Many Veterans Uninsured

I saw an article by Kevin Freking of the Associated Press, based on a study by researchers at Harvard Medical School, saying that 1.8 million American veterans lack health insurance. The article says that most Americans "assume" that veterans get free medical care through the VA, but that assumption is false, as many veterans are working people who make too much money to qualify for VA care, but that their incomes are not great enough to be able to afford health insurance on their own. Others, according to the article, cannot afford co-payments, or the communities in which they live don't have VA care facilities. As with other Americans, the number of veterans without insurance has been increasing. The Harvard folks feel that more money is needed by the VA, or better yet, they recommend universal health coverage for the U.S.

Can This Administration Ever Be Trusted?

I'm certainly not taken with the Bush Administration, but this past week, they may have hit a new low. FEMA, the agency that responds to disasters, held a "fake" news conference, complete with one of it's top level people answering questions from EMPLOYEES OF THE AGENCY!!! Actual reporters were only able to listen to the "news conference" by telephone. From what I understand, the event was even carried by some cable stations which were unaware at the time that this was a staged event. Further, the official of FEMA praised the agency's response to the fires in California and noted that FEMA had handled the situation far better than with the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Michael Chertoff, the head of FEMA has declined to say if anyone will be fired for this attempt to influence public opinion by phony means.

I'm not much into conspiracy theories, but this bunch in this Administration could change my mind on the matter very quickly. There have also been questions raised about economic data and inflation numbers being issued by this Administration. When you hear things like the above, it calls into question anything and everything said by anyone representing this Administration. Will THE REAL PRESS please step forward!!!

We've Got To Stick Together and Be Tough!

Just a little explanation about some of my rantings... I mean writings. I know that I may sound tough at times, but trust me folks, we, the "un-rich," are up against something this country hasn't seen in many, many decades. See:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/06/you-wont-need-time-machine.html

We've got to stick together, although we won't always agree on everything. We are up against people who have tremendous drive and cunning. If we don't strike back with a hard right to their jaw, they will NEVER stop. They are tough and they only understand toughness. We've been weak and they have preyed upon our weakness. Now is the time for Americans to rally to the cause of our own self-interest, and not just be subservient to The Wealthy. Some of you may remember the 1960s and early 1970s. You may not have agreed with some of the "activism" of those times, I myself did not always agree, BUT, at least there were people willing to take on the "Interests." They didn't just stand back and take everything that was dished out; they struck back with protests and campaigns to change things. Some of it worked, some of it did not, but issues were sorted out by the American people, and at least we heard strong voices provide choices for us. We need that kind of activism now!!!

Addition To The Great Depression

I should have added this during my original posts, but better late than never. In order to add some balance, it should be noted that not everyone suffered terrible job loss or financial hardship during the Depression. We do need to remember, that while unemployment was far above what would have been considered normal, more people had jobs than were unemployed. Further, the ranks of the unemployed tended to be "revolving," just to use a term; that is, many who lost jobs at some given point, found other jobs eventually, although perhaps at lower wages, but while they were finding new work, others were losing their jobs. The situation at various points during the Depression was, however, that more folks were losing jobs, than finding jobs, thus the unemployment rate kept increasing for quite some time. Of course, the reciprocal of that was also true, as there were times when more people found jobs than lost jobs.

If a person or household had savings, or if a person was able to maintain a decent job during those times, they actually could have lived a pretty decent lifestyle, since prices fell faster, in most cases, than did wages; that is, some people actually GAINED purchasing power.

The Coming Election

With the election for the next president, 435 members of the House of Representatives, and about a third of the Senate about one year away, what should we expect? Ah, do you think maybe some ideas?

In 2004, in my opinion, John Kerry essentially said, "Vote for me, I'm not Bush!" In the end, obviously it didn't work. I said, "in my opinion," but actually even some of Kerry's campaign operatives admitted that this was their basic strategy, as Bush was unpopular, and Kerry had a lead in the polls for quite some time; so they figured they would sit on "a lead." While this isn't always true, Americans usually like to hear some ideas from their potential presidents. In 2006, Democrats won a substantial victory in the mid-term elections, capturing both houses of Congress. There was no question that the situation in Iraq played a big role in that election, and some people say that Democrats promised to end the war, and now that they have not done so, their poll numbers make George Bush look like he's popular; I believe I saw a recent poll showing an approval rate for Congress at just an astounding 11%.

