Hot Button Issues:
Hot Button Issues
1) Health Care. Those of my fellow Republicans who claim government involvement in Health Care means more
cost simply are lying. Medicare currently is the single most cost-effective program, public or private, in the USA
today. Rather than any of the plans which are being considered today, we need to expand and improve
Medicare to cover all households at incomes up to 5 times the regional Federal Poverty Level for that size of
household. Premiums and co-pays would go up with income. Senator Kennedy sought "Medicare for all" and the
reactionary wing of the Republican Party, in power in the Party since Newt Gingrich and the election of 1994,
have always sabotaged that simple and straight forward solution, with the result the annual per capita spending
on health care in the US is now over $7,500 ($30,000 per family of four), whereas it's only $2,500 per person per
year in New Zealand, which has Universal Care paid for out of General Revenue, with a $50 per capita co-pay for
every visit to a primary care physician. But there they still also have private insurance companies for all manner
of other care and also to cover the co-pays. So the public option doesn't drive the private sector out if the health
care insurance business -- it competes with it and makes it honest and fair!
Let's face it: the high cost of health care in the USA is driven by excessive insurance company profits, both
retained and distributed, which are invested into Wall Street to artificially jack up Stock prices -- which are still
higher on the whole than justified by their PE (Price:Earnings Ratio). The private sector has failed us on health
care. The government never gets involved in a sector of the economy until and unless the private sector fails --
which it usually does because of excessive greed and lust for power. Lincoln knew this well when he remarked in
the State House in Illinois, in a quote attributed to him by Carl Sandburg in his one volume summary of his multi-
volume biography of our greatest President. Lincoln said that: "These capitalists never want the government
involved in their business until they want the government to bail them out of some crisis they themselves have
caused."
More on health-care: I like Senator Landrieu (R-LA) compromise offer to Senator Reid's (D-NEV) proposal for a
public option to be triggered in if health insurance premiums and profits continue to rise and the health insurance
market continue to be dominated by a few big companies.
On the Past History of collusion between government and the private sector with the net result that we NOW
have a health-insurance and health-care crisis:
The Founding Fathers (and Mothers) DID NOT include political parties in the US Constitution. They viewed
excessive partisanship as the death of a Republic. Yet (up till now) the reactionary wing of our GOP has
behaved with juvenile partisanship in the health care debate.
Facts are: Medicare’s Administrative overhead is only 3%. Private insurers’ is over 25%. That’s before profits
are skimmed off to invest in the stock-market and lobby to keep insurance company exec’s average $10.1
million/year salaries! Other Businesses and workers have to absorb those costs as overhead, making our goods
and services about 30%-40% overpriced on the world market!
The health of our Republic depends on a healthy economy. Private health insurance was foisted on workers and
businesses during WW II as a gimmick to avoid wage-price-controls. The “private” health insurance industry has
failed us. We pay 3-4 times more for health care than any other nation, yet our health-care delivery system
ranks 37th! We DO NOT have the best health care system in the world, but only the 37th! 1-2 million people
lose their health insurance a year! Over 100,000 persons die needlessly each year due to denied care!
That’s why Tom Kuna, an Abe Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt/Ronald Reagan, bi-partisan-type Republican, supports
Senator Reid’s plan for a nationwide public-option which individual States may opt out of. I go further and
propose that it be Universally accessible Medicare, with premiums and co-pays pro-rated to incomes per family-
size on a regional basis. Senator Landrieu’s (R-LA) recent proposal that Senator Reid’s version of the public
option kick in after 5 years if private insurance premiums and profits continue to rise and the private market
continue to be dominated by a few big insurers. Help me so I can help you get affordable, high-quality health-
care! Please: GO TO MY WEB-SITE ( www.w-e-r-co.com ) and click the Paypal Donate Now Button under the
“About Us” Tab.
Please pledge to donate $5-$10 a month by Secure Automatic Funds Transfer. Or Send monthly donations to:
Tom Kuna-4-US Senate; PO Box 75; Jerseyville, Illinois, 62052-0075
2 On the Iraqi and Afghani Wars: the jury is still out on whether the US entry into Iraq was strategically wise.
The Jewish "Forward", published in New York City, had reported that Saddam Hussein had offered to recognize
Israel and neither Israel nor the US replied to the offer. The Israeli's hadn't wanted the US to incur into Iraq.
They relied on it as a buffer against expansionist Iran.
