Keystone Pipeline Compromise

There is a lot of controversy over it whether or not the Keystone pipeline should be built. Many want to make the key question on building the pipeline this: should we use fossil fuels for our energy source or should we use renewable sources. The pipeline might make a small amount of difference on this question because oil might be slightly cheaper if this pipeline is installed. But the major driver of whether or not we us renewable sources is the price of those renewable sources compared to the global price of fossil fuels. Using renewable Energy will depend on developments in that field and the willingness of our government to subsidize renewable energy sources until their price comes down.  Increased research in renewable technologies could also drive prices lower in the long run. But, our country is doing precious little for the future.

The correct question to ask about the Keystone pipeline is this: is it safer to deliver oil via a pipeline or via rail cars and trucks. Given the fact that trains crash in this country on a fairly frequent basis and that our infrastructure is in bad need of modernization, this question is really very straightforward: the pipeline is much safer than rails and trucks.

The pipeline has become a very political subject. However I think we can get past it being political if we ask the right questions. 

I am an independent strongly leaning toward Barry Sanders, but that does not mean I can't break ranks and have a different opinion.  In fact, on economic issues I agree often with Republicans and I can usually imagine reasonable compromises.  On social and issues of compassion, I'm squarely in the democratic camp.

How about using the pipeline as a bargaining chip to get free public education through college? That's how we got stuff done in America in the good old days like with Regan, Clinton, Johnson,  Eisenhower, etc.  How about agreeing to the pipeline if the bill includes a tax on the oil that would fund college for all our citizens, or provide health care to its citizens, or rebuild our infrastructure ... or  do something we think is important for our country.  

The pipeline is a chip to be used in bargaining for something we progressive, compassionate loving people could use for something our country needs ... 

The Evil Immigrant Story

Once long ago, a leader rose up and told his people that the outsiders (the immigrants) were destroying their country, that these people were inferior and that they were bringing the entire country down.  THEY are not like US, he declared. He united his people and the country rose to new levels of power and dominance in Europe and drove out and killed the immigrants.  But, he was stopped largely by the eight million Russians that did not see the world like he did.

During WWII, we came obsessed and fearful of the danger posed by those that looked like our enemies.  The color of their skin, the slant of their eyes, their dark hair and short stature.  THEY were not like US, we declared.  They should be put in camps  They should be put in camps, the men separated from their wives and child until the war is over.  We acted quickly and saved ourselves from their threat.

Now, a new threat has risen.  They have come here under the pretense of wanting a better life.  But, in reality they have just come here to have their children on our soil so they and their citizen children can tap into our welfare system.  It doesn't matter if they could not afford the price of legal immigration, they should have stayed home.  Their drug wars have nothing to do with us, it's their problem.  THEY are not like US, They are not like the immigrants that have come here before them.   In fact we suspect their governments are sending the worst of the worst to us, like rapists, so they won't have to deal with them. 

And yet and even greater threat has arisen, more evil than the feared Mexican -- the Syrian Refuge.  We had nothing to do with his problems, its not like we messed up the Middle East or contributed to its instability.  But, Carson is prepared to save us from this threat by not letting any Syrian refugees into our country, not even one hungry child is going to darken our borders.

Planned Parenthood and Compassion

8

I believe in birth control.  I believe the state should provide birth control to those too poor to afford it.  To not take any chances, I would make it available to any woman who asked for it no questions asked.  Yes, and I would throw in the recommended doctor visits, etc. to do the job right.  The other choice is to risk a woman having a child or pregnancy she doesn't want and can't afford.  Neither a good outcome, nor a necessary one in our prosperous society.

Based on their website, Planned Parenthood provides services relating to reproduction and sexual health.  Sounds good.  I assume patients on medicaid or medicare can use their services.  Birth control is high on their agenda! Good!

Defunding Planned Parenthood

There is a push on to de-fund planned parenthood because of some videos on line from Center for Medical Progress (CMP) who interviewed Planned Parenthood (PP) management about buying fetal tissue from abortions.  PP does seem to be on the ragged edge of selling fetal tissue in these interviews, although their position is that they are just covering shipping and handling costs.  However, if they are just covering costs, that should just be a number furnished by accountants with minimal wiggle room.  The negotiation did sound like a negotiation over a price, not a cost. 

PP also seemed willing to alter their procedure to minimize damage to the tissue from the fetus.   CMP implies they are doing partial birth abortions, which is illegal, and if true should be prosecuted.  I am not a lawyer or a prosecutor, but if they broke the law then some appropriate prosecutor should charge them.   (I don't understand the rationale for the law that was passed under Bush's Presidency.  But, if it is the law, then we should follow it or change it.)

