The New Deal Era & Now, Part Three

In mid January of this year, just days before Obama was sworn in as President, the Senate gave the authority for the release of the second installment of bailout money; that is, the remaining 350 billion dollars. In researching this just a bit, it seems that only one house had to authorize the release of the funds, and while both houses debated the issue, only the Senate voted. Also, the measure was not voted upon straight up, for or against, but the measure was put forth in "negative wording;" that is, opposing the release of the funds, and if a senator was against the money being authorized, he/she voted "FOR" the measure, and of course, "AGAINST" meant he/she was in favor of releasing the money. Anyway, the vote was 42 FOR and 52 AGAINST, and thus the money was released to the Treasury Department. The vote was: 33 Republicans, 8 Democrats, and 1 Independent (who caucuses with the Dems) "FOR" (but actually meaning against releasing the money), and 6 Republicans joined 45 Democrats and 1 Independent (who caucuses with the Dems) in voting "AGAINST" (but meaning for releasing the money).

After taking office, the new President was faced with the collapse of the American auto industry. Having had overwhelming support from autoworkers, he could have tried to give them everything they wanted, meaning more billions with no strings, but he didn't! Billions were given to tide over two of the companies, General Motors and Chrysler, but they were also given a time table to achieve a plan on how they were going to survive and potentially prosper (let alone stop losing billions). Remember folks, these companies were losing MILLIONS of dollars A DAY!!! Since that time, both companies presented plans and both were "eased" into bankruptcy with the help of "Uncle Sam," who took part ownership.* Current reports indicate that both companies may be out of bankruptcy far sooner than expected. Now, whether all of this will work....I have no idea. General Motors, especially, will be much streamlined, with far fewer brands and far fewer dealers. Chrysler has streamlined too, and will be combined with Italian automaker FIAT.

Will these, what I'll call, "Bush/Obama policies" work? Opinions vary, and to be honest, no one really knows for sure. Will these "remedies" prove to be as bad as the "disease?" Who really knows? Time will tell, but one thing is unmistakable, we have gotten ourselves into one grand mess. I suppose none of us is completely innocent, but some are outright guilty. Thirty years of free markets, with the removal of business regulations, or lax enforcement of what regulation existed, coupled with "trickle down" economics has taken a huge toll on America. We've had to learn all over again, what we should have learned from history; that is, substantial laizzez faire and trickle down DOES NOT WORK!

The handwringers of American society have worked themselves into a lather over government involvement in all of these things I've gone over in these articles. My question is, "Is our system so fragile and are Americans so insecure, that government can't intervene to try to halt a potential train wreck?" Let me tell you what this is about... MONEY and EGOS!!! With so many of these folks, it is always MONEY and EGO!!! They dream in dollars. Virtually every ounce of life is devoted to making more money in an attempt to soothe their insatiable egos. The rest of society can't keep up with them or their shenanigans, because WE DON'T THINK LIKE THEM! Many wealthy people and their money managers are terrified of government, because these folks don't have to answer to anyone.....except on occasion, to GOVERNMENT! (At whatever level: federal, state, local.) And they DON'T like it one bit! I wish there were a way of finding out what these egomaniacs were saying about the various current bailouts and those going back to the Bush Administration, and what their money was saying by how they invested it. If all of these companies had crashed last summer and fall, these folks (and many of the rest of us...maybe ALL of us) would be in even worse straits than we are today. Don't forget, these are many of the same people who wanted to get their hands on your Social Security money to ....ahh....invest it in the stock market!!! Remember that one? After seeing how THEIR whole system is just a mess, do you feel like turning over ANY money to these folks? If they want to be gamblers, they should go into business in Las Vegas.
Next...the final installment.... (A word history follows)

*The Canadian government also loaned them a smaller amount of money, and took a smaller ownership stake.

Word History:
King-This word "seems" to go back to Indo European "gen/gn," which had the notion of "production, offspring." The Old Germanic "offspring" (I couldn't resist that) of this was "kunjam," which seems to have meant "people, group of related people," from which Germanic developed "kuninggaz," seemingly "a leader of the people, offspring of the people." In Old English it was "cyning," and it was used for the name of Anlgo Saxon tribal chiefs, and later for the leaders of the individual Old English states, or provinces, if you will. Later still, when the English coalesced around a more "national" leader, that was the name given to him, and the name was then dropped for the regional leaders, and thus the title has carried forth until modern times. Germanic passed the term along to other non-Germanic languages like Russian and Finnish, for example, which use their own forms of the word. It prevails in all of the Germanic languages, as modern German has "könig", Dutch has "koning," Danish has "konge," Swedish "konung," Norwegian "konge". In English during the 1600s, the term also took on the additional meaning "big/large," as in "King Crab."

