I do not know how much longer our cherished freedom of the press can survive.
Monday, September 21, 2026
Monday, July 11, 2011
Sacrifice Should be Shared
The big news in Washington these days is all about raising the debt ceiling. Naturally, this leads to discussions of the federal deficit. How did we get into this mess?
When President Clinton left office we had a thriving economy and a federal budget surplus. We were actually reducing the deficit. But under the Bush administration we had two wars that were kept off the budget. This kept the cost from the focus of the American people. But that was not all. About half the run up in the deficit was brought about by the Bush era tax cuts. Most of us enjoyed this lighter burden to some extent. But, if not for these matters, the United States would not be in the financial mess we are in today.
Recognizing the deficit chickens were coming home to roost, President Obama insisted on including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget. He wanted this financial cost to be laid out in black and white as clearly as the life cost was already laid out in blood. The President should be commended for this openness even if it has not led to a cost savings.
Outside of the defense industry, none of us has enjoyed any particular benefit from war. However, most Americans with an income have enjoyed the benefits of the Bush era tax cuts. Obviously, some have benefitted more than others. The more taxes we saved, the more benefit we personally enjoyed even while the deficit grew ever higher.
Because most all of us enjoyed some benefit, it is reasonable to expect that we will all need to share some sacrifice in bringing the deficit back down. But that sacrifice should be proportionate.
In the present discussions taking place in Washington, one of the groups being singled out for a particularly disproportionate sacrifice is that of federal employees.
As a group, federal employees do NOT enjoy the highest incomes in the nation. Therefore, they were not the ones to enjoy the greatest benefit from the Bush tax cuts. Yet they are being singled out to make some of the greatest sacrifices.
Currently, federal employees are under a mandated two year pay freeze. Inflation erodes their incomes, but this two year pay freeze could be considered a reasonable sacrifice. We all should expect to endure some pain.
However, some in Congress are pushing to extend this federal employee pay freeze to five years regardless of what happens to inflation in the meantime.
But that is not all. Some in Congress are pushing hard to require federal employees pay a greater proportion of their retirement contributions out of pocket with no increase in retirement benefits. This would amount to about a six percent pay cut on top of the pay freeze they are already experiencing.
The most recent twist to come out of this distorted burdening of federal employees is to change the calculation of the retirement benefit. Currently, it is based on the average income of the last three years of earnings prior to retirement. Generally those will be the years of highest earnings. To lower the retirement benefit, some are pushing to change this to an average of the last five years of earnings.
In summary, many in Congress are wanting to mandate that federal employees endure a five year pay freeze, a six percent pay cut, and a lower retirement benefit while still allowing those persons whose tax breaks contributed the most to the federal deficit to continue to enjoy them.
This is not right! Our public servants don't deserve this kind of abuse. If everyone were being asked to endure a 6% higher tax rate, then it could be considered a shared sacrifice. This piling on attack on people who serve the American people is seriously distorted and should not be tolerated.
That's Wade's two cents!
Wade Houston
July 11, 2011
When President Clinton left office we had a thriving economy and a federal budget surplus. We were actually reducing the deficit. But under the Bush administration we had two wars that were kept off the budget. This kept the cost from the focus of the American people. But that was not all. About half the run up in the deficit was brought about by the Bush era tax cuts. Most of us enjoyed this lighter burden to some extent. But, if not for these matters, the United States would not be in the financial mess we are in today.
Recognizing the deficit chickens were coming home to roost, President Obama insisted on including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget. He wanted this financial cost to be laid out in black and white as clearly as the life cost was already laid out in blood. The President should be commended for this openness even if it has not led to a cost savings.
Outside of the defense industry, none of us has enjoyed any particular benefit from war. However, most Americans with an income have enjoyed the benefits of the Bush era tax cuts. Obviously, some have benefitted more than others. The more taxes we saved, the more benefit we personally enjoyed even while the deficit grew ever higher.
Because most all of us enjoyed some benefit, it is reasonable to expect that we will all need to share some sacrifice in bringing the deficit back down. But that sacrifice should be proportionate.
In the present discussions taking place in Washington, one of the groups being singled out for a particularly disproportionate sacrifice is that of federal employees.
As a group, federal employees do NOT enjoy the highest incomes in the nation. Therefore, they were not the ones to enjoy the greatest benefit from the Bush tax cuts. Yet they are being singled out to make some of the greatest sacrifices.
Currently, federal employees are under a mandated two year pay freeze. Inflation erodes their incomes, but this two year pay freeze could be considered a reasonable sacrifice. We all should expect to endure some pain.
However, some in Congress are pushing to extend this federal employee pay freeze to five years regardless of what happens to inflation in the meantime.
But that is not all. Some in Congress are pushing hard to require federal employees pay a greater proportion of their retirement contributions out of pocket with no increase in retirement benefits. This would amount to about a six percent pay cut on top of the pay freeze they are already experiencing.
The most recent twist to come out of this distorted burdening of federal employees is to change the calculation of the retirement benefit. Currently, it is based on the average income of the last three years of earnings prior to retirement. Generally those will be the years of highest earnings. To lower the retirement benefit, some are pushing to change this to an average of the last five years of earnings.
In summary, many in Congress are wanting to mandate that federal employees endure a five year pay freeze, a six percent pay cut, and a lower retirement benefit while still allowing those persons whose tax breaks contributed the most to the federal deficit to continue to enjoy them.
This is not right! Our public servants don't deserve this kind of abuse. If everyone were being asked to endure a 6% higher tax rate, then it could be considered a shared sacrifice. This piling on attack on people who serve the American people is seriously distorted and should not be tolerated.
That's Wade's two cents!
Wade Houston
July 11, 2011
Sunday, November 7, 2010
What Does the Mid-Term Election Mean?
It never fails. After every election the pundits sit around wringing their hands agonizing over the results and what it all means. In part, it is because they need something to talk about. In part, their livelihood depends on adding their input.
It also always happens that the winners try to read as much as possible into the election results. They want to convince themselves and the public at large that they have a mandate to push their agenda. The losers try to downplay the outcome and find as little reason to change direction as they can. Wherever possible the losers will blame other factors rather than admit a repudiation of their policies.
It falls to the electorate at large to separate the truth from the spin. Sadly, the electorate is generally so fed up with campaigning they don't want to think about it any more. They would much rather move on to their holiday shopping.
What do I think the Republican gains and Democrat loses in the most recent election means? Several things:
As a final comment on the predictability of the election outcome, I actually had the majority of this blog entry written in my head months ago. I even considered posting it well ahead of election day. But, I held out for the chance that I could be wrong.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 7, 2010
It also always happens that the winners try to read as much as possible into the election results. They want to convince themselves and the public at large that they have a mandate to push their agenda. The losers try to downplay the outcome and find as little reason to change direction as they can. Wherever possible the losers will blame other factors rather than admit a repudiation of their policies.
It falls to the electorate at large to separate the truth from the spin. Sadly, the electorate is generally so fed up with campaigning they don't want to think about it any more. They would much rather move on to their holiday shopping.
What do I think the Republican gains and Democrat loses in the most recent election means? Several things:
- Obviously, it will be harder for Democrats to push reform and investment in our nation's future. It will require substantially greater effort to find common ground with the Republicans for anything to be accomplished legislatively. Progress will have to take smaller steps.
- Since the number of political moderates in office is being reduced, compromise will be more difficult than before. Immigration policy reform is probably dead.
- The United States was not exempted from the current global phenomenon. The general result of this election was predictable even a year ago as one by one western democracies suffered loses for whichever group was in power. The global economic recession took a toll on the leadership in power in country after country no matter who was in charge when the downturn began.
- The predictability of this outcome vindicates the significant push the Obama administration made for major reform in the most difficult areas in the first few months of the term. The best (perhaps only) window of opportunity was in the first two years.
