The saying used to go, “Honesty is the best policy.” That has evidently gone out the window. Senator Clinton’s “memory” of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire has proven to be a bad call on her part. The thing which puzzles me, is her  explaining it away as saying she “mis-spoke” and how it makes her look more “human.”  They also used to say that “Birds of a feather flock together” and this whole thing reminds me of a “past President” who didn’t know if he had sex or not. If you or I “mis-spoke” during a job interview and were caught, we would (rightfully) be labeled a liar and not get the job.

 

            How can any candidate or elected official expect the voter to have confidence in them when they feel that being caught in a lie makes them “appear more human?” How can any country trust us when our leaders lie to get elected and don’t care if they get caught? Most importantly, why do people continue to support a person they know will tell a blatant lie just to get what they want? Are we as a society that gullible? Are we that desperate to have our egos stroked, and be told we will be taken care of? If that is the case, we deserve what we get, and we are getting it in this election. The history lessons of having presidents with legendary honesty has become a thing of the past. I imagine George Washington and Abe Lincoln  are rolling in their graves...

The front page of http://www.bobkinford.com has a picture of what our presidential selection looks like. If you like it, it is now on available on shirts at our campaign store at http://www.caffepress.com/bob_kinford

 

            I have been wondering why, with all of the election babble on energy reform, why all of the energy bills in Congress and state legislatures, seem to just give money to oil, gas, and utility companies. Two weeks ago, I sent the following email to Texas Senators, the State Senator and Representative in my West Texas District, and the Governor of California:

 

            Why, with all of the technology available, has there not been a law passed REQUIRING a combination solar/wind electrical generation system on ALL new houses and apartment complexes? This would reduce our dependency on fossil fuels as well as prevent or reduce wide spread power outages from storms (or terrorists).

            To further reduce our dependence on foreign oil, why not pass legislation requiring all new cars to run on straight alcohol (like  NASCAR ). This could be easily accomplished if you would repeal the law against growing industrial hemp (which is not a drug). This would further reduce our dependence on oil as plastics can be made from the residual hemp after being distilled.

 

            The only response I received from any of the officials was an auto response from Governor Schartzenhagger’s office informing me that I needed to route my message to the California Department of Energy. The Senators from Texas, as well as the state Senator and Representative from my district here in West Texas, failed to even send a courtesy auto responder generated message.   

 

            It is evident that the only interest our officials, not only in Washington, but also at the state level, have no real interest in “we the people” other than conning us out of our vote during election year. Otherwise energy bills would be written to benefit the people rather than just bail out the oil, gas, and utility companies while telling the rest of us to conserve energy.  

            The solar and wind power technologies have improved dramatically in the last twenty years. Bulky and unsightly solar panels have been replaced with roofing material and siding which generates electricity as an integral component of your house’s structure that actually pays for itself over time.  

 

            If you believe that it is in the best interest of the people of our country to be providing their own power to eliminate a power grid, download the petition at  http://bobkinford.com/state_initiative_solutions.html and circulate it. Remember to check with your Secretary of State to see how many signatures you will need to get it on the ballot. A list of Secretary of States is available at http://www.bobkinford.com/links.html

 

  

The following is an email I sent to BOTH Texas Senators, my Texas State Representative, Texas State Senator, and just for grins and giggles, the Governor of California. Of course, my next post will have their responses (or lack thereof)

Why, with all of the technology available, has there not been a law passed REQUIRING a combination solar/wind electrical generation system on ALL new houses and apartment complexes? This would reduce our dependency on fossil fuels as well as prevent or reduce wide spread power outages from storms (or terrorists).

To further reduce our dependence on foreign oil, why not pass legislation requiring all new cars to run on straight alcohol (like  NASCAR ). This could be easily accomplished if you would repeal the law against growing industrial hemp (which is not a drug). This would further reduce our dependence on oil as plastics can be made from the residual hemp after being distilled.

Sincerely,
Robert Kinford
http://www.bobkinford.com

            It is election year and once again, the Great American Con Game is in full swing. Prevaricating elocutionists are causing hurricanes of promises they cannot possibly fulfill. It begins with two contests, Repubican Vs. Republican, and Democrat vs. Democrat. After the conventions, it becomes a two-way race of Republican vs. Democrat. But what then?

Are there really any new or different ideas? Do any of these candidates (or anyone in the legislative process) really write their own “plans” without the help of lobbyists for big business and special interest groups?

