Sent to Senator Snowe via e-mail.
Dear Senator Snowe,
I am writing to thank you for your support of the Senate Finance Committee’s health care reform bill.
Your courageous decision to break from your party and to play a key role in continuing the critical work of health care reform is admirable and for this I am grateful.
In recent years I have become increasingly concerned by the extremely divisive “party line” politics that has consumed Washington. The American people deserve more from our elected officials than the playing of high-stakes games in which self-interests, party-interests and special-interests come before the welfare of the people.
Disagreement and debate as we work as a people to steer our nation is good and vital to the health of United States of America. However, earnest disagreement and debate is quite different than the manipulation, game playing and meek conduct that far too often pervades our system.
Senator Snowe, you are a patriot and a servant to our nation.
With Much Thanks and Gratitude,
Tonia Becker VerShaw
Grayslake, IL
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Healthcare Ideas for Your Consideration.....Please Keep "Us" First
For thoughts and ideas on the current healthcare debate, please access the full blog post.
Sent to:
Congresswoman Melissa Bean
Senator Dick Durbin
President Barack Obama (via www.whitehouse.gov)
Huffington Post
CNN
When permitted, I sent entire blog post. When not permitted (too many characters) I sent a portion of the post, then referred to the URL.
Sent to:
Congresswoman Melissa Bean
Senator Dick Durbin
President Barack Obama (via www.whitehouse.gov)
Huffington Post
CNN
When permitted, I sent entire blog post. When not permitted (too many characters) I sent a portion of the post, then referred to the URL.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Oppose Elimination of Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP)
Sent to Congresswoman Melissa Bean, Senator Dick Durbin, President Obama
Dear Congresswoman Bean,
I am greatly concerned about President Obama’s outlined elimination of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) program within the budget proposal he unveiled today.
I share the belief of President Obama, you and many members of congress and the current administration. There are few priorities more important that improving our education systems and assuring that more of our citizens complete higher levels of education.
The current cost of a college degree and other secondary education programs force many students and families to secure student loans, Plus loans and other financing. What is the best way to improve the loan system, reduce costs if possible and assure that financing is available to fund this critical need? This is a vital question.
I do not have the innate aversion to government that many on the right side of our political spectrum seem to. Government—federal, state and local—have their places. However government, by design, is bureaucratic and is generally not all that efficient at the administration of large programs. Our federal government does not have competitive pressures forcing efficiencies like the private sector does. In addition, at times, political factors can and do impair efficiency improvements.
From my understanding of President Obama’s position, the elimination of the FFELP program would have the following adverse effects:
1. Elimination of student/family choice—there will be only one viable resource for student loans—the federal government.
2. Colleges and universities have not embraced the Direct Lending (DL) program as it exists today due to terrible customer service, bureaucratic problems and other implementation issues. The contractor, ACS, currently handling administration for the Direct Lending program has caused horrendous quality control and customer service issues. From what I understand, they won the contract in large part due to being the lowest bidder. My hunch is that they probably cut deeply into their service capabilities in order to afford this low bid. In fact, few years ago the government fined them $2 million for not meeting minimum standards and private institutions have pulled contracts from them due to horrific quality levels.
3. Bureaucratic mistakes relating to loans can have terrible consequences for an individual’s credit. I believe that we can ill-afford this risk.
4. FFELP is “stable” business for a banking sector in crisis. Pulling this business from the industry would help to undermine the current efforts to stabilize the banking sector.
5. The current crisis aside, the responsible members of the banking sector have historically been quite proficient at the innovation of new systems, solutions and products. Our government, due to necessary checks, balances and compromises, moves much slower and end results are often watered down. We call ill-afford the slightest risk that solutions for funding the education of our citizens will be watered down.
6. There have been FFLEP program abuses amongst a small minority of the banking community. Although the total of these abuses were not great in comparative monetary value, they were catastrophic in political damage. These abuses make it very difficult for you or other members of congress to support the current public/private system. It will take political courage for you to oppose the dismemberment of the program, but I urge you to muster this courage. We cannot forget that government is far from immune to waste and abuse either—as citizens of Illinois; this is a very embarrassing reality. Abuses within either the public or private sectors cannot be tolerated, but we must implement the best solutions, not the most politically convenient solutions.