As a final comment on the predictability of the election outcome, I actually had the majority of this blog entry written in my head months ago. I even considered posting it well ahead of election day. But, I held out for the chance that I could be wrong.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 7, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Thank You for Health Care Reform
Health care reform is now law. Thank you! Thank you to all those who had a part in making that happen. Thank you to Presidents Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton and others who urged health reform they never got passed during their administrations, but they kept the discussion going.
Thank you to the Congressional Representatives and Senators who voted for the passage. Thank you to President Obama for his exhaustive support. Thank you to all who lobbied, blogged and campaigned for its passage. Thank you to all the citizens who called or wrote their Senators and Representatives in favor of its passage. Thank you to those who gave money to get the message out.
The week the bill was signed into law I paid a visit to my Congressman's local office to thank him for his vote.
The Gospel of Luke reports an account of Jesus healing ten men of leprosy, but only one of them bothered to come back and thank him. I don't want to be one of those who fail to express gratitude.
So, this entry is dedicated to thanking all of you.
That's Wade's Two Cents.
Wade Houston
April 18, 2010
Thank you to the Congressional Representatives and Senators who voted for the passage. Thank you to President Obama for his exhaustive support. Thank you to all who lobbied, blogged and campaigned for its passage. Thank you to all the citizens who called or wrote their Senators and Representatives in favor of its passage. Thank you to those who gave money to get the message out.
The week the bill was signed into law I paid a visit to my Congressman's local office to thank him for his vote.
The Gospel of Luke reports an account of Jesus healing ten men of leprosy, but only one of them bothered to come back and thank him. I don't want to be one of those who fail to express gratitude.
So, this entry is dedicated to thanking all of you.
That's Wade's Two Cents.
Wade Houston
April 18, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Health Care Battle Not Over
The battle for health care reform is not over -- far from it. Like many others in this country, I feel the current bill before the House of Representatives does not go far enough in reforming our health care system. At the top of my list of dissatisfactions is the fact that some of its most important provisions don't even take effect before 2014. Even so, I think it helps to draw an analogy from the sport of mountain climbing.
If ever there was a task that could be compared with scaling a monstrous mountain, health care reform has got to be that task. Even expert climbers scale difficult mountains in stages. At certain points along they way, they may even drive a piton into the side of the mountain to fasten a safety rope to protect themselves from falling back below that point. In recent years, there has been an emphasis on "clean climbing" which uses no pitons, but even the clean climbing devotees acknowledge that the most difficult mountains still require piton use.
Passing the current health care reform bill represents driving a piton into the health care reform mountain. It is not the summit, but it preserves the progress to this point. There is still much more to be done, but it is dangerous to continue without a safety rope. Clearly, we have come as far as we dare without locking in the progress to this point. The current health care reform legislation needs to pass.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
March 20, 2010
If ever there was a task that could be compared with scaling a monstrous mountain, health care reform has got to be that task. Even expert climbers scale difficult mountains in stages. At certain points along they way, they may even drive a piton into the side of the mountain to fasten a safety rope to protect themselves from falling back below that point. In recent years, there has been an emphasis on "clean climbing" which uses no pitons, but even the clean climbing devotees acknowledge that the most difficult mountains still require piton use.
Passing the current health care reform bill represents driving a piton into the health care reform mountain. It is not the summit, but it preserves the progress to this point. There is still much more to be done, but it is dangerous to continue without a safety rope. Clearly, we have come as far as we dare without locking in the progress to this point. The current health care reform legislation needs to pass.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
March 20, 2010
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Furor Over a Government Run Public Health Insurance Option
Health care reform is being pushed like never before. Nearly all sectors of our society are clamoring for it. The medical profession wants it. The insurance industry wants it. The business community as a whole wants it. The President wants it. Most important of all, I want it.
Even the people who have health insurance coverage are seeing their costs are higher than they would be otherwise if it were not for the burden of all the uninsured individuals who drive up prices for everyone else. Surely, this is the year health care reform will be passed.
Not so fast! Lots of people want something done, but they don't all agree on what is to be done. Most agree that the ideal would be some form of health care coverage for everyone. The one's who don't support this are the people who would rather exclude anyone who might get in line for medical services ahead of them if they have the opportunity. Instead of admitting their selfishness, they find more socially acceptable reasons to oppose the idea.
A major focus of opposition for many of these people seems to be around a government provided public health insurance option. There are several points they make which on the surface seem reasonable.
* They say a government venture into health insurance would be an unfair competitor to the private insurance industry. The very size of the government insurance would put that program in a position to command price concessions for health care services that private industry could not rival.
* They say the government is attrociously inefficient and a bureaucratic nightmare. They point to the typically long lines of people applying for drivers licenses or car registrations at the Department of Motor Vehicles in most states.
* Some people are simply philosophically opposed to anything that expands the role of government. They are fond of saying that a government big enough to give you whatever you want is also capable of taking everything you've got.
As I said, on the surface, many of these arguments seem reasonable. But look more closely.
First, the government's running of mail and package delivery service in the form of the postal service did not stop other companies like Federal Express, United Parcel Service and other couriers from getting a foothold and thriving. What was once a virtual monopoly in the hands of government lost considerable marketshare to private industry. It could certainly be argued that those private companies are actually all the better for having to compete against the government.
Second, comparing a possible government run public health insurance program to most states' Department of Motor Vehicles is a false analogy. Every vehicle owner or driver is required to go through their department of motor vehicles and only there to obtain appropriate licenses and registrations. There is no private option. When it comes to health insurers, there are lots of options. The DMV analogy resonates with a lot of people because we all hate those long waits. But it is a smokescreen because it does not really apply.
Third, people who embrace the philosophy that the government that governs least governs best are not thinking things through. One example: only government can really look after the nations highway system. It would be a sad state of affairs if it did not. We all benefit because government does take care of our roads. Yet the government does not tell us where to drive or ration how much we can drive. We are at liberty to traverse any open public road available. It is still a personal choice. There are other examples that come to mind, but I won't mention them here.
I am not married to the idea of a government administered health insurance program. If the objectives of having such a program can be fully met in some other reasonsable way, I am fine with that. But that other way needs to be put on the table and discussed. Meanwhile, lets steer clear of scare tactics and false analogies to demonize the public option.
Unfortunately, it seems most Republicans and some Democrats are more interested in opposing any health care reform that contains a government administered health insurance program instead of offering a viable alternative. That is dead end thinking.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
June 19, 2009
Even the people who have health insurance coverage are seeing their costs are higher than they would be otherwise if it were not for the burden of all the uninsured individuals who drive up prices for everyone else. Surely, this is the year health care reform will be passed.
Not so fast! Lots of people want something done, but they don't all agree on what is to be done. Most agree that the ideal would be some form of health care coverage for everyone. The one's who don't support this are the people who would rather exclude anyone who might get in line for medical services ahead of them if they have the opportunity. Instead of admitting their selfishness, they find more socially acceptable reasons to oppose the idea.
A major focus of opposition for many of these people seems to be around a government provided public health insurance option. There are several points they make which on the surface seem reasonable.
* They say a government venture into health insurance would be an unfair competitor to the private insurance industry. The very size of the government insurance would put that program in a position to command price concessions for health care services that private industry could not rival.
* They say the government is attrociously inefficient and a bureaucratic nightmare. They point to the typically long lines of people applying for drivers licenses or car registrations at the Department of Motor Vehicles in most states.
* Some people are simply philosophically opposed to anything that expands the role of government. They are fond of saying that a government big enough to give you whatever you want is also capable of taking everything you've got.
As I said, on the surface, many of these arguments seem reasonable. But look more closely.
First, the government's running of mail and package delivery service in the form of the postal service did not stop other companies like Federal Express, United Parcel Service and other couriers from getting a foothold and thriving. What was once a virtual monopoly in the hands of government lost considerable marketshare to private industry. It could certainly be argued that those private companies are actually all the better for having to compete against the government.