I'm not so sure that Democrats, in the collective sense, promised to end the war. Certainly SOME Democrats promised to support a prompt withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, but as I remember the campaign of a year ago, most Democratic candidates "fudged" the issue, saying things like, "A change in strategy in Iraq is needed, " or lending support to some vague "strategic withdrawal," or "redeployment." I didn't hear many Dems saying outright that they would "end the war," although they seemed to imply such, or maybe some people hear things the way they want to hear them? The point is, in that election, Democrats got away with not giving many specifics to voters, because the public was just fed up with the Republicans in Congress, not just about the war, but many things, including the increasing number of scandals. Further, on Iraq, many in the overall public have had something of a duel personality on this issue, too; wanting some sort of withdrawal, but not really totally ending the American presence in Iraq.

This current campaign is like reading "War & Peace," it just goes on and on. In case you haven't read "War & Peace," (has anybody really read it, completely?) it is so thick, to take it from place to place, you pretty much need one of those little carts people use to tote around luggage. I'm not quite sure if these campaigns that start so early really serve any purpose. The general public doesn't seem to pay much mind to the candidates, and in fact, we can't be expected to pay attention over such a long period of time. I'm afraid that we'll be "tired" of the next president before they are even elected. Anyway, I hope we're going to hear real ideas, as specific as possible, about what the major candidates want to do, and where they want to take the country. Most, but not all, of the Democratic candidates now seem to have backed away from talk about withdrawing all forces from Iraq. To me, that's prudent. Don't paint yourself into a corner over a highly complex issue. Further, what will the candidates of both parties say about Iran? About the economy? About income disparity? About oil and gas prices? (Are we going to continue this insane system of allowing the wealthy, through various agents, to bid up prices on such an important commodity? One that affects the very fiber of economic life in this country and the world.) What about health care? What about education? What about retraining of workers for the current economy? What about trade policies toward the rest of the world? How will the candidates propose that Americans deal with the loss of manufacturing jobs and industries to overseas countries? Do they see this as a threat to our national security? (We're already being held hostage over oil. What will happen to us if we dismantle most of our industrial complex to overseas interests, and some nation gets mad at us and decides to hold us hostage about some product that we really need?) What about the environment and global warming? (It now seems that many people in both parties feel that global warming is real, but the debate has shifted as to how much "mankind" has contributed to it, or even caused it, and what, if anything mankind can do to reduce the affects of the problem.) Naturally, there are many, many more issues for the next administration and Congress to deal with. And we in the public will need to be thinking about these issues, too.

Some Income Statistics

I came across these statistics that were in a NY Times article based on data and research by Professor Emmanuel Saez of the University of California-Berkeley and Professor Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics.

According to these two professors, and this is for the year 2005 only, the top one-tenth of one percent of Americans had almost as much income during the year as the bottom 150 million Americans!!! The top one tenth of one percent comprises only 300,000 people, but they received 440 times as much income in 2005 as the average person in the bottom half of the income scale. This figure almost doubles the income disparity from 1980.

Overall income rose by 9% during 2005, but the average income for the bottom 90% of Americans actually fell by $172 compared to 2004.

What Kind Of A Country Do We Want (Part Two)

Then there’s Medicare, which was created in the mid 1960s. Again, the well to do wrung their hands and called it “socialized medicine.” Labeling certain programs as “socialist” or “communist” has been a frequent tactic used by people in the upper reaches of the income scale. From all of the clamor, you would have thought that this time, DEFINITELY, the end of the Republic was near. Well, nearly 50 years later, the Republic is still here, and again, most elderly folks on Medicare don’t go around wearing little red flags pinned to their shirts or blouses, nor do they sing “The Internationale” on holidays, nor do they make pilgrimages to Lenin’s tomb. If you are elderly, just think where you or other family members, or neighbors and friends would be WITHOUT Medicare. Like many things in government, and in life generally, Medicare isn’t perfect, and I’m not claiming that it is. Times have changed a great deal in medical care since the 1960s, when hospitalization was considered a road to bankruptcy for many elderly people and their families. Since those times, thanks to the development of medicines and new procedures to treat many conditions, hospitalization is not required as often as in the past. I find that I have a good bit of agreement with George W. Bush on the need to update Medicare coverage. (Yes, you read that correctly!)

