You and the ACLU

At our radio board meeting we discussed our winter open house which subsequently took place on Dec. 5, 2009. It was scheduled to coincide with our local parade of lights in Westcliffe. I suggested we find a Merry Christmas sign to hang in the theater’s foyer, but this was quickly dismissed as not being politically correct. The suggestion of a Season’s Greetings sign was also vanquished in favor of a row of poinsettias around the broadcast perimeter. I regret that decision.

KWMV-LPFM is a federally licensed non-profit, community-based radio station. We are obligated to adhere to certain rules governing our use of the airwaves and to related station activities. I believe displaying a Merry Christmas sign will not result in blight against our license, but one complaint to the FCC could result in a legion of men in black descending on our little town.

America is experiencing a constant tug-of-war between political correctness and common sense. In the middle of this battle is the ACLU. The ACLU along with The Sierra Club and AARP have done some credible work, but they have morphed into lobbying organizations often representing narrow political agendas that benefit their members and not the country at large. AARP is a recipient of federal grants, while The Sierra Club and the ACLU have found ways to recover their legal expenses, win or lose, from the federal government. This applies to cases of suing the federal government. We as taxpayers are supporting these organizations through grants and attorney fee refunds.

I am a believer that diversity is better addressed through openness, education and acceptance. Covering up diversity with a large vanilla paintbrush leaves a colorless void. This country has become great via the natural and uninhibited exchange of cultures, mores, art and ideas, and not from homogenization.

I focus on the ACLU because they are the organization that has made everyone walk on eggshells during the Christmas holidays. It is the organization that has recently filed a suit to have all cross-shaped headstones removed from national cemeteries. I would not be surprised if they launched a suit prohibiting American flags from being flown on July 4th as it might offend foreign nationals or those who are illegally residing in our country.

As hyphenated ethnic and religious descriptions are in vogue, I am either an American-Jew or a Jewish-American. Although Christmas is not a cause for my personal celebration, I am delighted, not offended, when someone wishes me a “Merry Christmas.” Christmas is a religious but also a mass cultural holiday and I interpret another’s good wishes to me as a sign of fondness and reason for reciprocity.

During this holiday season, whether you’re celebrating Christmas, Chanukah or Kwanzaa, please stop me in the street and express whatever well wishes you feel appropriate for you, without worrying about what might be appropriate for me. I will gladly accept greetings from anyone expressing their individual or collective spirit at this festive time of year.

 

NETFLIX RISING

I was sick last week and relegated to the couch, with nothing but my sacred TV and a nearby container of juice for company. After four days of only occasionally leaving the comfort of my TV room, I nearly wore out my remote control but also expanded my view about our box of indoctrination.

At first I was in awe of the versatility and adaptability of American culture. With the country in deep recession, countless new ideas and cures have instantaneously erupted in full-blown and repetitious commercial form.

One commercial showcased a Godzilla look-alike who claimed to be an attorney. As he slammed his fist into the hood of a car, the narrator insinuated that clients can change minor fender-benders into financial wind­falls. Call him the moment your car has physical contact.

Flipping channels I was amazed to find Gordon Liddy, better known to my genera­tion as G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy was push­ing gold as an investment and although his advice may be accurate, I couldn’t forget he was the chief White House Plumber (Water­gate) during the Nixon Administration. He was also an attorney and former FBI agent prior to spending four-and-a-half years in prison. I guessed forgive and forget was the operative phrase; maybe he‘ll do better with younger generations. I’ll pass on using him as my investment advisor.

Next I was watching a commercial from an attorney who handles IRS tax cases. Testi­monials poured forth from satisfied custom­ers claiming they settled for about 10% of their total IRS bills. My mind was now in full gear and it occurred to me that I should stop paying taxes, wait for a notice from the IRS, call these attorneys and let them settle for 10% – I’d be 90% ahead.

It was now nearly 4 p.m. and up pops a Viagra commercial. I thought this was an odd time but probably as a function of high unemploy­ment, a lot more adults are home and occa­sionally need a friendly reminder. I have always wondered how parents explain erec­tile dysfunction to young children watching similar ads.

The highlight of my sick days was the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. She is attractive and animated – I just cannot give any of her fallacious rants even a modicum of credibility. I hit the mute button, I slipped in a disc from my audio book collection and listened glee­fully to a narrator exuberantly reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Each day I become enraptured watching Rachel mouthing the words of my favorite economic philosopher and most certainly, her least.

