It's Easy To Criticize But What Would You Suggest?

In many areas of life, we repeatedly hear individuals who are critical of others, often blaming the other for many different woes. While it is rather easy to criticize and complain, I always ask the individual doing the criticizing, what he would suggest as an alternative, and how he would suggest it be implemented? You would be amazed at how rarely the criticizing person responds with a plan of his own, but generally then continues criticizing even more.

Criticism without an alternative plan is nothing more than rhetoric and laziness. Instead of merely criticizing, let me know what part or parts you like, and which you do not, and why. Let me know what the objectives that you wish to achieve might be, rather than merely reciting the particulars of your objections.

I have never seen a perfect plan. The greatest line I have ever heard related to any plan was the character played by George Peppard in the "A Team," Hanibal, who lit up his cigar after an idea worked out as planned, leaned back and said, "I love it when a plan comes together."

This is often seen most obviously in the political arena. In times when things are not going nearly as well as most people would like, especially regarding domestic issues, but often also related to foreign affairs, the party and the politicians out of power or control generally "jump on the bandwagon" to criticize and blame the party in power for all the woes. While it is certainly legitimate to oppose someone's political position, and very often warranted, I believe it serves very little purpose to so without having a plan or a vision.

Unfortunately, it appears that many lack vision. Some are myopic, seeing things only narrowly, and not looking at the big picture. Some have a selfish vision, what I like to call "Lazy Vision," where they only see things as to how they are directly impacted. Yet others suffer from "Convenient Vision," adopting a point of view the same way an ice cream store has the "flavor of the day."

Next time there is something or someone you disagree with, don't just complain. If it means anything to you, and you really want to see it changed, take the time and the effort to fully understand the issues, all the complexities, ramifications and realities, and then "fight" for a better way to do it clearly, concisely and in detail. The politics of rhetoric, blame and apathy need to finally come to an end.

The Fine Line Between Politics And Entertainment

Over the last few decades, the United States has witnessed a major transformation in its political decision making process. Probably because of the internet, 24 hour news channels, and numerous other factors, it seems that the media has become far more than merely a reporter of the news and politics.

Sarah Palin became a hero to the Tea Party, much because of the "homey" feeling she transmitted over the airwaves, and a feeling by many that she was "just like the rest of us." After John McCain and her defeat in 2008, Ms.Palin has become somewhat of a media celebrity, appearing as a regular on the Fox News Channel, and soon to release her book, which has already recorded huge numbers of pre-sales.

Recently, talk show host Glenn Beck led a conservative rally in Washington DC. Hundreds of thousands of people attended, and the media covered it extensively. Seemingly in response, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert held their "sanity" rally in the same area, attracting another large crowd. This, too, was covered extensively by the media, even though both Stewart and Colbert described their event as not being political. However, anyone who has ever listened to, or watched either Colbert's or Stewart's shows, realize that they are political satires, based on current events. Obviously, there is a very fine line between politics, satire and entertainment.

Many comics have for years based their humor on current and political events. However, recently, because of the number of channels of television that come into many homes, Americans are nearly bombarded daily with news shows, commentary shows, satires and comedies. Sometimes, it is quite difficult to recognize the difference between when one starts and the other ends.

Unfortunately, it is a fact that a large number of American voters are less than optimally informed about relevant issues. During this 2010 mid-term election, there was not only an anti- President Obama vote, but there was an anti-incumbent, anti-taxes, etc. vote as well. One would think that if it was the desire of the American public to be more "conservative," the group of conservative Democrats known as the "Blue Dogs," would have fared far better during this election, where a very high percentage of this group was also voted out of office.

How many voters were fully informed what the "opposition" candidates would actually do, or were these merely votes out of frustration, with the weakness of the American economy and the high joblessness rate? Our political system must better inform the public on issues, instead of merely entertain them.

What Is Political Conservatism Versus Political Liberalism?

Many people, as well as many political elected officials, often refer to themselves as either a liberal or a conservative. However, what does that really mean?

Objectively, one would generally think that a conservative was someone who believed in "smaller government," balanced budgets, and fewer social services, while a liberal might be perceived as someone who believed in more government involvement, more social programs, and larger spending. However, in the real world, the lines between conservative and liberal are quite often blurred.

Most people would have considered President Bill Clinton to be more liberal that President George Bush. However, when Clinton left office, there was a surplus budget, and the stock market was doing very well, and unemployment was rather low, while business profits were generally performing well. Eight years later, President George Bush left office with record federal deficits, a down stock market, a weakening economy and high unemployment figures. Government spending during the Bush administration grew at a far greater pace than during the Clinton years.

Much has been written and said about the Bush tax cuts, and while it certainly meant lower federal income taxes, it also undoubtedly brought in less federal revenue, thus exacerbating the deficit. In addition, these tax breaks on federal income tax often caused other municipalities to raise their taxes.

How many times have you heard a political candidate complaining about one type of taxes - - generally, real estate taxes? However, in a large number of cases, this reduced real estate tax ended up being more than offset by other taxes and fees that municipalities imposed.

When will the American public demand more from its elected officials? When will people stop reacting to rhetoric and terminology, and examine reality and action instead?

There are very few officials that are strictly conservative, or strictly liberal on every issue. People must understand that it is possible for someone to be liberal on social issues, while being conservative on economic issues, or vice versa. We tend to label our politicians, our politics, and our issues in too much of a black and white matter, while there is generally a lot of gray areas. We deserve better than our current system is delivering.

Elected Officials Come and Go, But The System Doesn't Improve

Every few years, clever and astute politicians "feel" the angst and disdain of the people. and campaign against what the incumbents have either done, or not achieved. We have all witnessed tax revolt parties, independent parties, and parties with "catchy" names like this year's "Tea Party." Unfortunately, in most cases, these negative anti-incumbent campaigns often bring up valid complaints and concerns, but have rarely developed workable solutions to "solve the problem."

Many of the candidates that are being opposed this year were originally elected, sometimes decades ago, as the anti-establishment candidate. Many candidates, especially in under-functioning economic times, or periods of high joblessness, and low consumer confidence, represent themselves as being the "outsider" that works for the people. If it were generally factual, that might be a factor, but in most cases in the past, it has been far more rhetoric and hype, than reality. I recently heard a radio advertisement for one of the "outsider candidates" that began with, "I'm like you. I'm a parent and face the same struggles as you." The truly funny thing was, at least in this case, that the incumbent opposed the status quo while in office, made himself very accessible to his constituency, and even had more children, and less money than the opposition candidate did.

Our political system appears to be broken in many ways. The system discourages openness, because if you don't have a record, your record can't be "nit-picked" over, nor distorted. It is always easier to complain, and many of those complaints are valid. However, voters must begin to demand that any candidate that criticizes explain, in detail, what his program, how it would work, what the possibility of it being enacted, etc.

Isn't it amazing how many voters complain about a particular issue, and blame someone running for an elected office that has little to nothing to do with that issue? It is even more unbelievable how many candidates campaign against an issue that is unrelated to the office they are running for.

