CPT Predictions Ten Years Ago - The People's Agenda for Change - Part 2

Over ten years ago I wrote the following article pointing out what was wrong in America.  At the time Hillary was leading Obama in the polls for the 2008 Presidential election.  Little has changed since.  Part 2 follows this story.  What do you think?


On January 31, 2008 the following article was published in the Coltons Point Times.

“WE THE PEOPLE!”

Part 2 – What are the targets for change?
1. Money Mongers of the Financial Institutions
2. Mortgage Lenders – Vampires of the Golden Dream
3. Credit Card Industry Standards, Fees and Collection Methods
4. Health Care Industry Cost, Insurance and Unnecessary Treatment
5. Pharmaceutical Industry Proliferation of Prescription Drugs
6. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Drug Approval Process
7. Agriculture – Food Testing, Ingredients and Source
8. Campaign Reform – Empty Promises and Empty Wallets
9. Immigration Reform – The Slumbering Social Issue of the Day
10. Government Permits and Inspections – Protection or Payoffs

So there you have it, a concise list of the ten institutional bureaucracies that must be addressed by our candidates for president if those candidates truly want to be the flag bearers for change. Now a more detailed description of the targets follows but I want you to know what you are in for up front.

When you hear why they are on the list just ask yourself what my favorite candidate for president has had to say about these issues that wreak havoc on the public every day. For you see these thorny targets also represent some of the largest financial contributors to our candidates for change and the political parties of America.

So maybe when questioning the presidential candidates we should ask a series of qualifying questions. Do you want change? Do you take money from these special interest groups? Can you stand up to them and their financial power? How are you going to persuade the other members of congress to support you?

In politics promises are cheap, promises most often are forgotten after the election and careers can be cut short when promises threaten the golden goose that feeds off the unsuspecting public. What does that mean? It means we the people are the cash cow and the special interest groups are the beneficiary of decades of conflicts of interest, bribes and payoffs, greed and immorality and the hijacking of our political system.

Truth is it is hard to believe any candidate means what they say about change. They are all players to some degree or another of our political system or they would not be candidates. They are all dependent on millions and millions of dollars in contributions in order to play in the game. They all hire the same old staff members that have mastered the game of inside politics. And if they do mean what they say, well the odds of being able to deliver are about as good as us bringing peace to the Middle East.

Still, as an eternal optimist when it comes to public service I can only hope there are people out there who have not been compromised, who are sincere, who can withstand the temptations of the golden goose, and who will lead us in the direction of real change before it is too late. Now let us turn our attention to the targets for change in America and see if you don’t agree.

1. Money Mongers of the Financial Institutions

Who are these people and what threat do they represent? Well, the intricate web of interlocking ownership, access to media, control of pricing in stocks, currency, commodities and bonds, and insulation from scrutiny probably make this the single most powerful force on Earth, capable of controlling governments and destroying opposition without ever getting their own hands dirty. You see they are invisible to the general public.

While flying the banner of capitalism they are the masters of deceit as the last thing they want is open competition, public scrutiny, social justice or power to the people. Their’s is a world of opportunity, the opportunity to take what other people have regardless of the consequences in order to consolidate power, maximize control, accumulate wealth and squeeze every last bloody cent of profit from everyone else.

Does it sound extreme, only because it is extreme? Sound like a sinister plot to gain control of the world? They don’t need to gain what they have already got. Their mission is not to lose it. While we wave our flag of democracy and freedom and every generation or so Americans rise up and take on new challenges, they have been quietly working behind the scenes for centuries, yes centuries, to achieve their goals.

Enough pontificating. Financial institutions control the world simply put and they do not serve the world in the process, as serving is not a good return on investment. They set up mutual funds to consolidate investment power and get government to create more sources of funds and turn them over to the financiers to manage such as pension funds, 401K funds, IRAs and many others.

They create financial “experts” to tell us what is happening to our investment markets and how to invest what money we do control completely ignoring the conflicts of interest when the greatest beneficiaries of the advice are the market makers, the very financial institutions whose experts are giving supposedly objective market advice.

What does that mean? The media takes the advice of industry experts and tells us the price of oil is going up because of the potential for a hurricane in the gulf that may or may not disrupt supply lines and drilling operations. A suicide bombing in Iraq shows that the crude oil supply from that country is not stable so a shortage of future oil may result if a bombing of the oil pipelines is successful. Cold weather in American means there will be a shortage of heating oil no matter that there are sufficient inventories already in the country. So the price of oil goes up, and up and up.

Who benefits? The owners of the crude oil, the companies that pay them for the crude, the banks that finance the companies, the stockholders that own shares of the companies, the IRAs, 401Ks, pension funds and mutual funds that pump money into the companies, the companies selling and buying their stocks, or the companies setting market prices? Guess what, all of them could be part of the financial institutions benefiting from the market manipulations caused by the speculative reports on the industry by the media.

Where I come from that is a gross conflict of interest. Financial institutions can make money buying and selling stock with other people’s money, mutual funds, and retirement funds whether the stock goes up or down in value. They still get their commission. If they own stock in the companies, in the commodities market or in the banks financing the markets they also benefit.

So why does the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission let them do this? The FTC and SEC are supposed to be our government watchdogs protecting the public from unscrupulous financial manipulators.

For two years the same financial sector was behind the unethical, immoral and often-illegal manipulation of the sub-prime mortgage markets as well which nearly sent the USA into recession and certainly left millions of homeowners in foreclosure. Where were the federal regulators?

How these people got away with it was tragic yet amazing to watch, and the fact they were rewarded for their disastrous actions is astounding since the same institutions were able to write off billions of dollars in losses on their own taxes, thus benefiting from the fees, the commissions, the collections and the tax write offs leaving the consumer high, dry and broke.

So candidates, what are you going to do to stop this? What are your plans to reform and better regulate the financial institutions? How can you stop the media from glamorizing industry experts whose employers directly benefit from their words of wisdom? How can you break up the inter-locking ownership inherent in the world? How can you protect he retirement nest eggs of the public that are being sucked dry by the money managers?

2. Mortgage Lenders – Vampires of the Golden Dream

Even though mortgage lenders can be owned, controlled or manipulated by the financial sector and banking institutions they are often set up independently until they finish preying on an unsuspecting public, having got caught using questionable practices (sub-prime loans for example), using heavy handed tactics, misleading consumers and initiating mortgage foreclosures.

When this happens the lenders now approaching bankruptcy get bought out by the financial and banking sectors that are seeking to acquire real estate property at far below the loan value. So losses are written off, property is acquired far below the loan value, new mortgages are written to resell or refinance the property, a few million people lose their homes due to foreclosures, and the financial institutions now have a new division with secure assets and credit worthy clients.