7. Independent studies have virtually eliminated the argument that the Direct Lending program is less costly to administer. In fact, it may be more costly. From the evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that from a cost standpoint FFLEP and DL are pretty even. Therefore, the primary questions are ones of customer service and quality of program implementation/administration.
The banking sector is in crisis, yes. Some members of the banking and mortgage industries were irresponsible and our entire citizenry is paying a severe price.
However, I do not believe that elimination of the private banking sector from the important work of funding higher level education for our citizens is the answer.
Although it is currently popular to demonize the banking sector (and some institutions deserve it) I urge you to muster the political courage it will take to probe this important issue and to challenge the private banking sector to come to the table with solutions to improve student loan programs and implementation of the programs.
With deepest thanks for your service to our state and to our nation,
Tonia Becker VerShaw
Grayslake, IL
Dear Congresswoman Bean,
I am greatly concerned about President Obama’s outlined elimination of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) program within the budget proposal he unveiled today.
I share the belief of President Obama, you and many members of congress and the current administration. There are few priorities more important that improving our education systems and assuring that more of our citizens complete higher levels of education.
The current cost of a college degree and other secondary education programs force many students and families to secure student loans, Plus loans and other financing. What is the best way to improve the loan system, reduce costs if possible and assure that financing is available to fund this critical need? This is a vital question.
I do not have the innate aversion to government that many on the right side of our political spectrum seem to. Government—federal, state and local—have their places. However government, by design, is bureaucratic and is generally not all that efficient at the administration of large programs. Our federal government does not have competitive pressures forcing efficiencies like the private sector does. In addition, at times, political factors can and do impair efficiency improvements.
From my understanding of President Obama’s position, the elimination of the FFELP program would have the following adverse effects:
1. Elimination of student/family choice—there will be only one viable resource for student loans—the federal government.
2. Colleges and universities have not embraced the Direct Lending (DL) program as it exists today due to terrible customer service, bureaucratic problems and other implementation issues. The contractor, ACS, currently handling administration for the Direct Lending program has caused horrendous quality control and customer service issues. From what I understand, they won the contract in large part due to being the lowest bidder. My hunch is that they probably cut deeply into their service capabilities in order to afford this low bid. In fact, few years ago the government fined them $2 million for not meeting minimum standards and private institutions have pulled contracts from them due to horrific quality levels.
3. Bureaucratic mistakes relating to loans can have terrible consequences for an individual’s credit. I believe that we can ill-afford this risk.
4. FFELP is “stable” business for a banking sector in crisis. Pulling this business from the industry would help to undermine the current efforts to stabilize the banking sector.
5. The current crisis aside, the responsible members of the banking sector have historically been quite proficient at the innovation of new systems, solutions and products. Our government, due to necessary checks, balances and compromises, moves much slower and end results are often watered down. We call ill-afford the slightest risk that solutions for funding the education of our citizens will be watered down.
6. There have been FFLEP program abuses amongst a small minority of the banking community. Although the total of these abuses were not great in comparative monetary value, they were catastrophic in political damage. These abuses make it very difficult for you or other members of congress to support the current public/private system. It will take political courage for you to oppose the dismemberment of the program, but I urge you to muster this courage. We cannot forget that government is far from immune to waste and abuse either—as citizens of Illinois; this is a very embarrassing reality. Abuses within either the public or private sectors cannot be tolerated, but we must implement the best solutions, not the most politically convenient solutions.
7. Independent studies have virtually eliminated the argument that the Direct Lending program is less costly to administer. In fact, it may be more costly. From the evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that from a cost standpoint FFLEP and DL are pretty even. Therefore, the primary questions are ones of customer service and quality of program implementation/administration.
The banking sector is in crisis, yes. Some members of the banking and mortgage industries were irresponsible and our entire citizenry is paying a severe price.
However, I do not believe that elimination of the private banking sector from the important work of funding higher level education for our citizens is the answer.