            They claim they are all the champion of the working class (because that is where the most votes lie). They pass minimum wage legislation because they are “concerned” about the poor. They pass environmental laws because they are “concerned” about the poor. Then they pass “free trade” agreements allowing big businesses to fire the poor in this country so they can move production to other countries, giving them a free pass to circumvent the labor and environmental laws in this country (while raising prices to those they just laid off). This practice of “providing” for the working person while protecting those with the biggest campaign contributions has been with us for a long time.

            Our energy crisis is a prime example. Technology exists that would, if implemented, make energy concerns a non-issue. Henry Ford was perhaps the first person who actively pursued agriculture-based fuels for automobiles. While methyl alcohol can be distilled from a wide variety of plants, Mr. Ford used industrial hemp (which was used in making rope) and had developed plastic from the by products. Of course, Congress ensured that petroleum and chemical companies  would not be effected by passing legislation to make industrial hemp illegal. By repealing the law and making industrial hemp a legal crop, our dependence on oil for fuel (and plastics) would drop dramatically.

            The technology also exists so that every home in America could be supplying its own electricity. All new home construction could contain a combination solar/wind generation system to power itself.  Rather than having a power grid with massive power outages during major storms, the majority of people would still have power. Instead of downsizing the power grid and making it more efficient, Congress wants to help power companies “bring it up to date.”  Which would be the most beneficial to the public? Spending our tax money assisting the power companies, or helping us lower our electrical costs while eliminating the costs of widespread power outages?

            Another big issue is health care. A recent issue of the AARP magazine had an article on medical tourism. It seems that many Americans (those who can afford it) are traveling to other countries for major medical procedure because it is less expensive. Apparently, some insurance companies are even covering the treatments done in some foreign countries. Why is it that, not just the procedure, but also the drugs are cheaper in other countries? Why is it that the drug companies have one price of the U.S.A. and lower prices for the rest of the world?

            The best example I have in how much we are being exploited by the drug companies is the drug dexamethasone. When using this drug on cattle or horses, I can buy a 100cc bottle through my veterinarian for five and a half dollars. When my son was born prematurely in 2003, he was given the same drug at a cost of over a hundred dollars a cc. This is a mark up of two thousand times. Why is this? Because our politicians in Washington allow it. How can these presidential candidates look us in the face and say they “have the solution to our health care” when they are the root cause of the costs?

            The recent debacle in mortgage foreclosures is another prime example. The only reason this situation could occur is because federal banking laws allowed it. What would be the simplest, least costly way to rectify the situation? Pass legislation requiring the lending institutions to lower the rates back to the original amount for the life of the loan. The lending companies could do this themselves without being forced to but they apparently would rather take the losses (and own the properties foreclosed upon.)

            There is a great deal of quibbling amongst the candidates as to who is the most qualified, and who has the most experience. Each one of them claims to be the one with the best interest of the middle and lower class people in mind. Yet these are the same people who pass minimum wage laws then ratify treaties allowing big business to move production and exploit workers in foreign countries. These are the same people who will spend our tax money on power companies so they can raise our rates rather than making it possible to provide our own power at a lower cost. These are the same people who allow drug companies to over charge us. How is it that electing any one of these people would benefit “we the people?”  Our government is supposed to be “by the people, for the people.” It has become by the attorneys for big business and special interest groups. It is the people with the experience who have caused the problems we have. 

            One thing that makes our country great is that the people do have a voice. One thing that detracts from our greatness is that we have many people who complain, but do nothing. Talk show hosts, both right and left wing, and bloggers complain about what the other side is doing wrong. There are two problems with this. First, neither side is really doing anything about the problems. Secondly, complaining without taking action is being a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. The other thing which makes this country great is that, in theory, nearly anyone could become president.

            This is why I have decided to run as an independent presidential candidate. I may be the ultimate underdog as well as ultimate Washington outsider. A ranch cowboy making twenty four thousand a year taking on the prevaricating elocutionists of Washington. Perhaps I am distantly related to Don Quixote, but at least I’m giving it a shot. If you are dissatisfied with the present solutions, join me at http://www.bobkinford.com 

                         

 

            I have received some criticism about my petition to ban attorneys from serving in Congress or as President. It is not that I hate attorneys or that I think they all need to sample cement overshoes in the middle of the Atlantic. I have actually known a few attorneys I enjoyed being around. I have even known one who actually worked to reduce crime by starting the original Neighborhood Watch in Albuquerque, New Mexico. My prejudice is actually in the way they ply their profession.