However, one must give credit to George W. Bush that he saw and sees the promotion of the republic form of
government throughout the earth as a more secure basis for US security and interests than the short-term
support of dictatorial regimes.
Whatever can be said about the Iraq situation, one must admit it has at last and a at least a functioning, more or
less secular-to-moderate Islamic republican set of institutions.
That might have happened by normal evolution under Saddam Hussein. Whether a modestly functioning republic
currently in a violent Iraq was worth 5,000 US war dead, many thousands injured, 700,000 Iraqi war dead and 4.5
million Iraqi refugees is doubtful. But development, investment and trade in the US-Iraqi relationship is growing.
On the whole, we should have stayed in Afghanistan and left Iraq under Saddam, but that's water under the
bridge. While the media reported before the Iraq war that S. Hussein had offered al-Qaeda a refuge in Iraq,
some years later, then Vice-President Cheney said there was no evidence of any connection between Saddam
Hussein and al-Qaeda.
But the acts of aggression against the US and our allies by small factions of Moslem fanatics -- ongoing for many
decades now -- cannot be denied. And it is likely to go on for many years more.
Yet our armed forces are stretched almost to the limit.
So I propose compulsory national service upon graduating high-school or at age 18 if one has not yet graduated
high school, but with the inductees having the option to join a branch of the Armed Services, or the Firefighters
and Emergency Corps; the Police Corp; the Health Care Corp; the Teacher Corp; the Agriculture Corp; the
Conservation Corp; or the Green and Clean Energy Corp, or, of course, the Peace Corps6
.
Many of our youth are growing up with a very licentious misunderstanding of freedom, whereas the Founding
Father and Mothers always meant lawful freedom, and freedom with family and community responsibility. And
every generation but those born since 1975 has been deeply trained in those values, both in the family and in
churches and schools, both public and private. Now we rely almost solely on families and churches for
responsible citizenship and can not longer count on our public schools to teach responsibility.
3) The US Statistical Abstracts from 1955 til 2004 show that the whole US political-economy has grown 3.13
times richer in the last 48 years, whereas the working and middle-class families have grown only 2.12 times
richer. They're getting a small share of the overall income in 2004 than they had gotten in 1955.
Moreover, the middle classes, defined as sole and small partner proprietorships and family businesses
employing nor more than 99 persons, have faced a wholesale price index increase of about 166.2 and gotten
gross profits relative to a consumer price index (which was about 173) for a net average increase in their
incomes of only about 5%. Not even doubled! But only increased by 5% in 48 years! No wonder the middle
classes are hopping mad!
Unfortunately, many of them blame the unions and working and welfare classes, whose incomes, while faring
better than those of the middle classes, have doubled in 48 years.
But overall income in the US has tripled in the last 48 years. Someone or some sector is getting more than their
fair share of the growth.
If we look at corporate profits, they have increased by 46.6 times! So it is the corporate elite that has gotten
richer at the expense of the rest of the political-economy.
Under Bush and Obama, this self-serving enrichment of, by and for CEOs and top executives of corporations has
reached the point where corporations have ceased being an instrument of expansion, and have become a drag,
a leach, on the rest of society, or a self-serving, sclerotic institution. "Instrument of expansion" and "self-serving
institution" are terms coined by Prof. Carroll Quigley (RIP). His good shorter book discussing these is "Evolution
of Civilizations"
It must be remembered the corporate leaching off of society at large constitutes market failure, and that this
started under G.W. Bush, not B. Obama. Corporate bail-outs were first devised by Republicans, even if
Democrats have recently carried them to new extremes.
The problem cannot be solved by more and more government regulation. That only leads to state-monopoly
capitalism, and Obama and the Congressional Democrats are clearly state-oligopoly capitalists, not socialists.
The problem lies in the very structure of the management function, and can only be solved by an International
Treaty mandating that every business entity, whether publicly or privately held, which employs 100 or more
workers, must have a Board of Directors of from 9 - 999, made up of 1/3 workers and affiliated farmers, working
for or selling to or buying from that firm, elected by those workers and farmers in secret ballots; 1/3 owners,
lenders to and insurers of that firm, elected by them in secret ballots; and 1/3 members of the general public,
elected by convention delegates in secret ballots, which delegates had been publicly selected by Economic
Councils of 9-9,999 elected by all residents aged 12 and above in each township, city, county, State, Province
and Nation where that firm have a facility.
This is the "three parts into which Babylon and the cities of the nations" shall fall, as Revelation 16:19 says.
