What's in a Name?

A name is an important thing. I’m certain that Madison Avenue types spend lots of money to name a new product to better sell it to the public. They labor over just the right name to provide allure, mystery, and irresistibility.

The Bush administration has done a good job of coming up with names to sell the public on the dubious benefits of some of their dubious programs.

To name one, The Patriot Act. Who wants to be against something like the Patriot Act? You’d have to be anti-patriotic to be against it. Of course, it could be an infringement on your civil liberties.

The Death Tax is another good example. What (you may ask)? They’re taxing death now when we all thought that death was what got us out of paying taxes. The death tax, as it is called, is a tax that is levied against estates when someone passes away. Its main purpose is to tax large estates. Middle class folks will rarely be affected by it. (For the record, only 3% of estates were subjected to the estate tax in 2002), but this administration has a distinct allergy to any tax, so it had to go. (Not that they have an aversion to spending.)

One of the primary reasons posited by the administration was that it was a direct attack on the family farm because while these farmers are usually cash poor, they are land rich and land must be considered an asset. Now, never mind that there has been no record of a family farm going under because of the estate tax and only 2% of these family farms were subject to the tax.

What about the Clean Air act? It poses as something that will provide all Americans with clean, unscented air when it is actually legislation that takes the teeth out of already existing legislation and gives large corporations a break. Who cares that it increases the amount of mercury in our environment?

Master’s of stagecraft, the Bush administration certainly wouldn’t leave out the chance to come up with a snappy phrase for a banner. Who can forget “Mission Accomplished?” This banner was placed prominently over the deck of the aircraft carrier after a dramatic fly in by the commander-in-chief. This was supposed to give viewers sense of accomplishment when we all knew that there was years of work ahead. But we knew better because since then the U.S. soldier casualty rate doubled.

When it seemed as if the wheels were coming off the administration, it was time for another banner – A Plan for Victory. Now, who would put up a banner that stated, “A Plan for Failure?”

So, just remember, everything is in a name. Just make sure you know what the name really means.

Sources
http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

http://www.savethecleanairact.org/pdf/FS-S-131-Mercury.pdf

Health Care Myths and Facts: Comparing the U.S. and Canadian Systems

If I’ve heard once, I’ve heard a thousand times, the U.S. Health care system is better than the Canadian system. And additionally: “the Canadian system is what the Democrats are trying to force on us.”

More comments follow:
“I don’t want to wait for 6 months to get to see my doctor.”
“I’ve heard that they whole country only has 5 MRI machines.”
“Canadian doctors, finding the profit-based American system so attractive, are moving to America in droves”

But what is the truth about the two systems?

The Canadian’s Health Care System biggest problems are wait times, an increasing shortage of health care professionals and a sharp increase in chronic, but probably preventable, diseases.

Many conservative-biased stories will cite research done by the Fraser Institute. This institute is a private think tank that is dedicated to the idea of free market reforms of Canadian public programs. In my opinion, you have to take what they say with a grain of salt. Anyway, the Fraser institute study states that wait times can be quite long for patients to gain access to specialists. Obviously, this is a big strike against the Canadian system.

But when you compare it the U.S. free market system, you can see some glaring problems with the U.S. system with the most obvious being that 45 million Americans go without Health Care and another large percentage have either limited policies or policies that carry ever increasing and cost prohibitive premiums. And even U.S. citizens with health care coverage are seeing an increase trend in which employers are moving more and more costs on to the employee and providing less and less benefits.

Here’s a fun fact: The population in Canada is 32 million. As I stated above, we have 45 million Americans without health insurance.

How can one nation insure all it’s people and one only create a “pay to play” system?

Probably the best quote I’ve come across regarding this topic went like this:
“The United States has the best health care system in the world, but the worst insurance.”

Yes, we in the United States, we do have the most advanced technology in health care. Yes, we can get into the doctor’s office in a timely manner, but all-in-all, in the U.S. it comes down to have or have-not cold equation. You either have and/or can afford health care or you can’t.

