Former Vice President Dick Cheney needs no defense from anyone; he can always do that himself, and extremely very well too. Yet, using the word "Dithering" for President Obama is completely uncalled for.
It is true that the sending of troops is necessary, and a decision on that has to be made as quickly as possible; however, the topic has also created a controversy for the government. Some of his (Obama's) advisers support the idea and another faction does not. It has become a matter of the president being in a quandary, and nobody really knows where he actually stands in regard to that controversy, although he is the decision maker, after all. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be given him; at least for the time being, while he considers doing what is right for the nation.
Everybody knows that he is considering doing something in response to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request. However, instead of the White House thinking about the right approach to the problem, it has to reach back and bring the Bush administration into the controversy, and that is too bad. It is becoming the "knack" of the present administration to turn back to old controversies, like this one; and people will soon grow weary of that.
What has gone before must not be used by the government each time that it wanted to impute blame on Former President Bush; as that would just stick only for a little while; and since the Democratic Party has taken over power now, its members were responsible for anything after the erstwhile 2008 presidential election that gave them the majority to rule. Not letting bygones be bygones would therefore draw any type of criticism, particularly from any member of the previous administration; and it might very well prove that such criticism would rather exacerbate the controversy instead of helping it.
More so by the jumping in of the Speaker of the House of Representatives into the fracas. Speaker Nancy Pelosi did have the right to defend the present administration, but she did so at a time when the controversy for sending troops to Afghanistan was still brewing within her own party.
Besides that, she was aware of the policies of the Bush government on both the Iraq and the Afghan wars being passed to the Obama team during the transition period. It was then that the Democrats could have objected to them; however, they did not. They accepted them willy-nilly. Therefore, there was no denying that "the ball was in their court", so to speak.
Now, the troops that are fighting the wars are in want; they need more men and women of the military to come to their aid; and are you going to deny them that request?
The previous government, of which Vice President Cheney was part, learned to handle the enemy very well, soon after the September 11 attacks, so that there were no more attacks on mainland America for seven years. That achievement should be a feather in the Bush administration's cap. Not many people spoke about that. Was not that incredible?
It was the kind of protection that Americans wanted and needed, and it should be emulated by the present government, or that protection would be in jeopardy.
"Please, Mr. President, send the troops", is what former Vice-President Dick Cheney is trying to say; and so, do the best you can and listen to him.
Americans have stayed united in the face of adversity, always.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
IRAN AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.
Iran's agreement to send a majority of its low-enriched uranium to Russia for processing shows that the rogue nation is gradually coming to its senses, and slowly withdrawing from its ambition of nuclear bomb making, rather than using the technology only to generate energy for its growing population.
According to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, Iran is ready to accept a draft, which is the end product of negotiations by the United States, Russia and France that has been reached with the representatives of Iran in Vienna to be presented in all four countries for approval not later than Friday, 10/23/09.
Iran's chief delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh, has hailed the draft as being promising by saying that it is "on the right track," and "We have to thoroughly study this text and also (need) further elaboration in capitals," pointing the way for Iran to gain a remission from the International community and to finally be accepted back into its fold.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has emphasized that "Iran must take immediate measures to execute steps on low enriched uranium", thus moving it elsewhere, and in that instance, Russia has been the designated location, or the U.S. will not talk to "Iran merely for the sake of talking"; as Reuters, the news agency, reports. There seems, however, an indication that the draft, if approved, will pave the way for the two countries to have a one on one talks to reduce tensions.
It will also enable the rest of the world to breathe a sigh of relief from what might have been a volatile situation that will threaten the peace, which all nations need to exist coherently; and if that is what the proposed draft is leading to, then the Iranian leaders in Tehran must find it feasible to approve it as quickly as possible, so that preparations can move forward to implement its (draft's) contents. Such a venture will have so many technicalities being involved, with scientists and nuclear specialists, including all kinds of organizations trailing behind for verification purposes, while at the same time detailed diplomatic negotiations continue.
It is a breakthrough that must be regarded as a cogent part of settling the nuclear dispute of whether Iran has had, and continues to have the intention of developing nuclear weapons that will threaten the existence of Israel, and for that matter, be detrimental to world peace. Nevertheless, Iran President Ahmadinejad's insistence that the technology is geared only to produce energy for peaceful use must be encouraged by all factions to that dispute, with much alacrity that it (Ahmadinejad's prediction) will be so.
