Former House and Senate members have written to candidates to "conduct campaigns ... with decency and respect toward opponents, to be truthful in presenting information about self and opponents, to engage in good faith debate about the issues and each other's record, to refrain from personal attack, and if elected, to behave in office according to these principles." Nice words indeed, but lacking the credibility it could have had because it makes no nod toward the role that special interests and action committees have in framing the debate and in shaping the politics of destruction and inertia so much in vogue. The veteran lawmakers couldn’t take on these mercenaries, because they come from the same moneyed interests. No biting the hand that fed, so to speak. We need a “Compact with America” to codify our elected representatives’ behavior. The Contracts and Pledges we have seen brought won’t do it. We need commitment and honest behaviors.

"Timing is everything" in politics as in life. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is seizing an opportune moment to transition into the mode of promoting his candidacy for Mayor of his beloved city. With the likely narrowing of the Democrat margins in Congress, he must sense that it isn't going to get any easier to do his job in the White House and that his own agenda is now Job One. He may feel (and the President agrees) that he has done all he is able to for this Administration. Emanuel's interim successor Pete Rouse should have a very interesting few months while the new realities of partisan balance evolves.

Great links in this story, thanks. Don't forget the political capital that flows when businesses and individuals contribute to the favorite charities of candidates. That doesn't get our votes, but it surely influences the elected person's votes on legislation favored/disfavored by the "charitable" giver. A few questions should be asked of candidates about that. Like, "What are your favorite charities and what do you know about their donor base?"

My personal experience as a retired Navy Supply Corps officer informs my thinking on most of what Admiral Mullen touched on in the Monitor Breakfast discussion today. When I began receiving Social Security payments 23 years after military retirement, my participation in Medicare and in Tricare military retired benefits kicked in. My employers and I had provided for health and dental coverage up until then.

First a few facts: Tricare for retirees is a "secondary payer" that covers out-of-pocket expenses, co-insurance and deductible amounts set by the Medicare program. Medicare Part B has a premium that is means tested and increases are not tied to the cost of living index that Social Security relies on. Premiums go up, even when SS payments do not. The Part D prescription drug coverage is provided instead by Tricare. Also, Tricare Retiree Dental Program premium rates are adjusted upward each October 1st.

Admiral Mullen is correct in the abstract, but rather than sharp shoot at the static co-pays as the culprit, a stronger and more appropriate response is needed. That would be to reconsider the entire retiree benefits structure that is today essentially a defined benefit plan. It needs to migrate to a more fiscally sound defined contribution plan with market-based co-pays and premiums and means testing.

All of us should keep in mind that the basic pension, disability benefits, and survivor benefits are not an extravagant gift from a grateful nation. They are, rather, an integral part of the entire military compensation package. If we can find a way to transition them to a defined contribution plan from the present defined benefit plan, we should do it.

Coffee prices going up, and now this! Maybe it's time to cut back after all!
http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20100919/NEW...

There are many brushstrokes on the canvas this document portrays. Focusing on just one: the plan to "repeal and replace health care reform" described on page 27 of the Pledge document in the link, and we see their "big improvement" to health care. It provides that we do exactly what's in the current health care law. In their words:

"Health care should be accessible for all, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses. We will expand state high-risk pools, reinsurance programs and reduce the cost of coverage. We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick."

The plan to replace health care seems only to be to change President Obama's signature to John Boehner's signature.

It's all just conversation until November 2nd. The party in power usually loses seats during a president's first mid-term, but with nutty "tea-publicans" winning their primaries, it's not a certainty that republicans will take over the house or senate this election cycle. I'm wondering if this is not just a Pledge to Nowhere?

Having Stephen Colbert testify certainly brought some direct attention to the issues related to Protecting America's Harvests. Just as we would have welcomed testimony by Will Rogers or Mark Twain in their day, we should pay attention to this topic today. Elevating awareness was accomplished, but what about the substance of his and any others’ testimony? Can we see a story or two about that?

From the introduction to “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine:

"…Time makes more converts than reason…and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed… they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both (the President and Congress), and equally to reject the usurpations of either... , they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either."

In this respect, Paine might agree with the approach today as we collectively “inquire into the pretensions… and reject the usurpations” seen in the current government and laws. Today’s protest document and pledge tries to do this.

Many of the Busy Majority will likely Tivo the event, or rely on tweets from the less busy on site to convey the essential points being made by the various speakers, who may be there live or in video feeds themselves. I was not too busy to watch all three-plus hours of the Glen Beck “Restoring Honor” rally, and I will not be too busy to watch “Restoring Sanity.” Think about it, Honor and Sanity are decent garments for all of us to wear. If we are not listening and thinking about the message of each point of view, we may not be doing our job as Americans to be as fully informed as we can be. Humor, satire, and even sarcasm have their place in the discussion. I wonder if it will turn out to be a Will Rogers moment?

Recently in Cleveland: 4.75% 30-yr, 80% LTV.
Some history: 1966 in Boston, 5.75% 30-yr, 80% LTV; sold in 1971 and buyer paid 7.5% 25-yr, 70% LTV!