Politicians love to "spin" the facts. They will tell you that they have lowered taxes, but what they often merely do, is transfer certain expenses to another authority, that then has to pay for it. The reason that "tax caps" have very rarely worked is that unless expenses are streamlined, there will then be insufficient revenues. Countless politicians have campaigned on lowering taxes, balancing the budget, reducing waste, and still maintaining all programs that people need. However, I still have trouble understanding their mathematics!

Enough Of These Campaign Signs

Regardless of one's political orientation or views, I think we can all agree that there are far too many political campaign signs strewn all over our streets. There are signs on trees, on fences, on telephone polls, and then all those signs with the stakes that are planted everywhere.

In many towns and other municipalities, there are numerous restrictions about non-political signage. Many towns prohibit real estate signs such as Open House signs any place other than for a limited period directly on the the property of the house that is for sale. Many communities prohibit the posting of garage sale, and other types of individual signs. Yet, when it comes to political signage, it seems that there are few restrictions.

On a ride of under a mile yesterday, I observed no fewer than two hundred political campaign signs. Some were on posts, and others on stakes, while a few were stuck in bushes and on fences. To call these an eyesore, is an understatement! Even worse, these signs almost invariably state little more than a candidate's name, and obviously give a potential voter little insight into the candidate. At one point, I observed a dozen signs for the same candidate on one stretch of town property in a middle area of the road.

This is certainly nothing new in political campaigns, but it seems in this year and time of excesses, that it is even more extreme and excessive this year than most. Even more disconcerting is that in the past, many of these signs remained behind months, and sometimes, even years, after the election.

Perhaps this is just another evidence of urban blight. But, it is overwhelming not only in urban areas, but in rural areas as well. It is an equal opportunity litterer, strewn thorough neighborhoods regardless of socio-economics. To me, it is merely graffiti without the artists, and adds nothing to the debate.

It does not appear to be a Democrat versus Republican, or conservative versus liberal issue, because candidates of all political persuasions are equally guilty. However, when some of these candidates brag about their record on the environment, how can they reconcile that with all the paper, cardboard, plastic, and other materials that are wasted by these eyesores. It's time to change the system, and the outlook.

Political Debates Often More Show Than Substance

Few objective observers would claim that the American political system operated optimally, or that there are numerous flaws in most of our elected officials. There have been numerous attempts to "fix" the problem, but like most of the political solutions, they were either ineffective or had huge loopholes in them, that made them nearly useless. Our campaign finance laws are weak and ineffective at best, ridiculous at worst. This has led some to call for more debates between candidates, but often the structure, format, moderators and rules of these debates diminish any substantial true debate from occurring.

Recently, the candidates for Governor from the State of New York participated in a debate, held at Hofstra University in Long Island, and televised only on Cablevision's owned News12. Obviously, televising it exclusively on only one cable service provider's network, although the largest provider in the state, effectively eliminated anyone with other systems throughout the state, including Time Warner, Comcast, DISH, DirectTV, FIOS, etc.

Even worse, however, was that, even though only two of the major candidates, Democrat Andrew Cuomo, and Republican Carl Paladino, have any type of realistic chance of victory, and most of the other candidates represent what many would refer to as "fringe" beliefs, all candidates, major and minor party, realistic chance of becoming Governor or "no shot," were all invited to participate.

While some explained that all were invited because in a democracy, all voices should be heard, since there are so few debates, this obviously diminished any type of realistic and substantive discussion by either major candidate, either in depth on issues, or regarding certain campaign claims that have been made. What makes this even more unfortunate is that much of the campaign advertising has been exploitive and some would say unsubstantiated and "dirty politics."

When one of the minor party candidates is a man running on the "Rents are too damned high" party, and another was a former (and perhaps still) madam running on the "Anti-Prohibition" party, it is easy to see why this format might provide some entertainment value and great one-liners. However, unfortunately, especially in these times of economic uncertainty and high joblessness, under-employment, and unemployment, and the public's concern and disgust about high taxation with limited perceived value or benefit, would the public not have been better served by a face-to-face in-depth true debate between the two major party candidates, one of which will become Governor of the second largest state in our nation.

Granted, reality shows have, fortunately or unfortunately, for a variety of different reasons, become the most profitable and prevalent form of television entertainment. I suppose the format that this debate followed was in line with the supposed public demand for reality shows. Yet, is it only me, or are others also concerned that voters who might really want to have an optimum chance of making a decision about voting for the candidate that best meets their views and needs, are being deprived of true information to base such a decision.

This is not a situation that is occurring solely in one state. Slick, negative advertising has become more the rule than informative debate. This will continue until the public creates an uproar!

Political Campaigns Or Liar, Liar

Does it seem to you that every new political campaign seems less issues- oriented, more marketed than content, and more half- truths than truths? It seems that most of our political campaigns seem more to be about "selling the candidate" than actually stating the candidate's positions and case.

My reaction to the Presidential campaign of 2008 was that it was a contest between one candidate that was past his prime, and another that was not ready for prime time. Rarely is any candidate as a good as his campaign promises nor as bad as his opponent's criticisms. When was the last time you remember a politician keeping all the promises he made when he was campaigning, once he was elected to office.

Many campaigns not only involve the "normal distortions" involved in campaigns, but candidates discuss issues as if they were campaign issues, that are unrelated to the office he is running for. For example, in New York State, the State Comptroller does not prepare, approve or submit the state's budget to the legislature. In New York State, the Governor prepares and submits the budget, and submits it to the state legislature for approval or modification. To make matters even more absurd, while New York State law calls for a deadline by which this budget process must be completed and a final budget approved, it has become the norm for the final state budget to take three to four extra months before it final is approved. That's one fourth to one third of the year late! The Comptroller is primarily involved with issues like the pension funds, etc., but if one listened to candidate's ads, one would never know that was the case.

Similarly, in many smaller governmental entities, there are positions such as Receiver of Taxes. The advertising for these positions make it appear that these individuals determine taxes, tax cuts, budget savings, etc. In most localities, that is anything but the case, and those individuals are basically administering a clerical bookkeeping- type department. In most of those entities, Mayors or Town Supervisors generally submit a budget to their legislature, for final approval.

Much is heard nowadays about "capping" real estate taxes. Of course, on a cursory view, why would anyone want their taxes to increase. However, the reality is that if the taxes are not received from real estate taxes, the locality still needs revenues to fund schools, etc. So, do these proposals actually save anyone any real money? It gets even worse when they discuss property assessments, because even if those are reduced, nothing generally prohibits the taxing authority from simply increasing the rate of tax on those assessments.

Until the voting public demands less "hype" and more substance from its candidates, nothing will improve, and things will probably continue in the same absurd matter. Until a system is developed where specific questions are submitted to candidates, and the public demands substance- related answers, there will be no real improvement in the quality of the performance we receive from elected officials.

