Are We Paying Attention? Are We Asking the Right Questions?

Wouldn't you think we would choose our best and brightest to lead our country? And wouldn't they in turn select other best and brightest to advise and assist them in leading the country? Of course, even if we were smart enough to do this, there is still the human element that comes into play. That element brings greed, lust for power, the ability to consider other human beings as expendable, and an inablility or lack of willingness to recognize the long term consequences of short term choices.

This unfortunate combination of elements gives us governance that consists of a little slight of hand here, a little under the radar there, a sprinkling of stupidity, a large measure of self-interest, and many unintended consequences caused by a lack of critical thinking.

For instance, Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner, called for higher regulatory standards on the eve of the G-20 Summit. German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, urged her collegues at the summit to focus on financial regulation.

At the same time, without media attention, a draft communiqué from the G-20 suggests an effort to conclude the long-running world trade talks in Doha as quickly as possible. Sounds reasonable until you read a report from Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch warning that the World Trade Organization has long advanced extreme financial deregulation under the guise of trade agreements.

So, I wonder...Doesn't WTO's push for deregulation undermine the G-20 push for increasing regulation? Won't a failure to implement strong regulatory standards almost guarantee a repeat of the economic collapse of this past year? Doesn't this little under the radar carry the potential for serious long term consequences?

Another example: The Copenhagen climate summit in December is our planet's best hope for survival. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said, "Failure to reach broad agreement in Copenhagen would be morally inexcusable, economically shortsighted and politically unwise. We cannot go down this road."

In his UN speech, President Obama, claimed pride in what the US has done in the last eight months to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution. What he didn't do was give specific proposals to jumpstart UN climate pact talks.

In his address, President of China, Hu Jintao, stated his country will "endeavor to cut carbon dioxide emissions... by a notable margin by 2020 from 2005 levels... (and) develop renewable energy and nuclear energy." What he didn't do was give specific targets.

There are current warnings from scientists and activists to the international community that we are at a crossroads that requires decisive steps on global warming. China and the United States account for more than 40 percent of the world's carbon emissions.

That makes me wonder... Doesn't being a world leader requre leading the way on global issues? Won't a lack of immediate and specific action now result in a need for more severe and costly actions in the future... if that future has not already brought us to the point of no return? Isn't it likely that choosing self-interest now will result in the destruction of some of our planet and its people down the road?

Then there is health care reform: The Baucus health care bill includes a mandate for everyone to have insurance coverage. It includes some subsidies to help those who cannot afford the premiums. What it does not include is a public option as one of the choices for those who are required to get health insurance.

So, you've got to wonder... Doesn't mandated coverage without a public option just increase the number of customers for the insurance companies without increasing competition? Won't such a mandate, with limited choices and no increase in competition, fail to bring down costs and instead simply direct more money, including governement subsidies, into insurance company coffers? Aren't the long term consequences of this greed likely to damage the economic stability of our country and destroy the very market that sustains these companies?