In addition to the above, I watched commer­cials claiming to solve credit card debt or foreclosure problems. In some cases the mis­leading messages indicated the solution was supported by government agencies. There were spots promoting psychic readings, how to make millions on foreclosed real estate and become prosperous working from home.

Networks do little screening of their custom­ers and they are under little legal obligation to do otherwise. They are bound by a moral and ethical code, but without complaints they are not obligated to research and separate legitimate merchants from hucksters. These are desperate times for many people, but also desperate times for networks hungry for advertising dollars. Buyers Beware.

The World According to Chris

I recently asked my friend Chris how the world would change in the year 2020. The numerical year, 20-20, represents clear vision itself. I am sure most of Chris’ visionary guesses will come to pass.

In 2020, Hillary Clinton is serving her last days in office as President of the United States as a Republican, a result of the GOP’s inability to muster internal party leadership and Hillary’s overwhelming ambition. In 2012, she won by a landslide carrying 48 of 50 states.

In 2020 Fidel Castro is still alive, and through the Cuban Foreign Aid Program, all of the excess condominiums in the Miami market have been purchased by the Cuban government. This program has saved innumerable developers and local banks in southern Florida.

In 2020 the high school dropout rate in urban areas remains at a stubborn 50%. In keeping with the politically correct times, the teacher’s union has changed the term ‘compulsory education’ to ’suggested education’.

In 2020 Bernie Madoff, recently released from prison, has been named Secretary of the Treasury. Because the treasury could not print dollars fast enough, in a controversial move, Madoff orders new dollars to be minted in North Korea and sent to the United States in containers. This further enriches the Wet Mountain Valley’s wealthy shipping magnates. As the North Koreans have been counterfeiting dollars for decades, switching to legitimate printing was heralded as a final factor in normalizing relations between North Korea and the Western world.

In 2020, Congress passed its 12th yearly amendment continuing the subsidy for General Motors while renewing the Cash for Clunkers Program.

In 2020, Barack Obama, now Secretary General of the United Nations, opens his presidential library, which proudly displays his Nobel Prize along with other memorabilia, including the Heisman trophy, a Master’s green jacket, two Academy Awards and three Olympic gold medals.

In 2020 Exxon-Mobil discovers an inexpensive way to convert human waste to ethanol. The technology is being challenged by the farm lobby, which fears a collapse in corn prices will be more detrimental to the nation than virtually free fuel.

In 2020, Iran remains at a complete standstill after having 10 years earlier accidentally detonated a hidden nuclear device on its own territory. Vehemently blaming the Great Satan, President Ahmadinejad clings to power.

In 2020, after Russia has claimed the continental shelf in the Arctic as their territory, they also annexed parts of northern Canada and eastern Alaska compelling Sarah Palin to return as Governor of Alaska.

In 2020, the Chinese, after acquiring IBM, Alcoa, Disney, Google and General Electric, are being stymied over their bid to buy the state of Rhode Island by Indian competitors.

For those willing to make predictions 10 years hence, please respond on our web site.

Becoming Rich through sanctions

Tough talk rarely gets results because sanctions, trade restrictions and embargoes have little meaning in practice. In the last 50 years we have imposed major sanctions on Cuba, North Korea, Iran and to a lesser degree on Libya, Syria, Zimbabwe and a host of other countries, including Iraq after the Gulf War. Ironically, almost all of these regimes have stayed in power with the resulting hardships impacting the general populations, but not the ruling elite.

One reason sanctions do not work is that they lack the full participation of other countries. There is nothing the United States produces that cannot be obtained either from non-participating countries or through black-market suppliers. The imposition of sanctions creates incredible financial opportunities for those willing to take some risk.

Marc Rich is a case in point. Often referred to as the fugitive commodity trader, he allegedly used his contacts during the 1973-1974 Arab Oil Embargo to circumvent the embargo and buy crude oil from Iran and Iraq. There were also allegations during the era of price controlled Texas crude that Rich doubled the fixed price and sold it to supply-starved U.S. oil companies as unregulated crude. Once the Ayatollah Khomeini displaced the Shah, importing or purchasing crude oil from Iran was banned by the United States, but Marc Rich, through a network of intermediaries and forged documents, simply used the opportunity to augment his fortune.