But, let’s back-up and get back to the truth of comparing some of the fundamental perceptions about the two systems.

As I stated earlier, many people think that waits times in Canada are too long. Here’s some facts for you.

More legitimate research shows that the average waiting time for knee replacement in Ontario is 8 weeks, as compared to 3 weeks in the U.S.

There are virtually no waits for emergent coronary artery surgery in Canada

With these perceptions, it seems we are more concerned about the Canadian Health Care system than the Canadians. How do Canadians feel about their system?

Patient satisfaction levels with the procedures and care are identical in both systems

Surveys show that Canadian doctors are far happier with their system than we are with ours. According to a 1992 poll, 85% prefer their system to ours; 83% rate the care in Canada as very good or excellent, and most physicians would urge their children to enter the profession.

Fewer than 300 out of Canada’s 50,000 physicians emigrate to the U.S. each year

In the fall of 2004, only 6% of Canadians felt that the quality of health care was falling.

Only 17% (of Canadians) felt their system needed completely overhauled while 33% of U.S. citizens feel this way (about their U.S. system).

Surveys show very high patient satisfaction in Canada. 96% prefer their system to ours, and 89% rate care good or excellent

Now, on to the question of the uninsured in American and what they really costs us. Many might have the perception that because 45 millions people are uninsured, they don’t cost us anything.

That couldn’t be farther from the truth. The insured do get sick and injured and they don’t hesitate to seek medical care even when they can’t pay. And it’s the insured that do pay – in increased health care premiums and in increased health care costs.

The cost of the care provided to the uninsured by hospitals in 2001 was $24 billion dollars.

In 2005, premium costs for family health insurance coverage provided by private employers will include an extra $922 in premiums due to the cost of care for the uninsured; premiums for individual coverage will cost an extra $341.

Treatment costs for uninsured US residents indirectly account for about $1 of every $12 insured US residents spend on health insurance premiums.

What about a cost comparison between the two systems?

Private insurers take, on average, 13% of premium dollars for overhead and profit. Overhead/profits are even higher, about 30%, in big managed care plans like U.S. Healthcare. In contrast, overhead consumes less than 2% of funds in the fee-for-service Medicare program, and less than 1% in Canada’s program.

Take a moment to absorb that fact. The much maligned Medicare system has an over head of only 2%.

Physicians in the U.S. face massive bureaucratic costs. The average office-based American doctor employs 1.5 clerical and managerial staff, spends 44% of gross income on overhead, and devotes 134 hours of his/her own time annually to billing.

The New England Journal of Medicine reported health care spending absorbs only 10 percent of the Canadian gross domestic product, compared to 14 percent of U.S. GDP

Of course, you do have to factor in that twenty-two percent of all taxes raised in Canada are spent on its health care system.

This piece wasn’t intended to be a piece that advocated for a single payer system in the U.S., because when I started investigating the facts about the two systems, I thought my conclusion would be that the two systems fit the two different political systems of each country. But the more I studied the facts, the more the single payers system seems to make sense.

As trends move towards higher premiums in the U.S. and as employers push more and more of the cost onto employees, it seems inevitable that a single payer system will have to be adopted.

But it won’t be without a fight from private interests who provide health care in the U.S.

Private insurers take, on average, 13% of premium dollars for overhead and profit. Overhead/profits are even higher, about 30%, in big managed care plans like U.S. Healthcare.

This loss of profit for the private sector will create a battleground. Just make sure you know the facts when you go to chose sides.

=======================================================================
Sources:

Medical News Today

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/why_the_us_needs_a_single_payer_health_system.php

http://www.mediresource.com/e/pages/hcc_survey/index_e.asp

http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/staticcontent/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Better-Access/Ipsos-Polling.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=173900

http://www.familiesusa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Paying_a_Premium_splash

Media Wars: The Boomerang Backlash Effect

Newsweek made a mistake. It got sloppy. But the practice of using anonymous sources is the same technique used to uncover necessary truths – like Watergate and President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinski.

