It's About Coalitions, Not Purity, Part Forty-Seven

The Chickens Come Home To Roost, But It's Too Hot In The Hen House ... The Financial Meltdown, Part 4

Before getting into further information on the financial crisis that was then developing, the political situation was not at a standstill. 

The 2008 Democratic Party nominating process: the two main Democrats involved were Hillary Clinton, a U.S. Senator from New York, and Barack Obama, a U.S. Senator from Illinois. Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, started the race with a decided advantage, as she was well known, and both she and her husband remained popular among traditional Democratic constituencies, like many labor unions, non-union working class voters, older white voters and moderate Democrats. Bill Clinton had been very popular among black Americans, but the draw of a highly viable man of black heritage, Barack Obama, was a difficult challenge for the Clintons, and it cut into what would have likely been a staunch Clinton group of supporters, and Clinton's likely nomination, had Barack Obama not run for president at that time. On the other hand, many Democratic women voters were immensely excited about Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Besides black voters, Obama had a good deal of support from highly educated voters, younger voters and many liberals. Supporters of both candidates were encouraged by the rough political landscape for their Republican opponents, so that if they could get their candidate nominated, they felt there was a good chance that candidate would win the presidency in November, given the unpopularity of George W. Bush, the then Republican president. Further the 2006 election had given Democrats control of both houses of Congress, leaving Republicans reeling. It would get worse for Republicans.

The early results gave Obama a surprising win in the Iowa Caucus, which temporarily gave him a major boost in the nation's first actual primary election, New Hampshire. In the end, Clinton won a close race in New Hampshire, and the tough quest for the Democratic nomination between Clinton and Obama accelerated. A big endorsement for Obama came from Senator Ted Kennedy and his niece, Caroline, who was the daughter of John F. Kennedy, the president assassinated in November 1963 (Ted Kennedy was the brother of the former president). As the primary and caucus season drew to a close, Barack Obama had a lead of less than a hundred delegates over Hillary Clinton, but Obama then got pledges of support from further delegates, giving him sufficient delegates to win the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August.

On the Republican side, the major candidates were: former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani (a former Democrat, and then independent), Mitt Romney, who was just leaving the governorship of Massachusetts, John McCain, a U.S. Senator from Arizona and Mike Huckabee, who was just leaving the governorship of Arkansas. When the Republican nomination process actually started, Giuliani melted down, then Romney faltered, while McCain and Huckabee became the main remaining candidates. Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus, and McCain won the primary in New Hampshire. After a mixed showing by both Romney and McCain in the following states, McCain pulled out a narrow, but big win in Florida, bringing Giuliani to withdraw from the race. McCain gained major momentum, and Romney soon quit the race, leaving only Mike Huckabee to contest McCain, but the Arizona senator won enough delegates by early March, and the nomination was his.

McCain had been able to draw from various parts of the Republican Party, but more traditional type Republicans increasingly favored him. Giuliani's "major" candidacy never materialized, and Romney's loss to McCain in New Hampshire (neighbor to Massachusetts) hurt him and gave McCain a big boost. Mike Huckabee was supported by many evangelical Christians and very conservative elements, including many Southerners, who fit into both of those categories.

Barack Obama chose Senator Joe Biden of Delaware for his vice presidential running mate, and John McCain chose Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska. Biden, long a member of the U.S. Senate (elected in 1972!), helped Obama with long time Democrats, especially white working class Democrats and independents, and his long experience in government and foreign policy in the Senate, helped to balance Obama's short time in government and on the national stage. Palin proved to be controversial, although she helped McCain with more conservative elements of the GOP, including evangelicals, and she likely also helped with women voters. Palin, however, was not well known nationally, and her introduction to the country made a negative impression on some, and a majority of Americans either felt she was not qualified to assume the presidency if need be, or they felt uncertain as to her qualification to do so. Two significant things happened when Palin did interviews. First, when interviewed extensively on television by Katie Couric, then with CBS, Couric asked Palin what newspapers and magazines she read. Her general response, that she appreciated the media and that she read all of them, brought Couric to ask her to name some, but she couldn't do it. That scene and her seeming lack of knowledge even about John McCain during the interviews, including about his views on the economy, which was reeling at that time, left a negative image of Palin. Secondly, while comics took this out of context, Palin was asked by Charles Gibson (ABC) about what she had learned by living so close to Russia,* and she mentioned that Alaska and Russia were neighbors and that you could actually see Russia from one of Alaska's islands. Comedians, to the delight of Democrats, quickly turned this into Palin claiming that the fact that she could see Russia from Alaska gave her foreign policy experience, something she did not claim, although her answer did seem to say that being able to see Russia was important, but without further explanation.           

So the stage was set for the election of 2008.  

* Alaska and Russia are very close in places, something many people may not know. 

WORD HISTORY:
Parable-"Parable" is related to "parlor" ("room for sitting and talking") and to "parley" (to speak, to converse"). The first part of the word, "para," goes back to Indo European "per/pr," with the notion of "forward, off, away from, beyond, beside." "Para-" is distantly related (through Indo European) to English "for," "for-" and "fore-," all from native English forms from Old Germanic. The main part of the word, distantly related to "ball" (the form meaning, "a dance"), goes back to Indo European "gwele/gwela," with the notion of, "bubble up, rise up, overflow, throw outward or upward." This gave Ancient Greek "ballein," ("to throw"), which produced, "bole," meaning, "a throw, a toss," and the two parts gave transliterated Greek "paraballo," meaning, "a toss beside;" thus, "side by side;" thus, "a comparison." This was borrowed by Latin as "parabola," also meaning "comparison," which then passed into Old French, a Latin-based language. English borrowed the word during the 1200s, initially as "parabol," which became "parable" about one hundred years later, with the meaning, "a story used to compare to another story in meaning." The word has often carried a religious component to it from translated Biblical usage.   

