Search This Blog

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Maybe America's problems aren't so bad?


July 29, 2012

Maybe things aren't so bad after all?

I have been accused by some readers of being too pessimistic. I thought about that at length and decided that in this article I would focus on the positive aspects of some of our nation's challenges.

For example, instead of focusing on the 30 million Americans who have no health insurance, let's remember that over 90% of all Americans do have some form of insurance coverage. By the way, about half of all American's health coverage is provided by Medicare, Medicaid, Government Employee, and the VA health care systems...those dreaded public options! Instead of worrying about the 25 million or so who do not enjoy full employment, remember that over 125 million Americans are working...albeit with wages that have been stagnant for well over a decade. Instead of focusing on the roughly 50% of workers paying no federal income taxes, let's celebrate the positive fact that almost half of all working Americans make enough money to be able pay these taxes, and lets make them pay even more. Instead of bemoaning the trillions of dollars that have been spent on our last two wasted wars, lets be happy that both of these are winding down and the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan are now far better off than before we came...aren't they? Let's stop being so worried about the state of our children's education. Let's just ask for more federal involvement, encourage more unions, stronger tenure rules, lower teacher pay, more end point testing, and even less parental involvement. After all, how important is it to worry about our kids and grandkids receiving the types of quality education that will actually prepare them to live productive adult lives in our rapidly changing global environment? Instead of continuing to be upset at the fact that over 12 million illegal immigrants have been allowed/encouraged to enter our country over the past three decades, look at the money we saved by not enforcing our borders, and the fact that with the economy remaining weak, fewer and fewer are now coming to America. Instead of being unhappy with the fluctuating cost of gasoline, let's keep buying gas guzzlers. Housing values underwater...look at the bright side, housing prices have never been lower...what a great buying opportunity. Now if we could just create jobs and convince those darn banks to start lending money again we might actually sell more homes and drive prices higher. If you were unhappy that none of the bankers, Wall Street types, and even some of our culpable elected officials were charged with any crimes or had to serve even a day in jail for their role in creating the housing bubble that nearly sank our nation...look at the bright side about how much this helped reduce jail and prison over-crowding. If you are unhappy at the OWS crowd going after the 1%? Look at the positive fact that they haven't yet decided to go after the top 30%. We should all celebrate the creation of ethanol as the renewable replacement for gasoline. Let's ignore the fact that it costs more energy than it saves to produce. Let's also ignore the fact that this has reduced the amount of corn and other competing grains available for foodstuffs...resulting in significantly higher food prices. The best news here is that the EPA has not raised the allowable ethanol levels to 20 or 25% instead of the 15% currently approved. Let's celebrate the fact that only about a fourth of our children now live in households whose income falls below the poverty line. More good news; our national debt is only $16 trillion. I say only because it has been projected by the OMB to increase by about one trillion dollars per year for the coming decade. Thus $16trillion will seem like chicken feed compared to the projected $26 trillion by 2022.

We should be ecstatic that in spite of an approval rating of less than 10% for our federally elected lawmakers...we continue to re-elect incumbents over 90% of the time. Think of the pleasure this brings to them and their families, and the powerful special interests who don't have to worry about training new lawmakers to follow their orders. Finally we also should be grateful that the two parties are so frozen in partisan politics. If they were not, who else could we blame for all of our problems? Surely we wouldn't look in a mirror...would we??

Hmm...maybe I am a pessimist. But if so I'm an optimistic one because I am certainly positive that one cannot look at these irrefutable facts and not conclude that something is terribly wrong with our nation. If you disagree please let me know what you see that I am missing. I would prefer optimism over pessimism any day...I just need some evidence.

I can't wait for my Ostrich-like (oops...optimists) friends to read this...though, it's likely that they have their heads buried so deeply in the sand that they won't see what is so clearly visible anyway?? Haven't you found in your own life experience that ignoring problems usually makes them become less problematic?

As usual, these are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower
Hendersonville, NC

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

America's drought and its effects on corn and people


July 24, 2012

The Great Drought: Unintended Consequences?

As we all know by now our nation's corn belt is experiencing the worst drought in over 50 years.