Of course we then lose sight of the fact illegal mortgages and unethical selling practices caused the bail out cycle to take place. Or that mortgage lenders, sales people, lawyers and credit rating firms were all players in this billion-dollar scam. That closing fees, collection fees and late fees have made someone millions of dollars at the expense of the hapless homeowners.

Then there is the question of the post mortgage market. I mean how many people know who really holds their mortgage as it can be sold over and over to spread the risk, enable firms to dissolve to avoid liability, or a variety of other reasons. You can get a mortgage from a bank only to discover the mortgage was sold to a bankrupt lender.

Finally even the government backed mortgage programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (what great names for federal backed mortgage players), not to mention the long list of programs such as VA, Indian, Rural, Low Income and other federal mortgage and housing programs must be ever more vigilant to root out corruption, contract fixing, slipshod construction and repair work, inefficient heating and utilities and other problems that beset our federal and state housing efforts.

So again we ask what are the presidential candidates saying about how they will change these institutional bureaucracies to serve the people? What is the new agenda to protect people and tax funds from these vampires? How will they be regulated, prosecuted and punished for any violations of the public trust?



3. Credit Card Industry Standards, Fees and Collection Methods
Now this is an area of regulatory meltdown and benign neglect involving federal and state agencies ranging from the FTC to Congress, from the SEC to Justice Department. There is a body of law at both the state and federal levels that regulates these practices but no one seems to pay attention.

The issuance of credit cards through the mail and Internet and the proliferation of offers from credit card companies are astounding. The never-ending changes in interest rates charged, the justification for such changes, the explanation of such practices and the downright deception in consumer information is appalling and predatory.

It is a wonder the nation is not drowning in credit card interest and collection activity with the elderly and youth being most likely to succumb to the offers that are too good to pass up. Fees change constantly for ATM charges, handling, processing, vendor, fraud, security, and any other excuse to stick it to the consumer.

Credit rating companies feed information to credit card companies and collection companies making the whole business of debt collection a financial windfall to lawyers, collection agencies, process servers and even the courts. Lies regarding the rights of the cardholder are overwhelming to most people, threatening to them and their credit, and fraught with heavy-handed tactics.

Simply stated there is no protection for people from getting the cards, understanding the changing fees, and especially getting caught in the late payment and collection process. Debts are written off yet collection efforts go full steam. When debts should be forgiven efforts are still made to scare the consumers into making payments. The credit collection industry is about as close as we come to the Gestapo in this country and the politicians are silent.

There is minimum at best consumer protection and maximum effort to throw the consumer to the dogs. State and federal laws can regulate the methods for offering cards, the message explaining the “wonderful” opportunity, the interest, and the fees, even the ways and means of collection.

If we allow a credit card company to write off the bad debt, then why is the collection industry pursuing the poor consumer with no money? Why are the bad debts written off years before the debt is forgiven to the consumer? If the credit card company realizes a tax deduction for bad debt, why are collectors threatening the consumer long after?

If credit card companies contract out for collection to private businesses, are those private businesses subject to government regulation meant for the credit card companies? If the USA is drowning in debt it is because the card companies and all those companies making money off the card companies are driven by greed.

There are many opportunities for the candidates to help the consumers in this area and it does not even require spending much money, just developing and enforcing meaningful legislation and regulations to truly control the sharks. So once again we ask where are the proposals for change from the candidates?


4. Health Care Industry Cost, Insurance and Unnecessary Treatment
Just look at the facts and there is no doubt this system is broken. In 2006 we spent $2.1 trillion on health care, over $7,026 for every person in the USA, and it took over 16% of our Gross Domestic Product. That is 4.3 times more money than we spent on defense. The cost of health care increases at more than double the inflation rate annually.

At 16% of GDP we have the highest health care costs of any developed nation with the next highest being Switzerland 10.9%, Germany 10.7%, Canada 9.7% and France 9.5%. Americans spent one third more on health care than any of these nations, and while 50 million Americans do not have health insurance all of the citizens in the other nations mentioned receive health care. At our current pace we will be spending $4 trillion on health care in just 7 years, by 2015.

With the war in Iraq one might expect the cost of health care for veterans to be substantial as treatment in the war zone is far improved from earlier wars and for every death of a soldier there are 9 wounded soldiers that return home. Yet the cost of veteran’s health care drops to $5,000 per person, $2,000 less per year than civilians.

What is causing these statistical aberrations? Are we much sicker than citizens of the other nations? Is there a greater medical risk to civilians in America than our soldiers in Iraq? Why are 50 million Americans uninsured when all of the citizens of other nations receive health care?

According to the latest statistics employer paid health insurance premiums in the USA were $11,500 for families and about $4,200 for individuals. That means annual health insurance premiums account for a substantial portion of health care costs. Something is very wrong with the system.

Doctors take payoffs from drug companies to promote treatments. Doctor’s own clinics that need to keep billing patients to make money. Hospitals need patients to pay the bills and keep the beds full. In the end, some estimates say 25% of all health care treatment is unnecessary and serves to generate money for clinics, doctors and hospitals and not cures for the patients.

Alternative medicines are blocked throughout the nation as they represent a major loss of revenue for traditional medicine. Most of the use of alternative and holistic treatment is not covered by insurance because it would mean a huge loss in revenue to traditional medicine. CAT scans, MRIs and many other very expensive tests are done without justification in order to generate billings.

Deaths from malpractice and the wrong drugs or drug overdoses can be as high as natural deaths in some medical facilities. Yet the medical money machine goes on and on at higher and higher costs with little effort to bring about meaningful reform.

So what is the average educational debt for new doctors coming into the market? According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the average educational debt of indebted graduates of the class of 2006 (including pre-med borrowing) is $130,571. The average debt of graduating medical students increased in 2006 by 8.5 percent over the previous year. 72 percent of graduates have debt of at least $100,000. 86.6 percent of graduating medical students carry outstanding loans. 40.2 percent of 2006 graduates have non-educational debt, averaging $16,689. Source: AAMC 2006 Graduation Questionnaires.

So how much do they make when they graduate? Cardiologists were the most sought-after specialists last year, fetching salaries ranging from $234,000 to $525,000 and averaging $320,000 a year, according to surveys. Close behind cardiologists are radiologists and orthopedic surgeons. Other prime areas where salaries are among the highest in medicine include ophthalmology, anesthesiology, and dermatology. Salaries for some of these specialties range from about $250,000 to more than $600,000, never mind the lucrative signing bonuses, income guarantees, and vacation packages that can be counted in months, not weeks.