Second, comparing a possible government run public health insurance program to most states' Department of Motor Vehicles is a false analogy. Every vehicle owner or driver is required to go through their department of motor vehicles and only there to obtain appropriate licenses and registrations. There is no private option. When it comes to health insurers, there are lots of options. The DMV analogy resonates with a lot of people because we all hate those long waits. But it is a smokescreen because it does not really apply.
Third, people who embrace the philosophy that the government that governs least governs best are not thinking things through. One example: only government can really look after the nations highway system. It would be a sad state of affairs if it did not. We all benefit because government does take care of our roads. Yet the government does not tell us where to drive or ration how much we can drive. We are at liberty to traverse any open public road available. It is still a personal choice. There are other examples that come to mind, but I won't mention them here.
I am not married to the idea of a government administered health insurance program. If the objectives of having such a program can be fully met in some other reasonsable way, I am fine with that. But that other way needs to be put on the table and discussed. Meanwhile, lets steer clear of scare tactics and false analogies to demonize the public option.
Unfortunately, it seems most Republicans and some Democrats are more interested in opposing any health care reform that contains a government administered health insurance program instead of offering a viable alternative. That is dead end thinking.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
June 19, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Why Require Every Adult to Carrry Health Insurance
Before I begin, in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I spent four years of my life working in the insurance industry. Initially, I was an insurance agent and later became the agency coordinator for the Quaker Life Insurance Company in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Jim Inhofe, a current Republican senator from that state was the company president. But in those days, he was the mayor of Tulsa and had not yet gone to Washington.
One of the items that was an integral component of the health care proposals made by both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton was a mandate that all individuals have and maintain health insurance. This would be similar to the requirement for vehicle insurance that exists in most states. Naturally, the insurance industry supports such a mandate.
At first glance, one might think the insurance industry's support for requiring everyone to have health insurance would be motivated by the lure of big profits. Actually, that potential cannot be entirely ruled out. However, there is another, more important reason.
Insurance companies operate by collecting money from all their customers and paying claims to those who need them. The company decides what to charge their customers based on how much they expect to need to pay the claims. They spend a lot of time and effort on statistical analysis to balance keeping their respective company's policies competitive while still reaping a profit for their investors. This actuarial science is what separates insurance plans from fraudulent ponzi schemes.
Most of the health care reform proposals call for eliminating the right of insurers to exclude people or to charge them higher premiums because of their existing health insurance problems. This is desirable for everyone except the insurers. As has been mentioned, insurance companies make their money by collecting money from all their insured while paying out as little as possible. Those people who have health conditions that cost more to treat than they pay in for health insurance premiums actually cost the insurance company money. Currently, the only way to control this loss is for insurance companies to be able to exclude offering coverage to those people or to charge them much higher rates. This also provides provides something of an incentive for healthy people to lock in their health insurance before something adverse happens.
If you eliminate the right of insurance companies to exclude the unhealthy, then many healthy people will wait until their expected medical expenses are greater than than the insurance premiums before getting coverage. It makes perfect sense from a personal financial management perspective. But, it will bankrupt the insurance companies!
Only requiring everyone to have insurance as a matter of law whether they are healthy or not will enable insurance companies to remain in business even if they accept people with health conditions at the sames rates as everyone else. That will guarantee the insurance companies have the money to pay the claims for those who need it. You can argue the politics, but some things are what they are regardless of how you feel about it. You cannot make health insurance available to everyone without requiring it for everyone.
That's Wade's two cents!
Wade Houston
June 18, 2009
One of the items that was an integral component of the health care proposals made by both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton was a mandate that all individuals have and maintain health insurance. This would be similar to the requirement for vehicle insurance that exists in most states. Naturally, the insurance industry supports such a mandate.
At first glance, one might think the insurance industry's support for requiring everyone to have health insurance would be motivated by the lure of big profits. Actually, that potential cannot be entirely ruled out. However, there is another, more important reason.
Insurance companies operate by collecting money from all their customers and paying claims to those who need them. The company decides what to charge their customers based on how much they expect to need to pay the claims. They spend a lot of time and effort on statistical analysis to balance keeping their respective company's policies competitive while still reaping a profit for their investors. This actuarial science is what separates insurance plans from fraudulent ponzi schemes.
Most of the health care reform proposals call for eliminating the right of insurers to exclude people or to charge them higher premiums because of their existing health insurance problems. This is desirable for everyone except the insurers. As has been mentioned, insurance companies make their money by collecting money from all their insured while paying out as little as possible. Those people who have health conditions that cost more to treat than they pay in for health insurance premiums actually cost the insurance company money. Currently, the only way to control this loss is for insurance companies to be able to exclude offering coverage to those people or to charge them much higher rates. This also provides provides something of an incentive for healthy people to lock in their health insurance before something adverse happens.
If you eliminate the right of insurance companies to exclude the unhealthy, then many healthy people will wait until their expected medical expenses are greater than than the insurance premiums before getting coverage. It makes perfect sense from a personal financial management perspective. But, it will bankrupt the insurance companies!
Only requiring everyone to have insurance as a matter of law whether they are healthy or not will enable insurance companies to remain in business even if they accept people with health conditions at the sames rates as everyone else. That will guarantee the insurance companies have the money to pay the claims for those who need it. You can argue the politics, but some things are what they are regardless of how you feel about it. You cannot make health insurance available to everyone without requiring it for everyone.
That's Wade's two cents!
Wade Houston
June 18, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Stimulating Lies
I support a healthy debate. I believe in honest dialogue. But Republicans in the United States Senate and House are in many cases telling outright lies about the stimulus bill. Some keep repeating those falsehoods over and over with ever louder voices as though doing so would turn a lie into the truth. Chief among the lies they seem to be telling is that this bill will not keep or create jobs. Why?
I think they know that if you repeat a lie often enough some people begin to believe it. Since the American people gave control of both the legislative and executive branches of our government to the Democrats, the Republicans are shouting all the louder to make up for what they lack in numbers. They seem to be counting on the recession lasting well into 2010 regardless of what the government does. In that case, they expect the fickle voter will turn against those in power and reward the vocal opposition at the polls.
On the surface, this seems to be quite a gamble. If the stimulus should have a significant positive impact on the economy by mid 2010, the Republicans will have been definitively on record as having been on the wrong side of the issue. However, the American people are notoriously forgiving when everything turns out alright in the end. Perhaps that is what the GOP is counting on. I am cynical enough to believe they put their collective heads together and decided they have nothing to gain from bipartisanship. Partisan bickering may not cost them much in the end and holds the possibility of greater political reward.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
February 13, 2009
I think they know that if you repeat a lie often enough some people begin to believe it. Since the American people gave control of both the legislative and executive branches of our government to the Democrats, the Republicans are shouting all the louder to make up for what they lack in numbers. They seem to be counting on the recession lasting well into 2010 regardless of what the government does. In that case, they expect the fickle voter will turn against those in power and reward the vocal opposition at the polls.
On the surface, this seems to be quite a gamble. If the stimulus should have a significant positive impact on the economy by mid 2010, the Republicans will have been definitively on record as having been on the wrong side of the issue. However, the American people are notoriously forgiving when everything turns out alright in the end. Perhaps that is what the GOP is counting on. I am cynical enough to believe they put their collective heads together and decided they have nothing to gain from bipartisanship. Partisan bickering may not cost them much in the end and holds the possibility of greater political reward.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
February 13, 2009
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Why I Chose Not to Vote Early
The 2008 election is now over (except for a few runoffs). My state had one of the longest early voting periods in the nation. There was a lot of encouragement to vote early. I thought about it, but I held out. I did not vote until the final election day, November 4th.
Why did I wait? Well, it was not because of any indecision on my part. I knew I was going to vote for the candidates who came closest to my own position on health care. I knew those were all Democrats. I knew how I was going to vote a few months before the election. So indecision had nothing to do with my delay.
