So you want compromise? Really?

We've heard a lot in recent years about how the American electorate is tired of the partisan bickering and polarized politics.   Americans want cooperation to resolve problems and an end to the current governmental paralysis, or so we've been told.

Recently, Scott Brown was elected to the US Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts.  Brown is an avowed conservative and the election sent shock waves across the country.  It was the end of the filibuster-proof 60th vote in the Senate.

This week, Senator Brown voted with the Democratic majority (along with 4 other Republicans) in favor of a job creation bill endorsed by the Obama Administration.  Was that vote the beginning of a new "bipartisan" approach?   Was it evidence of an attempt to move away from polarization?   Nah, fuggedabout it.

Almost immediately, Senator Brown was castigated in the blogosphere and elsewhere by the right-wing ideologues that helped elect him.   He was a traitor to the cause, a RINO (Republican in Name Only), and doomed to be a one-term Senator.

I don't know; perhaps the shock is because so seldom have we seen any cracks in the GOP wall in the Congress.   The GOP is much more disciplined than the Democratic Party.  

I'd prefer to think that this vote by Brown is an indication that he might actually be an "independent" Republican and will vote for his State's interest over party interest.   That would be a breath of fresh air.

Break Up Insurance Monopolies

Well, as long as I'm talking petitions today, here's another one worthy of consideration: the insurance anti-trust exemption that the industry has enjoyed since 1945. This online petition is from Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont and urges the Senate to follow the House of Representatives action in bringing this out of control industry under anti-trust regulation.

America's health insurance companies have had a pretty sweet deal for decades.

They can pick and choose their customers and deny coverage to anyone with any sort of pre-existing condition -- even acne.  They can get away with dropping your coverage when you get sick.

And since 1945 they have been exempt from the antitrust regulations that apply to nearly every other industry, rules that protect consumers from anti-competitive business practices
like price-fixing.

That's why I just sent a letter to my Senators, supporting the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act, which will eliminate the outdated insurance industry antitrust exemption, and force health insurance companies to compete fairly -- like virtually every other business in America.

Please join me by sending a letter to your Senators as well: click here

More US Jobs Moving To Mexico (Update)

Back on 08/31/2009, I posted about the decision of the Whirlpool Corporation to close an Indiana plant and move the operation to Mexico, with a loss of more than a thousand American jobs.   The closure date is now approaching and the AFL/CIO has a petition online to ask Whirlpool to reconsider:

The Whirlpool Corp. plans to start closing its refrigerator plant in Evansville, Ind., on March 26. The refrigerators now manufactured at this plant will be produced in Mexico, eliminating 1,100 local jobs. Meanwhile, Whirlpool--the world's largest home appliance maker--enjoys healthy profits and has received a $19 million economic matching grant that should be creating jobs here in America.

Join me and sign this important petition today and tell Whirlpool: Keep It Made in America.

Wonder Where The Money Went...

Remember that old toothpaste jingle?   "You'll wonder where the yellow went when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent?"  Well, you should wonder where the money went, when your government raided the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF).  Hum it to the tune of "Liar Liar Pants On Fire."  

This article outlines what happened to $1.37 TRILLION of SSTF money during the GW Bush Presidency.   Despite his repeated campaign promises, the President raided the fund throughout his entire Administration, creating a giant hole in the ability of the fund to meet it's obligations to America's workers.

But nothing changed with the inauguration of George W. Bush. Despite his pledge to protect the Social Security money, Bush spent every dime of Social Security surplus revenue that came in during his presidency. He used it to fund his big tax cuts for the rich, and much of it was spent on wars.

Bush maintained his fictional support for protecting these funds until 2005, until his new goal was privatization of the Social Security System. Perhaps he thought admitting the fund was depleted might bolster his push to hand the rest of it to Wall Street.  

The most upsetting part of this story is the fact that while the media covered the status of the Trust Fund fairly closely during the 2000 Presidential campaigns, the story failed to generate interest later, when the American people thought the raiding was history and the fund was safe.   It most assuredly was not.
 

More U.S. Jobs Lost

Well, another American company has decided to "reduce expenses" and is closing down a local call center in favor of outsourcing the operation.  Redbox is the outfit that maintains soda machine size vending machines all around the country, at which you can rent $1 videos.  The business model is killing Blockbuster and even attracting attention from Netflix. 