Capitalism is supposed to be about self-interest. The wealthy are VERY good at that, with some exceptions. Not only are they good at self-interest, they are good at convincing others that defending the interest of the wealthy is good for them, too, even if these other folks would be far better off looking out for their OWN self-interest. That’s just my opinion, not that I have many opinions. Anyway, if you’re on Medicare, please remember that MILLIONS of your fellow Americans have NO health insurance whatsoever! In fact, the number of uninsured Americans has been growing in the last few years at an alarming rate, as businesses continue to cut benefits for workers. Some of these cuts are attributable to trade agreements. American business couldn’t wait to open up free trade, but they didn’t seem to take into consideration the fact that most other countries have some form of national health insurance, often helping to keep the cost of goods produced in these countries lower than American produced items. In America, if you’re lucky, you may have employer provided health insurance, but the number of lucky people is shrinking. Plus, in the past decade or two, workers increasingly have to pay a portion of health care premiums, typically in the 20 to 30 percent range. Then there are some American workers covered by poor health care plans, which exclude many things, or seem to kick in only under certain circumstances, like there has to be a full moon and you have to have the left hind foot of a frog in your back pocket. Anyway, to get back to the subject of Medicare, I’m glad we have such a program in America, and I shudder to think what would happen to many people if we didn’t have it.

A Convert Gained

Since I did the Steinbrenner/pro sports blog recently, I thought I would add this little story. Greed and ego trips eventually become so obvious to folks, that little by little people catch on and begin to "see the light." Actually, I think most people "see the light," but they just can't bring themselves to face the reality. If you love a particular sport, or all sports, it isn't easy to walk away from these love affairs, and some of you may think I'm being to harsh and cynical, but all I can say is, as time passes, you, like the guy in the story, will finally face up to the world of professional sports. This is a true story.

In 1995, when I was managing property, one elderly and handicapped Section 8 building I managed didn't have an office. The company I worked for managed another building right around the corner, and we operated out of that building, managed by a lady with the company. It was a really nice building and they contracted with a company to maintain the grounds, if I remember right. Well, the Indians were in the World Series that year, and the guy who maintained the grounds happened to be at the building when I had stopped by. He asked the manager if she had watched the game the night before. She wasn't a sports fan, and she admitted that she really didn't follow baseball, but that she had tuned in because Cleveland was involved. She took a batter's stance and said, "They all looked so serious when they were up at bat." I couldn't keep my mouth shut with such an opportunity, and I said, "They were serious because they were thinking about how they were going to spend all of those millions." Well, the grounds' contractor said, "That wasn't a nice thing to say. What, you're against baseball?" I told him, "Well, I love baseball, THE GAME, but this stuff is ALL about money, and ONLY about money! It isn't just baseball, but ALL professional sports, and it is both the players and the owners." I think he looked at my sport coat to see if I was wearing a hammer and sickle pin, which I wasn't, and he said, "You're just being against things!" He was really upset!

The Series ended, and within a couple of days came the announcement that Art Modell, the owner of the Cleveland Browns, was moving the team to Baltimore, essentially because of a bruised ego and mo' money, mo' money, mo' money! (Hey, it's tough being a multi-millionaire. Modell made a statement that he "had to look out for his family." If I remember correctly, he was worth somewhere around $160 million. Now I know it can be difficult to get by on such a paltry sum, but maybe he should have considered some lifestyle changes. Of course later, it came out that he had been a spendthrift, and later still, after the team had moved and won a Super Bowl, that even with all of the subsidies offered by Baltimore, worth many millions, Modell still had to take in a partner, because he had blown much of the money!