It will also set a good example for other nations to follow the path to peace; and its implications will be a fair outcome, as well as serve as a warning to, not just North Korea, for example; but other countries that may have the intentions of defying the United Nations Security Council resolution which has focused on the disarmament and non-proliferation of nucelar weapons, and which has been adopted and signed only a few weeks ago.
Hopefully, Iran will not look on the final result, if everything goes well and as planned, with the draft as being a forerunner to restore normal relations, to be a reprieve of some sort that is being offered by the U.S. and rest of the world for it (Iran) to abstain from what is its right to pursue nuclear power. It has to accept it (final result) as a prerequisite to allow it (Iran) an admission into the comity of nations once again.
Take heed, Iran.
According to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, Iran is ready to accept a draft, which is the end product of negotiations by the United States, Russia and France that has been reached with the representatives of Iran in Vienna to be presented in all four countries for approval not later than Friday, 10/23/09.
Iran's chief delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh, has hailed the draft as being promising by saying that it is "on the right track," and "We have to thoroughly study this text and also (need) further elaboration in capitals," pointing the way for Iran to gain a remission from the International community and to finally be accepted back into its fold.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has emphasized that "Iran must take immediate measures to execute steps on low enriched uranium", thus moving it elsewhere, and in that instance, Russia has been the designated location, or the U.S. will not talk to "Iran merely for the sake of talking"; as Reuters, the news agency, reports. There seems, however, an indication that the draft, if approved, will pave the way for the two countries to have a one on one talks to reduce tensions.
It will also enable the rest of the world to breathe a sigh of relief from what might have been a volatile situation that will threaten the peace, which all nations need to exist coherently; and if that is what the proposed draft is leading to, then the Iranian leaders in Tehran must find it feasible to approve it as quickly as possible, so that preparations can move forward to implement its (draft's) contents. Such a venture will have so many technicalities being involved, with scientists and nuclear specialists, including all kinds of organizations trailing behind for verification purposes, while at the same time detailed diplomatic negotiations continue.
It is a breakthrough that must be regarded as a cogent part of settling the nuclear dispute of whether Iran has had, and continues to have the intention of developing nuclear weapons that will threaten the existence of Israel, and for that matter, be detrimental to world peace. Nevertheless, Iran President Ahmadinejad's insistence that the technology is geared only to produce energy for peaceful use must be encouraged by all factions to that dispute, with much alacrity that it (Ahmadinejad's prediction) will be so.
It will also set a good example for other nations to follow the path to peace; and its implications will be a fair outcome, as well as serve as a warning to, not just North Korea, for example; but other countries that may have the intentions of defying the United Nations Security Council resolution which has focused on the disarmament and non-proliferation of nucelar weapons, and which has been adopted and signed only a few weeks ago.
Hopefully, Iran will not look on the final result, if everything goes well and as planned, with the draft as being a forerunner to restore normal relations, to be a reprieve of some sort that is being offered by the U.S. and rest of the world for it (Iran) to abstain from what is its right to pursue nuclear power. It has to accept it (final result) as a prerequisite to allow it (Iran) an admission into the comity of nations once again.
Take heed, Iran.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
OBAMA'S LIBERAL FRIENDS.
Looking through colored glasses has always been the style of many liberals; and it was mainly their vote that won the recent presidential election for the Democratic Party, and therefore they were interested on imposing their agendas on the Obama government, which was, by and large, a proponent of those agendas too. Therefore, the only way to pursue their objectives would be to have a place in the deliberation making enclave or "the loop", in order to influence policy.
The cultural attitude of American politics has been based on constitutional law amendments, whose foundations stemmed from the collective philosophical gems of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all citizens; and nobody would ever want to deviate from that sacred rite.
However, it has also been the experience of many aspiring politicians that, being on the outside of government was one thing, just as being on the inside was another; or that might have just dawned on them.