CMP also interviewed someone that they claimed was an ex-employee of Planned Parenthood.  I have no idea if what she said was true or a lie or if she was really an ex-employee.  In either case, she described a pretty gross procedure to remove the brain tissue of a live fetus.  Again, I think CMP is implying PP broke the law.  Again if the law was broken, it should be prosecuted.  And if true, and legal it is still pretty sickening stuff.  Abortions at best are an ugly business. And, if we must have abortions, maybe there is some room for defining what is allowed in an abortion. 

Quantity of Abortions in the U.S.

There are about a million abortions a year in the U.S. and about two million unwanted pregnancies.  See Facts about Abortion from Guttmacher Institute and Centers for Disease Control.   People on medicaid are about 3.7 times as likely to get an abortion than the rest of the population.  About 57% of their services of PP are paid for by the clients, the balance split pretty evenly between insurance and medicaid. The federal government kicks Iin about $500 million a year.

I looked at the foot print of PP ... it is huge and offers thousands of people services everyday.  It looks like mostly birth control, cancer screening, ultrasounds to check baby health, and similar.  And yes, also Abortions.   

Impact of Defunding PP

When I heard Republicans in Congress are attempting to defund PP it must mean that they want to stop poor people on medicaid from being able to get abortions.  My gut reaction is that this is an alliance between Rich people and those that believe abortions are wrong.  Poor women, and the children born, will be the ones to suffer.  However, I found out that medicaid can only be used in 15 states for abortion.  So, in the other 35 states defunding medicaid would mean that poor people using medicaid for birth control, cancer screening, etc. would be defunded.  So, the biggest effect of defunding PP would be to reduce birth control to poor people which would result in more unwanted children being born and perhaps more future abortions, not less. Ironic!

And yes, the $500 million from the federal government Can not be spent on abortions. So, cutting that money out means more unwanted pregnancies! More unwanted births, probably more people in poverty and on welfare.  Great plan. Before we throw out the bath Water we need a plan b.

The Bigger Picture

Here is the shame I see ... 

1,000,000 abortions means birth control (availability, use, education, or efficacy) failed 1,000,000 times.  We must be able to do better. More morning after pills, or something.  Shouldn't we all be working together to do a better job with birth control? What am I missing? 

So what do I vote?

So, my vote is to let Planned Parenthood keep providing services to the poor, mostly birth control, using medicaid.  And prosecute PP if they broke the law or if they do break the law.  And CMP, if you think PP broke the law, find a prosecutor somewhere, give him your evidence and see where it goes.  I am inclined to believe that CMP is very biased and they have carefully edited what they have to look as bad as possible and they have prompted the ex-employees to exaggerate, but I could be wrong.

It seems the biggest impact of stopping medicaid from funding services by PP would be to reduce poor people's access to birth control in 35 states ... .  I say let's have compassion on these women and let's make sure they get birth control.  

A few positive kernels from the Republican Debate

There are some new commercials showing Regan talking about immigration.  It could best be summarized by the words compassionate, welcoming and practical.  I was a Republican back in those days before I got exposed to life outside the U.S. especially Australia and Denmark.

Today, I was out campaigning for Bernie Sanders.  But, I still think the Republicans as a group offer some good money management skills that the Democrats have yet to demonstrate ... and I might add the Republicans have not demonstrated them since before George Bush was in power. 

First, the Republicans talk about reforming the income tax code and lowering corporate taxes to somewhere between about 12% and 25%.  (I am curious why they have not put something on the table for Obama to pass or reject.  If he passes it, the country wins, if he vetoes it, the Republicans win.)   

Simplifying the tax code is best accomplished by starting over ... but in any case it is a very tough undertaking.   There are so many special interest groups vested in the way the tax code is now, including the American homeowner, that it would take a bipartisan effort of Herculean proportions.  Probably not going to happen.  But, it is still good to hear the Republicans talking about it.

Lowering the corporate tax is the one single thing we could do to create jobs and keep corporations from leaving this country to manufacturer overseas.  Period.  I have even heard Obama say he would like to see the corporate tax at 25%.  We live in a competitive world and believe it or not, we have to compete for corporations and jobs with the rest of the world.  Get too greedy and the golden goose moves away.  That is not to say we shouldn't simplify the code and close loop holes ... yes, they are one in the same.  Complexity breeds loopholes.  I wish an old Republican somewhere would take up this task ...  democrats can't seem to be able to keep social issues and the tax code separate from each other.