The likely result will be a massive reduction in our corn harvest. This reduction in supply has simple economic consequences...prices for every corn-based product will increase dramatically. In addition to paying more for corn based foods, we will, of course, pay more for ethanol too. One has to give credit to the corn industry which for decades invented idea after idea to increase demand and prices for their product. Corn-based food product types have expanded for decades as more and more recipes were developed that used corn, and high fructose corn syrup massively replaced cane sugar. Then came the grandest idea of all; using corn to create ethanol that could then be substituted for gasoline. Can't you imagine these marketeers sitting around a table brainstorming ideas on how to create even more demand for their product? After all, in most capitalistic organizations, the quest for growth is an absolute constant. Suddenly a light bulb went off and someone reminded the group that the idea for producing a gasoline substitute using corn ethanol had been around as long as the automobile. The problem had always been that it cost more to produce ethanol than gasoline and thus it could not compete on price. Then the group began to think outside the box. What if, they asked, we could develop traction for an idea of substituting ethanol for gasoline because of global warming. We could certainly get the environmentalists to back the idea. What if we also sold the idea as a way of helping reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Then one excited person said...we can even tout it as a source of renewable energy! Who could resist these selling points? Then some really naive member raised a red flag; we still have a problem because we cannot produce it at a price that is lower than gasoline because it takes oil based fertilizers to raise it, more oil-based energy to produce it, and then the corn has to be hauled by trucks to distilleries and, finally, the ethanol also has to be hauled by truck to the gasoline refineries because it is too corrosive for pipelines. When all these costs are added up, the red flag bearer warned, it clearly will never actually reduce oil usage or pollution.. On top of that, this naysayer at the table said, the start up costs will be very high. To all of this, the smartest person at the table said; stop worrying so much about all of this stuff. Our objective is to increase our corn markets and this is too good an idea to pass up. We'll just turn those problems over to our lobbyists and lawyers to deal with. Of course, here's what these two groups then did; first, they had to get all of the lawmakers in the corn-producing states to support a bill that would provide government subsidies to get production distilleries built and running. Then they had to promise to make major contributions to candidates for the executive branch, and both houses of congress...for both parties. Then they coordinated campaigns by environmentalists to bring extreme pressure on the lawmakers. At the same time they launched media campaigns to demonize the oil industry, and to sell the benefits to American citizens in order to gain their support. By the time they were done it would have been un-American to even think of speaking out against this idea.

The idea was rapidly transformed from an idea to a reality today that affects every American and even the poorer inhabitants of the world who depend on our exported corn as a food staple. Prices have, as would be expected, climbed steadily higher. Corn crops have also grown commensurate with expanded demand. Prices for even non-corn grains have also skyrocketed as farmers grew less of these grains in order to convert to corn production. Our leaders obviously did agree to this idea that they were paid to support. Subsidies were created as requested by producers to help build and operate distilleries that could not have existed otherwise. And our leaders then convinced the EPA to now allow up to 15% of ethanol in every gallon of gasoline.

Now we have the great drought! Guess what will now happen to the prices of every grain-based product we consume? Most experts predict that ethanol will soon end up costing more per gallon than the gasoline it replaces, and in most states it's not just EPA allowed...it's required (thanks to lobbying at the state level). It leaves one to ponder just how much longer we will allow this corruption to continue unabated. Once again, both party's leaders, supposedly the smartest people around, have proven that they will buy into and support almost any idea if they are paid enough to do so. They clearly don't give a tinker's damn about what's truly best for we the people!

Our leaders predictable response will be that nobody can predict the weather because it is just an act of nature. They used to say an act of God...but that is now politically incorrect. Were the consequences unintended, unanticipated, or simply ignored? Are our leaders stupid or crooked? Either should get you fired.

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower
Hendersonville, NC

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Americans need to vote out incumbents


July 15, 2012

Why I support voting out incumbents


If you have read many of my articles, you know that my consistent general theme has been that in order for voters to help solve our nations many problems we need to unite in firing all incumbent federally elected officials beginning with the coming fall elections. Most American voters are angered and frustrated by our lawmakers overall performance, but some then argue that some are OK and should be saved. This article is written to better explain why I feel so strongly about supporting this drastic action.

Over the past couple of years, many, many readers have sent me their very well developed ideas that, if implemented, would likely solve most of our challenges. Many said, in effect, that we didn't need to fire everyone...we just need to convince our elected to do these things. Since our representatives have failed miserably to respond to our anger, how do we get that accomplished? I am a pragmatic and practical business person. I spent over thirty eight years in the private sector working in five different industries, during which I held over 20 different management roles in just about every business function you can think of. I was repeatedly told by my bosses that I was valued because I was very good at solving problems.

I was trained to evaluate negative results by identifying their primary underlying causes, and when the most important causal factor was identified, to then determine the most effective options to remove or modify that cause. It was while evaluating our nation's problems with this approach that I had my personal "Ah Ha!" moment. It became clear to me that most of us see all the laws and regulations that need to be changed. We simply lack the willingness and effective leadership to implement them. Our two political parties remain locked in a desperate struggle to retain as much power as possible, and the vast majority of our elected politicians from both parties are more interested in staying in power than risking the needed collaborative actions necessary to pass the laws and regulations so desperately required. The parties and their politicians have learned from long experience that we will re-elect them over 90% of the time anyway, and that they must fear the lobbies more than the voters.

It dawned on me that we voters only have one single effective tool at our disposal and that is the ballot. We the people cannot pass a single law or regulation...that is solely in the control of our elected representatives.

That led me to my conclusion that as long as we are no real threat to their power, why would we expect them to pay any attention to our complaints...or even bother to listen to our suggestions or ideas. The fact is that they, quite accurately I might add, only fear the monied special interests who fund their campaigns...because these folks will withhold funding at the first sign that a politician isn't following their orders. Where does that leave we the people? I'm afraid it leaves us to either continue the frustrating and non-productive game we have been playing of just blaming all those in the other party...or to stand up and take the necessary actions to send a strong signal to all future candidates and current office holders that we can and will fire them...by doing just that! Those we elect to represent our collective best interests would suddenly realize that we the voters can and will fire them if they fail to act accordingly. After this process has begun the metrics that we should use in the future to measure our lawmaker's performance will be fairly easy to create and help guide our future election decisions. For those who could never imagine voting for a candidate in the opposite party...just vote out your party's incumbent in a primary.