Although it is currently popular to demonize the banking sector (and some institutions deserve it) I urge you to muster the political courage it will take to probe this important issue and to challenge the private banking sector to come to the table with solutions to improve student loan programs and implementation of the programs.
With deepest thanks for your service to our state and to our nation,
Tonia Becker VerShaw
Grayslake, IL
Friday, January 30, 2009
Task Force on Middle Class Working Families
Sent to Jan 30, 2009 to Vice President Biden via www.strongmiddleclass.gov CC: President Obama (via whitehouse.gov), Senator Dick Durbin, Congresswoman Melissa Bean, Congressman John Boehner (House Minority Leader), Senator Mitch McConnel (Senate Minority Leader), Congressman Steny Hoyer (House Majority Leader), Speaker Pelosi, Senator Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader)
Dear Vice President Biden,
Congratulations on your appointment to lead the Task Force on Middle Class Working Families.
I too firmly believe that a strong middle class is the only future for America’s long-term prosperity. The middle class is the “consumption engine” of the U.S. economy; therefore there is no hope for sustained economic strength without a strong middle class.
I have been in management roles for the last eight years of my career and I know from first-hand experience that the middle class has been going backwards. A 3% annual raise has not kept up with the cumulative effects of inflation, rising energy prices, rising healthcare costs and rising education costs. The middle class has, indeed, been going backwards.
As you have pointed out, the most recent economic expansion did nothing to help the standing of Middle America. Despite strong productivity increases, record corporate profits, healthy dividends and ballooning executive compensation, the middle class continued to go backward.
This letter addresses four topics: definition of middle class, the productive role of organized labor, supporting the non-union middle class, needed cultural changes within corporate America.
1. Definition of Middle Class
Most politicians talk about the importance of the middle class, but none define what “middle class” means. I feel that the establishment of a working definition of “middle class” is essential for the effective function of your Task Force.
The problem with the term middle class is that is encompasses so many Americans: construction works, law enforcement, sales professionals, middle managers, accountants, factory workers, university professors, journalists, warehouse managers…the list of potential professions and families that comprise the middle class is endless.
This economic classification includes the most, as well as the least educated Americans. The middle class includes Americans with strong upward mobility potential, as well as Americans whose futures look less promising if current career paths are continued. The middle class includes families and individuals who are quite effective at personal/household financial management, as well as individuals and families who live dangerously beyond their means.
For the sake of reasonable policy creation, I believe that a working definition of “middle class” must include a computation of household size and the geographic location of the household. Geographic consideration is an absolute necessity as a reasonable household income in the Chicagoland area (where I live) needs to be considerably higher than the household income of a family living in rural Kansas for example.
Without a reasonable definition of “middle class” no one will know what the Task Force’s discussions and purposes are really about. A definition is also necessary for the transparency you seek to achieve.
2. Productive Role for Organized Labor
In many ways the labor movement and labor unions themselves have gone horribly wrong. Labor unions are businesses just like any other and have gotten greedy and self-interested over the years. The purpose of labor unions, in my opinion, should be to ensure safe and fair working conditions and to promote employment security for its members.
There is an important distinction between job security and employment security that unions (and too many Americans) don’t seem to understand. Many unions, particularly the UAW, have focused on job security and have worked to try to ensure continued pay checks for labor that is no longer needed. Within an environment of global competition, no company can successfully and profitably operate with the burdens of job pools and other mechanisms that do not allow for efficient labor resource management.
A focus on employment security, on the other hand, calls for assuring that workers have current and ever expanding skill sets. A focus on employment security is the difference between having or not having a job and having a career.
Too many Americans and labor unions have focused on having jobs, not on building careers. The skill sets of many Americans are out of date and the reality is that they are not needed in the job market of today. On the other hand, I know of many companies that cannot find workers with the skill sets they now require.
Labor unions have the organizational structure to facilitate the dissemination of continuing education—either directly providing these education services and/or providing the infrastructure for other organizations to provide the needed education.
