Median incomes are not growing as fast as they should be. This is true. And it is a serious problem.

[ProfessorGAC]

60. Where Do I Stand?

I think there are structural changes taking place. Not to a pace that moves the needle just yet, but perhaps stopping the needle from moving further in the wrong direction.

Expanding an insurance field to a larger population is a fundamental shift. Normal microeconomics suggests that this should lower cost of coverage for the population overall.

Do we need more regulation to assure that as more revenues hit the insurers, prices don't get fixed to prevent the natural reduction in cost? Absolutely!

Is it as good as single payer or Medicare for all solution? Absolutely not! Still a step in the right direction.

There hasn't been (until the buffoon Paul Ryan's fraudulent budget proposal) talk about lowering taxes on the wealthiest. This is only the second time in 35 years that this wasn't a major point of discussion. This is another fundamental shift in the political zeitgeist. This is even more important in a period of slow recovery and modest job growth. The "job creator" meme has less traction than it would have 10 or 12 or 20 or 25 years ago. Oh, it's still out there amongst the crazies, but nobody but the other crazies are actually listening, so it goes in one ear and out the other. There is nobody in the body politic that actually takes that talk seriously, unless it's some member of the radical right or the randians.

Banking regulation is at it's highest level of intensity since the 1960's. As a member of the board on a large credit union, i can attest to that personally. The scrutiny of the regulatory audits is more intense than at any time in my 25 years in this post. That's another fundamental shift. The things a bank can do without raising a regulator's eyebrow are far and few between.

The hyperconcentration of wealth is still a problem. No doubt about that. Unlimited cash giving to candidates is a problem too. That however, is not a stroke of the pen dilemma. It's now law with highest judicial imprimatur bestowed. And, that is really just a more transparent version of what's been going on for the last 50 years. At least we know who the monied interests in the smoke filled rooms are now.

Finally, i think there is little wrong with seeing the practicum of poliltical change. It doesn't make one an apologist or a cheerleader. The litmus test here that seeing the good makes one less of a liberal or progressive is unbecoming on a board that generally speaking is full of thoughtful educated folks.

When i see the "with us or against us" or the "if you don't come down hard, you're a cheerleader" sentiment, i argue the opposite.

There's an old saying "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". I actually think that's always been a bit inside out. I think in most of these politically driven differences of opinion, "if you're not part of the problem, you ARE part of the solution". If we agree in overall principal and want the same things ultimately, backbiting and diminishment are a bigger problem than the disagreement over method.