I know that this likely seems too simple and unrealistic and many will suggest that we will just be sending new crooks to Washington. I do not believe that most of our politicians intend to behave like crooks. It is the system they are forced to work within that is corrupt, and that corruption is created by the powerful special interests and the political parties themselves. It seems pretty clear that the folks we have been re-electing for term after term from either party do effectively say the words supporting their followers personal values...but they have clearly not delivered the goods for a very long time and I don't think they can or will change their behavior without our help.

Clearly we will risk losing a few good and decent people currently in office. However, being nice or good but ineffective should still get you fired! By signaling with our ballot that we can and will take action to replace incumbents is what will force the rest to be reminded that they serve at our pleasure...not just that of the special interests. Frankly I don't think it would take more than one or two waves of firings before the survivors would get the message. For the faint of heart, please stand aside. Our nation is in a war for it's very survival. Politics as usual, either for politicians or voters, is clearly no longer an acceptable alternative.

These are my opinions. What do you think?


Mike Tower

Sunday, July 8, 2012

The implications of Obamacare


July 8, 2012

The health care bill implications

The Supreme Court has approved the health care bill that is commonly known as Obamacare with two exceptions. The first, deals with the wording in the law requiring that a penalty be paid by anyone who could afford to, but then chose not to buy insurance. The court stated that the penalty would have to be called what it actually is...a tax. The second removes from the law the threat that said, in effect, if a state fails to expand its Medicaid offering as part of the health care expansion, they would lose all federal monies currently being paid to them for the program...that amounts to 90% of the state's costs for medicaid. These two exceptions will prove to be critically important as this important debate continues.

Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats are lauding this as a victory for the American people. The Republicans are, of course, proclaiming it to be a disaster of epic proportions. This will result in this issue being a significant debating point for both sides in the remaining months of the election. We must all hope that the more important issues such as jobs, debt, and unfunded entitlements aren't ignored.

Since it is pretty clear that the health care and Insurance lobbies led the process of writing this bill in their favor are the primary winners. Their enthusiasm, however, has to be tempered by the fear of the Republican's promises to repeal the law if they win a majority of both houses and the presidency. Any bets on where these same special interests will be placing their support this fall? Any doubts about what a GOP candidate will have to promise in return for their financial support?

It's easy to see that the 10% of Americans without insurance have also won. Who are the losers? Well, let's begin by looking at the other 90% of Americans who currently have some form of health insurance. Does anyone imagine that this majority population isn't about to see the beginning of the most incredible negative changes to their health care imaginable? The President stated before and after the court's decision that folks who are already insured will be allowed to keep their insurance. He, of course, did not say that this majority will have to bear most of the burden for all of these newly insured via higher costs or reduced services, or both. Can you imagine that insurance providers of all types will not end up raising fees to make up for expected higher costs? Do you think that the number of employers providing health insurance in this new reality will increase or decrease? It doesn't matter if you happen to be covered by private, Medicare, Medicaid, Government, or the VA; you might be able to maintain coverage, but these all will be affected by higher costs and reduced services. It's a simple matter of economics; our nation is deeply in debt and cannot afford to pay for these additional insureds and increased services for baby boomers without additional revenues and/or reduced services. Think about the supply of primary care providers required by the growing twin demands of the newly insured and the baby boomers. The supply of primary care providers has for many years been failing to grow at a rate that even matches current demand. In America today, driven by shrinking reimbursement rates for service, our primary care specialists are among the lowest paid of all physicians. Why would anyone logically want to make this their chosen medical specialty? During these very trying economic times it seems indisputable that this new law initiates a period of declining quality of health care for the vast majority of all Americans for the foreseeable future.

Last year I wrote a series of articles dealing with health care realities in our nation. I stated that we are the only developed country in the world not providing universal health care for all of it's citizens. Clearly that must not be allowed to continue in a nation that remains, in spite of our problems, the wealthiest in the world. To me this requirement to provide health care access for all citizens falls under the “Life” portion of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” sentence of our Declaration of Independence. However, for our leaders to have created this version of health care reforms that more benefits the powerful special interests than the vast majority of our people is not the best way accomplish that goal. We have transferred all control of our health care into the hands of the politicians, bureaucrats, and the insurance and health care industries. As I wrote then, and am even more convinced today, the right thing to do would be to offer everyone a Medicare option. After all, over half of all Americans are already on some form of public health coverage when you include those covered by Medicare, Medicaid, Government, and the VA. The infrastructure is already in place, and most current recipients think that these health care delivery systems work pretty well. The real negative of that option would, of course, be for the special interests...and they certainly are more capable of influencing the lawmakers than we the people. Meanwhile we just keep voting the incumbents back into office?? Will we never learn?

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower

Please also check out: