Carter and Obama: Deja Vous With a Difference

A long time ago (which doesn’t seem very long to me) our country was in a state of economic malaise.  A profligate tax-and-spend Congress and an economically indifferent President conspired to create the conditions for a serious recession, one that combined economic stagnation with punishing inflation (“stagflation”).

The pundits came up with a graphic term that just about said it all:  the Misery Index.  This (non-scientific) index combined the inflation rate with the unemployment rate.  While the inflation rate today is relatively low, the economists warn us that our boundless government borrowing and debt will bring the clouds of inflation and higher interest rates soon.  It is to be expected, therefore, that the media will reprise the Misery Index in the near future.

For us ordinary people, so remote from the U. S. Capitol and its bizarre happenings, the Misery Index didn’t mean that much.  What we noticed were the grocery clerks changing the food prices (up) every day.  If our employers happened to transfer us to another city, the economic effects on real estate sales and mortgage rates shocked us to the core.  For those of us fortunate enough to move under a generous employer relocation policy, that shock was greatly ameliorated.  For others not so lucky, such a transfer amounted to a sharp reduction in standard of living or an invitation to try to find another job.

However similar the recession economy is today versus that earlier time, there was an encouraging difference back then.  The succeeding President and Congress must have felt at least a little bit of the pain of the people.  In a refreshing difference of approach, they implemented new laws and policies actually designed to increase jobs and to slow down and eventually reduce the soaring inflation.  The results of this enlightened legislation were not vague and shadowy activities taking place among politicians in capitals of far-away states.  They were open, obvious and  even our family had an opportunity to participate in the nation’s economic recovery in a small way.

I had a lifelong fascination with airplanes and aviation, and this opportunity was tailor made for our family.  Among the recovery measures that Congress and the President implemented was a 10% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchase of qualifying new equipment for businesses.  Another, related, tax feature was an Accelerated Cost Recovery System (ACRS).  The former provided a tax credit (!) of ten percent of the purchase price of newly manufactured qualifying equipment.  The latter allowed such equipment to be fully depreciated in five years.

Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) at airports, and flying schools (which were frequently a part of an FBO operations), were desperate for replacement rental and training aircraft.  Nervous investors were reluctant to invest in aircraft during the recession, and a liability insurance issue made them even more standoffish.  Because of exceedingly high awards to plaintiffs in aircraft mishap suits, the manufacturers’ price of light aircraft was inflated by 30%—the cost of liability insurance (do we hear a medical malpractice echo today?).  Nevertheless, the time was ripe for our family to go into the aircraft leasing business.

My paycheck was all the income we had, and we did not have anywhere near enough savings to buy a new airplane.  But we had good credit, barely enough discretionary income to handle the monthly payments, and we could really use some tax deductions (home mortgage interest was our only one at the time).  So we took the risk.

I had researched the various types of airplanes within our means that could also serve as family transportation some day.  My wife and younger son then interviewed owners and managers of a number of FBOs and flight schools (because my job required me to be away on business quite a bit of the time).  We settled on a Piper Archer.  The Archer is a four-seat, low wing, fixed-landing-gear, propeller-driven airplane powered by a four-cylinder gasoline engine. In short, it was simple enough for flight training yet was in demand for rental by less-experienced pilots (especially those with less-deep pockets).

We placed the order, making a small down payment, and waited for delivery.  Of course, a number of our friends, and many of my coworkers, thought I was having a mid-life crisis or was working on a ticket to a psychiatric facility.  My wife and son and I also had a few nagging doubts—would the plane actually be rented for the expected number of hours each month; would the maintenance cost run true to expectations for this model; could Congress and the President capriciously rescind the legislation before we had gotten the tax benefits; etc.  But we kept a happy face, and we proceeded with plans for a christening party in the hanger of the FBO who would handle the day-to-day business details and also perform the maintenance.

One day the expected phone call came from our FBO, and we rushed to the airport, 15 minutes away, to see our shiny new airplane investment.  It was a mixture of excitement, wonder and apprehension.  But we now had a natural grin to help keep our happy faces; and we mailed the invitations to our christening party.

This christening party should have been covered by the society reporters of the local newspapers, because it was a blast enjoyed by all and because it was unique.  An aircraft christening party  normally is the purview of a Nancy Pelosi celebrating among her high-dollar supporters the arrival of her new $40 million Gulfstream personal luxury jet.

In fact, our christening party for a Piper Archer caught the attention of the Piper Aircraft Company, and they sent two factory pilots to investigate this curiosity.  Once those pilots convinced themselves that we were real, and that we were just celebrating a somewhat risky (for us, at least) business venture and being new aircraft owners, they joined in the spirit of party.  Both pilots volunteered to take turns treating any guests who wanted to go to a short flight in the new airplane.  Among those short hops was one with my wife and son, with me at the controls beside the factory pilot—my first flying lesson since I was 17.