About a week later, the grounds' contractor was at the building again. I really wasn't all that thrilled to even see him, since he had been so upset with my comment, and had been "huffing and puffing," that day. Lo and behold, he came over to me in front of the manager and said, "You were right!" I looked at him and played dumbed, something I do sooooo well. "Right about what, " I asked. "About professional sports. Now I see what you mean. I was mad when you said that during the World Series, but I'm a die hard Browns' fan, and I'm devastated by Modell's action." I'm going to end this story right here.

Okay, almost "right here." There isn't anything they won't do, I'm telling you, folks. They are absolutely treacherous!

What Kind Of Country Do We Want? (Part One)

Whether you consider yourself to be conservative or liberal or somewhere in between, our basic beliefs about how the country should be governed are based upon ideals. These ideals give us a starting point for our thoughts on the role of government at various levels of our society. As I think regular readers already know, I don’t always adhere to a fixed philosophy, so I have problems with both hardcore liberals and hardcore conservatives. I don’t feel that government should totally run everything in our lives, nor do I believe that our lives should be left to some “sink or swim” philosophy regarding whatever fate happens to be visited upon us at any given point in time. Overall, I believe most Americans are somewhere in the middle on many issues too, depending upon circumstances. What do I mean?

Well, we “tend” to think of many of the upper class and business people as being more conservative, some even VERY conservative. I don’t want to put words into their mouths, but I will anyhow, as these are certainly generalizations, and they should be taken by readers as such. Since these folks have either grown up with financial privilege, coming from wealthy families, or have made it big through some action of their own, either through honest hard work or through some kind of treachery, they tend to see things like, “Look, we have a great system. I made it. I’m well off, and you can be well off too, if you make good decisions and do the right things in your life.” All of that sounds good until of course, their company runs into trouble, like the airlines did a few years ago. Then they turn to the government to give them a helping hand, which is what happened in the aftermath of 9/11 with the airlines. Then the “sink or swim” philosophy did NOT apply. Uncle Sam gave several billion dollars (that’s billion, not million!) to the airlines to try to tide them over during a difficult time. I want you to know, I agreed with that decision by Congress and the President. Many well known liberals and conservatives were faced with a choice that conflicted with their basic beliefs, but most made the right choice, and supported the measure to help the airlines. To conservatives, the idea of giving money to business went against their “succeed or fail” ideas, and to liberals, the idea of giving money to big business was just totally repugnant. In the end, no matter how distasteful, the country saw a problem and acted.

Folks, the idea of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps isn’t really bad, but it isn’t always a viable alternative. Trying to help ourselves as much as possible should definitely be encouraged and should usually be a first course of action, but at times, it just isn’t as easy as all of that. Further, society has tried to make life better for all through certain government programs, often, if not always, opposed by the very conservative of the nation. If mankind didn’t try to make life better in some ways, we’d all still live in caves, probably next door to Osama bin Laden (There goes the neighborhood!). Even with programs sponsored by some level of government, the rich are still the rich, and the top twenty percent of the population still controls nearly 85% of ALL American wealth. (That doesn't leave much for the remaining 80% of the population.) So don’t let their arguments and whining convince you of the terrible hardship they have been enduring; the rest of us should have to go through such "awful" suffering.

Now, on the other hand, some government programs outlive their usefulness and need to be changed or eliminated. Further, do we want government to tell us how to live many aspects of our daily lives? I don’t think so, but I have some disagreements with libertarians who always seem to feel that the Republic is in imminent danger of becoming a police state. (We do need these folks to make us think about potential consequences though, so they do add a balance to some things.) I don’t “always” buy their arguments, especially in the cases of folks with more than just a little quirkiness or eccentricity, who have certain forms of out and out mental illness. The idea that many of these folks can always make rational decisions about taking medication or going for regular treatment at their local mental health center is nonsense!

See:


http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/06/severely-mental-ill-and-asylums.html


Let’s just look at some things that have become part and parcel of American life within the past century. To this day we have problems within our food supply, but it was President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican, who pushed for food safety laws way back in the early 1900s. The food industry at various levels opposed such laws, but just think where we’d be without these laws, even while admitting that we still have problems. (If I’m not mistaken, the current Bush Administration cut funding for food inspections, but even if I’m right, whether that has anything to do with the recalls and illnesses in recent years, I don’t know.) So, should we disband this element of government and totally take our chances? Just think what many in the food industry might do to save money if we DIDN’T have food safety laws and inspections. That would make you feel comfortable about your next meal, right?