But you don't need an M.D. after your name for the offers to come in. Pharmacists, physician assistants, physical and occupational therapists, audiologists, nurse practitioners, and other advanced-practice nurses are all in demand, with a master's degree as a certified registered nurse anesthetist generating salary offers ranging from about $100,000 to $160,000.

How are the candidates going to address the many changes needed in health care costs, stop the unnecessary treatments, and allow for the alternative methods to be embraced? Is there a better way to manage student loans and loan repayment? What insurance reforms are needed to make the USA competitive with other developed nations in terms of health care costs? How can we stop malpractice and false billing against insurance companies?

5. Pharmaceutical Industry Proliferation of Prescription Drugs
This can be short and sweet. In 2002 we spent $162 billion on prescription drugs and in 2006 we spent $217 billion on prescription drugs. One out of every five Americans takes 5 or more prescriptions per day. All Americans average 2.9 prescriptions per day. Our senior citizens, who are increasing very rapidly with the aging of the Baby Boomers, averaged $559 for prescriptions in 1992, $1,205 for prescriptions in 2000, and $1,912 in 2005 with spending expected to reach $2,805 in 2010.

Every day it seems the health authorities announce yet another prescription drug that does not work, or whose long-term effects are determined to be more dangerous than expected. Yet every day it seems there are new prescriptions for new diseases. We live longer but spend far more. Kids are over-prescribed with Ritalin and other drugs. They are addicted to drugs they don’t even take raiding medicine cabinets for the new drug culture.

What will the candidates do to stop this nonsense? How will they reign in the drug companies to stop making false advertising claims? Will they call for truth in advertising, documentation for claims, clinical trials when needed, and a stop to the practice of over-prescribing drugs across the board?

6. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Drug Approval Process
If drug prices in America have been rising almost five times as fast as inflation then the FDA must assume some of the responsibility as they are the regulatory agency charged with overseeing the over-the-counter and prescription drugs so abundant in our society.

The FDA new drug approval process with layers of clinical animal and human trials is the most costly, most lengthy and often most bizarre in terms of protocols and criteria for approval in the world. It is a process designed for the benefit of wealthy pharmaceutical companies, not for the small and independent research companies and laboratories.

Drug companies say it takes up to $500 million to bring a new drug through the FDA approval process. Small companies can do the same thing for about $10-25 million. Most small companies have to raise the money as they go through the process and will give up a major ownership position in their own company to afford the FDA process.

Major pharmaceutical firms have managed to negotiate with FDA for new drug approval even if the drug extends the life expectancy of the patient by just 30 days. Yet when these products are sold to the public no one seems to mention they might only be good for 30 days at a cost of thousands of dollars. Human clinical trials take place to see if there are any adverse reactions to the drugs. When you hear all the disclaimers in the ads for the approved drugs you wonder how they could ever get approval.

Things have gotten so ridiculous in the approval process that television ads for the drug Celebrex contain so many warnings of side effects and drug interactions that the ad actually states “the FDA says the benefits may outweigh the risks” when taking it. Are they crazy? It might be safe to take it?

Human trials approved by FDA require a protocol where half of the patients are given a placebo rather than the drug so results taking the drug can be measured against a control group not taking the drug. Not a bad practice unless the drug is experimental and the disease is going to kill the patient.

For example, stage 3 cancer patients have weeks or months to live. At stage 3 any normal and extremely expensive treatment like chemo, radiation or surgery has already failed. When they are offered a chance to participate in an experiment that might save their life and the option is certain death you might think they would jump at the chance, but that is not the case.

Why would they sign up when only half the people will even receive the treatment, with the other half getting meaningless placebos? If they are in the half that gets the candy and not the drug they die. If they get the drug there is a chance they might live. When you are facing death there should not be a 50-50 chance you won’t get the treatment.

Other problems with the industry include their price gouging, opposition to generic drugs selling for much less, opposition to foreign drugs also selling for much less, payments to doctors for prescribing their drugs, and unsubstantiated claims regarding over-the-counter drugs like cough syrup which has been proven to do no good.

Where do the candidates stand on the issues raised about the FDA and drug regulatory and approval process? How will they change the system to make it more responsive to patients, less costly for companies, and more beneficial for the public? How will false claims be dealt with and stopped?


7. Agriculture – Food Testing, Ingredients and Source
You go to the grocery store, check the fresh meat, see something that looks nice and red and fresh and buy it. Or maybe you buy the chicken to fry up for dinner. Then again you might buy pet food for your favorite dog or cat. Now did anyone tell you fresh meat like beef should not be red? Did they tell you color dyes and carbon monoxide are used to give the cuts of meat that color and they are injected in the butcher shop?

Did they tell you the chicken was raised in a hen house and pumped with hormones, steroids and God knows what else to fatten it up for the slaughter? Did they tell you about everything you just bought included rendered animal parts?

Did they mention rendering plants use raw product including thousands of dead dogs and cats; heads and hooves from cattle, sheep, pigs and horses; whole skunks; rats and raccoons? Did they mention the millions of maggots swarming over the carcasses? Did they tell you the carcasses would be ground up and cooked to create batches of yellow grease, meal and bone meal, and that the meat and bone meal would be used as a source of protein and other nutrients in poultry, swine and pet foods?

That the animal fat is used as an “energy source” and millions of tons will be trucked to poultry ranches, cattle feed-lots, dairy and hog farms, fish-feed plants and pet-food manufacturers where it is mixed with other ingredients to feed the billions of animals that meat-eating humans, in turn, will eat.

When you look at the ingredient label and it says the meat included protein it sounds good but is that protein from the rendered carcasses and what are the health consequences of eating a standard diet of rendered byproduct? The deadly Mad Cow disease was caused by feeding rendered products to cattle.

In food labeling what do the terms “natural” and “organic” really mean? Does that mean they were not genetically engineered? Are they free of the carbon monoxide used to make it appear fresh? Unless you grow all your food in your own garden and prepare all your meals from scratch, it's almost impossible to eat food without preservatives added.

The bottom line is we have a lot of explaining to do about food, what is in it, where it comes from, and what it will do to us over the years. So just where do the candidates stand on this critical consumer health and survival issue? What are their proposals to fix things?

8. Campaign Reform – Empty Promises and Empty Wallets

For the first time in our history the presidential campaign alone in 2008 is expected to cost over one billion dollars. Now that is a whole lot of money being spent to win a job that pays $400,000 a year and only lasts four years. One billion dollars spent to make $1,600,000. If that is the result of capitalism then we might have a problem.

Campaign reform has been talked about more and acted upon less than any other issue facing congress and the president. Political advertising costs are criminal. Some campaigns spend more money raising money than they do getting elected. Special interest groups give to candidates, give more to national political parties, more to state political parties and then spend money themselves to influence elections.