The only awkward thing about that party was a champagne fountain that stood high in the center of the snacks table in this immaculate, white-floored hanger.  Sparkling white grape juice circulated through the fountain, and guests wandered over to the table to fill a plastic champagne glass from time to time.  But one of the Piper factory pilots pulled me aside to ask, “is there a drinking fountain or soda machine around here; I’m getting really thirsty”.  I pointed to the champagne fountain, but he shook his head and whispered, “It’s against FAA regulations to drink alcohol before flying”.  My 17-year-old son, who was eavesdropping, quickly said, “It’s grape juice—that’s why I can drink it!”  We all had a good laugh,  the owner of the FBO read “High Flight” to the crowd, and we christened the plane (with a fake bottle of champagne, of course).  Everyone seemed to enjoy this truly unusual  party.

The airplane performed flawlessly and it was rented as much as we would allow.  Our family enjoyed the 10% tax credit, plus 22% depreciation, in the first year; it even turned out that the President and Congress had not spoken with forked tongues.  In the next four years we did capture the remainder of the depreciation, and eventually we made that final loan payment to the bank.  At last we were unfettered aircraft owners!  But, of course, just as Nature abhors a vacuum, the government abhors financial happiness.

Soon after that last payment, with the stroke of an Executive pen we were defined to the IRS as “Passive Investors”—meaning we were not actually at the desk, examining pilot credentials, collecting money, and handing over the keys to the airplane each time it was rented.  Therefore, we could no longer deduct maintenance costs, taxes, and other operating costs on our tax return (but of course the IRS demanded the full taxes on gross rental income).  The government giveth, and the government taketh away; and at that point our aircraft rental business retired due to terminal government disease.  But we did have one consolation prize:  a  fully depreciated airplane (which was approaching its 2500 hour engine and propeller major overhaul).  My wife, my son and I all learned to fly and we were, in fact, free to enjoy our plane for a period of time (until another economic squeeze came along).

Is there any moral hidden within this story?  Not particularly, other than never trust Great Father in Washington and his or her 535 Congressional Cousins.  The story does illustrate an extremely rare occurrence:  legislation that is accurately portrayed to the public, performs its intended function, and encourages or tolerates extended economic growth.  This happens probably less frequently than total eclipses of the sun.  But in that period described, the legislation eventually powered an economic boom that continued across three succeeding presidencies.  Naturally,  at that point a profligate tax-and-spend Congress and an economically indifferent President conspired to create the conditions for . . .

Barack Obama Education Credentials: Parody to the People

President Obama is, as has been widely reported in the media, well educated.  He attended Occidental College, and subsequently graduated from Columbia University.  He later attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude.  He has refused to release any school records, so we don’t know what subjects he studied or what grades he received in those courses.  However, we can deduce that he has a number of other educational credentials—accomplishments rarely mentioned in most media accounts.

An obscure educational accomplishment is occasionally referenced in a few newspapers and news channels.  Barack Obama is a graduate of the Cook County Richard Daly School of Political Warfare, and his record of political maneuvers strongly suggests that he must be an honored graduate.

There is one bit of Obama’s education that we get to see him put into practice almost every day.   He is obviously a magna cum laude graduate of the Joseph Goebbels School of Truth.  Although there has been some amount of criticism of the vetting process for the President’s senior administration officials, each candidate’s Joseph Goebbels school education is surely verified without fail.  These officials also consistently and faithfully practice what they learned at the School of Truth.

Another of the President’s accomplishments is occasionally mentioned, but he rarely gets full credit in the media.  Not only is Barak Obama an honored graduate of the Saul Alinsky College of Radical Extremism, it is widely believed that he can quote most of Alinsky’s Rules and Alinsky’s Ethics, even without a teleprompter.  This learning is also a primary requisite for all Obama Administration candidates.

On the Internet, and in a few media commentators’ sound bytes, are numerous references to another area of Barack Obama’s education—as well as references contained in his two books of memoirs.  The President is well schooled in Karl Marx’ economics (“Das Kapital”) and Marx’ political prescriptions (“The Communist Manifesto”).  A number of the President’s advisors publicly and proudly refer to their own Marx education and knowledge.

It is believed that President Obama is most proud of his graduation from the Neville Chamberlain School of Appeasement.  It is certain that rulers of several countries of the world also most appreciate this particular facet of Obama’s education.

Another of President Obama’s achievements is his mastery of the techniques taught at the Heinrich Himmler Institute of Administrative Management.  Obama’s Chief of Staff appears to be supremely qualified to teach at the Himmler Institute.

There is a small amount of disagreement as to whether Obama actually graduated from the Al Capone Institute of Advanced Behavioral Modification or just audited the course.  It matters little, though, because his Chief of Staff is the national authority in this area.

It is quite possible that Barack Obama’s personal favorite among his educational accomplishments is his graduation from the Abraham Lincoln College of Constitutional Evasion.  Obama mentions Lincoln often, and it is probably this aspect of Lincoln’s record that he is referring to.

