Local Bloggers

One thing that almost everyone agrees upon is that America has too much debt and that we must begin to pay some of it down or eventually we will strain our economy to the breaking point.  Depending on whom you ask, you might get some different numbers but here is some information I found by surfing the web.  First, American has an economy of about $14 trillion.  The total national debt is somewhere around $12 trillion.  A trillion of anything is a number so large it is practically impossible to grasp.  Personally, I have difficulty getting a mental handle on even a billion dollars.  Fourteen trillion is 14,000 billion. 

To hear some people talk about it, one might think that most of America’s debt is owned by foreign countries (most would mention China).  This is not true, not even close.  China owns about $900 billion (not even one trillion) of American securities.  Japan owns a little less than $800 billion.  The vast majority of America’s debt is owned by Americans.  The American public owns just a little under $8 trillion in American securities.  All of the figures I have given here can be verified easily.  Simply type “national debt” into google and run through the thousands of hits you will get. 

Nevertheless, most people agree (myself included) that we do need to begin to pay down some of the massive debt we have accumulated in the last decade or so.  Having taken one freshman level economics course in college, I could not begin to give advice on how to accomplish this daunting task.  However, I read and article, by editor Fareed Zakaria, in March 8th issue of Newsweek, that offered an interesting solution to the problem.  Zakaria suggests three steps that he says would put American on the road to paying down some of the debt. 

First, Zakaria argues, we should adopt a national sales tax.  He notes that more than 100 countries have some form of a national sales tax.  He suggests that the tax be set at 18% and that income tax be dropped a little to compensate somewhat.  This would bring in hundreds of billions into the treasury each year.  I would suggest that the tax be graduated, with a higher percent (perhaps 25%) on luxury products and lower rate on less expensive products.  This would shift the burden a bit more toward the rich, who can afford to pay a bit more. 

Second, Zakaria says, we should end the massive subsidies for home ownership, health-care and agriculture.  Interest deduction for home ownership costs the government billions yearly and encourages the massive accumulation of personal debt that is at the heart of our current economic problems.  Agriculture subsidies go mostly to large agribusinesses and, Zakaria says, distorts the agriculture market egregiously.  I would agree that we should put a stop to them.

Zakaria’s final suggestion is to make sensible adjustment to entitlements.  Most important, he says, is to fix benefits to raises in income not wages, as they are now.  This is a technical matter, which I don’t fully understand, but Zakaria says would save the government billions. 

Some people recoil at the notion of raising any taxes at all.  However, we have all shared in the benefits that government borrowing has brought.  Now the bill is coming due.  We cannot pay down the debt without some sacrifice from everyone.  Wealthy people in particular need to be made to pay their share.  The wealthy have benefitted most from this great country.  It is time for them to pay their share.  In the past decade, the wealthy have received two massive tax cuts (I know the Bush tax cuts when to all tax payers, but the great majority of the cuts served the wealthy), pushed by a Republican Congress and a Republican President, using reconciliation rules, over the objections of Democrats.  The bill is long overdue for the wealthy.

American voters will have to do their share as well. We must hold our legislators to fiscal responsibility even when it means that our community would not receive some benefit that we might otherwise get.  American voters tend to forgive our own legislators when they vote for some benefit that serves our own community, even at the expense of tax-payers across the nation.  As long as that sort of attitude reigns on Capitol Hill, debt reduction will be difficult. 

If we do nothing, someday our debt might overwhelm our economy, but there are solutions.  The point here is that we cannot pay off our debt without a little pain for us all.  The solutions suggested here are not the only ones out there, and they may not even be the best ones, but I believe we need to do something.  I’m for a national discussion of our debt and how to deal with it, followed by some action on real solutions.        

For over a year now, I've lived less than a mile away from my company's office in downtown Richmond, Indiana.  And for the first time in my life, on most days I get to and from the office by walking instead of driving.  It's been a really enjoyable shift, and one that I hope I never take for granted, given how much of the rest of the country commutes to work every day.

Some observations on walking to work:

1. Since walking has become my usual mode of commuting, I've found myself noticing even more what complex and sometimes onerous machines automobiles can be.  There a feeling of lightness I have in walking out the door and propelling myself down the street, feeling my muscles working and pace changing, saying hi to people and noticing changes in their moods and dispositions from day to day, just being out in the open air of the world.  This is much different from the protocols for entering, activating and safely operating my internal combustion go-go machine from one place to another; it's just a much heavier and more isolating experience, and while it still has its place, I'm quite glad to partake in it less often.
2. The walk takes about 15 minutes or less.  My prior residence was less than 2 miles from my office, which took about 30 minutes.  Even though Richmond tends not to be all that pedestrian-friendly, the previous longer route was especially obnoxious in the loud and busy roads I would walk, and so it became a bit of a psychological barrier to wanting to do it every day.  The 30 minute mark was just long enough to create some stress about how much of the day I might "lose" to walking back and forth, even though other calculations show we lose a good part of our day/lives to earning the money to be able to drive in.  In any case, 15 minutes feels like a great number for me right now - just long enough to make the walk enjoyable, and short enough that I feel close  to all the places I want to be able to be quickly.
3. I've certainly saved a little money, between several hundred and a thousand dollars in gasoline expenses depending on what past year I compare it to.  The drive to work obviously didn't use a whole lot of gas in itself, but not driving my car every day also means lower automobile maintenance costs.
4. This winter season found Richmond with more snow on the ground for longer periods of time than it's had in recent history.  Local residents and businesses are generally not very cognizant of the impact on pedestrians when they leaving their sidewalks unshoveled; it means that people either have to walk in the street, which is dangerous, or take alternate routes, which is inconvenient.  This didn't stop me from walking, even if I had to transport an extra pair of shoes along with me, but it's still disappointing to see the significant resources expended on making paths clear for cars and so little attention given to keeping pedestrian walkways usable.
5. I live in an Indiana Enterprise Zone, which means that the local governments have designated it as a "distressed or blighted area" that could benefit from some economic development incentives.  What it really means is that my employer and I both get tax credits for me living there - close to a thousand dollars on my return this year -  the idea being that I'm helping to make the area less distressed and blighted.  What's that have to do with walking to work? The goal of having a walkable, bike-able city lines up nicely with the goal of having a vibrant downtown business district surrounded by vibrant, well-established residential neighborhoods.  When we remember to plan communities around the needs of people instead of around what's best for automobiles, we almost always inevitably also build a stronger local economy.
6. I have to recognize the relative ease with which I - a tall white male - can wander out into the streets past dusk on my walk home after a late night at the office, not thinking too much about being vulnerable or unsafe.  I know some of my downtown co-workers wouldn't find it desirable or even acceptable to put themselves in the same position.  There are things Richmond could do to help with this - e.g. fix the streetlights that don't work on Main St. - but there are also a broader set of cultural issues that need work before the pedestrian lifestyle is truly "safe" and normal again.  In the meantime, I'm privileged in a way that I'll keep taking advantage of, but won't take for granted.
7. I usually listen to music while I walk (and lately I'm listening to courses on learning Spanish).  Sometimes I don't listen to anything and just enjoy the sounds around me.  The sounds I listen to often set my mood for the day, and can inject a burst of creative energy that stays with me as the melodies or lyrics echo around in my head.  It's perhaps no different than listening to the stereo in the car, but dancing, tapping your fingers to a beat, absorbing a powerful verse - they're all a little more fun when you don't have to keep your eyes on the road.