Reform Entitlements For Those 'Moochers,' The Rich

With the nation undergoing seemingly endless battles over the budget, some Republicans have targeted programs they like to call "entitlements;" that is, programs, they say, people feel entitled to receive, with the further connotation that these programs and their recipients are bleeding the country of its wealth and financial stability. Also there seems to be this belief by some that this supposed dependence on government is just somehow awful, but that being at the mercy of greedy businesspeople is just so much better. The 2012 election showed us just what the use of the term "entitlements" meant for Republicans, as their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, clearly spelled it all out in what became perhaps THE defining moment of the campaign, as he spoke to wealthy campaign donors who paid $50,000 a plate for dinner one day at a mansion in Florida.* In his remarks, Romney said that 47% of Americans would automatically vote for President Obama, because they were dependent upon government through various "entitlements." ** Reaction was swift and generally negative, even from many Republicans, who distanced themselves from the remarks, but right wing supporters tended to rally to Romney's defense, with the term "moochers" working its way into the discussion as a term for recipients.

We often now hear Social Security and Medicare mentioned in the context of "entitlements," which is incorrect. Americans pay into both.*** Now you can argue we don't pay enough, or we haven't paid enough, into the programs, or that some Americans receive too much or too little, but these are totally different arguments. The idea with Social Security when it was established, was that if everyone paid in, there would be broad-based support for it, rather than having some sort of "means testing," which would make it more of an entitlement, as everyone would pay, but not everyone would receive benefits. So, very wealthy people, age 65 and up, receive a Social Security check each month, regardless of the fact that they don't need it. By law, they cannot give it back, or cancel it. So has the premise about broad-based support held up? Yes, in the sense that polls show a large majority of Americans support Social Security, but since wealthy people don't need Social Security, even to supplement their incomes, the idea that they will necessarily view Social Security in the same light as the rest of us is mistaken, although there are many wealthy folks, I'm sure, who recognize the need for the program. There are also those who are pretty much opposed to Social Security, and over time, there has been a concerted effort to discredit the program and have people invest money for their own retirement. That assumes people would do so on their own, or that everyone could be an investment genius (if there is such a thing). This takes us back to more survival of the fittest (actually of the luckiest), with some of the true beneficiaries being the big banks and Wall Street investment firms, in general.**** So what happens to people who make bad investments? When they get older, what, do we throw them out on the street or just what should happen to them? With falling or essentially stagnant wages for many Americans over the last few decades, what about people who can't invest much? Let's face it, left on our own, if an emergency pops up, real or perceived, many folks will choose NOT to invest if they feel they need the money at the moment to deal with whatever it is, including necessities like buying the latest IPhone, HDTV or some other gadget. Social Security has been a bugaboo for many Republicans dating back to the mid 1930s when it was voted into existence (many Republicans voted FOR Social Security back then, but there were opponents, including some Democrats, but the two political parties were not as ideologically divided back then). Further, Social Security does NOT contribute to the budget deficit; in fact, if anything, it has helped to mask deficits, as it has run a surplus for a number of years, and Social Security does not get money directly from Uncle Sam's general revenues anyway.***** I point this out only because some Republicans have muddied the deficit waters by saying Social Security has to be dealt with now, perhaps bringing some Americans to the misinformed conclusion that Social Security is part of the current problem, which is totally untrue, something the opponents of Social Security seem loathe to make clear. There will be issues about Social Security in the future, if current projections hold up, and people on both sides of the aisle agree on that. The sooner the potential problems are dealt with is undoubtedly better, but Americans should not be stampeded into changes that are NOT in their, and thus the nation's, overall interest, but are very favorable for wealthy business interests.  

As often happens with me, I intended this to be just one article, but it will take at least another installment. Hey, I'm verbose. That's okay, because these are very important issues, and I seriously doubt many Americans really even understand the basics about the debate, let alone the finer points. So I'll continue in "Part Two." 

* Candidates from both major political parties take money from wealthy donors.

** Mr. Romney said more, but that was the key line, although his further remarks elaborated about people who believe themselves to be victims, who feel it is the responsibility of government to care for them with food, housing, medical care, and "you name it."

*** I believe it is more appropriate to say "Americans contribute to both programs," rather than to say "Americans are taxed" for these programs. Opponents of both programs like to use the word "tax," because of its negative connotation, but we are paying into these programs for our own potential benefit, as well as sharing a common responsibility as a nation. If you have health insurance, I'll bet you don't go around saying, "I paid my tax to the insurance company." Or if you have some type of retirement policy or investment plan, you don't say, "I paid my tax for my 401 K." Also, contributions to Social Security are paid on up to just south of $114,000 in income and not above. All adjusted income is subject to the 1.45% rate for Medicare. Employers contribute an equal share on both rates, but their contributions to employees is a business expense, and the self employed pay the full rate on themselves, but they get to use the "employer amount" as an expense.  

**** I've told this many times before, but it's certainly relevant again here. My father was a staunch Republican, who, like many Republicans back then, criticized Social Security. Then he retired and started receiving his Social Security. A while later the Republicans took over Congress in the mid 1990s and the talk of privatizing part or all of Social Security became part of the national debate. Then my father saw it all VERY differently, even bluntly criticizing Republicans, saying big business people just wanted to get their greedy hands on the Social Security money. My father and I often had ... ah ... disagreements on politics, but in this case, he hit the nail on the head.  