We may still have reservations about Barack Obama’s presidency, and possibly nagging concerns about the country’s well being.  But we can be sure the President is educationally prepared to perform at the level of famous world leaders in history such as Caligula of Rome, Ivan IV of Russia, or Vlad III of Romania.  It remains to be seen if he can create the opportunities for such greatness and if the masses in the United States will continue accepting  him as what he is.

PARDON BERNIE MADOFF NOW!

President Barak Obama should pardon Bernard Madoff immediately!  Why?  There are two compelling reasons why Madoff should be pardoned, the first of which is unequal or inconsistent justice.

There is no question that Bernie Madoff swindled scores of investors out of $65 billion, much of it the life savings of individuals and couples, by operating a classic Ponzi scheme.  However, there is another Ponzi scheme still operating in the United States, one which makes Madoff’s paltry billions look like a second-grader’s lunch money.  Four principals who are enabling it and allowing it to continue should be indicted.  Conviction, which is never guaranteed, is nonetheless somewhat likely because all of the evidence is prima facie.

Those four principals represent only the present gang leaders; many others have been involved, over a long period of time.  In fact, some of these perpetrators of, or conspirators to, this fraud have since died.  But prosecution could start with those at the top while an investigation of other participants and conspirators goes forward.

The first four who should be indicted are President Barak Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  It will be a frustrating start toward punishing those responsible for what is probably the most expensive white-collar crime in all of history.  The frustration is that none can be impeached, tried and possibly removed from office until they have been convicted of this, or some other, “high crime or misdemeanor”.

Even though those who died before they could be brought to justice are beyond society’s reach, we can at least compile a complete list of those whose malfeasances led to this monstrous fraud.  The list will surely include, but not be limited to, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Leon Trotsky, Benito Mussolini, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.  (Those U. S. executives missing in this list either had no opportunity to do anything about the fraud in progress or at least tried to correct the situation).  We are accustomed to the phrase “unindicted co-conspirators”, and in this matter there have certainly been many co-conspirators over the years.

The second reason why Bernard Madoff should be pardoned is more a matter of practicality than anything else.  So far, very little of Madoff’s tactics have been released to the media.  But from what we do know, the ongoing giant Ponzi scheme operates exactly like Bernie Madoff ran his.  That is, since there is no monetary growth except for  members’ current contributions, that fact must be carefully camouflaged from the public.  Investigators are not revealing Madoff’s exact subterfuges (if they yet know them) at this time.  However, in the really big scheme that is still running, the original con men were ingenious planners:  hide the monstrous secret in plain sight!

The practical reason for pardoning Bernard Madoff is that we really need him.  At least two U. S. Presidents, with all of the brainpower at their disposal, were unable dismantle the gigantic hoax without causing participants to suffer the same kind of financial pain that Madoff’s investors felt.  Timothy Geithner, Obama’s star finance whiz kid, has already made too many bumbling missteps to give us any confidence that he can help.  But Bernie Madoff must actually be very smart to be able to fool all of the government’s auditors for so many years; it’s likely that he is even smarter than “the smartest person in the Obama Administration”.

Bernard Madoff may therefore be the only hope for figuring out how to make investors in the National Ponzi Scheme whole before their retirement age is reached.  I would think that a devious President could make Bernie’s pardon conditional upon his wholehearted help.  There might be some additional pot sweetening, such as immunity for Madoff relatives and employees of his “financial firm”.  Surely an irresistible package could be put together that would not only get Bernie’s complete cooperation but might also provide him with an even bigger challenge than his last venture.  In addition, the pardon might serve as “due diligence” evidence in defending the President at his trial for National Ponzi Scheme complicity.

The National Ponzi Scheme, also know as Social Security, has absolutely no funds in a “trust account” which ostensibly would have been properly funded in order to pay out benefits to participants in perpetuity.  Actually, the trust account has contained nothing for many years but worthless IOUs from U. S. Government agencies (that spent the money as soon as it was withheld from participants’ paychecks).  Social Security is therefore under funded at present by more than 25  trillion dollars!

Quick!  BERNARD MADOFF TO THE RESCUE!

Healthcare Hoax Alert!

President Barak Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave

Washington DC

President Obama:

Per your request to notify you of any disinformation about health care that we see, I am reporting a health care reform hoax that I observed on the Internet.  This document, which appears in several places, amounts to a vile parody of your health care reform vision which you have been trying to communicate to the country.

The Internet Universal Resource Locator for this fishy reform gibberish is:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200IH/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200IH.pdf

Curiously, this web site appears to be a legitimate government site.

I hope your staff can identify the authors of this malicious document and punish them to the maximum extent.

Your faithful informant,

Thedrake01

On Coming of Age

The phrase “coming of age” crept into my consciousness before I could even read.  I had determined that it meant a point of transition, although “transition” was not yet in my vocabulary.  No one ever told me what chronological age equated to that point.  Perhaps that’s why the phrase, in my mind, represented a continuum of transition points, most of which were positive and to which I looked forward.