Anonymous sources are also tools of administrations, too. Many administrations have leaked stories to the press for their benefit.

You have to ask yourself, why didn’t the Pentagon refute the story when Newsweek gave it to them to fact check?

What about the anonymous source in the military? Newsweek followed reporting protocol and offered the Pentagon a review of the article, yet Newsweek takes all the blame, while this anonymous course remains, well, anonymous and unscathed.

Can you just hear the dialog prior to the release of the article?

NEWSWEEK: (To the Pentagon.) Can you read this over and let us know if we have this right?

PENTAGON: (Later, behind close doors.) Hmmm. This thing about the Quran being flushed down the toilet looks pretty bad. And so does this prisoner abuse stuff, but is it ALL true? And who is the source for this? We need to find them and let the public know who it is.

LATER.

PENTAGON: Here’s your story back. Looks good to us.

But the preceding paragraphs aren’t really the points I wanted to make. I’m not an apologist for Newsweek. I’m seeing a dangerous trend from Right wing pundits employing a tactic of demonizing the press, specifically outlets they label with a liberal bias.

Conservatives have successfully sold the idea that the press is liberal. Ask any quasi-knowledgeable, conservative person and they will start citing statistics about how the majority of reporters voted for democratic candidates, about how the press favors liberal stories, and how Dan Rather sloppily gathered facts in some of his recent stories.

Newsweek opened the door for more “facts” to be built up against the “liberal media establishment.” It was a real case of piling on as conservative pundit after conservative pundit lined up bash Newsweek and “uncover” yet another “abuse” of the American people by the liberal media.

One of the best examples is Michael Reagan, who in his latest column, blames Newsweek for

“inciting riots that killed at least 16 or 17 and injured scores more”

and

"reported a bogus story that caused the deaths of not 16 people.”

That Reagan fails to acknowledge that the Newsweek article also factually includes references of prison abuse along with the fact that our war effort is supremely unpopular in the Muslim world makes his claim somewhat amusing were not for the fact that these riots did result in casualties. While the Newsweek article may have been the tipping point, it certainly didn’t “cause” the death of 16-17 people. The Muslim extremists behind these riots need little or no reason to riot. They have hated American influence for years and add it the fact that we have invaded their homeland and anyone can see how they might riot.

I think David Letterman's quip on it summed it up best. (I'll paraphrase.)

"There seems to be an uproar over in the Mid-East after Newsweek ran an article about a Quran beingh flushed down a toilet in a prisoner of war camp. That's too bad because, you know, they loved us up until then."

Another example of how the conservative media is trying to paint the rest of the media into a corner is Dick Morris’ take on the Newsweek article. He states regarding the story,

(the) “Newsweek magazine story falsely reporting desecration of the Koran by American military interrogators”

and

“And now Newsweek has published an inflammatory story that has led to massive anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan — the first since the war — protesting the seeming defilement of sacred texts. Sixteen people are dead because Newsweek got the story wrong,”

Again, I return to the core argument that Newsweek did not make up the story of the Quran being flushed down a toilet, they reported it from an highly regarded military source. And when placed along side the slew of atrocious prisoner abuse cases perpetrated during this war, does it seem out of context that a Quran would be flushed down a toilet to add to the debasement of these prisoners? Come on, there are pictures of a pile of naked Muslim men out there and men forced to crawl on the ground wearing a dog collar. How far do you have to go to “buy” the fact that a Muslim sacred text could be flushed down a toilet to add to this debasement?

And my last example, from Barbara Simpson, reporting for World Net Daily (a reach, yes);

“Newsweek lied, but did so because in the thin air of East Coast journalism, the purpose was more important than the message. It was a scoop. It would air more alleged scandal to shame and incriminate the United States, the U.S. military and especially President Bush and his administration.”

She adds:

“Newsweek printed the scandalous story without verifying its truth or reaffirming sources.”

Did Newsweek lie? Or did the anonymous source lie? Did Newsweek uses its liberal bias to report an unfavorable story towards an administration it has great disdain for?