***** Social Security gets money from Uncle Sam, but only because the program holds U.S. Treasury securities, just as anyone holding government bonds does. This means Social Security buys U.S. government debt in the form of these special securities. Interest is paid on the securities. Bonds, whether issued by some government entity or by private companies, are a form of debt for the issuer.

WORD HISTORY:
Dull-This word goes back to Indo European "dhwul/dhwel," which had the notion "to obscure, to dim," and seems to have also been applied to things that caused something to be obscured or dimmed, such as "swirling smoke or dust." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "dulaz," which used the "obscured, dimmed" notion in another manner; that being, "foolish;" that is, "unclear, dimmed thoughts." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "dol," which meant "stupid, foolish, silly." This then became "dul(l)," before finally settling on "dull." The meaning of "dim of mind" took on the figurative meaning "blunt" for knives and other implements, and the primary "stupid" meaning began to recede, although we still use "dull witted." A verb form developed form the adjective, meaning "to lose sharpness or sheen;" thus still today we talk about "colors dulled" by the sun, weather, or washing, usually in the case of clothing. Forms in the other Germanic languages have generally maintained the connection with "unclear in thought" or "in some manner obscured," and as their English cousin, they all once pretty much meant "dimwitted" in some sense:: German has "toll," which usually means "crazy, wild," but has the every day language meaning "great, super, fantastic" (from the idea that when you like something, you go crazy, wild); Low German Saxon has "dull" (angry, fantastic); some Low German dialect has "doll" (mad); Dutch has "dol" (mad, wild), West Frisian has "dwylsinnich" (crazy, wild); Icelandic has "dulur" (secretive; that is, obscuring something). I could not find modern versions of the word in Danish, Norwegian, or Swedish. 

True Debaters

When I was in college, I once got the opportunity to participate in a public speaking contest. It's been so long ago I just forget, but I believe they used the term "festival" to describe the event, but it was a competition in various categories of public speaking. As I recall, a number of people in the "debate" category were also studying law, and certainly being able to hold one's own in a debate lends itself well to becoming a good attorney, and debaters were paired in teams for the competition. Just to make this clear, I was not on the college debate team. I was entered in the competition in the individual category of "oratory," but our debate team coach liked my speech and approached me about being on the team the next year. Up until that time, I hadn't known there was such a thing as a college debate team, but the competition held great interest for me, and some of the debaters were just excellent. They had been given a number of topics (I just forget how many) to gather information about, and they had to be prepared for any of these topics during the competition. And, they had to be able to argue for or against whatever topic was selected. They kept information on index cards and they pulled the cards from a small file box as they needed them during the debate. If I remember correctly, they had to cite their sources in their arguments. I tried never to miss these competitions.

With this being political season and so called  "debates" going on all over the country for various offices, I couldn't help but chuckle when I recalled how the college debaters had to be able to argue either side of an issue, because some of our politicians actually seem to be in a debate with themselves on some of their positions, rather than with their opponent. A perfect example is Mitt Romney on health care. He helped engineer the law in Massachusetts when he was governor there, but now he says he's against the national law. Of course, he still wants to get credit for the law in Massachusetts. Hm, I'd like to see his index cards.

WORD HISTORY:
Debate-This word has two parts; the "de" prefix goes back to Indo European "dwis," which meant "divide into two parts;" thus, "separate, apart from." This then gave its Latin offspring "dis," with the same meaning, also used to intensify an action, and often changed to "des," or the shorter, "de," in prefixes in later Latin-based languages. The second part of the word, "bate," goes back to Indo European "bhau," which meant "to shove/push, to beat." This gave Latin "battuere," which meant "to beat/hit, to fight." Whether the two parts were combined in Latin is unclear, but Old French, a Latin-based language, had "debatre," which meant "to beat down," with the "de" intensifying the "beat" meaning; thus, "to fight," and from this developed the further figurative sense, "verbal argument ("fight") over an issue." English borrowed the word in the 1300s. The noun comes from the verb. 

The Real Whiny "Victims"

Mitt Romney's comments to a group of donors, dare we call them "investors?" I mean that for all candidates, too, not just Romney, so you Republicans don't have to start cussing me out... yet. Let's face it folks, you give five, ten, or twenty bucks to a candidate, you're hardly trying to get something in return. You give ten thousand to a half million or more, you want a return on that "investment." Okay, I digressed. Anyway, Romney's comments about people feeling they are victims and wanting government help, actually "government dependence," he may have said, really struck me. Fact checkers have been poring over all sorts of records to find out just which Americans Romney was referencing. Without wearing out any search engine, let me see if this fits the picture of America's true victims, at least if you listen to them tell it. Do you think he meant the wealthiest earners in the country, none of whom have suffered from the slow economy, but who, in fact, are almost all doing better than ever? Hm, they're always whining about taxes and regulations, but they're making more than ever. "Just give us more money and less regulation, and we'll create jobs." After decades of this same tune, I'm wondering how many verses this song has, although the refrain is the same in every verse. They really seem to believe they are "victims." We all should be so lucky to be such victims. I've got a proposal for these full of self pity victims. I'll change places with you for one year. You don't get to keep any of your millions (or billions); nope, a straight up exchange of positions. If after one year, you hear me whining about how tough I've got it because of taxes and regulations, I'll praise Rush Limbaugh as the greatest guy on earth, no matter how many pain pills it takes ME to kill that pain. Now, everyone shouldn't volunteer at once.