Those are some of my experiences of getting to work.  Do you have any to share?

No, I haven’t been updating my blog. Here’s a list of what I’ve been doing instead of writing anything here lately:

1. I took home the dog that a student gave up, the dog that Kurt kept for quite awhile, the dog that incited the fight that made Kurt almost lose a finger, the dog that didn’t know how to be a dog, and I gave this dog lots of love and attention, and found hm a good home where he could be the only dog.

2. There’s this horse I have who demands a lot of attention. He’s like an irascible old man: loves his routine, and when he doesn’t have his routine, look out. Grumpy, grumpy, grumpy. 1200 pounds of grumpy is a lot of bad mood. So, I’m out at the barn a lot more lately.

3. The book. I’m up to chapter four.

4. Three classes. One senior project. A slew of committees. The sturm und drang of academic politics. “Tempest in a Teapot” as my mother used to say. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of teapots lately.

5. Grants. I keep finding people who will give me money if I write a lot of words on a page and send them my supplication. I mean, application.

6. Kurt. It’s 84 miles from my house to his. 74 miles from my house to his work. 79 miles from his house to the barn. 72 miles from his work to my work. I’m logging a lot of miles, and so is he. Not that I mind, nor does he, not a bit, but there it is. A lot of time on the road.

And that’s why I haven’t been writing a lot here lately.

7. Oh, and this: everything interesting that I have to say right now either
a) goes in the book, OR
b) will get me into big trouble so it goes straight past GO and into my journal.

I bet you’re curious now, aren’t you? You’ll just have to wait for the book.

And, nope, you can’t see my journal.

A couple of days ago, someone (I don’t recall who) wrote that President Obama had not kept one single promise he made as a candidate for the presidency.  I was pretty sure that statement was not accurate, but I thought before I make a comment, it would be best to check it out.  A web site Politifact.com keeps track of campaign promises made and kept or broken by candidates.  This site also track statements made by political figures and rates them as true, partially true, mostly false, false, and “pants-on-fire” false.  Here’s the web site if you are interested.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

I think it is fair to say that we all would prefer that politician only make campaign promises that they intend to keep and believe they can keep.  However, it is certain, no politician has ever kept every promise she or he has made in a campaign.  If you hold a politician to that standard, it would be unrealistic.  So, let’s take a look at how President Obama has done in keeping his campaign promises. 

Politifact has tracked 500 campaign promises made by candidate Obama.  Their tally shows that, in his first year in office, Obama has broken 16 campaign promises, kept 96, partially kept (compromised) 33, has 84 stalled (not broken but not going anywhere), and 272 in the works (being worked on or in a bill before congress).   For only one year in office, that seems to me to be a not-too-bad record. 

If you are interested, you can go to the web site and take a look at every promise made by candidate Obama, but I will offer here a summary of some promises I thought were most important and that I personally hoped he would keep.  First the “broken promises:

Candidate Obama promised to end the income tax for seniors making less than $50,000.  So far, nothing has been done to keep this promise. 

Candidate Obama said, “We will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. “  The administration has encouraged federal agencies to bid contracts, but has done nothing to require that it be done. 

Candidate Obama said, "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."  This was an excellent promise that I wanted him to keep.  However, the President has signed several bills without waiting the five days he promised. 

Candidate Barack Obama said that he is "committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994."  So far, President Obama has been unable to convince the leaders of Congress (Democrat or Republican) to hold down the number and cost of earmarks.  In fairness, Congress makes its own rules, the President cannot force Congress to do anything.  Nevertheless, this is a campaign promise, on which no progress has been made.

I have listed here four of the 16 promises that politifact says Obama has broken.  These are the ones that are particularly disappointing to me.  Now I will list a few of the 96 campaign promises that politifact says the President has kept.  I have selected a couple that I think are most important. 

In February of 2009, President Obama signed into law an expansion of the eligibility of the SCHIP program that provides medical care to children.  I thought his expansion was a good idea when it was first introduced, but President Bush had vetoed the expansion twice during his second term.  President  Obama promised to support the expansion and early in his presidency, he did so. 

Candidate Obama promised that on his first day in office he would direct military leaders to begin to end the war in Iraq.  On January 21, 2009 (Obama’s first day in office), the President met with military leaders and gave that order.  Along this same line, Obama also promised that there would be no permanent military base in Iraq, he has given that order, as well. 

Candidate Obama promised to strengthen our forces in Afghanistan.  This is being done at this moment.  Some liberals have opposed beefing up our Afghanistan effort.  I think it is the right move.   However, I personally think our main focus should be more toward putting al Qaeda out of business and getting bin Laden (if he is still alive), rather than propping up the current government.  Nevertheless, this is a promise kept.

Candidate Obama said he would make military aid to Pakistan conditional on the Pakistanis doing more to disrupt the terrorist bases in Pakistan.  As president, Obama has followed through with that promise.  Furthermore, doing so seems to be paying off.  Pakistan recently has started to make things much more uncomfortable for al Qaeda and the Taliban living inside Pakistan. 

There are 91 other promises kept listed on the politifact web site.  Among them are the promise to improve American relations with other nations and to establish more strict regulations on financial institution that issue credit cards.  Both of these have been kept.   