Finally, the democrats should be careful not to go after the rich with reckless abandon.  They need to show some respect to the rich. The rich can move away and many do.  So, if we are going to tax them, we need to convince them that it is for their good as well as ours.  An educated work force will make America richer, including the rich.  Convince them with any tax that is proposed that it is going directly to improve our nation, say the availability of college education.  

The rich might even be open to crazy ideas like the government matching funds that corporation or the rich (or us average guys) chose to give to education fields they believe in.  For example, if Intel wanted to give to Berkeley University's computer department some money, let the government match it.  I know, even the Republican's are not going to get this creative.  But, the democrats should not pose the taxes in a spirit of the rich versus poor, but more like Kennedy when he asked what we could do to help our country. Anyway, the Republicans show too much reverence for the rich, the democrats perhaps too little.

In the lower Republican debate there was some talk of raising the minimum wage.  I am not too worried about them getting carried away on this issue ... but good that they at least acknowledged it as an issue. 

Finally, I like one Republican that even Republicans don't like, Rand Paul.  I mostly appreciate his idea that military engagement should only come after Congress declares war. Period.  The President just gets the job done.  Rand Paul was also the most professional on the stage, he discussed issues and he was the candidate everyone turned to information about the law or history.  Of course, loud mouths like Trump who has no practical plan on anything seems to be more in vogue for the Republicans.  Carson seems like a good guy too -- not a leader, but a good guy.  I didn't much care for the witch lady either.

Compassionate Release from Prison

Compassionate release is actually a program in the Federal Prison System and in 36 of the 50 states in the country.  In concept is simple, prisoners that are terminally ill (or in some cases chronically ill) are released from prison before they die so that they can die with family and friends. 

The state benefits because crowded prisons get some relief and the state gets out of some hospice care expenses.  The individual benefits since most prisoners actually do have someone at home that loves and misses them.  

To be considered, someone must petition the warden and/or medical staff in behalf of the prisoner. The decision is ultimately made by the parole board.  To be illegible the prisoner has to be considered not a threat to the community and in some cases states have guidelines on minimum time served and of course some can't leave because of minimum time served rules of their incarceration. In short, because of the law few people are actually illegible.

Who are the most likely candidates for this program.  Those in prison because of possession of an illegal drug but no history of other crimes or violence.  (One wonders why they are in prison in the first place when addiction is a disease, but we will ignore that for now.)  Well, it turns out that only about a thousand prisoners get considered each year and only about 10% of that group gets released.  In short, compassionate release is mostly compassion, not release.

We have a prison system full of an aging population that is on average in much poorer health than the general population.  Most are there from the prison-cures-all disease of the 90's especially with regard to drugs and mandatory minimum sentences. 

Of course, there is a lot of fear from the general population anytime someone is released from prison ... even if that person is going to die soon.  In the decision process, we do not put much value on the life of the prisoner and everyone is afraid of making a mistake in which someone on the outside is hurt or killed by early release even by a dying prisoner.  In my mind, we are disproportionately afraid of these dying prisoners than we are of the gangs that roam our country killing hundreds of people in our major cities every week. Oh yea, I forgot.  These are mostly blacks or hispanics in the slums so they don't count.  The irony of course is that most prisoners would go back to the neighborhoods to die. 

The compassionate release program comes down to a common problem in our country, not all lives are valued equally.  In fact, some lives appear to have little value in our society. 

Should Kim Davis be fired?

If you are hired to put cement bags on a truck and can't do it, then you are replaced/fired.  But what if you are hired to load 25 pound bags of sawdust and then they change your job to loading cement bags?  Then what?

But a better example might be when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus and the law was changed saying she didn't have to sit in the back.  What if the bus driver after the law was changed refused to drive the bus if African Americans were allowed to sit in the front half of the bus?  Should the bus driver be fired?

Well, should Kim Davis be fired because she is not doing her job? As I understand she is the county clerk and will not issue wedding license (or let anyone working for her) issue wedding licenses to gay people wanting to be married. It's interesting while she is jail from contempt of court from not issuing licenses to gays, her office is issuing licenses to gays. 

Could a compromise be reached where the judge orders the people working for Davis to continue issuing licenses to gays even when Davis gets out of jail? In short, could someone  take the veto power away from Davis? She could then follow her religion and gays could get their licensees.  Or do both sides just want to make a point and Davis is simply a pawn in the battle?  Usually there is a compassionate solution where each side can follow their conscience -- but, perhaps "being right" is more important than finding a compromise.