WORD HISTORY:
Victim-The ultimate origins of this word are unclear (see below), but English borrowed the word in the 1400s from Latin "victima," which meant "a living person or animal then killed as a sacrifice to a god or gods." The word then also took on the extended non religious meaning of "someone/something injured or killed." I tend to favor the origin as Indo European "weik," which had the notion of "separate." This idea would then have produced the Latin version, "victima," as well as forms in Old Germanic, including Old English "wig" (long "i," I believe), which meant "idol." German, the close cousin of English, has "weihen," a verb meaning "make holy, to consecrate," while Low German Saxon has "wiehen" (reversed vowels) with the same meaning, Danish has "vie" (consecrate), Dutch has "wijden" (bless), Norwegian has "vigsle" (consecrate) and Swedish has "viga" (consecrate, often in the sense of marriage). I did not find a form in either Frisian or Icelandic, but that doesn't mean there aren't forms, but with a slightly different meaning, or they could be archaic, as forms of the word "holy" actually took over much of the same meaning in many Germanic languages, including English, as we don't really use "consecrate" ^ all that much. As you can see, the Latin and Germanic forms all have something to do with religious rituals, giving credibility to Indo European "weik" as the source. The idea is, "weik" (separate), would have meant in this case "to separate the good, the holy, from the bad, the evil; thus make something holy, worthy of worship." Old English "wig" (idol, a holy object) fits right into that same basic meaning, although apparently, the English form (a noun) was formed AFTER the Anglo-Saxons left what is now northern Germany and established England, and I could not find an Old English verb form,^^ but Old Saxon, the language of the Saxons which remained in northern Germany, had the verb "wihian," meaning "to consecrate, to make holy." By the way, the German form, "weihen," helped give German its word for Christmas, which is "Weihnachten;" that is, "consecrated or holy night."  

^ "Consecrate" was borrowed into English from Latin. It literally means "make sacred," and it replaced a number of words used in English for "to make holy, make sacred," most of which are ancestors of modern English "bless" and "holy."

^^ Presumably the English noun "wig" was derived from a verb form, as the other Germanic languages all had verb forms.

Dangers For Both On Medicare, Part Two

In the 1960s when Medicare came into existence, opponents virtually screamed "the end of civilization is near." All of this because elderly people would receive government supported health care. Now, all of these years later, a person 65 is not really seen as elderly anymore, as life expectancy has increased because of improved medical treatments, and at least in part, because of the delivery of those improved treatments to older Americans by Medicare. To some, Medicare's success has added to its problems. By helping people live longer, more people remain on Medicare (and Social Security) for a longer period of time. To hear some critics, maybe we all should just die by 65 to save them the worry of having to deal with the problem, especially when the modern critics are funded by super wealthy interests who are more concerned with making more money, than saving people's lives. Any volunteers to die by 65 out there? Don't everyone shout at once now! Ah, what, you've all got laryngitis? Well, this isn't working out too well, so let's try this: how about you folks over 65? Any volunteers to kick the bucket... I mean, pass on, as soon as possible to keep from bothering the money makers? Let's face it folks, this is not realistic, and I hope you make sure your tootsies touch Mother Earth every day. On the other hand, I have read about some who want certain procedures or care eliminated.or curtailed, especially for the terminally ill, or for people who are much advanced in years, with the idea that we can't afford such things. The interesting thing is, some of the advocates for this seem to be some of the very ones who screamed about "death panels" when end of life counseling was proposed. Okay, let's limit the things you say you want, but who will decide who gets what treatment? Who will tell Ms. Daisy, an 88 year old, she can't have such and such a treatment to ease pain  or help help her walk better? Call them "death panels" or whatever you want, someone will have to make those decisions. And guess what else, there won't be total freedom, since someone will tell us the answers! You want total freedom? Go far away from EVERYONE, all by yourself; then you can have total freedom. Add just one person, and your total freedom stops at that other person's nose.

Of course, when it suited their purpose, these same opponents used the term "death panels" to scare people into opposing President Obama's health care reforms. Yes, the President's plan has flaws, just like anything involving human beings. Let's face it, we're imperfect, or things just don't go the way we intend for them to go all the time. My guess is, when humans crawled out of caves and made huts for living, someone said, "Yikes, huts catch on fire or let in the elements. I told you we should stay in our natural habitat." I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm damned glad most humans persisted over the millenniums and that we have graduated to the homes we have today, especially with air conditioning, 'cause its been a hot summer!

Now more seriously, in Part One I said the Republicans can't win the current debate on Medicare the way it is framed. Yes, there are problems with Medicare, but most Americans want the problems dealt with, and they don't want their family or friends to die early or suffer needlessly or go totally broke on medical care because some politicians are too ideologically driven to work on those problems, or others are too worried about making more money they couldn't spend in a hundred or more life times. On the other side of this, people must recognize and acknowledge that there are problems, and that those problems are not going to go away with just a little dab of plaster here and a touch up paint job there. There are structural problems. These structural problems are the already noted increase in the age of the population, as well as aspects of the health care system that are increasingly outdated. While I wasn't all that crazy about the final Obamacare package, I also noted back then that it was a start. Like it, not like it, the President brought a discussion to the fore about a VERY complex issue that cannot be fixed in the blink of an eye. And there will be problems with implementing the new health care law. We damned humans just can't do anything right! All of this ties together though; the health care law, Medicare, how to deliver health care to Americans, how to control costs. And the idea that we can have a nation without laws is nonsense. The debate over what those laws should be is certainly valid, but there must be laws, and we must have revenues to pay for things we want, not just health care.