Then there’s one of the big bugaboos of the anti-government element of America, Social Security. If you’re well off, and not in need of putting money away for retirement, I guess I can understand your opposition, but you’re being selfish in doing so. Yes, it is a coercive government program, in that we are required to pay into the SS system (there are some exceptions), and again, it sure isn’t perfect, and never has been, but it is also a very popular program, flaws and all. Again too, since the inception of Social Security, we haven’t seen red flags planted all around the country. It has helped millions of Americans retire with some income floor beneath them. Prior to the enactment of Social Security, only a small percentage of Americans had any kind of private pension program. In many cases, it was “work till you drop,” or other family members had to take responsibility for older folks before they dropped, at times causing serious financial problems. Yes, families were undoubtedly closer back then, but do we want to go back to pre-Social Security times, just because we might derive the benefit of families being closer, regardless of any of the stresses on family members, financial or physical/mental? Life expectancy was far less than in today’s world, although I’m not arguing that Social Security is necessarily the cause of people living longer, but it sure doesn’t hurt to have a guaranteed retirement income floor.

Then we have disability payments. This is similar to Social Security, in that prior to disability laws, if a person was unable to work due to some injury or illness, other family members had to take care of them. Bear in mind, for the rich, this kind of thing is not a problem, as they can put a relative into some care facility, or hire someone to care for the person at home. For most people, though, this could prove to be a problem. If Uncle Henry developed arthritis to point that he could no longer work, who took care of him? Well many years ago, women were not quite as common in the workplace, so maybe Henry’s wife was home and able to care for him, but what about money? If Aunt Helen went to work, now who cares for Uncle Henry? Now I’m not trying to suggest that people didn’t always survive under such circumstances, but you see the dilemma that many folks could face. Again, the wealthy can’t relate to such things, as they had the means to solve the problem without Aunt Helen having to necessarily care for Uncle Henry or to have to work to earn money so that the two could survive. There’s a VERY big difference here. Anyway, disability payments helped to provide an income floor for people who no longer were able to work. Should we do away with such programs and go back to the way things used to be? Uncle Henry is calling!

An Example To Shun

George Steinbrenner is from Cleveland. He doesn’t often tout that anymore, but that doesn’t make it any less true. Maybe Cleveland should deny that he is from here; that might be more appropriate. Steinbrenner’s escapades over the years show just what he is, and it shows publicly how a number of business people really act, but without the media spotlight.

If you don’t know much about George Steinbrenner (Lucky you!), he owns the New York Yankees. About 35 years ago, he wanted to buy his hometown team, the Cleveland Indians from Vernon Stouffer (of the food company fame), but the deal fell through, although Steinbrenner was, or became an investor in the Cleveland franchise. A few years later, he bought the NY Yankees and skipped town, saying that New York was a city for winners, and if ever there was a “winner,” it is George Steinbrenner. George certainly can lay claim to being one of, if not THE, driving force in the “buy a mediocre player for millions” run up in baseball salaries. Of course, we come back to people like Steinbrenner who say, “Hey, it’s the free market and I can pay a player any amount I want.” This is all part of that philosophy where billionaires and multi-millionaires can bid up player salaries (or oil prices), and in order to stay in the game, other owners have to follow suit. The thing is, it’s NOT really a game anymore. This is big business at work. Gradually, less wealthy owners (just “regular” millionaires) had to get out of baseball, as they couldn’t compete with their wealthy brethren. Then many owners, not just in pro baseball, but also in the other pro sports, blackmailed communities to build them new stadiums and arenas. (Forget “Build it and they will come,” the owners used, “Build it or we will leave town!”) No talk here from these big business people about how government should stay out of private business matters.