While news reports aren't specific about the plan, it's not a big stretch to conclude that "outsourcing" means "off-shoring."  The loss of Illinois jobs will be probably be matched by an increase of jobs in Manila, Bangalore, or Singapore.  The number of jobs involved isn't huge, about 200, but this is a company that is making money and planning expansion at the same time they're laying off employees. 

To those who say that this is "good business decision" and it's just "global economics," all I can say is that's baloney.   The global economy does not have to be the only game in town.   If we as Americans want to preserve jobs and livelihoods of Americans, we need to start complaining loudly when companies treat us like this.   Especially when the company, like Redbox, is making money.  At the very least, American workers (those that are still employed) should not be patronizing such businesses.  As long as we just take this abusive corporate behavior without complaint, the employment opportunities will just get worse.

If you'd like to express your lack of appreciation to Redbox, drop them an email.

Voting By The Uninformed

One of the benefits of a democracy is that the citizens have the right to vote.  One of the problems in a democracy is that the citizens have the right to vote even if they have no clue what's going on.   For the entire history of our Republic, there have been countless elections in which very few voters bothered to vote.  

Even during the formation of the nation, as school kids used to be taught, the populace didn't form a clear majority for a particular direction (we learned 1/3 of the late 18th century population was "loyalist" or pro-British, 1/3 were in favor of independence, and the remaining 1/3 didn't care one way or the other).  This break-down apparently arose from the writing of John Adams, and he may have been talking about support for the French Revolution, not the American dispute.   Other estimates give the Loyalists and Patriots in the neighborhood of about 20% each, and the fence-sitters the vast majority (around 60%) of the white population.  The point is, even during the American Revolution, there were a huge amount of people who either had no opinion or couldn't make up their minds. 

So should we expect everyone to vote in elections now?   I think not, and so does Stan Zegel in this Chicago Tribune article.   He makes the case that our country is better served by only encouraging the informed voters to actually vote, and let those who are uninformed stay home.  

In Illinois, the State that gave the nation Rod Blagojevich our impeached ex-Governor, and the State that recently had an unknown pawnbroker win the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor (only to resign from the nomination after his criminal history became public), and the State that is rapidly lurching toward bankruptcy, the recent primary election had something less than 1/3 of the eligible voters show up.


Zegel rightly points out that "that the quality of the vote is more important than the quantity of votes."  He talks about the fact that a candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor drew 7000 votes, despite the fact that he dropped out of the race before election day.  That implies that there were at least several thousand voters who weren't paying attention closely enough to understand who was still in the race.  In fact, the winner of that race still hasn't been determined, and the votes for the non-candidate are far greater than the distance between the top two candidates.

Those random or uninformed votes are four times greater than the margin separating the first- and second-place finishers in the cliffhanger race. In fact, carefree voting possibly changed the outcome of the race.

I have to agree with Zegel; our elections, whether they are for national or local offices, are too important for all of us to be decided by the ignorant.   We should be encouraging people to become informed and knowledgable about issues, rather than simply encouraging everyone to "get out and vote."

Most citizens have the right to vote, but not everyone should exercise that right. Voting is too important to be thrust into the hands of the uninformed...For good government we need good voting. The best election is not one in which everyone votes, but one in which everyone who voted cast fully informed ballots.

Who's The Security Risk?-Part 3

Ah, the continuing saga of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) inability to distinguish between al-Qaida operatives and 8 year old kids from New Jersey.  The NY Times article tells the story of Mikey Hicks, who has spent countless hours of his young life getting frisked at various airports, starting when he was about 2 years old.   Yes, two years old.

Why are our security systems so rigid?   Any system, security-related or other, that is so rigid that it does not allow for judgment and adjustment, is so brittle that it will break and fail when it's most needed.   

The underlying problem may be that the people implementing our security systems are unwilling to make risk assessments and make decisions accordingly.   That is, we should expect that someone at the airport can look at an 8 year old kid and make a judgment that this is not the same person whose name is on the watch list or whatever damn list TSA is using (after the near disaster in Detroit on Christmas Day, we learned that our government has a number of "lists," only one of which actually prohibits alleged "bad" people from getting on commercial airliners).   The multitude of such "lists" is also part of the problem with our security.

Someone at TSA ought to be able to take a chance on determining that an 8 year old kid from NJ, or an 80 year old grandmother from wherever, is not a security threat.  I doubt you'd see the Israelis spending so much time frisking Cub Scouts.