The New Deal Era & Now, Part Two

U.S. automakers have been struggling for the past number of years to remain profitable, but the economic downturn has put them flat on their backs.*** The automakers were literally losing millions of dollars each day!!! In September, 2008; that is, under the previous Congress and the Bush Administration, 25 billion dollars were authorized as loans to the three main American automakers; Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, for retooling to produce more energy efficient vehicles. This money was included as part of a major bill of more than 600 billion dollars, funding many aspects of government operations, and, therefore, there was not a separate vote on the auto loans.
Then in the middle of December 2008, Bush Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson loaned several billion dollars to both General Motors and Chrysler, to prevent them from going bankrupt. In all, General Motors, along with its finance arm, GMAC, has received over 63 billion dollars. Chrysler, along with its finance arm, Chrysler Finance Service, has received more than 16 billion dollars. (These figures from "Propublica.org") These funds came from the 700 billion amount voted on for banks previously, so again, there was no separate vote on this money. While Ford hasn't received any of the money (only the "retooling loan" money), they, too, have been losing billions, but in the last few months, they have been losing at a lower rate than GM and Chrysler. Recently, Wall Street cheered when analysts predicted that Ford would report a 10 billion dollar loss, and they actually "only" lost 9 billion. Don't pop the champagne corks yet! And I'll come back to the auto companies again shortly.
Enter the Obama Administration, January 20, 2009 (The new 111th Congress took office earlier in January, with both houses controlled by Democrats.):
Congress passes what most Americans know as the "economic stimulus bill." It provides 787 billion dollars (that's "billion," with a "B") for a wide variety of projects over a two year period. Some economists say it was not enough, while others say it was too much. There were two separate bills passed, one by the House and a slightly different version by the Senate (not an unusual situation). Then a conference committee, with members from both the House and the Senate and members from both parties, presented a new "compromise" bill for a final vote in both houses. The bill passed and was signed by President Obama in February. The final vote totals were:
House-246 FOR (all Democrats)-183 AGAINST (7 Democrats and 176 Republicans)
Senate-60 FOR (56 Democrats-2 Republicans-2 Independents)-38 AGAINST (All Republicans)
To be continued... (A word history is below the note)

***It should be noted that "foreign owned" automakers in the U.S. market have also experienced significant drops in sales during this downturn. Initially, the American companies took the major hits, prompting some commentators on CNBC (a cable business channel, owned by NBC) to proclaim that this problem in the auto industry was an American problem, and that the American companies should be allowed to file bankruptcy or liquidate. When other commentators asked if America wanted to still have American auto companies, the answer from the previous groups was, "We'll still have American auto companies; they're called 'Toyota' and 'Honda.' " The above is not a true word for word exchange, but rather a summary of things that were said.

Word History:
Switch-verb form-This was derived from the noun. See Part One of the above article for the noun's history at this link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-deal-era-now-part-one.html

During the 1600s, the verb meant "to beat with a switch;" that is, beat with a riding whip or thin flexible twig. You don't hear this meaning used much anymore, but when I was a kid, it was not uncommon to hear another kid say, "I got switched last night!" Let me tell you, they didn't mean they got switched at the hospital either, but rather....YEOW!!! Further, the noun meanings transferred to the verb. I guess you could say they were "switched." Okay, back to the word. The noun also gave the meaning "to switch something on or off," or "to divert a train from one track to another." The notion of "swapping" didn't come about until the latter part of the 1800s.

The New Deal Era & Now, Part One

With America mired in arguably the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, there have been lots of discussions about what we should do (or have done) about it. There are those who have said that there should have been no bailouts of any kind; that if you can't survive, oh well. Then there are those who have pretty much advocated federal bailout of just about anything; although I think their numbers are relatively small. During and after the Great Depression, strong emotions were stirred about Roosevelt's New Deal, and with the crisis now upon us, these arguments have been renewed. There are those who have said that both Hoover and Roosevelt intervened in the economy, and that, left alone, things would have corrected themselves. Some, not all, of these folks have even argued that it was government intervention that made things worse. On the other hand, others have argued that certainly Hoover did not do enough, but that even Roosevelt's policies were lacking in sufficient "punch" to reinvigorate the distressed economy.

First, let's recap just what's been going on. "Officially," the recession began in December 2007:

In early 2008, with the many people fearful of what was then a slowing economy, President Bush proposed a program of "rebates" to Americans, and that program began in late spring and early summer of last year. Now, maybe my memory fails me on this, but while I'm sure there were some protests about the program, I don't recall any "tea parties" or calls for the rebates to be paid for by cutting other government expenses (there may have been, but they certainly weren't very loud). Nor do I recall hearing that the President was a "socialist," or that he had a secret plan to make the United States a "socialist nation!" (I do have a bright red shirt, just in case I ever need to blend in.) This was at a time when the federal deficit, having grown by trillions during the previous seven years, was growing even more. The vote for the rebates was:

House of Representatives-385 FOR and 35 AGAINST (25 Republicans-10 Democrats)

Senate-81 FOR and 16 AGAINST (all 16 being Republicans) (Source for vote totals in both houses from GOVTRACK.US)

Then we had many banks teetering on the brink of collapse, several of which were declared by the administration and the Federal Reserve to be "too big to fail." I'm not going to go into each step that took place, but suffice it to say that I guess the "powers that be" decided that "Lehman Brothers," a large investment bank, was NOT too big to fail, and down it went. With this one bank failure, the whole system shook, and I'm sure all of you remember the plunges in the stock markets at various times during 2008, both in America and internationally.*** Remember, this was just ONE bank failure. Essentially up to this point, we had been told by the Federal Reserve, and to a lesser extent, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, that inflation was the potential problem for the United States. Suddenly, one morning I put on the television and there were reports that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Secretary Paulson had called President Bush and top congressional people from both parties to a meeting, where they were told that 700-750 billion dollars (that's billion, with a "B") were needed to buy bad assets from banks, or the country and indeed, the World, was facing "The Great Depression, Part Two." I can't say that these same folks said this, but I know it was said by someone, that "Part Two would be WORSE than the 'original.' " President Bush endorsed the plan. In Congress, a great many Republicans opposed the plan, and it was about a week or more before the bill authorizing the money passed the House and Senate.^^^ It was then signed into law by President Bush. The vote was:

House of Representatives-268 FOR-148 AGAINST (3 Democrats-145 Republicans)

Senate-74 FOR- 25 AGAINST (9 Democrats-15 Republicans-1 Independent) (Source for vote totals in both houses from GOVTRACK.US)

Not long after becoming law, I believe it was Secretary Paulson, with the support of Chairman Bernanke, who announced that there had been a change in plans, and that the money would NOT be used to buy bad assets from banks, but rather it would be directly injected into troubled banks to provide capital. To keep this simple, to the media and to the public, the whole measure became known as "a bailout for banks." There's no question that the decision to change policy AFTER Congress appropriated the money, made an already skeptical public even more hostile. Regardless, hundreds of billions of dollars were funneled into banks, and even into AIG, an insurance company deemed "too big to fail." The government took a financial interest in a number of banks, and in AIG. I believe usually about a third stake in most banks, or at least those "too big to fail," and an astounding 80% in AIG.### The "new" Congress (the 111th) that took office this past January, voted to release the second installment of the "bailout measure."

To be continued.... (A word history is below the notes)

***While I don't remember every person who advocated such, there were a number of people, both politicians and economic "commentators," who took the view that "if you can't make it in the capitalist system, bye bye!" These folks would certainly correspond to those who argued against the New Deal, during and after the Great Depression.
^^^Congress decided to allot the $700 billion in two installments of $350 billion each, with the second part needing another favorable vote before the funds could be released.

### Whether you agree, disagree, or are indifferent to the decisions that were made, essentially by Bernanke and Paulson, in the last couple of months, I've heard comments from some conservatives who act as if the "bailouts" and and "government ownership stakes in companies" all started with the Obama Administration. I just wanted to remind them, in case their memories have failed. There are antidotes to such amnesia; they're called FACTS! And that's not to say that the current administration hasn't followed a similar path as the Bush Administration, it HAS.

Word History:
Switch-Noun-It "seems" that English first acquired the noun form of this word. Apparently it goes back to the Indo Europoean root "swei," which had the notion of "bend." Old Germanic continued with a root word "swih." Old High German developed "zwec," which meant a "wooden peg" which then was used for a target. In modern German, "Zweck" has come to mean "aim, goal, reason for something," and you can still see the association with "target." Low German developed "zwukse," which meant "a long, thin, flexible stick, or twig." (That takes it back to the "bend" notion) All sources mention the Low German dialect spoken around Hannover as being a direct link with the English word, as Hannoverian has "swutsche/schwutsche." Both Flemish and Dutch had, in times past (I could not find modern forms in either language), similar words (Some linguists say Flemish is a separate Germanic language spoken in Belgium. Some linguists classify it as simply a dialect of Dutch.) Anyway, it was picked up in English in the 1500s, and it seems to have been spelled "switz" and "swits," and meant "a flexible twig, but also a thin riding whip." It also seems that English picked up from another cousin, standard German, the "peg" sense of the word. This gave English "switchboard" in the latter 1800s, where in times past an operator plugged telephone lines (like "pegs") into openings. Further, during the 1930s, "switchblade" came from the notion of pushing the switch ("peg") to open the knife blade. Interestingly, a light "switch" might have elements of both meanings, as it certainly is something of a "peg," but the "flexible twig" notion could also apply, as we flip the "switch" back and forth. From what I have seen, American English used the notion of a "switch" to redirect a train from one track onto another.

The verb form will be covered next time.

Whither On Health Care?

Regular readers know that I favor a system that provides health care to all Americans. I also recognize that it will cost money!!! Long ago here, I noted that supporters (mainly Democrats) needed to fess up to the higher taxes that will be needed to pay for such a plan. I also noted that some of those increases could probably be offset by spreading the expenses around. (I'll come to that in a moment) Right now we have what looks to me like a chaotic situation, not only in health care itself, but in Congress over what to do about "the chaos." What is especially troubling to me is that this administration came to power touting health care reform, but when push came to shove, they seem to have abdicated to Congress, just as they did with the "stimulus package." They now look like they've got to get spilled milk back into the bottle, and that is one daunting task. The President's popularity was one thing that seemed to guarantee some sort of reform, but now I'm not so sure. This issue may well be the most studied of any in American society, as it has been going on for many decades. I was a kid when they were talking about it, and now that I'm....ah....37 1/2.....okay....let me get my fingers UNcrossed, so I can proceed. Anyway, it has been going on and on. Over all of those years, the premature deaths and the suffering that could have been prevented will never be known, but I think we all know that the numbers are high.

There seems to be no clear message at this time. I realize politics is politics, but I don't see how you have both "free market" run health care, and some sort of "public" insurance for a segment of the population. At present, we have "free market" run health care. Premiums have tripled in just the last nine years, according to what I've heard on television. The outlook is for more of the same. Out-of-pocket expenses, usually in the form of deductibles or non-covered items, for those with health insurance have risen dramatically, too, even though premiums have tripled!!! Again, from what I've heard on television, take it for what its worth, supposedly these costs have escalated about 60% during the same time period. Polls show that Americans across the political and economic spectrums feel that the system is out of whack.

