I was walking through the aisles of Walmart's Supercenter, where the groceries are, and it suddenly occurred to me that everything was in boxes, cans and plastic bags. Yes, I know you can get a can of beans, but there were a lot of what we call "prepared foods". I love a simple box of rice with seasonings or a bag of tortilla chips with a jar of salsa, but these are prepared and more costly than home-made foods. I couldn't fix the chips at home, so having a company make them and have them regularly on the store shelves is a great benefit to all of us who enjoy them. That's true of the prepared foods in general and that's a main reason we have them. But, I wondered, when was the last time I fixed my own meal from scratch.
I immediately thought about fixing a meal and settled on chili. It's not too hard or time consuming and I hadn't had any for a while. You begin with ground beef, maybe some sausage (ground or link), onions, green pepper, garlic (optional), tomatoes (diced at home or in a can), tomato juice (in a plastic bottle), pinto beans (from a can), kidney beans (from a can and already in a chili sauce), maybe some diced chilis (from a can or not is your choice) and some water. Already, in this home-made recipe, I have beans in a chili sauce and pre-diced tomatoes and tomato juice in a bottle and garlic powder instead of a clove of garlic and pre-diced chilis. It's real work to think of the really really raw ingredients and how long it would take to cook the dish that way.
Some people think raw foods are naturally better, but I think that's a bit impractical. We've grown used to having cans (or jars) of foods and bagged & boxed cereals, flour, sweeteners and various other things. Truly starting from scratch may be possible in many cases and for vegetables that's easier, but a lot of the boxed & canned things are fine. If you don't like the highly-refined flours (for example) you can get bagged whole-grain flour for making breads and such. It's odd, but you pay more for the less-refined because there are fewer people buying those.
Is it cheaper to begin with truly raw foods? I think some would be, but once you get beyond potatoes, onions, tomatoes, peppers, lettuce and things like that you have more expensive things like fresh herbs & spices. And, you have to do a tiny bit more to prepare and use them, so that's your time being used. Again, it's clear Americans favor the time-saving canned & boxed things to save time with some simple preparation issues: peeling or dicing or smashing (to paste) tomatoes for example are easier than doing it yourself and they're just as good.
Beyond that we are seduced into things like rice in a box (very cheap stuff) with some other seasonings (not so easy for everyone to toss together) to make a nicer dish. And, once we go down that road the possibilities for prepared foods becomes very complicated and more expensive and possibly less healthy for us. I noticed a box of pre-made servings of hash-brown potatoes. You wouldn't have to peel and cut any potatoes. Just pull one out of the freezer and put it in a toaster oven or on the frying pan for a few minutes. It's almost a miracle, but somehow it also seemed a lot less appealing than home-made. It's hard to grow up in our world and not be skeptical of food quality. Frozen meatballs or chicken strips are other examples. Is the meat quality what you really expect?
It pays to know whether you're eating healthy and reasonably-priced foods. If we then make the choice for easier prepared things then at least it's our choice. Just buying what's on the shelves without consideration is putting your wallet in someone else's hands.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
AUMF
Listening to the Senate committee grill Secretary of State John Kerry was quite curious. The Republicans seemed determined to get a suggestion for an AUMF from the president or to delay consideration of the matter until the new Congress sits (when the Republicans would have control of the committee). Congress has already delayed consideration of this for some months, but the election campaigns were on-going and that made sense. Now it doesn't. The president could have sent a suggested AUMF to Congress, but everything he suggests is just fodder for the Republicans to dismiss. In this instance it's simply better for Congress to pull itself up off the floor and do its job. I hope that's not asking too much.
To the question of an AUMF -- an authorization for the use of military force -- it's important for Congress to decide if modernizing the 2001, 2002 laws is necessary in their opinion. Those limited the Executive branch to fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates, though President George W. Bush surprised many by shifting from Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden and his part of al Qaeda were located) to Iraq. If they decide to leave those in place, then the president will continue under cover of those unless a court decides it's inappropriate. Sec. Kerry said today the courts have already ruled on that.