Eventually, Rich fled to Spain and ultimately to Switzerland. He is currently wanted by United States authorities (IRS) for alleged tax evasion amounting to millions of dollars. Rich still operates in many commodities through anonymous companies and mostly in places that suffer some trade restrictions. He was the beneficiary of Bill Clinton’s Presidential pardon on Clinton’s last day in office, but ultimately public furor and his potential tax liability prevented Rich from returning to the United States.

Marc Rich may be notorious but there are thousands of Marc Rich clones. The idea that everyone might ethically abide by sanctions for the greater good of mankind is simply naïve.

The sanctions conundrum can be compared to U.S. Prohibition. Although alcoholic beverages were banned, they were readily accessible to those wanting to imbibe. Alcoholic beverages were smuggled in from other countries, and they were distilled illegally both by large-scale bootleggers and by mom-and-pop operations at home. Prohibition created an underground network of criminals and illegal activity that remains with us today. Quite an unexpected consequence from sanctioning alcohol.

The United States creates a lot of bluster by threatening to impose sanctions. But enforcement is difficult and the failure to achieve results shows impotency not strength. Although Iranian crude and oil products are prohibited in the United States, it is almost a certainty that gasoline refined from Iranian crude routinely finds its way into our gas tanks. International traders are far more astute at orchestrating ruses of this nature than our government enforcement agencies are at preventing it.

Is it realistic to expect other countries to join us in sanctions against Iran? China has invested more than $20 billion in oil-related projects and infrastructure in Iran. Russia has an ongoing nuclear reactor project along with hundreds of other commercial deals including arms supply. Switzerland is in negotiations for a huge natural gas project in Iran and other countries are not likely to risk their energy or commercial interests for a political farce.

Can sanctions even work against smaller and more vulnerable countries like Cuba? It is well documented that President Kennedy had a fondness for Cuban cigars. Although embargoed, they were found in abundance at the White House during his presidency.

The reality of international trade is that if a country is sanctioned there will always be individuals who thrive on trafficking in contraband as they have for centuries. This opens avenues for huge profits: Cheaper goods coming out of the sanctioned country and more expensive goods slipping in. Goods will flow; money always out trumps politics.

THE DEATH PANEL

Most of us are unaware of a small government department buried in the bowels of the Capitol. It is called the Acronym Selection Service (ASS) and they are responsible for creating clever sounding acronyms for all federal programs. It is not necessary that the acronym accurately describe the thrust of the intended program, the main concern is to make the American taxpayers feel good with cleverly arranged letters.

For instance, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) implies the presence of a waterproof canvas that offers protection from the rain and lessens the effect of inclement weather. In reality, a tarp can cover-up myriad things and make one wonder about the contents lurking beneath or how much is being kept from the view of the public.

Fortunately, I have a mole, known only to me as Anal-eyes, within the ASS complex. She disclosed that there is bi-partisan support to close the existing gap on the health care bill. Both Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Snowe (R-ME) have been working tirelessly on a new idea, Diagnosed Elderly At The Hospital (DEATH). It is a simple program but the long term benefits are numerous.

President Obama plans on appointing Dr. Kevorkian as the DEATH Czar. He’ll guarantee only a gentle prick will be felt by those patients whose physicians have deemed DEATH as the best option.

According to Schumer, once this program gets rolling and elderly people are made redundant, both Medicare and Social Security will become solvent within years as fewer benefits will need to be paid. A hidden advantage will be the reduction of the median age in the American workforce thus creating younger and healthier workers as the older less productive people are culled out.

Under Senator Snowe’s controversial plan, once the patient is hospitalized, the attending physician will give a general check-up and based on the life expectancy in his or her native country, the doctor will determine if life saving or any medical procedure will be worth the investment. If the physician is from Pakistan (life expectancy 65) and the patient exceeds that age threshold, the physician may deem you ready for the DEATH program. If the physician is from Somalia (life expectancy 50), the patient would be wise to request a second opinion from an American doctor.

Although this may create a Right to Life movement at the opposite end of the age spectrum, Snowe expressed confidence of passage and both she and Senator Schumer were working diligently to bury this deep within the 1,200 page health care bill.

Fearing some doctors may balk at the program; arrangements are being made to have veterinarians administer the lethal prescription. Potential problems may arise resulting from people who find their eligibility for this program objectionable. Snowe has conceded to an arbitration procedure that allows patients to state their case before the infamous DEATH panel. Some terminated employees from ACORN are currently slated for positions on the panel.

