believes that it does. And I don't necessarily need to get into a discussion with that person about whether it's true; that discussion may not be worth my time. But I, and we as a society, shouldn't condone people saying that Vitamin C prevents cancer if they don't actually believe it themselves. But I think we tolerate this time type of misrepresentation all the time, in others, and in ourselves. And we shouldn't.
When I criticize toleration of behavior, I want to be clear about the danger of branding people as 'bad'. I believe we're all a mixture of admirable ("good") and inadmirable ("bad") qualities, and the distribution of these qualities in us change with time. The fact that I lied once, or perhaps lied a lot, doesn't make me an incorrigible liar from that point on. A person who is untrustworthy at one time, or about one thing, isn't necessarily untrustworthy about everything, or even that one thing all the time. Who among us hasn't learned from a mistake?
We shouldn't tolerate dishonesty, but we need to be willing to risk loss by sometimes erring on the side of trusting too much, rather than playing it safe and never trusting anyone who has let us (or others) down in the past. This is another example of how Faith is important in our lives.
So there you have it: We need a commitment to Truth, because that allows groups to function efficiently and cooperatively. We need Faith that this commitment to Truth will benefit us all in the end. And we need Trust to take advantage of the benefits Truth provides.
So ends my first post on my Philosophy.
Commitment to the Truth:
Truth has a very high value; we should recognize this fact. Truth multiplies the power of groups, because individuals can rely on the information they receive from others without the inefficiency of questioning the motives of others. With truthful communications, groups can operate as a single organism, collecting and processing information no single individual could collect and process alone.
Truth is more than facts, and more than a collection of facts. Our presidential campaigns bombard us with huge numbers of facts in attempts to convince us to vote for their candidates. They purport to tell us the Truth, but they carefully lead us away from facts that might weaken their candidates' positions. We should not stand for this. The time before elections should be a nationwide discussion about what is True, with every side willing to concede points (where warranted) to others in a quest to determine where we are and where we should go.
This discussion necessarily requires that we accept that people can honestly disagree about important issues. In fact, Truth is subjective. What I feel is True may not be what you feel is True. What I feel is True today may not be what I felt was True yesterday, or tomorrow. But what is important is that when we interact with other people, we communicate Truthfully about what we know and what we feel. And the fact that our own knowledge and feelings change over time should help us understand that someone else's differing perception of Truth doesn't make them evil, or even a bad person; they're just different. If we can convince them that our perception of Truth is superior to their perception, great. But if they manage to convince us, we need to admit it. In few cases will either perception be either fully correct or fully incorrect; the full Truth lies outside either perception, waiting to be more fully uncovered.
The object is not to define a static, objective Truth that all can agree on; the important thing is that all parties be committed to the search, and honest in communicating what they find.
The second thing we need is Faith. We need Faith that Truth is our friend. Too often we are afraid to tell the Truth, or know the Truth, or seek the Truth, for fear of the consequences. Faith is the confidence that we'll be OK without depending on the status quo. My wife, a statistician, is fond of saying the most important factor in predicting whether you'll be alive tomorrow is whether you're alive today. The reason you're alive today is that, overall, the things that led you to where you are now have kept you alive. You have a lifelong record of survival. There are any number of things in your past that could have led to your demise, but you have avoided them all. That's a high recommendation for keeping on doing what you're doing.
This thing about committing yourself to Truth is pretty threatening. You got to where you are based on a set of assumptions (which may have change quite a bit through the years) about what is important, what is True, what's, what's wrong, what's OK, and what's not OK. And when these assumptions are challenged, you have a choice: you can either be open to change, or you can defend them. It's often safer to defend them. Change is a threat to your survival, because what you perceive before you change has been successful in keeping you alive. That's why Faith is important. You have to have Faith in the Truth in order to seek Truth. And you can't be committed to Truth without seeking it.
Trust is the third component to this triad. We need to trust others. If we're confident others are committed to Truth, trusting them is simple. And that's another reason for being committed to Truth ourselves; others need to be able to trust US.