Assuming they decide modernization is needed, then they also need to decide if they want one over-arching AUMF for al Qaeda and all possible affiliates anywhere in the world or if they would prefer one for that and another for fighting ISIL in a more limited way (geographically or otherwise). I would suggest that two separate AUMFs is quite reasonable and leaving the old laws in effect for that purpose might suffice, though creating a new one specifically for the fight against ISIL would be very useful.
The AUMF for opposing ISIL could easily specify that the fight is geographically bound, though many other resources from other sites might be acceptable. For example, a stealth aircraft, cruise missile or drone can come from far away and training camps in countries neighboring Iraq-Syria are also necessary. A time duration is quite appealing as unlimited duration for this engagement commits us to unlimited involvement with all its costs and it isn't an incentive to actually complete the war in a timely fashion. With a time limit there should be a process for reconsideration, recommitment, reauthorization or extension which the Senate should be required to handle. This could be much like a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation process. The president (whomever it may be) could request an extension of the AUMF and then the Senate would consider it and vote to extend or not. A limitation on the use of ground troops is limiting and undesirable from the point-of-view of the Executive branch, but the Senate could include that if it desires. The list of exceptions to the rule is the problem.
It's essential we have two key things: recognition this is a fight America needs to fight and win AND authorization for use of sufficient resources & means to win. Other limits can be dealt with.
Sec. Kerry already stated the cost of the war is dealt with in the budget. That too needs to be reviewed by Congress and accepted or amended.
To the question of an AUMF -- an authorization for the use of military force -- it's important for Congress to decide if modernizing the 2001, 2002 laws is necessary in their opinion. Those limited the Executive branch to fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates, though President George W. Bush surprised many by shifting from Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden and his part of al Qaeda were located) to Iraq. If they decide to leave those in place, then the president will continue under cover of those unless a court decides it's inappropriate. Sec. Kerry said today the courts have already ruled on that.
Assuming they decide modernization is needed, then they also need to decide if they want one over-arching AUMF for al Qaeda and all possible affiliates anywhere in the world or if they would prefer one for that and another for fighting ISIL in a more limited way (geographically or otherwise). I would suggest that two separate AUMFs is quite reasonable and leaving the old laws in effect for that purpose might suffice, though creating a new one specifically for the fight against ISIL would be very useful.
The AUMF for opposing ISIL could easily specify that the fight is geographically bound, though many other resources from other sites might be acceptable. For example, a stealth aircraft, cruise missile or drone can come from far away and training camps in countries neighboring Iraq-Syria are also necessary. A time duration is quite appealing as unlimited duration for this engagement commits us to unlimited involvement with all its costs and it isn't an incentive to actually complete the war in a timely fashion. With a time limit there should be a process for reconsideration, recommitment, reauthorization or extension which the Senate should be required to handle. This could be much like a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation process. The president (whomever it may be) could request an extension of the AUMF and then the Senate would consider it and vote to extend or not. A limitation on the use of ground troops is limiting and undesirable from the point-of-view of the Executive branch, but the Senate could include that if it desires. The list of exceptions to the rule is the problem.
It's essential we have two key things: recognition this is a fight America needs to fight and win AND authorization for use of sufficient resources & means to win. Other limits can be dealt with.
Sec. Kerry already stated the cost of the war is dealt with in the budget. That too needs to be reviewed by Congress and accepted or amended.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Government Hates Trees -- Social Security Edition
I can swear the U.S. federal government hates trees. It keep chopping them down to make paper. Okay, so they use internet web sites too, but when I download their pages I need to print them to use as a reference.
Here's one single example: In the disabilities program called SSI there are reams of directions, instructions, limitations, programs and confusion. They don't mean to confuse, but it's the government. It's what they do naturally. They consider four different kinds of income and each has its own arcane rules which require many pages to describe. If you have a college education you could still make a mistake because it's very different than anything you encounter with taxes or ordinary work records. There is also the distinct possibility you can read the rules one year and they may be changed the next. It's enough to drive a person toward anarchy.