The Republicans now support a voucher system for Medicare, that, if passed, would go into effect in ten years. Under this system, seniors would receive a specified amount to "help them buy" private medical insurance. The key here is "private" insurance. Remember, if you own an insurance company, you will need to MAKE money, a profit. The problem becomes, what if good insurance costs more than the voucher? The answer is, you'll have to make up the difference. Further, you'll have to be astute enough to know which plan is best for you. In other words, you're on your own and good luck! This plan, based so much upon the private sector for such an important part of our lives, makes the Republicans highly vulnerable, in my opinion, and that makes Paul Ryan a big gamble. Further, the Republican plan would supposedly give American seniors the "option" to remain in "traditional" Medicare. The "fear," correctly or incorrectly, mainly by Democrats, is that basically healthy well off seniors will be able to buy the insurance they need, leaving poorer or less healthy seniors in a withering Medicare program. Unfortunately to me, this all comes back to "we're not a country, we're a group of individuals only interested in our own personal lives. I've got mine, the hell with you! Oh....unless of course there's a war, and you just better support it and be patriotic, because we'll bomb just about any country that doesn't like us. And we LOVE the term 'boots on the ground,' it sounds so John Wayne-like.' "

Now, the Democrats have potential problems too. If they make the defeat of the Republicans the only issue about Medicare, they stand to face a backlash when changes to the program in fact need to be made, which will be sooner, rather than later. As I've noted before, the question really is, who, or which party, do you want adjusting Medicare? Trust me, changes will need to be made, not because of the laws of the political right, not because of the laws of the political left, but because of the laws of arithmetic. By the way, one idea floated by some, I'm not sure if by Republicans or by Democrats, is that doctors and other health care providers be paid fixed salaries to limit payments for extra tests, procedures, or prescriptions, which are considered a part of the escalating cost problem.

I know I'll be visiting this issue again, but currently I'm doing a little research on the overall Medicare system (and the health care system in general), especially as compared to other nations. Do some nations do certain aspects of health care or care for the elderly better than us? If so, how do we change? If nothing else, I hope these articles make you think about this issue. .
 
WORD HISTORY:
Frank-This is the word meaning "speak freely, bluntly," as in "a frank statement."  The adverbial form is "frankly," as in the famous Rhett Butler statement to Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone With the Wind," "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Also there is a less common verb form used about free mail, in America often used more about political representatives sending free mail to constituents and called "franking privileges." The various forms go back to the Germanic tribe, the Franks. This name then goes back to Old Germanic "franko," which meant "javelin, spear, lance,"^ but its origins beyond that are unknown. The Franks conquered much of what is today France, a country thereafter named for them. As the conquerors, they were "free men;" thus, the term "Frank" came to be associated with "being free," including the related "speak openly." English borrowed the term in the late 1200s or so in that context from French, but Old English had both "Franca," as the name for their kindred Germanic tribe,^^ and "franca," with the "spear" meaning. The notion of "speak openly" eventually even took on the more emphatic meaning "speak bluntly or outspokenly."  

^ This is not a certainty, as the Franks also used a throwing ax called a "francisca/franciska." Some linguists, therefore, believe the two weapons were named FOR the people who used them, rather than the people being named for one of their weapons.

^^ It is believed by a number of historians from archaeological evidence that some Franks participated in the invasion of Britain in the mid 400s A.D. by the Germanic tribes the Angles and the Saxons, which also included some Frisians, another Germanic tribe.

Dangers For Both On Medicare, Part One

Mitt Romney's selection of Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate has made Medicare THE issue of the moment, and perhaps THE issue for the duration of the campaign. The way the debate is now structured, the Republicans cannot win this debate. Medicare is a hot-button issue, if there ever was one, and with so many voters either already on the government-run medical plan, or planning to be on it in the next few years, the concerns for the program are considerable. I can remember 40 or more years ago when rising medical costs were a concern, a concern that has not abated since those times. We have an aging population, and with those aging members of society comes more strain on the nation's Medicare program. Since Medicare's enactment into law, medical care has changed considerably, with fewer hospital stays and more medications prescribed. This change in care prompted the addition of a prescription drug benefit in a law passed in 2003. While the new law was a recognition of the changes in medical care, it was not paid for, and it should be noted, Congressman Ryan voted "Yes" on this legislation, and (then) Senator Joe Biden voted "No," in a final vote in the Senate on November 25, 2003.

In some fairness to both Ryan and Biden, it is always easy to say someone voted "for" or "against" a particular proposal, and that's what you get in political ads, but I like to know why legislators vote the way they do on any given issue, if possible, and there were philosophical differences between many Democrats and Republicans on the issue of Medicare prescription drug coverage, although as I noted above, the demographic shift to an older electorate made members of both parties want to do something about a drug benefit. "Generally" speaking, however, Democrats had been pushing for such coverage in some form, while Republicans had been either against it, or lukewarm at best, always seeking a way for private insurance to be involved. Many Democrats argued that by passing an unfunded liability onto Medicare, it would weaken the overall system, in spite of the good intention of covering senior prescriptions. Further, the added cost of the program was much in debate, with the Bush administration's cost estimates revised higher, AFTER the bill was passed and signed into law. Republicans pushed for incentives to get insurance companies to offer Medicare patients private insurance, and further they got a provision included that prevents the government from negotiating for lower prices from drug companies. Nine Republican senators voted against the bill, "generally" because of its cost, and eleven Democrats voted for it, although "generally" with misgivings about some shortcomings. The final bill barely passed in the House of Representatives on November 22, 2003 by a vote of 220 to 215. So while there was general consensus within both parties to offer prescription drug coverage to seniors, the philosophical split of the role of government and free markets was still there, although obscured by political self interest (that age demographic I keep mentioning).

With a subject like Medicare, it will take at least another article. So, more in Part Two, including the "dangers"  to both parties.