Newsweek did not lie. Again, Newsweek was sloppy, but it had a source. If you have a reliable source that tells you something and you print it, how can that be construed as a lie and bised reporting. It's beyond me.

This isn’t to give reporters a lazy, free-pass to not do their jobs thoroughly. Media has a great responsibility to get their stories correct and this is an example of how they didn’t get it right, but for conservative media columnists to use it as way to cite yet another example of how the liberal media is out bashing the administration and the troops again, come on. The Right is exploiting the situation for their own gain.

Frankly, I think it’s less of a case of liberal bias, but a part of media’s desperate need to break the story. This need to be first has driven many a reporter and media outlet to jump to conclusions, get facts wrong, and generally practice poor journalism.

But the current (effective) tactic of conservatives is to go on the attack when a “liberal media outlet” gets it wrong. This tactic puts these media outlets back on their heels and effectively start marginalizing their credibility with the public. But the hypocritical aspect of the whole tactic is that conservative media outlets have made the same mistakes and display their bias on a regular basis.

Conservatives, media or not, have played an effective game of labeling the media and the people have bought it. Thoughtful and sometime provocative news outlets have been labeled “East Coast Liberal Elitists” and we in fly-over land are buying it to our detriment.

From my experience, reporters from the past worked hard to remain objective and restrain their biases. Today, conservative media outlets show no pretense in this area. Bias is rampant. Watch FOX News or listen to Rush Limbaugh for a week and find out what I mean.

I can say that, yes, through use of story selection and probably some slight bias, there probably has been a liberal bias to the media for several decades. And yes, if you’re a conservative, this might annoy you, but currently there is a boomerang backlash in effect that is grossly tipping the scale away from any idea of unbiased reporting. Reporting critical of this current administration and our efforts in Iraq have been labeled as attacks from the liberal media.

But what is the role of media and hasn’t the media in the past been instrumental in bring to light abuses of power? Isn’t a free press one of the greatest assets of our country?

I fear that the conservative tactics of the right are endangering the balance that lies between government and the press. This check and balance system between government and the media has had a long and effective tradition in our country. Certainly, there can be two sides to a story, but when the press becomes neutered, we as a public lose an avenue of information to help us make up our own minds.

With the advent of cable TV and the internet, we have seen the gradual break down of the media in into ideological camps. Yes, some East coast papers have a liberal slant. But, also talk radio is vastly conservative. Balance, accuracy and responsible journalism is what we all deserve.

Ultimately, it’s my opinion that while the media of the past may have held a bias, it in the vast majority of instances, held that bias in check, attempting to deliver fact-based stories that would help Americans make up their own mind. In this new polarized media landscape, with lines been drawn and camps set-up and partisan politics playing a greater role in reporting, bias is coming through loud and clear and I don’t think Americans are better off for it.


Sources:
Michael Reagan Artilce

Dick Morris Article

Barbara Simpson Article

The Corporatization of America: Part 1

Yes, I’ve coined a new word, Corporatization. You read it the title of this missive. What do I mean by this word? What I mean by this is that if you keep your eyes open, you will see that our lives in America are dominated by corporate influence.

This will be a teaser article to just open your eyes to the way your lives are being shaped and molded influences that you either don’t pay attention to or are not aware of. Hopefully, I will be able to add to the specific example highlighted in this installment, by bringing to light other examples in future posts.

I give Ronald Reagan much of the credit for this change in influence. When Ronald Reagan campaigned for office he used this catchy campaign phrase to persuade voters he was their man, “Government isn’t the solution to our nations’ problems, it is the problem.”

Now, that’s an ironic statement coming from the man who hoped to lead that government.

Anyway, voters were persuaded and the Reagan revolution was started. “Big” government was demonized and checks and balances in place for many years were systematically dismantled. Deregulation, good or bad, was a part of the paradigm shift.

Corporate Influence Case #1
Drug Companies Profit Up -- FDA Influence Down
During the ‘90s, the FDA was a strong advocate for the consumer, but as lobbying forces were applied and an administration came into power that was more inclined to please corporate forces than protect the consumer, the FDA has rolled on to it’s back in submission.