Very Few Politicians Deserve Our Vote

In every election cycle, a minority of voters are truly excited about either a specific candidate or position, and the vast majority are disillusioned. In the past, mobilizing issues have included support or opposition to a war (for example, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), the economy, employment, or some specific "hot button" issue. Generally, candidates and parties that are out of power blame the incumbents for all the ills and problems, while incumbents try to demonstrate why they have acted how they have, its success or potential, the alternatives, etc. Most election campaigns in recent years have deteriorated into a name-calling, blaming, anti- something campaign, with the rhetoric far outpacing the actual ideas.

It really doesn't matter if the politician is a Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, Independent or Tea Party. Unfortunately, most politicians will say almost anything to get elect, distort or only partially explain their position, state the opponent's position in the poorest of lights, employ scare tactics, etc. Rarely do these politicians propose real alternatives, instead complaining about what's wrong, while rarely saying how they would fix it. Even when most of these candidates state a "plan," it is generally either incomplete or unworkable, or has little chance of getting voted into law. It is always easier to complain about something than to fix it.

The late Senator Charles Goodell said, "Politicians are like antelopes. When things get touch, they paint their behinds white, and run with the herd." Senator Goodell discovered in his two years in the United States Senate, where he proposed and sponsored more legislation and major legislation than most senators do in twenty years, that simply working hard and doing the right thing, does not get you elected. Elections have deteriorated into hype and popularity, rarely discussing anything of consequence. Candidates make many promises, most of them empty. Unfortunately, the vast majority of candidates who are elected, continue to behave as candidates, when they should morph into statesmen.

Many of candidate Obama's most ardent and fervent supporters have become disillusioned that President Obama has not met their lofty expectations. Several years ago, many of the Independent candidate Ross Perot merely supported Perot as some sort of protest. Similarly, one must wonder how supporters and members of the Tea Party will react and feel when their candidates are simply more of the same, and they don't keep their promises, either. It is easy, and generally popular, to blame incumbents during bad economic times, and it is almost always popular to oppose any type of taxes. Yet, as New York Governor Patterson has discovered, in attempting to balance the New York State budget (an almost impossible task during these economic times) that every time he recommended cutting funds to anything, whether State support to education, funding roads, subsidizing hospitals, etc., that some group or groups steadfastly opposed these cuts. Many of us suffer from "NIMBY" (not in my backyard), and while we speak loudly and protest deficits and taxes, we do not have viable alternatives or solutions.

It is almost humorous, if it wasn't so pitiful, that we keep hearing about the apathy of the American voter. However, maybe, if our politicians stopped their partisan bickering, stopped electioneering, and stopped party politics, and acted more like statesmen, and did what was both necessary and right, people would feel that their vote mattered. Until that occurs, our political system will continue to simply be a club, and a club for the increasingly wealthy.

Political Contributors Follow The Leaders

Are corporate contributions based on belief in who the best or more capable candidate might be, or on political expediency? The news media recently reported that, while for the years 2006 through 2009, the majority of corporate contributions went to Democrats, thus far in 2010, the opposite is true, with close to sixty percent of all corporate political contributions apparently going to Republican candidates, or to the Republican Party. Since much of the public is under the perception that corporate America is predominantly more conservative, and thus tends to lean Republican, during 2006 through 2009, the opposite was true. Was that a change in belief, or merely a recognition in the weakening and softening of support for President Bush and many Republican office holders? Obviously, that was the same period that there was a change in the party of the President (which many anticipated because of anti-Bush sentiment), and in 2008, both the President and both Houses of Congress swung dramatically to the Democrats.

Largely because of the continued troubling economy, the perception by many Americans that the measures taken have both not worked and been wasteful, and the weakening poll numbers of both the President and the incumbents (and since the Democrats are presently in power, there are far more Democratic incumbents), there appears to widespread belief that there will be a major realignment in the power balance between the political parties at the 2010 mid-term elections.

Of course, the Tea Party's success and popularity has made it far more difficult to predict results, and even President Carter has likened his short-term popular election in 1976 to a dissatisfaction of the American public, similar to what is intensifying the Tea Party's appeal. American politics has traditionally been cyclical, and American voters have traditionally taken out their dissatisfaction and frustration by voting "the bums out." Therefore, many political pundits are predicting a dramatic victory for the Republicans in 2010.

Is corporate money therefore following the leader? It has in the past, and it certainly appears that it is once again during this election cycle. However, the Republicans should carefully remember this caveat that their dramatic victory in 2010 could strengthen President Obama's and the Democratic Party's chances in 2012, especially if the public does not perceive noticeable and dramatic improvement.

Tea Party Success- Worse for Democrats or Republicans?

There is little doubt that the recent support and success of the Tea Party and its candidates is to a large degree a reaction by American parties to dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, the economy, the joblessness rate, a general malaise, and our existing government and elected officials. The question that may be far more relevant, however, is, "Is the Tea Party's success more of a threat to the Democrats or the Republicans?"

There has been much spin on all sides of the political spectrum as well as in the news media related to this question. Republicans state that the public's disenchantment gives them an advantage for the mid-term elections in November 2010, and that they believe they can then take control of the Congress. Some Democratic pundants, while keenly aware of the ledge they are teetering on, feel the Tea Party may actually splinter the Republican party, or give easier candidates for the Democratic candidates to run against than would the more traditional Republican party candidates. The media are also spinning this issue to support their point of view and preferences.

Traditionally, Americans tend to be relatively centrist politically. They may, for a short period, become a little more conservative or liberal, depending on certain issues, and the overall tone and mood of the electorate. However, what this means for the mid-term elections is certainly unclear. Tea Party candidates could ride an emotional wave to victory in November, but a historical perspective indicates that it will probably be short-lived.

What may even be more interesting, however, is that President Obama's chances to be re-elected may very well be enhanced for 2012 if the Republicans gain control of the Congress in 2010. In what would be perhaps the ultimate irony for Tea Party zealots, that scenario would give the President the opportunity to blame the Congress for whatever goes wrong, which he cannot do with his own party in control?

Therefore, whether the Tea Party is a short-lived fad and protest, or a long-term trend, the end result is that it will create some sort of rift within the Republican party. As the adage goes, my advice is, "Be careful what you wish for."

What Dr King might have advised President Obama

For more than two decades, the United States has celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King's life by having a holiday in his honor. What might Dr. King have suggested to President Obama if Dr. King was still alive? Dr. King has become a historical icon and hero because of his leadership qualities, as well as his steadfast adherence to concepts such as peaceful protests and demonstrations, and his vision of what could and should be in America.

Martin Luther King, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in 1964, said, "I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality."He then continued, "I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits."

So, what advice and suggestions might Dr. King have given President Obama if he was alive today? There are many different theories of what Dr. King would suggest, but based on the man's life and words, one must believe that he would emphasize to the President that the number one priority at this time must be addressing the joblessness rate. I believe that Dr. King would have emphasized education stressing reinvigorating the American workforce, and suggesting that the United States had to lead the way in the fields of alternative energy development and utilization, and other fields that were forward- thinking. I believe that he would advocate for a public (government)/ private (the business community) effort to restore America's position in the word, by leading by example.