Labor unions will be relevant and productive in today’s labor market if and only if one of their top priorities is ensuring that their members have the skills needed today—not the skills needed 20-30 years ago.
Labor unions also need to be reasonable. Given ever increasing life expectancies, today’s workers cannot reasonably expect to retire at 48, 58 or 62 with full benefits. No pension system (social security or corporate pensions) was designed to support a 20-30 year retirement. Workers with physically demanding jobs likely cannot perform these jobs as they age. Therefore, unions need to be a key resource and conduit for establishing worker-union-corporation partnerships to redirect workers’ for needed purposes.
Although unions have provided productive outcomes in recent years, the negative light in which managers and executives view unions is much deserved.
I question whether or not you would bristle at the necessity to pay a union electrician (Teamster) $150.00 to plug in a light at McCormick Place in Chicago. No, not skilled electrical wiring that can only safely be done by a licensed electrician—just plugging a light into a power strip. If there is a prayer for organized labor and corporations to have effective partnerships, this kind of nonsense must be forced to stop.
3. Supporting the Non-Union Middle Class
As you well know, there are millions upon millions of non-union middle class Americans. These Americans are also grappling with stagnating and regressing standards of living. The three keys for these Americans, I believe, are fair taxation policies, affordable education and affordable healthcare (these three areas are key for union employees as well).
Within this discussion I would like to focus on education. I believe that it is vital for our pre-school and K-12 education systems to be overhauled in order to assure America’s continued competitiveness on the world stage. The simple fact is that our education system is in disarray, is inefficient/ineffective and we are falling dangerously behind.
Our universities continue to be the envy of the world, but are becoming less and less affordable for many Americans. Without a college education, most of our youth have little chance for a prosperous life. I have an 11-year-old stepson. I recently calculated that it will cost approximately $130,000 to fund his Bachelors degree at the University of Illinois (an in-state school). This is ridiculous. The two questions that surface in my mind are: Are we funding state universities properly AND are state universities managing their money properly with the proper priorities?
Finally, we need affordable adult continuing education programs and education outlets. The world is changing too quickly to permit adults to graduate from high school or college and never step foot in a classroom again. Community colleges can and do fill some of this need, but I believe that this is an issue that needs to be studied carefully. The current programs at many community colleges are part of the answer, but not a complete answer.
4. Needed Cultural Changes in Corporate America
This is the toughest issue to tackle. The reality is that corporate America has become greedy. Attractive quarterly earning statements and annual reports are far more valued that quality corporate management. Corporate America is solely rewarded for today, next month and next quarter. These pressures make good people do really unproductive, and in some cases, bad things.
As a society, we must learn how to celebrate and reward long-term interests and sound business practices. In my view, sound business practices include fair treatment of employees—allowing everyone to enjoy the fruits of a successful team effort.
Vice President Biden, I hope that some of my insights are productive and are considered as you steer the directions of the new Task Force.
I wish you the best of luck on this most important journey.
Sincerely,
Tonia Becker VerShaw
Grayslake, IL
www.toourleaders.blogspot.com
Dear Vice President Biden,
Congratulations on your appointment to lead the Task Force on Middle Class Working Families.
I too firmly believe that a strong middle class is the only future for America’s long-term prosperity. The middle class is the “consumption engine” of the U.S. economy; therefore there is no hope for sustained economic strength without a strong middle class.
I have been in management roles for the last eight years of my career and I know from first-hand experience that the middle class has been going backwards. A 3% annual raise has not kept up with the cumulative effects of inflation, rising energy prices, rising healthcare costs and rising education costs. The middle class has, indeed, been going backwards.
As you have pointed out, the most recent economic expansion did nothing to help the standing of Middle America. Despite strong productivity increases, record corporate profits, healthy dividends and ballooning executive compensation, the middle class continued to go backward.
This letter addresses four topics: definition of middle class, the productive role of organized labor, supporting the non-union middle class, needed cultural changes within corporate America.
1. Definition of Middle Class
Most politicians talk about the importance of the middle class, but none define what “middle class” means. I feel that the establishment of a working definition of “middle class” is essential for the effective function of your Task Force.
