LEVELS OF REALITY – WELL consciousness..
1. TRUE BELIEVERS (don’t bother me with the facts) The southern strategy.. With desegregation “anti-bussing” Republican right could mobilize anger to win elections – ANTI science (evolution and climate change) against change because white men are threatened by uppity blacks, pushy women, the wing-nuts make issues out of prayer in school, abortion, foreigners, immigrants, socialist, communists, the daily blast from the past of Rush et al. Now birthers, and deathers.. Small government anti-tax people went along for the ride. Perception is reality seen in a mirror darkly, causing people to vote against their own interests.
The right has created a nightmare: He who troubles his own house will inherit wind, and the foolish will be servant to the wisehearted.
The frame is the strict authority figure father..
2. A little education is a dangerous thing when it is dragged a long way from simple – the moderates or swing voters see beyond the superstitions and projections with normal political self interests – but it is mostly over their heads because it is hard and complex requiring study and work, so who needs it? Trust Obama or say no to your ma-ma. The frame is the nurturing mother.
3. A few wise-people have a view of history and the future. This is why Obama is smarter and wiser than me, you, and the talking heads and has a more oriental sense of the playing forces and how to frame the issues.
The issue is going from A the current crazy “fee for service” to the use of countervailing power of big buyers called Plan C (current legislation) to get something like every other advanced society has in a form of Plan B not exactly single payers but majority payers that have authority to actually solve many of the problems.
in other words go from A the current out of control system to B a system with market price controls by way of C changes in the market to make it a real free market by way of new powerful players.
Galbraith saw the necessity of "countervailing power," not only including government regulation and oversight, but also collective bargaining, and the suasion that large retailers and distributors could bring to bear on large producers and suppliers. (for example: Sears and car tires, Wal-Mart and China lowered costs on many products) In The New Industrial State (1967), Galbraith argued that the dominant American corporations had created a technostructure that closely controlled both consumer demand and market growth through advertising and marketing. While Galbraith defended government intervention, Parker notes that he also believed that government and big business worked together… Galbraith proposed curbing the consumption of certain products through greater use of consumption taxes, arguing that this could be more efficient than other forms of taxation, such as labor or land taxes. Galbraith's major proposal was a program he called "investment in men" — a large-scale publicly-funded education program aimed at empowering ordinary citizens. Galbraith wished to entrust citizens with the future of the American republic.
A thought model:
The reason health care in America is twice as expensive and much less effective in terms of public health, than other industrial countries, and since the cause is clearly the unique fee for service payment system, that created vast economic interests, change is very hard. Think of it this way…
Model A: There is a large medical shopping center. The magnet department store is (Hospital) or Obama Memorial Health care Super Store. All along the mall there are smaller shops and chains – specialty stores – general stores, (primary providers – doc in a box in Wal-Mart) other ones dealing in the problems of individual organs, heart, liver, ears, eyes, nose, digestion, lungs, skin, bones or specific ailments and disease such as cancer ..
Over a hundred specialists with many subcategories -
In the super market department store the inventory (goods on the beds) are “patients” who receive services; while the customers of the hospital are the doctors and suppliers not the patients. Since the sick do not pay most of the bills (after deductibles and co-pays) but are covered by third parties, insurance industry and individuals both are subject to exploitation, more C-sections, hysterectomies, and here in lies the core of the problem. If your car repairs were paid by third parties, auto shops would find a lot more that needed to be done and owners wouldn’t care because they don’t pay directly.
The super health store collects for room and board, then treatments directed by specialists who are the store’s clients. The store acts as billing agent for many of these services. The patients are billed for pages of individual sales. Most of the bills are paid by insurance. Of $10000 in bills maybe $7500 is actually collected, including from the uninsured. In order to stay in business the bills are jacked up 25% so they bill at 125% of costs to collect something like their actual expenses and passing much of the money along to the specialists. Private insurance pays full price thereby paying for those that don’t pay, adding billions of cost to the insurance. The star income producer is surgery and the best paid are surgeons. Many of the small business discussed as important and not to be taxed by increased rates on incomes above $250 thousand are doctors and their affiliated business. Much of the luxuries housing over a million dollars are owned by doctors as are a majority of private small planes.
Medical technology and biomedical research is a vital engine of growth. However, Europe and Japan have thriving medical innovations without driving the country broke. More money goes into sales and less on research in the USA and the prices of drugs and equipment are much higher.
The United States now devotes one-sixth of its economy to medicine. Divvy that up, and health care will cost the typical household roughly $15,000 this year, including the often-invisible contributions by employers. That is almost twice as much as two decades ago (adjusting for inflation). It’s about $6,500 more than in other rich countries, on average.
An Artificial pacemaker costs half as much in Europe than in the USA and is likely to be foreign made; the whole operation is more than three times more expensive, something like $8,000 to $12,000 vs. $35,000 to $55,000. If you have time it would be a good deal to go to Thailand. http://www.worldmedassist.com/
ACUTE CARE: there is a curve with acute care where the advantages increase to a point then they level off and more therapy becomes negative. In the Civil war the wounded mostly died – by World War I Nightingale and Lister give casualties had a 50/50 chance that required veteran hospital and homes. In WW II the ratio saved increases with antibiotics and MASH – now with air medi-vac and good services 90 % survive. In decreasing civilian early deaths the big breaks have been vaccinations, clean water, drugs, better housing and diet. Acute care has not shown much effect on longevity or disability over the last decades because it’s on the down slope of doing too much. Many people are saved by treatments but greater opposite numbers are harmed, now given Hospital-acquired infections.
THE REASON DRUG COMPANIES SUPORT REFORM:
When we move to a benefit/cost analysis drugs do a much better job than surgery. All the standard heart operations are no more effective and a lot more expensive than drugs. Also 40 million more clients from the under insured is attractive and drug prices are not a force increasing costs but a cost control. The hospitals and doctors are fed up with paperwork drowning them and look to reform to add to their future.
MODEL B) in other industrial countries there is a national health service (government owned mall) or single payer, or a few big payers by way of state, local and federal programs where there is an overall budget. The super store medical center could charge per capita costs to insurance, Medicaid, Medicare and the coop public program to cover that part of its costs to provide services to the members of those plans. The critical element is that most everyone is on salary plus bonus but still in private individual organizations, specialties and services with contract budgets. It is not state run care but private care provided by charity hospitals, city hospitals, collectives, coops, for-profit hospitals. People and employers pay into the funds that support the services. The big difference from Model A is they are paid from a budget not fee for service.
This is the ONLY way to control costs that will increase due to demographics, and innovation of new treatments where more and more can be done; the only way to control cost is to move from model A to Model B.
MODEL C) The current legislation for “insurance reform” The Obama plan –
Lawmakers also agree on the need to provide federal subsidies to help make insurance affordable for people with modest incomes. For poor people, Medicaid eligibility would be expanded. Members of both parties in both chambers want to create health insurance exchanges, where people could shop for insurance and compare policies.
Lawmakers also agree on proposals to squeeze hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare by reducing the growth of payments to hospitals and many other health care providers. They are committed to rewarding high-quality care, by paying for the value, rather than the volume, of services.
The most heated points of disagreement concern employer mandates and the idea of a publicly run health plan. Details of the major House and Senate bills differ, but most employers would have to provide insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage for employees, with exceptions for some small businesses. Democrats also agree that Congress should create some type of government insurance plan or nonprofit cooperative, which would compete with private insurers. Mr. Obama says the public plan would keep insurers honest, but Republicans say it could eventually drive private insurers from the market, leaving consumers with fewer choices.
A team of researchers recently set out to compare the quality of VHA care with that of care in a national sample by using a comprehensive quality-of-care measure.
The private market model does not represent (everything) how the American economy has worked throughout our history. The following examples of failed markets that have been improved by both private and public cooperation illustrate this economic history. http://www.sanmarcosmercury.com/archives/9477
How to get from A to B – by way of C
In that video, the president was quoted as saying, "I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out."
That quote, from a 2007 appearance before the Service Employees International Union, certainly seemed to indicate that Obama lusted after the ability to put private insurers out of business. And virtually all economists agree that the effect of the "public option" would be to cause private health insurance to eventually lose out in a rigged market.
The President has laid out a mission impossible. It is not possible to control costs (the real crisis) and expand coverage to the uninsured (a social necessity) and reform Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance without going from A to B – America must move to where the Hospital super store has an annual budget and puts all the specialist on salary and/or bonuses. The other specialty shops in body parts or services are sub-contractors. The super store buys re-insurance for third level catastrophic services from research hospitals in medical schools. The money comes from a FICA like charge on workers, partly paid by their employers or with subsides from the government which also covers those disabled, unemployed, seniors etc. that can’t pay. People can select from a few super providers and/or pay for insurance and services outside the system.
Why do I know what will happen and you don’t?
The way from A to B via C
The door opens for big business – MS, Delphi, SAP, et al; the software to collect and distribute hospital costs by patient, services, medical group, et al; to bill for treatments in bulk on an annual budget not “fee for service” and compare treatments to “best practice” and fair and reasonable expenses, cost per year of life saved at what quality of life. Out patient care and services along with primary care can be included and advanced care contracted with re-insurance for catastrophic care. Accountable Care Organizations
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09sun1.html
What Massachusetts has not yet figured out is how to slow the relentless raise in medical costs and private insurance premiums, although premiums within the exchange have been held to 5 percent annual increases. The state’s political leaders decided to expand coverage first, while postponing the hard decisions about cutting costs until lots of people, businesses and institutions had a stake in the success of the enterprise.
Now the state seems poised to tackle costs — with an approach that is far more ambitious than anything currently being contemplated on Capitol Hill.
A special commission has just recommended that the state try, within five years, to move its entire health care system away from reliance on fee-for-service medicine, in which doctors are paid more for each additional test or procedure they provide.
In its place, the commission wants a system in which groups of doctors and hospitals would receive fixed sums to deliver whatever care a patient needed over the course of a year. The hope is that doctors would be motivated to deliver only the most appropriate care, not needless and excessively costly care, with safeguards to ensure that they do not skimp on quality.
In Washington, as Congress and the administration look for ways to slow the rate of increase in health care costs, they are focusing on a range of possibilities and planning pilot projects to test them. That seems to be a more judicious approach given uncertainties as to what will work. Whatever Massachusetts chooses, Congress should keep a close eye. And the public should demand an honest assessment, from critics and supporters.
The Cost Conundrum
Roger Altman former United States Deputy Treasury Secretary;
We'll Need to Raise Taxes Soon
Expect Congress to seriously consider a value-added tax
Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform
A THREE prong attack:
1.) Medicare Advisory Payment Commission cost control Med Pac
Creating Accountable Care Organizations: The Extended Hospital ...
2.) Move from “Fee for service” to cooperative service agencies – HMO, PPP, per capital budgets, Doc in a Box for primary care, hospital based secondary plans, catastrophic re-insurance and research medical schools advanced care.
3.) Competition The exchange market they said any legislation that emerges from the talks is expected to provide for a nonprofit cooperative to sell insurance in competition with private industry, and/or giving the federal government a role in the marketplace.
Obama and numerous Democrats in Congress have called for a government option to provide competition to private companies and hold down costs, and the House bill includes one —
The President argued that his proposals would cut “hundreds of billions of dollars” in unnecessary spending and change incentives so health providers “will give patients the best care, not just the most expensive care.” In fact, a study last year by an influential health policy research group, the Commonwealth Fund, found that the United States had the most expensive health care in the world, yet was in last place among industrialized countries in preventing deaths through timely and effective medical care.
As we get down into the details of health reform it becomes clear that there has to be major tax reform at the same time. There are two primary functions of taxes: first, support of public goods, those common functions that can’t be paid for by individuals but are by nature collective, defense, quality control of food and drugs, regulation, the money supply, et al. Some public goods can charge fees such as parks and universities but there must be arrangements for means testing. These public goods need to be funded by a VAT, national sales tax so everyone who benefits pays something. The ‘fair tax” is too complex but a national VAT of 10% plus a state and local tax of 6% gives a 16% VAT well in line with other industrial countries. It will make exports more competitive since VAT is refunded on exports. It is a big difference – see Sen. Luger’s arguments.
Google: reform site:www.wiredbrain.com
The second function are entitlements, individual benefits, the social contract that protects people form personal disasters and provides retirement, unemployment, disability, which is call the “safety net”. At the end of the 19th century Otto Von Bismarck and the social democrats agreed on the basic social protection, the conservatives to out flank the socialist and communist, and the democrats to share in power.
These functions need to be paid by individuals to benefit other individuals – or a income transfer to provide for more equality and social stability. The people who get benefits support them; middle class support them for human reasons, and part of the enlightened rich to protect their privileges against populist rabble rousers – demigods has been a basic fault in democracy since ancient Athens.
The key element in health care reform is the “delivery system” – There has to be a switch from “fee for practice” to per capita base payments with re-insurance of catastrophic claims. The Nixon plans of regional planning and HMO’s was cut to pieces by everyone wanting everything. As in welfare reform the 10 federal regional councils were given the job of coordination and making wavers. There was an attempt to shift power from DC to regional commissioners who were part of the Whitehouse staff. (Fred Malek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Malek ) With welfare reform the councils were used to manage change. Executive Order 11647: Federal Regional Councils
Since this is a big FEDERAL republic the health delivery system will be hard to change. Thousands of small businesses, hospitals, clinics, labs, drug companies, et al the regional councils with wide waver powers over Medicare, Medicaid, Co-ops, PPP, HMO’s, and the new open public option, will bribe states to act, and force marginal changes by “nagging” Nudging the market to promote the collective practice of medicine such as Kaiser Permanente, Mayo, et al
“It’s not the profits of the drug companies or the overhead of the insurance companies that make American health care so expensive, but the financial incentives for doctors and medical institutions to recommend more procedures, whether or not they are effective. So far, the American people have been unwilling to say no.
Drawing upon the ideas of the Harvard economist David Cutler, the Obama administration talks of empowering an independent board of experts to judge the comparative effectiveness of health care expenditures; the goal is to limit or withdraw Medicare support for ineffective ones. This idea is long overdue, and the critics who contend that it amounts to “rationing” or “the government telling you which medical treatments you can have” are missing the point. The motivating idea is the old conservative chestnut that not every private-sector expenditure deserves a government subsidy.
Nonetheless, this principle is radical in its implications and has met with resistance. In particular, Congress has not been willing to give up its power over what is perhaps the government’s single most important program, nor should we expect such a surrender of power in the future. There is already a Medicare Advisory Payment Commission, but it isn’t allowed to actually cut costs.