Dr. King was anti- war, and let protests against the war in Vietnam, because he felt that diplomacy be more effective, and less costly both in terms of human loss and financial costs. He would probably urge the President to explore diplomatic solutions and multinational solutions in Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than sending in and committing more troops.

Dr. Martin Luther King also believed that one must not only "talk the talk," but must also "walk the walk." For this freason, I believe that Dr. King would have felt that the health insurance effort as it will invariably end up if passed, will be at best a compromise bill, that will not fulfill many of the visions of the original effort. He was also a pragmatist, and would stress that promoting an imperfect bill that the majority of Americans indicate they oppose (in polls) would not substantially improve health care or delivery. and would take away attention from the priority issue of restoring and creating jobs, improving education, and reducing polarkization in the United States. I believe that Dr. King would believe that without a secure economy and a reassured public, that there would not be any real benefits to the people that most needed the assistance.

Dr. King would be proud of the American public's leadership on helping Haiti and others after catastrophes, and would certainly have been in the forefront of that effort. I believe that he would have felt that more can be accomplished by creating open conversation that forcing something through with political maneuvering. Unfortunately, while surely Dr. King must have been one of President Obama's idols, the President has not yet shown the statesmanship that Dr. King would have urged him to. The American public can hope that the President grows as a statesman in the next few years, and puts statesmanship ahead of politics, as Dr. King would have certainly recommended and urged.

GOVERNMENT DYSFUNCTION

We all complain about the government, yet often less than half of the eligible voters actually bother to vote. Maybe it's the "my vote doesn't make a difference" mentality, but it is rare to find effective government on any level. Our government leaders do not act as statesman, but simply as a bunch of politicians constantly campaigning for the next election.

Our Federal government seems to get nothing done, even often appearing not to even be making the effort. And when there seems to be an effort by some, the system usually breaks down and little real progress is made. The 2 party, 2 houses of Congress system is, to say the least, flawed. Our representatives make compromises on their compromises, simply because the "poll numbers" show them they need to get certain "pork" projects done to get reelected. It is rare that a bill that finally passes through Congress, after the House's and Senate's bills are reconciled, and a "compromise" is reached to reconcile the bills, ends up resembling the original intent. Spending is done haphazardly, because politicians are afraid to vote against something for fiscally responsible reasons, for fear that their future political opponent will use it against them in their next campaign. Rarely does a politician vote his conscience, but rather micromanages votes based on personal political consequences. We see this with jobs, economics, health, foreign affairs, and almost any and every other legislation. It is rare and far between when a meaningful piece of legislation is passed, without major flaws, loopholes, inconsistencies, and waste. Our government leaders are afraid and/ or unwilling to use sound financial reasoning, such as beginning the budget process with "zero-based" budgeting, so that programs that work are encouraged, and waste is eliminated.

Our State governments are in many cases even more flawed. Several states are nearly bankrupt, and in my state of New York, the State Senators and State Assembly representatives have not submitted a budget in time in recent memory. All these "leaders" resort to the blame and "it wasn't me" game, and threaten each other with lawsuits, vetoes, etc., without having the courage nor foresight to propose viable solutions.Often, our County and local representatives are even more dysfunctional. In Nassau County NY, out of nearly 240,000 votes cast this past Election Day for Nassau County Executive, the final margin of victory was less than 500 votes. As if that wasn't indicative enough of a political quagmire, far less than half of the eligible voters went to the polls. On the local level, the County blames the Town, who blames the Villages, or vice versa. Infrastructure is often neglected until instead of doing regular maintenance, major repairs are needed. This wastes money, as well as creating ill will, and worsening the quality of life.

So, what can be done? We, the people, NEED to send a message that we are tired of the empty rhetoric, and that politics as usual will NOT be accepted. We have to start on the local level, and get leadership that will make the tough decisions, even if they are sometimes unpopular. We must support LEADERSHIP and statesmanship, instead of being swayed by what a politician looks like, or how well they deliver a speech. We must ask, "What are you going to do about the issues?" Don't accept cliches, but follow up by questioning the how and why, and especially the how much aspect of a proposal. Do NOT blindly believe the cost nor time proposals given to you to get your vote - - - ask how? NEVER believe a politician that tells you he will cut taxes without cutting programs! Ask, "How will you balance the budget and pay for the expense?" Ask what efficiencies they are suggesting that would save money. Don't believe that most savings come from cutting big expenses. Anyone who truly understands the realities of budgeting and policy implementation knows that the most effective and realistic way to reduce expenses is to make numerous smaller decreases and look for numerous efficiencies.

Now is the time that the public MUST become less apathetic and more proactive. They must DEMAND that their political leaders actually become representatives of the people. We MUST begin on a local level because real change can occur MUCH more quickly on a local, smaller scale, than on the national level. Once we get the local government functioning (instead of being dysfunctional), we can then use that success as an example to change the state system, and eventually the national system.
This is NOT a short-term easy challenge, BUT I believe can and must be accomplished and achieved if we are to regain our greatness, and become true leaders of the rest of the world. Wr must eliminate the waste and dysfunction NOW!

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER- @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody)

MY CONSULTING WEBSITE: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons

FOLLOW THIS BLOG: http://tinyurl.com/rgbstake

Follow my Published Articles on Associated Content

WHERE's THE BEEF?

Several years ago, Wendy's ran a very successful and memorable ad campaign with an old woman screaming, "Where's the Beef?" This ad's theme, for those who may have forgotten it or never seen it was that Wendy's competitor's hamburgers were very, very small, while Wendy's burgers were substantial. This same slogan can be used when talking about and/ or evaluating the main two programs that the President and the Congress have been spending so much time on - - health care, and joblessness.
Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech (it is beginning to seem like the "Speech of the Day" club) about how he would like to have Congress address the extremely high unemployment situation (What took so long?). Some of the President's suggestions included help for small businesses, transportation, energy- efficient homes, etc. Mr. Obama stated that the U.S. has to "spend our way out of this recession." Since more than 7 million Americans have lost their jobs since the recession began about two years ago, and the unemployment rate is 10% (that's the statistic although the reality is far higher), Mr. Obama called the rate "staggering" and made several proposals (cost estimates of about $150 billion +) he said would stimulate hiring and put Americans back to work again. Those proposals included: bridge and highway construction (MY NOTE- short-term and long-term, infrastructure programs usually add value and provide something eventually needed); for small business tax cuts (including elimination of capital gains if expenditure was accompanied by adding jobs); and credits for making homes more energy efficient. In addition, the President recommended more protections re health insurance for laid off workers, and suggested additional spending for seniors and veterans, and additional aid to states and municipalities so they won't have to lay off workers. This plan, of course, would have to go through and be approved by a splintered Congress, which is extremely time consuming and the result is unsure. All of this is being proposed while the President continues to talk about the need to address the growing Federal deficit. Many Republican leaders have already scoffed at this proposal, and if any program finally passes, I fear it may be another case of "too little, too late," and contain as much "pork" as effective program. It is always easy to criticize and point out the weaknesses in a plan, but isn't it about time for politicians to actually work FOR their constituency, instead of constantly playing politics (SEE YESTERDAY'S BLOG ABOUT POLITICIANS VS STATESMEN)?
In the meantime, the health plan debate goes on. Last night, an announcement was made that a compromise was reached where the "public option" would be replaced by a different alternative. There was another announcement that a vote was taken regarding language about abortion, and the more severe exclusionary language would not be included. Since the House bill that was passed last month will differ substantially from this Senate bill, a joint compromise bill will have to be arrived at, after which both the House and the Senate will have to approve. Further complicating the matter is certain language in each version appears to be distasteful to a large number of the supporters of the other version. The truly sad thing is, that after all this time and expense, if and when a final bill is approved, there is no assurance that it will be better, less expensive, or provide any better quality medical care. In fact, many independent (?) studies have indicated that the likelihood is that insurance will be more expensive for many, and provide lesser coverage for those fortunate enough to presently enjoy good medical insurance coverage. The costs, medical liability issues, unnecessary testing, expense of drugs, malpractice grants, etc. do NOT appear to have "made the cut" in either plan, but, of course, we do not really know what the final plan might look for. However, I have a hunch, that when all is said and done, that little voice in my head will hear the old lady chiming in, "Where's the Beef?"

