Contribute, look dumb, fear not, repeat.

Last night I actually sat down and watched part of the Democratic debate.  I was hoping for some engaging discussion about how to differentiate Hillary from Obama.  Instead it was a tabloid hash out.  The Washington Post was dead on with their assessment.  Instead of probing the candidates about how they would handle large issues that affect the future of the country like health care, the budget, Iraq, the falling dollar, immigration, and legislative gridlock, ABC decided to pander to the Enquirer crowd.  Most of what I could stand to watch was arguing over sound bites, who said what about whom, who was electable, and which friend of yours said something nasty about the other side.  All of it useless and mostly irrelevant to how each potential leader would handle the future of this country.

However, there is a ray of hope, at least spoken about by some.  Tim Robbins' speech at the National Association of Broadcasters meeting in Las Vegas this month offers a compelling vision, which is at the heart of why networks run debates like a high school lunch room instead of a forum for deciding the future of the American nation.  The speech was considered highly controversial.  After listening to it, the fact that it was considered controversial is at the root of the problem.

So instead of complaining, create, make something good for others to be inspired by.  The above is certainly my share of complaint, and Tim's speech is in my opinion something to be inspired by.

I am an avid reader of Foreign Policy, and there is an awakening article in the March|April issue titled Iraq's 100 - Year Mortgage.  Healthcare is the leading category on our checks in the United States for a lot of reasons which I won't go into here.  It's no surprise that heath care costs for Veterans are a contributing portion of that pie.  Currently the US spends approximately $280 Billion per year funding the Iraq war.  I'm not here to judge whether that expense is justified or not.  There are good reasons on both sides of the argument for that expense.  The long term cost however goes unnoticed by most I believe.

According to Linda J. Bilmes research, medical technology has allowed the wounded to killed (US troops only) in Iraq to achieve a 7:1 ratio, up from 2:1 in WWII, and 2.6 in Vietnam.  More surviving troops is a great thing.  The cost associated with their long term medical care is something that is not often considered.  The medical costs for the 1991 invasion in terms of all the care that veterans of that war will expend is sighted as five times more than the cost of moving the gear, pulling the triggers, and moving it back.  Iraq, like most American military actions after WWII will end for lack of money.  Congress will run out of patience and money eventually.  As soon as there is a politician giving America a choice between war and lower healthcare costs, and those affected by such healthcare outnumber those that don't, that candidate will win.  It may already be happening now.  November will tell.

Regan era economists after the cold war came to the conclusion that 'deficits don't matter.'  As a means to an end of the Cold War, maybe they didn't.  However we are going to be in for a deficit that's even worse than the one Regan created.  So maybe they don't matter up to a point that we haven't reached yet.  I do not know what that point is.  Ultimately the US will get the rest of the world, well actually nations that lend money to the US, to pay for the Iraq war for us.  This is some consolation for the credit bill that is due to our future.  Seeing has how the Federal Reserve has been lowering rates to ease panic on Wall Street, it has chosen one of two poor routes to travel.  In this case it has chosen inflation over slowing economic growth, even though we may end up with both.  Inflation will continue to weaken the dollar and the US will pay back it's debts over the coming decades, but at a nice discount since the dollars it will pay them back in are up to 50% weaker than the ones it borrowed;  thank you China!  I used to argue that the Fed should suck it up and stick or even raise rates to save the dollar and hold inflation at bay as an amateur economist.  If this were one big game of Civilization IV, I'd do what they are doing now.  It's national self interest, everyone is doing it.