If $1 billion is spent in the race for the White House and there are 121 million votes cast like in 2004 then each vote will cost about $9 for president. When you add to that the cost for federal congressmen and senators, governors, state legislators and local races it is a pretty expensive freedom we exercise.

It can be changed if the president and congress have the guts. Paid ads can be stopped, special interest funding can be stopped, and a logical schedule for primaries can be held. Candidates can receive free media time since all the airways are government regulated. Voter registration can be increased.

There are about 226 million people eligible to vote in the USA and about 142 million are registered to vote. In 2004 about 121 million did vote for president. That means about 53% of the eligible voters participated in the last presidential election, a pretty weak total for the citadel of democracy in the world. That needs to be fixed. Require automatic voter registration with social security cards or drivers licenses if need be but get people back involved in the process. We can’t make people vote but we can make sure they have the opportunity to vote.

There is a lot the candidates can do to introduce meaningful campaign reform and the lack of proposals offered is troubling at best.


9. Immigration Reform – The Slumbering Social Issue of the Day
So far the candidates have done a masterful job of avoiding the issue of Immigration reform although before the campaign heated up they had a variety of ideas to offer. Now it seems the ideas have been taken off the table in hopes no one noticed they flip flopped on an issue.

There are a few areas of agreement. For one everyone agrees we need to strengthen border security on both the Canadian and Mexican borders. We also acknowledge that there are millions of Mexican workers illegally in the USA gainfully employed at jobs typically not wanted by Americans. What to do about them is a huge problem.

Since there is widespread opposition to any kind of amnesty program allowing them to remain without consequence perhaps a better alternative would be to allow those illegal immigrants and their families to remain with a permanent work visa if they are gainfully employed and have paid taxes in the United States.

They are here and they pay our income and sales taxes. They have cars and drivers licenses. They are making a substantial contribution to Social Security even though they cannot draw benefits. What amnesty are we giving them? If we throw them out don’t we owe them back their income, sales and social security payments? I say they have paid enough already for a permanent visa and they should be welcomed if they complete our citizenship requirements.

If the illegal immigrants that are gainfully employed and contributing to our tax and social security system are granted permanent work visas, overnight we will reduce the border security issues saving substantial money and improving relations between our two countries. This will free up resources to pursue the criminal elements from foreign countries that come illegally for far more sinister reasons.

Not only do millions of illegal immigrants pay taxes and provide services we would not otherwise have but they are also victims to hordes of unscrupulous people involved in car sales and repair, medical treatment, legal assistance, and many other areas because they have no way to protect themselves. They cannot go to law enforcement agencies for help, as they would be prosecuted. The simple act of granting well-earned permanent work visas would stop predators from taking advantage of their status.

So the candidates owe us their positions on the immigration reform issue and don’t just tell us they support the Great Wall of Mexico now being constructed. We all know how even the greatest and most feared of walls cannot stop people from seeking social justice and freedom, remember the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall? Give us substance.

10. Government Permits and Inspections – Protection or Payoffs
Whenever corruption is uncovered at the state or local government level the odds are it is tied to the permits and inspection activities of the locality. Permits are required for new and renovation construction, whether it is housing, commercial, industrial or public. A complex combination of federal, state and local statutes dictate the construction standards to be followed.

Federal standards are set but states, counties or localities can add to the standards and the result can be a tremendous burden to the public. Inspections are required for the issuance of building permits and therein lays the gateway to potential corruption. Since inspections cover all aspects of construction from foundations to floors and walls, electrical to plumbing, there are many ways the process can be compromised.

Beyond that unique local codes can further complicate the process such as areas without public water or sewer lines, environmentally sensitive areas, watersheds, aquifers, wetlands, water front and on and on. In some cases the intent of building codes may be good but the result may be counterproductive. For example, we have water shortages but block the recycling of gray water. We require septic mound systems when we have no long term testing to show it even works.

Energy conservation and recycling efforts can be discouraged because of code problems and interpretations and the most cost effective and environmentally friendly materials may be prohibited by outdated building codes. Housing is a critical element of our nation’s economy and anything that restricts our ability to renovate, rebuild, or undertake new construction, to use new energy and environmental materials and techniques, or that offers opportunities for corruption is in need of reform.

The federal government is the only legislative authority that can override the archaic codes or practices of state and local government, that can encourage the use of new materials and techniques to help our energy, environmental and water needs, and can work with state attorney generals to assure the process is not corrupt.

Because this process can impact on anyone living in our nation it would behoove the candidates to address this issue and offer recommendations on how to protect our citizens, encourage the economic activity resulting from housing construction, and make certain the codes are enforced in a lawful and just manner.


Summary
There you have it, ten areas in need of reform to help the people of America, the People’s Agenda for Change. We The People, yes the same We The People first mentioned as the first words of our Constitution, expect leaders to lead and to better understand what type of leadership we can expect from the candidates and we need to know what they intend to do about these issues. Sound bites or silence do you no justice and are a disservice to us.

These issues affect every American and will dramatically effect our future generations. History can be made this election but it will have to be earned by a meaningful discussion of how candidates intend to serve. It is time to silence the swords and get on with the substance. We have waited patiently; now give us the reasons to support you.

Listen to Survive Election Post-mortem Blues

.

Bobby McFerrin - Don't Worry Be Happy

(Double click for full screen)

OFFICIAL Somewhere over the Rainbow - Israel "IZ" Kamakawiwoʻole  May 20, 1959 – June 26, 1997

(Double click for full screen)

Who is this character Ron Paul, the Texas Populist and Thorn in the Side of Big Spenders?

-



I must say that early in the 2008 campaign I had occasion to interview a number of college age or college bound kids in an effort to measure the potential for participating in the presidential election. At the time it seemed to me that Barack Obama, the young politician from Chicago riding a wave of change and hope might be able to capture the bulk of the youth in the election.

On the other hand, after years of scientific polling and working on the development of perception analysis rather than stated preference in polling I knew predicting the eventual vote of any demographic group was a most difficult task. I must say I was quite astounded to learn that the most dominant candidate among those youth I studied was not Barack Obama at all but a little known Congressman from Texas named Ron Paul.



Ron Paul broke every mold for being the darling of the youth vote as he was 72 years old, was a medical doctor, was rock solid conservative, pro-life, pro-family and that was just the beginning of my surprise. This standard bearer for youth stood for libertarian values, was a conservatives conservative, wanted to eliminate the Federal Reserve, supported the right to bear arms, opposed the post 9-11 Patriot Act and the torture, national ID cards, domestic surveillance and the draft contained by that act, opposed the United Nations, opposed the Iraq War, opposed the many ways the federal government takes over state functions, and was about as opposed to what I perceived as the youth movement as possible.