I do not know how Obama’s first year record of promises kept compares to other presidents in their first year.  For me personally, I wish that politicians would keep every campaign promise they make.  It is disappointing that Obama has failed to do everything he promised to do.  Nevertheless, it does seem to me that, in fairness, one would have to say that Obama has done at least as well as presidents that preceded him in keeping promises he has made.  Clearly, it is inaccurate to say that Obama has not kept a single campaign promise, he made.    

Hey, Toyota Owners! Did you realize what a dangerous car you’re driving? Until a few months ago, you thought it was the best car you’d ever owned – right? How wrong you were! Don’t you remember the times you put on the brakes and it accelerated instead? Oh, you don’t remember those. How about the [...]

President Obama said it clearly, yesterday.  He did not exactly say “Read my lips,” but his message was clear.  We’ve talked enough.  It is time for some action.  He wants health-care legislation on his desk and he wants it soon.  Republicans have had their chance to join the majority of Americans who want to see our broken health-care delivery system fixed.  Personally, I could not agree more.  It is time for some action.  Democrats tried bipartisanship and Republicans slammed the door.  So, as the President said, “Let’s finish the job.”

Here’s the Democrats plan.  The House of Representatives will pass the Senate’s version of health-care reform.  That Senate bill was passed with 60 votes under normal rules.  Reconciliation was not used.  Once the House passes the Senate’s version, the bill goes to the President for his signature.  It will not have to go back to the Senate for a vote.  At the same time, but under a separate bill, the House of Representatives will pass a set of changes to the health care reform bill that will make the Senate version of the bill a little more palatable to the House.  This separate bill of changes will then go to the senate where the reconciliation process will be used get is past Republican opposition.   It is important to understand that the reconciliation strategy will not be used to pass the base health-care legislation.  The Senate through normal rules has already passed it, so if the House passes that version it does not need to be voted on again by the senate. 

Since there has been a lot of talk, along with wailing and gnashing of teeth, by Republicans, about the use of reconciliation, let me say a few words about it.  First, reconciliation rules have been used 22 times in the Senate.  Sixteen of those 22 were used by a Republican majority.  A number of Republicans, most recently Senator Orin Hatch, have argued that reconciliation should not be used for “substantive legislation.”  According to Washington Post writer, E.J. Donnie, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts which increased our deficit by about $1.7 trillion were both passed under reconciliation rules.  Could it be argued that it is a bit of political hypocrisy for Republicans to cry foul when the Democrats wish to use it now?  I would say a resounding “Yes!” in answer to that question.

To me, the most hypocritical thing about this whole issue is Republicans using reconciliation to pass legislation that provided massive tax cuts, the vast majority of which went to wealthy Americans, while screaming bloody murder when Democrats want to use the procedure to help middle class and poor Americans.  

Donnie goes on to note that some Republicans like to quote Senators Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad (both Democrats), saying that they oppose using reconciliation on health-care reform.  However, Democrats have not proposed using it on the main health-care reform bill.  They will use it only on a separate bill which will improve the main legislation.

Republicans argue that Democrats will pay at the polls if they pass health-care reform.  I think they are wrong.  Many Americans are a bit dubious about the version of health-care reform that is right now being considered.  However, I think they are more upset with the political wrangling, argument, and invective that the debate produced.  Once the bill is passed and middle class American, along with small business owners, see that the bill makes their lives and business better, they will not be so negative.  Politically, Democrats are betting on that and Republicans are betting against it. I think Democrats are going to win this one.    

So, for me personally, I’m four-square behind the President on this issue.  We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.  Universal health care is a long overdue and a massive improvement for the American middle class.  We stand this moment right on the verge of making that improvement.  “Let’s finish the job. “  

I was surfing the WEB the other day and I stumbled on a site with some interesting information on health-care reform.  The site describes a study conducted by the Center for American Progress.  The lead researcher is David M. Cutler, an economics professor in Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.  Here’s the Web Site, if you’re interested:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/healthreformjobs.html

Cutler’s research shows that doing health-care reform will create from 2.5 to 4 million jobs over the next ten years.  It show that there will be jobs created in every state, at a rate nationwide rate of 250,000 to 400,000 per year. 

The argument supporting the conclusion is that providing health insurance to workers is a deterrent to hiring.  Health care costs became so high for some industries that they found it necessary to curtail hiring, expansion, and even research for product development.  The American auto industry is one vivid example of that problem.  If health care reform does as it is designed to do, it will keep the rising cost of health care under control and allow industries to expand, which means more jobs created.  I noticed that Nancy Pelosi made this point at the health-care summit, but I did not know where she got her data.  Although Pelosi did not state it directly, her source was probably the Cutler study. 

Washing Post writer, Charles Lane, has made the point that even 4 million jobs, over 10 years, is not very much, given that the U.S. workforce is somewhere around 150 million. Nevertheless, this study illustrates still another reason for passing health care reform. 

As I see it, the reasons for health-care reform are as follows:

Health care reform will insure millions of people who don’t currently have adequate health care.  I know this is an old argument but I have yet to hear someone counter it.  In a nation as affluent as the United States, it is literally unconscionable that people get sick and sometimes even die of illnesses that could be cured if people had adequate health care. 

In addition, those uninsured people, when they get seriously ill, end up at a hospital emergency room (the absolutely most expensive health care) where they, often too late, receive treatment and you and I pay for it.  We pay for it in our taxes, our health-insurance premiums, and in the hospital bill when we get ill.  The money for that most expensive care is subtracted from our economy and we all bear the expense.  It seems reasonable to argue that even if health-care reform increased taxes a little (I point out the administration says it won’t), it would be a saving for us in the long run. 

At the summit, Republican Senator Tom Coburn noted (agreed to by all there) that 1 of every 3 dollars that you and I (or our insurance company) spend on health care is wasted.  A third of our health-care expenses do not go to making people healthier.  The health-care reform is designed to reduce that waste and thereby help keep costs under control.  We know that the cost of health care has risen by around 150 percent over the past decade or so, and we know that health-care costs will continue to rise perhaps even more dramatically in the next decade.  I point to the almost 40 percent increase in some health-insurance premiums, recently imposed by some health-insurance companies. 

Health-care reform is designed to reduce the deficit by billions over the next 10 years.  Now, I’m aware, as are most readers of this blog, that a number of economic factors will have to play out favorably for this debt reduction to happen.  However, my argument is that even if the health-care reform was deficit neutral (that is did not reduce the deficit but did not increase it much) it would be a savings for us all in the long run.  Given the status quo, Medicare and Medicade (two extremely expensive entitlements) costs are going to continue to rise dramatically.  This will place an added pressure on the government to borrow money to pay for it and surely will increase the deficit.  Tax payers today and future generations will bear the cost.