That prophecy foretold the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon, and the attempted
attack thwarted by the brave passengers of Flight 93.
4) CLIMATE CHANGE: THE PEOPLE VS. CAP & TRADE
The People vs. Cap-and-Trade
Tom Kuna is changing his position from pro-cap and trade to pro-fee-and-dividend, as proposed by
climate scientist James Hansen in the Jan. 13, 2010 Issue of SolveClimate, as reprinted in www.
CommonDreams.org of that date, under the above title.
Tom freely quotes from that article:
Whether you believe that global warming is real or not, (and Scripture says it is: since it warns that
"the nations shall be distraught at the roaring of the sea and its waves" [Luke 21:25]), or man-caused
(anthropo-genic) or not, we can all agree that dirty fuels emit pollution of air, water and land, and that
the technologies for clean-energy are already available, and that the only thing hindering us from
rapid deployment of clean-energy is special vested interests in the old, dirty energy.
However, Cap-and-trade is NOT the solution.
"Cap-and-trade is a hidden tax. An accurate description would be cap-and-tax," [for the benefit of
International Finance capital, which has been plundering Haiti since 1910, and has begun to openly
plunder the US tax-payers and home-buyers] " because cap-and-trade increases the cost of energy
for the public, as utilities and other industries purchase the right to pollute with one hand, adding it
to fuel prices, while with the other hand they take back most of the permit revenues from the
government. Costs and profits of the trading infrastructure are also added to the public's energy bill.
"Fee-and-dividend, in contrast, is a non-tax. The fee collected at the first sale of oil, gas and coal in
the country does increase the price of fossil fuel energy. But 100 % of the fee is distributed monthly
to the public as electronic deposits to the bank account or debit card of all legal residents, with half
shares for children, up to two children per family.
"The dividend keeps families whole while providing an economic stimulus to boot. By the time the
fee reaches $115 per ton of carbon dioxide (equivalent to $1 per gallon of gasoline) the dividend will
be $2,000-$3,000 per legal resident per year - $6,000-$9000 for a family with two or more children.
"People who keep their carbon footprint smaller than average will make money. The fee will rise
gradually so people have a chance to choose more efficient vehicles, insulate their homes, and so
on. The dividend will help people afford these investments. Jobs will be created as society retools
the economy from high-carbon to low.
Basic fact: As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy their use will continue and even
increase.
"Consider the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated at a prior UN climate meeting in 1997. National
emissions of signatory countries were capped at some agreed levels. Nations evaded these limits by
purchasing "offsets" - putative but often illusory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from
developing countries. Offsets destroy the effectiveness of the agreement, because the scientific
requirement for stabilizing climate is that fossil fuel emissions are phased down rapidly. And some
nations just ignored the limits, because there was no realistic way to enforce them. However, the
funda-mental problem was that "Kyoto" did not increase the price of fossil fuels relative to non-
carbon energies.
"The handful of nations that claimed to have reduced their carbon emissions were joshing their
citizens and everybody else. They were just pretending to be "green". Manufacture of products
based heavily on fossil fuels simply moved to developing countries, which had no cap. Then
products were flown to the developing countries, while burning aircraft fuel that is untaxed because
of the 1940s agreement to support the fledgling airline industry.
"Prior to "Kyoto", global fossil fuel emissions were increasing 1.5 % a year. Afterward, they increased
3 % a year. Kyoto may not have caused the increase (although shifting production to developing
countries, often by coal-fired inefficient industries, with shipping to developed countries, did not
help), but it certainly did not stop it. [In other words, G.W. Bush was right not to sign on to "Kyoto").
"Now let's address the 3 main arguments [often] wielded by proponents of cap-and-trade.
Argument # 1: Cap-and-trade is the only way to get an agreement rapidly.
"That is a myth. In fact, every cap-and-trade regime has taken years to hammer out. Kyoto
negotiations dragged on a decade and were not completed. Individual countries had to be bribed to
participate, yet some still would not. And the result was not successful, as we have seen.
"Proposed cap-and-trade within the US would be even more complex than "Kyoto". The Waxman-
Markey and Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bills in Congress are larded with 2,000 pages of give-aways to
special interests, soaking the public who must pay higher energy prices.
"Fee-and-dividend, in contrast, is defined by a single number: the fee (tax) rate that the fossil fuel
companies must hand over at the first sale of oil, gas or coal. All the government must do is divide
this collected revenue by the number of legal residents and punch a button monthly to deliver the
dividend to the public.