Being on the outside of government was a position from where criticisms, constructive or not, could be projected to expect an administration to conform, not only to its own policies, but also to be open to others, even though they (policies) might be objectionable to their way of thinking; or the new policies being introduced from the outside, would involve unfavorable radical ideologies. The alternate scenario was that, when the opposite faction, by virtue of the ballot box, gained power, that would completely go to change the political landscape; but the complexion of its (faction's) philosophies would not alter. When that should happen, there were internal conflicts that would go on within the ranks of that faction.
In other words, for a strongly radical administration to assume the responsibility of government, and then discovering the realities of policy making, it would be at loggerheads with its own ideologies; and finding that it was hardly practical to implement all its agendas, it became stuck in the middle of nowhere; and that was when criticisms became compulsory anathemas.
We can picture America in that situation, now that President Obama is occupying the White House; and that the colored glasses have dropped, and he and his people are seeing things more realistically.
Realities always appear on the political scene as mirages to the outsider, and he or she can shower criticisms or even poke jokes at what others are doing to find sustainable ways to make things right; yet, when they (realities) become apparent to him or her, the outsider, when he or she becomes the insider, he or she is faced with a sandstorm, and he or she is now blinded in such a way that reaching simple decisions may not at all be simple after all. Yet, whether they are or not, decisions have to be made.
The Obama government is fighting two wars, and therefore the president cannot sit on the fence looking in; no, not anymore. The names of the enemy must not be allowed to grow stronger, as that will only impede his own objective of a peaceful world. They are the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and he must decide on what to do with them now.
Let Gen. Stanley McChrystal have his troops; notwithstanding the runoff presidential election between Karzai and Abdullah in Afghanistan. Some of his liberal friends may object to such a decision; however, that is the way he has to go.
The cultural attitude of American politics has been based on constitutional law amendments, whose foundations stemmed from the collective philosophical gems of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all citizens; and nobody would ever want to deviate from that sacred rite.
However, it has also been the experience of many aspiring politicians that, being on the outside of government was one thing, just as being on the inside was another; or that might have just dawned on them.
Being on the outside of government was a position from where criticisms, constructive or not, could be projected to expect an administration to conform, not only to its own policies, but also to be open to others, even though they (policies) might be objectionable to their way of thinking; or the new policies being introduced from the outside, would involve unfavorable radical ideologies. The alternate scenario was that, when the opposite faction, by virtue of the ballot box, gained power, that would completely go to change the political landscape; but the complexion of its (faction's) philosophies would not alter. When that should happen, there were internal conflicts that would go on within the ranks of that faction.
In other words, for a strongly radical administration to assume the responsibility of government, and then discovering the realities of policy making, it would be at loggerheads with its own ideologies; and finding that it was hardly practical to implement all its agendas, it became stuck in the middle of nowhere; and that was when criticisms became compulsory anathemas.
We can picture America in that situation, now that President Obama is occupying the White House; and that the colored glasses have dropped, and he and his people are seeing things more realistically.
Realities always appear on the political scene as mirages to the outsider, and he or she can shower criticisms or even poke jokes at what others are doing to find sustainable ways to make things right; yet, when they (realities) become apparent to him or her, the outsider, when he or she becomes the insider, he or she is faced with a sandstorm, and he or she is now blinded in such a way that reaching simple decisions may not at all be simple after all. Yet, whether they are or not, decisions have to be made.
The Obama government is fighting two wars, and therefore the president cannot sit on the fence looking in; no, not anymore. The names of the enemy must not be allowed to grow stronger, as that will only impede his own objective of a peaceful world. They are the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and he must decide on what to do with them now.
Let Gen. Stanley McChrystal have his troops; notwithstanding the runoff presidential election between Karzai and Abdullah in Afghanistan. Some of his liberal friends may object to such a decision; however, that is the way he has to go.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
HAMID KARZAI AND ABDULLAH....
A legitimate government is desirable in Afghanistan to pave the way for a definite decision to be made by the Obama government to send more troops to the war front there; and so, it is somewhat good news for Hamid Karzai to agree to either a runoff election or a unity government, with Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah engaging in some kind of power sharing arrangement, politically.
These are the only two ideas applicable to the situation in their country. However, the rumor is still tentative in regard to Karzai's agreement.