Just as I noted that "health care for all" will cost more, health care now is costing lots more, and it isn't for everyone! If you're fairly well off financially, you'll probably be okay, no matter the cost increases, but many Americans are not well off financially, and even if they have insurance at present, it is costing them more, and will cost them more next year, and the year after, and the year after that; AND, if they lose their job, they likely won't be able to maintain that insurance themselves. Or, if their employer tries to cut expenses, they may have to pick up a bigger share of the cost, or suffer benefit cuts in their plan. Despite what some may think, I'm not for government being involved in everything, but it has to be involved in some things, since the free market system doesn't always work right either!!! Remember, for three decades we've heard how great free markets are, and now we're in a terrible economic situation, the likes of which we haven't seen since the last free market escapade ended in the Great Depression.

To me, the only way to get this whole thing done is to have "single payer" health care that is administered by the government. I see no reason that free market competition can't still be in place in delivering the various aspects of health care. If you're on Medicare or Medicaid, I'm sure some can tell of horror stories about billing foul ups, etc,^^^ but I'll also bet that people with private insurance can tell you similar stories. Why? Because whether the government or private companies administer things, they have one thing in common....they're staffed by HUMAN BEINGS....failings and all!!!

On the offsets to personal costs and increased taxes that I mentioned above, if for example, you now pay let's say, $7500 per year for insurance, MAYBE you'll only pay $3500 in taxes under a new system, and you'll have NO insurance premiums.*** Why? All taxpayers would then be contributing to "the system," so expenses would be shared. If you own a business and pay most of the costs for your employees, you COULD also see substantial reductions in overall costs; that is, higher taxes, but no insurance premiums. From what I can tell, if we have some sort of "mixed" insurance system; that is, private insurance, but also some sort of public plan, I have a feeling many people will get zapped twice; higher taxes to pay for those unable to afford "free market" insurance, and also higher premiums on their own polices, which seems to pretty much be guaranteed anyway, if no reform is enacted. (A word history is below)

^^^So if you support the current system for other Americans, or want only "free market" solutions, what if we take away your government administered Medicare or Medicaid and put you on a system of "free market" principles? I'll bet you don't like that idea!

***I say "maybe," because the reality is, I DON'T know. For a country as large as the United States, my pocket calculator isn't big enough to handle such figures. To me too, just like with energy prices, there needs to be some kind of temporary cost control until things are figured out. For you Republicans, don't lay an egg; Richard Nixon imposed price controls and the country didn't suddenly fall off the map, and remember, I said "temporary." The greedy will be appalled, because they won;t be able to keep their little hands in things. That's what this all comes down to in the end folks....MONEY!

Word History:
Keen-This seems to go back to the Indo European root "gn." The Old Germanic offshoot had "kan," which also gave English "can;" that is, meaning "able to do." It seems that what became "keen" originally meant "clever, wise, skilled" (as you can see, all with that sense of being able to do something) but also developed a sense in the Germanic dialects of "brave, bold, daring." In Old English is was "cene," retaining those before mentioned meanings. Close English relatives, German and Dutch, have "Kühn" and "koen," respectively, but both have only retained the "bold, daring" meaning. This meaning died out in English, as did the meaning "clever, wise," and it was replaced during the 1300s by the meaning "eager," as "I'm keen to do something," or "I'm not too keen on that." Further, English developed a different take unlike the other Germanic languages during the 1200s, with the meaning "sharp," as in "a keen blade," or even "a keen mind."

"Morning Joe" and Me

Weekdays, I frequently watch a part of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. It has had some of the best discussions I've seen on television about many of the issues confronting the nation. The show appeared a couple of years ago as a replacement for the "Imus Show," which was televised on MSNBC. It is hosted by Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, and Mika Brezinski, the daughter of former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brezinski. There are a variety of regularly appearing participants, like Pat Buchanan and columnist Mike Barnicle, among others, who sit in with Joe and Mika, commenting on some current events and asking questions of guests. Some very pointed questions are often asked of the various guests making appearances on the show, and to be quite honest, at times, things can get a bit chaotic. Unfortunately too, the group can get off topic, at times, not always, leaving a scheduled guest or two with little time to express their views or offer their expertise on what was supposed to be the matter at hand. Frequently these guests are asked if they can stay longer, or return to the show in the future. I'm not particularly fond of the show's tendency to have some participants in New York, and others in Washington. This adds to the "chaos" at times, as participants from both locations begin "talking over" each other.

What I really like are the tough questions that are asked. We NEED this!!! The show is not tilted toward any particular ideology or political party, although Scarborough is a Republican and is not the least bit shy in reminding the audience of his affiliation. He also claims to be a "conservative," although during the early part of the economic meltdown, I heard him "seemingly" side with Pat Buchanan, who has a kind of "economic populist" streak in him. Joe's biggest problem is his "inclination" to interrupt others and sort of monopolize the conversation, at times; but hey, he's a lawyer, what do you expect? He has some ideas I tend to agree with, and some I tend to be a bit skeptical of, but he's a thoughtful guy and, as I mentioned, he asks some tough questions. I just wish he'd asked some of those tough questions when he was in Congress in the 1990s. In fairness to him, he admits that there were mistakes made about economic matters, and I'm not sure he'll admit it, but while he insists he's a supporter of "free market capitalism," I have heard him utter some support for that word so brought into disrepute by "conservatives" in the last several decades...."regulation." Also, one morning, about two months ago, he certainly sided with Pat Buchanan when Pat mentioned "economic nationalism," regarding the auto industry. Joe also tries to boil down the positions of various politicians of both parties. His "what this really means" offerings are usually none too flattering. I like that, even though I don't always agree with his assessment,*** as I often try to do the same thing here, like when I say, "Is America going to provide national care to all citizens, or are we going to say, "The hell with 'em...let 'em suffer or die?" Bottom line folks; that's what it means!