Simplifying the situation by telling candidates/recipients they must keep their assets (which could be converted quickly to cash) to $2000 or less and that all income from work or other means will reduce your benefit by half as much ($2 earned reduces benefit by $1, netting $1 gained) should be enough. Anyone having more than $2000 has their benefit reduced until that is spent down to the limit again.
Did you know that if you receive a check from a family member or friend for Christmas that they consider it unearned income and they reduce your SSI benefit by all but $20 of it. What's the point in receiving money for Christmas if they simply reduce your monthly SSI check?
Did you know that if you save some of the benefit they send you can build up your assets to $2000, but if you save money someone gives you they reduce your benefit by that much so that you really can't build up your assets? It doesn't make sense.
Social Security, simplify the lives of people whose lives are already difficult and maybe you will receive more than a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking!
Update:
As I was awaking this morning I was thinking about the Social Security rules for SSI as being a lot like an income tax.
Think of this: there is the income tax on earnings (about 30% for most workers) and the SSI rules reduce your benefit (check) by about one-half (50%) of your earnings, so the net effect is an 80% "tax" on earnings.
How much incentive to work can there be if you're being taxed at 80% *and* you aren't earning hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. There just isn't much left over (about $20 for every hundred earned).
So, aside from simplifying the rules, it seems to me that the limitation on earnings (reducing the benefit check by 50%) needs to be eliminated altogether. We shouldn't 'tax' earnings at this low level for these recipients. If you want people to work it just doesn't make sense. And, if you want fewer tax dollars wasted on government bureaucracy it just doesn't make sense.
The simple rule should be that SSI will provide money each month(currently about $725) as long as your total cash assets (what you need for housing & food) remain less than or equal to a set limit (currently $2000).
Then people would have an unlimited incentive to work (if they can) and there would be less complication in their lives and less need for complicated SSI rules and Social Security employees to enforce such rules.
Here's one single example: In the disabilities program called SSI there are reams of directions, instructions, limitations, programs and confusion. They don't mean to confuse, but it's the government. It's what they do naturally. They consider four different kinds of income and each has its own arcane rules which require many pages to describe. If you have a college education you could still make a mistake because it's very different than anything you encounter with taxes or ordinary work records. There is also the distinct possibility you can read the rules one year and they may be changed the next. It's enough to drive a person toward anarchy.
Simplifying the situation by telling candidates/recipients they must keep their assets (which could be converted quickly to cash) to $2000 or less and that all income from work or other means will reduce your benefit by half as much ($2 earned reduces benefit by $1, netting $1 gained) should be enough. Anyone having more than $2000 has their benefit reduced until that is spent down to the limit again.
Did you know that if you receive a check from a family member or friend for Christmas that they consider it unearned income and they reduce your SSI benefit by all but $20 of it. What's the point in receiving money for Christmas if they simply reduce your monthly SSI check?
Did you know that if you save some of the benefit they send you can build up your assets to $2000, but if you save money someone gives you they reduce your benefit by that much so that you really can't build up your assets? It doesn't make sense.
Social Security, simplify the lives of people whose lives are already difficult and maybe you will receive more than a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking!
Update:
As I was awaking this morning I was thinking about the Social Security rules for SSI as being a lot like an income tax.
Think of this: there is the income tax on earnings (about 30% for most workers) and the SSI rules reduce your benefit (check) by about one-half (50%) of your earnings, so the net effect is an 80% "tax" on earnings.
How much incentive to work can there be if you're being taxed at 80% *and* you aren't earning hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. There just isn't much left over (about $20 for every hundred earned).
So, aside from simplifying the rules, it seems to me that the limitation on earnings (reducing the benefit check by 50%) needs to be eliminated altogether. We shouldn't 'tax' earnings at this low level for these recipients. If you want people to work it just doesn't make sense. And, if you want fewer tax dollars wasted on government bureaucracy it just doesn't make sense.
The simple rule should be that SSI will provide money each month(currently about $725) as long as your total cash assets (what you need for housing & food) remain less than or equal to a set limit (currently $2000).