The players got every bit as greedy as the owners, and it became tough to tell the good guys from the bad guys. I’ve decided, there aren’t any good guys. Years ago, I had season tickets for the Indians. Many years they lost 90 to 100 games, give or take, and their “quest for the pennant” ended along about the third week of April. Now, I go to no games. Now, I buy no merchandise that any of the pro teams market.

Ticket prices have soared, and in fact, I just heard on the radio this morning, that compared to when the Indians were in the World Series ten years ago, Series ticket prices are up something like 360%!!! I may HAVE to buy gasoline at inflated prices, just to earn a living, but I DON’T have to go to ballgames!

You’ve got to hand it to the baseball big shots, they have successfully marketed the game, high ticket prices, high concession prices, high merchandise prices and all very successfully to the public, just like selling disposable diapers, if you get the drift, or maybe I should say “the whiff!” When I think of some of the people in society who risk their lives for us or who can make peoples’ lives better, and see the amount they make compared to the sports people and team owners, I’ve got to believe that somewhere along the line, we got our priorities misplaced.

Just recently George threatened to fire Yankees’ manager Joe Torre if the team failed in post-season play, which it did. Now, I’m not one to worry myself silly about millionaires, as I have a saying that millionaires don’t worry about me, and I’m more than willing to return the favor. Anything I’d like for many millionaires (and billionaires) is something that I can’t put into print here. Whether or not Steinbrenner fires Torre, one thing is certain, and that is, Joe Torre won’t have to worry about how he’s going to pay his next electric bill. He’s worth a bundle! The point here isn’t so much about Joe Torre, as much as it is about Steinbrenner’s behavior and the message it sends to the rest of America’s Al Qaida; that is, the American wealthy and business community. The message is, that you can go on any ego trip and demand that your subordinates accomplish whatever you want, and if they fail, you have no responsibility, you simply fire them.

If I’ve heard things correctly on the radio, the Yankees have the highest payroll in baseball, but it didn’t guarantee a World Championship, nor an American League Pennant, nor even a divisional championship. Hey George, it’s real life, something you should try living for a change, because in the end, death, THE Great Equalizer, will make you just like the rest of us.

Update On A Mystery

Just a brief update that concerns the Anna Anderson/ “Anastasia” article I posted.

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-all-love-mystery.html

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/07/some-additions-to-we-all-love-mystery.html

I read a small story in the newspaper from The Associated Press that in Russia, some bone fragments were found around the site where Bolshevik guards may have tried to dispose of two bodies of the Romanov children after the family’s execution. All but two bodies of the family and some servants were recovered in the early 1990s. The two missing bodies are Alexei, the Czar’s son, and either Maria or Anastasia, as there are disagreements about which daughter’s body was recovered earlier.

Accounts given about 80 or 90 years ago by a few of the Bolsheviks involved, stated that the guards tried to burn two bodies, but were not totally successful in destroying them. They claimed that they then decided to bury the remains, and that the location was not all that far from the burial site of the other bodies. The problem was, the Bolshevik accounts all agreed that Alexei was one of the bodies, but they differed as to which female body they attempted to burn. If I remember correctly, one account said the female body was that of Romanov daughter Maria, another account indicated that the body was that of Anastasia, and still another said that it was the body of the Empress herself, Alexandra. All of these differing accounts gave hope to Anna Anderson’s supporters that there was some conspiracy among the Bolshevik guards to cover up from their leaders the “fact” that two bodies were missing. Further, they reasoned that the guards’ stories showed that Anderson’s story of how she escaped could have been true.

In the early 1990s, when the mass Romanov grave was uncovered, indeed two bodies were unaccounted for. Anderson’s supporters were ecstatic, feeling that this showed that two Romanovs might well have escaped the execution. Even when the DNA showed that Anderson was NOT a Romanov, her supporters still wondered about the two missing bodies. According to the Associated Press story, besides the bone fragments, also recovered was a container that had held acid. The Bolsheviks’ accounts all stated that acid had been used to try to dissolve parts of the bodies and to disfigure them beyond recognition. The Russian Government has issued a statement that there is a strong possibility that the bone fragments are from the two missing Romanovs.

