The Congress will relieve these financial barons of the burden of bad debt. Of that I am sure.
The only way it should be given is if all the executives in the top tier of management and their Boards of Directors be forced to return to their company all compensation including salary and bonuses received for the past decade, the time in which their outrageous, greedy pursuit of profit occurred. I want their corporate jets, penthouse apartments, golf club memberships, box tickets for professional sports and everything else that I have not mentioned. From what I have read some CEOs have already walked away with twenty or more million dollars. Others are protected with their golden parachutes worth millions more. How can we as a government or as citizens allow these predators to continue their fabulous life styles while the carnage goes on?
I continue to see AIG television adds nightly while this is going on. You would think they would have the decency to hold off while they are crawling on their bellies pleading, save me, save me.
On a previous occasion I wrote an article comparing the depression of 1928 to 2008. I concluded that the chips be allowed to fall and that in the end it would sort itself out and people would be able once again to afford purchasing a home. The costs had reached astronomical levels that any fool should realize could not be sustained. I guess that means that all those involved in my opinion were fools in spite of their huge obscene compensation.
How dare anyone compare this to the Chrysler loan given many years ago? Lee Iacocca paid back every cent borrowed plus interest. All the while the loan was in effect he received one dollar per year in salary. At the end an important segment of production was saved. What will we have with these robber barons; they will gobble up any entity weaker than themselves and create another monster that will have to be saved when it happens again.
Is anyone concerned about the other financial institutions that are not included in this bailout? While they struggle day by day to survive shouldn’t they also be granted relief?
President Clinton was in office when banks, investment and insurance were allowed to merge. This is when it all became so confusing and uncontrollable. The Republican Party as a whole has been crusading for decades now to eliminate all vestiges of FDR’s programs which were enacted to protect the little guys. Even during this crisis, McCain is touting privatizing Social Security, should that happen, this lifeline will disappear, while Wall Street gorges on the goodies placed at their disposal. Company pensions which people like me still live on are no longer available. People are forced into 401K’s. How many billions have they lost this week? How many college funds have been ravaged? People like me dutifully put money aside to aid grandchildren as well as parents who put off things they might like to own or do for the sake of their children’s futures.
What should really concern us is that this trillion dollar bailout is just the tip of the ice burg. Hedge funds that leverage one dollar against one hundred could tank at any time if they bet the wrong way. Bet is the proper term. These money making entities add nothing to the health of our country. They just suck the life blood out of the economy.
I really feel sorry for McCain, Obama and all the other people running for office. They have lofty goals. There will be nothing left to pay for their programs. The next administration will have its hands full trying to keep America solvent. When I think of the trillions in bonds owned by China and OPEC countries I shudder to think if we will not just be taken over as they purchase our assets at bargain basement costs.
Why do we as Americans allow this to happen? Are we so shallow that all we need is a can of beer and a football game to amuse us? My writing efforts have been a dismal effort. They have accomplished nothing of tangible benefit. That will not stop me from trying to make a difference. I am past the age of getting into the arena and taking them on but believe me I would enjoy it if I could.
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 20, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Most Noble Adventure- a book review
The Marshall Plan and the Time
When America Helped Save Europe
By Greg Behrman
We are all creatures of our own past. I admit I am continually drawn back to my youth and the momentous happenings that occurred during that time. I found this book at Bookman’s in Phoenix before my annual visit to Lockport, N.Y. to visit family and friends. For my 80th birthday I received gifts of books. They were all worthy of reading. I finally got around to this one. It was like saving the best for last. For those of you born after the war it might interest you if you are a student of history as I am, but unless you were alive it could not be as meaningful to you as it was to me.
In actual fact it filled in voids in my knowledge as the events described mainly occurred while I was serving in the army of occupation of Japan from 1947 to 1949. As a serviceman there were other things to occupy my mind and Europe was light years away from Japan. I witnessed the remarkable rebuilding of Japan. I was not aware of a massive infusion of funds from America. There may have been but other than basic food stuff right after the war it was my impression that it was the Japanese people who got the job done. At any rate little is said about Asia in this book. President Truman and George Marshall believed that if Europe could not be saved as a capitalistic nation that America would be cut off from trade with the continent and our growth stifled as a result. Europe was in ruins. The bombing and ground combat had destroyed most of the infrastructure: roads, bridges, rail roads, airports, utilities and housing. The people were starving and destitute. They were accepting communism as the way out of their misery and countries were on the verge of becoming communist.
Mr. Marshall gave a speech at Harvard University, June 5, 1947. In it after stating the dire condition of Europe, he proposed an aid plan of massive proportions to save it. This was like a shot heard around the world. On April 3, 1948 President Truman put his signature to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948. He said, “This measure is Americas answer to the free world” and it was, “perhaps the greatest venture in constructive statesmanship that any nation has undertaken”. It was forever referred to as The Marshall Plan in honor of this great man who conceived the idea and did what was needed to persuade the Congress to enact the legislation. It was a hard sell. America was in turmoil itself with millions of returning veterans and industry in a massive restructuring from military to civilian goods.
Most of the book describes the many problems encountered and gives praise to a number of men whose skill and devotion shepherded it through. What made it more difficult was that European leaders were called upon to work together as they had never done before. Marshall and the rest were determined that this not be run by Americans country by country but that Europeans had to do the hard work of building a structure which was within reason as far as our funds were concerned. To accomplish this, each country was forced to accept projects for the good of all, not just their own. The ultimate goal was to create a union of countries like America without trade barriers, with free flow of goods and people. Great progress was made but it was many years later that full unification took place. In 1992 the European Union was finally established. It is generally accepted that it would never have been accomplished had there not been a Marshall Plan.