Like a lot of things viewed from the higher-ground advantage of some accumulation of age and a tad of wisdom, most of my transition points seem trivial today.  Some were significant, a few were not pleasing and one or two were absolutely loathsome.  But the majority represented at least some pride of accomplishment (if continuing to live can be interpreted as an accomplishment).

Most of those “comings of age” have faded from my memory, or at least the descriptive details have.  For example, I was impatient to reach the point at which I could learn to read:  a necessity when you’re the first one awake on Sunday mornings and can only look at the picture panels in the funny papers, without a clue as to what is being said in the balloons above the characters.  I can’t remember the age point at which I expected to somehow learn to read.  But this little transition was different from most:  I figured out how to influence the continuum and advance the timing of the result.  I pestered my older sister to read to me until she taught me to read in self-defense.

I suspect that everyone has a similar memory of his or her life’s transition points; I hope they looked forward to them as eagerly as I did.  One disappointment was the age to begin school. Kindergarten—to a child who already knew the alphabet, the colors, the Arabic numerals, and who could read at some elemental level—seemed a total waste of time. But the completion of each successive grade and entry into the next remains a positive memory.

A few transition points were bittersweet in nature.  The “age” for a bicycle was not chronology-dependent in my family; it was purely financial.  In a similar manner, getting a drivers license was not triumphantly meaningful at 16 because our family did not have a car.

High school did not rank very high in the comings-of-age hall of fame, possibly because it appeared to be just another bit of continuum.  College was also bittersweet:  the first two years were almost a repeat of high school, and I then learned that my engineering curriculum was about fifteen to twenty years behind the current technology.

One coming of age was a twofer:  legal drinking age and voting age (but since I never learned to tolerate the fuzzy mind induced by alcohol, drinking was eventually recorded in the “unpleasant lessons” category).  Draft registration at 18 was a meaningless bit of bureaucracy—until the draft notice came at 22.

Marriage and family are important points which most men and women look forward to.  But for some reason, those two points were missing on my comings-of-age chart.  Luckily, though, they still happened to me, in my clueless progression up the chart.  Someone up there was looking out for me, making sure I did not miss the joy and richness of life that a family brings.

From this point forward my memory of the comings of age are much sharper; they were fewer and farther apart.  Retirement, which was way out on the horizon of my chart, was just too far away to even think about.  But the Howard W. Woods, Jr. definition of retirement (“That point in life when you can do what you want to do, instead of what you have to do”) sneaked up on me.  The reward was an ability to control the course of a second career.

My view of the retirement genre of comings-of-age is that they are strongly positive or strongly negative; some of those a ways out on the chart are frightening downers.  I do remember looking hopefully to that age when I could move to the other side of the National Ponzi Scheme, taking a little money out rather than dutifully putting it in.  But the next point past Ponzi, Medicare, looked more frightening from a distance and continues to hold true to expectations.

Lyndon Johnson worked hard to disguise the “absolute government monopoly / absolute citizen compliance” aspects of Medicare:  illegal for health insurers to sell to persons age 65 or older, and illegal for persons 65 or older to purchase health insurance.  But Johnson did live long enough for a little comeuppance as the $15 billion per year Medicare cost projection for its 15th year actually arrived in its third year.  We who have arrived at the Medicare point remember Lyndon’s Folly each time we think about our private Medicare Supplement insurance (absolute necessity for everyone with the means).

There are a few wistful points on all of our comings-of-age charts which we try to take in stride, as cheerfully as we can:  wills, burial plots, funeral arrangements, etc.  I put these in the same category as draft registration:  a necessity preceding an event very, very far in the future.

But recently a new and unforeseen point is working its way toward a place on all our charts:  our “duty to die”.  This concept is not new—think about elderly Eskimos on ice floes—but we thought we were past such things in our society.  The bills working their way into being in the House of Representatives and the Senate do address Americans’ duty to die.  If this part of “Health Care Reform” doesn’t make it into the first version, President Obama, Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid will work  extra hard to include it in the earliest revision.

I have truly mixed emotions about this particular coming of age.  I’ve had a very good life, far exceeding my adolescent-years expectations.  It is inevitable that each of us will die, but I had somehow thought that God and I both had some involvement in the timing.  In my mind it was my responsibility to not do something stupid (like texting and driving?) and God’s responsibility to help protect me from myself.  How will I react when I am required to be “counseled” every five years on my societal obligation to die?  Would I “take the pill” or “drink the potion” like a “good little old man”? That’s not a comforting thought.

Another thought is to question the inevitability of our politically-induced “programmed expiration”.  Just because people in power, under the influence of a pipe dream or a lifetime of warped ideological indoctrination, have managed to punish us all with irrational, twisted-logic nightmares in the past is not really a reason to passively lie down in the path of their next actualization of evil, irrespective of their motives or ignorance.  We have survived a number of these devilish plots, and we can with God’s help do so again.