Now Ron Paul first took office as a Congressman in a 1976 special election when I was working on Senate races at a time when Republicans didn't win anything, the post Watergate years. Paul lost his election to a full term in 1976 but was elected again in 1978, 80 and 82 before losing a Senate race. He then disappeared from the scene until emerging again in 1996 by running as a Republican against the Republican incumbent who was endorsed by the Republican party and forcing a runoff election which he won. It was his third election to Congress as a non-incumbent establishing him as a true outsider.



Once again he ran as a Republican opposed the Republican party candidate and this time legendary baseball pitcher Nolan Ryan was his campaign chair and tax activist Steve Forbes of New York, Forbes Magazine, backed him against the establishment. Paul won only to face a furious effort by the AFL-CIO in the general election to stop him which he also overcame and he has been preaching his brand of economics ever since.



Paul adheres deeply to the Austrian school of economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displays pictures of Austrian school economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises as well as one of Grover Cleveland on his office wall. Ron has opposed all government spending initiatives, increased taxes and increases in the federal deficit.



Now is this the portrait of a person being embraced by the youth of America? Hardly I think. So what is it about Ron Paul that drew his attention to our youth and made him the standard bearer for youth in America? Well we can look back to a fateful event hosted by MTV and MySpace just three days before Super Primary Tuesday in February of 2008. It was the MTV/MySpace Candidate Dialogue called "Closing Arguments" and Ron Paul appeared with Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.



MTV was the backer of Obama and did a poll of those youth listening to the debate, a poll Obama had won with 75% of respondents the previous debate. Of course with his billion dollar campaign Obama had stacked the audience at the debate and was prepared to ride the wave to the presidency.

Listeners were asked which candidate did they agree with on issues like Darfur and Ron Paul, opposed to international intervention stunned the sponsors by winning 61% of the youth online vote to Obama just above 50%. It was the beginning of an avalanche as Paul drew 76% support for his stand on the response to 9-11, 78% regarding energy independence, 81% for his foreign policy, while Obama consistently got about 50% and Hillary got between 20-30%. In fact, just over half of the entire listening audience said they would vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.



Of course the results were so opposed to what they expected and what they had tried to manipulate that MTV and MySpace never mentioned them again during the campaign. However, Ron Paul's popularity with youth continued to grow. After the election he didn't go away and as the disenfranchised youth who did support Obama have moved back to Ron Paul, the old Doctor from Texas stands alone in being the favorite of our youth.



Ron Paul's message is even starting to be heard by those in Congress who have ignored him all these decades as recently the House approved his bill to audit the Federal Reserve and more and more of our elected officials are starting to talk about big spending and the bigger deficit and national debt. Today, at 74, Ron Paul is the beacon of hope for youth because his life has been dedicated to making sure there is something left of America for them to inherit.

I was honored to have articles I wrote for the Coltons Point Times appear on one of his websites: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/73847
where my article on The Obama, Goldman Sachs & Rothchild Connection still appears and is recognized for connecting the dots between these people and groups.



You should read up on Ron Paul and what he is doing to protect America from itself. You will find that this independent revolutionary is truly acting in the spirit of the Founding Fathers, something our youth seemed to have already discovered for themselves. Is it any wonder that Ron Paul won the straw poll for president this past weekend at the national Conservative convention, to the absolute astonishment of the media and the Republican party?

-

Obama - A Leader Unable to Lead - An American Tragedy

-



America has had it share of presidents who, once elected, have failed to inspire and lead the nation through tough years. With the collapse of his popularity polls, his failure to make corrections to his operation, his lack of plans and policy and his aloof attitude toward the very people who elected him President Obama stands on the threshold of throwing away a presidency of promise and change.



I come from the old American view that everyone should want our president to succeed, no matter what political party he may subscribe to in getting elected. Long ago the political parties dominating the American landscape lost their control over their own candidates because once elected their candidates chose to serve the people, not their party platform.

In fact the whole concept of a political party with a rigid agenda that is good for all Americans has long been accepted as nonsense which is why more voters now see themselves as independents, not Democrats or Republicans. That is how it should be in a Republic such as ours. Once elected the president must accept responsibility for all Americans, not just those who voted for them.



When a president learns that lesson they start to become effective. John Kennedy became popular when he moved to the center and stop adhering to a social, spend free liberal platform advocated by his own party and he started doing what was best for all Americans.

Ronald Reagan overcame a disastrous economy and slammed through his Reaganomics agenda with tax cuts and reduced federal government interference his first term, then turned his attention to stopping the Cold War and foreign affairs his second term. His success swept him to a landside re-election.



Bill Clinton had to take a few defeats before he saw the light and moved to the center embracing the dreaded business community over the social activists. It seems he didn't realize it was Ross Perot and his independent movement who got him elected and not the Democratic platform. But once he made the change he was able to survive many personal difficulties and gain popularity.

Even George Bush was able to serve out two terms because his agenda was what the people wanted, even if he was not the most popular president. Like him or not the Bush administration fought and won battle after battle with the Congress, Democratically control for much of his tenure, by demonstrating that the will of the people was not represented in the will of Congress.



Obama tapped into the unrest of the people with government but lost his compass on the way to the Inaugural address when the union and social activists on the one hand and his silent and well concealed backers from Wall Street on the other took control of his agenda and set him on a path in direct opposition with the people who elected him.



It was not the unions, social activists or Wall Street executives who elected him, they have never elected anyone to the presidency. It was middle America with their distain for big government and independence from political parties and tactics who put him in office. Sadly, as he did offer hope to an electorate tired of business as usual, he settled into the role of business as usual.

A year into office he has accomplished nothing for the people although he did a number of things to reward the small group of Wall Street, union and social activists who felt they elected him. How he fell into the trap is what is makes his fall from grace so unusual. His problems are only compounded by his arrogant refusal to hear the people.



Obama seems to come from the laissez-faire approach to big business, (let them do whatever they want), his consensus building approach to policy, (don't be responsible for what happens), his seemingly professorial aloofness to communicating with the public, (if you only knew what I know you'd know I knew best), and his penchant for blaming everything wrong all the time on everyone else, (I didn't get us into this mess).

If you were a tenured professor from Harvard with a Nobel prize for excellence and accomplishment you might be able to get away with such an approach but even the Harvard professors would probably have a plan or policy to follow. Now Obama is a professor from Harvard but his Nobel prize was not for excellence or achievement but for empty promises. And he is not a professor at Harvard but the President of the United States.



We elect presidents to lead, not pontificate. We elect them to be responsible, not point fingers. We elect them to represent all the people, not just his campaign contributors. And we elect them to tell the truth, not proclaim transparency while making more secret deals with contributors than Huey Long in his prime in Louisiana where he was known for his flamboyant style and brazen deeds.



