Few of us, no matter how qualified we are in our particular field of expertise, would think we could step in an operating room and perform surgery, or design a bridge to support the weight of traffic, or step right into almost any other field of expertise and be competent without a long training period.
But when it comes to politics the world is full of people who think they can step right in and be competent.
This creates a real problem, because getting elected is pretty easy if you have money, some degree of public speaking ability, and attractiveness. But being competent at steering the country is a job that requires a broad base of knowledge and understanding in widely diverse subjects like economics, psychology, history and law.
The last few years the political world has been full of people that made a lot of money in business who think that means they can successfully run a government. The problem is, business is easy. Oh you have to work hard and make tough decisions, but figuring out what decisions to make is relatively easy because you have one goal to focus on - what will make money? What really sets people apart in the business context is ruthlessness. If laying off 2000 people is what will make the most money, you have to be able to do it without letting the impact on those people affect you.
Politics can be that easy if your a dictator. Your goal is your own self interest, with little concern for the powerless.
But in a democracy there is no such simple goal to govern your decisions. Idealists would say you should do what is best for everybody, but often every choice is a choice between helping one group at the expense of another group. So democracy ends up being a more benign version of a dictatorship - whoever has power gets their way at the expense of others.
Since 1908 there have been 18 Presidents. 8 were lawyers - Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, FDR, Nixon, Ford, Clinton and Obama. 7 came out of a business background, ranging from Warren Harding, who owned a newspaper, to Herbert Hoover the mining engineer, to Harry Truman, with his brief fling as a haberdasher, to Jimmy Carter the Peanut farmer, Ronald Reagan the actor and Union President, and the two Bushes with their oil industry interests.
Here is a list of Presidents and their vocations:
William Howard Taft - Rep - 1909-1912 - Lawyer
Woodrow Wilson - Dem- 1913 to 1920 - Lawyer
Warren Harding - Rep - 1921 to 1923 (died in office) - Newspaper owner
Calvin Coolidge -Rep - 1923 to 1929 - Lawyer
Herbert Hoover - Rep - 1929 to 1933 - Mining Engineer
FDR - Dem - 1933 to 1945 (died in office) - Lawyer
Truman - Dem - 1945 to 1953 - briefly business (retail) but lifelong politician
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Rep - 1953 to 1961 - Career Military Officer
JFK - Dem - 1961 to 1963 (died in office) - In the military in WW II but aiming at politics his whole life.
LBJ - Dem - 1963 to 1969 - briefly teacher - lifelong politican
Nixon - Rep - 1969 to 1976 - Lawyer / politician - made his name as a prosecutor
Gerry Ford - Rep - 1976 to 1977 - Lawyer/politician
Jimmy Carter - Dem - 1977 to 1981 - Navy, Peanut Farmer
Ron Reagan - Rep - 1981 to 1989 - Radio Sports announcer, actor, union rep
Bush Sr.- Rep - (1989 to 1993) - Economics/Investment.banking/oil/politics
Clinton - Dem - 1993 to 2001 - Lawyer
Bush Jr. - Rep - 2001 to 2009 MBA - Biz and politics
Obama - Dem - 2009 to -Lawyer
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Statistics and light posts
There is an old joke about people using facts like a drunk uses a light post - for support, not illumination. In the February 23, 2012 Republican debate Rick Santorum made a statement that is a perfect example of how statistics can be used the same way.
The former Senator stated that the defense spending was not the problem with the Federal deficit, that entitlements were the problem, because only 16% of Federal spending was on defense. That is so twisted it made my jaw drop. This is a former Senator - is he cynically manufacturing misleading statistics to support his political position, or does he really not get it?
Here is what he is either hiding or ignoring - Congress has borrowed money from working people for decades to fund tax cuts for wealthy people.