Finally, as I stated above, health-care reform should result in some moderate job creation.   

There have been a lot of negatives stated, but most of them have been discounted by reasonable argument.  For example, some have argued that health-care reform will result in a complete government takeover of health care.  We know that is not so, in the legislation as written by the senate.  I know that there will be an increased government influence in our health care, but it will not constitute a government takeover.  There will be no government official between patients and their physicians.  That is clear in the legislation and it is unfair to argue otherwise. 

Some have argued that given the state of our economy, we cannot afford to do health-care reform.  I think it is clear that we cannot afford not to do health-care reform. 

Now, given these points of advantage, I’m hard pressed to see substantial disadvantages of health-care reform as passed by the U.S. Senate.  Nevertheless, I’m encouraging anyone who wants to state some disadvantage of doing health-care reform to respond to this blog.  All I ask is that you state your disadvantage with some logic and evidence, as I have tried to do her.

According to the Washington Post writer, Dan Blatz, the health-care debate is an argument over both “substance and politics.”  The substance comes down to one basic philosophical difference.  While both Republicans and Democrats say they want to fix the nation’s broken health-care delivery system, they differ strongly on how it should be done.  Democrats believe that it will take more government involvement to fix the problem of rising health-care costs and unequal access.  Republicans, on the other hand, say that market competition is the best cure for what ails American health-care delivery.  For Democrats universal health-care coverage has been a priority over the last 60 or 70 years.  Republicans have never made universal coverage a priority.

With respect to politics, both sides also see a difference.  Republicans read their polls and see an overall opposition to the Democrats proposals.  So, Republicans see no urgent need to change the system at all.  Democrats read their polls and see strong public support for many of their proposals.  For Democrats passing health-care reform is a must.  Failure is not an option. 

If forced to do so, Democrats are prepared to go forward using the parliamentary strategy of reconciliation to push the legislation through the Senate.  If they do this, Blatz says, Democrats take the risk of looking like they are trying to jamming a bill through in the face of public opposition.  Democrats, however, think that in the end, the public won’t care much about parliamentary techniques.  What the public wants, Democrats believe, is results.  If health-care reform is passed and is shown to work, the public won’t care that much about how it gets passed. 

In his weekly radio address, President Obama said that the Thursday health-care summit showed many areas of agreement between Republicans and Democrats, but he acknowledged some deep philosophical differences.  The President noted that no final bill could contain “…everything  that everyone wants.”  Obama when on, “I said at the end of Thursday’s summit that I am eager and willing to move forward with the members of both parties … but I also believe that we cannot lose this opportunity to meet this challenge.”  Obama added: “It is time for us to come together.  It is time for us to act.  It is time for those of us in Washington to live up to our responsibilities to the American people and future generations.  So, let’s get this done.” 

In the Republican response, Senator Tom Coburn, a physician, said that at the summit “…the two sides listened to one another…” but gave no sign of compromise.  “I’m concerned,” Coburn said, “that the majority in congress is still not listening to the American people on the subject of health-care reform.” 

In the end, the success of Obama’s presidency depends on two things.  First, can the administration pull the nation out of the recession fast enough?  Second, can Democrats convince people that their prescription for fixing health care is the one America needs. 

The health-care debate, at times, has seemed petty (death panels, government take overs, etc.) but in the end, it is a major test of Obama’s leadership and that of the Democrat Party.  Therefore, if a bipartisan compromise cannot be reached, it seems to me perfectly appropriate for Democrats to go forward with their plans in whatever manner they need and let issue be settled by the American people, in the November election.

You know what we’re missing right now? Enjoying the snow! That’s a dumb thing to say, isn’t it? Well, look at it this way: The snow we have on the ground hereabouts right now is the best snow we’ve had for years. Why? I’ll tell you why. To start with, this is the first REAL snow we’ve had [...]

I watched all seven hours of the so-called health-care summit.  It was a lot more interesting than Oprah.  Actually, it was quite a show, with legislators from both parties trying to be on their best behavior.  There was a fair amount of posturing from both sides, but through it all there was a real discussion of areas where the sides agree and reasonable airing of their disagreements.   In the following paragraphs, I will discuss some of the agreements and disagreements as I heard them discussed.  

There was an agreement that any health-care reform bill would have to contain some market reforms, some regulation of the health-insurance companies.  The disagreements seem to be over just how much regulation is acceptable.  Both sides agreed that insurance companies will must be required to insure people with pre-existing conditions and that insurance companies may not place a cap on life time benefits.   In other words, insurance companies should not be permitted to cut people off when they get sick. 

There was an agreement that small business and some individuals should be permitted to purchase insurance through an exchange that will allow them to look across state lines for the best deal on health insurance.  The point of disagreement on this issue is over whether or not there should be some minimum regulation on the insurance companies in the exchange.  Democrats think that some minimum regulation is necessary, Republicans prefer no regulation. 

There was agreement that some form of medical malpractice reform would be a good idea.  Again, there was a little disagreement over what form a tort reform bill might take, but both sides seems to agree that such a bill might be acceptable. 

Both sides seemed to agree that reducing the cost of health care was a major objective on any health-care reform package.  They seemed to agree that reducing the duplicating of medical laboratory procedures, encouraging preventative measures, and finding ways of squeezing waste from the system were good things.  Both sides agree on the figure that a third of the dollars spent on health care goes to things that do not make people more healthy and that that such waste was way too high.  There were a number of things suggested and agreed upon that might help reduce that waste.

Both sides also agreed that some of the special deals offered to certain Democrat Senators in order to pass the Senate’s version of health-care reform were a bad idea and should be eliminated.   

The main difference came in the argument from Republicans that the current bill passed by both Houses of Congress be scrapped and the process begin again.  President Obama said that was unlikely to happen, but did hold out the opportunity for Republicans to join with Democrats to make the current bill better.  The President noted that many of the things that Republicans want are already built into the bill that the Senate passed.

Another difference is in the number of people not covered by health insurance today that would be covered by the respective plans.  The Democrats plan (the one passed by the Senate) would cover about 30 million people who right now do not have insurance.  The plan suggested by Republicans would cover about three million uninsured.  To Democrats that low number is unacceptable. 