It was incredibly reassuring knowing the political parties could join together to find a solution that works for everyone, unless one happens to be on the lights out list at a hospital.

 

ICH BIN EIN RASSIST (I am a racist)

A few months ago I was dining with a friend. I remarked about the shoddy products coming out of China and the low caliber of Chinese workers. My friend called me a racist. Why is one of the vilest words in the English language being used so casually in our everyday lives?

I’ve always considered myself colorblind in my business and personal life. But my friend believes that any remark about an individual’s or group’s alleged failings are part of a hidden agenda against a race, or a religion or a culture.

With President Obama in office, it is difficult to claim that America is a racist country but there are racists in America. Well before the President’s Congressional address about healthcare, the battling networks FOX and MSNBC did their best to provoke the most sensitive issues in this nation through alternating pleas of passion, anger and hostility.  

Then along came Joe Wilson and his outburst. I don’t think there is anyone who hasn’t made a spontaneous remark in his or her personal life at precisely the wrong moment and then regretted it. Wilson’s comment certainly was ill-timed and he can’t rewind his moment. In spite of his multiple apologies, the media had a story. The New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, in one of her more delusionary tirades implied she heard him yell, “You lie, boy”.

There is a stoking of racial and social tensions by both sides, but in an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, (D-GA), says that people will put on “white hoods and ride through the countryside” if racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Rep. Joe Wilson, are not rebuked. Congressman Johnson is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, which last year declined the application for membership by white Congressman Stephen Cohen (D-TN). Never mind that Mr. Cohen represents a primarily African-American district.

Mr. Johnson may not be aware that the highly esteemed and longest-serving Democrat in Congress, namely Senator Byrd (D-WV), was a member and strong proponent of the Ku Klux Klan and initially won entry into Congress on a racially biased platform.

In America we do not suffer the humiliations of South African-type Apartheid. We do not live under the discriminatory economic hardship of India’s caste system. We do not ban religious practices as some Arabic countries do. We do not have a one party system like China and Russia, though the system of two parties is at its worst if either one has nearly total control and plays a game of ideological winner takes all.

In this country, dissent was thought to be the highest form of political debate, but now challengers are derided as Nazis, rednecks, mobs, socialists, communists, sexists, anarchists, brown shirts and reactionaries. We are in the midst of Liberal and Conservative McCarthyism and none of the prominent leadership in Washington has chosen the higher road of instructing their parties to denounce not only racism but also other insulting forms of branding. In fact, some leaders seem intent on promoting this contemptible behavior.

Labeling the current disagreements over the political and social agendas as racist is meritless. It is tantamount to calling the SEC anti-Semitic for uncovering Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent schemes. Of course racism exists, but it is not the throttle driving disagreements. It is the dodge used to disengage from the real issues.

America is still the best place on earth to live and, if it is to remain that way, it needs to engage in healthy debate and compromise, and not indulge in the lowest forms of verbal denunciation. Joe Wilson’s behavior may have been inappropriate, but was it racist?  To label him a racist – or anyone who doesn’t support the agenda of our first African American president a racist – derails any opportunity for productive policy debates and sensible legislation. Name calling and uncivil behavior don’t belong in schoolyards, much less in the halls of Congress or from the mouths of babbling former presidents.

 

DOUBLE DOWN ON HEALTH CARE

As the health care debate becomes more vicious one needs to take an in depth look beyond the superficialities of politically motivated speeches and raucous town hall meetings. Part of the anger comes from people who have lost faith in Government’s ability to run any program or provide reliable estimates for the true cost of entitlements. Once government programs begin they seem to gather their own inertia.

Medicare is often used as a shinning example of Government’s success in delivering health care coverage. The program, which serves over 40 million beneficiaries, has been a huge success in delivering necessary health services to an aging population. Since the program’s inception in 1965, cost estimates have been left at the starting gate and they represent, along with social security, enormous unfunded liabilities for the future.

It is advertised the new health care program will be deficit neutral and mostly funded by removing the waste and fraud that occurs through administering Medicare. It is estimated over half a trillion dollars can be saved this way during the next decade. Waste and fraud, along with redundant inefficiencies, began the moment Medicare became law. One has to ask a question or two, beginning with the obvious one. After almost 45 years of Medicare, why are we only addressing the waste and fraud issue now, and secondly, does Government have the ability and will to wring these excesses out of the system? It doesn’t make sense to count on the bureaucrats and legislators who have perpetuated waste and fraud to be the same tandem to fix it.