Here are the facts: There are two main sources of tax revenue for the United States. Payroll taxes and Income taxes. Payroll taxes are what is taken out of all of our paychecks every month for social security, medicare, unemployment insurance and other similar programs. In other words, all those programs that actually impact ordinary working citizens are funded by payroll taxes. The bulk of the payroll tax is to cover Social Security and Medicare. To my knowledge in my lifetime payroll tax income has always exceeded the expenditures on these programs and in fact generally run big surpluses. (I am not sure about how unemployment insurance taxes and expenditures stack up over time)
These payroll tax funds were supposed to have been trust funds - the money could not be used for other purposes, but Congress started raiding the trusts funds years ago, in large part to close the big holes in the Federal budget blown by tax cuts on income taxes. Defense spending has for decades equaled about 50% of income tax revenue. The remaining 50% pays for all the other things the Federal Government does. Basically for decades the Congress has not imposed enough income tax to cover the costs of government and they have covered it up by using payroll tax money, or running a deficit. So Senator Santorum's 16% figure was arrived at by looking at the total Federal budget, and then laying the blame for the deficit on the part of the budget that has actually paid for itself over the years.
I don't know which scenario is more worrisome. That former Senator Santorum doesn't understand these distinctions, or that he is quite comfortable manufacturing misleading statistics to make a misleading debating point.
The former Senator stated that the defense spending was not the problem with the Federal deficit, that entitlements were the problem, because only 16% of Federal spending was on defense. That is so twisted it made my jaw drop. This is a former Senator - is he cynically manufacturing misleading statistics to support his political position, or does he really not get it?
Here is what he is either hiding or ignoring - Congress has borrowed money from working people for decades to fund tax cuts for wealthy people.
Here are the facts: There are two main sources of tax revenue for the United States. Payroll taxes and Income taxes. Payroll taxes are what is taken out of all of our paychecks every month for social security, medicare, unemployment insurance and other similar programs. In other words, all those programs that actually impact ordinary working citizens are funded by payroll taxes. The bulk of the payroll tax is to cover Social Security and Medicare. To my knowledge in my lifetime payroll tax income has always exceeded the expenditures on these programs and in fact generally run big surpluses. (I am not sure about how unemployment insurance taxes and expenditures stack up over time)
These payroll tax funds were supposed to have been trust funds - the money could not be used for other purposes, but Congress started raiding the trusts funds years ago, in large part to close the big holes in the Federal budget blown by tax cuts on income taxes. Defense spending has for decades equaled about 50% of income tax revenue. The remaining 50% pays for all the other things the Federal Government does. Basically for decades the Congress has not imposed enough income tax to cover the costs of government and they have covered it up by using payroll tax money, or running a deficit. So Senator Santorum's 16% figure was arrived at by looking at the total Federal budget, and then laying the blame for the deficit on the part of the budget that has actually paid for itself over the years.
I don't know which scenario is more worrisome. That former Senator Santorum doesn't understand these distinctions, or that he is quite comfortable manufacturing misleading statistics to make a misleading debating point.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Conservatives, Religion and the First Amendment -
Rick Santorum recently said he felt "like throwing up" when he heard a speech where John Kennedy stated his commitment to the principle of maintaining a rigid wall between religious belief's and politics. He went on to say he doesn't believe the separation of church and state is absolute, and apparently that is not an uncommon view among religious conservatives.
Santorum is one of the candidates prone to talk about the Constitution being right up there with the Bible as holy text. It makes me wonder if he ever really uses either document for anything other than to provide support for his personal ambitions.
When the 13 colonies got together to draft a constitution first they drafted the body of the Constitution which addresses the organization of the Federal Government and divided up the powers between the State governments and the Federal Government. Then, specifically to protect individual liberty from the powers of the State, they drafted the 10 amendments. The very first amendment addressed religion, saying the Government shall neither establish, or interfere with a religion. The 13 colonies were largely populated by people and their descendants who had fled Europe to a remote, wild and dangerous continent to escape governments that used Religion to coerce behavior. The basic goal of the first amendment's religion clauses was to insure freedom from religion enforced by the state.