Then people would have an unlimited incentive to work (if they can) and there would be less complication in their lives and less need for complicated SSI rules and Social Security employees to enforce such rules.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
More On Leadership
When Jimmy Carter was president he tried to solve the problems of the Middle East, particularly the relations of Israel with its neighbors. The Republicans who followed achieved nothing on that front because they didn't want to upset the Saudis who controlled the flow of most of the world's oil.
Pres. Carter also considered the energy issue and decided to set a course: to develop alternative energy sources. He even put a solar panel on top of the White House and set the White House thermostat lower and pushed through a law to limit the speed of cars on the Interstate highway system. All good ideas at the time. The first thing Ronald Reagan did was appoint George H. W. Bush as his Vice President knowing Bush had run an oil company and was completely against alternative energy sources. The second was to remove the solar panel from the White House.
Sometimes leading the nation requires time to educate the public about issues and time to campaign to create a sufficiently large coalition that change can be made and kept in place.
When President Clinton wanted to reform the healthcare system he was following in the footsteps of several presidents: Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter. The cost of healthcare was rising rapidly and he knew it was time for change. But, at that time there had not been a sustained campaign to gain momentum. His plan was rebuffed, but in time the Obama administration could build on that and got a plan (barely) passed into law. Now the effort has to be to keep it and improve it over time. The Republicans opposed these changes from start to finish and still claim they want to repeal the law. They, of course, also say they would replace it with something effective, but they have no real plan for that. If the Supreme Court doesn't knock it down this law will remain. And, it's due to the thoughtful leadership of previous recent Democratic presidents who took a lot of slings & arrows for trying to push the issue and the debate.
The Obama administration had to deal a lot with the economics of the country and regulating financial markets & banks. This helps us incrementally improve our standing with the American public on that topic. It hasn't yet enabled us to do significant change to improve the situation. However, we had achieved similar growth rates when Presidents Carter and Clinton ran the economy. Carter ran into the OPEC oil cartel, but Clinton achieved much more. By the end of his first term we had great results and a low unemployment rate (it went even lower), but we didn't have sufficient Congressional support for doing more. In fact, the Republicans had won the political arguments and had control of the House of Representatives. To slow Clinton they Impeached him over a personal scandal. This not only prevented further progress on the economy, but it became possible for a Republican to win the next presidential race. That victory came from the Supreme Court (a 5-4 vote) and it led to terrible disasters, both economic and others. The Obama administration had to pick up the pieces of that mess and fix a lot of problems. It did so quickly, but he too lost the House to Republicans in 2010. They couldn't Impeach him, but they tried everything else to harass him and slow him. In the Senate they filibustered all significant legislation and prevented nominations from being confirmed. It seems everything the Republicans touch leads to disaster. Even so, the Obama administration and the Democrats (when they had some power) pushed forward on clean alternative energy sources and the use of more rail (which is more energy efficient than trucking).
Leadership isn't always easy or fast, but if the issues before the nation are very important it's what a president has to aim for. Even if it means starting a conversation it has to be done with no self-congratulations since there is no certainty of achievement during that term.
Pres. Carter also considered the energy issue and decided to set a course: to develop alternative energy sources. He even put a solar panel on top of the White House and set the White House thermostat lower and pushed through a law to limit the speed of cars on the Interstate highway system. All good ideas at the time. The first thing Ronald Reagan did was appoint George H. W. Bush as his Vice President knowing Bush had run an oil company and was completely against alternative energy sources. The second was to remove the solar panel from the White House.
Sometimes leading the nation requires time to educate the public about issues and time to campaign to create a sufficiently large coalition that change can be made and kept in place.
When President Clinton wanted to reform the healthcare system he was following in the footsteps of several presidents: Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter. The cost of healthcare was rising rapidly and he knew it was time for change. But, at that time there had not been a sustained campaign to gain momentum. His plan was rebuffed, but in time the Obama administration could build on that and got a plan (barely) passed into law. Now the effort has to be to keep it and improve it over time. The Republicans opposed these changes from start to finish and still claim they want to repeal the law. They, of course, also say they would replace it with something effective, but they have no real plan for that. If the Supreme Court doesn't knock it down this law will remain. And, it's due to the thoughtful leadership of previous recent Democratic presidents who took a lot of slings & arrows for trying to push the issue and the debate.