Nevertheless, both options are risky, as the fraud in the previous election may return in the runoff election, or a unity government will not be strong enough to support United States military plan of "holding and building"; a strategy that will bring about putting together of all the factions in Afghanistan to form a viable entity that can be construed as one single nationality. That is what the ultimate aim is or must be; of a nation that will be acceptable to all sides, under the legitimacy of a true Afghan government.
It will be a hard pill for Karzai to swallow; to share responsibility with his opponent. However, that will be one of the two sensible actions that can be taken, and that will cause a way to open for any troops to be dispatched to that war torn country by the U.S. government.
At the moment, President Obama can only wait, but he cannot hesitate in his decision to get the military in preparedness; to be ready for their mission in Afghanistan is a must. Karzai can only be a stumbling block and a menace, if he continues to resist any of the two suggestions, as he himself will be making it difficult for the U.S. government to follow up on the demands of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is requiring more combat troops to face the onslaught of the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces.
It is clear that it will be impossible for an incorruptible government to exist in Afghanistan, as history has shown, mainly due to the drug trafficking there. It has been a country that has never known anything else, but for its people to grow opium poppies, which culminate into both legal as well as illegal industries; producing revenue for government and citizenry alike.
It will therefore remain problematic; yet, its position is vital to U.S. national security interest, almost as Pakistan is. To allow it to fall in the hands of Islamist extremists will be a big blow to America; and not forgetting its allies, as well; and a complete failure for Obama's presidency.
Karzai and Abdullah must join forces; or for one of them to come out as a clear winner of a runoff election to enable the U.S. president to send more troops, of American men and women, to their country, to fight and eliminate the insurgency there.
These are the only two ideas applicable to the situation in their country. However, the rumor is still tentative in regard to Karzai's agreement.
Nevertheless, both options are risky, as the fraud in the previous election may return in the runoff election, or a unity government will not be strong enough to support United States military plan of "holding and building"; a strategy that will bring about putting together of all the factions in Afghanistan to form a viable entity that can be construed as one single nationality. That is what the ultimate aim is or must be; of a nation that will be acceptable to all sides, under the legitimacy of a true Afghan government.
It will be a hard pill for Karzai to swallow; to share responsibility with his opponent. However, that will be one of the two sensible actions that can be taken, and that will cause a way to open for any troops to be dispatched to that war torn country by the U.S. government.
At the moment, President Obama can only wait, but he cannot hesitate in his decision to get the military in preparedness; to be ready for their mission in Afghanistan is a must. Karzai can only be a stumbling block and a menace, if he continues to resist any of the two suggestions, as he himself will be making it difficult for the U.S. government to follow up on the demands of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is requiring more combat troops to face the onslaught of the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces.
It is clear that it will be impossible for an incorruptible government to exist in Afghanistan, as history has shown, mainly due to the drug trafficking there. It has been a country that has never known anything else, but for its people to grow opium poppies, which culminate into both legal as well as illegal industries; producing revenue for government and citizenry alike.
It will therefore remain problematic; yet, its position is vital to U.S. national security interest, almost as Pakistan is. To allow it to fall in the hands of Islamist extremists will be a big blow to America; and not forgetting its allies, as well; and a complete failure for Obama's presidency.
Karzai and Abdullah must join forces; or for one of them to come out as a clear winner of a runoff election to enable the U.S. president to send more troops, of American men and women, to their country, to fight and eliminate the insurgency there.
Monday, October 19, 2009
OBAMA; IS HE TOUGH?
The question this morning in the headlines, on TV and in newspapers, is tipped with the timidity on the part of the president, probing if he is "tough enough" for the decisions he needs to make in order to put his mark on present day American politics.
President Obama has been holding on to the deployment of troops to Afghanistan, which must be, at least, 40 thousand men and women, being put in harms way; he is backing down on Public Option in the health care proposals, which he says is essential; and TV programs like Saturday Night Live, and late shows have been poking fun at his inaction for certain promises he has made during the recent political campaign, to which they say he must be held accountable, even at this early stage of his administration.
According to top advisers, he has to think through many of these issues, such as he is doing with health care reforms, to be able to reach a compromise, with so many versions from all sides, for a bill to pass in both chambers of Congress.
On the troop issue, there is the probability that he will be waiting for a run-off election in that country before he takes the appropriate action, because a trusted and strong government is required there; and on and on it goes.