Trusting doesn't require us to accept as fact everything anyone else tells us. If someone tells me that Vitamin C can prevent cancer, I, frankly, wouldn't believe it. But I should be able to trust that the other person believes that it does. And I don't necessarily need to get into a discussion with that person about whether it's true; that discussion may not be worth my time. But I, and we as a society, shouldn't condone people saying that Vitamin C prevents cancer if they don't actually believe it themselves. But I think we tolerate this time type of misrepresentation all the time, in others, and in ourselves. And we shouldn't.
When I criticize toleration of behavior, I want to be clear about the danger of branding people as 'bad'. I believe we're all a mixture of admirable ("good") and inadmirable ("bad") qualities, and the distribution of these qualities in us change with time. The fact that I lied once, or perhaps lied a lot, doesn't make me an incorrigible liar from that point on. A person who is untrustworthy at one time, or about one thing, isn't necessarily untrustworthy about everything, or even that one thing all the time. Who among us hasn't learned from a mistake?
We shouldn't tolerate dishonesty, but we need to be willing to risk loss by sometimes erring on the side of trusting too much, rather than playing it safe and never trusting anyone who has let us (or others) down in the past. This is another example of how Faith is important in our lives.
So there you have it: We need a commitment to Truth, because that allows groups to function efficiently and cooperatively. We need Faith that this commitment to Truth will benefit us all in the end. And we need Trust to take advantage of the benefits Truth provides.
So ends my first post on my Philosophy.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
So far, good news on the value of the dollar...
A brief followup on the 9/29/08 post:
The dollar has risen in value in the past 2 weeks. Only 9/29/08 it was worth 0.695362 euros; by 10/10/08 it had climbed to 0.742335 euros, which is as high as it has been since the first part of 2007.
But we should still pay close attention to the value of the dollar. When it drops, expect interest rates to climb. And, with a 10 Trillion dollar debt, high interest rates will be devestating to our federal budget.
One other note: the current economic crisis has caused people to seek the security of Treasury notes and bonds, which has the effect of reducing the interest rate the government pays to borrow money. So it creates a short-term advantage to the federal budget. But it also means that money is less available to commercial operations (can you say 'credit crunch'?) so it's not a long-term solution.
The dollar has risen in value in the past 2 weeks. Only 9/29/08 it was worth 0.695362 euros; by 10/10/08 it had climbed to 0.742335 euros, which is as high as it has been since the first part of 2007.
But we should still pay close attention to the value of the dollar. When it drops, expect interest rates to climb. And, with a 10 Trillion dollar debt, high interest rates will be devestating to our federal budget.
One other note: the current economic crisis has caused people to seek the security of Treasury notes and bonds, which has the effect of reducing the interest rate the government pays to borrow money. So it creates a short-term advantage to the federal budget. But it also means that money is less available to commercial operations (can you say 'credit crunch'?) so it's not a long-term solution.
Kitchen table conversations
The presidential candidates and pundits refer to families getting together for conversations 'around the kitchen table' to figure out how they can cut back on expenditures. But the solution to our current economic crisis really involves raising a different subject in these family conversations: "How can we help be part of the solution to the problem?"
Recent generations have been taught to think of individuals and families as 'consumers'. When you go to work, either as an employee or a businessperson, you're considered a producer, but as soon as you get home, you're merely considered 'a consumer'. This unhelpful dichotomy needs to change. People at home do more than consume, and they have an important role to play when they're not consuming. (The idea that they are literally 'nothing if not consumers' is extremely dangerous, since overconsumption is a key cause of most of the problems the world faces.)
Back to the kitchen table conversation: This should not be presented as a negative thing: "What do we have to give up?", but rather as a more general, and possibly positive "What do we do in this situation?" This can include cutting back consumption, but can also include "What can we do to help?" Patriotism is love of country, and when someone or something you love is in trouble, you look for ways to help, even if these actions require sacrifice. Knowing you are part of the solution can be far more rewarding than hedonistic consuming. People and families can endure much more hardship when they consider themselves helping to build (or rebuild) something important. Our leaders need to enlist the power of American families and citizens to contribute something other than taxes to our society. And leaders should not consider tax breaks the only way to solicit this response.