As to Buchanan, I don't often find myself in agreement with him on social issues, but on many economic matters, he's closer to what I believe, although I think he might be a bit too tight-fisted over trade. Further, Buchanan opposed the Iraq invasion, and many of his concerns turned out to be valid. While he's been known for some maverick tendencies, it still could not have been easy for him to oppose a Republican administration on such a crucial matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but I also seem to detect a bit of weakening on some of his positions on social issues. Is it that he sees things differently now that he's a bit older, or is it that he's not a candidate for president, and therefore doesn't need to pander to parts of the electorate for votes? Maybe a bit of both? Then too, Pat was a regular on CNN's "Crossfire" at various times during the show's life, and he was expected to take strong conservative views. Maybe some of this was just for the show, and now that he's not expected to always offer a hard line point of view, he doesn't?

As to Mika, I like her very much, and she seems to enjoy the spirited and tough discussions, but she likes the discussions to be civil. She also seems a bit idealistic, but then again, I suppose it could be argued that some of Joe and Pat's conservative views are idealistic, too. Come to think of it, I suppose all of our views, if carried to their apex, could be considered idealistic. I'd certainly argue that "Reaganism" went too far after Reagan, although I wonder if he had not developed Alzheimer's, would he have supported the continued pushing of an agenda that dismantled so many regulations of business? That pushed the notion of "the government is the enemy?" That let income disparity grow to 1920s levels? Reagan talked tax cuts, but he raised taxes when he thought it necessary. He talked about "gun owners' rights," but he supported the "Brady Bill" after he left office, if I remember right. To me, the smart politician knows when to STOP pushing an ideological agenda. On the old television show "Fantasy Island," guests to the island got to live out THEIR idealisms, usually with bad results for them.

Anyway, Mika preaches against certain foods, especially sweet and fatty fare. Then, I believe it was Mike Barnicle, IF I remember correctly, who asked one guest, regarding possible health care legislation, that if America gets national health care, do each of us then have a "responsibility" to take better care of ourselves. Ah, we're back to the "idealism," which seems a bit like "nannyism," to me. What will we have... the "Nutrition and Exercise Police?" And speaking of Mike Barnicle, I like him a lot too, but at times, he seems a bit intimidated by Joe's strongly enunciated conservative viewpoint on certain issues. I would have liked to have seen him challenge Joe on some things, mainly economic, but then too, maybe he's lying back because its Joe's show?

Then there's Willy Geist, a regular who provides some comic relief for the show. Willy was once a regular on Tucker Carlson's show. Carlson is a kind of libertarian/conservative commentator, who has been on both MSNBC and CNN, and he makes occasional appearances on "Morning Joe."

If you like good political discussions, I highly recommend "Morning Joe." You can always record the show, if it is too early for you. (A "word history" is below)


***Sometimes I'm about to leap off the couch over his comments!

Word History:
Skirmish-I can't find the Indo European root for this word, at present, but "skirmish" goes back to Germanic, and Frankish, a Germanic dialect, gave a form of their word "skirmjan" to French as "eskermiss,"^^^ which itself was the present stem form of "eskermir," meaning "to fence, fight with a sword." So the French notion may have been "defend yourself with a sword." The Germanic meaning had been "to defend, protect," and indeed modern German has "Regenschirm," which means "umbrella;" that is, a cover/defense against rain, and a verb, "schirmen," which means "to protect, to cover." Whether Old English had a form of this Germanic word that may have died out prior to acquiring it from French, I don't know, but Old High German had "skirmen." English acquired "skirmish" during the 1300s from French.

^^^A couple of sources say that Italian got the word from Germanic and passed it on to French.

And The Answer Is....

The answer to the question is..... television channels. With cable and satellite, most households have more than a hundred channels to choose from, but most folks only consistently use about fifteen.

Let's See If You Know

I heard this on the radio one morning a couple of weeks ago, and I couldn't guess the answer. See if you can get it. I'll post the answer in a day or two.

The average American household has over one hundred of these, but only consistently uses about fifteen. What are they?