Notwithstanding these issues, he has been holding his own to look determined and, yes, tough for the past ten months.
Although, the word "timid" has not appeared in any of these editions, whether on TV, or in a journal or in any newspaper; but the question goes a-begging to suggest, however slightly, that he is afraid to make hard decisions, when he knows perfectly well that the presidency is only there for hard decision making.
No timid person can assume the presidency; not even LBJ or Ford, who have not faced any election, respectively, to get the position. He Obama is no LBJ or Ford, for the obvious reason that he has fought a gruesome election for his post; he cannot be anything else but tough.
However, the SNL skit to keep the promises he has made on a campaign trail to homosexuals, among other things, and have not been kept as yet, is ridiculous, for there is no way that he can keep all promises to all people.
When it comes to his toughness, it can only be proved as time goes on. Passing judgment of any kind therefore will not stick; not at this particular juncture when his administration is still so young. Americans are too smart to be subjected to a game of lampooning somebody into a caricature which he is not.
It is true that decisions, like the one on troops for Afghanistan, must be made to assuage the heavy burden on the soldiers who are there now; they must not be thinly spread for the kind of war they are fighting. The other is insisting on a Public Option proposition to be included in the final plan; that will truly make any health care bill that he will sign into law, really universal. A plan to cover every Tom, Dick and Harry; as well as every Jane, Joan and Mary, is what all Americans want.
President Obama must have the inclination to make the right decisions; and although he is reaching out to all sections of the public, as his style has so far demonstrated; but that must not be misconstrued as a sign of weakness. However, he must make them (decisions) fast to prove that he is not soft, as SNL is attempting to insinuate.
P.S. This blog does not favor any person or group.
President Obama has been holding on to the deployment of troops to Afghanistan, which must be, at least, 40 thousand men and women, being put in harms way; he is backing down on Public Option in the health care proposals, which he says is essential; and TV programs like Saturday Night Live, and late shows have been poking fun at his inaction for certain promises he has made during the recent political campaign, to which they say he must be held accountable, even at this early stage of his administration.
According to top advisers, he has to think through many of these issues, such as he is doing with health care reforms, to be able to reach a compromise, with so many versions from all sides, for a bill to pass in both chambers of Congress.
On the troop issue, there is the probability that he will be waiting for a run-off election in that country before he takes the appropriate action, because a trusted and strong government is required there; and on and on it goes.
Notwithstanding these issues, he has been holding his own to look determined and, yes, tough for the past ten months.
Although, the word "timid" has not appeared in any of these editions, whether on TV, or in a journal or in any newspaper; but the question goes a-begging to suggest, however slightly, that he is afraid to make hard decisions, when he knows perfectly well that the presidency is only there for hard decision making.
No timid person can assume the presidency; not even LBJ or Ford, who have not faced any election, respectively, to get the position. He Obama is no LBJ or Ford, for the obvious reason that he has fought a gruesome election for his post; he cannot be anything else but tough.
However, the SNL skit to keep the promises he has made on a campaign trail to homosexuals, among other things, and have not been kept as yet, is ridiculous, for there is no way that he can keep all promises to all people.
When it comes to his toughness, it can only be proved as time goes on. Passing judgment of any kind therefore will not stick; not at this particular juncture when his administration is still so young. Americans are too smart to be subjected to a game of lampooning somebody into a caricature which he is not.
It is true that decisions, like the one on troops for Afghanistan, must be made to assuage the heavy burden on the soldiers who are there now; they must not be thinly spread for the kind of war they are fighting. The other is insisting on a Public Option proposition to be included in the final plan; that will truly make any health care bill that he will sign into law, really universal. A plan to cover every Tom, Dick and Harry; as well as every Jane, Joan and Mary, is what all Americans want.
President Obama must have the inclination to make the right decisions; and although he is reaching out to all sections of the public, as his style has so far demonstrated; but that must not be misconstrued as a sign of weakness. However, he must make them (decisions) fast to prove that he is not soft, as SNL is attempting to insinuate.
P.S. This blog does not favor any person or group.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
THE PAY CZAR.