From 1998 to 2004, drug companies nearly doubled their spending on lobbying efforts, going from $79 million to $158 million. Now, our representatives may say that all these efforts and money may grant some people access, but it doesn’t equal influence. Now, you can decide for yourself if a individual voter in Peoria has the same clout as a multi-billion dollar drug company contributing generously to a campaign coffer.

Here’s something to mill over. The drug companies used this “influence” to speed up the process by which drugs are approved by the FDA because the faster a drug came to market, the more money a company can make. What about that pesky fact that some drugs really need more testing? Who cares? There's money at stake here, not lives.

Take the case of Redux (a drug to help people lose weight). It was rushed through the approval process and then was pulled from the market because of the fact that it caused heart damage. This is just one in a long line of drugs brought to market without proper and safe review.

Drug companies also were a dominate force behind the bill to provide senior citizens prescription drug benefits. Now, what could be bad with seniors getting help with their purchases of medicine?

Well, along with the benefit, the drug companies also knuckeled the government under to approve the fact that the government could NOT negotiate prices of the drugs. Now, why is that Canadians pay less for the same drugs we get in here in America and why can’t our representatives see that they just sold the consumer up river? Because drug companies used their influence to rig the deal in their favor.

Drug companies also make exaggerated claims about the cost of developing a new drug.

Here’s one ploy: Drug companies claim that the cost of developing a new drug is $800 million. Well, half of this claim is based on the fact that they take the cost of development and state that if they had invested the money instead they would have seen X amount of profit. Then they take this estimated profit and add it to the exaggerated total of development.

That would be sort of like any homeowner claiming that if he he/she had invested all their mortgage payments in the market instead of paying off their house (and instead lived in a card board box), they could be rich!

Drug companies also fail to disclose the fact that that in many cases, their “brand” new drug is really just a slight derivative of an existing drug from which they have already reaped a generous profit.

Marketing is where all the money is being spent. Along with increasing their influence on our legislators, drug companies are also working on us, the consumer and our doctors. Who can watch the evening broadcast news without seeing at least a half dozen adds for these new drugs? Drug sales reps are in a conga-like stream in and out of doctor’s offices offering “educational” trips to Aspen or to the islands to “teach” doctors about the wonders of their new drugs.

This is a just a tease to the amount of influence that corporations are exerting over our culture and lives. It’s time to step back and open our collective eyes.

Corporations are in the business of making a profit. There’s nothing wrong with that. Profit is good. But when profit without the restraints of ethics and considering what is best for the whole of American is standard operating procedure, then you start to see an imbalance. Just take a look at how oil companies are gouging consumers with high gasoline prices while the companies themselves are showing record profits while taking cover under the excuse that OPEC has raised the price of crude. (See my earlier blog post for more on this.)
These profits are well and good for oil companies and their stockholders, but they are clearly having an effect on the economy as a whole, causing a drag on consumer spending as retail prices are affected.

And the drug companies are a part of this drag. U.S. Health care premiums for us, the consumer, have increased 11% since 2001. I can tell you that I know wages haven't seen that sort of increase. This cost increase creates not a only a burden on the consumer, but on companies who provide benefits like health care. Since 2001, there are 5 million fewer jobs that have health care provided benefits. This is largely due to increases in drug costs. Consumers have also seen a 15% increase in the cost of perscriptions since 1995.

All this while drug companies are generating fabulous profits. Again, profit isn't a bad thing, but when it comes at the expense of the whole, you have to start having second thoughts about who the corporation has in mind. It's certainly not you or me.

In closing, what I don’t get from the American voter is that they fail to perceive that government, not “Big” government, is the best line of defense against the negative influence of corporate greed and influence gone astray. While I can’t and won’t support a government that flagrantly wastes tax payers money on pork barrel spending or throws bad money after good in hopeless causes, I think that government has job to protect us from corporate influence that sees on only profit and not the good of the whole.