Some English Words

Word Histories:
Borough-This goes back to Indo European "buhrgh/bhrgh" which meant "high place" (this aspect of the word gave Old English "beorg" and German "Berg," meaning "mountain." Besides this meaning, Old Germanic took a form of the word, "burgs," for "castle, fortress, protected place or stronghold," since most castles were built on high places for their military benefit. These castles provided protection to many people, and became fortified towns in many cases. Old English had "burg/burh," and eventually the fortification aspect began to die out (one source says about a thousand years ago), but the meaning of "town" or "municipality" continued. In some of the American colonies, these "burgs" later became part of larger cities, and thus we have to this day the additional meaning of "a part, community or neighborhood of a city," but also of a larger entity, like "county" in other parts of the U.S. Forms of the word are extensive in the Germanic languages, and as noted, close English relatives German and Dutch have "Burg/burg." (In standard German, all nouns are capitalized) Old Norse had "borg." Virtually all Germanic speaking countries/areas have cities with a form of the word for an ending. The spelling "Pittsburgh," for the city in PA, is supposedly a Scottish spelling, although "Pittsburg," the city in Kansas, uses the more traditional spelling, with no "h." The English form "bury" as part of a city/town name is also a related form, coming from Old English "byrig/burig." French, a Latin based language, with some Germanic influences, uses "bourg."

Town-Old Germanic had "tunan," which meant "fence, hedge." From this developed the idea of an "area enclosed with a fence; a yard, a garden." Further development gave the meaning "enclosed place with buildings and animals and a garden; that is, a farm." (This meaning of "farm" lasted quite a while, and indeed, Dutch, a close relative of English still has "tuin," which means "garden.") In Old English is was "tun," and by the 1200s, after the Norman Invasion, the word had developed into the meaning we still have today. In many cases, it replaced the word "burg." (See "borough" above) The closely related German word, "Zaun," (pronounced "tsown") still means "fence." That is the same basic word in many place names in England with "ton" as an ending. (Of course, many such names were transferred to the New World, too.)

Some Health Care Issues

Health care is about to come front and center into American political life and the “AARP Magazine” has an article by Karen Cheney entitled “8 Myths About Health Care Reform.” I certainly don’t intend to plagiarize, but I thought that I would try to put the gist of some of the topics here, and use direct quotes (in quotation marks) from the article when necessary. I’ll also make some comments here and there; after all, this isn’t called “Pontificating Randy” for nuthin’. It is not my intention to cover all eight topics, and to be honest, some are vague, and will continue to be vague until actual proposals are set down in Congress, giving us more things to argue about…I mean discuss.

The article says that Americans will “spend ….an estimated $2.6 trillion in 2009,” on health care. That works out to “around $8300 per person.” While the article notes that “forty-five million Americans have no health insurance,” I’ve seen figures elsewhere that puts the figure at about 46 million, and though it may seem that I’m quibbling over a million, if YOU’RE one of those people, it matters!!! For those currently covered by some form of health insurance, the article makes it clear that it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll have that insurance in the future, as thousands of companies have dropped insurance for employees just “from 2000 to 2005.” Further, the article notes, those still covered, on average, have had their premiums increase “in recent years…nearly eight times faster than income.”

As to the rapidly increasing costs of medical care, Ms. Cheney cites Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, who attributes new medical technologies, like “MRIs and CT scans,” and their extensive use, plus the “fee-for-service payment system,” where “doctors are paid by how many patients they see…and treatments they prescribe, rather than by the quality of care they provide.” The general gist is, that this system has led to “over treatment.” This part also ties in with a couple of other parts of the article, in which the author says that having “access to lots of doctors… and treatments doesn’t mean you’re getting good care.” And that there’s been a tendency for doctors “to prescribe newer, more expensive medications for high blood pressure when studies show that older medications work just as well, if not better.” Further, the author notes that with so many uninsured, that these folks don’t have good access to preventive medical care. I think this is a really good point.

As to objections by some that health care reform will cost more money, presumably meaning the upfront costs, the author compares this to our changeover from older, less energy efficient appliances to newer, but more expensive ones. Yes, the newer models cost more to buy, but over time they save considerable amounts of money in energy costs, more than paying for themselves. She cites The Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that supports research on health care policy, which says that “health care reform will cost roughly $600 billion to implement, but by 2020 could save us approximately $3 trillion.” To be quite honest, I’m always skeptical about such numbers, since my crystal ball is a bit cloudy today, and because at this time, we don’t know what exact details will emerge from reform. Further, the article cites the Congressional Budget Office as saying that without reform, “our annual health cost will escalate to $13,000 per person by 2017.” (Remember, the 2009 cost is projected to be $8300 per person.)

The author also makes mention that some people will claim that we’ll have “socialized medicine.” YIKES!!! I can see it now…doctors and nurses wearing little red pins on their lapels and carrying around copies of “Das Kapital.” Doctors will pay dues, not to the AMA, but to the SDA, the “Socialist Doctors of America.” Doctors’ offices will be closed for Lenin’s and Mao’s birthdays. Wow! Are we in for it! As Archie Bunker might say, “I don’t want no pinko, Commie-loving doctor putting his cold stressoscope on my chest!” Folks, for those of us old enough to remember the Medicare debate, we’ve heard this nonsense before. Further, I’ve already seen television advertisements that claim, “The government will now come between patients and their doctor.” I’m for discussing all of this stuff, and I’d like to know what the hell that means? What if others were to say, “Insurance companies are coming between patients and their health care?” Or that, “Insurance companies are driving up health costs.” Remember, with insurance companies involved, they’ve got to make a profit on their role in the system.