The Obama Pay Czar Ken Feinberg, according to the Wall Street Journal, has acted to stop the bonuses of Bank of America's CEO Ken Lewis, and he has asked him to give back more than $2 million dollars still due him.
However, while Lewis "voluntarily agreed" to the arrangement, he would get away with a package of wealth that he did not deserve, and that was a huge sum of retirement benefit hovering around $70 million dollars. Nevertheless, that was poultry feed in the financial world for CEOs and money managers who oversaw large investments by retirees and low level investors, who became prey for them. Some of those reimbursement packages, which were non-deserving, and named "the golden parachutes", ran into several millions of dollars and then some.
It was such type of news that made many people angry, that some people on Wall Street and other such places were being paid heavily, with hefty bonuses to booth, while others could not afford to pay their rent or tried to subsist on meager kinds of pay to survive; and in some cases, to have to take care of families consisting of any number of members.
The economic travail that the country was going through had come out of the mismanagement of capitalist institutions such as (the) banks and investment corporations, failing to minimize or control what yearly bonuses that should be going to the so called bosses, who already lived on the hog and had homes and houses around the world. There was no actual pay structure, except on paper, that those corporations used "to cook the books" to prevent any detection of greed that was perpetrated.
The word "bonus" was used loosely to conceal the dishonorable and nefarious activities that set large sums of money aside for those people who were involved in those activities, so that they could even boast of how much they made. Thus climbing the corporate ladder profitably.
When the media, which by all standards, were part of the capitalist system, would overlook or fail to comment on the malfeasance that went on, in terms of how money was lavishly thrown around to compensate people in high positions and/or having hierarchical power in the financial industry, then the whole national economy would be crippled, and would even come to a standstill, as presently; and as such, everybody would eventually suffer as a result. Yet, why not? Probably they (the media) played the same dispicable game of paying out bonuses to their top employees, just as the others did.
If so, then the socialists that were clamoring for social justice and wealth distribution would be right, when part of society was permitted to get away with undeserved financial benefits and perquisites, or "perks", as they themselves called the practice, while others remained in abject poverty.
The pay Czar's responsibility is a fair one, to oversee pay structures that are, hitherto, shadowy; and that it is exceptionally good governance on the part of the federal government to have appointed him to carry out an obligation that is inevitably necessary.
The position compliments and commends the Obama administration.
However, while Lewis "voluntarily agreed" to the arrangement, he would get away with a package of wealth that he did not deserve, and that was a huge sum of retirement benefit hovering around $70 million dollars. Nevertheless, that was poultry feed in the financial world for CEOs and money managers who oversaw large investments by retirees and low level investors, who became prey for them. Some of those reimbursement packages, which were non-deserving, and named "the golden parachutes", ran into several millions of dollars and then some.
It was such type of news that made many people angry, that some people on Wall Street and other such places were being paid heavily, with hefty bonuses to booth, while others could not afford to pay their rent or tried to subsist on meager kinds of pay to survive; and in some cases, to have to take care of families consisting of any number of members.
The economic travail that the country was going through had come out of the mismanagement of capitalist institutions such as (the) banks and investment corporations, failing to minimize or control what yearly bonuses that should be going to the so called bosses, who already lived on the hog and had homes and houses around the world. There was no actual pay structure, except on paper, that those corporations used "to cook the books" to prevent any detection of greed that was perpetrated.
The word "bonus" was used loosely to conceal the dishonorable and nefarious activities that set large sums of money aside for those people who were involved in those activities, so that they could even boast of how much they made. Thus climbing the corporate ladder profitably.
When the media, which by all standards, were part of the capitalist system, would overlook or fail to comment on the malfeasance that went on, in terms of how money was lavishly thrown around to compensate people in high positions and/or having hierarchical power in the financial industry, then the whole national economy would be crippled, and would even come to a standstill, as presently; and as such, everybody would eventually suffer as a result. Yet, why not? Probably they (the media) played the same dispicable game of paying out bonuses to their top employees, just as the others did.
If so, then the socialists that were clamoring for social justice and wealth distribution would be right, when part of society was permitted to get away with undeserved financial benefits and perquisites, or "perks", as they themselves called the practice, while others remained in abject poverty.