The Power Is With The Powerful

Several years ago in Ohio, the legislature passed and the governor signed a law deregulating the electric power industry in Ohio. The plan called for a phased in implementation, with more or less full deregulation taking place at the end of 2008. The first part of the plan was to give consumers a choice between electricity suppliers through their local power company. The idea was that competition would keep prices down and supplies plentiful. Dare I say, "Yeah...right!" The vaunted free market system, so touted by the wealthy, hasn't produced the promised competition, and lo and behold, the end of 2008 is just a little more than a year away. At first, several companies vied for customers, but any savings for consumers was minuscule, and eventually many of the companies dropped out of the program.

Now Ohioans are being told to brace for tremendous price increases, not withstanding the fact that the Ohio power industry has made billions since the law was passed (I keep telling you, they NEVER get enough!!! Not now!!! Not ever!!!) The governor (not the same one who signed the law) is scrambling to get a plan through the legislature, before the clock ticks down, giving the state some regulatory control on prices. Of course, this has prompted the power industry and their free market supporters to wring their hands and declare that the end of the world is near. (I'd LOVE to send all these wealthy @$%&*#$@& to fight in the wars and let them defend the system they love so much! Then we'd see just how much they love it!)

Let me tell you folks, this is only one example of the system devised by the rich for the rich. Trust me, it was NOT devised to help average people. All of this "energy" system is in the hands of the wealthiest Americans, from oil, gasoline, electricity, home heating oil, natural gas. Most of these items were added to these futures markets to benefit the rich, not consumers. Don't let them give you that malarkey how this was all done for the country's benefit. It was done to help the rich keep their already wealthy hands in your pockets; and that part has really worked for them, too, as the price for virtually every energy source has seen skyrocketing increases just since 2000; and now, with the push to try to expand ways to produce energy, like with ethanol, food prices have been soaring, as farmers are taking the extra money to grow corn, and diminishing the production of other crops. Wealthy futures traders have pumped up the price of corn and wheat, which has had a domino effect on the price of dairy and meat products.

I'm not a Communist, but I'm not a true believer in Capitalism either. I believe in what works. All this nonsense about precedents, and we can't let government compete with private enterprise is a bunch of bunk! At times government at some level has to provide the necessary competition to give these private companies a run for their money (Literally!) What do we want as Americans? A system that says, "Hey, I'm a winner and I've got the drop on you, and I'm going to use it to the max, you loser!" Is this what we fight wars for? We heard from the free marketers how if only oil companies made more money, they would build more refineries and more gasoline would be produced. Uh huh!!! Instead, the money has gone to higher dividends to put more money into the pockets of wealthy investors and to increase the value of company stock. Oh yes, they have expanded existing plant capacities, something they quickly tout, but there have been no new refineries built since the 1970s!!! Meanwhile, this current Administration, never having met a big business they didn't like, has sat by and let prices of oil and gasoline explode! (Pun intended!) The Clinton Administration is culpable in all of this, too, as they let some big mergers go through; thus limiting competition even more in such a vital industry.

I'm for whatever it takes to put some competition back into the system, and that includes government building refineries or digging wells. If you read my "Great Depression" series, you may recall that Hoover opposed government development of electric power in the Tennessee Valley, but it happened anyway, and little red flags didn't suddenly appear all over America. The Republic is safe. If you missed my previous comments on this issue:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2006/12/oil-and-gas-prices.html

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/07/futures-belong-to.html

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/05/government-intervention-is-necessary.html

Nasty Income Figures, Unless You're Rich

At times I hesitate to publish some information, but I was reading an article about the GM-United Auto Workers' deal in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and some income figures really caught my attention. The problem is, the article doesn't really cite a source for these numbers, although in a previous paragraph, the article mentions John Russo, co-director of the Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University, and in the paragraph following the numbers, Susan Helper, a professor of economics at Case Western Reserve University is quoted, so whether either of them is the source is unclear.

Anyway, all disclaimers aside, the article says that 82% of personal income gains in the period from 1980 to 2005 went to the top 1% of the population, and that after inflation adjustments, the top 1% had income gains of 156% during that time period. On the other hand, median compensation for the population as a whole increased 19%.