This is just a little personal story, and I don’t want to say whether its typical or not, I don’t really know, but its worth telling. In 1999 I came down with pneumonia from what started as a sinus infection. I’d seen my personal physician on a Thursday or Friday, when it was still just a sinus infection, but my condition deteriorated over the weekend, and rather than go to the emergency room, I went to a local urgent care center (I drove there on my own). There, the doctor on duty took my temperature, listened to my breathing with his “cold stressosscope,” told me I had pneumonia, prescribed antibiotics, and gave me a bill for about a hundred and fifty bucks. I paid the bill myself, with the idea that I’d be reimbursed by the insurance company. After I returned to work, I filed the claim, and it was denied. The insurance company said that the urgent care center I used had not been approved by them and that I should have gone to the emergency room. (The insurance book I had listed the center, but the insurance company had changed their “approved list!”) So, this was the worst of all worlds. A person with a pretty serious condition going to a local treatment facility and then being told that he should have gone to an emergency room that cost several times as much. How’s that for “holding down costs,” especially when the introduction to the insurance book told people to take personal responsibility to help control costs. (I finally did get reimbursed after I used some language that I can’t use here. “@#$%^&@#$%!!!!”)


Word History:
Audit-This seems to go back to the Indo European root "awiz," which had a meaning of "perceive, make evident." The Latin offshoot was "audire," which meant "hear," with the notion of "hearing" something makes it "evident" to a person. From this came Latin "auditus," which meant "a hearing," from the participle form of "audire." Many centuries ago, accounts were examined and the results given orally, and thus were "heard." It seems that English acquired "audit" during the 1400s. The closely related "auditor" came to English via French "auditour," which meant "a hearer of accounts."

Private Vs. Government, Part Two

I've never argued that government, be it at whatever level@@@, is always great, and I've never argued that private enterprise is always wrong; rather, with both being run by human beings, they are subject to our individual good and bad characteristics. What I have said, and what statistics have shown,*** is that the "rich have gotten richer," while many other Americans have had stagnant incomes, in terms of purchasing power, and many have actually lost ground, some significantly so. The balance has shifted so much to business and wealthy interests (especially toward those stellar human beings dubbed "the investment class;" known to me as "the sit on their ass class"), that its no wonder the economy has taken a dive, especially when all the shenanigans with mortgages and energy prices are taken into account. President Reagan told us that "we have to grow the pie," but when the same wealthy Americans are getting most of the slices, it doesn't much matter how big the pie is to those who can't often afford dessert.

Part of what has happened, in my opinion, is that the free markets really haven't been functioning as they are supposed to function, because of slight of hand; that is, for example, take the accounting scandals of the early 2000s. The "independent" auditors were NOT really independent, as they were cozier with their clients than a whore with a guy who just won the lottery. The books were cooked!^^^ Further, when you look at all of this bonus crap for bankers and other top executives, the idea that this has all come about because of some free market solution is a bunch of nonsense. Companies have directors who are "supposed" to watch out for the interests of shareholders. What it sure looks like, and I'm sure we're going to find out more, is that many of these directors are too close with the executives running these companies. They have allowed the pay and bonuses to run wild for these folks, as some of the execs have taken huge sums, even as the stock prices for their companies were seeing big declines. Nothing like getting to have it both ways! Is this the kind of thing that made American business great? Again, its the mindset that's the thing; the sense of "entitlement" by wealthy execs, and the wealthy directors going right along with it. These overblown egos are at the heart of the whole problem. Its a sickness and should be treated as such. There's just not enough money on this planet to satisfy these ruthless, greedy people. Do any of you doubt that within minutes of the knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, that many of the people of this ilk were already scheming as to how they were going to make money from it?

I've written here before, that most Americans understand our basic system, and we want companies to make money. On the other hand, we also have gotten the feeling that we're being taken. I suppose religious people would condemn greed under whatever guise, but I do think many Americans root for the people who have not been especially wealthy when they suddenly have a chance to come into some money. The problem has been, the folks often making the money, and scheming for more, couldn't spend what they have in fifty or a hundred, or maybe even a thousand life times.

Now, we hold government to a different standard, and we should. "We" are the shareholders in the national entity called "The United States." We're appalled when we read about government corruption, or even the appearance of such, like contracts let to companies with close ties to some officeholder. And of course, let's not forget a term that has been in the news since late last year, "Pay to play." Sometimes the "players" are Republicans, and sometimes the "players" are Democrats, as neither political party has a monopoly on "righteousness," although it seems at times that both vie heartily for top honors in "self righteousness." When corruption in government is uncovered, we get mad, and we should!!! Let me tell you though, these kinds of things go on every day in business all across the country. We're not appalled, even if we know about it, because these are private businesses, but if truth be told, and this is just my opinion, these things are far, far more common in private business dealings than in government. Further, and again just my opinion, a case could be made that many of the shenanigans played by politicians were first "learned" while they were in private business,+++ or at least they got a good tutorial from private business people. My point here is, the notion that private business always operates more efficiently (or honestly) than government is not always on solid ground. I do give private a slight edge, because when confronted with tough choices, they don't have to face voters angry who want certain things for themselves. (Or the voters may want to avoid cuts in certain things.)%%%

One of the other items that has to be tossed into the mix here is, PROFIT. Government seldom strives for profit, although with large ownerships in insurance companies, banks, and auto companies, the federal government may now hope that its investments "pay off." (From what I understand, the "investment" in Chrysler during the 1980s MADE MONEY for Uncle Sam and taxpayers.) I want to point out, the current Democratic administration in Washington didn't invent taking ownership in what had been private businesses in these times, but rather took over the policy from the previous, Republican administration. On the other hand, private business aims to make money; that is, a profit. We're going to hear a lot about this tug-of-war between "private and government" regarding health care in the coming months. There seems to be developing, and I could be wrong, a vague idea of some "private, government" combination on health care at this point. Cutting costs will be the overriding issue, and when the "profit motive" is at play, that's a tough one. AND will we allow the "schemers" and the wealthiest in the country to get the lion's share of any profit in the system? (A "Word History" is below)

@@@ By "government at any level," I mean "federal, state or local," not just federal.