We outlasted the politicians who maliciously exploited inflation, using fixed income tax tables that drove families into higher and higher tax brackets even though their real income remained level or declined.  We painfully exposed a racist and abhorrent notion, that black children were unable to learn except in the presence of white children, for the political power play that school busing was.  We endured Jimmy Carter’s Thermostat Police and mandatory nationwide speed limit:  a fairy-tale wish that was supposed to get us on the path to energy independence.  Surely there is a way to educate a plurality of Americans to recognize a Marxist-Leninist Con Man’s preposterous ideological fantasies.

Surely there is a path to get Americans to the point where some number of them, possibly the younger ones, can see that THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!

Obama Is Not a Socialist!

As the “cap and trade” and “health care reform” bills gradually become less stealthy and more visible, a lot of normally reasonable people are now calling President Obama a Socialist. I don’t believe this is productive, and besides, it’s not really accurate. A better approach, in my opinion, is to confine our ideological labels for Obama to those he has admitted to or told us about.

In the short period that Obama has been in control of the media, he has repeatedly said, “I am a Pragmatist”. Now, that is something we can work with. As I recall, Pragmatism was a political movement in the U. S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It had a fairly short run under that name. It then segued into Progressivism (the Progressives had minor differences with the Pragmatists), with essentially the same people involved.  But that’s not the end of the story.

Around 1908 – 1910 the Progressives abandoned ship for a slightly different political movement, Fascism. The flag bearer of Fascism was, of course, Benito Mussolini, who became famous for making the trains run on time and for picking real losers as friends.

Just as Mussolini was effectively gaining and consolidating power in Italy, the Russian civil war devolved into a “noble experiment” called Socialism. There probably wasn’t a tenth of a centimo difference between Pragmatism, Progressivism, Fascism and Socialism; but political junkies fear being out of fashion more than anything else in life.

Because Mussolini was still rising, and making a name for himself, not all Fascists immediately started calling themselves Socialists. But there was even more consternation ahead for the political fad followers.

In Germany, Adolf Hitler was becoming the Austro-German darling, and he called his organization the National Socialist German Workers (NAZI) Party. But most of the time he referred to his government as Fascist—go figure!

Meanwhile back in Russia, Vladimir Lenin had decided to call Russia’s version of Socialism “Communism”.  Talk about confusion:  Pragmatism, Progressivism, Fascism, Socialism, Communism—differing like one banana split with Chocolate on the left, Vanilla in the middle, Strawberry on the right differs from another with Strawberry on the left, Chocolate in the middle, Vanilla on the right differs from . . .

Back to Obama the Pragmatist.  Aside from his Pragmatist self-anointment in numerous speeches and other public performances, Obama has provided us with a couple of clues.  Between his two autobiographies, he told us that when he was living with his grandparents in Hawaii two well-known Communists were frequent family visitors (one being the Hawaii organizer for the Communist Party USA), and that when he was in college he was “attracted to Marxists and Marxist groups”.

But please don’t jump to conclusions and start calling Obama a Communist.  The term “Communist” has as many definitions and connotations as the aforementioned banana split.  Surely we can be more precise.

Obama’s repeated calls for “wealth redistribution”, “social justice”, and  “elimination of corporate greed” certainly indicate a Marxist outlook.  Obama’s legislative initiatives—banking takeover, executive compensation caps, auto-manufacturing control—are precisely the types of things Karl Marx advocated in “Das Kapital”.

So we would be fair and accurate to label Barak Obama a Marxist (although a political scientist friend insists that the precise term should be “Marxist Leninist”).

At this point we Americans should pray that President Obama actually read the U. S. Constitution; truly understand that document; and develop a belief  that the United States is worth preserving.

Healthcare No-Brainers

As I read and watch segments of the health care debate (especially cost claims and counterclaims), I have the feeling that several significant points are not being discussed.  Because I am limited to the usual information sources that most ordinary people have—newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and the internet—it’s possible that I am missing critical pieces of information and analysis.  But if I’m missing some important discussions and analysis, perhaps those omniscient politicians who know more about our health than we do may also be missing something (or are working very hard to assure that those salient points never surface).

ONE. We keep hearing that 75 – 80% of all health care costs result from chronic diseases, and the experts name the half dozen or so that account for 95% of the 80%.  If this revelation is accurate, how many politicians does it take to figure out that we should initially focus on the 80% instead of diluting our resources  attacking the 20% first.

A nationwide, full-court-press disease prevention and health maintenance initiative aimed at the “filthy five” chronic health problems could be implemented relatively quickly and at a tiny fraction of the multi-trillion-dollar programs being proposed.  I suggest the politicians ask their staffs to hire a problem-solver to explain why working on the 80% first is wiser than tackling the 20% first.

TWO. Essentially all companies with a thousand or more employees are self-insured for health care benefits.  The only connection those companies have with health insurers might be contracts  to maintain policies and process claims for a small fee per transaction.  Self-insured companies put all of the money into the bank accounts upon which health care claims checks to medical providers are written.

The assumption that there is a 20% saving by getting insurance companies out of the loop is definitely false for these self-insured companies.  Assuming that insurance companies make final decisions on what claims to pay is also  false; the self-insured companies create and maintain the policies under which their employees’ claims  are paid.