When you look at political issues with religious overtones that are prominent today, religion isn't the victim. What you find are religious conservatives trying to use the power of the state to coerce women into not having abortions. Or trying to use the power of the Government to deny gay citizens rights that are available to all other citizens, like the right to serve in the military, or legally form a couple for a partnership in life.
It seems like some religious conservatives are so committed to their beliefs they can't tolerate the notion the constitution forbids using government to impose their beliefs on others. Which is really odd when they profess to be Christians, since the Constitution is entirely consistent with what Jesus taught.
Jesus recognized there were laws of man, that we enact to run our own affairs among one another, and laws of god. What made him a revolutionary in his day was that he preached a strict segregation between the two. In Jewish law God's law was to be enforced by men, Jesus's message was that sin was an issue between the individual and God. Unfortunately this was so revolutionary he had to choose his words carefully to avoid arrest, so you actually have to read his words and think about their implications. Think about John 1:3 where the officials of the Temple brought a women caught in adultery to Jesus. They sought to get Jesus to say something that would be heretic so they could arrest him. They confronted him and said the law of Moses says the women should be stoned to death, so what did he say. He avoided arrest but made clear his point, not by saying Moses was wrong, but by saying why Moses was wrong. He told them that whoever had never sinned should cast the first stone.
2000 years later we still have candidates for President (and Religious leaders) loudly proclaiming to be Christians who have not grasped the distinction between mans law and gods law that is enshrined in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. They are, like the Temple officials who confronted Jesus, still trying to usurp Gods power to judge that people are committing sin and use the power of the state to coerce what they deem to be right behavior.
Santorum is one of the candidates prone to talk about the Constitution being right up there with the Bible as holy text. It makes me wonder if he ever really uses either document for anything other than to provide support for his personal ambitions.
When the 13 colonies got together to draft a constitution first they drafted the body of the Constitution which addresses the organization of the Federal Government and divided up the powers between the State governments and the Federal Government. Then, specifically to protect individual liberty from the powers of the State, they drafted the 10 amendments. The very first amendment addressed religion, saying the Government shall neither establish, or interfere with a religion. The 13 colonies were largely populated by people and their descendants who had fled Europe to a remote, wild and dangerous continent to escape governments that used Religion to coerce behavior. The basic goal of the first amendment's religion clauses was to insure freedom from religion enforced by the state.
When you look at political issues with religious overtones that are prominent today, religion isn't the victim. What you find are religious conservatives trying to use the power of the state to coerce women into not having abortions. Or trying to use the power of the Government to deny gay citizens rights that are available to all other citizens, like the right to serve in the military, or legally form a couple for a partnership in life.
It seems like some religious conservatives are so committed to their beliefs they can't tolerate the notion the constitution forbids using government to impose their beliefs on others. Which is really odd when they profess to be Christians, since the Constitution is entirely consistent with what Jesus taught.
Jesus recognized there were laws of man, that we enact to run our own affairs among one another, and laws of god. What made him a revolutionary in his day was that he preached a strict segregation between the two. In Jewish law God's law was to be enforced by men, Jesus's message was that sin was an issue between the individual and God. Unfortunately this was so revolutionary he had to choose his words carefully to avoid arrest, so you actually have to read his words and think about their implications. Think about John 1:3 where the officials of the Temple brought a women caught in adultery to Jesus. They sought to get Jesus to say something that would be heretic so they could arrest him. They confronted him and said the law of Moses says the women should be stoned to death, so what did he say. He avoided arrest but made clear his point, not by saying Moses was wrong, but by saying why Moses was wrong. He told them that whoever had never sinned should cast the first stone.
2000 years later we still have candidates for President (and Religious leaders) loudly proclaiming to be Christians who have not grasped the distinction between mans law and gods law that is enshrined in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. They are, like the Temple officials who confronted Jesus, still trying to usurp Gods power to judge that people are committing sin and use the power of the state to coerce what they deem to be right behavior.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Faith
We are hearing a lot of talk about Faith this election season.