The problem with the term middle class is that is encompasses so many Americans: construction works, law enforcement, sales professionals, middle managers, accountants, factory workers, university professors, journalists, warehouse managers…the list of potential professions and families that comprise the middle class is endless.
This economic classification includes the most, as well as the least educated Americans. The middle class includes Americans with strong upward mobility potential, as well as Americans whose futures look less promising if current career paths are continued. The middle class includes families and individuals who are quite effective at personal/household financial management, as well as individuals and families who live dangerously beyond their means.
For the sake of reasonable policy creation, I believe that a working definition of “middle class” must include a computation of household size and the geographic location of the household. Geographic consideration is an absolute necessity as a reasonable household income in the Chicagoland area (where I live) needs to be considerably higher than the household income of a family living in rural Kansas for example.
Without a reasonable definition of “middle class” no one will know what the Task Force’s discussions and purposes are really about. A definition is also necessary for the transparency you seek to achieve.
2. Productive Role for Organized Labor
In many ways the labor movement and labor unions themselves have gone horribly wrong. Labor unions are businesses just like any other and have gotten greedy and self-interested over the years. The purpose of labor unions, in my opinion, should be to ensure safe and fair working conditions and to promote employment security for its members.
There is an important distinction between job security and employment security that unions (and too many Americans) don’t seem to understand. Many unions, particularly the UAW, have focused on job security and have worked to try to ensure continued pay checks for labor that is no longer needed. Within an environment of global competition, no company can successfully and profitably operate with the burdens of job pools and other mechanisms that do not allow for efficient labor resource management.
A focus on employment security, on the other hand, calls for assuring that workers have current and ever expanding skill sets. A focus on employment security is the difference between having or not having a job and having a career.
Too many Americans and labor unions have focused on having jobs, not on building careers. The skill sets of many Americans are out of date and the reality is that they are not needed in the job market of today. On the other hand, I know of many companies that cannot find workers with the skill sets they now require.
Labor unions have the organizational structure to facilitate the dissemination of continuing education—either directly providing these education services and/or providing the infrastructure for other organizations to provide the needed education.
Labor unions will be relevant and productive in today’s labor market if and only if one of their top priorities is ensuring that their members have the skills needed today—not the skills needed 20-30 years ago.
Labor unions also need to be reasonable. Given ever increasing life expectancies, today’s workers cannot reasonably expect to retire at 48, 58 or 62 with full benefits. No pension system (social security or corporate pensions) was designed to support a 20-30 year retirement. Workers with physically demanding jobs likely cannot perform these jobs as they age. Therefore, unions need to be a key resource and conduit for establishing worker-union-corporation partnerships to redirect workers’ for needed purposes.
Although unions have provided productive outcomes in recent years, the negative light in which managers and executives view unions is much deserved.
I question whether or not you would bristle at the necessity to pay a union electrician (Teamster) $150.00 to plug in a light at McCormick Place in Chicago. No, not skilled electrical wiring that can only safely be done by a licensed electrician—just plugging a light into a power strip. If there is a prayer for organized labor and corporations to have effective partnerships, this kind of nonsense must be forced to stop.
3. Supporting the Non-Union Middle Class
As you well know, there are millions upon millions of non-union middle class Americans. These Americans are also grappling with stagnating and regressing standards of living. The three keys for these Americans, I believe, are fair taxation policies, affordable education and affordable healthcare (these three areas are key for union employees as well).
Within this discussion I would like to focus on education. I believe that it is vital for our pre-school and K-12 education systems to be overhauled in order to assure America’s continued competitiveness on the world stage. The simple fact is that our education system is in disarray, is inefficient/ineffective and we are falling dangerously behind.
Our universities continue to be the envy of the world, but are becoming less and less affordable for many Americans. Without a college education, most of our youth have little chance for a prosperous life. I have an 11-year-old stepson. I recently calculated that it will cost approximately $130,000 to fund his Bachelors degree at the University of Illinois (an in-state school). This is ridiculous. The two questions that surface in my mind are: Are we funding state universities properly AND are state universities managing their money properly with the proper priorities?
