Moving on from Conservatism

Let us move UP from conservatism, a once respectable idea (in the tradition of Edmund Burke) of implementing progress and change incrementally (vs. not at all; or worse - rolling back progress already made).

Modern conservatism – certainly in the USA – is a reactionary force – rather than a practical or governing force. Railing on about what you are against only gets you so far.

Up from Conservatism by Michael Lind

https://www.amazon.com/Up-Conservatism-Michael-Lind/dp/0684831864

"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'." --John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

Let the Right-wing Witch Hunt Begin (again)

If there's any doubt about the right-wing foaming at the mouth to profit from another Clinton presidency, I offer a correspondent I received today from a "Miss Fran Griffin" promoting a 1990s book called "Hustler: The Clinton Legacy" by Joe Sobran.

Right-wingers are shameless in pursuit of their fantasy demons. And lazy, too, as they apparently can't be bothered to create new material for a new generation of right-wing dupes.

Why did I receive this solicitation in the first place? Because I was once an anti-Clinton Republican.

I've gotten smarter and wiser with age and no longer fall for this kind of manufactured nonsense. But, I do get joy from wasting their money when they send me easily recyclable trash and collectible stamps.

Trump Fails the Character Test

The New York Times may have uncovered the fact that Donald Trump has not paid taxes, possibly for many years.

The sad part is that Trump probably did it all legally, thanks to loopholes Congress has put in place to make it easier for the wealthy to skip out on their responsibility.

Recall the Republican gospel is that taxes are too high on the "producers." It was only a natural extension of that ideology to go to bat for the wealthy any way they could, including the tax code.

For those who take the admonishment “to whom much is given, much is expected” seriously (like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc.), they accept their responsibility (in what they say and what they pay) rather than evade it.

Trump has failed the test of: "Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking."

Well, everybody is looking now.

Realism: Manufacturing Jobs Aren't Coming Back

Nobody can bring blue-collar jobs back - assuming you don't force companies to come back or stay here. And, I doubt a free-market proponent would be in favor of government coercion in capital choices. But you never know. Republicans were against deficits (Clinton), before they were for them (Bush) before they were against them (Obama). Also, what about the irony of Trump going after free-trade that his own party has been selling for the last 30+ years? Sure, triangulating Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, to his everlasting shame. But, by and large, free-trade has been a cornerstone of modern GOP economics. And many of the same people voting for Trump are the same ones who voted for candidates of that very same GOP!

The only way companies would voluntarily choose to come back is if there were incentives in place that would reduce their COGS (cost of goods sold) - which would require reducing COGS such that they were less than what they would be overseas. The chief component of COGS is often labor - and that translates to lower wages, which is not what America needs. What America needs is to become more competitive in the higher-paying white-collar jobs -- e.g. engineering. This means re-training former blue-collar workers into those higher paying jobs; or re-training them for labor-intensive jobs that are on the forefront of technology - e.g. solar, wind energy design and installation. America also needs to prioritize STEM education (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) because those are the cornerstone of high-paying jobs. Why have those jobs filled by Indian or Chinese workers when we can focus on our own citizens pursuing STEM careers? But all of this requires forward-thinking and investments that a reactionary Congress seems incapable of focusing on. They are missing the forest for the trees by staying entrenched in their ideology - or their need to be right - or their hostility to the occupant of the White House, etc. The world is going to pass America by if America does not get its act together and starts behaving like the super-power it is, not just militarily - but with investments in its people and its infrastructure. Progress is not cheap. But, leaders must be willing to make the hard choices when deciding where to invest and how much. Right now, the US has no such leadership.

Was Mother Teresa a Saint?

According to Pope Francis, Yes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-francis-proclaims-mother-teresa-a-saint_us_57cc0153e4b078581f136836?section=& I have my doubts. I'm sure Ms. Teresa did many wonderful things and I'm not going to undermine that by saying she added no value to human existence. She did. Her tireless toil was unmatched. But, at the same time, by perpetuating Catholic teaching against family planning and contraception, she needlessly spawned new generations of poverty by burdening families with children they could not properly educate, clothe or feed. If your only "moral" goal is to procreate, she was a stunning success. If your goals also included ensuring children are loved, cared for, sheltered, clean, educated, healthy, etc. maybe not so much. Ms. Teresa was "old school" in many ways - and I can't fault her for being a product of her times (that makes her human - not a saint). But, I can foster skepticism towards the accolades being unfurled upon her.

Compassionate Drug Companies

Per the "EpiPen" outrage stirring in the news recently, I had to chuckle at the company's (Mylan) efforts to "remedy" the situation: "the company would not cut the price of the injectors, but would increase the maximum it would offer to families in its copay assistance program from $100 to $300." This gesture is not compassion or meaningful. It's a loophole drug companies now use to continue to receive the same jacked-up payment from insurance companies. In other words, drug company revenues are not affected and it keeps all of our insurance premiums high. Drug companies may create an illusion by offering "assistance programs," but those are written off in other ways that benefit the company in terms of their bottom line (net earnings- read: profit). I know. I used brand Lipitor for years and when my insurance companies tried to bring costs under control by promoting generics, Pfizer started an "assistance" program ... which had virtually nothing to do with customers who could no longer afford their products. What it did was ensure Pfizer continued to receive the same whole-cost payment from insurance companies - who would still pay for named brand ... but expect the insured to pay the difference between brand/generic, which Pfizer would now (mostly) cover with "assistance". It's another loophole the elite in Congress have created to keep the profits of the insanely rich protected, so they can continue to fund that political elite, helping them keep their jobs. It's win-win for the rich and elite. For the common folk, not so much.

Subsidizing Health-care is Smart and Effective

When people show up at the Emergency Room without health insurance, we're all paying for it. Unless, you believe for-profit hospitals eat the cost of services provided to people without health insurance. Hint: They do not. They pass it on to those of us who do have health insurance by raising the prices of drugs, services, equipment, fees, etc.

So, unless people think laws should be repealed and permit denying health services to those in need of it (something doctors could not oblige given their Hippocratic Oath), there is no getting around the fact that those of us who can afford taxes/insurance, will subsidize (one way or the other) the healthcare of those who cannot afford it.

In terms of cost effectiveness, the Affordable Healthcare Act (a/k/a Obama-care) is an improvement in that it allows people to get annual physicals and receive preventative healthcare advice, which is far less expensive than going without and showing up at an emergency room with a condition (e.g. a heart attack) that could have been prevented altogether had the person been getting annual check-ups.