For some reason it seems that the only people concerned about controlling big deficit spending, bigger national debt, eliminating special interest influence and restoring honesty and integrity to government are the people, not the politicians and the special interests who own them who rape and pillage our national government in Washington.

Today, the first anniversary of the Obama stimulus, we should all ask if we are better off now than when he was elected? Did he shut down the bad guys on Wall Street? Did he throw out the lobbyists and special interests prowling our nation's capitol? Did he fix health care or is he trying to take over health care for the unions and special interests? Did he move us toward energy independence or did he just make a few liberals rich with cap and trade and alternative energy projects while the gas, oil and coal needed to be independent remain in the ground?



I could go on and on but you all know the truth. The question is how is our president reacting? Today he again blamed the Bush Administration for his failures and the Republicans for stopping his agenda. We have no idea what that agenda might be since he seems to have no long term policy or plan to fix our nation.

As for the Republicans, Obama has had total control of the House and Senate with enough votes to shove legislation down our throats with no Republican votes. If his agenda was good for the people don't you think he might have done it? But if his agenda is littered with special deals, secret payoffs and hidden agendas then he might want to stay out of it and let Congress look like the fools, because the ultra liberal hidden agenda will in time be exposed and fail.



His White House staff today is continuing to spin all the benefits from his first year in office, how the millions that became unemployed under Obama were not his fault either, and how the Republicans in Congress are to blame for no action by Congress. If the big government, big spending, big deficit and big national debt are all that was proposed by the Democrats in Congress and the mouthpiece for the Democrats in the White House then maybe we owe the do nothing Republicans a great deal for saving us from a socialist takeover and national bankruptcy.



Yet the defenders of our Democratically controlled Congress are also in the news today proclaiming all the good Congress has done this past year. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says Congress had a great year and things would have been much worse without their leadership. What tea leaves is he reading? What in the world are the pharmaceutical companies protected by Congress putting into the water in Washington, Prozac?



If Obama and our Congressional leaders say things are well on the way to recovery then the best thing that can happen is for Congress to do nothing while the people systematically vote them out of office. We deserve better than that. Yes "We", those people our forefathers proclaimed as the heart and soul of our Republic. Maybe Congress should read again our Declaration of Independence and remember it is not our declaration of partisan or special interest dependence.

To quote just a little of our Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

-

Sarah Palin Free at Last

-




After going through the worst case of media assassination in memory Sarah Palin got the last laugh when she abruptly and unexpectedly resigned as Governor of Alaska. It was a move attacked by the media and liberals but praised by the Republicans and general public.

Her experience since being nominated as vice presidential candidate by John McCain was a low point in media reporting in American political history and the character assassination by Obama supporters and pro-abortion bloggers set a new low in dirty politics.

Now free of a government job which she was accused of neglecting with her political activity, a fact that was also true of both Obama and Biden as they were US Senators when they campaigned fulltime yet the media never ever attacked them, she can now set her own agenda.

As the only one of the top four candidates with unqualified support for pro-life she received the wrath of the pro-abortion and feminist forces who worked so hard to cover up the fact there have now been over 50 million abortions in America.





Of course the pro-abortion forces argued that cases of rape, the health of the mother and child were primary considerations in getting an abortion yet extensive studies determined that less than 5% of all abortions fell in those categories. Sarah Palin could see through the lies and tell the truth and she paid a price for her honesty.

In spite of Obama's demands that his children be left out of politics his supporters unleashed an avalanche of lies and innuendo about Palin's kids, themes picked up by the liberal Late Night Butchers like David Letterman. All in all it was a sad chapter in American politics.





Perhaps now that Palin is free of the demands of office that forced her to incur over $500,000 in legal fees defending herself against baseless charges by the liberals she will be able to fight back. She is without doubt a popular rising star who drew the largest crowds in the last part of the campaign and ever since.

Obama Cabinet Nominees Spoil New Criminal Rehabilitation Program

Just when we thought the highest ranking appointees in the Obama Administration were going to constitute the most elite criminal rehabilitation program in the nation two of the three charter members withdrew from consideration this week.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who failed to pay $43,000 in back taxes until his Senate hearing, was first to make it through the process in spite of the tax problem. Obama said it was no big deal and Geithner said he didn't understand that he owed the taxes, a bit scary for the next head of IRS. What would happen to you if IRS discovered you did not pay $43,000 over a four year period? Geithner gets to be US Treasury Secretary. You would get federal prison.

Then along comes Tom Daschle, the former leader of the Democrats in the Senate and Obama's nominee to fix the health care mess. Seems he was paid over $5 million for lobbying for health care companies in a couple of years though he never bothered to register as a lobbyist. That was okay with Obama. But IRS said he owed $143,000 in back taxes for failing to report a full time car and driver paid for by his lobbying firm. He paid that and once again everything was okay with our new king of clean government President Obama and he urged the approval of Daschle.

Would you get a cabinet post with Obama if you owed $143,000 in back taxes? Once again federal prison would be more likely. A third key Obama appointee, Nancy Killefer, picked for what he described as the most important new post in his Administration, the government's first Chief Performance Officer, then had to acknowledge she also owed back taxes but just $946.69, a miniscule amount compared to the tens and hundreds of thousands owned by the old boys.

Nancy did the right thing, she immediately withdrew from consideration. Thus one of the most prominent female appointees of Obama was the first to recognize her civic duty and dropped out. A few hours later Daschle followed suit, even though Obama and others all agreed it was not significant enough to warrant withdrawing from the race. So far the new Obama standard is key employees are okay as long as they don't steal more than $143,000 from the government.

On Jan. 21, the day after his inauguration, Obama issued an executive order barring any former lobbyists who join his administration from dealing with matters or agencies related to their lobbying work. Nor could they join agencies they had lobbied in the previous two years.

However, William J. Lynn III, his choice to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. And William Corr, tapped as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, lobbied through most of last year as an anti-tobacco advocate. Before the ink had dried the first waivers of the brand new executive order had to be granted to allow lobbyists to join his staff in top agencies. Didn't Obama get a lot of mileage smearing John McCain for having lobbyist in his campaign?

It just seems that those campaign promises for a new way to govern free of the influences of the past don't seem so real now. A new level of ethics promised has not materialized. In fact, far more promises have been broken than kept in the early part of the new regime. If there was any doubt about this ask the United Auto Workers at General Motors. The union was one of Obama's biggest supporters and were promised a bail out for the auto industry and told by the new president they were the priority of his administration. Today GM announced one third of the UAW workers must be laid off. That does not sound like they are being protected by the new president.