Scholars have been applying comparative-effectiveness research to Medicare for years, and the verdict is not altogether pretty. It turns out that some regions spend more on Medicare than others — sometimes two or three times as much, as documented by the Dartmouth Atlas Project. Yet the higher-spending regions often fail to produce superior health care results.
Robin Hanson, professor of economics at George Mason University, surveys evidence demonstrating the ineffectiveness of many medical expenditures in his 2007 paper, “Showing That You Care.”
If we are willing to take comparative-effectiveness studies seriously, we could make significant cuts in Medicare costs right now. We could cut some reimbursement rates, limit coverage for some of the more speculative treatments, like some forms of knee and back surgery, and place more limits on end-of-life-care.
Those cuts alone will not solve the fiscal problem, but if we aren’t willing to take even limited steps to conserve resources, we shouldn’t be spending any more money elsewhere.
Of course, we have not made such Medicare spending cuts yet, and there are few signs that we will. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 67 percent of Americans believe that they do not receive enough treatment and that only 16 percent believe that they have received unnecessary care. If the Obama administration covers more people with government-supplied or government-subsidized insurance, the political support will broaden for generous benefits, their continuation and, indeed, expansion of current expenditures.
Suggested ways to lower costs include an emphasis on preventive care, the use of electronic medical records and increased competition among insurers. But even if these are likely to improve the quality of care, they are speculative and uncertain as cost-saving measures. Keep in mind that while computers were remarkably powerful inventions, it took decades before they showed up in the statistics as having improved productivity in the workplace.
One idea embodied in a bill sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Senator Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, is to finance new health care programs by taxing health insurance benefits. This makes sense in principle: why should insurance benefits be favored over salary by our tax system? But employer-supplied insurance is a mainstay of the current health care system, and there is no adequate replacement immediately in sight.
IT’S also hard to convince the American public that the solution to insufficient health insurance is to tax health insurance. And such a one-time tax increase would postpone but not eliminate the need to come to grips with ever-rising Medicare costs.
It sounds harsh to suggest that the Obama administration cut areas of Medicare spending, but, too often, increased expenditures and coverage are confused with good health care outcomes. The reality is that our daily environment, our social status and our behavior — including diet and exercise — have more to do with good health than does health care more narrowly defined. “
TWO: What a Texas town can teach us about health care.
“The explosive trend in American medical costs seems to have occurred here in an especially intense form. Our country’s health care is by far the most expensive in the world. In Washington, the aim of health-care reform is not just to extend medical coverage to everybody but also to bring costs under control. Spending on doctors, hospitals, drugs, and the like now consumes more than one of every six dollars we earn. The financial burden has damaged the global competitiveness of American businesses and bankrupted millions of families, even those with insurance. It’s also devouring our government. “The greatest threat to America’s fiscal health is not Social Security,” President Barack Obama said in a March speech at the White House. “It’s not the investments that we’ve made to rescue our economy during this crisis. By a wide margin, the biggest threat to our nation’s balance sheet is the skyrocketing cost of health care. It’s not even close.”
The question we’re now frantically grappling with is how this came to be, and what can be done about it. McAllen, Texas, the most expensive town in the most expensive country for health care in the world, seemed a good place to look for some answers”.
The problem is the role of money in medicine – in most countries doctors are on salary or per capita – only in America does money play such a big role in the practice of medicine.
THREE: What do we do? Atul doesn’t say but implies per capital payments rather than “fee for service” which is the CRITICAL issue. It was in 1965 Medicare when “standard and usual” was replaced for fair and reasonable. The public programs (Medicare, Medicaid, the public option, of line VA benefits, state and local government employees etc.) have to offer and ONLY offer per capital fees – $3,000, $5,000 per client to a NETWORK, cooperative, HMO, that provides primary and secondary care. The client has a choice (in most markets) so there will be competition; client will migrate to networks that provide good service. Organizations will be motivated to control costs because it comes out of their pay and profits. 1000 clients at $5,000 each is 5 million, and networks need 10,000 to be effective and provide a range of services. (50 million) The network centers on a hospital with a link to clinics and primary care doctors. The networks will be open to the public and could be run by insurance companies, for profit hospital, public hospitals, charities, et al.
Third level care is in another network centered on research hospitals mostly with medical schools. There would be a pool for catastrophic care. Doctors in these institutions are professors and on salary so there is less motivation based on money.
Foreign doctors are shocked by the role of money in American medicine and the core of the problem. I knew this is the 1950’s as did our family doctor. The joke was “Two doctors meet in the hall. “I just had a successful operation” what was it for? $5000.00 – what did the patient have? $5000”
The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the US currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totaling at least $44,200bn (that's 44.2 trillion) in current US dollars.
The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the US is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 per cent across-the-board income tax increase.
The study was being circulated as an independent working paper among Washington think-tanks as President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed into law a 10-year, $350bn tax-cut package he welcomed as a victory for hard-working Americans and the economy.
The analysis was spearheaded by Kent Smetters, then-Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy, and Jagdessh Gokhale, then a consultant to the Treasury. Mr. Gokhale, now an economist for the Cleveland Federal Reserve, said: "When we were conducting the study, my impression was that it was slated to appear [in the Budget]. At some point, the momentum builds and you think everything is a go, and then the decision came down that we weren't part of the prospective budget."
Mr. O'Neill, who was fired last December, refused to comment.
The study's analysis of future deficits dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington. It is roughly equivalent to 10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of US economic output or more than 94 per cent of all US household assets. Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman, last week bemoaned what he called Washington's "deafening" silence about the future crunch.
A Message From Warren E. Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
“A budget deficit in no way reduces the portion of the national pie that goes to Americans. As long as other countries and their citizens have no net ownership of the U.S. , 100% of our country’s output belongs to our citizens under any budget scenario, even one involving a huge deficit.
As a rich “family” awash in goods, Americans will argue through their legislators as to how government should redistribute the national output – that is who pays taxes and who receives governmental benefits. If “entitlement” promises from an earlier day have to be reexamined, “family members” will angrily debate among themselves as to who feels the pain. Maybe taxes will go up; maybe promises will be modified; maybe more internal debt will be issued. But when the fight is finished, all of the family’s huge pie remains available for its members, however it is divided. No slice must be sent abroad.
Large and persisting current account deficits produce an entirely different result. As time passes, and as claims against us grow, we own less and less of what we produce. In effect, the rest of the world enjoys an ever-growing royalty on American output. Here, we are like a family that consistently overspends its income. As time passes, the family finds that it is working more and more for the “finance company” and less for itself.
Should we continue to run current account deficits comparable to those now prevailing, the net ownership of the U.S. by other countries and their citizens a decade from now will amount to roughly $11 trillion. And, if foreign investors were to earn only 5% on that net holding, we would need to send a net of $.55 trillion of goods and services abroad every year merely to service the U.S. investments then held by foreigners. At that date, a decade out, our GDP would probably total about $18 trillion (assuming low inflation, which is far from a sure thing). Therefore, our U.S. “family” would then be delivering 3% of its annual output to the rest of the world simply as tribute for the overindulgences of the past. In this case, unlike that involving budget deficits, the sons would truly pay for the sins of their fathers.
This annual royalty paid the world – which would not disappear unless the U.S. massively underconsumed and began to run consistent and large trade surpluses – would undoubtedly produce significant political unrest in the U.S. Americans would still be living very well, indeed better than now because of the growth in our economy. But they would chafe at the idea of perpetually paying tribute to their creditors and owners abroad. A country that is now aspiring to an “Ownership Society” will not find happiness in – and I’ll use hyperbole here for emphasis – a “Sharecropper’s Society.” But that’s precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us.
Many prominent U.S. financial figures, both in and out of government, have stated that our current-account deficits cannot persist. For instance, the minutes of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee of June 29-30, 2004 say: “The staff noted that outsized external deficits could not be sustained indefinitely.” But, despite the constant handwringing by luminaries, they offer no substantive suggestions to tame the burgeoning imbalance.
In the article I wrote for Fortune 16 months ago, I warned that “a gently declining dollar would not provide the answer.” And so far it hasn’t. Yet policymakers continue to hope for a “soft landing,” meanwhile counseling other countries to stimulate (read “inflate”) their economies and Americans to save more. In my view these admonitions miss the mark: There are deep-rooted structural problems that will cause America to continue to run a huge current-account deficit unless trade policies either change materially or the dollar declines by a degree that could prove unsettling to financial markets.
Proponents of the trade status quo are fond of quoting Adam Smith: “What is prudence in the conduct of every family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.”
I agree. Note, however, that Mr. Smith’s statement refers to trade of product for product, not of wealth for product as our country is doing to the tune of $.6 trillion annually. Moreover, I am sure that he would never have suggested that “prudence” consisted of his “family” selling off part of its farm every day “ http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf
Choice about Price and quality in Health care:
A simple principle to rule a complex system:
Consumer choice in a free market works through competition works a lot better than regulation or publicly provided services. Current health insurance programs are anything but clear on consumer choice - doctors select services for patients paid for by third parties.
A set of choices for insurance, tax advantaged saving, retirement could be offered to individuals and families such as they are to federal employees - efficient network services would provide more for less and be competitive relative to fee-for-practice systems. Low income people would require subsidies, higher income tax advantages. In order to pay for tax credits and income subsidies there needs to be tax reform - which is an economic good it itself.
The total cost of health care would go down while the quality will go up under free market conditions. Everyone could be covered for basic services within the 1.4 trillion health budget. There is 25% paperwork waste and 25% unnecessary over treatment so a improvement of 50% of 50% is a lot.
The core idea of a free market is a set of accounts kept for individuals and families by financial institutions. Payroll deductions, employer contributions and subsidies would be reported in each account for each person's Social Security, Health Insurance, retirement funds, educational and other tax advantaged or supported activities. People can spend these funds from these accounts on the purposes intended with any approved provider. If they want more they can pay for more. If they just want basic coverage they have choices of fee-for-service bill paying insurance or provider networks paid on a per capita basis. They see where the money comes from and where it goes.
GSO (government sponsored organizations such as fanny mae) would help finance some medical networks but they would be run under contract by professionals. I would see a few dozen or less national General Health organizations with economies of scale competing for quality services at a fair price. Each market should have more than three - not quite an HMO, not quite a Mayo Clinic, but creative providers of complex care with many sub-contracts and services under a single management information system. Expensive In-patient care and emergency room care could become a minor part of the system and hospital space greatly reduced even with an aging population and increased types of care.
General Health Inc, American Health Corp., National Health Services, Inc., Continual Health etc. would be formed under the National Health Services delivery act – as an amendment to the Public Health legislations. States or groups of states would form Health Delivery Boards with are like public service commissions to promote free markets.
What prevents a open market in health care?
Providers must negotiate with employers; unions rather than sell to individuals and get paid from a complex set of funds. If individuals can select from a handful of National Organizations the whole playing field would change over time. Big buyers would be a counter force to big providers.
The Changing Role of the Hospital
As treatment advances divert large numbers of patients from the inpatient hospital setting, and
as life-support and maintenance technologies enable patients to carry on their lives away from
hospitals and nursing homes, the hospitalized population will shrink to perhaps half its current
size by the early part of the next century, despite an aging population. Even though hospital costs have continued to increase, per capita inpatient hospital use in the United States peaked in 1975, and has since declined by almost 25%
2. Some metropolitan areas such as San Diego and Portland, Ore (despite large elderly populations), have inpatient use rates almost a third lower than the 1985 US average, and are continuing to decline in per capita use
3. These communities present compelling evidence of further potential for contraction of inpatient use nationally.
The hospital of the future will be transformed into the critical care hub of a dispersed network
of smaller clinical facilities, physician offices, and remote care sites that may stretch out as far as
200 miles (320 km) from the core facility, connected by air and ground critical care transport and
integrated by clinical information and patient monitoring systems.
Health and Taxes:
The political rhetoric and practical programs don’t meet up. The big goals of universal health care must involve tax reform. The two are connected in ways that cannot be separated and both face a demographic crisis of retirement income. Neither the health delivery system nor the social security system can be fixed without fundamental tax reform based on a VAT.
Be brave – it can be done – first some simple principles:
FIRST: Health care has to be a market (not state provided) and public benefits should not replace private insurance shifting private programs to public programs. Politicians should not be setting benefits or fees for reason that are all too obvious.
The issue is the quality of the market. Let the market get the delivery system right – not by regulation but by being more efficient. The market doesn’t work now because people don’t know what is paid and what they get. The consumer is the doctor while the patient is the material to be worked on but have few or no choices. Disclosure is critical to free markets. There is up to 40% waste in the system – paperwork and over treatment so really efficient providers should really be able to compete. The market can work – the model used is the public employee benefit plans. Everyone cannot have everything – there is no Santa Claus.
SECOND: The package of benefits – insurance, health care, unemployment, disability, savings, retirement should be provided as a regular report to the individual or family with the payments from wages, employers, and public accounts along with expenditures on or into savings accounts, (IRA, 401K) paying for health insurance, and payments into social security. The consumer needs to know what is paid and what is received. That people don’t know what they pay, what is an employment benefit, and how expensive the whole package is – makes them poor consumers. The person needs to select what policy they want (not the government or the company).
Third – the responsibility of the state for low-income people is limited to basic packages – people who have more pay more and get more. Grow up that’s the way it is, has been and always will be. It is the only way markets work.
OK if we accept market principles and individual informed choice and differences based on interest and ability to pay.
Now the federal program have to pay subsidies to low income people – and get taxes from high-income people – it is called income transfer but only for basic safety nets. Now how to put together a package were there are lots more winners and few losers. Here is where the VAT comes in –
With a VAT (about 15% federal plus 5% state) is a hard sell - but if the top income tax could be 25% or so, corporate taxes 10% low capital gains, (very good economics is to limit the amount of unnecessary messing with markets by tax policy or regulation) most people end up not paying income taxes at all (no loopholes) and the budget in balance. (The idea of real reserves to use in bad times and add to in good times has made sense since ancient Egypt) BUT sales taxes are regressive so the benefit subsidy pays back low-income people for sales taxes they must pay and justifies basic health care services for all (And low income tax credits) GET it?