Only about 25% of Medicare revenues come from payroll deductions, the balance is subsidized through general revenue or borrowing. At the current pace, Medicare alone will create $37 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities in two more generations.

Since Medicare’s inception, we have gone through many different administrations and varying party control in Congress. In spite of these changes at the top, the Washington bureaucracy remains fully intact. Those same administrators of FEMA, the Post Office, Amtrak, Social Security, Food Stamps, farm subsidies and a host of other well intentioned programs will be the same ones controlling the purse strings for an even larger public health care system.

Fortuitously, if our career legislators lack the intelligence or the experience to draft health care reform, they can rely on the ready services of a wide array of lobbyists. After donating money for future Congressional campaigns, lobbyists should be required to give the recipient of their largess a patch identifying the lobbying benefactor. Senators and Representatives would be compelled to proudly wear these badges at Congressional sessions. I imagine it will look like a NASCAR event with an abundance of patches fashionably sewn on to everyone’s attire. With the debate heating up, we’ll easily be able to identify who in Washington is buying off whom.

Finding a sensible solution that provides some health care coverage in America for everyone is a worthy humanitarian cause. Believing we can cover an additional 30 or 40 million people at no additional cost while not reducing the current quality of care for existing government programs sounds illogical. Tort reform, excluding medical expenses as a cause for personal bankruptcy, allowing insurance companies to compete nationally with one federal set of rules instead of individual state statutes and mandates will reduce premium costs and be an obvious starting point. Elimination of fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid is a lofty goal but that should be accomplished as a prerequisite before we embark on another rampant spending spree.

 

DOLLARS FOR DALLIANCES

I am rarely in agreement with the liberal establishment east of the Mississippi, but this time Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) have managed a brilliant scheme to lift us out of recession. Together they have initiated the Fudge-Frank Bill soon to be made law.

Odder still, our local newspaper and its pugnacious editor have scooped the story leaving ordinary newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal scrambling. If you missed the story on The Wet Mountain Tribune’s local web page, here it is in full:

Now that Cash for Clunkers has expired, Congress is examining a new stimulus program–Dollars for Dalliances.

This new program will allow both men and women to dump their spouses provided they have been married for at least 20 years. The government will provide a $5,000 rebate for legal expenses, thereby helping many financially strapped law firms struggling with the dearth of married couples able to afford a divorce. Additionally, through the official government web site www.citizenshipnow.gov the newly estranged men and women can connect with those seeking legal status in America.

Barney Frank, the co-sponsor of this measure, envisions the demand of housing to double as every dissolved family will create two new families, all seeking new accommodations.

Being modest and trying not to fudge the ramifications of this bill, the humble Congresswoman said, “The consequences will be humongous.”

“Encouraging long marriages to disintegrate will help the restaurant industry as newly formed relationships usually find their stride over a good dinner,” she said. Other dating-related businesses will flourish as well, including chocolatiers, florists, clothing and drug stores. Cosmetic surgeons are expecting a banner year.

Frank couldn’t be reached for comment but aides advised he was busy solving health care, reducing the national deficit and working hard to keep those pesky wind turbines out of Nantucket.

 

Disclaimer: Although Mr. Frank and Ms Fudge are Congressional Representatives, the above is satire and should be taken with a grain of salt. Or something.

 

 

HOT AIR, HEALTH CARE

Apart from certain lobbyists, everyone in America was excited about the prospect of health care reform. To me, this meant lowering my insurance premiums, alleviating the fight with my insurance company for reimbursement and reducing the price of prescription drugs.

For the 250 million people who are currently insured, these priorities suddenly morphed into a social and economic engineering program. Those of us with health insurance are in a de facto manner subsidizing the uninsured through higher premiums.

Reform was to create a more efficient plan for insuring people without coverage or those denied coverage, reducing the burden on the insured. Americans are the most generous people in the world and coaxing Americans to help those less fortunate has always proved successful. But, mandating—and legislating–this type of program has always been met with vehement opposition.