Hosting this meeting was a long overdue attempt at leadership by President Obama and I think it might have done some good.  I don’t know what will happen next, but here is what I think (my opinion) President Obama will do.  The President will wait a few days to give Republicans an opportunity to think over their options.  Then he will offer some adjustment to the Senate plan to include some more Republican ideas.  If that gets enough Republican votes to pass the senate the House of Representative will be encouraged to pass the Senate’s revised version.  If Republicans refuse to go along, then Democrats will try to pass the bill through the reconciliation process.  Failing that, Democrats will try to pass a smaller health reform bill. 

It is important to understand this:  Democrats must have a health-care reform bill.  Note the Kaiser Foundation survey that found that a majority of Americans would be angry or disappointed if health-care reform was not passed.  That is very important.  Democrats were elected, in a big part, because they promised health-care reform.  Most Americans want it (in some form) and Democrats must provide it or they will lose big time at the polls, and Obama will almost surely be a one-term president.  My point here is that Republicans can join and help make health-care reform better or they can obstruct and watch Democrats provide what people want.

The reconciliation process was discussed at the summit, with Republicans urging Democrats not to attempt to use it.  President Obama said that Democrats would use whatever parliamentary measures they needed to move health-care reform forward.

I took a look at reconciliation as it has been used in the Senate.  It is a parliamentary rule in our Senate that allows some measures to be passed without the necessity of getting the 60 votes usually required to stop debate.  The reconciliation rule, established in 1974, is used by the majority in the Senate to overcome a filibuster from the minority.  Reconciliation was designed to deal with budget issues and is rarely used, but has been used by both parties to pass non budget issues.  According to the research I have done, the reconciliation rule has been used 22 times since it was established, 16 times by Republicans and 6 times by Democrats. 

Before looking at this rule, I did not realize how often this reconciliation process has been used and that it has been used much more often by Republicans than Democrats.  It is amazing what you can learn with a little research.         

As an employer, my company Summersault is required to withhold and then turn in federal taxes from our employee paychecks.  In the past we've turned in those withheld funds by printing out a check, walking it a block down the street to the bank, and getting a receipt.

I recently took the IRS's advice and inquired into enrolling in "EFTPS" - Electronic Federal Tax Payment System.  (It's too bad they didn't call it something really cool like "Maximum Velocity Pay" or "Blue Tiger," but I guess EFTPS is at least accurate.)  The idea behind EFTPS is that it will save you time and simplify payment and filing of federal taxes.  So far, here's what the process has involved:

1. Receiving copious amounts of printed materials sent via postal mail encouraging us to sign up for EFTPS.  There was no obvious option for opting out of these mailings.
2. Visitng the EFTPS website and "enrolling," which meant typing in a bunch of information that the government already has on file and could have looked up using our Federal Tax ID number, which we also provided.
3. Receiving an "Enrollment Trace Number" that we had to write down as a second unique identifier in the process.
4. Waiting 10-15 days to receive a letter in the mail informing us that we've successfully enrolled in EFTPS, and noting that we'll receive a PIN in a separate mailing, for security purposes.
5. Receiving a PIN letter on the same day as the welcome letter, in identical mailing envelopes, so as to make it especially easy for someone trying to intercept the PIN.  And just noting: that's 10-15 days for them to automatically generate and mail out a 4 digit number.
6. The PIN letter says that we must now call a toll-free number to obtain an Internet password, which will require the Enrollment Trace Number and the PIN to generate.
7. I call the number and enter our Federal Tax ID, our enrollment trace number, and our PIN.  The system generates a temporary INITIAL password that we can use to log on to EFTPS for the first time.
8. As a part of the first login, I enter our Federal Tax ID, our PIN and our temporary password.  To generate a new password, I again enter our Federal Tax ID and our PIN, and then enter a new password.
9. Finally, we have access to EFTPS.

Sigh.  I hope I never have to see inside the brain of the person who thought up this process.  "If we just make it complicated enough with enough different numbers, no one will EVER be able to crack it!"  Of course, the end result is a sense that the government wasted taxpayer dollars creating and implementing an overly complex system.  Shocker, I know.

Why not a simpler version?  If being able to safely receive postal mail at the address on file for your business is the linchpin of communicating sensitive information securely (which is NOT a given), we could have done it this way:

1. Visit EFTPS website, enter Federal Tax ID.
2. Receive postal mailing with a sufficiently unguessable PIN
3. Visit EFTPS website, enter Federal Tax ID and PIN, pick a password, enrollment is complete.

That's at least one fewer postal mailings (and the paper and postage required), at least one less phone call (and all of the phone menu infrastructure required to support that call), and at least a few minutes saved on the part of EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL TAX PAYING BUSINESS IN THE U.S.

I think I'll suggest it to the IRS.  Via e-mail, subject line: "Proposal for Blue Tiger."

And then I'll probably go back to walking checks down to the bank.

I can remember as a 7th grader, getting into an argument with one of my friends about who could swim the length of the city pool faster.  We argued about it for a while and then my friend said, “come on its time to put up or shut up,” and started for the pool.  I won’t tell you the outcome of the race.  It is too embarrassing for me.  Suffice it to say, that we both put up and I had to shut up. 

 

Now the same provision can be applied to the Republican Party, with respect to health-care reform.  Republican have said that they want to do health-care reform “right.”  They have argued that Democrats have cut them out of the negotiation process and have refused to include their ideas in the plans that Democrats have put forward. 

 

Well now it is time for the Republicans to put up or shut up.  President Obama has posted his revised health-care reform plan on the web.  You can find it easy.  Go to WhiteHouse. Gov.  The plan is only 11 pages long.  It should satisfy those who worry about the number of pages, too much paper and all that.  And even the most reading challenged Congressperson should be able to read it before voting on it.  All the sweetheart deals that were given to some, less than ethical, Democrat Senators have been eliminated.  Obama’s plan includes a number of Republican ideas.  It does not include everything they want, but a number of provisions are the ones Republicans have called for.  The Republican originated provision in Obama’s plan are indicated on the web site.  

 

The President and a number of Congressional Representative will meet soon for an attempt to work out a plan that can be acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats.  So, now it is time for Republicans to put up or shut up.  They either come to the meeting ready to negotiate in good faith, or shut up and watch Democrats pass their version through the reconciliation process.  (reconciliation is a way to get things through the Senate, with just a majority vote)

 

I’ve heard some Republicans say they think the President is trying to trap them by coming to this meeting with a plan.  The President has said his plan is only a starting point for negotiation, but has challenged Republicans to come up with their own plan (put up or shut up).  If the meeting is a trap, it is a trap of Republican making.  They challenged the president to open the negotiation to Republicans.  The President put up.  Republicans pushed to have the meeting televised.  The President put up.  Personally, I think it would be better if the negotiation was done in private, but Republicans insisted that it be on television.   So, if they get trapped (which I don’t think they will), it will be a classic case of Republicans being hoist by their own petard. 