Entitlements and tax reform:
For years I have argued that the tax and benefit system are part of a whole – collect money and distribute benefits. There has to be a “fair Tax” VAT to support a modern social contract. Each house hold would be ranked by their position on the income stream. Those above median income pay in starting at a small percentage which increases (1/2 % each addition 1% above the median) until the top incomes pay 25% . All benefits – retirement, health, unemployment, are accounts with minimum benefits and a choice to add more to get more. Those under median income get support of ½% for each percent they are under until at bottom they pay nothing. The 45th percentile get a support of 2.5 % ; at 10 % get support of 20% and those at 55% pay 2.5 % -
Health care will pay a basic per capita fee to a coop, HMO, collective practice of medicine – say $3000 – Those at the top pat 100% and at the bottom 25% $750
Nixon administration
As an efficiency expert to Nixon, Malek helped restructure Nixon's staff and officials and streamline the bureaucracy.[3] In his memoirs, Nixon described Malek as a "tough young businessman whose specialty was organization and management."[4]
Malek was sworn in as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget on February 2, 1973 and served until 1975 when he resigned to re-enter the private sector.
The way out of the fix:
Social security and medical insurance reform depend on the tax and payroll system. This does not make it more difficult but actually easier. It does require a paradigm shift. The basic issue is to promote savings and investments, to help and require people buy insurance for life's risk, health, retirement, disability, unemployment, and big one time expenditures such as education, home buying or other needs. People should be encouraged to have reserves and build wealth.
Since there are transfer payments from those with more to those with less the benefits should compensate those better off through the tax system. Tax credits and having payments into health and retirement plans be pre-tax (come off adjusted gross income) is very important for political as well as economic reasons. There has to be a meaningful income tax rate or 20% or so. Most of the money to pay benefits to those who contribute less than their true cost has to come from a VAT or sales tax. Since the less well off pay a higher rate of sales taxes (higher proportion of their income goes into consumption) it then becomes fairer that they receive more subsidies to pay for those benefits.
The paradigm shift is to see payroll deductions as partly paid by the individual (includes the employer contribution) and partly subsided for low income or supported by credits for better income people. For higher incomes there are tax advantages for low incomes direct payments from entitlement funds. All accounts are private accounts but managed by licensed providers. For retirement and health funds there is a minimum contribution (about 15% of total wages) if this is is still less than required for the basic plans an addition amount is paid in by earned income tax credits or negative income tax. Those that have more can buy better plans and pay for it with pre tax income.
There is no large bureaucracy but freedom of choice. All health, retirement, disability insurance, unemployment, and retirement, educational, home buying, savings are pre tax and their returns are tax free. Plan are approved and supervised but private such as on the federal employees system. People under 40 have their current value in social security available for transfer to personal accounts at the choice of the individual. People just entering the labor force only have personal accounts. Medicaid can't be included but Medicare could with a credit of several thousand dollars into private plans to be replaced over time by saving in the health plans of younger workers. Additional benefits require additional costs. One can hope that real competition can increase efficiency. American medical delivery system need long term reform to become a healthily systems of network providers working on a per capita basis rather than the more services the more fees paid by a third party that can't control the purchases or prices.
Investment vs. consumption:
As people and households we know the difference between investments and consumption. Most business knows the difference but World Com charges expenses as capital to fudge the books. In the public sector there are investments that have a return – a ROI a return on investments. Infrastructure (transportation, communications, institution building, education, public health, science and technology) make the economy more efficient and raise incomes and welfare. Consumption of military equipment, money used by beneficiates to consume, subsidies that are likely negative (making distortion in the effective allocation of resources) tax breaks that encourage less than optional investment decisions do not add to future welfare but do gather votes and political money. When we spend billions producing .70 cents cotton, or peanuts, or sugar when the world market is less than ½ that consumers have less real income in buying goods at higher prices so able to buy less than otherwise.
Entitlements are income transfers. Workers pay FICA taxes (larger than they know because employer contributions are hidden) that goes into checks for beneficiary recipients. Workers can buy less while people getting checks can buy more. The economic effects have a small effect in discoursing work and saving increasing debt and consumption. The fundamentals of government economic policy should be to encourage work and saving. VAT or sales taxes encourage investment over consumption if saving are tax advantaged while consumer prices are higher.
The 19th and 20th century economic problem was the business cycle. Free market economies suffer from “irrational exuberance” based on greed during booms and virtuous cycles, and excessive fear during the following busts preventing investments and creating an evil cycle of lay off, disinvestment and hopelessness. We have more to fear than fear itself. “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/ read the whole speech.
Marx called this the “surplus product” not in the sense we are too rich but only that the market produces more than can be consumed by effective demand. By producing income and consumption by paying people to produce goods that do not enter the market or income transfer sucks up the surplus. War generates a lot of income but no goods on the market. Benefits create buyers that don’t produce anything. It is not clear that a global service economy has quite the same level of over production, boom and bust.
Real reserves would provide “pump priming” without the hangover of debt. A revenue and fiscal system based on investment and limiting the damage done by income transfers (from the productive to the retired and unproductive) would solve the business cycle issue. The Federal Reserve and treasury could increase demand in down times (beyond interest rate effects) by increasing investments (using reserves to build roads, schools, new technologies, utilities and labor intensive projects in parks, public works, low interest bonds to rebuild the electric grid, more efficient power plants etc.) In booms increasing consumption taxes and collecting on construction bonds, replace reserves and cool over heating.
By making payroll (and other income) taxes go mainly into transfers which are a form of insurance. Health insurance, retirement is saving, education saving, house buying, are subsided for the bottom half and paid for by the top half.
Really powerful "capitalist" understand the need to "rationalize" the market. From Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan with GE and US steel, Dupont and Slone with GM, Bill Gates to OPEC and the seven sisters create a system of cartels to control prices and supplies so that "cut throat" price competition drive profits down to a low average return. (in cotton, beer, cigarettes, peanuts, sugar etc.) Global economics makes this more difficult so capital formation is slowed unless public managed investments pick up some of the slack as in Japan and China.
Solving the social security problem:
And the health insurance and taxing issues – a set of simple solutions to complex problems. If the population changes and there are fewer workers and more people drawing retirement and health benefits the percentage of GDP going to transfer payments will have to increase – there are fewer paying in and more taking out. Transfer payments have to include some element of redistribution – some pay more than they get out and some get more out than they contribute. There is no way out of these hard facts. God so loved the poor he made a lot of them and giving benefits to the rich is a bit distasteful.
The issue is to increase freedom and choice, to run the system with efficiency and fairness, and to maintain a large majority support for social security – The Social Security Act, SSA includes retirement, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, survivor protection, unemployment, welfare, with the idea of a social safety net first set up by Bismarck in the 1890’s to cut off the growing socialist, in American by the new deal, England after WWII with the NHS, and now in all modern nations.
There are five elements in a system for the 21st century.
1.) The payroll deduction system
2.) Choice of extra tax advantaged saving, insurance, education, health plans
3.) Income and VAT taxes
4.) Redistribution – credits
5.) Individual plans and management systems
The federal pay stub shows all the deductions as do many state and private pay systems. The FICA shows only the employee contribution which is just a slide of hand to hide the true cost. The employer contribution is just as much part of the cost of labor as cash. Health and retirement plays do not reflect in taxable income or part of the total employment compensation package and is income in every sense.
Fairness in wages would require (over time) that everything going in and coming out is regularly reported.
1.) Then the employee or individual can add to parts of their plan – more and better retirement, savings, health, educational savings, etc. The more they pay the more they get. The choices are on a menu for the buyer not the employer.
2.) The state and federal government provide a basic set of benefits – retirement and health plans. Beyond these basics it subsidies add on a diminishing scale. Low income people are encouraged to have saving with incentives, credits, and subsidies.
The income tax is reduced and made very simple. People below the 50th percentiles (median) do not pay income taxes but have means tested earned income benefits to pay part of health care and private retirement accounts.
3.) If the top rate of Income Tax is 20% for the 99% percentile (top 1% of all incomes) it is reduced by ½% by each group until the 50% goes to 0. By setting the tax as percentile it adjusts for inflation and by setting the top rate and the revenue required the math is quite simple. It is like setting local property rates to balance revenue and expenses.
4.) The broad base of needed revenue has to be raised by a VAT – sales tax so the whole system floats for ever. The tax credits and benefits for health and savings equalizes the issue of low income people paying more of their income in VAT so the net effect is positive for low income and does require a fair contribution from those better off.
5.) The management of the individual accounts would be by contracts – in social security the current system becomes a basic plan with subsidies for the poor especially for health insurance and tax advantages for the rich who pay more and get more. More can be added into a variety of retirement options and saving plans.
Financial Times Current projections over future years is 44.2 trillion debt in current dollars if current benefits are to be paid to the next generation (unfunded liabilities) - interest costs alone would be greater than current total budget of 2 trillion - clearly a banana republic - clearly forces high interest rates - but the scheme is to "starve the beast" forcing big cuts in benefits - see
An administration official said the study was designed as a thought-piece for internal discussion - one among many left every year on the cutting-room floor - and noted the budget's extensive discussion of projected, 75-year Social Security and Medicare shortfalls.
The study's analysis of future deficits dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington. It is roughly equivalent to 10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of US economic output or more than 94 per cent of all US household assets. Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman, last week bemoaned what he called Washington's "deafening" silence about the future crunch.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/
How to get out of this mess?
In a series of telephone interviews yesterday, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. said the deficits for 2003 and 2004 would approach 3 percent of the economy, or more than $300 billion a year. That would surpass the 1992 record deficit of $290 billion, even before the cost of a possible war with Iraq is factored in. It would also be nearly triple the $109 billion deficit for 2003 that was forecast by the White House six months ago.
The republicans want lower taxes, smaller more effective government, and more freedom and open markets. So should everyone in his or her right mind. But the strategy of starving the central government with debt is plain stupid and harmful. There is another way – decentralization.
The OMB under Nixon developed federal regional councils and passed program approval powers to local commissioners appointed by the white house. They bypassed the liberal control of the Washington establishment – bureaucracy and committee chairmen so they hated it. The reason for the abuse of power in Washington is excessive power in Washington – no one gives up power without a fight. Leaders in congress can grant favors and gain rewards and cash to be reelected. The iron triangle of special interests (for example insurance companies) – the congressional leadership and the Federal Agency (HHS) prevents any meaningful reform.
In some of the proposed regions they could come up with lower cost, higher quality health delivery systems without much trouble. The idea is simple – you have to get away from fee for service and toward a per capital (HMO) system. You can do this my letting the market work not by politicians or regulators or insurance companies make decisions on who gets what and who pays what. Everyone should be able to open a page as see his or her health options just like federal employees and get what they are willing and able to pay for.
The employer, the Medicare, the Medicaid, unemployment insurance – whatever contributes so many dollars and for that they can buy plans from the A list at low cost (or in the case of Medicare or Medicaid no cost). Plans on the B list cost more – per person per month – and so up the scale. All plans are paid per person – so fee for service plans will cost a lot more under a really competitive free market (quantity and quality determined by the market and evidence based IT not by regulation) – so if people want to go to any doctor, not pay for any service, have free (to them) drugs, glasses, teeth, have any test any doctor wants, undergo any treatment or service, it will cost a lot more. If they take the free or low cost plan they have to accept they will go to company doctors, share hospital rooms, get those services that the doctors believe to be necessary and cost effective, so be very limited in benefits
Low cost medicine is just as good in outcomes in fact better than expensive medicine – less medicine is good medicine – the risk of over, unnecessary treatments are far greater than the risk of under or no treatment, is not what people believe or want but true – A strange idea is that (after a mimimum point) you get less heath when you pay for more medicine. Miami spends 10 times what low cost areas spend and has poorer results. The amount of treatment is a result of the amount of doctors not the health of the population. Doctors buy health services patients are just the media upon which the services are performed.
Let's think of some real governmental reform:
The first federal government:
The American governmental plan that was framed in the Constitution was a federal idea where there would be a "weak" central authority limited to maintaining a common market, assure domestic security from rebellions, and keep independence from Foreign intervention. We needed a Navy, customs, treasury, foreign affairs (State Dept) and a framework for interstate arrangements negotiated by the states represented by the Senate (then appointed by the state legislatures) the people, more equably represented in the house and a chief executive reflecting a national interest.
In the written constitutional structure most public activity was to take place in the states - health, education, welfare, transportation, law enforcement and public order would be maintained with the local militia, which has become the National Guard and reserves. This was the concept but the first Government but has been overwhelmed by the second, third and fourth governments.
The second government is the standing military something the founding fathers tried to avoid. The framework broke down over the issue of slavery. The grand army of the republic was necessary to preserve the union. Internal taxes are required to pay for a huge military. The military industrial complex has become a large and powerful global second government. With bases in most countries around the world, diplomatic relationships, connections with industry, labor than reach into every part of the country.
The Third federal government: regulation
The framework was not designed for a continual nation of fifty states and 300 million people. Modern economics required a railroad building program, Colleges of Agriculture and Mechanical arts, (A&M land grant colleges) labor laws, food and drug administration, federal reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission and dozens of regulations making a third government of semi-independent agencies.
The fourth federal government: the money and lobby power
In World War I and II central planning required a high level of industrial structure - energy, transportation, material resources, production that make trade associations the foundation of a "fourth" government of interest group representatives - 1000's of trade groups, lobbyists, and political finance. The fourth estates - or media - are entangled into the special interest politics and campaign management.
The reform agenda must try to reorganize federal government with the original intent but structured for the 21st century. Smaller, faster, smarter - doing only what must be done from the center - modern management ideology is decentralized, task orientated, and held to high quality and performance standards enforced by active and powerful competition.
How?
Regional governments –
Divide the nation into ten regional governments of about 30 million people. (Something like the existing federal regional councils) – the Regional republic of California – Texas, New York, Denver, Atlanta, Chicago, New England, Mid-south – mid-west – and decentralize everything that can be decentralized. The senators and congress-people would meet as regional chambers with the Governors and state legislative members. The OMB would nominate regional commissioners for federal agencies – Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Environmental, Health Education and Social services, labor, homeland defense, FBI and other law enforcement, and the dozens of agencies and programs. Only programs that must be national are left in Washington D.C. – and the authority to develop budgets, rules and authorize expenditures is passed to the regional authorities.
They can develop local taxes and become more independent of the center. The regional plans would still have to pass congress – but there could be an agreement that if the regional councils pass something the federal congress should go along with the will of the people on the ground. The budgets would be required to be balanced.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/reserves.htm
Only a national constitutional convention could change basic structure to create strong intermediate structures between the states and the federal government. Fifty states are too many and most are too small while – one big central government is not working.
In other modern industrial countries they have universal health care, (at half the cost) quality education through university, good public transportation, better land use planning and environmental protections, in short a more civilized organized society. Most of these services are provided locally with general rules set at the center or by multilateral organizations such as the European Union. Our government is a mess because it is over centralized, and because the second government (military) is so powerful, the third government (regulation) so influenced by the fourth government of special interests. Ten regional governments would be more focused on results and less subject to these forces.