This was a four year program. During that time over 13 billion dollars in goods and services were given to Europe. The author estimates that in today’s dollars it would be equivalent to 100 billion dollars. It is important to take this into account so that the enormity of this transfer from Americans to Europeans can be appreciated. Never before or since has there been anything to compare with the generosity of our people.
At the beginning Russia and the satellite states under their control were invited to participate. Marshall Stalin would not allow it. It is stated in the book that Russia took from these countries as much as we gave.
Other interesting facts are
The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) was created by the passage of The National Security Act of 1947 to counter communist propaganda.
The Berlin airlift began June 27, 1948, when Stalin closed all land access to Berlin. His goal was to drive us out by starving the 2.4 million Germans living there. He gave in on May 12, 1949 which was the first day trucks began to roll. On the same day the new German Federated Republic was formed. The occupied zones by America, Britain and France were combined into a complete country. Since everyone was wary about Germany rising again as a threat the allies retained veto power should that be necessary. It was never used.
Towards the end of the program on April 4, 1949, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was created for the mutual defense of the European nations. This began to drain funds from the economic program but the threat of Russian intervention was so grave there wasn’t any other choice.
In June, 1950 North Korea invaded the South which by necessity diverted attention from Europe. President Truman directed General Macarthur to send troops to counter. Macarthur was successful but when the Chinese crossed the border our forces retreated and a stalemate ensued. Macarthur was relieved of command after a fundamental disagreement with his boss, President Truman. Macarthur felt we were fighting Europe’s war in Asia but Truman and the European allies did not agree, neither wanted to squander the progress made by getting mired down in Asia. I guess we will never know who was right. I agreed with Macarthur but then my position and 10 cents at the time would buy a cup of coffee.
I want to conclude with President Truman’s inaugural address January 20, 1949. He was so happy with the results of the Marshall Plan that he proposed a new one. He said, “More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery.” Beset by starvation and disease, “for the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of these people.’ He proposed a “bold new program” of investment and technological transfer to provide resources, opportunity and hope to all the world’s peoples. It was called The Point Four Program. It was an inspired speech but unfortunately was never enacted by Congress.
I feel I cannot finish this review without further reflecting on the contribution made for world peace by President Truman. It was recommended that the plan be called the Truman Plan instead of the Marshall Plan. He rejected the thought knowing that with his name attached partisan politics being what it was, that the plan would never be approved. From reading this book I must conclude that he was correct.
Others may disagree but there is no doubt in my mind that his decision to drop atomic bombs brought the war with Japan to an end. The deaths of thousands of our American troops and countless millions of Japanese would have ensued had the invasion been initiated. Having been there after the war I was convinced and other servicemen there agreed on this point.
When you add up all that occurred during his presidency I am amazed at what he accomplished. Very few other presidents have contributed as much. He has never been credited as he should have been. People liked to belittle him since he was not an elitist from Harvard or Yale and did not have lineage tracing back to the beginning of our country.
A friend recently shared little known tidbits of information, which I will add to wrap this up. After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove themselves home to Missouri without Secret Service protection. He had a military pension of $13,507.72 per year. Congress discovered that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them. They granted him an allowance, and a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year. The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence, Missouri. The house was inherited from Bess’s mother.
Corporations offered high paying positions which he rejected, stating, “You don’t want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.”
On May17, 1971, Congress was prepared to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday. He refused to accept it, writing, “I don’t consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any such award, Congressional or otherwise.”
I rest my case.
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 17, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
When America Helped Save Europe
By Greg Behrman
We are all creatures of our own past. I admit I am continually drawn back to my youth and the momentous happenings that occurred during that time. I found this book at Bookman’s in Phoenix before my annual visit to Lockport, N.Y. to visit family and friends. For my 80th birthday I received gifts of books. They were all worthy of reading. I finally got around to this one. It was like saving the best for last. For those of you born after the war it might interest you if you are a student of history as I am, but unless you were alive it could not be as meaningful to you as it was to me.
In actual fact it filled in voids in my knowledge as the events described mainly occurred while I was serving in the army of occupation of Japan from 1947 to 1949. As a serviceman there were other things to occupy my mind and Europe was light years away from Japan. I witnessed the remarkable rebuilding of Japan. I was not aware of a massive infusion of funds from America. There may have been but other than basic food stuff right after the war it was my impression that it was the Japanese people who got the job done. At any rate little is said about Asia in this book. President Truman and George Marshall believed that if Europe could not be saved as a capitalistic nation that America would be cut off from trade with the continent and our growth stifled as a result. Europe was in ruins. The bombing and ground combat had destroyed most of the infrastructure: roads, bridges, rail roads, airports, utilities and housing. The people were starving and destitute. They were accepting communism as the way out of their misery and countries were on the verge of becoming communist.
Mr. Marshall gave a speech at Harvard University, June 5, 1947. In it after stating the dire condition of Europe, he proposed an aid plan of massive proportions to save it. This was like a shot heard around the world. On April 3, 1948 President Truman put his signature to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948. He said, “This measure is Americas answer to the free world” and it was, “perhaps the greatest venture in constructive statesmanship that any nation has undertaken”. It was forever referred to as The Marshall Plan in honor of this great man who conceived the idea and did what was needed to persuade the Congress to enact the legislation. It was a hard sell. America was in turmoil itself with millions of returning veterans and industry in a massive restructuring from military to civilian goods.