Stay tuned -- More to come.

Sources:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20001220/02/printerfriendly

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=22683

The Social Security Conundrum

The battle is on. From one side of the aisle, you get, “Social Security is broken and it must be fixed.” From the other side, you get, “Social Security is the most successful government program ever and just needs some tweaking.”

Who’s right? Actually both of them are right.

Social security has lifted millions and millions of our elderly out of poverty. Prior to its inception, 70% of all seniors lived in poverty. From 1960 on, poverty levels for the elderly has fallen from 34% to 10.5%. Now, most seniors live a comfortable existence. That’s what I call success. And it didn’t put a major drag on the economy while it did it.

But things have changed. In 1960, there were 5 workers for every social security beneficiary. By 1995, that figures was down to 3 to 1. By 2030, it will be two workers supporting each individual recipient.

Many factors have narrowed this ratio. Longer life spans are the biggest contributor. These longer life spans stretch the system, increasing the amount of years social security has to provide benefits.

Placing the responsibility on the 3-to-1 and, then in the future, the 2-to-1 ratio will put an unfair and unmanageable burden on younger workers in the future. This imbalance will force increases in pay roll taxes and also will take government resources from programs directed at our young. Today, seniors receive $11 in federal benefits compared a $1 for children. If you also include the ever increasing costs of providing health care for our nation’s elderly via Mediacare and you have a looming economic burden that will dominate the U.S. government so much that there will be very little dollars for anything else.

Also, one of the by-products of social security has been the way it has decreases self reliance and increased a reliance on the government to provide comfortable and humane existences for our elderly.

To illustrate this point, nearly 33% of our country’s elderly population relies on social security for 90-100% of their income. 65% rely on it for 50% or more of the retirement income.

From my standpoint, that’s too much reliance on the government to take care of us. There is little incentive to plan and provide for your retirement when the government will do it.

From a cultural perspective, American savings rates have fallen precipitously in the last half decade. We have gone from a nation of savers to a nation of debtors. Too much dependency has been placed on the government to supply a basic standard of living, leaving the individual less and less need for self sufficiency.

A famous philosopher stated that the moral standing of a society is judged on the world it leaves its children.

So, private accounts – I’m all for them. Fixing social security – I’m all for it.

Am I supporting the diversion of money from social security into private accounts? No. But I think that it should be a responsibility of every citizen to plan for their retirement outside of social security and to find a way to more self sufficient and becoming less reliant on the government. Moving from a debtor society to a saving society should be an important benchmark for every American and in so doing this, they could relieve some of the responsibility on the government to provide for them in retirement and enable the government to enrich the lives of our children.

As for fixing social security, there have been several sensible ideas placed on the table. One smart one is to change the way social security is linked to wages and instead index it to inflation. Inflation generally increases less than wages and thus decreases the long term burden on social security.

Reducing cost of living adjustments by a small percentage is another way to pare down the cost of social security. Another possible idea is increasing the salary cap on how much someone could contribute from their wages into security. Currently the cap is at $90,000. If that cap were doubled, these high-end wage earners could contribute more and this spread around the increased contribution.

These are just a few of the ideas out there that I feel balance out solutions for addressing the real concern for the future of social security and still allow a way to nurture a culture in which the individual is just as responsible as the society as a whole to providing for retirement.

My parting point is that while social security dominates the political landscape today, health care will dwarf its importance in our lives as a society and as individuals. It’s my take on the situation that everyone can and should be able to plan for their financial future, but with the astronomic rise in health care costs in the past 30 years, I would prefer to see the government find a way to either curb costs or to provide quality health care (and both would be nice).

The Gasoline Noose

A friend of mine, after reading my blog requested that I investigate his question:
“Why are we (the consumer) paying so much for gasoline when oil companies are showing record profits?”

A good question and one that has been on the mind of many of us.