The military needs to be reduced to just a navy (with Marines and Airpower) which is about ½ of the current structure. The bulk of Army land forces (not special forces that could be merged with the Marines and Seals) traditional heavy units should be returned to the reserves and National Guard in the unlikely case we need a large land army with tanks and cannon. (Repositioned stocks around the world)
The Navy and marines are closer to being an integrated strike force under the idea of advanced Warfighting capacities. (Transformation to IT command and control of smart weapons used by flexible and smart people on the spot, observe, analyze, and target in one real time motion, with the right resources, training and structure: being faster, more mobile, more deadly and more creative than the other side thereby messing up his mind and plans, just like football) – we could save a bunch of money for tax cuts – real tax cuts from real reductions in the size and real improvements in the performance of government.
While the third government of regulation must remain a common market function the implementation could be more local and sensitive to local conditions.
The special interests and money politics would be weaken by not controlled by decentralization. Democratic reforms of initiative and even proportional representation might help.
What will happen tomorrow that effects your life today. News about what's happening and for updates use GlobalVillage Excite NewsSearch ????
States are suffering from a real "double whammy" in the current economic slowdown, which has reduced revenues sharply (especially in the many states that depend mainly on retail-sensitive sales tax collections), while boosting demands on state programs aimed at helping people who are unemployed or living in or near poverty -- particularly the Medicaid program, the top expenditure category in nearly every state. A majority of states, moreover, have constitutional or statutory prohibitions on deficit spending, so shortfalls much be closed quickly. The new responsibilities states are already beginning to face for homeland security and increased law enforcement generally will not help the fiscal picture at all.
Since recessions follow booms as winter follows summer maybe we should expect down turns and make plans. This is called counter cycle activity - the most natural approach is to have reserves, saving which can be called into play when needed - such as some states, countries, firms and individual have a rainy day funds because it will rain. Now it is harder to fix the roof when it is raining but it still needs to be fixed.
Since states and local government (utilities, communications and other firms) make the problem worse by cutting back during recessions - the federal reserves should help hold up their expenditures up - http://www.wiredbrain.net/salestax.htm thereby demand, income and reelection.
Since increasing federal debt raises interests rates and creates long term problems for social security - a off budget debt and payback scheme will help better than traditional deficits - the states and local governments pay back the loans with a federal sales tax on the internet - states and local governments give up their claims and a flat national rate is added to interstate sales - In good times the money is used to build up reserves (actual investments in CD's, state and local bonds, foreign bonds, index funds, as well as treasuries) in down turns it is used to prime the old pump. The same could be done with SS trust funds, highway TRUST funds, water and waste management, airports, utilities, communications, pipelines, grids, et al) The NRA (National Reserves Administration) could have trillions ready to pump into a sagging economy without increasing long term debt and actually could be making money on investments.
If you want more of something you support it, if you want less you tax it. We tax work, income and investments - we support debt with equity loan credits. We should support work, savings and investments and tax consumption and be neutral on debt. Sales taxes are regressive so they have to include redistribution programs. If everyone over the middle (median) income paid taxes at .5 of each percentage over the middle 50 % - from 1% to a high of 25 % - the 75th percentile would pay 12.5 % then each income could be adjusted for sales taxes with credits. To encourage savings and retirement those below 50% would get supports those over 50 % get credits - the same for health insurance, and other payroll protections, unemployment, disability, and old age insurance.
If the person in the middle (50 percentile) pays 15 % in payroll taxes - then those over would pay more and those under would pay less. The benefits for the poor would be supported from sales taxes - the richer would get credits on their income tax for having more saving, better retirement, and health care - as they do now with IRA and other tax free saving and health insurance, the poor would have matching funds - save two dollar we match it with one - scaled by percentile income group - those at the bottom get 100% benefit - those in the middle none. (benefits reduce 2 X each percentile) - at 25th percentile benefits are down 50 % - get it?
This IRA would help the retirement and health care crisis with private accounts, insurance and savings - Real reserve funds will keep us out of recessions, promote growth, government revenues and save the nation. Any questions?
The Educational Reform Act of 2001:
The several states and territories are hereby entitled to reimbursement for the same proportion of the salaries and benefits of qualified classroom teachers for those professional engaged in basic instruction, the federal government will contribute that same share of these employment costs as the teachers’ students are eligible for the free school lunch program.
The states and territories will be reimbursed based on approved plans and estimates of the numbers and costs with the U.S. Secretary of Education, who may approve definitions of basic instruction, classroom teachers, teacher qualifications, salary programs, and any incentive pay upon which the secretary may authorize quarterly advances and adjustments.
The states may include teachers from charter schools, schools being run by a contractor and non-public schools within an improved plan only in so far as these serve the eligible population.About $15,000 for a million teachers - some with a small amount some at 100 % = 15 billion - not much more than title I and within range - even if twice that - If the feds pay teachers resources are free for other critical needs.
Then we can move toward a realistic salary - working conditions - qualifications - promotion and specialization system - professionals are the critical in education - then with this base things can really be improved.
The American Public and both parties say that education is their top priority but school reform has become so complex that no one understands what is going on - or is the story reported. Incremental is natural but has a PR problem when there is the complete lack of focus.
The bills them-self are endless - there needs to be a clear focus - something beyond testing because tests do not create solutions only let us know what we already know - a lot of children are not up to grade level.
The only meaningful answer is competition - charter schools if not vouchers - the charter provisions in the current bill are grants and information to state education agencies - or the fox gets the grants for the chickens or http://www.wiredbrain.net/public-policy.htm for a restructured with the feds taking a major responsibility for instruction. ( State and local build building, transportation, overhead and administration ) All this sound and fury will not do much - but then something is better than nothing.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.1.PCS original bill to extend programs and activities under the
· Elementary and Secondary Education Act or S.1 H.R.1
· No Child Left Behind Act of 2001S.303
· Three R's Act Better Education for Students and Teachers Act
· Better Education for Students and Teachers Act
· Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act
· Native Hawaiian Education Act
· Access to High Standards Act
· Rural Education Achievement Program
· Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 2001
· Pro-Children Act of 2001
· Bilingual Education Act
· Teacher Mobility Act
· Dropout Prevention Act
· 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act
· Helping Children Succeed by Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Introduced in the Senate)[S.466.IS]
· Public School Repair and Renovation Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.471.IS]
· Educational
· Excellence for All Learners Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.7.IS]
Under a tentative agreement between Democrats and the White House, the Senate bill would require mandatory student testing, help children learn to read by the third grade and give states more leeway in spending federal education funds -- signature issues for Bush during the presidential campaign. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010426/pl/congress_education_dc_11.html
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0423.htm Using language similar to that for social services in the SS Act.. From the sums appropriated ( or by entitlement as it used to be ) and the allotment under this subpart, subject to the conditions set forth in this section, the Secretary ( DOE ) shall from time to time pay to each State that has a plan developed in accordance with regulations an amount equal to 75 per centime of the total sum expended under the plan in meeting the costs of State, district, county, or other local basic educational instructional services.
The federal government will pay 75 % of teachers salaries and benefits ( involved in direct instruction = about 2.5 million teachers @ $ 30,000 = 75 billion ) and left to the states and local school boards, all the other costs - administration, football, transportation, construction, utilities, then: We could become a modern civilized society with a world class school system, social justice, economic growth, and political democracy.
There could be substantial tax relief on property taxes - standards set for teacher certification - much better salaries for some low paid teachers and salary grades for high performing teachers tied to the GS federal scales:http://www.seemyad.com/gov/salary.htm
The big problems in American Public education are:
There is no career stream for classroom teachers - pay is only based on seniority and there is not much difference if you stay in instruction from start to finish.
Basic Education as a federal responsibility
:
The national interest and general welfare require a large federal role in public compulsory education. This was not as true in the last centuries but is clearly one of the most important if not the most important federal function. "A 2000 PricewaterhouseCoopers report found that intellectual assets now account for 78 percent of the total value of American S&P 500 companies."
"According to a 2000 OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] report, since 1985, the expansion of knowledge-based industries has outpaced gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the developed countries. Knowledge-based industries now account for more than half of OECD-wide GDP." Welcome, to the Knowledge Age.BUT since we are a federal system and have a long history of local school boards we can not just start from scratch.Each state with consultations with local school system should come up with a plan to provide basic education - reading ( the nation reads ) writing ( the nation writes ) algebra and other math ( the nation reasons and calculates ) students knows geography, history, government, humanities, the sciences and the scientific methods - all standards and evaluations set by the states.
Then there is a calculation of what the direct provision of these educational services cost.
Then the application for expected expenditures for the next quarter of 75 % of the costs as a entitlement - with adjustments for over and under payments from the last payment.
The states should report how much would be used for property tax relief - how much for salaries ( and if there would be a state wide pay scales with steps - grades like the GS system ).
These costs should not include support, administration, transportation, athletics, construction, maintenance, bureaucracy, etc.
Because these costs remain state and local responsibility and are too much a can of worms.
The national estimated cost per student for instruction could be fairly clear at about $ 2,500 for elementary and $ 4,500 for secondary ( half the total cost ) x 50 million students ( 1 million x $ 1000 = 1 billion ) so 50 million x $ 3,500 = $ 175 Billion x 75 % = $ 132 billion.
There has been a vast growth in administrative overhead from 15 % in the 1960's to 50 % today so increases in resources are absorbed by overhead. In the last decade there has been a vast underhanded growth in ESE ( special education ) from 5 % of population to 25 % and a jungle of paperwork without functional outcomes.
The labeling of students make standards even harder - ESE students are not counted or counted differently - so if someone doesn't learn they are learning disabled and labeled - given more resources - and excluded from the testing of school outcomes.
There has been for decades weak support for standards - support in general but backing off when the tire hits the road and students actually FLUNK and are held back! Standards means that teachers have to teach content - multiplication tables, spelling, parts of speech, geography, algebra - not always fun and often hard - and student have to do their homework.Teachers can be tied to the GS 4 to GS 12 depending on performance - and the DOD ( Military base schools ) teacher pay scales as a base with districts able to do add ons.
suggestions: FIRST:
The list of companies in tele-communications
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0423.htm Using language similar to that for social services in the SS Act..
Basic Education as a federal responsibility
:
The national interest and general welfare require a large federal role in public compulsory education. This was not as true in the last centuries but is clearly one of the most important if not the most important federal function. "A 2000 PricewaterhouseCoopers report found that intellectual assets now account for 78 percent of the total value of American S&P 500 companies." "According to a 2000 OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] report, since 1985, the expansion of knowledge-based industries has outpaced gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the developed countries. Knowledge-based industries now account for more than half of OECD-wide GDP." Welcome, to the Knowledge Age.BUT since we are a federal system and have a long history of local school boards we can not just start from scratch.Each state with consultations with local school system should come up with a plan to provide basic education - reading ( the nation reads ) writing ( the nation writes ) algebra and other math ( the nation reasons and calculates ) students knows geography, history, government, humanities, the sciences and the scientific methods - all standards and evaluations set by the states.
Then there is a calculation of what the direct provision of these educational services cost.
Then the application for expected expenditures for the next quarter of 75 % of the costs as a entitlement - with adjustments for over and under payments from the last payment.
The states should report how much would be used for property tax relief - how much for salaries ( and if there would be a state wide pay scales with steps - grades like the GS system ).
These costs should not include support, administration, transportation, athletics, construction, maintenance, bureaucracy, etc. Because these costs remain state and local responsibility and are too much a can of worms.
The national estimated cost per student for instruction could be fairly clear at about $ 2,500 for elementary and $ 4,500 for secondary ( half the total cost ) x 50 million students ( 1 million x $ 1000 = 1 billion ) so 50 million x $ 3,500 = $ 175 Billion x 75 % = $ 132 billion. From the sums appropriated ( or by entitlement as it used to be ) and the allotment under this subpart, subject to the conditions set forth in this section, the Secretary ( DOE ) shall from time to time pay to each State that has a plan developed in accordance with regulations an amount equal to 75 per centime of the total sum expended under the plan in meeting the costs of State, district, county, or other local basic educational instructional services.
The federal government will pay 75 % of teachers salaries and benefits ( involved in direct instruction = about 2.5 million teachers @ $ 30,000 = 75 billion ) and left to the states and local school boards, all the other costs - administration, football, transportation, construction, utilities, then: We could become a modern civilized society with a world class school system, social justice, economic growth, and political democracy.
There could be substantial tax relief on property taxes - standards set for teacher certification - much better salaries for some low paid teachers and salary grades for high performing teachers tied to the GS federal scales:http://www.seemyad.com/gov/salary.htm
The big problems in American Public education are:
There is no career stream for classroom teachers - pay is only based on seniority and there is not much difference if you stay in instruction from start to finish.
There has been a vast growth in administrative overhead from 15 % in the 1960's to 50 % today so increases in resources are absorbed by overhead. In the last decade there has been a vast underhanded growth in ESE ( special education ) from 5 % of population to 25 % and a jungle of paperwork without functional outcomes.
The labeling of students make standards even harder - ESE students are not counted or counted differently - so if someone doesn't learn they are learning disabled and labeled - given more resources - and excluded from the testing of school outcomes.
There has been for decades weak support for standards - support in general but backing off when the tire hits the road and students actually FLUNK and are held back! Standards means that teachers have to teach content - mu
We have to adjust to the new political realities - mass marketing of characters as products.Electoral choice is a weak choice for most people. People care more about household products such as toothpaste or breakfast cereal than their congress person.
There are a minority who project on politics their passions and loves and hates that have little political meaning - Some have been harmed by change - industrial or cultural - some have guilt, shame or projections - anti-foreign, protection, abortion, anti-establishment conspiracies - the Clinton's case ( reverse of the Nixon Case )
The base of politics today is emotion and sediment ( largely negative ) - as you see every day in the media - commercials are founded on the "hook" or how to tie the image of a product to a passion - sex, greed, shame, hope, hype - and the billions spent on commercials must work. Cars are creating status and exciting for drivers, products make you happy, sexy and smart, "you get inside it - and it gets inside you". So we have maybe 10 % interested in issues - real choices based on interests - 20 % concerned with psycho-dynamics ( how does it feel ? What do I like or hate - true believer who projects their passions on the open screen ) - 30 % on transit and superficial reasons - talk shows, appearances and "character". makes 60 % who even pay attention and the rest don't care and don't vote at all.
If there was a depression or war or real civil unrest ( such as in the civil rights, Vietnam case ) maybe people would care and pay attention. We do not have ideological politics or do people carry little consistent theories in their heads - they have optioning that are generated by the moment and a moment latter could be different. That's the way it is - so why blame political campaigns for doing what they have to do to win ? Our constitution was set up with the idea that Republican government depends on rational elites - better educated, better motivated, with an sense of civic virtue, civilly minded, public-spirited, community-minded - and a model of opinion where the leaders ideas are passed down. Real issues for real people can not be left to mass politics.