No, my issue was that I had little confidence in the early voting system in my state. Historically, there have been many instances of problems with counting absentee ballots. I was not convinced those difficulties had been resolved. Furthermore, for the non-absentee touch screen early voting, there was no paper trail. I wanted my vote to count and felt safest placing it in the mainstream of votes on election day. There was still no paper trail, but I had greater confidence the system would work smoothly that day. I was amused to see that the presidential candidates themselves waited until that final day to cast their own votes.
Since I had made a donation to Barack Obama's political campaign, I was on their e-mailing list. I kept getting one message after another encouraging me to vote early and to get others to vote early as well. I was considering putting my concerns aside and doing exactly that when the news reports started coming in of long long lines at the early polling places. Some in my state had to wait as long as seven hours to cast their votes.
At first I thought it was just temporary. After a few days of people voting early surely the numbers would taper off to a trickle with maybe a slight rise on the last early voting day. I was wrong! It became something of a feedback loop. The reports of such long lines made some people fear they needed to go ahead and vote lest they find the lines impossibly long on election day. So more people voted early making the lines still longer.
I pondered requesting an absentee ballot which could be mailed in but really hesitated because of the history of these ballots. Sure enough, in a few days it was in the news that faulty absentee ballots had been mailed out. The problem with these ballots was that the ovals were the wrong size and shape for the optical scanners to read. In Hamlet's words, "Oh, my prophetic soul!" New ballots were mailed out, but all those that had been marked and already returned were going to have to be manually transcribed onto new ballots.
(Here we are days after the close of the election and my state, Georgia, is still counting absentee ballots. The outcome of a U.S. Senate race is hanging in the balance. Perhaps by Tuesday the Georgia Secretary of State will be able to certify the election results.)
There continued to be issues with voting machines not working properly. Some of the voting machines were not properly calibrated and were registering votes for the wrong candidates. There were computer voter verification delays, etc. until the early election period finally ended. My hope was that all the kinks in the system got worked out. Maybe with all the normal polling places open on the regular election day there would be enough facilities in operation that the wait to vote would not be hours upon hours. I took that gamble.
I considered getting up early so I could be at the polls and in line by 6 a.m. Ultimately, I decided against that. I understand that others in my precinct who did go early had a wait of about an hour and a half. A local church serves as the polling place for my precinct and the poll workers had people queue through the pews in the sanctuary. People who waited until just before the polls closed also had to wait for a while.
I went to vote just before noon. If it had not been for the signs pointing where to vote, I would have thought the polling place had been moved. I experienced absolutely no wait to get my voting machine key card. After that, I actually spent more time trying to get through all the elections and issues on the ballot than I did waiting for an available machine.
I thanked the poll workers who volunteer their time and energies to make the operation work. I did not realize until recently that most of that work was voluntary. I am grateful to all those who voted early. They got their votes out of the way so my own voting experience went much more smoothly. (Gratitude feels so much better than any sort of guilt for the painlessness of my own voting experience.)
More needs to be done to improve the integrity of the balloting process in this country. We must have confidence in the way the will of the people is tabulated to believe that we really have "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
We also need to do more to make voting less burdensome. My parents went to vote on one of the early days, but the line they encountered was about three hours long. With their health issues, that was not going to work. So, they went home.
Still, I am proud of our elections in this country. I am proud to be an American.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 8, 2008
Why did I wait? Well, it was not because of any indecision on my part. I knew I was going to vote for the candidates who came closest to my own position on health care. I knew those were all Democrats. I knew how I was going to vote a few months before the election. So indecision had nothing to do with my delay.
No, my issue was that I had little confidence in the early voting system in my state. Historically, there have been many instances of problems with counting absentee ballots. I was not convinced those difficulties had been resolved. Furthermore, for the non-absentee touch screen early voting, there was no paper trail. I wanted my vote to count and felt safest placing it in the mainstream of votes on election day. There was still no paper trail, but I had greater confidence the system would work smoothly that day. I was amused to see that the presidential candidates themselves waited until that final day to cast their own votes.
Since I had made a donation to Barack Obama's political campaign, I was on their e-mailing list. I kept getting one message after another encouraging me to vote early and to get others to vote early as well. I was considering putting my concerns aside and doing exactly that when the news reports started coming in of long long lines at the early polling places. Some in my state had to wait as long as seven hours to cast their votes.
At first I thought it was just temporary. After a few days of people voting early surely the numbers would taper off to a trickle with maybe a slight rise on the last early voting day. I was wrong! It became something of a feedback loop. The reports of such long lines made some people fear they needed to go ahead and vote lest they find the lines impossibly long on election day. So more people voted early making the lines still longer.
I pondered requesting an absentee ballot which could be mailed in but really hesitated because of the history of these ballots. Sure enough, in a few days it was in the news that faulty absentee ballots had been mailed out. The problem with these ballots was that the ovals were the wrong size and shape for the optical scanners to read. In Hamlet's words, "Oh, my prophetic soul!" New ballots were mailed out, but all those that had been marked and already returned were going to have to be manually transcribed onto new ballots.
(Here we are days after the close of the election and my state, Georgia, is still counting absentee ballots. The outcome of a U.S. Senate race is hanging in the balance. Perhaps by Tuesday the Georgia Secretary of State will be able to certify the election results.)
There continued to be issues with voting machines not working properly. Some of the voting machines were not properly calibrated and were registering votes for the wrong candidates. There were computer voter verification delays, etc. until the early election period finally ended. My hope was that all the kinks in the system got worked out. Maybe with all the normal polling places open on the regular election day there would be enough facilities in operation that the wait to vote would not be hours upon hours. I took that gamble.
I considered getting up early so I could be at the polls and in line by 6 a.m. Ultimately, I decided against that. I understand that others in my precinct who did go early had a wait of about an hour and a half. A local church serves as the polling place for my precinct and the poll workers had people queue through the pews in the sanctuary. People who waited until just before the polls closed also had to wait for a while.
I went to vote just before noon. If it had not been for the signs pointing where to vote, I would have thought the polling place had been moved. I experienced absolutely no wait to get my voting machine key card. After that, I actually spent more time trying to get through all the elections and issues on the ballot than I did waiting for an available machine.
I thanked the poll workers who volunteer their time and energies to make the operation work. I did not realize until recently that most of that work was voluntary. I am grateful to all those who voted early. They got their votes out of the way so my own voting experience went much more smoothly. (Gratitude feels so much better than any sort of guilt for the painlessness of my own voting experience.)
More needs to be done to improve the integrity of the balloting process in this country. We must have confidence in the way the will of the people is tabulated to believe that we really have "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
We also need to do more to make voting less burdensome. My parents went to vote on one of the early days, but the line they encountered was about three hours long. With their health issues, that was not going to work. So, they went home.
Still, I am proud of our elections in this country. I am proud to be an American.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 8, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Tricks or Treats for Voters
The conclusion of this election season is just days away, and the political cynic in me is fully engaged. The closer we are to having it all be over, the more the negative campaigns of misleading statements and half truths fly. This seems to be true for all levels of office being sought. From the election of the next county sheriff all the way up to the President of the United States, opponents are pulling each other's statements and situations out of context to use as billy clubs.
Unfortunately, the public is eating it up. The media senses that and provides more of what the public seems to want. Many people complain about the negativity but can't resist listening for the latest mud to reinforce their beliefs about the person they have decided not to vote for. At this stage of the race, getting a new understanding of the issues in depth has gone out the window.
There is an observable devolution in political campaigns. Typically they start with elevated discussions of goals and concepts. There will be a lot of civil discussions involving complex exchanges of ideas. Unfortunately, only the intellectual elite give them much notice. Over time, the complex ideas give way to simplifications. Then the simplifications give way to nice sound bites. At each stage the number of voters paying attention grows. By this point, the point of drastic over simplification, most of the voters will have made up their minds.