I would imagine that the question hits our consciousness, but then the initial thought is countered with what we’ve heard in the media regarding the price increases imposed by our oil providers – entities like OPEC. Then we slip into, “Those darn guys are driving up the price I pay at the pump. They’ve got plenty of oil. Why are they choking off the supply and driving up prices? (Pause.) Well, I guess I just have to pay, it’s outside my (and my government’s) control, until we move away from using fossil fuels.”

You might even start considering the fact that China has increased its demand for oil dramatically in the past two decades.

This is logical way to think. But what if the enemy wasn’t those darned outsiders and the enemy was really within?

Now is the time when many reading this article will think that I have moved into the paranoid realm of the conspiracy wacko.

Yes, the enemy can be found not outside the friendly confines of Western culture but within. Oil suppliers have deceased supply and this has had an effect on prices, but the real reason behind the latest price increases has to do within calculated moves within the oil industry in the last 10-15 years.

How did this come about?

In the past 15-20 years, there has been major consolidation of companies through mergers in the oil industry. 31 companies have dwindled to 21. Now this may not seem significant, but behind this is the fact between 80 to 90 percent of all oil refineries are consolidated within just a few major companies when in the past these refineries were spread through out a larger number of companies. Some can say that this consolidation has led to the increase in prices because competition has been reduced.

Oil companies have used these excuses to defend themselves:
> increased crude oil prices
> blaming the clean air act
> no new sources of oil

These new steps toward consolidation have set the ground rules for reducing efforts to find new resources (either more oil supplies or looking into alternative fuels) and for price setting, thus reducing market competitive forces. These newly consolidated companies also decided to reduce capacity to produce gasoline by not maintaining and expanding refinery capacity.
Some could say that this consolidation and these other decisions have been a major collusion effort on the industry’s part to choke off supply in the face of rising demand, in turn, allowing them to increase prices and greatly increase profits.

Maybe collusion is stretching it a bit, but you certainly can’t deny the fact the profits companies have had recently:
Exxon Mobil up 52%
ChevronTexaco up 82%
Shell Oil up 48%

Am I against profits? No. Every company should be able to make a healthy profit, but with a product that is so centrally tied to our economy and when increased to price levels that we have seen in the near recent past, I think the present price gouging going on is immoral and unethical and someone should be looking out for us – the little people. And who should that be, you might ask?

I think this is a perfect place for our political leaders to step in and offer some sort of effort to stem the tide of rising prices to protect the consumer.

But, with the risk of sounding even more like a wacko, our current President has historic ties to oil industry with a deep background in Texas oil. Several efforts to convince the administration to step in and protect consumers have been rebuffed.

For the middle income American, these increases in price are certainly having an effect. Traveling, heating, and the price of products we buy and use (because of the increased price of transportation to get them to store has to be passed on to the consumer) have seen great inflation in the past few years. These increased costs start to eat at the margin of our lives.

Maybe the administration is looking to the stock holders and say they are finally getting the windfall they deserve because as the oil companies profit, so do stock holders.

But really, do middle income American’s really see that sort of benefit? I would have to assume not. Middle income citizens don’t have the buffer in their budgets to absorb the effects of this multiplied effect of increased gas prices. Affluent people can take the hit, but I think (and this is only my humble opinion) that if this continues for any great duration, we will start to see a real drag on our economy. And this sort of drag starts to affect everyone.

Okay, to be fair, there is another culprit in this crime. It’s our burgeoning trade deficit and its effect to weaken the U.S. dollar. As the dollar has weakened, its inability to keep up with other currencies has increased by 7.5% in how much we have to pay for oil.

Another defense of the industry, booms are historically followed by busts in which oil companies face greatly decreased profits. Oil companies will claim that, historically, their profits are around seven cents a gallon. Today, though, they are looking at something around 10 times that at seventy-five cents a gallon.

My suggestion is that there should be a governor put in place to protect consumers from being taken advantage of by price gouging at times like these. Our economy and lives are inextricably intertwined with oil. Oil is used to make so many products that are essential to our lives. Gasoline is vital to transporting us and products we rely on. When the price of gasoline increases, it has such a far reaching effect on almost every product that we use in our day-to-day existence, I feel that our government needs to take measures to maintain a balance between profits for companies and cultivating a price structure that allows consumers to “tank up” without having to consider a second mortgage.