Obama Should Meet Russia's Putin First

Foreign policy is going to be a very big deal in the new Obama administration and one of the lingering problems from the post Cold War period is our relationship to Russia. So you thought the Cold War ended back in the early '90's with the fall of the Soviet Union? So did I.

But something happened in Russia on the path to freedom as the world's other superpower was going through a meltdown with the collapse of Communism. Along came the USA promising all kinds of help if only Russia would become a democratic nation with free elections and free press.

This is a country whose people had lived under the protective dominance of Communists or Tzars for over 1000 years. A nation that stood by helplessly as over 62 million of their own people vanished at the hands of their leader Joseph Stalin. People dependent on a system that provided for them from cradle to grave.

With our encouragement they held elections, privatized much of their society and commerce, and started to charge through taxes for all the services people had grown to expect. The result, it took ten years to nearly destroy the once proud people, to reinvigorate the shell of the Communist party, to discover much of the privatization only put ownership of their industry and resources in the hands of professional thieves and to pretty much demonstrate that democracy was a long ways away.

So all the reforms started to be undone and the county put back together and suddenly a new Russia emerged under the firm guidance of President Vladimir Putin. What is our response to the revitalization of a major player in world affairs? The Bush administration decides to infuriate the new Russia by encouraging the former East European members of the Soviet Union to join NATO, a defense alliance of countries bribed by America through foreign aid.

Didn't Bush people know the Cold War was over? About 20 years ago, when his dad was president, the Soviet Union dissolved and the Cold War ended. Why did the kid treat Russia 20 years later as an adversary rather than a friend? Then we complained about the loss of rights in Russia, suppression of the media and the control of huge oil reserves.

When oil producing nations aided in driving the price of oil through the roof Russia helped keep the price from destroying the world by increasing production and ignoring OPEC efforts to control the world oil supply thus maintaining record prices. How do we reward our old friends? Over strenuous objections from Russia Bush decides we need a missile defense shield built in Chekoslavakia aimed at the Russians. Our current satellites can read cigarette packs from outer space, what is the point of a defense shield in Eastern Europe except to upset Putin.

Well we certainly did upset Putin and he invaded Georgia, a move we also attacked. Somewhere along the line our leaders forgot that the people of Russia are our friends, not enemies. We forgot that Russia once saved the USA from extinction in the Civil War without ever asking anything in return. A desperate plea for help from President Lincoln resulted in Russia stopping England and France from attacking the seriously weakened Union Army as it was being driven far north by Lee's Army.

Now we have a new president. He has also ignored our fractured relations with Russia and kissed up to the traditional allies of the USA. Let us hope he has the insight and wisdom to stop what Bush began, chest-thumping in the face of the Russians, and will sit down for meaningful discussions with a friend and ally from long before the days England and France decided to be our friend.

Palin Must See TV - The Great Debate

If Obama was truly media savvy he would be debating Sarah Palin as she continues to be the star of the presidential campaign. Over 72 million Americans tuned in to watch her debate, a bunch cheering for her to beat the leftist media at their own game and a bunch waiting for her to self destruct. Once again, when her message cannot be diluted by the edit happy media like Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and the increasingly bitter David Letterman, Palin connects to the heart and soul of America.

Palin power pulled 20 million more viewers than the darling of the liberal media Barack Obama. For probably the first time in history a vice presidential candidate buried the presidential candidate audience in an avalanche of television followers and proved to the world that her experience and media savvy are far more powerful than Barack's inexperience and media manipulation when it comes to the typical American viewer.

Now the liberal leftist pundits say a candidate for vice president can never win an election for president but these are the same pundits who failed to warn us about the stock market crash, the credit crisis, the budget deficit and even the Yankees and Cubs being knocked out of the World Series. Their credibility to the general public is well below that of President Bush and threatens the Congress for having the lowest credibility of any profession in America. No one believes the media. No one believes the politicians.

I believe the vice presidential candidate can win the election when both candidates for president have the same standing in polls on issues like being prepared, qualified, trusted to be president, etc. and for now McCain and Obama are little different. What these same media pundits fail to say is that for the first time in our history women, not the bra burning feminists of 5th Avenue and Hollywood and Vine but the Main Street grandmothers, mothers and daughters who have watched in dismay as the media, politicians and Wall Street have sunk into the cesspool of corruption, back room deals and greed, these women can make things different.

These women you never read about in People Magazine or Crime Reporter have waited a long time for the men to get it right, the men of the left and the men of the right, and things are not getting any better no matter which way you turn. No, the seeds were planted long ago for a populist revolt in America and not just in Iraq but in Viet Nam. The people who run our government have been around for a very long time. But this time the silent women's majority has a choice to send a message so loud and clear it will knock the socks off the feet and the dirty cash out of the pockets of the entire male dominated establishment in the media, in Washington and on Wall Street.

Love her or hate her Palin is the only one of the big four candidates not contaminated by Wall Street, not contaminated by Washington insiders and not contaminated by a pandering media. She is the only candidate who is not a member of the most sacred men's club in Washington, in America,the US Senate. The people are truly fed up with the establishment, the existing order of things and the people who have brought us the mess we are in, and only one candidate is not part of that tainted establishment, Sarah Palin.

That is why she draws far bigger audiences, interest and even media attention than the big three. And if the silent majority of women decide for the first time in history that enough is enough, then the cocky candidates and cranky media will be in for the surprise of their collective lives when the Moose hunting momma kicks the butts of the mainstream media, the elite establishment and the executives of Wall Street come November 4.

THE CLINTON LEGACY – WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN

Well Hillary certainly did gain some degree of experience during the Bill Clinton years in the White House. She learned the art of media misdirection, the ability to double cross any bridge when she came to it, and the ability to deny the past if it is the politically expedient thing to do.

Where does her training come from, President Bill Clinton of course? Last night in his whirlwind tour of small town America in North Carolina on behalf of his wife he claimed that his Clinton years as President were the best years in “Modern American History.” I thought it was up to historians to make that determination but clearly Bill Clinton has already written the history books.

These were the best years in modern American history? If the Clinton years were the best years in modern American history then why doesn’t the public agree? In 1992 Clinton was elected with the smallest winning percentage in modern American history only 43% of the vote, tying Richard Nixon in 1968 for that dubious distinction.

By 1996 Clinton still failed to capture half of the vote winning 49%, but one half of the eligible voters were so disgusted with politicians they didn’t even vote. That means Clinton won with less than 25% of the eligible voters. Does that sound like the most successful presidency in modern history?

What happened during those Clinton years when Hillary was serving as assistant president according to her resume and campaign claims? It seems as if Bill Clinton had an epiphany and figured out how to out Republican the Republicans. Clinton became the first Democrat to be the darling of the business community as first the poverty stricken were victims of the Clinton epiphany, then the minorities, then the immigrants, and then labor unions, the core of the Democratic party.