Most of the book describes the many problems encountered and gives praise to a number of men whose skill and devotion shepherded it through. What made it more difficult was that European leaders were called upon to work together as they had never done before. Marshall and the rest were determined that this not be run by Americans country by country but that Europeans had to do the hard work of building a structure which was within reason as far as our funds were concerned. To accomplish this, each country was forced to accept projects for the good of all, not just their own. The ultimate goal was to create a union of countries like America without trade barriers, with free flow of goods and people. Great progress was made but it was many years later that full unification took place. In 1992 the European Union was finally established. It is generally accepted that it would never have been accomplished had there not been a Marshall Plan.
This was a four year program. During that time over 13 billion dollars in goods and services were given to Europe. The author estimates that in today’s dollars it would be equivalent to 100 billion dollars. It is important to take this into account so that the enormity of this transfer from Americans to Europeans can be appreciated. Never before or since has there been anything to compare with the generosity of our people.
At the beginning Russia and the satellite states under their control were invited to participate. Marshall Stalin would not allow it. It is stated in the book that Russia took from these countries as much as we gave.
Other interesting facts are
The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) was created by the passage of The National Security Act of 1947 to counter communist propaganda.
The Berlin airlift began June 27, 1948, when Stalin closed all land access to Berlin. His goal was to drive us out by starving the 2.4 million Germans living there. He gave in on May 12, 1949 which was the first day trucks began to roll. On the same day the new German Federated Republic was formed. The occupied zones by America, Britain and France were combined into a complete country. Since everyone was wary about Germany rising again as a threat the allies retained veto power should that be necessary. It was never used.
Towards the end of the program on April 4, 1949, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was created for the mutual defense of the European nations. This began to drain funds from the economic program but the threat of Russian intervention was so grave there wasn’t any other choice.
In June, 1950 North Korea invaded the South which by necessity diverted attention from Europe. President Truman directed General Macarthur to send troops to counter. Macarthur was successful but when the Chinese crossed the border our forces retreated and a stalemate ensued. Macarthur was relieved of command after a fundamental disagreement with his boss, President Truman. Macarthur felt we were fighting Europe’s war in Asia but Truman and the European allies did not agree, neither wanted to squander the progress made by getting mired down in Asia. I guess we will never know who was right. I agreed with Macarthur but then my position and 10 cents at the time would buy a cup of coffee.
I want to conclude with President Truman’s inaugural address January 20, 1949. He was so happy with the results of the Marshall Plan that he proposed a new one. He said, “More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery.” Beset by starvation and disease, “for the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of these people.’ He proposed a “bold new program” of investment and technological transfer to provide resources, opportunity and hope to all the world’s peoples. It was called The Point Four Program. It was an inspired speech but unfortunately was never enacted by Congress.
I feel I cannot finish this review without further reflecting on the contribution made for world peace by President Truman. It was recommended that the plan be called the Truman Plan instead of the Marshall Plan. He rejected the thought knowing that with his name attached partisan politics being what it was, that the plan would never be approved. From reading this book I must conclude that he was correct.
Others may disagree but there is no doubt in my mind that his decision to drop atomic bombs brought the war with Japan to an end. The deaths of thousands of our American troops and countless millions of Japanese would have ensued had the invasion been initiated. Having been there after the war I was convinced and other servicemen there agreed on this point.
When you add up all that occurred during his presidency I am amazed at what he accomplished. Very few other presidents have contributed as much. He has never been credited as he should have been. People liked to belittle him since he was not an elitist from Harvard or Yale and did not have lineage tracing back to the beginning of our country.
A friend recently shared little known tidbits of information, which I will add to wrap this up. After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove themselves home to Missouri without Secret Service protection. He had a military pension of $13,507.72 per year. Congress discovered that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them. They granted him an allowance, and a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year. The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence, Missouri. The house was inherited from Bess’s mother.
Corporations offered high paying positions which he rejected, stating, “You don’t want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.”
On May17, 1971, Congress was prepared to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday. He refused to accept it, writing, “I don’t consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any such award, Congressional or otherwise.”
I rest my case.
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 17, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
Sunday, September 14, 2008
John McCain-Ready to Serve
The United States Senate has voted on issues 180 times so far this year. McCain voted 24 times for a percentage of 13%. Most of those occurred on two dates 2/12 & 3/13. He must have been campaigning nearby and stopped in to chat. Just Google John McCain voting record, it will show every vote he ever cast.
He likes to refer to his military service. If he was still in, his performance would be categorized as AWOL (absence without leave), a court martial offense usually punishable by prison time. I guess the good old boy’s club does not have any rules like this.
I may be wrong but I have believed we were living in critical times requiring vigilance and leadership. I must be wrong or else John would have stayed on the job and exerted his will to resolve.
Our current President has taken more vacation time than any other in history so I guess the pattern is set. I am sure that after winning the election John will take a much deserved rest until sworn in next January.
Doesn’t anyone but me detest the American election process?
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 14, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
He likes to refer to his military service. If he was still in, his performance would be categorized as AWOL (absence without leave), a court martial offense usually punishable by prison time. I guess the good old boy’s club does not have any rules like this.
I may be wrong but I have believed we were living in critical times requiring vigilance and leadership. I must be wrong or else John would have stayed on the job and exerted his will to resolve.
Our current President has taken more vacation time than any other in history so I guess the pattern is set. I am sure that after winning the election John will take a much deserved rest until sworn in next January.
Doesn’t anyone but me detest the American election process?