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER at: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody)

MY CONSULTING WEBSITE: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons

MY REAL ESTATE WEBSITE: http://tinyurl.com/rgb242)

REMEMBER TO FOLLOW THIS BLOG, UPDATED SEVERAL TIMES/WK: http://tinyurl.com/rgbstake

Shouldn't Politicians Eventually Become Statesman?

SHOULDN'T POLITICIANS EVENTUALLY BECOME STATESMAN?

Since our American political system has become one where politicians seem to run for office forever and spend obscene amounts of money on their campaigns, we shouldn't be surprised that once elected, our elected officials are so often dysfunctional. When a bunch of guys sitting around in an office or in a bar often seem to have a clearer idea of what needs to be done than our elected officials, one should realize that we have approached a political reality that is the equivalent of the "inmates running the asylum." When more time is spent discussing Tiger Woods and his alleged trysts than how to put our jobless back to work, there is something very wrong with our society!
Our elected officials put together patchwork proposals, filled with "pork," that are unnecessarily expensive, and do not adequately address the needs of the American public. Our elected officials tell us that they recognize the problem, and that is of the highest priority. Then they tell another group that their problem is the highest priority. And then, they don't adequately address either!
Let's look at the United States' pressing needs at the moment. Most observers would agree that the economy and the joblessness rates are the most disturbing! Yet, let's look at how our government has addressed these challenges. The much- maligned TARP (meaning TROUBLED ASSET RECOVERY PLAN) bailed out our major banks, because of the theory that these institutions were "too big to fail," and that the ramifications of bank failures would cause economic catastrophe. The government is now elated that the plan will cost $200 billion less than believed, because of early repayment by several banks. Yet, two banks who have not yet repaid the monies, Citi (owing $20 billion) and Wells Fargo (owing $25 billion) now are pleading with the government to be allowed to repay these amounts, and the government is telling them that they cannot repay it unless they raise substantial additional funds. Citi and Wells Fargo state that not repaying the TARP funds puts them at a competitive disadvantage against those that did, because of the additional restrictions associated with TARP. Remember that many non-banks reorganized to make themselves banks in order to be able to receive the TARP funds (predominantly investment houses, etc). Now, the government is discussing how to account for this $200 billion "windfall," reportedly discussing paying down the enormous national deficit/ debt, and using those monies for other purposes, such as creating jobs. However, the language of the TARP legislation specifically speaks of lending, so most viable job programs could not be funded with those funds. Adding to the farce and follies is the fact that TARP was supposedly created so that banks would free-up lending, which it has not done. Most banks have used those funds simply to enhance their own financial position!
Several months ago, our representatives were SO pleased with themselves for creating what they were referring to as a "Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights." In their infinite wisdom, they announced what the legislation would require, but that it would not take place for nine months (NINE MONTHS!). So, of course, most credit card companies (translation= banks) have raised interest rates, lowered credit lines, changed to variable rates, etc. And, of course, because of the crazy manner in which our credit scores (such as FICO, etc.) are calculated, having reduced credit lines changes the ratio of debt to available credit, thus lowering credit scores. The lending institutions (translation= banks) then use that new score as one of their justifications for declining lending. Yet, our legislators have bailed out the "too big to fail" on the backs of the individual citizens!
The President continues to showcase high profile job summits, and give speeches about how essential job creation is. Then, on the other hand (or should I say "face"), he says that the government needs private industry to help take the lead, because the government can't do it alone! Isn't this a bit of revisionist history, when we consider that same argument could have been used regarding huge government infusions into big businesses, war efforts, etc.
And, what about our war efforts. The candidate Obama, at least partially, ran as the "peace" candidate, against the Iraq surge, and stating he would not have voted to go in when the first vote was taken (it's great when you're a candidate and you were not in the Senate and therefore did not vote at that time, under those conditions). Yet, now, President Obama wants to commit additional billions, as well as 30,000 - 35,000 US troops to an effort that could be referred to as a "surge" in Afghanistan, while at the same time promising to limit the amount of time troops will remain, giving the public the indication that substantial troop reductions would begin in July 2011 (18 months). Then on the following Sunday morning programs, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton strongly indicated that the 18 month period would be when the first of the troops would be withdrawn, and US troops could be there substantially longer. Defenders of increased military action and "surges" point to the success in Iraq, yet in the last few days, there have been substantial deaths due to bombings, etc. Does anyone really believe that when we eventually leave Iraq, that it will be a stable, sustainable nation? What is really our goal? Does anyone really have a plan? What do we expect to achieve?
The candidate Obama ran for President with the campaign slogan, "CHANGE." During President Obama's first ten and a half months in office, he is using economic advisors who were at least partially responsible for this mess in the first place (where's the change?), the same Secretary of Defense, his campaign opponent as Secretary of State, etc. To this observer, he seems to still be campaigning. Granted there is a need for communicating, but there is an even greater needed for real action that works!
We cannot just throw money at a problem, nor simply blame others for how we got there. We need some common sense and straight talk. It took the US a while to get into this mess, and it won't be overnight getting out of it. But the time for rhetoric is over! Let's create jobs now! Putting people back to work will be the fastest and most permanent cure for our economy. Provide incentive for employers to rehire. Provide even greater incentives for employers in "future growth" industries (such as alternative energy, gas exploration, etc., technology, and manufacturing)! Create a situation where the US becomes not solely a consumer-driven economy, but that we once again manufacture items here! Give companies an incentive to manufacture here instead of abroad! That would be monies well spent that would come back to the government in the form of taxes, less unemployment benefits payouts, etc.
Create something, and stop making excuses.
When Mr. Obama ran for office with the campaign promise of change, little did most of us realize that what he meant was that change would be the only thing left in our pockets. Let's get America working again, reducing our deficits so that our children and their children don't have to keep paying for our excesses, and regain the United States' dominance in the world economy.
How strange that while our economy has suffered, the an average price of a gallon of gas has increased by 50% since this time last year. And that is with reduced consumption! It's time for the American public to wake up, and demand that our politicians, once they are elected, act as statesman, instead of just continuing to be ruled by politics. Does it really make any sense that Democrats of Republicans keep voting as a bloc, regardless of the issue? The late Senator Charles Goodell summed up the situation, "Politicians are like antelopes. When things get tough, they pain their behinds white and run with the crowd."
The US public must demand leadership NOW!