The pay Czar's responsibility is a fair one, to oversee pay structures that are, hitherto, shadowy; and that it is exceptionally good governance on the part of the federal government to have appointed him to carry out an obligation that is inevitably necessary.
The position compliments and commends the Obama administration.
Friday, October 16, 2009
HEALTH CARE AND THE POLLS.
There are a whole lot of percentages being bandied around by the so called experts on who is for or against the health care reforms that Congress is considering at the moment; and like balls on a basketball court, they are being shot haphazardly, and none seems to hit the nail on the head, so to speak.
Yet, in a basketball game, there is the loop to put the ball in to score; whereas in most of these polls, either from the news media sources or private organizations, the figures are so random, there is no way to know what people are objecting to. What is good for the gander is not what is good for geese types of surveys are what the media outlets are putting out.
In other words, some specificity must be expressed as to which plan or plans will allow people to see the doctors they prefer to see, or if they can retain the insurance plans they have when they move from one place to another, or whether the plans they have are adequate for themselves and their families. If people lose sight of what they really want in a plan, the obvious thing that will happen will be that they will only be able to make vital decisions on what they read in the newspapers or see on TV or even on hearsay.
These polls have to be able to pin-point some of the parts in many of these plans; and there are so many of them now; that are agreeable or disagreeable, judging from the questions that they the pollsters present to current insurance policy holders or potential ones, instead of making bland statements, such as "A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that by 54 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose the reforms." or "more Americans disapprove, 50 percent, than approve, 42 percent, of the job President Obama is doing on health care.", when they are putting out information that must be designed to educate rather to confuse the general public.
The health care industry has become a gargantuan baggage, saddled with all kinds of problems; of waste, of over payment or charges, of corruption, of embezzlement, etc. etc.; people are insured or not insured for reasons only known to the health care insurance companies; and everybody knows that a reform of it is long overdue.
People are looking to approve of what will be good for them, and not just what they disapprove of, only to aim at embarrassing a new administration or making an opposing political point. That will not help lawmakers in their deliberations to produce a "clean bill of rights" for the insurance companies and the people they insure, alike. A spill over or a slack of any kind that they (insurance companies) cannot handle can be taken up by the government; hence, the Public Option proposition, to figure out what health care insurance coverage will be universal.
If ever there must be an equitable health insurance plan, it must be one that will be big enough to cover all Americans. Pollsters have to put out figures that will inform as well as educate.
Yet, in a basketball game, there is the loop to put the ball in to score; whereas in most of these polls, either from the news media sources or private organizations, the figures are so random, there is no way to know what people are objecting to. What is good for the gander is not what is good for geese types of surveys are what the media outlets are putting out.
In other words, some specificity must be expressed as to which plan or plans will allow people to see the doctors they prefer to see, or if they can retain the insurance plans they have when they move from one place to another, or whether the plans they have are adequate for themselves and their families. If people lose sight of what they really want in a plan, the obvious thing that will happen will be that they will only be able to make vital decisions on what they read in the newspapers or see on TV or even on hearsay.
These polls have to be able to pin-point some of the parts in many of these plans; and there are so many of them now; that are agreeable or disagreeable, judging from the questions that they the pollsters present to current insurance policy holders or potential ones, instead of making bland statements, such as "A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that by 54 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose the reforms." or "more Americans disapprove, 50 percent, than approve, 42 percent, of the job President Obama is doing on health care.", when they are putting out information that must be designed to educate rather to confuse the general public.
The health care industry has become a gargantuan baggage, saddled with all kinds of problems; of waste, of over payment or charges, of corruption, of embezzlement, etc. etc.; people are insured or not insured for reasons only known to the health care insurance companies; and everybody knows that a reform of it is long overdue.
People are looking to approve of what will be good for them, and not just what they disapprove of, only to aim at embarrassing a new administration or making an opposing political point. That will not help lawmakers in their deliberations to produce a "clean bill of rights" for the insurance companies and the people they insure, alike. A spill over or a slack of any kind that they (insurance companies) cannot handle can be taken up by the government; hence, the Public Option proposition, to figure out what health care insurance coverage will be universal.
If ever there must be an equitable health insurance plan, it must be one that will be big enough to cover all Americans. Pollsters have to put out figures that will inform as well as educate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)