Faith is necessary to allow us to make decisions about our life in matters where there is a lack of definitive factual data. We often have to rely on faith to make decisions because some things are unknown or unknowable. The exact nature of God is a big unknowable. But whatever Gods exact nature, we are endowed with a brain and I think it is because we are supposed to use it.
Unfortunately, for many people these days it seems like "Faith" has become an excuse to ignore data, or as a shortcut to avoid thinking about complex issues, or disturbing their preconceived notions.
Faith is necessary to allow us to make decisions about our life in matters where there is a lack of definitive factual data. We often have to rely on faith to make decisions because some things are unknown or unknowable. The exact nature of God is a big unknowable. But whatever Gods exact nature, we are endowed with a brain and I think it is because we are supposed to use it.
Unfortunately, for many people these days it seems like "Faith" has become an excuse to ignore data, or as a shortcut to avoid thinking about complex issues, or disturbing their preconceived notions.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Some facts pertinent to Drug Policy
Facts selected from an article in the Economist, June 4, 2011. pp 70-71, which was reviewing the findings of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a group that includes the ex-presidents of Mexico, Brazil, Columbia and Switzerland as well as officials from the UN and some former US officials. The findings called for deregulation of all drugs and experiments with legalization of drugs, begining with cannibis.
Findings - for the period from 1998 to 2008 drug consumption continues to rise throughout the world. The US Federal Government spent $15 billion in 2010 on drug control, another $25 billion on other public spending related to drug control. Campaigns to drive Narcos out of one country just drive them into another.
Giving out clean needles reduces greatly reduces the incidence of HIV (comparing countries with clean needle programs with those without such programs). Switzerland and the Netherlands have demonstrated that prescribing heroin to to addicts reduces the total number of addicts as it cuts the tie between pushers trying to get people hooked on drugs and casual customers. Decriminlaizing cannibis in in Western Australia and Portugul had no effect on consumption but saved lots of money, and when England tried it for a few years, consumption dropped. A study looking at different states in the US found no link between the level of enforcement and number of drug users.
Findings - for the period from 1998 to 2008 drug consumption continues to rise throughout the world. The US Federal Government spent $15 billion in 2010 on drug control, another $25 billion on other public spending related to drug control. Campaigns to drive Narcos out of one country just drive them into another.
Giving out clean needles reduces greatly reduces the incidence of HIV (comparing countries with clean needle programs with those without such programs). Switzerland and the Netherlands have demonstrated that prescribing heroin to to addicts reduces the total number of addicts as it cuts the tie between pushers trying to get people hooked on drugs and casual customers. Decriminlaizing cannibis in in Western Australia and Portugul had no effect on consumption but saved lots of money, and when England tried it for a few years, consumption dropped. A study looking at different states in the US found no link between the level of enforcement and number of drug users.
Friday, March 2, 2012
The Audacity of Hype
Republicans have taken to referring to President Obama as the "food stamp President" claiming he chooses dependancy over personal initiative. Their audacity is astounding in the face of simple basic facts.
Republicans controlled government policy from 1995 when they took over both house of Congress until 2009 when Mr Obama took office. During that 14 year span they controlled both houses of Congress for 12 years and for the last 8 years they had a Republican President. The housing bubble burst in 2007 after 6 years of complete Republican control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The country began losing jobs in April of 2007. The ensuing financial meltdown gathered steam into 2008 until the collapse of Lehman brothers and the bailout of the financial markets began in 2008.
Mr. Obama was sworn in January of 2009. Between April of 2007 and the date Mr. Obama was sworn in the country had lost 4.6 million jobs. Mr. Obama clearly didn't cause the loss of those 4.6 million lost jobs. Blaming Mr. Obama for the staggering economy we find ourselves in like blaming a firefighter for not rebuilding the damage to your house as he fights the flames. No human can stop a once in a generation financial meltdown on a dime. Obama has seen more people on food stamps during his Presidency because he inherited a disaster from 14 years of Republican policies that left millions of Americans with no jobs, houses lost to foreclosure and life savings decimated by the financial collapse.