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 14, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
John McCain article
I heard John McCain state that his favorite president was Teddy Roosevelt. Hard to disagree. He was a great president. He loved wilderness and wildlife. Because of him we still enjoy the beauty of the areas he set aside for posterity. McCain has also expressed his concern about global warming even if the current president doesn't. I find it strange that he chose as his running mate a Governor who has sued the EPA to keep that department from taking steps to protect polar bears from extinction. She also has promoted aerial hunting of wolves and offers a bounty of $150 for wolf feet. She does not accept that humans have any responsibility in regard to global warming. Sorry John, you can't have it both ways. You could not have picked someone whose beliefs are more diametrically opposed to Teddy Roosevelt. Just a heartbeat away. What damage could she inflict upon an already fragile environment.
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 13, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 13, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Election Primary System Must Be Changed
I am writing this as a follow up article to the first entitled, “There is no other way”, the theme of that one was to remove corporate money from politics. This one deals with the process itself which must be simplified.
We are nearly finished with this season’s election process which began early last year and now has 60 days left, after which the process will start over again. It is like a perpetual motion machine; once you start it spinning it just keeps going, as if it had a life of its own.
A number of political entities jockeyed for position in the primary process realizing that their States voting citizens would be also ran votes while the real decisions were made earlier in the process. Michigan and Florida went against the Democratic Parties edict and moved their primaries forward only to find that their votes when finally recognized had been diminished so that they had no effect on the outcome.
I live in Arizona which is one of the last to vote. By that time the field has been winnowed down to two viable choices whereas when it all started there were eight Democrats and eight Republicans. The Democrats were; Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the Republican side were, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and John McCain.
It all starts in Iowa. I lived in Iowa from 1971 to 1993. I was active politically and did attend the Caucasus which chooses the candidates. I never felt good about it. To participate you go to a school or church auditorium and after preliminary instructions, head to an area assigned to a candidate. The total number attending dictates how many votes are needed to get a point count. Once settled in with those you can count on then you roam the place trying to get someone to change their vote and go for your candidate. Once it is concluded then it announced which candidates received points. When these are added together with the other 99 counties then the results are reported. Why I did not respect the system is because it is usually held on what is usually a very cold February evening. This year it was moved forward to January 3rd. Who wants to be away from home for four hours and drive home on slippery streets and then try for a little sleep before heading to work the next day? The percentage of potential voters actually participating is very small, as I recall less than 10%. When I lived there it was a nearly lily white farm state with a large insurance industry, government and little else. No state could be less representative of America than Iowa. The candidates knowing how important it is to win the first state spend inordinate amounts of time traveling the state. Many, including I recall, John McCain visiting all 99 counties. They must grovel for votes by extolling the virtues of ethanol or they are dead meat.
Next comes New Hampshire, another must win state. Again, it is rural and mostly white, not at all representative of America as a whole. This is where it paid off for John McCain. He had lost in Iowa and was counted out but his town hall meeting process garnered affection for him. He won and the process continued, next to South Carolina and on and on until all states votes have been tallied.
My objection to the process is that these first states essentially decide who the finalists will be. A candidate who I might admire will have dropped out before my turn to vote and it angers me that I am not given the same opportunity as the states mentioned above.
How this cane to be, I do not know. I do know that Iowa became the first state in the primary season in 1972. Party officials seem to think that it is cast in stone. If it began in 1972 then it could be changed for the next election. I haven’t tried to research what the schedule was before 1972 but whatever it was it could not be more unfair than the current system. This is certainly a windfall for the state, millions of dollars are spent there and considerable media attention is focused on a state that most people could care less about. The same is true for the others. In fact dragging it out for such an extended length of time causes expenditures of billions before it is concluded.
Other countries have limits on campaigning time. In Canada all Provinces vote at the same time so in effect there is no primary just an election with the highest point count the winner of each district. They are not voting for a President. They vote for their representative. The party with the most votes then selects their leader. To illustrate this point, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that on Sunday, September 7, 2008, he plans to dissolve Parliament and call for early elections in hopes of strengthening his minorities hold on power. Voting will be done on October 14, 2008. Just imagine a voting process lasting five weeks whereas ours is an ongoing process seemingly without end.
If the process started in January of the election year I suppose we could live with it but it doesn’t. I started seriously in 2007. If truth be told it started years before as candidates who lost before sometimes re-appear. This is a boon to all areas of news reporting; particularly television with their talking heads arguing in defense or opposition to candidates. Every word used by a candidate is dissected to search for its true meaning. I can’t begin to imagine the revenues they receive from advertisers as well as the parties and candidates, probably in the billions. It certainly represents full time employment for correspondents traveling with the candidates. The states and communities also receive revenue as people flock to these locations whenever any action is occurring. I, of course believe all of this to be wasted funds which if available could certainly be put to better use. You can’t turn on your set without your program being disrupted by a commercial most of which are negative in nature.
Here is my suggestion to limit the time and increase fairness. Compress the time. Instead of January, let the voting begin in June of election year with all states voting at the same time. Allow the candidates to travel the country visiting all states if they wish to put out their message asking for support. A clear winner may not be produced so let the delegates to the conventions work it out as they used to do and select their candidate during their convention. There are probably many good reasons why this is a bad idea but using it as a starting point for discussion I am asking that dramatic changes be made for the good of us all.
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 8, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
We are nearly finished with this season’s election process which began early last year and now has 60 days left, after which the process will start over again. It is like a perpetual motion machine; once you start it spinning it just keeps going, as if it had a life of its own.