The problems such as Social Security is too complex - of course "they" just want more for less or nothing -
The real problem is the decline in the elite caused by economic change and the rise of the sunbelt and Wild West.
There is a weak media elite, weak academic leadership, weak economic leadership ( lost in a tangle of special interest )
The reason congress spends more time in ideological showmanship because the establishment is so fractured. In the old days there would be power brokers to make them behave. ( Bankers, editors, older politicians, party leaders - could control wild rhetoric and excessive patrician passions ) Both Clinton and Newt are outsiders without proper credentials and behavior did not conform to expected standards.
We have to adjust to the new realities - mass marketing of " characters " as products. It ends up as their ad agencies vs. our ad agencies, their commercials vs. our commercials - the selling of the presidency. Not beautiful, not wise, not true - but that's the way it is and why money matters- better ads and better coverage -
A landslide:
The central theme in 21st century politics is the way or how public services are delivered.
The scope of services is important but delivery systems is critical.
The decline of the EURO and slow growth in Europe is due in large measure to the drag on the economy of poorly run public services and excessive drain on saving and investment due to taxes, deficits, and entitlements. As the population ages the issue becomes even more severe as it reaches critical mass. In a generation 85 % of public spending and 20 % of all income will go to support the income and health of the retired if there is no change.
The only way, the third way, the new way is to introduce competition and free markets into the public sector. It is NOT the old conservative, less government more freedom ( mainly for the successful and rich by letting the old starve and die " are there not poor houses enough" said Mr. Scrooge ) but focused on the individual as the producer of all wealth and enterprise - without much concern for the environment, the common organic whole, social justice, racial harmony, liberation, the rights of property over equity and justice ( torts and restitution ) and the winner takes all philosophy - or the tax and spend ( tax the rich and spend on the less rich so there is little return on work and investment and a large dependent welfare class which bankrupts the society so we could end up like the Russians without the spirit of enterprise ) the anti-business beliefs of the old liberal - socialist ideologies without a strategy of growth and prosperity. Wealth can not be created by the state or state enterprises.
The issue is the right, rational, practical public sector - pro business - pro growth - limited and rational - not anti-government or pro-government but the necessary public services well delivered. In this way George W. is closer to Tony Blair than Gore, and Lieberman and the Progressive Policy Institute is closer to Republican than the stated program of the democrats. Of course, what they say and what they do has a very tenuous connection but... If the issues are joined - social security and Medicare, education partly privatized and privately run but publicly supported even if the democrats resist in public - they will change and find a compromise. It is new and somewhat dangerous grounds - entitlement and educational reform - and people are not willing to be pioneers. I remember a paper on intranets, and corporate information systems. Clearly the high cost and limited private networks with dedicated leased lines, was going to be replaced and/or supplemented by internet systems with wider access and linkages to clients, suppliers, et al.
The systems managers with knowledge in Novell and other limited systems were unhappy about learning and applying a new technology. New systems are a headache and breakdown and cause a systems manager all kinds of grief. One said " pioneers get arrows in their backs ". True - maybe you can wait until the bugs are all worked out. All the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed or maybe you will be left behind ? It is a very difficult question and the most important business issue facing everyfirm from the smallest to the largest. Big firms used to be able to wait - and then buy up what worked without going through the pain of trying many options and finding the solutions for themselves. No new system works painlessly - but no pain no gain !Public sector services become a blend of private and public - health, education, training and labor , welfare, postal and then military readiness, police, domestic security, fire, national parks and land, agricultural, international relations and NGO, non-profits, private global enterprises and government all and all will change - services will be networks of privatized and subsidized public services, vouchers, contracted agencies, leased facilities, capitalized public goods, each analysis for benefit /costs - rationalized - made above politics into practical modern del
Wiredbrain Future new news and private research service by GlobalVillages provides research on and the future ???
Don't be blind to what others are doing and what they know about what you are up to AT FROM:
pflaupflaupflaupflaump@cfl.rr.com:p>
Example:
http://www.zdnet.com/ferret/images/ferret3.gif
Ferret finds 1500 Wiredbrain "pflaump" web pages
COPERNIC searches all the main engines very quickly
Make PORTALS your home page and use "wiredbrain" password "synergy" for set-up start pages.
Alltheweb does as it claims to be fast and large
Most search engines now find about 30 % of the 350 million pages. So you need to check many engines. 
Web Hosting
>
Individual development, organizational change, and In the computer industry, power comes not from the barrel of a gun but from the interface of a
Protocol:
He who controls the interface controls the system.
Continued on - please let me know about errors ! Some of these pages date back up to 10 years ( 1992 ) and have been through many editors and transfers. News about what's happening and for updates use GlobalVillage Excite NewsSearch -
pflapflapflapflaump@cfl.rr.com/www.wiredbrain.net/
Globalization:
The real issues of our times ( again ) is not being talked about or does the political process clarify the choices about the future. We desperately need to better understand who we are and where we are going.
The mundane and almost evil issues of greed, benefits, character narrowly defined, are out of any context as to the purposes, goals, missions, or tasks of a modern civilized society and changing national global realities.
There are four steps to modern progressive global societies. Self-government - Personal responsibilities and initiative - the idea of self government both as a personal and political system and with economic open markets. Competition produces both prosperity and inequality, the rich get richer but the poor need not get poorer if the second condition is enlivened - limits on personal or family greed - electoral reform is a minor reflection of a much greater issue of freedom, democracy when power and money is widely unequal.Responsibility, because of inequality and the danger of corruption by concentrations of power of money and military, there is a clear need for social dependability of individual and corporations who have developed civic duties and responsibilities beyond themselves - including supporting the rule of law and public goods purchased through government to create and maintain a civilized public culture.
The moral or family issues is a thin reflection of the great issues of duty and responsibility. Social consciousness comes from the third condition - Trust - building confidence over time and space between groups, races, societies, companies requires an open and honest methods of resolving disputes. Trust is required to do business beyond a few friends and family and does not come easily.
The religion, race and class divides are a weak reflection of the great issues of faith and trust in neighborhoods, communities, cities, states, nations, and beyond our borders.
The third condition sums it all up - Humanism - Ecology - Environment - Expanding intellectual, spiritual, and technical capacities of the individuals in a global society including developing institution as linkages between peoples, companies, non-profits, foundations ( NGO s ) governments, associations, panels, conferences, professional groups, media companies, educational institutions, the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, Churches, women’s groups, environmental groups, and the other of thousands of connections. GreenPeace, Doctors without Borders, need to be matched by alliances concerned about the great majority of people who suffer, mainly women and children. A Global Agenda:Expand the institutions of democracy - on a local basis by public finance and regulation of elections, and global support for the civic culture - the media, education, small business, internet access, rather than military intervention which should only be the last resort.Expand international law on corruption, massive civic crime, human rights abuse, and on a local basis getting over the learning gap - black 17 year olds performing as white 13 year olds - by what even means necessary - smaller, better, more competitive schools. Restoring Faith in institutions, public and private by serious reforms -
The model is integration of labor, management, and the public as official members of community.
The various European models of joint committees and structures should be useful. This is what was called industrial democracy.Re thinking welfare and social programs with a focus on women and children using new public private non-profit models.
There are only three or four issues that have dominated Western then Global Politics for the last few centuries.
The desire for liberty ( freedom from excessive state control ) led to the need for self government. Since we don’t want kings, priest and tribal chiefs to tell us what to do and how to think and behave we have to do more thinking on our own and make more complex value judgments. This is the first modern political issue - now taking the form of the corruption by money of politics, the talk about big corporations, media and money having excessive control over our lives.
The second issue is due to the fact that God so loved the poor he made a lot of them. Equity is an ancient issue that arose in the first popular government in Greece and repeats itself in many forms.
The poor majorities under the leadership of a demigod or tyrant will pander to the mob to redistribute the wealth, forgive debts ( or inflate the currency to make debts payable in cheap money ) and pander to the passions, the desire for bread and circuses, and foster other popular superstitions. Now this is called class warfare or the needs of the needy vs. the greed of the greedy. Benefits paid for by the rich for the benefit of the poor, public welfare bribes are offered to buy votes.
Therefore, the third issue is how to protect and expand freedom from the dangers of Democratic systems - positive freedom is the ability to make WISE choices unlike a passive liberty which is the negative freedom from coercion and the right to be wrong.
There is no positive freedom in ignorance, superstition, prejudice, and in short in being stupid.
Therefore a civic state depends on education and a civic culture. Otherwise it become popular tyranny either of the right or left. This issue now takes the form of education and mobility. If we can really teach poor children to gain skills we can also teach them to behave and act like other middle class responsible people.
The last issue is the global vs. national views - the role of humanity and transcendental values over day to day benefits and who gets what, when and how. Now this issue comes out as having goals greater than ourselves, the uses of riches, the nature of the environment, social responsibility, family values, and the proper respect for the opinions of mankind and the moral standards of a community of nations.
Real Reform.com
American Association for Constitutional Reform
The issue of structural reform does not appear as an issue any where I can find - even in third parties. As I see the issue is the 18th century electoral structure can not cope with a system of mass marketing and the money required to win in a big country.
The reform that is needed is to change the structure of the elections - a change from independent single member districts (
The Senate can not be changed in the current constitution ) to a system with clear party responsibility.
The parties need to be clearly a national franchise - with duties and responsibilities OVER their candidates and office holders. Being a Republican or Democrat has to mean something. If you run on a ticket there should be some implied contract. Many candidates do not even mention their party at all.
The national parties are now a committee of the states - equal representative by states so 15 % of the population has a majority.
There are many alternatives to achieve a responsible party system - some commitment to the platform and some disciple by members elected as members of a party.
Then there could be some control over money and have shorter and cleaner campaigns as in the rest of the civilized world.
The congress has become 535 independent small business people without much discipline or policy. All this talk about issues is hollow because the talk does not relate to what happens. In England for example the parties have a "manifesto" or platform that will predict how they will govern. We don't. So it's mostly verbiage and marketing. Promises her anything but what will be done after she is seduced ? People know that elections don't connect to policy - that policy is made by the iron triangle - Interest groups - the money that funds congressional reelection - and the agencies the congress funds and regulate. If you follow the money trail it goes to congress and then congress funds programs and give benefits - regulation, tax and subsidies - to those who fund their election.
The single ballot ( President and congress on the same check mark ) so there is some connection between executive and congressional authority is one suggestion. An amendment to make clear the federal power to regulate federal elections or just a statue taking control over federal office holders.
The only way to get to structural reform is via a convention called by the states since congress will not reform itself.
Real Reform: Restore confidence and pride in the Institutions of democracy:
Article II - electors and electoral college - is a time bomb - and needs to be replaced by new simple language - and a national orderly rational process of federal elections. Federal elections need to be federal - not a scramble of state rules, antique dysfunctional regulations and court decisions along with the changing results of infighting within fractional political parties.
The right to control federal elections by federal law should not be in doubt - this does now effect the bill of rights - but only the structure of he process of running elections.
In the electronic age we don’t need a horse and buggy system - it can be much fairer, faster, representative, and honest. Elections are the core of democracy - they can never be perfect but a dysfunctional system undermines the foundations of freedom and representative government.
Federal Elections in the Constitution:
In order to assure democracy and the faith of the people in their elected representatives; federal elections shall be conducted in a brief, honest, open, and equal manner that assure impartiality to both incumbents and their opposition and limit the undue influence of money. Congress shall prescribe by law for the election of all federal officials by the majority votes of federally qualified citizens of the congressional districts for the House of Representatives, the separate states for the Senate, and of the Citizens of United States for President and Vice-president.
The certification of results, the qualifications of voters and candidates, the times and dates of primaries and elections, the certification of recognized Political parties and their candidates and the conduct of campaigns financed by publicly regulated expenditures shall be prescribed by law to assure freedom of political speech, competition, and the free expression of the will of the people in the selection of their Government. Where no candidate has a majority a run off shall be quickly conducted.
Upon enactment, This amendment become the supreme law of the land, not withstanding any prior constitutional or other legal decisions and past circumstances.
( replaces: Article I section 2 on the House section 3 and Amendment 17 on the Senate, Article II and Amendment 12 on the President and Vice-president )
Federal Laws and Constitutional Amendments:
Congress shall prescribe the terms and conditions for citizen initiative, or congressional referendum to be placed on the ballots of federal elections, as proposals for amendments under Article V, sent to the states, or laws to be enacted or as advisory to the states, the people and to congress.
This leaves to congress to control federal elections. I would like an election on the second Tuesday in November with a run off if necessary in the middle of November - with campaigns to start on labor day including the nomination process that could be done in 4 to 6 weeks.
The primaries could be done nationally in early September with a run off in the last week of September with conventions ( not really necessary ) during October (Enough is enough ) Federal campaigns would be publicly financed and limited in their expenditures.
Chairman of the Board:
Imagine you are the Chairman of the Board of the Party. Your business is in winning elections. Victory means increased market share, higher earning, more respect and power i.e. success.
The market is shared by the other party.
They compete for many of the same customers and almost all the markets.
The market is essentially a dialogue or biopoly like Coke and Pepsi. You both have an interest in the total market size and conditions but it still is a zero sum game - they win you lose - you win they lose.
What are your assets - what is your ability to sell product for money thereby raising the cash necessary to make more investments which have a good rate of return, overall growth, and better future prospects ?
The communications bill, the banking, insurance, financial markets bill, the tax bills, farm supports, import export bank and supports, military procurements, are some of the best sources of money. If you have the committee Chairs that can help or hurt these great centers of wealth, both by legislation and in control of the agencies they fund, the cash will flow in, you will be able to hire the best marketing people, target the audience, develop the strategies, find their hot buttons, find the weakness of the other side, pay for the ads, and win.
What is your strategy ? First be sure there are enough big buck issues out there ? Second be sure you can deliver. Since you take money from all sides be sure both sides get some of what they want - bankers and brokers, pharmacies and drug companies, doctors and lawyers, remember an honest bribe is where the person stays bought - also there is little difference between a shake down and a bribe if value is exchanged for money.
The rest is just marketing. If people want to be really involved in the process they must do so with groups and cash - power brokers - Older Americans via NARP, teachers with NEA or AFT, or the 1000’s of industry or company PACs. Since 1 % of the actual voters pay for political access they don’t count.
They are courted and flattered, they are manipulated and induced, but the promises, the rhetoric is hollow - meaningless - because there is no commitment to actually deliver. Promise them anything - a free lunch, retirement, health care, safety, family values, God and Country - wave the flag - it doesn’t matter it is just commercials.