"What is the chance that a US cap-and-trade law could be a precursor for a global agreement? Zero.
There is no chance that China will accept a cap. Nor should they. They are still in the early phase of
their economic development.
"But would China be willing to place a carbon fee on their fossil fuels? Yes, for many reasons. First,
China wants to avoid, or at least minimize, the problems of fossil fuel addiction that plague the United
States, such as the need for military protection of global supply lines. Second, China would be hit
hardest by climate change, with several hundred million people living close to sea level and a still-
enormous agrarian population. Third, air and water pollution from fossil fuels are a huge problem in
China.
"China is taking the right steps. They are investing heavily in energy efficiency, renewable energy...
threatening to take over technical and economic leadership as the US continues to dawdle. The
Chinese government knows that replacement of fossil fuels with energy efficient, renewable
energies ... requires a price signal (in addition to other more-target policies and investments).
"Compare the difficulty of negotiating national carbon fee (tax) rates with the difficulty of convincing
China that they should have a Waxman-Markey-like cap-and-trade. Because of our historical energy
profligacy, vs. China's energy penury, a US cap - even expressed as a %age reduction - has no moral
standing in China. On the other hand, the Chinese leadership appears to be smart enough to realize
that a rising carbon price is just what their country needs as the underpinning to policies aimed at a
clean energy future.
'International agreement require principally that the US and China [and India] agree to apply such
internal fees across the board on fossil fuels at the mine or port of entry. Agreement on such action
is in the best interest of all 3 countries, making it far easier to reach than agreements on caps.
"With the US and China [and India] acting on a carbon fee, Europe, Japan and other nations would
surely follow. Import duties based on standard amounts of fossil fuels used in production could be
applied to products from countries that did not have a carbon fee, removing any competitive
disadvantage from the fee and providing strong incentive for participation in the carbon fee.
Argument # 2 often raised by proponents of cap-and-trade:
"Proponents of cap-and-trade say that the fee-and-dividend Hansen proposes is "essentially
equivalent to cap-and-trade. We do not dispute the economic theory that a cap and a fee are, in
principle, equivalent. But cap-and-trade's complexity allows special interests to take over, killing its
effectiveness.
"The devil is in the implementations, as Hansen discusses in his book "Storms of My Grandchildren".
He believes lay people can appreciate the differences. Cap-and-trade's complexity is a breeding
ground for special interests. A fee at the mine, wellhead or port of entry, with distribution of
proceeds to the public, has a great advantage in simplicity. Let us not here its superiority in
transparency and fairness.
"One can appreciate the difference in transparency by comparing the 2,000-page Waxman-Markey
cap-and-trade bill with the simplicity of a single fee (tax) rate on fossil fuels. With a fee-and-dividend
we know who gets the money - equal amounts to legal residents. But try reading the Waxman-Markey
2,00-page bill to figure out who would get the money! Why do those special interests deserve it
anyhow? [Kuna adds here that he would deduct 5-10% of the fee from the dividend payout and have
that go to funding the retraining of coal, oil and natural-gas workers to own, build and manage de-
centralized solar-thermal power plants throughout the nations using the solar-thermal technology
developed by www.ausra.com . And that in companies 1/3 worker-owned; 1/3 stockholder-owned;
and1/3 government owned (by the cities, counties and States (or Provinces) and Nations where such
Ausra type plants may be built]
"Regarding fairness, Hansen notes that there is a variant of fee-and-dividend preferred by Al gore.
He would use the money collected by the fee to reduce payroll taxes, rather than give US residents a
dividend. It seems to Hansen and Kuna that a payroll tax deduction fails the fairness text, because
half of adults are not on payrolls, being either retired or out of work involuntarily.
"However, some economist also prefer a payroll tax deduction. Their argument is that reducing taxes
on employment creates jobs and stimulates the economy. [It seems to Kuna that a payroll tax
deduction gives the dividend mainly to the employed at highly paid jobs, to the rich, and none
whatever to the many workers who are in low-paying jobs, and who have families, and so get a 100%
refund on their income taxes already anyway, and so would not benefit from the dividend payout from
the fee. But they have houses that need insulating and thermal windows and CFL or LED light-bulbs,
and they use cars, too!] [However, Hansen] supposes that using half the collected fee to reduce
payroll taxes would be an acceptable compromise. However, it would be important to be certain that
the payroll tax deduction is real and matches the fee collection. With a dividend it is easier to be sure
that the government is coughing up the full amount.