            Being a good attorney is not synonymous with being honest, or having an interest in justice. District attorneys build their reputation not on justice, but on the number of convictions they make. Defense attorneys build their reputations on how many people they successfully defend. It is no longer true that the truth shall set you free. The winning side of any case is not necessarily the side which is right or just, but he side which prevaricates the truth enough to convince the jury or judge.  The saying used to be that it was not if you won or lost, it was how you played the game. Today, winning the case (game) has become more important than playing the game fair, and even more important than that of justice itself.  

 

            The most vivid example I can think of is OJ Simpson. Bloody glove and all, his attorneys managed to twist the truth enough to give jurors that thread of doubt to get him pronounced innocent. However, in the civil suit for wrongful death, he was found liable. He cannot be innocent and guilty at the same time, so which is it? Did his team of attorneys in the murder trial win an innocent verdict for a guilty man, or did the attorneys in the civil suit twist the truth enough to convince the jury that he had indeed committed murder? Either way you look at it, one of the teams of attorneys had to have prevaricated the truth enough to acquire a verdict from the jury that was wrong. When these people decide to get into politics, they bring their practices of prevaricating the truth, and attitudes of winning the game in any way they can rather than a sense of honesty and justice.

 

            This attitude shows through in the campaigns with the negative advertising, name-calling and the way they respond to the press when they try to get a straight answer. Recently Hillary Clinton, when cornered about spinning “her plan” for the “economic stimulus” package to mirror Obama’s she changed her answer three times. When the interviewer asked her what she was saying, she ended the interview by replying, “I’m not saying anything at all.”

 

            When it comes to integrity and false advertising, former President Clinton wins the top prize.  He ran a national ad campaign in the last week of his first presidential campaign stating the economy was the worst shape it had been in since “great depression.”  Somehow, Americans seemed to forget about the Jimmy Carter years where unemployment was pushing 10%, inflation was over 20% and interest rates were in the teens. He should have been prosecuted under the truth in advertising laws. Instead, this prevarication of the truth won him the election.

 

            This occupational requirement of prevaricating the truth, and making deals based upon those prevarications, becomes habit that prevents simple, straightforward negotiations on creating new law, amending of old ones, or in creating free trade agreements.  There is precedent in not allowing attorneys to hold office in Congress. It is the clause that prevents a convicted felon from holding office as President or in Congress. If our Founding Fathers saw fit to prohibit criminals from holding office, should it not be our duty to prevent habitual prevaricators from holding those offices as well?

 

 

           

 

           

 

 

             

 

Health Care

Why candidates in The Great American Con Game cannot fix it

 

            Hillary Clinton says she will fix our health care system. Barack Obama says he can fix it better.  The fact is that neither of them will “fix” anything. Either of them will change system, but there are some serious issues as to why neither of their plans will actually do anything to lower the cost of health care in the United States. The reason is very simple when you stop and think about it rather than get emotional about the issue.

 

             You cannot solve a problem until you know what the cause(s) of the problem are. As with most problems of the self-inflicted kind, no one in the government can look in the mirror and see himself or herself as a part of the problem. Are drug companies, insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors regulated? Yes, they are, and guess who creates the legislation to regulate them. Congress does. Who are the people claiming to have the plan to fix health care? The very people who have been regulating it in the first place. Until Congress can look itself in the eye and realize that it is the cause of our health care problems, the problems will not be fixed. The problems in our health care system are multi-layered and Congress is at the center of every layer.

           

            Nearly everyone agrees the cost of health care in the United States is dramatically higher in the United States than either Canada or Mexico. Just how much so is astounding. A prime example was when I was working in Montana on the Canadian border. I injured my leg, and as the closest medical facility was i across the border in Canada. The total cost of the visit (including doctor’s fees for stitching my leg, admittance, and drugs) was under $50. In the United States, we pay that much just for the local anesthesia. It does not stop there. I have worked in the livestock industry for over thirty years. We use many of the same drugs in cattle that are administered to people for respiratory illness. If it cost twenty-five dollars to treat on a three hundred pound calf on a five-day treatment, we consider it an expensive medicine. This is about the same as treating two average sized people. The drug dexamethasone, purchased through a veterinarian, costs roughly five and a half cents per mil-liter. It your child is born prematurely, he/she will be administered the same medicine for a hundred dollars a mil-liter. Even giving consideration to the fact there are different strengths of this drug the markup for the higher strength (at $0.25 per ml) is still a four hundred percent markup

            Over charging the American people for drugs is just one layer. While I have nothing against drug or insurance companies making a profit, a four hundred-time markup is more akin to robbery than it is to profit. If drug companies make a profit on the drugs they sell in Canada and Mexico, they should be able to sell them at the same price here in the United States and still make a decent profit. 

