Update no.506

Update from the Heartland

No.506

22.8.11 – 28.8.11

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
--The trauma of Air France Flight 447 (AF447) [391, 493] will continue for many years to come. Lines have been drawn in this accident, more so than in most other aircraft accidents – pilots versus designers, airlines versus manufacturers. We still do not know the root cause or contributing factors. However, the facts we do know so far point to a combination of natural and induced factors. We do not yet know how the automated system may have contributed. I do not like the posturing and finger-pointing that has clouded this investigation as we wait for the full investigation report with the flight data.

A friend and frequent contributor passed along a relevant column by retired columnist Charlie Reese that the Orlando Sentinel first published on 3.February.1984, updated and reprinted as Charlie’s last column upon his retirement on 29.July.2001, and updated again recently as reflected in the Iraq / Afghanistan sentence. I have not been successful with proper corroboration and confirmation, but sufficient collateral references suggest the text and citation are valid. I have written numerous times of the same sentiment. Charlie’s words are far more cogent and enlightening; thus, I take the unusual step of reprinting directly for your cogitative pleasure.
“545 vs. 300,000,000 People”
by Charlie Reese
“Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
“Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
“Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
“You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
“You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
“You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
“You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
“You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
“One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
“I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
[Federal Reserve Act {[PL 63-043; 38 Stat. 251] [416]]
“I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
“Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
“What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
“The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
“It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
“If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
“If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
“If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
“If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
“There are no insoluble government problems.
“Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like ‘the economy,’ ‘inflation,’ or ‘politics’ that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
“Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
“They, and they alone, have the power.
“They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
“Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
“We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!”
No truer words were ever spoken. Spot on, Charlie. Now, when are we going to do something constructive to end this national nightmare? We cannot vote out the Supremes, but we can most certainly vote out everyone else, and hopefully find representatives who will more loyally act on behalf of We, the People. The obstacles are greater today; now, we must overcome corporations, massive law, accounting and special interest groups, and other huge concentrations of money, all buying influence and laws to protect their particular income stream from the Federal government. I think we can all recognize and acknowledge that if we were billionaires, or even just millionaires, or we were tax lawyers and accountants, or all the others who feed at the public teat, we would aggressively advocate for maintenance of the status quo – protect the income we receive by the largesse of Congress. Unfortunately, most of us are not so blessed; we loyally pay our taxes, so that Congress can give it away to the uber-rich. Eventually, we will see reality and take appropriate action.

News from the economic front:
-- Moody's downgraded Japan's sovereign debt rating from Aa2 to Aa3, due to its “large budget deficits and the build-up in Japanese government debt since the 2009 global recession.” Moody's joins the other major ratings companies Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings, both of which rate Japan's sovereign debt at AA- with a negative outlook.
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the U.S. economy is recovering and the nation’s long-term prospects remain strong, while short-term progress would remain slow and jerky. He said, “The growth fundamentals of the United States do not appear to have been permanently altered by the shocks of the past four years.” Bernanke also took this shot at the political convulsions we have endured for the last six months, “The country would be well-served by a better process for making fiscal decisions.” I must add a “well, duh!”

Comments and contributions from Update no.505:
Comment to the Blog:
I think your (and many people's) concept of "choice" is seriously over-simplified. I commend to you the new definition of addiction by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) found at http://www.asam.org/. The ASAM study defines addiction (to whatever) as an organic brain disease. While I see the definition as lacking emphasis on the spiritual/emotional side of addiction, it is still very important to note the function of brain chemistry and structure on behavior. Indeed, study of the brain in general (neurology) has shown many fascinating connections to behavior and emotions. Please study at least some of this material before you blithely dismiss poverty as a "choice."
My reply to the Blog:
I am not sure I understand. Are you suggesting poverty is an addiction, and thus biological – a predilection, if you will? On the ASAM FAQ page, they say, “Addiction is about what happens in a person’s brain when they are exposed to rewarding substances or rewarding behaviors, and it is more about reward circuitry in the brain and related brain structures than it is about the external chemicals or behavior that ‘turn on’ that reward circuitry. We have recognized the role of memory, motivation and related circuitry in the manifestation and progression of this disease.” I am just not able to follow this path to the discussion of poverty. Please take another pass at making your point.
. . . round two:
“The point was only partially about poverty, although addiction does make people poor and keeps them there. The point was that addiction is one example of the over-simplified use of the concept of “choice,” an idea that is very appealing to a great many people who have never experienced whatever situation they are discussing. In most cases, they have not studied it in any depth either.
“To return to the poverty issue, saying that poor people often choose to remain in poverty, however one defines it, does not follow except in the foreign situations you refer to when you dispute the US definition of poverty. There are necessarily reasons of some sort that Americans do without adequate food and shelter, and dismissing them as the person's ‘choice’ does nothing to either explain or alleviate them.”
. . . my reply to round two:
While my poverty definition concern applies more to indigenous tribes and such, it also applies in this Grand Republic. Poverty is not addiction, in my opinion. As you note, addiction does contribute to poverty, and often as a consequence, to crime as a by-product of that poverty coupled the physiological desire to feed the addiction. I propose to break that cycle by allowing the addict to be an addict without poverty or crime, until he decides he has had enough and wants to change his life. The short, succinct version: I have no interest in helping those who do not want help or are not willing to contribute to the society that is helping them. You are, of course, correct; some who are stricken with genuine poverty did not choose to be so or seek to remain so afflicted. Our challenge is finding those who qualify for assistance AND are willing to return that generosity to the society that helps them. I simply urge us not to cast too broad a net without conditions. I did not intend or believe the causes of poverty were simple or easily dismissed. Like most things in life, the poor must decide to change their condition; if not, there is nothing we can do to help them. Further, I see no purpose served in subsidizing a middle class lifestyle for someone who is unwilling to work, or to learn. The bottom line is, we cannot help those who do not wish to be helped, and we should not help those who will not contribute to society.
. . . round three:
“We are in agreement at some levels. However, I object to the notion that "subsidizing a middle class lifestyle" is now or has ever been an objective or result of welfare programs in this country. I have been poor the majority of my life. As a result of that, I know many poor people and I have not seen anyone receive anything approaching a middle-class income or result from welfare programs except in a few short-lived incidents of gross and illegal manipulation of the system. Those people get turned in by other poor people.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Your objection is reasonable and appropriate if my comments were applied to all citizens who need / use public assistance. However, I was simply amplifying my suggestion for the need of filtration in qualification. Not all citizens availing themselves of public assistance are good people, who follow the rules. I simply advocate for respect . . . respect for the generosity of the State. Further, I did not say anything about income but rather lifestyle . . . Cadillacs, flat-screen TV’s, booze, neglecting their children, God knows what-all. If no welfare recipient abuses the system and all of them follow the rules, then there should never be a problem. I simply seek a proper quid pro quo for the public treasure. I do not nor do I have any intention to condemn or disparage good citizens who truly need help. Respect is bi-directional.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)