Finally, we need affordable adult continuing education programs and education outlets. The world is changing too quickly to permit adults to graduate from high school or college and never step foot in a classroom again. Community colleges can and do fill some of this need, but I believe that this is an issue that needs to be studied carefully. The current programs at many community colleges are part of the answer, but not a complete answer.
4. Needed Cultural Changes in Corporate America
This is the toughest issue to tackle. The reality is that corporate America has become greedy. Attractive quarterly earning statements and annual reports are far more valued that quality corporate management. Corporate America is solely rewarded for today, next month and next quarter. These pressures make good people do really unproductive, and in some cases, bad things.
As a society, we must learn how to celebrate and reward long-term interests and sound business practices. In my view, sound business practices include fair treatment of employees—allowing everyone to enjoy the fruits of a successful team effort.
Vice President Biden, I hope that some of my insights are productive and are considered as you steer the directions of the new Task Force.
I wish you the best of luck on this most important journey.
Sincerely,
Tonia Becker VerShaw
Grayslake, IL
www.toourleaders.blogspot.com
Monday, January 26, 2009
Please Vote No--Digital Television Deadline Extension
Also e-mailed to President Obama and Senator Dick Durbin
Dear Congresswoman Bean,
I am writing to urge you not to vote for extension of the digital television conversion deadline.
1. More than 94% of households in the U.S. are ready for the conversion.
2. If the deadline is extended, what plans are in place to influence or to help the less the 6% who are not ready? If these households have not yet acted, will another four months evoke action?
3. Televisions networks have invested heavily to prepare for this transition. In these times when many networks are struggling (along with so many businesses in general) asking them to operate two transmitters for another four months is unreasonable and in some cases may prompt or contribute to additional layoffs.
4. Television is not a necessity of life. The poor, elderly and others thought to be slow responders to this transition cannot be without food, heat and other life necessities. They can, however, live without a television and a non-operating television will be, possibly, the best catalyst for action.
Congresswoman Bean, you know that these are difficult times for America and many of your constituents. We need to spend our energies and resources fulfilling the true needs of the afflicted. Let’s spend our time, energy and resources to restore our economy and to provide appropriate emergency relief for life’s necessities.
Thank you for your consideration and thank you again for your service to our community and to our nation.
Sincerely,
Tonia Becker VerShaw
Wildwood, IL
cc: President Obama, Senator Durbin
Dear Congresswoman Bean,
I am writing to urge you not to vote for extension of the digital television conversion deadline.
1. More than 94% of households in the U.S. are ready for the conversion.
2. If the deadline is extended, what plans are in place to influence or to help the less the 6% who are not ready? If these households have not yet acted, will another four months evoke action?
3. Televisions networks have invested heavily to prepare for this transition. In these times when many networks are struggling (along with so many businesses in general) asking them to operate two transmitters for another four months is unreasonable and in some cases may prompt or contribute to additional layoffs.
4. Television is not a necessity of life. The poor, elderly and others thought to be slow responders to this transition cannot be without food, heat and other life necessities. They can, however, live without a television and a non-operating television will be, possibly, the best catalyst for action.
Congresswoman Bean, you know that these are difficult times for America and many of your constituents. We need to spend our energies and resources fulfilling the true needs of the afflicted. Let’s spend our time, energy and resources to restore our economy and to provide appropriate emergency relief for life’s necessities.
Thank you for your consideration and thank you again for your service to our community and to our nation.
Sincerely,
Tonia Becker VerShaw
Wildwood, IL
cc: President Obama, Senator Durbin
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Please Step Down
E-mailed 12/30/08 (day of the Burris appointment)
Dear Mr. Blagojevich,
As a resident of the great state of
Given the circumstances, I don’t believe that you could possibly be more unfit to serve effectively as
Within this environment, your appointment of Roland Burris is incredible. Although I believe that President-Elect Obama’s seat could have been filled with a more dynamic individual, I have nothing against Roland Burris. However, the fact that scandal has engulfed you and every decision you now make, makes it impossible for you to fill the vacant Senate seat without serious consequences. I believe that you made this appointment not because you felt it was the best decision for the
Mr. Blagojevich you either have serious psychiatric problems or are one of the largest crooks to ever step foot in the state of
If you had any care at all for the people of
If there is a decent bone left in your body, I implore you to step down.