A number of political entities jockeyed for position in the primary process realizing that their States voting citizens would be also ran votes while the real decisions were made earlier in the process. Michigan and Florida went against the Democratic Parties edict and moved their primaries forward only to find that their votes when finally recognized had been diminished so that they had no effect on the outcome.
I live in Arizona which is one of the last to vote. By that time the field has been winnowed down to two viable choices whereas when it all started there were eight Democrats and eight Republicans. The Democrats were; Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the Republican side were, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and John McCain.
It all starts in Iowa. I lived in Iowa from 1971 to 1993. I was active politically and did attend the Caucasus which chooses the candidates. I never felt good about it. To participate you go to a school or church auditorium and after preliminary instructions, head to an area assigned to a candidate. The total number attending dictates how many votes are needed to get a point count. Once settled in with those you can count on then you roam the place trying to get someone to change their vote and go for your candidate. Once it is concluded then it announced which candidates received points. When these are added together with the other 99 counties then the results are reported. Why I did not respect the system is because it is usually held on what is usually a very cold February evening. This year it was moved forward to January 3rd. Who wants to be away from home for four hours and drive home on slippery streets and then try for a little sleep before heading to work the next day? The percentage of potential voters actually participating is very small, as I recall less than 10%. When I lived there it was a nearly lily white farm state with a large insurance industry, government and little else. No state could be less representative of America than Iowa. The candidates knowing how important it is to win the first state spend inordinate amounts of time traveling the state. Many, including I recall, John McCain visiting all 99 counties. They must grovel for votes by extolling the virtues of ethanol or they are dead meat.
Next comes New Hampshire, another must win state. Again, it is rural and mostly white, not at all representative of America as a whole. This is where it paid off for John McCain. He had lost in Iowa and was counted out but his town hall meeting process garnered affection for him. He won and the process continued, next to South Carolina and on and on until all states votes have been tallied.
My objection to the process is that these first states essentially decide who the finalists will be. A candidate who I might admire will have dropped out before my turn to vote and it angers me that I am not given the same opportunity as the states mentioned above.
How this cane to be, I do not know. I do know that Iowa became the first state in the primary season in 1972. Party officials seem to think that it is cast in stone. If it began in 1972 then it could be changed for the next election. I haven’t tried to research what the schedule was before 1972 but whatever it was it could not be more unfair than the current system. This is certainly a windfall for the state, millions of dollars are spent there and considerable media attention is focused on a state that most people could care less about. The same is true for the others. In fact dragging it out for such an extended length of time causes expenditures of billions before it is concluded.
Other countries have limits on campaigning time. In Canada all Provinces vote at the same time so in effect there is no primary just an election with the highest point count the winner of each district. They are not voting for a President. They vote for their representative. The party with the most votes then selects their leader. To illustrate this point, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that on Sunday, September 7, 2008, he plans to dissolve Parliament and call for early elections in hopes of strengthening his minorities hold on power. Voting will be done on October 14, 2008. Just imagine a voting process lasting five weeks whereas ours is an ongoing process seemingly without end.
If the process started in January of the election year I suppose we could live with it but it doesn’t. I started seriously in 2007. If truth be told it started years before as candidates who lost before sometimes re-appear. This is a boon to all areas of news reporting; particularly television with their talking heads arguing in defense or opposition to candidates. Every word used by a candidate is dissected to search for its true meaning. I can’t begin to imagine the revenues they receive from advertisers as well as the parties and candidates, probably in the billions. It certainly represents full time employment for correspondents traveling with the candidates. The states and communities also receive revenue as people flock to these locations whenever any action is occurring. I, of course believe all of this to be wasted funds which if available could certainly be put to better use. You can’t turn on your set without your program being disrupted by a commercial most of which are negative in nature.
Here is my suggestion to limit the time and increase fairness. Compress the time. Instead of January, let the voting begin in June of election year with all states voting at the same time. Allow the candidates to travel the country visiting all states if they wish to put out their message asking for support. A clear winner may not be produced so let the delegates to the conventions work it out as they used to do and select their candidate during their convention. There are probably many good reasons why this is a bad idea but using it as a starting point for discussion I am asking that dramatic changes be made for the good of us all.
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 8, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
Friday, September 5, 2008
There is only one answer
I have been struggling for a number of years now trying to find the answer to return our country to an election process that removes Corporations from contributing to candidates and political parties. I have read many books and articles including the two books written by David Cay Johnston entitled, Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch. I am firmly convinced that only by taking out of the election process the enormous funds required can sanity be restored. Billions are spent each election cycle and while more and more small givers have entered the process, big money is still what greases the wheels of Congress to enact legislation for their benefit. Not only are the politicians of all parties beholden to the rich, the lack of time to address major issues is just not there. The time spent raising money detracts from their ability to study, discuss, read and meet with others to find solutions for the many and sundry items on the agenda. How many times have we heard that massive pieces of legislation are voted on based on the advice of subordinates with the elected officials never reading what they are voting for? This is outrageous.
Congress recessed (8/1/08) for five weeks without agreement on legislation to resolve the energy crisis. Both presidential candidates were not there. Perhaps had they been, consensus might have been reached. Why must everything important to our country, be put on hold waiting for the next election, after which it starts all over again with candidates competing for the next election without staying on the job and finding compromise solutions to our many problems. In my lifetime it was not always like this, FDR in particular stayed in Washington on the job. He didn’t even campaign after his first two terms. He was needed to lead us to victory over the Axis powers. I am not even sure when it started to change. It was probably when television became so important with sets in every household.