Some efforts have been made in the congress to do this, but they aren’t getting far. Senator Reid (D - Nevada) has asked that the FTC intervene in this price gouging effort by oil companies, but the FTC has stated they are still investigating the situation…while the oil companies reap record profits.


Senator Harry Reid said emphatically, “…this outrageous 58-cent increase in Nevada since January has not been driven by the rising cost of crude oil, but by corporate greed and profit.”

How far those words carry and how well they are received in the current political climate is yet to be calculated, but I would imagine that won’t be too effective.

Ultimately, we need to find a way to get out from under the “gasoline noose.” Efforts must be stepped up to find other sustainable and less tenuous supplies of energy to power our economies and cleanly provide products and transportation.

For now, my friend (responding to the initial question) I say start riding that bike again, walk, or better plan your trips out and about because, for the foreseeable future, this is where and how we live. And when you’re out, drop a letter to your representative to ask him or her to take a look and see what they can do.

Sources:
http:////www.forbes.com/2004/08/09/cx_pm_0809oilbrief_print.html

http://the-spark.net/newspaper/i744/6f12.html

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/FTCBOOKf.pdf

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-47,GGLD:en&q=Oil+Company+Profits

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-47,GGLD:en&q=Oil+Company+Profits

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-47,GGLD:en&q=Oil+Company+Profits

Why I am a Democrat: Reason #1

Now, I just got some advice the other day that I will almost completely ignore. It was; define yourself on what you are and not what the other guy is or stands for.

Well, it’s difficult to define yourself as a democrat in this current world of bitter partisan politics without saying more about what you aren’t.

One of the basic tenants of the conservative agenda is lower taxes. And the end is to get more of “my money” out of the hands of wasteful government, fat cats and give back to me because “they” think they know how to spend “my money” better than I do.

Now, you could go into deep theological arguments about whose money it is because if you believe in God and Christ like I do, it’s not really your money. It’s something that God has blessed you with and you are to be the best steward of it.

Okay, theology aside, what I hear underpinning this argument is that voice of the “me.” Give me back “my money.” Conservative economist and think tank analysts constantly talk about lowering taxes and getting money back into the hands of the people. This way these “people” can create wealth for themselves and their families.

Conservative economic analysts also say that people are better at prioritizing how their money is spent than big government. This sort of statement makes my point. What do you think “the people’s” priorities are (when they get their tax money back)? Knowing that fellow less fortunate citizens have quality health care? Caring that impoverished children get a helping hand with a Head Start program? Wanting to invest in a future-thinking mass transit system that lowers the emissions from cars and helps preserve our environment?

Or is the priority that big screen TV down at Circuit City?

What I don’t hear is what about the greater good. The focus seems so much on the individual and the “me” and not the “us.” What can I get for “me?”

John F. Kennedy implored us to, “Think about what we can do for the good of the country.” Certainly, conservatives can posit that tax cuts are for the good of the country, but from many conservatives, I get a sense that they are demonizing a certain class of people who “take” from decent hard working people in the form of government hand outs.

I can’t advocate an expansion of the welfare state and a nurturing of a culture of dependency. I do know that some government programs have almost created incentives to those who want to take advantage, but why can’t we look to finding solutions to these systematic problems instead of throwing the baby out with the water?

The “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality is certainly laudable but when it becomes the mantra of the right when many of them haven’t felt the pangs of hunger from poverty or been deprived, it comes across as a cruel and thoughtless epithet against the unfortunate.

From my perspective, this “Philosophy of Me” comes across as so insular and, for the lack of a better word, selfish. What about the “other guy?” What about the guy down on his luck through no fault of his own? Do we truly want to become a country of “I’ve got mine, too bad about you?”

I don’t like defining myself by what I’m not, but I know what I’m not and that will have to do for now.