            Another layer is malpractice suits and the costs of malpractice insurance that is passed on to the consumer through higher prices in actual medical costs, and medical insurance as well.  The biggest problem with malpractice suits is that the insurance companies want to save the money of going to trial so they settle out of court. This protects doctors from actually being found, in court, of being negligent. It also encourages attorneys to take on frivolous malpractice suits on a contingency basis because the odds show that it will be settled out of court. Congress needs to pass legislation demanding that all malpractice suits go to trial and that if the doctor is not found guilty, that the attorney filing the suit cover all court costs and legal fees.

            Along this same line, currently if a doctor loses their license due to malpractice in one state, they simply go to another state, get a new license and start over. Congress needs to pass legislation requiring all doctors to have a federal license to practice medicine. Before a state could issue a license to practice medicine they would need to cross reference the doctor with the federal data base. In this manner, a doctor guilty of malpractice could not just start over in another state.

            The third layer is health insurance. While the advertised purpose of health insurance companies is to provide you with health care, the real reason behind these companies is for them to turn a profit for their shareholders. When you buy a policy, the company is gambling that you will pay more into the system than you take out. Your premiums are combined with those of others buy from them as well as other investments they make in order to hedge against their losses.  Most will not pay for pre-existing conditions because that is a bad bet. Your pre-existing condition assures them that they will have to pay out more than you will put into the program. This is a perfectly understandable practice. However, setting limits on how much they will pay, or canceling your policy, if and when you do have a catastrophic illness shows only a concern for the bottom line and not for the customer. The bottom line is that cancellation should only occur if a client does not pay the premiums for reasons other than catastrophic illness. There needs to be provisions made to protect the policies of those who become so sick they cannot work enough to pay their policy premiums.

            Along the same lines, if you lose your job, you also lose your company provided insurance.  Help is available with the COBRA plan, but it is expensive and unaffordable for many of those being forced to live on unemployment while searching for another job. It is just another quasi safety net to make it look like the government understands, and is taking action on the problem. Something needs to be done to assure that if one loses their job, that their company provided insurance would not lapse. Legislation could be passed to continue covering employer provided insurance through unemployment.

 

            Another big cost of health care is advertising prescription drugs. Billions of dollars are spent by drug companies advertising in multi media formats like modern day snake oil salespersons. Drugs are advertised along with their symptoms to get people to visit their doctors and ask for the drug. It should be the other way around. If you don’t feel well and go to the doctor, you should be able to tell him/her what your symptoms are and he should tell you what kind of drug you need.  These advertisements only add to the healthcare problem by increased costs, and by instilling general hypochondria in the general population.

 

            While this is but a short version of the problems with our health care system, it shows some of the biggest flaws. It also demonstrates that, at the middle of each problem, is our very own Congress. Before Congress can develop a health care program there is a list of things they need to do:

1. Determine the cost of drugs in neighboring countries
2. Regulate drug costs in this country to be more in line with our neighbors to the north and south of us (as well as in line with the rest of the world.)
3. Have a national program to register doctors and keep doctors who lose their license from starting practice in a new state
4. Prevent malpractice lawsuits from being settled out of court, with the attorney filing the case paying court costs and doctor’s legal expenses.
5. Standardize insurance policies
6. Pass legislation to preventing insurance companies from canceling policies for any reason other than non-payment (for reasons other than hospitalization or being disabled from medical conditions)
7. Pass legislation preventing insurance loss from job loss by paying premiums through unemployment benefits
8. Cut billions out of the cost of drugs by prohibiting the advertising of prescription drugs

 

            Congress could, and should have addressed all of the above items to lower the price of healthcare. Yet they have not been addressed. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both claim to have the cure for our healthcare crisis yet they have not mentioned any of the above problems within our healthcare system. Before you can fix anything, you have to know what the problem is. Fixing our healthcare system by instituting a national healthcare system (paid for by taxpayers) is akin to painting a car to fix a faulty transmission. It may look better from the outside, but it does not fix the problem. The only way to fix the problem is to actually address the issues causing the problems. While this is only a partial list of what needs to be done, it does address the real problems behind our healthcare issues. These are all problems which need to be addressed by Congress. The only way to get Congress to look at the situation in a different manner is to change Congress. We need to level the power base in Washington.