There is no requirement for truth in advertising - you are completely protected by the first amendment.
The
An even longer view:
There have been only four critical issues in the History of the American Republic -
Self rule -
The heavy handed use of force by the British - based on their colonial experience in Ireland - help drive the colonies into rebellion and to form a union.
The current form of this issue is the great power of money in politics because of the high cost of mass marketing.
Since there are more debtors than creditors the protection of property requires a balance of power, protection of minorities, and the complex federal system that keeps majorities of the working classes and poor and their political leaders from taxing the rich for more benefits for populist programs. A effective mass party of the workers and farmers was prevented by regional, ethnic and racial divisions.
The current form of the issue of electoral reform is the control by big money in the mass marketing of politics. Neither party is strong on reform, even the reform party. Reform requires restructuring of the political parties and federal election so there would be more common interest rather than 535 independent representatives and senators. Federal financing, a federal party charter and regulation by an independent commission ( not a bi-party lobby ) could require some sort of order and discipline in the political process.
Race - and the Civil War - keeps coming back to renew itself but slowly recedes. Regional and Class conflict is made more complex because of race, ethnic and religious divisions. Since the protection of property ( liberty and justice ) depended on a divided government, concurrent majorities are hard to come by - only the traumatic events such as the great depression or the civil rights movement can create a clean mandate and overwhelming majority that could act in a timely and decisive manner. Otherwise political action is slow, stumbling, fragmented, and frustrating.
The current issue of race is beginning to disappear as a difference between parties.
Equality - more Liberty for the rich ( absence or constraints on Governmental control ) does not mean more freedom for the poor ( ability to make choices and have control over your own life ) since liberty produces great inequality in power. Liberty allows the rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful - after all they have advantages they can pass on to their children and corporations have great long term influence over state authority.
The growth of private power reduces the freedom of those with little or no power because it changes who pays and who benefits from public action. Poor kids go to poor schools because poor people have less power as well as less money. Rich people live in rich neighborhoods with better schools and more influence on school policy. Liberation of the slaves did not give them freedom in most ways.
The plantation share cropping system kept them in economic bondage. Freedom comes from opportunity to learn and grow and gain insights and not be oppressed by false belief, superstition, manipulation, debts and obligations, that can turn into a virtual serfdom. Labor unions and third parties have been a response to inequalities of wealth and control. Gore is trying to maintain the idea that Republicans are the party of Big Business and wealth and Bush is trying to avoid that issue.
The tax cut is the only real issue that divides the parties because the democrats argue that it will prevent new benefits and rewards the rich ( who pay most of the taxes ) at the cost of the benefits of the elderly, middle class and poor.
World order -
The American myth includes a special role as a secular Zion " A City on the Hill" - and all the problems of Zionism - nationalism, national consciousness, race consciousness, chauvinism, jingoism, expansionism, imperialism, colonialism play a role with prejudice against foreigners, immigrants, and use of military power. This was played out in Vietnam - neither party has a clear idea of the role of the last super power or is there a big difference in the confusion over that role of maintaining a world order good for business, economic stability, and common standards of conduct.
A current history:
When Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act in 1960’s he knew he was giving the South to the other side. It was an act of courage and statesmanship. Over the rest of the 60’s and 70’s and finally in the 80’s the Republican Southern Strategy worked to take over the Solid South and the angry white male vote and make a working majority.
The war in Vietnam and the anti-war movement were also moral crusades, while a Democratic War, became a Republican issue with Nixon. McGovern worked to clean the party of it’s moral responsibility for the war but lost the crusade for a more limited role of the American enterprise.
Political realities put the conservatives in a morally questionable position on the use of military power and race. All the `moral majority` talk could not overcome their deficiencies on the great civic issues of the century, race and the use military power to promote business interests. Bill Clinton’s solid emotional commitment to civil rights is real, long term and important. His use of force has been more difficult in Haiti, Somalia, Iran and the Balkans. Bush is trying to correct the parties moral position without giving up all the traditional racist and militarist imperialist vote. Pat can some of it but not all !
The Cold War with anti-Communist was the issue that tied together racism, anti immigrant, militarism, big business, southern strategy, Christian fundamentalism and made the republican majority.
The Reagan triad was to cut taxes for the rich, build the military for industry, and defend the social order against the anti-war "radicals", integrationist, hippies and women’s liberation all under the slogan of social issues, right to life and school prayer, for the unwashed masses. Liberals were labeled as anti God, soft on Communist, environmental extremist, women libbers, affirmative action ( integrationist ), pro foreigners and immigrants, big government, big spenders, and the negatives worked for awhile. Clinton’s sexual problems is a stand in for these social issues. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrish, a majority of house Republicans and Pat Buchanan all agreed on the negative attacks and tax, military and social issues.
They only disagreed on trade issues and the level of rhetorical extremism.
Clinton and the new democrats, DLC, democratic leadership conference, took over the great center and pushed the other side to appear extreme thanks to Pat and his crew. Baby boomers are not moved by the older racist, militarist, social conservative rhetoric. One can hope that racism has declined in the South and elsewhere but it is not gone by any means - only politically incorrect.
Bush can not clear the Republicans of their historic positions so quickly and easily.
The tax, defense and social issues will haunt the election. Gore only has to take the high ground - there are four stages in any election campaign -
First name recognition ( Gore had it sort of also Bush because of his father ) and second to strike positive connections with popular issues - against crime, for peace, prosperity and security, social security, good government, clean air and water, and other positive issues.
The third stage is to raise doubts about the other side - they threaten peace and security, are in favor of pollution, are immoral and weak and dishonest.
The last stage in a return to the positive - the vision thing - the hero on a white horse and leave the other side left in the dropping.
The agenda: the victory of moderation
Just below the smoke and mirrors, under the cloud of media hysteria, talking heads and fashion shows there is a common global agenda.
There is no right wing or left wing policy only policy that work.
There is no cold war, there are no ideology or inimitable principals only practical policies.
The argument that History is no longer a struggle for domination, empire, conquest and ideology is mirrored in the end of "politics" as class warfare, the cold war, the search for ideological purity, utopian schemes and totalitarian solutions by the extreme left or right. Moderation through political compromise is a virtue, Extremism in the defense or attacks on religion, ideology, civil rights, foreigners, and social liberation are all vices. At Delphi Oracle the first gate held the words "Know thyself", the second " Moderation in all things".
At the G8 the industrial nations have a common agenda.
The growth of the welfare state since the great depression and the war had created a central state that began to sap the energy of the economy. Excessive public activity due to real crisis’s in the past, began to squeeze private saving, investment therefore productivity, raising interest rates creating stagflation, inflation and low growth. Aging populations and a flood of new expensive medical technology has threaten to bankrupt many health and retirement schemes. Europe and Japan still have a lot of work on growth and currency issues but agree with the theme of free markets, privatization, expanded trade, less regulation and more open systems leading to higher productivity, greater competition and growth.
The domination of New Democrats,
The Democratic Leadership Conference, New Labour, New Social Democrats, called the Third Way is now global.
The central theme is to change the policy and image of tax and spend liberals, with socialist leaning, to practical, PRUDENT and moderate programs that works.
The policy involved cutting expenses and raising taxes. No one in America wanted to face the 900 pound guerrilla of debt and deficits except Ross Parot. A campaign of raising taxes and cutting benefits looked too tough to sell but that was the agenda nevertheless and it worked.
The Compassion of the New Conservatives, Tories, Christian Democrats, is to shed their image of being the party of the rich and powerful with a cruel or mean streak ( anti foreign, minority, black, women and gay liberation ) into a populist agenda. One stratagem anti-communism and the use of religious conservatives by the verbal support of various moral issues that attracted lower class voters.
The move was toward "absolute truth" and fundamental principles vs. Amoral or immoral humanist, relativist liberals with loose morality as reflected in the media.
Therefore the personal vendetta against Mr. Clinton became a central activity of house republicans and their allies. He should have been more careful but the personal attacks did not achieve their objective of making people believe that the Tax and Spend Socialist left now could be blamed on all the evils of modern society.
Nationalism and militarism also reflect this traditional ideology. Tax cuts were sold as a issue of "freedom" and liberty of individual rights vs.
The liberal ( socialist ) leveling state.
They have had problems with an affirmative program but have depended on attack and negative campaigns which have worked here and there. New Conservative look to Disraeli, Lincoln, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and other progressive elements on the right as model of "popular" conservative ideologies.
They can move to more or less the same practical politics as the opposition with less dogmatism and more relativism. Political convergence is a fact of life. Political parties have to go with what works or enter the trash can of history. Continual losses while maintaining ideological purity is not an option. In GB there are the Social Democrats more to the center in America there is no need ( yet ) for new moderate center parties and all the third parties are on the fringe.
There is a need for the "greens’ and the progressive minority is less reflected in the Democrats - Gore is working hard on "Which side are you on" theme - trying to make a difference between his own moderate position and that of his moderate opposition.
There is a need for the right wing " Reform " or libertarians as the Republicans back off ideological fundamentalism. Congressional control by either side is going to be very close, with no real working majority, so they will have to be moderate as well. Thus the victory of moderation.
Certainly traditional conservatives believe in Prudence and cost cutting reducing debt, opening private markets, free trade and lower interests rates to helping produce a remarkable increase in productivity, employment and living standards.
The "new economy" driven by information science greatly magnified the effects of practical fiscal and monetary policies.
Maybe the need to pander to the religious right and big money donors, and the ideological fundamentalist makes it difficult to move Republicans to the center. It doesn’t seem more difficult as the left had with it’s traditional labor and socialist wings.
The second part of the New Liberal policy is "investment" in infrastructure: first and most important human resources. Growth in productivity in greatly increased by the "quality" of inputs relative to production. Smarter people create smarter machines and systems.
There is a large unexplained residual between the growth explained by more investment and more people is due to this improvement due to "restricting" and technology. Large companies had become blotted along with government and needed to cut costs and increase revenues in an increasing competitive global market. New technologies and smarter, better educated people are critical in this systems update and setting in motion a process of continual improvement.
Public investments can make the economy more efficient.
The British are making up for years of neglect and resource limits in education, health, transportation and communications.
The right wants tax cuts and the left wants new public expenditures and debt reduction. Investments vs. taxes becomes the center of this cycle of election with "prudence" and the welfare benefits in an aging population lurking in the background. http://www.dlcppi.org/ppi/3way/3way.htm
The core principles and ideas of this "Third Way" movement are set fourth in
The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age. http://www.dlcppi.org/texts/pflib/progsum.htm Americans are ready for the challenge. Most have ceased believing that the solutions to today's problems are to be found in a larger, stronger central government--a course still supported by traditional liberals. Nor do they buy the conservative argument that the federal government is the source of our problems and that dismantling it will solve them.
America needs a third choice that replaces the left's reflexive defense of the bureaucratic status quo and counters the right's destructive bid to simply dismantle government. Such a "new progressive" governing philosophy sees government as society's servant, not its master--as a catalyst for a broader civic enterprise controlled by and responsive to the needs of citizens and the communities where they live and work.
Second Thoughts:
Do we really want him to be president :
All the Dirt on All the Candidates - Because character DOES matter
You've come to the right place for dirt, attitude and opinionated character reviews of all the Presidential Candidates.
While I would like to support McCain in the primaries because of his reform program. I think he would return "power to the people" but.. what about the rest - he wants to be a financial conservative - again a major factor is our new found prosperity - but .. maybe if there is real structural reform then education, ( really a state and local issue ) health and other national issue could move forward ?
Should I change ( if I can ) my registration from Democrat, a family and regional tradition, to Republican which whom I don’t agree with when they hang right - from Goldwater to the contract on America.. Otherwise they are the same middle of the road party as the other one . http://www.wiredbrain.net/reform.htm
I guess I am a liberal libertarian - a prudent liberal - like Tony Blair -
The issue was and maybe is a rational budget policy.
The use of entitlements - services and benefits to buy votes and hold power will bankrupt any state over time. Balanced budgets are a key to economic health and growth. Since Alan Greenspan and almost everyone knows that reducing the debt is better than tax breaks - it will be impossible to sell tax cuts as a central theme of a party platform.
McCain draws from a very wide spectrum -that is the road to victory !
The establishment hates McCain with a passion - reform would hurt the Republican Right which believes it needs it's money as the road to power - actually it will make very little difference - he also call them by name to account - Some of his behavior in the Senate is quite radical in going into who took what then did what for whom.
Just as important, Mr. McCain will be able to draw independent voters towards the Republican Party. This was the key to much of his success in New Hampshire. Registered independents now account for 15% of America’s electorate.
The Jesse Ventura phenomenon, ( As Ross Parot before him ) whereby another celebrated anti-politician was elected governor of Minnesota, shows that they have power. But they are not inevitably opposed to the two main parties: given a candidate who shows spirit and piques their interest, as Mr. McCain does, they will vote for him despite his Republican label. http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_ld5140.html
And win the election in a time when people want CHANGE - but not much -
He is also a conservative Republican, lest that be forgotten, with a perfect voting record in the Senate on issues dear to conservatives’ hearts. Although voters may not particularly care to notice, Mr. McCain is the antithesis of Mr. Clinton not just in terms of character, but on issues such as deregulation (fiercely for it) and abortion (guardedly against it). He differs markedly on foreign policy, too. Where Mr. Clinton, at least until the past year or so, had to be prodded to take a reluctant interest in what the outside world was doing,
I enjoy seeing the Republican establishment come apart as the Bush people are trying to make McCain into a liberal ? Even Rush Limbaugh is coming to pieces as he tries to hold on the a party line that doesn't have one except an old mantra Less Government, More Freedom - lower taxes - social bla-bla doesn't work anymore and George W. is no Ronald Reagan that can turn almost nothing into something that sounds good. !
As we all know there is REAL power and money involved.
There is a real threat to the real permeate establishment - well maybe ?
Message from Bill Bradley-- On to the National Race
As for the Democrats - does it matter ? After a remarkable turnaround in New Hampshire, where we overcame a 17-point deficit to finish in the closest Democratic primary in that state's history, my campaign is now preparing for the critical battle ahead. A staggering 29 states will hold primaries or caucuses during the week of March 7-14, including California, New York, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia and Michigan.
Government should be limited to public goods - I favor educational vouchers ( because it is good for Public Schools to have competition ) - and private free markets and competition - free trade - capitalism when ever possible. But in public goods an active and clever state action on common interests that can not be left to private interests - parks, zoos, museums, and planning land use growth control, environmental regulation, national health plan using free market methods. Government is part of the solution not the enemy.