The Obama administration had to deal a lot with the economics of the country and regulating financial markets & banks. This helps us incrementally improve our standing with the American public on that topic. It hasn't yet enabled us to do significant change to improve the situation. However, we had achieved similar growth rates when Presidents Carter and Clinton ran the economy. Carter ran into the OPEC oil cartel, but Clinton achieved much more. By the end of his first term we had great results and a low unemployment rate (it went even lower), but we didn't have sufficient Congressional support for doing more. In fact, the Republicans had won the political arguments and had control of the House of Representatives. To slow Clinton they Impeached him over a personal scandal. This not only prevented further progress on the economy, but it became possible for a Republican to win the next presidential race. That victory came from the Supreme Court (a 5-4 vote) and it led to terrible disasters, both economic and others. The Obama administration had to pick up the pieces of that mess and fix a lot of problems. It did so quickly, but he too lost the House to Republicans in 2010. They couldn't Impeach him, but they tried everything else to harass him and slow him. In the Senate they filibustered all significant legislation and prevented nominations from being confirmed. It seems everything the Republicans touch leads to disaster. Even so, the Obama administration and the Democrats (when they had some power) pushed forward on clean alternative energy sources and the use of more rail (which is more energy efficient than trucking).
Leadership isn't always easy or fast, but if the issues before the nation are very important it's what a president has to aim for. Even if it means starting a conversation it has to be done with no self-congratulations since there is no certainty of achievement during that term.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Florida and Guns...Again
The Republicans in Florida must be entirely crazy. Now they have gone beyond the "Stand Your Ground" law. They practically encourage gun violence with their new law.
Florida goes too far!
Florida goes too far!
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Leadership
It takes intelligence, a knowledge of how to move people and to get things done, and a lot of other qualities like stubbornness or determination and energy. Our president, Barack Obama, has shown a lot of those qualities and an amazing patience with the obstructive Republicans who have put politics above the nation's well-being.
Republicans have been pretending for a long time to be more moderate than they actually are. For example, they invented the healthcare reform idea (including the individual mandate) which was implemented in Massachussetts and signed by Governor Mitt Romney and later adopted by Pres. Obama and the Democrats. Yet, Republicans have opposed this law (the PPACA or Obamacare) as vigorously as any I've ever seen. How can it be leadership to create something, argue for it and then oppose it with everything you can?
Pres. Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (in 2009) went ahead because they knew it would benefit millions of people and it would improve health care and it would control costs -- necessary to the long-term continuation of Medicare. That's leadership.
Did you know the Republicans invented the Cap & Trade system meant to fight climate change? They have also voted against it in the U.S. Senate and argued in campaigns for letting the coal plants of America and the world continue to pollute without constraint.
Pres. Obama has used the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate industry to protect the environment despite there being little political support and tremendous opposition. That's leadership.
During the Reagan and Bush years, including when Clinton was president, the Republicans favored deregulation of the financial industry and they pushed and pushed for that until, in 2007 & 2008, the economy fell apart and essentially stopped working. Pres. Obama took office in January of 2009 with unemployment increasing by millions and the economy sinking like a rock. It wasn't a very nice gift from the Bush administration. He and the Federal Reserve did everything possible and necessary to stop the crash and to put the system back onto a solid foundation which would last for many years. Yet the Republicans have argued this wasn't necessary and that it was awful and should be repealed.
Pres. Obama did what was needed to make the economy work and took the slings & arrows from the Republicans and the public in general. That's leadership.
Now when the economy is doing better the Republicans are trying to claim they were somehow responsible for these good things. It is incomprehensible.
Time and time again we see the president and his Democratic supporters in Congress tackling the difficult problems and those who will not follow attacking him. It reflects the old saying, "no good deed goes unpunished".
Recently Pres. Obama has been arguing the immigration system is broken and needs major repair. The Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to pass legislation which would improve things. The Speaker of the House won't bring the bill up for a vote, despite the fact there are probably sufficient votes to pass it. There is little followership to support the president's leadership.