 

            The only way of doing this is to set term limits on all Washington held elected offices. This is a Constitutional amendment we can make as provided by article V of the Constitution You may visit my website and download a copy of a petition to do just that from my Constitutional Conventions page.  Be sure to read the requirement for this petition to be legal. Check the threads in the forum. If there is not one for circulating the petition in you state, start one by clicking on “post” and you will be able to start the thread.  Inform all of the people in your email address book about this campaign and urge them to join and notify their friends and family.

            Government for the people, by the people is dependent upon the people. If we do not take individual action for change, we will be dependent upon change from those whose main interest is their own power, and their own place in history. We have the tools imbedded in our Constitution to change our government for the better. We also have the tools of communication to efficiently use those tools. The only way our government can go against our will, is for us to allow it. If we do not work towards change, than we cannot complain when government does not follow our wishes.

 

            Next week, why we need to prevent lawyers from being legislators.

            Conventional wisdom is often wrong. CW said that man would never fly, that space travel was impossible, and that Custer would tame the Wild West. CW also says you can’t fight city hall. I guess CW forgot this country began with a bunch of citizens taking on the most powerful “City Hall” of that time and kicking their posteriors clear back to England.

           

            People talk, argue, complain and blog about our problems, yet take no real action.  As long as we remain complaining, yet passive we will not accomplish anything. If we do not become active in instituting needed change in government, we, ourselves are a part of the problem. Our government was designed on the premise of self-rule. Yet the only time we seem to take any action other than to complain, is to complain through our vote, or lack of it. We have instant communication to inform others of actions we can take, or are taking, to change government, yet all we use this ability for is to complain or to send the daily joke. We do not use the tools the founders of this country so wisely bestowed upon us. I have decided that it is time to use our new found tools for the purpose of actual change.

 

            Perhaps I’m a modern day Don Quixote, but I think now is the time to take on City Hall. Our politicians are no longer public servants, but prevaricating elocutionists serving big business and special interest groups, not their constituents. They have transformed election year into the Great American Con Game, promising to help the poor and middle class, while taking care of their rich power pimps in big business. For example, take our country’s energy policies. Last year Congress debated (with the light bulb manufacturers) about how much we could save with new energy efficient light bulbs. They passed legislation telling us what kind of light bulbs we will be using to save energy. They debate of how to modernize the electrical energy grid in this country, and as to how much of our tax money will be given to the utility companies so this can happen.

 

             As I am writing this, there are several hundred thousand people in the Pacific Northwest without power. There are also between ten and twenty thousand more without power here in Texas. Last summer there were power outages affecting millions of people. Why? The federal government wants us to believe it is because the power grid needs to be modernized (so they can give more money to their utility company benefactors). The fact is, the grid should only be supplying minimal power at this point. The vast majority of homes in this country could be supplying their own electricity through a combination of solar/wind power generation systems. Even high rise apartment complexes and office buildings could be supplying a large part of their own electricity by this method. Why hasn’t Congress, or individual states, required this to be a part of all new buildings? If we can afford to give our tax money to utility companies so that they can modernize the grid and/or their power plants, why can’t our tax money be returned to us when we make our homes self sufficient? They do it simply because they receive more campaign contributions from utility companies than they do from individual taxpayers. How do we change this?

            Thirty-four states have the process of ballot initiatives whereby the citizens petition their state legislatures. The process is actually quite simple.

1.      The signers must be registered voters

2.      Must have signer’s printed name

3.      Must have signer’s signature

4.      Must have signer’s address

5.      Must have date of signature

6.      When numbers requirement has been met, must be turned into the Secretary of State (and you should have 3 or 4% extra in case of invalid signers)

 

           I have on my website a boilerplate petition which can be used in any state, calling for new housing to contain solar/wind power generation systems to be energy self sufficient. I also have public forums set up so that you can start threads to organize in your state to begin circulating this petition. Getting the word out is the easy part. Download the petition and circulate it.   Contact the people in your email address book. Ask them to download the petition and circulate it to the people they come in contact with, and to send their filled petitions to you.  I have forums set up on my website. Start a thread about circulating the petition, and organize within that media to get the signed petitions to your Secretary of State. My, or should I say our, site also has a links page containing links to all of the Secretary of States so you can find the particular requirements for your particular state.

 

           Next  entry will be about why the federal government, in its present form, cannot fix health care. In the meantime, don't be a part of the problem, be a passive part of the problem, be an active part of the solution