To go after the remaining voters, the campaign shifts from attracting voters to oneself to driving them away from one's opponent. This is the nasty Halloween part of the campaign. Unfortunately, this is the part the late deciders tune in for. The members of the electorate whose opinions are primarily shaped by negative ads are the same people who turn down Charlie Rose to tune into Jerry Springer. But, in a close election, their votes are vital.
While the candidates themselves are not blameless, the fault for all the mudslinging is not entirely theirs. They are doing what they must do to win. Even the most idealistic candidate can do nothing if not elected. If they have to crawl down into the mud in order to win, it's because that is where the votes they need reside. A mudslinging campaign is as much a reflection of the voters as it is of the ones running for election.
As the voters go looking for goodies, they should not be surprised to run into a few skeletons along the way. That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 31, 2008
Unfortunately, the public is eating it up. The media senses that and provides more of what the public seems to want. Many people complain about the negativity but can't resist listening for the latest mud to reinforce their beliefs about the person they have decided not to vote for. At this stage of the race, getting a new understanding of the issues in depth has gone out the window.
There is an observable devolution in political campaigns. Typically they start with elevated discussions of goals and concepts. There will be a lot of civil discussions involving complex exchanges of ideas. Unfortunately, only the intellectual elite give them much notice. Over time, the complex ideas give way to simplifications. Then the simplifications give way to nice sound bites. At each stage the number of voters paying attention grows. By this point, the point of drastic over simplification, most of the voters will have made up their minds.
To go after the remaining voters, the campaign shifts from attracting voters to oneself to driving them away from one's opponent. This is the nasty Halloween part of the campaign. Unfortunately, this is the part the late deciders tune in for. The members of the electorate whose opinions are primarily shaped by negative ads are the same people who turn down Charlie Rose to tune into Jerry Springer. But, in a close election, their votes are vital.
While the candidates themselves are not blameless, the fault for all the mudslinging is not entirely theirs. They are doing what they must do to win. Even the most idealistic candidate can do nothing if not elected. If they have to crawl down into the mud in order to win, it's because that is where the votes they need reside. A mudslinging campaign is as much a reflection of the voters as it is of the ones running for election.
As the voters go looking for goodies, they should not be surprised to run into a few skeletons along the way. That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 31, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Trusting As Far As I Can Spit
It's an emergency! We're going into financial meltdown! Unless Congress immediately authorizes a 700 billion dollar expenditure by the Treasury Secretary, we're doomed! Or, so they would have us believe.
Fortunately, our elected representatives from both political parties are resisting being railroaded. Many remember what a disaster the Patriot Act turned out to be because it was acted upon in haste. Then, too, they know that the administration that is sounding this alarm is the same Bush administration that told us and told the world that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. There is an understandable credibility gap.
There are problems with the economy. But to blindly follow this administration's leadership to an attempted solution is not the answer. Thankfully, our congressional leadership has learned some lessons from the recent past and is being more methodical in developing a solution.
Tonight, President George W. Bush will address the nation in an attempt to scare the public into putting more pressure on our congressional leadership to pass a hasty spending bill. Will the public demonstrate the same capacity to learn from past mistakes as the Congress? We shall see.
I am definitely in favor of taking appropriate action. But it is my wish that we take whatever time is necessary to get the action right.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 24, 2008
Fortunately, our elected representatives from both political parties are resisting being railroaded. Many remember what a disaster the Patriot Act turned out to be because it was acted upon in haste. Then, too, they know that the administration that is sounding this alarm is the same Bush administration that told us and told the world that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. There is an understandable credibility gap.
There are problems with the economy. But to blindly follow this administration's leadership to an attempted solution is not the answer. Thankfully, our congressional leadership has learned some lessons from the recent past and is being more methodical in developing a solution.
Tonight, President George W. Bush will address the nation in an attempt to scare the public into putting more pressure on our congressional leadership to pass a hasty spending bill. Will the public demonstrate the same capacity to learn from past mistakes as the Congress? We shall see.
I am definitely in favor of taking appropriate action. But it is my wish that we take whatever time is necessary to get the action right.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 24, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Annie Oakley for Vice President?
Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, recently said in an interview that she had no hesitation in accepting John McCain's offer of the number two spot on the presidential ticket. On the surface that would seem to suggest supreme confidence in herself and her abilities. It certainly reflects some degree of ambition.
Ambition is not altogether a bad thing. In fact, we want people to have high aspirations for our country which probably means they will have high aspirations for themselves as well. It would be sexist to say it is not appropriate for a woman.
However, in saying she accepted the VP offer with NO hesitation, Sarah Palin has indicated she does not appreciate the gravity of the position. If her ticket is elected, she would be the Vice President. If for any reason John McCain could not serve out his term (and at his advanced age that carries a higher than normal degree of probability), Sarah Palin would be the President. Surely, accepting the role deserves some thoughtful reflection. I expect that from my leaders.
Though Sarah Palin has been governor of the state with the largest land area in the U.S., it is also the state with the sparsest population. She may have experience in managing a state budget, but it is the budget of a state with such a surplus it actually pays its citizens rather than exacting an income tax. Even though Alaska has both Canada and Russia as neighbors, her foreign policy experience pales in comparison to a number of other choices McCain could have made.
Sarah Palin may seem like the perfect poster girl for the National Rifle Association, but even Annie Oakley was not qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. It's time to take a hard look at John McCain's selection. Could this be the first sign of dementia?
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 12, 2008
Ambition is not altogether a bad thing. In fact, we want people to have high aspirations for our country which probably means they will have high aspirations for themselves as well. It would be sexist to say it is not appropriate for a woman.
However, in saying she accepted the VP offer with NO hesitation, Sarah Palin has indicated she does not appreciate the gravity of the position. If her ticket is elected, she would be the Vice President. If for any reason John McCain could not serve out his term (and at his advanced age that carries a higher than normal degree of probability), Sarah Palin would be the President. Surely, accepting the role deserves some thoughtful reflection. I expect that from my leaders.
Though Sarah Palin has been governor of the state with the largest land area in the U.S., it is also the state with the sparsest population. She may have experience in managing a state budget, but it is the budget of a state with such a surplus it actually pays its citizens rather than exacting an income tax. Even though Alaska has both Canada and Russia as neighbors, her foreign policy experience pales in comparison to a number of other choices McCain could have made.
Sarah Palin may seem like the perfect poster girl for the National Rifle Association, but even Annie Oakley was not qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. It's time to take a hard look at John McCain's selection. Could this be the first sign of dementia?
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 12, 2008
Telecommuting Has Pros and Cons
In this age of high transportation costs and increasing ease of telecommuting, more and more of us have taken to working from home. Working from home certainly has its perks. You don't have to fight the traffic. There is no time wasted on commuting, so more of your off time is really yours. You don't have to spend extra time preening for people at the office (unless you are doing a lot of work with a web cam). You can essentially go straight from your bedroom to your desk and never change from your pajamas.
Some people see telecommuting as the ideal solution for their child care issues. However, many employers are not so sure. Children, especially young children, frequently cannot appreciate the need to leave mommy or daddy alone to work. The constant interruptions prevent the type of sustained concentration many jobs require. On the other hand, this type of arrangement may be preferred by employers of nursing mothers.
During an interview, one friend of mine was asked by her future employer if she might be tempted to do housework while she should be focused on her job. Her reply was classic. "I've never been tempted by housework before. Why should doing my job from home make any difference?" They had a good laugh, and she was hired. But it does make an important point. There is a potential for distractions unique to a home environment.
If lots of face to face interaction with co-workers is vital for the performance of your job, then working from home is probably not for you. If you derive your energy and sense of satisfaction from the routine give and take between yourself and others on your work team, then working exclusively from home will leave you unfulfilled. Then again, if you hate your co-workers, working in isolation could improve your performance.