I'm really thinking about one particular way American families can assist in the economic recovery: 'buy American' or, better yet, 'buy local'. Money spend on domestic products is more likely to stay in the domestic economy than money spent on foreign goods. Money that stays in the domestic economy helps business after business (and thus employee after employee) keep going, and that's what we need.
I realize that American goods are generally significantly more expensive than foreign goods, and therefore 'buying American' necessarily means people can't buy as much as they could if they bought cheaper foreign goods. But there is a significant psychological advantage to viewing the issue as making a positive decision to make things better, rather than a negative decision just to reduce expenditures in order to survive.
We really lost an opportunity last Spring to make this point at the time the 'economic stimulus' checks went out. People should have been encouraged to consider how long their money would stay in the domestic economy when using this windfall income.
One last point: there are somethings national leaders really can't say. I suspect the President can't say 'buy American' because other countries would react negatively. "Protectionism" is a dirty word. Other countries rely on the American market consuming what is produced overseas, and they wouldn't like to hear American leaders interfering with this process.
But at some point citizens need to take care of their own countries. We are not sheep that are led entirely by government tax policies. Democracies are based upon citizen participation, and participation is not just a matter of voting whenever elections occur. Yes, we are "consumers", and we are "voters", but we are not just these things. Our nation's future depends on people adopting a broader view of themselves and each other.
Recent generations have been taught to think of individuals and families as 'consumers'. When you go to work, either as an employee or a businessperson, you're considered a producer, but as soon as you get home, you're merely considered 'a consumer'. This unhelpful dichotomy needs to change. People at home do more than consume, and they have an important role to play when they're not consuming. (The idea that they are literally 'nothing if not consumers' is extremely dangerous, since overconsumption is a key cause of most of the problems the world faces.)
Back to the kitchen table conversation: This should not be presented as a negative thing: "What do we have to give up?", but rather as a more general, and possibly positive "What do we do in this situation?" This can include cutting back consumption, but can also include "What can we do to help?" Patriotism is love of country, and when someone or something you love is in trouble, you look for ways to help, even if these actions require sacrifice. Knowing you are part of the solution can be far more rewarding than hedonistic consuming. People and families can endure much more hardship when they consider themselves helping to build (or rebuild) something important. Our leaders need to enlist the power of American families and citizens to contribute something other than taxes to our society. And leaders should not consider tax breaks the only way to solicit this response.
I'm really thinking about one particular way American families can assist in the economic recovery: 'buy American' or, better yet, 'buy local'. Money spend on domestic products is more likely to stay in the domestic economy than money spent on foreign goods. Money that stays in the domestic economy helps business after business (and thus employee after employee) keep going, and that's what we need.
I realize that American goods are generally significantly more expensive than foreign goods, and therefore 'buying American' necessarily means people can't buy as much as they could if they bought cheaper foreign goods. But there is a significant psychological advantage to viewing the issue as making a positive decision to make things better, rather than a negative decision just to reduce expenditures in order to survive.
We really lost an opportunity last Spring to make this point at the time the 'economic stimulus' checks went out. People should have been encouraged to consider how long their money would stay in the domestic economy when using this windfall income.
One last point: there are somethings national leaders really can't say. I suspect the President can't say 'buy American' because other countries would react negatively. "Protectionism" is a dirty word. Other countries rely on the American market consuming what is produced overseas, and they wouldn't like to hear American leaders interfering with this process.