Transforming the health care system is too important to rush through with an imposed deadline. Before pushing a half-baked plan on the American taxpayer, proponents from the President through Congress should carefully review the myriad of options borne out of numerous committees. A lot of us doubt the administration and Congress have done this due diligence.

We are a country founded in a frenzy of anti-government sentiment and asking this country of individualists to relinquish control over something as personal as their health and to do so this quickly may be asking too much.

This administration might be better advised to start more slowly, to tackle problematic pieces of the health care system instead of the massive whole.

Making legislation is a dirtier job than mucking out a barn—and under this administration seems no cleaner. In the second quarter of 2009, lobbyists received more than $814 million from their clients to buy political influence. In turn, our legislature will draft favorable language so health care reform will not limit the profits of drug and insurance companies, the largest distributors of money to Congress.

In addition, most of us have lost faith in government’s ability to administer program costs effectively, produce promised results or adhere to budgets. In 1965 when Medicare Part A was launched, projections showed that by 1990 the total cost would be $9 billion. The actual cost in 1990 was $67 billion.

Not all government programs have been failures, but history is rife with examples of failed government projects; government’s recent meddling in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, the banks, commodity markets and financial institutions have given us no reason to believe that this time government will rise to the challenge efficiently.

The GAO and CBO have repeatedly stated that more than 20% of Medicare funds are lost through waste and fraud. Does it seem wise to put government in total control of the nation’s health care system? . The government is already littered with an abundance of supposed deficit-neutral programs. I don’t think this is the type of reform or change most voters and taxpayers had in mind.

Over the next 20 years, the number of people in America over 65 years of age will double. The anticipated stress on Social Security and Medicare has become a can that every administration has kicked down the road.

These are the kinds of issues plaguing independent-minded Americans as the President and members of Congress host town-hall forums about health care around the country.

Change is desperately needed, but reform should empower individuals, not the government or the insurance and drug industries.

 

 

REDUNDANT ABUNDANCE

 

I recently stopped at 7-11 and observed a customer buying a Big Gulp, which is the equivalent of a 32- or a 44-ounce soft drink depending on where your local convenience store is located. Now there is a 64-ounce version called the Super Big Gulp–two quarts of carbonated water, artificial flavor and about 30 teaspoons of sugar or another sweetener.

I began to wonder if the Super Big Gulp is emblematic of what’s wrong with the economy in this country. Bigger has become better and more has become marvelous. Size seems to matter regardless of any intrinsic value.

Americans have become unhinged from common sense and government has provided the tools helping to loosen those hinges.

After World War II our factories that had been vital for producing military hardware switched to making consumer goods. The only way to absorb such massive production was to encourage consumers with easy credit. Until the 1950’s the percentage of consumer credit in America remained fairly constant. Then in the 1960’s credit began a slow then rapid upward spiral. By 2000, we Americans had debt equaling 100% of our disposable income. By 2005 debt equaled 125% of disposable income. In 2008, credit card debt alone averaged more than $10,000/family.

Once consumerism was born it took over our economy and now is responsible for 70% of our GDP. To return to a balanced economy, we either need to produce more or consume less – neither option seems to be on our government’s agenda

Needless, reckless and often unnecessary spending has become an American hallmark and it is cradling us back to familiar territory. On an individual and government level, our overall resources may not be able to keep up with our desires. The financial collapse caused by excesses on Wall Street’s level can be played as the villain, but  loose and unabated consumer spending and federal largess is not the solution to the problem. Without a new normal, we are destined for higher interest rates and a debased dollar. This will have global along with domestic consequences, including a diminished standard of living for many Americans.

The financial system that nearly bankrupted our country in the Autumn of 2008 is not being changed but is simply getting a facelift.  With government prodding, we are trying to spend our way back to prosperity. Joe Biden recently said “that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law, the nation will go bankrupt, and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.”

For us Baby Boomers there is a measure of good news. Those over 55 years old control 60% of the wealth in this country and recent surveys show that we are not spending it. The savings rate in America has risen dramatically since the financial crisis due in large part to Boomers’ fear of impoverished retirements.

Smaller cars, smaller houses and less luxury, however, run contrary to the belief that the existing American dream of larger homes, multiple cars and gadgetry can continue forever. Will the country’s economic meltdown prompt Depression-era frugality? Not likely given our collective sense of entitlement. But if we continue drinking the Super Big Gulp, I hope eventually there is someone in line behind us who can pay for it.