WORD HISTORY:
Yoke-This word is used for the (usually) wooden device fastened around a pair oxen for drawing a cart or wagon; and it is also used for the pair of oxen. It traces back to Indo European "yeug/yewg," which had the notion of "join together, unite." This gave its Old Germanic offspring the derived "yukan," meaning "yoke." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "geoc," with the same meaning. A verb form "geocian" was derived from the noun and meant "to put a yoke on animals, primarily oxen." The "ge(o)" letter combination in Old English was not pronounced with a hard "g," thus the sound was similar to our more modern "y," which is also what happened to the Old English form of "yellow," also spelled with a "geo" beginning. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Joch" (German "j" is pronounced like English "y"), Low German Saxon has "Jück," Dutch has "juk," West Frisian has "jok," Danish has "åg," Icelandic has "ok," Norwegian has "åk," and Swedish has "ok." Notice the North Germanic languages (Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Swedish) have lost the beginning "y" sound.

The Right Gets Its Man: Paul Ryan

This was first published in August 2012


The American right wing now has its man, Paul Ryan, as the number two pick on the GOP ticket. Since the economic collapse of the Great Depression and the resultant relatively mild attempts to rein in certain business practices, and the attempts by government to provide basic protections for America's elderly, sick, disadvantaged and poor, the political right has fumed at how to return things to a society totally committed to greed and survival of the fittest. Little by little over the decades they have succeeded in getting laws changed and programs modified to accomplish their goals, at times with complicity from some Democrats. Shame! Shame! One of the major bugaboos of the right has been Social Security since its inception in the 1930s. Why well to do people are so obsessed with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is beyond me. I understand the desire of many Americans, including some of the very wealthy, to keep these programs solvent, but there has been a desire by the hard right wing in this country to destroy these programs, then giving themselves control over a vast new source of income, as if they didn't have enough money already. Don't be fooled by the right wing propaganda that without their proposals being enacted, these programs will go under. Let me tell you, if these programs ever go under, we won't have a country anymore. The idea of privatization and insurance vouchers should scare the absolute hell out of you, no matter your political affiliation. Some members of the GOP are finally bailing out, like one of our local more moderate Republicans, Cleveland area Congressman Steve LaTourette. Understand, these programs are not perfect and they will require adjustments, but whom do you want in charge of the surgery, Doctor Kildare or Jack the Ripper? Remember folks, the wealthiest Americans are NOT hurting. Many are making more money than EVER, and in an economy that is growing moderately, at best. They are working and spending huge sums to convince YOU to effectively dismantle programs that can help YOU at some point in YOUR life. Don't let them get away with it!
 
Now one Paul Ryan, a congressman from Wisconsin, has been picked by Mitt Romney as his running mate. Polls show many Americans, perhaps you're one of them, don't know who Ryan is, but let me tell you something, they're about to find out; hopefully not the hard way; that is, if these two win the election. Democrats need to spell out what Ryan stands for, plain and simple, no exaggerations or falsehoods. Just tell it like it is. The man has a long record in Congress and in speaking engagements and interviews, and his budget ideas are well known to people who follow politics to any degree.Political parties and philosophies tend to eventually go too far, and the political right, financed by wealthy interests, is at that point in my opinion, having dodged a bullet with the severe economic downturn coming so late in George W. Bush's term. They were then able to shift the focus of a part of the country away from themselves, and onto the new President, Barack Obama, who provided them with a new angle of attack, RACE! Criticizing Obama does NOT automatically make a person a racist or bigot, but it gave the right a floor of political support at a time when their own money grubbing itself was under attack. I personally know a couple of people who were Democrats, but who voted Republican for the sole reason (by their own admission) that Obama was a man of color. The charges against Obama of "socialism" are almost comical, coming from a bunch that bet on mortgage-backed securities. Why? Because they wanted the profits for themselves, but when the thing blew up, the losses then became something to be shared by EVERYONE; "government help;" that is, the very "socialism" they claim to detest.* "Too big to fail" became the new slogan to garner support.

I've noted here before, "if" the climate ever dramatically changes and Americans turn on these greediest of the greedy, it will not be pretty. Reason and common sense go out the window in such circumstances. The potential irony is, the wealthy interests have used "globalization" to extract more wealth for themselves, but unlike years ago, they will have nowhere to hide. Popular movements have sprung up all over the world in support of a fairer society in their respective countries, and in reaction to their own monied interests. Once events shift, where will the wealthy be able to run for protection? China? That would be THE ultimate irony, but China is not exempt from popular movements either, as events since the late 1980s have shown, and my guess is, there is a seething volcano of popular discontent in China. Still, what an irony! The wealthy right wing running to Communist China! Hm, I'll bet Romney would say he's been for Obamacare all along, and that it's real name is "Romneycare."

* This is "socialism" in the sense that everyone (taxpayers) would pitch in to help save their rotten asses.  

WORD HISTORY:
Rise-The origins of this word are uncertain, but Old Germanic had "risanan," which meant "to go up, to stand up." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "risan," meaning "to rise, to stand up." This then became "risen" (long "i" sound), before the modern form. The noun form, most common in the topographical "elevated terrain," developed from the verb. The Old Germanic notion of "stand up" gave many of the modern Germanic languages the meaning "travel," from the idea of "rising from sleep to make a journey." German has "reisen" (to travel), Low German Saxon "raisen" (to travel), Dutch has both "rijzen" (to rise, to climb) and "reizen" (to travel), West Frisian has "reizgje," East Frisian "risa" (rise, arise), Swedish "resa" (to travel), Norwegian "reise" (to travel), Danish "rejse" (to travel) and Icelandic "risa" (to rise, arise).