What is the total number of employees (and covered family members) at all U. S. companies which have a thousand or more employees?  I suggest the politicians ask their staffs to add up the millions.

THREE. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield member companies are, to the best of my knowledge, still not-for-profit organizations.  The 20%  savings assumption is also false here; about 90 cents of every premium dollar taken in is paid out for medical claims.  I suggest the politicians ask their staffs to find out how many people are covered by insurance from not-for-profit health insurance companies.

FOUR. A senior Health and Human Services official told an audience of Medicare Contractor employees, “Medicare was projected to reach a total cost of fifteen billion dollars per year way out in its fifteenth year; it actually reached fifteen billion in its third year.”   If that projection (like most government program estimates) was so far off the mark, why should we have any confidence in health care reform estimates?  How quickly might the current proposals reach one and one-half trillion dollars per year?  I suggest the politicians ask their staffs if they really believe the estimates.

FIVE. Why are there so many “privileged persons” exempt from the proposed national health plans:  Congress, certain union members, etc.?  I suggest that those politicians who think they may have to face voters in future elections try to answer this question well in advance of their next election cycle.

SIX. President Obama in his televised infomercials emphasizes the choices we would have under his vision of national health care.  Why is it then that the recurring theme in the confusing tangle of proposals being rushed through the House and the Senate is Absolute Monopoly on the government’s side, and Mandatory Compliance on the citizenry side?  I suggest the politicians ask their staffs to try to come up with an explanation (taking into account item FIVE, above).

SEVEN. How do staff people compare private-sector bottom line business costs to those of government organizations?  The concept of depreciation is not recognized by government, even though we all know that everything wears out eventually:  buildings, computers and communications equipment, vehicles, etc.  Private industry must plan for / set aside revenue for future costs of replacing everything needed for business operation.

In contrast, government just enacts the necessary legislation at the time of need, appropriates as much of our tax dollars as required, and—presto—new buildings, new fleets of vehicles, new computers, and so forth are presented, “free”, to the agencies using them.  Nowhere do those dollars show up as costs incurred against the ongoing programs which they enable and support.

I suggest the politicians introduce the government to the idea of depreciation.

Hugo Chavez and Protégé: Truer Believer?

Hugo Chavez seems to have taken note of his protégé’s unexpectedly rapid progress down a parallel road and its potential for obstructing Hugo’s own aspirations.  After his public exclamation, “Barak Obama is an ignoramus!”, Chavez seems to have changed his strategy for dealing with the current devil of the Estados Unidos de Norteamerica.  He went out of his way to insert himself into photo ops with his protégé for the world media at the Organization of American States meeting.  Although Hugo is a skilled media manipulator, this behavior at an OAS meeting is out of character for him.

The idea of a serious rival from the U. S. had probably never occurred to Chavez.  He undoubtedly had given much thought to the eventual clash with the United States; but he didn’t expect this particular kind of a problem, or quite so soon.  The cushion of time that Chavez thought he had for creating and leading The Union of Socialist South American Republics seems to have evaporated.  Perhaps the sight of Obama rubbing elbows with Chavez’s fellow Latin American communist leaders has now sent a chill down Hugo’s robust spine.

Observers believe that Presidente Hugo Chavez has few problems at home that he can’t handle at present.  He has changed the term limit law, so his “Presidente for Life” campaign is all but complete.  His technique for diminishing currently elected political rivals, by changing the law to administer their cities or districts at the national level, seems to be a masterstroke (President Obama, are you watching?).  The only good news in these federal takeovers is for his rival politicians; they may at least dodge the bullet—literally.   Hugo’s remaining rivals, however, still have to keep their bullet-dodging skills honed.

In the international arena, Hugo has performed better than expected.  He has done those things within his political skill and his stature to ingratiate Venezuela to the old-line communist states.  However, with the reduced crude oil prices recently, Venezuela has considerably less quid with which to pro quo.  Until oil prices soar again, Chavez’s best international asset may be his skill in arousing the latent class warfare feelings of the masses, particularly to promote hatred of capitalism and personal freedom (and their former poster child, the United States).

Obama’s three-part initiative in his quest for “President for Life” has had a smooth start.  First, he has moved control of the 2010 census to one of his political operatives in the White House.  Second, he has his ACORN organization, with its proven record of voter registration fraud, contracted as census takers.  Third, his Congress will soon float an “immigration reform” law designed to buy 12 to 16 million new Democratic voters, at an economically attractive price of amnesty plus fast-path citizenship.

Barak Obama also has little to fear from rival politicians.  Unlike the Venezuelan environment, the U. S. has not yet jailed any Obama political opponent.  In fact, so far as we know, Obama’s Head Procurer, Rahm Emanuel, has not sent a single severed horse’s head or dead fish to any prominent conservative political figure.  For now, Obama seems to have problems at home under almost as rigid control as does Chavez.