Some people need to get out of the house to experience a sense of separation between their professional lives and their personal lives. For them, working from home would be too much of an intrusion of one into the other. Many people complain that since they started working from home, they never seem to be able to get away from their jobs. They don't feel like their work day is done when they don't physically leave the workplace behind. One friend of mine addressed this problem by putting his office in his basement. When he went to the basement, he was "at work". His family came to understand and respect this arrangement. He stayed out of his basement office when he was done for the day.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
Some people see telecommuting as the ideal solution for their child care issues. However, many employers are not so sure. Children, especially young children, frequently cannot appreciate the need to leave mommy or daddy alone to work. The constant interruptions prevent the type of sustained concentration many jobs require. On the other hand, this type of arrangement may be preferred by employers of nursing mothers.
During an interview, one friend of mine was asked by her future employer if she might be tempted to do housework while she should be focused on her job. Her reply was classic. "I've never been tempted by housework before. Why should doing my job from home make any difference?" They had a good laugh, and she was hired. But it does make an important point. There is a potential for distractions unique to a home environment.
If lots of face to face interaction with co-workers is vital for the performance of your job, then working from home is probably not for you. If you derive your energy and sense of satisfaction from the routine give and take between yourself and others on your work team, then working exclusively from home will leave you unfulfilled. Then again, if you hate your co-workers, working in isolation could improve your performance.
Some people need to get out of the house to experience a sense of separation between their professional lives and their personal lives. For them, working from home would be too much of an intrusion of one into the other. Many people complain that since they started working from home, they never seem to be able to get away from their jobs. They don't feel like their work day is done when they don't physically leave the workplace behind. One friend of mine addressed this problem by putting his office in his basement. When he went to the basement, he was "at work". His family came to understand and respect this arrangement. He stayed out of his basement office when he was done for the day.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Universal Health Care is a Win, Win
The falling value of the dollar should be dramatically boosting our exports. This should increase domestic employment. Believe it or not, we're seeing some of that. Otherwise, our unemployment numbers would be even higher than they are. A major reason we are not seeing a greater benefit is because the American labor market is not structured for international competition.
A big hindrance to American labor's competitiveness around the world is the tying of health care to employment. We expect employers to provide health insurance for the employees. This one item adds significantly to labor costs. If we did not participate in a global marketplace, we could continue this practice indefinitely. Or, if the rest of the world followed this same model we could continue this approach to health care with no adverse consequences to our competitiveness. But, that is not what the other industrialized nations of the world are doing.
Nearly all the other major industrialized nations have some sort of government provided health care which leaves private businesses completely out of the picture. That means those businesses have no health care expenses associated with their labor costs. In comparison with American labor market, it is as if those foreign businesses were having a portion of their labor costs subsidized by their governments. That is a significant competitive advantage. It is so significant, in fact, that if it were a more direct subsidy, the United States would be suing those countries in the World Trade Court for unfair practices.
It would be extremely arrogant to expect the rest of the world to change to our system of health care. They happen to like their way. Many U.S. companies that have shifted parts of their operations abroad like their way also. Being able to operate without the costs of health care has been a driving factor in the export of jobs.
American labor can hardly be expected to suddenly give up employer provided health care with nothing to replace it. That would be a catastrophe. We can't fault American businesses for wanting to keep expenses down, either. Without some remedy, the steady export of jobs abroad will likely continue.
There have been a lot of proposals circulated to address the problem of Americans who either have no health care insurance or are woefully under insured. A significant number of these would place the burden for this insurance on the backs of the employers. In terms of world trade, this is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.
To improve their global competitiveness, our businesses need for us to adopt a government provided system of universal health care. There are ways this can be done without putting the insurance companies out of business. In fact, depending upon how such a program is structured, it could even increase their business. This would be a win for businesses because their domestic costs would go down. This would be a win for labor because it would be easier for companies to add more jobs. That is why both business and labor should be leading the crusade for universal health care.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 9, 2008
A big hindrance to American labor's competitiveness around the world is the tying of health care to employment. We expect employers to provide health insurance for the employees. This one item adds significantly to labor costs. If we did not participate in a global marketplace, we could continue this practice indefinitely. Or, if the rest of the world followed this same model we could continue this approach to health care with no adverse consequences to our competitiveness. But, that is not what the other industrialized nations of the world are doing.
Nearly all the other major industrialized nations have some sort of government provided health care which leaves private businesses completely out of the picture. That means those businesses have no health care expenses associated with their labor costs. In comparison with American labor market, it is as if those foreign businesses were having a portion of their labor costs subsidized by their governments. That is a significant competitive advantage. It is so significant, in fact, that if it were a more direct subsidy, the United States would be suing those countries in the World Trade Court for unfair practices.
It would be extremely arrogant to expect the rest of the world to change to our system of health care. They happen to like their way. Many U.S. companies that have shifted parts of their operations abroad like their way also. Being able to operate without the costs of health care has been a driving factor in the export of jobs.
American labor can hardly be expected to suddenly give up employer provided health care with nothing to replace it. That would be a catastrophe. We can't fault American businesses for wanting to keep expenses down, either. Without some remedy, the steady export of jobs abroad will likely continue.
There have been a lot of proposals circulated to address the problem of Americans who either have no health care insurance or are woefully under insured. A significant number of these would place the burden for this insurance on the backs of the employers. In terms of world trade, this is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.
To improve their global competitiveness, our businesses need for us to adopt a government provided system of universal health care. There are ways this can be done without putting the insurance companies out of business. In fact, depending upon how such a program is structured, it could even increase their business. This would be a win for businesses because their domestic costs would go down. This would be a win for labor because it would be easier for companies to add more jobs. That is why both business and labor should be leading the crusade for universal health care.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 9, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Wake Up to the Abundance of Energy
Energy finally seems to be getting the attention it deserves. People are recognizing the rising demand around our planet, and many are talking about energy shortages as developing nations start utilizing more energy themselves. But the reality is that we are surrounded by an abundance of energy. The earth is truly blessed.
The mindset of energy shortage comes from a tunnel vision focus on fossil fuels. That limited focus is drying up supplies and poisoning our planet. What is needed instead is for developers to take off their blinders and wake up to the enormous supply of untapped energy that surrounds us. I am not talking metaphysics here. I am talking about natural energy.
Here's one example. Long range forecasters are predicting some critical fresh water needs in the future that current delivery systems cannot accommodate. Many areas are already feeling the strain. Obviously, more needs to be done with water reclamation. But additionally, many are calling for much more to be done with the desalination of seawater. A major obstacle to that has been the high energy demand of such operations. Imagine, though, a desalination plant that harnesses the local power of the tides, the wind, and the waves to generate the electricity required to operate and pump the water. The output of the plant might be somewhat variable, but it would take no energy from the grid. Instead, the facility takes the energy from its environment.
We need to get away from the all or nothing approach to supplying our electrical energy needs. There is an enormous amount of energy lost in transmission from a central location. Envision, instead, a community in which every building has roof shingles that not only perform the usual protective functions but also convert sunlight into electricity for use in that building. In most locations, this would not be enough to substitute for the electrical grid, but it could certainly supplement. If the building is making use of a subterranean heating and cooling system, the power to provide the air circulation could all be generated on site. (Google "subterranean heating and cooling" for more information.)
This sort of decentralization of power supply can make an enormous difference in parts of the developing world where the infrastructure for power delivery has not been put into place. In many respects, it is similar to the way in which cell phone service has reached many areas were there are still no telephone land lines. These countries will be able to modernize more quickly and with less investment in infrastructure with this type of technology. As a bonus, it will have less negative impact on the environment.
What we need now and in the future is more creative energy. Sometimes, we need new technologies. Sometimes we just need new applications of very old technologies. Either way, we'll be drawing upon the abundance of energy that already surrounds us.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 3, 2008
The mindset of energy shortage comes from a tunnel vision focus on fossil fuels. That limited focus is drying up supplies and poisoning our planet. What is needed instead is for developers to take off their blinders and wake up to the enormous supply of untapped energy that surrounds us. I am not talking metaphysics here. I am talking about natural energy.