The president went ahead with some new Executive Order regulations to try to improve the immigration system and all he's heard is anger from the Republicans, the media and much of the public. Doing what is useful and good for America isn't always popular. But, it's leadership in action.
For this the president's job approval poll numbers have dropped to only about 42%. It's not easy leading when there isn't both a consensus of what should be done and political support for it. But, leadership does what it must.
Now, if only we could get the Republicans to find some political advantage in agreeing. If they're constantly held back by political concerns they can never go along with the president -- and America is held back.
Republicans have been pretending for a long time to be more moderate than they actually are. For example, they invented the healthcare reform idea (including the individual mandate) which was implemented in Massachussetts and signed by Governor Mitt Romney and later adopted by Pres. Obama and the Democrats. Yet, Republicans have opposed this law (the PPACA or Obamacare) as vigorously as any I've ever seen. How can it be leadership to create something, argue for it and then oppose it with everything you can?
Pres. Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (in 2009) went ahead because they knew it would benefit millions of people and it would improve health care and it would control costs -- necessary to the long-term continuation of Medicare. That's leadership.
Did you know the Republicans invented the Cap & Trade system meant to fight climate change? They have also voted against it in the U.S. Senate and argued in campaigns for letting the coal plants of America and the world continue to pollute without constraint.
Pres. Obama has used the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate industry to protect the environment despite there being little political support and tremendous opposition. That's leadership.
During the Reagan and Bush years, including when Clinton was president, the Republicans favored deregulation of the financial industry and they pushed and pushed for that until, in 2007 & 2008, the economy fell apart and essentially stopped working. Pres. Obama took office in January of 2009 with unemployment increasing by millions and the economy sinking like a rock. It wasn't a very nice gift from the Bush administration. He and the Federal Reserve did everything possible and necessary to stop the crash and to put the system back onto a solid foundation which would last for many years. Yet the Republicans have argued this wasn't necessary and that it was awful and should be repealed.
Pres. Obama did what was needed to make the economy work and took the slings & arrows from the Republicans and the public in general. That's leadership.
Now when the economy is doing better the Republicans are trying to claim they were somehow responsible for these good things. It is incomprehensible.
Time and time again we see the president and his Democratic supporters in Congress tackling the difficult problems and those who will not follow attacking him. It reflects the old saying, "no good deed goes unpunished".
Recently Pres. Obama has been arguing the immigration system is broken and needs major repair. The Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to pass legislation which would improve things. The Speaker of the House won't bring the bill up for a vote, despite the fact there are probably sufficient votes to pass it. There is little followership to support the president's leadership.
The president went ahead with some new Executive Order regulations to try to improve the immigration system and all he's heard is anger from the Republicans, the media and much of the public. Doing what is useful and good for America isn't always popular. But, it's leadership in action.
For this the president's job approval poll numbers have dropped to only about 42%. It's not easy leading when there isn't both a consensus of what should be done and political support for it. But, leadership does what it must.
Now, if only we could get the Republicans to find some political advantage in agreeing. If they're constantly held back by political concerns they can never go along with the president -- and America is held back.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Interesting Developments
Simon Wiesenthal ADL Jews protected Neo-Nazis in Ukraine?
Three articles on elections & voting:
Emails detail Florida GOP gerrymandering effort
Winning the vote, losing the election, in Michigan
About Touch-Screen Voting
And the public is even more out of touch than politicians:
What's the unemployment rate? 32% according to some people
Solar Power to the rescue!!!
Solar cloth parking lots? What's that?
When will Solar & Wind be price competitive with Coal & other 'traditional' fuels? Now? Really?
The time for tax reform is now!
One reason we definitely need tax reform now
Three articles on elections & voting:
Emails detail Florida GOP gerrymandering effort
Winning the vote, losing the election, in Michigan
About Touch-Screen Voting
And the public is even more out of touch than politicians:
What's the unemployment rate? 32% according to some people
Solar Power to the rescue!!!
Solar cloth parking lots? What's that?
When will Solar & Wind be price competitive with Coal & other 'traditional' fuels? Now? Really?
The time for tax reform is now!
One reason we definitely need tax reform now
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)