Thoughts For The Day From Papa ‘a

Good Afternoon All & Happy Friday!

There are a couple of things that have been on my mind today…

#1  We need to go to a “Lincoln-Douglas Debate” format on presidential debates where there are no media hosts or panelists asking questions and/or commenting on candidates’ responses, but letting the candidates discuss the issues presented for debate amongst themselves.  Under the Lincoln-Douglas debate rules, each candidate gets to make a statement on a particular issue, followed by a response from the other candidate and then turns to speak are reversed on another topic and then so on and so forth for a two-three hour period.  Each candidate is allowed to ask their opponent a couple of questions on a topic of their choice.  No moderators, no media influence…just straight talk from each candidate, where they have to explain their position on a given issue without resorting “sound bites” or devolving into personal attacks on one another.  The candidates have to stick to the policy issue they are discussing.  I think the American people deserve debates elevated to a higher level of discourse in order to determine for whom they wish to vote.  It’s worth a try!  What do you think?

#2  The media (TV, Radio and Print media) need to stop editorializing headlines and focus on objective investigative reporting and let their readership decide for themselves as to their position on a given issue.  A case in point was a recent article on the front page of our local paper (The Spokesman-Review) entitled “WA Cares is a lifeline to those struggling to pay for long-term care.”  I wrote the following letter to the journalist who wrote the article with a copy to the paper’s editor:

“While I appreciate the efforts you made in your recent article to explain the challenge of paying for long-term care for citizens of Washington State, I would like to ask the following questions:

Why did you choose to use the headline “WA Cares is a lifeline to those struggling to pay for long-term care” instead of “Is WA Cares a lifeline to those struggling to pay for long-term care?”  Your headline implies support for the existing program, when it is far from clear that the public will “get what they pay for” under the existing payroll tax scheme and the benefit limitations of the plan.

Would you be willing to do a follow up article and spell out in a factual manner the pros and cons of the current WA Cares program in a format that can be easily understood by the public?

Would you be willing to investigate the alternative of establishing a federal “Long-Term Care Savings Account,” structured in the same way as the current “Health Savings Account” that provides a means for citizens to use pre-tax dollars to fund long-term care expenses with portability from state to state, as many of our state’s citizens may find themselves living in other states in their senior years, where the likelihood of needing this benefit will be greater?  As I understand it, you must be a resident of Washington at the time you apply for WA Cares benefits in order to receive any benefits from the program.  I brought this issue up with state legislators and the Governor’s Office prior to the passage of the current WA Cares program, but got no response.  I found that odd, in that a federal program would be much more effective for all U.S. citizens, not just those of Washington State.

Have you interviewed any actuarial firms that have analyzed the long-term costs of the WA Cares program given the current payroll tax structure to determine if it can maintain sustainability over time?  The Washington Policy Center would be a good resource in that regard.

I fear that Washingtonians have been sold “a bill of goods” with regard to the WA Cares program.  While the intention behind the establishment of the WA Cares program is honorable, the legislation was so poorly crafted that it’s likely that the program won’t deliver on the promises it is making to those who are paying for it.  From a political standpoint, it sounds terrific, but from a practical standpoint it will not benefit enough people to justify its existence.  Witness the minimal $36,000 lifetime benefit. Hardly enough to pay for 4-6 months of long-term care, depending on the level of care provided.  The average length of stay for long-term care is at least two-three years, if I understand the statistics correctly.  The current maximum benefit will be depleted long before then.  The possibility of increases in the payroll tax just to pay the current level of benefits loom as the program matures.

Also, one has to wonder why the state government is spending so much money on advertising WA Cares to the public when the program is already in effect and Washington wage earners are paying for it through the payroll tax.  Why is that?

A Federal “Long-Term Care Savings Account” and a Federal Tax Credit for the purchase of long-term/home health care insurance would be a far more effective way to address this critical need for the future.  Addressing this problem on a state-by-state issue is too cumbersome and ineffective, given the mobility of our population from state to state over the course of a person’s lifetime.

I look forward to hearing from you and reading more about this important issue in future articles prior to this year’s general election…”

I hope all of you will vote for the Proposition to repeal the WA Cares Act and corresponding payroll tax and insist that the Washington State Legislature “go back to the drawing board” and come up with a more effective and comprehensive approach, working hand in hand with Federal legislators to craft a program that will work across our great nation.