Clinton slammed through the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement, with the help of his wife the First Lady, that led to the loss of millions of American jobs, a transfer of the production of American goods and services to foreign countries, and the failure to set in motion controls and testing that would protect Americans from poor quality, unsafe and dangerous foreign products.

Welfare and poverty programs were victims of budget cuts while immigrants, legal and otherwise, were denied benefits and legal representation. Prison populations increased rapidly from the law and order attitude of the president to the point that the death penalty was extended to cover many new crimes and actions such as the Waco FBI attack on a religious sect resulted in the deaths of 86 men, women and children.

Clinton ordered a bombing attack on Baghdad, Iraq just six months after taking office. Several times during the Clinton presidency Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the World Trade Center 9-11 bombings and worldwide terrorism network that would haunt us until this day could have been captured by the USA but each event was bungled by the administration. Is that a sign of the best presidency in modern American history?

Clinton maintained the military establishment although the Soviet Union was gone and there were no more wars. He courted the Republican business community with tax breaks, trade agreements, and other favors throughout his two terms. When it became necessary to cut government expenditures to balance the budget the Clinton White House approved eliminating $5 billion in educational spending to repair crumbling schools and rejecting a proposal to extend health insurance to 10.5 million uninsured children leaning on Congress to back his rejection.

Of course there is also the personal actions during the Clinton presidency like Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinski, Paula Jones and Whitewater to name a few that disgusted the public to the point of impeachment of the president. Only three times in our history have impeachment charges been brought against a president. Just twice in our history did the House vote for impeachment and send it to the Senate for trial. The two cases were Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Clinton was acquitted after the trial on a tie vote.

This was the Clinton presidency that Bill now calls the greatest of modern times and that Hillary says was her training ground for presidential experience. It also led to her election to the US Senate and to her failing to disclose $24 million in Bill’s income over a three-year period (2004-2006) not to mention their joint income of $109 million

In the eight years since he was president Bill and Hillary earned $109 million including lucrative consulting contracts and six figure speaking engagements, hardly a sign of the people’s candidate. What companies can afford to pay over $100,000 to hear him speak? It is doubtful many struggling non-profits are on his itinerary. This is what makes the Clinton presidency the best in modern history?

One can only hope the traditional Democrats will see how they have been duped, the labor unions, immigrants and minorities will see how they have been taken for granted, and the general public will see how they have been used. Can we really afford eight more years of double talk, double crossing and double dealing at the highest levels of our government? If this is the legacy of the greatest presidency of modern times then I believe the last thing we need is experienced people like Hillary who were running the country through those years.

POLITICIANS and the OIL CRISIS – The SILENCE is DEAFENING

So America is faced with the fastest, most unjustified oil price spike in history, a situation that is having a devastating effect on the economy of America and the world. We have three candidates for president, 435 Congressmen up for election, 100 Senators, a few hundred specialists in the DOE, EPA and Agriculture not to mention the plethora of so called “energy experts” in banking, stocks, finance and the oil industry yet no one is telling us how to deal with our current crisis.

The laws of supply and demand have been obliterated by the forces of greed and the price of oil continues to increase every day setting new records driving the price of gas, diesel and aircraft fuel to record highs. Americans drive less, consume less, and spend less and still the price spirals out of control. So why are the people we entrust to lead us silent?

Why are we spending $500 billion to save Iraq in which they were going to repay yet we can’t get the revenue from the oil now being produced by Iraq? Did you know Iraq was producing 2.6 million barrels a day of oil before the American invasion? Just last February production reached 2.4 million barrels a day. In spite of the Bush military surge the oil production can range from 1-2.4 million barrels a day depending on the latest bombing targets by Al Qaeda.

The Bush boys tell us oil was not a factor in the war but did they also mention Iraq has 112 billion barrels of oil reserves, second in the world to Saudi Arabia? They also have 112 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. Economists expect Iraq to reach 6 million barrels a day in production in four years yet none of it seems reserved to repay the USA the $500 billion plus or supply some of the USA needs. In fact, if Clinton or Obama get their way and we pull out of Iraq China or Russia will step in and take control of the 2nd largest reserve of oil in the world.

If refining capacity is a problem, which it is, why aren’t we fast tracking new refineries? No new refineries have been built in America since 1976 when crude oil sold for $12.37 per barrel compared to $112 per barrel today. Based on our military and aircraft needs alone increased refinery capacity should be a matter of national security. Perhaps American oil companies should build refineries in secure friendly countries as well?

Reduce our plastic use in fast food containers, bags and the many other uses, all which are very detrimental to the environment, and oil use goes down. A dual benefit and no one seems to be calling for the change. Paper bags always worked well and hemp stands ready to fill many of our needs if the federal government ever realizes you can’t smoke the stuff.

Any oil producing country dependent on our food should be selling us oil at a discount and most countries of the world are dependent to a large degree on our food. Fact is food is the one commodity more important to world stability than oil as you can see from the current food riots around the globe.

Require one third of all cars sold in America achieve 50 miles per gallon in 3 years and a substantial drop in demand will be achieved. Current regulations concerning the average mileage for an auto manufacturer’s fleet are ludicrous with the truck and SUV exemptions. Forget the fleet averages, the economy and cost of fuel will dictate buying patterns.

Besides, let American consumers decide if they want to pay extra for gas, it is supposed to be a free society. If a high mileage car is available consumers will buy it. We know it can be done because I have a 1946 Austin (UK made) that got 50 miles per gallon. If we could make them 62 years ago we can make them today.

Encourage Americans to stay home and take local trips rather than long vacations, subsidize mass transit to reduce autos on the road, and increase train use for up to 500-mile trips. When it comes to intercity travel trains come out on top of all other transit modes other than walking or bicycles.

Extensive data and statistics are available which show that passenger trains consume just one-quarter to one-third of the energy which automobiles and airliners consume, a fact the DOE refuses to acknowledge. Buy more trains and subways, we already own the facilities and right-of-way, and save on energy use, emissions and road maintenance.

Oh yes, what about the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel? State taxes can range from 14 to 45 cents per gallon and combined with federal taxes that are 18 cents a gallon the government gets an average of 45.9 cents per gallon, with states typically ranging from 32.5 to 63.5 cents in taxes per gallon. How about suspending taxes and not just the federal like McCain said? Perhaps a tax credit or full deduction for gas taxes paid might help.

Now these are just a few of the things politicians could be saying to help our short and long-term energy needs. Why are they silent? They are the office holders or want to be our elected representatives. I guess even experience doesn’t help politicians solve problems.