*** Remember too, in twenty of the last twenty-eight years, we've had Republican administrations overseeing the gathering of these income statistics, so no conspiracies here, folks!

^^^ My sincere apologies to the prostitutes of the country for the above comparison. While you may not like them, prostitutes do serve a purpose, something many of these scandalous business executives do not, as they seek only to serve themselves.

+++ When I first entered property management, I was offered a "kick back" if I called certain companies for maintenance service. When I refused and went to the higher ups, they thanked me for my candor, but nothing was done, which tells you what? Hmm, do you think they had some zeroes on their bank accounts due to.....Nah! C'mon Randy! You're too cynical!

%%% There's always been a disconnect among members of the public (according to just about any poll I've ever seen) regarding budget cuts. We want government to cut "waste, fraud, and abuse," (In reality folks, what the hell does that mean?) as long as cuts are made to other regions, states, or communities, and not to our own. I remember a great political cartoon from the early 1980s when budget cutting for Uncle Sam was a high priority. It showed perhaps six people in a circle, each pointing to the person next to themselves, and saying, "Cut their budget."

Word History:
Midge-This word seems to go back to an Indo European word, perhaps "mu," that was simply imitative of the humming sound of insects. The basic root and meaning continued with various offshoots of Indo European, as Greek has "muia/myia" and Latin had "musca" both of which mean "fly." The Germanic branch of Indo European had "mugjon," which may have simply meant "small insect," as the numerous Germanic dialects and their more modern offspring vary in exact meaning. For instance, in German, "Muecke " can mean "midge, gnat, or mosquito," depending on what part of the German-speaking world you're in, and Dutch, "mug," means "gnat." Old English had various spellings for the word: "mygg," "mygge," "mycg," or "mycge." Our word "midget" certainly comes from "midge," but I've seen so many explanations for it, that I don't know what to believe. This one seems possible, as some folks began to call small sand flies, "midgets," during the 1800s. Eventually the term came to be applied to numerous things like cars, submarines, and people.

Private Vs. Government

I guess if we were to take the "extremes" of American economic thought, and then state things simply, one side's argument would be that only the private sector can run things efficiently, while the other side would say that only government (at either the local, state or national level) can give some semblance of fairness to the distribution of goods and services. So we have two words representing two ideas, "efficiency" and "fairness." Like Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and progressives, or Ike and Tina Turner, these two words just can't seem to get along.

Since the days after World War Two, the one side, often referred to as "economic conservatives," made "gradual" headway in the argument to reverse the economic policies put in place during the Great Depression. However, the 1960s brought a fresh batch of economic activism by Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." As part of Johnson's program, the President declared a "war on poverty." As many economic conservatives later liked to quip, "Poverty won!" Johnson's general philosophy didn't end when he left office in January 1969, but rather it was continued by Republican Richard Nixon, as the President established the "Section 8 Housing Program" and the "Environmental Protection Agency," better known to most by the initials "EPA."

Then began a long march to "deregulate" the American economy, begun interestingly, by President Jimmy Carter, who deregulated the airline industry. Then came Ronald Reagan, and thus BEGAN an era characterized by: deregulation, no regulation, free markets always know best, free trade policies that left many American workers and small businesses at a disadvantage, huge trade deficits, the government is the enemy, tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, "Let's not tax those "poor" rich folks, or they won't know where their next million (or billion) will come from, huge budget deficits, a merger mania that concentrated more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer businesses, and thus creating entities that we now call "too big to fail." Reagan's successors each seemingly tried to "outdo Reagan," with even Bill Clinton, the only Democratic president during the era, joining the Republican-led Congress in the dismantling of laws put in place to prevent banking nonsense and by allowing huge corporate mergers to go through. All the while, income disparity grew to levels not seen since the 1920s; that is, for those unaware, just prior to the Great Depression. Many middle class Americans either ran in place or lost ground during this reactionary period.*** This whole era came to a stunning end with an economic plunge the like of which we haven't seen since The Great Depression, and the end is not in sight yet.

Some of the perpetrators of this carnage then turned to...ahh...the enemy; that is, the U.S. Government, to save their behinds AND their bonuses! Of course, now taking taxpayer money from "the enemy" posed no problem for these greedy nincompoops, until that "mean old Uncle Sam" actually wanted to lay down some rules and regulations, especially regarding pay and bonuses for these supporters of "the free market ALWAYS knows best." By the standards espoused by their philosophy, they would have long ago joined the ranks of the unemployed for having run their companies into the ground (I'm sure that philosophy only applies to "the peasantry," however). Then too, these folks would hardly have had to apply for food stamps to keep from starving, as most are worth many millions, some even hundreds of millions, of dollars. This is the mentality, or lack thereof, that we are up against.

To be continued....

*** Remember, purchasing power, not actual dollar amounts are what counts.