There have always been lobbyists. I myself lobbied for my company, usually to prevent State government officials from enacting legislation detrimental to the well being of my factory in Des Moines. Prior to working in Des Moines it never occurred to me that this was something I should be concerned about. My full attention was in the factory. This all started to change, at least for me in the 70’s as government started interfering with the manufacturing process. Year by year new laws and regulations were enacted, all of which detracted from our mission of making quality products the public would purchase. I did actually visit Washington on one occasion with other Iowa manufacturers. We were summarily kicked out of a Senator’s office. I remember him stating that he had no time for us since we didn’t support him in his re-election contest. He was a Democrat and we were all Republicans at the time. During that visit and others to State officials it never occurred to me that money should be handed over. I believed our message was logical and should be accepted on its merits alone. Perhaps that was true before but certainly not today. Those with the most to give have their ear, not the rest of us peons who are just concerned and are only making input because we care. We ask for consideration not for our personal benefit but for the good of all.
I have no illusions that writing this paper will have any influence on those in power. The most I can hope for is that others reading might discuss or share with others and in this way begin the thinking process on ways to resolve. To this end I have searched the internet asking how other countries conduct elections. I will share findings from several for comparison.
Canada
I received a very detailed response from Canada. The complete report can be found by using the web and going to;
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=index&dir=ces&lang=e&textonly=false
Canada has a parliamentary system. There are numerous parties. While the Conservative and Liberal parties are the largest, after most elections the party that wins the most districts usually doesn’t have a clear majority, which means that the smaller parties are needed to pass legislation which gives them opportunities to add items from their agenda. The election cycle is 5 years but if a no confidence vote occurs then the government must dissolve. A new election is called usually 36 days after the election committee is ready.
Another aspect I like is that a candidate of the winning party with the most votes is declared the Prime Minister. Whereas in our country the candidates for President has in my opinion deteriorated into a very expensive beauty contest. We vote for a person instead of our own personal conviction.
I will now list pertinent items I gleaned from the report;
Contributions are tightly controlled.
Third party expenses are limited to $3,866/district and a total of $183,300 for all districts. This is in effect between April 1, 2008 & March 31, 2009. These numbers are usually revised upward based on inflation.
The limit for nomination expense is between $14,000 and $21,000 depending on the size of the district with an average of about $16,000.
Personal contribution limits are:
$1,100/year for a political party
$1,100/year for a district association, nominating contestants & party endorsed candidates
$1,100/year for independent candidates
$1,100/year for leadership contestants
I know all of these are confusing. In looking thru the list of donors I noticed that some people gave money to more than one candidate. The amounts are indexed to inflation.
The government encourages contributions and provides a tax credit of a max of $750 for contributions over $1,275.01, again indexed to inflation.
Candidates cannot receive gifts except from relatives or as a nominal expression of courtesy or protocol. This statement looked like a loophole to me. I tried for clarification but none was forthcoming.
As of 6/12/2007 all gifts over $500 must be reported while a candidate. Parties cannot transfer funds to candidates.
CORPORATIONS & TRADE UNIONS MAY NOT MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL ENTITIES.
During the 39th election, which was the most recent, the expense limits for political parties ranged from $68,158 endorsing one candidate to $18,278,279 for all 308 districts. Limits for candidates ranged from $62,210 to $106,290, again based on the size of the district.
REPORTING OF CONTRIBUTIONS IS MANDATORY
I found it interesting that the process has evolved over the life of the country I assume to keep it within reasonable control.
Of the following countries I will be reporting on, they are democracies with executive, legislative and judicial branches. In the interest of brevity I will only write about their election process. To check on other countries, you just google the name of the country and ask about their government. This will lead you to various web sites to find what you need.
Switzerland
When I started on this country I was excited. They have enjoyed being as close to a pure democracy as any country. The citizens with a petition drive can challenge a law passed by the parliament and overturn it or have it modified. They are governed by a seven member executive council called The Swiss Federal Council. The leadership changes each year selected from the council membership. The members are selected based upon the largest percentage of votes received by a major party. It had included two each from the Free Democratic Party, the Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic People’s Party plus one member from the Swiss People’s Party. In the 2003 election the People’s Party took one seat away from the Christian Democratic Party which normally would be OK except for the fact that there are no restrictions on financing elections and Peoples raised $17 million while the second largest raised $1.7 million. I realize that $17 million is chump change in America, but once it starts where will it end. There is consideration to control but as of now this is the way it is, which means to me that they are deteriorating. following our example with the party with the most income to invest increasing their control as they persuade the electoric to vote as the money dictates. I certainly hope this will be curtailed.
Australia
I was disappointed to learn that Corporations and Unions are allowed to contribute large sums to candidates and parties. In 2004-2005, the Labor Party raised $64.8 million from the corporate sector, while the Liberal Party contributed over $66 million. While again this pales to the huge amounts contributed in America, it is a disturbing trend. Hopefully they will adopt Canada’s policy which prohibits corporations and unions from giving funds.
New Zealand
In this country there is an Electoral Commission which allocates funds and time for broadcast election advertising. In 2006 they made an allocation of $3.2 million which parties can use for radio or television advertising, along with 72 minutes for opening addresses and 30 minutes for closing addresses. This was the same as the previous year.
Parties cannot use their own funds although candidates are allowed $20,000. Further, broadcast advertising can only be used five weeks before Election Day.
Wow, can you imagine what a blessing this would be instead of the constant year round haranguing we put up with in America.