The reform that is needed is making a firm connection between elections and policy. I like the British system - you elect a government and they do what they promised, if you don’t like it, elect the other side. In America we have a strange and screwy system - maybe because we are a strange and screwy country - or because we are stuck in a history trap.
The American people aren't Stupid.
They know that money matters.
They feel that "special interests" and their paid lobbyist control what happens or doesn't. This was the core of the Parot reform party uprising.
The first issue is REFORM - some change in the SYSTEM where the majority feel they have a fair chance to realistically participate in the collective decision that effect their lives. For 50 years there has been a clear desire for national health care - but the outcome was controlled by the AMA for decades, now the insurance industry. What McCain says is basic reform in Taxes, Education, ( a state and local issue ) Health can’t be done because of veto groups and their money.
Open secrets .org center for responsible politics
Center for Responsive Politics,
"
The influence of money is corrupting our ability to address the problems that directly affect the lives of every American. Without reining in soft money and reducing the role of money in politics we will never have a government that works as hard for the average American as it does for the special interests."
His speeches in the Senate have detailed contributions and the votes of his
colleagues so they are more than unhappy with him. He has been very specific on the last tax bill and billion dollar favors grated as quid pro quo for money paid. (
The bill was designed to go no where but be a fund raiser ) He has done the same on the Communications bill, the Banking Bill, the Defense appropriations bill.
"Nothing breaks down trust in our democracy as much as big money. Money is like a wall between elected leaders and the people, preventing leaders from hearing voters' hopes and concerns."
The ideas on the table may help - may not - the history of reform has tended to make things worse. If there is money that wants to go into politics, and their are politicians that need money the two will get together - Independent Committees can not be banded under our First Amendment to the constitution.
The Germany experience is a case in point.
The only way to remove money from politics is party discipline - the individual members don’t have a lot of choices in following the party program - become back benchers rather than independent businessmen and women and the pie is removed - simple tax systems, fixed budgeted requirements - remove members pork and provide free TV with a short campaign season .
The Iron Triangle is made up of committee chairmen in Congress, the real focus of political power in this country - what Wilson called "Congressional Government" at the end of the 19th Century.
The other arms of the triangle is the interest groups - over 3000 organized constitutes and business groups that employ a large group of lobbyist and give money at the fund raising events.
The third arm is the Agencies and Departments which make up Federal, State and Local governments.
The military industrial complex is only one of these families of interests.
A traditional model would be the road lobby - the transport committees and the appropriations subcommittees, the dept. of transportation, state road boards - concrete, construction equipment, auto and trucking interests, gas and oil companies and the unions in these industries. A one point in the last 50’s and 60’s a fifth of the GNP was involved with gas run road transportation.
Religion and theology
[1] Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Reminds me of the republican "Christian cops" debate.
Religion is one area of human experience, theology is another, Politics is one part of our lives, Ideology another, we tend to get them confused. Religion is an experience, theology is an idea; politics is about power, Ideology about beliefs.
We tend to get experience, feeling, passions confused with ideas, theories, thoughts and positions. Gestalt is a psychological practice that works to make the separation clear by the direct experience of feeling. To understand the difference is very useful in getting control of choices in life, government, education, health and science.
People and communities can’t work hard and progress to a place they don’t understand and have never experienced.
They never have been on the mountain top and don’t care. You can’t create a great school if you never experience a great school - all is flat gray and dull. You can’t create a great company if there is no occurrence of greatness, you can’t create a great society without the image, the vision of greatness.
Politics is one thing, ideology is another.
Thoughts are about power. We use our minds to get ahead, influence others, get a sense or feeling of control. But without passion, desire, feeling there is a hollow or emptiness in pure knowledge. Pure passion is wayward or dangerous and we feel the need to control or feeling with reason. Thus an internal conflict between what we desire and what we do.
Theology is about power in the church as an institution - Rome or Henry VIII - by social control of feelings and people and institutions.
Ideology is about control of social power by law and police and military force.
The God police of the Christian activists would control the bedrooms and doctors offices,
The green Cops of the Mullahs, Neighbor watch committees of China,
The KGB, CIA, FBI or DEA.
Religion is an experience of the holy ghost. You can have religious experience. You can know when someone is genuinely spiritual or just using God talk to get ahead or change the power balance. Commercial are expert in connecting feeling to product in order to create actions - sell the product. Commercial give the illusion of ideas but are pure feeling. Politics often does the same - the illusion of policy designed to connect feeling - positive and negative to people and parties in order to sell the product which is power, control, favors, winners and losers.
OUT of the box -
In order for people, institutions, and societies to advance to the next level - ( Blue, Red, yellow, brown, white, green, black and gold ) the difference between passion or feeling ( the colors are different levels of spiritual awareness ) and ideas that gain power, control, progress and win - they must directly experience the difference - since otherwise it’s an ideas about feeling not feeling, or an idea about religion not spiritual, or an idea about love not love, or an idea about health not health, or an idea about a more perfect society not an experience of a more perfect union.
People and communities can’t work hard and progress to a place they don’t understand and have never experienced.
They never have been on the mountain top and don’t care. You can’t create a great school if you never experience a great school - all is flat gray and dull. You can’t create a great company if there is no occurrence of greatness, you can’t create a great society without the image, the vision of greatness.
· 1Cor.13
· [1] Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
· [2] And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.
· [3] And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.
· [4] Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
· [5] Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
· [6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
· [7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
· [8] Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
· [9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
· [10] But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
· [11] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
· [12] For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
· [13] And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
· 1Cor.8
· [1] Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.
· [2] And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
· [3] But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
· 1Cor.10
· [1] Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
· [2] And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
· [3] And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
· [4] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that
· Rock was Christ.
· (12) [4] Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
· [5] And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
· [6] And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
· [7] But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
· [8] For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
· [9] To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
FDR as the man of the centuries:
The end of the 1900’s -
The ghost in the Machine - Hiroshima and FDR I have a few reflections - I get stuck on the idea of management of social affairs. Social planning, engineering, governance - what I have been into for 40 years - Since FDR the man of the century because he saw beyond his times - but have seen little progress on this side of the water since the new deal.
The EU is a beacon of reason in a sea of vaporous passions and historical ghosts.
The issue of self governance
The issue of the next century is social and technical control of the process of change. Can human society govern itself ?
The rise of the industrial state and self government
is several centuries old but takes on new urgencies and forms. It is time to get serious about social management and institutions of political control. We will be in for big trouble if we continue to use 18th and 19th century political system to mismanage a 21st century civilization. From Roman times the population doubled from 500 million, 125 million in the Empire, to a billion around the turn of this century. When I was born it had grown to 2 billion and US to 125 million. By the time of my first born it had doubled to 4 billion and US at 200 million ( 1960’s ) and now stands at 6 billion, US at 275 million ( not the 8 it would have if the rate from the 60’s had not declined from 2.75 % to under 2 % annual compounded growth )
Americans simply are not being practical or rational about systems of governance. Popular culture is full of anti-government sentiment and the naive belief that individuals and free markets can manage on their own - without guidance and control from outside - and that government is just in the way. Nothing could be more wrong and more dangerous - especially to the social classes where the old ideologies persist. As FDR saved the capitalist from their own misplaced ideologies, business is most dependent on social order and stability. Business people have most to loose by social unrest and revolutions. Social stability can not just be maintained by "law and order" police tactics. Society must express "synergy" the sharing of benefits of participation widely.
The natural desire not to pay taxes and have it all your own way should not obscure real responsibilities to contribute to human progress, better communities, cultural development and civilization through collective action.
First, self government was only for white property owning males, English, French, Dutch, Scandinavian or Swiss.
Then in the 19th century the popular franchise spread across Europe and the social classes.
In the 20th century the franchise expanded to included women and non-whites. People now believe in the inevitable spread of popular government, civil liberty, commercial law and industrial capitalism to all parts of the globe. But we pay little or no attention to how, in what form, by what means, and plan for social and political participation. It may not just happen by itself. Europe and other international organization from the Olympics, the Red Cross, NATO to the United Nations, are involved in the invention of new forms of society and social management. This has to be the pattern for the rest of the world - transitional, experimental, trans-national, rational systems of governance.
The American system of government is hopelessly inadequate to met the challenges of the next century. Its terrible structural faults are partly hidden by a mostly prosperous society that manages despite the system. Our good luck may not last much longer.
The social costs are adding up in family breakdown, crime, education, health and welfare - infrastructure - traffic - environmental, and cultural degradation.
Why do we have more of our population in jail than almost any other society ? Why in some populations are there more young men in jail than in school ? OK, donut pay attention - your all right Jack ?
Modern economic and political institutions may now encompass more than half of the peoples of the planet. Which means that about half live under older traditional or mixed social economic systems - democracy and capitalism is not established in much of China, Russia, much of the tropics from South Asia and the middle east, or in most of Africa; but we assume progress will come in time.
Popular democracy is assumed to be more rational, peaceful, and prosperous. We have a lot to learn about popular government and economics. We have NOT solved the issues of self rule and economic policy. New global depressions, wars, famines, and other man made ecological or natural disasters have NOT been removed from the future as they were not absent in the past.
The need for smart, stable and swift collective institutions has not diminished but increased.
The only way to improve institutions is by invention and experiments. If we just worship the ancient order we wont create the new order. NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, Hunt noted an allusion to line 5 of Virgil's ECLOGUE IV, which read in an eighteenth-century edition : "MAGNUS AB INTEGRO SECLORUM NASITUR ORDO". Hunt translated this line as "
The great series of ages begins anew" and translated the motto as "a new order of centuries." More recently, "a new order of the ages." See below
The century marks are used to organize our ideas of history.
The theme of the 20th century will be seen as the flowering of the machine age - from steel and steam to electrical and chemical, in a every faster growing technological society getting more and more out of control as institutions of leadership cant keep up with the pace of change.
Public heath causes a population explosion without much response in terms of family planning, advanced technology benefited some but is marked by the image of Hiroshima.
The automobile increases mobility but also urban sprawl and global warming, communications - electrify and telephone, radio, television, sparked vast economic expansions and are the center pieces of our times. But, what is popular television except a great cultural wasteland, the opium of the masses, and it was an airplane that delivered the bomb to Japan opening the Atomic age.
The 20th century opened with a great faith in human progress.
The world was controlled by Europeans and the English with a great colonial empire. Technological superiority translated into military, social and political power.
The century was marked by two great European Wars. Technology turned evil, causing terrible crimes among the most advanced cultures. Germany, a center of culture and technological masterpieces, acted as a barbarian horde bring the very idea of progress into doubt.
We have just returned to a faith in progress, in history with direction - not a tale told by an idiot, sound and fury signifying nothing.
The quick summary of the 1900’s would have to center on social morals and advanced technology. We have not been very good at bring either a rational system of social control to advanced technology or our own behavior.
The methods of the past are in decline ( the thesis ) the new world order has yet to form ( antithesis ) thus the century is one of transition - either to new and greater chaos - family and moral deterioration, marginal religion, loss of ethic and nation identify, crime and social unrest brought on by population pressure, urban decay, and economic inequalities, Or peace and freedom in a wealthy and democratic global order, if we choose to get serious about social management.
If the hope and hype for human progress is going to have meaning for the global six billion then new experiments and invention in governments are more important than new technology, of which we all ready have more than we know how to control.
We started the century with about one billion poor souls on planet earth.
In 1900 the USA not yet over 100 million in population, with just over 50 % urban, most people lived in stable clans, ethic, religious and national families - and with a fairly clear establishment or ruling class. We end the century with almost 300 million, most quite well off, an amorphous ruling class of property owners and managers, ruled by technocrats and professional politicians, the emulsification of cultures from mass media and global economics, and not all that certain of a new and bright future. http://www.fi.edu/qa98/musing12/musing12.html
People of the Great Seal Franklin Delano Roosevelt
FDR Puts the Great Seal on the One-Dollar Bill in 1935
The story of how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided to put both sides of the Great Seal on the back of the one-dollar bill is recorded in a letter from then Secretary of Agriculture (and later Vice President) Henry A Wallace. On February 6, 1951, Wallace wrote: In 1934 when I was Sec. of Agriculture I was waiting in the outer office of Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull and as I waited I amused myself by picking up a State Department publication which was on a stand there entitled, "
The History of the Seal of the United States." Turning to page 53 I noted the colored reproduction of the reverse side of the Seal.
The Latin phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum impressed me as meaning the New Deal of the Ages.
Therefore I took the publication to President Roosevelt and suggested a coin be put out with the obverse and reverse sides of the Seal. Roosevelt as he looked at the colored reproduction of the Seal was first struck with the representation of the "All-Seeing Eye," a Masonic representation of
The Great Architect of the Universe. Next he was impressed with the idea that the foundation for the new order of the ages had been laid in 1776 but that it would be completed only under the eye of the Great Architect. Roosevelt like myself was a 32nd degree Mason.
He suggested that the Seal be put on the dollar bill rather than a coin and took the matter up with the Secretary of the Treasury. When the first draft came back from the Treasury the obverse side was on the left of the bill as is heraldic practice.
Roosevelt insisted that the order be reversed so that the phrase "of the United States" would be under the obverse side of the Seal. I believe he was also responsible for introducing the word "Great" in the phrase "
The Great Seal" as it is found under the reverse side of the Seal on the left of our dollar bills. Roosevelt was a great stickler for details and loved playing with them, no matter whether it involved the architecture of a house, a post office or a dollar bill.
In a 1955 letter, Wallace added some further details to the story: I was struck by the fact that the reverse side of the Great Seal had never been used. I called it to Roosevelt's attention. He brought it up in Cabinet meeting and asked James Farley [Postmaster General and a Roman Catholic] if he thought the Catholics would have any objection to the "All-Seeing Eye" which he as a Mason looked on as a Masonic symbol of Deity. Farley said "no, there would be no objection."
According to its official history, the Great Seal was not designed by Masons. And according to the Masons themselves, the Great Seal is not a Masonic symbol. Back of the 1934 one-dollar bill Reference:
The Eagle and the Shield, by Richard S. Patterson & Richardson Dougall, published in 1976 by the Office of the Historian, Department of State. FDR's annotated dollar proof courtesy of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. a short monodrama commemorating the occasion of FDR's death
The true story of how the Eagle and the Pyramid got on the Great Seal: http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/fdr1935.html ©1999-2000 John D. MacArthur
The Pyramid on the Great Seal of the United States From THE EAGLE AND THE SHIELD - A History of the Great Seal of the United States (1976), page 75, we find Charles Thomson's notes on his design - A pyramid unfinished
In the Zenith an Eye in a triangle ...