But at some point citizens need to take care of their own countries. We are not sheep that are led entirely by government tax policies. Democracies are based upon citizen participation, and participation is not just a matter of voting whenever elections occur. Yes, we are "consumers", and we are "voters", but we are not just these things. Our nation's future depends on people adopting a broader view of themselves and each other.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Watch the exchange rate
There was an annoucement today (Monday, 9/29/2008) about the Federal Reserve:
"The Fed announced it had expanded existing currency swap arrangements with other central banks by $US330 billion ($A398.67 billion) to $US620 billion ($A749.02 billion). The Fed also said it would increase the amount available via its term auction facility (TAF) by $US300 billion ($A362.43 billion) to $US450 billion ($A543.64 billion)."
I can't say I understand what it means, but it sounds pretty important to me. Does this increase the money supply? If so, wouldn't adding hundreds of billions of dollars reduce the value of the dollar? Remember, with a $10 Trillion federal debt, inflation is our mortal enemy.
I'm going to be watching the value of the dollar more than the stock market. If the dollar starts declining significantly in value, we're in trouble.
A link I found to track the dollar against the Euro is:
http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/EUR/graph120.html
"The Fed announced it had expanded existing currency swap arrangements with other central banks by $US330 billion ($A398.67 billion) to $US620 billion ($A749.02 billion). The Fed also said it would increase the amount available via its term auction facility (TAF) by $US300 billion ($A362.43 billion) to $US450 billion ($A543.64 billion)."
I can't say I understand what it means, but it sounds pretty important to me. Does this increase the money supply? If so, wouldn't adding hundreds of billions of dollars reduce the value of the dollar? Remember, with a $10 Trillion federal debt, inflation is our mortal enemy.
I'm going to be watching the value of the dollar more than the stock market. If the dollar starts declining significantly in value, we're in trouble.
A link I found to track the dollar against the Euro is:
http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/EUR/graph120.html
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Jim Lehrer's valient attempt...
In last Friday night's debate, moderator Jim Lehrer tried to get a straight answer to an important question. He really tried. I can't remember a moderator being more persistent in asking the same question over and over again. But, in my opinion, he never got a satisfactory answer. I suspect that if one of the candidates had answered straightforwardly, that candidate might reduced his chances for election significantly. But I'll hold my analysis to my next post. First, here's what happened. (You can read the full transcript of the debate at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/ , if you want to check my summary.)
Lehrer started off by asking both candidates:
"As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?"
After the initial responses, he followed up with:
"But if I hear the two of you correctly neither one of you is suggesting any major changes in what you want to do as president as a result of the financial bailout? Is that what you're saying?"
Lehrer still wasn't satisified. He persisted:
"What I'm trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all -- one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the -- in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I'm trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific -- small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency."
He even tried a fourth time:
"Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you -- are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already -- I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major affect?"
Obama dodged the question entirely, first stating "it's hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year." and then talking about programs he felt were too important not to fund. ("We can't shortchange those things.")
McCain, at least, said he would eliminate ethanol subsidies and 'cost-plus' governmental contracts, and $15 Billion in one type of Medicare subsidy. When pushed, he added "How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs."
Obama acknowledged "there's no doubt that as president I'm go doing have to make some tough decisions", but wouldn't get more specific.
We're being told by our leadership in Washington that without unprecedented, massive government intervention our nation and the world will almost certainly fall into an economic malaise that will rival the Great Depression of the 1930s. The cost to avoid this catastrophe is equivalent to one quarter of the current federal annual budget. But even this price doesn't eliminate the problem; it merely postpones it, or pushes it to another arena where it will once again emerge, probably sooner than later. Spending freezes and $15 Billion here and there are not a solution. I was disappointed that neither candidate was man enough to tell the American people the truth.
Lehrer started off by asking both candidates:
"As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?"
After the initial responses, he followed up with:
"But if I hear the two of you correctly neither one of you is suggesting any major changes in what you want to do as president as a result of the financial bailout? Is that what you're saying?"
Lehrer still wasn't satisified. He persisted:
"What I'm trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all -- one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the -- in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I'm trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific -- small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency."
He even tried a fourth time:
"Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you -- are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already -- I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major affect?"
Obama dodged the question entirely, first stating "it's hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year." and then talking about programs he felt were too important not to fund. ("We can't shortchange those things.")