Careful of Political Ads And The Dodge Game

Just a thought about political ads from candidates or supporters from both parties where the candidate says, "I'm for," or "I'm against," and then some generalized statement that ends with "for more information go to www.," and then some website address. If you have a plan or program, tell us what it is in your ad, don't refer us to a website most people will never visit. These things make me suspicious right away. Maybe they should say, for more info, go to my site: "I Don't Want You Tell You What The Hell I believe." Remember folks, just because we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press doesn't mean you're going to have an informed public. This is a battle for information. Politicians by their very nature try to keep from saying in any detail what they intend to do if elected. They may even have to be pressed for generalities. I realize they're afraid they will alienate elements of the electorate, but we need to know more than "Romney will stand up to China." What the hell does that mean? Or, "I know how jobs are created." What the hell does that mean? Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, and the host of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, was recently talking about how Romney just won't answer questions, and remember, Joe is a REPUBLICAN! Now, in fairness, Romney may give us more info as time passes, and it is the duty, in my opinion, of the American press to get answers from him. Our system isn't perfect, but there has to be more info than "I know how jobs are created."

In this coming election, Romney has more on him to tell us what he believes and what he wants to do, because, "essentially," we know what Obama believes and what his programs have been. That's just true of incumbents for any office; they've been there, so we know "most" things about them. Further, incumbents can sort of hide behind "I can't discuss sensitive foreign policy details," and that may or may not be true, but it is what it is, and the public is sort of in a "Catch 22;" if we get details on a sensitive issue, it could lead to a foreign policy problem, but if we don't have information, we can't decide if the issue is really sensitive or not. The President also has to be pressed on what he wants to do in a second term. It isn't enough to say "I want to be your President again."

WORD HISTORY:
Reek-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain and it seems to only appear in Germanic, although Lithuanian has a similar word, but it could well have been borrowed from Germanic (Lithuanian bordered on Germanic dialects/languages for centuries). Old Germanic had "reukanan," which meant "give off smoke." This gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "reocan," with the same meaning. This later became "reken," before the modern version. The notion of "smoke" giving off an odor to clothing, hair, etc. gave the word a secondary meaning of "smell badly," the meaning that has persisted into modern times in English and some other Germanic languages. There was once also a noun form in English "riec" (Old English) and later "rek," before "reek," but it is now archaic, although such forms in other Germanic languages are still much in use: German has the noun "Rauch," which means "smoke," and the noun "Rauchen," which means "smoking,"^ the verb "rauchen," meaning "to smoke," but also "riechen," which means "to smell (in the sense 'use your nose,' not the sense 'smell badly'),"^^ and the noun "Geruch," meaning "a smell, a scent, an odor;" Low German has the noun "Rook" ("smoke), as does Dutch ("rook"), but Dutch also has "reuk," ("scent, odor"), and  the verb "roken" ("to smoke"), as well as "ruiken" ('to smell," in the sense "with your nose," but also "smell badly/reek"); West Frisian has "reek" ("smoke") and the verb "rikje" ("to smoke"), as well as "rûke" ("to smell," although I'm not sure how much this is used anymore); Danish has "røg"  ("smoke") and the verb "ryge" ("to smoke"); Norwegian has "røyk" ("smoke") and "røyke" ("to smoke"); Swedish has "rök"  ("smoke") and the verb "ryka"  ("to smoke"); and Icelandic has "reykur" ("smoke") and the verb "rjúka" ("to smoke").

^ You've perhaps seen "Rauchen Verboten" signs in movies or pictures set in Germany. It means "No Smoking," literally "Smoking Forbidden" (Verboten=forbidden and again shows the close relationship between the two languages).
 
^^ In German (and others, see more above) the notion of smoke making things smell gave rise to the verb meaning "to use your nose to detect odors, scents;" that is, "how an odor is detected," rather than the result of "the odor given off," as in English "reek."

The Struggles of Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is in the lead in delegates, at present, for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, but he has struggled, and he continues to struggle. In the end, he may well get the nomination, but then again, he could lose, as the hardcore conservative base of the GOP seems determined to keep him from leading the Republican ticket. These are the "true believers," folks, not that every opponent of Romney belongs to that crowd, but these people want to take the country back to some distant century, but I'll be damned of I can figure out just which century that is. I'm certain if they had lived in the 1920s they would have basked in the limited government of the "Roaring Twenties," but they would not have taken responsibility for the economic collapse of the early 1930s. They undoubtedly would have stomped about and pouted over the New Deal and they would have called Franklin Roosevelt any number of names, with "socialist" being the kindest and least likely to be censored. I say this, because that's what they've done in recent times. Since Ronald Reagan they have loved deregulation of anything and everything, and they have been in absolute love with tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest segment of the American population. When the system they built came crashing down, they denied virtually any responsibility, and they stomped and pouted over bailouts of banks and auto companies, and they called President Obama any number of names, with "socialist" being the kindest and least likely to be censored (Hm, this passage sounds familiar). They blamed Obama for the bailouts they hated, conveniently forgetting the bailouts were started under the administration of George W. Bush.