Sincerely,
Tonia Becker VerShaw
**P.S. Please pardon my breech of propriety by addressing you as “Mr.” rather than “Governor.” Given your conduct, I cannot address you with the honorable title of Governor.
cc: President-Elect Barack Obama, Senator Dick Durbin, Congresswoman Melissa Bean, Larry King
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Bailout Management
Sent to Congresswoman Melissa Bean and Senator Dick Durbin, November 13, 2008
First I would like to congratulate you on your re-election. With the re-election of you and Dick Durbin, as well as the election of President-Elect Obama, election night was a thrilling evening.
During this campaign season I made the promise to myself to become more involved in our democracy. One of the greatest privileges Americans enjoy is the ability to contact our elected officials with our opinions, concerns and praise. Therefore, you will be hearing from me on a regular basis.
This being said, I am quite concerned about the execution path of the bailout bill. I believe I share the views of many Americans. In my opinion, the need to pass the bailout bill was a highly undesirable position, but necessary given the circumstances.
From my understanding, the bill called for active congressional oversight. This oversight does not appear to be happening. The situation is starting to carry the "stench" of much of the rest of the Bush years--do what we want and there is no need to keep the American people informed of our decision-making process, no need to tell anyone what we are actually doing.
This is entirely unacceptable and I ask that you do what you can to speak out in opposition to the situation.
Granted, the financial dilemma
I can say with reasonable deal of certainty that I do not support bailout funds being used to fund acquisition activity, to fund employee (especially top executive) bonuses, nor to prop up shareholder dividends. This being said, if non-partisan experts believe in good judgment that it is appropriate to use bailout funds for the above mentioned purposes, I would want objective information as to why supporting these activities will help our overall economic situation.
The Bush administration has continually supported measures that allow money to swirl at a frenetic pace at the very top levels of our economy. The last eight years have almost been like the richest 3% of our population has been standing in a giant money booth (like you sometimes see at the fair)--money swirling around and this top 3% stuffing money in their pockets as fast as possible. However, the "money booth" of the last eight years contained monetary denominations much larger that one dollar bills.
$700 billion is a great deal of money and it cannot continue to be spent with Congress and the American people sitting in the dark. The stakes are just too high.
On another note, I have very mixed feelings about the prospects of bailing out the American auto industry. In recent times, the big three have been three of the most poorly managed companies in our economy. Should this poor management be rewarded without very core changes in operation? We will be in the same situation a year or two from now. On the other hand, can we afford to lose the hundreds of thousands of jobs attached directly and indirectly to the
This also needs to be a public dialog backed by objective, smart, non-partisan information.
I would like to leave you with two final thoughts. One of the positive results of the mess that our country has inflicted on ourselves is that I am one of millions giving active thought as to how we can correct our current challenges. The following two thoughts are simple and maybe are obvious, but maybe there is some truth shrouded in simplistic notions.
- We cannot allow corporate
- If we have corporations that are truly “too big to fail,” perhaps corporations should not be allow to get that big. Or, at least not allowed to become “too big” without adequate capital and liquidity to navigate through economic downturns. I have no idea how this idea could be structured in a way that supports fair free-markets (emphasis on fair), yet protects the American economy from a handful of companies bringing our entire economy to its knees. Although, I have no idea how this idea could be structured, I do believe that there is merit to the thought.
Sincerely,
Tonia Becker VerShaw
Dear President-Elect Obama
Sent week of November 15, 2008.
Dear President-Elect Obama and Transition Team,
Like many Americans, I am excited and a bit anxious about the days to come. Our country, as you know better than any other set of Americans, has decided challenges. One hates to say that our country is a mess, but I don't know that softer sentiments describe our current condition or the road ahead.