#3  Another issue that deserves immediate attention is the ineffective management of our public forestlands when it comes to wildfire mitigation.  The current Federal administration seems to want to “close down” public forests and let dangerous fuels (i.e. dead trees, brush, snags, vegetation, etc.) buildup to levels that will cause raging infernos should wildfire threaten those forests, causing destruction of forests, wildlife and possibly homes and other structures.  I wrote the following letter to our Federal legislators in Washington and Montana, requesting that the proposed “National Old Growth Amendment” – #65356 from the U.S. Forest Service be withdrawn and be rewritten to all for a balanced approach to forest management which would allow selective thinning and proscribed burns as methods to reduce fuel buildup in public forestlands, particularly those situated near population centers and housing developments:

“While conserving older growth forests is important, the proposed amendment will add unnecessary and counter-productive delays that hinder the URGENT forest health treatments needed to combat wildfire, insect infestations and disease.  As I understand it, these threats have already destroyed nearly 700,000 acres of old-growth forests on federal lands over the past 20 years.

Severe wildfires are a significant threat to our forests, wildlife and communities.  Smoke from wildfires is extremely unhealthy and poses a threat to public health.  We need policies that will accelerate forest thinning and fuel reduction, not impede those efforts.  Rather than adding more red tape and litigation to the management of our federal forests, individual national forests should focus on implementing the Wildfire Crisis Strategy through their existing forest plans to achieve desired conditions on these landscapes.

As “Firewise” Coordinator for a residential community just outside Martin City, Montana, near the Great Bear Wilderness, I understand the role that mature and old growth forests play in the ecosystem.  However, all that is at risk if forest managers aren’t given the tools necessary to steward forests to withstand drought and wildfires.  Forest management plans must be collaborative in nature with ALL local stakeholders and they must be flexible enough to adapt as conditions change.  There isn’t a “one size fits all” strategy for forest management and it certainly isn’t a “no-cut” plan.  A balanced approach is needed.  Parts of some older forest should be left alone.  Others should be actively managed to improve the health of the landscape and protect public health and economic well-being.  Please do all that you can to require the U.S. Forest Service to take these concerns into consideration and re-think the proposed amendment…”

It was my pleasure to work at the Washington State Capitol Grounds and Governor’s Mansion in Olympia during my summers home from college in the mid-1970s.  During that time Daniel (Dan) Evans served as Governor and his wife, Nancy Bell Evans served as the state’s First Lady.  I had some interaction with Mrs. Evans during my service on the grounds crew at the Governor’s Mansion and found her to be a delightful woman.  She graduated from my alma mater, Whitman College in 1954 and was a music teacher and librarian in the Shoreline School District after college.  As first lady, she helped oversee the restoration of the Governor’s Mansion and established a foundation to ensure its upkeep going forward.  She did much for many charitable causes and served on the governing board of Whitman.  She and her husband were the best Governor/First Lady team in Washington State in my lifetime.  Our state would be well served to find people like them to serve in those roles.  They were first-class people.  Mrs. Evans died this past January.  Governor Evans is still living into his late 90s, as I understand it…  Here’s to Dan & Nancy Evans!  May we have more public servants like them in the future.

Here’s the word quiz for the day:

Question:  What is “floccinaucinihilipilification”…The study of rocks?…The act of estimating something as worthless?…A kind of dance?…OR A type of tree???

Answer:  “Floccinaucinihilipilification” is “the act or habit of estimating something as worthless.  Coined in the 18th century, derived from Latin terms meaning “to value” (flocci), “to value (nauci), “nothing” (nibili), and “to value (pili).

Here’s the trivia question for the day:

Question:  Who is the most translated author of all time?…Stephen King?…Agatha Christie?…J.K. Rowling?…OR Danielle Steel???

Answer:  According to Guiness World Records, Agatha Christie holds the title of the world’s best-selling fiction writer.  Her extraordinary literary career has resulted in the sale of over two BILLION copies of her books, a feat unmatched by any other novelist.  Her books have been translated an incredible 7,236 times into over 103 different languages.  Her books have sold over a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation.  How about that!

Here is the thought for the day…

“Oh, guide and lead me, Lord,

While here below I wander

That I may follow You

Till I shall see You yonder”

 

“Our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you.”

—Paul’s First Letter To The Thessalonians, Chapter 3, verse 11

 

Here’s to a great weekend and lots of love & good wishes always!

Press on,

Papa ‘a (Dad, Uncle Mark, Mark, etc.)

1 throught on "Thoughts For The Day From Papa ‘a"

  1. Regarding floccinaucinihilipilification- I once new a local young fella who did rap battles at the local pub. They would be given a subject a couple of days prior to the scheduled battle. Well, my friend, Josh, chose this very word. He managed to work it into his string of rap/hip-hop words and won that particular battle. So the word has floated around my world periodically cropping up, though I could no longer recall the definition. Lo, you posted this today, while I was at the wedding of a friend, and Josh, whom I have not seen in 13 years, was unexpectedly there. I greeted him with this very word and he laughed.

    I was floored to see your word of the day choice! Thanks!