Now they want Obama's head, and they're willing to pay lots of money to get it, but they want a "true believer" to handle the ax, not a guy from Michigan, or is it New Hampshire, or is it Massachusetts? Where the hell is this guy from, anyway? At times he reminds me of the Howells in "Gilligan's Island," where in one episode they bring out a suitcase full of keys to all of their homes. Success is one thing, excess is another, and we'll have to see which tag truly fits Mr. Romney, but that's for another day. The "true believers" don't believe Romney, and if I were a "true believer," I suppose I wouldn't either. He's changed numerous positions on issues, not the least of which is on health care. In case you're not a "true believer," Obama's health care reform is like a red flag to a bull to the "true believers." Ole! Romney was governor in Massachusetts and signed into law (near) universal health care coverage, complete with mandates; the first of any state in the nation. He has now twisted and turned so many times over the law, if you sprinkled salt on him, he'd be a pretzel. Instead of owning up to the law and making the case that it was the right thing to do, any flaws notwithstanding, the former governor says if he's elected, he'll act to repeal Obama's reforms. Do as I say, not as I did.

Success, Not Excess

If polls are correct, many Americans want wealthy Americans to pay more taxes. Why? First and foremost, self interest; we don't want to pay more taxes ourselves, something I'm not sure is completely realistic.* It's like with government budget cuts at any level, "don't cut things that benefit me, cut my neighbor's stuff." Secondly, many Americans, in my opinion, feel the system is now so controlled by wealthy interests, there has to be something done to try to smooth out the tremendous income disparity that has developed over the last thirty plus years. Does this mean Americans want to tear down the system and start over? No, not in my opinion. Does this mean Americans want to penalize success? Not most Americans, in my opinion, BUT all taxes are NOT created equally. Many of us think of income taxes deducted from our pay (federal, state and local), or paid in estimated amounts during the year, when we hear the word "taxes." The thing is, almost half of Americans don't pay ANY federal income taxes now (Social Security and Medicare are different). There are many reasons for that, including tax cuts and various deductions, but that's what statistics show. As I noted, not all taxes are created equally. This is not to pick on Mitt Romney, but he's in the news, and I have a sneaking suspicion his tax returns represent a pretty good segment of the tax returns for many very wealthy Americans. Romney has made millions in the last couple of years, but almost all of it was through investments, not through actual work. It is not without reason I have dubbed such over the years here, "the sit on their ass class." Most statistics show the majority of Americans are working harder than ever just to tread water, or to keep from going over the cliff. Now, does this mean I'm against investors? No, but this stuff has gotten ridiculous. Tax rates on this "unearned" income have also been cut substantially. As I've noted here many times, they make this money off of money; demanding higher profits (thus higher dividends) from companies who then slash labor costs through lower wages and benefits, jobs shipped overseas to low wage countries, job cuts or through all of the above, to provide greater income to the "sit on their ass class." AND they have gotten away with it! Why?

Unions are, and have been, in decline. Like magicians who get the audience to focus on one thing to distract attention from the "magic" they intend to perform, wealthy interests have gotten many Americans to believe they will be better off if unions are busted, and goods and services are provided by cheaper labor, thus cheaper prices. The thing is, this has created a race to the bottom. Folks, if this continues, YOU likely will be affected, if you haven't been already, even if you are not a union member, or if you are a small business owner (customers with less money!). As I've noted here before, you don't always have to agree with a particular union stance on an issue, but you had better think about where we would be if we didn't have unions to provide a floor under wages, benefits, and working conditions. Just recently, Newt Gingrich proposed dismantling child labor laws by saying children should be employed as janitors. Where does most of the income go from all of the job cutting, wage cutting? To the wealthiest Americans.

Just as an example of how misguided some Americans are, in 2008, then candidate Barack Obama was campaigning in a neighborhood in northern Ohio. He talked with one Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (with a name like that, he could have been part of my series, "The German Question"), who questioned the Democratic candidate about his tax policies, noting that he was going to buy a plumbing business that made about $275,000 a year. Obama noted that he wanted to "spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody," and the future president truthfully noted that anyone making over $250,000 a year would have their taxes go from 36% to 39%. Wurzelbacher became famous as a McCain supporter dubbed, "Joe the Plumber.** Media found court records indicating "Joe" made about 40 grand a year. So, 3% (the increase in taxes from 36% to 39%) of the approximate business income of $275,000 is $8250. If you made 40 grand a year and someone offered you a chance to make $275 grand, would you say, "No way! I'm not going to pay that extra $8,250! My mother didn't raise any fools!" This is how distorted the thinking is among many Americans, and the wealthy interests love it. Here was an average American standing up for them, but not for himself!

* Taxes have been cut so much, by both parties, it's no wonder the country is almost literally coming apart at the seams. Now, am I saying government is efficient? No, I'm not saying that. The argument over how to make government more efficient is a valid one, but this almost religious zeal of tax cuts for anything and everything may lead us to hear the claim how tax cuts might well cure the common cold. It's human nature to want to get things for the cheapest amount, including taxes, but we have to pay for things, including quality. Just a question: Is there a connection between the tax cut mania started by President Reagan and the overall decline of the country? I'm not saying there is, I'm just asking.

** Not to belittle "Joe," but to add some clarity here, Wurzelbacher was not entirely honest with Obama about buying the plumbing business, as discussion about such had taken place six years prior. Court records showed he made about $40,000 two years earlier, but that he owed about $1,200 in back income taxes to the State of Ohio. Further, he was not a licensed plumber.

WORD HISTORY:
Plumb-The origins of this word are uncertain, although some believe it is from a non Indo European language in the Mediterranean area, as both Latin and Greek have forms of the word. It traces back to Latin "plumbum," which meant "lead" (the metal), the plural of which was "plumba." Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited the word as "plombe," which meant "lead used on a line to weight the line for underwater sounding." English borrowed the word from French in the late 1200s. The profession "plumber" originally simply meant "worker in lead," and later, because lead was used in most water lines, it took on the modern meaning, "a worker who installs or repairs water lines."