Over the Eye these words Annuit coeptis ... and underneath [the pyramid] these words Novus Ordo seclorum."
The pyramid was taken from an earlier design of William Barton (shown on page 67) that had a different motto DEO FAVENTE (God favoring) PERENNIS (through the years). This, in turn, was similar to the design of a Fifty Dollar bill designed by Francis Hopkinson. Thomson wrote the following: "
The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration:
The Eye over it & Motto allude to the many signal interposition's of providence in favor of the American cause.
The date underneath is that of the Declaration of Independence and the words under it signify the beginnings of the New American Era, which commences from that date." P85.
P89. "
The two mottoes which Thomson suggested, and Congress adapted, for the reverse ... can be traced more definitely to the poetry of Virgil. Gaillard Hunt, in the Department of States first publisher on the seal in 1892, took official notice .... Annuit Coeptis, was described by Hunt as an allusion to line 625 of book IX of the Aeneid JUPITER OMNIPOTES, AUDACIBUS ANNUE COEPTIS (All-powerful Jupiter favor [my] daring undertakings).
The last three words appear also in Virgil's GEORGICS, book I, line 40: DA FACILEM CURSUM, ATQUE AUDACIBUS ANNUE COEPTIS (Give [me] an easy course, and favor [my] daring undertakings). Thompson changed the imperative ANNUE to ANNUIT, the third person singular form of the same verb in either the present tense of the perfect tense.
The the motto ANNUIT COEPTIS the subject of the verb must be supplied, and the translator must also choose the tense. In his 1892 brochure, Hunt suggested that the missing subject was in effect the eye at the apex of the pyramid ... and he translated the motto-in the present tense- as "it (the Eye of Providence) is favorable to our undertakings." In later publication the missing subject of the verb ANNUIT was construed to be God, and the motto has been translated in more recent Department publication- in the perfect tense- as "He (God) has favored our undertakings".
P90. NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, Hunt noted an allusion to line 5 of Virgil's ECLOGUE IV, which read in an eighteenth-century edition : "MAGNUS AB INTEGRO SECLORUM NASITUR ORDO". Hunt translated this line as "
The great series of ages begins anew" and translated the motto as "a new order of centuries." More recently, "a new order of the ages." P91. Hunt stated that the words ANNUIT COEPTIS NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM had "commonly been taken as one motto, meaning 'the new series of ages is favorable to our undertakings'", but he pointed out that it was evident from Thomson's comments that the "intention was to have two mottoes."
P529 - Did Freemasonry Influence the Great Seal Design? Because membership records for the Revolutionary period are scattered and imperfect, it is not possible to ascertain with certainty which persons among the 14 who participated in the designing of the Great Seal were Masons and which were not. Conrad Hahn, Ex Sec of the MSA of the US has furnished the following.
· 1. Definitely a Mason: Bro. Ben Franklin.
· 2. Definitely not: John Adams and Charles Thomson
· 3. No firm evidence of a Masonic connection, although allegations of
· such a connection have been noted: Jefferson, Lovell, Hopkinson,
· Middleton, Rutledge.
· 4. No record at all,
so presumably not Masons: Du Simitiere, Scott, Houston, Lee, Boudinot, and William Barton (although he has at times been confused with another William Barton who was a Mason). Although Washington was a Mason, he played no role in designing the Great Seal. And although Franklin, a Mason, was a member of the first seal committee, his proposal (P14) had no influence on the final designs, and he was in France when those designs were drawn up.
The only individual listed who has been said to be a Mason (with no firm evidence) is Hopkinson, whose pyramid design for the Continental currency's $50 bill clearly influenced the final reverse of the Great Seal.
The pyramid, the eye, and the radiant triangle have often been considered to be of Masonic origin. Writers who are Masons have also seen Masonic symbolism in the eagle, in the number of feathers on the eagle's wings, etc. It should perhaps be noted that some of the details studied and interpreted by these writers are those of comparatively recent realizations of the Great Seal, details which are not stated in the blazon itself and are not to be found in the Great Seal die of 1782.
Without questioning the fact that element of the Great Seal design are also to be found as Masonic symbols, one may question whether the designers of the seal intended it to be given a specifically Masonic interpretation. Since there is no evidence that either Thomson or Barton was a Mason, and as they were the two individuals responsible for the final design, the presumption would be that they did not intend their work to be given a Masonic interpretation.
Were there sources other that FreeMasonry from which symbols such as the all-seeing eye and the unfinished pyramid could have been taken?
The answer is yes. Use of the eye in art forms, including medallion art, as a symbol for an omniscient and ubiquitous Deity was a well established artistic convention quite apart from Masonic symbolism, and Du Simitiere, an artist would have been aware of this. As to the Pyramid, there was widespread interest in Egypt in the 18th century.
There was a detailed work entitled Pyramidographia which would have been available to both Hopkinson and Barton. This work included a drawing of the "First Pyramid", which was stepped, did not come to a complete point, and had an entrance in the center on the ground level- a detail also in Hopkinson's design.
While these points are not conclusive, it seems likely that the designers of the Great Seal and the Masons took their symbols from parallel sources, and unlikely that the seal designers consciously copied Masonic symbols with the intention of incorporating Masonic
Symbolism into the national Coat of Arms.
Use of the motto "In God We Trust" - P518From the House Committee on the Judiciary (3/28/1956) This joint resolution establishes "In God We Trust" as the national motto of the U.S. At present the U.S. has no national motto. It is most appropriate that "In God We Trust" be so designated.... Further recognition of this motto was given by the adoption of the Star-Spangled Banner as our national anthem. One stanza ... is as follows: "And this be our motto -- 'In God is our trust.'" Maybe it is just coincidence, but I believe I remember that Francis Scott Key was a FreeMason.
People of the Great Seal Franklin Delano Roosevelt
FDR Puts the Great Seal on the One-Dollar Bill in 1935
The story of how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided to put both sides of the Great Seal on the back of the one-dollar bill is recorded in a letter from then Secretary of Agriculture (and later Vice President) Henry A Wallace. On February 6, 1951, Wallace wrote: In 1934 when I was Sec. of Agriculture I was waiting in the outer office of Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull and as I waited I amused myself by picking up a State Department publication which was on a stand there entitled, "
The History of the Seal of the United States." Turning to page 53 I noted the colored reproduction of the reverse side of the Seal.
The Latin phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum impressed me as meaning the New Deal of the Ages.
Therefore I took the publication to President Roosevelt and suggested a coin be put out with the obverse and reverse sides of the Seal. Roosevelt as he looked at the colored reproduction of the Seal was first struck with the representation of the "All-Seeing Eye," a Masonic representation of
The Great Architect of the Universe. Next he was impressed with the idea that the foundation for the new order of the ages had been laid in 1776 but that it would be completed only under the eye of the Great Architect. Roosevelt like myself was a 32nd degree Mason.
He suggested that the Seal be put on the dollar bill rather than a coin and took the matter up with the Secretary of the Treasury. When the first draft came back from the Treasury the obverse side was on the left of the bill as is heraldic practice.
Roosevelt insisted that the order be reversed so that the phrase "of the United States" would be under the obverse side of the Seal. I believe he was also responsible for introducing the word "Great" in the phrase "
The Great Seal" as it is found under the reverse side of the Seal on the left of our dollar bills. Roosevelt was a great stickler for details and loved playing with them, no matter whether it involved the architecture of a house, a post office or a dollar bill.
In a 1955 letter, Wallace added some further details to the story: I was struck by the fact that the reverse side of the Great Seal had never been used. I called it to Roosevelt's attention. He brought it up in Cabinet meeting and asked James Farley [Postmaster General and a Roman Catholic] if he thought the Catholics would have any objection to the "All-Seeing Eye" which he as a Mason looked on as a Masonic symbol of Deity. Farley said "no, there would be no objection."
According to its official history, the Great Seal was not designed by Masons. And according to the Masons themselves, the Great Seal is not a Masonic symbol. Back of the 1934 one-dollar bill Reference:
The Eagle and the Shield, by Richard S. Patterson & Richardson Dougall, published in 1976 by the Office of the Historian, Department of State. FDR's annotated dollar proof courtesy of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. a short monodrama commemorating the occasion of FDR's death
The true story of how the Eagle and the Pyramid got on the Great Seal: http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/fdr1935.html ©1999-2000 John D. MacArthur
The Pyramid on the Great Seal of the United States From THE EAGLE AND THE SHIELD - A History of the Great Seal of the United States (1976), page 75, we find Charles Thomson's notes on his design - A pyramid unfinished - In the Zenith an Eye in a triangle ... Over the Eye these words Annuit coeptis ... and underneath [the pyramid] these words Novus Ordo seclorum."
The pyramid was taken from an earlier design of William Barton (shown on page 67) that had a different motto DEO FAVENTE (God favoring) PERENNIS (through the years). This, in turn, was similar to the design of a Fifty Dollar bill designed by Francis Hopkinson. Thomson wrote the following: "
The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration:
The Eye over it & Motto allude to the many signal interposition's of providence in favor of the American cause.
The date underneath is that of the Declaration of Independence and the words under it signify the beginnings of the New American Era, which commences from that date." P85.
P89. "
The two mottoes which Thomson suggested, and Congress adapted, for the reverse ... can be traced more definitely to the poetry of Virgil. Gaillard Hunt, in the Department of States first publisher on the seal in 1892, took official notice .... Annuit Coeptis, was described by Hunt as an allusion to line 625 of book IX of the Aeneid JUPITER OMNIPOTES, AUDACIBUS ANNUE COEPTIS (All-powerful Jupiter favor [my] daring undertakings).
The last three words appear also in Virgil's GEORGICS, book I, line 40: DA FACILEM CURSUM, ATQUE AUDACIBUS ANNUE COEPTIS (Give [me] an easy course, and favor [my] daring undertakings). Thompson changed the imperative ANNUE to ANNUIT, the third person singular form of the same verb in either the present tense of the perfect tense.
The the motto ANNUIT COEPTIS the subject of the verb must be supplied, and the translator must also choose the tense. In his 1892 brochure, Hunt suggested that the missing subject was in effect the eye at the apex of the pyramid ... and he translated the motto-in the present tense- as "it (the Eye of Providence) is favorable to our undertakings." In later publication the missing subject of the verb ANNUIT was construed to be God, and the motto has been translated in more recent Department publication- in the perfect tense- as "He (God) has favored our undertakings".
P90. NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, Hunt noted an allusion to line 5 of Virgil's ECLOGUE IV, which read in an eighteenth-century edition : "MAGNUS AB INTEGRO SECLORUM NASITUR ORDO". Hunt translated this line as "
The great series of ages begins anew" and translated the motto as "a new order of centuries." More recently, "a new order of the ages." P91. Hunt stated that the words ANNUIT COEPTIS NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM had "commonly been taken as one motto, meaning 'the new series of ages is favorable to our undertakings'", but he pointed out that it was evident from Thomson's comments that the "intention was to have two mottoes."
P529 - Did Freemasonry Influence the Great Seal Design? Because membership records for the Revolutionary period are scattered and imperfect, it is not possible to ascertain with certainty which persons among the 14 who participated in the designing of the Great Seal were Masons and which were not. Conrad Hahn, Ex Sec of the MSA of the US has furnished the following. 1. Definitely a Mason: Bro. Ben Franklin.
2. Definitely not: John Adams and Charles Thomson
3. No firm evidence of a Masonic connection, although allegations of such a connection have been noted: Jefferson, Lovell, Hopkinson, Middleton, Rutledge.
4. No record at all, so presumably not Masons: Du Simitiere, Scott, Houston, Lee, Boudinot, and William Barton (although he has at times been confused with another William Barton who was a Mason). Although Washington was a Mason, he played no role in designing the Great Seal. And although Franklin, a Mason, was a member of the first seal committee, his proposal (P14) had no influence on the final designs, and he was in France when those designs were drawn up.
The only individual listed who has been said to be a Mason (with no firm evidence) is Hopkinson, whose pyramid design for the Continental currency's $50 bill clearly influenced the final reverse of the Great Seal.
The pyramid, the eye, and the radiant triangle have often been considered to be of Masonic origin. Writers who are Masons have also seen Masonic symbolism in the eagle, in the number of feathers on the eagle's wings, etc. It should perhaps be noted that some of the details studied and interpreted by these writers are those of comparatively recent realizations of the Great Seal, details which are not stated in the blazon itself and are not to be found in the Great Seal die of 1782. Without questioning the fact that element of the Great Seal design are also to be found as Masonic symbols, one may question whether the designers of the seal intended it to be given a specifically Masonic interpretation. Since there is no evidence that either Thomson or Barton was a Mason, and as they were the two individuals responsible for the final design, the presumption would be that they did not intend their work to be given a Masonic interpretation. Were there sources other that FreeMasonry from which symbols such as the all-seeing eye and the unfinished pyramid could have been taken?
The answer is yes. Use of the eye in art forms, including medallion art, as a symbol for an omniscient and ubiquitous Deity was a well established artistic convention quite apart from Masonic symbolism, and Du Simitiere, an artist would have been aware of this. As to the Pyramid, there was widespread interest in Egypt in the 18th century.
There was a detailed work entitled Pyramidographia which would have been available to both Hopkinson and Barton. This work included a drawing of the "First Pyramid", which was stepped, did not come to a complete point, and had an entrance in the center on the ground level- a detail also in Hopkinson's design.
While these points are not conclusive, it seems likely that the designers of the Great Seal and the Masons took their symbols from parallel sources, and unlikely that the seal designers consciously copied Masonic symbols with the intention of incorporating Masonic Symbolism into the national Coat of Arms.
Use of the motto "In God We Trust" - P518 From the House Committee on the Judiciary (3/28/1956) This joint resolution establishes "In God We Trust" as the national motto of the U.S. At present the U.S. has no national motto. It is most appropriate that "In God We Trust" be so designated.... Further recognition of this motto was given by the adoption of the Star-Spangled Banner as our national anthem. One stanza ... is as follows: "And this be our motto -- 'In God is our trust.'" Maybe it is just coincidence, but I believe I remember that Francis Scott Key was a FreeMason. -- pflaump@usa.com Dr. Peter E. Pflaum, GlobalVillages http://www.wiredbrain.net/ pflaump@cfl.rr.com Box 2176 New Smyrna Beach FL. 32170 386428 9609
And it's free
Http copies of SYNERGY JOURNALS write to pfpfpfpflaump@cfl.rr.comter E. Pflaum Ph.D. , Headmaster GLOBAL_VILLAGE_SCHOOLHOUSE 225 Robinson Road, New Smyrna Beach, FL