 

I really do hope both sides come to the meeting with the intention of negotiating in good faith.  I do not want Democrats to employ the reconciliation process, because it would set, what I believe is, a bad precedent for the Senate.  However, if it comes to a choice of using reconciliation or not passing health-care reform, Democrats would have no choice.  Remember, people elected them to pass health-care reform (Reform was a major part of the Democrat campaign).  It would be malpractice for Democrats not to pass health-care reform by any means required.   

 

Democrats are going to pass health-care reform one way or another.  So, Republicans might as well put up (get involved in the negotiations) or shut up (sit tight and watch it happen).  I personally hope Republican choose the former.     

This month, President Obama noted the one year anniversary of his signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (better known as the Stimulus bill) into law.  Before the President signed it, some people said it would not work.  That refrain has been repeated over and over, with more than a little rancor, in the year since the Recovery Bill became law.  So, it is time for a little less heat and a bit more light on the subject.   The following list contains a set of those stubborn things called facts.  You may want to write them down. 

On the day the President signed the Recovery Act, our economy was shrinking at a 6% yearly rate.  We had not seen the economy in such a headlong plunge for decades.  One year later, our economy is growing at about a 6% yearly rate.  The turnaround is primarily due to the stimulus act. 

On the day the President signed the Recovery Act, home foreclosures were at a record level and housing prices had plummeted by over 30%.  Today home foreclosures have come down to a more normal level and people are beginning to get back some of the equity on their homes that had been lost. 

On the day the President signed the Recovery Act, Americans had collectively lost $10 trillion in pension, stock values, and other retirement plans.  Today those retirement plans and stock plans have begun to recover.  Today the stock market is rising.

On the day the President signed the Recovery Act, America was losing 750,000 jobs each month.  Unemployment continued to rise to over 10 percent.  Today unemployment has started to come down, now around 9.7 percent.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that the Recovery Act has saved or created about 1.5 million jobs.  The White House says around 2 million, but the CBO is probably a more objective source of information.  

The Recovery Act provided almost every family in the nation with a tax cut.  I have heard President Obama described as a tax and spend Democrat.  If you’re one who have so described him, here’s a challenge for you.  Name one tax (except on cigarettes) that President Obama has presided over since he took office.  The reason you cannot name one, is because there are none.   In truth, the only action Obama has taking on taxes in his first year in office is to lower taxes.   I wonder how many people actually knew that.

Here is just some of what the Recovery Act has done for Indiana.

As of the end of January 2010, Indiana has received about $6.5 billion in stimulus funds.  Some of this is promised but not yet delivered. 

As of the end of December 2009, over 470,000 Hoosiers have received expanded unemployment benefits. 

As of the end of January 2010, Indiana has received $1.3 billion specifically for transportation, energy, and other shovel ready projects. 

The data and facts I have cited here are all verifiable.  You can find confirmation in news articles, on the White House web site, and in television news reports.  Many have said that Obama’s first year in office has been a failure.  Truth be told, there have been some mistakes and setbacks, but if you wish to dwell on the negative things, it is fair to look at the successes, as well.  The biggest success is the economy.   

When Obama took office our economy was rushing headlong toward a bottomless pit.  Today, while we are still in recovery mode, things are looking a great deal better.  Economists say we are now out of the recession.  We have experienced two successive quarters of economic growth.  The economy will continue to grow through this year and the next.  We can look forward to a significant drop in unemployment through 2010 and a full recovery by the end of Obama’s first term.          

Recently I've heard some people make the all-too-common assertion that they don't have enough time in the day to get done all of the things they want or need to get done.  I was reminded of an exercise I went through about a year ago, during a period when I was making similar statements, sometimes out loud, sometimes just to myself.  I wanted to do the math to see how the hours really did add up - did I have enough time in the day to do what I wanted to do, or was I actually overbooked and trying to make 1 + 1 = 3?

It's a pretty simple exercise in the end.  Make a table of all of the things you spend time on in a week, and compare that to the total hours available.  If you're over, then you have to change something.  If you're at or under the available time, then you still might need to change something to be happy, e.g. increasing the amount of time available for fun, sleep, or just relaxing.  Or you may find that you spend time exactly the way you want to!

Here's what my chart looked like, in no particular order:

Activity Current Hours Needed/Week Change amount? New Hours/Week Sleep and day-ending/day-starting activities Cooking/Eating Household upkeep, paying bills, etc. Quality time with my partner Quiet/meditation/exercise time Television/Movie Watching Calling/writing/visiting friends Time at job (including transportation to/from place of work) Non-profit organizations / volunteering / community events Blogging / Writing / Creating Other fun stuff / unplanned time TOTALS Hours/week 168 -- 168 Difference?

When I filled out a version of this chart more than a year ago, I found that I had 184 hours/week of stuff I planned to do, 16 more hours per week than actually existed.  I made adjustments and scaled back or ended some of my time commitments, and got it down to 168 hours.  I've rarely found myself feeling continuously overwhelmed since (short periods of oh-no-how-will-I-do-it-all still come and go), and once in a while I update the table to see where I'm at.

Of course, it may be difficult or undesirable to commit to some firm number of hours for each activity every week, and we all know that life has an impressive way of nullifying even the best made plans.  But the exercise itself can help you see any disparity between your mental model of how you want to be spending time, and what reality might actually dictate.

How does your first column of hours add up?  Any line items that surprised you (or that I forgot!)? Which items are you going to change so that you can spend your time the way you want to?

Here's a poem I wrote today. The Sixth Day God made people so that we could name creation. Together we look and say, “It is good.”

[[READ MORE at blog.travispoling.com]]

President Obama has a new hymn he and the Democrats have recently started singing.  “Bipartisanship!”  Actually, it is not all that new.  John McCain and Barack Obama both made bipartisan cooperation the center of their campaigns for the presidency.  Before them Bill Clinton preached bipartisanship and George H. Bush said he was a “uniter not a divider” but he turned out to be the decider.  Prominent Congressional leaders from Newt Gingrich to John Boehner have sung the praises of bipartisanship as an inherent good thing. 