THE US MEDIA & AMERICAN PRIORITIES

If one's first contact with the US media took place sometime between 8PM Eastern Time last night, and this morning's local daily newspapers, the most likely reaction would be "Huh?" President Obama decided to have a primetime speech given at West Point broadcast to the entire country. In this speech, the President intended to clearly explain his policy toward Afghanistan, and explain simultaneously sending an additional 30,000- 35,000 US troops into the war zone, while also stating his intent to begin withdrawing those troops in 18 months. It appeared that this may have been the first time that this President got both the left and the right to agree, albeit for different reasons - - - many on the right upset because he announced a timetable and was not in this to win; while many on the left upset that this President, who ran, at least partially, as a "peace" candidate was sending more US troops in harms way, when they feel he should be withdrawing from Afghanistan. The most revealing thing about the post- speech reaction was that almost no one enthusiastically supported this plan.
In what was perhaps even more revealing about the US media, however, was the way the NY newspapers handled the front page of this morning's editions. The NY Post had approximately 20% of the front page headlined about the President's speech, but chose to dedicate approximately 80% of the front page to the Tiger Wood's trysts and women. Newsday split their front page differently; dedicating about 2/3 to the Nassau County Supervisor's outcome (one month after the election), and 1/6 each to the Obama story and to Tiger Wood's getting a traffic fine (referring readers to the Sports section). The New York Times dedicated the "above the fold" half of the front page to the President's speech, and to an analysis of Afghanistan options.
Once again, America has become distracted. Once again, a President has come before us and announced his plan to "temporarily" expand our war effort. Once again, the media has predominantly only given this a cursory review, accepting the inevitable. The most revealing thing last night was President Obama conceding that some are comparing this to Vietnam, but then giving his "spin" as to why it is different - - - actually having the audacity to use George Bush's explanation of how the US is broadly supported in this war, supposedly unlike Vietnam; and that the American public understands the dangers in the post 911 world. It is revealing that the President all of a sudden started sounding like a cross between his predecessor and Rudy Giuliani (who is infamous for referring to 911 in every fourth word!). Most revealing is that while some of the media questioned strategic points in the President's plan, there were very few outraged on this Vietnam analogy. What is being missed is the most important similarities between Vietnam and Afghanistan - - - both are un-winable situations; both are very costly in terms of both money and human loss; and both are concerned with a complicated foreign situation at a time when our focus should be on strengthening America.
The fact that our economy shed an additional 169,000 jobs in November, and that our joblessness rate is still over 10% should be attracting most of our attention. The huge federal deficits and lack of economic focus should be what most concerns us! The fact that what the US needs is "domestic nation-building," NOT building other nations, is what the priority effort should be! Emphasize alternative energies so that our dependence on foreign resources is reduced, and more US funds remain in the US! Subsidize job creation instead of supporting companies that use the subsidies simply to make profits for themselves! Emphasize production and manufacturing in the US, especially in industries that our essential to our future. Bailout the American citizens that are victims of this economy!
Nassau County finally announced that all (or most) of the votes have been counted and re-counted and elected a new County Executive. The ousted executive Tom Suozzi appeared popular, and was heavily favored to win re-election. Yet the combination of anger and frustration, voters fed up with high taxes combined with frustration with politics caused a significantly lighter turnout amongst previous Suozzi supporters and energized his opposition. Americans are getting fed up, BUT are not doing anything about!
The US was founded on the right to protest any inequities in the system - - - in the late 1960's and early 1970's enough people loudly protested the war in Vietnam that eventually the US got out of that location, after a huge number of deaths and injuries! And it was NOT the "Peace with Honor" that Richard Nixon promised in his campaign! It's time for us all to unite for what's best for America and change the nation's priorities, and support America - - - in the famous words from the movie "Network" "I'm mad as hell and I'm NOT going to take it anymore."
Let's get America working again!

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER- @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody)

THIS BLOG: http://tinyurl.com/rgbstake

CONSULTING WEBSITE: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons
RE Website: http://tinyurl.com/pwlire

BLACK FRIDAY, CYBER-MONDAY: Good news?

The preliminary figures have been released regarding Black Friday, and depending on how you wish to view it, the numbers are either bad news, so-so news, or good news. Apparently more Americans purchased on Black Friday, but their average spending was down about 5-10% for the day, and the total retail sales were either flat, or slightly lower. Since today is so-called Cyber-Monday, we do not know yet what these numbers will show, but more retailers are offering Cyber-Monday sales than ever before!
So, what does that mean? Well, the good news is, that despite the ongoing recession, despite the high joblessness rate, despite the credit tightening (many of the larger banks have tightened, eliminated, reduced credit lines, and increased credit card interest rates charged, while changing their installment payment features, thus requiring higher minimum payments), despite the fact that merchants are being quite conservative about inventory-on-hand, more Americans are still buying gifts, and the total spent has not been reduced significantly. Also, many retailers began their promotions early or are stretching them out over a longer period of time, which makes the Black Friday numbers even more positive! Granted last year's holiday season was not a robust one for retailers, but considering the cost-saving measures many companies have implemented, I feel the overall indicators are positive ones.
I am guessing that the Cyber-Monday results will either parallel the stores, or be slightly better than the store results. These numbers might be slightly skewed also because of many sites stretching this sale period out over a longer period of time. I am of the belief that there will be a higher than usual number of last-minute shoppers this holiday season, but that retailers will have to be creative as well as use discounting to attract more shoppers. I also feel that consumers will still purchase for the holidays, but that the average spending per shopper will be somewhat lower than in the past.
Since many manufacturers are suffering like retailers and consumers, many manufacturers are offering discounts and/ or incentives to retailers at a much greater rate this season than in the past. That is also a factor in the lower consumer purchasing averages.
Having gone to a few stores, malls, and warehouse clubs both on Black Friday as well as on Saturday, it is obvious that this season is being kinder to some stores than others, and to some malls than others. On Black Friday, WalMart was packed for the Early Bird sales, butr much quieter the rest of the day. The store Friday afternoon looked like it must have been "packed and ransacked" in the morning, but was simply messy and not fully re-stocked on Friday afternoon. The warehouse clubs seemed to be doing business as usual on Friday! On Saturday, I went to two different malls, and while one mall seemed very quiet, the other was very busy. Some stores were obviously much busier than others. Yet, for example, the Apple Store at one mall seemed relatively quiet, while at the other mall was busy.
We need to start adopting the "half-full" instead of "half-empty" philosophy, or this recession will stretch out and linger longer than it would on its own. All too often, too many of the so-called "experts" analyze each piece of data independently, without trying to understand some of the many causes. Daily discussions of the prices of gold, oil, and the stock indexes. are as misguided as people looking for "quick kills" in purchasing stocks rather than long-term outlooks. Historically, investors who use "dollar-cost averaging" have out-performed most others, because they do not fall victim to normal and abnormal market swings. We all need to "sit back and chill out" and look at things through a broader window, and figure out the best long-term strategies.
Let's remember that when George Bush became President he inherited a budget surplus. By the time he left office eight years later, instead of a surplus there was a $400 Billion plus deficit. A little more than ten months after President Obama took office, the US deficit now exceeds $1.4 Trillion. We need to understand that deficit financing has long-term impacts and ramifications, and the US cannot simply keep spending without a plan for repaying it. That is why our dollar is so weak, even though the recession is a world-wide challenge, not just an American one.
Weak housimg markets, high foreclosure rates, high joblessness rates, etc., cannot and are not balanced out solely by spending and low interest rates. America must reconfigure our economy to make it stronger and more productive! We need to get people back to work, and keep them working. That should be the major thrust of our government's activities now-- on the Federal, State and Local Levels. Demand that from your government leaders!