Argument # 3 of the cap-and-trade proponents
[Hansen and Kuna say that carbon-trading will be an open invitation to Wall Street to again pillage the
financial system]. Proponents of cap-and-trade say our point "is bizarre". What is bizarre, in our
opinion is their implicit assumption that government regulators can [or will even always try] to outwit
Wall Street executives.
"Congress can write a cap-and-trade bill that tries to exclude Wall Street. But to think that Wall Street
will not get involved in carbon profits, directly or indirectly, is naïve. This is a free country. Wall
Street banks can buy the companies most effected by carbon price.
"Notice what happened after we bailed out the big banks? They decided the chump-change in loans
to home-owners wasn't worth their trouble. Instead they went to trading - in the stock market -
making billions. Their secretive trading units are good, very good; there is a reason that they get big
bonuses.
"Wall Street and the big banks took us to the cleaners once - shame on them. If we allow Congress to
pass cap-and-trade, letting the banks do it to us again - shame on us.
"Trading schemes make sense only when they provide added value. Carbon trading provides mostly
added cost. What we need is a transparent, honest approach that benefits the public.
The Fundamental Requirement
"We can cure our fossil fuel addiction and in the process reduce emissions that cause climate
change [faster than it happens by the natural Milankovitch cycle]. It requires that we take actions for
the public interest, not for special interests.
"What we need is an approach that addresses the fundamental fact that keeps us addicted to fossil
fuels: they are [partly because of hidden tax-loopholes that must be closed] the cheapest form of
energy, provided their prices do not have to include the damage they do to human health, the
environment and the future of our children.
"For the sake of the people, especially young people, there should be a rising price on carbon
emissions. The price should rise at a known economically sensible rate, so that businesses have
time to plan investments accordingly. The money collected should be put in the hands of the public,
so that they are able to make the purchases necessary to reduce their carbon footprint.
"The money collected should not be used by Congress to invest in energy R&D. It has been shown
time and again that Congress does not invest efficiently, and certainly not compared to the private
sector. Pri-vate sector investments will be made if a rising price of carbon emissions is legislated
through a carbon fee that makes the rising price explicit. The government already has resources to
support research - it should not steal fee-and-dividend money from the public.
"Contrary to claims of mainstream environmental groups and others politically invested in cap-and-
trade, the legislative train has not left the station. There is time to negotiate and pass a simple
transpar-ent bill that is in the interest of the public. It should be a bi-partisan bill that can be
supported by conservatives.
"Congress is accustomed to working with special interests. There is a revolving door between
Congress and lobbyists. Ex-members know the Washington ropes. The lobbyists wrote most of the
pages in the 2,000-page bills in Congress.
"We, the public, cannot allow politics-as-usual to steamroll this topic. It is too important for the health
of our economy, our children and the other life on the planet [which is mainly migrating northward
due to global warming]. Fortunately, there are members of Congress who are beginning to
understand the problem and move in the direction to address it.
"Rep. John Larson's bill, with a rising carbon fee, addresses half the task. The rate at which the fee
rises in this bill is perhaps too slow, but the important point is to provide the business community
and the public some certainty that carbon prices will rise so they can make decisions and
investments accordingly,
"Sen. Maria Cantwell's cap-and-dividend bill also addresses half the solution - distributing 100 % of
the proceeds to the public as a dividend. However, it is just as important to dispense with the "cap"
approach, still present in the Cantwell bill, as it is with the "trade" aspect.
"A cap is more complex than a fee (dollars per ton of CO2, applied uniformly at the source), so a cap
is more subject to jerry-rigging by special interests. But the fundamental reasons to remain dead-set
against the cap approach are these:
"(1) Caps inherently cause prices to fluctuate wildly. Even if legislators attempt to outsmart the
market by building in limits on the fluctuations, there is still uncertainty in the impact on energy
prices. Business people need to have confidence about how prices will change in the future. Ditto,
the public. If they expect prices to be fluctuating they are not as likely to make the lifestyle decisions
that are needed to move us toward the cleaner future beyond fossil fuels.
"(2) A cap-and-dividend approach is not a route to a global agreement. There is no way that
developing countries such as China or India can accept a cap, given their state of development. The
US should be a global leader. The way to do that is to demonstrate an understanding of the global
problem and provide leadership by example in solving it."
(See the article in www.CommonDreams.org for links to further information.