Is bipartisanship a good thing?  To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what you mean by “bipartisanship.”  If bipartisanship means solving problems (which is what it means to me) it is a good thing.  If “bipartisanship” means that members of political parties set their fundamental political values aside, it is not a good thing.  The best ideas and solutions to problems come after a free-wheeling debate, in which everyone has the opportunity to express their view and listen to others’ views.  But, in government, dogmatically holding to a partisan position and stubbornly refusing to compromise leads to a deadlock in which problems remain and the nation suffers.  I believe Americans want their representatives to work out solutions to their problems.  They don’t want their representative to stick so unbendingly to their ideological beliefs that they bring government to a halt.  So, let’s have a vigorous debate.  Let’s encourage our representatives to express their views, offer constructive ideas, and then let’s insist that they get to work reaching a solution that will solve America’s very real problems. 

That there is very little problem-solving in Congress is not the fault of one political party or the other.  Somehow, both parties have developed a culture of gotcha politics, where winning a political point and stopping the other side is more important than solving a problem.  Moderates in congress feel that their voices are no longer heard.  One prominent Senator announced he would quit at the end of his term, because in his words “Congress is dysfunctional.”  Who started it?  Who threw the first stone is not important.  We the voters need to insist that our representatives get over it and get to work solving problems.  Solutions are possible.  We can provide health care for all Americans.  We can get the economy back on track.  We can begin to reduce unemployment.   We can do all of this and more, if we only make our focus problem-solving instead of political advantage. 

A year ago, Democrats swept into office with what seemed like a mandate.  They had gained the good will of millions of Americans and a strong majority in both houses of Congress, as well as the presidency.   They behaved as if they could do anything they wanted and did not need Republicans.  Their intentions were good but their strategy was flawed.  Republicans responded in kind.  They, as a party, decided to do anything they could to stop anything the Democrats tried to do.  Between the two parties, they managed to bring government to more or less a standstill.  A pox on both their houses! 

Now, Democrats seem to have learned a hard lesson.  President Obama, starting with his State of the Union speech, has reached out a hand to Republicans.  He met with a group of Republican legislators and will meet later this month with legislators from both parties.  I’m hopeful that Republicans will accept the challenge, begin to dismantle the culture of gotcha, and start doing the work for which we pay them.         

I recently met with a local organization involved in environmental education efforts to talk about the status of sustainability education in Richmond and Wayne County.  In preparing for that conversation, I put together a list of what I see as some of the challenges our community faces when it comes to becoming more sustainable and self-reliant:

1. Most high profile community leaders and organizations aren’t modeling awareness of sustainability issues, sometimes even at a basic level.
2. Almost all development and expansion efforts continue to incorporate a car-centric model of transportation and community zoning/planning.
3. Most of the focus on environmental education is targeted at individuals instead of at businesses, factories, and government organizations, the latter groupings being the ones that tend to use the most resources.
4. The notion of conducting “green business for green living” has been widely adopted as a goal, but also significantly watered down in its impact, often to the point of minimal actual benefit.
5. Sustainability-oriented efforts and organizations are fragmented and overlapping, despite valiant efforts of a number of projects to bring them all together at the same table.
6. The status of and appropriate use of natural resources has been made into an emotionally charged political or religious debate, which often leads to an avoidance of the topic for fear of offending.
7. There are basic educational challenges in the community about the question of how food is produced and where it comes from.  For many people, food is effectively created at the grocery store.
8. Some people seem to feel that solely by financially supporting one environmental organization or another, they’ve “done their part” for sustainability efforts in the community.
9. Our ability to transform the community mindset about sustainability issues doesn’t seem to be keeping up with the realities of peak oil, climate change and economic despair.

(These are some locally specific issues on top of some other challenges I've already identified, e.g. our personal fears around sustainable living.)

So, what are some paths forward that might address some of these challenges?

1. More organizational collaboration and communication.  It might be hard, it might be messy, but it has to happen.
2. More effectively mobilizing community members who care about these issues and who can have an impact on decision-makers
3. Asking corporations / factories / governments to participate as much or more than individuals in making Richmond and Wayne County more self-reliant.
4. Clearly defining sustainability and environmental concepts and terms, to avoid watering down or misapplying them.
5. Creating strong advocacy efforts, or better fund the existing ones
6. Bringing in speakers from other communities with success stories, real life experiences, practical suggestions that we can begin implementing today.
7. Work to untangle the science of sustainability issues from the emotional, religious, and political connotations.
8. Continue education about issues of peak oil, climate change and economic trouble, and how they impact our community.

That's one set of challenges and possible solutions that I see.  What are the challenges and solutions you see in your community?

Senator Evan Bayh said he would not seek a third term as U.S. Senator from Indiana.  His departure from the 2010 campaign makes Indiana’s second senate seat an open race and puts the puts the democrat majority in the Senate in jeopardy (although that is still a long shot).  Bayh cited the lack of bipartisanship as his reason for quitting.  He said: “There’s too much partisanship and not enough progress – too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem solving.”  He added, “Even in a time of enormous challenge, the people’s business is not being done.”

 

Byah is right on the nose in his assessment of the mood in Washington.  He’s correctly angry at both parties.  The mood and attitudes have become increasingly more divisive over the years since the time of the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation.  Now, acrimony has reached a point where it is almost impossible for our legislators to get anything at all done. 

 

Republican Chairperson, Michael Steele, hailed Byah’s announcement as a victory for Republicans, but it may not be a victory for the people of Indiana.  The problem with Byah’s decision, for people who want their government to start solving problems, is that it takes one more moderate out of the Senate and leaves open the opportunity for the election of a partisan ideologue in his place.  Some say Byah quit because he “saw the handwriting on the wall.”  He was afraid he could not get reelected given the current political climate.  Perhaps so, but I really don’t think that is the case.  Byah is popular in Indiana, reported to have a $16 million war chest ready for the coming campaign, and polls show him 20 points ahead of any Republican challenger.   It seems unlikely that he would be afraid of the coming political campaign. 