At the same time Barak Obama has proven to be as good as, or possibly even better than, Hugo Chavez at manipulating gullible or corrupt media personnel.  The best measure of Obama’s success at orchestrating the press is his personal popularity versus the popularity of his policies.  Another, somewhat less reliable, measure is the emerging clamor among the media for rapid immersion of the U. S. into full-fledged, European-style socialism.   Because most journalists have already admitted their liberal outlook this particular benchmark may indicate just a difference in emphasis.

Obama’s international efforts have been uneven and more anemic than those of Chavez.  During his presidential campaign he looked like an ascending international star.  But once in office his star power seemed to poop out, and he remains in an international batting slump.  His current approach, patronizing world leaders with whatever they might ask for, may improve his self-esteem.

However, three critical tasks that are necessary for any world-class Marxist / Socialist leader still remain to be completed in both Venezuela and the United States.  First, the government must have absolute control of the press / media.  Second, the (economic and political power of the) middle class must be eliminated.  Third, a critical mass of voters must be enticed to accept government as their religion.

Venezuela does not have nearly as strong a free press tradition as does the United States (undoubtedly a gross understatement).  Chavez seems to have effectively muffled the media in Venezuela, although a quick scan of the Internet verifies that his opposition is not yet totally silenced.  Hugo will unlikely be able to shut down communications as tightly as North Korea and Iran have done; but he probably has now or will soon gain firm control of the information flow to a critical mass of Venezuela’s population.

In the U. S., opinion polls have confirmed that a majority of journalists / commentators / editors have distinctly liberal political outlooks.  Barak Obama has thereby already corralled much of the power of the press, thanks to a journalistically corrupt media.  His ability to eventually silence the remaining fraction of objective journalists, as well as the relatively small number of political commentators opposed to his policies, is looking better all the time.

For the middle class problem Chavez does have a distinct advantage over Obama because of Venezuela’s much smaller middle class.  But his tendency to overreach has been a big obstacle to success in this campaign.  Hugo’s price controls ran aground when the prices were set too low to sustain production, thereby causing goods to disappear from markets. The middle and upper classes may have a large tolerance for an increasing burden when it is “to benefit the poor”; but when milk for their children is not available, they push back.  Hugo’s challenge in eliminating the middle class is to exercise patience, something foreign to him.

Obama’s lack of patience, like Chavez, may prove to be his biggest obstacle in finishing off the U. S. middle class. But it appears that this middle class is  apathetic and truly vulnerable, suffering from extended affluence and good living.  Obama therefore has his Democratic Party proceeding full steam with plans for staggeringly high taxes, via the  “cap and trade” and “health care reform” initiatives, to debase the currency and bankrupt the middle class.

On the government-as-religion front, Chavez is becoming increasingly vociferous.  He has long implied that his interpretations of Jesus and Christianity are the only valid ones.  More recently he floated a trial balloon about taking over the Catholic Church in Venezuela, making himself Archbishop and members of his administration the Bishops.

Although Obama has been too busy to jump into the religion issue with both feet, he is nonetheless well prepared.  His twenty-year association with Black Liberation Theology enables him to speak soothingly about the perfect marriage of Marxism and religious conviction.

At this point in the race to become the ruler of The Union of North and South American Socialist Republics, it might just boil down to which one of these political twins can provide the better Marxist true believer performance, necessary for allegiance from like-minded leftist dictators.

It has been said that there was only one true believer of Marxism ever:  Karl Marx.  But it’s more likely that Marx was well aware that his pronouncements were pure nonsense and that he was just selling the sizzle and the aroma of a steak that that he knew to be dry, unpalatable and inedible.  The point is moot, though, because it appears that political correctness still demands every aspiring liberal / socialist leader pay the appropriate lip service to Marxism, e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Castro, Mugabe, etc.

In his true believer role, Chavez has been conservative and conventional.  His public communications appear to be authentic recycled Soviet propaganda.  He is also quick to denounce any and all countries that have yet to implement communist dictatorships.  When the leftist president of Honduras was removed from office and deported for defying both the National Congress and the Supreme Court of Honduras (another “Presidente for Life” overreach casualty), Chavez was first to denounce this action against a fellow Marxist.

Barak Obama in his short political career has put on a better true believer performance than Hugo Chavez.  Each of his presidential campaign speeches had a “look and feel” resemblance to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in “The Communist Manifesto”:  see wealth redistribution, capitalist greed and corruption, from the able to the needy, etc.  His policies and actions appear to be guided by Marx’ prescriptions in “Das Kapital”:  see bank takeovers, financial regulations and controls, salary caps, etc.  Obama’s carefully scripted “town hall meetings” are opportunities for him to continue repeating his denunciations of “upper class greed” and to aggravate class envies.  It was also illuminating that Obama was almost as quick as Chavez in denouncing Hondura’s Legislature and Supreme Court.

It will be interesting when the oddsmakers in Las Vegas and London get around to posting the initial Chavez versus Obama odds.  My bet is that Obama will be the early favorite, because of his superior scheming, his fanatic followers’ fatter fortunes, and his serpentine eloquence in proselytizing for “church of the state”.