McCain, at least, said he would eliminate ethanol subsidies and 'cost-plus' governmental contracts, and $15 Billion in one type of Medicare subsidy. When pushed, he added "How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs."
Obama acknowledged "there's no doubt that as president I'm go doing have to make some tough decisions", but wouldn't get more specific.
We're being told by our leadership in Washington that without unprecedented, massive government intervention our nation and the world will almost certainly fall into an economic malaise that will rival the Great Depression of the 1930s. The cost to avoid this catastrophe is equivalent to one quarter of the current federal annual budget. But even this price doesn't eliminate the problem; it merely postpones it, or pushes it to another arena where it will once again emerge, probably sooner than later. Spending freezes and $15 Billion here and there are not a solution. I was disappointed that neither candidate was man enough to tell the American people the truth.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Somthing smells fishy here
Is this $700 Billion bailout a Republican plan, or not?
The stated need for it comes from the (Republican) Treasury Secretary. The (Republican) President says it is vital to the nation's interests. The current plan has been 'hammered out' as a bipartisan effort in Congressional committee meetings. It seemed like a compromise had been reached; the Democrats had pushed through modifications to what was originally an awful, dangerous Republican proposal.
But then John McCain flies in. He goes to a high-profile meeting at the White House, and suddenly the Republican caucus has 'serious concerns' about this plan, and thinks it is 'too big'. According to newspaper accounts, McCain doesn't take a stand either way.
It seems the Republicans are playing both ends of issue: It's their proposal, and they're objecting to it. They're the ones saying that we need it, and they're the ones saying it's not a good idea. John McCain is saying he's going to provide leadership, and he's not taking a stand.
I suspect that McCain will soon 'demand' some minor changes, and will be presented as twisting Republican arms to achieve a 'compromise'. This will burnish his credentials as a 'maverick' who's 'not afraid to take on his own party for the good of the nation'. It sounds like a callous political ploy to increase his appeal to independent voters.
Lost in all this is the question of whether the $700 Billion bailout is really necessary, and really a good idea. If the Republicans are willing to play politics with it, is it really that urgent? And are they working to position it as a Democratic proposal to start us 'down the road to Socialism'? The events of the past day could be a sideshow to distract us from the real issues, and provide the Republicans with their cake ($700 Billion to bailout businesses from very profitable, bad business decisions) and eat it too (complain about 'liberal Democrats' and big government.) Watch out!
The stated need for it comes from the (Republican) Treasury Secretary. The (Republican) President says it is vital to the nation's interests. The current plan has been 'hammered out' as a bipartisan effort in Congressional committee meetings. It seemed like a compromise had been reached; the Democrats had pushed through modifications to what was originally an awful, dangerous Republican proposal.
But then John McCain flies in. He goes to a high-profile meeting at the White House, and suddenly the Republican caucus has 'serious concerns' about this plan, and thinks it is 'too big'. According to newspaper accounts, McCain doesn't take a stand either way.
It seems the Republicans are playing both ends of issue: It's their proposal, and they're objecting to it. They're the ones saying that we need it, and they're the ones saying it's not a good idea. John McCain is saying he's going to provide leadership, and he's not taking a stand.
I suspect that McCain will soon 'demand' some minor changes, and will be presented as twisting Republican arms to achieve a 'compromise'. This will burnish his credentials as a 'maverick' who's 'not afraid to take on his own party for the good of the nation'. It sounds like a callous political ploy to increase his appeal to independent voters.
Lost in all this is the question of whether the $700 Billion bailout is really necessary, and really a good idea. If the Republicans are willing to play politics with it, is it really that urgent? And are they working to position it as a Democratic proposal to start us 'down the road to Socialism'? The events of the past day could be a sideshow to distract us from the real issues, and provide the Republicans with their cake ($700 Billion to bailout businesses from very profitable, bad business decisions) and eat it too (complain about 'liberal Democrats' and big government.) Watch out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