 

Byah’s decision hit Democrats hard, but comes in the midst of the strongest anti-incumbent mood we have had in this nation for a long time.  It is this anti-incumbent mood that fueled the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts and the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia.  I don’t know how long this public mood will last, but right now the American people’s dissatisfaction with their government is at an all-time high.  Here’s some data to support this conclusion.  A recent poll found that only 31 percent of respondents thought that Congress should be reelected.  Thirty one percent is the lowest percentage ever recorded in response to that question.  Fifty one percent say that their own congressperson should be reelected.  This again is the lowest percentage every recorded.  When Democrats and Republicans were asked which party deserved to be reelected, both gave their own party only a 41 percent approval rate.  All this data suggests if the election were held right now, incumbents of all parties should be worried. 

 

The partisan fighting that seems to have choked out any willingness to solve the nations very real problems is a real danger to this nation.  Some think we may spend ourselves into oblivion, inadvertently trigger a nuclear war, or find ourselves the victims of another 9-11 style terrorist attack.  These are very real problems.  Legislators of both parties should be spending their time trying to find solutions, instead of trying to win partisan political points. 

 

We send our legislators to Washington to be problem solvers and we should insist that they do just that.  Our responsibility is to watch what they do, send them our views and back up what we want with our vote at the polls.  I will be the first to say that both parties have been guilty of the ideological infighting that we have seen increase over the years.  When Democrats took over both Houses of Congress in 2008, they basically said, “we got elected so we can do what we want.”  Republicans responded by refusing to negotiate at all.  The result has been gridlock.  At this moment, however, I see Democrats reaching out to Republicans, trying to find some ways to solve problems.  I don’t see Republicans responding in kind.  It will be interesting to see which party really wants to govern and problem solve.       

Richmond, Indiana businessman Don Bates Jr. is running for election to the U.S. Senate.  It seems somewhat rare that a local person runs for national office, and as a participant in the local political blogging culture, I think that makes me obligated to comment, right? 

Bates has a campaign website, a Facebook page, a Twitter feed, and a YouTube channel, so he can check the "modern candidate" requirements off the list.  The content of the website is at times confusing in its construction and full of typos and grammatical errors, and generally seems a notch below what one might expect from a national candidate.  But then again, if that's the worst you can say about a campaign, we're doing pretty well, and at least Bates is putting his views out there for examination and discussion.

On "the issues," the theme of Bates` positions seem to be (A) fight against whatever Barack Obama and other Democrats wants to do,  and (B) try to resurrect the politics, if not the physical incarnation, of former President Ronald Reagan.  I'm almost not kidding about the resurrection part:

I look forward to the day in Heaven when I can look [Ronald Reagan] in the eye, shake his hand, and thank him for saving the United States of America from Communism and economic disaster.

That's Bates on celebrating President's Day, posted on his Facebook page.

Evan Bayh's very recent announcement that he would not seek re-election brought some media attention to Bates, which Bates re-appropriated to imply that Bayh thinks President Obama's legislative agenda is harmful:

I started telling people that Barack Obama's agenda would not be good for America, and that because of Senator Bayh's inability to stop President Obama's agenda, Senator Bayh must be replaced.  At first, very few people believed me.  It now appears that even Senator Bayh believes me.

What Bayh actually said was that Obama's legislative agenda "is the right agenda for America...My decision was not motivated by political concern."  But that didn't stop the local paper from quoting Bates` statements without challenging his shrewd re-framing.

Overall, Bates` behavior and language has been consistent with his statements that he's running for office because he believes the country is headed in the wrong direction.  In my view, a candidate with that primary motivation should have a very strong "right direction" that they can present to inspire and mobilize supporters - especially if they have an artificial lack of national political experience.  So far, Bates seems to be a reactionary candidate ready to demonize anyone who disagrees with him and dive into the fist-fight, instead of someone driven by hope for a better future, the ability to collaborate and compromise, or any real faith in the political process to better the lives of all of the citizens he would serve.

(Yes, this is a possibly harsh initial conclusion drawn after viewing the Bates campaign website and a few news articles - I haven't talked with the candidate in person, and I reserve the right to update my observations later.)

Regardless of his political positions, I hope that Mr. Bates can work on creating a campaign that's focused on a positive vision, and communicating his own unique qualifications for making that vision a reality.  Good luck to him!

If you're new to Facebook, Twitter or some of the other social networking spaces out there, you're probably asking yourself, "what should I expect to see when it comes to the status updates that people post in these places?" Or if you're a social networking veteran, you might still be thinking, "what's my niche online?  How do I decide what to post?"

Well, you're in luck!  I really enjoy cataloging and categorizing these kinds of things, and so I've put together this list of 12 kinds of social networking status updates.

Most every status update will fall into one of these categories:

1. I want you to know how happy I am. I have really amazing family, friends, career, hobbies, food, or some other factors that I will go on about publicly to hundreds of strangers, and I just want you to know how perfect everything is in the world right now.
2. I am incredibly busy and productive. But, I'm taking some time out of my incredibly busy schedule to tell you how incredibly busy and productive I am.  But as soon as I'm done with that, it's back to being incredibly busy and productive!
3. I am kind of a big deal. Here's some information about me that's only thinly veiled as informational, but is actually designed to show you how important, successful, athletic, skilled, wealthy, well-connected and/or influential I am.
4. I want you to know how unhappy I am. You won't believe how pathetic and unworthy I am, but I'd like to try to tell you about it anyway.
5. I am really clever and insightful. Let me just say this really clever or witty thing and let you bask in how amazing I am.
6. I would like to tell you about my physical location. Here is where I am right now.
7. I'd like to share about the activities of my child or children. Let me show you how cute and/or irreverent they are.  If you don't have children, consider taking this opportunity to feel inadequate.  If you do have children, consider taking this opportunity to feel like you don't enjoy your children as much as I do.
8. There is an injustice that needs your attention! Some person, organization or company has done something unacceptable and I need you to take action RIGHT NOW to help make it better.
9. I have a link that I'd like for you to click on. It's really interesting, and it's possibly going to change your life.  Come on, just click on it.  What if it's a really cool photo of a cat in some situation you've NEVER seen before?  There, wasn't that amazing?
10. I have a medical condition that I'd like to share about. I'm sick, or I'm getting better, or I'm having surgery, or I broke something, or someone or something threw up on me or I threw up on them.  Let me tell you about it.
11. I would like to comment on some aspect of popular culture. Allow me tell you why a particular television show, movie, celebrity, singer, actor or athlete is in or out of my favor right now.
12. I am mysterious. I would just like to post this string of characters that may or may not resemble words in your language, hoping to increase your confusion while also instilling some sense that I know something you don't.  598234.

Do you have other categories to add?  What kinds of status updates do you tend to post?