Here's one example. Long range forecasters are predicting some critical fresh water needs in the future that current delivery systems cannot accommodate. Many areas are already feeling the strain. Obviously, more needs to be done with water reclamation. But additionally, many are calling for much more to be done with the desalination of seawater. A major obstacle to that has been the high energy demand of such operations. Imagine, though, a desalination plant that harnesses the local power of the tides, the wind, and the waves to generate the electricity required to operate and pump the water. The output of the plant might be somewhat variable, but it would take no energy from the grid. Instead, the facility takes the energy from its environment.
We need to get away from the all or nothing approach to supplying our electrical energy needs. There is an enormous amount of energy lost in transmission from a central location. Envision, instead, a community in which every building has roof shingles that not only perform the usual protective functions but also convert sunlight into electricity for use in that building. In most locations, this would not be enough to substitute for the electrical grid, but it could certainly supplement. If the building is making use of a subterranean heating and cooling system, the power to provide the air circulation could all be generated on site. (Google "subterranean heating and cooling" for more information.)
This sort of decentralization of power supply can make an enormous difference in parts of the developing world where the infrastructure for power delivery has not been put into place. In many respects, it is similar to the way in which cell phone service has reached many areas were there are still no telephone land lines. These countries will be able to modernize more quickly and with less investment in infrastructure with this type of technology. As a bonus, it will have less negative impact on the environment.
What we need now and in the future is more creative energy. Sometimes, we need new technologies. Sometimes we just need new applications of very old technologies. Either way, we'll be drawing upon the abundance of energy that already surrounds us.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 3, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Best Way for Hillary Clinton to Help Barack Obama
The last of the 2008 presidential primaries are behind us. It is clear that Barack Obama is going to be the Democrat nominee. All of his opponents have endorsed him. That includes his most enduring competitor, Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton has promised to do everything she can to support the election of Barack Obama. She is committed to seeing a Democrat elected to the White House. That invites the question, "How can Hillary Clinton's services be put to the best use?"
Certainly, Senator Clinton can go a long way to persuade those who supported her in the nomination process that their best next option is to support the election of Barack Obama. This is probably the single most important task for Hillary Clinton. Her consistent enthusiastic message has to be that Barack Obama must become the next President of the United States.
But, what about outside her base of support? Hillary Clinton comes with baggage. There are some people in this country who were determined to vote for anyone who was running against her. Of course, the majority of those aren't going to vote for Senator Obama, either, but some will. Obama needs to use Hillary Clinton's support to the best advantage without stirring up energy for the opposition. That is the challenge.
My recommendation would be that Senator Clinton hit the campaign trail stumping for other Democrats running for office. At every stop she can encourage people to support Barack Obama for President by voting for him and also sending to Washington people who will support his policies. This would need to be done carefully to see that she only appears with candidates in areas where her support is a net benefit, but it could help the Democrats enormously.
This approach is a win for Hillary Clinton as well. Much of politics is based on trading favors. By campaigning for other Democrats seeking office, Clinton builds political capital she can use to push policies in the Senate later.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 2, 2008
Senator Clinton has promised to do everything she can to support the election of Barack Obama. She is committed to seeing a Democrat elected to the White House. That invites the question, "How can Hillary Clinton's services be put to the best use?"
Certainly, Senator Clinton can go a long way to persuade those who supported her in the nomination process that their best next option is to support the election of Barack Obama. This is probably the single most important task for Hillary Clinton. Her consistent enthusiastic message has to be that Barack Obama must become the next President of the United States.
But, what about outside her base of support? Hillary Clinton comes with baggage. There are some people in this country who were determined to vote for anyone who was running against her. Of course, the majority of those aren't going to vote for Senator Obama, either, but some will. Obama needs to use Hillary Clinton's support to the best advantage without stirring up energy for the opposition. That is the challenge.
My recommendation would be that Senator Clinton hit the campaign trail stumping for other Democrats running for office. At every stop she can encourage people to support Barack Obama for President by voting for him and also sending to Washington people who will support his policies. This would need to be done carefully to see that she only appears with candidates in areas where her support is a net benefit, but it could help the Democrats enormously.
This approach is a win for Hillary Clinton as well. Much of politics is based on trading favors. By campaigning for other Democrats seeking office, Clinton builds political capital she can use to push policies in the Senate later.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 2, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Choose Your Pain Wisely
We are in an economic slowdown at the same time we're experiencing rising prices of essentials such as food and transportation. Of course, non-essentials are going up, too. But it's easier to adjust to those price increases by cutting back.
As we tighten our belts and adjust to making what we have left go further, it is natural to expect our government agencies to do the same. It is politically popular to talk about "eliminating waste and unnecessary spending." Unfortunately, in the real world those cuts rarely get applied to extravagant toilets, etc. Instead they translate into job losses and reduction of services to the public.
When we insist our government agencies reduce spending, we don't really want people to lose their jobs. We just want lower taxes. Sadly, we cannot eat our cake and have it still.
When any organization or agency cuts jobs, there are going to be more people competing for the jobs that remain. Unemployment rises. Even if you believe your job is secure, the prevailing job market has a dampening effect on wages. This can lead to a downward economic spiral as people cut back on spending to adjust.
In the United States the federal government is the largest single employer. When you add to those federal jobs all the jobs of the various states and municipalities, you can see that governmental cuts have a big impact on overall unemployment rates. Those taxes you pay may hurt, but lower wages and even unemployment hurt still more. Keep that in mind the next time you look at your paycheck stub.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
June 27, 2008
As we tighten our belts and adjust to making what we have left go further, it is natural to expect our government agencies to do the same. It is politically popular to talk about "eliminating waste and unnecessary spending." Unfortunately, in the real world those cuts rarely get applied to extravagant toilets, etc. Instead they translate into job losses and reduction of services to the public.
When we insist our government agencies reduce spending, we don't really want people to lose their jobs. We just want lower taxes. Sadly, we cannot eat our cake and have it still.
When any organization or agency cuts jobs, there are going to be more people competing for the jobs that remain. Unemployment rises. Even if you believe your job is secure, the prevailing job market has a dampening effect on wages. This can lead to a downward economic spiral as people cut back on spending to adjust.
In the United States the federal government is the largest single employer. When you add to those federal jobs all the jobs of the various states and municipalities, you can see that governmental cuts have a big impact on overall unemployment rates. Those taxes you pay may hurt, but lower wages and even unemployment hurt still more. Keep that in mind the next time you look at your paycheck stub.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
June 27, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Blessings Of High Oil Prices
There is a lot of moaning and groaning about high oil and gasoline prices. It's understandable. No one likes paying for anything more than he has to. But with all the weeping and gnashing of teeth, there are a lot of people who are completely ignoring the numerous blessings this situation brings us. This filthy-dark, high price oil cloud has an amazingly bright silver lining.
Some of us have been saying for some time now that we need to break our dependence on foreign oil. One of the obstacles has been that oil was too cheap an option for energy independence advocates to gather the support and public will needed to make that happen. As the price of oil rises, the energy independence movement is gaining strength. Indeed, the reality of that fact has Saudi Arabia currently leading the way in trying to get the world price of oil under control. The pusher never wants to lose the junkie.
Environmentalists have been calling for higher mileage standards on our vehicles, but the legislative will has not been there in sufficient force. With high gasoline prices, the market forces are doing what the law makers failed to do. Gas guzzling monsters are losing sales. The public is demanding higher fuel efficiency. Car manufacturers are revamping their production lines accordingly. They previously denied being able to adjust to any new mandatory standards so rapidly. But, with their very survival on the line, we're hearing a different song.
Safety advocates have long urged people to slow down while driving, to stay within the speed limit. Now, many people are slowing down. They aren't doing it because it decreases the chances they will be in an accident. They are driving closer to the limit because of the certainty it will improve their gas mileage. Some are even allowing more distance between their own cars and the vehicle in front so as to avoid breaking as often.