Conclusion
There is little reason for me to keep checking other countries. What I have gleaned above is that there are problems everywhere with corporate type gifts. Most of the countries listed control it to various degrees. Canada and New Zealand have the best systems as far as I am concerned. The others appear to be heading in the wrong direction. The one saving grace for them is the quickness of the election process.
America cannot continue spending billions each year with the debilitating effect it has on the efficiency of elected officials. Perhaps in a small way this effort of mine may prompt discussion leading to legislation to curb this obscene process and restore sanity. The campaign finance legislation pushed and passed through the effort of Senator McCain did not accomplish the objective. Another effort must be initiated, hopefully by the next Congress, whoever is in control. I will not be holding my breath as they will not considered it critical as I do.
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 5, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
Congress recessed (8/1/08) for five weeks without agreement on legislation to resolve the energy crisis. Both presidential candidates were not there. Perhaps had they been, consensus might have been reached. Why must everything important to our country, be put on hold waiting for the next election, after which it starts all over again with candidates competing for the next election without staying on the job and finding compromise solutions to our many problems. In my lifetime it was not always like this, FDR in particular stayed in Washington on the job. He didn’t even campaign after his first two terms. He was needed to lead us to victory over the Axis powers. I am not even sure when it started to change. It was probably when television became so important with sets in every household.
There have always been lobbyists. I myself lobbied for my company, usually to prevent State government officials from enacting legislation detrimental to the well being of my factory in Des Moines. Prior to working in Des Moines it never occurred to me that this was something I should be concerned about. My full attention was in the factory. This all started to change, at least for me in the 70’s as government started interfering with the manufacturing process. Year by year new laws and regulations were enacted, all of which detracted from our mission of making quality products the public would purchase. I did actually visit Washington on one occasion with other Iowa manufacturers. We were summarily kicked out of a Senator’s office. I remember him stating that he had no time for us since we didn’t support him in his re-election contest. He was a Democrat and we were all Republicans at the time. During that visit and others to State officials it never occurred to me that money should be handed over. I believed our message was logical and should be accepted on its merits alone. Perhaps that was true before but certainly not today. Those with the most to give have their ear, not the rest of us peons who are just concerned and are only making input because we care. We ask for consideration not for our personal benefit but for the good of all.
I have no illusions that writing this paper will have any influence on those in power. The most I can hope for is that others reading might discuss or share with others and in this way begin the thinking process on ways to resolve. To this end I have searched the internet asking how other countries conduct elections. I will share findings from several for comparison.
Canada
I received a very detailed response from Canada. The complete report can be found by using the web and going to;
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=index&dir=ces&lang=e&textonly=false
Canada has a parliamentary system. There are numerous parties. While the Conservative and Liberal parties are the largest, after most elections the party that wins the most districts usually doesn’t have a clear majority, which means that the smaller parties are needed to pass legislation which gives them opportunities to add items from their agenda. The election cycle is 5 years but if a no confidence vote occurs then the government must dissolve. A new election is called usually 36 days after the election committee is ready.
Another aspect I like is that a candidate of the winning party with the most votes is declared the Prime Minister. Whereas in our country the candidates for President has in my opinion deteriorated into a very expensive beauty contest. We vote for a person instead of our own personal conviction.
I will now list pertinent items I gleaned from the report;
Contributions are tightly controlled.
Third party expenses are limited to $3,866/district and a total of $183,300 for all districts. This is in effect between April 1, 2008 & March 31, 2009. These numbers are usually revised upward based on inflation.
The limit for nomination expense is between $14,000 and $21,000 depending on the size of the district with an average of about $16,000.
Personal contribution limits are:
$1,100/year for a political party
$1,100/year for a district association, nominating contestants & party endorsed candidates
$1,100/year for independent candidates
$1,100/year for leadership contestants
I know all of these are confusing. In looking thru the list of donors I noticed that some people gave money to more than one candidate. The amounts are indexed to inflation.
The government encourages contributions and provides a tax credit of a max of $750 for contributions over $1,275.01, again indexed to inflation.
Candidates cannot receive gifts except from relatives or as a nominal expression of courtesy or protocol. This statement looked like a loophole to me. I tried for clarification but none was forthcoming.
As of 6/12/2007 all gifts over $500 must be reported while a candidate. Parties cannot transfer funds to candidates.
CORPORATIONS & TRADE UNIONS MAY NOT MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL ENTITIES.
During the 39th election, which was the most recent, the expense limits for political parties ranged from $68,158 endorsing one candidate to $18,278,279 for all 308 districts. Limits for candidates ranged from $62,210 to $106,290, again based on the size of the district.
REPORTING OF CONTRIBUTIONS IS MANDATORY
I found it interesting that the process has evolved over the life of the country I assume to keep it within reasonable control.
Of the following countries I will be reporting on, they are democracies with executive, legislative and judicial branches. In the interest of brevity I will only write about their election process. To check on other countries, you just google the name of the country and ask about their government. This will lead you to various web sites to find what you need.
Switzerland
When I started on this country I was excited. They have enjoyed being as close to a pure democracy as any country. The citizens with a petition drive can challenge a law passed by the parliament and overturn it or have it modified. They are governed by a seven member executive council called The Swiss Federal Council. The leadership changes each year selected from the council membership. The members are selected based upon the largest percentage of votes received by a major party. It had included two each from the Free Democratic Party, the Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic People’s Party plus one member from the Swiss People’s Party. In the 2003 election the People’s Party took one seat away from the Christian Democratic Party which normally would be OK except for the fact that there are no restrictions on financing elections and Peoples raised $17 million while the second largest raised $1.7 million. I realize that $17 million is chump change in America, but once it starts where will it end. There is consideration to control but as of now this is the way it is, which means to me that they are deteriorating. following our example with the party with the most income to invest increasing their control as they persuade the electoric to vote as the money dictates. I certainly hope this will be curtailed.