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody)

FOLLOW MY BLOG AT: http://tinyurl.com/rgbstake


MY WEBSITES: Real Estate: http://tinyurl.com/pwlire
Consulting: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons

America's Health Plan

Everyone, whether Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, would agree to a couple of things about our health care in the U.S.: (1) The costs have escalated dramatically, and continue to rise at an alarming rate even during a recession; (2) All Americans should receive adequate health care. From that point on, the politicians, "spinners," pundents, advocates, etc. take over, and create opposing plans, none of which address both of the things that they originally agreed upon.
The plan passed by the House, and what appears to be the plan being proposed in the Senate, differ in many major ways. Yet, neither of them addresses the two basic issues listed above! The House plan passed was approximately 2,000 pages of verbal legal jargon, that few representatives read in its entirety. Most representatives assign that "heavy lifing" to their aides, who then summarize the plan to the Congressman. The very fact that the plan was passed almost entirely by one party and opposed by the other, indicates that politics, rather trying to create the best plan, is the rule! The Senate is now bringing up a plan that all the details have NOT been disclosed, and needs 60 votes to even get to the Senate floor to be discussed.
The American public hears the health proposals via the "spin-meisters" and politicians and advocates, who only state part of the issue. The Republicans discuss the malpractice issue (and its related costs) and the Democrats avoid that issue because politically they don't want to offend the trial lawyers. The Democrats discuss mandating coverage, and the Republicans object to mandates and the related costs. The Democrats speak of taxing big earners in one version or large companies in another, without discussing the ramifications. The Republicans avoid discussing how to address adequate health care for all, and instead object to the costs of the Democrats plans. An objective observer would say that BOTH sides are "spinning" both the numbers and the plans to make their ideas seem better.
In other countries, there are public health programs. A dentist friend of mine from London recently developed an illness, which was taken care of expeditiously and effectively, because, as he put it, he had "private insurance." In the Bahamas, there are both public and private plans. Canada has had universal health care for many years. However, these countries have far smaller populations that in the U.S., and plans that work in one country may not work in all.
We need to develop a different frame of mind regarding many issues related to health care if we are to accomplish the important task of achieving the two worthy goals stated at the beginning of this blog. (1) Health insurance must be able to be sold across state lines. That would increase competition, offer more alternatives, and somewhat lower costs. (2) We have to cap non-medical malpractice liability payouts, so as to reduce overall health care costs, (3) We have to be much smarter in terms of forcing unfunded mandates on employers, hospitals, local governments, etc ., (4) We have to have a more efficient drug creation and review policy, to reduce both the costs of bringing drugs to market, and increase usage of generics, (5) We have to curb the use of the huge amount of unnecessary testing done, much of which is done by doctors to protect themselves from medical malpractice liability, (6) We need to reduce government waste, by the continuous use by governments of multiple, off duplicative layers of beaurocracy, (7) We must permit whatever economies of scale can be effectively used to reduce costs, (8) We must create a better electronic system where x-rays, tests, etc., taken in one locale, are easily available to licensed professionals elsewhere, (9) A greater emphasis on prevention is essential, (10) A fair evaluation as to when alternative methodologies might be an important part of the medical puzzle, and most importantly, (11) WE MUST "THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX."
The American public cannot let the politicians do "their thing" with an issue such as this, where any plan approved will most likely be a hodge-podge, mish-mosh, expensive and eventually dysfunctional and unworkable program, that we must simply reform again in a few years. This is too important - - - let's get it right the first time!!!

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody

How much is real, and how much perception?

It seems that every day there is another economic report out that different individuals interpret differently. Today, the joblessness report showed that "only" 502,000 new unemployment claims were made, which was 10,000 less than the previous month and 8,000 less than anticipated. The "gurus" jumped all over this report, letting us know that this was economic news. Although it probably was good news because things were getting significantly worse, it certainly wasn't good news for the 502,000 individuals putting in new unemployment claims. And this was on top of the over 10% already receiving regular and extended unemployment benefits, not to mention those who have taken lesser work or given up looking (estimates are a total of approximately 17.5%).
Also, in today's news, WalMart announced its 3Q economkic figures, and the net revenue was better than anticipated. That could be interpreted as good news, or not so good if one factors in that the increased net was based on lower than anticipated revenues, which means that obviously WalMart had made some "efficiencies" to improve its numbers.
Over 80% of the companies reporting 3Q figures have reported better than anticipated numbers. Does that mean that we are gradually coming out of the recession (hopefully), or that companies are cutting jobs making themselves more profitable, or that the "experts" are under-estimating, or some combination of the three? It all depends on PERCEPTION.
Most experts believe that the worst of the recession has passed, and that there will be gradual, but slow improvement during 2010. Historically, companies begin recovery periods by hiring part-time workers before they add full-time employees. However, since the average number of hours the American worker has dropped to only 33 hours per week, will companies then simply have existing workers put in a little more time. I believe that this figure of number of average hours per week will be a significant one to look at when we want to see how much progress is being made in getting out of the recession.
The housing market is an important one to follow as an indicator of the economy. Government incentives have slightly shored up the housing market, but it will not bounce back until there is some restoration of consumer confidence. For anyone who is in a position to buy a house, there has rarely been this great a buying situation, when you consider the combination of relatively low prices, low mortgage rates (average 30 year mortgage rates dropped today to 4.91%), tax incentives, and selection on market. Yet, many potential buyers are still adopting a "wait-and-see" approach, and just taking their time. Most experts believe that home prices, and mortgage interest rates will nudge up toward the second half of 2010. Again, consumer confidence and perception is a primary factor in this evaluation.
So, what is really going on? Huge US deficits, a weak US dollar, a recession, high joblessness and under-employment, are all unfortunate realities. Corporations have reacted by making themselves more cost-efficient, but unfortunately that exacerbates the unemployment challenge. The economy does not appear to be getting any worse! The next important step is to see how consumer confidence reacts. Halloween shopping was nearly 30% down this year, and if Christmas shopping bounces back somewhat, that will be an important indicator that consumer confidence is increasing. Many major retailers have already announced that they will beging "Black Friday" sales early, and be more aggressive in their marketing this season. Hopefully, some of the seasonal employment will be extended and we see a restoration in the job area as early as the second quarter of 2010. Vacation travel during the holidays, and overall travel in January and February of next year, will also be important indicators of consumer confidence.
Since most experts believe that one of the driving forces in creating this recession is the high cost of energy, job creation should be created by having the government create alternative energy incentives, and for hiring and re-training into that industry. T.Boone Pickens has promoted heavily his Pickens Plan, with the goal of US energy independence, by using alternative energy (he prefers windmills), and natural gas (because of its abundance in the US). Creating jobs in this area would be a short-term and a long-term solution, because it addresses not only employment, but a stronger US energy policy.
The American electorate must demand from it's politicians that they become leaders. Leadership and statesmanship means that "polls" should not dictate policy, but that they need to be effective problem solvers. It can be done, and must be done, for the U.S. to again become the strongest economy in the world. I truly believe that if the American public clearly demands "real change," instead of empty promises, we can "jump-start" our economy, and consumer confidence. I urge you all to join with me.