Those who concern themselves with traffic congestion have to be pleased that people are making fewer unnecessary trips. Drivers are combining errands and planning routes more efficiently. Carpoolers are growing in number. Those with short commutes are even getting more exercise by walking or riding bicycles.
In many cities, public transportation has been woefully underfunded. There just was not the demand to justify the investment. Thanks to higher gasoline prices that situation is changing. More and more people are leaving their cars at home and taking the bus, subway or train. Under current circumstances, cities find the support for expanding transportation services to be greater than ever. As public transportation is improved, it becomes a viable option for more and more people.
Investment in alternative energy technologies has lagged far behind what has been needed. But, necessity is the mother of invention. With oil prices so high, alternative energy applications become more viable economically. As demand for these applications grows, so will the investment to make them more efficient and economical.
I am amazed to see so many changes happening at once! I had feared we would adjust to gradually increasing oil prices the way tobacco addicts accepted the rising price of cigarettes. It is my belief that only the suddenness of the steep rise in the price of oil has created this shift. Wisdom has long been crying for these changes. The present pain could have been avoided, a crises averted. Instead, we have waited until our shocked wallets demand something different. So be it.
I'm still going to look for the lowest priced gasoline to fill my tank, but I can appreciate the benefits high fuel prices are bringing us. I don't like the pain, but bring on the blessings!
That's Wades 2 cents.
Wade Houston
June 18, 2008
Some of us have been saying for some time now that we need to break our dependence on foreign oil. One of the obstacles has been that oil was too cheap an option for energy independence advocates to gather the support and public will needed to make that happen. As the price of oil rises, the energy independence movement is gaining strength. Indeed, the reality of that fact has Saudi Arabia currently leading the way in trying to get the world price of oil under control. The pusher never wants to lose the junkie.
Environmentalists have been calling for higher mileage standards on our vehicles, but the legislative will has not been there in sufficient force. With high gasoline prices, the market forces are doing what the law makers failed to do. Gas guzzling monsters are losing sales. The public is demanding higher fuel efficiency. Car manufacturers are revamping their production lines accordingly. They previously denied being able to adjust to any new mandatory standards so rapidly. But, with their very survival on the line, we're hearing a different song.
Safety advocates have long urged people to slow down while driving, to stay within the speed limit. Now, many people are slowing down. They aren't doing it because it decreases the chances they will be in an accident. They are driving closer to the limit because of the certainty it will improve their gas mileage. Some are even allowing more distance between their own cars and the vehicle in front so as to avoid breaking as often.
Those who concern themselves with traffic congestion have to be pleased that people are making fewer unnecessary trips. Drivers are combining errands and planning routes more efficiently. Carpoolers are growing in number. Those with short commutes are even getting more exercise by walking or riding bicycles.
In many cities, public transportation has been woefully underfunded. There just was not the demand to justify the investment. Thanks to higher gasoline prices that situation is changing. More and more people are leaving their cars at home and taking the bus, subway or train. Under current circumstances, cities find the support for expanding transportation services to be greater than ever. As public transportation is improved, it becomes a viable option for more and more people.
Investment in alternative energy technologies has lagged far behind what has been needed. But, necessity is the mother of invention. With oil prices so high, alternative energy applications become more viable economically. As demand for these applications grows, so will the investment to make them more efficient and economical.
I am amazed to see so many changes happening at once! I had feared we would adjust to gradually increasing oil prices the way tobacco addicts accepted the rising price of cigarettes. It is my belief that only the suddenness of the steep rise in the price of oil has created this shift. Wisdom has long been crying for these changes. The present pain could have been avoided, a crises averted. Instead, we have waited until our shocked wallets demand something different. So be it.
I'm still going to look for the lowest priced gasoline to fill my tank, but I can appreciate the benefits high fuel prices are bringing us. I don't like the pain, but bring on the blessings!
That's Wades 2 cents.
Wade Houston
June 18, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
California Gay Marriage Ruling Energizes GOP
This week, California's supreme court struck down the state's law defining marriage as being exclusively between persons of differing genders. Gay rights activists cheered the state constitutional ruling. Ellen DeGeneres lost little time in announcing her upcoming nuptials. Yes, there has been dancing in the streets.
However, some conservative Republicans are almost as gleeful. They see this as a clear opportunity to rally their electoral base to get them to the polls in November. They plan to hold the specter of same gender couples being able to marry, adopt children, and file joint tax returns up as a nightmarish abomination that only their votes for the Republican party candidates can prevent.
Right wing Republicans have been less than enthusiastic about their apparent presidential nominee, John McCain. There has been considerable concern that they might just stay home in November. As a consequence, the Republicans face a real possibility of substantial losses at all political levels. However, being able to stir up anti-gay feelings may be just the catalyst they need to get their people to the polls. The California ruling makes it more likely that will happen.
I don't think the GOP necessarily likes being the haven of bigots. But in an election year like this one, they'll take their votes wherever they can get them. When opportunity knocks, they don't care if it's the devil on the other side of the door.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
May 17, 2008
However, some conservative Republicans are almost as gleeful. They see this as a clear opportunity to rally their electoral base to get them to the polls in November. They plan to hold the specter of same gender couples being able to marry, adopt children, and file joint tax returns up as a nightmarish abomination that only their votes for the Republican party candidates can prevent.
Right wing Republicans have been less than enthusiastic about their apparent presidential nominee, John McCain. There has been considerable concern that they might just stay home in November. As a consequence, the Republicans face a real possibility of substantial losses at all political levels. However, being able to stir up anti-gay feelings may be just the catalyst they need to get their people to the polls. The California ruling makes it more likely that will happen.
I don't think the GOP necessarily likes being the haven of bigots. But in an election year like this one, they'll take their votes wherever they can get them. When opportunity knocks, they don't care if it's the devil on the other side of the door.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
May 17, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Why Not Lift the Gasoline Tax?
Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton have both been advocating for a summer suspension of the federal gas tax. Senator Barack Obama says the whole idea is a useless gimmick designed to buy votes. Who is right?
The idea that lifting the taxes on gasoline would reduce its price at the pump has appeal. Everyone would like to pay less. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the consumer would ever see that savings.
* The gasoline retailers might simply use the savings to increase their profit margins leaving the prices where they are.
* The oil companies might increase their prices to the stations to increase their profit margins.
* If neither of those happened, a temporary drop in retail prices would probably spur increased usage of gasoline pushing up demand. This would result in more rising prices.
So, why even propose suspending the gasoline tax? Because it gives the appearance that the government is doing something about the situation. It gives voters the impression that their politicians care and are trying to help. Unfortunately, the most likely beneficiaries would be the oil companies.
It takes courage to tell voters what they don't want to hear. It takes integrity to admit an idea that sounds great on the surface simply won't work. I commend Senator Obama for doing just that. I also wonder what happened to John McCain's straight talk.
That's Wade's 2 cents.
Wade Houston
May 14, 2008
The idea that lifting the taxes on gasoline would reduce its price at the pump has appeal. Everyone would like to pay less. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the consumer would ever see that savings.
* The gasoline retailers might simply use the savings to increase their profit margins leaving the prices where they are.
* The oil companies might increase their prices to the stations to increase their profit margins.
* If neither of those happened, a temporary drop in retail prices would probably spur increased usage of gasoline pushing up demand. This would result in more rising prices.
So, why even propose suspending the gasoline tax? Because it gives the appearance that the government is doing something about the situation. It gives voters the impression that their politicians care and are trying to help. Unfortunately, the most likely beneficiaries would be the oil companies.
It takes courage to tell voters what they don't want to hear. It takes integrity to admit an idea that sounds great on the surface simply won't work. I commend Senator Obama for doing just that. I also wonder what happened to John McCain's straight talk.
That's Wade's 2 cents.
Wade Houston
May 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)