President Obama Comes Out

During the election campaign, Barak Obama was the least known, least understood presidential candidate in the history of the United States.  His public record was all but non-existent; his work record as a community organizer and lawyer was proprietary and not released; and he declined requests for any school, personal, or occupational information.  He did refer frequently to his two books of memoirs.  By Election Day, it turned out that what he told us in those volumes was essentially all of the information available to the average voter about Barak Obama.

There were a few unplanned campaign situations that generated questions from a very few reporters:  his church and its outspoken pastor; his association with a 1960s domestic terrorist; his business associate who was convicted of fraud, and even his encounter with “Joe the Plumber”.  But all that these campaign speed bumps generated were more questions and no real answers.

Barak Obama was elected by a comfortable margin and he has since been developing a significant public record.  We have gotten glimpses of the real Barak Obama and we have seen occasional clues to his identity. His FY 2010 budget proposal told us a lot, and his handling of the financial institutions and auto manufacturers has told us even more.

President Obama has given an extraordinary number of press briefings, including prime time televised events.  He has also taken the risk of granting one-on-one interviews with “safe” media personalities—risky because even an adoring, incompetent reporter / commentator might accidentally ask a hard question.  Thus little fragments of his true beliefs have been accumulating.

With more than 100 days in office, President Obama apparently feels secure enough in the position to finally “come out”.  We have a pair of quotes that precisely define his outlook and his intentions:

“I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation … I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities, chiefly against war, fascism and imperialism; and have traveled constantly in the United States to areas of conflict over workers’ rights to strike and organize.

“My chief aversion is the system of greed, private greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment …

“Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.  …

“I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.“ ¹

We now know who Barak Obama is and what drives him.

The second quote quote reveals how our President wants his staff and his trusted Congressional allies to proceed toward his goals:

“Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise …We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.” ²

It has taken a while, but we now know what is in store for all of us.  Some, those who knew all along, are undoubtedly laughing at the naivety of the rest of us.  But most of us are not laughing.

——————————

¹  Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, Harvard Class Book of 1935, “Thirty Years Later”, as reported in numerous publications

²  Roger Nash Baldwin:  advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota, reported in numerous publications

A Tale of Two Kindergartens

In a community near us is a kindergarten for four-year-olds that has attracted quite a few compliments.  There are enough four-year-olds to warrant two teachers, and the community was lucky enough to attract two well-qualified individuals.  Both  teachers also have that enviable talent for establishing rapport with four-year-olds.

The community specified two somewhat overlapping but different curricula for the two classes.  The intent, it appears, is to address as wide a range of needs as these first time students might need.  A novel technique, established to assign the children to one or the other class, has also had its share of positive press.

On the first day of school, all the four-year-olds are assembled in one room.  Each of the teachers  makes an introductory presentation, describing the environment and curriculum of each class.  Ms. Jones, the senior teacher, emphasizes the growing and learning aspects of her class.  She covers the major expectations for each student:  learning the Arabic numerals, learning the English alphabet, recognizing colors and knowing their names, and so forth.  She closes with the overall goal:  students fully prepared to enter five-year-old kindergarten next year.

Mr. Smith, the more junior teacher, then presents a picture of his class.  He describes a relaxed, low stress environment designed to help these new students fit in and feel good about school.  He emphasizes that a selection of candy will be available at all times, a very large variety of toys will be provided, and within narrow limits the children can make their own decisions on what they want to do.  He summarizes the class year in terms of the fun the children will have.

At this point these first-time students are presented with their first election:  each is allowed to select the class of his or her choice.  Following the election the two kindergarten classes are begun, each in its own facility.  As might be expected, more children opt for fun and games and candy than for academics.  But it all seems to work out in the long run.

A notable absence of complaints, from parents and teachers alike, indicates some level of satisfaction.  It is believed that the teachers union is also well pleased.  In fact, only one minor annoyance has been pointed out.

In the period that this kindergarten for four-year-olds has been offered, neither Ms. Jones nor Mr. Smith has actually ever been able to teach.  Ms. Jones has yet to have enough children choose her class to reach the minimum class size.  Therefore her students have been folded into Mr. Smith’s class.  Because Mr. Smith’s class would then be over the allowable  student / teacher ratio, Ms. Jones is assigned to be Mr. Smith’s teaching assistant, with the pair working as a team.

Mr. Smith, the resultant “head kindergarten teacher”, has also not been able to teach because his curriculum effectively precludes teaching.  A few cynics have reportedly snickered that the class doesn’t have team teaching, but team babysitting.  However, this negativity has yet to percolate up to widespread levels.

Life goes on, and this kindergarten continues to attract positive media attention from time to time.   So far no media commentator has asked about objective measures of effectiveness or what the five-year-old kindergarten teachers think about it.  The attitude of the media seems to be that this is the way the kindergarten should have been run all along, and it champions the expansion of this winning strategy to the next grade level.

So long as the public passively accepts this kindergarten strategy, it most likely will be expanded to the whole school.