Follow me on Twitter: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody)
My consulting website: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons
My real-estate website: http://tinyurl.com/rgb242

HEALTH PLAN- Where we are really at?

Many have reported that the first step on achieving meaningful health care reform has been achieved when the US House of Representatives passed a nearly 2,000 page bill by the vote of 220- 215. It should be noted that only one Republican voted with the majority, and several more conservative Democrats voted against the bill. In order to get this bill to pass, the majority approved of very strong language prohibiting any funds to be used for abortions. The next step is for the Senate to vote on a health bill, and since the version in the Senate is considerably different from the bill in the House, if the Senate passes a bill, it would then go to a Senate-House Joint Committee gto "hammer out" a compromise bill. That bill would then have to be voted on by both the House and the Senate, and if approved, would then go President Obama to sign into law. It is very important to realize that this is a long process.
Even the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he has doubts that the legislation can even be voted on in the Senate this calendar year. The Senate filibuster rules also makes it that you need 60 of the 100 Senators to even bring a bill to a vote, and, at least publically, the Senate Republicans have almost nearly stated objections. In committee, the only Republican to vote with the majority was Senator Olympia Snow of Maine, and even she has said that she will not support a bill that includes the so-called "public option." Republicans have stated that this bill should emphasize reducing health care costs, and that the US economy cannot afford anything that will further increase the deficit. Because of all the various provisions of this legislation, neither supporters nor opponents are 100% clear on all the provisions. The only thing certain is that both sides will "spin" the issue!
Because of all the public discussion on the issue, my belief is that some "watered-down" version of a bill will eventually pass, and that both sides will claim victory, and how they have served and protected the American public.
What is truly uncertain is exactly who will really benefit from this legislation, exactly how much will this really cost, will health care be improved in this country, who and what will suffer, and what are all the long-term and short-term ramifications of either action or inaction on this issue. While everyone would tell you that they believe that everyone should receive quality medical coverage, does this, in the long-term address that? How would the costs of medical malpractice insurance, unnecessary medical tests, etc., be impacted by this legislation? What works and what does not work in other countries that have Universal coverage?
Doesn't it seem that the public should be truly informed about such important legislation? It may be an excellent paln - - it may be horrendous; but we have certainly not been informed of how the 85% of Americans who presently have medical coverage will be affected (will their insurance benefits improve; will it cost less; will there still be an incentive for doctors to practice; will drug approval be impacted; will alternative medicine be considered; will there be more provision for enhanced preventative medicine; etc?). How much will the plan really cost, and what protections are built in for the American taxpayer? How will this plan save the consumer money? If there are taxes that will be imposed to pay for this plan, what will be the potential negative impact on the overall economy, and on employer-provided health care? What will be the impact on other medical treatments such as: dentistry; optometry; chiropractry; alternative/ holistic practioners?
While I certainly don't know the complete answer, I believe we should ALL be asking some important questions!

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody)

Consulting Website: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons

Economic & Political Developments, & THE "SPIN"

Election Day was a busy day in the US yesterday. Oh, not particularly at the polls, where light to lighter-than-usual turnouts of voters at the polls yesterday. It was a "spinner's holiday" because any Democrat defeat or Republican victory would be "spun" into a statement on the President. Corzine's loss in New Jersey was more because of the unpopularity of the Governor and his policies, as well as voter anger about taxes, than any type of national indicator regarding the President (in fact, in NJ, exit polls indicated that over 55% stated that their vote had nothing to do with Obama). Similarly, nobody should have been terribly surprised with the Virginia gubernatorial result. But, President Obama brought this "spin" upon himself by campaigning so often in Virginia, and especially in New Jersey. Nationally, ansd especially in the New York metropolitan area, it was a bad Election Day for incumbents, who an angry and anxious electorate took their despair and unrest out on. It reminded me of the line from the movie, NETWORK,"I'm mad as hell and NOT going to take it an ymore!"
The US House of Representatives indicated that it will probably vote this week on both an extension and enhancement of the popular New Homebuyers Tax Credit. The goal stated is to get the bill to the President by next week, far ahead of the November 30th deadline. Critics claim that there really has not been that much of an economic advantage, because those that bought houses would have done so anyway. That is probably somewhat true; however, what is not stated is when, and the economic urgency of making the housing market healthy sooner rather than later.
The "spinners" are also having a field-day over the reported jobless numbers. "Only" about 203,000 more jobs were lost last month, so since this is NOT worse than expectations, the stock market appears to be celebrating, at least on a short-term basis. That is until the next report, and someone "spins" the numbers another way.
The hot news this morning is the report that NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is going after Intel for anti-trust violations, similar to the recently settled suit in Europe. Are we supposed to be surprised that Intel applied pressure and coercion on PC manufacturers to use their chip, instead of their competitiors. However, since Intel already dominates the chip industry with approximately 80% of the market, how much coercion was really necessary? Anyway, it gives the politicos and the press something to divert their attention, now that the elections are over.
Our political leaders still seem to be hiding from the real central economic issue-- joblessness. Until the American public regains their confidence that jobs will actually be restored as opposed to lost, and that there will be both job creation as well as job security, our economy will have an uphill battle to recovery. We need to open our eyes, and ask why. We need to question the status quo. We need to have the politicians know that the time for rhetoric is over - - it is now time for real action. Change is just a word unless it becomes an action!

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @rgbrody