Yet the architects of the great recession point the finger at Obama.
Republicans controlled government policy from 1995 when they took over both house of Congress until 2009 when Mr Obama took office. During that 14 year span they controlled both houses of Congress for 12 years and for the last 8 years they had a Republican President. The housing bubble burst in 2007 after 6 years of complete Republican control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The country began losing jobs in April of 2007. The ensuing financial meltdown gathered steam into 2008 until the collapse of Lehman brothers and the bailout of the financial markets began in 2008.
Mr. Obama was sworn in January of 2009. Between April of 2007 and the date Mr. Obama was sworn in the country had lost 4.6 million jobs. Mr. Obama clearly didn't cause the loss of those 4.6 million lost jobs. Blaming Mr. Obama for the staggering economy we find ourselves in like blaming a firefighter for not rebuilding the damage to your house as he fights the flames. No human can stop a once in a generation financial meltdown on a dime. Obama has seen more people on food stamps during his Presidency because he inherited a disaster from 14 years of Republican policies that left millions of Americans with no jobs, houses lost to foreclosure and life savings decimated by the financial collapse.
Yet the architects of the great recession point the finger at Obama.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
How Big business Republicans use Christians for their own purposes
In the 1920's the Republican party used strong Christian support for prohibition (and drugs it should be noted - the war on drugs was started in the 1920"s) to grab control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Although big business in general could care less about alcohol abuse, the Republican party took a strong position years earlier favoring prohibition, and had played a big part in pushing through the Constitutional amendment in 1918. Although by 1922 the crime problems inherent in any kind of prohibition of activities some people enjoy had begun to become apparent, the Republican party platform pledged absolute support for prohibition to pull in the Christian vote and continued to use prohibition as a source to get Christian voters riled up and active. In the meantime the Republican Congress undermined regulations that protected workers, consumers and, in the end, the health of the economy. After the 1929 Stock market crash and a couple years of the great depression Christian voters turned back to voting for what made sense for them economically and in 1932 the voters handed both houses of Congress and the Presidency to Democrats. A year later prohibition was repealed.
60 years later history began repeating itself. Younger Christian voters with no memory of the great Depression or the events leading up to it began putting personal moral beliefs over their economic self interest by voting for Republicans as long as they promised to overturn the Supreme Court limitations on regulating abortions, and to defend marriage from homosexuals. Again big business Republicans saw a tool they could exploit to grab control of the levers of government and in 1996 took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 + years. By continuing to exploit voters emotional feelings about abortion and gays they held onto power for 10 years, during which they once again undermined laws that protected homeowners, public safety and fair treatment for workers. They set in motion the forces that caused the housing collapse in 2007, the financial meltdown in 2008 and the ongoing economic difficulties that will probably be with us for the better part of a generation.
The country would be better off if Christians spent a little less time trying to impose their moral beliefs on others and a little more time learning about how to avoid being exploited by the folks who care only about money.
60 years later history began repeating itself. Younger Christian voters with no memory of the great Depression or the events leading up to it began putting personal moral beliefs over their economic self interest by voting for Republicans as long as they promised to overturn the Supreme Court limitations on regulating abortions, and to defend marriage from homosexuals. Again big business Republicans saw a tool they could exploit to grab control of the levers of government and in 1996 took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 + years. By continuing to exploit voters emotional feelings about abortion and gays they held onto power for 10 years, during which they once again undermined laws that protected homeowners, public safety and fair treatment for workers. They set in motion the forces that caused the housing collapse in 2007, the financial meltdown in 2008 and the ongoing economic difficulties that will probably be with us for the better part of a generation.
The country would be better off if Christians spent a little less time trying to impose their moral beliefs on others and a little more time learning about how to avoid being exploited by the folks who care only about money.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)