Australia
I was disappointed to learn that Corporations and Unions are allowed to contribute large sums to candidates and parties. In 2004-2005, the Labor Party raised $64.8 million from the corporate sector, while the Liberal Party contributed over $66 million. While again this pales to the huge amounts contributed in America, it is a disturbing trend. Hopefully they will adopt Canada’s policy which prohibits corporations and unions from giving funds.
New Zealand
In this country there is an Electoral Commission which allocates funds and time for broadcast election advertising. In 2006 they made an allocation of $3.2 million which parties can use for radio or television advertising, along with 72 minutes for opening addresses and 30 minutes for closing addresses. This was the same as the previous year.
Parties cannot use their own funds although candidates are allowed $20,000. Further, broadcast advertising can only be used five weeks before Election Day.
Wow, can you imagine what a blessing this would be instead of the constant year round haranguing we put up with in America.
Conclusion
There is little reason for me to keep checking other countries. What I have gleaned above is that there are problems everywhere with corporate type gifts. Most of the countries listed control it to various degrees. Canada and New Zealand have the best systems as far as I am concerned. The others appear to be heading in the wrong direction. The one saving grace for them is the quickness of the election process.
America cannot continue spending billions each year with the debilitating effect it has on the efficiency of elected officials. Perhaps in a small way this effort of mine may prompt discussion leading to legislation to curb this obscene process and restore sanity. The campaign finance legislation pushed and passed through the effort of Senator McCain did not accomplish the objective. Another effort must be initiated, hopefully by the next Congress, whoever is in control. I will not be holding my breath as they will not considered it critical as I do.
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 5, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
A Thousand Splendid Suns- a book review
A Thousand Splendid Suns
By; Khaled Hosseini
I purchased this book because on the cover it stated that it was a novel by the author of “The Kite Runner”. That was a very powerful book describing life in Afghanistan the past 40 years. This new book parallels the same time period only from a different perspective. This was every bit as powerful as the other. I have also read, “Three Cups of Tea”, which takes place in Pakistan. This is a true story whereas the others are fiction. I am willing to grant Mr. Hosseini that what he writes describing life during those decades reflects what actually happened.
Life in this country was relatively peaceful until the communists came to power followed by the invasion by Russia. A Muslim country but strict enforcement of Sharia law was not enforced. Some women wore burkas but not all. Some men had beards but not all. Some men had one wife, others had more than one. Men were the authority figures but cruelty was not rampant. Over one million Afghans were killed during the war. When the Soviets withdrew, factions vied for supremacy. This is when barbarous treatment of Afghans began. They had been united against the Soviets but not now. In September, 1996 the Taliban became the ruling party. That is when darkness descended on the land. Their strict interpretation of Muslim law was harshly administered. Page 248 lists the rules all were to obey. Pray five times per day, singing and dancing prohibited, men to have beards, girls forbidden from attending schools, women forbidden from working outside of their homes and to be attended at all times by a male family member, etc.
By 2002 the Taliban had been defeated by the coalition forces and some semblance of normalcy descended upon the land.
The book chronicles the story of two women and their lives during these years. Sometimes they enjoyed happiness but mostly sorrow. It is not a nice story. For me they were just the vehicle required to put people into these years so the reader could sense what it would have been like.
I do recommend reading particularly by people like me who try to make sense out of the world we live in today.
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 2, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
By; Khaled Hosseini
I purchased this book because on the cover it stated that it was a novel by the author of “The Kite Runner”. That was a very powerful book describing life in Afghanistan the past 40 years. This new book parallels the same time period only from a different perspective. This was every bit as powerful as the other. I have also read, “Three Cups of Tea”, which takes place in Pakistan. This is a true story whereas the others are fiction. I am willing to grant Mr. Hosseini that what he writes describing life during those decades reflects what actually happened.
Life in this country was relatively peaceful until the communists came to power followed by the invasion by Russia. A Muslim country but strict enforcement of Sharia law was not enforced. Some women wore burkas but not all. Some men had beards but not all. Some men had one wife, others had more than one. Men were the authority figures but cruelty was not rampant. Over one million Afghans were killed during the war. When the Soviets withdrew, factions vied for supremacy. This is when barbarous treatment of Afghans began. They had been united against the Soviets but not now. In September, 1996 the Taliban became the ruling party. That is when darkness descended on the land. Their strict interpretation of Muslim law was harshly administered. Page 248 lists the rules all were to obey. Pray five times per day, singing and dancing prohibited, men to have beards, girls forbidden from attending schools, women forbidden from working outside of their homes and to be attended at all times by a male family member, etc.
By 2002 the Taliban had been defeated by the coalition forces and some semblance of normalcy descended upon the land.
The book chronicles the story of two women and their lives during these years. Sometimes they enjoyed happiness but mostly sorrow. It is not a nice story. For me they were just the vehicle required to put people into these years so the reader could sense what it would have been like.
I do recommend reading particularly by people like me who try to make sense out of the world we live in today.
Jack B. Walters
3961 N. Hillwood Circle
Tucson, AZ 85750
(520) 722-2958
September 2, 2008
jackbwalters@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