I trust President-Elect Obama's ability, talent, dedication, intelligence and integrity much more than that of any other elected official in my lifetime. However, I do not desire to put the fate of my country, my future and our children's future solely in the hands of our elected officials in
Americans across our land must peacefully and respectfully stand up and say, "no more."
How do we accomplish this utilizing that incredible strong grassroots network created during the campaign season? I am flatly apposed to movements that encourage people to stand on street corners yelling and screaming. How can we organize to communicate respectfully and meaningfully with our leaders outside of campaign seasons?
How can we create a culture in which our elected officials speak to American citizens in calm, thoughtful, honest manners without being so concerned if a given statement fits news bite/sound bite formulas?
I, along with I believe millions of other Americans, do not want to be pacified with rhetoric, we don't want to be deceived and we want a voice in the directions and decisions of our government. Solely making the voices of everyday Americans heard on election days is not enough. We can all see where the separation of government from the governed has taken us.
I will look forward to your reply in some format and am willing to do whatever I can to help. I want my country back.
Sincerely,
Tonia Becker VerShaw
Occam's Razor Applied
Sent to Congresswoman Melissa Bean, Senator Dick Durbin and President-Elect Obama, November 29, 2008
In my continued dedication to become more involved in and knowledgeable of the decisions, policies and directions of our government, it has occurred to me that the American people would be well served by an application of Occam’s Razor to the business of governing our country.
“One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.” –William of Occam
Although Occam’s Razor is traditionally applied to mathematical and/or scientific models, I believe the principal has decided merit for government policy creation.
The American people have become disengaged from the political process. One of the heartening things about this most recent election cycle was that, regardless of party affiliation or individual views, millions of American’s were engaged. The election cycle is obviously over, the drama of modern-day campaigns has faded into the background and our elected leaders are settling in for the less glamorous task of actually running the country.
I fear that the American people will, once again, become frustrated, disengaged and cynical. The challenges that lie ahead will require that the entire country pulls together and acts in a spirit of fairness, unity and betterment of The United States of America. This, granted, is a tall order given our extraordinarily diverse country.
I believe that one of the reasons that the American people are, more often than not, disengaged from the political process is that we have created systems that are extraordinarily complex and foster entire industries dedicated, in large part, to finding ways around the rules (tax codes, regulations, etc.)
The cynical side of me believes that our codes, regulations and laws are intentionally complex, vague and porous. It does not take much of a cynic to believe that our laws and regulations are intentionally complex, but how porous, how vague are they designed to be? On some days I believe that we have imperfect laws designed by imperfect people within a system of checks and balances that requires compromise—our leaders are doing their best but some things work out better than others.
On other days, I believe that legislation and regulations are intentionally both vague and porous. “This will sound good to the American people, but actually has anything but their best interests at heart once applied.”
Out of frustration, the American people often resign themselves to letting the inmates run the asylum (no offense to you as, I suppose, one of the inmates).
I realize that our country and our world is a complex place. But, much more complexity is created than is needed in reality. I also realize that extensive complexity is a jobs creation plan given the thousands upon thousands of Americans who work for firms dedicated in one way or the other to interpreting, manipulating or beating the system (accounting firms, legal firms, etc).
However, I believe that if our codes, regulations and legislation were simplified the many highly intelligent people working in these sectors could repurpose themselves to contribute more productively to the betterment of our country.
If Occam’s Razor were applied to governing the
If common sense/simplified thinking would have been applied to AIG’s credit default swap activity, this activity would have been regulated as insurance in line with the rest of AIG’s insurance activities. We would not have allowed AIG and others involved in credit default swap activity to play word games that has cost the American people dearly.
If common sense/simplified thinking is applied to our corporate tax codes we would not have effective corporate tax rates all over the board (from my research the effective tax rates of the Fortune 500 are all over the board from negative tax rates for numerous years in a row, to 5%, to 10%, to 21% to 50%).
If the Democratic Party wants, as stated, for the American people to be actively involved in the “Change We Need,” we must execute based on clear, straight-forward thinking that stands up to the glaring light of common sense.
“One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.” –William of Occam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
